Ah.... The Tempest.... We Meet Again...

I love this story, and re-reading it for class reminds me of the bitterness that I have for not being able to see it in Central Park earlier this year, but anyways…

In regards to this class and what we have thus far understood magic to represent—demons, crazy women and witches, among other things—Prospero and his experience with magic is refreshing. Surely, his interest in magic has implications, hence the life on an island, but Shakespeare seems to be less focused on the demonic implications of magic, and more so the abilities of the art of magic. Nevertheless, Miranda refers to her father’s magic as “his art,” but contextually she is referencing this art as something negative: the storm is hurting these men and she cannot understand why, saying “If by your art...you have/ Put the wild waters in this roar, allay them/…I have suffered/ With those that I saw suffer!” (1.2.1-6). Prospero, though, has control over the situation, almost like a director orchestrating a dangerous scene for a film—a car crash or even an explosion—where he or she knows that the situation is under control, and that the people are safe. It is a new idea of a magician that Shakespeare is portraying. Doubled with the idea that this is a father, who cares for his daughter, and appears to have been protecting her from the pain of his personal experience with magic and the people on the ship.  

We are reminded though, of the negative forms of magic, but it appears that they are represented as evil in the play as well—the “foul witch Sycorax” (1.2.309). She is exactly what the people from pretty much every text in the anthology would hang by the stake and kill, and she also appeals to pretty much every modern negative connotation and association of witches. She is portrayed as a hag, evil and has an almost deranged quality that, by nature, Shakespeare’s audiences knows to dislike and distrust her. Even outside of what we learn about Sycorax, we know that she is no good, simply because of what we know about witches. At least for myself, ignoring what I already know about this play, I imagine that one must be concerned about what to think of Prospero. Is he the opposite of Sycorax on the witchy-evil spectrum, or is he just as bad, taking Ariel as a servant. Considering he essentially stole the island from Caliban and his mother, I am not entirely sure.

Also, I loved this. 

Maybe you will too!

Sketchy Preacher Agenda & Why My Kitten Is A Witch

I would like to start this blog post by saying that I am always peeved by preachers, and any text that I read, I always enter with a bias against them. In regards to Chapter 7’s preacher, Johann Geiler Von Kayersberg, I am equally as bothered by his preacher self and his preacher ways because of the artfully crafted manner that is presented. Kayersberg does not take the fear route of Bernardino—God’s wrath is going to come get us, ahhhhh!—but instead, his motive is appealing to the desire to understand and make sense of the plague that is witchcraft—I don't see witches flying through the sky, but does that mean they do not fly at night; surely a human cannot impact weather on their own, but then how do they do it? . He is giving his audience answers to questions, which, in return, means that they will consider what he says to be fact—regardless to if it is or not (which is why I lean towards anti-preacher).

The agenda of Kayersberg is clear, though, even though he is much calmer in nature than Bernardino (almost like if you put like Ben Carson and Donald Trump in a room together: they are appealing to the same concerns, but go about it in a totally different way and are attracting similar people). He wants to push this idea that there is a more vulnerable sect of the human race that can fall into the Devil’s assault on God—specifically females: “and why is the female sex more involved with witchcraft and the sorcery of the devil…?...because of their instability of spirit, because they are understood better by demons, and because of their talkativeness” (238). These attributes that are assigned to women can surely be found in the households of many of those who hear these words, and can result in accusations in the way that Bernardino encouraged accusations by means of fear. In addition, his message and information shows that magic is not always visible, and that a witch can do things under the guise of normal functions—such as meeting the devil in her sleep, and being transported mentally while remaining in a specific location.

This is a picture of one of my kittens, Bentley, who is clearly a witch because he is sleeping and kicked his legs a little bit, so the devil MUST be transporting him! (And he is a black cat, and Disney movies tell me he must be a witch) (&&& he is adorable and much cuter than the kitties on the Internet!)

And look, he studies Kors and Peters!!! 

HELL TOUPEE!

