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. 

It's Very Shakespearean

So this reading assignment has shoved how terrible I am at reading old(er) English so far up in my face that light is no longer able to reach my eyes. The summaries at the beginning of each scene helped a lot with giving me the foundation I needed to work with, but then I had to use the bricks of detail given to me by Shakespeare to build a proper house of story understanding in the neighborhood that is my mind. Normally I'm a pretty good carpenter, but now instead of normal house-pieces it's like I'm working with some sort of weird stone blobs and odd shaped doors that are just really hard to figure out how to put together. Then if you can't figure out how to fit the plot-pieces together and you just start placing them wherever or leave some out because you don't think they're important for the structure, then they don't fit right you get some weird shape but you think "a little mistake is fine, nobody will notice when it's done" and then you keep building, but the mistakes keep piling up and then your house ends up looking really awkward and ugly and nobody wants to live in it.

 I turned Hamlet into an M.C. Escher painting.

Basically the task I set for myself while reading this was to figure out who the heck it is that I'm supposed to be rooting for (joke's on me and it's probably going to turn out that everyone's terrible and anyone who I actually like will die anyway, as per Shakespeare). My current consensus is thus: The king and duke are assholes, the slave kid started out pretty cool but then turned out to be a creepy rapey weirdo, the daughter and the prince are the arbitrary hormonal teenagers that decide they're in love because they are opposite gender and happened to make eye-contact, Ariel is just a perfect wonderful innocent little spirit who can do no wrong, and the wizard guy doesn't seem too bad, except I feel like his grudge about being out-duked is going to go bad places AND HE'D BETTER KEEP HIS PROMISE TO FREE ARIEL OR I SWEAR TO GOD. What I'm saying is, screw the mortals, Ariel is my protagonist.

There's no doubt a lot of details that I missed, since I don't understand half the things these people say and the stuff on the left pages IS NOT VERY HELPFUL. Seriously though, half the time there's a phrase I don't understand and the book refuses to help me, half the time it decides to help me with something that I'm honestly insulted it thought I couldn't figure out on my own ("incharitable: i.e. uncharitable" Really? REALLY!?), and some of the time it actually aids me in figuring out the story. (I may have rounded these values.) Basically all I picked up from the whole first scene was that the ship was sinking, and in retrospect I guess the prince guy was on it? So if anyone picked up on any details that would probably affect my character opinions, please tell me I feel so helpless.

Merlin, Fiction verses well Fiction

This post may contain spoilers for anyone who has not yet viewed the first episode of Merlin

Sorry for the late post. The other day, I watched the first episode of BBC's Merlin. As I watched the first episode I found myself comparing the characters to how they are portrayed in the literature.

Uther Pendragon, I had hope for the show when they introduced the King as Uther Pendragon, a name I immediately recognized from the Prose Merlin. I'm not sure what to make of King Uther. I thought he was kind of an idiot  in the Prose Merlin and the show reinforced these beliefs. He just can't take a hint. Really, I could go on talking about Uther for the rest of this post but then we'd never get to Prince Arthur or even Merlin (who is pretty important to the show).

Merlin: In the Prose, Merlin we read for class on Monday, Merlin was old. When I hear the word Merlin I often think of that old guy from Disney's Sword and the Stone, you know, the one with the really long white beard, who speaks in riddles.  However, I was surprised to find that in the show Merlin is young and fairly sane. I found Merlin a lot more likeable in the show than in the Prose, Merlin. Maybe, it's because in Monday's literature Merlin was a creepy old guy trying to as Dr. MB put it deflower a fifteen year old girl. Yeah Merlin has some issues in the show like fighting Prince Arthur (or trying to at least, Merlin was totally cheating not that I felt bad for the prince). Speaking of the Prince...

Prince Arthur: As soon as this jerk entered the scene throwing knives and all in all being a jackass, I found myself silently hoping that it wasn't the King Arthur of legend. Of course, BBC immediately responded by introducing the character as Prince Arthur. I might be a little rusty on my Arthurian stories but isn't King Arthur supposed to be a great guy who is dealt a really bad hand when his wife Guinevere, cheats on his with his best friend Sir Lancelot? Because,  in the show, I'm feeling more bad for Guinevere for eventually having to be married to this jerk. Arthur seems to be this larger than life character who is really just... as Merlin so rightly put it (multiple times)... a prat.

Guinevere: I do not know much about Queen Guinevere as according to legend. However, the show kept implying that she had a thing for Merlin which really confused me. Also, Guinevere more or less came from lower means than what I'd expected of the future Queen of Camelot. It seems to me that the show further implied for Lady Morgana to serve as Prince Arthur's love interest in the show. This whole Guinevere part of the show just has me baffled but she's a likeable enough character.

Lastly, the random witch: At the very being of the episode I felt really bad for the witch, she had just seen her son beheaded. I didn't realize the role she would play in the episode until she vanished in a pile of leaves (?) and then all I could think was shit, she's a witch. Well damn. I still felt bad for her, as creepy as she was. Then she killed that singer and I started getting really really bad vibes from her. At this point I wondered why the show would portray witches in the light that they did. I mean lets face it, Arthur may be the most hated character in the episode but she takes second place pretty easily on creepiness alone. I have spent the whole semester feeling sorry for witches or those accused at least and here is a perfect example of what everyone is so afraid of.

Also, there is a dragon... a talking dragon (wtf?) I felt the dragon kind of came out of no where.

No shit, you're a freaking talking dragon, how could anyone forget you?

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....) 

A Wicked Revelation

I found it interesting that according to Imperial law, "those who can be cured and made healthy ought not to be put to death but to a lesser punishment" (p. 239). This made me wonder how often one got away with 'witchcraft'. As a class we've decided that the wealthiest members of society were more likely to get away with it. However, as it seems, most of what we have read about follows the lines of crime and punishment (go away Roskonokov, I'm not talking about you). Seriously though, why do we read about the people who were condemned by the crime of being a witch as opposed to the lucky (well as lucky as one could be after being accused of witchcraft) ones? Is it because humans don't have a long attention span? Who are we kidding, if someone offers you two stories which would you choose and why? The first story is about the triumph of good over evil. The second story is about someone who may or may not have done something bad but it doesn't matter whether they did it or not because regardless the charges were dropped because the character paid off the judge... The end. Pick a story any story (just to be clear, by any story I mean of the two listed above... Not ANY story). Yes, there are exceptions, we do read about accused getting off scot free after being found innocent do occur. I'm just wondering why there aren't more stories on it.

Gianfrancesco Pico Della Mirandola's Strix, is a good example of just how convinced some were about witchcraft and just how desperate they were to convince everyone else of its existence. It is basically the story of a learned man who doesn't believe in witchcraft but it then convinced because of something horrible that a witch has done and how could someone who was a witch commit such an evil act? Therefore, it is the duty of the inquisitor to convict everyone suspected of being a witch because as discussed in the pervious chapter it is worse to let one witch escape punishment than to falsely punish an innocent.

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. 

Manifest Mother Issues

At long last, it's the birth of the traditional witch hunt in all it's glory. Fear mongering, emotional knee-jerk reactions to the apparent enemy, and the immediate and forceful putting down with anyone and everyone who disagrees with your opinions that you believe to be 100% factual and correct. So basically just regular politics but with more magic and mass murder.

What really stood out to me in this chapter, though, is how absolutely abysmally these two guys feel about women. They keep going on and on about how women are weak mentally and easily corrupted, and how they're just a necessary evil used to have children but will make your life miserable in the process. According to them, women are only good when they're gentle and subservient, and any other time they are the manifestation of Hell itself. No middle ground, no thinking "Hey, maybe she's just unhappy that I keep her chained to the stove 6 hours a day," just one or the other. Sounds to me like they had super fun home lives as kids that caused them to develop some serious mother issues.

Of course I'm getting ahead of myself, because I must mention that right out of the gate Kramer and Sprenger disable any and all possible debate by basically saying that everyone who disagrees with them is stupid and evil and needs to be punished for not acknowledging the far mentally superior beings who are lords Kramer and Sprenger. This typical type of mentality isn't uncommon in people throughout history, but the difference between modern and olden times is that a figurehead doing that today will get him super far with a small portion of the population who just so happen to have the same ideas, and exactly nowhere with the vast majority that is the rest of the world. Trying to pull that nowadays will only have the influence of getting people to make fun of him over the internet in a manner similar to this:

A large portion of the rest of the text is them trying to figure out what exactly witches are and are not able to do, such as overturning the Canon's declaration that any bodily transportation occurs only in the imagination, because nobody can ever seem to agree on any of this. Seriously though, at this point you'd think that SOMEONE would have at the very least come up with some theorem that at least most learned people could agree upon, but I guess real people don't work like the scientific community and witchcraft doesn't work like physics, so it's probably too much to think that a medieval Einstein would come along and solve the puzzle of the proverbial ether. This is why my best friend is a statistics textbook with a face drawn on the cover.

Germany, 1487: Contradiction Central (with bonus murders!)

Chapter 6. It was just awful. There were so, so many problems with Kramer and Jacob's arguments - from intense misogyny to torture to the obvious exceptions they made to their own rules! I wanted to accuse them of witchcraft by the time it was over - see how they like feeling that helpless against the long arm of the Church. Don't get me wrong, I'm unfortunately fairly certain that some of the horrible things described that witches do were actually done - certain rituals were described very specifically, and in the society of the fifteenth century, if you heard that hurting someone would somehow protect you from the dangers of the world...and if you might be able to get away with it...well, why not try it?

No! The point was to GET AWAY with it...*sigh*
(Source: commons.wikimedia.org)

But i can't imagine a situation in which most of the accused aren't innocent.

The point I'm trying to get at is the Inquisitors were taking witch-hunting way too far. For example, look at the explicit instructions on how far to go and on which days to torture people to force a confession out of them, as well as how often to "change it up," like on page 214 (K/P): "For if the sons of darkness were to become accustomed to one general rule [of questioning or torture] they would provide means of evading it as a well-known snare set for their destruction." The Inquisitors are dealing with, for the most part, regular people, and they've set up what seems to be a sham judiciary system in which no one is innocent of witchcraft - not even themselves. 

There were a few "gotcha" moments reading this chapter that I'm sure Sprenger or Kramer would figure out how to explain away, like this prayer that reeks of magic:  "I conjure you by the bitter tears shed on the Cross by our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ...[many more examples of biblical tears]...that if you be innocent you do now shed tears, but if you be guilty that you shall by no means do so." (K/P, p.215, my italics) Or this magical amulet that is totally religiously acceptable: "...they [the Judge and assessors] must always carry about them some salt consecrated on Palm Sunday and some Blessed Herbs. For these can be enclosed together in Blessed Wax and worn round the neck...and that these have a wonderful protective virtue..." (K/P, p.216) Guys, I thought that all types of magic and magical items were heresy? Then there are the stories of judges being manipulated by witches if the witch can see the judge before he sees her, or of judges being bewitched by the way that witches speak during trial (p.216). But weren't judges protected by God and therefore immune to the wiles of magic? Oh, God must be allowing it to happen again. 

The worst, though, was the section on midwives and those who cure illnesses and disease, who were thought of as just as guilty as a supposedly murderous witch! All because in order to expel enchantments and demons, you have to know how they were made and summoned in the first place. So...what about all those exorcisms performed by members of the Church?

My head hurts.

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.  

Whether you should do penance (Spoiler: the answer is "yes")

Reading chapters 2 and 3 of the Kors/Peters book, all I could think was, "For people who condemn demons and magical practices, you saints and holy writers sure know an awful lot about the particulars of how they interact with humans."

"Hey, so how do I summon the Devil? Oh, uh, it's just to make sure no one will do it."
(Source: www.traditionalcatholicmass.com)

The evolution of discovering the prevalence of magical practices, addressing them, and universally condemning them I found particularly interesting.  Before the 14th century, magic was considered "singular and episodic, one more manifestation of Satan's usually unsuccessful attempts to tempt mankind from orthodox belief and practice." (p. 59) And yet we have a prominent figure in early(ish) Christianity, Thomas Aquinas, part of whose writings in the 13th century were meant to "explain precisely how it was possible for demons to influence human actions." (p. 88)  It seems like the clergy during this time period wanted magic and demons to be compartmentalized, dealt with, and left behind as they moved on to more important things.  If they described exactly how these "episodic" incidents happened, for example the nature of demons and the extent of how they were able to tempt man, then righteous men (I almost typed "and women" there regarding 13th century Christianity, silly me!) would rise up against any temptation, ever again, because they would know how a demon would go about tempting them.

Speaking of my "and women" comment up there - there were so many descriptions in these chapters of how women were the ones who were usually corrupted by magic, and men only occasionally, and only if they were "weak." Not cool, people. Get over your superiority (even though I know you won't for hundreds of years. If that.)

Considering the eventual acceptance of magic as a widespread (or at least, more widely noticed) event, I was very surprised to read about the penances for various sinful magical practices. It is firmly established that magic and communing with demons is a sin of varying degree based on the results of the magic, but I was expecting more "Burn the heretics at the stake!" and less "Eat bread and water for ten days or so."  In fact, in some cases using demons seems okay - even though it's a grave sin, it might be permitted to use them and then just ask for forgiveness, even if you know you're sinning. (p. 89, paragraphs 2-3) Further, according to Augustine, "all divinations are to be avoided; although physical death ought not to be inflicted without grave cause." (p.89) I wonder when the pivotal shift occurred to go from (comparatively) light punishment and repentance at this time to death by burning in the 17th century.

"Have you ever felt like you were just born in the wrong time period?"
(Source: www.whenintime.com)

Another thought:  while invoking Christ or the cross for various incantations or charms did happen in our other readings from Keickhefer, I feel like the magic in those readings was much more generally secular in nature.  One of the big themes throughout Thomas Aquinas' writing selections was that all magical things come from demons, and all demons and magics are only permitted to act by God. I thought this was an interesting rationalization or analogy for how bad things are allowed to happen to good people - everything is God's will, be it good, bad, or ugly. Whatever you have to say to make yourself feel better, Mr. A.

...was it God's will that I posted a cat video?

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.