SOURCE: “Biblical Exegesis in Alfieri's Saul,” in South Atlantic Bulletin, Vol. 38, No. 2, May, 1973, pp. 3-7.

[In the following essay, Hilary considers Alfieri's understanding of sin as illustrated in the tragedy Saul.]

Vittorio Alfieri selected the subject of his tragedy Saul from the Old Testament account of the Hebrew king and developed a powerful drama justly considered his best by many critics.¹ Saul is ideally suited to Alfieri both from the point of view of technique and of personality. The author's rigid neoclassical concept of the threefold unity of character, scene, and action is nowhere more clearly illustrated than in Saul.² Throughout his autobiography Alfieri states his love of liberty and hatred of tyranny. The personality of Saul is his optimum example, distilling the entire struggle of good against evil, hatred and envy versus love, liberty opposing tyranny, into the single character of the protagonist.

Thus, Alfieri's choice of story from the Bible is excellent in so far as his own style of exposition is concerned. We know, however, that the author read his source in a manner which suggests the possibility of error in interpretation of the narrative resulting from a casual, nonscholarly study. “Fin dal marzo di quell'anno (1781) mi era dato assai alla lettura della Bibbia, ma non però regolatamente con ordine.”³ It is not until fourteen years after the publication of Saul in 1784 that Alfieri undertakes a serious and systematic study of the Bible.⁴

The essential tragedy of Alfieri's Saul is his battle against himself and the portrayal of a neurotic mental state of heroic proportions. The Biblical account of Saul's reign constitutes a comprehensive definition of sin, a basic concept in the literature of the Old Testament. The ideas of insanity and sin are related and strongly interdependent in the Old Testament.

The origin, nature, and effects of sin are points considered by both latter prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Sin is discussed in relation to the covenant tradition of loyalty and constancy to the relationship of mutuality, trust, and faith between God and Israel. A rebellious Israel has forsaken the Laws of Moses and despised its covenant with the Lord. The intentional violation and rejection of the covenant is cited as the origin of Israel's sin (Ezek. 44.7; Jer. 1.16).⁵ The fundamental importance of the covenant relationship between Israel and God, in reference to Biblical theology, history, and the king's authority, has been examined by many scholars.⁶

Specific details of the nature of the people's sin are listed by both prophets at several places in their writings. Apostasy is the most repugnant of all. “Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known …” (Jer. 7.9-10). The effects of Israel's faithlessness are explicitly declared by an angry and jealous Lord through his prophets. Utter destruction is the fruit of sin (Ezek. 6.11).

Given this background definition of sin, it is evident that the story of Saul as recorded in I Samuel is an outstanding illustration of all aspects of sin.

From the Hebrew viewpoint, no relationship was possible without an implicit or explicit covenant involving terms and responsibilities on both sides. The Mosaic covenant declares that God is Israel's only “king,” yet the people in the face of severe military pressure ask for a king “that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may govern us and fight our battles” (I Sam. 8.20). God in His infinite mercy tolerates a human sovereign on the condition that he be sanctioned by being anointed by the prophet, a divine commission, and attain popular approval of his line (I Sam. 9.16). The monarch is therefore principally a military chieftain whose degree of success will be indicated by victory on the battlefield. Expressing the terms of the covenant, Samuel addresses the people. “Only fear the Lord, and serve him faithfully with all your heart; for consider what great things he has done for you. But if you do wicked, you shall be swept away, both you and your king” (I Sam. 12.24-25).

Sin, then, is breach of covenant. The Old Testament presents two versions of Saul's sin. In I Samuel 13 it is the ritual sin of usurping a priestly function by sacrificing a burnt offering in order to rally the people as they scatter when threatened by a strong Philistine force. Samuel admonishes Saul that “now your kingdom shall not continue … you have not kept what the Lord commanded you” (I Sam. 13-14). The second version shows Saul as a moral and religious reprobate. He was directed to obliterate the Amalekites (I Sam. 15.3) but destroyed only worthless property (I Sam. 15.7). Samuel's reproof in verse 19 rings with despair: “Why did you swoop on the spoil, and do what was evil in the sight of the Lord?” The Lord's judgment, stated by the prophet in verse 23, is severe and definitive. “Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he also rejected you from being king.” Sanction is withdrawn because of violation and rejection of the covenant.

In addition to the loss of sanction, Saul's sin has the tragic and dramatic effect of converting a sane, rational personality into a mad, jealous despot. “Now the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him” (I Sam. 16.14). Abandoned by God and possessed by tormenting devils, Saul is unable to cope with the responsibilities of a monarchy dependent on the protection and guidance of God. The sanctioned king proves his leadership by winning, whereas the discarded, sinful monarch must be defeated. The conclusive cure of Saul's sin is his suicide, done in the wake of utter defeat administered by the instruments of the Lord's wrath, the Philistines.

Alfieri's tragedy utilizes the Biblical concept of sin in three areas. We find the term “delitto” used with both possible proper meanings of crime and sin. Secondly, the most dramatic aspect of the personality of Saul is fully elaborated by the author. Finally, he appears to violate his principle of a minimal number of characters in order to introduce the priest Achimelech.

“Delitto” signifies a severe temporal crime in the early pages of the drama. Having returned from his wilderness refuge, confronted the king and been reinstated, David fears that Saul will be aroused again by jealousy after the coming battle with the Philistines. In Act Three, Scene Two, he laments “ch'esser non puote per me mai pace al fianco suo … che dico?/ Nuova palma or mi fia nuovo delitto.”⁷ This identical meaning is subsequently expressed explicitly in two supplementary passages. Abner, Israeli commandant who is a highly dedicated military man and jealous of David's great prowess, eagerly indicates David's crime. While fleeing he sought refuge in Philistine territory, equivalent to desertion (II.3: 280-2). Saul also accuses David of crime, either temporal or religious, depending on the explanation. Noticing David's sword, the king identifies it as that of Goliath, consecrated and placed in the tabernacle at Nob (III.4: 195-200). Did he steal it or merely violate a rigid restriction pertaining to the defiling of sacred objects within a temple?

The alternate meaning of “delitto” is applied by Alfieri and indicates the author's grasp of the essence of Saul's sin. As previously discussed, the monarch had specific obligations of obedience to the Lord, whose will was expressed by means of his prophets. Abner ingratiates himself to Saul by giving this covenant relationship a cruel twist. He adds fuel to the fire of the king's suspicions by telling him that his only sin was in thwarting the ambitions of Samuel for the throne. “L'audace / torbido, accorto ambizioso vecchio, / Samuël sacerdote … / Questo, sol questo, è il tuo delitto. Ei quindi / D'appellarti cessò d'Iddio l'eletto, / Tosto ch'esser tu ligio a lui cessasti” (II.1: 62-4, 72-4).

It is Saul who correctly defines his sin, even though he is no longer capable of understanding its religious implications. As he addresses Achimelech he despairs that “A Samuël parea / Grave delitto il non aver io spento / L'Amalechita re, coll'arme in mano, / Preso in battaglio …” (IV.4: 178-181). Incensed at the priest's foretelling his defeat and death, Saul compounds his sin by ordering an agonizing, slow execution of Achimelech (IV.4: 270-1). Jonathan is shocked (IV.5: 280-2) and David, horrified at this gross violation of the covenant, withdraws from the cursed, impure Israelite camp. “Ma no: qui sparso di sacri ministri / Fu d'innocente sangue: impuro è il campo, / Contaminato è il suolo; orror ne sente / Iddio; pugnar non può qui omai più David” (V.1: 40-3).

Alfieri subordinates the cause of Saul's sin to emphasize the lesser of the two effects of sin recorded in I Samuel, making Saul's madness the object of prime literary interest and the main framework on which his drama is constructed. He evokes many masterful scenes indicating a superb insight into the intricate psychological struggle within Saul.

