by Dante
133–135. Charles finishes with a flourish: The lives of fathers would always map in advance the lives of their offspring (we must remind ourselves of the sexually skewed biology sponsored by the poet in Purg. XXV.43–48, which has it that only the paternal seed shapes the human characteristics of the infant [the rational soul is inbreathed directly by God]). Thus, were it not for the mediating “interference” of Providence rayed down by the stars, we would all be precisely like our fathers. [return to English / Italian]
136. As Heilbronn points out (Heil.1984.2), pp. 45–46, this phrasing joins with that found in vv. 11–12 and 95–96 to connect with a passage in Convivio (II.xiii.14): “and [rhetoric] appears in the morning when the rhetorician speaks before the face of his hearer, and it appears in the evening (that is, behind) when the rhetorician speaks through writing, from a distance.” Whether or not Dante’s associations of the planets with the seven liberal arts in Convivio is binding in Paradiso is a question that remains to be settled, but, at the very least, a certain skepticism seems called for. It is probably just to reflect that, had he wanted to insist on these identities, he easily could have. That he did not would seem to make their application here dubious. [return to English / Italian]
138. For the only other occurrence of the word corollario in the poem, see Purgatorio XXVIII.136. [return to English / Italian]
139–141. In the guise of sound practical advice, Dante levels his guns at Robert, as we shall see in the concluding lines of the canto. Paratore (Para.1989.1), pp. 260–62, gives evidence that reveals Dante’s accord in this view of Nature with that expressed by St. Thomas in his Summa contra Gentiles (III.80–81).
Raoul Manselli, “Carlo Martello” ED I (1970), p. 843a, thinks of Hugh Capet, of whom Charles Martel turns out to be the only “good fruit” (Purg. XX.45). [return to English / Italian]
142–144. If we feel that we are hearing the voice of Rousseau in these lines, we should remember that natura naturata is the result of a process very much under the control of God through his instruments, the stars. As we have just learned, God intervenes not only directly, when He creates our rational souls, but indirectly, in controlling our innate propensities through the stellar influences. Thus today it might seem an expression of a Dantean point of view whenever we hear an athlete or a singer referring to his or her “God-given talent.” [return to English / Italian]
145–147. A part of John S. Carroll’s gloss to vv. 137–148 is worth having: “There is little doubt that Charles is referring to two of his own brothers. Louis, the next to himself in age, almost immediately after his release from captivity in Aragon, renounced his hereditary rights, joined the Franciscan Order, and was made Bishop of Toulouse [Louis died in 1297 and was canonized in 1311]. This renunciation of the sword, for which Dante evidently thought him better fitted, gave the throne to his younger brother Robert, who had in him more of the preacher than the king. Villani says of him: ‘This King Robert was the wisest king that had been among Christians for five hundred years, both in natural ability and in knowledge, being a very great master in theology and a consummate philosopher’ [Chronicle, xii.10]. Robert was surnamed ‘the Wise.’ Petrarch, who regarded him as the king of philosophers and poets, submitted to be examined by him for the space of two days and a half, in the presence of the entire Court, on every known branch of learning. Gregorovius sweeps aside Robert’s claims to wisdom with contempt: ‘The King enjoyed an undeserved reputation as a lover of learning, and was himself the author of tedious lucubrations on religious and profane questions.’ His character reminds us of James, ‘the British Solomon,’ who held that ‘a sovereign ought to be the most learned clerk in his dominions,’ and took himself seriously as a great theologian.” [return to English / Italian]
PARADISO IX
* * *
1–6. For a fair-minded consideration of this passage, about which it may at first seem difficult to formulate a definitive opinion, see Oelsner’s gloss (comm. to vv. 1–6). He points out that a reader is faced with a choice between “two impossibilities,” either the poet is addressing Clemenza, Charles’s dead wife, or his daughter, of the same name, for whose presence here there are even more decisive problems. And it should be pointed out that the intimacy of that familiar “tuo” at least implies relationship (Dante had once seen Charles’s Clemenza, according to Chimenz [comm. to verse 1], in 1281, when she was thirteen, on her way to Naples, but had no dealings of any kind with his daughter, married to the king of France). In addition, the plural “vostri” refers to Clemenza (“tu”) and at least one other, most likely Charles’s and her son, Caroberto. Chimenz (comm. to vv. 5–6) finds this last piece of evidence decisive, referring to those who actually lost something to the political chicanery of King Robert. However, perhaps the single most convincing piece of negative evidence deals with the detail that led to the objection that there is something odd or impossible in Dante’s addressing Charles’s dead wife. Against this frequently offered objection, Porena (comm. to vv. 1–3) indicates that Dante on several other occasions apostrophizes the dead, for example, Constantine (Inf. XIX.115), Saul (Purg. XII.40), Rehoboam (Purg. XII.46), and Buondelmonte (Par. XVI.140). It thus seems overwhelmingly likely that Dante presents himself as addressing the Clemenza who was Charles’s wife. [return to English / Italian]
7. This is the first appearance of the word vita when it has the meaning “living soul” in the poem. It is used 23 times in Inferno with its usual meaning (“life,” in various senses), and then 24 times in Purgatorio. In Paradiso it is used 32 times in all, but, to indicate a soul in grace, only here (of Charles) and then of five other denizens of Heaven, as follows: Paradiso XII.127 (Bonaventure), XIV.6 (Thomas), XX.100 (Trajan), XXI.55 (Peter Damian), and XXV.29 (James). Gragnolati (Grag.2005.1), p. 242, n. 5, is simply incorrect when he states that the “same term ‘vita’ is used throughout the Comedy to define the human soul.” [return to English / Italian]
8–9. As we will learn in vv. 95–96, Folco is swathed in the light of his glory, as a saved soul. Here Charles turns to God (metaphorically, the Sun), the source of his own brightness; if you are filled with that light, there is no need of anything else. [return to English / Italian]
10–12. This has not always been included among listings of addresses to the reader (see the note to Inf. VIII.94–96), but surely should be. (Previous addresses to the reader in Paradiso have occurred at II.1–18 and V.109–114.) Some may have realized that it is one, but the first to say as much is Daniello (comm. to this tercet), and he has been followed by only a few others, none in the current age of Dante studies. A probable reason for such reticence is the missing main verb. Nonetheless, it is clearly addressed to living mortals and, at least inferentially, to readers of the poem. To whom else? [return to English / Italian]
12. The rhyme position is possibly the cause of Dante’s choice of tempie (literally, “temples,” but here, in metonymy, “head”). Indeed, half of the six uses of the word in the poem occur in rhymes. [return to English / Italian]
13. To mark the change in personnel, or scene, Dante uses once again the formulaic ed ecco. See Inferno I.31; III.82; etc. In all, he does so a total of twenty-two times. [return to English / Italian]
14–15. The increasing brightness of the living soul of Cunizza, as yet unidentified, signifies that she will gladly answer Dante’s questions, in order to please him. [return to English / Italian]
18. That is, his desire to speak with this living soul. [return to English / Italian]
19. Literally, let my desire have its “counterweight” (compenso), that is, and thus be brought back into balance. [return to English / Italian]
21. That is, show me that you can read my thoughts because you are saved. [return to English / Italian]
23. In the last canto (Par. VIII.29) the souls were singing “Hosanna” from within their light. Here this one speaks from within as well. [return to English / Italian]
25–36. This is the first part of the ample speech (vv
. 25–63) given by Cunizza da Romano; it is devoted to her brother and to herself. (The second part, vv. 37–42, serves to introduce the second speaker of the canto, Folco of Marseilles, while the third and longest part, vv. 43–63, is devoted to the troubles that the March of Treviso soon shall experience.) Cunizza (ca. 1198–1279), after a long life of love affairs (Jacopo della Lana says that she was in love at every stage of her life [comm. to vv. 32–33]), came to Florence in April 1265 and signed a notarial document freeing her family slaves in the house of Cavalcante de’ Cavalcanti (seen in Inf. X), father of Dante’s friend Guido. She was still alive in 1279 and probably died soon after that. [return to English / Italian]
25–28. Tozer (comm. to these verses): “The place of which Dante speaks in line 28 as situated on a low hill is the castle of Romano, the patrimony of the Ezzelini. The exact position of this spot is not known, but the part of Italy which is here described as situated between Rialto and the ‘fountains’ of the Brenta and the Piave is the Marca Trivigiana, which lay between Venice (here represented by the island of Rialto) and the neighbouring part of the Alps, in which those two rivers rise.” Ezzelino da Romano (1194–1259) was a Ghibelline leader, famed for his oppressive ways. “Ezzelino, whose lordship over the March of Treviso lasted for more than thirty years, was a ruthless and bloodthirsty tyrant, and was guilty of the most inhuman atrocities.… In 1255 Pope Alexander IV proclaimed a crusade against Ezzelino, styling him ‘a son of perdition, a man of blood, the most inhuman of the children of men, who, by his infamous torture of the nobles and massacre of the people, has broken every bond of human society, and violated every law of Christian liberty.’ After a war of three years’ duration, in the course of which he committed the most terrible atrocities, Ezzelino was finally defeated (Sept. 16, 1259) by the marquis of Este at Cassano, where he was desperately wounded and taken prisoner. Eleven days after, having torn open his wounds, he died in his prison at Soncino, at the age of 64, after a reign of thirty-four years” (T). [return to English / Italian]
29–30. We have seen Ezzelino briefly (with his menacing black hair) in Inferno XII.109–110. Pietro di Dante tells the following anecdote about him (Pietro1, comm. to vv. 31–33): “When his mother was close to parturition, she had a dream that she was giving birth to a flaming torch (facem igneam) that was setting afire the entire area of the March of Treviso.”
In fact, it may be Ezzelino who is responsible for his sister’s presence in Paradiso, if only because he was the subject of Albertino Mussato’s Ecerinis, the first Senecan tragedy written in the postclassical age, which along with his historical account of Henry VII was the reason for his receiving the laurel in a tumultuous ceremony at Padua at Christmas 1315. Padua was in many respects the most advanced center for the birth of early forms of humanism in Italy. The exchange of Latin verse serving as letters between Giovanni del Virgilio and Dante (ca. 1320) included an invitation to Dante to write a Latin poem about major Italian political figures and then to come to Bologna for his laureation, an offer clearly counting on Dante’s emulous feelings toward Mussato (1261–1329) and desire to be laureated himself, as Dante comes close to admitting in the opening lines of Paradiso XXV. For what had been a neglected aspect of Dante’s relationship with other writers, see Manlio Pastore Stocchi (Past.1966.1) and Ezio Raimondi (Raim.1966.1). The first points to several passages in Dante, including the Epistle to Cangrande, which perhaps ought to be considered polemical against the never-mentioned Mussato. Raimondi, on the other hand, indicates several passages in Mussato, including a brief account of a dream of the afterworld that he had in Florence that was caused, it turns out, by stomach problems, a fairly obvious shot at the rival whom he, like that rival, never names. And see Arnaldi (Arna.1966.1) for more on the differing reactions to Cunizza and Ezzelino on the part of Mussato and of Dante. For the state of the question in 1970, see Guido Martellotti, “Mussato, Albertino,” ED III (1970). While Martellotti admits that there is no hard evidence connecting these two writers (p. 1068a), he suggests that verses 25–33 are possibly a sly attack on Mussato (p. 1067b). It may seem that Dante and Mussato had no cause for mutual dislike. Both were champions of Henry VII (of whom Mussato was the historian of his Italian activities). But Mussato despised the Scaligeri, and especially Cangrande. In fact, in an event almost certainly referred to in vv. 46–48, the battle at Vicenza in September 1314, not only was Mussato present to fight against Cangrande, he was taken prisoner by that lord (see Benvenuto [comm. to vv. 46–48]: “multi capti sunt, … et Mussatus poeta” [many were captured, … including the poet Mussato]) and brought back to Verona, where he was treated less like a prisoner than an honored guest. One story that circulated had it that when Cangrande, impressed by Mussato’s bravery in battle (he was wounded several times and yet, in his desire to avoid capture, leaped into the castle moat, out of which he was pulled by Cangrande’s troops), came to see him in his comfortable quarters in the Scaliger castle, which served as his dungeon, and asked whether he could have a few words with his prisoner, Mussato replied that surely he might, but only if he were able to converse in Latin. We do not know how long Mussato was held prisoner in Verona, but not for very long, one supposes. But we do know that Dante was a resident of that castle at this period. It would seem inconceivable that Mussato was not much on Cangrande’s mind and tongue. One can imagine Dante having to listen to his patron’s lavish praise of this “other poet” who was “given the laurel,” who was such a great Latinist, and who had put up such a brave fight in combat. It must have been galling.
As Bosco/Reggio remark (comm. to this canto, Intro.), this canto is more datable than most, referring to a number of events that occurred in 1314 and 1315. Thus it may have been written hot on the heels of the news of Mussato’s laureation at the close of 1315. If the original plan for the canto called for the presence of Folco alone, perhaps including his presentation of Rahab, Dante may have decided to add another woman (it is a rare canto in the Commedia that has two women in starring or major supporting roles; only Paradiso III, with Piccarda and Constance, comes to mind) because Cunizza offered Dante a way to address the question of Mussato through her brother (who enjoys brief enough treatment here, but several lines more than he receives in Inferno XII). [return to English / Italian]
31–33. Cunizza now identifies herself both as the sister of the “firebrand” and as, in the words of Benvenuto da Imola (comm. to vv. 13–15), “recte filia Veneris” (indeed a daughter of Venus). The words she uses to do so might suggest that she dwells permanently in this planet, as Pompeo Venturi (comm. to vv. 32–33) seems to believe. (For a later instance in the canto that seems indeed to indicate that Rahab was “assumed” by Venus, see the note to vv. 119–123.)
It has been difficult for commentators to accept Dante’s salvation of Cunizza. Some show their hostile disbelief (she was, according to Benvenuto [comm. to vv. 31–36], “widely known to be a whore” [famosa meretrix], but he goes on to find her youthful conduct excusable [he does not mention her mature amorous adventures]). Meretrix was a label affixed to her on a half dozen other occasions (deriving from an unpublished early commentary), while others attempt to put forward the unbelievable claim that she only affected the manner of carnal lovers. For the amply documented list of Cunizza’s various love affairs and marriages, including a famous fling with the poet Sordello during her first marriage, see Scartazzini (comm. to vv. 32–33) and Baranski (Bara.1993.2). (Sordello names himself at Purg. VI.74 but is present in the poem during four cantos, until the protagonist goes to sleep at the beginning of Canto IX.) To Daniele Mattalia (comm. to verse 32) she is a modern version of Rahab (but what service she performed for Church or state he does not say); however, Mattalia (comm. to verse 32) is apparently the only commentator before the seventh centenary observations in 1965 to face the question of the relation of the present situation of Cunizza in the afterworld to her eternal one, and he sees that they are different (what Dante would consider a correct view), but he then goes on to make
a further distinction unwarranted by the text: She will be in the same rank in the Empyrean as Venus is in the heavens, that is, “in the third level of merit/happiness (merito-felicità).” Again, see the note to vv. 119–123. [return to English / Italian]
