The Decameron

Author: Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375)
Written: c. 1350-53
Translator: G. H. McWilliam
Publisher: Penguin Books (1995 Second Edition)
Bought from: NoQ Store


Introduction

Giovanni Boccaccio is an Italian author and poet. The Decameron is his most famous work.

What is it about?

The Decameron is a collection of 100 stories told by 7 young ladies and 3 young men against the backdrop of a plague-ravaged Florence in 1348. Every member of the party tells a story each day for ten days to amuse themselves and while the afternoon away.

Many of the stories contain bawdy or erotic elements. The Roman Catholic Church and its clergy and beliefs are often subject to mockery and ridicule.

Stories in The Decameron have influenced later writers from Chaucer to Shakespeare.


What about the book?

There is an extensive introduction which covers Boccaccio’s life and the Italian world he lived in and useful end notes. McWilliam writes in accessible English.


Finally

In the back cover, Penguin Books describes The Decameron as a towering monument of European literature and a masterpice of imaginative narrative. To me, however, it is more like one of the films in the Carry On series. The bawdy stories are the most memorable ones. And the bawdy lines, such as “put the Devil back in Hell”, are the most memorable ones. But I find the book tiring to read and I have not finished reading it. I do not think I ever will. So, overall, a major disappointment.

The Mahabharata

Attributed to: Vyasa
Written: unknown
Retold by: Ramesh Menon
Publisher: iUniverse, Inc (2006)
Bought from: Book Depository


Introduction

This is one of the two major Sanskrit epics from ancient India, the other being The Ramayana. The events in The Mahabharata take place after the events in The Ramayana.

Mahabharata is made up of two words, maha which means great and Bharata which is the Sanskrit name of India. Traditionally, The Mahabharata is attributed to Vyasa, who flits in and out of the story itself as the grandfather of the warring Pandava and Kaurava families. There is no clear evidence who actually compiled the story from its likely oral origins or when. The story may have originated around 900 BC or 800 BC and evolved to more or less its current form around 400 BC. The historicity of the Kurukshetra War fought at the climax of the story is unclear. The traditional date for the war is 1300 BC but most historians date it between the 1000-900 BC.

The poem is made up of almost 100,000 couplets—about seven times the length of The Iliad and The Odyssey combined—divided into 18 parvas, or sections plus a supplement on the genealogy of the god Vishnu. According to The Encyclopedia Britannica, the core story makes up only about one fifth of the work. Around the core story runs a rich vein of materials on Hindu mythology and religious beliefs that expands and informs the core story itself. These include the famous Bhagavad Gita.

The Mahabharata itself declares that “What is found in this story may be found elsewhere; what is not in this story is nowhere else.”


What is it about?

The Mahabharata chronicles the struggle for the throne at Hastinapura between two branches of the House of Kuru, the Pandavas and the Kauravas. This struggle culminates in the epic Kurukshetra War. Seven armies join the Pandavas. Eleven support the Kauravas. The war lasts for 18 days. At the end of the war, more than 10 million kshatriyas lie dead. Most of the noble houses are extinguished. The race of kings has been destroyed forever.

The central character is arguably not any of the Kuru princes but Krishna, the avatara (incarnation) of the Hindu god Vishnu. He is born on the same night as Arjuna. That night, the Hindu god Indra announces to Arjuna’s father Pandu (1.20): “Tonight, Vishnu’s twin incarnations, Nara and Narayana, have been born into the world to cleanse it of evil. Arjuna is Nara, come again as a man. In Mathura tonight, Narayana has also been born. Hearken to the earth, Pandu, she sings the birth of dark Krishna.” Krishna is born to close out the dwapara yuga and usher in the kali yuga (the third and fourth ages respectively of Hindu time). The Kurukshetra War is Krishna’s means to effect the change. The characters in The Mahabharata appear to be mere puppets manipulated by Krishna to achieve his purpose in life.

The main protagonists are the Pandava princes Yudhishtira, Bheema, Arjuna and the twins Nakula and Sahadeva. Arjuna is the lead character in terms of heroics. Krishna is the main ally of the Pandavas.

The primary antagonist is Duryodhana, the oldest of the 100 Kauravas. His main allies are his brother Dusasana and his uncle Shakuni. One character who may also be considered an antagonist is Bheeshma, the last of the royal Kuru bloodline. He is affectionately known to the Kuru princes as pitama (grandfather). He believes the Pandavas are on the side of dharma but duty binds him to be the first senapati (general) of the Kaurava army during the Kurukshetra War. His death, on the “bed of arrows” is one of the most famous episodes of the epic (6.21 ff). Another antagonist is Drona, acharya (brahmana master) to the Kuru princes. His favourite sishya (disciple) is Arjuna. He loves so Arjuna so much that he cold heartedly maims Ekalavya, an upstart who threatens to be a better archer than Arjuna (1.31). But like Bheeshma, duty binds him to fight for the Kaurava army and he serves as senapati after Bheeshma falls.

