Having been in choir for about six years, I was familiar with some of the concepts we talked about this week - at least vocally, but putting these musical ideas into instrumental music is a whole different ballpark. I played violin for about a year during high school as well, so it wasn't something that I was unfamiliar with, but instrumental music really has a different purpose. However, at the same time, I feel as if this idea of "classical music" as something that can be understood across the world, is even true in vocal music. It's at least true that Mozart isn't a composer that's really died of - in my voice lessons one summer, I was working on "Dove Sono" from "The Marriage of Figaro", and my senior year, my mixed double quartet sang "Ave Verum Corpus". It wasn't something I'd ever thought about before, while I was singing them, but you can't even tell what country they originated from, which I find fascinating. I actually guessed the Italian piece right in class, but the fact that music is universal is an amazing, unchanged thing.
What really fascinated me about this week was how Enlightenment ideas made their way into Mozart's music, because it's not exactly something that you think of - there's music history, and then there's history, and there's this weird distinction between the two that people have created. I've never really seen the two connected until now, unless you count the counterculture of the sixties, but that's just almost something expected, I feel like. It strikes me as odd, but it's become so much of a norm, and in contrast, pairing classical music with Enlightenment is something new, something that maybe shouldn't be new. Teaching the two together more would definitely help me keep some of my composers straight, that's for sure. The form of the music was another thing that I loved about this week - especially getting to see sheet music again after so long. It's, again, something most people don't necessarily think about - the general public doesn't really think about the differences between Bach and Mozart, but once you listen to their music, you can really tell.
11-15-13 - Response 11
In my second essay, I would like to do a comparison between Molière's "Tartuffe" and Voltaire's "Candide". Rather than just a standard comparison between what happens in the stories, I would like to begin my essay with a comparison of France during Molière's time (with an emphasis on when his play was first performed) and France during Voltaire's time, to emphasize what exactly each of the writers were satirizing in their works. Due to their differing situations, I would also state the government's opinion (or rather, the state and the Church, both, given each of their relationships with them) about each writer, and how that may have affected their works, especially what they were satirizing in their works.
From that, I would branch into the differences between what they were satirizing, and any similarities as well, and from there, I would talk about how they satirized what they did. This would come to their similarities, in a way, as I would talk about how they both used stock characters (in Molière's case especially, as far as that term goes) and in Voltaire's case, the personification of philosophical ideals in his characters (how Pangloss is optimism, Martin is pessimism and so on, as they don't really have any other traits that define them, just as Orgon and the other characters in "Tartuffe" are not three-dimensional in any way, shape, or form). Finally, I would use their characters as a jumping ground for how their own ideas are reflected in their works. I'm not exactly sure how the paper will be organized yet, but those are at least some of the main ideas that I want to write about, and I might include the reactions to "Tartuffe" and "Candide", as well, but I haven't reached a concrete decision of whether I want to do that or not.
Rachel, this sounds great. You've this through quite a bit already. Go for it. - MH
11-08-13 - Response 10
Something that I just thought of in regards to both "An Essay on Man" and "Candide" are the way that they both look at religion and the Native Americans, at least to a certain extent. In Voltaire's Eldorado, the natives have no religious conflict, and in "An Essay on Man", Pope says that even the uncivilized Indians do not question God. Both presumably accept God and do not act as the Europeans did in religious matters, but I don't think anyone else really acted like the Europeans consistently did. It makes sense, really, for Voltaire to have satirized it, among everything else, but I don't think Pope's views, or others', should be completely discounted. There has to be at least some sort of merit, at least on an individual basis, because different people, of course, believe different things, especially when it comes to religion. It's not even surprising, at this point, that so many different writers (and artists, too) have made their own commentary on it, especially because during their times, it was a much more prominent issue/belief (depending on how you looked at it) than now, in a much more secular society. What did surprise me, though, was how much else Voltaire decided to satirize in "Candide" - the list we had on the board could have probably been never ending, because it seems like any time there was an opportunity to write something sassy, Voltaire took that opportunity. The satirizing of the military definitely surprised me most of all, though, I think - at least typically, it's not something you hear about being satirized - religion, yes, government of any sort, most definitely, but I almost found that most impressive in "Candide", because it made me really think about it, the military, or at least that of the past, in a way I hadn't before. I also really love that they included the meaning of Pangloss' name, because I'm probably a bit obsessed with etymology, and I also realized that the way Jacques-Louis David depicted Socrates, he's basically a Neoclassical Chuck Norris.
11-01-13 - Response 9
When I first saw that we were reading "Tartuffe", I couldn't help but be excited - during my voice lessons this last summer, I worked on an aria from the opera version, so needless to say, I was stoked to see how the actual play would read. The aria was Dorine's, where she's telling Mariane how to deal with men, and is called "Fair Robin I Love." Here (1 and 2) are two different recordings of it, if you're interested at all. I actually had to research the show for when I was working with the aria, so I was already slightly familiar with "Tartuffe", but that research didn't compare to actually reading it or watching those specific sections of it. My voice teacher actually told me that "Fair Robin I Love" was one of the few aspects of "Tartuffe" that people knew about, at least in the musical world, but I don't think I'll be forgetting the actual play anytime soon. I really enjoyed watching the videos of "Tartuffe", actually - it's always easier to read a play when you have an image in mind, and especially in the last videos, it was also more obvious that Tartuffe is the villain (depending on how you look at it) of the play, based on the way his words were said and his physical actions. I thought that Molière's use of stock characters was really interesting though, and it was even more obvious when watching the video. It's fascinating, the difference between characters then and characters now, how much depth modern characters have - even in comedic shows, the characters still have multiple facets to their personalities, but I guess that's just all because of the times. I also thought the background information on Molière and the distaste for theatre was really interesting too - can you imagine what the world today would be like if that viewpoint was still the same, with the industry the size it is?
10-25-13 - Response 8
My first thought at the "without breeches" bit of "Of Cannibals" was definitely the sans-culottes. It's a bit of a random connection, and obviously the meaning is different in the situations, but I couldn't help but think of it. In the case of the French Revolution, it was those in power that we typically hear about being executed (which you could compare to the Europeans in the age of exploration), while in the time Montaigne was writing, it was the natives (or the lower class, comparatively though not necessarily accurately) that were executed. It was interesting to me, but other than that, I actually really liked Montaigne's essay, though he did go off on quite a few tangents throughout, and loved the tie-ins between it and "O Brave New World".
Reading the tales of the explorers, it really hit me how brutal most of them actually were - in most history classes, it's always felt as if the truth of the Spaniards' brutality was simply brushed over. In the accounts we read, though, while the bias definitely shone through in their accounts, it was amazing what really happened from the natives' perspective. What they did seemed just as brutal as cannibalism - and even more ridiculous. The natives had done nothing to them, and as Elizabeth said in our newscast, they even offered chicken, and yet they were slaughtered. At least with the cannibals, their reasoning made sense, even if it does seem so morally wrong - just as wrong as the slaughtering of an entire civilization. Reading "O Brave New World" almost made me angry - there was so much knowledge that we could have learned, and yet so much of it is gone. It was a waste, and all in the name of what? Gold, God and glory, but at what costs?
10-11-13 - Response 7 Rachel, this is a great topic. When you say that times have changed, would you argue that we shouldn't take some of Machiavelli's advice today because we live in a democracy? What is it that has changed that should affect how we judge and apply Machiavelli's ideas? Do you think some of his advice should have avoided in his own time? Do you agree with his views about human nature? - MH
For our first essay, I'd like to do write about the contemporary relevance of Machiavelli's "The Prince". It would be a standard essay, so no worries about having a creative option approved just yet, but the mention of how President Obama could learn from Machiavelli's statement that it is better to be feared than loved got me thinking. Initially, I wanted to do my comparative essay first, but that statement just clicked in my mind - Machiavelli's treatise, despite its age, still has its place in the modern world. Politics, of course, first come to mind, but I'm thinking that another part of my thesis will argue that "The Prince" has information that could be used - and possibly should be used - in our day to day lives, even if we aren't politicians, though I don't think that this will take over the bulk of the essay, as the focus of "The Prince" will always namely be politics.
With politics, though, my plan is to argue that some of what Machiavelli says about ruling should not be applied to today - it's still quite relevant, but almost as a model of what not to do, considering how times have changed. I plan to apply this to the day to day life section as well. I also plan to do some additional research into "The Prince," finding aspects beyond what we read in class that are either relevant today or something to shy away from, because while what we read was a good taste of his work, there was so much more to ruling than just that in Machiavelli's time, and there's much more to ruling now than then, too. If I can, I'll also work in what Machiavellian principles are already in effect today, namely in politics, for better or for worse.
