A Day In The Life...

MARTHA MOORE BALLARD

Martha Ballard is so fascinating to me because of how utterly normal she was. The most extraordinary thing about her is her sister, Clare Barton, who was the found if the Red Cross. A midwife and mother in New England during the late 18th and early 19th century, Ballard was intelligent and intuitive, organized and authoritative. Born and raised in Oxford, she came to Hallowell, Maine in 1777.

Her diary, which served as the inspiration and primary source analyzed in Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's A Midwife's Tale, is nothing like the emotional expulsions that one normally are associated with diaries. Ballard used this diary as a form of record keeping, as a way to keep track of all the births and illnesses she helped with. Throughout the 9, 965 journal entries, three things are always present in each entry: her health, the weather and recent births. This diary, in all its mundane glory, bring the details of Ballard's daily activities to life for twenty-first century readers.

By analyzing Ballard's life, we are able to doing a microcosmic study in order to understand the larger macrocosm of life in New England during this time. Her diary helps fill in the missing work, trade and responsibilities of women, as well as their interaction and collaboration with men, in the 1700 and 1800s. She also provides insight into the medical practices of this time.

Ballard's practice and application of medicine is what fascinated me the most while reading this book. I found that far from striving to discover the cause for any illness or ailment, Martha's primary concern with her patients was to make them feel better. She strongly believed, as most early moderns did, in the humoral theory and the importance of balancing the four bodily humours. She treated internal problems with external remedies. It is so interesting for me to get a peak into how people during this time period viewed medicine, and how far it has come since then.

Inspired

I thought some inspirational haikus were in order:

Mary Wollstonecraft
first "official" feminist
she represented

Respect she wanted
Equality she longed for
and education

For if the teachers
Aren't learned, who will teach the kids?
Your sons and daughters?

It is through learning
That greater devotion to
Vocation is found

Smart girls won't disrupt
Society at all, but
Only improve it

Motherhood, worthy
and noble calling it is
indubitably

The household is a
Microcosm of government
Male head, Female next

Declaration of Rights
Inspir'd by current events
Tumultuous times

Demanding that her
voice be heard, she defines
MANKIND as HUMAN.

Home of the Brave

"We the People..."

the first government produced by the people.

"unalienable rights"

America, the beautiful.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Locke. Montesquieu.

Jefferson. Franklin. Adams.

The bravery of those revolutionists in the late 18th century built a foundation for the country we live in today. I've known this all my life. And yet every once in a while it still just kind of hits me...how much was established that fourth of July in 1776.

Not just a Declaration of Independence. A Declaration of the Rights of Man(kind).

One document. 27 Amendments. 233 years.

Proud to be an American. Inspired to stand for something worthwhile.

Naive? Irrational? perhaps.
Overly optimistic or idealistic? Absolutely.

And yet...weren't those same forefathers described the same way...?

A Day In the LIfe

If anyone else out there is like me, you thought the "Interesting Narrative" of Olaudah Equiano was a bit difficult to follow at times...and so, I found a timeline of his life (HERE`,)

After discussion in class yesterday, I appreciate the fact that Equiano felt the need to include a lot of details in his narrative. The readers have little problem imagining the sights, the sounds, and even the smells in the different scenes he paints for us. And yet, was it completely necessary to go into AS MUCH detail as he did in the second half of his narrative? What purpose was he serving, retelling sea battle after sea battle?

I suppose this depends on the purpose of his narrative, of course. If he was advocating abolitionism or the horrors of slavery, then I especially don't understand the inclusion of his sea adventures. But if, truly, Equiano was just retelling his life's story, then maybe he thought that'd be of interest.

I still don't feel like we came to a conclusion on his purpose for writing this narrative...which makes me think: is there anyway for anyone to really know why he wrote it? Is there an exact answer to this question?

Here Comes The Sun

As I alluded in class on Tuesday, I was really interested in the significance of all the references to the Sun and light in Letters from a Peruvian Woman.

-Zilia often refers to Aza as her "light" or her "Sun". I think this not only refers to him being the Sun King, or the representative of her people's worship (god) on Earth, but also of quite literally, how he brightens her life and makes her life worth living. After all, what is a day without light? How miserable do all of South Bend gets when the permi-cloud again descends on the city for those morbid winter days.

-She speaks of the Sun as though it is unique to her world in Peru. I understand the comfort she would receive from seeing this celestial body in the sky, something familiar when everything else in her life was foreign and frightening.

-She references the enlightened philosophers she learns from in her studies, how they are the "lights of learning and all the help I need"

I did notice that this "light language", so prevalent in the first half of the book, is not used nearly as much in the second half of the novel. I wonder if that is another sign of Zilia becoming more "European" - relying more and more on her newly acquired French customs and lifestyle, less and less on her Incan heritage?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) was a French writer, composer and philosopher. Born in Geneva to a Huguenot family, Rousseau ran to Savory at age 15 since his mother died in childbirth and his father was forced out of Geneva after getting into some legal trouble. In Savory Rousseau was taken in by a Catholic priest and introduced to Françoise-Louise de Warens, a rich matron/lover who would support him and his education for years to come. Many of his works are considered precursors to other monumental movements and ideas in society. His novel Julie is thought to have inspired what would become romanticism in fiction, and his Confessions is similar to Augustine in the influence it had in the autobiographical genre. He believed his most important work was Emile, or On Education. Rousseau was a key figure in the French Revolution, being one of the most influential leaders of the Jacobin Club. His philosophy centers around the idea that man is inherently good, and claims that the material world is hindering human relationships and morality.

