[529] Fraticelli's "Storia della Vita di Dante" (Florence, Barbèra, 1861) includes at p. 135 and fol. fragments of the debates in which Dante took a part, and the same were republished more correctly and completely in Imbriani's work, "Sulla Rubrica Dantesca del Villani," first published in the "Propugnatore" of Bologna for 1879 and 1880, and afterwards in a separate volume. Bologna, 1880; Del Lungo, p. 209.
[530] Fraticelli and Imbriani, op. cit.
[531] One of the first writers refusing belief in this embassy was Professor V. Imbriani in his already mentioned essay, "Sulla Rubrica Dantesca del Villani." Subsequently, my colleague and friend, the late Professor Bartoli, applied his learning to a re-examination of Dante's entire career, in vol. v. of his "Storia della Letteratura Italiana," and without explicitly denying that the embassy in question had been sent, expounded the doubts which might be raised about it. He included in the volume an essay by Professor Papa, who, with youthful daring, decidedly disbelieves in the embassy. But that learned scholar, Professor Del Lungo, asserts that it really took place. This is a very important question with reference to Dante's career, but very unimportant as regards the general history of Florence, since even if the embassy were really sent, it produced no practical result. Nevertheless, without presuming to decide the lengthy dispute, I will show my reasons for crediting the fact of the embassy.
Although Villani says nothing on the subject, it is mentioned by Dino Compagni (ii. 25), the authenticity of whose chronicle is maintained by Bartoli, Papa, and Del Lungo. Hence, if any of these writers intends to deny the fact of the embassy, without denying Compagni's authenticity, he must suppose this special passage to be an interpolation. Yet it is impossible that such interpolation could have been made at a later date in the fifteenth century manuscript containing the passage. Besides, the testimony of nearly all Dante's biographers has still to be dealt with. Leonardo Bruno (born 1369) makes very explicit mention of the embassy; Filippo Villani, Giovanni Villani's grandson, who expounded the Divine Comedy in 1401, by order of the government, speaks of a mission undertaken by Dante "ad summum Pontificem, urgentibus Reipublicæ necessitatibus." Boccaccio also alludes to it, but far more indirectly and vaguely. Certainly the latter is no trustworthy historian, nor were the other two contemporaries of Dante. But after acknowledging all this, and even granting that some one of those writers may have borrowed from the others, and likewise admitting the theory of an interpolation inserted during the fifteenth century, in Compagni's chronicle, we are still met by the undisputed fact, that those who studied Dante's works, and wrote Dante's life at a period little removed from his own day, and therefore enjoying better opportunities than we possess for learning its details, all believed in the fact of his mission to Rome.
Until fresh documents are found, what reasons can be alleged to justify us in denying it at this distant date? In no case, says Professor Papa, could such an adversary as the author of the "Monarchia" have gone as ambassador to Boniface VIII. First of all, however, the period in which the "Monarchia" was written is still disputable and disputed. Professor Del Lungo and many others ascribe the work to a much later period. As far as we know, Dante was still a Guelph then, but certainly no favourer of the Papal pretensions against which the Florentine Government sent him to protest. Hence, so far there is nothing to make us think his mission incredible.
But Professor Papa winds up with an argument that, as he thinks, should finally dispose of the question. If, as asserted by Compagni and Aretino, Dante was really sent ambassador to Rome, and departed thence, after a time, without returning to Florence, how is it that the decree sentencing him to banishment should set forth, as it does, that he had been cited by the Nuncio to appear in Rome? According to the statute, forenses, or absent persons, had to be cited by letter. Therefore, if the citation was made through the Nuncio, it proves that Dante was undoubtedly in Florence, and had not gone to Rome. But forensis does not signify an absent person, i.e., one who extra civitatem manet, but, on the contrary, signifies—according to the statute—one having no domicile either in the city, contado, or district.
Accordingly Dante, having a domicile in Florence, was not forensis, and if he went to Rome was only absent; his embassy, decreed in September, must have been speedily ended, since a new and adverse government came into office the 8th of November; and Dante's banishment was only proclaimed on the 27th of January of the following year. Together with three other persons he was cited to appear and be heard in his own defence and exculpation. As neither he nor the others appeared, and none of them would have consented to appear, even if in Florence, they were condemned, as they would have been in any case. Thus, strictly speaking, it cannot be said that even in this instance there was any violation of legal procedure, although in those days legality, justice, and humanity were trampled under foot without the slightest scruple.
Therefore, as Professor Bartoli admits, there is no absolute proof of the impossibility of the embassy in question. Even if Villani's silence may seem strange, Compagni's statement to be considered an interpolation, the fact remains that the embassy was credited at a time little removed from Dante's day, and credited by men better acquainted than we can be with the circumstances of his career. For these reasons, while admitting the weight of often reiterated doubts, pending absolute proof to the contrary, I shall retain my belief in the embassy.
[532] Vide Del Lungo, vol. i., Letter in appendix vi. pp. xlv. and xlvi.
[533] Compagni, ii. 8.