Ruminations

Ok, yes, a totally lame title for the post.....but there ya go. This post is actually about something else though: Stephanie Trigg's questions. Stephanie, whom I don't know personally, apparently has organized some "blogging" stuff for the New Chaucer Society meeting this year and posted questions on her blog, forwarded to ITM. For a number of reasons, I thought I'd take some time and address the questions she asks here, because for the most part they are good ones to ask. It also allows me to be more expansive than I could be in the comments section of her blog. So here goes....

1) what would you say were the distinctive features, if any, of blogs by medievalists?

I'm not sure I can class them altogether as a group. There are funny blogs, personal blogs, professional blogs, and of the latter blogs that deal in some way with everything in the field. There are blogs that post the news, assume an author long dead's voice, and so on. I'm not sure I can say anything about medieval blogs as a whole....there are some blogs out there that are distinctive by medievalists.

Medievalists are people. As such, I'm not sure I can say that medievalists as a class are sufficiently distinguishable from other kinds of bloggers other than by content of their blogs.


2. does blogging build new communities?

Oh, absolutely. Speaking for myself of course, there are a large number of people whose writing I would not read or know had I not encountered their blogs, or their comments on someone else's blog and followed the links to their blogs.

But community of any kind involves reaching out. The electronic medium of the Web makes responding to someone posting a blog post much easier and quicker than responding to a published article. But if the experience of blogging and reading blogs is passive...that is, I write, maybe some people read, but there is no follow up discussion or spawning of other blog posts...then there can really be no community in any meaningful sense. There are readers, much like say a Will Wheaton has readers the majority of whom will never leave a note or send him an email much like a traditional columnist or journalist for a newspaper or magazine. So community, even "blogging community" takes effort.

To that end, others have certainly taken this in hand with "blogger meet-ups" at major conferences, conference sessions based on blogs and blog posts, exchange of emails and so on. I myself have included various bloggers in the work of The Heroic Age as readers, authors, and editors simply because of their blogs. And many are now "friends" on Facebook so that the "blogging community" in medieval studies has now branched into email listservs, scholarly publication, social networking sites, and even into traditional print venues.

Certainly one can question how permanent the community is, and rightly so, but in my view it is no less permanent than the community one sees at a conference year after year, and the blogging community is usually more in touch with one another.

One of the advantages in this regard that blogging has over email lists and similar venues too (I've just mentioned an advantage over the yearly conference) is that one can give more free rein to one's thoughts and treat it like an essay. Or not. But even at the height of the e-list, serious exchange was limited by the attention span of the reader who typically did not want to read an entire disquisition. Such exchanges were few. On the other hand, one knows exactly what one is getting into when reading a blog post, or can simply save the post until another time: a response is not expected or required though always appreciated. So a blog holds a transitional, perhaps even liminal space between personal and professional communication, between email and article or paper, between formal and informal. It has a number of advantages in that space.

Now what was the question? Oh yes, building communities. Yes, no question about it. A different kind of community than an e-list, a different kind of community than conference colleagues even when there is overlap in those communities. But a community nonetheless for all that.

3. Does blogging affect the way we write (and read) medieval criticism and historical studies?

Now that is a good question. Two questions really, so I'll answer as two. First, I haven't noticed any affect on reading as reading. I do know that because of a blog post I have been pointed to primary and secondary literature that I would not otherwise have encountered or known about. I also know that because I read medieval blogs by bloggers who work in fields different than my own, that I have had my horizons enlarged as a result. So it affects the WHAT I read more than the HOW I read criticism and history.

It has affected the way I write in a few ways. First, I often try out fledgling ideas on my blog as a kind of first pass to see if they'll fly. Likewise, rather than just reading a book or article and putting it down for possibly consultation at a later date, I now quite often attempt to interact at least in some way with the book or article by blogging. This in turn I hope makes me a better writer, but also internalizes what I read more effectively (which I suppose ought to be said under the reading bit above). So blogging has affected my writing by adding another pre-writing layer.

4. Does knowing the "real" identity of the Chaucer blogger affect your sense of (a) his blog or (b) Chaucer?

No and No.

5. Have you read Brantley Bryant's book, Geoffrey Chaucer Hath a Blog? Medieval Studies and New Media?

No I haven't, though I am a regular reader of the blog and have been for some time.
In my view, the book and the blog (hey, that could be a good title for something...) are better classified as Medievalism and New Media than Medieval Studies, but no sense in quibbling.

6. Has medieval blogging (whether you read and/or write blogs) changed the way you think about the nature of academic work?

Only in one sense: blogging is so far anyway not considered by the academy and tenure committees and so on as academic work even when enlisted in the aid of students, teaching, service, or even research. It should be. It must be. But I'm not holding my breath.

7. Has blogging had any affect on the kind of work you do in medieval studies?

Yes. I now have a couple papers in progress that are a direct result of someone else's post or comments on a post somewhere in the blogosphere. Further, other work in progress has been helped along by posting about it. So the short answer is yes.

I've declined to answer the last question, "if you could ask Chaucer a question about his blog, what would it be?" I don't really have any questions of either the "character" Chaucer of the blog, nor the creative mind behind it other than "when's the next post coming?"

Tolkien's Macbeth

Teaching Macbeth this last semester, I saw a couple of things that I had never read being reference to Tolkien before. That doesn't mean that they haven't been, I am just unaware of anyone who has so made the connection.

It is well known, however, that the scene of Elsinore Wood coming to Macbeth was a scene that Tolkien didn't like, and so rewrote into his Ents' attacking Isengard. He speaks about this in the Letters and many others have repeated and mentioned it.

But there are two other places where I see at least a Tolkienian analogue. In Act 4.1 MacBeth has gone to the Weird sisters and asked them to tell him the future. Among the prophecies he receives is that "none of woman born Shall harm MacBeth." Macbeth then says, "Be bloody, bold, and resolute; laugh to scorn the power of man for none of woman shall harm Macbeth."

One can easily see the analogue. The Witch-King in Book V of Lord of the Rings is bloody, bold, and resolute placing faith in the prophecy "no living man may hinder me" (given in another form elsewhere as "not by the hand of man shall he fall."). The Witch King, hereafter Alf, is very confident because of this prophecy as MacBeth is. And as with most prophecies of this sort (like the Delphi Oracle) both Tolkien's and Shakespeare's prophecies turn on the interpretation of a single word that the prophecy receiver understands in a normal way but is meant in a slightly different fashion. Both are surprised to learn of their error while facing an armed opponent set to slay them, and both are so slain. So the similarities go beyond just the fact that both have similar prophecies: the narrative structure is much the same as well. I haven't checked a Folklore encyclopedia or anything so for the moment all I can say is analogue; but it is tempting to say source or inspiration. But I'll hold off.

A bit later in Act 4.4 Malcolm the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland and MacDuff have a chat. In this chat it is mentioned about the glorious king Edward of England. The image is practically Arthurian in nature: the perfect kingdomm that contrasts so sharply to what Scotland has become under the usurper MacBeth's rule. In this discussion Malcolm talks about "a most miraculous work in the good king". Apparently the good kind, calling on God of course, heals "strangely-visited people". He also has prophecy and "sundry blessings hang about his throne." Sound familiar Tolkienistas? Yes, it does sound rather like Aragorn, son of Arathorn: who has some gift of prophecy and foresight, who heals "strangely-visited people" with this touch apparently, and when he comes to his throne there are certainly sundry blessings.

Now some of this is typical: the whole image owes a lot to very old, traditional images of good kings. But before MacBeth and coming to know his sources (this play was written for King Jimmy I of Merry Olde...who claimed to be able to heal subjects with his touch) I had not encountered the idea of the healing by the king before. So another element to check out.

But as much as Tolkien is said not to have liked Shakespeare, (and Tolkien later clarifies this mentioning specifically the elves and faeries in Midsummer's Night Dream), it is interesting to see the number of analogues between Macbeth and LoTR.

Last of the Christmas Reading

So, at last, six months later, I get to mention the last of my reading over Christmas break. No worries, I haven't been able to read much of anything since. That fact is frustrating. The wonderful thing about becoming a tenure track faculty person in a couple of months is that I will not have duties this time next year other than to pursue my research agenda (and Heroic Age, and SASLC, and an encyclopedia....but I digress).

Anyway, way back when as I refreshing my mind in prehttp://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6221357paration to become a professional medievalist, I bought a whole bunch of books to read. Among them was this one: The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe by James Chambers. I never got around to reading it. In my defense, the stack was pretty high, and you know, I lived above a drinking establishment, and there was Civilization and Quake to play, and there was a paper to research to submit with my applications and it didn't have to do with Mongols. But I've been carrying this around for a long time and decided it was time I gave it its due.

So to the book. Chambers is, or was, an amateur military historian, of the sort that only Britain really can have. He was also a journalist. Thus, the book is largely narrative. As an introduction to the Mongols, narrative was just the thing. Chambers relates events from disparate locales and traces seemingly unrelated events across a wide expanse of territory showing that these events divided by thousands of miles conspired to create other events that affected China and Hungary, for example. He is best, I think, when he is describing Mongol tactics.

The book is light on references. But Chambers makes up for it. The appendix and bibliography has a full list of primary and secondary works. Chambers often quotes the primary works, though he is honest that in the cases of works in Arabic, Chinese, Persian etc, he is dependent on French, German, Latin, and English translations. But the references are there nonetheless and should I ever get around to look them up or include them in a class (hey, I've put Italo Calvino, Marco Polo, and ibn Batuta into conversation, why not add some sources about the Mongols?). And everyone has heard of Ghengis Khan, but few will have heard of Subadei, equally a military genius. It was he who brought the Mongols to Europe, and it was he who suggested further attacks into Europe to the Khan. In some cases one can not but hear the "wa wa wa" music to read of the mistakes of the Europeans, or the loss of territory and life because noblemen wouldn't support their king in his efforts to protect their land.

Chambers also describes the political infighting following the Great Khan's death. The empire imploded. Perhaps not as badly as other places in other times, but nonetheless a Mongol empire that included Europe was within grasp but too many hands in the pot do rather spoil the dish, or the empire...whichever.

This is a good read for those like me who don't know much of anything detailed about the Mongols. I imagine it has remined in consistent print for about 30 years now because of this and because it is useful for teaching high school or introductory level history in colleges. But if you're like me, then I'd recommend the book.

Shakespeare III

The two of you who read this may recall that I started way back in January to talk about what I was doing with Shakespeare in my first all Shakespeare course. I'd actually even made a second post on the subject. While the course is now over and some of the course activities are fading from my memory to make room for current and future courses, I'm trying to recall what I all we did and how. I'll be doing "Shakespeare for Teachers" in the Autumn, and to save myself doing 4 new preps, I decided I would simply retool my Spring 2010 Shakespeare course. So I am attempting to review class plans as I prepare the next one. So I return to a Medievalist mucking about in Shakespeare.

My last post in February mentioned that we had started MacBeth, and I discussed going through Act I. After pointing out the features I wanted them to note in Act I, the sisters as Fate, the natural world, the position of MacBeth etc, I set them loose on Acts II and III, once again in groups, each group responsible for studying and presenting a scene in those acts, getting them to pull out what themes and images and characterization they could. For Act IV, we performed some scenes and parts of scenes and I had them write questions based on those scenes for the midterm. For Act V, we returned to class discussion.

Elements to note: I talked about Aristolean definitions of tragedy and comedy current in the day, we discussed analogues with Marlowe's Faustus and the presentation of evil and the devil in both plays. We explored the juxtaposition of fate and free will; we noted the imagery of evil and its result on the land. In fact, I pointed out inversions and warped orders: the natural order is disturbed and the land suffers, the order of gender relationships is changed to detrimental effects, the social order is disturbed as a thane usurps the kingship. I talked about Renaissance notions of Order and how it works.

Among the other issues, I introduced the class to source and psychological criticisms. I am interested in this play how Shakespeare has changed his sources to create a MacBeth utterly different than the MacBeth of history or of Holinshed. Also, I wanted to explore the MacBeths states of mind as we move through the play and introduce them to a psychological reading of the characters. As with other critical approaches, I stuck to a fairly introductory discussion and application with them.

We also could not resist some historicism, and so we talked about the situation in 1609 or and the post-Guy Fawkes rebellion and so on, as well as the necessity to flatter the king, the growth of the Banquo legend and who James I was in relationship to that legend. Last but not least we compared the notions of heroism in Henry V (our first course play) and MacBeth and compared and contrasted the two as mirror images: Henry rises from being an inadequate human being to being an epic king, MacBeth falls from a practically epic hero to being an utter villain. Along the same lines we talked about political theology in the two plays, and Shakespeare's playing with the notion of evil.

By and large the students had a hard time completing this play. The themes, heavy atmosphere, and difficult imagery made for difficult reading.

This brought us to 6 weeks into the semester. The first week was introductory, and we spent 2 1/2 weeks on each play so far. Week 7 was dedicated to the first group presentations and they were to have read The Tempest while we were doing this. There were two presentations assigned: each group was to read a play we were not reading in class. This first presentation was pretty easy: present the play, it's historical setting, the themes and major characters, and the plays place in the canon of Shakespeare's works. Some groups did comedies, some tragedies. Two groups wanted to do Hamlet so I combined them to work on Hamlet...the Hamleteers ended up being quite awesome. But group presentations took two days, a week of the course.

That's the end of week 7. Week 8 was spent on The Tempest. By this point, people are dropping like flies. The problem with teaching at this school and teaching an elective is that people don't stop working to attend school, so often by midterm time I've lost half the class. I'm not alone, so I know it isn't me. Everyone has this problem, though it makes grading post-midterm much easier. Anyway, class attendance was dropping precipitously in part because everyone including me wanted Spring Break and because of the other problem.

So, I did most of the talking. I finished up some things I had wanted to say about MacBeth, then talked about Romance-Comedy combo of genres. I talked about the growth and development of the Romance tradition and the typical motifs, images, and tropes. I then did the same for comedy and we talked about then how these elements are played out in the play. I even told them the story of Yvain to illustrate the beginning of the genre.

We talked again about the disruption of the social order that needs to be put right, contrasted Prospero with the Weird Sisters and MacBeth, talked about notions of liminal space, and the role of forgiveness. We situated the island and noted the relationships of Prospero, Caliban, Ariel, and Miranda. We focused a lot of discussion on the character Caliban and his supposed rape attempt, to fill the island with Calibans, and of course the role of language and civilization in Caliban's life.

We also took on a little post-colonial and feminist criticism.

The Tempest got a bit of short shrift in many ways which is too bad. But onward! Then followed the midterm.

Next time I'll pick up in week 10 of the course and Taming of the Shrew.

I mentioned some time ago that I was working on a Cynewulf paper. I've been reworking my draft of late. Below is the new, way too long introduction, but it says things I want to say and establish. I'd love to have some input and reaction, and I'm certain that others have been here previously. I just don't know who or where or the proper vocabulary. Oh, and this version doesn't include the copious footnotes. So there it is. Enjoy.

Much of Anglo-Saxon poetry is a “mash-up” of genres. A "mash-up" is a current popular culture term that has a number of uses. In the computer field, the term is used to describe a new service, application, or web site that combines data or functionality from multiple sources. Similarly, the terms is used in modern music to describe a song that seamlessly integrates the lyrics and music of another song or songs into itself. A classical quodlibet is an early example of this. A "mash-up" is not another term for intertextuality: the latter studies how one text has absorbed and transformed another.1 Nor is it allusion or inference; lastly a "mash-up" is not simply the study of sources. All of these have their place in the literary critic's toolbox, and admittedly there are times when drawing a sharp contrast between the source critical study and the intertextual study is difficult as they meld into one another. A "mash-up," however, is a farrago, not a transformation of one thing by another, not only the discovery of the original sources on which the creator is drawing, what the creator alludes or references. Rather, a "mash-up", this farrago, is the combination of texts, genres, sources, ideas, tropes, etc into something that is both hybrid and yet new. Much of our study of Anglo-Saxon poetry, especially that in Old English, has focused on the Source Critical with some nod in more recent years to the intertextual. While this is not the only critical approach to Old English poetry, these approaches have towered as among the most common, and perhaps, even the most important.

Typically, the poems that have attracted the most attention from scholarship are those that merge a “native” Germanic genre with some kind of Christian genre or theme. Examples are not difficult to find, nor are illustrations of this point limited to the Anglo-Saxons. One could examine Dream of the Rood, Judith, Exodus just to name three in the Old English corpus. Genesis B, Heliand, and even the Ludwigslied are near contemporary parallels from the continent. Commonly, approaches to these texts have examined the sources where discoverable, examined various editorial and philological concerns, and noted the "Germanization" of Christian or Greco-Roman themes, tropes, motifs, or admired the Germanic heroic poetry on its own terms.

In our discussions of the Germanic and Christian in Old English poetry, however, the approach has typically been to explore or assume a specifically "Christian" element and observe how that element is given a "Germanic" expression. Thomas Hill noted more than 20 years ago that it is a "commonplace to observe that Cynewulf Germanicizes his source...."2 Such ideas are not limited to Cynewulf but are part of the discussion of every poem in the surviving Anglo-Saxon poetic corpus. Much of these kinds of study assumes a dichotomy between Christian and pagan, Christian and German, or even German and Christo-Roman.

What the reminder of this paper seeks to do is reopen this question. While Cynewulf is certainly drawing on known sources, he is not merely recasting them into a Germanic heroic poem. He is rather taking elements of Near Eastern culture, Greco-Roman culture, Christian commentary and theology, and his own cultural outlook drawing on multiple texts, genres, and images to produce a true "mash-up" poem about the Ascension. The poet is not merely derivative of his sources; he is merely giving a Christian theme a coloring drawn from his native culture. It is more than those things: more than source study, more than intertextual, more than expressing an old idea in new language, however loaded that language may be. Perhaps most of all, the dichotomy that we too often draw between Christian and German, Christian and pagan, etc., distorts the picture of what Anglo-Saxon poets were doing.

The process by which this will be approached will take three phases. The first part examines Cynewulf's use of the catechetical genre as source, inspiration, and perhaps as his goal in producing this poem. Second, the paper examines cultural motifs and ideas about kingship, throne-ascensions, and images of divine and human kings extending from the ancient context of the Hebrew psalms to Cynewulf's own contemporaries and beyond. The third part looks at the result of the Ascension, the giving of gifts and what that catalog of charismata in Cynewulf's poem indicates in the foregoing context. All three of these building blocks, however, will be cast against a backgroud that Cynewulf is not being just intertextual, not just giving a Germanic coloring a Christian scene and so on but is taking part in a process of creating something new.

Matters Theological

N. B.: I began this post way back in the first days of April and never had time to finish it. With a few more moments of late, I here it with you anyway and then onward to other posts!


My wife bought me Jim Lahey's My Bread: The Revolutionary No-Work, No-Knead Method for Christmas. I recommend it; it really is a simple method of making delicious bread. What does this have to do with theology? Simple. One of the things that got Lahey going on bread is that we moderns had somehow made it far too hard and involved. In fact, I stayed away from making bread except in a bread machine for just those reasons. Anyway, his method is simple: mix the ingredients, let stand 12 to 18 hours, bake at nearly 500 in a dutch oven. Fabulous.

Now, considering his research, the way the loaf looks, and imagery of ancient and medieval loaves, I think the man has discovered why bread is so ubiquitous in the ancient and medieval world. Easy, simple, delicious. And it suddenly hit me the way that only the obvious can. When in the Lord's prayer it says "Give us this day our daily bread...."http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=6221357, well, I just figured out what that means in real terms. For a handful of ground grain, a bit of yeast, salt and water or salt water, and about 30 seconds of mixing, one has daily bread. Surely there were times when even some of those simple ingredients would not be available to all strata of society. Even in the modern period---I recently taught Nectar in a Sieve by Kamala Markandaya in which just this sort of unavailability of grain to make the necessary bread to survive happened. And one can't help but think of the dole in the Roman Colosseum: keep the crowd satisfied by throwing them a daily bread supply and keep them entertained with the games, and they don't riot. Panem et circenses, as ol' Juvenal phrased it. Anyway, I digress...ok, I'm digressing some more and will mention that one of my favorite blogs is Bread and Circuses. Anyway, making bread and reading Lahey's personal journey to get past our modern, industrialized approach to something closely akin to the bread eaten by our forebears--and what Jesus was talking about in requesting that God give us that tasty, mouth-watering, loaf everyday. From Jesus' mouth to God's ear...

Now for the medievalist, when you look up the passage in the Vulgate, ol Jerome translated the Greek into Latin as "supersubstantialem"--trying to come to grips with the Greek: epiousios, usually glossed as "sufficient for the day." Jerome justifies his translation in his commnetary on St. Matthew's gospel by claiming that when this word in appears in the LXX or in Symmachus that the word indicates "future" bread, as does the word in the Gospel according to the Hebrews (which for Jerome is the "authentic Matthew"). So rather than "daily" bread, Jerome and all Vulgate dependent readings spiritualize the bread...the bread of life rather than the the bread necessary for life. It has been an interesting week that now connects Gospel of the Hebrews, making bread, and the Lord's prayer.

But that's not all. Over at Magistra et Mater we have a meditation on whether the Fall and Science can be partners. Wow. Huge question, and certainly not the first time such a question has been asked. Magistra answers it by looking at the differences between hunter-gatherer societies and agrarian cultures--the latter being less advantageous thttp://www.blogger.com/post-edit.doo most human beings, who by the way were the ones growing the grain, grinding it into flour, and making the bread for the upper classes. Anyway, the value of myth is that there are many applications: from a psychological one of describing the growth from childhood to adulthood, or Magistra's application of the change from hunter-gatherers (eating what the garden produces as needed vs. agriculture post-fall) to agrarian societies, or Star Trek's frequent dealing with the theme that we have outgrown Eden: that what defines us is the need to push on and out and explore and know.

What all these interpretations, and most of the theological ones such as "disobedience" miss in the story of the Fall is the result: that now Adam and Eve know good and evil. There's even a hint in the word "know" of deciding or determining good and evil. But that's the issue: it isn't simply the disobedience over munching a piece of fruit, but it is the knowing of things that are the provenance of the divine: what good and evil is. This definition fits well the growth of humanity whether we apply it to society, to children becoming adults or what have you: moving from childhood to adulthood comes with knowing what is good and evil, right and wrong and being responsible for those choices; moving from hunter-gatherer to agrarian societies was also attended with increased control from the top of society in the form of law--which as Paul points out teaches us what is good and evil. In asking any question about the Bible and science though one can only note the irony that the Bible made modern science possible--regardless of whether one looks for reconciliation between the myth and the science--one might argue that such is the result of knowing good and evil. Further, while the Bible makes modern science possible and in fact informed early science to a gread deal, the child has replaced the parent--not only in proving that much of what was taken as "true" in the Bible isn't, but in that our new priesthood wears white lab coats; rather than training in the Bible and skills and arts that are focused ultimately on getting one closer to the divine, our education system now is largely concerned with making certain students achieve high science and math scores on standardized tests. I like the irony.

And speaking of Paul, discussion of Paul on the Synoptic-L list has turned slightly to noting that we really only have Paul's word for what he says about Peter and earliest Christianity. It's an interesting discussion especially when one realizes that so much of the modern historiography of the earliest strata of Christianity depend directly on reading that episode and what it might mean against a larger canvass. But we do only have one side, and the question is how historically accurate is that presentation and how much weight can be placed upon it? Unanswerable question on the basis of the evidence we have. But a good question and issue to keep in mind when doing early Christian history.

Kalamazoo 2010

The 2010 International Congress on Medieval Studies at WMU in Kalamazoo, MI has come and gone for another year. A friend, about whom more later, compared the Congress to Christmas: so much work to prepare, so much excited anticipation, so much fun, over so fast. How true!

Some months ago on FB we were asked about the usefulness of the Congress and I responded to the issue at length in what was intended as a Part One post: Looney Kalamazoo Part the First. There were several issues raised in comments and of course the original questions that Eve Salisbury asked that have yet to be answered. I intend to return to those issues at some point over the summer here. But for now, this reflection on this year's Congress will have to do.

My Congress experience was abbreviated this year. But honestly I was happy to be going at all. Many will recall that I was not in attendance at Congress in 2009. And sadly, though I agreed to be on an interesting panel discussion, I had to pull out of it. It was scheduled for a Thursday, and as a contingent employee, and a poor scholar, I can not afford to give up teaching days: if I don't hold class (like on a Thursday of Congress week), I don't get paid. Simple as that. So four hours of class time is a hit my wallet can not take, especially if I was going to go to Congress. Thus, I could not attend the traditional Wednesday night revelries, and missed all four sessions Thursday and any business meetings. Thus and so.

I took the first train out on Friday morning: all went smoothly and I arrived at the venue about 11:30. I booked a luncheon with two grand bloggers and men I'm pleased to call friend: The Great Nokes ofUnlocked Wordhoard and the too humble Curt Emanuel of Medieval History Geek. BTW, Curt is reporting in some detail on the papers he heard at the Congress, so always a good way to fill things in and get a wider perspective. Good job Curt. Anyway, lunch with these two and one of Scott's students, Eric, was so much fun and enjoyable that we all decided not to attend the 1:30 session but sat and talked instead.

I did make the 3:30 session 369 on Friday afternoon: Identity and Latinity in the British Isles. The session had a paper by two people whom I deeply respect and usually try if I can to attend their papers. The first was Leslie Lockett who read a bit more on retrograde verse in a paper titled: Anglo-Latin Verspielerei and Literary Elitism. I didn't take notes and at this remove I can not do justice to the paper; but essentially as I recall she talked about retrograde verse (where the poetic lines may be read forward and backward) and the elitism it signaled: especially in one Oswald of Ramsey, aka Oswald the Younger, in the eleventh century. I haven't studied this chap before, so his verses may make an entry in Medieval Literature I Didn't Know. But Lockett introduced us to his retrograde verses and his claim to be like Vergil by being able to compose them. It was quite interesting, as Leslie's papers almost always are. I look forward to her book.

The second paper was by Damian Fleming: Raca! Latin, English, Hebrew and Linguistic Identity in Aelfric and Byrhtnoth who talked about how the two Anglo-Saxon authors deal with this Hebrew word and its meaning as transmitted to them through Greek and Latin and they transmit it into Old English.

The third paper was by Carin Ruff who has been working on Alcuin's grammar. The paper was titled "Magisterial Personae and Anglo-Latin Exceptionalism". I won't say too much about this one since I believe it is going into Carin's book and I'll be reading it when it appears and reporting on it.

After the session and touching base with some good folk, including Bruce Gilchrist with whom I sat during the session, I headed on down to the olde book exhibit to encounter both friends and books (sometimes they are the same thing too!). I ran into fairly soon old friend and up and comer Jena Webb and Francesca Bezzone! Jena, I'm proud to say, I've watched grow up. She was 17 when I met her at my wedding to Erika, one of Erika's brides maids. She was a classics major at Marquette and she and her sister came down to Chicago to geek out with us on occasion. Then off she went to NUI in Galway and to make it short, is now completing her degree with a dissertation on the Old English Judith. This was her first hop across the pond for Congress. So, Jena went from shy teenager to friend, colleague, and collaborator. I suppose I take a sort of avuncular pride in her success though I really had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Jena brought along with her Francesca Bezzone from Italy and also a student at NUI. Frances is a delight and a well rounded scholar in her own right. She's currently working on the Vita Germani and did some impressive Latin two-stepping in her paper...but I'll get to that in a moment. I spent a good deal of time during Congress in their company and was utterly delighted.

I also ran into old friend Melodie Harris. We haven't seen each other in some years and it was grand to catch up. Mel has now finished her Phud; in fact, she was supposed to be walking and being hooded during the Congress weekend and opted to come see me instead....er, ok, maybe it was to read her paper and all that. Maybe.

Then it was off to the annual Anglo-Saxonists dinner with Bruce Gilchrist and Mel Harris (not an Anglo-Saxonist btw). We sat at table with Pat Conner, Stuart Lee, and others. I think a good time was had by all. It was a great pleasure to make Stuart's acquaintance and Pat is always a companionable dinner companion at these things. The dinner seemed more sparsely populated than in previous years: some posited the food, but I think it was the fact that no bus service was offered this year, making the trip more difficult. Fortunately, the fabulous Bruce drove to Kalamazoo, so he played taxi service. But Leslie Lockett was present, and I met in person Irina Dumitrescu at long last, ran into the incredibly gifted Kathryn Powell, chatted with Don Scragg, and briefly touched based with Tom Hall. All in all, a good time.

Then it was off to the BABEL Working Group's reception celebrating the launch of their journal postmedieval. They had been going for some hours by the time we three got there (Bruce, Mel, and I), but nonetheless there were many still about. I met Michael Moore, not that Michael Moore, but the other one. And I made the official acquaintance of the fabulous ADM! Got to talk to Lisa Carnell a little bit more than just a "hi" and a wave as often happens at the registration desk. I got caught up with the ITM crowd including the talented Mary Kate Hurley who is in the midst of her dissertation. And I even exchanged 2 or 3 words with Eileen Joy who was ever the hostess moving among the gathered making sure a good time was being had by all. And it was.

Then it was off to bed. Saturday morning dawned and brought me to the realization that I was sharing a bathroom with a young woman, or perhaps more than one. It didn't matter to me any: I'm old, married more than once....I don't know if it concerned them any. We stayed out of one another's way. So if those female colleagues happen to read this or you know them let me just extend my congratulations to them on the maturity and professionalism with which they handled the situation.

I then went off to breakfast and the book exhibit, consuming quantities of coffee. I like my coffee. I wandered around the books for a bit, caught up with Juleen Eichenberger former editor at MIP when I was there and with MIP friends. Then off to the session I was presiding over.

The Heroic Age sponsored a session. Yes, even we got into the game. We had three papers. The first, by the aforementioned Francesca Bezzone, titled "Small Reliquaries and Wooden Plates: The Language of Relics in the Vita Germani by Constantius of Lyon. Francesca examined the Latin vocab referring to relics and reliquaries. What I found most interesting, and was the majority of the paper, was the new use of capsa and capsula to refer to something around the saint's neck that seems to have been a relic in a container (leather bag? small box?) of some kind. Very interesting and very carefully done! I don't know of anyone working on the VG, so it is good to have someone doing so, and I'm hoping to nab her paper for HA's anniversary issue.

The second paper was by Michelle Ziegler and had pretty pictures. OOO, shiny. Ok, sorry, was just thinking of Family Guy with James Woods....oooo, piece of candy....anyway, Michelle's paper was titled "Saint Aethelthryth and the Virgin Mary through the Ages". Beginning with Bede, the associations of the Virgin and the saint are wide spread.

Last but not least in this session was Michel Aaij. Michel is the only person I know who works in part on studying the "medievalism" of early medieval saints' cults in modern Europe. And it can be fascinating stuff indeed. This paper took on three saints and introduced us to such goodies as childrens' books on Elizabeth of Hungary and an opera about St. Boniface (in which Boniface and Christianity are the bad guys and the pagans speak for the trees!) among many another very interesting item. A fascinating subfield.

After this great session, it was the Heroic Age
business lunch. We were all business. We even just had sandwiches from the Fetzer lobby we were so business. That's how dedicated we are. No luxuries for us; just all work.

Next came my session. It was number 465, organized by fabulous Mary K. Ramsey and Dana Oswald kept us moving along as presider. I'll say right now that I have a hard time really absorbing papers in my own session. I'm too nervous, even after all the papers I've done, about my own. This year too, I eschewed a paper copy and read off my notebook screen. I think it worked out well and may never read off paper again. Certainly saves a tree.

Richard Burley read "The Eloquent Devil in Translation" in which he looked at the devil's use of rhetoric in Old English texts. This I now know is part of a larger work Richard has already done and will continue to expand. I've asked him to work it up for HA, so keep an eye open for it.

Then there was me. I think I gave the abstract for this paper a while ago, titled Texts of Terror: essentially I argue that the Vita S. Eadmundi and the Old English Judith represent two diametrically opposed policies for reacting to the Vikings; in between the composition of the one and the preservation of the other lie 2 decades and Aelfric of Eynsham whose own approach to the Vikings changes over the course of his writing career.

Last, but far from least, was the aforementioned Jena D. Webb reading on Judith, "A Jewelled Warrior" A Study of the Physical Ornamentation in the Judith. Jena examined what I've often overlooked: there is actually quite a bit in the poem about Judith's adornment. She noticed something else too, but more of that anon.

No one threw fruit or other things, there were about 30 people in the room, and there was a pretty decent question and answer period. So all in all, I think it were a good session.

I went from there to the book hall again. I wanted to explore the possibility of getting some of the dissertation and some other projects in process into book form, so I missed some good sessions for that time slot. I didn't receive any definite news sadly so I'll be doing some writing of letters etc this summer.

I went to my first wine hour in years. I met many a good person, including Jonathan Jarrett of Tenth Century. Sadly the conversations were short, too short, and I would have liked to run into others I met there again and conversed more. Alas, it was not to be.

This brings us to Saturday evening. For dinner, I joined (aka invited myself) Jena Webb, Francesca Bezzone, Kim Laporte for dinner at Bell's. The company was fabulous, the good quite good, and the beer the best. One can ask for little more than that.

After dinner, I had quite a long and delightful conversation with a young Anglo-Saxonist who had been in my session and asked me a question, one Erica Leighton. After I left the poor woman to her own devices for dinner, I went to change out of the zoot suit and into something more comfie for the Sat evening festivities. Jena Webb and I hiked up to the St. Louis reception in Fetzer and spent a delightful time first talking to each other (shocking I know) and then with Michael Fletcher of MTSU and Lydia, and several other folks whose names I didn't hear because I'm getting old and deaf. But I see their faces and they were a great time.

From there, we went on over to the ol' dance party Medieval style. Many drinks, no dances, and a large number of conversations occurred. Too many to recount here. After the dance a group of us, including Bruce Gilchrist, Yvette Kisor, Jena Webb, Erica Leighton, Lynn Wolstadt, and some others were having conversations outside of Valley III. Erica took things in hand and ordered pizzas, so there was some early morning nosh. Good job Erica! But I have to say, I have great friends! Even if we do only see one another once a year.

Sunday morning dawned. I, as usual, overslept the first session, and so once again missed many a good paper. I spent the second session in the book exhibit picking up my purchases, proposal forms, and some sales talking to friends and saying goodbyes to Bruce, Jena, and others of the gang. Lunch was a lonely affair.

There are many I missed. There are many whom I only saw once and would have liked to see more. There are many I met and should have mentioned in the foregoing and haven't for no reason other than I'm a bit slow. There are good papers I would have liked to have heard and business meetings to have attended. But there it is. It was successful. It was fun. It stretched the ol' brain box as I learned new things. It spurned me on to achieve better papers, better research, and carry on the discipline. It made me want even more to teach this material to others. It made me glad I spent all this money, 30 years of my life, and all this effort to become a medievalist. See you next year.

Medieval Literature I Didn't Know: Late Antique Version

I haven't had time to do one of these for awhile, my apologies, but while other topics molder on the pile of things to address, I thought I'd remind myself and others of the series. My Spring Break is over and while progress was made on some fronts, one front that met with no progress was blogging. I have to say I enjoy this venue very much, and hope the two of you reading do too.

To the literature then.....today I want to talk about AVITUS. Who? Quick...to the Googles! There are two Late Antique figures with this name. The first is the Western Roman Emperor of the mid-fifth century. The second is the subject of this post, Alcimus Ecdicius Avitus, bishop of Vienne in southern France in the late fifth-early sixth century. The text I'm interested in is his poetic treatment of the Biblical text in his De spiritualis historiae gestis. But before the literature, a few words about the author.

The city of Vienne was at the time under the Burgundians, who like other Germanic tribes in the successor states were Arians. Sigismund, who was king from 516 on, taking over from his father Gundobad. Avitus succeeded in converting Sigismund from Arianism; the newly converted king established a monastery. When Sigismund's son opposed him and his new wife, he had his son strangled to death. Then in remorse and repentance, Sigismund entered his own monastery. Sadly, he emerged in 524 to lead his Burgundians against the combined forces of the sons of Clovis. With his brother, Sigismund lost. He took the monk's habit in his monastery but was quickly found and brought a prisoner to Orleans. The Franks had Burgundy. Sigismund's brother had escaped, rallied the Burgundians, and for a time retook and held onto his kingdom...but that's another story. On the rallying of the Burgundians, Clotair I of Orleans had Sigismund killed, his body tossed in a well, and then Clotair marched on the Burgundians.....all this is covered in Gregory of Tours history.

The Burgundians, even after absorption into the burgeoning Frankish kingdom, considered Sigismund a martyr and eventually he was canonized.

But this is getting me far afield from Avitus....

Avitus was as anti-Arian as they get. He was probably born in Vienne where his father was also bishop, a practice that I recall Columbanus later in the century complaining about. Anyway, Avitus set himself the task of exterminating the Arians, first by gaining the confidence of Sigismund's father, and then converting Sigismund--which of course meant that the whole kingdom converted. Avitus was also an opponent of Semipelagianism, a theological position that seeks a middle ground between the extremes of Pelagianism and Augustinism (utter free will vs. utter predeterminism to oversimplify), and monks at Marseille were in the early fifth century the chief proponents. But the idea wasn't condemned as heresy until after Avitus was dead (c. 517 for Avitus, 529, Council of Orange for Semipelagianism). He was also outspoken on the Acacian Schism in Constantinople, a schism that Boethius as I recall talks about in one of his theological tracts. Last, but not least, Avitus was a supporter of the early papacy as bulwark against heresy and unifier of orthodox Christians writing Si papa urbis vocatur in dubium, episcopatus videbitur, non episcopus, vaccilare (if the pope of the City is called into doubt, then it appears that the episcopate, not just one bishop, teeters.) He is also known for his congratulatory letter to Clovis when Clovis was baptized a Catholic.

That is pretty much all that is known about Avitus' life. His literary output included letters, homilies, and poetry. Let me mention a little something something about each before turning to the main topic of the post. His letters are important because they are one of the few sources outside of Gregory of Tour's history that give insight to into Gaul in the late fifth and early sixth century. Among those letters are that to Clovis mentioned above, letters to Sigismund, letters on the previously mentioned theological questions, letters requesting prayers and relics, esp of the True Cross, and other matters. Danuta Shanzer and Ian Wood translated the letters into English in 2002.

We know that there were homilies. Only a few have come to us. It it to be hoped that someday homiliaries, far too many of which have yet to be edited and published, may uncover more or uncover currently known homilies misattributed.

In addition to the biblical poem, there is a longish poem in 666 hexameters on Virginity that he composed for his sister the sister, Fuscina...she became a nun-yes, it's a very old joke.

One other item to mention quickly is one I have not even looked at or heard of, but a theological tract Contra Eutychianam Hæresim libri II, 2 books against the Eutychian heresy--Eutyches was an anti-Nestorian (Christ having two distinct natures: the human one he was born with, the divine one he later acquired: no union of the human and divine was possible, and so Mary could not be called "God-bearer". Eutyches flipped this on its head and essentially argued the monophysite position--one nature resulting from the fusion of human and divine. Avitus took Pope Leo I's position that has now become orthodoxy in the West: 2 natures united in one person.

Ok, enough of that sort of theology.... De spiritualis historiae gestis is a poem in five books written in hexameter verse. The first three books largely deal with the Creation of the World, the Fall, and the Expulsion from Paradise. Books 4 and 5 deal with the two other episodes in the developing catechism of the church: the Flood and the Crossing of the Red Sea. The last two, books 4 and 5, deal with these events as typology of baptism....the method by which the Christian returns to Paradise. So one might call the first three books an examination of Paradise lost and the latter two of Paradise regained. I hope you'll forgive the Miltonian references, though Milton is believed to have been influenced by Avitus. Something interesting happens in book 3: the first part of book 3 deals with the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and the judgment of God on Adam and Eve, but then Avitus turns to dealing with the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man from the Gospel of Luke. Avitus' purpose in introducing this story into the tale is to illustrate that the Rich Man in the parable repents, but he repents TOO LATE. Likewise, in Avitus' treatment, Adam and Eve weep tears of repentance on leaving the garden, but these extra-biblical tears of repentance come too late. In other words, the Original Sin was a pardonable one *if only* they had repented when God confronted them instead of after his judgment was rendered. The whole work to some degree appears to be an attempt not just to render the Bible into poetry, but to deal with the semipelagian issues of the day.

Sadly, so far as I know Avitus' poem has not been translated into English. It has been edited and included in the PL, the MGH, and I believe if memory serves in the Sources Chretienne series. I haven't checked CCSL and like series yet. There is an Italian edition that has both Latin and Italian. Ian Wood did a study of Avitus nearly 30 years ago, and there is a study of his poetry, though I don't own it and so can't say how much of the poem is translated. Should there be free time someday, I need to read the Creation portion for an article partially written. I'll let you know what I find in a future post. In the meantime, I give you the Literature I Didn't Know: Avitus of Vienne De spiritualis historiae gestis.

I think this article needs a bit of wider currency: http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/bottom-line-shows-humanities-really-155771.aspx

Reading Old English Texts

Back 11 years ago now, when I first entered graduate school and settled on Anglo-Saxon England as the focus of my studies, the HOT book of the moment was Reading Old English Texts edited by Katherine O'Brien O'Keefe. Published in 1997 and written then in mid-decade, the volume's purpose was to explore and introduce critical approaches to Old English literature rather than to introduce Old English literature. In part the collection is a response to Allen Frantzen's complaint that medieval literary critics, particularly Anglo-Saxonists, fail to engage with modern critical approaches to the field's detriment and perhaps even destruction--a complain in part published Frantzen's Desire for Origins in 1991.

Over the Christmas break (Ack! 3 months ago now!) I revisited this volume and reread the essays. It is interesting to me now how in many ways the volume is dated and practically useless now and how even then it wasn't as effective as it could have been.


The Introduction remains useful as a quick overview of "engagement with the past", i. e. the Anglo-Saxon past and the approaches of previous generations before O'Brien O'Keefe O'Szarmach (henceforth OBOK, currently married to Paul E. Szarmach currently director of the Medieval Academy of America) turns to discussing the details of the volume. It is a quick, though useful overview even yet.

The first two essays in the book are still the most applicable. Michael Lapidge writes on the Comparative Method and Donald Scragg on Source Criticism. Both offer a quick overview of the method and its uses and both essays would be useful for advanced undergrad or beginning grad level introductions to the methodological approaches.

The third essay too remains a useful one, though I have to say that it wasn't quite as pertinent yet as I thought it might be. Daniel Donahue discusses "Language Matters" and he makes some very good points about philology versus linguistics, the similarities, the history, and the key differences. Still, the essay I think fails to really describe either approach in any detail (and perhaps cannot all things considered) or to describe what can be and is done in such an approach and why it matters.

The late Nick Howe's contribution deals with New Historicism and Historicism as approaches and is a good overview and Andy Orchard follows it up with an essay on Oral Tradition.

Paul E. Szarmach follows with a discussion of "recovery" of texts and textual editing. Clare Lees is next with a description of feminist approaches and Carol Pasternack takes on "post-structuralist" approaches. The volume ends with Peter Baker on computing and OE.

The essays by Szarmach and Baker, both of which mention projects and computing and the like are the most obviously outdated pieces in that aspect. Paul's remarks on the "recovery of Old English" are still on the money overall and ought to be read by any and every beginning medievalist. After all, where would any of us be without text editors and editing? But the computer material has been long bypassed and one can even posit that using computers in scholarship is no longer really a hot topic or worthy of discussion anymore than using original languages in research is.

The two "theory" essays on feminist theory and post-structuralist approaches are likewise long in the tooth these nearly 15 years later. Much has remained the same it is true, but much has changed and I for one would love to see an update of such approaches that folks like Eileen Joy and Mary Ramsey among others are engaging in.

Most of the contributors were just beginning the twilight of their careers at the point of the volume's inception. Since Lapidge, Scragg, and Szarmach have retired; Orchard is doing more administration than publishing these days it would seem, Howe has sadly died too soon. Lees and Pasternack are now "elders" in the field as is OBOK. This all of course says nothing about the usefulness of the volume. It does mean though that a redo is probably in order soonish, or at least an update. I doubt OBOK would want to do an update, given that she has moved to other pastures and other projects and Peter Baker might not be the best person to address the use of electronic applications to the study of Old English texts, in spite of his electronic primer of Old English-assuming that computer applications or web applications can be called an approach any longer.

In many ways we've moved beyond the question of the applications of oral tradition, though still an important topic, and beyond mere feminism and post-structuralism and neo-historicism. Those are still with us, I still use those tools and tend to the historicist and neo-historicist myself. But the field is more varied now, such as applications of theory about "the other", exploration of Jews, homosexuality, sin, monsters. The volume itself avoided any discussion of theology or religion and attendant approaches that should be included. At the same time, the call Frantzen issued hasn't as a whole I think been heeded: as a whole this volume was a bandaid that covered a big wound, but the hole is there yet. Some, such as Babel Project and The Post-Modern Beowulf and like efforts seek to fill that hole.

So it's a mixed bag, I suppose. It is still a useful volume; there is still much good in this slim book. But it is also a dated collection that needs at least a facelift if not replacement by a new volume with a more wide-ranging collection of texts about methodologies.

I might say the same about Johns, Medieval Studies, a book done in 70s originally and updated in the early 90s. A good idea, a good primer of approaches largely in history, but a book that too is now dated and in need of a fresh approach. Had I but world enough and time I'd take a poll and see if anyone is interested in contributing to such a beast or two. Not that I'm bored and need a new project....

Huh?

A lot of folk have been having a gander at this story and taking a stab at the decipherment. What I haven't seen mentioned yet is what should be an obvious "huh?"

> "What is believed to be the first ever example of English in a British church has been discovered.
>
Tim Tatton Brown, the cathedral's consultant archaeologist, explained: 'The Cathedral's conservators quite unexpectedly found some beautifully written English text behind the Henry Hyde Monument on the cathedral's south aisle wall when the monument was temporarily removed as part of the on-going schedule of work.
>
"And what the experts now think is that this could be the first example of English written in a church context - scholars were executed for translating the bible into English at that tune.

Source: The Telegraph, 2010 March01<<


Frankly, I have been puzzled by that remark. Certainly even if we are restricting the comment to only inscriptional evidence in English churches, we have the Bewcastle and Ruthwell crosses, the inscription on the Brussels Cross, or the Old English inscription on the wall of a church in Breamore, among several others that could be pointed to. If we are only looking to Middle English or early Modern there's the English inscription at Newland from circa 1457, and another almost a century earlier from Cawston. That leaves aside the large number of homilies in both Old and Middle English that would have been written and preached in a "church context" and so on, much less other kinds of texts in Old, Middle, and early Modern English in church contexts of various kinds.

It seems an odd comment. The only context I can think of where it *might* be true is that it is the first English *writing* as opposed to inscription in a church sanctuary. That isn't what the article says, but that actually might be true. Thoughts?

Cynewulf's catalogue of charismata abstract

A work yet in progress. This paper seeks to explore imagery in Cynewulf's poem called by modern scholars Christ II. The paper explores Biblical, patristic, and pre-Christian European imagery of ascension and enthronement of kings and gods to set the stage for the gift-giving scene and then seeks to understand Cynewulf's gifts as part of that motif argues that the catalog may be divided into gifts of lore and gifts of the warrior, making them a list formulated and expressing sapientia et fortitudo making one worthy of heaven While acknowledging Cynewulf's debt to specifically Gregory the Great and his Ascension sermon, this paper departs from the usual examination of this poem in not looking only to Gregory as a source for the ideas contained in the poem but to a much wider cultural background that spans the Biblical, the patristic, the Greco-Roman, and the Germanic.

Possible Tolkien Inspiration? Tolkien Geek Out Post

In doing some research on a paper---as rarely as that happens these days--I came across a reference in Aelfric. I don't know how to get Blogger to display A-S characters, so I'll just translate the line from Aelfric's homily for the Second Sunday After Pentecost (CHI): The chosen always see their Maker's brightness, and so there is not anything in creation hidden from them.

Aelfric is translating almost directly from Gregory the Great's homily for the same date. The phrase applies specifically to those who are chosen and have been through the last judgment, and so are blessed. I have to admit that it is a notion I've not encountered before.

