This is blog for students of History 102g - Medieval Civilization
History 102g, Medieval Civilization Discussion Section Syllabus
Fridays 9am, 12pm
TAs: Stacey Lutkoski & Ericka Swensson
Email: staceybl@usc.edu, emswensson@yahoo.com
Office: Shrine Offices
Welcome to the discussion section for History 102g. Discussion sections will examine and elaborate on the material presented through the lectures and readings. These classes will help us work through difficult concepts and problematize historical issues. As stated in the course syllabus, the discussion sections are worth 20% of your total course grade. Half of your discussion section grade will be determined by performance in the section itself. In order to receive full credit you need to be present at every class with the readings in hand, be an active participant, and demonstrate a familiarity with the sources.
Cell phone calls, tardiness, inappropriate use of laptops, and other disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and will adversely affect your grade.
Attendance is mandatory. Consult the course syllabus for more information on the attendance policy and penalties.
The second half of your discussion section grade will depend upon your performance in our class blog. Please email Ericka if you have not yet been added to the blog. This is your responsibility, and we will not be held responsible for your negligence. Each week we will post an assignment by Monday evening. You must post a thoughtful paragraph response on the blog by Thursday at 8pm. Late postings will not be accepted. We encourage you to use the blog not only as a place to express your ideas but also as a discussion forum by responding to your classmates’ postings. Your post should neither be a “fact” oriented question/ comment nor a question concerning the content of the works themselves, i.e.: a question that requires outside sources to answer. Rather, your response statement should deal exclusively with the contents of the texts themselves. Also, make sure that you cite the page(s) used for your question or comment.
This syllabus is subject to change. We will communicate with you outside of class primarily through email, and it is your responsibility to check your account regularly for pertinent information. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact either one of us.
Any student requiring academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained by DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to us as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30am-5:00pm Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.
6 comments:
"When Deuteria saw that he daughter was a grown up woman, she was afraid that the king might desire her and take advantage of her. She put her in a cart drawn by untamed bulls and had her tipped over a bridge: she fell into the river and was drowned. This happened in the city of Verdun" (III.26)
I was really drawn to this passage because of the many questions that it raises about the time Gregory is describing. At first read, I was taken aback at how silly and terrible it was that the queen would kill her own daughter to remain desirable to the king. But after analyzing it a bit more, I can see so many more possible reasons behind this act that may give insight into their time. This passage raises questions about mother daughter relations or even just woman to another woman relation. It makes me think maybe it wasn't uncommon to do something liks this, either out of jealousy or protection. It almost reminds me of the original Snow White story of how the Queen tried to have her daughter Snow White killed to remain the fairest of the land, but also to remain desirable to the king, (who was Snow White's uncle). Just like how in Deuteria's time men were in a constant battle with other men for power, land, etc. women may have had their own battle as well to get their place next to the elite men.
Hello:
"He was on familiar terms with the Jews and was much influenced by them, not for their conversion, which ought to be the preoccupation of a priest, but because he bought goods from them. He was easily flattered: and they knew how to keep in his good books, and sold things to him at a higher price than they were worth." IV 12 Pg 207.
I find this interesting because we have a Bishop recording either what he knows from first hand experience or from conversations how Jews interact with Christians. Also the sublimnal act of saying Jews are ungodly. Jews, based on his text, are people who seem to take advantage of prideful, vain priests.
What does this tell us about the period?: Jews were a class of people to be avoided, were merchants not to be trusted, and the only instance where a priest or man of God would interact with a Jew is through his attempt to convert the individual. It appears that Jews and Christians may have been at odds with each other. Another thought: What was the need of Gregory to say that he was given a higher price than other customer? Did the Bishop or an acolyte compare invoices of the same purchases? Why the need to make that last statement? It seems like it was a sentenced that does not fit. Were Jews persecuted/shunned during the time of Gregory?
KFUNG: It's also a window to what few choices women were afforded at that time. What kind of desperation does it take for a woman to kill her own daughter? What a dark and lonely life she must have led!
My passage is really long, so I will give the page number and a short synopsis. Page 197, Book IV Chapter 3. This is the one where King Lothar marries his wife's sister because she asked him to find a worthy husband for her and he said that he was the worthiest man for her.
This story was really kind of funny to me because how like a king is it to see himself as the best man in basically the whole world? It was nice of him to marry the sister so that she could keep her honor instead of just being the king's mistress, but ok, so he does one nice thing, but then he just ruins the reputation of his old wife! I was also a little confused about him being able to have more that one wife. I thought that during this time, everyone was Christian and the whole concept of divorce was very looked down upon, but did happen. I guess I can only assume that he got a divorce, but how could he marry two women, especially sisters, at the same time? This story just goes to show how the king can basically do whatever they want and have no reprecussions to their actions.
“If they are not to ascend the throne, I would rather see them dead than with their hair cut short.” [Queen Clotild about her sons] This passage and this sentence in particular really interested me because it shows so much about the time period in so few words. On the surface it shows the implications of hair styles at the time: high class society (or at least royalty) wore their hair long, while lower class people, or “commoners”, wore it short. On a deeper level, the Queen's decision demonstrates the pride and exclusiveness of living a royal life. The Queen would rather have both of her sons dead than have them live looking like commoners, and furthermore herself associated with commoners. Also, this passage shows the exclusiveness of royal life; it is obvious that no one other than those with royal blood retain the privilege of wearing their hair long. In the first few words Clotild's statement even implies that those with long hair must be in line to ascend the throne. This really struck me because it seems so extreme when compared to modern society where almost “anything goes”; in today's world there are no expectations for one to follow in their family's footsteps, in fact, people are praised for entrepreneurship and invention.
Post a Comment