DEAR TOR,
I WILL GO AND DO SOME RESEARCH AS YOUR QUEARY IS CONCERNED, YET I THINK THE 
PROBLEM TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS DIFFERENT. DANTE DOES NOT STATE ANYTHINK BECAUSE 
NOT ONLY DID NELLO KILL HER BUT PROBABLY HE DID IT IIN SUCH A VIOLENT AND CRUEL WAY 
THAT HE'LL RATHER SKIP IT. THE INTERPRATATION SOUNDS PERHAPS TOO NAIVE BUT THINK OF 
A SOUL LIKE PIA'S HAVING TO MENTION OF HER CRUEL DEAHTH, IT QUITE DOES NOT SUIT 
DANTE'S SIMPATHY TOWARDS THE SOULS HE MEETS, AND MOREOVER WHY WOULDN'T DANTE 
MANTION THE NAME OR AREFERENCE OF THE "KILLER" IF HE HAD BEEN SOMEONE BUT NOT 
HER BEHALF.... 

MARCO NANNINI.









Thank you to Marco Nannini, Nanda Cremascoli, Massimiliano Chiamenti, and
Otfried Lieberknecht for responding to my query of yesterday.
Unfortunately none of you managed to convince me of Nello's guilt (and by
the way I must stress that "my interpretation" as I sketched it yesterday
is very tentative indeed - when I asked for help to understand it was not a
rhetorical ploy:  I would be genuinely happy if someone were to convince me
of the validity of the traditional interpretation).  Comments to each
answer below:

Marco Nannini wrote:

>i think i went through this issue too some time ago and reading several
>>criticts suggested that pia does not tell ( and in a way cannot tell )
>the >story of her life, well, in particular of her death because it is too
>shameful >for her to deal with it. maybe even to shameful for the poem
>itself. "

If we know who Pia was, and how she died, this is all very well, but the
earliest commentaries insist that the murder was committed in secrecy.  In
other words no-one but he who committed it knew about it.  Dante's text,
Pia's reported speech, would be the only source for the knowledge of the
crime.  And as most modern commentators, and you, point out Pia does not
tell.  Pia's accusation is not only understated, it is _unstated_.  In
other words we have no way of knowing about it.  Weight of commentary, even
critical consensus, will not convince me, someone has to show me, either by
analysing the words of the text, or the gist of the poem, that Pia implies
an accusation.


Nanda Cremascoli wrote:

>Non ne sono affatto stupita.  Pietro di Dante, Benvenuto da Imola, e
>qualche >altro commentatore antico identifficano questo personaggio con
>Pia de' Tolomei. >E il Lana, l'Ottimo e il Buti dicono che il marito
>(Nello d'Inghiramo dei >Pannocchieschi) l'avrebbe uccisa perche' venuto a
>conoscenza di qualche fallo >commesso da lei. Oppure secondo altri perche'
>geloso. Ma la tradizione non e' >confortata da documenti d'archivio. A dir
>la verita' non e' nemmeno >contraddetta dai documenti d'archivio. E
>allora? Allora, niente. Dante certo >conosceva la cronaca nera senese
>meglio di noi."

Well, I'm sure he did.  But my point is that if he wanted us belive that
Pia had been murdered by her husband he would have said so, not
neccessarily in so many words, but there would have been, _in_ the text a
pointer to that possibility.  And it is that pointer which I fail to see.


And Massimiliano Chiamenti:

>... Ultimo auctor dicit quomodo etiam ibi vidit umbram domine Pie de
>Tholomeis >de Senis, uxoris olim domini Nelli de la Petra de Maritima, et
>dicentis quomodo >occisa fuit a dicto suo viro. (Pietro Alighieri, Purg.
>V, par. 17, inedita >redazione terza del suo commento, edizione da me
>curata in corso di stampa).

>Se il figlio di Dante in tutte e tre le redazioni del proprio commento
>dice >sempre la stessa cosa, e cioe' che la povera Pia fu uccisa dal
>marito, di cui >per di piu' da' nome, cognome e luogo di residenza, un
>motivo ci sara'! Ne >sappiamo piu' noi nel 1997 o lui nel 1340?

