Paradiso (The Divine Comedy series Book 3)

by Dante

  16–18. Dante’s answer is simple (at least it seems so at first). Love “reads” instruction to him, as might a professor at the Sorbonne. The poet’s word leggere refers to the practice of instruction in theology from which the word “lecture” derives (for a previous use, see Par. X.137); see Poletto (comm. to Par. X.136–138). Dante’s heart is instructed by the Holy Spirit to love God.

  The problem for the reader results from the phrasing of the thought “whatever scripture Love teaches me in loud or gentle tones.” Since the precise meaning of this tercet is much contested, there are many instances of commentators who outdo themselves in improbable readings (for a review, see Scartazzini [comm. to vv. 17–18]; his own attempt, however, leaves much to be desired with respect to the last four words [o lievemente o forte]). To characterize them with the words of Origen, hurling invective at those copyists of the Gospels who twisted the sense of the text in order to arrive at a meaning of which they approved, such commentators are guilty of “perverse audacity” (see Ehrman [Ehrm.2005.1], p. 52). However, see Carroll (comm. to vv. 1–18): “Much difficulty is made of these words, but the meaning is quite simple: ‘God is the beginning and the end of all my love.’ The figurative form is taken from the Alpha and Omega of Revelation 1:8: God is the entire alphabet of the sacred writings which love reads to his soul—the scripture of the universe. Many meanings are suggested for ‘o lievemente o forte,’ ‘with light voice or strong’: such as reason and revelation, or human and Divine love, or God loved for Himself and for His benefits. Dante’s own words which follow seem to me to give the answer. The loud voice corresponds to the arguments of Philosophy and the assurance of Revelation in ll. 25–45; and the low voice to the secondary causes of love in ll. 55–66. But whether low or loud, God is the one and only object of love.” For a different view, see Benvenuto (comm. to this tercet), who interprets “lievemente o forte” as “easy or difficult,” a view accepted by Simone Marchesi (Marc.2002.2).

  For “Alfa ed O” Dante is of course citing John’s own words (Apocalypse 1:8, 21:6, 22:13), as he has already done in the Epistle to Cangrande (XIII.90): “And since, when the Beginning or First, which is God, has been reached, there is nought to be sought for beyond, inasmuch as He is Alpha and Omega [Alfa et O], that is, the Beginning and the End, as the Vision of John tells us, the work ends in God Himself, who is blessed for evermore, world without end” (tr. P. Toynbee). [return to English / Italian]

  16. For “lo ben” (the good), see Inferno III.18, “il ben dell’intelletto” (the good of the intellect), or, as most commentators agree, God. [return to English / Italian]

  17. For some bibliography dealing with this verse, see Valerio (Vale.2003.1), p. 98, n. 65, citing not only Nardi’s discussion (Nard.1964.2), pp. 317–20, but three studies by Del Popolo from the 1990s. Nardi demonstrated that the reading he had grown up with (“Alfa ed Omega”) is metrically impossible. [return to English / Italian]

  21. The words mi mise in cura (made me hesitate) are not understood by everyone in the same way, with some believing that they mean “gave me a reason,” an opinion that we do not share. [return to English / Italian]

  22–24. John asks the protagonist to go down to a second level in his disquisition on this theological virtue, to put his answer through a “finer sieve.” However, and as Singleton (comm. to vv. 1–79) points out, “no definition of love is given in the examination, as it is with faith and hope. This serves to stress the fact that love is primarily a matter of the will, not of the intellect. Dante is simply asked what he loves, and why.” [return to English / Italian]

  25–27. Dante replies briefly but thoroughly, refining his first response (vv. 13–18). Love is imprinted in him by two agents, philosophical arguments and “authority,” or, in a shorthand of sorts, Aristotle and the Bible. [return to English / Italian]

  28–36. For the gist of these tercets, see Tozer’s paraphrase: “The argument derived from Reason is this:—That which is good awakens love in the soul of him who understands its nature, and the love increases in proportion as the goodness is greater. Consequently, the Being who is perfect goodness must attract more love than any other object.” [return to English / Italian]

  37–39. To whom does Dante refer here? Aristotle is the nearly unanimous opinion of the commentators, who are divided only about the precise passage, whether in the Metaphysics, the Ethics, or On Causes (attributed to Aristotle during the Middle Ages), explaining how the spheres’ love for the Godhead set the universe into motion. [return to English / Italian]

  40–45. Dante now adduces two texts in evidence, the first plainly identifiable. It reports that God says to Moses (Exodus 33:19), “Ego ostendam omne bonum tibi” (I will make all My goodness pass before you). Perhaps the first commentator to deal with the context of this passage was Vellutello (comm. to vv. 40–42), noting that it continues by having God reveal to Moses only His “back parts,” not His face. Apparently he was the only commentator to do so before Carroll, whose discussion is informative (comm. to vv. 19–45): “It seems to me difficult to believe that Dante, when quoting this, did not remember that God proceeds to say: ‘Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live.… Thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.’ And, as I understand it, the passage which he takes from the New Testament is chosen just because it is the fulfillment of the imperfect revelation given to Moses.” Then Carroll turns to the less clearly identified source: “It is taken from St. John’s writings, the particular reference being much disputed.… Dante is thinking of all [of John’s writings] as one proclamation of the secret of heaven to earth; and if so, ‘the beginning of the high heralding’ is the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. Now it happens that the closing words of the Prologue allude to this very fulfillment of the imperfect revelation through Moses of which I have spoken: ‘The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ The evident connection of this with the passage quoted from Moses seems to me conclusive. Moses saw the back of God; Christ reveals the ‘secret’ of heaven—the bosom of the Father” [Par. XXVI.40–45]. [return to English / Italian]

  42. For Guido Cavalcanti’s version of this statement, see Vita nuova III.14: “Vedeste, al mio parere, onne valore” (I think that you beheld all worth—tr. M. Musa), as cited by Valerio (Vale.2003.1), pp. 90–91. And see the discussion of Exodus 33:19 in the note to vv. 40–45. [return to English / Italian]

  44. The word preconio (proclamation, message) and the word arcano (mystery) is each a hapax. Benvenuto begins the understanding that this preconio is the opening verse of John’s Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word.” However, and as Scartazzini (comm. to this verse) argues, most of the ancient commentators are of the opinion that the Apocalypse is on Dante’s mind here; he follows them. It would have been hard to oppose the combined authority of Benvenuto and Scartazzini; the former’s judgment (supported, as it was in this particular, by that of Francesco da Buti) should perhaps have weighed more heavily with the latter. [return to English / Italian]

  46–48. John accepts Dante’s answer. Depending on whether the verb guarda is to be taken as a present indicative (as we translate it) or as an imperative strongly influences one’s understanding of the tercet. See, inter alia, discussions in Scartazzini, brusquely dismissive (if perhaps rightly so) of those who decide for the imperative, and Bosco/Reggio, more balanced in keeping the options open (both in their comms. to this tercet). [return to English / Italian]

  49–51. John now sets his third question for the protagonist, involving the subjects of what draws him (by pulling him with corde [cords]) and what goads him (by bites of its denti [teeth]) toward God. The reader may be reminded of the stimuli on the seven terraces of the purgatorial mountain, which featured (see, e.g., Purg. XIV.147) freno or richiamo (“curb” or “lure”). In Paradiso XXVIII.12, Beatrice’s eyes will be presented as the “cord”
(in the sense of “noose”) that captured him.

  In response to Venturi’s complaint against the bitterness of Dante’s metaphor for such a sweet feeling (love), Lombardi (comm. to verse 51) points out that Dante has always used harsh metaphors for love (presented as burning, wounding, etc.). [return to English / Italian]

  53. The authors of the Gospels were portrayed as four different creatures, the “four living creatures” of Apocalypse 4:7: Matthew as man, Mark as lion, Luke as ox, John as eagle. [return to English / Italian]

  55–66. Carroll (comm. to vv. 46–63) continues his global explanation of this passage: “But [John’s] examination is not finished. ‘The Eagle of Christ’ pursues the subject into its secondary causes. We come at this point to the scripture which Love reads with a low voice (l.18)—the collateral and subsidiary sources of charity, or as John puts it, the cords that draw, and the teeth that bite into the heart.” And then, interpreting the verses 58–60, Carroll concludes: “In other words, the creation of the world and man, the cross of Christ, and the hope of glory: these are ‘the teeth’ with which the love of God bites into his heart, for all are operations of that love. Yet it is to be noted that they are not ‘the interior act of charity,’ the clinging of the soul to God, but only cords to draw men to the act.” [return to English / Italian]

  62–63. Once more Dante turns to the large motif of the exodus to express his personal journey from sin to redemption. See the previous uses of pelago (Inf. I.23 and Par. II.5). [return to English / Italian]

  64–66. Scartazzini (comm. to verse 65) was apparently the first (and still among the few) to see that Dante was again resorting to the text of John’s Gospel (John 15:1): “Ego sum vitis vera et Pater meus agricola est” (I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser). See also Singleton (comm. to this tercet), Bosco/Reggio (comm. to this tercet), and Getto (Gett.1968.1), p. 941. [return to English / Italian]

  67–69. See Getto (Gett.1968.1), pp. 942–43, discussing Dante’s formula for concluding the apostles’ examinations of him on the three theological virtues. These occur at Paradiso XXIV.112–114, XXV.97–99, and in these verses. Getto finds the three texts sharing the following earmarks: Each passage (1) is contained in no more or no less than a single terzina; (2) contains reference to Dante’s completion of his utterance; (3) cites the opening words of the celebrative song raised at its conclusion; (4) includes some description of the quality of that song; (5) refers to those who sang it.

  Once again we find a Latin hymn (the “Sanctus”), which had become a part of the liturgy, performed in Italian (“Holy, holy, holy”). See the note to Paradiso XXIV.113–114. The original “Sanctus” is found in both Isaiah 6:3 and Apocalypse 4:8 (where it follows the description of the “four living creatures” [see the note to verse 53]). [return to English / Italian]

  70–79. This simile portrays Dante/Saul becoming Dante/Paul as a result of the ministrations of Beatrice, who restores his temporarily vanquished sight. See the note to vv. 9–12. [return to English / Italian]

  70–75. Dante seems to have been fascinated by the processes both of falling to sleep and of awakening from it. Is there another work from this period that has more frequent or more detailed references to both? See, for example, Inferno I.111, III.136, XXV.90, XXX.136–141, XXXIII.38; Purgatorio IX.11, IX.33–42, IX.63, XV.119–123, XVII.40–42, XVIII.87–88, XVIII.143–145, XXVII.92, XXVII.113, XXXII.64–69, XXXII.76–78; Paradiso XXXII.139.

  See Boyde (Boyd.1993.1), pp. 74–75, for an analysis of the “mechanics” of seeing in these six lines. [return to English / Italian]

  73. The verb ab[b]or[r]ire (or, as we believe, ab[b]or[r]are)—and both forms (along with others, as well) are found with orthographical variants in the interpretive tradition—has caused a great deal of puzzlement. See Casagrande (Casa.1997.2) for a thorough study of the history of the problem, concluding that (1) the verb is nearly certainly the first conjugation one, used by Dante twice in Inferno (XXV.144; XXXI.24); (2) it probably, on the basis of observations found in Uguccione da Pisa, derives from a Latin synonym for balbus (not speaking clearly [see Purg. XIX.7 and Par. XXVII.130 and 133]) and here means “loses the power of speech.” Casagrande, following Porena (comm. to vv. 73–75), treats the form of the verb here as metaplasmic, that is, believing that Dante, his hand forced by the exigencies of rhyme, has switched conjugational endings (-ire) for (-are). Our translation accepts the basic interpretation of Porena (as restated by Bosco/Reggio [comm. to vv. 73–75])—but does not accept the new reading proposed by Casagrande, for the reason that the action resulting from Beatrice’s intervention is not that the protagonist can speak clearly so much as it is that he can see better (see verse 79). Since what is revealed as the object of his eventually clear vision is still another soul, it would seem reasonable to argue that what at first appears unclear to the protagonist is that “fourth light,” what turns out to be the radiance of Adam. [return to English / Italian]

  76. For the word quisquilia, a hapax in Dante, see Amos 8:6, where it is a hapax in the Bible, indicating the chaff from grain. [return to English / Italian]

