Title: Dante's words in<i>Commedia</i>miniatures: pictorial textuality as commentary on the poet's authority
Abstract: Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1 – ‘Enunciating authority: exonarrative inscriptions on or near miniatures of the Divine Comedy’, Word & Image, 26, 2, pp. 160–171. For reproductions of over 1200 Commedia miniatures, and for a fairly thorough, albeit somewhat dated, bibliography on them, see Illuminated Manuscripts of the ‘Divine Comedy’, eds. Peter Brieger, Millard Meiss, and Charles Singleton (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 2 Vols. Note that, unless I mention otherwise, my dates for the miniatures derive from Meiss's contributions to the catalogue on pages 209–339 of the first volume. For the most complete survey of all manuscripts containing at least one cantica of the Commedia, and for a more up-to-date bibliography than that in Illuminated Manuscripts, see Marcella Roddewig, Dante Alighieri, ‘Die göttliche Komödie’: Vergleichende Bestandsaufnahme der ‘Commedia’-Handschriften (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1984). For additional bibliographic references, particularly with regard to publications since 1984, see my notes below. 2 – Karl Fugelso, ‘Historicizing the Divine Comedy: renaissance responses to a “medieval” text’, The Year's Work in Medievalism, 15 (2000), pp. 83–106, esp. 87–101; and idem., ‘The artist as reader: Buffalmacco's illuminations for the Divine Comedy’, Dante Studies, 122 (2004), pp. 137–72, esp. 157–9. 3 – Unless otherwise noted, all of my quotations of the Divine Comedy come from Charles Singleton's three-volume translation (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970–75). For an authoritative Italian edition of Dante's text, see La Commedia secondo l'antica vulgate, ed. Giorgio Petrocchi, Società Dantesca Italiana, and Edizione Nazionale (1966–68; 2nd ed. Florence: Casa editrice Le lettere, 1994), 4 Vols. 4 – For a reproduction of the Musèe Condè miniature, see plate 54a in Illuminated Manuscripts. Partly on the basis of textual references discussed by Francesco Mazzoni in ‘Guido da Pisa interprete di Dante e la sua fortuna presso il Boccaccio’, Studi Danteschi, 35 (1958), pp. 29–128, Meiss dated the Musée Condé manuscript to ca. 1345. And both he and Mazzoni defended that date throughout the rest of their careers, as in Mazzoni's entry on Guido da Pisa for the Enciclopedia dantesca, ed. Umberto Bosco (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1970–78), 6 Vols. However, Bruno Sandkühler convincingly argues for a date no later than 1333 and probably between 1325 and 1328, in Die frühen Dantekommentare und ihr Verhältnis zur mittelalterlichen Kommentartradition (Münchner Romanistiche Arbeiten, XIX) (Munich: W. Fink, 1967), esp. 163; L. Jenaro-MacLennan builds a strong case for a date of approximately 1327–28, in ‘The Dating of Guido da Pisa's Commentary on the Inferno’, Italian Studies, 23 (1968), pp. 19–54, and again in The Trecento Commentaries on the ‘Divina Commedia’ and the Epistle to Cangrande (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974); and Enzo Orvieto insists the manuscript must have been finished by 1328, in ‘Guido da Pisa e il commento inedito all’Inferno dantesco. Le chiose al trentatresimo canto’, Italica, 46 (1969), pp. 17–32. For a recent update of the controversy regarding the dating of Guido's commentary, particularly in relationship to other early responses to the Commedia, see Steven Botterill, ‘The trecento commentaries on Dante's Commedia’, in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, Volume II: The Middle Ages, eds. Alastair Minnis and Ian Johnson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 590–611. For other recent references to Musèe Condè 597, see Lucia Battaglia Ricci, Ragionare nel giardino. Boccaccio e i cicli pittorici del ‘Trionfo della Morte’ (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 1987), esp. 60–2; Maria Grazia Ciardi Dupré Dal Poggetto, ‘“Narrar Dante” attraverso le immagini: le prime illustrazioni della Commedia’, in the catalogue Pagine di Dante: Le edizioni della ‘Divina Commedia’ dal torchio al computer, for an exhibition held at the Oratorio del Gonfalone in Foligno 11 March–28 May 1989 and the