Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
Epistle to Cangrande
Letter attributed to Dante Alighieri From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
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.
.jpg)
Remove ads
History
The exact date that the letter was written is unknown. The letter was cited by the Italian copyist Andrea Lancia in 1343 and then by the chronicler Filippo Villani around 1400. Some authors have suggested that Jacopo della Lana 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
Remove ads
Content
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
Summarize
Perspective
...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 have argued against its authenticity, whereas scholars such as Francesco Mazzoni, 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 or Pietro Allighieri, 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
Remove ads
References
Further reading
External links
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads