What does the story of King Arthur have to do with Dante’s Divine Comedy? Christopher Berard and Morris translate a fourteenth-century Dante Commentator’s gloss on the Death of Mordred (Inf.XXXII.61-62)..
By Christopher Berard and Morris Tichenor
Introduction to the Translation
Benvenuto Rambaldi da Imola (c.1320–1388), an Italian scholar and lecturer based in Bologna, is chiefly remembered for his influential Latin Comentum super Dantis Aligherii comoediam [Commentary on Dante Alighieri’s Comedy] (1373–88). He admired the humanistic writings of Francesco Petrarca (Eng: Petrarch; 1304–74) and Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–75), maintained an active friendship with them, and drew upon their works as well as numerous classical and medieval sources when composing his Comentum.
In his gloss on Dante’s placement of Mordred in Hell, Benvenuto borrows extensively from Boccaccio’s chapter on King Arthur (VIII.19) in De casibus virorum illustrium [On the Downfalls of Famous Men] (1360; 1373). Benvenuto adds additional content from the chronicle story of King Arthur that derives from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae [History of the Kings of Britain] (c.1136). At the start of this segment, Benvenuto refers to a chronicle authored by a ‘Gualterius anglicus’ [Walter the Englishman]. He appears to have been referencing the vulgate version of the Historia regum Britanniae, also known as De gestis Britonum, because Geoffrey, in his prologue, thanks Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, for supplying him with his main source—a very old book written in the British vernacular chronicling the history of Britain’s legendary kings from the first, Brutus (d. eleventh century BC), to the last, Cadwallader (d. AD 689).
Benvenuto’s Arthurian gloss invites us to consider two questions. First, what meaningful modifications does Benvenuto make to Boccaccio’s account of Arthur and how, if at all, do these alterations impact the narrative and its moral meaning? Second, based on Dante’s Commedia and Benvenuto’s Comentum, what would be the most fitting placement for Arthur in Dante’s poetic vision of the afterlife? Dante tells us where King Arthur’s treacherous kinsman Mordred is in the afterlife—Caina, the ice-lake of Hell, home to betrayers of kin—but not where King Arthur is located. Our translation is based on Benvenuto Rambaldi da Imola, Comentum super Dantis Aldigherij Comoediam, ed. Giacomo Filippo Lacaita, 5 vols. (Florence: G. Barbèra, 1887), 2: 497–501. All translations supplied for Dante’s Inferno are from Dante Alighieri, Inferno, ed. and trans Anthony Esolen (New York: Modern Library, 2005), pp. 332–33.
On Mordred in Caina (Inferno XXXII.61–62)
Non quella (Inf. XXXII.61) [not him]. This aforementioned spirit, in detestation of such a great evil by way of comparison, names and uncovers other traitors of his same type so that he may show that none were like these men; and first he names a certain ancient traitor, who betrayed his father most greatly. In order to know, therefore, who that most perfidious traitor was, I want you to know that—just as Walter the Englishman writes in his chronicle (which is called the Britannica), in which he mixes many falsehoods with truths for the sake of exalting his region— Arthur [was] the most famous king of the West. When his father (who was called Uther Pendragon) died, Arthur, a youth of fifteen years, had such grace of character and good fortune in the island of Britain that he properly reformed the entire land. Once he had defeated the Saxons who were besetting Britain, he put under his sway all the surrounding islands. Then, having returned to Britain, he remained there for thirteen years. During that time he put his house in order. He invited select nobles from sundry kingdoms to his court such that no one regarded himself as noble to any extent unless he was outfitted in the habit of dress and of arms after the fashion of King Arthur’s knights. Arthur, however, not content with his kingdom being confined to his own shores, conquered Norway and Denmark with a mighty force. Then crossing into Gaul, which Emperor Leo was holding at that time, Arthur, with a rapid succession of victories, subjugated all its provinces in the space of nine years.
Finally, after he came back to Britain, so that virtue would not weaken through idleness, by the counsel of Merlin, who was flourishing at that time, Arthur set up a table which the English call the ‘Round Table.’ To this Round Table, as if to a celebrated banquet, he called together all those who were more famous in arms and noble character, and to them he gave the fixed laws of the society, namely, that they always bears arms, that they defend the rights of the weak, that they not violate anyone, that they not harm one another, that they fight for the safety of their friends, that they put their lives on the line for their country, that they acquire only honor for themselves, that they never break faith for any reason, that they practice their religion, and, to make a long story short, that they do all things honorably. These laws are all celebrated individually with great praise in the mouth of the common folk today.
Arthur, now fortunate in these respects, proudly denied the tribute sought by the Romans and, coming well outfitted into Gaul, victoriously overcame Lucius, the Roman consul who had many eastern kings with him, namely the king of the Greeks, the king of the Medes, the king of the Parthians, the king of Libya, the king of Egypt, the king of Babylon, the king of Bithynia, the king of Phrygia, the king of Crete, and many others, and certainly I do not know how that man dreamt up such false things that no sensible person would believe. What person who knows his history would be ignorant of the fact that in Arthur’s time Rome was already in great decline? Indeed, for many centuries Roman imperial authority had already been transferred to Greece by Constantine, and Rome had already been captured many times by Goths and barbarians. And how could it be that the kings of the Parthians, Medes, and Babylonians were with Lucius, the Roman consul? They had not been subject to Roman rule—even when Rome was at the peak of its power. Be that as it may, I proceed further in the history.
Ruin was now in store for the proud Arthur; for just as he was approaching the Alps to advance into Italy, Mordred, his son by a concubine, to whom Arthur had entrusted governance of his kingdom, a youth boldly disposed towards every crime, who had for a long time been enthralled by a desire for ruling, took the opportunity provided by Fortune and began to move the minds of everyone towards himself with gifts and promises, to summon friends, to contract mercenaries, to fortify cities, to refuse necessities to his father, and to announce formally that his father was dead through false letters. And, what exceeds all his bad deeds, he most shamefully took Queen Guinevere, who was the most beautiful of English women, as his spouse. And so, therefore, Mordred assembled an immense army of both Christians and pagans.
Arthur, however, when this had been made known to him, was compelled to turn the arms that he had prepared against the enemy back against his son. And arriving with a mighty force to the shores of Richborough, met his son in battle, whom after a most bitter fight he put to flight. And the traitor entered Winchester, or Gratonia. Arthur, however, because he had lost so many thousands of his men, was incensed with a more bitter rage. He invaded the city and laid siege to that most wicked scoundrel. But Mordred, he of recalcitrant faithlessness, exhorted his men with great promises, wanting to conquer or die rather than to flee shamefully, and entered the fight against his father. Arthur, rousing his men so that they would fight with rage and indignation against the vile plunderers, undertook the wretched fight in which a great slaughter was made on both sides with great fury such that almost all the outstanding knights of Arthur perished.
Arthur, therefore, seeing the fall of his men and Mordred running around with, so to speak, renewed vigor and seeking victory with his own virtue, took up his lance and put aside his paternal affection. With the full charge of a fresh horse, he rushed against Mordred, and his whole spear impaled his wretched chest. But he did so not with impunity, for the hardhearted youth was incited to parricide by the lethal wound. Gathering together all his remaining strength, he inflicted such a grievous wound on his father’s head with his sword that he reached the brain, for the helmet failed to provide defense. The king, however, was carried by his horse, and when he withdrew the lance from the body of the dying, the wound was expanded to such an extent that, as it is said, the sun, which was then setting, penetrated it with its rays. And thus Mordred fell and made an end to his unfortunate life and insane temerity.
From what has been said it is patently obvious why the author named this unspeakable traitor here and why he described him by that astounding wound that his father Arthur gave to him as an offering in death, although Arthur received a reciprocal gift from him. Arthur, finally sensing his end, immediately commanded that he be brought to the island of Avalon. And dying there, he handed the crown of the realm over to his relative, or as some say, his nephew, in the 542nd year from the Incarnation of the Lord. And thus the great glory of Arthur unfortunately was turned into confusion by the work of that most biting serpent Mordred.
Now returning to the text, that spirit says: non quella (Inf. XXXII.61) [not him], that is, you will not find that shade more deserving of being set in ice, a cui fu rotto il petto e l’ombra (Inf. XXXII.61) [whose chest and shadow were gored through], because the body of Mordred, facing the sun before the wound, cast a shadow with his whole body, but after the very wide wound, the sun’s rays went through freely, and the body was not casting a shadow in that part, con esso un colpo (Inf. XXXII.62) [by one blow], namely of the lance, per la man d’Artù (Inf. XXXII.62) [from the hand of Arthur]. That Arthur is said to be expected by the English, either because his death was concealed by design by his successor Constantine or because in such a commotion of affairs, few were aware that Arthur had died, and he was buried without any pomp, wherefore the common folk always expect in vain the famous king to come again.
The commentary by Benvenuto da Imola where he writes about Arthur. Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS Italien 77. fol 69r
Christopher Berard is the author of Arthurianism in Early Plantagenet England (Boydell & Brewer, 2019) and The Alliterative Morte Arthure as Christian Epic Poetry (Boydell & Brewer, forthcoming 2026). He completed his PhD at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Medieval Studies (2015), and he is currently an adjunct professor at Providence College.
Morris Tichenor is Associate Lecturer of Latin at the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts. He completed his PhD at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Medieval Studies (2019).
What does the story of King Arthur have to do with Dante’s Divine Comedy? Christopher Berard and Morris translate a fourteenth-century Dante Commentator’s gloss on the Death of Mordred (Inf.XXXII.61-62)..
By Christopher Berard and Morris Tichenor
Introduction to the Translation
Benvenuto Rambaldi da Imola (c.1320–1388), an Italian scholar and lecturer based in Bologna, is chiefly remembered for his influential Latin Comentum super Dantis Aligherii comoediam [Commentary on Dante Alighieri’s Comedy] (1373–88). He admired the humanistic writings of Francesco Petrarca (Eng: Petrarch; 1304–74) and Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–75), maintained an active friendship with them, and drew upon their works as well as numerous classical and medieval sources when composing his Comentum.
In his gloss on Dante’s placement of Mordred in Hell, Benvenuto borrows extensively from Boccaccio’s chapter on King Arthur (VIII.19) in De casibus virorum illustrium [On the Downfalls of Famous Men] (1360; 1373). Benvenuto adds additional content from the chronicle story of King Arthur that derives from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia regum Britanniae [History of the Kings of Britain] (c.1136). At the start of this segment, Benvenuto refers to a chronicle authored by a ‘Gualterius anglicus’ [Walter the Englishman]. He appears to have been referencing the vulgate version of the Historia regum Britanniae, also known as De gestis Britonum, because Geoffrey, in his prologue, thanks Walter, archdeacon of Oxford, for supplying him with his main source—a very old book written in the British vernacular chronicling the history of Britain’s legendary kings from the first, Brutus (d. eleventh century BC), to the last, Cadwallader (d. AD 689).
Benvenuto’s Arthurian gloss invites us to consider two questions. First, what meaningful modifications does Benvenuto make to Boccaccio’s account of Arthur and how, if at all, do these alterations impact the narrative and its moral meaning? Second, based on Dante’s Commedia and Benvenuto’s Comentum, what would be the most fitting placement for Arthur in Dante’s poetic vision of the afterlife? Dante tells us where King Arthur’s treacherous kinsman Mordred is in the afterlife—Caina, the ice-lake of Hell, home to betrayers of kin—but not where King Arthur is located. Our translation is based on Benvenuto Rambaldi da Imola, Comentum super Dantis Aldigherij Comoediam, ed. Giacomo Filippo Lacaita, 5 vols. (Florence: G. Barbèra, 1887), 2: 497–501. All translations supplied for Dante’s Inferno are from Dante Alighieri, Inferno, ed. and trans Anthony Esolen (New York: Modern Library, 2005), pp. 332–33.
On Mordred in Caina (Inferno XXXII.61–62)
Non quella (Inf. XXXII.61) [not him]. This aforementioned spirit, in detestation of such a great evil by way of comparison, names and uncovers other traitors of his same type so that he may show that none were like these men; and first he names a certain ancient traitor, who betrayed his father most greatly. In order to know, therefore, who that most perfidious traitor was, I want you to know that—just as Walter the Englishman writes in his chronicle (which is called the Britannica), in which he mixes many falsehoods with truths for the sake of exalting his region— Arthur [was] the most famous king of the West. When his father (who was called Uther Pendragon) died, Arthur, a youth of fifteen years, had such grace of character and good fortune in the island of Britain that he properly reformed the entire land. Once he had defeated the Saxons who were besetting Britain, he put under his sway all the surrounding islands. Then, having returned to Britain, he remained there for thirteen years. During that time he put his house in order. He invited select nobles from sundry kingdoms to his court such that no one regarded himself as noble to any extent unless he was outfitted in the habit of dress and of arms after the fashion of King Arthur’s knights. Arthur, however, not content with his kingdom being confined to his own shores, conquered Norway and Denmark with a mighty force. Then crossing into Gaul, which Emperor Leo was holding at that time, Arthur, with a rapid succession of victories, subjugated all its provinces in the space of nine years.
Finally, after he came back to Britain, so that virtue would not weaken through idleness, by the counsel of Merlin, who was flourishing at that time, Arthur set up a table which the English call the ‘Round Table.’ To this Round Table, as if to a celebrated banquet, he called together all those who were more famous in arms and noble character, and to them he gave the fixed laws of the society, namely, that they always bears arms, that they defend the rights of the weak, that they not violate anyone, that they not harm one another, that they fight for the safety of their friends, that they put their lives on the line for their country, that they acquire only honor for themselves, that they never break faith for any reason, that they practice their religion, and, to make a long story short, that they do all things honorably. These laws are all celebrated individually with great praise in the mouth of the common folk today.
Arthur, now fortunate in these respects, proudly denied the tribute sought by the Romans and, coming well outfitted into Gaul, victoriously overcame Lucius, the Roman consul who had many eastern kings with him, namely the king of the Greeks, the king of the Medes, the king of the Parthians, the king of Libya, the king of Egypt, the king of Babylon, the king of Bithynia, the king of Phrygia, the king of Crete, and many others, and certainly I do not know how that man dreamt up such false things that no sensible person would believe. What person who knows his history would be ignorant of the fact that in Arthur’s time Rome was already in great decline? Indeed, for many centuries Roman imperial authority had already been transferred to Greece by Constantine, and Rome had already been captured many times by Goths and barbarians. And how could it be that the kings of the Parthians, Medes, and Babylonians were with Lucius, the Roman consul? They had not been subject to Roman rule—even when Rome was at the peak of its power. Be that as it may, I proceed further in the history.
Ruin was now in store for the proud Arthur; for just as he was approaching the Alps to advance into Italy, Mordred, his son by a concubine, to whom Arthur had entrusted governance of his kingdom, a youth boldly disposed towards every crime, who had for a long time been enthralled by a desire for ruling, took the opportunity provided by Fortune and began to move the minds of everyone towards himself with gifts and promises, to summon friends, to contract mercenaries, to fortify cities, to refuse necessities to his father, and to announce formally that his father was dead through false letters. And, what exceeds all his bad deeds, he most shamefully took Queen Guinevere, who was the most beautiful of English women, as his spouse. And so, therefore, Mordred assembled an immense army of both Christians and pagans.
Arthur, however, when this had been made known to him, was compelled to turn the arms that he had prepared against the enemy back against his son. And arriving with a mighty force to the shores of Richborough, met his son in battle, whom after a most bitter fight he put to flight. And the traitor entered Winchester, or Gratonia. Arthur, however, because he had lost so many thousands of his men, was incensed with a more bitter rage. He invaded the city and laid siege to that most wicked scoundrel. But Mordred, he of recalcitrant faithlessness, exhorted his men with great promises, wanting to conquer or die rather than to flee shamefully, and entered the fight against his father. Arthur, rousing his men so that they would fight with rage and indignation against the vile plunderers, undertook the wretched fight in which a great slaughter was made on both sides with great fury such that almost all the outstanding knights of Arthur perished.
Arthur, therefore, seeing the fall of his men and Mordred running around with, so to speak, renewed vigor and seeking victory with his own virtue, took up his lance and put aside his paternal affection. With the full charge of a fresh horse, he rushed against Mordred, and his whole spear impaled his wretched chest. But he did so not with impunity, for the hardhearted youth was incited to parricide by the lethal wound. Gathering together all his remaining strength, he inflicted such a grievous wound on his father’s head with his sword that he reached the brain, for the helmet failed to provide defense. The king, however, was carried by his horse, and when he withdrew the lance from the body of the dying, the wound was expanded to such an extent that, as it is said, the sun, which was then setting, penetrated it with its rays. And thus Mordred fell and made an end to his unfortunate life and insane temerity.
From what has been said it is patently obvious why the author named this unspeakable traitor here and why he described him by that astounding wound that his father Arthur gave to him as an offering in death, although Arthur received a reciprocal gift from him. Arthur, finally sensing his end, immediately commanded that he be brought to the island of Avalon. And dying there, he handed the crown of the realm over to his relative, or as some say, his nephew, in the 542nd year from the Incarnation of the Lord. And thus the great glory of Arthur unfortunately was turned into confusion by the work of that most biting serpent Mordred.
Now returning to the text, that spirit says: non quella (Inf. XXXII.61) [not him], that is, you will not find that shade more deserving of being set in ice, a cui fu rotto il petto e l’ombra (Inf. XXXII.61) [whose chest and shadow were gored through], because the body of Mordred, facing the sun before the wound, cast a shadow with his whole body, but after the very wide wound, the sun’s rays went through freely, and the body was not casting a shadow in that part, con esso un colpo (Inf. XXXII.62) [by one blow], namely of the lance, per la man d’Artù (Inf. XXXII.62) [from the hand of Arthur]. That Arthur is said to be expected by the English, either because his death was concealed by design by his successor Constantine or because in such a commotion of affairs, few were aware that Arthur had died, and he was buried without any pomp, wherefore the common folk always expect in vain the famous king to come again.
Christopher Berard is the author of Arthurianism in Early Plantagenet England (Boydell & Brewer, 2019) and The Alliterative Morte Arthure as Christian Epic Poetry (Boydell & Brewer, forthcoming 2026). He completed his PhD at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Medieval Studies (2015), and he is currently an adjunct professor at Providence College.
Morris Tichenor is Associate Lecturer of Latin at the Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts. He completed his PhD at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Medieval Studies (2019).
Click here to read more from Christopher Berard
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts