Literature of the Western World Essay

wear Luis De Leons use of the entire shepherd motif in At the Ascension (Wilkie & Hurt, 2001) is a wholly unexpected one. Hearing the phrase or title the good shepherd clearly fills one with expectation that the book of account good in it means good of action. In different words, a reader encountering this phrase would assume that the shepherd is good because of the work that he does. For example, a shepherd who c be affluenty rounds up his sheep would be a good shepherd, while one who loses his sheep would be a bad shepherd.This is in competition to good referring to a quality of character. In this fashion, good is a com handst of what a person is, not what a person does. This is apart from action. It is this last custodytioned under delivering that is what De Leon leaves us with. He writes Holy Shepherd, dost thou leave thy crimp in this v every last(predicate)ey profound and obscure, to d headspring with solitude and grieve, while shrill by dint of the heavens pure, tho u risest to immortality secure? (p. 2217). This is certainly not the natural use of the metaphor in apparitional literature.For a more conventional, religious interpretation of the shepherd, consider this oft quoted verse form from Lope de Vega entitled The bang-up Shepherd (Walsh, 1920). In it he writes, Shepherd Who with thine amorous sylvan song, hast mixed-up the slumber that encompassed me, who madst thy crook from the accursed tree, on which thy powerful ordnance store were stretched so grand Lead me to mercys ever-flowing fountains for thou my shepherd, fend for and guide sh altogether be.This image from de Vega is in complete opposition to the use of the pains by de Leon. It represents, again, a more typical usage of shepherd in a religious context, and is used to demonstrate unconditional, usually sacrificial fuck for others, as in de Vega. De Leon, though, licks that motif around, blaming the shepherd for not being all the things that our expectations demand.St. John of the Cross, in his poem I Entered Where I Did Not go to bed would seem, at least at first glance/first read, to be a substantial paradox. Certainly to the secular reader, it must be such. It is a poem that explores such seemingly contradictory thoughts such as, Unknowing where I was, I conditioned unheard of things, but what I heard I cannot say, for I remained unknowing, all reason now go by means ofed (Wilkie & Hurt, 2001, p. 2220). Using the words learned and unknowing in the same few lines does not simply transcend reason, but transcends every expectation but contradiction. This, as I stated, though, is the passel of the secular reader. The paradox is unraveled and the mystery revealed when read through the lens of the religious observer who is accustomed to this type of usage of the limitations of humanity. St. John clearly is lecture of two realms here, the physical (mortal) and the eldritch (eternal). Knowledge that the self possesses, he is intimating through this poem, is only the knowledge of the physical world that we micturate. In that area of understanding, we have our version of knowledge what he calls knowing.However, when attempting to grasp the reality of the tactile propertyual world, our knowledge that we possess about the physical world is absolutely null to us. Our very own reason (i.e. our mind) cannot even begin to understand what it sees of the spirit world. It ashes outside of our comprehension, and our ability to gain knowledge of. Even when we stand in its presence, we are left unknowing.Lupercio Leonardo de Argensolas poem beginning, basic I must confess, Don Juan, is most certainly a serious, though clever, observation about demeanor and truth. It reads in a whimsical way of fashion, and is almost too witty for its own good. Because of its non subtle imagination, and condescending language, the poem is often misunderstood. The reader is apt to rush to judgment. Far from being just a playful conceit, however, it contains much deeper meaning.Lines such as, Dona Elviras pink and white, if truly seen, owe to her no more than what they cost to buy, (Wilkie & Hurt, 2001, p. 2239) indicate such a lack of value of inner(a) beauty (and perhaps external beauty, for that matter) inwardly Dona Elvira that the reader almost must laugh at the headinged jest. But this is serious. Considering how Argensola treats this appearance of the lady, this is plain to see. He attributes her with false beauty and deceit, and and past goes on to explain that he is swayed by it. It is clear that he finds this trait of hers to be contrary to truth and is merely appearance.If the poet did not find these issues to be important, then he would have just stated the appearance of the deceit, and been done with it. Since he adds commentary, however, by going on to talk about its influence on him (and presumably all men), a serious tone is affected. It is similar, then, to Campions Amaryllis in I Care Not for These La dies (Campion). Campion declares of the country maidservant that her natural beauty disdains art and that her beauty is actually her own. In other words, this is the same question that Argensola raises, the same test he puts to the woman in his poem. Does she have internal beauty, that of truth without falsehood?This is the true beauty of internal integrity. Or is she just a painted lady, who practices deceit with her very nervus? These are serious questions about not only appearance, but likewise of truth, and both Argensola and Campion express the same judgment in the end. These are not mere plays on words, but deeper exercises into human behavior.Sor Juanas verses regarding mens options and their consequences exhibitions her craft at its very best (Wilkie & Hurt, 2001). As has been noted, it is the choice of her weapon reason that made her and still makes her one of the top anti-misogynists of all time. Her lack of flowery wording and coy assumptions and directions lend to the power of her poems.She remains fully a poet, while also assuming a full role of sociologist. Had she been purely focused on the direct attack, a non-rational bewilder of accusations, her legacy would have been much different. She knew and understood that the direct attack through poetry or other works of literature have been long derided as pure emotionalism, a weakness men attribute to women. Therefore, Sor Juana did turn to logic and rationale. Ironically, these have long been promoted by men to be mens tools.Her use of paradoxes to dismiss mens treatment of women is stupefying and successful. Her words are sharp. She raises issues in a back and forth style, point for point, in which paradoxes are found, such as men stating that they will striker a woman down emotionally, but be upset when they show emotions.Or courting a woman and then declaring her to be generate and lewd when she accepts. These paradoxes are enough for anyone feminist or non feminist to be able to u nderstand that, as Sor Juana would say, For plain default of common sense, could any action be so queer as oneself to cloud the mirror, then complain that its not clear? (p. 2263).Machiavellian behavior is that of catchy and duplicity. This type of overt behavior is easily found in Shakespeares The Tempest (Wilkie & Hurt, 2001). However, it is a tempered, double edged sword. It is too easy, nearly tempting, to set up pro- and anti-Machiavellian behavior within the play specifically to separate characters.What is intriguing is the rock for and against within the same character. Consider Prospero. He is full of cunning and guile. speckle outwardly extending a hand of friendship as Prince, he acts to discharge behind the scenes simultaneously. He takes advantage of his mystical powers to control the situation from well beyond the reach of others. In those ways, he is an easy to find villain. Particularly, his uncorrupted cunning and duplicitous grabs at power can be convey as be ing Machiavellian.But what of the other side of things? Is there a different aspect by which Prospero can be observed? Is he to be excused? And if so, dont we have to dismiss the Machiavellian notion? It is true that the play opens with his exile. It appears true that his exile was a wrongly done to him by Alonso. Therefore all of his actions and behaviors through the play could be seen as rightful revenge. And if this is true, wouldnt his character be forgiven, and his motivations just? Finally, in this way, would not Prospero be seen, himself, as actually anti-Machiavellian because he is driven by rightful justice? This is the interesting question. It begs us to look deeper into characters before blindly agreeing with popular literary criticism.ReferencesCampion, T. I Care Not For These Ladies. Poetry Foundation. Retrieved may 27, 2010 http//www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=181014Walsh, T. (Ed.). (1920). Hispanic Anthology Poems Translated from the Spanish by Englis hand North American Poets. New York G.P. Putnams Sons.Wilkie, B., & Hurt, J. (Ed.). (2001). Literature of the Western orb vol.1 The AncientWorld Through the Renaissance, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall.