I enjoy these kind of themes, Optimism and Pessimism. Good and evil. Are we better or worse off now then 500 years of ago? We are definitely more affluent, but suicides are rising, resources are dwindling. Is there hope, or will the human race, and the universe, end? It's no surprise that this book is one of the most acclaimed for tackling these issues. And the ending, that was good. Knowing they've just broken the world so to speak, they are banned from paradise and forced to walk into a future of uncertainty and insecurity under the influence of Satan. They are unaware of the evil humans are capable of, but they were told that one day it would be fixed by God, the state of nature is not as it should be but man cannot fix it. You could say it has a happy ending, because a savior will come, but if there is no savior, then there is no hope. It leaves an impression to say the least. 9/10

After the fall the universe began to corrupt. I really like this idea, it would also make a great monologue for a movie. While the universe is corrupting, you could give this epic, dark, pessimistic dialogue between God and the Angels on the futility of obtaining harmony in anything, while cutting between shots of God, the universe, and Satan, but it's ok because there is hope in the end.

Various constellations.

After the group activity I do have a better appreciation for the text. Still, it's a little hard to take it seriously since it only loosely follows the bible, it's more syncretic. I think it affects me because I know his intentions from the opening prayer in book I, he prayed and asked the Holy Spirit for guidance, yet he incorporates many faiths. The problem is some of those things claim exclusivity. It'd be different if he intended to write a fiction.

Adam pleas for a companion like the animals have, who are supposed to be lesser than him. He doesn't want to be lonely.

How the earth, moon, stars, everything orbits/behaves.

After informing Adam of the creation of the earth, Raphael asks if there's anything else he wishes to know that is within the boundaries of knowledge.

Men must prove themselves obedient before they can enter heaven.

Ecclesiastes 1:18 For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Raphael prefaces his response to Adam with a question. Paraphrase: I'll tell you, but I'm a Seraph, not the Almighty, so even I don't know everything, and you being a man, may not understand me.

Another reason the audiobook is useful is so you don't read unnecessary pauses because the first word in every line is capitalized and there are no periods.

prohibit or forbid (something).

Urania is part of Greek mythology, goddess of music, song and dance. Milton claimed "Truth" could not be obtained, a concept known as Certainty. Because of this, he was very pluralistic as evidenced by the elements of different faiths in the text.

I'm not sure what to think about this. It's interesting to read dialogue from Adam and Eve and Satan and the Angels but the fact that it's from a Christian, who in the beginning asks for guidance from the Holy Spirit, you would think they would at least try to make it consistent with the bible. Eve is crying after the dream, there's not supposed to be sorrow in Eden. It's kind of takes me out of it. Even putting that he prayed in the beginning comes off as a little ostentatious IMO.

God wasn't even at 50% of his full power when he defeated Satan.

It's a cool story but how would Milton reconcile that there's anxiety in a perfect Eden?

Seeing Adam after the troubling dream gives her a sense of relief.

I was not aware that work was always a part of Adam's life. I thought it didn't come until after the fall. But nope, the bible says we've always had jobs, but I guess it got burdensome post-apple.

I wonder if he's saying that God brought this war on himself by casting them out, or if it's a reference to the problem of evil.

Satan is said to be responsible for all other religions. That's why you see the names of Gods from other religions. It shows how the fallen angels have historically been responsible for all the evil in the world. Influencing the decisions of people since Eve.

Them getting cast out of Heaven supposedly happened before the creation of the universe. Per the sparknotes, they have been released from the chains because God allowed it, and have made their way to land.

Satan is determined to completely oppose God. While God intends to use evil for good, Satan wants to use Good for Evil.

Satan was a Cherub. a winged angelic being described in biblical tradition as attending on God. It is represented in ancient Middle Eastern art as a lion or bull with eagles' wings and a human face, and regarded in traditional Christian angelology as an angel of the second highest order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy.

Beelzebub is talking to Satan. Satan is still hopeful that they can overthrow God, but Beelzebub not so much. After witnessing his power, he now accepts God to be Almighty. Too late as they've been "swallowed up in endless misery."

Eve.

eating the apple.

He's praying to the Holy Spirit to help him settle the dispute about how the world began, or why mankind is fallen, thereby justifying God, or giving glory to God.

"Hell" is only referenced a few times in the Bible. Translated from the Ancient Greek word "Gehenna"

Everyone thinks God is on their side. Someone has to be wrong.

It's cool too get a parliamentarian perspective (hutchinson), moderate (hyde), and Royalist (Halkett). I don't know who I would side with.

She's saying women should never rule, that they should stick to uhh domestic duties.

"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villian." - You know

Thus, moral relativism was born, followed by the crises of authority and literally every other political issue.

the money possessed or available to a person or country.

Dualism. People always try to categorize others. I think people are more fragmented than that.

He's arguing for the absolute rule of a monarchy.

I'm not seeing how it (the divine rights of kings) "follows." This seems like a non-sequitor.

God actually told the Isrealites, after reluctantly giving them a King, "And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day."

intense happiness.

I don't think I can say who was right, but I think I can say that Charles went out with dignity. Sometimes right and wrong can get so blurry, I'm glad we don't behead people anymore, especially when it's not "beyond a reasonable doubt."

So Charles was Anglican. I had trouble researching this. Everything pointed to him being on the fence of Catholocism and Reformed.

Ah, so Parliament judges the King, but who judges Parliament, and who judges the people? I guess that's another crisis.

If the King is above the Law, who does the King answer to? Who judges the King?

a person or thing that explains complicated ideas or theories.

Authority is very interesting. King Charles presents his case of divine authority, and that he's answering to anarchists, while the self-appointed Commonwealth is basically holding him hostage under the accusation that the law is his authority and he's not abiding by it, so they are defending it. These crises of authority never end. I think this is the most topical reading so far.

used as a preface to polite requests or instructions.

Never heard pray used this way.

King Charles kept his composure with people arguing why they should cut his head off. I don't know how many people could do that.

People were so expressive back then, at least the literate were. If we were reading sentences from the common man I guess not. We only see the highlights. It would be like an alien thinking all humans spoke like professors.

First! Hmm Wikipedia and this article state 1649.

It's scary to think about but although this statement is true, science seems to be going towards "Brave New World" territory. If we get to the point where we can nurture and birth humans outside of a womb, then what?

He's implying that this work was inspired by God. Public discourse would've been interesting back then if a lot of people thought they had a "direct line to God."

If you compare this to something like animal farm where the animals are classes and do not get along. These animals remain isolated but interact civilly in "Peace and Happiness. A Utopian dream. About 350 years later and we're still working on that.

The author knew that women did not "delight" in dry philosophical works so she tried to manifest her ideas from Observations upon Experimenta Philosophy into a story, or a "fancy." Thus, this story was written. I think.

At first I thought the kidnapping of the girl was a metaphor for avarice but now I don't know what to think. The men are dead and she has been nabbed again by bears.

the process of decay or rotting in a body or other organic matter.

We all had those moments of "if I could just get her alone." Who's going to make a move in front of her parents or friends. Not me at least. Platonic interactions, but no wooing.

It's always hard to talk about morals/values because you have to begin from presuppositions.

Since these texts are written from the context of the bible I'll comment on that. I don't think either parties were being intellectually honest. The woman seemed to ignore biblical passages that countered her point, and the men seemed to use the bible to justify tyrannical authority over women.

The first passage was hilarious though, it was like a roast on women. I wish there was one on men too, that would've been fun.

I'd say she showed reason counter to Joseph's "opprobrious cogitations." I just wish she would've refrained from the ad hominem attacks though, it just gives Joseph fuel. Can't give him an inch!

I like the angle she's coming from but I wonder how she would reconcile 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Just out of curiosity.

She just got cynical. I really think cynicism is the cause of most conflict historically. As soon as you get cynical it becomes a witch hunt. He started it though. Most people don't even realize they're doing it it's so engrained in our culture. That being said, she was probably right considering the times.

I agree, I hate cynicism, although I'm not sure if she's referring to modern cynicism in this context.

Tis a tale as old as time. Again, he's describing a selfish, proud, immature woman, not all women. He's bitter at past relationships obviously. 10/10.

I think it'd be more accurate to say this is what it would be like to be in a relationship with an immature woman not all women. Just like there are immature men. But hey, he probably wouldn't be talked about unless he went to the extreme, which is sad.

I believe he's referring to Eve, the first woman to bring "woe" to a man.

One of the more memorable introductions I've heard.

I try not to look up too much background because I don't want expectations but who hurt this guy? These are savage.

Literary device: Imagery

The author compares the potential backlash from women to that of a swarm of hornets buzzing and stinging around his ears. Hilarious.

"Beauty" may be referring to self-preservation. We often trade short-term benefits for long-term costs due to being "contracted to [our] own bright eyes" (aka inconsiderate of others including our future self) and in doing so, "feed our flames," causing "famine" for the next generation.

It sounds like this voyage was a failure.

an arrival at land on a sea or air journey.

a flexible basket made of rushes, used especially for dried fruits, as dates, figs, or raisins.

I thought that's what that meant.

relating to or characteristic of Numidia, an ancient kingdom situated in North Africa, or its inhabitants.

The author took it upon himself to travel and defend the English from the slander by giving lectures.

If I understand it sounds like the English did not share the same enthusiasm for exploration as other nations because of their comforts. In other words, exploration is dangerous and the had relatively good lives that they were not willing to give up. And they were criticized for it.

Random thought, I think it can feel like there are no "calls to action" like world exploration in the modern world but I don't think that's true. For example, we still do not have a complete map of the universe, and most of the ocean has not been explored.

After rereading, I believe "other" nations were slandering the English but for a reason I'm not sure, maybe jealousy. The English were navigating.

English translation from Latin -

"But we worked those hide and suppress desire and deprive them of life, even strangers goods"

strong public criticism or verbal abuse.

He's showing a great amount of zeal for exploration. To be able to complete a map of the world.

These are verses 23 and 24.

So he was sent to scope out Guiana. It seems like a beautiful place. I don't really know what to say though, did I miss something? I think it was just a letter to his "majesty" saying "you should conquer Guiana." Not much to be said. Maybe historically his approval and the Queens decision set off a chain of events and that's why this is significant.

It's easy to forget that at one point the globe wasn't complete.

Cacique

Barge - a flat-bottomed boat for carrying freight, typically on canals and rivers, either under its own power or towed by another.

Wherry - a light rowboat used chiefly for carrying passengers.

"The religion of the Epuremei is the same which the Ingas, emperors of Peru, used, which may be read in Cieza and other Spanish stories; how they believe the immortality of the soul, worship the sun, and bury with them alive their best beloved wives and treasure, as they likewise do in Pegu in the East Indies, and other places."

Sounds very pessimistic. TIme never stops and everything will eventually "fade." He desires to love forever but he can't. It's like his own version of absurdism.

This reminds me of the quote from class "The majority is never right." People can like or loathe something and present an argument but in the end what is true?

The title says false love but it could've been titled "A farewell to Love" and it would still be relatable. Feelings are so fickle.

It's unfortunate but when you have an authoritarian regime, the only way to get freedom is by force and challenging the government. Either that or through reason, which history shows rarely ever happened.

I hope I never have to experience this level of authoritarianism. To go from reproaching, to full submission to the king in such a short time. Who would really believe that she was sincere in this letter, not scared?

"Completely yielding" is a good way to describe this. She seems afraid for her well-being if she does anything less than beg for mercy from the King, her father.

As the summary stated, it did feel very parable-ish, One story after another. I thought it felt too contrived to not be spun.

I don't really know what to think. Margery may very well have been plagued by something that caused her suffering but on the other hand she seems a little narcissistic. I don't like cynicism but that excessive crying would look like validation seeking and get on my nerves lol.

More reproaching tone. Her business failed and she returns to her husband asking for forgiveness admitting that her "pride was the cause of all her punishing."

obsolete or archaic way of saying "soon afterward."

I'm thinking that the demon possession caused people to look down on her, or it may just be her perception. We know that she hails from the upper-class, and she's trying to maintain/recover the status she had even if it means turning away from God.

I don't understand why she is so pompous. It seems to come out of nowhere. From being delivered from the devil, to being unwilling to serve God out of pride. I guess that's the downside to reading a portion of the text. It could be more spinning by the priest with the intention of showing the consequences of pride and hesitation to serve. Analogous to the rich man who wouldn't give away his possessions in the gospels.

I think it was common for some church authorities to have long-winded praises, which to me, would further evidence the priest's spinning her story.

As stated in the summary, I can understand why historians believe the priest made it a parable. It has a reproaching tone to it. Like "this is what happens when you don't confess/repent." If Margery had written it, or if the priest didn't alter it, I think it would've had a more personal, forgiving tone.

an attack or outburst of an emotion.

The transgression of Launcelot sparked this war but Gawain's desire for revenge led to his death. After all this, he forgives Launcelot and prayed that the King would cherish Launcelot "above all other knights."

I can't say I agree with him, but I like Gawaine's moral consistency.

Launcelot covets the King's wife, becomes the Queen's paramour, gets caught and kills many knights, and now he's lying to the King stating nothing happened between him and the Queen. For some reason people are still willing to defend his character. Maybe the author is trying to teach us not to idolize people.

I don't know if it would please God to suffer consequences of adultery.

Turns out the unhappy duo was right. It's still early in the story but it's funny how most of the annotations were speculating jealousy or resentment. They still could be but now at least we understand why.

adverb -perhaps

or

noun -uncertainty or doubt as to whether something is the case.

So our unhappy knights hatched a plan and Arthur went along with it. It sounds like Arthur trusted Lancelot but is still willing to do some medieval sleuthing. I can't say I wouldn't do the same.

truth.

At first I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because I don't like cynicism but It sounds like Agravaine and Mordred are just conjecturing.

This seems to be in stark contrast to societal norms. That is, I don't think men in the 14th century were quick to be vulnerable about things but I could be wrong. And since she reacts negatively it only encourages reticence. I wonder what Chaucer was trying to convey.

bright blue in color like a cloudless sky.

happening at or near the time of an equinox.

Sounds obvious now.

I think it's safe to say Chaucer was very cynical of the church in his time. Something that still resonates today as our society becomes more secular, coinciding with an increase in cynicism. IMO. I don't think it would generate much reaction today but I wonder how 14th century people reacted.

On another note, I'm not one to catastrophize but as society gets more secular I think it becomes more morally relative; and I wonder if there will be a tipping point, where tolerance would not be an option.

He uses Latin to spice up his sermons. Sounds like he's trying to manipulate the masses. I wish we could say we've gotten past this but I think demagoguery is as effective as ever.

I'm sure we'll learn it but I wonder when the grammar shift was made so that "And he always won.." is considered correct. I'm trying to understand the old rules, I think that would be useful for this class.

I don't know what kind of device this would be but i've seen it a lot. Introducing the characters before beginning the story. The intro to Tropic Thunder comes to mind when they give a little bit a background about each character.

In the class discussion we talked about how Chaucer didn't like alliteration. I can't say I dislike alliteration in general but Gawain and the Green knight was like being forced to eat an entire cake when I would prefer a slice. This opening is much more pleasing to me but I guess it's subjective.

How prevalent was the desire for recognition in the 1st century compared to today? Here he sounds like the equivalent of a Logan Paul, and I wonder if social media fosters this kind of behavior.

a heroic lay written in Old High German alliterative verse.

relating to the Isle of Man.

This is how you pronounce it.