Confessions

Before reading this, I thought you should know that this reading prompted me to include more comparisons with myself than I have written in previous blogs.

In the first few chapters of Book 1, Augustine is writing his thoughts down on what he perceives God might be, who He is, and what He encompasses.  It is interesting that he mentions that God is all-encompassing, and perhaps exists outside of our universe and the heavens because his omnipresence is too large to cage.  Some people might have looked at this and extended it into the theory that our universe exists in the mind of God, or the being of God that is attempting to become self-aware.  I know this stretches far from the material, but it has a slight connection, and it’s what I thought about as I read through this part.

Chapter  7 in Book 1 annoys me.  I suppose it has always annoyed me when people believe that we are inherently evil, and don’t have a clean slate when we’re born (this isn’t just stemming from present circumstance, but I suppose that has something to do with it).  I suppose that means all the miscarriages, the stillborn, and babies that died in the course of history never had a chance?  I never thought I’d be blogging about my problems with Augustine’s theology, but I thought I should just share those select few thoughts, as it was the first thing I came across that I really disagreed with.

I like how this autobiography (of sorts) reads more like a prayer.  He keeps referring back to God, praising him consistently, and he even sounds nervous at times, like he’s going to say the wrong thing (God being the arbiter, not the creator, of sin on page 31).  He also continually apologizes for different aspects of his life over the course of his prayer/biography.  Perhaps he seems quite unsure of things in regard to God because his household was somewhat divided in faith and growing up.  Still, Christianity was prominent, and he overcame certain ideals normally provoked by traditional, pagan-infused education.

“This clearly shows that we learn better in a free spirit of curiosity than under fear and compulsion” (pg 35).  Both John Dewey and I would agree.  I’ve never had a better education than when I was in a class that I strongly desired to be in, which all stemmed back to my curiosity and respect for the study.  What’s ridiculous, sad, and funny is, I’ve practically memorized most of the rules for my favorite table-top RPG games by mentally devouring the guides from cover to cover, out of fascination and interest.  I just wish I could do that with some of my class textbooks.

Concerning the pear tree, I believe he was doing one of two things.  Yes, he could have very well been exaggerating, and it was just one of those “boys will be boys” moments.  Obviously, because he was bringing it up after all this time, perhaps it wasn’t so much of an exaggeration in his attempts to make amends with God.  It may be that he is actually accepting that he stole for the sake of stealing, and not out of necessity, but perhaps he gave this quite a bit of thought.  This story, as well as many others in the book, actually serves a purpose.  They are an expression of what Augustine deems as Christian behavior, and also how evil and ungodliness can/will operate in the world.  Here he is showing us that sometimes humanity does just have a natural tendency towards sin, because there was no good reason for him and his friends to strip the fruit from the tree.

Questions

Did you find yourself in agreement with a lot of what Augustine was writing about, or did you find some things you disagreed with?  What were they?

In writing your blog, did you find the Confessions to lead you to compare more with your life than in your usual writings?

Do the stories that Augustine includes serve a moral purpose beyond just telling us about his life?

Aeneid I

I’m part way through the selected reading for the week, and I’m already impressed.  Virgil definitely has his own language, but I can probably thank Robert Fagles for much of that.  Still, I am enjoying this slightly more than reading about Odysseus (Ulysses).  Perhaps my favorite step up from Odysseus is that I notice less lamenting.  Sure both have much to complain about, but Aeneas keeps much of his inside him.  On page 54, we have insight as to how he keeps “his anguish buried in his heart.”  Even when he’s telling part of his sad tale to his mother, Venus, he doesn’t sound nearly as pathetic (page 60).

I will lighten up on my criticism of Odysseus’ behavior.  His only real mission was to get back home to Ithaca, whereas Aeneas had a mission set by Fate to bring his people to Italy and found a home there.  Plus more gods seemed to be against him.

Some things I found interesting stem from Virgil’s desire to use this text to etiological effect.  Rome has already been established, but he is trying to redefine the origin story, and also explain why some things were the way they were in his time.  It’s fascinating to find that the gods are constantly talking about Aeneas’ duty to Rome, and its foundation.  He has the opportunity to make it seem like Rome was always destined for greatness, and even goes so far as saying it will last eternally (56, “empire without end”).  In a way, he was correct.  Rome has gone down in history offering successive civilization ideals and definition.

As a side note, I also find it interesting that on page 62, Virgil writes that the Carthaginians are working on building a temple to Juno.  This is definitely through their Peace of the Gods, and how Romans are always trying to work their pantheon around others.  Carthage was part of the Semitic Phoenician peoples.  They had their own distinct pantheon, and would likely have been worshipping Astarte/Ishtar.

Moving back to Virgil’s attempts in explaining things, it also allows him to foreshadow.  Not only did the gods know of the coming of Roman rule, but they also seemed biased toward them.  As we know, Carthage was basically an antithesis to Rome.  One was founded and led by a woman (Dido), and the other by Aeneas.  Based off of the curse on page 149, she sets in motion the endless strife that existed between her people and theirs.  This was an interesting way to establish the foundation of animosity between the two nations.  We can go even earlier in the story, however, to page 69.  Here we see Venus scheming to get Cupid involved in deceiving the Carthaginians.  She indicates that these Tyrians are treacherous and fork-tongued, but before this, we have no context as to what she is talking about, and why she would think of them in such a way.

There are some things I notice that parallel Homer.  He uses backstory to draw us in.  What I mean is, he sets the story up after tragedy has already befallen our protagonist and his men.  A short ways into the books we get to see what actually happened, and it is our desire to fill in the blanks that keeps us interested.  A small difference one might mention is the fact that Poseidon essentially hates Odysseus, but he has admiration and pity on his Trojans.

I believe I’ve made it clear where I stand so far in the reading.  Aeneas is more steadfast than Odysseus.  He maintains his strong demeanor more, in my opinion.  Plus, this whole story revolves around his virtue (manliness) and his dedication to Rome.

Questions

Were there parts of the reading where you lost track of who was in charge of the dialogue?

In what ways does Dido represent Carthage and being the opposite of Aeneas/Rome?

Do you like the personality of Odysseus or Aeneas more?  Why?