Faerie Potter?

So I just noticed that despite the appearance that my blog was finished, I hadn't blogged about Harry Potter!

While sitting in class on Tuesday with my paper ready to hand in, I realized that my title "Faerie Potter and the Sorcerer's Queene - Rowling's Inspiration for her Harry Potter Series," could be taken in a way that I had not intended. I had meant to simply combine the two titles Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and The Faerie Queene, but inadvertently I had made the allusion to an underlying homosexual tone in the "Faerie" Potter series.

After giggling to myself, I decided to Google the idea, and of course received over four thousand hits. I looked at articles such as "J.K. Rowling Had No Business Infusing 'Harry Potter' With a Minor Homosexual Undertone And Then Telling Us About It" by Debbie Newman of the gossip website Jossip.com and "Is Harry Potter Gay?" by Johann Hari, a homosexual e-journalist who hopes the answer to that question is YES!

The first article dealt with the issue of J.K. Rowling revealing in a press conference that Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of Hogwarts, is a homosexual. Many people were outraged because this came after all seven books of the series were published without that tidbit on Dumbledore's character. They think that because it is so scandalous and not in the books, it was wrong of her to reveal it post-publishing. After all of the bad publicity the books have gotten from their "Anti-Christian" subject matter, the hype had calmed down until Rowling 'outed' Dumbledore, one of the books most beloved characters.

Johann Hari's article was a hilarious read, although I had to shut my eyes for parts of it because he made some explicit connections between Harry's wand and other certain body parts. However, I found some of the other connections quite comical such as the fact the Harry lives in a closet, wears long flowing purple gowns, and feels as though he is different from everyone else. According to Hari, the Harry Potter series is a perfect example of a coming-of-age story combined with coming out of the closet and embracing his newfound world.

The Early Modern Angel - Blog Overview

Pieter Bruegel’s Fall of the Rebel Angels (1564), from the book Angels in the Early Modern World.

My blog is about angels and angel belief in the Early Modern/Renaissance period in England. In class, the topic came from studying Milton’s Paradise Lost. Researching angels has been difficult for a few reasons such as the 1640s attempt to remove angels from the church and the fact that at the same time, a coin was made under Elizabeth’s rule, known today as “the Renaissance angel.” Despite that, I found many resources chronicling people who saw angels and those brave enough to publish their own ideas and opinions on angels’ existence.

This first topic I addressed in my blog was those whose mission was to prove the existence of angels. This topic focused on John Dee, court astrologer to Queen Elizabeth, particularly his famous “angelic conversations.” The conversations occurred through the help of a mediary, and were recorded in Enochian, the language of the angels. I found this language especially alluring because of its uniqueness apart from any other known language man has ever spoken or recorded. Because of this, I feel that despite his expulsion from the church for blasphemy and accusations of dark magic, Dee has found something unlike anything else on this planet. Perhaps these are true accounts of angels, and perhaps the translation of their conversations may reveal what is in store for the Earth and God’s people.

I then found Laurence Claxton’s “Paradisical Dialogue betwixt Faith and Reason.” In this, I found it most interesting how Claxton’s independent beliefs and rejection of traditional approaches allowed him to publish something so controversial. The dialogue has minimal references to scripture or even to other intelligent thought. It is completely a work of faith and reason as the name suggests, in which he asks unanswerable questions about religion, and in turn answers them with what he feels in his heart to be the truth.

When I had done my initial research for my in-class presentation, I had come across the story of Dr. John Pordage. Pordage claimed to have had conversations and visits with angels. When he taught of their revelations, he was accused of blasphemy and ejected from the church in a terribly prejudiced trial. After reading both sides of the story, I saw the unfairness of the trial as well as the passionate cause behind those who expelled him.

The basis for the highly conservative radical reformists was in the recent history. At the end of the medieval period, Christians had been led astray due to certain beliefs in angels. There were cults that worshiped angels and even had leaders who were supposed to be angels in human form. Of course, they weren’t really angels, but corruption of the belief in angels. The Church was willing now to do anything in its power to remove the potential for false idolatry, which included removing and forbidding all imagery of angels within the church. It is because of this that few images exist relating to angels in England’s Early Modern Period.

With no imagery allowed of angels, I was curious as to what people believed the angels looked like. Through research, I found many accounts suggesting that angels do not appear to humans. These people believed that the only “angels” we could see were devils in disguise. Others such as John Salkeld believed angels could and did appear to people. These angels came in the bodies made of air. I particularly liked his account on how they communicate to us, that they have no tongues to speak, but rather convey their message through the heart. His “Treatise of Angels” posed many interesting questions that I would like to read more of in the future.

The Early Modern Angel - Bibliography and List of Useful Resources

Bibliography:

Anon. Truth appearing through the clouds of undeserved scandal and aspersion. London, 1654.

Claxton, Laurence. A paradisical dialogue betwixt faith and reason disputing the high mysterious secrets of eternity, the like never extant in our revelation. London: William Lerner, 1660.

Deacon, John. A publick discovery of a secret deceit. Or, The man of sin unmasked, his sheeps-clothing of glorious pretences pulled off; and his wolvish inside set forth in its colours. Where may easily be discerned Satan transformed into the resemblance of an angel... London: The sign of the Bottle neer the great North door of Pauls., 1656.

Deacon, Richard. John Dee: Scientist, Geographer, Astrologer, and Secret Agent to Elizabeth I. London: Frederick Muller Ltd., 1968. 141-56, 172-3, 206-213.

Fowler, Christopher. Daemonium meridianum. Satan at noon. Or, Antichristian blasphemies, anti-scripturall divelismes, anti-morall uncleanness, evidenced in the light of truth, and published by the hand of justice. London: Francis Eglesfield, 1655.

Fowler, Christopher. Daemonium meridianum. Sathan at noon. The first hath discovered the blasphemies of J. Pordage, against the Lord Christ, under the pretence of visions, and converse with angles. London: Francis Eglesfield, 1656.

Marshall, Peter, and Alexandra Walsham. "Migrations of angels in the early modern world." Angels in the Early Modern World. Ed. Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2006. 1-22, 32-33.

Marshall, Peter. "Angels in the Early Modern Period." Interview with Lesley Carr. Video blog post. Warwick ICAST. 13 Feb. 2007. 10 Sept. 2008 .

Oldridge, Darren. Strange Histories: The trial of the pig, the walking dead, and other matters of fact from the medieval and Renaissance worlds. New York, NY: Routledge, 2005. 20-39.

Raymond, Joad. "'With the tongues of angels': angelic conversations in Paradise Lost and seventeenth century England." Angels in the Early Modern World. Ed. Patrick Marshall and Alexandra Walsham. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2006. 256-81.

Salkeld, John. A treatise of angels Of the nature, essence, place, power, science, vvill, apparitions, grace, sinne, and all other proprieties of angels. Collected out of the holy Scriptures, ancient fathers, and schoole-diuines. London: Thomas Snodham, 1613.

Walsham, Alexandra. "Angels and idols in England's long Reformation." Angels in the Early Modern World. Ed. Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2006. 134-67.

*pink = primary sources commented upon in blog

List of Useful Resources for Someone Interested in Pursuing the Topic:

Everything listed above, and:

Angels in the Early Modern World. Ed. Peter Marshall and Alexandra Walsham. New York, NY: Cambridge UP, 2006. This book is full of interesting articles about angels and angel belief during the Renaissance. It focuses mostly on England, but also has articles examining angel belief in the rest of the British Isles and other parts of Europe.

Deacon, John. The grand imposter examined: or the life, tryal and examination of James Nayler, the seduced and seducing Quaker with the manner of his riding into Brystol. London: The Hand in S. Paul's Church-yard, 1656. -- I found this near the end of my research and have not yet read much of it. It is an account of the life of the man who thought to have spoken with angels, but then found that they were the devil in disguise.

Early English Books Online (EEBO) is an incredible resource for finding primary sources, particularly pamphlets from the Early Modern period. When I typed in "angel," I got over a thousand hits! -- however, about 100 of those hits were from a popular salescorner "the Angell," and often didn't relate to angel beliefs.

What Does an Angel Look Like?

People today and back in the Early Modern Period speak of appearances of angels. Questions come to mind from skeptical readers and hopeful believers. Are they real? What do they look like? Who do they appear to? What are they made of?

Today, we dismiss many of these questions because we have separated science and religion, the physical and the metaphysical world to such a great degree. When we hear of angels today, we think of miracles and children's Christmas pageants. Our image of angels is long white robes, white feathery wings, and of course the illuminating halo circling the angel's head. There is no burning curiosity that urgently needs an answer to these questions. However, in the Renaissance era, writers such as John Salkeld and Christopher Fowler had ideas on the form of an angel.

The ideas of angelic form stem from scripture. From the Bible comes the idea and overall acceptance that angels have an anthropomorphic form. In Genesis, they are shown as sword-wielding cherubim barring the way to Eden (Genesis 3.24). In the New Testament, they are portrayed as messengers at Christ’s resurrection in shining white garments (Matthew 28.2). Our society has latched onto these images of angels, but what about the ones from the Renaissance, when the physical and metaphysical worlds were so close that people wanted to know if angels could eat or be touched?

Fowler, who recounted the trials of John Pordage, delivers an account of an angel's appearance. "He was of an incredible beauty, his countenance more white than snow, more ruddy than the rose, cross'don his breast, his locks long and curled, more clear than polished gold, shining with such brightnesse, that she could read her matters at midnight, (Daemonium Meridianum: Sathan at Noon, p.7) Fowler is one of the believers that angels do not appear to humans. Devils appear to humans under the guise of angels.

In John Deacon’s 1656 writing “A Publick Discovery of a Secret Deceit,” a man named James Nayler who had previously claimed to have had conversations with angels found that his angels were truly devils. He was accused, then, of blasphemy “the Man of sin Unmasked, his Sheepskin clothing of glorious pretences pulled off; and his Wolvith inside set forth in its colours,” (Deacon, 1). The man was a Quaker, a religious sect that already suffered from disapproval by other Christians. This mistake of believing Satan to be an angel brought nothing more than more disgrace on the Quakers. Deacon chastises and condemns them, saying “remember Satan hath transformed himself into an Angel of light; and if you be his Ministers as the tree, Antichrist is known by his fruits,” (Deacon, 41).

A more optimistic opinion on the appearances of angels was the belief that they were incorporeal, yet made of an air-like substance and could take on any form that fit the situation. In his 1613 publication "A Treatise of Angels," theologian John Salkeld discusses all imaginable ideas about angels, backed up with other religious figures and scriptural support. Under the belief that God, as the most perfect being, was the only entity that could exist in a completely disembodied form, angels must be of some body, though not of flesh (Salkeld, 31). He later proposes the idea that angels take on bodies made of air, but cannot speak with these air-bodies. They can't speak, however they do communicate to us. “It cannot be declared neyther how the Angels doe outwardly speake into us in our eare; neyther how inwardly in our hearts,” (Salkeld, 117).

While I can understand that skepticism of the age and attempt to eradicate all possibilities of false worship, I find comfort in Salkeld description of the angels. With this account, I picture angels as ethereal beauties who cannot speak, yet speak tons more than imaginable by speaking directly to one's heart. An angel can be all the things that we imagine today, but the most important aspect is how they touch our hearts. Just hope you angel isn't a devil in disguise, a wolf in sheep's clothing!

