Dante on Empires and Emperors From the Convivio, Book IV, chapter IV 1 The true root and foundation

of the honour due to the emperor is the need men have to exist in society, which is directed to one end, a life of happiness. No individual is capable of attaining this by himself, without the help of others, since everyone has many needs that he cannot satisfy on his own. Hence the Philosopher's dictum that man is by nature a social animal. And just as the individual for his fulfillment requires the domestic society of a family, so the household requires for its fulfillment to be part of a neighbourhood: it would otherwise be lacking in many ways, and thus be precluded from attaining happiness. Again, a single neighbourhood cannot satisfy all its own needs; for this the city is required. For the sake of trade and defence, the city in its turn needs to cooperate with, and have friendly relations with, surrounding cities; and so the kingdom was born. Since the human psyche cannot be content with possessing a limited amount of land, but, as experience tells us, always desires the glory of making further acquisitions, quarrels and wars inevitably spring up between the various kingdoms. These are the scourge of cities, and through cities of neighbourhoods, and through neighbourhoods of households, and through households of the individual. The result is that it is impossible to attain happiness. To eradicate these wars and their causes, it is, then, absolutely necessary that the entire world, and all that the human race is capable of possessing be a monarchy, that is, that it be under the dominion of one rule and one ruler: the ruler would himself possess everything and have nothing further to desire, and so he would ensure that kings be content to remain within the

bounds of their kingdoms, and thereby keep peace among them. As a result, cities would be at peace, neighbourhoods in this peace would live in friendship, and households through this friendship would obtain all that they need, so that, finally, the individual would live happily, which is the end for which he is born. 5 Confirmation of this line of reasoning can be found in what the Philosopher says in the Politics: in a plurality directed to one end, one member must direct and rule, and all the others must be ruled and directed. A ship is a good example: on it the various tasks and ends pursued by the sailors are directed to a single end, that of reaching their destined port after enjoying a prosperous voyage. Here we see that just as each officer directs his particular activity to its particular end, so there is one person whose concern is all the particular ends, and who directs them to their single final end: he is the captain and all must obey his commands. The same obtains in religious communities, in armies, and in all spheres where, as I have said, there is one end in view. It is clear, then, that for the community constituted by the entire human race to attain fulfillment, there must be someone analogous to a captain: one person whose office it would be to have command of all by universal and unquestionable right, directing all the other officers that he deemed to be required by the various situations in the world. And this, the supreme office, is called rule or empire without qualification, since the function of this office is to govern all other offices of government. Similarly, whoever is appointed to this office is called emperor, since he governs all others who govern; his word is law for all, and must be obeyed by all, and all other government must draw its force and authority from his. It is clear, then, that the honour and authority that belong to the emperor are unsurpassed in human society.

No doubt someone could cavil and say: "Granted that the office of emperor is required for the world's good, it still does not follow that you have succeeded in your principal aim, which is to show that the Roman ruler's claim to supreme authority is based on reason. For the power of Rome was acquired not by virtue of reason, not by a decree of some gathering representing all mankind, but by force, which seems the antithesis of reason." The response to this is obvious. The choice of this supreme official must have originated primarily in the decision of the one who has concern for all people, namely, God; otherwise the choice would not have been made impartially for all, since there was no human being before the official under discussion whose concern was the good of all. Furthermore, since, as we can learn from experience, there never has been, nor will there ever be, a race whose nature it is to rule more gently, uphold more firmly or obtain possession more skillfully than the Italians, and particularly that holy people whose blood is mingled with the noble blood of Troy, namely, the Romans, God chose this people for that office. This was the people best suited to that office, since it could not be obtained without the greatest strength of character, nor exercised without the greatest and most humane benevolence. This office, then, was obtained by the Roman people not principally by means of force, but by divine providence, which is the ultimate ground of all reason. Such is Virgil's view in the Aeneid, when he portrays God as declaring: "To their rule [the Romans'] I set no limit, whether of place or time; to them have I given empire without end."

10

11

12 Force was not, then, the moving cause (as held by the one who caviled), but the instrumental cause - just as the blows of the hammer are a cause of the knife, but the mind of the smith is the efficient or moving cause. So, too, reason, not force, and

indeed divine reason, must be regarded as the source of Roman rule or empire. 13 This can be shown by two very clear arguments, which make it plain that both the origin and the growth of the imperial city resulted from God's special care. .

Chapter V 3 When God in his boundless goodness wished to refashion the human creature into a likeness of Himself once again, after it had separated itself from Him and deformed itself through the first man's sin of transgression, it was decided in that most lofty and united court of the Trinity that the Son of God would come down to earth to effect that harmony. Since for His coming the universe, earth as well as heaven, had to be most perfectly disposed-and earth is most perfectly disposed - when it is a monarchy (that is, subject in its entirety to one ruler, as explained above) - it was decreed by divine providence which people and which city should bring this about, namely, glorious Rome. Since, too, the dwelling into which the divine king was to enter had to be quite pure and spotless, it was decreed that there be a family-line of the highest sanctity, into which, after it had boasted many members of great virtue, would be born a woman surpassing all others, who would be the resting place of the Son of God. This was the line of David, from whom was born the joy and glory of the human race, Mary. As is written in the prophet Isaiah: "A shoot shall spring from the root of Jesse, and from his root a flower shall blossom." It was at one and the same

time that there took place the birth of David and the birth of Rome - that is, the arrival of Aeneas in Italy from Troy, this being the event from which the city of Rome took its origin, as the ancient writings testify. The fact that the birth of the holy city was contemporaneous with the origin of Mary's line makes it perfectly clear that the Roman empire was willed by God. 7 It should be noted in parenthesis that from the time the heavens began their circling of the earth they were never in a more favourable disposition than when the one who created and governs them descended from above, as those skilled in the mathematical arts can demonstrate to this day. The world, too, was never so perfectly disposed, nor will it ever be so again, than when its affairs were directed by one voice alone, that of the ruler and commander of the Roman people, as Luke the evangelist records. And since universal peace reigned throughout the world, something which has never occurred again and never will, the ship of human society sped directly along on a journey full of pleasure toward its destined port. O ineffable and unfathomable wisdom of God, who for Your own coming prepared so far ahead at one and the same time up there in Syria and here in Italy! O most stupid and base of beasts pasturing in the guise of human beings, who are so arrogant as to speak against our faith; with your fine-spun theorizing and laboured investigations you wish to find causes for what God has determined with such wisdom! A curse on you and your arrogance, and on all who pay you heed. At the end of the preceding chapter I proposed that Rome was specially favoured by God not only in its birth but also in its growth. Put briefly, my contention is that the

10

growth of Rome, from the time of its founding father, Romulus, until the age of its highest perfection, under the above-mentioned emperor, was the result of divine, not merely human, activity. 11 Consider the seven kings who first governed Rome, namely, Romulus, Numa, Tullus, Ancus and the three Tarquinii, who acted as her guardians and tutors in her infancy; as we can learn from the histories of Rome, all had different gifts suited to the requirements of the passing years. Consider the period stretching from the time when her late adolescence allowed her to be emancipated from royal tutelage, that is, from the first consul, Brutus, right up until her first supreme ruler, Caesar: we find that she was favoured with citizens who were not human but divine, inspired in their love for her by a love not human but divine. All this can only be explained or justified by the fact that God had a special end in view when He so lavishly infused heavenly power. Who will say it was without divine inspiration that Fabricius refused an almost infinite sum of gold, because he did not wish to abandon his native land? or that Curius, when the Samnites tried to bribe him, refused the offer of a massive quantity of gold out of love for his native land, declaring that the Romans wished to possess not gold but those who owned it? or that Mucius thrust his own hand into the fire, because his plan to liberate Rome by a single blow had failed? Who will say of Torquatus, when he condemned to death his only son for the sake of the public good, that he underwent this without being sustained by divine help? does the same not hold of Brutus mentioned above? Who will say this of the Decii and the Drusi, who laid down

12

13

14

their lives for their native land? Who will say that the captive Regulus was moved only by human and not by divine nature when, dispatched from Carthage to Rome to exchange the Carthaginian prisoners for himself and the other Roman prisoners, he gave his advice (once the Carthaginian delegation had withdrawn) based on love of Rome and against his own best interests? 15 Who will say this of Quinctius Cincinnatus, who, after he was taken from behind his plough and made dictator, of his own free will refused to continue in office and returned to his plough when his period of duty ended? Who will say that it was without divine initiative that Camillus, after being banished and cast into exile, returned to liberate Rome from its enemies, only to go back into exile of his own free will after he had done this, in order not to violate the authority of the senate? O Cato, most sacred figure, who would presume to speak of you? The best way to speak of you is indeed to be silent, and to follow Jerome's example in his introduction to the Bible, where, with reference to Paul, he declares that it is better to be silent than to say little. It ought to be clear beyond doubt, when one recalls the lives of these and other divine citizens, that so many wonderful actions did not occur without the natural goodness of these men being enhanced in some measure by light from the divine goodness. It must be clear, too, that these thoroughly excellent men were instruments whereby divine providence favoured the growth of the Roman empire, in which God is often seen to have intervened powerfully. Did not God Himself put His hand to the task at the outset when the Albans fought with the Romans for territorial supremacy, and the freedom of Rome was at the disposal

16

17

18

of a single Roman? Did not God Himself put His hand to the task when the Franks, after capturing the whole of Rome, were on the point of capturing the Capitol by stealth under cover of darkness, when the mere cackling of a goose signalled their presence? 19 Did not God Himself put His hand to the task when the Romans, after losing so many citizens in the war against Hannibal that three bushels of rings were taken to Africa, would have abandoned their land, had that blessed man Scipio, young as he was, not set out for Africa to ensure Rome's freedom? Did not God Himself put His hand to the task when Cicero, a new citizen of lowly condition, defended Rome's freedom against Catiline, a citizen of the highest rank? Indeed he did! No further evidence is needed to show that the birth and growth of the holy city were unique, according to God's plan and providence. I have no hesitation in saying that the very stones that make up its walls are worthy of reverence, and that the soil on which it stands is worthy of praise and gratitude beyond anything we normally deem proper for what is purely human.

20