Children and Civic Education from Emile (1762)

In this excerpt, Rousseau discusses the importance of childhood. Rather than teaching children how to reason before they are capable of understanding such things, he argues, teach them the most basic of skills so that when they are developed enough to learn how to reason they will have the tools necessary to do so. Rousseau implores his audience to “cherish childhood, look with favor on its games, its pleasures, its friendly instincts” (231). This surprised me a bit, since I view the Enlightenment as a time where reason and inquiry are valued very highly. But I suppose it is also a time in which life itself was celebrated, at every stage and in every way. Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau recognized the process involved in development.

Duties of Women from Emile (1762)

In this piece, Rousseau proves that he is similar in mind to most other men we have read in our three semesters in HUST. He presents the rather unoriginal idea that women have sexual power over men, that “women so easily stir a man’s senses and fan ashes of a dying passion” (570). Rousseau scoffs at the idea of men and women being equal, saying that “women do wrong to complain of the inequality of man-made laws; this inequality is not of man’s making, or at any rate it is not the result of mere prejudice, but of reason” (571). He stresses the woman’s role as weak and passive, as a compliment to the man’s strong and aggressive role. He encourages the education of girls, but also explains how naturally vain they are. Women’s natural duty is to bear children and care for the home. An adulterous male is “cruel and unjust” but “the faithless wife is worse…her crime is not infidelity but treason” (572). I must say, his argument is rather impressive in the sense that he words everything cleverly. Rousseau presents every argument as either a back-handed compliment or as if it were a law of nature that he is just stating. I’m sure he truly believed that women were the weaker sex that should be admired for their contributions to society. Those contributions just seem sexist and offensive today.

Domo Arigato, Mr. Oroonoko

Reading Oroonoko, I was interested in the fact that all the action of the story seemed to happen in a blur, within the last few pages of the book. The rebellion Oroonoko tried to start was quickly inspired and quickly quelled, with Oroonoko going from hate to desperation even more quickly.

For all the description and attention to detail the Behn gives in the first half of the story, I was surprised at how vague she was in describing the end of it. Was this some writing method...since she was writing this as if she learned the whole story first hand, Oroonoko was able to tell her his story firsthand, until the point of the rebellion/murder of Imoinda, where she needed to remain vague if she wanted to keep with the idea of Oroonoko being real? For, if she did know all the details of these aspects of the story, it would have been clear that she was making the story up?

Or maybe Behn just wanted the story to be focused on the bravery and noble nature of Oroonoko, and therefore played up the more brave and noble aspects of his life. This read more like a drama/tragedy than a slave narrative to me. Maybe Behn thought too much focus on Oroonoko's fight for freedom would turn her tale into too much of a abolitionist piece?

I don't know if I'm being particularly articulate in saying what I'm thinking (what else is new?). But I also think that there is a reason for why Behn rushed through so much of the action towards the end of the story, and filled the book instead with details and romanticized drama.

Where's the Danger?

The controversy that surrounded Tartuffe in the 17th century, and the reason behind its being forbidden, made me begin to think...

I understand that Louis XIV, as an absolute ruler, did not want any form of entertainment that would allow his subjects to interpret things for themselves. It is an easy way to undermine everything Louis' regime stood for and fought to install in French society. So although he like Moliere and was entertained by his plays, I understand why Louis XIV banned the play. Louis needed absolute control over every aspect of his people's lives.

In defense of his play, Moliere asks the question:

"That by putting it onstage I make it dangerous?"

I think Moliere meant that the challenge to a doctrine, people questioning a specific Church truth, is dangerous anywhere. Just by publicly proclaiming it onstage does not make the idea troublesome - it already exists and is a problem! As a writer, Moliere is just drawing attention to this specific social/religious threat.

I would argue that Moliere is correct - he is not creating the questions themselves...but he is making them more publicized. He is making these problems more real by bringing them out in the open.

