The Afterlife in the Classical and Italian Traditi

The discussion today was really interesting, and I was thinking about it again just now and came up with an interesting similarity between all three authors - none of the characters are really in control of what they’re doing or where they’re going. Dante and Vergil use time to sort of control their characters (to force them to move forward), but Homer seems to use the lack of time to show that there is no control whatsoever. In Homer, the souls are all “stuck” in a sense and unmoving (besides mindless flitting) in separate, timeless areas of the underword. This makes his underworld very finite and also very eternal and very changeless. The ability to really go anywhere, or even to think consciously and clearly is removed from the souls and in the process their own personal will is also removed, which causes them to be forced to stay wherever it is they happen to be, which causes and is caused by the lack of definite time.

In vergil, on the other hand, time very definite, to the point that Aeneas has but a day to make his way throughout the underworld. This forces him to move forward at different points even though he isn’t done speaking to someone. The souls in the Aeneid are also found (at least in part) to have their personal wills, to move from one level to another, and to be able to think and speak consciously and clearly. This aftelife is presented as more infinite and perhaps as less eternal. It seems less like an ending and more like a second journey after one has finished the Earthly journey. In Homer, the souls were pretty much resigned to wherever level they were, but in Vergil’s Aeneid, Anchises shows Aeneas a bunch of souls that are waiting in line to be born again. This is a much different kind of existence, but at the same these souls do not have control over whether they go back, or where they go to, or in what level they end up. These things are all determined for them, though they do have the ability to think and speak clearly (at least in part).

Now, Dante’s Divine Comedy shows just about everyone with a mostly conscious and clear mind, seeking to find a way to move forward in their existence. Time, here, is used as a tool - the souls must undergo punishment for so many years (or even for eternity) - that allows the souls to actually move to a new level of the afterlife. In this case, the souls are all very conscious, have their own wills, and do their best to move from level to another, while time is still used as a way to control them in where they go and when they get there. Also, with the idea of prayers happening BEFORE a soul can be elevated, time again forces these events to happen in a certain order and thus controls the requests of the souls Dante meets (many ask for prayers).

In all three examples, though time is used differently (or nonexistent), it is still used to control not only the living as they forray into the underworld, but the souls themselves, to keep them where they should be, or to allow them to move onward under very specific circumstances. I also found it interesting that in the finite, eternal underworld described by Homer, time does not exist, but in the infinite, not-so-eternal underworld described by Vergil and Dante, time exists rather clearly. It would seem that although one might think time itself is infinite, the nature of time is to create finity, i.e. time only exists when there are beginnings and endings, finite elements, and thus time could not really exist in an infinite realm such as the underworld as a rule to which that world is bound.

Now you can legitimately incorporate Greek words into your text using a Unicode version developed by our magnificent Instructional Technology Specialists.

Simply go to “write a post” and click on the Ω on the WYSIWYG bar to the far right (after the html, the question mark, the “omega”).

There should also be an “omega” sign on the WYSIWYG for comments!!

After the discussion on guides last Friday I was looking at the first canto of Inferno, where Dante meets Vergil. Although Dante-the-character is overjoyed to meet Vergil, whom he admires immensely as a poet, I think Dante-the-poet makes it clear that at least in some ways, he intends to surpass his hero.

Amid Dante-the-pilgrim’s excitement (he gushes: l. 82 and following) at seeing Vergil, one of the first things Vergil says is that he was born in “the season of the false and lying gods.” (l. 72) And again, while he can help Dante through Hell and Purgatory, “a soul more worthy” will have to guide him in Paradise. (l. 122)

There’s definitely pathos in Dante’s admiration, as both poet and pilgrim, for Vergil, and the fact that Vergil can never attain Paradise - as Abi pointed out. But Dante-the-poet also makes it plain that, since he can reach greater heights through the combination of faith with reason, his poem will be correspondingly more ambitious. I think there’s a bit of a literary game here, as well: as Vergil elaborated on Homer’s structure and stories, Dante doesn’t just want to rewrite Vergil’s vision of the afterlife, he wants to do it better. But, as Vergil’s protective care for Dante-the-character and Dante’s admiration show, it’s only with divine aid that Dante can go farther.

