Farewell, all!

Thanks for a great semester! I wish you all the best!

Who likes Harry Potter? I DOOOOOOOOO!

After looking at series of passages in Harry Potter, I've come to the final conclusion that everyone seems to truly love Harry because he's considerably a underdog throughout the plot and people love to "exist" in a world other than the real world. A world of fiction. It allows you to temporarily escape your "current world" and focus on the plot of the story that let us say something that is going on in your life. Many people actually cherish the opportunity to escape to another dimension or realm. I know myself, I certainly loved and cherish books by Nicholas Sparks and I remember getting so heart-felt and mushy feeling when I read novels like The Lucky One or The Notebook. It was great to able to kind of transport myself into a different realm and feel happy and content when I had to endure a hot and boring day at work haha! Mainly, what I think is absolutely outstanding is the fact that Harry seems so timid and apprehensive, yet his true courage, bravery, and heroism shines through in the scary situations he encounters like when he was in The Forbidden Forest and he sees Lord Voldemort drinking the blood of a unicorn or even when he goes through all the "traps" to protect the Sorcerer's stone from Lord Voldemort who we later find out "inhabits" the body of Professor Quirrell. Does anyone feel the same about Harry?

What The Hell Cinderella?

I thought the Brothers Grimm stories were certainly different to say the least. I thought it was crazy how far stretched out these versions were compared to the initial stories I was used to! For example, take the Hansel and Gretel story. At first glimpse, it seemed as though not much changed but after recalling the version I was used to I began to notice different small details. The version I was just used to Hansel and Gretel only dropped bread, not pebbles as well. I also did not recall from the version I was used to the part where there was a step-mother who was essentially a big jerk and convinced the father, her husband, to ditch the kids in the woods because they were so poor and hungry. The way I remember it, they siblings initially just got lost in the woods or something along those lines. After the beginning, some parts of the story seemed recognizable- even towards the end. HOWEVER, I was very thrown off at the ending involving the duck used to get across the lake. I had absolutely NEVER heard of that ending to Hansel and Gretel. But it does seem to make sense, considering they siblings wanted to use the duck as a symbol of guidance to get across the lake and make it home. That was certainly interesting. As far as the stories come, Hansel and Gretel was not too bad. I will say that the Brothers Grimm version of Cinderella is all types of screwed up! Some changes I noted first off in the story, the father was not dead- in fact he was a jerk for allowing the stepmother and stepsisters to gang up on his daughter and even give her the name Cinderella. Moving on in the story, we saw consistencies in Brothers Grimm version to Disney, where the stepmother and stepsisters were jerks and did not want to let Cinderella go to the ball. However, in Brothers Grimm- the ball lasted for 3 consecutive days.....they really knew how to party I suppose! Cinderella also got her dress from a hazelnut tree so in Brothers Grimm it was interesting not to see a fairy godmother aspect. Can we just examine the part where the princes on the third day of the ball tries to trap Cinderella by putting a sticky substance on the stairs to make her feet stick. What the hell?! So she loses the shoe....obviously. Thus, when the prince arrives at the family's home to try on the shoes of all the ladies, the stupid stepsisters are told by their mother to cut off their heel and big toe to make their feet fit the shoe so they can become queens. UM WHAT?! Then of course, he finds Cinderella and it all works out because her foot fits....but wait it's not over......at their wedding the stepsisters get their eyes pecked out by birds. Seriously?

 

Jessica Morales' Post #1 of 5

Who is Merlin?

When you picture Merlin in your mind, what do you see?

Someone like this?

Or this?

Or, for lots of people now, someone more like this?

How do the two early stories of Merlin that we are reading compare to your expectations? Geoffrey of Monouth's Merlin dates from the 1130s and Robert de Boron's from around 1200. They are the foundation of all the many different versions of Merlin we have today, but many of my students notice the differences more than the similarities. How do these versions of Merlin surprise you?

I look forward to hearing what you all have to say about Merlin in your own posts and comments!

A little bit of everything...plus a bag of chips- Jessica Morales

Jessica Morales
Blog Post Assignment

 

 

I thought it was insanely interesting the topic of Necromancy and Clerics. I could hardly believe that these clerics that were supposed to be doing holy practices and studying holy beliefs would take part in the magic and "demonic ways." What I couldn't understand is why these "holy" clerics would even want to take part in the magic if they know the consequences of their actions. However, reading into Kieckhefer's chapter 7, he further develops the ideas of why one would want because “…it is used to affect other people’s minds and wills. Secondly, the necromancer can create illusions. Third, is to discern secret things, whether past, present, or future” (Kieckhefer 158). That’s certainly a powerful ability to have and to think you could have that power over someone could definitely be tempting. Just imagine, being able to convince someone, like for example, how freaking cool would it be to convince like Barack Obama to give me a million dollars just because I had asked him to! Not one single person could tell me that would not be amazing!! Then again, we definitely have to take into consideration that these clerics were very much skilled to perform these sorts of acts. They had the specific knowledge or “Basic knowledge of the rites of exorcism, and perhaps an acquaintance with astrological images and other kinds of magic, might well lead them to experiment with conjuration” (Kieckhefer 154). We also must see that they serve their own form of punishment in their own way because Kieckhefer tells of story where a man “…was snatched from the demons’ jaws…Finally a monastery in Vienna took him in, and he gained fame for his holiness and preaching, but even so found himself molested by demons through life” (Kieckhefer 156). What I also thought was INSANELY interesting was that necromancers have the ability to perform something called: image magic. Essentially what image magic and it was defined: “…the action carried out on the image is transferred to the person represented. Thus, love magic may involve writing the names of demons on an image of the intended person, so that these demons will afflict her until she submits to the necromancer’s will. To gain favor from some dignitary the magician carves an image of that person, bearing a crown if he is a king, or other symbols of power as the case demands” (Kieckhefer 163). Holy Jesus, was my initial thought. I thought that it was absolutely INSANE that a person who had these capabilities could influence you and control you to an absolute degree and force you to be under their control until you essentially give in to them. What I actually found to be quite humorous was not only did Clerics participate in all these crazy demonic forces but they also had a book or “instructional” manual to tell them of how to do so. Some of these texts included: the Munich Handbook, Treasury of Necromancy, and the Book of Solomon. Oddly enough one would assume that the book would entail of rituals of how to harm people or just overall control them, however, it is quite the contrary. These books told of really explicit rituals such as: “…baptizing images, fumigating the head of a dead person, adjuring one demon by the name of a higher demon, inscribing characters and signs, and invoking unfamiliar names” (Kieckhefer 157). Later, we see Kors and Peters tell of many outcomes people faced and suffered because of “witchcraft.” On page 178, it states, “…many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith, give themselves over to devils male and female…ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women.” That’s a very strong statement to make and a very crucial one at that because at the time so children were considered very precious. Children were so precious because of the fact they had a tendency to not make it. Although throughout parts of our text, we see many accusations of witches made, specifically who were women, it was quite interesting to see the accusation made that women were more than likely to be witches based on biblical texts. Kors and Peters make the argument that a woman is likely to be a witch because, “...it should be noted that there was a defet in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives” (K/P 184). I thought that was absolutely and HIGHLY controversial because as the creation of woman happened, God intended to create her from the rib of a man to essentially make her equal and one with him. Now, we see an alternative view as Kors and Peters try to declare that there was a defect in the making of women. Damn, if only we had the return option, right? Continuing with this chapter’s topic, I thought it was QUITE humorous that they claimed another defect to women and it being their voice, haha!!!! The humor kicks in when the text states, “For as she is a liar by nature, so in her speech she stings while she delights us. Wherefore her voices like the song of the Sirens, who with their sweet melody entice the passers-by and kill them. For they kill them by emptying their purses, consuming their strength, and causing them to forsake God ” (K/P 187). Wow, talk about sounding like a back-handed compliment! As the chapter continues, I find it very odd how it makes a strange transition from witches and women to demonic forces. Then I definitely became undoubtedly confused because the text proceeds to say of demons that, “they can see absent things as if they were present; they can turn the minds of men to inordinate love or hatred; they can at times strike whom they will with lightning, and even kill some men and animals” (K/P 190). What the hell? They just spent the last few chapters arguing of how women suck because they’re actually awesome (at least would be in our time period) and then turn around and say oh sorry guys it was really the demons who do all the “heavy-lifting.” I suppose my question really is: why put so many through tortures and then proclaimed that it was really a complete separate entity that causes these demonic forces. I guess it’s the fact that a witch or necromancer comes into contact or connection with demonic forces does it make it that much work. If you asked me my opinion, I would honestly be more afraid of a demon or the Devil than I would be of a witch or necromancer. However, I can certainly see why people were of afraid of these witches and necromancers and it was most likely because they had those “additional readings” of the: the Munich Handbook, Treasury of Necromancy, and the Book of Solomon. Oddly, enough a conjuration of a devil in the Munich Handbook is derived and adapted from an exorcism which would be used to expel an evil entity from a person or place. This conjuration states, “The Word made flesh commands you. He who was born of a virgin commands you. Jesus of Nazareth, who created you, commands you, to fulfill at once all that I ask of you, or all that I wish to have or to know. For the longer you delay in doing what I command or order, the more your punishment will increase from day to day. I exorcise you, O accursed and lying spirit, by the words of truth” (Kieckhefer 167). What the actual hell! Does anyone see the insanity in this? It is absolutely for me to think how it is even possible for this to be considered an adapted exorcism used to conjure demons. I am very puzzled by this. Now I supposed this would be my last puzzling question, is if the world knew texts like these existed and they were trying to prevent necromancy, witches, and overall the magic realm then why not get your hands on the texts and destroy them?

http://replygif.net/i/875.gif

Mischievous Magic: Kramer and Sprenger Did Not Get The Joke

Before I begin, I would like to credit one person who, in my excitement, I forgot to mention in my presentation. I would like to thank my friend Stephan Vandevander (Lord Morien MacBain), who lent me supplementary reading material about witchcraft, and an actual copy of the Malleus Maleficarum. I also meant to say "and as my friend, the Honorable Lord Morien MacBain says, there are peasants killing the chivalry of Europe.... This can't be God's plan!!" However, I neglected to credit him in that phrase and for that I apologize. I am very grateful for his help.

 

Behold his awesomeness and tremble!!!
 

Credit for photo goes to Sam Silva

Now that that is done onto my main point. There is a portion of the text that contains a passage that I am sure was a joke. I don't mean a joke in the sense that it is really bad logic, or an example clearly taken out of context to prove a point (thus making it a joke of an argument). I mean that there is literally a joke in the text that Kramer and Sprenger cite as an example of witchcraft supposedly in the real world. The passage in Question is on page 203.

"For a certain man tells that, when he had lost him member, he approached a known witch to ask her to restore it to him. She told the afflicted man to climb a certain tree, and that he might take which he liked out of a nest in which there were several members. And when he tried to take a big one, the witch said: You must not take that one; adding, because it belonged to a parish priest." (Page 203)

 

http://images.wikia.com/thehungergames/images/f/fd/1346839458-auto-dafuq-dafuq-did-i-just-read-200165.jpeg

.......... That passage was a joke. Seriously, it was a joke. The reasons I believe this include:

 

1. Unlike the examples that are given on pages 199-202, no specific names or locations are mentioned. Thus it does not have any actual information that could be used to properly document or verify the story. This passage could easily apply to anyone, anywhere, in any situation. Thus it has greater mass appeal, which is useful for a joke.

 

2. It lays out the situation quickly, so that it can hold the audience's attention without wearing out its welcome... like the structure of a good joke.

 

3. It has some social commentary in it (the "member" can only be taken from those who have been doing sinful acts with their "member," and somehow the priest's "member" ended up in the tree with the rest (page 202-203)). Social commentary is a feature found in many jokes, especially in political satire.

4. It even has a punch line! "You must not take that one (the big member); adding, because it belonged to a parish priest." (page 203)

 

Kramer and Sprenger treated the example above as just another serious example of witchcraft around them; however, because of all of the reasons I just mentioned, I believe this this passage was originally intended to be a joke. So what happened?

"Oh no! I sent them the wrong bird. They're going to get the one with my indecent, witch-based humor! Quick get it back!!!"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4349216-3x2-940x627.jpg

            Either someone brought Kramer and Sprenger this tale and somehow manage to convince them that it was 100% legitimate, or (I think more likely) these two were so joyless that they literally did not know a joke when they heard one. I say this because they treated everything in this book completely seriously; despite the fact that, even back when this text was written, there were people who would have seen some of this as weird and/or comical. There are several examples in the text that could be seen as humorous, but Kramer and Sprenger didn't even acknowledge it. I can't recall one instance where they wrote anything like “Despite how strange this seems, it really happened and it is a subject to be treated seriously.” They just plow straight through as though there was nothing possibly amusing in the least about anything that they were writing. Which is why I feel that, even when presented with something that was meant to be a joke, Kramer and Sprenger failed to see any humor in it.

Nope, there is nothing funny about this at all. Move along citizens.

http://api.ning.com/files/wD-b8tJJjO2gZMYVwll5vnnERg-eIpUrxIx94j06cf79jCaod3ec2rpx20wolekTNMAwP7Z3gZzpqJAhHgVoVF5RpLGuVDn*/cap_ghostbusters_cinebug_5.jpg

I get the feeling that these two are the kind of guys that if you asked them "Why did the chicken cross the road?" They would say "The better question is: how did the chicken escape from its pen? I shall tell you. It is because the devil has sent agents among us to attack farmers and steal out livestock!" Then they would write a 150 page long book on the subject, in which they still manage to have a 75 page long rant about the inherent wickedness of women. This book would be guild to hunt down the devil's cattle thieves and help track down chickens in the act of crossing roads.

"Come back chicken! You will not escape the Inquisition!!!"

 

http://whatexitnj.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Chicken-crossing-the-road-in-Lexington-NC-Donnie-Robberts-AP-SF-Gate1.jpg

Fear, instability, and community

Over the past few days' worth of readings and classes, I have realized a glaring omission from my own magic influence map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Witch_of_Blackbird_Pond.jpg

I am mortified to have forgotten one of the formative books of my childhood! Not only was it the first book I read that used the word "Damn!" (I will never forget seeing that on the page - we were on a road trip to my grandparents' house. I thought I was so grown-up and sophisticated to be reading a book with cursing!) but it was also the first time I'd ever thought about what it meant to be accused of witchcraft in a small town in the 17th century.

Although our sympathies while reading this novel do not lie with the accusers, Speare nonetheless shows us why perfectly reasonable, faithful people might look for a witch among them. The people of Wethersfield, CT, live in a small and tight-knit community. When crops are bad, everyone suffers. When disease strikes, everyone knows a victim. Times are hard, and it's sometimes hard to believe that the God you love is allowing you and yours to suffer.

Who wouldn't understand the desire to find a scapegoat?

Of course, the scapegoats they find are the outsiders: young Kit Tyler, the newly-arrived granddaughter of a prominent Royalist from Barbados, is suspect at a time when the king is trying to take away the colonies' hard-earned rights. Hannah Tupper, a Quaker who was branded and expelled from Massachusetts Colony, is suspect because she refuses to attend the town's religious services, which do not fit her beliefs. 

Our friend Bernadino of Siena is like the folks who accuse Kit and Hannah. Is he misguided? Sure. Are his methods questionable? Absolutely. But does he act out of hatred, or a desire to do harm? Unlikely. He's concerned for his community, and fearful that by harboring unorthodox behavior, he and everyone he knows may be held to account, either on earth or in heaven. 

He and all of the accusers and inquisitors have many important lessons to teach us. Most of them are lessons about what NOT to do. But in today's world, where we are taught to look out for #1 rather than caring about our responsibilities to others, we also have to remind ourselves that their regard for their neighbors is nothing to be outraged about.

One Man's Musings on Magic in this Medieval Poem: Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

This probably my fourth or fifth time reading this passage of Gawain and the Green Knight and I always get a kick out of it. 

There were a few moments that really captured my attention. For example, the Green Knight was surprised that no one took up his challenge (on lines 301-315). A giant green man on a giant green horse burst into the great hall with no warning, issued his challenge (which involves taking turns being hit with a huge sharp ax), and he was surprised that the crowd hesitated? I would not be surprised if a few knights suspected something.

<http://cdn.instanttrap.com/trap.jpg>

 At least from my perspective, if some guy bursts into my dining area and asks casually if I want to do something that should kill him, and then afterwards he will get to do that thing to me, I’m going to think some shenanigans are involved.

Although, I don't know.... This guy looks trustworthy.

<http://api.ning.com/files/YT1pzXfaiucsJdwdca-ZO5Qv8ISow1CjJD2vT8pnUCDPXtRnl86QUgEehhbpEVP8hCQ0CLuNueI*KnuRabEfGpwdu-aNwxZq/knightimage.jpg>

On an even odder note, after Gawain decapitates the Green Knight, and the Knight rides off carrying his own still speaking head, King Arthur and Gawain just start laughing. On lines 462-464 it reads "What thenne? / The Kyng and Gawen thare / at that grene thay laghe and grene" or, in the translated version, it reads "and then? / Well with the green man gone / they laughed and grinned again." This part of the story just fascinates me. A giant green man came out of nowhere, survived being beheaded thus spelling doom for Sir Gawain, and everyone including Gawain just shrugs it off. Granted Arthur was a little surprised, but that's it. According to the translation "Arthur was awestruck at heart" (line 467). He is not worried or concerned for Gawain, Arthur was just surprised. This must be the ultimate testament to the weird stuff that the Knights of the Round Table deal with on a regular basis, because everyone’s repose to this whole situation was essentially "Well... that just happened. On with the feast!"

The Green Knight probably seemed pretty strait forward when compared to this anyway.

< https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Rabbitattack.jpg>

            Overall I think this passage, and the entire text in general, tends to reflect the idea that in the late 14^th century magic was not yet viewed as inherently evil. When the knight first arrived, as unworldly as he appeared and armed with a huge ax, Arthur’s first reaction (on lines 250-255) was to offer him a kind greeting and hospitality. One does not usually respond this way to a person one suspects could be an agent of evil. Even after the knight was decapitated, thus demonstrating supernatural powers of some kind, no one shouts “sorcery!” and goes to burn him. Instead, everyone had a good laugh at this remarkable occurrence and got on with the feast. 

Magic in this story seemed to be treated as either a neutral force (neither inherently good nor evil), or at the very worst magic was viewed as mischievous in nature. I believe this because despite the fact that the Green Knight was clearly magical, he was not treated as a force of evil. The Green Knight was actually treated very well until he started to mock the honor of Arthur’s court. The Green Knight was extended hospitality, allowed to issue his unusual challenge, and then leave once the challenge was done without anyone trying to tie him to a stake and set him on fire.

The magical powers are one thing, but there is no excuse for poor table manners.

<http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2011/2/18/1298031677605/Tyndale-at-the-stake-007.jpg>

This is why I believe, based on the text that we read, in the 14th century magic was not yet viewed as inherently evil. On a closing note, I invite you to witness the disembodied taking head of the Green Knight, as played by Sean Connery in what seems to be a really cheesy film from the 1980’s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BrwSroSCvE

This actually happened.

<http://image.toutlecine.com/photos/s/w/o/sword-of-the-valiant-1982-04-g.jpg>

Welcome!

Welcome to our course blog for Medieval Magic and Mysticism!

Over the course of the semester, we'll be diving into a number of challenging and controversial topics. We'll not only be thinking about magic, religion, and science, but also considering the ways these categories are tied up with issues of gender, class, and morality. Along the way, we will also be thinking about the ways that medieval understandings of magic continue to influence the pop culture of today.

It will be an exciting three months, and I look forward to beginning the journey with you all!

The Fellowship of the Ring, image archived @ hidefninja.com forums