Philosophy along the humble path of Dante

Ineffable providence has…set before us two goals to aim at in this life: happiness [beatitudo] which consists in the exercise of our own powers and is figured in the earthly paradise; and happiness [beatitudo] in the eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of the vision of God (to which our own powers cannot raise us except with the help of God’s light). . . .

We attain the first through the teachings of philosophy, provided that we follow them putting into practice the moral and intellectual virtues; whereas we attain the second through spiritual teachings, which transcend human reason, provided that we follow them, putting into practice the theological virtues, — faith, hope, and charity. . .

It is for this reason that man had need of two guides corresponding to his twofold goal: to lead mankind to eternal life in conformity with revealed truth, and another to guide mankind to temporal happiness [felicitas] in conformity with the teachings of philosophy.

Thus did Dante Alighieri write about the fundamental nature of the human condition and its twin telos in his philosophical and theological work entitled Monarchia. Quite when he wrote it is a matter of some debate — it could have been as early as 1312 or even shortly before his death in 1321 — but whatever the exact date it throws a fascinatingly different light upon an author otherwise so rightly celebrated for his great work of literature, The Divine Comedy.

One of the fascinating aspects of the Monarchia is its path finding role in expounding the distinction first adumbrated in the Dominical phrase of Mark 12, 17: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. The work is also a clear response to and indeed rebuttal of the view only recently declared obligatory in the Papal Bull, Unam sanctam of November 1302

This Bull was issued by Pope Boniface VIII and set out highly dogmatic propositions on the nature and unity of the Church as being entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff. The belief in, and submission to, the Roman Pope as supreme head of the Church was in consequence of this Bull declared essential for eternal salvation.

This hierocratic conception, ultimately in fact assigned all earthly power to the pope, thus claiming an authority superior to all other rulers anywhere, and most certainly above that of the emperor. This view had the sharply practical further implication that a Roman Pope could legitimately intervene in matters secular as well as spiritual.

It is precisely here, that the distinctions made by Dante are telling. As we have seen, he makes a firm distinction between the spiritual and temporal but he also separates and mutually distinguishes these domains in terms of jurisdiction, thus leaving the Papacy supreme in matters spiritual but the emperor as supreme in matters temporal.

Accordingly, while he explicitly sees the two guides necessary in the section quoted above as respectively the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor he nonetheless comes out against the hierocratic conception of the papal power elaborated in Unam sanctam and this remains true even though he views the spiritual realm as ultimately the more important since it pertains to eternity.

That last point about political humility makes it especially fitting that this week we have one of the congregation presenting over tea on Friday the spiritual and theological side of Dante. Dr Rachel Teubner will be discussing her most recent book Dante and the Practice of Humility: A Theological Commentary on the Divine Comedy and we will all be much edified we may be sure!

After from Vergil, within the Comedia, it is Beatrice who stands as the ultimate guide in quest of whom Dante had trembled through the horrors of the Inferno, only to be encouraged by Virgil’s firm trust that it would be by descent into the deepest cavern that they will reach the redeeming light and then come to Beatrice.

Thus did he then toil on with his pilgrimage up the mountain of the Purgatorio and cast himself into the wall of fire that divides the last purgatorial terrace from the Earthly Paradise — always urged on by Virgil.

And yet in the end, when Beatrice finally comes into view- she seems almost to rebuke Dante when she asks ‘How is it that you deign to come here? Do you not know that here man is happy?’ even as she reassures him by saying: ‘Look at me well; I am, I am indeed Beatrice.’

Here therefore is the woman Dante had glimpsed in life in Florence, then having died and ascended, is here presented as, coming down from heaven, and having ‘visited the threshold of the dead’ beseeching Virgil to lead Dante to her. (Purg. XXX 139; cf. Inf. II 52ff.). Thus we see  that Beatrice is both a  heavenly and an earthly figure acting out of love  is seeking to lead Dante  to salvation. Yet for deep theological reasons she must first draw Dante’s attention to his own and indeed all of humanities short-comings.

And here it is important to note the limits of her implicit rebuke to Dante.

Arguably, Beatrice implicitly endorses the overall perspectives set out  in Dante’s three philosophical works which therefore hover behind the Comedia. Accordingly, it can be argued plausibly that, since in none of Dante’s works can there be found any suggestion that philosophy (whether associated with contemplative or practical activities) ought to be a substitute for theology, there is no reason to claim (as some have)  that Beatrice here through her implicit rebuke therefore expresses Dante’s own repudiation of the philosophical insights of his earlier texts.

Turning then again to the practical import, since the disposition of this world is a result of the disposition inherent in the circling of the heavens, under he who created all and  who takes in at a glance the whole disposition of the heavens, it is he alone who preordained in the sense of foreknowing this disposition, can and does make provision through it to bind all things in due order.

Since God alone stands supreme with none above him, it follows that the authority of any temporal monarch flows down into him thence without any (and certainly not Papal) intermediary.  All this entails that while philosophy may offer grounds for guiding the soul independently of theological authority, ultimately its purpose in supplying this independent guidance of this world, must remain subordinate to the higher aim of human activity that ends in the domain of the life to come and theology. 

In other words, while philosophy’s authority must remain independent of theology with respect to its capacity to guide humans to earthly beatitude, this earthly beatitude is itself subordinate to the higher spiritual beatitude. Hence, even though some (such as Gilson) have argued otherwise, it seems clear that Dante does subordinate philosophy to theology,  not because of any diminution of regard for philosophy’s independent power to move the soul, or of its importance in contributing to the leading of human beings to both forms of beatitude,  but by virtue in the end of ontology itself, And of all this Beatrice,  as indeed the entire corpus of Dante’s works,  most powerfully reminds us, not merely through words but the higher form of literature as art.