Jane Eyre

Opinions of the book

Ken:    some of the early chapters had dead wood and didn’t all add equal value to the novel.

John:    I know someone who fit the description of Jane Eyre. Some of it was far fetched, like the lunatic wife with the purple face, but the plot kept me guessing. I expected that the insulted aunt wouldn’t let Jane go to school, but the school master relationship must have been strong enough to get her off the hook and demonize Jane.

Angie:    perhaps Jane’s statement that “if my uncle knew what you did…” she must have pricked her conscience and allowed her to go to school.

Aunt didn’t like Jane because her mother married beneath herself. Jane’s Aunt was jealous of her sister-in-law (Jane’s mom).

Rochester’s excuse: I did all that to make you jealous.

The entire story turns on jealousy.

When he says “It will atone.” what does Rochester mean? Chapter 23. The author is keeping you believing that he would do something right by her (making atonement for his wrong doing), but in fact, it was the opposite, that he he is finally getting what he deserves in a wife he loves.

Wendy: I enjoyed listening to it more than reading it.

Angie: It was interesting how Rochester described his wanton life and she didn’t have much of a problem with that. It wasn’t dealt with at all. He was asking a lot to offer himself to her in terms of being faithful.

Jane even as a child has a sense of right and wrong. chapter 6, “the Bible bids us return good for evil.

Is Helen the only example of a sound Christian in the book.  Or maybe a Christ figure: she dies so that others may live, or live better: Jane gets spiritual insight and strength from the situation.

On Helen’s death: Jane has everything against her early in the book. Is this just a literary device to get sympathy for a protagonist?

BRONTË AS WORDSMITH

Several places she has a way with words, describing a scene in vivid detail so you can feel what she feels, see what she sees, etc.

“The breeze was from the west: it came over the hills, sweet with scents of heath and rush; the sky was of stainless blue; the stream descending the ravine, swelled with past spring rains, poured along plentiful and clear, catching golden gleams from the sun, and sapphire tints from the firmament. As we advanced and left the track, we trod a soft turf, mossy fine and emerald green, minutely enameled with a tiny white flower, and spangled with a star-like yellow blossom: the hills, meantime, shut us quite in; for the glen, towards its head, wound to their very core.” from Chapter 34

As an exercise, describe a spot in your yard in 10 words or less. Then add 15 adjectives or adverbs to it.

hammock: swinging gently between the immovable treehouses on woven shaded yarn
She read historically, slowly placing each word into its context while swinging gently between the tall, immovable treehouses on woven shaded yarn.

What makes for good, descriptive writing? is it more adjectives and adverbs? Group consensus seems to be that we like more description when it comes to character development and insight into a character’s insight into self and other characters. But getting lots of more descriptions about the environment wear thin after a while. More is not always better.

Ken’s perspective: Chapters 2-4 are a waste of reader’s time because they spend lots of his time and don’t add much to his understanding of the story or really carry the narrative very far. An editor would ask to shorten this and leave more room for such passages as Jane’s take on St. John when she says, “I understood, as by inspiration, the trut nature of his love for Miss Oliver; I agreed with him that it was but a love of the senses…” in chapter 34.

Who is the most pitiable character?
John Seefried: John Reed. Why?
Pat: St. John because he should have known better

Lessons for Daughter:
Left with 2 choices: God’s work with a man who has no compassion.

The group had two responses to this book in the end. This was the most spirited and memorable part of the discussion:

Men: dissatisfied with the ending, thinking she was young and impressionable. She too easily overlooked his faults (willingness to engage in bigamy, willingness to take on mistresses), and didn’t have enough of a real connection. Can think of more positive endings. Processing this as a father to a daughter: wanting her to have a strong community to protect. Father to speak wisdom about what to look for in a match. Imagined having great conversations with a daughter about the themes in the book, but not recommending Jane’s path or decision in a mate.

Women: liked the ending, thought it was a good match, satisfied that Jane really loved him and got what she wanted/needed, and he really loved her.

Would you like a friend like Jane Eyre?
Most people would, but she can be a bit intense.

Pride and Prejudice

Brief history of the novel as a genre:

novel history
novel history

Pride and Prejudice

Published in 1813, and originally titled as “First Impressions.”

Jane Austen never married, was homeschooled, and her family was of the lower fringes of the gentry.  Maybe more like Charlotte than Elizabeth.  At age 27, Austen was engaged to be married to a wealthy man, but broke the engagement the next day. What was she trying to communicate in writing this novel.  Interestingly, she remains critical throughout of Charlotte marrying Mr. Collins.

Omniscient narrator

Social Conventions of the day: The etiquette of calling on friends and neighbors.  Noted the lack of conventions today with email, texting, cell phones. The rapidity of change today may even contribute.  We don’t have time to think and catch up to the new technologies as far as social conventions.  Think of wondering whether to email or write a thank you — if you think to send one at all.

impertinence of talking to a person of higher standing without an official introduction

the “dance” of the dance

the significance of the ball. the uniqueness of the ball affording the opportunity of meeting and mingling.

Strong conclusions, quick judgements with very little to go on.

Was the function of gossip to garner information about the character of others.

Needing a husband.  What factors today are similar to marrying well that determine a course for your life? Pedigree?  the right school?  the right neighborhood?

What are the perceptions we make of people who are rich? That they make of those who are not?

Diana noted the limited world view of Austen in terms of women versus Thomas Hardy writing at the same time period whose women were not limited by the need to marry well.

On Mrs. Bennet: Is Austen, through Elizabeth blaming the parents for Lydia’s demise. Mr. Bennet retreats to the library.  He leaves Mrs. Bennet to fuss and fret and flatter in the business of rounding up suitors.

What does Jane Austen value:

She values the propriety of values. The appropriate degree of discetion.  Very representative of the British reserve.  She gives Elizabeth a self-awareness that allows her to be herself and hold her own in many situations with skill and strength.

