Dante's descendant seeks to overturn poet's 1302 corruption conviction | Hacker News Reader

Dante's descendant seeks to overturn poet's 1302 corruption conviction

theguardian.com

111 pointsblegh112 comments

Is this necessary? This article from 2008 seems to indicate that his sentence had been rescinded.

https://web.archive.org/web/20111230060902/http://www.telegr...

Also, it looks like he was convicted under the Holy Roman Empire, which doesn't really exist anymore. I'm not sure who there is to overturn his conviction.

I mean they did this: https://apnews.com/article/9b6f6f5ba5be2408ff0502c7fb8abd5b

Seems silly. Should they overturn Jesus' conviction too? At a certain point the conviction is part of their story.

This causes some interesting questions about continuity of accountability for governments. I wonder how long you can hold a government accountable for the actions of its previous administrations. How many years can you go back? How many iterations of a state can you hold accountable too?

Empty gestures like this do not hold any one accountable. The people responsible for whatever injustice occurred are long dead and there is nothing you can do to them. This is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent improving life for people who are alive today in some tangible way.

Is this going to feed someone who's hungry? Shelter someone who's homeless? Do anything that will make any actual difference in the life of any living person? No? Then why are we wasting time on it?

>Is this going to feed someone who's hungry? Shelter someone who's homeless? Do anything that will make any actual difference in the life of any living person? No? Then why are we wasting time on it?

I don't really understand the point of inquiries like this. Obviously you are here "wasting" time that could be spent on those activities as well, and yet you (rightfully) aren't hostile toward yourself for it.

There is time that you can spend in productive endeavors and there is time for rest and relaxation. If you're going to work at something, work at something useful. If you're going to occupy the time and energy of a government, occupy it with something that is helpful to the people being governed.

Sure, I'll spend time faffing about and commenting on HN, but I don't think that Congress needs to pass a resolution about it.

> How many years can you go back?

Probably one election cycle.

However many is politically expedient. China, in particular, has an exceptionally long memory.

Did China have a legal system that made the emperor accountable to any temporal authority? (As a legal matter, not simply a practical one.) In the received political systems of the West, authority has at least been nominally shared for millennia, albeit across varying dimensions and with brief lapses into absolute rule.

For example, while as a practical matter the Roman Catholic Pope's role during the Holy Roman Empire was largely constrained to spiritual and religious matters, the Pope nonetheless retained significant secular authority (e.g. over lands, etc) that the Emperor was obliged to respect. Failing to do so would result in illegality. Likewise the Emperor was at least in principle equal with other monarchs in Europe, so had obligations viz-a-viz them that couldn't be unilaterally skirted. Contrast that with the Westphalian system, where legal sovereignty is absolute within a territorial domain and where failure to respect an interstate obligation doesn't necessarily manifest as any kind of domestic illegality. Thus, when a state violates a treaty there's no expectation that its citizens construe the violation as illegitimate and to act and be responsible accordingly. (Modern international human rights theory being a very recent exception.)

I know Chinese legal, political, and religious systems were rich and sophisticated, but AFAIU in Imperial China, which accounts for most of the past 2000 years of mainland Chinese political history, the emperor was legally accountable to no temporal authority. Though, of course, it behooved emperors to abstain from exercising that absolute authority, obey legal and other norms, and adhere to their heavenly mandate.

It's an important distinction because it reflects cultures' (and thus its peoples') conceptions of power and legitimacy, which in turn directly constrains what is practically achievable by authority figures within and without their domain. It's no accident the Westphalian system of states arose in the West, nor the successful, widespread systemization of democratic political systems. Similarly, it's not surprising why Westerns in particular (which is not to say uniquely) would find interesting such an abstruse question regarding the exoneration of Dante.

"Imperial China, which accounts for most of the past 2000 years of mainland Chinese political history" is political theatre.

> China was politically divided during multiple periods in its history, with different regions ruled by different dynasties. These dynasties effectively functioned as separate states with their own court and political institutions. Political division existed during the Three Kingdoms, the Sixteen Kingdoms, the Northern and Southern dynasties, and the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms periods, among others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasties_in_Chinese_history

If we had a statute of limitations like this, treaties with other countries would cease to hold all meaning.