Biblioteca comunale classense in Ravenna 8 July–16 October 1989 (Milan and Perugia: Electa Umbria, 1989), pp. 80–102; Ricci, ‘Testo e immagini in alcuni manoscritti illustrati della Commedia: le pagine d'apertura’, in Studi offerti a Luigi Blasucci, eds. Lucio Lugnani, Marco Santagata, and Alfredo Stussi (Lucca: Pacini-Fazzi, 1996), pp. 23–49; Michael Camille, ‘The pose of the queer: Dante's gaze, Brunetto Latini's body’, in Queering the Middle Ages, eds. Glenn Burger and Steven F. Kruger (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), pp. 57–86; and Fugelso ‘The artist as reader’. Roddewig dates the Palatini manuscript to the mid-trecento, but Meiss specifies the fourth decade of that century. 5 – Meiss dates this miniature to the second quarter of the fifteenth century, but Roddewig dates the manuscript to the second half of the fourteenth century. 6 – The date for this manuscript is given in a contemporaneous hand on the verso of f. 207. 7 – The text of the manuscript has been dated to 1438, and there is no reason to doubt that the miniatures date from shortly thereafter. For the dating of the miniatures, see S. Bandera Bistoletti, ‘La datazione del ms. it. 2017 della Bibliothèque Nationale di Parigi miniato dal Magister Vitae Imperatorum’, in Scritti di storia dell'arte in onore di R. Salvini, ed. C. De Benedictis (Florence: Sansoni, 1984), pp. 282–92, where she slightly departs from Meiss's date of approximately 1440 for the miniatures. For more on the Vitae Imperatorum Master in general, begin with Mirella Levi D'Ancona's entry for him in her catalogue The Wildenstein Collection of Illuminations: The Lombard School (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1970), pp. 11–20; Anna Melograni, ‘Appunti di miniature lombarda. Ricerche sul “Maestro delle Vitae Imperatorum”’, Storia dell'arte, 70 (1990), pp. 273–314; and Gennaro Toscano, ‘In margine al maestro delle “Vitae Imperatorum” e al Maestro di Ippolita Sforza: Codici Lombardi nelle Collezioni Aragonesi’, Rivista di storia della miniature, 1–2 (1996–97), pp. 169–78. 8 – As in Roddewig's discussion, noted above, of the manuscript. 9 – For example, as I discuss in ‘Historicizing the Divine Comedy’ (96), the opening page of the Inferno in this manuscript depicts a frontal gate of hell that caters to the viewer and an oblique gate of hell that caters to the pilgrim approaching it from the left side of the miniature. 10 – On the conservative aspects of the miniatures and, implicitly, Alfonso of Aragon's patronage, see Bandera Bistoletti, ‘La datazione del ms. it. 2017’. On the conservative nature of Guiniforto's commentary, see Pier Giorgio Ricci's entry on him in the Enciclopedia dantesca. On the possibility that Guiniforto served as the book agent for this manuscript, see Peter Brieger's contribution to page 319 of the entry for the Paris-Imola manuscript in the catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts. 11 – For more on this manuscript and the widely agreed upon dates for Giraldi's contributions to it, see Luigi Michelini Tocci, Il Dante Urbinate della Biblioteca Vatican, 2 Vols., Codices e Vaticanis selecti, XXIX (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1965). Note that the cycle of miniatures for the Inferno and Purgatorio were probably finished by Franco de’ Russi of Mantua and that the miniatures for Paradiso were added by Valerio Mariani in the seventeenth century. 12 – Meiss dates these miniatures to the mid-trecento, while Roddewig dates the manuscript to the second half of that century. 13 – For a reproduction of this miniature, see plate 477b in Illuminated Manuscripts. Roddewig and Meiss both date these miniatures to the late fourteenth century. 14 – For a reproduction of this miniature, see plate 474b in Illuminated Manuscripts. Roddewig dates this manuscript to the second half of the trecento, while Meiss dates the miniatures specifically to the third quarter of that century. 15 – Meiss dates the miniatures to the fifteenth century, but Roddewig dates them and the rest of the manuscript to the late fourteenth century. 16 – For a reproduction of this miniature, see plate 477c in Illuminated Manuscripts. Roddewig dates this manuscript to the beginning of the fifteenth century, while Meiss dates the miniatures to approximately 1400. 