31. The Bloodbath That Was, Is, And Will Be Florence: INFERNO, Canto VI, Lines 58 - 93
Florence by an unknown artist in about 1340 (detail, in the Museo del Bigallo)
In the past episode (and passage), Ciacco the glutton seemed to have come to a halt in his conversation. But Dante has not had enough. He prompts the damned shade for more. And more. Until he finds out the future of Florence. The very near future.
Ciacco is not only a glutton; he’s also a future-teller, a strange prophet perhaps, sunk in the muck of the third circle of hell.
Consider a contribution or a very small monthly stipend to support this work:
The segments for this episode of WALKING WITH DANTE:
[00:45] My English translation of INFERNO, Canto VI, lines 58 - 93. If you'd like to read along, find a deeper study guide, or leave a comment about this episode, scroll down this page.
[03:12] Dante's second set of questions for Ciacco. (He already asked his first question in the last passage.) Plus, the question of why the pilgrim needs to ask these questions in the first place.
[09:32] Ciacco's second set of answers: a Florentine prophecy about the city's coming troubles.
[22:59] The pilgrim's third set of questions, including a list of people the pilgrim knew in life.
[31:00] Ciacco's third set of answers--and a plea: remember me!
[35:36] Rereading of INFERNO, Canto VI, lines 58 - 93.
My English translation of INFERNO, Canto VI, Lines 58 – 93:
I replied to him, “Ciacco, your affliction
So weighs on me that it has pushed me to tears.
But tell me, if you know, what will happen
To the citizens of the partioned city?
If there are any who are just? And explain
Why all that discord has struck it.”
And he to me: “After much antagonism
They will come to blood, and the forest party
Will force the other out with great carnage.
But then this party will fall
Within three summers, and the other rise, because of the force
Of the one who is waiting in the wings.
For a long time with high foreheads [in sheer arrogance]
These will hold the other down with a ponderous weight,
Despite the tears and despite the shame.
Two are just and no one pays attention.
Pride, envy, and avarice are
The three sparks that have ignited their hearts.”
That’s how he finished his lamentations.
And I to him, “I would like you to keep on teaching me
And give me the gift of more words.
Farinata and Tegghiaio, who are so valued,
Jacopo Rusticucci, Arrigo and Mosca,
And the others who turned their minds to doing good:
Tell where they are and make me understand,
For I am burdened by a great desire to know
Whether heaven sweetens them or hell curdles them.”
And he [said]: “They are among the blacker souls.
Diverse sins push them far down to the bottom.
If you go down that far, you’ll be able to see them.
But when you are back in the sweet world,
I pray that you bring me to the minds of others.
I tell you no more and won’t respond to you again.”
His clear eyes twisted into a squint.
He stared at me a little, then bent his head down
And fell prone among the other blind shades.
FOR MORE STUDY
Correction:
Arrigo, not Arriago! Sorry about that. I got so excited about the ubi sunt for the guys ahead in hell that I morphed one of them into a Spaniard as I went along. Mea culpa! Chalk it up to my excitement for the poem.
Four translation issues:
Line 69, the one about someone who is “waiting in the wings,” is tough to translate. Here’s the line: “con la forza di tal che testè piaggia” (literally, “with the strength of such who for now [???]”). It’s the verb that’s difficult: “piaggiare.” Some scholars believe it’s a fusion of “paciaro” (“to please”) and "piaggia” (“shore”). So it would be something like “one who for now favors the shore.” Early commentators offered other answers. Boccaccio claims it means “to state you to like something but really not like it.” In other words, to be a hypocrite of a certain order. So we might translate the verbal phrase as “such a one who for now temporizes.” Francesco da Buti in the late 1300s relates it more directly to that idea of not choosing a side—as in the “piaggia” or shore, the spot between the land and the sea. So we might translate it in an English idiom as “such a one who threads the needle.” (For who that might be, see the interpretive issues below.)
