Corrado Bologna’s article explores the power of language and the language of power in the DVE, challenging the long-standing linguistic-grammatical interpretation of Dante’s treatise. Moreover, the DVE cannot be considered as a standalone text. In fact, it is in dialogue with the Monarchia, and the two texts are united by a single political-linguistic project. The DVE discusses the volgare illustre, and in the Monarchia, this language relates to the universal power of the imperium. The volgare illustre supports and authorizes poetic writing as the supreme manifestation of human universitas, which Dante explores in the Commedia. Moreover, the article discusses a codex preserved in Berlin titled Rectorica Dantis, containing both the Monarchia and the DVE, which accordingly confirms the notion that the texts were conceived as one.

Enrico Fenzi, in his Note per una nuova edizione critica del De Vulgari Eloquentia, considers the problems of a new critical edition of Dante’s treatise, which is usually based on three manuscripts, preserved in Berlin (B), Grenoble (G), and Milan (T). According to Fenzi, there are three directions on which to base a new edition: 1) reconsider some of Pio Rajna’s conjectures, which we find in his famous 1896 princeps and which became universally accepted; 2) reestablish a more balanced ratio between the lectiones of B and G/T, whereas Pier Vincenzo Mengaldo systematically preferred B over G/T, even though G/T have an equal 50 percent chance of bringing the correct lectio; 3) discuss some problematic passages that go beyond purely stemmatic considerations.

Mira Mocan examines the relationship between poetic art and natural language in the DVE and the role of Provençal troubadours as models in the definition of the concept of a volgare illustre. The centrality of the notion of ars applied to the vernacular receives special consideration, with reference to the mastery of the “miglior fabbro,” Arnaut Daniel.

Mirko Tavoni deals with the connections between philosophy, politics, and biography, highlighting some innovations in the interpretation of DVE, such as Dante’s anti-municipal review of Italian vernaculars and the prophetic-utopian idea of the volgare illustre, which relates to Dante’s idea of Empire.

Francesco Furlan addresses the disputes of the last years on the dating of the Monarchia, analyzing the information about the famous passage “sicut in Paradiso Comedie iam dixi,” which can be found in most manuscripts of the Monarchia. If this passage were authentic, this would prove that the Monarchia was written during Dante’s last years. Furlan acknowledges that, with the data we currently have, we cannot deny the authenticity of this passage. Hopefully, in the future, this debate could end thanks to a rigorous analysis of the supporting evidence.

Enrico Fenzi focuses on the meaning of the duello evoked by Dante in Monarchia 2.7-9, in which Dante discusses the salvific mission of the Romans. Dante uses the word duello, instead of guerra, to indicate the Roman conquests. According to Fenzi, Dante uses duello on purpose: in a duello, the winner is always right, as the very fact of victory proves, even though in Dante’s time the law officially condemned duelli, the “judicial duels.” Fenzi shows that, in Dante’s view, guerra does not adequately explain the significance of the Roman conquests. The guerra aims to defeat and destroy the enemy, and the Romans did not do this. With the duello, the Romans did not want the destruction of their enemies, but their “bene.” The Romans, according to Dante, operate for what God wants for humans, not for their own advantage. The Romans, thanks to the duello, founded the imperium and spread the universal law. Thus, the duello was undertaken for justice, not for hate nor love.

Francesca Fontanella discusses the different empires cited in the Monarchia. In the treatise, perhaps not consciously and as most writers of the first and second centuries CE, Dante claims that Rome is the fifth empire, the last one, and also the only universal one. Fontanella argues that when Dante mentions Alexander the Great’s embassy to the Romans, he seems to agree with the theme and spirit of the long discourse about Alexander in Livy’s Ab urbe condita.

Mariano Pérez Carrasco explores Guido Vernani’s book on the Monarchia and its reception over the past two centuries of historiographical research. According to Vernani, the Monarchia represented the renaissance of a pagan attitude, changing the relationship between Church and State. This reading is the same as that given by modern historians.

Prue Shaw examines the textual condition of the Monarchia, providing all the philological elements on which to build a new critical edition of the text. Shaw bases her study on three sources: manuscript Add. 6891 of the British Library; the first German translation of the treatise by B. J. Heroldt; and the editio princeps, printed in 1559. Shaw dedicates special attention to the above-mentioned passage in Monarchia 1.12.6 (“sicut in Paradiso Comedie iam dixi”), whose authenticity or lack thereof is critical for the dating of the treatise.

In the final essay, Andrea Tabarroni asserts that Dante’s seventh letter to Emperor Henry VII, written during the period of his support for the emperor, contains a new idea about the providential role of the Empire in human history. The Monarchia, then, fully embraces this idea.

Bringing together leading experts on the DVE and the Monarchia, this substantial collection offers, in conclusion, a nuanced survey of current debates and points toward promising avenues for future research.

Massimiliano Lorenzon, University of Georgia