After Friday’s discussion I began to think about how Virgil and Beatrice are considered as guides, how they facillitate Dante’s goal(s?) and also how they exit La Commedia. Beatrice from the outset in Inferno is a goal in and of herself for Dante,both literal and allegorical: As a man in love, he seeks his one true love and also she represents the true moral path from which he had strayed and in following her he would be united with The One.

Summoned by Beatrice, Virgil intercedes to facillitate Dante’s journey to enlightenment. Although reason allows him to guide Dante almost to the peak of Purgatorioto, he is unable to receive divine grace and therefore is obliged to return to Limbo. Virgil’s departure slips under the radar barely noticed until Dante seeks out his ‘father’ for reassurance when he is overwhelmed by the arrival of Beatrice: “But Virgil deprived us of himself, Virgil, the gentlest father, Virgil, he to whom I gave myself for my salvation” Purg.30 v. 49-51. It is an achingly poignant moment for Dante who has to say goodbye but I feel sad too for Virgil who cannot proceed further. However, Dante is once again compelled to move onwards and upwards and not to ‘weep’ because greater delights are in store for him.

In Paradiso, Beatrice is his guide to the Truth, however it emerges by Canto 31 that she is neither the end result, nor the ultimate guide. In Empyrean, Beatrice hands Dante over to St. Bernard who takes Dante all the way! However, whilst Beatrice slips silently away, just as Virgil, when Dante looks for her he is reassured by seeing her smile down at him: “If you look up and to the circle that is third from that rank which is highest, you will see her on the throne her merits have assigned her.” Par. 31 v 66-69. So while she is no longer by his side, her presense is still felt. Also her ‘resting place’ is one of eternal bliss, unlike that of Virgil’s which is one of eternal longing. So the final destination for one of Dante’s ‘hero’ guides makes me feel even sadder for the other by the end of the poem. Poor old Virgil!!!!

Our Instructional Technology Specialists have been hard at work trying to figure out a way for our students to use a unicode ancient Greek font in blog posts. Some of you who have some background in Greek may wish to refer to particular words or vocabulary now and then.

I hope that our ITS will translate this for me, but you can read a description of what he is doing and how he is doing it on his blog, Remediation Roomy-Nation.

In the Inferno 14, 76 ff., Vergil informs Dante about the origins of the rivers of Hell, citing their origin in the huge Old Man made of variegated metals. As we will discuss in class today, Dante is referencing the classical 5 ages of man–outlined by Hesiod in the Works and Days, and modified by Ovid in the first book of the Metamorphoses.

As Sophie points out in her comment and as was discussed yesterday in class, a passage of scripture (Daniel 3: 31-33) is also extremely relevent. See comments for a quote of the passage.

During the discussion last Friday, the question of the purpose of the afterlife was brought up. The main arguments that were brought up for this were that in the Classical tradition the afterlife acts as a place for souls to be rehabilitated, while in the Christian tradition it is a place for punishment. It seems to me that in the Christian tradition the afterlife is more about justice than punishment. In the Christian tradition one may sin, but still be allowed into Heaven. If one believes and asks for forgiveness it will be given, even up until the last moment of life.

The main example of this in our readings is the story of Manfred in Canto III of Purgatorio. Manfred says that “My sins were ghastly, but the infinite Goodness has arms so wide that it accepts who ever would return, imploring it” (l. 121-123). In his heart Manfred was good, but, like many people, he made some mistakes in his life. He did not deserve to go to Hell for what he did, so he was forgiven and sent to Purgatory and eventually Heaven. While Purgatory may seem a sort of punishment for misdeeds I think it is more closely related to justice. Souls that have committed sins can’t go straight to Heaven without some sort of discipline, which they receive in Purgatory. Therefore I believe that the afterlife in the Christian tradition can be viewed in a similar way to a system of justice with Heaven being the free and innocent, Purgatory being the small time offenders, and Hell being those guilty of capital or other equally serious crimes.

