Thoughts on the Gawain Poet Part I: Pearl Part I

This is the first of two posts on the Medieval Poem, Pearl. Finishing Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was an expectation I had been waiting for, for many years. Like Gawain and the Green Knight, I read the translation of Pearl by J. R. R. Tolkien.  While this poem is widely respected, it never gained the momentum of Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. Perhaps what is more surprising though, is that the anonymous author of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, commonly called the Gawain Poet, wrote other Medieval Poems that are rich in Christian symbolism. One of the works written by the Gawain Poet, is Pearl.  

 The story begins by a man falling asleep, while dreaming of the Pearl Woman he had once lost in life. He dreams of her, as she teaches him about Patience, connecting it to the Medieval poem, Patience, believed to be by the same author. The maiden or Pearl of the dream, tells him not to lament for his loss of her. Through much spiritual guidance, the story ends, by the man trusting in the Divine Will of God.
The story is full of theological references including the Immaculate likeness of the Virgin Mary. Jesus Christ, is an important character from within the text, and like His earthly mother, is called, ''Immaculate.''  In Pearl, Christ says that all our called, though only a few are His favorites. I personally found that to be a little funny. The theological implications of the story I think are personally more superior than the plot itself. Like many Medieval works, it teaches a moral lesson to it's readers.

 An important note to mention is that there are two Pearls of the story, one is literal, which itself is bore by the woman, the other is the woman herself. The woman is described as being most fair, which is not surprising, considering the many redheads in Medieval art and literature. 

 Check out the Pearl. I intend to post more on this work at some point. 

 ''Patience is a conquering virtue.'' -Geoffrey Chaucer

''Trust in the Lord with all Thine heart; and lean not unto thy own understanding. In all thy ways, acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths. -Proverbs 3: 5-6

Analyzing and Interpreting Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen Part I

Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility probably left more an impression on me as a little boy than I would have expected. Though I had seen the 1995 edition of it long before this, around the age of twelve, I would begin to take a more serious note of the story based on the films of I that had seen. It wasn't that I liked a film about early 19th century romance, it was just that I thought that Sense and Sensibility was truly a good story. Exactly why I thought so, I am not certain, but the story was one I was familiar since I was very young. One thing is possibly for certain though, no matter what Jane Austen work is your favorite, Sense and Sensibility is possibly the most emotionally driven. 

Austen's first work, Sense and Sensibility, certainly was not published right after the author completed it. The book was written in 1795, then revised in 1795-1797 and 1809, and not published until 1811. Later in 1813, a revised edition would be published, which is the currently read edition. Originally called Elinor and Marianne, Sense and Sensibility is about the sense, Elinor, and the sensibility, Marianne. 

 In early 2019, I would buy a copy of it and read it swiftly through. It was one of the few books that I had ever read, that I thought was thoroughly entertaining from beginning to end.
So I have been rereading Sense and Sensibility for the second time. As perhaps would be expected,  I have picked up things in rereading it that I did not get the first time.  That said, this post is an addition to my first posts that were reviews of the book. What I want to demonstrate here though, is more about touching on the literary work itself rather than on why I like it.
 Yes, I am a fan of Jane Austen's works. I certainly plan to read all her works eventually, and not just her novels, but also her non-fiction works. However, as I said above, this post is not about reasons I like Jane Austen or Sense and Sensibility, but rather themes and influence found in Sense and Sensibility that have given literary impact.
 To start off, I'd like to give quotes from a notable literary figure on the text and influence of Sense and Sensibility.
{ Speaking of Sense and Sensibility,} ''gives us all the agony of passion the human heart can feel...it is here that we find the human heart in English Prose narrative for the first, and, alas, for the last time.'' -George Moore, novelist.

Jane Austen took on many forms of writing including Gothic. However, the ''Sentimental Novel'' is what she is most known for. This is perhaps never more true, than in Sense and Sensibility, which heavily builds upon the emotional relationship of the Dashwood sisters, both to each other, and to those around them. Austen demonstrates in Sense and Sensibility, not just make the romance in her stories seem real, but the very heart of Marianne Dashwood, and the mind of Elinor Dashwood.

 A concurring them of the story is comparing and contrasting the Dashwood sisters. The story shows their disappointments throughout in several suitors, yet constantly shows the difference in reaction to their situations. Elinor, holds from within much that happens throughout, while Marianne assumes she alone is in grave pain. The maturity of Eleanor is thus contrasted largely with the immaturity of her younger sister. On the flip side, Marianne is more in touch with her feelings than is Eleanor with her own. By the end of the story, both sisters come to a more middle ground. The personality of both sisters, would later lay the foundation for Elizabeth Bennett in Pride and Prejudice.
 It surprised me recently learning that all of Jane Austen's works were presented as written by anonymous in her life. It would be after her death, that her brother would make known the author of these books. I suppose we owe him a little credit too then, for unmasking the writer behind such great classics. 

  I will have more to say later. Enjoy your week! 

