Dante Alighieri (37 page)

    
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 Magi
¹⁰
; 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

    
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 follows
²⁶
:—

    
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 terms 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].