Commentary Purg XIX 106-114

Adrian's remarks have caused a certain puzzlement, since historical records give no sense of his involvement in avaricious behavior (nor, consequently, of his turning from that sin only once he was elected pope); as Scartazzini (DDP Scartazzini.Purg.XIX.99) observed, such notice derives only from this passage in Dante's poem and from his perhaps too gullible commentators. Bosco (Bosc.1942.1), pp. 136-43, followed by Sapegno (DDP Sapegno.Purg.XIX.99), argues that Dante derived information that he thought concerned Adrian V from a source that in fact described Adrian IV.  The source in question is either John of Salisbury's Policraticus (VIII.xxiii.814) or, more likely, in Bosco's opinion, since Petrarch later also made the same mistake, some (unknown) later transmitter of John's praise of Adrian IV.  Renucci, cited by Giacalone (DDP Giacalone.Purg.XIX.100-102), has argued that Dante was well acquainted with John of Salisbury's text and deliberately conflated the two Adrians for reasons of his own.  Since Dante almost certainly had recourse to John's text, it is difficult to counter Renucci's view, even if it leaves one wondering why Dante should have wanted to rewrite the life of Adrian V in this way.  For the Policraticus as source of several of Dante's exemplary figures see Curtius (Curt.1948.1), pp. 364-65; see also Pézard (Peza.1948.1), esp. pp. 163-91 (for John of Salisbury's Adrian), and Renucci (Renu.1951.1).  For the texts in the Policraticus that are pertinent here, see Singleton (DDP Singleton.Purg.XIX.99-114).