Medieval Wanderers

Julian of Norwich "Revelations of Divine Love"

2005-04-20T18:20:00.000-07:00

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

2005-04-13T23:11:00.000-07:00

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"

2005-04-10T20:45:00.000-07:00

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"

2005-04-08T06:08:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-04-05T09:21:00.000-07:00

I found this story interesting...I think because I really understand nor 'buy' the story. I feel like this story crosses that line between creating an element of fantasy and disbelief and pure conjecture where the plotline forces you to assume and agree with the author's assumptions in order to even simply follow the story. Let me explain more specifically...
Now perhaps it was my inexperience with Middle English and truly understanding/translating what is being said, but...
The story never explained for me WHY the judge deserved to be baptized after death so as to be able to enter heaven. The poem does as good a job as possible within the constraints of alliterative rhyming, of expressing the judge's good deeds and 'outstanding virtues' BUT why him. I am sure that there are many people who die who aren't baptized and yet lived virtuosly and honorable in God's sight. Why aren't they allowed post-death baptisms? I didn't feel like this poem estbalished for me why this man deserved above others a second chance. Also, isn't the whole point of Salvation and Christ being the only way through which man may enter heaven that we must make a decision here on earth before our deaths to accept him and serve him and according to the church of Middle English, be baptized. Well....why didn't the judge do this? If he lived so virtuously how did he manage to die and not be baptized? The story again fails to complete the exposition and crucial information needed to accept the premise of the story and thus experience the conclusion.
Well, now let us move on to Erkenwald himself... WHY him? What about Erkenwald made him so spectacular that he was the chosen priest to baptize the judge? God had preserved that body for some time. He obviously took great pains waiting just for the right moment and the right man. I am still unclear as to what made Erkenwald that man. The story appears to present the idea of Erkenwald being the priest that happened upon the corpse. Why hadn't someone happened upon it earlier? Did Erkenwald have 'magical' or 'holy' tears? Is that what made Erkenwald the man needed? His tears? See...(no pun intended) these are all questions that I couldn't answer, and yet so plauged me during the reading of the poem that I could concentrate on little else.
I don't want to leave you, my fellow Wanderers, with simply negativity and confusion. Therefore, here is a little taste of my conjecture (Peter this is mostly for you considering your blog on Gawain):
The Book describes the poem by stating "The miracle in question does not figure elsewhere in the saint's dossier. It appears to have been a pious invention of the poet himself" (221). Absolutely!!! If this were infact based even remotely in truth there would be other confirmations of it in church history and "mythology." The church appears to have been extremely meticulous in its stories and records of its saints, I wouldn't dare accuse them of a coincidental lax on Erkenwald's story. Rather, the poem gave me the 'vibe' of being more along the lines of a premature Gothic Novel. A gothic story with the inclusion of Christian theological elements (much like The Monk).
Now, that all said...I liked the poem. I love Gothic Novels and enjoyed that sort of feel to the poem. Also, the sections that I did translate, where absolutely beautifully written. It is not simply alliteration, but intricately and gloriously put together alliterative verse.

The Delinquent Sir Gawain and His Precious Green Knight

2005-03-28T23:04:00.000-08:00

This poem has been the subject (or victim, depending on your perspective) of a literal mountain of literary criticism, and I doubt I will say anything new on the topic. While this bothers me a bit because of my thirst for the unique and my distate for the cliche, I have promised to comment on this poem and so I shall.

Knowing the story line as I read the actual poem made for emphases on certain aspects of the poem which I dare say probably wouldn't have stood out if I'd been ignorant of the basic plot as I read the work. Two such aspects which particularly caught my attention are the near involvement of King Arthur and the theme of slothfulness in Gawain the Pure.

King Arthur almost kills the Green Knight himself. When the GK (which may also stand for the medieval "Gude Kwalitae" fashion guide) first issues his proposition, King Arthur steps into the ring because all of his knights are chicken. It is only the quick thinking and smooth talking of our dearly beloved Sir Gawan, nephew of the King, which prevents this tale from being "King Arthur and the Green Knight."

Suppose with me for a moment that Sir Gawain had been sick that first fateful evening, unable to attend the dinner. Pretend King Arthur had kindly cut the oddly colored knight in two, and the year has now passed: the King is now on his quest to let the rogue knight return his blow. Presuming the King would have been more honest than his beloved nephew, the poem may in fact have turned out to be an original version of "Mort d'Artur," leading one to the conclusion that Sir Gawain actually preserved the entire Arthurian kingdom by stumbling forward and asking for permission to bash the stranger.

Yet if King Arthur had allowed the GK to have his strike, would his enemy have actually cut him down? Or, if even Sir Gawain had returned the magic sash, would the knight have taken a slice at anyone at all?
My contention is that the Green Knight's character, as displayed through his unoffensive challenge at the King's Court and his hospitality expressed to Gawain, was not as interested in killing a challenger as he was interested in showing off his sash. If King Arthur had been his antagonist, I believe the knight would have refrained from killing Arthur simply because Arthur is king; if Gawain had been honest, I believe the knight would have let him go unharmed. So perhaps Gawain didn't actually do anything very heroic; all the same, it's an interesting thing to think about.

The development with slothfulness I mentioned was just noticing how the author has Gawain sleeping and relaxing all day while the Green Knight is out hunting and being productive. That is all.

So in sum: exactly.

"Sir Orfeo"

2005-03-22T10:12:00.000-08:00

I had never read or even heard of Sir Orfeo before working on it for this class, and I really think it has become one of my favorite of what I have read in this class. First, I was fasinated by the long history of the story, which I outlined in my presentation. After class, Shaina commented to me how the Orpheus story has been utilized in a modern play, again reminding me of the transcendence, really, of the story itself. It has been used in many different contexts--pagan Greek, Celtic, Christian, modern--and I would suggest that that is because of its resonance with the Great Eucatastrophe, as Tolkien would put it. In Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories," he speaks of the four elements of the fairy story: Fantasy, Recovery, Escape, and Consolation. I think that it is because Sir Orfeo fits this model so well that it is a recurring theme in literature. I found it particularly interesting how many Christians in the medieval period would interpret the story allegorically as Christ descending into hell to redeem the soul. In that way, the story ties in with the theme of the harrowing of hell, which we have already seen in Piers Plowman. I would be interesting in all of your opinions on Sir Orfeo as a fairy story (as defined by Tolkien) and on the Christianization of the story. Some more recent critics assert that any Christian interpretation of the story is reading into it something that is not there. Other aspects of the story that I liked besides the "echo of evangelium" were the beautiful fairies, who reminded me of Tolkien's Elves, the theme of married love (rather than adulterous love), the image of Orfeo as a saint figure in the wilderness, and the symbol of the harp as an enchantment that harmonizes the cosmos, nature, and the Otherworld.

"Pearl"

2005-03-06T22:07:00.000-08:00

Greetings fellow Wanderers:

I am sure that none of you are in doubt that I will have an opinion about "Pearl." I have to admit that I was excited to read it after having enjoyed "Patience" so much. Unfortunately, I hate to say that I was a little disappointed in this work. I found the repetition of certain words a little unnecessary, and in some places I realized I had forgotten all about the little pearl that started this dream sequence.

However, there are some things I feel are worth pointing out. At the beginning, I became very intrigued by the line in stanza three, which reads, "For all grass must grow from grains that are dead." I liked this because it reminded me that something must die in order for something else to live. In Romans 6:11 the scripture reads, "Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord." This idea of something dying so that something may live is never so important as it is in the context of Romans 6.

As I continued on through the work, I found very little else that stood out to me until I reached the end of the poem. As I read from stanza 93-96, I was reminded of the moment in Lewis's "Perelandra" when Ransom first sees the king on page 205. His description of the moment is so beautiful that I felt it coming back to me as I was reading these passages in "Pearl." Upon seeing the king for the first time, Ransom describes it as follows:

"It was that face which no man can say he does not know. You might ask how it was possible to look upon it and not commit idolatry, not to mistake it for that of which it was the likeness. For the resemblance was, in its own fashion, infinite, so that almost you could wonder at finding no sorrows in his brow and no wounds in his hands and feet. Yet there was no danger of mistaking, not one moment of confusion, no least sally of the will towards forbidden reverence. Where likeness was greatest, mistake was least possible."

In stanza 95 of "Pearl," the writer has penned the lines "Delight the Lamb to behold with eyes/Then moved my mind with wonder more:/The best was He, blithest, most dear to prize/Of whom I e'er heard tales of yore." I connected these passages because I feel the reader can truly get a sense from both writers of what it might be like to see the face "which no man can say he does not know."