Now, to the Tolkien bits: There are two characters in Middle Earth in LoTR who know an awful lot of the goings on. That knowledge is gained in various ways: spies, magical instruments, news, and in one case through torture. But for both Galadriel and Sauron there seems to be more to it than that.

Galadriel remarks to Frodo in Lothlorien in the Book II that Sauron's designs are not hidden from her. "I perceive the Dark Lord and know his designs." One might suppose that this is a reference to the just revealed magic ring she wears, one of the Three for Elven kings under the sky. But is this so? Neither Elrond nor Gandalf who also wear one of the three make similar claims, and they further note that Sauron has often been ahead of them through the ages. As it turns out, when one reads the appendices, it is Galadriel who consistently has been right about Sauron and his purposes and that too often Saruman whom Galadriel distrusted was able to assuage doubts and questions and talk the council into another course of action. So it argues against the ring she wears being a direct source of her knowledge. Nor does Nenya, Galadriel's ring, confer hidden knowledge and the like, but rather the power to preserve and protect.

One might point to her magic mirror...but the mirror like the palantir only shows images of what is, was, or might be....not what one thinks, feels, or intends. Granted, the mirror might show her Sauron's battle plans in the War Room of Barad-Dur. But that might be a "was" or a "might be."

I suggest that there might be something more to Galadriel's knowledge. Unlike the other elves who are principle characters in LoTR (not dealing with the Silm. and other works which might disprove this theory...so it is a work in progress), she has lived in the Blessed Realm, and has seen the glory of her creator, at least as reflected in the Valar and the Blessed Realm. Further, over time, Galadriel seems to have redeemed herself for leaving the Blessed Realm and returning to Middle Earth by resisting Morgoth and Sauron through the ages. Does this redemption and her having dwelt among those directly reflecting the glory of God give her the ability that Aelfric and Gregory are talking about: that nothing is hidden from her in creation?

Ah, the objection will be raised that Galadriel tells the characters that she can not perceive Gandalf the Grey, he is clouded to her. She can not discern his intent or mind. Ok, fair enough, though this example actually kind of demonstrates the thesis. Galadriel knows, or suspects, or intuits, that Gandalf yet exists in spite of his fall. She may not know his mind, but she knows that he is and kinda, sorta, where to find him. The Grey Pilgrim further is greater than she, so there are limits just as the blessed who see God and his glory don't know his mind unless he reveals it to them.

But then Sauron is of the same order as Gandalf, how can she know his mind? Several reasons: first, Sauron has limited himself in many ways. He has limited himself to Middle Earth. He has lost power each time he has incarnated. He has lost power by putting it into the One Ring, a object he can not access or control. He can no longer block her entry.

Speaking of Sauron, he too seems to be able to gather information beyond the use of magical devices, spies, torture of prisoners and the like. We see his "lidless eye" a number of times outside of Mordor looking, seeking, knowing, "his arm is long", long enough to affect things where and when he in fact can not possibly have been able to know by normal means, and even magical means available to him would be somewhat limited. SO how does he know?

I'd suggest that like Galadriel it is the result of the refracted glory of his creator, whom Sauron like Gandalf has seen "outside the circles of the world." Granted, Sauron has turned his innate abilities including this one to his own purposes, and therefore to evil and that certainly dulls their usefulness. But he is still greater than any in Middle Earth for all that.

It might be pointed out that the passage to which I have already pointed remarks that Sauron can not discern Galadriel's mind and intents, doesn't that argue against this thesis. Not at all: as just mentioned Sauron has turned his gifts and himself to evil. In the same sermon Gregory and Aelfric mention that the damned have things hidden from them and only occasionally catch glimpses of the chosen. Thus, Sauron having seen the One and lived in the Blessed Realm has a deeper perception and fewer things hidden from him than the average Middle Earth dweller, but because of his evil his ability is tarnished and weakened in comparison to those who have not turned to evil, or who did, but have been redeemed.

Just a working hypothesis.....

Shakespeare II

So we've finished Henry V now in class. I've taken, for this play, an historicist approach focusing on play vs. history as well as how Shakespeare's depiction of Henry as epic hero and all the attendant themes might have some application to understanding Shakespeare's England.

In the details: I went through the first act in some detail, particularly the chorus which is one of favorite of Shakespeare's passages. I wanted to demonstrate close reading and asking questions of why Shakespeare says certain things that he says. I turned them loose on Acts 2 and 3. In group work, each group was assigned a scene from each act and they were to answer questions of what, why, and wherefore. So each group gave a summary of the scene, examined its connection to the preceding scene, and explained why it was important to the action of the play. I then would ask the group some other questions regarding their scene and they explained their answers to the class. Overall, this went well.

We went through the first scene of Act 4 carefully as a class in moderated discussion. One of the issues that I discussed was the king as two people, yes, taken from Kantorowicz and we talked about this idea as we discussed the discussion between Henry and Williams. We also talked a little bit about Shakespeare's use of mistaken identity in this act and I will bring that back to them later when we encounter this technique in other plays we'll read. This meant also focusing on the scene with Pistol and the French noble, and we contrasted Pistol and Henry on the idea of ransom, and that lead to discussing the roles of Pistol, Bardolf, Nym, and Quickly in this play and how the lawless, masterless (after Falstaff's death) are replaced by Fluellen especially in this act as the influences in Henry's life.

We spent some time comparing Henry in scene I and the Henry of the St Crispin's Day speech and talked a little about that speech. We dwelt slightly on some other speeches in the act.

Act 5 went quickly and we spent time comparing and contrasting scene I and scene II, what we called the wooing of France and the wooing of Katherine.

We spent two days post Henry on wrap up. We distilled the themes, the structure, applied it to what I said about history and the historical context of Shakespeare.

Along the way, I've tried to bring in video and such. Regrettably I'm not in a wired classroom, and the equipment I've checked out from the dept simply doesn't work...or when it did work, it had no sound card. So I've taken to putting up links to video files on the Net on Blackboard and assigning their viewing. This led to our last day of discussion on Henry as performance. We discussed the differences between some of them and how the chorus is presented. We also spent time again working in groups to imagine and present how a scene I assigned to each group would be presented. There were some imaginative answers...such as the Wooing of Katherine in Act 5 being set on a playground with kids not unlike the Disney cartoon from a few years ago, Recess. I thought that was rather amusing. Those kindergartners were vicious!

We're onto Macbeth now. I set up the transition, talked a little about the date of the play, what's changed since Henry was probably written, and for this play I want to take a partial source-critical approach and consider how Shakespeare has changed and adapted his sources. I also talked about a bit of literary criticism Renaissance style and the wheel of fortune, tragedy and comedy, the 3 unities and how Will plays with them, and mash up of genres, and the presentation of evil.

We've begun Act I and I relish the Weird Sisters! So we spent too much time examining the sisters, what they say, why they say it and what's going on with them in the first act. This led to discussing Marlowe and his Faustus and its reception, some of the mythology about Macbeth as a play, and James I's Daemonologie. We also noted the black and white presentation of Macdonwald and Macbeth and I mentioned how this presentation of good and evil will be challenged in the play and that the students should begin to take note of places where that happens as they read.

Again, I will be posted video presentations and this time around we'll focus on some language and poetry issues, as well as more reading aloud and actual performance of scenes rather than thinking about performance of scenes.

So far this has been great fun for me. The problem of course is that it is a new prep and I don't really have the time to develop it as well as I would like to. The non-functioning equipment is frustrating and the inability to get a wired classroom...even when there's a composition class next door that is in a media classroom but the instructor refuses to give it up...is frustrating. Still, we seem to be getting along and we haven't lost that many people so far.

A Tiny Splash

We all have apparently made a tiny splash worth noticing: http://thefastertimes.com/academicpolitics/2010/02/03/a-bunch-of-pissed-off-medievalists/

Humanities et al

In a recent thread elsewhere that I have participated in while avoiding other more important work like grading composition papers, the issue has once again been raised regarding current practices in the humanities. Now, I don't give much attention to the original poster in that discussion: it is apparent that the OP hasn't read the literature he decries and so his opinion as opinion may safely be discounted.

But his opinion is a common one out there. He and others in the thread who are not professional academics complain that current practices particularly in history are mere revisionism. To a degree this is simply the old "ubi sunt" motif in a newish guise: the old historians were much better than the current ones and so the current ones ought to be rejected particularly where they disagree with the old ones. The particular issue in question has been the reassessment of feudalism: what is it, what does it mean, is it really a system, many systems, or should we jettison the term as not useful at all to describe what's going on. The OP and others essentially come down that the old historians, such as Duby, are right, and that "revisionists" such as Reynolds where they differ are always wrong, and are doing their reassessment from political, agenda driven motives. The reader will note all sorts of difficulties with this position starting from the simple fact of the logical fallacy that the old days were golden, the present is much less so.

But what I want to highlight is not the details of the discussion so much as the negative view of what it is we do even as medieval historians and literary critics and linguists. There is among a certain sector of modern society a backlash against academics and like "big government" this sector treats or views academia as a negative blight on society and that "academics" speak with a single voice, almost always liberal. This is illustrated by a short piece I read a few months ago and had hoped to blog about in the 2008 Progressive from MLA. There Michael Holmquist has a meditation titled "Traffic in the Humanities" that he begins by reflecting back on 1991 and the backlash to MLA voicing public concern over an appointment to the NEH, then headed by Lynne Cheney...yes the Lynne Cheney married to the former Vice President who meddled in higher education affairs throughout most of the past decade. The public backlash that made fun and shouted down MLA and other academic organizations is a backlash that to some degree we still struggle against. Holmquist notes that most of the Presidential Fora for the MLA since have in some way been about defending the Humanities in general and the study of literature and language in particular.

But I like what he says when he comments: "What such a heteroglot mix (the 2007 forum was made up of a mix of academics and non-academics working in various fields) makes immediately clear is that the ivory tower is really a co-op: the differences between inside and outside are much less hard-edged than we often assume-and in surprising ways-sometimes non-existent." He notes that those non-academics often made novel and insightful arguments for the continued study of language and literature and the humanities in general than the academics did.

Holmquist is followed by Marjorie Garber in a piece called "Good to Think With". Among the points Garber makes are the observations that Humanities is alive and well outside academia. Applied humanities are actively pursued in the sciences, the medical field for example and not just simply in medical schools. Businessmen now attend conferences "on topics they didn't think relevant in college." She also mentions Humanities outreach programs only some of which are run by colleges and universities. And even the NEA and other national, state, and local government initiatives seek to have the humanities brought to a larger audience: humanities as a central piece of our society.

It is no wonder that the discussants are upset. Ideas are invading their space. Historians and medievalists in particular are out there addressing the problems of the modern world and have something to say about those issues that cuts through the rhetoric. Even something like thinking about what feudalism is and does might have something of an impact outside the debates in print and at conferences. And yes, even history and literature are open to progress, or to reassessment, positive uses and negative uses. One of the interesting aspects of these discussions about the humanities is that the "good ol' days" crowd shout that the current crop of scholars march lock step when in fact that is less the case now than it was in the good ol' days!

Naturally, they won't be convinced. But I have to say that it always surprises me when these anti-academic, anti-humanities raise their voices to such a crescendo and let go the dogs of war. At least in words. Thinking and "doubting wisely" are hard; such practices force one to go where one didn't think one would. And that is frightening. So how do we help them overcome that fear? That I do not have an answer for.

Palaeography at King's College

Many will already know this, but just in case there are some who don't yet. The endowed chair in Palaeography at King's College, London is in danger of being cut...in fact the current chair holder David Ganz has already been informed he will be without a position at the beginning of the term in Sept. This chair dedicated to palaeography is Britain's only such chair; in fact I know of no other such chair or position in the world solely dedicated to palaeography and related issues. The hue and cry has gone up and should. Scholars the world over, even those not directly involved in early medieval palaeography ought to be dismayed at this development--especially as it comes on the heals of a job announcement for 3 people to work on "text-related" humanities computing initiatives at KCL. Ok, granted those 3 positions are one year contracts, but nonetheless...nor am I against the growth of humanities computing...quite the opposite: I'm all for it. I'm just noting that it is odd to be announcing cuts, I believe I saw something about 21 faculty positions, while announcing new vacancies elsewhere--especially where those cuts are getting rid of an endowed chair that is at least unique in Britain, in the field of medieval studies, and even the world.

Many are trying to save the chair by writing emails and letters and I hope that we all can agree to do this. People on Facebook are facilitating a letter writer campaign. Addresses are:

The Principal
King’s College
principal@kcl.ac.uk

copied to: Professor Jan Palmowski
Head of the School of Arts and Humanities
King’s College
jan.palmowski@kcl.ac.uk

The Facebook page is here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=303202385890&ref=share

Please write and/or share this information with others via any means possible.

Just Sharin'

http://www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/

Shaking My Speare: My Take on Shakespeare I

Ok, it's a silly title I know. I'm doing my first all Shakespeare course. I've done various Shakespeare plays and sonnets in Brit Lit surveys and other courses organized around a theme. I usually take a theme in general lit classes and do a diachronic set of readings from the ancient to the modern and so some Shakespeare often fit in there.

But this is my first Shakespeare course, and as long as I'm a contingent employee, the closest I'll come to teaching anything medieval for the foreseeable future. So I thought I'd try and blog what I'm doing, how I'm doing it, what I think about it and what is working and what isn't. All comments are welcome.\

It is a 200 level course at a community college. And as usual I have a range of students; on one extreme is the Ren faire/Elizabethan enthusiast who knows quite a lot, the theater person who has performed but never studied the works of the Bard, down to the other extreme of the inner city kids who are taking it because it fulfills they're Humanities credit, it fits their schedule, and have maybe encountered some Shakespeare in high school.

I've set the usual sort of thing in terms of assignments: mostly on a daily basis reading, approx an act per 1 1/2 hour class. 2 exams, 2 papers, 2 related group projects, participation and discussion round out the grading requirements.

Our first class last week, I "lectured" if you can call what I do lecturing, giving a historical background to the Elizabethan period, and the major intellectual ideas. I then paired the 25 students up and gave them a sonnet or short passage--time to get the feet wet with some Shakespeare text. The assignment was to imitate those Geico insurance commercials from a while back: the ones where you have the real person telling their story, and the "famous" actor or person to help tell their story. The task for the class then is for one group member to present the text as is, and the other to "interpret" in some way. They could play it straight, make it funny, sing it...the only requirement is to capture the meaning of the passage. I generally chose well-known passages and sonnets that we likely will not do in the course.

We will finish those presentations in our third meeting tomorrow and then leap into our first play Henry V. I plan to spend some time on the Chorus' prologue, a too oft overlooked passage in my view, and examine the use of the chorus, the invocation of the muse, the interweaving of classical and biblical references, the propaganda aspects, and then to show Olivier, Branagh, and Plummer versions of the prologue to show some differences. This all may spill over into Thursday's class, but we'll see.

I'm looking forward to this class. It's the only lit class I've done in a year for one thing, and unlike last year's Fiction course, fun in its own right, this Shakespeare one is at least close to my field. So that's kind of exciting if you ask me.

Medieval Middle Earth

It is no secret that Tolkien's Middle Earth in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings contain many a borrowing from medieval literature and even history. Tolkien is both medievalist an medievalismist, purveyor, if you will, of things medieval in a later guise. Due to a discussion elsewhere, I was reminded of something I do in my one and only Tolkien class. Or I did.

I have a lecture and slide show on Tolkien's medievalism after the class has read LoTR and is moving on to read some of the influences on Tolkien like Beowulf and SGGK. In this lecture, I point to Tolkien's languages and how they parallel the situation in Medieval Europe. In Western Europe, every court eventually spoke a vernacular. But of those, there was Latin that the learned learned and used for all manner of thing. Higher up the chain were Greek and Hebrew.

At least among humans and hobbits in Middle Earth, the situation is much the same. Most peoples of ME speak Westron or their own vernacular. Among those are the learned who study and learn "Elvish" or Sindarin. Among those, a few will learn Quenya. And like Greek influencing Latin, so Quenya influenced Sindarin.

There was more and a nice comparative chart, now lost due to computer failure and I foolishly didn't have it all backed up. Ah well...someday I may have opportunity to teach this again and redevelop the chart.

Anyway, I'm sure that others have pointed this feature out before, but it is still one that makes me smile and fly my nerd flags at full mast.