Expert answer:Proposing Courtship by kass and kass, assignment h
Answer & Explanation:Please see attachment for assignmentTask Sheet for Summaries
Example of Summary: An
example is provided in the Week One Folder.
Watch (20 minutes).
Ask students take 5 minutes to respond:
“What struck you about that? What interested
you?”
“Do you agree or disagree?” “Why?”
Then present my PowerPoint presentation on
summarizing.
Go on to
Thomas Sowell article.
ThereTh
Review the PowerPoint lesson, “Summarizing.”
Apply the principles of good writing to your summaries
as well as your essays.
Summaries will have depth consisting of 2 to 3 pages (typed,
double-spaced, using 12-point Times New Roman font with standard APA margins)
based on assignment. This means the discussion you present is more than one and
a half pages and not over 3 pages in length. Do not use more than 2 quotes in
your draft. This does not include the cover page and references. An example
summary with feedback is provided in the Course Content Folder for Week One. You will submit your summaries using email in
Blackboard. See Syllabus for due dates
and assignment criteria.
Consider
the following when drafting your summaries.
Criteria
One: Succinct
brief or concise
the central idea (the
thesis)
the main points
highlight the most
important details
Criteria
Two: Accurate
·
faithful to the author’s content
·
faithful to the author’s intent
·
full comprehension is essential
·
no distortions, additions or omissions
Criteria
Three: Comprehensive
Beware the tendency to focus on only the
parts you understand or the parts which you find most interesting.
Include the following:
the central idea or aim of the
discussion
the main points
any crucial details
No omissions or additions or distortions
Structure:
Open with identifying information
·
Aim and scope
·
Main ideas or points
·
Assert focus points or talking points
Then
present in the order you establish.
Close
with summary based on the work presented.
Note: All summaries are submitted via email to me on
Blackboard. proposing_courtship_by_kass_and_kass__2_.doc
proposing_courtship_by_kass_and_kass__2_.doc
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Proposing Courtship
Amy A. Kass and Leon R. Kass
Copyright (c) 1999 First Things 96 (October 1999): 32-41.
Anyone interested in improving relations
between men and women today and tomorrow must
proceed by taking a page from yesterday. For
today’s tale regarding manhood and womanhood is,
alas, both too brief and hardly edifying. True, as
they multiply taboos on speech and gesture, our
sexual harassment police emphatically prescribe
how not to behave toward the opposite sex. But
outside of certain strongly religious communities,
we have no clearly defined positive mores and
manners that teach men how to be men in relation
to women and women how to be women in relation
to men. What instruction there is for relations
between the sexes is largely gender–neutral: respect
the other person’s freedom, avoid sexist speech and
unwanted advances, be sincere, sensitive, and
caring. Even the prominent descriptions of pairing–
off are neutered and unerotic: people have a
relationship, not a romance, with a partner or a
significant other, not a lover or a beloved. In our
increasingly androgynous age, sexual speech and
mores are designed to fit all couples, homo– and
heterosexual, and all manners of intimacy, serious
or frivolous.
Though maleness and femaleness are natural
facts, manhood and womanhood are, as fashionable
opinion insists, culturally constructed norms, at
least to some degree. It is no accident that the
meaning of being a man or being a woman has been
radically transformed in a society that celebrates
freedom and equality, encourages individualism and
autonomy, rejects tradition, practices contraception
and abortion, sees marriage as a lifestyle, provides
the same education and promotes the same careers
for men and women, homogenizes fathers and
mothers in the neutered work of “parenting,” denies
vulnerability and dependence, keeps mortality out
of sight, and raises its children without any sense of
duty or obligation to future generations. The roots
of these cultural ideas and practices lie deeper than
the sexual revolution, feminism, and the sixties, and
it is naive to think that we can easily reverse their
influence with some newly designed mores and
manners, like the return of ballroom dancing or
single–sex dormitories or romantic ballads,
welcome though these changes might be. Truth to
tell, most of us would not want to roll back the
clock even if we could, and we certainly don’t want
to abandon modern liberal democratic society,
equal opportunities for women, or the easier ways
of life made possible by the scientific–technological
project. This means that even conservatives are
looking for reform on the cheap, a revival of good
sense and decency in the relations between the
sexes without sacrificing any of the privileges and
luxuries of modern life. We strongly suspect this is
impossible.
But even if no one can prescribe a good
remedy, we are no longer in denial about whether
the patient is sick. In the last half–decade we have
witnessed the rise of discontent, mainly among
women, with the present arrangements between the
sexes. Many women, and not a few men, are
revolted by the hook–up culture and are looking for
alternatives: they want real intimacy, they want
enduring relationships, they want marriage. The
popularity of the best–selling advice books, The
Rules and Mars and Venus on a Date, the recently
published books by Wendy Shalit on modesty, by
Joshua Harris on why he kissed dating good–bye,
and by Danielle Crittenden on what our mothers
didn’t tell us, and the college–campus project to
“Take Back the Date” just begun by the
Independent Women’s Forum are important signs
that many people—again especially women—are
eager for lasting relationships with the opposite sex
based on romance and mutual respect, fidelity and
friendship. Whether they know it or not, what they
want is a revival of some form of courtship, with
established modes of speech and deed whose goal is
marriage.
Anyone interested in developing new mores
and manners pointing toward marriage needs to
understand what these mores once were, and, even
First Things October, 1999
more, what they were trying to achieve. In addition,
young people need to acquire the sensibilities,
tastes, and skills in reading character that can help
them find and judge prospective mates—something
they once gained from the study of fine literature
and which they can never hope to learn from
watching Seinfeld or Ally McBeal. To explore the
now lost practices of courtship, and to encourage
the relevant sensibilities, we several years ago
offered a seminar on the subject at the University of
Chicago. We were moved to do so after two
decades of observing, with growing sadness, the
frustrations and disappointments of our students and
former students as they passed through the decade
of their twenties failing to find the life–partner they
longed for or the private happiness that is based on
lasting intimacy. The success of our seminar, in
which we read and discussed selections mostly
from old books, inspired us to prepare an anthology
of readings on courting and marrying, designed to
help people of marriageable age become more
thoughtful about what they are and should be doing.
Among the most helpful readings for these
purposes is Erasmus’ Colloquy on courtship
(written in 1523), a compressed dramatic enactment
in which Erasmus is depicting not so much what
was happening in his day as what he thought ought
to happen. It provides a useful mirror in which we
can both see the deficiencies of our situation, and,
at the same time, look for basic principles of
courtship that might still be necessary and desirable
today. By reviewing and commenting on major
portions of the Colloquy, we seek to show, by
example, how pondering old texts can contribute to
the search for positive manners and mores,
especially in an age where none are available.
On first or even second reading, Erasmus’
Colloquy will no doubt strike most modern readers
as quaint or irrelevant, at best. We hope to
demonstrate why it can and should be taken
seriously, not because it offers a pattern readily
importable to modern times, but because it
addresses, whether we recognize them or not, what
are still the most important issues: 1) how to
transform brutish sexual appetite into human
loving; 2) how to make a manly man interested in
marriage and attached to his children; 3) how to
help a woman negotiate between her erotic desires
and her concern for progeny; 4) how to enable men
to find and win, how to enable women to select and
hold the right person for lasting marriage; 5) how to
locate the relations of men and women in the larger
contexts of human life—familial, political,
20160125020452proposing_courtship_by_kass_and_kass__2_
2
religious. More up–to–date mores and manners that
do not come to terms with these issues will not get
the job done. The Colloquy should command our
attention also because it illustrates what may be the
central truth about sexual manners and mores: it is
women who control and teach them.
Pamphilus and Maria meet in the evening in the
vicinity of Maria’s family home, probably neither
by prior arrangement nor entirely by chance.
Pamphilus (whose name means “all–loving” or
“loving all”) appears at first to be a foolish,
moonstruck lover, quite beside himself in love.
Although it later will emerge that he is willing to
marry, Pamphilus is eager to win Maria (named
after the Virgin) here and now, and he presses his
suit—in speech and manner—after the conventions
of love poetry. Maria, by contrast, appears from the
start to be utterly sensible and self–possessed; witty,
sharp, and charming, she almost immediately
assumes control. She will direct the conversation
from the conventions of love poetry to the
conventions of marriage. The beginning establishes
both the tone and the starting points of the
courtship.
Pamphilus. Hello,
hello—you cruel,
unyielding creature!
hello, and
hardhearted,
Maria.Hello yourself, Pamphilus,
as often and as much as you like,
and by whatever name you please.
But sometimes I think you’ve
forgotten my name. It’s Maria.
Pamph.Well, you should have been
named Martia.
Maria.Why so? What have I to do
with Mars?
Pamph.You slay men for sport, as
the god does. Except that you’re
more pitiless than Mars: you kill
even a lover.
Maria.Mind what you’re saying.
Where’s this heap of men I’ve
slain? Where’s the blood of the
slaughtered?
Pamph.You’ve only to look at me
to see one lifeless corpse.
First Things October, 1999
Maria.What do I hear? You talk
and walk when you’re dead? I hope
I never meet more fearsome ghosts!
Pamph.You’re joking, but all the
same you’re the death of poor me,
and you kill more cruelly than if
you pierced with a spear. Now,
alas, I’m just skin and bones from
long torture.
Maria.Well, well! Tell me, how
many pregnant women have
miscarried at the sight of you?
Pamph.But my pallor shows I’ve
less blood than any ghost.
Maria.Yet this pallor is streaked
with lavender. You’re as pale as a
ripening cherry or a purple grape.
Pamph.Shame on you for making
fun of a miserable wretch!
Maria.But if you don’t believe me,
bring a mirror.
Pamph.I want no other mirror, nor
do I think any could be brighter
than the one in which I’m looking
at myself now.
Maria.What mirror are you talking
about?
Pamph.Your eyes.
Pamphilus opens by greeting Maria not by
name but as “you cruel, hardhearted, unyielding
creature”: he finds her cruel because she is hard–
hearted, and hard–hearted because she is
unyielding. From the man’s point of view, the
woman’s crime in love is her steadfast refusal to
yield to a wooer’s importunings. Indeed, after
Maria greets him by name and playfully reminds
him of her own, Pamphilus sees in her name not the
Virgin but the pagan deity Mars: Maria appears to
him not merely unrelenting but positively warlike,
martially aggressive in defense of her virginity.
Maria’s lighthearted defense and skillful
repartee soon make Pamphilus blush (“You’re as
pale as a ripening cherry”) and then embarrassed by
this involuntary self–revelation (“Shame on you for
making fun of a miserable wretch!”); blushing and
20160125020452proposing_courtship_by_kass_and_kass__2_
3
embarrassment are good signs, indicating that a
man seeks not only a woman’s acquiescence but
also her esteem. Yet even in this respect Pamphilus
remains self–absorbed. In looking at Maria’s eyes,
he literally and figuratively sees only himself.
Trafficking in his own poor, wretched, lovelorn
state, he seems as much in love with love as he does
with Maria.
Despite her steady resistance, Maria is
obviously attracted to Pamphilus—just listen to the
way she eggs him on—but, serious in her
playfulness, she never forgets who she is or what
she wants, not only here and now but also
especially hereafter. Exploiting his ardor and her
self–restraint, she employs her considerable wit to
bring Pamphilus round to seeing things from her
point of view.
Maria.. . . But how do you prove
you’re lifeless? Do ghosts eat?
Pamph.Yes, but they eat insipid
stuff, as I do.
Maria.What do they eat, then?
Pamph.Mallows, leeks, and lupins.
Maria.But you don’t abstain from
capons and partridges.
Pamph.True, but they taste no
better to my palate than if I were
eating mallows, or beets without
pepper, wine, and vinegar.
Maria.Poor you! Yet all the time
you’re putting on weight. And do
dead men talk too?
Pamph.Like me, in a very thin,
squeaky voice.
Maria.When I heard you wrangling
with your rival not long ago,
though, your voice wasn’t so thin
and squeaky. But I ask you, do
ghosts even walk? Wear clothes?
Sleep?
Pamph.They even sleep together—
though after their own fashion.
Maria.Well! Witty fellow, aren’t
you?
First Things October, 1999
Pamph.But what will you say if I
demonstrate with Achillean proofs
that I’m dead and you’re a
murderer?
Maria.Perish
the
thought,
Pamphilus! But proceed to your
argument.
Pamph.In the first place, you’ll
grant, I suppose, that death is
nothing but the removal of soul
from body?
Maria.Granted. . . .
Pamph.Then you won’t deny that
whoever robs another of his soul is
a murderer?
Maria.I allow it.
Pamph.You’ll concede also what’s
affirmed by the most respected
authors and endorsed by the assent
of so many ages: that man’s soul is
not where it animates but where it
loves?
4
Maria.Where’s your soul, then?
Pamph.Where it loves.
Maria.But who robbed you of your
soul?—Why do you sigh? Speak
freely; I won’t hold it against you.
Pamph.Cruelest of girls, whom
nevertheless I can’t hate even if I’m
dead!
Maria.Naturally. But why don’t
you in turn deprive her of her
soul—tit for tat, as they say?
Pamph.I’d like nothing better if the
exchange could be such that her
spirit migrated to my breast, as my
spirit has gone over completely to
her body.
Maria.But may I, in turn, play the
sophist with you?
Pamph.The sophistress.
Maria.It isn’t possible for the same
body to be living and lifeless, is it?
Maria.Explain this more simply. I
don’t follow your meaning well
enough. . . .
Pamph.No, not at the same time.
Pamph.Men seized by a divine
inspiration neither hear nor see nor
smell nor feel, even if you kill
them.
Pamph.Yes.
Maria.Yes, I’ve heard that.
Pamph.What do you suppose is the
reason?
Maria.You tell me, professor.
Pamph.Obviously because their
spirit is in heaven, where it
possesses what it ardently loves,
and is absent from the body.
Maria.What of it?
Pamph.What of it, you unfeeling
girl? It follows both that I’m dead
and that you’re the murderer.
20160125020452proposing_courtship_by_kass_and_kass__2_
Maria.When the soul’s gone, then
the body’s dead?
Maria.It doesn’t animate except
when it’s present?
Pamph.Exactly.
Maria.Then how does it happen
that although the soul’s there where
it loves, it nevertheless ani mates
the body left behind? If it animates
that body even when it loves
elsewhere, how can the animated
body be called lifeless?
Pamph.You dispute cunningly
enough, but you won’t catch me
with such snares. The soul that
somehow or other governs the body
of a lover is incorrectly called soul,
since actually it consists of certain
First Things October, 1999
slight remnants of soul—just as the
scent of roses remains in your hand
even if the rose is taken away. . . .
Maria.Now don’t begrudge an
answer to this, too: do you love
willingly or unwillingly?
Pamph.Willingly.
Maria.Then since one is free not to
love, whoever loves seems to be a
self–murderer. To blame the girl is
unjust.
Pamph.Yet the girl doesn’t kill by
being loved but by failing to return
the love. Whoever can save
someone and refrains from doing
so is guilty of murder.
Maria.Suppose a young man loves
what is forbidden, for example
another man’s wife or a Vestal
Virgin? She won’t return his love in
order to save the lover, will she?
Pamph.But this young man loves
what it’s lawful and right, and
reasonable and honorable, to love. .
..
First, Maria attempts to turn Pamphilus’
attention away from his poetic flights of fancy by
encouraging him to take stock of his concrete,
living self. To his insistence that his soul has fled
his body, she repeatedly calls attention to his own
evident embodiment and animation. To his claim
that she is responsible for his suffering, she makes
him confess that he loves willingly, reminding him
of his free agency (“Then since one is free not to
love, whoever loves seems to be a self–murderer”).
