Francesco Petrarch as an Agent of Catholic Renewal and a Precursor to Reformation Thought
by: Brian J. Roloff
April 29, 2001.
Many scholars argue that the "rebirth" of classical studies and the increased scholasticism that were fostered during Renaissance era created the unique historical context in which the Protestant Reformation sprang to life under such leaders as Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli. However, the seeds of the Reformation can be traced to the earlier writings and doctrines of John Wyclif and Jan Hus whose attempts to remold the practices and theology of the Catholic Church met with strong resistance: Wyclif was censured and placed under house arrest, while Hus was burned at the stake. From its very inception the Protestant Reformations erected theological divisions from within and without the Catholic Church, but often these "outside" attacks are what is emphasized by historians and theologians while those who attempted to redirect the church form within, hoping to modify its practices while retaining its structure, often go unnoticed. The term "Catholic Renewal" has been used by modern historians to suggest that changes were also initiated from inside the church as well but were often less "radical" in content and spirit than those of the Reformation leaders in the mid 16th Century.
The humanist, philosopher, and theologian Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374) is a prominent example of those who advocated for reform even before the onset of the Reformation. Five topics are of the great significance in defining Francesco Petrarch's philosophical and theological perspectives in conjunction with those of the later reformers: his reconciliation of classical and Christian ideals, critique and support of the Catholic Church, the Christian life, and the nature of faith and God's grace. By analyzing his numerous literary works, poems, and personal correspondences it is possible to come to a greater understanding of Petrarch's public and private philosophies, both religious and secular, and in doing so it can be derived that many of his beliefs were antecedents to Protestant thought (especially that of Martin Luther and Uldrich Zwingli) that culminated nearly one hundred and seventy years later.
Before discussing Petrarch's theoretical and religious convictions it is helpful to give a brief introduction to his life and historical context. Francesco Petrarch was born into a prosperous, if not rich family, in the small Italian city-state of Arezzo, and eventually the family moved to Carpentras, near Avignon. During this time Avignon had become the new city of papal authority in the so-called "Babylonian Captivity" (1305-76) because of tensions between the papacy and the French and English monarchs. By the age of twelve Petrarch was sent to the University of Montpellier to study law, which he learned to despise, and after his father's death in 1326 he was free to study the literary classics that he so enjoyed.1 Petrarch soon discovered that neither his interests nor his qualities equipped him for any major profession, thus he opted to become a cleric so that he would have time to study and travel while having a steady source of income from papal appointments.
Another key event in Petrarch's life was his encounter with a young woman named Laura at the Church of St. Claire in Avignon in April, 1327 whom he idealized and immortalized as both a physical being and a symbol of poetic love and affection. Despite his love for her they never had an intimate relationship as she was a married woman, but he always admired her for her beauty and chastity.2 However, when the Plague swept through Europe and devastated Avignon it also claimed Laura's life in April, 1348, and when Petrarch heard the dark news of her death he wrote:
"…She seemed to rest, as one who had been weary.
And when her soul was parted from her frame,
What is called death by those who are but fools
Was a sweet closing of her lovely eyes;
And even death seemed fair in her fair face."3
Thus, having displayed just a taste of his poetic genius and powerful use of words, it is not surprising that Petrarch was given the honor of receiving the laurel crown by the university council at Rome in 1341 for his achievements in poetry. The award given him by "the Roman people" was their declaration that Petrarch was now the greatest poet then living (the last person to accept the honor had been Dante) and though not based entirely on merit but also on his political connections,4 the honor made Petrarch "…the most famous private citizen then living."5
Some historians have also hailed Petrarch as being one of the most influential leaders of the humanist vanguard in which classical philosophers and writers were given new prominence in the modern world. The works of the classical writers were collected and poured over by a generation of scholars who applied their theories to an almost universally Christian Europe, and in their attempt to do so had to invent ways of "reconciling" classical ("pagan") with Christian ideals. In order to save himself from being torn between the two worlds, the religious Francesco simply divided the natures of intellect and faith while allowing each to be beneficial in due time, but in matters directly contrary to faith he believed the truth of the Bible must prevail. Petrarch writes to a fellow cleric, Giovanni Colonna, "…I do not love [academic] sects but the truth[,]" and he goes on to state that all the classical writers that he admires most be they Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero should be "disdained and trampled upon freely and steadily" if they contradict the Christian faith.6 Petrarch also argued that the concept of Christianity would have been "reasonable" to the ancient scholars: "…it seems certain to me that Cicero himself would have been a Christian if he had been able to see Christ or know his doctrine."7 Similarly, in a letter to Tomasso da Messina, Petrarch suggested that relying solely on the study of human logic was fallacy because he claimed it does not lead to a discovery or conceptualization of the truth but only "prolong[s] the argument…. like an indifferent runner, to escape by dodging."8 Thus, in his own unique way Francesco Petrarch combined, yet separated the notions of classical and Christian philosophies and ideas; he was willing to delve into the classics for their intellectual discoveries and nearly unparalleled arguments, but he would not allow knowledge to deny his faith.
In comparison, Martin Luther was brought on "trial" before a council of papal legates and German princes in 1521 at the Diet of Worms. The Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, in defiance of papal decree, held the theological debate so Luther could explain the reasons and foundation of his "Ninety-Five Theses" of October, 31 1517 that questioned the actions and policies of the Catholic Church.9 In his own defense Luther clung to the conviction that the truth of the Word was paramount in keeping the faith pure. He claimed that the papal representatives were basing their arguments on Catholic tradition and not necessarily the teachings of the Bible. He concluded his argument by saying,
"I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything…. I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen."10 The "Swiss Reformer," Uldrich Zwingli, simply stated that "the foundation of everything [emphasis mine] is the sole word of Christ."11 Thus, Petrarch, Luther, and Zwingli, were convinced that it was the truth of the Bible was of the most importance and took precedence over all other forms of knowledge, that though beneficial were secondary to faith and incomplete in their comprehension of spiritual (particularly Christian) matters.
However, unlike the Protestant reformers, whose religious convictions and sociopolitical climate urged them to part from the Catholic Church, Petrarch had no such desire to cross that threshold despite his criticisms of the worldliness of the "Babylonian" papacy at Avignon. During the "Babylonian Captivity" and afterwards during the Western Schism, the Catholic Church began demanding increased monetary funds from its parishes throughout Europe to pay for ornate new buildings and additions to the papal cathedrals and palaces at Avignon and later Rome. In fact, one of the prominent reasons for the papacy's departure to Avignon in the first place had been its dispute with the French monarch, Philip IV, over his taxation of the church!12 Petrarch writes of its extravagant wealth, "…I saw your altars, indeed the altars of the Lord of virtues, loaded with silver, gold, and jewels…and said to myself: 'Here [is]…a new way of perishing.'"13 At one point Petrarch used the example of a rebellious monk to paint a negative caricature of the worst the church could become if nothing was changed:
…a three-legged creature, …foul with indulgences… bent not so much by age as by hypocrisy…. [H]e traverses the halls of queens, overthrowing the humble and trampling on justice."14
Yet despite these and other more direct denunciations of the moral failures of the Avignon papacy, Petrarch never fully questioned or condemned the whole church. Though in his life he did not always adhere to papal decrees, Petrarch made every effort to obey them if they did not contradict his conscious, writing, "[it is] sacrilegious to disobey his [the Roman Pontiff's] orders."15 Instead he chose to criticize individuals within the institution of the Catholic Church who he believed were leading it down a path of unresponsiveness to the people's physical needs and apathy for their spiritual welfare.
In similar fashion Luther and Zwingli, leading their respective Protestant "sects" in Germany and Zurich (Switzerland), decried the moral disrepair that they believed had befallen the papacy in their time, including corruption, hypocrisy, and the sale of indulgences. It was believed that as the pope had the power to forgive sins then when an indulgence was purchased it would by his decree reduce a soul's time in purgatory, a transient point between earth and heaven where souls "paid" for their sins. In his 82nd and 86th Theses Luther deplored the sale of indulgences and the inducing of funds among lay-people: Thesis number 82.) "…'Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of souls there?'" and in Thesis 86: "…Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of Crassus [an ancient Roman financier], build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?"16 In 1523, Zwingli added in his "Sixty-Seven Articles," "All spiritual leaders should humble themselves, and seek to exalt only the cross of Christ rather than their own purses[.]"17 Therefore, going beyond the purely spiritual issue of Biblical truth to that of the incorporation of faith and morals in theological reform, Petrarch once again outlined key issues that would serve as centers of discontent almost two centuries later. However, what Petrarch deemed a problem of individual leadership, Luther and Zwingli perceived it as a cancer that had infected the whole institution of the Catholic Church.
On a purely theological basis it could be argued that any religion must include two main premises: how to live life on earth and how one achieves salvation (the final destination of the soul) after death. On these two counts Petrarch often labored extensively and in astounding detail to provide a clear picture of his philosophical and theological approach. In discussing the "Christian life" Petrarch usually divided his arguments and opinions between his own self-criticism and that of others, using in particular the Seven Deadly Sins (lust, avarice, gluttony, covetousness, envy, sloth, and anger) to display their pervasiveness in human lives.
First, let us focus on Francesco Petrarch's self-critique to give us a better understanding of his attempt to live the Christian life and underscore what qualities he believed to be of greatest spiritual importance. Perhaps his most fierce moral examination took place near the end of his life (1358) in the form of an imaginary conversation between himself and St. Augustine over the Seven Deadly Sins. In a humble, contrite manner Petrarch opens his confession saying, "There is no reason to look to myself for hope; God is my hope."18 St. Augustine then "reveals" to Petrarch his subconscious quest for fame and glory that have enslaved him to the empty pursuits of pride and ambition that could jeopardize his eternal salvation.19 Augustine accuses Petrarch of being full of avarice, envy, and lust, all the sins that hang "like so much dead weight upon the soul."20 However, by the end of their "discussion" Petrarch is reassured that having confronted his failings he can now go on trying to overcome them in the future. Francesco confesses in a letter to his to his brother, Gherardo, "[I would not believe that you control your habits and actions so well] had I not learned the power of the Most High to change the hearts of men."21
In contrast to his personal faith and actions, Petrarch like most Reformation leaders, was concerned how certain "pagan" beliefs had become entwined with popular culture, particularly in rural areas. Often in the European countryside a type of mystic spiritualism was added to the structure of Christianity because of the direct contact and reliance of the people on the seasonal rhythms and power of nature.22 These influences on the rural population then created a "cult" of popular beliefs in which the supernatural world existed simultaneously with the material and could ultimately control the course of events. Thus, human life was caught in a duality between two worlds: the spiritual and the physical, and it was believed that the Devil and the spirits of the dead had much power to influence both dimensions and foresee the future. On at least two occasions in his correspondences Petrarch dismissed the use of fortunetellers, diviners, and interpreters of dreams. He writes that when one of his dreams concerning the death of a friend came true, "the accidental truth of one of his dreams did [sic] not undo the ambiguities of many others."23 Likewise, Luther and Zwingli grew increasingly disillusioned with the lack of actual change in people's behavior and the persistence of popular beliefs despite giving nearly their whole lives to dispel them. Luther confessed,
"Doctrine and life are to be distinguished. Life is as bad among us as among the papists. ….[But] when the Word of God remains pure, even if the quality of life fail us, life is placed in a position to become what it ought to be."24
Thus, Petrarch again continues to follow the definition of Catholic Renewal by realizing that popular spiritual beliefs would remain a key element in society that on the basis of Christian doctrine should be eliminated. Similarly, the Reformation leaders of the mid 16th Century attempted and failed to change these popular beliefs that Petrarch had condemned centuries earlier.
Among his contemporaries Petrarch was no more strict or lenient in his criticisms than he was with himself. He writes to a friend who had fallen into drunkenness that letting this habit control his life was "detestable," "dangerous," and "sad" and would inevitably turn him into a fool prone to rage, but Petrarch concludes by noting the deceptive nature of any sin or vice: "No one is made excellent or evil overnight."25 As we have seen Petrarch freely criticized his contemporaries, no matter what their station in life, by preaching of their avarice, folly, and impatience with the difficulties of life. However, Francesco Petrarch does not evaluate other's actions from the point of arrogance, but rather from the plain of moral equality and empathy; during his life Petrarch had often fallen into similar sins: he had an illegitimate son, he squandered his father's inheritance, and he constantly had to wrestle with his pride. Thus, Petrarch makes clear the difficulty of trying to live a moral life, "[W]e seek our goal via a more humble path…. [but] vices are still indiscriminately cast as obstacles before all men, although some may admittedly be avoided through God's special grace [emphasis mine]."26
Lastly, concerning the second tenet of religion, Petrarch's conceptualization salvation granted through faith and God's grace was echoed by Martin Luther and served as Luther's paramount reason for separation from the Catholic Church. Petrarch writes: "Time rushes onward for the perishing world…/ nor is there anywhere/ …a refuge or a harbor/ Where there is hope of safety."27 Yet in the midst of this despair he wrote to a friend who was wavering in the faith that salvation is the "gift" of God through Christ "not with my [sic] own labor… but to you [God] alone," and he goes on to say "that it was [Judas's] despair alone that prevented him from finding mercy. If he had sought it from Christ, he would have obtained it."28 Elsewhere Petrarch confesses the transcending power of God's love, that it is "the almighty[,]… sacred love of the world that binds all things together in the world."29 In similar fashion Luther based his theology on the idea of grace and "faith alone," apart from works and decided that the Catholic theology erred when it combined faith with good works as the means for obtaining salvation. Though they disagreed on other issues Zwingli believed likewise: "…Christ is the only way to salvation[.]"30 Therefore, Petrarch supported the reformers' most central theme of salvation through God's gracious gift of faith that in their era led to a departure form the Catholic Church.