As I was reading cantos 4 and 5 last night, I was intrigued by who was in the first and second circles of Hell. I began to wonder why some people were placed in a certain group if they were guilty of committing far worse sins. For example, Paris was responsible for killing Achilles at the end of the Trojan War, however he is placed in the second circle of Hell. If it were up to me, Paris should be placed with the other killers not with those who are lustful. Yes, Paris was lustful, however murder is more severe than lust. With that said, I understand that Paris killed Achilles in war and that makes it “acceptable,” but I don’t see it this way. I would place the person in the circle of Hell according to their most severe sin no matter the circumstance.
In addition, I think that some of these characterizations show the subjectivity of the circles of Hell. Depending on your connections, you might fall within a less severe circle of Hell. For example, if you had connections to the Roman Empire or were a warrior in battle, your chances in hell might be a bit better off. Overall, I just found some of the characterizations a bit strange.
What other people do y’all think should be placed in different circles? And do y’all agree?
3 comments:
I think that there will always be some level of exceptions due to cultural values. That is the point and role of Minos. If you looked at it just by the act and not the circumstances around it then there wouldn’t be any point of Minos. And, we have to remember that all of this is coming from Dante’s head. None of it is real. So, yes, there is definitely going to be bias and favorability to certain people because Dante is displaying his own cultural values through these punishments. The ability for exceptions like killing in war allows Dante to show us something he values and most likely other people of his time valued.
I think that there are definitely clear instances in which certain people of antiquity are put in a circle of Hell in which they do not seem to belong. As you can recall, we read about how Saladin, a Muslim sultan of Eygpt and Syria who lived in the 12th century, was only sentenced to the first circle of Hell, which is for "virtuous non-Christians". However, I see a clear discrepancy with his placement, as most of the other members in this category, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Aeneas, and others, predated Christ, therefore they could not have been Christian. In Saladin's case, he was born over a millenium after Christ, yet he still chose not to be Christian. Moreover, he suppressed Crusaders and killed many people in battle. Thus, you would be led to believe he should be placed in the 6th (Heresy) or 7th (Violence) circles of Hell. However, he is not and this may be because Dante sees Saladin as a courageous leader who defended his people, much like his own situation in which Dante chose to defend the Guelphs in their struggle with the Holy Roman Empire for sovereignty over Italy.
I agree with the previous comments that the main reasons why there are some weird discontinuities in hell is due to cultural values. In other countries certain acts are considered more taboo than others. For example in some cultures like Rome and Japan suicide was considered an honorable act whereas in many other cultures its considered an act of cowardly and sinful. In Japan the act of takings on life was called Hara-Kiri and was an act samurai would do in order to regain there honor.
Post a Comment