Year: 2020

ERH 481 Capstone

stannjf21 Uncategorized

For my capstone project I decided to write on The Lord of the Rings and how it is not an allegory, instead the series applies history, religion and Tolkien’s other influences to make the series more relatable to people. This topic had its challenges that I had to overcome, namely reaserch. While there is a lot of reaserch on Tolkien finding scholarly sources on this specific topic, specificly Tolkien’s view on Allegory and applicability was difficult. Hopefully, this paper will add to the scholarly material on Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings.

ERH 481
John Stann
HR: Works Cited

A Journey in the Dark: Allegory v Applicability in The Lord of the Rings

The Lord of the Rings was a groundbreaking piece of literature written by J.R.R Tolkien and first published in 1954 that brought the epic fantasy genre into the spotlight. The series has sold over 150 million copies, and it has been translated into more than 50 languages (Tolkiensociety.org.). Since its publication, many who have read The Lord of the Rings believe it to be an allegorical narrative. These readers and critics make claims that aspects, such as the war of the Ring, represent World War Two or that certain characters represent Jesus due to Tolkien’s Catholic beliefs and his friendship with C.S. Lewis. These comments have been refuted by Tolkien himself countless times. In the second edition of The Lord of the Rings, the author wrote the forward specifically to show how the series was not an allegory: “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.” (Tolkien,” Fellowship,”x) Instead of wanting to create an allegory, which Tolkien believed was too limiting, instead, he wanted to apply what he experienced and his religious attributes to his work because they carried greater meaning to the story as a whole.” (Tolkien,”Fellowship,” x). While literary criticism is an important aspect of the genre of fiction, it is also necessary to remember what the author meant for their novel while reading a piece of fiction. This is especially true if the author has stated the intended purpose of his work of fiction. As I have been reading and researching Tolkien criticism, it appears that many literary critics have forgotten what Tolkien initially intended the Lord of the Rings to be: not an allegory, but the application of history and religion within his fictional world.
Tolkien believed that there is a difference between applicability and allegory. According to A New Handbook of Literary Terms, “Allegories turn abstract concepts or features into characters. The formula could be reversed: allegories just as easily transform people and places into conceptual entities.” (Mikics 8) Therefore an allegory is a representation of an idea, moral, or event that an author wants to correlate literally into his or her story. For example, in The Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis, Aslan is an allegory to Jesus. He is betrayed by one of the children that he helps to save. Then he is killed and lays dead for three days before he rises again to bring the White Witch to justice. These events are allegorical and are meant to teach the readers something about Christianity. The handbook also quotes James Wood, who stated: “Allegory wants us to know that it is being allegorical. It is always saying: watch me, I mean something.” (Wood 8). Another aspect of an allegory is that it is supposed to be blatantly obvious to the reader; without this aspect, allegory doesn’t work. Readers need to know that a story is allegorical so that they can look for the meaning of the story and focus on the why, not the who, what, or where. This is not The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien created a rich and detailed world that spans books, short stories, and other unfinished works that Tolkien had not completed before he died. Tolkien’s characters have depth that C.S Lewis’ Narnia characters do not. While Tolkien’s life and religion may have influenced The Lord of the Rings they are not why he created the world and wrote the series.
Some of the debate over the allegorical nature of The Lord of the Rings is brought on by Tolkien himself, who seemingly contradicts his own dislike of allegory by admitting in one of his letters that: “My Samwise is indeed (as you note) largely a reflection of the English soldier- grafted on the village-boys of early days.” (Carpenter 247). Tolkien, however, argued that allegory is not the proper term for his work. Instead, he prefers the term applicability: “Many confuse applicability with allegory but the one resides in the freedom of the reader and the other in the purposed domination of the author.” (Upstone 55) Tolkien thought that applicability allows the reader to decide how they want to read the novel while an allegory forces the reader to stick to the authors original intention. An allegory can only be read in one specific way and that way only, while applicability gives the reader the freedom to read the novel how they choose. Despite the intense focus on the allegorical aspects of The Lord of the Rings, many literary critics have either ignored or only loosely discussed the term applicability and author intent while reading The Lord of the Rings. In this paper, I will show why applicability and author intent is important when looking at the content of a work of fiction, specifically at Tolkien’s major influences, how they are not allegories and why it is important that they are not labeled as allegorical.
There are many literary critics of The Lord of the Rings who seem to have forgotten that Tolkien did not intend his series to be read allegorically. Michael Maher states: “When reading the trilogy who could not think of Gandalf’s descent into the pits of Moria and his return clothed in white as a death-resurrection motif? The Hobbits, particularly Sam and Frodo, representing the little people, the smallest of all the sapient creatures of Middle-Earth, are the instrumental cause of saving Middle-earth- recalling a central theme of Christian Scriptures.” (Chance 225). There is no doubt or question that Tolkien’s Catholic faith played an impact on his writing. However, if these aspects of the story were allegorical, they could not influence the story in any other way. If Gandalf’s resurrection was synonymous with Jesus’ resurrection the War of the Ring would have been won, because just as Jesus defeated death, slavery and sin with his resurrection, so Gandalf would have defeated Sauron. This is not the case, though. Instead, Gandalf was forbidden to fight Sauron:

“When maybe a thousand years had passed, and the first shadow had fallen on Greenwood the Great, the Istari or Wizards appeared in Middle Earth. It was afterwards said that they came out of the Far West and were messengers sent to contest the power of Sauron, and to unite all those who had the will to resist him; but they were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate Elves or Men by force and fear.” (Tolkien, “Return,” 403)

Since Gandalf is a wizard, or Istari he is not allowed to confront Sauron, If Gandalf was meant to be an allegory for Jesus, this would differ because of Christian beliefs. In Christianity Jesus, defeated sin and Satan and has power over Satan through his resurrection. Allegory limits everything in the story and Tolkien’s world is far too complex to be labeled as a simple allegory like Narnia. Another critic, Robert Plank describes the chapter “The Scourging of the Shire” as a “Realistic parable of reality” (Lobdell 107). In this specific chapter, the beauty of The Shire is destroyed by industry and technology. While it may appear to be an allegory of the industrialization of England, if Tolkien had written The Lord of the Rings as an allegory, this scene could only have been read in relationship to England and only England. Instead, readers can read this chapter and apply it to any aspect of their life that they feel was destroyed in a way similar to The Shire. This according to Tolkien wouldn’t be an allegory but instead an application of history and events that he witnessed.
Tolkien was inspired by a multitude of experiences and in his literary creations. He came from a devout Catholic family and lived most of his childhood in the Birmingham area in England, (Duriez 1) He studied at Oxford and while there he met fellow students Christopher Wiseman, Rob Gilson and Geoffrey Smith. The four friends formed the T.C.B.S or the Barovian Society Tea Club and together pursued whatever interested them, especially literature, music, debate and the sciences. (Duriez, The Making of a Legend, 1) Tolkien was also great friends with C.S Lewis, who wrote the Christian allegorical series The Chronicles of Narnia. Tolkien himself has admitted that: “The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work, unconsciously at first, but consciously in the revision.” (Tolkien, Letters, #142, 171). Frodo in particular is seen as an allegory to Jesus’ journey, passion and eventual triumph. In The Fellowship of the Ring, readers are introduced to Hobbits, a race of “little people” who are small and unadventurous that love the little things in life, drinking and smoking and gardening. (Tolkien, “Fellowship,”2) Yet it is Frodo, one of these hobbits, who is given the task of taking the perilous journey to Mordor to destroy the One Ring and thus saving the Free People of Middle Earth. Many who argue that The Lord of the Rings is an allegory believe that Frodo’s journey is allegorical of Jesus’ life on earth, death, resurrection and his destruction of death and sin. (Dickerson 212). They argue that parts of Frodo’s journey represent Jesus’ well. For example, Samwise Gamgee left him as he climbed the passage into Mordor only to be betrayed by Gollum in the passage of Cirith Ungul where Frodo is left for dead. This scene is similar to Jesus’ betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane and his abandonment by his disciples after the betrayal of Judas. “He walked a lonely road, betrayed by one he trusted and abandoned by others, cut off from the land of the living.” (Dickerson, 211). At the end of The Return of the King Frodo, after suffering from unhealable wounds goes to the undying lands, like Jesus who after his time on earth ascends into Heaven. While these may seem like they are allegorical to Jesus Tolkien argues that what he is doing is simply applying historical and religious aspects to his story. There are many errors in Frodo’s narrative if his story was simply a retelling of Jesus’ life. Frodo doesn’t have disciples while he is a member of a fellowship, he is not the leader; he doesn’t make miracles occur and he doesn’t take three days to rise from the dead. Another reason for The Lord of the Rings not being an allegory is that Frodo is not the main protagonist of the story, instead it’s Sam, his trusted friend and servant who is considered to be the true hero of The Lord of the Rings. If this is the case, then the Lord of the Rings would not be an allegory at all, because Sam does not follow Jesus’ journey.
If Frodo’s journey with the Ring was intended allegorically, readers could only read the narrative in that form. Instead, because this is applicable, they may use the story in a manner that they see fit. They are allowed to read the story allegorically or they can take a completely different approach. One of the main themes of Frodo’s journey in the series is hope, and while the reader could take this and allegorically apply it to Jesus and the hope of salvation, readers could also use the message of hope and apply it to their own lives, if they are struggling or depressed and use that message in their own lives wherever they are struggling.
Tolkien’s influence in World War One and Two is important and can be found throughout the series. Even though he was influenced by this period, this does not mean that the series should be read as an allegory. In The Two Towers, Frodo and Sam are traveling with Gollum through the Dead Marshes, a swampy land that guards the entrance to the Black Gate of Mordor:

“Presently it grew altogether dark: the air itself seemed black and heavy to breathe. When lights appeared, Sam rubbed his eyes: he thought his head was going queer. He first saw one with the corner of his left eye, a wisp of pale sheen that faded away; but others appeared soon after: some like dimly shining smoke, some like misty flames flickering slowly above unseen candles; here and there they twisted like ghostly sheets unfurled by hidden hands.” (Tolkien, “Two Towers,” 260).

Scenes like these, according to critics, are allegories to Tolkien’s experience in the Great War. After World War One broke out in Europe, Tolkien joined the British army as a 2nd Lieutenant where he served as a signaling officer in the 11th Lancashire Fusiliers. He fought in numerous engagements including the battle of the Somme. Shortly after this engagement, he contracted trench fever and had to sit the rest of the war out in a hospital back in England. It was in this war where there (Kambury, worldwar1centennial.org). Tolkien admitted that the looming darkness of the state of the world in 1938 “[h]as had some effect on it. Though it is not an allegory” (Tolkien, Letters, 41) “The general horror of war was applicable but not as a specific war.” (Tolkien encyclopedia, 7). Tolkien was influenced by what he experienced in the world wars, but that does not mean that the wars in The Lord of the Rings are direct copies of the world wars.
Tolkien lived through the myriad of cataclysmic events that occurred in the 20th century, the Great War, World War Two and the rise of Communism. References to these events can be found throughout his work and many critics believe that The Lord of the Rings is an allegory to these 20th century events. The Rings of Power and in particular the One Ring are items that are of a particular interest to readers. The Rings of Power were created by Sauron to corrupt their owners. Specifically, the One Ring was filled with Sauron’s own essence, this gives the Ring the ability to corrupt people over time. In The Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf explains the nature of The Ring to Frodo:
“A mortal, Frodo, who keeps one of the Great Rings, does not die, but he does not grow or obtain more life, he merely continues until at last every minute is a weariness… sooner or later- later, if he is strong or well-meaning to begin with, but neither strength nor good purpose will last- sooner or later the Dark Power will devour him.” (Tolkien, “Fellowship,” 15)

Mortals and men in particular are corrupted more quickly than other races because of their moral weaknesses. Hobbits, being especially tough were harder to corrupt, though at the end of The Return of the King Frodo is eventually corrupted and is only saved by Sam. (Tolkien, The Return of the King). The One Ring does not care what the user is trying to do with its power, even if the wielder is attempting to do good, they will eventually become corrupted. This is shown through Boromir’s actions in The Fellowship of the Ring. Boromir, son of the Steward of Gondor, is one of the Nine Companions that make up The Fellowship created to protect Frodo on his journey to Mordor. Throughout the trip, however, Boromir becomes obsessively fascinated with The Ring and he attempts to take it from Frodo multiple times. Boromir does not want to use The Ring for personal reasons, or for the power, or wealth that it could bring to him. Instead, he wants to help his country, Gondor, defeat Sauron. However, because of the corrupt nature of The Ring, it takes hold of Boromir. Eventually he tries to attack and kill Frodo so that he can take The Ring. After being attacked by Orcs, Boromir is killed, not before repenting of his attempted destruction of Frodo. The Ring’s powers come from the allure that it has and the ability to amplify a person’s negative traits over time to tempt them to use the Ring and eventually corrupt them, turning them into slaves of Sauron. Because Boromir is a man, he is able to succumb more quickly to the powers of The Ring, despite having good intentions for its use:
“Ah! the Ring! Said Boromir, his eyes lighting. The Ring! Is it not a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt for so small a thing? So small a thing! And I have seen it only for an instant in the House of Elrond. Could I not have a sight of it again?
Frodo looked up. His heart went suddenly cold. He caught the strange gleam in Boromir’s eyes, yet his face was still kind and friendly. It is best that it remain hidden, he answered. As you wish, I care not, said Boromir. Yet may I not even speak of it? For you seem ever to think only of its power in the hands of the Enemy: of its evil uses, not of its good. The world is changing, you say. Minas Tirith will fall, if the Ring lasts. But why? Certainly, if the Ring were with the Enemy. But, why, if it were with us?” (Tolkien, “Fellowship”447)

In this passage, Boromir wants to know why the Fellowship cannot use The Ring to help. Frodo watches Boromir as a change comes over him, it is a subtle hint that The Ring is corrupting. If the Ring was an allegory to power or atomic power the events in the series would have taken place differently. While Boromir is “Still kind and friendly,” the Ring is at work tempting and slowly corrupting Boromir. (Tolkien, “Fellowship” 447) He has good intentions, he wants to save his people, and he argues that “True hearted men, they will not be corrupted. . .. We do not desire the power of wizard-lords, only the strength to defend ourselves, strength in a just cause.” (Tolkien 448) Boromir believes that if the Ring is used for a just cause then it will not corrupt its users. However, he misses one important aspect of the nature of the Ring, that it corrupts all those who use it, whether they have good or evil intentions. This may seem like an allegory to power in the real world, and yet, Tolkien believes that it is not. As he states in the forward to The Fellowship of the Ring:

“The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-dur would not have been destroyed but occupied.” (Tolkien, “Fellowship” x)

Tolkien shows in this forward that while he was influenced by events that took place in the real world he deviated from real events. While he was influenced by The World Wars and The Cold War, his own imagination and ingenuity took hold and led him towards a different direction for his series.
One of the major themes in The Lord of the Rings is power. One reader, Joanna de Bortadano, asked Tolkien if The Lord of the Rings was an allegory of Atomic Power. In letter 186, Tolkien responded: “Of course, my story is not an allegory of Atomic Power, but of Power. I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a War, about something dark and threatening but that is mainly a setting for characters to show themselves.” (Carpenter 246) Critics use the first part of this letter as more proof that The Lord of the Rings is indeed an allegory. However, later in the letter Tolkien states that it is not an allegory. Instead, it is merely a setting for the characters, a place where they can show their personality, attributes and morals. This is especially true for the men in the series, chiefly Boromir and Faramir who are both tempted by the Ring. The Ring corrupts men, who are a weaker race, easier than others because of their nature. Instead of being an allegory, the Ring is used to show how these different characters react to temptations of power. In The Fellowship of the Ring, both Gandalf and Galadriel, an elven queen, are tempted by the Ring and succeed in overcoming the temptations to more power. Boromir fails when he is tempted but is redeemed in the end by ultimately sacrificing his life to save the hobbits from being captured by orcs. In this instance, the Ring is power, but not an allegory. Instead, power is a tool in the story that is used to show how people react to power.
Power, war and religion are ways that The Lord of the Rings can be seen as allegorical. This series is an immense piece of literature and a classic epic fantasy series that has sparked countless debates amongst its fans and critics. In the forefront of this literary discussion comes the debate on if these books are allegorical. If they are, what does the allegory represent, and if they are not, how should they be read? Tolkien personally believed that The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory. Allegories were too narrow and can only be read in a specific way. There is no question that Tolkien was influenced by his childhood, Catholic Faith, and experiences in both World Wars and the Cold War. However, Tolkien believed that his works used the applicability of historical and religious influences instead of creating a direct allegory to a certain event or theology. The Lord of the Rings is not an allegory due to the evidence that I showed in this paper. This understanding of The Lord of the Rings is important, because it allows readers to read the series in a deeper, more full way. If the series is only read as an allegory, it loses some of its value. Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings and the world of Middle Earth with the intention of creating a mythology for England (Carpenter 143). The richness of this mythology will be lost on a reader if one only reads it as an allegorical interpretation of something. If the series is read with the understanding that it is not an allegory but an application of history and religion, we get a much richer experience. We come to the realization that Middle Earth is another world with its own values, morals, and beliefs. Its people are real and not the manifestation of a virtue or vice. This is where the true joy of reading fiction comes from, being able to read a work of fiction and create your own meaning, not being forced into a specific style of fiction and reading the story in one way. Fiction should be fluid and able to change its meaning as its audience changes.
Works Cited

Carpenter, Humphrey. et al. The Letters of J.r.r. Tolkien. Houghton Mifflin, 1981.

Chance, Jane. Tolkien the Medievalist. Routledge, 2003.

Dickerson, Matthew. “Frodo and the Passion in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.” Engaging the Passion: Perspectives on the Death of Jesus, edited by Oliver Larry Yarbrough, 1517 Media, Minneapolis, 2015, pp. 211–224. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13wwwjn.17. Accessed 3 Nov. 2020.

Drout, Michael D. C. J.r.r. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. Routledge, 2007.

Duriez, Colin. J.r.r. Tolkien: The Making of a Legend. Lion Books, 2012.

Kambury, Rachel, worldwar1centennial.org, “War Without Allegory: WWI, Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings.”

Lobdell, Jared. A Tolkien Compass: Including J.R.R. Tolkien’s Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings. Ballantine Books, 1980.

Mikics, David. A New Handbook of Literary Terms. Yale University Press, 2007.

The Tolkien Society, 10 Oct. 2020, www.tolkiensociety.org/.

Tolkien J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring. Del Rey. 2018.

Tolkien J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers. Del Rey. 2018.

Tolkien J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King. Del Rey. 2018.

Upstone, Sara. “Applicability and Truth in ‘The Hobbit,’ ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ and ‘The Silmarillion’: Readers, Fantasy, and Canonicity.” Mythlore, vol. 23, no. 4 (90), 2002, pp. 50–66. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26814266. Accessed 3 Nov. 2020.

ERH 202WX final paper

stannjf21 Learning Outcome 6

For learning outcome 6 I am using a summary paper that I wrote for ERH 202WX. This paper summarized what I learned about rhetoric and made connections between the different eras of rhetoric and how they influenced modern rhetoric.

ERH 202WX
4/27/20
Help Received: None
Words: 455
John Stann

Rhetoric has been influential throughout history. Rhetoric starting with the Ancient Greeks has shaped the course of Western Civilization and culture and it is still relevant and important in today’s modern society. Out of all the historical periods in rhetorical development the most important has been 20th century rhetorical tradition because it mixes new political theories with technological advancements and combines them with the rhetorical theories of the classical and enlightenment to create 20th century rhetoric. In all rhetorical theory, I have discovered that government plays an important part in how rhetoric forms and changes throughout the centuries.
The enlightenment was an important transitional period for the practice of rhetoric and has contributed most significantly to my understanding of rhetoric. The enlightenment period was where I first saw how rhetoric and the government is connected. It is in the enlightenment period that Despots and absolute monarchs ruled throughout Europe and it was during this time when rhetoric became a hobby and pastime of Europe’s elite. This is because unlike in Greece, where rhetoric was used in the democracy the common man had little say in the governments of enlightenment Europe.
The connections between contemporary rhetoric and enlightenment rhetoric that most helps me understand rhetoric is how government affects rhetoric. Government has changed throughout the centuries going from democracies to monarchies to dictatorships and back to democracies. Throughout each change in the forms of government rhetoric has changed as well. Rhetoric in Ancient Athens was used by the citizens to effectively govern Athens. In Rome, rhetoric was used to prepare magistrates to effectively run the Empire. In the middle ages, where the church was the most important ruling body, rhetoric was used in sermons and the Catholic Church limited rhetoric due to their concerns that it would help spread pagan ideas. In the contemporary era, rhetoric has been affected by both government and technology. In the enlightenment and classical eras of rhetoric there was a fine line between public rhetoric and private rhetoric. In the contemporary period however, these lines have been blurred due to technological advances with social media.
Now that I have taken both rhetorical traditions I and II I understand the history of rhetoric and how rhetoric has influenced our world. Throughout the history of rhetoric government and technology have both affected the way rhetoric has been used and its form. From the printing press to social media rhetoric has changed and spread differently.
Rhetoric is important to society and one part of society that is affected by rhetoric is government. Government and rhetoric go hand in hand. When the form of government changes so does rhetoric and when rhetoric changes, government is affected as well.

Literature Review

stannjf21 ERH 381 Capstone Literature Review

ERH 381
4/10/20
Help Received: None
John Stann

Research Topic: Is The Lord of the Rings a Christian allegory?

Research Questions:
What is an allegory?
How important is author intent with allegory?
Is The Lord of the Rings an allegory?

Research Methodology: I plan on analyzing three different scenes for the characters Gandalf, Frodo and Aragorn, one from each of the three books in The Lord of the Rings and proving how The Lord of the Rings is not an allegory from those scenes. Before I accomplish that however, I need to show what allegory actually is and show why author intent is important when it comes to allegory.
Annotated Bibliography:
1. Chance, Jane, editor. Tolkien and the Invention of Myth: a Reader. Univ Pr Of Kentucky, 2010.
Jane Chance is an editor who has edited many books focusing on medieval literature, culture and modern fantasy novels, including JRR Tolkien, George RR. Martin (Game of Thrones) and Aurthurian Legends. This book will help my project because it outlines and gives information on the background and where Tolkien got inspiration for Lord of the Rings, including his religion and Norse Mythology.

2. Kerry, Paul E. The Ring and the Cross: Christianity and the Lord of the Rings. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2011.
This source is focused on JRR Tolkien and how Catholicism influenced his writings and the major themes and interpretations other scholars have made about Christianity’s influence in The Lord of the Rings.

3. Loconte, Joseph. Hobbit, a Wardrobe, and a Great War. Thomas Nelson Pub, 2017.
This book, while focused more on the influences World War One had on the Lord of the Rings and the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, it does have chapters that focus on Tolkien’s Christian background and how it helped shape his books.

4. Fisher, Jason. Tolkien and the Study of His Sources: Critical Essays. McFarland, 2011.
This source will help me find out more about what inspired Tolkien. Jason Fisher is an author who focuses on JRR Tolkien and his artistic club, the Inklings. He has written 4 books on JRR Tolkien and C.S Lewis and has contributed numerous essays and articles to various collections.

5. Ryken, Philip Graham. The Messiah Comes to Middle-Earth: Images of Christ’s Threefold Office in The Lord of the Rings. IVP Academic, an Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 201
This source argues that the Lord of the Rings is an allegory and believes that this can be best seen in the threefold messianic offices of priest prophet and king. He believes that Gandalf is the prophet, Frodo as the priest and Aragorn as the king. He believes that Gandalf is seen as a prophet because he is in Middle Earth to move others to action, Frodo is a priest because of the sacrifices he must make in order to get the ring to Mount Doom and Aragorn as king because Aragorn has lost his kingdom and must regain it.
6. Glover, Willis B. “The Christian Character of Tolkien’s Invented World.” Criticism, vol. 13, no. 1, 1971, pp. 39–53.

This source will help me understand more about the Christian influences of Tolkien’s world. While Lord of the Rings is a Christian work, there is a difference between being influenced by something and being allegorical.

7. Morrow, Jeffrey L. “J.r.r. Tolkien As a Christian for Our Times.” Evangelical Review of Theology, vol. 29, no. 2, 2005.

This source is another source that argues for seeing Jesus Christ in the characters of Aragorn, Gandalf and Frodo, this author argues that Gandalf is a Christ-like character because of the sacrifice of his life, Aragorn, according to Mr. Morrow, is a Christ-like figure because of when he descended to the paths of the dead and came back out alive, and finally Frodo is a Christ-like figure because of the burden that he must carry, i.e the ring, is similar to the Cross.

8. Fletcher, Angus. Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode. Cornell University Press, 1964.

This book shall help me to identify different aspects of Allegory and what allegory actually is in literature. This is important for when I define what an allegory is and if the Lord of the Rings is an allegory and how Tolkien used his Christian influences to write the Lord of the Rings which is different from an allegory.

Learning Outcome 5- short story

stannjf21 Learning Outcome 5

For the fifth English Major learning outcome I decided to use a short story that I wrote for my creative writing class. This short story is written in the fantasy genre.

ERH 223
John Stann
A Bridge to Nowhere

“This is hell, I hate The North” Marius said aloud “It’s too bloody cold.” He looked over the edge of into the canyon below, his voice echoed loudly causing lose rocks to fall down into the ice choked river that winded back and forth like a snake cutting through the snow peaked mountains. “Why did I even come here.” Marius moaned bundling himself up in his cloak, desperately trying to keep out the cold.
“If I recall correctly, you wanted to escape.” His companion said without turning around to look at Marius’ pathetic form. “Yeah, I wanted to escape Kai.” Marius said teeth chattering in the cold, “From prison. What I didn’t want was to get put in another prison, with you. We could have gone anywhere in the world, but you decided to bring us here, to this frozen, wasteland.” Marius sneezed wiping it onto his trousers.
Kai turned around and stared at Marius, pale blue eyes meeting black. “Then why did you take my help? I would have gladly left you to the gallows. We used to be partners we had made a fortune! We could be there again. Imagine us, sitting in the summer isles surrounded by our wealth, not having to worry about bounties or the king’s men chasing us.” Kai looked dreamily into the distance fingering his sword, as he always did when he spoke.
“If I recall correctly you betrayed me so that you could collect the bounty that was on my head. That was why I was in prison in the first place.” Marius muttered under his breath.
Kai looked shocked and hurt. “Come now Marius, did you actually think I would let you rot away or get killed? No, no no. You are too valuable in our company. I need you, just as you need me.” He turned around and wrapped his burly arms around Marius’ shoulders, almost crushing his neck as Marius fought to escape Kai’s grip.
“I need you.” Marius said flatly. “Like hell I do, my life had been fine, I was the greatest thief in Atikar, then you showed up and things started to go downhill, what you men to say was that you need me.”
“Come now Marius, that is not fair at all!” Kai pouted letting Marius go as they continued to walk up the narrow mountain path. “This is hell.” Marius said again, sighing as he followed Kai up the hill. “Gods, I hate the north.”
“For some reason, I don’t think that the gods are listening to you.” Kai noted looking up at the falling snow. “Its still cold, we’re still here and you are still stuck with me.”
“That’s the problem isn’t it.” Marius stated. “I know very well that no one is listening!”
“Then why say it if you already knew that?” Kai said “It’s a waste of words.”
“It’s a figure of speech.” Marius exclaimed. “Gods you are stupid. I can’t take any more of this!”
“And yet you do.” Kai noted. “You could have left the day before or the day before that. I even asked you before we went into the mountains if you wanted to leave, but you didn’t. Why?” Kai raised his eyebrows as he fiddled with a dagger flipping it up and down.
“Stop toying with me Kai! I’ll leave,”
“Admit it you are curious about why we are going this far north.” Kai responded stabbing the knife in Marius’ direction.
Marius growled and refused to speak.
“We do make a great team though.” Kai said ignoring Marius. “You the greatest thief in Atikar and I the greatest swordsman. Nothing can stop us. But if you want to go all the way back down the mountains that we’ve already climbed and into the hands of the king begging forgiveness for attempting to steal the crown jewels be my guest. I am not holding you back.”
Marius rolled his eyes and continued behind Kai muttering and cursing under his breath, but not leaving either.
“Besides Marius, things aren’t all bad. Look” Kai said pointing ahead of him into the darkness. “There is a bridge!”
“A bridge.” Marius said sarcastically. “Well that makes things a whole lot better.”
Marius and Kai had reached a flat part of the mountain that they were climbing and stopped to rest, Marius sat down on a snow-covered rock, feeling the wet snow bite into his skin, it was uncomfortable, but he didn’t care, his feet needed a rest.
“We are almost in clan territory, we need to be careful, the wildmen clans are very suspicious of outsiders and prone to violence. Just don’t do anything stupid ok?”
“Me do anything stupid? It would be you who would have to worry. You and your big mouth.”
“See, you did miss me.” Kai said and lightly punched Marius in the arm.
Marius grunted, stood up and began to follow him.
The suspension bridge hung across the canyon and seemed to stretch on for miles the snowy wind blocked the other end from Marius sight and bit into his face. Marius stepped onto the bridge behind Kai, the wooden planks creaked and groaned from the pressure, out from the darkness and swirling snow a figure started to loom, a man, carrying what looked like a giant rake strapped to his back which turned out to be a giant sword on his very muscular back.
“Well this is inconvenient.” Kai stopped and looked at the man who had stopped as well, eyeing the two men who stood opposite him.
“Yes, it is.” he said in a deep booming voice, Marius thought, it made him uneasy. “Why would fate bring us together on the same bridge.”
“The North” Marius muttered. “Nothing could surprise me up here.”
The man turned and glared at Marius, he wore beaten leather pants and a wolfskin fur cloak, his long blonde hair tumbled down past his shoulders and his green eyes seemed to pierce Marius’ soul making him gulp. The sword on his back was huge, almost as tall as he was, definitely taller than Marius was.
“Don’t do anything rash Kai.” Marius said, but Kai was already eying the stranger as if looking to pick a fight with him.
“Let me handle this Marius.” Kai said as he swaggered forward towards the mysterious woman. “Good evening, what a wonderful day.”
“No it isn’t” Marius muttered. Kai elbowed Marius in the gut.
The man stared at them curiously, “Well it all depends on how you look at it isn’t it?” the man said in a thick accent.
“See! The giant agrees with me.” Kai exclaimed triumphantly.
“Don’t insult him,” Marius warned. “He looks like he could take us in one go.
“I am Kai the tiger of Harkonin” Kai said proudly, thumping his chest as he spoke.
“And I am Bjorn of Westreach” Talisa said standing even taller, if it was possible.
“Warriors and their titles.” Marius said under his breath, rolling his eyes. Both Bjorn and Kai glared at Marius.
“What are you doing on this bridge?” Bjorn asked Kai.
“We’re trying to cross to the other side.” Kai stated
“As am I” Bjorn responded.
“Are you two done with your stating the obvious competition yet?” Marius asked impatiently. Looking behind him”
“Who is he, your servant?” Bjorn asked Kai motioning to Marius who huffed indignantly.
“More of an apprentice.” Kai said ignoring Marius’ protests.
“I am your partner!” Kai said “the greatest thief in Atikar!”
“You are now, are you?” Kai said to Marius. “I thought a few moments ago you were ready to abandon me to this cold.”
“That is a big sword” Kai noted nodding to the massive weapon on Bjorn’s back.
“Aye it is!” Bjorn said proudly, stroking his beard before pulling the massive weapon out of its sheath and holding it up, the metal gleaming in the snow. “This sword has been handed down in my family for generations! There are many names for it. Some call it the star-killer, grave-filler, the blood reaper! Some say that it was a gift from the gods who came down to earth on a rainbow to deliver it to my ancestors.”
“Hmm” Kai said thoughtfully brushing snow out of his black hair. “My sword was made from the skeleton of a shooting star.”
“A shooting star ehh? That does sound interesting. I have been something of a smith myself. Does the metal give the sword any special properties?” Bjorn asked.
Marius groaned again, if you got Kai started on his sword he would never stop talking.
“Why now that you mention it, it does.” Kai said brightly, pulling the sword out of its sheath. “The metal shines bright, even in the darkest night and its edge never dulls. Starcleaver is what I call it.” The sword did gleam, Marius could see the faint outline of it despite the blinding snow.”
“Are we done yet?” Marius asked. “You both have great swords, but we really should be moving on.”
“Is he always this annoying?” Bjorn asked staring down at Kai, his green eyes making Marius uncomfortable once again.
“Always.” Kai said “He is practically infuriating, that was one reason why I left him to get caught.”
Marius sniffed at that.
“But it is a fine line between bearable and being unbearable.” Kai said, “which is why I came back for him.”
“Now, as my companion said Kai told Bjorn, “despite loving running into you, we do need to cross, we are being chased, by soldiers from the king of Attica and we do really need to get going.”
“I completely understand,” Bjorn responded, “But, funnily as it may seem, I am also being chased by soldiers from the High king of the northern clans and despite being incredibly honored that I would warrant the High King’s attention when he is set to invade the south, however, I really don’t want to be killed by him and thus I need to get across to your side.”
Kai frowned “If you move to the side, then we can be on our way and there doesn’t have to be an issue.”
“But I was here first.” Bjorn said growling “And I would rather not step aside on a bridge as narrow as the one we are on. My weight would fling us all into the chasm below. And I do not appreciate the tone you are taking with me.”
“Then you will like it even less when I punch you so hard you land on your ass.” Kai said half drawing the saex knife that he had at his belt.
“Wait a moment.” Marius said as he stepped in-between the two warriors who were ready to slit each other’s throats. “If you both fight here, on this narrow bridge, as you said Bjorn, there is a good chance of one of you cutting one of the ropes holding the bridge and then we would all be killed. And as much as I would be entertained watching you two kill each other, I am just fine being alive, I would rather not die on a bridge in the middle of nowhere all because your egos were two big to let one of you pass.”
Both Kai and Bjorn looked at Marius, “He is right.” Bjorn said finally
“Yes, yes, Marius does have a point.” Kai mused thoughtfully sheathing his knife once again. “Well in that case, please let us go back to my side of the bridge and we can fight there!”
“Oh, but I insist that we go to my side of the bridge, there was a nice patch of ground perfect for a duel.” Bjorn said.
Marius gaped turning his head to look at Bjorn and Kai. “So the two of you were about ready to kill each other over not wanting to let the other pass, but now you are willing to go back to your side of the bridge to fight, over not letting the other pass?”
“Well of course, it is only manners.” Kai said a matter-of-factly.
“Absolutely.” Bjorn agreed nodding his head in agreement. “Manners are everything, even in a duel or a fight. Manners set aside the civilized from the uncivilized. Which is why I have to ask you to let us go back to my side to fight.”
Kai narrowed his eyes which was almost as deadly a look as his sword. “No, we must go to my side.” He growled.
Marius sighed. “I am surrounded by the two biggest buffoons in the known world, aren’t I! Why do things like this always happen to me? Kai, just let’s go to his side and be done with it.”
“All right fine. But don’t think we are not going to fight just because we get what we wanted originally. I still owe the man a good beating for not letting us go across in the first place.”
“Oh, I wouldn’t dream of trying to stop you from picking a brawl. I’ve learned my lesson from the last time something happened.” Marius said as he trudged across the bridge.
“You are right, this is a lovely spot for a fight.” Kai said approvingly tapping his foot on the ground feeling the hardness of the dirt. “This ground is perfect. It was all rocks and boulders on our side. Now what shall our weapons be knives, swords? It has been a few days since I have drawn StarCleaver and I have been itching to use it.”
“Let us wrestle,” Bjorn said dropping his great sword and resting it against a frozen tree trunk. “It is more about skill then a blade and it will prove who is the better fighter without having to injure ourselves too severely or damage our blades.”
“Quite right, quite right.” Kai said approvingly also dropping his sword, knife and pack against the tree. “Marius, you shall be the judge.”
“He won’t stab me while my back is turned will he?” Bjorn asked suspiciously. He looks like a shady little fellow. Like the type who would cut a man’s throat in his sleep, no honor at all.”
“That’s the thief look, thief’s generally have to be sneaky. But don’t worry, he doesn’t kill anybody, that’s my job.” Kai responded glaring at Marius. “Keep your knives to yourself.” He said.
Kai and Bjorn crouched down and began to circle each other fainting and darting in and out of reach to test the other’s skills. Bjorn almost caught Kai in a headlock, but Kai managed to escape, falling to his back as he kicked Bjorn in the thigh.
“You are a rather quick fellow aren’t you.” Bjorn said. “Now I know why they call you the tiger.”
“And you’re a beast.” Panted Kai as he tried to wrap his arms around Bjorn’s neck.
“Um Kai?” Marius said trying to get the two men’s attentions. “You might want to see this.”
“Can’t you see that we’re a little busy at the moment?” Kai responded in short breaths as he tried to get out of a head hold.
“Well, well well, what have we here?” A voice said looming out of the shadows. Four bearded Nothern Clansmen appeared out of the snowy wind, as Bjorn stopped the wrestling, spat blood out of his mouth and ran to the tree to pick up his weapons as Kai did the same. “Well Bjorn, did you think you could outrun us forever?”
“Not at all Frode” Bjorn said, “I’m just surprised it took you this long to get me, it’s not that hard to track me in this snow.”
“We didn’t have any horses. The High King needs them for the war,” Frode said sullenly.
Marius glanced at the other men, they were all bearded, like most Northmen and had either red or blonde hair and they were all heavily armed.
“This isn’t good,” Kai said to Marius and Bjorn. “Think we can fight our way out?”
“That will be our only option.” Bjorn said I would rather not die, and my people would probably kill you due to the war going on once they find out that you’re southerners.”
“Know will you come peacefully Bjorn or are we going to have to drag you half dead before the High King as he attempts to get his gold back and who are your companions, they don’t look northern to me.” Frode said glaring at Marius, Kai and Bjorn.
“You take the one on the right,” Kai said to Marius, “I’ve got the middle two.”
“No I have the middle two!” Bjorn whispered to Kai, you get the short scrimpy one on the right. Go!” Bjorn said unsheathing his massive sword before Kai could argue. Marius sighed and chased after the man on the left. He lunged and sparred with the man who growled and cursed as he swung his sword. Finally, Marius managed to stab the man in the gut who fell to the ground clenching his side in pain blood seeping from the wound.
“Thank you for helping me,” Bjorn said wiping blood off of his sword, I am in your debt.”
“The pleasure is all mine.” Kai said gasping for air. “Nothing like a good fight to wake you up and make friends.”
“Agreed,” Bjorn said. “Now who did you say was coming after you?”
“The King of Attica’s sending some of his soldiers after us. We had gotten into a bit of a scrap trying to steal the Crown Jewels, but it ended up with Marius in jail and myself without a partner or jewels.”
Bjorn coughed “That’s quiet the ambitious project that you tried. How about to settle my debt I join you and help you defeat your enemies.”
“But aren’t you still going to be chased by the High King?” Kai asked. “We should help you defeat your enemies!”
“You will need a guide though, these mountain passes can be treacherous and I know them rather well.” Bjorn said.
“You two!” Marius said exasperated. “Won’t you ever stop?”
Both Bjorn and Kai looked at Marius and then went back to arguing as they walked down the hill towards yet another mountain that they needed to climb. “I hate the north,” Marius thought “This is hell.”

ERH 203W- Crime and Punishment

stannjf21 Learning Outcome 3

For this third assignment I decided to use a paper that I wrote for ERH 203W Ways of Reading. In this paper I analyzed the novel Crime and Punishment.

Jack Stann
ERH 203W
Help Received: Crime and Punishment
Words: 1120

Crime and Punishment is a novel about love and the psychology of the human mind. One of the most controversial parts of the book, however, is the epilogue. Many of Dostoevsky’s critics argue that the epilogue does not help the novel and oversimplifies it making it a less satisfying read. I disagree and think that the epilogue is a satisfying way to end Crime and Punishment because it wraps up many questions that were left unanswered in the ending chapters of the book.
The epilogue begins with Raskolnikov’s trial and describes what has happened to him, and his family in the months following his confession. He was sentenced to 8 years in a Siberian prison. (pg 537) Throughout his time, he still believes that what he did was not a sin and was irreligious, even to the point of his fellow convicts hating him, despite Raskolnikov not understanding why. (pg 546) Finally, Raskolnikov has a dream about a sickness that infects the world where people did not know “whom or how to judge, could not agree on what to regard as evil, what as good. They did not know how to accuse, whom to vindicate. People killed each other in meaningless spite.” (pg 547) This dream, combined with the knowledge that Sonya was sick, scared Raskolnikov and so he discovered what love truly was and that he loved Sonya. Raskolnikov is redeemed like Lazarus. “But here begins a new account, the account of a man’s gradual renewal, the account of his gradual regeneration, his gradual transition from one world to another, his acquaintance with a new, hitherto completely unknown reality.” (Pg 551). The conversion of Raskolnikov while it may only happen across a couple of pages in the novel, took place over a period of months in the novel.
I personally do believe that the epilogue is the most satisfying way the novel could have ended and while Dostoevsky might have struggle to end the novel the epilogue does conclude Raskolnikov’s story in a satisfying way. At the end of the novel Raskolnikov confesses that he committed the double murders, however, we do not know what happens after he confesses. The readers are left confused. Did Raskolnikov confess to save his pride? Did he confess because he loved Sonya? Or did Raskolnikov truly feel ashamed and guilty for what he had done. In the epilogue we learn that Raskolnikov actually doesn’t believe what he did was truly wrong, it is only after the dream of the sickness that he truly converts of his crimes. It is also in the epilogue where we discover that Raskolnikov does love Sonya. This is important because Raskolnikov, confessed his crimes, not because he felt ashamed for his crimes, but instead, because he loved Sonya. He had not truly converted yet, It was his love for Sonya that caused him to change and to become actually sorry for what he had done and convert. While this is hinted at in the ending chapter it is not confirmed as it is in the epilogue. If Dostoevsky had not written the epilogue as he had this key part of Raskolnikov’s conversion would not have been known and the reader would have been left confused as to how he should feel about Raskolnikov. While the epilogue may seem too close ended and end Crime and Punishment in too quick a time, the epilogue actually takes place over a period of a year and a half. A man can change drastically in a year and thus the conversion of Raskolnikov is entirely plausible. The epilogue of Crime and Punishment is a satisfying way to end the novel so that all character arcs are resolved and so readers are left satisfied.
While Crime and Punishment was written with various psychological studies in mind, especially the idea of a superman who is above the law, at its heart, Crime and Punishment is a novel with a love story and all novels need a satisfying ending where we as readers understand what happened to the characters. If Dostoevsky had left Crime and Punishment without the epilogue, it would have left the novel unfinished. As readers, we don’t fully understand why Raskolnikov confessed, or what his motivations were. Did he truly believe that the murder’s that he committed were wrong or was it just a facade? When I am reading a novel, I don’t like open ended or confusing conclusions to the story. I want to know what happened to the characters that I invested so much time into. The way that Dostoevsky ended the final chapter left too many questions with little answers and these questions needed to be solved in a satisfying way to make the novel complete. In a redemption arc it is incredibly important to know how the story ends. If you don’t know if the character redeemed himself then all the time that you invested into the book was wasted. This can make for a very unsatisfying read. The last chapter in Crime and Punishment was very confused, because Raskolnikov himself was mentally confused. While this makes sense, it can still make the reader feel unsatisfied. The epilogue fixes this issue and brings Raskolnikov’s story to a satisfying ending.
Love is very powerful and can cause someone to change drastically. This is shown in the epilogue when Raskolnikov, after being sick once again while in prison, finds that he truly loves Sonya. Love is one of the main themes of Crime and Punishment and it is Raskolnikov’s love for Sonya that causes him to finally convert and see why what he did was wrong. In the novel itself, we do not know if Raskolnikov converted or not however this becomes more clear in the epilogue which tells us why Raskolnikov convert. Love is an important aspect in the
Crime and Punishment is a classic novel of a crime committed, love and redemption from the viewpoint of Raskolnikov, a man confused and at times insane. The novel itself follows this confusion very well leaving the readers to determine why Raskolnikov is doing what he is doing and to question his motives and even his very thoughts. However, in the epilogue the story becomes clearer and we are given a concise ending as Raskolnikov leaves his state of delirium. As Raskolnikov converts we are given a clearer image and finally understand what happens and why Raskolnikov converted. This ending is a satisfying way to conclude a classic novel that has continued to impress readers with the way it was written and the story that it tells.

Works Cited
Pevear, Richard, and Larissa Volokhonsky. Crime and Punishment. Knopf, 1992.

stannjf21 English Major Showcase, Learning Outcome 4

This paper is an ethical paper that I wrote for ERH 207 and is a good paper for the Evaluate and use sources to produce effective and ethical arguments learning outcome for English majors. For this paper I had to pick an ethical topic and debate it using two sources that we had previously discussed throughout the semester. I chose Nietzsche and Thomas Aquinas and I wrote about what the virtue of goodness was and where does it comes from.

John Stann
ERH 207
Help Received: Works Cited
Words: 1,030

The virtue of goodness

What is the virtue of goodness and where does it come from? This question has plagued the great philosophers throughout the centuries and it has been discussed countless times. Two philosophers who take up this question in various forms are Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche. These two philosophers could not be more polar opposite. Aquinas, was a practicing and devote catholic priest and monk takes one side of the argument, while Nietzsche, who was an atheist and said, “God is dead, and we have killed him.” It is these differences in believes that make the study of Aquinas and Nietzsche so interesting. While Aquinas cares more about where good comes from, Nietzsche wonders about what the importance of good and evil are. Aquinas and Nietzsche differ in their believes in the articles “Geneology of Morals” and “Aquinas on Natural Law”. While Aquinas believes that natural law comes from God, Neitzsche believes that believes that natural law comes from within us.
Nietzsche believes that we find natural law, and good and evil within our world without looking for God or a greater power. “Fortunately, I learnt, in time, to separate theological from moral prejudice and I no longer searched for the origin of evil beyond the world.” (Nietzsche, 3). Instead, he believes that good and evil come from within individual persons. “together with my innate fastidiousness with regard to all psychological problems soon transformed my problem into another: under what conditions did man invent the value judgments good and evil? And what value do they themselves have?” (ibid, 3). Nietzsche goes on to question and try to discover what is the worth of good and evil. “Have they up to now obstructed or promoted human flourishing? Are they a sign of distress, poverty and the degeneration of life? Or, on the contrary, do they reveal the fullness, strength and will of life, its courage, its confidence, its future?” (Ibid,3). While Aquinas does believe that man knows what is good and what is evil, he believes that the source of truth comes from God alone, which is contrary to what Nietzsche believes. According to Aquinas man knows what is good because it is in his nature. “For every agent acts for the sake of an end, which has the character of a good. And so the first principle in practical reasoning is what is founded on the notion good, which is the notion: The good is what all things desire. Therefore, the first precept of law is that good ought to be done and pursued and that evil ought to be avoided.” (Aquinas, 645). This however, is where the similarities between Aquinas and Nietzsche end.
Nietzsche does not believe in God and believes that instead, mankind thinks that good has come from men who believe themselves to be good. “good does not emanate from those to whom goodness is shown! Instead it has been the good themselves, meaning the noble, the mighty, the high-placed and the high-minded, who saw and judged themselves and their actions as good.” (Nietzsche, 11) In other words, Nietzsche believes that the idea of good was created by the people who call themselves good, and thus good didn’t do humankind any good at all. “It was from this pathos of distance that they first claimed the right to create values and give these values names: usefulness was none of their concern!” (Ibid, 11). He continues by saying that he was founded in saying that good was a created virtue because of the wording and meaning of good in different languages. “the terms for good, as used in different languages, mean from the etymological point of view: then I found that they all led me back to the same conceptual transformation- that everywhere, noble, aristocratic in social terms is the basic concept from which, necessarily, good in the sense of spiritually noble, aristocratic of spiritually highminded, spiritually privileged developed.” (Ibid,13). Thus, Nietzsche feels justified in declaring that good is just a creation of the powerful and those in charge.
To Aquinas, this argument is stupid and incorrect, he believes that the source of good in humans comes from God. “Third, man has an inclination toward the good with respect to the rational nature that is proper to him; for instance, man has a natural inclination toward knowing the truth about God and toward living in society. Accordingly, those things that are related to this sort of inclination belong to the natural law, e.g that a man avoid ignorance, that he not offend the others with whom he has to live in community, and other such things related to this inclination.” (Aquinas, 645.) This is completely different from Nietzsche’s viewpoint because Aquinas believes that good comes from natural law which comes from God. “By virtue of the fact that law is a rule and measure, it has to do with the principle of human acts. Now just as reason is the principle with respect to everything else. Hence, this must be what law is chiefly and especially concerned with. Now in actions, which practical reason is concerned with, the first principle is the ultimate end. But, as was established above, the ultimate end of human life is happiness or beatitude. Hence, law must have to do mainly with an ordering that leads to beatitude.” (Aquinas, 620-621). Now since God is happiness, and we are supposed to be happy with God in Heaven, God created law, both natural and eternal laws to help guide us. This is a completely different approach to goodness then Nietzsche.
What is the importance of good and where does it come from are two questions that the philosophers Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche debate and argue about in their separate works. The two philosophers come to very different conclusions. Thomas Aquinas believes that good is a part of the natural law of man and so since all law comes from God goodness must come from God. Nietzsche believes that goodness was a fictional virtue created by those in power to make themselves feel good about the actions they were taking. It is interesting to study these two vastly different views because of how different they are.

Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Geneology of Morals.
Aquinas, Thomas, Natural law.

ERH 202WX Paper 1

stannjf21 Learning Outcome 1

This assignment that I have chosen was written for ERH 202 and a good example of identifying and using rhetorical strategies in academic, civic and professional situations. for this paper I had to pick a speech, picture or some other form of rhetoric, analyze it and explain why it was important and how the rhetorical strategies and situation is still important today. This was a very challenging but enjoyable paper.

ERH 202
John Stann
Help Received: None
2/11/13

The Oscar nominations come at a tense time in American politics, Trump had just been acquitted by the Senate, which, previously had voted to not call on more witnesses in the impeachment trial. This upset many democrats who had wanted more witnesses to further the evidence against President Trump, and in turn, hoped to remove him from office. There is a time and a place for political discussion and debate, as the old saying goes, “there are three things that you do not talk about, Money, Religion and Politics.” The Oscars should have been a time to forget the political issues that are plaguing America and a time for Americans to unite in a social and enjoyable moment. The Oscars did not have to be about politics, they could have ignored them and focus instead on entertainment and fellowship and ignore politics. Due to the political rhetoric of Pitt’s speech this didn’t happen. Brad Pitt wasn’t the only celebrity to use their social standing to attempt to push their political views onto the audience, Joaquin Phoenix and Steve Martin also took shots at various political issues. (vanityfair) The root cause of the political divide that has torn our country apart is the unwillingness to debate and see each other’s point of views, despite not agreeing with them. Celebrities need to realize the respected position that they hold in our society and to not abuse it by casually throwing political rhetoric at their audience without explaining why and without the attacks that come with the rhetoric that they use.

It is no secret that our nation is facing a political crisis. Both the left and the right are pretentious and refuse to listen to each other or hear what the other side’s argument actually is. Instead, people make assumptions, use poorly worded rhetoric and attack the other side both with their words and through physical violence. This type of political conflict is what is destroying our nation and does not foster discussion and debate that should be happening. Brad Pitt’s Oscar nomination speech is an example of how it is important to consider the choice and timing of words and the impact that they have on people in an audience.
“Thank you to the Academy for this honor of honors. They told me I only have 45 seconds up here which is 45 more seconds than the Senate gave John Bolton this week.” (rev.com). This line from Pitt’s Oscar nomination speech is filled with Pathos and an example of how a celebrity’s choice of words can make a situation worse instead of helping to improve a situation. Brad Pitt’s speech is an unfortunate example of how people who do good things that help society can still make mistakes. Pathos evokes emotion from people, Brad Pitt’s speech does this because many people were upset by the results of the senate impeachment trial and he used his speech to fuel their anger thus evoking pathos from them. Instead of speaking about the impeachment trial, he could have talked more about the people who helped him get the Oscar, or about what acting means to him. This is a sad moment in Brad Pitt’s career because he has had so done so many positive things to help the unfortunate in the world. Over the years he has supported 42 different charities and especially people affected by disasters. (looktothestars.com) This lapse in Brad Pitt’s judgement at the Oscar nominations shows that celebrities are people who make mistakes as well.
Brad Pitt’s speech is important because it signifies the political issue that has split America, the Left versus the Right. If people were more civil and open to hearing the other side’s reasoning, then many of the conflicts that are abundant in society would be resolved. Instead of mocking or throwing jabs at individuals, like Brad Pitt has done, people should try to listen to other believes and not force their own on ideals on those who don’t want to listen. Celebrities need to remember that they are respected and admired and that they should use the respect that they are given for the betterment of society and promote civil discourse through their speeches and screen time. They should not use their popularity to attack different people or to cause discord

Sources
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/02/oscars-2020-political-moments
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/brad-pitt-oscar-acceptance-speech-transcript-pitt-wins-first-oscar
https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/brad-pitt

English major showcase assignment 2

stannjf21 Learning Outcome 2

For this assignment, I decided to choose one of the papers that I wrote for ERH 321 Shakespeare: Power and Politics. For this assignment, I had to write a paper on monarchy, democracy and rebellion and how the views on those subjects influenced Shakespeare’s plays at the time. I believe that this is a good assignment for the second learning outcome for English majors because I had to write this paper on how the cultural believes on Rebellion, Democracy and Monarchy influenced Shakespeare. This assignment also fits well under the use appropriate disciplinary terminology and method of criticism to analyze texts learning outcome.

ERH 321WX

Short Assignment 1

John Stann

Help Received: Works cited, Grammar check, Spell Check.

Part 1:

The short treatise of political power by John Ponet shows what some educated people in England believed should happen if a king or monarch was being unjust to their people and their perspective on rebellion and civic order. Ponet believes that that God has the most absolute power and should even hold the monarch accountable and that a government should be established for the people. (Hodgdon,180). He also argues for checks on the government so that it does not turn into a tyranny. (Hodgdon, 180). He believes that a person does not owe the duty to their obedience to the monarch themselves but instead, they owe it to the state. (Hodgdon,180). Ponet also declares that citizens should obey their monarch if it is beneficial to the kingdom and to God. (Hodgdon,181). Despite this believe of a monarch for the people, Ponet believes that if a monarch is unjust, the individual person should rebel and if his cause was just God would then intervene on his side and help him. (Hodgdon,181-182).

Part 2 (34-39)

Act 1 scene 3 of Henry IV, Part 1 is a good example of demonstrating what the people believed of rebellion. The Percy’s are discussing rebellion because King Henry IV was not recognizing them as much as they had hoped since they helped him win the crown. The Percy’s believe that King Henry is a usurper and a tyrant and are angry at having to give up their prisoners. “By God, he shall not have a Scot of them, No, if a Scot would save his soul, he shall not! I’ll keep them, by his hand (I.III.213-216).” Discussion turns from the prisoners to the legitimacy of Henry IV and how Mortimer should actually be king. This scene backs Ponet’s belief of rebellion because Henry Percy says in one of his speeches in this long scene that

“Wherein you range under this subtle king! Shall it for shame be spoken in these days, or fill up chronicles in time to come, that men of your nobility and power did gage them both in unjust behalf. (as both of you- God pardon it!- have done) To put down Richard To put down Richard, that sweet lovely rose, and plant this thorn, this canker, Bullingbrook?” (I.III.169-177)

This excerpt shows that they believed originally that they originally thought that Richard II was a poor king and they tried to replace him with a better king, who also turned into a tyrannical king. Henry Percy later on tries to encourage the other Percy’s to “restore yourselves into the good thoughts of the world again” by rebelling against King Henry whom they believe to be a tyrant. Ponet argues that rebellion against a monarch is just if that monarch is not helping their citizens. King Henry is not directly being a tyrant to the people of England but the Percy’s believe that he is being unjust to them for not giving them more power after putting him on the throne.

Bibliography

Hodgdon, Barbara. The First Part of King Henry IV, Texts and Contexts, William Shakespeare Hodgdon, Bedford/st. Martin’s, 1997.

Shakespeare, William. The First Part of King Henry IV, Texts and Contexts. Edited by Barbara Hodgdon, Bedford/st. Martin’s, 1997.

ERH 321WX-Final Paper. Julius Caesar paper

stannjf21 Uncategorized

Reflective Tag

When I researched this paper I focused on the use of the heavens and stars, the symbolism of the play and honor and sacrifice. The Code of Honor in Christian Europe was changing during the Early Modern Period to focus more on the self and decisions that need to be made individually instead of as a collective whole. The heavens were used as symbols of guidance and the supernatural occurrences where warnings to the conspirators.

ERH 321WX
John Stann
Help Received: works cited
Words: 2,112
Julius Caesar: Honor, patriotism and Early Modern English values

“Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.” (III.II 23-34). With these words, Decimus Junius Brutus, the infamous Roman politician and orator clears himself of any wrongdoing after he and his fellow conspirators murdered Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s now immortalized play. The play, Julius Caesar, is one of Shakespeare’s most politicized and has been shown countless times since it was first produced in 1599. Unlike many of his other plays, Julius Caesar, was a dramatic political tale about honor, rebellion, death, patriotism and sacrifice. In Elizabethan England this play would have been relevant because of the conflict between absolute monarchy and Republicanism and how political turmoil brings with it uncertainty and destroys stability. Many English would have recognized themselves in similar situations as the characters in the play were. Not only was England going through a religious crisis, but there was also a threat of war and rebellion. The 9 years war was occurring and another rebellion in Ireland was brewing. (totallytimes.com). All of these political crises would have caused a great deal of uncertainty to England and the English people. The Roman virtues of sacrifice and patriotism and the heavens and stars being important symbols would have been recognizable to the Early Modern Englishman. This essay will discuss sacrifice and patriotism and how those Romans virtues were important to the English and how symbolism such as the stars and the heavens were also important in both Roman and Early Modern English culture and how they were important in the play Julius Caesar.
One of the key focuses of Julius Caesar is the idea of sacrifice. The Conspirators were not concerned with committing murder because they believed that it was in the best interest of the Republic Caesar be killed. It is not just Ceaasr that they want to kill, however. Cassius argues for the death of Mark Antony as well for he would carry on Caesar’s dream.
“I think it is not meet Mark Antony, so well beloved of Caesar; Should outlive Caesar: We shall find of him a shrewd contriver; and you know his means, if he improve them, may well stretch so far as to annoy us all;” (II.I 169-173)
Brutus, however, does not want the murder to turn into a bloodbath. More death would make the murders seem personal and not about the greater glory of Rome. This would enrage the plebeians and turn the city against them, which is the opposite of what the conspirators wanted. Instead, Brutus tries to spin the murder of Caesar into a sacrifice. If the murder was a sacrifice, the people would understand that Caesar was killed for them to remain free. Just like the Romans sacrificed an animal before a battle or an election to gain the favor of the gods, Julius Caesar would be sacrificed so that the Republic could remain free.
“Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius, to cut the head off and then hack the limbs, like wrath in death and envy afterwards; For Antony is but a limb of Caesar. Let’s be sacrificers, not butchers, Caius.” (II.I 175-179 ).
Later on, when he is talking to the crowd after the death of Caesar Brutus declares that he would be willing to kill himself if Rome needed it. “I have the same dagger for myself when it shall please my country to need my death.” (III.II 48-49). Just as Brutus believed that he killed Caesar for the Republic, Brutus was willing to lay his own life down for Rome if needed. The virtue of sacrifice was important to Romans. From the earliest days of the Republic the idea of country above self was bred into them. Cincinnatus was a hero of Rome who left his fields to become a dictator and save Rome from barbarian invaders. After defeating his enemies, he relinquished his dictatorial powers and returned to being a farmer. (ancientorigins.net) While Cincinnatus was not killed in action, he still sacrificed his life for Rome. It was men like Cincinnatus that Brutus and others looked to for inspiration in their own actions.
Stars and the heavens are an important aspect to Shakespearean plays. They are used as symbols of stability, strength and as guides to characters, their morals and the choices that they make. “Such a use of heavenly and mundane portents as symbols of personal and social order is common enough in Shakespeare’s plays. Their use has been considered in Romeo and Juliet. In other works as well, the heavens symbolize the kind of order that is to be desired in civil life.” (Moynihan, 26). In other situations, however, the stars and supernatural phenomenon are used as warnings and signs of danger. Before he is assassinated, Julius Caesar gives a speech in which he declares himself to be “As constant as the Northern Star”. (III.I 66)
“I could be well mov’d, if I were as you;
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me;
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix’d and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumb’red sparks.” (III.I 64-69)
Caesar thinks he is as unwavering as the stars and believes himself to be an Emperor, or even a god. These lines are a perfect example of the stars being used as a source of unwavering confidence. Just like in Henry V, in the speech before the battle of Agincourt where Henry walks under the heavens, the stars are a sign of confidence and unwavering spirit.
Another use of heaven’s and the supernatural in Julius Caesar, is as when stars are used as warnings and signs of danger or turmoil. The conspirators believe that the unnatural and supernatural events leading up to the assassination attempt foretell dangerous times and troubles ahead.
“But if you would consider the true cause why all these fires, why all these gliding ghosts, why birds and beasts from quality and kind, why old men, fools and children calculate, why all these things change from their ordinance, their natures, and preformed faculties, to monstrous quality, why you shall find, that heaven hath infused them with these spirits to make them instruments of fear and warning unto some monstrous state. Now could I, Casca, name to thee a man most like this dreadful night, That thunders, lightens, opens graves and roars As doth the lion in the Capitol.” (I.III 62-75)
These lines show the dangers and serve as warnings to the conspirators. Earlier in act I, Casca says,
“When these prodigies do so conjointly meet, let not men say, These are their reasons- they are natural. For I believe they are portentous things unto the climate that they point upon.” (I.III 28-32.)
The conspirators recognize their very fragile position and the stars clarify and emphasize the position to the audience. The stars, heavens and the supernatural all play an important role in Shakespeare’s plays. This roll has two purposes almost opposite in meaning. On one hand, the stars provide comfort, security and show decisiveness and unyielding strength. On the other hand, however, they show a dark future for the protagonists, a future filled with danger and are used to foretell trouble.
The main protagonist of the play is Marcus Brutus, a man ruled by honor and his sense of righteousness. Everything he does, he does for his honor or for the honor of Rome and for the Republic. “What villain touched his body that did stab and not for justice?” (IV.III 21-23). Brutus tries to persuade himself that, despite murder being wrong, the act of killing Caesar is just and a sacrifice for the people of Rome.
“Though now we must appear bloody and cruel, you see do, yet see you but our hands and this the bleeding business they have done. And pity to the general wrong of Rome Hath done this deed on Caesar.”
(III.I 180-188).
The conspirators believed that they were doing the right thing for Rome and Rome’s people. Honor and patriotism were important parts of Roman culture and the character of Brutus easily captures these virtues.
Setting aside the glaring conflict between Republicanism and Imperialism, Brutus killing Caesar was an act of patriotism and nationalism. To save ones’ country from a tyrant was seen an act of patriotism. This sense of honor and patriotism would have been another characteristic that would have been easily recognizable to the British people. The British were a fiercely independent and proud people and patriotism was an incredibly important virtue to have in the middle ages and the early modern period. Chivalry was the equivalent sense of honor to the early modern English. During the renaissance when the play was written there was a period of revival of earlier traditions and virtues. Chivalry and the Code of Honor was the equivalent to Roman honor of the time. “Honor was becoming, by the seventeenth century, a matter of conscience; honorable men needed to seek, in every situation, to behave in such a way as to please both their state and their God.” (Terry, 1071). Just as Brutus wrestled with joining the conspirators, an Englishman during this time period would have had to struggle with what his own code of honor was.
Another interesting aspect of Julius Caesar is the use of parallels in the play which is filled with symbolism. The biblical quote “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” is extremely obvious throughout the play. One parallel, for example, is that while The Conspirators killed Caesar they themselves were killed at the end of the play. “As Caesar had paid with his blood for shedding Pompey’s, so the conspirators pay with their blood for shedding Caesar’s.” (Foakes, An approach to Caeasar). Another parallel in Julius Caesar is a parallel to England at the time that the play was being written. The Earl of Essex, at the time, was seen suspiciously by Queen Elizabeth and her court and there were fears that he would turn on the court and usurp the throne “Julius Caesar was written and preformed while Essex was In Ireland. As his campaigns there fell apart, the earl himself fell under suspicion and disrepute at court with the queen. Rumors spread that the defensive measures taken to resist what would turn out to be a phantom Spanish Armada were in fact intended by the Council as a show of strength to an increasingly erratic and desperate Essex, who, it was feared, might be tempted to turn his forces in Ireland back on his enemies in England.” (Lake, How Shakespeare put politics on the stage: Power and Succession in the History Plays.).
The material shown in Julius Caesar, would certainly have struck home to many of its viewers in Early Modern England. The political situation at the time was similar to that of Brutus’ and the conspirators during the Republic. The sacrificial spirit and the virtues of patriotism would have been easily recognizable to the Englishmen and the message of the play would not have been lost. Serve your country and put England above yourself, the message seems to say. Beneath this patriotic tone lies a darker meaning that says that traitors will be punished. Julius Caesar stays with us today and can be seen not only as a play about republicanism and monarchism, but it is also about heroism, sacrifice and patriotism. The final warning of Mark Antony still carry with us today as it did when Shakespeare first showed the play.
“This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he did that they did in envy of great Caesar. He only in a general honest thought and common good to man made one of them. His life was gentle and the elements so mixed in him that nature might stand up and say to all the world, this was a man.” (V.V 74-81).

Works Cited
Moynihan, Robert D. “Stars, Portents, and Order in ‘Julius Caesar.’” Modern Language Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 1977, pp. 26–31. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3194362.

Foakes, R. A. “An Approach to Julius Caesar.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 5, no. 3, 1954, pp. 259–270. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2866331.

Welcome to Totally Timelines


Shakespeare, William, Julius Caesar, Folger Shakespeare Library, 2011.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/model-civic-virtue-dictator-lucius-quinctius-cincinnatus-005326

“The State We’Re In.” How Shakespeare Put Politics on the Stage: Power and Succession in the History Plays, by PETER LAKE, Yale University Press, NEW HAVEN; LONDON, 2016, pp. 437–441. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gxxpsd.22.

Terry, Reta A. “‘Vows to the Blackest Devil’: Hamlet and the Evolving Code of Honor in Early Modern England.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 4, 1999, pp. 1070–1086. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2901836.