Commentary Inf XI 76-90

After chastising Dante for his foolishness, Virgil clarifies the situation. Aristotle, he says, in the seventh book of the Ethics treats the three dispositions of the soul that Heaven opposes. These are incontinence, 'malice' (the malizia of [Inf XI 22]), and 'mad brutishness' (matta bestialitade). The clarity of this statement should not have left so much vexation in its wake, but it has. (For a thorough review of the debate and a solution of the problems that caused it see Francesco Mazzoni's lengthy gloss to these verses, DDP Mazzoni.Inf.XI.76-90) 'Malice,' just as it did when it was first used, identifies violence and simple fraud; 'mad brutishness' refers to treachery. As Mazzoni demonstrates, both in Aristotle and in Thomas's commentary on the Ethics (and elsewhere in his work), 'bestiality' is one step beyond malice, just as it is here in Dante; in Thomas's words it is a 'magnum augmentum Malitiae,' i.e., a similar but worse kind of sin. Nonetheless, there are those who argue that, since malizia eventually comes to encompass both kinds of fraud (those punished in both the eighth and ninth Circles), matta bestialitade cannot refer to treachery. Yet if they consider the way in which Dante has handled his various definitions they might realize that he has done here just what he has done at vv. 22-24: he identifies 'malice' with violence and fraud and then (at vv. 61-66) adds a third category (and second category of fraud), treachery, just as he does here. Vasoli (Vaso.1992.1), pp. 12-19, supports Mazzoni's reading. For a strong and helpful summary (in English) of the debate, with arguments similar to and conclusions identical with Mazzoni's, see Triolo (Trio.1998.1), whose own initial work on the subject dates to 1968 (see his bibliographical note). Barañski (Bara.2001.1), pp. 23-31, argues for the contradictory nature of the two passages without, however, bringing into play the observations of Triolo, Mazzoni, or Vasoli.