Commentary Inf XI 8-9

Dante may have confused Pope Anastasius II (496-98) with the emperor Anastasius I (491-518). In the commentaries there is also a question as to whether Dante's Photinus was a deacon of Thessalonica or the bishop of Sirmium. Further, the grammatical structure of the passage would allow us to understand either that Photinus misled Anastasius into heresy or was himself thus misled by the pope. A passage in Isidore of Seville, if it happens to be Dante's direct or indirect source, resolves two of these three issues. Isidore is speaking of the various kinds of heresy: 'Photiniani a Photino Gallograeciae Sirmiae episcopo noncupati, qui Ebionitarum haeresim suscitans adseruit Christum a Maria per Ioseph nuptiali coitu fuisse conceptum' (Etym. VIII.v.37). Thus, according to him, the Photinians are named after Photinus the bishop of Sirmium, who followed the Ebionite heresy (see Etym. VIII.v.36) in promulgating the notion that Jesus was born from the natural union of Joseph and Mary. And thus, following Isidore, it would have to have been Photinus who misled the pope, since this very heresy is named after him. According to Mazzoni (DDP Mazzoni.Inf.XI.1-9), who presents his usual full discussion of a vexed passage, it seems likely that Dante was affected by the most negative version of this heretical infection, that which concerned the emperor and the bishop, both of whom were indeed heretics, and grafted it onto Pope Anastasius II. Mazzoni also points out that both Augustine and Aquinas attack the heretical views of Photinus the bishop -- perhaps a clue to Dante's possible sources in creating his possibly garbled history for this first named papal denizen of the underworld. For the more usual view in the commentary tradition, that the Photinus in Dante's mind was the deacon of Thessalonica, a follower of Acacius, see Singleton (DDP Singleton.Inf.XI.8-9).