 Further Sources: The Companion to English Literature edited by Margaret Drable, Introduction to Sense and Sensibility by Margaret Drable, Merriam Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature edited by Kathleen Kuiper, Sense and Sensibility: An Annotated Edition edited by Patricia Meyer Spacks.

Why You Should Read Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

Recently, I finished the classic epic poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In fact, I finished the book several weeks ago, but have been busy focusing my last three posts on the debate of Papal Infallibility. Now that those posts are finished, I can now return to posting more on Medieval Literature again, as well as other areas of Medieval History that I'd like to post about soon. Of course, I also occasionally do a post on other areas of literature or history that are not strictly Medieval.  

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is among the most important works of Medieval literature. It touches on chivalry, allegory, and piety-all important concepts throughout English Medieval literature. A contemporary work of other important Middle English texts by the same anonymous poet, Sir Gawain, and the Green Knight blends Gothic darkness with the virtues of Christianity. In many ways, I argue that the Green Knight symbolizes paganism while Gawain represents Christianity. I hope to touch more on this in a future post. 

 The translation of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight that I used and read was the one written by none other than the great J. R. R Tolkien. We often think of Tolkien as the maker of Middle Earth, but he did so much more than even The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Tolkien taught Anglo-Saxon and was well aware of its influence upon culture.  I enjoyed this book but found it a hard read. I didn't find it an easy read at all. That said, I greatly enjoyed it.

                                          The great J. R. R. Tolkien in the above picture.





 The actual story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was full of many surprises. After finishing the poem, I read a children's version of it to better understand the story. While I am not going to reveal here the plot or the surprises that go with it, the story largely focuses on the romance between Gawain and his lady, as well as Gawain's search for the mysterious green knight. This book was written by an anonymous author at around the same time that Geoffrey Chaucer was composing The Canterbury Tales. Make sure to check it out!

The Council of Constance vrs. Vatican I Part III

Christ promising to the Apostle Peter the Keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16

In the last two posts, I have demonstrated by historical evidence not only that Papal Infallibility was a later teaching in the history of the church, but that the Council of Constance taught that the church is higher than the pope, implying that a pope can be deposed, as was taught in Medieval canon law. In this final post, I will brief over how Papal Infallibility contradicted the Council of Constance, by its dogmatic definition at Vatican I. As I have a lot of history here to cover, I will try to be brief, lest this post become the size of an entire book.
 First off, shortly after the Council of Constance taught the superiority of a church council over the papacy{ a belief titled called Conciliarism,}  the leadership of the Catholic Church would seek to quickly to abolish this teaching. In 1460, Pope Pius II would issue a papal bull called Excrabilis, condemning this teaching. The Fifth Lateran Council would also deviate from Conciliarism by its teachings that the errors of a pope cannot be addressed to a church council.
 With all that said, the background is interesting to note that many of the Conciliar Roman Catholics were of Northern Europe, much like those that would come to support the coming Protestant Reformation. In other words, the debate of Papal Primacy, was even before the debate of justification, and papal primacy would come to be the true divide that would separate Catholics and Protestants for the next five hundred years. Before the Ninety-Five thesis, before Luther's excommunication, before Henry VIII of England would break from Rome,  Western Christians had already been divided. The divide did not start with Martin Luther in 1517, that was simply when the official lasting break would take place. The Conciliar theory had already been in direct opposition to Papal Supremacy for primarily two hundred years before the Protestant Reformation would kick off with Luther. As explained in a previous post,  the Spiritual Franciscan, William of Ockham, was actually the first Protestant.
 But Conciliarism would not end with Pope Pius II's condemnation of it, those that held the theory would either break from Rome, or hold the view for centuries after the Protestant Reformation.
 If I may now fast forward to Vatican I, we will see how the abuse of Papal Power would forever contribute to the crisis the Roman Catholic Church has found itself in today, in least regard to the papacy. But before we look, at the facts of what happened at Vatican I, it is important to keep all already in memory of what has been discussed.
 Vatican I was centuries after the Counter Reformation. This council claimed to have rejected the liberal beliefs of it's today, but it is one of the most controversial church councils in the history of the Catholic Church. The definition of Papal Infallibility, promulgated at the council, would add another huge area of division between Catholics and Protestants.
 Now Vatican I covered several core areas of doctrines, but that is not the topic of this post. All I want to do here, is to demonstrate the direct contrast between Constance and Vatican I.
 As sometimes misunderstood, Papal Infallibility was not suddenly taught for the first time at Vatican I. Indeed, many Roman Catholic Christians had already this doctrine for centuries. I think it's also important to truly understand, the limits of Papal Infallibility, which too has been misunderstood by many Christians. On the other hand, I have demonstrated, with much thanks being to Cambridge Medievalist, Brian Tierney, that this doctrine did not originate until the debate of Apostolic Poverty between Pope John XXII and the Spiritual Franciscans. Considering the unfounded claims made by many Catholic Apologist that Papal Infallibility was somehow always the teaching of the church,  this is especially important to know. It's interesting to know, as I have said many times, that many Catholic and Protestant historians alike, believe Papal Infallibility was a later teaching of the church.
 Strictly understood, many Catholic theologians have differences among each other on what doctrines qualify as Infallible, and which don't.  But Papal Infallibility as defined by Vatican I, claims infallibility of the papacy only on issues of faith and morals. It is not enough for a pope, to express an opinion on something, he must define a doctrine by his supposed apostolic authority, based on his supposed understanding of what has always been taught. As if, this is not enough, Vatican I anathamizes anyone that says otherwise, in other words, according this council, a Catholic is or aught to be excommunicated if they do not believe this doctrine.
 ''We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks Ex Cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise  of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the whole church, he possess by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, the infallibility which the divine redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine of faith and morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not be consent of the church, irreformible. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject the definition of ours: let him be anathama-Vatican I.