  80–81. The totally unexpected “fourth light,” we habitual readers realize, without surprise, is Adam. If we remember our first reading, we probably recall our amazement at what Dante (who reports himself “stupefatto” [dazed]) has done, putting the first father before us for an interview about Edenic existence. [return to English / Italian]

  80. For the word stupefatto, see Aversano (Aver.2000.2), p. 125, citing Acts 9:7, all the more plausible as a reference, given the Pauline context of the canto (introduced at vv. 10–12). “The men who were traveling with him [Saul] stood speechless [stupefacti], hearing the voice but seeing no one.” Jesus, invisible, has called Saul to Him. Saul rises from the ground blind and is led by the hand by his fellow travelers into Damascus, where he will be cured of his blindness as the new man, Paul, by Ananias. [return to English / Italian]

  82–84. The theological dimensions of this tercet are large indeed: God the Father created all things and then Adam, who gazes up at his maker with the love sponsored by the Holy Spirit. That love is made manifest in turn by the redemptive act of Christ, who has saved fallen Adam and some of those who were born in his sinfulness. [return to English / Italian]

  85–90. This is an at least somewhat puzzling simile, equating Beatrice with a gust of wind, forcing the top of a tree down from its normal inclination upward. It then goes on to equate Dante with that treetop, regaining its natural upward direction once the gust has blown itself out. The meaning is plain, but the negative associations that surround Beatrice seem strange; nonetheless, the positive ones that accompany Dante’s desires to do something of which Beatrice approves eventually govern our understanding. [return to English / Italian]

  91–92. Adam was, by tradition, thought to have been created by God as though he were thirty or (more usually) thirty-three years old (thus matching the years of Christ on earth). Tommaseo (comm. to vv. 91–93) remarks that the protagonist’s phrasing is not very kind, since it brings to Adam’s mind the appetite (for the apple) that caused his fall.

  On this passage see Moevs (Moev.2005.1), pp. 101–2, distinguishing between Adam as indeed ripe in himself, as he was made by God (and now again is), and the creature he had mistakenly thought he could improve by opposing God’s will and stealing His forbidden fruit. [return to English / Italian]

  93. Every bride is both Adam’s daughter and his daughter-in-law. Of course, the same holds true for grooms, if with genders exchanged. See Carroll (comm. to vv. 88–96), explaining that this verse is “an echo of St. Augustine’s City of God, XV.16: ‘Father and father-in-law are the names of two relationships.… But Adam in his single person was obliged to hold both relations to his sons and daughters, for brothers and sisters were united in marriage. So too Eve his wife was both mother and mother-in-law to her children of both sexes.’ ” [return to English / Italian]

  95–96. The poet (and protagonist) play with
the convention established and embellished as we proceed through the last canticle: Souls in Heaven read the thoughts of others in the mind of God. That being true, the protagonist acknowledges, an unvoiced question begets its answer more rapidly, avoiding the time otherwise lost in verbal duplication. Adam himself will underline this point at some length (vv. 103–108). [return to English / Italian]

  97. This line has caused confusion, even anger, and (perhaps consequently) flights of fancy. It was only with Lombardi (comm. to vv. 97–102) that a commentator disagreed with the earlier commentators’ assumption that the covering was the creature’s own fur. Now almost all agree that the imagined animal is covered (if for a reason not readily discerned) with a cloth of some kind. (Porena [comm. to vv. 97–99] would eventually draw on a childhood experience, when he once carried a cat in a sack, to suggest that Dante was referring to a similarly ensacked feline.) Torraca (comm. to vv. 97–102) suggests the possible reference to a caparisoned horse (if Pézard mainly receives the credit for Torraca’s in fact earlier observation), but then wisely backs away from making any definite identification; he continues by reminding us of the highly similar similetic moment in Paradiso VIII.52–54, in which Dante compares the glad soul of Charles Martel to a silkworm clothed in its own glowing light. (And see the earlier and altogether similar appreciation of Poletto [comm. to vv. 97–102].) This, one thinks, is assuredly the model for any attempt at an interpretation; however, it is rare that the verse has been considered in this light.