The Characters of the Tempest Walk into a Bar

I don't know where to begin. The clowns of the play Stephano and Trinculo kept me laughing as did drunk Caliban. Prospero's controlling nature still unnerves me and Miranda's innocence is touching. Acts IV and V of this play had me rooting for Miranda and Ferdinand and only them. While I don't dislike Stephano and Trinculo, I have a difficult time fully accepting them as anything but drunkards at this point. I have often wondered how powerful Caliban would be if he was sober. Prospero seems to know everything. It is this factor that I will focus on. Prospero is without a doubt a control freak. Not only does he control every aspect of his daughters life but he controls the lives of everyone else on the island. Prospero is a man with a plan. I don't think that he left anything up to chance throughout the whole play. He planned his daughter's marriage to Ferdinand as soon as he knew he'd arrived on the island, who does that?

Prospero knew what he wanted to get out of his 'guests.' He wanted his dukedom back and when the king offered it, Prospero was quick to take it. Honestly, I believe that the king only gave the dukedom back to Prospero because he wanted to get off the island and he was pretty much stuck there until Prospero decided otherwise. As far as Prospero's giving up of his magic goes, I see it as a bargaining tool. He is trying to prove that he has changed and is more worthy of the dukedom. Whether he is trying to prove is to himself or the king, I cannot say. In a way I think that Prospero has realized that he does not need his magic, though that is also speculation.  Prospero is an interesting character and one whose motives could continually be analyzed. I apologize for the short post this week, I hope you enjoyed my ramblings.

The End!? (Tempest)

Well the last two acts were in interesting read. To me it kind of seemed to end on a simple happy note. The supposed bad guy turned a new leaf. All was forgiven. Love flourished. Everything tied in a nice little bow. It doesn't seem like a typical Shakespearean ending, with death and dramatic twists etc.
So you have Prospero win. He gathers everyone. All truth is revealed. He renounces his powers and gets his dukedom reestablished. You find that the Boatswains are all alright and the ship is ready to go (pg. 161). Prospero deems everything that occurred as "happened accidents." (pg. 163) I feel that he sugar coated that. I mean he caused a tempest that threw everyone on a island. I think it was more than a little incident/coincidence.
What I really want to talk about is the magic in the story, or should I say "art". If you notice no one really gets hurt from the magic happening in the pages. You have a storm. Everyone gets on the island. Clothes dry. Some are asleep. Nothing really dangerous happens. I was kind of waiting for the other shoe to drop. I was expecting a death or sacrifice. At least that is what I pair magic with now after reading Kors/Peters. But this magic was very indirect and sneaky. It was demonic magic or blood sacrifices. It was elemental. The water and air. It is curious to note that Prospero calls his art "rough magic." (pg. 149, line 59)

 His perception is that this was really powerful and scary stuff that he was doing. In reality, if you take what read in other readings, magic can get a whole lot darker and scarier. It is interesting to see his perception of his magic. I like how he coins it "art". If you think of art you think visuals, feelings, interpretation, eccentricities, colors etc. It kind of seems parallel to how is magic works. The entire time Prospero is guiding everyone in places or positions he needs them to be in. He uses the senses as a way to manipulate others. Such as seeing shapes. He also plays on emotions like love (or lust), anger, greed, fear, kind of how art plays with our emotions based on how we look and interpret them.


Overall, I thought this was a odd way to end a story like this. It seemed so simple and to neat. If someone threw me over a boat, had me seeing shapes, chased by dogs (spirits), etc, I wouldn't be so keen to just chalk it up to a sorry.

I dwell in the realm of disappointment.

I have to say I am mildly disappointed with the ending of "The Tempest." There was no big fight scene or dramatic twist. It wrapped up with a nice bow making it boring and predictable. What the heck Shakespeare? I thought a death might occur or some plot twist would say this was all a dream of Prospero’s. Nope. My grief over this matter will last sometime, but alas, I must find the strength to continue…

 What threw me off the most is how easily Prospero gains back his dukedom. Antonio did not even attempt to fight Prospero for the dukedom. He just let the king give Prospero his position back after ‘saving’ is son. I find this to be too easy and submissive. Shouldn’t there have been a fight between Antonio and Prospero? If I were Antonio, I wouldn’t just let my older brother claim what I fought to steal from him the first place. I would be furious and defend my position as Duke even if it’s not rightfully mine.

Besides the less than dramatic ending, I am surprised by Prospero saying he would stop using magic after regaining his dukedom. Why would he? I am not quite sure I understand. It is clear in Act 5 Scene 1 when he says, “I’ll break my staff, / Bury it certain fathoms in the earth, / And deeper than dud ever plummet sound/ I’ll drown my book” (ll. 63-65). Is Prospero done with magic simply because he does not need it anymore? Or is there another reason he would willingly give up the magic?

I wonder if Prospero realizes the reason he got into this mess in the first place is because of his obsession with magic. It became the ruling force over his life when he was the duke. Instead of watching over his people, Prospero buried himself in books, leaving his position vulnerable to being usurped by his brother. After living on this desolate island for years, I’d hope Prospero acknowledges how and why he came to live there. It was not simply because his brother was power hungry, but the fact Prospero neglected his duties as the duke.

When Prospero receives his position back, I suppose there is no longer a need for him to use magic. He has gotten what he wanted and will return to Milan with his daughter. Not only has Prospero improved his position by having his daughter marry the king’s son, but he returns to the place he loves with a better insight into how his behavior should change. I hope that Prospero will not return to his old ways of hiding himself away. As we all know, with great power comes great responsibility. 

Merlin the interesting life story.

Sorryfor the late post, didn't understand the switch. Now I am not to familiar wi the history of Merlin, but I did enjoy the readings. There is so much going on here I just want to touch on a few things.

First off, talking baby. I never pictured Merlin young. I just had this image of him as old and powerful. So when the story highlights his youth and his flaunting demeanor it struck me. Another element of Merlin's humanity is that he ages.

I found it also quite interesting that God gives Merlin these powers because as the it says in the text "he gave this ability to the child, whose need was greater." Merlin was influenced by demonic powers. So the best way to cancel that while still givin Merlin free will is giving him good powers and letting him choose. I want to highlight the part about Merlin's need is greater. He obviously needed to be blessed by God and given such holy powers or else we might have had an antichrist roaming around. The thing that I find so interesting, is all the Mystics we have read that received their visions; they were in great need too. And so God gave them visions. Maybe Merlin was one of the first Mystics in a way

Lastly, I want to talk about how religious or how much Merlin refers to God, Jesus and the last supper. I never thought of merlin this way. He is a magician, a sorcerer, a master of the magical arts. He poofed the stone heads to where they are now (just one of many origin stories about this lol). But a man of God. Never would have pictured that. Even from the beginning my thoughts don't jump to the conclusion that God gave Merlin these powers. I just thought he was magic, one of the first know beings of magic. This is what I think anyway.

Now there is his death which I won't get into since it frustrated me. But he died in a very human way which was sad, but he was powerful so as Merlin says man should not fear death and nothing does not come that does not end,

Merlin's character: to be or not to be?

I have never been a Merlin fan. While my preconceived notions of him before this class where the obvious old wizard who helped King Arthur, I still didn’t like him. He wasn’t exciting to me. His adventures weren’t spectacular. I see him as some prophet who gained magic over the years who uses it for his own advantage and that of his close friends. I know, I’m being a negative Nellie about Merlin when everyone else probably likes him.

 Even though I may not like Merlin as a person, I did enjoy reading the Prose Merlin. Being rooted in creative writing fashion, it was easier and entertaining to read. I laugh when I imagine Merlin as a year old baby talking to his mother and her dropping him out of sheer bewilderment. That would seriously freak me out too if my child suddenly started spouting out wisdom like Plato. Demon child anyone?

However, out of all the tales associated with Merlin, the one that bothers me the most is Uther Pendragon’s perusal of Ygerne. It is a classic case of someone wanting something they can’t have. I feel the feminist rising in me with this because they treat Ygerne as if she were property to be owned. I realize it was the norm for men to consider women as possessions back then, but I still rage against it. I’m proud of Ygerne for standing up for herself and evading the kings advances. The man just would not give up even when he knew she loved her husband dearly and would never betray him in such a manner.

When Urfin goes to speak to Ygerne about becoming the king’s lover, I let out a cry of indignation at what he says to her. Urfin says, “My lady, it would be an honor to die for my lord. But what lady as ever before refused to accept the king as her lover! And he does love you more than anyone else. Surely, you are fooling?” (Rosenberg 332). Excuse me? Well then, by all means, die for your lustful greedy king who can’t keep it in his pants. I’d rather keep my loving husband than betray him for one night with the king. I am glad Ygerne does not find this to be a compliment, but stands by her virtue and holds fast.

Yet, sadly, Ygerne does fall to the king’s advances by way of Merlin’s trickery. I cannot decide if Merlin did this for his own gains or for the gains of his country. Are they the same? Why would he allow such adultery? I would say the devil side of him tipped the scale against God in this instance. However, without the conception of Arthur, God may not have blessed the kingdom when Arthur comes to power.  Once again, the balance between good and evil rears its head. 

                                             (And suddenly Gandalf had a twin brother....) 

Witches, witches in a glitch, how many wishes do you wish?

Chapter seven covers a lot of ground and material, but what is most intriguing has to be the amount of people involved in the world of witchcraft. We know that the main focus is the witches themselves, but it's also important to take into account the Devil, God, Heretics, Believers v. Non-Believers, Humanists, Sorcerers, Preachers, Popes and countless other people who deem themselves experts at particular types of magic or careers, etc. One of the few people who stood out to me in the portion of this reading was Johann Geiler von Kayserberg, a theologian and a preacher. When I used to hear the word preacher, I pictured some sort of head of church preaching to the congregation about what lessons or perils could be learned from a particular sermon or verse and practically yelling and using repetition to drill that moral or rule into each and every mind of the congregation.

But now after just a few weeks in this class, I can see that it isn't always necessarily a religious preacher. It's more a very opinionated person who has decided to put out their own soap box, jump up on it and rant and rave about a topic to anyone who will listen. The topic of favor? Witchcraft, of course. I'd like to think of Kayserberg as that commenter on youtube under a music video that says "So and so sucks, and here's why" before listing reason after reason for why he dislikes this artist and those reasons would probably not be related to the artist's song, style or talent at all. And just like how one nasty comment can open up into a heated screaming match between commenters, preachers like Kayserberg are the start or continuation of presenting an opinion, receiving people who both agree and disagree with them and then spiraling completely out of control.

But although the preaching might need to come to a halt, Kayserburg brings up some fine points about witches: particularly, that witches aren't quite as powerful as we thought that they were. I was imagining these people (can I use the term "apparating"?) from one place to another in the blink of an eye or suddenly making objects appear or disappear. However, it doesn't quite work like that. These witches have the tools to travel at night, sure, or to make things appear and disappear, but it's as if everything they attempt to do has to go through the devil or be done by the devil himself. It's as if the devil is the ringmaster of this circus known as witchcraft.

When I imagine these night travels, I pictured witches flying through the air on brooms or just by themselves floating through the night among the stars. But this isn't the case. Sure, witches can travel at night, but it's more a movement of the soul and the mind out of the body and into another realm or part of the world without actually moving. Like Kayserburg's story about the woman on the bench, she is showing her night traveling, but her body is only spasming until she falls. Maybe she only thinks she is traveling or maybe she has traveled without her body, but it isn't the magical flight we typically picture.

Kayserburg also takes the time to show several examples of the devil doing the witches' work. A witch has the tools to do as she pleases and summon or erase what she wants, but although she possesses the power to ask for these things to be done, she is not capable of doing so herself. The devil gets almost a sort of notification through these spells and incantations and then he carries out the deed. It fascinates me that people are so scared of witches and all the powers they have, but in the end, they aren't even the ones who are doing the magic! We know witches are conjuring the devil and serving him, but why is the focus on burning witches when it could be using this connection with the devil to get closer to him and weaken him? Why not go to the source of evil instead of his servants and minions? We talk about witches endlessly, and they might have some tricks up their sleeves, but they are nothing without the devil.

My Sisters, Rise Against These Injustices!

While most of the readings for Monday reiterate the public’s need to watch for acts of witchcraft, I was very intrigued by Johann Geiler von Kaysersberg’s article. Besides the fact he has a pretty awesome name, I actually found myself condemning him less than Desiderius, Gianfranceso and Hadrian VI. I still think they’re all delusional, but Kaysersberg has some relevant points about witchcraft that no other has brought up before.