17 – My translation of ‘DILIGITE IUSTITIAM QUI IUDICATIS TERRAM’. 18 – For a reproduction of this miniature, see plate 478b in Illuminated Manuscripts. Roddewig dates the manuscript to the first half of the fifteenth century, while Meiss dates the miniatures more specifically to the early quattrocento. 19 – Roddewig dates this manuscript to the second half of the fourteenth century, but Meiss dates the miniatures to the early fifteenth century. 20 – For a reproduction of this miniature, see plate 479b in Illuminated Manuscripts, or page 130 in John Pope-Hennessy, Paradiso: The Illuminations to Dante's ‘Divine Comedy’ by Giovanni di Paolo (New York: Random House, 1993), where it is reproduced in color. Roddewig dates this manuscript to the first half of the fifteenth century, while Pope-Hennessy dates the miniatures to approximately 1445 and Meiss dates them to approximately 1450. 21 – For a reproduction of this miniature, see plate 30b in Illuminated Manuscripts. This miniature, which is by a different artist than the master of the Paradiso miniatures in this manuscript, is dated to approximately 1442–50 by Meiss. 22 – For a reproduction of this miniature, see plate 26 in Illuminated Manuscripts. The manuscript is dated to 1398 by colophons on folios 61r and 91v, though, as Meiss notes, the miniatures may have been executed slightly later. 23 – For a reproduction of the Bodmer miniature, see plate 28a in Illuminated Manuscripts. The Bodmer miniature is dated by a colophon on f. 4. Roddewig dates the Laurenziana manuscript as a whole to 1385–92, but Meiss dates its historiated initial on the opening page of Paradiso to approximately 1420. 24 – For a reproduction of the Budapest miniature, see plate 143b in Illuminated Manuscripts or f. 10 in the facsimile constituting the first volume of Dante Aligheri, ‘Commedia’, Biblioteca universitaria di Budapest, codex italicus 1, eds. Gian Paolo Marchi and József Pál (Campagnola di Zevio [Verona]: Grafiche SiZ S.p.a., 2006), 2 Vols. Roddewig dates this manuscript to the second half of the fourteenth century, and Meiss dates its miniatures to approximately 1345, but Giorgio Fossaluzza dates the manuscript to 1343–54 in his essay on the provenance of the codex for Dante Aligheri, ‘Commedia’, II, 51–83. Roddewig dates the Altona manuscript to the second half of the fourteenth century, while Meiss dates its miniatures more specifically to the last quarter of the fourteenth century. 25 – On page 108 of ‘Pictorial Commentaries’ in Illuminated Manuscripts (I, 81–113), Brieger claims that this manuscript may originally have had as many as 115 miniatures. 26 – Though Pope-Hennessy allows on page 12 of his Paradiso that the illuminators may have worked concurrently, it would be rather unusual for the first artist to have executed the historiated initial at the beginning of Paradiso if he did not intend to decorate the entire cantica, particularly as the style of the first artist is quite different from that of the second artist. 27 – For more on the illuminators’ political agendas, see Fugelso, ‘Defining the state in Commedia miniatures: pictorial responses to Dante's condemnation of Florence’, Studies in Iconography, 28 (2007), pp. 171–207. 28 – For the claim that the content of the Commedia came from ‘assiduo studio’, see paragraph 24 of Boccaccio's Trattatello in laude di Dante, ed. Luigi Sasso (Milan: Garzanti, 1995). For a recent and thorough overview of the fourteenth-century commentaries as a whole, see Botterill, ‘The trecento commentaries’. For a detailed analysis of the early fourteenth-century commentaries, albeit in the course of discussing other matters, see Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, pp. 155–91. And for much greater discussion on how fourteenth-century commentators approach Dante's responsibility for the Commedia, see my 1999 Columbia University dissertation, ‘Engaging the Viewer: Reading Structures and Narrative Strategies in Illuminated Manuscripts of the Divine Comedy’, pp. 103–61. For a recent discussion of the fourteenth- and fifteenth-century commentaries as a whole, see Deborah Parker, Commentary and Ideology: Dante in the Renaissance (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1993). 29 – For more on how the Epistler treats the Commedia as Scripture, see Bruno Nardi, ‘Osservazioni sul medievale accessus ad auctores in rapporto all’Epistola a Cangrande’, in his Saggi e note di critica dantesca (Milan and Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1966), pp. 268–305. For the claim that the Commedia is ‘in possibilitate’, see paragraph 19 in the Epistle as edited by Arsenio Frugoni and Giorgio Brugnoli in Opere minori (Milan and Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1979), Vol. 2. For the explanation of how Dante may have seen the Empyrean and then been unable to remember or articulate the experience, see paragraphs 28–30 in the Epistle. 30 – Although Sandkühler (Die frühen Dantekommentare, 96, 104) and many others have pointed out that the dedication sonnet to Guido da Polenta at the beginning of Jacopo's commentary dates the glosses to April or May 1322, the dating has been contested. For the details of that debate and for much more on Jacopo's position with regard to the possibility that his father actually had a vision of the afterlife, see Fugelso, ‘Engaging the Viewer’, pp. 109–17. For the most recent transcription of, and extensive remarks on, Jacopo's commentary, see Jacopo Alighieri: chiose all’‘Inferno’, ed. Saverio Bellomo, Medioevo e umanesimo, LXXV (Padua: Antenore, 1990). 31 – Bambaglioli's references include Ecclesiasticus 39.8–9 and Ezekiel 18.3–4, as noted by Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, p. 173. For more on Bambaglioli and his commentary, begin with Mazzoni, ‘Per la storia della critica dantesca. I: Iacopo Alighieri e Graziolo Bambaglioli (1322–1324)’, Studi danteschi, 30 (1951), pp. 157–202; idem., ‘La critica dantesca del secolo XIV’, Cultura e Scuola, 13–4 (1965), pp. 289–99, esp. 292; S. Vallone's entry for Bambaglioli in the Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1963), 10 Vols.; and Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, esp. 133–6. Bambaglioli's commentary exists in many variants discussed by Antonio Fiammazzo in the preface to Il commento dantesco di Graziolo de'Bambaglioli dal ‘Colombino’ di Siviglia con altri codici raffronatato, ed. and intro. Antonio Fiammazzo (Savona: D. Bertolloto, 1915). Jacopo may have derived his use of the accessus from the Epistler to Can Grande. For more on that possibility, see Fugelso, ‘Engaging the Viewer’, esp. 119. For more on Jacopo and his commentary, begin with Mazzoni, ‘La critica dantesca’, 292–3; idem., ‘Iacopo della Lana e la crisi nell'interpretazione della Divina Commedia’, in Dante e Bologna nei tempi di Dante, ed. Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell'Università di Bologna Commissione per i testi di lingua (Bologna: Commissione per i testi di lingua, 1967), pp. 265–306; and Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, pp. 188–205. For more on the Anonimo Latino, begin with Mazzoni, ‘Pietro Alighieri interprete di Dante’, Studi danteschi, 40 (1963), pp. 279–360; Sandkühler, Die frühen Dantekommentare, pp. 188–205, wherein he ascribes the core of the Anonimo Latino text to an author long known as the Anonymus lombardus and assigns a later expansion, which Sandkühler himself discovered, to an author he terms the Anonymous theologus; and Vincenzo Cioffari, Anonymous Latin Commentary on Dante's ‘Commedia’: Reconstructed Text (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull'alto medioevo, 1989), wherein he demonstrates that the texts discussed by Sandkühler are the works of multiple authors and cannot consistently or cogently be divided along the lines drawn by Sandkühler. For more on the Anonimo Selmiano, begin with Mazzoni, ‘La critica dantesca’, p. 293. For the Anonimo Selmiano's text, see Le antiche chiose anonime all’‘Inferno’ di Dante secondo il testo Marciano (Ital. Cl. IX, Cod. 179), ed. Giuseppe Avalle, Collezione di opuscoli danteschi inediti o rari, LXI–LXII (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1900). For a detailed comparison of these four commentators, see Fugelso, ‘Engaging the viewer’, pp. 117–28. 