Pietro Bembo: Lover, Linguist, Cardinal (review)

Carol Kidwell's approach to the figure of Bembo is announced right away by her book's title. The founder of Italian and European Petrarchism is presented not as a "poet" but as a "lover." That is to say that the biographical approach precedes and determines the literary discourse. The biographical approach is not free of risks. I will cite only one example, regarding the relationship between Pietro Bembo and Lucrezia Borgia, which culminates in the dedication of Gli Asolani. Kidwell interprets this dedication as a faithful portrayal of Lucrezia's spirituality and religiosity: "Lucrezia seems to have been genuinely religious, despite her Vatican background . . . in his dedication of Gli Asolani he [Bembo] described her as one who cares much more about the beauties of the mind than about those of the body" (110, italics mine). One need only consult the critical edition of Gli Asolani edited by Dilemmi to realize that the quotation in question is a quasi-literal copy of the first dedication of the book made to some unknown "madonna," as attested by the Querini Stampalia-catalogued manuscript of 1499 — when Lucrezia had not yet arrived in Ferrara and Bembo had not yet had the opportunity to meet her. On a strictly historical-biographical level the depreciation of literary aspects in Kidwell's book leads to grave approximations and errors, in large part due to bibliographical gaps. To make a long list short, I'll point out just one example of a philological-linguistic nature. The fundamental Petrarch edition, edited by Bembo for Manuzio in 1501, is not entitled "Le cose italiane," as Kidwell writes (17), but "Le cose volgari." Petrarch's autograph used for this edition (Ms. Vat. Lat. 3195) was neither in Bembo's possession nor was it lent to the printing house, as it may seem from Kidwell's statement that "[t]he Bembo family possessed two fine manuscripts of Petrarch and Dante that Bernardo had bought in his student days. They persuaded Aldus [Manutius] to use these as the basis for new and more accurate editions of the two poets. Pietro's brother, Carlo, took the manuscripts to Aldus. . . . In his introductory letter to the reader Aldus says that his text is derived from Petrarch's own handwritten manuscript, now in the possession of Pietro Bembo" (17, italics mine). Faced with such a bizarre reconstruction of events, one must repeat facts that are known to any and all: 1. Carlo Bembo asked permission to print "uno Petrarcha e uno Dante, scripti da man propria de ipsi Petrarcha et Dante" (however, Petrarch's manuscript [Vaticano Latino 3195] entered the picture only after the manuscript that Bembo had written and prepared for Manuzio [Vaticano Latino 3197] had been partly set); 2. Petrarch's manuscript belonged not to the Bembos but to the Santasofias (and Bembo had a considerable editorial freedom in preparing Petrarch's book); 3. Aldo Manuzio's letter to the reader, cited by Kidwell, is not an introduction but an appendix hastily added to the book in order to respond to early contestations; 4. This letter, as by now has been ascertained, was written not by Manuzio but by Bembo himself, and constitutes an essential chapter in his linguistic thinking. As in other cases, here Kidwell also completely ignores reference studies: from those by Vattasso and Mestica to those by Sambin, Pillinini, Trovato, Belloni, and Frasso. With such an introduction, one can easily imagine the level of trust with which a reader approaches the chapter dedicated to the "Question of Language."

Using biography as a starting point for the interpretation of literature might, therefore, lead to a misrepresentation of actual biographical details. Bembo the man, Bembo the writer, and Bembo the persona in other sixteenth-century texts are all mixed together. Bembo the Ficino-follower as portrayed in The Courtier becomes one with the Bembo who — during the same years — adds Aristotelian pages to Gli Asolani, precisely in order to...