There’s an intriguing rhyme sequence in the pilgrim’s third set of questions (lines 77 - 81). It starts with “‘nsegni” (“teach” or “instruct”), then moves to “degni” (“worthy” or “valued”), and ends at “‘ngegni” (“minds”). That final word is really the kicker because, yes, it does denote “mind” as I translated it; but it’s actually closer to “genius.” It’s a word often used in COMEDY to denote the talent of poetic craft. In any event, these ubi sunt guys come in for high praise from the pilgrim, despite their being damned. We might then asked, Did the pilgrim expect to find them higher up in the scheme of things?
Ciacco claims the men Dante has listed are pushed “al fondo” (literally, “to the bottom”—line 86). We can quibble with Ciacco’s understanding here because none of these fellows is truly at the bottom of hell. There’s a lot of geography between even the lowest one (Mosca) and the true bottom. But nonetheless, Ciacco’s understanding of hell holds: It does go on to the very foundation of things. What does that say about the universe, that its foundation is hell?
As Ciacco falls back into the muck, it’s said he joins “li altri ciechi” (literally, “the other blind ones”—line 93). Did we know the other gluttons were blind? In what way are they blind, especially since Ciacco seems to see the future? Does Dante mean “blind” metaphorically, indicative of their spiritual state? Or (also?) ironically, given how much Ciacco foretells?
Four interpretive issues:
Concerning that one who is temporizing or walking along the shore (line 69), there are two suspects: Pope Boniface VIII or Charles of Anjou. I leaned heavily toward the latter in the episode, although many (maybe even most) scholars prefer the line to refer to Boniface, simply because he’s the one ultimately calling the shots from Rome. I think the prophecy is more Florence-centric, so I give the ID to Charles, waiting for the French king’s go-ahead (Philip IV, aka Philip the Fair). Maybe a better question here is this: Why Dante is not clearer? Doesn’t he want us to pin this down? Or is this muddle a matter of Ciacco’s blindness? He can see the future but not clearly? He knows the vectors of power without actually naming the participants?
While we’re on the matter of identities, let’s talk about the two who are just (line 73). As I said in the episode, Dante’s son thinks this refers to the double laws humans live under: their own and God’s (or nature’s, as the case might be for a medieval thinker). But the case for an apocalyptic answer is strong. Ezekiel claims that even three just men will save the world from destruction (Ezekiel 14: 14 - 15). And we see two witnesses defying the beast in the New Testament’s apocalypse (Apocalypse of St. John or Revelation 11: 1- 14). What’s more, when Abraham is begging God to save Sodom, he eventually gets God to agree not to burn it down if there are ten righteous men left (Genesis 18: 32). There’s a long Biblical history of claiming there can be a limited number of just people left and fiery destruction can be avoided. But the question remains: who are they? And why is Ciacco unclear? And is his lack of clarity also the poet’s? Or is this the poet’s statement on Ciacco?
Ciacco claims that “superbia, invidia, e avarizia” (“pride, envy, and avarice”) are the sparks that have set Florence ablaze (line 74). It’s easy to jump from this list to the three beasts in INFERNO, Canto I. The she-wolf is said to be ravenous . . . like a glutton. And she is also connected with envy in the opening canto (at line 111). Later in COMEDY, she will be directly connected to avarice, too. After those three beasts, Virgil offered his apocalyptic prophecy in Canto I, much as we get Ciacco’s now with these three sins. Maybe there is some way to link Cantos I and VI, some important bridges between these two visions of the future as well as some important points of departure between the two.
Think more about this tripartite dialogue with Ciacco as opposed to the conversation with Francesca in Canto V. There, the pilgrim does ask her a question that prompts her second and more personal reply. Even so, hers seems much more a monologue. She seems to control the room. Here, Ciacco keeps heading off stage and the pilgrim keeps luring him back out of the wings. Can you account for these differences? Is it about gender? Or the nature of the sin punished? Or is the pilgrim learning something about the damned?
One journaling prompt:
Is there ever a moment when you can know too much? What prompts you to want to know more and more? What’s your motivation? Do things always turn out well when you push and push?