1. The authors rely on brief sketches of the 'Rousseau' story and the 'Hobbes' story about the origins of inequality and human nature -- briefly, how do these stories go?
2. How do contemporary authors (Pinker, Diamond, Fukayama, and so on) rely on versions of these stories to understand the human past (and present)?
3. The authors give three reasons they believe these two accounts are of very limited value and should be abandoned -- what are these reasons, and what evidence do they present in the rest of the introductory chapter for their position?
4. The authors think that abandoning these two accounts of the human past also aids our political imagination in the present. How so?
· Through line 65, the poet exalts Inana ("Queen of all powers"), one of the most important Mesopotamian gods, and most powerful goddess. How is she depicted? What words, images, actions are used to create an image of this divine being?
· What effect do you think this portrayal might have had on the poem’s audience? Why do you think she is depicted in this way?
· In lines 60-65 the poet/priestess begins to speak in her own voice, and in line 66 names herself, as high priestess, as the person addressing Inana. What does the poem convey about Enheduanna? How is she portrayed?
· Lines 66-108 lay out Enheduanna’s case against Lugal-Ane, a Sumerian king who had rebelled against the Akkadian empire. What charges does she make against Lugal-Ane? How does she depict his actions as unjustified?
· Notice that Enheduanna appeals to Suen/Nanna first, and then subsequently to Inana. Why does she need to appeal to Inana?
· The conclusion of the poem indicates that Enheduanna has been successfully restored to her position. How is this resolution indicated? What do you think the effect of the overall poem is?
Gilgamesh
Tablets I-II
Tablet I, lines 1-29 forms a kind of introduction, one that shows us Gilgamesh as he will be at the end of the story. What characteristics are emphasized here?
At line 30, we are taken back to the beginning of the story: how does the portrait of Gilgamesh here contrast to that in the first few stanzas of the poem?
Gilgamesh clearly oversteps his authority as king: what examples are given of this? How does the poem alert you to the fact that what Gilgamesh is doing is considered wrong (what language does it use)? Who challenges Gilgamesh, and how do they do so? How should he be treating his subjects?
Why is Enkidu created? How is he described? In what ways is he similar to Gilgamesh? In what ways is he different?
From the end of Tablet I through the beginning of Tablet II, Enkidu is ‘civilized’ or ‘tamed’: how does this happen? What do you make of the association of women, sex, civilization and reason in this story? In what ways is Enkidu changed through this process?
Enkidu means to challenge Gilgamesh, but what specifically angers him? How does this reflect on Enkidu? On Gilgamesh?
The text gets a little hard to follow: but Gilgamesh and Enkidu forge a friendship and decide to embark on a quest. How do they come to this decision? What is Gilgamesh’s motivation?
How do the members of the Uruk assembly react to the proposal?
Tablets IX and X
Obviously, we are skipping a lot: Enkidu and Gilgamesh successfully kill Humbaba, but in doing so come to the attention of Ishtar (also known as Inana – so you know from Enheduanna that she is not to be trifled with). She takes a shine to Gilgamesh, but he rejects her advances, and insults her. So she sends the Bull of Heaven to kill them both and destroy Uruk. They kill the Bull, but as a result the gods turn on them and punish Enkidu with death.
Tablet IX opens with Gilgamesh in mourning. What effect does Enkidu’s death have on Gilgamesh? What does he decide to do? Why?
Who is Shiduri? What do you think is the importance of Gilgamesh’s interaction with her?
What do we learn about Gilgamesh from his interaction with Ur-shanabi?
Who is Uta-napishti? What is his story? Why does Gilgamesh want to meet him? What advice does he have for Gilgamesh?
Uta-napishti gives Gilgamesh a plant: what are its properties, and what is the significance of the fact that Gligamesh loses it?
The last two stanzas bring us full circle, back to the opening of the poem: what sort of wisdom has Gilgamesh achieved by the end of the poem? What specific passages would you point to as indicating this wisdom?