This is a nice rhetorical question, but the answer is not obvious.  I'm not
myself a philologist by profession, so this is not a debate in which I feel
I have any particular competence.  Nonetheless I am sure a case can be made
that philological research is somewhat more stringent in 1997 than it was
in 1340.  If we enter the database of the Dartmouth Dante Project we find
the following sequence in the references: Lana (1324): "Qui introduce a
parlare uno terzo spirito, lo quale fu una madonna Pia moglie di messer
Nello da Pietra da Siena, che ando per rettore in Maremma, e li e per
alcuno fallo, che trovo in lei, si l'uccise, e seppelo fare si
segretamente, che non si sa come morisse"; L'Ottimo (1333): "Qui introduce
a parlare madonna Pia [un terzo spirito], moglie di messer Nello da Pietra
di Siena, che andoe in Maremma per Rettore, ed ivi per alcuni falli, che
trovo in lei, si la uccise; e seppelo fare si segretamente, che non si
seppe.";  Pietro as he is quoted at Dartmouth uses the same identificatory
formula, but without insisting on the secrecy and on her fault: "Domina Pia
uxor fuit domini Nelli de Petra, qui dum rector esset in Maritima eam
occidit.").  So the question becomes, does Pietro identify Pia because he
knows the story (and does he know the story because it was generally known,
or because he spoke to his father about it), or does he investigate (and in
that case, whom does he ask, what evidence is there for him to inquire
into, what archives were open to him), or did he simply pick up the details
from other commentators, without doing further research.  I would add a
commonsensical observation: I myself find that when events, say of family
lore, events which are only part of my oral tradition, things that may have
happened in my life-time, but not to me, they take on a certain vagueness
and malleability, and have different versions when told by different
people.  Again I have not done any serious research on the questions I have
raised here, but simply referring to the shorter time-span between events
and narration will not do.  Until we know what Pietro's sources were, his
results remain open to doubt.

>Non credo proprio che Nello sia innocente, almeno non il Nello sottinteso
>da >Dante in questi versi, ed e' questo l'importante: l'intentio auctoris,
>ossia >questo farci intravedere la feritas dell'uxoricida in
>contrapposizione >all'exemplum della sposa devota. La Commedia stessa e'
>un documento sufficiente >(anche se scritto con le tecniche della poesia,
>quali l'allusione, >l'epigrammaticita', l'enigmaticita' e la reticenza).

Well, there's the rub.  Where does Dante's text imply uxoricide, I have no
problem in seeing the "sposa devota", but I cannot, unless I read the
notes, see where in the text the husband murders the wife.

And Otfried Lieberknecht:

>The verses Pg 5,135-136 in their density seem sufficiently enigmatic to
>leave >room for diverging interpretations.  But I find it difficult to
>understand why >you "have no problems" to see these verses as a "reference
>to a near and dear >person who would be saying intercessionary prayers on
>her [i.e. Pia's] behalf".

Relatively speaking. I have fewer problems with "my interpretation" (which
is, I stress again, very tentative) than with the traditional one

>I see nothing in these verses to suggest intercessionary prayers.

Well, you have to look in the immediate vicinity.  Everybody here is
talking about intercessionary prayers, (cf. Dante-narrator's words in Purg
6, 25-27: "Come libero fui da tutte quante / quell'ombre che pregar pur
ch'altri prieghi, / si che s'avacci lor divenir sante", which is followed
by a theoretical exposition of why intercessionary prayers can work); every
individual soul we have met since we left Casella mentions intercessionary
prayers; and all references to their living kinsfolk, Manfredi's to
Costanza, Iacopo del Cassero's to his people in Fano, Buonconte's to
Giovanna, mentions them in connection with the expectation of
intercessionary prayers.  It would require a strong signal in Dante's text
for this trend to be reversed.  And it is that signal which is invisible to
me.