Then there is Karna, probably the most tragic character in the story. He is actually the oldest Pandava prince and therefore the rightful heir to the throne. But his twisted destiny dictates that he be abandoned by his mother right after he was born (1.16). He finds himself adopted by parents from a caste below his birthright warrior caste. He is rejected by Drona but deceives Drona’s own acharya Bhargava into accepting him as a sishya. He ends up becoming Duryodhana’s closest ally and his brother Arjuna’s mortal enemy. During the Kurukshetra War, Karna bests but spares the lives of all the Pandavas except Arjuna. In the end, he dies in the hands of his brother Arjuna because of a curse laid on him by his old teacher Bhargava.

The main female character is Draupadi. When she is born, an asariri (disembodied voice) says (1.46): “The dark one will be the most beautiful woman in the world. She is born to fulfill a divine purpose, she will be the nemesis of kshatriya kind.” She is the wife to all five Pandava princes. She plays the central role in the episode known as the disrobing of Draupadi (2.19), which triggers the Pandavas’ undying hatred of Duryodhana and his brothers. This antipathy leads to the Kurukshetra War in which the kshatriya kind is decimated.


Themes

The battle between the cousins is one between good v evil, darkness v light, dharma and adharma.

The Pandavas are generally portrayed as the good guys. But even they (often at Krishna’s prompting) are capable of resorting to ignoble actions. During the course of the war, Arjuna kills an unarmed Karna, Yudhishtira (until this moment, a paragon of dharma) tells a white lie to trick Drona into laying down his arms and Bheema disables Duryodhana by striking him literally below the belt. In an earlier episode, the Pandavas committed an even more egregious crime – they left an intoxicated nishada (untouchable) family to die in a fire to mask their own escape (1.40).

The episode with the nishada family is one example of the attitude of the people at that time to the caste system. No one suffers more as a result of the caste system than Karna. Although he is of a kshatriya bloodline, he is adopted by a suta (charioteer). Drona refuses to accept him as a sishya because he thinks Karna is not a kshatriya. Bhargava accepts Karna only after he pretends to be a brahmana. When Bhargava discovers Karna is in fact not a brahmana, he curses Karna, stating that when he requires an astra (supernatural weapon) the most, he will be unable to recall its incantation.

The book also contain major passages dealing with what (in the absence of footnotes) I assume are major teachings of Hinduism. For example, Yudhishtira, who is in exile with his family in exile, asks a muni (sage) why a man who treads the path of dharma suffers while those that are steeped in evil come to no harm. The muni answers:

“It is a time question that many a good man before you has asked in the wilderness and countless more will ask it, in despair, along the deep trails of time. The answer is simple: the evil ones do not prosper but only appear to, at that, very briefly. No man prospers by sin. His own conscience gives him no rest and his crime consumes him from within. Some day, those he has sinned against will recover from the harm he did to them. But the sinner’s guilt remains with him, tormenting him until the hour of retribution comes. There is no escape for the demonic man. Justice overtakes him, inexorably, despite all his efforts to keep it away; then, he is destroyed. But remember, Yudhishtira, life is not simple, neither is it as short as we think. All this began long ago. You have lived many lives before this one, so have your brothers and all of us. What you suffer today might well be punishment for some forgotten crime of your own. Of course, that does not justify what has been done to you, but it might explain it.”
(3.16)

The idea of a cycle, of an individual’s death and rebirth, is a key element of Hindu beliefs. Hindu beliefs also embrace the idea of another cycle, on a grander scale, of the creation and destruction of the cosmos over time. There is a discussion of the four yugas in every great cycle of time according to Hindu belief (3.27). The yuga that ended with the Mahabharata war is the dwapara yuga - the age of kshatriyas and heroes, during which noble values still prevail and men remain faithful to dharma. The age that follows the war is the kali yuga, the last age of every cycle. In this yuga, all values are reduced, law becomes fragmented and powerless, and evil gains sway.

For some readers, the highlight of the book is the Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God. On the eve of the great war, Arjuna is wracked by doubt. He looks across the plains and sees not enemies but sires and grandsire, masters, uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons and childhood friends (6.3). He turns to Krishna, his charioteer. Krishna explains to Arjuna concepts such as samkhya (renunciation), yoga (spiritual discipline) and karma (action). In the original work, the Bhagavad Gita consists of 18 chapters and 700 or 745 verses. In Ramesh Menon’s rendering, the Bhagavad Gita is told in Book 3 Chapters Three to Nine.


What about the book?

This is a modern prose rendering of the ancient epic. Ramesh Menon has used English translations by Kamala Subramaniam and Kisari Mohan Ganguli respectively as his source. It is not clear if he is faithful to the original or not. It is clear that his retelling is an abridged version. The original tale is said to be about 1.8 million words long. So, it would probably have been impractical for a casual reader to read a complete translation. Ramesh Menon, who also retold The Ramayana, has done a decent job. The prose flows smoothly peppered with the occasional flowery language.

The story comes in 2 volumes. In size, they are more like textbooks than anything else. They are bulky and heavy. There are no notes or maps or family trees. There is a skimpy 2-page introduction. There is no table of contents and no index; chapter names or number are not marked on the pages. All these make cross-referencing very difficult. Some notes on the religious passages would have been helpful.


Finally …

The story is recommended. It is truly one of the classics. But the publisher has done a monumentally lousy job.

The Oresteia: Agamemnon; The Libation Bearers; The Eumenides

Author: Aeschylus (c 525 - 456 BC)
Written: unknown
Translator: Robert Fagles
Publisher: Penguin Books (1979 Reprint)
Bought from: Book Depository


Introduction

Aeschylus is one of three ancient Greek tragedians whose plays are extant. In terms of career, his started earlier than both Sophocles and Euripides. He is sometimes known as the Father of Greek Tragedy. Aeschylus wrote more than 70 plays. He is said to have won 14-15 dramatic competitions in Athens. In comparison, Sophocles won between 20-25 competitions (sometimes beating Aeschylus to second place) while Euripides may have won only 4 or 5.

Only seven of Aeschylus’ plays have survived intact. The Oresteia is made up of three plays - Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers and The Eumenides - that form a proper trilogy (unlike the three plays that make up Sophocles’ The Theban Plays). This is the only known surviving trilogy of Greek tragedy plays.

It is believe The Oresteia was first performed at the Dionysia, a major festival in Athens, in 458 BC, where it won first prize. The trilogy is considered Aeschylus’ finest work and one of the greatest works of world literature.

The Oresteia deals with the final days of the House of Atreus. The mythology surrounding this cursed family is an old one and would have been familiar to Aeschylus’ audience. Some familiarity with the mythology is useful to read The Oresteia meaningfully. There is no definitive version of the mythology.

The following is a synthesized version of the story.

The founder of the House of Atreus is Tantalus. He was a favourite of the Olympian gods and was even invited to dine at Zeus’ table on Mount Olympus. One day, he inexplicably cooked his own son Pelops and offered him to the gods. The gods realized what he was doing and threw Tantalus into Tartarus, an abyss in the underworld for eternal punishment and suffering. There, Tantalus spends eternity standing in a pool of water beneath a fruit tree with low branches. Whenever he reached for the fruit, the branches raised his intended meal from his grasp. Whenever he bent down to get a drink, the water receded before he could get any. This is the origin of the word “tantalize”.

The gods brought Pelops back to life. But cannibalism, human sacrifice and infanticide were considered by the ancient Greeks as among the darkest crimes imaginable, rivaled only by incest. So, Tantalus’ descendants, the House of Atreus were doomed from that moment on.

Pelops wished to marry Hippodamia, daughter of king Oenomaus. Oenomaus set up a chariot race against himself for his daughter’ suitors. If the suitor lost, he was killed. Thirteen had died in such a race before Pelops made his attempt. Pelops bribed the king's charioteer (Myrtilus) to disable the king’s chariot. In the race, the wheels of Oenomaus’ chariot came off. The king was killed but Myrtilus survived. Pelops then carried off Hippodamia as his bride. He killed his co-conspirator Myrtilus because (in one version) Myrtilus had claimed Hippodamia for himself. Before he died, Myrtilus (in some versions Oenomaus) cursed Pelops and his family. This is the origin of the famous curse on the House of Atreus.

Pelops had a number of children with Hippodamia, including Atreus and Thyestes. Atreus married Aerope and they had two sons, Agamemnon and Menelaus. Thyestes had two sons and a daughter Pelopia.

Pelops had a bastard son, Chrysippus. (Digression: when Chrysippus was still a boy, he was kidnapped and sexually assaulted by his own tutor, Laius (later King of Thebes). This was a crime that the gods punished with another multi-generational curse – Laius you see is the grandfather of Oedipus.)

Hippodamia incited Atreus and Thyestes to murder their stepbrother Chrysippus to cement their claim on Pelop’s throne. Pelops banished Hippodamia, Atreus, and Thyestes to Mycenae, where Hippodamia is said to have hanged herself. The people of Mycenae had been told by an oracle that they should choose their king from Pelop’s descendants. Atreus vowed to sacrifice his best lamb to Artemis. Upon searching his flock, however, Atreus discovered a golden lamb which he gave to Aerope to hide from the goddess. She gave it to Thyestes, by then her lover, who convinced Atreus to agree that whoever had the lamb should be king. Thyestes produced the lamb and claimed the throne. Atreus retook the throne after consulting Hermes. Thyestes agreed to give the kingdom back when the sun moved backwards in the sky, a feat that Zeus accomplished. Atreus retook the throne and banished Thyestes.

Thyestes petitioned to be allowed to return and Atreus agreed. At a huge banquet to welcome Thyestes back, Atreus served Thyestes the cooked flesh of Thyestes’ own sons. Thyestes ate the food and was then informed of what he had done. This horrific event is the origin of the term “Thyestean Banquet” meaning a banquet at which human flesh is eaten. Overcome with horror, Thyestes cursed the family of Atreus and left with his one remaining child, his daughter Pelopia.

Thyestes followed an oracle’s prophecy after the Thyestean Feast and fathered a son with his own daughter Pelopia so that the son, Aegisthus, could avenge the notorious banquet. When Aegisthus was born, he was abandoned by Pelopia who was ashamed of her incestuous act. A shepherd found the infant Aegisthus and gave him to Atreus, who raised him as his own son. Atreus sent Aegistheus to kill Thyestes. Thyestes discovered the identity of his son in the nick of time and revealed the truth to him, that he was both father and grandfather to the boy. Aegisthus then killed Atreus and restored his father to the throne, although not before Atreus had two sons, Agamemnon and Menelaus.

Agamemnon and Menelaus, took refuge with Tyndareus, King of Sparta. There they married Tyndareus’ daughters Clytaemnestra and Helen, respectively. Agamemnon and Clytemnestra had four children: one son, Orestes, and three daughters, Iphigeneia, Electra and Chrysothemis. Agamemnon and Clytemnestra had three children, Iphigeneia, Orestes, and Electra.

Menelaus succeeded Tyndareus in Sparta while Agamemnon, with his brother’s assistance, drove out Aegisthus and Thyestes to recover his father’s kingdom. He extended his dominion by conquest and became the most powerful prince in Greece.

Helen was so famous for her beauty that a number of men wished to marry her. The suitors all agreed that they would act to support the man she eventually married in the event of any need for mutual assistance. When Helen ran off to Troy with Paris, Agamemnon and Menelaus organized and led the Greek forces against the Trojans. The army assembled at Aulis, but the fleet could not sail because of contrary winds sent by Artemis. Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigeneia in order to placate Artemis.

With Agamemnon and Menelaus off in Troy, Aegisthus returned to Argos, where he became the lover of Clytaemnestra. They sent Orestes into exile, to live with an ally in Phocis, and humiliated Electra, Agamemnon’s surviving daughter (either treating her as a servant (as suggested in The Libation Bearers) or marrying her off to a common farmer (as suggested in Euripides’ Electra).

The Oresteia picks up the action at this point.


What is it about?

Clytaemnestra kills Agamemnon when he returns from the Trojan War. Orestes returns from exile and, in collaboration with his sister Electra, avenges his father by killing Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus. The Furies arrive to torment him. Orestes flees and ultimately seeks refuge in the temple of Athena in Athens. There he is tried and acquitted. This ends the curse on the House of Atreus.

Agamemnon and The Libation Bearers are set in Argos. In most sources, eg Homer, Agamemnon was the king of Mycenae. In The Oresteia, however, Agamemnon’s court is said to be in Argos. These are two different cities. Fagles speculates as follows: About four years before the production of The Oresteia in 458 BC, Argos had destroyed Mycenae and made an alliance with Athens against Sparta. Possibly Aeschylus transferred Agamemnon’s capital from Mycenae to Argos to please Athens’ new allies (A introductory note; E n. 289).

The Eumenides is set in the temple of Apollo in Delphi and Athens. The trial scene is set in the Areopagus, the court on the Crag of Ares opposite the entrance to the Acropolis.

Themes

Underlying The Oresteia is the curse on the House of Atreus. The curse is an example of the idea in ancient Greece that for every action there is a reaction, for every crime there is a punishment in accordance with ancient laws: “The one who acts must suffer” (LB 320). Sometimes, the sinner is not only the one who suffers. His descendants will also pay for his sin: “A curse burns bright on crime / full-blown, the father’s crime will blossom / burst into the son’s.” (A 378-380).

This mirrors the Bible “For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” (Exodus 20:5-6) and William Shakespeare - “the sins of the father are to be laid upon the children” (The Merchant of Venice 3.5.1-2).

The Oresteia has been described as an allegory of society’s (and in particular, the Athenians’) evolution from ignorance to enlightenment, from tribal rituals to civilized institutions, from ‘an-eye-for-an-eye’ to court adjudicated-justice systems. The narrative is driven by the principle of lex talionis, the law of retaliation. If a person was injured, then the injured person (or his relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury, leading inevitably to an unending cycle of blood. In The Libation Bearers, Orestes describes what would happen if he does not avenge his father:

“I can still hear the god –
a high voice ringing with winters of disaster,
piercing the heart within me, warm and strong,
unless I hunt my father’s murderers, cut them down
in their own style – they destroyed my birthright.
‘Gore them like a bull!’ he called, ‘or pay their debt
with your own life, one long career of grief.’
He revealed so much about us,
told how the dead take root beneath the soil,
they grow with hate and plague the lives of men.
He told of the leprous boils that ride the flesh,
their wild teeth gnawing the mother tissue, aye,
and a white scurf spreads like cancer over these,
and worse, he told how assaults of Furies spring
to life on the father’s blood … You can see them –
their eyes burning, grim brows working over you in the dark –
the dark sword of the dead! – your murdered kinsmen
pleading for revenge. And the madness haunts
the midnight watch, the empty terror shakes you,
harries, drives you on – an exile from your city –
a brazen whip will mutilate your back.”
(LB 275-295)

In The Eumenides, the Furies corner Orestes and prepare to exact their revenge. Athena intervenes and convenes a tribunal consisting of 10 Athenians and herself to try Orestes. Orestes admits killing his mother with a knife. When asked for his motive, he replies Apollo commanded him (E 690). He also claim the defence of lex talionis, ie his action is justifiable because his mother had killed her husband and his father (E 608).

Apollo defends Orestes by claiming that his command to Orestes comes directly from Zeus (E 622-625). Then drawing a difference between Orestes’ matricide and Clytaemnestra’s mariticide, Apollo says:

“The woman you call the mother of the child
is not the parent, just a nurse to the seed,
the new born seed that grows and swells inside her.
The man is the source of life – the one who mounts.”
(E 666-679)

In the end, Athena casts the decisive vote and acquits Orestes because she “cannot set more store by the woman’s death / she killed her husband, guardian of the house” (E 754-755). With this decision, the Athenians turn their backs on the primitive personal vengeance and embrace the civilized legal system with trial by jury.


What about the book?

This book, part of the Penguin Classics series, is a verse translation by Robert Fagles. Like his translation of Homer’s epic poems, Fagles’ translation of The Oresteia is very easy to read. However, the introductory essay by Fagles and W. B. Standford is very dense and difficult to digest. There are useful notes at the end of the book.


Finally …

Recommended.


Et cetera

Tantalus had 2 other children. Of Broteas we know little other than that he was very ugly. The second, Niobe, is a poster girl for hubris. She had fourteen children and one fine day she decided to declare that she was a more blessed mother than Leto, who had only two. Unfortunately for Niobe, Leto’s two children were Artemis and Apollo, and they punished her by exterminating every one of her children. The story is told in Ovid’s Metamophorses (VI.146-317).

The Furies (or Erinyes) are not the same as Gorgons or Harpies. Interestingly, all three appear in Dante’s Inferno. Three Erinyes appear in Canto IX and threaten Dante with the head of Medusa, a Gorgon. The Harpies appear in Canto XIII.

The Divine Comedy

Author: Durante degli Alighieri (c 1265–1321)
Written: c 1306-1321
Translator: John Ciardi
Publisher: New American Library (2003 Edition)
Bought from: Book Depository


Introduction

Durante degli Alighieri (Dante), is an Italian author best known for his epic poem La commedia (The Comedy), later renamed La divina commedia (The Divine Comedy).

Dante was born in Florence, Italy during a period marked by conflict in northern Italy. Dante’s family belonged to the Guelphs which supported the Papacy. The Guelphs was involved in a long and bitter struggle with the Ghibelline faction which supported the Holy Roman Emperor. For much of Dante’s childhood, the Guelphs were in power in Florence. Around 1300, the Guelphs splintered into White Guelphs and Black Guelphs. Dante’s family belonged to the White Guelph faction. The Black Guelphs began agitating for Pope Boniface VIII to intervene. In 1301, Dante was part of a White Guelph delegation that traveled to Rome for an audience with the Pope to determine his intention. While Dante was in Rome, the Pope’s agents and the Black Guelphs overran Florence. Many White Guelphs were killed. In 1302, the papal-appointed Lord Mayor of Florence, Cante de’ Gabrielli da Gubbio condemned Dante to exile for 2 years and a large fine. All his properties in Florence were expropriated. When he refused to pay the fine, he was sentenced to perpetual exile.

Dante wrote The Divine Comedy during his exile. The politics of the period greatly informs the work. Dante lost faith in White and Black, Guelph and Ghibelline, and even the Papacy. He resolved to “make a party by himself.”

Dante never returned to his beloved Florence. He died and was buried in Ravenna.

Today, Dante, together with Petrach and Boccaccio, are known as the “Three Fountains” of Italian literature. Before Dante, most literary works were written in Latin, eg. Virgil’s Aeneid. Dante wrote The Divine Comedy in his Tuscan dialect. This had the effect of unifying the Italian language and paving the way for literature to be written in vernacular languages.

The Divine Comedy is considered the greatest work ever written in the Italian language. It is made up of three separate but connected canticles – Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradiso.


What is it about?

The epic poem is told by Dante in first person narrative. On Good Friday in 1300, Dante finds himself in a dark wood. The shade of Virgil appears and offers to guide Dante on his journey. As they enter Hell proper, Dante sees the following words cut into a stone gate:

“I am the way into the city of woe.
I am the way to a forsaken people.
I am the way into eternal sorrow.

Sacred justice moved my architect.
I was raised here by divine omnipotence,
Primordial love and ultimate intellect.

Only those elements time cannot wear
Were made before me, and beyond time I stand.
Abandon all hope ye who enter here.”

          (III.1-9) 

Dante meets the shades of numberous historical and mythological figures in Hell. He finds the punishment inflicted on each person is a perverse reflection of the sin he or she committed while alive. It is a kind of poetic justice and it is called “contrapasso” in Italian.

The sins that are punished in hell are classified as the sin of Incontinence (self-indulgence), the sin of Violence and Bestiality and finally the sin of Fraud. The more familiar Christian categorization of seven deadly sins appear in Purgatorio.

Finally, in Circle Nine, right in the center of the earth, Dante sees Satan and three sinners who were treacherous against their masters. In Dante’s typology, this is the gravest sin of all. The three are Judas Iscariot (who betrayed Jesus Christ) and Brutus and Cassius (who betrayed Julius Caesar).

Dante emerges from Hell on Easter Sunday and starts on the next stages of his journey, through Purgatory to reach Heaven.


Themes

Dante employs many allegories and symbolisms in The Divine Comedy. The journey through the three sections of afterlife itself is an overarching allegory of the soul’s journey towards God, in other words towards perfection. It is a journey into and through darkness and out into light. The descent through Hell is described as the recognition of sin. The ascent through Purgatory is described as the renunciation of sin. Only then can the final leg, the flight to Heaven, happens.

The imaginative punishments dreamt up by Dante provide colourful symbolism. It would be all too easy to miss many of them without the aid of good notes. Take the punishment suffered by fortune-tellers and seers. Dante describes what he saw in Circle Eight: Bolgia Four: 

“And when I looked down from the faces, I saw
that each of them was hideously distorted
between the top of the chest and the lines of the jaw;

for the face was reversed on the neck, and they came on
backwards, staring backwards at their loins.
for to look before them was forbidden. Someone,

sometime, in the grip of a palsy may have been
distorted so, but never to my knowledge;
nor do I believe the like was ever seen.”
          (XX.10-18)

Now read Ciardi’s explanation of the symbolism:

“Characteristically, the sin of these wretches is reversed upon them: their punishment is to have their heads turned backwards on their bodies and to be compelled to walk backwards through all eternity, their eyes blinded with tears. Thus, those who have sought to penetrate the future cannot even see in front of themselves; they attempted to move themselves forward in time, so must they go backwards through all eternity; and as the arts of sorcery are a distortion of God’s law, so are their bodies distorted in hell.”

Dante mentioned a number of persons from his own time who he may have blamed for his exile. In Circle Eight: Bolgia Five, Dante meets a gargoyle named Crazyred (XXI.122). According to some writers (but not Ciardi), this gargoyle, named Rubicante in Italian, may refer to Cante de’ Gabrielli da Gubbio who exiled Dante from Florence. Dante could not include Pope Boniface VIII in Hell because the events in Inferno take place in 1300, two years before the Pope’s death. But Dante was not going to allow the Pope to escape unscathed. So, he meets Pope Nicholas III in Circle Eight: Bolgia Five who says he is waiting for the arrival of Pope Boniface III (XIX.49-54).

What about the book?

This is one of the rare publications where all three canticles Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradiso are included in one volume. There are various reading aids.

The preface includes a note on How to Read Dante and Translator’s Note. Both are worth reading.

Then there are a separate introductions for each canticle. The introduction for Inferno, written by Archibald T. Macallister, is a useful stop before getting into the canticle itself.

Next, Ciardi has written brief introductions before each canto that describes the geographical layout of where Dante and Virgil are, the characters encountered there and their punishment. Detailed notes followed at the end of each canto.

And last but not least, there are also 10 illustrations that are very handy in helping the reader navigate Dante’s afterworld.

Finally …

I have only managed to finish Inferno. Ciardi’s verse translation is accessible but the introductions to each canto and the notes that follow are indispensable. I started on Purgatorio but found it very dense and gave up. I will try to finish the entire poem at some stage!

Metamorphoses

Author: Ovid (43 BC – 17 AD)
Written: c 8 AD
Translator: A. D. Melville
Publisher: Oxford University Press 2008 Reissue
Bought from: Book Depository


Introduction

Publius Ovidius Naso or Ovid is a Roman poet. In the year he was born, Mark Antony and Octavian ruled Rome as co-consuls in the aftermath of the assassination of Julius Caesar. By the time he reached adulthood, Octavian had crushed Mark Antony and was ruling Rome as Augustus.

Metamorphoses is a poem written in Latin and consists of 15 books. It is a compilation of Greek and Roman myths and legends involving transformation. Today, it is sometimes used as a reference for various Greek mythologies.


What it is about?

The poem starts with the creation of the cosmos itself and ends with the apotheosis of Julius Caesar. In between, Ovid tells (according to some) up to 250 different myths. Ovid made radical changes to some traditions, including a striking blending of the Echo and Narcissus myths.

Some of the most well known myths recounted by Ovid include the Rape of Europa, Cadmus, Perseus and Andromeda, Medea and Jason, the Rape of Proserpine, Daedalus and Icarus, the death of Hercules, Orpheus and the Trojan War.

Of the major Greek heroes, Theseus appears briefly and he is really only a plot device. Odysseus and Oedipus are not featured at all.

Given Ovid’s nationality, it is not surprising that Aeneas also finds his way into the poem.

There are some gems in the lesser known stories that are included by Ovid. For example, there is a flood story (I.262-314) similar to those in Gilgamesh and the Old Testament. The story of Pyramus and Thisbe (IV.55-168) anticipates Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. And in Ovid’s novel blending of the Echo and Narcissus myths (III.339-510), there is a passage that is strikingly similar to Eve’s account of the first time she sees her own reflection in John Milton’s Paradise Lost.


Themes

The primary theme of the poem is of course transformation or change. Characters are transformed into animals, plants and even inanimate objects.

Many of the changes are a result of love, both licit and illicit. In some of the most poignant stories, characters find themselves at the mercy of the gods. For example, Io (I.568-749) becomes the object of Jove’s lust and is transformed by a jealous Hera into a cow.


How is the book?

This is part of the Oxford World’s Classics series. Melville’s verse translation is readable. There is a useful introduction and some end-notes by E. J. Kenney.


Finally

Good read.

Henry IV Part I

Author: William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
Written: c 1596-1597

Editor: David Bevington
Publisher: Oxford University Press (2008 Reissue)
Bought from: Book Depository


Introduction

Shakespeare wrote his most important English history plays in two tetralogies, or sequences of four plays apiece. The first series, written near the start of his career (roughly 1589–1593), consists of 1 Henry VI, 2 Henry VI, 3 Henry VI and Richard III, and covers the period between about 1422 and 1485. The second series, written at the height of Shakespeare’s career (roughly 1595–1599), covers the period from around 1398 to 1420 and consists of Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV and Henry V.

The eight works are united by an overarching narrative: they form a linked series and deal with the rise and fall of the House of Lancaster (a period that historians today often refer to as the Wars of the Roses).

There are two other, less-celebrated history plays: King John, whose title figure ruled from 1199 to 1216, and All Is Well, about the reign of Henry VIII (1509–1547) as its subject.

What is it about?

Henry IV Part 1, commonly referred to as 1 Henry IV, is set in the period between Hotspur’s battle at Homildon against the Douglas late in 1402 and ends with the defeat of the rebels at Shrewsbury in the middle of 1403. This is nearly two centuries before Shakespeare’s own time.

The main characters are three Henrys and one Falstaff.

The eponymous Henry IV, also known as Bolingbroke, is King of England having overthrown Richard II (as told in Richard II). He was Duke of Lancaster before he became King hence he is known as the first King from the Lancaster family (the Lancaster will later fight the York family in the War of the Roses). King Henry IV stays largely in the background in this play.

The second Henry is Henry IV’s eldest son and heir, the Prince of Wales. Prince Henry is also known as Hal and Harry. He is the future King Henry V. When we first meet him, he is not with his father in the Royal Courts but living the low life with his surrogate father Falstaff in East London. But it seems he has a hidden agenda for his behavior as he makes clear in a soliloquy after his companions exit:

“I know you all, and will awhile upholdThe unyoked humour of your idleness.Yet herein will I imitate the sun,Who doth permit the base contagious cloudsTo smother up his beauty from the world,That when he please again to be himself,Being wanted, he may be more wondered atBy breaking through the foul and ugly mistsOf vapours that did seem to strangle him.If all the year were playing holidays,To sport would be as tedious as to work;But when they seldom come, they wished-for come,And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.So, when this loose behaviour I throw offAnd pay the debt I never promisèd,By how much better than my word I am,By so much shall I falsify men’s hopes;And like bright metal on a sullen ground,My reformation, glitt’ring o’er my fault,Shall show more goodly and attract more eyesThan that which hath no foil to set it off.I’ll so offend to make offence a skill,Redeeming time when men think least I will.”          (1.2.183–205)

The third Henry is Sir Henry (or Harry) Percy also known as Hotspur. He and his family played important roles in putting Henry IV in the throne (as told in Richard II). In this play, cracks start to appear between the King and his erstwhile allies. The reason for this is recounted in Act 4 scene 3. Hotspur is defined, as his name suggests, primarily by a quick temper. He is impatient even with his supposed allies:

Glendower
   “I can call spirits from the vasty deep.”
Hotspur
   “Why, so can I, or so can any man;
   But will they come when you do call for them?”
Glendower
   “Why, I can teach you, cousin, to command the devil.”
Hotspur
   “And I can teach thee, coz, to shame the devil
   By telling truth. Tell truth and shame the devil.”
          (3.1.51-56)

His uncle Worcester, older and wiser, tries to warn him (but to no avail):

“In faith, my lord, you are too wilful-blame ...You must need learn, lord, to amend this fault.Though sometimes it show greatness, courage, blood -And that’s the dearest grace it renders you -Yet oftentimes it doth present harsh rage,Defect of manners, want of government,Pride, haughtiness, opinion, and disdain,The least of which haunting a noblemanLoseth men’s hearts and leave behind a stainUpon the beauty of all parts besides,Beguiling them of commendation.”
          (3.1.172-184)

Last but not least, Sir John Falstaff. He is a drunkard, braggart and liar. He is a petty criminal and sometime highwayman. He is gluttonous and lustful. He does not repay moneys he borrows. He does not think twice about sending to their certain death peasants who cannot afford to buy him off. He is sloven and fat. Yet, he is one of literature’s most celebrated characters. He is a favourite of American writer, literary critic and Shakespeare expert Professor Harold Bloom. In an interview with Vanity Fair (May 2011), Professor Bloom explained why: “For two reasons: Because more even than Hamlet—and that’s saying something—he’s the most intelligent person in all of literature. He has the best mind, the best wit, the most beautiful laughing language. As my late friend the marvelous critic George Wilson Knight said about Hamlet, he’s the embassy of death. But Falstaff is life! Falstaff is the blessing.”

Falstaff is very fond of Hal even though he is often abused physically and verbally by the future King. Whether this affection is genuine or Falstaff is simply making use of Hal is not clear. Falstaff's plea while he is role-playing Hal defending himself is tinged with sadness since we know that Hal will cast him aside in the future:

“But to say I know more harm in him than in myself were to say more than I know. That he is old, the more the pity, his white hairs do witness it; but that he is, saving your reverence, a whoremaster, that I utterly deny. If sack and sugar be a fault, God help the wicked! If to be old and merry be a sin, then many an old host that I know is damned. If to be fat be to be hated, then Pharaoh’s lean kine are to be loved. No, my good lord, banish Peto, banish Bardolph, banish Poins; but for sweet Jack Falstaff, kind Jack Falstaff, true Jack Falstaff, valiant Jack Falstaff, and therefore more valiant being as he is old Jack Falstaff, banish not him thy Harry’s company, banish not him thy Harry’s company - banish plump Jack, and banish all the world.”
         (2.4.449–439)

Themes

Shakespeare is fond of symmetries and often repeats scenes, conversations, or even characters. In 1 Henry IV, there are several examples of this. King Henry and Falstaff are fathers in their own way to Hal. Falstaff is the perfect foil for Hotspur - not only physically but also in their attitude to honor. Last but not least Hotspur and Hal are poles apart in the first half of the play and then converge in the final battle at Shrewsbury - in the end, Hal becomes Hotspur. Hal and Falstaff play the King and Hal, and switch places, in the tavern (2.4), anticipating the actual meeting between father and son (3.2).

A major theme of the play is honour as embodied in and represented by the contrasting figures of Hotspur and Falstaff. Hotspur is ever eager to rush into action in search of honour:

“By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap
To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon,
Or dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fathom-line could never touch the ground,
And pluck up drownèd honour by the locks,
So he that doth redeem her thence might wear
Without corival all her dignities To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon, Or dive into the bottom of the deep, Where fathom-line could never touch the ground, And pluck up drownèd honour by the locks, So he that doth redeem her thence might wear Without corival all her dignities”.
          (1.3.201–207)

Even King Henry recognises this characteristic and observes enviously that Hotspur is indeed:

“A son who is the theme of honour’s tongue,
Amongst a grove the very straightest plant,
Who is sweet Fortune’s minion and her pride Amongst a grove the very straightest plant, Who is sweet Fortune’s minion and her pride”.
          (1.1.80-83)

Falstaff is the exact opposite. He knows honour is no use to someone who is injured or worse dies in obtaining it:

“... honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on? How then? Can honor set to a leg? no. Or an arm? no. Or take away the grief of a wound? No. Honor hath no skill in surgery, then? No. What is honor? A word. What is in that word honor? What is that honor? Air. A trim reckoning. Who hath it? He that died o’Wednesday. Doth he feel it? No. Doth he hear it? No. 'Tis insensible, then? Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore, I’ll none of it. Honor is a mere scutcheon. And so ends my catechism.”
          (5.1.129–140)

True to his philosophy, Falstaff saves his own skin by playing dead during the battle, emerging only after the battle ends to declare: “The better part of valour is discretion” (5.4.118).

As the beginning of the play, Hal is living in very debauched circumstances but after civil war breaks out, he sets his mind to defeat Hotspur in combat so that all of Hotspur’s honor, glories, and achievements will become his. He vows to begin acting in a way suitable to the heir to the throne and he solemnly declares that he will carry out what he has sworn or die in the attempt:

“I shall hereafter, my thrice-gracious lord,
Be more myself. Be more myself.”
          (3.2.92–93)

How is the book?

This is a volume in The Oxford Shakespeare line of the larger Oxford World’s Classics series. Each book in this series comes with a detailed introduction and on-page commentary and notes. There is also an appendix which compares certain passages in the play against Shakespeare’s sources. I feel the introduction is too long and some of the footnotes too detailed for the general reader.


Finally

Good read.