William A. Therivel 370 the NOVELLINO OR ONE HUNDRED ANCIENT TALES an Edition and Translation Based on the 1525 Gualteruzzi Edit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
William A. Therivel 370 THE NOVELLINO OR ONE HUNDRED ANCIENT TALES An Edition and Translation Based on the 1525 Gualteruzzi Editio Princeps. Edited and translated by Joseph P. Consoli. New York: Garland Publishing, 1997. 188 pp. Only two years after the publication of the translation of The Novellino by Roberta L. Payne,1 we are offered a new translation by Joseph P. Consoli. Troppa grazia sant'Antonio? Not exactly, because the Consoli edition comes with a much needed longer and richer introduction and notes to the text. For instance, we are now clearly told that "The first half of The Novellino substantiates the commonly held belief that its author(s) was probably a Florentine of the Ghibelline persuasion" (p. xvii), and that "There is no doubt that one of the intentions of The Novellino was to depict a series of scenes concerning the Emperor to be used 'almost like a mirror' by future writers so that they might celebrate the feats of Italian rulers in time to come" (p. xvii). These observations are important because they invite us to enjoy parts of The Novellino as political pamphlets, to be read in the light of past major political events, the way we appreciate the "Ghibelline" sections of the Divine Comedy. However, as soon as our appetite is whetted, we are left without further sustenance by Consoli: his notes are too meager, too technical. Take for instance Novella XXIII on "How the Emperor Frederick posed a question to two wise men and how he rewarded them." We are told, in the notes, that "The story is based on the legal proceedings which the Emperor held at the Assembly of Roncaglia on November 11,1158" (p. 140), but we are not told what was the substantive issue discussed at Roncaglia, nor, correspondingly, how to read the novella. Now, at Roncaglia, four eminent jurists (the Bolognese doctors Bulgaro, William A. Therivel 371 Martino, Iacopo, and Ugo, these last two not mentioned in the novella) sided with the Emperor Barbarossa in the debate over the regalie. In the words of Franco Cardini, the Emperor had now to receive "proventi dei tribunali, delle zecche, delle imposte dirette ed indirette di vario tipo, dei beni demaniali, tutti cespiti di entrata per il fisco d'una somma ch'era calcolata in circa trentamila marche d'argento, quasi una tonnellata di metallo fino. All'anno, beninteso"2; and in the words of Giuliano Procacci: "This assembly was made to proclaim the principle that all sovereign rights — the ports, the rivers, the taxes, the appointing of magistrates — could belong only to the Emperor. It was a challenge flung at the independent power of the towns, and it was taken up. The struggle between Barbarossa and the communes of northern Italy, drawn together in a league, lasted more than twenty years, with dramatic vicissitudes."3 However, the imperial legal and monetary victory at Roncaglia was the beginning of the end of the imperial cause: Frederick I will be defeated by the Communes at the battle of Legnano in 1176, and his great-grandson Manfred at the battle of Benevento in 1266. At Benevento, beside Manfred, son of Frederick II, "died, or were captured, many leading Sicilian loyalists and also Ghibelline allies from Tuscany who had remained faithful to Frederick's house."4 Two years after, the last of the Hohenstaufen was decapitated at Naples. The author(s) of The Novellino, written between 1281 and 1300, must have known this very well. In the second part of the novella, in the Consoli translation, we read that the first jurist said: "Sire, you can do anything you please to your subject, without blame," and that the second commented: "Sire, to me it does not so. Since the law is extremely just [...] when you take from someone, he will wish to know why and to whom you are giving" (p. 47). Maybe. But the Communes of northern Italy had no interest in being told why the emperor took their money and to whom he gave it: it would be either sheer propaganda or salt rubbed into their wounds. Indeed, this second part of the novella can be seen as first quality propaganda: the "wise men" who heard of the conversation and of the gifts given by the emperor to the two jurists, did not discuss, not even for a brief moment, the substantive legal opinion given to the emperor, i.e., whether the emperor had those rights at all, with or without explanation of the "why and to whom." The "wise men" only discussed the nature of the gifts the emperor gave to the two jurists: "It William A. Therivel 372 was decided that to him who had said the Emperor could give and take as he pleases, clothes and palfrey were given, as to a minstrel who had flattered him. To him who followed justice, he gave the ability to make law" (p. 47). In this way, The Novellino elegantly implies that its readers cannot but agree with the emperor and with his jurists, and that the only matter of real interest is how appropriate the imperial gifts were.5 Consoli, in his fifth note to this novella, informs the readers that "While modern history has relegated these two Bolognese doctors to virtual oblivion, the original audience for The Novellino would have been well versed in the oppositional antics of these two antagonistic academics. The placement of the two counsellors on opposite sides of the Emperor structurally heightens the comic quality of the situation" (p. 141). One may suspect here that Consoli has fallen prey to the Ghibelline propaganda that wanted people to associate Roncaglia with the oppositional antics of two Bolognese academics, and not with the stealing of "trentamila marche d'argento, all'anno beninteso" from the pockets of Italians. This is, and recurringly, a problem with the Consoli notes: they are scholarly, cover numerous points of detail, and one reads them with pleasure and profit, still they may miss the essential. It is not a matter of personal taste, but of highlighting the two sides of a story: the Ghibelline, and the Communes/Guelf. For the Communes of northern Italy, Roncaglia was not associated with the antics of two Bolognese academics; for them it was a matter of freedom or servitude. Dante is more honest in this matter, even if not completely so. For him Frederick I is the "buon Barbarossa di cui dolente ancor Milan ragiona" (Purg. XVIII. 119) — the "dolente" making reference to the capture and destruction of Milan of 1162 — but forgetting Legnano of 1176, the humiliation of Barbarossa at Venice on July 24, 1177 (a second Canossa) and the substantive major losses the Emperor had to concede to the Communes with the peace of Costanza in 1183. At Venice, the Emperor had to abjure his solemn oath of Würzburg, May 1165, never to recognize Alexander III as pope; he had to betray "his" pope Calixtus III, and his two "imperial predecessors" Victor IV and Paschalis III now all officially demoted to the rank of anti-popes; he had to renounce his canonization of Emperor Charlemagne which his pope Paschalis III had rubber stamped; and he had to kiss, coram populo, the feet of Pope Alexander III. William A. Therivel 373 The Peace of Costanza "segnò il riconoscimento, dopo tante lotte, della vita in gran parte autonoma dei Comuni. Fu considerata perciò la magna charta delle libertà comunali."6 In the very first article of the Peace of Costanza, Barbarossa said: "Concediamo a voi città, terre e persone della Lega le regalie e le consuetudini vostre tanto in città che fuori."7 Sic transit gloria Roncagliae. Barbarossa had little reason to be thankful to the four Bolognese academics who had led him into such a gigantic trap. Indeed, after Roncaglia, the Emperor abandoned his previous prudent approach and took more quickly to harsh measures which brought him equally harsh consequences. At least part of the original audience for The Novellino also would have been well versed in this side of the story. Novella LX, "Here is told how Charles the Great fell madly in love," deals with the attempt by the young Charles of Anjou to conquer the lovely Countess of Teti. The notes do not mention clearly that this Charles of Anjou, in later years, became the head of the Guelf party in Piedmont, Lombardy, Tuscany, and Umbria, defeated Manfred, the son of Frederick II Hohenstaufen, at the battle of Benevento, defeated Conradin, the grandson of Frederick II, at the battle of Tagliacozzo of August 23, 1268, and had Conradin beheaded in Naples on October 29, 1268. These last events were the end of the Hohenstaufen and of the Hohenstaufen Ghibellines, and the beginning of an unruly pax guelfa, after the unruly pax ghibellina. With this in mind, we can hardly expect that the Ghibelline author of The Novellino, and great admirer of both emperors Frederick I and II, should have anything good to say about Charles of Anjou. And indeed, the novella tells about two major acts of deceit by Charles who would do little honor to any knight. To conquer the favors of the Countess of Teti, who is in love with the Count of Universa (i.e., of Nevers), Charles first asks Master Allardo to tell the King of France that he, Allardo, wants to become a monk, and that as a departing favor he asks to see a tournament, an activity which the pious king had forbidden. Then Charles convinces the Queen to make believe that she is angry with the King, and that, to win back her favors the King must free master Allard from his promise to enter the religious life.