The Divine Comedy: XIII. Free Will and God’s Will

The essence of this blessed life consists
in keeping to the boundaries of God’s will,
through which our wills become one single will;
so that, as we are ranged from step to step
throughout this kingdom, all this kingdom wills
that which will please the King whose will is rule.
And in His will there is our peace: that sea
to which all beings move-the beings He
creates or nature makes-such is His will.
Paradiso Canto III lines 79-87

While reading this passage, it dawned on me that Kant’s Categorical Imperative, i.e. “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”, would be fitting for God, but not for man, for the simple reason that the former is omniscient whereas the latter is not.

An individual’s knowledge and understanding are extremely limited, so it would be unwise to enact universals laws based on his own understanding. In addition, what applies to his specific circumstances may not apply to other people, and what is good for him may be bad for them. But God is not bound by these limitations. Being omniscient, His knowledge and understanding are perfect; Being God, His will is in perfect unity with His understanding, i.e., His will is perfect; Being a faithful Creator, He knows and wills what is good for all the beings He creates, from the smallest to the greatest. The creation cannot reach a higher state of blessedness than that of being in uniformity with His will. Hence the Lord’s Prayer, “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.

An objection has often been raised that being subject to God’s Will destroys free will and reduces man to slavery. To address it fully, we need an in-depth understanding of the nature of freedom. But how can anyone demonstrate what freedom is without having experienced or exercised it? It would be as if someone who never loved tried to explain what love was.

I’ve come across in my reading very few insights into the nature of freedom, perhaps for the reason just stated. Nevertheless it’s expedient to have a working definition for the sake of discussion. Here is a Kantian definition of freedom:

Freedom is the state of being, or ability to act, in accord with reason, without external constraints.

According to Kant, the will of the Supreme Being is always in accord with Reason, therefore His Will is in deed and in truth free, whereas the will of man is often hindered by desires, passions and the necessities of his physical existence, and therefore not absolutely free.

From a Christian perspective, the fallen man is not free, because he is a slave of sin, who cannot refrain from sinning. Much like an addict, he loathes himself when he sins, but he cannot deliver himself from sin. In a sense, Dante’s Inferno is the world we live in, as anyone with some self-knowledge could see himself engulfed in one of the fiery circles. Christ came into this world to set the slaves free. “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.”

Parting Poems

I had read this Chinese poem by Bai juyi many years ago, but it hit me hard when I stumbled upon it returning from a trip visiting my aging parents. How many thoughts and emotions are packed in these few lines!

离离原上草，
一岁一枯荣。
野火烧不尽，
春风吹又生。

远芳侵古道，
晴翠接荒城。
又送王孙去，
萋萋满别情.

My literal translation:

Abounding with grass is the meadow.
per annum it ever withers and flourishes.
The fire of the wild cannot consume it utterly,
for the wind of Spring again breathes life therein.

Distant flowers encroach on the ancient road,
sunny emerald borders on the desolate city.
Once more I see off a noble offspring,
thronged with emotions of parting.

The first half of the poem is a contemplation of Nature. The perennial grass is the symbol of Plotinian immortality. Though the fire may destroy its matter, yet its form and life persists.

The poem is structured in symmetry, pairing the four sentences in the middle. Both the sentence structure and the meaning of the words are symmetrical.

The second half not only juxtaposes space and time, but also contrasts nature and society. The ancient road was traveled by many generations that lived before, and the desolate city was once inhabited and thrived in times past. Who is to say that the power which preserves and regenerates nature shall not revive the human society and make those desolate roads and cities thrive again?

The last sentence is the focal point of the entire poem: Genuine friendship shall prevail through the vicissitudes of fortune.

William Wordsworth seems to echo the same sentiments in the following:

What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind;
In the primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering;
In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind.

References:

• Bai juyi’s “Ode to Grass as a parting poem”
• William Wordsworth’s “Ode. Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood”

“Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare

This Roman play by Shakespeare is based on Plutarch’s “Lives of the noble Grecians and Romans” (Caesar and Marcus Brutus). One might call it an adapted stage play, since the majority of the plot and dialogues in the play have been incorporated directly from Plutarch. But I noticed a significant difference when comparing the two renditions: Shakespeare failed to capture the complexity, magnificence, and more importantly, the political philosophy and moral mentality of the noble Romans.

Caesar, the title character, is killed midway through the play, and we know next to nothing about him. The words that Shakespeare put into his mouth (apart from those recorded by Plutarch) can be said by any self-conceited individual, and do not capture the uniqueness of the Dictator of Rome, his personal charisma, magnanimity, industry, calculation and ambition, as attested by Plutarch and Cicero.

Brutus, a man of moral integrity and Stoic virtue, and respected by all, was accused as a traitor by Mark Antony, in the famous speech “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him” and the climax of the entire play. This same Antony, according to Cicero and Plutarch, was “the Helen of Troy”, unrestrained in lust and passion but deficient in moral character, and brought destruction upon the Roman Republic, but he came away a manipulative demagogue, nay, a popular hero, in Shakespeare’s play.

It is worth noting that Brutus was condemned as a traitor by Dante as well, and assigned to the lowest circle of the Inferno, gorged by Satan for eternity. However, Dante was not quite consistent in his judgment, since he brought Caesar and Cicero together in Limbo as virtuous pagans, perhaps not realizing that there was bitter enmity of ideals between the two, and the latter rejoiced at the slaughter of the former.

From the perspective of the Roman Republic, the assassination of Caesar was not an act of betrayal or murder, but a continuation of the Civil War between the declining Republic and the emerging Empire, a struggle between freedom and tyranny. Brutus fought with the Republic forces led by Pompey against Caesar, and after Pompey’s defeat and death, he was pardoned by Caesar. On the one hand, he was indebted to Caesar for sparing his life, on the other hand, he was robbed by Caesar of his freedom as a citizen of the Republic, i.e., he was enslaved by Caesar along with the rest of the Romans. Therefore, the assassination was not a preemptive strike against Caesar’s ambition, as Shakespeare depicted it, but a struggle/rebellion against a de facto tyrant. To give a modern parallel, who would not have rejoiced if Hitler had been assassinated?

The nuances of moral and political thought in ancient Rome are lost in Shakespeare’s play. As if to compensate for the lack of depth in thought, he expands a great deal on the relationship between Brutus and Cassius, who was mentioned by Plutarch only in passing. Their relationship occupies the center stage throughout, akin to that between Bassanio and Antonio in The Merchant of Venice –it’s not mere coincidence that Brutus’ wife and Bassanio’s fiance share the same name. Shakespeare almost seems to insinuate that Cassius instigated the assassination of Caesar, not because of his hatred of the tyrant and desire for freedom, but because of his jealousy of Brutus’ love for Caesar, the same reason Harmodius and Aristogeiton assassinated the tyrant Hipparchus in ancient Greece, according to some accounts.

P.S.

I met Brutus three years ago, and still vividly remember the encounter. I was crossing the street, when a lady behind me called out, “Brutus!” I looked around, and saw a black retriever run past me, with a red shopping bag dangling from his jaw. I stared at him in amusement, wondering what had become of the Roman hero/assassin. In hindsight, Antony would have been a more fitting name for the lady’s personal shopping assistant.

“The Tragedy of Macbeth” by William Shakespeare

[Posted on the day of the Boston Marathon bombing]

The Tragedy of Macbeth is a psychological portrayal of two murderers, deceived by illusions, goaded by ambitions, and driven to despair. Two people, though alive, yet were long dead. Kierkegaard would characterize Macbeth as in despair wanting to be himself, because he was past the point of no return, and Lady Macbeth in despair not wanting to be herself, because she was not as hardened in slaughter and blood as her husband was.

The chilling thing is: Shakespeare’s murderers not only speak to the audience, but also speak for them.

Had I but died an hour before this chance,
I had liv’d a blessed time; for, from this instant,
There’s nothing serious in mortality.
All is but toys; renown and grace is dead;
The wine of life is drawn, and the mere lees
Is left this vault to brag of.
.
The spring, the head, the fountain of your blood
Is stopp’d; the very source of it is stopp’d.

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

I have supp’d full with horrors;
Direness, familiar to my slaughterous thoughts,
Cannot once start me.

References:

• “The Tragedy of Macbeth” at Bartleby.com

“The Merchant of Venice” by William Shakespeare

The villains in Shakespeare’s plays always seem to have the best lines. It’s been more than 20 years since I first heard “The Merchant of Venice” on the radio, and I still remember Shylock’s “do we not bleed” speech. Few can evoke a stronger feeling of the brotherhood of man.

The Voice of Reason

What stands out to me, reading the play this time around, is the irrational nature of all types of prejudice, discrimination and phobia. Groups of people can be marginalized and disenfranchised because of external and accidental traits that bear nothing upon their characters and merits but are nevertheless branded as evil with derogatory names.

He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a million, laughed at my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and what’s his reason? I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh?

In the same vein, Shakespeare also decries slavery and the hypocrisy of his generation, again, by the mouth of Shylock.

What judgment shall I dread, doing no wrong?
You have among you many a purchas’d slave,
Which, like your asses and your dogs and mules,
You use in abject and in slavish parts,
Because you bought them: shall I say to you,
Let them be free, marry them to your heirs?
Why sweat they under burdens? let their beds
Be made as soft as yours, and let their palates
Be season’d with such viands? You will answer:
‘The slaves are ours:’ so do I answer you:
The pound of flesh which I demand of him,
Is dearly bought; ’tis mine and I will have it.

It’s almost a pity that Shylock lost in court on a point of technicality, which could have been avoided by a competent lawyer. There is irony and contrapasso in it. Shylock, an usurer who was used to getting more for less, was forced by the court to get the exact amount of penalty, that is, one pound of flesh, no more no less, not even a drop of blood with it. He couldn’t do it.

Three Choices

The other thing that I find interesting is the three choices that Portia’s late father gave her suitors in the form of three caskets: gold, silver and lead. If someone chooses right, he shall have her as wife; if he choose wrong, however, he shall never marry.

Gold: “Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire.”
Silver: “Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves.”
Lead: “Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath.”

Anyone with some intelligence can tell that the condition itself already bids the suitor to hazard all: either he get the wife he desires or he gets none, so he might as well make the choice that expresses the same pathos. What I don’t understand is why Shakespeare thinks it foolish to choose “as much as he deserves”.

References:

• “The Merchant of Venice” Online Book at Bartleby.com

Related Articles:

• The Merchant of Venice (literarysnarker.wordpress.com)
• The Merchant of Venice (stuffjeffreads.wordpress.com)

“The Tragedy of King Lear” by William Shakespeare

Is Shakespeare a Synonym for Greek?

I’m amazed how much Shakespeare reminds me of the ancient Greek poets, both in the themes and the dialogues of the plays.

Firstly, the style of the dialogues, which I’d call “contrapuntal”, with one high-flown voice of oratory and another plainer often ironic voice acting as commentary and counterpoint, is strikingly reminiscent of Aristophanes. The witty fool, who is wiser than the King, seems to have come straight from him.

If we combine Sophocles’ psychological introspection, Aeschylus’ solemn sometimes frenzied invocation of divine retribution, Euripides’ compassionate plea for reason and justice, and Aristophanes’ irony and witticism (sans the indecent jokes), the mixture becomes Shakespeare.

Secondly, the themes in Shakespearean tragedies are typical in Greek tragedies, with the possible exception of sororicide (sisters killing sisters). There are parricide, filicide (parents against children), fatricide (brothers against brothers), adultery, mariticide (wives against husbands), regicide (subjects against their kings), guests against their hosts.

The world of King Lear is a world turned upside down, where the wicked rule and the righteous mourn, where “freedom lives hence, and banishment is here”, “most choice forsaken, and most loved despised”, kings become fools and parents become babes. In short, just about everyone shall end up in one of the circles in Dante’s Inferno. What a rotten lot!

A Reflection on Easter

Perhaps it was a coincidence that I finished King Lear on Easter weekend, which led me to compare the Tragedy of King Lear with the Gospels.

“When we are born, we cry that we are come to this great stage of fools”

People are accustomed to say “Happy Birthday”, and “Merry Christmas”. But if we dwell upon the injustices and sufferings, as King Lear did, how can anyone, let alone God, be happy being born into this cesspool? Would He not be tempted to say, “Beam me up, Scotty. There’s no intelligent life down here”? No. He stayed, for our sake. “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?” He did bear with His people, until they crucified Him on the cross.

“Why should a dog, a horse, a rat, have life, and thou no breath at all?”

Why should a worthless murderous sinner have life, and a blameless man, the only begotten Son of God die? It is “a dreadful trade” (to borrow the words of Shakespeare). I wondered whether God the Father ever asked Himself that question. Why should He give His only begotten Son for the faithless, perverse and ungrateful world?

Thankfully, the Gospel is not a tragedy. The story doesn’t end with Crucifixion, the story ends with Resurrection and Ascension. “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.”"I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.”

Quotes:

Alb. Where have you hid yourself?
How have you known the miseries of your father?
Edg. By nursing them, my lord. List a brief tale;
And when ’tis told, oh, that my heart would burst!
The bloody proclamation to escape,
That follow’d me so near,—oh, our lives’ sweetness!
That we the pain of death would hourly die
Rather than die at once!—taught me to shift
Into a madman’s rags, to assume a semblance
That very dogs disdain’d; and in this habit
Met I my father with his bleeding rings,
Their precious stones new lost; became his guide,
Led him, begg’d for him, sav’d him from despair;
Never,—O fault!—reveal’d myself unto him,
Until some half-hour past, when I was arm’d.
Not sure, though hoping, of this good success,
I ask’d his blessing, and from first to last
Told him our pilgrimage; but his flaw’d heart,
Alack, too weak the conflict to support!
’Twixt two extremes of passion, joy and grief,
Burst smilingly.

References:

• “The Tragedy of King Lear” at Bartleby.com

The Divine Comedy: XII. Why Purgatory?

Hell vs. Purgatory

As I understand it, one of the main differences between Hell and Purgatory in Dante’s Divine Comedy is the grace of God, which, according to St. Augustine, restores fee will in man and enables him to desire and attain the Good.

Firstly, those in the Inferno are confined to their respective circles, and never able to escape, because they rejected the grace of God, and thereby gave up freedom; those in the Purgatorio are free to progress to higher circles as soon as their purification is complete, and they shall know in themselves when the time is ripe.

Secondly, those in the Inferno are punished against their will, but those in the Purgatorio are purified in accordance with their will and their desire for perfection, though the process is painful. As C.S.Lewis wrote in Letters to Malcolm:

Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, “It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy”? Should we not reply, “With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.” “It may hurt, you know” — “Even so, sir.”

Having said the above, however, the book Purgatorio has been a blur, if not a disappointment, to me even after a second read. I expect it to be more dynamic than the Inferno, because it is supposed to be a place for purification and progress. But the circles in Purgatory are just as static as those in the Inferno. There are people doing penances, but no changes in their character or nature can be observed, which leads me to doubt the efficacy of the penances Dante prescribed, and whether he himself understood them. Dante had the wounds, i.e. the marks of seven sins, on his forehead cleansed somehow by climbing the mountain, whereas I emerged the same way as I entered, if not worse.

Objections to the Doctrine of Purgatory

From “Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion” of the Church of England: “The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.”

I can make two objections to the idea of Purgatory. The first is the Parable of the Prodigal Son: the father didn’t have the son cleaned before putting on him the best robe and the ring. The second is borrowed from Kant: if perfection is required to “enter into the joy”, purification would take forever. Hence the necessity of the immortality of the soul. Purgatory would become a final destination for most people if not all.

Related Articles:

• Thoughts on Purgatory and Lent as Journeys of Transformation (thedanteproject.wordpress.com)