ottoman reading

I find it interesting that in the generations following Suleiman that the mothers of reigning sultans became the most powerful people in the household. She works behind the scenes, an invisible player. In a man's world it is difficult for women to attain power herself, she has to manipulate those who have power.
           I couldn't help but get lost, I was confused by the complexity of the Ottoman economic structure. How did they keep track of all the deeds, investments and permits? Did they have paper then, or were they suing parchment? Who was responsible for the organization and safe keeping of these records? It Seems very chaotic to me. The Ottomans don't do so well in their military conquests, from what this reading tells me. They use their monopoly on the trade routes from Europe to India and beyond to make an exorbitant amount of money with their customs houses, an old form of tariffs. I can respect their guile.

Dante Studies

          The link between Muhammad and Arius proposed in the reading is interesting. I still don't understand how Arius died, as his death was described in a hyperbolic way. Dante compares Arius's death to Muhammad indirectly, by plating the image of Arius in the reader's head (and the reader already knows about Arius), and when Dante gets to Muhammad the reader sees his suffering and then draws conclusions based on how Arius is described. The fact that Muhammad is in the eighth circle of hell with the dividers tells us the people Dante was with and the culture he was familiar with viewed Muhammad as a threat, but a threat from the outside. Plus, Dante's stake on Muhammad turns the prophet into either a misinformed irrational person at best, and a conniving compulsive liar at worst. If his goal was to undermine Islam, he succeeded.
          I wonder how Arius actually died. Without an autopsy no one knew back then, and surely no one will ever know. It would e interesting to hear some theories. He could've been poisoned, and that seems probable considering his work fostered many enemies.

decameron day 2

         I like how the beginning we hear a very strong statement about nuns and how their beliefs about suppressing the urge to have sex are never full-proof, and that they cannot ever suppress the very human desire for love and lust. The reader knows right off the bat that the ensuing story is going to be really offensive to some. Unlike the stories of love in that the troubadours sung, or the poetry of the hispano-arabic kind, this story is all about lust, not love. It's theme is that everyone has the natural desire of sex, and one has to ask the question, is it forbidden because it is bad, or bad because it is forbidden? Nuns cannot have sex, but if no one knows about it (a sin hidden is a sin half forgiven), then it can will be easily wiped away at confession. but if the sin is known by others, it never will go away. Humans will have sex, it is just that if you must be celibate, you are, even if you;re not, by being discreet. It is only the facade that really matters.
          The story of the scholar and the widow seemed to me like a fantasy of a spurned man. Perhaps the author had troubles with deceitful women in the past, and either returned the betrayal is kind, or failed to. There was a part in the story where the scholar says that the value of a scholar in one day is worth more than a hundred thousand wicked women for all time. This is clearly objectively not true. This a good story to demonstrate when a human's base desires are kept in check with reason in the case of the scholar, and on the other hand, left unchecked and uncontrolled with the widow. The widow desires the scholar , either because she desires sex or love at the loss of her lover, and fails to recognize the danger of falling for one who has only contempt for her. She doesn't see it, because she hopes for his love, she falls for his facade because she could not believe otherwise. This story, and others stories I've noticed in the Decameron demonstrate that woman have the same desire as men, the only difference is that the men get the better deal.

Decameron

           The story of Saint Ciappelletto was hilarious. It was very fun to read, I was smiling the entire time. It was also a shining example of an unjust man that get away with persecution by pretending to be a just man. I am reading "Plato's Republic" and there is an argument in the book about the nature of justice and one character in the book argues that the unjust man lives a more profitable life than the just man. Socrates says that a just man will require a soul that is pure and well functioning, like a well-oiled machine. What Socrates means by "soul" is not religious or super natural, he means soul as in the mental condition of a human. A good soul would be a rational, skeptical, empathetic, compassionate mind. When Ser Ciappelletto confesses to the friar, he appears to be this and more. The owners of the house he is staying in can hardly contain their laughter, and for good reason, they know his true nature, and the fact that the friar believes his story is even more hilarious. Ser Ciappelletto is a wicked man, an unjust man, yet his mind is sharp and clear. His soul would appear to be good souls in that that it is high functioning, The only fault would be his disposition towards wicked behavior.Even better, his final act is a helpful, good act, and whether he gained selfishly for it the fact remains that he helped the two guys that let him stay in their house. He didn't have to, but maybe he had spark of empathy. I also noted how the friar and his monastic peers were so eager to believe the story, and it's because they want to believe that people are fundamentally good. They want to have faith in their fellow man. Its much easier for them to believe lies they like.
            The fifth story of the second day was equally amusing. The main character, Andreuccio, goes through a lot, and in the end came out richer than before. It is a combination of luck and misfortune that gets him through the night. The people in this story are vie\le creatures who care for nothing but themselves. This man, Andreuccio, is in a strange place, where deceit and treachery is the name of the game. IT is the example of a state where no one is just, but everyone in actually unjust, in the guise of being just. Just like how in Plato's Republic a state of unjust is disorderly and law as we know it serves the stronger. There is a reason why the place he was in translates to "evilhole". It is fitting, then, that the well that Andreuccio bathed in became contaminated with the filth from the house where his fake sister was. They don't deserve water. It is as Zeus says in the Odyssey, humans blame the Gods for their troubles but it is really their own behavior that further magnify their suffering. I life how Andre learns his lesson from earlier in the day and lies about the archbishop's ring. The two robbers that were with him thought they were going to get all of the treasure, and never from the start intended to share any loot with Andre. The story is just a cycle of deceit, like how doing good fo one person might create further good fro someone else, it is the opposite here. One gains off another, that other than gains through lies off someone else.
           
            

Travel Literature

           The creature is subjected to abuse by her peers and hardships of the road don't help. Why is she referred to as a creature? Is it because her  behavior is so inhuman that others refuse to believe that she is human, he must be an entity in it's own class. In her last conversation with god it could be said that Jesus is implying that he is her lover. Using similar language that a lover might use. I also wonder how the story is told from a third person perspective, yet somehow the narrator knows what the creature is thinking and how exactly she is affected by the holy place she visits.
           The opening passage the Trail of St. John Mandeville describes a man committing necrophilia. Which seems out of place. Then he hears a  voice in his head and somehow thinks it's a good idea to go back to the grave. This is why most people dismiss what they hear in their heads. The text is quite boring, talking about the distances between various cities and describing their cultures. I chuckled when the text says "And then a man passes out of Syria and enters the desert, where the route is very sandy". Well of course its sandy in a desert! The narrator at length describes what a sultan is, that it is a King. That their used to be five of the them. The author relates the journey with bible stories. He talked about how one of the king's that visited Jesus when he was born was one of the five sultan's before there was only one. It then goes on a long winded chronology of of successions that was extremely tiresome to read. It is interesting how many times a Sultan was assassinated just so his brother could be Sultan.

book of good love day two

          I don't quitd understand the mountain girl section. The premise seems to be that an archpriest is cold and needs to get somewhere. He encounters a mountain girl who blocks the path forward. His only option is to either pay the mountain girl or walk away The archpriest always chooses to pay the toll. The mountain girl is always described as ugly also. Yet what is with all the talk about marriage?I can understand why she wants something in exchange for shelter and food but marriage seems completely spontaneous and foolish.
           The story of Carnal and Lent was confusing at first, and its possible that I still do not understand it. From what I can tell it was a struggle between eating land animal meat and eating marine animal meat. Lent wins, perhaps to show how not eating land meat is wrong during lent. the poem goes through such agonizing detail, describing the fall of each of Carnal's entourage to the hand of one of Lent's fishy friends. It was comical to say the least.
           
       

book of good love - day one

          I like how the poet prefaces the book with prologues are are in essence a disclaimer. When he says that words are not in and of themselves important, but the meaning that is attached when they are put together is the truth that should be harvested ( see what I did there?). He's basically saying that allegory is a tool used to make the tale interesting and convey the theme, and he writes about sin in the story to ward against it. He even quotes Saint Gregory about how an arrow spotted deals less damage. He acknowledges that some will think his work is not good for young eyes to see, but insists that without knowledge of it, one cannot defend oneself from it as easily.
          The character Socrates in Plato's republic said that allegory can confuse a young person, and will not be able to distinguish truth from lies. He later goes on the say that to have the perfect guardian, the perfect soldier, he must not have a shred of evil thoughts on his mind. This is interesting because both people want the same goal, but they have different approaches.
          The poet's words in the prologue echo in each story. There are always at least two parties. One of whom acts godly, and the other acts ungodly, or at the very least foolishly. While not all stories have a clear winner, there is a bias in which the party that acts godly never ends up worse than when they started.There is also obvious language that unsubtly reveals a Christian bias, likely in an effort to if not persuade, or even influence the reader, at the very least, plants ideas in the reader's mind that they will recall in everyday life.
          This is extremely apparent in the story of the Romans and the Greeks. They set up a sign language for a debate, and like in Ovid's Metamorphoses in the story of Narcissus (why does this harbor so much depth?), what one person means to say, and what the other interprets it as, can be completely different. Narcissus and Echo, or Narcissus and his echo, or perhaps they are the same. The Roman ruffian thinks his sign language is obvious, that the Greeks know what he is thinking, but his dress betrays his intentions. If he had not worn the garments of a doctor that his Roman superiors forced him to wear, the Greek doctor would've interpreted his intentions differently. The ruffian does not even notice how dress affects how one is seen, yet he affected by the same principle because he viewed the Greeks as weak and unready for conflict because of their dress.
          The story has a second layer of meaning, but it links back to the nature of the poet and that is the heavy Christian bias here. It is an outright lie to say that the Greeks believed in only one God, especially one who created the world since we know in Greek mythology that the Gods didn't create Earth. The poet did this to hype God as being the result of much thought, thought that stood up to a myriad of questions.
           Also, in Plato's Republic, the Socrates says that if a God exists, he could not be pure good and at the same time create man. Man is a creature of good and evil and therefore by creating man, God would then not be good. This God would then be forced to not do much, if anything at all, because most of what he could do to change the world would be evil for someone. The poet is ignorant of these writings, or ignores them to make God sound like an intelligent idea.


                                                                                                                   

songs of holy mary

         In the fifth story, the Empress of Rome repeatedly gets in trouble through no fault of her own. I find it strange how Mary helps her out each time the Empress prays for help, but in the end, she brings about her own death by locking herself away. It is as if the world is too much to bear, even with Mar's vigilance. Everything Mary does is reactionary. She only acts when called upon by the empress. I liked the theme of this song because it focuses on betrayal and how no matter what befalls her the Virgin Mary has got her back. I was surprised at the amount of times someone wanted to rape her or harm her. I find it funny how people were so quick to condemn her, maybe its because of a general distrust in women, or maybe its just there for no reason, just a plot device. The emperor didn't even get his wife's side of the story before he had her led off to be executed, and the Count likewise gave her no opportunity to appeal. She is a tragic character because in the end, she can't handle the reality of human nature.
          I found the sixth story comical. I could just imagine the look on the offended Jew's face when he heard "Gaude Virgo Maria". Though I think its funny how the boy knowingly sings an offensive song to a crowd who would find offense. Did he deserve to die? Not by modern standards, but even some Muslims of today would react similarly to a song that offended Islam, so I can thus picture it in my mind. Killing the boy was evil, but apparently killings all the Jews there was virtuous? Hardly, it is disgusting how the sin of one condemns all. Also the deaths of the murderer and the boy are not equal, burning alive is a much more agonizing and slower death then an axe blow that splits the skull. Also, the whole bias towards Christianity and the demonizing of Jews is evident. Why don't the Jews have a champion like the Christian's do? Why did all the Jews have to die? Because they're wrong? It just seems like the Christians here were looking for a way to be rid of the Jews, and found a good reason to kill them at last! This eagerness for bloodshed is disconcerting. Though it does reflect the dark times of the medieval era.
           It's also noteworthy to add that the narrator summarizes the story and then writes as though he has an audience that needs to be reminded before he can even start telling the tale.

Troubadour / Trobairitz Poetry

          In the 23rd poem in the troubadours, the speaker talks about being lured into love like a fish to the bait. I thought that was a clever comparison. It hints that the woman he is after is somehow enchanting him, though likely without knowing it. He says his love puts him in chains, and that she doesn't love him. Perhaps he is trying to say that entertaining the thought of loves for her, was too reckless? It seems like a hopeless love, because he says that he wishes that he could find a fault in her, but he can find none. It is like he's looking for a reason to stop loving her, any reason, because it is detrimental to love someone who does not love you back. And not just in a practical sense, but in the fact that his desire for her trumps all desire s for other women, therefore, he desperately is searching for a desire in someone who does love him.
           I read the second poem in the Trobairitz reading. I think it is about a noble woman who wishes for the man to lover her back, and that even though he could be the desire of many women, she is the one best suited for him, as she is intelligent and of noble birth. The more I think about it the more it seems like the two were lovers, and he broke up with her, or that she has sent him signals that she thought clearly meant she was interested, but he was oblivious. So this is a letter confessing her confusion. Or so it seems to me.
           It seems the male poets talk in a more metaphorical way than the females. They talk from a position that could be anyone, like surrealist paintings that show a generic person, like an everyman/woman. It could be anyone.

