Bruni And Petrarch Research Paper

Leonardo Bruni and Francis Petrarch were two very eloquent and esteemed authors of their time; however, that is not to say that there was no opposition to their views. In fact, many disapproved of their attitudes toward classical authors and the time period but even then that opposition sometimes served to define their characters and reinforce their eloquence. Bruni and Petrarch revere certain authors for their eloquence, and wisdom while condemn others for their ignorance. Because of their ideas of what defines a well-expressed and articulate author and what defines and unapprised one, their views of classical authors often equal each other and at other times rival each other.
Leonardo Bruni retained a gamut of attitudes toward classical …show more content…
Bruni accuses Dante of having a lack of knowledge with respect to contemporary culture. In his writings, Dante describes Marcus Cato, who perished in the civil wars, as a very old man with a long white beard- an obvious display of ignorance, since he died at Utica in the forty-eighth year of his life. (Bruni, The Dialogues, p 73). Bruni believes that Dante's most grievous and ignorant fault is damning Marcus Brutus, a man distinguished for justices, discretion, magnanimity, every virtue, because he slew Caesar and plucked from the robber's jaws the liberty of the Roman people, with the greatest penalty. In comparison Dante places Junius Brutus, a man known for driving out a king in the Elysian Fields. (Bruni, The Dialogues, p 73). Dante ridicules Dante for his hypocrisy. While Dante praises Junius for driving out a king who received the kingdom justly, he condemns Marcus for doing away with a king who received the kingdom by force of arms. According to Bruni, Marcus should be exalted in heaven for cutting down a tyrant. (Bruni, The Dialogues, p 73). Bruni also rebukes Dante for his lack of Latinity. As per Bruni, a poet is defined by a certain mastery of Latin. Since Dante cannot claim knowledge in that area he cannot be considered a …show more content…
To Petrarch Cicero is an author to be revered, like the view of Bruni, but also ridiculed. To Petrarch, Cicero is a man with whose genius and style has particularly delighted him since his early youth. He finds great eloquence and power in the words of Cicero. (Petrarch, On His Own Ignorance and That of Many Others, p 78). However, even though Petrarch enjoys Cicero's works, he states that his published books about religion and the gods themselves seem to Petrarch more like an empty fable the more eloquently it is presented. This seems strange since Petrarch professes a great respect for Cicero's eloquence yet ridicules him for that eloquence. Bruni, in comparison, does not ever ridicule Cicero for is writings. Petrarch believes Cicero to be ignorant because of his mistakes regarding religion. Cicero sometimes regards Divine Providence as the "gods" and at other times just "god". This capricious idea of Divine Providence to Petrarch, a man of religion, labels Cicero as uneducated and hypocritical, much like Bruni's view of Dante. Petrarch states that Cicero devoted much energy into compiling what, as it seems to him, ought to never have been written or read either unless such futile stories are to be read and become known in order that the love of the True Deity and the Once God be emphasized and made known. ( Petrarch, On His Own Ignorance and Those of Many Others, p 91)