Paper #4: Final Exam, “All You Need is Love” (?)

The Song of the Volsungs and Marie de France’s Lais

Romantic love is one of the great themes of modern literature. In the ancient past, men loved their wives and vice versa (Odysseus and Penelope, for instance) but it’s more difficult to find stories of romantic love between people who are not already promised to one another, or are merely divine incarnations of married couples (Rama and Sita, for example). What makes Volsungs and Lais so compelling is how romantic love between two consenting adults is not merely a throw-away detail or a side plot, but the very crux of the story itself. Without Brynhild’s love for Sigurd, the Volsungs stops dead in its tracks. And can you imagine a single story of Marie de France without two people who fall madly in love at first sight?

Q: Based on these two books, what is the medieval conception of romantic love? Is it a condition to strive for? Does it make the world go round? Would they agree that “all you need is love”? Or is it a sickness, an infection, a cankerous wound that infects everything it touches? Are they defending a modern notion of the importance of romantic love to medieval society? Or are they critiquing the cults of chivalric love that seek to undermine the civilized world?

Consider, too, that both authors are Christians, in a post-pagan world, so couldn’t simply write down stories verbatim without changing them up (so, for example, the portrayal of love in the stories has to be edited, if not created, by them). Do both authors seem to agree on the role of love in human relationships? Or is one more pragmatic than the other? Also, is romantic love a more “Christian” or “Pagan” concept? Where does it fit better?

REQUIREMENTS

• You must discuss/quote from both books, though you can focus more on one than another
• No secondary sources required, but feel free to use them (Introductions from each book, articles from EBSCO, books from our library, etc.)
• Cite works properly according to MLA format, like so: In Marie de France’s “Lanval,” she writes that, "insert quote here..." (82). This is important because... (introduce quotes, cite properly, and respond to quotations with your own ideas--don't just let a quotation sit there unattended). 
• DUE BEFORE OR NO LATER THAN FRIDAY, DECEMBER 13^th BY 5pm

For Monday: The Last Lais: Laustic, Milun, Chaitivel, Chevrefoil, Eliduc

Final questions! Just answer ONE for Monday (I'll give you a break...); but think about them all as you read. 

Q1: In “Laüstic,” the narrator remarks that “she loved him above all things, both for the good she had heard about him and because he lived close by” (94). In these stories, how can we argue that love is still an arrangement based on proximity and availability? Do women truly get to choose from anyone, or from the best ones? Or just the best ones in their immediate eyesight?

Q2: Discuss how one of these stories might be consciously addressing the so-called “mythology of love” we discussed on Friday. In other words, how is the story trying to symbolically give lessons about love (right and wrong behavior, ideas, values) through the metaphorical events of the story? How can we read a specific character or element of the plot allegorically?

Q3: In the story “Chaitivel,” we are told that “It would be less dangerous for a man to court every lady in an entire land than for a lady to remove a single besotted lover from her skirts, for he will immediately attempt to strike back” (105). Is this chivalry? And if so, is love always couched with a hidden threat? Is romance just another word for rape?

Q4: In the brief tale, “Chevrefoil,” about the fabled lovers Tristan and the queen, Iseult, we are told that “the two of them resembled the honeysuckle which clings to the hazel branch: when it has wound itself around and attached itself to the hazel, the two can survive together: but if anyone should then attempt to separate them, the hazel quickly does, as does the honeysuckle” (110). While this is a poetic metaphor, why might it also be a trouble one to describe “pure” love? What might be a darker interpretation of this legend which we see in other stories?

For Wednesday: Marie de France, Lais (see below)

For Wednesday, read the next four stories: Bisclavret, Lanval, Les Deus Amanz, and Yonec. Then answer two of the following:

Q1: Behind many of the chivalric romances are earlier, pagan stories of magic and witchcraft--notably in Bisclavret and Yonec. How sympathetic is the narrator (or Marie herself?) to these throwbacks to earlier times and cultures? Are they used as a contrast to the more "cultured" people in the stories? Or do they provide a more "pure" or "natural" road to Love? 

Q2: Many of the lovers die or are punished in these stories, notably the wife in Bisclavret, and both lovers (eventually) in Les Deus Amanz and Yonec. Are these stories critical or satirical of the ideals of chivalric love? Or do the deaths make the forbidden love more meaningful and sacrificial? 

Q3: Many Christian writers were at pains to marry their faith to the pagan glories of old, as in Beowulf and The Saga of the Volsungs. Marie de France is often in the same boat, as in "Yonec," when the wife warns her bird-lover that "she would make him her lover, provided he believed in God, which would make their love possible" (88). Do the stories offer a logical way to reconcile the two religions? Or is it a case of "taking the best of both worlds"? 

Q4: Given that the author is a woman, how are the female protagonists depicted in the stories? Is Marie de France more sympathetic to women? Does she offer them more range and characterization? Or is she merely transcribing the stories as she found them, with little attempt to make them more "feminine"? Could a man have written these stories just as well?  

For Monday: Marie de France, Lais: Prologue, “Guigemar,” “Equitan,” “Le Fresne”

Answer two of the following:

Q1: In “Equitan,” the two chivalric lovers are punished in the end of the tale by being scalded to death in boiling hot water (a ghastly end!). Is this story tonally different than the others? Is Marie de France criticizing or satirizing the chivalric ideal? Is this story less tolerant of adultery than the others? Or is there another reason for the lovers’ unfortunate end?

Q2: In “Guigemar,” the knight suggests that “if you remain faithful to each other, the love between you will be right and proper” (49). In general, do these stories support the idea that faithful love between two lovers (by necessity, not a married couple) is morally sound and desirable? Is the narrator’s sympathy with the lovers—or is she merely recording the quaint customs of another people in another land?

Q3: How does the manner of storytelling and the development of the characters in these Lais compare to what we encountered in The Saga of the Volsungs? Do they seem to come from a similar culture/mindset? Or does Marie de France do more (or less) with her mythic material?

Q4: Since chivalric love places an emphasis of love outside of marriage, how do these stories treat marriage itself? Is marriage a necessary evil? Or just an evil to be avoided? Since most of the people reading her lais would be married, how would they seem themselves presented in the tale?

For Monday: The Saga of the Volsungs, Chs. 31-44

As usual, answer two of the following:

Q1: Chapter 31 is one of the most fascinating chapters in the book, right up there with Brynhild's argument with Gudrun. Though the lovers are reunited here, it's hardly a tearful reunion: indeed, they're both at each other's throats. How does the author give Brynhild more depth in this chapter than simply a love-struck woman or even a woman-scorned? Who seems to come out the victor in this 'duel' between lovers?

Q2: The book often invokes the idea of fate, usually saying that "no one can withstand his fate" (90). Based on its use in the story, is fate a moral/ethical force like dharma or karma? Is it the will of God (or Odin)? Or is it something else, a sinister force that is indifferent to men and women? Is there any way to change or appease one's fate? Does anyone seem to outlive it?

Q3: Since this work is written from a slightly Christian perspective, and has a knowledge of the Christian/Western world, does it ultimately make out women (and wives, especially) to be copies of the Helen of Troy trope? Do women such as Brynhild, Gudrun, and Signy destroy the brave deeds of men? Is the narrator laying too much of the blame on women...or is he allowing them to write their own story? 

Q4: Gundrun outdoes both Brynhild and Signy in her malevolent revenge against her husband, Atli (borrowing a trope made famous from the Greek myth of Medea). However, unlike the other two women, she is allowed to survive his murderous rampage, and the narrator even states that "Gudrun did not want to live after these deed" (105). Why do you think she survives everyone to become the last woman standing? 

A Few Ideas About Paper #3...

Some people have expressed difficulties with this paper assignment, and it is tricky at first. The best way to approach it is to look around you: look at your FB feed, look at news stories, look at people's shirts, or the covers of magazines...what "heroes" keep popping up? What heroes have we created in our own culture that have transcended their moment in time, or the book/movie they came from? What heroes do we know outside of their original work?

A few examples off the top of my head:
* Superheroes such as Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, Captain America, Joker, etc. 
* Characters from famous books such as Harry Potter, Bilbo Baggins (or the Hobbits in general), Sherlock Holmes and Dracula (a little old, but still in the general range of 'modern'), Conan, Tarzan, Edward and Bella, etc.
* Musicians such as John Lennon, Kurt Cobain, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Johnny Cash, Hank Williams, Tupac, Bob Marley, etc. etc. 
* Characters from film/tv such as Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Princess Leia, Captain Kirk, Spock, anyone from GOT, Stranger Things, etc. etc.
* Characters from manga and anime
* Or anyone you feel has cultural significance and has outgrown their original work--think of heroes that inspire fan fiction, shirts, posters, biopics, etc.

ALSO, when comparing them to The Ramayana and Hong Gildong, you don't have to find a hero who resembles Rama or Hong Gildong exactly. Instead, look at these heroes and ask yourself, why did they become so big? What did they do or accomplish that made them assume mythic status, or simply acquire so many fans or devotees? Then consider how your hero did the same thing in a different way. Obviously your hero probably didn't string a gigantic bow or fly on the clouds, but how did they accomplish a great feat (thought impossible at one time, perhaps), or do some extraordinary performance that made everyone in awe of them?

Above all, have fun with this assignment!  Good luck and let me know if you have any questions! 

For Wednesday: The Saga of the Volsungs, Chs.15-30

Answer two of the following as usual: 

Q1: Though the Sagas are traditionally in prose, many feature extended poems throughout the narrative, often referencing mythical events and famous battles. What do you make of the long poem Byrnhild recites in Chapter 21 concerning the runes? Why did the author take such pains to include this? Do you get the sense that it's an original work or something age-old that he included in the narrative for authenticity? 

Q2: In Chapter 23, the rapid-fire narrative stops dead for an entire chapter about Sigurd's appearance, which almost never happens in the Sagas. What does the writer want us to see/understand about Sigurd that we didn't previously know? And why doesn't this happen the first time we meet him, rather than at this point in the story? 

Q3: One of the most powerful lines in the story occurs at the end of Chapter 27, when Brynhild tells Gudrun the meaning of her dream, and she responds, "The grief of knowing such things overwhelms me" (78). Why do the characters in this story often ignore their fate, or plunge heedlessly ahead, even knowing what awaits them? Is this a fatal flaw, or a cultural virtue? 

Q4: If you know Tolkein's work (The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit) how do these chapters evoke many of his scenarios and ideas? How might he have drawn inspiration from this work, particularly through many of the themes he employs throughout the work? 

For Monday: The Saga of the Volsungs, Chs.1-15

For Monday, read the first fifteen short chapters of The Saga of the Volsungs (to the chapter entitled "Regin Fashions Gram" if you have a different edition). 

Answer two of the following as usual:

Q1: The Sagas were always written in prose, as a way to capture the down-to-earth speech of the people and to impart legendary events with an air of realism. Discuss other aspects of the style of these tales which make them different from our other readings. How can you tell this isn't supposed to be "high" language (like poetry) but something more "low" and accessible?

Q2: The ethics of this work are the most exotic of all of our readings so far: Signy, for example, callously directs her brother to slay her children and even disguises herself as a sorceress in order to sleep with him. How might this complicate the definition of "heroes" and "protagonists" in this work? What seems to make the "good guys" good, if anything? Do the Volsungs follow a different code than others in the land? Or are they simply stronger/more cunning?

Q3: Though this is a strongly patriarchal world where men fight the battles and rule the kingdoms, women play a surprisingly large role in the story. How do they compare to other women we've seen, particularly in The Odyssey and The Ramayana? Are they variations of Helen of Troy, or do we see a new figure emerge in this story? 

Q4: Considering that this work was recorded by a Christian Icelandic scribe from pagan sources, why do you think he/she decided to preserve it? Did they see it as a profound work of literature? A valuable work of history and culture? Or something else? What would prompt a Christian to see something of value in this very dark and (to some) repugnant story?

Paper #3 assignment: Hero Worship

Paper #3: Hero Worship

“There really is no Western counterpart in either the Hellenic or Hebraic tradition to the influence that this originally secular story, transmitted orally through many centuries, has exerted over millions of people…The Ramayana continues to have a profound emotional and psychological resonance for Indians” (Pankaj Mishra, Introduction to Narayan’s The Ramayana)

Both The Ramayana and Hong Gildong are folk epics that have become something much more profound in their respective cultures: The Ramayana has almost become a religious text, and is often read as such, while Hong Gildong is a folk hero beloved (or at least known) by all Koreans with phrases and ideas that have passed into common speech. As such, both ‘secular’ stories have become ‘religious’ in their cultural significance and timelessness, allowing them to be re-read and re-intepreted on a variety of levels.

SO, for your Third Paper assignment, I want you to discuss a modern hero (of any sex) whose story you feel is on the verge of making the leap from the secular to the religious. What heroes do we venerate in our society, telling the stories over and over like a mantra, and arguing over the “correct version” and getting outraged when someone tells the “wrong” story? How do we see parallels between these works and one of the new myths of our 21^st century society? How could a character in a book, a movie, or even a musician in a band assume national and even religious stature?

SOURCES: Use both texts to compare to your modern myth: show how Rama, Gildong, or others act similarly or shed light on how we read and interpret this hero. Also consider if the stories told about your hero echoes any of the key events/controversies in both (or either) books. I also want you to find AT LEAST TWO sources on your modern myth: for example, if you’re writing about Harry Potter, find two articles, books, or something academic that discusses some aspect of the stories.

DUE IN TWO WEEKS: Friday, November 15^th by 5pm [no class]

For Monday: The Story of Hong Gildong, pp.35-77

SORRY! The questions didn't post on Friday for some reason--re-posting them now! :) 

Answer two of the following as usual:

Q1. Throughout the story, Hong Gildong claims that he "received the command of Heaven and came here on a righteous cause" (68), and yet the king and his family constantly bewail his faithlessness and criminal behavior. So how does the story want us to read him: as a 'god' like Rama, or a trickster figure, more like Ravana? 

Q2: At one point, Hong admits that "Because of some guilt I had to bear from my past life, I was born of a servant girl and was not allowed to address my own father as Father and my older brother as Brother" (46). If his birth is the result of karma, are his deeds in this life virtuous attempts to recoup good karma and advance his station in the next life? Or is this an excuse to cover his misdeeds? (we might consider his much we trust him in general--is he yet another Odysseus?)

Q3: If we read this story as a didactic text, one that uses Hong Gildong as the cultural embodiment of a hero beyond caste and class, what makes him "good" or "laudable"? What qualities do you think the culture prizes and celebrates in the story? Or do they, like the Greeks, simply enjoy hearing about a hero who defies the very ideal of heroism? Is he an Eastern anti-hero? 

Q4: At the end of the story, Hong Gildong takes leave of his kingdom with the philosophic statement: "I see that a human being is as insignificant as a single piece of grain on a vast ocean, and that a lifetime can pass in the blink of an eye..." (76). Do you feel this ending was an attempt by a later author to add a moralistic or even religious framework to a simpler oral narrative? Or does this philosophic intent emerge throughout the text, making it more than an exotic folk-tale?

For Friday: The Story of Hong Gildong, pp.1-35

As usual, answer two of the following for Friday's class:

Q1: What echoes of The Ramayana do we see in this work, despite Hong Gildong lacking its obvious mythic/religious dimension? Why might the audience that appreciates one find much to sympathize with in the other? 

Q2: Hong Gildong states that "Kings, lords, generals, and ministers are not made from a special blood," which is an old Chinese saying. Is the purpose of this work to question or contradict the social order of Korean society, which like India has its own caste system based on birth and rank? Can we consider this story a myth for common people? 

Q3: The Minister's wife, more or less Hong Gildon's stepmother, is conflicted by their plan to kill him, even though "it was a necessary thing to do for the sake of the family." However, she goes on to admit, "how could I be honored by my descendants when I have committed such a heinous act?" (15). From what we can glean from these opening pages, what would be the duty of a wife in this situation. Would it be acceptable (or understandable) for the family to kill him for the greater good? Or is such an act clearly murder no matter how it's justified? Would some notion of "dharma" color her decision? 

Q4: Why would Hong Gildong, a frustrated but otherwise obedient young man, agree to rob a venerated Buddhist temple with the bandits? This would be like Robin Hood leading an attack on a cathedral and pillaging all of its loot and holy items! Consider, too, his comment shortly afterwards: "We may be outlaws living in a mountainside hideout, but we will not commit acts of treason by stealing the property of the common people or inflicting harm on them" (32). How does robbing a Buddhist Temple play into this statement of ethics? 

For Monday: The Last Chapters of Narayan's The Ramayana

Answer TWO of the following...

Q1: In The Ramayana, most things are not what they seem, particularly if they look too good to be true. Rama is warned that Ravana’s turncoat brother, Vibishana, is clearly an “asura,” an evil spirit who will bring him harm; therefore he must kill him and fulfill his duty as a hero (who came to earth, after all, to stop Ravana and all asuras). Why does Rama instead decide to spare him even at the risk of being betrayed later on? Does this go against his dharma as a warrior or his mission as a god?

Q2: Toward the end of his life, Ravana is warned “Sooner or later retribution comes. Do not be contemptuous of men or monkeys” (126). Why does he continue to fly in the face of dharma and pursue his “impure work”? If we read this entire story on a more allegorical/metaphorical level, what human impulse might Ravana represent for the book’s readers?

Q3: What do you make of the passage that describes Ravana’s death? How might this reflect Rama’s earlier encounter with Vali? How might this passage also help explain the concept of maya in Hindu thought?

Q4: Clearly the most controversial part of the book is Rama’s rejection of Sita after his long struggle to regain her. How do you read this passage in terms of Rama being not only a great hero, but the god Vishnu himself? Why demand this of a wronged woman? Does this passage relate to anything else we’ve read in the book concerning women? (related to this, how does Narayan seem to read it)? 

For Monday: Narayan, The Ramayana, Chs.5-7

NOTE: Be sure to see the revised schedule on the post below this one. Otherwise, answer two of the following as usual. 

Q1: On Wednesday, we discussed a passage from The Bhagavad Gita which read, “work which is done with a confused mind, without considering what may follow, or one’s own powers, or the harm done to others, or one’s own loss, is a work of darkness.” How might this passage illustrate a specific passage in Chs.5-7? In other words, how might we read The Ramayana as a specifically religious text as well as a hero narrative? 

Q2: When Rama attacks Vali from behind a bush, delivering a fatal blow, Vali asks, “When strong men commit crimes, they become heroic deeds?” (101). How does Rama defend himself against claims of injustice against Vali and a betrayal of his own code? Has he committed a selfish act, one based on “impure knowledge”? Or is Vali’s way of understanding this act limited?

Q3: In Chapter 5, Narayan writes, “The fates were at work and this was to be a crucial moment in their lives. Normally, Rama would have questioned Sita’s fancy, but today he blindly accepted her demand” (82). How should we read this passage? Did the gods intervene and make Rama “weak,” or is this Rama’s humanity showing through? Can everything in the book be explained away by karma?

Q4: How does the character of Hanuman—though a monkey—embody many key Hindu beliefs about individual identity and duty? Why might he also be a cultural metaphor for the role of a hero himself? (indeed, in Hindu thought, Hanuman is almost as important as Rama).

Revised Course Schedule

I've pasted the revised schedule below, which only shifts a few dates around, and removes the film (since we watched the documentary last week instead). Note that the due dates for the papers haven't changed, though I did add one Discussion Quiz as a break from the reading schedule. 

M 14    The Ramayana, Chs.5-7

W 16    Discussion Quiz #5

F 18     Fall Break

M 21    The Ramayana, Chs. 8-Epilogue

W 23    Discussion Quiz #6

F 25     The Story of Hong Gildong

M 28    The Story of Hong Gildong

W 29   The Story of Hong Gildong

NOVEMBER

F 1       Discussion Quiz #7

M 4      Context: The Norse Mythos

W 6      The Saga of the Volsungs

F 8       Paper #3 due by 5pm [no class]  

M 11    The Saga of the Volsungs

W 13   The Saga of the Volungs

F 15     Discussion Quiz #8

M 18    Context: Chivalric Love and Arthurian Romances

W 20    Marie de France, Poems TBA

F 22     Marie de France, Poems TBA

M 25    Discussion Quiz #9

W 27    Thanksgiving Break

F 29     Thanksgiving Break

DECEMBER

M 2      Marie de France, Poems TBA

W 4      Marie de France, Poems TBA

F 6       Conclusions and Last Words

Final Exam (Paper #4) due TBA

For Wednesday: Narayan, The Ramayana, Chs.3-4

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: As we discussed on Monday, Narayan is having some fun with his adaptation of the great epic, rather than striving for a strict, academic translation. This allows him more latitude to interpret the story and add his own interpolations and glosses. Where does he do this in Chs. 3 and 4, and how does it add to the story—esp. for a modern audience?

Q2: In Chapter 3, Rama claims that “A word given is like an arrow, it goes forward. You cannot recall it midway” (54). What situation is he responding to  here, and how does this underline the fundamental concept of dharma (which translates to “the essential order of things, an integrity and harmony in the universe and in the affairs of life that cannot be disturbed without courting chaos”)? 

Q3: What role do women seem to play in The Ramayana? From Sita, to Kayeki, to the demon Soorpanaka, they all share certain characteristics and emerge as very distinct characters (maybe more so than the men). As Western readers, do we read these portrayals as somewhat misogynist (anti-women)? Or are they merely playing the roles required of them in this culture? Do they relate at all to women such as Penelope, Circe, and Calypso? 

Q4: In Chapter 1, Rama has to kill a female demon, and in Chapter 4, his brother, Lakshmana has to mutilate Soorpanaka. Both deeds can be seen as quite horrific and certainly beneath the hero of a great epic. How does the work justify these acts? How could men, traditionally the protectors of women in this culture, inflict such savagery upon them?

For Monday: Narayan's Ramayana, Prologue-Chapter Two

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: What makes Rama a unique hero, even more so than Gilgamesh or Odysseus? While all are somewhat divine (Odysseus has the help of gods),  how does Rama’s origin make him unique among Western heroes—and difficult to translate into our world/stories? Is it even fair to call him a hero given his unusual pedigree?

Q2: On page 16, Ganga explains to Rama that “Even after the participants have vanished, every inch of earth still retains the impress of all that has gone before. We attain a full understanding only when we are aware of the divine and other associations of every piece of ground we tread on.” Why might this be an important idea in this work, given what you've read so far? 

Q3: The Ramayana places a strong emphasis on duty or dharma, which can be translated as “the essential order of things, an integrity and harmony in the universe and in the affairs of life that cannot be disturbed without courting chaos. Thus it means rightness, justice, goodness, purpose” (Easwaran). Part of dharma is doing one’s duty and keeping’s one word at all costs. How does the story (so far) dramatize the struggle of doing one’s duty and obeying one’s station in life, even when to do so might otherwise seem ‘wrong’? Why is this notion of duty particularly tricky for Western readers?

Q4: Another often-translated Hindu concept is that of karma, which “can be translated as deed or action. The law of karma states that every event it both a cause and an effect. Every act has consequences…and every act, every karma, is also the consequence of some previous karma” (Easwaran). Related to question 3, how does the work dramatize the concept of karma in action? What characters are punished or rewarded according to their karma? Why might this, too, be a difficult concept for Western readers to grasp or appreciate? 

Paper #2 and Friday's Reading

REMEMBER to finish the book for Friday's class! We'll have a Discussion Quiz over Books 23 and 24, so bring your book to class. The paper assignment I gave out in class is pasted below--let me know if you have any questions: 

Paper #2: The Hero of Twists and Turns

From The Hero With a Thousand Faces (1956): “the labyrinth is thoroughly known; we have only to follow the thread of the hero-path. And where we had thought to find an abomination, we shall find a god; where we had thought to slay another, we shall slay ourselves; where we had thought to travel outward, we shall come to the center of our own existence; where we had thought to be alone, we shall be with all the world.”

According to Joseph Campbell, when the hero undertakes the Hero’s Quest (which all heroes of legend undergo), he/she emerges as a true “god,” having slain themselves (their ego), having returned home (both literally and figuratively) and having saved the ‘world’ for the next generation. Arguably, Odysseus has done all of these things, and the story celebrates his victory with the restoration of his household and family, and Ithaca itself.

And yet, the poem leaves us with some nagging questions…

• Does Odysseus find the “gods” within the “monsters”?
• Does Odysseus slay his ego/hubris to be reborn?
• Does he ever take credit for his failures, or share the spotlight with his victories?
• Does he make the world ‘whole’ again? Or is it just a temporary victory?
• Does he actually ‘fail’ at his quest like Gilgamesh? Is his victory somewhat hollow?
• Is his victory the triumph of good/justice over evil/injustice?
• Is he an active agent of his own destiny, or a mere play-thing of the gods?

In this paper, I want you to discuss which Odysseus the text offers us. Granted, we might interpret the text based on our cultural context and biases, but based on  the text alone (the language, events, etc.) are we supposed to read Odysseus as Campbell’s mythic hero, or merely a guy who is too desperate to lose? Which reading does the text most support? Did the Greeks expect us to identify with him and admire him? Or did even the Greeks expect us to recoil from his methods and realize that winning isn’t always reserved for the ‘good’ or the ‘just’? Examine a few passages that helped shape your opinion of Odysseus, and as you do so, ask yourself, how do I know which Odysseus I’m supposed to see? Where are the clues or signs in the poem itself?

To help you examine his ‘twisting’ character, I want you to reference at least TWO outside sources, which could include Peter Jones’ Introduction to the Penguin edition, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Ramayana, anything by Joseph Campbell (we have his books and videos in our library), articles or books on The Odyssey, or Greek myth. QUOTE useful passages in your paper to respond to and bounce off of, and cite them according to MLA format as follows: As Peter Jones writes in his Introduction to The Odyssey, “Restraint and endurance, deception and disguise: these Odyssean characteristics are shared, of course, by Athene, and willingly embraced by Telemachus when he is reunited with his father” (Penguin xli). This is important because… [always respond to a quote—tell us how you read it or why it’s important to your discussion]

REQUIREMENTS

• At least 4 pages, though you can do more
• At least 2 other primary or secondary sources (not counting The Odyssey)
• Must quote from the book, examining a few key passages (don’t summarize—analyze); cite all sources according to MLA format
• DUE Friday, October 11^th by 5pm [no class that day]

For Wednesday: The Odyssey, (at least) Books 20-22

Feel free to finish the entire book for Wednesday, but there's a lot to unpack here, so we'll have to go pretty slowly. So for next time, at least read the next three books, which aren't too long. Consider the questions below just for these books (we'll pick up the final two in our Discussion Quiz on Friday):

Answer TWO as usual...

Q1: Athena seems to take an increasingly active role in the final books of the story (after being relatively silent after her business with Telemachus). Why do you think this is? She not only seems eager to punish the Suitors, but is also constantly testing Telemachus and Odysseus, even chiding the latter for being weak in the heat of battle. What might this say about the poet's concept of the gods--or of Odysseus' relationship with them? 

Q2: In the midst of the ghastly slaughter, Odysseus spares two of the servants and tells them, "My son has saved you so that you may know in your hearts--and tell others--that doing right is a much better policy than doing wrong" (Book 22, lines 373-375). Is this how we're supposed to read the slaughter of the Suitors, as divine justice? While they have clearly done 'wrong,' so have Odysseus and the entire Greek army which destroyed "sacred Troy." Are these just more "winged words" of Odysseus, or do you feel the poet truly believes them? 

Q3: What role does Penelope play in these penultimate Books? Though she still remains in the shadows, she comes out several times to chide the Suitors and even argue with her son. Is she meant to be read as a loyal, but relatively naive woman (as Telemachus sees her)? Or is she just as "twisting and turning" as her husband, and is driving the plot forward as much as Athena? Clues toward either reading? 

Q4: Does the poet ever show any pity or humanity toward the Suitors or the slave-girls in Book 22? After all, the entire hall is bathed in blood, and the slave-girls are made to cart off their bodies and clean up the tables before being humiliated and strangled. Is this overkill? What purpose does this accomplish? Do you feel the poet considers this the "will of the gods?" Or is it another example of Odysseus' hubris (pride) and misogyny?  

For Monday: The Odyssey, Books 16-19

Note: it's okay if you don't read completely through Book 19, but get as close as you can. I want to try to finish the book by Wednesday or Friday at the latest. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: Why does Odysseus decide to reveal himself to Telemachus in Book 16, after carefully hiding his identity from everyone else? Is it simply because Athena commands him to (though she earlier said not to show himself to anyone in his family!). Is this a heavenly command--or a sudden inspiration? 

Q2: One of the most touching scenes in the book occurs in Book 17, when Odysseus encounters his old dog, Argus, who has seen better days. The poem spends far more time on this scene than the story might require. Why do you think this is? Why is this episode important, and how might it reflect larger events in the story? 

Q3: These books show the Suitors in much greater relief than we've seen so far in the book. How does the poet condemn their actions in these books, and what, specifically, seems to be their greatest 'sin'? How aware are they of transgressing social laws and the favor of the gods? 

Q4: Odysseus fears disloyalty above all else, and his disguise is largely undertaken to ferret out the true sentiments of his household (kind of like an episode of "Undercover Boss"--as Bryce pointed out in his comments!). How does he test the various people in his household, including his own wife? What does he want them to say or act to prove virtuous? Does he seem to take into account the context of their situation? 

Link to Emily Wilson's article about translating The Odyssey

On Friday we're going to write about the meaning of a single word in The Odyssey and the various ways that translators have translated it. It's the very first adjective in the poem that describes Odysseus, the Greek work "polytropos," which means, literally, "many twists/turns." The question is, based on your reading of his character, how should you render that word into English, since "many twists and turns" doesn't make colloquial sense. 

Emily Wilson, the scholar who has the distinction of being the first woman to translate The Odyssey into English, gave a fascinating interview to the New York Times Magazine about translating The Odyssey, and why gender matters as a context for any translation. If you would like to read the entire article, here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/magazine/the-first-woman-to-translate-the-odyssey-into-english.html

For Wednesday: The Odyssey, Books 13-15

Answer TWO of the following for Wednesday's class:

Q1: Eumaeus is one of the most vividly drawn characters in the book, and the poet gives him plenty of room to speak. What seems to distinguish him--a mere servant in a book of heroes and gods--from the other characters in the book? As a loyal servant, how does he compare with his master?

Q2: When Athena encounters Odysseus in Ithaca, he assumes a fake identity (like one of the gods!) and tells a ridiculous story of killing someone and having to steal off to Ithaca to avoid revenge. Athena listens to this and responds, "You were always an obstinate, cunning and irrepressible intriguer. So you don't propose, even in your own country, to drop the tricks and lying tales you love so much!" (Book 13). Is this praising or critiquing him here? Also, does this validate our suspicions that Odysseus is more of a tale-spinner than a bona fide hero? 

Q3: Related to the above, why does the poet allow Odysseus to tell Eumaeus a gigantic story about his alter ego, a native of Crete, which goes on for several pages? Since we know the story is a lie, what good does it to us to hear it? OR, why doesn't he simply tell Eumaeus the truth? 

Q4: Athena claims that the point of sending Telemachus off to Sparta was "so that he would win fame from his journey there" (Book 13). When we finally catch up with him in Book 15, what "fame" has he won? How has this aided him on his quest? Is fame somehow better/different than the favor he already enjoys from the gods? 

For Monday: The Odyssey, Books 10-12

Try to get through or close to through Book 12 for Monday's class; however, as always, I would rather you read one or two books closely than all of them superficially. Try to enjoy the reading and get something out of it rather than making it an assignment. This is one of the greatest books in the world, after all! :) 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In Book 10, Odysseus' companion, Eurylocus, exclaims that "It was this man's reckless folly that cost them their lives" (154). Why is Odysseus' reaction to this outburst telling? Are we supposed to ready Eurylocus as a 'bad apple' who has lost the faith? Or is he, alone, speaking the truth of the gods?

Q2: How does Circe compare to previous women in the book, particularly Calypso? Is she presented to us as a one-dimensional villain, another 'witch' out for blood? Or is she, too, given a more well-rounded, sympathetic treatment? (note that Odysseus stays with her for quite a while as well--is he forced to?) 

Q3: How does Odysseus' experience in Hades among the dead compare to Enkidu's dream of the underworld in The Epic of Gilgamesh? Who does he meet there and what do they tell him about life after death?

Q4: Does Agamemnon's speech about his wife and women in general contradict the earlier scene with Helen of Troy? Or with the depiction of women in general in the book? Does his voice carry more truth since he's dead and speaking from Hades? Or is this meant to deceive Odysseus? 

Q5: In Book 12, Odysseus seems to hoard information from his crew--both of the sirens' song and of Scylla's threat. Why does he do this? Is this a self-sacrificing action, or another sign of his hubris? 

For Wednesday: The Odyssey, Books 5-6 & 9

"Calypso" by George Hitchcock)

NOTE: You can skip Books 7 and 8 if you wish, as they are more or less about Odyssey's reception at Alcinous' Palace (Nausicaa's father) and the games they  play in his honor. It's interesting, but doesn't advance the plot in a major way, and I would rather focus on the other books and give you less reading this week if you like  (but read them if curiosity overtakes you).

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: In the ancient world, good manners/customs are as important as looking good or noble. Though Athena often paves the way for Odysseus and Telemachus, their manners often save the day, and make others accept them and/or render them aid. What seems to be the definition of 'good manners' in Homer's Greece? What qualities/actions did they expect men and women to display in public? 

Q2: Calypso is yet another "evil woman" in ancient literature, though Homer offers a much more nuanced portrait of her motives. How does she compare to Helen of Troy in Book Four, particularly in her response to the gods to release her hold on Odysseus? Again, you might consider whether or poet is a "man" or a "woman" in writing this (I'm speaking generally--meaning only, are they more sympathetic to a woman, or more judgmental). 

Q3: Odysseus proves quite clever in defeating the cyclops, Polyphemus, but he ultimately loses this adventure. What is his fatal flaw in this encounter, and how might it tie in with the theme of the work in general? Where else have we seen men 'fail' in the same way? 

Q4: In general, how does Odysseus compare as a ruler to Gilgamesh? Is he also a royal tyrant, a greedy ruler? Or just "one of the guys"? How might his adventure with the cyclops illustrate his essential nature--and would Gilgamesh have acted the same? 

For Monday: Homer, The Odyssey, Books 1-4

NOTE: Remember that Paper #1 is due on Friday by 5pm [no class]. Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions. The assignment can be found a few posts beneath this one.

Answer TWO of the following for Monday's class:

Q1: Why does Athena take the form of Mentes, an old family friend, rather than simply appearing to Telemachus in her natural form? Is Telemachus (or others) fooled by the disguise? What might this suggest about the gods' relationship with mankind, and how might it relate to what we read in The Epic of Gilgamsesh?

Q2: In Book 3, Athena tells Telemachus, "where your own intelligence fails, a god will inspire you" (30-31). Throughout the book, the gods prod our heroes and give them direction (often, quite insistently) about what to think and how to act. Are heroes still heroic if they are merely the puppets of the gods? Can we celebrate the achievement of mere mortals if they require the insight of the gods to achieve their successes?

Q3: In Book 2, how do the suitors justify squatting on Odysseus' property and besieging his wife with offers of marriage? Is this the moral or ethical thing to do? Does the text hint that they are transgressing what is right? Or given the circumstances, are they perfectly within their rights to do so? What are the arguments for and against? (you might also consider the gods' opinion)

Q4: Book 4 is fascinating in that it imagines Helen of Troy living back with her husband, Menelaus, after the Trojan War (the war was fought because she ran away with Paris to Troy, and Menelaus and his brother, Agamemnon, had to raise an army to bring her back). How does the poem depict Helen at this stage of her life? Is she given the Pandora or Eve treatment here (as we discussed in class on Wednesday)? Is this a man's depiction of a justly repentant wife? Or is it more nuanced and dramatic?

For Wednesday: Greek Myths and The Odyssey

There's no reading for Wednesday's class (and Monday is Labor Day), so just come to class so we can discuss some ideas that will help us appreciate what we discover in the first books of The Odyssey. Since this is our longest book, I suggest you start reading it just to get ahead. We'll discuss Books 1-4 on the following Monday, so try to get some of that read in advance. 

ALSO--don't forget that the first paper assignment ("The Mysteries of Gilgamesh," see two posts down) is due on Friday by 5pm. There is no class on Friday, but feel free to e-mail me with questions or concerns. I would prefer a hard copy as always, though if you have no other Friday classes I will accept an e-mailed paper. Just be sure it has an attachment, since an e-mail that arrives on time without a paper can still be late! 

See you on Wednesday! 

For Friday: Finish The Epic of Gilgamesh--last questions!

NOTE: You'll get a break from questions/reading next week--it's a very short week. As you can see on the calendar, there's no class on Monday (Labor Day) and no class on Friday (paper due). So all you have to do next week is show up on Wednesday, when we'll introduce some ideas for reading The Odyssey. 

Answer TWO of the following:

Q1: We get a brief snapshot of the Underworld through Enkidu's dream. What might this reveal about the Sumerian/Babylonian view of death and the rewards for a good (or bad) life? Do you think this is 'real,' or is his dream merely that--a projection of his fears? Any clues to tell one way or another? 

Q2: How does Gilgamesh respond to Enkidu's death? Does the poem mean this to be appropriate/moving, or excessive/bathetic? In other words, is this how a hero should react to the death of a friend or family member? Or is another example of his selfish, over-the-top behavior? 

Q3: Large portions of The Epic of Gilgamesh veer off of the main narrative to provide the true function of myth: to explain how the surrounding world came to be. One of the most surprising myths is the tale of the Flood, which predates the Biblical version by over 1,000 years. How does the Sumerian/Babylonian version tell the story differently? What is the 'moral' or perspective of this story--and how do the gods factor into it? Did it surprise you, or was it still more or less the same story as found in the Old Testament? 

Q4: Why does Gilgamesh fail on his quest for immortality? Is it simply because he's human and humans cannot be immortal (except for Uta-napishti)? Or does he essentially defeat himself? 

Paper #1 Assignment: The Mysteries of Gilgamesh

Short papers, like this one, are a way to explore a single, focused idea while the reading is still fresh in your mind. It’s designed as a kind of warm-up for the longer, critical papers, and should be approached as a first draft rather than something to endlessly stress over. Remember to get right to the point; don’t waste time with a lengthy introduction that dances around the subject. Hit the ground running by directly responding to the ‘conversation’ of the questions below...

ASSIGNMENT: As you’ve noticed reading Andrew George’s edition of Gilgamesh (or another version), the text is full of omissions and other lacunae that only hint at what might have been. If we could find one or more of these missing pieces, the story might change dramatically—or at least become more clear and understandable. To that end, I want you to choose one significant blank passage (of a few lines or no more than a page) and complete the passage in a way that is artistically satisfying or illuminating. Imagine not only what might have been there, but what should be there to satisfy a modern audience. Explain what lines/ideas are missing and explain why this is a significant and meaningful completion. Don’t make it too simple, either: consider how a hidden character motivation or a cosmic plot point might have been buried away in a crumbled tablet. In other words, help us (21^st century English speakers) read the ‘hidden’ Gilgamesh lost to the ages.

NOTE: If you have a different version of the text, discuss a passage that simply doesn’t make sense, or seems too abrupt or confusing. Explain what you think is missing and why it could be expanded on, changed, or added to. Even in the best translation, there are parts of the epic that simply don’t add up. Where are they, and what would a modern audience need to see/understand to appreciate the true story of the epic?

EX: In Tablet V, page  40 of the George translation, Gilgamesh and Enkidu are approaching Humbaba's lair. The text narrates: "One...they stole into...Humbaba...Gilgamesh opened his mouth to speak, saying to Enkidu...What, my friend...For Enil..." There's so much missing here, and it would be interesting to know how they snuck into his domain, what they encountered, if Gilgamesh required further encouragement, if Humbaba saw them, if they knew the gods were on their side, etc.

REQUIREMENTS

* No set page limit, but I wouldn’t go beyond 4 pages (pace yourself!)

* Quote passages from the text (don’t just summarize): examine the language to support your ideas

* Cite according to MLA format (no WC needed, since it’s only one work)

* Due Friday, September 6^th by 5pm [in my box, HM 348]

For Wednesday: The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablets V-VII

Answer TWO of the following for Wednesday's class (don't worry--I'll give you a shorter set of questions as a break for Friday):

Q1: When Humbaba is defeated he bargains with Gilgamesh, saying “Spare my life, O Gilgamesh…let me dwell here for you in [the forest of Cedar!] Trees as many as you command…” (V.42). Is it shameful/unheroic that Gilgamesh and Enkidu slay him at this moment, beheading him and ripping out his lungs? Or does the poem depict him as an evil and duplicitous creature? How does the poet want us to read this pivotal episode?

Q2: Based on Gilgamesh’s speech to Ishtar, what kind of goddess is she? What relationship does she (an immortal) have with the mortals on earth? Does this have parallels with other gods from the more familiar Greek or Norse traditions? What might this say about the Sumerian/Babylonian view of gods and their place in the world?

 

Q3: Enkidu’s speech in Tablet VII against death is one of the first ‘existential’ speeches in literature. What is the nature of his anger, and why is it particularly poignant and ironic? Related to this, why does Gilgamesh call it “profanity” (not meaning curses, necessarily, but maybe more like blasphemy)?  

 

Q4: If you were a member of Sumerian/Babylonian society, and this was actually your culture and your gods, would you feel comforted by the will of the gods? Do their actions in these tablets seem just? Does the poem explain why Enkidu deserves to die and Gilgamesh to suffer? Do the gods seem to be embodiments of eternal truths…or heroes and tyrants in a larger form?

For Monday: The Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablets II-IV

For Monday, be sure to read the next three tablets/chapters (II-IV) and answer TWO of the questions that follow. All I'm looking for is a short answer, a few sentences, but enough that I can see that you're truly engaging with the question. Remember, that everything you write can be used again in your papers--and will also help you prepare for the in-class quizzes (see syllabus). 

Answer 2 of the following:

Q1: The tablets are full of "lacunae," or missing fragments, often to the complete detriment of the story. Which passage(s) do you feel are more impacted by what we don't have? How significant is it? In other words, how might this missing information change what we read or how we understand it? 

Q2: Why does Gilgamesh insist on going to fight the giant Humbaba, even though Enkidu (now his companion and advisor) is against it? If Humbaba has been placed in the forest to guard it by the Enil himself (the chief god of the Sumerians), what right does Gilgamesh have to invade him? 

Q3: The poem seems to place enormous importance on dreams and the manner in which they are interpreted. Enkidu’s coming is foretold in a dream, and Gilgamesh has many, many dreams before facing Humbaba. Do these dreams have a significant purpose in the poem, however? Are they merely placeholders, a repetition that makes it easier for the poet to recite the poem (since it was originally oral)? Or does it set up or establish themes or ideas that are developed later in the work?

Q4:  Why do both Gilgamesh and Enkidu lose courage at different stages of the journey? How does each one bolster the other's courage? What might this say about how the poem views this act: as one of courageous adventure or shameful hubris? Is it a heroic act in the first place; or do they merely convince themselves that it is for selfish glory?