Commentary Purg XV 133-135

Bosco/Reggio (DDP Bosco.Purg.XV.134-135) are undoubtedly correct in suggesting that the two previous major possibilities debated in the commentaries for the literal sense of these verses are both less than convincing and go on to plead that in them Dante uses 'an imprecise expression.'  It is difficult, surely, but not necessarily imprecise.  See Barolini (Baro.1992.1), p. 152, whose explanation of the literal sense is, while not entirely clear, much as our own.  Dante's 'senseless' staggering reminds Virgil of the condition of those who see only with the inner eye, i.e., who are deprived of the sensuous organ of sight while they are rapt in a vision.  Salsano (Sals.1967.1), pp. 568-70, reflects upon the debate as it came into his time.  Cachey (Cach.1993.1), pp. 222-23, offers a more up-to-date review of various interpretations.  (1) The current majority view has Virgil referring to himself as being sentient and thus unlike those who are fooled by outward appearances when they see someone faint without understanding the reason for the syncope; (2) another group would have Virgil denying that he is one who sees only with mortal eyes that cease their function in death.  Tartaro (Tart.1981.1), p. 341, moved the question to better ground: (3) Virgil is referring to Dante's eyes and body (as indeed the context would suggest).  However, he too has difficulty with the reasons behind Virgil's protestation (p. 321): 'I did not ask 'What's wrong?' because of your appearance, which was that of a man who stares with unseeing eyes, his body having lost all vital spirit, but to spur your steps.'  The only interpretation, however, that seems to offer a clear understanding of the difficult passage is one based on a comprehension of the tensions that exist here between the protagonist and his guide.  Such a reading has been put forward by Lauren Seem (Seem.1991.1), who argues that what is at stake is Virgil's attempt to show that he has indeed known the nature of Dante's vision, that he did not think Dante was merely 'drunk.'  And thus we can understand what he says as follows: 'I did not ask what was wrong with you because you were having a vision -- of course, I understood that -- but only because it was now time to get you back on the track.'  As Musa has pointed out (see C.Inf.XVI.115 and C.Inf.XXIII.25), there is no evidence in the poem, despite Virgil's claim in Inferno XXIII (repeated here), that he actually can read the protagonist's mind -- a capacity reserved for Beatrice and the other saved souls who interview Dante in the heavens.  Our reading of the entire passage eventually depends on whether we accept Virgil's protestations here or question them.  For a step-by-step analysis of the difficult details that have so afflicted the commentators, see Seem (Seem.1991.1), pp. 75-80.