In class, we've often pointed out the seemingly narcissistic ways of poets such as Dante as they assert themselves as holy, otherworldly writers, their skill worthy of being used as an instrument of God. As we discussed in class, when Dante says, "I am not Aeneas, I am not Paul", he indirectly draws a parallel between the heroism of these figures and himself as he ultimately does complete the task. Furthermore, in Canto IV, he describes how minds such as Homer, Horace, and Ovid, who are "master singer(s) of sublimest verse", welcomed him into their group of 5. There are multiple other examples throughout the Inferno that support the idea that Dante was prideful.
However, as I was thinking about this in correlation to Milton, I realized that though there is undoubtedly some pride accompanying their incredible capabilities to write, they ultimately attribute their talent to God. The invocation of the muse wouldn't exist if they believed themselves to be all knowing or thought they could rely solely on their talents. The fact that they consider themselves to be translating Gods vision, not their own, inevitably takes away some assumed pride as they aren't indulging in their own creation, but rather in higher ideas. Therefore, though the fact that they often place themselves among the greatest minds ever can be aggravating, remember that they don't accredit everything to themselves!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Alana, you make a great point here. I, too, am guilty of growing quite annoyed at the constant arrogance displayed by these poets. Although I have always thought that they do have a right to be arrogant due to their amazing literary talents, I still believe that talented individuals should let their actions speak for themselves. I never thought of this "hubris" in the manner which you are proposing--i.e. that, since these epic poets attribute a large portion of their literary success to divine powers, the arrogance is not as blatant. Thank you, Alana, for making me much less annoyed at these poets.
What I am slightly confused about is why pride isn't a circle of hell. I suppose, it is the culture in which Dante lived in, but pride has been part of the seven deadly sins. The seven deadly sins were thought of a significant amount of time before Dante ever wrote the Divine Comedy.
Even if Dante wasn't familiar with the seven deadly sins, which is highly improbable, then he would at least understand the downfalls that hubris brings to people. Certainly, he would have noticed and or read about people who lived their life with excessive pride and how it ultimately leads to failure. On another hand, pride seems rather sinful because of the fact that it leads to a certain hierarchy, the people who are committing the action have put themselves above others which seems rather unholy.
Well, I suppose you could look at the overall picture of the nine circles and realize that there are different degrees of pride or lack thereof in certain sins. I feel as though wrath and violence could easily come out situations of pride, as we saw in Oedipus when he wishes Creon dead for the mere fact he thought Creon associated with Tiresias who did not tell Oedipus what he wished to hear. Acts of hypocrisy and "wasters" could also classify under prideful sins.
However, stealing, gluttony, and lust could be sins that lack the aspect of pride as those are more filled with desperation for something and the willingness to do anything for that thing, i.e. money, food, etc.
I think perspective matters upon classifying the sins and their level of importance or worth because one could most certainly argue against what I believe are prideful sins and which aren't. I could be wrong altogether, but this was just an explanation I thought of as to why pride wouldn't be a circle of Hell.
Post a Comment