10-04-13 - Response 6
I like to think of myself as a self-proclaimed, beginner etymology nerd, so one of my favorite things that I took away from this week was the meaning of “utopia”. I found it fascinating that Thomas More was the one who created the word, as I’d had no previous knowledge about that. It’s interesting to think about that, though – one person created a word and created a narrative that has shaped an entre genre that we have now. More probably didn’t have dystopian societies in mind, but it’s amazing to think about what all has come from “Utopia”, especially considering his narrative was more of a political statement than anything, or at least more than an actual story, like I was expecting. I hadn’t known quite what to expect when we started reading “Utopia”, and I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about it. I thought it was interesting, but it didn’t necessarily keep my interest, as it felt like more of a list of features than anything.
I found Machiavelli’s “The Prince” more entertaining than “Utopia”, and while admitting this kind of scares me, I kind of understood where Machiavelli was coming from with it all. I’m not saying that I’m going to send my first born child to be raised by a centaur or that I’m not actually going to be honest, but for the time period, it all seemed fairly reasonable for rulers. After all, none of them were really perfect, just looking at history, and the qualities Machiavelli lists makes that obvious, when you think about certain different rulers. I find the reason that Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” interesting in comparison to More’s reason for writing “Utopia”, though – both were for political reasons, but they’re opposite, in a way, at least the way I look at them. After all, trying to get back into court life isn’t exactly the same as criticizing court life and society.
9-27-13 - Response 5
As far as "The Canterbury Tales" goes, I wasn't a fan at the start, not at all. At the risk of sounding too critical, I found the rhyming to be almost too obnoxious, and the prologue didn't seem like it was going to end. That definitely sounded critical, but it wasn't what I expected of Chaucer's work, at first. Continuing reading past the prologue, it got better, and I found myself a bit more interested. I found the Wife of Bath's tale to be much more interesting than her prologue, though, and liked the connection I found between the two. As we were talking about in class today, there's obviously satire in Chaucer's work, centering around anti-feminism, in my opinion. This satire is introduced in the prologue, but while it's clear that the Wife's point is made through the hag, there's also the fact that the knight had to report to the queen, rather than the king. I have to wonder what exactly was satirized in the other pilgrims' stories, just out of curiosity's sake, because I feel like with the Wife of Bath, the satire that Chaucer did was sort of expected. Multiple husbands in his time? Surely makes for a strong character with a strong message, and I honestly can't think of another way he would have taken that.
In my opinion, the choices author's make definitely say something about their time period, as well, but unfortunately, I'm not well versed in the culture of England in the Middle Ages, because part of me wonders what exactly motivated Chaucer to keep certain characters pure (if that's the proper word for it), rather than to satirize them. The number of characters related to the Church, though, I feel, are an obvious commentary on the role of the Church during that time period, but as far as the other characters go, sadly, we can't exactly ask Chaucer about his motivations or reasonings.
9-20-13 - Response 4
After finishing Dante’s “Inferno”, I’m not ashamed to say that I checked some other sources to try and understand aspects of it – specifically why the lowest circles of Hell were frozen, and while I didn’t quite get the answer I was looking for, I did come across something interesting. In Dante’s work, there’s quite a lot of overlap with sin – as with my example from last week with Capaneus -- but the source I found, though I can’t find the link again, unfortunately, said that Dante may have placed certain people in certain levels based on what defines their stories. Capaneus is not defined by the fact that he lived in a time before Christianity, but instead for his violence against God, or rather Zeus. This puts Francesca’s punishment in to perspective as well, and it was something I hadn’t really considered until I’d read it.
Knowing that would have made reading it a bit less frustrating, but it’s something kind of interesting to look back on. Another thing I find myself looking back on is how Dante changed – from pity to kicking spirits (whether accidentally or on purpose), that’s quite an obvious difference. Part of me is wondering whether it’s possible that this was just some sort of side effect of travelling through Hell, that travelling through such a gruesome place rubbed off on Dante’s actions and emotions, or whether the further they went through Hell, the more he realized that these people may not have disturbed his pity. I’m debating looking in to “Purgatory” and “Paradise”, just for the sake of seeing if Dante changes back to who he was (not that he totally changed, I’m not trying to say that) when he’s in a better environment, but I’m glad that I got to read “Inferno” at all and wish I could have read it during high school, as well.
