The Italian Renaissance was a cultural movement that revived an interest in learning and promoted humanism roughly from the 14th to 17th century, strongly encouraging the education for all men, including women. Yet while it is generally accepted that women had wider access to education as humanists valued the education of all people, the majority of women who received an education in the Italian Renaissance were still largely of nobility; the primary goals of which were still related to domestic purposes and did not, in any way, attempt to change their social position. Since the Middle Ages, a typical father did not desire a learned daughter as it threatened the order of the household, engendering lax housekeeping and marital discord. The Italian humanist Lucrezia Marinelli further explained this with the theory that male hostility to female learning was because they feared to lose their dominion over women. The popular belief about the life of a Renaissance woman was that her role was one of “subjugation; she should have no control over her life.” With pedagogical theorists believing that a woman should acquire learning appropriate to her expected role as an adult, there was a new granting of permission of women to be educated. In 16th century Italy, approximately 33% of Venetian boys aged six through fifteen and I2 to 13% of Venetian girls were literate in 1587-88. While the percentage for literate women may appear disappointing, comparative figures suggest slightly lower literacy for regions of Europe lacking Italy's wealth and urban concentration. Yet despite this new privilege, only a small majority benefitted from this act, because of reasons related to household obligations as well as to the opposition from society. Peasant women had to work at home, in the fields, or as domestics while upper-strata women were excluded from the areas of goods production. This is further reinforced by Theodore Agrippa Daubigny, a historian who opposed the education of middle class women as he believed that educating them would cause them to think themselves above “housekeeping, poverty, and a less intelligent husband.” Those who were more fortunate amongst the lower class could learn “elementary vernacular reading and writing, with religious instruction, at catechetical schools that met for about two hours on Sundays and religious holidays.” . These schools were single- sex, with male teachers teaching boys and women teaching girls, the latter teaching in their own respective areas. Furthermore, “with previous studies on literacy and schooling in seventeenth and eighteenth century Europe which analyze the social factors of literacy and school attendance with the use of bibliographical surveys and overviews, the conclusions applicable also to the Renaissance is that greater or lesser literacy and schooling closely followed the hierarchies of wealth, occupation, and social status. Sons of wealthy families were much more likely to attend school than the sons of the poor. Sons and daughters of nobles, wealthy merchants, and professionals, such as lawyers, physicians, notaries, high civil servants, university professors, and teachers, were much more likely to attend school than sons of craftsmen, artisans, small shopkeepers, woolworkers, laborers, and servants. Literacy and schooling were thus higher in urban than in rural areas.” Thus, it is reasonable to deduce that those who fully enjoyed the fruits of education were women of nobility. In Catholic lands some upper-class girls had the alternative of studying as long-term boarders in female monasteries. These girls later either left the monastery to be married or continued their education. Girls whose parents were unable to afford monastic boarding might learn from a family member or a tutor.
As for the education entailed into noble women’s education, in fuller detail, it was stated by H.J. Mozan (1851-1921), a historian, to have been of “equal scholastic freedom with their male counterparts.” With a classical education, there was a new focus on “education, poetry, history, the nature of man, and natural phenomena”. Education in the social graces; charm, chastity, modesty, reserve and composure were also highly stressed. Italian Renaissance Latin schools universally taught Virgil for poetry and Cicero's Epistolaead familiars for rhetoric. The majority also taught Terence and Horace for history. Other classical texts now and then appeared in the schools. A popular example of a woman who flourished under these conditions was Isabells d’Este. She mastered Greek and Latin and memorized the works of the ancient scholars, demonstrating also her skills in singing, dancing, and playing musical instruments. Married to the duke of Mantua, Isabella greatly influenced the court and supported the arts, making it known as a center of wit, elegance and artistic genius. In Venice, as well as Verona, learned women took part in the friendly disputations of social gatherings and distinguished themselves in philosophical discussions.
Controversially, others argue that the education of women was limited only to grammar, and sought to place its first emphasis on the role of students as audience. The utility of their intellectual training remained limited even within a domestic sphere: women were encouraged to teach only the members of their own households who were still uninstructed and unformed. A woman teacher was not generally recommended for advanced female students, in spite of the danger presented to a girl's chastity by male tutor. The education treatises for women included no discussion of an intended audience for their words beyond the domestic or conversational sphere. The discussions women had with society were of polite conversation, not rhetorical arguments that addressed a particular audience. “Women shared a great deal with the men of their own class, and identified with the aims and aspirations of their fathers and husbands, but could not themselves achieve the same aims.” “Women’s speech was thus assigned only to the context of courtesy being pleasing, knowing one's place in the social order, leaving unexplored the possibility that they might participate even informally in the reform of life, letters, and society.” They further support this statement by explanation that the reasons women humanists had difficulty holding a learned audience was due to the fact that some of their audience did not know how to respond socially or professionally. Thus, even when speaking publicly “women had severely limited opportunities for persuasion; they most typically gave orations of praise, with very few women who were not rulers essaying political or legal oratory-and then only on behalf of family.” There is a general assumption that literacy and schooling also grew during the Renaissance largely as a result of the invention of printing. Scholars like to believe that cheaper books stimulated a desire for literacy and schooling. This invention also led to women being able to “win recognition by publishing vernacular works.” However, it is more widely accepted that the general increase in access to education was due to the humanist’s influence. Yet while the humanists granted wider access to education for women, many debate the deeper motives. First and foremost, one of humanism’s core ideas was equality, where everyone was entitled to the same rights and opportunities. A new sense of open-mindedness emerged with the education of young women, a letter from the Humanist Erasmus to Thomas More supporting the point stated above:
“Yet there is nothing that more occupies the attention of a young girl than study… Nor do I see why husbands should fear that their wives would be less obedient if they are learned, unless they are such as would require of their wives what should not be required of proper women. In short, in my judgment, nothing is more intractable than ignorance. Surely the mind must be trained in the cultivation of studies so that it may understand right reason and see what is proper and what is advantageous.” Nonetheless, with these opportunities granted to women, William Woodward (1874-1950), another historian, still believed that the humanist, while educating girls, was not attempting to change the status of women. When Italian humanist theorists of education wrote about the purposes of education for women, they never went beyond the traditional roles of wife and mother. Learning was simply to “add erudition to those roles, to equip a noblewoman, to enhance her practice of charity and religion”, and to make her a better accompaniment and companion to her husband. Some also argue that since women's primary task was to be the first “instructors of children”, education was necessary to enable them better to fill their crucial but limited role. Thus while the humanist might offer the girls the same educational matter as boys, their primary duties were still “home, social life, the rearing of children, the practice of charity and religious obligations.”
In conclusion, it is credible to say that only a certain group of Italian women, who were nobles, experienced a full Renaissance. Despite the greater contact those of the middle and lower classes had in catechetical schools, they were largely confined to their every day duties that in turn only enabled the wives or daughters of wealthy scholars or aristocrats to education opportunities. Yet while the latter enjoyed the fruits of knowledge, the humanists did not attempt to change their social statuses and they remained tied to their duties of devotion to their household. Societies did not appear to know how to react to the new influx of educated women and the utilization of what classical knowledge they had received could not occur as it could only be applied to the domestic sphere. Thus, even in the period of rebirth and emphasis on secular interests, it was clear to see that an Italian woman was brought up, with or without education, in hope of cultivating the proper lady.

Notes