For starters, I am so tempted to go on and on about the article I particularly focused on for my presentation on Monday (Bernardino of Siena), and how it reminds me of fear mongering Donald Trump, but I will save my comments for myself, and my opinions on the implication of the preacher’s words for class on Monday. 

i had to....

What I will focus on is the imagery of these passages we have been reading. Instinctively, these ideas and theories are laughable: how could humans think such things? But when I read what these passages are saying, they feel real (not in the sense that I think magic is real, but in the sense that I understand where these people are coming from). There is just so much detail. For example, in article 18, Pop Gregory IX is writing a letter about seeking out heretics. The modern mind would read this letter and think “how the hell can this be true,” but it reads so true to him. He dictates the events that are carried out: a novice is received, “a shape of a certain frog appears to him, which (BTW) some are accustomed to call a toad” (115). He continues to say that some kiss this toad on its mouth, others on its tushy… and I’m just like how can there be so many variations of this one ceremony if it isn’t true? In the same paragraph, Pope Greg (can I call you Greg) writes that once the frog (or toad, depending on which of the numerous ceremonies you are attending and who is in attendance) is kissed, the body of the novice grows cold and the “memory of the catholic faith totally disappears from his heart.” This stood out to me because it almost felt like he was there... all of these times...and was able to reference all the different type of people he saw there. Just a theory... 

I also thought it was interesting how little they trusted the faithful. This can go either way for me. On one end, these people are worried that the faithful may stray because they were once faithful and they have strayed (they being the preachers, popes, etc) or, on the other end, it is because they consider the faithful to be weak. Both options are a little bit sketchy to me. Especially since they consider their warnings of what magic leads to "charitable," as if they know what is to come. 

Overall, I think this whole thing from churches and theologians is deceptive and I wish there was like a diary I could read from these guys that exposed them on all their sneakiness... sort of like now, where our leaders emails get hacked and we get to know all the juicy, shitty stuff they did and lied to us about. 

Off With Your Head!

            

The reinstatement of Middle English into my college life was a smooth one, since King Arthur's request  was rather similar to the request of my most familiar middle-aged buddies—those being, the Wife of Bath and her gaggle of travelers (Canterbury Tales) one-upping each other with interesting stories. **Sidebar: I’d be much more interested in a free round of booze for my great, interesting story than King Arthur’s idea of fun (ie; watching him not eat from the rather excessive spread of food. #YourGameIsBoringBro)**

Anyway…

            I cannot entirely decide who I am more interested/fascinated by: the shocking, marvelous Green Knight or the ballsy, loyal Sir Gawain. For sure, Sir Gawain is a brave guy. Beyond bravery, though, he is admirable for his commitment to King Arthur, even after his courts de-glorification in the face of the Green Knight: “Where’s the fortitude and fearlessness you are so famous for?/…what a scandal!/You flap you flinch and I’ve not raised a finger!” Even after King Arthur & his round tables abilities have been showed to be lacking, Sir Gawain maintains that King Arthur, and his men, are “brave and bold” and worthy of his self-sacrifice. (Can’t say I’d agree, regardless to how scary this guy may be). The Green Knight, though, appears as a street corner magician—not magical in the sense that he is foreign and not understood, and therefore must be magic (which I’m sure much of King Arthur’s crew believed), but because he propositions the crowd in a pick-a-card-any-card manor, saying “So who has the gall? The gumption? The guts?/ Who will spring from his seat and catch my weapon?” Sadly, I imagined him with his stage assistant, distracting the audience with her beauty, ready to fool some fool into taking on this battle, little do they know…. he can still live, breathe and walk without his head! Talk about trickery (…but I mean like cool, I-like-your-style kind of trickery).

            While reading the story, I wondered what the Green Knight looked like. What I found surprising was Google Images wide range of interpretations. While one photo makes him and his horse look possessed, another portrays him as a grass-like-monster emerging from the soil and asking someone to chop off his head. I pictured him similarly to the third photo pictured: majestic, kind of strange, but altogether approachable, in the your kinda green and off-putting, but i'll ignore that sort of way.....