Categories Archives: Literary

Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics

Throughout the pages of “Scripture as Communication,” we read and learn about concepts and methods around biblical communication and interpretation. We explore hermeneutical principles and perspectives from various schools of thought. From both a theoretical and practical frame of reference, readers become informed through illustrations, definitions, outlines, and models that educate students of Scripture on what it is to bring about the full and more productive study of God’s word.

Within this book review, various subjects covered among both practical and theoretical sections in Dr. Brown’s book reflect her walkthrough about what interpretation and meaning are and what they involve. Much of Dr. Brown’s use of technical language and prose to guide readers through these subjects is distilled in this review to gain a clear understanding of what a student of Scripture learns within her book about biblical hermeneutics. The first half of the book’s theoretical topics cover the roles of biblical authors, readers, and texts to arrive at conclusions intended for communicative purposes. A reader could view this first section as a survey of internal interest about textual meaning, its implications, historical development, and interest to both readers and authors of Scripture. The second half of the book pertains to practical or external applicability and relevance to what readers understand from the prior section.

Part 1 – Theoretical Perspectives on Scripture as Communication

Terminology & Context

The book begins with definitions and terminology that sets up a foundation of understanding within its chapters to follow. Specifically, the author builds upon various terms as new topics are introduced or reinforced. To further understand the definitional meaning of hermeneutics, exegesis, genre, literary context, social setting, and contextualization. These terms become further and progressively explored in-depth to one another. To bring understanding about how they are relevant to the interpretation and application of Scripture as intended.

Dr. Brown defines hermeneutics as the study of activity involving interpretation. It is a meta-textual analysis process that enables a reader or study to arrive at accurate and meaningful conclusions about what becomes communicated. This process gets applied across various genres to interpret and grasp meaning successfully. As readers, we reach an understanding of poetry, narratives, epistles, and legal texts of the Bible. While attending to literary and social contexts in which an author intended. Particularly in their original settings at the time, written works occur for transmission and delivery to readers centuries later.

The introductory topic of exegesis carries more practical relevance in later chapters. However, it is of significant interest from a theoretical perspective because it pertains to the historical context of Scripture as written. Dr. Brown refers to this as an “exegetical process” that is culturally significant concerning a gap between a modern reader and the author of Scripture during the time events, or literary occurrences become committed to text. Exegesis is a practice that a reader applies to get at the closest interpreted meaning of Scripture, most notably concerning its genre, literary context, and social setting.

Communication Models of Interpretation

A greater depth of theoretical understanding becomes developed across numerous models with their historical backgrounds. With examples of their usage, Dr. Brown describes each model in summary and detail. Among the first introduced is speech-act theory while accompanied by language theory, relevance theory, and literary theory. The speech-act theory stands out among all others in Dr. Brown’s further written work among later chapters. In due course, it then becomes necessary to refer back again to the definitions and descriptions associated with this theoretical model to get at its relevance and applicability.

The speech-act theory calls attention to the functional nature of language. In that, there are specific purposes of language recognized and put to use during a communicative process. There are four critical points of interest — First, a locution as defined by what is said. Second, an illocution to describe what is accomplished by what is said. Third, a perlocutionary intention is an intended response by hearers or readers. Finally, an unintended perlocution is what is accomplished by what is said, but not intended. In an effort to hold together these technical concepts for later reference, students of Scripture can find these terms of limited interest as they appear meant for academics or scholars. Still, the purpose of their definitions within this theoretical model helps to better understand the context of textual work completed thousands of years back in history.

To further draw into the various additional theoretical models of interpretation, Dr. Brown calls attention to their histories, academic contributors, and rationale about their suitability within the exegetical process.

Authors, Texts, Readers

There is a three-way contrast made between each functional role of communicative participants. Introduced are an original author, an implied or actual reader, and an autonomous text that bears its meaning in a free-standing way. It is here that “authorial intention” is introduced as a way to describe and emphasize meaning as best derived from what an author intends or expects. All essential attributes associated with an author such as language, social, economic, and political realities have a bearing on meaning. This meaning, in turn, contributes to the context that conveys understanding, research, application, and contextualization as further explained later in the book.

Further attention has been given to what form of meaning as developed from a reader’s perspective. Where what prevails is the subjective view and preferences of readers with their own biases, traditions, and influences. Over time, this emphasis on a reader’s interpretation to establish meaning has developed but does not hold weight among modern expositors.

Meaning becomes further categorized as intentionality types along a scale or continuum. Between transmissive and expressive intentionality, there are various Scripture genres to bring about outcomes that align with authorial intent — either expressive as apparent among works of poetry, or transmissive and instructional works found among epistles. The Bible’s authors have communicated meaning in their texts to convey intent. Whether in the narrative form or through instructional and emotive style, the method of communication chosen fits the purpose and substance of that which is conveyed. In a context of textual coherence appropriate to what a reader should come to understand and accept.

Developing Textual Meaning

There is a distinction between implicit and explicit meaning as covered by Dr. Brown to probe patterns of communication. Moreover, her book refers to inference beyond explicit intentions. To come closer to what an author intends by written Scripture, we can interpret patterns of meaning that are otherwise less available if we read and understand the Bible at a surface level. This poses certain risks toward false interpretation, but if a reader adheres to literary and historical context according to the purpose of Scripture, they become mitigated or reduced.

Of particular interest is the notion that authors can and do communicate beyond what they consciously express, where there is a (sub)meaning of context which holds validity to a pattern of meaning an author willed or infers. What is striking is that these authors are unaware of meaning and inference, which still carries validity. As explained, an author cannot explicitly attend to all expressive or transmissive meaning toward communicative intent because he or she is unable to pay attention to all aspects of meaning. Inferences and implications, therefore, emerge to further the body of work authors produce to communicate with their readers. Thus, implied meaning from New Testament sources compared to implied meaning from Old Testament sources provides opportunities for careful exegetical analysis less evident to many readers.

At the core of textual meaning is perlocutionary intention. Where it becomes recognized that words do things and say things. It is an extension of meaning as it helps form a theological hermeneutic. Both locution and illocution constitute meaning with perlocutionary intention giving activity to what becomes communicated. From this constructed view of Scripture, core textual, its extension, and continuing meaning together represent a total body of substance to interpret implications of written Scripture from an author and transmissive or expressive genre. In a context of textual coherence appropriate to what a reader should come to understand and accept.

Invitation to Active Engagement

It is somewhat surprising that each person who studies Scripture has an individual hermeneutic. There is a single hermeneutic, or linear formula as a checklist of sorts to exegete Scripture for consistent outcomes. We all have our own individual “location” of perspective and influence that affects our interpretive efforts. These are blind spots that keep us from gaining a clear understanding of Scripture. We have our traditions and preconceptions that predispose us to eisegesis of Scripture — all to keep original and intended meaning out of view. Worse yet to arrive at conclusions from Scriptural misinterpretation.

There is an additional discussion about the differences between an implied reader and an actual reader where the actual reader is at a separation some distance in meaning from an implied reader. This is where the implied reader is who an author intends to communicate. However, since there is a necessity for communication that involves interpretation with all of its exegetical issues, the actual reader applies the best effort to get a meaningful understanding. The closer an actual reader is to intended and accurate meaning, the more that the reader becomes an implied reader as biblical authors form their written work across various Scriptural genres. With this difference drawn in Dr. Brown’s book, it becomes apparent that a well-developed hermeneutical interpretation process should include an effort to get as close as possible to the original meaning. As an implied reader, rather than an actual reader who takes a superficial view of the engaging genre.

It is a mistake to assume that readers are free to read in isolation without any attention to a community at large. Such as a community or group of people who together read and interpret Scripture with various perspectives. Who can, in turn, more accurately apply hermeneutical practices, which contribute to the contextualization of those who seek the truth of the Bible. Moreover, either individually or in a group setting, a biblical hermeneutic must attend to biblical genres, languages, social settings, and literary contexts.

Part 2 – Practical Guidance for Interpreting Scripture

Genre and Communication

There are three genres in which Dr. Brown chooses to focus. Poetry, epistles, and narrative are the genres, and she goes into thorough detail about their function and role within Scripture. First, Poetic utterance and meaning as a communicative act involve various devices, imagery, and metaphor. Example after example, Dr. Brown highlights Psalms and Proverbs as a way to form concrete meaning from emotive expression in context with the cultural or traditional setting of biblical authors.

While we as readers tend to prefer prose in narrative form, we do accept and make use of poetry along more modern expressions. Such as found within music and other forms of entertainment. Imagery called upon to communicate sense and comparison provide the metaphors that bring about added depth and richness in meaning that gets even closer to what an author has conveyed.

The genre of epistle is one of coherent thought within social and cultural settings to affect how biblical meaning and principles are formed. As epistles are explicit letters to individuals and groups of people, there are found within the stories of interpersonal relationships and deeply theological subject matter. Common among all of them is a stream of thought from writers to communicate direct meaning with less room for ambiguity. Often these letters are instructions to early churches within development to include numerous people new to their faith in Christ. New to fellowship, church practices, worship, and other disciplines characteristic of what Jesus set in motion with Peter, His apostle.

Narrative types of Scripture are about stories and discourse. For example, the synoptic gospels are side-by-side perspectives of a common story about the life and ministry of Christ. As a subset to a narrative story, some discourses serve to communicate levels and shapes of Scriptural meaning. Either as thematical, chronological, or rhetorical devices to render comprehension of story participants and readers. With our understanding and interpretive efforts, learned principles, facts, and events of narrative Scripture must become recognized as having profound theological relevance. Gospel urgency, life lessons, spiritual guidance, kingdom awareness, missionary efforts, and so forth get their communicative depth from religious narrative discourse. All are originating from stories that come from gospel writers. They extend out to more immediate readers in their cultural setting as well as those of us who seek to learn and accept their truth and meaning to act upon.

The Language of the Bible

In her effort to share relevant guidance of communication involving languages of the Bible, Dr. Brown collects and records facts and opinions about linguistic challenges, academic perspectives, and the pragmatic inter-workings of biblical languages. Dr. Brown’s technical views about languages of the Bible are strenuously difficult to follow. As an effort to mindfully bring into structured order corresponding usefulness to the overall aim of understanding introductory hermeneutics.

It is widely understood that the Bible is written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. The absence of topics such as the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, and translations in this section is a point of wonder. Most especially concerning formative languages for interpretative examples. Since New Testament writers read Greek and earlier forms of the Old Testament, it would be highly enlightening what their interpretive process was to demonstrate examples for generations to consider or apply. Or at least to give added credence to the models earlier presented in her book. While much more attention gets placed upon the nature and function of language itself, its thereafter Biblical applicability is bolted on as having viable and legitimate suitability.

Dr. Brown’s book on Scripture as Communication is written for seasoned academics and linguistic scholars. Or at least this section of “Language of the Bible.” While we are presented with an explanation about how language works, various linguistic terms follow and have a considerable bearing upon an interpretive process from a scholarly and peer-reviewed perspective. The density and concentration of subject matter in this section are extraordinarily broad and comprehensive and should take several days of full absorption to grasp its informative and educational value. A first-pass read-through doesn’t do it justice with an outcome of limited retention in a short duration of time.

Context and Contextualization

Having read at length and depth through this entire section, primary and secondary sources of material to support the exegetical study of Scripture is outlined and explained to become oriented about what is most suitable for a given purpose. There are various suggestions about skills to develop toward the study of Scripture. Of outstanding value are the sections about outlining, summarizing, identifying themes, and identifying functions.

This is probably the most crucial topic throughout Dr. Brown’s book. While spanning across 41-pages of text at the end of the book, there are exceedingly useful tools covered here. Such as macro-contextualization that provides guidelines about how to traverse across scripture elements to interpret and study for meaning. To include principles and methods that have a bearing on the spiritual development and health of a believer in Christ.


Continue Reading ·

Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers

The book entitled “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Writers” details the notion that Prophets and Apostles from both the New and Old Testaments saturated themselves in Scripture. Specifically, that they had a hermeneutical method of interpretation that produced both meaning and significance. The book’s author Abner Chou sets out on a quest to account for both authorial intent and authorial logic using principles of intertextuality. 

Throughout the pages of the book, there are various examples of the use of Scripture involving biblical characters to highlight the specifics about their methods of interpretation. Often where it is necessary to go beyond the surface of Scriptural references elsewhere. Such as with allusions in language, or with word-by-word comparisons from one account of a biblical matter to another. The author uses numerous specifics with precision to demonstrate the interconnectedness and authorial logic to reveal to us how to draw upon Scripture to understand what the word of God says. As a Bible student, this is crucial to understand the word as the authors intended as we seek its significance and ramifications to follow it.

Early in my reading of this book, I was fascinated by the idea of “authorial logic” as compared to “authorial intent.” Nearly dismissive of the idea because I had come to recognize that God is not logical or illogical, but alogical. Since logic or critical thinking is a human framework of thought, and God is the Creator of such a framework, God is an alogical being. It is currently my view that the explanation of the LORD’s ways and thoughts rest within His aseity. After all, as we see in Scripture, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, either are your ways my ways (Isaiah 55:8).” So, I have concluded that the LORD must be alogical, in the sense that the LORD is beyond or outside the bounds of logic itself. Not illogical, or contrary to logic, but separate or distinct. Where, more pointedly, logic and reason are subordinate to the LORD.

Upon further reading and understanding Chou’s perspective, I became reminded about authorial intent and that the primary Author is divine who chooses to communicate through His created people. We are created in His image to include some of His attributes. If He wants to structure our way of thinking within a cause-and-effect framework for His glory and purposes, I want to make it my priority to embrace and honor that in the field of hermeneutics. So, reading on into the book, I was more tentatively open to see what Chou had to say. Specifically, I spent many hours with his work as he set about the quest of authorial logic, which is integral to both prophetic and apostolic hermeneutics. Toward the end of his book, Chou’s conclusion was to claim the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic as the Christian hermeneutic and, ultimately, our hermeneutic.  

The Prophetic Hermeneutic

It is with numerous references that Chou makes the case that prophets were not only scholars of Scripture, but also exegetes and theologians. They were steeped in the word of God as their writings and conduct reflected an immersion of understanding among biblical authors from before their time. Prophets were not unintelligent or biblically illiterate people. As Old Testament authors, they referenced numerous earlier Old Testament writings. A practice today understood as intertextuality to affirm and build upon new revelation.

By various examples, theological development becomes written among Old Testament books to highlight the nature of the prophetic hermeneutic. Whereas precise exegesis of texts naturally flows into theological progression down through the centuries.

As demonstrated that the prophetic hermeneutic is widespread, prophets pay close attention to general ideas in addition to precise verses, phrases, and words. Indeed, this occurs throughout the entire canon. In just one example, Chou refers to the eagle metaphor in the language of Exodus. Israel’s corresponding delivery from exile was much later referenced by David and Isaiah. Such prophetic hermeneutical recognition applies to wisdom literature and law, along with major and minor prophets. In Chou’s words, “The evidence for exegetical accuracy is in the text not only in general tenor but also in its details.”

While I do not fully understand or agree with the counterpoint objections presented in the book, Chou makes Scripturally sound arguments to mitigate them — centered on progressive revelation that stem from ramifications of the text. The prophets knew “the what” of historical Scripture to further convey meaning in their writings. Prophets of old were also concerned with the “now what” or “what do we do with this” implications of what they understood. Redemptive history unfolded through the use of their hermeneutical outcomes.

Chou considerably enhances my view of the prophets and their role in the development of Systematic Theology in contrast to Biblical Theology. Due to the prophets’ overall composite view of Israel’s eschatological history. That is, they knew the theological implications from both a systematic and biblical perspective. They knew the development and advancement of God’s redemptive plan through the replacement of one covenant to another.

The Spirit of God’s influence toward directionality and revelation appears sparsely placed. Particularly from Chou’s prophetic hermeneutic rationale and arguments against objections. Did the prophets and apostles write more than they knew? My view is both yes and no, rather than only “no.” Yes, in the sense that God inspires all Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). No, in the sense that they were well studied in Scripture to support Chou’s view of authorial logic. My view is ambidextrous in thinking this way since two conditions can overlap or hold at once from an alogical perspective.

To walk through examples below, further theological development among prophets shows how they are theologians with accurate hermeneutical capabilities. They are said to set a trajectory about how God’s plan develops to achieve His promises and aims.

The Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants become intertwined into the Davidic covenant. While the Davidic covenant brings into it some attributes of the Noahic covenant, meaning, Noah can plant a vineyard as God restrains the effects of the Fall to move creation back toward its original sabbath rest. No longer does the earth yield thorns, thistles, and weeds. At least to the written extent and pronouncement at the curse of the Fall.

The Davidic covenant obtains rest from the Mosaic conquest of Canaan through Joshua. As incorporated by the promises of Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Noahic covenants, “God has made the weight of redemptive history fall upon the Davidic dynasty.” All covenants converge into one Davidic covenant that, in turn, extends to an eschatological prophecy and reality in fulfillment of God’s promise to restore His people and creation. 

Chou’s rationale is understood, accepted, and appreciated, but it concerns me that the Spirit of God does not get explicit theological treatment of this to understand the prophetic hermeneutic.  That, in my mind, limits a full understanding and credibility of the prophetic hermeneutic as described and advocated. Let us know and interpret what the Lord is doing and is going to do as a continuing revelation as the canon becomes formed. The prophets were uniquely placed participants as vessels of the Lord. Interpreted revelation does not just sit with the people of God to figure things out within Scripture by their developed capabilities. When it comes to God’s purposes, they were not well developed among themselves. Without question, there is certain enlightenment that has occurred by divine involvement (1 Cor 1:27).

Theological development goes further as prophetic hermeneutic recognition extends into the apostolic hermeneutic. Through the prophets Amos, Hosea, and Micah. Amos clarifies that God will keep His promises while the house of David has collapsed. Hosea affirms a new, or a second David by God’s promises to fulfill His Davidic covenant. In time, Micah prophesies that the Messiah shall be born in Bethlehem as a second King since David was born there. The Messiah will enter the wilderness to be tempted to fulfill David’s role and restore his royal house. Again, theological principles derived from wisdom literature, and law, to include major and minor prophetic contributions.

Accordingly, Chou wrote that the prophetic hermeneutic came through great intellectual insight of people who excelled at exegesis with profound capabilities. The hermeneutic of biblical prophets were from their depth of understanding to rightfully interpret meaning and significance. Cast, as they were, profound biblical thinkers and writers. Exceptional exegetes and theologians due in part from their accuracy in handling Scripture. Intertextual precision characterizes their hermeneutic exceptionalism as necessary for careful application and theological formation.

In contrast, I would observe, this was their specific intertextual methodology of interpretation. While Chou articulates his view by compelling examples, it becomes demonstrated that the “what-of” their hermeneutical process has relevance. Yet not the “how-to” at this point per se as he continues in further depth during his treatment of the apostolic hermeneutic.  

While the LORD informs Moses that He would speak through him before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:10-12), that situation occurred out of concern that Moses was “slow of speech and tongue.” Moreover, it intuitively feels somewhat out of character that prophets would confidently make pronouncements from exegetical advancements because of verbiage such as “thus saith the Lord.” So, I am highly nervous about the confidence Chou has about the prophetic hermeneutic he claims. Certainly, no quarrel about prophetic hermeneutic recognition and its support of an apostolic hermeneutic. It only appears that specific methodology that involves the Spirit of God according to His plan and trajectory seems missing or too distant.

It is my conviction that hermeneutics is a practice and process of exegetical interpretation. It is a “how-to” effort to understand the meaning and significance of biblical authors fully. It is a labor to understand Scriptural ramifications with suitable applicability to our life context. It is not solely a result or outcome of intuitive and meticulous effect or performance, but the practice of it with specific custodial methods (or gifts) with Spiritual guidance along an individual’s process. Yes, prophetic hermeneutic, but how? Not what, by naming it as intertextuality with examples along intervals of new revelation. How did their relationship with the Lord affect their interpretation? With others? What were the theological bridges they had to cross, and how did they pass them? I suggest that in the absence of theological criteria formed for eligibility and use, the LORD was an active participant to shape the thinking of His prophets. Without too much freestanding credit on their own, prophets and patriarchal fathers had an extraordinary and unique role in serving the LORD’s purposes. They are exceptional for more reasons than their ability to exegete and produce theological continuity. As well-read and articulate as they were, they were chosen and loved by YHWH with His influence upon them to set theological depth, revelation, and directionality. It is that which significantly contributed to the results we see. So, the question is about how it is they performed their hermeneutic and not what their hermeneutical outcome was through intertextual analysis. Not what we discover in the original languages for them, but instead by what it was that they were doing in terms of methodology. If prophets were proof-texting cross-references throughout the Old Testament to build theological relevance to demonstrate meaning and significance, is that then a valid and acceptable hermeneutic or methodology of interpretation?

Intent to write is not an explanation about how to abide by the law, recognize the propagation of covenant promises, or follow revelation and communicate accordingly. Neither is the perception about intended meaning from prior Scriptural authors. Methodology is about process, not identification of facts or the presence and acknowledgment of exceptional performance.

It is my limited view that apostles and prophets were not ignorant but understood Scripture and wrote beyond natural understanding to deliver meaning that they intended under the inspiration of YHWH. They were not on their own to derive Scriptural and theological truth. Not by individual effort by their exceptionalism as exegetes or theologians. They were not empty vessels or as everyday people, but unique individuals of their being. Anthropomorphically speaking, set apart in the hands of the Lord while steeped in God’s word.  

The Apostolic Hermeneutic

Continuing through this section, I reset my perspective with a fresh outlook. It became necessary to begin combing through Chou’s book in a nonlinear way and to skip back and forth between section conclusions and examples he provided. Primarily to come to grips with the legitimacy of authorial logic and most notably by the intertextual practices as led by the Spirit. I found this was necessary because of much less emphasis placed upon the role of the Spirit toward prophetic interpretation. It was through my apprehension about the accolades placed upon the stature prophets and apostles that I was entirely cautious and picky about what I accepted.

Especially while in the Old Testament since it serves as grounds for the apostles’ reasoning. As Chou wrote, due to introductory formulas like “it is written,” or “because of,” it is natural to make comparisons among segments of Scripture. Then afterward, to conclude a basis of formed rationale without error as the identified formulae claimed the foundation of legitimacy toward the apostle’s understanding. All leading to the recognized intent and developed logic of their Old Testament predecessors. Ultimately, the same authorial logic as continued in the New Testament as they were readers of Scripture and those who revealed Scripture by new revelation.  

Chou advocates prophetic intertextuality within the Old Testament. As a setup and projection of an apostolic hermeneutic. Eventually, he takes a reader through the apostolic hermeneutic as a foundation of new revelation and exegetical discovery from the Old Testament. Where it so appears from Chou, authorial intent between human and divine contribution is made distinct and separate from his following affirmation of the Lord’s work and involvement.

As such, a human author was not always fully aware of what the divine author intended backward and forward in time. From the prophetic hermeneutic to the apostolic hermeneutic, new and continuous revelation unfolded over the course of history. Even with adopted authorial logic through prophetic intertextuality, the apostolic author did not on their own have the insight or clarity of view about the Lord’s near or long-term redemptive intentions. So, New Testament authors who read and wrote did so generally by instruction and inspiration as the new revelation came to them by the work of Christ while the hermeneutical examples of Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles further revealed the truth of God’s word.    

According to Chou, apostolic interpretation of the Old Testament came from study and exegesis by the prophetic hermeneutic made their own. Moreover, what theological principles developed by Old Testament prophets discovered through their hermeneutic is what the apostles did as well to inform their authorial logic. Yet it is my view that it is not studying or analytical methods alone that brought about a trajectory for overall directionality and later interpretation or theological development. God was at work in the lives of those who were interpreting and writing Scripture to communicate His intentions and redemptive plan.

From observations among the many examples given in Chou’s book, I sought to identify contributing factors of authorial logic. Here is an outline I noted during reading time to see if there is a more concrete outline of practical advice to think through and use.

Contributors to Authorial Logic:

  • Consistent and Ongoing Immersion
  • Comprehensive Cross-Referencing Activity
  • Meticulous Attention to Languages
  • Use of Inductive Non-Linear Thinking
  • In Context Proof Texting
  • Chronologically Independent Correlations
  • Use of Root Translations (LXX, MT)
  • Recognition of Prophetic Speech-Acts
  • Detection of Divine Inference
  • Apostolic Consistency of Application

The Christian Hermeneutic

Chou makes the point that we are more than cross-referencers. That the intertextuality modeled for us is more than that. We should look to imitate the hermeneutic of the apostles. Look to the reading quality of their rationale and direct our efforts to standard hermeneutic textbooks. Chou asserts that what we learn in standard hermeneutical textbooks is similar to what biblical writers read in their Bible. As Chou wrote, “the prophetic hermeneutic and the apostolic hermeneutic becomes the Christian hermeneutic.” Much of which comes through the adoption of modern, conventional, and proven hermeneutical methods.

Moving from meaning to significance, we consistently set course toward application as we understand biblical implications and theology from Scripture. Just as biblical writers cared about the cultural, historical, and literary backgrounds of prior Scriptural authors, they serve as an example to us to derive meaning. Through interconnectedness or connecting dots to understand application as they did. Not only to clearly understand what they wrote and meant to follow them but also to recognize what they thought and what their motivations were. To get into their minds, so to speak.  

To help us arrive at specifics about intended significance for application purposes, Chou concludes his work by giving us four areas to frame our approach in applying Scripture.  (1.) Worship God for His Works, (2.) Learn Theology, (3.) Morally Respond, and (4.) Adopt a Worldview in Light of Redemptive History. All taken together, these areas represent a body of effort that Christians use to get practical application from the meaning and significance derived from biblical authors. By connecting the dots throughout Scripture to form an interconnectedness of authorial logic, we obtain an inspired way of getting to the significance and meaning of God’s word. This is the prophetic hermeneutic that the apostolic hermeneutic reaches into while we make them both our own.


Continue Reading ·

Lucifer

“‘Vexilla Regis prodeunt Inferni’
Towards us; therefore look in front of thee,”
My Master said, “if thou discernest him.”

As, when there breathes a heavy fog, or when
Our hemisphere is darkening into night,
Appears far off a mill the wind is turning,

Methought that such a building then I saw;
And, for the wind, I drew myself behind
My Guide, because there was no other shelter.

Now was I, and with fear in verse I put it,
There where the shades were wholly covered up,
And glimmered through like unto straws in glass.

Some prone are lying, others stand erect,
This with the head, and that one with the soles;
Another, bow-like, face to feet inverts.

When in advance so far we had proceeded,
That it my Master pleased to show to me
The creature who once had the beauteous semblance,

He from before me moved and made me stop,
Saying: “Behold Dis, and behold the place
Where thou with fortitude must arm thyself.”

“Behold Dis, and behold the place / Where thou with fortitude must arm thyself.”


How frozen I became and powerless then,
Ask it not, Reader, for I write it not,
Because all language would be insufficient.

I did not die, and I alive remained not;
Think for thyself now, hast thou aught of wit,
What I became, being of both deprived.

The Emperor of the kingdom dolorous
From his mid-breast forth issued from the ice;
And better with a giant I compare

Than do the giants with those arms of his;
Consider now how great must be that whole,
Which unto such a part conforms itself.

Were he as fair once, as he now is foul,
And lifted up his brow against his Maker,
Well may proceed from him all tribulation.

O, what a marvel it appeared to me,
When I beheld three faces on his head!
The one in front, and that vermilion was;

Two were the others, that were joined with this
Above the middle part of either shoulder,
And they were joined together at the crest;

And the right-hand one seemed ‘twixt white and yellow;
The left was such to look upon as those
Who come from where the Nile falls valley-ward.

Underneath each came forth two mighty wings,
Such as befitting were so great a bird;
Sails of the sea I never saw so large.

No feathers had they, but as of a bat
Their fashion was; and he was waving them,
So that three winds proceeded forth therefrom.

Thereby Cocytus wholly was congealed.
With six eyes did he weep, and down three chins
Trickled the tear-drops and the bloody drivel.

At every mouth he with his teeth was crunching
A sinner, in the manner of a brake,
So that he three of them tormented thus.

To him in front the biting was as naught
Unto the clawing, for sometimes the spine
Utterly stripped of all the skin remained.

“That soul up there which has the greatest pain,”
The Master said, “is Judas Iscariot;
With head inside, he plies his legs without.

Of the two others, who head downward are,
The one who hangs from the black jowl is Brutus;
See how he writhes himself, and speaks no word.

And the other, who so stalwart seems, is Cassius.
But night is reascending, and ’tis time
That we depart, for we have seen the whole.”

As seemed him good, I clasped him round the neck,
And he the vantage seized of time and place,
And when the wings were opened wide apart,

He laid fast hold upon the shaggy sides;
From fell to fell descended downward then
Between the thick hair and the frozen crust.

When we were come to where the thigh revolves
Exactly on the thickness of the haunch,
The Guide, with labour and with hard-drawn breath,

Turned round his head where he had had his legs,
And grappled to the hair, as one who mounts,
So that to Hell I thought we were returning.

“Keep fast thy hold, for by such stairs as these,”
The Master said, panting as one fatigued,
“Must we perforce depart from so much evil.”

Then through the opening of a rock he issued,
And down upon the margin seated me;
Then tow’rds me he outstretched his wary step.

I lifted up mine eyes and thought to see
Lucifer in the same way I had left him;
And I beheld him upward hold his legs.

And if I then became disquieted,
Let stolid people think who do not see
What the point is beyond which I had passed.

“Rise up,” the Master said, “upon thy feet;
The way is long, and difficult the road,
And now the sun to middle-tierce returns.”

It was not any palace corridor
There where we were, but dungeon natural,
With floor uneven and unease of light.

“Ere from the abyss I tear myself away,
My Master,” said I when I had arisen,
“To draw me from an error speak a little;

Where is the ice? and how is this one fixed
Thus upside down? and how in such short time
From eve to morn has the sun made his transit?”

And he to me: “Thou still imaginest
Thou art beyond the centre, where I grasped
The hair of the fell worm, who mines the world.

That side thou wast, so long as I descended;
When round I turned me, thou didst pass the point
To which things heavy draw from every side,

And now beneath the hemisphere art come
Opposite that which overhangs the vast
Dry-land, and ‘neath whose cope was put to death

The Man who without sin was born and lived.
Thou hast thy feet upon the little sphere
Which makes the other face of the Judecca.

Here it is morn when it is evening there;
And he who with his hair a stairway made us
Still fixed remaineth as he was before.

Upon this side he fell down out of heaven;
And all the land, that whilom here emerged,
For fear of him made of the sea a veil,

And came to our hemisphere; and peradventure
To flee from him, what on this side appears
Left the place vacant here, and back recoiled.”

A place there is below, from Beelzebub
As far receding as the tomb extends,
Which not by sight is known, but by the sound

Of a small rivulet, that there descendeth
Through chasm within the stone, which it has gnawed
With course that winds about and slightly falls.

The Guide and I into that hidden road
Now entered, to return to the bright world;
And without care of having any rest

The Guide and I into that hidden road / Now entered, to return to the bright world;


We mounted up, he first and I the second,
Till I beheld through a round aperture
Some of the beauteous things that Heaven doth bear;

Thence we came forth to rebehold the stars.


Thence we came forth to rebehold the stars.

Continue Reading ·

Treachery

His mouth uplifted from his grim repast,
That sinner, wiping it upon the hair
Of the same head that he behind had wasted.

Then he began: “Thou wilt that I renew
The desperate grief, which wrings my heart already
To think of only, ere I speak of it;

But if my words be seed that may bear fruit
Of infamy to the traitor whom I gnaw,
Speaking and weeping shalt thou see together.

I know not who thou art, nor by what mode
Thou hast come down here; but a Florentine
Thou seemest to me truly, when I hear thee.

Thou hast to know I was Count Ugolino,
And this one was Ruggieri the Archbishop;
Now I will tell thee why I am such a neighbour.

That, by effect of his malicious thoughts,
Trusting in him I was made prisoner,
And after put to death, I need not say;

But ne’ertheless what thou canst not have heard,
That is to say, how cruel was my death,
Hear shalt thou, and shalt know if he has wronged me.

A narrow perforation in the mew,
Which bears because of me the title of Famine,
And in which others still must be locked up,

Had shown me through its opening many moons
Already, when I dreamed the evil dream
Which of the future rent for me the veil.

This one appeared to me as lord and master,
Hunting the wolf and whelps upon the mountain
For which the Pisans cannot Lucca see.

With sleuth-hounds gaunt, and eager, and well trained,
Gualandi with Sismondi and Lanfianchi
He had sent out before him to the front.

After brief course seemed unto me forespent
The father and the sons, and with sharp tushes
It seemed to me I saw their flanks ripped open.

When I before the morrow was awake,
Moaning amid their sleep I heard my sons
Who with me were, and asking after bread.

Cruel indeed art thou, if yet thou grieve not,
Thinking of what my heart foreboded me,
And weep’st thou not, what art thou wont to weep at?

They were awake now, and the hour drew nigh
At which our food used to be brought to us,
And through his dream was each one apprehensive;

And I heard locking up the under door
Of the horrible tower; whereat without a word
I gazed into the faces of my sons.

I wept not, I within so turned to stone;
They wept; and darling little Anselm mine
Said: ‘Thou dost gaze so, father, what doth ail thee?’

Still not a tear I shed, nor answer made
All of that day, nor yet the night thereafter,
Until another sun rose on the world.

As now a little glimmer made its way
Into the dolorous prison, and I saw
Upon four faces my own very aspect,

Both of my hands in agony I bit;
And, thinking that I did it from desire
Of eating, on a sudden they uprose,

And said they: ‘Father, much less pain ’twill give us
If thou do eat of us; thyself didst clothe us
With this poor flesh, and do thou strip it off.’

I calmed me then, not to make them more sad.
That day we all were silent, and the next.
Ah! obdurate earth, wherefore didst thou not open?

I calmed me then, not to make them more sad.


When we had come unto the fourth day, Gaddo
Threw himself down outstretched before my feet,
Saying, ‘My father, why dost thou not help me?’

Gaddo / Threw himself down outstretched before my feet, / Saying, ‘My father, why dost thou not help me?’


And there he died; and, as thou seest me,
I saw the three fall, one by one, between
The fifth day and the sixth; whence I betook me,

Already blind, to groping over each,
And three days called them after they were dead;
Then hunger did what sorrow could not do.”

Then hunger did what sorrow could not do.”


When he had said this, with his eyes distorted,
The wretched skull resumed he with his teeth,
Which, as a dog’s, upon the bone were strong.

Ah! Pisa, thou opprobrium of the people
Of the fair land there where the ‘Si’ doth sound,
Since slow to punish thee thy neighbours are,

Let the Capraia and Gorgona move,
And make a hedge across the mouth of Arno
That every person in thee it may drown!

For if Count Ugolino had the fame
Of having in thy castles thee betrayed,
Thou shouldst not on such cross have put his sons.

Guiltless of any crime, thou modern Thebes!
Their youth made Uguccione and Brigata,
And the other two my song doth name above!

We passed still farther onward, where the ice
Another people ruggedly enswathes,
Not downward turned, but all of them reversed.

Weeping itself there does not let them weep,
And grief that finds a barrier in the eyes
Turns itself inward to increase the anguish;

Because the earliest tears a cluster form,
And, in the manner of a crystal visor,
Fill all the cup beneath the eyebrow full.

And notwithstanding that, as in a callus,
Because of cold all sensibility
Its station had abandoned in my face,

Still it appeared to me I felt some wind;
Whence I: “My Master, who sets this in motion?
Is not below here every vapour quenched?”

Whence he to me: “Full soon shalt thou be where
Thine eye shall answer make to thee of this,
Seeing the cause which raineth down the blast.”

And one of the wretches of the frozen crust
Cried out to us: “O souls so merciless
That the last post is given unto you,

Lift from mine eyes the rigid veils, that I
May vent the sorrow which impregns my heart
A little, e’er the weeping recongeal.”

Whence I to him: “If thou wouldst have me help thee
Say who thou wast; and if I free thee not,
May I go to the bottom of the ice.”

Then he replied: “I am Friar Alberigo;
He am I of the fruit of the bad garden,
Who here a date am getting for my fig.”

“O,” said I to him, “now art thou, too, dead?”
And he to me: “How may my body fare
Up in the world, no knowledge I possess.

Such an advantage has this Ptolomaea,
That oftentimes the soul descendeth here
Sooner than Atropos in motion sets it.

And, that thou mayest more willingly remove
From off my countenance these glassy tears,
Know that as soon as any soul betrays

As I have done, his body by a demon
Is taken from him, who thereafter rules it,
Until his time has wholly been revolved.

Itself down rushes into such a cistern;
And still perchance above appears the body
Of yonder shade, that winters here behind me.

This thou shouldst know, if thou hast just come down;
It is Ser Branca d’ Oria, and many years
Have passed away since he was thus locked up.”

“I think,” said I to him, “thou dost deceive me;
For Branca d’ Oria is not dead as yet,
And eats, and drinks, and sleeps, and puts on clothes.”

“In moat above,” said he, “of Malebranche,
There where is boiling the tenacious pitch,
As yet had Michel Zanche not arrived,

When this one left a devil in his stead
In his own body and one near of kin,
Who made together with him the betrayal.

But hitherward stretch out thy hand forthwith,
Open mine eyes;”–and open them I did not,
And to be rude to him was courtesy.

Ah, Genoese! ye men at variance
With every virtue, full of every vice
Wherefore are ye not scattered from the world?

For with the vilest spirit of Romagna
I found of you one such, who for his deeds
In soul already in Cocytus bathes,

And still above in body seems alive!

Continue Reading ·

Audio | Cantos 1- 34

Continue Reading ·

Treachery

If I had rhymes both rough and stridulous,
As were appropriate to the dismal hole
Down upon which thrust all the other rocks,

I would press out the juice of my conception
More fully; but because I have them not,
Not without fear I bring myself to speak;

For ’tis no enterprise to take in jest,
To sketch the bottom of all the universe,
Nor for a tongue that cries Mamma and Babbo.

But may those Ladies help this verse of mine,
Who helped Amphion in enclosing Thebes,
That from the fact the word be not diverse.

O rabble ill-begotten above all,
Who’re in the place to speak of which is hard,
‘Twere better ye had here been sheep or goats!

When we were down within the darksome well,
Beneath the giant’s feet, but lower far,
And I was scanning still the lofty wall,

I heard it said to me: “Look how thou steppest!
Take heed thou do not trample with thy feet
The heads of the tired, miserable brothers!”

“Look how thou steppest! / Take heed thou do not trample with thy feet / The heads of the tired, miserable brothers!”


Whereat I turned me round, and saw before me
And underfoot a lake, that from the frost
The semblance had of glass, and not of water.

So thick a veil ne’er made upon its current
In winter-time Danube in Austria,
Nor there beneath the frigid sky the Don,

As there was here; so that if Tambernich
Had fallen upon it, or Pietrapana,
E’en at the edge ‘twould not have given a creak.

And as to croak the frog doth place himself
With muzzle out of water,–when is dreaming
Of gleaning oftentimes the peasant-girl,–

Livid, as far down as where shame appears,
Were the disconsolate shades within the ice,
Setting their teeth unto the note of storks.

Each one his countenance held downward bent;
From mouth the cold, from eyes the doleful heart
Among them witness of itself procures.

When round about me somewhat I had looked,
I downward turned me, and saw two so close,
The hair upon their heads together mingled.

“Ye who so strain your breasts together, tell me,”
I said, “who are you;” and they bent their necks,
And when to me their faces they had lifted,

Their eyes, which first were only moist within,
Gushed o’er the eyelids, and the frost congealed
The tears between, and locked them up again.

Clamp never bound together wood with wood
So strongly; whereat they, like two he-goats,
Butted together, so much wrath o’ercame them.

And one, who had by reason of the cold
Lost both his ears, still with his visage downward,
Said: “Why dost thou so mirror thyself in us?

If thou desire to know who these two are,
The valley whence Bisenzio descends
Belonged to them and to their father Albert.

They from one body came, and all Caina
Thou shalt search through, and shalt not find a shade
More worthy to be fixed in gelatine;

Not he in whom were broken breast and shadow
At one and the same blow by Arthur’s hand;
Focaccia not; not he who me encumbers

So with his head I see no farther forward,
And bore the name of Sassol Mascheroni;
Well knowest thou who he was, if thou art Tuscan.

And that thou put me not to further speech,
Know that I Camicion de’ Pazzi was,
And wait Carlino to exonerate me.”

Then I beheld a thousand faces, made
Purple with cold; whence o’er me comes a shudder,
And evermore will come, at frozen ponds.

And while we were advancing tow’rds the middle,
Where everything of weight unites together,
And I was shivering in the eternal shade,

Whether ’twere will, or destiny, or chance,
I know not; but in walking ‘mong the heads
I struck my foot hard in the face of one.

Weeping he growled: “Why dost thou trample me?
Unless thou comest to increase the vengeance
of Montaperti, why dost thou molest me?”

And I: “My Master, now wait here for me,
That I through him may issue from a doubt;
Then thou mayst hurry me, as thou shalt wish.”

The Leader stopped; and to that one I said
Who was blaspheming vehemently still:
“Who art thou, that thus reprehendest others?”

