Theoretical Translation Prob., Wk 5.

Q: Why does Dante-poet construct this sense of decorum and language, translation and comprehension? Why must Virgil play the intermediary, if we look beyond the surface-level reasons Virgil offers to Dante-pilgrim. (Remember: Virgil, too, is but a character in Dante-poet's epic.) And why must Dante carry the discussion in the following canto, which, all the obvious differences aside, treats the same sin?

A: I must admit; this is a difficult theoretical problem we're tackling. Let me try: Dante-poet pointedly associates character-Virgil (among others, such as Ulysses) and Latin (as well as Romance languages) as part of the ancient world--which seemingly creates a dichotomous binary between Virgil (with his old-world language) and Dante-poet (with his modern, Italian, language). Because of this stark binary, the construction seems to insinuate lingual barbarism, as well as a ghettoization of the Italian language; that, in turn, appears to underpin Dante-pilgrim (and his language) as improper and almost, somehow, blue-collar. Or is this arrangement, this infernal 'decorum' doing something else? We must remember Dante-poet has purposefully placed these characters in Hell, even Virgil. In addition, Dante-poet's punishment for Fraudulent Counselors, "clothed in flames that burn them" (Mandelbaum, 239), is far more severe than murderers, blasphemers, etc. So, perhaps, Dante-poet, in part, yet again camouflages his condemnation of language and translation in Hell; yet, this is still too generic. And, of course, this canto resounds parody/satire. But so what? This only provides us a surface-level reading of the particular moves Dante-poet continually makes in the text. So, again, why does Virgil have to play intermediary here? On the one hand, this is Dante-poet's political and lingual vendetta; Dante-pilgrim (and his God-ordained guide, Virgil) serves as Dante-poet's means of usurping those whose language intentionally reducts another language; whose speech is both idyllic and self-aggrandizing. On the other (and simultaneously), Dante-poet unhinges the redundant topos of Hell--essentially highlighting the misappropriation of language as nothing more than 'smoke and mirrors'. For example: he portrays the language of Ulysses (and, arguably, of Virgil) as a rhetorical (epic) convention of pre-Christian exegesis; a sinful language in pursuit of and invested in obtaining knowledge--as we noted in class: a lingual translation of copy of a copy of a copy. 


My brain hurts. And I'm (probably) blowing smoke.