Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Pilgrim's Progress
>
Pilgrim's Progress Week 1
Patrice wrote: "Does anyone know if Bunyan read Dante? There are obvious parallels, could they be a coincidence? Or is it that they both were drawn from the Bible? The Interpreter reminded me of Virgil. But Bu..."I wondered about the possible influence of Dante, too, Patrice, especially in the first few lines, but the Bible seems like a more natural source for the image of someone lost in the wilderness, now that you mention it. And what a serious journey he is on. I was a little chilled by his leaving his family behind with so little apparent deliberation.
I noticed some similarities as well, but I don't think so. The impression that I got was that Bunyan was relatively uneducated, suggesting that we was not familiar with the classic literature and that the only book that he knew was the Bible.
From what I found googling, it appears Dante wasn't translated into English until well after Bunyan's time. Wikipedia says 1802. Apparently translators have been making up for lost time ever since (smile)
PP is much humbler literature than DC, not having all the classical references and sprinkled instead with crude proof-texts. Despite this humility, it seems to me to have a kind of sober and simple grandeur. It conveys a simple message dressed in simple images, accessible to anyone.What happens to Christian is about him and his spiritual journey. What happens to Dante is about the spiritual fate of others. Dante also has better guidance, with Virgil always at his elbow. Christian has the Evangelist popping in every now and then to give him a tip, but he also has Worldly Wiseman and others coming by too. How is he supposed to know which advice to heed?
Everyman wrote: "And so our journey begins, each of us starting from the place we are now in our lives. Whether from a den, or from a dark wood, or from a tavern in Southwerk, or from a bright garden, we are all e..."
Thank you, Everyman. That was nicely done.
Thank you, Everyman. That was nicely done.
Susan wrote: " I was a little chilled by his leaving his family behind with so little apparent deliberation.
..."
Two thoughts on that. It could be that Christian had wrestled and wrestled with this decision ... "pre-dream," as it were. "Off screen." I say this because I would think most men love their wives and children -- and would NOT want to leave them behind in the City of Destruction.
Yet... remember, this is an allegory. Christian wasn't leaving them physically behind. One can view that matter as either "not as bad" as leaving them physically behind. One can take the view that what he did was "worse than" leaving them physically behind.
I would venture that he is still there.... living with his family. But he has left them behind SPIRITUALLY.
And that, I think, brings us back to the "deliberation" point. From a spiritual, (more especially early-Christian, also, Puritan-times, than what prevails today), I think that the more deliberation Christian gives to his family... is probably a negative reflection on him as a Christian.
I would imagine that he has TRIED to tell his family of The Way. That he has TRIED to convince them to stop living has they have been living... That he has TRIED to turn them towards the Lord. That would be "the Christian" thing to do.
Yet... the longer he deliberates and stays (spiritually) with them, the greater the odds that he himself, like Pliable, will slide back ... and return to his old ways... the ways that will bring him spiritual death and damnation--- That's all there IS in The City of Destruction: spiritual death and damnation.
Jesus, The Word itself, which is what Christian is following --- or attempting to follow, commands Christian to leave.
A modern, "softer," perhaps, translation:
Luke 14:26 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
26 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his [own] father and mother [in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God] and [likewise] his wife and children and brothers and sisters—[yes] and even his own life also—he cannot be My disciple.
Luke 14:26 (KJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Acts 7:3 KJV:
And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
NUMEROUS admonitions. Not just Biblical. No spoilers. (view spoiler)
Christian can not possibly save his family. No human can save another human. All Christian can do is pray for them, give them the Word, and try to lead by example--- i.e., through living a spiritual life.
That's what he's doing. He's not leaving them physically. I don't think so. He's leaving them spiritually... He won't live their way anymore... He's leaving Sloth, and Worldly Ways behind. He's rejected "Legality," for the higher call of "morality."
My thinking is that his wife, his family, his neighbors.... are choosing the comfortable, civil, "it's not against the law/ "it is against the law" world.
And Christ has told us we need to reject that world if we desire to be saved.
Just my take.
..."
Two thoughts on that. It could be that Christian had wrestled and wrestled with this decision ... "pre-dream," as it were. "Off screen." I say this because I would think most men love their wives and children -- and would NOT want to leave them behind in the City of Destruction.
Yet... remember, this is an allegory. Christian wasn't leaving them physically behind. One can view that matter as either "not as bad" as leaving them physically behind. One can take the view that what he did was "worse than" leaving them physically behind.
I would venture that he is still there.... living with his family. But he has left them behind SPIRITUALLY.
And that, I think, brings us back to the "deliberation" point. From a spiritual, (more especially early-Christian, also, Puritan-times, than what prevails today), I think that the more deliberation Christian gives to his family... is probably a negative reflection on him as a Christian.
I would imagine that he has TRIED to tell his family of The Way. That he has TRIED to convince them to stop living has they have been living... That he has TRIED to turn them towards the Lord. That would be "the Christian" thing to do.
Yet... the longer he deliberates and stays (spiritually) with them, the greater the odds that he himself, like Pliable, will slide back ... and return to his old ways... the ways that will bring him spiritual death and damnation--- That's all there IS in The City of Destruction: spiritual death and damnation.
Jesus, The Word itself, which is what Christian is following --- or attempting to follow, commands Christian to leave.
A modern, "softer," perhaps, translation:
Luke 14:26 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
26 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his [own] father and mother [in the sense of indifference to or relative disregard for them in comparison with his attitude toward God] and [likewise] his wife and children and brothers and sisters—[yes] and even his own life also—he cannot be My disciple.
Luke 14:26 (KJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
Acts 7:3 KJV:
And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
NUMEROUS admonitions. Not just Biblical. No spoilers. (view spoiler)
Christian can not possibly save his family. No human can save another human. All Christian can do is pray for them, give them the Word, and try to lead by example--- i.e., through living a spiritual life.
That's what he's doing. He's not leaving them physically. I don't think so. He's leaving them spiritually... He won't live their way anymore... He's leaving Sloth, and Worldly Ways behind. He's rejected "Legality," for the higher call of "morality."
My thinking is that his wife, his family, his neighbors.... are choosing the comfortable, civil, "it's not against the law/ "it is against the law" world.
And Christ has told us we need to reject that world if we desire to be saved.
Just my take.
Thank you. I tend to think that because my mother read this book, and Everyman to us when we were so young --- and because the books had such great illustrations, that I am inclined to see symbolism and allegory.
Everyman and Other Miracle and Morality Plays
Everyman and Other Miracle and Morality Plays
My take was that Christian's wife was quite unsympathetic to his spiritual distress--he had to leave her behind or die himself. And then he'd be leaving her anyway.
Everyman wrote: "And so our journey begins, each of us starting from the place we are now in our lives..."The beginning is one of many things in Pilgrim's Progress that puzzle me. What exactly persuaded Christian to leave his home?
There were two reasons that he left. The first was his burden which, as mentioned, a feeling of guilt and shame that dragged him down mentally, and secondly he could see that the city where he was living was doomed to destruction. In a way he could see that where he was living was not so much hindering him from growing but rather that there was no hope. Unfortunately his family was part of the problem which is why he had to leave. Leaving his family recalls one of Christ's commands where he says that to be able to follow him one must give up one's worldly ties and connections as they can get in the way of one's spiritual journey. Since his family weren't about to make the journey with him, he had to leave them.
David wrote: "he could see that the city where he was doomed to destruction"It is clear from Bunyan's spiritual autobiography that he was tormented by the sense of "unavoidable destruction" awaiting sinners. But what exactly is the destruction that he saw?
This reminds me of Milton's argument in Paradise Lost: Adam and Eve never experienced death, the divine admonition "You shall surely die" could not deter them at all, for how could they possibly fear death, something they have absolutely no experience or knowledge of?
Roger wrote: "What happens to Christian is about him and his spiritual journey. What happens to Dante is about the spiritual fate of others."I think that's a valid point, though it also seems pretty clear that Bunyan's purpose was to provide a guide to help others on their spiritual journeys. So while Dante was more interested, it seems, in showing the sights and sounds that a traveler might see on the journey, Bunyan seems more of a guidebook, telling the prospective pilgrim what to expect, what to look out for, where to go and not go.
Does this make him the Rick Steves of the Protestant Reformation?
Adelle wrote: "Susan wrote: " I was a little chilled by his leaving his family behind with so little apparent deliberation. ..."
Two thoughts on that. It could be that Christian had wrestled and wrestled wit..."
Very well put.
I think, though, that it also could apply to non-Christian pilgrims that they, too, might feel the need to leave their family if they have a great need to follow a path which their families are not prepared to travel with them. I agree that the Christian principles you cited are key for Bunyan. But I think the same need to follow a goal even if your family is not prepared to go with you can and do occur in other contexts and other journeys.
Nemo wrote: "The beginning is one of many things in Pilgrim's Progress that puzzle me. What exactly persuaded Christian to leave his home? ""I looked, and saw him open the book, and read therein; and, as he read, he wept, and trembled; and, not being able longer to contain, he brake out with a lamentable cry, saying, "What shall I do?""
A spiritual crisis, I would say, which finally became overwhelming. "he went home and refrained himself as long as he could,..." The burden he was bearing, it seems to me, just got heavier and heavier until he could no longer stand it and had to find some way of getting it off of his back.
Bunyan writes quite early on,
"Then said the Man, 'Neighbors, wherefore are you come? They said, 'To persuade you to go back with us. But he said, 'That can by no means be; you dwell, he said, in the City of Destruction, the place also where I was born"
I thought this was Christian/Bunyan making a theological statement regarding "Man"...... the belief that all men are born in sin, are born sinful.
"Then said the Man, 'Neighbors, wherefore are you come? They said, 'To persuade you to go back with us. But he said, 'That can by no means be; you dwell, he said, in the City of Destruction, the place also where I was born"
I thought this was Christian/Bunyan making a theological statement regarding "Man"...... the belief that all men are born in sin, are born sinful.
Everyman wrote: "
A spiritual crisis, I would say, which finally became overwhelming. "he went home and refrained himself as long as he could,..." The burden he was bearing, it seems to me, just got heavier and heavier until he could no longer stand it and had to find some way of getting it off of his back. ;..."
Yes, it would seem a spiritual crisis, yes, He can't stand that burden any longer.
I think, though, if we're to read PP through Bunyan, we have to take into account the 2nd reason, too: Salvation. "moreover, I am for certain informed that this our City will be burned with fire from Heaven; in which fearful overthrow, both myself, with thee my Wife, and you my sweet Babes, shall miserably come to ruine, except (the which yet I see not) some way of escape can be found, whereby we may be delivered."
The 2nd part puts me more in mind of Dante's Inferno. The fear factor.
Not only is Christian's burden wearisomely heavy, but he's learned that if he doesn't leave the City he will die.
A spiritual crisis, I would say, which finally became overwhelming. "he went home and refrained himself as long as he could,..." The burden he was bearing, it seems to me, just got heavier and heavier until he could no longer stand it and had to find some way of getting it off of his back. ;..."
Yes, it would seem a spiritual crisis, yes, He can't stand that burden any longer.
I think, though, if we're to read PP through Bunyan, we have to take into account the 2nd reason, too: Salvation. "moreover, I am for certain informed that this our City will be burned with fire from Heaven; in which fearful overthrow, both myself, with thee my Wife, and you my sweet Babes, shall miserably come to ruine, except (the which yet I see not) some way of escape can be found, whereby we may be delivered."
The 2nd part puts me more in mind of Dante's Inferno. The fear factor.
Not only is Christian's burden wearisomely heavy, but he's learned that if he doesn't leave the City he will die.
Adelle wrote: "I think, though, if we're to read PP through Bunyan, we have to take into account the 2nd reason, too: Salvation. "moreover, I am for certain informed that this our City will be burned with fire from Heaven"It is impossible not to think of Sodom and Gomorrah.
I have been thinking a bit about why Bunyan casts this in the guise of a dream. Although interestingly not as a dream, but in the "similitude" of a dream, suggesting that it's similar to a dream, but not actually a dream.
Dreams are obviously quite important to the Bible. In the Old Testament dreams may come specifically from God to his people, but they also came to Pharaoh. Is Bunyan suggesting that this dream is from God? I'm doubting that, partly because I think he would think that to be prideful, but also because by saying "similitude" he seems to me to be separating himself somewhat and making clear that this is his imagination speaking and not God speaking through him in a dream.
But I'm far from clear that I'm right. That's just my first working through of the question.
I was also amused that when Christian was in the Interpreter's house he talked about his own dream. "This night, as I was in my sleep, I dreamed, ..." (G.89)*So we have Christian's dream within Bunyan's dream -- a dream within a dream. This makes the meaning of dreams in the work even more interesting, doesn't it?
*G.89 = Gutenberg copy paragraph 89.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/131/13...
I appreciate all the thoughts above, so forgive me for bringing up another point. What struck me was in his apology when he defended writing in metaphors. I think what I found interesting was that many Christians today who might be considered spiritual descendants of Bunyan (or at least, of the Puritans) are often seen as opposing metaphor in the interpretation of the Bible. I am thinking of young-earth creationists, mostly. At the same time, books on heavenly tourism, like that one about the kid who was in a coma and supposedly visited heaven, are best-sellers. But the difference seems to be that in Bunyan's day he could say straight out this was a metaphor, a story, for spiritual edification. In our day such books need to be in the guise of some real experience.
I guess I am wondering, if Bunyan wrote this today would it get a large reading in the community of his spiritual descendants.
David wrote: "I guess I am wondering, if Bunyan wrote this today would it get a large reading in the community of his spiritual descendants...."I'm not quite ready to define what group(s) of today's Christian "believers" I might consider to be the "spiritual descendants" of PP.
We are reminded that "literal interpretation of the Bible" is actually a rather new theological concept, belonging primarily to the nineteenth century and beyond.
Everyman wrote: "A spiritual crisis, I would say, which finally became overwhelming."Tolstoy had a spiritual crisis and left his family and friends behind, but unlike Christian, he wasn't driven by fears of "unavoidable destruction". It seems to me that Christian's crisis is a peculiar kind with no parallel in literature.
There are some interesting thoughts on dreams and allegory. I never considered that Bunyan, in using the dream, was reflective of the dreams that appear in the Bible, however as I have been reading it, to me it seems to be written more like Jesus parables - attempting to explain some existential reality using symbols as motifs.As for allegory, I am inclined to agree that we don't get much, if any, these days. It seems to have gone out of fashion. These days if there is any allegory, it tends to be really subtle, or it is being written in some modernist, or post-modernist, form such as stream of consciousness.
GOOD-WILL. Did any of them know of your coming?It’s probably wrong and all but from the perspective of a modern reader I admittedly found this serious (tragic!) image in my head so comical that I laughed out loud a little.
CHR. Yes; my wife and children saw me at the first, and called after me to turn again [...] but I put my fingers in my ears, and so came on my way.
On a semi-related note, since we just finished with Joyce, and I’m currently reading Finnegans Wake, I found that there are several resemblances between the two. Both involve a highly imaginative dream narrative, and FW also presents dialogue in the same way at times (in the play-like structure, first the name of the person and then the reply). I wonder if Joyce had this book in his mind.
Tommi wrote: "I wonder if Joyce had this book in his mind...."It's certainly possible, for I noticed some time ago that his story "Araby" in Dubliners alludes to PP, and in a most forceful way.
In Reply to Message 28 by David"As I've made my way through the book, I've formed a distinct impression of who his spiritual descendants are. The Street Preachers are quite a small group; and since Bunyan defines his brethren as a clique of believers sharing his faith as well as his entire life-view, I see them as his closest descendants.
Roger wrote: "PP is much humbler literature than DC, not having all the classical references and sprinkled instead with crude proof-texts. Despite this humility, it seems to me to have a kind of sober and simpl..."It seens to me Pilgrim's Progress is a work of genius, a truly original work that does not borrow grandeur from classics but becomes a classic by its own simplicity and profundity.
Speaking of Dante, he assigned himself a place in Paradise. But isn't the Catholic teaching that man cannot know his own, let alone other people's, end?
As for the Author's Apology, I'm no connoisseur of verse, but I believe that it would fall in the category of doggerel. This reader, impatient to get through it, found it long.But when the prose story starts, the author wastes no time. In the first paragraph--3 sentences--he sets the scene of his framing story (the dreaming narrator) and brings his hero, the Pilgrim, quickly to his spiritual crisis.
David wrote: "As for allegory, I am inclined to agree that we don't get much, if any, these days. It seems to have gone out of fashion...."This is an interesting point. I remember, growing up, that the most famous modern allegory was Orwell's Animal Farm. But I had no idea about that when, at around age 11, I pulled it out of the bookshelf and started reading it. It was oddly compelling but also distinctly weird--apparently a children's story written for adults (the giveaway was that in the very first sentence, as I recall, the farmer was described as "drunk"). Even later, when I read the whole thing and knew that the animals were supposed to stand for other things, I didn't know what those other things were, so there was a mysterious quality to it, even as the story seemed to work in its own grotesque fairy-tale way.
At the moment I'm reading a book called Poetry, Symbol, and Allegory: Interpreting Metaphorical Language from Plato to the Present by Simon Brittan. This author regards such modern movies as Blade Runner, Rocky, and Rambo as allegories. To me this seems too much of a stretch, but it does raise the question of what allegory actually is--what are its essential features?
C.S.Lewis wrote extensively in allegory, but J.R.R.Tolkien hated it, though I can't tell why.
I've formed a distinct impression of who his spiritual descendants are. The Street PreachersHaha. I think there are groups of Christians who would claim Bunyan as their own, it seems conservative Calvinist Christians in America who adore the Westminster Confession and look to the Puritans as beacons of theological brilliance, would be the primary ones I am thinking of. Perhaps they might claim him, but if they actually met him or lived when he did, would they oppose him? I think of Bonhoeffer and how Christians of all stripes today want to claim him, trying to fit him in to "liberal" or "conservative" categories when such categories did not apply in 1930s Germany.
Bunyan writes in such a way that conservative and liberal Christians, or people of other faiths, can find nuggets of wisdom in his work. Perhaps that's his brilliance.
C.S.Lewis wrote extensively in allegory, but J.R.R.Tolkien hated it, though I can't tell why.
I thought of Tolkien too, as I just read his letters. He got criticism from some Catholic priests for his story not fitting into a neat Christian box. For example, no one went to church in Middle Earth, there was no organized religion. Tolkien's response was that he was writing a story which of course had Catholic themes but there was no 1-1 correspondence as in Lewis (where Aslan = Jesus).
I guess the question might be - can we find things in Bunyan (or others) that the author did not put there? As Paul noted (message 37) about modern movies - can they be allegories if we see them as such, or must the creators make them as such?
At 17 Patrice wrote: "Strikes me as odd that he says the Evangelist showed up "by chance". ..."
If I had to make an educated guess – (and I do, because I don’t know much about Bunyan’s background.) – I would say… that the Evangelist showed up “by chance” because in Bunyan’s belief system, there wasn’t “an Elite” … or… whatever was the name for those people who had been selected at the beginning of time to be saved. “The Elect,” perhaps.
Since Bunyan is trying to convert souls, he must not believe in determinism. Right? He must believe in free will. So… one could meet the Evangelist “by chance,” as opposed to pre-determined fate. Further, every person could of his own free will, read the book, and follow the path, and be saved.
If I had to make an educated guess – (and I do, because I don’t know much about Bunyan’s background.) – I would say… that the Evangelist showed up “by chance” because in Bunyan’s belief system, there wasn’t “an Elite” … or… whatever was the name for those people who had been selected at the beginning of time to be saved. “The Elect,” perhaps.
Since Bunyan is trying to convert souls, he must not believe in determinism. Right? He must believe in free will. So… one could meet the Evangelist “by chance,” as opposed to pre-determined fate. Further, every person could of his own free will, read the book, and follow the path, and be saved.
In Reply to message 37 by Paul"Animal Farm" is one of my favorite books. But until you mentioned it, I didn't really think of it as an allegory, which of course it is.
Bunyan is undeniably a brilliant writer, and I find his book interesting for the reason that it gives a glimpse back into the way people thought during his era. But it is terribly dated. I greatly prefer a book like "Animal Farm" where the story is so intriguing that one doesn't much notice the genre.
David wrote: "can we find things in Bunyan (or others) that the author did not put there? As Paul noted (message 37) about modern movies - can they be allegories if we see them as such, or must the creators make them as such?"A key point in the book I mentioned in @37 is that literary history has taken a long time to move from "closed" texts to "open" ones. By a closed text Brittan means one whose allegorical meanings are strictly controlled by the author (or perhaps by the interpreter). He gives the example of Augustine writing about the Bible: some passages must be read allegorically, but the allegory, to be correct and in keeping with the truth of the Bible, can be read in only one way. Furthermore, only the Bible was held to have allegorical meanings.
Brittan points to Dante as a pivotal figure, since he claimed allegorical truth for his own work as well (as a "spiritual writing"). After him, other writers came to use allegory, progressively more freely. When the reader starts supplying his own meanings for an allegorical work, you have arrived at an open text, in Brittan's terms. From this perspective he contrasts Piers Plowman with The Canterbury Tales. Piers Plowman is a closed text, intended to be read with only a single, definite meaning for its allegorical figures, whereas The Canterbury Tales, according to Brittan, while still an allegorical work, is much more open to different interpretations.
In Brittan's view, this openness to interpretation is exactly what makes one work more "literary" than another.
In these terms, it would seem that PP is intended to be a closed text.
I was thinking this afternoon on the theology. I think that Pliable turned back, couldn't or wouldn't continue, because his motivation was wrong. Pliable was only interested in what was in for him. "What do we get and how soon can we get it?" Christian, too, is having problems, because his motivation is wrong as well. He wants to get rid of his burden, and he wants to avoid the destruction. So he's headed in the right direction, but not rightly motivated.
At 43 Patrice wrote: "I can't find the paragraph now but the reason I was surprised was because he had said that God had arranged it all. Then, he says the evangelist came "by chance". It seems to be a contradiction. Either God sent the evangelist OR he came "by chance". How could it be both? ..."
Mmmm. I'll give it a go.
First Christian "brake out with a lamentable cry, saying What shall I do?
So Christian is asking for help.
Then Christian, reading his Book, burst out, "crying, What shall I do to be saved?.
So Christian has asked the right question--- WHILE holding the Book. So ... it's like a prayer.
Since Christian has asked, God sends Evangelist. Therefore, God arranged for Evangelist to go to Christian.
I would put forward... that Evangelist did NOT show up "by chance." He showed up because Christian had cried for help, "What shall I do to be saved?"
BUT... because Christian was crying out almost out of despair, he wasn't aware that he had had asked for help from God. So he [Christian] thinks Evangelist showed up by chance. But he didn't.
? Best I can do.
Mmmm. I'll give it a go.
First Christian "brake out with a lamentable cry, saying What shall I do?
So Christian is asking for help.
Then Christian, reading his Book, burst out, "crying, What shall I do to be saved?.
So Christian has asked the right question--- WHILE holding the Book. So ... it's like a prayer.
Since Christian has asked, God sends Evangelist. Therefore, God arranged for Evangelist to go to Christian.
I would put forward... that Evangelist did NOT show up "by chance." He showed up because Christian had cried for help, "What shall I do to be saved?"
BUT... because Christian was crying out almost out of despair, he wasn't aware that he had had asked for help from God. So he [Christian] thinks Evangelist showed up by chance. But he didn't.
? Best I can do.
At 45 Patrice wrote: "
Whether he leaves his family spiritually or in fact, shouldn't he want to save them too? ..."
Mmmm. Maybe he's like unto a spiritual Lewis & Clark --- but not as skilled or knowledgeable.
He KNOWS that "thee my Wife, and you my sweet Babes, shall miserably come to ruine, except (the which yet I see not) some way of escape can be found, whereby we may be delivered."
Christian doesn't know the way (the Way) yet. So he's going on first, ahead of them, to find The Way. And when he does... then he can help them find the way, too.
Or ... maybe he can send word. The Word?
I don't know. I don't remember the details.
But, I think that's it. He doesn't know the way yet himself.
Whether he leaves his family spiritually or in fact, shouldn't he want to save them too? ..."
Mmmm. Maybe he's like unto a spiritual Lewis & Clark --- but not as skilled or knowledgeable.
He KNOWS that "thee my Wife, and you my sweet Babes, shall miserably come to ruine, except (the which yet I see not) some way of escape can be found, whereby we may be delivered."
Christian doesn't know the way (the Way) yet. So he's going on first, ahead of them, to find The Way. And when he does... then he can help them find the way, too.
Or ... maybe he can send word. The Word?
I don't know. I don't remember the details.
But, I think that's it. He doesn't know the way yet himself.
But he couldn't just stop preaching. You believe in something that important, you hold. Socrates would not stop. Stephen Daedalus couldn't say the words his mother wanted. It would have destroyed his soul.
EDIT ADDED.
EDIT ADDED.
David wrote: "Tolkien's response was that he was writing a story which of course had Catholic themes but there was no 1-1 correspondence as in Lewis (where Aslan = Jesus)."Distinct religious themes and good story-telling are not mutually exclusive. Divine Comedy is a very good story, but it is also allegorical on some level, with distinct Catholic themes. It's not clear to me why Tolkien rejected allegory.
Paul wrote: "By a closed text Brittan means one whose allegorical meanings are strictly controlled by the author (or perhaps by the interpreter). He gives the example of Augustine writing about the Bible: ."I get the impression (from reading his book On Christian Teaching) that Augustine's Biblical hermeneutics is much more open than closed. The basic guideline is simple: As long as the interpretation is in accord with the orthodox doctrine and sound logic, there can be many valid interpretations (literal, allegorical, spiritual) of the same passage.
Paul wrote: "As for the Author's Apology, I'm no connoisseur of verse, but I believe that it would fall in the category of doggerel. "I'm not quite as negative as you are about it, but I agree, great poetry it isn't. But I have a few things I plan to say about it at some point.
Adelle wrote: "Since Bunyan is trying to convert souls, he must not believe in determinism. Right? "That's a really great question. Or really, two questions.
First, what Bunyan believed.
Second, how you reconcile determinism with free will. It isn't as simple as saying that either you go or you don't go so it doesn't make any difference how you live your life, though I'm not sure I understand (correction, I'm sure I don't understand) how committed determinists reconcile their belief with the idea most of them also hold that it matters how you life your life.
Adelle wrote: "Socrates would stop. "But he didn't. So I'm not sure why you say that.
Certainly Bunyan believed so strongly that he preferred prison to ending his preaching and attempt to save souls.
Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Socrates would stop. "
But he didn't. So I'm not sure why you say that.
.."
Oh, dear. Proof-read. Proof-read. Proof- read. Sigh. I didn't. Sloppy typing on my part. Should have read Socrates "wouldn't. " Glad you caught that.
But he didn't. So I'm not sure why you say that.
.."
Oh, dear. Proof-read. Proof-read. Proof- read. Sigh. I didn't. Sloppy typing on my part. Should have read Socrates "wouldn't. " Glad you caught that.
Everyman wrote: "Adelle wrote: "Since Bunyan is trying to convert souls, he must not believe in determinism. Right? "
That's a really great question. Or really, two questions.
First, what Bunyan believed.
Se..."
First, I'm "assuming" that Bunyan believed in free will... since he's preaching, trying to save people.
Second, I no expert on "determinism " either. But read there was some group... (I want to say Calvinists... but perhaps not) ... who held that it was already determined when one was born whether one was among those who would be saved. Not a large number. They would have to "live right," but they would. Of course.
I'll try to get some actual facts by tomorrow.
This is just... maybe "thinking " out loud. Yes. Will see what I can find out.
That's a really great question. Or really, two questions.
First, what Bunyan believed.
Se..."
First, I'm "assuming" that Bunyan believed in free will... since he's preaching, trying to save people.
Second, I no expert on "determinism " either. But read there was some group... (I want to say Calvinists... but perhaps not) ... who held that it was already determined when one was born whether one was among those who would be saved. Not a large number. They would have to "live right," but they would. Of course.
I'll try to get some actual facts by tomorrow.
This is just... maybe "thinking " out loud. Yes. Will see what I can find out.
Adelle wrote: "I was thinking this afternoon on the theology. I think that Pliable turned back, couldn't or wouldn't continue, because his motivation was wrong. Pliable was only interested in what was in for h..."Pliable seems a lot like Bunyan in that respect. At his trial, the judge bent over backward to try and make it possible for Bunyan to go free. Yet Bunyan left his family.
However, in terms of the story compared to Bunyan's real-life incident, the story is a dream, so Christian isn't very culpable.
"Facts" on predestination have always seemed a bit problematic to me. Rather than a challenge to free will, predestination has seemed more a logical consequence of considering the character of God to include being omniscient, i.e., God will "know" how any individual will use his/her free will, even while offering life and grace to all.A few Presbyterian comments on the subject -- Google will provide more:
https://www.pcusa.org/news/2011/11/18...
http://www.presbyterianmission.org/mi...
Re: David, msg. 39, "I guess the question might be - can we find things in Bunyan (or others) that the author did not put there? As Paul noted (message 37) about modern movies - can they be allegories if we see them as such, or must the creators make them as such?"I think we can know the author's intent by reading his foot/side notes.
Adelle wrote: "At 45 Patrice wrote: "Whether he leaves his family spiritually or in fact, shouldn't he want to save them too? ..."
Mmmm. Maybe he's like unto a spiritual Lewis & Clark --- but not as skilled o..."
Brilliant, Adelle!
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Les Misérables (other topics)Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners (other topics)
Les Misérables (other topics)
Everyman (other topics)
Sacred Contracts: Awakening Your Divine Potential (other topics)
More...
For the next five weeks we will consider in shared discourse the journey Bunyan has set out for Christian. As we do so, we can consider what lessons we can take from this journey to help make our own journey, to wherever we might be trying to go, more fulfilling and successful.
Week 1 will cover Bunyan's Apology and Christian's travels from his home to his first night's slumber in the bedroom of Peace.