DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

That's French for "the ancient system," as in the ancient system of feudal privileges and the exercise of autocratic power over the peasants. The ancien regime never goes away, like vampires and dinosaur bones they are always hidden in the earth, exercising a mysterious influence. It is not paranoia to believe that the elites scheme against the common man. Inform yourself about their schemes here.

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:05 am

CHAPTER VIII: Argument from the prerogative of the keys consigned to Peter.

1. From the same gospel they quote the saying of Christ to Peter, "Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," [1] and understand this saying to refer alike to all the Apostles, according to the text of Matthew and John. [2] They reason from this that the successor of Peter has been granted of God power to bind and loose all things, and then infer that he has power to loose the laws and decrees of the Empire, and to bind the laws and decrees of the temporal kingdom. Were this true, their inference would be correct.

2. But we must reply to it by making a distinction against the major premise of the syllogism which they employ. Their syllogism is this: Peter had power to bind and loose all things; the successor of Peter has like power with him; therefore the successor of Peter has power to loose and bind all things. From this they infer that he has power to loose and bind the laws and decrees of the Empire.

3. I concede the minor premise, but the major only with distinction. Wherefore I say that "all," the symbol of the universal, which is implied in "whatsoever," is never distributed beyond the scope of the distributed term. When I say, "All animals run," the distribution of "all" comprehends whatever comes under the genus "animal." But when I say, "All men run," the symbol of the universal only refers to whatever comes under the term "man." And when I say, "All grammarians run," the distribution is narrowed still further.

4. Therefore we must always determine what it is over which the symbol of the universal is distributed; then, from the recognized nature and scope of the distributed term, will be easily apparent the extent of the distribution. Now, were "whatsoever" to be understood absolutely when it is said, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind," he would certainly have the power they claim; nay, he would have even greater power, he would be able to loose a wife from her husband, and, while the man still lived, bind her to another -- a thing he can in no wise do. He would be able to absolve me, while impenitent -- a thing which God himself cannot do. [3]

5. So it is evident that the distribution of the term under discussion is to be taken, not absolutely, but relatively to something else. A consideration of the concession to which the distribution is subjoined will make manifest this related something. Christ said to Peter, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;" that is, I will make thee doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. Then he adds, "and whatsoever," that is, "everything which," and He means thereby, "Everything which pertains to that office thou shalt have power to bind and loose." And thus the symbol of the universal which is implied in "whatsoever" is limited in its distribution to the prerogative of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Understood thus, the proposition is true, but understood absolutely, it is obviously not. Therefore I conclude that although the successor of Peter has authority to bind and loose in accordance with the requirements of the prerogative granted to Peter, it does not follow, as they claim, that he has authority to bind and loose the decrees or statutes of Empire, unless they prove that this also belongs to the office of the keys. But we shall demonstrate farther on that the contrary is true.

_______________

Notes:

1. Matt. 16. 19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

This argument from the keys of Peter is set forth by Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principium 3. 10; S. T. 3, Supple Q. 17; in the Decretals of Gregory IX 1. 33. 6; 2. 1. 13. Dante's reverence for the pontifical office can never be questioned even in the expression of sentiments the most Ghibelline. De Mon. 2. 3.4, and note 8. The main references in the Comedy that show his attitude toward the successors of Peter are: --

Inf. 19. 90-101: "My reverence for the supreme keys ..."

Inf. 27. 103: "I have power to lock and unlock Heaven as thou knowest; since two are the keys which my forerunner held not dear." These are words put into the mouth of Boniface VIII.

The two keys which Statius held from Peter in his office as guardian of the gate of Purgatory are described Purg. 9. 117 ff.

Par. 23. 136: "Here triumphs, under the high Son of God, and of Mary, for his victory,... he who holds the keys of such glory."

Par. 24. 34: "O eternal light of the great man to whom our Lord left the keys, which He bore below, of this wondrous joy."

Par. 27. 46: "It was not our intention ... that the keys which were granted to me should become a device on a banner to fight against men baptized." So Peter rebukes the wickedness of the Church and its officials.

Par. 32. 124: "On the right behold that ancient Father of Holy Church to whom Christ entrusted the keys of this lovely flower."

2. Matt. 18. 18; John 20. 23.

3. Rom. 7. 3. Inf. 27. 118: "Absolved he cannot be, who does not repent; nor is it possible to repent and to will at the same time, by reason of the contradiction which agrees not in it."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:06 am

CHAPTER IX: Argument from the two swords.

1. They quote also the words in Luke which Peter addressed to Christ, saying, "Behold, here are two swords," [1] and they assert that the two ruling powers were predicted by those two swords, and because Peter declared they were "where he was," that is, "with him," they conclude that according to authority these two ruling powers abide with Peter's successor.

2. To refute this we must show the falsity of the interpretation on which the argument is based. Their assertion that the two swords which Peter designated signify the two ruling powers before spoken of, we deny outright, because such an answer would have been at variance with Christ's meaning, and because Peter replied in haste, as usual, with regard to the mere external significance of things.

3. A consideration of the words preceding it and of the cause of the words will show that such an answer would have been inconsistent with Christ's meaning. Let it be called to mind that this response was made on the day of the feast, which Luke mentions earlier, saying, "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed." [2] At this feast Christ had already foretold His impending passion, in which He must be parted from His disciples. Let it be remembered also that when these words were uttered, all the twelve disciples were together; wherefore a little after the words just quoted Luke says, "And when the hour was come, He sat down, and the twelve Apostles with him." [3] Continuing the discourse from this place he reaches the words, "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything?" [4] And they answered, "Nothing." Then said He unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." The meaning of Christ is clear enough here. He did not say, "Buy or procure two swords," but "twelve;" for it was in order that each of the twelve disciples might have one that He said to them, "He that hath no sword, let him buy one." And He spake thus to forewarn them of the persecution and contempt the future should bring, as though he would say, "While I was with you ye were welcomed, now shall ye be turned away. It behooves you, therefore, to prepare for yourselves those things which before I denied to you, but for which there is present need." If Peter's reply to these words had carried the meaning ascribed to it, the meaning would have been at variance with that of Christ, and Christ would have censured Him, as he did oftentimes, for his witless answers. However, He did not do so, but assented, saying to him, "It is enough," [5] meaning, "I speak because of necessity; but if each cannot have a sword, two will suffice."

4. And that Peter usually spoke of the external significance of things is shown in his quick and unthinking presumption, impelled, I believe, not only by the sincerity of his faith, but by the purity and simplicity of his nature. To this characteristic presumption all those who write of Christ bear witness.

