by Dante
3. God is depicted as shining down from above and illumining these saved souls who, along with Justinian, have appeared to Dante in Mercury in the moments before they withdraw from Dante’s presence. [return to English / Italian]
4–5. Justinian is now presented as a “substance,” an irreducible human soul, singing this holy song. We perhaps now understand why Dante has gone to such lengths to associate the emperor, inspired keeper of the Roman laws, and himself, inspired poet of empire, in the preceding canto (see Par. VI.11; VI.23; VI.88); their tasks are not dissimilar. [return to English / Italian]
6. The neologism s’addua is problematic. Readers are divided as to what exactly the double light represents, and there are widely various opinions. Mazzoni (Mazz.1982.1), p. 142, suggests that these lights are, the one, earthly, the other, heavenly, that is, the emperor’s past and present identities. Bosco/Reggio (comm. to this verse) are of the opinion that the lights are of the warrior and of the legislator. However, as we have seen in the preceding canto, Justinian seems most eager to put the military life behind him (Par. VI.25–27); thus it would be strange for Dante to treat him in such wise. And see Jacoff (Jaco.1985.1), pp. 323–24, arguing for Virgil’s phrase “geminas … flammas,” the description of Augustus at the helm during the Battle of Actium, his brows casting a double flame, as he is portrayed on the shield of Aeneas (Aen. VIII.680, part of the same passage visited in the last canto: See the note to Par. VI.79–81). That seems a promising lead to follow. However, it would probably be strange for Dante to have “borrowed” Augustus’s identity for Justinian. There is also a possibility that Dante is thinking of the passage in Acts 2:3–4 in which the apostles are given the gift of glossolalia. There appeared to them cloven tongues of fire; these settled on each of them; they were then filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak such languages as the Spirit gave them to utter. That is possibly reflected in what has been occurring in the opening lines of Canto VII; however, there may be a problem with the “dispertitae linguae tanquam ignis,” which may not be all that well described by the phrase “doppio lume.” [return to English / Italian]
8–9. Whereas the souls in the Moon may have been portrayed as vanishing downward into the matter of that body (Par. III.122–123), these pretty clearly travel a great distance upward very rapidly. Dante has now got his logistics under control: The souls that appear in the planets return to the Empyrean once they have completed their mission, which is to instruct Dante. [return to English / Italian]
10–12. This is the third and final time Dante uses repetitions of the word dì (see Purg. XXXI.5 and Par. V.122 for identical paired presences of the imperative form of dire) to give a greater sense of intensity to a speaker’s urging. The first two times Beatrice is speaking to the protagonist; now Dante speaks to himself, in phrasing that is still more insistent.
The tercet, a dizzying display of alliteration (there are nine d sounds in three lines), also contains a possible pun. Beatrice’s “sweet drops” in Italian (dolci stille) sound reasonably like Bonagiunta’s new sweet style (dolce stil[e] novo [Purg. XXIV.57]), which he attributes to Dante’s poetry in praise of Beatrice. The likelihood of intention behind such a play on words is increased by the presence of the same three rhymes later on in this canto, vv. 53–57 (nodo, ch’i’ odo, and modo) as are found in Purgatorio XXIV.53–57. These are the only two occurrences of these constituents of terza rima in the poem; that they occur at the same numerical placemarks (vv. 53, 55, 57) is hardly conclusive evidence, but doesn’t hurt the case, either. [return to English / Italian]
12. For Dante’s phrase “dolci stille” (sweet drops), see Chiamenti (Chia.1995.1), p. 178 (see also Sarteschi [Sart.1999.1], p. 186), indicating a possible source in Augustine, Confessiones XIII.30.45: “Et audivi, domine deus meus, et elinxi stillam dulcedinis ex tua veritate” (And I heard, O Lord my God, and drank up a drop of sweetness out of Thy truth [tr. E. B. Pusey]). [return to English / Italian]
13–15. In an exerted tercet, the poet says that he bowed his head, under the sway of his devotion to Beatrice, just as does a man who nods off to sleep. For the same phrase, “t’assonna,” see Paradiso XXXII.139. There it precedes the vision of the Godhead, featuring the miracle of the Incarnation. It is perhaps not accidental that this is a central subject in Beatrice’s long disquisition that begins at verse 19 and runs the rest of the canto. [return to English / Italian]