Instead of directly blaming the witches for their actions, Kaysersberg blames the Devil. It is the Devil himself who casts plagues upon the people. The witches are nothing more than a façade for the Devil’s work. I don’t remember any other writer who made this type of distinction. It is a rather unusual argument, as most people directly believed witches held the power to change weather, kill/hex people and do other nefarious activities.

Kaysersberg states that the witch, when she desires something to be done, gives a sign to the Devil. On page 238, Kaysersberg says, “the devil sees the sign and hears the word, he knows what they indicate; then he performs the act, and it is the devil who does this and not [the witches].” While the witches may have evil intentions, they do not possess the ability to carry out their actions. Rather, it is only the Devil who may grant their wish and do their bidding. I admit to being one of those people who automatically thought witches hold the power. Reading Kaysersberg twist on the matter makes me rethink how I’ve viewed witches.

Are they capable of doing such diabolical things or is an evil spirit, the Devil, taking advantage of their ill will to do bad? Can these women truly be called witches following his belief? Kaysersberg also gives us three reasons why women are more prone to witchcraft. He cites William of Paris for the reasons and they are similar to the reasons mentioned by the Malleus. He cites their “instability of spirit,” “understood better by demons,” and “their talkativeness” as reasons women are ‘weaker’ (K/P 238).

Personally, I find the aspect of talkativeness to be hilarious. I feel like the men put that down because they were annoyed by their wives nagging them or constantly gossiping with friends. Men did not understand women (and still don’t), therefore I think it was easier for them to categorize witches. If a woman did not fit the perfect, obedient, submissive role, she could be cast into this negative light.

With this in mind, I’ve wondered, if witches truly existed—if these men proclaimed so many to work for the Devil, wouldn’t you think there would be a mass uprising of witches against such massacre? I’ve no doubt a group of powerful witches would be able to wipe out the trials and murderers of their sisters. Do you think the religious men of the time even considered this fact when deciding if witches existed? Probably not, the ignorant bastards. 

Guilty or Not Guilty. You still rot in Jail/Witch Frenzy!!

I have to admit, I am a little overwhelmed from this chapter. Not only was it long but it was very thorough. To me this chapter was about methodically charging and sentencing someone accused of witchcraft/heresy.

This process is so delicate yet utterly confusing. In a sense, its just one big cycle/loop. Once you get accused, innocent or not, you are going to go through a lot of #$%$#, pardon my french. Take for instance, page 221: "they have revoked their evidence and confessed that they have out of malice put that crime upon the accused. Therefore the prisoner in such as case is not to be sentenced hastily, but must be kept for a year or more before he is delivered up to the secular Court." So the person that is charging me and is my sole witness, says they lied and I still have to wait over a year before anything else happens. What kind of system is that? Moreover, Kramer's logic is so contradicting.

Let's dive a little further in the chapter and Kramer. He published this infamous book "Malleus Maleficarum," after being expelled from Innsbruek. (Wikipedia) I have very few good things to say about this fellow. He refutes anyone who disagrees with him especially about the existence of witchcraft. He depicts women as fragile and easily corrupt. In the chapter Kramer says "what else is a woman but a foe of friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, ...and domestic danger" (pg. 183). The chapter expands on the devil, the process of accusing, the process of judgment, etc.

Now let's dive into what's going on in my thoughts. Kramer talks about torturing the accused to produce a confession. I see copious things wrong with that. If it were me in that position, I would admit to whatever they are torturing me for. Having read how the system works, either way I'm screwed. It would takes miracle to walk out of this. Furthermore, Kramer uses the term "conjuring" as something a Judge or Priest can say, even though they are punishing a civilian("witch") for practically doing the same. In page 215, Kramer states that "the Judge or priest may use some method ...and say I conjure you by the bitter tears shed on the Cross by our Saviour..." This is the very typical style of witchcraft that Kramer sheds light on. The only difference is who is invoked.

I can't fathom what would have been going through the mind of some of the people. All the jargon coming out of priests and Judges would be so confusing. Unless you were an educated scholar, it wouldn't make sense. The jargon they use is so blended and mixed with multiple meanings. It's just a never ending cycle. Then you have the questioning and torture. Kramer says you are innocent till proven otherwise, but they practically treat the accused as guilty. The delicate process of getting accused and charged is so meticulous, but also incredibly contradicting. If you are accused your screwed.

Also, if you look up facts about Kramer and this publication, it's a very infamous book that led whether directly or indirectly 600,000-9,000,000  (over 250 years) of bled shed.(Wikipedia) The Malleus was the hand guide for inquisitors to identifying, prosecuting, and dispatching witchcraft/witches. I find that incredibly disappointing since this publication is contracting and harsh.

When the stuffing runs out, pass the child casserole please!

When I began reading chapters 4 and 5 for Monday (and my presentation), I kept wondering, what is with the obsession of witches killing babies? I mean, seriously. Why? Apparently, in order to be qualified as a witch you need to kill children and consume their flesh. Satan’s orders! I’m sure that is what every witch out there loves to eat, a nice boiled kid with some garlic and onions, a side of baked potato and possibly some kale to keep things healthy. Everyone loves kale. It’s a nutritious and leafy food. Yum yum in the tum tum. Now I’ve gone off tangent…

Anyways, in several of the excerpts including Bernardino of Siena, Johannes Nider, Claude Tholosan, and Nicholas Jacquier, the action of infanticide are described. While we will discuss the issue of infanticide during my group’s presentation on Monday, I figure I’d touch upon some of it now. I find it fascinating how the writers carry the idea that witches set out to kill children in order to create balms/salves to kill people. Wouldn’t it be just as easy for them to slip some nightshade berries into their pie?

The psyche behind blaming witches for the deaths may be resulting from the high child mortality rates. People wanted to blame ‘witches’ for killing their child instead of blaming natural causes or themselves. They latched onto the witch hysteria and automatically used them to disguise their anger towards God for taking their child. It probably felt like a sin for people to even consider blaming God for their misfortunes. After all, he was the being they feared, admired and worshiped to help guide them through the tough times.

One of my favorite lines from Johannes Nider is, “We then remove them secretly from their graves and cook them in a cauldron until their flesh, cooked and separated from the bones, is made into a powerful liquid” (157). The detail paid into how the witches prepare the children is slightly disturbing. While Johannes is recounting what a captured and accused witch told him, it remains an interesting segment of thought. Even the accused corroborated with this idea of witches devouring children.

 Another rather humorous action the followers of Satan needed to do was kiss the ass of the devil (160) or drink his urine (164). These actions would show their obedience to Satan and their utter disrespect and hatred of the Christian religion. I have to admit I laughed when I read this because of the absurdity behind it. Yet, people during the time probably felt this was a very real action committed by the devil’s followers. I mean, if they ate children and participated in orgies, they must also willingly kiss the ass of the devil. 

"To the Fire! To the Fire! To the Fire!" The world's First S'more and Why We Really Need to Duck Tape Bernardino of Siena's Mouth Shut

Sorry, for the long title...

 I'd like to apologize to my blog group who has no choice but to read this.  I know it's a long post. I'll make it entertaining I promise!

*Note: The following comment contains language not suitable for children*

A pope, a theologian, a preacher, a lawyer, and a judge all  into a pub... I mean church... and accuse a bunch of people of witchcraft flash forward to 1692, when America's first total bitch, Ann Putnam (I do not claim credibility for this comment #ilovethe1880s) accusations led to the death of twenty people in Salem, MA. Ann Putnam, you would have made a great addition to Mean Girls.

Anyway... On to the important stuff...

As a history major and human being when I hear the word theologian I brace myself for the worst. However, most of what was covered in Chapter 4 of Witchcraft in Europe from 400-1700 wasn't as dry as I was afraid it would be. I think Kors and Peters did a fantastic job with this chapter. The introduction quickly caught my interest at the first mention of Dante Alighieri who is my favorite author/epic poet. The mention of Canto 20 of his inferno caused me to stretch my legs and grab my copy of the Divine Comedy from my bookshelf to refresh my memory on Dante's take on sorcery. For those that have not read Dante's Inferno here is a link to Canto 20: http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dante/chap20.html After rereading Inferno 20, I felt that I had a better grasp on this chapter. As Kors and Peters point out Dante's condemnation of sorcery and divination may "reflect general understanding at the turn of the fourteenth century" (Kors and Peters 113). So now that I had been sucked into the chapter, I again braced myself for the primary sources. Let me get something straight, I love love love primary sources. To be honest the only religious text that I have ever read and liked was Jonathan Edwards Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Theologians just not my thing, sorry.

When Pope Gregory IX started talking about kissing frogs I was hoping that maybe this was some sort of messed up metaphor... maybe the frog represents the devil or something? As I read on I realized that I was mistaken. It wasn't a metaphor... or a simile. So after rereading the first couple sentences I then thought of fairy tales and my little knowledge of Grimm's fairy tales. Even though I haven't read them yet (so excited to though!!!) I know that unlike Disney movies, they don't end well. If you are sensitive to blasphemous language, I suggest you stop reading now and pick up after the letter. Seriously, I recommend you skip this next part. Annoyed and only slightly relevant rants make blogging more fun. I would like to take a moment and write an open letter to Disney:

Dearest Disney,

Why must you lie to children?  First off, this whole happily ever after thing is unrealistic. Also, while I loved those movies and still do, I know that people only randomly burst in to song in High School Musical (and 2 and 3), not in real life... which is kind of a bummer... but not the point! Sometimes things don't work out in life but in your movies everything always works out, what sorcery are you using? I blame you for my Shakespeare obsession. Also, you based Beauty and the beast off of a true story... you left out some very important parts of the story... but for the sake of time I will pick that up in another post. Disney... there is so much more that I wish to say to you.. but alas, time is short and it's almost 12 (noon), speaking of, why did the magic cast on Cinderella end at 12 midnight as opposed to 12 noon? Sorry, not the point. Disney this discussion is not over.

I will end this very humble and polite expression of my thoughts with this. WTF? (I apologize, that was unfeminine of me) but seriously, wtf... why? (again, my bad, I apologize). Regardless of my anger with you, I will continue to watch your movies as they are the essence of my childhood and life is stressful. Also, even though you "borrowed" (lets face it Disney had every intention of giving the ideas back...) many of the plots for your movies, they are entertaining. Rest assured this discussion is not over!

A Dear, (Yet Slightly Angered) Friend

The relevant part of this post continues here: I apologize for my rant... So yes, Pope Gregory is discussing kissing frogs and how blasphemous that is. But once I got past the similarities and very different outcomes of kissing frogs, I found that Pope Gregory was trying to invoke the wrath of God into all.

The theology faculty at the University of Paris brings up a list of 28... yes... 28, ways in which you can achieve your life's dream of becoming an "nefarious, pestiferous, and monstrous abomination." What I got out of this: rumors are running rampant around campus and some people belief that God wants them to practice arts and sorceries to "honor... and please him."  In a way makes as much sense as Martin Luther nailing his 95 point blog post (Renaissance Style- Sorry, Dr. MB) to the church door.

Bernardino of Siena... (I'll try and keep this short and censored but Bernardo got to me a little bit... though I was thoroughly entertained). First off,  Bernardino (cool name by the way), I'm going to quote you on this (yes, this has become another open letter... sorry).

Bernardino,

On page 135, you stated that following, "after I had preached, a multitude of witches and enchanters were accused." Was this reaction intended? It must have been foreseen (oh wait, don't answer that... actually please do. [If this was a trial and you admitted to that your punishment would be... penance for two years or you could call it heresy and risk execution, just saying...] I feel like you knew how these people would react to your speech. Lets do the math: People naturally do not all get a long + you explain to them that witches and enchanters exist = People think back to all the things that have happened to them or people they know + People begin thinking that perhaps my really annoying neighbor is responsible + the knowledge that hey, I can not only destroy this person's reputation but also ensure that I never have to deal with them again = A multitude of people getting accused of witchcraft after your speech. Makes sense to me. Not saying your responsible but actually, yes, I kind of do blame you. If duck tape had been invented yet then someone should have introduced you to it. Also. "Woe is me!"... seriously? You're upset because you started a witch hunt. Also, you just had to mention that " if any man or woman shall go be accused of such things and if any person shall go to their aid, the curse of God will light upon his house and he will suffer for it" (137). So, I'm guessing the whole State Farm Good Neighbor Policy is out then? I know you have no idea what I'm talking about since it doesn't exist yet, just go with me here.

Sincerely,

A Reader of your works

And now, dear, brave reader of this post...

 

I feel this is the only explanation I need for the strangeness of my post.  

"Take me to Church"

(You don’t have to read this little paragraph, it’s just for kicks)**My first blog post, how exciting!  So I read about Sorcery in Christendom and Sorcery and the Nature of Evil. Both of these chapters were quite interesting, and slightly long. A lot is going on through these pages. I tried writing everything down. My thoughts are all over the place with these two chapters. I feel like I really need to go to church. lol **
 I am going to start with chapter 3. What I got from it is it kinda disapproves that all sin is caused by the devil or by demons. This chapter really reminds me of philosophy class: stating an argument or idea, providing support, trumping that source, disproving the statement/idea and declare a new statement or opinion. Anyone else feel like that?
In this chapter, two excerpts (phrases) that really fazed me were “to tempt is a sign of ignorance. But the demons know what happens among men. Therefore the demons do not tempt.” The second is “sin dwells in the will. Since therefore the demons cannot change man’s will” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Second Article, pg. 98). 

So, man has free will and man is ignorant of many things. (Man=humans, mankind, womankind, etc) All this is just a thin layer of the giant cake that represents the ideas behind demons, the devil and their existence. [Note: I am writing this while I am very hungry] Man sins or commits acts of evil through his own free will and ignorance. The devil is not ignorant, and he cannot bend the will of man. Then you have God thrown in the mix. God temps man (pg. 98). He tempts us to test our faith in him or for punishment. [All this talk about God and the devil make me sound like a religious fanatic. Gosh.]

“Not all our evil thoughts are stirred up by the devil, but sometimes they arise from movement of our freewill” (Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Third Article, pg. 100).Aquinas made things pretty clear for me. I feel that through everything I just mentioned that the devil and demons alike are only as powerful as you or anyone else makes them out to be. (*shifts eyes left to right to check for any upset demons*) We have all this discussion about how the devil cannot do certain things and how God is almighty. This leads into my ideas about chapter 2.
My discussion leadership project is on this chapter so I won’t go to crazy with my ideas that I will share on Monday. Overall, the chapter makes me believe that “the power of Christ is unconquerable” (Voragine, The Life of Justina, pg 85). You have the story of Justina, for example. By the way, this story was quite funny. You have this guy, a powerful sorcerer, Cyprian who tries to win or obtain the heart of Justina. Now, this guy Cyprian is persistent for sure. He uses all his dark magic to summon demons of all sorts to bring her to him in any manner. No demon was strong enough to face Justina and her unwavering faith in Christ. This is such as ridiculous story makes you wonder if this were true. Now using this story, paired up with the things I pointed out in chapter 3, I got one clear message from it all: that the power of Christ/God/Christianity is all powerful. You don’t mess with Christ. What more can you sum up about these chapters. There is so much mentioned on detailed rituals but the fact of the matter is, you need to find your faith in God. Just from certain aspects of these excerpts, Christianity is the way to go if you don’t want anything bad to happen to you or if you want to truly be happy.  

Arguing about Magic

In this weeks reading, Rachel forgets all about the fanciful, dark, and magical adventure this book is supposed to be as she becomes very confused and frustrated at the arguments and opinions of various authors in the text. First of all, Burchard of Worms somehow ends up saying something about how magical acts cannot happen directly on the body, with no other sources but some examples where that thing doesn't happen, none of which appear to actually say it's impossible. Then, Ralph of Coggeshall implies near the end of his work that's it's better to renounce what you believe in out of fear of death instead of nobly standing your ground, but only when you're not Christian or Jesus himself. Finally, in chapter 3 Thomas Aquinas truly embodies the spirit of modern argumentative reading by using questionable sources and manipulative logic to ultimately create something genuinely boring and hard to read.

As for my opinion on Burchard's text, I will admit I've never actually read any of the stories he has referenced and therefore don't know for a fact that none of them explicitly related the impossibility of magical acts happening directly upon the body. However, Burchard introduces them in the context of the magical acts occurring in the soul as opposed to the body, but only that much doesn't matter because correlation does not equal causation SIR, and that is quite the leap of logic either way.

My anger towards Ralph probably stems from my deep, deep hatred of confirmation bias, of which this is a prime example. Obviously, since he, as well as many other people, believe Christianity to be the one true religion, when Christians do noble deeds it's seen as wonderful and Holy, but if someone else does something the exact same way it's seen as evil and misguided. Intolerance breeds hatred, so not cool bro.

Other than picking up a few instances of him making some major assumptions (such as the validity of his sources, but I won't go too much into that because everyone has to make that assumption to an extent), and watching him clearly play with his reasoning in a very particular way to make his point ("Planets can't affect intellect because they don't have brains" somehow doesn't seem like a very solid foundation when you're talking about MAGIC), I don't really have much to say about him because he was just so boring to try and read through his stuff that I really don't want to take the time and effort to sort through every painful detail of his painfully long text just to get even more irritated at him.

In the end, my nature as a math major who must know how to write proper logical proofs, as well as a logic puzzle aficionado, has clouded my eyes to the actual content of the material and made me unnecessarily angry at dead people not making sense because that's not a waste of my energy or anything. Now Rachel is going to go take some ibuprofen to quell the raging headache that has spurred from reading all of that and calm herself with a nice murder mystery.

What a (K)night

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is written in Middle English. I have some experience with Middle English through the reading of the Canterbury Tales last year. I read through the excerpt twice. The first time, I decided to challenge myself and I only read the original version. I struggled with it but after the first paragraph it got easier. The Middle English started to come back to me and I had fun working on my pronunciation. I read through it a second time I read the translation on the right side of the page. I loved reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. I can't help but compare it to what I read of the Canterbury Tales though. I have to admit that I like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight better than what I read of the Canterbury Tales. I have not read Le Morte D'Arthur but it's on my list of things to read in the near future. I like many people do know the story line though. I was absolutely fascinated by the fact that Sir Gawain and the Green Knight  it takes place in Camelot. Camelot is such a fascinating setting. One that has been used over and over again. I'm excited to see what else we uncover together throughout the rest of the semester.

As I was writing this post this movie came to my mind and I couldn't help but include a picture of it in my post.

The Green Giant Who Forgot to Eat His Vegetables

When I first started to read the excerpt of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I kept thinking of the Green Giant from the food isle. Green beans and corn anyone? Yet, I knew this was not the case and paid attention to how he is described. Knowing that everything about him is green, including his horse, I had a brief flash of one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Death rode a horse, which was a pale-green color. The more I thought about it, I realized they are not connected. This knight is an emerald green with bits of gold or white ermine in his clothing.

After some research, I discovered several meanings behind the color green. Green symbolizes growth, rebirth, and renewal and is associated with harmony. It is a positive color, being generous, nurturing, and evoking thoughts of spring (Color Psychology). In religious circumstances, it is a symbol of resurrection or regeneration. On a different, note it is the color of the heart chakra, which connects the physical and spiritual worlds (sensational color).

Besides wearing green, the knight also sports a cloak with “all-white ermine” (line 155). The use of ermine suggests this knight may be of royal standing. Traditionally, ermine is a royal fur used to line crowns and robes of royal individuals (Wikipedia). It stands for justice and moral purity. In addition to this regal fur, the knight is shoe-less and his clothes are “embroidered as it was with butterflies and birds” (line 166). The idea of this knight as some magical fairy or forest dwelling creature comes to mind.

Yet, how does the symbolism of the color green, ermine and decorated clothing have any part in the knight’s challenge to Arthur’s court? I believe they give insight into the reason why the knight challenges the men. If this knight is to represent harmony, generousness and justice, then I  he challenges this court where they proudly brag of their accomplishments and bravery (lines 311-314). He has come to test their humanity, as overtime, their numerous victories have made them confident, proud, if not a bit arrogant. Then again, his coloring may only serve as a distraction to entice the men to challenge and defeat this unknown creature.  

In his attempts to restore balance to this group of men, the knight instigates their pride to arouse a challenger. I find it interesting how it is the weaker of the knights who answers this stranger’s challenge. Why does Gawain step up so that Arthur does not have to fight? If anything, I would say it is to prove that even the weakest among Arthur’s knights has a strong character. Gawain simply needed an opportunity to bring forth the strength he holds. Instead of physical strength, he carries fortitude and strength of mind where others fall short. The Green Knight’s arrival puts him in a position to test and prove his worth. 

Welcome!

Welcome to our course blog for Medieval Magic and Mysticism!

Over the course of the next few months, we'll be diving into a number of challenging and controversial topics. We'll not only be thinking about magic, religion, and science, but also considering the ways these categories are tied up with issues of gender, class, and morality. Along the way, we will also be thinking about the ways that medieval understandings of magic continue to influence the pop culture of today.

It will be an exciting semester, and I look forward to beginning the journey with you all!

The Fellowship of the Ring, image archived @ hidefninja.com forums