Talk:The Monk

Comment

No longer a stub apparently though still invites expansion. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction?

"It is also the first book to feature a priest as the villain." Schedoni, the villain in 'The Italian' by Ann Radcliffe, is also a priest. Both novels were publisched in 1796. Which one appeared first? --85.60.4.173 (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The Monk appeared first and was a direct influence on Radcliffe's The Italian. Colin4C (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

'Anti-Feminism' of Lewis - POV?

The whole section on 'Anti-Feminism' is absurdly anachronistic and written by some militant lefty. Lewis cannot be judged by the 21-st-century standards of PC. He is no more 'anti-feminist' than any 18th-century male writer and indeed less than many. The very fact that Agnes is seen by him as marriageable after having an illegitimate baby by other man than her would-be husband, is exteremely 'progressive' in the society where girls who had lost their virginity before marriage would be routinely jailed. Never read 'Tom Jones' by Fielding?212.13.96.18 (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

While it appears this section is original research (cites the book itelf rather than any critical source) I have to say there is a distinctly "anti-feminist" - for lack of a better term - slant to the novel. Agnes is punished for wanting to escape a loopy family, Matilda is a frickin' demon, and every woman over 30 is either stupidly wrong about damn near everything (Elvira's only moment of getting something right is realizing Ambrosio wants to do her daughter) or psychopathically vindictive (the prioress) or both (Agnes's aunt). I'd say including some commentary on this is warranted but it should definitely be sourced. If we can have long digressions on anti-semitism in the Gogol or Dostoevsky pages (also fair for its day) we can certainly include Lewis's lady-issues. Bardam0 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Said section seems indeed to be another lamentable example of a PC-motivated projection, rather than an analysis, let alone a scientific one. "women are seen to cause the downfall of other women" hardly serves as an argument! And it gets worse: "while The Monk ends with weddings, this does not mean happy endings for the women". Oh dear! Again, projection instead of logic, of analysis. Most of the characters of the novel end up unhappy, regardless of their gender. Isn't it the male protagonist who meets with the worst fate of all while Mathilda is saved from being burned at the stake? Besides, the figure of the female temptress who leads even a devout cleric to debauchery is not an invention of Lewis, but a hoary stock figure. As is the naive and innocent damsel in distress, by the way. Feminist it is not. But to misinterpret this as "anti-feminist" is indeed laughable, especially since we're dealing with a novel of the 18th century. If Lewis had portrayed women who attempt independence as despicalbe, then the anti-feminist label would be justified and appropriate. Again fashionable categories of the 21 century are being forced on historical literature, and the result is bizarre, as usual (reminds me of "socialist" readings of world literature common in eastern block countries at the time of the cold war). I assume that the author of the section on "anti-feminism" knows nothing about Lewis' other works or his life. A possible solution could instead be to stress the fact that the novel reproduces anti-modern stock charcters in its ambition to portray a makedly anti-modern society (= the catholic society of Spain which is possibly meant to symbolize catholicism in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.241.36 (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't judge the contents of this section, but "anti-feminist" clearly makes no sense. There was no feminism at the time, so nobody was able to be anti-feminist. I believe there is a simple established word for what is actually meant: "mysogynist".92.231.241.187 (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Mary Godwin

I'm going to go ahead and tag this article as POV and OR. Two of the key issues are the heavy use of the book itself as a citation in the "Anti-feminist"/"misogynist" and "blurred gender roles" sections and the fact that the article introduces someone's opinion as fact (rather than "some critics have argued that..." we just get "this book is..."). I haven't read the book, nor am I an expert in literary criticism, but I also can't help but wonder if undue weight is being given here too... GoddersUK (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit to ping Bardam0 who was one of the above commenters (albeit a long, long time ago). GoddersUK (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Politics aside

The anti-feminist and gender sections are idiosyncratic academic readings, and shouldn't be presented as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.254.235 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

See my comment in the above section re POV and OR GoddersUK (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Influence

Isn't this novel chiefly significant for spawning the gothic genre (amongst various others?). I could have done with some more info on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.199.177 (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Synopsis in need of serious editing

The synopsis needs serious editing. A slew of ambiguous pronouns makes for very difficult reading. It's also rife with run-on sentences. Overall, it's very hard to follow. Ideally, this should be edited by someone familiar with the novel to ensure the correct meaning is retained because it's not always obvious. Tklow (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Justifications for changes: plot-error and grammar

I think this was wrong: Matilda was also the model for the Madonna painting that hangs in Ambrosio's room. The painting was the model for Matilda, according to this part of the text: "I [the Devil is speaking] observed your blind idolatry of the Madona's picture. I bad a subordinate but crafty spirit assume a similar form, and you eagerly yielded to the blandishments of Matilda. See:

[1]

This "whom" was bad grammar: Coleridge gives his highest praise to the character of Matilda, whom he believes is “the author’s master-piece. The relative pronoun is the subject of the verb is, not the object of believes. This would have been right: whom he believes to be. MagistraMundi (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The Wandering Jew

I just removed the following very long section of generally interesting prose from the article, but felt bad condemning it entirely to the abyss:

===The Wandering Jew and the Bleeding Nun===

The Wandering Jew is a man doomed to walk the earth until the second coming of Jesus. There are several interpretations of why he is punished this way. One legend says that Jesus wished to take a drink from a horse trough and the Jew refused, instead pointing to a hoofprint filled with water on the ground and "observed that it was good enough for such an enemy of Moses". Another legend says that when Christ sat to rest on a man's doorstep, a man from Jerusalem drove him away, yelling, "'Walk faster!' And Christ replied, 'I go, but you will walk until I come again!'" Both these legends show that the Jew's rude behaviour to Christ is the reason for his punishment of endless wandering.

The Wandering Jew appears in the subplot of Raymond and Agnes's story in The Monk and foreshadows Ambrosio's encounters with supernatural devilish spirits. The Wandering Jew is first referenced to as a "Great Mogul," but he displays several characteristics associated with the legend of the Wandering Jew that allow us to figure out his true identity before it is directly revealed. He tells Raymond:

Fate obliges me to be constantly in movement; I am not permitted to pass more than a fortnight in the same place. I have no friend in the world, and, from the restlessness of my destiny, I never can acquire one. Fain would I lay down my miserable life, for I envy those who enjoy the quiet of the grave; but death eludes me, and flies from my embrace.

This speech reveals that this Great Mogul must constantly move from place to place, has no friends and can never die. All of these signs point to the legend of the Wandering Jew. On top of this, the Great Mogul reveals, “God has set his seal upon me, and all his creatures respect this fatal mark”. This refers to the burning cross on his forehead, a mark of God that gives the Great Mogul his power to destroy evil spirits, such as the Bleeding Nun. This burning mark is a characteristic of the Wandering Jew specifically found in Spanish variants of the legend. The Monk is primarily set in Spain and its main characters, like Raymond, are mostly Spanish. Therefore, the Wandering Jew fulfills the aspects of the legend most commonly found in Spain. Another characteristic of the Wandering Jew found in Spain is that although he is miserable and cursed, he spends his time praying, doing good works and helping others. Theodore tells Raymond that "he did much good in the town," and he helps Raymond get rid of the Bleeding Nun. The Great Mogul's identity as the Wandering Jew is eventually revealed:

When I [Raymond] related my adventure to my Uncle, the Cardinal-Duke, He told me that He had no doubt of this singular Man's being the celebrated Character known universally by the name of 'the wandering Jew.' His not being permitted to pass more than fourteen days on the same spot, the burning Cross impressed upon his fore-head, the effect which it produced upon the Beholders, and many other circumstances give this supposition the colour of truth.

The Cardinal-Duke's confirmation and belief in the existence of the Wandering Jew gives credit to Raymond's story.

The ultimate point of this section seems to be convincing the reader the Wandering Jew is present in the novel. However, it is uncontested that this character is the Wandering Jew, so all of this proof is unnecessary (and not very encyclopedic -- more like original research). Perhaps some of this material belongs on the page for the Wandering Jew? Perhaps there are secondary sources which have more to say about the Wandering Jew in this novel which belongs in the "themes" section? Something to do with the claim that he "foreshadows Ambrosio's encounters with supernatural devilish spirits"? It does seem interesting that both ghosts and biblical entities (like Lucifer and the Wandering Jew) are "real" in the same novel, and I suspect there is interesting secondary work to cite on the relationship between religion and the supernatural here. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 06:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: LIT 3319 Contexts

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmmaGreene22 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 3AngelsMessenger (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Novel table of contents

Hi 3AngelsMessenger, I see that you re-added the table of contents that I removed for being too much detail. On a second look, I still oppose the table of contents, but now for a new reason: since these book / chapter titles were not present in the original publication, I think it is misleading to include them. I'm going to remove the ToC again, but please feel free to discuss here if you disagree. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, LEvalyn, no worries. I didn’t know you opposed the table of contents but now since I know the reason it’s okay to remove them. Since it wasn’t apart of the original publication I wouldn’t want to mislead anyone seeking to find accurate information about the novel. Please let me know if there is anything else that may need changed or clarification.

Thank you, User:3AngelsMessenger/Lewis The Monk 2603:8080:6D00:180:654F:AAAF:B080:7F93 (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)