Through the end of Inferno, I continued to find notable deviations from the value set and principles of the ancient Greeks and Romans. After Dante sees crucified Friars, Fra Catalano says, "that one impaled there, whom you see, counseled the Pharisees that it was prudent to let one man--and not one nation--suffer" (23.117). Whereas Homer portrays a certain glory in dying for one's country's war, and Virgil prioritizes the well-being of the city-state over the well-being of the individual, here, Dante implies that it is unacceptable to let one man suffer in place of a whole nation. While of course I'm of the school that it would be better if no one had to die for their country, I think the rationale here is somewhat bizarre: wouldn't it be better for one person to suffer than for many? Part of Dante's purpose in including this may be a glorification of Christ, but I think it also marks an interesting shift in ideas about what an individuals' obligation is to his or her nation.
On a similar note, when Dante accidentally steps on face of one of the treacherous souls buried in the ice, Dante says "I am alive, and can be precious to you if you want fame." Despite the extreme shift in social values, "fame" is still inevitably a significant consideration. The soul replies: "I want the contrary . . . your flattery is useless in this valley" (32.90), emphasizing the important point (often ignored in Homer) that glory does not actually benefit you because you are dead and don't live to enjoy it.
Most of the classical influence in Inferno has been fairly straightforward. However, in two passages of this section, it seems that classical scenes are purposefully perverted. For instance, the scene in Canto 25 in which the Five Florentine thieves, some snakes, some men, combine, morph together, and shift places, is described incredibly gruesomely. This metamorphosis mirrors those in Ovid's Metamorphoses, but whereas the metamorphoses in Ovid were unidirectional, and resulted in one thing entirely changing into another, the shift here is two-way, and results in a grotesque perversion of nature. Whereas Ovid, as most Romans, was not terribly concerned with the concept of sin, and the transformations that he describes, though they may be enacted as punishments, are not in themselves painful or punitive, Dante uses this transformation as a part of the souls' punishment. As I talked about in the last post, this perversion of the natural world may serve to emphasize both the extent to which the souls have become twisted and malformed as they act upon evil, as well as the extent of the evil present in Hell.
Another interesting reversal of Roman lore is Dante's encounter with Guido da Montefeltro in Hell. This echoes Aeneas' encounter with Anchises, in which Anchises prophecies future of Rome. However, while in Virgil's scene Aeneas is hearing about the future from a shade, in Inferno, Dante, the alive soul, tells Guido da Montefeltro about how his city in present day "lives somewhere between tyranny and freedom" (27.54). The fact that Guido inquires about the world (much as Aeneas asks Anchises), but the best Dante can offer is a description of the mediocrity of his city (rather than a glorious spiel about the founding of Rome) casts humanity's prospects an extremely depressing light. Furthermore, the fact that Dante, the living soul, is the one with knowledge illustrates that one of the punishing elements of Hell is that is causes total disconnect with and ignorance of all that is important to an individual, for one, their city.
On this theme of ignorance, both in and out of Hell, I found that Dante emphasizes the limitations of human intellect. At beginning of Canto 28, he muses on own ability to accurately recount the experience of Dis, says "the shallowness of both our speech and intellect cannot contain so much" (28.4). Confessions similarly alludes to the inadequacy of intellect, in that uneducated people can reach God before educated ones. Another interesting addition to this idea is Dante's encounter with the two men in the innermost circle of Dis whose souls exist in the underworld despite the fact that their bodies still roam the earth. One of these men says, "I have no knowledge of my body's fate within the world above" (33.122). The concept that a human body and soul are so separable that the soul can exist without any awareness of the body emphasizes the extremity of the limitations of human knowledge: if we cannot be aware even of ourselves, then we can never hope to know as much as God. This inadequacy of intellect also seems to emphasize that humans cannot attain good in this way, and so must turn to God instead.
The final Canto of Inferno was totally befuddling to me. When Dante reaches Dis, he says "I did not die, and I was not alive; think for yourself, if you have any wit, what I became, deprived of life and death" (34.25). I feel like I do not, as Dante requires, have any "wit" in this case, because I can't figure out "what I became." The only connection I see here is that "deprived of life and death," Dante is a bit like the figures in the outermost circle of Dis, who did nothing good and nothing bad, but still suffer, emphasizing the sin that exists even in neutrality. I suppose this duality of life and death could only exist when a live human travels into Dis (as Dante does), but perhaps Dante is implying that the pain of Hell arises because the souls there are neither alive nor truly and peacefully dead.
No comments:
Post a Comment