In canto 20, Dante and Virgil find those who attempted to look into the future. Their bodies have been grossly distorted, heads are spun backwards so that they look out behind them. Considering Dante the writer's system of poetic judgment, this punishment makes sense - at first.
Take a look at the gluttons; they were filthy, disgusting, foul hogs in life, now they lay in dirty snow, their sordidness pronounced in death. But the sorcerers are just the opposite. They tried to see into the future, but now they see backwards. If Dante is trying to be consistent, shouldn't they see forwards?
Also, in earlier cantos, the shades have the ability to see the future. What about here, can the sorcerers see the future?
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Hannah's Canto 11 thoughts
As Dante and Virgil descend to the rim of the sixth circle, which is covered in broken fragments of rock and ruble, an over-powering stench hits them. Virgil suggests they adjust to the new air before continuing down. Obviously, the stink is part of their torture - but it also represents the horrible and foul deeds those who reside here have committed.
While they wait, Virgil explains to Dante how the lower parts of hell are divided. He says that hell is divided into three sections: malice, fraud, and treason. Each ring becomes smaller (and probably smellier) as you descend.
The ring of the violent is also dived up into three portions, one for those who hurt others, a circle for those who hurt themselves, and the final ring for those who are violent against God. If I wrote Dante's Inferno, I would have put those who hurt other's below those who hurt themselves. It is one thing to end your own life: wrong, but still a choice you can make, but those who hurt others do it in force and hatred. There is a saying called JOY (Jesus, others, yourself) in order of importance. Dante has rearranged the letters to spell JYO.
After the circle of violence comes the ring of fraud. Peculiarly, Dante banishes all those who charge interest on loans. In our time, interest is not considered a sin, just a part of finance.
The only description of the ring of treachery is that Satan sits there. *gulp*
Dante the character now questions Virgil as to why some sins are punished more harshly than others. Virgil reminds him about Aristotle's writings, and how incontinence is less displeasing than malice, which is less displeasing then deranged bestiality.
Next, Dante asks Virgil why he said usury (the act of charging interest) is an offense against God's bounty. Virgil again refers him to Aristotle, and says that human industry can be said to be God's grandchild. But usurers take a different path, making money from money in an unnatural and evil way.
With that, the pair descend into the sixth circle of hell.
~Hannah :)
While they wait, Virgil explains to Dante how the lower parts of hell are divided. He says that hell is divided into three sections: malice, fraud, and treason. Each ring becomes smaller (and probably smellier) as you descend.
The ring of the violent is also dived up into three portions, one for those who hurt others, a circle for those who hurt themselves, and the final ring for those who are violent against God. If I wrote Dante's Inferno, I would have put those who hurt other's below those who hurt themselves. It is one thing to end your own life: wrong, but still a choice you can make, but those who hurt others do it in force and hatred. There is a saying called JOY (Jesus, others, yourself) in order of importance. Dante has rearranged the letters to spell JYO.
After the circle of violence comes the ring of fraud. Peculiarly, Dante banishes all those who charge interest on loans. In our time, interest is not considered a sin, just a part of finance.
The only description of the ring of treachery is that Satan sits there. *gulp*
Dante the character now questions Virgil as to why some sins are punished more harshly than others. Virgil reminds him about Aristotle's writings, and how incontinence is less displeasing than malice, which is less displeasing then deranged bestiality.
Next, Dante asks Virgil why he said usury (the act of charging interest) is an offense against God's bounty. Virgil again refers him to Aristotle, and says that human industry can be said to be God's grandchild. But usurers take a different path, making money from money in an unnatural and evil way.
With that, the pair descend into the sixth circle of hell.
~Hannah :)
Friday, December 4, 2009
Canto 11 Refelctions
In Canto 11, Virgil maps out the lower rings of Hell for Dante. There are three rings: violence, fraud, and treachery, respectively.
The ring of Violence is divided into three parts, against yourself, your neighbor, or God. You can harm yourself by either “raising violent hands against themselves” or “their own goods.” If you committed suicide or squandered away your wealth, or horded it you have damaged yourself and are placed in this round. Harming your neighbor’s property also sends you to this hateful layer. Those who scorn, deny, or curse God are also eternally dammed here.
The ring of Fraud is lower. Fraud is something you only do thoughtfully and with intent, so it is singular to man, therefore particularly hateful to God. Here reside the people who, not only cause fraud in accordance with money, but those who lie. The “flatterers, swindling sorcerers, hypocrites, impostors, picker of purses, simonists, panders and greasy palms and all such filth” are banished to these pits.
Not much information is given about the ring of Treachery. Only that it is the lowest ring and is where Satan sits. A good place to avoid.
After Virgil’s monologue, Dante asks him why the souls they saw earlier are in the upper reaches of Hell and not down here. Virgil rebukes him and asks whether he has forgotten “your [Dante’s] philosopher”, meaning Aristotle. In Aristotle’s book the Ethics, he says the three evils that God hates are incontinence, malice, and deranged bestiality. He also says that incontinence is hated less than the others.
Incontinence means failure to restrain oneself from gratification, in this case, the sin. The sins punished in the upper levels were not well thought out, purposeful sins; they were accidents. The best example is Paolo and Francesca, for their love or lust was not premeditated, it took them by surprise.
Malice is purely hate. No matter what the cause, it is frowned upon by God.
Deranged bestiality is when a man loses everything that makes him a man and acts animal-like. Betrayal is not something man was made to do, and by fulfilling that, they lose what sets them apart from the common animal.
The ring of Violence is divided into three parts, against yourself, your neighbor, or God. You can harm yourself by either “raising violent hands against themselves” or “their own goods.” If you committed suicide or squandered away your wealth, or horded it you have damaged yourself and are placed in this round. Harming your neighbor’s property also sends you to this hateful layer. Those who scorn, deny, or curse God are also eternally dammed here.
The ring of Fraud is lower. Fraud is something you only do thoughtfully and with intent, so it is singular to man, therefore particularly hateful to God. Here reside the people who, not only cause fraud in accordance with money, but those who lie. The “flatterers, swindling sorcerers, hypocrites, impostors, picker of purses, simonists, panders and greasy palms and all such filth” are banished to these pits.
Not much information is given about the ring of Treachery. Only that it is the lowest ring and is where Satan sits. A good place to avoid.
After Virgil’s monologue, Dante asks him why the souls they saw earlier are in the upper reaches of Hell and not down here. Virgil rebukes him and asks whether he has forgotten “your [Dante’s] philosopher”, meaning Aristotle. In Aristotle’s book the Ethics, he says the three evils that God hates are incontinence, malice, and deranged bestiality. He also says that incontinence is hated less than the others.
Incontinence means failure to restrain oneself from gratification, in this case, the sin. The sins punished in the upper levels were not well thought out, purposeful sins; they were accidents. The best example is Paolo and Francesca, for their love or lust was not premeditated, it took them by surprise.
Malice is purely hate. No matter what the cause, it is frowned upon by God.
Deranged bestiality is when a man loses everything that makes him a man and acts animal-like. Betrayal is not something man was made to do, and by fulfilling that, they lose what sets them apart from the common animal.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Flattery, an awful sin that condemns you to one of the lowest levels of Hell... errrr...?
On page 187 in Canto 18, we are first introduced to the flatterers. These people are sunk in a pit of excrement. Dante talks to one of these, who says his name is Alessio Interminei from Lucca. He says he could not stop his tongue from incessant flatteries. Another woman is pointed out to Dante, Thais, who was sent here for flattering her lover by saying, "You are marvelous."
Now, take a step back and look at this situation. Not only are these people punished in such a way, they are in one of the lowest levels of Hell, all for telling your lover, "You are marvelous."? These seems like a cruel punishment for merely telling the man you might marry that you think they are wonderful. And even if Alessio was constantly flattering, is it really worthy of being in one of the lowest levels of Hell?
Although people who constantly flatter their superiors in order to move up the in world, sin by doing so, a little, "I like your dress" or "You are wonderful" should not be so cruelly punished.
Why then are these poor souls banished to such a foreboding place as Malebogle, for somewhat minor offenses?
Now, take a step back and look at this situation. Not only are these people punished in such a way, they are in one of the lowest levels of Hell, all for telling your lover, "You are marvelous."? These seems like a cruel punishment for merely telling the man you might marry that you think they are wonderful. And even if Alessio was constantly flattering, is it really worthy of being in one of the lowest levels of Hell?
Although people who constantly flatter their superiors in order to move up the in world, sin by doing so, a little, "I like your dress" or "You are wonderful" should not be so cruelly punished.
Why then are these poor souls banished to such a foreboding place as Malebogle, for somewhat minor offenses?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Wait, where'd Zeus come in?
On page 141, in Canto 14, in lines 49 - 60 where Dante and Virgil's meeting with Capaneus is described, "And he himself who picked up what I said, hearing me ask my guide about him, cried, 'What I was living, so am I still, dead! Jove can go break his blacksmith's back with work, from whom in wrath he took the thunderbolt that ran through me on my last day on earth -- or wear the others out in endless shifts under Mount Aetna at the pitch-black forge, hollering, "Vulcan, help, I need your help!' As he did on the Phlegran battlefield, and hurl his lance through me with all his force -- he'd get no joy in his revenge."'"
Whoa, whoa, whoa -- back up. Why are the Roman gods mentioned here, in a Christan comedy? And not just mentioned, but actually doing godly acts, like killing people. Since when was blaspheming non-existent gods worthy of putting you in hell? Also, Plato and Socrates, both of whom we found in the first ring of hell, emphasized in their writings that they did not truly believe in the gods of their society. If Dante is being consistent, why are they up there with the unbaptized, instead of down here with the blasphemers?
~Hannah
Whoa, whoa, whoa -- back up. Why are the Roman gods mentioned here, in a Christan comedy? And not just mentioned, but actually doing godly acts, like killing people. Since when was blaspheming non-existent gods worthy of putting you in hell? Also, Plato and Socrates, both of whom we found in the first ring of hell, emphasized in their writings that they did not truly believe in the gods of their society. If Dante is being consistent, why are they up there with the unbaptized, instead of down here with the blasphemers?
~Hannah
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The doomed blank banner
In Canto 3, pg 25, lines 31 - 42, it says, "Said I -- a blind of horror held my brain -- 'My Teacher, what are all these cries I hear? Who are these people conquered by their pain?' And he to me: 'This state of misery is clutched by those sad souls whose works in life merited neither praise nor infamy. Here they're thrown in among that petty choir of angels who were for themselves alone, not rebels, and not faithful to the lord. Heaven drives them out -- to keep its beauty pure, nor will the deep abyss receive their souls, lest they bring glory to the wicked there.'"
And lines 52 - 69: "And I, beholding, saw a banner fly, whirling around about and racing with such speed it seemed that is would scorn to stand, or pause, and all behind that flag in a long file ran, I had not thought death had unmade so many. When I recognized a few of these, I saw and knew the craven one, who made the great denial. Immediately, I understood the truth: this was the low sect of those paltry souls hateful to God and to his enemies. These worthless wretches who had never lived were pricked into motion now perpetually by flies and wasps that stung their naked limbs and ran the blood in furrows down their faces, which, mingled with their tears fell to their feet, where loathsome maggots gathered up the rot."
So we find those who did not chose either good or evil. As a result, they are condemned to forever chase after a blank banner with wasps following and stinging them. Heaven refuses them, because they did not chose good, and hell refuses them, because they did no wrong.
These undecided and cursed souls and angels are chasing a blank banner because they did not chose a side in life, so they now follow no one, supporting a non-existent cause, with a non-existent leader. Because they refused to make a decision and move in life, they now are forced into action by the eternal stinging of wasps. The wounds created by the never-ceasing stinging bleed and mingle with their tears, falling to the ground as maggots feed on it. This blood, which could have been used in life to support good, is now wasted on the nourishment of maggots, just as their lives were wasted on earth.
If such a place really exists, unfortunately, many people from our day and age would be condemned there. Much of our society is agnostic. Many proclaim themselves Christian but do not attend church. some are too afraid to proclaim their faith in public. If these do not change the courses of their lives, then they too will be condemned to chase the blank banner of Canto 3.
~Hannah
And lines 52 - 69: "And I, beholding, saw a banner fly, whirling around about and racing with such speed it seemed that is would scorn to stand, or pause, and all behind that flag in a long file ran, I had not thought death had unmade so many. When I recognized a few of these, I saw and knew the craven one, who made the great denial. Immediately, I understood the truth: this was the low sect of those paltry souls hateful to God and to his enemies. These worthless wretches who had never lived were pricked into motion now perpetually by flies and wasps that stung their naked limbs and ran the blood in furrows down their faces, which, mingled with their tears fell to their feet, where loathsome maggots gathered up the rot."
So we find those who did not chose either good or evil. As a result, they are condemned to forever chase after a blank banner with wasps following and stinging them. Heaven refuses them, because they did not chose good, and hell refuses them, because they did no wrong.
These undecided and cursed souls and angels are chasing a blank banner because they did not chose a side in life, so they now follow no one, supporting a non-existent cause, with a non-existent leader. Because they refused to make a decision and move in life, they now are forced into action by the eternal stinging of wasps. The wounds created by the never-ceasing stinging bleed and mingle with their tears, falling to the ground as maggots feed on it. This blood, which could have been used in life to support good, is now wasted on the nourishment of maggots, just as their lives were wasted on earth.
If such a place really exists, unfortunately, many people from our day and age would be condemned there. Much of our society is agnostic. Many proclaim themselves Christian but do not attend church. some are too afraid to proclaim their faith in public. If these do not change the courses of their lives, then they too will be condemned to chase the blank banner of Canto 3.
~Hannah
Agnostic
Just after Dante enters Hell, he hears the cries of many people. When he asks Virgil who these people are, he tells him that these are the undecided, who did not choose a life of good or of evil. These people are the outcasts. Heaven will not take them, because they did not choose to be good, but Hell will not fully take them either, because they were not evil enough to be banished there. Now they will perpetually run after a blank banner, being stung into movement by bees and wasps.
Arguably, these people could be some of the worst off. They don’t belong anywhere, not in Heaven, not in Purgatory, not even in Hell.
The dammed who are banished here are constantly stung by bees and wasps which cause them to move. This is because their own weak will could not decide anything for themselves, so they are now forced into movement, a painful dance after a blank banner, which symbolizes their lack of leader and their lack of purpose. Since they could not find it in themselves to follow God or the Devil, they now follow no one, a nothingness that will give them nothing, but takes everything, their lives, their afterlives, their ability to choose what they want. A people of helplessness live here, not being able to accept or decline.
These people are practically the definition of agnostic. In life God was not accepted, but also not fully rejected. There are so many people like this in our world. Some don’t think there is enough evidence to prove the existence of God, then again, they say there isn’t enough to prove He doesn’t. Although we should not need proof of God’s existence, these people are caught in this endless circle of is, is not. The saddest part of this denial is the people who call themselves Christians, but never go to Church. Although they think this is all they have to do, that going to Church is not necessary, it is vital for them to be true Christians. They will be led in this blind way of turning a blind eye to the truth until they die and are sent to this desolate place.
Arguably, these people could be some of the worst off. They don’t belong anywhere, not in Heaven, not in Purgatory, not even in Hell.
The dammed who are banished here are constantly stung by bees and wasps which cause them to move. This is because their own weak will could not decide anything for themselves, so they are now forced into movement, a painful dance after a blank banner, which symbolizes their lack of leader and their lack of purpose. Since they could not find it in themselves to follow God or the Devil, they now follow no one, a nothingness that will give them nothing, but takes everything, their lives, their afterlives, their ability to choose what they want. A people of helplessness live here, not being able to accept or decline.
These people are practically the definition of agnostic. In life God was not accepted, but also not fully rejected. There are so many people like this in our world. Some don’t think there is enough evidence to prove the existence of God, then again, they say there isn’t enough to prove He doesn’t. Although we should not need proof of God’s existence, these people are caught in this endless circle of is, is not. The saddest part of this denial is the people who call themselves Christians, but never go to Church. Although they think this is all they have to do, that going to Church is not necessary, it is vital for them to be true Christians. They will be led in this blind way of turning a blind eye to the truth until they die and are sent to this desolate place.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The First Circle...