32 – For the original text of this remark, see Cioffari's transcription of Guido's Expositiones et glose super Comediam Dantis (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1974), p. 19, where it is recorded as ‘quia Infernum, Purgatorium, celum, celique cives, ipsamve beatissima Trinitatem, sibi adhuc in carne viventi sunt videre concessa’. For this translation of Guido's text, see Cioffari, ‘Guido da Pisa's basic interpretation: a translation of the first two cantos’, Dante Studies, 93 (1975), p. 8. 33 – The dates of Andrea's redactions have been debated, but perhaps the strongest case has been laid out by Sandkühler (99, 209–10, and 216), and the debate as a whole, as well as Andrea's position relative to the possibility that Dante had a vision, has been covered in detail by Fugelso in ‘Engaging the Viewer’, pp. 128–34. For more on Andrea, see Giuseppe Vandelli, ‘Una nuova redazione dell'Ottimo’, Studi danteschi, 14 (1930), pp. 93–174; Mazzoni, ‘Per l'Epistola a Cangrande’, in Studi in onore di Angelo Monteverdi (Modena: Società tipografica editrice modenese, 1959), 2 Vols., Vol. II, pp. 489–516; and idem., ‘La critica dantesca’, p. 293. For a transcription of Andrea's third redaction, see L'Ottimo Commento della ‘Divina Commedia’: testo inedito di un contemporaneo del poeta, ed. Alessandro Torri (Pisa: Niccolò Capurro, 1827–29), 3 Vols. 34 – For the most detailed discussion of Piero's position relative to the possibility that his father had a vision, see Fugelso, ‘Engaging the Viewer’, pp. 134–43. For more information on Pietro, see Piero Ginori Conti, Vita e opera di Pietro di Dante Alighieri (Florence: Fondazione Ginori Conti, 1939); Mazzoni, ‘Pietro Alighieri’, pp. 279–360; Giovanni Fallani, Pietro Alighieri e il suo commento al ‘Paradiso’ (Florence: Le Monnier, 1965); and Steno Vazzana, ‘Il Commentarium di Pietro di Dante e il contrapasso’, L'Alighieri, 9 (1968), pp. 82–92. For transcriptions of Pietro's redactions, see Il ‘Commentarium’ di Pietro Alighieri nelle redazioni Ashburnhamiana e Ottoboniana, eds. Roberto della Vedova and Maria Teresa Silvotti (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1978). 35 – For this quote from Boccaccio, see Mazzoni, ‘Guido da Pisa’, p. 114, where it is transcribed as ‘Questa senza alcun dubbio, si dee credere che fosse la grazia di Dio’. For similar claims, see paragraphs 19 and 61–3 in the Trattatello. For a few examples of Boccaccio comparing Dante to Old Testament authors, see paragraphs 142, 149, and 150 in the Trattatello. 36 – For a few examples of Benvenuto comparing Dante to the Prophets and to other Old Testament authorities, see Benvenuto Rambaldi da Imola illustrato nella vita e nelle opera, e di lui Commento Latino sulla ‘Divina Commedia’ di Dante Allighieri, ed. Giovanni Tamburini (Imola: Galeati, 1855–56), 3 Vols., Vol. I, pp. 9–10, 20, and 22. For Francesco da Buti's declaration that Dante ‘impero che graziosamente fece dono ad altrui di quello che Idio li avea prestato’, see Francesco da Buti, Commento di Francesco Buti sopra la ‘Divina Comedia’, ed. Crescentino Giannini (Pisa: Fratelli Nistri, 1858–62), 3 Vols., Vol. I, p. 10. For the Falso Boccaccio's claim that ‘spirò Iddio per grazia nell'animo dello Autore di fargli venire voglia et pensiero di studiare in questa scienza’, see Chiose sopra Dante, ed. G. G. Warren (Lord Vernon) (Florence: Piatti, 1846), p. 44. And for Villani's insistence that Dante was ‘spiritu Dei tactus’, see Il Comento al primo canto dell ‘Inferno’ di Filippo Villani, ed. Giuseppe Cugnoni, Collezione di opuscoli danteschi indediti o rari, XXXI (Città di Castello: S. Lapi, 1896), pp. 28–9. 37 – This description owes much to that of Brieger's on page 89 in ‘Pictorial commentaries to the Commedia’, in Illuminated Manuscripts, I, 81–113. For more extensive yet compressed discussions of late fourteenth- and fifteenth-century perceptions of Dante's responsibility for the Commedia, see Vittorio Rossi, Scritti di critica letteraria (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1930), 3 Vols., Vol. I, pp. 293–332; D. Mattalìa, ‘Dante Alighieri’, in I classici italiani nell storia della critica, ed. Walter Binni (Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1954), 3 Vols., Vol. I, pp. 3–93; Siro A. Chimenz, Dante, Letteratura italiana, I Maggiori (Milan: Carlo Marzorati, 1956), pp. 70–103; and Paola Rigo, ‘Commenti danteschi’, in Dizionario critico della letteratura italiana, ed. Vittore Branca (Turin: Unione tipografico-editrice torinese [UTET], 1986), 4 Vols., Vol. II, pp. 6–22. 38 – For more on Serravalle's reliance on Benvenuto da Imola's commentary, see Carlo Dionisotti, ‘Dante nel quattrocento’, in Atti del congresso internazionale di studi danteschi, 20–27 aprile 1965 (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1965), 2 Vols., Vol. I, pp. 333–78, esp. 342. For the claim by Bruni's Niccoli in Ad Petrum Paulum Histrum Dialogi, see Dialogi: Prosatori latini del Quattrocento, ed. Eugenio Garin, La letteratura italiana: Storia e testi, XIII (Milan and Naples: Riccardo Ricciardi, 1952), p. 70. 39 – For Bruni's contrast of Dante to St. Francis and other poets who are ‘divini, […] sacri, e […] vati’ and whose works are ‘la somma e la piú perfetta spezie di poesia’, see page 220 of his ‘Della vita stvdi e costvmi di Dante’, in Le vite di Dante scritte da Giovanni e Filippo Villani, da Giovanni Boccaccio, Leonardo Aretino e Giannozzo Manetti, ed. G. L. Passerini (Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1917), pp. 205–34 (220). And see the same page for Bruni's conclusion that Dante should be distinguished from St. Francis and other writers who are extraordinarily spiritual and know theology ‘né per istudio né per lettere’. 40 – Where Buti claims on page 60 in the first volume of his commentary that ‘per questa invocazione si dee intendere essere invocate la grazia di Dio’, Barzizza, claims on page 31 of Lo ‘Inferno’ della ‘Commedia’ di Dante Alighier col commento di Guiniforto delli Bargigi, ed. Giuseppe Zacheroni (Marseilles: Leopoldo Mossy; Florence: Giuseppe Molini, 1838), that Dante invokes ‘profondità, ovvero universalità, e perfezione di scienza’. For more on Barzizza, see Ricci's entry on him in the Enciclopedia dantesca. 41 – For more on Manetti's work in this context, see Carlo Madrignani, ‘Di alcune biografie umanistiche di Dante e Petrarca’, Belfagor, 18 (1963), pp. 31–48, esp. 42–8; Dionisotti, ‘Dante nel quattrocento’, pp. 355–60; Eugenio Garin, ‘Dante nel Rinascimento’, Rinascimento, 7 (1967), pp. 3–28; and Fugelso, ‘Engaging the Viewer’, pp. 183–9. 42 – For the text of La città di vita, see the version edited by Margaret Rooke (Northampton, MA: n.s., 1927–28), 2 Vols. For more on Palmieri in the context of his response to Dante, see Giuseppe Saitta, Il pensiero italiano nell'Umanesimo e nel Rinascimento, I, L'Umanesimo (Bologna: C. Zuffi, 1949), pp. 372–81; Garin, L'Umanesimo italiano (Bari: G. Laterza, 1952), pp. 87–91; and Dionisotti, ‘Dante nel quattrocento’, esp. 361. For further discussion specifically about Palmieri's reliance on the Commedia for his model, see Vladimiro Zabughin, L'oltretomba classico medievale dantesco nel Rinascimento (Rome: Pontificia academia degli arcadi, 1922), p. 113; Dionisotti, ‘Dante nel quattrocento’, p. 361; and Michele Messina's entry on Palmieri in the Enciclopedia dantesca. On the heresy of Palmieri's work, see S. Boffito, ‘L'eresia di Matteo Palmieri’, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, 37 (1901), pp. 1–69; and Messina, ‘Matteo Palmieri’, p. 264. 43 – Nibia's selective invocation of Jacopo's commentary, particularly regarding the origins of the Commedia, is noted by Gianvito Resta in his entry on Nibia for the Enciclopedia dantesca. On Nibia's sources, see also Michele Barbi, ‘Dante nel cinquecento’, Annali Reale Scuola Normale Superiore de Pisa, 13 (1890), pp. 147–8; Alessandro Viglio, ‘Una edizione quattrocentesca della Divina Commedia curata da un novarese (M. P. N.)’, Bolletino Storico Provincia Novara, 15 (1921), pp. 70–9; and Dionisotti, ‘Dante nel quattrocento’, pp. 369–73. 44 – For a transcription and discussion of Landino's claim that he is presenting his commentary to demonstrate ‘puro et semplice fiorentino’, see page 537 in Manfred Lentzen, ‘Die “Orazione di Messere Cristoforo Landino Fiorentino havuta alla illustrissima signoria fiorentina quando presento el comento suo di Dante”’, Romanische Forschungen, 80 (1968), pp. 530–9. 45 – See Bruni's Ad Petrum Paulum Histrum Dialogi, in the Dialogi, 70: ‘Verum haec, quae religionis sunt, omittamus […]’.
Publication Year: 2010
Publication Date: 2010-06-24
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 2
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot