In a message dated 97-07-20 04:36:18 EDT, Otfried writes:

> What regards me,
>  I am specializing in Dante's use of biblical and exegetical sources and in
>  the relevance of these sources for constructing an allegorical
understanding
>  of his text. 

1) It seems to me that Dante regards the Bible in its traditional sense as
Holy Writ, the word of God, and a supreme authority for that reason.  Where
the teachings  of the Church do not exactly match the words of the Bible, or
are not completely supported by the Bible, Dante seems to always prefer the
Bible.  This is almost the position of Erasmus or Martin Luther at much later
dates.  I notice it mostly in the "errors" made by saints, most obviously
when Beatrice says Jerome misunderstood certain verses in the Bible (the
annotators say Gen 1.1 is one of those verses).  This is maybe to remind us
that the saints are human beings like the rest of us (to err is human), and
cannot be regarded as demigods.  In the Bible, Aaron is the high priest of
Israel but also the fabricator of the Golden Calf. Peter is the rock on which
the Church is founded, but also the second betrayer of Christ after Judas.
 David is the apple of God's eye, but sins with Bathsheba and Uriah.  I
suppose the implication might be that God chose Aaron, Peter, and David
because nobody any better was available. All human beings sin and make
errors.  

Has this been discussed in the literature or have you discussed it?  The
saints who make "errors" include Jerome, James, Augustine, and (though I
think you won't agree) Bernard.  I'm wondering if other "mistaken" (or less
than perfect) saints have been noticed.

2) Exegesis.  Wicksteed says that Ulysses' last voyage is entirely of Dante's
invention. Another possibility is that it might be an "exegetical"
reinterpretation of Ulysses' visit to the afterworld in the Odyssey.  And it
might be explained by the Alberigo episode.  

Homer says Ulysses returned safely from the afterworld, where Tiresias
predicts Ulysses will die at a very old age and far from the sea.  But, in
Dante's terms, Homer is one of the "blind" pagans who lack clear Christian
vision.  Maybe what returned was an Alberigo-like shell, a corpse inhabited
by a devil.  What "actually" happened to Ulysses is as Dante tells the story
in Inferno. Ulysses drowned, never reached the afterworld, and his soul
descended to hell.  So Christian Dante understands what really happened, and
pagan Homer does not.  Or Dante's story of Ulysses' last voyage is an
exegetical reinterpretation of Ulysses' visit to the afterworld in Odyssey.
 Ulysses made only one journey to the afterworld, but Christian Dante's
perspective on the event differs from how pagan Homer understood the event in
Odyssey.

Again, has this possibility been discussed in the literature?  What Eliot did
is very clever. He borrows from Ulysses' last voyage more often than from any
other episode in Commedia, except perhaps for the Arnaut episode.  This has
been known for a long time.  In The Waste Land (1922), he juxtaposes
borrowings from Ulysses' last voyage with other borrowings from the Alberigo
episode.  And of course if one thinks of both episodes together, one sees the
possibility.  

That doesn't prove it's a right or wrong interpretation, and I'm only
interested in finding out if anyone else has suggested it.  I don't feel it's
my place to argue for or against it, first because I don't know enough about
Commedia and second because I don't even regard it as my own idea.  I know I
got it from reading Eliot's poem, and I hadn't even been thinking about
Ulysses' last voyage. I believed the annotators when they said Dante invented
the story.  Then suddenly I saw that perhaps there was another possibility,
and I could see what images in Eliot's poem prompted me to notice that idea.
 

In a way, it's nobody's idea.  I can't prove it was Eliot's idea rather than
mine, and I never even want to get into any discussion on such a speculative
level.  All I can say is that this is something I noticed after reading The
Waste Land, and after realizing how heavily Eliot borrows from Commedia.
 Actually, it doesn't matter whose idea it is, or if it's an orphan idea.  I
just want to know if it's been noticed in the Dante literature, and if so
what has been said in that literature.  

At one extreme, maybe Eliot just had an idiosyncratic way of reading certain
passages in Commedia, and it's interesting from the point of view of his
work, but not very interesting to Dante specialists.  He could even have had
mistaken ideas. I don't have the impression that he ever read much of the
Dante literature,  and he said repeatedly that he was a poet, not a scholar.
 He even said that he had memorized many passages in  Italian that he liked
to recite to himself, but didn't like to quote from the Italian when he was
speaking. I don't think his command of the language was that good, and he
might have been concerned about his accent.  So far as I can see, the Italian
he knew came partly from reading Dante and partly from working in the foreign
section of a bank.  I do think, though, that he was unusually intelligent.

In another possibility,  he might have noticed something in 1922 that is
valid, but has been noticed by many commentators since that time.  So it
wouldn't be of any interest to Dante commentators for that reason.  

In the final possibility, some of the variant readings might be worth
publishing, probably as notes.  If so, do it with me.  The Eliot literature
is almost as vast as the Dante literature, and I have to work hard to even
keep up with <that>.  I just don't have the background to do a competent job
with the Dante literature, or even the inclination to get too involved.  What
I'm interested in primarily is Eliot.  When we discussed this previously, you
gave an overly modest assessment of your own scope and I can see that you're
far more knowledgeable than your self-estimation suggested.

But the immediate point is Ulysses' last voyage and Alberigo.  Is this
something that's already been noticed?  I don't think you need to go back
earlier than  the early 20th century. If it had been noticed at some time
before that, Wicksteed and Oelsner would have been aware of it.  The past 75
years are those that count.  Assuming it's not been noticed, do you think it
makes any sense?  

best,

pat sloane





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%