>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.

Dear Pat,

I was trying to be a bit ironic, but... The distinctive feature Dante names
in Cv I and in Pd 2 is to have fed oneself in time with the 'bread of the
angels', a metaphor circumscribing all kinds of sciences (and 'artes' in the
medieval sense as well), but pointing aparently (at least in the Commedia)
to theology in the first line, to which the other sciences serve as
handmaids. In the Convivio he also makes clear that knowledge of Latin is a
necessary condition to feed onself (and others) with this bread, but not yet
a sufficient condition: he claims that among those of his Italian
contemporaries who were trained in Latin, only one of thousand (!) could be
counted among the 'happy few', because the rest had subdued their abilities
to their greed to acquire worldly goods and thus had lost the specific
"nobilitade d'animo" from which the desire for the 'bread of the angels'
derives. And in the Convivio he even describes himself as one who was not a
member of this distinguished group, but had only picked up some crumbs at
their feet and was now feeding them, in his Convivio, to the broader public,
whereas in the Commedia he seems to see himself not only at the feet, but at
the top of the happy few. This said, I think that you as well as I (and
Eliot, too) can safely exclude that we might qualify as members of the
distinguished minority, at least not without some very specific preparations.

   I think you're telling me that Commedia is basically a
>theological tract. ..rather what Bloom calls "versified Saint Augustine."

Not a tract, and other sciences and arts included, but yes, on the doctrinal
level theological in the first line.

  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.

In the Convivio, expounding the allegorical sense of Ovid's tale of Orpheus
who had moved with his music beasts, trees and even stones, Dante speaks of
the "savio uomo" who with the instrument of his voice can move at his will
those human beings who, because they don't lead a "vita di scienza ed arte"
(and therefor have developed their rational/intellectual faculties only to a
lesser degree) can be regarded only as animals, plants or even stones.
Applying this to the Commedia you may well see Dante poet as moving and
morally directing the broader public with his poetry. But the 'happy few'
were less in need still to be directed by him and so might have been offered
a different level (or different levels) of understanding. You can well
decide for yourself to limit your interest in Dante's work to the poetry and
to the portion of doctrine it conveys to those readers who still need to be
conveyed doctrine. The parvuli are even recommended not to extend their
interest to regions where they might lose their way. But the readers already
in possession of doctrine, the "beati pochi", would have (and should want)
to take a different attitude.

>
>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.

Not so different at all. Other authors, like Alanus, have expressed a
similar view of their audience. And if the Bible can count as a work, you
have it all there.

  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.

There are different possible points of views, though not necessarily all of
them equally appropriate for understanding or even explaining the work. Not
every visitor of the cathedral was expected to understand its theological
program. But if you want to understand the work competently, instead of
simply following your own predilections you should rather check with the one
at the top of the crew (in the case of the cathedral with the one who
conceived the theological program and ordered the architect to set it into
work) which point of view, according to him, ranks highest. Not to exclude
other points of view, but to set your priorities right.
  
>
>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.

It's less a question of sharing, but rather of knowing the religious (or
doctrinal) beliefs. Knowledge of this kind is required from those who do not
only want to consume or adore, but want to explain the work.

>
>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.  

Well yes, of course. I was just saying that it needs some preparation to
feel fit for finding the right answer.

>
>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.  

But limited to various degrees. And the limits can be extended. The question
is rather which possibilities Dante's work offers to his reader to
experience and extend his own limitations.

[...]
>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.

No, I would say that some of your questions have touched upon things which,
elementary or not, deserve the attention also of experts. Dante's notion of
his intended audience, and the relevance of this notion for our
understanding and explaining his work, are not among the problems which the
traditional experts of Dante commentary use to treat best. 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. This interest in intertextual relations which could be expected
to be realized only by a minority of theologically trained readers demands
necessessarily also a certain concern for Dante's notion of his intended
audience. Hence my insistence.

Sincerely,

  Otfried
 



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