Tartuffe

I think it's amazing that a play that was originally written in French was able to be translated while preserving the rhyme. Truly amazing.

Loving the play. It's actually hilarious ("Tartuffified;" "Miss Smarty Pants").

Also a theme I am wondering about in the play: practical/rational vs. absurdity/irrationality. It keeps coming up... so does honor...

This post will be edited later.

--

Okay, I'm back. To continue my thought on rationality and irrationality, I think it's a major part of the play. The characters seem to be divided into these two groups: people like Cléante and Dorine are always there to be logical and rational, and constantly pointing out the inconsistencies and irrationality of people like Madam Pernelle and, especially, Orgon. Even Orgon admits that his emotions got the best of him, indicating that was why he was so irrational: "Emotions got the best of me, it's true" (V, iii, 75.) The "irrational" people are made so by their contradictions, exaggerations, and absurd ideas, such as when Tartuffe claims that "Because our reputations are our wealth." (III, iv, 133). There are really tons of different points in the play when the practical people are pointing out the failed logic of the impractical ones.

Speaking of Tartuffe, however, he is an interesting character throughout the play because I think it's hard to fit him in either the rational or the irrational category. I guess on the outside he would seem insane (to the logical types like Dorine and Cléante, at least). But on the inside, if he knows he is fooling people like Orgon, I wonder if that makes him clever. I think that Tartuffe manages to escape rationalism via hypocrisy and irony, as seen for example in Act IV, Scene 1. I laughed when Tartuffe says (IV, i, 23-24),

"Heaven's best interests will have been served,

When wrongdoers have got what they deserved."

Ironic, right? It's like he won't even admit to being crazily irrational. SOMEONE'S in denial! I still have to point out my favorite "Tartuffe is irrational" part (IV, v, 119-122):

"There'll be no sins for which we must atone,

'Cause evil exists only when it's known.

Adam and eve were public in their fall.

To sin in private is not to sin at all."

SERIOUSLY, Tartuffe?! If you're so pious, you would know that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Do you even hear the words that are coming out of your mouth? Do YOU even believe what you say, or are you just trying to fool Elmire, along with everyone else? What a loser.

In the end, I enjoyed how the tables turned for Orgon too when he saw for himself what Tartuffe was really like, and thus became exasperated when trying to explain that to his mother (Madam Pernelle).

My favorite "logical" scene, as I like to think of it, came at the end of Act V, Scene 5 (lines 9-12). This is just after Madam Pernelle realizes everything about Tartuffe, and Dorine has something to say about the material wealth Orgon and his family has. She says,

"Because men are corrupted by their wealth.

Out of concern for your spiritual health,

He's taking, with a pure motivation,

Everything that keeps you from salvation."

LOVE IT! Even though, yet again, Orgon asks her if she has tired of him saying "Quiet!" to her, Dorine has presented us with the best logic ever. HA! LOGIC WINS AGAIN! How does THAT feel, Tartuffe?! Great play!

Milton in Art, Part II

Sin, Death, and the Devil, 1792, James Gillray

Okay, okay. Last one, I promise. After Sarah wondered what the key meant in the Blake watercolor, I was trying to find out and came across this. How cool is this caricature? It's from the political satirist James Gillray, and according to the website I found it from, it parodies the quarrel between Prime Minister Pitt (Death) and Chancellor Thurlow (Satan), with Queen Charlotte in the middle (Sin), protecting Pitt. I think it's hilarious, and it was probably really offensive to the portrayed parties. I hope we get to this section in Cultural History because now I want to know more about the political context behind the painting.

Death, continued

In Book X that we had read for Thursday (class discussion was obviously a little limited that day), a big part of the action of the book is the decision on Adam's part - and eventually Eve's - to confess their sins and beg for repentance/forgiveness. Repentance was and is a huge theme of many of the books we have read both this semester and previously. Because Adam and Eve ask God for forgiveness, they manage what Satan did not, because he would rather "reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

I feel like we have sort of seen this coming from the previous books, because although Satan is inherently evil (as evidenced by his contorted face even when assuming the form of a cherub), there was always that one shred of jealously and hatred that made him wish so badly to want to live in Paradise as the humans did. If he had only repented as a result of his despair (fear?) as they did, I wonder if he might have ended up differently.

