Cervantes' Don Quixote is at once one and multiple texts. Cervantes tells the stories of Don Quixote, who has gone mad obsessing over chivalric texts. Cervantes mocks these texts through a parody of chivalry, mocking the heroic characters and deeds that constitute such low-brow literature.
Just as Cervantes mimics chivalry in Don Quixote, the protagonist does so as well. Cervantes goes through the motions of chivalry cynically, while Don Quixote, however, does so gullibly. At once, we have two commentaries on chivalry (so far) - that it misleads, but that it proves glory.
In Chapters II and III of Part II of Don Quixote, Cervantes adds another layer of textuality. Don Quixote and Sancho Panza learn that a moor named Cide Hamete Berenjena has written an account of their deeds. Don Quixote attributes the fact that this book has been made so soon after his accomplishments that "the blood of the enemies he had slain was not yet dry on the blade of his sword" to magic, denying unremarkable reality as he has done throughout the book (473). He proceeds to refuse reality by doubting Sancho Panza's mention in the moor's book: he reassures himself that "the acts of squires were never written down" (474). Don Quixote also dismisses the possibility that the moor has "annihilate(d) (his chivalric exploits) and place(d) them lower than the basest acts ever attributed to the basest squire" (473).
Making assumptions about the book Cide Hamete Berenjena has written without even reading it, Don Quixote creates, as it were, his own text. Each time Don Quixote considers an unpleasant truth - that such a book does not exist, that it mentions Sancho Panza, and that it indicts his deeds - he immediately reassures himself, conjuring up a text which he approves. Thus we have two potentially contradictory texts about Don Quixote, within a text that mocks a certain genre of text.
These layers of reality are a formal way in which Cervantes expresses the notion of subjective reality. Cervantes begins Don Quixote in the prologue warning the reader of inevitable flaws in the following stories, thereby demonstrating his outlook on his own work as biased. At the same time, Cervantes mocks chivalric texts, deeming them unrealistic and silly. In Part II, Cervantes has Don Quixote produce a text about himself to his own liking, when it may very well be different. Cervantes does make a general argument against chivalric literature, but also makes the reader aware of his bias. At the same time, Don Quixote creates a reality that does not match that of any other character. Even though Cervantes portrays Don Quixote as foolish, he also emphasizes that reality is subjective. The book about Don Quixote is at once as he sees it and others see it, and Don Quixote is only as Cervantes portrays him. Finally, Don Quixote is only as the reader interprets it. Don Quixote may seem to make contrasts between truth and fiction with the "chivalric exploits" of its protagonist, but it rather blurs any contrast with its many layers of reality.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Father-Daughter Relationships and Insecurity (Response to Question 3)
Shakespeare's decision to have Lear have three daughters, rather than sons, is functional for the plot of King Lear. Whereas the daughters of a king traditionally inherited equal portions of their father's estate, the eldest son inherits it in its entirety. Thus Shakespeare determines equal statuses for the daughters, as opposed to the hierarchical relationship of brothers.
Lear, however, violates the rules of inheritance in several ways. Not only does Lear resign from the role of king prematurely, but also he has failed to provide an heir to take his place. Lear makes an effort as well to install a sort of hierarchy between his daughters that echoes that between sons. He loves Cordelia more than Goneril and Regan and makes this grading clear when he formally passes down his estate to them in Act I Scene I. Lear has each daughter make a speech to demonstrate their love for their father, effectively putting them in competition to move him. Lear asks Goneril and Regan to speak first, as he expects Cordelia to make the best speech; this choice makes favoritism evident. Lear makes his expectation of a better speech: "The vines of France and milk of Burgundy / Strive to be interessed, what can you say to draw / A third more opulent than your sisters?" (6).
Striving to install hierarchy where it need not exist points to Lear's insecurity. Lear is so uncertain of his daughters' love for him, that he utilizes the occasion of passing down his wealth in order to have them prove their feelings through speech. Moreover, Lear's effort to rank his daughters highlights his mistakes as king. Lear strives to establish the sort of sibling rivalry among his daughters that would exist between brothers; he imitates the traditional pecking order in an effort to relieve his guilt for failing to provide an heir. Soon after, Lear further violates tradition and reveals the ladder on which he deems his daughters by disowning Cordelia. Lear consistently makes poor decisions as king, and then hopes to ignore his failures by imitating tradition. The formal passing down of Lear's estate itself is unnecessary according to tradition; he acts as though has a certain kingly authority by withholding his estate until due submission and flattery are expressed. Lear struggles to convince himself of his status as king.
