Paradiso (100 page)

34–39.
   Charles informs Dante that here they are whirling with the Principalities, the order of angels that govern the heaven of Venus, which Dante had once (incorrectly) said was that of the Thrones (
Conv
. II.v.6). He now has firsthand experience of exactly how wrong he was.

Dante is obviously revising a previous opinion about angelology. (For the clarification that in
Convivio
he had followed the views of Gregory the Great as found in the
Moralia
, but here as found in his
Homilies
, see Muscetta [Musc.1968.1], p. 258.) However, something far worse than a scholarly slip by an amateur of angelic lore is probably at stake here. The first ode of
Convivio
, the opening verse of which is cited, specifically rejects Beatrice in favor of Lady Philosophy. And a good deal of energy in the
Commedia
is put to the task of retracting the views that reflect that wrongful love. Some scholars, rejecting this notion, point out that Dante
never
gives over his predilection for philosophical investigation (e.g., Scott [Scot.1995.1], Dronke [Dron.1997.1], and Scott again [Scot.2004.2], pp. 126–29). Such a view is surely correct yet may be said to miss the point: Dante needs to separate himself from his choice of Lady Philosophy over Beatrice, and this requires jettisoning certain of his philosophical baggage, especially that displayed in the first decade of the fourteenth century, that is, not Aristotle,
but perhaps Plato (author of the
Timaeus
) and/or the neoplatonist Proclus (see the note to
Par
. IV.24); not Aristotle, but perhaps the “radical Aristotelians” (see Corti [Cort.1983.1]).

The modern notion of a palinodic aspect in Dante’s more mature view of his earlier work, in particular
Convivio
, featuring a certain amount of stern remonstrance on the part of the author of the
Commedia
against his younger self, began perhaps with Freccero, “Casella’s Song” (1973) (reprinted in Frec.1986.1, pp. 186–94). His position was shared by Hollander (Holl.1975.1), Jacoff (Jaco.1980.1 [to a lesser degree]), Barolini (Baro.1984.1 [also to a lesser degree]), pp. 31–40, 57–84; and see Hollander (Holl.1990.1). For a considerably earlier understanding of the conflict between the two Dantes, see Giovanni Federzoni’s note (Fede.1920.1) to vv. 36–39: “The reason for the reference to the
canzone
here is that the amatory life, to which the spirits encountered in this planet offered themselves, the Epicurean existence condemned by the austerity of the Christian religion, is, on the contrary, justified by pagan philosophy, the philosophy that Dante himself celebrated in the second treatise of the
Convivio
and most of all in this very
canzone
.” And now see Picone (Pico.2002.3).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

34.
   The angelic spirits are now not seated in the Empyrean but whirling in “dance” with the rotation of Venus, its sphere governed by these Principalities.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

38.
   The love that fills the speaker and his companions is obviously
caritas
, not the lust that they knew from their earthly lives. See the note to vv. 55–57.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

39.
   While the literal sense of his remark is clearly that staying still and quiet to welcome Dante will be no less sweet to them than are their whirling dance and accompanying song, Charles’s way of implicitly reprimanding Dante for his divagation from Beatrice is courtesy itself: “let our
not
singing your ode seem a favor to you.” Compare Casella’s singing of the ode from
Convivio
III in
Purgatorio
II and Cato’s rebuke.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

40–41.
   While Dante turns to Beatrice to gain permission to pose a question to these souls, it seems likely that he might have looked at her to see if she is reflecting upon his disloyalty when he turned away from her to the
donna gentile
. But he has been through Lethe, and himself cannot remember his fault. But if he cannot remember, we can. He did not behave so reverently to her memory in
Convivio
, when, as he tells it, after the death of Beatrice he read Boethius and Cicero looking for consolation (silver)
and, in his reacquaintance with philosophy, found gold (
Conv
. II.xii.4): “I who sought to console myself found not only a remedy for my tears but also the words of authors, sciences, and books. Pondering these, I quickly determined that Philosophy, who was the lady of these authors, sciences, and books, was a great thing” (tr. R. Lansing).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

44.
   Here we find the much-debated phrase “Deh, chi siete?” Perhaps the solution is simpler than the discussion surrounding it might indicate. In 1894, Poletto (comm. to vv. 40–45) made the only sensible suggestion that this is not only the correct reading (there is much textual evidence on its side, as Scartazzini demonstrated [comm. to vv. 43–44]), but (as even Scartazzini failed to see) more than acceptable phrasing on Dante’s part and a perfectly sensible way for the protagonist to frame his question: “You (the one to whom I am speaking), say who all the rest of you are” (i.e., at least the three others whom we will meet in the next canto).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

45.
   Dante’s affection responds to the fondness the anonymous speaker has shown him (see vv. 32–33, 38–39).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

46–48.
   Dante’s presence in the heavens has already been presented as increasing the paradisiac joy of the blessèd (see, for example,
Par
. V.105).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

49–51.
   Charles presents himself as the good ruler, whose early death deprived Europe of his many virtues, but also unleashed the evil of others who came to power in his absence from the scene. “Charles Martel, eldest son of Charles II of Naples and Anjou and Mary, daughter of Stephen IV (V) of Hungary; he was born in 1271; and in 1291 he married Clemence of Habsburg, daughter of the Emperor Rudolf I, by whom he had three children, Charles Robert (Carobert) (afterwards king of Hungary), Clemence (married Louis X of France), and Beatrice; he died at Naples in 1295 at the age of 24”
(T)
. He died, narrowly predeceasing his wife, Clemenza, of the plague, although some were of the opinion that he had been poisoned. Dante’s other great hope, for his own political ends as well as his idealistic sense of the imperial role of Italy, Henry VII, had died recently (24 August 1313). That event, dashing even Dante’s unrealistic hopes for the triumph of the principle of restored imperial leadership, probably colored his reflections about the untimely death of Charles eighteen years earlier.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

52–54.
   Carroll (comm. to these verses) has this to say about this tercet: “It is a mistake to say, as is sometimes done, that this is a mere temporary concealment due to the sudden increase of joy caused by this meeting
with his friend. Doubtless there was this increase of joy, and therefore of light, for Dante expressly says so (
Par
. VIII.46–48); but from the very first he describes them as ‘lamps’ and ‘sparks’ within a flame [see the note to verse 19]. There is no indication that at any time he saw them in their own proper forms.”
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

55–57.
   Whatever fantasy Dante may have had of a better (nonexilic) existence had Charles remained alive and a power on the peninsula, his use of the verb
amare
and the noun
amore
in this tercet, spoken by Charles in Venus, shows how the poet has reconceptualized the nature of love from Dido’s kind to spiritual friendship (see the note to
Inf
. II.61). For an essay on the two Venuses, see Landino’s proem to this canto. Pertile (Pert.2001.1), p. 60, is not alone in objecting that Charles does not seem to be present here in the role of lover, if Cunizza, Folchetto, and Rahab (found in the next canto) all do. Indeed, his lengthy self-presentation (vv. 49–84) is exclusively political in nature. For an attempt to link Charles and Venus, see Boyde (Boyd.1993.1), p. 285: “Perhaps we are meant to infer that the rays of Venus may dispose a ‘gentle heart’ to disinterested friendship, as well as to
luxuria
.” That is a reasonable response to Dante’s situation of Charles in this planet. Nonetheless, Benvenuto da Imola portrays Charles as a “son of Venus” (comm. to vv. 31–39): “fuit vere filius Veneris quia amorosus, gratiosus, vagus, habens in se quinque invitantia hominem ad amorem, scilicet, sanitatem, pulcritudinem, opulentiam, otium, et juventutem” (… he was indeed a son of Venus, amorous, graceful, eager, possessing five qualities that promote a man’s disposition to love, i.e., good health, physical attractiveness, wealth, leisure, and youth).

