Chapter III
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 Emperors”.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
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 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].
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.
Latin Eclogues.—Dante also wrote two Eclogues, in Latin hexameters, addressed to Giovanni del Virgilio, professor of poetry at the University of Bologna, who had urged Dante to write poetical compositions in Latin, and had invited him to come to Bologna to receive the poet’s laurel crown. These Eclogues were written during the last two years of Dante’s life, between 1319 and 1321.64 “Two eclogues of great beauty” are mentioned by Boccaccio among Dante’s works,65 and, though some critics reject them as spurious, there seems no sufficient reason for questioning their authenticity. They exist in five independent manuscripts, in one of which (the Laurentian MS. xxix. 8, which also contains three of Dante’s letters), written in the hand of Boccaccio, they are accompanied by a Latin commentary by an anonymous contemporary writer,66 supposed by some to be Boccaccio himself.67 The Eclogues were first printed at Florence, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, in a collection of Latin poems (in eleven volumes), Carmina Illustrium Poetarum Italorum (1719-1726); they were reprinted at Verona in 1788 by Dionisi in the fourth series of his Aneddoti, together with the Latin commentary, and have been many times reprinted since. Critical editions have been published by Wicksteed and Gardner (London, 1902),68and G. Albini (Florence, 1903).69
In the Latin Carmen 70 which opens his correspondence with Dante, Giovanni del Virgilio, after a complimentary reference to the Commedia, expresses his regret that Dante should confine himself to the composition of poems in the vernacular, instead of in Latin; to submit such themes as his to the judgment of the vulgar herd is like casting pearls before swine (ll. 1-21). Giovanni then suggests to Dante several subjects from contemporary history worthy of being treated in a Latin poem, for instance, the exploits and death of the Emperor Henry VII (24 August, 1313); the defeat of the Guelfs at Monte Catini by Uguccione della Faggiuola (29 August, 1315); the operations of Can Grande della Scala against Padua (1314-1318); or, finally, the siege of King Robert of Naples in Genoa, and his ultimate defeat of the Ghibellines (July 1318-February 1319) (ll. 26-30); such a poem would extend Dante’s fame throughout the four quarters of the globe, and Giovanni himself, if thought worthy, would present him for the laurel crown (ll. 30-38). Giovanni concludes by begging Dante to send him a reply.
Ecloga i. Dante in reply sends to Giovanni a Latin eclogue,71 in which he says that when the latter’s poem reached him he (Tityrus) was in company with a friend, Meliboeus (Dino Perini of Florence),72 who was eager to know what Mopsus (Giovanni) had to say (ll. 1-6); to which Tityrus replied that Mopsus discoursed of matters too high for his (Meliboeus’) comprehension (ll. 7-23); at length, however, yielding to Meliboeus’ entreaties Tityrus informs him that Mopsus has invited him to receive the laurel crown at Bologna (ll. 24-33). Meliboeus assumes that Tityrus will accept the invitation, but Tityrus gives reasons why he should decline, suggesting that it would be better for him to await his recall to Florence and receive the crown there (ll. 34-44). Meliboeus reminds him that time flies, but Tityrus assures him that when his poem dealing with the heavens and their inhabitants (the Paradiso) shall be finished, he will then be prepared to receive the crown, if Mopsus approve (ll. 45-51). Meliboeus thereupon recalls Mopsus’ objections against vernacular poetry, and asks Tityrus how he proposes to win him over (ll. 51-7). Tityrus replies that he will send to Mopsus ten vessels of milk from his favourite ewe (i.e. ten cantos of the Paradiso); meanwhile let Meliboeus concern himself with his own duties (ll. 58-66).
Ecloga Responsiva.73 Giovanni del Virgilio, adopting the pastoral style in imitation of Dante, sends back an eclogue in which he relates how, while he was in solitude at Bologna, the song of Tityrus (Dante) was borne to him by Eurus from Ravenna (ll. 1-21); and was echoed in Arcady, where the long-unheard strain was welcomed with delight by the inhabitants and by the very beasts. (ll. 22-5). Mopsus (Giovanni) then, asking himself why he too should not sing a pastoral strain instead of, as before, a city lay (his carmen), forthwith begins (ll. 26-32). Hailing Tityrus as a second Virgil, he bewails his hard fate as an exile, and expresses the hope that he may be granted his heart’s desire to return to his own city and there be crowned (ll. 33-46); meanwhile will he consent to visit Mopsus in his cave (Bologna), where he should receive every welcome from the friends of Mopsus and from all the dwellers in Arcady, and where he need fear no danger (ll. 47-76). But perhaps Tityrus would despise the abode of Mopsus; and, besides, lolas (Guido da Polenta) would hardly permit him to exchange his lordly roof for such humble entertainment as Mopsus could offer (ll. 77-83). Yet the invitation is dictated by admiration and love; and if Tityrus despise Mopsus, why then he will content himself with a draught of his Phrygian Muso (i.e. with the company of Albertino Mussato of Padua) (ll. 83-9)—but he must conclude, milking time is at hand, and his companions are returning with the setting sun (90-7).
