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.