Commentary Purg VI 1-12

Frankel (Fran.1989.1), pp. 113-16, discussing this opening simile, citing Hollander (Holl.1990.1), p. 31, from an as yet unpublished earlier version (completed in 1983), deploys the argument that the figure of the loser within the simile equates with that of Virgil outside it.  That so reasonable an interpretation took six and a half centuries to be developed is a mark of the continuing obstinately rosy view of Virgil and of his role in the poem among its interpreters.  It was only in 1968 that any commentator tried to find a counterpart for the 'loser'; Giacalone thinks he may correspond to Dante, because of the poet's many troubles at the hands of his enemies.  Yet it is hard to see how Dante can be both winner (to whom he is explicitly compared) and loser.  One commentator (DDP Singleton.Purg.VI.2) offers the following pronouncement: 'This figure of the loser, though serving to make the whole scene more graphic, finds no correspondence in the second term of the simile.'  He is in part correct: both Dante and the crowd of petitioners do correspond to figures within the simile (winner and the crowd of spectators, respectively); that the reference to Virgil is suppressed, inviting the reader to supply it, makes it all the more telling.  Reviewing the commentators, we are able to witness centuries of avoidance behavior as each struggles to preserve his innocence (e.g., Momigliano [DDP Momigliano.Purg.VI.1-12]: the simile is produced 'as a piece unto itself, with but slight regard for the context'). Simonelli (Simo.1992.1), while properly rejecting this argument, goes on to insist on an unlikely solution: the loser is the city of Florence. For a reading that takes issue with Singleton and sees that the 'loser' is undoubtedly Virgil (if without citing his predecessors in this precise understanding), see Kleiner (Klei.2000.1), pp. 69-70.

      For information on the game of zara (from, according to commentators, Arabic zahr, a die, through French hazard and Provençal azar) see Singleton's lengthy gloss (DDP Singleton.Purg.VI.1).  Similar to the modern game of craps, zara involved betting on the numbers, from 3 to 18, resulting from the cast of three dice.  The numbers 3, 4, 17, and 18 were, like 2 and 12 in the modern game, 'craps,' or zara, i.e., an undesirable result -- unless the player called them out before he threw his dice.  The game was apparently played by two players, as is reflected by Dante's reference to only a single winner and loser in this passage.

      At verse 8 the reference is to the reward the winner traditionally bestowed upon the onlookers -- a bit of his winnings (a practice found today in those at gambling tables who tip the croupier when they conclude their gambling happily).