BC
Aristophanes 446 - 386
Plato 424? - 348?
Aristotle 384 - 322
AD
Plutarch 46 - 120
Gospel of Matthew, Acts of the Apostles (around the end of the first century)
St. Augistine 354 - 430
Machiavelli 1469 - 1527
Rabelais 1494 - 1553
Montaigne 1533 - 1592
Shakespeare 1564 - 1616
Locke 1632 - 1704
Rousseau 1712 - 1778
Gibbon 1737 - 1794
Declaration of Independence - 1776
The Constitution of the US - 1787
Federalist Papers 1787 -1788
Smith 1723 - 1790
Marx/Engles 1818 - 1883/1820 - 1895
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
July Reading
And now we move to some more straight forward philosophy.
Montaigne: 'Essays' (Of Custom; Of Pedantry; Of the Education of Children; That it is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by Our Own Capacity; Of Cannibals; That the Relish of Good and Evil Depends in a Great Measure upon the Opinion We Have of Them; Upon some Verses of Virgil) Kindle/Nook/Google
The only thing that I really know about Montaigne is that I was once told that baseball fans would tend to appreciate him. Well, I'm a pretty big baseball fan. I'll see how that plays out.
Montaigne: 'Essays' (Of Custom; Of Pedantry; Of the Education of Children; That it is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by Our Own Capacity; Of Cannibals; That the Relish of Good and Evil Depends in a Great Measure upon the Opinion We Have of Them; Upon some Verses of Virgil) Kindle/Nook/Google
The only thing that I really know about Montaigne is that I was once told that baseball fans would tend to appreciate him. Well, I'm a pretty big baseball fan. I'll see how that plays out.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Poetry - 3
The third poem is instantly recognizable. It's Psalm 23, the King James version.
I read a theory recently that the decline of the King James version of the Bible was having a cascade effect on appreciation of Shakespeare. The idea was that people used to have more exposure to that style of language and modernized versions put the Bard on an island by himself. I don't have any idea if that's true or not. I do wonder if modern translations reduce the awe of religion. I wonder if the the Bible loses out by not having something of a special (though decipherable) language.
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.When reading and studying, I greatly prefer using a more modern translation but man, that poetry is something very beautiful. The Elizabethan poets were simply wonderful. I think that the 'valley of the shadow of death' is probably the most famous but my favorite bit is the green pastures.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul; he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yeah, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me in all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
I read a theory recently that the decline of the King James version of the Bible was having a cascade effect on appreciation of Shakespeare. The idea was that people used to have more exposure to that style of language and modernized versions put the Bard on an island by himself. I don't have any idea if that's true or not. I do wonder if modern translations reduce the awe of religion. I wonder if the the Bible loses out by not having something of a special (though decipherable) language.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Why Rabelais?
(Good grief, I screwed up the formatting on this. Or had conflicting edits or something because now that I look at it, there are parts missing from what I wrote. I've updated it and hopefully now it makes more sense. Sorry!)
Why are we reading Rabelais anyway? He's educated, true, but he's also one of the coarser and filthy writers that you'll find. At least, let me say, I'd be shocked if anything else in the Great Books series compares.
So. Should it be included in the Great Books? As a fellow blogger asked:
The state church of the 16th century had too much power. Any organization that can ban books probably has too much power. That's doubly true if they can also grab the ear of the state and spark religious wars. In short, they had too much authority and needed someone to stand up to them.
That's the role that Rabelais played. He said that man should laugh and he provided targets for them to laugh at. He also deflated the authority of some groups that dearly needed to be taken down a notch. (I'd also argue that it does the church no good to become that powerful in worldly affairs. The higher levels of the church were notoriously corrupt. Several medieval popes were contemptible creatures. It's hard to imagine that today.)
But Rabelais is sooo crass! Yes, he is and if he wasn't, he might not have been nearly as effective. His writings wouldn't have been as popular if they'd been more subtle. If he had only offended a little, he would have been quickly forgotten.
The other book by Eco is one of my all time favorites, 'The Name of the Rose' and if you haven't read it before, well, I can't recommend it highly enough. The book is set in an abbey in the late 12th century and it involves a murder mystery. During the book there are a few discussions on the value (if any) of laughter and the ridiculous. Eco's protagonist argues that humor, especially that of the crass and absurd, is important because there is no better weapon against the too powerful. Authority can stand power and challenge but it has trouble with laughter.
Did Rabelais have some effect on the move towards the Enlightenment? I'd have to read more but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. There was a long period of time when much scientific effort was spent solely on Biblical study. Not that such a study is wasted, no, but if it keeps the brightest from studying other areas as well, that's a problem. If Rabelais convinced some of the geniuses of his age to branch out, then he did the world a huge favor.
If I get more time, I'll look online and see if I've suggested too much about Rabelais' influence. Other opinions are certainly welcome and if I'm wrong I look forward to correction in the comments.
Why are we reading Rabelais anyway? He's educated, true, but he's also one of the coarser and filthy writers that you'll find. At least, let me say, I'd be shocked if anything else in the Great Books series compares.
So. Should it be included in the Great Books? As a fellow blogger asked:
I just don't get why this made the Great Books... especially when books like Ovid's Metamorphoses and Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur are noticeably absent.Rabelais started publishing in 1532 and quickly came under fire from the church and the universities. His work would have been banned if the King himself hadn't stepped in. Eco writes of a man a full century later who is still upset that he is being persecuted for his reading tastes. And persecuted by men who are full of sin.Well . . . let me take a swing at this. I'm going to lean a bit on two different books by Umberto Eco, one of my favorite authors. If you're not familiar with Eco, he's an Italian author who studied medieval philosophy and literature and used that knowledge to create some wonderful historical fiction. I was reading from his 'Island of the Day Before' and there is a description of a fighter in the 30 years war. The figher is complaining about the state of the world and says:
Now Jesuits lascivious as rams fulminate against the readers of Rabelais and the latin poets, and would have us all be virtuous and kill the Huguenots.
The state church of the 16th century had too much power. Any organization that can ban books probably has too much power. That's doubly true if they can also grab the ear of the state and spark religious wars. In short, they had too much authority and needed someone to stand up to them.
That's the role that Rabelais played. He said that man should laugh and he provided targets for them to laugh at. He also deflated the authority of some groups that dearly needed to be taken down a notch. (I'd also argue that it does the church no good to become that powerful in worldly affairs. The higher levels of the church were notoriously corrupt. Several medieval popes were contemptible creatures. It's hard to imagine that today.)
But Rabelais is sooo crass! Yes, he is and if he wasn't, he might not have been nearly as effective. His writings wouldn't have been as popular if they'd been more subtle. If he had only offended a little, he would have been quickly forgotten.
The other book by Eco is one of my all time favorites, 'The Name of the Rose' and if you haven't read it before, well, I can't recommend it highly enough. The book is set in an abbey in the late 12th century and it involves a murder mystery. During the book there are a few discussions on the value (if any) of laughter and the ridiculous. Eco's protagonist argues that humor, especially that of the crass and absurd, is important because there is no better weapon against the too powerful. Authority can stand power and challenge but it has trouble with laughter.
Did Rabelais have some effect on the move towards the Enlightenment? I'd have to read more but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. There was a long period of time when much scientific effort was spent solely on Biblical study. Not that such a study is wasted, no, but if it keeps the brightest from studying other areas as well, that's a problem. If Rabelais convinced some of the geniuses of his age to branch out, then he did the world a huge favor.
If I get more time, I'll look online and see if I've suggested too much about Rabelais' influence. Other opinions are certainly welcome and if I'm wrong I look forward to correction in the comments.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Year One
Since we're at the half way point of the year, I thought I'd repost the remaining six months in case anyone wants to read ahead.
July
Montaigne: 'Essays' (Of Custom; Of Pedantry; Of the Education of Children; That it is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by Our Own Capacity; Of Cannibals; That the Relish of Good and Evil Depends in a Great Measure upon the Opinion We Have of Them; Upon some Verses of Virgil) Kindle/Nook/Google
Shakespeare: 'Hamlet' Kindle/Nook/Google
Locke: 'Concerning Civil Gov't', second essay Kindle/Nook/Google
Rousseau: The Social Contract books 1 and 2 Kindle/Nook/Google
November
Constitution of the United States Kindle/Nook/Google
The Federalist Nos 1-10, 15, 31, 47, 51, 68-71 Kindle/Nook/Google
Smith: 'The Wealth of Nations' Introduction - Book 1, Chapter 9 Kindle/Nook/Google
Marx-Engles: 'Manifest of the Communist Party' Kindle/Nook/Google
Should be some good stuff!
July
Montaigne: 'Essays' (Of Custom; Of Pedantry; Of the Education of Children; That it is Folly to Measure Truth and Error by Our Own Capacity; Of Cannibals; That the Relish of Good and Evil Depends in a Great Measure upon the Opinion We Have of Them; Upon some Verses of Virgil) Kindle/Nook/Google
August
Shakespeare: 'Hamlet' Kindle/Nook/Google
September
Locke: 'Concerning Civil Gov't', second essay Kindle/Nook/Google
Rousseau: The Social Contract books 1 and 2 Kindle/Nook/Google
October
November
Constitution of the United States Kindle/Nook/Google
The Federalist Nos 1-10, 15, 31, 47, 51, 68-71 Kindle/Nook/Google
December
Smith: 'The Wealth of Nations' Introduction - Book 1, Chapter 9 Kindle/Nook/Google
Marx-Engles: 'Manifest of the Communist Party' Kindle/Nook/Google
Should be some good stuff!
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
July Reading
Monday, June 18, 2012
Poetry - 2
The second poem in the book is from Sappho, one of the very few women whose writings have survived from ancient Greece. I don't know if this is a full poem or a fragment but here it is:
In fact, that first paragraph is very interesting. 'The man that sits beside you'. Who is the poem written about? The companion of a friend? After the completion of the first full sentence the peom changes its target from 'he' to 'you'. Is the man some kind of god only because he is allowed to sit so near the beloved one?
Anyway, I like it.
He is a god in my eyes-This is obviously a vision of a very passionate love. Perhaps something early in an infatuation. I definitely remember feeling like this at times in my teens. If you read this in a more modern setting it would fit without any problem. Well, the first paragraph would stand out since we almost never refer to someone as 'a god' anymore.
the man who is allowed
to sit beside you - he
who listens intimately
to the sweet murmur of
your voice, the enticing
laughter that makes my own
heart beat fast. If I meet
you suddenly, I can't
speak - my tongue is broken;
a thin flame runs under
my skin; seeing nothing,
hearing only my own ears
drumming, I drip with sweat;
trembling shakes my body
and I turn paler than
dry grass. At such times
death isn't far from me.
In fact, that first paragraph is very interesting. 'The man that sits beside you'. Who is the poem written about? The companion of a friend? After the completion of the first full sentence the peom changes its target from 'he' to 'you'. Is the man some kind of god only because he is allowed to sit so near the beloved one?
Anyway, I like it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)