Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Corey Gruber's avatar

“Like a flower / plucked in its prime — / ah, this world! / Dew falls, yet / morning glory blooms anew”…“Like dew I came, like dew I go.” — Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–1598)

I was gently chided by a fellow reader a while ago about my comments not drawing on sources outside the Western canon. Noted. We are of course studying “il Sommo Poeta” in the culture in which he’s entrenched, but comparing and contrasting poeta doctus (learned poets) cross-culturally can only deepen our admiration for how they apply decidedly different perspectives to treat universal human themes.

Having spent years in Japan, I found fascinating parallels between Dante and Japanese poets of pre-feudal Japan. On the surface, the two cultures and their poetry appear radically different, which makes discovering similarities all the more striking. I claim no expertise in either genre, but found comparing poetic modes of representation illuminating.

Why choose Canto XVII as the cross-cultural laboratory? Because it evokes the universal pathos of a confrontation with personal destiny.

Dante learns his future before living it; his acceptance is a moving, heroic moment. He steels himself not with resignation, but with serene acquiescence. He, the “party of one,” does not wallow in despair, but instead centers on his divine mission as the counterbalance to seemingly unbearable personal loss. Canto XVII is a profound moral milestone; he says “Thy will be done” to his own crucifixion, echoing Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane: “Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Thine be done.” (Luke 22:42)

How does his resolve compare with another poet’s cosmic framing and cultural grammar about destiny? Compare the Heian poet Ariwara no Narihira’s (825–880 CE) acceptance with Dante’s:

“I have always known

That at last I would

Take this road, but yesterday

I did not know that it would be today.”

Here’s a poet from a syncretic religious environment (blending Shinto and Buddhism) beautifully depicting destiny, impermanence, life’s cyclical nature, and the inevitability of change. We have two poignant depictions that transcend cultures, even though the worldly focus of Shinto, and focus on the afterlife in Buddhism are profoundly different from Christianity's exclusive focus on salvation through God and Jesus.

Why Narihira? He reminds me of Dante. He was a Japanese courtier and waka (“short poem”) poet of the early Heian period. He too navigated a turbulent personal life (he was downgraded to a commoner due to his father’s involvement in a failed coup!). He experienced exile, composed passionate poetry centered on love, and achieved enduring fame (He was named one of the Rokkasen ["six poetry immortals"] of the mid-ninth century.) Both were writing for similarly educated and elite audiences.

Of course similarities can be superficial. Dante’s world was politically fractured medieval Italy, while Narihira inhabited the refined, aesthetic-driven court of Heian Japan. Dante’s direct knowledge of East Asia would have been extremely limited. He would have been aware of something called “Cathay” (China), but his understanding would have been vague, mythical, and secondhand. He likely knew of Marco Polo’s stories (“Marco Polo’s Travels” was written in the late 13th century.) He would have had no knowledge of Japan. Similarly, Narihira, in Japan’s early Heian period (794–1185), would not have known of Europe’s existence. Japan’s 9th century worldview was deeply insular; intellectual and cultural influences flowed almost exclusively from Tang China, Korea, and India (via Buddhism). The known world was framed as “Tenjiku” (India), “Kara” (China/Korea), and peripheral barbarian lands. Chinese records from the Han dynasty vaguely mentioned “Daqin”, a distant western empire often interpreted as Rome. It appeared in historical texts as a distant, utopian counterpart to China, wealthy, civilized, and morally superior, yet with legendary and fantastical elements due to second- or third-hand reports of Parthian, Indian, and Central Asian intermediaries.

In spite of these differences, perhaps, just perhaps, these two poets are “brothers of a different mother,” as the colloquialism goes: they may be separated by almost 400 years, but hear the echo of the pilgrim’s dark woods in Narihira’s verses:

My heart, clouded
with confusion—
How could I
lose my way
on the road out of the capital?

What would happen if we put them in the same room (with translation)? Would Dante see only a perfumed pagan, and Narihira a wild-eyed barbarian? Nay nay; I for one believe they’d be finishing each other’s sentences in a matter of minutes. Two supreme poets, however alien their cultures, would realize they have met their equal and they have been riding the same human circuity.

No posts

Ready for more?