In a message dated 97-07-19 16:55:46 EDT, you write:
> That's
> why we should be a bit wary to accept every doctrinal or other statement
at
> face value (especially if these statements are not proferred by
> Dante-narrator, but by Dante-personaggio or by his guides or even by the
> sinners which he encounters in hell), that is, if we feel sufficiently
> informed (according to Dante's own standards) in all the relevant medieval
> sciences to count ourselves among the "happy few".
Otfried,
You're good to be patient with me. If Dante indeed is ranking his readers, I
would be among the lowest of the low. Even Eliot would not rank too high,
though perhaps a fraction higher than many of the other artists and writers
who read Commedia. I think you're telling me that Commedia is basically a
theological tract. ..rather what Bloom calls "versified Saint Augustine." I
hope this isn't true, for several reasons. First, I don't think poetry is the
optimal medium for preaching sermons. From Savanarola onward, the
theologians with great power to move people seem to have done this verbally,
as if sermonising were actually a branch of theatre or performance art. I
don't particularly like reading theologians, as their writing by its nature
is secondary and derivative. The book of Psalms has a majesty I don't find
in, say, Augustine's Sermons on the Psalms.
I'm believing what you're saying, because you obviously know the material so
well. But something in me resists the possibility that Commedia could be so
drastically different from other works of its period. A Gothic cathedral,
for example, has a definite theological programme that determines what
statuary will be placed where. But a viewer doesn't have to take a course in
theology to relate to the cathedral. Also, the theology is not the most
basic aspect of the cathedral. Cathedrals are built by architects, not
theologians, and they have a place in the history of architecture as well as
a place in the history of theology.
Finally, every great work of art rises above the sectarian concerns of its
maker. People who like Gothic cathedrals are not necessarily practicing
Catholics. We can read Homer and Virgil without sharing the religious
beliefs of these authors. We see different things in ancient Egyptian
statuary than an Egyptian would have seen. But what we see must be of some
value to us, as we don't destroy or discard the statuary.
Of course it's always interesting and enriching to learn more about the
mileau of the maker, which is why I'm grateful for the opportunity to ask you
questions. What alarms me is your saying (above) that one may question some
of the things Dante has his characters saying---if one feels sufficiently
prepared. This is not how the human mind works. If one has a question, one
has a question.
I'm not, of course, disparaging the theological aspect of Commedia. I'm just
wondering if there aren't larger aspects. Take, say, the idea that we cannot
know the mind of God. I'm sure many dissertations could be written about the
history of this idea in Catholic theology. But isn't it also a very simple
idea that would be understandable to anyone of any faith anywhere? All it
says, in somewhat metaphorical terms, is that human knowledge is limited.
I couldn't help noticing, in reading early criticism of Eliot's poetry, that
not many of his commentators knew Commedia, though they knew Shakespeare, the
Elizabethan playrights, etc. Readership has probably fallen off sharply
since the 19th century, partly because of the widespread perception that
Commedia is a theological tract, or a course of instruction in Catholic
theology. And that furthermore the theology is so complicated that nobody
understands it except specialists. Probably this idea was intially
promulgated by those who <did> go to Commedia looking for moral instruction.
But Dante is also a great poet. Not because he repeats ideas culled from
Thomas or Augustine, but because he has greater gifts of expression than they
had, and finds <better> ways of expressing ideas.
This is a new list, and I know it's annoying on academic lists to have a
person not in that field taking up too much time. So I think I should stop
asking questions, as other people probably want to discuss things that are
less elementary. Thank you Otfried for clarifying so many points, and for
the useful references. I'm not at this point sure what your sub-specialty is,
as you seem to know so much about everything.
pat sloane
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|