Why does Dante-poet construct this sense of decorum and
language, translation and comprehension? Why must Virgil play the intermediary,
if we look beyond the surface-level reasons Virgil offers to Dante-pilgrim. And
why must Dante carry the discussion in the following canto, which, all the
obvious differences aside, treats the same sin?
I think Dante (poet) has Virgil talk to Ulysses rather than Dante-pilgrim
to highlight the fact that Ulysses and Virgil spoke Greek and that Dante (both
pilgrim and poet) is speaking Italian. We’ve learned that this is the first
major work of literature written in a “vulgar” language, a people’s language,
rather than Latin or Greek. In my translation, Carson says, “and they, being
Greek, might not defer to your Italian ego.” I think his choice of words is
enlightening. Dante-poet has Dante-pilgrim remain quiet to further stress the
fact that he recognizes that the writing of this work in Italian is a departure
from the way it has always been. Dante-poet knew Greek, but he writes it so
that Dante-pilgrim does not. This represents a refusal of the old ways and a
clear delineation of a new direction. The act of writing The Inferno in Italian was revolutionary. As such, I think “Italian
ego” is the perfect phrase to refer to the hubris that led Dante to do such a
thing.
In the next Canto, Dante-poet (via Virgil) allows Dante-pilgrim
to speak to Guido da Montefeltro, because Guido is Italian just as Dante is
Italian. They speak the same language. As such, there is no chance for them to
misunderstand or offend one another (at least as a result of language).
In putting these two
encounters back-to-back, Dante is illustrating that “regular” people will no
longer need an educated intermediary to understand and enjoy literature. The
average Italian may not have been able to read The Iliad or The Aeneid,
because he/she didn’t speak/read Greek or Latin. However, the average Italian
would have been able to read/hear/understand The Inferno.
No comments:
Post a Comment