Inferno Canto 5: Lovebirds

By: Jake Willard-Crist

Five cantos in:  are we in hell yet?  Though we’ve reached the place where no thing gleams, we’re still distinctly flame-less.  I sense that Dante’s art lies in his ability to keep that question ticking in his reader’s brains:  Are we in hell yet? There seem to be several ways in which he holds one of our eyes fixed on the terrible and the other fixed on the terrestrial.  We are never fully unmoored and cast into the shadow; there’s always a creaturely tether, an ardent humanistic vine that keeps us guessing, keeps us reevaluating our coordinates.

Entering the second circle, we get a benvenuto from Minos, that ‘connoisseur of sin’ (aren’t we all!).  As he whirls out his caudate verdicts, we think, “No, no, Toto, we are not in the well-lit, enameled, philosophically opulent Kansas of the first circle anymore; we are in Hell.  Look at that guy!”

Furthermore, just as we pass by the mythological monster we hear the ‘hurricane of Hell’, the wailing winds and ‘blasts of sorrow.’  Just as light has become mute, the relatively mute sighs have been amplified to blasts.  Alas, the weeping and gnashing.  O Hell, Hello!

Yet, just as our eyes adjust to the darkness, the birds come out to play.  Dante invokes winter starlings, cranes, and—most incongruously of all—doves to illustrate the particular kinetic energy of the carnal sinners.  Presumably because passion carried them away beyond reason on earth, these buoyant damned are buffeted by the winds like a flock (though some, mostly literary, are more stately than the masses).  Though Dante describes the air here as ‘malignant’ and ‘black’, the avian similes imbue it with at least a modicum of grace, as the reader envisages the dignified stature of cranes, the starlings’ gloss, and the symbolic treasury of the dove.  In short, even in Hell Dante doesn’t allow us to forget the sky.

This tension reaches its apogee with Francesca and Paolo.  Not surprisingly, the ‘merciless weather’ stills for these two doves.  I don’t know about you, but the image of a tormenting tangle of infernal lovers doesn’t come readily to mind.  I see Chagall:

In a groundbreaking feat of down-to-earthness, Dante gives this woman, a contemporary of his, the literary spotlight over the more lustrous love-lost like Cleopatra, Dido, or Helen.

Francesca’s eloquence and politesse, I’ve read, have driven many commentators to go through the critical pains of exculpating her.  Her short discourse on love (note the triple Amor…Amor…Amor) is a reflection of Dante’s own earlier poetry, the Love poetry of the dolce stil nuovo, so one can really register the earnestness of his pity, and his final swoon can be read as piteous relief that he, unlike the two lovers, did not stop reading the book right there.  That he is still reading…We, in fact, are, in a sense, reading his continued reading.  Are we fully in Hell, yet?  Unlike Minos, we don’t have a reliable adjudicatory appendage to judge what stands before us—like Dante’s pilgrim, we have to keep close to the ground.  And anyway,  more often than not, we’re down there chasing our own tails.

One response to “Inferno Canto 5: Lovebirds

  • jeffvamos

    Jake, I especially like the comment,

    “we don’t have a reliable adjudicatory appendage to judge what stands before us”.

    That indeed seems to sum it up–encapsulate that quality of hell that’s particular to this part of it. It’s friggin hard to judge between good and evil here, when some other will (or, ahem, appendage) takes over, yes? That’s the essence of this kind of sin – of “incontinence”. The sin of “unconsciousness”?

    We are confused by this scene at the end of Canto 5: What is good? What is evil? How can such suffering come of such good and beauty? How can the very thing that spurs Dante himself on the journey – the love of and for a lady (namely Bea) – be the thing that lands Francesca and Paolo (and all the other so beautiful literary luminaries) in hell? No wonder Dante is overcome with pity – his own poetry is on trial here. That which commended the virtue of love is the very thing that lands this star-crossed (oh, sorry…cliche) couple in H E Double-toothpick.

    A friend of mine once called this scene in hell, “the eternal morning after.” It all seemed so real at the time – the stuff of poetry. But when the dust settled – illusion. And all because we’d given over our consciousness to…a book! “A Galeotto that book!”

    I guess I struggle with this whole biz – how “sin is the perversion of the desire to love”, and how complex that is “on the ground,” in real life, as ’twere. The very thing that can land us in heaven – the gut-twisting love that lures us out of the prison of self – can be the very thing that imprisons the self in mistaking love an illusion.

    Only the clarity of grace – made known in the purifying fire of Purgatory – can enable us to know. But meanwhile, we have to proceed through the confusion and illusion.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: