Dante the Babbling Tower Builder: Redeeming Nimrod, and Redirecting Language and Desire Written by: Teelah Kreiselman Directed by: Dr. R. Allen Shoaf University of Florida Class of 2015 Kreiselman 2 Acknowledgements I would like to start off by thanking Professor Johansson at Eastern Florida State College for sparking my love for English and inspiring me to attend the University of Florida. I would also like to thank the University of Florida for providing me with the opportunity to utilize their extensive library resources. Thank you to Jeffrey Dickens for being hard on me when I was suffering waves of senioritis, and listening to me drone on about passages you have never read. I wish to thank my parents, Ben and Dawn Kreiselman, for keeping me focused and for their constant encouragement. I would also like to thank the Dickens family for giving me life advice and support when I needed it. Thank you Professor Ulanowicz for reading over my last minute drafts and your enthusiasm regarding my topic. Lastly, I would like to thank Professor Shoaf for motivating me to challenge myself more than I ever thought was possible, providing me with extensive help and knowledge, and for genuinely caring about my well-being. Kreiselman 3 Table of Contents Page Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….... 4 Chapter 1: Nimrod and Dante, the Tower Builders……………………………………………... 9 Chapter 2: Free Will, Redirected Language, and Desire………………………………………..15 Chapter 3: Dante, the Redeemed Nimrod……………………………………………………….22 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………31 Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………..33 Kreiselman 4 Introduction: Dante’s Vision of Nimrod The origin of language is a subject that undoubtedly interested Dante Alighieri, and can be seen within his De Vulgari Eloquentia (DVE), as well as throughout The Divine Comedy. In DVE, Dante claims that Nimrod caused the confusion of language with his construction of the tower of Babel; however, he contradicts himself in Paradiso XXVI, when Adam claims that his language was confused after the fall of man. In scholars’ search for the meaning behind this, an analysis of Nimrod is often forgotten or set aside. Is Nimrod innocent of St. Augustine’s claims against him? Why is Nimrod important if he is exonerated by Adam near the end of the Comedy, yet still resides in Inferno with the rest of the giants? I believe the text shows that Nimrod used language too literally; he believed he could build a literal tower out of brick and mortar to overthrow God. Dante, like Nimrod, builds a literal tower out of letters that is intended to bring his audience’s desires back to God. Dante becomes the redeemed Nimrod by fulfilling the same task with a different intent and through a different medium. Dante’s presentation of Nimrod in Inferno, the similar actions executed by both Dante and Nimrod, and the differences in their language reveal what Dante attempts to say about language and desire within The Divine Comedy. The different historical accounts of Nimrod, and their influence on Dante’s version of Nimrod, must be considered. There are stark differences between Dante’s account of Nimrod and the tower of Babel in DVE and the one found in Genesis 11:1-9. In Genesis, the “men who moved to a plain in Shinar” are motivated to build the tower in order to “make a name” for themselves, and so they might not be scattered across the Earth (11:7). In DVE, Dante describes the people of Babylon: Kreiselman 5 …led astray by the giant Nimrod, [people] presumed in its heart to outdo in skill not only nature but the source of its own nature, who is God (15). Nimrod may not have been his real name, but rather a derogatory term meaning “the rebel” in Hebrew, signifying his rebellion against his creator (Livingston). In Dante’s version of the tower of Babel, Nimrod rebels against God and gives the people the means to hope “to climb up to heaven, intending in their foolishness not to equal but to excel their creator” (DVE 15). The account in Genesis makes the people appear innocent, and unaware of the blasphemous nature of their actions, whereas Dante claims that Nimrod led his people to not only equal God, but also to overthrow him. A key difference is that in Genesis, the builders’ language is given to the reader, but the language is lacking in Dante’s account. For instance, the builders are quoted twice within the otherwise short passage, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly,” and, Come, let us build ourselves a city with a tower that reaches to the heavens so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth (Genesis 11:3-4). With these quotes, readers have a primary source that allows them to determine whether or not the builders’ actions were malicious. What exactly does “make a name for ourselves” entail: earning God’s respect from the superficially impossible feat, demanding equality, or overthrowing God’s kingdom? It seems from Dante’s account in DVE, along with most of the Christian community, that he has decided the act was intended to overthrow God’s kingdom. It is likely that Dante thought of these quotes as common knowledge, and therefore he omits them from his account in DVE. Kreiselman 6 The disparities between Genesis 11 and Dante’s version can be traced back to St. Augustine’s City of God (Dronke 43). Arguably, the majority of Dante scholars agree that St. Augustine influenced Dante’s writing and ideas. In City of God, St. Augustine concludes that Nimrod led the building of the tower of Babel since it took place in Babylon. He supports his claim by interpreting Genesis 10:8-10 as if Babylon were run by Nimrod himself: Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty hunter before the lord…the first centers of his kingdom were Babylon (“Chapter 4”). The preceding sentence, however, says, “Cush was the father of Nimrod” and later says, “The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon” (Genesis 10:8-10, emphasis mine). The word “his” in this instance in the Scripture is ambiguous; it is not clear whether it is Cush’s or Nimrod’s kingdom, and thus it could be argued that St. Augustine unjustly incriminated Nimrod. Nonetheless, St. Augustine continues his argument against Nimrod through his claim that the Greek word, ἐναντίον, was mistranslated “before,” when it should have been interpreted “against” (“Chapter 4”). According to St. Augustine, this means the passage should be read “a mighty hunter against God” (“Chapter 4”). Although the language of the Scripture is ambiguous about whose kingdom Babylon was specifically, St. Augustine’s matter-of-fact conclusions gained, and have retained popularity within the Christian community. Knowing that St. Augustine had an influence over Dante’s version of the tower of Babel allows the reader to understand why the account went from Scripture’s objective description of the history, to Dante’s mythological-sounding depiction. While giants are referred to in Scripture as Nephilim, Nimrod is not described as one. It is tempting to give complete credit to St. Augustine for labeling Nimrod as a giant; however, Dante was certainly familiar with other books on Nimrod. For instance, Dante read the Historia Scholastica by Peter Kreiselman 7 Comestor, which is a Bible commentary dated to the twelfth century (Dronke 45). This is evident when Peter appears in Paradiso XII, “Petrus Comestor … who / shines down there in twelve volumes” (12.134-5). Comestor describes Nimrod in Historica Scholastica as a giant and a student of Ionithus, who showed him places in which he might reign. In this account, Nimrod is filled with a thirst to rule, and gains power over cities by deception (Dronke 46). It is notable that Ionithus, described as a son of Noah in the Historia, is not present within Scripture, thus giving it a mythical aspect. This description of Nimrod, along with the mythical aspect of the account, coincides with Dante’s depiction of Nimrod in Inferno. Peter Dronke, a renowned Medieval Studies scholar, states that Dante was familiar with another text, Jewish Antiquities by Flavius Josephus (46). Dante’s vision of Nimrod is similar to this text’s rendition, which presents a prideful and blasphemous leader (46). Dante alludes to Book six of Josephus’s De Bello Judaico, in Purgatorio XXIII, “‘Behold the people who / lost Jerusalem, when Mary put her beak into / her son’” (23.28-30). With this allusion present, it is not too bold to say that Josephus’s description of Nimrod could have influenced Dante’s Nimrod. If anything, Josephus’s account arguably portrays a more cruel Nimrod than St. Augustine’s: He persuaded them not to ascribe to God, as if it was through his means they were happy…He also gradually changed the government into tyranny…He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again (Josephus 46). Josephus’s account is more accusatory, much like Dante’s account in the DVE, whereas St. Augustine’s version attempts to explain a mistranslation of the scripture itself. While St. Augustine might have inspired Dante’s first thoughts concerning Nimrod, I believe the above texts also influenced shaping Nimrod’s character within Inferno. Kreiselman 8 Readers can assume that Dante knew about these accounts of Nimrod given the textual evidence that he was at least familiar with these authors, as well as the similarities between their accounts of Nimrod. What readers are left with is the worst version of Nimrod: a giant who was prideful, disobedient of God’s commandments, misled his followers, and challenged God’s absolute power.