Dear Nicole,
At 16:40 27.02.99 -0600, you wrote:
> I am a graduate student currently doing research for a history
>paper which deals with the reception of Dante's Commedia (particularly
>by clergy) and possible political, social, intellectual, and theological
>reasons for the Church's reaction or lack thereof.
> Last semester, while taking a class on Dante and Medieval
>English Literature, I became interested in learning what type of
>critical response Dante's Commedia received in terms of whether it was
>thought to be merely a work of fiction, a vision, or an actual "out-of
>body" journey. In the context of the class I am currently taking, whose
>instructor will not entertain the possibility that any work of
>literature was ever taken as more than a fiction, I am forced to refine
>this question somewhat.
I am not sure how your instructor understands the term 'fiction', but it
seems that you are doing very well not to be satisfied by his explanations.
Remind him, for instance, of the medieval reception of Vergil's _Aeneid_.
Vergil's account of the pagan gods and of how and why they interfer with
human action was of course inacceptable for medieval Christian readers, if
taken to the letter. But nevertheless his account of Aeneas' adventures was
taken to be based on historical truth, and it was up to the reader (or
commentator) to sort out and evaluate those elements which he regarded as
deviating from this truth, either criticizing and dismissing them as
misguiding inventions (not necessarily invented by Vergil himself), or
giving them a non-literal ('allegorical') understanding by reading them as
purposeful additions where a valuable truth or moral is presented under the
veil of a fabulous invention. Even the supposedly 'true' account itself
could be read as a medium of additional, deeper truths, although this
latter attitude of allegorizing supposed historical truth can be found more
frequently in readings of the Bible than of non-biblical literature (a
problem recently discussed on this list). Few works if any were read as
being fabulous lies from the first to the last word (although you can find
moral condemnations of poetry which might suggest as much). Our modern
notion that a poet is free -- or that it is even his most noble task -- to
invent his own world and that he is not bound by any norms of moral and
truth is a relatively modern invention (though even in our times certainly
not the only concept which is current).
> Basically, from my limited knowledge of Church power and
>influence in the Middle Ages, I would have assumed that Dante's
>boldness: the mapping of the universe including the afterlife, and
>especially his representation of Purgatory, and the assignment of
>several Popes, including the canonized Celestine V, to Hell, would have
>attracted a great deal of negative attention, since he was, after all,
>imposing upon if not challenging the authority of the Church in
>spiritual as well as temporal matters.
In temporal matters, yes, he even wrote a whole treatise _De monarchia_ in
support of the view that the church had no authority from God about
temporal matters, and that the emperor did not derive his temporal power
from the pope. But you would have to explain where you find him challenging
the authority of the Church in spiritual matters. Where he disagreed with
doctrinal views held by authorities of the Church and even by the popes of
his time, he nevertheless claimed that those, misguided by their worldly
preoccupations, were neglecting the authority of the early fathers and
reformers (i.e., he did not simply claim to have his own direct channel to
God or an inspired better understanding of the holy scriptures).
As regards Celestine V, he was a very controversial pope, criticised not
the least by those who opposed the worldly ambitions of Boniface and of his
successors, and who saw Celestine's abdication as a betrayal of their hopes
in a sprititual reform of the Church. The person condemned in Inf. 3,59ss.
as "the shade of him who in his cowardice made the great refusal" is
condemned without giving his name. The passage may or may not refer to
Celestine (I myself think that it does refer to him), and we cannot be sure
if it was written before or after Celestine's canonization (in 1313),
although it is true that even if written earlier Dante nevertheless left it
uncorrected afterwards. Our expert for Celestine and everything surrounding
him is George Ferzoco who will be able to offer more enlightening comments.
At first it seemed that there
>was no negative reaction. He was not, after all, excommunicated or
>censured (that I know of) in his lifetime. This lead me to wonder, was
>the fact of his exile enough? Did the clergy consider that this
>limitation on his influence was enough to prevent his ideas from harming
>them? Did the Pope have too many other political agendas to worry about
>a provincial Italian poet (as was suggested by my Professor)? Or, was
>there enough of an anti-papal spirit among intellectuals and politicians
>of Dante's time for this to pass unnoticed?
It is very difficult to deal with this question, because there is so little
known for sure about the date (or dates) of composition and first
diffusion of Dante's Commedia during his lifetime. As regards the external
evidence for dating the Commedia, the supposedly earliest attestation is a
passage in Barberino's copy of his _Documenti d'amore_, mentioning Dante's
"Comoedia" and explaining "de infernalibus inter cetera multa tractat": the
copy of the _Documenti_ dates from 1313, but I am not sure if also the
passage in question was written at this time or was added later. The
earliest scribblings of verses in empty spaces of other manuscripts are
supposed to date from 1317 (a passage from Inf. 3, by the way), 1319 and
1321. If we suppose the Epistle to Cangrande -- or at least the first
dedicatory part of it -- to be a genuine work of Dante's, he dedicated the
Paradiso to Cangrande della Scala, presumably in 1317/18, but this date too
is controversial, and there is a possibility that the Paradiso was
dedicated before having been completed. The earliest extant commentaries on
the Commedia (or on parts of it) were written shortly after Dante's death,
i.e. the Italian commentary by his son Jacopo Alighieri (finished very
probably before 1 April 1322 because sent at this time together with
Jacopos metrical _Divisione_ to Guido da Polenta, if it is true that a
passage of the accompanying sonnet can be referred to the Commentary), and
an anonymous Latin gloss (ed. V. Cioffari, Spoleto 1989) written by
Dominicans and in its 'short form' probably more or less contemporary to
Jacopo's commentary, whereas the 'extended form' is already based on Jacopo
(according to my own analysis, whereas Sandkuehler who assumes a later date
for Jacopo's commentary believes that Jacopo drew on the 'extended form' of
the Latin gloss). These two were followed by Graziolo (Latin gloss from
1324, Italian translation before 1334), Jacopo della Lana (1324-28), Guido
da Pisa (ca. 1328), Andrea Lancia (the socalled 'Ottimo commento', early
draft ca. 1328, published first redaction ca. 1334, two unpublished later
redactions one of which originated after 1337), and some others until
Boccaccio gave the first public Lectura Dantis in 1373/74. In addition we
have the epitaphs, _divisioni_ and _capitoli_ which accompany the text
and/or commentaries in the manuscripts, but this kind of framework too does
not date from the time before Dante's death. Apart from the scribblings
mentioned above, all extant manuscripts of the Commedia or of parts of it
date from the time after Dante's death and postdate even the earliest
commentatries.
There is also punctual internal evidence in the text of the Commedia,
historical or other allusions which allow to assign a "terminus ante quem"
or a "terminus post quem" to this or that passage, but we would have to
know more about the relative chronology in which the parts of the work were
composed (and perhaps revised), before we can make much sense of the
punctual internal evidence regarding the absolute chronology. Furthermore,
we have 14th century accounts of the genesis of the work, where it is
difficult to determine the grain of truth wich they may contain. Boccaccio
(in his _Vita di Dante_, chap. 26, and in his gloss on Inf. 8,1) claims
that Dante began his work in his 35th year (a date presumably inferred from
the opening lines of the Inferno which actually relate to the date of D's
journey through the Other World, but not -- or not directly -- to the date
of composition) and wrote the first seven cantos of the Inferno in the time
before his exile, but resumed this work only 'five or more' years later
(beginning with the verse "Io dico, seguitando" Inf. 8,1) on the instances
of others who had discovered the framgment among the papers which had had
to leave in Florence. Boccaccio also explains that Dante did not complete
the work in one piece, but had had to resume it several times, making it a
habit to compose a number of eight or so cantos and to submit them to
Cangrande before distributing copies among others ("whoever wanted them").
And he claims that Dante died after having completed but not yet submitted
and published also the last 13 cantos of the Paradiso, which where then
after a long and desperate search rediscovered by his son Jacopo. There is
also another story which at the moment I do not recall in precise form, and
according to which Dante began his Commedia originally in Latin and then
rewrote and completed it in Italian volgare.
>From the external evidence we can conclude that there was some knowledge
during Dante's lifetime that he was writing or had written the Commedia,
and there are traces that the poem or rather parts of it were already
circulating. But the wide diffusion and massive public response began only
after his death, and this may be at least one reason why ecclesiastic
authorities did not react earlier.
> Since formulating these question, I have found that during the
>years of the Avignon Papacy, which only slightly overlaps Dante's
>lifetime, there were many Italian nobles who felt quite comfortable
>challanging papal authority, even on pain of excommunication.
The 'babylonic exile' of the papacy in France (beginning with Clement V,
who was elected and crowned in 1305 but resided for some time in his former
dioceses Poitiers and Bordeaux before finally establishing the papal see in
Avignon) was an important factor for D's criticism of the Church, but this
'exile' did not diminuish the authority of papal inquisitors and legates in
Italy and so I don't think that the geographic distance (or the temporary
release of control during the vacancy of the papal see after the death of
Clement's predecessor in July 1304) had anything to do with D's liberty of
expressing himself or with the favourable response among Italian readers.
What was important instead was the general and longstanding conflict about
the temporal power of the papacy, and in this conflict Dante in fact had
the favours and protection of the political fraction the position of which
he (in part) defended.
This,
>however, only adds to my speculation without proving my point. I have
>also read, in an obscure referance in the online version of the Catholic
>Encyclopedia, that Dante's works were much debated in the Fourteenth
>Century, that Dante was accused of heretical writing, and that De
>Monarchia was burned by Papal decree. However, I cannot verfy this, as
>my source does not cite any sources.
My memory and my notes are too vague to give you a reliable summary of
matter, but it is true, there was some critical and ufficial response
during the 14th century and later, although this response was directed
primarily to _De monarchia_. This work was heavily attacked for the first
time by the Dominican Guido Vernani in his _De potestate summi pontificis,
et de reprobatione Monarchiae compositae a Dante Aligherio_ (ed. N.
Matteini, Padova 1958), for which my unreliable bibliography offers the
dates "ca. 1324?" and "between 1327 and 1334?". From roughly the same
period (at least not after 1334) dates a writing against _De monarchia_ by
the Franciscan Guglielmo da Sarzana who dedicated his work to pope John
XXII (discussed by Pietro Fedele, "Per la storia del De monarchia", in
_Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 56, 1910, p.271s.). According
to Boccaccio (_Vita di Dante_, chap. 26) and Bartolo del Sasoferrato,
Dante's _De monarchia_ was condemned and publicly burnt by cardinal
Bertrando del Poggetto "some years" after Dante's death, an event which is
supposed to have taken place in 1329 and which according to Boccaccio was
motivated by the use which Louis of Bavaria and his followers had made of
this work in their conflict with John XXII. Shortly after having been
printed for the first time the work was placed on the Roman Index (my notes
say 1559), from which it was removed only in 1881 by pope Leo XIII.
As regards the Commedia, I know of only one ufficial medieval prohibition,
1335 in Florence, when the Provincial Chapter of the Dominican order
forbade to the members of this order the possession and reading of Dante's
vernacular writings, a prohibition which was probably directed mostly if
not exclusively against the Commedia (the _Convivio_ too in its fourth book
has some unpleasant views about temporal power to offer but was not very
widely diffused at this time). The Commedia was also banned in 1581 by
authorities in Portugal in Portugal "until corrected", and manuscript
erasures required by the Spanish Inquisition can be found in manuscripts
throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. Yet, to return to the 14th century,
we have indirect evidence in early authors and commentators who defend
Dante's orthodoxy or use strategies of allegorizing the Commedia in a way
which can take some of the sting off the literal sense of the work. Dante's
son Pietro has a certain fame for having used this latter strategy in his
commentary, although I do not fully agree with this interpretation of his
commentary. Yet it may be of interest for you that most commentators from
the earliest time on used stereotypic phrasings like "hic auctor fingit
quod...", "dice figurativamente che..." as a general caution against
possible objections to the literal sense.
> My inability to read Italian has proven to be a hinderance on
>this topic. I would be grateful for any suggestions that might set me
>on the right track, particularly books in English which might mention
>this topic.
Actually most of the relevant literature -- as far as I know it -- is
published in Italian (e.g., Vallone who is really indispensable for your
subject, also Nardi, Maccarrone, Matteini, more recently Guido Di Pino) or
even in German (Sandkuehler for the early commentaries, Felten for other
documents of the early reception of the Commedia, Roddewig for the
manuscript erasures; there is also a recent German monography on the
reception of _De monarchia_ but the name of the author at the moment
escapes me). As an introductory work in English, you could try Joan
Ferrante, _The Political Vision of the Divine Comedy_ (Princeton UP, 1984,
some chapters are available in electronic form on the WWW, see the section
_Dante publications_ on my Dante homepage), who gives at least some of the
info you are interested in, together with further references. Paget Toynbee
has a chapter "Dante and the Index" in his _Dante Studies_ (Oxford 1921),
but at the moment I don't recall if it has anything to offer for the
Commedia. Boccaccio's _Life of Dante_ should be a must for you, and
although I have no reference at hand I am sure that it is available in
English translation.
Best wishes,
Otfried
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otfried Lieberknecht, Schoeneberger Str. 11, D-12163 Berlin
tel: ++49 +30 8516675, fax: ++49 +89 6661792543, [log in to unmask]
Homepage for Dante Studies:
http://members.aol.com/lieberk/welcome.html
Listowner of Italian-Studies:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/italian-studies/
Listowner of Medieval-Religion:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
