The Inferno

by Dante

  111. The verb s’adagia has been variously interpreted, either to mean that the souls delay entering Charon’s skiff, or that, once in it, they seat themselves in so self-indulgent a manner as to draw Charon’s wrath. [return to English / Italian]

  112–120. Where each of the first two cantos has had two major similes (Inf. I.22–27; I.55–60; II.37–42; II.127–132), the third canto has only this double simile that describes the final action of the canto, the departure of the sinners in Charon’s skiff. It is a commonplace that the third canto is the most “Virgilian” canto of the Commedia. In fact, study has shown that it has more than twice as many Virgilian citations than any other canto in the poem (see Holl.1993.1, pp. 250–51). This double simile has long been recognized as involving an amalgam of two Virgilian passages (Aen. VI.309–312 and Georg. II.82). It has also been understood as comprising the “controlling simile” for the entire poem, combining pagan and Christian elements: see the article by M. Frankel (Fran.1982.1). [return to English / Italian]

  125–126. Virgil now is willing to answer the question that Dante posed earlier (vv. 73–74): divine justice spurs these sinners so that they are eager to cross the river and find their perdition. [return to English / Italian]

  130–134. For the Aristotelian/Thomist sources of Dante’s meteorology, the subterranean winds that cause earthquakes, see Mazzoni (Mazz.1967.1), pp. 446–52. [return to English / Italian]

  136. Dante’s falling into unconsciousness indicates his inability to deal with the overwhelming experience of his crossing into the realm of hell proper, an “inability” apparently shared by the poet, who simply does not tell us how he crossed the river. The protagonist will suffer a similar lapse at the conclusion of the fifth canto (Inf. V.142).

  The question of how Dante crosses Acheron is much debated. The pointed lack of concrete reference to how he is transported is a sign either of the poet’s reticence or confusion or of his having set a little problem for his readers. It has become acceptable, on the heels of the lengthy gloss offered by Mazzoni (Mazz.1967.1), pp. 452–55, to suggest that the poet has deliberately left the issue unresolved. Yet that does not seem a likely hypothesis. The moment is too important, supported by too many details, to be dealt with as anything less than a problematic mystery that the poet asks us to solve. Mazzoni registers the various theories that account for his transporter (Charon, an angel, Virgil, Beatrice, Lucia, some unnamed supernatural force). But see the countering argument of Hollander (Holl.1984.1), p. 292: We are in fact meant to understand that it is Charon who takes Dante across and that this crux is entirely the result of interpretive overexertion that has made the self-evident confusing. Charon indeed does wish to refuse Dante passage in his skiff (vv. 88–93); to his protestations Virgil responds as follows (vv. 94–96): “Charon, do not torment yourself. It is so willed where will and power are one, and ask no more.” Daniello, commenting on these verses, says that Virgil’s words have the same effect on Charon that the Sibyl’s display of the golden bough had on him. For Charon to be able to resist such a command would involve Dante in a theological or at least a poetic absurdity. Cf. the similar moment at Inferno V.16–24, where Minos likewise would resist Dante’s passage through his realm and where Virgil employs the same incantatory phrase that he had uttered in Canto III to achieve the same result. Would Virgil have uttered the spell again had it not previously proved efficacious? That seems a most doubtful proposition. It seems likely that Dante’s reason for not permitting us to witness the first scene being played out (we are given another version of the scene upon which it is modeled a bit later at Inf. VIII.25–27) is that he found that poetic choice an excessive one, too self-consciously reminiscent of Aeneas’s fanciful entrance into the underworld for him to make evident reference to it at this important moment, the threshold of his Christian afterworld. If this argument has merit, it accounts for the poet’s reticence on poetic grounds. Dante easily could have told us what he wants us to make ourselves responsible for; but that is not his way. Rather, he makes us his partners in taking responsibility for such incredible details as these all through this incredible poem. [return to English / Italian]

  INFERNO IV

  1–9. The last canto had come to its dramatic conclusion with a shaking of the earth accompanied—indeed perhaps caused by—a supernatural lightning bolt that made Dante fall into a fainting “sleep.” In medieval opinion such earthquakes were caused by winds imprisoned in the earth. Now he is awakened by the following thunder. As the last verse of Inferno III has him overcome by sleep (“sonno”), so in the first line of this canto that sleep is broken, overriding the sharp line of demarcation that a canto ending or beginning seems to imply, as at the boundary between Inferno II and III.

  There has been a centuries-long debate over the question of whether this “thunder” (truono), the noise made by the sorrowing damned (v. 9), is the same as the thunderclap of v. 2 (truono [the reading in most MSS and editions]). Mazzoni (Mazz.1965.1), pp. 45–49, summarizes that debate. It seems best to understand that this noise is not the one that awakens Dante, but the one that he first hears from the inhabitants of Limbo, i.e., that the two identical words indicate diverse phenomena. [return to English / Italian]

  13. That, even according to Virgil, who dwells in it, the world of Limbo is “blind” might have helped hold in check some of the more enthusiastic readings of this canto as exemplary of Dante’s “humanistic” inclinations. For important discussions along these lines see Mazzoni, Introduzione (Mazz.1965.1), pp. 29–35; Padoan (Pado.1965.1). And see Virgil’s own later “gloss” to Limbo (Purg. VII.25–30), where he describes his punishment for not believing in Christ-to-come as consisting in his being denied the sight of the Sun. Dante describes Limbo as being without other punishment than its darkness (and indeed here it is described as a “blind world” [cieco mondo]), its inhabitants as sighing rather than crying out in pain (v. 26). Had he wanted to make Limbo as positive a place as some of his commentators do, he surely would have avoided, in this verse, the reference to the descent that is necessary to reach it. Such was not the case for the neutrals in the previous circle, who apparently dwell at approximately the same level as the floor of the entrance through the gate of hell. This is the first downward movement within the Inferno. [return to English / Italian]

  16–17. Virgil’s sudden pallor (v. 14) causes Dante to believe that his guide is fearful, as he himself had been at the end of the previous canto (III.131). [return to English / Italian]

  18. Virgil has given comfort to Dante when the latter has succumbed to doubt in each of the first two cantos. [return to English / Italian]

  19–21. Virgil makes plain the reason for his pallor: he is feeling pity for those who dwell in Limbo (and thus himself as well), not fear. That much seems plain enough. But there has been controversy over the centuries as to whether Virgil refers only to the inhabitants of Limbo or to all the damned. Mazzoni (Mazz.1965.1), pp. 58–65, offers a careful review of the problem and concludes that the better reading is the former, demonstrating that Dante has, in five passages in earlier works, made sighs (sospiri) the result of feeling anguish (angoscia)—as they are here (v. 26). [return to English / Italian]

  25–27. As was true in the last Circle (where the neutrals were punished) the darkness is at first so great that Dante apparently cannot see; his first impressions are only auditory. Compare Inferno III.21–30. [return to English / Italian]

  30. This line, seemingly innocent of polemical intent, is in fact in pronounced and deliberate disagreement with St. Thomas (though in accord with Virgil’s description of the crowds along the bank of Acheron [Aen. VI.306–307]). For Thomas, the inhabitants of Limbo were in one of two classes: the Hebrew saints, harrowed by Christ and taken to heaven, and all unbaptized infants. They are now of that second group alone. Dante’s addition of the virtuous pagans is put forward on his own authority. This is perhaps the first of many instances in which Dante chooses to differ with Thomas. For a helpful analysis of t
he ways in which Dante both follows and separates himself from “authoritative” accounts of the Limbus, see Mazzoni (Mazz.1965.1), pp. 70–80. Mazzoni shows that Dante is in total agreement with Thomas about the presence of the unbaptized infants in Limbo, but disagrees with him (following Bonaventure instead) about whether these infants suffer the pain that comes from knowing of their inability to see God—which Thomas allows himself to doubt. Dante (as does Bonaventure) holds a harsher view on this point. His view of the unbaptized pagans, however, is as mild as his view of the pain of the infants is severe. It is in sharp disagreement with the views of most Christians on this issue. Padoan (Pado.1969.1), p. 371, cites Guido da Pisa’s commentary to this verse as exemplary of early puzzled or hostile responses to Dante’s inclusion of the virtuous pagans in Limbo: “The Christian faith, however, does not hold that there are any here other than the innocent babes. Here, and in certain other passages, this poet speaks not as a theologian but as a poet.” [return to English / Italian]

  42. Virgil’s insistence that the inhabitants of Limbo “without hope live in longing” does not as greatly reduce the sense of punishment suffered here, as some argue. See St. Thomas, De malo, q. 5, art. 2 (cited by Mazzoni [Mazz.1965.1], p. 69): “Original sin is not fitly punished by sensation, but only by damnation itself, that is, the absence of the sight of God.” If their only punishment is that absence, it is nonetheless total. [return to English / Italian]

  44. In at least one respect Inferno I and II are cantos paired in opposition, the first rooted in Dante’s fear (paura), the second in the reassurance granted by the word (parola), as spoken by Virgil and Beatrice. The same may be said for Cantos III and IV. Mazzoni, following the lead of Forti (Fort.1961.1), identifies the central subject of the first of this pair as “pusillanimità” (cowardice), of the second as “magnanimità” (greatness of soul—Mazz.1965.1, pp. 34–35). See note to Canto III.58–60. [return to English / Italian]

  45. The word sospesi (“suspended”) has caused great dispute. Are the limbicoli “hanging” between heaven and hell? between salvation and damnation? Is there some potential better state awaiting them? Mazzoni’s note (Mazz.1965.1), pp. 89–93, leaves little doubt, and resolves their situation as follows: they are punished eternally for their original sin, but are aware (as are none of the other damned souls) of the better life that is denied them. They are “suspended,” in other words, between their punishment and their impossible desire. [return to English / Italian]

  46–51. Dante’s question has caused discomfort. Why should he seek confirmation of Christ’s ascent to heaven from a pagan? Why should he need to confirm his Christian faith on this indisputable point of credence, without which there is no Christian faith? Neither Dante’s question nor Virgil’s answer concerns itself primarily with Christ’s descent to Limbo and ascent to heaven, but rather with the more nebulous facts regarding those who went up with Him after the harrowing of hell. See, for a modern recovery of the importance of the harrowing as a concern in Limbo, the work of Iannucci (Iann.1979.2; Iann.1992.1). “Did ever anyone, either by his own or by another’s merit, go forth from here and rise to blessedness?” Dante’s question refers, first, to the Hebrew patriarchs and matriarchs, second, to unbaptized infants and to all those who were later taken up from Limbo and whose ascent Virgil might have witnessed. Indeed, Virgil’s answer will identify more than twenty of those harrowed by Christ; thus we know how he understood Dante’s first concern. Dante was interested in confirming what he had heard about the harrowing. But his question does have a second point. Virgil has himself been elevated from hell, if but for a moment. Dante’s question alludes, tacitly, to him as well: “Are you one of the saved?” Dante’s “covert speech,” as the phrase intimates, is focused on the salvation of pagans, and on Virgil in particular. In his gloss to v. 51 Benvenuto da Imola characterizes Dante’s view of his own “covert speech” as follows: “… as though my words had hidden the thought, ‘you great philosophers and poets, your great wisdom, what did it, without faith, accomplish for your salvation? Certainly nothing at all, for even the ancient patriarchs, in their simple, faithful credence, were drawn up out of this prison, in which place you are to remain for ever and ever.’ ” [return to English / Italian]

  52–54. Virgil tells Dante what he witnessed in 34 a.d., when he was “new” to his condition, some fifty-three years after his death in 19 B.C. He saw a “mighty one” (Christ recognized by Virgil only for his power, an anonymous harrower to the pagan observer). He is either crowned with the sign of victory or crowned and holding the sign of victory, a scepter representing the Cross. [return to English / Italian]

  55–61. Virgil’s list of the patriarchs and matriarchs, beginning with “our first parent,” Adam (Eve, similarly harrowed, will be seen in the Empyrean [Par. XXXII.5]), Abel, Noah, Moses, Abraham, David, Jacob, Isaac, the (twelve) sons of Jacob (and his daughter, Dinah? [but it seems unlikely that Dante was considering her]), and Rachel. The twenty-one (or twenty-two—if Dante counted Jacob’s progeny as we do) Hebrew elders will be added to in Par. XXXII.4–12: Eve, Sarah, Rebecca, Judith, and Ruth, thus accounting for some of the “many others” whom Virgil does not name here, twenty-five men and seven women in all, when we include the others added along the way: Samuel (Par. IV.29), Rahab (Par. IX.116), Solomon (Par. X.109), Joshua (Par. XVIII.38), Judas Maccabeus (Par. XVIII.49), and Ezechiel (Par. XX.49). [return to English / Italian]

  62–63. Virgil’s conclusion effectively voids the second part of Dante’s question. He has told only of those who were taken by Christ for their own merits. [return to English / Italian]

  72. This new place, the only place in hell in which light is said to overcome darkness (vv. 68–69), is immediately linked to the “key word” of this section of the canto, “honor.” This is the densest repetition of a single word and its derivates in the Comedy: seven times in 29 lines (72–100: at vv. 72, 73, 74, 76, 80, 93, 100), with a “coda” tacked on at v. 133. Can there be any doubt that honor and poetry are indissolubly linked in Dante’s view of his own status? As lofty as noble actions and great philosophy may be for him (but that part of the canto, vv. 106–147, has only a single occurrence of the word “honor”), it is poetry that, for Dante, is the great calling. [return to English / Italian]

  73. Padoan’s gloss on Dante’s phrase is worth noting: scïenzïa (“knowledge”) is represented by philosophy and the seven liberal arts, while arte (“art” in a more restricted sense than is found in the modern term) has to do with the means of expressing knowledge. [return to English / Italian]

  78. Dante’s enthusiasm for the power of great poetry is such that he claims that God, in recognition of its greatness, mitigates the punishment of these citizens of Limbo with respect to that of the others there who dwell in darkness (and who were not, we thus conclude, great poets—or doers of great deeds or accomplishers of philosophic wisdom, for these, too, dwell in this lightest part of hell [vv. 106–147]). [return to English / Italian]

  79. There has been debate over the identity of the speaker of the following two lines. Since Dante does not say, specifically, that Homer speaks them, we cannot know that it was he who spoke. Dante steps back and lets us make the ascription. Who else would have spoken? Horace? Perhaps. Certainly not Ovid, not exactly Virgil’s greatest supporter. And even less Lucan, whose work rather pointedly attacks what Virgil champions. But the scene makes its inner logic clear: the leader of the group is Homer, who “comes as lord before the three” (v. 87). He speaks first, and Virgil responds. [return to English / Italian]

  80–81. Homer’s great compliment to Virgil has so claimed our affectionate attention, resonating in its grave “o” and “a” sounds, that we have not seen the drama in the following verse: “his shade returns that had gone forth.” What did Homer and Virgil’s other companions think when Beatrice came to Limbo to draw Virgil up to the world of the living? They have witnessed this sort of event before, at least once (the harrowing), and perhaps at least once more (Trajan�
�s latter-day resurrection). A student, Elizabeth Statmore (Princeton ’82), in a seminar in February 1982 offered an interesting hypothesis (see Holl.1984.2, p. 219): Virgil’s companions thought that he, too, had now been harrowed. But no, here he is again, right back where he belongs. [return to English / Italian]

  86. The sword in Homer’s hand indicates not only that he was an epic poet, not only that he is the first among poets, but that, as a result, epic poetry is to be taken as the foremost poetic genre. See note to vv. 95–96. [return to English / Italian]

  88–90. Alessio and Villa argue that the Latin poets in Dante’s bella scola are divided into generic categories as follows: Virgil: tragedy; Ovid: elegy; Horace: satire; Lucan: history. Missing from such a list is a representative of comedy. They argue that almost any reader would have expected to find Terence’s name here, and go on to surmise that Dante has deliberately excluded Terence as the representative of comedy because he has taken that role unto himself (Ales.1993.1, pp. 56–58). For Dante’s knowledge of Terence see Vill.1984.1.

  For all these authors consult the entries found in the Enciclopedia dantesca: Guido Martellotti, “Omero” (ED, vol. 4, 1973), pp. 145a–48a; Ettore Paratore, “Ovidio” (ED, vol. 4, 1973), pp. 225b–36b; Giorgio Brugnoli and Roberto Mercuri, “Orazio” (ED, vol. 4, 1973), pp. 173b–80b; Ettore Paratore, “Lucano” (ED, vol. 3, 1971), pp. 697b–702b. [return to English / Italian]