Tag: analysis

Notes: Plato’s The Apology – The Trials of Socrates: Six Classic Texts – C.D.C. Reeve

· Leave a comment ·

Hi, everyone! My chronic pain has gotten the best of me this past fall/winter, so I haven’t been reading much, but hopefully with the new year, my pain will give me a break and I’ll be able to do more of these posts! These are my notes for Plato’s The Apology, which includes me posting quotes and then writing some notes right after, which happens right after the page number. It’s some paraphrasing for better understanding some quotes and sometimes my opinions of it. There are spoilers for Godzilla: Minus One near the end of the notes, so beware of that. 

The Apology is one of the few sources we have on the trial of Socrates, which reveals that Socrates most likely was a real person, but whether he’s as Plato described or Xenophon or Aristophanes, we’ll never know for sure. The Apology is Plato showing Socrates’s defense against his accusers, which eventually leads to Socrates’s death. Within this Platonic dialogue, there are many words of wisdom to be found including the famous line: “an unexamined life is not worth living.” I tried to do a fairly decent job on taking notes while reading the Apology and found the text to be quite valuable. I appreciate that Socrates admits when he doesn’t know something. We all know something, and we all know nothing about something else, but sometimes it’s hard to reconcile that while we may know something intimately, we can be incredibly ignorant on other things. Socrates prefers ignorance than pretending to know something. If only more people would admit that they don’t know something rather than keep speaking on subjects that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Overall, The Apology is quite thought provoking, and I had moments where I definitely enjoyed reading it where it connected with me. I’ve even drawn a small connection with the Apology with one of its ideas to Godzilla: Minus One, which was fun. I hope you all enjoy reading my notes on The Apology!

“There are two groups of accusers: those who accused me just now and the older ones I’ve been discussing.” (28). The ones who accused him now and the ones before this moment in time in The Apology like Aristophanes. 

“What exactly did the slanderers say to slander me? Just as if they were real accusers their affidavit must be read. It’s something like this: Socrates commits injustice and is a busybody, in that he investigates the things beneath the earth and in the heavens, makes the weaker argument the stronger, and teaches these things to others.” (29). Socrates summarizes the arguments laid against him by Meletus and others.

“Now perhaps one of you will interject: ‘But Socrates, what, then is your occupation? What has given rise to these slanders against you? Surely if you weren’t in fact occupied with something out of the ordinary, if you weren’t doing something different from most people, all this rumor and talk wouldn’t have arisen. Tell us, then, what it is, so that we don’t judge you hastily.’” (31). Socrates is being punished for going against the status quo. If he didn’t, no one would pay him any mind.

“For my part, I thought to myself as I left, ‘I’m wiser than that person. For it’s likely that neither of us knows anything fine and good, but he thinks he knows something he doesn’t know, whereas I, since I don’t in fact know, don’t think that I do either. At any rate, it seems that I’m wiser than he in just this small way: that what I don’t know, I don’t think I know.’ Next, I approached another man, one of those thought to be wiser than the first, and it seemed to me that the same thing occurred, and so I came to be disliked by that man too, as well as by many others.” (33). Socrates shows humility when not knowing something unlike others who pretend to know everything, even those outside their speciality. Socrates ends up disliked because he is confronting others about their so-called knowledge, and is then showing them that they actually know nothing. People don’t like hearing that kind of thing as it makes them feel dumb when confronted with their own ignorance. 

“Where wisdom is concerned, those who had the best reputations were practically the most deficient, whereas men who thought to be their inferiors were much better off.” (34). Socrates disparages “experts” because they believe they’re full of wisdom, but it’s more the ones who these experts think are inferior are actually superior as they realize that there are things they don’t know. The experts think they know things outside of their speciality, and it causes problems. Those that don’t know, admit that they don’t know, because they don’t have a reputation to uphold that implies they’re full of wisdom. 

“In a word, almost all the people present could have discussed these poems better than the authors themselves. And so, in the case of the poets as well, I soon realized it wasn’t wisdom that enabled them to compost their poems, but some sort of natural inspiration, of just the sort you find in prophets and soothsayers. For these people, too, say many fine things, but know nothing of what they speak about. The poets also seemed to me to be in this sort of situation. At the same time, I realized that, because of their poetry they thought themselves to be the wisest of people about the other things as well when they weren’t.” (34). I’m getting death of the author vibes with the idea that people may discuss poems better than the poets themselves. Socrates then speaks on poets being divinely inspired like prophets and soothsayers. Ultimately, he concludes that they know nothing, but think themselves to be the wisest.

“The good craftsmen also seemed to me and have the very same flaw as the poets; because he performed his own craft well, each of them also thought himself to be the wisest about the other things, the most important ones; and this error of theirs seemed to overshadow their wisdom. So I asked myself on behalf of the oracle whether I’d prefer to be as I am, not in any way wise with their wisdom nor ignorant with their ignorance, or to have both qualities as they did and the answer I gave to myself, and to the oracle, was that it profited me more to be just the way I was.” (35). The craftsmen also suffer with ignorance on topics not their speciality. Socrates rather would know nothing at all than know something while being confidently incorrect in other things due to ignorance. It’s better to be completely ignorant and admit that one doesn’t know rather than pretend to know something that you don’t. 

“For they wouldn’t be willing to tell the truth, I imagine: that it has become manifest they pretend to know, but know nothing.” (36). In the end, people know nothing. They also wouldn’t tell the truth that they don’t know; rather, they pretend to know in order to appear wise or genuinely just think they’re wise when they’re actually ignorant.

“Socrates is guilty of corrupting the young, and of not acknowledging the gods the city acknowledges, but new daimonic activities instead.” (37). Socrates puts into argument the charge he thinks is more correct vs Meletus’s accusations against him that I read earlier in the text. 

“You see, men of Athens, this is the truth of the matter: whenever someone has stationed himself because he thinks it best, or wherever he’s been stationed by his commander, there, it seems to me, he should remain, steadfast in danger, taking no account at all of death or of anything else, in comparison to what’s shameful.” (43). Death is preferable to shame. Socrates’s daimonic god has him stationed at the trial so he will chance death than flee for his life in shame. 

“Fearing death, gentlemen, is nothing other than thinking one is wise when one isn’t, since it’s thinking one knows what one doesn’t know. I mean, no one knows whether death may not be the greatest of all goods for people, but they fear it as if they knew for certain that it’s the worst thing of all.  Yet surely this is the most blameworthy ignorance thinking one knows what one doesn’t know.” (44). People fear death even though one doesn’t know what will happen when one dies, so it’s presumptuous to fear or think death is good. Death may lead to a better or worse thing for the person. We don’t know what happens in death, so having feelings like fear about it is unwise. 

“I’ll never fear or avoid things that may for all I know be good more than things I know are bad.”(44). Socrates won’t be fearful or avoid things that may be better than the bad that he knows. It’s the opposite of the saying: “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.” Socrates is willing to chance that death may or may not be a good thing for him, so he won’t avoid it. 

“My excellent man, you’re an Athenian, you belong to the greatest city, renowned for its wisdom and strength; are you not ashamed that you take care to acquire as much wealth as possible – and by reputation and honor – but that about wisdom and truth, about how  your soul may be in the best possible condition, you take neither care nor thought?” (45) Are the Athenians not ashamed that they value materialism/wealth over virtue and ethics? This is an interesting question when you put it into the perspective of whether you value your life as is (earthly life) or think about what will happen to you if you live your life in a certain way (afterlife). In the concept of death, Socrates is implying that the soul should be saved by virtue, but many people are concerned with their earthly life rather than their afterlife. 

“I do nothing else except go around trying to persuade you, both young and old alike, not to care about your bodies or your money as intensely as about how your soul may be in the best possible condition. I say, ‘It’s not from wealth that virtue comes, but from virtue comes money, and all the other things that are good for human beings, both in private and in public life.’” (45). For Socrates, virtue and the soul should be valued over money/wealth. Virtue will bring about as much money as virtue needs. According to Reeve: “Virtue brings as much money as is a good thing, and this may not be very much. Only someone who believed that money was itself the best thing or that virtue was strictly moral virtue…could find this disquieting.” (45). One should find themselves someone in the middle of these two things – collecting wealth to live comfortably, but caring about the virtue it takes to get there. If one goes to either extreme, it can be rough as if you’re only focused on making money, you can forget to be a decent person, but if you’re so focused on virtue that you don’t bother with money, it can make life much harder for you to live and focus on being the best version of yourself.

“So men of Athens, I’m far from pleading in my own defense now, as might be supposed. Instead, I’m pleading in yours, so that you don’t commit a great wrong against the god’s gift to you by condemning me. If you put me to death, you won’t easily find another like me. For, even if it seems ridiculous to say so, I’ve literally been attached to the city, as if to a large thoroughbred horse that was somewhat sluggish because of its size and needed to be awakened by some sort of gadfly. It’s as just such a gadfly, it seems to me, that the god has attached me to the city – one that awakens, persuades, and reproaches each and every one of you and never stops alighting everywhere on you the whole day.” (46). Socrates sounds annoying – even comparing himself to a gadfly to bother the people of Athens who are the thoroughbred horse that’s sluggish that must be awakened Socrates being a busybody and annoying others about virtue and ethics. He makes it sound that him being a busybody is beneficial to others. He’s more concerned in pleading for their benefit than his own. 

“A divine and daimonic thing comes to me – the very thing Meletsus made mocking allusion to in the indictment he wrote. It’s something that began happening to me in childhood: a sort of voice comes, which, whenever it does come, always holds me back from what I’m about to do but never urges me forward. It is what opposes my engaging in politics – and to me, at least, its opposition seems entirely right.” (47). It sounds like Socrates had developed a vocal conscience since he was young or he’s actually hearing voices that he attributes to a daimon (godlike/supernatural figure).

“I thought that I should face danger on the side of law and justice, rather than go along with you for fear of imprisonment or death when your proposals were unjust.” (48). Socrates rather face justice than go along with Meletus’s unjust accusations. This brings back that within the Apology, Socrates reworded the argument to a stronger argument of what’s happening vs Meletus’s accusations. 

“On that occasion, however, I should once again not by words but by deeds that I couldn’t care less about death 0 if that isn’t putting it too bluntly 0 but that all I care about is not doing anything unjust or impious. You see, that government, powerful though it was, didn’t frighten me into unjust action: when we came out of the Tholus, the other four went to Salamis, and arrested Leon, whereas I left and went home. I might have died for that if the government hadn’t fallen shortly afterward.” (48). Socrates cares more about justice than dying. He went against the Thirty Tyrants when they ordered him to commit an act he thought was unjust. Socrates utilized this action of defying the Thirty Tyrants to reflect that if he believed the order from the government is unjust, he will not adhere and do as ordered. This gets into a bit of just war theory where jus in bello has one conducting themselves virtuously even if in the midst of the war. In any case, Socrates admits that if the tyrants hadn’t fallen, he might’ve died then. 

“I’ve never been anyone’s teacher at any time. But if anyone, whether young or old, wanted to listen to me while I was talking and performing my own task, I never begrudged that to him. Neither do I engage in conversation only when I receive a fee and not when I don’t. Rather, I offer myself for questioning to rich and poor alike, or, if someone prefers, he may listen to me and answer my questions. And if any one of these turned out well, or did not do so, I can’t justly be held responsible, since I never at any time promised any of them that they’d learn anything from me or that I’d teach them. And if anyone says that he learned something from me or heard something in private that all the others didn’t also hear, you may be sure he isn’t telling the truth.” (49). To me, this sounds disparaging towards those that do actually work by teaching. It sounds like Socrates rather knowledge be free and freely shared vs being gate-kept behind money, which I can get behind, but if people want to work and earn money by being a teacher due to a person wanting to be taught by someone else vs self taught, I think that should be fine too. Socrates also disparages his listeners and himself as he mentions that if they heard something from him, they wouldn’t be telling the truth because he hasn’t been anyone’s teacher. Frankly, it sounds like he’s indicating he’s speaking nonsense or something that people will not learn from even if they listen to him freely speak on topics such as virtue. 

“Therefore, if those of you who are believed to be superior – either in wisdom or courage or any other virtue whatever – behave like that it would be shameful. I’ve often seen people of this sort when they’re on trial: they’re thought to be someone, yet they do astonishing things – as if they imagined they’d suffer something terrible if they died and would be immortal if only you don’t kill them. People like that seem to me to bring such shame to the city that any foreigner might well suppose that those among the Athenians who are superior in virtue – the ones they select from among themselves for political office and other positions of honor – are no better than women.” (52). The casual sexism during Plato’s time is revealed here as men who believe they’d suffer in death or act like they’re immortal if acquitted from the death penalty are no better than women. Being compared to a woman here appears to be a grave insult to an Athenian man during Plato’s time. 

“Be that as it may, the man demands the death penalty for me. Well then, what counterpenalty should I now propose to you, men of Athens? Or is it clear that it’s whatever I deserve? What then should it be? What do I deserve to suffer or pay just because I didn’t mind my own business throughout my life? Because I didn’t care about the things most people care about – making money, managing an estate, or being a general, a popular leader, or holding some other political office, or joining the cabals and factions that come to exist in a city – but thought myself too honest, in truth, to engage in things, if engaging in them was going to benefit neither you nor myself, but instead went to each of you privately, and tried to perform what I claim is the greatest benefaction? That was what I did. I tried to persuade each of you to care first not about any of his possessions, but about himself and how he’ll become best and wisest; and not primarily about the city’s possessions, but about the city itself; and to care about all other things in the same way.” (53-54). Socrates sounds frustrated that he’s received the death penalty because he went against the status quo and bothered people. Socrates has all the good intentions for wanting people to value virtue over material possessions. This reminds me of the phrase: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Socrates meant well, but his execution of it only caused people to hate him instead. So now he has received his judgment, and he will, indeed, die. If Socrates was alive today, he’d have the chance to be chronically online and bother people about virtue and ethics. In fact, he’d even find his own echo chamber. A lesson I’ve learned that even if you mean well and want what’s best for the other person, if they aren’t receptive and you keep going, they’d only grow to resent you. Many people have already made up their mind and so it’s closed to new ideas. Many people rather be someone who has both qualities of knowing something and pretending to know other things vs simply being ignorant of it all. 

“Since I’m convinced that I’ve done injustice to no one, however, I’m certainly not likely to do myself injustice, to announce that I deserve something bad and to propose a penalty of that sort for myself. Why should I do that?” (54). Socrates doesn’t believe he’s harmed anyone unjustly, so he wouldn’t advocate for himself to be punished. To the end, Socrates believed in his innocence even as he eventually accepted the judgment against him. 

“I well know that wherever I go, the young will come to hear me speaking, just as they do here. And if I drive them away, they will themselves persuade their elders to expel me; whereas if I don’t drive them away, their fathers and relatives will expel me because of these same young people.” (55). It doesn’t matter if Socrates is exiled because the same thing will happen elsewhere. SO if people believe he is unjust in Athens, so too people elsewhere will believe he’s unjust. So if he’s not cleared of his charges now, he’ll still suffer elsewhere even if he fled in exile every time. 

“But again, if I say it’s the greatest good for a man to discuss virtue every day, and the other things you’ve heard me discussing and examining myself and others about, on the grounds that the unexamined life isn’t worth living for a human being, you’ll believe me even when I say that.” (55). Socrates examines himself and others because the unexamined life isn’t worth living. If you don’t analyze yourself and others, you can’t improve yourself thus your life won’t improve. Examining yourself and others is extremely important for a virtuous life. 

“The difficult thing, gentlemen, isn’t escaping death; escaping villainy is much more difficult, since it runs faster than death.” (57). Unjust things happen all the time. It’s easier to escape death than to escape injustice. It’s more shameful to live in sin but alive than virtuous but dead. This is a theme that’s still seen in modern times in literature and film.

SPOILER FOR GODZILLA: MINUS ONE

For example, I’ve recently watched Godzilla: Minus One and this was a theme within the entirety of the movie. The main character, Shikishima, chose to escape death rather than do as commanded of him as a kamikaze pilot – to die but take out the enemies. He eventually returns to the firebombed Tokyo and encounters people who have lost their loved ones in the Tokyo firebombing who shamed him for being alive when he was meant to die. Instead, it’s their loved ones who are dead. This shame is hard for Shikishima to escape from even though he’s managed to escape death. It’s not until the end where people began to value life rather than die needlessly that Shikishima’s shame is eliminated as he was willing to die if not for Tachibana having told him about the eject button in the plane Shikishima was using to help take down Godzilla. I highly recommend Godzilla: Minus One; I think it’ll be one of the best movies I’ve watched this year. It’s a fantastic movie that explores the theme of escaping death, but not escaping the shame of it, until he’s accepted that he might die but is willing to do it anyway (although he survives, unlike Socrates).

END SPOILER

“Next, I want to make a prophecy to those who convicted me. Indeed, I’m not at the point at which men prophecy most – when they’re about to die. I say to you men who condemned me to death that as soon as I’m dead vengeance will come upon you, and it will be much harsher, by Zeus, than the vengeance you take in killing me. You did this now in the belief that you’ll escape giving an account of your lives. But I say that quite the opposite will happen to you. There will be more people to test you, whom I now restrain, though you didn’t notice my doing so. And they’ll be all the harsher on you, since they’re younger, and you’ll resent it all the more. You see, if you imagine that by killing people you’ll prevent anyone from reproaching you for not living in the right way, you’re not thinking straight. In fact, to escape is neither possible nor noble. On the contrary, what’s best and easiest isn’t to put down other people, but to prepare oneself to be the best one be.” (57-58). Socrates is prophesying (rather sounds like a curse) that those who condemned him to die will suffer a harsher punishment than he. Killing Socrates will only make it worse for them in the long run. To be the best isn’t by putting others down but preparing oneself to be the best, but the men of Athens have chosen to condemn Socrates in an attempt to escape being bothered by him. There are those who follow Socrates that will continue doing as he does, however, so Meletus and those who voted for him to die will suffer and not escaped being bothered about virtue and knowledge. 

“In previous times, the usual prophecies of my daimonic sign were always very frequent, opposing me even on trivial matters, if I was about to do something that wasn’t right. Now, however, something has happened to me, as you can see for yourselves, that one might think to be, and that generally regarded as being, the worst of all bad things. Yet the god’s sign didn’t oppose me when I left home this morning, or when I came up here to the law court, or anywhere in my speech when I was about to say something, even though in other discussions it has often stopped me in the middle of what I was saying. Nowever, where this affair is concerned, it has opposed me in nothing I either said or did.” (58). Socrates’s daimon hasn’t stopped him, so he believes that he’s doing the right thing for himself by going to the trial and defending himself, rather than fleeing elsewhere in an attempt to save himself.

“Being dead is one of two things: either the dead are nothing as it were, and have no awareness whatsoever of anything at all; or else, as we’re told, it’s some sort of change, a migration of the soul from here to another place.” (58). Socrates contemplates what may await him once he dies – nothingness or a migration of the soul to elsewhere. This is something that even us in modern times struggle with. There are many different religions or atheism where either of these two things happen. People’s beliefs vary on this topic. 

