372 Cf. Manicardi e Massera, op. cit., p. 37.
373 Supra, p. 136, n. 1.
374 In xl. he writes, “Quella splendida fiamma”; in xli., “Quindi nel petto entrommi una fiammetta”; in xlvi., “Se quella fiamma”; in lxiii., “Amorosa fiamma”; in lxxxiii., “Accese fiamme attingo a mille a mille.”
375 Sonnets xxxi., xxxii., liii. refer without doubt to Fiammetta, but are indeterminate in time.
376 See supra, p. 38.
377 See supra, p. 55.
378
“Dunque piangete, e la nemica vista
Di voi spingete col pianger più forte,
Sì ch’ altro amor non possa più tradirvi.”
Sonnet xliii.
“Che dopo ‘l mio lungo servire invano
Mi preponesti tal ch’ assai men vale:
Caggia dal ciel saetta, che t’ uccida.”
Sonnet lv.
“... Veggendomi per altri esser lasciato;
E morir non vorrei, che trapassato
Più non vedrei il bel viso amoroso,
Per cui piango, invidioso
Di chi l’ ha fatto suo e me ne spoglia.”
Ballata i.
379 See supra, p. 56.
380 Note the “occhi falsi” in sonnet xiv.
381 But see sonnet lviii.
382 Sonnet lxvii.
383 Sonnet lx. Cf. Dante, Paradiso, iv. 28-39.
384 Cf. supra, p. 16.
385 Cf. Crescini, op. cit., p. 167, note 3.
386 Cf. sonnets xxi., li., lxxvii., lxxxiii., and cf. Manicardi e Massera, op. cit., p. 50.
387 See supra, p. 128.
388 See Crescini, op. cit., p. 258. He quotes the following from Libro Primo del Monte, Quartiere S. Spirito, cap. 162: “Anno mcccxlviij [=1349 n.s.] Ind ja die nono mensis Maij positum est dictum creditum ad aliam rationem dicti Boccaccij sive Boccaccini in presenti quarterio ad car 110, ad instantiam eiusdem Bocchaccij per me dinum Ml Attaviani notarium.”
389 Cf. Crescini, op. cit., p. 258. He quotes the following from the Libro Primo above, cap. 110b: “Mcccxlviiij, Ind iija die xxv Ianuarij, de licencia domini Iohannis filij et heredis, ut dixit, dicti Boccaccij hereditario nomine concessa dicto per me Bartalum maççatelli notarium positum est dictum creditum in libro quarterij Se Crucis et carta 50.”
390 The document is quoted by Manni, op. cit., p. 21. It is as follows: “Mcccxlviiij 26 Ianuarii D. Ioannes q. Boccacci pop. S. Felicitatis tutor Iacobi pupilli eius fratris, et filii quondam, et heredis D. Bicis olim matris suæ, et uxoris q. dicti Boccaccii, et filiæ q. Ubaldini Nepi de Bosticcis.”
Sanesi, in Rassegna Bib. della Lett. It. (Pisa, 1893), Vol. I, No. 4, p. 120 et seq., publishes a document dated May 17, 1351, in which certain “actores, factores et certos numptios speciales” are appointed to act with Giovanni as guardians of Jacopo, viz. Ser Domenico di Jacopo and Ser Francesco di Vanello notari fiorentini. This leads Sanesi to suggest that Boccaccio was a failure as a guardian. The document, however, by no means deposes him and on the same day he inscribed himself in the Matricoli dell’ Arte dei Giudici et Notari. The document speaks of “Iacobi ... pupilli majoris tamen infante,” which leads Sanesi to think that Jacopo was out of his infancy. Crescini in Rassegna Bib., cit., An. I, Nos. 8-9, pp. 243-5, disputes Sanesi’s conclusions as to the incapacity of Giovanni and the age of Jacopo. I agree with Crescini.
