Excerpt from a Paper on Chaucer

The Canterbury Tales

On the backdrop of the late fourteenth century, painted with this fracturing and these corruptions and sandwiched between the crusades and the Reformation, Geoffrey Chaucer appears on the stage with his damning indictment of the hierarchical church, The Canterbury Tales. Even the language of choice for Chaucer is revolutionary, he writes in a vernacular English, low language for the Latinate and a defiant move against the French tongue of a church in exile.  These tales are pointed barbs at a Church oligarchy and a self important emerging Merchant Class. Within the ranks of his almost thirty  pilgrims we have six who represent the clergy, The Monk, The Friar, The Parson, the Prioress, the Summoner and the Pardoner. These pilgrims were created as criticism. We have the greedy Pardoner selling indulgences and pocketing the profits. He sells fake relics to parishes and lulls them into being robbed with a lovely voice. The Monk is luxurious and idle, the Friar wanton and lecherous. All save the Prioress and the Parson are portrayed in a overtly pejorative manner. Of these latter two, the Prioress tells an anti-Semitic tale. The pilgrims are more caricature than characters, each clergyman symbolic of an individual illness of the church, saving the Parson as the humble parish priest and man of honest faith.

            The prologue seems to be a direct answer to the problems with the Church in Chaucer's time. A short dissection of Chaucer's clergy reveals a response to many of the major ills of the contemporary Catholic Church. Greed is personified in the  Monk who is described as a shiftless dandy with "sleeves purfiled at the hand/ with gris, and that the fineste of a land" (Chaucer 248 Lines 193-194), as well as the avarice of the Friar, Pardoner and Summoner. The sexual immorality of the time is best found in the Friar who had made "ful many a mariage/ of yonge wommen at his owne cost" (212-213). While all are guilty of a certain convenience in their adherence to dogma, the Summoner may believe none of what he prosecutes. He was willing to sell you either virtue or sin and "He wolde suffre, for a quart of win/ a good felawe to have his concubin" (651-652). The Prioresse suffers a vanity with a casual anti-Semitism that was likely zeitgeist. This is not a church for those seeking a relationship with God, it is a Church employing and administered by those who seek a profit rather than a prophet from God.  

Research Paper: The Christian Demonization Of Difference In Beowulf As A Means Of Moral Transcendence

Writing Sample of Research Writing:

Excerpt:

The Christian Demonization of Difference in Beowulf as a Means of Moral Transcendence

            There has been a long standing dichotomy in the commentary on the narration of Beowulf. The authorship of Beowulf is attributed to an anonymous Christian author and though voices maintain that the Poet's Christianity is an unprovable proposition, it remains little debated in the critical conversation. The Christianity of the Beowulf Poet is assumed and consensus is largely at rest on the issue. What has become a larger part of the discussion is the intentions of the Beowulf Poet. The narrative of the Poet describes a Germanic epic, cast in the cold of the North and well removed from both the geography of modern day Britain or the cultural worldview of the Christian Anglo-Saxon audience Beowulf would have addressed. It has yet to be discerned whether this anonymous author was retelling the story through the understanding of his own Christianity or if it was told as a translation to a Christian audience.

            William Reynolds notes that there are "nearly seventy passages suggestive of Christian usage or doctrine including an account of the Danes ignorance of the Christian God. But at the same time, key incidents like Beowulf's death pass by without the slightest suggestion that either the hero or the poet anticipates an eternity with the Christian God or recognizes any need to prepare for judgment" (Reynolds 27). We are evidenced awareness of the beliefs of both Author and subject. The Poet is Christian and the actors of the Poem are not. It remains to be determined if the retelling of the story casts the hero as a Christian Hero. I intend to claim Beowulf, the hero is a pagan enforcer, however he embodies certain spoken and unspoken values of the early Christian Church and in this embodiment translates them. Beowulf is a Pagan super hero with a Pagan worldview but imbued with Christian Values and Beowulf is not an evangelical construct of a Christian author, but a Christian translation of the author's faith through a wholly pagan story.

