Danika Li

U0888022
JIM SWENSON LECTURE SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
Professor Swenson first introduces the man who will play Polydorus in
Euripides play Hecuba. Polydorus actor acts out the opening scene of the play,
outlining the war and fall of Troy and the murder of his family. His ghost haunts the
shores where Achilles ships are anchored, refusing to leave until his sister is killed
over his grave as a sacrifice.
The talk moves back to Professor Swenson, who talks about the importance
of having a hot opening scene to captivate the audience. He says there are multiple
purposes to an opening scene; Polydorus purpose was to introduce backstory to the
play. He talks about the impact of Polydorus unrest on his family and also says that
the opening scene was also used to outline the major events of the play (eg: the
death of Polydorus sister). He then goes on to introduce the term kommos, which
means a song of lament, an aria.
The play features three different arias, and Swenson comments that songs of
lament arent just the only way that Greeks convey their grief. Grief is part of the
culture of the Greeks, as is conveying emotions in groups. Swenson also talks about
the role of the chorus in Greek society and the parallel in our society: the three
phrases on our coins.
Swenson moves on to talk about three common motifs and allusions in Greek
theater: the sea voyage, domestic activities, and the motif of the suppliant. The two
volunteers act out the motif of the suppliant. He then goes on to talk about the word
agon and its implications as the word for competition. He ends with three basic
themes in Greek theater: justice, revenge, and changes.
I really liked Swensons presentation, even though I usually dont like these
types of lectures. His way of speaking and presenting was very engaging, and he had
a strong, interactive style. He presented Hecuba and Greek theater in a way that
didnt make it sound like he was lecturing, but more like he was telling an animated
story, and I hope that the subsequent lectures are all similar to his. One thing that I
thought was wonderful was that he didnt need any props no slideshows,
pamphlets, prior readings he just stood up after the segment of Hecuba and just
started going for it. The only prop he used was when he asked the two volunteers
to go up and even then it just added to the interaction with the audience.
One thing that I think a lot of professors and lecturers struggle with is adding
humor into their presentations. Sometimes its the professors fault for not relating
humor well, but most of the time its just that college audiences oftentimes arent
very responsive. Although there wasnt any loud reaction from the audience at any
point, I still got his humor and didnt feel like it was awkward. He goes with the flow
of the audience and the atmosphere very well and doesnt allow silence to derail his
train of thought. Swenson has a powerful presence and makes me want to learn
more about Greek theater and literature, and I wish I had been able to attend his
play as well.
After watching this talk, I felt like I walked away with tangible knowledge
and ideas that I could apply to readings like Shakespeare in the future. I hope at
some point I have time to take one of his classesId love to just sit there and listen
to him lecture.

Danika Li
U0888022
PETER VON SIVERS LECTURE SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
Von Sivers first introduces al-Ghazalis impact on the intellectual culture of
Islam as well as some background about the geography and educational background
that he operated in. In particular, he talks about al-Ghazalis experience at his
college, Madrasa. The professor also talks about some of the progressions that
occurred in intellectual studies at the time such as the introduction of mathematics,
languages, and the sciences.
In particular, he emphasizes how important this intellectual revolution was
on the progression of Islamic civilization. Without the progression of these new
fields, many of the incredible discovers that occurred at the time never would have
happened. One thing that made education so accessible to Ghazali was that there
were NO fees for education, meaning that everyone could get an education if they
sought one.
The professor goes on to introduce theology people who apply philosophy
to questions of faith and religion. Von Siver talks about the difference between
theology and philosophy and introduces three topics that the two groups tend to
disagree on: the created vs. the eternal world, Gods providences clash with natural
civilization, and resurrection vs. conjunction with the active intellect. In these three
areas, the main conflict lies in the interference of God in the problem areas.
Oftentimes the presence of religion fundamentally changes the background theories
of how things are or came to be.
Von Sivers moves on to talk about Ghazalis later life and appointment to a
prestigious university as a professor where he began to lose his arrogance as a
philosopher. The professor also touches on a few of Ghazalis most famous writings
and the background that they were produced in. Ghazali eventually progresses to
become the renewal of religion right as a violent Islamic religious revolution
happens. He gives a brief timeline of the transformation of Islam and the importance
of the journey to Jerusalem. He talks about the process of becoming a mystic the
retreat from the world and the senses and the attempt to establish oneself in the
presence of God. At the end of his life, Ghazali writes both about mysticism from a
philosophical and scientific viewpoint and the process of becoming a mystic.
Although I liked Swensons talk more than Von Sivers, I still thought that Von
Sivers did a good job of keeping me relatively engaged throughout the lecture. His
felt more like a traditional college lecture than Swensons did. One thing that I think
really helped keep me engaged was that I could tell from his style of speaking that
Von Sivers was excited to be talking about what he knew and what he had studied,
and that enthusiasm transferred to the audience. Although the topic itself seems to
be very dry, I think Von Sivers presented it in an interesting way, encompassing the
evolution of the Islamic faith and intellect in the context of one man.
I also enjoyed the discussion at the end, and I think that the discussion would
not have been as rich had Von Sivers not done such a good job of introducing the
topic while giving you enough background knowledge to want to pursue more
information. I thought that his talk gave some really good background to help me
understand the Islamic texts that we have read and will be reading in the future.

Danika Li
U0888022
JERRY ROOT LECTURE SUMMARY AND RESPONSE
Professor Root gives a really comprehensive and helpful summary of what
hes going to talk about throughout his lecture, and then touches on how important
images are in the norms and practices of how we progress intellectually.
The first image is that of a Roman tympanum. First, the professor gives an
explanation of the visual aspects of the work before talking about the spiritual and
symbolic meaning of the composition and content of the image. The image is related
to the story of two choices (Heaven and Hell) during the Last Judgment as well as
the hierarchical structure of religion.
The second image is the northern transept of the Notre Dame de Paris. The
image is divided into three registers or divides, with each divide focusing on one
individual as examples of humanity and the choices between good and evil.
The third image is by Brueghel and focuses on Icarus as a symbol of human
pride. The image is ironic both in content and message although the title speaks of
Icarus, the actual focal point is the farmer in the center. This is to reset the
hierarchies set by the Notre Dame and Roman tympanum.
Professor Root then moves on to discuss Montaigne himself. He says that as
readers we should be sensitive to the possibility that the subject of an essay should
not limit the scope of the literature. Montaigne believes that the focus of your
literature should not be to impress the world, but to be simple and natural and
include your defects and shortcomings. By doing this, as Montaigne tries various
subjects of literature, he gains an understanding of himself from another
perspective.
He moves on to discuss why Montaigne seems to be sympathetic to the
cannibals in his essay. He says that Montaigne is sympathetic because he takes on
another perspective that of an anthropological view. Montaigne also seeks to
criticize Europe and the republic, and compare their barbarism to that of the
cannibals. He criticizes the usage of excuses and justification by the Europeans to
commit barbaric acts during the French Civil War and the discovery of the New
World. He also shows the contrast by using the cannibals point of view. He gives
one particular example of the cannibals horror at the socioeconomic divides of
Europe. The cannibals live within their natural means and necessities, whereas the
Europeans push beyond what they need to survive.
Lastly, he talks about Montaignes sudden departure from the topic of
cannibals to instead comment on the lack of breeches in Europe. Root believes that
this is to show the ignorance of the Europeans they cannot understand the cultural
divide between themselves and the barbarians, so instead they change the subject.
Of all the IT lectures, this was the one that I enjoyed the least. Root is most
definitely a good speaker and brings youthfulness to his lectures. However, I felt
very detached while I was listening to the lecture. His analysis was comprehensive
and brilliant, but I didnt feel like I learned anything that I could apply to my
life/studies. From a literature point of view, I did feel like I learned something, but I
had a hard time finding meaning in the lecture beyond a purely intellectual/English
major viewpoint.