Beatrice, Laura, and the Others: The Fin de Siècle Debate on Female Inspirers and the Popularising Turn of Giovanni Federzoni and Eugenia Codronchi (Sfinge)

Abstract

Between the late-nineteenth and the early-twentieth centuries, Beatrice and Laura, as literary characters and beloved women of Dante and Petrarch, were at the centre of a vigorous scholarly debate, which gained traction in Romagna’s literary circles. Offering a comparative analysis of two key case studies—La vita di Beatrice Portinari (1904) by Giovanni Federzoni, and Laura’s biographical profile from Femminismo storico (1901) by Sfinge (Eugenia Codronchi Argeli)—this article reconstructs the popularising turn of this debate and its effect on medieval female characters’ reception as poetic inspirers. While Federzoni is motivated by didactic aims, seeking to facilitate readers’ access to the Commedia by deconstructing Beatrice’s abstraction, Sfinge elevates Laura as a model for contemporary women. Through an accessible structure and a hybrid methodology blending historical inquiry with literary imagination, both authors challenge allegorical readings and reclaim Beatrice and Laura as historically grounded figures.

1. The Fin de Siècle Debate on Female Inspirers and Its Reception in Romagna’s Literary Circles

In the mid-nineteenth century, the emergence of modern ecdotics sparked renewed scholarly interest in female characters in medieval Italian poetry and literature. Several women beloved and celebrated by poets became the focus of an extensive and enduring debate that continued into the early-twentieth century. Scholars and writers conceived them as both subjects of affection in the poets’ lives and primary referents in their writings. The coexistence of biographical and literary dimensions led many readers to question their role in medieval poetry, including their potential as “muses”, i.e., poetic inspirers, of poets such Dante, Petrarch, and Cino da Pistoia.

The rediscovery and canonisation of Dante in the nineteenth century placed Beatrice Portinari at the centre of heated discussions. The so-called “questione di Beatrice” (Barbi 1934b) constituted a critical issue for interpreting Dante’s poetic universe and its exegetical tradition.1 Leading Italian intellectuals engaged in a vigorous confrontation between two school of thought: the allegorist school, which emphasised her symbolic function in Dante’s poetry, and the realist school, which, while not denying symbolic readings, argued for a verifiable existence of Beatrice. The allegorical-symbolic reading of Beatrice was inaugurated by Gabriele Rossetti’s esoteric interpretation of Dante’s work, La Beatrice di Dante. Ragionamenti critici (Rossetti 1842). This perspective gained popularity among writers such as Francesco Paolo Perez (Perez 1865) and Luigi Valli (Valli 1928), who further developed the allegorist approach.2 However, prominent scholars such as Francesco De Sanctis, Alessandro D’Ancona, Giosuè Carducci, and Isidoro Del Lungo contested the excesses of allegorical interpretations of Commedia’s characters, arguing that they overemphasised symbolism at the expense of historical reality. This critique ushered in a new critical phase of Dante studies, prioritising historical research to resolve lingering uncertainties about the poet’s life and œuvre through documentary evidence (Vallone 1958, pp. 173–226; Petrella 2021, pp. 480–86). As a result, recreated biographies of Dante’s characters, and particularly of Beatrice, proliferated, enriched by documents and testimonies that proved their existence and their function within the author’s poetic inspiration. D’Ancona’s La Beatrice di Dante, first published in 1865 (D’Ancona 1865) and later expanded in his 1872 edition of the Vita nuova (D’Ancona 1872), was instrumental in this shift. His arguments, later incorporated into Scritti danteschi (1912), positioned Beatrice primarily as a historical woman, elevating her earthly identity (“donna”) above her otherworldly symbolism (“simbolo”). He theorised that her earthly existence was the necessary foundation for her symbolic transformation, as follows:

The entire supernatural world that he [Dante] represents has a real entity […]: every individual portrayed by him is not a generic figure of vice or virtue, but a human being who actually lived. […] And so it is with Beatrice, who is not generically the woman, […] but a woman who lived in the world and whom Dante loved, celebrated, grieved, and elevated to represent an idea of sublime physical and moral perfection. In accordance with Dante’s art, for which there is nothing empty, vacuous, nuanced or vaporous, Beatrice is a woman before being a symbol, and she can be a symbol precisely because she was a woman.

(D’Ancona 1912, pp. 130–31)3

Expanding on this perspective, Isidoro Del Lungo asserted that the biographies of such women could be reconstructed. In his 1890 essay Beatrice nella vita e nella poesia del secolo XIII, written for the six-hundredth commemoration of Beatrice’s death, Del Lungo connected her celestial portrayal in Dante’s imagery to medieval scholastic psychology, suggesting that her depiction, although idealised, retained traces of her historical identity (Benucci 2000).

Giosuè Carducci actively supported the dissemination of D’Ancona’s contribution (Kravina 2017) and sarcastically overturned the excessive reliance on allegorical interpretations, asserting their insufficiency (“gli espositori delle allegorie dantesche, i quali tengono la giovane donna non essere mai stata che la filosofia e solo la filosofia né altro che lo studio della filosofia” (Carducci 1874b, p. 215).4 He was also involved in a public controversy with Angelo De Gubernatis over the Esposizione Beatrice: Mostra nazionale delle arti e delle industrie femminili italiane in Firenze, a national exhibition celebrating Beatrice’s myth. The Esposizione, held in Florence between May and June 1890 for the six-hundredth commemoration of Beatrice’s death, aimed to honour the evolving role of Italian women from the Middle Ages onward (De Gubernatis 1900, p. 472).5 However, the initiative was ultimately unsuccessful, at least from a financial point of view, and led to significant tensions with Carducci, who had initially agreed to compose a poem for the event (ibid., pp. 475–76) but later reneged on his commitment. The dispute between the two escalated into a heated exchange in the periodicals “Battaglia Bizantina” and “Don Chisciotte”, sparked by the publication of a private letter that Carducci sent to Febea (Olga Ossani Lodi). In this letter, he criticised the simplistic reduction that resulted from such exhibition, thus reaffirming his stance on the limits of a one-dimensional reading (“A ogni modo la Beatrice della Commedia è senza un dubbio al mondo la Teologia, la Scienza Sacra, la Fede; e voler ridurla o tornarla alle proporzioncelle d’una sposina di secent’anni fa è un correre rischio di peccare contro Dante, contro il medio evo, contro l’austerità” (Carducci 1938, p. 155).6

In the early-twentieth century, the debate gained traction in Romagna, particularly in the vibrant intellectual circles of Ravenna, Faenza, and Imola, where Carducci’s students and associates explored the intricate interplay between historical reality and poetic inspiration. Their work focused on reconstructing possible biographies and psychological portraits of Beatrice and Laura, thus asserting the suitable standard for an ideal form of poetic love, as well as examining lesser-known women from Dante’s life.

A significant contribution to the first strand of studies was La vita di Beatrice Portinari (1904) by Giovanni Federzoni (1849–1923), which explicitly aligned with the realist perspectives of D’Ancona and Del Lungo. A former student and close associate of Carducci, Federzoni combined decades of teaching at various high schools in Bologna and Rome with intense research on Dante, inaugurated in 1889 by Il canto XIII dell’Inferno (Federzoni 1889) and culminated more than thirty years later in his Commedia commentary for schools, published between 1921 and 1923 (Federzoni 1921–1923). Additionally, he was a frequent visitor of the “libreria Zanichelli” in Bologna and contributed to the cultivation of Carducci’s intellectual legacy, participating in public commemorations and popularising his memory (Merci 2015, p. 75).

