Chapter 13, Cadmus/Alpha, concerns itself with the beginning of literature in Ancient Greece. Shlain tells the Greek mythological story of Cadmus, a Phoenician prince who brought the alphabet to Greece. Cadmus was on a journey to find his sister Europa, the daughter of the Phoenician king of Sidon, who had been abducted by Zeus and forcibly raped. Cadmus came upon Zeus fighting with Typhon, a serpent, and helped Zeus win by distracting Typhon. Shlain reiterates his point of males slaying serpents, a totem of feminism, is an allegory for diminishing the female deities powers. Another version has Cadmus slaying the serpent himself and removing its teeth. Each tooth represented one letter of the alphabet, and Cadmus then planted these “letters”. However, instead of growing beautiful flowers, the planted letters sprouted warriors. Shlain argues that this is another instance of males destroying the image of Mother Earth; warriors sprang from her fields instead of nourishing plants. He also connects removing the serpent’s teeth to a male fear of vagina dentate. Shlain states, “In the Greek myth, the hero who brought the alphabet to Greece also extracted the dreaded fangs of the female’s totem.” I believe Shlain wants this to convey to the reader the sense that the alphabet slayed the female deity, as they were both brought about at the same time by the same masculine hero. Shlain also talks about the siege of Troy and how it was all about the image of women. The Trojan prince Paris abducted the wife of the Spartan chieftain Menelaus, effectively starting a war between Troy and Greece that lasted for ten years. Not only was the war about the Spartan’s wife, but during the war two Greeks, Achilles and Agamemnon, fight over what to do with a captured Trojan woman. To end the war, the Greeks created a massive wooden horse which is hollow and filled with warriors. Shlain argues that when the warriors came out of the wooden horse, “Instead of fetuses nourished within a mother’s womb, these are armed warriors who become agents of death upon their ‘birth’” (128). One can imagine he is arguing that this defiled the sanctity of the nurturing womb and was a blatant attack on women..
Shlain’s rhetorical appeal in this chapter is very logos-centered. He brings a lot of mythical history, which although is well-known to be fictional, is still held as a credible source to gain insight into the lives and thinking of ancient peoples. On page 122 Shlain goes into his spiel about slaying female snake goddesses and how this was a sign that men were re-writing history to be dominated by men. Shlain also goes into how bulls were regarded as a female totem as well as snakes, as looking at the head of a bull it resembles female internal organs. On page 125 he states that from a young age every member of ancient society knew what their internal organs looked like due to the fact that they slaughtered animals all the time. Shlain also tries an ethical appeal with the phalanx, and fails miserably. He says on page 123, “A single metal shield bears a striking resemblance to a single tooth--a row of abutting shields (as in a phalanx) resembles both a row of teeth and a row of letters.” Personally I cannot see why anyone would design an army formation to resemble teeth in any way, or even design gear to resemble teeth. The shields were shaped how they were to protect the warriors bodies, and putting them together was just plain smart to help protect the man next to you.
Question: Shlain spent a lot of time in this chapter trying to relate teeth to letters and other technological improvements of the time (phalanx). Do you feel Shlain pulled this off?
Works Cited
Shlain, Leonard. “Cadmus/Alpha.” The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image. New York: Penguin / Compass, 1998. Pp. 120-131
. http://markelikalderon.com/2008/06/22/applescript-trojan-horse/
I do not feel that Shlain pulled off relating teeth to the alphabet. First I feel that most of Shlain’s arguments are weak and unorganized. I feel that Shlain has an opinion and will twist any story to fit the point he is making even if it makes no sense what so ever. The story of the Trojan horse with soldiers in it is an example of how Shlain weakly attempts to make any story fit his argument. He claims since the soldiers came out of a wooden horse instead of a mother’s womb, that mother nature and female importance was diminished. This story seems to have no real logic to it. This is also the same with Shlain’s comparison of the alphabet to teeth. He uses stories that are not even fitting of his argument and completely defeats his purpose for the audience to take him seriously.
ReplyDeleteTeeth=Phalanx=Alphabet? The whole time I was ready this chapter, I frequently had to stop and think what kind of drugs Shlain was on while he was writing this. In agreement with Paula, I feel his logos is very weak in this chapter. He has many examples to represent his claims, such as his connections between teeth, snakes, bulls, Medusa, Labyrinths, etc. but his initial claims are weak to begin with. The myths that he extracts his examples were not intended to represent the demise of females in the first place. Greek Mythology was the Greeks religion and poetry. It was an expression of the Human complex and how things came to be. I positive the greek mythology was not created to intentionally put down the female image and explain the alphabet.
