A Review of Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C. S. Lewis

 

For much of his life, C. S. Lewis was an English tutor at Oxford University. In 1954, he became a professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge University. Lewis wrote several works on Medieval literature during his time at both Oxford and Cambridge. Among these literary works were several essays that were published into one volume after his death. These essays formed the pages to Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature. 

There is much to learn about the Middle Ages from Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature. In this work, Lewis wrote about Geoffrey Chaucer, Dante Alighieri, Thomas Malory, and other important writers from the Middle Ages. Lewis's ability to connect these writers from the classical world (such as Aristotle, Virgil, etc), is in my view, one of his greatest strengths in this work. After all, as Lewis described in The Discarded Image, reading Virgil and Ovid is essential to understanding Medieval literature. 

Lewis knew that was much more to the Middle Ages than stories of chivalry, damsels in distress, and evil dragons. Certainly, Lewis understood the Middle Ages to be a very artistic time in history. Indeed, I found it interesting that Lewis alluded to the Middle Ages being more than knighthood and courtly love. Without question, he understood the literature of the time to be rooted in both philosophy and allegory. 

''But we must remember, firstly, how ignorant these early medievalists were of the true Middle Ages, and secondly how ill provided the Middle Ages are with the sort of poetry they wanted to read. They wanted chivalry, not scholastic philosophy; enchanters, not allegory. They wanted, quite simply, knights in armour, castles, and love stories (Lewis, p. 114, 1966). ''

Later in the work, Lewis comes to discuss the great writers of the Renaissance. Among them, he wrote especially of Edmund Spenser. Interestingly enough, Lewis understood Spener to be both puritanical and humanist. However, Lewis understood the meaning of these words to mean something different in England than they would come to be understood in America:

''We can hardly help calling them 'Puritanism' and 'humanism,' but neither word mean the same as it does in America. By purity the Elizabethan Puritan meant not chastity but 'pure' theology, and, still more, 'pure' church discipline. That is, he wanted an all-powerful Presbyterian Church, a church stronger than the state, set up in England, on the model of Calvin's church in Geneva. Knox in Scotland loudly demanded, and at least one English puritan hinted, that this should be done by armed revolution. Calvin, the great successful doctrinaire who had actually set up the 'new order', was the man who had dazzled them all. We must picture these Puritans as the very opposite of those who bear that name today: as young, fierce, progressive intellectuals, very fashionable and up-to-date. They were not teetotallers; bishops, not beer, were their special aversion. And humanist in this sense means simply 'classicists'-men very interested in Greek, but more interested in Latin, and far more interested in the 'correct' or 'classical' style of Latin than in what the Latin authors said. They wanted English drama to observe the (supposedly) Aristotelian 'unities', and some of them wanted English poets to abandon rhyme-a nasty, 'barbarous' or 'Gothic' affair-and use classical metres in English. There was no necessary enmity between Puritans and humanists. They were often the same people, and nearly always the same sort of people: the young men 'in the movement', the impatient progressives demanding a 'clean sweep.' And they were united by a common (and usually ignorant) hatred for everything medieval: for scholastic philosophy, medieval Latin, romance, fairies, and chivalry (Lewis, p. 122, 1966).'' 

In short, Lewis understood that the Puritans were hardly ignorant. In fact, they had much in common with the Renaissance humanist. The two groups both moved away from theological movements in the Middle Ages that both mutually felt had gone wayward. At the same time, Puritanism had less to do with holy living and more to do with the aggressive support of Calvinism. Humanism, likewise, was not about the rejection of Orthodox but about the humanists wishing to return to the poetic styles of their Greco-Roman ancestors. 

Lewis contributed several entire chapters of this work to the study of Edmund Spenser and his writings. According to Lewis, Spenser was not familiar with Middle English or much of Medieval literature (Lewis, p. 130, 1966). At the same time, he talks about Spenser's writings having a medieval character to them. Additionally, I find Lewis to have been partial to Medieval literature over Renaissance literature: ''The Elizabethans, even at their best, seem to lack that effortless good taste-one might say, that good breeding-which we nearly always find in the work of the Middle Ages. The Renaissance did not make men, in all senses, more civilized ( p. 129, ).'' Concerning this, much comes to my mind. As much as Lewis knew about English literature of the sixteenth century, I suspect that he was a true medievalist at heart. Throughout his writings, he deployed knighthood, allegory, and theology much as the literature of the Middle had been commonly known to do. no doubt, The Fairi Queen by Edmund Spenser had a tremendous influence upon Lewis (and likely upon his friends). In fact, he talked about how essentially boy was familiar with this work before 1914 ( p. 132). 

I do wonder how much influence the Fairie Queen had on C. S. Lewis. I find it interesting that he referred to this work as a fairy-tale (Lewis, p. 133, 1966). Considering its Arthurian nature (which Lewis seems to have admired), I wonder to what extent The Chronicles of Narnia were inspired by this work. Likewise, I wonder if the strong use of its allegory served as literary food for Lewis to model his Narnia books after. 

There is much that medievalists can learn from Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature. I encourage all to read The Discarded Image before reading this work. Likewise, I believe those whose interests are more theological than literary will also benefit from these pages. 

Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature is a worthy companion to The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C. S. Lewis. While between the two, I prefer The Discarded Image, I nevertheless, find both to be essential reads for any medievalist. To any aspiring scholar whose studies specialize in the Middle Ages, these works from Professor Lewis are among the best written on the literature from Medieval times. 

One of the great uses of literary history is to keep reminding us that while man is constantly acquiring new powers he is also constantly losing old ones. It behoves us therefore to be humble and do our best (Lewis, pp.134-135 1966).

Finally, while The Discarded Image is a great introduction to Medieval literature, in this latter work, the modern reader gets further acquainted with the literature of Medieval Times, such as the world of Chaucer and Malory. 

 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. -Galatians 4: 24

The Dream of the Rood Paper

 

Joshua Dotson

Professor Johnson

English 460: Christian Literature

October 9, 2023

“The Role of the Dream of the Rood in Christian Literature’’

 

     All literature reflects the values and beliefs of the culture in which a given text was born. Society is influenced by the arts, and produces them at the same time. For example, one's writer's emphasis on social justice probably reflects one’s Left leanings. On the other hand, a book about the silent majority being unheard may reflect the author's pro-life stance. Indeed, it is impossible for any work of literature not to reflect the values of the one who composed it. Certainly, the faithful Christians’ own art reflects biblical Christianity. By default, written works that explore Biblical themes are called “Christian literature.” Often, these values must be distinctly Christian, such as belief in the Trinity, and not a vaguer idea, such as friendship or forgiveness. No doubt, this was especially true for the Anglo-Saxons, who harbored an infatuation with Old Testament literature. It was during the age of Old English literature that one of the greatest works of Christian literature, The Dream of the Rood, was composed. This important book of Medieval literature highlights Christian themes in a number of ways. In the words of Old English scholar R. M. Liuzza, “The Dream of the Rood tells the story of the Crucifixion of Christ from the point of view of the Cross, which appears to the narrator in a dream and recounts its experiences. Christ is presented as a heroic warrior, eagerly leaping to the cross to do battle with Death; the Cross is a loyal retainer who is painful and paradoxically forced to participate in his lord's execution (Liuzza, 173).” However, proof of its canon in Christian literature derives from its historical background, Mariology, the atonement of Christ, its understanding of salvation and redemption, and the final victory of the Son of God. 

     As with any other work of literature, understanding its place in history is essential to understanding the text---The Dream of the Rood is no exception to this rule of literary history. In fact, the culture behind the composition of this literary piece is crucial to understanding its purpose. According to historians Hazel Maskell and Dr. Abigail Wheatly, two historians of Anglo-Saxon England, “From about the year 450, Britain came under attack. Boatloads of warriors from what is now Germany and Denmark launched a series of devastating raids on the south and east coasts. The invaders were made up of three groups Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes. These fearsome warriors forced the tribes of native Britons to flee to the hills (Maskell and Wheatley, 6).” Furthermore, literary scholar Susan Wise Bauer has written, “Soon, the south and east part of Britain was completely occupied by the Angles and Saxons (Bauer, 14).” Likewise, Medieval historian Anita Baker notes, “(Pope) Gregory also sought to further the teachings of the church and to bring papal authority to Roman Catholics throughout Europe, no mean feat in a continent ruled by many different tribes and riven by conflict. He sent a mission of 40 monks under Saint Augustine to England in 597 to convert the pagan Anglo-Saxon tribes to Christianity. It was a success (Baker, 69)...” Interestingly enough, Ecclesiastical historian Kevin Madigan has rightly observed, “According to an anonymous Anglo-Saxon biography of Gregory written in ca. 710, Gregory's interest in the English originated before he became pope (Madigan, 62).” Of course, all of this was before the literary work was written but it does help the modern reader to understand the origins of the Anglo-Saxons and more about the people who this literature was written for. In truth, The Dream of the Rood demonstrates the transformation of the Anglo-Saxons away from paganism and their conversion to Christianity, as well as their endeavor to create Christian literature of their own. The prerequisite to writing any Christian literature, however, is for the author’s knowledge of theology: a fact which the poem exhibits in many places. Although few Saxons were pagan by the time the work was written, the poem's emphasis on the Cross of Christ evidences the reform of the people to Biblical thoughts: “That tree was triumphant and I tarnished by sin, begrimed with evil, I beheld Glory's trunk garnished with grandeur, gleaming in bliss, all plated with gold; precious gemstones had gloriously graced the Lord God's tree. Yet I could see signs of ancient strife: beneath that gold it had begun bleeding on the right side. I was bereft with sorrows; that splendid sight made me afraid. I beheld the sign rapidly changing clothes with colors. Now it was covered by moisture, drenched with steaming blood, now decked in treasure (34.13-22).”

     The mother of Christ is at the heart of The Dream of the Rood. Although the Virgin Mary is rarely mentioned in the small Anglo-Saxon poem, her importance is nothing short of essential to interpreting the text. The translation of the work from The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Middle Ages reads, “So the Lord of glory, guardian of Heaven, exalted me then over all forest-trees, as Almighty God before all humankind exalted over all the race of women. His own mother, Mary herself (90-94).” For certain, the Mother of Christ was as important to the Anglo-Saxons as she was to all Catholic Christians throughout Medieval Europe. The poem, nevertheless, understood her as providentially involved in God's plan to give birth to a Savior even before the foundations of the world. As one article notes, “But this suggestion shows a curious understanding of mediaeval Christianity, where the choice of Mary would be seen, not in modern terms as 'random' or accidental,' but as part of God’s pre-ordained plan, Mary having been chosen for her destiny before the foundation of the world to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament*1.” Certainly, the poem does not have to exhaust mentioning her name to prove her essentiality within its short narrative. In paying her homage and honoring her within the context of Christ, this Anglo-Saxon work reveals why the medievals loved the Mother of God so much: they saw her as blessed (Luke 1:42) and valued her because of her place in salvific history in giving birth to Christ. While The Dream of the Rood does not take Mariology to the explicit veneration for her that would later arise within High and Late Medieval literature, the Anglo-Saxon poem does recall her importance within the Christian tradition. 

     The ''Rood'' that The Dream of the Rood is referring to, is the tree that Christ died upon. According to Holy Scripture, God didn't want the world to perish, so He sent His Son for humanity (John 3: 16, 1 John 2: 2). Of all the plots within the Old English narrative, Christ saving the world may exist as the most significant. In saving mankind from sin, however, Christ was also preparing the saints for the world to come: “Now I command you, my man so dear, to tell others the events you have seen; find words to tell it was the tree of glory Almighty God suffered upon for mankind's so many sins and for that ancient offense of Adam. There, he tasted death; yet the redeemer arose with his great might to help mankind. Then he rose to Heaven. He will come again to this middle-earth to seek out mankind on Judgement Day, the Redeemer himself, God Almighty and his angels with him, so that he will judge, He who has power of the Judgement, all humanity as to the merits each has brought about in this brief life (36.95-109).” Indeed, manifesting these beautiful words, Christ has saved his people, and is purifying them for the final judgment. Likewise, the salvation described in The Dream of the Rood is holistically connected to Christ's sufferings and the redemption of creation. 

     Without referring to the atonement of Christ, the Christian heritage of The Dream of the Rood would be far inferior. The poem directly addresses Christ's inflictions as He suffers for the sins of the world, “On that mountain I have endured many cruel happenings. I saw the God of hosts direly stretched out. Shades of darkness had clouded over the corpse of the Lord, the shining radiance; shadows went forth dark under clouds. All creation wept, mourning the king's fall: Christ was on the cross (35.50-56).” Here, the poem refers to the many sufferings of Jesus Christ. Creation turns dark as the Son of God persists through His incarnation. Yet, through this darkness, Christ achieved the impossible, the redemption of the world through His divine and human atonement. Later, following His Resurrection, the poem is clear about what Christ accomplished, “I shall dwell in glory, together with the saints share in their delights. May the Lord be my friend, who on earth long ago on the gallows-tree suffered agony for the sins of men; he redeemed us and gave us life, a home in Heaven. Hope was made new and blossomed with bliss to those burning in fire (37.144-149).” Indeed, it took the sacrifice of Christ not only to save humanity, but to redeem the world from the stain of sin and destruction. In this regard, the old Anglo-Saxon poem reflects the Christus Victor view of the atonement which “... is the element of the atoning work of Christ that emphasizes the triumph of Christ over the evil powers of the world, through which he rescues his people and establishes a new relationship between God and the world*2.” In other words, one of the most ancient views of the atonement asserts that Christ's death on the cross was the beginning of God's restoration of the world unto Himself. Quite clearly, The Dream of the Rood exemplifies this view throughout its text as the author of this piece dreamed of the new Creation to come. 

     The climax of The Dream of the Rood concerns Christ's final advent to judge the world and bring justice to all as well as perfection to the old creation. Written at the end of the work, in many ways, the return of Christ is perhaps one of the most epic aspects of the work: “The son was victorious in venturing forth, mighty and triumphant when he returned with many, a company of souls to the Kingdom of God, the Almighty Ruler, to the joy of angels, and all those holy ones come to Heaven before. to live in glory, when their Lord returned, the Eternal King to His own country (37.150-155).” When one analyzes this aspect of the poem, the reader will see all the more the beauty of this work. For example, “The son was victorious in venturing forth...(37.150),” is an example of alliteration with the use of “v” in both words which adds to the rhythm of the work and keeps the reader focused on the glory of Christ's eventual coming, Secondly, however, by invoking “...the Almighty ruler (37.150),” the literary piece demonstrates a high reverence for God Himself. With references to Christ being “victorious,” “triumphant,” and to God as “the Almighty ruler” and “Eternal King”, the writer of The Dream of the Rood reminds those who study its composition of the good news that all Christians can wait for---the return of Christ and the restoration of the world under the Lord King of Heaven and Earth. 

      Works of Christian literature always point in some way to the redemption that Christ has done and is still doing to the world. This is certainly true for The Dream of the Rood. Though the Anglo-Saxons had not always been Christians, this literary piece reveals that once they embraced Christianity, there was no going back for them. The theme of God as King stayed especially important to them as they saw Christ as superseding the gods of old. In contrast to paganism, however, Christianity turned men away from violence and to the hope of a loving Savior. Throughout Europe, paganism had been often associated with child sacrifice. For Christians of the Medieval era, though, their sacrifice was the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Furthermore, while paganism thrived among some of the Anglo-Saxons until the eleventh century, the poem does indicate the gradual importance of Christianity to the British people. Indeed, in the words of Anglo-Saxon scholars Lloyd and Jennifer Laing, “The structure of English Christianity received the official stamp of approval by the Council of Hertford in 672, while at Hatfield in 679 a profession of allegiance to Roman orthodoxy was made formally (Lloyd, Laing, 98).” All of this echoes in the poem. Christianity was changing England forever. Finally, while The Dream of the Rood does not signal a genuine transformation of every person in England to Christianity, it does indicate a general shift in the mood of the people and more importantly, the presence of the church in Medieval lives. 

     In conclusion, the heritage of American and British Christian literature has its origins long before J. R. R. Tolkien, an Anglo-Saxon scholar, and C. S. Lewis, a Renaissance scholar. Indeed, both of these great twentieth-century writers admired the Medieval world and wrote frequently about it. They drew from Medieval literature for their own works of Christian fiction, just as many contemporary Christians draw from Tolkien and Lewis. One of the greatest ways to teach anyone about Christian theology is through literature. Oftentimes, modern readers are acquainted with great Christian classics, such as Confessions or The Pilgrim's Progress. Sadly, however, far fewer believers are aware of the great Christian literature written in Old English by the Anglo-Saxons. Indeed, long before John Wycliffe or William Tyndale, parts of the Bible had already been translated into English by the Anglo-Saxons though Bible translations into English became significantly rare after the Norman conquest of England in the eleventh century. There is much to admire about Augustine, Bunyan, Tolkien, and Lewis, but the boundaries of Christian literature extended far beyond their works. Indeed, every Christian ought to read The Dream of the Rood. It is an underrated classic within the Old English canon of Christian literature. 

                                                          Works Cited: 

Baker, Anita. The Medieval World: The Illustrated History of the Middle Ages. (2018). Sevenoaks. 

Bauer, Susan. Wise. The Story of the World History for the Classical Child Volume 2: The Middle Ages From The Fall of Rome to the Rise of the Renaissance. (2003). Well-Trained Mind Press. 

Greenblatt, Stephen. The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Middle Ages (tenth edition). (2018). W. W. Norton & Company. 

Old English Poetry: An Anthology. R. M. Liuzza. (2014). 

Madigan, Kevin. Medieval Christianity: A New History. (2015). Yale University Press. 

Maskell, Hazel. and Wheatley, Abigail. (2012). Usborne. 

 

Notes:

*-administrator,+flor12art04 (4).pdf

*2-https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/christus-victor/

Henry V Paper

“The Heroism and Chivalry of Henry V Proven in William Shakespeare’s Notable Play of the Same Name.’’

     Joshua Dotson

     Professor Rice

     English 333: Shakespeare

     October 6, 2023

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Henry V by William Shakespeare is among his most respected historical plays. The king's speech before the battle of Agincourt, “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers (Shakespeare, 4.3.62),” is among one of the most cited speeches in military history. The work, split into five acts, continues the story of Prince Hal in Henry IV Parts One and Two. Now, though, Hal, also known as Henry V, is nobler than ever. As the Hundred Years’ War loomed between France and England, the king was convinced by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely that he should lead an army to conquer France. When chance bid him an opportunity to invade this southern kingdom, he led England's forces against the mightier and more pompous French army. Vastly outnumbered at Agincourt, Henry stirred his men to loyalty with Shakespeare's beloved speech. Once the battle began, the king led the English to one of the most famous Medieval victories. Henry V, a true protagonist of Shakespeare's play, demonstrates his strong character in many ways. The heroism and chivalry of Henry V are proven by his wisdom concerning justice, his siege of Harfleur, consistent bravery at Agincourt, personal Christian virtues, persistence to Calais, and his courtship of Princess Katherine. 

          Henry V's portrayal of The Hundred Years' War begins almost immediately at proving the king's chivalry. As an English knight and foot soldier in France, he led his kingdom's armies in siege against the French city of Harfleur. His army was not gathered from professional knights—it rose mostly from more middle-class fighters which is why Medieval historian Anne Curry wrote in her history of the Hundred Years’ War of Henry’s forces, “Even more notable were the many esquires and yeoman who indented in person with a handful of archers (Curry, 58).’’ Additionally, concerning the historical background to Shakespeare’s play, Medieval historian Christopher Almand notes, “The indentures of 1415 also underline Henry’s determination to capture Harfleur, whatever the effort might take (Almand, 211).’’ Eventually triumphant over the city that his men sieged, the king spoke to the surrendered governor as follows, “How yet resolve the governor of the town? This is the latest parle that we will admit. Therefore to our best mercy give yourselves Or, like to men proud of destruction, Defy us to our worst. For, as I am a soldier, A name that in my thoughts becomes me best, I will not leave the half-achieved Harfleur Till in her ashes she lie buried (Shakespeare,3.3..1-9).” After the governor of the city replies obediently to the king's commands, Henry quickly affirms, “Open your gates (Shakespeare, 3.3.51),” without hesitation. Before his siege, the king had received golf balls from the Dauphin of France. Now, however, the king upholds the honor of his dominion and beloved country in having marched into France for the beginning of a four-year war. While Henry V successfully takes Harfleur, nevertheless, his most memorable acts of courage will be demonstrated at a place called “Agincourt.” 

          While being heroic in several notable battles against the French prior, Henry's courage and bravery, along with his ability to command an English army, were all tested near the French castle known as “Agincourt.” During the battle that commenced, Henry would lead his army, though outnumbered five to one, to victory over the arrogant French cavalry. Protected behind a wall of wooden stakes, the English forces made extensive use of the successful longbow that had blessed their courage at the Battle of Crecy in 1346---during which, they were able to weaken the French lines from afar. Likewise, the new English army at Agincourt used this tactic again to their advantage against a much larger and less-worn opposing force. But the English victory at Agincourt in Shakespeare's play must be attributed to more than the longbow. Having marched for miles and many days in the rain, Henry inspired energy within his tired, English soldiers with his powerful and iconic words, ''We few, we happy few, we band of brothers (Shakespeare, 4.3.62).'' Indeed, Henry's famous speech to his men before the famous battle resonated so successfully because he connected with his troops. In saying “We band of brothers (Shakespeare, 4.3.62),” the king understood himself to be one of his men. On the other hand, had the king bragged of his divine right to rule or had he displayed pride about his birth, his men would have been more hesitant to side with him on the battlefield, but Henry did none of those things. Rather, he gathered all the English troops initially by invoking the names of the lands that they lorded, “Gloucester, Salisbury...(Shakespeare, 4.3.56).” Secondly, he previously united them under his crown by invoking a sense of English pride as they began a siege of Harfleur before coming to Agincourt “Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!’ ” By referring to England's patron saint, Saint George, Shakespeare evidences that the king was able to muster all of them to his coming cause. Interestingly enough, the king's heroism at Agincourt reflects a different aspect of his character; that is, his humility drove his bravery. The once Prince Hal of Henry IV is no longer considering solely himself. Indeed, he takes the lives and potential deaths of all his men into serious consideration as they face hell in the muddy rain. Had the king stood aside and not fought alongside his men, and had he thought himself too worthy to endure their many trials, the results of the battle would have been quite different. Even after Agincourt, however, his persistence to conquer remained, despite an ongoing war that would aid him in his march of Calais. His perseverance ultimately stemmed from his Christian character. 

     The king's Christian virtues are clearly manifested throughout the entirety of Henry V. The English monarch was, in many ways, a product of the thought of his time---a reality that Shakespeare would have known. Concerning Medieval Christianity, Ecclesiastical Historian Kevin Madigan wrote, “The church not only formed the institutional framework within which one lived but one’s life (Madigan, xviii).’’ Likewise, the same church that influenced the masses, also affected the life of King Henry the Fifth as evidenced by when he invoked God's aid before the battle of Agincourt “…You know your places. God be with all… (Shakespeare, 4.3.80).” However, Henry's commitment to the Christian faith is deeper than his insistence on God's help when pressed into dire situations. To him, Christianity is reflected in chivalrous behavior towards all, including his commitment to justice. When Bardolph is punished for desertion, the king speaks as follows, “We should have all such offenders so cut off, and we give express charge that in our marches through the country there be nothing compelled from the villages... (Shakespeare, 3.3.96-98).” While Bardolph's execution may seem harsh to many today, for a world in which capital punishment is controversial, this was a typical medieval sentence for such crimes. The deserted soldier was not the only person to face such justice from the king. For instance, the king also called for the execution of many French prisoners. As English literature scholar John Sutherland notes, “Returning to the big picture, how is it that there remain living this huge number of captives? Fifteen hundred is the size of a small army. These French prisoners surely did not surrender after Henry gave his ‘kill them all’ command.’’ No, indeed, whether it be his own men breaking the laws of England or his enemies, guarding prisoners in a war march would have been detrimental to the English army and slowed their pace in the conflict. Furthermore, Henry’s holding Bardolph accountable reflects his serious oath to the office of king: to ensure the survival of justice in an unjust world. Certainly, all of these values flow from the monarch’s Christianity, “...for he beareth not the sword in vain... (King James Bible, 1611, Romans 13: 4).” No doubt, at the heart of Henry's chivalry was his belief in God and the Catholic faith which he endorsed. At the end of Act Four during which the English have captured the city of Calais from the French, Henry reflects upon his deep Catholic faith, “Do we all holy rites. Let there be sung Non nobis and Te Deum, the dead with charity enclosed in clay, And then to Calais, and to England then, Where ne'er from France arrived more happy men (Shakespeare, 4.8.115-119).”

    Though less often performed in the play, Henry V's remarkable arrival at the city of Calais is implied. As the king says to Montjoy, the royal messenger of France, “Thou dost thy office fairly. Turn thee back, And tell thy king I do not seek him no But could be willing to march on to Calais...(Shakespeare, 3.3.126-128).” Interestingly enough, Shakespeare's work does not show that Henry went back to England to celebrate his victory after Agincourt first, however. Yet as he returned to France, Henry pressed onto Calais with his persistence to win the war. Perhaps Henry's greatest act of valor here, nevertheless, was not in his recent victories over the French, but rather his patience, which was willing to extend until all of France was his to rule. By the time the English army had arrived at Calais, they had fought for roughly four years against the French. Imagine had Henry withdrawn after his satisfactory victory at Agincourt, and simply compromised with the French! Both history and the play would have ended very differently, indeed. Imagine, also, the admiration Shakespeare had for King Henry as evidenced so often throughout this early modern work.
     While Agincourt was a noble victory in the field of battle, it did not secure the English authority over France. No, indeed, Henry expected a long conflict at Calais and beyond, and then another long march onto Paris to take Princess Katherine as his wife---a prize that would also secure him of all of France. His meeting with Princess Katherine would take place simultaneously with the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, signed by King Charles VI, Katherine's father. The whole affair of peace is summarized by military historian Edouard Perroy, “Whereas the Treaty of Calais had allayed the feudal quarrel by the creation of an Aquitaine outside of French control, the Treaty of Troyes settled the dynastic conflict by making Henry V heir to the throne of France (Perroy, 243).’’

