inferno

[pauraque_bk]

So, I finished reading Dante's Inferno the other day. I enjoyed it very much (definitely heading out to look for Purgatorio tomorrow), but my edition isn't very heavily annotated, so I felt like I was missing a lot of context, and wondered if any of you could give me your thoughts.

As you likely know, the very deepest pit of Hell at the bottom of the ninth circle (traitors) is home to Lucifer. He has three heads, and each mouth is chewing a traitor: Judas, Cassius, and Brutus.


"That soul up there who has to suffer most,"
my master said: "Judas Iscariot--
his head inside, he jerks his legs without.

Of those two others, with their heads beneath,
the one who hangs from that black snout is Brutus--
see how he writhes and does not say a word!

That other, who seems so robust, is Cassius.
But night is come again, and it is time
for us to leave; we have seen everything."


Dante doesn't go into very much detail here about the sinners or their torment, which I imagine is because it isn't necessary -- we know what they did, and we can guess at the severity of the punishment by extrapolating from what we know of the fates of lesser sinners. The brevity lends the scene a certain horrific solemnity.

Would it have been Plutarch's version of the assassination story that Dante was familiar with? If so, it seems that a point is being made that intent has no bearing on the guilt of the soul; Plutarch is very clear that Brutus thought he was doing right.

But doesn't that point contradict what Dante tells us earlier on about Limbo? If a worthy soul born before Christianity is spared punishment (in large part), what is that but a reward for having good intentions?

It's actually the point about Limbo that strikes me as the more puzzling; credit for good intent seems to be a more modern invention. Shakespeare makes Brutus a sympathetic figure, of course... and for that matter, "Jesus Christ Superstar" makes Judas a sympathetic figure, postulating that his motive was not greed, but fear for his people. I can't imagine Dante appreciating either of those portrayals, or understanding how they'd make any difference in ultimate punishment, or our perception of it. Maybe I'm just not getting what I'm supposed to get out of the Limbo episode.

Also, is Cocytus considered part of Judecca (traitors to benefactors)? I ask because whether or not Caesar was a benefactor to Cassius is somewhat debatable.

On another point, I was intrigued by the description of Lucifer: "He wept out of six eyes; and down three chins, / tears gushed together with a bloody froth." So Lucifer takes no pleasure in the torture he inflicts; he's suffering himself. Is the implication that his punishment is even greater than that of Judas? Judas betrayed the son, and Lucifer betrayed the father?

Comments

[muridae-x.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I confess that I don't remember all the annotations on source material and who's who from a political perspective overwell. It's been 20 years since I studied Inferno in anger.

However, I do have at least three versions of it floating around at home. The untranslated one with Italian footnotes is probably a dead loss nowadays, since I've forgotten most of the Italian I ever knew. :-) But I do have a nice fat academic text and the Dorothy L Sayers version as well, which might shed some light on the matter. I'll dig them out and have a look.

Which translation are you reading, BTW? I can see at a glance that it's not the Sayers version (no terza rima) but I'm unfamiliar with it.

[pauraque]

The translator is Allen Mandelbaum. As you can see, it's blank verse, though it does occasionally break into ABA. I got this copy on a whim at the bookstore, because it has the original text on the facing pages. I don't speak very much Italian (I'm more familiar with the structure than the vocabulary), but I thought it was worth it.

If you could take a look at what you'd have, I'd really appreciate it.

[muridae-x.livejournal.com]

Okay, here goes. These are Dorothy L Sayers' end notes for Canto XXXVI (I've left out her cross references to other Cantos and her introduction where she's referenced some of the same themes):

Judas, Brutus and Cassius. Judas, obviously enough, is the image of the betrayal of God. To us, with our minds dominated by Shakespeare and by "democratic" ideas, the presence here of Brutus and Cassius needs some explanation. To understand it, we must get rid of all political notions in the narrow sense. We should notice, first, that Dante's attitude to Julius Caesar is ambivalent. Personally, as a pagan, Julius is in Limbo. Politically, his rise to power involved the making of civil war, and Curio, who advised him to cross the Rubicon, is in the Eighth Circle of Hell. But, although Julius was never actually Emperor, he was the founder of the Roman Empire, and by his function, therefore, he images that institution which in Dante's view, was divinely appointed to govern the world. Thus Brutus and Cassius, by their breach of sworn allegiance to Caesar, were Traitors to the Empire, i.e. to World-order. Consequently, just as Judas figures treason against God, so Brutus and Cassius figure treason against Man-in-Society; or we may say that we have here the images of treason against the Divine and the Secular government of the world.

And the notes for my other version (John D Sinclair) say:

Of the three sinners named here for their bad pre-eminence, Judas betrayed his master with a kiss and Brutus and Cassius murdered - so Dante would conceive it - their rightful lord and benefactor, the chosen founder of the Empire. Their sins, that is to say, were not mere examples of personal treachery; they were unexampled treason against Church and Empire, refusals and denials of the whole divine order, and it is for that reason that they are punished deepest of all in Hell, where 'the Emperor devoured those who served him best' (J S Carroll).

And it does strike me that the whole Caesar/Brutus/Cassius story is a very much more local concern for a fellow Italian anyway, and a very big deal in the history of that part of the world, so I can entirely see why Dante might view it as the prime example of the betrayal of state. Most of his examples are sweeping and iconic rather than examining the motives and deeds of the sinner too closely. As you've already observed, he doesn't tend to go into a great deal of detail; assuming rather that his audience will already know the personages he's referring to well enough to get his drift.

Neither editor/translator refers to Dante's likely sources; the footnotes are generally more concerned with trying to tune into the mindset of a 13th/14th century Florentine. :-) But if I'm not misinterpreting the Italian footnotes in my third version of the book, they're giving Plutarch - and also Cicero - a namecheck.

[pauraque]

Thank you very much; this makes a great deal of sense. I see now that I was looking at it with too narrow a lens -- it's not the personal malice (or lack thereof), but the larger symbolic result.

I really appreciate your typing that out for me!

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

I haven't read this, though I read a summary/outline of it once, but it makes sense to me that Lucifer would be upset. After all, isn't he in that pit o' ice because God threw him out of Heaven? He wanted to take over and run the show, you know, not get stuck in that damp and slimy place chewing people's heads for all eternity. No fun, no fun at all.

The point about Limbo, though, is very, very interesting.

Always thought the Brutus/Cassius/Judas thing was terribly unfair, though. I found out, and went, "Huh? Wah! But Brutus! Nooo!" and then thought, "Surely there must be more people in all of time who have betrayed each other more horribly than old Brutus and Cassius". And, what can I say, JCS Judas just rocks the house.

I have a friend who wants to read the Dante books - are they interesting to read through? Do you have a good translation?

[pauraque]

it makes sense to me that Lucifer would be upset. After all, isn't he in that pit o' ice because God threw him out of Heaven?

It does make sense, but it struck me as interesting because it goes against our pop culture image of the Devil, as essentially a sadist -- the gleeful slavedriver, instead of the meanest slave of them all, as Dante implies. It's really not Lucifer dishing out the punishments in Inferno, it's God.

The fact that it's a pit of *ice* was interesting too. Again, not at all our cartoon-stereotyped version of Hell.

I have a friend who wants to read the Dante books - are they interesting to read through? Do you have a good translation?

I enjoyed Inferno, and it was an interesting read, though I wouldn't call it a page-turner. I read it pretty slowly, usually one Canto at night before bed. I haven't read Purgatorio or Paradiso yet, nor have I looked at other translations of Inferno, so I couldn't give advice on that. As I said to muridae_x, Mandelbaum's translation doesn't adhere to Dante's ABA rhyme scheme, it's unrhymed iambic pentameter. Apparently the Sayers translation does use rhyme; I'll probably look for that to compare the effects.

[chresimos.livejournal.com]

I was surprised by the depiction of Lucifer the first time I heard about it, and the ice, too.

You said your version was sparse with the helpful commentary - it just occurred to me now - but all I know about that is that, apparently, Dante meets all these people on his journey who are actual real people he knew, as a really rather rude mockery. Perhaps annotations would be useful in that respect.

[pauraque]

The annotations do explain who the real people are in most cases, but they're pretty light on What It All Means.

