Go to Hell: Understanding Dante's View of the Inferno

Dante's Inferno stands among Western literature as one of the great masterpieces, and for very good reason: Dante did a feat of poetic genius in creating such an eloquent poem in vernacular (what we could consider "street" language--we, of course, have a hard time seeing this in the translations!). Perhaps more lasting is Dante's impact on the Western view of Hell. The idea of hell as a place of fiery torments with imps carrying pitchforks is popular largely because of Dante's imaginative descriptions. (PS--Have you ever wondered why they're carrying pitchforks? The Medieval people created some pretty gruesome torture devices; being chased by a pitchfork seems like hell for a farmer!) The Inferno is an allegory, which means just about everything symbolizes something. So, without further ado, here are some things to understand about Dante's view of hell:

*   *   *

1) STRUCTURE and SYMBOLS. Dante sets up hell on the principle of inverse relationships. Heaven for him was on top of a mountain (of joy), so hell for him is the inverse (a cone of concentric rings, a pit of despair), the worst sinners being at the bottom, the furthest from God's love. The law of hell is symbolic retribution, or contrapasso--as they sinned, so are they punished. Each ring has its own sin and punishment (the contrapasso, which we'll see later), and the sins are further divided into categories:

• Sins of the She-Wolf. Sins of Incontinence, or lack of self-control or restraint--sins of passion, emotion, and self-gratification. These are the first sorts of sins Dante encounters in the Inferno, but it is the last and most vicious of the animals he encounters in the Dark Wood... more on that later. 
• Sins of the Lion. Sins of Violence and Ambition. These include sins such as wrath, but also gluttony and sullenness. This is the ring where we get to see what we expect from hell--not a circus ring, but a boxing ring. This is where Jerry Springer-style fighting happens. 
• Sins of the Leopard. Sins of Malice and Fraud. These are sins of the intellect, unlike the previous sins, which are of the heart and emotions. Dante puts these further down the Inferno because they involved premeditation and intention, people hurting those they had an intimate relationship with, through betrayal or backstabbing. 

This is Dante's moral geography; aside from literally creating a map of hell, he also ranks and values the different sins and sinners he populates hell with. Moreover, his system of justice is the contrapasso, which is the relationship between the sin and the punishment. People that were flakey in life (opportunists) have to chase a flag flapping in the wind. People that were driven by their passions are whipped in a whirlwind. People who betrayed their loved ones are frozen in ice (huh? Okay, that one needs some explanation--check the introduction to Canto 32, which you can find on the class website!). 

Now, Dante (the character, not the author) finds the She-Wolf the most difficult, nay, impossible to pass. Think about what Dante (the author, not the character) was going through; he was suffering the exile from his beloved country and the loss of his love, Beatrice.  He was in a depression that kept him from seeing the light of God--no wonder this was the most difficult thing for him to face. There's one more thing to focus on, which connects to this...

2) THE RESPONSE. As Dante moves through the Inferno, his response to the sinners changes. This is the transformative journey motif, and this is the medieval spin on that topic: he achieves his enlightenment (and thereby works out his salvation) as he goes through the journey, not when he reaches the end. Remember the sin he had the most trouble with (She-Wolf)--well, these are the sinners he is the most sympathetic to. Not only does he give them the lightest punishment (Paolo and Francesca, floating together for eternity--aww), BUT he also pities them when he encounters them. He swoons (faints) because he is so overcome by their love and the fright of it all. Talk about a drama queen. By the time he gets down to the bottom, he hates the sinners, and relishes seeing them in torment, and doesn't hesitate to kick a few in the frozen face right before he hops on Satan to climb towards the exit. Change of mind, indeed. Thus, the first part of his journey--the recognition of sin--allows him to put sin in its proper place, so he can be open to redemption and the love of God.

3. THE PARADOX. I left this one un-bolded because it's probably the most touchy, and we won't have time to discuss this much in class. Dante sets up an interesting paradox: he believes the people in hell deserve to be there because they desire to be there (check Canto 3 line 123, and Canto 5 line 8). Hell, and therefore Sin, is what the damned really wish for--it is their actual and deliberate choice, for divine grace is denied to none who wish for it in their hearts. The damned must actively turn from and reject God to be here, so they clamor for their judgment and their punishment. Do we buy this? Here's the second can of worms: according to the sign above hell, God created hell (not the devil), and He created it even before He created man. In other words (or, in Dante's words), loving, merciful God created this terrible place in preparation for people before He created man, knowing that some would suffer the torments for eternity. This is a theological debate that is delicate, and I don't have an answer to it (so I won't be posing any questions about it)--just food for thought.

*  *  *

Keep these things in mind as we read and prepare to write: Dante's system of justice seems like the "eye-for-an-eye" system of the Old Testament (angry God), as opposed to the unmerited grace of Christ int he New Testament (merciful God). What do we think of his system and set-up of Hell? Also, think of Dante's transformation through his journey; does he qualify as a hero? Remember the shift we're seeing from the Classic (Greek) to the Medieval; would we consider Dante a hero even with the new standards?

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER/CRITICAL RESPONSE:

1) Do you agree with Dante in how he rates the sinners? He places people who lie further down than people who murder and rape. He's certainly got a point to make, but did he get it right? If so, why do you agree with him? If not, why do you disagree, and how would you place the sinners?

2) What is the worst sin imaginable? Or, what is a  sin that's not so bad, but that you'd like to see punished? Imagine that Dante and Virgil are about to enter a new circle of hell. People in this circle have all committed the same sin. Decide what sin they have committed and what this particular circle of hell is like. Also decide what their punishment is (remember, it should fit the crime). Be vivid in your description, like Dante, and include an encounter or conversation he has with someone there. Include the names and labels just like we find in our book. With your write-up, include an illustration!

3) What is your idea of hell? Create and describe a rough sketch of your Inferno. Who would be your guide? What would you encounter in life that gave you a preview of the afterlife (ie, like the three animals Dante encounters)? Which sins would you have the hardest time overcoming, or the most sympathy for? How would your hell be shaped, and how would it function? Who would we find there, and what would be going on? This can be less detailed than #2, but should be a bit more broad to encompass the big picture. Include a sketch on your write-up!

4) What would Dante's Inferno look like today? Take the basic structure of the Inferno, and populate it with people who have lived since Dante's time. You may also include people that are living (as Dante did), though you may want to be cautious about including your "frenemies." Focus your description on the parts of the Inferno that we read in class (Cantos 3, 5, 33, 34) AND the circle you're reading for your group presentation.

The View of Women in "The Wife of Bath's Tale"

The View of Women in "The Wife of Bath's Tale"

Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is an incredible piece of literature not just because of what it did for the English language (making it legit), but because of the themes and topics it explores. Chaucer not only gave a language to the illiterate of medieval England, he gave them a voice; he wrote from the perspective of people who previously had no voice in literature, people from all levels and walks of the feudal society. "The Wife of Bath's Tale" is one of the more well-known of his tales, perhaps because it deals with one of the oldest of literary and human themes--the relationship between men and women.

Women did not have equal standing to men in medieval society, so it's notable that Chaucer writes in the voice of a woman--and quite a woman at that--critiquing the treatment of women by men. And the critique of the treatment of women by men was by a man, which makes him an early feminist...maybe. There are at least three levels to consider:

1) The Women of the Tale. In the story, we encounter four women: the nameless maiden, who is raped by the knight; the queen, who offers him his life in exchange to answering the question of what women want; and the old hag, the fairy who gives him the final trial and his final reward. The fourth "woman" in the tale is the group of women the knight asks the question to, who offer him a variety of answers, some noble, some shallow. To contrast, the only men in the story are the knight, who is clearly not adherent to the code of chivalry, and whose redemption at the end of the story is questionable; and the king, who is merciless in condemning the knight's actions, and only relents at the queen's behest. All of these characters are, for us, snapshots of medieval societal views, but for Chaucer, they were the predominant opinions of the day.

2) The Wife. Chaucer offers a description of the "fifth" woman of the tale in the general prologue to the Tales (I read just the beginning to you in class in Middle Englishe), and she (the Wife) also gives us some important info about herself in "her" prologue to her own tale (you get just a snippet of this in the background article in the textbook, right before the reading selection). Well, we don't get most of this information in the textbook, so here's a synopsis:

The Wife, whose name is Alison or Alice, is described as "larger than life" with "broad hips, a big butt, a hat as big as a house"... and a mouth to match. With a red face, red stockings, and a gap between her teeth, she matches the medieval stereotype of a "lustful person." She has had many husbands, and has acquired a considerable wealth in the process. She also refers often to how she dominated her many husbands in different ways, a theme that of course comes up in the story.

3) The Chaucer. Chaucer held many positions in life, and therefore drew from personal experience to write many of his tales. However, he also drew from societal stereotypes in characterizing many of his characters, which he does in great detail throughout the work. What's interesting in taking on the voice of the Wife is that he is simultaneously using stereotypes of women, but also criticizing the unequal status of women in society. He is, in some ways, advocating on behalf of women who may not have had a voice; he is still a man, though, and so his vocalization of the desires of women are ultimately just what a man thinks women want. That's the one are of his writing that does not reflect his personal experience...

***
So, looking that these three levels of discourse on women, here are a few CRITICAL QUESTIONS to consider:

* Is there a fair portrayal of women on any level of the story? Does Chaucer get it right, or is his portrayal inherently flawed because, after all, he's just a man? Address each of the 5 women depicted in the story.

* Here's one from class: Think about the end of the story--the man concedes, but still gets the pretty girl. Is his redemption complete? Do we buy this? Another way of thinking of it is this: there are actually two trials the knight goes through. First, he must find the answer to the queen's question to make up for raping the maiden. He does go about it the right way--he asks a bunch of women, and one of them eventually gives him the right answer--but does this satisfy our need for justice? Does this offer retribution for the rape of the maiden? The second trial the man goes through is in answering the old hag's ultimatum: he concedes in giving her the mastery, and he gets the "prize" for passing the test. Are we satisfied with this ending? Does he really wish her his master, or his equal, or does he simply want to shut her up? Address whether Chaucer offers the man a complete, fulfilling redemption.

* Also from class: The more things change, the more they remain the same. Chaucer's Tales were composed near the end of the 14th century; nearly 600 years later, has anything changed about the role of men and women, and the interaction between them (well, clearly some things have changed--dudes aren't rolling up on horses raping maidens any more, but that's maybe only because we don't use horses for transportation any more...)? Does Chaucer hit on a truth about the nature of women and men in society, or are his ideas outdated and irrelevant? Compare Chaucer's views to contemporary views on women and men.

Transitioning from the Classic Hero to the Medieval Hero

Transitioning from the Classic Hero to the Medieval Hero

"The Song of Roland" is an important piece in helping us understand the movement from the classic Greek epic/tragic hero to the hero we see in the literature of the Middle Ages. Many of the stories we read will place the protagonists in situations in which fighting or warrior skill alone will not solve their problems, nor bring them glory. The world view changes when the Roman outlook gives way to the Holy Roman outlook--when we move to a Christian outlook, in other words. There are a couple of important distinctions to note in this transition:

1) The shift in values creates a shift in conduct. Think about it this way: when what was important to people changed, their goals and objectives in life changed, and therefore they changed their behavior. The classic hero was motivated by wealth, trophies, and glory; therefore, honor and valor in battle would help the hero achieve those. The bigger and more valiant the victory, the larger the reward in reputation.

On the other hand, the knight fights not for himself, but for his king, queen or country, or for his lady. The shift here is away from kleos (glory) to fides (loyalty) and chivalry, a French term which came to define the relationship between a knight and his lady (so, something to do with love...). For these goals, the knight must conduct himself with a bit more honor, since it's not just his own reputation that's at stake.

2) The shift in religious ideas creates a shift in the relationship to the gods/God. The classic hero lived in a world (albeit a mythical one) where the gods had direct interaction with people, and conducted themselves with human personalities and faults. They are petty and flakey, and play favorites. Fate was, then, paradoxically your fault and out of your control.

For the Medieval hero, God is distant except for certain miracles; He is either vengeful or merciful, and rarely anything else; and He lives in heaven, not down the street atop Mt. Olympus, so there is not a lot of direct contact. The knight is subordinate to God, not interacting with Him, and never challenging Him.

3) The shift in a view of the afterlife creates a shift in the approach to life. For the classic hero, to die in battle was glorious, and if you make good in life and don't die horribly (which was ironically the case for most heroes), you'd be awarded a spot in the Underworld, which is somewhere in the middle of the earth. There were some pretty nice spots down there, too; sort of like "paradise" in the Old Testament, which was actually in the upper parts of Hell, where the Old Testament saint lived before Jesus took them to Heaven. Sort of like that.

For the Medieval hero, Heaven was, well, in heaven! They live a live of purity, forsaking worldly wants to get to heaven and be with God forever. Whereas some of the eternal home's of the classic world resembled placed on earth, Heaven is like no place on earth, because it's not on earth--it's out in space somewhere...

4) The shift in the understanding of the hero's goal creates a shift in the journey. The classic hero will reach the goal and die, or die while reaching the goal. Death, really, is part of the goal, which is somewhat of a bummer, you can imagine. You will win, but you will die. If you don't die, you haven't won. All that wealth and booty equals street cred in the afterlife, but you can't take it with you.

For the Medieval hero, the knight may or may not actually achieve the intended goal. Their journey does also involve some humbling, though not necessarily death; their reward is much more intangible often, as the enlightenment they receive was not the reason for the journey, but gained over the course of the journey. In other words, they don't seek enlightenment as a product; they receive enlightenment as a process. Again, although there is often some failure, the lessons they learn to translate into some street cred with God when they get to heaven. Maybe this shift isn't so much a difference as a variation...

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
* How does "The Song of Roland" act as a transitional piece between the classic hero and the Medieval one? In what ways does the story reflect the classic ideals? In what ways does it show the shift to the new ones?

* Which hero, in your opinion, is superior, the classic or the Medieval? I don't mean if they squared off in a fight (though that would be somewhat exciting), but in terms of values and qualities?

Defining the Greek Hero (Lecture, 10/1/09)

For your essays, the first thing you will need to do is acknowledge and show understanding of the Greek concept of hero, and how it is distinct from our contemporary concept of hero. By that I mean, "we" (21st c. Americans) don't necessarily think of Achilles as the "good guy" in the Iliad, although he is clearly the protagonist. So we need to look at the values held by the Greeks in order to determine what "hero" meant to them.

A. Cultural Values (The world the Greek hero lived in)
First, we need to put the Greek hero in the context of what the Greeks valued in their society. Ideas that were important to them included:

1. A regard for material possessions. Possessions (particularly a warrior's possessions and spoils) were closely tied to his sense of honor, his prestige in the community. To lose one's possessions was a shameful thing. Think about why it upsets Achilles so that Agamemnon takes his possession, the slave girl; he is publicly insulting Achilles, without besting him in battle.

2. A regard for the gods. The relationship to the gods was simple: rather than seeming abstract and far away, the gods had direct dealings in the affairs of humans. (Not literally, of course, but this is what they believed about, for example, natural phenomenon.) Your "luck" or fate, then, was tied to your favor with the gods; if you prospered, it was because the gods willed it. If you suffered, it was because the gods willed it. By not angering or displeasing the gods, you could gain their favor, so they believed.

3. A regard for the dead and funeral rites. Finally, and most importantly, the Greeks believed that the funeral rites were important in conveying the soul of the departed safely to the underworld; if they did not go through the rites, their soul would wander the earth. The significance of this was that DEATH held an important role (especially to the hero--we will see this a bit later).

B. Qualities of a Hero (How to spot this dude on the streets of Greece)
Secondly, there were certain qualities that marked a hero in the classic Greek world. The biggest distinction, perhaps, between classic Greek heroes and our contemporary heroes is that the classic hero was often a TRAGIC hero (think Oedipus). Here are a couple of things that characterized the (tragic) hero:

1. Pedigree. Usually, the hero had some divine ancestry, a link to the gods; or, at least, the hero was able to rise to nobility. Make the connection here to the point above about "relationship to the gods."

2. Favor. Usually this relationship or favor from the gods translated in some special quality or "magic" element or assistance the hero may acquire in his journey (ie, invulnerability, invisibility caps, etc.)

3. Arete. Greek for "virtue." For a warrior, this was honor and excellence in battle. (Think, "This is Sparta! Let's fight!") For, say, a philosopher, this would be something like bookishness. (Think, "This is Athens! Let's read!")

4. Journey cycle. Usually the hero was on a Quest for Enlightenment/Salvation/Redemption (make the connections to the archetypes/Topics in World Lit). There were some exploits or adventures of some sort, and the hero responds or reacts with courage, boldness, and strength.

5. Decision. Usually the hero is faced with a serious decision on this journey-cycle. It was common for the hero to fail or make a mistake at this point. The hero would suffer would suffer for this...

6. Suffering. Suffering is meaningful for the hero (this is what makes him tragic!). More on this later, but the important thing for now is, this this suffering is usually brought about by...

7. Hamartia. This is the fault, or more appropriately, the "tragic flaw." These came in many flavors, but included hubris (our favorite--"excessive pride"), jealousy, rage, naivete, etc.

8. Neutrality. This one is weird, but try it on for size: the hero was neither fully good or evil. This goes against our conventional way of thinking, but is important to grasp to understand what the Greeks thought. Think about Oedipus, or Achilles; they don't seem "good" much at all, and they certainly aren't sympathetic. But they're not altogether evil either; they have arete (they're good at what they do), but they also have hamartia (some serious bad qualities), so for now they go in the gray area.

C. The Death Connection (or, "Hero's Gotta Die!")
As I mentioned death was important in the universe of the Greeks, and it had a significant role in the hero's journey-cycle. Let me remind you of a few things first:

* Think back to the Intro to Greek Lit Powerpoint. Greek dramas evolved from religious festivals in honor of Dionysus where people sacrificed a goat (tragos).

* Think back to the Flower myths last year; when the character's blood was spilled, a flower or plant bloomed in its spot. This was some honor (of a sort) by the gods--this character lived on in this symbol.

Think about this for a second: the Greeks connected the gods to almost all natural phenomenon; some natural phenomena were the gods immortalizing favored mortals... herein lies the importance of death to the hero. In suffering (and ultimately death), the hero obtains glorification in moving from mortal to immortalized.

Huh, wha? The hero has to die to be heroic? YES. Let's look at how that pans out.

The hero has to go through an ORDEAL. This is the journey-cycle/quest. This is where the hero uses his arete. This is where favor from the gods helps. This is where the hero reveals his hamartia. This is where the favor of the gods runs out. This is meaningful for the enlightenment/salvation/redemption. Here's how it works:

(Note: Greek coming at you...)

1. Catharsis. Literally, a "release," this is the cleansing, purging, purification, clarification for the hero. This is the ordeal part of the ordeal. This is the thing that hurts, is painful, but is also good for you. This leads to...

2. Anagnorisis. This is the "epiphany" (literally, the realization) or recognition that the hero's fate is brought about by the hero, not by others. This is the enlightenment/redemption. This comes with...

3. Kleos. Literally, the "song of glory," or fame, if you will. Unfortunately, this usually takes the form of, you guessed it, DEATH, in some honorific way (not "horrific"--"honorific"--being honored, like having a flower named after you). This is how the the hero supercedes death and is redeemed, by his glorification (and, in a sense, immortalization); this is also what makes the hero tragic, though, as death (and later in literature, just a downfall) is a necessary ingredient in the recipe.

SO, to summarize...

The classic Greek hero existed in a world where gods, possessions, and death were the most important things (not in that order); the hero had a dual nature (arete/hamartia); the hero was usually involved in a quest/journey-cycle that solidified his hero-status by placing him through an ordeal in which death resulted in his redemption and glorification. Very complex, these Greek heroes; not the one-dimensional do-gooders we currently think of as heroes!

Now, how does this relate to your essay? You will need to show your understanding of the Greek hero by defining it at the start of your comparison (in your own words--not mine). Then, decide which of the qualities discussed above will work for your comparison (which "criteria") for Achilles and Hector. Both are heroes, for obviously different reasons. Which best fits the definition; or, which is the "superior" hero? This is where you should draw your own conclusion. Use data from the Iliad, and email me if you have any questions!