2. How do you explain Areusa and Elicia's comments about Melibea in Act IX? Is this mere jealousy or is something more going on here? (Or, you can comment about this entire scene within Celestina's house -- what does this scene reveal about this house and what occurs here?)

Elicia and Areusa's comments regaurding Melibea are purely out of jealousy. Considering her social status and the fact that THIER LOVERS are commenting upon her beauty, that could be the steam. Following, I think they are picking her apart because they themselves are insecure. Like Celstina must talk herself up to build a reputation, these two feel they must break Melibea down for comfort. The conversation takes place in Celestina's house. It is a whore house, where woman are degraded and taken advantage of. The fact that it takes place here says more about what they are talking about- Melibea herself is worthless to Elicia and Areusa as women. She must be broken down in order to be of any use.

In the beginning of act 7, Celestina feels she must illustrate her love for Pameno. She says to him "You must love if you would be loved." I think this is one statement that can be taken as genuine from Celestina. Considering her profession and her role in the community, none of it is true love. It is all an act that just build off the other. The fact that she confesses this in a way to her "almost son" does indeed show her love for him. She know that her life is not filled with love- though she is content with this, she also knows it will not come to her if she doesn't change. She wants Pameno to realize she chose her ways, but if there was love to be had, and he wanted it, he could have it. In essence, she is also saying things are what they are. Celestina is a prostitute, and that is also her lifestyle. She gets what she puts in.

1. At the end of Act III we see Celestina preparing her thread with a potion for Melibea. How do we see her lack of confidence? What do you make of this?

Celestina is begging the gods to make the potion work. I found it interesting that she threatens the gods, rather than asking for their powers/help. Perhaps this is because she is notoriously getting away with things, and getting what he wants. Even though she seems powerful to everyone else, it is clear that even she knows it is an act. She has nothing in her other than to beg for their help, and rather than be nice about it, her threats make her more powerful in her mind (build upon her own ego/ appearance to others).

3. How does Melibea’s reaction to Calisto’s name either strengthen or weaken your initial reaction to their first meeting?

It strengthens my opinion that Melibea's argument was genuine in the garden; but then again, it is probably all an act of "hard to get." She certainly plays it well... everytime she hers his name she gets so angry and frustrated she makes it extremely obvious that she wants nothing to do with him at all. Its quite comical!

Celestina Acts 1&2

1. Analyze the opening scene in Melibea’s garden. Why a garden? What might a garden signify? How do you interpret the words of Calisto and Melibea? Why does Melibea react in this manner? Can we read these words as genuine?

The opening scene takes place in a garden. Perhaps this is because Calisto is confessing his feelings for Melibea, and like the plants and flowers, their relationship may begin to bloom, or die, through the play. Calisto is willing to led a fufiling life if it means later suffering through eturnal damnation (hell). He lives completely in the resent, and though his words are very straight forward, it reflects his lifestyle. he does not want to waste another minute without Melibea. I do believe Melibea has a genuine reaction. Unlike "beating around the bush," leading him on or tricking him, Melibea is not trying to get something out of him because of his emmotions.

3. What are our initial impressions of Celestina? What type of character is this? What does she say which influences your analysis? What about her later exchanges with Parmeno? (And this back history with Parmeno’s mother – what do you think happens here?)

Celestina is very complex. I do not think that she fits into any one category. On one hand, she is very caring for her son Sempronio and takes in Pamero as her own, on the other she is covering up her daughter's "client" so that she can have a nice visit with Sempronio. Today, I dont think it would be acceptable fo a mother to let her daughter do this, yet she is a respected person in society for her many "talents." She is used as a go between, which makes her trusted. She is upset when Parmno judges her, yet she is quick to forgive him. She is very paradoxal, at least that is how I view her. She runs a prositution house with her daughter, yet still goes to church, and although it is very obvious to everyone in town, she has many alias to cover everything up. Overall, I think with the situation between Melibea and Calisto in her hands, it should be a very interesting play!

7.3

How does the friar use language to reverse his role (and trick the woman)? What is the reality of these "titles" the characters hold?

The friar is able to sleep with the woman, clearly through trickery. However, language is his tool in doing so. He compares the closeness of the child's relationship to him (this godfather) and her husband... he differentiates roles in reguard to the child, but reasons that because the each take care of different aspects in the child's life, he should be treated like her husband. The woman DOES NOT have wit in this tale, only when it does come to trickery and fooling her husband (not logic wit). Titles such as the "god-father" the actual "father" and even religion become irrelevant. Each uses one for the advantage of the other, and are not the typical, "genuine" roles you would expect to hold.

8.8

What are Zeppa's intentions?DO you feel they are justified?

Rather than look at this tale as being tricker, I thought it was more of a revenge plot. Zeppa creates a scene where his friend who betrayed him is EVEN MORE embarrassed/ upset than when Zeppa initially finds his wife having the affair. This creates an understanding between then men, although Spinelloccio's wife is most hidden in the dark about the whole situation. In the end, the two are able to be amicable only because they experienced each other's aggravation, and they all have "embraced" one another equally.

5.8
What are the greater implications of Nastagio's plan? Is the marriage and love between him and his great love genuine? How might it be viewed by society?

Nastagio had to witness the fate of a man whose life was devoted into an unrequited love in order to change. Nastagio could have been destined for eternal damnation just as knight Anastagi is. He would have kept loving his maiden regardless of his trip outside of town; he did not want to be there or learn from his actions/situation. Nastagio, unlike the knights or protagonists in other stories we have read, is in a relationship where his maiden is actually cruel and spiteful towards him to the point where he is physically/mentally wounded. The tale is almost tragic in the fact that the maiden loves Nastagio simply to avoid going to hell! Though he tricks her and ultimately gets what he is after, his marriage to the maiden is not genuine. The love she has for him is out of self preservation and fear. In turn, I don't think the marriage is viewed respectable that society. They all viewed knight Anastagi's destiny and heard what he had to say. The effects of this were almost immediate in Nastagio's love. I thought the story had a very sad tone after all, even though everyone ended up "happy" at the end.

6.7
How is language used yet again? What are the wife's views about life/death? How are her actions/ testimony viewed?

Woman and the use of language to gain power is yet again present. In this case, it is the simple matter of life or death. Madonna does not attempt to lie or twist her feelings to save herself from death. To Madonna, it is worse to live a lie and go against the love that was "more worthy" than her own life, than to die. Death was not the easy way out for her. Furthermore, she used language to gain sympathy and trust by the jury. However, she also used the right timing of language. She did not deny the affair, but asks if it is a legitimate case if she has never displeased her husband? She claims that she never robbed him of anything. In the tale, and much of the other stories in The Decameron, sex is placed above all else. Giving her husband her body is all that mattered; thus she is free. I really enjoyed this one because I feel like the woman is extremely genuine. Reason and rationality are used to get what each character is after (the husband and his trial, and the wife's innocence). Though the woman is immersed in this "perfect love" she does not go CRAZY like most of the other protagonists we have read about.

2. story 3.6: How does Ricciardo play to Catella's emotions to trick her into meeting him at the baths? How do you feel about the way he keeps her from revealing what happened?

Ricciardo attacks what Catella loves the most: her husband. If the one thing she passions for is tainted suddenly, he feels he will have a better chance with her due to the fact that he looks like the honest and noble man. Ricciardo not only makes Filippello look like the bad guy, but he uses his wife's name in order to trick Catella. Sh is over taken with jealousy that she believes everything he tells her. It is similar to how someone might act today- puting pieces of stretched evidence to make what we believe to be true. For example, if someone in the school has swine flu, other students start thinking back to the past and give not fabricated, but altered reasons why they too may be sick. Catella starts to think back and trust Ricciardo's story based on 'things' Filippello did/ did not do. She actually sleeps with Ricciardo when she believes it is her husband. He basically blackmails her so that their "acts" remain a secret. She realizes that nothing can be erased, and how pleasurable Ricciardo is compared to Filippello, so they continue to act in secrecy to be together. I am uncomfortable the way he tricked her, but than again, how did she not know it was her husband she was sleeping with? They are together but I don't think the roots of the relationship are legitimate or respectful.

5. story 4.9: As the preface stated it was the king who happened to be telling this particular tale, what can be interpreted about him from what we have read here? How does he seem to feel about treachery such as this?

The king respects both knights, as he says: "those of whom I speak happen to be of a much nobler rank and the misfortunes they suffer are far more cruel." The king touches upon the power each knight had, though it was twisted into something evil. In comparing the fate of these two knights to other tales, it is clear the king feels this is the worst possible fate. He obviously does not hold on particular knight over the other, rather he feels sympathy towards their heart's passion. In this tale, the lovers fell for each other very irrationally like in some of the other texts we have read in class. Unlike most however, the king sheds understanding on the situation.

2.7
I liked Panfilo’s view of womanhood in the text. He believes it is a sin for a woman to focus on her outwardly beauty instead of improving upon other things. Panfilo thinks that a woman is at her best when she is in her natural state, concerned with other, perhaps more important things. Although Alatiel has natural beauty, she sins with it another way: through lust. She sleeps with various men, eight in all, and causes great battles to occur over her looks. She is taken from land to land, even in places where she cannot speak the same language, and yet she is content. She does not play the typical role of a woman of the time period, even today. She enjoys sex and uses her looks as simply a tool for power. Alatiel, though she is deceitful, is a strong example of a woman in charge who knows what she wants. It must have been very outspoken then, although the queen must have enjoyed listening to it.
　
2.5
Andreuccio annoyed me so much! I though the story was VERY repetitive, but it was the only was Andreuccio ultimately learned his lessons. He just kept on trusting people even though they are shady characters from the start- the prostitute, and the pair of thieves. Andreuccio simply has a very trusting and gullible personality, BUT he learns his mistakes. Besides watching who it is that you are trusting( the prostitute taking all his money), he learns to keep things to himself (the ring) in the end. He also discovers that even though he was fooled easily and learns from his mistakes, he too has the power to trick people (like the priest). Andreuccio must look out for himself, and also take advantage of a situation when he sees it. All of the lessons he learns the hard way, and his new way of viewing society speaks for itself. We all must watch what he are doing at all times, and use our wits!

The Decameron: Day One, stories 1-4

The first quote I am choosing is from the first story, of the first day. “…we can recognize the greatness of God’s mercy toward us, which pays more attention to the purity of our faith than to our errors by granting our prayers in spite of that fact that we choose to live by His enemy…”
This quote has a larger meaning in all of the stories that I read. Although these characters choose to act with sin, they believe that in the end they will be forgiven- so who cares? First there was Ser Ciappelletto who was the manifestation of a true sinner. He never gives any regard to religion, and dies lying to a priest/ God in order to give his caretakers convenience, rather than shame, in helping him. Ciappelletto is painted as a very gregarious person despite his reputation. He is not particularly malice, as he simply enjoys his lifestyle and choices. This quote was at the end of the story. It implies that although Ciappelletto dies a man of sin, in God’s eyes he could not be perceived as solely evil. On a larger scale, this quote sheds a larger insight into the other characters I have read. Though Abraham chooses a religion based on the fact that he can ‘get away with more sin’ he is not a bad person. Saladin’s cunning wits did not initially get him the money that he desired, but with respect for his friend “the Jew” he repaid him with more than he ever borrowed in the first place. His sly motives came back to teach him a lesson, and rather than suffer from his sin, he grows from it. The monks who go against their faith with lust are not bad men either. Thus, although all of the characters seemed to be weighed down by religion, they are not restrained by it. Similarly, it does not make them unrecoverable or unable to be forgiven for this. Perhaps more than just these characters are going to have this modern view of faith.

The second quote I am choosing if from the third story, of the first day. It is a dialogue of what Saladin is saying to ‘the Jew’ after he realizes his trick did not work. “And let me say the same thing to you, my lord, concerning the three laws given to the three peoples by God our father which are subject of the question you put to me: each believes itself to be the true heir, to posses the true law, and to follow the true commandments, but whoever is right, just as in the case of the rings, is still undecided.”
Saladin asks the Jew essentially what religion is better (Christianity, Judaism, or the Saracen), in order to start a fight and get the money he is after. The Jew knew that he was being fooled, but also that not one has a higher hand than the other. Throughout history, it is speculated that religion has been the cause of almost every war. Saladin knows there is not right answer to his question, a gives in. The Jew was wise enough to know that even if he chooses one religion over another, there is no possible way his argument wouldn’t be proved wrong. His story about the rings shows his understanding of this. On a larger scale, this way of thinking benefited both men in the end. It should not be applied to just religion, but equally men’s opinion and lifestyle in general.

The third quote I am choosing is from the fourth story, of the first day, and it is the last couple of lines: “…he was ashamed of inflicting upon the monk the same punishment that he himself deserved. And so he pardoned him and made him promise never to reveal what he had seen. They quickly got the young girl out of the monastery, and as one might well imagine, they often had brought her back again.”
It is interesting that at one point the Abbot is willing to punish the monk for the same sin he commits himself. It is only after he realizes that they share a mutual understanding of each other’s actions, that he pardons everything. It is clear that the Abbot is willing to abuse his power and position as long as he is not ‘discovered.’ This does not portray a typical holy figure of the church. Though both the Abbot and the monk are supposed to be sin-less for both God and THEIR OWN good, it is clear they want to get away with as much sin as they can- just like anyone else. It brings both of them to a equal level as someone outside the church. Similarly, the two’s understanding of each other allows them both to commit the same sin repeatedly (as it is implied). Almost like “I’m in it, if you’re in it.” The two use their positions to hide what they are doing, and make them all none the wiser. It is the appearance verses the reality of the situation that brings about the integrity of everyman. Not everything is what is seems, with nothing spared along the way.

5. How are the barons portrayed in the film? Do we have any ambiguity here as we do in the text? Why or why not?

In the movie, the barons play a smaller role. Rather than constantly trying to get Mark to see Tristan and Isolde's affair, the Barons simply set it up so Mark sees hem together FROM THE START. There were no false attempts to reveal the two of them. The Baron's are not marked "evil" or seen as a cause to Tristan and Isolde's problem.

3. How does the film portray Tristan, Isolde, and / or King Mark? Think of specific scenes to help you in your response. With whom do our sympathies lie?'

While reading the book, I sympathized with King Mark. In the movie, I felt for Tristan. Isolde seemed to have cared for Mark more so in the movie than in the book. Mark was not portrayed as the dumb King that he seemed in the book. He was more rational- he listened to Isolde's story and did not just lend out his trust. In the book, he took any one's word for the truth. I think visualizing the pain Tristan was enduring was also central to my sympathy. His feelings toward the King showed more in the movie. He tried to actually stop his meetings with Isolde. Tristan still went back to fight for Mark although he could have run off with Isolde. You could see that his intentions were good whereas his infatuation and love for Isolde that blinded him in the book made it seem as if he couldn't care for anyone or anything else.