La Villa. Bartolomeo Taegio
Between Leisure and Intellectual Activity: Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and Petrarch
Taegio introduced his argument for the villa as the ideal setting for the life of a true gentleman with the following statement in the words of Vitauro (La Villa, p. 2): “I tell you that in villa I enjoy principally the honorable leisure of that literature that agrees with my nature.” A key to understanding Taegio’s notion of the purpose of the villa lies in the meaning of his expression honorato ocio (honorable leisure). Ocio is the sixteenth-century Italian equivalent of the Latin word otium, which was a translation of the Greek word skole. Otium is usually rendered in English as “leisure,” skole as “repose.” It is especially useful, in connection with a discussion of the idea of villa life, to look at otium in relation to its opposite, negotium, formed by prefixing the negative particle nec to otium. Negotium, which can be translated “business,” “occupation,” or “employment,” indicates a lack of otium, and therefore otium can be construed as something positive in itself. In Latin texts, otium was almost never used merely in the sense of time off from work, what we might call “spare time.”178 Nor was otium generally considered something to be enjoyed passively. On the contrary, it was frequently associated with intellectual activity.
The history of “honorable leisure” encompasses changing attitudes toward the relationship between leisure and intellectual activity, and the relative merits of action and contemplation. In La Villa, Taegio cited four of the most important sources of our knowledge of these attitudes: Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, and Petrarch. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defined skole as both a characteristic of the contemplative life and a prerequisite for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness “consists in” contemplation, which is the highest form of activity and the only activity desired for its own sake.179 The activity of the intellect, which Aristotle said also “consists in” contemplation, is the stuff of which human happiness is made, partly because it is characterized by skole.180
For Cicero and Seneca, otium was a means toward what was for them the noblest of ends, service to the state. By linking otium and statesmanship, Cicero and Seneca radically altered the meaning of Aristotle’s skole. For these ancient Roman philosopher-statesmen, otium conveyed not so much repose as retreat from negotium, and they found its justification in intellectual activity. In its Ciceronian sense, otium itself was an activity, and one that was always comprehended in the context of its complement, political activity. Where Cicero, in De officiis, quoted Cato saying that Scipio Africanus claimed to be “numquam se minus otiosum esse, quam cum otiosus, nec minus solum, quam cum solus esset” (never less idle than when he was at leisure, and never less lonely than when he was alone), he was associating otium with the work of thinking and writing. In his Tusculan Disputations, where he said he wanted to elevate Roman philosophy to the level set by the Greeks, so that “si occupati profuimus aliquid civibus nostris, prosimus etiam, si possumus, otiosi” (if I have been of service to my countrymen while actively engaged [in politics], I may also, if I can, be of service to them in my leisure), Cicero was justifying otium in terms of its value to the Republic as a complement to political activity.181 Cicero expressed his delight in so dignifying otium when he asked, “Quid est enim dulcius otio litterato?” (What is sweeter than leisure devoted to literature)?”182
Otium litteratum was the only tolerable kind of leisure for Seneca, who said, in his Epistles, that “otium sine litteris mors est, et hominis vivi sepultura” (leisure without literature is death, and a tomb for the living man).183 For Seneca, literary study justified leisure because contemplatio (contemplation) was the activity that made otium a form of service to the state. In De otio, Seneca wrote that “hoc nempe ab homine exigitur, ut prosit hominibus” (this of course is required of a man, that he benefit his fellow man), and he went on to describe the attitude that could enable one to serve society in his leisure.184 He asked rhetorically, “Quo animo ad otium sapiens secedit? Ut sciat se tum quoque ea acturum, per quae posteris prosit. (With what spirit does the wise man enter into leisure? Indeed, he knows that there also he will be doing something that will benefit posterity.)185 Seneca implied that the “something that will benefit posterity” was contemplation: “Natura autem utrumque facere me voluit, et agere et contemplationi vacare. Utrumque facio, quoniam ne contemplatio quidem sine actione est.” (But nature intended me to do both, to be active and to have leisure for contemplation, and I do both, because even contemplation is not devoid of action.)186 For Seneca the highest good was to live according to nature.187 Seneca’s “highest good” involved contemplation subordinated to action.
Like Seneca, Petrarch privileged contemplation and the solitude that he claimed makes it possible. In De Vita Solitaria 1.3, Petrarch reinterpreted leisure as solitude, where he quoted Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations and Seneca’s Epistles:
Equidem solitudo sine literis exilium est, carcer, eculeus; adhibe literas, patria est, libertas, delectatio. Nam de otio quidem illud Ciceronis notum: “Quid dulcius otio literato?” Contraque, non minus illud Senecae vulgatum: “Otium sine literis mors est, et hominis vivi sepultura.”
(Indeed, solitude without literature is exile, prison and torture; supply literature, and it becomes homeland, liberty and delight. For well known is that saying of Cicero’s about leisure: “What is sweeter than leisure devoted to literature?” No less familiar is Seneca’s “Leisure without literature is death, and a tomb for the living man.”)188
Petrarch’s phrase “Solitude without literature is exile” is virtually identical to Seneca’s “Otium sine literis mors est,” except that Petrarch substituted the word solitudo for the word otium. The effect of this substitution is to transform the meaning of leisure. Solitudo is retreat, not only from business, but from society altogether. By implying that the leisure of Cicero and Seneca was solitude, Petrarch gave solitude the same relationship to intellectual activity that leisure had for those ancient Roman philosophers. The thought of a life of solitude deprived of literary and philosophical studies was as unbearable for Petrarch as the thought of otium without litterae was for Seneca. Petrarch interpreted the writings of Seneca and Cicero to mean that they could not engage in intellectual activity without solitude.
In Petrarch’s view, solitude was necessary for more than contemplation. By asserting that the infusion of solitude with intellectual activity produces “homeland, liberty and delight,” Petrarch made solitude necessary for happiness, just as Aristotle made skole necessary for happiness. In De Vita Solitaria, solitudo is described as productive of happiness because it is characterized by litteras. Although Petrarch’s solitudo had the same relationship to intellectual activity as Cicero’s and Seneca’s otium, it was not a means to an end. Solitude for Petrarch, like contemplation for Aristotle, was an end in itself.189
Leisure and Villa Life: Alberti, Rinuccini, and Ficino
In the writings of Leon Battista Alberti on villa life, leisure plays a role in what he described as the dual purpose of the villa, which is not only to nourish one’s family, as he said in the essay he entitled Villa, but also to give pleasure. He suggested both purposes in the following passage from book 3 of I Libri della Famiglia:
Sempre si dice La Villa essere opera de’ veri buoni uomini e giusti massari, e conosce ogni uomo La Villa in prima essere di guadagno non piccolo, e, come tu dicevi, dilettoso e onesto.
(The villa is always said to be the work of truly good men and just stewards, and everyone knows the villa to be, in the first place, more than a little profitable, and, as you were saying, delightful and honorable.)190
The pleasure Alberti found in villa life was not self-indulgent but self-defensive; miserable social conditions in the city warranted fleeing to the countryside, as he explained:
Agiugni qui che tu puoi ridurti in villa e viverti in riposo pascendo la famigliuola tua, procurando tu stessi a’ fatti tuoi, la festa sotto