Prejudice — given the limited opportunity of knowing who people really were, there were pre-judgments that were made that seem allowable

Pride — this is a character trait that has no justification — the attitude of a person who holds an air of haughty superiority.

Yet Austen does make some allowance for pride. Conversation with Mary at the end of    Ch 5 about the difference between pride and vanity.  And in Ch 11.  In fact vanity is vilified more than pride. And in the end, her prejudice and his pride are both equally wrong.

And this led us to The Good True Beautiful — that they recognized their faults and chose to deal with them.

Good True Beautiful: Beatific Vision

As a follow-up to last book club discussion, this post shows the relationship between the beatific vision and the GTB. Quoting from Wikipedia:

“In the philosophy of Plato, the beatific vision is the vision of the Good. In Plato’s Allegory of the cave, which appears in the Republic Book 7 (514a – 520a), he writes (speaking, as he does in many of his works, through the character of Socrates):

‘My opinion is that in the world of knowledge the idea of good (the Good) appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world, and the immediate source of reason and truth in the intellectual.’ (517b,c)

“Thus, for Plato, the Good appears to correspond to God in Christian theology.

“St. Augustine expressed views similar to Plato’s on this subject, and was familiar with Plato’s ideas, most likely via Neoplatonist writings.”

Christianity

The entry goes on to include the verse from I Corinithians.

“In the 13th century, the philosopher-theologian Thomas Aquinas described the ultimate end of a human life as consisting in the intellectual Beatific Vision of God’s essence after death. see Summa Theologiae

“According to Aquinas, the Beatific Vision surpasses both faith and reason. Rational knowledge does not fully satisfy humankind’s innate desire to know God, since reason is primarily concerned with sensible objects, and thus can only infer its conclusions about God indirectly. Summa Theologiae

“The theological virtue of faith, too, is incomplete, since Aquinas thinks that it always implies some imperfection in the understanding. The believer does not wish to remain merely on the level of faith, but to understand what is believed. Summa Contra Gentiles

“Thus only the fullness of the Beatific Vision satisfies this fundamental desire of the human soul to know God. Quoting St Paul, Aquinas notes ‘We see now in a glass darkly, but then face to face’ (i Cor. 13:12). The Beatific Vision is the final reward for those saints elect by God to partake in and ‘enjoy the same happiness wherewith God is happy, seeing Him in the way which He sees Himself’ in the next life. Summa Contra Gentiles”

Year 2 Summary and Year 3 Forecast

Summary of Year 2

The Arrival of Great Britain

Our second year of travels began just after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Empire was divided into two parts. The eastern half would endure for another 1,000 years or so, but the western half started breaking apart around 400 AD as barbarian tribes successfully attacked the Roman army. As a result, there was no single government over all of Western Europe, no single organization to protect people from invaders, provide structure and laws, or respond to emergencies like a plague.

But there was one organization that did survive even after the Roman empire fell apart—the church. The Christian Church in the West was a very important institution for people during this time, single-handedly inspiring and patronizing education, art, and music.

Our first insight into the end of antiquity was through the lens of one of Rome’s great critics: St. Augustine of Hippo. His 5th Century masterpiece presented his view of how to live in the City of Man while holding citizenship in the City of God. He defended Christianity against the claim that the fall of the Roman Empire lay at the hands of religious converts from paganism. The victory of these arguments throughout the former Roman Empire can hardly be under estimated. In fact, after Augustine’s death, Christianity became the dominant cultural and religious force in Europe, which covered most of the known world.

The Roman Empire reached as far north and west as Briton, but didn’t rule it for long. It was simply too far away from the beating heart of Rome to receive its nutrients. It was the venerable Bede, a Doctor of the Church in Jarrow, England, who traced the transition from Roman rule with Caesar’s invasion in 55 BC to contemporary English monasticism in the early 8th century AD with his 400-page The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (731) in Latin. Along with tracing the missionary movement into Briton by Irish missionaries, he challenged the Palagianist theory that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid. In doing so, he painted Jesus as more than a mere “good example of a moral life.”

As time went on, society in the Middle Ages gradually became more complex. Muhammad founded a new religion called Islam, which presented an alternative to Christianity throughout Europe and beyond. In Western Europe, Charlemagne (742–814) unified the Franks and became the greatest king of the Middle Ages. He prevented Islam from taking over Europe and established schools that fostered an interest in learning. He also established the hierarchy of ruling lords, which became the basis of the feudal system.

During the reign of Charlemagne, there was a time of peace in Europe, but it didn’t last long. His successors fought over how to divide his empire. And then, a new barbarian group came in from the north: Vikings! These fierce warriors came down from what is today Denmark, Sweden, Norway, northern Germany, and Russia. They often traveled in long ships, which they used to fight from rivers. Because the ships were so light, they could also be carried over land. This made defending a European village very difficult.

The Vikings attacked parts of England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany, Spain, and even Italy. It seemed that no place was safe from their surprise attacks. Because they were so successful during this period, the time from about 800 to 1100 AD is often called the “Viking Age.”

With all their energy spent defending themselves from Viking invaders, most Europeans spent their time just trying to survive. They didn’t have much time for writing stories, creating art, or composing music. This explains why so few Great Books come from this period. But two notable legends of Middle English survive.

Beowulf (1010) carried on the tradition of the adventurous epic poem from ancient times. Set in Scandinavia, Beowulf is one of the most important works of Anglo-Saxon literature. After killing Grendel, who has been attacking the warriors in the great hall of the Danes, and Grendel’s mother with a magic sword, he eventually slays a dragon who mortally wounds him. With this book the epic oral poem tradition becomes a natural echo of Homer and Virgil as we compare and contrast the values of ancient Greece, Rome, and our English ancestors.

This Viking Age ended in 1066 AD when William the Conquerer from Normandy invaded England and established himself as a peaceful king. But this peace did not end the wars in Europe. There was continual fighting among villages and towns as feudal lords struggled with each other to get larger and larger areas of land. One war between France and England lasted over a hundred years and decimated both people groups.

