Giovanni and Lusanna: Love and Marriage in Renaissance Florence

“Thus, the subjects of [microhistories] are frequently peasants, artisans, vagabonds, common soldiers, witches, prostitutes, nuns, friars, and parish priests form the lowest echelons of the social order.”

The story of Giovanni and Lusanna is a microhistory because it offers insight into a historical period through the lives of ordinary people. Microhistories stand in opposition to what Brucker calls “scientific history,” which focuses solely on the actions of governmental bodies—wars, laws, and other monumental events (viii). The primary advantage of a microhistory is that it can shed light on what it was like for ordinary people, such as those described in the quote above, to live in a certain society—in this case, fifteenth-century Florence. 

“Notaries played an important role in the legalistic and litigious society of Florence. They were employed by people from every social stratum to draw up wills, property transactions, dowry contracts, and settlements of disputes.”

Brucker describes Florence as a “legalistic” society, in which much of everyday life involves the court—from drafting wedding contracts to settling civil conflicts. These legal activities are obsessively recorded by notaries such as Ser Filippo Mazzei, creating an important archive to later inform historians’ understanding of past societies. 

“Florentine artisans were typically attached to a particular parish or neighborhood where they—and their parents and grandparents before them—had forged bonds of marriage, friendship, and clientage with their neighbors.”

Lusanna hails from a family of artisans. Her father, Benedetto, amasses a small fortune from his work as a tailor. Though this wealth allows Lusanna and her family a small amount of social mobility, they are still confined by their status as members of the artisanal class. As such, their lives are geographically bound and revolve around their parish (the church where they attend religious services).

“Though born and reared in the parish of San Lorenzo, only a five-minute walk from Lusanna’s residence, Giovanni Della Casa inhabited a very different world. His family, the Della Casa, belonged to the upper echelons of Florentine society.”

Though Giovanni and Lusanna grow up near each other, their different class backgrounds create a gulf between them. As a member of a wealthy merchant family, Giovanni is able to socialize with prominent Florentine families such as the Medicis, and he is able to travel throughout Europe for business. This divide between their social classes complicates their romantic relationship.

“Young men of [Giovanni’s] 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) so that their daughters could marry honorably.”

As a wealthy bachelor, Giovanni is sought after by many Florentine families who wish to marry their daughters into a secure and prosperous household. However, Giovanni remains a bachelor until late in life—possibly due to his infatuation with the widowed, lower-class Lusanna. 

“In cases that came before his tribunal, [Antoninus] was never influenced by the reputation or status of the parties.”

As the archbishop of Florence, Antoninus holds one of the most important and powerful positions in the city’s social order. The Catholic Church’s court has the final say in all disputes in the city. While Florence’s wealthy upper class frequently tries to bribe officials, Antoninus gains a reputation throughout the city for his fairness as a judge and for his refusal to be manipulated by the wealthy. 

“Cosa could not recall the particular day in May when the wedding occurred two years before, though she remembered that it was not a feast day. The women described Lusanna’s green gown in lavish detail, though they were vague about Giovanni’s costume.”

While Lusanna’s family members all testify that the wedding between Lusanna and Giovanni occurred, their memories of the event have gaps. Brucker insists that the discrepancies in their accounts suggest that their testimony is truthful because a “fabricated” story “would have been a tidier account” (21).

“In the summer villeggiatura Lusanna was able to enjoy, for the first time since her first husband had died, the satisfaction of being a married woman and being recognized as such by the members of the rural community.”

One of the conditions of Lusanna and Giovanni’s marriage is that they both must keep it a secret. However, soon after the marriage, the couple takes a trip to a family villa outside of Florence where they behave like a married couple. This episode is a major focus of the trial. Many peasants testified that the couple dressed and behaved in ways that only married couples do while they visited the villa. Brucker also suggests that the trip was emotionally significant for Lusanna because it finally allowed her to openly enjoy her long-wished-for marriage. 

“Motivated by lust, Lusanna desired to have carnal relations with him [Giovanni], for he was young and well endowed … and Lusanna was infatuated with him while her husband Andrea was alive and after his death.”

This quote comes from Giovanni’s procurators’ arguments and attests to a stark difference between the moral standards applied to Florentine men and women. Giovanni openly admits to having an adulterous affair with Lusanna, and he shows little shame for his actions. While Giovanni can have an affair and still retain his reputation as an upstanding citizen, the alleged adultery condemns Lusanna as a deeply immoral woman who is not to be trusted. 

“So much of the opinion concerning Lusanna’s character and reputation was based on hearsay that one must exercise great caution in evaluating it.”

Throughout the trial, many of Lusanna’s neighbors testify that she has a reputation for being a promiscuous woman who openly violates her marriage vows to her first husband. Much of their testimony, however, is based on rumor and gossip. It is possible that Lusanna’s neighbors testify against her because they are jealous of her looks and her disregard for Florence’s rigid social order. To faithfully reconstruct the relationship between Giovanni and Lusanna, Brucker carefully evaluates all the case’s evidence for potential biases. 

“Lusanna said to Giovanni while they held hands, ‘I want you to promise me that, if my [husband] Andrea dies, you will take me for your wife (per moglie) and I will be your spouse (tua donna).’ Giovanni replied, ‘I will do it willingly (di buona voglia).’”

Several of Lusanna’s neighbors testify that they witnessed Lusanna asking Giovanni to promise to marry her if she became a widow. Such a request suggests that Lusanna wanted to transform an adulterous affair into a meaningful and permanent relationship, securing a livelihood for herself if she became a widow. The fact that Lusanna actively arranges meetings with Giovanni and presses him to marry her demonstrates her astonishing independence, which was not easily attained by other Florentine women.

“While the protocol record traces carefully the steps of court procedure—the filing of affidavits, the challenges to these documents, the judges’ decisions—it provides few clues to the legal theory that underlay the process and, specifically, the decisions of Antoninus and his vicar general.”

Brucker’s knowledge of Giovanni and Lusanna’s story comes primarily from the records of the notary Ser Filippo Mazzei, who exhaustively records every step of the trial. Through these notes of procurators’ arguments and witness testimonies, Brucker is able to piece together and interpret the story of the couple’s relationship. However, Ser Filippo’s notes record the court’s proceedings (including the archbishop’s verdict) only and not its reasoning or the theories behind its decisions. Brucker is forced to speculate about which legal interpretations influenced the procurators, the vicar general, and the archbishop.  

“In these letters Antoninus did not state explicitly the premise underlying his position: that ecclesiastical justice had priority over its secular counterpart and that in any jurisdictional dispute the lay judge must defer to the clerical.”

Soon after Antoninus’s investigation begins, he learns that the podestà—the chief executive of Florence’s secular court—is investigating allegations that Lusanna poisoned her first husband. Because this case could interfere with Antoninus’s own investigation, he repeatedly orders the podestà to cease his investigation. However, the podestà refuses to back down. The podestà’s insolence is a rebellion against Antoninus and, by extension, the Catholic Church. This lack of respect for Florence’s ruling authority suggests a divide between the city’s religious and secular bodies. 

“But in defending his client he also used the argument of probability. Giovanni was young, handsome, virile, and rich; Lusanna was old (at least forty, he claimed), she was sterile, and her social condition was vastly inferior to that of her lover.”

Giovanni’s procurators argue that the secret marriage between the couple would never have occurred because Lusanna is too old and poor to be an appealing match for a rich and prominent bachelor like Giovanni. This argument demonstrates how romantic love and marriage were viewed as separate affairs in Florentine society. Instead of being a union between two lovers, marriage is viewed as a contract that allows individuals to increase their wealth or social status. 

“From his decision it is evident that Antoninus accepted Lusanna’s version of her relationship with Giovanni and, in particular, her denial that she had ever been unchaste.”

After thoroughly interrogating the witnesses and listening to the procurators’ arguments, Antoninus announces his ruling. He concludes that Lusanna and Giovanni are legally married, and he orders Giovanni to accept Lusanna as his rightful wife. Antoninus’s decision provides no insight into how he evaluated the contradictory evidence, however. Brucker uses other legal writings by Antoninus to show that his conclusion signifies his complete acceptance of Lusanna’s version of the couple’s relationship. 

“Antoninus’s judgment in Lusanna’s favor was based on his interpretation of the evidence in the case; it also reflected his sense of pastoral mission as ‘father of poor and miserable persons.’”

Though Antoninus’s decision is primarily based on his evaluation of witness testimonies, Brucker also argues that Antoninus may have sympathized with Lusanna because of his social responsibility to the lower class as an archbishop. Antoninus believes that the Catholic Church primarily serves the poor, not Florence’s wealthy aristocrats (which includes Giovanni). For these reasons, Antoninus may have been more willing to believe Lusanna’s testimony and a testimony that claimed Giovanni attempted to bribe some of the witnesses to testify in his favor. 

“Ut solent amatores: ‘as lovers are wont to do.’ This phrase, repeated several times in the testimony given at the process, suggests that witnesses who observed the relationship between Giovanni and Lusanna could fit their impressions into recognizable patterns.”

Many witnesses testify that Giovanni and Lusanna behave according to the general practices of romantic love, which are codified in poems and popular songs. Brucker argues that Giovanni’s desire to seek an adulterous affair with a lower-class woman is particularly customary for aristocratic bachelors, who typically do not marry until later in life. 

“Florentine Marriages were typically public and ritualized affairs, the product of lengthy and arduous negotiations between relatives and friends of the families and often abetted by professional matchmakers.”

Though romantic love exists as a concept in Florence, the institution of marriage is considered separate from the ideals of love. Marriage is a legal matter negotiated between families who arrange matches for the benefit of their offspring. Marriages are typically publicized with a number of rituals that present the married couple throughout the city. This makes Lusanna and Giovanni’s secret marriage highly unusual, though marriages like theirs did occur. 

“Lusanna’s story describes one woman’s struggle to gain a measure of personal independence in a male-dominated world […] Lusanna was exceptional in her determination to transform an affective bond into a legal covenant.”

Brucker describes the difficulty of fully understanding Lusanna’s personality, which he claims oscillates between “aggressive, willful, and manipulative” and “docile and passive” (92). Ultimately, Brucker argues that Lusanna’s affair and her desire to transform it into a marriage are an attempt to secure her independence and livelihood in a society that typically offers women much less freedom than men.

“Jealousy and resentment of Lusanna’s social climbing may have influenced their views, but it is also clear that these people of middling condition accepted the notion of social hierarchy, and by its rules the daughters of artisans did not marry the sons of aristocratic families.”

Brucker claims that Lusanna’s neighbors probably testified against her in court because of society’s uniform concept of social hierarchy. The boundaries of Florence’s class system are so rigid and strict that Lusanna’s attempts to marry into an aristocratic family are unthinkable to her fellow artisans. They are also an affront to Florence’s social conventions. 

“The notion of a hierarchy of professions ranked according to ‘nobility’ was a truism in this society, so universally accepted that it was rarely articulated. At the apex of the structure were the liberal professions (law, medicine, the humanities), whose practitioners held university degrees. Below them were the international merchants, then the retail shopkeepers and craftsmen, and at the bottom, the salaried laborers and menials.”

In this passage, Brucker examines the extent to which Florentine society is hierarchized. Instead of a simple division between the artisanal and aristocratic classes, each type of profession occupies a different stratum in Florence’s social hierarchy. Individuals who work with their hands have a lower rank than those (such as merchants and professors) who do not. 

“Florence’s elite was engaged in a process of self-definition, identifying the social qualities that denoted honor and respectability and excluding those people whose backgrounds did not qualify as ‘noble.’”

During the fifteenth-century, Florence’s aristocratic class sought to sharply delimit who could consider themselves noble. This is why Lusanna’s attempts to marry into the aristocracy would have been met by heated opposition from many aristocrats, who would not want to allow such social mobility within Florentine society. 

“Through this complex, unofficial system, Cosimo dispensed favors to his allies, clients, and ‘creatures’ in the form of offices, loans, remission of taxes, cancellation or reduction of judicial penalties, and letters of recommendation.”

The wealthiest and most powerful family in Florence is the Medici family, and Cosimo de’ Medici is the family’s patriarch. Through his wealth, Cosimo gains a number of allies throughout Florence’s governmental system, and he is essentially able to rule Florence behind the scenes. Many individuals from every social class frequently write to Cosimo and ask for his assistance in their affairs.