Journals

Journal 11: Diversifying "Greatness"

According to the article "Demmocratizing the Great Books", I was able to see some of the exact things we do in class. Looking at literature and history throughout time to understand the ideas and traditions we have today. I also think it was interesting when they talked about the debate over the motivations behind Donald Trump's presidency. It says while there were many differing opinions, all of the students were able to give passionate answers but also listen to the others' ideas even if they didn't agree. I think this is one of the things that drew me to the humanities in the first place. I naturally am passionate about my opinions and am not afraid to share them with thought-out evidence, but I also am respectful and open to new ideas.

I was also intrigued by the whitewashing articles. I have also noticed this, probably before most. I remember sitting in church as a little girl after learning about Middle Eastern history in class and wondering why all the depictions of Jesus were white. He was a middle-eastern Jew... that man was not white! But, you also see the whiteness across history and not just in modern depictions, which the articles look at. Our acceptance of the white marble we see in sculptures has been studied and proven to be somewhat wrong. Yes, the states were made of white marble, but they were painted over with blues, reds, etc. The whiteness of these sculputres were probably used to reinforce the idea of "white supremacy" throughout history, even though it is a false narrative. I think it's important to rewrite history, especially if we can understand the scuplures and art in a different way... in a way that isn't "white". This also was a slap to the face of "you need to do better". Even I still fall victim to the whitewashing of culture and history that I need to be more aware of.

Journal 10: "Others" in Culture (Marco Polo)

In Bird's class we briefly discussed Vikings, specifically those that were discovered in Turkomania (Ghuzz Turks) by Ibn Fadlan in his account Ibn Fadlan and the Land of Darkness. In Ibn Fadlan, he travels through Ghuzz, or what Marco Polo refers to as Turkomania. Both have very similar understandings of the nomands of the land and write about it.

In Ibn Fadlan's account, he describes them as people who were somewhat out of touch with reality and have customs that aren't up to date with modern standards. For example, he comments on their immodesty and filth that they tend to be okay with (41-42). He also comments on how they weren't super adaptable to religion. One other thing that stood out was their connection to horses. They bred amazing and strong horses that were largely connected to status and wealth. They even took the deaths of these animals very seriously.

Marco Polo's account says, "The Turkomans, who reverence Mahomet and follow his law, are a rude people, and dull of intellect. They dwell amongst the mountains and in places difficult of access, where their object is to find good pasture for their cattle, as they live entirely upon animal food. There is here an excellent breed of horses which has the appellation of Turki, and fine mules which are sold at high prices" (32). I feel if he actually spent more time with them and learned their ways, he would understand why they do what they do, like Ibn Fadlan did.

To connect these two, both men spoke about how the Turks weren't super friendly, weren't very educated, and the connect of their horses. The inhabitants of this area were nomadic and settled in different places, specifically the mountains, which is touched on in both. I think there is definitely a progression, specifically into the trading market that occurs with horses, but there are many similarities. The slow progression to modern times might be due to the seclusion from education/modern culture that erupts out of Europe/Middle East/China during the time.

Journal 9: Abelard and Heloise

One thing that jumps out to me from the 12th Renaissance in Abelard and Heloise was the philosophical discussions of morality and stereotypes. In Abelard and Heloise, Abelard constantly questions himself, his life, and his connection with education/God. For one, the increase in education, specifically that in academia, we can see through Abelard. Although Heloise was educated, Abelard was her tutor and found intelligence attractive in her. I think because education (in college) was more valued and normal in this period of reform, you can see how even things like attractiveness are changing due to that.

Abelard battles with morality and his life's actions throughout most of the letter to his friend. The whole purpose of the letter was to explain how his life was worse off than his friends because of all the things that have happened to him. He also goes into how he doesn't feel like a man anymore and can't be with Heloise anymore because he got castrated. These feelings could be debated and questioned due to the cause of his castration. Like that was a punishment for having premarital sex, so do you have a right to complain or do you have to live with it? Is it morally right/wrong? How does God and religion play a part in this, especially since he devoted his life to Christ afterward? There are so many ways to deconstruct his conversation morally and theologically with his friend. In the 12th century, they spent much time arguing over laws, morality, and situations in the church and state to come to agreements/solutions to the problem. There was a contrast between scientific and theological arguments, which I think Abelard explores. Abelard explores these questions in his Sic et Non, which some we can see in his letters to Heloise.

I think one thing that was also very interesting was their conversion into the church and becoming monks/nuns because they couldn't be together without suspicion and because of the castration. I think during this time it was normal to join the church as a profession. Nuns/monks were allowed education, safety, etc., so it feels like a good solution to some problems. But in this case, there is a conflicting sense of love of another person and devotion to God (and celibacy).

Journal 8: Medieval Romance via Marie de France

There are so many things I picked up on when reading these tales. I would say first is the notion of romance, in different contexts, but it still was there across the board. There was also fantasy elements: the werewolf and maybe some witchcraft? I also picked up on trickery, more adultery (which we saw in the Romance of Tristan), and royalty. Also a sense of knightly or religious deeds. There is also a sense of fable in the tales, as if they were widely known and accepted.

In Bisclaveret (the werewolf), the people choose the werewolf's side after they find out about the adultery the wife commits after she finds out he is a werewolf. At the beginning, they try to hunt him down but when they see he has humanity and doesn't want to hurt them, they like him and invite them into the kingdom. He attacks the wife and her lover, but it isn't really questioned if he was a monster after doing this, but if those two people did something to HIM. God, the patriarchy!! I mean, yes she was an adulterer and left him after she found out what he was, but the people believed him even when he was a beast. I guess this is part of the romance that is emulated here. That beasts deserve love as well, but why are we assuming that the woman always does wrong? (OH HELLO AUGUSTINE?)

In Lanval, it is also shown that the women are stirring up trouble when they don't get what they want. When the Queen gets hurt by Lanval, then she tells the King that he came on to her and called her ugly. I mean, I would probably do the same thing, but why are we made out to be the bad guy again? Also, I wonder if the woman who Lanval falls in love with and who grants him riches, is giving some magic or witchcraft elements. How is he suddenly wealthy because he fell in love with her and promised to never see her again? Kinda suspicious... The value in royalty is also seen here as it is in Bisclaveret. Riches, style, and the expectations of those in power are very stressed. Although I did like this one more as he declines the QUEEN in favor of his love that he knows he will never be with again. He hypes her up and is devoted to her. A big win for medieval romance!

It also seems that everyone knows about these stories. In Bisclaveret, it is said that those who are related to the traitor wife and her lover are consistently born with deformities (specifically with no nose) because the werewolf bit off her nose. This is a way to identify those who are traitors or adulterers, etc. I also wonder if this caused some cultural understandings and justification for bullying those who are deformed? Or those who don't have a woman to show for themselves?

For the knightly deeds, both wanted to have honor and respect from those around them. They went to great lengths to preserve or gain the characteristics of knighthood. Bisclaveret hid his status as a werewolf and did many things to protect his life while Lanval promised to never see the woman he loves ever again for gaining respect, riches, etc. This also seems very medieval romance coded as courtly love, devotion to knighthood and religion, and chivalry are shown here. They adhere very much to medieval romance.

Journal 7: Romance of Tristan

As a devoted fan of romance, this was entertaining. Many tropes, elements, and even a dose of smut. Adultery? And knights/princesses/kings? And magical elements? Intriguing plot? OH WOW! How developed for the time!

I also believe that this is one of the first forms of a "explicit" romance novel, which is interesting. At the time, and beforehand, there is much value of purity and virginity, specifically out of marriage. Even now, explicit sexual content is controversial and/or taboo. During this time period, it was probably even more so especially with Christianity developing at the time. There was also a small sense of devotion to women for men, which changed somewhat from the Greco times. I wonder how this was interpreted by the audience, including in an oral context. Was it to make sexual relationships out of marriage more accepted? Was it to bring humanity to their relationship? Was it meant to be part of the humor that can be in romcoms or to show the deepened relationship between Tristan and Inseult.

Journal 6: Saint Margaret of Pelagia Hagiography

Saint Margaret, who disguised herself as a man to flee her marriage to stay a virgin was then accused of having relations with a nun and was condemned without trial. She took the penance, even though she was innocent. There are two things here that capture the values of Saint Margaret as a saint. First, her virginity and her vow to it. She refused to have relations with her husband, fled, and disguised herself as a man because she valued her virginity and her vow to God in this way so much. Second, her doing penance even though she was innocent. She didn't argue at first, but took the penance. It says, "Pelagius bore all this patiently and allowed nothing to disturb her, but thanked God at all times and found comfort in the examples of the saints." She felt she was doing she was supposed to do for God and was trying to emulate the saints. Little did she know she would become a saint for her devotion.

I think the major audience here is women, but it can also be for men. Specifically in the case of virginity, the story is made for women. It is to encourage them to keep their purity and virtue, even in the face of marriage. I think the second virtue, taking penance even when innocent, can be related to both men and women. It is a call for devotion, giving thanks, and suffering in the light of God.

The story is told very matter of factly. It was very short and flowed very fast, but I think this was intentional. She didn't have a very good life, in her marriage or in her suffering at the monestary, so I think they were just trying to get the point across without dragging it out. Or, it could be possible that this is the only information they had to support the story. It may have been there wasn't much else to add.

She has the connection of virginity with many other female saints, martyrdom, and devotion to God are all similar to what saints in general are expected to have or have done. I think suffering is also something that many saints go through in the face of God.

Journal 5: Women/Marriage in Augustine

Overall, Augustine sees women as a vessel for breeding, a sexual/lustful object, and the reason that sin insues on this earth. He also is fully a hypocrite of sexual desire, as I found out that he had a child out of wedlock with a prostitute. He also thought women as being lesser than men in society in general and serve no other purpose than to lead men to sin or to procreate. He describes that Eve seduced Adam into taking the apple, ultimately leading to the creation of original sin. He blames women for almost everything to do with the failure of men in sexual/lustful acts (like marriage).

"And it is good for a man not to touch a woman. And, he that is unmarried thinketh of the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things of this world, how he may please his wife". I pulled this quote because it showed how a man shouldn't even touch a woman. He is lead away from God the moment he touches them. When a man marries, the only thoughts he have are for his wife and God cannot be a part of this. Which is so untrue. Here, his celibacy ideals also make an appearance. He believes that being celibate is the only way a man can be led to holiness and it is a large sin if you partake in lustful acts.

"But unhappy I, who could not imitate a very woman, impatient of delay, inasmuch as not till after two years was I to obtain her I sought not being so much a lover of marriage as a slave to lust, procured another, though no wife, that so by the servitude of an enduring custom, the disease of my soul might be kept up and carried on in its vigour, or even augmented, into the dominion of marriage." The thought of marriage to him is so terrible he describes it as a "disease of the soul". He says that if he sought out marriage it would not be in companionship with a lover, but would make him a slave to lust instead. These two quotes together draw the understanding that Augustine thinks marriage is something that leads men away from God and toward lust/sin because of the actions of women.

I also want to know if all of these instances he write about are truly real. We do know that he had a child with a prostitute, which was hypocritical of him to being with since he pledges celibacy. But was he truly being seduced by all of these women or was he also giving into the desires/sins? Or was he creating these stories to make himself look stronger to others and more faithful to God while also placing women in this lustful/sexual box? He blames women here for a lot of things and creates the ultimate understanding that still is implanted in society today that women are less than men (specifically in religion).

Journal 4: Circe in Circe and Metamorphoses

In all three texts, there are clear similarities to actions and the things Circe did; however, the way the stories are told sway each version of how we see Circe as a reader. In Circe, we see her true intentions behind why she did the things she did. We see a sexually liberated woman (or maybe a form of daddy issues) who did things to appease her father (!!!) and was very reactive to the ways people treated her, which was ultimately poorly. In The Odyssey, Circe is seen as a witch of entrapment who turns Odysseus's men into pigs and tricks him into staying. She is also powerless against other gods in this epic, but sees herself in a very selfish, uncaring light. In Metamorphoses, she is portrayed as lustful and submissive to the requests of men. While she does act "witchy" and turns others into beasts and has some power, she also does many of the things that men command/ask her to do without much thought. I really nosedived into the comparison of Circe in Metamorphoses and Circe, specifically in the Glaucus and Scylla transformation parts.

I think a lot of this different portrayal can be interpreted in the way the stories are told. For Circe, we see it told entirely in her perspective on how events happened, what she was feeling, and her intentions behind her (somewhat) reactive behavior. However, the other two epics, which are told from a male perspective, are definitely different that Circe's point of view. For example, the way that Glaucus's story with Circe is told is completely different than how Circe herself writes it. Many of the events happen out of order and she is made out to be a lustful, vindictive woman with no reason to have these feelings (Metamorposes 379-381). However, in Circe she describes being tricked/betrayed by Glaucus to gain immortality, but it wasn't seen that way in Metamorphoses. In the epic, Glaucus explains his feelings for Scylla and says, "I am not asking to be healed and whole, / to have this burned lifted from my heart, / but that these flames should burn her [Scylla] in some part" (Metamorphoses, Glaucus Line 31-33). He claims that he told Circe of his love for Scylla before asking to have the pain taken away (i.e. Scylla "burned" ?); however, in Circe he tricked Circe into believing that her feelings for him were reciprocated. She was tricked, but in Metamorphoses she was seen as crazy for turning his true love, Scylla, into a monster over jealousy.

Side note to the previous paragraph, while looking at SparkNotes to see how they interpreted Circe in all three texts, I am SO UPSET in how terribly the MEN who wrote these character analyses made her look. In her own book, Circe, it is said, "At this point of her life, Circe doesn’t understand what healthy love looks like, so, she’ll go out of her way to obtain anything that resembles it. The desperation underlying her acts of transformation for both Glaucos and Scylla reveal Circe’s inability to understand that love is a concept involving two parties and not just one. She cannot simply just change someone in order to make their love true". LIKE WHAT?!?! In her own book? This is a truly misogynistic interpretation of her naivety. It is not her fault that she wasn't loved as a child, searches for love, and constantly gets tricked by the men in her life. SERIOUSLY BYE SPARKNOTES ---> NEVER USING YOU AGAIN.

September 27, 2023

Journal 3: "Romanness" in Cicero and the Aeneid

Why did the Romans hate Carthage so much, outside of the power dynamic within rivaling empires, and why did Aeneas come into the city if he knew about this rivalry/hatred?

In Aeneid we see how Aeneas feels about Carthage and now we understand a little about the tensions and relationship between the Romans and the city of Carthage through Cicero.

To answer the first part of the question, it seems that the Romans didn't like them just because they were rivals to them, but there definitely has to be more than that. It feels like this hatred it way more than a rivalry in land ownership. It was known that Carthage had good trade route systems, but this was also the case for Egypt and their canals, and the Romans didn't have this same hatred for Cleopatra's empire as they do for Carthage.

From knowing some of the Roman values seen in Cicero and the 12 Tables, women are NOT to be in places of power. I think the issue isn't just rivalry of land, but over sexism. It seems the Romans were highly against the idea of a woman running an empire. The Romans couldn't process how Carthage was a large, successful empire that was run by a woman. However, this also could make sense for Cleopatra. She was a woman and ran her empire very well. So, it may not be just this either.

Upon further research, it seems that the narratives are to support the Romans in their defeat of Carthage. They write a negative connotation of Carthage and it's ruler. It is hard to find a direct answer to why they hated Carthage so much, when there are other examples of empires that were similar to Carthage at the time.

In response to the second question, it's hard to understand why Aeneas decided to stay, and wanted to continue to stay, when he was a Roman. He knew about this rivalry and still decided to stay with Dido. If he was so "loyal" to his homeland of Troy, then why was he even okay with coming in the doors of Carthage? Shouldn't he hate Carthage and try to wreck havoc on them? I'm not sure if love was a factor, since Dido was basically bewitched, but it is hard to understand why Aeneas would stay in a place that his homeland hates, especially when he tries to portray himself as being a "true Trojan!" Did his homeland pride escape him in the name of love? hospitality? desperation?

September 14, 2023

"... And I do not desire a loved one who loves only with words."

Journal 2: Antigone

"... And I do not desire a loved one who loves only with words."

This quote originally stuck out to me because it was so personal to things I have constantly said in my life to myself and to others. I have been hurt by others, especially by those I love, that don't follow through on their words. It is nice to be comforted, helped, etc. with words that stem from love, but it hurts when those who promised things to you out of love don't follow through on those words. I personally have felt betrayed and hurt that my loved ones could love me with words, but not with actions. Whether this be through breaking promises, not showing their love outside of words, etc., it always will hurt.

I think I related the most to Antigone in this scene. I have had friends, and other loved ones, back me up and love me in private with their words, but then not support, love, or defend me in public. Even if it wasn't in public, I have had those who said they loved me and supported me, but then do things that portrayed the opposite of those words. Antigone wanted her sister to love, support, and help her outside of the promises and words she said. She wanted her sister to be there for her when no one else would, and take action; not just to say she was to blame. Antigone probably would've rather had her sister help her bury her brother instead of just say she was a part of it, because then she would of at least helped Antigone and showed her support in the way she wanted (which was action).

This also reminds me that sometimes people don't know how to show love the way others want to receive it. I think Ismene truly does love her sister and wants the best for her, but Antigone didn't want the type of love that Ismene was trying to show her. From the beginning we see that Ismene was trying to lead Antigone in the right direction by doing the "proper" thing and by taking the blame for her. This is the way she showed her love; through words. However, Antigone didn't want words of love from her sister, but rather actions. She wanted Ismene to help her, support her, and be there for her through the process of burying her brother, not just take the blame when things were all said and done.

September 6, 2023

Journal 1: Sappho

Question: According to the text, Sappho had a husband; however, was known to have other lovers, both male and female. Was she allowed to be sexually free in the relationship that she was in with her husband (aka an "open" relationship) and was this accepted back then?

From the poems and readings, it seems that Sappho took other lovers, men and women, outside of her spouse. However, it could also be interpreted that when writing about women, it could be in the platonic sense or in the motherly sense, as she had many companions and ran the school for girls. She was surrounded by women daily who she taught music, literature, etc. Because while the text mentions a moment of her jealousy over her female lover with another man, this could just be out of womanly jealousy. I can get jealous sometimes when a beautiful woman gets to have the handsome man. Also, for her male lover side of things, it could be possible that she took many other male suitors, but wasn't fidelity prided in these times? It was a crime and had punishment for adultery. She could possibly be talking about her husband in these poems, but it seems the whole "jumping off and falling to death" thing may lead to the understanding that there was another man that she couldn't have.

It seems like she may have been allowed by her husband to be sexually free (or he didn't know about it), but according to law we just read recently in Cult Hist, it seems that adultery is a no-no. It also may have been more acceptable for her to have female lovers, so she took more of those, than male lovers.

August 31, 2023

Page updated

Report abuse