Dante's Sympathy Or Scorn

    

          In the Inferno, Dante distinguishes between the different people he encounters in Hell. He is extremely scornful to some, but pities others. In the Wood of Suicides, Dante meets one of the tree trunks, Pier de Vigne, who was “unjustly blamed” in his service to Emperor Frederick II and committed suicide to avoid torture (Canto 13, line 69). (See also the footnote, which reveals that Pier was famous for his mastery of Italian poetry; was Dante biased because of this?). Similarly, Brunetto Latino is in circle seven, where Dante finds him and is eager to spend time with him. Dante wants “with all [his] soul” to have Brunetto walk with him for a bit (Canto 15, line 34). He is not at all scornful to these men.

            However, he reacts much differently in other sections. Perhaps some of this is due to the fact that he is progressing into “worse” layers of punishments, but this is not the only reason. Speaking to Pope Nicholas III, who is in the Simoniac layer (for corrupting the things of God), Dante declares, “stay as you are; this hole well fits you” (Canto 19, line 91). In the same way, Dante yanks out the hair of Bocca delgi Abbati, an unrepentant traitor in circle nine. Dante is adamant about some people being awful, while others he feels compassion for.

            Why does Dante (and Virgil) differentiate between the people he meets? Could he have personal or political reasons? One thing I noted was that Dante, as he distinguishes between those who should be pitied and those who should be scorned, makes a judgement call about the severity of their sins. He wishes some were not punished so severely, but he adds to the punishment of others. Dante puts himself in a position to “judge for [himself]” the sentences of the people he meets (Canto 33, line 21). Is Dante acting as a judge when he pities some and not others? Or is he simply reacting – as any human would – to what he sees?

 Image: https://scholarsandrogues.com/2013/10/30/dantes-inferno-and-contrapasso/    

Storytelling: Better than Reading?

      

I used to think that reading was amazing, and I often preferred it to listening or watching. However, I have learned that we lose so much when we communicate alone. Books, films, and online communication are useful, but I think they only give us a glimpse of what it is like to interact face-to-face. As I read The Iliad, I found a few characteristics that seemed a bit odd to find in a written text. But they made more sense when I considered them in light of a face-to-face storytelling culture.

Practical detail: Often, Homer thoroughly describes what the characters are physically doing. In Book 16 there is more than ample description of the battles. In Book 24 there is a section that describes step-by-step how Priam’s sons prepare his cargo wagon for the trip. This detail seems excessive and boring for a written narrative, but from the perspective of storytelling, it appears to have more purpose. What would it be like to experience these (seemingly boring) descriptions through a real person, one we can see, hear, and respond to? 

Metaphors and similes: As we have discussed in class, there are many comparisons throughout the text. Homer compares characters and events to stars, snakes, eagles, hawks, hounds, trees, and war events. He even commands us (in second person) to think about the strokes of woodcutters as a metaphor. Some of these metaphors take a large chunk of text to describe. They slow down the pace of the reading, allowing listeners to slowly and fully experience the tale. There seems to be less an emphasis on plot and more on an attempt to feel and understand each small event, something a storyteller would prioritize. It’s slower, descriptive, and more life-like.

Clarification of identity: Another odd characteristic is Homer’s constant reminders of characters’ identities and relationships. When first reading, I tried to write down all of the names and relationships in order to keep them straight, but I soon realized that Homer often repeats these details for us. With multiple reminders, a reader – and even more importantly, a listener – doesn’t have to work too hard to remember the core relationships. The Homeric epithets add to this too. By the end of even just a couple of The Iliad’s books, we can have no doubt that Athena has white arms and Achilles is a fast runner. Perhaps this clarification is a tool that storytellers used for themselves and their listeners as they performed. 

What purpose do these characteristics serve in The Iliad? If you were to tell a story orally (even a short one), would you find that these characteristics make more sense when there is an active audience in mind?