The Ottoman Empire

The complexity of the Ottoman Empire's social, economic, and governmental systems is amazing to me. What is more amazing is that a relatively new religion at the time (Islam) provided the standards for one of the most powerful empires in the world. This is evidence to how powerful Islam became immediately. The  prejudice against other religions is surprising. The fact that they would kidnap young Christian boys and make them into slaves is something I find very surprising, especially because the two religions aren't so different. Once they kidnaped these Christians they also converted them . These must have been very convincing conversions because it seems that the slaves rarely revolted (at least not at first ), even though they were often in places of power ( they were given weapons, and made leaders in the military ). Perhaps the peacefulness was also due to education that the kidnaped Christians received. The Ottoman Empire reminds me of modern economies in many ways: little or no taxation of the rich, companies having a large influence over the governments decisions, taxation of the poor, government aid to companies that serve the public, and so on. The coolest thing I find about Ottoman society is that even though neighborhoods were often segregated, the markets and other public spaces were located where every culture met. I could just imagine the immense amount of cultural mixing that could have gone on in such places.

Inferno

It is amazing to me that since the beginning of time people will make their mind set on one religion and mock anything that is very slightly different. I feel that mocking religions is an empty argument. First off, the criticisms of one religion can often easily be applied to the religion of the criticizer. Secondly, why would anyone ever be so convinced that they know all of the answers. I don't understand. If you ask me, no one really knows yet everyone spends so much time and energy trying to prove to others that they are right, without any tangable evidence. People are so quick to question aspects of other religions that the refuse to question in their own. Wether Dante was showing hatred towards Muhammad, or just making some sort of deeper metaphor in his own search for the unity of the three major religions, I am rather disinterested. What about all of the other religions? No one person's religious beliefs are truly exactly the same as another's. There are as many beliefs as there are people, and animals, and things, so why focus on three very specific belief systems that no one really follows exactly anyway (which is impossible anyway because of interpretations). To me Dante's hatred towards Islam is very obvious in his text, and is very disturbing. There is no such reason for hatred. As the paper discusses it often comes from ignorance. Hatred is also often made up, and has no true justification to me.

The Decameron - Day Two

We once again see the theme of love in these stories. Perhaps even more present however, is the theme of lust.

In the Third Day, First Story, a man pretends to be deaf and mute so that he may successfully fulfill his lustful plan of sleeping with young beautiful nuns, only to find out that they are much more lustful then he, which is something that he is physically not able to handle. In this first story, we also see another sub-theme regarding lust that has come up in the Decameron many times. This sub-theme is of unconventional relationships. The fact that many nun, who aren't even supposed to have sex, are all sharing one man would even today be considered a lustful, unconventional situation that would be scolded.

In the Fifth Day, Tenth Story, a married women cheats on his gay husband repeatedly at the advise of an older women. The married women is very lustful, but then again so is her gay husband who does not please her, but rather pleases many other men. After finding out that his wife is cheating on him, the husband does not get very angry at her, rather he prompts a threesome with the man that his wife was planning on having sex with anyway. Once again, here is a very unconventional relationship situation that would be considered strange by most even today.

There seems to be such an emphasis on sex, even in the stories from tonight that I have not discussed in full. Three are numerous sex scenes, and there always seem to be naked women involved. The Decameron is about ten young men and women who have escaped to the mountain (from the plague), and are telling stories in order to entertain each other. With the amount of sexual content involved in these stories, I wonder if there are any ulterior motives of each story teller. Possibly there is a bigger picture going on outside of just the stories that is between the storytellers ( a bunch of horney young men and women). Does anyone believe that the Decameron as a whole may be partially a commentary on young men and women's state of mind, despite their obvious knowledge?

The Decameron - Day One

For today's readings, focus on a theme that you feel speaks to aspects of the Mediterranean culture/s we've discussed over the semester - travel, religion, ethnicity, education, love, trade, etc. How does this theme manifest itself in the stories? Why? Speak about specific scenes within the text to support your analysis.

The most prominent theme through out this text, not unlike previous texts in the class, is the theme of love. In the first story a terrible man who lived a terrible life ends up being loved after his death because he lyes to a priest and is made out to be a saint. Because the impression he leaves is not a true one, people worship the false memory of him and thus his image is even more false then a true memory. This brings up another point, and focuses the theme even more. Love of an image, is a large part of this text.

The second story deals with a Catholic man who tries to convince a Jewish man to convert. The Catholic man makes out a false image of the Vatican in order to convince the Jew. The Jew is finally convinced but when he visits the Vatican, he sees who terrible the holy men's lives are (in being unjust). He still however converts, amazed at the force of Christianity, despite the earthly corruption. The corruption in the Vatican, by the way, is all based on love of an image. The holy men are told not to do something (like have sex or gamble) so they want to do it even more. They fall in love with an ideal image of a lifestyle that contrasts their own.

Similar can be said about the next story where two monks have sex with a beautiful women despite the fact that they are forbidden. In addition to the temptation of breaking the rules, they also have sex with this women because her image is very attractive. They don't really ever get to know her. The lust is skin deep.

The next story deals with the love of those thought to be family members (although it was a lie), and the love of wealth. Everyone in this town seems to be dying to steal wealth from somewhere. The story ends with a grave robbery, where the main character who is at first a victim, gets a way with a stolen valuable ruby.

The last story teaches a valuable lesson about being in love with the image of wealth and love of the image of beauty. It shows that although many people wish to be beautiful, or rich, both can be an unimaginable burden. A women traveling alone has many man kill each other throughout her whole life, fighting over her beauty. She witnesses murders that have changed her for ever, and is very often kidnapped. On a different note she has sex "perhaps ten thousand times" because so many men instantly "fall in love" with her. What they really love is her outer beauty. Most of the men hardly get to know her.

This is just a brief introduction to all these stories portray the theme of love of an image. I could go on and on in greater detail, and I hope to in tomorrow's class.

Travel

Think especially about the importance of physical space--what does it mean to a woman like Kempe to be in a place where something sacred happened long ago? Think also about the travel itself--a pilgrimage like Kempe's would have taken many months; what does she emphasize about her journey? Is it just about getting to her destination or are there valuable spiritual and cultural experiences along the way?

Because Kempe was such a stung believe, the feeling of being in such significant places much have been and extraordinary slew of emotions. We can see this by how much the woman cries. These places are like destinations on a map of both travel and experience. One can change completely as a person on such a long journey. Because she was having visions about the places she visited, it became personal. For a woman to travel so much, so long ago, often unaccompanied, must have given her such a great sense of freedom. A kind of journey where one finds them selves. She seems to emphasis the main places she visited that had a great spiritual significance to her, the parts of the journey where she changed as a person. She essentially walks though steps of Jesus' life. Religious or not, visions or not, this could impact anyone's view on life, especially if you are visiting sites of the last supper or where the crucifixion took place and so on. Although her main points seem to be about these specific spots that were significant to Jesus' life the experiences she had to actually travel along the whole way. The expectations, excitement and troubles of traveling obviously had a large emotional affect on her. She was literally traveling through teethe life and culture of Jesus. As I mentioned before, this had a lot of spiritual value.

When you read Mandeville's account, think especially about how he describes foreign cultures (especially non-Christian ones), and about the kinds of details he thinks are worth sharing about foreign lands. In his stories, what is the appeal of the world beyond Western Europe for readers who would never see it?

In some ways, the author was very open minded about other cultures and lands. He often pointed out the accomplishments of civilizations and the fascinations with these new cultures. He also often pointed out how intelligent the people were (like the Muslims). The appeal to these lands is that they were so mysterious to the common non traveled person. As we see with the author there were many cultural fascinating differences. Just as if one were to travel today. Spreading ways of thought and advancements from one place to another is always an important thing for the world as a whole.

Book of Love, Day Two

1. What do you make of the "Mountain Girls" section? What do these girls represent? If we read the text as a journey of the human soul or condition, how then do you read this part of the text?

This is very interesting, how the author, a priest wonders around the mountains and gets shelter and food at the price of having sex and giving material items. It is also interesting how his description of the same women will change between the text and the song. This makes me question what the author finds attractive. This section makes women see very materialistic. It makes it seem as if all they want is jewelry and sex. Perhaps these girls represent humans needs, because in order to get shelter and food, the author must also have sex. Looking at this as is a journey of the human soul, perhaps pain, cold, and tiredness are representative of earthly things, while rest (like sunday they day of rest), bread (like holy bread), water (like holy water), and sex are representative of heavenly things?

In the last story, when the arch bishop bans holy men from having mistresses, it is very surprising how strongly the holy men in the story react. They tell in detail of how enjoyable recent sexual encounters have been with their loved ones. One speaks of a bath he had with his love, the other speaks of how his orphan who he has raised is his mistress. He figures that because he has done such a rightful thing as to raise an orphan, he may keep her as his sexual partner. Is she even willing? One imagines she may not be. These holy men really value sex. They want to appeal the rule. They will go up to the highest of holy men on earth and tell them that they do not have the right to stop anyone from having sex. One even said that he would physically harm the arch bishop. Sex is a big deal to these priests. This is very different from today. The nature of the text as a whole shows how open sex was in Catholicism in the past.

Book of Love Day One

It is very interesting how in the discussions between Love and the Archpriest, and Venus and the Archpriest, each non human figure gives strategical advice to the Archpriest on how to make a women fall in love with him. Right away this fable of the Archpriest is interesting, because it seems to deal with somewhat Greek like mythological figures in what I perceived to be a Catholic text. It continues to be intriguing with how much the Archpriest insults love. He has obviously had many broken hearts in the past. He does however bring up good points in his rant. In a way, some of the worlds worst tragedies are caused from love of one's religion, love of one's God, or love of money. Just look at religious extremist groups or corporations and the terrible crimes against humanity they both commit. That is just the start of many examples. Love (the character) then begins to try to satisfy the Archpriest by giving him advise about women. Love systematically explains not only how to "get" a women, but also what type of women. In a way this seems all a bit insensitive to me. Love's wife Venus gives him similar advise. Although they seem to treat love almost as if it is a strategic game in their lectures, Love and Venus do give some sound advice. They speak of balance, respect, and hard work, three things failed relationships often forget about. Lastly, I can help but to notice that this does in a way seem a bit out dated in one manner. For the most part, I would hope at least, that today love is less often about trying to win a rich girl over, and more often a natural thing that occurs simultaneous between two parties, no matter what their social status.

Songs of Holy Marry

7. This is quite the interesting song. It tells the story of an abbess (a nun who leads other nuns) who has sex with her servant and gets pregnant. Nuns, especially those who are high up and are meant to set an example, are not allowed to have get married or have sex. In fact, because the sex is out of wedlock it is doubly a sin. She is very loyal to the virgin Mary though so when she gets in trouble with the arch bishop, she prays and the virgin Mary essentially aborts her child and send it to France so the abbess will not get punished. I suppose the theme of this is that as long as you are loyal to the virgin Mary, she will help you out in tough situations, even if you're at fault. Perhaps because Marry is the moderator between God, and humans, she understands that humans are imperfect? It is very interesting how Mary really does essentially abort this child, and although it is supposedly still living, Mary just makes the "problem" go away. It is kind of crazy that Mary values loyalty more then she values virtue. This song kind of makes it seem like you can get away with almost anything as long as you are loyal to Mary.

26. This is the story of how a man cheats on his wife, so the devil tricks him into cutting his own penis off and killing him self only to end up in hell. Because the man is loyal to Mary, she sees this punishment as too much. She lets the man live, but does not give his penis back. The theme of this song, or moral rather, teaches the reader the dangers of cheating on your spouse, and the sin of sex out of wedlock. It is interesting how he does get saved in a sense because of his loyalty to Mary, yet he is still punished. When a lead nun got pregnant from sex in the previous song, Mary took all of her problems away with no punishment at all. Could this be because she was a women and this is a man? Is that why he doesn't get away scott free? They committed a very, very similar sins, why are they not treated as equals? The fact that the women was a nun is not a reason for Mary to take favor over her. In fact it makes her sin even worse. There seems to be some sexism going on here. In the previously mentioned song the nuns sex with her servant was essentially blamed on the devil. Couldn't the devil make the man cheat as well or are men just pig, and women always innocent? Is the penis seen as the devil inside of the man and that's why it was removed? It is also interesting that there is a sentence that essentially attributes these punishments, not to the action of cheating it self, but to the absence of going to confession after committing the sin. Can anyone do anything and just have a clean slate from going to confession right away?

Troubadour / Trobairitz Poetry

From the women trobairitz songs I choose "I." to speak about. What I find most interesting about this song is that the poet compliments her love so much before revealing at the very end that her love has betrayed her. It is interesting that although it seems as if her love has cheated on her, she still desires him and compliments him so much. Does she feel as if she has less power compared to him, so she sugarcoats her complaints, or does she truly love him so much that she is really that forgiving? There seems to be some sort of class difference here too. She mentions how her love is the noblest of men. Perhaps she feels powerless to a man of a higher social status, so she continues to compliment him. At the end she begs for help. It seems she has been taken advantage of by a "higher up" who she continues to compliment out of fear.

From the men troubadour songs I choose "26" to speak about. This song is about a man who falls in love with a women who refuses to love him back. Once again, I get the impression that this women is of a higher class status then the man, so there is a literal social awkwardness between them. The women has all of the power in this situation. The man is lost in her, and she seems to see the man simply as an annoyance and nothing more. He mentions that he is giving up on women, and he says he knows that they are all the same. He says he will run away, but will still be in pain. He almost seems suicidal. It is interesting how much power this woman has over a man she may not even recognize as existent. He makes a reference to narcissist mentioning that he saw him self in her eyes which then made him go mad. I wonder if there could also be a possibility of sexual innuendo when he says "I beheld myself in you."

Over all between the male and female songs, there are mostly similarities. It seems as if both write about unrequited love, and while both are extremely upset, they each gain happiness just from thinking of their love. It seems that they all have intense mood swings, and that they are all a bit crazy. There also seem to be class structure disputes throughout. Overall the men seem more dramatic. They seem more like "I am going to kill my self for this women," while the women seem more like "I'm pretty sad."

Arabic Poetry

1) Address two themes / ideas raised Ibn Hazm's "The Dove's Necklace" that interest you. How do these themes relate to the overall ideas of love that you find in this reading.

The first theme I would like to address is the theme that love is synonymous with pain. Hazm goes over many ways that love can be very painful. He describes how dreams of love can haunt people, how expectations of those unseen can turn out terrible. Hazm attributes fighting as a natural part of true love. He also describes how love can make many people paranoid. In one passage, Hazm even compared love to mental illness. This is not to say that Hazm doesn't describe the glorious parts of love as well. He goes on and on about the positive, and beautiful aspects of love. His portrayal of love from numerous perspectives (not just the blissful ones) makes true love seem more realistic, more part of life. In this way, he defines what love truly is. In a way this makes love ever more beautiful. The contrast in live between good and bad is truly the only think that allows good to even exist. He approaches love from a very realist point of view. My favorite display of this balance that is love and that is life, is when Hazm describes how ice burns skin just as fire does, and tears come from both joy and sadness.

2) How do the themes raised in "The Dove's Necklace" carry over into the poetry? Address at least two specific poems.

In the poems, this theme of shedding light on loves negative portrayal is also seen. In the last poem, labeled 9, the poet goes on and on about how love has brought him pain. The poet is forever separated from his lover. Perhaps his lover is dead. As a result, even though he his in love, he feels great pain. In the poem labeled F, Hazm speaks of sleeplessness from being in love, and in the poem labeled F, Hazm speaks about how the only moment he truly lived was when he kissed his love for a brief moment. All other life seems thus dreadful in comparison. Once again, the poets are not only negative about love. We are simply presented with negative perspectives so we can see the balance and hard work that is love. In the poem labeled H, we see a brighter perspective, where Hazm is simply grateful that he is on the same planet as his loved one. Poems A and C speak of the true blissfulness that is love. The negative side of love is simply portrayed in order to display the contrast that is real life.

1) Address two themes / ideas raised Ibn Hazm's "The Dove's Necklace" that interest you. How do these themes relate to the overall ideas of love that you find in this reading.

The second theme I would like to discuss is that of possible homosexual connotations. Perhaps I am reading into it too much, but from my point of view, I feel as if both "The Dove's Necklace" and the poetry have homosexual connotations. In "The Dove's Necklace," Hazm speaks of love, but it is not until the very end that he involves any trace of love having to do with just a man and a women. He even gives examples of how he has fallen in love with noble men through writing letters. In some instances the love fell apart, in others it lasted. Perhaps these are just his good friends, and once again I am over analyzing, yet Hazm is certainly not against homosexuality. He repetitively uses general words in sentence like "when a man falls in love with someone" (just an example, not an actual quote). It seems intentional that Hazm is cluing to the fact that all kinds of love between two people is acceptable.

2) How do the themes raised in "The Dove's Necklace" carry over into the poetry? Address at least two specific poems.

In the poems, the poets often talks about falling in love with "him". Hazm talks about not being able to take his eyes off of "him" in poem D. In F he talks about how he will never name his male love. In H he speaks of the joy he finds in the fact that his male love is on the same planet. In the first poem, labeled 4, the poet describes a male figure in beautiful ways that are metaphors to nature. It almost seems as if there was a general overall acceptance of homosexuality.

METAMORPHOSES by OVID Books 1 and 3

I will be discussing one of my own topics for book one, and answering one of your questions for book three.

The largest shock in book one, at least to me, was when Jupiter raped Io. Immediately in the beginning of the text we are told that Jupiter is not that great. He marks the end of the golden age, and rules during the lesser silver age. During this silver age the weather becomes more harsh and less temperate. Summer and winter are formed. It doesn't necessarily give a reason as to why Jupiter forms these new seasons, but I assume it is just because he is a mediocre god. Later in the text, Jupiter captures innocent Io and rapes her. His wife comes down from the heavens to catch him, but he quickly turns Io into a cow, and lies to his wife's face. He covers up that fact that he raped Io. Io then suffers for years in the form of a cow, unable to speak, all because Jupiter wanted sex. There are even more mentions later in the text of Jupiter cheating on, and tricking his wife. The gods in Metamorphoses are very different then those in The Odyssey. As it is, the only god in The Odyssey who seemed a little bit unfair, still had justification to act as such. Jupiter has no justification except for lust, and I don't think that should even count. He is a reckless god, that does not serve as a good example for humans.

5. Deceptively simplistic question: With what or whom does Narcissus fall in love? What is the problem with this? Many writers see in this myth the foundation of love found in all relationships (I would agree!) - what does the myth have to tell us about human desire?

Narcissus does not truly fall in love with himself. At least not at any deep level. He only falls in love with his own physical appearance. To prove the shallow nature of his love even further, one must also analyze his interaction with the echo. The echo is his own voice, his personality. He runs away from this. He is not at all inserted in a relationship with his personality, nor does he seem to like it. Shortly after running away from his voice, Narcissus falls in love with his own physical reflection. The problem with this is that what he feels is not truly love, rather it is lust. This myth is making a statement about how human desire is only skin deep. Perhaps for some people this is true. It is at least true at the beginning stages of many relationship, before the couple truly gets to know each other. That's why there is supposedly such thing as love at first sight.

Plato: The Republic

2nd Passage

In the second passage we were assigned to read, I find it interesting that the characters are discussing the problems between the rich and poor social classes. The idea that only a small precent of the population has a great majority of the wealth is still a pressing issue, especially recently with the occupy movement. I find it especially interesting that there are hints to the idea of shared wealth in the text. They are talking about democracy, yet there is an undertone of socialism. Democracy and socialism are two things that now a days, are never put next to each other.

The characters speak of true equality in government, and in life. This true life equality leads to the though of financial equality. Financial equality is something that still don't exist at all, yet it was though of so long ago (when financial equality is mentioned, many people call it socialism and dismiss it right away). The Republic also speaks of women's and children's rights. Women still are not completely equal in our "democracy", and children are not equal at all, especially not in the school system where time and time again court cases prove that children have limited rights in school.

3rd Passage

In this passage the characters discuss democracy not only as a form of government, but as a way of life. It is interesting how the characters go through an entire man's life, and point out all of his potential flaws and strong points. They even give reasons why each may exist. They mention bad parenting as a reason why many people end up flawed human beings. They essentially go on to describe how the principals in democracy can be applied to ones life, in order to make them better. This form of democracy is more then just government, it is a way of life. This once again is reminiscent of socialism. A way of life, true equality, government for the good of the people, people acting for the good of the whole. While that may be true, the most important thing is the sense of balance that is portrayed in the text. To much of anything is bad, and not just one thing will work. A balance of all ideals is imperative.

Question:

What context is this in? Is this a manuscript of actual meetings, or a story? What is the background info? It is hard to tell just reading excerpts.

Odyssey, Books 20-24

3. The symbolism of the bed

Penelope uses the bed that she shares with Odysseus, as Odysseus' last test. She wants to be sure that the man standing before her, truly is her husband, back after twenty years. She instructs one of her servants to move the bed, knowing that it is impossible to do so. Odysseus immediately makes this clear, describing how the bed is impossible to move. "Who could move my bed? Impossible task..." Odysseus then goes on to describe how he build the bed him self as he recalls all of its fine details. Penelope now knows that this is truly Odysseus. No one knows that bed as well as Odysseus does. No one has ever laid in it with Penelope, aside from Odysseus. Here is the symbolism. The bed represents Penelope's loyalness. She never let anyone lay beside her in Odysseus' absence, that is why she is so sure that Odysseus is the only one who truly knows the bed; That is how she knows that Odysseus is truly standing before her. Back when the suitors plagued the house, the bed used to represent a goal for the suitors. They all wanted to lay with Penelope. It represented extreme lust in the suitors' minds. Now, with the suitors gone and Odysseus back in his rightful place of power, the bed once again represents the love and between Odysseus and Penelope, and the loyalness that Penelope has show when Odysseus was gone. The bed is for them two, and no one else. That will never change, nor will their love for each other. Their feelings will never shift, just has the bed will never move.

4. The resolution of the final book

I didn't expect the poem to end so abruptly. After spending only one night with Penelope, Odysseus is off with his son and servants to visit his father. This makes sense, but why didn't he bring along Penelope? He has spent hardly any time with her. Then suitors' loved ones then try to kill Odysseus in yet another battle, but Athena stops it all and demands peace. So peace just like that? Not questions asked? Why couldn't this happen during other events in the poem? Is it just because Zeus finally wants to grant peace? Why now? Is it just to end the poem? I am sure the suitors' loved ones are still angry. Do they just fear the gods so much that they decide to instantly listen, or do they except peace because the instigator of this last violent out break, and their leader, Eupithes, is killed immediately? All of this doesn't bother me that much I suppose. The suitors are dead, Odysseus is again the ruler, the gods declare peace. What really bothers me is the absence of Odysseus' last journey. "...we have still not reached the end of our trials. One more labor lies in store-boundless, laden with danger, great and long, and I must brave it out from start to finish." Odysseus then goes on to describe the journey that the prophet in the house of death instructed him to go on: go far inland, pant his oar, make sacrifices to Poseidon, and so on. I feel that this is very important, and it is just left out. When will Odysseus go one this journey. What is peacefully Ithaca like? What will come of Telemachus? The poem kind of just ends, and I am not sure how I feel about that. It's as if there are some books missing or something.

Odyssey, Books 15-20

1. Meeting of father and son, hiding identity from Eumaeus

When Telemachus and Odysseus first met face to face, Telemachus was hesitant. Once Odysseus convinces Telemachus that he is the young prince's father, Telemachus embraces his father, as if he has known him all of his life. They go on to plan the suitors demise, and their future; father and son working together, as if they have been doing so all of their lives. Their instantly close bond may be surprising at first, but in a way Telemachus has always know Odysseus. "All of my life I've heard of your great fame." When Athena had Telemachus tour the world earlier in the poem, it way to help him learn of his father. He heard many long stories about his Odysseus, from ones that were close to him. Telemachus heard stories that Penelope, Odysseus' own wife, still doesn't know (at this point). Perhaps a reason why Athena had Telemachus learn so much about his father, was so when Telemachus does finny meet Odysseus, they do not spend time dwelling on the past, rather, they build their future. Odysseus hiding his identity is imperative if he wants his plan to test the suitors innocence, then ambush the guilty, to go perfectly. Word spreads fast, as we see when word gets to the suitors that Telemachus has come back.

3. Odysseus's test of the suitors

I found it rather interesting that Odysseus is testing the suiters and the servants of the house by seeing how they treat him in this disguised form of a beggar. It is interesting to me because I feel as if it is a test of Odysseus, just as much as it is a test of anyone else. Sure, Odysseus needs to see if any suitors will treat him well, and thus show a reason to be spared. While this is useful for Odysseus, one must not forget, Odysseus is not purposefully in this disguise. The disguise is all Athena's doing. She is making Odysseus look like a beggar, as if it is his last and final test. He has been a strong man all his life, but for once, he sees everything from a different perspective. He has harmed innocent people in the past, but now he is the innocent person being harmed. Athena purposefully makes the suiters harass Odysseus many times through out the chapter, just to test Odysseus more. "But Athena had no mind to let the brazen suitors hold back now from their heart-rending insults-she means to make the anguish cut deeper into the core of Laertes' son Odysseus." Time and time again, Athena prompts the suiters to become brash, and violent, so Odysseus can know what it feels like to be lower then anyone.

Not only does Athena's work test Odysseus, but it seems to test Telemachus' leadership skills as well. In these books more then any, Telemachus both recognizes him self as a man more, and is a better leader then he ever was. He says to his mother "the boy you knew is gone." Telemachus' reactions to the violent actions of the suitors against his own father, are so well constructed, and so well spoken with confidence, that the suitors actually start to listen to the young prince. A suitor even says this after Telemachus speaks: "Fair enough, my friends; when a man speaks well we have no grounds for wrangling, no cause for abuse." In fact, another suitor says the same thing again later on, as if they are starting to respect Telemachus. Telemachus standing up for his father (who is disguised as a beggar) is testing his leadership, and earning his respect, while simultaneously teaching Odysseus one last lesson.

Odyssey, Books 6-10

2. The central characters of Books 6-7 are Naucisaa, Arete and King Alcinous. What do they (along with where they live) represent in Odysseus's journey (remember, these are the first characters he meets after Calypso - how does this move represent the beginning of his "journey home"?).

Naucissa, Arete, and King Alcinous, along with their land, the Phaeacians' city, represent the first sense of family, and peace, that Odysseus has seen in a very long time. Not only does this place remind him of home, but I refreshes him with interaction between numerous people. He once again becomes assimilated to every day life, as opposed to the bizarre life he has lived over the past years. It marks the beginning of his journey home in numerous ways. He is promised, by King Alcinous, a safe passage back to his land: "And on his way no pain or hardship suffered, not till he sets foot on native ground again." It also mark the beginning of his journey because of the previously discussed assimilation back to a normal life. Most importantly though, it marks somewhat of a turning point for Odysseus. In the past years, he has not know peace. Even after fighting the brutal Trojan War, he still encountered many violent scenarios: Watching giants eat people, then stabbing the giants only eye with a scorching dagger, and even going on to steal from, and continue to taunt that giant; Having numerous other huge men toss boulders at his ship where ever he roams; having his crew turn mutinous; watching men turned into pigs; threatening a nymph, with a word up to her neck; watching one of his ship mate fall of a roof. Through all this violence, much of it which he instigates in some way, he seems selfish. For instance, when exploring on the island of Aeaea, he decides he will stop wondering himself, and send some of his men instead: "feed the men, the send them out for scouting." They could just leave this seemingly dangerous island, but instead he risks his ship mates, instead of just leaving or risking his own life. This is very selfish of him. Last time he went on an island he was nearly eaten by the cyclops; last time he sent his own men off on another island (at Artacia), they were eaten by giants. He is not going to risk him self this time, instead he sends his crew for almost certain doom, at the cost of perhaps finding a bit of food. He does turn around and save his crew from the nymph on Aeaea, but only through yet more violence. When Odysseus is in the Phaeacians' city, seeing all of the peace, and reflecting on his past, he realizes how retched his past has been, and how violence often brought no good things. He cries while hearing songs about the Trojan war, he truly regrets decisions that he has made in the past, and not only dreams of peace, and his own homeland, where he can be peaceful. It truly represents the beginning of Odysseus' journey home, because he has learned of peace through seeing it him self, and through reflection of his own violent life. He is now allowed the passage home because of this.

4. Book 9 with its Cyclops is one of the most famous episodes of 'The Odyssey.' What do the Cyclops represent? How does what he represents indicate a kind of "starting point" for Odysseus's trials on his journey? Why the need for these trials? How do you interpret Odysseus's statement that he is "Nobody"?

I believe that the Cyclops represents violence and hatred between two types of people, simply because they are different. In a way, he represents prejudice. This represents the starting point for the trials Odysseus will face, because the acts of violence he faces when he encounters the Cyclops (both the Cyclops eating his shipmates, and subsequently, Odysseus stabbing the Cyclops' eye out) will plague Odysseus for years to come. Because of this encounter with the Cyclops, and the way Odysseus reacts to violence with only more violence, Odysseus is cursed by the Cyclops' father, the God of Earthquakes. The God of Earthquakes causes all of the terrible experiences that Odysseus faces staring after his encounter with the Cyclops. The purpose of these trials are to make Odysseus find peace, to make him more like a God, and lass like a dumb, violent human. When Odysseus claims that he is nobody, this is representative of how, although he may be famous to many, he still his not famous for necessarily righteous reasons. In fact, as far as perfection goes, when compared to the Gods, he is nobody.

The Odyssey Books 1-5

The major character I would like to discuss, form books one through five, is Athena, daughter of Zeus. She is a very interesting character to me. In the beginning, she requests her father's permission to help Odysseus. She feels for Odysseus, and would like to help him out. With Poseidon (the only God that, for some reason, does not feel pity for Odysseus) far away in Ethiopia, Athena sees that this is the perfect time to help Odysseus. It is most interesting, how Athena never seems to help Odysseus directly.

From the beginning, her plan involves leading Odysseus's son, Telemachus to find his father. She plans out his trip, and landmarks along the way. She recomends different kings his father once knew (King Nestor in Pylos, King Menelaus in Athens). Athena know's that Telemachus will get clues along the way, and find out that his father is alive, and his exact location. She pushes Telemachus to be a man, to not be shy, and to find out about his father. All this time she know's exactly what is going on with Telemachus' father; where he is, and what his troubles are. For some reason though (even though Telemachus already know's Athena is a goddess) Athena would rather have Telemachus figure it all out on his own, through the meeting of people. Perhaps she wants the boy to learn of his father, whom he never really knew (Odysseus was at war when he was very young)? Or maybe she wanted Telemachus to express how much he really cares for his father (and subsequently, cares for the good of his mother)? She does mention that she wants to glorify Odysseus' name, but is all of this really about just that?

When Athena decides that she must get Odysseus out of the hands of Calypso (in book five), she still does not help him directly. She urges her father, Zeus, to send a messenger to Calypso. The messenger then orders that Calypso frees Odysseus. Later in book five, when Poseidon has returned, and threatens Odysseus' life, Athena is said to have helped by stopping Poseidon. In reality, it is primarily Ino who helps the most. Ino supplies Odysseus with an immortal scarf to protect himself from death.

I find it interesting that Athena is so set on helping Odysseus, but never does so in a direct way. Perhaps it is because a God's job is to guide humans, not to run their lives. Maybe Athena is just as worried about making Telemachus into a great man, as she is worried about Odysseus. The amount Telemachus grows in just the first few books is evident. He becomes much more well spoken. Perhaps this is Athena's intent, after all Telemachus is the heir to the throne.

Genesis 37, 39-50

In Genesis 40, two prisoners ask Joseph to interpret their dreams. Joseph replies by saying: "...do not interpretations belong to God?" Then instead of stopping he goes on. "Tell them to me." As if God is speaking directly through him. He interprets the two mens dreams, and his predictions are absolutely spot on, once again as if God is speaking through him. He later interprets the Pharaoh's dream, and thus predicts the future of Egypt. In many other parts of this section of Genesis, the text says things like "and the Pharaoh saw that God was with Joseph." The Pharaoh even says to Joseph: " Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” It is important to realize that Joseph is a direct connection to God, like a messenger. Joseph's father Israel, favored Joseph for this very reason. Joseph does't even blame his brothers for selling him and sending him to Egypt, he says it was God's doing, and he was sent there for a reason: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God." Joseph is even the first one to use the word sin (at least in the parts of Genesis I have read). It is interesting how throughout Genesis God will pick one person (often holy man's son who has many other brothers), and be closest to them only. Although analyzing the omniscient and omnipotent side of Joseph helps us understand Joseph's narrative, it also helps to realize the other side of Joseph, the more human side.

Joseph knew that he was the favorite son, and he showed it. In Genesis 27, he really rubbed it in his brothers faces, telling then dreams he has had of his brothers bowing down to him (although this actually does happen in the future). He is a bit cocky, a very human characteristic. When Joseph predicts the future of Egypt, and saves up food before the great famine, he can't help but to make tons of money off of the deal, as any human would do. He doesn't just give out food and grain when people are in need, he sells it to them. When they run out of money, he takes their live stock. When they run out of live stock, he takes their land. He doesn't give anything for free. This is very human like. Joseph distrusts his brothers when they reunited, as any human would given the circumstances. He tests them by making them go back and forth many times from Egypt, to their home, and he makes sure the brothers come all together. Then eventually, as any human would, he forgives them. The thing that perhaps makes Joseph the most human, is the amount he weeps. He must cry over five times in this passage, unlike any other character in genesis. This shows his great range of emotions, a very human characteristic.

One understands Joseph, once they understand his God like, and human like qualities.

Genesis 25-28, 32-33

2. Look at the role of the parents in this conflict. Do a character study of Isaac and / or Rebecca. Use specific quotes from the text to support your reasoning.

Rebecca is the main instigator of this entire conflict. She likes Jacob better, so she makes Jacob trick his own father, and steal Esau's blessing. Now that Esau's blessing was wasted on Jacob, and Isaac refuses to take back Jacob's blessing (for some reason) and give it to Easu, Easu wants to kill Jacob. Jacob has to be sent away for his own protection. Isaac is suborn for not just switching the blessing. What kind of parents are these? Each favoring one over the other? "Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob." Making brothers servants of each other? "and you shall serve your brother." Making brothers want to kill each other? "then I will kill my brother Jacob.” It is interesting however that God had predicted all of this just before the twins birth in Genesis 26.

4. How do you interpret the various elements of Jacob's dream and what might they mean within the larger scope of Genesis?

Jacob's dream acts as proof of his fathers blessing. He is blessed by the lord. The latter must represent a connection between earth and heaven. It is made directly to Jacob because of his fathers blessing. It is like a bridge from one world to another. This is why Jacob treats it as such. “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.”It shows the power in the blood line of Abraham, and also represents the significance of a fathers blessing. He renames the place Bethel because of its great significance.

5. We are told here that "Jacob was left alone" (32:24). How do you interpret this with what follows - the wrestling with "something"? How do you interpret this wrestling? What or whom exactly might Jacob wrestle? Why?

Perhaps Jacob is left alone because he is a time of great conflict with him self (this conflict may have come about through the anxiety of his brother arriving). He feels for an instant, an absence of God, because he has lost hope. He struggles (wrestles) with him self for an entire sleepless night (possible even causing him self injury), but when the sun rises, he is hit with a sudden sense of peace, and no longer doubts God, or struggles with him self.

Genesis 12, 16-18, 21-23

1. Why does Abram / Abraham react the way he does before going to Egypt? There is no textual evidence to support the fact that the Egyptians will kill him (and as it turns out, Pharaoh is morally outraged at the outcome of the situation). What does this say about one's encounter with the other?

Abraham assumes that he will be killed if the Egyptians know Sarai is his wife. Because Sarai is so beautiful, Abraham assumes that the Egyptian's will surly kill him, in order to take Sarai from him. He distrusts the Egyptians, before he even knows them. Furthermore, he is willing to risk Egyptian's trying to seduce his wife, just because he is afraid of being killed. Abraham lies, and he makes his wife lie. Lastly, he embarises, and teases Pharaoh, who thinks that Sarai is just Abraham's sister, and whom Pharaoh wishes to marry. This does not make Abraham look like a very good person at all. Cirtanly not a man of God.

3. This is the first love triangle in Genesis. What very human problems arise from this triangle? How do you analyze the story along lines such as gender, class, ethnicity? What does the story reveal about suffering (from Hagar's point of view)?

Sarai, Abraham's wife, tells Abraham to conceive a child with their slave, Hagar. This is morally strange. Sarai tells her husband to cheat on him, to have sex with another women, all for the sake of having offspring. It seems as if it was okay for a man to have sex with many women, even when married, but for a women to have sex with many men would be wrong of course. God approves of this, even though later he makes Sarai able to bare a child. Why couldn't God have just done that to begin with? Then later Sarai makes Abraham get rid of Hagar, and her son, as if she regrets her decision. Very strange. Sarai and Abraham feel as if they own their slave, the slave is lesser then them (possibly because they are Egyptian), so they can do what ever they want, even though Hagar does not agree with it. Hagar is essentially raped, and feels ashamed, true suffering. Then she is scolded by Sarai for being upset.


4. This story is almost unreadable - a father who willingly will murder his own son in cold blood because a voice tells him to do so. Why does God test Abraham here (and with such a horrific test)? Abraham has already proven his fidelity to God - he has left his homeland after hearing a 'divine voice,' moved his wife and possessions to another place. Why does God need more proof? What might this story be stating about Abraham's relationship with the divine? Go to specific points within the text to support your analysis.

It seems as if God is simply messing with Abraham in this story; seeing how much he can control Abraham, and proving that Abraham will do anything for God. God is treating Abraham like his puppet. It is almost sickening. Abraham seems crazy, hearing voices in his head, and doing what ever they say. He is very submissive, and will do anything (seemingly with out thinking "because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son"). He obviously fears and respects the Lord's power a great amount. Lucky the angel had stopped him right before he stabs his son; or did he just decide with his conscious that it was wrong, stopped him self, and decide to sacrifice the Ox instead, which had been there the whole time, and did not just mystically appear?

Genesis 4, 6-9

4. What do you make of the mark of Cain? Is this an ambiguous mark? Is it unsettling to have the divine as someone / something that protects a murderer?

Cain's mark is substantial. He tells the story jealousy, a part of every day life. I am rather surprised however, that his reaction was so strong to kill his own brother, almost as if Genesis is making that okay. That is especially supported by the fact that God hardly punishes Cain. I feel as if God just yells at Cain, and then Cain moves on, has a family, and lives a normal life. The lack of punishment is surprising, but maybe it occurs later in the great flood. I do not see Cain as divine, how ever it is unsettling that God seems to be quick to forget that the murder even happened.

5. Why do you think that civilization (the city, music, the arts, culture, etc.) rises from the family of a murderer? What might this imply about the nature of civilization?

I think the fact that civilization rises from the family of a murder is clueing that, as decedents from Cain's family, we are all evil. Perhaps this is connected to the concept of original sin. However, if one treats gneiss in a linear fashion, it would seem that only the first few generations of people were decedents of Cain. God, killed all of the first generations for being corrupt (perhaps for being related to Cain). He flooded the land and only spared Noah and his family, thus, everyone today would be decedents of Noah. Furthermore, Noah is a direct decedent of Seth, (Genesis 5), a brother of Cain who was not involved in Cain and Able's conflict. Seth was made in Adam's image, and Adam was made in God image. In a way Noah was then made in God image as well. Genesis does say Noah walked with God. This would mean that the decedents of Cain were killed for being corrupt, but the decedents of Noah via Seth, who was made in God's image, would still be alive, not involved in a murder, and not corrupt.

What are some themes that you find within this story that can help us with our continuing understanding of the text. What do you find problematic about this text that you find warrants further analysis / discussion?

The themes of growth as seen in Genesis 1-3, and the trend in how God communicates with humans will greatly help us understand this text. I feel that God is growing and learning about human's just as much as humans are growing and learning about the world. When we look at the trends of Gods' communication, it seems that God is always making impulse decision based on the actions of humans. He/She sometimes seems even a bit unpredictable. Although when analyzing Gods' trends of communicating one may find themes, it also brings about questions. Because God seems so implosive from story to story, and is called a different name from story to story, and seems to be constantly changing, one may wonder, is this the same God? Even facts from one story to another don't line up. This is very problematic.

Genesis 1-3

Coming from a very logical background I read the first three chapters of Genesis quite differently then I may have in the past. Years ago, when I attended Sunday School, I may have thought of it as a true story of the beginnings of life. Now I simply see it as an interesting artifact that displays the knowledge and values of a different time. To me, it shows particularly a lack of knowledge of how the earth, living things, the moon, the solar system, the stars, and the universe work. Genesis makes it seem as if God made everything we know appear in just six days, something I personally do not believe in. Furthermore, the first three chapters also make it seem as if everything was created to serve man: the earth, plants, animals, the moon, the stars, the sun, and even woman. God says to Eve: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” To me this is a very egocentric view. The stories try to explain that women were made from one of man’s ribs, which supports the false medical rumor that men have one less rib then women. Of course, the stories also say that snakes could once talk. Although I don’t believe in much of what is written in Genesis, I do commend the people of the time for trying to explain everything. Genesis does also displays what the people of the time did have a good knowledge of. It seems they had a good knowledge of seeds, and how plants grow. In the last line of chapter three, it proves that by the time this was written, humans already had sophisticated weapons such as swords. When God makes woman from one of man’s ribs, it is mentioned that man was first put into a deep sleep. This may clue to the surgical practices still used today. When God makes the stars, it explains that they are used to tell seasons, and for navigation, which means that a fairly sophisticated calendar, and navigation system may have been in place. A somewhat out of place paragraph about rivers, mentions the value of gold, and other metals, perhaps clueing to an advance economic system of the time. These technologies may have been added to the text as it got rewritten and translated throughout time. Never the less it is still and interesting portal to human mind, far in the past.