>Also it seems to me that the construction "che 'annellata **pria** / ...
>>m'avea..." indicates that this person is no longer a near and dear one.
>There >is a contrast between this former ('annellata m'avea) and the
>actual state of >relations. 'Knowing' things about Pia's violent death (or
>both about her life >and violent death?) is opposed to 'once' having
>married her, and I think that >this antithetical construction matches well
>with the traditional understanding >according to which this knowledge
>includes responsiblity for her violent death.  >Although not being
>corroborated by the evidence of historical sources (apart >from Dante's
>early commentators), this traditional understanding seems closer >to the
>text than yours.

I think you stress the _antithetical_ rather too much.  "Pria" means simply
"before".  Pia says that she was married before she died, which is, after
all, the normal course of events.

>I think that you are only partially right in your understanding of the
>"main >focus of this canto", which according to you is "the value of
>intercession to >the souls in the ante-purgatorio", and that your
>understanding of the >parallelism of all three epsiodes simplifies the
>matter.  ...  The "main focus" >as you call it is closely linked to the
>problem of violent death: the souls >(most pointedly Buonconte) want the
>fact to be known that, notwithstanding that >their premature death had
>prevented them to do full repentance, they are not in >Hell, but are still
>on their way to salvation and are in special need of >intercession to
>compensate what they could not fulfill themselves in due time.

Quite.  Which tells us that Pia died violently, and that she repented for
her sins only at the last moment.

>That's why Iacopo wants the pilgrim to testify his actual state to his
>former >compatriotes at Fano, why Buonconte wants this state to be known
>not or not >only by his wife and 'others', but even by the 'living' in
>general, and why >Pia, using an imperative which is both impersonal and
>personal, addresses the >pilgrim "ricorditi di me che son la Pia".
>Intercession is, of course, expected >from ones relatives in the first
>line. But the geographical focus in Iacopo's >speech ("se mai vedi quel
>paese" etc., "che tu mi sie di tuoi prieghi cortese / >in Fano" etc.), and
>the even more intimate reminiscence in Buonconte's speech >("Giovanna o
>altri non ha di me cura") is already enlarged by Buonconte when he >says:
>"Io diro' vero e tu 'l ridi' tra' vivi". Pia only continues this larger
>>perspective ("quando tu sarai tornato **al mondo** / ... / ricorditi di
>me") >and contrasts it by what I take to be a bitter -- not a hopeful --
>reference to >her husband. If this reference somehow connects her husband
>with intercession, >it refers to him as someone who does not and will not
>intercede, not to "a near >and dear person who would be saying
>intercessionary prayers on her behalf", as >you read it.

Nice line of reasoning.  Iacopo refers to Fano, Buonconte to "the living",
which would make Pia speak to "the world".  If you want a movement of
expansion here I suppose you would want "mondo" to mean both the living and
the future generations, those, in other words, to whom Dante's text would
speak.  And what is important for her to say, then, is that she was called
Pia (or that she was pious - let us not forget that "son la pia" may mean
"I am the pious one"), that she was made in Siena, unmade in Maremma, and
that this fact is known by he who, before she died, married her by placing
a ring on her finger.  If you forget for a moment the weight of
commentators and of critical consensus, what bitterness does she express
when she says that her husband knew of her life and death?

>If the traditional understanding is correct, Pia's reference unites what
>was >distinct in the cases of Iacopo and Buonconte: Iacopo points out his
>murderer, >but does not complain about his relatives, while Buonconte
>complains about his >relatives, but does not accuse anybody of being
>guilty of his premature death. >If it is true that both elements come
>together in Pia's reference to her >husband, this would seem to be a
>gradation no less or maybe even more plausible >than the kind of schematic
>repetition which you expect.

As a gradation your version is plausible, Otfried, but the problem is that
there are no pointers in the lines that Dante gives Pia that her premature
death was caused by her husband.  If this was an important point it would
have been _stated_ in some way.

Further help is still welcome.


Tor








%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%