The economic and administrative aspects of the Ottoman Empire were very advanced for the time.  These were two very complex systems with much detail to them.  The administrative system reminds me of systems today because they used such things as taxation, the ruling hierarchy (the sultan, the divan, etc.), and the military system.  Obviously, there were many differences as well.  The Ottoman Empire included slavery and highly regarded religion.  There were many Christian slaves, but they did not seem to be like ordinary slaves.  Instead of being kept at the bottom of the food chain they were given semi-important jobs, especially in the military.  Islam was very important to them, and Muslims got special treatment by the people in power.  The vakif, or Islamic charitable foundation, was also very interesting to me because it was so advanced and so similar to organizations today.  It supported great architectural works and funded programs like soup kitchens, hospitals, libraries, gardens, etc.  I never realized how interesting and amazing this culture was.  Sadly, this reading is the extent of my knowledge on the subject now.  I had never read or learned anything about the Ottoman Empire before, but I am eager to learn more now.

This essay is interesting because it reveals truths about Christian history and Islamic history that were unknown to me.  One could have guessed that religions Islam and Christianity did not see eye to eye back then, as they still do not fully today.  And as we know, there have been many wars fought over religious beliefs.  I did not realize that Christianity was so prejudice against Islam though, because today the Church teaches to accept all faiths and respect them.  Also, it is interesting that the first threat the Christians felt about Islam did not have to do with religion at all, but more with politics.  It makes sense that Christians and Christian leaders would feel militarily threatened by Islamic people because society revolved around the religious aspect of life--religious leaders were political leaders and therefore military leaders.  Christians were afraid that Islamic forces would be able to take them over.  Christians also wanted to just "wait out" Islam because they did not think it would last, one reason they did not think about its religious consequences.  Only later did they consider the spiritual threats that Islam produced.  Another reason they did not see them as a threat was due to the fact that they thought Muslims were just pagan idol-worshipers and barbarians.  They had a total misunderstand of the faith, and that is obviously what Dante believed when he wrote about Muhammad in The Inferno.  Now that all that history has sunk into my brain, I do not find that where Dante placed Muhammad odd at all.  Obviously, a Christian strong in his faith, Dante would not have agreed with what he believed Muhammad and the Islamic religion stood for.

A prominent theme in the stories for today is lust.  I say lust rather than love because many of the stories are about cheating on a wife or husband, having sex out of marriage, and even violating the sacrament of holy orders to have sex.  I also feel that these stories attach a bad stigma to sex.  In one story, a man lies about being deaf and blind to have sex with nuns.  He then realizes how horny they are themselves, even more than he is.  All they want to do is have sex.  Another story is about a woman who cheats on her husband and hides him.  Then he tells her about some other woman who has done the same thing.  It is a very ironic situation, and the woman's plan backfires on her.  The husband finds out, but they work it out.  Another very weird story involves  a wife, a gay husband, and their lover.  They both cheat on each other and eventually decide to have sex with the same man.

In other stories we have read sex is also pretty prominent, but I think many of those other stories also center around love.  I do not take "love" from the Decameron, just plain sex.  An example of just sex in another story we have read is in the Odyssey.  Odysseus has sex with Calypso a lot.  She is a wild and lustful creature.  When Odyssey has sex with her, its not out of love.  He still loves his wife Penelope at home and will always be true to her and choose her above all.  Calypso just seduced him continuously.

Most of these stories, like many that we have read, focus around religion.  In the Mediterranean culture, religion is obviously very important.  It has a lot of history there, so it makes much sense that it would be a common issue to write about.  I feel that Boccaccio does not view religion very highly.  He has this perception that it is very corrupt, which I am sure it was, and I know it still can be today.  Boccaccio obviously believes in God, but he criticizes religion.  In one story he speaks of this terrible man who lies to a priest and ends up being remembered like a saint because of his lie.  I think this is a reflection of how Boccaccio believes religion is a lie. People lie, make mistakes, and do selfish things to get themselves ahead.  He sees people do so, and get away with it.  The corruption of the church at the time was raging, and people like Boccaccio were outraged, but found a way to make it humorous.  Through his irony, he portrayed his feelings in a way that people would enjoy reading.  Another story that supports my theory that Boccaccio felt religion itself was a joke, is that of the three rings.  It shows he obviously believes in one God, but not in one organized religion.  The message of this story is exactly as it states: followers of each faith believe theirs to be true and correct, but no living human knows for a fact what is true and real.  For this reason, we must respect every religious group.  We cannot prove what is the true Law, but we can have convictions in our own faith and follow our own rules without contempt for other religious groups.

For Kempe, being in such sacred places gives her a flood of emotions.  She has some pretty extreme reactions to these places.  Since she has her "cryings," her emotions are already wild.  She cannot control them, no matter how hard she tries.  When she visits these places she sobs and weeps so loud.  In these moments she truly cannot help herself.  This trip is not just about getting to her destination. The whole trip is her destination. Every stop along the way is important to her, and even when she is not in the presence of some sacred place, she still has the powerful emotions that she gets in those places.  She basically sobs the whole trip.  Her fellow pilgrims even get annoyed with her--"After she rode on an ass to Bethlehem, and when she came to the church and the crib where our Lord was born, she had great devotion, much conversing in her soul, and high spiritual comfort, with much weeping and sobbing, so that her fellow pilgrims would not let her eat in their company."

Mandeville writes about what he finds interesting in other cultures and religions.  They are all so different, and different intrigues most people.  Whether its a good or bad different, people like weird things.  When Mandeville writes about these things I think he intends to keep the readers interested, so he writes about some of the more extreme things he sees.

The portrayal of love in this reading is different than how love is seen in other poetry we have read.  In most of the other poetry, they see love as something that can be harmful as well, but for different reasons.  The troubadours and trobairitz find love to be troubling because it is basically unobtainable.  They believe that love causes pain because others do not love us back, do not show us the respect we deserve, and/or feel lost without their love.  Poetry before that brings out feelings that love is blind and changes who we are and it can be destructive or for the better.  In the sense that love can be destructive, this poetry falls in line with other poetry we have read.  The author thinks that love causes us to sin, and therefore we are ruined/bring our own downfall upon ourselves.

I think the Archpriest has some skewed images of what love is, and this idea of what "love" is to him makes the reader consider what anything really means.  After all words are just arbitrary names.  People assign words to things; they do not naturally have them.  After reading thing I began to think that everything is in the eye of the beholder.  However you see it, is the way it is (to you).  He sees love as an evil when I do not.  He thinks that love fuels all things, but he is just assigning the word "love" to so many different feelings.  He talks about love causing tragedy and despair.  His reasoning?  We love our faith, we love people, we love money, we love material possessions, etc.  But if someone were to ask me why these tragedies occur, I would not put love in my answer.  I would delusions, greed, selfishness, hate, etc.  Its all about how you look at it.  The way the archpriest sees things may be right.  The way I see things may be right.

Song 5.
"Mother of God, blessed are those who trust in you, for they will never lack for your great mercy as long as they obey and offer thanks to you," is the theme of this song (and is within in the song as well).  This is the most prominent theme in the song.  It is basically what the whole story is about.  Throughout the story, this beautiful woman is plagued by misfortunes and mainly malicious acts by others.  These other people generally try to hurt the empress, Beatriz, because she is so beautiful and rejects them.  While Beatriz is trying to do the right thing, she is always getting hurt because of it.  She gets lied about and punished for sins she did not commit.  Every time she faces death for something she did not do (out of virtuousness, may I add), Holy Mary saves her.  Finally, Mary also ends her suffering by giving her a special herb to cure lepers and finally helping her reach a point of peace in life where she no longer holds malice towards those who hurt her.  Mary is a savior in this story.  She is powerful and benevolent.  This story does not include social or political commentary, but focuses on religious issues.

