Commentary Inf V 34
One of the most debated verses in this canto because of the words la ruina (literally, 'the ruin'). What precisely do they mean? Two attempts at evaluation of the commentary tradition are available, the first by Letterio Cassata (Cass.1971.1), the second, still more complete, by Nicolò Mineo (ED.1973.4), pp. 1056-57. Mineo points out that there have been six identifiable schools of interpretation for the meaning of la ruina. Unfortunately, there are severe problems associated with all of them. Many American and some Italian students of the problem have been drawn to Singleton's solution DDP Singleton.Inf.XII.32, DDP Singleton.Inf.XII.36-45: Dante suppresses the meaning of the noun here only to reveal it at [Inf XII 32-41], where questa ruina (v. 32) refers to the crack in the wall of hell made by the earthquake that accompanied Christ's crucifixion. The resultant explanation is so attractive that even many of those who doubt its literal applicability do not wish to jettison it. However, it does remain extremely dubious, as many rightly point out, that Dante would, for the only time in his poem, place the reference necessary to a word's clear literal sense seven cantos after its first appearance. A grammatical approach, however, yields still other difficulties. Who are these people who are arriving 'before the ruin'? Are they those who are being driven on the wind in the preceding tercet (grammatically the most probable reading)? If that is true, Dante would at least seem to be contradicting what he will shortly say ([Inf V 44-45]), namely that the sinners in this circle have no hope of any change in their condition. However, what he says there is only that their plight will never be ameliorated -- a phrasing that might allow for its aggravation, as we would be witnessing here. Others, most trenchantly Padoan (DDP Padoan.Inf.V.34), attempt a difficult argument: the antecedent for the suffering souls in this verse is not in the preceding line, but all the way back at v. 13: the molte (many shades) who assemble for the judgment of Minos. The result of this interpretation is, as is the case for Singleton's, welcome, but unlikely: we have a 'flashback,' as it were, to what happens when the newly arrived souls (not the ones we have just been observing) first reach this depth. But that solution, too, seems dubious on grammatical grounds. If one, like Mazzoni (Mazz.1977.1), pp. 106-108, lets the proximity of grammatical antecedents have its due weight, one not only thinks that the antecedent of the subject of the verb giungono is the li spirti or li in the preceding tercet, but that the antecedent of the noun ruina is the noun bufera (the hellish squall) in that tercet. And then, again following Mazzoni, one argues that the meaning here is not 'ruin,' but the secondary meaning of the word, 'fury, violence.' One immediately sees, however, the problem with this solution as well -- Mazzoni is forced to argue for the same position embraced by Padoan: the action described is that which occurs when the sinners first reach this circle (immediately after vv. 13-15), and not that which is habitual and indeed eternal (vv. 25-33).

The position of a translator who does not have a clear idea of what the original means is an impossible one. We chose the path taken by Mazzoni, translating ruina as 'violence,' before we consulted his work. The main reason for doing so is grammatical: all the verb tenses of this scene that describe the actions or reactions of the sinners are in the present (vv. 25-27; 29-36). Thus it seems incorrect to attempt to mark a temporal shift in the action that is not reflected in the text. If the tense of the verb giungono were past instead of present, Mazzoni's solution would seem optimal. But there is no instance of a single variant of the verb in the manuscript tradition. Thus, as things stand, there seems to be no optimal solution.