Reinterpreting Alighieri’s Theory of Interpretation

In Dante Aligheiri’s Il Convivio he posits the existence of four levels of exposition to any given piece of literature. These four levels or “senses” (249) include the literal, the allegorical, the moral and the anagogical, respectively. He explains that within a text, the literal refers to its apparent meaning, the allegorical to a text’s hidden or veiled reality, the moral to the principle it teaches, and the anagogical to that which relates “beyond the senses” (250) or a text’s spiritual message. Furthermore, he states that “the explication of the literal sense is the foundation of the others, especially the allegorical” (250). He asserts “the literal should always come first, as being the sense in whose meaning the others are enclosed and without which it would be impossible and illogical to attend to the other senses” (250). Although Alighieri’s theory is appropriate to many polysemous works, it does not apply universally to all forms of literature. Furthermore, his belief that literature comprises four levels of meaning is presumptuous. To prove this point, one can take a secular poem and apply his theory to show how it does not follow his logic. For example, looking at William Blake’s “My Pretty Rose Tree,” one can see how certain poetical texts do not comply with Alighieri’s theory, either because the literal does not lead to the allegorical meaning, or because the text does not contain four “senses” within it. Thus, good literary analysis is not contingent upon Alighieri’s theory, though he contends otherwise.

William Blake’s poem “My Pretty Rose Tree,” clearly illustrates the inaccuracy of Alighieri’s conviction that the literal sense must be conceived before the allegorical can be conceived . While it is correct to say one should understand the literal sense, it is not correct to say it must be understood or that it is the foundation for every level of interpretation. Blake’s text proves this point. For example, the idea of a rose tree being jealous or turning away from a person is not something one can understand literally. Why and how would a rose tree turn away from someone? What could this mean literally? One does not know from a literal understanding. Contrary to Alighieri’s theory, Blake leaves the reader with a semi-ambiguous understanding of the literal meaning in order to move them to think on an allegorical level and thus allow them to comprehend the text’s meaning. In other words, by encouraging the reader to seek the allegorical sense, the poem’s literal, moral or anagogical senses become more apparent. To apply this idea, think allegorically of what is happening to this man in the poem. Envision this man meeting a fair damsel whom he greatly desires, yet refuses because he is faithful to his cruel though beautiful wife. And his wife, knowing of this other woman, becomes jealous and treats him all the worse for it. Returning again to the literal sense, one can say a man is given the chance to possess a very rare and precious flower which he denies because he has a rose tree which he is devoted to although it pricks him with its thorns. Note how there is no resolution given to the jealous tree quandary. This is because the reader does not have to understand the literal meaning of this poem. It is there to move the reader into the allegorical sense where they can then understand the author’s intent of the poem. From this, Blake shows how Alighieri’s literal theory of interpretation is incorrect. The literal meaning is not the foundation from which one understands the text’s meaning, nor is it necessary that the literal sense be always comprehensive.

The second point to argue against Alighieri is his idea that all works contain four areas of exposition. Here, again, Blake shows otherwise. This poem does not contain all four meanings within it. It has a semi-literal, an allegorical and a moral sense, but not an anagogical. The literal and allegorical meanings have already been discussed. Morally, one could conceive a message relating to the importance of being prudent before choosing who it is one commits their life to, or that beauty is not everything, or how difficult life becomes once vowed in marriage. However, on an anagogical level, there is nothing to be inferred. One cannot say this relates to a supernatural truth or spiritual mystery. There are no divine meanings relative to the point of the poem nor should there have to be. It is not necessary for there to be an analogical meaning to make the poem more meaningful or more complete. In secular texts, the anagogical sense is not as necessary as it is in sacred texts. Scripture for example, does comprise all four levels of meaning, and does follow the Alighieri’s theory, but to say all texts have to is incorrect.

Although Alighieri provides analysts with a valid theory of interpretation for select works, one cannot assume his theory is the only one worth following or that it is free from error. It limits its approach in how one can interpret a text by restricting its basis to the literal meaning, and for this reason, it cannot be called a universal theory. While Alighieri’s theory of interpretation works well for specific types of texts, like scriptural, it’s wrong to say it works for every form of written literature. Some works are written differently, like Blake’s, which require different approaches and therefore cannot be treated the same as others. Alighieri assumes all forms of literature are the same, needing only one means of analysis, though this is clearly not the case, and hence, his interpretation of interpretation must be reassessed.

"My Pretty Rose Tree"

A flower was offered to me,
Such a flower as May never bore;
But I said "I've a pretty rose tree,"
And I passed the sweet flower o'er.

Then I went to my pretty rose tree,
To tend her by day and by night;
But my rose turned away with jealousy,
And her thorns were my only delight.

`William Blake