Pages

Tuesday, December 09, 2008

"Better to reign in hell"

Fiction can be more influential than Scripture in shaping popular theology. Dante and Milton are two examples. In general, I think that Dante’s vision of the afterlife has been more influential than Milton’s. This is especially the case in his depiction of hell—which is more memorable than his depiction of Purgatory or Paradise.

However, most English-speakers don’t read Medieval Italian, so in some ways Milton’s vision may have been more influential for English-speaking Christians. Of course, he came long after Dante, so Dante’s vision had more time to sink in. And first impressions tend to stick.

Also, I doubt contemporary Christians read Milton as often as they used to. They prefer C. S. Lewis or Tolkien.

Dante situates his epic poem in heaven, hell, and Purgatory, while Milton situates his epic poem in heaven, hell, and earth. So both poems are set in three major localities.

With Dante, it’s a progression from to the next. One at a time. With Milton, they alternate.

Dante’s version of heaven is very ethereal, while Milton’s version of heaven is very earthly. There’s a sense in which Milton’s version of heaven is earthier than his version of earth. For his depiction of the Eden is quite artificial, more like a theme park or formal garden. Milton didn’t have much of an eye for nature. He was an urbanite: a man of books and letters.

Milton’s version of heaven is like a scene from Clash of the Titans. A very Jovian God. More like Zeus than Yahweh.

Dante’s version of heaven is a masterpiece of scientific and theological synthesis: Thomism, Aristotelian physics, and Ptolemaic astronomy fused into one. A work of genius. Still, it can’t rise above the raw materials from which it’s drawn.

Both Dante and Milton have very detailed depictions of hell. I expect this is driven by the need for dramatic parity. If you’re going to write an epic poem about heaven and hell, then there needs to be some proportional balance between the two. In its way, hell needs to be as monumental as heaven to function as a dramatic counterweight.

Dante’s hell is highly compartmentalized. The space is divided and subdivided, like a hotel with many rooms or an office with many cubicles. Very ergonomic. A model of efficient penology.

By contrast, Milton’s version of hell is more like a dimly-lit warehouse or airport hanger. Vast stretches of empty space. Boundless.

There’s nothing very scary about Milton’s version of hell. Perhaps this reflects the outlook of a very bookish Englishman. Nothing better to do on a rainy day than sit in front of a fireplace with a good book.

With his urban esthetic, Milton likes to see big spaces subdivided into rooms with walls and doors. He’s ill at ease with vast expanses of nothingness. If Dante’s version of hell is often claustrophobic, Milton’s version of hell is agoraphobic.

Maybe he’s gripped by Pascal’s fear of the infinite. To be lost—because everywhere is nowhere in particular.

In Milton’s hell, the damned seem to have the run of the place. They make their own rules. By contrast, Dante ‘s damned are assigned to their infernal niches.

The problem with these depictions of heaven and hell is their lack of Scriptural mooring. They don’t represent a logical extrapolation from Scripture. Indeed, they’re often at odds with Scripture.

From a scriptural standpoint, there’s no reason to assume that hell will be a grandiose affair. For all we know, hell may be ticky-tacky place where nothing works. Leaky ceilings. Peeling paint. Drafty rooms. Barking dogs. Broken appliances. With Satan as the slumlord.

Likewise, the Biblical doctrine of the final state of the saints is far more down-to-earth than Dante’s disembodied conception. The resurrection of the just. The renewal of the earth.

11 comments:

  1. Steve: Dante’s hell is highly compartmentalized. The space is divided and subdivided, like a hotel with many rooms or an office with many cubicles. Very ergonomic. A model of efficient penology.

    Vytautas: Does this description come from the scripture that says their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched?
    (Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:48)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't see how the Markan passage describes the geography of hell. It's a statement about the (endless) duration of hell, and it also uses some very unpleasant, albeit figurative, imagery—which tells you something about the nature of hell.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I prefer Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Inferno.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I personally never saw the need for active punishment on the part of God for Hell to exist. Humans can create enough horrors on their own.

    One can go look at somewhere like Darfur or many places in the Middle East: everywhere it's suspicion, violence and bloodshed, strife, grinding poverty and disease, much of which could be alleviated would people seek to work together. Many would be anywhere else if they could, but it's true that many are quite satisfied with the situation.

    What need is there for additional "punishment"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. LAYMAN SAID:

    "I prefer Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Inferno."

    I actually have a copy of that in a box somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Steve: I don't see how the Markan passage describes the geography of hell. It's a statement about the (endless) duration of hell, and it also uses some very unpleasant, albeit figurative, imagery—which tells you something about the nature of hell.

    Vytautas: But Ames says that the "[t]error of conscience is, it might be said, a perpetually gnawing worm" in Book I Chapter XVI(16) in his Marrow of Theology. So could a "terror of conscience" thrive better in a small space or in a large space?

    ReplyDelete
  7. VYTAUTAS SAID:

    Vytautas: But Ames says that the "[t]error of conscience is, it might be said, a perpetually gnawing worm" in Book I Chapter XVI(16) in his Marrow of Theology. So could a "terror of conscience" thrive better in a small space or in a large space?

    ******************************

    We need to go back a few paces:

    i) I don’t think the worm stands for a terror-stricken conscience.

    ii) Let’s begin with the literal image. It’s the image of a maggot consuming a corpse. So it signifies death.

    ii) To say the maggot never dies introduces a deliberately paradoxical image. Is the victim dead or alive? Both.

    The damned are dead, but they survive in the afterlife. The maggot is immortal because its victim is immortal.

    This also conjures up the horrifying, albeit figurative, image of being eaten alive. Maggots ordinarily consume the dead, but in the case of the damned the victim is alive! (I.e. alive in the afterlife, in Hades or Hell.)

    iii) So, at a figurative level, it the image denotes everlasting punishment.

    iv) And while the excruciating imagery of being eaten alive is metaphorical, the choice of such a graphic metaphor is bound to carry a decidedly unpleasant connotation. Same with fire, viz. being burned alive.

    We need to treat these metaphors for what they are, and not go to Dantean extremes. Still, the reality which they signify is punitive, unremitting, and quite unpleasant.

    v) Back to Ames, I disagree with his exegesis. And I don’t know if the damned feel guilty or not. You can be miserable without feeling guilty. And I’d expect the damned to be pretty callous.

    vi) One can only speculate about hell, and the natural point of reference for all such speculations is an extrapolation from life in a fallen world.

    I conjecture that hell isn’t the same for all the damned. Punishment can take different forms. The punishment for a vain woman isn’t necessarily the same as the punishment for a serial killer. One can imagine a punishment tailored to the vanity of a vain woman, just as one can imagine a punishment tailored to the cruelty of a serial killer.

    In some cases, I imagine that hell involves the hell of social isolation, in other cases the hell of finding yourself on the receiving end of what you inflicted on your victims.

    In some other cases, interminable boredom might be a fit punishment.

    The best advice is not to put ourselves in a situation where we find out from firsthand experience what hell is really like!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve: Back to Ames, I disagree with his exegesis. And I don’t know if the damned feel guilty or not. You can be miserable without feeling guilty. And I’d expect the damned to be pretty callous.

    Vytautas: Guilt is an inner experience due to sin, and shame is an outer experience that is based upon social norms. But having a maggot that terrifies your conscience would suggest guilt and not shame.

    ReplyDelete
  9. VYTAUTAS SAID:

    "Vytautas: Guilt is an inner experience due to sin, and shame is an outer experience that is based upon social norms. But having a maggot that terrifies your conscience would suggest guilt and not shame."

    Which assumes the maggot symbolizes a terror-stricken conscience. I've argued otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve: The damned are dead, but they survive in the afterlife. The maggot is immortal because its victim is immortal.

    Vytautas: So the maggot is dependent upon the victim. Does this suggest that the maggot is feeding on the victim? If so, does this suggestion move closer to the terror-stricken conscience view?

    Steve: I conjecture that hell isn’t the same for all the damned. Punishment can take different forms. The punishment for a vain woman isn’t necessarily the same as the punishment for a serial killer. One can imagine a punishment tailored to the vanity of a vain woman, just as one can imagine a punishment tailored to the cruelty of a serial killer.

    Vytautas: Does not everyone have a maggot that does not die? So everyone has something in common, but you are saying there could be differences.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As I've said twice now, the immortal maggot signifies the immortality of the damned, and—thereby—the eternality of their punishment. That's what they all have in common.

    That doesn't prevent differing degrees of punishment. Temporal extent and punitive intensity are not interchangeable concepts.

    ReplyDelete