391 This was about the average loss throughout Europe.
392 Siena never really recovered, nor did Pisa.
393 Cf. Tanfani, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, studi storici (Firenze, 1863), p. 82.
394 Supra, p. 120, n. 1.
395 Mehus, Ambrosii Traversarii Vita (Firenze, 1759).
396 It has been said by Hortis that the “olim” is unlikely to have referred to so recent an embassy, one which, in fact, was only in being two months before. I do not see the force of this. The “olim” is used in our sense of late, “the late ambassador.” In November, as we shall see, Boccaccio was back in Florence. In the sense of “late” we find the “olim” used in the document already quoted in which Giovanni is appointed guardian of his brother Jacopo (supra, cap. x. n. 4): “... et heredis D. Bicis olim matris suæ,” i.e. “and heir of Donna Bice, his late mother.”
397 Baldelli, op. cit., p. 377. Baldelli seems here to have confused himself — at any rate he expresses himself badly. It is difficult to see clearly what he means. He is wrong too when he gives the commission from the Or San Michele as being of the month of December; Landau follows him in this. The commission was of the month of September. See supra, p. 120, n. 1.
398 See supra, p. 119, n. 1.
399 Ciampi, Monumenti di un Manoscritto autografo di Messer G. B. (Firenze, 1827), goes further than Baldelli and is in evident error. He connects this embassy of 1350 with the descent of King Louis of Hungary. This is impossible. That Boccaccio did meet King Louis in Forlì, and that he accompanied him with “suo signore” Francesco degli Ordelaffi into Campania is certain, as we have seen (supra, p. 124); but that was in 1347, not in 1350, and when he was a visitor at Forlì, not when he was Florentine ambassador there. How could he call Ordelaffo “suo signore” when he was the servant of Florence? And how could he follow Ordelaffo and the King, when he was ambassador, without the permission of Florence? Moreover, according to Ciampi, all this occurred, not in 1347, but in 1350. Now in May, 1350, King Louis was in Aversa, and from February, 1350, Ordelaffo was fighting the Papal arms in Romagna, which had been turned against him on account of the rebellion of the Manfredi of Faenza, which he was supposed to have instigated. We see him victor in fight after fight; he took Bertinoro in May, Castracaro in July, Meldola in August, and the war continued throughout 1351 and longer. In 1350 then neither did the King descend into Italy nor did Ordelaffo accompany him. These things happened in 1347. Besides, in February, 1350, Boccaccio was in accord with Niccolò Acciaiuoli and, as we have seen, assisted as witness at the donation of Prato. Cf. Tanfani, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, pp. 79-82.
400 Of course, Boccaccio was in Ravenna in September, 1350, and probably saw Bernardino there, for he must have known him very well.
401 See the letter to the Pope of September 10, 1349, given in Arch. Stor. Ital., Series I, Appendix, Vol. VI, p. 369.
402 See the letters of February 17, February 23, February 28, 1350, in Arch., cit., u.s., pp. 373-4.
403 “The luxury, vice, and iniquity of Avignon during the Papal residence became proverbial throughout Europe; and the corruption of the Church was most clearly visible in the immediate neighbourhood of its princely head. Luxury and vice, however, are costly, and during the Pope’s absence from Italy the Papal States were in confusion and yielded scanty revenues. Money had to be raised from ecclesiastical property throughout Europe, and the Popes in Avignon carried extortion and oppression of the Church to an extent it had never reached before.” (Creighton, History of the Papacy, Vol. I, p. 51.)