The Near Loss of Angels

I don't know how to put the video in here, but here's a link!

This video is a Warwick iCast from 2007 about "how angels were nearly purged from our culture and why they survived." It is a short documentary/interview of Professor Peter Marshall of the University of Warwick. Marshall is also a co-editor/author of a book on the subject "Angels in the Early Modern World." This book is a collection of essays on angels, their purposes, and their appearances in Renaissance culture from contemporary authors.

During the late Medieval period, many problems arose because of human dependence on angels. Among these were Angel cults, in which worshipers turned their affections and adoration to angels instead of God, who is the one true divine power. Some of these cults even had leaders who gained power, prestige, and riches by claiming to be angels in corporeal form. Also, there were the Cathar sects who believed that the world had been created by evil angels and that important spiritual figures such as the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist were angels, never existing in flesh (Marshall and Walsham, Migrations of angels in the early modern world, p. 1-22).

The original purpose and existence of angels was corrupted in idolatry and also abused by society as a means of reinforcing the social hierarchy (by example of the celestial hierarchy). To reconstruct the church after these events, the Church tried to completely expel angels from the religion. Marshall describes these actions in his interview as the "sixteenth century protestant reformers attack on the angel." Not only were all angel figures removed from the church, but also holy water, crucifixes, and candles were removed in fear that they too would become the idols of false worship.

People were able to live without these intermediaries, but in order to maintain the feeling of spiritual protection, they needed angels. In the absence of all else, Renaissance England took comfort in knowing that "there were armies of invisible angels which God had sent to protect them," (Marshall). The world was full of evil and evil angels, but God's army of good angels were there to protect the people, despite the Church's attempt to rid the religion. Especially saving was the fact that angels appear throughout the Bible, and the denial of their existence is impossible without completely changing scripture.

I wonder how pure the reformists wanted the religion to become. Should the church be nothing more than an empty building with empty walls in which to worship? God cannot be represented because we cannot comprehend him. He is solely a being and cannot be put into a statue's form or a painting. Therefore one either has to sit and worship in a blank room free of distractions or else look to images which inspire the feeling of God's love such as angels and crosses. Is showing images and symbols of God blasphemous because it makes us think of his messengers instead of Him? I think that a purist religion would be less emotional and too stoic for my own personal spirituality. I need the music and paintings, the images of angels and the illustrated children's Bible. With these tools, religion comes alive and excites the soul, and there is nothing more exciting than nearly crying over a passionate sermon and feeling euphoric singing contemporary praise songs at a youth fellowship meeting.

Also from a contemporary perspective, Marshall poses a question for us today. When asked if he believes that angels are more important in contemporary society, he states that he believes they are, but moreso in a non-Christian way, kind of New Agey with crystals and calling upon your guardian angel, popular culture with Hollywood movies. Does this prove the Protestants’ fear has been made real? Have we fallen back to how the medieval English worshiped angels instead of God? With all of the science believed in today, have we pushed angels into the world of fiction, with TV shows such as Touched by an Angel and Charmed what comes to mind when we think of that image?

John Pordage's Prejudiced Ejectment

This is another pamphlet from the trial and ejectment of John Pordage, who claimed to have had conversations with angels, but was accused of blasphemy and teaching Christians to deny the God-head. However, unlike the "impartial" yet condemning previous texts, this pamphlet from an anonymous author gives a different view of the trial, as a "brief and true account of some particulars."

The main flaw in the case was that the judges were incredibly prejudiced against Pordage, which once again could be due to the fear of the revival of angel cults. These judges "shewed their inward temper with sharp and bitter expressions," (anon. "Truth Appearing thorough the Clouds of Undeserved Scandal and Aspersion," p.6). They hung onto every word that came out of Pordage's mouth during the trial, not to make an educated judgment, but so to find faults and ways to twist his words into distorted paraphrases.

Another flaw in the case was that many of the charges exceeded the normal time span set down by the law for accusing a person of a crime. The law stated six months was the maximum amount of time before an accusation should be made, and most of the actions in the claims against Pordage occurred one to four years prior. On top of this, the judges did not allow Pordage's witnesses to give testimonies, yet a main witness against Pordage highlights the trial's foul play. This woman from Redding, claimed that she and Pordage had had a private conversation at one point a few years back in which he had made blasphemous remarks to her. Her story seemed fabricated and continued to change throughout the case, and on top of that, she was a known perjurer, yet her word was taken by the judges with the utmost respect.

While the author of this pamphlet remains anonymous, I personally think it might be Samuel Pordage, his son, who, after his father's expulsion from the church, recounted his father's angelic visions in literary texts. The author ends his brief account with the hope that the truth will be recognized, condemning those "who think to make their own cause good by representing his as bad. But certainly the time will come, when his pretended guilt will appear to be innocency, and their innocency but vailed guilt." ("Truth Appearing thorough the Clouds," p.6)

"Duty belongs to us, and Events to God"

John Pordage was a minister in Bradfield, England, who claimed to have had conversations with angels. He preached about them in the church, where some followed him and others rejected his new teachings. Those who rejected them condemned him as a blasphemer and a heretic, which led to his Ejectment from the church in a very public and defaming trial, beginning Monday, September 18, 1654.

In the trial, Pordage was accused of (1) Blasphemy, (2) Pretended Visions of Angels, to confirm the blasphemy, (3) The Doctrine and Scandal of Uncleannesse, the Issue of the blasphemy, and (4) Ignorance and Insufficiency (Fowler, "Daemonium Meridianum, part 1").

Among Pordage's specific charges of blasphemy were his teachings from his conversations with the angels. He rejected the Godhead and dirtied the idea of Jesus's purity in its sacred blood. As far as the idea of "vilifying the blood," it seems as though Pordage's teachings suggested that there was nothing special about Jesus's blood running in our veins as well. He compared its mixing to Biblical scriptures of water and wine, and that through mixing, it all becomes the same. Another accusation of Pordage is that he preached a religion with no salvation and corrupted the sacred text.

Important to note of this period is the attempt to rid the world of angels, as they were previously corrupted in the forms of angel cults whose leaders claimed to be angels or have spoken with angels. Because of this, it is no wonder that Pordage's teachings were slammed and he was ejected from the church, because people feared the rise of idols and corruption. However, is it possible that he was actually speaking with angels? The Renaissance popular belief was that he was blaspheming, and that if figures did appear to him, they were the devil in disguise.

“To the second, the Visions of Angels, we believe the Christian Reader will easily persuade himselfe, that the blessed angels would rather lie down in the flames of hell, than come to confirme such wicked, antichristian doctrines, but this is an old fetch of the Prince of darkness."
-- from "Daemonium Meridianum, Sathan at Noon, part 1" Christopher Fowler, p. 5.

The harshness and violence is interesting in this quote. Despite the author's claim to deliver an impartial and unbiased account, it is hard to see this as impartial. Fowler and Pordage's Commissioners believe that angels do not appear to humans, and as such, they follow the scripture that warns of Satan's ability to disguise himself as an Angel of light. However, the imagery in this statement is particularly shocking. In a propagandist manner, the reader now sees Pordage as responsible for the burning of angels in the fires of Hell.

In the second part of Fowler's pamphlet, he uses much more emotional appeal to distinguish between himself, the innocent godly writer and Pordage, the ungodly blasphemer. He constantly apologizes for having to write about this, hoping that Pordage can still repent and expressing pity for those who heard and believed the doctor's teachings.

One last quote from these accounts:

"Duty belongs to us, and Events to God; let us in conscience conform to the will of God revealed, and we shall quietly submit to the secret will of God when it is revealed." (Fowler, B3)

This quote demonstrates Fowler and the Commissioners' firm belief that they need to eject Pordage from the church. God is in charge of Creation and after death He is the judge for which souls go where. However, on Earth, it is the responsibility of good Christians to keep the church pure and eradicate it of any poisons, such as the teachings of John Pordage.

Angel to Devil - Faith and Reason and Individual Thought

“I know that though their spirits were created perfectly pure in their kind and measure, yet if they were not continually supplied with inspiration from that Divine glory which gave them their beings, instead of continuing in their Angelic brightness, their spirits would become nothing else but a bottomless pit of imaginary confused darkness of aspiring wisdom above the Creator.” – from p.30, Laurence Claxton’s “A Paradisical Dialogue betwixt Faith and Reason Disputing the High Mysterious Secrets of Eternity.” Publ. 1660

Claxton’s “Dialogue betwixt Faith and Reason” tackles questions like ‘how an angel became the devil’ and ‘was this world created before the angels.’ I chose this quote from one of the chapters on angels because it sheds light onto why an angel, created pure, could become something so evil as Satan. Claxton anchors on the idea that there can be only one God, and so his creation of angels were as close to Himself as possible, yet they could not be perfectly like Him.

It is because of this flaw that they had the potential for downfall, and Lucifer did succumb to the desire for being greater than God, an impossibility. Also from this quote, we are told that his loss of the “continual supply of inspiration from Divine glory” he had no way of keeping his brightness, condemned to perfect darkness. No longer supplied with God’s love, Satan was doomed to become eternally tainted in darkness. The only thing remaining from Heaven was his desire to be supreme to God.

Another “Reason” that Claxton displays is his belief that the Earth was created because when Lucifer fell from Heaven he needed somewhere to go. Therefore, God created the Earth for his eternal destination, and that is why the Earth is so full of sin – “This world was prepared for the Devil, so this the Devil’s kingdom,” (Claxton, p.1)

Unlike most theological writers of this period, Claxton does not cite Scripture throughout his works. Rather, he separates paragraph as ‘Reason’ or ‘Faith.’ Upon further research of his spiritual life, I found that he studied many religions before selecting one that fit his beliefs. His choice was Baptist, but later joined the Ranters, which seem to be the exact opposite of the Baptists. They believed in individualism, free thought from all traditional restraints, that private ownership is wrong, and the sin only exists to those who believe it exists (otherwise, not the Ranters). These beliefs make it possible for Claxton’s personal beliefs to be considered truthful explanations.

I believe completely in this style of faith. As under the principle of accommodation, there are certain puzzles in this world that science today still cannot explain, yet the human soul craves answers. One could spend their life searching for these answers, yet without divine intervention, there is no way to know what is truly the truth. One must wait for death in order to find out what happens after death, and one must accept that there is no way to know the one correct answer to any spiritual question.

Maybe when we die, our beliefs determine what happens to our soul. Maybe our afterlife is of our own creation. Maybe we are all nothing more than the creation of someone else, and we exist only as figments of their imaginations. There is no way to tell what is true, and to try to figure this out can only ensure madness.

On an ending note, Claxton later left the Ranters to become a leader in a prestigious sect called the Muggletonians (inspiration for Harry Potter?). Taking the idea of creative belief to an extreme level, the Muggletonians believed that Heaven is approximately six miles above the Earth and the God is between five and six feet tall.

Why a Dog?

During the English Witch Trials, many women who were accused of being witches gave very specific confessions of how the devil came to them, what harm they caused on other people, and what the agreements were between them and the devils. The Devil came to them in animal form, and through a "witch's mark," shaped like a teat, he would suck blood from the witch. These animal forms, called familiars, could be cats, dogs, rats, and even in some accounts, chickens. In The Witch of Edmonton, as in Goodcole's original account of the trial of the real Elizabeth Sawyer, Satan appears as a dog.

Why a dog? Why not a cat? It's funny how certain parts of history stick around in society and are incorporated as cultural ideas. Today's Halloween is strongly characterized by these witch trials, with the picture of a witch being old, ugly, and deformed like the Elizabeth Sawyer in the play, but also the black cat is a strong symbol of Halloween, bad luck, and also the pet of every witch. Despite the fame of The Witch of Edmonton, hardly anyone would associate a dog as being a witch's familiar.

Keeping this in mind, Rowley, Dekker, and Ford, authors of TWoE, seem to have written this play for our time (although of course they wrote it centuries ago!), as it has small subtleties that may subconsciously make the idea of a dog as a familiar more natural. For example, in Elizabeth's cursing speech, she makes no mention of cats at all. Instead, she suggests familiars in the shape of "rats, ferrets, [and] weasels." With the image of familiar beginning to form in the reader/audience's mind, in the same speech, she uses doglike imagery when describing Banks as her personal devil.

As she describes Banks as her version of the devil, he appears in the exact form in each detail: "this black cur that barks and bites, and sucks the very blood of me and my credit." (Act II, Scene i, Lines 116-118). The devil then appears in exact likeness to this description. Coincidence? The devil is known for temptation, as seen in Doctor Faustus, so perhaps listening to her curses, this is how he decides what form to take.

Dog or cat, he is successful. Dog or cat, he still accomplishes Elizabeth's turning to him, becoming the witch that society decided was her identity.

Thoughts on the Witch of Edmonton

In Act 1 , Scene 1, Frank Thorney calls his wife wench, yet later in the scene goes on about how he loves her and will not betray their marriage. In the Early Modern Period, did wench mean something less derogatory than it does now? Also, their parting is sweet with the kiss :) The way that they have to hide their marriage because of the difference in classes is reminiscent of the Duchess of Malfi, in which Antonio and the Duchess hid their marriage but were still very much in love. However, Thorney and Winnifrede seem different, as though Thorney cares more about preserving his reputation than prioritizing love over all.

Sir Arthur chastises Thorney, saying he should have thought things through instead of being ruled by his passion. Maybe their marriage isn't a secret? Sir Arthur had suspicions of Thorney and Winnifrede, and Thorney confirms them. I think everyone will know by the end of the play. He is either terribly conflicted with his feelings or incredibly trusting of Sir Arthur, because he doesn't want his father to find out. Perhaps Thorney sees Sir Arthur as more of a father figure than he does of his own father.

"Get you to your nunnery" seems awfully familiar, as Sir Arthur directs this line to Winnifride in nearly the exact same words as in Hamlet. Clearly the relaitonship between Sir Arthur and Winnifride is not a good one. He thinks she can never change, because he knows her as a whore, despite the honest leaf she claims to have turned over.

Act 1, Scene 2: Thorney clearly is headed down a bad path. When his father is asking him aobut marrying another woman, he avoids answering the questions by responding with rhetoricals, and then when his father accuses him of having married Winnifride already, he denies it with a letter form Sir Arthur. He even admits his mischief to the audience in an aside. It is sad that his father's accusations were correct, yet then he is the one apologizing profusely.

"No man can hide his shame from heaven that views him." This closing line to the plays first act foreshadows Thorney's spiritual downfall, beacuse even if he lies to preserve the peace between father and son, God will see what he is doing, and in the end, it is God's opinion that matters most.

Act 2, Scene 1: In Elizabeth Sawyer's opening monologue as she gathers sticks, I feel sorry for her. She seems depressed, hopeless, upset with how she is treated, saying "why on me?" and comparing herself to a sink where everyone gets rid of their dirt. Just passing by a person, they call her a witch, and declare that if there was something worse, they'd call her that instead. Poor Elizabeth. Does she deserve this? She's beaten, cursed at, called a witch, and inevitable "taught to be a witch." The way she is treated just when she is doing simple chores to keep herself warm, its no wonder that her hopelessness turns her towards witchcraft, of which she is already accused.

Satan in the form of a dog comes to her when she is cursing. Because this play is supposedly based on a true story, this is especially noticeable here. In the witch pamphlets we read, some of the women who confessed to witchcraft said that the first time the devil came to them was when they were cursing. This partly stresses the importance of religion at the time, because cursing is the denial or rebellion against Christianity, which creates an opening for Satan to convince you to turn towards him and in this case become a witch, the opposite of Christian.

Elizabeth turns very quickly and is tempted immediately to command murder of Banks, who beat her just before. However, the dog says he can't kill him, because he can't touch him unless he follows the devil. It seems that Elizabeth is relieved to have turned towards Satan, because she finally has some kind of power in her life and she is anxious to use it.

These father and son relationships are sad. The wrong party keeps getting the short end of the stick. First Old Thorney is apologizing when he was lied to, and now Young Banks is getting tricked into something disastrous because of his father's cruelty. On another note, Elizabeth seems all too proud to actually be a witch after having been mistreated for it when she wasn't one. I thought witches tried to hide it so they wouldn't be accused and hanged. She is blurting it out left and right to Young Banks and she's only been a witch for a few minutes. Even though the end of the play is predictable without reading it, this just goes to show why she will be caught.

An Extension of the Self, that the Self Cannot Rule

Twins during the Early Modern period were of high interest to the public. People enjoyed hearing and learning things about twins, whether they were conjoined twins, identical twins, or fraternal twins, such as Ferdinand and the Duchess in Webster's The Duchess of Malfi.

Twins share a more intense bond than that of ordinary brother and sister, suggesting a splitting of the self, or one being reflected in two separate bodies. As such, one would expect twins to think similarly to each other and therefore act and behave similarly. One would not assume substantial discord in twins' views, such as what is presented in the differing opinions of Ferdinand and the Duchess.

In Act I, Scene 3 of the play, Ferdinand expresses his desire for his twin sister, the Duchess, to not marry. He explicitly instructs her not to do so, and this direct approach is met with the Duchess's agreement, which upholds the idea of synonymous thinking. However, immediately after this conversation, she marries Antonio, an action which is sure to displease her brothers. Act II, Scene 5 shows Ferdinand's response when he finds that she has had a child; the response is outrageous anger and loathing for his sister accompanied with vast disgrace.

Ferdinand's disgust is highly predictable, however the cause behind it is more than the surface conflict of her disobeying his expressed wishes. As a twin, the two shared a womb before birth and emerged into the world together -- as one, yet as two. Splitting into two bodies, there is still a strong connection, which is clearly felt by Ferdinand. The Duchess's actions make her brother uncomfortable because he feels as though they reflect on him. He does not understand why his sister, as a part of him, is not being properly controlled by his mind, as though she is merely an extension of his body. Despite the fact that the two have been separate human beings from birth, with separate lives and separate growing minds, he still feels that they should be as one. His confusion of why part of his body is acting against his beliefs, noble or otherwise, manifests itself into madness and obsession. Her sexual promiscuity in his eyes is something that he feels he should have control over, and leads him into a downward spiral.

The violent images presented by this scene display his desire to regain control of his other half. Ferdinand's desire is now to purge his sister of her own thoughts and person, to empty out her mind, so that either he can step in and save what is left or completely get rid of her, and thus end the struggle in his own self. Webster's word choices and imagery are full of allusions to this emptying. Ferdinand speaks of rhubarb, as a laxative to purge her. He talks of "rooting up" her territory, suggesting that he even wants to get rid of her political life. He wants to use a "smarting cupping glass," to physically drain her of blood.

Ferdinand speaks as though the reason the Duchess is bad is because she is woman, for nature has placed "women's hearts so far upon the left side," (Act 2, Scene 5, Lines 32- 33) which makes them evil. He is accommodating, making excuses for what went wrong when the twins split into two separate bodies, which makes him feel better about his own self.

He displays his madness and plan to cause tragedy in Lines 48-49, "'Tis not your whore's milk that shall quench my wild fire, But your whore's blood." Ferdinand admits to the fire inside him caused by his anger, and speaks to the woman inside his twin, referring to her as a whore, and expressing his desire to kill her in order to calm his rage.

In these lines, the sole reason of Ferdinand's lifelong internal conflict is addressed: not being able to control his "other half," in that she is woman. A main difference between men and women is woman's ability to produce milk in nurturing children. Anything that does not stop fire only feeds it. If it does not destroy the fire, it becomes consumed by the fire and in turn becomes the fire. Showing that while milk is a liquid, will do nothing but add to Ferdinand's fire, while her blood, her lifeline, will destroy it, shows that he must take her life in order to live his peacefully.

Ironically, Webster uses the word "quench" in destroying the fire. Quench, to me, is more often linked to thirst. If Webster has a double meaning to these lines, which would go along with the twinly theme of two, it expresses the alternate side to Ferdinand's hate. The fire represents his hate, and the opposite of hate is love. Her womanhood, expressed by her milk, does not extinguish the hate, and therefore must extinguish the love.

Either way, Ferdinand is troubled by his inability to control his twin sister in a way that only twins can feel. Webster's portrayal of this character's desire to see her dead in order to feel whole again foreshadows Ferdinand's madness, which arises from the human inner conflict that arises from the idea of wishing another human dead.

Let The Punishment Fit The Crime

Stop crying about Hamlet being a jerk. Sure that's one way to look at it, but I'm sticking to the historical idea that he is a hero. That's how I read the play. It's not that he's mad, it's not that he's a bad guy, it's that he's human. He deserves justification, and it's not rationalizing to explain why he did things, but rationalizing for those who can't understand him.

He doesn't want to hurt anyone except for Claudius, and unfortunately he drives himself mad by trying to control things and ends up hurting other people. Whatever, other people hurt him and made this happen. Whose fault is it initially? --- Claudius. He started this mess before the play began and the whole upheaval and mess caused in the play is his fault. We just don't see the true beginning to this play and come in in the middle.

In one of my other classes, we have been discussing different motivation theories, and the one that truly applies here to Hamlet's choices and reasoning is the Equity Theory, pertaining to choices made when perceived inequity exists.

Hamlet has been dealt a shitty hand. His mother and father's love was his rock, his stability. He comes home from college and his world is turned over. His father has died and his mother has immediately remarried and it is his uncle, his father's brother, who Hamlet already dislikes. His parent's love has been made a joke by this new marriage, and on top of that, he meets a ghost who tells him his father did not simply die, he was murdered. Claudius is not only the one who murdered his father, but also in doing so, murdered their love and turned it into a public joke. Who wouldn't be driven crazy?

It is arguable that he may have had some mental condition arise from all of this, however let's look at it rationally in the perspective of this motivational theory, which is sincerely applicable to much of human decision. Hamlet has been given all of these troubles, piled on him without having done something to deserve them. He perceives the inequity, and without a legal body to represent him and punish Claudius, correcting this imbalance, he must take it into his own hands.

There is no crime scene investigation, no search to find out what caused his death, and the body is already gone, so Hamlet sets up his own creative investigation by using the play to confirm Claudius' guilt. He could have acted solely on the word of the ghost, which may or may not have truly been his father, but he didn't and that's pretty noble. It's not trying to control everything, it's leading an investigation and making sure that you get the right unaffected, unskewed answer.

Then, when he sees his suspicions confirmed as Claudius jumps up at the play-within-a-play's moment of truth, Hamlet follows the [imposter] king into his chambers and finds him praying asking for forgiveness. No matter whether or not Claudius' prayers are received in heaven, Hamlet cannot take the chance of killing him now. By killing him now when he has the chance for diving mercy and everlasting salvation, the imbalance will not be corrected. Claudius not only murdered Hamlet's father, but also took his mother and corrupted the marriage, and in doing so corrupted Hamlet.

Let the punishment suit the crime. A life for a life is an archetypal punishment, but what is the proper punishment for a life plus a whole lot more? Without beleiving in an afterlife, the only viable punishment would be a whole lot of torture and then execution. However, clearly Hamlet and the rest of the play's characters, as well as Shakespeare's audience, beleive in God and in heaven. While it is ultimately God's decision to determine a person's place in Heaven or in Hell, Hamlet can up Claudius' chances for the latter by killing him in a sinful state.

When noticing that despite the unbeleivably tempting opportunity before him, he would be doing Claudius a service by killing him now, he realizes more injustice in his father's murder. Killing Claudius now would be "hire and salary, not revenge," because Claudius would fly right no up to Heaven. At the time of Hamlet's father's murder, he was "full of bread, with all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May"(III, iii, 83-85). On top of all of the other horrible things, his father was not given this chance to ask God for forgiveness.

Passing up the chance to kill Claudius now is heroic, not insane. Hamlet is trying to get revenge, but the revenge must be worth getting. He is not trying to control too much. He can only kill Claudius once, and is only playing it safe in this scene to ensure that when he does kill him, that it be of the proper condition to correct the imbalance in equity.

I don't think people realize just how rational Hamlet's actions are. His thought process is not erratic. He doesn't act impulsively, he plans so that he can ensure perfection. When he acts on impulse rather than planning, bad things happen, such as his accidental murder of Polonius. This just justifies why he must have everythign figured out. He is not a lucky person, and without luck, one must have all of the cards laid out on the table before betting any chips.

So quit attributing ignorance and misunderstanding to be villainry, saying "people don't do that," because they do. People in extreme situations will think differently than people on the outside looking in. To fully understand and be able to critique, you have to get inside and look out.

Only Human

People are half good, half bad. Some show more of the good, some the bad, but every human has both parts in them. It’s called a conscience, and unfortunately in this world, all we can see, hold, and touch is human-related. There are those few parts of the world where someone gets to be the first person to view its beauty, but for the most part, everything has already been seen, been held, and been touched. The world we live in is dominated by human choice and human decision. Some choices and decisions good, some bad.

People hurt people, and people get hurt by people. What good can come out of a world where humans make the choices, and screw everything up: friendships, relationships, even the planet that is our home. Humans essentially have the capability of being good, but often choose the bad as it is more appealing the easy way out and advertises itself as the self-bettering, more life-improving option.

As we have seen in Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, good doesn’t advertise itself with the tricks we see and learn about in marketing classes. The good angel says to repent, that it is not too late to make the right choice. It has the better rewards in the end: the rewards and gifts of heaven, the promise for everlasting happiness after death, and God’s eternal love, which is the greatest gift of all. The evil angel, however, pulls out all the stops: emotional appeal, bribery, and whatever else he can think of to keep Faustus’ mind off of the good angel. And Faustus chooses evil.

“He’s only human,” someone might say, as though it is okay to make bad decisions. Being human, you’re allowed to mess up. Humanity, God’s creation, is reduced down to nothing more than an excuse to sin. Humans are part good and part bad.

During the Early Modern Period, angels were seen as God’s way of putting more good into the world. Miracles were explained by angels. If it couldn’t be explained in human terms, it was believed that the miracle was caused by angelic intervention. If the person/people affected by the intervention were living immoral lives, the event was explained as a “call to repentance as a means of averting divine wrath.” (Marshall, 21)

If people are only half good, and evil tries too hard to make itself appealing, it is fitting that God sends angels to work more good into the world. Even if we can’t see it, we see its results. Heaven’s not on a television commercial, not shown as a beautiful cruise destination of sandy golden beaches and crystal blue waters. Good leaves its mark as angels pass in and out of our lives, fixing some of the bad caused by evil and human mistakes and touches the hearts of so many.

Proof of Angels' Existence?

The world is already difficult enough as it is with human problems, pain and suffering. Throw supernatural angels and demons into it and it just gets even more complicated. What is it that makes humans need to further complicate their lives?

Is it the yearning for external explanations to explain their misfortunes? Is it the need to feel as though their lives mean something beyond wasting space and energy on this planet? Is it the fear of death and the need for hope that life does not end there?

Renaissance Protestants were strong supporters of this last possibility, and were fascinated with death. A 17th century account describes a woman at the edge of death surrounded by loved ones, exclaiming during her last moments that she could see angels standing around her ready to defend her soul. (Oldridge, "Angels on a Pinhead") This idea echoes the philosophies of Jacobus de Voragine, who in the 13th century published The Golden Legend. In this work, he described the existence of a good angel and an evil angel for each person - the evil angel to test him and the good angel to protect him. During sickness and death, the struggle between the two heightens, as the ultimate prize of the person's soul is at its nearest.

Angels in the Early Modern Period existed to reassure people that good could triumph over evil, that God cared about their souls, and that there was purpose in leading godly lives, to live eternally with Him after death. He sent angels to protect them and guide them, and these angels carried the messages of God.

Pictured above is the Enochian alphabet, discovered by Elizabeth I's court astrologer John Dee. Dee used a special crystal and a medium, Kelley, to summon and speak with angels. In many of these "angelic conferences," (Deacon, John Dee, 146) Dee used a chart like the one above to transfer symbols into tables; these tables would then be translated into English. The works produced were believed by Dee and his supporters to be a new scripture that would bring together the two sides of Christianity -- the Catholics and the Protestants -- who were in large conflict at the time.

The fact that these examples of the language of angels and how completely different it is from any other pattern of language created by man gives credibility to Dee's research. Scholars today are still translating his charts, and because the language is so different from any other studied, it is a long and tedious process, however upheld as a true language that can be translated. Is it really the voice of the angels?

The writings not only bring public attention to Dee and his possible corruption, but they highlight angel belief from the time period. Is this the communication and proof of angels' existence? Angels were and are today very important as moral compasses. If they are God's eyes and ears and they're all around, we are more likely to act in ways we would be proud of.

It is important that we have angels because they give us hope. They force us to act wisely and encourage our belief in God. Angels serve an important purpose in our world, and perhaps make it simpler and easier to make the right choices as we navigate through this difficult earthly world.

Warning: Smoking May Cause Cancer

After working for hours and hours on my presentation, here I am again, this time with a better understanding of angels and devils and how they fit into the Renaissance Period.. Anyone who hasn't done their project yet, this blog seems to make a whole lot more since afterwards, so don't wait to start researching!

In class on Tuesday, when we were examining Paradise Lost, someone mentioned how there are many people and sects of religion out there who don't believe in Hell, and some people also have trouble with the idea of how a loving God could have created a Hell, and put people (or in this case fallen angels) into such a place. I couldn't help but try to rationalize it for myself.

I believe in Hell, and I believe in a loving God, who is willing to forgive us for not acting always in his name. We as humans are given the chance to repent, as Doctor Faustus was up until his last breath. I don't believe that God gives up on anyone, nor do I believe that he wants there to be a need for Hell. However, he is the one who makes the decisions, who can read peoples thoughts, and is the only being that can truly know what is in our hearts. He made us and gave us the free will to do as we want, how else could there be so much bad in the world?

All I could think of in class was the fact that nowhere in the Bible or from what we read in Paradise Lost (which is fiction), nowhere does it say that Satan/Lucifer ever tried to repent. Perhaps Hell exists for people who are in denial of God, and even when they know he exists, until they recognize that he is the way to heaven, to eternal happiness, until that time, they will be in Hell. Perhaps Satan is just so delusioned and full of self-righteousness that he does not recognize that he also has the chance to repent.

Maybe one day there will be no need for Hell. As far as religion today goes, it serves its purpose as a place to instill fear into Christians and non-Christians. God needs a place like this, because evil is so "fun" and tempting. God does not tempt; he shows and he loves.

Hell is like the Surgeon General's warning label on alcohol and cigarettes. Evil may be tempting, but you know the possible consequences before you partake.

Logically Erasing Logic

I'm not really sure about this class. I feel like so far it is more of a class of self-discovery and discussion than about studying English literature. It's not a bad thing, but it is certainly not what I expected, seeing opening thoughts on Doctor Faustus lead into students' lengthy monologues on what their religious and secular beliefs have changed into within the past few months, or the past few minutes.

It is, however, terribly interesting to listen to all of it, soak in my peers' opinions, look at the clock and see that an hour of class is already over, have my brain wrapped in so many different directions and thought patterns, and feel as though there's a whole world out there that no one truly knows anything about.

It makes one feel so small and so hopeless knowing that this path can lead nowhere but insanity if you were to just go lay out in a field and try to figure it all out based on logic. Logic, in definition, explains things and shows what "makes sense," but how can anything make sense if there are alternate explanations for everything? How do you show the logic behind the clouds moving in the sky? It's a vast combination of water, gases, atmospheric pressures, and wind patterns. But how do you show why those are there? How do you show why those are the factors that control it, why "logic" doesn't determine that birds are responsible for the clouds moving, and the invention of the airplane just sped up the whole mess?

Logical answer: science can show it. But when it comes to things beyond what scientists can prove on a physical level, when it comes from the physical to the "metaphysical," from the earthly to the "unearthly," the natural to the "supernatural," all bets are off. How do you prove that God exists? This proof has likely been attempted since man's first ability to think abstractly, by church officials like Saint Anselm, philosophers like Rene Descartes, and even fact-worshipping mathematicians like Kurt Godel. Every one of their "proofs" has flaws, has people criticizing, providing alternative "logic," that discredits each proof.

People have individual minds, which allow for individual thoughts, which necessitate a human race full of conflicting belief systems, as each idea presented can be shown with ideal logic, which until disproved seems to make perfect sense. While logic presents itself as a ideal character to prove an idea to be a belief, it is really the antagonist, the bad guy, for it can turn us all away and counter each idea, confusing us and turning us every which way, placing us in a momentary sense of relief as we think that we have it all figured out, only to have our whole worlds turned upside down as the next idea places us in mental anguish as it makes us question the last.

Without a God, there is no end. A belief can only be determined through placing trust and faith in God. Knowing in your heart that something is true, is good, is right -- that is believing. Knowing that something, someone, created this Earth and all that is in it, is beyond the power of logic. Believing is laying in that field somewhere, on a patch of grass that was created outside the realm of your understanding; it is looking up into those heavens not knowing what the hell could be up there; and it is feeling at peace because you understand that to this world, you may be small, to your life you are the world, and to whoever created it all, you are life.