Humanity has already walked down this path before: The kings of England would routinely invalidate treaties made by predecessors.

Let’s not retread our steps, yes? The world is much calmer and safer for it.

But when is the country the same as made the treaty? Given time all countries change government structures and landmass quite heavily.

Or in another case if a country is ruled by a genocidal dictatorship and there is a rebellion, should the new government be bound by the treaties made by the dictator? What if that dictator had been installed by a foriegn government?

I don't think there's a legal successor state to the Roman Empire. Also the paperwork for that conviction has been lost.

I think we do a lot of things in our society for their symbolic value to formalize moral values and to demonstrate that we recognize past wrongs. In that regard I don't see anything wrong with this undertaking.

That's not what I asked though. I'm not asking whether or not Dante should have his conviction overturned. Though on that note, I'm not convinced it should be, because it seems his crimes were for actual corruption while in public office, and waging war against the government.

But no, I'm pointing out that it seems like his conviction was already overturned, so what exactly is the complaint?

Under current laws, city council of Florence does not have extraordinary power of pardon and clemency - President of the Republic of Italy does.

The declaration you linked is symbolic only - and the Italian sources [0] indicate the plan this time is to look if the case can be re-tried in light of some new evidence.

[0] https://www.corriere.it/cronache/21_gennaio_31/contro-mio-av...

i love this kind of chutzpah.

dante is exiled from a city he lovingly intersperses throughout his fiction in some of the most famous and beautiful and utterly complex poetry of all time by one of the most famously corrupt rulers in all of human history for things he wrote ~in his poems~ and over 700 years later the sum total of human technology allows someone to say his political conviction by a no longer existing state is justified because of these thought crimes on a site that notionally believes in freedom of speech or at the very least thought.

hope it is better wherever you are dante.

You write beautifully, yet with too long sentences :).

thanks for the feedback, re-reading that makes me want to take a breath. :)

Wasn't the claim that Dante committed actual crimes of corruption, not just thought crime? Or did I misunderstand the post you're replying to?

I will readily admit that I don't have much context on the environment around or the legitimacy of his conviction, which is why my main point wasn't about that. I only added it as a response to that reply specifically asking about that aspect.

My main point remains "I think his conviction was already overturned, so there's no gesture left to for modern authorities to symbolically make".

Holy Roman Empire is not a factor - Dante was found guilty and exiled under the laws of the Republic of Florence. Ultimately Italy has jurisdiction as the successor state of Florence -> Tuscany -> Sardinia -> Italy after 1861...

Sidenote: are you from Lichtenstein?

> Also, it looks like he was convicted under the Holy Roman Empire, which doesn't really exist anymore. I'm not sure who there is to overturn his conviction.

When Dante was convicted in 1302, Florence was the Republic of Florence. The Republic of Florence was subject to the Holy Roman Empire, but still remained a distinct legal jurisdiction (like a state.) The Republic of Florence was replaced by the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in 1569, which ruled Florence (with some interruptions) until 1859, when it was conquered by the Kingdom of Sardinia, which soon became the modern Kingdom of Italy, which in turn became the present-day Italian Republic after WW2. Each successor entity inherited the legal rights of its predecessor entity – the Italian Republic inherited the legal rights of the Kingdom of Italy, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Kingdom of Sardinia, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Republic of Florence. One of the legal rights of the Republic of Florence was to rescind the legal judgements of its courts, even posthumously. Hence, that legal right has been inherited, through a chain of successors, by the modern-day Italian Republic, which therefore has a unique legal authority (not possessed by any other jurisdiction) to formally rescind Dante's conviction and sentence. Yes, it is a right of no practical effect, its exercise would be of purely symbolic consequence, but it would be the unique possession of the Italian Republic.

(The succession story I presented – Republic of Florence => Grand Duchy of Tuscany => Kingdom of Sardinia => Kingdom of Italy => Italian Republic – is no doubt somewhat simplified, but I don't think fleshing out those added details would change the ultimate conclusion.)

As a side note the unifications of Italy and Germany are fascinating history and the culture that emerged due to them is also likely the reason those are the two most famous historical fascist nations (and why it was born in those places.) The nationalism required to (and built up for the purpose) unify the countries gave rise to ultra nationalism as generations of wanting to have a greater nature built a population who thought conquest was the only method to achieve peace and prosperity.

I like this explanation very much, I just don't know if I can agree with it. If it's taken from a historian or you have any in-depth references, I would be happy to read more about it!

Big reasons why fascism was born in Italy was the counter-revolutionary movement as a response to the big socialist movement and the disastrous social and economical situation after WWI, which seem equally common in Germany but also in other Fascist countries (Portugal, Spain). My guess is that we don't remember those as much mostly because they remained neutral in WWII, so there was no propaganda about them.

While Prussian culture and the unification of Germany has been done to death in regards to the origin of Nazism (my personal favorite detailing of that history and how Nazism may have its roots in that culture is Iron Kingdom) I’m not sure I’ve read a similar account irt Italy, it is just my pet theory.

Further, I’d argue that Portugal and Spain can play a role to help further this theory. While Italy and Germany spent the years developing a national identity at war to enlarge their nations (and form this outright) Spain and Portugal spent that same time period developing into a single culture while fending off newcomers and trying to keep their nations intact. For this reason their form a fascism was less expansionist (or to be correct, was less able to be convinced that expansion was their only hope.)

The Italian national identity is rather weak compared to other European nations. Metternich famously quipped that “‘Italy’ is a geographic expression”, and it is still true today to some extent.

Just like Austria was. Just a geographic expression that acquired some political meaning at a certain point in time.

The word "Italia" dates back to before Rome was not even a town. It used to be the name given to all those populations living in the central and southern part of the peninsula because of their habit to worship the "vitello" (calf) or to breed calfs.

Before becoming a politically united nation, they used to speak the very same language from Sicily to Piedmont, from Veneto to Sardinia. "Italia" was a geographic expression only for the blinds.

America has been named after Amerigo (Americo) Vespucci, the Italian explorer who recognized it was actually as a brand new world. And so on.

Yes, Italy doesn't seem to be that united today. The same happens to Spain, the United Kingdom and even the USA sometimes show cracks in the union between the two coasts...

> Before becoming a politically united nation, they used to speak the very same language from Sicily to Piedmont, from Veneto to Sardinia. "Italia" was a geographic expression only for the blinds.

Source? According to linguist De Mauro, before the Italian unification the percentage of Italian speakers was around 2.5% (on 25 millions inhabitants). Most of the people were speaking their own dialects, which - albeit descending from Latin - are not necessarily mutually intellegible

> According to linguist De Mauro ... Source?

Mine is here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingua_italiana#Dal_latino_vol...

Your source quotes De Mauro as well :)

I guess it very much depends on whether you consider writers, academics, and in general literate people, or the majority of the populace. In the former case, it's true that Italian was used across the peninsula.

I believe it is for him ... him and by association his family seem to emotionally need it. Let him Free himself from his psychological prison - even if imagined ... most of us use sadism to try and act out our unconscious violence/justice fantasies .. to use legal means is a step up. Non violent ... i (if in may be so bold as to attribute any significance to my own opinion) commend it!

The article mentions Galileo:

> “They were political trials and the penalties of exile and death inflicted on Dante, my dear ancestor, are unjust and have never been cancelled as happened with Galileo Galilei,”

But his heresy 'case' wasn't ever officially overturned by the Catholic Church. Various modern Pope's just said some nice things about him, but didn't go as far as over ruling the heresey charge. Assuming that was possible.

The pope had his talks canceled at La Sapienza University over this as recently as January 2008 .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Modern_Catholic...

That's probably never going to happen. Galileo's heresy charge was for, among other things, denying the trinity (not his views on how the planets were laid out, as the common myth goes).

That very matter was the cause of some consternation in the early ADs, but it was long settled (to the tune of about 1200 years) by the time of Galileo.

as i was given to understand WHAT he was charged with had little to do with WHY he was actually charged. Which was calling Pope Urban the then current Pope with whome up to that point had been something of a sponser a simpleton. in print. this was after made disparaging remarks about Jesuits. At that point they pretty much were just looking for a excuse to convict him.

I guess that they could ask for a new trial but wouldn't it better if they would settle it using poetry, specifically comic poetry (or vituperium) that was common during Dante's time? It would be great if the two heirs would face off on tv on a poetry battle where they take turns to roast each other families in both Latin and Old Tuscan. I would watch that.

Could be a 1980s style rap battle, which is the most modern equivalent.

1302 to today, that's 36 generations. 2 to the 36th means his descendants today have 1 / 70,000,000,000 of his genetic contribution.

I'd say they don't have legal standing.

You're forgetting to double count for "incest".

This was flagged, but I think mistakenly by people who think you're joking or taking a dig. The point is there weren't 70,000,000,000 people alive in Italy back then (or, you know, anywhere ever), so it is very likely that Dante shows up in multiple branches of this person's ancestry.

I am not sure that is a correct definition of incest, as it more commonly refer to breeding between family members or close relatives, with the definition of close being up to the legal system in place. Just two people with a common ancestry would be a too board definition to be useful.

But it is correct that 1 / 70,000,000,000 is the wrong numbers of the genetic contribution. In order to find the correct number one would have to determine the coefficient of relationship of the average couple. It is going to a much smaller number, but at the same time far from actually incest.

That said, incest law in Italy is a bit weird. It is legal, except if it causes a scandal.

You would also have to know whether adultery took place which resulted in a child and whether any of the 'descendants' were adopted. It would be less work to disinter Dante and compare the DNA directly.

Also, in fairness to the poster, incest was in quotes.

Which also implies everyone is a descendant of Dante.

Not necessarily. If you are descended from historically insular communities (like Ashkenazi Jews, for example) or geographically distant communities (take Native Americans for a clear example) it is unlikely you have Dante as a direct ancestor.

You are right that in the infinite time limit, assuming nonzero mixing, either everybody or nobody will be Dante’s descendant.

Obviously. But everyone in Italy is fairly reasonable.

Ashkenazi Jews are an insular community but I don’t think they’re insular enough not to have Dante among their ancestors. They have Polish/Slavic mitochondrial DNA among many other lines, and the explosion of that population was still in progress in Dante’s time. It’s entirely possible there’s no trace of Dante’s actual DNA because an ancestry share that small can just disappear by chance. But if he has living descendants he has living Ashkenazi descendants.

I believe you're close to correct. According to a paper in 2013 by Graham Coop (an evolutionary biologist from UC Davis) every living person of European descent, if you trace their family trees back 1000 years, likely shares the same list of ancestors. And that list of ancestors is more or less all the people alive in Europe at the time who had descendants surviving to the present -- about 80% of the people alive at the time. Joseph Chang, a statistician from Yale, has also written a great deal on the subject.

Not the most detailed link, but illustrative:

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/one-big-european-family-video/

I know you're saying that in jest but it's actually called pedigree collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedigree_collapse

They have 100% of his name. That is more important than biology to a lot of people.

I could rename myself to Presley, but it gives me no standing to Evlis' estate.

Correct. But actually being a direct descendant would, and that's what we're talking about here.

I think the word you are looking for is bloodline or pedigree.

A direct paternal-line descendent of Dante, which Sperello Alighieri might very well be, would essentially share a copy of Dante's Y-DNA, which is about 2% of the human genome. This is comparable to something between 2nd cousin (3.13%) and 3rd cousin (1.5%).

Would you care to elaborate? You're talking about the Y of the XY chromosomes?

If Dante’s son had a son who had a son x 36, the Y chromosome would not have changed much

Assuming all those 36 sons were actually children of their legal fathers.

In general you can say that on average a child has 25% of their genes from each grandparent. But in the case of the sex chromosomes, we know that a male has 50% of their paternal grandfather's sex chromosomes and 0% of their paternal grandmother's sex chromosomes (and vice versa for a female); the Y chromosome is passed on whole or not at all (you can't get half of it from your mother).

Dante has no living paternal-line descendants. The reason for the unusual (for Italy) double last name Serego Alighieri was to preserve the Alighieri name despite there being only female descendants left at the time (in the 1500s). Source: https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alighieri#Storia_familiare (in Italian)

Since DNA is inherited as discrete molecules, it's most likely he has 0% identical-by-descent. (Except if he's a direct male-line descendant.)

But I don't think genetics has anything to say about legal standing.

> Except if he's a direct male-line descendant

Would direct male descendants have more common DNA? Why is that?

Y chromosome is responsible for sexual differentiation creating males. it is only passed father to son.

But on the flip side, most people commenting in this thread are descended from Dante. So do we all have standing?

It's fun to do the DNA calculations, but the article says "can be proposed by an heir of the convict", so it's probably not really about genetics.

Legal standing is uncorrelated to genetics.

An adopted child has 0% of the genetics of their father, and they are still legally their descendant.

This is like cleaning up the git history of a project

Can a government today even issue a pardon for crimes alleged by a government of 1302? It’s not even the same institution.

It is a different government since the start of a government is marked by the adoption of its constitution.

Symbolically, sure. Not like it makes any practical difference.

> Symbolically, sure. Not like it makes any practical difference.

It's a risky precedent. Pardoning and convicting dead people makes for great political theatre. You can get your side riled up and energized over something with zero practical effect. It's easy politicking. That creates a perverse incentive for leaders to focus on the distracting and useless over the difficult but important.

Are you sure? Italy has a lot of historical continuity. If you go to Rome, the manhole covers read SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus). IIRC the government of Florence still works from the buildings of the Uffizi.

There are manhole covers in Copenhagen that make reference to H.C. Andersen but he didn't actually have anything to do with them, it was more in the form of a thing to make tourists feel they were somewhere cool.

I might accept some continuity from now back to the time of Garibaldi for Italy as a whole (but then we have to write some notable periods off as aberrations) - As for Florence I would accept going back to Napoleonic times but from there the continuity of government was surely broken.

I was disappointed to learn the title of pontifex maximus wasn’t continuous from the Roman era. I mean, if we need an intercalary month, I can’t think of anyone better than Pope Francis to decide that.

The church is continuous from the Roman era though. Both in the East and the West.

What is an intercalary month and why might we need one?

It was a leap month, for the same function as leap days and seconds.

>Italy has a lot of historical continuity.

It doesn't. Italy was one of the most ravaged parts of the Western Roman Empire, it has less historical continuity than Spain or France. Only Britain does worse.

>If you go to Rome, the manhole covers read SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus).

That's propaganda. The link between the Roman state and Italy was something pushed by the fascists and it stayed behind in the popular mindset (since it's a more pleasant to think of yourself as the True Descendants of the Romans than a playground for the French, Germans, Arabs and Greeks). But go a few centuries back and people made as much a connection between Roman ruins and Italians as they do now between the Pyramids and modern Egyptians.

Realistically continuity goes back to the Renaissance, which saw the birth of an indigenous Italian culture as well as its mass export (favoured by the fact that albeit constantly invaded, Italy wasn't torn apart by the religious wars that destroyed the rest of the continent).

Seems like a bit an exaggeration. The Coptic Language is a dying/dead minority language in modern Egypt while modern Italian is pretty much just Vulgar Latin.

For example here's Egyptian written in hieratic (cursive hieroglyphs written on paper)[0] compared to modern Egyptian Arabic[1]. Now compare pompeii inscriptions [2] to modern Italian graffiti[3].

[0] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_page_from_the_Eb...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Arabic#Sample_text

[2] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/54149/54149-h/images/illo065...

[3] https://c7.alamy.com/comp/H7ER3R/italian-graffiti-ill-love-y...

> Italy was one of the most ravaged parts of the Western Roman Empire, it has less historical continuity than Spain or France. Only Britain does worse.

Well, Erdogan would probably be okay with pardoning Dante.

> Well, Erdogan would probably be okay with pardoning Dante.

Dante had the prophet Mohammed resident in the final circles of hell, so I suspect he might not be.

> Italy has a lot of historical continuity. If you go to Rome, the manhole covers read SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus).

That is... not an example of historical continuity. That's like calling the architecture of the US Supreme Court building "historical continuity" from classical Greece.

The greatness of Dante is not even scratched by that conviction. He was a politician, he knew how hard politics can hit people, as seen during the Pazzi conspiracy events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pazzi_conspiracy). He knew, nonetheless he went on with his political beliefs.