Ecloga ii.74 In response to the eclogue of Giovanni del Virgilio, Dante writes a second poem in the same style,75 relating how, while he (Tityrus) and Alphesiboeus (Fiduccio de’ Milotti)76 were conversing together in the shade one spring day at noontide, suddenly Meliboeus (Dino Perini) appeared, hot and out of breath (ll. 1-30). Greeting him with laughter, Tityrus asks him why he comes in such hot haste (ll. 31-5). Meliboeus makes no reply, but blows on his flute, which gives forth the words of the poem sent by Mopsus (“Forte sub irriguos colles,” etc.) (ll. 36-43). When they have gathered its import, Alphesiboeus inquires of Tityrus if he intends to accept the invitation of Mopsus; to which Tityrus replies, “why not ? ” (ll. 44-8). Alphesiboeus then beseeches him not to leave his friends, and warns him of the danger he would incur if he went (ll. 49-62). Tityrus answers that for Mopsus’ sake he would willingly for a time exchange their pleasant pastures for the rugged abode of his friend, were it not for his dread of the violence of Polyphemus77 (ll. 63-75). Thereupon Alphesiboeus dilates on the cruelty of Polyphemus, and prays that Tityrus will never place himself in his power (ll. 76-87). Tityrus listens in silence, and smiles assent—and now evening has begun to fall (ll. 88-94). Meanwhile Iolas (Guido da Polenta) had been in hiding close by and had overheard the whole conversation (ll. 95-8).
Quaestio de Aqua et Terra.—The authenticity of the short physical treatise attributed to Dante, known as the Quaestio de Aqua et Terra, has been long disputed. Until quite recently it was held by the majority of professed Dantists to be an undoubted forgery. This work, which consists of twenty-four short sections, purports to be a scientific inquiry as to the relative levels of land and water on the surface of the globe; it claims, in fact, to be a report, written by Dante’s own hand, of a public disputation held by him at Verona on Sunday, 20 January, 1320, wherein he determined the question, which had previously been propounded in his presence at Mantua, in favour of the theory that the surface of the earth is everywhere higher than that of the water.
The treatise was first published at Venice in 1508, by one Moncetti, who professed to have printed it from a manuscript copy, with corrections of his own.78 Unfortunately he never produced the manuscript, of which nothing more has ever been heard. In spite, however, of the suspicious circumstances attending its publication, and of the fact that no such work is mentioned by any of Dante’s biographers or commentators, it is difficult to believe that it could have been written by any one but Dante. The internal evidence in favour of its authenticity is overwhelmingly strong; while there seems no adequate motive for a falsification of this kind at the beginning of of the sixteenth century, when the literary forger found a more promising field in the imitation of classical works. One of the latest writers on the subject, Dr. E. Moore, who has gone very carefully into the whole matter, unhesitatingly believes it to be a genuine work of Dante, “corrupted possibly in some of its details, but still in all essential points the production of the same mind and pen to which we owe the Divina Coinmedia, the De Monarchia, and the Convivio.” 79 A critical text of the Quaestio, edited by Dr. C. L. Shadwell, to whom the rehabilitation of the treatise is largely due, is printed in the third edition (1904) of the Oxford Dante. This text was reissued in a revised form, together with an English translation, in 1909.80
Analysis of the Quaestio de Aqua et Terra;—
The treatise opens with the author’s statement that while he was at Mantua a debate arose as to whether water “within its own natural circumference” is in any part higher than the land; he then states his reasons for attempting a solution of the question, and his resolve to commit his conclusions to writing (§§ 1-2). Five of the chief arguments of those who upheld the affirmative view are first set out (§§ 3-7); but the author holds this opinion to be contrary both to observation and to reason, and states his intention of proving first, that water cannot in any part of its circumference be higher than the land; and secondly, that the land is everywhere higher than the surface of the sea; he will then deal with the objections to these conclusions, after which he will show what is the final cause of this elevation of the land, and lastly he will refute the five arguments in favour of the contrary opinion already stated (§§ 8-9). Water in its own circumference can only be higher than the land either by being excentric, or by being concentric, but in some part irregularly elevated or gibbous (§ 10); in proof of his first proposition the author demonstrates that water can neither be excentric nor gibbous (§§ 11-14); proof of the author’s second proposition (§ 15); opponent’s arguments against these conclusions (§ 16), and author’s reply (§ 17); opponent’s answer to author’s objections and author’s fresh arguments (§§ 18-19). Having now established his position that earth is everywhere higher than water, the author proceeds to examine into the cause of this elevation, which he finally refers to the influence of the stars (§§ 20-21); as to further inquiry, let men cease to search into matters that are too high for them (§ 22). The author next refutes the arguments in favour of the contrary view stated at the outset (§ 23), and concludes with the record of his own name and of the place and date of the dissertation (§ 24).
Apocryphal Works.—Besides the spurious letters mentioned above, and sundry apocryphal sonnets and canzoni, Dante has been credited with the authorship of certain religious poems in terza rima, namely a translation of the seven Penitential Psalms, and a poem of eighty-three terzine, known as his Professione di Fede, which consists of a paraphrase of the Apostle’s Creed, the ten Commandments, the Pater Noster, and the Ave Maria, together with reflections on the seven Sacraments, and seven Deadly Sins. The Professione di Fede, sometimes spoken of as Dante’s Credo,81 is contained in more than forty manuscripts, in the majority of which it is attributed to Dante, though in a few it is assigned to Antonio da Ferrara. It was first printed at Rome in the fifteenth century (circ. 1476),82 and was reprinted as an appendix to the edition of the Divina Commedia published at Venice by Vendelin da Spira in 1477. It has been many times reprinted since.83 The Sette Salmi Penitenziali, which are contained in numerous manuscripts, were first printed in the fifteenth century (c. 1475) at Venice.84 They were reprinted with the Latin originals and annotations, together with the Professione di Fede, by Quadrio at Milan in 1752, who published a second edition, with additional matter, at Bologna in 1753, which has frequently been reprinted. An Ave Maria, in twenty-four terzine, quite distinct from that contained in the Professione di Fede, was printed in a limited edition at Bologna, in 1853, from a fourteenth century manuscript85; and another Credo was printed at Mantua in 1871.86
Whatever may be said as to the genuineness or otherwise of the Professione di Fede, the proemio of which, at any rate, can hardly have been written by Dante, it seems at least possible that the Sette Salmi Penitenziali may have been his composition, perhaps as an early exercise in the use of terza rima, a metre which he was the first to introduce. It is not to be supposed that Dante acquired the complete mastery of this metre, which he displays from the outset in the Divina Commedia, without considerable previous practice. In the Commedia itself the increase of skill in the handling of the terza rima, and in the avoidance of repetition in the rimes, is easily perceptible to a close observer as the poem advances. Quadrio, who pointed out the many Dantesque phrases which occur in the Sette Salmi, and who had no hesitation in accepting them as genuine works of Dante, regarded them as examples of the “elegiac” style,87 as distinguished from the tragic and comic, of which Dante speaks in the De Vulgari Eloquentia.88
1 The division of the books into chapters was made by Dante himself, as is evident from the passages in which he refers to previous or subsequent chapters (e.g. i. 8, l. 33; ii . 6, l. 10; ii. 8, ll. 106-7; iii. 16, l. 1). The numeration of the chapters is due to modern editors, who unfortunately have not all adopted a uniform system. Witte, for instance, divides Book i. into sixteen chapters, Book ii. into thirteen, and Book iii. into sixteen; whereas Fraticelli and Torri divide Book i. into eighteen, Book ii. into eleven, and Book iii. into fifteen; while Giuliani adopts yet another system. (For a comparative table of the various arrangements, see Table xxxiii. in the Dante Dictionary.)
2 Bk. ix. ch. 136.
3 Bertrand du Pouget, created Cardinal by his uncle, Pope John XXII, in 1316.
4 Vita di Dante, ed. Macrì-Leone, § 16, pp. 72-3. The whole of Boccaccio’s account of the De Monarchia is omitted from the edition of the Vita di Dante published, together with the editio princeps of the Vita Nuova, at Florence in 1576 with the imprimatur of the Florentine Inquisitor General. This suppression was noticed by Milton, who remarks on the fact in his Commonplace Book (see Paget Toynbee, Dante in English Literature, vol. i. p. 122).
