Epistle to Cangrande

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Epistle to Cangrande
Epistola a Cangrande
Copy of the Epistle to Cangrande
Full titleEpistle XIII to Cangrande della Scala
Ascribed toDante Alighieri
Dedicated toCangrande della Scala
LanguageLatin
Datebefore 1343
AuthenticityDisputed
GenreEpistle
SubjectMeaning of the Divine Comedy

The Epistle XIII to Cangrande della Scala (Italian: Epistola XIII a Cangrande della Scala) is a letter of disputed authenticity sent by Dante Alighieri to his patron, Cangrande I della Scala.

History

[edit]

The exact date that the letter was written is unknown. The letter was cited by the Italian copyist Andrea Lancia [it] in 1343 and then by the chronicler Filippo Villani around 1400. Some authors have suggested that Jacopo della Lana [it] cited the letter in the 1320s, but this is disputed.[1] Nine manuscripts of the Epistle survive, though the earliest three contain only the introduction.[2]: 196 

Content

[edit]

The letter is divided into three parts: A dedication of Dante's Paradiso to Cangrande I della Scala, an accessus (i.e. introduction) to Dante's Divine Comedy, and an exposition of the first twelve lines of Paradiso, translated from Italian into Latin.[2]

Authenticity

[edit]

...the paternity of the Epistle has been for some time a political football in Dante studies. It is a talismanic topic, and by revealing one's position with regard to the paternity of the Epistle, one potentially reveals a host of other vested interests and beliefs[3]: 140 

The question of whether or not the Epistle is a forgery is controversial among Dante scholars. Scholars such as Francesco D'Ovidio and Bruno Nardi [it] have argued against its authenticity, whereas scholars such as Francesco Mazzoni [it], Robert Hollander, and Charles Singleton have argued that the document is authentic.[1][2][4][3]

The letter was never mentioned by notable early Dante commentators Guido da Pisa [it] or Pietro Allighieri [it], despite their commentaries containing passages identical to those in the epistle, which led the scholar F. P. Luiso to conclude in 1902 that the Epistle was forged by combining fragments of the aforementioned writers' commentaries.[2]: 197  In 1943, the Italian philologist Augusto Mancini argued that only the dedication is authentic, in part due to the manuscript history, and in part due to what he perceived as "clumsy stitches between... two separate texts" at the end of the introduction.[2]: 196  The German scholar Peter Dronke later concurred that only the introduction followed "the customary rhythmic patterns of Dante’s prose".[2]: 196  The position is also held by the researcher Henry Ansgar Kelly and by the Italian philologist Carlo Ginzburg.[1][2] The latter went so far as to ascribe authorship of the rest of the Epistle to Giovanni Boccaccio, pointing to similarities between the Epistle and a section of Boccaccio's Decameron. As for Boccaccio's motive, Ginzburg wrote that "Dante’s use of the vernacular in a poem like the [Divine Comedy], which deals with sublime matters, was immediately perceived as a scandal: literary, religious, and political. The Epistle to Cangrande... was a deliberate attempt to remove that stumbling block."[2]: 207 

The academics Ralph G. Hall and Madison U. Sowell have suggested that American scholars are more likely to accept the Epistle as authentic while British and Italian scholars are more likely to consider it a forgery.[5]: 144  John Ciardi, who wrote a translation of the Divine Comedy, argued that the framework provided by the letter is useful regardless of its authenticity.[6] The scholar Teodolinda Barolini has described the Epistle as a red herring, writing that "frankly, I don't care if the Epistle is Dante's or not, since I think the answers that I seek regarding the [Divine Comedy] are to be found in the poem itself."[3]: 143 

In 2019, researchers for the Italian Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione attempted to use machine learning to determine authorship of the Epistle. Their results supported the theory that it was forged, however the authors noted that their study "should not be considered conclusive".[7]: 5 

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Kelly, Henry Ansgar (18 September 2018). "Epistle to Cangrande Updated". Dante Society. Dante Society of America. Retrieved 10 June 2024.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Ginzburg, Carlo (2006). "Dante's Epistle to Cangrande and its Two Authors" (PDF). Proceedings of the British Academy. 139: 195–216.
  3. ^ a b c Barolini, Teodolinda (1990). "For the Record: The Epistle to Cangrande and Various «American Dantisti»". Lectura Dantis (6): 140–143. ISSN 0897-5280.
  4. ^ Izbicki, Thomas M. (1 July 1994). "94.07.03, Hollander, Dante's Epistle to Cangrande". The Medieval Review. ISSN 1096-746X.
  5. ^ Hall, Ralph G.; Sowell, Madison U. (1990). "On Dante and "Cursus": A Brief Response to «for the Record»". Lectura Dantis (6): 143–144. ISSN 0897-5280.
  6. ^ Alighieri, Dante; Ciardi, John (2009). The Purgatorio. New York: Signet Classics. p. xxii. ISBN 978-0-451-53142-1. OCLC 449946422.
  7. ^ Corbara, Silvia (2019). "The Epistle to Cangrande through the Lens of Computational Authorship Verification" (PDF). CEUR Workshop Proceedings.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]