françon, marcel_petrarch, disciple of heraclitus_speculum, 11, 2_1936_265-271

8/9/2019 Françon, Marcel_Petrarch, Disciple of Heraclitus_Speculum, 11, 2_1936_265-271

1/8

Medieval cademy of merica

Petrarch, Disciple of HeraclitusAuthor(s): Marcel FrançonSource: Speculum, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 1936), pp. 265-271Published by: Medieval Academy of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2846532 .Accessed: 20/02/2015 10:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSpeculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 1 32.248.9.8 on Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:48:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacadhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2846532?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2846532?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=medacad


2/8

PETRARCH, DISCIPLE OF HERACLITUSBYMARCELFRANQON

INUMEROUS references o Fortuna are to be found n the works f Petrarch, utit s in the DeRemediis Utriusque ortunae hat he deals with hesubject t length.It is there hat we find systematic xposition f his views on the Goddesswhosecult was so widespread n the Middle Ages. But besides this treatise here s aletter written y Petrarch n 1362 to his friend, ierre de Poitiers, n which hisattitude o Fortune s clearly evealed 1uno verbo xpedire ententiam eampossem, redereme scilicet t semper redidissedicentibus, ihil mnino liud quam nudum t inanenomen sse Fortunam, ametsi ncommuniermone opulum equi t saepe Fortunam ominareolitus, oloratius liquiddicens, llosqui eam deam, eu rerum umanarum ominam pinantur tque asserunt,nonminus ffenderem.Professor atch2 quotes several passages in the same vein from nother etter.For Petrarch Fortune s nothing ut an empty word. n this connection he pre-fatory pistle which ntroduces he secondpart of the De Remediis s extremelyinteresting. rofessor atch quotes from t as follows: noto illis et communivocabulo usus sum: non inscius quid de hac re late alii brevissimeque ierony-mus, ubi ait, nec fatum, nec fortuna: ommunis rgo cies, suum hic oquendimorem ecognoscet. octi autem, qui perrari sunt, quid intendam scient, necvulgari cognomine urbabantur.'3

But there s an aspect of Petrarch's philosophy which Professor atch in hislearned work on The Tradition f the Goddess ortuna eaves aside, and whichshould ike to take up here.

As early as the first rologue o his De Remediis, etrarch hints at a subjectwhich he will later develop. After discussion f the opinions of Aristotle ndSenecato which he opposes the opinion of Marcus Brutus, Petrarch has this tosay: Utrique utem, ciens, auca permiscui, onFortunae cujuspiam, ed virtu-tis, aut vitii excellentiae, ut defectus, uod etsi extra propositum psa quidemeffectu amenhaud dissimili, t laetos quoque, maestosque animos factura vide-rentur.'4

The juxtaposition f wordshere s striking:' . . virtutis ut vitii excellentiae,aut defectus,' nd no less striking s the suggested armony f opposites.

But it s the second prologue evoted othe philsophy f Heraclitus hat meritsspecial attention. Petrarch begins by declaring that nothing he ever read orheard about impressed him so much or remained so firmly mplanted n hismemory s Heraclitus' dea.

1 Babeu du Rocher, Mgmoires re'sentgs ar divers avants l'Acadgmie es Inscriptions t Belles-lettres.e serie, ii (Paris, 854), 26.

2 H. R. Patch, The Tradition f heGoddess ortuna n Medieval Philosophy nd Literature North-ampton-Paris, 922).

3 Francisci Petrarchae poetae oratorisque clarissimi De Remediis utriusque Fortunae Libri II.(Lyons, 585), . 434. 4 Op. cit., p. 10.

