Julian of Norwich "Revelations of Divine Love"

As the guest exclaimed at the Marriage Feast at Cana when Jesus turned the water into wine, "Surely you have saved the best for last!" This is my response to Julian of Norwich. I have throughly enjoyed reading and studying it for my presentation Thursday 21 April 2005. I was interested in several issues. First, Julian's repeated declarations that she believes "what Holy church teaches, for in all things I saw this blessed showing of our Lord as one who is in the presence of God, and I never peceived anything in it that bewilders me or keeps me from the true teaching of Holy Church" (11). She first mentions this in Chapter 6 (ST) and again in Chapter 16 (ST), saying "God showed me the very great pleasure he takes in men and women who strongly and humbly and eagerly receive the preaching and teach of Holy Church; for he is Holy Church; he is the foundation; he is the substance" (24). It appears to me that not only circumvents charges of heresy but she claims authority for her revelations, or as she put it, "showings." Second, I was interested in the way her requests and God's showings so frequently appear in threes. This seems to me to fit in with the recurring emphasis on the Trinity. Third, the coherence and comprehensiveness of her understanding of the "showings." They seem to "hang together" and build from showing to showing. The Long Text (LT) provides such a richness of reinterpretation as in the 5th showing where she laughs during the revelation of the Passion defeating the Fiend, and states "it pleases him [Christ] that we should laugh to cheer ourselves, and rejoice in God because the Fiend has been conquered" (13). It brought to mind the chapel with Rodney Howard Brown. She expands on this in the Long Text, saying "I wished that all my fellow Christians had seen what I saw and then they would all have laughed with me" (61) and develops the theme of the sorrow of men that the devil caused will be turned to joy on the Judgement Day and the sorrow he "would have liked to bring them will go with him eternally to hell" (62). Fourth, the emphasis on Jesus as our Mother who in his humility and gentleness sustains us with himself and the connection with the holy sacrament. Our text notes that this is "no literary conceit but a reflection of medieval scientific understanding that milk is reprocessed blood" (xxii). Finally, I saw clearly what Aimee mentioned in class concerning Julian transmuting the courtly ideal into the a spiritual truth as Julian mentions Christ's "courtesy." I would be interesting in seeing responses to any of these topics or of course, any aspect of Julian's writing that stood out to you.

Layamon’s Brut

Before I say anything else, I want to say that the title I’m using for this blog in no way represents a correct spelling of the author’s name. However, since the “yogh” (funny-looking squiggly letter) doesn’t want to transfer to this website, this spelling will have to do. Most of the research on Brut spells the author’s name “Layamon,” although I’ll discuss the problems with this when I give my presentation.

We find in Brut a history of the kings of England, which Layamon wrote based on a French work by a Norman author (Wace), which Wace wrote based on a Latin work by a French author (Geoffrey of Monmouth). Something that struck me as interesting, as I read this, was how very “English” it was. Though it was composed after the Norman Conquest, there are very few French words, and thematically it seems to glorify the British kings of old. Even the poetic techniques utilized in Brut resemble Old English more than Middle English. I wonder if Layamon wanted to record his history of the English kings (the first such record in the English language) so that, in that blending of Norman and Saxon tradition that was beginning to occur, the inherently British parts of their history, mythology, and society would be preserved.

Although composed in the early 1200s, Brut is written in a much more archaic version of Middle English (quite similar to Old English) than many of the works we have read lately. I found that, stylistically, Brut almost seemed to be more a product of Anglo-Saxon times than a product of the Middle Ages. Do you agree or disagree? What elements of Brut seem to be Anglo-Saxon?

Personally, the section of Brut printed in our textbook is not one of my favorite parts, although it’s a significant moment because it’s when Arthur decidedly defeats the Saxons and drives them from the land (they’ve been more than a nuisance for many, many years at this point). I was trying to think why that section, as opposed to some of the others, was included, and I wonder if perhaps it is stylistically important in some way. In this blog, I’d love to see a discussion on the Anglo-Saxon elements in this work, as well as any thoughts you have on Layamon’s depiction of Arthur as compared to your previous perceptions of the Arthurian figure. And of course, anything else you think is interesting.

Chaucer's "Reeve's Tale" and "Prioress's Tale"

First, I enjoyed very much the contrast of the two types of stories ("The Reeve's Tale," a comic fabliau, based out of two similar French analogues, Jean Bode's "Gombert and the Two Clerks" and the anonymously written "The Miller and the Two Clerks," and "The Prioress's Tale," a Miracle of the Virgin) and of the types of characters who relate them: the reeve, a "cherle" as our text says, and a religious. If you have not yet had a chance to read these in a modern translation, click on the following link. At the left of the page, you will be able to choose the Edition (choose Modern English) and Tale/Section (choose either The Reeve or The Prioress.)

http://www.canterburytales.org/canterbury_tales.html

I enjoyed the sense of "revenge" in The Reeve's Tale, which appears on several levels. First, as our text tells us, a reeve, as a foreman of an estate, would be likely to harbor resentment against millers since most millers were considered to cheat those for whom they ground grain. The Miller's Tale ends with a carpenter - similar to Chaucer's reeve, Oswald, who is a carpenter - being cuckolded, beaten and humiliated. The Prologue makes clear that Oswald did not find the Miller's tale funny and that he forbears to respond in kind, although that is precisely what he does. The miller Simon (or Symkyn) is not only cuckolded but his daughter is violated or ravished depending on how one interprets the story (more on this later.) Thus, a miller is humilated just as a carpenter had been. There is also the revenge within the story itself of the two cheated students upon Simon for chasing off their horse and stealing some of the flour belonging to the university. But I suggest that there is also a third revenge: the wife, pretending to strike Aleyn (Allan), actually beats her own husband. One online criticism of the text (by Gary L. Balliet, in his essay, "The Wife in Chaucer's Reeve's Tale: Siren of Sweet Vengeance") suggests that the wife has been humiliated by her marriage to Simon and considers Aleyn and Symkyn to be "doubles" and uses this as her chance for revenge. Of course, another way to look at this tale is to view the wife and daughter as victims who are denied their voice in protest at what is little more than a rape (although the wife is said to have a "merie" time, and Chaucer tells us thatAleyn and the daughter Malyn are "hard at it.") Yet another way to look at the tale is that it may well be more "true to life" in all its hardness and baseness concerning this particular social stratum of the Middle Ages. Still, I found elements of humor in it despite what may appear to be the victimization of the two women, perhaps not coincidentally, manage each in their own way to get back at the miller whose behavior has led to this situation. I enjoyed the commentary that the story provides concerning morality and honor.

"The Prioress's Tale" is quite different not only in tone - there is nothing even remotely humorous in this story of death and devotion - but in the treatment of a dark issue: anti-Semitism. While I prefer to think that the anti-Semitism of the story is Chaucer's commentary on the anti-semitism of the Middle Ages (despite papal stances condemning persecution of the Jews during this period) and "belongs" as it were to the Prioress and not to Chaucer, a case can be made for it belonging to Chaucer himself. I found much of the story to reflect the story of the innocent Joseph, betrayed by his brothers who wished for his death: ll. 113-114 state: "Fro thennes forth the Jewes han conspired / This innocent out of this world to chace" or "From that time on, the Jews plotted to rid the earth of this innocent child." Further echoes of the Joseph story are found in line 119 ("And kitte his throte and in a pit hym caste" - Joseph was thrown into a pit), lines 124-125 ("Mordre wol out, certeyn it wol nat faille, / And namely theras th'onour of God shal sprede" - Joseph reminds his brothers that "though you meant it for evil, God mean it for good") and line 175 ("This newe Rachel bringen fro his beere" - the boy's widowed mother [similar to Joseph's widowed father] is a "second Rachel" and Rachel was the mother of Joseph.) This tale seems to me to make a microcosm of the Prioress: she is at once anti-Semitic in her story which resonates with all the persecution of the innocent by wicked Jews such as Herod and this is "not a good thing" and yet she advocates devotion to Christ's mother Mary who aids the weak and helpless, and this is a "good thing." She is like all of mankind: flawed, yet able to receive God's grace.

In addition, to me, the "kernel" or "grain" placed by Mary on the boy's tongue represents the Eucharist, and reminds the reader that Mary herself points to the Son she bore as the "white flower."

I would like to see discussion on both tales concerning either some of the points I have raised or others that occur to you.

The Delightfully Gruesome "Confessio Amantis"

We have already discussed the morbid nature of our section of Confessio Amantis. Therefore, I will waste no great space in rehashing our earlier discussion. However, there is one quote I would like to mention. I was a little irritated with Rosemounde when her husband said to her "'Drink with thi fader, dame', he seide./And sche to his biddinge obeide" (Lines 153-154). The woman doesn't even question her husband as to what she is drinking from. Certainly she can see she is drinking from a golden skull. Does she not even question if this is a real skull or not?

All right, here is the real topic of my blog. C. S. Lewis said that "the artistry of the Confessio Amantis has not always been recognized. Gower has told us that his design was to 'go the 'middel weie/And wryte a bok betwen the tweie,/Somewhat of lust, somewhat of lore'—that is, in a more familiar critical language, to combine 'profit with delight'" (The Allegory of Love 198).

First of all, I love that Lewis uses the word 'artistry'. It gives me a sense that I am reading something wonderful, and not just another story about someone at war who killed someone's loved one.

Secondly, I have to admit, for myself, that I am usually one to shy away from the morbid. Yet I found that I was strangely fascinated, or if you will, delighted, by the story, especially during the more gruesome sections. I found the skull business to be rather interesting. It makes me wonder if the writer has anything to do with that feeling.

Therefore, I pose the following questions. Is Gower successful in combining 'profit with delight'? Also, do the more gruesome scenes seem to be the more delightful to read, or is that just me? Finally, do you feel that the use of 'confession' makes a greater impact than if the story had been written with a narrator, as Lewis suggests in his book?