October 29, Blog 8

 

Comparing the two songs, "Soak Up the Sun" and "The Best Things in Life Are Free." provoke feelings of justification for me.  Basically, its how I live my life, enjoy the simple stuff! "It's not having what you want, It's wanting what you've got, " really sums it up for me.  Aristotle speaks about simple pleasures in "Nicomachean Ethics" saying that "a life of money making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking: for it is merely useful...." Just at the lyrics in "The Best Things In Life Are Free," the moon and stars belong to all of us, we can all enjoy them and there is no cost.  In both songs, the lyricist describe how they enjoy life.  Soaking up the sun or enjoying the flowers.  Aristotle points begs the question "what do we mean by the good?" Its seems that this is the beckoning question...what is the good? Does it lie in material possessions? or in the simple things in life?

REAL happiness is self sufficient! "Happiness depends on ourselves." It does not come from money, pleasure or fame.  It is what you must require of yourself.  Having money or goods is more desirable, though not the root of one's happiness.  Happiness is because of virtue, not material possessions.  Most people think or believe the addition of goods makes them happy.  Aristotle argues against this point basically saying the virtues of honor, wisdom create happiness.  Virtues are not bought with money or fame as these ideals are for the sake of something else.  Happiness is  fundamental and a foundation for one to enjoy tangible goods in this life.

Blog 7 October 21, 2013

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN8NKR84mTR0yPmOdML7ukkkqTVzb0JJuCm2hKIjMAjO2_v511uVV0UMXuhIkcCuYGHZGI9YKL0hZf461Nt30enPGc4YEQZoo9sIr3WDvvpTCT6kygx8qfjCeAJeUX99qbAnmxrzQ-QRQ/s400/bb3c_1_sbl.JPG

The lyrics in the aria "Mon coeur s'ouvre a ta voix"  seem to soften Delilah's persona more so than the KJV in the Old Testament.  The Philistines saw that Samson was in love with a "harlot," or prostitute.  They wanted Samson dead because he was a Nazi-rite and possessed brute strength.  Samson was a gentile and loved the Lord.  In the story, Delilah nearly badgers Samson to reveal the source of his strength.  Samson offers many explanations, though not until he admits his strength is in his hair, is Delilah successful in helping the Phillistines defeat Samson.  The aria seems to allow Delilah to beckon Samson because she is in love with him.  Samson even replies, "Delilah, Delilah, I love you!"  Delilah does not out right ask for Samson's secret, though she expresses her love and asks Samson to trust in her.  In the video performance, Delilah cradles Samson.  He appears weak and subject to her pleas.

In a modern day production, I would choose Beyonce.  She is not only stunning as a woman, her appearance in this photo shows her soft and sultry side.  No doubt Samson would have a hard time saying no to this face!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1086671/thumbs/o-BEYONCE-HM-BIKINI-facebook.jpg

As for a modern day Samson, I would choose a long haired Brad Pitt.  Pitt is strong in his presence and would be an ideal match for Beyonce as Delilah.

Brad Pitt

Blog 6 October 2013

The Pardoner, in the context of Medieval Catholicism is someone who exploits believers for their own financial gain.  Commonly the Pardoner will sell false relics, forgiveness and even salvation.  His only goal is to profit financially. 

The Pardoner’s tale is an exemplum; the purpose is to establish a moral point. It is a moral anecdote used to illustrate a point made by the author. The Pardoners Tale is an exemplum that proves that greed can be a root of evil. When the men find the treasure they do not want to share. They all plan to kill each other but end up killing each other and nobody gets the treasure. Because of the hypocritical behavior of the Pardoner, the moral anecdote is found.  The Pardoner anticipated a much different outcome than the men killing each other.  They were greedy and selfish, thus dying over the treasure instead of sharing it.  Just as the Pardoner is greedy, taking money from believers hoping for forgiveness and other religious favor.

The three men were sent on a crooked path to find “death” under an old tree.  What they found excited them; eight bushels of gold coins.  After drawing lots, the first of the three men went into town to buy bread and wine, while he was away the other two men plotted to kill him.  The first man, who traveled into town, also decided to kill his friends with “strong and violent” poisoned wine.  Just as planned, the first man was murdered as he returned to the camp.  The other two men celebrated by drinking the wine, which was poisoned, then soon died.

 For the Pardoner, I would choose a matured actor, someone believable.  A young Anthony Hopkins would suffice.  He is often seen as brilliant in his acting while his presence of mystery is always apparent.

 

 http://www.hopkinsfan.net/ah/hopkins/AE1.jpg

A picture of death:  
Have to admit, I had a hard time selecting an image.  

http://www.themodchik.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Tree-of-Life.png

 

Blog 5, October 7, 2013

In reading Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, I find the characters represent a diverse cross-section of England’s society at that time.  This is a chance meeting for these pilgrims as they make their journey to Canterbury to honor Saint Thomas Beckett at the Canterbury Cathedral. 

I am not certain that any character is real or pure in heart.  Though there are two that I find more believable than the others.  At first I though about the friar; a Catholic priest who corrupt ways allows him to ignore lepers and beggars. The Catholic Church was quite corrupt in the 14^th century and it would not be unusual for friars to ask for money, cater to the rich and ignore those less fortunate.  At first, the friar did catch my attention.  Then I read again about the Knight.  He seems stoic, iconic in some regards.  He maintains dignity and honor throughout the journey.  The father of the handsome squire, the Knight seems to uphold his duties as a leader.

Also, I found interest with the Prioress, a head Catholic nun joining the journey, though at the same time facing “courtly love.”   Chaucer pays close attention to her habits, how she eats, wipes her mouth and drinks from her cup.  She seems more human than others, though not so believable as a religious figure.

Overall, I find it difficult to understand who is real and who is not.  The narrator uses qualities from each pilgrim in describing them and at times, these characteristics just seem so unbelievable; especially for those taking a religious journey. Perhaps more than just two are real and Chaucer flexes his literary arm in his descriptions allowing the reader to understand the characters a bit more.

Blog 4, October 2013

WEREWOLF:  A person who (according to mediæval superstition) was transformed or was capable of transforming himself at times into a wolf; †also, an exceptionally large and ferocious wolf.

www.OED.com

It could be argued both ways in reference to who is seen at the monstrous one in “Bisclarvert,” a story by Marie de France.  The wife had watched her husband disappear weekly for three full days.  She pressured him to be truthful as to the nature of his disappearance.  Finally, he gave in and explained to his wife that he became a werewolf for those three days.  Bislclavert attempts to include his wife in his secret.  Though she denies him and marries another man.  Initially, the werewolf is seen as the monster.  Though once the King sees the lone wolf in the forest and the wolf demonstrates gentility, the role of Bislclavert changes.  The King then takes the wolf to the palace to live.  Once in the castle, Bislclavert sees his wife and her new beau.  The wolf bites off the nose of his former wife causing her grave disfigurement.  Subsequently, all of her offspring are born without a nose. Oddly, she is then seen as the monstrous one.

Wulf and Eadwacer

Trying to understand the interpretations of this poem leads to debates for me as a reader.  Who is the woman married to? Both Wulf and Eadwacer are male characters, though are they the same character? I am honestly not sure.  In the poem, Eadwacer is not used as a proper noun, and the term means property owner.  It is likely she is married to Eadwacer, or Eadwacer is a representative of her lover’s manhood.  Wulf is likely her offspring, maybe the child of the woman’s and Eadwacer.  Her relationship with Eadwacer could be one of love/lust or he represents the manhood she longs for her “whelp” or her child. In analyzing this text, a third idea is brought forth; a love triangle where the woman speaks of her love for these two men.  However modern this poem is, not often was a sexual relationship discussed during this century.