Читать книгу Gesammelte Aufsätze zur romanischen Philologie – Studienausgabe - Erich Auerbach - Страница 20

For the verses Par. 27, 136–138:

Cosi si fa la pella bianca nera

nel primo aspetto de la bella figlia

di quel ch’apporta mane e lascia sera,

the interpretation of the daughter of the sun (di quel ch’apporta mane e lascia sera) as Circe, given first by Filomusi-GuelfiFilomusi-Guelfi, L., seems to me not an ideal solution, in spite of Michele Barbi’sBarbi, M. approval and in spite of the fact that some earlier passages31 may be alleged to support it. Neither am I inclined to accept the explanation of filia solis as humanity by referring to Par. 22, 116, where the sun is called padre d’ogni mortal vita. Indeed, I too believe that humanity or at least Christianity is meant, but that cannot be established in this way, and if for no other reason than that mortal vita is not humanity alone.

I think that those are on the right track who have referred to the Canticles for an explanation. But they base themselves, as far as I know, only on Cant. 7, 1 in connexion with Psalm 44, 14, where filia principis or regis is mentioned; this was sometimes interpreted, in the Middle AgesMittelalter, as the Church. But it is a rather weak support; for principis or regis is not solis; and every expert in the figurative tradition will agree with me that the Church (or Christianity or the faithful soul) is very often symbolized as sponsa Christi, but scarcely as his daughter32 – and there is no doubt that the sun, in the typological tradition, can mean nothing else but Christ, sol iustitiae and oriens ex alto. It is very likely that DanteDante was in difficulties for a rhyme, and thus he may have combined the unusual image filia principis with sponsa solis; or even, the difficulty of the rhyme may have induced him to a somewhat violent and ambiguous order of words: so that di quel ch’ apporta mane e lascia sera would depend not on figlia, but on primo aspetto; thus, the problem filia solis would disappear, and the sentence, in normal word-order, would run: Cosi si fa la pelle bianca della bella figlia nera, nel primo aspetto di quel … But although I personally am very much inclined to adopt this solution, I have no means of proving it.

Anyway, the motifs bella figlia, pelle bianca, nera, sole contain for the mediaeval reader a reference to another passage of the Canticles, namely 1, 4–5: nigra sum sed formosa, filiae Jerusalem, sicut tabernaculum Cedar, sicut pelles Salomonis; nolite me considerare quod fusca sim, quia decoloravit me sol. The allusion is the more evident (not for us, but for the mediaeval reader), since before in the entire 27th canto the theme of the corruption of the Church (or anger and shame about it) had constantly been connected with change or loss of colour (V. 13–15; 19–21; 28–36; see also Par. 22, 91–93). The interpretation of Cant. 1, 4–5 has produced such rich and varied speculation that the explanation of DanteDante’s verses is not immediately facilitated by this reference; one thing at least is evident, that the filia or sponsa of the Canticles is the Church or Christianity, that therefore we have to deal with its corruption. Moreover, I shall quote some commentaries on the Canticles which may perhaps help to a more accurate understanding of DanteDante’s intention.

I begin by adducing a characteristic passage from Bernard of Clairvaux’Bernhard v. Clairvaux SermonsDrama. At this point he refers nigra only to tabernaculum Cedar, formosa only to pelles Salomonis, and he thus begins the exposition of this second comparison:

Quid est ergo quod dicit: formosa sum sicut pelles Salomonis? Magnum et mirabile quiddam, ut ego aestimo: sed tamen non hunc, sed illum attendamus de quo dicitur: Ecce plus quam Salomo hic (Matth.Matthäus (Evangelist) 12, 42). Nam usque adeo is meus Salomon est, ut non modo pacificus (quod quidem Salomon interpretatur), sed et pax ipsa vocatur, Paulo perhibente quia ipse est pax nostra [Ephes. 2, 14]. Apud istum Salomonem non dubito posse inveniri, quod decori sponsae omnino comparare non dubitem. Et praesertim de pellibus eius adverte in Psalmo: Extendens, ait, coelum sicut pellem [Ps. 103, 2]. Non ille profecto Salomon, etsi multum sapiens, multumque potens, extendit coelum sicut pellem; sed is potius, qui non tam sapiens quam ipsa Sapientia est, ipse prorsus extendit et condidit. Istius siquidem, et non illius illa vox est: Quando praeparabat coelos, haud dubium quin Deus Pater, et ego aderam [Prov. 8, 27]. … Pulcherrima pellis, quae in modum magni cuiusdam tentorii universam operiens faciem terrae, solis, lunae atque stellarum varietate tam spectabili humanos oblectat aspectus. Quid hac pelle formosius? Quod ornatius coelo? Minime tamen vel ipsum ullatenus conferendum gloriae et decori sponsae, eo ipso succumbens, quod praeterit et haec figura ipsius, utpote corporea, et corporeis subjacens sensibus … [Then follows the interpretation of pellis not as coelum visibile et corporeum, but as coelum intellectuale et spirituale]. Patr. Lat., CLXXXIII, 913–914.

Solomon thus becomes a type of Christ, and pelles, by combination with extendit coelum sicut pellem, becomes heaven.33 Spontaneously the idea presents itself: perhaps DanteDante really meant pellis as heaven, so that the passage would have to be interpreted: therefore heaven becomes obscured – a thing which has just happened, shortly before, during Peter’s speech, in the same canto? It is not impossible that DanteDante had such an idea in mind; but the tradition offers still other less complex interpretations of Cant. 1, 4–5.34 Gregory writes in his Expositio super Cantica (ibid., LXXIX, 486):

… Quomodo formosa sicut pelles Salomonis? Fertur Salomo quando templum aedificavit omnia illa vasa templi factis pellibus cooperuisse. Sed nimirum pelles Salomonis decorae esse potuerunt in obsequium regis. Sed quia Salomon interpretatur pacificus, nos ipsum verum Salomonem intelligamus; quia omnes animae adhaerentes Deo pelles Salomonis sunt. …

He thus regards pelles as the souls of the faithful; and Honorius of AutunHonorius v. Autun, with a reference to the arca Dei posita in medio pellium (2 Sam. 7, 2), explains pelles as ecclesia (ibid., CLXXII, 368). Even by the detour coelum we may return to ecclesia, as is shown by a text of Adam ScotusAdam Scotus which I wish to quote also because it demonstrates the relation of figural speculations on pellis and decoloratio with political themes familiar and important to DanteDante. In Sermo XXX in die S. Stephani Protomartyris, describing Stephan’s vision of Heaven while being stoned, he refers to the passage extendit coelum sicut pellem and gives a sevenfold explanation of coelum: the first is Sancta Ecclesia: Nonne tibi videtur sancta Ecclesia esse coelum, in qua velut sol fulget sacerdotium, ut luna lucet, regnum et quot sanctos viros quasi tot praeclaras habet stellas? But these heavenly lights are already darkened, the corruption has begun, a fact which he corroborates by many scriptural passages, above all Joel 2, 31: Sol convertetur in tenebras, et luna in sanguinem. Afterwards sol and luna are discussed separately; a great number of themes appear which DanteDante used later in the same context, for ex. the dragon’s tail (Apoc. 12, 4; Purg. 32, 130–135). Finally he quotes Apoc. 6, 12–13:

sol factus est niger tamquam saccus cilicinus, et luna tota facta est sicut sanguis, et stellae ceciderunt super terram: pro eo quod sacerdotium asperitas iniquitatis denigrat, imperium furor crudelitatis cruentat, alii vero sancti relicta altitudine contemplationis coelestis devolvuntur in terrenis. … (Patr. Lat., CXCIII, 272).

The denigratio of the Sacerdotium leads us back to the decoloratio in Cant. 1, 4–5. Most of the explanations given by mediaeval commentators are not suitable for our purpose; they consider it mostly either as an effect of the persecution (the Church is ‘black’ because she is persecuted by the evil powers of the world,35 but pure, white, beautiful36 within because of her virtues) – or as an effect of the burning grace of Christ. But only discoloration through moral corruption would suit our purpose; this is suggested by some passages of Gregory and of Honorius;37 one may also quote Bernard’s words concerning Sir. 13, 1 (qui tangit picem etc., ibid., CLXXXIII, 1178).

None of the explanations of Cant. 1, 4–5 which I know is altogether suitable for our DanteDante passage; but that could not be otherwise. For DanteDante’s sequence of ideas is his peculiar property; no other, before him, would have said that the corruption of the Church in his time had led to a darkening of heaven comparable to that following the Passion of Christ; or that the sviare of human society was due to the lack of imperial power; these ideas were his own, and so he had to use the motifs figlia, pelle, decolorare as they suited his purpose. Thus, he gave a variant or new combination of the traditional interpretations: human society (sponsa Christi, la bella figlia) loses her colour in the sight of the bridegroom (in the sight of Christ, nel primo aspetto),38 or even, if my conjecture concerning the syntactical structure is correct, nel primo aspetto di quel ch’apporta mane e lascia sera – just as in his sight, ne la presenza del Figliuol di Dio (v. 24), the throne of Peter is vacant. It is not very important whether one understands pellis as coelum, or simply as an image of the Church or Christianity used by the sponsa of the Canticles as a comparison with herself. The interpretation resulting from our observations is not new; many scholars have been convinced that the corruption of the Church or of Christianity was meant. It is, however, not our principal purpose to give new interpretations, but to contribute to the understanding of the poetical and symbolical world in which DanteDante lived.