Digital Dante

Nassime Chida (2025)

 

This timeline and accompanying essay place in chronological order the key events in my analysis of Inferno 10, and seek to facilitate historicized readings of this material. In order to clarify the significance and the impact of Inferno 10 at the time of its first circulation, I allude periodically to Villani’s Nuova Cronica, which was written during and immediately after the first circulation of Inferno.

 

Dante and the History of Florentine Factionalism

This analysis further expands on the above timeline, focusing on the exchange between the pilgrim and Farinata degli Uberti in Inferno 10. It makes two distinct arguments. The first is that Inferno 10 includes a history of Florentine factionalism that centralizes the practice of mass political exclusion. The second is that by connecting the persecution of the Uberti family to the battle of Montaperti and then making Farinata the savior of Florence, Dante disrupts a troubling trend: the exploitation of trauma for political gain. 

My arguments rest on the historical record on Manente detto Farinata degli Uberti, and in particular, on the following three points. The first point is that Farinata played a central role in the first mass political exclusion in Florentine history, which took place in 1248. The second point is that Farinata was among the first Ghibellines on record. The final point is that Inferno 10 is the oldest extant reference to Farinata’s involvement at the battle of Montaperti, and to his role at the meeting of the Ghibelline league at Empoli that followed Montaperti.

My objective is to show an example of the sophistication of Dante’s political analysis and of his attempt to impact current affairs by changing the record of the recent past. I will show Dante reshaping historical legacies through the medium of poetry. From a methodological perspective, I wish to provide an example of how an examination of the historical record of Dante’s characters yields innovative interpretations of some of the poem’s most famous canti. (I offered another example in Chida 2021, 97–119.)

***

In June 1251, Siena, Pisa, and Pistoia entered a secret pact against Florence, with a group of Florentine dissidents led by Farinata. In this pact the dissidents called themselves “the Ghibelline party of Florence.” Nine years later, Florence offered aid to Montalcino, a small town besieged by Siena. On its way to Montalcino in September 1260, the Florentine army was defeated by the Sienese and their allies at the battle of Montaperti. According to historians of this period: “It was the greatest battle ever fought on Tuscan territory, until proven otherwise, in terms of the number of combatants and victims” (Ascheri 2010, 11). Dante was born five years after the battle of Montaperti.

Many of the characters in Dante’s poem appear in 20th- and 21st-century histories of Montaperti, including Brunetto Latini, Guido Bonatti, Manfredi di Svevia, and Provenzan Salvani. Guido Bonatti was an eyewitness who later took credit for the outcome of the battle in his treatise on astrology, written in 1278. Provenzan Salvani was the leader of Siena in 1260. He participated in all of the key events leading up to the battle, fought in it, and survived it. Yet Dante connected the battle exclusively to two Florentines, Farinata degli Uberti and Bocca degli Abati, neither of whom left any record of their possible involvement in the battle. 

***

To contemporaries like Giovanni Villani (d. 1348) and to historians examining the available evidence today, Farinata’s allusion to his ancestors and his party is a reference to the point of origin of Florentine factionalism. In Inf. 10.46–47, Farinata refers to his ancestors and his party: “poi disse: ‘Fieramente furo avversi / a me e a miei primi e a mia parte’” (then said: “They were ferocious enemies / of mine and of my parents and my party”). These words take us to the oldest recorded rift within the Florentine aristocracy, which occurred long before the terms Guelf and Ghibelline began to be used. In Villani’s Nuova Cronica, the Uberti were involved in the first eruptions of violence in Florence (Book 6, Ch. 9, p. 239). Accepting this report, modern historians also place the Uberti at the origins of Florentine factionalism (Zorzi 2008, 97).

***

Prior to the writing of Inferno 10, Farinata was not the most famous Uberti. Within his own generation, his relative Pierasino Uberti was likely the most famous Uberti. Pierasino is named in the letters of Charles I of Anjou, and led the Ghibelline regime in Florence after Montaperti, during the period in which Dante was born. If Farinata is the most famous Uberti today, it is exclusively because of Inferno 10.

While the historical record on Farinata includes no trace of his involvement at Montaperti, it reveals instead that he was a central figure in the first mass political exodus in Florentine history, which took place in 1248. This coincides with Farinata’s statement in Inf. 10.48: “sì che per due fïate li dispersi” (so that I had to scatter them twice over). The events of 1248 inaugurated the practice of political exclusion in Florence (Zorzi 2008, 41–47). During the night of February 2, after several days of violent conflict and arson, Florentine proto-Guelfs abandoned the city in large numbers. Their city homes were destroyed, and they were unable to return for two years. 

***

Farinata was potentially the first Uberti to officially identify as a Ghibelline. The word Ghibelline meant different things in different times and places, but in Florence it referred initially to followers of the Uberti (Canaccini 2009, 35–36). Three years after the events of 1248, on June 22, 1251, Farinata signed a secret pact with Florence’s rivals Siena, Pisa, and Pistoia. This pact, accessible to scholars in the Caleffo Vecchio di Siena, is the oldest extant document to include the words “Pars Ghibellinorum Florentiae” (Dessì 2011, 16). 

But neither Dante nor Villani nor most of Dante’s readers would be familiar with the secret pact of 1251. On the other hand, Farinata’s mass expulsion of Guelfs in 1248 and that event’s role in the birth of the Guelf and Ghibelline parties, was well understood. For Villani, the first mass exclusion of Guelfs organized by Farinata is inseparable from the birth of Guelfs and Ghibellines, to the degree that, in the Nuova Cronica, they are recorded together (Book 7, Ch. 33, p. 315):

[Frederick II] volle […] spandere il suo veleno e fare partorire le maledette parti guelfa e ghibellina. […] sodducendo […] quegli della casa Uberti […] ch’elli cacciassono della cittade i loro nemici […] Guelfi. […] onde la città si cominciò a scominare, e appartirsi i nobili e tutto il popolo…

([Frederick II] wanted to spread his poison and give birth to the accursed Guelf and Ghibelline factions. […] by seducing […] those of the Uberti family […] who drove their enemies, the Guelfs, out of the city […] Thus, the city began to divide, and the nobles and the entire populace started to separate…) 

***

In Inferno 10, the events of 1248 also explain the presence within the same sepulcher of both Frederick II and the pontifical legate Ottaviano degli Ubaldini, referred to as “the Cardinal” in Inf. 10.118–20: “Dissemi: ‘Qui con più di mille giaccio: / qua dentro è ’l secondo Federico, / e ’l Cardinale; e de li altri mi taccio’” (He said: “More than a thousand lie with me: / the second Frederick is but one among them / as is the Cardinal; I name no others”). As a pair, Frederick and Ottaviano point to the events of 1248 because, just as Frederick II supported Farinata’s coalition, Ottaviano supported the coalition’s proto-Guelf opponents (Milani 2003, p. 120). For a variety of reasons, commentaries of Inferno 10 omit the fact that Farinata shares a sepulcher with the two men who assisted and funded the first mass expulsion in Florentine history, an unprecedented event in which Farinata played a central role. 

***

Dante’s history of Florentine factionalism follows the transformation of family-based coalitions into far-reaching political organizations, articulating it around moments of mass political exclusion followed by repatriations. When the Guelfs repatriated in 1250 and then in 1266, they returned no longer as a coalition of families but as a highly organized political party. Modern historians also make a connection between mass political exclusion and political unity – one of many observable instances of modern historiography coinciding with Dante’s political analysis in the Commedia (Raveggi 1978, 94).

The mention of two “returns” of the Guelfs to Florence concludes the history of Florentine factionalism in the first back and forth between Farinata and the pilgrim, ending the history in 1266 – when Guelfs and Ghibellines were no longer an exclusively Florentine phenomenon because the binary spread to the rest of the peninsula along with the Ghibelline diaspora (Dessì 2011, 20). The pilgrim responds in Inf. 10.49–51: “‘S’ei fur cacciati, ei tornar d’ogne parte’, / rispuos’ io lui, ‘l’una e l’altra fïata; / ma i vostri non appreser ben quell’arte’” (“If they were driven out,” I answered him, / “they still returned, both times, from every quarter; / but yours were never quick to learn that art”). “L’una e l’altra fiata” (both times) in this case corresponds to the Guelf repatriations of 1250 and 1266. 

***

In addition to Dante’s political analysis, Dante’s historical precision is also on display in Inferno 10. If we recap the events referenced in the exchange between Farinata and the pilgrim in Inferno 10, we obtain the following chronology. The timeline begins in 1248 with the first mass political exile in Florentine history, organized by Farinata. This unified the opposing faction and they began to call themselves the Pars guelforum Florentiae. After the Guelfs returned and pushed out their adversaries, these in turn began to call themselves the Pars Ghibellinorum Florentiae. In 1260, prominent Guelfs were banned from the city (one of them was Brunetto Latini). In the course of their six years of exile, the Guelf faction turned into a political institution. Institutionalization and political exclusion would then evolve jointly. At this point, the binary spread to the entire peninsula. Dante’s reconstruction is not linear, but includes all of these dates. 1248 is the first of the “due fiate” cited by Farinata. 1250 is the first return cited by the pilgrim. 1260 is the second of the “due fiate” cited by Farinata. 1266 is the “altra fiata” cited by the pilgrim.

The mention of Montaperti follows this history, after the interruption by Cavalcante de’ Cavalcanti and the prophecy of Dante’s own expulsion from Florence. Both the exchange with Cavalcante de’ Cavalcanti and the prophecy involve exiles in Dante’s generation: Guido Cavalcanti died during a temporary exile in 1300, and Dante was writing while in exile. The insertion of Guido and Dante into the conversation with Farinata confirms the notion that for Dante, the history of Florentine factionalism was deeply connected to the practice of political exclusion.

***

In Inf. 10.83–84, Farinata asks the pilgrim for an explanation: “dimmi: perché quel popolo è sì empio/ incontr’ a’ miei in ciascuna sua legge?” (tell me: why are those citizens so cruel /against my kin in all of their decrees?). Some commentaries point to the posthumous trial of Farinata and of his wife Adaletta in 1283, when they were accused of being Cathar heretics, and their remains were exhumed and publicly destroyed. The relevant documents were discovered over a century ago and, understandably, seemed highly pertinent to Inferno 10. 

But this event was not an isolated incident of Uberti prosecution in Florence. In fact, there is a forty-year history of anti-Uberti violence behind Farinata’s question, which explains why he does not pose it  about himself but about his relatives. Schiatuzzo Uberti, Farinata’s son, died during an attempted coup in 1258. Uberto Caini Uberti, his relative, was captured and executed a few days later. After the Guelfs returned, Pierasino was allegedly blinded, mutilated, then killed in 1266. In 1267, an unnamed Uberti jumped off the tower of Sant’Elero rather than be taken alive. Brothers Azzolino and Neracozzo were captured and executed in 1270. Conticino, an infant, was imprisoned for life. Lapo, Maghinardo, and Federigo Uberti were posthumously condemned for being Cathar heretics, their bones were burned in 1280. Three years later, the remains of Farinata and his wife Adeletta were removed from his grave and destroyed. Two years after that, the remains of Bruno Uberti were exhumed and destroyed. Finally all remaining Uberti property in Florence was demolished 1298, just four years before Dante was exiled.

Dante is both the only author to refer to this violence as one coherent trend, which he calls “empio” (“cruel”), and the only author to connect it to Montaperti (Inf. 10.85–87): “Ond’ io a lui: ‘Lo strazio e ’l grande scempio/ che fece l’Arbia colorata in rosso, / tal orazion fa far nel nostro tempio’” (To which I said: “The carnage, the great bloodshed / that stained the waters of the Arbia red / Have led us to such prayers in our temple”). In the pilgrim’s response, the Uberti are not targeted for being Cathars, but for causing the unusual and excessive loss of life at Montaperti, presumably by violating accepted norms of political action and warfare. There is no documentation to support this claim, which we can therefore take as being Dante’s own understanding of anti-Uberti sentiment in Florence. 

The view that negative memories of Montaperti were fuelling a new form of Guelfism at the time of Villani, and therefore of Dante, is shared by current historians of Guelfism (Dessì 2011, p. 19). Moreover, the notion that the trauma of Montaperti drove Guelf sentiment was perfectly intelligible to Villani, because he made the point himself in the Nuova Cronica (Book 7, Ch. 13, p. 430):

Onde il popolo di Firenze ch’era più Guelfo che Ghibellino d’animo per lo danno ricevuto, chi di padre, chi di figluolo, e chi di fratelli, alla sconfitta di Monte Aperti

(The people of Florence were more inclined towards the Guelf faction than the Ghibelline faction because of the suffering incurred, for some through the loss of fathers, for others the loss of sons, and still others for the loss of brothers, in the defeat of Montaperti)

In contrast, the pilgrim’s position is that the carnage at Montaperti drove a trend of anti-Uberti sentiment in Florence, a trend described as cruel by Farinata in Inf. 10.83 and which the pilgrim hopes will not prevent the next generation of Uberti from finding peace in Inf. 10.94: “Deh, se riposi mai vostra semenza” (Ah, as I hope your seed may yet find peace). 

***

In distinct ways, both Dante and Villani reconstruct a history of Florentine factionalism. Dante, I argue, identifies the role of mass exclusion in the formation of political parties, just as Villani related the first mass exclusion in Florentine history and the birth of Guelfs and Ghibellines as the same event. While for Villani, the collective trauma of Montaperti was driving Guelf sentiment, for Dante, the same collective trauma was driving cruelty and uninformed prosecution. 

***

Current historiography indicates that the newer, more institutionalized form of Guelfism of Dante and Villani’s generation did not merely exile political dissidents, but criminalized them as well. The sentence issued against Dante in 1302 is an example of this criminalization of political dissidents because it rested on criminal as well as political grounds, accusing Dante of corruption as well as for acting against the pope, against Charles II of Anjou, against the peaceful state of Florence, and against the Guelf party (Milani 2003, p. 422). The exploitation of the collective trauma of Montaperti for political gain, and the uninformed prosecution of political opponents, past and present, are symptomatic of this new form of Guelfism.

In this context, Dante complicates Farinata’s legacy by making him one of many men accountable for the losses at Montaperti, but the only one who saved Florence from destruction. In Inf. 10.89–93, Farinata responds: “Poi ch’ebbe sospirando il capo mosso, / ‘A ciò non fu’ io sol’, disse, ‘né certo / sanza cagion con li altri sarei mosso. / Ma fu’ io solo, là dove sofferto / fu per ciascun di tòrre via Fiorenza, / colui che la difesi a viso aperto’”) (He sighed and shook his head, then said: “In that, / I’d not have joined the others without cause. / But where I was alone was there where all / the rest would have annihilated Florence, / had I not interceded forcefully”). 

There is no trace of this narrative before Inferno 10. The Ghibelline League is believed to have convened at Empoli to decide the strategy to adopt vis-à-vis Florence, but there is no record of what occurred at this meeting. It is unlikely that any Florentine lineages returning to Florence after Montaperti would have wanted to destroy the city, which was the material base of their power and the means of their long-term survival. It is fair to assume that Farinata defended their interests, since he was one of them and accustomed to leading them. There is no reason to assume that Farinata would defend the interests of former allies, or members of the Ghibelline League such as Manfred or Siena, against his own. 

The question of whether Dante invented the story himself or heard it from someone else is inscrutable. A possible source would be Lapo Uberti, Farinata’s son or grandson, who co-signed a document with Dante in 1302 and was therefore personally acquainted with him. The assumption that the story serves Dante’s personal interests is based exclusively on this document of June 8, 1302, co-signed by Dante and Lapo Uberti at San Godenzo with other exiled Florentines such as Vieri dei Cerchi, and other Ghibellines, in which they promised to compensate the Ubaldini family for losses incurred in the defense of several fortresses. The significance of the document is difficult to ascertain because of the lack of tangible biographical evidence about Dante’s life (Chida 2018). Therefore, our interpretation of Inferno 10 should not rely on a biographical hypothesis.

What does this story achieve in context? The reconstruction of Farinata as a defender of Florence makes it harder for Guelf authorities to scapegoat the Uberti by instrumentalizing the collective trauma of Montaperti. Having previously stated via the pilgrim that Montaperti is the reason why the Uberti were being persecuted in Florence, Dante supplies a story that would give pause to anyone blaming Farinata for his role in the battle. The story does not excuse Farinata, but reintroduces the nuance that is lost in the demonization of one particular lineage, and highlights the absurdity of blaming the carnage at Montaperti on a single individual.

My conclusion is that the story is an attempt to disrupt an ongoing political trend, namely the exploitation of collective trauma for political gain, which resulted in the excessive and unfair prosecution of political rivals. This disruption is carried out by means of narrative production. 

***

Villani also produced a lengthy narrative of the battle of Montaperti in which Farinata is the villain. Villani’s account portrays Farinata as a cunning trickster whose role at Montaperti was decisive. Dante’s nuanced treatment of Farinata disrupted a political agenda that Villani did not wish to question, and perhaps wanted to defend, namely the agenda of institutionalized Guelfism. Nevertheless, Villani was either unwilling or unable to question Dante’s reconstruction of Farinata as the savior of Florence. Turning poetry into history, Villani expanded on Dante’s narrative elsewhere in the Nuova Cronica (Book 7, Ch. 13, pp. 384–86):

Come i Ghibellini di Toscana ordinarono di disfare la città di Firenze, e come messer Farinata degli Uberti la difese: Ma poi il detto popolo di Firenze ne fu ingrato, male conoscente contra il detto messer Farinata, e sua progenia e lignaggio […] ma per la sconoscenza dello ingrato popolo, nondimeno è da commendare e da-ffare notabile memoria del virtudioso e buono cittadino.

(How the Ghibellines of Tuscany ordered the destruction of the city of Florence, and how Messer Farinata degli Uberti defended it. But then the people of Florence were ungrateful, not recognizing the worth of Messer Farinata, his descendants, and his lineage. […] However, despite the ignorance of the ungrateful people, it is still commendable and deserving of notable memory for the virtuous and good citizen.)

***

I conclude with a summary of my findings. Inferno 10 includes a history of Florentine factionalism, from the birth of Guelfs and Ghibellines in Florence, to the spread of the binary to the rest of the peninsula. Within this history, Dante identified the central role of mass political exclusion, which turned informal coalitions into organized political parties. By connecting Uberti persecution to Montaperti, and making Farinata the savior of Florence, Dante permanently altered Farinata’s historical legacy, thereby thwarting the political strategy pursued by Florence’s ruling faction. Dante therefore sought to destabilize Florentine political strategy, in particular the demonization of the Uberti and the criminalization of political rivals, by altering public perceptions of the recent past.

–Nassime Chida

---

Note on the translations: The translations of Dante’s Inferno are by Allen Mandelbaum, and the translations of Villani’s Nuova Cronica are by Nassime Chida. 

Image credits: The image of Brunetto Latini was obtained via the Florin website, the portrait of Giovanni Villani in a 19th-century edition of the Nuova Cronica via the Internet Archive, the 18th-century portrait of Farinata via the Royal Academy of the Arts, and the detail from MS Holkham misc. 48 via Bodleian Libraries. All other images were obtained via Wikimedia Commons.

Bibliography:

Dante Alighieri. 1980. Inferno. Translated by Allen Mandelbaum. University of California Press.

Ascheri, Mario. 2010. Montaperti: per i 750 anni dalla battaglia : aspetti della guerra e della pace nel Medioevo: incontro italo-danese, Villa Chigi Saracini, Castelnuovo Berardenga (SI), 5 settembre 2010. Aska Edizioni.

Canaccini, Federico. 2009. Ghibellini e ghibellinismo in Toscana da Montaperti a Campaldino. Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo.

Chida, Nassime. 2018. “Dante’s Life (1302-1310): Showing Divergences between Carpi and Inglese.” Digital Dante. Columbia University Libraries. https://digitaldante.columbia.edu/history/claims-chida/

Chida, Nassime. 2021. “Guido da Montefeltro and the Tyrants of Romagna in Inferno 27.” Romanic Review 112 (1): 97–119.

Dessì, Rosa Maria. 2005. “I nomi dei guelfi e ghibellini da Carlo I d’Angiò a Petrarca.” In Guelfi e ghibellini nell’Italia del Rinascimento, edited by Marco Gentile. Viella Editrice.

Milani, Giuliano. 2003. L’esclusione dal Comune: Conflitti e bandi politici a Bologna e in altre città Italiane tra XII e XIV secolo. Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo.

Raveggi, Sergio. 1978. Ghibellini, guelfi e popolo grasso: I detentori del potere politica a Firenze nella seconda metà del Duecento. La Nuova Italia.

Villani, Giovanni. 1990. Nuova Cronica. Volume I, Libri I–VIII. Edited by Giuseppe Porta. Guanda Editore.

Zorzi, Andrea. 2008. Trasformazione di un quadro politico: ricerche su politica e giustizia a Firenze dal comune allo stato territoriale. Firenze University Press.

---

Recommended citation: Chida, Nassime. “Dante and the History of Florentine Factionalism.” Digital Dante. Columbia University Libraries, 2025. https://digitaldante.columbia.edu/chida-florentine-factionalism/