Ragni (Ragn.1989.2), pp. 145–52, shows that Dante’s presentation of Charles Martel accords with his presentation of the ideal ruler in
Monarchia
(I.xi.6–18).

See Arnaldi (Arna.1992.1), pp. 55–56 (cited by Picone [Pico.2002.3], p. 124) for the appealing notion that, when Charles visited Florence in 1294, he and Dante met in the environment of S. Maria Novella, where at this period visiting heads of state were customarily lodged and where Dante may have also been involved. See his own words: “I began to go where she [Philosophy] was truly revealed, namely to the schools of the religious orders [Dominicans at S. Maria Novella, Franciscans at S. Croce] and to the disputations held by the philosophers” (
Conv
. II.xii.7—tr. R. Lansing). Thus the context of Dante’s new “love” (for the Lady Philosophy) is understandably referred to. It must have permeated his and Charles’s discussions at the time, as may be evidenced by Charles’s reference to the first ode of the
Convivio
, usually dated to around this time (ca. 1293–94).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

58–63.
   
The familiar technique of locating territories by their watery limits is employed here to identify Provence, part of the dowry (see
Purg
. XX.61) of Beatrice, daughter of Raymond Berenger, wife of Charles I of Anjou, and grandmother of Charles Martel. Upon the death of his father, Charles II (who in fact survived him by fourteen years, dying in 1309), he would have inherited the titles to lordship as Count of Provence.

The second tercet points to southern Italy, where Charles would have inherited kingship over the kingdom of Naples (as a result of the
Vespri Siciliani
[1282], no longer of Sicily as well): “The kingdom of Apulia in Ausonia, or Lower Italy, embracing Bari on the Adriatic, Gaeta in the Terra di Lavoro on the Mediterranean, and C[a]tona in Calabria; a region bounded on the north by the Tronto emptying into the Adriatic, and the Verde (or Garigliano) emptying into the Mediterranean” (Longfellow’s comm. to verse 61).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

64–66.
   Charles inherited the kingship of Hungary through his mother. Crowned
in absentia
(1292), in Aix, he never exercised his rights to rulership, a king in title only. Hungary is farther along the Danube, past Austrian lands (“its German banks”), to the east and south.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

67–75.
   The fourth realm, which might have been Charles’s to lose by his untimely death had not it already been lost because of the Sicilian Vespers (1282), was actually referred to in Dante’s time by its classical name “Trinacria” (see Bosco/Reggio, comm. to vv. 67–70), possibly to avoid reminding people that the kingdom of Sicily (currently an independent entity, under the control of the House of Aragon) used to contain the territories of Naples.

Picone (Pico.2002.3), p. 127, following Arnaldi’s suggestion (Arna. 1992.1, pp. 51, 57), thinks that Dante may here be imagining a second cultural “golden age” in Sicily if Charles and his heirs had only governed the island.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

68–69.
   Pachynus and Pelorus are the ancient names for Capes Passero and Faro, which form “arms” that stretch out at either end of the eastern shore of Sicily (the present-day Gulf of Catania). For Pelorus, see the note to
Purgatorio
XIV.31–42.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

70.
   
Tifeo
(Typhon [or Typhoeus]), also referred to by the variant
Tifo
(
Inf
. XXXI.124), was a hundred-headed monster who attempted to acquire power over all creatures. Jupiter struck him down with his thunderbolt and buried him in Tartarus under Mt. Aetna, the eruptions of which were
supposedly due to his exertions to escape (see Ovid,
Metamorphoses
V.346–358, where Typhon’s two hands are said to be pilloried by Pelorus and Pachynus). Dante dispenses with “classical erudition” in the name of “modern science”: The clouds of smoke hanging over the area are not the result of Typhon’s struggles to escape, but of sulphur burning in the earth. For this explanation, Tozer (comm. to verse 72) suggests that Dante found a source in Isidore of Seville (
Etym
. XIV.8).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]