After continuing to read the story, I realised that Don Quixote is consistently missing the bigger picture. He always picks and chooses what he wants to see in the situation, and then ignores the rest or blames it on some supernatural force. I noticed this in the scene with the march of the prisoners (chapter xxii). On page 177, Don Quixote sees what is happening but totally ignores important facts and instead makes his own judgments about the situation. Sancho points out that they are a chain-gang of convicts, marching to the galleys. Don Quixote ignores that they are convicts, and becomes outraged at the situation. "'In short', replied Don Quixote, 'whatever the details may be, these people, wherever they are going, are being forced to march there, and are not doing it of their own free will'" (177). Obviously they are not doing it of their own free will; they are prisoners on the way to fulfill their sentences. Because he disregards that fact, he sets them free, thinking he is doing a good deed. Instead, the prisoners turn on him, barrage him with rocks, and then steal his coat and Sancho's. If he hadn't been so narrow-minded, he would have seen the situation for what it really was.
However, I noticed a couple of changes in Don Quixote's character. The main change that bothered me was the way he has taken to treating Sancho. In the beginning, they were friends and there was no master-squire restrictions on either of them. Then, suddenly, in chapter xx, Don Quixote tells Sancho, "...'I have never come across any squire who talked to his master as much as you do to yours. And in truth I consider it a great fault in both you and me; in you, because you show me scant respect; in me, because I do not make you respect me more...you should infer, Sancho, that a distance must be kept between master and man, between lord and lackey, between knight and squire'" (164). Sancho, throughout the story, has been the only one who has stayed by Don Quixote's side, and defended him in his ridiculous adventures. I think it was wrong for Don Quixote to turn like that on his only companion, simply because Sancho possesses more wits and reason than does Don Quixote.
Another change I noticed in Don Quixote is that he has now stopped blaming his failed misadventures on wizards and sorcery. There were two instances of this that I noticed, one in chapter xx and one in chapter xxiii. In chapter xx, after their run-in with the fulling-hammers, Don Quixote realises that he mistook the mills for something other than what they really were. This angers him, and he snaps at Sancho for teasing him about it. "'...do you fancy that, if these were not fulling-hammers but some perilous new adventure, I should have failed to display the courage needed to undertake and conclude it? Am I, perchance, sir, obliged - being, as I am, a knight and a gentleman - to identify and distinguish between sounds, and tell whether they come from fulling-mills or not?'" (163). The other example is Don Quixote's anger at not recognizing the nature of prisoners in chapter xxiii. After they attack him and Sancho, he tells his companion, "'I have always heard, Sancho, that to do good to low-born rabble is to cast water into the sea. Had I believed what you said, I should have avoided this vexation; but the damage is done now, so one must be patient and learn one's lesson for the future'" (186).
This self-reflection would never have been present in earlier chapters. Earlier, when Don Quixote would misinterpret a situation, he would shrug it off and blame it on enchantments and wizards. Now he gets angry when he makes a mistake, and is no longer brushing it off and putting the blame on his enemy Freston, who was apparently the reason all his other adventures ended in failure.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Don Quixote [Day 2]
I thought that the 'play on authorship' seemed to appear the most in chapters 10-18. I also thought that the idea of reality vs. imagination was especially prominent in these chapters. I realise it was apparent in the first set of chapters, but the adventures Don Quixote undertakes in these next chapters really emphasize his confusion with what he sees in his mind and what is actually happening in front of him.
The play on authorship occurs in chapters 14, 15, and 16. On page 112, in chapter 14, Cervantes reminds us that this isn't his story, but in fact a history that he is copying down. "But events didn't turn out as he expected, according to what is related in the course of this true history...". A few pages later, Cervantes begins chapter 15 with the mention of the author of this history. "The wise Cide Hamete Benengeli says that as soon as Don Quixote had taken his leave of his hosts and of everyone else at Grisostomo's burial, he and his squire rode off into the forest where Marcela had disappeared" (115). Cervantes is continually reminding us that he did not write this story. This reminds me of medieval authors, such as Chaucer, who, when retelling stories by other authors, would point out that they themselves didn't write this story, so if the reader has a problem with it, it's not his fault. The third play on authorship occurs on page 125 in chapter 16. This time, Cervantes makes mention of the type of author Cide Hamete Benengeli was. "...according to the author of this history, who makes special mention of this man, because he knew him very well, some people even claiming that the two of them were related - quite apart from the fact that Cide Hamete Benengeli was a careful and meticulous historian, something that's obvious enough, for he refused to pass in silence over the happenings related so far, even though they're so petty and trivial, which should serve as an example to those grave historians who recount events so very succintly that we can hardly catch a taste them and, out of carelessness, malice or ignorance, the most substantial part is left in their inkwells". It is clear that Cervantes takes some issue with the way Cide has written this history, which makes sense because he is a Moor, and the Spaniards didn't particularly care for the Moors.
I think the reason for the plays on authorship is that Cervantes wants this book to actually seem like a historical text. In his prologue, he speaks to his friend, who tells him to add in Latin phrases and all these other things to make his story more credible.
Throughout the story so far, Don Quixote has had a hard time discerning reality from his imagination. He mistakes the windmills as giants, and the herds of sheep as advancing armies. However, the reason behind all his confusion is enchantments and his enemy, the enchanter Freston. Whenever he comes back to reality and realises things aren't what he imagines them to be, he blames it on the fact that the evil enchanter must have cast a spell and changed them. When Don Quixote and Sancho are beat up at the inn, the officer from the Holy Brotherhood isn't a man but in fact "the enchanted Moor". Later, when they have left the inn, Don Quixote is still going on about enchantments, and how the inn was enchanted, and how "they must have enchanted me; for I swear, by my body and bones, that, had I been able to either climb or to dismount, I should have exacted such revenge..." (137, chapter 18).
While it is comical that Don Quixote is living in his own imagination, it is also very dangerous. All the adventures he and Sancho undertake have ended in injury. He has really not been able to help any women or orphans, or conquer other knights. All the people he should be fighting against and defeating, those who are actually 'bad' people, like the Yanguas muleteers, end up hurting him and leaving him half-dead.
The play on authorship occurs in chapters 14, 15, and 16. On page 112, in chapter 14, Cervantes reminds us that this isn't his story, but in fact a history that he is copying down. "But events didn't turn out as he expected, according to what is related in the course of this true history...". A few pages later, Cervantes begins chapter 15 with the mention of the author of this history. "The wise Cide Hamete Benengeli says that as soon as Don Quixote had taken his leave of his hosts and of everyone else at Grisostomo's burial, he and his squire rode off into the forest where Marcela had disappeared" (115). Cervantes is continually reminding us that he did not write this story. This reminds me of medieval authors, such as Chaucer, who, when retelling stories by other authors, would point out that they themselves didn't write this story, so if the reader has a problem with it, it's not his fault. The third play on authorship occurs on page 125 in chapter 16. This time, Cervantes makes mention of the type of author Cide Hamete Benengeli was. "...according to the author of this history, who makes special mention of this man, because he knew him very well, some people even claiming that the two of them were related - quite apart from the fact that Cide Hamete Benengeli was a careful and meticulous historian, something that's obvious enough, for he refused to pass in silence over the happenings related so far, even though they're so petty and trivial, which should serve as an example to those grave historians who recount events so very succintly that we can hardly catch a taste them and, out of carelessness, malice or ignorance, the most substantial part is left in their inkwells". It is clear that Cervantes takes some issue with the way Cide has written this history, which makes sense because he is a Moor, and the Spaniards didn't particularly care for the Moors.
I think the reason for the plays on authorship is that Cervantes wants this book to actually seem like a historical text. In his prologue, he speaks to his friend, who tells him to add in Latin phrases and all these other things to make his story more credible.
Throughout the story so far, Don Quixote has had a hard time discerning reality from his imagination. He mistakes the windmills as giants, and the herds of sheep as advancing armies. However, the reason behind all his confusion is enchantments and his enemy, the enchanter Freston. Whenever he comes back to reality and realises things aren't what he imagines them to be, he blames it on the fact that the evil enchanter must have cast a spell and changed them. When Don Quixote and Sancho are beat up at the inn, the officer from the Holy Brotherhood isn't a man but in fact "the enchanted Moor". Later, when they have left the inn, Don Quixote is still going on about enchantments, and how the inn was enchanted, and how "they must have enchanted me; for I swear, by my body and bones, that, had I been able to either climb or to dismount, I should have exacted such revenge..." (137, chapter 18).
While it is comical that Don Quixote is living in his own imagination, it is also very dangerous. All the adventures he and Sancho undertake have ended in injury. He has really not been able to help any women or orphans, or conquer other knights. All the people he should be fighting against and defeating, those who are actually 'bad' people, like the Yanguas muleteers, end up hurting him and leaving him half-dead.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Don Quixote [Day 1]
I don't particularly find Don Quixote to be as 'radical' a character as he is perceived to be. I have read parts of the story before, and it was always described by teachers to be about a 'madman' or someone who has fallen into insanity. I know that Cervantes refers to his character as a madman, but I don't think it is insanity that is driving Don Quixote. His thought process is comical, but not something that is particularly 'insane'.
"And so, by now quite insane, he conceived the strangest notion that ever took shape in a madman's head, considering it desirable and necessary, both for the increase of his honour and for the common good, to become a knight errant, and to travel about the world with his armour and his arms and his horse in search of adventures, and to practise all those activities that he knew from his books were practised by knights errant, redressing all kinds of grievances, and exposing himself to perils and dangers that he would overcome and thus gain eternal fame and renown" (27). I don't see this as radical in any way. Yes, I realise that it is a bit immature for a gentleman of 50 to want to embark on a journey. But it is clear that Don Quixote has reverted back to a state of childhood, and the innocence that comes along with it. He is innocent because he has pure intentions - he does not set out to kill people or pillage and plunder, but instead sets out to become famous by redressing wrongs. This idea is very childish, because as children we tend to have these grand ideas about how we are going to become famous and save the world. There is no harm in him polishing up his armour, making a cardboard helmet visor, and riding around on a rickety old hack. He isn't leaving behind a life of fortune and luxury in pursuit of some wild dream; he is further diving into a dreamworld of books and chivalric tradition.
I find it quite endearing how innocent Don Quixote is. I don't envision some withered, dusty old man when I read about him. He is vibrant and imaginative, in no ways old and withered. I think it is almost cute how it takes him four days to think of a name for his horse, because he wants it to be the greatest name ever. "He spent four days considering what name to give his nag; for (he told himself) it wasn't fitting that the horse of such a famous knight errant, and such a fine horse in its own right, too, shouldn't have some name of eminence; and so he tried to find one that would express both what it had been before it became a knight's horse and what it was now..." (28). He isn't just concerned about making himself the greatest knight, but is also concerned with making sure his horse and love interest are also of the greatest quality (at least in name).
However, there is one scene that I find to be a bit radical. When Don Quixote is keeping the vigil in the courtyard, two muleteers come out to give water to their horses. There is only one problem, and that is that Don Quixote's armour is in the water trough. He asks them, first, to not remove the armour - "Take care what you do, and touch it not, unless you wish to pay with your life for your temerity" (38). He has not yet made a statement as bold as this, let alone a threat, so it seems that it would not go anywhere and be an empty assertion of his 'power' as a knight. However, to prove his point when they do move his armour, "he dropped his leather shield, raised his lance with both hands, and dealt the muleteer so powerful a blow to the head that he fell on the ground in such a sorry state that had it been followed by another blow he wouldn't have needed a doctor to treat him" (39). This is a very rash action, and he proceeds to do it again to the second muleteer, this time splitting his skull into three pieces. The innkeeper tells the comrades of the fallen men not to worry because Don Quixote is a madman and will walk away from any charges. Regardless, this action was not like anything Don Quixote has done before, and I thought it was strange that he would act so rashly.
One thing I noticed about Don Quixote is that he, unlike Perceval, has somehow managed to follow in the true path of knighthood. "Once he'd made these preparations he decided not to wait any longer before putting his plans into action, encouraged by the need that he believed his delay was creating in the world: so great was his determination to redress grievances, right wrongs, correct injustices, rectify abuses and fulfill obligations" (30). Perceval, when he sets out on his knightly quest, only wants to do it for the fame and perceived glory that come with knighthood. He wants to be as beautiful as the 'angels' he saw in the forest, and wear armour and joust and fight. While Don Quixote wants the fame, I think his innocence keeps him on the right path of knighthood. I think he is able to see the true meaning of what it is to be a knight, and his intentions clearly mimic that.
"And so, by now quite insane, he conceived the strangest notion that ever took shape in a madman's head, considering it desirable and necessary, both for the increase of his honour and for the common good, to become a knight errant, and to travel about the world with his armour and his arms and his horse in search of adventures, and to practise all those activities that he knew from his books were practised by knights errant, redressing all kinds of grievances, and exposing himself to perils and dangers that he would overcome and thus gain eternal fame and renown" (27). I don't see this as radical in any way. Yes, I realise that it is a bit immature for a gentleman of 50 to want to embark on a journey. But it is clear that Don Quixote has reverted back to a state of childhood, and the innocence that comes along with it. He is innocent because he has pure intentions - he does not set out to kill people or pillage and plunder, but instead sets out to become famous by redressing wrongs. This idea is very childish, because as children we tend to have these grand ideas about how we are going to become famous and save the world. There is no harm in him polishing up his armour, making a cardboard helmet visor, and riding around on a rickety old hack. He isn't leaving behind a life of fortune and luxury in pursuit of some wild dream; he is further diving into a dreamworld of books and chivalric tradition.
I find it quite endearing how innocent Don Quixote is. I don't envision some withered, dusty old man when I read about him. He is vibrant and imaginative, in no ways old and withered. I think it is almost cute how it takes him four days to think of a name for his horse, because he wants it to be the greatest name ever. "He spent four days considering what name to give his nag; for (he told himself) it wasn't fitting that the horse of such a famous knight errant, and such a fine horse in its own right, too, shouldn't have some name of eminence; and so he tried to find one that would express both what it had been before it became a knight's horse and what it was now..." (28). He isn't just concerned about making himself the greatest knight, but is also concerned with making sure his horse and love interest are also of the greatest quality (at least in name).
However, there is one scene that I find to be a bit radical. When Don Quixote is keeping the vigil in the courtyard, two muleteers come out to give water to their horses. There is only one problem, and that is that Don Quixote's armour is in the water trough. He asks them, first, to not remove the armour - "Take care what you do, and touch it not, unless you wish to pay with your life for your temerity" (38). He has not yet made a statement as bold as this, let alone a threat, so it seems that it would not go anywhere and be an empty assertion of his 'power' as a knight. However, to prove his point when they do move his armour, "he dropped his leather shield, raised his lance with both hands, and dealt the muleteer so powerful a blow to the head that he fell on the ground in such a sorry state that had it been followed by another blow he wouldn't have needed a doctor to treat him" (39). This is a very rash action, and he proceeds to do it again to the second muleteer, this time splitting his skull into three pieces. The innkeeper tells the comrades of the fallen men not to worry because Don Quixote is a madman and will walk away from any charges. Regardless, this action was not like anything Don Quixote has done before, and I thought it was strange that he would act so rashly.
One thing I noticed about Don Quixote is that he, unlike Perceval, has somehow managed to follow in the true path of knighthood. "Once he'd made these preparations he decided not to wait any longer before putting his plans into action, encouraged by the need that he believed his delay was creating in the world: so great was his determination to redress grievances, right wrongs, correct injustices, rectify abuses and fulfill obligations" (30). Perceval, when he sets out on his knightly quest, only wants to do it for the fame and perceived glory that come with knighthood. He wants to be as beautiful as the 'angels' he saw in the forest, and wear armour and joust and fight. While Don Quixote wants the fame, I think his innocence keeps him on the right path of knighthood. I think he is able to see the true meaning of what it is to be a knight, and his intentions clearly mimic that.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Dante's Inferno [Response 5]
"Who could ever, even with unbound words, tell in/full of the blood and wounds that I now saw, though/he should narrate them many times?/Every tongue would surely fail, because our/language and our memory have little capacity to comprehend so much" (Canto 28, ln 1-6, pg 433).
I think that this quote comments on the work as a whole. The farther Dante the pilgrim travels in to Hell, the worse and more grotesque the punishments get. I think that this quote represents Dante's overall experience through the Inferno. There is so much horror that although Dante writes about it, we can never fully comprehend what he sees. There are no words possible to describe it, nor have we ever seen anything like this that our memories could create a true image of what he is telling us.
This relates back to the themes of myths in many ways. First, all of Dante's narrations are stories. Although they are stories, they still include a search for meaning. When Dante sees the punishments of Francesca and Paolo, for example, he realises that he could meet the same end for his actions on Earth. Myths are also timeless, as is this story. We are all familiar with the idea of Hell, and if we are Christian (or more especially, Catholic), we are taught that if we commit sin and do not repent, we will end up in Hell. Hell is always portrayed as a fiery pit, but Dante's depiction shows us a more human side to it, with immense pain and suffering. In this way, his Inferno makes Hell more horrible and real concept.
"'Death has not reached him yet, nor does guilt/lead him,' replied my master, 'into torment; but so/that he may have full experience,/I, who am dead, must lead him through Hell...'" (Canto 28, ln 46-51, pg 435).
I find this quote to be representative of the work as a whole, but I also have some issue with it. Virgil is right, death has not sent Dante into Hell. But I think that guilt, on some level, has lead him down there. He has strayed from the "right" path, and now needs to see the horrible things that can happen to him if he continues to stray. When he sees the punishments of Francesca and Paolo, he becomes afraid this will happen to him because of his love for Beatrice. If he hadn't done anything wrong, he wouldn't have been afraid of this punishment. The same goes for the situation with Brunetto Latini - Dante has a desire to join the homosexuals, then becomes worried he could suffer the same punishment. He shouldn't have to worry about suffering these punishments if he had not done anything wrong, but he is clearly feeling some amount of guilt for whathe has done.
Also, on the level of myth, Dante is lead through Hell to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. He must experience all of these horrors so that he can rise up and become a stronger and more righteous man.
I think that this quote comments on the work as a whole. The farther Dante the pilgrim travels in to Hell, the worse and more grotesque the punishments get. I think that this quote represents Dante's overall experience through the Inferno. There is so much horror that although Dante writes about it, we can never fully comprehend what he sees. There are no words possible to describe it, nor have we ever seen anything like this that our memories could create a true image of what he is telling us.
This relates back to the themes of myths in many ways. First, all of Dante's narrations are stories. Although they are stories, they still include a search for meaning. When Dante sees the punishments of Francesca and Paolo, for example, he realises that he could meet the same end for his actions on Earth. Myths are also timeless, as is this story. We are all familiar with the idea of Hell, and if we are Christian (or more especially, Catholic), we are taught that if we commit sin and do not repent, we will end up in Hell. Hell is always portrayed as a fiery pit, but Dante's depiction shows us a more human side to it, with immense pain and suffering. In this way, his Inferno makes Hell more horrible and real concept.
"'Death has not reached him yet, nor does guilt/lead him,' replied my master, 'into torment; but so/that he may have full experience,/I, who am dead, must lead him through Hell...'" (Canto 28, ln 46-51, pg 435).
I find this quote to be representative of the work as a whole, but I also have some issue with it. Virgil is right, death has not sent Dante into Hell. But I think that guilt, on some level, has lead him down there. He has strayed from the "right" path, and now needs to see the horrible things that can happen to him if he continues to stray. When he sees the punishments of Francesca and Paolo, he becomes afraid this will happen to him because of his love for Beatrice. If he hadn't done anything wrong, he wouldn't have been afraid of this punishment. The same goes for the situation with Brunetto Latini - Dante has a desire to join the homosexuals, then becomes worried he could suffer the same punishment. He shouldn't have to worry about suffering these punishments if he had not done anything wrong, but he is clearly feeling some amount of guilt for whathe has done.
Also, on the level of myth, Dante is lead through Hell to follow in the footsteps of Jesus. He must experience all of these horrors so that he can rise up and become a stronger and more righteous man.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Dante's Inferno [Response 4]
Question 3
I found it strange that the demons were in charge of the 5th bolgia. In only two other canti have beasts actually been in control of the souls; in Canto 6 there was Cerebus, and in Canto 17 there is the Geryon. However, these two creatures are more beast-like than the demons. Yes, the demons have claws and wings, but they walk on the ground and are more human than a three-headed dog. Also, the demons are given names like "Curly Beard", "Little Big Dragon", and "Ruby Face", whereas Cerebus and the Geryon are creatures from Greek mythology. I was surprised that the demons would be so stupid to let the souls trick them. Evil Dog even realises the Navarrese is trying to trick him, and points this out to the other demons. "At that Evil Dog lifted his snout, shaking his head,/and said: 'Listen to the trick he's thought of, so he/can jump back in!'" (Canto 22, ln 106-108). After the soul admits that yes, he is being tricky, Harlequin jumps in and decides it would be a good idea to let him try to outdo them.
This could say a lot about the power of the demons. At first, I thought it was weird that these demons are essentially in control of the souls in this level, and yet they give in so easily to temptation. After thinking about it however, maybe it shows that the demons, like everyone else, find it hard to resist temptations and sometimes give in. Also, when I first read the question as to who is really in control, I automatically assumed it was Lucifer. That doesn't make sense thought, because why would he let his own henchmen be fooled by humans? I think that God is the one here who is in control, and must be keeping these people in a continual cycle of deceit and trickery. The demons snare a soul, the soul tricks the demon into freeing him, and the soul wins until it gets snared again. This cycle of deceit also fits in well with the circle of Hell they are in. The thought that God is ultimately in control of everything fits in with Dante's world view. The goal of his journey is to achieve, eventually, salvation and only God can control whether Dante ends up in Heaven or Hell.
There were two quotes that stood out to me. The first quote was in Canto 23, on page 353, when Dante is walking with the lead-robed friars. "I began: 'O friars, your evil...' but I said no more,/for into my view cam one crucified to the earth with/three stakes./When he saw me, he twisted himself all over,/puffing into his beard with sighs; and Brother/Catalano, who perceived it,/told me: 'That one staked there at whom you are/looking counseled the Pharisees that it was/expedient to put one man to death for the people'" (ln 109-117). I thought it was appropriate that Caiaphas, the man Brother Catalano points out, was crucified. He played a role in condemning Jesus to death, and now has to suffer the same death eternally. I thought it made sense that everything came back full-circle.
The other quote that stood out to me was in Canto 26, on page 405, when the flame of Ulysses is speaking. "'O brothers,' I said, 'who through a hundred/thousand perils have reached the west, to this so/brief vigil/of our senses that remains, do no deny the/experience, following the sun, of the world without/people./Consider your sowing: you were not made to live/like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge'" (ln 112-119). I thought the last part of the quote was particularly important, especially given the thoughts Dante had for the naked men in Canto 16. Also, the farther Dante goes into Hell, the more beast-like and animalistic the condemned become. These people have committed such sins that they eventually ended up losing their human traits, having given into their desires and not using their knowledge.
I found it strange that the demons were in charge of the 5th bolgia. In only two other canti have beasts actually been in control of the souls; in Canto 6 there was Cerebus, and in Canto 17 there is the Geryon. However, these two creatures are more beast-like than the demons. Yes, the demons have claws and wings, but they walk on the ground and are more human than a three-headed dog. Also, the demons are given names like "Curly Beard", "Little Big Dragon", and "Ruby Face", whereas Cerebus and the Geryon are creatures from Greek mythology. I was surprised that the demons would be so stupid to let the souls trick them. Evil Dog even realises the Navarrese is trying to trick him, and points this out to the other demons. "At that Evil Dog lifted his snout, shaking his head,/and said: 'Listen to the trick he's thought of, so he/can jump back in!'" (Canto 22, ln 106-108). After the soul admits that yes, he is being tricky, Harlequin jumps in and decides it would be a good idea to let him try to outdo them.
This could say a lot about the power of the demons. At first, I thought it was weird that these demons are essentially in control of the souls in this level, and yet they give in so easily to temptation. After thinking about it however, maybe it shows that the demons, like everyone else, find it hard to resist temptations and sometimes give in. Also, when I first read the question as to who is really in control, I automatically assumed it was Lucifer. That doesn't make sense thought, because why would he let his own henchmen be fooled by humans? I think that God is the one here who is in control, and must be keeping these people in a continual cycle of deceit and trickery. The demons snare a soul, the soul tricks the demon into freeing him, and the soul wins until it gets snared again. This cycle of deceit also fits in well with the circle of Hell they are in. The thought that God is ultimately in control of everything fits in with Dante's world view. The goal of his journey is to achieve, eventually, salvation and only God can control whether Dante ends up in Heaven or Hell.
There were two quotes that stood out to me. The first quote was in Canto 23, on page 353, when Dante is walking with the lead-robed friars. "I began: 'O friars, your evil...' but I said no more,/for into my view cam one crucified to the earth with/three stakes./When he saw me, he twisted himself all over,/puffing into his beard with sighs; and Brother/Catalano, who perceived it,/told me: 'That one staked there at whom you are/looking counseled the Pharisees that it was/expedient to put one man to death for the people'" (ln 109-117). I thought it was appropriate that Caiaphas, the man Brother Catalano points out, was crucified. He played a role in condemning Jesus to death, and now has to suffer the same death eternally. I thought it made sense that everything came back full-circle.
The other quote that stood out to me was in Canto 26, on page 405, when the flame of Ulysses is speaking. "'O brothers,' I said, 'who through a hundred/thousand perils have reached the west, to this so/brief vigil/of our senses that remains, do no deny the/experience, following the sun, of the world without/people./Consider your sowing: you were not made to live/like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge'" (ln 112-119). I thought the last part of the quote was particularly important, especially given the thoughts Dante had for the naked men in Canto 16. Also, the farther Dante goes into Hell, the more beast-like and animalistic the condemned become. These people have committed such sins that they eventually ended up losing their human traits, having given into their desires and not using their knowledge.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Dante's Inferno [Response 3]
Question 3
I thought that the image of Geryon was strange, and I had a hard time picturing what he would look like. The closest image in my mind was that he looked somewhat like a centaur, except with a serpentine tail instead of a horse tail. However, even if I can't picture it exactly the way Dante describes it, he does a good job trying to paint a picture of the creature. "And that filthy image of fraud came over and/beached its head and chest, but did not draw up its/tail as far as the bank./Its face was that of a just man, so kindly seemed/its outer skin, and the rest of its torso was that of a serpent;/it had two paws, hairy to the armpits; it had back/and breast and both sides painted with knots and little wheels/.../its tail was wriggling, twisting/upward the poisoned fork that armed its tip like a scorpion's" (Canto 17, ln 7-15,25-27). I think that Geryon's variety of body parts symbolizes fraud. Those who committed fraud deceived someone else, and I believe that Geryon's body is meant to deceive those who see it. As Dante the pilgrim points out to us, "Its face was that of a just man". The monster is horrible, but it tricks Dante into seeing it as just and kind.
The point of fictional literature would, in a sense I suppose, be to trick the reader into believing something the author created. When we read works of fiction, we tend to lose ourselves in the world the author has formed. I myself get very absorbed in the books I read, and sometimes have a hard time coming back to reality, and remembering that the things I read do not exist in my actual life. Therefore, it is possible to say that Dante committed fraud by tricking people into immersing themselves into fictional worlds when they read his books. However, I don't really see this as fraud. It's not as if authors set out to intentionally harm people when they write. When I think of fraud, I think of taking money from people and things like that - that actually hurts people. Fictional literature is meant as an escape, where you can go for enjoyment and relaxation.
Question 5
Canto 19 is a very radical canto. Dante the pilgrim (and Dante the author) is clearly a devout Christian, as mentioned, with the whole point of his journey serving to put him back on the right path toward (eventual) salvation. However, Dante puts many church leaders and popes into this third subcircle. Dante starts out the canto addressing these sinners, and mentions their sins. "O Simon Magnus, O wretched followers, you who/the things of God, that should be brides of goodness,/rapaciously/adulterate for gold and silver..." (Canto 19, ln 1-4). As the canto progresses, Dante even mentions some of the condemned clergy by name, which is highly risky, given that he could be punished for his views. For example, he points out the sins of Boniface, who is Pope Boniface VIII and who was alive when the poem took place. "'Are you already standing/there, are you already standing there, Boniface? The/writing lied to me by several years./Are you so soon sated by the wealth for which/you did not fear to marry the lovely lady/fraudulently, and then to tear her apart?'" (Canto 19, ln 52-57).
I see this illumination of the flaws of the Church as part of Dante's "midlife crisis". I feel like while he loves the Church, he realises that its leaders aren't perfect but have flaws like everyone else. Obviously, if someone so looked up to and respected as a clergy member makes a mistake or commits a sin, it is looked down upon more severely than if an ordinary citizen did. I have been raised a Catholic, but I constantly question things that we are supposed to accept and go along with. It's not so much that I have questions with the Bible and Jesus' teachings as I do with the Catholic church as an organization. We, the parishioners, are expected to live a life free of sin, yet we constantly hear stories about how priests are abusing and molesting young children. Yes, they are given their punishment, but what kind of an example does that set for the people who look up to them? Also, I was under the impression that members of the clergy were supposed to take vows of poverty, yet each Sunday the church is continually asking for more and more money. I know the church needs money to be maintained, but I feel that asking for the money is going against the poverty pledge. I believe church leaders should live the life they preach, and I think that that is the point Dante is trying to make. If they lead a fraudulent and deceitful life, then they will receive a proper punishment for that, as shown by the upside-down sinners in baptismal fonts with their feet on fire.
I thought that the image of Geryon was strange, and I had a hard time picturing what he would look like. The closest image in my mind was that he looked somewhat like a centaur, except with a serpentine tail instead of a horse tail. However, even if I can't picture it exactly the way Dante describes it, he does a good job trying to paint a picture of the creature. "And that filthy image of fraud came over and/beached its head and chest, but did not draw up its/tail as far as the bank./Its face was that of a just man, so kindly seemed/its outer skin, and the rest of its torso was that of a serpent;/it had two paws, hairy to the armpits; it had back/and breast and both sides painted with knots and little wheels/.../its tail was wriggling, twisting/upward the poisoned fork that armed its tip like a scorpion's" (Canto 17, ln 7-15,25-27). I think that Geryon's variety of body parts symbolizes fraud. Those who committed fraud deceived someone else, and I believe that Geryon's body is meant to deceive those who see it. As Dante the pilgrim points out to us, "Its face was that of a just man". The monster is horrible, but it tricks Dante into seeing it as just and kind.
The point of fictional literature would, in a sense I suppose, be to trick the reader into believing something the author created. When we read works of fiction, we tend to lose ourselves in the world the author has formed. I myself get very absorbed in the books I read, and sometimes have a hard time coming back to reality, and remembering that the things I read do not exist in my actual life. Therefore, it is possible to say that Dante committed fraud by tricking people into immersing themselves into fictional worlds when they read his books. However, I don't really see this as fraud. It's not as if authors set out to intentionally harm people when they write. When I think of fraud, I think of taking money from people and things like that - that actually hurts people. Fictional literature is meant as an escape, where you can go for enjoyment and relaxation.
Question 5
Canto 19 is a very radical canto. Dante the pilgrim (and Dante the author) is clearly a devout Christian, as mentioned, with the whole point of his journey serving to put him back on the right path toward (eventual) salvation. However, Dante puts many church leaders and popes into this third subcircle. Dante starts out the canto addressing these sinners, and mentions their sins. "O Simon Magnus, O wretched followers, you who/the things of God, that should be brides of goodness,/rapaciously/adulterate for gold and silver..." (Canto 19, ln 1-4). As the canto progresses, Dante even mentions some of the condemned clergy by name, which is highly risky, given that he could be punished for his views. For example, he points out the sins of Boniface, who is Pope Boniface VIII and who was alive when the poem took place. "'Are you already standing/there, are you already standing there, Boniface? The/writing lied to me by several years./Are you so soon sated by the wealth for which/you did not fear to marry the lovely lady/fraudulently, and then to tear her apart?'" (Canto 19, ln 52-57).
I see this illumination of the flaws of the Church as part of Dante's "midlife crisis". I feel like while he loves the Church, he realises that its leaders aren't perfect but have flaws like everyone else. Obviously, if someone so looked up to and respected as a clergy member makes a mistake or commits a sin, it is looked down upon more severely than if an ordinary citizen did. I have been raised a Catholic, but I constantly question things that we are supposed to accept and go along with. It's not so much that I have questions with the Bible and Jesus' teachings as I do with the Catholic church as an organization. We, the parishioners, are expected to live a life free of sin, yet we constantly hear stories about how priests are abusing and molesting young children. Yes, they are given their punishment, but what kind of an example does that set for the people who look up to them? Also, I was under the impression that members of the clergy were supposed to take vows of poverty, yet each Sunday the church is continually asking for more and more money. I know the church needs money to be maintained, but I feel that asking for the money is going against the poverty pledge. I believe church leaders should live the life they preach, and I think that that is the point Dante is trying to make. If they lead a fraudulent and deceitful life, then they will receive a proper punishment for that, as shown by the upside-down sinners in baptismal fonts with their feet on fire.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Dante's Inferno [Response 2]
"Why do you kick back against that Will/whose ends can never be cut short and which has many/times increased your suffering?/What is the good of butting against fate?" (Canto 9, verses 94-94, pg 145). I found these lines to be representative of the entire set of canti, and also as to why Dante the pilgrim ventured into Hell. The part of these lines that really struck me was when the man "who was walking across the Styx with dry feet" comes out of the smoke and asks the pilgrim Dante, "What is the good of butting against fate?" To me, it seemed like this was the line that should alleviate all of Dante's fears. He was worried throughout the first set of canti that he would end up like Paolo and Francesca because of the love and the desire that he felt for Beatrice.
I interpreted the line to mean that Dante the pilgrim was not to end up in Hell, that it was not his destiny to be put to such a fate. Clearly, we know that Dante does not end up remaining in Hell because he continues on to Purgatorio and Paradiso, and is narrating the story to us after it occurs. But for someone who was not familiar with this, this might be a clue to them that Dante is not meant to be down here. Also, to bring back up the theme of love and Paolo and Francesca, Dante's fate will clearly be different than theirs. First, he and Beatrice did not commit the same 'sin' as did Paolo and Francesca, and also, Beatrice has already made it to Heaven. If Dante were to be confined in Hell because of his love for Beatrice, I would imagine both would be there together.
"But certainly, if I remember well/.../on every side of this deep, foul valley trembled so/that I thought the universe must be feeling love, by/which, some believe,/the world has often turned back into chaos:/and at that point this ancient cliff, here and/elsewhere, was broken down" (Canto 12, verses 37-45, pg 187). I read the text notes on these lines after I wrote it down as a verse of interest, but I don't entirely agree with what the notes have to say about the lines. The notes explain that this refers to the traditional explanation of the sun darkening on Christ's death, with both Heaven and Hell acknowledging "that he was the Creator who had died". The notes also mention that Albertus Magnus wrote that "so many signs appeared" upon Christ's death because "the entire universe exclaimed that it could not endure that death". The notes mention, as a last thought, that the Greeks believed the universe alternated between strife, which drives things apart, and love, which brings things back into the original chaos.