So I think that all those actions are just a form of marketing. They will succeed. None would keep on saying Dante was really a corruption man, provided that anyone ever did after 14th century. None will ease his struggling once banished away from his beloved Florence. None can scrap messer Durante de li Alighieri greatness, as he, himslef, "built a(nother) monument lasting longer than any bronze will".

This year Florence is going to celebrate Dante, as well as Ravenna. It's 7 centuries that Florence is claiming back Dante's remains. But nothing has been done against that conviction. Nothing in 700 years.

Let Dante rest in peace and bring back his masterpieces of literature and politics back in schools. The world will be a little better.

Is that in case he's still stuck somewhere in the purgatory with potential last minute changes to his itinerary?

If his conviction is overturned, could his descendant sue for a wrongful conviction in civil court, plus interests for 718 years?

I wonder if they could do anything for poor Giordano Bruno who proposed the existence of extrasolar planets and thus was burnt at the stake in 1600 for heresy.

The descendant said in a letter to a newspaper that he didn’t ask for any trial revision and that this is just a legal-historic divertissement.

What's the point in pardoning dead people?

To correct the record, and to serve the general idea that justice can get it right, eventually. Impact wise, it probably makes the family feel better.

I wonder if this were to applied to more modern cases by some governments, would then the later governments apply new conviction or overturn the overturn... And how many times this chain could happen?

Unless, the case is so recent that it had some effect in modern day. I wouldn't go touch the old stuff. It is way too risky in long run...

Time to call Pontius Pilatus descendants to correct a historical mistake.

Its easier to fight past injustice then current injustice..

Lots of people seemed to appreciate Alan Turing (and lots of other people) being pardoned for something that should never have been a crime in the first place. Basically, it's a very concrete sign of how we want our society to be now.

i.e. rewriting history.

history is the multiple re-writings of our understanding actual events, in as much as we can understand them

Nope. It's just a symbol of hope, that humanity can improve.

Humanity improves by improving forward, not by changing the meaning of historical events.

These are amending past wrongs, not censoring them.

How is saying that some past act was wrong "rewriting history"?

Rewriting history would be saying that the past act never happened.

To use a more modern example, this seems akin to saying that, when someone is falsely convicted of a crime and is imprisoned as a result, appealing their judgment with fresh eyes and consequently acquitting them is "rewriting history." Yes, this example involves a living person, but that doesn't seem specifically relevant to your concern of "rewriting history." The entire act of pardoning someone is reversing a small fraction of the results of a prior action, not pretending that the prior action never happened.

Also, pardoning Turing makes it easier to get pardons for people who had similar convictions but who are still alive.

Pardon for Turing - 2013: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315

Turing's law, pardon for thousands of gay men - 2016: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37711518

Couldn't it also be interpreted as a whitewashing of the people and institutions that were guilty of condemning him?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding a 'pardon', but it sounds like the state is saying, 'what you did was wrong, but we forgive you' when what it should be saying is 'we were wrong to condemn you'.

The whole ordeal has an air of 'might is always right'.

I agree in general with you about pardons, but there was also an apology for Turing's treatment from the then prime minister, Gordon Brown.

even if it's only the for the satisfaction of a few people who care, why not? it's not expensive to pardon dead people, and it has few practical consequences.

Precedent. Doing the right thing. Showing that we learn from our past mistakes and grave errors.

I confess to not understanding why people bother doing things like this.

Seriously, why bother?

There are historical wrongs that continue to affect people today, but in this case that's been damped out by time.

Because it matters to his descendants?

But do they really have standing?

I assume you mean standing as a question of law, not morals, in which case it doesn't seem like the ancestor needs to demonstrate that they were harmed by the conviction.

> According to the Italian newspaper, any final judgment can be subject to revision if there is new evidence showing the offender’s innocence. There is no time limit to the request, which can be proposed by an heir of the convict.

After 600 years I would hope it’s below these peoples’ noise floor.

Then again I’m more interested in my reputation regarding things I have done rather than things someone else did.

You would think so, but probably no. I'm not someone that directly cares about the many inter-Tuscan historical grievances, but when I leave the Florence area for, say, the nearby province of Pistoia I feel more in foreign land than in London or Berlin.

Dante's a weird one. Forgotten in his own time, Inferno was found concealed IN A JAR when a cathedral was being remodeled about a hundred years after his death or so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com