            The Epic Beowulf was written between the eighth and eleventh century with some consensus that the composition was in the earlier part of that range, very likely the eighth century. Christianity at that time was just beginning to gain traction in Britain, which we can watch unfold in the writings of Christian historian Bede and his spiritual predecessor, Pope Gregory I.  Gregory the Great was deeply evangelical and concerned with the heathen Pagans around him. He speaks of "the pagan Barbaricini as living 'like senseless animals, and do not know the true God, worshipping sticks and stones'" (Church 166). The rhetoric continues as "a month later, in June 594, Gregory wrote to Bishop Januarius of Cagliari exhorting him to appoint a bishop to Fausiana where pagans were ‘living like wild animals'" (ibid). This denotes not only the empirical aspect of Gregory's intentions, but the infrastructure of an Othering as a means of justifying this evangelicism. The heathens become "animals" and a problem to be solved by conversion. Bede was as fervent - if not more so - in "present(ing) the Britons as, like the Romans, a people of the Lord and the Saxons, by contrast, as savage barbarians; even Gregory apparently respected the Britons as Christians prior to Augustine’s mission, even if Bede chose not to appreciate that fact" (Foley 157). An undocumented article of the faith seems to be an intolerance for those not of the faith. This requires the creation of the non-believer as Other,  It is setting the in-group against the out-group in a moral endeavor to colonize and to understand the world in terms of this in-Group and out-group.

            This sense of self as in-group was not an end, but a means. The Anglo-Saxon Christian would seek to spread the in-group. Bede concerned himself not only with the defining of the out-group but with the policing of the sanctity of the in-group. It was a duty to remain in good faith, but also to spread that faith and in an active manner.  Bede saw the Britons as selfish and lax in their evangelism, "portraying the Britons as uncharitable in refusing to convert their neighbours, when in reality they had played a full part in preaching to both the Irish, most famously through Patrick,  and the Picts via St Ninian" (Degregorio 45). It was important to define the group outside as an Other, but also to grow the boundaries of the in-group.

            The Other was Animal. The Other was Barbaric. It is a part of the definition that the Othered community is characterized by a difference that is stigmatized in order to negate identity and justify a motive for discrimination (Staszak). A religious understanding, however, does not overtly seek to discriminate or colonize, at least not as a stated purpose. The manifestation of Othering is rendered into terms of Good and Evil and painted in a philosophical and faith based context. "In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character" (Pagels 39). Christianity transformed the adversarial into the evil in converting an office (of the adversary as the word satan is translated from Hebrew) into an identity. This process follows a moral rendering and justification of Christian Othering. The Hebrew tradition traces evil as a necessary component of a larger ontology, while the break in Christendom occurs as the creation of an outside tempter to reduce the culpability on the Christian in evil. A Christian can remain Good, while those who oppose are under the influence of Evil and are guilty by their association of evil. These Christian terms outline Evil as both spirit and Other and indict all who associate with Evil as evil themselves. As we will see further down the line, this logic excuses the eye for an eye of Beowulf's conflict with Grendel and, more poignantly, the murder of Grendel's Mother and the dragon in retaliation for their retaliation.

            This personified understanding of good and evil infuses more than Fifth Century religion however; it commands the imagination of their fiction, as well. We can trace the English language back to Anglo-Frisian roots of the early Germanic British invaders. The Saxons moved in and shaped our language irrevocably and with them they brought their myths and stories. Not much survives today in whole and we recall Beowulf as the finest example of myth-making in the incubal Anglo-Saxon English.  In this epic the great Geat warrior Beowulf comes to the aid of Hrothgar and slays his nemesis, Grendel. He then fends off the retribution of Grendel's mother and comes to rule the Geats and wages a final war fifty years later upon a great dragon. He is victorious, but sacrifices his life in the winning. It's a tale of good versus evil, left to us by an unknown Christian author who casts this ancient battle of good and evil in Christian terms.

            What continually appears in Beowulf is a proper and personified Evil; a palpable being filled with every wickedness the author knows. Throughout the text Evil takes three faces, none of them drawn clearly in any physical description, but all drawn very cleanly as personified evil and as distinct from a spiritual or metaphorical evil. This is an important delineation in order to address Evil as Othering and as a means to deflect moral responsibility. The deflection of moral responsibility lies at the heart of the Christian telling of Beowulf and establishes the hero Beowulf as, above all, a pagan hero with Christian values whose defining moral trait is faith, predestination and the absence of self doubt. What renders Beowulf a hero is his ability to reduce his opponent to an absolute Evil and what renders Beowulf's victory is his assuredness of his own goodness.

___________________________________________________________

            It is not solely bravado that inspires Beowulf to declare his victories before they occur, though if the Christian ethic is humility, no one need accuse Beowulf of forfeiting his pagan identity. Instead Beowulf predicts his success over these monsters as prophesy. It has never been sufficient to earn a victory, it must be ordained.  From the introduction Beowulf is described in prophetic language and the imminent combat is described as predestined. Beowulf tells Hrothgar he will eschew weaponry and that the outcome of the battle will be to the death. Furthermore "...Whichever one death fells/ must deem it a just judgement by God" (440-441). Predestination plays a role as it does in Christian mythos. The Christ is not the Christ through the practice of good work, but through divine ordinance. He is God's son. This messianic treatment extends to Beowulf and is described in the much noted sermon Hrothgar delivers upon the defeat of Grendel's mother. After prefacing his praise for Beowulf with undeniably Judaic reference to the Great Deluge he speaks of Beowulf's ordination in saying '"A protector of his people, pledged to uphold/ truth and justice and to respect tradition,/ is entitle to affirm that this man/ was born to distinction" (1700-1704). After establishing his own credibility in saying so he declares the birth of Beowulf was his defining moment. Hrothgar continues the language of Othering in declaring of his people "...It is a great wonder/ how Almighty God in His magnificence/ favours our race with rank and scope/ and the gift of wisdom" (1724-1727). Heroism is outlined in acts of courage and vanquishing of outsiders and monsters, indeed, but is a birthright before all.

            This birthright is a facet of the Word. In the epistemology of the non-synoptic gospel attributed to the Apostle John, the Word is the source of all things. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (King James Bible, John 1:1). The extent of the Christian reliance on predestination is revealed in the faith in the Word. It can be understood that the world grew from the word. Integral to this understanding is that the Word had been translated from the Greek "logos", most commonly ascribed to mean that Logos and Jesus Christ are interchangeable concepts in Christology. The association is implied that the Word - the discourse and final declaration - is Christ Himself or, rather, God made manifest. We note this to mean that the speech act of the declaration to be victorious would be understood - if not articulated - as deed first and as accomplished victory secondarily. For the ordained to declare is for the event to occur, and the declaration is necessarily followed by the fulfillment of prophecy. Beowulf's intention to kill is the act of the killing. The ontology of Christianity created an always-already relationship of deed and intent. 

           _________________________________________

            It has been said that we should not worry that our children are not listening, but that they are always watching. The rift between our praxis and our dogma is often wide and revealing of the unstated messages that lie in our behaviors and that these often reveal contradictions of faith. There is no intense debate that the Beowulf Poet was a Christian, nor significant discussion that he was evangelistic in intention. The unexamined aspect is how well the poet translated these unspoken ethics of Christianity in his epic. So much of the unspoken values of the poet in practice counter the articulated dogma of his dogma, The words spoken are that Thou shalt not kill, and yet his characters kill prolifically. Thou shalt not steal, and yet they loot the dragon's cave. Treat others as you would yourself be treated, and yet the impulse to kill, conquer or convert is siren in dealing with the Others of their own construction.

            Finally, these breaches in stated ethic are excusable and the excuses evidenced in the text. Faith and a reliance upon a predestined word and anointed status that descends from birth are blessings that allow the moral code to be re-written to suit the ends of the intentions.    

            It is in these blessings that Beowulf is allowed to be as clear a killer as any of his foes without reproach. There is a curious dichotomy in how we cheer for the very same actions in Beowulf that we would condemn in our monsters. Somehow, we look on analog deeds and manage to decipher a hero and a villain. The difference between these two is attitude. At the heart of the Other is the motive. In the process of separating a hero from a villain we discover our values. If the act of killing is not evil, if it is, in fact, the Other that is evil, then we learn that our ethics live outside of the behaviors of evil but in our intentions. The noblest calling is to believe. It is the belief that is the deciding factor of evil and that belief is inclusive - we are tethered to those in our in-group composed of those who believe as we do. If you stand outside of the glow of the beliefs of an in-group you become Other. An action is not evil; Others are evil.

Works Cited:

Church, S. D. "Paganism in Conversion-Age Anglo-Saxon England: The Evidence of Bede's Ecclesiastical History Reconsidered." History ( Apr2008, Vol. 93 Issue 310): 162-180. Jstore.

Degregorio, Scott. "The Venerable Bede and Gregory the Great: exegetical connections, spiritual departures." Early Medieval Europe, Vol. 18 Issue 1 (Feb2010): 43-60. Jstor.

Foley, W. Trent and Higham, Nicholas J. "Bede on the Britons." Early Medieval Europe (May2009, Vol. 17 Issue 2): 154-185. Jstor.

Nelson, Thomas, ed. The New King James Bible. Nashville, TN: Nelson, n.d. Print.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin Of Satan. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1995. Print.

Reynolds, William. "Heroism in Beowulf: a Christian perspective." Christianity and Literature 27 no 4 , p . (Sum 1978): 27-42. Ebsco Complete, Accessed 11-14-2013.

Staszak, J-F. " Other/Otherness." International Encyclopaedia of Human Geography. Ed. R. Kitchin & N. Thrif. New York, NY, 2008. Online. 14 11 2013. .

Tolkien, J.R.R. "Beowulf: The Monsters And The Critics." Proceedings of the British Academy. 1936. Website. 20 11 2013. .

Unknown. Beowulf. Trans. Seamus Heaney. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2000. Print.

Voragine, Jacobus de. "The Golden Legend (Aurea Legenda)." Fordham University. Trans. William Caxton (1483). New York, 1275. Online. 21 11 2013. .

Wilson, Douglas. "The Anglo-Saxon Evangel." Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity (Jul/Aug2007, Vol. 20 Issue 6): 30-34. Ebsco.

With Guidance from:

Irving, Edward B.  A Reading Of Beowulf. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1968. Print.   

Written for ENG 2220/THE 2220: Drama Literature. Indicates an understanding of dramatic work and canonical reading:

Public and private matters in Hamlet's soliloquies

            Hamlet is a study of ambiguities, each character playing several parts and the titular character never fully revealed as either mad or simply angry. We are forced to examine whether our public selves are close friends with our private identities, perhaps as extensions of who we believe ourselves to be, or perhaps they are wholesale inventions. It is given to believe that Hamlet's public persona is an affect. In Hamlet's dealings with other people in the play, he is pointed, aggressive and quick witted. Privately he falters time and again. The clearest way to delineate the public and private in Hamlet is to examine the dichotomy between Hamlet when alone and when he is in the presence of others. Shakespeare uses soliloquy to frame the private thoughts of Hamlet. When comparing the public actions of Hamlet to his private dialog, we see a second Hamlet which begs the examination of the Prince's madness. This public self is at odds with the secret revelations in his soliloquies. The private self, ideally the true self, is not quite designed for the revenge he is called to.

            Our first meeting with the Danish Prince comes after he has been chastised for his grief in Act 1, Scene 2. He is playing with his death, wishing to disappear. he is encountered as a man alone, a being revealing his thoughts to himself off of the public stage. In this shelter of his solitude he is a man of indecision. He lays out his situation before us and is inclined to retreat from a world that he considers an "an unweeded garden, / That grows to seed" (Shakespeare 1.2.134-135) and his words are a treatise on self doubt and impotence. By his telling, he is not the man his father was and his mother has hastily laid to bed the brother of a great man as quickly as she has laid to rest that great man's memory. In the face of this, his heart breaks though he must remain silent. This speech sets up the moat between the private man and the public man; between the human and the prince. This speech foreshadows the appearance of his father and the unfortunate call to action that will come.

            Always the noble son with some duty remaining to his office, Hamlet is welcoming, even garrulous when his friends arrive, outgoing enough to invite them for drinks, asking Horatio to "drink deep ere you depart." (1.2 175) It is an incongruent dialog, Hamlet swiftly moving from suicidal frustration to overtures of camaraderie. The contrast is striking as he bobs between his grief and his responsibility to the public. He will eventually disclose to Horatio his plans and considers Horatio his true friend, an extension of  his private identity, but for the moment he drops his sorrow and reverts to a political being.