A devastating plague called Black Death struck Europeans during this time, killing a third of the people and prompting the decline of the feudal system. But despite wars and plagues, there were some developments that led to greater prosperity.

Merchants greatly expanded trade during this time, and many ventured to distant lands for business. One of the most famous traders from this period was Marco Polo, who traveled with his father and uncle to China. He returned 24 years later with stories of Kublai Khan’s empire, riches from the East, and ideas about coal, paper money, and printing.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (1350) built on Beowulf as a documented source of English religion, values, and mythological imagination. This Middle English romance told how Sir Gawain accepted a challenge from a mysterious warrior to receive a return blow after striking him with an axe, after which the Green Knight picked up his head and vowed to meet Gawain at the Green Chapel after a year and a day. His adversary’s disguise allows a true test of his character. His adventures with a hunter and his wife on the way to meet the Green Knight ultimately reveal the extent of his loyalty and chivalry.

During the late middle ages, peasants moved to towns, in search of a better life. And these towns grew into cities. This meant that merchants could find many customers in a single place. Craftsmen (including artists and musicians) formed professional organizations called guilds to protect and support each other.

The Renaissance (or re-birth) was named for the rediscovery of the ancient cultures of classical Greece and Rome. Greco-Roman ideas about beauty, art, architecture, and music became very influential. But these old ideas were not just repeated in this new time. Instead, they were integrated with new techniques such as perspective in art, and expanded using new inventions, like the printing press. It was an exciting time to be creative. In fact there was so much art created during this time that many people today associate the Renaissance with creativity itself.

One of the greatest cities of the Renaissance was Florence, Italy, the home of Machiavelli, one of the local political figures. The Prince (1513) was Machiavelli’s attempt to show what the ideal political leader would be like. He emphasizes his understanding of history, his pragmatism, and above all, his political skill to stay in power and serve the people, even if it meant a moral compromise here and there. We wondered together if Machiavelli was like any modern day Slick Willies in whose mind the end justifies the means.

But the city-state was no match for the nation-state, which soon grabbed up cities into larger and larger dominions. And none was larger than the empire of Great Britain. Shakespeare (1564–1616), one of English society’s greatest social critics, wrote poetry, comedy, and tragedy that endures and crosses many cultural boundaries. An amazing social critic, his notice seems to know no bounds. In Taming of the Shrew we saw how the battle of the sexes ended in victory for feminine submission and masculine loving leadership (was Shakespeare a complimentarian?). We also juxtaposed Shakespeare’s poetry with the lyric lines of John Donne (1572–1631), preacher and metaphysical poet. Many of his poems are rich and deep enough for daily devotional life today.

Meditations on First Philosophy
(1641) was the first work in which we fully experienced the effects of the Enlightenment. In this treatise, Descartes starts by boiling off anything that can be doubted and ends up with a powerful, flavorful reduction. Of this he can be sure—he knows he exists…because he thinks. He would go on to build upon this first principle to prove that God exists, that material things exist, and that the mind is distinct from the body. This sauce would come to flavor the main entree of Enlightenment and its most significant contribution to the Great Conversation: rationalism.

Just 25 years later John Bunyan would be in a jail cell writing Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners (1666), a spiritual autobiography that gives insight into the man behind the most influential religious book in English, Pilgrim’s Progress (1678).* It follows the then-popular form for conversion autobiographies: life before conversion, during conversion, and after conversion. This work echoes Augustine’s autobiography Confessions in how it so authentically chronicles the struggle against sin, the battle with guilt, and the eventual submission to saving grace.

The urbanization of English society brought with it social stratification. By 1700 it was saturated with social rules of marriage and money and manners. New Testament Pharisees had nothing on the characters in The Way of the World (1700) by Congreve. Here Mirabell must overcome the hatred of Lady Wishfort if he is to marry her niece with fortune intact. Disguise, blackmail, and manipulation all show the extent to which people will stoop to serve their own interests in English aristocracy and beyond.

Among the British, one of the most influential thinkers was Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume (1711–1776). In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748) he tells us how we know what we know. He argues that experiences precede ideas, and that we can’t understand what we don’t experience. In a counter-punch to Descartes, he attempts to exalt empiricism over reason as the most reliable means to truth. For Hume, actually tasting an orange is far superior to the idea of tasting it. This empirical epistemology was quite influential among those who created the Enlightenment.

We stayed with Hume for his History of England (1754), a completely different work in which he unpacks the events leading up to the English Civil War (1642–1651), his chief interest. This historical analysis produced many lessons on leadership that still apply. Among them:

  1. the mistake of adopting a policy you once criticized in your opponent,
  2. the complexities of mixing religion and politics, and
  3. the failure of high-stakes leaders who lose touch with constituents and compromise their principles.

Hume was not the only great author to expose the hypocrisy of his fellow man. In School for Scandal (1777) Sheridan takes on the fickle love of some marriages, the lust for money, and the tendency to lie if one can get away with it. In the lives of Joseph and Charles Surface, we learn that noble character can be misjudged, but true character is revealed in the actions taken when no one is looking. Together with Sir Gawain this play yields a view of living where only a double-blind test can prove a moral hypothesis, an idea perhaps borrowed from the empirical science of the Enlightenment itself.

We concluded the year with a scientist, inventor, and statesman—our first American author, Benjamin Franklin (1791). It is fitting that after spending so much time in England, we end the year with the birth of her greatest bastard child, the United States. In Franklin’s life, we see how many of the religious, political, and philosophical conflicts of the English Enlightenment were imported to the colonies. Heavily weighted on his early years, the autobiography recounts his career path as a printer, his attempt to master the 13 virtues, and his later successes with such American icons as Poor Richard’s Almanac, the Franklin Stove, and the first public library. This work contrasts sharply with that of John Bunyan in that Franklin portrays a self-made man whose accomplishments are attributable to his discipline, ingenuity, and clever pursuit of the truth.

Year 3 Begins

What lies before us is in many ways the opposite of the previous year. Instead of few books in many years, we will encounter many books covering just 100 years. We start with poetry of John Keats. Then we pick up the first of four novels (a book club first), with Pride and Prejudice (1797) by Jane Austen, one of the most beloved Victorian realists. America’s great critic Alexis de Tocqueville focuses our lens as we watch America grow from a fledgling collection of disconnected colonies into a united and powerful force on the world stage in Democracy in America (1835 and 1840). After discussing Charlotte Brontë’s view of morality as portrayed in Jane Eyre (1847), we’ll relax at Walden Pond with Henry David Thoreau (Walden, 1854) and stroll through Leaves of Grass (1855) with his fellow American transcendentalist Walt Whitman.

These poems will undoubtedly contrast with those of William Butler Yeats (1865–1939), from Ireland, whose symbolic realism serves as a prelude to the epic War and Peace (1869), by Tolstoy, our first writer in hundreds of years from the East. This will give insight into the Napoleonic invasion of Russia, the impact of this era on Tsarist society as seen through the lives of five Russian aristocratic families. His realism is a foreshadowing of 20th century writers. But we won’t get to them until discussing The Idea of a University (1852 and 1899) by Newman, in which we learn about the history of academia and the effect of removing Christianity from colonial higher learning.

This theoretical work is followed by the more domestic A Doll’s House (1879), a drama in which Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen combines naturalism and feminism with a dash of romanticism to challenge traditional gender roles in marriage. And we end the spring with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1884) where Mark Twain will welcome us (and our racism) to summer like the antebellum South welcomes a raft coming down the Mississippi River. A comfortable, gentle ride until we go spilling our stereotypes into the Gulf of Mexico.

For the last two years we’ve called this book club our entry into the Great Conversation, a dialogue begun by the singer-poets and writers whose catalytic contribution is chiseled into the pages of time. The value is in the books. The conversation is our attempt to unlock that value, to realize it. And in that realization we hope to get another vantage point for gazing into the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. May He guide our reading, our thinking, and our discussing in this next year of Great Books Club. Soli Deo gloria.

* “For two hundred years or more no other English book was so generally known and read.” James Baldwin in his foreword, James Baldwin, John Bunyan’s Dream Story.

Keats

“To Autumn”

Grammar Stage Discussion:   What does the poem say?  Harvest images: apples, gourds, hazelnuts,  Season change:  song like other seasons sung by gnats, crickets, lambs, robin.  Sensory images:  small, hear, sight, touch, smell.  Form:  11 lines with ABAB CDED FFG, iambic pentameter, define subject the speculation and musing on the subject.

Dialectic:  What does this mean?  Celebration of autumn, Season of abundance and blessings, picturesque.  Defense of autumn – as worthy as other seasons.  Going blindly into death – death imagery, stubble plains, mourn, sinking, bleating, soft dying day, lives or dies, wailful choir, lives or dies.

Rhetoric:  What is your opinion?  Celebrate where you are – don’t worry about death.  Beauty – thinks about life.   Maturity – this isn’t a bad season, a natural season, be where you are,  appreciate where you are, this isn’t forever, fleeting autumn glory, fleeting but beautiful.  Celebrate accomplishment even though it’s not over.

“Ode on a Grecian Urn”

Grammar Stage Discussion:   What does the poem say?  Unheard music is sweeter.  Greek music of the spheres, music played and depicted.  Back and forth – frozen in time, yet timeless, stopped between.  Fascination with unknown…what was going on, what were the sounds, what….?  Beauty is truth, truth is beauty.  Silence of scene is begging questions.  Vase shall outlive us.

Dialectic:  What does this mean?  Keats experience with urn.  Reading into the object of the story it tells as if real people (not gods).   Can Keats answer these questions?  He tries and does, but can’t fully.  Pinnacle of beauty frozen (captured) never to die.  Keats believes that truth is beauty and beauty is truth because he calls the urn “friend to man”.  Many questions are asked of the vase, but the vase only responds once to a question not even asked.

Rhetoric:  What is your opinion?   What is this vase that speaks and answers questions that it is not asked?  Not Jesus – too pointless for him,  a tangent for truth.  Beauty is a component of truth.  (Creation cost him nothing.)  Not pointing to God.  Beauty and truth are not equal.

Define terms:

Good = beneficial in some way, positive, enriches, classical definition is the end to which everything points

Truth = Jesus, accurate, real, it matches with how things really are, uses 5 senses, classical definition is that which corresponds to reality

Beauty = pleasing, classic definition is that which delights the senses, that which pleases when experienced.

Beatific vision occurs when we get to heaven and see God, we will see the whole of God – Good, Truth and Beauty.  Do these three characteristics relate to the trinity?  Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, the life.”  Perhaps the Father is Goodness and the Spirit is Beauty.  Beauty is more mysterious, subjective, intangible.

Challenge:  The chief end of man is to glorify God and we do that through constant worship.  Try worshiping God through the avenue of beauty – something pleasing to the senses, to the soul, something timeless, more focused on the Spirit, spontaneous, less controlled.  We can’t control the wind, but we can put ourselves in a position where we can feel it when it blows.

The Green Knight and School For Scandal: A Lesson in Deception

Deception, lies, seduction, trickery. We may use these words to describe the latest prime time sitcom, but they also describe two Great Books. In fact, the history of these devices goes back even further to the first people when Eve is deceived by the crafty serpent whose mission is to steal, kill, and destroy. Interestingly, these same tools can be used to test the hearts of man. On the surface, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight by Tolkien and School for Scandal by Sheridan are extremely different works. One is a medieval tale of the Knights of the Round Table and the other is an 18th century comedy of manners. Similarly, in each story, the climax occurs as the deception is unveiled and the hearts of the characters are revealed.

