Author: Sarah Coppenbarger

I find it interesting how Sade wrote the 120 Days of Sodom in such a methodical way. From the first page of the manuscript, he breaks the introduction to the 120 days into six sections. There, he describes all of the characters in the novel (which are honestly difficult to keep track of because there are so many), the regulations the libertines will abide by during the 120 days, and how they go about setting this whole operation into motion. The exposition of this novel is extremely long, which is one of the things I find most striking about its structure. Sade really wanted us to know these characters inside and out, possibly in order to fully understand the extent of the debauchery they engage in as well as the ruthlessness and cruelty of the four libertines, which greatly contrast that of the children and their daughters (minus Julie).

I also find it interesting how Sade wanted all the child victims to be of the elite French class, instead of being poor. I feel like this choice was very deliberate in that Sade wanted the audience to understand that the most extreme debauchery seeks the ruin of others, and someone that is already poor cannot fall any further than they already have. The opposite is the case for rich people of high social status. 

There is also heavy anti-religious sentiment in this novel, of course stemming from the increasingly despicable acts committed by the four libertines throughout the course of the novel, but also because of the way Sade wrote the four libertine’s characters, particularly the bishop. They denounce God throughout the novel and even offer the most severe of punishments to Constance and Sophie for their practice of Christianity at the castle. The bishop in particular serves as an oxymoron himself as he is committing the worst of sins, does not seem to believe in God, and yet he is a well-respected religious figure.

One common thread I have noticed between the four texts we have read so far in this class is that they are all very extreme, and the extremeness has pointed towards an issue that people of authority do not want addressed. This, coupled with the paragraph below, leads me to believe that Sade was trying to say something political and grab people’s attention using the most extreme of content.

The structure of this novel also feels very repetitive in a way and gets increasingly worse in terms of the types of stories told by the four storytellers and activities committed by the libertines. The fact that the 120 days goes by so smoothly in such an uninterrupted way for the libertines (reflected by the structure of the novel), since they are in full control the entire time, potentially sheds light on the influence and power of people like the four libertines that allows them to get away with whatever they want. Based on the first few sentences of the introduction, it seems like Sade thought that the political climate of France at the time is what made it possible for people like the four libertines to get away with things similar to the deeds committed in the novel. This is to say that Sade was potentially trying to shed light on French society at the time, but this will be more explored when I am able to discuss the context of this novel in Thursday’s blog post. So, until next time.

One of the most striking features of A Modest Proposal was how Jonathan Swift seems to be contradicting himself. After reading about the context surrounding when this proposal was written, it seemed to me like Swift was sympathizing with the plight of poor and middle-class Irish Catholics, while simultaneously showing great indifference towards them in some of his other works. This made me wonder if Swift wrote this proposal not only as a satire of England’s exploitation of Ireland and the Irish elite’s exploitation of the lower class, but also as a satirical critique of those that claimed him to not show pity towards the state of the Irish poor. It’s also likely that Swift wrote this proposal in a satirical way because he knew the weight of the argument he was making against England/wealthy Irish landlords and that if he didn’t make an attempt to relieve tension for readers from both sides (that of the wealthy English/Irish landlords and the poor Irish Catholics), then he might have found himself in a lot more trouble than his proposal already entailed. With that being said, Swift didn’t spare details of brutality and grotesqueness in his proposal, which seems to correspond to the increasingly deteriorating state of Ireland and the worsening social conditions at the time A Modest Proposal was written. I believe that his use of the cannibalism of children and infants definitely makes it apparent how serious he was about the encroachment of England on Ireland and the Irish landlords devouring parents and having the titles to their children. Overall, he gets the message across for how severely Ireland was suffering. Honestly, Swift’s proposal seems like something English authority/wealthy Irish landlords definitely wouldn’t have wanted circulating around because of how negatively it portrays their exploitation of Ireland and poor Irish Catholics. Swift essentially portrays England and wealthy Irish landlords as brutal and evil by equating their exploitation of Ireland and the Irish people to that of exploiting children as a food source. This is likely part of what made this text “controversial” in the eyes of English authority and Irish landlords at the time. I suppose he also likely used the cannibalism metaphor in particular because of the famine occurring in Ireland at the time he wrote the proposal. He probably knew that it would be more impactful using this particular metaphor, which would likely rally together more people (poor Irish Catholics) against their wealthy landlords and England. Was Swift trying to stir up a little rebellion/revolution? I’m not exactly sure, but he was definitely trying to call out English and landlord oppression of the poor Irish Catholics.

One of the most striking things I noticed in the Gospel of Mary was the role that Mary played in an important religious context, especially since women back in the 3rd century CE typically were not high on the totem pole or as spiritually enlightened as men in religious settings due to issues like sexism. For instance, Mary is portrayed as being very close to Jesus, even more so than the other disciples. Because of this, she appears more spiritually enlightened than them because she “gets” Jesus’s teaching and they don’t. When the disciples are worried about spreading Jesus’s message, Mary comforts them and recounts a vision she had where Jesus responded to her. Even though the disciples ask her to explain the teachings she learned to them, they start to question her and accuse her of lying about Jesus’s words because she knows more than they do and even more so because she’s a woman. I thought it was just really interesting how Mary, the only woman disciple mentioned in this text, who has also been wrongly labelled as a prostitute for a very long time, was the only person to receive more enlightenment from Jesus than the other disciples, and was the only person that could truly understand his teachings. This text portrayed Mary as having somewhat of a special leadership role which feels very uncharacteristic for religious manuscripts, particularly ones from the 3rd century CE. The way in which the Gospel of Mary is written and how Mary is portrayed makes me wonder about whether or not the author of this text wanted to legitimize Mary and what she had to say after she had seemingly been discredited many times, which might be what makes it so controversial as it challenges current views on Mary’s character and the legitimacy of her “strange ideas” that seem to have been overlooked by many.

One of the most striking things I noticed in the Gospel of Mary was the role that Mary played in an important religious context, especially since women back in the 3rd century CE typically were not high on the totem pole or as spiritually enlightened as men in religious settings due to issues like sexism. For instance, Mary is portrayed as being very close to Jesus, even more so than the other disciples. Because of this, she appears more spiritually enlightened than them because she “gets” Jesus’s teaching and they don’t. When the disciples are worried about spreading Jesus’s message, Mary comforts them and recounts a vision she had where Jesus responded to her. Even though the disciples ask her to explain the teachings she learned to them, they start to question her and accuse her of lying about Jesus’s words because she knows more than they do and even more so because she’s a woman. I thought it was just really interesting how Mary, the only woman disciple mentioned in this text, who has also been wrongly labelled as a prostitute for a very long time, was the only person to receive more enlightenment from Jesus than the other disciples, and was the only person that could truly understand his teachings. This text portrayed Mary as having somewhat of a special leadership role which feels very uncharacteristic for religious manuscripts, particularly ones from the 3rd century CE. The way in which the Gospel of Mary is written and how Mary is portrayed makes me wonder about whether or not the author of this text wanted to legitimize Mary and what she had to say after she had seemingly been discredited many times, which might be what makes it so controversial as it challenges current views on Mary’s character and the legitimacy of her “strange ideas” that seem to have been overlooked by many.

One of the most striking things I noticed in the Gospel of Mary was the role that Mary played in an important religious context, especially since women back in the 3rd century CE typically were not high on the totem pole or as spiritually enlightened as men in religious settings due to issues like sexism. For instance, Mary is portrayed as being very close to Jesus, even more so than the other disciples. Because of this, she appears more spiritually enlightened than them because she “gets” Jesus’s teaching and they don’t. When the disciples are worried about spreading Jesus’s message, Mary comforts them and recounts a vision she had where Jesus responded to her. Even though the disciples ask her to explain the teachings she learned to them, they start to question her and accuse her of lying about Jesus’s words because she knows more than they do and even more so because she’s a woman. I thought it was just really interesting how Mary, the only woman disciple mentioned in this text, who has also been wrongly labelled as a prostitute for a very long time, was the only person to receive more enlightenment from Jesus than the other disciples, and was the only person that could truly understand his teachings. This text portrayed Mary as having somewhat of a special leadership role which feels very uncharacteristic for religious manuscripts, particularly ones from the 3rd century CE. The way in which the Gospel of Mary is written and how Mary is portrayed makes me wonder about whether or not the author of this text wanted to legitimize Mary and what she had to say after she had seemingly been discredited many times, which might be what makes it so controversial as it challenges current views on Mary’s character and the legitimacy of her “strange ideas” that seem to have been overlooked by many.

One of the biggest things I took note of from this reading was the light in which Judas is painted. Based on my current understanding of Christian theology, Judas was a disciple of Jesus who betrayed him for money, leading to the crucifixion of Jesus. In the Christian tradition, Judas is typically portrayed as a backstabber, and his name carries a strong negative connotation, which is why no one ever wants to be called a “Judas”. However, in Gospel of Judas, Judas appears to be seeking enlightenment from Jesus in a sincere way in that he’s constantly asking Jesus questions about what’s going to happen to the next generation. He even tells Jesus about a vision that he had and receives a response from him in order to learn more about his vision and what it means. Overall, Judas seems like he’s very close to Jesus, particularly because Jesus speaks to him in private on multiple occasions, which he doesn’t do with the other disciples. Towards the end of the reading, Jesus tells Judas about what happens to baptized people and that Judas will betray him. This section of the text reads almost like a prophecy to me because Jesus is telling Judas what he’s going to do before he does it. It almost seems like Jesus wants Judas to betray him, in order to set important biblical events in motion. Because of the way Jesus relays this information to Judas and the nature of their relationship in the text, it almost feels like Judas was only trying to help fulfil a prophecy because it’s what Jesus wanted. The way that Judas is portrayed here makes him seem less like an unfaithful traitor, and more like someone that was just trying to follow what his superior wanted of him in order to further events of biblical significance like Jesus’s resurrection. In a nutshell, I think Judas is portrayed in a much more positive light in this text than he is in traditional Christian theology, which could explain why the text is considered controversial as it contradicts traditional belief, making it a form of heresy.

Welcome to Sites@UMW. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!