5 The chief upholder of this theory was Karl Witte—see the Prolegomena to his edition (Vienna, 1874) of the De Monarchia, pp. xxxiii-xlix.
6 The passage in question, which occurs in the middle of the twelfth chapter of the first book runs as follows:—
“Libertas arbitrii . . . est maximum donum humanae naturae a Deo collatum, sicut in Paradiso Comedie jam dixi”.
This is an unmistakable reference to Paradiso, v. 19-24:—
“Lo maggior don che Dio per sua larghezza
Fesse creando, ed alla sua bontate
Più conformato, e quel ch’ ei più apprezza,
Fu della volontà la libertate,
Di che le creature intelligenti,
E tutte e sole furo e son dotate.”
7 There is a passage at the beginning of the second book, which, according to the reading of the most important MS., as well as of all the early printed editions, contains an undoubted reference to the Emperor Henry VII. In his rebuke to the opposition offered to the Emperor Dante speaks of “Reges et principes in hoc unico concordantes, ut adversentur Domino suo et uncto suo Romano Principi” (ii. 1, ll. 25-7). This reference to the Emperor as “the Lord’s anointed” can only be to Henry VII. To no other of the successors of Frederick II, contemporary with himself, would Dante have dreamed of applying this term. In a passage of the Convivio, where he describes Frederick as “the last Emperor of the Romans,” he emphatically declines to recognize Rudolf and Adolf and Albert (the immediate predecessors of Henry VII) as Emperors at all: “Federigo di Soave, ultimo Imperador de’ Romani, ultimo dico per rispetto al tempo presente, non ostante che Ridolfo e Adolfo e Alberto poi eletti sieno appresso la sua morte e de’ suoi discendenti” (iv. 3, ll. 39-43). Now Henry VII was crowned at Aix on 6 January, 1309; consequently, if the above be the true reading, as there can be hardly a doubt that it is, the book must have been written later than that date (see Paget Toynbee, Dante Studies and Researches, pp. 302-3).
8 Reproduced (with references added) by kind permission of the author.
9 Aeneid, vi. 848-54.
10 Typifying the spiritual and temporal powers. Dante meets this by distinguishing the homage paid to Christ from that which His Vicar can rightfully demand.
11 [Dante actually, by an error, says Hadrian crowned Charles the Great.]
12 Ed. 1904, pp. 276-80.
13 See Torri’s edition, pp. xli-ii, 118-21. Ficino’s translation accompanies the Latin text in the editions of Fraticelli, by whom it was first printed in 1839. There are three English translations of the De Monarchia, viz by F. J. Church, in Dante :an Essay, by R. W. Church, 1879 (pp. 177-308); by P. H. Wicksteed, in Translation of the Latin Works of Dante, 1904 (pp. 127-279); and by Aurelia Henry, 1904.
14 Andrea Alciati Jureconsulti clariss. De Formula Romani Imperii Libellus. Accesserunt non dissimilis argumenti Dantis Florentini De Monarchia libri tres. Radulphi Carnotensis De translatione Imperii libellus. Chronica M. Jordanis, Qualiter Romanum Imperium translatum sit ad Germanos. Omnia nunc primum in lucem edita.
15 See Paget Toynbee, John Foxe and the Editio Princeps of Dante’s De Monarchia, in Athenaum, 14 April, 1906.
16 In his Epistola Dedicatoria he says: “Sunt autem quos adjunximus, primùm Dantis Aligherii, non vetustioris illius Florentini poetae celeberrimi, sed philosophi acutissimi atque doctiss. viri, et Angeli Politiani familiaris quondam, de Monarchia libri tres” (p. 51).
17 See the Codicum Elenchus in Witte’s edition, pp. lvii-viii.
18 Bk. ix. ch. 136.
19 Vita di Dante, ed. cit. § 16, p. 74.
20 “In quarto hujus operas” (ii. 4, l. 13; 8, l. 83).
21 “In tertio hujus libri capitulo” (ii. 8, ll. 61-2).
22 “Nos autem cui mundus est patria, velut piscibus aequor, quamquam Sarnum biberimus ante dentes, et Florentiam adeo diligamus ut, quia dileximus, exilium patiamur injuste . . .” (i. 6, 11. 17-21; cf. i. 17, 11. 35-8; ii. 6, 11. 36-9).
23 “Un libro ch’ io intendo di fare, Dio concedente, di Volgare Eloquenza” (i 5, 11. 67-9).
24 V.E. i. 12, 11. 36-9.
25 It is, of course, possible that Dante may have had the two works on hand concurrently.
26 The arguments at the head of the chapters in A. G. Ferrers Howell’s translation have occasionally been utilised in this analysis.
27 See the introduction (pp. lxxxv ff.) to Rajna’s critical edition, Il Trattato De Vulgari Eloquentia (Florence, 1896). Rajna, who prints specimens of Cittadini’s version (pp. ccxii-xv), shows that this translation was made from Corbinelli’s edition of the Latin text, with the help of Trissino’s version (p. xcvi). An English translation, by A. G. Ferrers Howell, was published in 1890, and reissued in a revised form in 1904, in Translation of the Latin Works of Dante (pp. 3-115).
28 See above, pp. 93-9, 195-6. Such as we possess were mostly discovered in the last century through the exertions of Karl Witte, who in 1827 printed at Padua (in Dantis Alligherii Epistolae quae exstant) the letters which had up to that date been brought to light.
29 According to the numeration of the Epistolae in the Oxford Dante (pp. 403-20).
30 Epistole di Dante Alighieri edite e inedite, Livorno, 1842 (pp. 2-4).
31 Op. cit. p. 8.
32 In Dante Alighieri’s Lyrische Gedichte, übersetzt und erklärt von K. L. Kannegiesser und K. Witte, Leipzig, 1842 (Zweiter Theil, pp. 235-36). A critical text was printed by O. Zenatti, in Dante e Firenze (pp. 431-2); but see L’ Epistola di Dante a Moroello Malaspina, by F. Novati, in Dante e la Lunigiana (pp. 507-42).
33 Dantis Alligherii Epistolae quae exstant, Patavii, 1827 (pp. 14-16),
34 See above, p. 92 note.
35 See above, p. 93.
36 Op. cit. pp. 28-32.
37 See above, pp. 93-6,
38 Op. cit. pp. 36-42.
39 See below.
40 See above, p. 94.
41 Dantis Alligherii Epistolae quae exstant, Patavii, 1827 (pp. 30-46).
42 In Prose Antiche di Dante, Petrarcha, et Boccaccio, etc., pp. 9-12.
43 See below.
44 See above, p. 97.
45 Op. cit. pp. 53-61.
46 Actually, Cremona.
47 Bk. ix. ch. 136.
48 See above, pp. 98-9.
49 In the fifth volume of his Aneddoti (p. 176).
50 See above, pp. 195-6.
51 See N. Zingarelli, Dante, pp. 723-4.
52 See Scartazzini’s Companion to Dante (translated by A.J. Butler), pp. 359-60.
53 In Galleria di Minerva, vol. iii. pp. 220-8 (see Torri’s Epistole di Dante Alighieri (p. 158).
54 There are two English translations of these letters, viz. by C. S. Latham, in A Translation of Dante’s Eleven Letters, 1891; and by P. H. Wicksteed, in Translation of the Latin Works of Dante, 1904 (pp. 295-368).
55 These letters, which are preserved in the Vatican (MS. Palat. 1729), were first printed by Torri, op.cil. pp. 64-8; their authenticity as compositions of Dante is upheld by F. Novati and others (see Novati’s article L’ Epistola di Dante a Moroello Malaspina, in Dante e la Lunigiana (pp. 509, 537).
56 By Doni, in Prose Antiche di Dante, Petrarcha, et Boccaccio, etc., Fiorenza, 1547 (pp. 75-6).
57 Vita di Dante, ed. Macrì-Leone, § 16, p. 74.
58 See above, p. 54 note.
59 See above, pp. 54, 57 note.
60 See above, p. 74.
61 See above, p. 91.
62 Vita di Dante, ed. Brunone Bianchi, 1883, pp. xv, xvii, xxi.
63 Vita Dantis, ed. 1828, pp. 111-14.
64 See C. Ricci, L’ Ultimo Rifugio di Dante, pp. 68 ff.
65 Vita di Dante, ed. Macrì-Leone, § 16, p. 74. They are also twice mentioned by Bruni, Vita di Dante, ed. cit. pp. xxv, xxvii.
66 Edited by F. Pasqualigo, Lonigo, 1887. For the MSS., see Wicksteed and Gardner, Dante and Giovanni del Virgilio, pp. 268 ff.
67 See G. Albini, Dantis Eclogae (Firenze, 1903), p. xvi.
68 In Dante and G, del Virgilio, pp. 146 ff.
69 There are three English translations of the Eclogues, viz. one (in blank verse) by Dean Plumptre, in The Commedia and Canzoniere of Dante (1887), vol. ii. pp. 326-41; and two by P. H. Wicksteed, one (in prose) in Dante and G. del Virgilio, pp. 147 ff.; the other (in blank verse) in Translation of the Latin Works of Dante (1904), pp. 373 ff.
70 Beginning, “Pieridum vox alma, novis qui cantibus orbem”; the Carmen and Dante’s two Eclogae, with Giovanni’s Ecloga Responsiva, are printed in the Oxford Dante (pp. 185-90). The Carmen appears from internal evidence to have been written in the spring of 1319. (See Ricci, op, cit. p. 71).
71 Beginning, “Vidimus in nigris albo patiente lituris”.
72 Apparently the same individual who related to Boccaccio the story of the finding of the lost cantos of the Commedia (see above, p. 209 note).
73 Beginning, “Forte sub irriguos colles, ubi Sarpina Rheno.”
74 It appears from a note of the anonymous commentator that this second eclogue (which some critics hesitate to accept as entirely from the hand of Dante) was not composed until a year after the receipt of Giovanni’s eclogue, and did not reach the latter until after Dante’s death (see Pasqualigo, op. cit. p. 13).
75 Beginning, “Velleribus Colchis praepes detectus Eous”.
76 So identified by the anonymous commentator, who describes him as a physician of Certaldo resident at Ravenna.
77 Polyphemus is thought by some to indicate King Robert of Naples, the protector of the Guelfs; others hold the reference to be to a member of some Bolognese family whom Dante had offended, e.g. the Caccianimici (cf. Inf. xviii. 48-66) (see Ricci, op. cit. pp. 105 ff.).
78 Quaestio florulenta ac perutilis de duobus elementis aquae et terrac tractans, nuper reperta que olim Mantuae auspicata, Veronae vero disputata et decisa ac manu propria scripta, a Dante Florentine poeta clarissimo, quam diligenter et accurate correcta fuit per reverendum Magistrum Joannem Benedictum Moncettum de Castilione Arretino Regentem Patavinum ordinis Eremitarum divi Augustini Sacraeque Theologiae doctor em excellentissimum. At the beginning of the treatise proper, after the preliminary matter, is the following short title: Quaestio aurea ac perutilis edita per Dantem Alagherium poetam Florentinum clarissimum de natura duorum elementorum aquae et terrae diserentem. Only seven copies are known of the editio princeps, of which one is in the British Museum, one in the Cornell University Library (Fiske Collection) in America, and the remaining five in various public libraries in Italy. The work was reprinted at Naples in 1576, but this edition is also exceedingly rare (see Athenaeum, 16 October, and 13 November, 1897; and 8 July, 1905). A facsimile of the editio princeps, with translations in Italian, French, Spanish, English, and German, was published (by L. Olschki) at Florence in 1905.
79 Studies in Dante, ii. 356.
80 Five English translations of the treatise have been published; viz. by C. H. Bromby, A Question of the Water and of the Land, 1897; by A. C. White, in Annual Report of the Cambridge (U.S.A.) Dante Society for 1903; by P. H. Wicksteed, in Translation of the Latin Works of Dante, 1904 (pp. 389-423); by S. P. Thompson, in the volume containing fac-simile reprint of the editio princeps, Florence, 1905 (pp. 59-86); and by C. L. Shadwell, in Dante’s Quaestio de Aqua et Terra, Oxford, 1909.
81 For the circumstances in which this Credo is alleged to have been composed, see above, pp. 150-2.
82 Two fifteenth century editions (Rome, circ. 1476; and Florence, circ. 1490) are in the British Museum.
83 It is included, together with the Sette Salmi Penitenziali, in the Oxford Dante (pp. 193-202). The Professione di Fede has been translated into English by Dean Plumptre, in The Commedia and Canzoniere of Dante (vol. ii. pp. 318-25).
84 Two fifteenth century editions, both printed at Venice, are in the British Museum.
85 Ave Maria inedita di Dante Alighieri, edited by A. Bonucci (100 copies).
86 Un nuovo Credo di Dante Alighieri, published by A. Manardi on the occasion of the inauguration of Dante’s statue at Mantua on 30 July, 1871.
87 See his Prefazione.
88 Bk. ii. ch. 4.