“Nothing bad can happen to a good man, whether in life or in death, nor are the gods unconcerned about his troubles. What has happened to me hasn’t happened by chance; rather, it’s clear to me that to die now and escape my troubles was a better thing for me. It was for this very reason that my sign never opposed me. And so, for my part, I’m not at all angry with those who voted to condemn me or with my accusers. And yet this wasn’t what they had in mind when they were condemning and accusing me. No, they thought to harm me – and for that they deserved to be blamed.” (60). Socrates accepts his judgment and thinks he will be fine as his daimonic sign hasn’t stopped him throughout the whole ordeal. However, Socrates does blame those who convicted him who held a desire to harm him and have him fear death. 

“But now it’s time to leave, I to die and you to live. Which of us goes to the better thing, however, is unclear to everyone except the god.” (61). Who knows if in this case it’d be better to live or die? Only God knows as Socrates states at the very end. The Apology tackles the theme of death and its hold on people’s lives. What awaits people after they die is something that none of us knows, so many fear it, but there are those like Socrates who admits to not knowing what the afterlife will be like so he’s unable to fear or avoid it due to the idea that death may actually be a good thing. No one knows, so Socrates is able to live with his decision that he’s going to die, and his accusers will live. Socrates believes that his accusers will suffer a harsh punishment for killing him, so who’s the winner in the trial? Socrates, who may escape his troubles in death or those left behind to bother his accusers as Socrates, himself, had done before them.

Work Cited

C.D.C. Reeve; Plato. The Trials of Socrates: Six Classic Texts. The Apology. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.. Indianapolis. 2002. PDF.

100 Days of Dante: Dante Alighieri’s The Divine Comedy – Inferno: Canto 12

· Leave a comment ·

I’m probably slowing down a lot from now on. I’ve gotten a lot busier, but I’m committed to trying to finish the Divine Comedy. It’s something I’ve wanted to do for a long time, so even if it takes a long time, I’ll get through the 100 Days of Dante, which is helping me understand a lot about the Divine Comedy while reading it. 

Questions for Reflection

Dante meets many mythical creatures in the rings of the Violent. Interestingly, they are all hybrid creatures: half human, half beast. In canto 12 we meet the Minotaur and the centaurs, for example. What does this fusion of human and beast reveal about Dante’s theology of violence? How does he depict violence as undoing the human person and the possibility of human flourishing?

The fusion of human and beast reveal about Dante’s theology of violence against neighbors is that it’s the animalistic part of a human that drives them to harm others to such a violent degree. Many tyrants, murderers, and plunderers are found within this first ring in the seventh circle, which is the violent sins of people who committed violent crimes against their neighbors. As Jesus said, “‘Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt. 22:36-40). One of Christ’s teachings is to love your neighbor as yourself, which the ones found in this first ring of the seventh circle does not adhere to. Dante sees the ones who sin here as so violent, it’s not accounted for as an act of wrath, but a condemnation of the person that they are. Beastlike, but human, only seeking violence against others and gains for themselves. His depiction of violence as the undoing of the human person and the possibility of human flourishing is like the stream of blood in this canto. The more violent the act against another and their possessions, the more they’re covered in blood to a point we don’t see much of them. It’s the filling of space and so it overcomes the humanity in the person as they suffer in the boiling blood. 

How might the hybrid creatures in these circles be ironic or perverse images or invocations of Christ?

I didn’t think that the hybrid creatures in these circles were ironic or perverse images of Christ, but according to Barolini in regard to the invocations of Christ:

Perhaps having learned from the experience of watching the angel open the gate of Dis, Virgilio taunts the Minotaur by reminding him of Theseus (“the duke of Athens” of verse 17). Theseus is, as Virgilio states, the Greek hero who was able to defeat the Minotaur on Crete: “Forse / tu credi che qui sia ’l duca d’Atene, / che sù nel mondo la morte ti porse?” (Perhaps / you think this is the Duke of Athens here, / who, in the world above, brought you your death [Inf. 12.16-18]). Similarly, in Inferno 9, the Furies are still haunted by the “assault” of Theseus on Hades (Inf. 9.54), and the angel taunts the infernal throng with the memory of Hercules, who once defeated Cerberus (Inf. 9.97-99). Theseus and Hercules are classical forerunners of Christ, early harrowers of Hell whose actions symbolize infernal defeat.

Barolini, Teodolinda (Inferno 12: Cupidigia/Tirannia).

So, Christ, the Son, is a figure that overcomes his obstacles by the power of Him, God, the Father. This follows the idea that by overcoming the obstacles, it shows that he has defeated his foes. Theseus and Hercules invoked as early forms of a figure of Christ who overcomes obstacles set by divine beings. Theseus overcomes the furies and Hercules overcomes the challenges set to him by the gods. Ultimately, as Barolini says, their actions symbolize infernal defeat, so that Dante is making a comparison that Theseus is sort of that Christ figure in verse 17. 

Commenting on the earthquake that shook hell at Christ’s resurrection, Virgil ascribes it to the theory of Empedocles that the world goes through endless cycles of the concord and chaos of its various elements. In Virgil’s explanation, the event of Christ’s resurrection was when the world “felt love” (12.42) before cycling back into dissolution and discord. Why is this not an adequate account of the nature of the world and of history for Dante’s Christian imagination? And yet, is there anything in this account that anticipates the Christian truth of the world?

According to Dr. Tony Osbourne on the imagery of the earthquake: “Dante compares Hell’s rubble to the devastation he saw in northern Italy after an earthquake hit Trent in the Adige river…. erosion and broken cliffs evoke the rubble of civilization toppled by inner rot. The erosion of morality and righteousness in using outer destruction to reflect the inner states of violence Dante’s images humanize the world and enlarge our perspectives.” While Virgil is wrong scientifically to attribute the earthquake to Empedocles’s idea that the world goes through endless cycles of the concord and chaos of its various elements as we learn in science that earthquakes are generated due to the movement of the tectonic plates rather than chaos and concord, the earthquake symbolized the degeneration of the human condition in these peoples trapped in this ring of the seventh circle of violence. The earthquake’s devastation in northern Italy could be considered punishment for the degeneration of humanity. I believe that many Italians find themselves in Hell, certainly some that Dante has recognized despite them originally being unrecognizable, due to Florence being in Tuscany which is a part of northern Italy. Also, the coming of Christ was foretold by the earthquake by attributing the ‘love’ from the earthquake to right before Christ showed up in hell. 

What contrapasso must the violent against others suffer? Why are the centaurs the ones who hunt violent souls like mounted cavalry on the shore of the river of blood?

The contrapasso the violent against others suffer is that they’re in a “stream of blood, where those / who injure others violently, boil. / O blind cupidity and insane anger, / which goad us on so much in our short life, / then steep us in such grief eternally.” (Lines 47-51). The centaurs who hunt violent souls like mounted cavalry on the shores of the river of blood happen because “as, in the world above, they [centaurs] used to hunt” (line 57). Dante utilizes a classical being, in this case centaurs as another half-beast, half-human being, that has a role in Hell. In the centaurs’ case, they hunt violent souls because like when they were alive on Earth, they hunted others. 

Why does Dante depict centaurs like Chiron and Nessus the way he does? Does he mean for them to be more rational and humane than the humans being punished in this circle?

Chiron is described as “mighty…tutor of Achilles” (line 71) and Nessus is described as the one “who died because of lovely Deianira / and of himself wrought vengeance for himself” (lines 68-69). Dante the Poet means for them to be more rational and humane than the humans being punished in this circle because they’re not the ones boiling in the stream of blood. If they were meant to be like the humans being punished, they would also be suffering in the boiling blood, and Nessus wouldn’t be used as a guide for Dante and Virgil. Since Dante the Poet depicts them as more rational and humane, it leads to Nessus becoming a guide for the two traveling in the area. Dante’s inability to fly like a spirit is against him going forward, but they fixed the problem by utilizing a being that can get across the stream.  

How does Dante the poet draw attention to the human body throughout this canto and why is that an important focus for the themes of this infernal ring?

Dante the Poet draws attention to the human body throughout this canto by Dante’s ability to move rocks as seen by Chiron who asks: “Have you noticed / how he who walks behind moves what he touches? / Dead souls are not accustomed to do that” (lines 80-82) and cannot fly like spirits can (line 96). This is an important focus for the themes of this infernal ring because it reveals that Dante the Pilgrim has restrictions due to him being alive. Once more, Dante and Virgil have a problem due to Dante being alive, but in this, it’s an inability to do certain things to move ahead rather than having others try to stop them from moving on. Dante the Pilgrim can move things as he walks by so others know he is alive. Dante the Pilgrim cannot fly like spirits can so they need a guide to be able to carry Dante over the stream of blood: “By the power that permits my steps / to journey on so wild a path, give us / one of your band, to serve as our companion; / and let him show us where to ford the ditch, / and let him bear this man upon his back, / for he’s no spirit who can fly through air.” (Lines 91-96). Dante the Poet drawing attention to the human body in this canto is a stark reminder of how human Dante the Pilgrim is. 

Notes:

Alighieri, Dante; Mandelbaum, Allen. “The Inferno.” The Divine Comedy. Everyman’s Library. 1 Aug. 1995. Book.

Barolini, Teodolinda. “Inferno 12: Cupidigia/Tirannia.” Commento Baroliniano, Digital Dante. New York, NY: Columbia University Libraries, 2018, 22 Sept. 2023. <https://digitaldante.columbia.edu/dante/divine-comedy/inferno/inferno-12/>

BibleGate. Matthew 22:36-40. New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America, 2021, 26 Sept. 2023

Osborne, Tony. “Inferno, Canto 12 with Dr. Tony Osborne”. Gonzaga University. Uploaded to YouTube by Baylor HonorsCollege. 3 Oct. 2021, 26 Sept. 2023. <Inferno, Canto 12 with Dr. Tony Osborne – YouTube>

100 Days of Dante: Dante Alighieri’s The Divine Comedy: Inferno – Canto 9

· Leave a comment ·

The questions asked for reflection are more open ended, especially the first question. Let me know what you think!

Questions for Reflection

Is Dante’s ranking of the moral seriousness of sins in Hell viable for us today?

When ranking the 8 circles of hell, Dante’s ranking goes from least to worst: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Wrath, Heresy, Violence, Fraud, and Treachery. We’ve gone through the four upper levels of hell – considered lesser sins compared to the bottom four levels of hell, which are seen as worse than the upper four. Dante’s ranking of the moral seriousness of sins in Hell is somewhat viable for us today with some fine tuning.

From what may belong in the upper levels of hell today: Lust, depending on where you’re living, is the least bad of the sins. In today’s world, more people are alright with some promiscuity, especially in 1st world countries. There are celebrity sex icons like Marilyn Monroe, Lucy Liu, Angelina Jolie, Grace Kelly, and more. Heresy is probably a lot lower on the list as many people are turning away from religion or at least organized religion, so it’s not as damning as it used to be. In some areas for sure, but it’s no longer pretty much everywhere, so heresy would now be found in the four upper levels of hell. I think more people would rank Greed and Violence worse than it is. Many people today rail against capitalism, which they see as greedy and that it brings upon lust, gluttony, and more importantly, violence. With capitalism, many products and services are consumed by consumers, and people live in excess with these products and services, which can lead to people consuming more and more. The appetite for more leads to gluttony, and people are incontinent – lacking restraint.

Moreover, for sins of the lower levels of hell: I think people would rank fraud – depending on the situation – as worse or less. There are people who are okay with defrauding the government because they see it as an entitlement as long as it’s helping non-wealthy individuals. If businesses are willing to commit fraud to steal money from its workers, there are workers who then don’t feel bad defrauding others because it’s being done to them. When Covid-19 happened and loans were given out to businesses, people committed fraud in order to gain money for themselves. If the fraud helps wealthy individuals or corporations, it’s seen as one of the worst sins today. Of course, there are those who think fraud of any kind no matter for who or what is a terrible thing to do. Ultimately, I think violence would be the worst of sins today as there aren’t much violence in developed countries today, so when there is violence, it’s mostly a shock. While violence has seemed to gone down overall especially in developed countries – there are currently no world wars, on an individual and grand scale, violence harms the person it is done to in many ways. PTSD became an official diagnosis for the people who has experienced trauma, which was first thought of as a diagnosis after World War Two and the Vietnam War in 1980. In addition, betrayal for treachery has always been seen as something terrible. That tracks in being one of the worst sins. There are not a lot of things worse than when a loved one betrays you and hurts you. It’s possibly up and up with violence.

What distinguishes upper hell from lower hell? Why would Dante depict lower hell (Dis) as a walled city? Does this reveal anything about its spiritual nature?

Upper hell is different from lower hell in that the upper levels are seen as lesser sins while the lower hell are the worst sins. Dante depicts lower hell (Dis) as a walled city like a terrible parody of Heaven, which is also seen as a holy city. In Revelation 21:10-14, when describing the vision of the New Jerusalem, it says: “And in the spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. It has the glory of God and a radiance like a very rare jewel, like jasper, clear as crystal. It has a great, high wall with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates are inscribed the names that are the names of the twelve tribes of the Israelites: on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” (NRSVUE). So Heaven and Hell are both seen having a walled city. This reveals that Dante is imagining hell as the opposite of Heaven, but utilizing an imagery that also could indicate that Hell truly is made out of love from God despite that the entirety of Hell is to punish sinners. As Professor Oakland states in his video on canto 9 of the Inferno: “Remember back to that first gate at the beginning of this Inferno journey? There we learned from the inscription over the gate that Hell was created not only by the justice and power of God but also by God’s intellect and love. We can’t understand Dante’s vision without contemplating this startling insight that Hell is an expression of God’s love.” (Oakland). God loves all his creatures even those he punishes like a parent punishing their children for their disobedience, except taken a lot further than parents do.

While Dante and Virgil wait for deliverance at the gate under the threat of Medusa’s approach, Virgil covers Dante’s eyes so that he will not be turned to stone when Medusa arrives. The Poet invokes us as readers to see the allegory behind this gesture yet offers us little interpretative help. What do you think is happening here? Is Dante a new Odysseus with the sirens who must be restrained because he cannot control himself? Are there some horrors that will destroy us to see, yet we find that we can’t look away?

The covering the eyes and not looking back reminded me more of Orpheus trying to rescue his wife Eurydice from the underworld, as the story goes that Hades said that Orpheus would be able to save Eurydice as long as he didn’t turn around and look upon his wife, but at the last moment he turned back when having been warned not to, and so he was unable to save his wife in the end and she was sent back to be trapped in the underworld forever. So, Dante had to cover his eyes and turn around and was warned not to turn around by Virgil who also covered his eyes as extra protection. Medusa was a tool to be used in a way that like Orpheus who was warned not to turn around and lose what he valued – his wife – Dante was not to turn around or lose his life and remain trapped in Hell for forever. Virgil took that extra protection to make sure that didn’t happen.

Medusa as a threat against Dante by the Furies is to keep him in hell with the idea of the Furies wanting to destroy him like they feel they should’ve with Theseus. As a live human being, Dante is being guided through hell, but doesn’t belong in it, so Medusa having the power to turn him to stone by looking upon him is a threat that should he not follow directions (and do as Virgil says), he may be invoking a sense of self-doom upon himself. It’s up to Virgil to explain Medusa’s threat to Dante and do his best to prevent him from turning to stone forever as Virgil believes in Medusa dooming Dante should Dante gaze upon her head. It’s not necessarily that Dante is a new Odysseus with the sirens who must be restrained because he cannot control himself, but it appears that it was meant for Dante’s extra protection for Virgil to help cover Dante’s eyes as a precaution just in case. Virgil neutralized the threat of Dante looking at Medusa as a means of him being Dante’s guide so as to show Dante he knows what he’s doing, he’s offering the extra protection to the one he has agreed to guide through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise on behalf of Beatrice.

Who delivers Dante and Virgil from their predicament and what does this show us as readers about the relationship between heaven and hell?

An angel from Heaven comes down to help Dante and Virgil from their predicament. The way the angel is described: “I knew well he was Heaven’s messenger, / and I turned toward my master; and he made / a sign that I be still and bow before him. / How full of high disdain he seemed to me! / He came up to the gate, and with a wand, / he opened it, for there was no resistance. / At that he turned and took the filthy road, / and did not speak to us, but had the look / of one who is obsessed by other cares / than those that press and gnaw at those before him; / and we moved forward, on into the city, / in safety, having heard his holy words.” (Lines 85-90, 100-105). Virgil signaling for Dante to be still and bow to the angel is to show reverence to the Heavenly messenger unlike the beings of hell where Dante was praised for being righteously angry. Even if the angel is not God, Dante is to bow in reverence for that is the respect to be given to a heavenly being. There is no such respect given to the beings of hell because they deserve none. Dante is not to feel compassionate towards them like with Francesca and Paolo in the circle of Lust, but more righteously angry as with Argenti in the circle of wrath. Moreover, the disdain and condescending attitude of the angel indicates how much the beings of hell disgust him, and that the angel seems to dislike being where he was and who he was forced to share company with because the beings of the city of Dis are disobeying. As the angel was a messenger of Heaven, the gate to the walled city of Dis opened with a wave of his wand because the beings of hell cannot directly disobey a holy being like an angel who is there to do God’s work. This reveals that Heavenly beings ultimately have more power than the beings of hell to the point that the beings of hell would flee out of the heavenly messenger’s way like a frog leaping away from its enemy the serpent that would want to eat it as is captured in lines 76-78 before Dante is able to spot the angel coming to them. Dante and Virgil had a hard time gaining access to the city of Dis as one is a living human being and the other is a soul from the first circle of Hell that was asked by a heavenly being (Beatrice), but is not one himself, so both were more powerless in the face of the beings of hell unlike the heavenly messenger.

Work Citations:

Alighieri, Dante. The Divine Comedy: Inferno; Purgatorio; Paradiso (A. Mandelbaum, Trans., P. Armour &; E. Montale.). Everyman’s Library. 1995.

“Inferno Canto 9 with Dr. Leonard Oakland.” Youtube, uploaded by 100daysofdante, 26 Sept. 2021, 11 Sept. 2023. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQT8UmhsiEU&t=504s>

Revelation 21:10-14. New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. 2021. 11 Sept. 2023. Web. <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2021&version=NRSVUE&gt;.

Andrew Marvell’s The Character of Holland: Satire and Slander on the Dutch

· 2 Comments ·

The Character of Holland by Andrew Marvell is heavily satirical and was censored during Charles II’s rule. The poem satirizes the Dutch because the Dutch invests in religious tolerance, but Marvell believes that only Protestantism should be practiced. Andrew Marvell created The Character of Holland as a nationalistic satire against the Dutch because he, as an Englishmen, uses his literature to support England by raising England’s reputation and exaggerating the inferiority of the Dutch. (more…)