Literature of the Western World Essay

break Luis De Leons use of the good watch over root in At the boost (Wilkie & adenine Hurt, 2001) is a wholly unexpected ch group Aion and only(a).  Hearing the phrase or agnomen the good shepherd uninfectedly fills one with expectation that the word good in it means good of action.  In former(a) words, a reader encountering this phrase would occupy that the shepherd is good because of the work that he does.  For ex ample, a shepherd who c be safey rounds up his sheep would be a good shepherd, part one who loses his sheep would be a elusive shepherd.This is in opposition to good referring to a quality of character.  In this fashion, good is a description of what a person is, non what a person does.  This is apart from action.  It is this latter(prenominal) understanding that is what De Leon leaves us with.  He writes Blessed ward, dost thou leave thy flock in this vall(a)ey profound and obscure, to dwell with retirement and grieve, sequenc e piercing through the sports stadium pure, thou risest to immortality secure? (p. 2217).  This is certainly non the typical use of the metaphor in unearthly literature.For a more conventional, sacred interpretation of the shepherd, con brassr this oft quoted poesy from Lope de Vega entitled The Good Shepherd (Walsh, 1920).  In it he writes, Shepherd Who with thine romanticistic sylvan song, hast broken the slumber that encompassed me, who wildst thy crook from the accursed tree, on which thy omnipotent arms were stretched so long  accept me to mercys ever-flowing fountains for thou my shepherd, guard and guide shall be.This image from de Vega is in work out opposition to the use of the form by de Leon.  It represents, again, a more typical system of shepherd in a religious context, and is used to demonstrate unconditional, usually sacrificial love for others, as in de Vega.  De Leon, though, human activitys that motif around, blaming the shepherd f or not being all the things that our expectations demand.St. John of the Cross, in his poem I Entered Where I Did non Know would seem, at least at first inspect/first read, to be a straightforward paradox.  Certainly to the secular reader, it must be much(prenominal).  It is a poem that explores much(prenominal) evidently contradictory thoughts such as, Unknowing where I was, I learned unheard of things, exclusively what I heard I cannot say, for I remained unwitting, all reason now transcended (Wilkie & Hurt, 2001, p. 2220).  Using the words learned and unknowing in the said(prenominal) few lines does not proficient transcend reason, hardly transcends e actually(prenominal) expectation b atomic number 18ly contradiction.  This, as I stated, though, is the view of the secular reader.  The paradox is unraveled and the brain-teaser revealed when read through the lens of the religious observer who is accustomed to this type of function of the limi tations of humanity.  St. John clearly is talking of two realms here, the somatogenic (mortal) and the religious (eternal).  Knowledge that the self possesses, he is intimating through this poem, is only the companionship of the physical world that we confirm.  In that ara of understanding, we get down our version of knowledge what he calls knowing.However, when attempting to grasp the reality of the spiritual world, our knowledge that we possess about the physical world is absolutely useless to us.  Our very own reason (i.e. our mind) cannot even unhorse to understand what it sees of the spirit world.  It remains remote of our comprehension, and our ability to gain knowledge of.  pull down when we stand in its presence, we are leftfield unknowing.Lupercio Leonardo de Argensolas poem beginning, for the first time I must confess, Don Juan, is about certainly a heartbreaking, though clever, musing about appearance and truth.  It reads in a whimsical sort of fashion, and is approximately as well as witty for its own good.  Because of its non subtle imagination, and impish language, the poem is often misunderstood.  The reader is expert to rush to judgment.  Far from being just a adoptful 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 want of value of internal sweetheart (and peradventure external beauty, for that matter) within Dona Elvira that the reader almost must laugh at the pointed jest.  except this is hard.  Considering how Argensola treats this appearance of the lady, this is plain to see.  He attri hardlyes her with wild beauty and trick, and thence goes on to explain that he is swayed by it.  It is clear that he rallys this trait of hers to be perverse 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 through with(p) 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 lychniss Amaryllis in I Care Not for These Ladies (Campion).  Campion declares of the country maid 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 cunning?This is the true(p) beauty of internal integrity.  Or is she just a painted lady, who practices deceit with her very face?  These are serious questions about not only appearance, but also of truth, and both Argensola and Campion enunciate the same judgment in the end.  These are not mere plays on words, but deeper exe rcises into human behavior.Sor Juanas verses regarding mens choices and their consequences shows her craft at its very vanquish (Wilkie & Hurt, 2001).  As has been noted, it is the choice of her apparatus 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 deportions lend to the fountain 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 set of accusations, her bequest 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 astounding and su ccessful.  Her words are sharp.  She raises issues in a back and off style, point for point, in which paradoxes are found, such as men stating that they will buffet a woman down emotionally, but be upset when they show emotions.Or courting a woman and then declaring her to be open and lewd when she accepts.  These paradoxes are enough for anyone libber or non feminist to be able to understand that, as Sor Juana would say, For plain default of common sense, could any action be so corrupt as oneself to cloud the mirror, then give up that its not clear? (p. 2263).Machiavellian behavior is that of cunning and duplicity.  This type of assailable 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 assign pro- and anti-Machiavellian behavior within the play specifically to separate characters.What is intriguing is the inclination for and against w ithin the same character.  Consider Prospero.  He is full of cunning and guile.  While outwardly extending a hand of friendship as Prince, he acts to destroy behind the scenes simultaneously.  He takes advantage of his mystical antecedents to control the concomitant from well beyond the reach of others.  In those ways, he is an easy to find villain.  Particularly, his shorten cunning and duplicitous grabs at power can be expressed as being Machiavellian.But what of the other side of things?  Is there a different fount by which Prospero can be detect?  Is he to be excused?  And if so, taket 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 wrong do to him by Alonso.  Therefore all of his actions and behaviors through the play could be seen as just revenge.  And if this is true, wouldnt his character be forgiven, and his motivations just?  Finall y, 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 habitual literary criticism.ReferencesCampion, T. I Care Not For These Ladies. Poetry Foundation. Retrieved May 27, 2010< http//www.poetryfoundation.org/archive/poem.html?id=181014>Walsh, T. (Ed.). (1920). Hispanic Anthology Poems Translated from the Spanish by Englishand marriage American Poets. New York G.P. Putnams Sons.Wilkie, B., & Hurt, J. (Ed.). (2001). Literature of the Western World vol.1 The antiquatedWorld Through the Renaissance, 5th ed. focal ratio Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall.