Pointers to Dante in Harry Potter (A): On Florence and Hermetic Artistry
November 18, 2007 by 13 Comments
Thoughts for the Serious Reader of Harry Potter
Hogwarts Professor Pillar Posts
Keys to Understanding J. K. Rowling’s Novels and Screenplays
Recent Conversation
- Nick D on Strike-Potter PSI: Silkworm and Chamber
- David Llewellyn Dodds on Substack HogwartsProfessor First Post: First Principles and First Menu
- David Llewellyn Dodds on Substack HogwartsProfessor First Post: First Principles and First Menu
- Sandy on Weblog HogwartsProfessor is Dead; Long Live Substack HogwartsProfessor
- Marilynn Hornsby on Jim Kay to Pass On Illustration Baton
Reposting something that was originally at the A,B,C combined post in this new location at John’s request — see the ABC combo post for the “previous post” I refer to in the following, now isolated paragraph:
And since I promised a “couple” of points in my previous post, let me close the couplet with discussion on this quotation from John:
“Dante is the greater artist, perhaps the greatest artist, not only because his poetry operates at a different depth than Ms. Rowling’s because of his experience, but because his audience is capable of a more profound experience and noetic understanding than the postmodern, secular reading public can imagine.”
To what extent is the artist defined and limited by what the audience is capable of imagining?
I suspect Ms. Rowling capable of writing something closer to Dante than her seminal 7 volume novel has proved to be, I just doubt whether that book had it been written would ever have come to our attention. Certainly no major publishing house would touch it, because it would be out of touch with the demands of the marketplace. If a book is not published, then regardless of its intrinsic worth or value, it has no cultural value to our society because our society will never see it.
Dante’s audience would have had more than a passing knowledge of the contents of a wide cross section of what we now call the Great Books. They would know of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates and the Holy Scriptures.
Rowling’s audience did not. In fact casual scanning of many fan sites immediately after Hallows came out showed me a general level of agreement among her fans with the “fact” that nothing remotely similar to Harry’s experiences in the last book appears anywhere in the Bible. A statement that I can only attribute to a general, nearly universal, ignorance among Ms. Rowling’s audience of the Bible and its contents. In that environment, how could she have written a modern Commedia?
My question is: Has she done the next best thing and emulated Thomas Paine?
Paine found that the knowledge base of the bulk of the American People with respect to the principles upon which he and others were proposing rebellion against British rule was insufficient to support a Revolutionary War. He thus set about providing that basis through his pamphlet “Common Sense.” His goal was to arm the American Public with a shared platform of ideas that would allow them to understand all of the other articles and pamphlets being written on the subject. He provided the wider audience of his day a shared intellectual platform on which they could stand.
Has Rowling done the same for our generation? Can other authors now proceed with deeper and higher explorations of the great conversations because she has defined the nouns and verbs of a common language they can draw on? For that matter, has she created a foundation for her own future work? If so, how do you evaluate or compare that accomplishment?
I know, for instance, it takes a far greater architect to construct a solid, reliable foundation that it does to create an attractive roof, but the general public will always ogle the roof and never realize the foundation is even present.
It just struck me that you could teach a “History of Literature” course using HP as a starting point.
It’s in the works! Dante, Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, Swift, Lewis, and Sayers are the seven biggies in the table of contents for “Harry Meets Hamlet and Scrooge: Harry Potter as the Gateway to the World’s Best Books.”
The question is, given the paucity of comment-response here on Harry and Dante, am I supposed to assume (a) the need for such a book has been established or (b) the lack of interest in this book is undeniable?
John, I must chuckle…You are getting to walk a mile in Rowling’s shoes.
Can you imagine her inner frustration at having written a 4,100 page masterpiece that is arguably as deeply philosophical as a popular work can get in this day and age, and all she gets are questions about the possible dating patterns of her band of heroes children. (And a Bazillion Pounds Sterling.)
I suspect that by the time Thanksgiving break is over I will have read and digested enough of sections B and C to actually post something. I have a feeling many others are in the same “Golly Gee, you mean all that is in there too? On top of all the stuff I have previously seen?” mode that I am…your feast will be digested.
Comments will come.
Have faith, Grasshopper.
And by the way, I think the snake sandals look better on Joanne, but what do I know;-)
I must begin this response by quoting a passage from above:
that, John, simply put, is beautiful to read, taken independently and in context. huzzah! for you.
I’ve now reread, and reread paragraphs as I went trying to really comprehend everything and I’m afraid most of it is simply beyond me. Perhaps I should have been an English or philosophy major to be able to have that depth of understanding. What I did latch onto in this one, however, is the wonder of the anatological (sp?) understanding.
I have noticed more and more a general cultural illiteracy, particularly as regards religious and spiritual meaning and imagery. Simply put, I am not at all surprised that a well-read, intelligent author like JKR or yourself should write it, write about it, know it, etc.– but neither am I surprised that a great lot of readers completely miss it. I don’t know how it is in other countries, but I feel like in the U.S. any discussion of religious imagery in works is so reductionist as to not have any meaning at all most of the time. It’s become mathematical and formulaic in the worst sense (unlike the math of Pascal, et al., that was part of faith)– X +Y = a Christ figure; N+E = Religious Image #294, but none of it impacting what you have termed ‘cardiac intelligence’ except when the individual reads it him/herself and lets it change him/her, rather than dissecting and examining the bits of guts in detail but without any greater understanding.
I wish I had more intelligent thoughts to offer, but I am not at your level. I do, however, really think you’ve given a lot of valuable insights (much more valuable than my poor attempts!) and appreciate it greatly.
best,
~Nzie
I am WAY out of my league posting on a Dante thread, but I really think John is on to something here, & I can’t help myself. Please forgive my ignorance & correct my mistakes.
I think you are right that the Dante-Severus link is the correct one, rather than the Machiavelli-Severus one. Before DHallows was released, Mary N. pointed to the Polyeucte reference for the name “Severus” (unrequited but salvation-inspiring love), & I think the green-eyed Beatrice & the potions/apothecary links to Dante make good sense. Didn’t Ms. Rowling herself say in a recent U.S. interview that Snape was “always” going to teach potions when she was planning characters? When I read Mary N.’s Polyeucte post back then, I recognized what a great, and Italian renaissance-inspired by the way, red herring Machiavelli’s “Severus” reference would be. Your post here seems to confirm this.
I want to go to Guenon’s point you post above about the interpretation of Dante these days, particularly lacking in interpretation of the “fourth sense:”
“Guenon writes that Dante today, however, is interpreted on three levels exclusively — the literal or poetic, the allegorical or “philosophical-theological” “hidden meaning,” and the moral or the political or social — and, however profound the exegesis of the exoteric religious meaning at the level of allegory, the neglect of the anagogical or metaphysical means the kernel of the nut has not been revealed (Esoterism, p.2). Guenon then explores the Masonic and Hermetic parallels in the Commedia and concludes, incredible as it may seem, that Dante is describing an experience he had in reality rather than just artfully synthesizing abstractions and theological positions with historical persons in story form.”
While you were pouring back through Dante this weekend, John, I was getting started on Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love. I have only made it through the short text (Penguin Books 1998 version) thus far, but Guenon’s point about Dante – especially the assertion that Dante “is describing an experience he had in reality” – along with the comments on the lack of anagogical interpretation of Dante’s work, really hit me when I read your post. And, of course, the alchemy – can’t get enough.
I am now departing on what I hope you would call an “edifying stretch…” A quick timeline search showed me that Dante lived and wrote just before Julian was born. Dante died in 1321; Julian was born around 1343 & experienced her “showings” around 1373 (all Julian information is from the above referenced Penguin 1998 edition). Julian was, by the way, an exact time period contemporary of Chaucer. I point this out for no other direct connection than that Julian & Dante were alive in the same general historic timeframe and, potentially, subject to a similar period in the evolution of lay-Christian experience.
During this late medieval period, an interest was growing in an intimate, empathetic understanding of the personhood & Passion suffering of Love’s incarnation, Jesus (Spearing’s introduction to the 1998 translation). Julian, being of this historic & theological period, describes her reception of “showings” as follows: “All this blessed teaching of our Lord God was shown me in three parts: that is, by bodily sight, and by words formed in my understanding, and by spiritual sight.” This sounds kind of like “literal” (she literally saw with her eyes at the surface), “allegorical & moral” (words formed in my understanding) and “anagogical” (spiritual sight) to me. Hopefully not too silly-putty of a stretch, there…
I think the Reghini quote really gets to the root of the problem with our postmodern inability to grasp what’s going on in “hermetic artistry” – if we do not “know the object of the allusion or allegory” it is natural that we cannot grasp the anagogical depth. How can the postmodern critic even perceive an anagogical interpretation if we ignore such a realm exists? Nzie points to this above in the comment regarding our “general cultural illiteracy.” JohnA, too, in his comments.
Finally, you write:
“This is the stuff and heart of hermetic artistry. God Himself is simultaneously Absolute (transcendent, other) and Infinite (immanent, within, everywhere). This polarity in the Godhead that is not duality, a ‘That’ neither Being nor Non-Being, is mirrored in His Creation brought into Being each moment from the silence of His Word. We are defined by polarity, from the working of our senses and thinking to the realities of male/female, night/day, and I/Thou. Our lives, designed as we are for relationship, however, are about the resolution of these contraries in love… We pursue, so much as we live by design rather than contrary to it, a life that, like God’s simultaneously Absolute and Infinite reality, is love, peace, and life, all synonyms for the resolution of contraries.”
In the “All was well” Epilogue thread, you give a cursory view of Julian’s contemplation of sin and how this was related to how “all shall be well.” And that T.S. Eliot’s The Four Quartets was the more likely direct literary reference for Ms. Rowling, if there indeed is one in this case. You say:
“Because of its Dante echoes, four element resolution, and Rosicrucian imagery (the fire and the rose intertwined), Eliot’s esoteric Christian and alchemical masterpiece would be an excellent final hat tip pointing to what Harry Potter has been about.”
And, you quote Pfortuny, Wikipedia contributor on The Four Quartets:
“The final lines of the poem evoke the joining of the fire of Dante’s Inferno with the rose of Paradiso, an image of the ambiguous duality of heaven and hell, right and wrong, and the mystic’s search for the complete conflation of all reason in this world, with the unity only mystical experience can hint at.”
I would – and especially in light of this Dante/hermetic arts discussion – agree with Donn Allen that more thinking should be done regarding Julian’s specific influence. It is my understanding, albeit from a cursory weekend reading, that Julian’s showings as she describes them are specifically about the resolution of contraries in Love through the incarnation and Passion of our Christ. She received the knowledge that “all manner of things shall be well” in response to her desire to “see” Hell, which she was not shown. Instead, she SAW – with body, mind, & spirit — the resolution of contraries as Love.
Sorry if I’ve wandered to far afield, Mr. Moderator!
Thanksgiving blessings to all!
John,
Be not discouraged at the lack of response to your Dante posts!! From my own response (retired engineer, not literature major) and many of the recent comments we are just overwhelmed and undereducated!! Your forthcoming book is needed, NEEDED, NEEDED!! We hunger for it. Please, Professor – blow the dust out of our brains and educate us.
Ever most grateful for your efforts, Dobby
John: Don’t give up on Dante!!! I was waiting for your post on Dante as I’ve thought all along that Dante as well as Charles Williams were key to understanding H-P themes not only with Williams’ Beatrice, but also with imagery. This thought led me to purchase The Divine Comedia and read it. I need time to digest your article; and you are a Dumbledore with perhaps no equal for any meaningful post at least from my quadrant. Please, please continue, Professor!!
Just so you won’t feel lonely, John, that’s a brilliant set of posts. I hope you plan to publish this in more durable form.
I’ve read Dante and your arguments are plausible. One demonstrable point of resemblance is the architectonic quality of both Rowling and Dante. This was an aesthetic ideal of the Middle Ages, even though their creations could still have a lot of contingency and irregularity. (Chartres for example) In Dante, the control and polish is about perfect–no mismatched cantos.
I’m still trying to finish my Philip Pullman study. As far as I can tell, he does make a lot of use of the Four Elements in his symbol-structure, but not alchemy.
In the Divine Comedy, I seem to remember sorcerers and false prophets with their heads on backwards. They could only see what is behind them.
Erm…Quirrelmort?
Newton was also from the Florence area. I always wondered if “Newts” was in reference to this scientist/alchemist as opposed to “eye of newt” Macbeth.
I remember being so sure that Snape was the Machivelli Prince and that “fame and stoppered death” was his motivation, along with fancying Lily.
Who knew “fame and stoppered death” referred to Dumbledore, the Resurrection Stone, and his issues with For the Greater Good! (Well, OK, Rowling knew, of course).
FYI
I have seen interesting discussions of Rowling and the Canterbury Tales and No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre.
Fans were trying very hard to match the various characters on Canterbury Tales to Rowling’s characters with so-so success.
However, the No Exit fans were scoring big with the chapter on Spinner’s End…almost “spot-on” as the British say.
John,
I have been waiting for: “Harry Meets Hamlet and Scrooge: Harry Potter as the Gateway to the World’s Best Books” ever since you sent me an excerpt years ago when you first started planning it. Don’t think I’M not interested. When will it come out?
JohnABaptist says:
“casual scanning of many fan sites immediately after Hallows came out showed me a general level of agreement among her fans with the “fact” that nothing remotely similar to Harry’s experiences in the last book appears anywhere in the Bible. A statement that I can only attribute to a general, nearly universal, ignorance among Ms. Rowling’s audience of the Bible and its contents. In that environment, how could she have written a modern Commedia?”
I thought about your observation when I found a link to this appalling confession from Sally Quinn, who writes for the Washington Post and is described by Wikipedia (and we know Wikipedia never lies) as “one of the arbiters of society and mainstream opinion in Washington, D.C.”
The money quote:”At that point I was completely illiterate on the subject [of belief in God], having been disdainful and contemptuous of religion all of my life.” http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2007/11/post_1.html
No, I don’t think a modern writer can count on a readership with the same knowledge base as Dante’s had.
John, please forgive this idea BELCH of an entry, but your Dante examination is still on my mind.
I’ve been reading up on the history of Christianity (the Lion Publishing 1992 version to be specific). I came across entries on Origen, the “greatest scholar and most prolific author of the early church,” regarding his theory on the different “levels” of scripture. These are described in roughly the same way that, according to Guenon, Dante said his poetry should be appreciated. I’m not trying to make a one-to-one comparison with Scripture to Dante’s work here, just the interpretation angle!
I think Perelandra’s point about “architectonic” quality is incredibly important here, as such a quality helps those who can interpret the architecture or plan can plunge into those deeper levels. This is why your work reasonates with so many of us who have “recognized” things in Harry’s story. Many of us have been so intellectually ignorant of the historic, literary & spiritual nature of the girders holding up Harry’s story that when we read about them it’s like getting hit over the head – “WOW!DUH! If only I had gone through undergrad when nihlistic literary criticism wasn’t such the rage, I might have actually learned something.” Okay, maybe that’s just me. (so easy to blame others for my own failure to READ…)
You’ve already said this a hundred times, but again with this Dante thing it’s incredibly important – the use of traditional symbolism in Harry’s story. The use of Christian symbolism with the hermetic architecture has an intense double-whammy effect. BUUUUTTTTT – only if you have a grip on the transcendence of God in the ways you have eloquently described and understand how symbols point to those “things unseen.” Otherwise a unicorn’s just a unicorn. We are only hit over the head with direct references to God (outside godfather) and biblical quotes in Deathly Hallows, after all.
The Dutch interview with Ms. Rowling you posted on another thread is maybe my favorite interview I’ve read thus far. It’s may favorite because I think what she says about being an intensely spiritual person is entirely consistent with the way “meaning” is conveyed through her telling of Harry’s story (don’t like that word “meaning,” but can’t grasp another at the moment…). She has utilized a historic & literary architecture within an orthodox tradition that allows for the “other” senses to be utilized in interpretation. That is not the mark of clinging to the symbols of orthodoxy for the sake of being “religious” – but the mark of trying to live within the architecture to better explore its transcendent meaning.
Good Grief! That’s quite enough and probably no more than regurgitating all your ideas.
John, please PLEASE keep digging deeper on Dante & throw in a little Origen and Irenaeus while you’re at it. Clearly there are those of us who need the help!