Boccaccio says:—
“Subsequently, not long before his death, Dante composed a little book in Latin prose, which he entitled De Vulgari Eloquentia, wherein he purposed to give instruction, to such as wished to learn, in the art of composing in rime; and though it appears from the work itself that he intended to devote four books to the subject, either because he was surprised by death before he had completed them, or because the others have been lost, only two books are now to be found.”19
The work consists of a dissertation on the Italian language as a literary tongue, in the course of which Dante passes in review the fourteen dialects of Italy. It also contains a consideration of the metre of the canzone, thus forming to a certain extent an “art of poetry”. Like the Convivio, the De Vulgari Eloquentia is incomplete. It was originally planned, as both Villani and Boccaccio observe, to consist of at least four books, as appears from the fact that Dante twice reserves points for consideration in the fourth book.20 In its unfinished state it consists of two books only; the first, which is introductory, is divided into nineteen chapters; the second, into fourteen, the last of which is incomplete, the work breaking off abruptly in the middle of the inquiry as to the structure of the stanza. The division into numbered chapters, as in the case of the Convivio, is due to Dante himself, as is evident from the fact that on one occasion he refers back to a previous chapter.21
The exact date of the composition of the De Vulgari Eloquentia is disputed. It was certainly written after Dante’s exile, references to which occur in both books of the treatise.22 It is probably an earlier work than the De Monarchia, and perhaps earlier than the Convivio; but there is a strong argument for placing it after the latter in a passage in that work in which Dante speaks of a book which, God willing, he intends to compose upon the vulgar tongue.23 On the other hand, John I, Marquis of Montferrat, who died in 1305, is spoken of as being still alive; as are Azzo VIII of Este, who died in 1308, and Charles II of Naples, who died in 1309.24 It appears probable, therefore, that the treatise was written between 1302 and 1305, and consequently before the Convivio.25
The contents of the De Vulgari Eloquentia are briefly as follows26:—
Book I.—Chap. 1. Introductory. Wherein the vulgar tongue, or vernacular, differs from a learned or literary language, such as Latin.—Chap. 2. That man alone, as distinguished from angels and animals, is endowed with speech.—Chap. 3. For what reasons man had need of speech.—Chap. 4. The origin of human speech. Adam the first speaker; his first utterance the name of God.—Chap. 5. Adam’s first utterance addressed to God, in the Garden of Eden.—Chap. 6. That the Hebrew tongue, the language of all mankind down to the building of the Tower of Babel, was the language spoken by Adam.—Chap. 7. Of the building of the Tower of Babel, and of the confusion of tongues. That the children of Shem, who took no part in the building of Babel, and from whom was descended the people of Israel, alone retained the use of the Hebrew tongue.—Chap. 8. Of the inhabitants and languages of Europe, and of their boundaries; viz. the Teutons, English, and others, in the North of Europe, who used the affirmation iò; the Greeks in the East of Europe and part of Asia; and the Spaniards, French, and Italians in the South, whose affirmations were respectively oc, oïl, and sì.—Chap. 9. Of the language of the South of Europe, which was originally one and the same, but eventually was split up into three, as indicated by the affirmations oc, oïl, and sì. Of the cause of variation in language. That no vernacular is invariable, whence the necessity for the invention of “grammar” (i.e. literary language with fixed rules).—Chap. 10. Of the respective claims to precedence of the languages of sì, oïl, and oc. Classification of the principal dialects of Italy, according as they belong to the west or east side of the Apennines. The number of dialects fourteen, but the varieties of idiom in Italy alone more than a thousand, if every variation be reckoned.—Chaps. 11-15. Examination of the several dialects of Italy, in the search for a language worthy to be called the Italian tongue.—Chap. 11. Rejection of the dialects of Rome, the March of Ancona, Spoleto, Milan, Bergamo, Aquileia, Istria, the Casentino, Prato, and Sardinia.—Chap. 12. Of Sicily as the birthplace of Italian poetry. Of the degeneracy of the princes of Italy as compared with Frederick II and his son Manfred. Rejection of the local Sicilian dialect (as distinguished from the language used by Sicilian poets), and of the Apulian dialect.—Chap. 13. Rejection of the Tuscan dialects (of Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Siena, and Arezzo); of the Umbrian (of Perugia, Orvieto, and Città di Castello); and of the Genoese. Of certain Tuscan poets (including Dante himself) who rose superior to their local dialect.—Chap. 14. Of the two types of dialect on the east side of the Apennines; viz. the soft dialect peculiar to Romagna, and especially to Forlì, and the harsh dialect characteristic of Brescia, Verona, Vicenza, Padua, and Treviso. All of these rejected, together with the Venetian dialect—Chap. 15. Examination of the dialect of Bologna, which, though superior to all other local dialects, is yet by no means worthy to be ranked as the language of Italy, as is evident from the fact that it was rejected by the most distinguished poets of Bologna, such as Guido Guinicelli, Onesto, and others. Rejection of the frontier dialects of Trent, Turin, and Alessandria.—Chap. 16. No single dialect having been found to conform to the required conditions, a standard must be sought for, which is declared to be the “illustrious, cardinal, courtly, and curial” vernacular, common to all the cities of Italy, and peculiar to none.—Chap. 17. Explanation of the term illustrious” as applied to the common language of Italy.—Chap. 18. Explanation of the terms “cardinal,” “courtly,” and “curial,” as applied to the same.—Chap. 19. This “illustrious, cardinal, courtly, and curial” language declared to belong to the whole of Italy, and to be the Italian vulgar tongue. The author’s intention (only fulfilled in part) to treat first of this “illustrious” language, and of those considered worthy to use it; and then to discuss in detail the lower forms of the vernacular language.
Book II.—Chap. 1. That the “illustrious” language is equally fitted for prose and verse. Consideration of its use in verse. Ought it to be used by every one who writes verse? No, but only by those who write with knowledge and genius, since the best language is suited only to the best thoughts.—Chap. 2. Of the subjects worthy to be treated of in the “illustrious” language. These decided to be Arms, Love, and Virtue. Of the poets, Provençal and Italian (including Dante himself), who have sung of these subjects.—Chap. 3. Of the different forms of vernacular poems: canzoni, ballate, and sonnets. The canzone the most excellent form, and consequently that in which the most excellent subjects (named above) should be treated of. Of the preëminence of the canzone.—Chap. 4. Of the form of the canzone. Definition of poetry. Of the choice of subject, and of the style in which it should be treated of, whether in the tragic, comic, or elegiac. Of the tragic style.—Chap. 5. Of the different lines permissible in the canzone. The line of eleven syllables the most stately on several grounds, and consequently to be preferred. Examples of this line from Provençal and Italian poets (including Dante himself).—Chap. 6. Of construction, that is, of the arrangement of words according to rule. Of the various kinds of construction. The most illustrious kind that which combines taste, elegance, and loftiness. Examples of the use of this kind by Provençal and Italian poets (including Dante). List of Latin writers, in verse and prose, who might have furnished other examples. Denunciation of those who cry up Guittone d’ Arezzo as a model, his style being plebeian both in vocabulary and construction.—Chap. 7. Of the different classes of words, viz. “childish,” “feminine,” “manly,” “sylvan,” “urban,” etc. Of those whose use is admissible in the canzone. Instances of these.—Chap. 8. Of the meanings of the term canzone. Definition of the canzone in the technical sense as used by the author. One of Dante’s own canzoni quoted as an example.—Chap.9. Of the stanza; and of the three essential points in the art of the canzone. Definition of the stanza.—Chap. 10. Of the structure of the stanza in relation to the musical setting. Explanation of the various term
s employed.—Chap. 11. Of the relation between the several parts of the stanza in regard to the number of lines and syllables. Three of Dante’s own canzoni quoted in illustration.—Chap. 12. Of the arrangement of different kinds of lines in the stanza. Canzoni of Provençal and Italian poets (including Dante) quoted in illustration. Rules as to the order of sequence of lines of different lengths in the “foot” and in the “verse” (in the technical sense of these terms as used by Dante).—Chap. 13. Of the unrimed stanza; and of the rimed stanza. Rules as to the arrangement of rimes in the “foot” and in the “verse”. Of three things to be avoided in the matter of rime. Two sestine of Dante’s quoted in illustration.—Chap. 14. Of the number of lines and syllables in the stanza; and of the length of the stanza in relation to the subject [in the midst of which the treatise comes abruptly to an end].
The De Vulgari Eloquentia made its first appearance in print in the Italian translation of Trissino, published (anonymously) at Vicenza in 1529. The original Latin text was first printed about fifty years later (in 1577) at Paris, by Jacopo Corbinelli, a Florentine, who came to France in the train of Catherine de Medicis. A second Italian translation was made at the beginning of the seventeenth century by Celso Cittadini of Siena (d. 1627), the manuscript of whose version, which has never been published, and which was first brought to light in 1824, is preserved in the Imperial Library at Schönbrunn.27 Before the publication of the Latin text by Corbinelli the genuineness of the treatise, as printed in Italian by Trissino, was by no means generally admitted. The Latin text has been many times reprinted. A critical edition, by Pio Rajna, was published at Florence, under the auspices of the Società Dantesca Italiana, in 1896; a revised text by the same editor was published in 1897.
Only three manuscripts of the De Vulgari Eloquentia are known to be in existence, two of which (preserved respectively at Grenoble and at Milan) belong to the fourteenth century or beginning of the fifteenth. The Grenoble manuscript (which has been reproduced in facsimile) formed the base of Corbinelli’s edition of the Latin text; while the Milanese (or Trivulzian) manuscript was the original from which Trissino made his Italian version.
Latin Letters.—Dante wrote several letters in Latin, mostly political, some of which have been already quoted.28Those commonly accepted as genuine are ten in number, viz.:—
Epist. i.29 To Niccolò Albertini da Prato, Cardinal of Ostia (written after July, 1304), thanking him on behalf of the Florentine Bianchi for his attempts to make peace in Florence, and bring about the return of the exiles, and begging him to persevere in his efforts, and, further, promising in obedience to his wishes to abstain from hostilities against the Neri.
This letter, together with five others (Epistolae ii, iii, v, vi, vii), is preserved in a MS. in the Vatican (Palatine 1729), which also contains the De Monarchia. This MS., which was taken from Heidelberg on the capture of the city by Tilly in 1622, was presented by Maximilian of Bavaria to Pope Gregory XV in that year. It belongs to the end of the fourteenth century, being dated 1394. The above letter, which was first printed by Torri in 1842,30 is not expressly assigned to Dante in the MS., but is commonly ascribed to him on internal evidence.
Epist. ii. To Guido and Oberto, Counts of Romena (written circ. 1304), condoling with them on the death of their uncle, Count Alessandro of Romena, chief of the Ghibellines of Arezzo.
This letter is preserved in the Vatican MS. (Palatine 1729) already mentioned (see above). It was first printed by Torri in 1842.31 It is assigned to Dante in the title supplied by the copyist, but is considered by some authorities to be not by Dante, but by another hand, though not necessarily a forgery.
Epist. iii. To the Marquis Moroello Malaspina (written circ. 1307), with a canzone (Canz. xi. “Amor, dacchè convien pur ch’ io mi doglia”), describing how the writer had been overcome by a tempestuous passion for a lady he had met in the valley of the Arno.
This letter, like the two previous ones, is preserved in the Vatican MS. mentioned above. It was first printed (with considerable emendations) by Witte in 1842.32 It is assigned to Dante in the MS., and is generally accepted as authentic.
Epist. iv. To a Pistojan exile, commonly supposed to be Cino da Pistoja (written circ. 1308), in reply to his inquiry whether the soul “can pass from passion to passion,” with a sonnet (perhaps Son. xxxvi. “Io sono stato con Amore insieme”).
This letter is preserved in a MS. (which belonged to Boccaccio) in the Laurentian Library at Florence (xxix. 8). It was first printed by Witte in 1827.33 The letter is headed in the MS. “Exulanti Pistoriensi Florentinus exul immeritus,” the two exiles being commonly identified with Cino da Pistoja and Dante. In this same MS. are preserved two other letters of Dante (Epistolae viii, ix), as well as the letter of Frate Ilario to Uguccione della Faggiuola.34
Epist. v. To the Princes and Peoples of Italy on the advent of the Emperor Henry VII into Italy (written in 1310), exhorting them to receive him as the Imperial successor of Caesar and Augustus, and the representative of justice and mercy.35
This letter, like the first three, is preserved in the Vatican MS. above mentioned. The Latin original, which was not discovered until 1838, was first printed by Torri in 1842.36 There exists an early Italian translation of it, attributed to Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499), which was first printed at Rome in 1754. In the title the writer is described as “humilis Italus Dantes Aligherius Florentinus et exul immeritus”.
Epist. vi. To the people of Florence (dated 31 March, 1311), expressing his indignation at their resistance to Henry VII, and fiercely denouncing them as rebels against the Empire,37
This letter, like the preceding, is preserved in the Vatican MS. It was first printed by Torri in 1842.38 In the title the writer is described as “Dantes Aligherius Florentinus et exul immeritus”. This is one of the three letters of Dante mentioned by Villani.39
Epist.vii. To the Emperor Henry VII (written on 16 April, 1311), urging him to come without delay, and crush the rebellious Florentines.40
This letter, like the two preceding ones, is preserved in the Vatican MS. The Latin original was first printed by Witte in 1827 41 from a MS. at Venice. There exists an early Italian translation, which was first printed by Doni in 1547 at Florence.42 In the title the writer is described as in the preceding letter. This is one of the three letters of Dante mentioned by Villani.43
Epist. viii. To the Italian Cardinals in conclave at Carpentras after the death of Clement V (written after 20 April, 1314), calling upon them to elect an Italian Pope, who should restore the Papal See to Rome.44
This letter is preserved in the Laurentian MS. (xxix. 8), mentioned above, which contains also Epistolae iv, ix. It was first printed by Witte in 1827.45 In the title the writer is described as “Dantes Aligherius de Florentia”. This letter, like the two preceding ones, is mentioned by Villani, who says:—
“This Dante, when he was in exile . . . wrote three noble letters, one of which he sent to the government of Florence, complaining of his undeserved exile; the second he sent to the Emperor Henry when he was besieging Brescia,46 reproaching him for his delay, after the manner of the prophets of old; and the third he sent to the Italian Cardinals, at the time of the vacancy of the Holy See after the death of Pope Clement, urging them to agree together in electing an Italian Pope. These letters were written in Latin, in a lofty style, fortified with admirable precepts and authorities, and were greatly commended by men of wisdom and discernment.”47
Epist. ix. To a Florentine friend (written in 1316), rejecting with scorn the offer of a return to Florence under certain degrading conditions.48
This letter, like the preceding, is preserved in the Laurentian MS. (xxix. 8), which formerly belonged to Boccaccio. It was first printed by Dionisi in 1790 at Verona.49
Epist. x. To Can Grande della Scala (written not later than 1318), dedicating the Paradiso to him, with remarks upon the interpretation of the poem, and on the subject, form, and title of the Divina Commedia.50 This letter, which is preserved, in whole
or in part, in six MSS., including one of the fourteenth century,51 formed the subject of the opening lecture on the Divina Commedia delivered in Florence by Filippo Villani in 1391, when he was appointed (next but one in succession to Boccaccio) to the readership on Dante, which had been established in 1373.52 It was first printed, in a very corrupt text, by G. Baruffaldi in 1700 at Venice.53 In the title the writer is described as “Dantes Aligherius Florentinus natione, non moribus”.
Besides the above ten letters,54 there are three short letters written in Latin, between 1310 and 1311, by the Countess of Battifolle to Margaret of Brabant, wife of the Emperor Henry VII, which were supposed by Witte to have been composed by Dante, but this attribution is not generally accepted.55 There is another letter, which exists only in Italian, purporting to have been written by Dante to Guido Novello da Polenta at Ravenna, from Venice, on 30 March, 1314; this, however, is an undoubted forgery, probably of the sixteenth century, when it was first printed.56 Other letters, which have been lost, are mentioned by several of Dante’s early biographers; and Dante himself in the Vita Nuova (§31, 11. 5-9) refers to a letter he composed beginning, “Quomodo sedet sola civitas”. Boccaccio says “he wrote many prose epistles in Latin, of which a number are still in existence”.57 Leonardo Bruni claims to have seen several letters in Dante’s own handwriting (of which he gives a description),58 among which he mentions one giving an account of the battle of Campaldino 59; and another referring to his priorate as the origin of all his misfortunes60; and others which he wrote after his exile to members of the government of Florence, as well as to the people,61 among the latter being a long one, beginning, “Popule mee, quid feci tibi ?”62 Filelfo quotes the beginnings of three Latin letters alleged to have been written by Dante (to the King of Hungary, to Pope Boniface, and to his own son at Bologna), and adds that Dante wrote many others, too numerous to mention.63 No trace of any of these letters has been found; and it is probable that his account of them was a mere fiction on the part of Filelfo, whose statements are by no means always to be believed, and who is known to have been guilty of literary frauds of various kinds.
Dante Alighieri Page 25
