How Can Contemporary Readers Approach Dante’s Inferno?

Discussion Post Stars

To some, reading Dante’s Divine Comedy seems a hopeless task.  Written in the 1300s, it conjures up all the (incorrect) stereotypes readers have about the Middle Ages as a time of oppression where no one thought for themselves and everyone blindly accepted the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Of course, in reality lively debate thrived and plenty of non-religious material, including romances that might even celebrate adultery, circulated.  Like today, people were capable of independent thought and the members of a given audience were not likely all  to respond in the exact same way.  There’s no such thing as “people in the Middle Ages thought.”  They all thought different things!

However, other readers worry that the text is dry and dull, a religious tract that harps about sin and guilt and individual responsibility–stuff contemporary individuals aren’t supposed to worry about.  How on earth is someone who doesn’t believe lust is wrong or that gluttony or theft could potentially be worthy of damnation approach such an uncomfortable text?  The answer is the same as with any text–we have to begin by reading generously.

To read the Divine Comedy, we have to understand Dante’s internal logic.  This does not mean we have to agree with his logic or that we have to like everything it says.  It simply means we have to understand why he says what he says before we begin to criticize it.   Here are a few of the issues that trouble contemporary readers in the first part of the Comedy, the Inferno.

Why does Dante put people in hell? That’s mean!

From Dante’s perspective, he didn’t place these individuals in hell and neither did God.  The people had free will so they deliberately chose to separate themselves from God eternally.  To do this, they had to commit a mortal sin, which is distinct from a venial sin.  To commit a mortal sin, there must be grave matter (ex. murdering someone, not stealing an extra cookie from the cookie jar), the individual must understand the matter is grave (younger children or people with mental illnesses are less culpable), and the person must commit the act freely (not under coercion or because of a mental illness). So these aren’t just any people in hell.  They are people who knew they were doing something seriously wrong and separating themselves from God, but they did it anyway.  There are people who committed similar sins in purgatory and heaven, but these individuals repented and asked for forgiveness for hurting God and others.  In other words, by Dante’s logic, the sinners in hell are there because they wanted to be.

Why does Dante put the classical poets and other non-Christians in Limbo?  That’s mean!

First, we have to clarify that Limbo is not hell.  It’s a place distinct from hell and it was suggested as a way to deal with the problem of individuals who may not have committed personal sins or who lead upright lives, but who were not baptized.  The Catholic Church teaches that each soul inherits original sin from the fall of Adam and Eve, and this original sin needs to be removed through baptism for one to be able to enter heaven.   This original sin is different from personal sin, which an individual commits.   However, people were troubled that there might be an infant who died without baptism.  The infant would not have sinned personally, but would still have original sin on their soul.  Is it fair that the infant cannot enter heaven?  And what about individuals who lived before Christ and could not be baptized, through no fault of their own, but might have lead good lives regardless?  Enter the concept of Limbo.

Limbo has never been official Catholic Church teaching.  However, it seemed a clever way to deal with the dilemma of good, but unbaptized, individuals.  So Dante places classical figures he admires in Limbo because he does not want to place them in hell to suffer eternal punishment.  The souls in Dante’s Limbo do suffer because they know they will never be in God with heaven.  However, otherwise they are allowed to roam freely, to have intellectual conversations, etc.  Dante’s placing these souls in Limbo is, for him, a sign of respect and a sort of kindness.  He knows he can’t put them in heaven, but he’s not going to put them in hell, either.

Why does Dante condemn Paolo and Francesca for loving each other?  That’s mean!

Dante would not have understood Paolo and Francesca, the famous lovers from Canto V of the Inferno, as having loved each other.  Love works for the good of the other person, but what Paolo and Francesca did was not to seek the good of each other.  Rather, they fell prey to their passions.  Francesca, though married to Paolo’s brother, slept with Paolo–they committed adultery.  They are in hell, not for love, but for lust, meaning they used each other to satisfy their physical desires.

Francesca and Paolo come across to readers as very sympathetic because Francesca tells her own story.  She is a noble woman, courteous, well-spoken.  But she’s also a damned soul and her account of her sin isn’t supposed to be taken at face value by readers.  Dante-Pilgrim, the character in the poem, may feel sympathy for her, too, but he’s also just started his journey through hell and he’s been assigned to take this journey specifically because he’s in a bad spiritual state and not too great at recognizing the true nature of sin.  Dante-Poet, the man writing the Comedy, puts the lovers in hell because he’s already finished the journey and has come to understand the nature of sin.  Dante-Poet does not sympathize as much with Francesca and Paolo’s lust.

A closer look at the text can help us decipher Dante’s stance on this matter.  Take note who is speaking while you reading Canto V.  It is Francesca who keeps repeating the word “amor” or “love” in her account of her sin.  Dante, however, refers to the “disio” or “desire” that lead Francesca and Paolo into hell (Inf  V.113).  We have to make a distinction between what Francesca would like her auditors to believe and what Dante-Poet thinks of the matter.  The character does not necessarily speak for the author.

Conclusion

For Dante, it all comes back to free will.  Individuals are able to choose right or wrong, charity or a lack of charity, and then they must bear the consequences.  This does not mean Dante condemns anyone who commits a sin.  If you read on, you’ll see previously lustful souls purging themselves in purgatory or rejoicing in heaven.  You’ll see men who committed heinous crimes on their way to heaven, too.  While people are living, they always have the option to repent.  But Dante doesn’t want to sugar coat sin for his readers.  He wants them to come on his journey and recognize the nature of sin and its consequences, too, so they can reorient themselves towards God.