hispano arabic peotry and doves neckless

           In one of the Hispano arabic poems I find the idea that one's life is but an instant, and that instant was when the speaker says he accidentally kissed the one he loved. To him, his long life meant nothing except for that moment. He talks about what he does when he is away from his object of affection. In another, the speaker can't help. I'm finding a link in these about the idea of the lover as more enchanting than the lover itself. The authors seems to be writing from the perspective of being separate from their lover. That's when they write about their love, not wen they are in the midst of their lover. Therefore, one could argue they are writing from a state of depression, or at the very least, sadness or apprehension.
            When he describes the different ways people fall in love, I noticed one of the ways, hearing a description of the person, is similar to the lesson of Narcissus. They painting an image of the person in their mind's eye, and fall in love with that image, rather than the person. They are hearing a description of a person through a double filter. The first, the perspective of the person who told him, and then his interpretation of that. It is likely that his idea of the person differs vastly from the described person.
            I find his process fascinating, even more so that he wrote down what he believes love does. I did notice though, that lust is not discussed. This also brings up the idea that humans have not changed. They behave the same way now as they did before, in ancient times. When I read the "The Dove's Neckless" this fact is only confirmed. When he starts talking about the signs of love, signs he had observed, I am reminded of the same signs I have observed. It is not a coincidence then, that different cultures in different times humans behave the same.

Islamic art

Firstly, some things I noticed early on as I was reading: Arab words are really cool. Anyway, Cultures are usually resistant to change, it takes a lot of time and it takes a lot of people living together to make noticeable change. while reading the about the information on the art I noticed that most of the art is ceramic and lacks representations of specific people. This is very likely due to the Islamic religion being against idolatry. But it was easy for cultures to intermingle because the rulers of many Mediterranean cities changed frequently as war was a frequent event. Because of trade and war, the exchange of ideas and in extension culture, created an inevitable scenario where cultures rubbed off on each other and spurred artistic an scientific evolution.

A question I have is, how does a commoner interact with art in this period? 

Ovid's Metamorphoses 4-6

          The story of Hermaphroditus was very strange. The insane nymph has an insatiable lust for the boy Salmacis. this story has a "be careful what you wish for" vibe to it, when at the end the nymph wishes never to part form Salmacis. Well she got more than she bargained for. Interestingly enough, it seemed that Salmacis was the one who was in control of his new body. I didn't get the feeling that the nymph wanted to merge with the boy, but wanted to posses the boy's body. She just wanted him to herself. In the moment as she clings to Salmacis she's happy and wishes to never part, but doesn't realize the prophetic nature of her exclamation. Is this transformation a punishment for the nymph? For while surely, it isn't what she had in mind, her hopeful thinking became a reality, though probably not in the way she intended. Salmacis though, is probably cursing his ill-luck, or perhaps his inability to escape the nymph's clutches.
         Perseus is gripped by the same force when he sees Andromeda chained. He feels the same lust that the nymph felt for Salmacis. There are huge differences though. Firstly, Perseus is a demigod, and secondly he asks Andromeda's parents if by rescuing her he wins her hand in marriage. He doesn't simply throw him self on the object of his affection like in the Hermaphroditus story. He killed the sea serpent to win the princes, and this story arc of rescuing the damsel in distress is a recurring theme in mythology and continues in today's literature. He also asks for her hand in marriage, instead of simply going straight to sex. It's a disciplined, civilized solution to the problem. In the Hermaphroditus story, the lesson is that unshackled primal urges must be kept under control and measured. The nymph's reckless misconduct caused an unnatural joining of two parties, one willing, and the other unwilling.

Ovid's Metamorphoses 1,3

          The opening of the first book immediately reminded me of Genesis. When I read it I couldn't help but think that this account of the creation of Earth seems to be a more detailed account of the Genesis creation myth. The creation of man is the same also. The god of nature makes a mold of himself to create man. Man would be "fit to rule the rest." just like how in Genesis Man would have dominion over the earth. Its odd how the Titans weren't even present.
           The fight between the dragon and Cadmus was confusing. Apparently Cadmus throws a rock at the dragon and the scales neatly deflect it. Then he throws a dart. A dart that is big enough to cause a dragon pain and wedge between two scales and into bone. It mus not have been a dart that we know of today because i don't think a dart should cause a dragon much harm at all. And then, when Cadmus fights the dragon with a spear, the text starts talking about an oak tree. When I first read this I thought the oak tree was a metaphor for the sturdiness of the dragon. After rereading it it was actually the case that the dragon backed up into a tree and with no recourse took the full force of Cadmus' spear thrust. The dragon wasn't smart, it was too used to having it's way with simple brute force. Cadmus represents humankind's ingenuity, by using tools to overcome his foe. Or perhaps I am reading too much into it, and that the actual point of the story was the part where the dragon's teeth are seeds for future man, and that the death of the dragon heralded new life, life that would clash until only five remained.

