"Spit her out...Let the girl go"

While reading Antigone I came across a quote that I personally thought was interesting.  If I could memorize I would memorize it to quote.  It is found on line723

                                Oh Haemon never lose your sense of judgment over a woman.

                                The warmth, the rush of pleasure, it all goes cold in your arms,

                                I warn you…a worthless woman in your house, a misery in your

                                Bed.  What wound cuts deeper that a loved one turned against you?

                                Spit her out, like a mortal enemy—let the girl go.

As of right now I do not feel this way towards any woman, but I think Sophocles captures this difficult feeling on paper.  For this reason I am a fan of Sophocles now. 

I love the way this quote is shaped and formed.  I think the feeling that he is capturing in this quote can be a couple different ideas.  If we break it down line per line; the first line is all about not losing your rational over a woman.

 The second is about the physical aspects of loving a women can grow less significant.

The fourth is that a woman turned against you is one of the most significant heart breaking experiences.

 I love the last, Creon tells his son to let the girl go, simply get over her.

The overall theme of the quote for me, is that when you encounter a person of the opposite sex that you develop a relationship with, if the relationship is no good, “spit her out, let the girl go.”

Auerbach's Statement

According to Erich Auerbach’s essay “Odysseus’ scar” the statement is claimed that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted.”  To look into this statement we first must come to a conclusion of the vocab used in the quote. 

Analysis as I see it deals with examination, it consists of looking into a word or subject, separating ideas, and dissecting the meaning.

Interpretation, on the other hand deals with making meaning out of what it is you are looking at.  The two terms are somewhat similar in that they both deal with looking at something with a lens, making a conclusion and deciphering, but they are inherently different in that interpretation takes on a meaning, and explanation.

Auerbach’s argument involves Homer’s tale of Odysseus and the Biblical account of Abraham and Isaac.  Auerbach’s statement that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted” first had me question the validity of the statement.  My question was, “Cant everything be interpreted?” I still believe that every piece of literature can be interpreted, but to get my head around this statement I have to think of it as a comparison.  A comparison between the two works.

The Odyssey has little or no room for interpretation compared to the Biblical account of the Abraham and Isaac story.  Looking at the Abraham story we find that the author left plenty of room for interpretation, one such example is the question, “Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice his son.”  In the text there is no explanation for us, as a reader we must interpret it in our own way.

On the other hand, we find in the Odyssey that almost everything is explained and in great detail.  Leaving hardly, if any room, for interpretation.

So that is how I understand the statement by Auerbach, that “Homer can be analyzed but cannot be interpreted.

Why we all should be tricksters in this life

I find it interesting that Homer would have two protagonists with different characteristics.  Looking at the Iliad and the hero in that story Achilles, and the Hero in the Odyssey, Odysseus, we find two heroes that are very different in nature.  

Achilles as pointed out in the handout we received (“Homer, Odysseus and the Odyssey”)  is “renowned for his strength and skill in battle” He is a passionate hero who often shows “anger, sulking, pride and rashness.”

Odysseus on the other hand is “known for his cool intelligence and wit… a person who uses slyness and cunning to gain the upper hand in a conflict.”

Taking these two characters and their characteristics into consideration, I find it interesting to look at the outcome of the two.  Achilles, the passionate warrior, inevitably dies in battle, and Odysseus, essentially a “trickster” ends up back with his women Penelope.

Now I do not believe Homer was trying to say that if you are a trickster, that things will work out for you better than the passionate warrior.  But that is the message that I received while analyzing the two heroes.

Now applying this to everyday life, do we find out that maybe the “tricksters” of society have the upper hand in life, compared to the warriors?  Does wit overpower physical prowess?  I would submit that in most cases in life the trickster is better off than the warrior. 

And that is why we should all be tricksters.

The Flood Stories

In the two flood stories written in the Hebrew text and the Epic of Gilgamesh there are many similarities and differences.   There are three main and important differences that I found within the two texts.

The first main difference is found in the ending of the story.  In the Hebrew text we find that Noah gives a burnt sacrifice. And the Lord or Yahweh says unto Noah “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.” Yahweh also gives unto Noah a covenant that he will never flood the earth completely again.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh Enlil, said unto Utnapishtim “In time past Utnapishtim was a mortal man; henceforth he and his wife shall live in the distance oat the mouth of the rivers.”  These are two distinct different endings to the stories.  Noah was given a commandment, and a promise for the future generations of earth, and Utnapishtim was given the ability to eternal life. We see that Utnapishtim was given eternal life in the quote where Gilgamesh says to Utnapishtim “Tell me truly, how was it that you came to enter the company of the gods to possess everlasting life?”

The second difference in these two stories is the divine characters.  In the Hebrew version there is Yaweh, a single God.  In the Epic of Gilgamesh  we find many gods who play a role in the flood story.  Such characters are Anu, lord of the firmament father and warrior.  Also Enlil their counselor, NInurta the helper, and Ennugi watcher over cannals, Adad lord of the storm. Nergal who pulled out the dams of the nether waters ect…   It seems that a main difference between the two stories is obviously that the Hebrew story is a monotheistic religion, and the Epic of Gilgamesh is a polytheistic religion.

