Authors: Dante
58–60.
While this tercet would qualify, formally, as a true invocation, it is uttered by the protagonist rather than by the poet, and thus falls outside the set of nine authorial invocations (see the note to
Inf.
II.7–9); cf. Ledda (Ledd.2002.1), p. 32n.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
59.
“Centurion,” our translation, is the generic term; Dante, however, uses a word that needs some explanation. Peter is presented as the
primipilus
among “Christian soldiers.” The term refers to the standard-bearer in the Roman army who throws the first javelin (
primum pilum
) in battle.
Benvenuto da Imola (comm. to vv. 58–60) was the first to say that the word was found in Isidore of Seville; he has been followed by several later commentators. However, none offers a specific textual location for the description; furthermore, consultation of the
Etymologies
does not reveal any even promising leads. (Daniello [comm. to vv. 58–60] indicates a possible source in the Roman military historian Vegetius [cited by Dante in
Mon
. II.ix.3], in particular
De re militari
II.viii.)
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
61.
Dante’s claim for the trustworthiness of even the writing instruments of sacred texts, clear from the phrase “the truthful pen,” reflects his concern for that basic distinction between two kinds of writing, truthful and fabulous (i.e., historical and fictive), that runs from one end of the
Commedia
to the other.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
62–63.
Dante’s locution necessarily calls attention to the fact that Peter did not in fact write about faith, a task that he left for Paul. See the notes to vv. 52–57 and to vv. 124–126.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
64–66.
As Paul said (Hebrews 11:1): “Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen—that is its quiddity.” Greco (Grec.1974.1), p. 120, reports that Aquinas, in his
De fide
, says that it is in fact the best definition of this theological virtue.
We should remember that Hebrews 11:4–40 recounts the salvations, by their faith in Christ to come, of major Hebrew figures, from Abel to Samuel.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
67–69.
Peter challenges Dante to explicate Paul’s words, and especially the related concepts of faith as the “substance” of hope and the “evidence” for things not seeable.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
70–78.
Tozer (comm. to these verses) translates the protagonist’s thoughts as follows: “Heavenly mysteries cannot be known on earth by sight, but are discerned by faith only; and as hope is founded on this, faith is the substance, or foundation, of things hoped for. It is also the proof of things unseen, because we are justified in arguing from faith in matters where sight is unavailing.”
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
75.
Dante’s
intenza
translates the Scholastic term
intentio
(notion, concept). And so the thought is (Grandgent [comm. to this verse]) “assumes the concept,” that is, “falls into the category.”
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
79–85.
Peter approves Dante’s intellectual grasp of the doctrinal aspect of faith; now he wants to know if his pupil really has it, or is only talking a good game, like the sophist Dante seems to have convinced him he is not.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
89–96.
To Peter’s question about the source of his faith, Dante responds, “The rain of the Holy Spirit poured over the two testaments is the syllogism of syllogisms.”
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
97–102.
Peter’s follow-up question, in which he asks why the protagonist considers Scripture inspired, elicits Dante’s avowal that nature cannot have been responsible for the miracles recounted in both testaments.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
103–105.
Peter persists in his testing of Dante’s faith, asking whether it might be true that the argument from miracles is not verifiable, that is, that such argument is based on the truth of the proposition that is being tested. (We may reflect that the obvious subtext here, for a Christian discussant, is the resurrection of Jesus.)
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
106–110.
Tozer (comm. to these verses) paraphrases Dante’s rejoinder as follows: “The reply to such an objection is that the conversion of the world to Christianity without miracles by men of no position like the Apostles would be incomparably the greatest of all miracles, and would be in itself a sufficient proof of the divine origin of Christianity.” See Augustine, the final words of the fifth chapter
De civitate Dei
XXII: “[O]ne grand miracle suffices for us, that the whole world has believed without any miracles” (tr. M. Dods).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
108.
For the word
centesmo
, see Matthew 19:29 (another passage in which the authority of Peter may seem challenged; see the note to vv. 124–126): “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive
a hundredfold
and will inherit eternal life” (italics added). It was Peter’s troubling question (what shall he and the other disciples have for giving up the things of this world to follow Jesus) that elicited that remark.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
111.
Gratuitous in terms of the argument being made (but thoroughly in keeping with what we expect from Dante) is this biting thrust at the Church, corrupted under (and, in some cases, by) Peter’s successors. For a survey of saved and damned popes, see the note to
Inferno
VII.46–48.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
113–114.
“Dio laudamo” is of course the Italian version of the Latin hymn “Te Deum laudamus,” which we heard intoned in
Purgatorio
IX.140, when the gate of Purgatory swung open (see the note to
Purg.
IX.139–145). And see Casagrande (Casa.1976.1), pp. 260–64, for the relationship between all the Italian hymns of praise in the eighth heaven and the Hebrew word of praise “alleluia.” Also see Brownlee (Brow.1984.2) for reflections on “Why the Angels Speak Italian.”
There is a profusion of hymns in this heaven:
Paradiso
XXIII.128 (“Regina celi”); XXV.73 (“Sperino in te”); XXV.98 (“Sperent in te”); XXVI.69 (“Santo, santo, santo”); XXVII.1 (“Al Padre, al Figlio, a lo Spirito Santo,
gloria
”), including this one, six musical outbursts in all.
It is curious that the commentary tradition is silent on the fact that the “Te Deum” is represented as being sung in the vernacular, surely connected to the Italian identity of the poet/bachelor of theology who has just concluded the crucial part of his “examination” here. Further, the commentators, without dispute among themselves, either think that the outburst of the Church Triumphant celebrates Dante’s profession of faith
or
the triumph of the Christian faithful. Scartazzini/Vandelli (comm. to these verses) were the first to suggest that possibly both are intended, as Momigliano (comm. to these verses) concurs.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
115–123.
Although verse 121 makes it plain that Peter has accepted Dante’s profession of faith, it is also clear that he wants the new professor to expatiate on two points (they correspond to his first and fourth questions and Dante’s responses [vv. 52–53 and 61–66; and then vv. 89–96]). Peter wants Dante to spell out precisely
what
he believes and exactly
where
he learned it.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
115.
Peter’s baronial title will be given to James as well (see
Par.
XXV.17). It probably reflects its use as the term of address for a feudal lord, as Mestica observes (comm. to vv. 115–117). Lombardi (comm. to vv. 115–117) reports that it was not uncommon in the late medieval period to give saints the titles of those who were indeed powerful in this world. One example (of the two) he adduces is Giovanni Boccaccio’s (repeated) reference to “baron messer santo Antonio” (
Decameron
VI.x.9, VI.x.11, VI.x.44).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
118.
See Tozer (comm. to this verse): “
Donneare
is from Provençal
domnear
, and that from Lat.
domina
; it expresses the chivalrous treatment of a lady by her cavalier. Here it is used of the grace of God gently operating on the mind of man.”
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
124–138.
Dante’s seventh response involves the experience of Peter and John at Christ’s tomb (see John 20:3–8); Dante’s
credo
in God the Creator; his proofs: philosophical, theological, and Scriptural (from Genesis to Peter’s Epistles).
[return to
English
/
Italian
]
124–126.
Here is a part of Carroll’s comment to vv. 115–138: “That is, Peter
sees
now the risen body of Christ, concerning which he had only
faith
as he ran to the sepulchre; but even faith made him conquer the younger feet of John, who at the time had no faith in the Resurrection. The difficulty is that it was John who outran Peter and came first to the sepulchre. It is not in the least likely that Dante forgot this. His meaning undoubtedly is that while the younger feet, through lack of faith, lingered at the entrance, Peter’s faith carried him past his doubting companion to the inside. (In
De Mon
. III.ix, however, the incident is given as an instance of Peter’s impulsiveness rather than his faith: ‘John says that he went in immediately when he came to the tomb, seeing the other disciple lingering at the entrance.’ Perhaps Dante wished to retract his former judgment.) This does no injustice to John, since he himself says it was only after he entered and saw how the grave-clothes were folded up, that he believed (John 20:5–8). It is somewhat strange, however, that Dante should choose this incident as an example of Peter’s faith.”
Is this more than a slight dig in the ribs for Peter? See the notes to vv. 22, 39, 52–57, 62–63, and 108. The reader would do well to turn immediately to
Monarchia
III.ix.1–19, a diatribe against Peter
as a stand-in for the papacy
. Discussing the context of the passage in Luke 22:38, which was among the biblical texts that the hierocrats used to assert papal authority over the emperor, Dante has this to say about Peter’s intellectual capacity: “Peter, as was his habit, answered unreflectingly, only considering the surface of things” (
Mon
. III.ix.2); later (III.ix.8) he adds that, had Peter actually said what the hierocrats claimed he did, Christ would have reproached him for that remark about the two swords “as He did reproach him many times, when he replied not knowing what he was saying.” Dante continues in a similar vein (III.ix.9): “And that Peter was in the habit of speaking without reflecting is proved by his hasty and unthinking impulsiveness, which came not just from the sincerity of his faith, but, I think, from his simple and ingenuous nature.” Finally, having listed a whole series of Peter’s inadequacies, both as thinker and as loyal follower of Jesus, Dante moves toward his conclusion: “It is helpful to have listed these episodes involving our Archimandrite in praise of his ingenuousness, for they show quite clearly that when he spoke of the two swords he was answering
Christ with no deeper meaning in mind” (all these translations are from P. Shaw’s edition). According to Carroll, this passage may serve as a partial retraction of those views. The reader has, nonetheless, to wonder why Dante should, if more circumspectly than in the anti-Petrine diatribe in
Monarchia
, be chipping away at the veneer of authority lodged in the man whom he considered the first pope. Is it possible that his widely represented distrust of particular popes prompts him to protest any emerging sense that a pontiff, because of his tenure in the highest ecclesiastical office, is necessarily without doctrinal error? See Bennassuti’s unintentionally amusing insistence (comm. to
Inf.
XI.8) that Dante could not have condemned Pope Anastasius II as a heretic because the poet believed in papal infallibility (Bennassuti, as a priest, should have known better, since this did not become a doctrine of the Church until his own nineteenth century); as a result the reader is to understand that demons put that inscription on the tomb for Dante to read. This is perhaps one of the most extravagant misreadings of the text of the poem and of Dante’s intentions in a commentary tradition that is not deprived of amusingly wrongheaded insistences on what Dante supposedly would never do.
[return to
English
/
Italian
]