38 See Moore, Studies in Dante, vol. iii. pp. 349, 357, 363.
39 See Colomb de Batines, Bibliografia Dantesca, vol. ii. p. 300.
40 See Appendix D. Some authorities, including Selmi, think that this commentary was written in Dante’s lifetime, before 1320; Rocca, however, shows (op. cit. pp. 109-10, 117), that it must have been written later than 1321, the date of Dante’s death, and before 1337.
41 See Appendix D.
42 See Rocca, op. cit., pp. 127-227.
43 See Rocca, op. cit. pp. 228-342.
44 See Appendix D.
45 See Rocca, op. cit. pp. 343-407.
46 See Paget Toynbee, Boccaccio’s Commentary on the Divina Commedia, in Modern Language Review, vol. ii. pp. 97-120.
47 See Batines, op. cit. vol. iii. p. 315.
48 See Paget Toynbee, Benvenuto da Imola and his Commentary on the Divina Commedia, in Dante Studies and Researches, pp. 216-37. M. Barbi has recently shown that the Latin commentary which passes under the name of Stefano Talice da Ricaldone is little more than a transcription of Benvenuto’s lectures at Bologna. See Bullettino della Società Dantesca Italiana, N.S. xv. pp. 213-36 (1908).
49 The reading of the date of the completion of the commentary in the colophon at the end of the Paradiso is uncertain; but at any rate the work was not completed before 1393, for in the comment on Paradiso, vi. 1-9, Buti gives a list of Emperors, which he concludes with these words: “lo centesimo tredecimo è ora Vinceslao re di Boemia . . . lo quale non è anco coronato, benchè corra 1393 dalla incarnazione”.
50 See Appendix D.
51 The MS. from which Fanfani, the editor, printed the commentary professes to have been written in 1343, but this date, which appears to have been added by a later hand, is obviously incorrect, for the author borrows freely from Boccaccio’s commentary, which was not begun till thirty years afterwards.
52 A copy of this commentary was presented in 1443 by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, to the University of Oxford, where it was seen in the public library a hundred years later by John Leland, the antiquary, during his tour through England in 1536-42. The commentary was accompanied by a prose translation of the Commedia in Latin (begun in January 1416 and completed in May of the same year). It was probably a MS. of this translation which was seen by Leland in the Cathedral library at Wells (founded and endowed by Bishop Bubwith) during the tour above-mentioned (see G. L. Hamilton’s notes on Serravalle in Annual Report of the Cambridge (U.S.A.) Dante Society, 1902 ; and Paget Toynbee, Dante in English Literature, vol. i. pp. xviii. 21-2, 29-30). Only three complete MSS. of Serravalle’s work are known ; one of these is in the Vatican, another in the British Museum, and a third in the Escorial (see A. Farinelli, Dante in Ispagna, p. 70 n).
53 See Appendix D.
54 In his comment on Inferno, xx. 126, he says he passed through the Straits of Gibraltar “quando redibam de regno Anglie ”.
55 See above, p. 93.
56 From 1403 to 1405.
57 See Appendix D. Zacheroni unfortunately did not print Guiniforto’s work in full, all the theological portions of the commentary being omitted.
58 See vol. i. pp. xiii, xvi, of the Milan edition (1888) of the commentary.
59 See the article by M. Barbi referred to above (p. 223 n. 7), and also Rocca, op. cit. p. 137.
60 See Appendix D. This edition, a copy of which was sold recently for £ 1000, was illustrated with plates from designs by Botticelli.
61 No less than fifteen times in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, viz. at Brescia in 1487, and at Venice in 1484, 1491 (two editions), 1493, 1497, 1507, 1512, 1516, 1520, 1529, 1536, 1564, 1578, 1596 (the commentary of Vellutello being printed with it in the last three editions).
62 See Appendix D.
63 At Venice, in the so-called “edizioni del naso” (from the big-nosed portrait of Dante), in 1564, 1578, 1596.
64 See Batines, op. cit. vol. ii. pp. 655-60.
65 See Appendix D. It appears from a remark of Gelli that his contemporary Pier Francesco Giambuilari (1495-1555), who published in 1544 a work De’l sito, forma, e misure dello inferno di Dante, also wrote a commentary on part of the Commedia. In his Lettura Terza, Lezione Prima, Gelli quotes Giambullari’s opinion, “secondo che scrive in uno comento ch’ egli faceva sopra questo poeta, non condotto da lui se non a pochi canti del Purgatorio, per esserci stato tolto con non piccola perdita de la morte ” (ed. Negroni, vol. i.p. 318). This commentary has not been preserved,
66 Vicenza, 1613; Padua, 1629; Venice, 1629.
67 Three editions have been printed at Venice (1739, 1751, 1772), one at Verona (1749), nine at Florence (1771, 1813, 1819, 1821, 1826, 1827, 1830, 1837, 1839), four at Bassano (1815, 1820, 1826, 1850), two at Leghorn (1817, 1818), one at Pisa (1819), one at Turin (1830), one at Palermo (1834), and one at Paris (1841).
