Colloquium!

Just some final notes for tonight guys!

• Dress nicely please since you will all be on stage at some point. I don't mean formal, just nice - no jeans please! Also, there will be people wearing the Dr. B's tie if you want to bring one (guys or girls). 
• If you are bringing something for the food please arrive just a few minutes before 5:30 at least. 
• It is essential you be familiar with you passage. 
• If a few of you want to make a small contribution to the Foosackleys we purchased, we are about fifteen to twenty dollars over what we really intended to spend and any donations would be appreciated from anyone. 
• Also, during the intermission if you don't mind going ahead to the stage to get situated, unless I give different instructions later. (In other words, everyone on stage is plan A.) Girls, I'd wear comfortable shoes. 

And if you weren't in class on Thursday, the schedule will go as following:
The project will begin after the introduction of the new Honors Council.
Charlie will introduce the project and then his group on Justice will go.
Dr. Olsen / Dr. Bear will follow Charlie with either Prudence / Temperance.
Mary Kate's group of Courage will follow.
Then my (Kelli's) group followed by Sharla's group.
Tori had a surprise wedding to attend, so Charlie will be introduce her group and closing us out.

And lastly, thank all of you for being a wonderful class to lead through Honors. I hope you all have a fun summer!

Bonus Blog

But then my mind was struck by light that flashed
and, with this light, received what it had asked.Here force failed my high fantasy; but mydesire and will were moved already – likea wheel revolving uniformly – bythe Love that moves the sun and the other stars. (Par. XXXIII, 140-145)


I absolutely love this quote. It's the one I chose to read at colloquium, and overall, I feel as if it summarizes my thoughts towards all of the Divine Comedy. Dante, after such a long and arduous journey through the inferno and purgatorio, has finally reached the perfection he had been lacking. And not through a triumph of virtue over his will and desire, but rather, a reshaping of his will. The same God that so powerfully moves the heavens, and continues to do so, moved Dante's will and formed it to match that of his own. This is what he strove for, and is highly reflective of what every Christian has to look forward to: the culmination of our sanctification.

What is Caliban?

Caliban confuses me because I don't know whether he is a man or a creature. And, I appreciate Shakespeare doing this characterization because it reflects the characters of Greek mythology that we read all last semester. Part of the beauty and mystery of and epic is disgusting who is man verses who is creature, who is good verses who is evil. Cal causes that same dilemma in each of us. At points we sympathize and empathize with him. Yet, at other points we see elements of his character that feel barbaric and ugly to us.

Battle Language

This semester I have really enjoyed how clear all of the authors make their dislike for one another. Muntzer goes as far as to refer to Luther as, "Father Pussyfoot." First of all, what is that even supposed to mean? Secondly, he is a very bold man to use such derogatory and vulgar language when talking of a fellow theologian. There must have been some pretty heavy blows through in his direction for him to have such strong distaste for Luther. However, I do admire his honesty and sometimes wish theologians and teachers were this honest now. Although, more academic language would be a lot classier.

P.S. I commented on Collin's blog

Water. Spirit. Blood.

           Baptism is a ritual that serves as a  public confession of faith.  It is symbolic of their rebirth in Christ. Hubmaier depicts  the three distinct baptisms: water, Spirit, and blood. I found it interesting how he depicts the significance of each. And, he makes a separation between baby dedication and baptism. I truly appreciate this because it contradicts the theology that you are saved by your baby dedication.  Hubmaier also places emphasis on spiritual baptism saying that it should occur subsequent to the water baptism. 

i commented on Brydon's. 

Soapbox

The trial of the Anabaptist made me uncomfortable. It reminded me of the type of religious discussion I often observe. In this trial you have two parties and each party has a differing opinion. The Anabaptist argue their case, and their proposal is met with indignation and a refusal to compromise. The judges do not take the points they are making seriously. To them any opinion that is different than theirs is invalid. The purpose of honors is to seek the TRUTH in love and this trial is a glaring reminder of just how important this is. I hope to remember this next time someone poses a thought that I might disagree with because the consequences of stubbornness can be deadly. 

p.s. I commented of Zessin's

Love or Lack Thereof

The message behind most of these handouts was frightening. Mostly because, though they were written by nominal 'Christians,' almost nothing that they said sounded like Jesus' commandments.

Where were the exhortations to love your enemy as yourself? What did they think Jesus was doing when he ate lunch with prostitutes and tax collectors - was he just waiting for them to hit the third strike so he could publicly humiliate them and then shun them for being imperfect? What kind of church growth did these people hope to accomplish? A church where no one is comfortable with the grace of God, where the members are too scared of doing something wrong to even think about what Jesus did perfectly right?

The most unsettling part about these tracts is that I can still see their effects on the Protestant church today. Churches can get so focused on being good people, and not getting around "the wrong people," not "getting brainwashed" by entertaining different mindsets. Nothing about this is Christlike - it's all much too human.

PS I commented on Kayleigh-Marie's post

AGH

I feel like a heretic! Munster is being tried for dissing infant baptism. And then he's tortured and burned along with his family. And I agreed with his points. I feel like such a heretic. But regardless I the judges didn't handle it correctly at all in my opinion. They presented no counter arguments and Munster was coming straight from scripture.

James

My Way or the Highway

There are people like Muntzer in every religion, not just Christianity. People who see themselves as part of an elect group and everyone who is not with them is definitely against them. I understand that Christians are set apart and are God's children, but I don't see any need in persecuting people who believe differently than I do. Their salvation is between them and God and, though we are called to witness to them, we are not responsible for their decisions and are in no position to punish them for them. I personally never understood that mindset. If you kill or ostracize everyone who doesn't share your beliefs, how can you ever expect for you religion to grow and prosper. Conversions require unbelievers, after all.

P.s I commented on Brydon's post

Michael Sattler

Ok. The Trial and Martyrdom of Michael Sattler broke my heart. As I read, I found no fault with him. He had scripture to support his every claim. The theme in his defense for leaving the catholic tradition was simply that he was following the scriptures rather than the traditions of the church. He found the traditions to be contrary to what the Word instructed. And for this he was horribly murdered. Unjustly murdered in my opinion. Yet through it all he did not protest but simply stated "God's will be done" after hearing his sentence. The whole account made me cringe with disgust and indignation.

P.S. Commented on Brannen's

Did he cross a line?

    So this past weekend, I went on a mission trip to the Dakotas and Minnesota, and one of the missionaries I talked to mentioned having to adapt to where you are located. Like he has a gun and isn't all lovey dovey. He can't be or the Natives will walk all over him. I get that. My first thought when I read Thomas Muntzer's 34 was Mr. Matthew's words; however this guy crossed a line. He was not adapting to his location. What I understood from this is he is talking about the rich, and how they are at fault. Then when he mentioned burning flesh! Now perhaps he meant spiritually, but that was not the vibe I got as I read this.

P.S. I commented on Sydni's!

Baptism

           Baptism is a beautiful ritual (I use that word in the loosest terms). It is a public confession of faith, and for some is important to mark their initial spiritual renewal.
           I love how Hubmaier writes about the three baptisms: of the water, Spirit, and blood. He explains from scripture the significance of each and refutes infant baptism because the infant is not capable of making a vow to God or a confession to the public. I think that baby dedication is acceptable, because the principle is different.
           Hubmaier goes on to explain the role of the church in brotherly correction which seems to be fairly cohesive to 1 Corinthians teaching. All in all, I think this guy has his head on mostly straight.

-Mr. Collingsworth

Muntzer and Revolts

I thought it was really interesting how Muntzer used scriptural references to justify a call to arms. In referring to passages like "Thou shalt not suffer evildoers to live" and describes instances where God used his power to conquer, but the means was human swords. His call to violent revolt seems incredibly harsh in its "show no pity" approach to reform. It doesn't sit well with me in light of gospel-grace. It seems really extreme to deem those who don't revolt with him "martyrs for the devil"
But at the same time, maybe such a time called for extreme measures.

Commented on Abbey's

Legalism much?

The articles from last week and these articles make me wonder just how far across the lines of legalism these theologians lived. Ignatius Loyola's establishment of the rules on how to act in the church, although good in principle, the rules may cause nonbelievers or even believers to believe that these rules are required in order to stay a Christian. Also some of these beliefs are considered in modern day times to be slightly outrageous. Law number 8 for example, regarding the church building, states that we ought to praise the church building as well as the symbolism that it represents. This is idolatry, pure and simple.

Abbey's

Splatter Painting

I love how thoughtful the counter-reformists are concerning the things they talk about, especially around points 15-17. I feel that being careful with truth is something that we modern Christians often throw around flippantly in our worship songs and conversations and lessons. The truth is a powerful thing, and yes, ought to be shared, but with much care and attention. The concepts of grace and faith and works create a beautiful painting of the Christian life, but that image is skewed when we hastily throw the paints onto the canvas, or use all red and no yellow or blue. This attention to detail and thoughtfulness is almost a form of worship in itself, and to me that is a beautiful thing.

PS on Ashley's :)

Blog-April 13

I truly admire the reverence that the Roman Catholics had/have for the Eucharist.
I wish that Evangelicals would partake in this sacrament more often, because it is
very powerful.  In this, I admire what Ignatius and many other of the authors we
have read teach regarding this.

Michael Sattler's eighth article, in which he distinguishes the Turks and the violent
Christians is powerful.  That idea of a power-hungry, harsh, forceful group of Christians has been present in virtually the whole life of the Church.  (Did Sattler read Aquinas?  I think he would have been justified in resisting the Turks.)

*** Abbey G.

At least she has reasoning.....

My favorite part was close to the beginning when the Wife was trying to rationalize her marriage "behaviors." Her line of thought makes sense, sort of. She says God never commanded virginity, and if he did, then there would be no marriage, which would lead to no children, which would lead to no virgins. She states that God, then, accepts her way of marriage. I like her train of thought and the fact that she was able enough to come up with it, but it still does not really help condone her lusty ways. I guess this is why people think interpreting the Bible is bad.

I commented on Caleb's

The Wife of Bath

Flawed logic and false intelligence everywhere. First she claims that she doesn't know much, and I don't really believe she thinks that anyway, and then she starts quoting all sorts of scriptures and authorities.
Her story then, was also super strange. Apparently, the answer to what women want is power over men. Chaucer is satirizing the commonly held fear by men that their wives would want power over them. However, if given the choice between marrying a kind ugly person, and a hateful pretty one, I would hope I would be that smart as to choose correctly if the situation was reversed.
Commented on Matt Henson's

Thenardier

The first thing that really struck me about the beginning of the wife of baths prologue was the way she warped scripture to suit her needs. We have talked a lot about how medievals thought that any love that led to a love of God was good, but this honestly just seemed a bit messed up to me and twisted from that end goal.

Also, merely the way she described her actions and thoughts for some reason reminded me tons of Madam Thenardier from Les Mis. Not exactly sure why, but I think she really wouldn't mind singing "Master of the House" herself. Anyhow, it was all a tad garish to me. Interesting though. I do however think that it was a good critique of the one who justifies the way they want to live life by whatever means they can. It also shows that a little truth in the wrong hands can lead to a lot of confusion.

Commented on Abbie George's :)

The Joys of Marriage

The Wife of Bath terrified me. I've heard some pretty terrible things in my day about women in general, but it's interesting that the Wife of Bath says those things about herself. She uses the Bible to defend her view of marriage, but does not hold herself to a Biblical view of wifehood. Out of all the things I've heard and read of marriage and women, this was probably the worst.

*Tori Parris's blog.

The Wife

Wommen desiren to have sovereyntee
As wel over hir housbond as hir love,
And for to been in maistrie hym above.”


The old hag is intended to represent the Wife of Bath herself, or rather as she would like others to see her. Though the hag is old and aged, she is very capable of displaying all of the humor, strength, vigor, and inner beauty of her youth if the right man comes along.  This is what the Wife did with her fifth and favorite husband, the youthful Jankyn. Although the old hag becomes a beautiful young woman in response to the young knight’s well-timed response, it is unclear whether he truly had enough respect for the old woman that he allowed her to choose for herself, or whether he had simply learned how to supply her with the correct answer. So, is it better to give the answer you know will make your wife happy? Or, to tell the truth?

I commented on Ashley Harding's. 

Feminism and misinterpretations

This story makes me sad. The wife of Bath angers me so, because she exemplifies the worst of the female sex. I imagine her as the selfish house wife who has always received her hearts desire. She also takes a drastic feminism stance on just about every issue. For instance, if a man can have multiple wives then why can a woman not have more than one husband. Not to mention the fact that she takes the bible horribly out of context. She twist and manipulates the scriptures as a defense for her culturally unacceptable actions. I can't imagine how this was taken by a medieval audience given its abrasive and often brutal honesty from this feminine perspective.  

P.S. I commented on Caleb's post thingy.   

"God never really said I couldn't"

There's something wonderfully comical about trying to justify living loosely with (at least) five men with arguments like, "Well, what else are genitals for?" and "God never really said I couldn't". She argues like a five year old! She was defending herself so forcefully, it was almost like she was trying to convince herself (not everyone else) that she was right. I read everyone else's blogs first so I went into it with the express intent of liking this woman (just because I tend to be hardheaded) but I found her logic so flawed that I couldn't bring myself to get on here and defend her. All and all, an amusing read and a great example of how to abuse every logical fallacy in the book in under 30 pages.

P.s I commented on Kelli's post

The Wife's Tale

As many have already stated, the wife of everybody is ridiculous. Yet that's why I enjoyed this reading so much. I also found the tale to be extremely humorous. As the knight goes about his quest and eventually finds himself in the dilemma of having to marry this "ugly, elderly, poor" woman. His reply to her request of marriage says it all, "Take all my goods and let my body go!" The tale as a whole was enjoyable in that the conclusion was tied into the quest. Because he let the wife make the decision, all ended up being well for him. I liked the continuity of themes. Just a few comments. I liked the tale overall.

P.S. Commented on Caleb's post.

This Wife of (Everyone? Somewhere?)

The title is dedicated and reminiscent of the two blog posts preceding mine. They were quite enjoyable, you should read them. (Short and sweet too!)
I did find this Wife of 'Bath' lacking in her knowledge. Not only was her reasoning flawed (as previously mentioned by others) but her knowledge itself is quite awful. She tells the wrong story of King Midus, it was his hairdresser he told about his donkey ears not his wife, and I believe she refuses to tell the end because she herself is not sure of what it is. At first I thought maybe Chaucer had a differing version of Ovid's myths, but now I'm pretty sure he was trying to convey the lack of knowledge in Mrs. Wife.

commented on Mary Kate's.

Flawed Logic

"For then, the apostle says that I am free 
To wed, in God's name, where it pleases me" (Chaucer). 

Very interesting logic you have here Mrs. Wife of Bath, or better yet, Wife of Everyone. This hits upon a very interesting trend that is sometimes seen within the church. The Bible lays out a law for the people of Christ and then someone out there takes it and makes it applicable to whatever they want it to apply to. "Oh, the Bible says marriage is good. Okay, I'll marry everyone I think is cute." She is super annoying, and I disapprove of her decisions in life. 

P.S. I commented on Caleb's blog.   

Oh Bathy.

Alright chick. You are deaf in both ears, and still you ramble ceaselessly. You launch into this knight's tale, and then take to talking about King Midas. Really? And after Gawain and all of our discussion on being true, The Wife is such a culture shock. Unless it's on matters of romantic love, I don't think she can be taken as being a true person. Even from the opening line of her prologue, "There was a housewife come from Bath, or near," so we aren't even totally sure where she's from? Ok. That's fine. I get that. Get married first at twelve. Ok. Normal. But then she launches into her theology on marriage. 'I shouldn't have gotten married more than once because Jesus only went to one wedding.' What kind of sense does that make?? I just laugh. I cannot take her seriously. 

Magdalia and Utilitarianism

I found it interesting that Mags had a very sophisticated look on life for this point of time, and it relates to the thinking of utilitarianism. Ant says that people gain through worldly pleasures but Mags says it is actually through the higher pleasures that one finds true enlightenment. This is cool but strange to me. Its cool because utilitarianism has not truly been an ideal at this point in history, but strange because it is the belief of ethics if their is no God. She clearly has faith in God though, but shares these same views as people who do not. And Julius needs to be slapped...

I commented on Ashley's

Learning = Love

This reading was fantastic! Many people (my mother in particular) have called me snarky at one time or another, but even I could take some serious sass lessons from Magdalia!

But, since her wit has been so thoroughly covered already, I'll try and talk about something else.

We don't know much about Magdalia's husband but we get a couple glimpses... And I love him! In particular, when Antronius says, "I wouldn't want a learned wife," and she responds with, "But I congratulate myself on having a husband different that you. For learning endears him more to me and me to him," I find myself greatly admiring their relationship. My husband and I spend a lot of time together and enjoy doing lots of different things, but one of our favorite things to do is read together. We'll take turns reading something and then we'll spend many minutes, sometimes hours, discussing it and picking it apart. I almost never feel so close to him as when we're learning together. I thought maybe that was just us, but I'm glad to see that we're not such weirdos after all!

P.s. I commented here

Pride

Tonight's reading was great. It's so true that we put so much hope and effort into things that won't last. Both stories showed the value of wisdom, faith, love, etc., and I thought both stories put things into perspective really well. One of my favorite lines in the dialog was when Peter asked that if Christ commanded him to keep out those who cast out demons and prophesied in His name, why would he let in anyone in the name of Julius? Though few of us are as prideful as this Julius fellow, it's an eyeopening statement on the realities of pride.

*Abbie George

She would be an Honors student

Mags would certainly be in Honors.  She has it all right.  I relate to her character, as I assume many in Honors do.   Antronius is everywhere: "I'm wise enough, so far as I'm concerned."  Too many people believe that about themselves, which is sad. 

The brevity of this post is probably unacceptable, but I feel that Magdalia said enough.

***A. Griffin

The Gate Keeper and The One Kept Out

I absolutely loved our readings for tomorrow. While "The Abbot and The Learned Lady" was brilliant, my favorite has to be "Julius Excluded from Heaven." I read this in highschool but reading it a second time was even better. The reason I love it so much is because there is so much great truth expressed by Peter as he completely takes Julius apart.

Of all of the great come-backs, though, the best moment for me is when Peter addresses Julius' outer garments (his keys, his crown, and his cloak). He takes each article and explains how they are unimportant and insufficient for getting him into heaven. But after that Peter makes this remark, "In all of this stuff-the key, the crown, the cloak-I recognize marks of that rascally cheat and impostor who shared a name with me but not a faith, that scoundrel Simon whom I once flung down with the aid of Christ."

Here Peter displays every quality that Julius lacks. He shows a complete knowledge of what things are truly eternal, a great humility in remembering his old self, and a total dependence upon Christ. It is precisely for this reason that Peter is the gate-keeper while Julius is the one kept out of the gate.

P.S. I commented on Abbey's post.

A comical twist on the cave?

As I read this I find myself comparing the text more and more to a comical version of Plato's Cave. Magdilia being female with knowledge of both Greek and Latin representing wisdom, and Antronius being male and skilled in the ways of the land (French, hunting, courtly things) representing a lack of knowledge. Magdalia is trying to "pull" Antronius out of the darkness, however with the twist of the french humor mixed in the story is quite comical.

Abbey

Monty Python?

This text had me rolling with laughter due to the overwhelming snark content. It was like the Monty Python of the middle ages. I understand why it was so wildly popular. I blogged last week about how difficult it is to understand some satire but it was pretty clear in this text.  This text reminded me so much of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when the knights were standing at the gate arguing with the Frenchmen. All I am suggesting is a deleted scene of the cast acting this text out. It would be phenomenal. 

While these men are bickering at the gate, Julius questions Peters priestly power. Peter responds by saying, "Doubtless  because I'm dead." I don't quite understand why but I love this line.  

I commented on Abbey Griffin's blog!

The Sandwich of Awesomeness

Wow, I must say that I really liked the snarkiness this week. We have talked a lot about how some of these authors have been difficult to relate to, but is it bad that I really relate to Erasthmus? Perhaps I shouldn't have gotten quite so much glee from reading his works as I did... Anyhow, I thought he used the concepts of satire impeccably well. And yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with Brannen that Magdalia should be the latest disney princess...

Sliced bread was a great invention, but sandwiches are awesome. Just like the use of snark in this writing. And maybe I shouldn't blog when I've had this much caffeine... 

chats on BRANNEN!

Erasmus - High Quality Entertainment

Erasmsus's readings are highly entertaining due to his satirical style. Not only are the two opposing extremes played out with sarcastic, cunning, and vicious remarks, but it's in the form of dialogue. I really enjoy the format of dialogue because to me it feels as if I am really listening to the conversation, maybe even eavesdropping. And this is the kind of conversation I would love to eavesdrop on. The wit and intelligence of one party versus the confidence and pride of the other compliments not only the woman and Paul, the two intelligent parties, but the value of a wise and cunning mind. For the reader, they know and acknowledge that one wishes to be on the learned side, which at the time may have promoted further interest in education. 

commented on Brydon's blog and her awesome scoreboard :)

Satire

What I thought was so interesting about both of these pieces was the satirical elements of both. Both the abbot and Julius are extreme versions of very real views. The abbot was so determined that women should only be able to do silly things, which makes Magdalia seem like much the intellectual superior. Likewise, Julius's arguments and threats to excommunicate Peter himself seems extreme, but it brings to light the genuine problem presented by giving ultimate, irrevocable papal authority to not only a fallible human being, but often ones whose vices enabled them to procure this position. In both of them, there is a very clear and decided 'right' side, with little room for interpretation.

P.S. I commented on Brydon's

Perfect Role Model

      Magdalia is amazing! I love and respect her sass! She is not just sassing Atronius for no reason, and she does not sound like a little girl who is arguing foolishly. She not only knows her information but she has no shame in arguing with the abbot! Personally, I love her spirit. The abbot attempts to use so many things to break her or make her falter, but she doesn't skip a beat! He tries to attack he marriage and then her sanity at a moment. But Magdalia stands strong in her love of seeking wisdom! She even calls him out for leading a group of men foolishly! When I read this all I could think was why couldn't she be a Disney princess? I had to explain my favorite princess for some children, and I really wish I could say Magdalia because she would teach girls there is more to life than marriage and raising children and that being educated is invaluable!

P.S. I commented on Sydni's.

Not Feminism

"And Swine are wise enough as far as they're concerned"

"You strike me as a sophistress, so keenly do you dispute."

"I won't say how you strike me..."

Girls: XIIIVI

Boys: 0

This is a sassy women. And I like it of course. Not because I have personal issues with chauvinists, but because Magdalia has done her research and is smart, not just stuck up. Magdalia makes many wise observations about women and their role in the home, but also wise women outside her cultural sphere. She shows that she has a larger perspective of religious culture as well and how it has declined. I love her monologue on page 31 about the women of the world, and then she ends with "I feel like laughing even now." Yes, she is terse, but deservingly so. 

One of the best things about language is the progression of it. I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the languages change through all of the texts we have read this semester. However, this reading really struck me because it is so incredibly close to what we speak today.
Language is such a beautiful and perfect gift. It is so interesting to watch how it changes and adapts to the time. Even today, though the changes are a lot less romantic than they used to be, there are many words and phrases that have recently been added to dictionaries and/or the vocabularies of the people. Language changes to serves the needs or the focus of the people who are speaking it. We have seen so much of that this semester. This work was written in a more commonly spoken tongue than the other works we have read. This shows a change in society and a shift in the people's focus.

P.S. I commented on Collin's blog

The Knight and the Squire

I really love the beginning with the description of the knight and squire and how they are practically exact opposites. The knight is described as the model knight, and squires are supposed to reflect the knight that they follow, but this squire is corrupt in various ways. The squire is full of lust and other sins while the knight is virtuous. I believe this was chosen to reflect certain aspects of human nature. However much some may try to guide others such as the knight to the squire, some people refuse to change their ways.

I commented on Ashley's post

A knight in shining armor... No thank you! I want this one!

"He never yet no vileinye ne sayde
In al his lyf, unto no maner wight.
He was a verray parfit gentil knight.
But for to tellen yow of his array,
His hors were gode, but he was nat gay.
Of fustian he wered a gipoun
Al bismotered with his habergeoun;
For he was late y-come from his viage,
And wente for to doon his pilgrimage."

I love the knight so much! He's just awesome! Despite his huge success and his noble lineage, he was practical, self-disciplined, and humble. Never had he said anything bad about another person. He truly was the most perfect knight in every way possible. He rode fine quality horses, but he didn’t wear flashy clothes. He wore a simple cotton shirt that had stains all over it from the chain mail he’d worn in the war he’d won just before starting out on the pilgrimage to Canterbury. He was truly a chivalrous knight. 

I commented on Matt Henson's. 

Sarcasm

"It seems to me accordant with reason
To inform you of the state of every one
Of all of these, as it appeared to me,
And who they were, and what was their degree"  (LN. 37~40;Canterbury Tales)  
This reading has proven to me how bad I am at discerning a sarcastic writing style. I notice it often enough to know that it is being employed, yet I have to read and reread the text to determine the authors feelings about certain characters. For instance, it seems like he really likes the saucy nun and the scandalous wife of bath, which perplexes me. As the narrator states, his goal is impartiality, to explain the degree and state of every person. In doing so, this text has challenged me to seek deeper the truths of character and not just take people at face value. He is denouncing the practice of taking people at their word or heaven forbid by their job title.Which I fear we are just as guilty of now as they were in the middle ages.

P.S. I commented on Caleb's.

Um.

I have quickly realized just how much distance there is between me and this time period. I'm realizing just how ignorant I am of it and the culture that grew in this time. Even the modern English translation does not help. What in the world is a franklin? What's an arras-maker? They are throwing around all these terms and phrases that I have never heard. And Chaucer just assumes the reader knows what he's talking about. It made me ponder my own writing. Do I write in a timeless manner that will be able to be comprehended by a later generation? Or do I assume everyone will always understand me?

P. S. Bry Don.

Decoding the Lingo

I have really enjoyed reading everyone's posts tonight. It's not very often that I agree with such a large percentage of the class, but there have been some wonderful observations! Since a lot of the individual personalities have already been covered, I think I'll talk about the language itself.

We talked in class about this text being easier to read than some of the previous ones... That may be true but this was still complete gibberish to me. I'll go ahead and admit that I still have a lot of trouble with Shakespeare (hey, I never claimed to be an English major) so this was laughably far over my head. I do see the slow progression toward modern English but we still have a long way to go at this point in history... Even my computer was having a hard time with it!

P.s. I commented on Jeremy's post

Writer's example

As a writer as well as a reader, my favorite part of the Canterbury Tales is the General Prologue. The actual "tales" part of the collection are secondary to the way that Chaucer creates his characters.

He's a perfect example of characterization for writers, even now - his methodology in drawing his characters for the first time is absolutely timeless. He's relatively brief, even his longer descriptions such as the Wife of Bath's and the Parson's only taking up about a page of verse. But he packs in so much detail about each person - relevant, striking detail - that it goes a long way to painting a vivid picture.

Chaucer also has a skill for wittiness and irony, engaging more than one emotional sense in how he portrays his characters to his audience. Not to mention his diversity! People from all walks of life and from all moral spectrums are represented, men and women both. Many of the character sketches can be seen as parody but it's never overpowering, and it never takes away from the main purpose of description.

The novelist in me adores the General Prologue. A lot of writers now could take some examples from Chaucer on how they develop their characters.

PS: I commented on Abbie's post.

Adorned

"Their gear was new and well adorned it was; Their weapons were not cheaply trimmed with brass, But all with silver; chastely made and well Their girdles and their pouches too, I tell. Each man of them appeared a proper burges To sit in guildhall on a high dais." I believe that the significance of the men buying new weapons is in order to show the purity of heart. As we dress up for dates, church, and other events that matter to us theses men dressed up for the trip because it mattered to them.

Matt's

A Conglomeration

This whole reading was such a great conglomeration of characters. All so varied and all so significant. They each fulfilled a role and great detail was given to most all of the personalities. What I found so interesting, however, is that the writer refers to people of great influence throughout the work and includes them in this grand conglomeration of persons. Not only is there reference to Christianity and to Jesus and many various saints but there is also a great influence of philosophical personalities. For instance in describing the Clerk it is said that he has "some twenty books, all bound in black and red, of Aristotle and his philosophy..." Elsewhere there is a reference to Epicurus, saying that the Franklin was his "very son." Also in the prologue, Plato is quoted. I don't know why this was so interesting to me, I just liked the fact that it was included. Made the personalities more real to me I suppose. 

P.S. Commented on Matt's post.

Vocation

I wonder about Chaucer's motivation to distinguish each character by his/her vocation and to limit characterization by withholding specific names.   Possibly, I think it could reflect the speaker's relationship to each individual.  His personal knowledge of each character is limited.  He does not mention their names, in fact, it seems he does not know them.  Of course, names make relationships more personal, but rather than dealing personally with these individuals, and putting a name with a face, so to speak, the narrator speaks generally.  I only speculate, but I think Chaucer is saying something about the positions themselves.  That is, from his experience, the knights he knew were generally all chivalrous, or the religious leaders he knew had undesirable qualities, or maybe the wives he knew (or had) resembled the wife of Bath.  In short, I think Chaucer might be speaking stereotypically.


KELLI BROWN

The Friar

"In towns he knew the taverns, every one, and every good host and each barmaid too-better than begging lepers, these he knew." This line particularly stuck out to me because of how relevant it still is today. I think many Christians and even churches as a whole fail to love and provide for people in need because they are more concerned about themselves. It's easy to let stress and various obligations keep us from noticing small needs in others lives, though God may have equipped us to meet that persons need in a unique way.

*Brennan's blog.

Not Pirate's of the Caribbean...but Maybe the Hobbit.

       One thing that surprised me about this group were the women that were included. My preconceived ideas about the Canterbury tales looked more like Robin Hood and his gang of men or the 40 Thieves from the Arabian Nights tales. Instead you see a group of book smart, rich, average Joes and Jans who are from all walks of life. Some older, some younger. Some fair and kind, some noble and some dastardly, wicked, or shallow. The common theme is their calling to undergo this pilgrimage to Canterbury. What kinds of twists and turns will this merry band encounter? And how will each of their personalities and abilities be used to either unite them or be their downfall? I see this journey more or less like The Hobbit instead.

p.s. Sydni

Good old religious people!

    So I have noticed that several of the authors we have read had a few things to say about the religious leaders. In our society, we tend to put a pastor, pope, pastor wife, minister, missionary, etc on a pedestal. But Dante was quite blunt by saying he saw some of the past Popes in hell, and then Chaucer makes some remarks as well. Out of all the character in The Canterbury Tales, the nun and the friar have stood out to me since I first read the prologue in high school. From what I learned the friar has fun with the young women of the town then helps them get married right after. He also refuses to spend time with the sick and poor people of a town. He is too busy getting money from people and learning of their sins so he can gossip later! He kind of reminds me of women gossiping at the bridge table in the sixties - "I heard in Sunday school that Joline is sending her daughter to her aunt's, and we all know what that means!" "Well, we should pray for her, but I need more details in order to do that!"  But Chaucer is just revealing that the church was very corrupted, and he is not the only one. Many of the authors we have read reveals the same fact.

P.S. I commented on Abbey's!

Chaucer

I feel as if this will be a very amusing discussion tomorrow. Chaucher's blatant descriptions of these various characters, most of whom are given high titles, illustrate the highs and the lows in a wonderful rhyme. The detail given to the portrayal of some characters, such as how they eat or are educated, is quite a contrast though to those who are simply given one line. Is this description sufficient, especially next to one so extensive? Is this person simply not that interesting? And if so, is that lack of luster applied to those alluded to in reality?

Commented on Abbey's.

The Righteous

I thought the three religious characters featured in the prologue were so interesting, because all three of them were so opposite of what their position should be. The prioress is way too cultured and worldly for her position. Her knowledge of French suggests a very cultured woman, which is odd considering that someone of her position should be more concerned about spiritual matters. In the same way, the monk lives very secularly, he dresses in expensive clothes, and lives like nobility. While the friar is sarcastically portrayed as a merciful man, it becomes very clear that his absolution of sin comes from a greedy heart, rather than one of genuine concerned for his parishioners. Chaucer was so blatant about the sin that each of them were content to remain in that it startles me every time I read it. Not only are these supposed to be the best of the people, but they prove to be the very worst, with absolutely no regard for religious doctrine or spirituality. This paints a very grim picture of the rest of humanity, if the supposed morally righteous are living in such obvious sin.

P.S. I commented on Abbey's

Grandmother Chaucer

No that wasn't a typo in the title, and yes, I know Chaucer was a dude, but he reminds me so much of my grandmother! One of her favorite things to do is to park outside a grocery store and just people watch. She could sit in a populated place and watch people for hours, getting to know them in her own special way.

In the reading, Chaucer seems much the same. He can describe each of these characters right down to their clothing and exactly how high their nose is stuck in the air. But one thing I especially love about him is the way he romantically and poetically views the world. Yes, they are just simple country folk and clergyman, but when described by Chaucer it is almost as though their course peasant garb has been covered in a dust of the same kind found on a butterfly's wings. The effect is enchanting, and makes a "down to earth" world seem more like whipping cream than 2% milk.

Comments on Mary Kate's

The Sky Will Sing His Praises

One of the things that I found to be the most beautiful about Paradiso is that there is music constantly surrounding Dante. A quick theology lesson of medieval philosophers will state that they believed in a geocentric universe with the earth at the center and that all of the other stars and planets revolve around it. The revolution of each planet, which Dante refers to as spheres or the different paradises, will create a different musical note because they are traveling at different frequencies. So, the sky is always full of music! How incredible is that that even the planets sing the praises of God!

PS. I commented on Caleb's blog post.

Of Cosmic Proportions

It came to my attention that the levels of heaven are divided by the seven planets in the solar system. This reading could not come at a better time considering the topics discussed at the honors lecture last Friday. The lecture was a foundation to Dr. Ward's book Planet Narnia in which he assigns each of C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia a Planet. Furthermore, he described the spiritual aspects that relates  medieval cosmology and the concurring spiritual symbols to the plot and depth of the books. It is interesting then entering into Paradiso with this on my mind. This made the complex descriptions of each layer so interesting and I would love to study this topic further. 

Side note. As I was reading this a friend leaned over and with a concerned look on her face ask if the trinity reminded me of the horcruxes in Harry Potter. This made me laugh so hard that I felt the need to share it. 

P.S. I commented on Brannen's post!  

Apollo?

I found it interesting that Dante chose to use Apollo when speaking of Paradise. Dante is trying to bring Heaven into a point a view for Protestants but uses a pagan God in order to bring him the ability to write about this Heaven. There were small conflicts with the old deities from past religions but this one was pretty large and blunt. I just don't understand why he decides to do this, and possibly never will.

I commented on Caleb's post.

Contentment

I thought Dante's question in the first circle of Heaven was very honest. He asked the people there if they would rather be in a higher circle than they are. I found their answer to this observation, however, to be much more insightful. They said that they are perfectly content where they are because they know that it is the will of God. How much less fear and stress would we endure if we all thought this way?

Abbie George's blog.

I always find how authors add paganism into their writings about heaven and religious beliefs. Ideals like an eagle being a main overseer, almost like cherubim. Especially when the Eagle was highly regarded in the Roman polytheistic community. I also understand that the Eagle would have been regarded as highly, if not higher than God in the established scientific community, due to the eagle representing the Roman empire, and many of the Roman gods. I just find it interesting that ideals that include pagan beliefs would be apart of theological materials, such as Dante's works.

Commented on Kelli's

The inclusion of several important figures within Paradise adds a very interesting aspect to Dante's writing. It is clear that he chose the names of these people very carefully and there is no one within Paradise who does not belong there. This adds a very interesting dynamic to the writing because it makes it more relate-able. While none of the great figures within the text are in the least bit common people, all of them have some kind of written works which makes them more accessible. This is very purposeful on Dante's part. Yes, all of these people were wonderful, but they also offer up an example. It is quite probably that Dante did this in order to spark the interest of his readers so that they would go and read the others. In an odd way it is as if Dante is providing free advertising for these great people's works and ideas.
Authors today could learn a lot form Dante. He supports other writers within his texts and even indirectly encourages people to go and read them for themselves. Authors would appear a lot more trustworthy is they followed this example. Dante had an interesting way of showing his sources of inspiration.


P.S. I commented on Collin's post

Language

"The pearl of everlasting took us in,

receiving us as water will receive

a ray of light remaining whole and one."

This was only one of the many verses that stood out as incredibly beautiful and picturesque to me in Paradiso. I didn't really get to read any Purgatorio so I'm not sure how it compares but the  language in Paradiso is so much more flowery and peacefully than that of Inferno. I'm sure it was intentional but it always amazes me, being a terrible writer, that authors like Dante can use so many different elements to convey a message and a feeling.

P.s. I commented on Sydni's post

Heavenly Hierarchy

“All things, among themselves, possess an order; and this order is the form that makes the universe like God”

Said by Beatrice at the very beginning of Paradise, I can’t think of a better line to explain the overarching thought of not only Paradise, but the entire Divine Comedy. As moderne evangelicals, we so rarely contemplate the order and structure presented to us. It calls to mind 1 Corinthians 14:33: “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace--as in all the congregations of the Lord's people”. I don’t know how theologically accurate the idea of circles in heaven or hell is, but I found it incredibly interesting to view this highly structured view of God and the afterlife. Not only the creation of it presented by an intentional Maker, but the order reflecting his own perfectly ordered nature.

P.S. I commented on Kelli's

Trinity

I LOVE THE EAGLE. Obviously it draws my attention to the animals in Revelation. But the references to the Trinity really caught my attention. Dante says that the Eagle has words like "I" and "mine" but it's mind's intent were words like "we" and "ours." It also interests me that he knows the mental intention of the Eagle. The implications are insane that cognitive space is shared in Paradise. 

P. S. Mr. Beaman's 

Rhyme

The choice the translator made about rhyme in the Purgatorio and the Paradiso is really interesting to me, if not a little expected. In the Purgatorio, there were occasional rhymes, sometimes internal and sometimes at the end of lines. It gave the air of Purgatory a slightly more unified feeling than the Inferno gave to Hell, even if they were irregular and not exactly reliable.

In the Paradiso, the translator went to the trouble of making many rhymes, often multiple external rhymes on every page. Paradise feels much more often like poetry.

Of course the original Commedia was all in rhyme, but it must be very difficult to translate such a long work and retain both the subject and the rhyme scheme. It's really interesting, the occasional freedoms that this difficulty gives to a translator to add his own touches to how the realms are presented. It really does change how each world feels.

PS I commented on Kelli's post

Request for Replacement

I, as I assume others are, am intrigued by the placement of those in the heavenly realm.  I am extremely curious to know fully what each level represents, and most importantly, their meaning in medieval Catholic theology.

I am particularly intrigued by the conversation between Dante and Piccarda, on the moon.  He asks the obvious question of whether or not she desires to move to a higher heavenly level.  She essentially responds, "All I have is all I want, because that is what God makes me want."  It would be easy to discuss this statement regarding earthly beings, but regarding heavenly beings, I don't know.  Also, I have the question, regarding the levels, "What is the difference between lower level experience and higher level experience?  Do the higher levels get more of God?"

I commented on Kelli's.

Levels of Heaven

The levels of Heaven presented and illustrate by Dante have been quite unusual to me. The concept of levels existing in the first place I expected, but I was not sure how Dante would divide them. To be honest, I'm still not sure how they are divided, just who is divided within them. The first level, the moon, upset me slightly. The fact that the women who were placed in the lowest level were simply there because of a wrong done to them against their own will seemed a harsh placement. The place of the theologians in the sun and the righteous rulers in the sixth place, Jupiter, did not seem to explain why they were placed higher or lower. I did find it interesting that the eye of the eagle in Jupiter was represented by two Jews, two Christians, and two pagans. I'd like to learn more of Dante's reasoning for this and his placement, if any one else has any ideas.

I commented on ... Brannen's.

Heaven has levels?

Okay, so there are an in numerous amount of beautiful, surprising, or interesting things to talk about in Paridiso. However, the fact heaven has levels really bothers me. Maybe it bothers me more than it should... But I have always understood that all sins are equal and that when we go to heaven we praise God which is awesome and I'm super siked to spen all eternity doing so! And even if everyone is split into spheres, heaven is mind-boggingly awesome, and I am exceedingly grateful for the grace that allows me to even think about heaven let alone go up there! (It's going to be amazing!) but I thought we were all equal in God's sight. And if we are equal, why are we split up? If every sin is equal, and all our sins have been forgiven and forgotten (because we're saved by Christ) then why and how are we divided? I thought we were supposed to sit at God's banquet table. All nationalities, all tongues. Everyone who has been saved, together as one praising God, Our Father and Our Creator! Now, we can still praise God in our different spheres. Just the thought of being split up in heaven really surprised me and through me for a loop.

P. S. I commented on Abbie George

Love and Unity

Love and unity is theme I find intriguing in Paradiso. Dante meets many glowing souls, orbs of light, "fifteen stars that animate the heavens in different quarters, with such brilliancy that it overcomes all thickness in the air", the heavenly rotating orbs, "in unison their glory should shine forth". Everything seems to be singing, constantly in a revolving motion, and so on. Obviously this is a very different setting from hell, which was cold and windy and bleak, though there seems to be fire of some kind in two if not all three levels of The Divine Comedy.

Of love there is much discussion-in telling the story of the Father and Son, the "splendor of the Word, Which in His love our Father brings to birth", love from and to Beatrice, and Dante who ultimately realizes His even fuller love for God as Beatrice fades from sight "My love absorbed itself so much in Him, that thoughts of Beatrice were all eclipsed". This quote is interesting in context of all the light discussion. How could something even be eclipsed in this place where only light exists? This love must have been even greater.

p.s. Abbie George

Beatrice's Eyes

I love Dante's constant references to Beatrice's eyes. Not just her eyes, but to her in general. It seems like ever time they climb a level of heaven, Dante himself cannot tell that the climb took place. However, he knows that they've entered a higher level because he looks at Beatrice and can tell by her eyes, or just her joy in general. My favorite parts of the narrative are when he refers to her. It's clear that her joy and love for the Father grows as they ascend, which is a great depiction of the work as a whole.

P.S. I commented on Mary Kate's blog.

Love Songs

This text has really been quite an eye opener in light of the way I view the reality of sin. It it so easy to take sin and mask it by using less intense more socially accepted words, but Dante really puts it back into perspective. It has made me reconsider the little sins that I don't focus on. Not to mention the times that I convince myself that a sin is okay. Dante has pity on these people because he knows they were just following their hearts. The lover states that it brings her great pain to think on those past pleasures. There have been countless love songs written about preferring hell to being separated from the one you love and on many levels I think that is what current culture is selling. Yet this lover was distraught to think on her love which seemed so pure at the time. Yes she is with her lover forever but she is exasperated from God. The journalist made the point that you can love something pure but love it in the wrong way. In doing so it causes it to become sinful. I only wish their would be  more love songs written about the dangers of loving something the wrong way.

P.S. I commented on Brannen's blog.

A Toast to Blogs

It is blogs like these that make me think.  My first reaction to this is, “Well, that was a good and somewhat interesting story.” I did indeed have a little trouble at times keeping up, but I imagine that can be attributed to my lack of sleep and not lack of interest.  But if there is one “insightful” thing I did gather from this it would be the unique description of Hell.  It was not something in the past I really wanted to put thought into, and still not something I necessarily want to put thought into now. Nevertheless, it was a fresh new perspective on a concept which I previously had no interest. 

Clearly, this is the first time I have read any part of Dante’s Inferno, given the fact that this is the main part of the book.  As famous as this book is I knew very little about it going in, and I believe this was largely to my benefit.



Comment

Why the poets?

I happened to find Limbo very interesting. Virgil himself resides here, and has been given only a brief leave to guide Dante. Dante watches a group of men approach and greet Virgil as a fellow poet, and you'll never guess who they ar!. Virgil introduces them as Homer, Horace, Ovid, and Lucan—the greatest poets of antiquity. They lead Dante to a great castle with seven walls, wherein he sees the souls of other great figures from the past: the philosophers Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato; Aeneas, Lavinia, and other characters from the Aeneid; the mathematician Euclid and the astronomer Ptolemy; and many others.  
To me, it was interesting that all the great poets of history would be here. We as a culture and a society look at them with great honor and respect and applaud their works. We study and quote them. We write papers on them. And, we try to immolate them in our own writings. So, why were they in hell?
I commented on Abbey Griffin's. 

Faint

Personally I found interesting that Dante continually faints when viewing or hearing the suffering those in the different circles are experiencing. After seeing how greatly this affected him, it really makes me stop to wonder how often I stop and personally suffer at the sight of others' suffering. Do I? Are we as Christians becoming immune to seeing the suffering others? Shouldn't it effect us even more than it did Dante?

Commented on Caleb's 

The Minotaur

I find Dante to be a little off kilter. He is trying to describe these new religious views with an understanding of the presence of torture in Hell, using pulls from past religions. The Minotaur interested me the most though, even though it was a small section. I don't think that the Minotaur's rage was the focus point of the interaction, but how the situation as a whole needs to be examined. I believe the use of the raging Minotaur was to show how Hell would slowly deteriorate our own humanity if we are to venture into its depths. The pain and suffering the circles brings will eat away at people's virtues and sanity and revert them to a more beastly form of mind.

I commented on Matt Henson's post

Particulars of Sin

I adore this sentence from Lessons for Millennials— For Dante, all sin results from disordered desire: either loving the wrong things or loving the right things in the wrong way. 

I love that this distinction is made. It's something that I've been developing a lot in my own life. Take something like brotherhood. Fraternal fellowship. This is not a bad thing. It's very good and is seen throughout Scripture in pairs like David and Jonathan, or Paul and Timothy. However, if one were to act as I have in the past, and seek that out for the person, instead of God in that person, then you commit idolatry. That relationship is no longer about God because you aren't seeking it for Him. I am treating the right thing the wrong way. 

Wake Up Call

"Dante shows us that you can just as easily go to Hell by loving good things in the wrong way as you can by loving the wrong things. It's a subtle lesson, and a difficult lesson, and a lesson that is no less difficult to learn in the twenty-first century than it was in the fourteenth. But it's still necessary to learn. Happy is the man who embraces this wisdom at any point in his life, but happier is the man who does so in his youth."

Wow. Rod Dreher in a few sentences just summarized my entire high school experience. I spent a lot of time in high school developing a mind set like this, just was never able to really articulate what I was thinking. Dreher's article thoroughly relates Dante's Inferno to today's reader and is a good wake up call. However, the work itself is an extreme wake up call.

Dante's work so sharply awakens the reader with his tales of the damned. For me the Inferno was brilliant, yet agonizing. Every tale caused me grief in some way, as was Dante's purpose in writing. I found in particularly interesting that the hero's of the world were in hell. So glorified by humans, these "great" legends are in eternal misery.

As a whole, this work made me long for heaven that much more. I found myself thanking Jesus for His grace through every agonizing level of hell.

P.S. I commented on Matt's post.

The Last Circle

After reading about all of the previous circles of Hell that Dante described, the final circle almost seemed like a bit of a letdown. I think I would rather be frozen in a lake for eternity than be boiled in blood and shot at by creatures with bows and arrows. It just seemed to me like every circle leading up to the last was very creative and unique, but the last circle itself was underwhelming. Does anyone else feel this way?

I commented on Brannen's blog.

The Greeks Revisited?

I'm very confused over Dante's writings and how they fit within the time period of this section of literature in comparison to what we've been reading. We have been reading religious Christian-based literature, with a slight hit at the theme of a mystical realm. In Dante, we seem to have brought the whole Greek and Roman beliefs back and inserted them in Hell. I understand the given presence of people, to believe the Homer, Achilles, and Dido were all people that actually existed and thus belong a place somewhere is understandable. What does throw me off is the presence of centaurs and harpies. In this highly Christian oriented religious time, is it justified for Dante to bring in these seemingly fictional Greek characters? Even with the constant supernatural beliefs I this might be a stretch.

P.S - Jeremy's blog.

Setting Up

Possibly my favorite part of the Inferno is the beginning, just after Dante meets Virgil. The context of the meeting is fascinating - how Virgil has been chosen by Heaven to lead Dante through Hell, even though Virgil himself is one of the ones in Hell, or at least in Limbo. I love the hint of the workings in Heaven. It's not an especially familiar one to a Protestant, with Mary as the primary "intercessor" of sorts, but it has its own sort of comfort, especially when you start to sympathize a little with Dante and his plight.

The system of assistance - Mary and St. Lucia and then Beatrice herself - is wonderfully systematic and I'd love to look into any symbolism or religious meaning that it has behind it. Heavenly systems are always fun, and since it's so vital to Dante's actual story beginning, it has even more weight to it. I especially love the continuation of the symbolism of three: three books, three lines, three beasts, and three heavenly women!

(One question: I haven't read Purgatorio or Paradiso so I don't know how far the comparison goes, but does the setup of the Commedia remind anyone else of A Christmas Carol? Supernatural assistants leading a man through three realms in order to communicate truth... even the realms resemble each other a little, though Dickens's is backwards, if his childhood is more heavenly and youth is more purgatorial and his death is definitely hellish.)

PS I commented on Sydni Holm's blog

Dante's Hell

Reading the excerpts of Dante's work was gruesome. This is a side of hell that people do not talk about. And what do we do with this picture, having never been there ourselves? Through the dialogue and narrative, he makes many theological and philosophical statements about fear, death, angelic realms, and forces at work in the world. Do we merely appreciate his poetic nuances or cautiously weigh the hard truth he shows us? Does it matter to our theology if there are levels of hell or if people's souls can be in hell while their bodies are still alive?

It is fascinating that Dante ends his journey with "We came out to see once more the stars". Even though it is night, the relief and brightness of the stars is glorious compared to what he experienced in the under world.

Francesca's Tale

I found Canto V to be particularly fascinating, mostly because of Dante's reaction. The circle of Hell where those who committed sins within the flesh are confined causes Dante to actually faint. At first it seemed a little extreme (My fainting would have been after seeing the boiling blood-blech). But I guess what struck Dante, and eventually struck me, was how sympathetic these souls are. They aren't the ones convicted of violent and evil crimes. Instead, it is the well known love stories here condemned. My heart (and apparently, Dante's) is moved with pity over these souls, who as a result of their love now exist in a place where "there is no hope that ever comforts them-no hope for rest and none for lesser pain" (ln 46)
p.s. I commented on Mary Kate's

Huh

What an interesting read!  The images are fascinating.  I wonder, though, about the proper way to approach this text.  I know that it is literary by nature, and not theological, but then again, it is theological in many senses.  If this is a theological attempt to explain the realities of Hell, most of the images are merely speculation, or even just hypothetical.  However, there seems to be a general truth behind all the encounters between Dante and the Hell-Dwellers, that is suffering and God's absence.

The most interesting element is the classifications of the damned.  The way they are categorized, being group-specific, reminds me of a prison, as those convicted of the same or similar crimes are grouped together to live or maybe to do work.  However, the groups of damned people do nothing productive, nothing active, but rather are passively tormented.


*** -Mary Kate's