Considering that, is Satan the Hero of this book? A lot of the action is focused on him. Maybe his stock "fatal flaw" was in this inability to feel remorse. Maybe it's Adam and/or Eve. Does a hero need to be a good person? Or can he literally be the Devil? If this is the case then I think Milton was pretty bold to make Satan the hero of his book in such times.

Milton in Art

William Blake, Satan, Sin, and Death, 1808, Watercolor.

Just wanted to share this interesting image of Paradise Lost. It is Blake's rendition of Satan, Sin, and Death, and I like it because it is so luminous and bright. Instead of being completed with oil-based paints, it is a watercolor, which allowed Blake to portray Death as that terrible transparent shadow (in line with the way Milton described Death). There is also a lot of movement in it, and I especially like the creepy serpent coiled around at the bottom. Do you like it?

Paraíso Perdido

Wood engraving: Gustave Doré, 1866.

Satan's Descent. Isn't this an eerie picture?

We have been talking a lot in class about the concepts of light and dark, but there was one thing I did not have a chance to bring up on Thursday. I thought I would draw everyone's attention to the concept of the Tree of Knowledge. In Book IV, lines 510-520, we are told how Satan sees Adam and Eve walking and becomes very jealous of them (I like Milton's portrayal of Satan's complexity, by the way). I must be honest when I say I am not sure who is talking at that point, because at first I thought it was Satan, miserably watching as Adam and Eve are "imparadised in one another's arms," but the lines I wanted to discuss are these:

"...all is not theirs it seems:

One fatal tree there stands of knowledge called,

Forbidden them to taste: Knowledge forbidd'n?

Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord

Envy them that? Can it be sin to know,

Can it be death?..."

I highlighted those as I was reading, because I think something remains to be said for the phrase "knowledge forbidd'n," and the possible consequences for Adam and Eve having gained it (sin, or possibly death). What kind of knowledge is this? Does the Knowledge (capital K) differ for Adam and for Eve? What about Knowledge of the truth of God (or, maybe like we discussed, "light?") Therefore, I wonder if Knowledge would then be equated with "shame," "perversion," or "sin." Although I cannot offer a definitive answer in this blog, maybe we could talk about this kind of apparently forbidden Knowledge more in class. What do you think that Knowledge could mean in any of these cases?

Why does war remain...

...the so-called profession of kings? Why does war seem to be necessary for "glory?" What kind of glory is that? I am referring to the discussion I brought up in Cultural History on Friday... I cannot get past that whole "seeking glory through the agency of military conquest." Wouldn't a king be taking a huge gamble by embarking in warfare? I guess "glory" would only be achieved in the case of whopping success. Does that mean shame for failure in military pursuits? That just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I suppose.

Anne Bradstreet

Well, I have to agree with the other girls in the class in saying that Anne Bradstreet was a great read. I loved exploring her life and learning not only about her experience (as a young woman, a colonist, an Elizabethan, a poet, the first American poet, etc.) but also a bit about Puritanism ideology and beliefs. I studied American History my junior year of high school, but we barely touched upon Puritanism, so I thought the book made a great examination of it.

However, you have to take a look at this article I found. It discusses a recent study that found that New England has surpassed the West Coast as the least religious region in America. It even mentions such "obvious suspects" as the "pedophilia scandal in the Catholic Church." It's a super interesting article, especially given everything we just read about the God-fearing religious fervor of the Puritans and the fact that they came to America to pursue their Utopia.

I was discussing this with some of the other girls, and we were thinking a lot about why exactly the Puritans came to the New World in the first place. Rather than promoting the idea of religious freedom, I feel like they came here to form that utopian society where they (as the dissenters) could flourish in their own Puritan mindset. There was no religious freedom here, as evidenced by the fear they had of other religious ideas, but rather they wanted to be exclusive in who they would accept into their community. I guess the end of the article put it best when it said that "religions are like denominations... They tend to shift." Have a look at it and tell me what you think!