"Love follows knowledge."
"Beauty above all beauty!"
– St. Catherine of Siena

Showing posts with label Allegory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allegory. Show all posts

Thursday, June 4, 2026

LotR, The Fellowship of the Ring, Post 1

I am starting a new series of posts on J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, hereby the acronym, LotR.  As you may know, the LotR is divided into three volumes, each a novel length work in itself.  It is a modern day epic, and some call it the greatest novel of the 20th century.  I would not go that far, but it is a great work.  The three volumes go under the titles, The Fellowship of the Ring (Vol I), The Two Towers (Vol II), and The Retrurn of the King (Vol III). 

The LotR became a recurring read at my Goodreads Catholic Thought Book Club.  A recurring read is a book that is too long for one group read, and so broken down into segments.  We read one segment, pause to read other books in a cycle of genres, and when the cycle returns to the recurring read we pick up where we left off for another segment.  The natural divisions of the LotR made it natural to read a volume for each segment.  Last year we read The Fellowship of the Ring.  The posts that come out for this volume came out of that discussion.  We are currently reading The Two Towers, and eventually I will be posting those discussions.  I expect the discussions for The Return of the King may be ready for posting next year.  The series of posts will be linked to each volume of the trilogy. 

 


Introduction

It’s hard to write an introduction on The Lord of the Rings.  Everyone has either read it, saw the movie, or heard people talking about it.  Heck, it’s referenced even in a few of Led Zeppelin songs, most famously in “Ramble On.”  

 

I ain't tellin' no lie

Mine's a tale that can't be told

My freedom I hold dear

How years ago in days of old

When magic filled the air

T'was in the darkest depths of Mordor

I met a girl so fair

But Gollum and the evil one

Crept up and slipped away with her

Her, her, yeah

Ain't nothing I can do, no

 

The song doesn’t really have much to do with LotR, but the allusion to Mordor is fascinating.  I remember hearing the song as a teen before I had heard of LotR, and the allusion certainly went over my head.  Allusions to LotR are in a number of Zeppelin songs: “Ramble On,” “Stairway to Heaven,” “Misty Mountain Hop,” “The Battle of Evermore,” and “Bron-Y-Aur.” 

 

When one of the greatest and most popular rock bands, who’s morals and themes are hardly in line with that of J.R.R. Tolkien, has a love of LotR, it is evident that the cultural influence of LotR is deep and wide.

As an introduction, I’m not going to highlight the story.  What I’m going to provide can certainly be found on the internet, but I am mostly going by a biography I read last year on Tolkien, Tolkien, Man and Myth: A Literary life by Joseph Pearce.  It’s a good bio and I recommend it.

The background Tolkien provides in the Prologue—that is, that the story is a sequel to Tolkien’s previous work, The Hobbit, and that the story is part of a prehistory where the earth is in a stage in time called “Middle-Earth,” where humanoids called hobbits, elves, dwarves, and several other categorizations, including men, lived upon the earth.  As I write that, some doubt on that sentence enters my mind.  I’m not exactly sure Tolkien considers all those categories humanoids.  I will go with that until proven otherwise, but the story is certainly fantastic.

The novel is considered a fantasy novel, but it is also considered an epic.  It fits the form of ancient epics, and it’s scope is most certainly vast and epic!  The novel starts as a quest, utilizes the narrative form of a journey, and before the end is achieved a war between forces of good and evil rages around the questing hero.  There are struggles against outer forces and there are internal struggles within many of the characters, especially Frodo, the questing hero.  The continuity with the predecessor book is explained early.  Bilbo Baggins, a hobbit from the shire, on an adventure of his own some sixty years prior finds a magic ring that allows the wearer of the ring to become invisible.  Suffice it to say Bilbo returns prosperous from his adventures and lives a comfortable life in the shire.  But in his old age and with coming death he gives the ring to his nephew Frodo.  In time Frodo learns of the danger associated with the ring and is asked to dispose of it.  We’ll get into these details as the novel unfolds.

###

Kerstin Comment:

We'll encounter a lot of geography reading this book. Both hardcopies and electronic versions of the book contain at least the Middle Earth map, and maybe even the Shire segment, though they may be hard to read. On my ancient kindle maps are worthless. Last time I read the book l printed out various segments, though I don't remember the exact websites. There is plenty online. An interesting one is an interactive map where you can map out the journeys of the various characters.

My Reply to Kerstin:

Thanks Kerstin. That's quite amazing. It will probably take me weeks to figure out how to interact with the map.

###

J.R.R. Tolkien

The author’s biography is pertinent to this work.  Here are some raw facts.  John Ronald Reuel (J.R.R.) Tolkien was born in 1892 in what I think now is South Africa.  His father was a bank manager there and married Mabel, who had come out be with him, in the Anglican Church.  JRR’s younger brother Hilary was also born in that same region of South Africa, but because of JRR’s health, Mabel took the children back to England, outside the city of Birmingham, in 1896.  That same year, the father dies in South Africa, leaving Mabel impoverished trying to sustain two small boys.  She received help from several of her and her husband’s family members.

Mabel and her sister became interested in Catholicism, and both converted in 1900, taking along her two boys.  There was a huge push back from their families, and Mabel’s sister was forced to abandon her new faith by her husband.  Mabel refused to leave Catholicism, and most of the financial help she was getting from her family was stopped.  She really struggled and fought for her faith, and this left a strong impression on JRR.  Because she did not have the money to send her boys to school and because she was herself apparently well educated (she could speak four languages including Latin) she became the primary educator of her boys.  JRR’s love of languages must have had its source from his mother. 

Mabel moved to Birmingham to be closer to a Catholic Church, and it was there the family became friends with Fr. Francis Xavier Morgan.  The contrast between the country life outside of Birmingham and the city life inside of the city also made a strong impression on Tolkien.  He hated the city with its trams, busy street life, smoking factories, and railroads.  All of Tolkien’s life he would despise automobiles. 

In 1903 Mabel died from what appears to be complications of diabetes.  So at the age of eleven, JRR and his brother, a couple of years younger, were left orphans.  They were taken in by Fr. Francis, who Mabel had made sure would prevent her and her husband’s families from taking away their Catholicism.  Fr. Francis turned out to be a very good foster father to the boys, encouraging their learning, their faith, and their development.  The boys helped in the church, and so learned their faith very well. 



In 1909 JRR met a young lady, Edith, who was three years older, and fell in love.  Tolkien was only eighteen at the time, and this was a big issue for Fr. Francis who refused to allow JRR to pursue this relationship.  As far as I can tell, it was strictly because Fr. Francis felt JRR was not old enough to be in a romantic relationship.  He forbid JRR to pursue it and forced him to break it off until JRR was legally independent at the age of twenty-one.  JRR honorably did as he was ordered, but upon immediately turning twenty-one, re-located Edith (in 1913) and asked to resume the relationship.  She happened to now be involved with another man, but she broke that off and returned to JRR.  Despite anger from her family, she converted to Catholicism in 1914.

JRR was also now in college at Oxford, and they put marriage off until he could be stably employed, but then the Great War (WWI) had started.  Upon completing his degree in 1915, Tolkien enlisted in the Army and married Edith in 1916.  He saw action at the front throughout this time.  Many of his friends were killed in the war.  Late in 1916 he contracted Trench Fever, a disease transmitted by lice and was sent home as an invalid.  Trench Fever is a recurring bacterial infection, and apparently it led to Tolkien being emaciated.  He remained invalid for the remainder of the war.

His marriage was by all accounts a good marriage.  They had four children: John (b. 1917), Michael (1920), Christopher (1924), and Priscilla (1929).  He became a professor of philology and literature, a translator, a scholar of ancient works, a writer of stories, novels, and poetry.  He was a college professor at several universities, most notably Oxford.  At Oxford he became friends with C. S. Lewis, and was instrumental in Lewis’s conversion from atheism to Christianity.  The two with other literary professors at Oxford formed a group called the Inklings where they met twice weekly and shared their ideas and writings.  I’m reminded of a story of Tolkien reading from his drafts of LotR, and one of the Inklings, Hugo Dyson, an important Shakespeare scholar, who in the middle of Tolkien reading blurted out, “Oh no, not another [expletive] elf!”

Tolkien published The Hobbit in 1937.  He said he wrote it as a children’s book for his children.  He, and many others, distinguish the narrative between The Hobbit and LotR by stipulating that the former is a children’s book while LotR is an adult book.  Frankly I can’t tell the difference.  As far as I’m concerned, The Hobbit can be read as adult story, and the LotR can be and is enjoyed by many children.  I don’t know what makes one a children’s book and one an adult.  The Hobbit is a finely crafted book with subtle themes, superbly structured, and great character insights.  I’ve said in the past that I thought The Hobbit was the greater novel, but I’m looking forward to being persuaded otherwise in this read.

###

Patrick Comment:

WWI affected Tolkien tremendously. Reading about his wartime experience helped me understand LOTR better. Courage is a major theme.



Ellie Comment:

Thank you for the introduction, Manny, it was super interesting! Earlier this year I read a spiritual biography called Tolkien's Faith by Holly Ordway and I definitely recommend that to everybody here, it was amazing to learn how Tolkien's faith had evolved and how it shaped his stories, too.

My Reply to Ellie:

Oh I know of Holly Ordway. I read her biographical, conversion story Not God's Type: An Atheist Academic Lays Down Her Arms. I thought I wrote a review for Goodreads, but apparently I forgot. In fact I don't even have it marked as read. I will have to update that. It was a good read and I recommend it. 

###

What can we say about LotR as a work?  It was written over an extended time period, from 1936 to 1949.  World War II certainly had a hand in inspiration of the work, as well as Tolkien’s experience in the First World War.  Tolkien insisted that the work was not “allegorical nor topical.”  Tolkien states in the introduction his intention.


The prime motive was the desire of a tale-teller to try his hand at a really long story that would hold the attention of readers, amuse them, delight them, and at times maybe excite them or deeply move them.

It should be noted that Tolkien despised allegory, and he did not like most of the fiction of his friend C. S. Lewis, who’s Narnia Chronicles rely on allegory.  That statement of intention is a statement of the pure aesthetics of fiction.  Tolkien first and foremost wants to tell a story of epic proportions.  In this epic narrative, the author creates several languages, a prehistory to humanity, a geography of an earth prior to the current continental positions, and a world populated with different humanoids and fantastical creatures.  It really is epic in proportion.



Though Tolkien states there is no allegory, it’s very hard not to spot some.  “Middle-Earth” is suggestive of Middle English, a time period before the modern.  A war takes place in LotR which seems to be analogous to either of the World Wars.  The fellowship of the central characters seems to suggest Tolkien’s biographical Inklings.  The history of Middle-Earth seems to parody prehistorical movements.  The hobbit shire life seems analogous to small town country English life, current and past.  The various classes of humanoids seem to suggest an analogy to racial differences between actual humans.  Tolkien insisted that there was not a racial component to the book, and I believe him in the sense of the negative associations with race.  The racial component I think should be associated with linguistic family groups such as Germanic, Slavic, Romance languages.  I think—and I’m just speculating—that Tolkien’s philological knowledge of language groups inspired him to create imagined, similar humanoid groups.  Perhaps Tolkien might dispute my speculations.  Here is his statement on use of analogy.

 

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.

Perhaps I am confusing “applicability” with allegory, but I don’t know what he means by that and he never explains it.  While what I perceive as allegory in LotR is not a strong corresponding allegory (there are levels of allegorical correspondence), I still perceive some.  Frankly this subtle allegory I think helps the novel, and perhaps is what he means by “applicability.”  Perhaps we are in some agreement.

Some of the themes we will see is good versus evil, the power of evil to disorder our inner being, the fellowship between friends, the simplicity of rural life, and the richness of folklore of common folk.  I think LotR is part of the folkloric Renaissance and artistic movements that began with Romanticism in the 19th century and has blossomed since then.  Indeed, Tolkien in LotR uses folklore and creates the folklore of the characters in a way that is truly remarkable.  I personally am not so interested in the fantasy aspect of the novel, but I captivated by the folkloric elements, taken from real life and imagined. 

I’m sure there is more to point out, and I look forward to discussing them, but we need to leave the introduction here.

I hope that’s a satisfactory introduction. 

###

Kelly’s Comment:

I read somewhere that CS Lewis also denied that the Narnia books used allegory. For some reason the idea of one's works containing allegory suggests putting limits on what the reader might experience? Which I take as using the term applicability -- the way in which you can read something and I can read something and both go away with something different.

And you're right Manny, this is my (at least) fifth reading of this series, PLUS having seen the movies several times, and still I come away with something new each time!

I am using my old set of physical books, which I have to turn pages very gingerly. I got the Kindle version as backup, haha.

Happy reading!

Bruce’s Reply to Kelly:

That depends on how you define allegory. If CS Lewis did say that Narnia was not allegory, maybe it was because he saw the allusions in Narnia as so obvious that it was like hitting the reader in the head with a 2X4.

My Reply to Kelly:

Well, there is a stronger level allegory in the Narnia books than LotR. I understand Tolkien's point about over use of allegory. I think Tolkien's dislike is just a little quirky on this. Great works of literature have used allegory. Dante's Divine Comedy, the greatest. Gawain and the Green Knight, which Tolkien translated from the Middle English, has strong levels of allegory. Why Tolkien dislikes allegory is there at the end of the quote I put up; he dislikes the "domination of the author." Yes, as you point out, allegory forces the reader to a particular way of reading, and Tolkien prefers a multiplicity of way of reading a book.

 

Funny you should mention old hardcopy books. I too am reading from my old hardcopy from some forty years ago. It was read twice, so not as flimsy as yours but it's still delicate. To my surprise, I had no notes inside the book. It was from so long ago it was before I started writing notes in the pages. I always do that now, and I am now writing notes in this old hardcopy!

Frances’s Comment:

There’s a lovely, informative video on You Tube which adds color to the story of Tolkien, LOTR and Tolkien’s role in leading C.S. Lewis to Christianity. The video is only 13 minutes long. Just Google: You Tube, “On the Power of Fiction, Tolkien, Lewis.”

         

 

Michelle’s Comment:

Word on Fire has an article today on The Fellowship of the Ring.

My Reply to Michelle:

That really is a good article. “Celebrating the Epochal Publication of “The Fellowship of the Ring” 70 Years On” by Holly Ordway.  The relinquishing of power as the central theme. Yes, I had not thought about it in that way before, and it is spot on. Thank you Michelle.  Here is an excerpt:

 

According to Eugene Vinaver, Tolkien once said that “his typical response upon reading a medieval work was to desire not so much to make a philological or critical study of it as to write a modern work in the same tradition.”4 Tolkien was not an antiquarian whose eye is forever fixed on his rearview mirror, but a translator who looks both ahead and behind, aiming to preserve the best that history had to offer by making it accessible to contemporary readers. And to achieve that translation, he had to know both languages, as it were—tongues ancient and modern.

###

What I hope to do from here is go one to three chapters at a time, give a chapter summary, provide my thoughts on the chapters, and provide pertinent discussion of the book that happened at the book club.  I aim to put out a post per week.  Stay tuned.

 


Monday, January 22, 2018

Comments, Inferno, Cantos I thru V

These are my comments from the Good reads discussion on Inferno.  All quotes come from the Hollander and Hollander translation, unless otherwise noted.

I’m not sure where to start with comments. I could write an essay on something in all those Cantos.  My first thought is to try to minimize, if not dispel the notion that much in the Comedia works as allegory.  Allegory is a device where a character or event stands for an abstract notion.  Dante can be said to stand for “everyman,” Virgil for wisdom, and say Beatrice for virtue.  This was common practice in many medieval works and even going into the Renaissance.  Edmund Spencer’s The Fairy Queen is a late example where an epic work actually carried this one for one allegory.  But other than at the beginning of The Divine Comedy, this sort of simple allegory falls apart in Dante’s work.  The characters are three dimensional.  Dante isn’t an “everyman” but a specific man, a poet, a Florentine who has been exiled, someone in love with a specific woman.  Same thing with Virgil.  He may be wise but he’s not an abstract “wisdom.”  He’s the ancient Roman poet from the city of Mantua who died before Christ and so was a pagan.  Despite the fantastical premise of passing through the world of the hereafter, Dante’s work is a highly crafted realism, way ahead of its time.

Take the three beasts in the first Canto, the leopard, the lion, and the she-wolf.  Unless your notes went into a lot of detail, it probably listed a simple allegory of the leopard standing for lust, the lion for pride, and the she-wolf for greed.  Hollander goes through the history of varying opinions.  At times the leopard was believed to stand for envy instead of lust; other times, incontinence.  The lion has been thought as standing for violence or even malice.  The she-wolf for mad brutishness or fraud.  Then there are those that have read the three beasts as representing Dante’s human enemies: the leopard for the Florentines who exiled him, the lion for the royal house of France, and the she-wolf for the papacy.  All possible.

So what do they stand for?  In my opinion those beasts stand for all those things, envy, lust, avarice, brutishness.  Why would a leopard be less brutish than a she-wolf, or a she-wolf less violent than a lion?  Notice in Canto II there are three ladies that come to Dante’s aid: the Blessed Mother, St. Lucy, and Beatrice.  The three ladies directly correspond to the three beasts, and yet we don’t look for some sort of abstract meaning behind those three ladies.  It’s the three ladies whose virtue is there to counteract the appetite of the three beasts.

Hollander in his introduction has an interesting section of allegory, and without quoting him I think supports what I say above.  He goes on, however, to distinguish that simple allegory I described above with what he calls theological allegory.  I had never heard the term before, but apparently it traces back to Thomas Aquinas.  Theological allegory is where a figure in one part of the bible runs parallel to another.  Christ for instance can be thought of as the new Adam, or the new Moses; Mary as the new Eve, and so on.  I always called that typology, and I guess it does have a certain allegorical connection.  Hollander doesn’t explain in the introduction how Dante uses theological allegory; perhaps that will come later.  Now let me speculate on the first two cantos: could the three blessed ladies be typologies for the three beasts in the first canto?  That might be so.

But what I do what to emphasize again how The Divine Comedy is a work of great realism, way ahead of its time.  Hollander also points out the skilled use of point of view.  Notice how complex it is.  We have the point of view of Dante the writer, who stands back knowing all that has transpired; we have the point of view of Dante the character who is undergoing the journey for the first time and is almost completely ignorant; we have the point of view of the person who comments on the situations – the guides – in this case Virgil who understands partially but is not in on everything, and we have the point of view of the souls encountered, many of which have a different point of view than their reality, the unreliable narrator, if you will.  All oif this happening simultaneously.  Modern fiction has nothing on Dante.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the most interesting set of lines are those inscribed above the gate of hell. 

1          THROUGH ME THE WAY TO THE CITY OF WOE,
2          THROUGH ME THE WAY TO EVERLASTING PAIN,
3          THROUGH ME THE WAY AMONG THE LOST.
4          JUSTICE MOVED MY MAKER ON HIGH.
5          DIVINE POWER MADE ME,
6          WISDOM SUPREME, AND PRIMAL LOVE.
7          BEFORE ME NOTHING WAS BUT THINGS ETERNAL,
 8         AND ETERNAL I ENDURE.
9          ABANDON ALL HOPE, YOU WHO ENTER HERE. (III. l. 1-9)

The first three lines beginning with “Through me…” are what the dead soul expects to find when entering.  The seventh and eighth lines speak to its eternalness, and the last line is a command to the entering soul that his time for change is over.  But the middle three lines (4-6) are possibly the most intellectually rich:  “Justice moved my maker on high/Divine Power made me/Wisdom supreme and primal love.”  Line four is a statement of why God created hell – for justice.  Line five is a statement of who made hell, and line six is a modifying phrase to why He made it.  If you were to write the sentence out it would look like this, “Divine Power made me, wisdom supreme and primal love.”  If you were to replace the comma and use a prepositional phrase, it would go like this: “Divine Power made me through wisdom and primal love.”  So there are three abstract qualities that caused God to create hell: justice, wisdom, and love. 

Now that’s how I read it, but Hollander in his notes seems to read the fifth and sixth lines differently.  He doesn’t read “wisdom supreme and primal love” are not modifying the predicate but the subject.  If he were to write it in a prose sentence it might be, “Divine Power, wisdom, and love made me."  Under Hollander’s logic then the three attributes of God are power, wisdom, and love and justice is the means of which things were created.  He supports his argument by citing St. Augustine as attributing those three to the Trinity. 

Now I don’t think that’s how it should be read.  I’m not saying that St. Augustine is wrong, but I think Dante is creating his own Trinitarian attributes of justice, wisdom, and love.  Power it seems to me is the acting force that creates as a result of the attributes.  But take my brain noodling here with a grain of salt.  Hollander is a PhD with a expertise in Dante with scores of experience. 

Now I bring this up because embedded in those words are the themes that apply to all of The Divine Comedy.  Everything in the poem works in concordance with justice, wisdom, and love.  Now come down a few lines from the words on the gate to where Virgil is explaining to Dante what they are about to get into.  He says, “We have come to where I said/you would see the miserable sinners/who have lost the good of the intellect” (16-18).  Those in hell are there because they have misused their intellect in their application of justice, wisdom, and love.  But this will also go beyond hell.  It can be said that those in purgatory are there to repair (or perhaps relearn may be more accurate) their use of intellect, and those in heaven are there because they properly used their intellect.

It’s all very highly condensed, but the themes of the entire Comedia are there in the first eighteen lines of the third Canto.

Amanda Commented:
I wonder if this comes down to a matter of translation. Longfellow and Musa both use "Omnipotence" instead of "power."

From Longfellow, the lines read" Justice incited my sublime Creator; Created me divine Omnipotence, The highest Wisdom and primal Love." So for me, that translation indicates the creation of hell by the Trinity.

But your argument for justice, wisdom and love is also interesting. It seems (to me at least) that you can argue that God the Father represents justice based off the old Testament. From there, it would be the Trinity working together in Divine Power to create Hell.

My Reply:
Hi Amanda, thanks for commenting. I think what you present there was one of the variations Hollander listed that at one time or another was brought up. I find the allegory concerning the three ladies that Musa and Grandgent advance as even less satisfying. Can't Mary be Illuminating Grace or Revelation? Can't Beatrice be Divine Mercy or Illuminating Grace? Yes, I know Lucia means "light" but then why is it illuminating grace and not illuminating wisdom? It all seems so arbitrary.

I am definitely sold on Hollander's "Biblical allegory," which I consider typology, rather than simple (literary?) allegory. The difference between Dante's The divine Comedy and Spencer's The Fairy Queen is immense. You can pin down the allegory in Spencer; you can't pin down the allegory in Dante.

Dante's technique of these triple analogues that run throughout the work is incredibly rich. It almost replicates the mystery of the Trinity! I may say this a dozen times before we finish the read, this is the greatest work of literature.

Longfellow:
"Justice incited my sublime Creator; Created me divine Omnipotence, The highest Wisdom and primal Love."

Hollander:
“Justice moved my maker on high/Divine Power made me/Wisdom supreme and primal love.”

Look at the difference! If you have an ear for poetry, the Longfellow is stilted. All I can say is "yuck." The Hollander just rolls so fluidly, and it never sacrifices accuracy. Notice the alliteration with the "m" words. I make it a habit to compare translations, and I have not found anything better than the Hollander duo. God bless Jean Hollander, she was the poet of the two.

Yes, power or omnipotence is an ability; justice, wisdom, and love are qualities. Even in college I was not afraid to disagree with PhD's. ;)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One other thing I wanted to examine was this fainting that Dante has at the closing of two out of the last three cantos.  Twice in the very first five cantos.  For those reading this for the first time, I hope you don't think this is going to be a regular routine, that this is some melodrama.  I don't remember if it happens again.  I have an inkling that it happens one more time, but I'm not sure.  Let's take a look at the two occurrences in some detail.

In Canto III, Dante the character has been led into the underworld, read the sign which warned his to "abandon all hope" for those that enter, come through the pre-circle of the Neutrals where for the first time he is seeing mass numbers of dead souls walking about, even recognizing some, realizing now that "death had undone so many."  Here's what he actually reports:

Now sighs, loud wailing, lamentation
resounded through the starless air,
so that I too began to weep.
Unfamiliar tongues, horrendous accents,
words of suffering, cries of rage, voices
loud and faint, the sound of slapping hands --
all these made a tumult, always whirling
in that black and timeless air,
as sand is swirled in a whirlwind.  (III. l. 22-30)

That's pretty horrific and oppressive to the senses.  I'm sure we would all be rattled, even if it were not in the world of the dead.  But then Dante comes up on the demon ferry driver Acheron who tells him and the souls around him "to give up all hope of ever seeing heaven."  Despite that he's reassured by Virgil, board the boat along with all the dead, and before landing on the other side thunder claps.

When he [Virgil] had ended [speaking], the gloomy plain shook
with such force, the memory of my terror
makes me again break out in sweat.
From the weeping ground there sprang a wind,
flaming with vermilion light,
which overmastered all my senses,
and I dropped like a man pulled down by sleep. (III. l. 130-36)

It seems that thunder is so loud that the concussion causes him to drop, or perhaps it's the terror which rises to a crescendo and overcomes him.  Either way, his sense, which have been on edge, have been overwhelmed.

Now let's look at the faint in Canto V.  The pilgrims (Virgil and Dante) are in the first circle where the sinners of lust reside.  This is one of the great and memorable scenes in Inferno.  Dante, after seeing some famous souls in literature and being moved to "pity" so that he almost loses his "senses," comes across the souls of Francesca and her lover Paolo, and asks to hear their tale.  Francesca is more than willing to tell her story.  (By the way, that's a common attribute of most of the souls in hell; they want to tell their story and spin it to how they were either wronged or were trapped into it.)  So Francesca says,

'Love, quick to kindle in the gentle heart,
seized this man with the fair form taken from me.
The way of it afflicts me still.
'Love, which absolves no one beloved from loving,
seized me so strongly with his charm that,
as you see, it has not left me yet.
'Love brought us to one death. (V. l. 100-106)

Notice how she offloads responsibility from herself.  Nixon spoke of Watergate as "mistakes were made," as if he had nothing to do with it.  It's "love" that "seized this man," and "love" that seized her, love that "absolves no one beloved from loving."   Did love make them take off their clothes and do what they did?  How different is the love that Francesca talks about than the love that moved the three ladies in Canto II to come to Dante’s aid.  That chain sequence of love really does show how love moves the universe, but that is true love, caritas, not lust. 

But why does Dante the character faint?  Francesca goes on to explain further.   

'One day, to pass the time in pleasure,
we read of Lancelot, how love enthralled him.
We were alone, without the least misgiving.
'More than once that reading made our eyes meet
and drained the color from our faces.
Still, it was a single instant overcame us:
'When we read how the longed-for smile
was kissed by so renowned a lover, this man,
who never shall be parted from me,
'all trembling, kissed me on my mouth.
A Galeotto was the book and he that wrote it.
That day we read in it no further.'  (V. l. 127-38)

The book made them do it.  The “book and he that wrote it” was a “Galeotto,” who was the knight go-between in the adultery between Lancelot and Guenivere.  The book and the author were in essence pimps.  And what is Dante?  Among other things, an author of love poetry, a pimp himself.  Dante realizes he has been responsible for bringing people to sin.  What he must have thought as innocent youthful expression has brought people down the very real hell that he is passing through.  And so, this realization shocks him, and he faints from the horror.


Notice also this comes right after Canto IV where he has been immortalized with five of the greatest poets who ever lived.  That was a moment of high honor – some variation of the word “honor” was used seven times in 28 lines.  And now in Canto V, all that honor has been reduced to the disgrace of a pimp.  It’s as if Dante the author needs to bring humility to Dante the character.