“Now who art thou, that goest through Antenora
Smiting,” replied he, “other people’s cheeks,
So that, if thou wert living, ’twere too much?”

“Living I am, and dear to thee it may be,”
Was my response, “if thou demandest fame,
That ‘mid the other notes thy name I place.”

And he to me: “For the reverse I long;
Take thyself hence, and give me no more trouble;
For ill thou knowest to flatter in this hollow.”

Then by the scalp behind I seized upon him,
And said: “It must needs be thou name thyself,
Or not a hair remain upon thee here.”

Then by the scalp behind I seized upon him, / And said: “It must needs be thou name thyself, / Or not a hair remain upon thee here.”


Whence he to me: “Though thou strip off my hair,
I will not tell thee who I am, nor show thee,
If on my head a thousand times thou fall.”

I had his hair in hand already twisted,
And more than one shock of it had pulled out,
He barking, with his eyes held firmly down,

When cried another: “What doth ail thee, Bocca?
Is’t not enough to clatter with thy jaws,
But thou must bark? what devil touches thee?”

“Now,” said I, “I care not to have thee speak,
Accursed traitor; for unto thy shame
I will report of thee veracious news.”

“Begone,” replied he, “and tell what thou wilt,
But be not silent, if thou issue hence,
Of him who had just now his tongue so prompt;

He weepeth here the silver of the French;
‘I saw,’ thus canst thou phrase it, ‘him of Duera
There where the sinners stand out in the cold.’

If thou shouldst questioned be who else was there,
Thou hast beside thee him of Beccaria,
Of whom the gorget Florence slit asunder;

Gianni del Soldanier, I think, may be
Yonder with Ganellon, and Tebaldello
Who oped Faenza when the people slep.”

Already we had gone away from him,
When I beheld two frozen in one hole,
So that one head a hood was to the other;

And even as bread through hunger is devoured,
The uppermost on the other set his teeth,
There where the brain is to the nape united.

The uppermost on the other set his teeth, / There where the brain is to the nape united.


Not in another fashion Tydeus gnawed
The temples of Menalippus in disdain,
Than that one did the skull and the other things.

“O thou, who showest by such bestial sign
Thy hatred against him whom thou art eating,
Tell me the wherefore,” said I, “with this compact,

That if thou rightfully of him complain,
In knowing who ye are, and his transgression,
I in the world above repay thee for it,

If that wherewith I speak be not dried up.”

Continue Reading ·

Giants

One and the selfsame tongue first wounded me,
So that it tinged the one cheek and the other,
And then held out to me the medicine;

Thus do I hear that once Achilles’ spear,
His and his father’s, used to be the cause
First of a sad and then a gracious boon.

We turned our backs upon the wretched valley,
Upon the bank that girds it round about,
Going across it without any speech.

There it was less than night, and less than day,
So that my sight went little in advance;
But I could hear the blare of a loud horn,

So loud it would have made each thunder faint,
Which, counter to it following its way,
Mine eyes directed wholly to one place.

After the dolorous discomfiture
When Charlemagne the holy emprise lost,
So terribly Orlando sounded not.

Short while my head turned thitherward I held
When many lofty towers I seemed to see,
Whereat I: “Master, say, what town is this?”

And he to me: “Because thou peerest forth
Athwart the darkness at too great a distance,
It happens that thou errest in thy fancy.

Well shalt thou see, if thou arrivest there,
How much the sense deceives itself by distance;
Therefore a little faster spur thee on.”

Then tenderly he took me by the hand,
And said: “Before we farther have advanced,
That the reality may seem to thee

Less strange, know that these are not towers, but giants,
And they are in the well, around the bank,
From navel downward, one and all of them.”

As, when the fog is vanishing away,
Little by little doth the sight refigure
Whate’er the mist that crowds the air conceals,

So, piercing through the dense and darksome air,
More and more near approaching tow’rd the verge,
My error fled, and fear came over me;

Because as on its circular parapets
Montereggione crowns itself with towers,
E’en thus the margin which surrounds the well

With one half of their bodies turreted
The horrible giants, whom Jove menaces
E’en now from out the heavens when he thunders.

And I of one already saw the face,
Shoulders, and breast, and great part of the belly,
And down along his sides both of the arms.

Certainly Nature, when she left the making
Of animals like these, did well indeed,
By taking such executors from Mars;

And if of elephants and whales she doth not
Repent her, whosoever looketh subtly
More just and more discreet will hold her for it;

For where the argument of intellect
Is added unto evil will and power,
No rampart can the people make against it.

His face appeared to me as long and large
As is at Rome the pine-cone of Saint Peter’s,
And in proportion were the other bones;

So that the margin, which an apron was
Down from the middle, showed so much of him
Above it, that to reach up to his hair

Three Frieslanders in vain had vaunted them;
For I beheld thirty great palms of him
Down from the place where man his mantle buckles.

“Raphael mai amech izabi almi,”
Began to clamour the ferocious mouth,
To which were not befitting sweeter psalms.

And unto him my Guide: “Soul idiotic,
Keep to thy horn, and vent thyself with that,
When wrath or other passion touches thee.

“Soul idiotic, / Keep to thy horn, and vent thyself with that, / When wrath or other passion touches thee.


Search round thy neck, and thou wilt find the belt
Which keeps it fastened, O bewildered soul,
And see it, where it bars thy mighty breast.”

Then said to me: “He doth himself accuse;
This one is Nimrod, by whose evil thought
One language in the world is not still used.

Here let us leave him and not speak in vain;
For even such to him is every language
As his to others, which to none is known.”

Therefore a longer journey did we make,
Turned to the left, and a crossbow-shot oft
We found another far more fierce and large.

In binding him, who might the master be
I cannot say; but he had pinioned close
Behind the right arm, and in front the other,

With chains, that held him so begirt about
From the neck down, that on the part uncovered
It wound itself as far as the fifth gyre.

“This proud one wished to make experiment
Of his own power against the Supreme Jove,”
My Leader said, “whence he has such a guerdon.

“This proud one wished to make experiment / Of his own power against the Supreme Jove,”


Ephialtes is his name; he showed great prowess.
What time the giants terrified the gods;
The arms he wielded never more he moves.”

And I to him: “If possible, I should wish
That of the measureless Briareus
These eyes of mine might have experience.”

Whence he replied: “Thou shalt behold Antaeus
Close by here, who can speak and is unbound,
Who at the bottom of all crime shall place us.

Much farther yon is he whom thou wouldst see,
And he is bound, and fashioned like to this one,
Save that he seems in aspect more ferocious.”

There never was an earthquake of such might
That it could shake a tower so violently,
As Ephialtes suddenly shook himself.

Then was I more afraid of death than ever,
For nothing more was needful than the fear,
If I had not beheld the manacles.

Then we proceeded farther in advance,
And to Antaeus came, who, full five ells
Without the head, forth issued from the cavern.

“O thou, who in the valley fortunate,
Which Scipio the heir of glory made,
When Hannibal turned back with all his hosts,

Once brought’st a thousand lions for thy prey,
And who, hadst thou been at the mighty war
Among thy brothers, some it seems still think

The sons of Earth the victory would have gained:
Place us below, nor be disdainful of it,
There where the cold doth lock Cocytus up.

Make us not go to Tityus nor Typhoeus;
This one can give of that which here is longed for;
Therefore stoop down, and do not curl thy lip.

Still in the world can he restore thy fame;
Because he lives, and still expects long life,
If to itself Grace call him not untimely.”

So said the Master; and in haste the other
His hands extended and took up my Guide,–
Hands whose great pressure Hercules once felt.

Virgilius, when he felt himself embraced,
Said unto me: “Draw nigh, that I may take thee;”
Then of himself and me one bundle made.

As seems the Carisenda, to behold
Beneath the leaning side, when goes a cloud
Above it so that opposite it hangs;

Such did Antaeus seem to me, who stood
Watching to see him stoop, and then it was
I could have wished to go some other way.

But lightly in the abyss, which swallows up
Judas with Lucifer, he put us down;
Nor thus bowed downward made he there delay,

But lightly in the abyss, which swallows up / Judas with Lucifer, he put us down;


But, as a mast does in a ship, uprose.

Continue Reading ·

Falsification

‘Twas at the time when Juno was enraged,
For Semele, against the Theban blood,
As she already more than once had shown,

So reft of reason Athamas became,
That, seeing his own wife with children twain
Walking encumbered upon either hand,

He cried: “Spread out the nets, that I may take
The lioness and her whelps upon the passage;”
And then extended his unpitying claws,

Seizing the first, who had the name Learchus,
And whirled him round, and dashed him on a rock;
And she, with the other burthen, drowned herself;–

And at the time when fortune downward hurled
The Trojan’s arrogance, that all things dared,
So that the king was with his kingdom crushed,

Hecuba sad, disconsolate, and captive,
When lifeless she beheld Polyxena,
And of her Polydorus on the shore

Of ocean was the dolorous one aware,
Out of her senses like a dog she barked,
So much the anguish had her mind distorted;

But not of Thebes the furies nor the Trojan
Were ever seen in any one so cruel
In goading beasts, and much more human members,

As I beheld two shadows pale and naked,
Who, biting, in the manner ran along
That a boar does, when from the sty turned loose.

One to Capocchio came, and by the nape
Seized with its teeth his neck, so that in dragging
It made his belly grate the solid bottom.

And the Aretine, who trembling had remained,
Said to me: “That mad sprite is Gianni Schicchi,
And raving goes thus harrying other people.”

“That mad sprite is Gianni Schicchi, / And raving goes thus harrying other people.”


“O,” said I to him, “so may not the other
Set teeth on thee, let it not weary thee
To tell us who it is, ere it dart hence.”

And he to me: “That is the ancient ghost
Of the nefarious Myrrha, who became
Beyond all rightful love her father’s lover.

“That is the ancient ghost / Of the nefarious Myrrha, who became / Beyond all rightful love her father’s lover.


She came to sin with him after this manner,
By counterfeiting of another’s form;
As he who goeth yonder undertook,

That he might gain the lady of the herd,
To counterfeit in himself Buoso Donati,
Making a will and giving it due form.”

And after the two maniacs had passed
On whom I held mine eye, I turned it back
To look upon the other evil-born.

I saw one made in fashion of a lute,
If he had only had the groin cut off
Just at the point at which a man is forked.

The heavy dropsy, that so disproportions
The limbs with humours, which it ill concocts,
That the face corresponds not to the belly,

Compelled him so to hold his lips apart
As does the hectic, who because of thirst
One tow’rds the chin, the other upward turns.

“O ye, who without any torment are,
And why I know not, in the world of woe,”
He said to us, “behold, and be attentive

Unto the misery of Master Adam;
I had while living much of what I wished,
And now, alas! a drop of water crave.

The rivulets, that from the verdant hills
Of Cassentin descend down into Arno,
Making their channels to be cold and moist,

Ever before me stand, and not in vain;
For far more doth their image dry me up
Than the disease which strips my face of flesh.

The rigid justice that chastises me
Draweth occasion from the place in which
I sinned, to put the more my sighs in flight.

There is Romena, where I counterfeited
The currency imprinted with the Baptist,
For which I left my body burned above.

But if I here could see the tristful soul
Of Guido, or Alessandro, or their brother,
For Branda’s fount I would not give the sight.

One is within already, if the raving
Shades that are going round about speak truth;
But what avails it me, whose limbs are tied?

If I were only still so light, that in
A hundred years I could advance one inch,
I had already started on the way,

Seeking him out among this squalid folk,
Although the circuit be eleven miles,
And be not less than half a mile across.

For them am I in such a family;
They did induce me into coining florins,
Which had three carats of impurity.”

And I to him: “Who are the two poor wretches
That smoke like unto a wet hand in winter,
Lying there close upon thy right-hand confines?”

“I found them here,” replied he, “when I rained
Into this chasm, and since they have not turned,
Nor do I think they will for evermore.

One the false woman is who accused Joseph,
The other the false Sinon, Greek of Troy;
From acute fever they send forth such reek.”

And one of them, who felt himself annoyed
At being, peradventure, named so darkly,
Smote with the fist upon his hardened paunch.

It gave a sound, as if it were a drum;
And Master Adam smote him in the face,
With arm that did not seem to be less hard,

Saying to him: “Although be taken from me
All motion, for my limbs that heavy are,
I have an arm unfettered for such need.”

Whereat he answer made: “When thou didst go
Unto the fire, thou hadst it not so ready:
But hadst it so and more when thou wast coining.”

The dropsical: “Thou sayest true in that;
But thou wast not so true a witness there,
Where thou wast questioned of the truth at Troy.”

“If I spake false, thou falsifiedst the coin,”
Said Sinon; “and for one fault I am here,
And thou for more than any other demon.”

“Remember, perjurer, about the horse,”
He made reply who had the swollen belly,
“And rueful be it thee the whole world knows it.”

“Rueful to thee the thirst be wherewith cracks
Thy tongue,” the Greek said, “and the putrid water
That hedges so thy paunch before thine eyes.”

Then the false-coiner: “So is gaping wide
Thy mouth for speaking evil, as ’tis wont;
Because if I have thirst, and humour stuff me

Thou hast the burning and the head that aches,
And to lick up the mirror of Narcissus
Thou wouldst not want words many to invite thee.”

In listening to them was I wholly fixed,
When said the Master to me: “Now just look,
For little wants it that I quarrel with thee.”

When him I heard in anger speak to me,
I turned me round towards him with such shame
That still it eddies through my memory.

And as he is who dreams of his own harm,
Who dreaming wishes it may be a dream,
So that he craves what is, as if it were not;

Such I became, not having power to speak,
For to excuse myself I wished, and still
Excused myself, and did not think I did it.

“Less shame doth wash away a greater fault,”
The Master said, “than this of thine has been;
Therefore thyself disburden of all sadness,

And make account that I am aye beside thee,
If e’er it come to pass that fortune bring thee
Where there are people in a like dispute;

For a base wish it is to wish to hear it.”

Continue Reading ·