Paradiso 26 falls into two parts: the first part consists of Saint John’s examination of Dante on charity/love, and the second consists of Dante’s encounter with Adam.
At the end of Paradiso 25 Dante stares at the refulgent light of Saint John, trying to ascertain whether Saint John already has his body, as Christ already has His, the “lucente sustanza” of Paradiso 23.32. As though he were staring at the sun in an eclipse, gazing at Saint John causes Dante to go blind. He is like someone who, wishing to see, becomes sightless: “che, per veder, non vedente diventa” (Par. 25.120).
Paradiso 26 picks up with Dante worried about his extinguished sight, “lo viso spento” (1), and a reassurance from Saint John, who tells him that Beatrice will be able to restore his sight and exhorts him to compensate for his present lack of vision by speaking (6).
As the opening question in the examination on love, Saint John asks Dante “at what target does your soul aim”: “ove s’appunta / l’anima tua” (7-8). The answer, of course, is that God is the beginning and ending—the Alpha and Omega—of Dante’s desire:
Lo ben che fa contenta questa corte, Alfa e O è di quanta scrittura mi legge Amore o lievemente o forte. (Par. 26.16-18)
The good with which this court is satisfied is Alpha and Omega of all writings that Love has—loud or low—read out to me.
Saint John follows up by asking “who directed your bow to such a target”: “chi drizzò l’arco tuo a tal berzaglio” (24). The pilgrim’s answer to the second query will return us to the textual authorities rehearsed so copiously in Paradiso 24 and 25: each examination canto has reiterated that the authorities are both classical philosophers, especially Aristotle, and Scripture.
In Paradiso 26 Dante states that he received his direction from “filosofici argomenti / e per autorità che quinci scende”: “from philosophical arguments and from authority that comes down from up here” (25-26), in other words, the bow of Dante’s love has been directed by philosophy (Aristotle) and by revelation (Scripture). This same set of authorities is repeated and unpacked further in the passage that follows verse 38: verses 38-39 refer most likely to Aristotle, and then there is a reference first to the Old Testament (40-42) and then to the New Testament (43-45):
Tal vero a l’intelletto mio sterne colui che mi dimostra il primo amore di tutte le sustanze sempiterne. Sternel la voce del verace autore, che dice a Moisè, di sé parlando: «Io ti farò vedere ogne valore». Sternilmi tu ancora, incominciando l’alto preconio che grida l’arcano di qui là giù sovra ogne altro bando. (Par. 26.37-45)
My mind discerns this truth, made plain by him who demonstrates to me that the first love of the eternal beings is their Maker. The voice of the true Author states this, too, where He tells Moses, speaking of Himself: “I shall show you all goodness.” You reveal this, too, when you begin your high Evangel, which more than any other proclamation cries out to earth the mystery of Heaven.
Thus, each terzina of the passage cited above refers to a written authority. The first terzina refers to a philosopher, difficult to pinpoint because of the generic nature of the ideas cited, but most likely Aristotle; the second terzina refers to the Old Testament, citing God’s voice speaking to Moses in Exodus 33:19; the third terzina refers to the New Testament. Since the pilgrim is addressing Saint John and referring to “your high Evangel”, he is indicating either the Gospel of John or the Apocalypse. The Apocalypse has already been cited in the reference to Alpha and O[mega] in verse 17 of this canto.
The third question of the examination on love deploys the language of eros, indeed the language of Dante’s most erotic lyrics, the rime petrose. Saint John asks “con quanti denti questo amor ti morde” (Par. 26.51): “with how many teeth does this love bite you?” The poet is echoing the erotic aggression of his canzone Così nel mio parlar voglio esser aspro, where too “the teeth of love” are featured: “co li denti d’Amor già mi manduca” (Così nel mio parlar 32). This transposition is a beautiful example of the way that Paradiso recuperates the language of eros in the treatment of caritas, as discussed in my essay “Toward a Dantean Theology of Eros”.
The examination on love ends in verse 66.
The Commedia is made of many encounters, as the pilgrim meets soul after soul on his journey through the afterlife. His last encounter is with Adam, the first human being, a combination of first with last that seems to be Paradiso 26’s narratological version of the universal Alpha and Omega.
In a common dynamic of Paradiso, Adam is able to intuit Dante’s questions (his “voglia” or desire in verses 95 and 104) without the pilgrim having to express them. Dante’s four questions are articulated by Adam in verses 109-14:
- how much time has passed since God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden, i.e. how much time has elapsed since creation;
- how much time did Adam spend in the Garden of Eden;
- the true cause of God’s anger at Adam, i.e. the true cause of original sin;
- the language that Adam used and made.
Needless to say, the answers to these questions are exceptionally important.
Adam answers the third question first. The pilgrim’s desire to know “la propria cagion del gran disdegno” (the true cause of God’s great anger ), calls forth a quintessentially Ulyssean terzina, one moreover that offers the necessary gloss to Inferno 26.108: “dov’ Ercule segnò li suoi riguardi” (where Hercules set up his boundary stones).
Adam explains that his exile from the Garden of Eden was caused not by the eating of the tree but by the trespass of the boundary placed by God:
Or, figluol mio, non il gustar del legno fu per sé la cagion di tanto essilio, ma solamente il trapassar del segno. (Par. 26.115-17)
My son, the cause of my long exile did not lie within the act of tasting of the tree, but solely in my trespass of the boundary.
Of course, the information that Adam’s sin was not in the literal act of eating but in the trespass that it signified is not new. The metaphorical expansiveness of the sins of incontinence is a hermeneutic staple of the second half of Purgatorio, culminating in Purgatorio 32, where the griffin is celebrated for having resisted eating of the tree (Purg. 32.43-45). And, in Purgatorio 33, we learn of the “interdetto” placed by God upon the tree (Purg. 33.71), and the tree is glossed “moralmente” (Purg. 33.72) in terms of the limits it represents, the obedience it exacts, and the consequent justice of the punishment meted to those who transgress. In short, the temptation to which Adam and Ulysses succumb is the temptation that the griffin resists.
We have known long before arriving at Paradiso 26, therefore, that Adam’s sin, recast in Dante’s personal mythography as Ulysses’ sin, was transgression: “il trapassar del segno” (Par. 26.117). There is nonetheless great satisfaction in having Adam speak so clearly, and in language that concisely ties Adamic trespass to the Ulyssean lexicon of Inferno 26. And the sense of tying up the threads continues into the next canto, Paradiso 27, where Dante will refer to “Ulisse” by name one more time.
Looking at the four questions that the pilgrim puts to Adam, we see that they can be grouped as follows: questions 1, 2, and 4 deal with temporality and the corruptibility of all that exists in time, and question 3 deals with the root cause, from a Christian perspective, of that corruptibility, which is the fall and original sin.
We remember the bleak lesson of Paradiso 16.79: “Le vostre cose tutte hanno lor morte” (All things that you possess, possess their death). All things that are possessed and made by humans are corruptible and mortal. In the Introduction to Paradiso 16 I noted that “vostre cose” of verse 79 include:
- cities (Luni, Urbisaglia, in Par. 16.73-75)
- family lineages (“le schiatte” in Par. 16.76)
- language (the emphasis on Cacciaguida’s earlier form of Florentine in Paradiso 15)
The corruptibility of language is specifically highlighted in the pilgrim’s fourth question to Adam, in which Dante desires to know from the father of humanity about the language that he used and constructed: as Adam puts it, “l’idioma ch’usai e che fei” (what idiom I used and shaped [Par. 26.114]).
In Paradiso 26 Adam affirms the radical mortality of all language, a human creation, and he includes his own language—Hebrew—among the mortal things that are condemned to change and die. Adam’s inclusion of Hebrew is notable, because Dante is here revoking the exemption that he assigned to Hebrew in De Vulgari Eloquentia. In Adam’s account, Hebrew was dead before Nimrod set about building the tower of Babel:
La lingua ch’io parlai fu tutta spenta innanzi che a l’ovra inconsummabile fosse la gente di Nembròt attenta: ché nullo effetto mai razionabile, per lo piacere uman che rinovella seguendo il cielo, sempre fu durabile. (Par. 26.124-29)
The tongue I spoke was all extinct before the men of Nimrod set their minds upon the unaccomplishable task; for never has any thing produced by human reason been everlasting—following the heaven men seek the new, they shift their predilections.
The reference to Nimrod and his “ovra inconsummabile” (unaccomplishable task ) reminds us that human arrogance and transgression were inscribed into linguistic production early on in human history, according to the Bible. The result of the tower of Babel, as discussed in the Introduction to Inferno 31, was the linguistic diaspora visited upon humans by their creator. God condemned us to speak many different languages as punishment for our transgression.
In The Undivine Comedy I note that Ulysses and Nimrod are the only single-episode sinners of Inferno (as compared to Virgilio, who is a major protagonist of the poem) to be named in each cantica of the Commedia (p. 51). Nimrod appears in Inferno 31, he is listed among the examples of pride in Purgatorio 12, and he is invoked by Adam in Paradiso 26. He attests to the indissoluble link between pride and creativity: our creativity leads to the invention and use of language, and our pride is responsible for its disruption.
At times I wonder, though, whether Dante was not also thinking and feeling something else, closer to pleasure, when he wrote the section at the end of Paradiso 26. Do we not also feel, contrary to Adam’s overall message, the pleasure of linguistic creation in verses like these?
Opera naturale è ch’uom favella; ma così o così, natura lascia poi fare a voi secondo che v’abbella. (Par. 26.130-32)
That man should speak at all is nature’s act, but how you speak—in this tongue or in that— she leaves to you and to your preference.
 Another figure mentioned in each canticle is Phaeton, not a sinner in the Commedia but a further emblem of the problematic that both Ulysses and Nimrod represent.