The Last difference is the motive to flood the earth.  In the Hebrew text Yahweh is sadden and angered by the wickedness of the people on the earth. His creations.  In the Epic of Gilgamesh it says that “the world teemed, the people multiplied and the world bellowed like a wild bull, and the great god was aroused by the clamour…’The uproar of mankind is intolerable and sleep is no longer possible by reason…so the gods agreed to exterminate mankind.”

Though this quote from the Epic of Gilgamesh could be interpreted into wickedness, from just reading it we find that the noise of humans was too great.  Another key difference in the two stories.

Moral of the Story...

While reading The Epic of Gilgamesh, a quote from the story stuck out to me.  The quote from the story that I thought was interesting was towards the end of the “Forest Journey.”  Gilgamesh talks to his friend Enkidu, and says “He who leaves the fight unfinished is not at peace.”

 Enkidu was fearing to fight the dreaded opponent Humbaba.  To motivate Enkidu Gilgamesh speaks these words.  They have traveled a great distance and at the time of battle Enkidu was ready to go back. 

I think that there is a life lesson taught in this section of the story.  That it is important to finish the sometimes epic challenges of life and not to give up.  Also to try to live life with no regret, if they had turned back they probably would have regretted their decision and not have been at peace about it.  I guess the moral of this part of the story for me is not to give up.

The God of the Old Testament

The Christian concept of God is an all powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being.  From the Old Testament, we find what seems to the reader, a contradictory descriptions of God specifically in the Flood story.  We find specific words and examples of God being powerful, but questions may arise to the reader who is reading strictly in a literary standpoint. 

One such example of God almost having human characteristics and not necessarily all powerful, is found when God sees man and how wicked they have become, the account says “And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”

 The important word to focus on is repented.  Repentance is something you do when you have done something wrong, the way this story is structured, and its word choice, leads the reader to believe that God, has done something wrong.  This is contradictory, in nature, how can an omnipotent, perfect being, need repentance?

Another way that God is portrayed in this story is a merciful God.  We as readers can come to this conclusion, by the idea that God did not destroy everyone, but he warned Noah, and his family, and helped him develop a way to escape the flood.

Another description of God, found in the story of the Flood, is found at the end of the story. The God of the Old Testament is willing to bless the people who follow him. “And God blessed Noah and his sons”  After the water had receded, Noah and his family built an alter and offered sacrifices to the Lord.  The Lord accepted these sacrifices, and blessed Noah and his family.

The God of the Old Testament, can be portrayed through the text, as one who repents.  Through the text as well the God of the Old Testament can be described as a merciful God, and one who is willing to bless those who follow him.

Metadivine Realm

I found the Metadivine Realm, at least what we had gone over in class, interesting.  Probably the most interesting idea that I gathered from the MDR handout and lecture, was that evil came from the MDR.

 I'd like to point out how evil is "built into the structure of the universe," that it is "inherent in the world."

One idea  Kaufman brings out is that "humans are powerless in the struggle between good and evil."  This last quote makes me ponder a little, about the validity of the statement.

 Let's say that there is actually two forces at work good, and evil, and that these forces are so powerful that we and humans can not function without them, we are either doing something for good, or we are doing something for evil.  Maybe there is no middle ground, maybe we are truly "powerless in the struggle between good and evil."

Compare/Contrast

In “The Epic of Creation” we find that the skies and earth are existent at the time but just without name.  “When skies above were not yet named,” leads the reader to believe that the skies were present, they at the time, did not have a name though. This goes along with the earth as well, present, just nameless. 

In the opening lines of “The Epic of Creation” we learn about the “maker” named Tiamat.  We also learn that “gods were born within them.”  Tiamat being the maker, then other gods following after her.

In “Metamorphoses” the opening line says “Before the ocean was or earth or heaven, nature was all alike a shapelessness chaos.”  The situation of creation was finally changed by “God or kindlier nature… separated heaven from earth, water from land…”

A key similarity that we find within the two works is that the gods did not create the matter that was present at the beginning.  After having read the passages one can come to a conclusion that the gods in both stories were not necessarily creators of matter. 

The text leaves the reader to ponder the age old question of where everything came from.  So in this way the texts are similar in that they do not answer the question of where or how the matter began.

In comparing the similarities between these two different creation stories we find that a higher power is involved.  In the “Epic of Creation” we find a maker involved, and in” Metamorphoses” we find a “God or kindlier Nature,” separated the earth and heavens. 

Another similarity that is found within the two texts is the structure of the poems.  They are both laid out in verse, though since they have been translated one can wonder if they used to have end rhyme. 

Not only are they laid out structurally similar, they both have an ancient feeling to them, though translated, the way key points are worded in both stories, hints to the reader of an ancient text.