 |
 |
At 19:23 10.02.99 -0600, you wrote: >[...] >>>Perhaps in part because of Dante's explicit linking of his own use of >>>allegory to >>>Scriptural exegesis (the first poet to do so as far as I know), the >>>distinctions >>>between typology and allegoy, allegory and figure, figure and symbol >lack the >>>precision they did in the earlier middle ages. Or perhaps that >precision is a >>>critical myth! What are your thoughts? > >>Dante was not really the first (see Lubac, t.II.2, p.210ss. on Arnulf >of >>Orleans, Bernard of Utrecht and Konrad of Hirsau for morefold exegesis >of >>ancient poets and of the Christian _Ecloga Theoduli_, and on Alanus as >a >>poet claiming a threefold system for his own poetry), and also the >general >>tradition of interpreting ancient myth and poetry as figuring Christian > >>truths did start long before Dante (Icarus as a figure of the >anagogical >>ascent is one of the earliest Christian sepulchral symbols). > >I don't think you read my question as carefully as you might have. I >would be an idiot to assert that Dante was the first poet to use >allegory. Instead, I said that Dante seems to me to have been the first >poet to explicitly link his own use of allegory to the practice of >Scriptural exegesis. Dear Steve, If you read my reply again, you will note that it does not speak just of any use of allegory, but of the explicit linking of scriptural exegesis and poetry/myth (adducing from Lubac examples from the 11th and 12th centuries clearly predating Dante), while referring also to the even much older tradition of allegorizing ancient poetry/myth by giving it a Christian understanding (e.g., Icarus as a figure of the anagoge). I referred to this older tradition, because it already applies, though without the later explicit framework, a mode of Christian scriptural exegesis to poetry/myth. The things were not really clearer in the early middle ages, as you suggest, and if anybody introduced serious terminological changes and also certain confusions, it was not Dante and his forerunners in *linking* scriptural exegesis with poetry, but rather those authors (from Hugh of St. Victor on) who tried to *separate* them. >You wrote: >>Acts 17,28 has no direct bearing on typology (as I understand the >term). >>The context is God as the creator of the world and of man and his >ubiquity >>and invisibility, "in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus / sicut et >>quidam vestrum poetarum dixerunt / ipsius enim et genus sumus", but >there >>is no direct relation to the possibility of interpreting pagan poetry >>typologically as relating to Christ and the Church. > >Here I have to disagree outright. I refer you David S. Berkeley's >contribution on Typology in _A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in >English Literature_, ed. David Lyle Jeffrey: "it seems to license >pagan-Christian typology" (792). The context is Paul's speech to the >Athenian areopagus, and Paul's use of pagan poetry (and monuments) to >prove a Christian truth. So it seems that here I have to disagree with you *and* with Jeffrey. The biblical passage in question involves no explicit or implicit reference to allegory in general or to typology more specifically, but Paulus simply refers his pagan interlocutors to the fact that a certain notion of God which is incompatible with idolatry is already expressed by their own poets. Bede praises this as a rhetorical strategy, i.e. to argue with specific regard to the personal background of ones audience. > >I was fortunate enough to study with Jeffrey, who himself was a student >of D.W. Robertson. May I recommend to you his _By Things Seen: Reference >and Recognition in Medieval Thought_ (University of Ottawa Press). In >his introductory essay, Jeffrey does a wonderful job of broadly >distinguishing the various interpretative practices of the middle >ages--including typology, allegory, etc. On the distinctions to be drawn >between figure and allegory, you may want to look at E.R. Curtius on >"figura." As to the modern uses and understanding of allegory, Jeffrey's >Dictionary has a lucid and comprehensive entry on the subject. Thank you for the references. Being relatively familiar with Curtius but not finding that he has much to say on this topic, I suppose that it was not really Curtius but rather Auerbach to whom you meant to refer me. Best, Otfried ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Otfried Lieberknecht, Schoeneberger Str. 11, D-12163 Berlin phone & fax: ++49 +30 8516675, E-mail: [log in to unmask] Homepage for Dante Studies: http://members.aol.com/lieberk/welcome.html Listowner of Italian-Studies: http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/italian-studies/ Listowner of Medieval-Religion: http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%