Coincidence that I mentioned The Last Temptation of Christ while discussing scapegoats, and also used it as a quote in my paper? I think not. Or, as was said in class, there are no coincidences.
This will probably be my last blog entry because today is the day they are supposed to be completed by. I hope everyone enjoyed the class and learned something, including Professor Sexson. It was a good experience for me. Good luck to everyone (if anyone from class even ever reads my blog that is) on the final.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
My Socrates Paper
Here is a copy of my Socrates paper that I gave my presentation on today.
Socrates: The Man, the Myth, and the Immortal Presence
It seems that the goal of Socrates’s life was to attain virtue, both of the mind and the soul. However, most of what we know of Socrates comes from the the works of others. Socrates himself never wrote anything down. He considered the pursuit of knowledge as an interactive process. In Phaedrus, for example, Socrates explains his beliefs about writing by recounting a story set in ancient Egypt, in which he describes writing as an invention that "will enable [people] to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing."1 Of course, ironically, we only know what Socrates’s reasons for never writing anything may have been because of what the Socrates character claims in Plato’s writings. Regardless of the enigmatic elements surrounding Socrates, he is often credited responsibility for laying much of the foundation for Western ideas, thoughts, and philosophy. The final words in Ovid’s Metamorphoses are, "I shall have life." Ovid’s proclamation that through writing, he would gain immortality has, thus far, proven to be true as his voice and his thoughts are still being read now, thousands of years later. Likewise, Socrates has attained immortality through writing, though in his case through the writing of others. The story that we know of Socrates’s life and death is proof that there is more than one way for a person to become immortalized, and stands as a prominent reminder of one way in which the past possesses the present.
In the modern day there is a recipe which we use to construct the history of Socrates’s life. First, we start out with a cup of Plato, who may have divulged some personal information in the many dialogues he wrote with Socrates as the main character. Second, we add a teaspoon of Xenophon, who wrote two dialogues featuring Socrates, a character portrayed as only caring about ethical issues. Third, we add a pinch of Aristophanes, who parodies Socrates by portraying him as a caricature of impracticality. Fourth, we add one tablespoon of Aristotle, whose time at the academy may have given him insight into Socrates’s beliefs. Finally, everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. It seems apparent that Aristophanes’s portrayal of Socrates would not have been accurate, although it may give some insight into how much of Athenian society may have pictured Socrates, as a nagging gadfly whose only purpose was to prove others wrong without providing an alternative. There is still scholarly debate about how accurate the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon are in their depiction of Socrates, and how much Socrates’s character is pushing Platonic or Xenophonic ideas. Aristotle may have been more reliable in his recounting of the views of Socrates, but his tenure at the academy did not coincide with Socrates’s life and he never divulged any personal information about Socrates in his writings. It seems that there is more than enough to prove that Socrates existed. However, it also remains possible that Socrates was something more abstract, and that the Socratic method, Socratic irony, and much of the foundation of western philosophy is attributed to an idea rather than a man.
The story of Socrates’s death that we have become familiar with has a definite heroic quality to it. Socrates method of proving the ignorance of the cities intellectuals may have made him a few enemies and he was eventually charged and found guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens in front of a 500 person jury by a small majority of 60. His accusers argued for him to be put to death. When Socrates was given the opportunity to argue for an alternative punishment, he defiantly proclaimed that he should be rewarded, then finally settled on arguing for a minuscule penalty of one Mina, and that his friends were even willing to pay up to 30 Minae for him. Socrates was sentenced to drink hemlock, a poison which would lead to his death. In his trial, Socrates affirmed his belief that the truth should be sought even in the face of universal opposition. According to Plato’s Apology, Socrates had the opportunity to escape but chose, being truly loyal to the city of Athens, to stay and face his sentence. As his friends cried, Socrates stoically drank the poison and questioned his friends’ tears. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates’s character, as if he knew what was to come, foreshadows his actions, "but if I came to my end because of a deficiency in flattering oratory, I know that you’d see me bear my death with ease. For no one who isn’t totally bereft of reason and courage is afraid to die; doing what’s unjust is what he’s afraid of."2 After his death, public opinion began to heavily favor Socrates. With his death, Socrates’s life was scrutinized by his peers and through their writings he attained both influence and immortality.
Socrates led a life and upheld beliefs that would be considered admirable by most people in modern society. The pursuit of knowledge was his quest, which he faithfully followed despite poverty until his death. Although it was claimed that an oracle said that there was no man wiser than Socrates, he remained humble, employing Socratic Irony by saying the only difference between him and other men is that he realized that he knew nothing. He believed that self-improvement was the most important task a person could undertake and he was fiercely loyal to the things he loved (the ideals of Athens, virtue, knowledge.) It has even been said that Socrates was a valiant soldier on the battlefield.
One doesn’t have to look far to find stories, events, and lives similar to that of Socrates. The life of perhaps the most well-known figure in Western culture, Jesus, shares many remarkable similarities to Socrates. While Jesus, like Socrates, personally didn’t write anything down, he was immortalized through the writing of others. The inconsistencies found in the gospels give people reason to be skeptical about the portrayal of the Jesus, just as the ulterior motives of Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes give us reason to be skeptical of their portrayal of Socrates. Both were described as humble but influential figures . Although the existence of both is generally accepted, however unlikely it may be, it can be argued that both were inventions to help serve a need of their respective societies. In the fictitious story about Jesus, The Last Temptation of Christ, Nikos Kazantzakis helps explain a reason why something like this could have happened in a conversation between Jesus and Paul, in which Paul says that it is the idea of the crucifixion and the resurrection that is important, not whether it actually happened or not, because the belief in it is what helps people3. Ultimately, both became martyrs whose popularity skyrocketed after death.
In modern culture, numerous examples of "Socratic stories" can be seen in the popular forms of entertainment and media. Any movie which ends with a martyr who dies in the name of a greater cause can be argued to be similar to, maybe even inspired by, the life of Socrates. One example is the movie Braveheart. The main character of the movie, William Wallace, shares many of the same character traits that Socrates has been described to have possessed. Both are virtuous, intelligent, strong-willed, and honorable on and off the battlefield. William Wallace’s betrayal and trial can be seen to be similar to Socrates’s "betrayal" by his fellow Athenian accusers and subsequent trial. There is even a scene where William Wallace is given a poison which will dull his body’s feeling before he is tortured, reminiscent to Socrates’s consumption of hemlock, which also has a numbing effect. Wallace’s declaration that he cannot drink the poison because he must keep his wits, and later refusal to bow to the will of the English during his torture aligns with Socrates’s notion that one sometimes must do what is right, even in the face of universal opposition. Both William Wallace and Socrates ultimately died for ideas greater than themselves, William Wallace for freedom and Socrates for justice, and by doing so helped to change the collective sentiment of the people around them.
The life of Jesus and the movie Braveheart are just a couple examples of the kind of influence Socrates has had on Western culture, however, Socrates has really had a much more profound impact on the world than those two things. It would be difficult to imagine a person like Ghandi, for example, without the foundational framework of thought attributed to Socrates. Socrates’s life and his ideas play a role in the psyche of the average modern person on a daily basis. The things people see as good, virtuous, noble, and honorable all stem from Socrates’ mission in life, serving as a reminder of how the past is always a part of the present.
Works Cited
Plato. Phaedrus. Translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc, 1995.
Plato, Gorgias. Translated by Donald J. Zeyl. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc, 1987.
Plato, Apology. Wikisource, The Free Library, 2007.
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm#links
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/greek/philosopher/trial_death_socrates.html
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/SOCRATES.HTM
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Socrates.htm
Socrates: The Man, the Myth, and the Immortal Presence
It seems that the goal of Socrates’s life was to attain virtue, both of the mind and the soul. However, most of what we know of Socrates comes from the the works of others. Socrates himself never wrote anything down. He considered the pursuit of knowledge as an interactive process. In Phaedrus, for example, Socrates explains his beliefs about writing by recounting a story set in ancient Egypt, in which he describes writing as an invention that "will enable [people] to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing."1 Of course, ironically, we only know what Socrates’s reasons for never writing anything may have been because of what the Socrates character claims in Plato’s writings. Regardless of the enigmatic elements surrounding Socrates, he is often credited responsibility for laying much of the foundation for Western ideas, thoughts, and philosophy. The final words in Ovid’s Metamorphoses are, "I shall have life." Ovid’s proclamation that through writing, he would gain immortality has, thus far, proven to be true as his voice and his thoughts are still being read now, thousands of years later. Likewise, Socrates has attained immortality through writing, though in his case through the writing of others. The story that we know of Socrates’s life and death is proof that there is more than one way for a person to become immortalized, and stands as a prominent reminder of one way in which the past possesses the present.
In the modern day there is a recipe which we use to construct the history of Socrates’s life. First, we start out with a cup of Plato, who may have divulged some personal information in the many dialogues he wrote with Socrates as the main character. Second, we add a teaspoon of Xenophon, who wrote two dialogues featuring Socrates, a character portrayed as only caring about ethical issues. Third, we add a pinch of Aristophanes, who parodies Socrates by portraying him as a caricature of impracticality. Fourth, we add one tablespoon of Aristotle, whose time at the academy may have given him insight into Socrates’s beliefs. Finally, everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. It seems apparent that Aristophanes’s portrayal of Socrates would not have been accurate, although it may give some insight into how much of Athenian society may have pictured Socrates, as a nagging gadfly whose only purpose was to prove others wrong without providing an alternative. There is still scholarly debate about how accurate the dialogues of Plato and Xenophon are in their depiction of Socrates, and how much Socrates’s character is pushing Platonic or Xenophonic ideas. Aristotle may have been more reliable in his recounting of the views of Socrates, but his tenure at the academy did not coincide with Socrates’s life and he never divulged any personal information about Socrates in his writings. It seems that there is more than enough to prove that Socrates existed. However, it also remains possible that Socrates was something more abstract, and that the Socratic method, Socratic irony, and much of the foundation of western philosophy is attributed to an idea rather than a man.
The story of Socrates’s death that we have become familiar with has a definite heroic quality to it. Socrates method of proving the ignorance of the cities intellectuals may have made him a few enemies and he was eventually charged and found guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens in front of a 500 person jury by a small majority of 60. His accusers argued for him to be put to death. When Socrates was given the opportunity to argue for an alternative punishment, he defiantly proclaimed that he should be rewarded, then finally settled on arguing for a minuscule penalty of one Mina, and that his friends were even willing to pay up to 30 Minae for him. Socrates was sentenced to drink hemlock, a poison which would lead to his death. In his trial, Socrates affirmed his belief that the truth should be sought even in the face of universal opposition. According to Plato’s Apology, Socrates had the opportunity to escape but chose, being truly loyal to the city of Athens, to stay and face his sentence. As his friends cried, Socrates stoically drank the poison and questioned his friends’ tears. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates’s character, as if he knew what was to come, foreshadows his actions, "but if I came to my end because of a deficiency in flattering oratory, I know that you’d see me bear my death with ease. For no one who isn’t totally bereft of reason and courage is afraid to die; doing what’s unjust is what he’s afraid of."2 After his death, public opinion began to heavily favor Socrates. With his death, Socrates’s life was scrutinized by his peers and through their writings he attained both influence and immortality.
Socrates led a life and upheld beliefs that would be considered admirable by most people in modern society. The pursuit of knowledge was his quest, which he faithfully followed despite poverty until his death. Although it was claimed that an oracle said that there was no man wiser than Socrates, he remained humble, employing Socratic Irony by saying the only difference between him and other men is that he realized that he knew nothing. He believed that self-improvement was the most important task a person could undertake and he was fiercely loyal to the things he loved (the ideals of Athens, virtue, knowledge.) It has even been said that Socrates was a valiant soldier on the battlefield.
One doesn’t have to look far to find stories, events, and lives similar to that of Socrates. The life of perhaps the most well-known figure in Western culture, Jesus, shares many remarkable similarities to Socrates. While Jesus, like Socrates, personally didn’t write anything down, he was immortalized through the writing of others. The inconsistencies found in the gospels give people reason to be skeptical about the portrayal of the Jesus, just as the ulterior motives of Plato, Xenophon, and Aristophanes give us reason to be skeptical of their portrayal of Socrates. Both were described as humble but influential figures . Although the existence of both is generally accepted, however unlikely it may be, it can be argued that both were inventions to help serve a need of their respective societies. In the fictitious story about Jesus, The Last Temptation of Christ, Nikos Kazantzakis helps explain a reason why something like this could have happened in a conversation between Jesus and Paul, in which Paul says that it is the idea of the crucifixion and the resurrection that is important, not whether it actually happened or not, because the belief in it is what helps people3. Ultimately, both became martyrs whose popularity skyrocketed after death.
In modern culture, numerous examples of "Socratic stories" can be seen in the popular forms of entertainment and media. Any movie which ends with a martyr who dies in the name of a greater cause can be argued to be similar to, maybe even inspired by, the life of Socrates. One example is the movie Braveheart. The main character of the movie, William Wallace, shares many of the same character traits that Socrates has been described to have possessed. Both are virtuous, intelligent, strong-willed, and honorable on and off the battlefield. William Wallace’s betrayal and trial can be seen to be similar to Socrates’s "betrayal" by his fellow Athenian accusers and subsequent trial. There is even a scene where William Wallace is given a poison which will dull his body’s feeling before he is tortured, reminiscent to Socrates’s consumption of hemlock, which also has a numbing effect. Wallace’s declaration that he cannot drink the poison because he must keep his wits, and later refusal to bow to the will of the English during his torture aligns with Socrates’s notion that one sometimes must do what is right, even in the face of universal opposition. Both William Wallace and Socrates ultimately died for ideas greater than themselves, William Wallace for freedom and Socrates for justice, and by doing so helped to change the collective sentiment of the people around them.
The life of Jesus and the movie Braveheart are just a couple examples of the kind of influence Socrates has had on Western culture, however, Socrates has really had a much more profound impact on the world than those two things. It would be difficult to imagine a person like Ghandi, for example, without the foundational framework of thought attributed to Socrates. Socrates’s life and his ideas play a role in the psyche of the average modern person on a daily basis. The things people see as good, virtuous, noble, and honorable all stem from Socrates’ mission in life, serving as a reminder of how the past is always a part of the present.
Works Cited
Plato. Phaedrus. Translated by Alexander Nehamas and Paul Woodruff. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc, 1995.
Plato, Gorgias. Translated by Donald J. Zeyl. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company Inc, 1987.
Plato, Apology. Wikisource, The Free Library, 2007.
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/socr.htm#links
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/greek/philosopher/trial_death_socrates.html
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/socrates.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/SOCRATES.HTM
http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/Socrates.htm
Monday, April 30, 2007
Jesus and the Scapegoat
I found the idea that the scapegoat is a necessary component of society to be pretty interesting. "Scapegoat" is often a term that is viewed negatively. Its definition demands that it be viewed negatively. However, as was pointed out in the presentations today, it may also be necessary. Scapegoats alleviate responsibility and allow society to function without burden.
In The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, Jesus recalls the goats that the town would project their sins on to every year and send out of the city. He realizes that the goats are being sent off to their deaths. In the book, this is a key image which reminds us why Jesus must be crucified. In a sense, Jesus is the ultimate scapegoat. Rather than a goat figuratively alleviating a town of its sins through its exile and death, Jesus must alleviate all of humanity of its sins through his crucifixion.
In this instance, Jesus as the scapegoat is a good thing, because it gives all humans the chance to be forgiven. It's bittersweet, but without his sacrifice, the progression of humanity would be burdened by our sins (that is, if you are a Christian and subscribe to Christian ideals.)
Anyway, if you are interested in seeing this perspective, I would recommend reading the book, it is pretty interesting It's goal is to make Jesus seem more human and less divine by describing his struggle to accept divinity and death. Just to be warned, it's not for everyone (it was very controversial, I believe Nikos Kazantzakis was excommunicated by his church for it,) but it is full of good ideas and helps paint Jesus as a more sympathetic person rather than infallible divinity. There was also an equally controversial Martin Scorsese movie that came out in the mid 1980's for those who don't want to read. They are very different in certain respects, but both attempt to do the same sort of thing (though if you watch the movie you won't get the scapegoat insight.)
In The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis, Jesus recalls the goats that the town would project their sins on to every year and send out of the city. He realizes that the goats are being sent off to their deaths. In the book, this is a key image which reminds us why Jesus must be crucified. In a sense, Jesus is the ultimate scapegoat. Rather than a goat figuratively alleviating a town of its sins through its exile and death, Jesus must alleviate all of humanity of its sins through his crucifixion.
In this instance, Jesus as the scapegoat is a good thing, because it gives all humans the chance to be forgiven. It's bittersweet, but without his sacrifice, the progression of humanity would be burdened by our sins (that is, if you are a Christian and subscribe to Christian ideals.)
Anyway, if you are interested in seeing this perspective, I would recommend reading the book, it is pretty interesting It's goal is to make Jesus seem more human and less divine by describing his struggle to accept divinity and death. Just to be warned, it's not for everyone (it was very controversial, I believe Nikos Kazantzakis was excommunicated by his church for it,) but it is full of good ideas and helps paint Jesus as a more sympathetic person rather than infallible divinity. There was also an equally controversial Martin Scorsese movie that came out in the mid 1980's for those who don't want to read. They are very different in certain respects, but both attempt to do the same sort of thing (though if you watch the movie you won't get the scapegoat insight.)
Dionysus of the Double Doors
I just wanted to comment a little about Jann and Chase's presentations on Dionysus.
Chase compared Dionysus to Jesus and found some pretty interesting correlations between the two.
Jann compared Dionysus from the Bacchae to the speech's Cheung Sui Cho gave in the videos he sent to the news after he claimed his first two victims at Virginia Tech.
I found it interesting that comparisons of the same person were made to two people perceived in completely different lights. I have to admit that everytime I hear about Cho it makes me feel uncomfortable and my stomach feels a little twisted up. Jann's presentation definitely gave me that same feeling. It seems entirely plausible that Cho, being an English student at Virginia Tech, would/could have been familiar with the Bacchae, and his speech did have a very familiar quality to Dionysus'. Since the incident, my friends are very quick to remind me how crazy English students are.
Chase's presentation, on the other hand, drew comparisons towards a completely different figure. Jesus, whether you are a Christian or not, is seen as an important, influential, and peace-loving figure.
It's strange that Dionysus can be compared to two completely different people, yet both the comparisons were very interesting and perceptive. It seems to put the "he of the double doors" thing on a whole new level.
Chase compared Dionysus to Jesus and found some pretty interesting correlations between the two.
Jann compared Dionysus from the Bacchae to the speech's Cheung Sui Cho gave in the videos he sent to the news after he claimed his first two victims at Virginia Tech.
I found it interesting that comparisons of the same person were made to two people perceived in completely different lights. I have to admit that everytime I hear about Cho it makes me feel uncomfortable and my stomach feels a little twisted up. Jann's presentation definitely gave me that same feeling. It seems entirely plausible that Cho, being an English student at Virginia Tech, would/could have been familiar with the Bacchae, and his speech did have a very familiar quality to Dionysus'. Since the incident, my friends are very quick to remind me how crazy English students are.
Chase's presentation, on the other hand, drew comparisons towards a completely different figure. Jesus, whether you are a Christian or not, is seen as an important, influential, and peace-loving figure.
It's strange that Dionysus can be compared to two completely different people, yet both the comparisons were very interesting and perceptive. It seems to put the "he of the double doors" thing on a whole new level.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Golden Ass
I just wanted to post something on here that I ran across while searching the web. It's a pretty interesting meditation on the Golden Ass. Here's the link to the site where I read this.
http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/clas217/projects/violence_in_apuleius/thoughts.html
It looks like this is from another student probably in a very similar class to ours. Not too bad at all. For those of you too lazy to click on a link, I'll post his reflection/essay/meditation, whatever you want to call it, right after I type this word.
Historical Reflections and Research-Induced Thoughts
Apuleius’s The Golden Ass has enjoyed a lengthy tenure as a monument of argument pertaining to how an ancient novel may be approached with a modern point of view. The presence of the book can be traced throughout history within almost every significant era since the end of the Roman Empire (Apuleius (III) xliv). Since there is very little debate as to the continual magnitude of this novel, it is important to consider how it has been considered over the course of time, as well as how it has impacted our view of Apuleius’s contemporary society. Richard D. Summers (1970) approaches the matter from the perspective of identifying the criminal behavior portrayed “at random” throughout the book. Nancy Shumate (2) approaches The Golden Ass from the perspective of a religious conversion, noting the concrete evidence contained within the book about Roman society, and, to a greater extent, what she considers the literary value of the book in the context of an ancient novel.
Since The Golden Ass is not an entirely original piece of work, having been based on a Greek novel by Lucian entitled “Lucius or the Ass” (Apuleius (I) vii), there is ample opportunity to examine it in comparison to the remaining evidence of the original version. This is fairly problematic, since all that remains of the original is an abridged variation within the works of Lucian. Walsh feels that there is not a great deal of substance missing from this abridgement, thus allowing for a comparison between the two pieces of literature and the societies in which they are contextualized (Apuleius (III) xx).
Summers (1970) offers a focus upon the depictions of justice within the book, and these are prime ruminations to take into consideration when discussing Apuleius’s portrayals of violence and the subsequent reflections on society. He also states that the novel exposes a clear abhorrence of the justice system, as it was unable to cope with the demands that were placed upon it as Augustus rearranged the system to form a more centralized and homogenized structure under which law should be applied. Among the myriad results of this concentration of power was the eventual loss of any expectation of a trial by members of the lower class (Summers 1970; Lintott 24).
The cruel trick played on Lucius in books two and three is used by Summers (1970) to shed further light on the justice system. He notes that this scene involves the use of a combination of both Greek and Roman court situations. This is appropriate to the setting of the story, since Lucius is in Greece (an element of the story that was not altered from Lucian’s original) during a time of Roman political and legal domination. Moreover, as Apuleius describes the scene, the reader is instilled with imagery of the general populace reacting to the incidence of a highly anticipated public demonstration of how the law ostensibly worked.
Within the book, Apuleius depicts the general populace of Hypata as deriving entertainment from the spectacle of Lucius’ abuse, while the fear and confusion felt by the main character are communicated very vividly. The people have little regard for the normal procedures followed by a court, and instead pursue the torture of their unknowing victim as the mothers and babies of the alleged victims are marched before the crowd (3.8). Summers (1970) insists that the trial should not have even taken place within Hypata, since Lucius is a Roman citizen; he should have been transferred to Rome or to a Roman magistrate for any trial.
The concept that the legal administration of a town could be used in such a crass manner is evidence of how the courts were regarded by both the aristocratic class and the general populace. The willingness of the court administrators to place such an exhibition in their own court is a result of their not having proper respect for their stations. Similarly, the use of the courts for entertainment provides the reader with the bizarre dichotomy present between the courts and the system of justice: the courts are for the ruling class and the entertainment of the people, while the vast majority of justice is dealt with on an individual basis outside any formal political structure.
This peculiar social order is not only present within the primary vein of the story, but also within the various meandering asides Apuleius inserts among the adventures of Lucius. The story of Thelyphron (2.21-2.31) reveals the confusion behind the legality of written documents (Summers 1970) as well as the sickening cruelty with which witches concern themselves (Schlam 70). Summers (1970) attributes the source of the unfortunate incident involving Thelyphron entirely to the wife being ignorant of the laws of inheritance. This witchcraft has long been an element of fascination within the story, and as such, has served to fuel many interpretations of the tale. Shumate is keen to suggest that the witchcraft lends the story a metaphorical air that relates the actions of the minor characters to the “shifting nature of all matter” (56). In doing so, she explicitly denies that Apuleius features such involvement of magic as a source of entertainment (56), a concept that is highly favored by other critics, including Schlam, who prefers to consider witchery as a form of sexual humor (Schlam 80).
Socially, the authors do not find this surprising in the least, since there is a theme throughout a great deal of classical fiction and theater that mocks women. One of the rare instances of males performing magic within the story also occurs within the story of Thelyphron, where the dead man is roused by the powers of a necromancer in order to condemn his wife for committing adultery and murder (2.29). Schlam indicates that the significance of the gender correlations between males and the necromancer in addition to females and the witches is that the necromancer practices his magic to ascertain a truth, while the females practice magic for various less wholesome reasons (Schlam70). This parallels the most basic dichotomy within the social order: the distinctions between masculinity and femininity. Furthermore, the necromancer is described (2.28) in the same terms as the religious figures in book eleven (Schlam 70), which lends further credence to his superiority over other magic-wielders.
Once Lucius is turned into an ass, he suffers a great deal from his inability to communicate with the outside world. He feels that he has received an unfair punishment for the crime of his curiosity, but when he attempts to call on the most powerful non-deity he can think of (3.29), he finds that no one will listen to him when he calls for Caesar. Some scholars believe that this continues to be a metaphor on the Roman system of justice and its apparent lack thereof (Summers 1970), while it has also been considered that Apuleius may have meant different things upon the invocation of Caesar depending on when the story was written (Sandy 6).
Since it is unclear if the book was written during the end of the reign of the Juleo-Claudians, or afterwards (Accardo 21), calling upon such a name could refer to a current emperor or a historically famous and recognizable name. It is important to note that there is some concept of there being power in even the invocation of the name Caesar, which, while ignored by the characters in the book, indicates that there may have been a deep social connection to the inherent power structures of the empire. In this case, such a cry for help may have held a universal validity among the subjects of the empire, regardless of the social status of those issuing a call (one cannot sink much lower than an ass) or those surrounding the issuer.
The story of Cupid and Psyche (4.1-6.24) presents the reader with a significant distraction from the theme of Lucius’ plight, and instead seeks to set up a parallel story that sets the significance of the story in the light of a divine intervention. Shumate places the importance of the story as a precursor to Lucius’ eventual conversion. While Lucius has a problem in that he has an inappropriate fascination with witchcraft, it is argued that Psyche’s problem is that she is worshipped as a god by the citizens of her fictional city (Shumate 252). Schlam soundly rejects the hypothesis that this story has little more than entertainment value, arguing that, despite the light-hearted ending, the “fairy-tale” carries with it a serious message (6, 98). Regardless of how the story is interpreted, both the primary plot of the book and this shorter aside provide a particular insight into the realistic working of oft-ignored segments of Roman society.
The contemporaries of Apuleius clearly had a preoccupation with the process of punishment and redemption. The violence committed against Psyche, while astonishingly atrocious, is accepted in light of her eventual emancipation from that which makes her spiritually flawed. While the Romans did not hold spiritual values as modern cultures do, Shumate concludes that their own preference of modesty before the gods is enough like the modern concept to be related (53). There are some faults in this logic, such as Psyche’s problems being less of her own doing than Venus’s, but producing the correlation between the two stories is an ingenious move by Apuleius in that it provides modern readers with an inkling of the Roman mentality of their lives relating to those of the gods.
As the story progresses, and the reader returns to the reality of Lucius’s current situation of being stuck amongst a band of robbers that want to kill him, he proceeds through a series of unfortunate circumstances, most of which involve cruel masters that want to harm him. While each of these may be exaggerated for purposes of constructing a cohesive and interesting narrative, each relates a particular facet of the fundamental mechanics of the producing class of society. For example, Lucius happens to overhear that he is being sought by the people of Hypata as a suspect in the robbery of Milo’s house (7.1-7.4). It is not some element of the state, such as a police force, that is seeking him, but merely a group of citizens invested in maintaining civil order. The state had no vested interest in Milo’s household, but the people of Hypata were acting to their own advantage to capture this thief that could have victimized them as well. As Summers (1970) is enthusiastic to point out, this is how the lack of a criminal justice system implemented itself in this ancient society.
The images of rural life (7.14-9.16, 10.13-10.18) are a poignant reminder that the vast majority of Roman society did not consist of senators and soldiers. Once hailed as a hero by the girl whom he rescues from the thieves, Lucius is sent out into the country and employed by a variety of peasant laborers. The young man that is eventually mangled by a bear indicates the responsibility placed on youths in regard to household labor (7.17). The boy is charged with transporting lumber, and does so without supervision. In this way, the Roman peasantry was not significantly different than those of the societies that followed. The citizens were forced by the nature of their simple economy to live on subsistence farming and simple trade. Apuleius paints a picture of a land less like the grandiose imagery of Gibbon, and more similar to recent perceptions of the Middle Ages.
Shumate again relates these as his last steps towards achieving salvation at the hands of Isis (96). Throughout any reading of The Golden Ass that is so utterly removed from the contemporary environment for which it was written, it is difficult to relate the novel to anything recognizable as reality. Despite this, Shumate presses a point that the worship of Isis at the culmination of the book can be related to the main character embracing Christianity (327), while admitting that if this is the case, it decreases the likelihood of the story being autobiographical. Summers (1970) is adamant that the purpose behind Apuleius writing the narrative was to confer his distaste regarding the Roman legal system, and Schlam sharply disregards both of these ideals, preferring to denote Lucius as “a mere cult devotee” (13) and calling the story “inseparable from the culture within which [it] was composed.”
A great deal of literature has been established focusing on The Golden Ass from a variety of viewpoints, including the extreme concepts that it is nothing more than a pure vehicle for entertainment, to the more fragile argument that the entire story, and all of the interludes, indicate a powerful religious allegory. The reality is difficult to discern, but Apuleius undoubtedly provides modern readers with an account of life as it was two millennia ago without any unconscious bias that modern historians apply to thought as a result of not being present in the societies they are studying.
· Aaron Hoffman
http://faculty.vassar.edu/jolott/clas217/projects/violence_in_apuleius/thoughts.html
It looks like this is from another student probably in a very similar class to ours. Not too bad at all. For those of you too lazy to click on a link, I'll post his reflection/essay/meditation, whatever you want to call it, right after I type this word.
Historical Reflections and Research-Induced Thoughts
Apuleius’s The Golden Ass has enjoyed a lengthy tenure as a monument of argument pertaining to how an ancient novel may be approached with a modern point of view. The presence of the book can be traced throughout history within almost every significant era since the end of the Roman Empire (Apuleius (III) xliv). Since there is very little debate as to the continual magnitude of this novel, it is important to consider how it has been considered over the course of time, as well as how it has impacted our view of Apuleius’s contemporary society. Richard D. Summers (1970) approaches the matter from the perspective of identifying the criminal behavior portrayed “at random” throughout the book. Nancy Shumate (2) approaches The Golden Ass from the perspective of a religious conversion, noting the concrete evidence contained within the book about Roman society, and, to a greater extent, what she considers the literary value of the book in the context of an ancient novel.
Since The Golden Ass is not an entirely original piece of work, having been based on a Greek novel by Lucian entitled “Lucius or the Ass” (Apuleius (I) vii), there is ample opportunity to examine it in comparison to the remaining evidence of the original version. This is fairly problematic, since all that remains of the original is an abridged variation within the works of Lucian. Walsh feels that there is not a great deal of substance missing from this abridgement, thus allowing for a comparison between the two pieces of literature and the societies in which they are contextualized (Apuleius (III) xx).
Summers (1970) offers a focus upon the depictions of justice within the book, and these are prime ruminations to take into consideration when discussing Apuleius’s portrayals of violence and the subsequent reflections on society. He also states that the novel exposes a clear abhorrence of the justice system, as it was unable to cope with the demands that were placed upon it as Augustus rearranged the system to form a more centralized and homogenized structure under which law should be applied. Among the myriad results of this concentration of power was the eventual loss of any expectation of a trial by members of the lower class (Summers 1970; Lintott 24).
The cruel trick played on Lucius in books two and three is used by Summers (1970) to shed further light on the justice system. He notes that this scene involves the use of a combination of both Greek and Roman court situations. This is appropriate to the setting of the story, since Lucius is in Greece (an element of the story that was not altered from Lucian’s original) during a time of Roman political and legal domination. Moreover, as Apuleius describes the scene, the reader is instilled with imagery of the general populace reacting to the incidence of a highly anticipated public demonstration of how the law ostensibly worked.
Within the book, Apuleius depicts the general populace of Hypata as deriving entertainment from the spectacle of Lucius’ abuse, while the fear and confusion felt by the main character are communicated very vividly. The people have little regard for the normal procedures followed by a court, and instead pursue the torture of their unknowing victim as the mothers and babies of the alleged victims are marched before the crowd (3.8). Summers (1970) insists that the trial should not have even taken place within Hypata, since Lucius is a Roman citizen; he should have been transferred to Rome or to a Roman magistrate for any trial.
The concept that the legal administration of a town could be used in such a crass manner is evidence of how the courts were regarded by both the aristocratic class and the general populace. The willingness of the court administrators to place such an exhibition in their own court is a result of their not having proper respect for their stations. Similarly, the use of the courts for entertainment provides the reader with the bizarre dichotomy present between the courts and the system of justice: the courts are for the ruling class and the entertainment of the people, while the vast majority of justice is dealt with on an individual basis outside any formal political structure.
This peculiar social order is not only present within the primary vein of the story, but also within the various meandering asides Apuleius inserts among the adventures of Lucius. The story of Thelyphron (2.21-2.31) reveals the confusion behind the legality of written documents (Summers 1970) as well as the sickening cruelty with which witches concern themselves (Schlam 70). Summers (1970) attributes the source of the unfortunate incident involving Thelyphron entirely to the wife being ignorant of the laws of inheritance. This witchcraft has long been an element of fascination within the story, and as such, has served to fuel many interpretations of the tale. Shumate is keen to suggest that the witchcraft lends the story a metaphorical air that relates the actions of the minor characters to the “shifting nature of all matter” (56). In doing so, she explicitly denies that Apuleius features such involvement of magic as a source of entertainment (56), a concept that is highly favored by other critics, including Schlam, who prefers to consider witchery as a form of sexual humor (Schlam 80).
Socially, the authors do not find this surprising in the least, since there is a theme throughout a great deal of classical fiction and theater that mocks women. One of the rare instances of males performing magic within the story also occurs within the story of Thelyphron, where the dead man is roused by the powers of a necromancer in order to condemn his wife for committing adultery and murder (2.29). Schlam indicates that the significance of the gender correlations between males and the necromancer in addition to females and the witches is that the necromancer practices his magic to ascertain a truth, while the females practice magic for various less wholesome reasons (Schlam70). This parallels the most basic dichotomy within the social order: the distinctions between masculinity and femininity. Furthermore, the necromancer is described (2.28) in the same terms as the religious figures in book eleven (Schlam 70), which lends further credence to his superiority over other magic-wielders.
Once Lucius is turned into an ass, he suffers a great deal from his inability to communicate with the outside world. He feels that he has received an unfair punishment for the crime of his curiosity, but when he attempts to call on the most powerful non-deity he can think of (3.29), he finds that no one will listen to him when he calls for Caesar. Some scholars believe that this continues to be a metaphor on the Roman system of justice and its apparent lack thereof (Summers 1970), while it has also been considered that Apuleius may have meant different things upon the invocation of Caesar depending on when the story was written (Sandy 6).
Since it is unclear if the book was written during the end of the reign of the Juleo-Claudians, or afterwards (Accardo 21), calling upon such a name could refer to a current emperor or a historically famous and recognizable name. It is important to note that there is some concept of there being power in even the invocation of the name Caesar, which, while ignored by the characters in the book, indicates that there may have been a deep social connection to the inherent power structures of the empire. In this case, such a cry for help may have held a universal validity among the subjects of the empire, regardless of the social status of those issuing a call (one cannot sink much lower than an ass) or those surrounding the issuer.
The story of Cupid and Psyche (4.1-6.24) presents the reader with a significant distraction from the theme of Lucius’ plight, and instead seeks to set up a parallel story that sets the significance of the story in the light of a divine intervention. Shumate places the importance of the story as a precursor to Lucius’ eventual conversion. While Lucius has a problem in that he has an inappropriate fascination with witchcraft, it is argued that Psyche’s problem is that she is worshipped as a god by the citizens of her fictional city (Shumate 252). Schlam soundly rejects the hypothesis that this story has little more than entertainment value, arguing that, despite the light-hearted ending, the “fairy-tale” carries with it a serious message (6, 98). Regardless of how the story is interpreted, both the primary plot of the book and this shorter aside provide a particular insight into the realistic working of oft-ignored segments of Roman society.
The contemporaries of Apuleius clearly had a preoccupation with the process of punishment and redemption. The violence committed against Psyche, while astonishingly atrocious, is accepted in light of her eventual emancipation from that which makes her spiritually flawed. While the Romans did not hold spiritual values as modern cultures do, Shumate concludes that their own preference of modesty before the gods is enough like the modern concept to be related (53). There are some faults in this logic, such as Psyche’s problems being less of her own doing than Venus’s, but producing the correlation between the two stories is an ingenious move by Apuleius in that it provides modern readers with an inkling of the Roman mentality of their lives relating to those of the gods.
As the story progresses, and the reader returns to the reality of Lucius’s current situation of being stuck amongst a band of robbers that want to kill him, he proceeds through a series of unfortunate circumstances, most of which involve cruel masters that want to harm him. While each of these may be exaggerated for purposes of constructing a cohesive and interesting narrative, each relates a particular facet of the fundamental mechanics of the producing class of society. For example, Lucius happens to overhear that he is being sought by the people of Hypata as a suspect in the robbery of Milo’s house (7.1-7.4). It is not some element of the state, such as a police force, that is seeking him, but merely a group of citizens invested in maintaining civil order. The state had no vested interest in Milo’s household, but the people of Hypata were acting to their own advantage to capture this thief that could have victimized them as well. As Summers (1970) is enthusiastic to point out, this is how the lack of a criminal justice system implemented itself in this ancient society.
The images of rural life (7.14-9.16, 10.13-10.18) are a poignant reminder that the vast majority of Roman society did not consist of senators and soldiers. Once hailed as a hero by the girl whom he rescues from the thieves, Lucius is sent out into the country and employed by a variety of peasant laborers. The young man that is eventually mangled by a bear indicates the responsibility placed on youths in regard to household labor (7.17). The boy is charged with transporting lumber, and does so without supervision. In this way, the Roman peasantry was not significantly different than those of the societies that followed. The citizens were forced by the nature of their simple economy to live on subsistence farming and simple trade. Apuleius paints a picture of a land less like the grandiose imagery of Gibbon, and more similar to recent perceptions of the Middle Ages.
Shumate again relates these as his last steps towards achieving salvation at the hands of Isis (96). Throughout any reading of The Golden Ass that is so utterly removed from the contemporary environment for which it was written, it is difficult to relate the novel to anything recognizable as reality. Despite this, Shumate presses a point that the worship of Isis at the culmination of the book can be related to the main character embracing Christianity (327), while admitting that if this is the case, it decreases the likelihood of the story being autobiographical. Summers (1970) is adamant that the purpose behind Apuleius writing the narrative was to confer his distaste regarding the Roman legal system, and Schlam sharply disregards both of these ideals, preferring to denote Lucius as “a mere cult devotee” (13) and calling the story “inseparable from the culture within which [it] was composed.”
A great deal of literature has been established focusing on The Golden Ass from a variety of viewpoints, including the extreme concepts that it is nothing more than a pure vehicle for entertainment, to the more fragile argument that the entire story, and all of the interludes, indicate a powerful religious allegory. The reality is difficult to discern, but Apuleius undoubtedly provides modern readers with an account of life as it was two millennia ago without any unconscious bias that modern historians apply to thought as a result of not being present in the societies they are studying.
· Aaron Hoffman
Men vs. Women
First of all, I wanted to comment about how much I liked the group's (I can't remember which number they were) portrayal of the differences between men and women. I was really funny. At the same time, it was also fairly accurate. Not that all guy's think like the guy in their skit, or that all girl's act like the girl in their skit (I must admit that I don't know if all or any girl's act like that or not,) but it did a pretty good representation of the innate psychological differences.
There is a movie that I have seen a few times that I think also does a pretty good job of showing the differences with people's thoughts (not simply limited to men and women, but expanded to include different types of men or people of the same sex but with differing sexual orientation.) It is called Rules of Attraction, based on a novel by Brett Easton Ellis. Being an English Literature major, I probably should have read the book instead of watch the movie, but I haven't, and the movie seems to do a pretty good job anyway. Anyway, there is a scene from the movie that the skit by that group the other day reminded me of. One of the character's (homosexual male named Paul) asks another character (macho male named Sean) for a ride to the bust station. Paul has fallen in love with Sean and as the bus is driving away, he thinks to himself that he is making a mistake and that he loves Sean. The movie interjects to Sean's thoughts, and he is simply thinking about getting laid, stoned, and finally, that he is hungry.
There are many other character's which the viewer is given a sort of interiority with and all of them definitely give the audience the idea of natural difference in the thought process between people. The movie also gives pretty good insight into the culture of college students as well (although I have never experienced and have never really even heard of some of the crazy parties they go to in the movie.)
I'm getting off the subject a little, but I just wanted to finish my thoughts about the movie with one last piece of insight. The movie starts in the middle of a sentence (a character's thoughts) and ends in the middle of a sentence (a different character's thoughts,) which I believe suggests that everyone who goes through the college experience has his or her own stories, and that this is merely one of them, probably similar to some of our own. It's a statement that these stories began and have existed before the timeline of the movie and will continue after the timeline of the movie. All we can do is interject for a segment, witness or be a part of these stories, and continue on with our existence.
Anyway, watch it for it's insight into thought and for the idea that it is simply a glimpse into the life of some college kids (it could be anyone.) Or else don't watch it, it doesn't make much of a difference to me ;)
There is a movie that I have seen a few times that I think also does a pretty good job of showing the differences with people's thoughts (not simply limited to men and women, but expanded to include different types of men or people of the same sex but with differing sexual orientation.) It is called Rules of Attraction, based on a novel by Brett Easton Ellis. Being an English Literature major, I probably should have read the book instead of watch the movie, but I haven't, and the movie seems to do a pretty good job anyway. Anyway, there is a scene from the movie that the skit by that group the other day reminded me of. One of the character's (homosexual male named Paul) asks another character (macho male named Sean) for a ride to the bust station. Paul has fallen in love with Sean and as the bus is driving away, he thinks to himself that he is making a mistake and that he loves Sean. The movie interjects to Sean's thoughts, and he is simply thinking about getting laid, stoned, and finally, that he is hungry.
There are many other character's which the viewer is given a sort of interiority with and all of them definitely give the audience the idea of natural difference in the thought process between people. The movie also gives pretty good insight into the culture of college students as well (although I have never experienced and have never really even heard of some of the crazy parties they go to in the movie.)
I'm getting off the subject a little, but I just wanted to finish my thoughts about the movie with one last piece of insight. The movie starts in the middle of a sentence (a character's thoughts) and ends in the middle of a sentence (a different character's thoughts,) which I believe suggests that everyone who goes through the college experience has his or her own stories, and that this is merely one of them, probably similar to some of our own. It's a statement that these stories began and have existed before the timeline of the movie and will continue after the timeline of the movie. All we can do is interject for a segment, witness or be a part of these stories, and continue on with our existence.
Anyway, watch it for it's insight into thought and for the idea that it is simply a glimpse into the life of some college kids (it could be anyone.) Or else don't watch it, it doesn't make much of a difference to me ;)
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Bacchae Satire
Here all the credit goes to Jann and Chase for this script. Nice work you two.
Earlier today Barbara Bush and her friends went to a Democrat Rally. Once there, they all got very drunk. Coincidentally, George W. went to spy on his mother and the other evil doers. Upon discovering the spy, Barbara and her friends mistook George W. for a rat and sparagmosed him. The scene opens with Barbara bringing the supposed rat home to show her husband, George Sr.
Barbara- Hey everybody! Look at what my friends and I have done! We killed a giant rat that snuck into our meeting place with just our high heels!
George Sr.- Crazy woman! Do you realize what you have done?! That’s our son, George W.! I just found his body scattered in the parking lot. What a miserable mother you are!
Barbara- Why aren’t you proud of me dear husband? I’m the best wife a man could have. This morning I attended a Democrat rally meeting and slaughtered a gigantic disgusting rat! Here hold it, look how big he is! You should be bragging about how brave I am.
George Sr.- This is horrible! I can’t believe it! How can you say you’re brave? You’re a murderer!
Barbara- I can’t believe you! There’s old age for you, just makes you cranky! I hope our son is more like me instead of you. Where is he? Bring him here so he can be proud of me!
George Sr.- When you figure out what’s going on, you’ll be very disturbed.
Barbara- What do you mean?
George Sr.-Look up at the sky.
Barbara- Now what?
George Sr.-Does it look the same? Or is it changing?
Barbara- Uh, it seems brighter now.
George Sr.- Does your head feel dizzy?
Barbara- I don’t know! I’m feeling a little better now.
George Sr.- Do you remember when our son George W. was born?
Barbara- Yes, of course! He was such a cutie!
George Sr.- Now, what are you holding?
Barbara- A rat, a big fat one!
George Sr.- Are you sure?
Barbara- Oh my! What is this?!
George Sr.-It doesn’t look like a rat anymore?
Barbara- It’s George W.!
George Sr.- We’ve mourned him before you knew who he was.
Barbara- But who would kill my baby George?!
George Sr.- The truth is horrible!
Barbara- Who killed him?
George Sr.- You did! You and your damn democrat friends!
Barbara- Where? How?
George Sr.- At the rally! With your high heels!
Barbara- Why was he there?
George Sr.- He came to spy on you!
Barbara- Why was I there?
George Sr.- Because you’re a crazy drunk!Barbara- Oh, what a terrible fate has become of us!!
Earlier today Barbara Bush and her friends went to a Democrat Rally. Once there, they all got very drunk. Coincidentally, George W. went to spy on his mother and the other evil doers. Upon discovering the spy, Barbara and her friends mistook George W. for a rat and sparagmosed him. The scene opens with Barbara bringing the supposed rat home to show her husband, George Sr.
Barbara- Hey everybody! Look at what my friends and I have done! We killed a giant rat that snuck into our meeting place with just our high heels!
George Sr.- Crazy woman! Do you realize what you have done?! That’s our son, George W.! I just found his body scattered in the parking lot. What a miserable mother you are!
Barbara- Why aren’t you proud of me dear husband? I’m the best wife a man could have. This morning I attended a Democrat rally meeting and slaughtered a gigantic disgusting rat! Here hold it, look how big he is! You should be bragging about how brave I am.
George Sr.- This is horrible! I can’t believe it! How can you say you’re brave? You’re a murderer!
Barbara- I can’t believe you! There’s old age for you, just makes you cranky! I hope our son is more like me instead of you. Where is he? Bring him here so he can be proud of me!
George Sr.- When you figure out what’s going on, you’ll be very disturbed.
Barbara- What do you mean?
George Sr.-Look up at the sky.
Barbara- Now what?
George Sr.-Does it look the same? Or is it changing?
Barbara- Uh, it seems brighter now.
George Sr.- Does your head feel dizzy?
Barbara- I don’t know! I’m feeling a little better now.
George Sr.- Do you remember when our son George W. was born?
Barbara- Yes, of course! He was such a cutie!
George Sr.- Now, what are you holding?
Barbara- A rat, a big fat one!
George Sr.- Are you sure?
Barbara- Oh my! What is this?!
George Sr.-It doesn’t look like a rat anymore?
Barbara- It’s George W.!
George Sr.- We’ve mourned him before you knew who he was.
Barbara- But who would kill my baby George?!
George Sr.- The truth is horrible!
Barbara- Who killed him?
George Sr.- You did! You and your damn democrat friends!
Barbara- Where? How?
George Sr.- At the rally! With your high heels!
Barbara- Why was he there?
George Sr.- He came to spy on you!
Barbara- Why was I there?
George Sr.- Because you’re a crazy drunk!Barbara- Oh, what a terrible fate has become of us!!
The Lysistrata Satire
Here is the Lysistrata piece. It mainly consists of a conversation between George W. (G) and Laura (L - same as Lysistrata, what a coincidence) Bush. It also has some small parts contributed by Dick Cheney (D) and Cindy Sheehan (C).
Lysistrata
G.W. Bush and Laura Bush with Dick Cheney and Cindy Sheehan.
L – You don’t need tanks and artillery to bring me out, just brains dummy.
G – Is that so butthead? Where’s my lackey? Tie this woman up.
L – If that bonehead touches me I will beat him down.
(Dick backs down)
G – What, you’re scared of her? Just tie her up. Trust me, I’ve done it plenty of times.
C – Touch her and I’ll beat you til you shit.
G – Hey you potty mouth. Grab her first Dick.
L – Touch her and I’ll give you a black eye and pull your hair.
G – Look, now you’ve scared Dick. I can’t let you women get your way, I’ll have my secret service men beat you up.
L – Homemakers and queens of the kitchen unite! Bite them! Scratch them! Pull their hair! Call them names!
(Secret service men fall to the ground beaten and with wounded pride)
G – Hey, you beat up my boys. Now I got diddly-squat for protection.
D – These dang women. What are we gonna do with them? They should be licking our toes and giving us nice rubdowns, but instead of giving us pleasure they pull our hair.
G – Alright Laura, what are you doing barring the doors to Fort Knox anyway?
L – I’m keeping the money here to starve the war.
G – Money – and starving? Huh? What does that have to do with the war on terror? I don’t get it. What do you plan on doing?
L – I’m taking control of the allocation of public funds George. I was always the one to do our taxes at home anyway.
G – But, that’s not fair!
L – Why?
G – I want to spend it on my war! Women don’t fight wars!
L – And you don’t have to either.
G – But the terrorists will get us!
L – We’ll save you.
G – You can’t save us, you’re just a women. Only violence will put an end to the killing.
L – Na uh.
G – Ya huh.
L – Na uh.
G – But that’s not fair! How can you meddle with the affairs of the President?
L – You started this stupid little never-ending war and I didn’t say anything about it. Nobody wanted to do it but we kept quiet. Well I’ve had enough.
G – Well somebody should have said something.
L – You’re a dumby.
G – Insufferably presumptuous notion!
L – Shut up!
G – No, you! You’ve gotten ugly as you’ve gotten older. That’s why you where such fancy dresses and cake on the make-up!
L - I guess you just don't know what it is like to be a woman. Here, we'll show you.
(They dress G.W. up like a woman)
L - Quit your whining! Just sit there and curl your hair. The real women will take care of the war from now on.
C - You go girl! We're in control now. Grannies on the go, mommies with mucho macho!
G - What are you gonna do?
L - Well first we're gonna bring the boys back home.
C - Hell yes!
G - But they're dedicated to me and my cause.
L - More like dedicated to the dweeb.
G - But terror is all over the world. You bring the boys back and they will take over. How are you going to deal with that?
L - Without a lot of strain.
G - What!? How?
L - We'll talk to them.
G - For cryin out loud woman, we're in a crisis! How is talking to them going to solve anything? L - Well maybe if you weren't such a jerk and spouting off Christian ideals and loosen up border control then everyone would stop being so pissed off. We need to spread love to stop the killing. Women are good at that sort of thing.
G - I don't get it. Love? What does that have to do with war?
L - You idiot. Us women pay the biggest price because it is our sons that we love that go off and die. Just look at Cindy, she’s upset!
G - I never wanted young boys to die, but if you wanna make an omelet you gotta crack some eggs.
L - You never even stopped to think of the women! You just said, 'screw them.' Well I feel bad for the old hags that never get married.
G - (earnestly) Don't men get old?
L - It's not the same. Men can still get laid when they're old.
G - As long as he can get it up. L - Shut up and die! (they dress him as a corpse)
L - Don't worry, we'll take care of everything.
G - Respect my authority! This isn't fair! But...but...
(women exit.)
Lysistrata
G.W. Bush and Laura Bush with Dick Cheney and Cindy Sheehan.
L – You don’t need tanks and artillery to bring me out, just brains dummy.
G – Is that so butthead? Where’s my lackey? Tie this woman up.
L – If that bonehead touches me I will beat him down.
(Dick backs down)
G – What, you’re scared of her? Just tie her up. Trust me, I’ve done it plenty of times.
C – Touch her and I’ll beat you til you shit.
G – Hey you potty mouth. Grab her first Dick.
L – Touch her and I’ll give you a black eye and pull your hair.
G – Look, now you’ve scared Dick. I can’t let you women get your way, I’ll have my secret service men beat you up.
L – Homemakers and queens of the kitchen unite! Bite them! Scratch them! Pull their hair! Call them names!
(Secret service men fall to the ground beaten and with wounded pride)
G – Hey, you beat up my boys. Now I got diddly-squat for protection.
D – These dang women. What are we gonna do with them? They should be licking our toes and giving us nice rubdowns, but instead of giving us pleasure they pull our hair.
G – Alright Laura, what are you doing barring the doors to Fort Knox anyway?
L – I’m keeping the money here to starve the war.
G – Money – and starving? Huh? What does that have to do with the war on terror? I don’t get it. What do you plan on doing?
L – I’m taking control of the allocation of public funds George. I was always the one to do our taxes at home anyway.
G – But, that’s not fair!
L – Why?
G – I want to spend it on my war! Women don’t fight wars!
L – And you don’t have to either.
G – But the terrorists will get us!
L – We’ll save you.
G – You can’t save us, you’re just a women. Only violence will put an end to the killing.
L – Na uh.
G – Ya huh.
L – Na uh.
G – But that’s not fair! How can you meddle with the affairs of the President?
L – You started this stupid little never-ending war and I didn’t say anything about it. Nobody wanted to do it but we kept quiet. Well I’ve had enough.
G – Well somebody should have said something.
L – You’re a dumby.
G – Insufferably presumptuous notion!
L – Shut up!
G – No, you! You’ve gotten ugly as you’ve gotten older. That’s why you where such fancy dresses and cake on the make-up!
L - I guess you just don't know what it is like to be a woman. Here, we'll show you.
(They dress G.W. up like a woman)
L - Quit your whining! Just sit there and curl your hair. The real women will take care of the war from now on.
C - You go girl! We're in control now. Grannies on the go, mommies with mucho macho!
G - What are you gonna do?
L - Well first we're gonna bring the boys back home.
C - Hell yes!
G - But they're dedicated to me and my cause.
L - More like dedicated to the dweeb.
G - But terror is all over the world. You bring the boys back and they will take over. How are you going to deal with that?
L - Without a lot of strain.
G - What!? How?
L - We'll talk to them.
G - For cryin out loud woman, we're in a crisis! How is talking to them going to solve anything? L - Well maybe if you weren't such a jerk and spouting off Christian ideals and loosen up border control then everyone would stop being so pissed off. We need to spread love to stop the killing. Women are good at that sort of thing.
G - I don't get it. Love? What does that have to do with war?
L - You idiot. Us women pay the biggest price because it is our sons that we love that go off and die. Just look at Cindy, she’s upset!
G - I never wanted young boys to die, but if you wanna make an omelet you gotta crack some eggs.
L - You never even stopped to think of the women! You just said, 'screw them.' Well I feel bad for the old hags that never get married.
G - (earnestly) Don't men get old?
L - It's not the same. Men can still get laid when they're old.
G - As long as he can get it up. L - Shut up and die! (they dress him as a corpse)
L - Don't worry, we'll take care of everything.
G - Respect my authority! This isn't fair! But...but...
(women exit.)
The Antigone Satire
This is the first part of our play/presentation. I didn't write any of this one, and want to give credit to John and Danielle for an extremely humorous script.
Narrator
In a far off kingdom dwelt an ignorant king, whose drunken daughters caused almost as much embarrassment as his own words caused him. Here, the idiotic tyrant confronts the defiant party goers in an attempt to dissuade them from further embarrassment upon his house.
Antigone, pg 17 line 401
George: Why have you arrested my daughter, Mr. Policeman?
Police Officer: She was drinking that bottle of Jack. Now you know it all, Mr. President.
George: What exactly do you mean? Can you, um, explain it a bit more slowly?
Police Officer: Well, I saw this girl guzzling that bottle of Jack at a frat party. You told them not to. Clear enough for you Mr. President?
George: How did you see this? Did ya catch her in the act?
Police Officer: Mr. President, let me tell you how it happened in the simplest terms possible. I saw her drinking that bottle of booze.
George: You there, Ms. Barbara Pierce Bush! With yer head bowed to the ground—Did ye do this? Or ye gonna spin me a tale?
Barb: Of course not Dad, I did it. I’m not gonna deny it.
George: (To the Police Officer) You can leave now, Mr. Police Officer. Not a word to anyone, or I’ll send ye to Iraq! (To Barb) As for you, little missy, you knew I told you not to go out drinking!
Barb: Ya I know, I remember.
George: But you decided to go out anyway!
Barb: I really don’t see what the big deal is. Someone a long time ago came up with this lame drinking law, and I’m supposed to live by it? How stupid! Besides, everyone is doing it.
George: I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best if for my daughter Barbara Pierce Bush to remain sober. There is distrust in this family. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this family. And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it.”
Barb: Look, I admitted to it, what more do you want?
George: Yeah, that’s what I want. But make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is. I talk to families who die.
Barb: If you understand, then what ,more is there to talk about? You’re so dumb, your words disgust me. Just shut up already!
George: I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what’s I believe is right.
Barb: You’re not always right dad.
George: Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me-- you can’t get fooled again.
Barb: That made no sense whatsoever.
George: Wasn’t yer sister back there drinking too?
Barb: Um,…I, I don’t remember?
George: Yer disgracing the name of my mother, yer grandma. Why ye doing this?
Barb: I’ll never tell you, you don’t understand anything.
George: If both of ye are equal then both of ye deserve disgrace.
Barb: But why?
George: I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being a president.
Barb: But dad, you should trust me to make my own decisions.
George: But you know the difference between good and bad booze, don’t ya?
Barb: What? What are you talking about?
George: The enemy of alchohol is always, um, the enemy of alchohol.
Barb: Right…
George: Yer going to a reform school, and you can love some cheap booze there! As long as I’m around, I’m the decider!
Enter-Jenna Bush
George: Now you. Hiding in the White House like a snake, a boozesucker in the West Wing! And I never realized I was raising a pair of deadly, crazed revolutionaries! Come on and say it! Were you drinking this booze too? Or do you swear you knew nothing about it?
Jenna: Yeah, I’ve had a few…we went to that frat party together, I helped get the booze, and it’s my responsibility too.
Barb: Jenna, just shut up, you’re gonna get into trouble because of my dumb idea.
Jenna-But that was your booze! I’m not ashamed; I’ll be your drinking buddy.
Barb: No, I won’t let you! The President of the U.S. can’t have two daughters that are screw ups.
Jenna: No, please! I’m your sister! Please let me still be your drinking buddy! Lets go to another frat party really soon!
Barb: No, you can’t repeat my mistakes.
Jenna: Who am I going to drink with when you’re at reform school?
Barb: I don’t know, ask Dad.
Jenna: Why are you being such a snobby bitch?
Barb: Look, its for your own good. I’m trying to help you lead a better life than I do.
Jenna: But I still want to help you. What can I do without booze?
Barb: There are many activites you can be involved with-sobriety….like….?
Jenna: O misery! Why am I to be cut off from all the drinking?
Barb: Because I chose a life of alcoholism and I’m sick of you copying me!
Jenna: But I gave you reasons not to take that last bottle.
Barb: Yes, you are smarter than I. You take after Mom, whereas I take after Dad.
Jenna: Yes, I know. But daddy just doesn’t understand!
Barb: Ya, well what did you expect?
George: What a pair of children! One of you lost her booze puking in the bathroom moments ago, the other had her booze taken away by the police.
Jenna: That is right, sir. Whenever we get drunk, we’re totally not responsible for what crazy stuff we do! We were out of our minds!
George: Yeah, you were, when you deliberately joined a criminal in a crime.
Jenna: Without her, why should I live? I’d be drinking alone.
George: Her? Don’t speak of her, she’s off to reform school.
Jenna: But will you really send off one of your dear daughters?
George: I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about myself, or why I do things.
Jenna: But no one is suited enough to be my drinking partner!
George: I loathe bad women. What does loathe mean again?
Barb: What an idiot….
George: Shut up! What a pain in the ass you two sisters are. Hmmm. The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done. Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words. Secret Service! Take them inside, they are drunken women, and they must not be free to roam about. Even a stupid girl flees from reform school, when she sees her freedom in immediate danger.
Narrator
In a far off kingdom dwelt an ignorant king, whose drunken daughters caused almost as much embarrassment as his own words caused him. Here, the idiotic tyrant confronts the defiant party goers in an attempt to dissuade them from further embarrassment upon his house.
Antigone, pg 17 line 401
George: Why have you arrested my daughter, Mr. Policeman?
Police Officer: She was drinking that bottle of Jack. Now you know it all, Mr. President.
George: What exactly do you mean? Can you, um, explain it a bit more slowly?
Police Officer: Well, I saw this girl guzzling that bottle of Jack at a frat party. You told them not to. Clear enough for you Mr. President?
George: How did you see this? Did ya catch her in the act?
Police Officer: Mr. President, let me tell you how it happened in the simplest terms possible. I saw her drinking that bottle of booze.
George: You there, Ms. Barbara Pierce Bush! With yer head bowed to the ground—Did ye do this? Or ye gonna spin me a tale?
Barb: Of course not Dad, I did it. I’m not gonna deny it.
George: (To the Police Officer) You can leave now, Mr. Police Officer. Not a word to anyone, or I’ll send ye to Iraq! (To Barb) As for you, little missy, you knew I told you not to go out drinking!
Barb: Ya I know, I remember.
George: But you decided to go out anyway!
Barb: I really don’t see what the big deal is. Someone a long time ago came up with this lame drinking law, and I’m supposed to live by it? How stupid! Besides, everyone is doing it.
George: I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best if for my daughter Barbara Pierce Bush to remain sober. There is distrust in this family. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this family. And I’m sorry it’s the case, and I’ll work hard to try to elevate it.”
Barb: Look, I admitted to it, what more do you want?
George: Yeah, that’s what I want. But make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is. I talk to families who die.
Barb: If you understand, then what ,more is there to talk about? You’re so dumb, your words disgust me. Just shut up already!
George: I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what’s I believe is right.
Barb: You’re not always right dad.
George: Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me-- you can’t get fooled again.
Barb: That made no sense whatsoever.
George: Wasn’t yer sister back there drinking too?
Barb: Um,…I, I don’t remember?
George: Yer disgracing the name of my mother, yer grandma. Why ye doing this?
Barb: I’ll never tell you, you don’t understand anything.
George: If both of ye are equal then both of ye deserve disgrace.
Barb: But why?
George: I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain—I do not need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being a president.
Barb: But dad, you should trust me to make my own decisions.
George: But you know the difference between good and bad booze, don’t ya?
Barb: What? What are you talking about?
George: The enemy of alchohol is always, um, the enemy of alchohol.
Barb: Right…
George: Yer going to a reform school, and you can love some cheap booze there! As long as I’m around, I’m the decider!
Enter-Jenna Bush
George: Now you. Hiding in the White House like a snake, a boozesucker in the West Wing! And I never realized I was raising a pair of deadly, crazed revolutionaries! Come on and say it! Were you drinking this booze too? Or do you swear you knew nothing about it?
Jenna: Yeah, I’ve had a few…we went to that frat party together, I helped get the booze, and it’s my responsibility too.
Barb: Jenna, just shut up, you’re gonna get into trouble because of my dumb idea.
Jenna-But that was your booze! I’m not ashamed; I’ll be your drinking buddy.
Barb: No, I won’t let you! The President of the U.S. can’t have two daughters that are screw ups.
Jenna: No, please! I’m your sister! Please let me still be your drinking buddy! Lets go to another frat party really soon!
Barb: No, you can’t repeat my mistakes.
Jenna: Who am I going to drink with when you’re at reform school?
Barb: I don’t know, ask Dad.
Jenna: Why are you being such a snobby bitch?
Barb: Look, its for your own good. I’m trying to help you lead a better life than I do.
Jenna: But I still want to help you. What can I do without booze?
Barb: There are many activites you can be involved with-sobriety….like….?
Jenna: O misery! Why am I to be cut off from all the drinking?
Barb: Because I chose a life of alcoholism and I’m sick of you copying me!
Jenna: But I gave you reasons not to take that last bottle.
Barb: Yes, you are smarter than I. You take after Mom, whereas I take after Dad.
Jenna: Yes, I know. But daddy just doesn’t understand!
Barb: Ya, well what did you expect?
George: What a pair of children! One of you lost her booze puking in the bathroom moments ago, the other had her booze taken away by the police.
Jenna: That is right, sir. Whenever we get drunk, we’re totally not responsible for what crazy stuff we do! We were out of our minds!
George: Yeah, you were, when you deliberately joined a criminal in a crime.
Jenna: Without her, why should I live? I’d be drinking alone.
George: Her? Don’t speak of her, she’s off to reform school.
Jenna: But will you really send off one of your dear daughters?
George: I’m also not very analytical. You know I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about myself, or why I do things.
Jenna: But no one is suited enough to be my drinking partner!
George: I loathe bad women. What does loathe mean again?
Barb: What an idiot….
George: Shut up! What a pain in the ass you two sisters are. Hmmm. The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done. Anybody who is in a position to serve this country ought to understand the consequences of words. Secret Service! Take them inside, they are drunken women, and they must not be free to roam about. Even a stupid girl flees from reform school, when she sees her freedom in immediate danger.
Presentations
Today our group is presenting. I hope it all turns out well and is a fun and entertaining experience for everyone. I also want to wish everyone luck.
Our presentation will be dealing with parts from the three plays we read this semester, Antigone, Lysistrata, and The Bacchae and will be starring none other than George W. Bush. We don't want anyone to read too deeply into this thing, it is definitely not any sort of political statement. We are basically just doing a satire with a person that everyone can recognize and relate with.
I want to thank everyone in our group. It's rare to find a group where everyone is willing to participate as much as all of these guys - these guys being Allison, Emily, John, Jann, Danielle and Chase. Just in case anyone cared to re-read any of our scripts after seeing them performed, I will post them up.
Our presentation will be dealing with parts from the three plays we read this semester, Antigone, Lysistrata, and The Bacchae and will be starring none other than George W. Bush. We don't want anyone to read too deeply into this thing, it is definitely not any sort of political statement. We are basically just doing a satire with a person that everyone can recognize and relate with.
I want to thank everyone in our group. It's rare to find a group where everyone is willing to participate as much as all of these guys - these guys being Allison, Emily, John, Jann, Danielle and Chase. Just in case anyone cared to re-read any of our scripts after seeing them performed, I will post them up.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Lingering class thoughts
-We shall not stop from exploration and the end of all exploring will be to arrive where we started but know the place for the first time.
These are very powerful words. In a way it reminded me of the words a friend of mine e-mailed to me from a book she is reading. The line was "The second time you see something is really the first time. You need to know how it ends before you can appreciate how beautifully it's put together from the beginning."
This line is about watching movies, but the two are definitely similar, almost interchangeable, and I must say that I completely agree.
-The final belief is to believe in a fiction you know to be a fiction.
This is also something I found to be extremely interesting. I am curious as to if people think this is similar to the idea of having faith in something. If so, is that empowering the term faith or not?
These are very powerful words. In a way it reminded me of the words a friend of mine e-mailed to me from a book she is reading. The line was "The second time you see something is really the first time. You need to know how it ends before you can appreciate how beautifully it's put together from the beginning."
This line is about watching movies, but the two are definitely similar, almost interchangeable, and I must say that I completely agree.
-The final belief is to believe in a fiction you know to be a fiction.
This is also something I found to be extremely interesting. I am curious as to if people think this is similar to the idea of having faith in something. If so, is that empowering the term faith or not?
Cupid and Psyche
Here are several links to images of Cupid and Psyche.
http://www.epicureantable.com/articles/cupidpsyche.jpg
http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mjoseph/CP/d-cupid.jpg
http://www.artsfairies.com/William%20Bouguereau/Psyche%20and%20Cupid.jpg
http://www.loyno.edu/~ttdempse/Cupid%20and%20Psyche.jpg
http://www.digitalart.ab.ca/art/rococo/images/cupid-psyche.jpg
There is really tons of representations of this.
http://www.epicureantable.com/articles/cupidpsyche.jpg
http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~mjoseph/CP/d-cupid.jpg
http://www.artsfairies.com/William%20Bouguereau/Psyche%20and%20Cupid.jpg
http://www.loyno.edu/~ttdempse/Cupid%20and%20Psyche.jpg
http://www.digitalart.ab.ca/art/rococo/images/cupid-psyche.jpg
There is really tons of representations of this.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Random Thoughts
I really wish I knew what I was doing with this whole blogging thing. I browse around on other people's sites and they have all sorts of cool things going on. I always considered myself to be pretty good with computers but know I find myself second guessing myself. The only thing I really have figured out is how to post the blogs. Congrats to those who figured it all out. Elizabeth's site is amazing and filled with more information than I could possibly even care to know about. Thanks for all the hard work, I don't know how you find time.
I really enjoyed the Metamorphoses. I must admit that I didn't really know anything about it before this class. Now I not only understand that it is one of the most important works of all-time, but also why. Ovid is my hero (one of many I guess.) I would imagine that now it is easier to both type up 1000 pages than it would have been to compile back than...and it also has to be easier to get that work out to the public. How he did it way back then I don't exactly know. I know that I will probably never be as good of a writer and certainly nowhere near as good of a poet, but I hope that I can at least be as ambitious with whatever it is I hope to do.
So far my favorite thing we have read is probably the Symposium. It certainly isn't the most entertaining, but there is something about Plato that I just really like. His ideals are certainly admirable...and even in discussing more abstract issues such as love (I have also read Phaedrus which I have posted about before) he gets very interesting and specific ideas out there. I also have a soft spot for Greek tragedy ever since I read Oedipus Rex so the tragedies we have read have been a good experience. Of course Ovid's masterpiece is probably the best compilation of stories we will read (we'll see about the Golden Ass.)
I guess this blog doesn't really have much of a point. I have a little bit of a caffeine high and I wanted to take a break from studying. Good luck to everyone on the test.
I really enjoyed the Metamorphoses. I must admit that I didn't really know anything about it before this class. Now I not only understand that it is one of the most important works of all-time, but also why. Ovid is my hero (one of many I guess.) I would imagine that now it is easier to both type up 1000 pages than it would have been to compile back than...and it also has to be easier to get that work out to the public. How he did it way back then I don't exactly know. I know that I will probably never be as good of a writer and certainly nowhere near as good of a poet, but I hope that I can at least be as ambitious with whatever it is I hope to do.
So far my favorite thing we have read is probably the Symposium. It certainly isn't the most entertaining, but there is something about Plato that I just really like. His ideals are certainly admirable...and even in discussing more abstract issues such as love (I have also read Phaedrus which I have posted about before) he gets very interesting and specific ideas out there. I also have a soft spot for Greek tragedy ever since I read Oedipus Rex so the tragedies we have read have been a good experience. Of course Ovid's masterpiece is probably the best compilation of stories we will read (we'll see about the Golden Ass.)
I guess this blog doesn't really have much of a point. I have a little bit of a caffeine high and I wanted to take a break from studying. Good luck to everyone on the test.
Test Questions
Which birds represent Procne and Philomela? ~ a swallow and a nightingale, respectively
What is the definition of ate? ~ infatuation to the point of ruin
Who is the original artificer/ artisan? ~ Daedalus
Who is the god of sleep, dreams and disguises? ~ Morpheus
What should we avoid at all costs? ~ *old people
What is Aristophane's theory about the soul mate? ~ joined together in the beginning then split in half by the gods.
Tragedy always emphasizes ___________ and comedy always emphasizes___________. ~ individual; community
According to Plato, how does one reach immortality of the soul? ~ knowledge and virtue
Socrates said that everything he learned about love he learned from__________? ~ Diotima
What is Socratic irony? ~ claiming to know nothing when you clearly know a lot
What does Icarus fail to do that leads to his demise? ~ he flew too close to the sun and melted the wax holding his wings together.
What was the difference between Arachne and Minerva's weavings? ~ Minerva - God's grace. Arachne - God's attrocities.
What is the final scene (farthest away) in Velasquez's paining 'the spinners'? ~ The rape of Europa
What does the name Pentheus mean? ~ man of constant sorrow
How is Cademus related to Pentheus? ~ he is his grandfather
What did Ulysses think he deserved the arms of Achilles? ~ he started it all
What Shakespearean play was inspired by Tiresius' and Philomena? ~ Titus Andronicus
What is a characteristic of New Comedy? ~ boys wants girl
What is anagnorsis? or The moment when Agave brought the head of her son Pentheus to her father and he had to make her realize the truth... ~ recognition, when the ignorant realize what is really happening/ anagnorsis
What is the first example of framing in the Metamorphoses? ~ Pan and the Syrinx as told by Mercury to Argus
What is grace? ~ the awareness of God's presence in the world
What does omophagia mean? ~ the eating of living flesh
Who is love the child of? ~ Poverty and contrivance
How old will the Metamorphoses be in 2008? ~ 2000 years old
What was Daphne turned into? ~ a laurel tree
What does naso mean? ~ nose
What is Ovid's real name? ~ Publius Ovidius Naso
Why couldn't Aristophanes speak during his turn in the Symposium? He has the hiccups
What is the definition of ate? ~ infatuation to the point of ruin
Who is the original artificer/ artisan? ~ Daedalus
Who is the god of sleep, dreams and disguises? ~ Morpheus
What should we avoid at all costs? ~ *old people
What is Aristophane's theory about the soul mate? ~ joined together in the beginning then split in half by the gods.
Tragedy always emphasizes ___________ and comedy always emphasizes___________. ~ individual; community
According to Plato, how does one reach immortality of the soul? ~ knowledge and virtue
Socrates said that everything he learned about love he learned from__________? ~ Diotima
What is Socratic irony? ~ claiming to know nothing when you clearly know a lot
What does Icarus fail to do that leads to his demise? ~ he flew too close to the sun and melted the wax holding his wings together.
What was the difference between Arachne and Minerva's weavings? ~ Minerva - God's grace. Arachne - God's attrocities.
What is the final scene (farthest away) in Velasquez's paining 'the spinners'? ~ The rape of Europa
What does the name Pentheus mean? ~ man of constant sorrow
How is Cademus related to Pentheus? ~ he is his grandfather
What did Ulysses think he deserved the arms of Achilles? ~ he started it all
What Shakespearean play was inspired by Tiresius' and Philomena? ~ Titus Andronicus
What is a characteristic of New Comedy? ~ boys wants girl
What is anagnorsis? or The moment when Agave brought the head of her son Pentheus to her father and he had to make her realize the truth... ~ recognition, when the ignorant realize what is really happening/ anagnorsis
What is the first example of framing in the Metamorphoses? ~ Pan and the Syrinx as told by Mercury to Argus
What is grace? ~ the awareness of God's presence in the world
What does omophagia mean? ~ the eating of living flesh
Who is love the child of? ~ Poverty and contrivance
How old will the Metamorphoses be in 2008? ~ 2000 years old
What was Daphne turned into? ~ a laurel tree
What does naso mean? ~ nose
What is Ovid's real name? ~ Publius Ovidius Naso
Why couldn't Aristophanes speak during his turn in the Symposium? He has the hiccups
Monday, April 02, 2007
5 Lines
To be honest, I doubt these are really my five favorite lines from Ovid's Metamorphoses. There are just far too many spectacular moments for me to easily pick out my five favorite without taking a few days out of my schedule to analyze the entire piece of work. The lines I did pick out, however, are pretty good. They come from Book III, Narcissus and Echo, on page 93.
Her voice and bones are all that's left; and then
her voice alone: her bones, they say, were turned
to stone. So she is hidden in the woods
and never can be seen on mountain slopes,
though everywhere she can be heard; the power
of sound still lives in her.
The story of Narcissus and Echo, like most of the stories in the Metamorphoses, is a interesting tale. I found that these lines were especially visual and very beautifully written. From now on anytime I hear an echo, I will also hear Ovid telling me where it came from.
Her voice and bones are all that's left; and then
her voice alone: her bones, they say, were turned
to stone. So she is hidden in the woods
and never can be seen on mountain slopes,
though everywhere she can be heard; the power
of sound still lives in her.
The story of Narcissus and Echo, like most of the stories in the Metamorphoses, is a interesting tale. I found that these lines were especially visual and very beautifully written. From now on anytime I hear an echo, I will also hear Ovid telling me where it came from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)