14. Surely what is meant is “any part of her name,” but we may want to reflect that the parts referred to just happen to be the first and the last, mirroring, perhaps, the alpha and omega that represent God. “Bice” was, of course, Beatrice’s nickname (see Vita nuova XXIV.8, the ninth line of the sonnet “Io mi senti’ svegliar dentro a lo core”: “monna Vanna e monna Bice,” where Dante observes Guido Cavalcanti’s lady, Giovanna, preceding his lady, Beatrice.) [return to English / Italian]
18. Some commentators try to associate the foco with the fires of Hell, but it seems more likely that Dante is saying that Beatrice’s smile had the power to calm even one who had been set on fire. And see Purgatorio XXVII.10–54 for Dante’s hesitant encounter with the purging flames of the terrace of Lust. [return to English / Italian]
19–24. Had not Justinian just spoken at even greater length, this would have been the longest single speech in the poem, extending 130 lines from verse 19 to the end of the canto (148). The passage beginning here is described by Carroll (comm. to vv. 10–66) as “the chief theological discourse in the Paradiso.” All the rest of the canto is, in fact, a Beatricean commentary on two passages in the preceding canto, first (vv. 19–51) Justinian’s presentation of Titus’s doing “vengeance for vengeance” in his destruction of Jerusalem (Par. VI.91–93), second (vv. 52–120) his previous claim that Tiberius, by having sovereignty when Christ was put to death (Par. VI.89–90), took “vengeance” for God’s wrath by presiding over the Crucifixion. It is interesting that Dante makes his two unusual choices for a short list of the most significant Roman emperors the focus of Beatrice’s commentary in verse.
This stylistic tour de force (having Beatrice, presented playfully in the fifth canto as the author of the poem [vv. 16–17], now reappear as the commentator on two passages from the sixth canto) is not calculated to set enthusiasts of lyric poetry aflutter. Terza rima is about the only thing poetic that we find in the rest of the canto, as Beatrice’s language is Scholastic-sounding and severe, her interests only instructional, and correctively so. [return to English / Italian]
19. The only other appearance of the word infallibile occurs in Inferno XXIX.56, where it modifies giustizia. Here Beatrice gives her infallible (because she speaks with the authority of her Maker) idea of the justness of God’s vengeance, the “negative form” of his justice, punishment. [return to English / Italian]
20–21. For a consideration of the way in which Christ’s prediction of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 19:36–46) and the city’s conquest by the Romans in a.d. 70 are reflected in this and other passages (and also look forward to the coming punishment of Florence), see Martinez (Mart.2003.1). [return to English / Italian]
20. The presence of two words directly related to “justice” in this verse begins by far the largest single deployment in any canto of such words: giusta and giustamente here; giustamente (42); giusta (50 and 51); giuste (84); giustizia (119). The neighboring canto (VI) is tied for second place with four, thus making these two cantos the center of this concern in a poem that is perhaps more concerned with justice than with any other single concept. See the note to Inferno III.4. [return to English / Italian]
25–33. Adam’s sin of transgression (and it is significant that Dante here is placing on his shoulders the sin of Eve) was what “brought sin into the world and all our woe” (Milton, Paradise Lost 1.3), to borrow the words of another major poet’s reference to that transgression. It is this for which the Word of God chose, in his love for humankind, to offer Himself as flesh in sacrifical atonement for all sin since Adam. (It was precisely this
humanity of Jesus in which Justinian did not at first believe [see Par. VI.13–15].) [return to English / Italian]
26. Adam was not born; he was created directly by God, as was (almost) Eve. [return to English / Italian]
28. Scartazzini/Vandelli (comm. on vv. 28–33) point to Monarchia III.iv.14 for the phrase infirmitas peccati (infirmity of sin) as corresponding to the sickness afflicting the human race after Adam’s fall. [return to English / Italian]
29. Later Dante will spell out the exact amount of time that passed between Adam’s sin and his redemption—5,232 years. See Paradiso XXVI.118–123. [return to English / Italian]
30. The “Word of God” is Jesus, as Second Person of the Trinity. [return to English / Italian]
31–33. This tercet includes reference to the two other aspects of the triune God, the Sapience represented by the Son having been mentioned in verse 30 (where Beatrice refers to the Word becoming flesh); the Power represented by the Father, “Maker” of all things; the Love represented by the Holy Spirit. [return to English / Italian]
34–45. Humankind, a combination of immortal soul and mortal body, as present in Adam and Eve, quickly (for exactly how quickly, see Par. XXVI.139–142) turned from God to sin, and was sent out of Eden. If we measure what was done to Christ upon the Cross by the enormous burden of sin He took on, His penalty was utterly just; if, on the other hand, we measure the worth of the one who was punished, no greater outrage was ever committed, especially when we consider what He had voluntarily consented to. [return to English / Italian]
39. The verse repeats, as Benvenuto da Imola (comm. to vv. 34–39) was perhaps the first to realize, Christ’s dictum (John 14:6) “Ego sum via, et veritas, et vita” (I am the way, and the truth, and the life). The text continues, “No one comes to the Father unless through me.” [return to English / Italian]
46–48. The paired results of Christ’s sacrifice are expressed in a chiasmus: The death of Jesus pleased (a) God and (b) the Jews; it caused both (b) the earthquake at the Crucifixion and (a) the opening of Heaven to humankind. The Jews took perverse pleasure at the killing of Jesus for which reason God made the earth shake, expressing His displeasure; at the same time, and of far greater importance, God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice and opened Heaven to redeemed humanity. [return to English / Italian]
49–51. Beatrice’s repetition of the adjective giusta (just) underlines her main concern for Dante, that he understand that God never acts unjustly. She has taken care of his first doubt, which arose from what Justinian said about the reign of Titus. [return to English / Italian]
52–120. Next Beatrice turns to the problem that arose for the protagonist in Justinian’s remarks about the reign of Tiberius. This is one of the most pernicious stumbling blocks for nonbelievers and even some Christians. It is the question posed (and answered) by Beatrice here (see Scartazzini’s lengthy gloss to this passage, which deals with Dante’s complex discussion clearly). The two main sources for Dante’s thinking about the justification for the death of Jesus on the Cross are, according to Scartazzini, St. Thomas (ST III, q. 46, a. 1–3) and St. Anselm of Canterbury (Cur Deus homo). For insistence on the primacy, for Dante’s thinking on this subject, of Anselm’s tract, see Fallani (Fall.1989.1), pp. 233–34. [return to English / Italian]
52–63. Now, reading Dante’s mind, Beatrice sees what is troubling him; there must have been some other way for human sin to have been canceled short of having the incarnate Godhead be slain upon a cross. Beatrice warns that her proof will be difficult, because only those nourished over time by the warmth of God’s affection ever understand this mystery, that is, only those inspired by the Holy Spirit are able to understand the love for humankind that impelled Jesus to give up his life for us. [return to English / Italian]
57. From Lombardi (1791, comm. to vv. 56–57) to Grabher (1934, comm. to vv. 55–63), most commentators think the word pur here means “only.” Starting with Trucchi (1936, comm. to vv. 52–57), the tide begins swinging to proprio (precisely, exactly); Chimenz (1962, comm. to vv. 56–57) prefers this meaning to “only,” as do Bosco/Reggio (1979, comm. to vv. 56–57); as our translation indicates, we do, too. [return to English / Italian]
64–120. Tozer’s summary of these passages may be helpful: “Man, inasmuch as his soul proceeded direct from God, possessed the gifts of immortality, free will, and likeness to God, and on these depended his high position (vv. 64–78). By the Fall the freedom of his will and his likeness to God were impaired, and his position was lost (vv. 79–81). There were only two ways by which he could recover this, i.e., either (1) that he should make satisfaction himself for his sin, or (2) that God in His mercy should pardon him freely (vv. 82–93). The former of these it was impossible for man to do, because he could not render any adequate recompense; it remained therefore for God to guarantee his pardon (vv. 94–105). This God did in a manner at once most consonant with His own nature, as being perfect Goodness, and most advantageous to man, and most in accordance with the demands of justice. He followed both the way of mercy and the way of justice. By the Incarnation and death of Christ He enabled man to regain his lost position, and at the same time made the satisfaction for his sins which justice required” (vv. 106–20). [return to English / Italian]
64–65. For an attempt to demonstrate the closeness of the thought here to that found in Plato’s Timaeus, see Fraccaroli (Frac.1906.1), pp. 393–97, disputing the more usual nineteenth-century claim of a dependence upon Boethius. However, see Richard Green’s note to the passage, in his translation of the Consolatio (Gree. 1962.1), p. 60, pointing out that the poem (“O qui perpetua mundum ratione gubernas” [O you who govern the world with eternal reason]) in Boethius (Consolatio III.m9) is recognized as being an epitome of the first section of the Timaeus. Among the early commentators, Pietro di Dante (comm. to vv. 64–78) cites Boethius (“Rather it was the form of the highest good, existing within You without envy, which caused You to fashion all things according to the external exemplar”), while Benvenuto da Imola (comm. to vv. 64–66) and Francesco da Buti (comm. to vv. 64–75) cite Timaeus 29e (the opening of Book I): “Optimus erat, et ab optimo omnis invidia relegata est” (He [the god who made universal disorder into order] was good: and in the good no jealousy in any matter can ever arise [tr. F. M. Cornford]—Plato is speaking of the divine mind, as is Boethius). For more support of Plato’s candidacy and general consideration of the problem, see Galimberti (Gali.1968.1), pp. 227–35. Sapegno (comm. to vv. 64–66) was perhaps the first to cite both (Boethius, Cons. III.m9.1–6; Plato, Tim. I). Giacalone (comm. to vv. 64–66) offers helpful discussion and a bibliography. [return to English / Italian]
67. Those things created directly, that is, without mediation, by God include the angels, the heavenly spheres, unformed matter (e.g., the earth’s surface, awaiting the formal intervention of God to be given its definitive shape), and the rational part of the tripartite human soul. For the distinction between this unformed God-created matter, Augustine’s materia informis, and “prime matter” (materia prima), see O’Keeffe (Okee.1924.1), pp. 51–57. [return to English / Italian]
68–69. That which God creates unmediated is eternal and unvarying. [return to English / Italian]
72. The “more recent” things were created not directly by God, but with some mediation (e.g., planetary influence), since all of these were part of a “secondary creation.” [return to English / Italian]
85–87. In Adam we all sinned, and have been denied the privileges that once were his, particularly three things: immortality, the earthly paradise, and our resemblance to God. [return to English / Italian]
97–100. We were not capable of abasing ourselves in humility deep enough to make up for the amount we had risen up in pride. [return to English / Italian]
103–111. Thus it remained for God to ransom us using either mercy or justice. He elected to employ both of these. [return to English / Italian]
112–120. Dante employs hysteron proteron yet again to mark eit
her end of human history, the last night of life on earth (see the Apocalypse) and the first day (see Genesis). In the period of time sectored in that arc no greater act ever was or shall be than Jesus’ act of self-humiliation to save humankind. [return to English / Italian]
124–138. This passage and the rest of the canto deal with the ontology of God’s creation, specifically the distinctions between the nature of being in that which is created directly by God (things eternal or, more properly, since they have a beginning in time, sempiternal) and in that which, though created by God (for nothing that exists owes or can owe its existence to any other first cause), has other participation in its making (i.e., they are made by the intervention of other already existent things, as are almost all things that we encounter: butterflies, the cliffs of Dover, rain). On this question see Moore’s late essay, “Dante’s Theory of Creation” (Moor.1917.1), pp. 134–65, and the stern response by David O’Keeffe (Okee.1924.1); Moevs’s discussion (Moev.2005.1), pp. 122–26, agrees with O’Keeffe’s objections to Moore’s formulations, which underlie many later (mis)understandings of the basic cosmic views put forward here by Beatrice, and which, as a result, are incorrect. As Moevs points out (pp. 123–24), Beatrice fears lest Dante, mistaking her words at vv. 67–69, fail to distinguish between primary creation (i.e., directly by God) and secondary creation (God acting in collaboration with other agents). As Moevs rightly insists, for Dante there is no such thing as creation independent of God; but there is (1) direct creation and (2) indirect creation; in the latter other agents besides the deity have a role. All such entities, Beatrice concludes, are “mortal,” including the four elements. This passage is not made easier by its frequent use of the past participle of the verb creare. The word creature at verse 127 has the sense of “things created” (by God). But this, mirroring the protagonist’s confusion, blurs the crucial distinction that Beatrice will make; all things are created by God, some few directly (and they are eternal or, to use the correct term, sempiternal) but most parts of the made universe, as the four elements, indirectly. At verse 131 creati also refers to divine creation, but this time (and for the only time in this passage) of direct creation by God, and hence of eternal things, both angels and the heavenly spheres. In verse 135 creata refers to the secondary creation of the informative power in the stars, as it does in both of its iterations in vv. 136 and 137. The next could not be clearer, but its use of the same term, creare, for both kinds of creation, primary and secondary (i.e., direct and indirect), makes a reader’s task more difficult. [return to English / Italian]
