The Afterlife in the Classical and Italian Traditi

(I’m sorry this is really late, I was one of those having technical difficulties)

I found the presentation today on the shape of dreams to be very interesting. I especially found the difference between the types of figures the gods chose to express themselves intriguing. The presenters pointed out that the dreams in Homer and Vergil’s epics both involved speakers who took the form of people the dreamers knew. In Dante’s dreams, on the other hand, the figures who interact with the dreamers are figures known to Dante because of their ties to God. The Greeks and Romans believed the figures in their dreams because they were people whom they trusted in their waking lives. Then on the other side, Dante must have trusted the figures in his dreams to be helping him because they were related to God and therefore must be there to help him. The Greeks and Romans did not have the same liberty of knowing for certain that their gods would only send dreams to help them.

The discussion of appearance in dreams also made me think more about what compels people to take action. It was shown that the Greeks were encouraged to take action when the figure appeared just as beautiful as in life but sad because something had not been done, and the Romans were coerced to do something by the horrendous appearance of those who appear to them in their dreams. If you follow the idea that Dante’s katabatic experience is a dream, then you can also see how he believed people would be more likely to do the right thing if they were presented with a horrible image of what happened to those who did not. It is the horror of what will happen to him in inferno if he does not return to the path of God that helps push him in the correct direction.

Congrats to a successful dialogue, Kathleen and Chester. I definitely agree with your overall theme of prophets being marginalized and that they neither can fit comfortably within regular mortals or gods

In relation with this, I found that it was interesting that in Oedipus Rex, Oedipus stated “but no living man can hope to force the gods to speak against their will” when the Chorus proposes that Phoebus (Apollo) should answer the riddle of the murder that he gave through his oracle at Delphi (I don’t actually have the lines since I have a print-out of the text). It is almost like a ploy technique to use prophets so that the Gods don’t have to directly answer the questions/orders they present (despite their knowledge of everything). It is true that the prophets are a tool/mouthpiece to provide the necessary information, but the information is sometimes unwanted (and as Professor Gosetti-Murrayjohn stated, they have no barrier or shield to block out disturbing knowledge), thus, the prophets are then marginalized as a result of their speaking truths that the community is abhorrent to hearing or is unable to understand. I guess I am getting at the fact that this marginalization is due to the will of the Gods, since it is within their power to punish mortals with forsight (take Cassandra for example, since Apollo made it so that no one would believe her, not matter the truth of her words), as well as (I think) it is within their power to make it so that the community of man could believe them.

Then again, if the Gods intervened with every single aspect of mortal life (as seen in the literature), there would be no sense of divine mystery (as a result of the distance created between the mortals and the gods) that the prophets could convey.

I think that your discussion was interesting and was useful in a way of categorising prophets. However, I am not so sure on how I feel about the idea that since the sybl and the oracle of delphi were woman of power that that would set them apart from the community however very good job

Since I didn’t have the chance to write specific comments on every single midterm exam I graded, I thought it could be useful to come up with some general considerations on some of the central issues that came up in the exam, especially those I felt needed a little clarification.

On the relationship between the community and the deceased

It is undeniable that, compared to the Classical tradition, the Italian tradition assigns a less relevant role to funeral rites. One should however be careful to conclude that this deemphasizes or diminishes the role the community has, in the Italian tradition, in the successful transition of the deceased to the afterlife. If the role of the community appears to be lessened, it is because of the particularly strong tie, which the Italian tradition ushers in, between the deceased and God, which is what the examples of Manfred and Buonconte ultimately intend to underscore. This completely changes the ‘gravity’ of the deceased-community system, yet without diminishing any of the parameters. Indeed the crucial role of the community is supported by countless passages in Purgatorio, where the role of prayer for the deceased is constantly underscored, and where the process of purgation itself becomes a community business. One may say that the community is no longer crucial to the mere transition of the soul to the afterlife, yet it remains an essential part of the soul’s fulfillment in the afterlife. And that is indeed a big deal.

On topography and cosmology

The topography of the other world spells out the origins of the world itself. From Oceanus to Styx all the way to the mountain of purgatory, and at least the eight heavens that were known of in Dante’s time, the features of the other world in the Classical and Italian traditions are real geographical markers; for Dante, real astronomical markers too. That makes the other world a real place, albeit at times a vague place. It also makes the other world a place intimately connected with the history of mankind (we have spoken of the 5 ages of man in Hesiod, Ovid, Daniel and Dante). Thus, we may say that the other world in both the Classical and Italian traditions is made of meaningful cosmological signs.
</span