The Life and Some Works of Joseph Priestly

Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) was an English Unitarian minister and chemist. He was both ordained a minister and married to Mary Wilkinson in 1762. Priestley was on of the founders of Unitarianism, a theology based on the belief in God as one entity, contrary to the popular belief at the time in the trinity. Learned in Latin, Greek, physics, philosophy, algebra and mathematics, Priestley is considered one of the 18th century's most outstanding experimental scientists. He is credited with discovering 9 different gases (only 3 had been previously identified), including oxygen or "dephlogisticated air" in 1774. He also invented soda water ("mephitic julep") as an attempt to prevent scurvy. His experiments in electricity earned him admission into the Royal Society in 1766. Priestley believed that writing the history of science was important because it could show how humans interact with the natural world, as well as the progress of mankind. He wrote over 150 works in his lifetime. To him, science was integral to theology. He repeatedly tried to fuse Enlightenment rationalism with Christian theism. Priestley also believed in civil and religious liberty, consistently advocating toleration and equal rights for Dissenters (since he was one). For these beliefs, Priestley was suffered persecution and hostility from his countrymen. He was often considered an atheist, despite his many writings on spirituality and religion. His house and laboratory were burnt down in 1791. He fled to Pennsylvania to find the religious freedom that was so lacking in Britain. He died in Northumberland, PA in 1804.

Unitarianism (p. 155-160)

This selection from one of Priestley's Letters to Dr. Horsley of 1783 is the Unitarianism creed, referred to as Socinian. He begins by describing his accepting of "the Socinian hypothesis." Priestley explains that he was born a fervent Calvinist, and then later converted to Arianism before he turned to Unitarianism. He goes on to explain his belief in Christ as fully human, and how the early Christian Church must have then began with a Unitarian mindset. Priestley stresses the fact that someone cannot be expected to be converted by arguments, but by the internal reading and processing of Scripture. He defends himself against religious persecutors, saying that he has always been open to listen to new ideas, and has been willing to accept them if they make sense. Priestley mentions the persecution he has received for the publication of The History of the Corruptions of Christianity, although he later thanks God for this opportunity to expose so many people to his beliefs. He ends positively proclaiming the benevolence of God and expressing his utmost trust in God's plan. Although he does not believe that God is inspiring him to write each word, he does believe that every action engaged in "theological controversy" is "promoting his own excellent purposes."

The Organization of Scientific Research (p. 69-73)

This excerpt, taken from Priestley's History and Present State of Electricity (1767), describes his ideas on how to systematically conduct scientific research. Priestley believes that science has become to large of a discipline: "at present retarded...by its own weight." He suggests subdividing it into smaller, more manageable disciplines. Before this, however, Priestley wants to write one large history of science as a whole. He explains that Natural Philosophy requires more wealth than other disciplines, because "Nature will not be put out of her way" just so man can discover her secrets. As it turns out, he continues, most aristocrats are willing to become patrons, as science is what often makes their lives more comfortable and sophisticated. Priestley proclaims that the sciences are what advances man above barbarianism and brutality; not only do they make it easier for man to live longer, but improves mankinds's very nature. The study of nature allows man to understand better, and therefore, in Priestley's mind, allows his to take more joy in the happenings of the world.

Discussion Questions

- Priestley ends his Organization of Scientific Research by saying that by further examining nature, even the bad things in life could be understood to be working towards a greater good. Do you think that is true? Do we perceive evil and pain simply because we are ignorant?

-Priestley believes that science is inevitably linked to religion. The more you know about science, the more you know about God and His plan for us. Thoughts?

- Why would Priestley's belief in Unitarianism be so controversial at the time? Why was he so persecuted for his beliefs?

Connections

In light of the recent midterm, I was thinking of various themes we've covered this semester.

It struck me that the idea of the journey has not only been a linking theme this semester. It has been a prominent theme since we started our own journey as a class in the medieval times that has carried us through the Enlightenment. Remember Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Or Saint Benedict's spiritual journey? Petrarch's search of the self? Chaucer's portrayal of pilgrims traveling to pay homage to a saint's relic? Dante's depiction of a journey through hell?

I think this says a lot about human nature as a whole. We are constantly searching, never satisfied with what we have. We have this irresistible urge to discover. There is something enchantingly romantic about the noble quest: spiritual, mental, emotional or physical.

I'm sure this idea will keep returning into the Spring. I just thought it was interesting that one idea could carry through time, literature and history in such an absolute and dramatic way.

Other Devil-ish Works

More than once in our discussions about Paradise Lost I was reminded of a book I've read by C.S. Lewis called The Screwtape Letters.

There's a website explaining and analyzing the text, which is interesting: Look Here

Basically, the novel is a collection of letters written by a demon named Screwtape to his young novice, Woodworm, on how to win a soul for Satan. In this complex, mind-messing novel, Lewis creates an intricate hierarchial web in the underworld, which reminded me a lot of Pandemonium.

The thing that mostly reminded me of Paradise Lost, I think, is how real the demon seemed. Conniving and clever, Screwtape is completely committed to his evil cause. However, his arguments make sense and his summation of human nature (though, of course, cynical) is pretty dead on. I think the epistle format of the books also add an element of relatability. Milton also is able to portray Satan (the Arch-Enemy, the Fallen Angel, Lucifer) as a captivating and dynamic figure. There's just something about the fact that Milton chose Satan to be the epic hero in his poem that challenges norms.

