Author: kg4vma

The following was originally posted in response to a classroom forum:

The best examples of the mixing of Christian and varied pagan beliefs that I can see lie in the tales of Beowulf and the Dream of the Rood.

In Beowulf we read of a king who is serving of his people and fearless of his travels in far lands with varied spirits and elves abound. Obviously our strong heroic leader and adventurous exploits are familiar of the pagan faiths. Yet, there is also mention of God and and his divine creation of the world; elements which are undeniably Christian. Further, we might be able to make some sort of a tie between Beowulf and Christ, though no mention was made of the Savior. Telling of how mighty the king was, and how he helped his people and bore faith in the troubled times, battling evil might easily sway someone to see how a heroic and noble savior of earth could be able to rise above. If one could have faith in this story, then one could have faith in the Christian stories.

The Rood applied persuasion in a similar manner to Beowulf. In the Rood, we here the telling of the Crucifixion; further we hear the telling from the viewpoint of an element of nature—an item which a pagan could easily see as being as alive spiritually as man. We are told of how Christ—an almost every-man, yet something more—bore such terrible inflictions from his evil captors. We see Christ as a hero—a man who should be honored and worshiped for the pains and suffering inflicted upon him in our names. This piece helps show how older selfless acts leading to martyrdom still exist in this new religion, and that the greatest martyr for the cause is the son of God.

These stories are quite successful in mixing and selling the concepts of Christianity to people of pagan faiths.

The following was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

For my response, I chose to speak on the Kempe subject.

Having the knowledge that Kempe was an actual person has little to no effect to how I read her work. Reading Kempe would be much like reading a personal journal or blog and even the tweets or posting to facebook walls of today. Though there may be some slight change, as I might be able to forge some sort of personal connection with the subject, the differences end there. Still, that difference isn’t that strong. Any story, if well-written, should be able to draw the reader into the tale and create a bond; otherwise the text being read is no better than an instructional manual.

Furthermore, for those of us who may have faith in a higher being, we reads text which is claimed to have been written of or by real people or entities. There is no physical proof to back these claims; yet we believe them and connect with them wholeheartedly. Are our views changed by having heard others claim that these words may be false? If our views are affected by these claims, the change is typically minute and causes a strengthening of our connection to the verses we hold so dear.

I would want to question what would happen if we discovered–with hard certainty–that Kempe was a character of one’s imagination after having believed that she was real for so long. I would then ask would this cause as great of an impact as discovering that whatever deity we choose to follow was the creation of someone’s dream.

The following was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

For my response, I chose to speak on Elizabeth’s last speech to Parliament.

Jeremiah Hall Palmer
Professor Maurene Hinds
LITR210
20 October 2011

In November of 1601, Queen Elizabeth spoke to Parliament, giving what would be known as The Golden Speech. In her address, Elizabeth express her feelings of how she had ruled as Queen, and gave thanks to those in the House of Commons that had given her so much support. This speech was likely presented as Elizabeth was realizing that soon her days would end as she was growing quite old in age.

In her leading paragraph, Elizabeth thanks the Speaker and the House for being in attendance and showing such care for the governance of the land; Elizabeth gives further thanks by saying that without their love and dedication she would not have been able to have served the public. Elizabeth continues on, giving brief pause to request the members stand as she feared the words she wanted to deliver would last long enough that they might grow uncomfortable in their seats.

Elizabeth continues on, recognizing that despite her careful manner and good intentions that there may have been a few members of the Commons who had opposition to her beliefs; to this she supposes that she was seen as a malady of sorts and that these people had found ways of dealing with the headache as and physician would through the prescription of some “medicine” to alleviate the symptom. Even so Elizabeth secures her claims in her wanton desire to be and have been fair and just by saying that she had always remembered that she too will appear before a higher King and be given Judgement. Elizabeth leaves us with a final declaration of her feelings of her country and kingdom stating:

And though you haue had and may haue many mightier and wiser Princes sitting in this Seat, yet you neuer had nor shall haue any that will loue you better.

[Though there have been and may be stronger and wiser rulers to occupy this position, none have or will have the same love for this country and people as I have.]

Elizabeth I, Queen of England. “Queen Elizabeth’s Speech to her Last Parliament” Parliament, England. 30 Nov 1601. Retrieved 19 Oct 2011 from: http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/eliz1.html.

The following was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

For my response, I chose to speak on Shakespeare’s sonnets.

Jeremiah Hall Palmer
Professor Maurene Hinds
LITR210
19 October 2011

One cannot argue against Shakespeare having a certain way with words; harder still would be an attempt to argue that he had no knowledge of love. Tragically, though, many only think of Sonnet 18 when they want to speak of his grasp of love. If one were to come to the Sonnets having only knowledge of the cheery comparisons of an interest to being better than the brighter points of the summer season they would likely be taken aback by the language of Sonnet 130.

Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
(Shakespeare, Sonnet 130)

The opening lines of Sonnet 18 give the reader a vision of a warm beauty, bright and gleaming. The next few lines remind us that despite the wonderful days summer may bring, it still has it’s faults;

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer’s lease hath all too short a date:
(Shakespeare, Sonnet 18)

The lead into the negative aspects of summer aid, however, in showing how much more beautiful the love-interest is. Differing from this sonnet–with it’s bright beginning and ends–Sonnet 130, where we are led in with a darker comparisons.

My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips’ red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
(Shakespeare, Sonnet 130)

Shakespeare continues to speak in a tone which may seem shocking. Rather than painting with pleasantries, the reader is given comparisons that lead in the other direction. At first reading, one may believe that we’re contrasting the sun and her eyes in order to give a better uplifting comparison as was done in the eighteenth–when we read the next few lines we see different. The opening line then gains a clearer definition that her eyes are dark and without that certain glowing spark. To the uninitiated this comes as quite the surprise, given the flowing beauty that has been written before. If we read from other sonnets, such as 116, we see that this is not the case.

Love’s not Time’s fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle’s compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
(Shakespeare, Sonnet 116)

In 116, Shakespeare shares his thoughts that love and beauty do not always go hand-in-hand. He states that beauty fades, but true love does not; why then would anyone find a woman being described as having darkened eyes surprising in one of his poems? I do not believe that there was any malice or any intent behind the descriptors used in Sonnet 130 other than the purposeful telling of how beauty and love is within–only seen by the parties involved. Love such as this is truly romantic and can be the most enduring. On that note, I would like to end by saying:

If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
(Shakespeare, Sonnet 116)

Shakespeare, Wm. "Shakespeare Sonnet 18." Shakespeare Online. N.p., 27 Feb 2010. Web. Retrieved 19 Oct 2011 from: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/18.html.

Shakespeare, Wm. "Shakespeare Sonnet 116." Shakespeare Online. N.p., 27 Feb 2010. Web. Retrieved 19 Oct 2011 from: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/116.html.

Shakespeare, Wm. "Shakespeare Sonnet 130." Shakespeare Online. N.p., 27 Feb 2010. Web. Retrieved 19 Oct 2011 from: http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/130.html.

[EDITED 11/8/2011 to include comments received after the initial posting.]

Nice work with the analysis here (and I must admit, your other comment made me laugh aloud). That the poem seems to go against many conventions of the time–including some of Shakespeare’s own works–makes the poem stand out even more. In some ways, the poem has a “tongue in cheek” aspect about it, in part because he seems to recognize the ridiculousness of false flattery. 🙂 It would be fun to be able to meet him in person, wouldn’t it?

The following post was originally submitted as an essay assignment:

I had once read The Miller’s Tale from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales and gave a rather brief review of how the piece had employed the use of humor. In that short synopsis I had given a few examples without much additional thought as the story brought about feelings of hurt and disgust. Having allowed for some time to pass, I now see the tale with a different perspective; I also find myself a bit more capable to delve a bit deeper into the subject.

The Miller’s Tale is a quick little story which lacks any sort moral point and exists solely for entertainment value. In the tale, we are told a story of an elder well to do carpenter who has wed a younger woman. The carpenter, John, seems to have quite a fondness of his bride, Alison, though she seems to have married him because of his financial status. Living with the two is a young student of meteorology/astrology–depending upon translation–named Nicolas. We’re also introduced to a third male character who works in the town church named Absolon. All the men of the story have an eye for Alison, but she has her eyes set on Nicolas; here is where the hilarity ensues.

The Miller tells us how Nicolas and Alison develop a plan to bed together which seems a bit elaborate and quite unconvential if the reader give it some thought. Chaucer through the Miller, however manages to distract the reader from this through his simple yet complex style and the marvel of the plan being hatched. While John is out of town Nicolas plays as if he is busy in his studies–so busy as to be in some trance of sorts. After John has returned Nicolas comes from his room and states that he has been foretold of a second Great Flood. John, the good man that he is, receives this news and responds in the best way he can–he builds and suspends emergency floatation devices for Alison, Nicolas and himself. Two comedic elements exist here if we review what has just taken place. Our resident weatherman, which we did not see the significance of his studies until now–joke number one–has predicted a second great flood. John failed to think that God had promised that there never again would be a Great Flood–joke number two.

Meanwhile, our bumbling, prudish clerk from the church decides to come and pay a visit to his interest. Absolon doesn’t know, however, that Alison is occupied with Nicolas; Absolon also doesn’t seem to care that John is home–even if he did, John was securely and snuggly asleep in his makeshift boat hanging from the rafters while our two adulterors have crept to the bedroom. Absolon attempts and fails to woo Alison at the window as he comes calling; instead he is gifted with the kiss of her backside. Being burned in humiliation, Absolon sets out to burn her literally.

Absolon returns to the window later with a tool fresh from the smith’s fire and asks for another kiss. Nicolas this time decides to oblige Absolon and breaks wind in his face while doing so; Absolon then brands the unsuspecting Nicolas. Here we have been delivered more humorous elements with Absolon being faced with an ass on two occasions–the second bringing about a healthy passing of gas in front of his nose. Absolon exacts his revenge, however it is unwittingly to the unintended party.

For our final dose of laughter we are reminded of John, who had been oblivious to all that had been going on. Immediately following Nicolas receiving a gift of burning flesh he loudly calls out for water to cool and soothe his burning bottom. His calls of “Water!” awaken John and cause him to believe that he is hearing the shouts of someone reacting to rising floodwaters. John quickly cuts the rope securing him to the ceiling expecting to float to safety; instead the poor man comes crashing down and breaks his arm.

I had consluded that the humor used in the Miller’s Tale was juvenile, sadastic and vulgar. Given more time to reflect upon the story, I come away with the same feelings. I can say, however that I recognized a few more humorous aspects this time, such as the forecasting ties and John’s foolish belief that there could be another Great Flood. I also see that, in regard to the Flood, this element was possibly more humorous to portions of the original audience of the story–members of the clergy–who were if not the original audience of the Canterbury Tales were in the audience written into the tales.

Today, I come to a slightly differing conclusion on the matter of whether the humor was effective. All of the humorus elements took part in bringing about the final joke. Without the trickery and farting we could not have been distracted enough to have recieved that humorous shock of John crashing in result to Nicolas’ scorched tail. This story was also written merely for entertainment; there is no moral to the story–there also aren’t any morals in the story. Looking at the piece as entertainment only, the humor is quite effective, much like a Wayans brothers film–crude, satirical views of a social class leaving the viewer questioning if the intended audience is the class being poked at or the classes above and/or below. Still, I do not appreciate the humor of the Wayans’, nor do I appreciate the humor in this story.