For Simon Magus see Singleton (comm. to Inf. XIX.1). And for the intrinsic and striking distinction between the man named Simon, who was a magus (Acts 8:9), and the apostle Peter, also named Simon (Simon Petrus – John 20:2, 20:6), see Singleton, “Inferno XIX: O Simon Mago!” Modern Language Notes 80 (1965), pp. 92-99, as well as Ronald Herzman and William Stephany, “'O miseri seguaci': Sacramental Inversion in Inferno XIX,” Dante Studies 96 (1978), pp. 40, 46. Nicholas is seen as the follower of Simon Magus, while Dante presents himself as the follower of Simon Peter.

For studies of the canto as a whole see Kenelm Foster, “The Canto of the Damned Popes: Inferno XIX,” Dante Studies 87 (1969), pp. 47-68, and the third chapter of Mark Musa, Advent at the Gates (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1974).

Some have argued that this passage is not credible if taken literally and, therefore, must be understood as metaphorical. See Leo Spitzer (“Two Dante Notes: I. An Autobiographical Incident in Inferno XIX; II. Libicocco,” Romanic Review 34 [1943], pp. 248-62) and, more recently, Susan Noakes (“Dino Compagni and the Vow in San Giovanni: Inferno XIX, 16-21,” Dante Studies 86 [1968], pp. 41-63), who argues that the public vow of adherence to the French king taken, in the Baptistry and thus in proximity to the font, before Charles of Valois entered Florence in 1302, is what Dante now confesses he 'broke.' The language of the passage is so concrete that it seems difficult to credit such an ingenious solution.

Mazzoni (“Dante's battezzatori [Inf. XIX, 16-21,” English outline of an unpublished talk presented to the Dante Society of America on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Society, Istituto Culturale Italiano, New York, 24 June1981]) affirms the literal meaning of the passage, while leaving in doubt the nature of the act that Dante claims to have performed. Reviewing the commentary tradition, he supports the view of most of the early commentators that the noun battezzatori refers to the priests who performed baptismal rites. Mirko Tavoni (“Effrazione battesimale tra i simoniaci [Inf. XIX 13-21],” Rivista di letteratura italiana 10 (1992], pp. 457-512) gives reasons for believing that it refers to the fonts themselves. That question is probably not resolvable, as the noun can have either meaning.

All the early commentators take the incident referred to here as actually having occurred, when a child, playing with other children, became lodged in one of the smaller baptismal fonts of the Forentine baptistry. Castelvetro (comm. to XIX.13-20) has perhaps the most believable explanation (even if he criticizes the author for including this detail, which, according to him, adds nothing to the poem): in his view the baptismal font and its several little pozzetti were protected by a thin wooden covering in order to protect the holy water from sight (and desacralizing droppings?). It is this and not the marble of the font (which Benvenuto da Imola has Dante breaking with an axe brought to him by a bystander [comm. to Inf. XIX.19-21]) that the poet broke, thus saving the near-drowned child. His solemn oath, reminiscent of the language describing papal bulls and their seals (see Par. XI.93, where Pope Innocent gave his approval to the founding of St. Francis's order, 'primo sigillo a sua religïone' [the first seal of his order]), now stakes his authority as Florentine and poet on the charitable nature of his act, which others had apparently characterized as sacreligious. Whatever explanation we find most acceptable, it seems clear that Dante is referring to an actual event that his former fellow-citizens would remember.

We shall later learn that Dante here comes face to feet with a pope, Nicholas III (Inf. XIX.69-72). The inverted figure, like Judas in the central mouth of Lucifer (Inf. XXXIV.63), has his head within, his legs without. Dante's use of bocca (mouth) for the opening of the hole into which he descends suggests that eventually Nicholas will be eaten and digested by hell itself once the next simoniac pope comes to his eternal station. For both these interpretations see Herzman and Stephany (“'O miseri seguaci': Sacramental Inversion in Inferno XIX,” Dante Studies 96 [1978]), pp. 59, 65.

For the parodic inversion of Pentecostal fire in the punishment of sins that involve the perversion of the gift of the Holy Spirit, in particular as manifest in the misuse of extraordinary gifts of persuasion found among those punished as heresiarchs, sodomites, simoniacs, and false counsellors, see Reginald French (“Simony and Pentecost,” Annual Report of the Dante Society 82 [1964]), pp. 8-10. A similar observation, if one limited to this scene, was made sixty years earlier by Carroll (comm. to Inf. XIX.22-30).