Lear, however, violates the rules of inheritance in several ways. Not only does Lear resign from the role of king prematurely, but also he has failed to provide an heir to take his place. Lear makes an effort as well to install a sort of hierarchy between his daughters that echoes that between sons. He loves Cordelia more than Goneril and Regan and makes this grading clear when he formally passes down his estate to them in Act I Scene I. Lear has each daughter make a speech to demonstrate their love for their father, effectively putting them in competition to move him. Lear asks Goneril and Regan to speak first, as he expects Cordelia to make the best speech; this choice makes favoritism evident. Lear makes his expectation of a better speech: "The vines of France and milk of Burgundy / Strive to be interessed, what can you say to draw / A third more opulent than your sisters?" (6).
Striving to install hierarchy where it need not exist points to Lear's insecurity. Lear is so uncertain of his daughters' love for him, that he utilizes the occasion of passing down his wealth in order to have them prove their feelings through speech. Moreover, Lear's effort to rank his daughters highlights his mistakes as king. Lear strives to establish the sort of sibling rivalry among his daughters that would exist between brothers; he imitates the traditional pecking order in an effort to relieve his guilt for failing to provide an heir. Soon after, Lear further violates tradition and reveals the ladder on which he deems his daughters by disowning Cordelia. Lear consistently makes poor decisions as king, and then hopes to ignore his failures by imitating tradition. The formal passing down of Lear's estate itself is unnecessary according to tradition; he acts as though has a certain kingly authority by withholding his estate until due submission and flattery are expressed. Lear struggles to convince himself of his status as king.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Montaigne's Attitude Toward Idleness (Blog Prompt 4)
Michel de Montaigne argues that leisure can be dangerous in his essay, "On Idleness." At the same time, however, he is subject to the very "risks" he believes idleness poses, as a retired man letting his mind wander in Essays.
Montaigne essay attempts to back up the adage with which I am familiar, 'an idle mind is the Devil's playground' - the notion that the when without purpose, one is subconsciously vulnerable to deviance. The quotations Montaigne incorporates serve the same purpose the dictum above does: they all substantiate this notion by referring to traditional belief.
Montaigne even combines famous quotations with his own clauses in order to place his belief in context. For instance, he writes: "If we do not occupy (our minds) with some definite subject which curbs and restrains them, they rush wildly to and fro in the ill-defined field of the imagination..." (27). Ending his words with a comma, Montaigne then quotes Virgil to complete his sentence: "as water, trembling in a brass bowl, reflects the sun's light or the form of the shining moon, and so the bright beams flit in all directions, darting up at times to strike the lofty fretted ceilings." Using quotations to both restate and as here, elaborate, his fear of inactivity, Montaigne locates his argument in history and in those of well-respected thinkers.
Montaigne does not admit, however, that all of his essays are the product of his own idle, wandering mind. Even "On Idleness" demonstrates Montaigne's thoughts on an abstract principle, as well as the connections he has made between the beliefs of thinkers in vastly different places and times. Montaigne neither works nor applies his intellect to practical means; he instead thinks and writes.
Perhaps Montaigne is aware of the hypocrisy of his criticism of idleness - he does begin Essays with a disclaimer, as it were, that the views he puts forth are subject to his own individual "imperfection": "Had my lot been cast among those peoples who are said still to live under the kindly liberty of nature's primal laws, I should, I assure you, most gladly have painted myself complete and in all my nakedness" (23). I gather that, whether or not Montaigne is aware of the paradox "On Idleness" reveals, he knows that an idle mind is vulnerable to bad and good. Maybe Montaigne believes that only the idle minds of Virgil, Horace, Martial, Lucan, and his own are susceptible to goodness.
Montaigne essay attempts to back up the adage with which I am familiar, 'an idle mind is the Devil's playground' - the notion that the when without purpose, one is subconsciously vulnerable to deviance. The quotations Montaigne incorporates serve the same purpose the dictum above does: they all substantiate this notion by referring to traditional belief.
Montaigne even combines famous quotations with his own clauses in order to place his belief in context. For instance, he writes: "If we do not occupy (our minds) with some definite subject which curbs and restrains them, they rush wildly to and fro in the ill-defined field of the imagination..." (27). Ending his words with a comma, Montaigne then quotes Virgil to complete his sentence: "as water, trembling in a brass bowl, reflects the sun's light or the form of the shining moon, and so the bright beams flit in all directions, darting up at times to strike the lofty fretted ceilings." Using quotations to both restate and as here, elaborate, his fear of inactivity, Montaigne locates his argument in history and in those of well-respected thinkers.
Montaigne does not admit, however, that all of his essays are the product of his own idle, wandering mind. Even "On Idleness" demonstrates Montaigne's thoughts on an abstract principle, as well as the connections he has made between the beliefs of thinkers in vastly different places and times. Montaigne neither works nor applies his intellect to practical means; he instead thinks and writes.
Perhaps Montaigne is aware of the hypocrisy of his criticism of idleness - he does begin Essays with a disclaimer, as it were, that the views he puts forth are subject to his own individual "imperfection": "Had my lot been cast among those peoples who are said still to live under the kindly liberty of nature's primal laws, I should, I assure you, most gladly have painted myself complete and in all my nakedness" (23). I gather that, whether or not Montaigne is aware of the paradox "On Idleness" reveals, he knows that an idle mind is vulnerable to bad and good. Maybe Montaigne believes that only the idle minds of Virgil, Horace, Martial, Lucan, and his own are susceptible to goodness.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Augustine's Criticism of Paganism
In Book 1: Early Years of Confessions, Augustine criticizes Pagan logic found in Virgil's Aeneid. He thinks it shameful that in the Aeneid, Virgil becomes so upset over the death of his lover, Dido, when his larger problem is a lack of connection to God. Augustine writes: "What is more pitiable than a wretch without pity for himself who weeps over the death of Dido dying for love of Aeneas, but not weeping over himself dying for his lack of love for you, my God....?" (Augustine, 15). According to Augustine, Dido is a distraction from Aeneas' connection to God, and like anyone but God, unworthy of such emotion.
Aeneas' sorrow is understandable in the world of the Aeneid: humans and Gods alike are subject to emotions, irrational and rational. They love, they cheat, they punish, they fear, etc. The logic Augustine imposes on this part of the Aeneas puts his suffering into perspective and makes the matter seem trivial. But further application of this ideal seems dangerously simplistic: at what point does Augustine deem matters unimportant against our faith in God? Also, if Augustine holds Aeneas to Christian standards, can he hold every man, regardless of time and circumstance, to the same standards?
Augustine starts of his Confessions with such ideals that do not allow room for grey areas. Either one is devoted to God or distracted by 'dust.' He then proceeds to condemn theatre as another distraction for God that poses the additional threat of propagating such distraction.
Augustine so worships God because he is responsible for all good things. For instance, Augustine attributes his own positive qualities to Him: "It was your will to endow us sufficiently with the level (of memory and intelligence) appropriate of our age" (12). Augustine claims earlier, however, that God is not only responsible for good but for everything: "You are God and Lord of all you have created. In you are the constant causes of inconstant things. All mutable things have in you their immutable origins. In you all irrational and temporal things have the everlasting causes of their life" (7). This idea that God is responsible for all coheres with the belief that He has created everything, and that we are not wise enough to understand his ways, even if they seem "irrational," "inconstant," or painful (like Dido's death) to us humans. In the Old Testament, Job learns that God is responsible for his pain, but he must ignore it. Similarly, here Augustine advocates disregard for all human interpretation of occurrences, and instead their attribution to a higher plan. It is then confusing why Augustine continuously extols God's benevolence, thanking him for everything such as being "the innermost recesses of my thinking" (16), when God is at the same time the force of everything negative and "irrational." If we should forgo interpretations of life around us and simply attribute everything to God's will, how do we distinguish between right and wrong - how can we even determine what is sinful and what is not?
Augustine's God-centric ideals seem to have the ability to answer all questions with the response, "God willed it." This approach, though perhaps more simple or satisfying than the confusion of emotions and gods and goddesses and fates in Paganism, threatens basic understanding of the world around us and our own feelings.
Aeneas' sorrow is understandable in the world of the Aeneid: humans and Gods alike are subject to emotions, irrational and rational. They love, they cheat, they punish, they fear, etc. The logic Augustine imposes on this part of the Aeneas puts his suffering into perspective and makes the matter seem trivial. But further application of this ideal seems dangerously simplistic: at what point does Augustine deem matters unimportant against our faith in God? Also, if Augustine holds Aeneas to Christian standards, can he hold every man, regardless of time and circumstance, to the same standards?
Augustine starts of his Confessions with such ideals that do not allow room for grey areas. Either one is devoted to God or distracted by 'dust.' He then proceeds to condemn theatre as another distraction for God that poses the additional threat of propagating such distraction.
Augustine so worships God because he is responsible for all good things. For instance, Augustine attributes his own positive qualities to Him: "It was your will to endow us sufficiently with the level (of memory and intelligence) appropriate of our age" (12). Augustine claims earlier, however, that God is not only responsible for good but for everything: "You are God and Lord of all you have created. In you are the constant causes of inconstant things. All mutable things have in you their immutable origins. In you all irrational and temporal things have the everlasting causes of their life" (7). This idea that God is responsible for all coheres with the belief that He has created everything, and that we are not wise enough to understand his ways, even if they seem "irrational," "inconstant," or painful (like Dido's death) to us humans. In the Old Testament, Job learns that God is responsible for his pain, but he must ignore it. Similarly, here Augustine advocates disregard for all human interpretation of occurrences, and instead their attribution to a higher plan. It is then confusing why Augustine continuously extols God's benevolence, thanking him for everything such as being "the innermost recesses of my thinking" (16), when God is at the same time the force of everything negative and "irrational." If we should forgo interpretations of life around us and simply attribute everything to God's will, how do we distinguish between right and wrong - how can we even determine what is sinful and what is not?
Augustine's God-centric ideals seem to have the ability to answer all questions with the response, "God willed it." This approach, though perhaps more simple or satisfying than the confusion of emotions and gods and goddesses and fates in Paganism, threatens basic understanding of the world around us and our own feelings.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
The Problem of Suffering (Prompt 2)
"Job" deals with the problem of human suffering at its extreme. Satan tests the faith of Job by causing him to undergo heightened physical and psychological pain.
By the end of "Job," the protagonist learns to retain faith in God no matter what circumstances may prevail. Faith must be enough for human existence. Job learns this lesson; we can speculate that a similar message was to be conveyed to the Bible's readers.
For this story addresses a question we in fact do not have the answers to: why do we suffer? Also why do some live healthily? In today's world, we focus on what we consider 'concrete' - physical and psychological health, drastic events, etc. - to explain our circumstances. But a group such as the Israelites without scientific innovations as ours, one moreover without regard for science, would need a different explanation to rely on.
The idea that God causes all and that we do not have the capacity to understand Him can be seen as a reasonable explanation. It is comforting in that we attribute realities to another's responsibility. For instance, one who believes something or someone else to have caused his failure remains confident in himself. God is also a pleasing explanation in that it addresses all that humans cannot control. Amazing and terrible things happen because there is no rhyme or reason to God's actions: Job says, "He leads priests away stripped, and overthrows the mighty. He deprives of speech those who are trusted, and takes away the discernment of the elders. He pours contempt on princes, and looses the belt of the strong. He uncovers, the deeps out of darkness, and brings deep darkness to light. He makes nations great, and he destroys them: he enlarges nations, and leads them away. He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless waste. " (Job, 12:19, 12:24). Attributing responsibility along with order (or disorder) to God allows humans to understand their limits.
By the end of "Job," the protagonist learns to retain faith in God no matter what circumstances may prevail. Faith must be enough for human existence. Job learns this lesson; we can speculate that a similar message was to be conveyed to the Bible's readers.
For this story addresses a question we in fact do not have the answers to: why do we suffer? Also why do some live healthily? In today's world, we focus on what we consider 'concrete' - physical and psychological health, drastic events, etc. - to explain our circumstances. But a group such as the Israelites without scientific innovations as ours, one moreover without regard for science, would need a different explanation to rely on.
The idea that God causes all and that we do not have the capacity to understand Him can be seen as a reasonable explanation. It is comforting in that we attribute realities to another's responsibility. For instance, one who believes something or someone else to have caused his failure remains confident in himself. God is also a pleasing explanation in that it addresses all that humans cannot control. Amazing and terrible things happen because there is no rhyme or reason to God's actions: Job says, "He leads priests away stripped, and overthrows the mighty. He deprives of speech those who are trusted, and takes away the discernment of the elders. He pours contempt on princes, and looses the belt of the strong. He uncovers, the deeps out of darkness, and brings deep darkness to light. He makes nations great, and he destroys them: he enlarges nations, and leads them away. He takes away understanding from the chiefs of the people of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless waste. " (Job, 12:19, 12:24). Attributing responsibility along with order (or disorder) to God allows humans to understand their limits.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Job's Questionable Rewards for Faith (Prompt 8)
In "Job," the character of Job suffers for losing faith in God. Though Satan causes his pain, God establishes that if He wanted He could prolong it. For God does not owe any man any kind of blessing: He asks the rhetorical question, "Who has given to me, that I should repay Him?" (Job, 41:11). God believes that humans must be indifferent to suffering - and anything else, for that matter - because faith is all they need.
When Job finally "repent(s) in dust and ashes" for not having faith in God, however, God does reward him (42:6). "...the Lord restored the fortunes of Job" and later "blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels" etc. (42:10, 42:12).
If God does not owe anything to man, why does Job deserve a reward for having faith in God? Should not rewards be as meaningless as suffering, in the face of God?
These are unanswerable questions that result from a confusing, hypocritical solution. What we can investigate, however, is why the author felt the need to end Job pleasantly. He must have felt the need to sacrifice the alternative, logical ending - Job regains faith in God and either continues to suffer or does not, but that does not matter because the human experience only depends on faith - for good reason.
"Job" stresses obedience to God and indifference to all else, at the same time as it presents incentives as material as camels for obedience. For as a set of beliefs created by humans and for humans, they must appease humans. "Job" comes to finally promote faith not only with material incentives; by relieving Job's pain in the end, it also associates suffering with godlessness and health with faith. Faith alone will not suffice for the readers of the Bible; health and other rewards must be at stake as well.
When Job finally "repent(s) in dust and ashes" for not having faith in God, however, God does reward him (42:6). "...the Lord restored the fortunes of Job" and later "blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning; and he had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels" etc. (42:10, 42:12).
If God does not owe anything to man, why does Job deserve a reward for having faith in God? Should not rewards be as meaningless as suffering, in the face of God?
These are unanswerable questions that result from a confusing, hypocritical solution. What we can investigate, however, is why the author felt the need to end Job pleasantly. He must have felt the need to sacrifice the alternative, logical ending - Job regains faith in God and either continues to suffer or does not, but that does not matter because the human experience only depends on faith - for good reason.
"Job" stresses obedience to God and indifference to all else, at the same time as it presents incentives as material as camels for obedience. For as a set of beliefs created by humans and for humans, they must appease humans. "Job" comes to finally promote faith not only with material incentives; by relieving Job's pain in the end, it also associates suffering with godlessness and health with faith. Faith alone will not suffice for the readers of the Bible; health and other rewards must be at stake as well.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
God's Motives in Job (Prompts 3 and 4)
At the beginning of "Job," God sees Job as "a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil" (Job, 2:3). Thus He sees no reason to test Job's faith, until Satan proposes to do so.
Satan warns God of Job, "touch his bone and his flesh and he will curse thee to thy face" (2:5). Satan thus sees imperfection in Job, which he can exaggerate under the circumstances of pain.
Satan's hypothesis proves later to be true, when Job rejects God for causing him to undergo so much pain. Job thereby loses faith in God as supreme, and in His actions and judgments as correct. God therefore is proved wrong by Satan. "Job" is a triumph for Satan in that he demonstrates that God's assumption is false, as well as in that he finds one of his deviant qualities in man. Satan successfully fills these two goals.
God, on the other hand, has no motive in "Job." He nevertheless gets his confidence taken away; there is a sinner in someone He highly regards. The fact that God, unlike Satan, had little curiosity in Job's faith points to God's confidence. God feels no need to defend Job for this reason, and is happy letting Satan do the 'dirty work' of trying to find in him a fault: "Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life" (2:6). The lack of a plan in "God" prepares Him for a grand criticism when error is found.
So when Job proves to defy God, it is not only an affront to His power but also His own knowledge. God has upheld someone to be faithful when he is not; He has also cockily assumed someone to be on His side when he is not. Satan's attack on God reveals faultiness in humans and faultiness in Him as well.
Satan warns God of Job, "touch his bone and his flesh and he will curse thee to thy face" (2:5). Satan thus sees imperfection in Job, which he can exaggerate under the circumstances of pain.
Satan's hypothesis proves later to be true, when Job rejects God for causing him to undergo so much pain. Job thereby loses faith in God as supreme, and in His actions and judgments as correct. God therefore is proved wrong by Satan. "Job" is a triumph for Satan in that he demonstrates that God's assumption is false, as well as in that he finds one of his deviant qualities in man. Satan successfully fills these two goals.
God, on the other hand, has no motive in "Job." He nevertheless gets his confidence taken away; there is a sinner in someone He highly regards. The fact that God, unlike Satan, had little curiosity in Job's faith points to God's confidence. God feels no need to defend Job for this reason, and is happy letting Satan do the 'dirty work' of trying to find in him a fault: "Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life" (2:6). The lack of a plan in "God" prepares Him for a grand criticism when error is found.
So when Job proves to defy God, it is not only an affront to His power but also His own knowledge. God has upheld someone to be faithful when he is not; He has also cockily assumed someone to be on His side when he is not. Satan's attack on God reveals faultiness in humans and faultiness in Him as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)