In both The Screwtape Letters and Paradise Lost the demons are eerily believable. They also both chose to use the hell to make comparisons to humans, rather than setting a scene in heaven. Milton, a notorious anti-Royalist, portrays heaven as a sort of monarch and hell as having a council as its form of government. Perhaps he did this as a way of saying that only God could be a completely righteous and just monarch, so all of those who are fallen should be ruled by councils. In the same way, I feel like C.S. Lewis believed that it was easier, and more believable, to depict a demon than an angel. How much easier is it to portray human's evil tendencies, after all?

Again, I have to appreciate the guts it takes for any author to take on the challenge of getting into the mind of and personify demons. How do you even begin to get in the mind of a demon? What makes a believeable devil?

Why Light?

I just thought this was cool, especially since we saw the original cover of Anne Bradstreet's "The Tenth Muse." It really has nothing to do with the rest of this blog.

I love Milton's rhetoric. Sometimes I'll find myself re-reading passages just because it sounds so darn good. I've always known words could be powerful, but I feel like this just took it to a whole other level for me.

What especially interested in was Milton's emphasis on LIGHT and DARK. There are so many allusions to this theme, whether he's talking about the underworld being a "dark descent" or God shining bright though covered by a cloud, or the Holy Spirit illuminating what is normally invisible to mortals. Why the consistent return to this language of sight?

- It's just a natural way to describe the indescribable? It is something that is always present, although it's intangible - so it makes the perfect analogy to God?

- It's simply human nature to focus on that which we do not have. So is Milton emphasizing the visual in his poetry because that is what he lacks? Is he perhaps trying to create a world which he can "see" in his mind's eye?

- When you close your eyes, you can still recognize the difference between light and dark, sun and shade. Maybe Milton's emphasis on light comes from the fact that it is still a part of the visual world that he can relate to and sense despite his lack of sight?

- Quite frankly, words of light, illumination and sunshine are beautiful. You just feel happy inside thinking about those things. Words associated with darkness have a very negative connotation. Maybe Milton is trying to play off of these natural human feelings to evoke emotion in his work?

- Along those lines: this stark contrast, the very opposite-ness of the natures of light and dark, make a perfect dichotomy for God and Satan?

The Last Enemy To Be Destroyed Is Death

While by thee rais'd I ruin all my Foes,
Death last

Milton writes these words into Jesus' mouth as part of his acceptance speech to take on the role of Sacrificial Lamb for all of Mankind.

Reading this, I couldn't help but think of another quote...

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." - 1 Corinthians 15:26*

I was instantly struck with this parallel, the almost word-for-word rephrasing of Scripture. Surely people of Milton's time would have recognized this passage, and many others that he invokes in Paradise Lost, as borrowed from the Bible. This may give his work more credibility, with a more reliable and true tone. Or maybe Milton just thought it natural for God to voice these passages, since if Scripture was divinely inspired then God would have said these things before anyway.

This parallel also made me realize just how much of a humanistic work this is. This is combining the classical epic poetry with religion and history and science. The calculated mixture of imagination and learning is difficult to achieve. Well done, Milton, well done.

*Is it bad that I recognized the passage in Paradise Lost as being from the Bible because it was written on James and Lily Potter's graves in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Harry Potter: bridging the gap between Milton and the Bible. I love it.

Free Will and Forgiveness

The first sort by their own suggestion fell,
self-tempted, self-deprav'd: Man falls deceiv'd
By the other first: Man therefore shall find grace,
The other none

Here is the choice of free will cropping up again, although in a very different sense than how we normally think about it. The fallen angels (now demons) chose their fate. They, out of their own greed and weakness, decided to fall out of God's favor. Man, however, was deceived by these creatures. Although Man had a choice to chose evil over good, he still was not motivated out of his own wickedness to turn away from God.

And therein lies the difference, and the reason why Satan cannot repent, right? If he was self-tempted in Heaven, eternal Paradise, then why would he satisfied anywhere else, on Earth or elsewhere, if he wasn't The Authority?

Why Anne?

Regarding the debate we had towards the end of class Thursday...

There is no doubt Anne Bradstreet was an incredibly unique case. She was the first American poet, and the fact that no other women even attempted her level of sophisticated poetry for years to come sets her apart.

Why? Why was she so unique?

How many other fathers at this time allowed their daughters to be educated at the level Anne was? How many fathers allowed their 10-year-old daughters to enter religious, political and historical conversations with men? Poetry is a difficult field in its own right: How many other people, much less women, had her kind of talent? How many women at that time were of the appropriate social status to be respected as a gentlewoman? How many women at the time knew enough important people (men) who would fight for their cause and actually be listened to? How many women would have known how to (and would be able to) carefully walk that tight-rope, balancing their faith, responsibility as obedient wife, their place in the social hierarchy, their daily chores, their education and their own artistic work? How many women had the ever-present and relentless thirst for knowledge, to challenge their mind?

There are so many what-ifs in Anne's world that fell perfectly into place, allowing her to become the poet that she was. A combination of her own wit and intelligence, the open-mindedness (ironic?) and support of the men in her life, and her socioeconomic position in life all helped her achieve success as a poet. Considering all of the prejudices and suspicions of women during the 18th century, it is little wonder why Anne was not one of many women writers. She may indeed have changed the way many people viewed women at the time, but perhaps it doesn't show in the history books because no other woman was able to have the considerable luck (or Godly blessing, as Anne would say) for it to work out for her.