            Hamlet is a public person by nature. He is a noble and is scrutinized as such. We hear the dulcet timbre of a speech borne of his breeding whether he is lonely or with audience. What we focus on in the end is the content of the words of both Hamlets, content that leads back to a central question of the play, the question of Hamlet's madness.  In questioning the rift between the outward and the inward Hamlet we cannot avoid the ambiguity of his state of mind. If his madness is pretend we must draw a thicker line between the two princes. If his madness is genuine, then the disparities between public and private Hamlet may not be contradictory. His public madness defies his private reason and is either accidental or a further appendage of his indecision. The other option is that his madness, whether real or affected, is necessary for Hamlet to face the task ahead of him.

            His madness recurs most famously in Act 3, Scene 1 when he contemplates killing himself again. In a recap of the opening of his first soliloquy, Hamlet expounds and discusses a fear of action where all choices are dubious. In the "to be or not to be", speech we see a return to the questions he touched on earlier, that it may well be a wiser choice to end our troubles and the world is corrupt wholly. He is paralyzed again, floating between an unjust world and unreachable solution, lamenting how "Conscience does make cowards of us all". (3.1. 83) When the fair Ophelia enters he finds his resolve. The uncertainty dissipates leaving only his anger.  

            Ophelia comes to smoke out his madness and Hamlet supplies. Within the maddening circles of conversation we hear him indict his mother and himself in his words to his love. He is decisive and forceful as he tells her "I am myself indifferent honest, but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not bourne me". (3.1 122 - 125) The shift from the passive voice from his private musings is shocking. He turns the attack from self mutilation to a devastation of Ophelia . Quickly on the heels of his own pain, he takes solace in an attack on a damaged person. She believes he loves her, though he turns on love. Further he battles marriage - the sin of his mother - and curses Ophelia's own prospects with " If thou dost marry, I’ll give thee this plague for thy dowry. Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny" (3.1. 135-137). He burns Ophelia as a sacrifice for the married woman he cannot damn.

            In a public arena Hamlet is aggressive, unaffected by his self doubt. He also appears quite mad and engages in a word salad dense with double meanings. He addresses his father as his mother and Polonius as a fish monger.  The private Hamlet is the truer of the two, seeking absolutes in world of final choices. He is struggling with the justification of his vocation.  

            The last soliloquy to consider occurs later in Act 3 as Hamlet encounters the opportunity to kill his Uncle. He would do it were he not in company with that unaccompanied mind that stalls all action. He talks himself out of the act with an "Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent", (3.3. 88) fearing that this killing will discharge his uncle to Heaven. Were it not for Hamlet's history of hesitation, we could believe him, but he doth protest too much, methinks. Rather, Hamlet retires to his mother's chambers for more of what the Dane does best, witty repartee cloaked in the affect of mental illness. Here, he kills, however. Insistently failing to be the aggressor, he kills in reaction. Nevertheless, he kills the wrong person.

            From here out he kills prolifically, though reflexively. For all of the talk of his intent, there was no hint of the numbers or the lack of bravado with which he goes about it. Polonius and Laertes are accidental. Ophelia is the collateral damage from misguided rage, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern through treachery until finally the King, his uncle. His final act and the apex of the play. While deliberate it is an act in haste, reactionary as befits the prince, and as if the decision was finally made by his own inevitable death. We lay to rest Horatio's "noble heart" and "sweet prince" (5.2. 351-352) as a man too decent to coldly kill, even when it is demanded of him from past death and even when he devoutly believes it to be his calling. 

            Hamlet describes the lead up to the killing of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in this way:

                      ... in my heart there was a kind of fighting

                      That would not let me sleep. Methought I lay

                      Worse than the mutines in the bilboes. Rashly—

                      And praised be rashness for it: let us know

                      Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well

                      When our deep plots do pall, and that should teach us

                      There’s a divinity that shapes our ends,

                      Rough-hew them how we will— (5.2. 4-11)

In his killing he takes on the indecision of his soliloquy. He lays the impetus in God's domain, as he may not be the man to claim this as his own. The dichotomy between our hero in his private and public life appears at first to be cowardice, but is ultimately decency. Regrettably it is a decency only Horatio indulges in and a decency that exists exclusively in words and intent while he allows God's divine arm to take his own and do the rougher work. There is an unbridgeable rift between his intent and his action that manifests in his dual dialogs.

  

Works Cited:

Shakespeare, William. Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Great Britain: HarperCollins, 1994. Anthology. pp 1079 - 1125