The Immortal Laws of the Gods

In Antigone we learn one basic truth about life. Never question the gods. Sophocles stresses this point in both Antigone and Oedipus Rex. Oedipus focuses on the prophecies of the gods and their infallibility. Antigone however focuses on the laws of the gods and their precedence over the laws of man. Creon as the king who has newly come to power passes the law that Polyneices may not be given the burial rites because of his supposed treachery to his country. Antigone poses the fact that the laws of the gods supersede any mortal given law and therefore can not be ignored. Her burial of her brother causes Creon to demand her death but his rash reaction was due to hubris and not logic.

As a new king, not of the main royal line, he must stake his claim as king by quickly showing his authority. He also angers easily at the breaking of his law, one that is not only rash but conflicts with the gods’ will, much as Oedipus reacts with anger before reason. This impulsive anger by Creon, much out of character from the Creon of Oedipus Rex, may be due only to the fact that Antigone preceded Oedipus Rex or may be the direct cause of the stresses of a new kingship and cleaning up the remnants of a civil war for power. Whatever the reason he sentences Antigone to death, to which she goes willingly. It seems that everyone in Thebes except for Creon himself agrees with Antigone’s belief that the gods will forgive her for breaking the law as voiced by his son Haimon. Antigone brings forth an age old question of whether the laws of men are more important than the higher intrinsic laws.

In both plays, but especially Antigone, Sophocles notes that the will of the gods does not bend no matter what the circumstances may be. His plays no doubt were meant at the time to remind the Grecians that they ought to respect their gods and to remind them that they did indeed owe their fealty to them. But these thoughts are not that uncommon even today, the laws of the church sometimes come into conflict with the laws of man and there are very heated debates on which laws should be adhered to. Such as with abortion, contraception, and gay marriage the laws of God and the laws of man come head to head in a battle for supremacy. In these matters I generally take the side that agrees with my sensibility, usually not the church, and it seems that on the whole the world has deviated from Sophocles’s unyielding gods. Antigone still poses the questions about whether the laws of gods or man should be held onto but where the play provides an answer for Sophocles’s Athens it has no simple solution in the modern world. Now the line between what is right and what God says is blurring more and more. People decide for themselves where for centuries they followed blindly what they were told. In the modern world people can choose for themselves where they were once told what to think, we no longer live in the out dated world of Sophocles. (536)

Caius and the problem with Mortality

I was struck by one paragraph in particular in Tolstoy’s story, the one pertaining to the humanity of Caius. I was especially drawn to the fact that I could identify in his assessment of life and humanity and that I was of the same mind set. “Caius is a man, men are mortal, therefore Caius is mortal.” This logic is inherent in all of us as humans but so is the following logic as referenced by Ivan; while Caius is a man and mortal, Caius is not Ivan so therefore the same logic does not apply to Ivan. Ivan is horrified to find that these principles of mortality apply not only to the generic Caius but also to little Vanya, to Ivan Ilych, to Jean, to his entire being. The fact that after death the person he has been and the person he is known as will cease to exist horrifies him just as it horrifies anyone who thinks about their own mortality a little too closely.

The Russian society of the time was of this mindset of immortality, or at least non-mortality. We see in Ivan’s “friends” the same disregard for his illness and death as something that happened to someone else. Even his childhood friend Peter Ivanovich brushes off the feeling of horror with thoughts “that this had happened to Ivan Ilych and not him.” It was not just the Russian society, society as a whole has this same mindset on human mortality. Even today no one thinks of their own mortality unless forced to stare it straight in the face. People do not like to think of their own mortality, as far as anyone is concerned there is no such thing as death until they are dead.

I empathize with Ivan in his thinking, and so do most people I know. Death, pain, hardship, these are all things that occur to other people. I personally think about my own mortality more often than most people but I still hold to the same hope that maybe death does not apply to me. That is the way we live as a society, anything that challenges our normal life is wrong. We block out these thoughts about death or being robbed or losing everything because it is easier to deny that they happen than it is to face them and realize that they are real and very well may happen, or in some cases will indeed happen. Mankind is afraid of facing their mortality because once you admit it it becomes truth. We are not comfortable facing our own mortality as a species and we hide our fear of death under a façade of bravado and confidence. Our mortality is a part of our culture no matter where we live humans have adapted their customs around death and our mortality. Some embrace it such as the Dia De Los Muertos in Hispanic culture and some try to hide that it exists by ignoring it completely like in Western culture. No matter who you are or how you like to think you deal with your own mortality the same holds true for everyone, every human hides from their own mortality in some way and until we are faced with the inevitable end we like to think we are exempt. (548)

Summary of 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica "European Reaction to Leopold's Abuses" and Leopold II's letter "The Sacred Mission of Civilization"

        -- In the late 19^th Century the Belgian parliament had passed controversial decrees. These decrees made all vacant land in the Congo the domain of the state and created a state monopoly on ivory and rubber. This monopoly was amended to allow for private companies to trade in the Congo but those companies were either influenced by the state as a major shareholder or gave a percentage of their profits to the state.

 

       -- Several major powers brought many charges against the state, the major player being Great Britain. These countries accused The Congo government of monopolizing and treating the natives harshly. A British official made a trip through the Congo in 1903 and wrote a report about the conditions there, greatly strengthening the British accusations. Leopold was forced to create a commission of inquiry to go to the Congo and “investigate the condition of the natives, and if necessary recommend reforms.

 

        -- The commission of inquiry published a report on its findings in 1905. They found that while the condition of the natives was less than satisfactory, forced labor was the only possible way to reap the benefits of the natural resources. They did acknowledge as well that there was no trade between the natives themselves and that a law be passed limiting the amount of labor per native be kept to 40 hours a month. As this report was published a commission to “study the recommendations contained in the report and formulate detailed proposals” was formed.

 

        -- King Leopold passed several decrees to rectify the problems which fell far short of serious reforms. The Belgians however viewed the decrees as restriction of Belgium’s liberty of action in the Congo. Britain on the other hand was not happy with the reforms and threatened that they would have to reconsider their treaties in the Congo if things did not change.

 

         -- Britain and America became increasingly hostile to Belgian reforms after this and demanded that something be done to improve the Congo system. In 1907 Belgium signed a treaty announcing the cession of the Congo to Belgium. This move aggravated even the most loyal Belgian politicians.

 

            -- Leopold gave up the Foundation in the Congo but he got a very generous compensation package. He retained most of his personal land in the Congo and was to be paid by the conony two million pounds in debt. Belgium also respected the concessions granted to the companies that held large amounts of land.

 

           -- Leopold states in his letter that, “When our directing will is implanted among [the natives] its aim is to triumph over all obstacles.” He believed that philanthropic influence could achieve the results that he wanted.

 

           -- He also states that action is a necessary option. To him war does not mean destruction it only serves as a means to implant that directing will. His agents “feel profoundly reluctant to use force” on the natives.

 

     --  The soldiers who are recruited from the natives are of the belief that an enemy is only defeated when he is destroyed. They must follow the influence of the White Officer to find the true way. These natives must find their civilization through their European leaders.

 

             -- The officers, volunteers from the Belgian army, all have a strong sense of honor and patriotism. They will spare the natives and teach them the benevolent ways of civilization.

The Collapse of the Comptons

In the last chapter of The Sound and the Fury we see the end of the Compson family. This depiction of the end of the family provides a clean ending to the story as a whole. By this time in the story: Father is dead from his alcoholism, Quentin the elder is dead by his own hand, Caddy is banished, Mother is to feeble to run the household, and Quentin the younger has run away. The family is collapsing in on itself; every member is either dead, gone, or unable to support the rest. Jason actively steals from his mother and sister, mother is stuck in her room all day, and Benjy is Benjy. The last chapter presents the end of their way of life. Quentin escapes the family she never belonged to with all of Jason’s ill-begotten money. Jason loses his stolen assets that keep him financed in his various shady dealings. They all lose that which kept them tied to the family and in doing so the family dies. The only one who is not adversely affected by this downfall, at least within the scope of the story, is Benjy. We are left with the image of him serenely sitting in a carriage bound for home holding a broken flower, much as we found him. (217)

Folklore in The Sound and the Fury

Peavy, Charles D. “Faulkner's Use of Folklore in The Sound and the Fury” The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 79, No. 313 (Jul. - Sep., 1966), pp. 437-447

 

In his article Peavy talks about the use of folklore by Faulkner in The Sound and the Fury and his focus is mainly on Benjy and plants. Benjy is usually depicted with some kind of “security blanket” in the novel and more often than not it is a flower of some sort. Peavy talks about the significance of these flowers in relation to folklore and superstitions. His comfort flower is usually a jimson weed, which conveys a sinister meaning to the reader.

 

“One of the most recurrent uses of folk belief in the book is the identification of Benjy with the jimson weed: on the fourth page of the novel Benjy is given a jimson weed to prevent his crying and he continues to play with jimson weeds throughout the book. The jimson weed . . . has a multiplicity of meanings in the folklore of the region. A coarse, ill-scented annual plant, the jimson weed is a member of the nightshade family and is, of course, quite poisonous. . . . Indeed that Benjy, an idiot, is allowed by his negro keepers to play with such a dangerous plant is surprising.”

 

Indeed the fact that Benjy is almost constantly holding his jimson weed is in fact symbolic of the poison that flows through the Compson family. Benjy himself, being simple and unassuming, seems unaffected by the jimson weed, much as he is unaffected by the bickering of the family. He bears the weight of the poison on the family as he bears the flower but he feels no worse for it. He is the focus of most of the family’s pain, with his constant need for attention and even events as drastic as his castration. The family all have their arguments dripping with venomous words which generally involve Benjy in some way. He carries their problems unknowingly and he carries the flower oblivious to its deadly secret.

 

In his article Peavy also points out the part of the novel when Benjy’s jimson bottle is empty. “The poisonous aspect of the plant is perhaps used symbolically by Faulkner: in the last chapter the bottle holding Benjy’s jimson weed flowers is an empty poison bottle.”

 

The symbol of the empty bottle of poison is a grim commentary on the Compson family. The fact that the family has been in a downward spiral throughout the book leads the reader to expect their downfall. The empty bottle could symbolize that there is just no poison left and that the family has simply dried out and gone. Over the years they have all taken their dose of the poison they produced until every last drop was gone and they were no more. In the end the Compson family is dying if not already dead; and the image we are left with is just the idiot, Benjy, serenely holding a flower. (504)

Shiloh: The Battlefield of Marriage

In “Shiloh” an injured truck driver sees his incapacity as a chance to start anew with his wife after twenty years of barely seeing each other and the death of their son. His attempts at this renewal of their love and the reinforcement of their marriage are feeble at best and have little to no positive affect on their relationship. Shiloh, as the sight of their inevitable breakup, is ironic because in the sight of a long-ago battle the war that was their marriage. As Pat Benatar once said “Love is a Battlefield,” and this theme is very prevalent in the progression of Leroy’s relationship with Norma Jean. His meager attempts to reintroduce himself into normal life are failures, his fixation on crafts leads to strange Popsicle stick houses and a Star Trek pillowcase. It is obvious from Leroy’s observations as well as Norma Jean’s behavior that she enjoyed her life when he was on the road and rarely home. After the death of their son they lose their connection and stop communicating their problems to each other.

Norma Jean is stuck in her life when she was nineteen and her son died. She is constantly relying on her mother and seems as though she is a teenage girl when she is actually almost forty. When her mother catches her smoking she reacts like a teenager instead of a responsible adult. The fact that she was hiding it is evidence enough that she was not acting as an adult; no adult need hide their smoking from their parents. When Mabel mentions the baby who was killed by “datsun” and mentions neglect Norma reacts with the angry response that is characteristic in teenagers. She dwells on her mother’s word as if it were law, the way in which a teenager takes their parents literally and as the final word in everything. Her insecurities mixed with the time she is forced to spend with her husband opens her eyes to the fact that maybe she and Leroy got married hastily after he got her pregnant. They, like the Dases, married almost immediately out of highschool and for all the wrong reasons.

Leroy is a very simple man who does not notice the plight of his wife and blindly strives for a rebirth of their marriage. He does not realize that Norma Jean is unhappy and even though he seems to notice that she does not seem to be happy that he is at home again he does not see a problem presenting itself. He keeps telling her that he is going to build her a log cabin, where he gets this idea is never certain and Norma Jean never gives it to him. She seems only to be against the idea of the cabin but Leroy still keeps plugging his idea even after he remarks to his drug dealer that he does not think Norma Jean likes the idea. His ignorance mixed with her teenage restlessness creates a battlefield, on one side is her growing distance and rejection and on the other his blind determination to fix a relationship that broke past repair long ago. In the end Norma Jean finally moves on her intentions and Leroy is left to ponder his failings. The final moment of him on a bench still cogitating the fact that they are no longer going to work and her walking away into the mists of the battlefield leaves us with a bittersweet image of accomplishment and remorse. (581)

Acceptance in Cathedral

In Cathedral I was particularly struck by the way in which the narrator would brush away such irksome items as his wife’s past with relative ease. His casual brush-off method of dismissing his wife’s previous friends and lovers is a sure sign of insecurity and more than likely a feeling of inadequacy. When the issue of her previous marriage arises he mentions it quickly because of its relevance to the story but goes no further into the details than is necessary. He also ridicules or belittles anything that he can not understand and does not care to. When he talks about the blind man he makes a point to stereotype blind people saying that “the blind moved slowly and never laughed.” (1) The narrator has obvious problems accepting things in his life and living with the past. He makes no mention of his own life before his marriage and only mentions his wife’s past out of expository need. His blatant disregard of the things with which he is not comfortable is just his way of not dealing with them.

His wife’s last marriage seems to be a point of particular chagrin for him. When he is forced to mention her soldier fiancé his words even read with a sense of rush and ire. He even breaks off the thought with a simple etc which conveys his particular dislike of the subject. He also makes a large inclusion of the fact that his wife became disillusioned with their marriage and eventually tried to kill herself. The fact that he dwells more on his wife’s dissolving marriage and attempted suicide than he can on the marriage itself seems to convey a strange sort of satisfaction to the reader; as if he is happy that his wife was so unhappy that she resorted to suicide. His immature approach to his wife’s first marriage and their own marriage is just his way of shielding himself from the rest of the world, a world that he is forced to acknowledge with the introduction of Robert into his life.

When the blind man arrives he spends a large amount of his time ridiculing Robert mentally and doing things that strike his wife as disrespectful or unnecessary. When the narrator informs us of the conditions of Robert’s wife’s death instead of maintaining a respectful air he goes on about how she could wear whatever she wants and Robert wouldn’t even care. His disrespect over the issue of the death of a man’s wife from cancer is a sort of last straw from the reader’s point of view. After that little insight into the narrator’s mind I personally lost all faith in his ability to be civil to anyone and felt a sort of pity that he could not appreciate life without cynicism. In the end he seems to start truly understanding and accepting things. When he moves to cover his wife’s exposed leg it shows that he at least considers the feelings of his wife and Robert, of course he then thinks better because of Robert’s handicap. This moment showed a small but noticeable shift in his character and he seems as though he can recover from his own handicap of cynicism. In the end we see the narrator accepting the blind man and his ways. When they are drawing the cathedral together we see his disposition go from skepticism to tolerance to acceptance. That last moment when he refuses to open his eyes is his last hurdle to accepting the blind man and the rest of life’s little quirks. He is accepting the blind man’s handicap, if only for a moment, and releasing his own.