Commentary Par XVI 88-139

The catalogue of once-great families of Florence includes the following, arranged here in groups of five [with those referred to by periphrasis in square brackets] and numbering forty: Ughi, Catellini, Filippi, Greci, Ormanni; Alberichi, dell'Arca, della Sannella, Soldanieri, Ardinghi; Bostichi, Ravignani (the noble and ancient family of Bellincion Berti [[Par XV 112]], mentioned with the later-arriving Conti Guidi and with those who took their name from the first Bellincione), della Pressa, Galigaio, [Pigli] ('the stripe of fur'); Sacchetti, Giuochi, Fifanti, Barucci, Galli; [Chiaramontesi] ('those who blush because of the bushel'), [Donati] ('from which the Calfucci sprang'), Sizii, Arrigucci, [Uberti] ('those now undone by pride'); [Lamberti] ('balls of gold'), [Visdomini] ('the fathers'), [Tosinghi] ('the fathers'), [Adimari] ('the proud and insolent race'), Caponsacchi; Giudi, Infangati, della Pera (the Peruzzi?), the Baron (Hugh of Brandenburg), Gualterotti; Importuni, [Buondelmonti] ('new neighbors'), [Amidei] ('the house that is the wellspring of your tears'), [Gherardini], [Uccellini] (these last two are referred to as 'allies' of the Amidei).

'Il XVI è quasi tutto una cronaca irta di puri nomi, ed è la più lunga e più arida pagina di cronaca di tutto il poema' (Canto XVI is nearly entirely a chronicle bristling with mere names; it is the longest and most arid page of chronicle in the entire poem [Momigliano {DDP Momigliano.Par.XVI.22-27}]).  Momigliano's judgment is, if more harsh than most, not atypical.  Not only does it miss the aesthetic point of the catalogue of families (which might be compared to Homer's masterful catalogue of ships in Iliad II -- if it cannot hope to rival that first and possibly best of literary catalogues), it severely overstates its length: not 'quasi tutto una cronaca irta di puri nomi,' but only a little over one-third of the canto, occupying verses 88-139.

For praise of the nostalgic poetic quality of Paradiso XVI, so roundly criticized by so many readers precisely for its unpoetic qualities, see Porena's first endnote in his commentary to this canto (DDP Porena.Par.XVI.154).  Porena's view is tantamount to a 'complete reevaluation,' according to Allevi (Alle.1968.1), p. 540.