Lindsay Rutledge
G&L Paper
The story of Giovanni and Lusanna teaches modern-day readers many things about law,
religion, politics, gender roles and marriage views during the Renaissance. The preface explains
that spousal unhappiness and addressing marriage problems in court were very common. It
states marriage unhappiness was, “varied and widespread were the sources of spousal discord:
sexual dysfunction, physical maltreatment, dowry disputes and abandonment.” Even though
divorce was not really an option in the Renaissance the “dissolution of marriage” was possible if
it occurred as a result of marital contract disputes, or as the document shows, public outrage and
perspective. It seems that because marriage was created as a business transaction, it was nullified
as a business transaction.” The story of Giovanni and Lusanna depicts all of the legal processes
and written letters to the Church to “void,” their contract.
This legal document is so unique and important because it is a microhistory and contains
the testimonies and thoughts of the common people of the time including, “peasants, artisans,
vagabonds, common soldiers, witches, prostitutes, nuns, friars and parish priests from the lower
echelons of the social order,” (xv). The specific details about Lusanna and Giovanni, are
interesting, but their individual story and marital dispute really impacts their society at large.
Their neighbors, family friends and work associates are all greatly impacted by their decision to
marry once it is public knowledge. I believe the importance of this story is that individual cases
affected laws and practices of the country at large. Specifically, individual cases were brought to
the attention and criticism of many people surrounding them.
This document was about a man and a woman, but the reader was able to learn about the
jobs and roles of notaries, justices and the clergy during the time period. The important
perspectives and revealing livelihood of the notary was extremely interesting. He wrote well and
learned Latin in school He was clearly educated well. The notaries job descriptions were varied
from, “drawing wills, property transactions, dowry contracts, and settlements of disputes,” (1). I
think it was so interesting that the book noted that people from every social status used notaries.
Notaries were able to view and understand the personal lives of every type of person around
them. “Though not as highly regarded professionally or as well trained as lawyers with doctoral
degrees, they were men of learning who could read and write Latin and possessed some
knowledge of the law. Together with lawyers , they belonged to one of the city’s most
prestigious guilds,” (2). There was also a degree of mobility in the notary profession as seen
with Coluccio Salutati. “While the majority achieved only modest success in their profession,
some like Salutati gained wealth and renown as high civic officials and humanistic scholars,” (2).
He was able to serve monks, priests and other Catholic clergy. He “drafted petitions for
benefices and recorded details of property transactions and made transcriptions of the documents
pertaining to judicial cases,” (2). When one can see that he literally had his hands wet in the most
important affairs of church and state, his position is really one of extreme trust. He had control of
the documents detailing money and bargains and transactions. A notary of his status, though rare,
could really have the power to expose anyone who didn’t treat them fairly. I wonder if when the
document describes his “gaining wealth,” it could represent bribery from his clients to maintain
secrecy to ensure their reputations. After all it seemed that nothing is stopping him from
disclosing information to the public besides his own moral code of honor and trust. Concerning
Lusanna’s first marriage, “the marriage contract and the dowry settlement were redacted by a
notary,” (6). Yet again, these notaries are constantly aware of who the promising marriage
prospects and wealthy families around them were. They knew specific information about the
dowries and the terms for marriage.
The documents and outlines of Giovanni and Lusanna were around 300 pages long it
was, “the most detailed and comprehensive record of a Florentine judicial process, in either
secular or ecclesiastical courts.” (3). I’m wondering why this marriage dispute was the longest
out of all of them. Many marriages were questioning the validity or wanted papal dissolvent.
Perhaps, the individual people, Giovanni or Lusanna worked very hard to make sure every detail
was written down and protected. Perhaps it was kept to be an example of what happens when a
private marriage is contracted among two members of different social class. Whatever reason it
was so detailed, it is great for modern-day readers because it gives readers a chance to see the
testimonies of common people like women and those from lower ranks. The social class
distinctions among Giovanni and Lusanna and their witnesses, illuminate the Florentine social
expectations and how the justice system alters, depending on how much money one has. There is
often reference to corrupt justices and the need for one to rise above corruption.
The public knowledge and consequences arises from this situation as well. “As often
happened in this tightly knit community, a private quarrel escalated into a sensitive political
issue, which may have created a rift in the Medicean party that governed Florence,” (4) .
Therefore, what seemed to be just a common dispute over marriage had the potential to involve
many important and influential people, as soon as it became public knowledge. The Medici
became involved with this case because Giovanni’s family the Della Casa, “belonged to the
upper echelons of Florentine society,” and thereby were linked to the Medici, “the richest and
most potent house in the city,” (9). This really reveals why the marriage secret was crucial to
keep. If Giovanni had brought shame to his own family, and anyone connected with their name,
like the Medici, it would represent failure and those once faithful to the family would turn away
from them in shame. The wealth of the Medici was their ruling power. Giovanni and his brother
together 5,800 florins in assets, however Cosimo had 123,000 florins worth of assets (10).
Giovanni was still incredibly desirable for a matrimonial partnership. “Young men of his wealth
and social rank were in great demand as potential husbands for Florentine girls of aristocratic
lineage, whose fathers were willing to give large dowries (1,000 to 2,000 florins and more),”
(11). Perhaps he married another woman later on because he realized he could attain a dowry
that Lusanna had not given him.
The new beliefs of questioning the church were seen in this document as well. Antoninus
attempted to reform and better the clergy. “In his Summa theological, he revealed his sensible
and pragmatic approach to the problems of living as a Christian in the secularized world of
fifteenth-century Italy,” (12). Antoninus happened to be an honest and right man and judge and
the people around him emphasized his “incorruptibility,” which makes one think that there were
a plethora of corruptible, dishonest judges and officials ruling the courts of law during this time
period.
I found that the he said, she said details were not helpful in dissecting Renaissance
society, but within Lusanna and Giovanni’s stories, customs, traditions and popular beliefs could
be discovered. The importance of public ceremonies is affirmed and reaffirmed. The public
punishments we have learned about in class were of great importance to highlight to the entire
community what happens when someone acts out against the law or church. In these cases,
public ceremonies seem necessary to cement the validity of marriage. One needed to have
witnesses present at the ceremony. Lusanna’s father writes that his daughter had been, “legally
contracted to Giovanni, and he has married another Florentine woman in a public ceremony with
an exchange of vows and rings with other customary solemnities.” (14). Having a celebration
conducted in public brought about great shame for this family. There also needed to be a notary.
Giovanni did not want one at his wedding because he said his father would, “disinherit him if he
learned about his son’s matrimony, which must therefore be kept secret,” (16). The rare
elements described in this case were that, “it was celebrated only four months after the bride was
widowed; it was clandestine; it did not involve the payment of a dowry ,” (16). One can infer that
since these circumstances were unusual, the norm would include more time after a bride was
widowed, a public ceremony and the inclusion of a dowry. I’m sure the dowry portion
specifically was upsetting to Giovanni because the document suggests he was a popular potential
suitor worthy of a large dowry.
I found it very interesting that the children and adolescents were, “barred from direct
participation in the wedding ceremony, ‘for honesty’s sake,’ but they were allowed to watch
from the stairs,” (19). It seems obvious that this unconventional wedding was not regarded
highly, and the parents of the children didn’t want their children to be corrupted by participation
in the ceremony. However, they were able to see and hear most of what was going on, so it
seems that their integrity or their thoughts about marriage weren’t preserved. They obviously
watched the marriage occur.
The significance of clothing in this document was very important to not only social
status, but defining marital status. “When she appeared in public Lusanna continued to wear
widow’s garb, though in the privacy of Antonio’s house she dressed as a married woman,” (21).
It was mentioned several times that she was seen in public wearing a brown tunic, which was a
married person’s clothing. Society judged her marital situation by the clothing she chose to wear.
The idea of the night curfew didn’t seem that strange to me, considering from the Cohen
chapters most people didn’t go out at night and when they did it was necessary for them to bring
a lantern or light and identify themselves. “Since the night curfew was in force, Fra Felice and
his fraticino spent the night in Antonio’s bed while the host and his wife slept in another room,”
(20).Giovanni and Lusanna go into a bedroom to consummate their marriage after the wine and
gifts are enjoyed with the guests. I think this is an important detail to note. It was put in the
record for a reason. Obviously both Giovanni and Lusanna considered the marriage valid, and
therefore knowingly slept together in front of those around them.
Witnesses testify that Lusanna was, “strikingly beautiful,” which might have lead to some
of the gossip and talk about her among the other women of the town (15). These women,
“collected and reported neighborhood gossip about Lusanna, and in varying degrees their
testimony revealed their personal bias against her,” (27). The witnesses on Giovanni’s side all
stated that Lusanna was of “low moral character, either as personal judgment or as public
rumor,” (27). They claimed her bad character and reputation arose from her , “staring openly at
men whom she encountered in the street, and her love affairs and her vanities,” (27). Since this
reveals what the ideal renaissance woman was not, it can be inferred that respectable women,
“should lower their gaze in public,” and not be consumed or infatuated with their own looks (27).
The lowering of the eyes is important, because it shows women as subordinate, or submissive to
men. And the document emphasized that “respectable women,” should lower their eyes, meaning
maybe it was a way of identifying prostitutes and courtesans from regular women of society. “so
much of the opinion concerning Lusanna’s character and reputation was based on hearsay that
one must exercise great caution in evaluating it,” (28) Although the author gives this warning to
the reader, it doesn’t seem relevant. If people in Renaissance society judged other’s moral fiber
based on hearsay, that’s what shaped their views and that’s what we should do as audience’s and
scholars of their culture. Reputation and honor were extremely important to them, and evidently,
incredibly fragile. If one person was publically shamed or rumored about, it would be
commonplace knowledge in the community very quickly. The sanctity of the home and one’s
door was shown in this document. “Magaldi heard a rumor that horns had been nailed over the
door of the house inhabited by Andrea and Lusanna and that the husband had been publically
called a cuckold,” (28). The public shame and exposure of having something on your door was a
signal to the rest of one’s community.
Tita, a neighbor, testified to seeing Lusanna and Giovanni together in a romantic setting
before Andrea was dead. “When she returned upstairs, she found the two lovers lying on her bed,
and she surmised that they had had carnal relations,” then again her husband found them in his
bed and asked them, ‘what the devil are you doing,’ to which Lusanna asked Giovanni to repeat
his promise to marry her (29). It can be assumed that it was a bad omen or unholy to bed
someone while they were currently married. One also can conclude from this document that
since Tita just assumed they had engaged in sex, when a man and a women were left alone, that
is what they did, and what everyone thought they were doing. If Giovanni and Lusanna didn’t
want to reveal themselves, they could have made sure to always have someone around them and
to never be alone together, that anyone saw. Instead, multiple people saw them bedded together.
Giulana testifies that they went into the bedroom, “and there they remained alone at their
pleasure, and she believed that they had sexual relations,” (30) The reader understands the
perception again, that if a man and woman are alone together, and doors are closed, there is
assumed sex. Giuliana questions Lusanna once she learns that Giovanni has proclaimed a
marriage promise, ‘how can he be your husband? You would be risking [death by] fire to have
two husbands” (30). It sounds as though the punishment for having two husbands at the same
time was burning at the stake, which I assume would take place in public. What seemed to make
a marriage legitimate was societal views of that marriage. “Andrea’s death had not changed the
nature of their relationship, which was, in the view of witnesses, a sexual liaison and not a
marital bond,” (34). Lusanna only told Giovanni to come at night to her house to protect her
reputation according to Giovanni’s servant.
The dissolution of marriage had to be run by the pope. Giovanni had reportedly been
given, “a papal bull releasing Giovanni from his commitment to Lusanna and authorizing him to
contract another marriage, “ (34). Lusanna and her brother Antonio fought together over the
shame Lusanna had brought to her family where Lusanna says, ‘you are right, kill me!’ and
Antonio exclaims, “kill yourself!” (35) I concluded that the ultimate shame to a family and
oneself, was thought to only be exonerated by commiting suicide or dying so to rid the family of
shame and disappointment.
Lusanna is considered by other suitors because she has dowry of 250 florins, but this is
after news of Andrea’s death spreads around the city (36). I am wondering how much her
original dowry was, and if the money was even touched before. It seems ludicrous that Giovanni
encouraged Lusanna to find a husband and was present when the marriage broker was discussing
potential spouses with her (37). This is the first time a marriage broker is mentioned, who
seemed like a business-like matchmaker.
In matters of law it seemed as though whoever lost the case would pay the court fees and
the attorney fees for both parties (44). The wording associated with medieval knights and
chivalry still shows up in this document , in describing the podesta as , “the generous knight and
learned doctor,” (45), even if it is said in a sarcastic tone.
The punishment of excommunication is very present in this document. The podesta is
warned that unless he stops the investigation of Andrea’s death he will, “incur the penalty of
excommunication, “( 45).
Lusanna’s family concludes what we have already learned about marriage as a business
contract, so to speak. “Florentine artisans were attached to a particular parish or neighborhood
where they and their parents and grandparents had forged bonds of marriage and clientage.
Within these social enclaves they arranged marriages..” (5). Florentine people were really
expected to keep history going and do as their parents and grandparents before them. While this
may seem to modern readers as all negatives, they are forced to only associate and marry certain
people, there were many advantages to belonging to a small social sect. Florentine people could
look to others in society for protection they, “could expect to receive help and council from
individuals linked to [them] by guild membership, marriage, godparentage, and friendship,” (6).
Cosa testifies that Giovanni would call Lusanna his wife and brought food to the house
and bought her a slave girl (21). “The couple was accepted by the residents of the district as man
and wife. Lusanna did not wear a widow’s veil but a brown tunic appropriate for a married
woman,” (22). They were seen in public together and Giovanni gave her a ring to wear.
Giovanni could have announced their marriage to all after the death of his father, but instead
began denying their marriage to all. When Lusanna pleaded with him to recognize her as his
wife, “he refused her requests, this violating the sacred canons and the sacrament of matrimony,
gravely harming Lusanna and endangering his own soul,” (25). The important point here is not
that he ignored Lusanna, but that he essentially shamed her, went against the strong laws of
matrimony, and therefore against the church, and put his own soul in jeopardy. Renaissance
society clearly enforced marriage and believed that violations of the matrimonial agreement were
cause for one’s soul to be punished, or in a bad state.
Marriage disputes were not rare, even though Giovanni was young and rich and
Lusanna’s social condition was, “vastly inferior to that of her lover,” (50) Giovanni’s lawyer said
that, “a marriage between two individuals of such unequal backgrounds was improbable, indeed,
unthinkable,” (50). Lusanna’s representative said otherwise claiming, “such disparity in marriage
partners was not uncommon in Florence. Beautiful women of lowly origins often married men
who were their social superiors and who did not insist on a dowry from their brides,” (50). The
importance of keeping information quiet is addressed in this document when Giovanni’s
representative asks for the court to order Lusanna, “to observe perpetual silence on the case,”
(54).
Nothing was out of bounds for courtroom discussion. Giovanni’s representative asked the
witnesses every detail about the wedding and “in what manner the marriage was consummated,
who undressed Lusanna; whether a florin was placed in the bed; what was the name of the
servant; how many eggs Lusanna drank,” (55).
The court seemed to look down upon the low-status witnesses with objections to their,
“reputation, whose evidence was discredited by the fact that they were bound to her by ties of
blood or friendship,” and Fra Felice’s testimony was not credible because his head had been
publically shaved, and his clothing ripped in the rear for punishment of other crimes (57).
The mobility for women was not really achieved, “If you have to lie to help me, it will
not be a sin, because it is better to help a woman of my condition instead of a man. Unlike a
woman, a man can go anywhere in the world,” (71).
The Signoria explain at the end of this document, “marriages in Florence and its territory
should be public and not secret, contracted at proper times and according to the customs of each
place and the status of the spouses,” (109). The validity fights over marriage seemed to
continually become problems. It is very important to study this example, this microhistory
because it is not alone. It is paralleled in renaissance society with similar situations and reveals a
great deal about the legal systems, gender and marriage expectations and the necessity to
maintain an admirable reputation. Without a close examination of specific people, it is hard to
learn about how other members of the community view them. For a society shaped by the views
of others and personal and social connections it is of paramount importance that microhistories
be used so that one can zero in on the important cultural and societal aspects surrounding
individual scenarios.