68 Two more editions were printed at Rome (1815, 1820), one at Padua (1822), two at Florence (1830, 1838), one at Naples (1830), and one at Prato (1847).
69 These were issued respectively at Rome (1806, 1810), Jena (1807), and Naples (1839).
70 The indices are there described as “indici ricchissimi, che spiegano tutte le cose difficili, e tutte l’ Erudizioni di esso Poema, e tengono la vece d’ un’ intero Comento “.
71 Six editions were printed at Milan (1819, 1820, 1829, 1838, 1845, 1851), eight at Naples (1838, 1845, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1860, 1862, 1868), and one at Palermo (1856).
72 Three more were printed at Bologna (two in 1826, one in 1832-3), nine at Milan (1827, 1840, 1850, 1855, 1857, 1862, 1863, 1873, 1888), nine at Florence (1827, 1830, 1836, 1839, 1840-2, 1844, 1846, 1847, 1849), four at Naples (1830, 1837, 1839, 1849-50), one at Monza (1837), two at Colle (1841, 1844), one at Voghera (1841-2), two at Prato (1850, 1852), and three at Venice (two in 1852, one in 1856-7).
73 In this work Rossetti developed his extravagant theories as to the esoteric anti-papal significance of the Commedia, which he afterwards more fully expounded in his works Sullo Spirito Antipapale che produsse la Riforma (London, 1832), and Il Mistero dell’ Amor Platonico del Medio Evo (London, 1840).
74 At Milan, in 1854, 1856, 1865, 1869.
75 See Paget Toynbee, Chronological List of English Translations from Dante, in Annual Report of the Cambridge (U.S.A.) Dante Society, 1906.
76 See Paget Toynbee, Dante in English Literature, vol. ii. pp. 340 ff.
77 Issued as a supplement to his translation (1851-4).
78 Frequently reprinted.
79 Second editions, 1891 (Paradiso), 1892 (Purgatorio).
80 Second edition, 1899.
81 Second edition, 1902.
82 Second editions, 1897 (Purgatorio), 1906 (Inferno), 1909 (Paradiso).
83 See Chronological List of English Translations from Dante (loc. cit.).
84 Often reprinted,
85 Second edition, 1897; third edition, 1904.
CHAPTER III
Latin Works—The De Monarchia—The De Vulgari Eloquentia—The Letters—The Eclogues—The Quaestio de Aqua et Terra—Apocryphal Works.
IN addition to his Italian works Dante wrote several works in Latin.
De Monarchia.—The most important of these and the best known is the De Monarchia, a treatise on monarchy, which has been described as “the creed of Dante’s Ghibellinism”. Its subject is the relations between the Empire and the Papacy; it is a plea for the necessity of a universal temporal monarchy, coexistent with the spiritual sovereignty of the Pope. The work is divided into three books,1 in the first of which Dante treats of the necessity of monarchy; in the second he discusses the question how far the Roman people were justified in assuming the functions of monarchy, or the imperial power; in the third he inquires to what extent the function of the monarchy, i.e. the Empire, depends immediately upon God.
Both Villani and Boccaccio include the De Monarchia in their lists of Dante’s works. The former says briefly: “Dante also composed the Monarchia, in which he treated of the function of the Pope and of the Emp
erors”.2 Boccaccio, on the other hand, speaks of the book at some length, and relates how, soon after Dante’s death, it was publicly condemned to be burned by the Papal Legate in Lombardy, who would also have burned Dante’s bones if he had not been prevented:—
“This illustrious writer also, when the Emperor Henry VII came into Italy, composed a book in Latin prose, entitled Monarchia, which he divided into three books, corresponding to the three questions which he determines in it. In the first book he proves by logical argument that the existence of the Empire is necessary to the well-being of the world; and this is the first question. In the second book, drawing his arguments from history, he shows that Rome of right gained the imperial title; which is the second question. In the third book he proves by theological arguments that the authority of the Empire proceeds direct from God, and not through the medium of any vicar, as the clergy would seem to hold; and this is the third question.
“This book, a few years after the death of the author, was condemned by Messer Beltrando, Cardinal of Il Poggetto,3 and Papal Legate in Lombardy, during the pontificate of John XXII. And the occasion of this was because Lewis, Duke of Bavaria, elected by the German electors King of the Romans, coming to Rome for his coronation, contrary to the wishes of the aforesaid Pope John, when he was in Rome, made a Minor Friar, named Piero della Corvara, Pope, contrary to the ordinances of the Church, and made many cardinals and bishops; and had himself crowned in Rome by this Pope. And when afterwards questions arose in many cases as to his authority, he and his following, having discovered this book, began to make use of many of the arguments it contained, in defence of his authority and of themselves; for which cause the book, which up till then had hardly been known, became very famous. But later, when the said Lewis was gone back to Germany, and his followers, and especially the clerics, had declined and were scattered, the said Cardinal, there being none to oppose him, seized the aforesaid book, and publicly condemned it to the flames, as containing heretical matter. And he strove to deal with the bones of the author after the same fashion, to the eternal infamy and confusion of his memory; but in this he was opposed by a valiant and noble knight of Florence, Pino della Tosa by name, who happened to be then at Bologna, where this matter was under consideration; and with him was Messer Ostagio da Polenta, both of whom were regarded as influential persons by the aforesaid Cardinal.”4
Critics are by no means agreed as to the date when the De Monarchia was composed. Some hold that Dante wrote it before his exile from Florence, chiefly on the ground that it contains no reference to his exile, it being the only work of Dante, with the exception of the Vita Nuova (written in his youth), and the Quaestio de Aqua et Terra (written just before his death), in which he does not refer to his being an exile.5 Others maintain that it was written as late as 1317-18, or even later, on the ground that in many of the MSS. there is a passage which contains a direct mention of the Paradiso.6 Unless this is a later interpolation either by Dante himself, or by some copyist (which seems the more probable), it follows necessarily that the treatise must have been written after the Paradiso, and consequently towards the close of Dante’s life. On the whole, the most probable view is that it was written, as Boccaccio says it was, about the time when the Emperor Henry VII visited Italy, perhaps in 1311 or 1312.7
The arguments of the De Monarchia are admirably summarised in Bryce’s Holy Roman Empire 8:—
Book I.—Monarchy is first proved to be the true and rightful form of Government. Men’s objects are best attained during universal peace: this is possible only under a monarch (i. 1-7). And as he is the image of the divine unity, so man is through him made one, and brought most near to God (i. 8). There must, in every system of forces, be a primum mobile; to be perfect, every organization must have a centre, into which all is gathered, by which all is controlled (i. 9). Justice is best secured by a supreme arbiter of disputes, himself untempted by ambition, since his dominion is already bounded only by ocean (i. 10-11). Man is best and happiest when he is most free; to be free is to exist for one’s own sake. To this noblest end does the monarch and he alone guide us; other forms of government are perverted, and exist for the benefit of some class; he seeks the good of all alike, being to that very end appointed (i. 12-15). Abstract arguments are then confirmed from history. Since the world began there has been but one period of perfect peace, and but one of perfect monarchy, that, namely, which existed at our Lord’s birth, under the sceptre of Augustus (i. 16).
Book II.—Since then the heathen have raged, and the kings of the earth have stood up; they have set themselves against their Lord, and His anointed the Roman prince (ii. 1). The universal dominion, the need for which has been thus established, is then proved to belong to the Romans. Justice is the will of God, a will to exalt Rome shown through her whole history. Her virtues deserved honour: Virgil is quoted to prove those of Aeneas, who by descent and marriage was the heir of the three continents: of Asia through Assaracus and Creusa; of Africa by Electra (daughter of Atlas and mother of Dardanus) and by Dido; of Europe by Dardanus and Lavinia. God’s favour was approved in the fall of the shields to Numa, in the miraculous deliverance of the capitol from the Gauls, in the hailstorm after Cannae. Justice is also the advantage of the state: that advantage was the constant object of the virtuous Cincinnatus, and the other heroes of the republic. They conquered the world for its own good, and therefore justly, as Cicero attests; so that their sway was not so much the command as the protection of the whole earth (ii. 2-6). Nature herself, the fountain of all right, had, by their geographical position and by the gift of a genius so vigorous, marked them out for universal dominion:—
Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera,
Credo equidem: vivos ducent de marmore vultus;
Orabunt causas melius, coelique meatus
Describent radio, et surgentia sidera dicent:
Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento;
Hae tibi erunt artes; pacisque imponere morem,
Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos (ii. 7).9
Finally, the right of war asserted, Christ’s birth, and death under Pilate, ratified their government. For Christian doctrine requires that the procurator should have been a lawful judge, which he was not unless Tiberius was a lawful Emperor. Else Adam’s sin and that of his race was not duly punished in the person of the Saviour (ii. 8-13).
Book III.—The relations of the imperial and papal power are then examined, and the passages of Scripture (tradition being rejected), to which the advocates of the Papacy appeal, are elaborately explained away (iii. 1-3). The argument from the sun and moon does not hold, since both lights existed before man’s creation, and at a time when, as still sinless, he needed no controlling powers. Else accidentia would have preceded propria in creation. The moon, too, does not receive her being nor all her light from the sun, but so much only as makes her more effective. So there is no reason why the temporal should not be aided in a corresponding measure by the spiritual authority (iii. 4) This difficult text disposed of, others fall more easily; Levi and Judah, Samuel and Saul, the incense and gold offered by the Magi10; the two swords, the power of binding and loosing given to Peter (iii. 5-9). Constantine’s Donation was illegal: no single Emperor or Pope can disturb the everlasting foundations of their respective thrones: the one had no right to bestow, nor the other to receive, such a gift (iii. 10). In giving the imperial crown to Charles the Great, Leo the Third 11 exceeded his powers: usurpatio juris non facit jus (iii. 11). It is alleged that all things of one kind are reducible to one individual, and so all men to the Pope. But Emperor and Pope differ in kind, and so far as they are men, are reducible only to God, on whom the Empire immediately depends; for it existed before Peter’s see, and was recognized by Paul when he appealed to Cæsar. The temporal power of the Papacy can have been given neither by natural law, nor divine ordinance, nor universal consent: nay, it is against its own Form and Essence, the life of Christ, who said “My kingdom is not of this world ” (iii. 12-15
).
Man’s nature is twofold, corruptible and incorruptible: he has therefore two ends, active virtue on earth, and the enjoyment of the sight of God hereafter; the one to be attained by practice conformed to the precepts of philosophy, the other by the theological virtues. Hence two guides are needed, the Pontiff and the Emperor, the latter of whom, in order that he may direct mankind in accordance with the teachings of philosophy to temporal blessedness, must preserve universal peace in the world. Thus are the two powers equally ordained of God, and the Emperor, though supreme in all that pertains to the secular world, is in some things dependent on the Pontiff, since earthly happiness is subordinate to eternal. “Let Cæsar, therefore, show towards Peter the reverence wherewith a firstborn son honours his father, that, being illumined by the light of his paternal favour, he may the more excellently shine forth upon the whole world, to the rule of which he has been appointed by Him alone who is of all things, both spiritual and temporal, the King and Governor” 12 (iii. 16).
The De Monarchia was twice translated into Italian in the fifteenth century; viz. by an anonymous writer in 1461, and by Marsilio Ficino, the Florentine Platonist, in 1467.13 It was first printed in the original Latin at Basle in 1559 (in a collection of treatises on subjects connected with the Roman Empire),14 by a Protestant publisher, Joannes Oporinus (Johann Herbst), and was in all probability seen through the press by an Englishman, John Foxe, the martyrologist, who was employed as reader of the press in the printing-office of Oporinus, and who quotes the work in his Book of Martyrs.15 Curiously enough, Oporinus thought the treatise was not written by the author of the Divina Commedia, but by a fifteenth century writer of the same name.16
Eight manuscripts of the De Monarchia have been preserved, three of the fourteenth century, four of the fifteenth, and one of the sixteenth.17
De Vulgari Eloquentia :—Besides the De Monarchia Dante wrote in Latin prose a treatise on the vulgar tongue (De Vulgari Eloquentia), which is mentioned among his writings by both Villani and Boccaccio. The former says (in a passage which is omitted from some manuscripts):—“Dante also wrote a short work, entitled De Vulgari Eloquentia, which he intended to be in four books, but only two of these are in existence, perhaps owing to his premature death; in this work, in vigorous and elegant Latin, and with admirable arguments, he condemns all the vernacular dialects of Italy”.18
Dante Alighieri Page 24
