Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Divine Comedy, Dante
>
Inferno 11: Pause for a geography lesson
date
newest »
newest »
Patrice wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Patrice wrote: "The premise of Merchant of Venice was false. That "pound of flesh" thing is totally against Jewish law. One is never allowed to damage the body as it does not belong ..."Speaking of punishment fit the crime, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" means just that, literally. It's quite clear in the OT, as quoted below and in many other places. Life is sacred, and for the crime of murder, the punishment is death penalty.
Money is a token of man's work, but man himself is God's work. The two are not of equal value, not even close. To atone for a willful bodily injury with money is to profane the body. It's almost akin to paying money for the crime of murder.
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."
Genesis 9:6
If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him— fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him.
Leviticus 24:19-20
ETA: As for your comment about antisemitism, one thing about Shylock that impressed me the most, when I first heard the play, was not his greed, but his "do we not bleed" speech. There aren't many that can evoke a stronger feeling of the brotherhood of man.
Patrice wrote: "Did Christ really mean that a man who looks at a woman he is not married to should literally pluck out his eye? "Here is the context:
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire—
Mark 9:47
If a man is bitten by a deadly snake, and there is no antidote, the usual practice is to cut off immediately the part that was bitten, so that the poison doesn't spread throughout the body, and his life can be saved.
Perhaps it's the same idea here. Christ was talking about the eternal life. Anyone who practices sin cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. The eye is the entry to the soul, when a man is harassed by lust. It is better to cut off the channel, rather than let sin gain control of him, and bring him to ruin.
I don't see how you can deny the literal meaning of the OT passage I quoted in the previous post. But, if you or anyone has a better interpretation of the text, I'd be more than happy to hear and discuss it further. :)
As for Shylock, from the usurer's pov, a pound of flesh is actually a lesser payment than money. To paraphrase Aristotle, value is in the eye of the recipient. Shylock accepted pound of flesh as a compromise, which satisfies not his greed, but his desire for revenge.
More on usury and interest. I still can't figure it out. Perhaps I should leave Dante and read Keynes instead.Many people here seem to think that borrowing money is the same as renting a car or a house. But I just don't see it that way. When we rent a car, we pay for the usage of the car. As Aristotle wrote, wealth consists in usage not ownership. So if we use it, we should pay for it. Equal exchange of value.
Money is different. In and of itself, money is completely useless. It cannot feed us, clothe us, nor shelter us. It's a token, nothing more. It has to be exchanged for something else to be useful. (Some people have learned to use their credit card in many ingenious ways, but that's a different story) So when we borrow money, we are not getting any direct usage out of it. Why then are we paying interest for the usage?
Nemo, why would I ever rent a car if you would lent me money for free to buy one? As long as we can exchange money for other things it is all of those things.
At 62 Nemo wrote: "Patrice wrote: "... one thing about Shylock that impressed me the most, when I first heard the play, was not his greed, but his "do we not bleed" speech"
That is, bottom line, what I took away from the play, too.
That is, bottom line, what I took away from the play, too.
Wendelman wrote: "As long as we can exchange money for other things it is all of those things."Yes. That money is a "token" of something else -- the gains from labor, the access to needed materials, or whatever form of capital has been created -- is its strength, its "currency," not a sign of meaninglessness. It enables us to trade our labor with one another; to have saved up the value of our labor, and exchange it for other things we need or want. And how can I give you mine, Nemo, for nothing? Why do you get the free use of it, while I might never see it again? There is a cost for access to money, just as there is for steel, for water, for labor. It is one of the materials of economic activity, and differs only in the near-universality of exchange it possesses and enables.
So perhaps one of the objections to usury was that high interest rates tended to restrict access to capital too much. Keeping peasants from improving their lot. Also, given human nature, I would imagine that the legalisms within which lending capital became embedded, were utilized by scheming lenders to get at the underlying asset itself. Drive the borrower bankrupt and take possession. Fortunately that never happens anymore.
At 64 Nemo wrote: "The eye is the entry to the soul, when a man is harassed by lust. It is better to cut off the channel, rather than let sin gain control of him, and bring him to ruin..."
One could agree, yes, since were talking about one's soul, yes, one could say it would be better to have the eye removed..so the eyeless person won't lust. ( Everyone realizes that that is not true.)(It's not our body parts that sin.)
Blind people lust, too. They will always have the memory of what they have already seen. So physically blinding people won't do any good.
Even people born blind lust.
One could agree, yes, since were talking about one's soul, yes, one could say it would be better to have the eye removed..so the eyeless person won't lust. ( Everyone realizes that that is not true.)(It's not our body parts that sin.)
Blind people lust, too. They will always have the memory of what they have already seen. So physically blinding people won't do any good.
Even people born blind lust.
Nemo wrote: Many people here seem to think that borrowing money is the same as renting a car or a house. But I just don't see it that way. When we rent a car, we pay for the usage of the car. As Aristotle wrote, wealth consists in usage not ownership. So if we use it, we should pay for it. Equal exchange of value.
Money is different. In and of itself, money is completely useless. It cannot feed us, clothe us, nor shelter us. It's a token, nothing more. It has to be exchanged for something else to be useful. (Some people have learned to use their credit card in many ingenious ways, but that's a different story) So when we borrow money, we are not getting any direct usage out of it. Why then are we paying interest for the usage? ..."
I'm walking on the edge here.
I don't think that renting a house is equal exchange of value. I think it's the owner charging as much as he possibly can and the renter paying --- sometimes, yes, because the renter wants and values the ammenities and is willing to pay for them. But sometimes the renter needs someplace to live, and there isn't a supply of homes available-- no competition. In that case the renter would "overpay"..... Resentfully....not believing that he was getting equal value....but paying because he needs a place for his family to live.
Direct usage. Often direct usage costs much more. Say I would like your garden tools. But I haven't any money. You agree to accept my books in exchange. Because you think you know someone who will then accept the books in exchange for the vacuum that you really want.
Remember how in an earlier Canto Dante didn't want to waste his time?
Consider how much time is being wasted here. Echanging and bartering here and there until we find the secondary or third or fourth exchange that satisfies us. What a waste of time. We have but limited time in our lives.
It seems almost sinful to be wasting it.
Money (an accepted token of exchangable value) would be indirect, yes, But more efficient. And more true, too, I think.
Otherwise we're kinda like Jacob, laboring for Rachael. But having to accept Leah first. Not an exact analogy. Take money out of the picture entirely. If we haven't the skills to build or produce what is wanted by the guy who has what WE want, then we have to go though all these complicated "untrue/ not really desired/ false" exchanges in order to get what we want eventually. If we are lucky.
Money is different. In and of itself, money is completely useless. It cannot feed us, clothe us, nor shelter us. It's a token, nothing more. It has to be exchanged for something else to be useful. (Some people have learned to use their credit card in many ingenious ways, but that's a different story) So when we borrow money, we are not getting any direct usage out of it. Why then are we paying interest for the usage? ..."
I'm walking on the edge here.
I don't think that renting a house is equal exchange of value. I think it's the owner charging as much as he possibly can and the renter paying --- sometimes, yes, because the renter wants and values the ammenities and is willing to pay for them. But sometimes the renter needs someplace to live, and there isn't a supply of homes available-- no competition. In that case the renter would "overpay"..... Resentfully....not believing that he was getting equal value....but paying because he needs a place for his family to live.
Direct usage. Often direct usage costs much more. Say I would like your garden tools. But I haven't any money. You agree to accept my books in exchange. Because you think you know someone who will then accept the books in exchange for the vacuum that you really want.
Remember how in an earlier Canto Dante didn't want to waste his time?
Consider how much time is being wasted here. Echanging and bartering here and there until we find the secondary or third or fourth exchange that satisfies us. What a waste of time. We have but limited time in our lives.
It seems almost sinful to be wasting it.
Money (an accepted token of exchangable value) would be indirect, yes, But more efficient. And more true, too, I think.
Otherwise we're kinda like Jacob, laboring for Rachael. But having to accept Leah first. Not an exact analogy. Take money out of the picture entirely. If we haven't the skills to build or produce what is wanted by the guy who has what WE want, then we have to go though all these complicated "untrue/ not really desired/ false" exchanges in order to get what we want eventually. If we are lucky.
Wendelman wrote: "Nemo, why would I ever rent a car if you would lent me money for free to buy one? As long as we can exchange money for other things it is all of those things."I don't see your point. People rent for many reasons, some don't have enough to buy, others don't want to own. If you do borrow, you still have to pay back the money. So it's not "for free", but equal exchange. If you don't pay back even the principal, charging you interest is useless.
Adelle wrote: "It's not our body parts that sin."Quite so. Jesus says, "IF your eye causes you to sin" and "IF your hand or foot causes you to sin". Perhaps He is challenging us to think more deeply about the cause of sin.
But, for argument's sake, IF our eye causes us to sin, what should we do about it? (The final scenes of Lord of the Rings comes to mind again.) Shall we destroy it and save ourselves, or shall we hang on to it and perish along with it?
Michael wrote: " That money is a "token" of something else -- the gains from labor, the access to needed materials, or whatever form of capital has been created -- is its strength, its "currency," not a sign of meaninglessness. It enables us to trade our labor with one another; to have saved up the value of our labor, and exchange it for other things we need or want...."Makes sense to me.
Adelle wrote: "Money (an accepted token of exchangable value) would be indirect, yes, But more efficient. And more true, too, I think...."I'm reminded of Midas, the King who was almost starved to death because of his "golden touch".
Adelle wrote: "I think it's the owner charging as much as he possibly can and the renter paying --- sometimes, yes, because the renter wants and values the ammenities and is willing to pay for them. But sometimes the renter needs someplace to live, and there isn't a supply of homes available-- no competition. In that case the renter would "overpay"..... Resentfully....not believing that he was getting equal value....but paying because he needs a place for his family to live..."Question, Adelle, if I understand your point here. Wouldn't another homeowner who hears of the high rent paid for the only rental property that exists in your town then decide he would like such a great return on his capital, too? And rent his for $100 less a month to the first customer, or to any other customer who chose to live in Adelleville? : )
And then... etc. Supply, unless artificially restricted (Manhattan rent control), should generally rise to meet demand at some point. Perhaps the point of diminishing returns.
Michael wrote: ".Question, Adelle, if I understand your point here. Wouldn't another homeowner who hears of the high rent paid for the only rental property that exists in your town then decide he would like such a great return on his capital, too? And rent his for $100 less a month to the first customer, or to any other customer who chose to live in Adelleville? : ).."
Yes, indeed! He could rent his place for $100 less (or as high a price "less" at which he thinks he will get offers). And yes, now that there's competition, the 1st guy might consider charging less. Still, both would want to charge enough rent so that they make money in the long run.
Of course, then that 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc) homeowner who decides to rent out his home to make money will have to find another place to live. He might go to the bank, get a loan. He will be willing to pay some interest because he wants a place to live AND he thinks that he will be able to pay for the new and still make enough money on his rental. He thinks that in the long run he will come out ahead. Perhaps he thinks he will be able to take advantage of the business rental write-ups and take advantage of the lower taxes on long-term capital gains when he sells the rental.
The town grows. The town prospers. The towns tax base grows.
But you're right, I would think, there may be diminishing returns. Absolutely. But if the owners aren't expecting to make money, they will stop renting out homes. Then the supply will decrease. Then the rental prices will rise again.
You know...:)...theoretically.
I love that you named the town after me!
MMM. Maybe I have mixed feelings. I recall back in Book III of the Aeneid, Aeneis named the new colony after himself. And it didn't work out.
"...I plotted out
On that curved shore the walls of a colony--
Though fate opposed it--and I devised the name
Aeneadae for the people, from my own" (Fitz, III, 24).
Yes, indeed! He could rent his place for $100 less (or as high a price "less" at which he thinks he will get offers). And yes, now that there's competition, the 1st guy might consider charging less. Still, both would want to charge enough rent so that they make money in the long run.
Of course, then that 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc) homeowner who decides to rent out his home to make money will have to find another place to live. He might go to the bank, get a loan. He will be willing to pay some interest because he wants a place to live AND he thinks that he will be able to pay for the new and still make enough money on his rental. He thinks that in the long run he will come out ahead. Perhaps he thinks he will be able to take advantage of the business rental write-ups and take advantage of the lower taxes on long-term capital gains when he sells the rental.
The town grows. The town prospers. The towns tax base grows.
But you're right, I would think, there may be diminishing returns. Absolutely. But if the owners aren't expecting to make money, they will stop renting out homes. Then the supply will decrease. Then the rental prices will rise again.
You know...:)...theoretically.
I love that you named the town after me!
MMM. Maybe I have mixed feelings. I recall back in Book III of the Aeneid, Aeneis named the new colony after himself. And it didn't work out.
"...I plotted out
On that curved shore the walls of a colony--
Though fate opposed it--and I devised the name
Aeneadae for the people, from my own" (Fitz, III, 24).
What I find valuable about this discussion is it quite genuinely demonstrated how valuable and "current" the DC is.While the names and faces change, the more I read of Dante the more I think he transcends specific events and the pictures he paints are always "current" as long as we are humans.
Adelle wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I'm curious how Dante's ranking of the sins corresponds with the teaching of the Catholic Church, or how much of Aristotle's Ethics is incorporated by Aquinas into Doctrine."Nemo, I'..."
I am a Catholic. The Catechism specifies mortal vs venial sins. Dante reflected the views of medieval Christianity, however the apparent "ranking" or progression of sins as Dante descends, is and not part of defined Caholic dogma.
David, I think there is a word missing from the closing sentence above....but I can't figure out what it is.
Jeremy wrote: "Also, as long as we're mentioning disgustingly smelling book scenes! :-)Anyone read Parrot and Olivier in America? I can't imagine what it would have been like for Parrot as a boy to have to tak..."
I'm still going back and catching up on Inferno reading. Parrot and Oliver is what I thought of here -- I had forgotten the Angela's Ashes passages.
From his Canto XLV:
With Usura
With usura hath no man a house of good stone
each block cut smooth and well-fitting
with usura
seeth no man Gonzaga his heirs and his concubines
no picture is made to endure nor to live with
but is made to sell and sell quickly
with usura, sin against nature,
...
Stone cutter is kept from his stone
weaver is kept from his loom
...
Usura slayeth the child in the womb
It stayeth the young man's courting
It hath brought palsey to bed, lyeth
between the young bride and her bridegroom
CONTRA NATURAM
They have brought whores for Eleusis
Corpses are set to banquet
at behest of usura.