Review of Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard (A Game of Love and Chance)

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "le jeu de l'amour et du hasard"What was it about?

Sylvia is betrothed to a man whom she fears may be a hypocrite like other men. She She knows women who are married to men who pretend to be virtuous in public but are abusive at home. With her father Monsieur Orgon’s approval, Sylvia disguises herself as her servant Lisette to put her suitor Doronte to the test. Lisette disguises herself as her mistress. But what Sylvia and Lisette don’t know is that Doronte has had the same idea. He too has decided to disguise himself as his servant. Doronte’s valet Arlequin now has the difficult task of passing as his master. Only Monsieur Orgon and Sylvia’s brother Mario know the truth. Each party in the drama does not know that the other is pretending to be someone else. Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard by Marivaux (1688-1763) is a comedy that explores the role of social class in love.

What did I think of it?

I first heard about this play through the French film L’Esquive. The teenagers in the film were performing Marivaux’s play in school. Their own personal struggles mirrored that of the characters in the play. I’m interested in social class, so I was immediately excited to read Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard.

While I enjoyed the play, it was quite challenging to read. Whenever Sylvia was speaking I had to tell myself that she was disguised as Lisette. Lisette disguised as Sylvia might be speaking to Arlequin disguised as Lisette, but the play merely said that Lisette was speaking to Arlequin. I had to fill in the rest in my mind. It was even more challenging when there were three characters in a scene. I found a performance of the play on YouTube. The performance is much easier to follow than the book.

Still, I do not regret reading the play. It is brilliantly constructed. It is not only an exploration of social class but also a commentary on performance in general. The audience of the play knows that it is watching a performance, but do we realize that we are acting in our everyday lives? Sylvia and Doronte insist that people wear masks in public to hide their true selves. Everyone knows subconsciously that the whole world is a stage. By disguising themselves as their servants, Sylvia and Doronte try to profit from the system. Ironically, their disguises only reinforce what they want to knock down. Sylvia disguises herself to see Doronte as he truly is, but Doronte isn’t who he truly is.

Le jeu de l’amour et du hasard is the play you return to time and time again because of its brilliant construction and universal themes. I look forward to reading more Marivaux soon. I own two other of his plays: Double inconstance and Arlequin poli par l’amour. There are English versions of A Game of Love and Chance available.

Favorite Quote

Lisette : Venons au fait ; m’aimes-tu ?
Arlequin : Pardi ! oui. En changeant de nom, tu n’as pas changé de visage, et tu sais bien que nous nous sommes promis fidélité en dépit de toutes les fautes d’orthographe.

[My Translation]:

Lisette: Let’s get to the fact; do you love me?
Arlequin: For heaven’s sake! Yes. In changing your name, you have not changed your face, and you know well that we promised fidelity to one another despite all spelling mistakes.

Review of A Tale of a Tub

I haven’t reviewed a book in a while, so let’s do it!

Image result for a tale of a tub jonathan swiftWhat was it about?

It is near impossible to answer this question. It is mostly an allegory on the Reformation and an implied defense of the Church of England. However, every other chapter is a digression (A Digression Concerning Critics, A Digression in the Modern Kind, A Digression in Praise of Digressions, and A Digression Concerning Madness). The digression chapters are supposed to infuriate the reader because they have nothing to do with the story and often aren’t about anything at all. There are also a couple of prefaces at the start of the work. Finally, Swift loves insert random Latin quotes into his works. I believe that some of the quotes in this satire were in fake Latin. Jonathan Swift’s A Tale of a Tub is both a satire on religion and on the literary and political movements of seventeenth-century England.

What did I think of it?

I have taken two graduate courses on seventeenth-century French literature, so I have a basic understanding of the literary movements of the period. I also have more than a little obsession with Christian history. But even with that background I had difficulty following A Tale of a Tub. The religious satire was clearly a defense of the the Church of England. A coat given by a father to three of his sons represents the Apostolic faith. The three sons are named Peter, Martin, and Jack. I’ll let you guess who the three sons represent. The religious satire was OK. It was a bit too obvious for my liking. Oddly enough, I preferred the digression chapters even though they infuriated me. While I had difficulty understanding them (which I believe is the point) I noticed that Swift was ridiculing contemporary publishing and the Battle of the Ancients and the Moderns. In fact, the companion work (which I reviewed in 2015) is called The Battle of the Books. He also made a reference to Erasmus’ Praise of Folly. I love it when I am able to recognize intertextuality. I would like to revisit the digressions at some point because I’m sure I missed a lot the first time around. But again, I’m not sure if I was supposed to read them carefully.

A Tale of a Tub was brilliant in its construction even if the religious satire fell a bit flat. It reminded me of Diderot’s Jacques the Fatalist, which I definitely will be reviewing soon. Swift is a difficult satirist to read because he addresses seventeenth-century English society. But that is also why I enjoy reading Swift. He encourages me to work for my humor. I hope than in a few years I will be able to appreciate A Tale of a Tub more.

Favorite Quote

“Having thus paid my due deference and acknowledgment to an established custom of our newest authors, by a long digression unsought for, and a universal censure unprovoked; by forcing into the light, with much pains and dexterity, my own excellencies and other men’s defaults, with great justice to myself and candour to them, I now happily resume my subject, to an infinite satisfaction both of the reader and the author.”

Review of Praise of Folly

Image result for praise of folly penguinWhat was it about?

At the start of the 16th century, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam writes an encomium on folly from the perspective of Folly herself. Inspired by the satires of Lucian whom Erasmus translated with his friend Thomas More, Praise of Folly is a critique of late medieval society and religion. School theologians concern themselves with nonsensical questions and parish priests are barely literate. Popes and princes go to war. Mendicants are known for their wealth, arrogance, and greed. The satire begins with the genealogy of Folly before moving to a description of her role in the ancient world. Folly argues that humanity is indebted to her. Although philosophers generally condemn folly, life would be unbearable without some foolishness. In fact, folly holds a special place in the Christian tradition. Praise of Folly (trans. Betty Radice) is both a social satire and a commentary on true wisdom.

What did I think of it?

I read Praise of Folly at the right time. Last semester I took a course on medieval philosophy, and I am currently reading Don Quixote. Therefore, late medieval theology and Renaissance/early modern aesthetics are all I think of these days. There’s nothing like reading Praise of Folly after a semester-long course on the scholastics! Reading this book  was therefore quite rewarding.

The narrative voice changes throughout the work. The first part is clearly from Folly’s perspective. She is not beyond ridiculing 16th century humanists for their learning. But the voice changes mid-way through the work. Folly’s criticism of the Church is clearly Erasmus’. It no longer reads as a satire but as a diatribe. I wish Erasmus’ had maintained Folly’s perspective throughout the work. I wonder what she would have said. The final part is on the place of folly in Christianity. Here, Erasmus shares his philosophical and social views with the reader.

My Penguin edition came with a good introduction and thorough footnotes. Because Praise of Folly is a highly intellectual satire, the footnotes are indispensable. Thanks to the editor, it is quite accessible to the non-specialist. Erasmus’ Colloquies are (in my opinion) superior to Praise of Folly, but Praise of Folly was more influential. It voiced the criticisms of countless intellectuals on the eve of the Reformation. Erasmus never wrote for the lay person, but his writings inspired educational and religious reforms in 16th century Europe. I am glad I read it when I did.

Once I finish and review Don Quixote, I hope to make at least one post comparing it to Praise of Folly.

Favorite Quote (!)

“Nothing is so foolish as mistimed wisdom, and nothing less sensible than misplaced sense. A man’s conduct is misplaced if he doesn’t adapt himself to things as they are, has no eye for the main chance, won’t even remember that convivial maxim ‘Drink and depart’, and asks for the play to stop being a play. On the other hand, it’s a true sign of prudence not to want wisdom which extends beyond your share as an ordinary mortal, to be willing to overlook things along with the rest of the world and wear your illusions with a good grace. People say that this is really a sign of folly, and I’m not setting out to deny it – so long as they’ll admit on their side that this is the way to play the comedy of life.”

Reflection on Utopia (Spoilers Included)

It is very hard to write a spoiler-free review for Thomas More’s Utopia. It really doesn’t have a plot. Besides, most people already know a thing or two about the island of Utopia. More coined the term “Utopia”, which we use on an almost daily basis. So, rather than write a review for Utopia, I have decided to write a reflection on some of the themes in the book.


There is no scholarly consensus on how Utopia should be read and interpreted. Paul Turner who wrote the introduction to the Penguin edition thinks Thomas More agrees with Utopian values, but I believe that Utopia is a satire. I believe that More wrote Utopia to expose the weaknesses of every philosophical and social system ever conceived or implemented.

For starters, the names in the book are completely nonsensical. Utopia literally means “No Place”. The narrator Raphael Hythlodaeus has “dispenser of nonsense” as a last name. The list goes on and on. The preface to the book is a letter from Thomas More to Peter Gillis (a personal friend and printer at Antwerp) claiming that More and Gillis met Raphael during one of More’s trips to Antwerp. More and Gillis never learned from Raphael where Utopia is located on the map, even though they know it exists somewhere in the Atlantic. In the letter More wants Gillis to ask Raphael again where the island is located so others can visit it and learn from the virtues and policies of the Utopians.

But is the island of Utopia really a utopia? Would anyone really want to live in such a society? The reason why I can’t take the book seriously is that the laws of the land are not consistent. The Utopians also create policies that are selfish and irresponsible. They have adopted a diverse array of social policies that are frankly incompatible with one another. Often, one policy contradicts another policy. I was able to identify the beliefs or systems More described (nominalism, epicurianism, communism, religious tolerance, democracy, the mercenary system, etc).

The hiring of foreign mercenaries, in particular, made me question the integrity of the Utopians. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Swiss Confederation hired out their own citizens as mercenaries to fight for foreign nations (the Swiss Guards were a product of this system, hired by Pope Julius II in 1503 to fight in his wars). The mercenary system benefited the Swiss Cantons financially, but many young men died fighting for foreign nations rather than for their own nation. The system was condemned by many for political and religious reasons. It undermined Swiss nationalism and was seen as unethical.

The Utopians do not fight their own wars because they do not want any of their citizens to suffer. Instead, they hire foreign mercenaries to fight the wars for them. That strikes me as both irresponsible and unethical.

So most of their fighting is done by mercenaries. They recruit them from all over the world but especially from a place called Venalia, which is about five hundred miles to the east of Utopia. The Venalians are extremely primitive and savage – like the wild forests and rugged mountains among which they grow up […] These people will fight for the Utopians against any nation in the world, because no one else is prepared to pay them so much. You see, the Utopians are just as anxious to find wicked men to exploit as good men to employ. So when necessary they tempt Venalians with lavish promises to engage in desperate enterprises, from which most of them never come back to claim their earnings. (93-94).

The Utopians do not keep their end of the bargain.

The final reason why I think Utopia is a satire is that the author’s life was nothing like a Utopian’s. Thomas More was far from a tolerant person. Although he denied having tortured Protestants, as Lord Chancellor, he was involved in the execution of at least two. More wrote thousands of pages of vitriolic polemics against William Tyndale and Martin Luther. He approved of executing heretics by burning at the stake and even expressed pleasure at watching one Protestant’s execution. More had many positive characteristics (he educated his wives and children, and despite his questionable political career, was a man of integrity), but he was not a tolerant individual. He thought religious pluralism was a threat to the State. It should be noted, however, that most people in the 16th century thought it was perfectly acceptable for the State to execute religious dissenters. Thomas More may have been a “man for all seasons” but he was also a man of his own age.

Raphael ends his account of his travels with an interesting observation about human nature:

And I’ve no doubt that either self-interest, or the authority of our Saviour Christ – Who was far too wise not to know what was best for us, and far too kind to recommend anything else – would have led the whole world to adopt the Utopian system long ago, if it weren’t for that beastly root of all evils, pride. For pride’s criterion of prosperity is not what you’ve got yourself, but what other people haven’t got. Pride would refuse to set foot in paradise, if she thought there’d be no under-privileged classes there to gloat over and over about – nobody whose misery could serve as a foil to her own happiness, or whose poverty she could make harder to bear, by flaunting her own riches […] But as this fault is too deeply ingrained in human nature to be easily eradicated, I’m glad that at least one country has managed to develop a system which I’d like to see universally adopted. The Utopian way of life provides not only the happiest basis for a civilized community, but also one which, in all human probability, will last for ever. They’ve eliminated the root-causes of ambition, political conflict, and everything like that (112-113).

But have they really? If pride is the root of all injustice and humans are naturally selfish and prideful, will a change of social structures rid the world of injustice? As has been demonstrated, the Utopians’ war policies are not exactly selfless. Utopia reads more like Gulliver’s Travels than The Social Contract. The Augustinian ending exposes the work as a full-blown satire.

This year is the 500th anniversary of the publication of Utopia in Latin. There has never been a better time to read this work. If you have read it, I am interested in reading your thoughts.

Review of The Fifteen Joys of Marriage

What was it about?

The Fifteen Joys of Marriage (Les Quinze joies de mariage) is a 15th century satirical work on the joys of married life. The 15 “joys” are, in truth, miseries that men willingly accept out of love for their wives. Women are constantly demanding the impossible from their husbands and can’t keep their hands off other men, but the husbands ultimately convince themselves that marriage is a joyous establishment. The misogyny is blatant like most satirical works of the Middle Ages, but the anonymous author acknowledges at the end of the book that his work is very one-sided and that some men can commit even greater evils than women.

What did I think of it?

I usually read most French works written after 1350 either in the original dialect or in modern French, but I was lazy this time and decided to read Les Quinze joies de mariage in English (translated by Elisabeth Abbott). I found the book at my university’s research library and basically read it in one sitting. This edition contained cartoonish illustrations that complemented the subject matter. However, I would not want to own that edition because some of the illustrations were quite crude and explicit. I find Medieval literature fascinating because the humor and assumptions of 14th/15th century Europeans was so different from what we are used to. The Fifteen Joys of Marriage is written in the tradition of the fabliaux, so the humor is sexual, scatological (not so much in this book), and sexist. I call them the three Ss.
In the book, when a man wants sex, it’s the wife’s fault if she doesn’t cooperate. But when the woman wants sex, she is depicted as an animal with an insatiable lust. Women are blamed for their pregnancies, and the man is always the one with the heaviest burden. Husbands beating their wives is commonplace and evidently acceptable. But the conclusion of the book suggests that the author realizes how misogynistic his work is, and that this may be a part of the satire. The author writes from the perspective of a priest who only knows marriage secondhand. He may be ridiculing the one-sided criticisms he often gets from men. The husband in the 15 chapters is referred to as the “goodman”, while the woman is a “wench” and her friends “gossips”. Elsewhere, the author writes: “And know that men do the contrary to what is said here: for whatsoever women they have, they generally think them better than all other women. Now and then the rule fails, but that is in the case of desperate and beastly knaves who lack understanding. Thus one gladly sees many husbands praise their wives, recounting their good virtues; and in their opinion there are none to equal them nor any where they could find such virtues, such delights or such good appetite.” I sense a good bit of sarcasm in this passage because all the criticisms in the book come from a man’s perspective. We never get the woman’s perspective on the affair. There aren’t many reasonably-priced editions available online, but if you have access to a research library you may want to check it out.

Favorite Quote

“Nonetheless, the lady has not such travail as the goodman, who has labored to keep her at ease and in the estate which she has ever had fair and with great possessions.”


Review of Gulliver’s Travels

What was it about?

Lemuel Gulliver used to be a surgeon but took up sailing late in life. He became the captain of several ships. On the last voyages of his career, Gulliver found himself in hitherto unknown lands occupied by creatures so unlike himself. His personal journals were later given to Gulliver’s cousin Richard Sympson for publication. Unfortunately, an unabridged account of Gulliver’s Travels was not published; instead, Sympson edited down the book to eliminate what he felt were unnecessary details. At the start of the book, Lemuel Gulliver expresses his displeasure toward the alterations; yet, it seems that all major events in Gulliver’s travels were still retained.

On his voyages, Gulliver encounters doll house-sized people , 70 ft tall giants, philosophers living on a floating island, eccentric scholars, historical figures, and finally a race of intelligent horses. The dark side of human nature and English society is exposed in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, one of the most famous satirical works of all time.

What did I think of it?

When I heard that Cleo @ Classical Carousel was going to read Gulliver’s Travels for the latest Classics Spin, I offered to do a buddy-read with her. Gulliver’s Travels is on the list of my top 5 favorite books of all time. The first time I read it was in 8th grade. The English teacher mentioned the work in passing, and I just had to get my hands on a copy. I remember devouring it in two sittings. Although I have read the book five times, it was only during my last re-read that I fully understood the underlying message of Gulliver’s Travels. The last land Gulliver visits is Houyhnhnm-landThe Houyhnhnms (evidently pronounced ‘winums’) are a race of horses who far surpass humans in reason. They live alongside human-like creatures of beastly proportions whom they call Yahoos. Since much of the book is about the dialogues held between Gulliver and the bizarre creatures he meets, I don’t want to go too much into the conversations in Houyhnhnm-land lest I spoil the book for you. I will only say that I fell for Swift’s trap. What makes Jonathan Swift such a brilliant satirist is that he hides what I feel is the ultimate message of the book behind a boatload of overt and scathing criticisms of human nature. Unlike the irony in Voltaire’s Candide which I felt was too simple and obvious, the irony in Gulliver’s Travels is a lot more subtle. Satire is not for everyone and Gulliver’s Travels is no exception. Offensive humor and exaggerated imagery abound. Because this is my kind of humor (I wonder what that says about me 😮 ) I loved it. As I wrote on Goodreads, Swift is often accused of being a misanthrope, but I beg to differ.

Favorite Quote

[Musings from Brobdingnag (the land of giants)]: “I reflected what a mortification it must prove to me to appear as inconsiderable in this nation as one single Lilliputian [a very tiny person] would be among us. But this I conceived was to be the least of my misfortunes: for as human creatures are observed to be more savage and cruel in proportion to their bulk, what could I expect but to be a morsel in the mouth of the first among these enormous barbarians that should happen to seize me? Undoubtedly philosophers are in the right when they tell us, that nothing is great or little otherwise than by comparison. It might have pleased fortune to let the Lilliputians find some nation, where the people were as diminutive with respect to them, as they were to me. And who knows but that even this prodigious race of mortals might be equally overmatched in some distant part of the world, whereof we have yet no discovery?”