Dante and the early astronomers

by M. A. Orr

If the anniversary of the Crucifixion means Good Friday, the day would be March 31 in 1301, and the moon would be wrong, but March 25 has some claims to be considered the more probable date. A fixed calendar date is more appropriate to use for calculating an exact number of years than a changing festival, which might rather be regarded as an “ideal date.”[533] Moreover, March 25 is suggested by the allusion to the Creation in the opening Canto; this day was also the traditional date for the spring equinox,[534] and it was one of the most important days in the year to Florentines, being their New Year’s Day as well as Lady Day.

We know that the idea of writing his great work was in Dante’s mind even when he wrote the last words of the Vita Nuova,[535] and we need only suppose that he was thinking of it when he looked at the sky on the evening before Lady Day in 1301, that he saw the full moon, and the two bright planets Mars and Saturn making a striking asterism with Regulus; also that in the early dawn about the same time he rejoiced in the sight of Venus veiling the Fishes in the east.

But is this attractive theory admissible? Can we take Dante’s words elsewhere as referring to the year 1301?

Take first the one passage in which he explicitly states the day and year, the words of Malacoda quoted above. This is usually taken to indicate the year 1300, as shown above ([p. 410]), but it is easy to interpret it another way—thus: 1300 years had been completed since the Nativity on the day Dante entered the Inferno. Now the year 1 is not one year after the Nativity, but the year of the Nativity itself; hence the year 2 is one year after, the year 3 two years after, ... the year 1300 is 1299 years after, and the year 1301 is 1300 years after. The year 1300 was completed on March 25,[536] and the date then changed, according to Florentine usage, to 1301. (It had already been called 1301 for three months, according to Roman usage, so fortunately for us, there is no disagreement between the two calendars from this part of the year).

It must also be noted that in several old MSS., considered authoritative by some of the very early commentators, the passage reads:—“Mille dugent ’uno con sessanta sei.”[537] Although it is impossible to believe that Dante wrote such a faulty line, this shows that some early copyist felt a difficulty either in accepting the date 1300 or in understanding how Dante arrived at it by Malacoda’s computations. This passage, therefore, is inconclusive for 1300 or 1301.

Then there is the first line of the Divina Commedia “Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita,”[538] which is usually taken to mean that Dante was in his 35th year, since in Conv. IV. xxiv. 30, 31, and xxiii, 88-94, he says that in normal natures the “punto sommo,” the “colmo,”[539] of the Arch of Life is reached at this age. But is it to be taken as indicating a precise year? If so, it points to one which has never been suggested for the Vision, so far as I know, for in another passage of the Convivio he says when speaking of his exile, that he had lived in Florence “fino al colmo della mia vita,”[540] and we know that the year of his exile was 1302. But if we look again at the discussion concerning the arch of human life, we find that the whole period of “gioventute,”[541] which is from the 25th to the 45th year “veramente è colmo della nostra vita”[542] (Conv. IV. xxiv. 22, 23). If, nevertheless, it is said that the “mezzo del cammin di nostra vita” means Dante’s 35th year, we must know the date of his birth with certainty before we can deduce the year at which he had reached this age. And this is not quite easy. This very line is used indifferently to show that he was born in 1265 because the date of the Vision was 1300, or that the date was 1300 because he was born in 1265! No registers of births or baptisms were kept in those days. Most of the old biographers give 1265 for the date, but not all, and some of those who do betray ignorance or confusion in the matter: Boccaccio says the year 1265, when Urban the Fourth was Pope, yet Urban we know died in 1264; Lionardo Bruni says “1265, a little after the return to Florence of the Guelfs, who had been in exile by reason of the defeat of Montaperti,” but this return was in September 1266! Dante himself says that his ancestors shared in this exile,[543] and as he also often refers to the fact that he was born in Florence,[544] it is difficult to see how that could have been in 1265.

Again, he says that there was a difference of less than 8 months between the age of Beatrice and himself (she was 8 years 4 months old when he was nearly nine),[545] that she died in June 1290,[546] and was then on the threshold of her “second age,”[547] that is in her 24th year, or 23 years old. This gives 1267 for the year of her birth, and he must have been born in the same or the preceeding year. Historical documents show that Dante spoke in the Council of the Hundred in 1295, and Brunetto Latini says no man could hold office in Florence under thirty years of age; but Brunetto wrote in exile in France and died in 1290, and in a translation from his original French into Italian the age has been altered to 25, so it is possible that the age had been lowered before 1295.[548] There remains the story told by Boccaccio, that a Ser Piero di Messer Giardino (a notary whose name occurs in legal documents of the time), heard from Dante himself shortly before his death that he had been 56 years old in the preceding May. The date of his death is unanimously given as 1321, so this story, if we may accept it as authentic, is one clear piece of evidence that Dante was born in 1265.

On the whole, we must say that it is doubtful whether the “mezzo del cammin” means Dante’s 35th year, and if it does, we are not certain that he reached that age in 1300.

Another passage which is often quoted as clearly indicating the year of the Jubilee, 1300, for the assumed date of the Vision is Casella’s explanation of his late arrival in Purgatory.[549] Dante is surprised to witness this arrival, knowing that it is some time since his friend’s death; and Casella replies that the Angel of the Passage had refused many times to bring him, until three months ago, when every one who wished to come had been graciously received. This is believed to refer to the Bull of Pope Boniface published at Christmas 1299, that is just three months before March 1300. But this Bull gave no indulgence to the dead; it was in favour of those who performed certain spiritual exercises in the churches of Rome during the Jubilee year. On the other hand, there was a Bull published just a year later, which was for the benefit of departed souls: it extended the indulgences to those who had died on their way to Rome, or before the spiritual exercises were completed there. We do not know when Casella died, but if it was some time in 1300, with his purpose of gaining the indulgence unfulfilled, the Angel’s refusal at first, and acceptance afterwards—after December 1300—and his arrival in Purgatory in March 1301, would be explained. The fact that his arrival was still three months after the Bull, and that all without exception were welcomed by the Angel, are difficulties which apply to both interpretations. But perhaps that just given is a little too clever. It is most natural to consider the Indulgence as the famous one of 1300, and to understand that in the Jubilee year the way of salvation was made easier for all souls, living or dead.[550]

If however these, and many other passages quoted in the controversy, are unconvincing, the same cannot be said of Cunizza’s “Questo centesim’ anno.”[551] Prof. Angelitti’s suggestion that she was reckoning by the Easter year, which was used in some parts of France and Italy, so that the date was still 1300 for her, though for most Italians it was 1301, is too ingenious; and it is hard to believe that she means “this century year” applying it to 1301. Though this might be correct, it is clear that 1300 was regarded as the century year, because the words “centesimo anno” occur in the Bull of Boniface VIII. with reference to the year 1300. This then speaks strongly and clearly against our astronomical theory of 1301.