Thomas Aqui-nasty

I’m here to kind of go over our boy Thomas Aquinas and (hopefully) shed a little more light on his work.

Thomas Aquinas, while being completely revolutionary to the world of philosophy and theology, leaves much to be desired in his manner of writing. Believe it or not, chapter 3 of Kors & Peters’ Witchcraft in Europe has excerpts from some of his most prestigious and well-read works. The Summa theologiae and the Summa contra gentiles helped shape and mold the way in which religion was practiced and taught within the Roman Catholic Church. It is important to note that prior to Aquinas’ melding of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology, there hadn’t been a significant change in the Roman Catholic Church since Augustine some 900 years prior. A lot of the time I think people assume that the Medieval Era was the dead period in time between the Classical Era and the Renaissance, when this obviously wasn’t the case.

<http://www.stpeterslist.com/11585/aquinas-is-not-impressed-11-memes-of-the-angelic-doctor/>

But wait, how does all this religion stuff fit in with magic? Don’t worry, I’ve got your back.

The excerpts taken from the Summa contra gentiles and the Summa theologiae don’t explicitly deal with the inner workings of magic, but more on the origins of magic and how it relates to a divine hierarchy. You’re not going to get obscure details on spells and potions from Aquinas, he was God’s #1 fanboy, so everything he wrote was in reference to God or how things worked within His plan.

Aquinas lays out a hierarchy of beings/institutions within the divine and mundane world – how they interact, who has control over what, what things are off limits to who, etc. You can look at this almost like an elaborate board game or an RPG. So the players in this hierarchal game are as follows: God, Devil/demons, heavenly bodies, nature, and humans. God is the man on top with the knowledge of everything that is going on. For my fellow nerd-folk, he’d be your Dungeon Master. Within God’s spectrum there is nature – for lack of a better comparison, nature is like the setting of a book and God is the narrator, he fills up the space with stuff. Within nature (and therefore God’s plan) you have the Devil/demons, heavenly bodies, and humans. These three things overlap at varying degrees because they all take place in tandem, within nature. The Devil/demons have more knowledge of nature – that is why they are able to distort a human’s perception of it (oh wow that sounds a lot like magic!) There is some overlap with heavenly bodies (basically astrology) and humans as well, but from the excerpt we have of Aquinas’ Summa contra gentiles we can infer that heavenly bodies have a more passive role in the lives of humans.

Lastly, the final player in the hierarchal game is free will. This is something that humans have (only humans) that somehow manages to fit into God’s will. The debate on whether or not that is possible should be something saved for another time, but it’s there according to Aquinas and I can’t bring myself to argue with him.

<http://www.stpeterslist.com/11585/aquinas-is-not-impressed-11-memes-of-the-angelic-doctor/>

P.S. And as my gift to you, here are helpful (and reputable) links. Explore them, use them, love them. Become one with the links.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~humanities/1/st_tips.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/

Magical Segregation, or Why I'm Not a Potterhead

I think the biggest magic-related news story right now is that of JK Rowling's announcement that she is going to be screenwriting a movie based on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, a book that exists within the world of Harry Potter. It seems like I can't escape this story; people have been flipping out about it on Tumblr and Facebook since its announcement. It's gotten bad enough that I have to make an important announcement: I am not, nor have I ever been, a fan of Harry Potter.

While a huge chunk of the reason behind my distaste for the series stems from its popularity (I'll be honest, there is a bit of a hipster side to me), mostly because the fans can be...obnoxious, to say the least (I remember the days when the fandom pretty much ruled LiveJournal), there are other reasons, too. I never found many of the characters to be very interesting, with the exceptions of Luna and Neville, both of whom ended up being as awesome as I hoped they would be. The characters everyone seemed to adore--Snape being a major example--always seemed gross and needy to me, and I will never understand their appeal. I think a large part of my avoidance of Harry Potter for my teen years, and the reason I only decided to give it another chance when I was twenty-one, was the separation of the "muggle" and magical worlds.

Yes, there was some overlap between them. There had to be, with characters like Hermione, who had muggle parents (don't even get me started on my hatred of the term "muggle"), but it seemed like, at Hogwarts at least, students didn't need to learn practical things like normal kids did. Where were the science classes, the regular math classes (okay, they had a wizard equivalent, but I don't count that), even literature classes? If they existed, we didn't really see them through Harry's eyes. Of course there would be more of an emphasis on magic for the students at a magical school, but what if one day magic disappeared? Those kids would be woefully underprepared for a world without magic. Hermione would probably be okay, but kids like Ron would be completely lost. The segregation of the magical and non-magical worlds has always seemed pretty ridiculous to me.

I think that, despite the word "occult" literally meaning "hidden" or "secret," I prefer my fantasy series to be a little more open about the existence of magic. That might be why my favorite young adult author is Tamora Pierce. At least in her books, people know magic exists, even if they can't all use it. And kids who receive magical educations also learn the "boring" stuff, which makes for a well-rounded mage, in my opinion. I don't think I would trust a magic user whose basic educational background stopped at age ten, but maybe that's just me. Besides that, the idea of a whole separate society existing in this world, made of people who can use magical while the rest of us can't, just makes me feel sad. Why can't I be magical too? I'd rather have no magic in the world at all than a world where people are separated based on an ability, or lack of an ability, to fly through the air on a broomstick.

Sorcery ion Christendom

As one of the people in the group for the discussion of this chapter, I figured I would write a bit about my thoughts on the chapter. This chapter is about sorcery in Christendom (as you can tell by the title). This chapter goes on to take a religious view of magic and how it relates to Christianity. Tonie touched on this topic briefly in her post with the views of the Devil being magic. This was a big question to me when reading the chapter. Why is the Devil's power considered magic, but God's power is considered miracles? This gives magic the notion of being evil, since it is correlated so closely to the Devil. But with magic being considered evil by the church, why do people study it? Well it seems people still studied it since a lot of magic was used for good. Like magical cures or spells to ward off evil spirits. But if magic was the Devils power how come so much magic was for good and not evil. This lead me to think more about how we perceive magic today. In most movies magic has no real connotation as good or evil, as it is used by both good and evil as more of a tool. The good and evil aspect focuses more on the magic user than the magic itself. I guess the is kind of what it was like back then as well, but in the eyes of the church all magic was evil, regardless of the user. Now for those of you reading this i would like you to comment with how you think of magic. Does magic have a good or evil connotation to you personally? I personally think of good when I think about magic. I think of the mighty Hero who uses magic to save the princess against evil.

Arabic Influence in Medieval Europe

In Chapter 6 of Richard Kieckhefer’s Magic of the Middle Ages he talks about the Arabic influences on medieval Europe. Honestly, I was a little surprised by this because I have never really thought about much of the outside world coming into Europe at the time. As the medieval European worldview expanded, it’s logical to think that they would be exposed to Arabic or any other cultural influence. I’m sure that the Crusades also definitely helped in the movement of some parts of Arabic culture into Europe.

 

I thought that the astrology aspect of medieval life was pretty fascinating to read. It is very complex and involves a lot of interpreting of the positions of the planets and stars. Kieckhefer says that “knowing where the stars and planets were located at birth…could show how the heavenly bodies affected a person’s character and general destiny” (p.122). He also says that astrology helps with “interrogations” and “inceptions” which is the consequence of an action and when would be the best time to take action, respectively (p. 122).

 

I also found the fact that astrology was used in medicine also pretty interesting. Surgeons needed “to know which signs of the zodiac governed which parts of the body, because it was dangerous to operate or bleed a patient when the wrong constellation was dominant” (p.122).  Personally, I think that this would drive me crazy with waiting for months to get some kind of medical treatment. Also because physicians needed to know astrology, the subject was taught in schools (p. 122). I was surprised to read this because I never thought about astrology as being taken so seriously but not only the medieval Europeans but also by the medical community.

 

To me, astrology has never really been a subject of interest. But reading about its influence in the medieval world has made it more fascinating to me. I also think that it’s interesting how many people in medieval society took it seriously, how it was not only the lower classes but those in power who took a vested interest in it. And even today people still focus on astrology by keeping up with horoscopes that talk about personality traits and things that will happen.

Kieckhefer, Richard. Magic in the Middle Ages. New York: Cambridge University Press.1989. Print.

 

 

                                                    <http://www.jesus-is-savior.com>

 

 

                                                    <http://www.naturesastrology.com>

 

Sir Gawain and the Green Kinght

 

I would like to preface my blog post with this:

 

 

www.greengiant.com

 

Am I the only one who thought of the giant green vegetable man while Armitage was describing the Green Knight? The exact line that caught my eye was, "a knight of such a kind-/entirely emerald green" (149-151). From that moment on, I pictured the Green Knight as the giant green vegetable man. I sincerely hope all of you know who I am talking about when I say "giant green vegetable man". Especially since he doesn't seem as daunting when you picture him as a smiling giant on a can of corn.

 

I don't understand why the people didn't run away as soon as the Green Knight showed up. I would have run away as fast as I could...which wouldn't have been that fast, but still, I'd be gone. I think they were so struck by his appearance that they couldn't bring themselves to move. Line 232 says that the guests "gaped" and "gawked" at the Green Knight. I thought it was interesting that their reactions were not described until a lot of detail was put into the description of the Green Knight. I think this adds to the amazement the guests feel and it helps the reader visualize exactly why the guests are gaping and gawking.

 

I pity Sir Gawain. No one else was willing to step up to protect King Arthur, so Gawain takes the challenge. Of course, he thinks it will be a simple task, but lo and behold! The Green Knight just keeps on living even without his head. And no one even cares that in a year Sir Gawain will probably be dead! On lines 474-475, King Arthur says, "And at least I'm allowed to eat at last,/having witnessed such a wonder". Poor Gawain.

 

www.freedomsphoenix.com

Behind the magic

 Bare with me on this blog; not only is this my first blog I have ever wrote, this topic is out of my comfort zone. You may ask why magic is out of my comfort zone, well for starters it is hard to believe in magic when Kieckhefer mention through out his book that there is no factual evidence to prove magic caused certain events. We also cant replicate the studies and obtain the same results. It is hard to believe these magical events when scientist cant validate the events. 

Kors and Peters mentions how some religions forbid the practice of magic, yet Kieckhefer references multiple instances were religious leaders healed the sick with magical elements. It almost seems as if some religions only acknowledged magic when referring to the Devil. Kors and Peter even notes that religious beliefs helped contribute to the idea of Satan (P. 7, Kors and Peters). Christians and other influential groups helped spread the conspiracies about witchcraft and diabolical elves. Once enough people believed these conspiracies, religious groups claimed they could heal you and help you get rid of demons. Even though I am probably wrong, it just seems suspicious that witchcraft became prominent after Augustine "heightened the Christians awareness of the Devil's powers (P. 7, Kors and Peters)". I believe organized groups like Christians took advantage of the arrogant community to gain more followers. 

It is understandable why so many people would believe that there is a Devil. People during the time of the famine and plague needed someone to blame for their misfortune and they also needed something to turn to. Religion gave people hope and when God did not answer their prayers, practitioners of magic were there as a backup. For instance, some might believe that Jesus was able to cure Peters toothache with his religious powers, for others they might have seen Jesus' powers as magic (P. 72, Kieckhefer). In a sense, religion started magic but there was no line drawn between magical powers and religious powers. 

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>