There are certain concepts that are thought to live in a strict dichotomy between one another. This binary division would naturally be thought to be applicable to ‘polytheistic’ paganism and ‘monotheistic’’ Christianity; this does not seem to be the case in Dante Alighieri’s Inferno. The plot centres around Dante’s pilgrimage through the circles of Hell designed according to Christian scripture and philosophy. However, within this monotheistically-derived structure, Greek and Roman mythological deities and creatures are invoked and introduced as being integral to the Christian superstructure. One would think that the juxtaposition of a Christian Hell with pagan elements within it would be contradictory and pose questions and objections to the Christian authenticity of Dante’s Hell, but the doubt caused by the coexistence of these two religious opposites is explained away by Virgil through his description of the Roman deity Fortuna. The antithesis between polytheism and monotheism becomes harmonious and united through the lens of Fortuna’s role in the Christian system; that which is commonly thought of as pagan is in actuality part of the Christian God’s dominion.
The method and line of inquiry I will follow to examine the profound impact of the description offered on Fortuna is the following: 1) establish why her introduction is relevant, 2) Fortuna as a servant of God and what precisely her role is, and 3) how paganism and the Christian God coexisting prompts more questions.
The first reference to pagan mythology in Inferno is in Canto II when Dante calls for the Muses to help him in telling the story of his journey, almost paying tribute to Greek epic poets like Homer. This emulation of Greek poets who wrote epics full of worship for the Greek gods adds a second layer of paganistic appreciation, as Dante, the poet, seems to desire to be perceived in a similar light as these Greek poets. Other pagan creatures, deities, and characters make appearances throughout Dante and Virgil’s journey through Hell, such as Chiron and other centaurs (Inf. 12. 70), Harpies (Inf. 13. 10), Minos (Inf. 5. 4), and the list can be made more extensive. Upon entering Hell, Dante, along with the readers, is bombarded with pagan imagery. When combined with the perception of Hell as being Christian (derived from Dante’s previous conversation with Virgil in which Dante references God as being a non-pagan one: “‘Poet, now by that God, who is unknown to you, I ask your assistance…’” (Inf. 1.130-31)), this pagan element creates discomfort and tension between polytheistic and monotheistic concepts.
Arguably, the turning point for how the reader perceives the uneasiness and struggle between polytheism and monotheism is Fortuna’s characterization and qualification of her role in Canto VII. Dante and Virgil have entered the fourth circle of Hell, the home both to those who spent an extravagant amount of money and religious figureheads (popes and cardinals) who hoarded money during their lives, with the latter group having bald heads, rendering them unidentifiable. The sinners’ punishment consists of their souls being immersed in a turbulent sea of other souls crashing into each other, which, to Dante, resembles the water above Charybdis, another mythological entity, “breaking upon the current that it meets” (Inf. 7.22-23). Virgil continues to explain the nature of the sin of the souls by incorporating Fortune as the reason they managed to acquire the monetary means to waste or amass— this piques Dante’s curiosity as he asks for Virgil to elaborate on who this Fortune is, which proceeds to be answered by Virgil.
Fortune can be assumed to be the equivalent of Fortuna, the Roman deity of luck and chance. This is due to both her name being capitalised and anthropomorphized through the use of female pronouns and her ability to make decisions and act on them. According to Virgil, Fortuna is a product of God, specifically described as one of the “intelligences” meant to help guide the heavens. Fortuna is an “agent and director” of material matters, choosing who gains and/or loses material things. “Vain possessions” (Inf. 7.80) is her realm of control assigned by God, but she is not the only entity with divine powers who functions as an extension of God. Virgil claims: “She [Fortuna] controls, takes decisions, executes them in her kingdom, as other gods do in theirs.” (Inf. 7.86-87), the plural “gods” could allow one to deduce that other known polytheistic deities also have their function in this system under the Christian God.
Another notable quality of Fortuna is how mortals view her versus what she is in a divine sense. Virgil claims that mortal science cannot explain what she does and why, which aligns with the common conception that Fortuna and the ideas of “chance” and “luck” are often seen as synonymous. However, it appears from a divine level that there is nothing arbitrary about Fortuna’s choices. Fortuna does not randomly choose who gains or loses materially. Virgil tells us as much when he describes her as both making decisions and making them at the “proper time” (Inf. 7.79). Regardless of whether or not mortals can understand her reasoning, there is thought and coordination that takes place before Fortuna spins her wheel. Rather than acting haphazardly, Fortuna is shown to be a deity who acts methodically and with purpose. What this purpose is will be explored in a later section.
If Fortuna, and by extension other deities from polytheistic religions, have a rightful place in the Christian supernatural hierarchy, how do they fit into other concepts belonging to Christianity? The idea of “predestination” comes to mind to be the most prevalent regarding Fortuna— the notion that everything has been preordained by God, with there being a complete removal of free will. Fortuna, from our human perspective, makes decisions for reasons our limited cognitive faculties cannot even begin to comprehend, but I, a mere mortal, will foolishly proceed to take a jab at it.
The first hypothesis on the table is that Fortuna and predestination work hand-in-hand. If one were to have the divine mental capacity, as one could assume Fortuna has, to predict without any margin of error how an individual’s personality traits will cause them to act when given an abundance or dearth of money, then Fortuna’s role is to simply create the scenario in which they have what they need materially to fulfil what they are destined to do, whether it is to sin or be virtuous. Under this hypothesis, the events of a mortal’s life have already been decided by God, as the omnipotent and omniscient entity that he is, prior to their occurrence. In the framework of predestination, Fortuna takes on the role of being an executor of the divine plan, as she puts God’s vision into action, with respect to her sphere of influence— that which is material. This hypothesis can be seen as analogous to the roles that exist in a given film production, where God would be the director, making all the creative decisions regarding the events that would take place in the plot of the movie, Fortuna would be one of the producers, ensuring the practical elements necessary to execute the director’s vision are carried out, and the mortals would be the very oblivious actors, going through with the scripted scenes. Within this hypothesis, both humans and Fortuna have no agency separate from God.
The tension between free will and predestination is not new in literature, as a strong parallel can be drawn between the above theory and the role of the crossroads in Sophocles’ play Oedipus the King. In Oedipus the King, there is this omnipresent tension between predestination and free will, which is physically represented by an event that comes from Oedipus recollecting his journey to Thebes. He recounts coming across a three-path crossroads, with the path he ended up travelling down resulting in the encounter and murder of a stranger who, unbeknownst to him, is his father. This seemingly random choice causes half of a prophecy to be materialised— the murder of his father— with the other half, which states that he will marry his own mother, to be shortly fulfilled as well. One could interpret the crossroads as evidence of there being a choice, and therefore free will, since Oedipus could have just as easily chosen one of the other two paths that would not cause the same end product. The other analysis of the crossroads that is more substantiated by the context of the entire plot is the opposite. Rather than depicting choice, it emphasises the complete absence of it. The crossroads create the illusion of free will, just so when the prophecy is fulfilled, there is no doubt that it was truly divinely predestined.
The parallel comparison between this hypothesis regarding Fortuna's role in the Inferno and the crossroads situation in Oedipus the King can most clearly and succinctly be put through the construction of a qualitative proportion in the following form— Oedipal Prophecy: Divine Predestination:: Crossroads Decision: Fortuna's Interventions.
Synoptically, Fortuna's role, according to the first hypothesis, is a delegate of God's power. As God's plan unfolds, she serves to ensure that the world is ordered such that the plan comes to pass without hesitation or injury.
The second hypothesis on the table is to regard Fortuna’s role to be that of ‘God’s Examiner of People’. This theory falls in line with the idiom: to give someone enough rope to hang themselves. Although it is rather morbid, it is representative of the kind of ethical and virtuous test that a change of fortunes administers. Fortuna provides people with the circumstances in which their strength of faith is put to the test— be they elevated to great riches or reduced to meek squalor, their piousness, virtue, and dedication to God are examined by her hand, insofar as she acts to change the background against which an individual’s morality can be observed. In the context of Inferno, she is the one to give mortals a test on their virtue, based on which the right place could be found for them in the appropriate circle of the Christian Hell.
This hypothesis pairs perfectly with the characterization of Fortuna's actions as being considerate rather than random, if contextualised by Virgil's notion of her acting at the "proper time". For what better interpretation of "proper time" could there be than to understand it as the moments in people's lives at which a test of piety and virtue would yield the most revealing results? Looking at this system holistically as it is laid out presents a combination of divine interference through Fortuna meddling with human affairs, but also the capacity of humans to act the way they choose in divinely created situations, determining the quality of their soul and place in the Christian afterlife. This would be a clear purpose for Fortuna, and it would align well with the deduction that the Christian God employs pagan deities other than herself to test mortals in other manners. We could speculate that these other deities or ‘intelligences’ might administer tests of other aspects of piety— of resistance against lust, their devotions to one’s word, or honesty— but what we know for certain is that Fortuna’s realm of mortal examination is the material.
Having outlined the two hypotheses that come to mind regarding how Fortuna fits into the human realm, specifically in terms of where and if free will has a place in the system, it follows that an arbitration regarding which of the two hypotheses is more probable in the afterlife created by Dante is necessary.
The first hypothesis of predestination and Fortuna being partners in crime would be a viable route to go if this paper was an exploration of any possible Christian structure rather than a focus on the Dantean Christian structure. Dante, the author, shows a rejection of determinism and a definite inclination toward there being a presence of free will. This stance is expressed extensively throughout the entirety of The Divine Comedy, but there is a particularly illustrative example that comes to mind that is located in Paradiso Canto III.