The realist perspective spread a revived interest in Petrarch’s Laura as well. Another student of Carducci, Domenico Spada (1872–1949) explored the historical reality and character of the poet’s beloved woman in L’amore del Petrarca. Studio psicologico sul Canzoniere (Spada 1906). Spada’s work further reinforced the prevailing cliché of Laura as a “real” woman, contrasting with the more abstract and allegorical Beatrice—a distinction originally drawn by De Sanctis and still influential at the close of the nineteenth century (Camilletti 2019, p. 189, n. 109).7 Spada differentiates Petrarch’s love from that of the Stilnovists, such as Dante and Cino da Pistoia, and contrasts Laura with the celestial conception of Beatrice, conceived as a purely literary product of the poet’s imagination (“idealizzata, spiritualizzata, pressoché divinizzata”; Spada 1906, p. 7). While Stilnovistic love is typically portrayed as idealised and devoid of sensual passion, serving the poet’s moral and spiritual elevation, Spada characterises Petrarch’s love for Laura as “sensibile, reale, terreno”, grounded in tangible reality rather than abstract symbolism, as follows:

Petrarch’s love was not so purely ideal, Platonic, mystical, since he dreamed and desired the person of Laura, rather than stopping to contemplate the image of divine beauty in the feminine beauty; it was no longer the love created by the poet’s imagination who found the expression of something far superior to human nature in the eyes, in the words, in the graces, in the virtues of his woman, and admired in it a seal of divinity.

(ibid., pp. 7–8)8

Laura was also the subject of a biographical portrait from the collection Femminismo storico (1901) by Sfinge, the nom de plume of Eugenia Codronchi Argeli (1865–1934). First emerging on the literary scene with her novel Il colpevole (Sfinge 1900), Sfinge credited Carducci as a formative influence in her intellectual development. Since 1890, he had been a frequent guest at the Bolognese salotto of Sfinge’s mother, Giulia Pizzoli. This intellectual circle included notable jurists and politicians such as Cesare Albicini and Giovanni Malvezzi, as well as leading scholars, including Corrado Ricci, Giovanni Federzoni, Alfredo Testoni, and Adolfo Albertazzi. Through this network, Carducci introduced the young Eugenia to both classical and modern writers, such as Goethe, Schiller, Shelley, and Heine (Sfinge 1911, p. 3). Nevertheless, there were also marked differences of opinion between the two. One such example was the interpretation of another female character, Griselda, the protagonist of the last novella of Boccaccio’s Decameron (x, 10; Boccaccio 1976). Carducci had elevated Griselda to a maternal and conjugal model, based on the sense of duty that emerged in her submission towards her husband’s arrassments.9 Conversely, Sfinge vehemently critiqued his depiction, deeming the woman’s obedience as a diminution of female dignity.10

Alongside the well-known figures of Beatrice and Laura, scholars also turned their attention to lesser-known women from Dante’s life and œuvre. One such figure was Caterina Malvicini Malabocca, the wife of Guido Novello da Polenta, Dante’s host in his final years in Ravenna. From 1903 onward, local scholars dedicated a significant body of research to Caterina, seeking to extol both her literary sensibility and her role in the poet’s exile. Notable studies include Ettore Contarini’s Catterina Malvicini moglie di Guido Novello da Polenta (Contarini 1903); La benefattrice dell’Allighieri by Emilio Biondi, published in “Scena illustrata” (Biondi 1904); and Guido Pantanelli’s Un documento relativo alla moglie di Guido Novello da Polenta (Pantanelli 1912). Carducci’s associates, Camillo Rivalta (Nei luoghi di Dante. Dante a Bagnacavallo; Rivalta 1916) and Corrado Ricci (L’ultimo rifugio di Dante; Ricci 1891), also contributed to the limited but growing body of information on Caterina’s figure.11 Additionally, Sfinge authored a biography, Caterina da Polenta, published in “Nuova Antologia” (1903) and supported by Ricci himself, which provided her with unpublished materials and photographs (Sfinge 1903, p. 15). While a more individual insight into such texts would go beyond the scope of this article, it is important to stress that this lively interest reveals an additional layer of complexity to the debate’s reception: the appropriation, based upon a local interest, of minor figures in Dante’s life who, even if not portrayed as characters, aimed at attesting to their role in the Commedia’s realisation, particularly in the biographical context of the poet’s later years in Ravenna.

2. “Vita” or “Romanzo”?

