Dante's Timeless Insight

Dante Alighieri's explanation of different types of exposition remains relevant and perceptive even today, as we enter the 21st century. He explains four different senses by which a literary work-- specifically, the Bible-- can be understood: the literal, the allegorical, the moral, and the anagogical. I had never heard of the fourth word before, but he nevertheless defines and gives examples of each type of interpretation.

Obviously, the literal interpretation is the surface meaning of a text, whereas the allegorical is "a truth hidden beneath a beautiful fiction," representing real-life situations and characters. The moral sense is didactic, and the anagogical sense concerns the supernatural and the spiritual, or the reader's relationship with God.

Dante calls this kind of multi-faceted reading polysemous. I saw his analysis as more in line with contemporary thought concerning reading than the theories of Augustine, and, consequently, I could better apply his theory to my own reading.

I also believe that Dante's theories have influenced today's orthodox readings of Scripture. I'm sure that the majority of evangelical laypersons would not recognize that their theology of biblical explication has its roots in 14th century Italy, but the fact remains that Dante's emphasis on understanding the literal meaning of Scripture prior to forming hermeneutical interpretations is still recognized as authoritative. I distinctly remember my youth director teaching this principle to our youth group when I was a sophomore in high school, and I still keep his notes from that meeting in my Bible. I have found this theory useful time and time again in my own study of Scripture.

However, I must consider two more ideas concerning Dante's influential theory. Dante seems to focus exclusively on sacred texts or texts inspired by Scripture. I wonder whether all the elements of his definition of a polysemous reading can be applied to so-called secular fiction. For me, this raises issues of the author's intention (which the Formalists would call a fallacy). Perhaps the author told his or her story with the sole purpose of entertainment. If this is the case, would it be fair-- or even relevant-- to apply an allegorical, moral, or anagogical reading? Certainly many authors' writings demonstrate profound truths about humanity, intended or not, but I question the ability to anagogically analyze these works. I fear that if I attempted this, I would come up with a perverted or contorted view of God, an outlook not in keeping with Scripture. In other words, I would see my impositions of representation as a "stretch."

I also think that Dante's theory of interpretation is exclusively scholastic, not meditative. This surprises me because he takes poetic license in his most famous work, The Divine Comedy. This is hardly an academic work. Furthermore, Dante seems to see meditative readings of Scripture
as illegitimate. I find this fascinating in light of the supposed prevalence of the medieval practice of lectio divina, which contrasts against Dante's proposed objective disinterest. Dante appears dismiss mystical readings, which are more dependent on experience and emotion than on reason and exposition. I can hardly rule these out as illegitimate, since I value the dynamics of one's relationship with God.

All things considered, I still find Dante's thoughts useful and enduring. His theory definitely stimulates discussion and leaves room for practical application.