Toynbee "Ciappetta, Ugo"

The statements put by D. into the mouth of Hugh Capet as to the origin of the Capetian dynasty are in several respects at variance with the historical facts, and can be explained only on the supposition that D. (as common tradition before him) has confused Hugh Capet with his father, Hugh the Great, some of them being applicable to the one, some to the other. The facts are as follows. Hugh the Great died in 956; Louis V, the last of the Carolingians, died in 987, in which year Hugh Capet became king (probably crowned at Noyon in July); on his death in 996, he was succeeded by his son Robert, who had previously been crowned in December 987.

D. makes Hugh Capet say, first, that he was the son of a butcher of Paris ([Purg. xx. 52]), whereas common tradition assigned this origin not to Hugh Capet, but to his father Hugh the Great (see below); secondly, that when the Carolingians came to an end he was so powerful that he was able to make his son king ([Purg. xx. 53-60]), whereas on the failure of the Carolingian line Hugh Capet himself became king (987). Although it is urged in explanation of the expression 'widowed crown' ([Purg. xx. 58]) that he associated his son Robert with him in the government and had him crowned in the same year (987) as his own accession, it is not by any means likely that D. was aware of these facts; nor do they explain Hugh Capet's further statement ([Purg. xx. 59-60]) that with his son the Capetian line began, whereas in fact it began with himself. On the other hand this statement could not apply to Hugh the Great, of whom D. seems to have been thinking, because he had already been dead more than 30 years when the crown became vacant by the death of Louis V, and was seized by Hugh Capet.

The tradition that Hugh the Great, who in reality was descended from the Counts of Paris, was the son (or nephew) of a butcher was commonly believed in the Middle Ages and was, as Villani records, accepted as true by most people in D.'s time:

Ugo Ciapetta fallito il lignaggio di Carlo Magno, fu re di Francia nelli anni di Cristo 987. Questo Ugo fu duca d'Orliens (e per alcuno si scrive, che fur sempre i suoi antichi e duchi e di grande lignaggio), figliuolo d'Ugo il grande, e nato per madre della serocchia d'Otto primo della Magna; ma per li più si dice, che 'l padre fu uno grande e ricco borgese di Parigi stratto di nazione di buccieri, ovvero mercatante di bestie; ma per la sua grande ricchezza e potenza, vacato il ducato d'Orliens, e rimasane una donna, sì l'ebbe per moglie, onde nacque il detto Ugo Ciapetta. ({Villani. iv. 4}.)

Benvenuto supposes that D. found out about the origin of the Capets while he was in Paris, and stated it here in order to correct the erroneous belief that they were of noble descent:

Aliqui dicunt, quod iste fuit nobilissimus miles de Normandia; alii quod fuit dux Aureliani. Sed Dantes curiosissimus investigator rerum memorandarum, cum esset Parisius gratia studii, reperit, quod iste Hugo de rei veritate fuerat filius carnificis. Ideo reputat fictum quidquid aliter dicatur, ad colorandam vilitatem originis, sicut multi faciunt.

The legend is recounted at length in an Old French poem dealing with the life and adventures of Hugh Capet, in which the author, speaking of Capet's father, says:

Bouchier fu li plus riche de trestout le païs.

The tradition lingered on as late as cent. xv for Villon, in one of his Ballades, speaks of

Hue Capel, Qui fut extrait de boucherie.

It is mentioned also, with a reference to D. in La Satyre Ménippée (cent. xvi):

. . . tota familia Borboniorum descendit de becari, sive mavultis de lanio, qui carnem vendebat in laniena Parisina, ut asserit quidam poeta valde amicus Sanctae Sedis Apostolicae, et ideo qui noluisset mentiri. [M. C. Read, ed. (2nd ed.; Paris, 1880), p.107.]

[For the confusion of the two Hughs in the common tradition and a discussion of the whole problem, with relevant bibliography, see P. Rajna, 'Ugo Ciappetta nella Divina Commedia', SD, xxxvii (1960), 5-20.]