The acquaintance between Giovanni Federzoni and Sfinge dated back to the former’s years as a professor of Italian literature and Latin for the young Eugenia, before she became a writer (Dall’Osso 2021, p. 794). Their extensive correspondence, preserved in the “Carte Sfinge” at the Biblioteca Comunale di Imola (BIM), attests to their ongoing exchange of updates on publications and personal matters, and to their mutual esteem (Sfinge 1910, p. 2).

In a postcard to Sfinge, Federzoni mentioned receiving proofs for his Il romanzo di Beatrice Portinari, among other volumes that he authored on Dante.12 Il romanzo di Beatrice Portinari was the third edition of Federzoni’s biography of Beatrice, originally published as La vita di Beatrice Portinari (1904). This work belongs to a strand of popularisations that emerged in the nineteenth century as a minor phenomenon in Dante’s reception and within the debate surrounding Beatrice. Written in accessible language for a broad audience, these works aimed to make Dante’s œuvre more approachable for non-specialist readers. Another notable example of this trend is provided by Matilde Serao’s (1895) public lecture on Beatrice at the Circolo Filologico in Naples, later published in the same city (Galdenzi 1994, pp. 336–40). In this vein, Federzoni authored La vita di Beatrice Portinari to celebrate the nuptials of one of his students, Luisa Zanichelli—daughter of Cesare Zanichelli—to Francesco Mazzoni in August 1904. The text was published, that very same year, in Bologna.

By this time, Federzoni had already authored several studies on the Commedia and the Vita nuova, establishing himself as a prominent yet controversial figure in late-nineteenth century Dante studies (Boninsegni 1995). While his works were praised for their accessibility and clarity, they were also criticised for their insufficient exegetical rigour. Michele Barbi, for instance, commended the popularising qualities of Federzoni’s studies in his review of the essay collection Studi e diporti danteschi (Federzoni 1902), emphasising their suitability for all readers, particularly women (“signore”). However, Barbi identified several critical errors in Federzoni’s works, including La vita di Beatrice Portinari (Barbi 1934a, p. 99). Natalino Sapegno also argued that La vita di Beatrice Portinari epitomises Federzoni’s controversial critical method, which he described as “a mezzo fra la critica e la poesia” (Sapegno 1936, p. 252).

In his Avvertenza, Federzoni explains that the text meticulously reconstructs the biographical and psychological profile of Beatrice in an accessible and popularising style, relying on the information drawn from the Vita nuova. The biography is neither an example of rigorous historical and literary research (“una di quelle opere di critica storica irte di documenti in varie lingue, di parentesi tonde e quadre”) nor a novel about Dante’s loves (“un piccolo romanzo su gli amori dell’Allighieri”). Instead, its objective is to introduce the Vita nuova to first-time readers, facilitating further engagement with the Commedia:

I set out to write, without too much of a burden of notes and citations, a reasoned account, easy for everyone to follow, that clarifies and facilitates the understanding of what is contained in the Vita Nuova; such that it reveals events and feelings not so much from Dante’s point of view, but from Beatrice’s. I aimed to carry out a psychological analysis of this woman who was the noble lady of the great poet as she truly was, and as he wished her to appear before the intellectual eyes of readers of his youthful little book, so that those distant in time and space might later understand his sacred poem.

(Federzoni 1904, pp. II–III13)

Federzoni’s choice of the title, which includes Beatrice’s full name, reflects his desire to reconstruct her image beyond Dante’s perspective (ibid., p. II). While identifying her as the epitome of the women’s celebration in medieval poetry, mentioning Tanto gentile e tanto onesta pare (Vita nuova, xxvi 4–5; Alighieri 2015) as “la massima dolcissima lode umana che possa mai da donna alcuna essere desiderata nel mondo” (Federzoni 1904, p. 138), Federzoni emphasises her historical reality above her later transformation into a symbol. Following the tradition established by Boccaccio, he identifies her as the daughter of Folco Portinari and the wife of Simone dei Bardi, and as the Florentine woman who was actually loved by Dante before becoming an “altissima idea” in his poetic imagery (ibid., p. 42). Aligning with the realist research of D’Ancona and Del Lungo, he contrasts with allegorical interpretations that perceived Beatrice as a purely symbolic creation (“creazione fantastica ideale”; ibid., p. 5).

This approach extends to Federzoni’s interpretation of other women in the Commedia, such as Matelda. He adopts the hypothesis proposed by Severino Raffaele Minich (1862) and referenced by D’Ancona (1884, p. 64), identifying Matelda as the young Florentine woman who died prematurely and is, according to these scholars, depicted in the sonnets Piangete, amanti, poi che piange Amore and Morte villana, di pietà nemica (Vita nuova, viii 1–12; Alighieri 2015). Federzoni finds evidence for his identification in the numerous similarities between the praises of the unnamed woman and those of Matelda in Purgatorio (“la giovinezza lieta con operosità di atti virtuosi […], la cortesia, la leggiadria amorosa”; Federzoni 1904, p. 60). Thus, he conceives both Beatrice and Matelda as key figures in Dante’s life, playing a pivotal role in shaping his otherworldly vision.14

Dating the Vita nuova between 1299 and 1300, a position later contested by Barbi (Barbi 1934a), Federzoni aimed to illustrate the progressive transfiguration of Beatrice from a real-life figure to a symbol of religious faith and the poet’s guide. According to him, Dante gradually builds up this process, with the intention of preparing the readers of the Vita nuova for the outcome of the Commedia: Beatrice, as depicted in the Vita nuova, thus serves as an indispensable “introduzione” to her role as the poet’s celestial guide in the Commedia (Federzoni 1904, p. VII).15 A pivotal moment in this process is the abrupt interruption of the relationship between Dante and Beatrice, marked by the refusal of the saluto (Vita nuova x, 1–3; Alighieri 2015; Federzoni 1904, pp. 70–82). Beatrice’s steadfastness and composure (“potenza del carattere”) profoundly impact Dante (Federzoni 1904, p. 82). Federzoni argues that this event serves a constructive purpose, forming the basis for a new vision of poetry (“un modo nuovo di poesia”; Federzoni 1904, p. 87). Thus, Dante renews his own conception of Beatrice, since he must match her high regard. Within this framework, Beatrice evolves from a real woman with singular qualities (“bella e gentile e amabile”) into a celestial being (“la creatura perfettissima, degna di verace adorazione, la diletta di Dio, la speranza dei Beati, venuta per brevissimo tempo dal cielo in terra a mostrare in sé un miracolo”; ibid., pp. 95–96). From this point on, Beatrice assumes an angelic role in Dante’s imagery, culminating in her function in the Commedia (ibid., pp. 95–98).

The reception of La vita di Beatrice Portinari was ambivalent, due to the perceived weakness of Federzoni’s arguments, as evidenced by a review in the Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, which criticised structural and ideological aspects. The reviewer argued that his critical perspective was overly subjective, resembling Giulio Salvadori’s contentious study on Dante’s early life, Sulla vita giovanile di Dante (Salvadori 1901). This subjectivity, coupled with a lack of documentary evidence and an excessive ambiguity between research and fiction (“ibridismo”), led the reviewer to conclude that the work was more a “romanzo” than a biography: “l’A. si illude di scrivere storia e invece scrive romanzo” (Annunzi analitici 1905, p. 239). To support this claim, the reviewer cited a private letter in which Federzoni himself downplayed the seriousness of his work, describing it as “poco serio” (ibid.).

By the time of the third edition, Federzoni had changed the title to Il romanzo di Beatrice Portinari, acknowledging in the introductory pages the utility of the negative review: “Io ringrazio quel critico che mi scaraventò addosso la sua breve e sdegnosa recensione; perché mi fece trovare il titolo giusto del mio lavoro” (Federzoni 1911, p. 9). Federzoni defended the hybrid nature of his work, arguing that it was the sole means to capture the essence of the ancient figures’ biography. This bold defence of the novelistic form reveals his conviction that imagination can access truths inaccessible to exclusive historiographical or biographical research. Claiming that a novel may be as true as life, and even truer than life itself (“Ebbene, che male c’è? Sia pure un romanzo. Non può essere il romanzo, quando cerca divinare i moti dell’anima umana, più vero della vita vera?”), Federzoni challenged the rigid epistemological boundaries between fiction and biography. Since biography, bound by historical evidence, is nearly impossible to achieve for figures from the distant past (“cosa difficilissima, impossibile quasi, a conseguirsi intorno a persone di un tempo alquanto remoto”), he legitimised a more intuitive and creative approach, stating that “il romanzo invece può ben essere la vita, ed è certamente quale dall’intelletto e dall’animo dello scrittore è stata veduta e, talvolta anche in parte, intuita” (ibid., p. 8).

3. Laura’s (Un)Reality

In her article Selvaggia dei Vergiolesi e le inspiratrici dei poeti, Sfinge criticises the scholarly tendency to single out a “Donna Unica”, a common female inspirer for the Stilnovistic school of poets, as a rhetorical and imaginary construct (Sfinge 1906, p. 3). One of her polemical targets is the anthology of lyric poets edited by Giosuè Carducci, Rime di M. Cino da Pistoia e d’altri del sec. XIV (1862). In the anthology’s introduction, Carducci characterised the poets’ love for Selvaggia, Laura, and Beatrice as adhering to a common rhetorical mannerism (“cavalleria poetica del tempo”; Carducci 1862, p. XI). Lamenting the superficial treatment of these women, presented as poetic inspirations without delving into their historical identities (“Più di questo, generalmente, non si conosce e non si desidera conoscere intorno a questa coppia, che la poesia unisce”), Sfinge argues that Cino da Pistoia’s impassioned expressions suggest an authentic affection, markedly distinct from the “piacevole esercitazione rettorica” described by Carducci (ibid., p. 3).

Sfinge conducted a thorough yet unsuccessful inquiry into Selvaggia, examining both Cino’s poetry and contemporary scholarly works (“A me era già occorso di cercare la donna antica e misteriosa nel canzoniere che ci ha tramandato il suo nome e nei volumi dei dotti […]. Ma non l’avevo trovata: cioè, non avevo “veduta” l’anima della donna […] nelle pagine che le hanno data l’immortalità: e tanto meno in quelle degli eruditi”; Sfinge (Sfinge 1906, p. 3). While Cino’s verses obscure the real reasons for Selvaggia’s reserved demeanour, scholars have offered speculative explanations, such as Alberto Corbellini’s hypothesis concerning apolitical disagreement between Selvaggia and Cino (Corbellini 1895). Sfinge, instead, turned to alternative forms of evidence, such as the different versions of Selvaggia recollected in the oral tradition (“memoria”) and legend (“leggenda”), which she reviewed by visiting locations associated with Selvaggia’s life and death:

I finally found her, a few months ago; I got to know her, I “saw” her soul […]. I was up there too, […] where she died and survives in the legend that is the only truth. She lives in the memory of the mountaineers who tell of her in their vigils: of the young shepherds who sing songs in her honour up the rocky cliffs, down the grassy crags, in the shade of the beech woods embraced by brown ivy, in the lines of the same landscape that she contemplated and that Cino, here and there, describes to us.

(Sfinge 1906, p. 3)16

Sfinge’s reflections provocatively question the scholarly primacy of documentary evidence in the reconstruction of female inspirers’ lives. By prioritising oral tradition and affective intuition over archival data, she redefines historical truth and identity as a form of emotional resonance, rather than verifiable certainty (“[…] la storia non è scienza ma arte; e […] il documento è forse meno vero dell’intuito geniale del popolo”; ibid.). This original approach positions legend and oral traditions not as distortions but as a vital key to access the forgotten experiences of the poets’ beloved women, thereby foregrounding an alternative epistemology that blurs the line between history and creative imagination, as evidenced in her passionate plea: “abbandoniamo gli archivi pieni di cose morte, fredde, polverose e fidiamoci della fantasia che vive, palpita e canta alla calda luce del sole e della vita!” (ibid.).

The antithetical tension between impulsive creativity (“intuito geniale del popolo”, “fantasia”) and documented research (“documento”, “archivi”) recurs in Sfinge’s biographical works. In her essay Caterina da Polenta (1903), she entrusts the biographer’s emotional subjectivity, incarnated in “fantasia” and “intuiti”, with a decisive role in the reconstruction of ancient profiles, by integrating archival evidence (“sarà mestieri lasciare un poco libero il volo alla fantasia, purché essa sappia accordarsi con le induzioni storiche e con gli intuiti di chi, amando molto un dato soggetto, giunge quasi a sentirlo palpitare, vivo e vero, nel suo proprio cuore” (Sfinge 1903, p. 3). In Adelaide Cairoli, published five years after the essay on Caterina, she reaffirms that documentary evidence is only partially useful if not shaped by the biographer’s personal suggestions. According to her, the effective retention of women’s lives in the reader’s memory depends on the integration of an artistic and aesthetic framework (Sfinge 1908, pp. 598–99).

This hybrid approach to biography, which blends fact and fiction while rejecting strict objectivity (De Gasperis 2024), underpins Sfinge’s medaglioni of Femminismo storico. Published in 1901, the collection, targeting a female readership, presents the profiles of seven women from antiquity to the nineteenth century. Alongside Laura, the collection features politicians (Isabella d’Este, Cleopatra, Marie-Antoinette), salonnières (Juliette Récamier), and writers (Gaspara Stampa, George Sand). A letter from Angelo De Gubernatis to Sfinge, dated 13 November 1901, reveals plans to present these portraits in a public lecture format: De Gubernatis praises the work’s stylistic maturity and didactic value for female audiences, encouraging Sfinge to expand the volume.17

The selection of these profiles adheres to two criteria: Sfinge’s personal affection, developed through the passionate study of their lives (“affetto che io, studiandole con amore e imparando a conoscerle più da vicino, ho in esse riposto”; Sfinge 1901, p. 5), and their function as historical examples of feminine virtues, ranging from sociabilité to mecenatismo. Thus, these women, she argues, serve as models for contemporary women:

Each of the lives of these celebrated women could be symbolised by a living flame: and may each of these living flames, […] be like a beautiful burning flame that illuminates for us—fighters of this hour—the difficult path. That is to say, may each of them teach us to think hard and work hard: may they lead us to a high and conscious affirmation of ourselves, and to the untiring pursuit of the Ideal.

(ibid., p. 6)18

As noted by Dionisio Dall’Osso (2001, p. 4), Sfinge’s feminism is idealistic and intellectual, emphasising the importance of cultural spaces for women in achieving both individual and collective independence. Her theoretical framework is predominantly popularising, aiming to enhance women’s intellectual and cultural education (“Ed è appunto nelle mie idee che siavi potenzialmente perfetta uguaglianza intellettuale tra l’uomo e la donna, e che solo a secolari errori di educazione e di valutazione si debba la differenza, che ora tende, felicemente, a voler scomparire”; (Sfinge 1901, pp. 166–67; De Gasperis 2024, pp. 143–44). Thus, in Femminismo storico, Sfinge portrays Laura as a real woman (“viva e vera” and a “creatura reale”), separated from the abstract or celestial figures often associated with poetic muses (“figurazione d’arte”, “non angela, non dea”; Sfinge 1901, pp. 81–82), aligning with the woman’s identification with Laura de Noves, wife of Hugh de Sade, which was often discussed in the nineteenth century (Naselli 1923, p. 155). Interpreting the Canzoniere as a record of her life from her first encounter with the poet to her death, Petrarch’s verses thus provide insights into Laura’s daily activities, such as walks and social gatherings, as well as into her character traits. Conceiving the Canzoniere as a reliable “documento” for understanding the evolution of a genuine and intense love (Sfinge 1901, p. 83), Sfinge elevates Laura to an exemplum of ethical rigour.

Her portrait of Laura aligns with the realist school’s ideas and methodologies, which she came to know through Federzoni. In a letter, this latter recommended that she read Isidoro Del Lungo’s Beatrice nella vita e nella poesia del secolo XIII (Del Lungo 1906) and Carducci’s proses, both of which influenced her early literary development.19 Sfinge’s Laura is neither a passive muse nor a figure devoid of individuality. Certain gestures, such as her stunned reaction to Petrarch’s departure, are interpreted as signs of reciprocated affection (Sfinge 1901, pp. 90–91). Moreover, Laura profoundly influences Petrarch’s poetic imagery, transforming into his work with the highest form of lyric poetry, which Sfinge describes as springing directly from genuine emotion: “la lirica, quando sia di quella buona, deve zampillare direttamente su dal cuore, deve essere soggettiva, e deve portare le tracce di qualche lagrima, o anche di un poco di vivo sangue” (ibid., p. 83). Like Del Lungo’s treatment of medieval women, Laura’s virtuous conduct is attributed a pivotal role in shaping Petrarch’s poetic output. The woman’s decision to deny her love to the poet becomes the catalyst for the Canzoniere:

And a sorrowful heart was certainly that of Petrarch; and his poetry was born from his sorrow. Laura, sweet Madonna, thanks be to thee from all hearts! It is true that your poet suffered much for you: but by denying yourself to him you gave him, most chaste one, the greatest of gifts: you gave him a treasure of Poetry. And he compensated you for it, blond Laura, with munificence more than that of a king, of a deity: for he gave you Immortality!

(ibid., p. 104)20

Amid the renewed nineteenth-century interest in Petrarch’s life, which generated numerous biographical volumes (Naselli 1923, pp. 139–71), Sfinge’s profile addresses key questions about the poet’s work that were particularly debated in the 1900s. For instance, she alludes to the distinction between Laura and other female inspirers, such as Beatrice. Drawing upon the sonnet Levommi il mio pensier in parte ov’era (Rvf cccii, 3), she contends that Petrarch never intended to transform Laura into the ideal angelic woman (“non vedete che il Poeta non è riuscito, nemmeno allora, a spiritualizzarla, completamente”). Even after her death, she remains “viva e donna”: “C’era troppa realtà, in Laura per farne un puro simbolo, dato anche che il Poeta ne avesse avuta l’intenzione!” (Sfinge 1901, pp. 83–84). In doing so, Sfinge downplays the significance of Petrarch’s other romantic interests, a topic extensively debated between 1896 and 1901 (Naselli 1923, p. 156).21

While Sfinge, like Federzoni, drew intellectual inspiration from Carducci and realist scholars, her treatment of Laura reveals distinct but complementary strategies for reclaiming these women from the confines of allegory and abstraction. Federzoni’s La vita di Beatrice Portinari exemplifies a popularising and historicising approach that seeks to democratise access to Dante’s œuvre through the figure of Beatrice. Informed by an adherence to clarity, his work represents a hybrid form, combining elements of scholarly commentary and imaginative reconstruction. The author posits that Beatrice’s truth as a historical figure may be more accurately conveyed through literary intuition than through purely archival rigor. In doing so, he humanises Beatrice, turning her from a symbolic abstraction into a psychologically plausible and emotionally resonant woman. In contrast, Sfinge’s portrayal of Laura in Femminismo storico aligns her with a conception of biographical writing designed to elevate past women’s lives as sources of feminist instruction and collective memory. While equally invested in deconstructing symbolic or mystical interpretations, her method foregrounds the role of alternative forms of historical research in the construction of female biographies, by prioritising oral tradition and affective intuition over documentary evidence. Thus, Sfinge crafts Laura’s profile to serve as a contemporary archetype for women, elevating her to an active and influential figure in Petrarch’s life, who shaped not only his poetic imagery but the very existence of his Canzoniere.

Finally, a comparison between Federzoni and Sfinge proved to be particularly illuminating, not only because of their shared intellectual milieu—rooted in the Romagna-based legacy of Carducci and shaped by the cultural circles of Bologna and Imola—but also because, in the same years, both authors engaged in a parallel reflection on the historicity and exemplarity of medieval female figures. Their respective works, although stylistically distinct, converge in reclaiming Beatrice and Laura from allegorical abstraction, highlighting their agency and relevance for all readers.