8/23
I think the first reading we went over regarding The Medieval Period was really interesting because I, like many (I assume), tend to always think of Medieval Europe when I think of the Medieval Period. I completely overlook the Medieval Period’s of other Eastern cultures. I also overlook the fact that the Medieval Period occurred at different times for different cultures. That point goes back to the fact that I only ever think of one Medieval Period (the European). It was really interesting how every culture had some sort of Medieval Period for various reasons, even an empire as strong as the Roman Empire.
Although it was sort of hard to follow along with the history of Islam, I was able to pick up on a surprising detail. More than once the author mentioned how Muslims, Jews, and Christians not only tolerated each other’s existence, but also seemed to borrow ideas off each other and happily co-existed. It was even mentioned in the second reading that it is possible the iconoclasm came about in order to integrate Muslims and Christians. By bringing the two religions together, peace was ensured. After reading the iconoclasts’ arguments, I could see where they were coming from, but the iconophiles’ argument made much more sense.
It’s amazing to think how iconoclasm could have existed then, seeing as how we have so much religious art today. Art is everywhere one looks, yet many despised it back then based on a strict interpretation of the First Commandment. Art wouldn’t be the same as it is today without the ruling of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of bishops, and the upholding of the ruling by the Empress of Theodora. On the other hand, without the issuance of iconoclasm, abstract art may not have taken root. It could have been many more years before abstract art began appearing, if it took root at all.
8/30
Surprisingly enough, I really enjoyed St. Augustine’s autobiography this week. I really enjoyed the questions he posed to himself and his thought-provoking answers. Everybody knows that one of the biggest reasons people do what they do and say what they say is because of the people around them. Whether it’s for attention, to fit in, or to not be made fun of, they do things they never normally would because of their friends. Augustine really hammered that point home when discussing why he stole the pears when he didn’t need them. He did it only for the idea of “committing the crime.” I also liked the idea of him using the smallest of crimes to discuss reasoning, sin, and religion in general. He could have made comparisons to much larger, much worse, crimes, but instead he bases his religious transformation on stealing fruit, and feeling guilt.
I did not enjoy the Consolation of Philosophy on the other hand. It seemed dull to me, and all of his thinking was done through Lady Philosophy. The story was not introspective by any means. Even after receiving reasoning from Philosophy, Boethius is still not able to understand reason. The one aspect of the story that I did enjoy was Boethius’ questioning of the justice system and the lack of justice.
After reading the Koran, I felt I had a new perspective of Islam in general. It’s not that I think of all Muslims as extremists, but I just never understood the basis for their faith. Yea, I knew about Muhammad and his visions, but I never knew how it fit into history or other religions. Reading the Koran made me realize how similar Islam is to Christianity and Judaism. The entire basis of Islam (from what I read) is pretty much Christian, just with some points stretched, or taken to a stricter, more extreme level. An example would be adding in the Suras about the treatment of women, the lack of divinity of Jesus and Mary, and the idea of idolatry. I thought the Sura about aggression/retaliation was very interesting, especially considering extremist groups today. But it also makes me wonder what basis of attack they had in order to start the jihad. It would be against their faith to attack unprovoked or to over-retaliate.
9/13
In high school, I had the opportunity to read Dante’s Inferno for a large analysis paper we had to do, but after receiving the book from the library, opening it up, and seeing a poetic writing style, I never gave it a second look. I returned it immediately and chose a different book. I didn’t have any idea it was about Christianity, nor that it was about travelling through the rings of Hell. I also didn’t know that there were also 2 other stories that went along with Inferno. Reading it now, I am actually enjoying it. I don’t know that there is enough substance for a deep analysis of the story, but it is a good story with a lot of time and thought put into the writing of it. I like that our story doesn’t rhyme (perfectly), unlike the version someone in the class had. If it rhymed, I would be too caught up in reading with the rhythm and not actually grasp the story. There are a few questions I had about the interpretation of Hell by Dante. I was very surprised at some of the people he mentioned he saw in Hell. Christianity teaches that God is forgiving; yet Dante never mentions any example of someone being forgiven. I would think that in the conversations with one of the people in the first or second rings of Hell, they would’ve mentioned how asking for forgiveness saved someone. Also, I noticed that the punishments for the various sins got worse and worse as Dante went further into the rings of Hell, but I felt like they evened out in the 7th ring, and never progressed. The focus shifted to the different circles within one ring, rather than the punishments. Maybe once we read about the 8th and 9th circles of Hell, I will notice a further progression in punishments. Overall, I’m really enjoying the story, and am actually somewhat excited to read the rest of it!
9/20
This week we finished going through all nine levels of Hell, and with that, finished Dante’s Inferno. The story was actually pretty good! It may have just been me, but I thought that after the 7th circle, the style of writing seemed to change a little bit. I wonder if Dante completed the work in a short amount of time, or actually took quite a while putting the Cantos together. If there was such a break, it may actually be possible that the style varied a little bit within the story.
The final questions brought up today in class were really interesting. I, like someone else stated, also wondered what time the Inferno was published. Not only did he place a lot of prominent people in Hell, but also most of them seemed to come from the feud between the Guelphs and Ghibellines. I wonder if Dante used the story to sort of “attack” his enemies. Dante was part of the White Guelphs and seemed to place a lot of prominent Ghibellines, and even Black Guelphs in various circles of Hell. If the story was published while the Guelphs were exiled, then I suppose it would be possible that Dante would write about the enemies and publish the book. Depending on the date of publishing, I also wonder if Florentine’s took note of the names in the book. What were the consequences and how did people react?
I also don’t understand why Brutus and Cassius were placed on the same level as Judas, the betrayer of Jesus. In a sense, Dante is placing Caesar on the same level as Jesus. Because Brutus and Cassius betrayed Caesar, they get the same level punishment as Judas. I know we discussed it in class, but I would really like to know Dante’s thoughts behind their placement in Satan’s mouth.
Overall, it was very interesting imagining the punishments of the various circles, and thinking about the reasoning behind the particular punishments. It was a very well produced piece by Dante.
9/27
The discussion in class this week regarding The Canterbury Tales was really interesting. As I read the prologue, I enjoyed the accounts of each of the characters, but I never read deeper into it. After our discussion, I skimmed back over the prologue and realized how evident the subtle ridiculing of certain characters/jobs was. Chaucer did a very good job at making subtle “jabs” at certain professions. For example, as I read the section about the nun, it said she tried to act in a courtly manner and dressed nicely. She also fed any animal she saw that was malnourished. On the surface, it seemed she was trying to be a decent person and was helping animals, a generous act in my opinion. But as we discussed in class, if you analyze the “job” of a nun in the church, they are meant to live on only what they need, not to live lavishly, aspiring to be in the class of the nobility. Also, there is no mention to her reaching out to the poor or to the sick, she only reaches out to animals, even feeding them fresh meat, which could be given to people in need. Chaucer praised the Parson, Knight, Plowman, and Oxford student, portraying them as humble and fulfilling their jobs. The knight’s armor is described as being “rusty” from the previous battle. He fights in every battle he can that is a good cause. None of the characters that are praised are portrayed as rich.
Reading the prologue of The Wife of Bath, I was actually pretty bored because she seemed to go off into so many tangents, and overdo examples. I had trouble giving examples of how she did so in class, but now looking back on it, I think I thought so because of all of her refutations to and references of scripture from the Bible. I also think she over-explained the story of her fifth husband (?) and how he read all of those books condemning wives.
I really enjoyed The Wife of Bath’s actual story though. I think it had great meaning and a good storyline. It didn’t overly dive into detail. It was interesting to see the knight uphold his honor and agree to stay with the old woman. In return, or in reward, she transformed into a young lady. I’m still not sure whether that was supposed to be a literal transformation, or if he just was able to look at her differently after her explanation.
10/04
I have to say I didn’t see a whole lot of satirical elements in the work provided in the textbook of Utopia. Perhaps they were included in the parts the textbook omitted.
It was pretty well agreed upon in class that a utopia is pretty much impossible to obtain, so there’s no use going too in depth about that. I will say though that More did a good job covering all of the general elements that constitute a society: economics, judicial system, familial structure, religion, etc. But he failed to cover perhaps the most important element of all: human nature and the desire for more. I know he mentioned it in his writing, but the excuse he gave for there being no greed was weak, going along the lines that without the need to have more, people wouldn’t want more. I asked in class why people wouldn’t go to the markets and take more than they need and store it in their houses. My group told me that they wouldn’t because the market was always there if they needed more. But I had trouble with that reasoning, because is it not true that Americans go to Walmart and stock up on goods? There is no need to stock up because Walmart will always be there when they need more; the goods would even be fresher. But humans are lazy, and therefore take more than they need even if it is only to save a short trip to the store.
Regarding The Prince, I really enjoyed Machiavelli’s objective approach to not only politics, but the human mind as well. If someone read his writing in a non-objective point of view, they would probably be outraged at the true image of the prince. But what Machiavelli says is very true, not just for a prince, but for society in general. The same ideas can be applied on a much smaller scale, down to communities or even cliques of people. It was a very interesting read about a very interesting perspective of politics.
10/11 Jeremy, this is a great idea. I've never read a comparison of these two works. You might want to set up your claim by pointing out that these works come from very different cultural traditions. Your thesis will seem to have more of a point if you can show that the similarities are unexpected. What do you think is significant about the similarities? What do the similarities lead you to notice? - MH
Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Cantebury Tales and Attar’s The Conference of the Birds are very similar stories in writing style, characterization, and theme. First off, both stories discuss a religious journey undertaken by a group of people, with a leader “directing” the way. In each journey, there is a specific goal in mind. In a similar manner, both journeys are taken as a mean for self-knowledge and teaching, with the journey itself being more important than the destination. The characters in each story represent a certain social class, and the faults within each. Through their own dialogues and descriptions, the characters display their true personalities. Each dialogue of each character could stand alone in both stories, but come together to form the overall story. By presenting their stories as fictional journeys, the authors of each story were able to reach both the educated and common people. Both books are highly influenced by religion, and serve to present teachings of that religion.
That is a list of basic similarities between the two stories. Because a lot of the similarities I mentioned go hand-in-hand, I will mesh many of the ideas in order to create a thesis similar to my first sentence. I will then focus on those points so as not to branch off too much and weaken my argument. My essay will be written in standard essay fashion, with a thesis, argument, and conclusion. I’ve looked into the above points quite a bit just by reviewing each story, but I’m also going to try to look at the authors’ lives to see how they compare and how each might’ve influenced their stories. My point regarding the fact that the stories were made to reach both the educated and uneducated audience speaks a little for the lives of the authors. Both authors were brought up understanding all aspects of the social construct.
10/25/13
When I read Columbus’s Diario I thought it was pretty neat seeing his leadership. He speaks well of the natives living there, and seemed to ensure there was always a fair trade between his men and the natives. At one point he even mentioned that he was disappointed that he was not there to stop his men from taking gifts from the natives without properly compensating them. One man wouldn’t give up his gold nose-ring, and the men didn’t force it from him. They let him go unharmed. Overall the account seemed very friendly, and it seemed like Columbus and his crew were on very good terms with the natives. Reading Las Casas’s account of the Spanish treatment of the natives gave a very different perspective. Las Casas mentioned how the Spaniards would kill the natives for no reason, sparing no man, woman or child. It wasn’t just the killing that seemed gruesome. Las Casas described how one man climbed down a pole after being beckoned by the cleric and being told he would be safe. After climbing down a Spaniard drew his sword and slit open the gut cavity of the native, spilling out his intestines. These graphic images and accounts came in stark contrast to those of Columbus. It makes me wonder if Las Casas was exaggerating stories to get his point across about the harsh treatment of the natives, or if Columbus failed to acknowledge the truth in order to make himself look better. Based on these accounts, I found that a quote from Montaigne’s Essays was very applicable. (Side note: I really enjoyed reading his work) Montaigne wrote:
“for clever people observe more things and more curiously, but they interpret them; and to lend weight and conviction to their interpretation, they cannot help altering history a little. They never show you things as they are, but bend and disguise them according to the way they have seen them; and to give credence to their judgment and attract you to it, they are prone to add something to their matter, to stretch it out and amplify it.”
This quote could not more perfectly describe the accounts of Columbus and Las Casas. Both men were trying to make a point. Columbus was trying to make himself look better and Las Casas was trying to expose the ruthlessness of the Spaniards. They both couldn’t help but alter history a little. Had only one of their accounts survived, who knows what we’d think about the treatment of the Spaniards towards the natives. (Now I know that’s a bit of a stretch considering there are probably many other accounts of the treatment of the natives out there, but you get my point) And the quote doesn’t just go for Columbus and Las Casas’s accounts. It can be applied and found true to any account of history. Human character makes it nearly impossible to be completely objective about a situation.
11/1/13
Reading the play Tartuffe was really interesting. On one hand the story seemed so unbelievable. What are the chances that a man would cast out his own son in favor of a stranger he hasn’t known for all too long? But looking back at it, and taking into account the time the play is set in, it actually seems plausible that something so absurd might happen. Orgon was so infatuated with the holiness of Tartuffe, and so badly aspired to be put in the same light as him, that he might actually go to extreme measures. I think Orgon thought that just by being associated with supposedly so holy of a man such as Tartuffe made him that holy as well. In the very least, he hoped the public would think so. And taking care of such a holy and worthy man would prove Orgon as virtuous (in his mind). When you think about how smart Tartuffe was and how experienced he was at conniving, the idea that the plot of Tartuffe might actually happen seems even more plausible. Tartuffe was experienced at deceit and trickery, and he used it to his full advantage against the gullible Orgon.
The question we were given in class asked us to decide which character was the villain, Tartuffe or Orgon. Obviously Tartuffe is a villain because he thieves and deceits others, but I believe Orgon may be an even bigger villain. Although my paragraph above may contradict my statement, it would take a lot for a man to so easily cast away his son in favor of a stranger. I believe that Orgon’s protection of his own image (by associating himself with Tartuffe) over caring for family was much worse of a deed than anything Tartuffe did. For many, especially in hard times, it’s not hard to steal from a stranger and put them down, but for most, tearing apart family ties would be unthinkable. For that reason, I believe Orgon is the true villain.
11/8/13
When we read Alexander Pope’s An Essay on Man, I had a really difficult time understanding what he was trying to say. Not only that, but also I just had a hard time reading the work in general. Lacking a plot and story line, the work was very bland and hard to read, not to mention the fact that I really didn’t understand what I was reading. Epistle 1 was the hardest to understand of the three of them in my opinion. After going back over the work in class, I was able to clearly discern the “chain of being” that Pope describes in Epistle 1. I know it’s easy for me to say that the idea is crazy since I’m living now and can look back on history, but I still don’t see how his ideas could have been accepted back then. One aspect of the essay is trying to tell people to change what they can but leave the rest up to God, for it is all his divine plan. Trying to do too much would result in overstepping the limits within which humans are placed. He says that although the contending forces that drive/divide family cause humans to want to find reason and seek change, they must focus their glass upon those things within reach. That’s not human nature though. Perhaps ideology was different back then though.
I am however enjoying Candide. It has a nice storyline that is packed with satire and irony which I really enjoy picking out. In class, it seemed like there was an element of irony in every sentence, and on top of that, many sentences had multiple elements of irony within them. I can clearly understand the point Voltaire is trying to make, and I actually like that he is debunking the theory “whatever is, is right” with absurd analogies that make the theory seem ridiculous. Such is with the earthquakes connecting via a sulfur vein running between continents.
11/14/13 For my essay on the contemporary relevance of a work we have read this semester, I thought about doing it over the relevance of Conference of the Birds. There are many ways in which this work applies to modern day society, although I would apply it to a Christian society rather than a Suffist. In the poem the birds are greedy and do not want to go on the journey to find their leader because they are they are too caught up with their “perfect” lives. Especially nowadays, Christians believe that people get too caught up in their wealth and forget to look to God for their source of happiness rather than their own wealth. Greed and wealth often get in the way of people’s religion, just as it did for the bird in Conference of the Birds. I can also talk about the relevance of the journey. The birds find that their “God” is themselves. While it may not directly represent today’s Christian views, often times Christians believe that people must look within themselves to find God.
There are a few questions I have about writing this essay on this work. First off, is it okay to do my essay over Conference of the Birds? Since (in my opinion) this is an easy work to do contemporary relevance on, is it too overdone? I would be fine with picking a new topic as well. Also, to what degree of a non-religious perspective should I put in this paper? For example, I stated above “Christians believe that people get too caught up in their wealth and forget to look to God for their source of happiness rather than their own wealth.” I could also state “People get too caught up in their wealth and forget to look to God for their source of happiness”.
Jeremy, The Conference of the Birds is not too overdone. You can write about it for this paper. It is up to you how broadly you want to think about thu relevance of the text's message. For either approach you mention, you would still be focusing on religious ideas. You can limit the relevance to Christianity or talk more generally about belief in God. Whatever makes sense to you. -MH
12/6
This week was really interesting and eye opening to say the least. Okay that may be a bit of an overstatement, but this week definitely did open my mind to new concepts and ideas. I play guitar a bit, but when I play I memorize a song and play it from the notes or chords given, I don’t dive into why the notes are ordered the way they are, or how they compliment each other. I definitely don’t pay attention to larger patterns of notes/chords in a song and compare how the patterns are broken down into smaller patterns. In doing so this week, at first I was confused as to what we were talking about, but by today I actually not only understood the patterns in Mozart’s symphony, but also could pick up on them before I was given them. Another part I’ve never really understood was how people could imagine a story to go along with instrumental music (symphony/orchestra). I hear the music, and yea it’s neat, but I don’t automatically imagine a certain scene to go along with it. The only thing I think of is speechless cartoons, one being Tom and Jerry, where the music has a noticeable part in the development of the story. Maybe I’m just not musically inclined! I did, however, understand the video we watched that described how certain pieces are much more memorable than others. If pieces are overly complex, the audience doesn’t have time to catch a central tune in their head. A balance must be found. Perhaps this helps explain why the AABA pattern became standard. It was complex enough to entertain listeners, yet simple enough to stick in their minds. But that’s all speculation of course. Anyway, I learned a lot this week in trying to take off my blinders and see more into music than what it is on the surface.
I think the first reading we went over regarding The Medieval Period was really interesting because I, like many (I assume), tend to always think of Medieval Europe when I think of the Medieval Period. I completely overlook the Medieval Period’s of other Eastern cultures. I also overlook the fact that the Medieval Period occurred at different times for different cultures. That point goes back to the fact that I only ever think of one Medieval Period (the European). It was really interesting how every culture had some sort of Medieval Period for various reasons, even an empire as strong as the Roman Empire.
Although it was sort of hard to follow along with the history of Islam, I was able to pick up on a surprising detail. More than once the author mentioned how Muslims, Jews, and Christians not only tolerated each other’s existence, but also seemed to borrow ideas off each other and happily co-existed. It was even mentioned in the second reading that it is possible the iconoclasm came about in order to integrate Muslims and Christians. By bringing the two religions together, peace was ensured. After reading the iconoclasts’ arguments, I could see where they were coming from, but the iconophiles’ argument made much more sense.
It’s amazing to think how iconoclasm could have existed then, seeing as how we have so much religious art today. Art is everywhere one looks, yet many despised it back then based on a strict interpretation of the First Commandment. Art wouldn’t be the same as it is today without the ruling of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of bishops, and the upholding of the ruling by the Empress of Theodora. On the other hand, without the issuance of iconoclasm, abstract art may not have taken root. It could have been many more years before abstract art began appearing, if it took root at all.
8/30
Surprisingly enough, I really enjoyed St. Augustine’s autobiography this week. I really enjoyed the questions he posed to himself and his thought-provoking answers. Everybody knows that one of the biggest reasons people do what they do and say what they say is because of the people around them. Whether it’s for attention, to fit in, or to not be made fun of, they do things they never normally would because of their friends. Augustine really hammered that point home when discussing why he stole the pears when he didn’t need them. He did it only for the idea of “committing the crime.” I also liked the idea of him using the smallest of crimes to discuss reasoning, sin, and religion in general. He could have made comparisons to much larger, much worse, crimes, but instead he bases his religious transformation on stealing fruit, and feeling guilt.
I did not enjoy the Consolation of Philosophy on the other hand. It seemed dull to me, and all of his thinking was done through Lady Philosophy. The story was not introspective by any means. Even after receiving reasoning from Philosophy, Boethius is still not able to understand reason. The one aspect of the story that I did enjoy was Boethius’ questioning of the justice system and the lack of justice.
After reading the Koran, I felt I had a new perspective of Islam in general. It’s not that I think of all Muslims as extremists, but I just never understood the basis for their faith. Yea, I knew about Muhammad and his visions, but I never knew how it fit into history or other religions. Reading the Koran made me realize how similar Islam is to Christianity and Judaism. The entire basis of Islam (from what I read) is pretty much Christian, just with some points stretched, or taken to a stricter, more extreme level. An example would be adding in the Suras about the treatment of women, the lack of divinity of Jesus and Mary, and the idea of idolatry. I thought the Sura about aggression/retaliation was very interesting, especially considering extremist groups today. But it also makes me wonder what basis of attack they had in order to start the jihad. It would be against their faith to attack unprovoked or to over-retaliate.
9/13
In high school, I had the opportunity to read Dante’s Inferno for a large analysis paper we had to do, but after receiving the book from the library, opening it up, and seeing a poetic writing style, I never gave it a second look. I returned it immediately and chose a different book. I didn’t have any idea it was about Christianity, nor that it was about travelling through the rings of Hell. I also didn’t know that there were also 2 other stories that went along with Inferno. Reading it now, I am actually enjoying it. I don’t know that there is enough substance for a deep analysis of the story, but it is a good story with a lot of time and thought put into the writing of it. I like that our story doesn’t rhyme (perfectly), unlike the version someone in the class had. If it rhymed, I would be too caught up in reading with the rhythm and not actually grasp the story. There are a few questions I had about the interpretation of Hell by Dante. I was very surprised at some of the people he mentioned he saw in Hell. Christianity teaches that God is forgiving; yet Dante never mentions any example of someone being forgiven. I would think that in the conversations with one of the people in the first or second rings of Hell, they would’ve mentioned how asking for forgiveness saved someone. Also, I noticed that the punishments for the various sins got worse and worse as Dante went further into the rings of Hell, but I felt like they evened out in the 7th ring, and never progressed. The focus shifted to the different circles within one ring, rather than the punishments. Maybe once we read about the 8th and 9th circles of Hell, I will notice a further progression in punishments. Overall, I’m really enjoying the story, and am actually somewhat excited to read the rest of it!
9/20
This week we finished going through all nine levels of Hell, and with that, finished Dante’s Inferno. The story was actually pretty good! It may have just been me, but I thought that after the 7th circle, the style of writing seemed to change a little bit. I wonder if Dante completed the work in a short amount of time, or actually took quite a while putting the Cantos together. If there was such a break, it may actually be possible that the style varied a little bit within the story.
The final questions brought up today in class were really interesting. I, like someone else stated, also wondered what time the Inferno was published. Not only did he place a lot of prominent people in Hell, but also most of them seemed to come from the feud between the Guelphs and Ghibellines. I wonder if Dante used the story to sort of “attack” his enemies. Dante was part of the White Guelphs and seemed to place a lot of prominent Ghibellines, and even Black Guelphs in various circles of Hell. If the story was published while the Guelphs were exiled, then I suppose it would be possible that Dante would write about the enemies and publish the book. Depending on the date of publishing, I also wonder if Florentine’s took note of the names in the book. What were the consequences and how did people react?
I also don’t understand why Brutus and Cassius were placed on the same level as Judas, the betrayer of Jesus. In a sense, Dante is placing Caesar on the same level as Jesus. Because Brutus and Cassius betrayed Caesar, they get the same level punishment as Judas. I know we discussed it in class, but I would really like to know Dante’s thoughts behind their placement in Satan’s mouth.
Overall, it was very interesting imagining the punishments of the various circles, and thinking about the reasoning behind the particular punishments. It was a very well produced piece by Dante.
9/27
The discussion in class this week regarding The Canterbury Tales was really interesting. As I read the prologue, I enjoyed the accounts of each of the characters, but I never read deeper into it. After our discussion, I skimmed back over the prologue and realized how evident the subtle ridiculing of certain characters/jobs was. Chaucer did a very good job at making subtle “jabs” at certain professions. For example, as I read the section about the nun, it said she tried to act in a courtly manner and dressed nicely. She also fed any animal she saw that was malnourished. On the surface, it seemed she was trying to be a decent person and was helping animals, a generous act in my opinion. But as we discussed in class, if you analyze the “job” of a nun in the church, they are meant to live on only what they need, not to live lavishly, aspiring to be in the class of the nobility. Also, there is no mention to her reaching out to the poor or to the sick, she only reaches out to animals, even feeding them fresh meat, which could be given to people in need. Chaucer praised the Parson, Knight, Plowman, and Oxford student, portraying them as humble and fulfilling their jobs. The knight’s armor is described as being “rusty” from the previous battle. He fights in every battle he can that is a good cause. None of the characters that are praised are portrayed as rich.
Reading the prologue of The Wife of Bath, I was actually pretty bored because she seemed to go off into so many tangents, and overdo examples. I had trouble giving examples of how she did so in class, but now looking back on it, I think I thought so because of all of her refutations to and references of scripture from the Bible. I also think she over-explained the story of her fifth husband (?) and how he read all of those books condemning wives.
I really enjoyed The Wife of Bath’s actual story though. I think it had great meaning and a good storyline. It didn’t overly dive into detail. It was interesting to see the knight uphold his honor and agree to stay with the old woman. In return, or in reward, she transformed into a young lady. I’m still not sure whether that was supposed to be a literal transformation, or if he just was able to look at her differently after her explanation.
10/04
I have to say I didn’t see a whole lot of satirical elements in the work provided in the textbook of Utopia. Perhaps they were included in the parts the textbook omitted.
It was pretty well agreed upon in class that a utopia is pretty much impossible to obtain, so there’s no use going too in depth about that. I will say though that More did a good job covering all of the general elements that constitute a society: economics, judicial system, familial structure, religion, etc. But he failed to cover perhaps the most important element of all: human nature and the desire for more. I know he mentioned it in his writing, but the excuse he gave for there being no greed was weak, going along the lines that without the need to have more, people wouldn’t want more. I asked in class why people wouldn’t go to the markets and take more than they need and store it in their houses. My group told me that they wouldn’t because the market was always there if they needed more. But I had trouble with that reasoning, because is it not true that Americans go to Walmart and stock up on goods? There is no need to stock up because Walmart will always be there when they need more; the goods would even be fresher. But humans are lazy, and therefore take more than they need even if it is only to save a short trip to the store.
Regarding The Prince, I really enjoyed Machiavelli’s objective approach to not only politics, but the human mind as well. If someone read his writing in a non-objective point of view, they would probably be outraged at the true image of the prince. But what Machiavelli says is very true, not just for a prince, but for society in general. The same ideas can be applied on a much smaller scale, down to communities or even cliques of people. It was a very interesting read about a very interesting perspective of politics.
10/11
Jeremy, this is a great idea. I've never read a comparison of these two works. You might want to set up your claim by pointing out that these works come from very different cultural traditions. Your thesis will seem to have more of a point if you can show that the similarities are unexpected. What do you think is significant about the similarities? What do the similarities lead you to notice? - MH
Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Cantebury Tales and Attar’s The Conference of the Birds are very similar stories in writing style, characterization, and theme. First off, both stories discuss a religious journey undertaken by a group of people, with a leader “directing” the way. In each journey, there is a specific goal in mind. In a similar manner, both journeys are taken as a mean for self-knowledge and teaching, with the journey itself being more important than the destination. The characters in each story represent a certain social class, and the faults within each. Through their own dialogues and descriptions, the characters display their true personalities. Each dialogue of each character could stand alone in both stories, but come together to form the overall story. By presenting their stories as fictional journeys, the authors of each story were able to reach both the educated and common people. Both books are highly influenced by religion, and serve to present teachings of that religion.
That is a list of basic similarities between the two stories. Because a lot of the similarities I mentioned go hand-in-hand, I will mesh many of the ideas in order to create a thesis similar to my first sentence. I will then focus on those points so as not to branch off too much and weaken my argument. My essay will be written in standard essay fashion, with a thesis, argument, and conclusion. I’ve looked into the above points quite a bit just by reviewing each story, but I’m also going to try to look at the authors’ lives to see how they compare and how each might’ve influenced their stories. My point regarding the fact that the stories were made to reach both the educated and uneducated audience speaks a little for the lives of the authors. Both authors were brought up understanding all aspects of the social construct.
10/25/13
When I read Columbus’s Diario I thought it was pretty neat seeing his leadership. He speaks well of the natives living there, and seemed to ensure there was always a fair trade between his men and the natives. At one point he even mentioned that he was disappointed that he was not there to stop his men from taking gifts from the natives without properly compensating them. One man wouldn’t give up his gold nose-ring, and the men didn’t force it from him. They let him go unharmed. Overall the account seemed very friendly, and it seemed like Columbus and his crew were on very good terms with the natives. Reading Las Casas’s account of the Spanish treatment of the natives gave a very different perspective. Las Casas mentioned how the Spaniards would kill the natives for no reason, sparing no man, woman or child. It wasn’t just the killing that seemed gruesome. Las Casas described how one man climbed down a pole after being beckoned by the cleric and being told he would be safe. After climbing down a Spaniard drew his sword and slit open the gut cavity of the native, spilling out his intestines. These graphic images and accounts came in stark contrast to those of Columbus. It makes me wonder if Las Casas was exaggerating stories to get his point across about the harsh treatment of the natives, or if Columbus failed to acknowledge the truth in order to make himself look better. Based on these accounts, I found that a quote from Montaigne’s Essays was very applicable. (Side note: I really enjoyed reading his work) Montaigne wrote:
“for clever people observe more things and more curiously, but they interpret them; and to lend weight and conviction to their interpretation, they cannot help altering history a little. They never show you things as they are, but bend and disguise them according to the way they have seen them; and to give credence to their judgment and attract you to it, they are prone to add something to their matter, to stretch it out and amplify it.”
This quote could not more perfectly describe the accounts of Columbus and Las Casas. Both men were trying to make a point. Columbus was trying to make himself look better and Las Casas was trying to expose the ruthlessness of the Spaniards. They both couldn’t help but alter history a little. Had only one of their accounts survived, who knows what we’d think about the treatment of the Spaniards towards the natives. (Now I know that’s a bit of a stretch considering there are probably many other accounts of the treatment of the natives out there, but you get my point) And the quote doesn’t just go for Columbus and Las Casas’s accounts. It can be applied and found true to any account of history. Human character makes it nearly impossible to be completely objective about a situation.
11/1/13
Reading the play Tartuffe was really interesting. On one hand the story seemed so unbelievable. What are the chances that a man would cast out his own son in favor of a stranger he hasn’t known for all too long? But looking back at it, and taking into account the time the play is set in, it actually seems plausible that something so absurd might happen. Orgon was so infatuated with the holiness of Tartuffe, and so badly aspired to be put in the same light as him, that he might actually go to extreme measures. I think Orgon thought that just by being associated with supposedly so holy of a man such as Tartuffe made him that holy as well. In the very least, he hoped the public would think so. And taking care of such a holy and worthy man would prove Orgon as virtuous (in his mind). When you think about how smart Tartuffe was and how experienced he was at conniving, the idea that the plot of Tartuffe might actually happen seems even more plausible. Tartuffe was experienced at deceit and trickery, and he used it to his full advantage against the gullible Orgon.
The question we were given in class asked us to decide which character was the villain, Tartuffe or Orgon. Obviously Tartuffe is a villain because he thieves and deceits others, but I believe Orgon may be an even bigger villain. Although my paragraph above may contradict my statement, it would take a lot for a man to so easily cast away his son in favor of a stranger. I believe that Orgon’s protection of his own image (by associating himself with Tartuffe) over caring for family was much worse of a deed than anything Tartuffe did. For many, especially in hard times, it’s not hard to steal from a stranger and put them down, but for most, tearing apart family ties would be unthinkable. For that reason, I believe Orgon is the true villain.
11/8/13
When we read Alexander Pope’s An Essay on Man, I had a really difficult time understanding what he was trying to say. Not only that, but also I just had a hard time reading the work in general. Lacking a plot and story line, the work was very bland and hard to read, not to mention the fact that I really didn’t understand what I was reading. Epistle 1 was the hardest to understand of the three of them in my opinion. After going back over the work in class, I was able to clearly discern the “chain of being” that Pope describes in Epistle 1. I know it’s easy for me to say that the idea is crazy since I’m living now and can look back on history, but I still don’t see how his ideas could have been accepted back then. One aspect of the essay is trying to tell people to change what they can but leave the rest up to God, for it is all his divine plan. Trying to do too much would result in overstepping the limits within which humans are placed. He says that although the contending forces that drive/divide family cause humans to want to find reason and seek change, they must focus their glass upon those things within reach. That’s not human nature though. Perhaps ideology was different back then though.
I am however enjoying Candide. It has a nice storyline that is packed with satire and irony which I really enjoy picking out. In class, it seemed like there was an element of irony in every sentence, and on top of that, many sentences had multiple elements of irony within them. I can clearly understand the point Voltaire is trying to make, and I actually like that he is debunking the theory “whatever is, is right” with absurd analogies that make the theory seem ridiculous. Such is with the earthquakes connecting via a sulfur vein running between continents.
11/14/13
For my essay on the contemporary relevance of a work we have read this semester, I thought about doing it over the relevance of Conference of the Birds. There are many ways in which this work applies to modern day society, although I would apply it to a Christian society rather than a Suffist. In the poem the birds are greedy and do not want to go on the journey to find their leader because they are they are too caught up with their “perfect” lives. Especially nowadays, Christians believe that people get too caught up in their wealth and forget to look to God for their source of happiness rather than their own wealth. Greed and wealth often get in the way of people’s religion, just as it did for the bird in Conference of the Birds. I can also talk about the relevance of the journey. The birds find that their “God” is themselves. While it may not directly represent today’s Christian views, often times Christians believe that people must look within themselves to find God.
There are a few questions I have about writing this essay on this work. First off, is it okay to do my essay over Conference of the Birds? Since (in my opinion) this is an easy work to do contemporary relevance on, is it too overdone? I would be fine with picking a new topic as well. Also, to what degree of a non-religious perspective should I put in this paper? For example, I stated above “Christians believe that people get too caught up in their wealth and forget to look to God for their source of happiness rather than their own wealth.” I could also state “People get too caught up in their wealth and forget to look to God for their source of happiness”.
Jeremy, The Conference of the Birds is not too overdone. You can write about it for this paper. It is up to you how broadly you want to think about thu relevance of the text's message. For either approach you mention, you would still be focusing on religious ideas. You can limit the relevance to Christianity or talk more generally about belief in God. Whatever makes sense to you. -MH
12/6
This week was really interesting and eye opening to say the least. Okay that may be a bit of an overstatement, but this week definitely did open my mind to new concepts and ideas. I play guitar a bit, but when I play I memorize a song and play it from the notes or chords given, I don’t dive into why the notes are ordered the way they are, or how they compliment each other. I definitely don’t pay attention to larger patterns of notes/chords in a song and compare how the patterns are broken down into smaller patterns. In doing so this week, at first I was confused as to what we were talking about, but by today I actually not only understood the patterns in Mozart’s symphony, but also could pick up on them before I was given them. Another part I’ve never really understood was how people could imagine a story to go along with instrumental music (symphony/orchestra). I hear the music, and yea it’s neat, but I don’t automatically imagine a certain scene to go along with it. The only thing I think of is speechless cartoons, one being Tom and Jerry, where the music has a noticeable part in the development of the story. Maybe I’m just not musically inclined! I did, however, understand the video we watched that described how certain pieces are much more memorable than others. If pieces are overly complex, the audience doesn’t have time to catch a central tune in their head. A balance must be found. Perhaps this helps explain why the AABA pattern became standard. It was complex enough to entertain listeners, yet simple enough to stick in their minds. But that’s all speculation of course. Anyway, I learned a lot this week in trying to take off my blinders and see more into music than what it is on the surface.