Dialogue on the Infinity of Love

The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe: The Chicago Series

by Tullia d'Aragona, Rinaldina Russell (Translator), Bruce Merry (Translator)

Celebrated as a courtesan and poet, and as a woman of great intelligence and wit, Tullia d'Aragona (1510–56) entered the debate about the morality of love that engaged the best and most famous male intellects of sixteenth-century Italy. First published in Venice in 1547, but never before published in English, Dialogue on the Infinity of Love casts a woman rather than a man as the main disputant on the ethics of love.

Sexually liberated and financially independent, Tullia d'Aragona dared to argue that the only moral form of love between woman and man is one that recognizes both the sensual and the spiritual needs of humankind. Declaring sexual drives to be fundamentally irrepressible and blameless, she challenged the Platonic and religious orthodoxy of her time, which condemned all forms of sensual experience, denied the rationality of women, and relegated femininity to the realm of physicality and sin. Human beings, she argued, consist of body and soul, sense and intellect, and honorable love must be based on this real nature.

By exposing the intrinsic misogyny of prevailing theories of love, Aragona vindicates all women, proposing a morality of love that restores them to intellectual and sexual parity with men. Through Aragona's sharp reasoning, her sense of irony and humor, and her renowned linguistic skill, a rare picture unfolds of an intelligent and thoughtful woman fighting sixteenth-century stereotypes of women and sexuality.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Feminism, Nonfiction, Love, Classics, Renaissance

114 pages, Paperback

First published January 28, 1997

About the author

Tullia d'Aragona (c. 1510–1556) was born in Rome and raised there and in Siena by her mother. Like her mother, she became a courtesan, and like other courtesans who wished to move in the upper reaches of society, she was trained in music and literature. When she was in her 20s, she and her mother began to move from city to city but always returned to Rome. During the later 1530s they were in Venice and Ferrara. In both cities Aragona interacted with the philosophic and literary elite, her home became a salon, and her writing began to be noticed. It was in Ferrara that Aragona met Girolamo Muzio, the courtier and poet who would become her literary editor and promoter.

Reviews

[Natalia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I love the historical context of this book more than the text itself: a famous and honored courtesan in the 1500s hosts well-regarded philosophers and thinkers of her time (men) in her drawing room as they discuss whether it is possible to love within limits. There's lots of clever mutual flattery and flowery speech but also some timeless ideas about logic and reason and the infinity of love in its potentiality. The introduction to the book makes big claims about Tullia D'Aragona's radical positioning of women as equals and exposing "intrinsic misogyny" of prevailing theories of love, and she does speak confidently and eruditely in putting forth her arguments. This quote is probably not example of her most unorthodox claims, but it captures something really well about the state of loving:

"TULLIA: Love is infinite potentially - not in actuality - for it is impossible to love with an end in sight. In other words, the desires of people in love are infinite, and they can never settle down after achieving something. This is because after obtaining it, they long for something else, and something else again, and something more after that. And so it foes on, one thing after the other. They can never be satisfied, as Boccaccio bears witness about himself in the introduction to his Decameron. This is the reason why people who are in love can be crying one minute and laughing the next. They can even be found laughing and crying at the same time. This phenomenon is amazing in itself and quite impossible for mere normal mortals! Lovers entertain both hope and fear. Simultaneously, they feel great heat and excessive cold. They want and reject in equal measure, constantly grasping things but retaining nothing in their grip. They can see without eyes. They have no ears but can hear. They shout without a tongue. They fly without moving. They are alive while dying. They say and do the myriad strange things that the poets write about, especially Petrarch, who towers incomparably over all others in the description of the pangs of love."

[Nicholas Hudson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by a 16th century Florentine courtesan, the dialogue shows both a more restrained style and a better grasp of the concerns of Plato and Aristotle than much Renaissance philosophy (which admittedly I've read little of). There are a number of fascinating topics the book touches upon--a defense of homosexuality, an argument against the misogyny potentially in defense of Greek love, and a rather clever argument that nouns and verbs are simply two different takes on the same thing (which opens the way for an Aristotelianism focuses on processes, not essences). But in the end it perhaps unwittingly shows that viewing love as a desire with an object fails. The claim that base loves are finite, and thus exhausted by coitus (i.e. getting what one wants), seems clearly false to experience. But the claim that love's object is infinite seems wrong again. While the dialogue does not flesh out why the think love is infinite terribly well in my opinion, I suspect it would claim love is infinite because one's beloved can never become fully perfect since only God is perfect. However, this explanation fails because like most Platonic conceptions of love (see also Ortega y Gasset) it ignores the particularity of one's beloved. I suspect if the dialogue had spent more time developing a new ontology, one based on processes, it perhaps could have developed a more convincing case for the infinity of love--though even then it would have to overcome its Platonism. Obviously that is asking too much, and is probably really asking why d'Aragona didn't write the book I would have written which is quite unfair.

[Aaron Pupo · Rating 3 out of 5]

I live to see Tullia tear Varchi's ass to pieces.

[idiomatic · Rating 4 out of 5]

tullia is so slippery and so so smart

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 5 out of 5]

Tullia är en oförtjänt bortglömd humanist. Hennes skrift om mänsklig kärlek och vad den är är både rolig och vacker, och insiktsfull. Det den framförallt gör är att punktera iden om hövisk kärlek (något den högtravande, tendensiösa och delvis okunniga introduktionen missar), till förmån för kärlek som utväxt av mänsklighet. Tullia ses som en nyplatonist, och skrev om bland andra Plotinus, men denna text går emot nyplatonismens idealiserande av själen framför kroppen, och har till och med ett direkt argument om varför dessa måste ses som förenade.

Bortom det i att jag uppenbart är imponerad av hennes argument och logik, är texten vackert skriven, och det är strålande att den kommit i nytryck. Jag rekommenderar återigen läsare att hoppa över introduktionen, som vill reducera Tullia till något slags förkämpe för det kvinnliga*, och lovar en underbar upplevelse efteråt.


* Att göra Tullia d'Aragona politisk är att reducera henne; hon har mycket bredare tankar än så. Lätt raljant är det som att reducera Platon till en förespråkare för totalitär diktatur; det stämmer, om man väljer att betona vissa facetter av författarskapet, men skär bort väldigt mycket spännande och viktigt. Sedan kan jag förstå det som en marknadsföringsstrategi, men då borde man ha valt en introduktör som faktiskt skriver lite elegantare.

[Sam Quade · Rating 3 out of 5]

who talks like this

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

At some point, I owe this book a proper review; it does not seem to me that the publisher's and editor's descriptions are particularly accurate. They do not accurately grasp the philosophical terrain in play or precisely how Tullia d'Aragona is dealing with it. In particular, the book is advertised as if she were offering some hyper-modern account of the sexual drives that represents some kind of radical break with Platonism and Aristotelianism, whereas it seems to me she remains firmly within that largely family of philosophical views and that her challenges to prejudices against women are made within the context of those theories; that is, she is not "exposing the intrinsic misogyny of prevailing theories" but rather exposing the arbitrary and unjustified sexism attached to those theories. If you are held back from reading this because it sounds like a deconstructionist text, you can rest assured that Tullia d'Aragon is a woman of the Renaissance, not an enthusiast of 20th century French theory.

The reason I hesitate to yet write a proper review is that I do not feel I yet have a grasp of how some of the literary themes intersect with the philosophical ones. In particular, I am unsure what to make of several problems that she leaves open-ended within the dialogue proper, and what she intends the reader to gain from these openings. At some point on a second reading I hope I can clarify this in my own mind and perhaps do a proper review here.

[jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

She slayed . Got homophobed in relation to varchi however this has not impacted my rating (FYP)

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

I always assumed that homosexuality was just not at all discussed until the 19th century at earliest due to the power of the church, so I was surprised to find a somewhat extended dialogue concerning it, much less surprised when they condemned it, and very surprised when they seemed to offer an apology and rationalization defending the adventures of Plato and Socrates with young men. Combined with the fact that this book was written near the hornet's nest of Catholicism in the 1500s, it may be the most progressive reactionary take on LGBT issues written for hundreds of years despite stating point blank that it is doubtful that gay people are human, which is still a stain on the work which otherwise pushed humanity in a more humanist direction. It would be 3 stars if not for being one of the works that rely heavily on Aristotle and Plato as authorities which make following the logic a mildly painful experience.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received this book as a cute little Valentine's day gift. It's perfect (if you are a certain type of person (me)).

Tullia d'Aragona deserves a lot of credit for taking a very modern view of love and explaining it in terms a Renaissance philosopher could understand. Her main point is that love has physical and mental aspects, and often the mental aspects are longer lasting. This is a big deal to guys who think that loving women is just an inferior special case of loving God.

She stakes a claim for her authority on the grounds of experience- she is a legit courtesan. This is, I think, the right justification for her authority, because it's also what will underwrite other feminist claims: that women's experiences are a valid form of knowledge.

[Xavier Terminello · Rating 5 out of 5]

I hate all men.

Is a perspective I understand much more after reading the first chapter now.

Half the book is context — which definitely helps and is interesting in itself — but honestly liked the medium of communication (dialogue). Was thinking because it was written in the 16th century, and I’m sure the translations help, it would be more difficult reading but enjoyed that style and the type of banter. This is and “Love: A History” introduced neat phenomenal approaches to the concept of Love and to benefit my understanding of what it is to Love as a phenomena. Would def recommend reading!

Another thought I had was, indeed, the world is heading to a multipolar system. Men and Women in positions of authority.

[Hannah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting philosophical book on love, and how humans portray different types of love!

[Lily · Rating 5 out of 5]

i'm obsessed

[Olive Graham · Rating 3 out of 5]

My love for this book was not infinite (or existent really)