265


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/8

266 Petrarch, isciple of Heraclitus

Ex omnibus uae vel mihi ecta placuerint el audita, nihil ene vel insedit ltius veltenacius nhaesit, elcrebrius d memoriamediit, uam llud Heracliti, mnia ecundumlitem ieri. ic est nim t sic essepropemodumniversa estantur. apido tellae bviantfirmamento,ontraria nvicem lementa onfligunt; errae remunt, aria luctuant, erquatitur, repant lammae, ellum mmortale erunt enti: empora emporibus oncer-tant, ecum ingula, obiscum mnia, er humidum, etas rida, mollis utumnus, yemshispida: t quae vicissitudo icitur, ugna st.1

All things re in motion; the world s a struggle f opposites; ntagonism iesat the every heart of reality. Petrarch piles up examples. He speaks of the per-petual agitation f the sea, of the turmoil f the winds, of the generality f war.Dissension xists mong ll living eings: fish, irds, easts, nd men. One speciesis pitted against the other, he ion against the wolf, he wolf gainst the dog, thedog against the hare. Nor is there concord ven within single pecies. Do notbulls fight ne another with their horns? All things have a cause of opposition,nothing xists except through trife: Lis omnibus una est: nilque non secundumlitem it.'2

Animals devour one another: Fera feram, vis avem, piscis piscem, vermemvermis odit.'3

Rapaciousness and hatred are ubiquitous together with the contention ndeternal discord they breed; in his quidem ferme omnibus praeda vel odiumlitem parit. Quid quod his cessantibus, is non cessat?'4

Petrarch oints o the dissensions which xist mong overs, nd the suspicionswhich eparate them, heir ighs nd sufferings; e dwells on the quarrels whichdisturb households, the antipathy between master and servant, the conflictswhich nspire hatred n the hearts of brothers, he discords etween parents andoffspring.

Antagonism s thus everywhere nd with t universal trife. pposition xistsnot only between different eingsor between he diverse lements f things, utalso inside the beings or things hemselves. t is not only external ut internal.Take, for xample, he devotion f parents o their hildren. t is a goodillustra-tion of the complexity f things, f how contradictory lements may exist to-gether. The leniency f parents s extremely reat, but their everity s equallygreat, or hey dore their hildren when hey behave and lament heir ate whenthey misbehave. Hatred thus may be mingled with love: 'parentum . . . opina-tissimus st amor, quanta indignatio n filios, uos dum bonos cupiunt, maloslugent: atque ita quodamodo dum valde diligunt, derunt. t fraternum uidempaternumque incli nomen arctissimi, aepe sine amore, nterdumque um odiovidemus.'5

Friends themselves re not free from nmity owards each other. Their dis-cords are as great as their greements nd they are often t bitter dds in theiropinions: Sit enim icet inter micos benevolentia t charitas, deest tamen illaomnium ivinarum umanarumque erum onsentio, x qua illediffinitionem on-ficit. Quid in odio speres gitur? st et in amore odium, et in pace bellum, t inconsensione issensio.'6

1 op. it., p. 413. 2 Op. cit., p. 418. 3 Ibid.I Op.cit., p. 419. 5 Op. cit., p. 419. 6 Op.cit., p. 420.




4/8

Petrarch, isciple of Heraclitus 267

Love provides a particularly triking xample of internal ontradiction. hesnake places its head in the mouth of the female nd the latter, overcomebysensuality, ites off he male's head. The coupling of some animals is accom-

panied by great pain. Voluptuousness ntails suffering.Great things as well as small, everything xists in a state of opposition:'. ..appareat omnia secundum item fieri, uae seu magna, seu parva magnomiraculo fiant . .

Strife s a necessary ondition f the harmony f the world:Jam vero ut de invisibilibus liquid ad inceptum raham, uanta commixtione on-trariorum itvotiva emperies, nter uas contrarietates dversantium xtremorum dmedium irtutis, er quas differentias uantamque iscordiam ocum d musicam on-cordiam ervenitur? enique uaecumque unt, xcute, t percurre nimo oelum, erras,maria, eque in summo ethere t in fundo elagi: nque mis errae ertatur iatibus,aeque nsylvis n agris, eque n deseris renarum t n plateis rbium is aeterna st 2

Conflict, hether nner r outer, suniversal:Taceo quod,ut omnia, t quae sensu arent, t quae sentiunt n unum ogam, supremocoelivertice, t dixi, sque d infinum errae entrum t a principe ngelo sque d mini-mum t extremum ermem,ugis, t mplacabilis ugna st. Homo pse errestrium ux trector nimantium, ui rationis ubernaculooloshoc ter vitae et hocmare umidumturbidumque; ranquillegere osse videretur, uam ontinua ite gitur, onmodo umaliis, ed ecum, e quo mox icam.3

The Roman wars are there o prove the existence f human truggle nd strife.Think of the quarrels f philosophers etween whom here s no more greementthan between clocks. The wranglings f grammarians, ialecticians, rofessorsof rhetoric, re perpetual. Are not all the arts infected with strife? hysiciansobserve hat ife s short, ut they onspire o make t still horter with heir dis-putations. Any patient will tell you as much. Neither awyers nor magistratesare in agreement bout ustice. Religion sno exception o all this. f, as Aristotlesays, all things an be reconciled, f ruth s one, still he professors howno signsof unanimity.

When a new tenant omesto settle n a house he turns verything psidedown,and changes, s Horace says, what was square to round.Add the impediments reated by things: for example, the obstacles a writer

must overcome gainst nk, pen, paper.Struggle hus s a universal aw. Life flows, riven by opposing urrents.

Ad summam rgo mnia, ed mprimis mnis ominum ita is quaedam st. Verum acexterna ite nterim missa, equa paulo nte iximus, t quaeminor tinam t ob d minusomnibus ota sset: is nterior uanta st? neque nim olum ontra lia sed ontra uam,utdixi, peciem, eque ontra liud ndividuum,edcontra emetipsum, dque t n uper-ficiesta orporea uaenostri ars ilissima tqueultima st, t n ntimis nimae enetrali-busquisque ecum ssiduebellum abet.Nam corpus ocquam contrariis estuet cturbetur umoribus,b hisquosphysicos icunt, uaere: nimus uam diversis uamqueadversis ecum ugnet ffectibus nusquisque onaliumquam sese nterroget, ibiquerespondeat, uamvario uamque eciproco entis mpulsu, odo ucrapitur, odolluc,nusquam otus, nusquam nus, ecum pse dissentiens, e discerpens. am ut sileam

' Op. it., . 4N6. 2 Op.cit., p.428. 3 bid.




5/8


reliquosmotus, elle, nolle, mare, odisse,blandiri, minari, rridere, allere, ingere, ocari,flere, misereri, arcere, rasci, placari, abi, deiici, attolli, titubare, ubsistere, rogredi,retroverti, nchoare, esinere, ubitare, rrare, alli, nescire, iscere, blivisci,meminisse,invidere, ontemnere, mirari, astidire, espicere, imulque suspicere, t quae sunt ejus-modi,quibus utique nihil ncertius ingi otest, uibusve sineulla requie ab ingressu squead exitum fluctuat ita mortalis.

II

Where then did Petrarch get his information about Heraclitus?It will be remembered that Petrarch speaks of Heraclitus's philosophy as being

among the things he had read or heard about: 'vel . . . lecta . . . vel audita.' Hewas influenced therefore by the works which he knew at first hand as well as bythose which he had merely heard about. Since he knew no Greek, Petrarch'sreading in this connection must have been confined to Latin works or Latintranslations. Among Latin authors, his favorite, Seneca, may have been themain source of Petrarch's knowledge of Heraclitus.1 The clearest reference to befound in Seneca to the Heraclitean notion of movement, which, as we have seen,made so deep an impression on the 'new Seneca,' is as follows (Epist. VI (58)):

Quaecumque videmus ac tangimus, lato in illis non numerat, uae esse proprie putat.Fluunt enim, t in assidua diminutione tque adjectione unt. Nemo nostrum dem est insenectute, qui fuit uvenis; nemo est mane, qui fuit fridie. Corpora nostra rapiunturfluminummore; quidquid vides, currit um tempore; nihil ex his, quae videmus, manet.Ego ipse, dum loquor mutari sta, mutatus sum. Hoc est quod ait Heraclitus: In idemflumen is non descendimus.'Manet idem fluminis omen; aqua transmissa st. Hoc inamne manifestius st, quam in homine: ed nos quoque non minus velox cursus praeter-vehit; et ideo admiror dementiam nostram, uod tantopere mamus rem fugacissimam,corpus, imemusquene quando moriamur, uum omne momentum mors prioris habitussit (0. Hense: L. A. Senecae opera, ii [Leipzig,1898] 170).

Two other passages might be added to this: (1) Nat. Quaest. Lib. II, 56: 'Her-aclitus existimat fulgurationem esse velut apud nos incipientium ignium cona-tum et primam flammam incertam, modo intereuntem, modo resurgentem' (A.

Gercke, L. A. Senecae Opera, ii [Leipzig, 1907], 87); and Epist, XII: 'Heraclituscui cognomen fecit orationis obscuritas, 'unus' inquit 'dies par omni est.' 0.Hense: L. A. SenecaeOpera, ii (Leipzig, 1898), 29.

Elsewhere Seneca alludes to the contrast, which had moreover become tradi-tional, between Heraclitus and Democritus. Whereas the Ephesian wept athuman misery, Democritus laughed (De ira, ii, 10). And Seneca recommends thelatter ttitude Ad serenum e tranquillitate nimi, xv).

Petrarch had the highest regard for Cicero, but Cicero's works contain littleinformation about Heraclitus. His allustions to the Greek philosopher are brief

or casual, referring ither to the doctrine that the world is made of fire De Nat.D. iii, 14; Acad. ii, 37) or to the idea that all things are subject to Fate (De Fato,xvi, 17), or to the obscurity of the Ephesian (De Nat. D. i, 26; De Fini. ii, 5;De Div. ii, 64), or to the difference between the attitude of Heraclitus and De-

' It is to be noted that Petrarch did not know Lucretius.




6/8


7/8


aclitus? They understand not how that which s at variance with tself greeswith tself. here sit attunement f opposite ensions, ike that of the bow and ofthe harp.'

Here, then, are some of the possible sources of Petrarch's knowledge f Her-aclitus. may add that in the Triumphs etrarch draws up a list of the authorsto whom he is indebted. Heraclitus's name is among them: Vidi in suoi dettiEraclito coperto.'2

IIIThere is still the problem of how Petrarch came to introduce he views of

Heraclitus nto a treatise n fortune. ts consideration will throw ome ight onthe reasons for his receptivity o the doctrine f the Ephesian. Is it not indeedsurprising hat the hackneyed topic of fortune handed down by tradition be-comes in the De Remediis he occasion for discourse n the world n the lightof the Heraclitean principle f the harmony f opposites?'

M. Italo Siciliano, n his brilliant ook on Villon writes: C'est avec les ideesde Boece, mais avec les sentiments t dans l'esprit de Henri de Settinello, ue lemoyen ge s'est forge 'image de Fortune. Son gofit utrancier, on attachementau lieu commun ont fait e reste.'3 Does this hold good for Petrarch? etrarchwas already nterested n the subject of Fortune around 1342.The second di-alogueof the Secretum s a conversation bout Fortune between he author andSt Augustine. The former urses the goddess and accuses her of being blind,proud, violent, nd cruel. St Augustine s scornful f these complaints, ointingout that they have been made too often nd that there s nothing ew to add tothem. Later, probably towards 1357, a short ime after he serious reverses fhis friend, zzoda Corregio, etrarch egan the De Remediis. t was completed,according o Petrarch himself, n October 5, 1366.4

What then s the ink n the De Remediis etween he dea of Fortune nd thatof universal struggle? With the example of Boethius before them, mediaevalauthors were n the habit of uxtaposing ontradictory erms; Boethius himselfspeaks of fortune onstant n its nconstancy. lthough uch opposition f wordswas very often nothing ut a formal xercise,5 he concern with Fortune was notwithout basis in reality. t expressed he feeling f awe which the brusquereversals n the fate of llustrious ersons nspired n the men of the middle ges.It is not surprising herefore hat Fortune which s inseparable from changeshould have suggested o Petrarch he Heraclitean notions of harmony hroughconflict, f dentity n difference, f the unity f opposites.

Does not the wheel of fortune epresent he dynamic onceptions f Heracli-tus, his theory f the cyclical haracter f the world? For Heraclitus, osmicpro-cesses do not develop n a straight ine, but in a circle. The universal motion s

1Jones, p. cit., p. 485. Solovine, p. cit., p. 58.2 Trionfi i messer rancesco etrarca Florence, 1908), p. 98.3 Italo Siciliano, Villon t esthemes ogtiques u moyen ge Paris, 1934), p. 286.4 D. Willard Fiske, Francis Petrarch's reatise e RemediisUtruisque ortunae Florence, 1888).6 Siciliano points out that bishop Marbode, probably nspired by Cornificius, rew up a list of

figures f speech in a little work alled De ornamentis erborum. e read there that Contentio estcum ex contrariis ebus oratio conflictur.'




8/8

Petrarch, isciple of Heraclitus 271

circular; t is the result of a system f dual forces roceeding n parallel but op-posite directions. he wheel thus prefigures he eternal return f things' s wellas the opposition f forces ut of which ll movement rises.

If the philosophy f Heraclitus mpressed tself o deeply on the mind of Pe-trarch, t may have been owing also to his temperamental ffinities ith theEphesian. The evidence of course s too scanty to draw any certain parallel be-tween the natures of the two men, but both were overs of solitude,2 oth wereprofoundly oved by the drama of existence nd if they wereboth saddened byit neither ook refuge n a facile pessimism. ike Heraclitus who never forgavethe exile of Hermodorus, etrarch emembered o the end of his life the exile towhichhis father ad been condemned nd that he himself was debarred lmostfrom irth rom is native and. We have seen how Heraclitus wept t the thoughtof the miseries f the world. Petrarch lso was conscious of the unhappiness fman and, in the most moving part of the second diaologueof his Secretum, etells us about the melancholy, he lassitude, the accidia which often vercamehim. What Hegel called the 'unhappy consciousness' eems to have existed nPetrarch s well as Heraclitus. s it too fanciful o suggest hat this consciousnessaccounts for he similarity n philosophic utlook between Heraclitus, Petrarch,and Hegel? Certainly t in some measure explains the German philosopher'sawarenessof the existence f antinomies nd antitheses n the world nd under-lies his effort o achieve a synthesis f opposites n history, eligion, estheticsand logic.3

In any case, there can be no question that Petrarch, under the influence fHeraclitus, ransformed he trite onception f Fortune nto a profound iewofthe world. M. Siciliano's statement uoted above cannot therefore e acceptedwithout modification. am inclined o think hat Petrarch was thoroughly m-bued with he philosophy f Heraclitus, nd if this s so his treatment f Fortuneis not only original, ut shows the mark of his classical culture.4 Moreover, nview of the earnestness with which Petrarch xpresses he Heraclitean concep-tion of change, he repetition f such key words s lis, the recurrence, ike a re-frain, f omnia secundum itemJieri, he juxtaposition f contradictory erms,wonderwhether he nfluence f Heraclitus might not be found n other works fPetrarch esides the De Remediis.5

Needlessto say the mitators f the DeRemediis,Martin e Franc, for xample,were conscious only of the external ide of the work. Nor have the critics beenaware of much more. But to call attention o Petrarch's philosophy s to dis-tinguish imfrom hemen ofhis time nd to placehim n a new ight s a thinker.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY.' At the periphery f the circle, leraclitus says, there s neither eginning or end.2 Cf. Petrarch's Vita Solitaria. - It is to be remembered owever hat Petrarch's haracter s fullofcontrasts. n this Petrarch esembles eneca.3 Cf. Jean Wahl: Le Malheurde la conscience ans la philosophie eHegel Paris, 1999).4M. Siciliano ays also, Je ne croispas que l'Antiquit6 it exerc6une nfluence irecte ur a forma-

tion de l'idee de Fortune' op. cit., p. 296, n. 1).6 Certain peculiarities f Petrarch's style savor of the influence f Heraclitus. Take, for xample,

the somewhat obscure sentence: Felix miser qui hec sciens unde ista nesciti.' (Cf. P. de Nolhac,op. cit., i, 142.)

This content downloaded from 1 32.248.9.8 on Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:48:52 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

françon, marcel_petrarch, disciple of heraclitus_speculum, 11, 2_1936_265-271

Documents