The Library Annex

And he, together with other thinkers of that period, longed for unity among men, for unity that seemed never to be made a reality. Yet Dante believed and proclaimed that such a unity could come about, but in one way only, through a regeneration of society and a uniting of political interests under one head independent of the Church.

In The De Monarchia, Dante embarks on a philosophical journey to prove, without reasonable doubt and by laws of logic, the validity of a global monarchy. In modern times, most thinkers would immediately cringe at the idea; imagining a dictator razing the earth to ashes and enslaving her people without mercy. Perhaps they would sacrifice their own principles against freedom and book-burning finding exception with this treatise.

More importantly, they might ask how a genius like Dante, author of The Divine Comedy, one who argues by secular law of philosophy and logic for the existence and authority of God and the Christian faith, could profess such political sacrilege? Let him explain…

Dante organizes his argument into three books: the necessity of temporal monarchy for the good of the world, the validity of Rome as the seat of that temporal monarchy and lastly whether such a right derives from God or His vicar on earth. One ought to consider the political juxtaposition of Dante’s society; the ongoing conflict between Guelf (those defending papal supremacy in ruling the world) and Ghibellines (those defending the supremacy of the Emperor in ruling the world). One can argue how Dante proports the Ghibelline perspective and yet, as in all great things, gray rules their nature rather than definitive black and white. Ultimately, the timeless element of this treatise is its defense of separating Church and State; both with their functions in elevating human society and soul to its grandest heights.

Strangely, I found myself following Dante’s logic defending universal monarchy as the best political construct to support both human freedom and happiness. I will not regurgitate each argument here. But I did find myself asking whether Dante might alter his arguments in the modern day. Would he maintain that his science of reason still leads people to attain his goal of universal monarchy? He might; and say that the failure of dictatorships and communist governments derive from our inability to fully realize his universal government. However, he might say, as so many have, that the loftiest and most well-reasoned principles simply have no capacity for realistic application.

Dante begins to lose me in his second book defending Rome as the divinely ordained empire appropriated for universal rule. Within his arguments, one can find roots of just about any western “ism” and incomplete arguments formed to defend his point. I did not find that Dante spoke as confidently to this point though he leaned heavily on Logic and his reasoning.

In the last book, Dante flourishes in his defense of separating Church and State and outlining how both lack jurisdiction of power over the other, despite the many examples provided by Guelfs to the contrary. In these arguments and syllogisms, we find that timeless element of this treatise where mankind can continually return in defending this separation.

Ultimately, a fine treatise for those appreciative of Dante’s ability to apply logic to the divine; like a scientist illustrating art. It not only provides defenses for concepts applicable to modern times but may inspire others to continue the search for temporal constructs which enable his ultimate goal which, in Dante’s day, both Guelf and Ghibelline could agree – a state of human happiness.



View all my reviews