                    Popes during the time of the Reformation, like Leo X above,  became notorious for immortal and luxurious lives. Their abuse of Papal Power, would hurt the Catholic Church perhaps more than they ever would have expected. While many widely believe that these Popes did not change church teaching, nothing could be further from the truth. Pope John XXII's change of the the doctrine of Apostolic Poverty, was the cause of the later long debate in the west, that still goes on today, of Papal Supremacy, and how far it goes.

 Vatican I teaches elsewhere, the great  Supremacy of the Pope over the universal church. The definitions of this council, thus taught that the pope was above that of a council, and that a council could not reform his teachings. Let us look again at the Council of Constance, to see the stark contrast between it and Vatican I.
''This holy synod of Constance, constituting a general Council, lawfully assembled to bring about the end of the present great schism and the union and reformation of the church of God in head and members, to the praise of Almighty God in the Holy Spirit, in order that it may achieve more readily, safely, amply, and freely the Union and reformation of the church of God, does hereby, ordain, ratify, enact, decree, and declare the following:
 First it declares that being lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic Church Militant, it has it's power directly from Christ, and that all persons of whatever rank or dignity, even a pope, are bound to obey it in matters relating to faith  and the end of the schism and the general reformation of the Church of God in head and members.'' -Council of Constance

                                                          Vatican I: 1869-1870


 It is indeed a pity, that Rome would later attempt to do away with the canon of Constance, by it's teaching that a pope's error, cannot be addressed to a church council. Vatican I, as well as the 1983 Code of Canon, both teach the immovability of a pope by a council of bishops. This is a direct contradiction to that confirmed in Medieval Canon law, and the Council of Constance. Perhaps this helps also explain not just the modern dilemma of whether a heretical pope, can be judged and deposed by the church, but one of the key factors why 40% of European Christians became Protestant. The debate of Concialirism then, was at the core of the Great Western Schism and Protestant Reformation, the debate of justification then, only contributed to this great conflict in the church.
 Now that I have shown the clear contradictions between the two councils, just one last area of this post, I wish to cover. That is, how Papal Infallibility became a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. This doctrine had been rejected by many Catholic theologians and catechisms before Vatican I, but in 1870 it would become MANDATORY TO BE A ROMAN CATHOLIC. It was not enough, that many had had differences over this doctrine for centuries, Pope Piux IX, would push it's way to dogma at Vatican I.
 At Vatican I, many bishops rejected the dogma simply out of fear that it would be misunderstood, some rejected it outright, especially those from the United States of America. One final group, actually believed everything the pope said was infallible.
 Without getting too much into the history of Vatican I, lest it get off topic of the post, I think it's important to mention that the Pope essentially just pushed the doctrine into the Council's documents. One cardinal objected to it, basing his rejection on church tradition. The pope answered, ''I AM THE TRADITION.''
 The effects of Vatican I are still being seen today. One of the only reasons C. S. Lewis never became a Catholic, was because of Papal Infallibility. . Who knows, but maybe someday a church council will again affirm the authority of itself over the papacy, as Constance once did.
 Some historians believe the Medieval Church was not so much led by a monarchy as the Catholic Church became at Vatican I. In recent years, some Catholic theologians have again assembled to the Conciliar doctrine, that a church council is above the papacy. The debate over Papal Primacy, has truly been one of the most controversial doctrines in the history of the church, and the confusion, the chaos, and the exaggerations that surround it, are still the topics of many debates. Much clarity is still needed, and dialogue between Catholics and Protestants on the differences between the two over the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Church.
 It took one debate over Apostolic Poverty, to set Europe on fire by major differences in doctrine. What perhaps is most least known of all, was that the Protestant Reformation's roots were with a handful of Spiritual Franciscans that were truly just living their lives in imitation of the Apostles.


Further Sources: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwigg Ott, Papal Primacy: From it's origins to the Presnt by Klaus Schatz, The Battle for Christendom: The Council of Constance, the East-West Conflict, and the Dawn of Modern Europe by Frank Welsh, History of the Catholic Church by James Hitchcock, Creeds of the Churches by John H. Leith, Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor, Encyclopedia of Catholic History by Matthew Bunson.