.jpeg)
Today is the discussion day for our Read With Us Fall selection, The Marriage Portrait by Maggie O'Farrell. Kym, Carole, and I are each posting discussion questions on our blogs today, and you are welcome to respond in the comments. I would also encourage you to reply to others' comments if you choose. This is a book discussion, after all, so there are no correct answers or right opinions. I've been looking forward to discussing this book for quite a while, and I don't know of a better bunch of people for a book discussion than all of you.
(From Book Browse, via Kym)
Florence, the 1550s. Lucrezia, third daughter of the grand duke, is comfortable with her obscure place in the palazzo: free to wonder at its treasures, observe its clandestine workings, and devote herself to her own artistic pursuits. But when her older sister dies on the eve of her wedding to the ruler of Ferrara, Modena and Reggio, Lucrezia is thrust unwittingly into the limelight: the duke is quick to request her hand in marriage, and her father just as quick to accept on her behalf.
Having barely left girlhood behind, Lucrezia must now enter an unfamiliar court whose customs are opaque and where her arrival is not universally welcomed. Perhaps most mystifying of all is her new husband himself, Alfonso. Is he the playful sophisticate he appeared to be before their wedding, the aesthete happiest in the company of artists and musicians, or the ruthless politician before whom even his formidable sisters seem to tremble?
As Lucrezia sits in constricting finery for a painting intended to preserve her image for centuries to come, one thing becomes worryingly clear. In the court’s eyes, she has one duty: to provide the heir who will shore up the future of the Ferranese dynasty. Until then, for all of her rank and nobility, the new duchess’s future hangs entirely in the balance.
Full of the beauty and emotion with which she illuminated the Shakespearean canvas of Hamnet, Maggie O’Farrell turns her talents to Renaissance Italy in an extraordinary portrait of a resilient young woman’s battle for her very survival.
So the questions I'd like to pose are these:
Discuss the novel’s portrayals of motherhood. How do Eleanora (Lucrezia's mother), Sofia (Lucrezia's nurse), and Emilia’s mother (a cook and wet nurse) provide varied forms of sustenance to Lucrezia at key points in her life? Ultimately, who makes up her true family?
What do you think? I can't wait to hear your thoughts!
And don't forget we will have an in-person Zoom discussion at 7:00 pm Eastern this evening. You can send me an email (the email address is in the upper right) to RSVP and I will make sure you get an invitation with the Zoom link if you haven't already.
More great questions! You all have me thinking this morning! Thank you! :)
ReplyDeleteOkay, well... if you approach this from Lucrezia's point of view - her mother was Eleanora. Period. A mother who ran a household efficiently. But she was removed from the "mothering process" - especially for a difficult baby that we learn Lucrezia was.
If you ask the women... I think that Emilia's mother and Sofia truly loved Lucrezia - with a mother's love. Unconditional. Sacrificing. Protecting.
And, sadly I think, Eleanora only saw what her children could bring to her family... what advantageous marriages might they make, where could they be placed to increase the families status. Children as commodities don't really foster the image of a loving family.
I agree completely, but don't know if Eleanora's type of mothering was a product of the time she lived in, her personality, the fact that Lucrezia was "difficult", or some combination of all of them. This is some of the problem I personally run into with historical fiction; I don't know whether it's fair to judge the women in 16th century Florence by our standards today.
DeleteI really think that Lucrezia thought of Sofia as her "mother." Not that Lucrezia ever expressed that in actually words/thoughts . . . but she missed Sofia and wished for her presence so often once she was married and away from her home/the nursery. Eleanora . . . didn't really understand Lucrezia's situation at all, as she only seemed to see things from her own perspective. My goodness, it was all so . . . contextual. These people were raised to "be" in some extremely rigid roles -- not what we think of as "mothering" in our current use of the word!
ReplyDeleteI feel like I could reply in the same way as I responded to Kat above! We can certainly discuss the characters as O'Farrell has written them, but it's very difficult for me to apply today's "standards of mothering" to anyone in 16th century Italy. Eleanora was probably a fine mother then even if she wasn't as warm and fuzzy as we might like. She certainly knew that it was to her daughters' advantages to try and arrange good marriages. (Too bad Alfonso could have been a murderer!)
DeleteIt was interesting to me that once Lucrezia got married her family was no longer her family. And the ease in which her husband could eliminate his sister from the family. 'Birth' family seemed pretty fluid, while the people who cared for her were in for the long haul.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right; once a daughter was married off she was gone and supposed to be managing her own castle and doing the important business of producing heirs. Lucrezia was lucky to have such devoted "other mothers' in the form of Sofia, Emila, and Emila's mother.
DeleteSo much to think about here. And imagining myself in her place...how would I feel? Abandoned!! Her biological mother was only a mother to her in that sense...biological...no other way. Lucrezia received nurturing from both Sofia and Emilia's mother. But that also makes me think that Emilia's mother was, in a way like Eleanora - only thinking of what her daughter could do for her position....
ReplyDeleteWe all seem to have arrived at the same conclusion - Eleanora was clearly her biologic mother, but Lucrezia received much more nurturing from many others. I don't know if this was what the 16th century demanded from mothers, but I keep thinking about Hamnet. I don't remember if you read it or not, and it didn't take place in Florence, but Hamnet's mother was portrayed as much more nurturing than Eleanora.
DeleteI think while she would be quick to say that Eleanora was her mother, the other two women certainly played a bigger part in raising her than her actual biological mother. This will be an interesting thing to discuss tonight!
ReplyDeleteGiven that Lucrezia was raised and expected to make a good strategic marriage and produce heirs, Eleanora probably did act as a sufficient mother figure. But I certainly agree that Sofia, Emila's mother, and even Emilia had a larger role in raising Lucrezia. I am looking forward to tonight!
DeleteI think Eleanora was just that, her birth mother. Sofia was much more of a mother to her and Emilia's mother also though I think she thought of Sofia so much more.
ReplyDeleteI agree; Sofia, Emilia, and Emilia's mother acted much more like nurturing family members than Eleanora. I still can't judge if this was the norm of the day; maybe Eleanora was too busy running her own household and managing the rest of her children, especially after they had arranged the marriage for Lucrezia.
DeleteThe question you pose is interesting. I am still thinking about it after our discussion. I wonder if Lucrezia wanted more from the relationship with her mother. I keep thinking about the scene in the carriage. I had returned the library book but found my note this morning. The author described the relationship between the two as "the complex gnarled thread between Lucrezia and her mother." The women other than Eleanora were certainly more nurturing toward L.
ReplyDelete