Chapter 7 Editing Vernacular Classics in the Early Sixteenth Century: Ancient Models and Modern Solutions*
Carlo Caruso
The annals of literary history have accommodated innumerable canons of wor- thies over the centuries. Literary canons and values – like all things earthly – are ephemeral and subject to change, so that their validity has invariably proved short-lived or intermittent at best, as well as dependent on factors of an extrinsic and often unpredictable nature. In their constant adjustment to changing circumstances, literary canons are the equivalent of cultural ther- mometers measuring the vagaries of literary fame. A good case in point is offered by the canon of the so-called Three Crowns of Italian literature – Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio – as it developed across seven centuries of Italian literary history. Its origin can be confidently situ- ated in Florence in the 1420s. In Giovanni Gherardi da Prato’s Paradiso degli Alberti, written in 1425–6, the three authors are described as the “three Floren- tine crowns” (tre corone fiorentine).1 Gherardi’s praise was primarily inspired by their most famous vernacular works – Dante’s Commedia, Petrarch’s Rerum vulgarium fragmenta and Boccaccio’s Decameron – and his view tallies with our perception of such works as the masterpieces of the Italian Trecento. This is, however, but a fortuitous coincidence, for no sense of continuity is perceiv- able between that distant statement and our current persuasion. Firstly, weight was never equally distributed among the three authors in question. In the course of the fifteenth century Dante and Petrarch were regularly mentioned together; Boccaccio, on the other hand, was tacitly un- derstood to stand on a lower pedestal, where he had modestly positioned himself in his lifetime. Moreover, for the majority of fifteenth-century readers, Boccaccio’s fame rested on his prose output and, more specifically, on such romantic or pastoral works as Filocolo, Elegia di Madonna Fiammetta and the
* Research for this paper has benefited from a Major Leverhulme Fellowship and a Visiting Fellowship at All Souls College, Oxford. 1 Giovanni Gherardi da Prato, Il Paradiso degli Alberti. Ed. Antonio Lanza (Rome: Salerno, 1975), 4. See Simon A. Gilson, Dante and Renaissance Florence (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2005), 76, and, more generally, Part 1, significantly entitled ‘Competing Cults.’
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���9 | doi:10.1163/9789004398030_008
2 Pietro Bembo, Prose della volgar lingua 1. 19. Ed. Carlo Dionisotti (Turin: utet, 1966), 122: “e molto meglio faremo noi altresì, se con lo stile del Boccaccio e del Petrarca ragioneremo nelle nostre carte, che non faremo a ragionare col nostro, perciò che senza fallo alcuno molto meglio ragionarono essi che non ragioniamo noi.” 3 Cf. Vittorio Alfieri’s sonnet “Quattro gran vati, ed i maggior son questi,” in Rime. Ed. Francesco Maggini (Asti: Casa d’Alfieri, 1954), 364. See Arnaldo Di Benedetto, “I quattro poeti,” in Vittorio Alfieri aristocratico ribelle (1749–1803) (Milan: Electa, 2003), 41–42; also, by the same author, “Vittorio Alfieri e ‘i quattro poeti’,” Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 12 (2005): 189–194, with further reference to Benedetto Croce, “I ‘quattro poeti’ e l’edizione fattane in Germania da Adolfo Wagner,” in Aneddoti di varia letteratura, 4 vols (Bari: Laterza, 1954), 3: 465–472. In the early nineteenth century Tasso’s place would occasionally be taken by Metastasio – much to Alfieri’s disappointment, one would presume, had he lived long enough to witness the event.