[muridae-x.livejournal.com]

I like the Sayers edition a lot. I studied La Divina Commedia at university as part of my degree, but since I was doing it as the mandatory one-course-out-of-your-own-discipline as an English Lit major studying with the Italian Lit/Language folks I did most of my reading in translation. I had the Italian text with footnotes, and I had a version with the original text on one page and a prose translation on the facing one, but the version I picked for my first read through to get an overall sense of the whole was the Sayers translation, just because it read the best. It translates as a little old fashioned, but she did a fairly good job of keeping the terza rima going in a language that isn't nearly as well suited to it as Italian. And, since in a fit of madness I once did a "homage" to Canto I of Inferno as a reworking of the pilot episode of Star Trek Voyager I can assure you that it is definitely hard work being inventive enough with line endings for the rhyming scheme. :-)

If you do decide to look out for it, the Sayers version was published by Penguin in the UK. They've since released a different translation by someone else, but I think the Sayers one may still be available.

[woolf.livejournal.com]

I have to say, even before being in JCS multiple times I found Judas to be a sympathetic man. Sadly enough, the belief that Judas is suffering in Hell was one of the major points that drove me from Christianity/Catholicism.

I mean, yes. Judas betrayed Christ. But when you think about it, that had to happen for Jesus to go on and die and be resurrected and the whole lot. Without the actions of Judas, whatever the reasoning behind them, Jesus would have just been another guru with a few thousand followers.

That Judas did what was so central to the whole point of sending Jesus to earth, and was punished for it? So incredibly unfair.

[pauraque]

Yes, that's always been puzzling to me as well, though (for the record) I am not and have never been Christian.

Could it possibly be a sort of negative image of Jesus' suffering? He, too, suffered to fulfil God's plan. It's almost as though Judas' eternal punishment serves as an eternal continuation of that idea. Have you ever read the short story "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas"? It rather reminds me of that... the child suffering indefinitely to sustain the prosperity of the people. Judas isn't a child, but he's naive compared to Jesus -- he lacks the acute knowledge that what's happening is for a cause.

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

Have you ever read the Borges short story about Judas? I can't remember it very clearly, but it was about a theologian that claimed to find the real secret of God... that God was not, in fact, Jesus, but Judas, doomed not merely to die but to be excorciated through the centuries. It was just an amazing twist on the traditional Christian theology. You might want to pick it up just to view what I personally see as the most heartbreaking (and noble!) Judas of them all.

[pauraque]

I don't think I've read that one, though I love Borges. Do you know what collection it's in? I'll look for it when I'm next at the library.

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

The Judas story would be found in "Three Versions of Judas," a short story in Borge's Labyrinths: Selected Stories & Other Writings.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0811200124/qid=1068869481/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-5094746-2104667?v=glance&s=books

A short selection from that story:
"God made Himself totally a man, but a man to the point of infamy, a man to the point of reprobation and the abyss. To save us, He could have chosen any of the destinies which make up the complex web of history. He could ahve been Alexander or Pythagoras or Rurik or Jesus; He chose the vilest destiny of all: He was Judas."

The essays on Dante can be found in Borge's Selected Fictions:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140290117/qid=1068869361/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/103-5094746-2104667?v=glance&s=books

I loved that book so much that I actually photocopied some essays from it at the library, after wanting to keep something of it with me for prosperity. Hell, I think I still have those essays somewhere...

[pauraque]

Thank you. Once I've had a chance to read, I'll get back to you with my thoughts.

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

Robust? "Yon Cassius hath a fat and robust look... He eats too much; such men are dangerous" ;-)

I'm searching for my Dorothy L. Sayers version (translated bluntly as "HELL") but as yet no joy. I can only assume that Dante had a thoroughly medieval mind which clung to the belief that rebellion against one's superior was the first and worst of sins, as evidenced by the Bible, and thus could only be dismissed as "treachery". The conspiracy against Caesar must have seemed particularly shocking to the *Italian* medieval mind when one considers Caesar's achievement in extending the Roman Empire; added to which, the conspirators have never had a great public image due to the hypocrisy needed to get close to Caesar and the violence of his actual assassination. (There's a reason why "backstabbing" is a popular term for a political takeover bid, and the term was much in use during the recent shift in power in the UK Conservative Party).

So I agree with you that Brutus and Cassius had very good reasons, but we're looking at it as moderns, not as a medieval Italian whose primary reason for writing the DIVINE COMEDY was to establish the infalliable correctness of God's design both on Earth and afterwards.

[muridae-x.livejournal.com]

"Yon Cassius hath a fat and robust look... He eats too much; such men are dangerous" ;-)

Hee. In case you haven't found your Dorothy L Sayers version yet, she translates that line as "And strong-thewed Cassius is his fellow thrall." No comment whatsoever on whether strong thews are dangerous. Or even caused by eating too much, although I'd imagine that a certain amount of busyness and activity helps. Probably caused by lots of pacing and plotting rather than going to the gym, I suspect. :-)

Thews?

[threeoranges.livejournal.com]

"Thews" is one of those words I feel I should know but I'd feel embarrassed if anyone asked me to explain... Ah, here we go:

1. A well-developed sinew or muscle.
2. Muscular power or strength. Often used in the plural.

Thank you dictionary.com! Yes, "sinewy" is far more how I picture Cassius. This made me wonder about the original Italian, so I found these two stanzas online:

De li altri due c'hanno il capo di sotto,
quel che pende dal nero ceffo e Bruto:
vedi come si storce, e non fa motto!;

e l'altro e Cassio, che par si membruto.
Ma la notte risurge, e oramai
e da partir, che' tutto avem veduto.

"Cassio, che par si membruto". Cassius, who appears so... membruto. Babelfish translation engine was no help, but I found this Italian gloss on "membruto":

membruto mem|brù|to
BU dotato di membra sviluppate e vigorose [quadro 1]
(http://www.demauroparavia.it/68469)

"Equipped with limbs which are developed and vigorous." Goodness me, I'd previously pictured Cassius as Twig Man but this version sounds pretty damn sexy! And it certainly confirms that Sayers's translation is the closer to the original Italian; "robust" is a rather sloppy rendering. But then we can argue that with "membruto" Dante was just looking for a rhyme with "Bruto" (Brutus) and thus the whole discussion on Cassius's appearance is irrelevant anyway :-)

"thews and limbs like unto our ancestors"

[pauraque]

But then we can argue that with "membruto" Dante was just looking for a rhyme with "Bruto" (Brutus) and thus the whole discussion on Cassius's appearance is irrelevant anyway :-)

Hee! I went through this same train of thought when I read that "robust". Actually, since it comes on the heels of the reference to Brutus' silence in the face of torture, I wondered if it was a metaphorical description of a similar toughness in Cassius. However, that isn't a particularly good match with what Plutarch tells us of Cassius either -- as Shakespeare reinforces, he's very much not the type to suffer quietly, though Brutus in fact is.

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Very interesting. Though I'm sure the recent de-demonization of Judas is a fairly recent thing.

Off-topic I know, but tell me... what did you think of the two lovers (Paolo and Francesca) that were swirling around in the first level of the Inferno? Jorge Luis Borges thought they were "emblems" of the joy that Dante couldn't obtain with Beatrice. Do you have any particular interpretations?

Hi, I'm new here. Hope you don't mind me barging in from the Snape Support Community-- I loved your comments there. ::sheepish grin::

[pauraque]

Those lovers are the first sinners that Dante mentions feeling pity for. It did occur to me that his love for Beatrice was probably why he felt so strongly about those two ("Alas, / how many gentle thoughts, how deep a longing, / had led them to the agonizing pass!"). So this episode introduces empathy into the narrative, almost as if giving Dante (and the reader) permission to feel bad for the sinners, regardless of their guilt.

Hi, I'm new here. Hope you don't mind me barging in from the Snape Support Community-- I loved your comments there. ::sheepish grin::

Not at all! You're perfectly welcome here. And at snapesupport, for that matter.

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

Though, mind you, the empathy seems to disapear almost instantly after that. Soon enough, we find our dear Dante almost delighting in some of the torments in hell. That one part I vaguely remember about Dante flinging some poor soul into a swamp... or, something... was quite... yicky. Ucky. Eww-worthy, even.

And Borges wrote a really beautiful series of essays about the relationship between Dante and Beatrice in "The Inferno," and devoted one to Paolo and Francessa. I think both you and he were really onto something when you made the same connection between Dante's hopeless love for Beatrice, and his sympathy for that pair.

Er, I also realize that I am taking great liberties with your person right now, but, em... mind if I friend you as well?

[pauraque]

Soon enough, we find our dear Dante almost delighting in some of the torments in hell.

But it seemed to me that delighting in God's punishments was the *expected* reaction, so whenever he felt pity instead, it was noteworthy. I found it interesting that even though Dante doesn't seriously doubt God's justice, he allows himself such a wide range of emotional reactions, depending on whom he's seeing. The fate of a particular soul can be simultaneously piteous and just.

Er, I also realize that I am taking great liberties with your person right now, but, em... mind if I friend you as well?

Not at all, go ahead. :)