final post

I'm actually feeling a bit better now that I've worked through part 1. I am interested in questions that I'd rejected at first, am rejecting questions I was sure I'd want to write my essay on, etc. There are some that I passed over at first that I'm still very content passing over. :-) But I feel a lot more secure having at least been into each one of them enough to see what kind of answer I could start to construct. I think I just learned that I need more time than I thought I did to really digest a question. I'm still nervous. But that's to be expected going into an exam. Basically, it's going to be ok.

final blog assignment 10

This is the final blog assignment, and it is once again about the final exam. Please raise any last concerns or questions you have about the final so that we can sort through them on Friday in discussion section.

Readings for this week

Finish Life of Cola for Wednesday.

10:10

Wow... this story is hilarious in a sad kind of way. Clearly it is saying alot about the role of 'common' women (that is to say, not a noble woman.) First of all, its interesting to take note of the fact that women were expected to perform physical labor and serve their household.

It is also interesting to notice that not all nobility married for political conveniences. However, this is a romantic story so the factuality of it should be questioned. In this short story, women have next to no rites. Although it is possible that the lack of rites is due to the difference in political status, even when Griselda was his wife.

In short, the themes that I noticed were: love can be a factor in noble marriages (not necessarily just politics), women are expected to do physical labor and support their household, to marry below your class is looked down upon, and, the nobility have absolute power (even life and death as it relates to their children) over 'commoners.'

In this story, Griselda was in an abusive relationship. She married Gaultieri with the promise that she would be obedient no matter how outrageous his demands were. She couldn’t question them or hesitate to do what he ordered. Here, the woman plays the role as servant to her husband, like in many other stories. However, she also comes across as the protagonist. Even Gaultieri’s vassals question his outrageous demands. The author even says that “a strange humour took possession of him,” the “him” being Gaultieri. Gaultieri appeared to be testing her patience hoping she would fail. However, she never broke her vow. When Gaultieri told her to get rid of her daughter, she did. When Gaultieri told her to get rid of her son, she did. When Gaultieri wanted to divorce Griselda for the daughter of a count, she did. Even after that, Gaultieri asked her to be his servant. Through all these tribulations, Griselda remained obedient. In the end, she was rewarded with being his husband.
From the text, it was clear that a ceaselessly obedient wife was the ideal. Even Gaultieri’s vassals were critical of his treatment of Griselda. She was put through trial after trial and passed all tests. However, I can’t help but think that her obedience went unrewarded. Gaultieri initially married her. Then, she obeys several outrageous demands that eventually move her down from nobility. But in the end, she reclaims her position as wife. She didn’t get anything she didn’t have prior to the “tests”. Despite this, Griselda is the model for women from that time.
In previous texts, women were supposed to be obedient to their husbands. However, a relationship in which the male dominated typically ended with the departure of the wife. In the Lais, the women would have been rescued from their one-sided relationships by another man, and the two would live happily ever after. However, in this story despite the torment Gaultieri causes her, Griselda continually obeys her. In this text, there is more of an emphasis on obedience than in the Lais and other previous texts.

I thought the importance of the final story in the Decameron, about the Marquis of Saluzzo, was the power structure. This story demonstrates the relationship between the ruler and ruled, nobles and peasants, and husbands and wives. More importantly, however, it focuses on the idea of marriage from the husband’s perspective. Interestingly, this story shows that Gualtieri thinks of marriage as a burden and a wife would make him miserable. He also declares there are faults in the finding process by saying it is pointless to find a wife based on pedigree. His views on marriage demonstrate that, at least for him, marriage is not desirable and it is, instead, a duty he must perform. While Gualtieri’s treatment of his wife was cruel and he did not suffer any consequences, the narrator’s disapproval of Gualtieri shows that, while women were in a subordinate position to men, they were not meant to be mistreated. Interestingly, this story’s views on women parallels the Fabliaux, “Berengar of the Long Arse’s.” However, the story applauds Griselda’s patience and implies that women, despite mistreatment, must endure it, therefore, strengthening their ties to a subordinate position. Finally, the story implies that “strong” women were not viewed favorably because, as Gulatieri fears, he would “enjoy no peace.” Lastly, this story’s view on the role of women is the opposite of “The Knight of the Cart’s,” where Lancelot was virtually Guinevere’s slave, which suggests that the role of women has changed since Chrétien’s time.

Boccaccio Day 10 Story 10 cont.

Yeah so I responded without knowing the question.

The Decameron represented women as slaves and servants to their male counterparts.  They, for the most part, did not have a lot of independence and did as they were told.  In story 10, Gualtieri's wife does exactly what she is told and is forced to accept any test that is placed upon her.  This would be a negative representation of women at the time due to the fact that this woman did not have the power to act on her desires or emotions.  She was forced to hide her true feelings about Gualtieri's actions, and did not object to anything he ordered.  However, in story 1, the woman takes in the dying Marquis and decides on her own accord to have sex with him.  This action would be looked down upon and would be punished in this time period.  This is a positive portrayal of women in my opinion though because she had the confidence to do what she wanted without regard to the consequences.  

Assignment for 12pm Section

Please respond to the following questions using Day 10, book 10 as your source. What is the overall message of this story with regard to the role of women? Which characters do you think are meant to be positive presentations of womankind? Which negative?

Feel free to make comparisons with any of the other stories from the Decameron or previous texts especially the fabliaux. Please remember you must do this assignment in order to receive credit for this Friday's section.

Boccaccio Day 10 Story 10

Throughout this story, I was amazed by how Gualtieri continually needed to test his bride in such a sadistic manner.  Perhaps sadistic is the wrong word because he intended to discover if she was truly going to make him happy in life and did not necessarily derive pleasure from her pain.  Anyway, he was wrong to put her through this series of tests solely for his own benefit for over a decade.  He should not make his bride suffer just because he is so determined to prove that a woman cannot make him happy in life.  Maybe he is just destined to be miserable and should not drag a woman into his anguish.  Gualtieri should have been reprimanded and demoted in class, although I am aware that only birth determines class and nothing else.  It is surprising how his wife puts up with all this without getting an ulcer of some sort.  She deserves a promotion in standing without a doubt.

Final blog (or, blog on the final)

In terms of the final, the only real worry I have is doing justice to all of the texts that we've read. While I know that's not possible or required (because not all the texts apply to all of the questions), it's still daunting to look at all the material that we've read and think about getting it all into some kind of coherent whole. I'm intimidated by the opportunity, i guess. That and, I'll be frank, I haven't read everything. It's going to be a rough next couple of weeks. Other concern is hand cramps. And that's not a frivolous worry, either. 2 hours is a lot of writing.
Good luck to everyone. I hope we can dig into what we really want to say!

Blog Assignment

Blog about any questions/concerns you have for the final.

readings

Wednesday: Black Death texts (reader)
Boccaccio, Decameron, author's foreword and all of day one

Friday: Boccaccio, Decameron, day 2 story 2, day 3 story 3, day 4 story 4, day 5 story 5, day 6 story 6, day 7 story 7, day 8 story 8, day 9 story 9, and day 10 story 10.

Next week: Life of Cola

Ghostparty!

Before this class my opinions regarding the Medieval Era were confined to the time I dressed up as a viking for Halloween. Stricken with this opinion I considered the Medieval Era as a place where it rained all the time and people gave away Butterfingers.

Now that I have taken this class I know they didn't have Butterfingers, Twix being the favored candy of the era.

Looking at it now, I see the large role played by Christianity and the trickle down effect it has on every person. It seems as if everyone is assigned their place in the hierarchy of life and stuck their for life. There is need for roles and jobs but no texts have ever indicated any real leisure or zeal for living. It seems like these old school bros need a lesson in how to kick it. This idea is one diametrically opposed to my world view. I can not even fathom how life like this would be. If I weren't given the freedom to get drunk at noon and throw hot dogs into traffic, I would have no idea what to do with myself. I lot of times we get caught juxtaposing our social constructs under the days of old but I have no doubt that if I lived in this era I would be dead. Not just because I lived like 500 + years ago, I'd be killed for acting like a moron.

I also agree that Saints aren't born, but rather made. I think this Sainthood is key and exalted not because of their holiness or utter sanctity but because they pose a staunch departure to the waves of the day. Leaving the world behind, you may find that these peo

(I left the world behind. Like a saint! Get it?)

My original stereotypical generalizations, as to the definition of medieval, remain. However, this course has given me a deeper look into what civilization was like and who these people were. When I think of medieval, I still imagine knights fighting for honor, for country, and for God. While this course has solidified these beliefs, it has also shown me that knights were people capable of reading, writing, and loving. There is an emotional side to this time period that seems to be ignored when discussed. Everyone is a godless killing machine, and if not they are saints. However, by reading the literature we see the many dimensions of medieval people.
A saint is not always born. In Augustine’s case, he had to struggle. He did not know what to believe. He was human. This was a man who eventually became bishop, but throughout his childhood he struggled with morality and religion. Despite this, he was able to claim an extremely important title in the church.
To me medieval people were very similar to us. They suffered, struggled, loved, manipulated, and killed. They were human.

medieval

Medieval Civilization begins with Augustine's rise as bishop and the fall of Rome, followed by the disorder throughout Europe. The land mass is divided into many different kingdoms that are in continual conflict with one another. Religion was the driving force behind medieval socity. Civilization progressed by the progression of Christianity throughout Europe. Battles were waged to spread the word and contain and dismember paganism. Christianity united the different kingdoms together to create a balance of power throughout the land. The different kingdoms honored priests and bishops alongside that of kings and knights. The knights fought valiantly on behalf of the king and their land. The religious figures of society wielded political power and took part in the decisions that the king was faced to make. Thus, religion and government were fused into one single culture that defines the medieval age.

Medieval Times (i posted nothing the first time on purpose)

I believe Christianity to be the major underlying ideology that fuels the "medieval" time period.  We began the class with the fact that Christianity was not heavily represented in the world.  The religion slowly built strength and threatened eastern nations.  Bishops and and priests were determined to convert as many people as they could to their religion, and knights focused on protecting the Christian faith.  These crusaders were willing to kill to enforce its teachings, evident in the wars that broke out due to differences in religious doctrine.  After numerous conquests and missions to add believers to the faith, Christianity undoubtedly proved to be more significant than human life.  Roland and Chronicles demonstrated an undying passion heavily influenced by unquestionable confidence in the truth of biblical teachings.  The underlying devotion to religious doctrine throughly shaped the actions and writings that took place during this time.

Medieval Times

Medieval to me means the period in which we are studdying, which I believe is from the "fall" of the Roman Empire to around the Enlightenmnt. That is the time, but to me the term means four diferent things in a religious context. It first means the spreading of a relatively new religion across the Mediterranean and Gaul. In this time scholars were making sense of this religion and dramatic displays of faith made saints. Next, meieval means the institutionalization of that Christian religion as bishoprics spread and gain influence over Frankish kings and their people. This religion is also seen in slightly different forms in Norse settlers and in England. Next, we see a period of further institutionalization in which warriors go to defend their religion while the educated begin to use reason to govern their lives under God and make sense of certain religious messages. Lastly, is the period we study now. So far, I see from Salimbene the questioning of the "most holy" pope, using the concepts of scripture and reason, both of which he seems deeply familiar with, to do. New reformist orders are prominent and the different interperatations of Christianity seem to each be strong, yet still strongly accept the Roman papal authority. I think many people see the "medieval age" as a loss of individualism and a move towards Christian communities. Yet, we have seen that often times, it is a few individuals like Augustine, or Gregory that teach and impose Christianity on communities that are often conscerned with many very individualistic things. Joinville and Salimbene are clearly highly educated and while their conscerns are diferent than ours, and the period that immediately follows them, they are not lacking in enlightened or intelligent views. In fact, Medieval is a misnomer. This period could be split up and analysed into several different periods time and time again. Out of this period develops nations, and that is about the only thing other than religion I can see that joins it together as one age.

Originally the medieval world to me was defined by knights doing chivalrous deeds, their relationship to kings, wars, plague and, of course, the dominance of Christianity. However, after going through the course, I realize my original perception of the medieval world was based on a small and, more likely, fake time period. Now, however, the medieval world to me is defined by a struggle to survive and become dominant in a world filled with competition. In Augustine’s book, we saw that Christianity was in no way the only or even the dominant religion, and even Augustine, a Saint, was once a non-Christian. However, The History of the Franks offers a stronger example of this example. Early in the book, we see kings converting between religions for military reasons, hoping that the Christian god will “work” better than the Pagan gods. The existence of wars between brothers, uncles, and even fathers helps show that a constant struggle for power existed. However, even soldiers could not be depended on, if a King was unable to provide “loot,” such as Lothar, soldiers would rebel. While the time of Joinville and the Song of Roland, seems to have been slightly more peaceful and stable, their worlds were stilled filled with wars against a new enemy “Saracens.” Therefore, Medieval means to me a world filled with both physical and mental dangers where people had to struggle to live and survive.

Garden of Earthly Delights

Here is a link to a super large full version of the Hell side of Hieronymus Bosch's Garden of Earthly Delights triptych:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~colbert/GardenHUGE.jpg
You can also do a Google image search for Garden of Earthly Delights to find the entire triptych.

Blog Assignment 9

What does "medieval" mean to you?

Reading Assigments

Wednesday: Salimbene, Chronicle 3-61 (in your reader)
Friday: Salimbene, Chronicle 147-175 (in your reader)
Monday: Catch Up Suckas!

Reading Assignments

Wednesday: Salimbene, Chronicle bks. 3-61-This is in your reader.

Blog Assignment

There is no blog this week because you are writing papers. However, if you would like to make up one of your blogs-go back to one of the prompts that you neglected and go for it!!!

Third Paper

Could anyone post the topics for the third paper on the blog?  I couldn't make it to class this morning and I would really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Adam

this week's readings

Continue reading Joinville. Finish The Life of Saint Louis by Friday.

Optional paper 3 due Monday, 14 April. If you would like to create your own paper topic, you must have it approved by Wednesday. Email your topic ideas to Jason, Ericka, and Stacey for approval. You can also use the suggested paper topics, distributed today in class.

As you know, if you choose to do the third paper, the lowest of your three paper grades will be dropped.

sorry this is real late

In The knight of the cart love is something that lancelot seeks. He sees his fair maiden, who happens to be a queen, and he will go to all ends to make the destiny of his love come true. His love is idealized in this story. In the Lais, love is also given a fairty tale aspect to it, and we again see the destiny in the story being the destiny of love and not of a society or religion. However, in the Lais, there are many female characters that are focused on in a protagonistic or near protagonistic light. In the knight of the cart the female characters are either destractions or corruptors of Lancelots love, or they are the reason for a shameful love triangle. Love is celebrated weh achived in the Lais. In the knight of the cart love has consequences on all involved no matter how great it may seem.

First off, I liked Chreiten de Troyes's story on "The Knight of the Cart (Lancelot) much better than "The Lais of Marie de France." The reason being is because I was quite fond of the journey and the obstacles Lancelot had to endure to reach his Queen Guinevere (I can seriously relate to his courage to accomplish is goal). Not to mention, I found it quite interesting how Lancelot earned his name 'Knight of the Cart' in the first place (from when the dwarf made him ride in the cart that was normally used by the imprisoned). Moreover, although the majority of women were regarded as maidens in the story, I adored the amount of control women had over men during this time.

The two texts are similar in that they both are love stories based on heroism and adultery. Moreover, I also realize that in 'The Knight of the Cart,' deal-making is an expression of truth and loyalty in getting jobs done. Christianity also arises in this story when Lancelot goes to the church to pray. Also, these two texts are similar in that they both depict women having some type of emotional stronghold over the men. Both texts illustrate "the crazy things love can make one do" and proves that if one displays hatred towards another and plots against them; karma sets in reversing that hatred towards the hater. "Evil can easily rebound on him who seeks another's misfortune" (Marie de France 60).

There is not an entire significant change between the authors because they do both have the same direction and that is to create love stories. Also, it did not make any different that one of the authors happened to be a woman (although she may have been slightly more descriptive); both text for the most part aimed in the same direction.

Love in the Lais and Knight of the Cart

I found it interesting how both authors regarded love as a completely absurd notion. That's not to say that these authors did not regard love as a powerful force, however, these authors certainly seemed inable to see the 'logic' or 'sense' in love.
In 'Knight of the Cart', Lancelot is described as donig absurd things, such as trying to kill himself (twice!) when he finds out that his love with Guinevere may not be realized. When dueling the 'evil M-something' he even positions himself so that he can stare at Guinevere while fighting at the expense of his combat positioning. However, by contrast, we see Guinevere's marriage to the king as totally acceptable and reasonable. Although they may not love each other, from everything we can see, their marriage is practical.
In the Lais, Marie outright states a similar point when she says "
Long life is not the recompense
For love without measure or sense;
But love itself is the measure of
Love; reason can't be kept in love."
In other words, love leaves to a short life (death), and reason must be kept out of love. Although love is romanticized in these texts, it is most definately described as an illogical and impractical feeling that should be left out of relationships.

What I found most interesting about the two authors, was how adultry is a consistent topic. In Chretien's story, Lancelot's love seem to have conquered all and was not a social concern. while in the lais, it felt like the stories were more like anecdotes that want to tell the rest of the world that adultry is to be ashamed of, unless there's true love involved.
Another point I want to discuss about is the noble-ness of the knights. what is a knight? and what makes a good one? any one who does not do unethical things seems to be a good knight. Lancelot jumping into the kart was looked down upon, because it looked as if it was a bad thing, and the civilians became unappreciating of his action. the bravery and the 'strength' of a person also makes a good knight - that's why Meleagant fought Lancelot 3 times. He wanted to show his strength. With strength, comes glory and fame, and respect by all. Lancelot seem to have won that much easier, as have Bisclavret and the guy from the mountain of two lovers. Bought to them were long history of fame, because of the strength, and nobility they have.
One major difference I seem to have notice, but cannot support strongly yet, is that, in Chretien's writing, women have seem to have been so easy to earn their love. by Lancelot performing the task to behead a villian, Lancelot's glory battle at the coluseum, and Lancelot's encouter with the girl who wanted to sleep with him. while in Marie de France's writing, Ladies would end up liking the guy, only when the guy likes her first, as shown in bisclavet, le fresne, and equitan.

"The Knight of the Cart" and the Lais of Marie de France both dwell on the concept of love and the role it plays during that time period. Love acts as the driving force of the plot in the stories. The protagonist is compelled by passion in his actions. Thus, his heroic deeds are usually illogical. The two accounts are different in that Marie's stories focus solely on the protagonist's actions based on passion alone, while in "The Knight of the Cart" the protagonist's actions are swayed by logic and honor. Lancelot pauses a moment before jumping into the dwarf's cart because he knew he would be ridiculed by other people, yet a passion for both his mission and the queen overcame the reason inside of him. Yet, he honors the truce made by the king through the queen to not kill Meleagant, King Bademagu's son. Although he seems to do it solely because his lover tells him too, at the same token he is also honoring the king's demand. I like "The Knight of the Cart" better because it was an interesting and compelling narrative and gave more insight into that world that the fictitious story was based on.

Boom Boom Boom

"The Knight of the Cart" and the "Lais" both transcend the ethics of the time and seek to condone (or at least rationalize) one of the greatest sins of the time. This movement indicates a more liberal view of law and how human feeling can transcend traditional barriers of what is right and wrong. However similar these books  are in their philosophical aims both take drastically different routes. 

"The Knight of the Cart" rationalizes adultery through the achievement of great feats and acts of valor. Getting down is something Lancelot must earn. The woman has little say in the process. Although love is portrayed, it only exists within set boundaries. No matter what Lancelot does, he can only get his "swerve on" once. Love isn't transcendent like it is in "Lais". 

People don't work for love in "Lais" it is something that comes in, takes over, and usurps all others in the order of importance. You don't have to work to get love, you have no choice but to submit your will to carnal desires. this gives a hint of romance and alludes to further developments. It is also starkly different because love (and lust) is ultimately portrayed as a good thing. 

I'm glad "Lais" exists. It makes the heart sing with hope and long for the carnal spark that leads to deep, life long immersion. If "Knight of the Cart" resonated with me, I would probably try and get action by walking girl's home from parties. I prefer the latter so I prefer the "Lais". 

Both “The Knight of the Cart” and the Lais were similar in that the authors of the stories seemed to approve of adulterers as long as they were in love. Moreover, there is a sense that people married for power, shown by Guinevere not liking Arthur as much and the girl in Guigemar marrying the old lord. Interestingly, there is a major difference Lancelot throws away his honor for love, shown by him losing the tournament and sitting in the “cart,” and the characters in the Lais don’t, the lovers either die or reveal their love and make it legal. This brings up another difference, Guinevere and Lancelot’s love stays secret, while the ones in the Lais become public. I think the change in the perspectives in miniscule because the main theme is still true love conquers all it’s just that Marie de France imposes more restrictions with the idea of “equal” lovers. However, the characters in “The Knight of the Cart” implies that betraying the king is fine for love, but the Lais, through the “Equitan” shows that betrayal is not an option. Therefore, the authors seem to disagree to the extent love she be pursued, and if it should be made public or not. To be honest, I preferred the Lais because there was a sense of closure and the stories seemed more on topic, while “the Knight of the Cart” had an ambiguous ending about the end of their love and the story had random plot points.

further reading (totally optional!)

If you guys like the King Arthur readings and the time period we're studying now, here are some fun things you might want to read or view:

Le Morte D'Arthur (The Death of Arthur) is one of the definitive King Arthur texts. Written in the 15th century (so three centuries later than the period we're studying now), this is a long, tough read.
http://www.amazon.com/Morte-DArthur-Arthur-Legends-Classics/dp/0451528166/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207177679&sr=8-10

Way more accessible is The Once and Future King. T.H. White based much of his narrative on Le Morte D'Arthur, but this 20th century version is much easier to read.
http://www.amazon.com/Once-Future-King-T-White/dp/0006483011/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207177953&sr=1-1

If you don't want to read The Once and Future King, the Disney movie "The Sword in the Stone" is actually an incredibly faithful retelling of the first section of the book.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0057546/

And, if you are into the royals behind Robin Hood, the Lais of Marie de France, etc, you should definitely see "The Lion in Winter," a truly fantastic movie with Peter O'Toole, Katharine Hepburn, and a young Anthony Hopkins.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0063227/

Finally, the book that began my obsession with Eleanor of Aquitaine is A Proud Taste for Scarlet and Miniver. This book is a young adult historical fiction novel (so, needless to say, a very fast read). The book follows Eleanor as she waits in heaven for Henry II to be released from purgatory and thinks back on her life as first the Queen of France and then the Queen of England.
http://www.amazon.com/Proud-Taste-Scarlet-Miniver/dp/068984624X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207178424&sr=1-1

Blog Assignment 8

For this week's blog compare Chretien de Troye's "The Knight of the Cart" to the Lais of Marie de France. How are they different/similar? Is there a significant change in the perspective of the authors? Which do you like better and why?