ReplyDeleteI will also have to agree with these statements. i don't really think that Schlain did a good job of relating the two. Honestly I had to re-read the chapter just to get everything straight. I thought it was a pretty confusing chapter, if not the most confusing chapter of the book so far. I think that Schlain might know that he isn't really making much since, but it is still his own opinion. Everyone is able to have their own opinion about things, even though it might not be the truth. The whole story about the Trojan horse and the soldiers was confusing enough to me. I think that this chapter could confuse any reader that reads it. Overall it was very confusing and I don't think that he backed his statement up with very much credibility and I think it would be confusing to anyone.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Schlain pulled this off, his examples were a reach and vague. The phalanx example proves this, the phalanx was obviously for safety and not a metaphor. Schlain speaks of the Trojan horse "Instead of fetuses nourished within a mother’s womb, these are armed warriors who become agents of death upon their ‘birth’”. This is also a reach, I do not feel this was an attack on feminism but rather a wise strategy. The claims Schlain makes in this chapter are too out there, reading this makes me feel like our class could have done a better job interpreting history.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Schlain pulled off the analogy of relating teeth to letters, and I agree with the statements above. Schlain continues to base his theories on Greek mythology. But a myth is 1. “Any invented story, idea, or concept 2. An imaginary or fictitious thing or person 3. An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution” (dictionary.com) Therefore, I do not think he does a good job of convincing the reader because he needs stronger bases. He does a good job of stating his opinion but sometimes his use of logos is weak.
ReplyDeleteTo connect teeth with the letters of the alphabet is quite a stretch, in my opinion. "A human has twenty-eight teeth, plus four wisdom teeth..." Shlain begins. "There is approximately the same number of letters in any alphabet" (Shlain 122). I sort of let out a mental groan when I read this because I had a sense of where Shlain was about to take us. He speaks of the metaphorical functions of teeth. Sure, his opinion may sound elegant and interesting, but I doubt that is what the ancient people were thinking when they came up with these myths. He does not tie the ideas together very neatly. I believe that Paula says it best when she said she feels that "Shlain has an opinion and will twist any story to fit the point he is making even if it makes no sense what so ever." To say that the alphabet is even remotely related to teeth just sounds like some fantastical idea that Shlain took and just ran with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous statements above. Although, this chapter was really confusing to me. I didn't really understand where he was going with this and what points he was trying to make. But I did try to grasp hopefully some of what he was trying to say. I think to say that teeth and the alphabet go hand in hand is kind of crazy because in order to talk you don't use your teeth. I think Shalains logos were very weak in this chapter when he tried to prove that this goes together.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with some of my above classments. Most of these chapters are confusing unless you really understand what's going on. I think that indeed that teeth and the alphabet go together or can be put together. Shlain formatting through some chapters are horrible including this chapter that could had help me as well as others understand this chapter more clearly.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'd like to thank David for this provocative post, I'd like to remind him and everyone that you need to include your names so we all know who we're responding to.
ReplyDeleteIn my History of the English Language course, a course I had to take in my doctoral program, one textbook we used was David Crystal's _The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language_. Fascinating book, really. Chap 17 of that book reveals that yes, the teeth, tongue, pharynx, etc. ARE IN FACT "vocal organs" we use when we talk. These vocal organs (or the absence or injury of any part) together produce and impact our speech.
So, while Schlain's job of trying relate the teeth to letters or other technological improvements of the time may not work for you--and I am not sure why most comments following Paula's seem to conflate other rhetorical moves Schlain makes in different and unrelated areas to the teeth thing, but that is a separate issue--the link between teeth and speech is fact he is building upon with his theories.
And, while some of you seem confused by this particular chapter in Schlain--maybe because you are NOT aware that what he is saying about teeth and speech is NOT a wild and unfounded claim, or that the Trojan Horse story is not fiction but history--it's not clear in your comments how or why you're confused. Understand that I encourage criticism as long as it is clearly connected to and informed by reflection and thinking about the reading. Can you be clearer about what it is that confuses you? Or what about the format of this chapter is confusing?
So after reading the chapter I seem to think that the connection he makes between the teeth and the alphabet makes sense. "A human has twenty four teeth, plus four wisdom teeth that erupt later in life. There is approximately the same number of letters in any alphabet" (Shlain, 122). Although I would not have ever thought about this way, he does make a pretty fair argument about the similarities of the alphabet and the teeth. Shlain goes onto say, "A line of soldiers on parade, a row of finely aligned teeth, and the neatly arranged letters of an alphabet marching across a page all resemble one another enough to be connected in our myths and dreams" (122). Some I'm sure do not see a connection and claim he is making things fit what he wants them to fit, but don't we all. How many times have you made things appear in your favor? I think it is human nature to want to make things work for whatever we are trying to sell. He talks about how letters do similiar jobs as teeth do. Letters allow us to dissect meanings for people are trying to get across and teeth help tear food apart to be able to digest food. I kind of see what he is saying about the shield acting as a single tooth. The shields are used in a manner that protects the army as a whole, not individuals. This is a lot like teeth protect things from going down your throat. I don't see the example of the Trojan horse as a way to explain the teeth situation, but a way to explain how Homer, "blames the conflict on the image of a woman" (Shlain,127). Maybe this is a bit confusing but I think it is just a comparison of Cadmus/Alpha, not the tooth theory Shlain is trying to create.
ReplyDelete