9-13-13 - Response 3
While I’ve always wanted to read “The Divine Comedy”, I’ve never gotten the chance to read it until this year, but I’m not quite sure if it was what I expected. Regardless, I still find it really interesting, but also a tad overwhelming at times. The sheer number of references that Dante makes seems like overkill, during certain cantos, especially for me when it’s an Italian that I’ve never head of – I try to remind myself, though, that the people who would have read this originally would have probably known who they were. For me, the sins and their punishments are easier to understand if I know whom the person in hell is – Attila the Hun holds more significance to me than Ser Brunetto. The organization of hell kind of baffles me as well – it doesn’t make sense to me that thieves are in a lower circle of hell than murderers, but there’s probably some logic behind it.
I have to wonder how Dante figured out these levels, though, because even “Inferno” doesn’t quite explain why God finds some sin worse than others, not that I could find, but perhaps no one can quite understand God, and that’s why. One thing that I noticed while reading that stuck out to me as well was Capaneus. The footnote stated that he was a figure from Greek mythology, but for some reason, he wasn’t in Limbo with people like Homer. Instead, he was in the circle for violence, specifically violence against God – but instead of the Christian God, it was Zeus, and I can’t help but be fascinated by this. It made me wonder what the reasoning behind that was, but in general, I’ve enjoyed the connections to Greek mythology. From the rivers to Charon and other figures, it’s been obvious that Dante studied classical works.
8-30-13 - Response 2
While I’d done research on Islam before (mainly centering around its five pillars and sharia, Islamic law), I’d never gotten the chance to actually read the text of the Qur’an until this class. In my advanced literature class in high school, we had an entire unit on mythology, which involved some religious texts from other cultures. Despite this previous experience, though, I don’t think anything could have really prepared me for the Qur’an. I found the way it was structured to be fascinating, even if it was a bit difficult for me to grasp, considering I’m used to a more narrative style than what the Qur’an offered.
As well as this, something else I found interesting was how the Qur’an is supposed to be this uncorrupted text, but by us reading it in English, it could have been “corrupted” in translation, just like the Bible or other religious texts that were originally in other languages. I thought it was an interesting contradiction, in a way, and it made me wonder what it would be like to actually read it in Arabic.
Going off of this, when reading, I noticed that any pronoun referring to God was capitalized, unlike in Augustine’s “Confessions”. I have to wonder whether this is actually true in the Arabic, or if it was just something that happened in the translating and editing process. In “Confessions”, though, I like to think that the fact the pronouns weren’t capitalized was as a way to show how close Augustine felt to God, as opposed to the stricter following of Islam.
How strict Islam is actually made me think of “The Consolation of Philosophy” as well. In both Augustine’s work and in Boethius’, they question God or the god-like figure (Lady Philosophy for Boethius), asking why they would do this or things like that. I don’t know all that much about the details of Islam, but there seemed to be much more freedom for those two to do that, and I’m assuming that a Muslim wouldn’t even think of questioning God.
8-23-13 - Response 1
I’ve always loved museums – it never mattered if it housed natural history artifacts, spacecraft, or legendary pieces of artwork, but walking down the corridors and reading the plaques always held a sort of magical quality. At the same time, I’m ashamed to say that I never quite appreciated the pieces of art. When I went to D.C. for an NHS trip this last year, I’d spent practically an entire semester learning about the space race, and so the National Air and Space Museum had a completely different meaning to me. I also had the opportunity to see a DaVinci in another one of the museums, but I wish I had the knowledge I have now – even if it’s not much – when I was there. How we see things is changed by what we know, and I wish I’d known more about art history then like I knew facts about the space race. Knowing about linear perspective and elements of art would have altered the way I viewed those pieces – for the better, I think.
At the same time, I feel like I must have subtly noticed these things, on some subconscious level, or at least, I hope that that must have been the case. In parts of the readings, I’ve caught myself thinking, “Well, why didn’t I think of that before then?” I haven’t thought that just about art history and the way that we view and describe art, but also about the role that culture and time period plays on artwork. Admittedly, if I didn’t give too much thought to it and was asked what time period a piece was from, or what time period I thought it was from, I would blank, only able to think of the Renaissance and about Impressionist paintings. The readings opened my eyes to the impact that culture and time period play, something that I wouldn’t have thought too much about before. Again, I like to think that on somehow I would have had the slightest inkling of those, but even barely into this class and these readings and I’ve realized how blind I’ve been.
Having been in choir for about six years, I was familiar with some of the concepts we talked about this week - at least vocally, but putting these musical ideas into instrumental music is a whole different ballpark. I played violin for about a year during high school as well, so it wasn't something that I was unfamiliar with, but instrumental music really has a different purpose. However, at the same time, I feel as if this idea of "classical music" as something that can be understood across the world, is even true in vocal music. It's at least true that Mozart isn't a composer that's really died of - in my voice lessons one summer, I was working on "Dove Sono" from "The Marriage of Figaro", and my senior year, my mixed double quartet sang "Ave Verum Corpus". It wasn't something I'd ever thought about before, while I was singing them, but you can't even tell what country they originated from, which I find fascinating. I actually guessed the Italian piece right in class, but the fact that music is universal is an amazing, unchanged thing.
What really fascinated me about this week was how Enlightenment ideas made their way into Mozart's music, because it's not exactly something that you think of - there's music history, and then there's history, and there's this weird distinction between the two that people have created. I've never really seen the two connected until now, unless you count the counterculture of the sixties, but that's just almost something expected, I feel like. It strikes me as odd, but it's become so much of a norm, and in contrast, pairing classical music with Enlightenment is something new, something that maybe shouldn't be new. Teaching the two together more would definitely help me keep some of my composers straight, that's for sure. The form of the music was another thing that I loved about this week - especially getting to see sheet music again after so long. It's, again, something most people don't necessarily think about - the general public doesn't really think about the differences between Bach and Mozart, but once you listen to their music, you can really tell.
11-15-13 - Response 11
In my second essay, I would like to do a comparison between Molière's "Tartuffe" and Voltaire's "Candide". Rather than just a standard comparison between what happens in the stories, I would like to begin my essay with a comparison of France during Molière's time (with an emphasis on when his play was first performed) and France during Voltaire's time, to emphasize what exactly each of the writers were satirizing in their works. Due to their differing situations, I would also state the government's opinion (or rather, the state and the Church, both, given each of their relationships with them) about each writer, and how that may have affected their works, especially what they were satirizing in their works.
From that, I would branch into the differences between what they were satirizing, and any similarities as well, and from there, I would talk about how they satirized what they did. This would come to their similarities, in a way, as I would talk about how they both used stock characters (in Molière's case especially, as far as that term goes) and in Voltaire's case, the personification of philosophical ideals in his characters (how Pangloss is optimism, Martin is pessimism and so on, as they don't really have any other traits that define them, just as Orgon and the other characters in "Tartuffe" are not three-dimensional in any way, shape, or form). Finally, I would use their characters as a jumping ground for how their own ideas are reflected in their works. I'm not exactly sure how the paper will be organized yet, but those are at least some of the main ideas that I want to write about, and I might include the reactions to "Tartuffe" and "Candide", as well, but I haven't reached a concrete decision of whether I want to do that or not.
Rachel, this sounds great. You've this through quite a bit already. Go for it. - MH
11-08-13 - Response 10
Something that I just thought of in regards to both "An Essay on Man" and "Candide" are the way that they both look at religion and the Native Americans, at least to a certain extent. In Voltaire's Eldorado, the natives have no religious conflict, and in "An Essay on Man", Pope says that even the uncivilized Indians do not question God. Both presumably accept God and do not act as the Europeans did in religious matters, but I don't think anyone else really acted like the Europeans consistently did. It makes sense, really, for Voltaire to have satirized it, among everything else, but I don't think Pope's views, or others', should be completely discounted. There has to be at least some sort of merit, at least on an individual basis, because different people, of course, believe different things, especially when it comes to religion. It's not even surprising, at this point, that so many different writers (and artists, too) have made their own commentary on it, especially because during their times, it was a much more prominent issue/belief (depending on how you looked at it) than now, in a much more secular society. What did surprise me, though, was how much else Voltaire decided to satirize in "Candide" - the list we had on the board could have probably been never ending, because it seems like any time there was an opportunity to write something sassy, Voltaire took that opportunity. The satirizing of the military definitely surprised me most of all, though, I think - at least typically, it's not something you hear about being satirized - religion, yes, government of any sort, most definitely, but I almost found that most impressive in "Candide", because it made me really think about it, the military, or at least that of the past, in a way I hadn't before. I also really love that they included the meaning of Pangloss' name, because I'm probably a bit obsessed with etymology, and I also realized that the way Jacques-Louis David depicted Socrates, he's basically a Neoclassical Chuck Norris.
11-01-13 - Response 9
When I first saw that we were reading "Tartuffe", I couldn't help but be excited - during my voice lessons this last summer, I worked on an aria from the opera version, so needless to say, I was stoked to see how the actual play would read. The aria was Dorine's, where she's telling Mariane how to deal with men, and is called "Fair Robin I Love." Here (1 and 2) are two different recordings of it, if you're interested at all. I actually had to research the show for when I was working with the aria, so I was already slightly familiar with "Tartuffe", but that research didn't compare to actually reading it or watching those specific sections of it. My voice teacher actually told me that "Fair Robin I Love" was one of the few aspects of "Tartuffe" that people knew about, at least in the musical world, but I don't think I'll be forgetting the actual play anytime soon. I really enjoyed watching the videos of "Tartuffe", actually - it's always easier to read a play when you have an image in mind, and especially in the last videos, it was also more obvious that Tartuffe is the villain (depending on how you look at it) of the play, based on the way his words were said and his physical actions. I thought that Molière's use of stock characters was really interesting though, and it was even more obvious when watching the video. It's fascinating, the difference between characters then and characters now, how much depth modern characters have - even in comedic shows, the characters still have multiple facets to their personalities, but I guess that's just all because of the times. I also thought the background information on Molière and the distaste for theatre was really interesting too - can you imagine what the world today would be like if that viewpoint was still the same, with the industry the size it is?
10-25-13 - Response 8
My first thought at the "without breeches" bit of "Of Cannibals" was definitely the sans-culottes. It's a bit of a random connection, and obviously the meaning is different in the situations, but I couldn't help but think of it. In the case of the French Revolution, it was those in power that we typically hear about being executed (which you could compare to the Europeans in the age of exploration), while in the time Montaigne was writing, it was the natives (or the lower class, comparatively though not necessarily accurately) that were executed. It was interesting to me, but other than that, I actually really liked Montaigne's essay, though he did go off on quite a few tangents throughout, and loved the tie-ins between it and "O Brave New World".
Reading the tales of the explorers, it really hit me how brutal most of them actually were - in most history classes, it's always felt as if the truth of the Spaniards' brutality was simply brushed over. In the accounts we read, though, while the bias definitely shone through in their accounts, it was amazing what really happened from the natives' perspective. What they did seemed just as brutal as cannibalism - and even more ridiculous. The natives had done nothing to them, and as Elizabeth said in our newscast, they even offered chicken, and yet they were slaughtered. At least with the cannibals, their reasoning made sense, even if it does seem so morally wrong - just as wrong as the slaughtering of an entire civilization. Reading "O Brave New World" almost made me angry - there was so much knowledge that we could have learned, and yet so much of it is gone. It was a waste, and all in the name of what? Gold, God and glory, but at what costs?
10-11-13 - Response 7
Rachel, this is a great topic. When you say that times have changed, would you argue that we shouldn't take some of Machiavelli's advice today because we live in a democracy? What is it that has changed that should affect how we judge and apply Machiavelli's ideas? Do you think some of his advice should have avoided in his own time? Do you agree with his views about human nature? - MH
For our first essay, I'd like to do write about the contemporary relevance of Machiavelli's "The Prince". It would be a standard essay, so no worries about having a creative option approved just yet, but the mention of how President Obama could learn from Machiavelli's statement that it is better to be feared than loved got me thinking. Initially, I wanted to do my comparative essay first, but that statement just clicked in my mind - Machiavelli's treatise, despite its age, still has its place in the modern world. Politics, of course, first come to mind, but I'm thinking that another part of my thesis will argue that "The Prince" has information that could be used - and possibly should be used - in our day to day lives, even if we aren't politicians, though I don't think that this will take over the bulk of the essay, as the focus of "The Prince" will always namely be politics.
With politics, though, my plan is to argue that some of what Machiavelli says about ruling should not be applied to today - it's still quite relevant, but almost as a model of what not to do, considering how times have changed. I plan to apply this to the day to day life section as well. I also plan to do some additional research into "The Prince," finding aspects beyond what we read in class that are either relevant today or something to shy away from, because while what we read was a good taste of his work, there was so much more to ruling than just that in Machiavelli's time, and there's much more to ruling now than then, too. If I can, I'll also work in what Machiavellian principles are already in effect today, namely in politics, for better or for worse.
10-04-13 - Response 6
I like to think of myself as a self-proclaimed, beginner etymology nerd, so one of my favorite things that I took away from this week was the meaning of “utopia”. I found it fascinating that Thomas More was the one who created the word, as I’d had no previous knowledge about that. It’s interesting to think about that, though – one person created a word and created a narrative that has shaped an entre genre that we have now. More probably didn’t have dystopian societies in mind, but it’s amazing to think about what all has come from “Utopia”, especially considering his narrative was more of a political statement than anything, or at least more than an actual story, like I was expecting. I hadn’t known quite what to expect when we started reading “Utopia”, and I’m still not entirely sure how I feel about it. I thought it was interesting, but it didn’t necessarily keep my interest, as it felt like more of a list of features than anything.
I found Machiavelli’s “The Prince” more entertaining than “Utopia”, and while admitting this kind of scares me, I kind of understood where Machiavelli was coming from with it all. I’m not saying that I’m going to send my first born child to be raised by a centaur or that I’m not actually going to be honest, but for the time period, it all seemed fairly reasonable for rulers. After all, none of them were really perfect, just looking at history, and the qualities Machiavelli lists makes that obvious, when you think about certain different rulers. I find the reason that Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” interesting in comparison to More’s reason for writing “Utopia”, though – both were for political reasons, but they’re opposite, in a way, at least the way I look at them. After all, trying to get back into court life isn’t exactly the same as criticizing court life and society.
9-27-13 - Response 5
As far as "The Canterbury Tales" goes, I wasn't a fan at the start, not at all. At the risk of sounding too critical, I found the rhyming to be almost too obnoxious, and the prologue didn't seem like it was going to end. That definitely sounded critical, but it wasn't what I expected of Chaucer's work, at first. Continuing reading past the prologue, it got better, and I found myself a bit more interested. I found the Wife of Bath's tale to be much more interesting than her prologue, though, and liked the connection I found between the two. As we were talking about in class today, there's obviously satire in Chaucer's work, centering around anti-feminism, in my opinion. This satire is introduced in the prologue, but while it's clear that the Wife's point is made through the hag, there's also the fact that the knight had to report to the queen, rather than the king. I have to wonder what exactly was satirized in the other pilgrims' stories, just out of curiosity's sake, because I feel like with the Wife of Bath, the satire that Chaucer did was sort of expected. Multiple husbands in his time? Surely makes for a strong character with a strong message, and I honestly can't think of another way he would have taken that.
In my opinion, the choices author's make definitely say something about their time period, as well, but unfortunately, I'm not well versed in the culture of England in the Middle Ages, because part of me wonders what exactly motivated Chaucer to keep certain characters pure (if that's the proper word for it), rather than to satirize them. The number of characters related to the Church, though, I feel, are an obvious commentary on the role of the Church during that time period, but as far as the other characters go, sadly, we can't exactly ask Chaucer about his motivations or reasonings.
9-20-13 - Response 4
After finishing Dante’s “Inferno”, I’m not ashamed to say that I checked some other sources to try and understand aspects of it – specifically why the lowest circles of Hell were frozen, and while I didn’t quite get the answer I was looking for, I did come across something interesting. In Dante’s work, there’s quite a lot of overlap with sin – as with my example from last week with Capaneus -- but the source I found, though I can’t find the link again, unfortunately, said that Dante may have placed certain people in certain levels based on what defines their stories. Capaneus is not defined by the fact that he lived in a time before Christianity, but instead for his violence against God, or rather Zeus. This puts Francesca’s punishment in to perspective as well, and it was something I hadn’t really considered until I’d read it.
Knowing that would have made reading it a bit less frustrating, but it’s something kind of interesting to look back on. Another thing I find myself looking back on is how Dante changed – from pity to kicking spirits (whether accidentally or on purpose), that’s quite an obvious difference. Part of me is wondering whether it’s possible that this was just some sort of side effect of travelling through Hell, that travelling through such a gruesome place rubbed off on Dante’s actions and emotions, or whether the further they went through Hell, the more he realized that these people may not have disturbed his pity. I’m debating looking in to “Purgatory” and “Paradise”, just for the sake of seeing if Dante changes back to who he was (not that he totally changed, I’m not trying to say that) when he’s in a better environment, but I’m glad that I got to read “Inferno” at all and wish I could have read it during high school, as well.
9-13-13 - Response 3
While I’ve always wanted to read “The Divine Comedy”, I’ve never gotten the chance to read it until this year, but I’m not quite sure if it was what I expected. Regardless, I still find it really interesting, but also a tad overwhelming at times. The sheer number of references that Dante makes seems like overkill, during certain cantos, especially for me when it’s an Italian that I’ve never head of – I try to remind myself, though, that the people who would have read this originally would have probably known who they were. For me, the sins and their punishments are easier to understand if I know whom the person in hell is – Attila the Hun holds more significance to me than Ser Brunetto. The organization of hell kind of baffles me as well – it doesn’t make sense to me that thieves are in a lower circle of hell than murderers, but there’s probably some logic behind it.
I have to wonder how Dante figured out these levels, though, because even “Inferno” doesn’t quite explain why God finds some sin worse than others, not that I could find, but perhaps no one can quite understand God, and that’s why. One thing that I noticed while reading that stuck out to me as well was Capaneus. The footnote stated that he was a figure from Greek mythology, but for some reason, he wasn’t in Limbo with people like Homer. Instead, he was in the circle for violence, specifically violence against God – but instead of the Christian God, it was Zeus, and I can’t help but be fascinated by this. It made me wonder what the reasoning behind that was, but in general, I’ve enjoyed the connections to Greek mythology. From the rivers to Charon and other figures, it’s been obvious that Dante studied classical works.
8-30-13 - Response 2
While I’d done research on Islam before (mainly centering around its five pillars and sharia, Islamic law), I’d never gotten the chance to actually read the text of the Qur’an until this class. In my advanced literature class in high school, we had an entire unit on mythology, which involved some religious texts from other cultures. Despite this previous experience, though, I don’t think anything could have really prepared me for the Qur’an. I found the way it was structured to be fascinating, even if it was a bit difficult for me to grasp, considering I’m used to a more narrative style than what the Qur’an offered.
As well as this, something else I found interesting was how the Qur’an is supposed to be this uncorrupted text, but by us reading it in English, it could have been “corrupted” in translation, just like the Bible or other religious texts that were originally in other languages. I thought it was an interesting contradiction, in a way, and it made me wonder what it would be like to actually read it in Arabic.
Going off of this, when reading, I noticed that any pronoun referring to God was capitalized, unlike in Augustine’s “Confessions”. I have to wonder whether this is actually true in the Arabic, or if it was just something that happened in the translating and editing process. In “Confessions”, though, I like to think that the fact the pronouns weren’t capitalized was as a way to show how close Augustine felt to God, as opposed to the stricter following of Islam.
How strict Islam is actually made me think of “The Consolation of Philosophy” as well. In both Augustine’s work and in Boethius’, they question God or the god-like figure (Lady Philosophy for Boethius), asking why they would do this or things like that. I don’t know all that much about the details of Islam, but there seemed to be much more freedom for those two to do that, and I’m assuming that a Muslim wouldn’t even think of questioning God.
8-23-13 - Response 1
I’ve always loved museums – it never mattered if it housed natural history artifacts, spacecraft, or legendary pieces of artwork, but walking down the corridors and reading the plaques always held a sort of magical quality. At the same time, I’m ashamed to say that I never quite appreciated the pieces of art. When I went to D.C. for an NHS trip this last year, I’d spent practically an entire semester learning about the space race, and so the National Air and Space Museum had a completely different meaning to me. I also had the opportunity to see a DaVinci in another one of the museums, but I wish I had the knowledge I have now – even if it’s not much – when I was there. How we see things is changed by what we know, and I wish I’d known more about art history then like I knew facts about the space race. Knowing about linear perspective and elements of art would have altered the way I viewed those pieces – for the better, I think.
At the same time, I feel like I must have subtly noticed these things, on some subconscious level, or at least, I hope that that must have been the case. In parts of the readings, I’ve caught myself thinking, “Well, why didn’t I think of that before then?” I haven’t thought that just about art history and the way that we view and describe art, but also about the role that culture and time period plays on artwork. Admittedly, if I didn’t give too much thought to it and was asked what time period a piece was from, or what time period I thought it was from, I would blank, only able to think of the Renaissance and about Impressionist paintings. The readings opened my eyes to the impact that culture and time period play, something that I wouldn’t have thought too much about before. Again, I like to think that on somehow I would have had the slightest inkling of those, but even barely into this class and these readings and I’ve realized how blind I’ve been.