The sonnets by Campanella translated in this volume might be rearranged
under four headings--Philosophical; Political; Prophetic; Personal. The
philosophical group throw light on Campanella's relation to his
predecessors and his antagonism to the pseudo-Aristotelian
scholasticism of the middle ages. They furthermore explain his
conception of the universe as a complex animated organism, his
conviction that true knowledge can only be gained by the interrogation
of nature, his doctrine of human life and action, and his judgment of
the age in which he lived. The political sonnets fall into two groups--
those which discuss royalty, nobility, and the sovereignty of the
people, and those which treat of the several European states. The
prophetic sonnets seem to have been suggested by the misery and
corruption of Italy, and express the poet's belief in the speedy
triumph of right and reason. It is here too that his astrological
opinions are most clearly manifested; for Campanella was far from
having outgrown the belief in planetary influences. Indeed, his own
metaphysical speculations, involving the principle of immanent vitality
in the material universe, gave a new value to the dreams of the
astrologers. Among the personal sonnets may be placed those which refer
immediately to his own sufferings in prison, to his friendships, and to
the ideal of the philosophic character.
I have thought it best, while indicating this fourfold division, to
preserve the order adopted by Adami, since each of the reprints
accessible to modern readers--both that of Orelli and that of D'Ancona--
maintains the arrangement of the _editio princeps._ Two sonnets of the
prophetic group I have omitted, partly because they have no bearing on
the world as it exists for us at present, and partly because they are
too studiously obscure for profitable reproduction.[13] As in the case
of Michael Angelo, so also in that of Campanella, I have left the
Canzoni untouched, except by way of illustration in the notes appended
to my volume. They are important and voluminous enough to form a
separate book; nor do they seem to me so well adapted as the sonnets
for translation into English.
To give reasons for my choice of certain readings in the case of either
Michael Angelo's or Campanella's text; to explain why I have sometimes
preferred a strictly literal and sometimes a more paraphrastic
rendering; or to set forth my views in detail regarding the compromises
which are necessary in translation, and which must vary according to
the exigencies of each successive problem offered by the original,
would occupy too much space. Where I have thought it absolutely
necessary, I have referred to such points in my notes. It is enough
here to remark that the difficulties presented to the translator by
Michael Angelo and by Campanella are of different kinds. Both, indeed,
pack their thoughts so closely that it is not easy to reproduce them
without either awkwardness or sacrifice of matter. But while Campanella
is difficult from the abruptness of his transitions and the violence of
his phrases, Michael Angelo has the obscurity of a writer whose
thoughts exceed his power of expression, and who complicates the verbal
form by his endeavour to project what cannot easily be said in
verse.[14] A little patience will generally make it clear what
Campanella meant, except in cases where the text itself is corrupt. But
it may sometimes be doubted whether Michael Angelo could himself have
done more than indicate the general drift of his thought, or have
disengaged his own conception from the tangled skein of elliptical and
ungrammatical sentences in which he has enveloped it. The form of
Campanella's poetry, though often grotesque, is always clear. Michael
Angelo has left too many of his compositions in the same state as his
marbles--unfinished and colossal _abbozzi,_ which lack the final
touches to make their outlines distinct. Under these circumstances, it
can hardly happen that the translator should succeed in reproducing all
the sharpness and vivacity of Campanella's style, or should wholly
refrain from softening, simplifying, and prettifying Michael Angelo in
his attempt to produce an intelligible version. In both cases he is
tempted to make his translation serve the purpose also of a commentary,
and has to exercise caution and self-control lest he impose a sense too
narrow or too definite upon the original.
So far as this was possible, I have adhered to the rhyming structure of
my originals, feeling that this is a point of no small moment in
translation. Yet when the choice lay between a sacrifice of metrical
exactitude and a sacrifice of sense, I have not hesitated to prefer the
former, especially in dealing with Campanella's quatrains.
Michael Angelo and Campanella follow different rules in their treatment
of the triplets. Michael Angelo allows himself three rhymes, while
Campanella usually confines himself to two. My practice has been to
study in each sonnet the cadence both of thought and diction, so as to
satisfy an English ear, accustomed to the various forms of termination
exemplified by Spenser, Milton, Wordsworth, and Rossetti--the sweetest,
the most sublime, the least artificial, and the most artful sonnet-writers
in our language.
The short titles attached to each sonnet are intended to help the eye,
rather than to guide the understanding of the reader. Michael Angelo
and his editors supply no arguments or mottoes for his poems; while
those printed by Adami in his edition of Campanella are, like mine,
meant obviously to serve as signposts to the student. It may savour of
impudence to ticket and to label little masterpieces, each one of
which, like all good poems, is a microcosm of very varied meanings. Yet
I have some authority in modern times for this impertinence; and, when
it is acknowledged that the titles merely profess to guide the reader
through a labyrinth of abstract and reflective compositions, without
attempting to supply him with a comprehensive argument or to dogmatise
concerning the main drift of each poem, I trust that enough will have
been said by way of self-defence against the charge of arrogance.
The sonnet prefixed as a proem to the whole book is generally
attributed to Giordano Bruno, in whose Dialogue on the _Eroici Furori_
it occurs. There seems, however, good reason to suppose that it was
really written by Tansillo, who recites it in that Dialogue. Whoever
may have been its author, it expresses in noble and impassioned verse
the sense of danger, the audacity, and the exultation of those pioneers
of modern thought, for whom philosophy was a voyage of discovery into
untravelled regions. Its spirit is rather that of Campanella than of
Michael Angelo. Yet the elevation at which Michael Angelo habitually
lived in thought and feeling was so far above the plains of common
life, that from the summit of his solitary watch-tower he might have
followed even such high-fliers as Bruno or as Campanella in their
Icarian excursions with the eyes of speculative interest.