Song 6.
The main and important theme of this song is if you are faithful and praise Holy Mary, she will reward you.  The boy simply sang her song and had faith that since he did so she would be there to help him and his mother.  When the time came and her help was needed more than ever, she gave it.  When the boy was murdered, she protected him and brought him back to life, saving him his life and his mother grief.  Mary has the role of protector in this song.  She looks after those who are faithful.  There are social aspects and religious aspects.  These may or may not turn into political aspects.  The boy was murdered by a Jew which is social and religious and even political.  The Jew was displeased with the song the boy sang because it was dedicated to the Holy Mary.  This would be prejudice.  I found it intriguing how violent this song was.  For being about such a peaceful, loving, and kind figure (Mary), it contained much gore and violence.  I also do not agree with the ending when the people kill the Jew or Jews (I'm not sure if its just one or more) because Mary would never agree to something like that.  She is forgiving and merciful.  Is this only to those who she likes? Those who are faithful and loving back?  I have never seen Mary as a figure to be like that, only giving when she gets.  I just think Mary would have stopped the violence and reminded the people to be forgiving.

I picked the second poem by the Troubadour to write about.  The language of this poem is interesting because while it includes good imagery, it is very repetitive, and has a tone that I am not sure how to decipher.  The writer uses many visuals to express his feelings.  He touches upon aspects that many people can relate to.  He uses nature a lot to describe his own feelings, what an encounter with this love would be like, and his love itself.  He also talks about God a lot in the poem.  God is an idea which people of any monotheistic faith can understand.  The language he uses about God and what he says about God (i.e. "God, who made everything that comes and goes, and formed this love far away") are all common ideas of the monotheistic faiths.  The writer repeats "this love far away" and just "far away" so many times throughout the whole poem.  I guess he is trying to go for an effect, but for me it was just annoying.  The tone is another aspect that I did not like because I feel as though the poem starts happy then ends sadly and desperately.  The writer does not know if he will ever see this love at first, but he sounds hopeful.  By the end of the poem he's saying he will only "love and not be loved" and he is "doomed to be unloved."

I picked the first poem by the Trobairitz.  I immediately liked this poem.  It was happy and uplifting, unlike the male's poem.  It speaks about how to love, and how the writer is satisfied with her own love.  She talks a lot about trust and loyalty.  She wants to make a point that she is loyal and will never betray her man.  She also talks a lot about the wonderful qualities of her mate, and points out that these are things a girl should consider when falling for someone.  At the end I am a bit confused because she talks about being betrayed and asks for protection, which I am guessing is protection against betrayal.  Maybe her man has all these other wonderful qualities, but he is not faithful?  Maybe someone led him to believe she had betrayed him?

1. The theme I picked up on was that love changes people.  It may not do so immediately or even very obviously, but a change occurs.  These changes can be called the "symptoms" of love.  They are changes that almost everyone experiences.  The poem touches upon how the symptoms can be good and bad.  I noticed the harmful ones related to relationships I have witnessed or been a part of in the past.  One problem is when people obviously have intense loving feelings for each other, but they are so strong they cannot control them.  This leads to other problems such as jealousy.  This is a common problem in many relationships.  Many people are not trusting of their partner or are very jealous when others interact with him or her.  Another thing that occurs when people's feelings are very strong is that they begin to argue over petty, stupid things and they do not even know why.  Hazm adds other symptoms that basically show that love makes us crazy.  Love changes our thought processes.

2. "The Dove's Necklace" relates to the other poetry because it is about love.  More specifically it talks about the way in which love "sees."  The idea that "love is blind" is a prominent theme and the idea of being seen differently or seeing someone else differently is prominent.  We see the ones we love based on how we love them.  We choose not to see their faults.  We are seen differently by them as well.  People who love each other see each other the way they want to, and people try to change to be who their lover/loved ones want them to be.  In the end, it is all "in the eyes of the beholder."  The loved and the loving see what and how they want to (about the other person) based on that love they share.

The story of Hermaphroditus and the story of Arachne are both obviously about a transformation.  This is an unwilling change.  Hermaphroditus merges bodies with Salmacis, and Arachne is turned into a spider.  Both have to face their fate after they challenge powers greater than themselves.  Salmacis falls in love with Hermaphroditus, but he, not knowing what love is, does not want to be with her.  He asks her to leave him alone, but when she secretly watches him she falls even harder for him.  Though Hermaphroditus did not want the nymph falling in love with him, he became a challenge to her because she could not have him.  He was so beautiful, and when he rejected her, it did nothing to stop her from trying harder.  Arachne challenged Pallas Minerva because although she was taught to weave by her, she denied it.  Later, in a more literal challenge, Minerva and Arachne compete to see who can weave a better tapestry, and as soon as Pallas Minerva sees Arachne's work, she realizes how flawless and beautiful it is.  She is so enraged that she turns Arachne into a spider.  In both stories the characters were transformed due to emotions of the higher powers, but for different reasons.  Salmacis did it because she loved Hermaphroditus; Minerva did it because she was so enraged with Arachne.  From these stories, I take the lesson not to challenge the gods because they will win.  Even though Arachne may have won fair and square, she still ended up becoming a spider in the end, and even though Salmacis originally gave Hermaphroditus a choice of what he wanted (to be with her or not), he still ended up conjoined with the nymph.

I do not think that the story of Tiresias is that weird.  It is just as weird as any other myths that I have read in the past.  The fact that Tiresias changes from man to woman is not his own doing.  He was changed once he interrupted the snakes mating.  The weirdest part is that simply hitting the snakes with a stick can change someone from a man to woman.  Why?  What, if anything, do the snakes themselves represent?  The gods were so happy that the snakes could no longer mate that they gave Tiresias this great knowledge and power.  I think that a person who can change from a man to a woman and back has more knowledge than anyone.  This person can understand the impossible, something that no real, living person will ever fully understand--the opposite sex.  This is a mystery that as part of human nature plagues us.  Due to love and sexual drives, we are always trying to understand what the opposite sex is thinking, wants, likes, feels, etc.  This knowledge would give a person much power over the opposite sex as well as the satisfaction of knowing, but it would also change their perspective of the other sex and their view of sex itself.  Tiresias's punishment is interesting as well.  It turns out to be more of a blessing than a punishment.  While his actual sight is taken from him, he is given a new sight, an even better one.  He is again given a power and knowledge that no one else has.  He gets the chance to know the impossible, something that people are always wondering about--the future.  This is another mystery that plagues us.  We are always planning, thinking about, and hoping for the future.  Tiresias is lucky.  He gains so much wisdom and knowledge throughout his story.

Narcissus falls in love with himself, or the reflection of himself in the water.  This is a problem because what he is in love with does not actually exist.  It's just an image.  It's nothing.  Once he leaves the water's edge, so does his object of affection.  When he tries to reach for it, he cannot.  Like it says in the text, it is just a fleeting image; it is not real.  This myth tells us that we desire what we are.  People tend to be attracted to themselves, or people like themselves.  They are attracted to others with personality traits similar to their own.  They are also attracted to people who look like them.  Another thing it tells us is that people in general are vain (it's human nature).  People are very concerned with themselves most of the time.  Its like the spotlight effect.  We tend to think other people are watching us more closely/paying more attention to us than they actually are.

I just want to start this blog off by saying that I do not understand this selection very well at all.  My interpretations are probably all wrong and sound dumb.  Sorry if that happens.

The two men talk about how people come to want democracy and how they create this democracy.  They discuss the different circumstances and factors that shape a person's thinking.  They begin this argument with the discussion over money.  They wonder whether a person's wealth persuades them to consider an oligarchy over a democracy.  They come to the conclusion that it does: the rich like oligarchies and the poor like democracies.  Apparently, rich people hate change and do not like to see the poor gain wealth because that means they are losing wealth.  Once the poor gain money or power, then a democracy can come into being.  As the text says, "Then democracy, I suppose,  comes into being when the poor win, killing some of the others and casting out some, and share the regime and the ruling offices...".  The poor men must fight for this.  The poor men, who can see what inequality is like, also want equality, which helps create democracy.  The rich men do not notice this because it does not affect them.  Plato tries to get the point across that men of democracies are more "good" than those of oligarchies.  The men of democracies see the law of equality while the men of oligarchies do not.  Does this say something about the effect money and power have on a person?  Do these two components make people (as a whole) worse?  Are we evil, or become evil, if we possess these things?  Do they manipulate our minds?


"When a young man, reared as we were just saying without education and stingily, tastes the drones' honey, and has intercourse with fiery, clever beasts who are able to purvey manifold and subtle pleasures with every sort of variety, you presumably suppose that at this point he begins his change from an oligarchic regime within himself to a democratic one."  Honestly, when I break this down in my head, it makes no sense to me, but I like this quote a lot because I think it breaks down all of Book VIII and puts it into this small quote.  I think it is talking about how a person realizes that a democracy is better than an oligarchy and why, or, how a democratic way of thinking comes from an oligarchic way of thinking.  When I try to piece this quote together though, it comes out not making any sense to me or how a democratic way of thinking is the result.  I know Dr. Borck will be able to explain this quote to me, and that is the one question I would like her to answer for me.

The whole of book 21 revolves around Odysseus's bow.  This alone shows how important this object is.  It represents so much about Odysseus--his power, skills, intelligence, etc.  This bow shows that no one could take Odysseus's place.  First Penelope presents the challenge that whoever can hit 12 axes in a row with it she will then marry, and none of the suitors can complete the task.  This shows that none of them can have Penelope like Odysseus can.  It also shows that they will never hold his position or have the kind of power that Odysseus does.  She also asks the men to string the bow, and no one can do that either.  This shows that none of the men are as skilled, strong, or intelligent as Odysseus.  As a whole, the bow symbolizes Odysseus.  He is one of a kind and cannot be beat.

The bed obviously represents Odysseus's and Penelope's marriage.  Odysseus built it himself with great craftsmanship and skill.  He carved it out of a tree, bolted it down, and ornately decorated it.  This is like his and Penelope's marriage.  It was sturdily built, held down/together with trust and love all the years Odysseus was away, and it was showered with good memories and great wealth.  The fact that it cannot be moved represents how strong their bond and marriage in general is.  All the years that Odysseus was away never actually tore them apart.  They were always "faithful" to each other, knowing that they would one day be reunited.  They struggled, but they were always married and always would be.  The bed would not be moved or undone, like their marriage.

Eumaeus and Melanthius are like polar opposites.  Eumaeus is a shepherd and Melanthius is a goatherd, which to me, immediately says something about the two characters.  It is weirdly symbolic relating to religion.  A shepherd is always seen as a good thing, the Bible often talks about shepherds and Jesus himself is the metaphorical shepherd of all the people.  Shepherds are also often referred to/thought about as good leaders, faithful to their flock, responsible, and kind and gentle.  On the contrary, even the word goatherd has a different feel and stigma to it.  Who wants to be a goatherd?  Who's even heard of a goatherd?  Just with this information we begin to think of Melanthius in an unsavory way, and we find out that his character reflects it.  Eumaeus proves himself to be a "good shepherd."  He stays faithful to Odysseus while he is gone, and when he sees the poor "beggar" (Odysseus in disguise), he welcomes him.  He gives him food and shelter when he needs it, and it shows the Eumaeus is a generally nice man who looks to do what is right.  Melanthius on the other hand supports the suitors, betraying King Odysseus.  He looks out for only himself, and shows an evil side more than once.  He is selfish and cocky.  He wants Telemachus dead, and when the beggar comes to the palace, he treats him with disrespect and cruelty.  These two characters are an interesting comparison in the story.

Odysseus's journey into Hades is really a look at Odysseus's feelings and beliefs.  In Hades he talks to several people who give us clues to things that occurred in the war, in Troy, and in Greek mythology.  All of these things reflect Odysseus in some way.  They reveal his past, present, and future and his beliefs.  I guess this could be considered a decent into Odysseus's mind for the reader because so much is revealed to us that helps us understand Odysseus better.  He talks to Tiresias, who tells Odysseus what his fate will be and why Poseidon is so angry with him.  He gives Odysseus a lot of good advice for the future of his journey, and tells him home to avoid future hardship and get home as fast as possible.  He also talks to his mother Anticleia who fills him in on how Troy is doing.  She died waiting for his return.  Odysseus then talks to many famous heroes that were in the war and in Greek myths.  They tell him things that ultimately and more importantly informs the reader on Greek history.  This information is more for the reader's benefit.  After interacting with many dead souls Odysseus gets frightened and runs to the ship.