Scientific Thinking

As a (somewhat) scientific thinker, I was interested the various ways of observing and making sense of the world. I found these definitions of inductive (Bacon) vs. deductive (traditional) methods online at http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/Physics/PhyNet/AboutScience/Inductive.html:

The inductive method (usually called the scientific method) is the deductive method "turned upside down". The deductive method starts with a few true statements (axioms) with the goal of proving many true statements (theorems) that logically follow from them. The inductive method starts with many observations of nature, with the goal of finding a few, powerful statements about how nature works

In the deductive method, logic is the authority. If a statement follows logically from the axioms of the system, it must be true. In the scientific method, observation of nature is the authority. If an idea conflicts with what happens in nature, the idea must be changed or abandoned.


Here's the problem I have with the inductive method: Couldn't you find any observation in nature that will allow you to form any theory? Did Bacon recognize this as a problem, or did he leave that problem to those who followed him in developing what today is known as the scientific method?

I suppose this isn't too much of a stretch, considering that many religious groups of the time shared exactly in this kind of mindset. They say that anyone could justify anything from the Bible. But weren't people at this time claiming "Sola Scriptura" - only the Bible - without any guidance whatsoever from hierarchial figures or unifying doctrines? One small excerpt from a passage, even taken out of context, could justify an entire religious movement. This idea of microcosm as proof of macrocosm seems to be popular at this time in history.

To some extent, I would say this is true. But taken to the extreme, and we have problems.

Turn and Face

The idea of black-face, when white actors paint their faces black to embody colored characters, reminded me of our discussion of stereotypes last semester.

While it may be considered "progress" for black characters to be written in plays as noble characters and played by prominent actors, isn't it degrading for all those prominent actors to be white?

Was this custom really reinforcing traditional beliefs that dark skin on the outside of the body was somehow related to (or indicative of) a way-ward, untrustworthy and unstable inner self? After all, after each performance those famous actors would wash off the dirty tar from their faces and enter the "real world" with shining white faces, cleansed of any sign of the character they were so "proud" to embody on stage.

Oh, the Tragedy

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
Has lost as much as you?
Due to the plan
Of a cold-hearted man
Who you thought you knew!

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
has never felt jealous before?
But too far you took it
Once your fire was lit
You didn't pause to learn more.

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
hasn't given his lover a gift?
Your hankerchief, red on white,
Was at the heart of the fight
That caused all fortunes to shift.

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
has trusted his eyes so completely?
Believing nothing but what you saw
Although the visual scenes were flawed
Caused you to discard your love so quickly.

Othello, Othello, oh what fellow
could have seen this coming?
Power, love and riches were yours
But when it rains, it pours
And now you have nothing.

Good Guys, Bad Luck?

I love irony.

Diversity can enrich any culture. The important thing to remember, however, is that all parties involved must be willing to accept the others - not just stomp them out and claim to conquer. In this case, the Indians were seemingly willing and hospitable while the Europeans were not so accepting. The nice guys do finish last, sometimes.

It seemed to me that Cabeza de Vaca truly cared for and appreciated the Indians, although he would rather not have lived the way they did. At least he appreciated them enough that he didn't approve of their being sold as slaves, anyway. Maybe it took him however many months living among them, being supported by them, for him to adopt this view.

Why was Cabeza de Vaca exiled? Why did his life finish in such disgrace? What did he do wrong? Was it because he befriended and fought for the Native Americans' rights? Or was he just punished for being one of the few survivors of the initial expedition that he set out on? Was he a "good guy"?

I have been meaning to update my blog all summer. As there is a little over a week left before the Fall 2009 semester is officially underway, I began to seriously think about what I'd write.

And then I got to thinking...

Is it presumptuous to assume that people will be interested to hear about my summer activities?

Is it a bit arrogant to think that someone would be excited to hear my most random thoughts, my rather mundane stresses and fears?

But then, I thought...

Well, would it be rude of me to deny my friends, who I saw every day this past year, the very basic privilege of keeping them updated on my life?

Is it awful for me to question the genuine friendship and compassion of those who I struggled through the hardships and challenges of that first year in HUST with?

It's like being caught between a rock and a hard place -

Risk being rude or being arrogant.

Or just overthink everything and drive yourself crazy.

WELCOME TO THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF MEGAN M. HOOPER

How excited are you guys for this semester?! There's only more where that came from.... :)

Shakespeare...the legend

I'll admit it - I am excited for Shakespeare. I really enjoy his plays - I wish we could have read more of them in high school. I've read a few of his works on his own, but I feel like his works are best learned through discussion (with someone who actually knows what he's saying...)

Shakespeare is such a popularized figure. Like da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," Shakespeare created characters, words and plays that have become so integrated into popular culture that most people don't even realize it was he who invented the word "bittersweet." I was shocked when I first discovered it was Hamlet who said "to be or not to be" - I was introduced to that idea on the popular TV show "Doug."

To prove my point, and to relate this blog to sonnets...

Buy one of these!

Or this!

But, what is it about Shakespeare that has made him such a popular figure in our culture?

Why is he all over the place?

Of all the brilliant authors, why do most people automatically think of Shakespeare when asked to name a play writer?

What is reality?

Why do these authors keep messing with our minds?!

What is real, and what isn't?

Gilles and More are actual people, but Raphael Nosenso is fictional. They talk about the imaginary place of Utopia, even in the preface "psuedo-letters," as though it's real.

It was hard to remind myself that this place was fake, made-up, when people I knew to be real were talking about it as though it was an actual place to be found. The more I read, the less sure I am of my pre-conceived notions of the book, Renaissance England, and even my own beliefs.

Bah. Can't we just go back to the Bernstein Bears - one simple moral at the end of every story!

Folly's Medley

Inspired by Erasmus' The Praise of Folly:


Fiddle-ee-dee, Fiddle-ee-dough
What are all these long faces fo'?
No no no, this won't do!
Not in the least...
Why over-analyze
criticize
customize
When you can inspire
desire
aspire
Here's to you, fire-fly chasers
Carry on, starry-eyed dreamers
Fee-figh-fo-fum
Listen to the beating drum
and watch the nodding servants pray
while the holy fathers play
Foolosophers you try and hide
But within you I abide
Fun
Frolic
Free
Frisky
I am friends with Mirth and Whisky.
In Latin call me STULTITIA
Greeks know me as MORIA
Fiddle-ee-dough, Fiddle-ee-dee

Folly - that's me!

Martin Luther: Myth, Legend, Man

Controversial topics cannot help but draw many diverse opinions...some more bizarre and uneducated than others. Martin Luther's views that spurred the Protestant Reformation most definitely falls into this category.

Growing up a "cradle Catholic," I thought that Martin Luther was a "bad guy" who split apart the Church just because he was a trouble-maker. I can't remember if I was actually taught that way, or if, in my 10 year old mind, not doing what you're told, going against the rule of the Church, and causing political/religious upheaval automatically made you bad. Even in high school, when I realized that Luther was calling for reform in a Church that very much needed it, I was still thinking like Luther did when he first started speaking out: the Pope, surely, could not have known what was going on; it is his clerics and church officials that were corrupt. Now I really know just how awful the Church was back then.

Protestants, on the other hand, have probably grown up with just the opposite view. One of my friends, Andrew, was just telling me how Luther was seen as a beacon of light and hope, a man who had the courage to speak the Truth and fight for justice when all those around him were corrupt.


I found this guy on YouTube...he definitely represents a radical view of Luther...can you guess which extreme he is?

Martin Luther: Epitome of Evil

- I am interested that he suggests the Luther was driven by fear, which we have mentioned in class

- Other than that, he's got some facts seriously messed up

The Power of the Press

This comic made me laugh, so I put it up here.

It also reminded me, however, of the increasing importance of the written word that was in common circulation (among lay/common people) during this time period. One of the big reasons Luther's ideas were able to spread and catch on so quickly was because of the invention of the printing press. Luther did not share the fate of John Hus because Church officials were not able to easily discard his ideas - they couldn't just burn one book to end the controversy.

"Wait, but Luther wanted EVERYONE to see this!"

"And everyone will!"

• Just how big of a factor was the printing press - was it a big part of the success of Lutheranism, or just a convenient tool to be used?
  

• Without the printing press, would Luther's ideas have caught on and spread as they did?

• Would we still have Lutheranism, or would it have been crushed like so many "heretical" movements before him?

• Would we have Protestants, Calvanists, Anabaptists?

Ain't No Other Man

With all the talk of "the perfect man" in respect to Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier, I thought of Christina Aguilera's single "Ain't No Other Man."

Ain't No Other Man

At first I thought of this song simply due to the refrain, which talks about THE man among men, who outshines all the rest, as the much-debated courtier does in Castiglione's famous work. Watching this music video, however, I couldn't help but think about the courtly lady.

Although Christina is about as far from being the quite, polite woman that was described by Castiglione, this video does raise some interesting questions about how little has changed in our society since the Renaissance.

Women are still using their sexuality as a weapon of sorts. Rather than relying on her voice to sell the song, Christina is rather scantily clad and dances seductively. Is this an indication that after all these generations and women's rights movements, under the surface that shows the advancements of women since the 1500s, women still must rely on their sexuality to get them anywhere? Even if they are talented, intelligent and hard working?

Well, this took a rather unexpected turn. From the perfect man to the imperfect image of women. Interesting.

The Trouble With Theories: A Reflection on Diversity and Sexuality

After I walked out of the "Diversity and Sexuality: Saint Mary's and Beyond" workshop on Thursday morning, I had a lot of thoughts running around in my head. They kind of found their way into this poem...

The Trouble With Theories

Theories and hypotheses
contained in speeches give and books printed
tell us to love one another, to see
in each other the life that links us.

And yet, in practice
so little of this is reality.
Civil rights and Women's Suffrage
Each cause had to fight for equality
Separately.

People are people.
Why is that not enough?
Have we learned nothing?
We are repeating this discrimination stuff.

Rather than embrace men and women
Regardless of their sexuality
We are quick to point out differences
And treat them differently.

The trouble with theories, you see,
is that they are just that:
Theories.
Ideas.
Thoughts.
Not real.
Every action begins with an idea.
But the trouble is, how to make that transition.

While homophobia is a well known term, while
sexual orientation
gender identity
The Stonewall Rebellion
Queer Theory
LGBT
are foreign to most.

Ignorance is too often accompanied by fear,
of this I am sure.
And so, to stop this prejudice
knowledge is the only cure.

Here is a link to SAGA, an organization on St. Mary's campus. Before Thursday morning I honestly could not tell you what those four letters stood for. Straight and Gay Alliance

Women in the Workplace

Reading Laura Cereta and her need to "steal" time, having to write or sew only when night has fallen, I couldn't help but think of the same struggle for balance that women face today (ie; 31 -32)

Roles women play in society include (but are not limited to):

• mother: compassion, time for kids, chauffer, cook
  
• worker: success, money, recognition
  
• woman: desires, emotions, needs
  
• religious: devotion to faith

Balancing all these things is difficult, to say the least. Women of the 21st century definitely have more help than Laura did -today men do more to share these burdens with their wives, and women are also much more respected in the workplace. But this does not mean that the feeling of guilt, of duty to her home is any easier to overcome.

As I am planning to be a doctor, whether or not I want a family heavily influences the specialty I will choose. Although there are more women than men in medical schools across the country, male doctors are much more prevalent in society because a few years after earning their M.D.s, women will hang up their degree to become a full-time mom. This is a very big issue that I am going to have to deal with very soon...and I'm not looking forward to it.

Here is an article giving working women advice on how to effectively balance their lives - the theory is good maybe, but I'm not sure that it was entirely useful advice.
Strategies for Working Moms

Over 500 years has past since Cereta was alive, and yet women are still facing the same issues.

I wish I could think of a clever title...

While studying for the midterm, and trying to think of big, broad themes that link all of our authors together, I made a rather startling discovery.

Of the five great Renaissance figures we have read this semester, all of them have highlighted the "downfalls" of man. I find it interesting, in this time of great optimism and celebration of man's achievements, that some of the most famous thinkers of the Renaissance are condemning the pleasures that man seeks so diligently.

Dante's Inferno obviously goes into great detail about the trespasses of mankind, and their corrupt nature that refuses to recognize God as the only way to find salvation. This is a very medieval idea, which is part of the reason he is technically considered a medieval text. It is interesting that he was very Renaissance in his style (individual, unique terza rima; vernacular) but not in his content.

Petrarch's My Secret is all about fighting the desires of the flesh, his internal struggle to overcome the "pure" love he has for Laura.

In The Decameron Boccaccio recognizes humans' inability to fight their carnal desires (4th day intro, goslings...). He is the only one out of the five to celebrate it instead of condemning it - if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Sir John Mandeville admits in Mandeville's Travels that "it is no wonder that [the Saracens] call us sinful and wicked, for it is true." Despite constantly talking up the Christians as the best and most sophisticated people, Mandeville obviously sees that they could use some work.

Finally, Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales is full of satire and social commentaries on the corruptness of mankind. His opinion of marriage and fidelity are especially harsh.

Maybe this is only because we're halfway through the semester, and we haven't quite transitioned completely into the Renaissance way of thinking, but I was surprised that only one of the five authors we have read thus far openly celebrate humans' carnal needs.

Take a look at this link - it's combining the temporal aspect of the Renaissance with the very money-driven and earthly society of today.

RenaissanceFaire

Boccaccio + Chaucer = Same Stories

One of my options for Short Paper 1 was based off this painting inspired by one of Boccaccio's stories in The Decameron. I really liked the painting, so I read the story that wasn't assigned in class. It was the fifth story on the tenth day, told by Emilia.

So then I sit down and read The Franklin's Tale in The Canterbury Tales...and low and behold...it was the same story! There were a few differences, but the basic plot of the story was the same: man loves married woman, married woman promises her body to the man if he achieves an "impossible" task, man achieves task through magician, everyone is gracious and generous in the end and everyone wins.

I was just struck by the coincidence that the one story I chose to write part of my Short Paper on was the same story we were assigned to read in Chaucer. crazy.

After I got over my initial shock, though, I started to wonder. Why was the task that Aurelius was given in The Canterbury Tales (making rocks disappear) different than in The Decameron (garden)?

• Did Boccaccio hear a different version of the tale than Chaucer, since many of their stories were part of popular culture at that time?
• Did one (or both) take creative license, and change the story for a certain reason?
• Or some other reason that I can't think of?
  

Also, I love Chaucer. I am so happy we get to read him again.

Some Questions from the Travels

While reading The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, I thought of a few questions, which I've listed below. This may be an indication of my struggle with the text, since my mind was obviously not analyzing and absorbing the information as it should have. Although meant in jest, I did have these reactions to Mandeville's interesting accounts of life abroad:

- Since there are people who have faces on their backs, wouldn't their backs technically be their fronts and their fronts be their backs? (p 137)

- If anyone on the isle of people with only one eye has bad vision, would they get "glass" or "contact" instead of "glasses" or "contacts"?

- Is there an equivalent to being beheaded or hanged on the isle of headless people?

- If the men of great crafts were "bound by a vow to his god that he could show the method to no man except his eldest son" that explains why these crafts no longer exist! Each one must have slowly died out with each man who had no sons, right?

- Do the people in the Great Khan's Empire not eat or breed pigs (157) because they are descendants of Ham (145)?

- Were the Great Khan's philosophers the first people to invent "Simon Says" (151 - be silent, put hand in front of mouth, put finger in ear, etc)

- After eating the fish from the Gravelly Sea, was the meat a little dry (169)? Or maybe if they reach the Gravelly Sea by the river full of precious stones, they tasted more rich?

- Did Prester John only lay with his wife four times a year because he couldn't keep up with her, like Messer Ricciardo in Dioneo's second story in The Decameron, or was he really that pious (170)?

- When Mandeville was describing the isle of Pentoxere and how Catolonabes drew young people into "Paradise" by doing special deeds for him, did anyone else think of pediphilia and maybe another infamous modern day example (171-2)?

- Given the one-footed men and the country covered in darkness (137, 163), I had to wonder if C.S. Lewis read this before writing The Voyage of the Dawn Treader in his Chronicles of Narnia series.

Again, many of these questions are just silly and I hope it was obvious that I am not posing these questions to spur an intellectual debate. I just thought I'd share my musings.

Translation - It's Everywhere!

Translating a book is much more than just converting the word "azul" in spanish to "blue" in english. I'm pretty sure we've established that fact. A translator needs to capture the author's tone and charisma, take into consideration the audience he/she is translating for, and maintain the literary credibility of the text.

But I was wondering....is the way each individual person interprets the text a translation? Are interpretations and translations two different things? A month ago, I would have said yes in a second - but now I'm not so sure. Maybe that's why Boccaccio was so vague and ambiguous in stating his purposes for writing The Decameron. He knew that everyone was going to interpret (or, should I say, translate?) his text differently no matter how specific he was in articulating his thoughts. In his mind, maybe that's part of the reason why the world is so unstable - given one event witnessed by 10 people, there could be 10 different explanations as to what happened.

COMPLETELY related to this topic - I found a blog talking ALL about the translation of Harry Potter! It actually talks a lot about the stuff we talked about in class (can translations be too literal, what the translator needs to achieve in translating, etc). It also suggests a few other websites, which are pretty cool. Check it out! HarryPotter

Wow, this is long. and kinda rambly. oops. that's what i get for trying to answer the unanswerable.

My patronus would definitely be a phoenix

horray for mythical creatures in popular literature

The Love that Never Fails Me

Here is my attempt at a Petrarchan sonnet - don't judge me too harshly please!

Happiness surrounds me when you are near,
Joy and light-heartedness you bring to me.
On the darkest of days I see beauty,
And to contentment are turned all my fears.
Every sorrow forgotten, no more tears,
When I'm with my pleasure that is guilty.
With this, most women eagerly agree.
You are a constant friend whom I hold dear.
Chocolate you come to me in many forms
Derived from the glorious cocoa bean:
As delectable and rich candy bars,
Or into Easter bunnies you conform,
Marshmallow and graham crackers in between
My comfort, my sweet, oh chocolate, you are!


Just for kicks, I thought I'd color code this. Different colors show the rhyme scheme. Yellow/pink show the octet, while blue/green/purple identifies the sestet.

Happiness surrounds me when you are near,
Joy and light-heartedness you bring to me.
On the darkest of days I see beauty,
And to contentment are turned all my fears.
Every sorrow forgotten, no more tears,
When I'm with my pleasure that is guilty.
With this, most women eagerly agree.
You are a constant friend that I hold dear.
Chocolate you come to me in many forms
Derived from the glorious cocoa bean:
As delectable and rich candy bars,
Or into Easter bunnies you conform,
Marshmallow and graham cracker in between.
My comfort, my sweet, oh chocolate you are!

Petrarch

Here's a little food for thought:
Do you think Petrarch's contemporaries thought he was as crazy as we do? I mean, Petrarch definitely has a unique relationship with Cicero, Augustine and Laura - all people that he had never even spoken to in his life. Did the people he saw and talked to on a regular basis, and even those who read his works and letters, think he was odd for mentioning these three people as those he has an intimate bond with them? Or did they just through it up to artistic genius? I know it was common in the Renaissance to idealize the human form and honor the ancient world, but I think Petrarch took it to the extreme.

some title

this is my post