5. First, Matthew records that when Jesus had inquired of the disciples: "Whom say ye that I am?" before all the others Peter replied, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." He also records that when Christ was telling His disciples how He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things, Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee." Then Christ, turning to him, said in reproof, "Get thee behind me, Satan." [6] Matthew also writes that on the Mount of Transfiguration, in the presence of Christ, Moses, and Elias, and the two sons of Zebedee, Peter said, "Lord, it is good for us to be here. If thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, one for Moses, and one for Elias." [7] Matthew further writes that when the disciples were on the ship in the night, and Christ walked on the water, Peter said, "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water." [8] And that when Christ predicted how all His disciples should be offended because of Him, Peter answered, "Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended." [9] And afterwards, "Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee." And this statement Mark [10] confirms, while Luke writes that, just before the words we have quoted concerning the swords, Peter had said to Christ, "Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death." [11]

6. John tells of him, that when Christ desired to wash his feet, Peter asked, "Lord, dost thou wash my feet?" and then said, "Thou shalt never wash my feet." [12] He further relates how Peter smote with his sword the servant of the High Priest, an account in which the four Evangelists agree. [13] And John tells how when Peter came to the sepulchre and saw the other disciples lingering at the door, he entered in straightway; [14] and again when after the resurrection Jesus stood on the shore and Peter "heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea." [15] Lastly, he recounts that when Peter saw John, he said to Jesus, "Lord, and what shall this man do?" [16]

7. It is a source of joy to have summed up this evidence of our Head Shepherd, [17] in praise of his singleness of purpose. From all this it is obvious that when he spoke of the two swords, his answer to Christ was unambiguous in meaning.

8. Even if the words of Christ and Peter are to be accepted typically, they cannot be interpreted in the sense these men claim, but rather as referring to the sword concerning which Matthew writes: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father," [18] and what follows. This He accomplished in word and deed, wherefore Luke tells Theophilus of all "that Jesus began to do and teach." [19] Such was the sword Christ enjoined them to buy, and Peter made answer that already they had two with them. As we have shown, they were ready for words and for works to bring to pass those things which Christ proclaimed He had come to do by the sword.

_______________

Notes:

1. Luke 22. 38. This was one of the most popular arguments in mediaeval writers for the supremacy of the Church. In the bull "Unam Sanctam" Boniface VIII says: "We are taught by the words of the gospel to recognize that two swords are in the power of this man, that is, the spiritual and temporal. For when the apostles said, 'Here are two swords,' the Lord did not respond, 'It is too much,' but, 'It is enough.' Both are in the power of the Church: the one the spiritual, to be used by the Church, the other the material, for the Church; the former that of priests, the latter that of kings and soldiers, to be wielded at the command and by the sufferance of the priest. One sword must be under the other, the temporal under the spiritual.... The spiritual instituted the temporal power, and judges whether that power is well exercised.... We therefore assert, define, and pronounce that it is necessary to salvation to believe that every human being is subject to the Pontiff of Rome."

Generally with Dante the sword typifies Empire. Purg. 16. 109: "The sword is joined with the crook." Par. 8. 145: "But ye wrest to religion such an one as shall have been born to be girt with the sword, and ye make him a king who is a man of sermons."

2. Luke 22. 7.

3. Luke 22. 14.

4. Luke 22. 35, 36.

5. Luke 22. 38.

6. Matt. 16. 15, 16, 21, 22, 23.

7. Matt. 17. 4.

8. Matt. 14. 28. Peter's faith on this occasion is the subject of praise again in Par. 24. 34: "O eternal light of the great man to whom our Lord left the keys, which he bore below, of this wondrous joy, try this man concerning points easy and hard as pleases thee, about the faith by which thou didst go upon the sea."

9. Matt. 26. 33, 35.

10. Mark 14. 29.

11. Luke 22. 33.

12. John 13. 6, 8.

13. John 18. 10; Matt. 26. 51; Marl 14. 47; Luke 22. 50.

14. John 20. 5, 6. Dante's second reference to this incident is in Par. 24. 125: "O holy father, O spirit who seest that which thou so believest, that thou didst outdo younger feet toward the sepulchre."

15. John 21. 7.

16. John 21. 21.

17. "Head Shepherd" is in the Latin "Archimandrita." St. Francis is given this name Par. 11. 99: "The holy desire of this head shepherd of his flock was crowned with a second diadem by the eternal spirit through Honorius." And in Letter 9. 6 Dante calls the unfaithful officers of the Church, "Archimandrites throughout the world in name alone."

18. Matt. 10. 34, 35.

19. Acts 1. 1.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:06 am

CHAPTER X: Argument from the donation of Constantine. [1]

1. In addition, some persons affirm that the Emperor Constantine, healed of leprosy by the intercession of Sylvester, then the Supreme Pontiff [2] gave to the Church the very seat of Empire, Rome, together with many imperial dignities. [3] Wherefore they argue that no one has power to assume these dignities except he receives them from the Church, to whom it is asserted they belong. And from this it would fairly follow, as they desire, that one authority is dependent on the other.

2. So having stated and refuted the arguments which seemed to be rooted in divine communications, it now remains to set forth and disprove those rooted in Roman deeds and human reason. We have just spoken of the first of these, whose syllogism runs thus: Those things which belong to the Church no one can rightly possess, unless granted them by the Church; and this we concede. The ruling power of Rome belongs to the Church; therefore no one can rightly possess it unless granted it by the Church. And the minor premise they prove by the facts mentioned above concerning Constantine.

3. This minor premise, then, I deny. Their proof is no proof, for Constantine had not the power to alienate the imperial dignity, nor had the Church power to receive it. Their insistent objection to what I say can be met thus. No one is free to do through an office assigned him anything contrary to the office, for thereby the same thing, in virtue of being the same, would be contrary to itself: which is impossible. But to divide the Empire would be contrary to the office assigned the Emperor, for as is easily seen from the first book of the treatise, his office is to hold the human race subject to one will in all things. Therefore, division of his Empire is not allowed an Emperor. If, as they claim, certain dignities were alienated by Constantine from the Empire and ceded to the power of the Church, the "seamless coat" [4] would have been rent, which even they had not dared to mutilate who with their spears pierced Christ, the very God. Moreover, as the Church has its own foundation, so has the Empire its own. The foundation of the Church is Christ, as the Apostle writes to the Corinthians: "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." [5] He is the rock on which the Church is founded, [6] but the foundation of the Empire is human Right. Now I say that as the Church cannot act contrary to its foundation, but must be supported thereby, according to that verse of the Canticles: "Who is she that cometh up from the desert, abounding in delights, leaning on her beloved?" [7] so the Empire cannot act in conflict with human Right. Therefore the Empire may not destroy itself, for, should it do so, it would act in conflict with human Right. Inasmuch as the Empire consists in the indivisibility of universal Monarchy, and inasmuch as an apportionment of the Empire would destroy it, it is evident that division is not allowed to him who discharges imperial duty. [8] And it is proved, from what has been previously said, that to destroy the Empire would be contrary to human Right.

4. Besides, every jurisdiction exists prior to its judge, since the judge is ordained for the jurisdiction, and not conversely. As the Empire is a jurisdiction embracing in its circuit the administration of justice in all temporal things, so it is prior to its judge, who is Emperor; and the Emperor is ordained for it, and not conversely. Clearly the Emperor, as Emperor, cannot alter the Empire, for from it he receives his being and state. So I say, either he was Emperor when he made the concession they speak of to the Church, or he was not. If he was not, it is plain that he had no power to grant anything with regard to the Empire. And if he was, then as Emperor he could not have done this, for the concession would have narrowed his jurisdiction.

5. Further, if one Emperor has power to cut away one bit from the jurisdiction of the Empire, another may do the same for like reason. And since temporal jurisdiction is finite, and every finite thing may be consumed by finite losses, the possibility of annihilating primal jurisdiction would follow. But this is inconceivable.

6. And since he who confers a thing has the relation of agent, and he on whom it is conferred the relation of patient, according to the Philosopher in the fourth book to Nicomachus, then in order for a grant to be legal, proper qualification is essential not only in the giver, but in the recipient. [9] Indeed, it seems that the acts of agents exist potentially in a properly qualified patient. But the Church was utterly disqualified for receiving temporal power by the express prohibitive command in Matthew: "Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey," etc. [10] For although we learn from Luke [11] of the mitigation of this order regarding certain things, yet I am unable to find that sanction was given the Church to possess gold and silver, subsequent to the prohibition. Wherefore if the Church had not power to receive, even had Constantine power to bestow, temporal authority, the action would nevertheless be impossible, because of the disqualification of the patient. It is demonstrated, then, that neither could the Church accept by way of possession, nor could Constantine confer by way of alienation. However, the Emperor did have power to depute to the protectorship of the Church a patrimony, and other things, as long as his supreme command, the unity of which suffers no impairment, remained unchanged. And the Vicar of God had power to receive such things, not for possession, but for distribution on behalf of the Church of its fruits to the poor of Christ. [12] We are not ignorant that thus the Apostles did.

_______________

Notes:

1. Near the end of the eighth century the decretals and donation of Constantine were forged, documents which purported that when that Emperor removed his capital to Byzantium, 324 A.D., he left Rome in order to give to the Church temporal sway in the western world. That this donation was a forgery was not discovered until 1440 by Laurentinus Valla. See Gibbon, vol. 6. 49 (notes 68-76), the Milman-Smith edition. It is scarcely necessary to add that Dante had firm faith in the genuineness of the donation.

2. Inf. 27. 94: "Constantine sought Sylvester within Soracte to heal him of his leprosy." This legend Butler thinks Dante took from Brunetto, Tresor, Bk. 1. Pt. 2. c. 87, but Toynbee traces it to the Legenda Aurea of Jacobus de Voragine. See Toynbee, Studies, p. 297. Cf. De Regim, Princ. 3. 16.

3. The donation is mentioned De Mon. 2. 12. 2; 2. 13. 5; 3. 13. 4.

Inf. 19. 115: "Ah, Constantine, of how great ill was mother, not thy conversion, but the dowry which the first rich pope got from thee."

In the vision of Church and Empire, Purg. 32, the worldly wealth of the papacy is thus described 1. 124: "Next from thence, whence it had before come, I saw the eagle come down into the ark of the car, and leave it feathered with itself;" line 136: "That which remained, like ground alive with herbage, covered itself again with feathers, offered haply with sound and benign intention, and was covered again."

The eagle describes Constantine Par. 20. 54: "The second who follows, with the laws and with me, under a good intention which bore ill fruit, to give way to the Pastor, made himself a Greek. Now knows he how the ill deduced from his good work is not harmful to him, albeit that the world be thereby destroyed."

4. John 19. 23, 24, 34. The seamless robe is again used as the type of undivided monarchy De Mon. 1. 16, and note 6.

5. 1 Cor. 3. 11.

6. Matt. 16. 18.

7. Can. 8. 5 (Vulg. ). The English version has not the words "deliciis effluens," "abounding in delights." Dante quotes the verse, as here, in Conv. 2. 6. 2, as definitely signifying the Church.

8. Witte refers to Engelbertus Admonteus, De Ortu et Fine Rom. Imp. 18: "It was not permitted that the Emperor Hadrian or Jovinian should surrender the imperial boundaries, ... nor has it been, nor will it be permitted to any Emperor, because then would it fall from the name and dignity of Augustus, which means that the Empire should be augmented and not diminished."

9. Eth. 4. 1. 8: "The liberal man will give for the sake of the honorable, and will give properly, for he will give to proper objects, in proper quantities, at proper times."

10. Matt. 10. 9.

11. Luke 9. 3; 10. 4.

12. De Mon. 2. 12. 1, and note 2.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:07 am

CHAPTER XI: Argument from the summoning of Charles the Great by Pope Hadrian.

1. Still further, our opponents say that Pope Hadrian called [1] Charles the Great [2] to the aid of himself and the Church, because of oppression by the Lombards [3] in the reign of Desiderius their king, and that from the Pope Charles received the dignity of Empire, notwithstanding the fact that Michael [4] held imperial sway at Constantinople. Wherefore they declare that after Charles all Roman Emperors were advocates of the Church, and must be called to office by the Church. From this would follow the relationship between the Church and Empire which they desire to prove.

2. To refute this argument, I answer that their premise in it is a mere nullity, for usurpation of right does not create a right. If it did, the same method would show the dependency of ecclesiastical authority on the Empire, after the Emperor Otto restored Pope Leo, and deposed Benedict, sending him in exile to Saxony. [5]

_______________

Notes:

1. "Advocavit" in the original, and closely related to "advocati" in the following sentence, the "advocates" or "those called."

2. Charlemagne became king of the Frankish people in 771; petitioned for aid against the Lombards by Pope Hadrian, he defeated Desiderius in 774, and became king of the Lombards; he was made Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, 800. Pope Hadrian did not give Charlemagne the imperial dignity. Dante places Charlemagne among the defenders of the faith in the Heaven of Mars Par. 18. 43.

3. Par. 6. 94: "And when the Lombard tooth bit the Holy Church, under its wings great Charles conquering succoured her." Cf. De Regim. Princ. 10. 10, 18.

4. Michael I reigned in Constantinople from 811 to 813. The ruler at the time of Charlemagne was the Empress Irene (797-802 ).

5. Otto I was Emperor 962-973. In 963 the Roman synod elected his nominee for the papacy, but in the following year, while the Emperor was absent from Rome, they deposed Leo III and put Benedict V in the chair. On Otto's return in 964, he sent Benedict to Hamburg and reinstated Leo.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:07 am

CHAPTER XII: Argument from reason.

1. Their argument from reason, however, is this. They lay down the principle advanced in the tenth book of the First Philosophy, that "all things of one genus are reducible to a type which is the standard of measurement for all within the genus." [1] Since all men are of one genus, they ought to be reducible to a type as a standard for all others. And since the Supreme Pontiff and the Emperor are men, they must therefore, if our conclusion is true, be reducible to one man. And since the Pope cannot be subordinated to another, it remains for the Emperor and all others to be subordinated to the Pope as their measure and rule; whence results the conclusion they desire.

2. That this reasoning may be invalidated, I agree that their statement is true that all things of one genus ought to be reduced to some one member of that genus as a standard of measurement. Likewise is it true that all men are of one genus. Also is true their conclusion drawn from these that all men ought to be subordinated to one standard for the genus. But when from this conclusion they draw the further inference concerning Pope and Emperor, they deceive themselves with the fallacy of accidental attributes.

3. To make this evident, be it known that it is one thing to be a man and another thing to be a Pope. And just so it is one thing to be a man and another thing to be an Emperor, as it is one thing to be a man and another to be a father or master. Man is man because of his substantial form, which is the determinant of his species and genus, and which places him under the category of substance. [2] But a father is such because of an accidental form, that of relation, which is the determinant of a certain species and genus, and which places him under the category of relation. Otherwise everything would be reduced to the category of substance, since no accidental form exists in itself, apart from the basis of underlying substance. But this is false. Therefore since the Pope and Emperor are what they are because of certain relations, the former through the Papacy, a relation in the province of fatherhood, and the latter through the Empire, a relation in the province of government, it is manifest that the Pope and the Emperor, in so far as they are such, must have place under the category of relation, and consequently must be subordinated to something in that genus.

4. Whence, I repeat, they are to be measured by one standard in so far as they are men, and by another in so far as they are Pope and Emperor. Now, in so far as they are men, they have to be measured by the best man (whoever he may be [3]), that is, by him who is the standard and ideal of all men, and who has the most perfect unity among his kind, as we may learn from the last book to Nicomachus. [4] But in as far as they are relative, it is evident that one must be measured by the other, if one is subordinate; or they must unite in a common species from the nature of their relation; or they must be measured by a third something as their common ground of unity. But it cannot be maintained that one is subordinate to the other; that is, it is false to predicate one of the other, to call the Emperor the Pope, or to call the Pope the Emperor. Nor is it possible to maintain that they unite in a common species, for the relation of Pope, as such, is other than the relation of Emperor as Emperor. Therefore they must be measured by something beyond themselves in which they shall find a ground of unity.

5. At this point it must be understood that as relation stands to relation, so stands related thing to related thing. Hence if the Papacy and Empire, being relations of authority, [5] must be measured with regard to the supreme authority from which they and their characteristic differences are derived, the Pope and Emperor, being relative, must be referred to some unity wherein may be found the supreme authority without these characteristic differences. And this will be either God Himself, in whom every relation is universally united, or in some substance inferior to God, in whom is found a supreme authority differentiated and derived from His perfect supremacy. And so it is evident that the Pope and Emperor, as men, are to be measured by one standard, but as Pope and Emperor by another. And this demonstration is from the argument according to reason.

_______________

Notes:

1. Metaphys. 10. 1. In Conv. 1. 1. 1, as here, Dante calls the Metaphysics the First Philosophy.

2. The two main categories are those of substance and accident. Under accident are the sub-categories of relation, position, quality, etc. In the category of substance, Pope and Emperor are measurable by the same standard. In the category of accident, they are in the same sub-genus of relation, and in different but coordinate species of the sub-genus. So in the category of accident they are not measurable by the same standard. In the text Dante uses the word "praedicamentum" for category, and in De Mon. 3. 15. 4 he calls Aristotle's Categories by that name.

3. Then the best man might be other than the Pope or Emperor.

4. Eth. 10. 5. 10: "Excellence and the good man, so far forth as he is good, are the measure of everything."

5. "Quum sint relationes superpositionis."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:07 am

CHAPTER XIII: The authority of the Church is not the source of Imperial authority.

1. Now that we have stated and rejected the errors on which those chiefly rely who declare that the authority of the Roman Prince is dependent on the Roman Pontiff, we must return and demonstrate the truth of that third question, which we propounded for discussion at the beginning. The truth will be evident enough if it can be shown, under the principle of inquiry agreed upon, that Imperial authority derives immediately from the summit of all being, which is God. And this will be shown, whether we prove that Imperial authority does not derive from that of the Church (for the dispute concerns no other authority), or whether we simply prove that it derives immediately from God.

2. That ecclesiastical authority is not the source of Imperial authority is thus verified. A thing non-existent or devoid of active force cannot be the cause of active force in a thing possessing that quality in full measure. But before the Church existed, or while it lacked power to act, the Empire had active force in full measure. Hence the Church is the source neither of acting power nor of authority in the Empire, where power to act and authority are identical. Let A be the Church, B the Empire, and C the power or authority of the Empire. If, A being non-existent, C is in B, the cause of C's relation to B cannot be A, since it is impossible that an effect should exist prior to its cause. Moreover, if, A being inoperative, C is in B, the cause of C's relation to B cannot be A, since it is indispensable for the production of effect that the cause should be in operation previously, especially the efficient cause which we are considering here.

3. The major premise of this demonstration is intelligible from its terms; the minor is confirmed by Christ and the Church. Christ attests it, as we said before, in His birth and death. The Church attests it in Paul's declaration to Festus in the Acts of the Apostles: "I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged;" [1] and in the admonition of God's angel to Paul a little later: "Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar;" [2] and again still later in Paul's words to the Jews dwelling in Italy: "And when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had aught to accuse my nation of," but "that I might deliver my soul from death." [3] If Caesar had not already possessed the right to judge temporal matters, Christ would not have implied that he did, the angel would not have uttered such words, nor would he who said, "I desire to depart and be with Christ," [4] have appealed to an unqualified judge.

4. And if Constantine had no authority over the resources of the Church, that which he transferred to her from the Empire could not have been so transferred with Right, and the Church would be utilizing an unrighteous gift. But God desires that offerings be spotless, according to the text of Leviticus: "No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven;" [5] and this command, though it seem to concern givers, refers nevertheless to recipients. For it is folly to believe that God desires that to be accepted which He forbids to be given. Indeed, in the same book is the command to the Levites: "Contaminate not your souls, nor touch anything of theirs, lest ye be unclean." [6] But it is highly improper to say that the Church uses unrighteously the patrimony deputed to her, therefore what followed from such a saying is false.

_______________

Notes:

1. Acts 2 5. 10.

2. Acts. 27. 24.

3. Acts 28. 19.

4. Phil. 1. 23.

5. Lev. 2. 11.

6. Lev. 11. 43.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:08 am

CHAPTER XIV: The Church received power of transference neither from God, from herself, nor from any Emperor.

1. Besides, if the Church has power to confer authority on the Roman Prince, she would have it either from God, or from herself, or from some Emperor, or from the unanimous consent of mankind, or at least, from the consent of the most influential. There is no other least crevice through which the power could have diffused itself into the Church. But from none of these has it come to her, and therefore the aforesaid power is not hers at all.

2. Here is the proof that it has come from none of these sources. If she had received it from God, it would have been by divine or natural law, for what is received from nature is received from God, though the converse is not true. But this ecclesiastical right came not by natural law, for nature imposes no law save for her own effects, and inadequacy is not possible to God where He brings something into being without secondary agents. [1] Since the Church is an effect not of nature, but of God, who said, "Upon this rock I will build my Church," [2] and in another place, "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do," [3] it is indisputable that nature gave not this law to the Church.

3. Neither did this power come by divine law; for in the bosom of the two Testaments, wherein is embodied every divine law, I am unable to discover any command for the early or later priesthood to have care or solicitude in temporal things. Nay, I find rather that the early priests were released from such care by precept, as in the words God spake to Moses; [4] and the same of later priests as in the words of Christ to His disciples. [5] Nor would it have been possible to have been thus released, if the authority of temporal power originated with the priesthood; for at least anxiety concerning right provision would be with them in conferring authority, and then continual precaution, lest the authorized might deviate from the path of rectitude.

4. Also, that this power came not from the Church is easily seen. Nothing can give what it does not possess, so everything must be in act what it intends to do, as is held in the treatise on simple Being. [6] But if the Church gave to herself that power, it was not hers before she gave it, and she thus would have given herself that which she did not possess, which cannot be.

5. That the power came not from some Emperor is sufficiently explained by what has gone before.

6. And, indeed, who doubts that it came not from the unanimous consent of men, or from that of the most influential? Not only all the people of Asia and Africa, but even the greater part of those inhabiting Europe, are averse to her. Truly, it is bootless to adduce proofs in matters perfectly evident.

_______________

Notes:

1. Dante seems to imply that things brought to pass through nature are brought to pass through a secondary agent.

2. Matt. 16. 18.

3. John 17. 4.

4. Num. 18. 20: "And the Lord spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them. I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel."

Purg. 16. 131: "The sons of Levi were exempted from the heritage."

5. Matt. 10. 9: "Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses;" Mark 6. 8; Luke 9. 3; 10. 4; 22. 35.

6. Metaphys. 8. 8. The priority of energy or activity to capacity or potentiality is discussed here at length.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:08 am

CHAPTER XV: The prerogative of conferring authority upon the Empire is contrary to the nature of the Church.

1. Again, that which is contrary to the nature of anything is not numbered among its peculiar powers, since the powers of anything correspond to its nature for the attainment of its end. [1] But the power to confer authority over the kingdom of our mortal life is contrary to the nature of the Church, and is therefore not numbered among her prerogatives.

2. To prove the minor premise, it must be known that the nature of the Church is the informing principle of the Church. For though the word "nature" may be used of material and form, yet it is used more properly of form, as is shown in the book on Natural Learning. [2] But the form of the Church is naught else than the life of Christ as it is comprised in His teachings and in His deeds. Truly, His life was the ideal and exemplar of the Church militant, particularly of its pastors, and more than all of its Head Shepherd, whose duty it is to feed His sheep and lambs. Hence, when in the Gospel of John He bequeathed to men the informing principle of His life, He said, "I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." [3] And especially, as we learn from the same, Gospel, when He said to Peter, after He had conferred upon Him the function of shepherd, "Peter, follow me." [4] But before Pilate, Christ disclaimed any ruling power of a temporal kind, saying, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence." [5]

3. This must not be understood to imply that Christ, who is God, is not Lord of the temporal kingdom, seeing that the Psalmist says, "The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands formed the dry land;" [6] but rather to mean that, as exemplar of the Church, He had not charge of this kingdom. Similarly, if a golden seal were to say, "I am not the standard for any class of objects," it would not speak truly, in so far as it is gold, the standard of all metals. It would speak truly only in so far as it is a particular stamp, capable of being received by impression.

4. Therefore it is the formal principle of the Church to declare and to believe Christ's saying. To declare and to believe the opposite is manifestly contrary to the formal principle, or, what is the same thing, to the nature of the Church. We may gather from this that the prerogative to grant authority to the temporal domain is contrary to the nature of the Church, for contrariety in thought or in saying follows from contrariety in the thing spoken or thought. Just so truth or falsity in speech originates from the existence or non- existence of a thing, as the teaching of the Categories [8] shows us. Through the above arguments, leading to an absurdity, has it been sufficiently demonstrated that the authority of Empire is not at all dependent upon the Church.

_______________

Notes:

1. Phys. 7. 3. Conv. 3. 15. 4: "The natural desire of everything is regulated according to the capacity of the thing desiring; otherwise it would oppose itself, which is impossible, and nature would have made it in vain, which is also impossible." De Mon. 1. 3. 1; 1. 10. 1; 2. 7. 2, repeat the same idea.

2. Phys. 2. 1: "Form is nature."

Metaphys. 6. 7. 4: "From art are generated those things of whatsoever there is a form in the soul. But I mean by form the essence or very nature of a thing." L.c. 6. 9: "Art is form." S.T. 1-2. 94. 3: "Every being is naturally inclined to an activity befitting itself according to its form."

3. John 13. 15.

4. John 21. 19.

5. John 18. 36.

6. Ps. 95. 5.

7. De Mon. 2. 3, notes 6 and 13.

8. Categ. c. 12. De Mon. 3. 12, note 2.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:09 am

CHAPTER XVI: The authority of the Empire derives from God directly.

1. Although by the method of reduction to absurdity it has been shown in the foregoing chapter that the authority of Empire has not its source in the Chief Pontiff, yet it has not been fully proved, save by an inference, that its immediate source is God, seeing that if the authority does not depend on the Vicar of God, we conclude that it depends on God Himself. For a perfect demonstration of the proposition we must prove directly that the Emperor, or Monarch, of the world has immediate relationship to the Prince of the universe, who is God. [1]

2. In order to realize this, it must be understood that man alone of all beings holds the middle place between corruptibility and incorruptibility, and is therefore rightly compared by philosophers to the horizon which lies between the two hemispheres. [2] Man may be considered with regard to either of his essential parts, body or soul. [3] If considered in regard to the body alone, he is perishable; if in regard to the soul alone, he is imperishable. So the Philosopher spoke well of its incorruptibility when he said in the second book on the Soul, "And this only can be separated as a thing eternal from that which perishes." [4]

3. If man holds a middle place between the perishable and imperishable, then, inasmuch as every mean shares the nature of the extremes, man must share both natures. [5] And inasmuch as every nature is ordained for a certain ultimate end, it follows that there exists for man a twofold end, in order that as he alone of all beings partakes of the perishable and the imperishable, so he alone of all beings should be ordained for two ultimate ends. One end is for that in him which is perishable, the other for that which is imperishable.

4. Ineffable Providence has thus designed two ends to be contemplated of man: first, the happiness of this life, which consists in the activity of his natural powers, [6] and is prefigured by the terrestrial Paradise; [7] and then the blessedness of life everlasting, which consists in the enjoyment of the countenance of God, to which man's natural powers may not attain unless aided by divine light, and which may be symbolized by the celestial Paradise. [8]

5. To these states of blessedness, just as to diverse conclusions, man must come by diverse means. To the former we come by the teachings of philosophy, obeying them by acting in conformity with the moral and intellectual virtues; [9] to the latter through spiritual teachings which transcend human reason, and which we obey by acting in conformity with the theological virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity. [10] Now the former end and means are made known to us by human reason, which the philosophers have wholly explained to us; and the latter by the Holy Spirit, which has revealed to us supernatural but essential truth through the Prophets and Sacred Writers, through Jesus Christ, the coeternal Son of God, and through His disciples. [11] Nevertheless, human passion would cast all these behind, were not men, like horses astray in their brutishness, held to the road by bit and rein. [12]

6. Wherefore a twofold directive agent was necessary to man, in accordance with the twofold end; the Supreme Pontiff to lead the human race to life eternal by means of revelation, [13] and the Emperor to guide it to temporal felicity by means of philosophic instruction. [14] And since none or few -- and these with exceeding difficulty -- could attain this port, were not the waves of seductive desire calmed, and mankind made free to rest in the tranquillity of peace, therefore this is the goal which he whom we call the guardian of the earth and Roman Prince should most urgently seek; then would it be possible for life on this mortal threshing-floor [15] to pass in freedom and peace. The order of the world follows the order inherent in the revolution of the heavens. To attain this order it is necessary that instruction productive of liberality and peace should be applied by the guardian of the realm, in due place and time, as dispensed by Him who is the ever present Watcher of the whole order of the heavens. And He alone foreordained this order, that by it in His providence He might link together all things, each in its own place. [16]

7. If this is so, and there is none higher than He, only God elects and only God confirms. Whence we may further conclude that neither those who are now, nor those who in any way whatsoever have been, called Electors [17] have the right to be so called; rather should they be entitled heralds of divine providence. Whence it is that those in whom is vested the dignity of proclamation suffer dissension among themselves at times, when, all or part of them being shadowed by the clouds of passion, they discern not the face of God's dispensation.

8. It is established, then, that the authority of temporal Monarchy descends without mediation from the fountain of universal authority. And this fountain, one in its purity of source, flows into multifarious channels out of the abundance of its excellence.

9. Methinks I have now approached close enough to the goal I had set myself, for I have taken the kernels of truth from the husks of falsehood, in that question which asked whether the office of Monarchy was essential to the welfare of the world, and in the next which made inquiry whether the Roman people rightfully appropriated the Empire, and in the last which sought whether the authority of the Monarch derived from God immediately, or from some other. But the truth of this final question must not be restricted to mean that the Roman Prince shall not be subject in some degree to the Roman Pontiff, for felicity that is mortal is ordered in a measure after felicity that is immortal. Wherefore let Caesar honor Peter as a first-born son should honor his father, so that, refulgent with the light of paternal grace, he may illumine with greater radiance the earthly sphere over which he has been set by Him who alone is Ruler of all things spiritual and temporal. [18]

_______________

Notes:

1. De Mon. 1.7. 1. Purg. 32. 100: "Here thou shalt be a little time a woodman, and with me shalt thou be without end, a citizen of that Rome whereof Christ is a Roman."

2. De Causis, Lect. 2: "Generated intelligence comprehends both nature and the horizon of nature, that is to say the soul, for it is above nature."

3. The nature and origin of the human soul is discussed Conv. 4. 21. In Purg. 25 Statius discourses on generation and the soul, and its attributes find due place there. Other references are: --

Conv. 4. 21. 2: "We must know that man is composed of soul and body; but of the soul is that nobility ... which is as the seed of the Divine virtue."

Par. 7. 139: "The soul of every brute and of the plants, being endued by complexion with potency, draws in the ray and the movement of the holy lights. But your life the highest Goodness inspires."

So Thomas Aquinas, S.T. 1. 76. 4. 4: "The soul is the substantial form of man;" so also l.c. 1-2. 94. 3: "The proper form of man is his rational soul."

4. De Anima 2. 2. 21.

5. De Part. Anim. 3. 1.

6. Conv. 3. 15. 5: "Felicity ... is action according to virtue, in the perfect life." So Aristotle says in Eth. 1. 13. 1: "Happiness is a certain energy of the soul according to perfect goodness." Dante uses this definition again Conv. 4. 17. 14.

7. Purg. 28-33 describes the terrestrial Paradise and its place in the order of the universe.

8. The whole of the Paradiso develops the gradual revelation of God's self to man. For Dante's valuation of the active and speculative life, see De Mon. 1. 3. 3, and note 14; 1. 4, and note 1. See Conv. 2. 5, many parts of Conv. 3, and Conv. 4. 21, 22, 23.

Conv. 4. 22. 5: "The use of the mind is double, that is, practical and speculative. ... Its practical use is to act through us virtuously, that is, righteously, by temperance, fortitude, and justice; the speculative is not to operate actively in us, but to consider the works of God and nature; and the one and the other use make up our beatitude."

Conv. 4. 22. 9: "In our contemplation God is always in advance of us; nor can we ever attain to Him here, who is our supreme beatitude."

Conv. 4. 22. 10: "Our beatitude ... we may first find imperfectly in the active life, that is, in the exercise of the moral virtues, and then almost perfectly in the contemplative life, that is, in the exercise of the intellectual virtues."

S.T. 1. 2. 3. 8: "The last and perfect happiness of man cannot be other than in the vision of the Divine Essence."

9. Conv. 4. 17 treats of the twelve moral virtues, which include the cardinal, -- fortitude, temperance, liberality, munificence, magnanimity, love of honor, meekness, affability, truth, discretion, justice, and prudence.

Canz. 3. 5: "All virtues take their rise from one sole root -- that primal virtue, which makes mankind blest in acting it -- which is the elective habit."

The cardinal virtues were the active virtues, as the theological were the contemplative. So Purg. 31. 107: "Before that Beatrice descended to the world were we ordained to her for handmaids." And in Purg. 29. 130 the cardinal virtues are on the left of the symbolic car.

10. The theological virtues are called in Purg. 7. 34, "the three holy virtues." Purg. 31. 111: "The three beyond who look more deeply." They are on the right of the car in Purg. 29. 121: "Three ladies, whirling on the right wheel's side, came dancing, the one so red that hardly would she have been marked with fire; the second was as if her flesh and bones had been made out of emerald; the third appeared snow but lately driven."

Thomas Aquinas discusses the cardinal virtues S.T. 1-2. 61; the theological virtues S.T. 1- 2. 62.

Conv. 3. 14. 5: "We believe that every miracle may be reasonable to a higher intellect, and therefore possible. Whence our precious faith has its origin, from which comes the hope of things desired, but not seen; and from this are born the works of charity. By which three virtues we ascend to philosophize in that celestial Athens, where Stoics, and Peripatetics, and Epicureans, by the art of Eternal Truth, harmoniously concur in one desire."

11. De Mon. 2. 8, and note 1; De Mon. 3. 16. 6.

12. This figure, which compares man to a horse needing bit and spur to keep him in his road and under control of his rider, is almost as much a favorite with Dante as that of the wax and seal. He must have found it originally in Ps. 32. 9: "Be ye not as the horse or as the mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee." The most important uses of this metaphor are as follows: --

Conv. 4. 9. 3: "The Emperor ... is the rider of human will, and it is very evident how wildly this horse goes over the field without a rider."

Conv. 4. 26. 4: "This appetite ...should obey the reason, which guides it with curb and spur."

Purg. 6. 88: "What boots it that Justinian should have put thy bit in order again, if the saddle is empty?"

Purg. 13. 40: "This circle scourges the sin of envy, and therefore are the lashes of the scourge wielded by love. The rein will have to be of the contrary sound."

Purg. 14. 143: "That was the hard bit which ought to hold the man within his bound."

Purg. 16. 94: "It behoved to lay down laws for a bit; it behoved to have a king who should discern of the true city at least the tower."

Purg. 20. 55: "I found so fast within my hands the rein of government of the kingdom, and such power of new acquirement, and so full of friends, that to the widowed crown was the head of my son promoted." The words are Hugh Capet's. L.c. 22. 19; 25. 119: "Through this place needs one to keep the rein tight on the eyes, because for a little cause one might go astray." L.c. 28. 71: "The Hellespont, ... a bridle still to pride of men."

Purg. 33. 141: "The bridle of my art lets me go no further."

Par. 7. 26: "For not enduring to the faculty that wills any curb, for its own advantage, that man who was never born, in damning himself damned all his progeny."

13. Par. 5. 76 : "Ye have the old and new Testament, and the Pastor of the Church who guides you; let this suffice you to your salvation." See De Mon. 3. 16. 5, and note 9.

14. From the philosophic nature of the Convito and the Comedy it is impossible to indicate here even the most important sections devoted to philosophy, classical or mediaeval. Conv. 3. 11. 2 defines philosophy as "No other than a friendship for knowledge; wherefore anyone might be called a philosopher, according to that natural love which inspires all men with a desire for knowledge. " L.c. 3. 11. 3: "Philosophy has for subject the understanding, and for form an almost divine love for the intelligible." L.c. 3. 12. 4: "Philosophy is a loving use of Wisdom; which exists above all in God, because in Him is supreme Wisdom, and supreme Love, and supreme Power, which cannot exist elsewhere, except as it proceeds from Him."

In Conv. 4. 6. 9 relations are established between philosophic and imperial authority. "When joined together they are most useful and most full of power. ... Unite the philosophical and the imperial authority to rule well and perfectly."

Philosophy is, Purg. 6. 45, "A light betwixt the truth and understanding."

Purg. 18. 46: "All that reason has seen I can tell thee."

15. "In ainola ista mortalium." The same word is used in the Italian form, "aiuola," in Par. 22. 151 and 27. 86.

16. De Consol. Phil. 3. 9: "All things Thou dost produce after the Divine Exemplar, Thou the most beautiful, carrying in thy mind the beautiful world."

This idea of God's foresight and the foreordination of all things in the universe is found repeatedly in all Dante's writings. See quotations in notes to De Mon. 1. 6.

Inf. 7. 72,: "He, whose knowledge transcends all, made the heavens, and gave them their guide."

Par. 18. 118: "The Mind wherein thy motion and thy virtue have their origin."

17. "In the Holy Roman Empire the college of lay and ecclesiastical princes in whom the right of choosing the King of the Romans was vested. With the extinction of the Carolingian line, after the breaking up of the Empire of Charles the Great, the kingship in Germany became elective, the right of election residing in certain of the great feudatories, though just in whom or on what grounds is not clear from the early mediaeval accounts. An electoral body is vaguely mentioned in chronicles of 1152, 1198, and 1230, but there is no clear indication as to who composed the body.... The electoral college was first clearly defined in 1356 in the Golden Bull, a constitution for the Holy Roman Empire, issued by Emperor Charles IV. This document prescribed the exact form and manner of election of the 'King of the Romans and future Emperor.' Seven electors are there named, each holding some hereditary office in the Imperial court. (1) Archbishop of Mainz, as Archchancellor of the Holy Roman Empire for Germany; (2) Archbishop of Cologne, as Arch-chancellor for Italy; (3) Archbishop of Treves, as Arch-chancellor for the Gallic Provinces and Arles; (4) King of Bohemia, Arch-Cupbearer; (5) Count Palatine of the Rhine, Arch-Steward; (6) Duke of Saxony, Arch-Marshal; (7) Margrave of Brandenburg, Arch-Chamberlain. It seems that the electors had no legal powers beyond that of election, and though the German princes held that an election by the German electors held for the Holy Roman Empire, the popes contended that they alone as Vicars of God could bestow the Imperial dignity." -- New International Encyc. See also Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, c. 14; Hallam, Middle Ages, chap. 8, part 2; Turner, Germanic Constitution (New York, 1888); the Golden Bull is translated in Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London, 1892).

18. This harmonious rule of two powers by the acknowledgment of filial relationship between Pope and Emperor, by recognition of the differing character of their functions, is prayed for by Dante in many parts of the Convito and Comedy, and is stated most briefly and forcibly in Purg. 16. 107: "Rome, that made the good world, was wont to have two suns, that showed the one and the other road, both of the world and of God."

The close of the Letter to the Princes and Peoples of Italy is strangely like the close of the De Monarchia. Proclaiming Henry VII as the rightful Emperor, Dante writes: "This is he whom Peter, the Vicar of God, admonishes us to honor; whom Clement, now the successor of Peter, illuminates with the light of the apostolic benediction, in order that where the spiritual ray does not suffice, the splendor of the lesser light may illumine.'"

LETTER TO THE PRINCES AND PEOPLES OF ITALY [1]
by Dante Aligieri

For all and for each of the kings of Italy, for the senators of the fair city, and also for the dukes, marquises and counts, and for the peoples, the humble Italian Dante Alighieri, a Florentine, and undeservedly in exile, prays for peace.

1. Behold, now is the acceptable time, in which the signs of consolation and peace arise. For a new day grows bright, revealing a dawn that already lessens the gloom of long calamity. Already the eastern breezes grow stronger; the lips of heaven grow ruddy and strengthen the auguries of the people with caressing tranquillity. And even we, who for so long have passed our nights in the desert, shall behold the gladness for which we have longed, for Titan shall arise pacific, and justice, which had languished without sunshine at the end of the winter’s solstice, shall grow green once more, when first he darts forth his splendor. All who hunger and thirst will be satisfied in the light of his rays, and they who delight in iniquity shall be put to confusion at the sight of his radiance. For the strong Lion of the Tribe of Judah has hearkened with compassionate ears, and pitying the lament of universal captivity, has raised up another Moses, who will liberate his people from the oppression of the Egyptians, and will lead them to a land flowing with milk and honey.

2. Henceforth let thy heart be joyful, O Italy! who deserveth to be pitied even by the Saracens, but who straightway shalt be looked on with envy throughout the world, because thy bridegroom, the solace of the earth and the glory of thy people, the most clement Henry, Divine, Augustus and Caesar, hastens to thy nuptials. Dry thy tears and blot out the traces of sorrow, O most beauteous, for he is at hand who will free thee from the bonds of the impious; who, smiting the wicked, will destroy them at the edge of the sword, and will hire his vineyard to other husbandmen, who, at the time of harvest, will yield the fruit of justice.

3. But will he not be merciful to any? Yea; as he is Caesar, and his majesty flows from the font of pity, he will spare all imploring mercy. His judgments abominate all severity, and always in punishing set a bound on this side of moderation, and in rewarding on the other side. Will he, therefore, applaud the desperate deeds of evil men, and drink to the undertakings of the presumptuous? Nay; because he is Augustus. And if Augustus, will he not avenge the wickedness of backsliders, and pursue them even into Thessaly, — the Thessaly, I say, of the last destruction.

4. Lay aside, O Lombard race, thy accumulated barbarity; and if any vestige of the seed of the Trojans and Latins still exists, give it place, lest when the sublime eagle, descending like a thunderbolt, falls from on high, he may see his eaglets cast out, and the nest of his own young occupied by ravens. Up, O race of Scandinavia! See that thou mayest desire, as eagerly as in thee lies, the presence of him whose coming thou justly dreadest. Let not cupidity, deceiving thee after the manner of the Sirens, seduce thee, deadening the vigilance of reason by I know not what sweetness. “Come before his presence with a confession of submission, and rejoice on the psaltery with a song of repentance,” considering that he who resists authority, resists the ordinance of God, and he who withstands the divine ordinance, opposes a will co-equal with omnipotence; and it is hard to kick against the pricks.

5. Ye likewise, who mourn oppressed, lift up your hearts, for your salvation is at hand. Take up the harrow of a good humility, and level the clods of parched animosity, lest perchance the heavenly rain, coming before the sowing of your seed, fall from on high in vain; or lest the grace of God shrink from you as the dew does daily from the stone. But do ye conceive like a fertile valley and put forth green — the green, I say, fruitful of true peace; and, in very truth, in this verdure, making spring in your land, will the new husbandman of the Romans yoke the oxen of his counsel more kindly and confidently to his plough. Pardon, pardon, now and henceforth, O best beloved! who have suffered injustice along with me, that the Hectorian shepherd may recognize you as the sheep of his fold: who, although he holds the rod of temporal correction in his hand by divine concession, nevertheless, that he may be redolent of the goodness of Him from whom as from one point the power of Peter and of Caesar divides, gladly corrects his family, but more willingly, in very truth, has compassion on it.

6. Therefore, if the old transgression, which many a time like the serpent is coiled and turned on itself, is not hindrance, henceforth can ye all perceive that peace is prepared for one and all, and already can ye taste the first fruits of the hoped-for gladness. Then be ye all vigilant, and rise up to meet your king, O inhabitants of Italy! reserving yourselves not only for his empire but, as free people, for his guidance.

7. I exhort you not only to rise up to meet him, but also to do reverence to presence. Ye who drink of his streams and navigate his seas; ye who tread the sands of the shores and the summits of the alps that are his; ye who rejoice in any public thing whatsoever, and possess private goods not otherwise than by the bonds of his law: do not, as if ignorant deceive yourselves as though ye dreamt in your hearts and said: “We have no lord.” For his garden and lake is whatever the heavens encompass round about, since “The sea is God’s and He made it, and His hands formed the dry land.” Wherefore that God predestined the Roman Prince shines forth in wonderful effects; and that he afterwards confirmed him by the word of His Word, the Church proclaims.

8. Surely, if through those things which have been created by God the human creature sees the invisible things with the eyes of the intellect, and if from the things better known those less known are evident to us, in like manner it concerns human apprehension that from the motion of the heavens we should know the Motor and His will; and this predestination will be seen readily even by those who look superficially. For if from the first spark of this fire we turn back to things passed, from what time, I say, hospitality was denied the Argives by the Phrygians; and if there is time to survey the affairs of the world even to the triumphs of Octavian, we shall see that some of them have completely transcended the heights of human valor, and that God has worked through men, just as through the medium of the new heavens. For we do not always act; nay, rather are we sometimes the instruments of God, and the human will, in which liberty is innate, acts sometimes free even from earthly passions, and, subservient to the Eternal Will, often serves it without knowing it.

9. And if these things which are first principles, as it were, for proving that which is sought, are not sufficient, who, proceeding from the conclusion inferred through facts will not be compelled to think as I do, perceiving that peace has embraced the world completely for twelve years — a peace which revealed in its accomplishment the face of its syllogizer, the son of God. And while He, made man, preached the Gospel on earth for the revelation of the Holy Ghost, as if he were dividing two kingdoms, distributing all things to himself and Caesar, He commanded to “Render unto each the things that are his.”

10. But if the obstinate mind demands further, not yet assenting to the truth, let him examine the words of Christ, even when in chains, for He who is our light, when Pilate opposed His power, asserted that the office which he, as lieutenant of Caesar, was vaunting of, came from on high. Therefore walk ye not even as the Gentiles, involved in darkness by the vanity of the senses; but open the eyes of your mind, and see, for the Lord of heaven and earth has ordained a king for us. This is he whom Peter, the vicar of God, admonished us to honor; whom Clement, now the successor of Peter, illuminates with the light of the apostolic benediction, in order that where the spiritual ray does not suffice, the splendor of the lesser light may illumine.

_______________

Note:

1. A Translation of Dante’s Eleven Letter by Charles Sterrett Latham. Riverside Press, 1892.


The dual organization of Church and Empire is also set forth in symbolic fashion in Inf. 14. 102 ff., and in Dante's vision Purg. 32.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: DE MONARCHIA OF DANTE ALIGHIERI

Postby admin » Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:10 am

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LATIN TEXTS.


Fraticelli, P. J., Opere Minori. Florence, 1834-40 (1855, etc.; last ed., 1887-93).

Giuliani, G., Opere Latine di Dante Alighieri. Florence, 1878-82.

Moore, E., Tutte le Opere di Dante Alighieri. Oxford, 1894.

Witte, K., Dantis Alighieri De Monarchia libri tres, codicum manuseriptorum ope emendati. Editio altera. Vienna, 1874.

TRANSLATIONS OF THE DE MONARCHIA.

Church, F. J., De Monarchia. London and New York, 1878.

Wicksteed, P. H., The De Monarchia. Hull, 1897.

OTHER DANTE TRANSLATIONS.

Butler, A. J., Dante's Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. London, 1891-92.

Hillard, K., The Banquet. London, 1889.

Latham, C. S., Dante's Eleven Letters. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1891.

Longfellow, H. W., The Divine Comedy. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1891.

Norton, C. E., The Divine Comedy. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1891.

Plumptre, E. H., The Commedia and Canzoniere. D. C. Heath, 1899.

Rossetti, D. G., Dante and his Circle. Crowell & Co., 1899.

REFERENCE BOOKS, HISTORIES, ETC.

Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae. Paris, 1880.

Bryce, J., Holy Roman Empire. London, 1901.

Carnoldi, G. M., The Physical System of St. Thomas. London, 1893.

Church, R. W., Dante and Other Essays. London, 1901.

Dinsmore, C. A., Aids to the Study of Dante. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1903.

Dinsmore, C. A., The Teachings of Dante. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1903.

Farrar, F. W., Dante, in Lectures and Addresses. New York, 1886.

Gardner, E. G., Dante's Ten Heavens. Westminster, 1898.

Gardner, E. G., Dante, in the Temple Primers. London, 1900.

Gaspary, A., Italian Literature to the Death of Dante. London, 1901.

Gierke, O., Political Theories of the Middle Ages. Cambridge, 1900.

Hallam, H., Middle Ages (Vol. 4). New York, 1888.

Milman, H. H., History of Latin Christianity (Vol. 6). New York, 1892.

Moore, E., Studies in Dante. 3 vols. Oxford, 1896-1904.

Ozanam, F., Dante and Catholic Philosophy. New York, 1897.

Pastor, L., History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages (Vol. 1). London, 1891.

Rickaby, J., Aquinas Ethicus. New York, 1896.

Scartazzini, G. A., Companion to Dante. London, 1893.

Symonds, J. A., Introduction to the Study of Dante Edinburgh, 1890.

Toynbee, P., Dante Dictionary. Oxford, 1898.

Toynbee, P., Dante Studies and Researches. London, 1902.

Vaughan, R. B., The Life and Labours of St. Thomas. London, 1872.

Villari, P. , The Two First Centuries of Florentine History. London, 1894-95.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 36126
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Ancien Regime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests