Classics and the Western Canon discussion

We come now to the last week of our discussion of Pilgrim's Progress.

I have found it interesting how much slower a trip Christiana seems to be making than Christian did. Christian, if I read correctly, only spends a few days at Castle Beautiful, for example, whereas Christiana spends a month there. She then spends a month with Gaius, long enough for Matthew to marry Mercy and James to get engaged to Phebe. They get to Vanity Fair, but instead of the woes Christian had there, they find a welcome in the home of Mnason, and spend a long time there, while Samuel and Joseph get married, and several babies are born. They spend a week tearing down Doubting Castle.

Eventually they do get to the Celestial Mountains and the land of Beulah, but all in all, theirs is a very leisurely pilgrimage. At the start of the pilgrimage her sons were still boys; during it they have grown up into young men, married and fathered children.

Some questions to think about:

Why is Christiana's journey so much slower than Christian's?

Although they body reach their final goal, her journey seems much less traumatic than his. What is the reason for this, and why might Bunyan have written it this way?

Then there is the question Roger asked last week: "Why was PP so popular once, while it's almost unknown now? Have we advanced, or deteriorated? Or just changed?"

People are, as is not unusual with this group, still working through some of the earlier weeks, so although I do need to post the weekly segments on time, there is no need to hurry to get here -- as Christiana's journey is slow and unhurried, so can our discussion continue to be.

While these aren't really answers to to Roger's question, three thoughts did occur to me as I pondered it.

One: it was a period of great religious fervor, where questions of theology were widely debated, the belief in a physical Heaven and Hell was preached regularly from almost every pulpit, and the question how to live a good Christian life was more central, I suggest, to the everyday lives of almost the whole population of Europe than it is today.

Two: there were not that many books in print at the time to compete for readers' time with those books that were available. Other than the Bible still, I doubt that there are very many, if any, books which the large majority of the English speaking world have read and can discuss with considerable knowledge of their content.

Three: while the great Medieval age of the pilgrimages may have been passing in Bunyan's time, there were still many Christians who going on pilgrimages to the Holy Land and to the great shrines in England, France, Italy, and Spain especially, and they were all traveling by foot or by horse, donkey, or mule, so that they were very visible on the roads and staying in hostels, hospitals, religious houses, etc. They were a visible and constant presence in the major pilgrimage routes. If one wanted to go on pilgrimage from, say, York to Canterbury, one couldn't hop British Rail for a day excursion. It was a trip of many days or weeks of very public travel. So the experience of pilgrimage was very much a more immediate and visceral experience to Bunyan's readers than it is today.

The question was asked last week as to why Christiana had a guide when Christian didn't, and some sort of answer is provided here. Great-Heart makes the point that very few pilgrims travel through the Valley of the Shadow of Death without a guide, and Christian was unusual in this regard.
And we are given plenty of examples of other pilgrims Great-Heart himself has conducted through their pilgrimage.

Tk wrote: "Why do you suppose a companion like Brave-Heart was not provided to Christian? Is it because he is a man, or because he didn't ask, or something else?
"

Great question. I assumed because he was a man and was provided with weapons to defend himself (which indeed he needed), whereas Christiana would not be expected to be able to fight off monsters and evils herself, so needed a defender.

My view is similar to Everyman's. I think the fact that Christiana and Mercie had a guide is probably due to the prevailing attitudes towards women at the time - e.g. that they were less able to cope with difficult subjects (such as religion), less intelligent, less able to cope alone etc, and therefore they needed guidance.

Interestingly, in the introduction to the OWC edition, it is suggested that Great-Heart could be a representation of Bunyan himself, in that he has been on the pilgrimage already and is therefore able to lead others on the same journey (which Bunyan did in real life through preaching, writing etc). That interpretation didn't occur to me before I read the introduction, but now I wonder whether that was Bunyan's idea. What do others think?

Lori wrote: " What do others think? ..."

Possibility. Good example of the many layered ways we can often read/interpret a text?

Thanks Lily.

Also, I've just realised that I have been a bit stupid - I actually meant to post my comment (message 4) in the Week 4 discussion. I don't know how I managed to end up posting in Week 5 instead. (That's what I get for copying and pasting instead of just typing in the comment box!)

Apologies if I appeared to be trying to take this discussion back to Week 4 - that wasn't my intention.

It's possible that Bunyan realized that the first book might have underplayed the importance of preaching, and done this to correct the impression. Preaching was really held to be very important.

So why has Bunyan fallen out of favor? Is it merely a matter of taste, with moralistic allegory no longer in favor? Or his insistence that salvation is only available to those whose faith is expressed in a very particular way? Does he just start form a place we don't start from any more, with a huge burden of sin we want to get rid of? Ir is it Christian's Book--he never entertains a doubt that his Book will tell him what he needs to know.

Roger wrote: "So why has Bunyan fallen out of favor? Is it merely a matter of taste, with moralistic allegory no longer in favor? Or his insistence that salvation is only available to those whose faith is expr..."

It's not exactly out of favor. Search for it at Amazon and you will find dozens of editions of the book, reprinted, modernized, simplified for children; as well as films and audio editions. It is definitely not as widely read today as it once was, though. That's partly because people today just can't read and understand the writing of Bunyan's day. Even church people, as I learned to my chagrin when I tried to lead a group of women in my church in a book club reading of "Pilgrim's Progress." They did fine when they followed along while I read, explained, and discussed the first fifty pages or so. As soon as I turned them loose to read another fifty pages at home on their own, though, they floundered and lost interest. (This is why I stick to online book clubs. It's really hard to find people around me who can read anything other than romance novels or thrillers.) So, that's the beginning of a reason.

Laurel wrote: "..It's really hard to find people around me who can read anything other than romance novels or thrillers...."

Ouch! Ford Maddox Fox, Henry James, Edgar Allen Poe, et al, have all made condescending remarks at one time or another about Bunyon. ;-( The likes of Henry Nouwen, Barbara Taylor Brown, and Marilynne Robinson are among authors I have seen more deftly reach modern women than I can imagine Bunyan doing, who, while more charming than I expected, I have found very off-putting to read.

Michael Schmidt writes: "Writing in the provinces, he rejects the new urban and pastoral mode; he knows what literature is and avoids it because it falsifies. No university infected him with a wit. His book does not address a scholarly or cultured class. Yet it is figurative, it plays constantly between the Bible, allegory, and the living world, it is more complex in conception and consistent in execution than any English prose work that precedes it. It is original without meaning to be; it entertains even the pagan and atheist heart." pp61-2

This is preceded by more laudatory words: "Bunyan is a most uncommon common man, a man of the people and of a demanding, democratic, accountable faith. Into his novel of practical faith he works dramatic dialogue or interrogation, as when the Porter cross-examines Christian, or Greatheart elicits from Valiant, like an attorney, an account of his adventures and heroisms. He weaves in verse, including his famous hymn 'Who would true valor see,' and runs of homespun couplets for invocations and conclusions. He adds marginal rubrics, as in published sermons, summarizing action or speech, indicating biblical sources. These and other formal features create a rich impurity and variety of effect." p61

This is one of my favorite passages from Schmidt:

"What makes Bunyan's predictable story, passage by passage derivative of the Bible, so compelling and durable is the reality of its allegorical figuration and its good humor. It is seen as well as visualized, and it is told in a human voice: close at hand, a man speaking to men, not a priest from a pulpit or a moralist wagging a finger. It is the best fruits of Puritan culture. 'I could not have believed beforehand that Calvinism could be painted in such exquisitely delightful colors,' said Coleridge." p61

The Novel: A Biography

Lily wrote: "It is seen as well as visualized, and it is told in a human voice: close at hand, a man speaking to men, not a priest from a pulpit or a moralist wagging a finger...."

That's also one of the reasons that I read PP again after abandoning it quickly many years ago. Bunyan is sharing his Christian life story, not as a preacher, but as a fellow traveller on a journey, warning others of the pitfalls and dangers to avoid along the way, and sharing the knowledge he gained by painful experience.

P.S. I'm surprised you didn't cringe at the use of "man" and "men" in that passage. :)

Laurel wrote: "It's not exactly out of favor..."

This is from the Wiki entry for John Bunyan:

"During the 18th century Bunyan's unpolished style fell out of favour, but his popularity returned with Romanticism, poet Robert Southey writing an appreciative biography in 1830. Bunyan's reputation was further enhanced by the Evangelical revival and he became a favourite author of the Victorians. The tercentenary of Bunyan's birth in 1628 was celebrated in 1928 and brought praise even from his old adversary the Church of England. Although popular interest in Bunyan waned during the second half of the twentieth century, academic interest in the writer has increased and Oxford University Press brought out a new edition of his works, beginning in 1976. Authors who have been influenced by Bunyan include Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, Charles Dickens, Louisa May Alcott and George Bernard Shaw.

"Bunyan’s work, in particular The Pilgrim’s Progress, has reached a wider audience through stage productions, film, TV, and radio. An opera by Ralph Vaughan Williams based on The Pilgrim’s Progress was first performed at the Royal Opera House in 1951 as part of the Festival of Britain and revived in 2012 by the English National Opera."

See entry itself for various citations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bunyan

Patrice wrote: "So is he or isn't he a Puritan??? ;-)"

Seems to depend upon how narrowly or how broadly "Puritan" is defined. In a quick check, I did not find that word used in John Bunyan's Wiki entry. A another quick look, at this entry on Puritanism in Britannica, suggests to me Schmidt's appellation is a reasonable one.

Others who are more knowledgeable on the discernment, let us hear from you once again. I haven't gone back to the earlier discussion.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...

http://www.history.com/topics/puritanism

Regardless of whether Bunyan himself is a Puritan, we also encounter affirmations like this one about PP:

"...Obviously his most important work, and the one every Christian should at least try to read, is The Pilgrim’s Progress. In Meet the Puritans Beeke and Pederson say it is 'The best of Bunyan and a perfect pictorial index to the Puritan understanding of the Christian life.'"

http://www.challies.com/articles/the-...

My understanding is that "Puritans" were people who wanted to "purify" the Church of England be de-emphasizing its traditional episcopacy, liturgy, and sacraments and emphasizing preaching, Bible-reading, and salvation by personal faith alone. They differed from Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and others who wanted to completely separate from the C of E.

That is correct, Roger. The Christians who came to America on the Mayflower had separated from the Church of England and thus were called Separatists. When they journeyed to a new land they called themselves Pilgrims. Those who came later to other places in New England were Puritans. Yes, Patrice, there were and are Baptists in England. John Bunyan preached in a Baptist church, not in an Anglican Church. He was in jail because he was preaching without the blessings of the Crown and the Anglicans. Later, when the law changed, he was able to get a liscence to preach without fear of punishment.

Were all Puritans strongly against the use of the Book of Common Prayer as Bunyan was? He gave his reasons in his autobiography, but it is a pity, if not a tragedy, that the church should be divided on such non-essential issues, imo.

Roger wrote: "So why has Bunyan fallen out of favor? "

Partly, I agree with Laurel's answer that he really hasn't. As she points out, there are many editions in print.

But perhaps another factor is that allegory is not a familiar style of writing for modern readers. It may seem too simplistic or in your face, whereas in fact it is, at least in my view, a very subtle sophisticated form of writing, requiring the reader to contemplate the attributes of each of the allegorical characters and consider their contributions in the context of their allegorical personages.

Everyman wrote: "at least in my view, a very subtle sophisticated form of writing, requiring the reader to contemplate the attributes of each of the allegorical characters and consider their contributions in the context of their allegorical personages."

I agree. The reader contemplate the attributes of Bunyan's characters by observing their entrance and exit on stage, so to speak, their relations and residences, appearances, actions and conversations, etc. He somehow weaves all of these details into a few lines, and yet creates very identifiable characters out of them.

Come to think of it, the reason I didn't like PP 20 years ago was perhaps I couldn't recognize those characters due to a lack of experience in Christianity. It was near impossible for me to relate to Bunyan, but now I find PP edifying and enjoyable (though not the same way as classic literature).

I've been thinking about all of these people who help Pilgrims along their way to the City. Who are they? Are they supernatural? Already dead, but returned? Not dead, but saved? Are they regular people helping as good deeds? If so, how can they be sure they will not die before completing their own pilgrimage? I started wondering when I reached Gaius and his cook.

Allegory. They are the symbolic representations of abstract concepts.

Mary wrote: "Allegory. They are the symbolic representations of abstract concepts."

Exactly.

Tk wrote: "I've been thinking about all of these people who help Pilgrims along their way to the City. Who are they? Are they supernatural? Already dead, but returned? Not dead, but saved? Are they regular pe..."

Good questions, Tk. I think they are perhaps all of the above. As for your last question, when they die they have completed their pilgrimage. The have entered into the city that they sought.

This book, published in 1678, fourteen years before the Salem witch trials, is full of 'allegories' i.e. full of hidden meanings there to be discovered. And I find many possible hidden meanings to Christian's various adventures and meetings.
When one of the three virgins tells him "thou hast delivered thy soul from their blood" this relates to Ezekiel 3:19 “But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul.” My interpretation is that Gd wants the ‘non-believers’ to die, even if they are your children and spouse, and so killing witches, Jews and other non-believers is doing Gd’s work. The Moslem group ISIS shares the same believe.
Yet as I read through Christian’s leaving the ‘city of Destruction,’ he didn’t seem to put as much effort into bringing ‘the faith’ to his family as he pretends to the Virgin. How should I interpret this? Your duty is first and foremost to thyself?

Speaking to Faithful, Christian says “{178} That man that overtook you was Moses. He spareth none, neither knoweth he how to show mercy to those that transgress his law”. This reminds me of people saying ‘oh but the Gd of the Old Testament is so severe, cruel, and paternalistic, in contrast to the kind Gd of the New Testament’. This New Testament Gd who keeps a sword in his hand and sends his attendants (403) to bind and throw those of poor faith into the fires of Hell. I see an effort to distance Christian’s faith from Judaism without fully understanding the ‘Old Testament’. Is the meaning of {178} that Jews are ignorant and their laws are a barbaric throwback compared with the enlightened Gospel? Or is it that Jews showed Jesus no mercy therefore show no mercy to Jews?

{262} 2. The hypocritical Pharisees were also of this religion; long prayers were their pretense, but to get widows' houses was their intent; and greater damnation was from God their judgment. Again a possible hidden interpretation is that Pharisees means all Jews, and their religion is an abomination to Gd. Which would explain the lack of guilt for the persecution perpetrated on these people for two thousand years.

As you can see, I find this a disturbing book. Christian is a manic character, self absorbed, judgmental, quick to dismiss those he finds suspicious or inferior, and more then willing to have them killed and sent to hell. He doesn’t actually kill anyone but he approves of anyone he disapproves of ending in hell. This is not a book of self-examination but of prejudice. Following his thinking would allow an adherent to witness genocides and do nothing, as has and is happening. It makes the special few in the inner circle of faith superior to all others, arrogance that turns to cruelty.

Christian would reply, "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ez 31:11). There is no indication he wishes harm on anyone for any reason. He does battle only in the allegory, and only against personified evils.

In the allegory, he must leave his family to pursue his pilgrimage, in accordance with Lk 14:16, but I don't think we are to imagine he left them or abandoned them in the real word. In Part II, Christiana certainly does not blame him.

Bunyan did probably have little understanding of Judaism. There were very few Jews in England in his time. He certainly shared the common Christian belief that the Jews who didn't follow Jesus were blind to the arrival of the messiah predicted in their own scriptures, but I submit that there is absolutely no indication in this book that he wished to persecute them.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees without criticizing all Jews, or believing that their religion was an abomination, or wanting to persecute them, and I don't see why Bunyan can't do the same.

I also am taken aback by Christian's almost complete absorption with his own relationship with God, rather than with following His commandments (though in Christiana's story we do hear more of helping the poor). But he is a man of peace. In Vanity Fair, he and Faithful raise no hand in their defense and Faithful is burned at the stake (recalling the real-world burning of heretics that occurred in Bunyan's own lifetime). In real life, Bunyan patiently suffered many years imprisonment for his conscience. I submit that there is no evidence at all that he would witness genocide and do nothing.

Roger wrote: "Christian would reply, "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ez 31:11). ..."

Bravo, Roger!

Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "Christian would reply, "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ez 31:11). ..."

Bravo, Roger!"

Yes, a very thoughtful reply.

A Pilgrim's Progress by Geraldine McCaughrean

Roger wrote: "Christian would reply, "As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live" (Ez 31:11). There is no indication he wishes ..."

Well said. Allegorical is not literal.

Everyman wrote: "... Allegorical is not literal...."

Your words sent me to find some words I read elsewhere this morning that I realized on encountering them rather summarized my difficulties with allegory:

"Labeling them, in fact, prevented knowing them."

p305, Jane Smiley, A Thousand Acres

Lily wrote: "..."Labeling them, in fact, prevented knowing them."..."

Labelling is the first stage of knowing.

Bunyan labelled all his characters, so the readers can start with a preliminary knowledge of them. But then, he takes special care to delineate each character, so the readers may know them beyond the labels.

P.S.
I'm reminded of Gensis 2:19, "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name."

Nemo wrote: "And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name." ..."

Nemo -- Please consider this discernment between naming -- which is to recognize the uniqueness (and w-holi-ness) of another, and labeling -- which can be to slot them into a category.

Such can apply even if a category or group is being named -- that can still differ from labeling.

Now, one can argue whether Bunyan is naming or labeling. I have only given you my reaction/position/word usage.

Good point, though I'd say that recognizing the uniqueness of something is to add a new category, instead of slotting it into an existing one. In this sense, naming is still the same as categorizing/labelling.

Nemo wrote: "Good point, though I'd say that recognizing the uniqueness of something is to add a new category, instead of slotting it into an existing one. In this sense, naming is still the same as categorizin..."

Obviously, I heartily disagree, my dear Nemo! (For me, in sacred terms, naming precedes categorization as the function delegated to humankind. Naming is a very holy process. Categorization ventures over into all the dangers and responsibilities associated with judgement. Yes, it can be argued those are arbitrary uses of words. And John reminds us so much starts there.)

Lily wrote: "Categorization ventures over into all the dangers and responsibilities associated with judgement. ."

When I think of categorization, I think of taxonomy, and the categories of Aristotle and Kant, which are building blocks of abstract knowledge.

I know what you mean about judgment, which I think is also what Leopard and many others find objectionable in PP. I'll have to think a little more before formulating a response.

Cunfucius supposedly said, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name." Only a beginning, but still necessary.

Roger wrote: "Cunfucius supposedly said, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name." Only a beginning, but still necessary."

"Calling things by their "right* name" is difficult. Some call things by the wrong name on purpose, to belittle and condemn others. I think that's partly what Lily means by "labelling". However, just because something is misused or abused, doesn't mean the thing itself should be avoided.

Mmm Roger, I like that. Whether Confucius he say it or not it's an important point. My son is graduating this year from Acting School. One of the agencies who'd asked him to sign with them met him after their Showcase at RADA. Both the agent and casting director pronounced his name wrongly. He's not signing with them.

Well done, Bunyan! I may not agree with a lot of your theological stances, but, as my reaction to Don Quixote, I warmed to you towards the end. I hope that many read your book for years to come. I know I began asking myself questions that have lain dormant for many years. Thank you, and thank you Everyman for your moderation. Excellent as always ...

At the end of Part II a great variety of struggling pilgrims make it safely across the river and through the gate. Perhaps Bunyan was afraid people would get the idea after Part I that only a few heroes like Faithful, Hopeful, and Christian could achieve that.

Good point, Roger. The first part is the journey of one man, the second of Everyman.

And yes, well done Bunyan! Well done, Everyman!

One more thing. Bunyan has a very black-and-white view of how one achieves salvation. Perhaps that view is not widely shared now, even among the pious.

I believe, Roger, that it is widely shared. Unfortunately, too often, the churches have reached saturation point with the message. Their little community has become a happy group of believers and they can be 'happy all the day'.

Paul, in many ways, has high jacked Jesus in the world of today's preacher. He did explain the doctrine behind the man, but why don't we look more closely at what the man said, did and continues to do?

Everyman wrote: "Although they body reach their final goal, her journey seems much less traumatic than his. What is the reason for this?

I think the difference is that Christian had to set out on the journey against so much emotional opposition. His family and friends were strongly against his leaving [i.e., becoming Christian; no longer being Graceless]. In the early days, only Evangelist encouraged him.

Christiana, however, had the good example of Christian before her. She knew the obstacles he had faced and that he had successfully journeyed to the Celestial City. She, too, has now been called... and she benefits from having knowledge of Christian's pilgrimage to guide and inspire her.

Also, Christian had traveled most of the way alone. And although each soul must ultimately make the journey alone, Christiana had others walking beside her---her children and Mercy.


and why might Bunyan have written it this way?..."

Perhaps Bunyan is doing two things. Showing us that with the example of Christian to guide and succor us, our journeys, like Christiana's, might be a little smoother. And to suggest that if the reader makes the journey ...then the subsequent journeys of the reader's family and friends might be made a littler smoother.

[I finished reading this morning. Thank you, all, for guidance through the book.]

Roger wrote: "One more thing. Bunyan has a very black-and-white view of how one achieves salvation."

Very common in that era. Leading to Alexander Pope's simile:
"Thus Wit, like Faith, by each man is applied
To one small sect, and all are damn'd beside."

Hilary wrote: "I believe, Roger, that it is widely shared. Unfortunately, too often, the churches have reached saturation point with the message. Their little community has become a happy group of believers and..."

If so, maybe they're not talking about it outside the church. I know many people of faith, and I can't imagine any of them making the absolute pronouncements that Christian does. Of course, maybe it's easier to make them in an allegorical world.

Hahaha! Alexander Pope is a clever clogs. :D

Yes, Roger, my opinions are guilty of generalisations. There is a part of our town that holds fast to Christian traditional preaching akin to that of Bunyan. Within the last few years I have seen street preachers who dangle the toes of their 'captive audience' over the fires of Hell. The tunnel-visioned shoppers go on about their business. Often, in the past, I have felt angry at these preachers. They impinge upon people's peaceful days out and they misrepresent Jesus whom I love. At other times I feel that I have no right to condemn them since at least they mean well and it takes courage. What am I doing?!

Bunyan certainly believes in the horrors of Hell, but he doesn't dwell on them, or even give us a close look at them. Nothing like Dante. Christiana and Mercy just spend a few moments listening to the rather rational laments of the damned.

Roger wrote: "Bunyan certainly believes in the horrors of Hell, but he doesn't dwell on them, or even give us a close look at them. Nothing like Dante..."

Would Dante have dwelt on the Inferno for so long, if he wasn't sure of his destiny in Paradise? I doubt it.

The Divine Comedy, like The Pilgrim's Progress, is an allegory. And what it allegorizes in Hell is the identification of sin. Followed by the purification from sin, and the freedom from sin.