"That Obscure Object of Desire"

3. Why do you think Buñuel uses two actresses to play the part of Conchita? Refer to specific scenes in which one or the other appears to support your answer.


Bunuel uses two actresses to play the part of Conchita to represent the dichotomy which lies in the center of attraction and desire. That is, that desire is rooted in a yearning for a goal, but is dissipated immediately upon the satisfaction of that goal. The two actresses act alternatively fleeting and nurturing, as when Conchita (as Carole Bouquet) returns the 800F in the beginning of the movie, or when Conchita (as Angela Molina) puts on the impenetrable, what I would call 'chastity shorts' when Matthieu takes her to the campagne / countryside. It's my opinion that Bunuel's decision to cast two actresses as the same role in this film and his execution of role changes between the two actresses is the film's crowning achievement. It is Conchita as Angela Molina who taunts and belittles Matthieu as he watches from the gate when she makes love to the guitarist. The equivocation of whether Angela Molina or Carole Bouquet are acting as the "good" or "bad" mistress which further exemplifies the metaphor they are meant to represent. For instance, it is Carole Bouquet (formerly the nurturing Conchita) who returns to Matthieu to spite him further for "not having committed suicide", and it is Angela Molina (formerly the spurning Conchita) who first kisses him and sits on his lap. I guess, however, that Angela Molina consistently acts as a teasing female, showing false adoration towards Matthieu only to hurt him later by turning hateful towards him. 

4. What do you make of the animal imagery in the text (the mouse, the fly)?

The close up of the mouse caught in the trap immediately suggested to me that someone was getting destructively ensnared by one thing or another. I believe this occurs directly after Matthieu invites Conchita into his room for the first time, after asking his personal butler for the aphrodisiac drink. After having watched the entire film, the imagery of the mouse in the mouse trap represents, to me, Matthieu and Conchita's entire relationship. It is certainly confusing as to who is trapping whom, or if perhaps they are both trapped by a greater force, such as desire. It seems that at different times in the film, either Matthieu or Conchita are yearning for their other half, albeit that Conchita is maybe only after the money and Matthieu is merely in lust. For instance, Conchita spurns Matthieu by 'having sex' with the guitarist (Eduardo? Frederico?), and he leaves in a rage. Conchita now has a great level of economic freedom, with a house and the deed to the house entirely in her hands, but she still returns to Matthieu's house, and later meets him at the train after he thrashes her in the living room. It would make sense for her to return to continue to agitate him and cause pain if she is indeed an evil character, but the duality of her actions and her equivocation between the two roles (as exemplified by the two actresses playing her) muddle this point.

Celestina - Day Five

Act 19 - Is it better that Calisto dies in an accident as opposed to being murdered? Calisto is dead, so does it make a difference how he dies? What do you make of Melibea's reaction to Calisto's death?

It certainly makes a literary difference between whether Calisto is murdered at a certain character's hands or due to bad luck. In our case, both of the lovers are falling from heights to their death. Whether this represents an exalted state or that their fall represents the true nature of their position in relation to Celestina's magic is a discussion worth having. Melibea's reaction to Calisto's death is troubling for sure, but it's easy for me to understand. It's intriguing that she was limiting his advances before he died but was so distraught following his death that she killed herself. 

Act 20 - Did it surprise you when Melibea commits suicide or were you expecting it? Were you expecting her to go through with it or did you think Melibea's father would somehow stop her?

When Melibea mentioned going to the roof for some "fresh air" or something along those lines, I imagined she was going to kill herself. Before then, I did not really think one way or another about what she was going to do. I definitely thought once she was up there that she would commit suicide, it would make little sense for Rojas to have her go up there only to have her not die. It makes sense for the moral of the story as well. Everyone in contact with Celestina dies, everyone in contact with desire who acts self-indulgently dies. Desire is something, I suppose, that should be fought against and under no circumstance be something that absorbs one's life. If Melibea's father had saved her, this whole idea would not have been expressed and the major stance of the text would be very confusing. 

Act 21 - Why do you think the author has Melibea's father make a very long speech about her suicide but does not really show Melibea's mother's reaction? Why do we hear so little from her Why is it for the most part the first time Melibea's parents speak? Why does Melibea's father react to her suicide but not to the revelation that Melibea had been seeing Calisto in secret for months?

His emotional reaction to the death of his daughter overcame his need for her to remain virtuous in society's eyes. It's interesting that only Melibea's father is given a voice for his sorrow, it represents his dominance in all family matters. We hear so little from her because she is merely a placeholder in the novel, she takes up space but has no influence because she doesn't carry out actions. Perhaps there is something more important to be gleaned from the fact that this is the first time we hear Melibea's parents speak, but it makes sense as they were only peripheral to the plot of the story. Their influence on the characters' actions was through fear, not any direct speech. 

Celestina Day Four

Act 12: Given the respective character/traits of Sempronio,
Parmeno and Celestina, is Old Celly really a victim or does
she get her just desserts? Were the servants justified in
murdering her or were they acting of pure greed? Is it
possible to sympathize with either party? Etc.

While it's obviously arguable that Celestina did a lot of things wrong and cheated Sempronio and Parmeno out of their money and just her general character portray her as a "bad apple", it's only natural for the reader to feel sympathy for her in this act. She is an old woman being murdered brutally in front of someone whom she has bonded with and reared as an adult or young adult. The servants were perhaps justified in their emotion but not in acting in such a rash manner. Perhaps if they had the keen wit of Celestina they would have managed a way to get their "fair reward" without the simple brutality of violence. They were not so much acting out of greed as acting out of their own honor as it's pretty embarrassing to be cheated by an old whore. It's not as easy to sympathize with Sempronio and Parmeno until later when you learn they jump out of the window in fear of the law. That part was a bit touching.

Act 13/14: Why does Calisto grieve his servants' and
Celestina's deaths? What motivates him to 'grieve'? Or,
given what happens at the end of chapter 13 and all of
chapter 14, would you say he is really even 'grieving'?

It seems that Calisto's sadness is short lived, but his new happiness in finding and sleeping with Melibea is of the sort that breeds trouble. A deeply guilty pleasure without addressing the negative aspect of the pleasure is indeed a damaging thing for a psyche. That is to say that Calisto indeed feels greatly for his servants, at least perhaps Parmeno, but is not dealing with the internal conflict between their work granting him love with Melibea and their death. As for him caring for Celestina, I believe this, too, brought a certain level of grief for Calisto however not nearly as much as for his servants. Which goes to show another order of social stratification. Celestina, being a whore almost entirely ostracized from society, is in a lower state than servants even though she runs her own life and lives from her work. Merely being in the vicinity of nobility or wealth increases their value. There's of course something to be said of the fact that Calisto was closer to Parmeno and Sempronio because he knew them longer, but it's no less an interesting point in addressing who he grieves for. I wouldn't say that the grief is so much present, as I stated initially, as a sort of double edged pleasure, as if often the case.

Celestina - Day Three

Chapter 8

On page 98, Sempronio says: “not everything is white that isn’t black and not everything yellow and shiny is gold.” What do you think this means?

This reflects the central idea of the story, similar to Chrétien's more discrete ode that the meaning of the text lay deep beneath the words. Sempronio is at once lending a hand to the theme of artifice within the text as well as hinting to the reader that certain characters, their suffering, and perhaps their successes should each be examined with perhaps more than just a grain of salt. Furthermore, it speaks to the moral structure that supports patience. These are some of the roots of color valuation, as well, with black representing falseness and certainly holding a negative connotation. 

Chapter 9

The issue of trust comes up many times in Celestina. In Chapter 9, on page 102, Sempronio says “out of goodwill or under pressure from us, Celestina will at least give us a piece of whatever she gets.” How is trust related to trickery here? Why do you think Sempronio and Pármeno are so trusting of Celestina, even though she’s tricking Calisto?

It seems as if trust in Celestina is related to characters' identification as part of the same class. There are a number of dichotomies present in the text sort of pounded into memory through repetition that draw distinctions between what is understood as nobility or a lack thereof. Therefore, it follows that Sempronio and Pármeno would trust Celestina. Trust in Celestina is involved in most of the trickery going on in the text, Melibea and Calisto being those most harmed by the trickery. Perhaps Celestina will continue to trick even more as the story goes on.

Chapter 11

Calisto describes himself as a captive of love, as Melibea’s vassal. Is this true, given Celestina’s role in their affair?

It seems as if, at this point, Calisto has gained Melibea's good favor, whether through Celestina's magic or pure chance. Furthermore, it seems like Calisto is captive to Celestina, not love, but perhaps Celestina is meant to represent love in the story and it goes to reinforce that metaphor. 

Celestina Day 1 (ch. 1-2)

1. Analyze the opening scene in Melibea’s garden. Why a garden? What might a garden signify? How do you interpret the words of Calisto and Melibea? Why does Melibea react in this manner? Can we read these words as genuine?


A garden can signify many things we have explored the symbolism of garden imagery a number of times in class. Just to name a few there could be a possible allusion to the Garden of Eden, a garden can be representative of growth and nourishment or even the beauty of nature domesticated in certain senses. I believe in this case the meanings best represented in the text are the former two, the allusion of the Garden of Eden or a place of growth and nourishment. Of course, this imagery is not literally represented by Calisto's interaction with Melibea and the ensuing despair he deals with, but it may instead serve as an ironic juxtaposition to heighten the drama. Alternatively, perhaps, the seed of Calisto's ignorance may just now be in the process of planting, as his struggle with his obsessive desire may bring his character to new heights.
The words of Calisto and Melibea seem to signify the central conflict in the plot as well as Calisto's main character flaw. That is, he is so absorbed by his passion for Melibea that he forsakes sainthood (perhaps the highest pursuit, figuratively) for the prospect of his feelings being returned. Her completely unreceptive response sets the stage for Calisto's journey and, I assume, broadly foreshadow the plot of the novel.


3. What are our initial impressions of Celestina? What type of character is this? What does she say which influences your analysis? What about her later exchanges with Parmeno? (And this back history with Parmeno’s mother – what do you think happens here?)


Celestina is a very interesting character in that she seems to be the unification of two ostensibly repellent character traits. On one hand, she is a woman of great guile with prowess over a certain criminal aspect of trickery, but on the other she acts like a long lost mother towards Parmeno. This duality is reflected as well in the starkly opposing words used to describe Celestina. The narrator, Parmeno, and seemingly society all deem Celestina to be filthy, sub-social, a prostitute, and generally someone not to be trusted. Calisto, on the other hand, goes out of his way to honor this woman (although it is only for his personal gain with Melibea). I think the backstory with Parmeno has foreshadowed an intriguing plot development that will bring Parmeno over to Sempronio's side. I foresee some kind of exchange between Calisto and Parmeno that will change his mind. 

Almodovar's "All About My Mother"

In its most rudimentary understanding, Almodovar's "All About My Mother" is a discussion of the power structures in society that surround and constrain women. The viewer is shown the shame of an illegitimate child, the burden of single motherhood, the perils of prostitution, and the pressures of past conservative generations among a host of other women's issues, however these alone are not the director's focus. Analyzing the film based solely on identity politics would add up to a very shallow understanding of the artist's intention. While naturally these issues speak to the wholeness of the film as an artistic undertaking, Almodovar uses them to speak to an arguably deeper question of what is contained beneath the surface of things, the dichotomy of facade and being. We have examples in the film of a child-carrying nun, a staunchly conservative art forger, a woman outwardly calm and strong but emotionally broken on the inside, women are are men who like women and men who are women who like men, and finally, of course, the actresses Humo and Nina. Almodovar does this very artfully as the struggle of women's identity in being both a nurturer and an independent identity reflect the duality of many of the main characters. Ultimately, Almodovar equivocates the theme, not taking a strong stance either towards the futility of appearance nor character, and the film ends happily with Manuela getting a second son.

The Decameron (Day Four / 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 6.7, 6.10)

2) 5:9- What is your interpretation of the quote, “…I would much rather have a man who lacks money than money that lacks a man”? (pg. 431)


Monna Giovanna represents in a certain sense the classic 'tragic hero(ine)'. Following the tragedy of losing her child, she undergoes a catharsis in a way, and she realizes the truth of what it means to be an honorable man. This quote encapsulates this sentiment. Instead of the capitalist/mercantilist/materialistic view of men being the bread earner and supporter of a woman solely for superficial physical needs, Monna Giovanna holds the perspective that a man's true honor lies in his nobility of character. Federigo's outstanding devotion to his lady, even though she had until marriage continually spited him, earned him her hand in marriage and her wealth. Thus does Bocaccio lay before us the moral that a man is more than his wealth and influence, that even a humble hermit with nothing more than a falcon can easily weigh up against the likes of counts and kings.


5) 6:10- Explain how Brother Cipolla uses wit to his advantage to escape a tough situation? Use contextual evidence.


This is the story of modern evangelism! Watch, brothers and sisters, watch "my children" (?!) as I heal this wretch before me! Brother Cipolla puts the peasantry in a daze with his slough of tales from his travels. By doing this he enables himself to describe something as simple as a piece of charcoal as something to be incredibly revered. His wit lies both in the quick thinking of turning the situation into a God driven event and, as mentioned, in using his worldly travels as a precursor. Speaking more on this point, as the narrator describes in a side note "most of the people there had never heard of [a parrot]" (474). Brother Cipolla understands this well, of course, and is filled with glee to pull this religious shroud over the commoners' heads. I suppose I see this less as Brother Cipolla using his wit only to get himself out of a tough situation and more using his wit to increase his spectacle of grandeur. Another strong example of Bocaccio's strong disrespect for the Church and its "teachings".

The Decameron (Day Three / 3.3, 3.6, 3.9, 4.3, 4.9)

3.3- What is this story saying about trickery? What does
this story say about lying and the deception of words?
Explain your answer with support from the text.


There is ultimately no reproach for the lady's lying words nor the nobleman's adulterous actions. Indeed the final words from the text say "and I pray God through the bounty of His mercy that He may soon bestow the same thing upon me and every other Christian soul who has such a desire." These deceptive words are not in the slightest construed as a negative thing in the text, so perhaps we can draw from this that Bocaccio is inferring a few small lies aren't the end all, and that the adultery is not such a terrible thing if it brings happiness. As for the condition in which such lies are accepted, the alms given at each meeting the lady has with the friar of course oil him up, so to say. The theme of tying the Church and money together and displaying its negative or at least "unholy" effects is prevalent here. 


3.9- What are the implications of Giletta's occupation? How
does she use this to her advantage? Explain your answer
with support from the text.


The implications of Giletta's occupation are that she is skilled in medicine, has a bright mind, but is also more aware and knowledgable of the body than perhaps a lady should be and furthermore is from a decidedly "working class" family (at least compared to the leisure of true nobility). The latter two are the reasons the Count disdains to be in her presence or to be married to her. He sees her as lower than himself in the court, and thus unacceptable as a wife and mother for his children. He quite blatantly states that when the King orders the Count to be married to her. However, due to her bright mind, she is able to construct a plan which wins him back. So although initially her occupation is a curse, it eventually becomes a blessing as she gets all that she desires by the end of the vignette. 

The Decameron (Day Two / 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9, 3.1)

3. Story 2.7: What do you think this story has to say about femininity? Gender? Desire? Lust? What might the message be for a wider audience? Use specific examples from the story to support your analysis.


This story takes the cultural standard that chastity is a normative feminine trait and turns it on its head. Traditionally, men are depicted as the aggressors, the sensual predators, or at the very least the sexually accepted gender. Women, we are told, are shy, sexually fearful, and the object of desire more so than the subject. However, in this story, the sexual dialogue is described as more of a game between the sexes. Initially, neither the nuns nor the peasant are overtly sexual towards each other, it is in fact the peasant's trick that allows for the 'dialogue' to occur. What allows the otherwise sexually frigid or oppressed nuns the ability of sensual thought it the peasant's 'inability' to speak or hear. Their route into sensuality is through a conduit that physically cannot pass on his own account of the story or, potentially, even understand enough to. In that aspect, this story portrays the stigma that sexual women have to bear in a patriarchal society. Ultimately, this sexual freedom, although certainly scorned by the Church, gives nothing but rewards for the peasant and the convent, which Bocaccio perhaps intended for us to read positively. Therefore I would say Bocaccio is suggesting to the general reader the importance of a certain lightness of attitude towards sex as well as the dismissal of the grave religious associations tied into sex.


1. Story 2.5: Analyze the educative process that occurs with Andreuccio (do NOT simply recount the events of the story). Do you see any repetition occurring here? How do you read this repetition? How does this contribute to his education? What does he learn here? What might the message be for a wider audience? Use specific examples from the text to support your analysis.


The educative process that Andreuccio undergoes is the most basic learning which all of us undergo. He learns from his mistakes and alters his behavior in future situations that resemble previous missed opportunities. With that being said, naturally we should find repetition in the text if it is to be supported. We do, a number of times, primarily with the image of Andreuccio falling from the primary action of the plot and being trapped in a space where he is unable to interact with other characters. This imagery connotes inferiority, deception, and gullibility and is representative of Andreuccio's character throughout the story. There is a definite progression, however, and not every of these "falls" are described the same way. The first fall, in which Andreuccio falls into a public toilet, is the most foul and pitiful of the falls. This fall follows his asinine bragging with his gold florins in the public market, and his subsequent gullibility in falling for the girl and being ignorant of the disrepute of a place with a name of "Evilhole", which perhaps represents a certain karmic retribution for his character flaws. Andreuccio reacts to this fall like a child, shouting and bashing at the door of his deceiver until he is threatened with death and must flee from the mafioso. Andreuccio's second fall lands him abandoned at the bottom of a well. At first it seems his foolishness is to blame again for allowing himself to be lowered into a well by two strangers, but he is being lowered to be cleansed. This cleansing can be read as a kind of education. For when he is stuck in the bottom of this well, instead of reacting as he did in the first fall, he remains silent while two police hoist him up. If he had spoken like he had in the beginning he certainly would have been suspected of something and perhaps arrested, but instead he grasps the edge of the well as he is being pulled and the police run in fear, he is rejoined with his friends, and continues on. The final fall in this vignette is his fall into the cardinal's tomb. He acts foolishly, again! His companions drop him into the tomb and they end up leaving him there just as they did in the well. Using his knowledge from his previous experiences, he doesn't shout, as he realizes this will get him hanged, and instead waits. Finally other grave robbers come, and he uses his knowledge from the well to instill fear in them. Ultimately his actions gain him great wealth, which can serve as a metaphor for a wider audience to act with guile and learn from your mistakes instead of being over trusting and getting yourself harmfully tricked.   

The Decameron (Day One / 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.3) 10/7/2011

"I don't like them a bit, and may God condemn them all; and I tell you this because as far as I was able to determine, I saw there no holiness, no devotion, no good work or exemplary life, or anything else among the clergy; instead, lust, avarice, gluttony, fraud, envy, pride, and the like and even worse (if worse than this is possible) were so completely in charge there that I believe that city is more a forge for the Devil's work than for God's: in my opinion, that Shepherd of yours and, as a result, all of the others as well are trying as quickly as possible and with all the talent and skill they have to reduce the Christian religion to nothing and to drive it from the face of the earth when they really should act as its support and foundation. And since I have observed that, in spite of all this, they do not succeed but, on the contrary, that your religion continuously grows and becomes brighter and more illustrious, I am justly of the opinion that it has the Holy Spirit as its foundation and support, and that it is truer and holier than any other religion; therefore, although I once was adamant and unheeding to your pleas and did not want to become a Christian, now I tell you most frankly that I would allow nothing to prevent me from becoming a Christian" (Bocaccio 35). In just two sentences, Bocaccio at once strips the hierarchy of the formal Church of any vestige of piety and mocks the popularity of the Christian religion itself. Bocaccio literally lists six of the seven "Deadly Sins" in describing the actions of the Pope and his cardinals to portray the hypocrisy present in the Church élite. He then follows this construction immediately with Abraham's pronouncement that because of Christianity's "illustrious" nature, he himself wishes to become a Christian. This palpable irony, expressed textually through Giannotto's surprise, defines the absurdity of Christianity's growth. For although Abrahams decision to join Christianity may be read as a sound action since he "live[s] a holy life" (36), it should be understood that his isn't the common action. Abraham travels to Rome to come to his understanding of God's hand in Christianity's prevalence, something uncommon but for those nearby or wealthy. Bocaccio sees Christianity as a religion sold to the masses as a road to holiness, but which is in actuality a financial construct of the wicked.

"Before you come any closer, listen to what I have to tell you. As you can see for yourself, I am a woman and not a man; I left my home a virgin, and I was going to the Pope to be married, and through your good fortune or my own misfortune, whatever the case may be, I fell so much in love with you when I saw you the other day that no woman ever burned with more love for another man. For this reason I have decided to take you as my husband over all other men; so if you do not wish to take me as your wife, leave here immediately and return to where you were" (78). Bocaccio portrays the rash juvenility of the princess' actions coupled with her high station to criticize the power of the monarchy and the relationship the disenfranchised share with it. That the princess has the privilege to be married by the Pope of all people and to decide on a whim who she will marry, all while being a runaway starkly contrasts Alessandro's almost complete lack of autonomy, being in the dire straits of getting his uncles out of jail and a sea of debt. None the less, ignorant of the power structure present in the relationship, Alessandro jumps to be married up, just as the impoverished are duped into the scheme-arriviste.

"And besides this, he said a good deal more about his loyalty and his purity; in short, with his words, which were taken by the people of the countryside as absolute truth, he fixed Ser Ciappelletto so firmly in the minds and the devotions of all those who were present there that after the service was over, everyone pressed forward to kiss the hands and feet of the deceased, and all his garments were torn off his corpse, since anyone who could got hold of a piece of them considered himself blessed" (31). More on the confusion that religion and lies can pull the truth down to. Parallel to Ciappelletto's lies are the lies of the Church that monetize salvation. Interesting metaphor here how as Ciappelletto is buried and to be judged by God in complete honesty spiritually so his clothes are torn from his body and he is made nude literally.

Tykwer's "Run Lola Run"

"In a society that has abolished all adventure, the only adventure is to destroy that society." That's a big part of what I now like about Run Lola Run since talking in class about the film. At first, the hugely comedic aspect of Run Lola Run kind of threw me off and made it seem kind of like a cheesy adventure movie going for visceral stimulation. And that's really boring and basic. It's really cool to think about the rebel element in 90s Germany and the construction in the film of the heroine being a pretty typically "unlikeable" character fighting against patriarchal, capitalistic society. Which is why, I guess, that a lot of intellectual-types and critics really enjoyed and passed it on. I mean Germany used to be this really rad place back in the early 90s, once the wall fell down all the creative types and artists and vagrants kind of took over Eastern Berlin and made it probably one of the most creatively dense places in the world. Maybe Run Lola Run was kind of looking at that culture with forlorn eyes, or something. I mean philosophically, in the movie, it speaks to determinism and fate. How it's portrayed that Lola sort of drives her fate in the three sections of the movie, but also how after she gets the money and everything seems to be going well in the second section she gets trumped by random circumstance. Which brings up questions like is there any reason in the world, how autonomous are we, where is the locus of control for us? My favorite bits of the movie that really spoke to me were the two scenes that Lola and Ronnie were in bed with the red filter. They were beautiful. And the red filter took out the harshness of Lola's hair and made them both look more natural. Also, in those scenes, there wasn't the intense cartoon-ish/comedic aspect of all the characters and the over-acting and such. And I think that's supposed to strike a nerve in people, because Tykwer's making the point; "do this! this is the type of love we need in the world! not hallmark engagement rings marrying the investment banker moving to martha's vineyard and two-and-a-half kids bullshit!"

The King With The Lion (Yvain) pg.353-380

In The Knight With The Lion, Chrétien further defines what it means to be truly honorable as a knight outside of the superficial realm of tournaments and aimless adventure. A theme that stands out in the text and proves to be most beneficial in the true honor of its main character is humility. At the beginning of the text, Yvain is portrayed as a fiery juvenile knight errant, who although acting in good cause, betrays a self-centered, attention-gaining flaw in his first action in the text. Spurred on by the words of the knight Kay, Yvain leaves in the middle of the night so he can get to the adventure first and claim the honor for himself. Eventually he does gain the repute of having won over the land of the well and the stone, and even knocks Kay off his horse, seemingly boosting his honor in full circle. However immediately upon this spike in respect, he abandons his wife and castle to go on jousting matches with Gawain, which turns out to be disastrous for both Yvain himself and Laudine. The main conflict of the story reaches its climax as Laudine's messenger confronts Yvain in front of the court, displaying the facade of great honor Yvain built around him crumbling. Chrétien shows us the true cost of an overblown image without true merit through Yvain's nervous breakdown and complete loss of humanity. Yvain eventually has a turnaround and slays a serpent fighting with a lion which represents Yvain beginning to overcome his insanity, his vanity, and his wild youth. The lion is personified to be the pure image of loyalty and humility, following Yvain's every order, never being presumptuous to attack or leave his side without Yvain allowing it. And in every battle that Yvain undertakes from there on out in the story (all of which are selfless battles for others), the lion helps him overcome his adversary. This is a symbol of humility helping us overcome difficulties and be more capable of helping others. By the end of the story, Yvain pays no attention to the mocking words of the sweatshop-court, a stark difference from the effects of Kay's words earlier in the story, and is not distracted by the challenge of fighting the two demons, but is instead forced to undertake it so he could be able to leave and help the younger sister. The final display of humility before the end of the story is portrayed between the two most respected knights in King Arthur's court, proving it is a most honorable trait.

The Knight with the Lion (Yvain) pg. 324-353

4. At the mid-point of the romance we have Yvain’s encounter with the snake and the lion. What do these animals represent within the romance (and within popular mythology)? What is the dilemma Yvain faces here (on a deeper level)?


When reading this question I struggled to recall pertinent myths that contained lions or serpents. The serpent of the Bible came to mind first, but the serpent solely representing the devil in Yvain didn't stick so much. The only mythological creature I could think of that even contained a lion was the chimera; part lion, part serpent, part eagle, and that at first didn't seem to hold relevance to the text. Upon considering further Yvain's dilemma in the text, and the contextual meaning of this drama for medieval times, however, the chimera made excellent sense.
Yvain struggles against an internal conflict of identity at this point in the story. His personal sense of honor and his renowned glory among the land built an untouchable image from his perspective. Yvain believed himself to be perfected from his ventures with Gawain, but he forgets his promise and utterly fails to uphold his word to his wife Laudine. Upon hearing the words of Laudine's messenger, words that entirely strip him of his male aegis, his character is torn in two. Yvain struggles between the pressure to maintain his honor among the court and the necessity to express his despair. This disillusionment breaks Yvain and sends him into the depths of insanity. 
When Yvain comes upon the serpent fighting the lion I believe it's a symbol of conquering shame and insanity to uphold honor. The serpent and the lion fighting one another mirror Yvain's conflict of identity, and his ability to entirely slay the serpent represent his ability as a man to move past his shame and regain his person and his knighthood. 

The King With The Lion (Yvain) pg. 295-324

2. What do you make of Calogrenant’s story? The reasons for its genesis? What particular elements in the story strike you as interesting or bizarre? How do you interpret these elements?


The best I can make of Calogrenant's story and adventure at this point is that they set a mirror opposite for Yvain's quest. Calogrenant, setting off to prove his courage and strengths, acts cowardly at almost every turn in his tale. First, as he leaves the vavasor's brattice, he describes his fear of the wild bulls he sees. Following that he comes upon the grotesque peasant which he dares not speak to until the peasant's intentions are made clear. At least he follows the path down to the magical tree and pool, gets bested by the knight (and describes in detail his fear / incompetence throughout the battle), and finally doesn't seek to regain his honor and simply returns the way he came. Therefore I cannot think of other reasons for its genesis besides a confessionary nature or seeking retribution from the aid of another knight. There were a number of elements in the story that struck me as almost absurdist. Firstly entering into this town / brattice (not really entirely sure what that is at this point) he is greeted with great respect, a gong is struck three times, he's entirely taken care of, and then left with a beautiful maiden until dinner. Perhaps I'm missing something because I don't know the customs of hosts in medieval times, but that section seemed a bit odd, for sure, and it's all breezed over so quickly as if it's natural and seemingly unimportant. Anyway, Calogrenant sets off the next morning and meets some sort of brutish peasant that is overseeing the wild beasts in a forest. The peasant speaks with a sort of mystic shortness that I surmise contains some foreshadowing  or thematic overlay or something. Finally, the last bit that I found bizarre was how absolutely incensed the knight that fought Calogrenant was, without a word spoken between them. Apparently Calogrenant was supposed to challenge him? Or he destroyed his home? The knight is quite unclear. All I can make of it all is fleshing out Calogrenant's role as a coward in the story. I look forward to hearing what other people say in Friday's class though, definitely. I'm left a bit dumbstruck. Maybe I'll update this if more comes to me.

Erec & Enide pg. 90-122

I don’t know quite how I came to the conclusion, but I believe I finally “get” the main thematic device that Chrétien is using in Erec and Enide. The text itself is ostensibly shallow; a knight’s tale of winning the heart of a beautiful maiden, love lost, and a happy ending with banal imagery throughout matching the apparent simplistic plot. Luckily, Chrétien lends a hand to the unobservant or unimaginative reader in the first sentences of his story, the peasant’s proverb. In it, Chrétien tells us we must look past our first estimation of the story and peer deeper if we’re to find any appreciable meaning. So we do, and we see that he is actually writing sardonically about the social construct of masculine honor and authority.  The stylistically dull narrative circularly mocks the intellectually devoid culture of kings and knights and tournaments; men scurrying over each other in a rat race of empty accomplishments and little humanistic progress. See how Erec’s character changes not one instance throughout the story, there is no moral lesson attached to his journey. Enide, likewise, does not progress as a character, but is merely sad and then happy again. What has she learned, not to speak? The story begins as it ends, a joyous celebration of a morally/culturally/intellectually empty ceremony.

Erec & Enide pg. 60-90

1. If the first part of the romance belongs to Erec, the second part most certainly belongs to Enide. How do we see her character emerging here? In what context do we finally get her name?


3. What do you think are Erec’s intentions in taking Enide on this journey? What kind of journey is this (from Erec’s perspective)? One of adventure? Self-discovery? Renewal? Something else? Point to specific scenes within the text to support your argument.



1.) We see Enide's character emerge as a lady who is as blessed in social graces as she is in her beauty. Chrétien puts it best; "she was so noble and honourable, wise and gracious in her speech, well-bred and of pleasant company, that no one ever saw in her any folly, meanness, or baseness." Despite this almost super-natural combination of personality and beauty, we only acquire her name when it becomes necessary in the marriage ritual. Until then, apparently, she was only a pretty face. Later, in her monologues, we see that she is also capable of logical thought and loyalty as she struggles whether or not to speak to Erec and warn him of thieves. Also, her trickery of the count who wanted to court her displays her keen wit.


3.) Erec's intentions in taking Enide on the journey out of the castle walls are to re-affirm in her eyes, and the eyes of the nobility, that he is still a valiant and competent knight. I don't believe that Erec sees this journey as a renewal of character as much as a simple reëstablishment of his greatness. I see this because he wears his most brilliant armor, has Enide ride on her finest palfrey, and then forces Enide to be silent as if to prove that he doesn't even need warning if things should go bad. Furthermore, he carries along the horses of the knights that he kills as a signifier of his power. He needs to prove that he himself can accomplish any goal to silence his detractors of his family castle. This is why he turns down help from King Guivret and later lord Gawain. Maybe later in the story some more light will be shed on his intentions, but as for now that's all I really gather.




 

Erec & Enide pg. 37-60

2. How would you describe the opening scene in King Arthur’s court? What evidence in the text brings you to your ideas? We have the idea of a contest and the outcome it will bring. What might the possible ramifications of this contest imply (about gender, the court, society, etc.)? 


     The opening scene describes an opulent gathering of lords, knights, ladies, and maidens. It seems to be a merry time until King Arthur announces that he wants to organize the hunt of one White Stag, an apparently ceremonious hunt that ends with the man who kills it earning a kiss from the most beautiful maiden. Upon this announcement the court enters into a bit of a tizzy, for of course each knight and lord believes their respective lady to be the most beautiful, and even this prospective challenge unsettles their respective egos. Wise Lord Gawain, sensing the discord the hunt may bring, attempts to dissuade the king of his choice but is stubbornly rebuffed by the king, who claims his born right that "the word of a king must not be contravened". The hunt is set for the next morning and the action in this particular scene ends. There are a number of problematic issues raised in this scene that should be discussed.
      Firstly, the contest itself turns the women of the court into trophies to be had by a more or less random champion. It's not as if the women in the court had agreed contractually (almost laughable in this context) to any contest, it seems their free will is non-existent in this narrative. The gender situation is summed up nicely by Lord Gawain, "the one who pleases him is the most beautiful and the most noble." As if the beauty and nobility of a woman is dependent on how she is able to please her spouse. 
     Secondly, the foolishness of contending "by deeds of arms" such a subjective and transient thing as beauty paints man, and furthermore the most noble of men, a knight, as a base and most naive character. 
     Lastly, the paradigm of kingly right and authoritative right, though much more defensible in this archaic context, is something that certainly leaves a lot to be desired.