We are just reading three episodes in this epic poem: the initial dispute between Agamemnon, leader of the Greek/Achaian expedition and Achilleus, their most accomplished warrior; the embassy of three important leaders attempting to persuade Achilleus to relent and return to the fight; and finally the scene between Priam, King of Troy, and Achilleus in which Priam pleads for the return of the body of his son Hektor, who has been killed by Achilleus and left unburied.
Books I:
Why is Achilleus angry? What is the cause of the dispute between Achilleus and Agamemnon?
Consider the claims each man makes: who seems to you to have the better argument?
What role does Nestor play?
What kind of leader is Agamemnon? Is he effective? Give examples.
What role do the gods play in the action?
Book IX:
Three emissaries are sent to Achilleus to persuade him to come back and fight.
Consider the character of Agamemnon at this point – how do you see him?
How do each of the emissaries try to persuade Achilleus?
What does he say to each?
What do you think of Achilleus’s decision? Does it change how you see him, or his cause?
Books XXII - XXIV:
Achilleus and Hektor finally meet in battle. What do you make of the two men in comparison to each other?
What does Achilleus do to Hektor after he has killed him, and why?
What makes Achilleus have a change of heart about Hektor, and what is the role of Priam in this?
Why do you think the story ends with the burial of Hektor, rather than, say, the death of Achilleus?
Odysseus has been gone for almost twenty years (ten years war at Troy; ten year journey home again). At the point we are coming into the poem, he has made his way back to Ithaca, where is king, but he has not revealed himself as Odysseus. He is testing out the situation. So he appears at his home disguised as an old beggar.
Penelope, his wife, has been waiting for his return, but she has had to deal with a large number of suitors, who have camped out in her home trying to persuade her that Odysseus is dead, and that she should marry one of them instead. They seek the wealth and status that would come with marriage.
Bk XVIII
Just before this scene, Odysseus the beggar has been abused by the suitors, and engaged in a fight with one of them, called Iros (which he wins).
Penelope appears before the suitors: how does she interact with them? What is Odysseus's reaction, as he watches this interaction?
What impression do you get of the suitors (Eurymachos and Antinoös are both suitors)?
Bk XIX
Odysseus and Penelope have their first conversation since he returned, but she still doesn't know who he is.
What do we learn about the character of Penelope from her story, as she tells it to Odysseus?
What does Odysseus (the beggar) tell her about Odysseus (her husband)? Why do you think he tells her this story, instead of revealing himself?
Eurykleia is an old nurse of Odysseus, and she recognizes him: how? How does Odysseus respond?
Penelope doesn't recognize him (why?), but she does decide to hold a contest for the suitors: what do you think her purpose is here?
Bk XXIII
Odysseus wins the contest, and finally reveals himself to all: how does Penelope respond? How does she test Odysseus? What do we learn about Penelope in this interaction?
Penelope and Odysseus are now reunited: how is their relationship reforged? Compare this scene to that of Achilleus and Priam. What similarities and differences do you notice?
1. According to the points he raises in his defense speech, do you think Socrates is guilty of the charges against him? Of one charge, but not the other? Could he have made his case more persuasively?
2. In paragraph 18, Socrates describes himself as "gad-fly." What does he mean by this? If Socrates, the philosopher, is a gadfly and Athens, the city, is a horse, what does this suggest about how Plato sees the relationship between philosophy and politics?
3. In paragraph 26, Socrates says: "What treatment, then, do I deserve, seeing I am such a man? Some reward, O Athenians! if, at least, I am to be estimated according to my real deserts; and, moreover, such a reward as would be suitable to me."
Why does he think he should be rewarded?
4. What do we learn about Socrates' values from his discussion about death (in his speech after sentencing: paragraphs 29-33)? Why does Socrates seem not to fear death?
The Analects is a collection of sayings of Confucius, often to his disciples. Often their meaning is not immediately obvious. You need to think about what they might be trying to say.
1. What do we learn about what Confucius things Goodness consists in?
2. Think about 1.12 (p. 4). What is Confucius indicating here about the practice of ritual? Can you apply this to your own religious or ethical practices? What do you think he means by 'harmonious ease'?
3. Consider 2.3 (p. 5). What does this suggest as a model of political rule? Compare this to 2.21. What do you think these reveal about Confucius's attitude towards government?
4. Consider 4.5-4.12 (p. 11): compare this to Socrates. What similarities or differences do you see?
5. Consider 6.18 (p. 18): what balance is Confucius indicating here? Compare 6.29.
6. Compare 6.22 (p. 18); 7.3 (p. 20); and 7.20 (p. 22): how does Confucius' attitude to 'wisdom' compare with Socrates?
7. Consider 8.2 (p.24): why do you think ritual is important for Confucius? What role does it seem to play in 'self-cultivation'?
8. Read 11.26 (p. 32), along with accompanying footnote (102): what attitude towards government is Confucius trying to impart to his disciples? Compare this to 12.17-12.19 (pp. 36-7).
9. Compare 14.12 (p. 41) and 17.8 (p. 49): what does Confucius mean by 'virtue'?
10. Consider 18.7 (p.52-3): under what circumstances should one get involved in politics?
1. Mencius argues that human nature is originally good (see for example 6A6, p. 147). What arguments does he make to secure this point? How persuaded are you?
2. Mencius talks of a "feeling" of compassion, shame, right and wrong, and courtesy. Where does this feeling come from? Compare this idea to Socrates' idea that he is "moved by a certain divine and spiritual influence" (para. 19) or "prophetic voice" (para. 31) [NB: the Greek word Socrates is using is daimonion, which is related to our word 'demon,' the word that is at the center of the exchange between Meletus and Socrates earlier in the dialogue.]
3. On p. 130 (2A6) Mencius describes the 'sprouts' from which virtue can be cultivated. What does this mean? What are the 'sprouts' and how can they be cultivated? Compare 7B31 (p.155).
3. How is human nature connected to good government for Mencius?
5. Mencius is unusual in arguing that a bad sovereign is not really a sovereign at all, and can be removed by the people. Is this a 'dangerous' doctrine? (see 1B8, p. 125).
4. The 'well-field system' (mentioned in Book Three) guarantees a share of the produce of land to all. What do you think about the main claim that Mencius makes here: that virtue requires a basic minimum standard of living, and the social and economic system should be arranged to ensure that everyone has this minimum?
6. Mencius advocates social duty and affection. He contrasts this to love of self, on the one hand, and a universal love of all men that would be equally applied to all, regardless of social relationship. How is this idea similar to, or different from, those of Socrates?
As in the relation between Kongzi and Mengzi, here we get a further elaboration of Confucian principles, though in some ways Xunzi disagrees with Mengzi.
1. Why is learning important for Xunzi, and what role should it play in self-cultivation?
2. What do we learn about self-cultivation, and about the techniques for nourishing qi, beyond what we learned from Mengzi?
3. How does Xunzi explain the role of ritual and its relation to 'righteousness'?
4. Xunzi gives a somewhat more extended discussion of the nature of human communities, and the role of government. What differences and similarities do you see here, between Xunzi and Mengzi?
5. On p. 270, Xunzi says "one who understands clearly the respective allotments of Heaven and humans can be called a person of utmost achievement." What do you think he means by this?
6. See p. 281: what is the relation between 'human nature' and 'deliberate effort' for Xunzi? What role does ritual play here?
7. What is the importance of music for Xunzi?
8. An important element of Xunzi's analysis is that it is possible to make mistakes by becoming 'fixated' on one aspect of the Way, or on one component of human happiness: how might we avoid becoming fixated in this way? Can you apply this to a case in your own life, or someone you know?
9. See pp. 296-297: Xunzi has a complex understanding of the relation between 'heart' and 'desire.' Why should we not try to eliminate or reduce desires? What does he think we should do instead?
10. How does Xunzi make his argument that human nature is 'bad.' What does he mean by 'bad'? What are the implications for how we should understand the task of self-cultivation?
11. When should you disobey your parents?
Han Feizi was a student of Xunzi and agreed with him on the question of human nature. However he rejected Confucianism, and more generally the project of basing politics on the cultivation of virtue (in the people or among the rulers).
1. What is the 'Way of the ruler' and how should the ruler interact with "his" ministers?
2. Han Feizi argues for the importance of public law, impartially applied, and the use of rewards and punishments to manage ministers. Why is this better than relying on wisdom and worthiness (virtue)?
3. p. 324 (bottom of the page): why should ministers be penalized if the exceed their stated objectives?
4. Han Feizi proposes the idea of 'power of position,' as an alternative to relying on the wisdom and worthiness of either rulers or people, as a basis of maintaining order: what does he mean by 'power of position,' and why is it more dependable?
5. p. 330-331: consider Han Feizi's argument about "mediocre rulers." Why does he think we will usually have mediocre rulers, and what are the implications of this for how we order political society?
6. p. 336: Han Feizi argues that we need to use both "administrative methods" (meaning a meritocratic civil service, with rewards and punishments for performance) and "government through law." What are his arguments for this combination?
7. Who are the "five vermin" and why are they bad for the state? What are Han Feizi's main objections to Confucianism?
1. Briefly recount the three definitions of justice offered in Book 1 (those of Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus). Do you agree with any of these accounts? If so, which one and why? If not, why not?
2. Is Thrasymachus talking about "justice" or something else?
3. How does Socrates attempt to "tame" Thrasymachus? Does he succeed? Is Thrasymachus convinced? Should he be?
4. What is the link between justice and happiness that Socrates suggests in the last few pages of Book One? Is this a tenable argument?
1. What does the story of the ring of Gyges (beginning at 359c in Book 2) suggest about the nature of justice? Why, according to Glaucon, do people value justice? What would *you* do with a ring of Gyges, and why?
2. Why do Socrates and the others begin to discuss the creation of a city in Book Two? What characterizes Socrates' first "healthy" city? Why does Glaucon call this a "city of pigs" at 372d? What characterizes the second ("luxurious") city? Which city would you rather live in? Why?
3. Describe the purposes of gymnastic and of music, the two components of the guardians' education. How do these contribute to the training of warriors?
1. What is the noble falsehood (414c-417b)? What is its purpose? Do you think it is ever noble to lie? Does Socrates? Does this particular tall tale count as noble?
1. What does Socrates say about the position of women and children in the city they are building? Why does this provoke outrage?
2. “Is the best-governed city the one in which most people say ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ about the same things in the same way?” (462c) Why or why not?
3. Is the rule of philosopher-kings (see the last few pages of Book 5) an attractive political ideal? Would you like to be ruled by philosophers? Why or why not?
4. Socrates often explains his ideas using metaphor: how do the metaphors of the ship and the sun, in Book 6, illustrate what Socrates is trying to say about truth and philosophy?
1. Draw your interpretation of the cave image that opens Book 7. Label the parts. What does the cave represent? What does the allegory suggest about the relationship between the philosopher and the polis? [Compare this account to the way the philosopher is portrayed vis-a-vis his fellow citizens in the Apology and in the very beginning of Book 1 of the Republic (327-328b).]
2. Explain and evaluate Socrates' critique of democracy in Book 8. Is Socrates correct when he argues that tyranny "evolves from democracy" (562a)? Does the "democratic man" sound like anyone you know? Is this a fair characterization?
3. Think about Plato's overall project in the Republic. What is the political significance of a just city that exists only in speeches? How effective is Socrates' analogy between the city and the individual soul?
Compare Aristotle's account of a city to that described in the Republic. What is a city, for Aristotle? What are its component parts, and what is its purpose?
Aristotle disagrees with those who say that household rule and political rule require the same kind of expertise. Why?
Aristotle's most famous claim is that "man is by nature a political animal" (p.4 [1253a 1-2]). What does he mean by this? How does he connect this to the concept of justice?
The city, Aristotle claims, is "prior by nature to the household and to each of us" (p.4 [1253a 20]). What is his reasoning for this claim. Do you agree or disagree?
In chapters 3-13 of Book 1, Aristotle discusses the household. In chapters 12 and 13, he discusses household rule in general, and then the question of whether virtue is the same for all people, or whether it is different depending on one's social position. How does Aristotle describe women and slaves in this discussion? How is his position different from that of Socrates?
What is the definition of the citizen, according to Aristotle?
What is the ‘virtue’ of the citizen?
Why, in the best city, would the ‘vulgar’ not participate in politics?
What is the difference between ‘correct regimes’ and ‘deviant’ ones? What are the three correct ones, and the three deviant ones?
How does Aristotle define ‘polity’ in this book? ‘Oligarchy’? ‘Democracy’?
Beyond self-sufficiency, what is the purpose of a city?
Carefully consider chapter 11: who should rule?
What is ‘equality’ and why do people fight about it?
In Book 7 Aristotle will describe the ‘best regime,’ assuming we could get everything we might wish for, but in Book 4 he begins to look for the ‘best practicable’ or ‘best possible’ regime, given what we actually have.
In doing so he describes the nature of each regime type in more detail: what are the characteristics of each regime?
Read chapter 8 carefully: how does Aristotle describe ‘polity’ here, and how is this different from the way he characterizes ‘polity’ in Book 3?
What is the ‘middling sort of life’ and why is it important for Aristotle’s discussion of ‘polity’?
Book 5 discusses factional conflict: what do people fight about in cities; why and when do revolutions occur; and how does Aristotle suggest ‘preserving’ cities from violent conflict?
How does the discussion of factional conflict relate to the ‘polity’ discussed in Book 4?
The opening chapters of Book 7 are complicated and hard to follow. But as best you can, try to pinpoint how Aristotle defines ‘happiness’ and what he thinks the best way of life is (see esp. chapter 3).
Aristotle then outlines his own ‘best regime’: describe as many features of this regime as you can. Why do you think Aristotle goes into such detail?
Who rules in this regime? And how does the city ensure that its citizens are virtuous?
1. Hansen's main purpose is to explain how Athenian democracy functioned in the fourth century (roughly the time Aristotle lived there). How did fourth century Athenian democracy differ from fifth century Athenian democracy ('radical;' associated with Perikles)? What reforms were introduced when the democracy is restored? What were they trying to correct from the fifth century version?
2. How did fourth century democracy differ from Aristotle's idea of a polity (here Hansen refers to it as 'moderate' democracy)? Look at Aristotle, Book III, chapter 7 (1279b3); Book IV, chapter 9 (1294b) for comparison. How did the Athenian conception of the demos differ from that of Plato and Aristotle?
3. There are a lot of details here on the workings of Athenian democracy: what features seem similar to our own system, and what are the major differences? which seem central to Athenian conceptions of democracy?
4. In what sense was Athenian democracy a "way of life" and how was that way of life maintained over time?
In II.21, Augustine uses Cicero’s discussion in On the Commonwealth. What point is he trying to make about Rome? What would count as a “republic” as Augustine defines it here?
IV.4 is one of Augustine’s most famous passages (again referring to a similar idea in Cicero). What are the implications for politics?
What, according to Augustine, should we care most about in this life?
Compare Augustine’s discussion of virtue to Aristotle and Plato: are there differences? Or are they discussing the same thing?
In what ways does Augustine agree with Plato?
Book XIV works partly through a sharp opposition between love and lust: how does Augustine define each? What distinguishes the two?
In what sense is ‘earthly peace’ important for Christians?
What is the ‘supreme Good’ for humans, and what is the best way of life?
At the end of Book XIX, Augustine circles back to Cicero’s definition of a ‘people,’ and modifies it. How does Augustine now define a people? How useful is this definition, and how does it fit with the rest of his argument?
Al Farabi is obviously influenced by Plato and Aristotle. How are his accounts of political associations similar to or different from these two?
How are human beings different from other animals?
What is 'happiness' according to Al Farabi, and how is it attained?
Compare Al Farabi's account of 'rulers' and their qualifications: how do these compare to philosopher kings in the Republic?
How are 'subordinate rulers' different from the 'first ruler'?
What is the role of politics (or of the city) in ensuring the conditions for attaining happiness?
Consider the last paragraph of section 90 (p. 45): how do the 'wise' and the 'faithful' attain happiness differently? what is the role of religion here?
Al Farabi's discussion of the different kinds of cities bears comparison with the regimes discussed in Plato's Republic. What similarities and differences do you see here? How might Augustine categorize them in terms of 'love'?
Compare, particularly, Socrates's description of democracy to that of Al Farabi: why does the latter think the virtuous city is more possible to 'emerge' from a necessary or a democratic city?
What are the 'weeds' in the virtuous city? What seems to be the problem Al Farabi is identifying here?
Al Ghazali identifies Alfarabi and Avicenna as transmitters of Aristotle's ideas in the Islamic world. Why is this influence problematic?
Al Ghazali argues that there some parts of the sciences of the philosophers that should be uncontroversial for Muslims. What are they? Why do some Muslims reject them?
In section 47, Al Ghazali identifies three things that Muslim philosophers affirm that are contrary to Islamic doctrine: what are these? Why do they seem to pose a difficulty for monotheists?
Al Ghazali derives most of the political and ethical doctrines of the philosophers from Islamic sources (sect 49 and following). Why do you think he does this?
Consider sections 59-60: is Al Ghazali trying to prohibit philosophy, or preserve it for "skilled swimmers"?
Al Ghazali had cast doubt on the appropriateness of engaging in philosophy. Ibn Rushd argues that it is "obligatory." What are his reasons? What does he seem to mean by philosophy?
Ibn Rushd argues that there are three categories of people, and that the method of convincing each category of person is different, depending on their nature. What are these three methods, and how do they speak to people differently?
In section 3, Ibn Rushd responds to the specific charges of 'unbelief' that Al Ghazali had leveled at philosophers. How does he respond on each of the three questions at issue?
Ibn Rushd's argument depends on the idea that revealed religion and philosophy both point to the same truth. How convincing do you think he is on this point?
On p. 138, Ibn Rushd argues for an analogy between law and medicine: that the law seeks the health of the soul, just as the physician seeks the health of the body. What do you make of this analogy? Since Ibn Rushd is describing law in the general sense of a code of conduct derived from shari'a, he doesn't need to mean "coercive law," but what 'sort of people' does law address and why?
Maimonides is concerned to identify correctly how one can identify a true prophet, and what the characteristics of a true prophet are. How does he do so? Could anyone be a prophet? Why or why not?
Maimonides identifies the rational and imaginative faculties as jointly essential to having the natural disposition of a prophet: what kind of people have an imbalance of one or the other of these?
In what way is Moses distinguished from other prophets?
Chapter 40 applies the concepts of prophesy and law to the governance of a political association. What is the role of prophecy here? How would one know that a ruler is a prophet?
In Part 3 chapter 26, Moses turns to considering the law in more detail. Judaism has a lot of laws, some of which might strike the casual observer as arbitrary, or of unclear spiritual purpose. How does Maimonides argue we should think about these 'particulars'?
Across the four chapters selected from Part 3, what is the general aim and nature of law, as Maimonides describes it? [again, keep in mind that Maimonides is referring to law in a way that could be distinguished from "coercive law" although he is more obviously describing the laws of a "political association" than Ibn Rushd]
1. Compare Marsillius' understanding of the purpose of politics to that of Augustine.
2. Marsillius identifies a cause of factional conflict unknown to Aristotle. What is it?
3. In chapters 3 and 4, Marsillius is obviously influenced by a close reading of Aristotle's Politics. How is his account of politics similar and different to that of Aristotle?
4. How does Marsillius understand the idea of "living well"? What role do each of the 'parts' of the city play in achieving this goal?
5. Chapter 5, sections 10-14: compare to Al Farabi, Maimonides, and Ibn Rushd, on the role of religion.
6. What is the proper 'end' or aim of the priesthood in a Christian polity?
7. Consider Marsillius's citation of Aristotle on p. 391 (Chapter 8, section 2): how does his definition of "well tempered" and "diseased" regimes differ from Aristotle's?
8. Chapter 9: Marsillius draws the principle of 'consent of the subjects' from Aristotle. Why is this important to him? How does section 9 modify the argument Marsillius is making?
9. What are the different kinds and sources of law? How does Marsillius defend the 'rule' of law?
10. Marsillius is famous for identifying the "maker of law" with a general assembly of citizens. But the phrasing is complicated. Look at Chapter 12, section 3, and then consider that section in light of the rest of the chapter: how do you think he is defining the source of civil law here?
11. In chapter 13, Marsillius anticipates four objections to his argument in chapter 12: what are they, and how does he respond? Do you think he is persuasive?
12. In Discourse 2, Marsillius returns to the distinction between 'human' and 'divine' law: what do you think the implication is for the role of the church?
1. What are Christine's reasons for writing this book?
2. For each of the "three ladies": who are they, what do they signify, and what role will they play in creating the City of Ladies?
3. Compare this project to Plato's "city in words" or Augustine's "City of God." How might Christine be taking inspiration from these sources?
4. Lady Reason argues that men who slander women do so "against reason and against nature" (I.8). What general explanations does Reason provide for why men denigrate women?
5. Much of Christine's discussion revolves around the medieval 'proverb' that "God made women to weep, talk, and weave" (I.10). What is the traditional meaning of this proverb? What meaning does it take on for Lady Reason?
6. Consider 'weaving' here, with its connections back to Penelope (and Odysseus!): how does it allow Christine to develop the idea of virtue for women?
7. Much of Part I is designed to show that women are as capable as men in terms of the traditional 'classical' virtues (for example: prudence, courage, wisdom), while identifying some virtues that might be more specific to women. How successful do you find this extension of virtue to the lives of women?
8. Part II begins with what seems to be the completion of the 'construction' phase of the city: the addition of sibyls and prophetesses. Why do you think this might be important for the plan of the city? What significance might there be to the fact that Lady Rectitude introduces them, rather than Lady Reason?
9. With the help of Lady Rectitude, Christine now populates the city (II.12): based on the selections we are reading here, what are the characteristics of the women to be included as inhabitants? How do they exemplify the virtues developed in Part I?
10. There's quite a lot of emphasis on chastity and restraint of physical desire in Part II: how do you respond to this theme in the book?
11. Christine worries (II.53) that her book will be maligned by male authors. Why, and how does Lady Rectitude respond?
12. The City is to be governed and managed by the virgin Mary, as Queen, attended by various saints. Again, think about how the stories of these saintly women exemplify the themes developed in Part I.
13. In the final chapter (III.19) Christine addresses "womankind" and invites all "ladies from the past, the present, and the future," "whether aristocrat, bourgeois, or lower class," to imagine themselves as members of the City of Ladies. How would doing so provide women with a "refuge" or "bastion" against potential assailants? What lessons does Christine hope to impart to women?