First, the mysterious Green Knight enters King Arthur’s castle wanting not war, but a “game” or a “Christmas pastime”. He challenges a knight to agree to strike ”blow for blow” with his ax and offers to be the first to receive the blow. Not a knight speaks up, so Arthur steps up to meet the challenge until Sir Gawain interrupts. He implores his uncle that “the match shall now be mine”. Sir Gawain claims that he is only honored because he is the king’s nephew and that he is the weakest, most feeble in wit, and the least loss. Gawain also states that “this affair is so foolish that it nowise befits you”. Arthur gives Gawain his blessing and the Green Knight positions himself for the fatal blow to the neck. When the ax decapitates the knight, he picks up his own head and tells Gawain to meet him at the Green Chapel in a year’s time.

As the story unfolds one year later, Gawain honors his commitment to this game and goes in search of the Green Knight. He finds a lord who can direct him to the Green Chapel and Gawain rests for several days at this castle. The lord goes hunting each day and makes a deal with Gawain that they shall exchange whatever each has gained for the day, the lord from the wood and Gawain from the castle. While the lord is hunting, his wife tries to seduce Gawain and he gracefully refuses, pointing out that she has already taken taken a husband far better than he. She settles for a courteous kiss and leaves him. When the lord returns with his catch of venison, he gives it to Gawain, who bestows a kiss on the lord. Gawain explains that he would gladly give more, but that is all he gained that day. The lord wants to know about the one who granted Gawain his kiss, but Gawain ends the inquiry by stating that was not part of the agreement. When the lord returns from the hunt the next day, he presents Gawain with the boar from his hunt, and Gawain bestows two kisses on the lord. The next day, the lady of the castle offers Gawain a costly ring to remember her, which Gawain again refuses gracefully. He has nothing of value to give in return. Additionally, the lady then offers the green girdle from her waist, which Gawain starts to refuse. As the lady continues to explain the the girdle protects the wearer from death, Gawain falls to the temptation to protect his life, for the next day he goes to meet the Green Knight. They agree to hide this from her husband and the reader thinks the deception is beginning.

But, alas, the reader and Gawain have been deceived all along by the lady and the lord, who is the Green Knight. Together, they have arranged these tests of the knight and his success will affect their meeting at the Green Chapel. At the end of the day, the lord returns with a fox and Gawain bestows three delicious kisses without revealing the green girdle. Gawain says farewell to all at the castle and is guided to the Green Chapel where the haunting sound of the Green Knight sharpening his ax permeates the forest. Gawain positions himself for the blow, but the Green Knight strikes to the side, making Gawain flinch. The Green Knight ridicules Gawain for flinching and a second blow misses as Gawain remains still. Finally, the Green Knight’s ax nicks the neck of Gawain, who jumps away to counter any further blow. Now, the Green Knight explains that he and his wife have orchestrated these encounters to test him. The first blow missed because Gawain kept his word and returned after a year. The second blow missed because he resisted the wife’s advances and surrendered all he had gained to the lord the first two days. The third blow nicked because he did not surrender the girdle on the last day. The Green Knight proclaims that Gawain is “the fair knight most faultless that e’er foot set on earth…But in this you lacked, sir, a little, and of loyalty came short. But that was for no artful wickedness, not for wooing either, but because you loved your own life; the less do I blame you.” Gawain is horribly remorseful about his choice and wears the girdle to remember is failure. We see deception used by the Green Knight to trick Gawain and the reader. Gawain’s character is tested and, although his fault is viewed as minor, he is forever humbled by his failure. The reader is also deceived. Is the character of the reader also tested through the story?

In School for Scandal, deception is also used, but Sheridan makes this clear to the reader, starting with the title. The school for scandal is lead by Lady Sneerwell who is attempting to break up Charles Surface and Marie with forged letters by Snake, hoping to have Charles for herself. She also has Joseph, Charles’ brother, working for the break-up so he can have Marie and her inheritance. Joseph enjoys a fine reputation while Charles is viewed as wild, overindulgent, and extravagant. Marie can see through Joseph’s facade and shuns his advances. Lady Sneerwell has taught Lady Teazle, the young wife of Sir Peter, the tools of malicious gossip, affairs, and backbiting, which is destroying her marriage. The play is mocking these vices in British society and the ruthless deception is obvious and used for selfish gain…until Sir Oliver enters. Joseph and Charles are Oliver’s nephews and prospective heirs and he desires to understand their true character since reports about them are conflicting. He has not seen his nephews in many years and hides his identity from them. He poses as a money lender named Premium to Charles, who is in tremendous debt. Charles auctions all of the family portraits to Premium, but will not part with the one portrait of his uncle. Charles proclaims, “No, hang it. I will not part with poor Noll. The old fellow has been very good to me, and, egad, I’ll keep his picture while I’ve a room to put it in.” Premium presses Charles to sell the portrait for as much as all of the rest, yet he will not succumb. Premium pays him double the price anyway and departs. Immediately, Charles sends money to old Stanley, a poor relative, and this is reported to Oliver. Now, Oliver sees Charles as honorable and charitable.

Meanwhile, Lady Teazle is caught in a rendez-vous with Joseph and hides behind a screen when her husband enters the room. Sir Peter has come to visit Joseph because he is concerned about an affair between his wife and Charles due to Lady Sneerwell’s scandalous lies and letters. As Charles comes to call, Sir Peter jumps in the closet so Joseph can question his brother about the affair. As he is hiding, he sees the dress behind the screen and Joseph explains that he is not an “absolute Joseph” and there is a French milliner waiting. Charles denies any relationship with Lady Teazle, yet suggests that Joseph and Lady Teazle were together. Joseph whispers that Sir Peter is in the closet and Charles pulls him out of the closet. Sir Peter explains that his suspicions have been relieved and he dismisses the suggestion about Joseph as a joke. Now, Lady Sneerwell is announced and Joseph leaves the room to stop her from entering. As Joseph returns, Charles is pulling the screen down to have a look at the French milliner pointed out by Sir Peter. Charles is amused at the sight of Lady Teazle and throws back lines to Sir Peter and Joseph that had been used against him. “Brother, I am sorry to find you have given that worthy man so much uneasiness! Sir Peter, there’s nothing in the world as noble as a man of sentiment.” Charles exits and Joseph tries to lie about the ordeal. Lady Teazle admits to seeking an affair with Joseph, but she repents due to the kind and generous words she overheard her husband speak.

Finally, Sir Oliver proceeds to meet Joseph as old Stanley, but Joseph refuses to help him by declaring two lies – that his uncle is so stingy that he never sends money, and he gives money to his brother so there is nothing left for Stanley. Oliver is furious and the character of the brothers is revealed through the deception. Also, Lady Sneerwell’s plan is discovered as Snake is bribed to tell the truth about the concocted relationship between Charles and Lady Teazle. So, Maria and Charles are free to pursue their relationship and Charles declares, “even scandal dies if you approve.” Although we have been aware of all the deception, we have followed the journey of Sir Oliver as he sought to discern the character of his nephews. Behind a disguise, he was able to see past the apparent flaws or assets on the Surface to see what was in the heart. Is the heart of the reader reveled, too?

It has been said that “Our character is what we do when we think no one is looking.” Deception was used to test the character of Sir Gawain, Joseph, and Charles because they thought their deeds were not being seen by the person that mattered. Their actions may have been different if they knew who was watching. So, we are given a glimpse of who they really are. The response to failure also reveals character. Joseph lies to excuse the appearances of Lady Teazle behind the screen and never admits to wrong doing. In contrast, Sir Gawain has succeeded in many tests and the most important ones. Yet, he is not proud of his success but is full of remorse about his failure. In addition, we also see the character of those who use deception. The Green Knight and Sir Oliver desired to understand the heart of another and respond accordingly without benefit to themselves. Lady Sneerwell and Joseph were purely seeking their own gain and were willing to hurt others to prevail. As we read these works, we are challenged to consider how our character will fare when tested. Is our heart pure, loyal, compassionate, trustworthy? Is there something or Someone guiding and filling our heart? How do we respond when we fail? Do we judge others by the flaws or assets on the Surface but fail to look deeper into the heart? Are our motivations concerned with what is best for another or are we consumed with our own selfish gain? The Great Books can be admired for their greatness, or we can rise to greatness as we learn from them. May our aim be the latter.


“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” —Thomas Paine

“Any of us can achieve virtue, if by virtue we merely mean the avoidance of the vices that do not attract us.” —Robert S. Lynd

“My goal in life is to be as good of a person as my dog already thinks I am.” —Author Unknown

“To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves. A lot of people mistake a short memory for a clear conscience.” —Doug Larson

Leadership Lessons from Across the Pond

The Prince by Machiavelli and Charles I from Hume’s History of England

Against the backdrop of his failing city-state Florence, Machiavelli writes to answer the question: “Why are we Italians so weak, unlike our Roman ancestors, and what kind of leader do we need?”

Consider the leadership of Agathocles, the Sicilian who became King of Syracuse. He tricked the people of Syracuse, murdered many of its citizens and seized the city without any civil dissension. He used wickedness to gain power. His brutality forced Carthaginians to leave Sicily in his control. Machiavelli praises him for rising above “a thousand hardships and dangers” to achieve high position.

But, we should not imitate or admire him, he argues, because it is wrong “to betray one’s friends, to be without loyalty, without mercy, without religion.” So he should be praised for his skill in rising to the top, but despised for his immoral means of getting there. These methods bring power, he writes, but never glory.

How do we justify these seemingly conflicting perspectives of Machiavelli? In the end, he doesn’t resolve it. Instead, he argues for hypocrisy, a strategy of apparently embodying the conflict itself. In chapter 18 he recommends that the prince be a “great hypocrite and dissembler,” and insists that such duplicity will triumph. Why? Because men are so simple and only obey present necessities. They only care about what affects them now, not about principle or moral correctness.

What sets the prince apart from the people is that he is not ruled by his appetites. He is able to manipulate events to his own end. He is cunning..skillful..smart. If he were writing today, Machiavelli would undoubtedly have an entire section of chapters on the presidency of Bill Clinton.

If Machiavelli argued for a moral opportunist and political pragmatist, Hume idealized the moral pragmatist and political conservative (?). Hume was asking a different, albeit related question: “Why are we English so misguided as to fight against our own government, and what kind of leaders have gotten us into this predicament?”

His question is answered, in part, by a critique of Charles I, who feels compelled to squash an insurrection in Ireland and Scotland (p. 346). But, ironically, by attempting to suppress this threat to his authority abroad, he allowed a fatal threat to his authority back home.

Parliament gained control of the regular military, so this left Charles to gather up a smaller force among his loyal followers. Then he made the mistake of going against the law of the land, opening the door for Parliament to do the same [Chapter LV, page 379]

It is remarkable how much the topics of argument were now reversed between the parties. The king, while he acknowledged his former error, of employing a plea of necessity in order to infringe the laws and constitution, warned the parliament not to imitate an example on which they threw such violent blame; and the parliament, while they clothed their personal fears or ambition under the appearance of national and imminent danger, made unknowingly an apology for the most exceptionable part of the king’s conduct. That the liberties of the people were no longer exposed to any peril from royal authority, so narrowly circumscribed, so exactly defined, so much unsupported by revenue and by military power, might be maintained upon very plausible topics: but that the danger, allowing it to have any existence, was not of that kind, great, urgent, inevitable, which dissolves all law and levels all limitations, seems apparent from the simplest view of these transactions. So obvious indeed was the king’s present inability to invade the constitution, that the fears and jealousies which operated on the people, and pushed them so furiously to arms, were undoubtedly not of a civil, but of a religious nature. The distempered imaginations of men were agitated with a continual dread of Popery, with a horror against prelacy, with an antipathy to ceremonies and the liturgy, and with a violent affection for whatever was most opposite to these objects of aversion. The fanatical spirit, let loose, confounded all regard to ease, safety, interest; and dissolved every moral and civil obligation.

Each party was now willing to throw on its antagonist the odium of commencing a civil war; but both of them prepared for an event which they deemed inevitable.

Charles I here dug his own grave. By elevating himself above the law when it seemed convenient (under the guise of necessity), he opened the door for his parliament to do the same. And since his power was already weakened by other mistakes, he was unable to recover.

These leadership mistakes broke the chain holding England together, and she simply could not find unity again until after a great civil war—a conflict that combined political power struggle with religious fervor, a catastrophe that questioned the age-old monarchy as a form of government (government by divine right no less), and a bloody slaughter that pitted a great nation’s brother against brother.

Both of these historians set leadership as their topic. Leaders are the rear view mirror they use to evaluate success and failure, virtue and catastrophe.

In Machiavelli we see the Renaissance passing on political theory to the Enlightenment, where God is no longer the author of government, but where government is a contract of the people who have a right to overthrow the government if it no longer serves them (Thomas More, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes). In Hume we see the failure of divinely appointed leaders to know their own followers and serve them in a principled manner.

There is no evidence in the creation story that man was ever designed to rule over nations, or even cities. God seemed to prefer personal relationship and being in charge himself. But in this fallen world, human leadership is a fact of life. Like the farmer who learns how to minimize weeds and maximize yields, we might as well learn to lead the best we can. And these two writers give us valuable lessons that can save our own leadership many years of pain, and our followers much grief.

Leadership is difficult. Success in leadership demands the highest morality, wisdom, courage, and self-control. To fail, only a single weakness can lead to a cascade of consequences, some of them even fatal.

Along with Machiavelli and Hume, we idealize a leader who gives the law, and abides by it. We envision a leader who speaks the truth, and lives it. We long for a leader who gives us a good life, and lives one before us. And when we meet this leader who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we stop looking for any merely human leader and bow down and sing with the angels, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is, and is to come.”


Dates

1469-1527 Machiavelli
1478-1535 Thomas More, beheaded after trial for treason for denying that King Henry VIII was the Supreme Head of the Church of England
1513 Machiavelli writes The Prince
1516 More writes Utopia
1588-1679 Thomas Hobbes
1632-1704 John Locke
1642-1651 English Civil War
1651 Hobbes writes Leviathan (political theory)
1689 Locke writes Two Treatises of Government
1690 Lock writes An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
1711-1776 David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian)
1754-1762 David Hume writes History of England

Descartes and Hume: Opposite Ends…of the Same Spectrum

This year we read philosophical works by Rene Descartes and David Hume. In their writings, both Descartes and Hume strive to answer the question, “How do we know what we know?”  Is knowledge essentially gained through reason or through experience?  While these two positions at first seem antithetical, they are actually tightly linked in that the very act of reasoning is an experience and that the processing of experiences requires reasoning.  If a being can engage in thinking, then it not only exists, but is having an experience; and if a being can question and draw inferences from its experiences, then it is reasoning.

From the seventeenth to the eighteenth century, both rationality and empiricism became hallmarks of what would later be called the period of Enlightenment.  Philosophy of existence and causality (as opposed to philosophy of morality) was as much a science as physics; understanding in one discipline would often be used to explain the other. Enlightenment thinkers championed skepticism, abstract reasoning, and testability.

In his Meditations on the First Philosophy, Descartes strives to arrive at one absolute truth which can act as the foundation for all the sciences.  In the first two meditations, through a carefully and brilliantly laid out argument, Descartes arrives at what he believes to be the one irrefutable truth: he thinks.  He can think.  Because he can think, he must exist.  Because he can conceive of himself, his mind must exist.

He proceeds in the next meditation to extend this reasoning to God. That he can conceive of God proves that God must exist.  For how could a finite being conceive of something outside itself? This concept of God must have a cause and that cause must be God Himself.

Descartes spends the rest of his time building upon this method of reasoning, extending it to the material world. He believes that the corporeal world can most accurately be apprehended through careful reasoning.  This, he believed, would lay a solid foundation for understanding all the sciences. It must be understood that this is where Descartes is headed all along.  He seeks to buttress the discoveries of science with reasoning, not demolish them.  But perhaps his defense of the existence of God obscures his intent.

It certainly seems that Hume took issue with Descartes’ defense of the existence of God.  One wonders if Hume would have denounced Descartes so viciously in ECHU if Descartes had not attempted to prove the existence of God.  Hume categorically opposes Descartes’ reasoning here, but elsewhere in Enquiry, he warns against dispelling abstract reasoning altogether.

But the importance of Hume’s writing lies in his careful exegesis of how we perceive both experiences and ideas.  He argues that experiences precede ideas.  A being can have no conception of what he has not experienced.  All thoughts, ideas, memories, even dreams, are based in experience. Causality can only be inferred, and meaning can only be conferred.

This method of understanding the world, that is conferring meaning from the observable, would set the stage for the exaltation of empiricism over reasoning.  While Hume clearly did not propose eradicating reason, the idea that facts and experience exist first and that man must connect the dots between the facts we observe has taken on gargantuan meaning in our own century.  It has become difficult to argue that anything has cause, meaning or even existence, if it cannot be observed and tested.

These two works are seminal because they raise the issues of questioning accepted institutions; accepted methods of understanding ourselves, our world and even God; and because they each introduce a systematic method of enquiry.  The influence of this kind of systematic skepticism reaches through three centuries to our own time and has become a fundamental component of 21st-century learning.

Life Journeys

As we come to the close of Year 2 in our adventure with the Great Books, I am both humbled and proud.  I am humbled as I work to put thoughts together into a meaningful contribution to the great conversation. I am proud that I have nevertheless, managed to seem worldly and wise through membership in our book club. Many people assume you are intelligent when you request a book entitled “The Ecclesiastical History of the English People.”  They think you must be brainy if you gasp at the book sale as you come across a copy of Descartes. Humility and pride are themes in the autobiographies of John Bunyan and Benjamin Franklin as well.  There are a few interesting similarities in the background summaries set forth by both men as they put to paper the story of their lives.  They were both from work-a-day families with limited resources and slight education. Each challenged himself by reading influential authors, and subsequently, both became prolific writers. Each has had amazing influence.  But their paths diverge quickly when they chronicle the ways in which they dealt with personal sin and vice in their life journeys.

Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, declares he was a poor boy from Boston and also makes it clear that his success was not fueled by family connections or inherited wealth, although it has been noted that he was not as bereft of connections and help as he portrays.  Nevertheless, his formal education was meager, yet he challenged himself to read and rewrite classic literature and went on to become a prolific writer.  In his autobiography, he focuses on his strengths — the glory of the self-made man.

In a similar vein, in his autobiography, John Bunyan, son of a Bedfordshire tinker, commented on his family lineage as being “of that rank that is meanest and most despised of all the families in the land”. It has been suggested that Bunyan reveals his humble origins in order to give credit to God for what he has become. Like Franklin, Bunyan’s formal education was meager, yet he also challenged himself to read such hefty works as the commentaries of Martin Luther and became a prolific writer of more than 60 books. In his autobiography he focuses on his personal weaknesses — to the glory of God.

In The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, we find in the title where Benjamin Franklin placed himself.  Front and center.  In his autobiography he chronicled the power of self-discipline, self-determination, self-examination, self-assurance, and self-promotion as he presents the self-made man of the new nation.  In his attempt to achieve moral perfection, he pursued acquiring the habitude of 12 virtues by sheer hard work.  As each virtue was gained, Mr. Franklin kept track in the ivory leaves of a memorandum book.  “On those lines I mark’d my faults with a black lead pencil, which marks I could easily wipe out with a wet sponge.” Literally and figuratively, he found he could wipe his own slate clean. How did this bold and arduous project end?  In defeat.  At the suggestion of a Quaker friend, Mr Franklin added a 13th virtue to his list.  Pride.  But this vice he could not conquer. “In reality, there is, perhaps, no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride….for, even if I could conceive that I had completely overcome it, I should probably be proud of my humility.”

In Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, we are told even in the title, where John Bunyan placed himself.  At the bottom.  In his autobiography he chronicled his struggle against sin and the everlasting temptation to place himself on the throne of worship.  He fought temptation again and again until eventually coming to an understanding of God’s grace.  Even then he continued to wrestle with guilt.  He could not wipe his slate clean.  How did this struggle end?  At the cross.  Humbled.  “I saw that I lacked a perfect righteousness to present me without fault before God, and this righteousness was nowhere to be found but in the person of Jesus Christ.”

Unlike Bunyan, It doesn’t appear that Franklin, ever plumbed the deceitfulness and treachery of his own heart. Franklin pursued virtue based on his desire to be a better person and relied on the abilities of the man rather than power of the Holy Spirit, so he stumbled in his original 12-step program to wholeness.  Unfortunately for such a great man, his faith recognized God only as the centerpiece of his religion, impersonal and powerless,and therefore Franklin relied on his own wisdom.  “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.”  Franklin embodied the very heartbeat of revolutionary America who would not bow to any king. Unable to humble himself and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, Benjamin  Franklin is only who he says he is — a self-made man whose contributions to mankind are invaluable but whose legacy to us is the spirit of “self”.  Benjamin Franklin proudly takes us on his life journey to Philadelphia.

On the other hand, Bunyan’s change came from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  He began to see “something of the vanity and wretchedness” of his wicked heart.  In addition, he found “there was a great difference between the faith that is feigned according to man’s wisdom and that which comes by revelation from God into a man’s spirit.”  Year after year he longed for peace and sought after truth using the Bible as his guidebook.  Scripture was his roadmap to repentance.  Through the account of his life’s journey, John Bunyan humbly presents a travelogue to the City of God.

Good  book vs. bad book?  Good man vs. bad man?  I am learning that the great books are not so easily dismissed.  The great conversation is not that simple. As we identify the faults and follies of those we read about, it becomes very apparent that there are more questions to ponder than answers to flaunt. Of course the vanity and arrogance of Ben Franklin seems foolish but unfortunately all too familiar.  Uncomfortably so. Of course our heart’s desire connects with the struggle of Bunyan to understand grace and sin, but because each of us is living out our own autobiography, life is unfolding in real time where pride and humility continue to be at odds. Self reign vs. God reign. We do not do what we want to do, and do what we don’t want to do.  These autobiographies challenge us to examine and confront our own pretensions. How do we confess our own moral lapses and less than virtuous propensities.  Where does my help come from?  Do I use a sponge and window cleaner on the whiteboard of my heart, or am I able to let the blood of Christ wash me whiter than snow. Where will my journey end? Where will yours?

Paper Topics

For the capstone, we will each write 2-3 pages highlighting a connection between two of the books on the list that we’ve read. We’ll read this paper at the capstone lunch.

Ken: Hume History part 2 (position 12) with Machiavelli Prince (4)

Pat: Machiavelli Prince (4) with Bunyan Grace Abounding (9)

John: Benjamin Franklin (14) with Socrates (0)

Wendy: School for Scandal (13) with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (3)

Jennifer: Shakespeare Taming of the  Shrew (7) with School for Scandal (13)

Angie: Benjamin Franklin (14) with Grace Abounding (9)

Walker: Machiavelli Prince (4) with Benjamin Franklin (14)

Jeff: Beowulf (2) with Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (3)

Diana: Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy (8) with Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (11)

See you on June 13.