More of Manzoni's irony when he comments, saying how everyone now "recognising Nevers as the new Duke of Mantua, when the whole purpose of the war had been to keep him out of Italy". A prescient remark that might also be applied to the war in Europe at the moment.
Manzoni's comments on the day of the procession are good...'piety clashing with evil etc'. He finishes with "In truth, it was feeble human intellect clashing with its oiwn delusions.
The more I think about the novel, I am feeling more symathetic towards Don Abbondio. He is 'l'homme moyen sensuel' à la Bloom in Joyce's Ulysses. All these princes and prelates and war lords, and Don A. just wants to live a quiet life. A lot of the powerful characters in the novel remind me of Cesare Pavese's observation when he wrote that all sins have their origin in a sense of inferiority otherwise called ambition.
The problem is that he's a priest, and with it came a lot of privilege. Indeed, as Manzoni relates, it was the clergy that kept society together, but nine out of ten of them perished in the plague from doing their duty. If Don Abondio wanted to be left alone and live a private life, he needed a different vocation.
John, my point is that Don Abbondio represents ordinary humanity. He just wants to be left in peace to cultivate his own garden, to paraphrase Voltaire. He doesn't want to scale any great abstract heights in terms of power, be it secular or spiritual.
I think you're right about that. Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, I read Masha Gessen's prescient book from a few years ago claiming that Russia had gone back to totalitarianism and why. He kept returning to the theme that Russians just want stability, so long as they have shelter, enough food, and schools. They don't care about oligarchs, inequality, abstract notions of liberty.
Yes, Don Abbondio wanted a quiet life. For that we can't fault him. We can't fault him for being afraid either. But there are two problems with his desire for a quiet life. One is that he had duties to others and that he had some status and prestige as a result of being a priest. We mustn't forget he was willing to sacrifice Lucia and Renzo in order to maintain his quiet life and because of his fear, and that he continues to self-justify himself, even after his small candle is lit by Borremeo's great flame.
there may still be hope for him to find a little ordinary courage ... but for now he can only see his own faults by projecting them onto others ... for comic effect, of course, but also totally human ... everything said in this thread and elsewhere pro and con combines to make him such a lively character, and I'm sure that in tiring of him we are no different from his parishioners -- or Perpetua herself. Still, she takes care of him, with her own simple courage.
I think we are no different from his parishioners, but also, I'm afraid, not so very different from him. I was surprised at first, that Don Abbondio would be one of the main figures, and then I surmised the reason.
So what is it with humankind that needs some wicked “other” to blame? Do I see myself as a justified good guy if there is a concrete person to blame rather than taking on some public health responsibility? The public beatings remind me of accusations of witches. Has anyone else found a way to work “unguent” into your conversations?
I think it's complicated. But Manzoni hit on one reason. It's more satisfying to blame a human than an invisible plague because you can punish it. Also, those who warn of plague in a responsible way are of professional and intellectual circles, and another attribute of a large part of society is to despises those types. The Bolsheviks decided they could live without intellectuals or professionals and said so explicitly and even did something about it.
What we've learned is that in any epoch, a large part of society reacts to a plague the same reprehensible way, and these reactions take on different forms as the plague progresses. The reprehensible reactions are similar regardless of how advanced is medical science. There was even something that resembles QAnon in 1628.
The more I read of this novel, the more I realize that Manzoni, himself born before the nineteenth century, was a man who was very far cited. There are people like him in every epoch, usually writers, like Thomas Paine or Henry David Thoreau or Mark Twain.
You can edit them, or at least I have done so successfully. You click on the little 3 dots to the right of "reply" .... Then choose "edit comment" and it has worked for me, at least not long after I posted a comment I wanted to repair. Maybe it can't be edited after it's been "liked" or "replied" to? Just guessing here.
The ever present guns and butter conflict. The cause of the “widespread misery … included, primarily, the squandering of resources on the army. … Neither help nor provisions were forthcoming from the Governor, who would only say that it was war time, and the troops had to be well cared for“. Is this conflict ever resolved in favor of “butter“?
It would seem that Moravia didn't like the novel because he saw it as Catholic propaganda. Interestingly, some people disliked Hugo's Les misérables for the same reason.
Interesting that Italo Calvino thought the opposite, that the Bethroted live in a world without providence full of abuse and violence, and God solves all problems sending the plague.
all these errors of judgment on the vast social scale seem so familiar to us and even though it was centuries ago we naturally make the connections to today and then we think these are universal human behaviors, etc., which they may be -- but I also have to wonder whether there is anything cultural and historically conditioned in these tendencies -- that is, this is Europe, Catholic (and nearby Protestant, and I read that Manzoni left Catholicism?) Europe, not that distant from us on the grand scale, and pretty close in time to the founding of "American" national culture -- so could it be that some of these tendencies are specific to our own tradition and not necessarily shaped in the same way in others? I suspect not, of course-- imagine it's wishful thinking, rather like imagining a "golden age" not before us in time, but elsewhere in space -- in any case a romanticism of one kind or another. Sad lot, us.
These officials might as well say, "Thoughts and prayers..." Plus ca change...
And this: "For anger is quick to punish, and as a wise man accurately observed, it would rather blame troubles on human misconduct, against which it can exact revenge, than recognize a cause against which it can only resign itself."
And I begin to see the hint of a possible weakness in the good cardinal: "It was only a matter of time before his good arguments succumbed to the bad convictions of others. Whether or not a weak will played a part in his concession is a mystery of the human heart..."
"The rumor was that they had mingled with the crowd, infecting as many people as possible with their unguent." This is exactly right! I've read that the plague was spread through bodily fluids - either from people coughing, or through touch. The only mistake the people of that time made, was in thinking that the fluids were being spread with intentional malice.
More of Manzoni's irony when he comments, saying how everyone now "recognising Nevers as the new Duke of Mantua, when the whole purpose of the war had been to keep him out of Italy". A prescient remark that might also be applied to the war in Europe at the moment.
Manzoni's comments on the day of the procession are good...'piety clashing with evil etc'. He finishes with "In truth, it was feeble human intellect clashing with its oiwn delusions.
The more I think about the novel, I am feeling more symathetic towards Don Abbondio. He is 'l'homme moyen sensuel' à la Bloom in Joyce's Ulysses. All these princes and prelates and war lords, and Don A. just wants to live a quiet life. A lot of the powerful characters in the novel remind me of Cesare Pavese's observation when he wrote that all sins have their origin in a sense of inferiority otherwise called ambition.
The problem is that he's a priest, and with it came a lot of privilege. Indeed, as Manzoni relates, it was the clergy that kept society together, but nine out of ten of them perished in the plague from doing their duty. If Don Abondio wanted to be left alone and live a private life, he needed a different vocation.
Actually eight out of nine clergy died.
John, my point is that Don Abbondio represents ordinary humanity. He just wants to be left in peace to cultivate his own garden, to paraphrase Voltaire. He doesn't want to scale any great abstract heights in terms of power, be it secular or spiritual.
I think you're right about that. Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, I read Masha Gessen's prescient book from a few years ago claiming that Russia had gone back to totalitarianism and why. He kept returning to the theme that Russians just want stability, so long as they have shelter, enough food, and schools. They don't care about oligarchs, inequality, abstract notions of liberty.
Late to the conversation. Time again history has shown that people are usually willing to trade freedom for security.
But Bloom of course is a great explainer and teacher of liberalism and humanism.
Bloom has a great sense of humor, smarts, perceptiveness, zest for life, immense curiosity, and a certain integrity.
A nation is people living in the same place (!)
One of my favorite lines in U.
I find your last line intriguing. Where can I find that?
I meant the Pavese line
It's from Pavese's diary, "ll mestiere di vivere" (The business of Living)
Thanks for giving me a new perspective on Don A!
Yes, Don Abbondio wanted a quiet life. For that we can't fault him. We can't fault him for being afraid either. But there are two problems with his desire for a quiet life. One is that he had duties to others and that he had some status and prestige as a result of being a priest. We mustn't forget he was willing to sacrifice Lucia and Renzo in order to maintain his quiet life and because of his fear, and that he continues to self-justify himself, even after his small candle is lit by Borremeo's great flame.
I love this ongoing debate about Don Abbondio!
there may still be hope for him to find a little ordinary courage ... but for now he can only see his own faults by projecting them onto others ... for comic effect, of course, but also totally human ... everything said in this thread and elsewhere pro and con combines to make him such a lively character, and I'm sure that in tiring of him we are no different from his parishioners -- or Perpetua herself. Still, she takes care of him, with her own simple courage.
I think we are no different from his parishioners, but also, I'm afraid, not so very different from him. I was surprised at first, that Don Abbondio would be one of the main figures, and then I surmised the reason.
So what is it with humankind that needs some wicked “other” to blame? Do I see myself as a justified good guy if there is a concrete person to blame rather than taking on some public health responsibility? The public beatings remind me of accusations of witches. Has anyone else found a way to work “unguent” into your conversations?
I think it's complicated. But Manzoni hit on one reason. It's more satisfying to blame a human than an invisible plague because you can punish it. Also, those who warn of plague in a responsible way are of professional and intellectual circles, and another attribute of a large part of society is to despises those types. The Bolsheviks decided they could live without intellectuals or professionals and said so explicitly and even did something about it.
And continue to go after intellectuals, writers, artists.
What we've learned is that in any epoch, a large part of society reacts to a plague the same reprehensible way, and these reactions take on different forms as the plague progresses. The reprehensible reactions are similar regardless of how advanced is medical science. There was even something that resembles QAnon in 1628.
The more I read of this novel, the more I realize that Manzoni, himself born before the nineteenth century, was a man who was very far cited. There are people like him in every epoch, usually writers, like Thomas Paine or Henry David Thoreau or Mark Twain.
I meant to say far sighted.
I liked "far cited." I thought you meant how many people quote him...tee tee
Apparently like twitter you can't edit these. I've had to delete and repost a couple of times.
You can edit them, or at least I have done so successfully. You click on the little 3 dots to the right of "reply" .... Then choose "edit comment" and it has worked for me, at least not long after I posted a comment I wanted to repair. Maybe it can't be edited after it's been "liked" or "replied" to? Just guessing here.
it can be edited after liked etc. I've done it several times, catching typos etc. later ... or adding a thought as I'm doing just now.
The ever present guns and butter conflict. The cause of the “widespread misery … included, primarily, the squandering of resources on the army. … Neither help nor provisions were forthcoming from the Governor, who would only say that it was war time, and the troops had to be well cared for“. Is this conflict ever resolved in favor of “butter“?
Two powerful lines:
"But, oh, the incredible deadly power of a common prejudice!" (p. 531)
"In truth, it was feeble human intellect clashing with its own delusions." (p. 532)
Michael, if you’re willing, I am curious to know why Moravia disliked the novel.
It would seem that Moravia didn't like the novel because he saw it as Catholic propaganda. Interestingly, some people disliked Hugo's Les misérables for the same reason.
Interesting that Italo Calvino thought the opposite, that the Bethroted live in a world without providence full of abuse and violence, and God solves all problems sending the plague.
Ah. I can see that.
all these errors of judgment on the vast social scale seem so familiar to us and even though it was centuries ago we naturally make the connections to today and then we think these are universal human behaviors, etc., which they may be -- but I also have to wonder whether there is anything cultural and historically conditioned in these tendencies -- that is, this is Europe, Catholic (and nearby Protestant, and I read that Manzoni left Catholicism?) Europe, not that distant from us on the grand scale, and pretty close in time to the founding of "American" national culture -- so could it be that some of these tendencies are specific to our own tradition and not necessarily shaped in the same way in others? I suspect not, of course-- imagine it's wishful thinking, rather like imagining a "golden age" not before us in time, but elsewhere in space -- in any case a romanticism of one kind or another. Sad lot, us.
The opening paragraph on money!
These officials might as well say, "Thoughts and prayers..." Plus ca change...
And this: "For anger is quick to punish, and as a wise man accurately observed, it would rather blame troubles on human misconduct, against which it can exact revenge, than recognize a cause against which it can only resign itself."
And I begin to see the hint of a possible weakness in the good cardinal: "It was only a matter of time before his good arguments succumbed to the bad convictions of others. Whether or not a weak will played a part in his concession is a mystery of the human heart..."
"The rumor was that they had mingled with the crowd, infecting as many people as possible with their unguent." This is exactly right! I've read that the plague was spread through bodily fluids - either from people coughing, or through touch. The only mistake the people of that time made, was in thinking that the fluids were being spread with intentional malice.