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.