When he then protests that the girl kills not “by
being loved but by failing to return the love,” she
cunningly asks: “Suppose a young man loves what
is forbidden, for example, another man’s wife or a
Vestal Virgin? She won’t return his love in order to
save the lover, will she?” Pamphilus is compelled,
for the first time, to acknowledge that love must
bow before what is licit and honorable: “But this
young man,” Pamphilus barks, “loves what it’s
lawful and right, and reasonable and honorable, to
love.”
But Pamphilus quickly backtracks: “and yet he
[i.e., Pamphilus the licit lover] is slain.” When he
20160125020452proposing_courtship_by_kass_and_kass__2_
5
next adds to the crime of murder (that is, of not
returning his love) the charge of poisoning or
sorcery (that is, displaying her charms), Maria
denies all responsibility, cleverly pointing out that
the witchcraft must be in the eye of the beholder,
since only he is smitten by her look. Summoning all
his manly wit and ardor, Pamphilus proceeds to
bring Maria before the high court of Venus.
Borrowing from the tragedians of old, he wants her
to recognize the monstrous erotic woes that might
befall someone who rejects the love of such a
worthy suitor as himself. Warning her that Eros
might punish her by fixing her own passionate
attachment on a hideously ugly, bankrupt, and
beastly man, and insisting that he as a lover should
be rewarded for loving, he concludes with a dire
warning and a plea: “Don’t provoke Nemesis;
return your lover’s love.” We have reached a major
turning point in the courtship.
Pamph.Then
don’t
provoke
Nemesis: return your lover’s love.
Maria.If that’s enough, I do return
it.
Pamph.But I’d want this love to be
lasting and to be mine alone. I’m
courting a wife, not a mis tress.
Maria.I know that, but I must
deliberate a long time over what
can’t be revoked once it’s begun.
Pamph.I’ve thought it over a very
long time.
Maria.See that love, who’s not the
best adviser, doesn’t trick you. For
they say he’s blind.
Pamph.But one who proceeds with
caution is keen–sighted. You don’t
appear to me as you do be cause I
love you; I love you because I’ve
observed what you’re like.
Maria.But you may not know me
well enough. If you wore the shoe,
you’d feel then where it pinched.
Pamph.I’ll have to take the chance;
though I infer from many signs that
the match will succeed.
First Things October, 1999
Maria.You’re a soothsayer too?
Pamph.I am.
Maria.Then by what auguries do
you infer this? Has the night owl
flown?
Pamph.That flies for fools.
Maria.Has a pair of doves flown
from the right?
Pamph.Nothing of the sort. But the
integrity of your parents has been
known to me for years now. In the
first place, good birth is far from a
bad sign. Nor am I unaware of the
wholesome instruc tion and godly
examples by which you’ve been
reared; and good education is better
than good birth. That’s another
sign. In addition, between my
family—not
an
altogether
contemptible one, I believe—and
yours there has long been intimate
friendship. In fact, you and I have
known each other, as they say,
from our cradle days, and our
temperaments are pretty much the
same. We’re nearly equal in age;
our parents, in wealth, reputation,
and rank. Finally—and this is the
special mark of friendship, since
excellence by itself is no guarantee
of compatibility—your tastes seem
to fit my tem perament not at all
badly. How mine agree with yours,
I don’t know.
Obviously, darling, these omens
assure me that we shall have a
blessed, lasting, happy marriage,
provided you don’t intend to sing a
song of woe for our prospects.
Maria.What song do you want?
Pamph.I’ll play “I am yours”; you
chime in with “I am yours.”
Maria.A short song, all right, but it
has a long finale.
20160125020452proposing_courtship_by_kass_and_kass__2_
6
Pamph.What matter how long, if
only it be joyful?
Maria, who has all the while been waiting for
the just right opening, sees it and moves right in.
When challenged to “return your lover’s love,” she
responds coolly and almost offhandedly, “If that’s
enough, I do return it.” Nothing more rankles a man
bent on a genuine victory than too easy or casual a
concession, and so it is with Pamphilus. “But I’d
want this love to be lasting and to be mine alone,”
he insists, and adds, in a first–time confession, ” …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades