Petrarch’s Dialogue With the Divine

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Petrarch’s Canzoniere is often referred to as merely love poetry, dedicated to the poet’s lost love, Laura. This is an important observation, but it overlooks other elements of the text such as the themes of forgiveness, repentance, and the connection to the divine. Claiming that the Canzoniere is merely love poetry is not only an underestimation of the poems themselves but also of Petrarch’s abilities as a poet. Readers must consider Petrarch’s background as not only a poet, but as a philosopher and a humanist to truly understand the Canzoniere to its fullest potential. Through this careful consideration of Petrarch’s background and themes other than love, one can see how Petrarch’s personal, philosophical, and religious beliefs permeate his poetry and influence both its meaning and intention. While love certainly plays an important role in his poetry, Petrarch uses his art to appeal to his idea of God. The earlier poems in the Canzoniere contain mostly secular topics such as his feelings for Laura, but as the collection continues the subjects become religious and tackle ideas like forgiveness and repentance. By only using Petrarch’s secular poems to define the Canzoniere, the core message of the work is lost. Similarly, if either the academic or poetic side of Petrarch is overlooked, a fuller, unified understanding of the Canzoniere cannot be achieved. This complete understanding can be found through the examination of poems 77, 78, and 366, where we see the poet’s use of art as a median between man and the divine.

To begin to attempt to understand Petrarch’s poetry in its entirety, one must first look into the poet’s background, his personal and philosophical beliefs, and how they show that his poetry goes beyond the subject of love. Not much is known about Petrarch’s early life, but what is common knowledge has been collected through letters he wrote to loved ones and fellow humanist thinkers. From these letters one of the most important take aways is the conclusion that Petrarch himself was a man of many talents. In his own words, recorded by James Robinson, Petrarch says that “[he] possessed a well-balanced rather than a keen intellect, one prone to all kinds of good and wholesome study, but especially inclined to moral philosophy and the art of poetry.” Petrarch acknowledged his multiple interests and influences and was proud of his multi-faceted intellect. With such diverse knowledge and interests, it is highly unlikely that Petrarch’s poetry was only about love. Rather, it tackled topics such as human virtue. Petrarch was also heavily influenced by classic philosophers like Plato and Cicero and valued concepts such as human virtue and reason. He modeled his own views after these famous individuals, and as author Charles Trinkaus states, “[His] inclination was to value philosophy primarily for its contribution to the strengthening of human virtue.” This emphasis on human virtue is a major theme in the Canzoniere as Petrarch struggles to balance his feelings for Laura and his faith. In addition to his knowledge of philosophy, Petrarch was also familiar with academia which further influenced his poetry. 

Petrarch was well-versed in areas such as rhetoric, poetry, and history. Paul Kristeller elegantly explains that Petrarch was “a teacher of the humanities, or studia humanitatis, and that the term humanities stood for a cycle of disciplines compromising grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, and moral philosophy.” While one must acknowledge this academic side of Petrarch, his artistic and poetic side is just as important. Frank Kermode describes Petrarch as “a poet of the ornamental image, the image appended to discourse.” Both Kristeller’s academic approach and Kermode’s romantic understanding of Petrarch’s poetry are correct in different ways. Each statement addresses an equally important aspect of Petrarch that are both necessary in order to have a full understanding of not only the poet, but his work. When looking at these two aspects of Petrarch, it is easy to fall into the trap of categorizing him as either a poet or a humanist, however, James Robinson counteracts this idea by stating that “it was necessary that the first Humanist should combine with the poet’s openness of mind, and love of whatever is beautiful, scholarly patience and a willingness to lead a scholar’s life.” Here Robinson explains how the Humanist and poetic sides of Petrarch not only work well together, but how it is necessary that they are both present in his work. Humanism and poetic sensibilities must work together in Petrarch’s Canzoniere in order to accomplish what author James Chiampi describes as “a window to God and [a] set of self-reflecting mirrors, paying attention to what emerges from such superimposition and contamination.” Both Robinson and Chiampi’s statements confirm the influence of Petrarch’s diverse knowledge in his poetry as well as support the idea that Petrarch’s poetry is not just love poetry, but it serves as a way to connect to divinity. 

With the influence of Petrarch’s academic and poetic sides in mind, understanding the Canzoniere in its entirety, its purpose, and the reason why Petrarch chose to write poetry becomes clearer. Aldo S. Bernardo classifies Petrarch’s poetry into three categories: “(1) seven religious and sixteen confessional poems; (2) twenty-six friendship poems; and (3) seven patriotic poems.” Bernardo’s classification is useful for organizing the poems, but he misses an element that connects the entirety of the Canzoniere that is separate from love, which is the connection between art and divinity. Throughout the Canzoniere, Petrarch sees art as a medium in between man and divinity and uses his poetry as a way of calling out to the divine directly. Poetry itself has a long history of being a sort of conversation with the divine, which is why it is Petrarch’s chosen form of art. Petrarch emulated earlier poets such as Ovid, who used poetry to tell the stories of the divine, and others like Horace, who wrote lyric poetry to communicate emotions and call out to a higher power. Petrarch combines these two uses for poetry in the Canzoniere by exploring emotions, myth, and the divine. Author David Daiches explains that “the poet may find God indirectly through proof of his working in Nature or evidence of design in the structure of the universe.” As Daiches explains, Petrarch uses his art to explore the idea of finding God in nature and creation as seen in poems 78 and 77. 

In poems 78 and 77 of the Canzoniere, Petrarch finds God through creation by examining a portrait of the woman he loved, Laura, supposedly sketched by Simone Martini. While Petrarch gazes at the portrait, he references Ovid’s story of Pygmalion, exclaiming: 

Pygmalion, you should celebrate your statue, 

Since you received, maybe a thousand times,  

What I desire to have just even once! (78.12-14) 

One can recall that the story of Pygmalion is one of a lonely sculptor who creates the woman of his dreams in the form of a beautiful statue. He is later surprised to find that the goddess of love, Aphrodite, sympathized with him and brought his sculpture to life. In this excerpt from poem 78, Petrarch laments the loss of Laura while in awe of the portrait. Petrarch’s reaction to the portrait makes the poem seem like a sorrowful love story, but the inclusion of Pygmalion adds a divine element to it. By referencing this ancient myth, Petrarch is calling out to the divine, praying for something like what happened to Pygmalion to happen to him, however unrealistic it may be. In this instance, Petrarch sees himself as Pygmalion in the sense that he hopes that his art, the Canzoniere, may please some divine force and that he would receive some sort of response from the divine. This, of course, does not happen in a literal sense, but the interaction between Petrarch and the portrait demonstrates how the Canzoniere is meant to connect to the divine, not just to immortalize Petrarch’s romantic feelings for Laura. 

With these references to art and ancient poetry, scholars such as Ernest Wilkins conclude “that [Petrarch’s] appreciation of art was notably sensitive and understanding.” Petrarch does not only understand art from a sensible, academic perspective, but also as a fellow artist. As seen with poem 78, Petrarch places himself in the place of Pygmalion and shares his longing for divine intervention. Petrarch continues to analyze the portrait in poem 77 and investigates the divine qualities of the portrait itself: 

This work could only be imagined there 

In such a place as Heaven, not with us, 

Here where the body always veils the soul. (77.9-11) 

In this stanza, Petrarch demonstrates his belief that art is capable of connecting to the divine where man alone cannot. He explains that in the world of man, the flesh prevents the soul from creating something divine, but his words imply that art itself has the capacity for divinity which can be used or manipulated by man. Just like in the story of Pygmalion, art serves as a median between gods and man, allowing for communication between the two. Art possesses this capacity for divinity due to the process of its creation and its origin. When an artist creates a piece, he or she takes gifts from the divine, whether they be ideas or physical materials, and transforms them into something new. This allows for man to imitate the divine and in a sense understand it in a way that only a fellow artist or creator could. 

Art, according to Petrarch, has the ability to access a part of the soul that is normally veiled, breaching the gap between man and the divine. What the poet means by this phrase is that since art has a connection to the divine, it bypasses human nature, or the flesh as Petrarch states, and accesses a part of the soul that can imitate and communicate with the divine. Petrarch goes as far as stating that art almost gives life to the inanimate. In poem 78, Petrarch continues to marvel at the portrait and states that: 

For in her picture here she looks quite modest 

And her expression seems to promise peace; 

When I address her, then, to make my case, 

She seems to listen with a willing air, 

If only she could answer to my words! (78.7-11) 

This selection from poem 78 once again demonstrates Petrarch’s attitude towards art. He acknowledges the skill required to create it and goes on to imply that art has a divine, life-like quality. In the case of poem 78, this quality is that the painting seems like it could come to life. While this is not exactly a communication with the divine, when combined with poem 77, it is clear that Petrarch believes there to be a divine element in the portrait and art in general. With this knowledge, Petrarch’s opinion of art and divinity can be applied to his other poems un the Canzoniere where he begins to tackle more religious subjects and attempts to communicate with the divine himself rather than observing it in art. 

Petrarch uses poems 77 and 78 to observe the connection between art and divinity through the portrait of Laura, but he utilizes this connection in the last poem of the Canzoniere. In poem 366, Petrarch calls out to Mary during a time of need: 

I call on her who always has replied 

To those who called in faith. 

Virgin, if mercy turns 

To human things when misery is extreme 

And sees their sufferings, bend to my prayer, 

Give succor to my war 

Though I am earth and you are queen of Heaven. (366.7-13) 

Poem 366 takes a different approach compared to earlier poems of the Canzoniere. Poems like 77 and 78 focus on more secular ideas in addition to divinity while later instalments in Petrarch’s work lack these secular topics and instead center around theology and religion. Gerhard Regn addresses this shift in subject matter and states that “the beginning of the Canzoniere signals [how] much its political agenda is informed by an appropriation of the dominion of religion by secular love.” While it is true that Petrarch turns to more secular ideas in his earlier poems, scholars like Regn leave out the story of Petrarch’s repentance and how he uses his later poems, like 366, as a way of calling out to the divine for forgiveness. The excerpt from poem 366 is an example of Petrarch using poetry as a form of prayer and praise to communicate this message with the divine. Due to the analysis of poems 77 and 78, one can conclude that Petrarch believes that man alone cannot connect with the divine, but with art as a median, it is possible. David Daiches explains that “God’s art is a challenge to human art, whose sole justification is to be put as God’s service.” Petrarch is responding to this challenge by dedicating a poem to Mary, hoping that in return she will grant him guidance. Through poem 366, one can see the shift in subject of Petrarch’s poetry due to his active attempt to communicate with the divine through his own art, not just observing it through someone else’s work. 

By calling out to the divine through his poetry, Petrarch illustrates not only the connection between art and the divine, but the function and purpose of doing so. Without art, man would have to find the divine through observation. While this is a useful tool, as can be seen in poems 77 and 78, observation alone can only bring man so close to the divine whereas creating art allows man and the divine to work together. It takes action to truly connect man and divinity which is demonstrated in Petrarch’s later works, specifically poem 366. By using poetry as his artistic medium, Petrarch connects and collaborates with the divine. In the Canzoniere, Petrarch is taking thought and language, both being gifts from the divine, and manipulates them into a manmade form such as prose. His work is not divinely inspired, but it is obvious through his latter poetry that Petrarch intends for the Canzoniere to be viewed as a long collaboration between the poet and the divine meant to help Petrarch on his journey of repentance and forgiveness.  

By taking into account Petrarch’s knowledge of philosophy, poetry, and religion, it is rational to assume that he was aware of the concept of divinity in creation. It is therefore reasonable that Petrarch—one who according to Marjorie Boyle “exalted skill over material. He aspired to color his poetry not with the crass gilt of rhetorical ornament but with a skillful mixture of pigments, as in the more sophisticated understanding of invention and imitation”—would implement this knowledge into his poetry. He does this not for the sake of art or love of a woman he barely knew, but the desire for a direct line of communication to the divine. Petrarch’s poetry is far more complex than it seems at first glance. He demonstrates expert understanding of the academic side of poetry such as form, lyricism, and structure as well as the poetic, romantic side. In the Canzoniere, Petrarch finds a perfect blend of an intellectually challenging poem and a romantic sonnet. Once both qualities are realized and accepted as equally important parts of his poetry, Petrarch’s work can be appreciated in its entirety for its intended purpose. 

As the reader follows Petrarch through the highs and lows of his life, as depicted in the Canzoniere, Petrarch creates a narrative that shifts from secular to theological. At the start of the collection, the Canzoniere does seem like a collection of love poems, but when considered with the latter poems, categorizing the collection into one genre proves difficult. Just as defining Petrarch as either a poet or a Humanist is impossible, so is defining his poetry. What helps with this predicament is finding the common elements that are present throughout the Canzoniere. In early poems like 77 and 78, while it is analyzing art, Petrarch uses references to myth and divine elements as a way of calling out to the divine. As Petrarch ages and grows in his faith, poems like 366 become more frequent. In these poems, Petrarch is directly pleading with the divine, which is in this case Mary. Though the early poems and the latter installments are entirely different from each other, they represent how, no matter what stage of life Petrarch was in, his poetry served as a method of communicating with the divine what he was feeling as well as his deep repentance and desire for forgiveness. Without art as a median between the two, Petrarch believed that man would not be able to accomplish this connection and would be left to find divinity through simple observation. With this analysis in mind, the idea that Petrarch’s Canzoniere is a collection of only love poetry is a misconception that merely scratches the surface of Petrarch’s multifaceted genius. 

The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.

Works Cited 

Bernardo, Aldo S., and Petrarch. “The Importance of the Non-Love Poems of Petrarch’s ‘Canzoniere.’” Italica, vol. 27, no. 4, 1950, pp. 302–12. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/476133. Accessed 23 Sep. 2022. 

Chiampi, James T. “Petrarch’s Augustinian Excess.” Italica, vol. 72, no. 1, 1995, pp. 1–20. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/479965. Accessed 23 Sep. 2022. 

Daiches, David. God and the Poets. Claredon Press, 1984, Oxford. 

Kermode, Frank. Romantic Image. Routledge Classics, 2002, London and New York. 

Kristeller, Paul O., Eight Philosophers of the Italian Renaissance. Stanford University Press, 1964, Stanford California. 

Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle. Petrarch’s Genius : Pentimento and Prophecy. University of California Press, 1991. EBSCOhost. 

Petrarch. The Poetry of Petrarch. Translated by David Young. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2004, New York. 

Regn, Gerhard. “Negotiating Religion and Art: Wagner, Petrarch, Dante.” MLN, vol. 126, no. 4, 2011, pp. S77–88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41300867. Accessed 23 Sep. 2022. 

Robinson H., Petrarch: The First Modern Scholar and Man of Letters. Haskell House Publishers, 1970, New York. 

Trinkaus, Charles. The Poet as Philosopher: Petracrch and the Formation of Renaissance Consciousness. Yale University Press, 1979, New Haven and London. 

Wilkins, Ernest H. “On Petrarch’s Appreciation of Art.” Speculum, vol. 36, no. 2, 1961, pp. 299–301. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2847794. Accessed 23 Sep. 2022. 

The featured image is “Petrarca hit by Cupid’s arrow and wearing a laurel crown, introduction to the sonnet ‘You who hear the sound,’ in scattered rhymes, from Trionfi by Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374), illuminated page from a 15th century manucript. This image is in the public domain, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.