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.  

Challenge Accepted

            Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a very interesting tale with an unclear purpose. While I was reading, I couldn’t help but to wonder why the Green Knight was proposing this challenge and why did he specifically visit King Arthur. I suspected that maybe it was a competition to show who was the bravest or the most loyal knight of King Arthur, but that wasn’t really emphasized. The concept of an all-green knight who seems to be indestructible was fascinating. While reading the description of the Green Knight the image of the superhero the Hulk came to my mind, especially when he was described as “a hulk of a human” in line 138.  I immediately wondered why the color green. Is there a significance to that color? When I think of the color green, I think about spring and new life, so I thought that the knight might be green because he can grow new limbs? I also thought that he might be immortal from some kind of magic and perhaps he might have been a wizard. Or maybe someone else with magical powers gave him something like an amulet to protect him or put a spell on him that would keep him from dying.

             A person who is already familiar with the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table may have already had an idea of why the Green Knight was challenging Arthur’s court. Since I am not one of those people and I was extremely curious to learn more about this poem, I read through the Sparknotes. From there I learned that the Green Knight was working with Morgan le Fay who is sorceress and also King Arthur’s half-sister. Morgan apparently hates King Arthur and often tests his knights. Sending the Green Knight to King Arthur I assume was another way for Morgan to test his knights, but it is still unclear what was the purpose of the challenge was. I thought that maybe Morgan was planning on King Arthur accepting the challenge in hopes of killing him.

                Reading this excerpt of the poem makes me want to read the rest of it, as well as more stories about King Arthur. I think they are probably great for learning about that time in history. I would like to learn more about Morgan le Fay and how she is depicted in stories. I’m curious to know if she is thought of like witches of the Middle Ages that were hunted and burned or if she was respected for her power. I would also like to know why she hates King Arthur and what is she trying to achieve by challenging him.

It's Not Easy Being Green

Well, I am shocked to say the least. When Dr. MB mentioned we would be reading about a green knight, the joke about the black knight on the black horse ran through my head, and I was quickly imagining a foolish riddle that circled round itself. In a way, my predictions were correct. The first thing I noticed upon reading was the abundant alliteration (ya see what I did there?) all throughout the story. Lines like "grasp that gruesome axe and show your striking style" and "folly finds the man who flirts with the fool" roll off your tongue. The writing reminds me of a limerick or a riddle, with witty alliteration that keeps the words flowing and tricky, with that hint of humor and mystery. If you read the words out loud, they're written in a very melodious and sing-song way that keeps the dark undertones hidden. If a child were to read this, I feel like they would enjoy the sounds, internal rhyme and creative speech, but would have no idea how vulgar and twisted this truly is. But perhaps that's the point. Kassy mentioned that she thought of the Jolly Green Giant upon reading. Is that the trickery this author is getting at? Disguising real world issues that are grim inside upbeat lines that bring a smile to your face as you try to tackle each tongue twister?

While I read, I was constantly trying to think of the reason why this knight was green. Why bother endlessly listing all these details about the knight and his horse and repeating over and over again, that everything about them both was green? At first, I thought of someone being considered 'green' or new or amateur at something. Perhaps this was an amateur knight who had never done a knightly task before and was looking to prove himself. But further reading removed that thought from my mind. This Green Knight seemed to know exactly what he was doing and was more manipulative and powerful than new and innocent. Green has natural themes as well, and this was my second thought. Sir Gawain, the apparent weakest of the men, offers to stand up to the Green Knight. If the Green Knight represented nature and the weakest was to battle the nature, I thought that maybe even the weakest of us humans can destroy nature even if we think we are powerless and weak. But looking back, that also seems to be a ridiculous conclusion. So I thought back to the basics. Back to expressions we've heard since kindergarten like the expression, "green with envy". Jealously is absolutely associated with the color green and who are the jealous people? The outsiders.

The Green Knight is described as a possible half-giant, like everyone's favorite Hogwarts friend, Hagrid. Characters like Hagrid simply enough, feel too big for this world and can't see to find their place in it. The Knight hands down reminds me of Frankenstein's monster. This monster had no choice but to exist, and although he tried to educate himself with literature and was only looking to help and do good, his actions were always mistaken for trying to harm someone else. He could never fit in no matter how much he tried. The same rings true for other literary monsters like Beowulf's ever-famous Grendel, who might have just been feeling left out of the party in the great hall or couldn't take all of the noise. To be green with jealously is definitely fitting. The Green Knight might have always felt like an outcast, understood by few. When you're alone, you constantly crave to fit in and be with people who can accept you for being yourself. But what if the knight had never found that crowd or sought acceptance? Over time, he would grow green with envy and could only occupy himself by striking fear in others. If people are scared or intimated of you, at least they're thinking of you. By instilling fear in others, The Green Knight created a reputation for himself and would definitely not be forgotten.

I think the symbolism of green is all about envy. The knight is envious of all these men who are accepted by others and can chat amongst themselves about whatever they please. In order to get attention, this knight had to spew riddles and strike up a fight in order to be noticed. Even his axe shows that he is blunt and to the point. He doesn't want to see people struggle or dodge their way out of things. It's quick and dirty. One swift swing. Words and rumors cut deep. All it takes is one swing to bring you down and get hurt. But although he takes the swing of the axe to his neck, he survives the blow. Maybe being attacked by others is dangerous and cruel, but no matter how deep the cut, there is an ability to survive by creating your own escape? Jealousy and the role of being the outcast has made The Green Knight so intimidating and strong that even a true weapon couldn't break his body completely, or his spirit.

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.