This sole 'classical' simile in a canto that favors the rhetorical device of authorial apostrophe (Inf. XIX.1, Inf. XIX.10, Inf. XIX.115) is muted in comparison with Dante's generally more developed similes of this type. For the oil referred to here as indicative, parodically, of the anointing unction that priests offer those who suffer, see Herzman and Stephany (“'O miseri seguaci': Sacramental Inversion in Inferno XIX,” Dante Studies 96 [1978]), pp. 49-51. Unction is usually associated with the head, not the feet; the ironic point is clear.

The further bank of the bolgia is not as high as the nearer one because the slope of the Malebolge cuts away the topmost part of each successive pouch. For this reason Virgil will lead Dante over the third bolgia to the fourth embankment only to climb down into the third from this vantage point.

Dante's submissiveness to his lord, acknowledging Virgil's awareness of his wishes, is surely meant to contrast with Nicholas's rebellious offense to his.

For the intriguing concept that the word zanca actually refers not to 'shanks' themselves but to their coverings, Roman military 'boots' that enclosed the calf and top of the foot, see Ernest Kaulbach, “Inferno XIX, 45: The 'Zanca' of Temporal Power,” Dante Studies 86 (1968), pp. 127-35. He argues that, since in the late thirteenth century no one in Rome but the Prefect of the city was allowed to wear zanche within the confines of the city (thus reflecting their significance for temporal, and not spiritual, authority), the fact that Dante's pope wears them is indicative precisely of papal assertion of temporal power. The pope is thus punished for this sin along with simony. Kaulbach's argument is strengthened by the reference to the Donation of Constantine in this canto (see the note to Inf. XIX.115-117). It is, however, weakened by the fact that Satan's legs (or Virgil's – the point is debated) are also referred to as zanche (Inf. XXXIV.79 and the note to Inf. XXXIV.79).

The pope's situation is reminiscent of St. Peter's upside-down crucifixion (see Herzman and Stephany, “'O miseri seguaci': Sacramental Inversion in Inferno XIX,” Dante Studies 96 [1978], p. 44), but also refers to the Florentine mode of dispatching convicted assassins, 'planting' them upside down in a hole and then suffocating them when the hole is filled back up with earth: 'Let the assassin be planted upside down, so that he may be put to death.' Perhaps the earliest commentator to make reference to this 'ancient decree' of Florence is Rossetti (comm. to Inf. XIX.46-51).

Musa (Advent at the Gates [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1974], p. 46), draws the reader's attention to popularizing phrases that exist only in the negative, e.g., the English 'he didn't say beans,' paralleled in the Italian phrase 'e non fa motto' (he doesn't say a word), used of Brutus in Inf. XXXIV.66). Musa's point is that Dante here uses a phrase that we expect to hear only in the negative to telling sarcastic effect: this is a strikingly insulting way to address a pope.

Dante now assumes the role of confessing friar. The last verse of the tercet has caused controversy. Most of the early commentators think the verb cessare is used intransitively; most later ones disagree, believing it is used transitively (as it is at Inf. XVII.33). But almost all agree on the basic meaning: the assassin calls back the friar in order to delay his death a while. Pagliaro (Ulisse: ricerche semantiche sulla “Divina Commedia” [Messina-Florence: D'Anna, 1967], pp. 263-69, opts for a strikingly different solution, one that has had some success among recent commentators. Since cessare, used transitively, ordinarily in Dante means 'to avoid,' it does so here as well. The assassin calls the priest back in order to confess, not his own crimes, but those of his master in crime, thereby gaining his freedom. The solution is attractive because it avoids the somewhat unusual use of 'cessare' to mean 'put off, delay' instead of 'avoid, escape from.' However, the context, in which nothing the sinner can say will sway either Dante or God, works against it. Further, had Dante wanted to make the analogy work, he would have had Nicholas 'betray' someone else, one who had led him into his crimes. Instead, he admits his own addiction to simony, and then points to others who will practice it after him. If these nine verses (79-87) are, as many believe, a later addition (see the note to Inf. XIX.79-87), it is conceivable that Dante's first version of Nicholas's speech might have concluded with just such a betrayal. In that case, many who remain unconvinced might embrace Pagliaro's thesis. In our translation we have tried to hedge, using 'stay' in such a way as to allow it to be interpreted either as 'put off (for a while)' or 'put a stop to.'

For a new hypothesis, one put forward in the attempt to break through to a new solution, see Luca Serianni (“Un paragone dantesco: Inferno, XIX, 49-51,” in Omaggio a Gianfranco Folena, ed. Pier Vincenzo Mengaldo [Padua: Editoriale Programma, 1993], pp. 473-76), arguing for the view that the assassin calls back the friar in order to save, not his earthly life, but his soul. Since this is what those damned in hell may be understood not to have done at their last moment, it seems less than a convincing explanation.