Langland's "Piers Plowman"

2005-02-24T21:08:00.000-08:00

I had the opportunity to read a portion of Piers in English Literature. At that point in time, it did not leave a lasting impression on me. However, upon revisiting it I found it to a wonderful poem. Piers is popular because of the large number of surviving manuscripts and the significance it carries as a work of the Middle English language. I would like to present the idea that perhaps it is popular because it is a beautiful poem full of images and allegories that attempt to present and explain the complexities of life and great cosmic oppositions. Indeed, I feel that Langland wrote using a poetic language through which God could and still can speak. Somehow Langland makes the familiar new.
C.S. Lewis said “"What is truly exceptional about Langland is the kind, and the degree, of his poetic imagination," his "power of rendering imaginable what before was only intelligible." What I love about this quote is that Lewis puts into words exactly how I felt about Piers. There is something about the beautiful imagery that Langland uses that establishes a level of understanding for spiritual things that otherwise would not exist. Lewis went on to say: “the man who attains [such sublime moments] is a very great poet. He is not, indeed, the greatest poet of his century [;] . . . he is confused and monotonous, and hardly makes his poetry into a poem. But he can do some things which Chaucer cannot."
As you can read above, a word often used to describe Piers and/or Langland’s writing is Sublime. Often in the critique of literature, we come across this word. (I myself have encountered it on numerous occasions.) To be extremely honest and vulnerable I must admit… I have some sort of idea what Sublime means in the context of how it is repeatedly used. However, the exact meaning of the word is unknown to me. I understand that it is a fairly abstract word. I am curious as to how each of you has chosen to define this word and thus interact with it in the context of evaluating literature.
Lewis makes the statement: "Sublimity--so rare in Gower, and rarer still in Chaucer--is frequent in Piers Plowman" and to defend his point he utilized the examples of the Harrowing of Hell(B. 18. 262-428) and the coming of Kind to assist Conscience against the assault of Antichrist and Pride (B. 20. 80-81, 88-92). Taking this into consideration, I am curious if, based upon your definitions of Sublimity, you agree or disagree with this statement and why or why not. Do you think his examples prove his point, why or why not?

Dante Website and "Patience" Translation

2005-02-24T14:41:00.000-08:00

I know I said this already, but I really encourage all of you to read Dante if you have not done so already. Not only are his works profound, but he seems to be connected to so much else in the literary (and perhaps even non-literary) world. As promised, here is the website for the Dante Inferno Test: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv. Enjoy your path to self-discovery! :)

Also, Weltha was kind enough to lend me her translation of "Patience." If you want a copy, since there doesn't appear to be a non-Middle-English translation online, feel free to visit me in my office (ALSC/SLLE, LRC 3rd floor) and I'll make you a copy.

Patience

2005-02-23T20:02:00.000-08:00

I found in "Patience", written by the same author as that of Sir Gawain, Pearl and Purity, both comic elements and touches of God's care and kindness. I agree with the comments preceding "Patience" in our text that the emphasis, frequently humorous, is on Jonah's imperfections as a man. We are like Jonah: we rail at God's plan, go our own way, repent, receive His help and deliverance - and start the whole process over. The author made allusions to courtly love in his prologue where he says that "to that fair lady Poverty I am forced, / I shall do what I can to win Patience, and dally with both." (I am using a modern translation by John Gardner.) Jonah is indeed comic as he assumes that "If I were to bow to His bidding and bear them this news, / And take me to Nineveyh, my troubles would begin." He expects that he will be put in prison, tortured and his eyes put out. Yet later when he has been delivered from the belly of the whale and has willingly preached to Ninevah, he gripes that the results are just what he said they would be - the people of Ninevah would find God to be an old softie and he, Jonah, is now weary of life! He is sarcastic as he says "This is a marvelous message for a mortal to preach" and wonders if "because of some slip-up of mine [God] has decided to slay me." In the midst of Jonah's comic and broadly drawn anger and disgust at God, the writer still protrays God as both strong and kind. Indeed, the comments in our text are correct: salvation comes not from Jonah's preaching but from God's patience with Jonah. I like the part where before he gets on board ship, Jonah thinks that God would not be much upset "If I should be seized at Nineveh, stripped to the skin, / And stretched on a cruel cross in the company of thieves." Of course, this will happen, but not to Jonah. In a humorous irony, once again showing that God, not Jonah, is the patient one, the men on board ship who have prayed to any and every god for deliverance, worship God as the only true God and "have no other before him" once they realize that their troubles came from this prophet's disobedience. Finally, God contrasts how upset Jonah is over the death of the woodbine plant - which has received relatively little time, care and attention from Jonah - with God's love and concern for His work, mankind. God reminds Jonah that "Could I not endure but as you do, not many would thrive" driving home the point that patience is vital. He also compares Jonah to Grendel and exhorts him "whether in pain or in pleasure, be brave and be patient" finishing with the image of the man who weaves tatters in the wind. I loved the contrast of Jonah's childish stubborness (and his tendency to forget what he should have learned in the belly of the whale!) with God's stern kindness.

The Owl and the Nightingale

2005-02-15T09:27:00.000-08:00

I find it truly fascinating how much we like to make animals into humans. I believe that C. S. Lewis commented somewhere that animals become more human-like around people, and that in the same way, we become more godlike around God. In the Owl and the Nightingale, we see an example in this long tradition which includes Aesop's fables and Mickey Mouse. In literature and art, we not only want to experience what other humans experience, but what animals experience. And in so doing, we utilize them as another avenue of expressing the human experience. It reminds me of the Christian doctrine of man as microcosm. In man is the entirety of creation in miniature. Thus, we can find in the experience of animals, like the owl and the nightingale something very different from our experience, but at the same time very similar. We can use animals to explore and learn more about the human experience. In this poem the dialogue of the two birds brings out many issues that are common to human experience--the differences of personalit among people, the problems of judging people by sterotypes, and moral lessons.
I really enjoyed the lilting and comfortable feel of this poem in Middle English (even though, I must admit, I needed to use a translation to figure out all of what was going on). :) I was very interested in the fact that both birds utilized Kind Alfred as an authority. I think these quotations and other references to colloquial proverbs indicate what Lewis was talking about in the Discarded Image--the fact that medieval authors derived a lot of their knowledge from authority. Even so, the work also demonstrates a lot of common sense reasoning. It is not as though either argument is enitrely based on authority. Rather, there is a mixture of appeals to experience, reason, and authority.
Furthermore, the characterizations are so good that one can almost picture the nightingale and the owl discussing this with each other. We can see the character of the two birds in what they say and how they say it. The owl is slower of speech, more calm, and becomes deeply angry. In contrast, the nightingale is a little hyper, talks first and quickly, and is quick to attack. The author of this work contrasts them both in the arguments they give but also in the tone and voice of each of the birds. One really gets the feel of the two very different animals through the adept characterization of the author.
I really enjoyed this work, and interestingly enough, even though it was written by a medieval author in a very different culture than my own, I can relate to the aspects of human nature that the author draws out in the two birds.

The Long-Awaited Petersborough Chronicle Blog

2005-02-08T01:12:00.000-08:00

Sorry this took a bit of time, but the best things are worth waiting for, right? Just kidding.

I think it's obvious that the Peterborough Chronicle focuses very pointedly on the working actions of King Steven and contrasts them with the positive effects of the Abbot's plans.

It is interesting, however, how focused the author is on specific action: he does not specially address motives, ambitions, decisions, or general crimes against humanity. He somehow describes specific torture methods, starvation, and the results of both good and bad diplomacy, all without passing judgment. There is no pity for the people tortured or starving, no condemnation of the King apart from what others said about him, and no praise for the Abbot. The entire Chronicle is apparently devoid of commentary or authorial opinion. To that end, I think it is a better literary review of events than many news or analysis sources today have the capability of producing.

Yet the text includes a striking understanding of what people were saying at the time. This is particularly evident in how the author handles the notion that "Christ sleeps." It is not presented as either fact or opinion, true or false--that is simply the way it is. I think that reflects a critical difference between the middle ages and today. Modern communication seems unable to simply state what an author is thinking or observing without attaching some element of scientific evidential support. For position papers and official opinions on things in a democratic society, that's probably a good thing, but when it comes to simply expressing feeling, I believe most contemporary writers have generally lost the ability to express simple, weightless opinion. In the middle ages, perhaps that was more easily done; at any rate, it seems that's the case in the Petersborough Chronicle MS.

2005-02-03T09:09:00.000-08:00

I can see what Jana is saying--that there is a lack of depth to the York play of the crucifixion. The soldiers are rather flat characters. There seems to be a lot of dialogue that doesn't further the story or a theological purpose (however my ability to read Middle English may obscure my judgment of that :)).

Even so, there really was a decent amount of Scripture quoted in the play. Both of the monologues of Jesus were basically the Bible strung together. It is clear that the soldiers understand him to be blameless and that he is the supposed kind of the Jews. While there may be some extraneous information; it seems that the people would still have understood that this innocent man is dying, and that he is more than just a normal human. Also, there is an element of lengend that informs the play. Perhaps, our modern perspective, being unaware of these traditions, perceives them more as inventions that the medieval mind would. Also it's probably important to note that this scene is followed by the death; so, this is not by any means the entirety of the crucifixion. I think it would be interesting to compare the York play with Mel Gibson's The Passion, discussing the artistic liberty taken in both cases.

One can also sense the deprivation of the soldiers and their dramatic contrast with Jesus. Jesus is so silent throughout the play even though he is the main character. I would imagine that it would be more striking performed than read, where one could see Christ standing there silent before the baudy soldiers. I am sure there was an element of attempting to please the masses and hold their attention, and that is the reason for the presentation of the soldiers. However, one could argue, I think, that Mel Gibson's heavy use of violence would be an attempt to relate the crucifixion to today's audience. Furthermore, one could understand the play as an attempt to make the crucifixion real. How many church plays have we seen that try to do the same thing? They introduce extra characters and place certain emphases all for the purpose of helping the audience to enter into the story. Thus, while there is a theological purpose, there are also artistic and literary motives behind the play which shape the way it is written.

The York Play of the Crucifixion

2005-01-29T14:02:00.000-08:00

I have to begin by saying that I greatly enjoyed Shaina's presentation and the video Dr. Hall showed on Thursday. Both of these refreshed my memory and led me to a greater understanding of the mystery play genre in general, and I feel like my appreciation of this particular York play has deepened because of that understanding.

So, Middle English . . . here we are. Yikes. :) I realized very quickly that these readings are going to be much more challenging than I first expected, but I have great hope that as we immerse ourselves in the language, they will get easier.

My comments about the York play will be brief (I hope). I found it interesting that although the subject of the play is the Crucifixion, Jesus seems to be almost a marginal character. The soldiers' dialogue and action are the focal point--they are the entertainment. We "learn" what we learn about the Crucifixion not through Jesus' perspective or a perspective that sympathizes with Him but through the perspective of outsiders who seem to care more about the political implications of their involvement in His crucifixion than they do about the actual event. Where is the theological depth? If this play was constructed to teach the masses the biblical story, shouldn't it have contained more? The only truly moving moment is when Jesus speaks of His affliction and asks the Father to forgive the unknowing soldiers--and it almost seems out of place from the rest of the dialogue. Then again, can you imagine us all standing there on the streets in York around 1415, watching the drama unfold as the wagons rolled by? We wouldn't have been highly educated, most likely, so we probably would have needed all of the comic relief just to stay interested. And with all the other plays in the cycle, I suppose we would have gotten our share of the "real" story.

But still. . . . It was funny, and I appreciated its historical/literary significance, but I couldn't help feeling that it was somewhat lacking in quality. That's my take on it, anyway. What do you think?

The Discarded Image

2005-01-21T14:42:00.000-08:00

Welcome to Medieval Wanderers!!! This is the blog site for our English Medieval period class. Please feel free to post as often as you like, staying focused on the topic for the blog. For our first blog, we are commenting on The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Make sure you proof your writing well so that the site looks like it is written by English majors.

Please comment on the following quote from the Epilogue, especially noting the distinction Lewis makes between the words "know" and "truth." Explain what Lewis means, and apply these ideas to a postmodern culture in light of his entire discussion of the medieval model of the universe. After you discuss this, feel free to bring up anything else you want to about the book.

"I have made no serious effort to hide the fact that the old Model delights me as I believe it delighted our ancestors. Few constructions of the imagination seem to me to have combined splendour, sobriety, and coherence in the same degree. It is possible that some readers have long been itching to remind me that it had a serious defect; it was not true."

"I agree. It was not true. But I would like to end by saying that this charge can no longer have exactly the same sort of weight for us that it would have had in the nineteenth century. We then claimed, as we still claim, to know much more about the real universe than the medievals did; and hoped, as we still hope, to discover yet more truths about it in the future. But the meaning of the words 'know' and 'truth' in this context has begun to undergo a certain change."