404 Letter of November, 1350, in Arch., cit., u.s., p. 378.
405 Arch. Stor. It., u.s., p. 376.
406 It seems certain that they had been in correspondence for some years, perhaps for more than fifteen. In the letter to Boccaccio of January 7, 1351, Petrarch speaks of a poem that Boccaccio had long since sent him (? 1349) (Famil., XI, 1); while in the letter to Franceschino da Brossano, written after Petrarch’s death in 1374, Boccaccio says “I was his for forty years or more” (Corazzini, op. cit., p. 382). This would seem to mean he had loved his work for so long, and brings us to 1341-4. It still seems to me just doubtful whether this meeting in Florence in 1350 was their first encounter. As I have said, Petrarch came to Florence in October; by November 2 he was in Rome, whence he wrote Boccaccio on that date an account of his journey. Now as we shall presently see, in a letter written much later (Epist. Fam., XXI, 15), he distinctly says that he first met Boccaccio, who had come to meet him when he was hurrying across Central Italy in midwinter. No one, least of all an Italian and a somewhat scrupulous scholar, would call October 15 midwinter. Perhap
s then it will be said that he met him on his return from Rome in December. But already in November he is writing to Boccaccio — we have the letter — in the most familiar and affectionate terms. Can it be that they met after all (see supra, pp. 60 and 111) in 1341 or perhaps in 1343? The problem seems insoluble on our present information.
407 Cf. Hortis, op. cit., pp. 509-10.
408 I have already shown (supra, p. 153, n. 2) that it is possible to doubt whether the meeting in Florence was their first meeting. It is, however, generally accepted as the first by modern scholars. Cf. Landau and Antona Traversi.
409 Cf. Epistol. Famil., Lib. XXI, 15.
410 See Æneid, VIII, 162 et seq.
411 Horace, Epistolæ, Lib. I, 14.
412 Epistol. Famil., Lib. XI, 1.
413 Cf. M. Villani, in R. I. S., XIV, 18.
414 The chair was to be in any faculty Petrarch chose. D. Rosetti insists that it was offered at Boccaccio’s suggestion (Petrarca, Giulio Celso e Boccaccio (Trieste, 1823), p. 351), and asserts that the short biography of Petrarch which he attributes to Boccaccio was composed to persuade the Government of Florence to repair Petrarch’s wrongs. Tiraboschi (op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 253-4), with tears in his voice, cannot decide whether the affair did more honour to Petrarch or to Florence. So far as Florence is concerned, I see no honour in the affair at all. She was asking Petrarch to do her an inestimable service by bolstering up her third-rate university. In order to get him to do this, she was willing to pay back what she had stolen and (a poor gift when she was begging for foreigners as citizens) to repeal the edict of banishment against him. Petrarch treated the whole impudent attempt to get round him in the right way. And Florence, when she found nothing was to be got out of him, repealed the repeal. But surely we know the Florentines!
415 Corazzini, op. cit., p. 391 and Hortis, Boccaccio Ambasciatore in Avignone (Trieste, 1875)
416 Epist. Famil., II, xii.
417 Cf. Corazzini, op. cit., p. 47.
418 Corazzini, op. cit., p. 47. Letter of July, 1353. Petrarch in May-June, 1353, had accepted the patronage of Giovanni Visconti.
419 Cf. Crescini, op. cit., p. 258. I quote the document. Camarlinghi del Comune Quad. 75 and 76 Gennaio-Febbraio 1350-1. “In dei nomine amen. Hic est liber sive quaternus In se continens solutiones factas tempore Religiosorum virorum fratris Benedicti caccini et fratris Iacopi Iohannis de ordine fratrum sancti marci de flor. Et discretorum virorum domini Iohannis Bocchaccij de Certaldo pro quarterio Si Spiritus et Pauli Neri de bordonibus pro quarterio Se Marie novelle laicorum, civium florentinorum, camerariorum camere comunis florentie pro duobus mensibus initiatis die primo mensis Ianuarij Millesimo trecentesimo quinquagesimo [1351, n.s.] Ind iiij,” etc. etc.
420 In May, as we have seen, he was inscribed in the Arte dei Giudici e Notai. Cf. supra, p. 145, n. 4.
421 Cf. Hortis, Boccaccio Ambasciatore, cit., p. 8, n. 4, and Docs. 2, 3, 4, 5.
422 Cf. Hortis, op. cit., p. 9. n. 1. Baldelli, op. cit., pp. 112-13, and Witte are wrong in supposing Ludwig to be Ludovico il Romano, as Hortis shows.
423 Florence broke off communications after consulting Siena and Perugia. Cf. Arch. Stor. Ital., Ser. I. App. VII, p. 389.
424 Cf. Arch. Stor. Ital., u.s., p. 389.
425 Cf. Matteo Villani, Lib. IV. In July (see letter quoted supra) we know Boccaccio to have been in Ravenna. He says to Petrarch, “Pridie quidem IIII ydus julii forte Ravennam urbem petebam, visitaturus civitatis Principem et ut ferebat iter Livii forum intravi....” He arrived, then, on July 12, and it was a friend he met in Forlì (Livii) who told him that Petrarch had entered the service of the Visconti. He reproaches him, as we have seen. Nelli, whom he here calls Simonides, was also in Ravenna. He upbraids Petrarch, as we have seen, in allegory, asking how Sylvanus (Petrarch) can desert and betray the nymph Amaryllis (Italy) and go over to the oppressor Egon (Visconti), the false priest of Pan (the Pope), a monster of crime. Cf. Corazzini, op. cit., p. 47.
426 See docs. cited in Arch. Stor. Ital., u.s., pp. 392-4.
427 Baldelli, Hortis, Landau, and Koerting are all in agreement that this mission took place in April, 1354, not April, 1353. The instructions of the Republic, which I quote infra, were published by Canestrini in Arch. St. It., u.s., p. 393, but under the erroneous date of April 30, 1353. In April, 1353, Charles was not about to set out.
The letter of instruction is as follows: —
“Nota agendorum in Romana Curia cum domino Summo Pontifice, pro parte suorum et Ecclesie devotorum, Priorum artium et Vexillifero Iustitie Populi et Comunis Florentie, et ipsius Comunis per providum virum dominum Iohannem Bocchaccii de Certaldo, ambaxiatorum Comunis predicti.
“Primo quidem, idem orator eosdem Priores et Vexilliferum et Comune, ea qua videntur, prelatione debita et devota, Sanctitati Apostolice humiliter commendabit.
“Secundo, narrabit Sanctitati Sue quod Illustris Romanorum et Boemie Rex, per suas licteras, et nuncios Comuni Florentino et eius Regiminibus, advenctum suum ad partes Italicas fiendum in proximo nuntiavit: que annuntiatio miranda venit auditui predictorum, pro eo quod, nunquid descendat de Summi Pontificis conscientia vel non, in Comuni Florentie non est clarum. Quod Comune, devotum Sancte Romane Ecclesie intendens, ut consuevit, hactenus a Sancta Matre Ecclesia, in nichilo deviare, certiorari cupit die Apostolica conscientia ut in agendis procedat cauctius, et suis possit, favore apostolico, negotiis providere. Cuius Summi Pontificis si responsum fuerit, se et Ecclesiam Romanam de eiusdem Imperatori descensu esse contentos, tunc subiungat supplicando, quod Populum et Comune Florentie dignetur recommendatos habere tamquam devotos Ecclesie et Apostolice Sanctitatis, ut in devotione solita possint idem Comune et populus erga Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam libere conservari.
“Si vero idem dominus Summus Pontifex eiusdem discensus diceret se conscium non esse, et vellet de intentione Comunis Florentie ab eodem oratore perquirere; dicat se non habere mandatum, nisi sciscitandi Summi Pontificis voluntatem.
“Et qualequale precisum et finale responsum ad promissa datum fuerit per Apostolicam Sanctitatem, idem ambaxiator festinis gressibus revertatur.
“Insuper, exposita eidem Sanctitati devotione qua floruerunt hactenus nobiles de Malatestis de Arimino ... Ceterum, dominum Clarum de Peruzziis, episcopum Feretranum et Sancti Leonis....
“Particulam quoque, que advenctus Romani Regis in Ytaliam agit seperius mentionem, nulli pandat orator affatus, nisi quatenus iusserit deliberatio Apostolice Sanctitatis.”
The entry in the Libri d’ uscita della Camera dei Camerlinghi del Comune — Quaderno del Marzo-Aprile, 1354, under date April 29, is given by Crescini as follows: —
“Domino Iohanni del Boccaccio
Bernardo Cambi.
honorabilibus popularibus civibus Florentinis ambaxiatoribus electis ad eundum pro dicto Comuni ad dominum summum pontificem, cum ambaxiata eisdem per dominos priores et vexilliferum Imponenda, pro eorum et cujusque ipsorum salario quadragintaquinque dierum Initiandorum ea die qua iter arripient de civitate Florentie ad eundum pro dicto Comuni in ambaxiatam predictam, ad rationem: librarum quatuor et solidorum decem flor. parv., cum tribus equis pro dicto domino Iohanne; et solidorum viginti flor. parv. cum uno equo pro dicto Bernardo, per diem quamlibet, vigore electionis de eis facte per dictos dominos priores et vexilliferum Iustitie cum deliberatione et consensu officij Gonfaloneriorum sotietatis populi, et duodecim bonorum virorum dicti Comunis; ac etiam vigore provisionis et stantiamenti facti per dictos dominos priores et vexilliferum Iustitie una cum offo duodecim bonorum virorum dicti Comunis, publicati et scripti per ser Puccinum ser Lapi notarium, scribam officij dictorum priorum et vexilliferi et vigore apodixe transmisse per dictos dominos priores et vexilliferum per dictum ser Puccinum notarium, in summam inter ambos ... libro ducentasquadraginta septem, solidos decem fl. parv.”
428 See Manni, Istoria del Decamerone (Firenze, 1742), p. 144; Antona Traversi in Landau, Gio. Boccaccio sua vita ed opere (Napoli, 1882), p. 523; Koerting, Boccaccio’s Leben und Werke (Leipzig, 1880), pp
. 244 and 673-4; and cf. Salviati, Avvertimenti della Lingua sopra il Decamerone (Venezia, 1584), Lib. II, cap. 12.
429 I deal with the form of the Decameron later. See infra, p. 292.
430 The original MS. has disappeared. The oldest we now possess seems to have been written in 1368 by Francesco Mannelli. The later Hamilton MS., now in Berlin, is, however, the better of the two. Cf. H. Hauvette, Della parentela esistenta fra il MS. Berlinese del Dec. e il codice Mannelli in Giorn. St. d. Lett. It. (1895), XXXI, p. 162 et seq.
431 Foscolo, Discorso Storico sul testo del Decamerone ... premesso all’ edizione delle Cento Novelle fatta in Londra (Lugano, 1828), p. 9.
432 Cf. Decameron, Proem, where he speaks of his love for Fiammetta and the “discomfort,” and “suffering” it brought him, “not indeed by reason of the cruelty of the beloved lady, but through the superabundant ardour engendered in the soul by ill-bridled desire; the which, as it allowed me no reasonable period of quiescence, frequently occasioned me inordinate distress.”
433 We know that Boccaccio had three children, two sons and a daughter. We do not know by whom.
434 So that when he wrote the Proem (? 1353) he still loved her.
435 Conclusion to Day IV.
436 Day II, Nov. 10.
437 Closing words of Day II, Nov. 7.
438 Day II, Nov. 10.
439 Day II, Nov. 9.
440 That mere fact should enlighten us, for we may well believe such a subject of “jovial discourse” impossible to-day.
441 Cf. Prologue to the Fourth Day: “Know then, my discreet ladies, that some there are who reading these little stories have alleged that I am too fond of you, and that ’tis not a seemly thing that I should take so much pleasure in ministering to your gratification and solace; and some have found fault with me for praising you as I do.”
Collected Works of Giovanni Boccaccio Page 492