Readers don’t need to believe in God, to be Catholic, or to believe in sin to pick up the Divine Comedy or to engage with the questions it raises.  But we do need to know why Dante does what he does and to understand his logic before criticizing it.

Krysta 64

Advertisements

17 thoughts on “How Can Contemporary Readers Approach Dante’s Inferno?

  1. D-Claire says:

    I studied The Divine Comedy in history at university. I think it also helps to understand some of the historical context. There’s a lot of injokes about political and powerful figures of the time. It’s a bit like a renaissance Daily Show! But an edition with good footnotes should explain that

    Like

  2. Ana says:

    Wow. This is an awesome review of the book. I read it earlier this year and I don’t think I took away as much as you have on this blog post. I powered through it but I’m sure I missed so much. Perhaps one day I will re-read. I agree that it’s almost like a late night show of the times…. never thought of it that way but now that you mentioned it…..

    Thanks for the review
    Ana

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      There’s so much going on in Dante that we could probably spend lifetimes trying to get it all. I’ve read Inferno..six times? I’m losing count. And some other books on the book. So I feel like I’m finally starting to kind of get it, but maybe it’s all an illusion. 😀

      Like

    • Krysta says:

      Perhaps it doesn’t help that Dante doesn’t annotate his own work because he just assumes we’re all as clever as he is. Flattering, I’m sure, but sometimes confusing, at least to me. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Dennis says:

    Nicely put as always. There is a slightly different way to look at it from, it think, Santayana that says the punishments in Hell are the effects of the sin. Committing the sin already places the sinner in precisely the punishment and Hell is merely the continuation. So, Francesca and Paolo cannot control their emotions and allow themselves to be buffeted about. Think of the atmospherics surrounding Catherine and Heathcliff in _Wuthering_Heights_. It’s the same thrashing and bumping and thoughtless collateral damage. In that sense Francesca and Paolo have achieved what they want, in Hell.

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      Oh, I like that interpretation, too! I think that’s one of the great things about Dante. He’s so rich that you’re always finding something else or learning about someone who’s seen something you didn’t see.

      Like

  4. theorangutanlibrarian says:

    To my shame, I haven’t read this yet- it’s always been something I just presumed I would *one day*… But I whole-heartedly agree with your sentiments here- because a lot of your arguments apply to other religious works beyond this. I don’t think it’s necessarily wise to take a book out of its context and act like the same logic can apply and I don’t think you have to be Christian/Catholic to read books like this. Obviously we shouldn’t totally switch off the 21st century parts of our brains that disagree with older books, but that doesn’t mean we have to get morally outraged over something that was written centuries ago and isn’t even applicable today. I mean, we don’t get offended by the Iliad? (okay maybe some people do, but they are awfully silly) Sorry for going off on such a tangent- you know what I’m like in comments sometimes 😉

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      There are far too many books. Unfortunately, I don’t think we can read them all. 😦

      Quite true. I think that it’s probably impossible not to think about literature from our own historical perspective. However, I think that it’s possible to consider the context of a work before we respond and that it’s vital to make sure we’ve done our best to understand a work before beginning to criticize it. Just because something doesn’t make sense to us doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense to the author. A text might have a consistent internal logic even if it’s not a logic we agree with. We might not agree with Victorian morals while watching a period drama, for instance, but that doesn’t mean it’s “stupid” for Queen Victoria to make a decision based on HER understanding of what’s permissible at court. We can’t retroactively impose our ideals on her. We can, however, discuss why she believes what she does and what the implications of those beliefs are and what kinds of effects they might have had and whether those effects are desirable or not. But we can’t do any of that if we just look at her, label her “stupid,” and move on while feeling superior.

      And, yes, I’m sure someone somewhere is offended by the Iliad. 😉

      But you are the best in the comments!

      Like

  5. fairydancer221 says:

    I have tried to read Inferno, but it was in high school when I was less generous with classics. I like your points to consider. I feel like I would have gotten through it had I had more patience (read the passage again if I’m not sure what happened). Now that I’m almost done reading Paradise Lost, I would like to try Inferno again.

    Like

    • Dennis says:

      If you can get through _Paradise_Lost_ then Dante should be easy. I love Milton the Monster, but his devotion to Latin can get in the way of comprehension.

      Like

      • fairydancer221 says:

        I’m reading it for a class, so I’m not sure if I would have had the patience to get through the book without it. I would like a similar class for Dante, but my school hasn’t offered it for a year or two.

        Like

  6. tasya @ the literary huntress says:

    This book is one of the oldest on my tbr, and I think it’s going to stay there for a longg time- It’s very intimidating to read! I really like your review though, it gives some kind of basic understanding for me. Hopefully it will help when I read Inferno. Thanks for sharing!

    Like

    • Krysta says:

      I usually read Dante armed with resources. I have a nicely annotated translation by Mark Musa, but I also like to use DanteWorlds (there’s a book and a website) and the Princeton Dante Project. It makes me feel like I have a better grasp on the many allusions, though it does make for some slow reading. So I can see if you’d rather prioritize other books. So many books and so little time! 😀

      Like

Leave a Reply! We'd love to read your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s