[367] Cf. Manicardi e Massera, op. cit., p. 27, note i.

[368] See Antona Traversi, Di una cronologia approssimativa delle rime del Boccaccio in Preludio (Ancona, 1883), VII, p. 2 et seq.

[369] See infra, p. 181 et seq.

[370] In sonnet xlii. he says the arch of his age is passed:—

Manicardi e Massera, op. cit., think this would mean he was thirty-five; but in my opinion it would mean he was already forty or forty-five. For according to an old writer of 1310 (Cod. Nazionale di Firenze, II, ii. 84), "They say the philosophers say there are four ages; they are adolescence, youth, age, and old age. The first lasts till twenty-five or thirty, the second till forty or forty-five, the third till fifty-five or sixty, the fourth till death. Cf. Della Torre, op. cit., p. 87. In sonnet lxiv. B. says he, growing grey,

[371] As to sonnet ci., both Crescini and Koerting point out that it is written to a widow (perhaps the lady of the Corbaccio, see infra, p. 181 et seq.); but they consider it a mere fantasy, not referring to any real love affair. Cf. Crescini, op. cit., p. 166, note 2. Cf. a similar question to that put in the sonnet in Filocolo (Moutier), Lib. IV, p. 94. Sonnet c. also deals with a widow: "il brun vestire ed il candido velo." Who this widow really may be is an insoluble problem. If it be the lady of the Corbaccio, she would seem to be the wife of Antonio Pucci, for sonnet ci. is dedicated "ad Antonio Pucci." Sonnets lxiv., lxv., seem to refer to the same affair. As to sonnets xii. and xvii., the first is a fantasy and the second refers to Fiammetta in my judgment.

[372] Cf. Manicardi e Massera, op. cit., p. 37.

[373] Supra, p. 136, n. 1.

[374] In xl. he writes, "Quella splendida fiamma"; in xli., "Quindi nel petto entrommi una fiammetta"; in xlvi., "Se quella fiamma"; in lxiii., "Amorosa fiamma"; in lxxxiii., "Accese fiamme attingo a mille a mille."

[375] Sonnets xxxi., xxxii., liii. refer without doubt to Fiammetta, but are indeterminate in time.

[376] See supra, p. 38.

[377] See supra, p. 55.

[378]

[379] See supra, p. 56.

[380] Note the "occhi falsi" in sonnet xiv.

[381] But see sonnet lviii.

[382] Sonnet lxvii.

[383] Sonnet lx. Cf. Dante, Paradiso, iv. 28-39.

[384] Cf. supra, p. 16.

[385] Cf. Crescini, op. cit., p. 167, note 3.

[386] Cf. sonnets xxi., li., lxxvii., lxxxiii., and cf. Manicardi e Massera, op. cit., p. 50.

[387] See supra, p. 128.

[388] See Crescini, op. cit., p. 258. He quotes the following from Libro Primo del Monte, Quartiere S. Spirito, cap. 162: "Anno mcccxlviij [=1349 n.s.] Ind j^a die nono mensis Maij positum est dictum creditum ad aliam rationem dicti Boccaccij sive Boccaccini in presenti quarterio ad car 110, ad instantiam eiusdem Bocchaccij per me dinum M^l Attaviani notarium."

[389] Cf. Crescini, op. cit., p. 258. He quotes the following from the Libro Primo above, cap. 110^b: "Mcccxlviiij, Ind iij^a die xxv Ianuarij, de licencia domini Iohannis filij et heredis, ut dixit, dicti Boccaccij hereditario nomine concessa dicto per me Bartalum maççatelli notarium positum est dictum creditum in libro quarterij S^e Crucis et carta 50."

[390] The document is quoted by Manni, op. cit., p. 21. It is as follows: "Mcccxlviiij 26 Ianuarii D. Ioannes q. Boccacci pop. S. Felicitatis tutor Iacobi pupilli eius fratris, et filii quondam, et heredis D. Bicis olim matris suæ, et uxoris q. dicti Boccaccii, et filiæ q. Ubaldini Nepi de Bosticcis."

Sanesi, in Rassegna Bib. della Lett. It. (Pisa, 1893), Vol. I, No. 4, p. 120 et seq., publishes a document dated May 17, 1351, in which certain "actores, factores et certos numptios speciales" are appointed to act with Giovanni as guardians of Jacopo, viz. Ser Domenico di Jacopo and Ser Francesco di Vanello notari fiorentini. This leads Sanesi to suggest that Boccaccio was a failure as a guardian. The document, however, by no means deposes him and on the same day he inscribed himself in the Matricoli dell' Arte dei Giudici et Notari. The document speaks of "Iacobi ... pupilli majoris tamen infante," which leads Sanesi to think that Jacopo was out of his infancy. Crescini in Rassegna Bib., cit., An. I, Nos. 8-9, pp. 243-5, disputes Sanesi's conclusions as to the incapacity of Giovanni and the age of Jacopo. I agree with Crescini.

[391] This was about the average loss throughout Europe.

[392] Siena never really recovered, nor did Pisa.

[393] Cf. Tanfani, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, studi storici (Firenze, 1863), p. 82.

[394] Supra, p. 120, n. 1.

[395] Mehus, Ambrosii Traversarii Vita (Firenze, 1759).

[396] It has been said by Hortis that the "olim" is unlikely to have referred to so recent an embassy, one which, in fact, was only in being two months before. I do not see the force of this. The "olim" is used in our sense of late, "the late ambassador." In November, as we shall see, Boccaccio was back in Florence. In the sense of "late" we find the "olim" used in the document already quoted in which Giovanni is appointed guardian of his brother Jacopo (supra, cap. x. n. 4): "... et heredis D. Bicis olim matris suæ," i.e. "and heir of Donna Bice, his late mother."

[397] Baldelli, op. cit., p. 377. Baldelli seems here to have confused himself—at any rate he expresses himself badly. It is difficult to see clearly what he means. He is wrong too when he gives the commission from the Or San Michele as being of the month of December; Landau follows him in this. The commission was of the month of September. See supra, p. 120, n. 1.

[398] See supra, p. 119, n. 1.

[399] Ciampi, Monumenti di un Manoscritto autografo di Messer G. B. (Firenze, 1827), goes further than Baldelli and is in evident error. He connects this embassy of 1350 with the descent of King Louis of Hungary. This is impossible. That Boccaccio did meet King Louis in Forlì, and that he accompanied him with "suo signore" Francesco degli Ordelaffi into Campania is certain, as we have seen (supra, p. 124); but that was in 1347, not in 1350, and when he was a visitor at Forlì, not when he was Florentine ambassador there. How could he call Ordelaffo "suo signore" when he was the servant of Florence? And how could he follow Ordelaffo and the King, when he was ambassador, without the permission of Florence? Moreover, according to Ciampi, all this occurred, not in 1347, but in 1350. Now in May, 1350, King Louis was in Aversa, and from February, 1350, Ordelaffo was fighting the Papal arms in Romagna, which had been turned against him on account of the rebellion of the Manfredi of Faenza, which he was supposed to have instigated. We see him victor in fight after fight; he took Bertinoro in May, Castracaro in July, Meldola in August, and the war continued throughout 1351 and longer. In 1350 then neither did the King descend into Italy nor did Ordelaffo accompany him. These things happened in 1347. Besides, in February, 1350, Boccaccio was in accord with Niccolò Acciaiuoli and, as we have seen, assisted as witness at the donation of Prato. Cf. Tanfani, Niccolò Acciaiuoli, pp. 79-82.

[400] Of course, Boccaccio was in Ravenna in September, 1350, and probably saw Bernardino there, for he must have known him very well.

[401] See the letter to the Pope of September 10, 1349, given in Arch. Stor. Ital., Series I, Appendix, Vol. VI, p. 369.

[402] See the letters of February 17, February 23, February 28, 1350, in Arch., cit., u.s., pp. 373-4.

[403] "The luxury, vice, and iniquity of Avignon during the Papal residence became proverbial throughout Europe; and the corruption of the Church was most clearly visible in the immediate neighbourhood of its princely head. Luxury and vice, however, are costly, and during the Pope's absence from Italy the Papal States were in confusion and yielded scanty revenues. Money had to be raised from ecclesiastical property throughout Europe, and the Popes in Avignon carried extortion and oppression of the Church to an extent it had never reached before." (Creighton, History of the Papacy, Vol. I, p. 51.)

[404] Letter of November, 1350, in Arch., cit., u.s., p. 378.

[405] Arch. Stor. It., u.s., p. 376.

[406] It seems certain that they had been in correspondence for some years, perhaps for more than fifteen. In the letter to Boccaccio of January 7, 1351, Petrarch speaks of a poem that Boccaccio had long since sent him (? 1349) (Famil., XI, 1); while in the letter to Franceschino da Brossano, written after Petrarch's death in 1374, Boccaccio says "I was his for forty years or more" (Corazzini, op. cit., p. 382). This would seem to mean he had loved his work for so long, and brings us to 1341-4. It still seems to me just doubtful whether this meeting in Florence in 1350 was their first encounter. As I have said, Petrarch came to Florence in October; by November 2 he was in Rome, whence he wrote Boccaccio on that date an account of his journey. Now as we shall presently see, in a letter written much later (Epist. Fam., XXI, 15), he distinctly says that he first met Boccaccio, who had come to meet him when he was hurrying across Central Italy in midwinter. No one, least of all an Italian and a somewhat scrupulous scholar, would call October 15 midwinter. Perhaps then it will be said that he met him on his return from Rome in December. But already in November he is writing to Boccaccio—we have the letter—in the most familiar and affectionate terms. Can it be that they met after all (see supra, pp. 60 and 111) in 1341 or perhaps in 1343? The problem seems insoluble on our present information.

[407] Cf. Hortis, op. cit., pp. 509-10.

[408] I have already shown (supra, p. 153, n. 2) that it is possible to doubt whether the meeting in Florence was their first meeting. It is, however, generally accepted as the first by modern scholars. Cf. Landau and Antona Traversi.

[409] Cf. Epistol. Famil., Lib. XXI, 15.

[410] See Æneid, VIII, 162 et seq.

[411] Horace, Epistolæ, Lib. I, 14.

[412] Epistol. Famil., Lib. XI, 1.

[413] Cf. M. Villani, in R. I. S., XIV, 18.

[414] The chair was to be in any faculty Petrarch chose. D. Rosetti insists that it was offered at Boccaccio's suggestion (Petrarca, Giulio Celso e Boccaccio (Trieste, 1823), p. 351), and asserts that the short biography of Petrarch which he attributes to Boccaccio was composed to persuade the Government of Florence to repair Petrarch's wrongs. Tiraboschi (op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 253-4), with tears in his voice, cannot decide whether the affair did more honour to Petrarch or to Florence. So far as Florence is concerned, I see no honour in the affair at all. She was asking Petrarch to do her an inestimable service by bolstering up her third-rate university. In order to get him to do this, she was willing to pay back what she had stolen and (a poor gift when she was begging for foreigners as citizens) to repeal the edict of banishment against him. Petrarch treated the whole impudent attempt to get round him in the right way. And Florence, when she found nothing was to be got out of him, repealed the repeal. But surely we know the Florentines!

[415] Corazzini, op. cit., p. 391 and Hortis, Boccaccio Ambasciatore in Avignone (Trieste, 1875)

[416] Epist. Famil., II, xii.

[417] Cf. Corazzini, op. cit., p. 47.

[418] Corazzini, op. cit., p. 47. Letter of July, 1353. Petrarch in May-June, 1353, had accepted the patronage of Giovanni Visconti.

[419] Cf. Crescini, op. cit., p. 258. I quote the document. Camarlinghi del Comune Quad. 75 and 76 Gennaio-Febbraio 1350-1. "In dei nomine amen. Hic est liber sive quaternus In se continens solutiones factas tempore Religiosorum virorum fratris Benedicti caccini et fratris Iacopi Iohannis de ordine fratrum sancti marci de flor. Et discretorum virorum domini Iohannis Bocchaccij de Certaldo pro quarterio Sⁱ Spiritus et Pauli Neri de bordonibus pro quarterio S^e Marie novelle laicorum, civium florentinorum, camerariorum camere comunis florentie pro duobus mensibus initiatis die primo mensis Ianuarij Millesimo trecentesimo quinquagesimo [1351, n.s.] Ind iiij," etc. etc.

[420] In May, as we have seen, he was inscribed in the Arte dei Giudici e Notai. Cf. supra, p. 145, n. 4.

[421] Cf. Hortis, Boccaccio Ambasciatore, cit., p. 8, n. 4, and Docs. 2, 3, 4, 5.

[422] Cf. Hortis, op. cit., p. 9. n. 1. Baldelli, op. cit., pp. 112-13, and Witte are wrong in supposing Ludwig to be Ludovico il Romano, as Hortis shows.

[423] Florence broke off communications after consulting Siena and Perugia. Cf. Arch. Stor. Ital., Ser. I. App. VII, p. 389.

[424] Cf. Arch. Stor. Ital., u.s., p. 389.

[425] Cf. Matteo Villani, Lib. IV. In July (see letter quoted supra) we know Boccaccio to have been in Ravenna. He says to Petrarch, "Pridie quidem IIII ydus julii forte Ravennam urbem petebam, visitaturus civitatis Principem et ut ferebat iter Livii forum intravi...." He arrived, then, on July 12, and it was a friend he met in Forlì (Livii) who told him that Petrarch had entered the service of the Visconti. He reproaches him, as we have seen. Nelli, whom he here calls Simonides, was also in Ravenna. He upbraids Petrarch, as we have seen, in allegory, asking how Sylvanus (Petrarch) can desert and betray the nymph Amaryllis (Italy) and go over to the oppressor Egon (Visconti), the false priest of Pan (the Pope), a monster of crime. Cf. Corazzini, op. cit., p. 47.

[426] See docs. cited in Arch. Stor. Ital., u.s., pp. 392-4.

[427] Baldelli, Hortis, Landau, and Koerting are all in agreement that this mission took place in April, 1354, not April, 1353. The instructions of the Republic, which I quote infra, were published by Canestrini in Arch. St. It., u.s., p. 393, but under the erroneous date of April 30, 1353. In April, 1353, Charles was not about to set out.

The letter of instruction is as follows:—

The entry in the Libri d' uscita della Camera dei Camerlinghi del Comune—Quaderno del Marzo-Aprile, 1354, under date April 29, is given by Crescini as follows:—

[428] See Manni, Istoria del Decamerone (Firenze, 1742), p. 144; Antona Traversi in Landau, Gio. Boccaccio sua vita ed opere (Napoli, 1882), p. 523; Koerting, Boccaccio's Leben und Werke (Leipzig, 1880), pp. 244 and 673-4; and cf. Salviati, Avvertimenti della Lingua sopra il Decamerone (Venezia, 1584), Lib. II, cap. 12.

[429] I deal with the form of the Decameron later. See infra, p. 292.

[430] The original MS. has disappeared. The oldest we now possess seems to have been written in 1368 by Francesco Mannelli. The later Hamilton MS., now in Berlin, is, however, the better of the two. Cf. H. Hauvette, Della parentela esistenta fra il MS. Berlinese del Dec. e il codice Mannelli in Giorn. St. d. Lett. It. (1895), XXXI, p. 162 et seq.

[431] Foscolo, Discorso Storico sul testo del Decamerone ... premesso all' edizione delle Cento Novelle fatta in Londra (Lugano, 1828), p. 9.

[432] Cf. Decameron, Proem, where he speaks of his love for Fiammetta and the "discomfort," and "suffering" it brought him, "not indeed by reason of the cruelty of the beloved lady, but through the superabundant ardour engendered in the soul by ill-bridled desire; the which, as it allowed me no reasonable period of quiescence, frequently occasioned me inordinate distress."

[433] We know that Boccaccio had three children, two sons and a daughter. We do not know by whom.

[434] So that when he wrote the Proem (? 1353) he still loved her.

[435] Conclusion to Day IV.

[436] Day II, Nov. 10.

[437] Closing words of Day II, Nov. 7.

[438] Day II, Nov. 10.

[439] Day II, Nov. 9.

[440] That mere fact should enlighten us, for we may well believe such a subject of "jovial discourse" impossible to-day.

[441] Cf. Prologue to the Fourth Day: "Know then, my discreet ladies, that some there are who reading these little stories have alleged that I am too fond of you, and that 'tis not a seemly thing that I should take so much pleasure in ministering to your gratification and solace; and some have found fault with me for praising you as I do."

[442] See the interesting study of the Corbaccio by Hauvette in Bulletin Italien (Bordeaux, 1901), Vol. I, No. I. Boccaccio says in the Corbaccio: "E primieramente la tua età, per la quale, se le tempie già bianche e la canuta barba non m' ingannano, tu dovresti avere li costumi del mondo, fuor delle fasce già sono degli anni quaranta e già venticinque, cominciatili a conoscere" (Ed. Moutier, 183). Hauvette interprets this: "Grown out of swaddling clothes as you are these forty years, you have known the world for twenty-five...." The majority of critics agree that the Corbaccio was written ca. 1355, in which year Boccaccio was forty-two years old. Twenty-five years before brings us to 1330, or almost to the dates on which he (1) deserted trade, and (2) first saw Fiammetta. But in another place in the same book he suggests that the book was written when the new year was about to begin: "l' anno ... è tosto per entrar nuovo," so that we may refer this unfortunate contretemps, and the writing of the Corbaccio in consequence, to December, 1355, i.e. February, 1356, new style, which brings us almost exactly to March, 1331, the day of the meeting with Fiammetta.

As to the title of this book we know nothing. If it signifies the Evil Raven and is derived from corbo, corvo, we cannot decide whether it refers to the widow, or her husband, or to Boccaccio himself. On the other hand, it may be derived from corba (Latin, corbis), a basket or trap, and this would be explicable. All we know is that in by far the greater number of MSS., and these the oldest, the work bears the title Corbaccio or Corbaccino; but whether this is owing to Boccaccio or not we cannot decide. The word does not occur in the text. The copyists were certainly unaware of its significance, and have always given it a sub-title, e.g. Corbaccio: libro del rimedio dello amore, ... detto il Corbaccio, or Corbaccius sive contra sceleratam viduam et alias feminas invectivæ, or Corbaccio nimico delle femmine. The false title Laberinto d' amore does not occur till the sixteenth century. Cf. Hauvette, op. cit., p. 3. n. 1.

[443] The sources of this amazing and amusing book are not far to seek. In the Divine Comedy it had been love which had let Dante out of the selva oscura; here the selva oscura is love and it is reason or experience who delivers Boccaccio. Another source, as Pinelli, Corbaccio in Propugnatore, XVI (Bologna, 1883), pp. 169-92, has shown, is found in Giovenale. "L' imitazione," says Pinelli, "del Boccaccio non è pedestre, ma artifiziosa come quella che cogliendo sempre il solo punto capitale del pensiero, e trascurando la particolarità meno interessanti, aggiunge di suo tante inestimabili bellezze da rendere l' opera originale."

[444] We shall consider the Vita di Dante later when we discuss Boccaccio's whole relation to Dante. It is necessary perhaps to decide here so far as we can the date at which it was written. Baldelli (op. cit., pp. 378-9) tells us that Buonmattei was of opinion that Boccaccio wrote the Vita di Dante while he was still young. But Baldelli assures us that it must have been written after the Ameto and before the Decameron, as its style is more pure and formed than the one and less so than the other. The Decameron first saw the light in 1353; and so Baldelli tells us the Vita was written in 1351. On such a question no foreigner has a right to an opinion. But if I may break my own rule, I shall say that I find myself in agreement with (among others) Antona Traversi, in his translation of Landau's life of Boccaccio (Giovanni Boccaccio sua vita, etc. (Naples, 1882), p. 786, n. 3), when he says that no really satisfactory conclusion can be arrived at on the evidence of a prose style alone; for nothing is more fluid or more subject to mood, and nothing, we might add, is more difficult to judge. Foscolo, with whom Carducci finds himself in agreement, tells us that "Fra quante opere abbiamo del Boccaccio la più luminosa di stile e di pensieri a me pare la Vita di Dante. Cf. Foscolo, Discorso storico sul testo del Decameron (Lugano, 1828), p. 94. But we need not admit so much to refute Baldelli. If the Decameron was published in 1353, it was certainly begun some years, four or five at least, before that. It is generally supposed, and with much reason, to have been begun in 1348-9. But Baldelli gives the Vita to 1351. It follows then that the work less pure in style than the Decameron was written two years after the Decameron was begun. If we accept Baldelli's evidence we must conclude that the Vita was written before 1348.

It seems extremely unlikely, however, that the Vita was written before 1353, for its whole tone, serious, even religious, and its extraordinary antipathy to marriage and contempt for women are entirely out of keeping with the eager love and sensuality of the Ameto and the gaiety of the Decameron. It has, on the other hand, much in common with the Corbaccio, which belongs to the years 1355 or 1356. With this conclusion Carducci—and no finer critic ever lived—is in agreement. He agrees with Foscolo, op. cit., p. 14, that the Corbaccio and the Vita di Dante were composed about the same time. To establish the very year in which Boccaccio wrote the Vita seems to me impossible. But I think it may be possible to prove that it was begun after the Corbaccio, though not long after, let us say in 1356-7, and finished some years later; according to Macri Leone (La Vita di Dante, Firenze, 1888), in 1363-4. We see in the Vita almost the same attitude towards women that we have already found in the Corbaccio, but less fiercely bitter, more reasoned, and less personal. But the immediate cause of Boccaccio's change from an eager and self-flattering love of women to a hatred for and contempt of them was his deception by the widow of the Corbaccio. We may psychologically have been certain of this hatred from the first, for it is in fact a logical development from his attitude to woman from his youth on; but the immediate and provocative cause of the change was the perfidy of the widow. It therefore seems to me that we must necessarily see in the Vita a later work than the Corbaccio, though not so much later. Doubtless he had been gathering facts all his life, and only in 1356-7 began to put them in order. That it was so seems probable from the fact that the invective against marriage is altogether an interpolation and has almost nothing to do with Dante; it is in fact largely a quotation from a quotation of Jerome's.