The first naming of Pope Boniface VIII (Benedetto Caetani) in the poem. Succeeding Celestine V in January of 1295 and dying in October of 1303, he greatly strengthened the power of the papacy, while also asserting its temporal power in the realm Dante allowed to Empire alone. His support of the Black Guelphs and the French forces in Florence earned him Dante's unflagging enmity. Nicholas's taking Dante for Boniface is grimly yet hilariously amusing. His doubled phrasing will be echoed in Virgil's instructions to Dante a few lines later (Inf. XIX.61-62).

Some have suggested that the condition of future knowledge alluded to by Farinata (Inf. X.100-108) pertains only to the heretics; this passage would seem to indicate clearly that others, as well, and perhaps all those in hell, have some sense of the future but none of the present. Nicholas had 'read' in the 'book of the future' that Boniface would be on his way to hell as of 1303, and is thus now confused, as he expects no one else to pile in on top of him but Boniface.

The beautiful Lady is, resolved from metaphor, the Church, Christ's 'bride.'

Pope Nicholas III (Giovanni Gaetano Orsini) served from 1277-1280, openly practicing nepotism in favor of his relations. His references to the 'she-bear' and her 'cubs' reflect his family name, Orsini (orsa means 'bear' in Italian), one of the most powerful of Roman families.

Clement is compared to Jason, brother of the high priest Onias. From the king of Syria, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, he bought his brother's position and then brought pagan practices to Jerusalem (see II Maccabees 4:7-26). In short, to Dante he seemed a Jewish 'simoniac pope,' prefiguring the corrupt practices of Clement. Dante condemns, as Durling points out (The “Divine Comedy” of Dante Alighieri, Notes by R. M. Durling and Ronald Martinez [New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996], p. 300), a number of Clement's actions, including 'his role in Philip's destruction of the Templars (Purg XX.91-93); the removal of the papal see to Avignon (Purg XXXII.157-160); his simony (Par. XVII.82); and his betrayal of Henry VII (Par. XXX.142-148).'

This is perhaps the crucial passage for those who debate the internal dating of the composition of the poem. First, one should explain its literal meaning. Nicholas has now been 'cooking' for twenty years (1280-1300). The Frenchman Bertrand de Got, who served as Pope Clement V from 1305-1314 and who supervised the papacy's removal to Avignon, an act that caused much Italian outrage (and notably Dante's [see Purg XXXII.157-160; Epistle XI.21-26]), will replace Boniface as topmost simoniac pope before Boniface spends twenty years in that position of punishment, i.e., before 1323. If the first cantica was composed, as many, but not all, propose, between 1306-07 and 1309-10, Dante here is either making a rough (and chancey) prediction that Clement, who suffered from ill health, would die sometime before 1323, or he is knowingly referring to the death of Clement in 1314. However, most, observing Dante's general practice in 'predicting' only things actually known to him, argue that this is a prophecy post eventum, i.e., that the passage was written after April of 1314, when Clement died. If that is true, then either the traditional dating of the poem's composition is incorrect, and it was written later (and much more quickly) than is generally believed (ca. 1313-1321), or Dante inserted this passage while he was revising Inferno in 1315 before circulating it. This is Petrocchi's solution (Itinerari danteschi [Milan: Franco Angeli, 1994² (Bari: Laterza, 1969)]) and many follow it. For an opposing view, see Padoan (Il lungo cammino del “Poema sacro”: studi danteschi [Florence: Olschki, 1993]). And for a summary of the question and bibliography see A. E. Quaglio, 'Commedia, Composizione' (ED.1970.2), pp. 81-82.

That this is the only reference to Clement before well into Purgatorio lends support to the idea that this passage is a later interpolation. In a paper written in 1999 Stefano Giannini, a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University, examined all the references to events occurring after 1300 in Inferno (“Post-1300 Time-References in Dante's Inferno,” unpublished paper prepared at Johns Hopkins 7 June 1999). His provisional results are as follows: 22 references to events occurring between 1300 and 1304; 4 references to events occurring between 1306 and 1309 (all between Cantos XXVI and XXIX); this sole reference to an event occurring in 1314. These results would certainly seem to support those who maintain that this passage is a later interpolation and that Inferno was essentially completed during the first decade of the fourteenth century. For a different point of view, see Michelangelo Picone (“Avignone come tema letterario: Dante e Petrarca,” L'Alighieri 20 [2002]), pp. 7-8; he argues that the prophetic gesture here (unlike that in Inf. XXXII.148-153, which clearly refers to the 'Avignonian captivity'), offers no sense of the removal of the papacy to Avignon, and thus represents a moment of genuine prophecy on Dante's part, since it therefore must have been written before 1309. This interesting point may be countered by the argument that, revising his text after 1314, Dante did not need to refer to the infamous transfer of the papal seat, familiar to all in Europe. Furthermore, his phrase describing Clement's outdoing of even Boniface in evil, as one 'di più laida opra' (one even fouler in his deeds–verse 82) certainly may have been intended to refer to nothing more than or other than Clement's worst deed of all, the 'abduction' of the papacy to France.

Dante's coyness here is palpable: of course he is not being 'too bold' (troppo folle) in the eyes of any just observer. At the same time he is clearly aware of the enormity of his 'singing' such a 'tune' to a pope. Some attempt to forge a relationship here between Dante and Ulysses. E.g., Barolini, who refers to the adjective folle as a 'Ulyssean word' (The Undivine “Comedy”: Detheologizing Dante [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992], p. 79); Durling (The “Divine Comedy” of Dante Alighieri, Notes by R. M. Durling and Ronald Martinez [New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996], p. 300), who claims that this adjective is used elsewhere in the poem only to refer to 'the possible rashness of the voyage of the pilgrim and the journey of Ulysses.' The adjective folle is used fourteen times in all in the Comedy, three times to refer to Dante, twice to Ulysses, and nine times to the rashness of others, as a search on 'foll?' in the DDP will quickly demonstrate.

Dante's great outburst of invective against Nicholas (and all simoniac popes) is based on the history of the Church, beginning with Christ's calling of Peter, moving to Peter's and the other apostles' choosing Matthias by lot to take the place of Judas. After Dante alludes to Nicholas's vile maneuvering against the Angevin king, Charles I of Sicily, he returns to the Bible, now to Revelation (for discussion see V. Stanley Benfell, “Prophetic Madness: The Bible in Inferno XIX,” Modern Language Notes 110 [1995], pp. 145-63), interpreted positively as the presentation of the Roman Church as keeper of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit and the Ten Commandments. (For the relationship between the woman here [Rome as honest wife of the Caesars, free of papal constraint] and the whore of Purgatorio XXXII [Rome as the corrupted Church after the Donation of Constantine] see Charles Davis [“Canto XIX: Simoniacs,” in Lectura Dantis: “Inferno”, ed. A. Mandelbaum, A. Oldcorn, C. Ross (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998)], p. 271.) Dante's oration ends with a final slam at papal worship of 'the golden calf,' joining the final apostrophe of the canto, addressed to Constantine as the source of most of Christianity's troubles when he granted the papacy temporal authority.

The author's apostrophe of the emperor Constantine (reigned 306-337) holds him responsible for the so-called 'Donation of Constantine,' by which he granted temporal sovereignty to Pope Sylvester I (314-335) – and his successors – over Italy and the rest of the western empire. This document was considered genuine until Lorenzo Valla, in the fifteenth century, demonstrated that it was a forgery. For Dante it was genuine and a cause for excited concern. (His views on the subject are exposited forcefully in the later Monarchia [III.x.1-9]). In his view the emperor was not empowered to give over his authority; thus the document was truthful, but its legitimacy compromised. (This view is widely shared. However, it is apparently untrue. My friend and colleague, John Scott, in an e-mail of 21 October 2011, set things straight, citing Giovanni Maria Vian, La donazione di Costantino [Bologna: il Mulino, 2004]: “La prima denuncia del falso [venne] nel 1001 dalla cancelleria pontificia, quando tra l'imperatore e il papa – il giovanissimo Ottone III e il suo dotto maestro Silvestro II entrambi non italiani – regna un'ideale armonia [...]” [p. 8]. Previously on that page we are informed that “Nei primi decenni del Quattrocento l'opinione che il Constitutum Constantini non fosse autentico era piuttosto diffusa, ma a dimostrare che si trattava di un falso fu per primo l'umanista tedesco Niccolò da Cusa ...].”)

We are perhaps meant to understand by these lines that Sylvester, who cured Constantine of leprosy and was, as a result, rewarded by him with authority over the Roman empire, is the bottom-most pope in this hole, the 'first rich Father,' a condition that was to his immediate benefit but to the eventual loss of all Christians.

These two tercets are dedicated to Dante's audiences' very different reaction to his outburst, Nicholas's displeasure at these words (the note [notes] of v. 118 recall the same word used at Inferno XVI.126-127: 'le note / di questa comedìa' [the strains of this Comedy]) and Virgil's contentment with his pupil.

Virgil's pleasure in Dante is indeed so great that he embraces him and carries him back out of the bolgia.

Virgil sets Dante down upon the bridge that overlooks the fourth bolgia, in which, in the next canto, Dante will observe the diviners.