In the first circle of hell, Dante places those who have not been baptized but still led blameless lives. Here we find people such as Socrates, Plato, and Homer; people who had been born and had died before Christ was born. We also see men and women who lived too far away from Israel to have heard the good news before they died. Infants who were born and then died before baptism come here as well.
But let's say that a good Christian lived his life faithfully, but did not receive his last rites. Wouldn't he go to this layer as well? Or would he go deeper into hell? That would not make sense, but we have read up to Canto 8, and discovered five layers of hell. Surely, we should have passed this layer, if there is such a one, by now.
Of course, there is the possibility that these people would go to purgatory. But then, why wouldn't the unbaptized go as well? They did nothing wrong, as did those who did not receive their last rites, why should the unbaptized suffer in hell with no chance of redemption?
~Hannah
But let's say that a good Christian lived his life faithfully, but did not receive his last rites. Wouldn't he go to this layer as well? Or would he go deeper into hell? That would not make sense, but we have read up to Canto 8, and discovered five layers of hell. Surely, we should have passed this layer, if there is such a one, by now.
Of course, there is the possibility that these people would go to purgatory. But then, why wouldn't the unbaptized go as well? They did nothing wrong, as did those who did not receive their last rites, why should the unbaptized suffer in hell with no chance of redemption?
~Hannah
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
"Heaven" in Hell (Inferno)
While in Hell, Heaven is not mentioned by name, neither is Mary, Jesus, God, or any of the saints.
This makes sense. You do not speak of Heaven in such a place as Hell, as you do not speak of Heavenly things.
Long phrases are often used to get around this matter, such as on page 29 in Canto 3 it is said: "Only know that it is willed where power is power to do whatever it will." In other words, Heaven.
These allusions are used throughout, until you hit page 61 in Canto 6 where Dante just spouts off: "...for a great longing presses me to know if HEAVEN sweetens them or Hell poisons them."
Alert, Alert, Heaven Alert!! *fire truck noises* "Ooowh. Oowwhh."
Why was the rule suddenly broken? What allowed this sudden illegal use of a censored word?
This makes sense. You do not speak of Heaven in such a place as Hell, as you do not speak of Heavenly things.
Long phrases are often used to get around this matter, such as on page 29 in Canto 3 it is said: "Only know that it is willed where power is power to do whatever it will." In other words, Heaven.
These allusions are used throughout, until you hit page 61 in Canto 6 where Dante just spouts off: "...for a great longing presses me to know if HEAVEN sweetens them or Hell poisons them."
Alert, Alert, Heaven Alert!! *fire truck noises* "Ooowh. Oowwhh."
Why was the rule suddenly broken? What allowed this sudden illegal use of a censored word?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
From the Thanes and Danes Point of Veiw
Well...here's my poem. :)
Mighty Beowulf readied for his battle with the malevolent mother of Grendel.
He donned his thick and regal chainmail, enviable by all of the devoted warriors.
With pride he placed his beaten-gold helmet upon his worthy and noble head.
Despite his brute strength, Beowulf wielded a sword,
An unanticipated and unexpected loan from the unruly Unferth.
Resolutely, Beowulf stood poised at the edge of the mire.
All present held their breath and prayed for his safe return.
Then, the gallant hero jumped into the monster-infested goop.
A lone voice sounded in the silent and suspenseful air.
“Alas, what a tragic and sad pity. He was a brave soul, indeed.”
~Hannah
Mighty Beowulf readied for his battle with the malevolent mother of Grendel.
He donned his thick and regal chainmail, enviable by all of the devoted warriors.
With pride he placed his beaten-gold helmet upon his worthy and noble head.
Despite his brute strength, Beowulf wielded a sword,
An unanticipated and unexpected loan from the unruly Unferth.
Resolutely, Beowulf stood poised at the edge of the mire.
All present held their breath and prayed for his safe return.
Then, the gallant hero jumped into the monster-infested goop.
A lone voice sounded in the silent and suspenseful air.
“Alas, what a tragic and sad pity. He was a brave soul, indeed.”
~Hannah
Wiglaf
Wiglaf is one of my favorite charcters in this poem. He is loyal and brave.
When all the other thanes ran and hid in the woods, Wiglaf was the only one who would go to his lord and fight with him. He said,
"I would rather my body were robed in the same
burning blaze as my gold-givers body
than go back home bearing arms."
This powerful quote proves Wiglaf was not afraid to die. He would rather die with the man he loved and honored than to return home alive without having come to his aid.
During the fight, it was Wiglaf who wounded the dragon, giving Beowulf the chance to strike the fatal blow.
Seeing the trials that were to fall upon them now that Beowulf was dead, Wiglaf performed his duties admirably and with great courage and honor.
Given all this information, I feel it necessary to point out that Wiglaf would make a good name for a faithful dog. Unfortunately, we have already named our two dogs (Tori and Trixie), however, if I get another dog I will definately give serious consideration to the name "Wiglaf" and hope that my trusty canine can do the name honor.
When all the other thanes ran and hid in the woods, Wiglaf was the only one who would go to his lord and fight with him. He said,
"I would rather my body were robed in the same
burning blaze as my gold-givers body
than go back home bearing arms."
This powerful quote proves Wiglaf was not afraid to die. He would rather die with the man he loved and honored than to return home alive without having come to his aid.
During the fight, it was Wiglaf who wounded the dragon, giving Beowulf the chance to strike the fatal blow.
Seeing the trials that were to fall upon them now that Beowulf was dead, Wiglaf performed his duties admirably and with great courage and honor.
Given all this information, I feel it necessary to point out that Wiglaf would make a good name for a faithful dog. Unfortunately, we have already named our two dogs (Tori and Trixie), however, if I get another dog I will definately give serious consideration to the name "Wiglaf" and hope that my trusty canine can do the name honor.
Morgan's Poem
Ta Da... my poem:
The monster came munching on bloody meat.
Quivering with fear, the men hid in a corner.
Odysseys stepped forward brave and strong as always.
The giant looked at him peering at the great hero.
Swallowing loudly, the snack-sized hero approached the Cyclops.
Lifting the wine filled bowl Odysseus waltzed up to him,
"Here is a gift of lush wine given to you from warriors."
The monster laughed heartily, amused at the miny man before him .
His booming voice shook the cave, sending bats crying,
"No thank you diminutive human. I do not drink liquor."
The monster came munching on bloody meat.
Quivering with fear, the men hid in a corner.
Odysseys stepped forward brave and strong as always.
The giant looked at him peering at the great hero.
Swallowing loudly, the snack-sized hero approached the Cyclops.
Lifting the wine filled bowl Odysseus waltzed up to him,
"Here is a gift of lush wine given to you from warriors."
The monster laughed heartily, amused at the miny man before him .
His booming voice shook the cave, sending bats crying,
"No thank you diminutive human. I do not drink liquor."
Grendal's lack of description
It occured to me while I was reading Beowulf that there wasn't a clear description of Grendel. All we know is that he has an arm, which Beowulf rips off. I always assumed that a fuller description would come later, but it never did.
I think the poet might have done this intentionally. In not describing Grendel, he forces us (the readers) to imagine our own Grendel, the terrifying monster who lurks in the swamp by day, venturing forth at night to slaughter the sleeping humans. Each person is free to conjure up his or her own image of Grendel, which would terrify them personally.
~Hannah
I think the poet might have done this intentionally. In not describing Grendel, he forces us (the readers) to imagine our own Grendel, the terrifying monster who lurks in the swamp by day, venturing forth at night to slaughter the sleeping humans. Each person is free to conjure up his or her own image of Grendel, which would terrify them personally.
~Hannah
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Wording, Linked rings, and Bien.
Wording
On page 191 at the very bottom of the page, it says, "Both had reached the end of the road, through the life they had been lent." I love this wording, how the life they had lived out was not theirs, but lent to them by God.
Linked rings
On page 20, after line 2990, it says, "Eofor and Wulf were over loaded, by Hrethel's son, Hygelac the Geat, with gifts of land and linked rings..." At first I did not know what they ment by linked rings. Now I believe it means chain-mail, since they often refer to the linked mail.
Bier?
Both on page 209 and 210 they mention "bier." What does this mean? Is it like a funeral pyer? Or...what?
Beowulf and the dragon's treasure
On page 111, lines 1612- 1619, it says, "The Geat captain saw treasure in abundance but carried no spoils from those quarters except for the head and the inlaid hilt embossed with jewels; its blade had melted and the scrollwork on it burnt, so scalding was the blood of the poisonous fiend who had perished there. Then away he swam, the one who had survived the fall of his enemies, flailing to the surface."
Beowulf saw the bountiful treasure of Grendel and his mother, but he didn't touch it. Then why was he so eager to send Wiglaf to fetch some of the treasure of the dragon? What was the difference between these two hordes? Why was it not okay to steal from Grendel's mother's horde (even though he had killed both of them) and okay to take the treasure from the dead dragon?
~Hannah, the confused reader of lost treasures and dying kings
Beowulf saw the bountiful treasure of Grendel and his mother, but he didn't touch it. Then why was he so eager to send Wiglaf to fetch some of the treasure of the dragon? What was the difference between these two hordes? Why was it not okay to steal from Grendel's mother's horde (even though he had killed both of them) and okay to take the treasure from the dead dragon?
~Hannah, the confused reader of lost treasures and dying kings
Monday, November 9, 2009
The little dagger that could.
In the book, constant references are made to Beowulf's strength. In the fight with Grendal, he refuses wepons and kills him with his bare hands. When he fights Grendal's mother, he tries to use a sword but it does not work. He then uses a giant's sword to kill her, but it melts. Now when he fights the dragon, his sword fails him again.
It says on page 181, line 2682, "It was never his fortune to be helped by the cutting edge of wepons made of iron." This says somthing about his honor. He is so great that wepons made of mere iron could not help him.
But at the very end, on page 183, he kills the dragon with a small dagger. Did not the other, more powerful sword do no damage, but this little dagger does?
It says on page 181, line 2682, "It was never his fortune to be helped by the cutting edge of wepons made of iron." This says somthing about his honor. He is so great that wepons made of mere iron could not help him.
But at the very end, on page 183, he kills the dragon with a small dagger. Did not the other, more powerful sword do no damage, but this little dagger does?
Little Dot jumps in.
On page 151, line 2220, there is some odd spacing and many dots.
"But he soon began
to shake with terror;......in shock
the wretch...........................
............... panicked and ran
away with the precious ..........
metalwork."
These dot could mean a pause, but this does not make any sense. "The wretch *long unneeded drawn out pause* panicked". Or "Precious *gasp breath huff* metalwork"?
Maybe the writer put the dots in so he could rhyme correctly without having to change the wording.
Or maybe Little Dot from the comic strip was created much earlier than we think.
"But he soon began
to shake with terror;......in shock
the wretch...........................
............... panicked and ran
away with the precious ..........
metalwork."
These dot could mean a pause, but this does not make any sense. "The wretch *long unneeded drawn out pause* panicked". Or "Precious *gasp breath huff* metalwork"?
Maybe the writer put the dots in so he could rhyme correctly without having to change the wording.
Or maybe Little Dot from the comic strip was created much earlier than we think.
Old man Beowulf, a few words, and 'bone-houses"
Old Age
Perhaps the poet is using age to portray greatness, like some believe with Moses' age. Admittedly, no one is claiming that Beowulf is 120 years old, but perhaps the poet is using the same concept?
Few Words
Also, on page 153, line 2246 - 2266, it says, "[The man who buried the treasure's] words were few: 'Now, earth hold what earls once held and heroes can no more; it was mined from you first by honorable men. My own people have been ruined by war; one by one they went down to death, looked their last on sweet life in the hall. I am left with nobody to bear a cup or burnished plated goblets...(long speech continues)...Pillage and slaughter have emptied the earth of entire peoples.'" His words were few? Is this the poet's idea of sarcasm?
'Bone-house'
Lastly, on page 169, lines 2506 - 2508, there are some beautiful and figurative lines of poetry. "No sword blades sent him to his death, my bare hands stilled his heartbeats and wrecked the bone-house." Wow, that is some very strong and cool language. I especially love how the poet renames the skeleton a 'bone-house.'
~Hannah
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Accept the hospitality, but kill them later.
On page 72-81 of Beowulf, the story of the Danes is told. The Fins and Danes fought and when the Fins came on the brink of being victorious, a truce was made. The Fins kindly board the Danes for the winter, because their leader was killed in the fight. When spring comes, the Danes rise up agansit the people who had given them their hospitality for the cold winter season, kill their leader, and carry off his wife.
The odd part of the story is that the Danes are the ones who are the heros. How could you look up to someone after they turned on the people who refrained from killing them and kept them safe for many months? Talk about a problem with your mortality!
The odd part of the story is that the Danes are the ones who are the heros. How could you look up to someone after they turned on the people who refrained from killing them and kept them safe for many months? Talk about a problem with your mortality!
Fin
Saint Augustine had many great ideas, giving us many tricky problems to attempt to sort out. Some of which we did, and some we could only guess at. This was a great book for us to get started on reading for more meaning and understanding. The other books now will (hopefully?) be easier. :)
Saint Augustine's "The Confessions"
Fin
Saint Augustine's "The Confessions"
Fin
Good bye, Saint Augustine
Hurray! We've finished The Confessions of Saint Augustine! Although his language was dated, his ideas were still very real and apply to us today. I enjoyed reading this book because he pondered every little concept and gave his opinion, allowing readers today to get to know him.
Bye for now, Saint Augustine! Nice meeting you!
~Hannah
Bye for now, Saint Augustine! Nice meeting you!
~Hannah
Beowulf, the Prideful
So far, I have noticed that Beowulf seems very proud and egotistical. When describing his swimming contest with Breca to Unferth, he said, "Now I can't recall any fight you entered, Unferth, that bears comparison. I don't boast when I say that neither you nor Breca were ever much celebrated for swordsmanship." (pg 39 and 41, lines 582 - 586) I hate to say it, Beowulf, but that sounded an awful lot like boasting to me.
Ironically, it is Beowulf's pride which actually allows him to beat Grendal. He decides not to use any weapons when attacking the monster, flaunting his strength and ability. Fortunately, this is exactly what will defeat Grendal, since no sword can cut through him.
~Hannah, the critical judge of overly proud heroes
Ironically, it is Beowulf's pride which actually allows him to beat Grendal. He decides not to use any weapons when attacking the monster, flaunting his strength and ability. Fortunately, this is exactly what will defeat Grendal, since no sword can cut through him.
~Hannah, the critical judge of overly proud heroes
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Profound to diseased? Or just a bad day?
In Chapter 12, A Frivolous Answer, on page 286, Augustine says, "See, I answer the man who says, 'What did God do before he made heaven and earth?' I do not give the answer that someone is said to have given, evading by a joke the forces of the objection: 'He was preparing hell,' he said, 'for those prying into such deep subjects.' It is one thing to see the objection; it is another to make a joke of it. I do not see the answer in this way. I would rather respond, 'I do not know,' concerning what I do not know rather than say something for which the man inquiring about such profound matters is laughed at, while the one giving the false answer in praised."
But, at the end of Book 11, in Chapter 30, God Alone is Eternal, page 302, he says, "I will not endure the questions of such men, who by a disease that is their punishment, thirst for more knowledge than they can hold, and say, 'What did God do before he made heaven and earth?'..."
How did Saint Augustine go from saying that the man who asked this question was asking about "such profound matters" to saying he was diseased and thirsted "for more knowledge than they can hold”?
Did he decide that the man who asked these questions really was bad? Or was Saint Augustine just having a really bad day?
But, at the end of Book 11, in Chapter 30, God Alone is Eternal, page 302, he says, "I will not endure the questions of such men, who by a disease that is their punishment, thirst for more knowledge than they can hold, and say, 'What did God do before he made heaven and earth?'..."
How did Saint Augustine go from saying that the man who asked this question was asking about "such profound matters" to saying he was diseased and thirsted "for more knowledge than they can hold”?
Did he decide that the man who asked these questions really was bad? Or was Saint Augustine just having a really bad day?
Problems with St. Augustine's definition of the Past
On page 293, Book 11, Chapter 20: Three Kinds of Time, Saint Augustine says that what is in the past, is only what is in memory, but there are problems with this theory.
Let's say that, somewhere deep in a forest, there is a tree. Now a wind blows and knocks down the tree. No one ever saw the tree fall, so did it really happen since it is not in anyone's memory? You could say that someone saw the tree before and after it fell, and then say that tree had fallen, but what if no one had even known the tree existed? Would tree's life really be in the past, because according to Saint Augustine's theory, what is in the past, is only what is in memory.
Is there a problem with my logic?
~Hannah
Let's say that, somewhere deep in a forest, there is a tree. Now a wind blows and knocks down the tree. No one ever saw the tree fall, so did it really happen since it is not in anyone's memory? You could say that someone saw the tree before and after it fell, and then say that tree had fallen, but what if no one had even known the tree existed? Would tree's life really be in the past, because according to Saint Augustine's theory, what is in the past, is only what is in memory.
Is there a problem with my logic?
~Hannah
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
House of grass. Men like grass.
In book 9, chapter 7 Saints Gervase and Protase, page 216, it says "For long had I sighed after you, and at length I breathed in you, as far a breath my enter this house of grass."
The footnote after "house of grass" led me to Cf. Isa. 40:6, which says, " A voice says, 'Cry out.' And I said, 'What shall I cry?' All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field."
I am confused about the relationship between "men like grass" and a "house of grass."
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Corn, wine, and oil, Oh my!
On page 212, Book 9, Chapter 4, St. Augustine is talking about vanity. Then, at the end of the chapter, he says, "For in your eternal simplicity I would possess other 'corn, and wine, and oil.'"
The footnote at the end of this quote directed me to Psalms 4:8, which is, "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety."
I am rather confused. How does Psalms 4:8 realte to "corn, and wine, and oil?"
~Hannah
The footnote at the end of this quote directed me to Psalms 4:8, which is, "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, LORD, only makest me dwell in safety."
I am rather confused. How does Psalms 4:8 realte to "corn, and wine, and oil?"
~Hannah
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
An Open Heart
St. Augustine has an open heart when he is studying scripture and philosophical writings. He is looking for answers and is open to the possibility of God. My friend's father is also very well read in scriptures, philosophy, religion -- but he is an atheist. He reads with a closed heart and because of this he is unable to believe in God. St. Augustine studies and uses his mind (and heart) to become closer to God rather than using his intellect to shut himself off from God.
~Hannah
~Hannah
Is God a Spoil Sport?
In Book 8 St. Augustine is attempting to decide whether to become a Christian. He wants to be a Christian but cannot find it in himself to give up his wordly pleasures. Is God being a spoil sport by making us give up our worldly pleasures to follow Jesus?
I don't think He is. One of St. Augustine's biggest problems is being chaste. God knows that St. Augustine will be happier when he gives up pre-marital sex. He is not trying to spoil St. Augustine's fun, but rather to protect him and give him a better life. St. Augustine still doesn't understand that having a physical relationship with a woman without the long term committment of marriage is not going to bring him long term happiness. God knows this and in time St. Augustine will, too.
I don't think He is. One of St. Augustine's biggest problems is being chaste. God knows that St. Augustine will be happier when he gives up pre-marital sex. He is not trying to spoil St. Augustine's fun, but rather to protect him and give him a better life. St. Augustine still doesn't understand that having a physical relationship with a woman without the long term committment of marriage is not going to bring him long term happiness. God knows this and in time St. Augustine will, too.
In response
I loved the video; it was funny! I also like the pear line :)
In response to "In answer to Hannah," I agree that our ideas and St. Augustine's are almost identical, but St. Augustine says that to create an evil, there must be good to start with, while we say that to do an evil deed, the evil-doer must have either wanted a good, or was good by not killing his fellow evil-doers. They are not identical, but very similar.
Also, in "Good beings, Corruptible beings," I can not find any problem in your logic.
~Hannah
In response to "In answer to Hannah," I agree that our ideas and St. Augustine's are almost identical, but St. Augustine says that to create an evil, there must be good to start with, while we say that to do an evil deed, the evil-doer must have either wanted a good, or was good by not killing his fellow evil-doers. They are not identical, but very similar.
Also, in "Good beings, Corruptible beings," I can not find any problem in your logic.
~Hannah
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Good Beings, Corruptible Beings
I think Hannah brings up an important chapter below when she discusses Augustine's view that "every being is good." This chapter definitely brings up questions that we have been discussing, such as: "what is evil?," "did God create it?," "can evil exist in the absence of all good?"
Morgan, in her comment, suggests that Hannah is interpreting St. Augustine's conclusion about good and evil as different from our own. Hannah says: "We finally came to the conclusion that you can't have an evil without a good, while here, Augustine says you cannot be evil, unless there was some good to turn into evil." Since Hannah uses the words "while here" it does seem that she is suggesting Augustine would disagree with our own conclusion, but then her statement of what Augustine believes doesn't seem to me to be that different from our own. I'd be curious to hear more from Hannah about how she thinks Augustine's conclusion contradicts the idea that "you can't have evil without a good." It seems to me that what Augustine is saying is that everything that exists (in other words, everything that is a "being") must be good, because it is either the supreme good (God) and thus incorruptible, or it is something corruptible. If it is corruptible, then that means it is good, for you can't corrupt something that is completely evil, only something that is good (after all, that's what corruption means: to make what is good less so). According to this argument, then, every being is good. If so, then to the extent that anything exists, there would be some good. If what exists were at any point entirely corrupted, then there would be nothing good left, and since "every being is good" then that means there would be nothing left at all. In other words, you can't have evil if there is nothing good, simply because if there is nothing good left, then there would be nothing at all.
That's how I understand Augustine's argument. Do you have a different understanding of it? Whether you do or you don't, do you think it is a logical argument? Or do you think it is flawed in some way?
Morgan, in her comment, suggests that Hannah is interpreting St. Augustine's conclusion about good and evil as different from our own. Hannah says: "We finally came to the conclusion that you can't have an evil without a good, while here, Augustine says you cannot be evil, unless there was some good to turn into evil." Since Hannah uses the words "while here" it does seem that she is suggesting Augustine would disagree with our own conclusion, but then her statement of what Augustine believes doesn't seem to me to be that different from our own. I'd be curious to hear more from Hannah about how she thinks Augustine's conclusion contradicts the idea that "you can't have evil without a good." It seems to me that what Augustine is saying is that everything that exists (in other words, everything that is a "being") must be good, because it is either the supreme good (God) and thus incorruptible, or it is something corruptible. If it is corruptible, then that means it is good, for you can't corrupt something that is completely evil, only something that is good (after all, that's what corruption means: to make what is good less so). According to this argument, then, every being is good. If so, then to the extent that anything exists, there would be some good. If what exists were at any point entirely corrupted, then there would be nothing good left, and since "every being is good" then that means there would be nothing left at all. In other words, you can't have evil if there is nothing good, simply because if there is nothing good left, then there would be nothing at all.
That's how I understand Augustine's argument. Do you have a different understanding of it? Whether you do or you don't, do you think it is a logical argument? Or do you think it is flawed in some way?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
In answer to Hannah
Hannah said, "We finally came to the conclusion that you can't have an evil without a good, while here, Augustine says you cannot be evil, unless there was some good to turn into evil."
We came to the conclusion in our previous discussion that evil was a lack of good, therefore good had to be there to start with. So I believe that contrary to what Hannah stated above (insinuating that we differed from St. Augustine's position), our conclusion does in fact agree with St. Augustine's. We both believe that everything starts out as good but has the choice to take away that good, becoming evil.
A Troubled Augustine
In the beginning of Book 7, St. Augustine seems greatly troubled. He is constantly wondering and pondering over God's incorruptibility and man's corruptibility. In Chapter 12, St. Augustine finally comes to the conclusion that "Every Being is Good." (Hence the title of the chapter)
"It was manifest to me that beings that suffer corruption are nevertheless good. If they were supremely good, they could not be corrupted. If they were supremely good, they would be incorruptible, and if they were not good at all, there would not be anything in them to be corrupted. Corruption damages a thing, and it would not suffer damage unless its good were diminished" (Book 7: Problems of Thought and Belief, Chapter 12: Every Being is Good, pg. 172)
This excerpt from the book reminds me of our conversation about how evil is the lack of good. We finally came to the conclusion that you can't have an evil without a good, while here, Augustine says you cannot be evil, unless there was some good to turn into evil.
~Hannah
"It was manifest to me that beings that suffer corruption are nevertheless good. If they were supremely good, they could not be corrupted. If they were supremely good, they would be incorruptible, and if they were not good at all, there would not be anything in them to be corrupted. Corruption damages a thing, and it would not suffer damage unless its good were diminished" (Book 7: Problems of Thought and Belief, Chapter 12: Every Being is Good, pg. 172)
This excerpt from the book reminds me of our conversation about how evil is the lack of good. We finally came to the conclusion that you can't have an evil without a good, while here, Augustine says you cannot be evil, unless there was some good to turn into evil.
~Hannah
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
St. Ambrose
St. Ambrose seemed to have a great impact on St. Augustine as well as on his mother. When St. Ambrose preached he answered many of the questions that Augustine had been asking himself. But, in fact, when Ambrose was not preaching, he became so deeply emerged in reading that Augustine did not wish to interrupt him. Ambrose was intensley focused. So a few of Augstine's questions went unanswered until a later sermon from St. Ambrose.
Therefore, St. Ambrose didn't have as much of an impact as he could have had if Augustine had not been afraid of disturbing his reading.
Therefore, St. Ambrose didn't have as much of an impact as he could have had if Augustine had not been afraid of disturbing his reading.
Alypius
Alypius is a good friend of Saint Augustine's. He too has sinned in the past, but realized his mistakes when "You [God] rescued him with a hand that was most strong and yet most merciful, and You taught him to put his trust in not himself but in you." (pg. 145, Chapter 8: Alypius and the Gladiators, Book 6: Years of Struggle.) Saint Augustine clearly admires his friend and together they under went many adventures which tested their faith.
~Hannah
~Hannah
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Lost a friend
In Book 4 Saint Augustine tells us about a friend of his. He was a childhood friend who grew up with Augustine, became lost in the world with him, turned back to God with him, then dies of fever. Being well on his way back to God, this loss of friendship becomes a major set back to St. Augustine and he loses much of the ground he has regained, falling back into bad. St. Augustine uses that loss of a friend to show us how much we all need our friends, to help and support us through everything.
Like Augustine said, "My heart was made dark with sorrow, and whatever I looked upon was death."
However, God's love soon started to mend Augustine's sorry heart and ease the wound of loss of friendship.
~Morgan
Like Augustine said, "My heart was made dark with sorrow, and whatever I looked upon was death."
However, God's love soon started to mend Augustine's sorry heart and ease the wound of loss of friendship.
~Morgan
Imperfect human beings
Fastus was not a perfect person; he was not extremely learned, nor was he a great spiritual leader, yet he was able to help Saint Augustine. Fastus could not answer all of Saint Augustine's questions, but he was able to to humbly tell him that he did not know the answer. Despite the fact that Saint Augustine and Fastus were both flawed, they could help each other become closer to God.
~Hannah
~Hannah
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)