Surprising things about the Inferno

It's astonishing that Karma continues to play a role in Dante. I don't typically picture Christians holding great stock in Karma because the main focus seems to be on Jesus and accepting him as ones personal savior, the pagans in the Inferno are dammed for this reason alone.

When researching this question I came across a Yahoo question in which Christians responded in regard to how they feel about Karma. One respondent summed up the tennant which makes this surprising to me:

     Karma is return for your own works.

      We Christians don't want what we deserve because what we deserve is death (the wages of sin is death).

     What we want is what we don't deserve; GRACE.

Many others pointed out that the Bible does include the belief that you shall "reap what you sow." 

On another note, I was pleasantly surprised by the beauty of the writing in the Inferno. The images evoked were brilliantly detailed. Passages such as, "As when Divine Love set those beautiful Lights into motion at creations dawn," were especially moving. Even with the stilted reading, sentences taking up more than one stanza, it some how still manages to flow gracefully. I think this is a testament to Dante's great skill with words.

Dante does show himself to be a bit less than humble in Canto II. Not only does he have Beatrice to look out for him, but she has been sent by Saint Lucia, who was in turn sent by the Virgin Mary. I have to wonder if it was a common belief that the Virgin Mary sends "guardian angels" to look after every one in those days. Either that or perhaps since Dante can say he's not "Dante the pilgrim" he can just say that he is writing about some one else and so not seem so conceited.

I rather liked the idea Clynton brought up in his blog post, "the reward for a life of justice comes in the afterlife." I have to wonder if this idea was come up with because people noticed the injustice of life and how people who seem to be bad were getting good things. I know even now people who seem to be bad can be quite successful. Ardiaeus the Great was probably specified because he had riches in life.


It seems to me this is a way to explain how bad people can get good things in spite of Karma.  I have heard a theory that all religions main purpose is to control the people’s actions.  In this way, they could convince people to do good even if they don’t see any immediate reward. Not only that, but it’s rather comforting to think that someone who has wronged you will get his or her just desserts in the end.

How we all like to think life works.

Economy of words

One story in particular really stood out for me from this weeks readings, "The Myth of Er".  I found the opening statement both amusing and thoughtful. This story was certainly not "like Odysseus' tale to Alconous," but despite this fact I think he managed to say a lot.


I found the idea that souls would spend one thousand years in the afterlife being punished, or rewarded as the case may be, 10 times over for their deeds which they had done in life. The punishment/reward would be meted out over  ten life times, once every hindered years. Thus, if one was only a little bad, they would only be punished a little. There's more middle ground between "heaven" and "hell". I like that idea, it's not just black and white.

We see that the souls who spent the last one thousand years at ease react by not taking proper care in choosing their new life. Having spent on thousand years peacefully, and presumably luxuriously they are eager to begin anew and pick a life of fame or great rewards only to belatedly realize they have doomed themselves in the end. Those who have just been punished for one thousand years are far more cautious, picking the lives which will guarantee them 1000 years of luxury. In this way, it seems as if their lives have been chosen by them, not as it is happening, but before it begins.I found it interesting that Odysseus made a cameo appearance in this text, choosing a life of "quiet obscurity."

Can you find Odysseus?

"The Myth of Er" would serve many purposes. It would give people a road map for making decision, as well as a reason to make the ones which would be socially acceptable and explain what happens when you die all at once.  I think Auerbach would approve.

Small Group Discussion Reflection

During this past week when preparing for the small group discussion, I did a few things I do not normally do.  I re-read the text, I took notes and I *gasp* wrote in my book. (I like to sell my books after I'm done with them but I don't think it will make that big of a difference, at least I hope not.)  Normally, I will just read the text once, often re-reading parts that don't make sense after a full nights sleep, and call it good. I have found that if something makes no sense whatsoever it is usually a lack of sleep issue.

Three things I learned from this exercise; I need to learn to plan for the worst case scenario, I need to be less more confident and I learned that all the stories you read can relate to each other in one way or another.

I found that as the time went on in class the questions which I had prepared well for kept being taken by other students, had I planned well, and prepared well for all the questions, this would not have been an issue. I am glad I answered the question I did, even though my thoughts were not as coherent as I would have liked them to be, because the questions after that one I had next to nothing on.  Had I been less mousy maybe I wouldn't have learned this lesson but, since I am who I am, I will never know.

I did find it interesting how the stories we've read so far all fit together into certain themes, rather through their dealings with death and life or even the symbolism of water. It makes the statement that all the types of stories which can be written are contained in "The Epic of Gilgamesh" much more believable.

Comitatus or a promise is a promise

It seems comitatus was on every ones minds this week. Clynton points out "Comitatus is not about what’s proper or not, it is an agreement." I really didn't think of it that way. I just kind of saw it as Beowulf trying to prove he still had it, and was tough enough to take the dragon on. Ultimately we see he was wrong and he left his men and his people in a bind. 


I think you could even go so far as to say it was selfish of Beowulf to risk his life like he did. He wasn't showing much concern for his people when he chose to go fight the dragon. Wiglaf knew that Beowulf's passing would leave them open to attack from the Swedes so I have to assume Beowulf would be at least as aware of that fact as Wiglaf was. 


So my question is, why is it that the men are disdained and looked down upon but Beowulf's reputation is not even effected at all?

Beowulf's undoing

Scott pointed out in class that Beowulf essential flouted the warrior code of comitatus by telling his men he would handle the dragon on his own. It seems, though, that Beowulf made a habit of setting comitatus aside when dealing with supernatural creatures.

Before entering the lair of Grendel's mother (odd she doesn't have a name) Beowulf makes an impassioned speech about what to do for his men if he should happen to die. He doesn't tell him men, "I got this", yet none of them follow him into the sea. In this battle he almost lost his life as well, had his chain-mail (or God in the Christianized version) protected him he would have been toast.

Was Beowulf's overconfidence his undoing? Did he think that because he had survived Grendel and his mother he could survive anything? Before fighting Grendel's mother, Beowulf tells the king, "with Hrunting I shall win honor and fame, or death will take me." Ironically, he didn't win fame with Hrunting, Hrunting failed him in battle. Is this symbolic of his pride failing him?

Before fighting the dragon, Beowulf proclaimed, "It is not your way, nor proper for any man except me alone, that he should match his strength against this monster." Here is the climax of his pride. His final speech, wherein he dooms himself. Of course, we also once again see his weapon fail him, this great sword which is spoken of so highly, breaks because "his hand was too strong.(he)... overtaxed every blade with his mighty blows." Perhaps the teller of the tale thought Beowulf could use a little more finesse. Perhaps the point was that men needed to use their minds and not just blindly destroy everything in sight?

It has been theorized that the last battle of Beowulf was added in much later than the first two, which make sense as the story doesn't flow quite as smoothly as one continuous tale, rather two tales about the same character. Was the first author trying to teach the lessons of strength and the second the lesson of restraint?

Finally, I just wanted to share this, to bring a little levity into your day:

Sometimes timing is everything