Plato's Republic reading

         I really like the way it was written. It was easy to read. I like how Socrates states that there are four regimes (methods of rule) and then states that any regime other than these four fir somewhere between them. "...that Cretan and Laconian regime, and the second in place and second in praise, the one called oligarchy, a regime filled with throngs of evils; and this regime's adversary, arising next in order, democracy, and then the noble tyranny at last, excelling all of these, the fourth and extreme illness of a city..." He then asks if regimes follow the character of men or if the regimes arise from oak or rocks. To which the other man agrees, as always. There is one other regime that isn't a regime at all but rather a lack of regime: anarchy. The type of person who would rule would be no one, the type of person that would enable it however, would be someone with no direction, not commitments, no responsibility, no care or thought in the world. It kinda like Socrates either omits it because it isn't a regime, and at the same time useless to discuss because anarchy is just an intermediary step between regime. changes.
          "Those men are ours. For they are nothing." In the Oligarchy when the poor man sees the rich man, he realizes how out of step the rich man is, how awkward he is. He realizes how much the rich man depends on the labors of the poor man to live, and is disgusted. why should the rich benefit from the toils of the poor? Why should a few, in their greed, neglect the needs of the many? In this, the egg that births democracy is made manifest. I like how the four regimes make up a cycle that repeats itself, like the cycle of life and death, or void, being, nothing.
            A question for Professor Borck: did these conversations actually occur? Was Glaucon a real person or just an imaginary speaker?

Odyssey 21-24

         The bow represents then end of a long journey, and when Ulysses strings and draws the bow it signals the end of the suitors and the return of the king. When Penelope opens the room where the bow resides, she cries because she can't run any longer, she can't delay any more. Her fate is not in her hands. It is also giving up the man she loves, giving it away to someone else. Perhaps its that she isn't ready to move on, she can't bear the thought of not only the man being lost, but his possessions too. What is she to do without his wealth? When Telemachus tries to bend the bow he's huffing and straining and on the fourth try puts his weight behind his pull and starts to bend it. Ulysses has that "that's my boy" moment right then but even as he is proud, he doesn't forget that the plan is for Ulysses to bend the bow to announce his return, and at the same time arm himself for the coming slaughter. And really, that's the the bow means in the story, the harbinger of the suitors' demise and Ulysses's return.
          Ulysses explains to the suitors after Antinous dies a terrifically written death that they're lives are forfeit, their debauchery and exploitation of his house is reason enough for them all to die. Eurymachus doesn't believe he is Ulysses, but pleads mercy by offering riches and livestock from every suitor. He's trying to bribe Ulysses, but he has no need for such pleasantries, their fate is sealed, he will not back down, the price is blood. He' filled with hate and wrath, and he is eager to unleash it. I get the feeling that he is saying these words while grating his teeth, eager for Eurymachus to stop talking to he can exact his punishment. I think I would be more lenient to the suitors if I was in his position. If i were him, I would probably exile them, strip them of all their titles, deeds, lands, wealth, and property, and send them off on a ship with no provisions. But that could only happen after I crack some skulls, as I think there would be plenty of resistance, in the end, to get what Ulysses wants, he uses force, and force was the only way. The suitors would never so easily give up unless they knew their life was on the line. So...that means that someone had to die to prove that Ulysses was serious, he not in negotiating mood. Killing Antinous was like killing the head on a snake, now the body is flailing and panicked.
           This violence is violence done for vengeance, for retribution, for justice. It is righteous in the eyes of Zeus. That is the key difference between the war over Helen, that was a war of lust, anger, and ego.

Odyssey 16-20

          I've read the passage that described the meeting of Telemachus with his father. It was very emotional. Then Ulysses is turned back into an old withered man. Why keep Ulysses' identity a secret? Perhaps to spy on the suitor's behavior before he acts, to gain as much information as he can. He wants them to begone from his home of course, would the suitors leave if it was known that Ulysses has returned? I suppose the reaction when Ulysses is revealed in his home in the midst of all the suitors would be priceless for Ulysses, and the longer and more humble he is, the more surprising still the reveal would be. It takes a lot of fortitude in mind to withstand the insults to his character, and until then, and his friend Eumaeus had to endure such speech from Melanthias. Ulysses just takes the insult, knowing that soon he will have his vengeance, soon he will meet his wife, and so he tolerates the brazen Melanthias.
         The epic always writes each dinner as some sort of grand feast, it is written as if the feast is not lacking any of the vital viands a feast must have, liquor and meat. Its funny that nearly every dinner is so luxurious. The feast held at Ulysses' estate is no different. Then Irus shows up, there simply so that the reader knows that Ulysses has not changed, he is still combative and still powerful and that his disguise only affected his image, not his strength. It also shows that these suitors love sport and fighting, they are bored, after all, conflict, even conflict as petty as this one is entertainments they relish. Irus is one of those people who show up to parties uninvited and eat all the food. He sees Ulysses is his disguise and assumes he can pick on him because Ulysses can't defend himself. Irus never challenges people he thinks can put up a fight. He's a bully, and of course, the moment he realizes he could lose the fight, he becomes cowardly and tries to back out. The suitors will have none of it, they got out of their chairs and formed a ring, they went to all this trouble to see a fight, they aren't going to let this opportunity slip by. I laughed when Ulysses, in an attempt to hide his identity, hold back when he punches Irus, and even then, demolishes Irus's jaw. Its part of Ulysses's character to never back down from a challenge, this is another example of that.

odyssey books 6-10

         Our hero Ulysses has been trying to return home, and when he reaches the isle of Calypso he is tempted to stay. This is just another trial he has to overcome. One could say that her cooperation with Ulysses is a sort of affirmation that he has passed the trial, that he really does wish to return home and that he won't quit. Calypso loads supplies on his boat, so it seems she likes Ulysses. I really didn't find this part interesting. What was really interesting is book eight, when Ulysses is treated like an honored guest. Here we see his personality clearly. Here he is tested in physical ability and in discipline.
       
         Alcinous holds a contest of sport, and the participants each throw discus. Ulysses is taking no part, and says that he is past his prime, which i assume is what this phrase means :"Sad from my natal hour my days have ran". He says this after Eurylaus speaks to everyone but Ulysses is particular that the stranger should try a throw, because of Ulysses' physique.  So Ulysses declines politely. But then Eurylaus shames Ulysses into participating, saying only sons of fame, the native athletes on the island are great, and that Ulysses is not as good as them.
         Here we see that what follows is a response that tells me that Ulysses is very prideful, has honor, dignity, and to be told by this youngster that he is no athlete, is insulting to him. He is possessed of hubris, and says that he is amongst the sons of fame, that he can tolerate the insult, and says "no more I waive to prove the hero--slander stings the brave." What he says here is that he won't sit idly by and while someone speaks of him as anything but a hero, as weak or old. So he has an "I'll show you!" attitude. He's not a humble person. "Such was was my boast while vigour crown'd my days, now care surrounds me, and my force decays;" Here he says he is past his prime and he is past the point in his life where he would openly boast that he was the best, in his youthful days. He then astonishes everyone around when he hurls a rock bigger than a discus twice as far as the other athletes hurled their own.
          Racing wrestling, discus, and gauntlet, . What is the gauntlet?

Odyssey books 1-5

         Telemachus does a lot of speaking, and he declares that Ulysses is coming after twenty years. Eurymachus pretty much says "oh, we have a wise guy over here! Well let me tell you your mom is the hottest and most high born lady in the land, we will never leave until she dies. You're father's dead too, why do you hold on to useless hope? Stop being stubborn!" So here the text does a good job of defining Telemachus. he is angry that people are quick to court his mother, and enough time has passed to make him start issuing threats. He is seen as brash and foolish, optimistic is the worst way. He is stubborn, he won't change his stance, he is proud, and he is scared of what would happen, what it would mean, for his father to never return. Telemachus beseeches to the warrior maid, which I later found out to be Pallas. And then the goddess comes down is Mentor's form and tells him that his enemies will fail. And they set sail at the end of book 2.
         We have to hear about Telemachus's story before Ulysses because what is Ulysses' goal? To go home of course. He has to see his family, he has to return from Troy. And every time we read about Ulysses referring to home images of Telemachus appear in our heads, and we know what Ulysses fights for. Telemachus was tired of being helpless, and aspired to do something about it and set sail in search of Ulysses. It can be said that both journeys of the father and son parallel and at the same time, are much different form each other. Ulysses is cocksure and wise, he knows he is wise. Telemachus is young, but is humble, he knows he isn't wise enough to "...meet, or how accost the sage, Unskill'd in speech, not yet mature of age?" he says in book 3 to Mentor. He also does not have to play the leadership role like his father does. It's a story about both characters, and they are linked because one cannot read of Ulysses and not call to mind Telemachus and vice verse.
        

Genesis 37 39-50

         The youngest brother Joseph is loved by his father over his other brothers, this was perplexing to them. Even more insulting to the brothers were the dreams that Joseph had the gall to recite. Clearly Joseph isn't very smart. His brothers sold him into slavery whereupon Joseph earned the respect of Potiphar. Curiously, being a slave wasn't so bad for Joseph, because the Lord was with him, even as he was thrown is jail, somehow the warden decides Joseph shouldn't be stuck in a cell and instead makes him responsible for the jail. Joseph becomes the Pharaoh's second in command eventually.
         What is important to note is that God is with Joseph every step of the way, and the dreams that Joseph had were not something to brag about but a prophecy that fortold his rise to power. The rise to power that was destined to occur, that happened because his brothers were jealous, and happened because they wouldn't kill him, and most of all, it happened, so that during the seven years of famine, many many people would not die.
          The point of the Joseph narrative isn't to show how generous the Pharaoh is, or to explain how one fifth of all crop yield belongs to the Pharaoh, but to show how God was a good god to Jacob by favoring his descendants and honoring the covenant. The theme of the youngest son is the favored son continues through Jacob and then to Joseph and his sons. Perhaps this is a pattern that continues long into the future. The themes are, the youngest son is the glorious one, the Lord will watch over and guide the Jews, and Jacob's sons create the twelves tribes of Israel. The generosity of the Pharaoh is unbelievable, but not the point.
        

genesis 25-28 32-33

Characters in Genesis seem to live well beyond a hundred years. Ishmael dies when he is 137. Esau and Jacob are both equal, both firstborn, but Esau is just slightly older, which makes him the bigger nation, and receives the greatest inheritance and is blessed by God to have his younger brother's nation serve him. but Esau sells his birthright for food, as he doesn't care about it, in the face of starvation, his birthright seems trivial in comparison. Also, if Esau were to die, then the birthright goes to Jacob, so instead of letting Esau die, Jacob offers a deal to Esau, a very one sided deal.
           I love how the first line in chapter 26 begins with saying that a famine occurs, and then bothers to to clarify that this is a different famine! So it wasn't OK to be detailed about how Isaac ends up on the pyre when Abraham is told to sacrifice him, but its dreadfully important to say that this famine is different, even though we know its a different time period. In chapter 26 Isaac makes the same mistakes his father made, he told everyone that his wife was his sister, but no one took her as a wife so no one was punished. He was actually guaranteed safety from Abimelek.
           Isaac could only gift one blessing, why couldn't he give two, and recant the first? Is there a limit that God has imposed, or is it self imposed by some sort of rule he created? Instead he didn't give Esau a blessing at all, instead Esau will serve Jacob, thanks to Isaac's wife.  She exploited the gullibility of her husband to garner a blessing for Jacob. Why Jacob? She doesn't even care that she's betraying Esau and the trust between husband and wife? Of course, Jacob goes along with it, he didn't want to be subservant to his older brother, but does he realize that what he does is no better than what Esau must now endure? Then she ask the question "why should I lose both of you in one day?" I have an answer to that, because you're the arbiter of discord and vengeance by foisting betrayal upon your own household! Then she says how much he hates Hittite women, and then it becomes clear why she didn't want Esau to receive the blessing, because his descendants will be Hittite.
             Jacob knows he wronged Esau and when he hears of Esau's return to him with 400 men he realizes that his doom is near. He knows what he did was wrong. He knows that his brother has right to be angry. But when Esau appears Jacob is surprised to learn that Esau had forgiven him. Jacob knew so little about his brother, had no idea what kind of man he became. Isaac's blessing, in the end, was hollow.
          

genesis Chapters 12, 16-18, 21-23

          I find it ironic that Abram's intention was good when he said that Sarai was his sister, as we was only trying to protect himself, but in the end, the Pharoah is angry because he was lied to, and because of that lie he suffers. This also calls into the idea that the Pharoah is a respectible man, he only took Sarai to be his wife because he thought she was single. Is the rule that you should not lay with another man's wife universal in this story then? Abram was fearful of the Egyptians, had no evidence that they would do what he thought they would do, kill him and then take his wife, yet he thought they would do just that. He was ignorant of the Pharoah's morality and Egypt's morality in general. That ignorance proves to be the reason he was forced to leave Egypt.
            In the second story Hagar the slave gives birth to a boy, this boy is the son of Abram who is 86 years old! Sarai couldn't have children, she was sterile, and she became jealous of Hagar's fertility and what Hagar represents, even though Sarai was the one who suggested to Abram to conceive with Hagar. She sees Hagar as inferior to her.
            I find the exchange between Abraham and God very interesting, the amount of fear in Abraham's voice is telling. It seems as if by questioning God Abraham is walking a very thin line. If his god wished it he would be annihilated, but his questions are of such great importance to him that he persists anyways. He doesn't want to ask if only ten good people are in Sodom would the city be spared before finding out that asking about twenty is fine, that's how afraid Abraham is. God could recent his covenant just as easily as it was given.
            I don't find it odd at all that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son at all. He never questioned the Lord and never once thought about his actions. But what was really important though was what he said to his son, Isaac. Abraham didn't tell him that he was the sacrifice. Why was that? He was so eager to do it but he couldn't bring himself to acknowledge it to his son. Perhaps he realizes deep down in his heart that what God told him to do was wrong, that his son would be confused and afraid. His son didn't have quite the faith that Abraham did, and it also didn't occur to Abraham that the covenant God promised him would be broken if he killed his son. What if it was a trick? What if it was someone else who told him under the guise of God, would Abraham still do it? Of course he would because he knows he must obey absolutely and not to question, that's how fearful he is of the Lord.

          

Geneis 4, 6-9

        4. When Abel and Cain offered their respective gifts, God finds favor in Abel, and Cain becomes angry. Cain kills Abel, and his punishment is he can't farm and will not be murdered. As a farmer who loves his work, He wanted to die but he would not. God didn't prevent Abel's death but he protects Abel's murderer.
         It doesn't make sense, Lemech kills a man like Cain did, and says he will be avenged 77 times! Is murder justified if the victim wronged the murderer?
         The the story of Noah's ark God is repulsed by his own creation, yet instead of killing everything and starting over, he wants to preserve Noah's family and 2 of each animal. Its odd how speficif the time scale is. Or the fact that Noah is 600 years old in the story. But Gd enjoys the smell of live animals being sacrificed to him appease him. Noah and Abel had offered animals to God and both times God was pleased. When Cain offered fruit, God was not impressed. What does this say about God in these myths? At the same time, the Cain and Abel myth is a contradiction to the Noah's Ark because in ninth chapter the Lord says:
“Whoever sheds human blood,
   by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
   has God made mankind."
Yet when Cain kills Abel God makes it clear no one will kill him, his blood therefore will not be shed. Why is that? It seems like these are different gods! In the second part of  the ninth chapter Noah is drunk and sleeping naked, Canaan get punished because his father saw him naked while Shem and Japheth covered Noah. That's an interesting way to punish someone, by cursing their descendants. This a common theme in the old testament, in one instance God tells his followers that those who worship false idols will have their descendants cursed.
5. Civilization rises through consumption, the ate of eating another. One tribe devours another, whether by force or by diplomacy. The tribe increases in size as it merges. The same principle applies to glaxies, our Milky Way galaxy is as big as it is through the merging of galaxies, in fact the Milky Way is eating two galaxies right now. Even though in the story Cain didn't murder Abel in order to found a city, it is true that God preserved him, and later did build a city. 

Genesis 1-3 analysis

In this creation myth described in the first chapter, God is present from the beginning of the story, we don't know how he was created. We do know however, that except for the instance when he created light, he only worked during the day. There are other creation myths where a deity creates the earth as a byproduct of a separate action, like the Egyptian creation myth. If I can recall correctly I believe mankind was created with Ra's tears. Man attempts to fill in the gaps of knowledge with that of supernatural origin. People didn't know at the time of this myth's creation that stars existed beyond the atmosphere. The fact that God created man in his likeness shows that he is prideful, that he views his creations as his, as children.
         When Genesis describes the myth of Adam and Eve, more details of the creation of man are divulged. A fabulous garden, and the tree of knowledge sits prominently. Adam and Eve are oblivious to the notion of good and evil, are completely comfortable and secure in themselves. Why did God create the tree? Did he know that Adam and Eve would not be able to resist its charm? That in their persuit of knowledge, whether good or bad, would be irresistible, and that this knowledge is a curse and a anathema. That ignorance is bliss? The snake represents nature. In Minoan mythology their exists a goddess called the snake godess, she is a God of earth, she originated in the earth, unlike God, who originated in the sky, and created earth. She protects her children with venomous snakes, and is fierce. The snake tempts Eve to bite the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Upon doing so, God strips them of their immortality, for in order to have the knowledge of good and evil, the price is fleeting existence.
           If Adam and Eve never ate of the fruit, would new life ever have existed? what is the price of life? Death. In order for one to live, one must die, such is the natural order of things. By eating the fruit, they set that chain of events into motion. Cut off from the power of their God Adam and Eve had to make their own way.