The test of the Sirens represents the temptation that Odysseus has encountered along this journey, and how they have made him want to wander astray from the purpose of the journey.  His men hold him down though, and this represents how even though they have struggled to stay on task due to these temptations, they also realize the importance of the journey and getting back home, so they struggle through it and keep trudging on.  The Sirens themselves are all the distractions that Odysseus has faced, all the temptations he has come across to keep him from wanting to go home, such as Calypso.  Odysseus and his crew succeed in this test, and the Sirens fail because he did not come to their calls.  This success represents the intellect, desire, and persistence that Odysseus and his men have.  It shows that they know how important it is for them to go home.

1. Calypso is a lustrous goddess who loves mortals, in particular Odysseus.  In these ways, she is like Penelope.  They are both beautiful and have a love for Odysseus. On the other hand, she is unlike Penelope because she holds Odysseus captive on her island for a long period of time.  Zeus finally has to intervene and force her to let him go.  Penelope is just as loving, if not more, but instead of keeping Zeus with her, she knew she had to let him go on this journey.  She waits for him always, though.  This is one reason Calypso is the "anti-Penelope." Other reasons include her personality, and the fact that she has Odysseus while Penelope waits for him (what I am trying to get at is hard to put into words).  Calypso is demanding and stubborn, while Penelope is more timid and obedient and has a softness to her.  Odysseus only wants to go back home, and since Calypso holds him on her island, seducing him, the one thing he can't have is Penelope/home.  Calypso is also considered promiscuous, while Penelope is the most faithful wife out there.  Calypso is so different from Penelope, but Odysseus wants them both.  Calypso and her island are only a beginning piece to Odysseus's journey--he overcame his temptation this time, but can he do it again?

4. The Cyclops is a "starting point" for Odysseus's journey because this is when Odysseus goes too far, and is too cocky.  He tricked the Cyclops easily, and when he was leaving he told him his real name.  Then the Cyclops called on Poseidon, who already was not very fond of Odysseus, to punish Odysseus.  This is when travel becomes very tough for him.  The Cyclops represent Odysseus's own stupidity.  Though they are very dumb, it is symbolic and iron because Odysseus tricks them, but it is he who suffers in the end.  If he had just left without revealing his own name (the stupid part) then his journey would have been much shorter and easier. The fact that Odysseus also calls himself "Nobody" when he is trying to trick the Cyclops is symbolic as well.  This is part of his plan, but in a way it is true.  Who is Odysseus?  He is not a god, but he is so cocky and confident that he thinks he can trick the gods and overcome them.  To the gods, he really is nobody, especially to Poseidon, who later shows Odysseus that the gods are stronger and smarter than him, a mere human.

2. Right away we see that the gods and humans do not get along very well and clearly do not like each other.  Within the first fifty lines we are given a basic summary by Zeus regarding how the gods feel towards humans in general: "Ah how shameless--the way these mortals blame the gods.  From us alone, they say, come all their miseries, yes, but they themselves with their own reckless ways, compound their pains beyond their proper share.." (lines 37-40).  The gods generally see people as weak, unintelligent, and whiny.  They feel that humans create their own fate with the actions they make.  They only give humans what they deserve based on how they act.  They do not want to be bothered with their problems most of the time, but on rare occasion with "special" people, they take special interest.  One of those people is Odysseus.  He has admirers and enemies in the gods, and they work in his favor and against him when they desire.  Humans see the gods as controllers of fate.  When something goes right, they praise the gods for their wondrous acts, and when something goes awry, they blame the gods for their misfortune.  This pins the gods and humans against each other in a way because they pin all misfortunes on one another, so of course they are not going to get along/like each other much of the time.

3. Telamachus is like a boy at this point in the story.  He is maturing mentally, and throughout this process, he does not have his father to guide him, but he still exudes the confidence, attitude, and inspiration that his father does.  He is a lot like his father, but not quite there yet.  He is intrigued by what his father is like since he does not know him.  Like his father, Telamachus is daring, brave, and wise.  He is daring, as is noted in the first book when he addresses the people in such a shocking way.  Although he is daring, he is also very rational and cool headed.  He thinks and uses common sense before making decisions or answering important questions.  He goes off to find out information about his father, and this is very brave.  On this journey he finds out many things about his father and begins to see some similarities in himself and his father, and so do many of the figures he visits.

1. Since Esau and Jacob are both the firstborn sons, we can only assume that problems such as we have seen in the past will arise.  Right away we are told that Isaac likes Esau better, the one who is more manly, hairy, and a hunter.  Rebekah likes Jacob better, the softer, quieter of the two.  This automatically pits the brothers against each other in gaining the affections of their parents.  It also puts the parents at odds because they disagree which son is the better one and who is more worthy of his father's blessing.  The two boys seem very different in all ways.  Not only are they different in appearance, but their personality and interests also differ from one another.  Jacob likes to stay inside and cook while Esau likes to go out and hunt.  I also noticed that Jacob seems to be more deceptive than Esau.  He makes Esau sell him his birthright for a bowl of soup, and later on Rebekah helps him deceive Isaac into giving him the blessing instead of Esau.  We do not see such actions by Esau, although who knows what he might have done if he were in Jacob's position.

3. The role of the parents in this conflict is very large.  They both show an obvious favoritism that fuels both sons to compete with one another.  Esau must feel a certain power and overall "betterness" over Jacob because he is favored by his father, a more important figure than his mother.  Jacob most likely feels inferior to Esau in this way, but his mother helps him create intelligent plans of deception to overcome that.  Rebecca uses the words of her husband to foil his plan to give the blessing to Esau.  She is the most deceptive person in this story.  She knows how to fool Isaac and get what she wants.  She is supposed to be obedient to her husband and follow his wishes, but instead she changes everything to fall the way she would like.  It is obvious that she cares so much more for her son than anything else, especially when she says "Your curse be on me, my son; only obey my voice, and go, get them for me."  She doesn't much care about anything else besides her son getting this important blessing, even if that means carrying the burden and responsibility of the actions.


4. Jacob's dream can be taken as a message to the Jews in general, rather than just Jacob as an individual.  In all of Genesis and even later in the Bible we see the Lord telling certain people of all the descendants that they are to have--the Jews.  He also tells Jacob how far they will spread, which we know comes later on.  He will not leave "Jacob" until this is done, and in history, God did not leave the Jewish people until this goal was reached.  He came to many prophets and helped them to lead the Jewish people to new lands.  This dream could also be a parallel for the beginning of the Jewish faith/journey.  It basically sums up the beginning beliefs of the Jewish religion and Genesis itself, or the message that Genesis is meant to give to readers.

2. Sarai remains silent for two main reasons: she is a good wife who obeys her husband, and she she has a lot to gain here.  She will not lose her husband for starters, and through God's plan she can be reunited with him again.  Although it may seem misogynistic that Sarai do as Abram pleases, it is not necessarily meant like this.  Abram was very good to Sarai and she realized that.  Out of respect for him as a person, a good provider, a follower of God, and a wise man, she listened obeyed his wishes.  She probably thought this was a good plan, and trusted that Abram knew what he was doing.  In the end, the plan did work, and Sarai got to be with Abram again, reaffirming is wise decisions.

3. The most obvious human problem is jealousy.  Sarai is jealous that Hagar could conceive and Sarai could not.  Hagar may or may not have looked at Sarai in contempt.  Sarai was just so disgusted by her and jealous that she wanted to send Hagar away.  In terms of gender, Hagar and Sarai are both women.  Many people have theories about women's emotions and actions vs. those of men.  This is the first time we see two women pinned against each other and how they react to it.  Class is an issue in this story because since Sarai is of a higher class and Hagar is just a slave, Hagar has to do what Sarai wants.  Sarai uses this power in a wretched way to dismiss Hagar and send her off into the desert wandering.  Ethnicity may be related to class.  I am not sure that at this time all Egyptians were slaves or if the Pharaoh was still the main ruler.  The story also reveals that God takes pity and sympathy on those who suffer.  Because of Hagar's unjust suffering, he promised her many, many descendants.


4. God knows that Abraham will do anything he asks, but he also knows that Abraham loves his son more than anything, too, maybe even more than God.  God feels the need to test this to make sure that Abraham's loyalty is still with God rather than his son.  This story shows that Abraham loves God more than any person or thing in the world, and will do whatever it takes to prove it.  Another interesting point is when the Angel says that Abraham "fears" the Lord.  Could this mean fear or love?  Many people interpret this differently.  If it does actually mean fear then it changes the whole context of the writing.  Maybe, in this case, Abraham fears what God will do to him if he doesn't kill Isaac.  He has seen God to some pretty bad things to others who did not obey Him, and does not want to be the next to face God's smite.

4. Cain's mark is ambiguous because we never find out what the mark actually is or how it conveys a message not to kill Cain.  The fact that God is protecting a murderer would be unsettling to someone who has never studied the Bible.  So far, we only know God as the end all, be all of creation.  We do not know of his forgiving nature yet, just the side that demands respect and obedience.  If a person kills someone and then gets protection, does this mean that it is alright to kill?  But as we all know, this is not true.  On the contrary, it is not so unsettling to see God protecting a murderer because it is not unlike today's justice system.  Although Cain is protected from death, he still must suffer consequences.  In today's society, if a person is to murder someone, they must go to jail.  This person's punishment is to lose their freedom, but they still receive protection from the outside world, food, water, and shelter.  The fact that God did that to Cain seems normal; He wanted Cain to suffer the consequences of what He did, while also still allowing him basic needs and even a chance to redeem himself possibly.

5.  Civilization rises from the family of a murderer most likely because of the survival of the fittest theory--kill or be killed.  Cain may have killed his brother out of jealousy, anger, resentment, etc., but it shows that the fierceness is there in Cain.  He has the ability and personality to make those kinds of sacrifices.  People like that generally end up leading and bossing around meeker people.  Cain passed these traits down to his sons who passed them on.  Then civilization became a wicked place.  This also pertains to human nature because it"explains" the evils of human nature.  People are good, but they are also bad.  Often times evil prevails over good.  People are also more often drawn to evil than good.

Another theory is that the good brother (Abel) and the bad brother (Cain) explain how people are both good and evil.  It explains that when evil prevails over good, there are consequences, and we must suffer them.  When good prevails, God gives us his graces.

Noah. We see the theme of obedience which has been prevalent since the creation stories.  This reminds us of how God demands us to listen to Him and follow His ways; otherwise, we are punished in some way.  If we are obedient and do as He pleases, we are rewarded.  This shows God's power over us humans who are at His mercy always.  Another recurring theme is sacrifice.  Noah offers many sacrifices to God, and because of this God is pleased with him.  God was also pleased with Abel's ample sacrifice.  One more theme is promises, or covenants, which is less familiar.  God makes a covenant with Noah, which is sort of like a pact, that He will never flood the earth again.  This relates back to Noah's sacrifice and obedience.  Because Noah sacrificed what he had to God and did everything God told him, God then gave something in return: the covenant of the rainbow.

The only part of this text that I feel warrants more analysis and could be called problematic is the part about Noah and his sons.  I do not understand why Noah gets drunk then punishes his son for covering him up.  It is odd, and I think it needs to be further explained.  I especially think his punishment, a curse on Canaan, is a bit extreme, and I do not understand how Noah has (or thinks he has) the power to curse anyone.

There are so many possible reasons why the Bible contains two different versions of the same myth.  The first that comes to my mind relates to how the stories were passed down. Before people started publishing books, or even writing things down, all myths were passed on orally.  Through oral communication much changes in a myth or story each time its told from one person to the next.  These two versions may have prevailed over others and become two very popular.  Another reason for the two versions could be related to culture.  Different cultures could relate better to different stories, so for the sake of spreading the religion, multiple versions could have been used.

Adam and Eve's punishment was inevitable.  At some point, some human or another would have eaten the forbidden fruit and damned all people to a life of pain and suffering that we know today.  It can be seen as positive.  It gives people a chance to be grateful for the good things in life because they also know the bad.  It also gives people a chance to make their own moral decisions without the fate of the whole population on their shoulders.

As many people say, knowledge is power.  The Tree of Knowledge may in some way represent power.  I think it could mean that the tree gave Adam and Eve the knowledge/power to control their futures.  It was also a test from God.  Maybe He wanted to see if man had the knowledge to do as God wanted.  The fact that it was "lovely to look at" is also a part of the test.  This was the first time people were tempted.