However, I don't entirely agree with what the notes are saying about these lines. I understand Dante the author wrote the Divina Commedia as a religious work, but I interpreted these lines about love and chaos in a much less religious sense. The line in this group that really led my interpretation was when Virgil says "I thought the universe must be feeling love, by/which, some believe,/the world has often been turned back into chaos". I thought this meant that not all types of love are "good", and can cause harm - as a warning to Dante the pilgrim. In a religious context, love for God is good, but lust and physical desire are not good. The mention of the Minotaur in the beginning of the canto also made me think about the idea of how love can cause chaos. The Minotaur was created when King Minos' wife fell in love with a bull, and acted on that love. Because of these things, I imagined these lines were a warning to Dante about his love for Beatrice. In Canto 5, Dante falls into a swoon because he is worried that his love will cause him to end up with the same fate as Paolo and Francesca. This line, appearing later, just seemed to me to reinforce the idea of what can happen when you let your desires and emotions get the best of you.
In Canto 13, there was a line I found very interesting. I didn't entirely find any symbolic meaning in it, but it stood out to me and I wrote it down. In Canto 13, Date the pilgrim and Virgil come across the men who have been turned into trees. One of them speaks, and tells the travellers, "Like the others, we will come for our remains,but/not so that any may put them on again, for it is not/just to have what one has taken from oneself" (verses 103-105). The entire theme of the Inferno is justice, mainly divine, but still justice nonetheless. I thought the idea of not getting back what you have taken was a clever punishment. The other souls in the other layers of Hell all have their bodies, regardless of their punishments. However, in the second subcircle of the seventh layer, these souls are confined to the bodies of trees. They do not get their earthly bodies back, which makes their punishment cruel, yes, but I think much more of a punishment than being confined to walk in circles all day. I didn't really think much about the different punishments until I read this line and thought about it, and after thinking about it, I decided this was by far the most cruel but most just punishment.
I interpreted the line to mean that Dante the pilgrim was not to end up in Hell, that it was not his destiny to be put to such a fate. Clearly, we know that Dante does not end up remaining in Hell because he continues on to Purgatorio and Paradiso, and is narrating the story to us after it occurs. But for someone who was not familiar with this, this might be a clue to them that Dante is not meant to be down here. Also, to bring back up the theme of love and Paolo and Francesca, Dante's fate will clearly be different than theirs. First, he and Beatrice did not commit the same 'sin' as did Paolo and Francesca, and also, Beatrice has already made it to Heaven. If Dante were to be confined in Hell because of his love for Beatrice, I would imagine both would be there together.
"But certainly, if I remember well/.../on every side of this deep, foul valley trembled so/that I thought the universe must be feeling love, by/which, some believe,/the world has often turned back into chaos:/and at that point this ancient cliff, here and/elsewhere, was broken down" (Canto 12, verses 37-45, pg 187). I read the text notes on these lines after I wrote it down as a verse of interest, but I don't entirely agree with what the notes have to say about the lines. The notes explain that this refers to the traditional explanation of the sun darkening on Christ's death, with both Heaven and Hell acknowledging "that he was the Creator who had died". The notes also mention that Albertus Magnus wrote that "so many signs appeared" upon Christ's death because "the entire universe exclaimed that it could not endure that death". The notes mention, as a last thought, that the Greeks believed the universe alternated between strife, which drives things apart, and love, which brings things back into the original chaos.
However, I don't entirely agree with what the notes are saying about these lines. I understand Dante the author wrote the Divina Commedia as a religious work, but I interpreted these lines about love and chaos in a much less religious sense. The line in this group that really led my interpretation was when Virgil says "I thought the universe must be feeling love, by/which, some believe,/the world has often been turned back into chaos". I thought this meant that not all types of love are "good", and can cause harm - as a warning to Dante the pilgrim. In a religious context, love for God is good, but lust and physical desire are not good. The mention of the Minotaur in the beginning of the canto also made me think about the idea of how love can cause chaos. The Minotaur was created when King Minos' wife fell in love with a bull, and acted on that love. Because of these things, I imagined these lines were a warning to Dante about his love for Beatrice. In Canto 5, Dante falls into a swoon because he is worried that his love will cause him to end up with the same fate as Paolo and Francesca. This line, appearing later, just seemed to me to reinforce the idea of what can happen when you let your desires and emotions get the best of you.
In Canto 13, there was a line I found very interesting. I didn't entirely find any symbolic meaning in it, but it stood out to me and I wrote it down. In Canto 13, Date the pilgrim and Virgil come across the men who have been turned into trees. One of them speaks, and tells the travellers, "Like the others, we will come for our remains,but/not so that any may put them on again, for it is not/just to have what one has taken from oneself" (verses 103-105). The entire theme of the Inferno is justice, mainly divine, but still justice nonetheless. I thought the idea of not getting back what you have taken was a clever punishment. The other souls in the other layers of Hell all have their bodies, regardless of their punishments. However, in the second subcircle of the seventh layer, these souls are confined to the bodies of trees. They do not get their earthly bodies back, which makes their punishment cruel, yes, but I think much more of a punishment than being confined to walk in circles all day. I didn't really think much about the different punishments until I read this line and thought about it, and after thinking about it, I decided this was by far the most cruel but most just punishment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)