By the time Saul first appears, with Abner in Act Two, the reader is adequately prepared to see the mad king. Jonathan and Micol urge David to delay his confrontation until they soothe their father. Saul laments his lack of both spiritual and military peace and enumerates the symptoms of his mental instability. “Fero, / Impazïente, torbido, adirato / Sempre; a me stesso incresco ognora, e altrui; / Bramo in pace far guerra, in guerra pace: / Entro ogni nappo ascoso tosco io bevo; / Scorgo un nemico in ogni amico; i molli / Tappetti assiri, ispidi dumi al fianco / Mi sono; angoscia il breve sonno; i sogni / Terror” (II.1: 40-48).

A pervasive fear, suspicion, and unrest plague the leader rejected by God. Ancient authors called Saul possessed by an evil spirit from the Lord; we term it mental illness.

As his mental condition becomes progressively worse, Saul sees visions of death in III.4, prompting Jonathan to grieve over the extent of the effect of his father's sin. The ghosts of the reproachful prophet Samuel and the vindictive Achimelech torment the king, and further emphasize his hopeless situation.

Alfieri uses the varying intensity of Saul's insanity as the basis of his narrative development. Only Saul truly speaks to himself. His monologue is always a dialogue with himself. The remaining characters of the tragedy, distinctly of secondary importance, are presented chiefly in reaction to Saul's madness. Abner fans the flame to solidify his own position, and perhaps to reinforce Saul against his own doubts. Micol and Jonathan are torn between love, respect, and duty to their father, and love for the endangered David. With all his innate virtue, David is best shown in contrast to Saul's psychological dissolution and torment.

The priest Achimelech is introduced in apparent violation of Alfieri's technique of strict structural unity, requiring a minimal number of characters. Appearing only in Act Four, Scene Four, Achimelech declares Saul's alienation from God and predicts disaster. His statements clarify succinctly the sense of impending doom increasingly present in the drama. We can no longer admit the slightest chance of repentance, rededication, and reversal of form for Saul. The only remaining doubt is how soon and in what particular manner of death the Lord's judgment will be applied. Saul's fate is sealed.

The significance of Nob as the location of Achimelech's ministry is found principally in reference to the covenant relationship between God and Israel. Nob is the temple housing the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, the most holy place for the chosen people. Yet the insane Saul orders Achimelech executed and the temple destroyed. It amounts to a physical elimination of the bonded relation between God and Israel. This is elementary Old Testament sin.

Alfieri himself points out his own reason for using the priest. “Achimelech è introddotto qui, non per altro, se non per avervi un sacerdote, che sviluppasse la parte minacciante e irritata di Dio. …”⁸ He achieves considerably more than he explicitly intends.

Despite the statement in his Autobiography of a casual, nonscholarly approach to his study of the Bible before the composition of the tragedy, it is clear that Alfieri demonstrates a profound comprehension and adept interpretation of the significance of sin as defined and illustrated in the Old Testament source of his Saul.

Notes

1. Raffaello Ramat, Vittorio Alfieri. Saggi (Firenze: Edizioni Remo Sandron, 1964), p. 23.

2. Vittorio Alfieri, Vita Scritta da Esso (Milano: Rizzoli Editore, 1960), Ep.4 Cap.10, p.227.

3. Alfieri, Vita, Ep.4 Cap.9, p.224.

4. Alfieri, Vita, Ep.4 Cap.27, p.308.

5. Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, eds., The Oxford Annotated Bible (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1962). All Biblical references in parentheses are to this edition.

6. Jacob Jocz, The Covenant. A Theology of Human Destiny (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968). See also I. G. Matthews, Old Testament Life and Literature (New York: Macmillan, 1923); Esther Kellner, The Background of the Old Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1963).

7. Vittorio Alfieri, Il Saul, ed. Rosolino Guastalla (Milano: Carlo Signorelli Editore, 1962), III.2: 74-76. All references to the drama are to this edition.

8. Vittorio Alfieri, “Parere dell'autore su le presenti tragedie,” Opere, ed. Francesco Maggini (Milano: Rizzoli Editore, 1940), II, 618.