From the beginning of our conversation this semester I have been questioning why these heroes can only get the information they need from the underworld? I’m beginning to form a theory about why Odysseus, at least, needs to travel to the underworld. In Book 11 of the Odyssey the souls appear empty in all aspects and I would not expect a hero to put to much stock into their information. However, when addressed by Odysseus they can respond, for example Elpenor who asks for a proper burial after Odysseus first addresses him. [On a side note, how did Elpenor even get into the underworld to speak with Odysseus if no one preformed his burial?] Teiresias tells Odysseus that “Any one of the perished dead [he allows] to come up / to the blood will give [him] a true answer” (Book 11, 147-148). Thus the blood offering connects these souls to a place of truth which explains why Odysseus would want to speak with Teiresias, who not only was a great seer, but also after drinking the blood would be compelled to tell the truth. My mind cannot help but notice the similarity between the rituals Circe tells Odysseus to perform and the ceremonies used for magic in the later Greek world: the sacrifice of a black animal (a holocaust sacrifice even, meaning that the whole animal was burned to the gods) and its location in the underworld (which is where Hecate, goddess of magic lives. However, I’m not quite sure those are real connects yet so I will move on to my question.

After reading the Odyssey books assigned for this week I could not help but notice the inconsistencies with Homer’s view of the afterlife. My questions come from our reading of Book 24, where the souls are not gibbering at all, rather they are coherent. The souls of the suitors killed by Odysseus are taken to the underworld by Hermes Psycopomps and they immediately begin to tell their story. Agamemnon responds to them coherently as well, ignoring their story and praising Penelope. To me this shows a larger departure from thirteen books earlier when Teiresias alone is suppose to have mental facilities. Is this perhaps a part of the Odyssey that was written at a later date when there was a more complex idea of the afterlife? Or do the souls of the departed always have the capacity to speak to one another? Perhaps they can only speak of their own deaths and the circumstances surrounding their departure from the above world. That would certainly sound like gibbering after three months of hearing Agamemnon’s “my wife totally stabbed me” story. Either way, the stress placed on the emptiness and, dare I say, pointlessness of the souls as described in Homer Books 10 and 11 seem to contrast greatly with their later portray in the same epic.

Win and Nicole’s dialogue on Friday discussed the importance of the community’s role of the transportation of a soul. Again, in this weeks readings of the Odyssey, characters stress the urge for the proper rituals to be done to the dead in order for the soul to depart. In book 10 of the Odyssey, we learn of the death of Elpinor, the youngest member of Odysseus’ crew, who in a drunken state, had fallen off the roof. In book 11, when Odysseus travels to the realm of the dead, Elpinor is one of the first souls he encounters. Elpinor reminds Odysseus that his body still lays on Circe’s island and he begs Odysseus to return and give him a proper burial. Elpinor asks Odysseus that “you remember me, and do not go and leave me behind unwept, unburied, when you leave,… but burn me there with all my armor that belongs to me, and heap up a grave mound beside the beach of the gray sea” (line 72).

Additionally, the importance of honorable/traditional preparations for the soul to depart the body is again stressed in book 11 of the Odyssey. Agamemnon is speaking with Odysseus about how he was murdered by his wife and while describing his death, he tells Odysseus “but with the sluttish woman turned away from me and was so hard that her hands would not press shut my eyes and mouth though I was going to Hades” (line 425). This tradition of closing the eyes and mouth is one of the first of the preparations for the funeral rites. This is also present in Homer’s Iliad with the burial of Patroklos.

After talking in class about the Platonic belief in some kind of afterlife and also the tradition of resurrection of the soul as we saw in the Phaedo, I found it interesting that in Plato’s The Apology no provision was made for souls to return to the mortal world.

Socrates says “Death is one of two things. Either it is annihilation, and the dead have no consciousness of anything; or as we are told, it is really a change: a migration of the soul from one place to another.”

Firstly, Plato considers the potential ‘nothingness’ of death where no afterlife exists, only a”dreamless sleep.” Secondly his reference to metempsychosis is quite explicit and specific “death is a removal from here to some other place.” This place, unlike Homer’s Hades full of ‘zombies’, is a chance to meet historical greats and engage them in lively intellectual discussion “their company and conversation…would be unimaginable happiness.” and this would be for Socrates a “rewarding place to settle” where they become “immortal for the rest of time.”

Thirdly, I found it fascinating that in The Phaedo Plato refers to the philosophers as the top dogs of the afterlife hierarchy, however in The Apology he adds the element of one single omnipotent god “…which of us has the happier prospect is unknown to anyone but God.”

So with these slight inconsistencies is it completely justified to refer to one single Platonic tradition?