In Canto III, Beatrice and Dante have just entered the first sphere of Heaven, home to the soul of the nun Piccarda, whom Dante engages in conversation with. Piccarda explains she is in the lowest sphere of Heaven because she broke her oaths of celibacy by having been forced to marry, but she is happy with where she has been placed in Paradise. Dante seems hesitant in accepting that she is truly content with the sphere of Heaven she is in, asking her to confirm that she is happy with where she is or if she wishes she were in a higher sphere. Piccarda responds that she is indeed happy with where she is because it is where God wills her to be, and if she wills for something else, it would be inharmonious with God’s will which would cause discontent for the soul. The core reason for her happiness is that her will and God’s will have become one: “It is indeed the essence of this life that we keep ourselves within the divine will, so that our wills may be made one with his…” (Par. 3.79-80). Piccarda begins singing Ave Maria as her soul disappears from Dante’s sight. From this discourse, it is confirmed that there is the freedom to make choices and hence free will is demonstrably accepted in the Dantean world.
With it having been established that free will is integral to the Dantean Christian structure, the second hypothesis presented above of Fortuna being ‘God’s Examiner of People’, appears to be the more likely out of the two theories. Humans have the ability to make decisions within the circumstances created by the divine, whether it be Fortuna, or another deity, allowing there to be space for the implementation of choice and free will. Keeping in mind that paganism is an aspect of the Christian superstructure while reading Inferno brings forth more inquiries. Although these questions cannot be explored in-depth individually to the extent that they could and deserve to be, I will attempt to give some trajectory to possible future investigations.
One character gives rise to several questions: Virgil, the embodiment of a religious contradiction. Virgil is a resident of the first circle, Limbo, home to those who were alive and virtuous during a time in which paganistic religions were the only ones to adhere to, resulting in the punishment of possessing a desire for salvation without it ever being satisfied. One can make various arguments as to why Virgil’s soul is chosen to be Dante’s guide, such as him being well-versed in travel through the realms of the afterlife as seen in his Aeneid. However, a key question to raise is why does Virgil, a pagan, make a better escort through Hell than a Christian? If the purpose of Dante’s travel is for him to redirect his life to be on a virtuous path and inspire a sense of devotion to the Christian God, why does he not have a soul who has achieved a place in Paradise to guide him through all levels of the afterlife? When looking at those in Limbo, including Virgil, after having discussed the implications of Fortuna’s description, it can be posited that Virgil’s religious affiliation during his lifetime was not incorrect, but rather incomplete. Could one not apply the same sentiment to someone who devoted their mortal life only to the Christian God? Making a soul, such as Beatrice, is not an effective guide through Hell due to having insufficient knowledge about the pagan entities located there. Virgil’s pagan mortal life makes him the appropriate guide as it gives him the advantage of possessing a focused expertise on classical mythology that would be prevalent in his and Dante’s journey through Hell. If one continues to follow the presented line of logic, then this argument would add a practical reason as to why Virgil does not guide Dante through Paradise. In part, he cannot because his soul cannot enter Paradise as he has not earned a place there, but another aspect could be that he would also not be a suitable soul to help Dante through that level of the afterlife, as he has limited knowledge of it.
Having shown why Virgil, as a pagan, is the most appropriate guide through Hell, it is worth also questioning what it is that he actually does as a guide and how it relates to the dynamic between paganism and Christianity. The skill that Virgil appears to implement most frequently when he interacts with polytheistic entities in Hell is his talent for language. One could leave this thought at him having been a writer during his mortal life, but the content of what Virgil says that results in obedience from powerful mythical entities should be addressed. Virgil, without exception, uses the fact that God has willed Dante’s journey to assert power over not only creatures but also deities found in classical mythology. An example of this type of interaction occurs following the significant appearance of a pagan god that is seen by Virgil and Dante as they enter the fourth circle: Plutus, the Roman god of wealth. Canto VII opens with Plutus hailing Satan: “‘Papè Satan, papè Satan aleppé!’” (Inf. 7.1), Virgil reassures Dante that Plutus will not interfere with their journey. He proceeds to use his gift for language and tells Plutus that the journey has been willed by God, causing Plutus to fall to the ground. There are two notable inferences that can be made from this interaction that are relevant to the relationship between God and the pagan entities.
The first conclusion that can be drawn from this interaction is that God has the highest form of authority. By using God’s will as his main argument, Virgil is, in a sense, invoking God. This depiction of God’s power emphasises that although polytheism and monotheism in the Dantean model coexist, the Christian God is at the top of the hierarchy and has dominance over the pagan entities.
The second conclusion focuses on Plutus hailing Satan, and what this may say about the status of the pagan entities encountered in Hell. Rather than these polytheistic deities being dispersed throughout the three levels of the afterlife, they are all relegated to the lowest strata, which suggests that being an entity associated with polytheism demotes the status of that entity in a Christian structure, and perhaps functions as an indicator of their level of devotion to God. However, Fortuna allows for the possibility of there being a group of polytheistically-associated entities to be outliers. Fortuna does not have a place in the underworld but was created by God to serve as an examiner of mortal virtues on a material basis.
Creation itself is an underlying concept worth considering. Being that Inferno is a Christian text and that Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise exist within the scriptural framework, in spite of pagan elements, what role does divine creation play in understanding the relationships and rules Dante, the poet, presents?
This is worth considering because of some of the implications which arise if it is understood that the Christian God created everything. Even passing knowledge of Biblical stories or of the grand Christian narrative includes familiarity with the creation story, Genesis. In the beginning, God created all things, starting with Heaven and Earth, and following that he went on to shape the world as we know it. Being that God's role in the construction of the universe is so crucial that he is often referred to simply as "the Creator", it follows, from the Dantean perspective, that he created the pagan entities as well. Inferno makes it clear that pagan entities are, to some extent, divine, as exemplified by Fortuna's role as God's examiner and executor. This divine status of non-Christian entities is further supported by characters such as King Minos, the judge, and Charon, the ferryman.
The role of King Minos, who acts as a judge of souls at the entrance of the second circle of Hell, is to hear the sins of those who come before him and then determine their appropriate place in Hell. He indicates where they must go by wrapping his tail around them the same number of times as the circle they must go to. His key role in the administration of souls, specifically what punishment they receive, reaffirms the hypothesis that God delegates important powers to pagan entities, such as King Minos and, indeed, Fortuna.
The role of Charon the ferryman, as described in Canto III, is to ferry souls across the river Acheron, and into Hell. At first, Charon refuses passage to Dante, noting that good souls cannot enter Hell. Yet, by using his gift for language and stating that their journey is willed by God, Virgil compels Charon to let them through. Again, this bolsters the idea that all pagan and semi-divine entities obediently serve God, as God’s name, when invoked by Virgil, causes them to act in accordance with God’s will.
With both the examples of Minos and Charon, the author Dante makes adaptations to their roles so they are compatible with them being in a Christian Hell. Minos in Greek mythology assists Hades in making judgments, Dante makes him a servant of the Christian God, organising sinners based on God’s religious orders. Rather than transporting souls to the Underworld as he would in Greek mythology, Charon takes them to Hell. The adaptations and appropriations of mythological entities that Dante chooses to make aid to further reconcile the apparent tension between monotheism and polytheism. By subsuming the polytheistic deities and characters into the Christian narrative of God being the “Creator” of everything, including them, he legitimises their role in the Christian afterlife. The clever work done by Dante to integrate polytheistic mythology into a monotheistic world is, perhaps, an indication of the extent to which Dante had an affinity for the antiquities.
This potential insight into Dante’s thinking transitions us into another area worthy of further exploration: what does the interconnectedness between Christian monotheism and pagan polytheism suggest about Dante the author? The line drawn between the poet and the pilgrim is thin and muddled, but it would not be a far-fetched suggestion to make that the author holds a certain level of respect for the antiquities, exemplified by his comparing himself to Greek and Roman poets as a way of elevating his own status as a writer. He holds the old and classical in high regard, a part of which, undeniably, was pagan. Could his admiration of the classics be a motive for him to create a Christian structure that allows for there to be Greco-Roman influence? To be sure, both in Inferno and every other work of literature, analysing the text itself is concomitant with attempting to understand the author who wrote it.
The Christian structure can almost be seen as a pedigree chart, with the one and only God on top, branching off into his “intelligences'', which includes Fortuna, and whoever the other “gods” that Virgil references are. Fortuna is a deity in her own right, but her power is given by and through God, functioning as an extension of him. Considering that she is a pagan entity and representative of a larger host of similar beings, as well as the rules which govern their relationships with God, Fortuna serves as a singular lens through which we can shift our perspective of Inferno. By understanding Fortuna and her role in the narrative, the work is transformed from a literary iteration of Hell filled with arbitrary, contradictory, and confusing figures to a carefully curated feat of syncretism. Dante, whether due to merely having a binding affinity to the Gods and mythology of the Classical Era, or as an effort to inform his contemporaries of the extent of the Greco-Roman culture they had inherited, produced a unifying poem. He linked the literary, philosophical, and narrative elements of polytheism and monotheism into one— Fortuna bridged the resulting— and potentially fatal— tensions and gaps of that disjointed whole to form a cohesive masterpiece.
Comments