Purgatorio (87 page)

28–36.
   The Roman poet puts the best possible face upon his presence in Limbo, attempting to establish a sort of “innocence by association,” as it were, with the unbaptized infants and the other virtuous pagans.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

40.
   At least since 1340 and Pietro di Dante’s commentary it has been usual to cite
Aeneid
VI.673, “nulli certa domus” (no one has a preordained home), as a gloss on this verse. These are the words spoken by Musaeus to the Sibyl, who has asked where Anchises dwells, only to be told that he and the other virtuous souls live, free to roam, in the Elysian fields. Musaeus, like Sordello, offers to guide his charges up to see the assembled souls. This entire scene is closely modeled on that one.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

44.
   Sordello seems to indicate that there is a law in ante-purgatory that prevents nocturnal movement upward. But see his further explantion, vv. 53–60.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

46–48.
   Once again Sordello addresses only Virgil (and not Dante), and indeed, we can imagine, Virgil will enjoy seeing these Christian souls who are so reminiscent of his virtuous denizens of the Elysian fields.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

49–51.
   Virgil, slow to understand the difference between external laws and inner will on this mountain, believes either that hellish demons would hinder a nocturnal climber or that such a climber would, with nightfall, lose his ability to ambulate upward.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

52–60.
   Sordello’s answer sets things straight: There are no external impediments and the inner will of the penitents makes them want to stay where they are, lest they wander to a lower station on the mountain, which would not be fitting. It seems that there would be no actual penalty for such behavior, but that no one would ever want to descend in any case. The “rule” of the mountain is more aesthetic than moral, since no harm can befall any of these saved souls. In this “club,” no one would want to behave in so churlish a fashion.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

64–66.
   Sordello will lead them among the souls gathered in the place that has come to be known as the Valley of the Princes, not among the early commentators, but at least by the time of Andreoli (1856) and his commentary to
Purgatorio
IX.54. It furnishes a certain foretaste of the garden of Eden, the pilgrim’s eventual purgatorial destination.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

73–78.
   Much has been written about these verses. Beginning with Sapegno (1955), commentators have suggested a source in a
plazer
(a lyric poem describing the beauties of a place, person, or object) by Guido Cavalcanti, “Biltà di donna,” verse 8: “Oro e argento, azzurro ’n ornamenti.” (For Dante’s earlier citation of this poem see note to
Inf
. XIV.30.) Dante is thus here understood to be joining the tradition of the
plazer
(cf. his own early poem, addressed to Cavalcanti, “Guido, i’ vorrei”) in describing this particular
locus amoenus
, the idealized “pleasant place” since the Greek idyllic poems of Theocritus in classical antiquity. On a closely related theme see Giamatti (Giam.1966.1). For consideration of the deep resonance of “Biltà di donna” in this passage see Pico.1998.1, pp. 70–72. Picone notes the way in which Dante’s description “outdoes” Guido’s by merit of its supernatural Christian content.

For the emerald’s association with hope (and its presence in the rest of the poem) see Levavasseur (Leva.1957.1), pp. 59–66. For the medieval lapidaries that Dante might have known see Cioffari (Ciof.1991.1).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

79–81.
   The supernatural nature of this place produces colors and odors that transcend, in their intensity and ability to give sensuous pleasure, their counterparts in the most exotic “normal” natural
loci
.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

82–84.
  The souls of the princes of the world invoke the merciful Queen of Heaven, underscoring their present humility. The text of this Marian evening hymn includes the fitting verses “to you we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears.” Poletto (1894) noted the echo here of another part of the scene presided over by Musaeus in
Aeneid
VI.656–658: the souls seated in the Elysian fields who sing songs of praise in that fragrant place.

For the association of the “Salve, Regina” with Compline see Heilbronn (Heil.1972.1), p. 50.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

86.
   The poet’s diction reminds us of the fact that Virgil,
the
Mantuan, has temporarily been “demoted” in favor of Sordello.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

87–90.
   Here, too, the
Aeneid
(VI.754–755) makes its presence felt, as Vellutello (1544) noted: Anchises stations himself on a higher vantage point (with Aeneas and the Sibyl) so as to be able to discern the faces of those moving toward him in the pageant of Rome.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

91–94
.  For the structural and moral force of Sordello’s
planh
, or poem of lament, for the death of Blacatz reflected in Dante’s composition of the rest of this canto see Picone (Pico.1998.1), pp. 73–77.

There are nine princes in the following “list,” all of them ticketed for paradise, as there were nine who were saved at the last moment in Cantos V and VI. Both these groups of late-repentant sinners, the first of whom have in common death by violence, are seen as active (as opposed to the lethargic in Canto IV) in their attachment to the world. Rudolph of Austria, the only emperor (1273–91) in this group, father of the Albert so vilified in
Purgatorio
VI.97–102, is, however, censured most for his neglect of his Italian subjects. Rudolph “was born in 1218, and was the eldest son of Albert IV, Count of Hapsburg, and the founder of the imperial house of Austria. He first served under Ottocar, King of Bohemia, in his German wars, but in 1272, as he was encamped before the walls of Basle, he received the news that he had been elected Emperor, in preference to Ottocar and to Alphonso of Castile. Ottocar refused to acknowledge him as Emperor, but Rudolf, supported by powerful allies, made war upon him and compelled him to sue for peace.… A few years later Ottocar again rebelled, and was finally defeated and slain near Vienna, Aug. 1278. Rudolf allowed Ottocar’s son, Wenceslaus, to succeed to the throne of Bohemia, but Austria, Styria, and Carniola he granted to his own sons, Albert and Rudolf”
(T)
.

Given the recorded behaviors of Rudolph (and of others in this group) it is surprising that Dante was willing to publish their salvations—or the fact that he even thought that they were saved.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

95–96.
   Rudolph, had he served as he ought, might have spared Italy the divisions that occurred before 1291, culminating in the battle of Campaldino (1289), when Guelph supremacy solidified papal influence in Italian politics for a long time to come. The “wounds that have brought Italy to death” are most probably the ensuing disasters wrought by Boniface’s (and then Clement’s) political activities. Is Italy no longer capable of resuscitation? Will another leader’s efforts be too late or might they come in the nick of time? The text is again problematic (see note to
Purg.
VI.100–102), first as to whether or not Henry VII is referred to, second as to the precise meaning of
tardi
, which can mean, in this context, either “at the last moment” or “too late to succeed.” If, as many believe, this passage (1) was written in 1308–9 (along with
Purg.
VI.97–102), (2) refers to Henry VII, (3) uses
tardi
to mean “at the last moment,” everything falls into place: Dante, not yet convinced that Henry will be the vigorous Italophile that he becomes in 1310, only dubiously puts forward the notion that Henry’s election will have positive results. One proposing such an interpretation must admit that Dante, with only minor touches, could have revised both these passages in order to accommodate his post-1310 view of Henry. On the other hand, both at least allow the possibility of a more positive reading, and thus did not absolutely require such revision. And Dante’s enthusiasm would only last for a short while, in any case. By September 1313, in the wake of the death of Henry, the disheartened reading, found in Benvenuto’s commentary to these passages in
Purgatorio
VI and VII and in
Paradiso
XXX.133–138, would have become appropriate.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

97–102.
   The following five figures were all kings rather than emperors, beginning with Ottokar of Bohemia (1253–78), who was in fact killed by Rudolph in 1278. Just as Rudolph, for all his faults, is presented as saved, while his son Albert seems clearly not to be, so is Ottokar exalted while his son, Wenceslaus, is apparently headed for the second circle of hell (or lower).

Singleton points out that in the Elysian fields former enemies are also reunited in peace (
Aen
. VI.824–827).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

103–111.
   Philip III (the Bold) of France (1270–85) is seen in colloquy with Henry I of Navarre (1270–74), to whom he was related by marriage (his son, Philip IV [the Fair], “the plague of France,” was married to Henry’s daughter Juana). While Philip IV is also clearly referred to several other times in the poem, generally with bitter sarcasm (e.g.,
Inf
. XIX.87;
Purg
. XX.91;
Purg
. XXXII.152–160 and XXXIII.45;
Par
. XIX.120), he is never named.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

112–114.
   Large-limbed
(membruto)
like Cassius (
Inf.
XXXIV.67), Pedro III, king of Aragon (1276–85), sings along with large-nosed Charles I of Anjou and Provence, king of Naples and Sicily (1266–85). Pedro had married Constance, daughter of Manfred (see
Purg
. III.115–116), in 1262, a relationship that gave him a claim to the crown of Sicily, which he assumed after the Sicilian Vespers (1282) and held until his death, despite the efforts of Charles, whom he had deposed and who died before Pedro, and thus without regaining his crown, in 1285. Once again we see enemies united in friendship.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

115–117.
   Dante refers, among Pedro’s four sons, either to the firstborn, Alfonso III of Aragon, who reigned for six years (but not with happy result, according to the chroniclers) after his father’s death (1285–91) and died at twenty-seven, or the last, Pedro, who did indeed die in his boyhood and was never put on. However, the text would seem clearly to indicate a son who did not succeed his father on the throne. Torraca (1905) makes a strong case for the unlikelihood of Dante’s celebrating Alfonso, thus promoting the candidacy of Pedro (the “Marcellus” of Aragon, as it were). He has been followed by most commentators.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

118–120.
   Unlike their worthy brother (Pedro?), the other two sons of Pedro III, James and Frederick, do not possess their father’s goodness, but only his territories. In fact, they went to war with one another over their claims to power in Sicily, with Frederick eventually winning out, leaving James to content himself with Aragon.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

121–123.
   Dante’s sententious moralizing, issuing from the mouth of Sordello, has a precursor in his earlier words on the same subject in
Convivio
(IV.xx.5 and 7), as Poletto (1894) was perhaps first to point out. There Dante testified both that nobility does not descend into an entire family, but into individuals, and that it comes only and directly from God.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]

124–129.
   Charles and Pedro, themselves noble of spirit, share the disgrace of degenerate offspring, the former’s son, Charles II, king of Naples and count of Provence (1289–1309), singled out as being particularly vile. See Grandgent’s (1909) explanation of these lines: “Charles II is as much inferior to Charles I as Charles I is to Peter [i.e., Pedro] III. Beatrice of Provence and Margaret of Burgundy were the successive wives of Charles I, Constance (daughter of Manfred) was the wife of Peter; and Charles I was not a devoted husband. ‘The plant (the son) is inferior to the seed (the father) to the same extent that Constance boasts of her husband (Peter) more than Beatrice and Margaret boast of theirs (Charles).’ ” Dante, who has somewhat surprisingly treated Charles of Anjou with a certain dignity (see the harsh characterizations of him at
Purg
. XX.67–69 and
Par
. XIX.127), now takes some of that away, as Pedro and Charles are no longer treated with equal respect. Porena (1946) explains that Dante’s gesture here is meant to show his objectivity; having saved Manfred (
Purg
. III), he now also saves Manfred’s persecutor, Charles, despite his own political (and moral) disapproval.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]