     While Henry's accomplishments on the battlefield are memorable and heroic, his courtship of Princess Katherine also reflects his chivalrous personality. When speaking to her, Prince ''Harry'' exercises a great sense of nobility and care for her person. Indeed, the king was not simply interested in wedding her, but desired her affection mutually. Indeed, the king, upon conquest of France, could have easily demanded the fealty of all the French, including the princess herself. However, he desires more. Subsequently, Henry rushes to see Katherine's capacity to love him, longing for their potential happiness. His words to the princess reflect his sweet and humble disposition, “If thou canst love a fellow of this temper, Kate, whose face is not worth sunburning, that never looks in his glass for love of anything he sees there, let thine eye by thine cook. I speak to thee plan solider. If thou canst love me for this, take me. (Shakespeare, 5.2.142-146).” Perhaps surprisingly, his courtship of the French damsel reveals his vulnerability, a vulnerability that she could consequently choose to reject. When he says, “By mine honor, in true English, I love thee, Kate. By which honor I dare not swear thou lovest me, yet my blood begins to flatter me that thou dost, notwithstanding the poor and untempering effect my visage (Shakespeare, 5.2.208-212).” Likewise, Harry's earnest plea that she learn to love him, demonstrates his lack of selfish motives: “Put off your maiden blushes, avouch the thoughts of your heart...(Shakespeare, 5.2.221-222).” Henry's chivalry towards Katherine is also exemplified when he woos her in a private room, where only a lady in waiting accompanies her. His gentleness in speech and genuine concern for her happiness also reveal his sense of honor. Finally, his character is one worthy of emulation for the fact that he behaves honorably, even when not discharged to war, or when in front of hundreds to see his good deeds. 

     He also rightly believed that a healthy marriage is not tyrannical, “You have witchcraft in your lips. There is more eloquence in a sugar touch of them than in the tongues of a French council, and they should sooner persuade Harry of England than a general petition of monarchs (Shakespeare, 5.2.251-260).” In the end, Henry feels persuaded by Katherine, and longs for her council more than that of his fellow lords. To him, a right marriage sees both husband and wife in service to one another. Henry's chivalry towards Katherine is also exemplified while he woos her in a private room where only a lady in waiting stands beside her. His gentleness in his speech and his genuine concern for her happiness also displays his sense of honor. Finally, his character is one of esteem by the fact that he behaves honorably even when not discharged to war or when in front of hundreds to see his good deeds. 

     Much more could be said about the character of Henry V in Shakespeare's immortal, early-modern play based on the historical events of the late Medieval world. However, let all further arguments concerning claims of Henry's alleged lack of chivalry be put to rest. Shakespeare portrayed the English king as heroically as did Medieval literature concerning King Arthur. As Medieval Studies Scholar, Norman F. Cantor has said, “Despite Henry V’s (1387-1422) premature death at the age of 35 after have reigned for only nine years, his strong personality and military successes in France made him one of the beloved kings of medieval England (Cantor, 219).’’ For certain, it is no surprise that this work has been also beloved by British people ever since. 

     In conclusion, the play Henry V will forever be remembered as one of Shakespeare's greatest literary pieces, especially in terms of the playwright’s works concerning historical wars. Of all of Shakespeare's plays on the English monarchs, Henry V is arguably his most inspiring. Indeed, the 1944 film adaption of Henry V starring Lawrence Olivier as the English king, which boasts impressively painted backgrounds reminiscent of Medieval and Renaissance Art, inspired many British men to fight for their country in the Second World War. Likewise, the later 1989 screen adaptation of Kenneth Branagh immortalized the king's speech before the Battle of Agincourt and demonstrated the cruelty of war that the earlier film had not evidenced. Whatever chivalry had declined in England between the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV, returned under him. While Henry's character has been criticized in recent years by some historians for his supposed violence, his acts in the war were no worse than those of his time. Indeed, Shakespeare understood him as the ideal English hero and Christian king. Lastly, the chivalry idealized in Henry V remains an inspiration for readers five hundred years after the play was composed.

                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

                                                        





                                                                Works Cited:
King James Bible. (1611). Cambridge University Press.

Almond, Christopher. Henry V. (1992). The University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Cantor, Norman. F. The Encyclopedia of The Middle Ages. (1999). Viking.

Curry, Anne. The Hundred Years’ War: 1337-1453. (2002). Osprey Publishing Ltd.

Madigan, Kevin. Medieval Christianity: A New History. (2015). Yale University Press.

Shakespeare, William. No Fear Shakespeare: Henry V. (2004). SparkNotes Publishing. 

Sutherland, John. and Watts, Cedric. Henry V, War Criminal? & Other Shakespeare Puzzles. (2000). Oxford University Press.

Perroy, Edouard. The Hundred Years War. 

Rebutting Simplistic Claims of Medieval Historical Theology

One does not need to venture into many books on historical theology to see the difficulty of over-generalizing the thoughts of all people in any given era. A close study of the Middle Ages, for instance, will reveal that a common thesis proposed and believed by many modern theologians is seriously in error. This thesis, which I shall challenge, asserts that the church of the Reformation disconnected on nearly all accounts from the church of the centuries preceding it. On the contrary, I wish to demonstrate that Medieval Christianity was the forerunner of the Reformation. 

The Medieval world was complex. Bernard of Clairvaux taught justification by faith alone, though Thomas Aquinas didn't. Likewise, the Council of Florence taught Papal Supremacy after the Council of Constance taught conciliarism. Additionally, many kings saw themselves as the head of the churches in their kingdoms, even as the pope saw himself above all in Christendom. 

Quite often, history is oversimplified. This is especially true for many Traditionalist Roman Catholics and Fundamentalists Evangelicals. For the former, the Medieval Times was a glorious era. It was during the Middle Ages, they believe, that everyone held to the same doctrines. Then, tragically, came that awful Reformation which taught new theology and doctrines. There was a sudden breach in 1500 between the theology of the reformers and those before them. 

The narrative of many Fundamentalist Evangelicals is similar, though opposite in one respect. Like the Traditionalist Catholics, they believe that 1500 was the deadline when church history changed. But contrary to the former group, the Fundamentalists typically believe that the church got it all wrong until 1500. Suddenly, the Reformation corrected centuries of abuse and poor theology. 

This thesis, unfortunately, has been accepted by many in both camps. They appeal to their own sects and ignore all narratives outside their agenda. In reality, the Medieval Church was so different. Yes, this was the age of growing Papal Supremacy, but significant theologians of the Medieval world such as Thomas Aquinas believed Scripture to be the final authority (an issue that I addressed in a past article on this blog). And indeed, while it is true that there was corruption in the Medieval Church, can the reader ignore the many great saints who lived and died in Medieval Times?---many of them having freely chosen to live in poverty so as to imitate the Apostles and grow closer to their Lord. 

Beginning with the eleventh century, the popes increasingly saw themselves as not only the spiritual head of Christendom but possessing the power of all kings and princes. This was certainly the outlook of Popes Gregory VII and Innocent III. It was also during the 1100s-1500s, however, that there were various oppositions to their claims from both church leaders and kings. Everyone in the Middle Ages did not have the same views on the papacy, justification, Mariology, or most other issues that would later divide Protestants and Catholics. Indeed, those with significantly different thoughts on various theological issues, all partook of the same Mass and all prayed for the new advent of Christ. 

The Fundamentalist Evangelicals and Traditionalist Catholics should look back to the Medieval Church which was not so interchangeable with later Catholicism. Rather, than believing 1500 to be the origin of a great division between the church before and after it, methinks, it would be fairer to see today's Protestants and Catholics alike as daughters of the Medieval church. There never was a major breach of thought. The reformers built on the ideas of their Medieval predecessors. 

The Medieval Church was in disarray and in serious conflict with itself over some issues that no longer hold significance in Christianity. For example, the university philosophers would debate whether or not Christ could have saved humanity had He been a cucumber instead of a man. Other issues, less direct to the far cries of Scholasticism, however, were some of the same doctrines that would later be dividing lines in the Reformation. 

In the thirteenth century, Francis of Assisi wanted him and his order to live humble lives in imitation of the apostles. Francis was concerned about the overeducation of men who lost their chief calling to serve God. According to Medieval historian, John H. Mundy, ''As in early Christianity, moreover, spontaneity and equality were lost in emphasizing the mission. Francis, for example, suspected that education created invidious distinctions between equals. His rule of 1223 therefore stated that the brethren should not busy themselves learning Latin (Mundy, 356-357).''

The reformers understood the complexity of the Medieval Church. Luther, for instance, admired Bernard, though not Aquinas. Calvin admired Augustine of Hippo and even Gregory the Great, though not the popes of the eleventh century. 

During the First Crusade, Peter the Hermit led thousands of peasants on their way to the Holy Land. Tragically, many in his crusade quickly turned to anti-Semitism. As Medieval historian Susan B. Edington notes, ''While Peter's followers at least managed to reach Constantinople, other groups failed to get even that far. Some of them, including a gang led by Count Emich, turned on the Jews in the cities of the Rhineland in what is now modern Germany (Edignton, 18).'' 

Indeed, many in Peter's crusade resorted to attacking and pillaging from Jews. However, what some critics of the Crusades fail to mention is that this was hardly the perspective of all Crusaders. The popes opposed such actions as did many of the bishops. In the Second Crusade, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux preached against Crusaders slaying Jews and saw the Jewish people as God's chosen people (another topic that I've previously addressed in another blog post). 

Naturally, many assume that Medieval Theology had the same perspectives on Mary, the Blessed Virgin, as do today's Catholicism. However, Bernard denied the Immaculate Conception when Duns Scotus later upheld it. Again, the teachings of the Catholic Church were not so nearly as organized or dogmatized as they would later be at the sixteenth-century Council of Trent. 

Finally, other issues such as the language of the Mass and the availability of the Bible for laypeople, I have already addressed in previous posts. While the Medieval Church and Reformation Church did differ in several notable ways: Papal Supremacy, the Mass, celibate orders, indulgences, relics, etc., my purpose in this post was not to claim that the Reformation didn't challenge Medieval thoughts. It certainly did. Rather, I wish to illuminate the reader to the reality that the reformers understood the complexity of the Medieval Church, and that it was diverse with theologians of various different thoughts on a number of different theological disciplines. I also hope that this post will further open others' eyes to an understanding of how the Reformation was no significant breach in church history. 

                                                                  Works Cited:

Edington, Susun B. The First Crusade: The Capture of Jerusalem in AD 1099. 

Mundy, John, H. The High Middle Ages (1973). Longman Group. 

Essay on Chivalry in Henry IV Part Two

 

Joshua Dotson

Professor Rice

English 333: Shakespeare

September 22, 2023

The Decline of Chivalry in Shakespeare’s Henry Fourth Part Two

      Shakespeare had an extensive knowledge of Medieval literature. His The Two Noble Kinsman is a retelling of Geoffrey Chaucer's The Knight's Tale. Likewise, the great English playwright knew Medieval history. While fictionalizing scenes and dialogue in his historical plays, he was certainly familiar with many contexts of the Medieval world. He knew much, indeed, about how the world of knighthood was changing in the setting of Henry IV, Part II. Chivalry was decaying. The once-orderly knighthood had shifted well since the time of Richard II. Indeed, it had already changed by Act Two, Scene One of the play. The reasons for this adjustment originated from the declining honor of knighthood, the conduct of John of Lancaster, and the complexity of a divided kingdom. 

     The honor of knighthood was in disarray by the time of the early fifteenth century, as recounted in Henry IV, Part II. In Act 4, Scene 2, for example, John of Falstaff is outspoken against Colevile, a fellow knight: “Well, then, Colevile is your name, a knight is your degree, and your place the Dale. Coleville shall be still your name, a traitor your degree, and the dungeon your place, a place deep enough so shall you be still Colevile of the Dale (Shakespeare, 4.2.4-7).” Later, the knight easily surrenders to him in the forest, also demonstrating a change from the once-respected Code of Chivalry. The once-glorious years of Richard II's rule before his overthrow at the hands of Henry Bolingbroke preceded this radical switch. Now, with the kingdom’s inability to recover from the successful revolt, Falstaff and his companions retain a flippant view of the previously respected institutions which had dwindled to nothing more than ragged men in dressed uniforms. Furthermore, even though Falstaff strikes fear in Colevile considering Falstaff's alleged murder of Hotspur at the Battle of Shrewsbury, the fact that the knight surrenders so easily to Falstaff is evidence of a declining knighthood in which more and more of the nobility fail to live up to the sense of honor and duty that their fathers once shared before them. 

     Additionally, the conduct of John of Lancaster plays an important role in Henry IV, Part II concerning the decline of knighthood. A son of Henry IV and a brother to Prince Hal, John's place is at the center of all the struggles occurring in the play. He ultimately mirrors a sense of honor, responding to the scandalous knight, “Now, Falstaff, where have you been all this while? When everything is ended, then you come. These tardy tricks of your will, on my life, One time or other break some gallows' back (Shakespeare,4.2.23-26).” In return, Falstaff responds, “I would be sorry, my lord, but it should be thus. I never knew yet rebuke and the check was the reward of valor (Shakespeare,4.2.26-27).” While John of Lancaster feels a sense of moral obligation to fight in battle for the kingdom's future, John of Falstaff is interested in attaining prizes without any work to first achieve them. In this scene, John is a symbol of the old knighthood, while Falstaff is an image of the new manhood. Indeed, the contrast between the two men also parallels the role of honor in the play. 

      Once upon a time, knights were perceived as worthy of honor, but this code devolved during the civil war between Henry IV and Prince Hal, the king's son. Indeed, Hal's war against his father produces scandal in the kingdom as morality declines, with men having little interest in upholding the former ideals of chivalry. Falstaff explains the cause of war, “Herof comes it that Prince Harry is valiant, for the cold blood he did naturally inherit of his father he hath, like lean, sterile, and bare land, manured, husbanded, and tilled with the excellent endeavor of drinking good and good store of fertile sherries, that he is become very hot and valiant. If I had a thousand sons, the first human principle I would teach them should be to forswear thin potations and to addict themselves to sack (Shakespeare, 4.2. 104-112).” In these final lines of the scene, Falstaff informs the audience of his admiration of Prince Hal, who squanders all in his pathway. Knighthood, as it was once known, has clearly died. When Falstaff says, “Herof comes it that Prince Harry is valiant, for the cold blood he did naturally inherit of his father... (Shakespeare, 4.2.104-106),” Falstaff seems to be attributing the declining morality of the kingdom to its internal divisions, which have stemmed from the war between father and son. 

     Henry IV, Part II is another great classic in the history of English literature. Shakespeare's story of a king facing the consequences of a successful revolution against a weakening realm is as relevant now as when it was written. Throughout history, people eventually become weary of every government or political party, and the established institutions themselves become challenged by a potential overthrow. On a second note, however, Henry IV Part II also reflects the importance of Chivalry’s decline in the late Medieval era. Over time, the successors of knights would become “gentlemen” who did not seek to work and toil for the protection of other people as their ancestors had done. The fact that knighthood was losing the dignity that it was once known for also demonstrates the turn of men from their noble duties to uphold God's law and protect their families. Falstaff's disposition of attaching a prize without a necessary battle beforehand reflects many modern men's sentiment that a woman's heart can be won without a struggle for her honor. Just as honor slips away from many in the second part of Henry IV, quite tragically, so also has it faded from most men in the modern world. 

 Works Cited:

No Fear Shakespeare: Henry IV Parts One and Two. (2005). 

New Details on My Plans

 

Next year, I will be beginning some sort of master's degree. A master's degree in history, historical theology, and Biblical languages are currently the programs that I'm most considering. From there, I will pursue either a Ph.D. in Medieval Historical Theology or in Medieval History. I may or may not do a master's thesis. I want to do my doctorate dissertation on something concerning the Crusades. 

Medieval History has for most of my life, always been my favorite subject. Though I have also considered a Ph.D. in New Testament in recent years, I have wanted to be a historian since I was fourteen years of age. At about fourteen, I gave my first lecture on history. My chosen topic was the American Civil War for a homeschool group that I was part of. Nevertheless, my study of New Testament topics and Biblical Studies, in general, has enriched my knowledge of Medieval Theology. 

With my love for Medieval History, I spent much of my High School years desiring to do a degree in either Church History or general history. In 2019, I made an unexpected change, though, I decided to major in English literature. I don't regret that decision. 

In many ways, majoring in English has been very informative to me. For example, I have learned more about grammar and writing from my degree. I have also got further acquainted with the great writers of the past. Indeed, I have also learned about publishing and editing---important tools to me in getting my books published. Studying the literature of the past has been a joyful experience. I see the English major as the most essential degree for anyone who wants to be a novelist. I'm proud of English literature degrees for increasing writers' creativity and analyzing skills. That said, history, has historically been my favorite subject. Had I not majored in English, I would feel more lost about where to proceed with my books in getting them published. English made me a better writer. History, however, is my chosen field to be a professor. In many ways, I consider English one of the best degrees on the market. By majoring in English and eventually doing graduate study in history, it allows me to get the best out of my two favorite disciplines of study. 

Then there is seminary. I have had theological interest primarily since the age of thirteen. As my mother read me a book about Early Christianity and how the Early Christians were led by a plurality of elders, I began to question other forms of church government that I had seen that had not been based on this practice (particularly the single pastor with deacons and committee groups as is common in many Baptist Churches). By seventeen, my study of Early Christianity had enlightened me to the realization that the Early Christians had a view of the Eucharist very different from most contemporary Baptist Churches. 

Unfortunately, it is far too common for people in many American churches to hold onto traditions that they were raised to believe and never question them. Many Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and Lutherans never examine the lack of historical evidence for baptism by sprinkling in the ancient church. Likewise, many Baptists assume what their pastors and theologians tell them about the Lord's Table as if these men were mini-popes. 

I learned a long time ago that it's much easier to take someone else' word for what is correct theology rather than doing one's own research in the Bible and church history. Doing the latter is simply much harder. 

Whether or not I end up a pastor or priest, I'm strongly convinced that a knowledge of Biblical languages and Biblical as well as Historical theology would benefit every believer. These are some reasons that I wish to pursue graduate studies in seminary as well. 

I'm not certain whether I will be pursuing a master's in history or a master of arts in seminary. I will likely do the latter as I have pastoral intentions. I hope to learn at least some Greek and Hebrew for theological purposes. As a matter of interest, Historical Theology probably intrigues me more than learning Biblical languages though I do see great value in both. 

In general, literature, history, and theology are my three main interests. I am quite likely that I will be pursuing a degree in each. Thankfully, Liberty allows those who get master's degrees in theology to still pursue a Ph.D. in history. 

I've had a lifelong love for history. When I was a young boy, I would love to look at the pictures in Usborne Books concerning castles and knighthood. Before I moved to Knoxville TN in 2005, one of my closest friends in Jacksonville NC had a strong interest in the Arthurian legends as I did. We frequently played the Wars of Camelot. When I moved to Knoxville, though, most of the children that I interacted with had less interest in Medieval literature than I did. For several years thereafter, some of my interest in Medieval Times was detained as a result until I began writing my own novels on the Crusades in 2010. 

Right now, I'm trying to get LU to add classes in Latin. Having taken two years of Latin in High School, I hope to be familiar enough with the Latin language to help my Medieval dissertation. I've wanted to be a formal researcher in Medieval Times for a long time. I'm coming closer now to that reality. 

The Importance of Early Christianity Within Medieval Thought

 

Medieval scholars studied one of four fields at the university: theology, law, medicine, or the arts. The University of Paris was known to be the best concerning the instruction of theology. To many Medieval people, theology was the most respected discipline that a student could study in the university. 

It cannot be underestimated how important theology was to many people in the Middle Ages. Indeed, many commentaries on the Bible were written in Medieval Times. Read Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, or Bonaventure---whether or not you agree with their interpretations of Scripture, it would be unimaginable to believe anyone claiming them to be ignorant of the Bible. They defended Christian doctrines as they understood them. Aquinas appealed not merely to philosophy but to Scripture as well. In his commentary on Romans, Aquinas did an amazing job of breaking Paul's ideas concerning justification. To Aquinas, Paul did not teach justification by faith alone as Luther would later believe. Instead, the ''Dumb Ox'' believed that Paul was distinguishing the works of the law from the law of faith (Romans 3: 27). Aquinas also held that justification is progressive---Catholic Christians, he believed continue to become justified before God. 

When discussing theologians like Pope Innocent III or Thomas Aquinas, however, we must ask ourselves, what was at the core of their theology? Of course, they frequently quoted Ancient and Medieval fathers before them but the New Testament was essential to all that they believed (and the Old Testament as well). While Scripture in general, had aided much of the Medieval mind, the Gospel of Matthew played a significant influence on the thoughts of those who lived in the Middle Ages. In general, the medievals further developed many of the teachings found in the New Testament and Early Christianity---which brings me to my next point. 

It's impossible to understand the Middle Ages without understanding Medieval Christianity and it's impossible to understand Medieval Christianity without studying the New Testament and Early Christianity. For example, historians should understand that the doctrines of the medievals concerning the debates over the filioque largely originated from Jesus's relationship to the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John (John 14: 16, John 14: 26). Likewise, medievalists must be acquainted with Athanasius of Alexandria and his thoughts on the incarnation of Christ (C. S. Lewis stated that the Incarnation of Christ (John 1) was central to Medieval thought) in order to understand the theology of those in the Middle Ages. During the fourth century, when many in Christendom were challenging the doctrines of the Trinity, Athanasius elaborated on the Divinity of Christ in his work, On the Incarnation. 

So what should medievalists study? The warfare, the siege weapons, the fashions, the daily lives of the people, etc. All of these are worthy fields for experts to engage much of their time. However, every medievalist should be familiar with both the Old and New Testaments as well as the history of Early Christianity in order for people to understand the teachings of the Latin Church, which had a profound influence on many in Christendom in the Post-Classical world. 

The Relevance of Medieval Studies

 

Recently, I have been most grateful to see Liberty University's openness to my many requests over the last several years that they add Medieval Studies. My work in this area has not gone unnoticed. When Liberty University adds Medieval Studies, it will be the first evangelical university in the nation to offer such a program. Currently, the colleges and universities that offer Medieval Studies are Mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, and secular. It's important that Evangelical Christians, however, be familiar with the history of the church after Constantine and before Luther.I've always loved the study of the Middle Ages. When I began to learn about Medieval Studies several years ago, I was always excited about the idea of studying the Middle Ages but never felt that Liberty University would add such a program. Liberty, though, has expressed so much more openness to the study of church history before the Reformation than do many other Baptist schools. For Roman Catholics and Protestants alike, Medieval Studies is important for many reasons including knowledge of the great theological debates concerning the authority of the papacy that escalated in the sixteenth century. 

The Middle Ages were not the ''Dark Ages.'' Even when Petrarch used this term about the Middle Ages, he did not mean it in the sense of a theological derogatory manner as so many leftists and fundamentalists of today (ironically, this is one area where the two groups often agree; they both criticize Medieval Catholicism). Rather, those of the Italian Renaissance saw the Middle Ages as an era lacking the artistic creativity of the classical world that they sought to imitate. Certainly, Petrarch, a Roman Catholic, never felt that Christianity had been theologically ignorant or corrupt for a thousand years or longer as some on the left as well as right-wing fundamentalists have taught. No current historian believes ''The Dark Ages'' myth about the Middle Ages. This view is common with many in the public, unfortunately. Advancements in technology and alchemy did take place in the Medieval era. This was all the age of history that saw the opening of universities throughout Europe. Additionally, it was during the High and Late Middle Ages that many Europeans gained more fluency in Greek, began early naval exploration, etc. 

Medieval Studies is distinct from Medieval history. This is because the former studies all aspects of the Middle Ages including its history and its arts. To me, a certificate in Medieval Studies will be beneficial whether I get my master's in history, English literature, or in Biblical languages. Considering my interest to being a professor of a Medieval subject, this certificate will advance my credentials in whatever field that I teach (and also add to my resume). 

For anyone interested in knowing all aspects of the Medieval world, a degree or certificate in Medieval Studies allows them to further study other aspects of the Middle Ages outside of their own discipline. Those majoring in English may wish to know more about the castles of the Medieval world and those majoring in history may wish all the more to glance at the cultural impact of Chaucer and Dante's writings. 

Medieval Studies include the study of the Medieval church, the Crusades, intercultural relations between Muslims, Christians, and Jews, the artistic reveals of the High and Late Medieval eras (especially Chaucer and Dante's works), the flourishing of Chilvary, the role Manoralism, etc. I could go on and on about what Medieval Studies includes. No doubt, it is academically ideal for medievalists to study all aspects of the Medieval world. 

Where I'm Headed

  

 As of next year, I will be graduating with a degree in Christian literature from the English Department at Liberty University. In my degree, I have taken courses in topics such as theology and Medieval art, while from my Major, I have studied other areas such as Tolkien and Lewis as well as English literature in general, 

Previously, I was thinking about doing a master's in literature. I wished to obtain this degree to begin teaching English courses at the college level. For now, however, I've altered my path. 

For graduate studies, I wish to start with Liberty University's Master of Arts in Biblical languages from the John Rawlings School of Divinity. I wish to be involved in the planting of a liturgical low-church evangelical church in the Knoxville area. In general, I think God is calling me to this. The church will hold to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. 

After my master's program, though, I may return to either English or history for a Ph.D. Longterm, I wish to be a university professor. At the moment, I probably lean toward history (though I'm open to either). My Ph.D. will probably have a specialization in the Medieval/Crusades era. 

Anyways, that's somewhat of an update on where I am currently. If I continue this new path that I now am leaning towards, I think that it will be beneficial to me for several reasons. 

1. With a bachelor's in English, I will have learned higher grammar, composition, and about literature in general. Indeed, all of these qualities have sharpened me as a novelist who wishes to get some of my books published in the near future. Studying English literature has taught me more about prose, poetry, and drama. I have read from some of the greatest writers in history such as Geoffrey Chaucer, William Shakespeare, and Jane Austen. Although many people read the writers from the past without majoring in English, English majors are taught to properly analyze and interpret literature. In many ways, I believe that English majors make the best writers. 

2. With a master's in Biblical languages, this would give me the opportunity to help my pastoral aspirations by understanding Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek. Indeed, I also have a significant interest in the world of the first century, the literary aspects of the New Testament, and the study of early Christianity. The importance of Biblical languages cannot be overstated. For those especially interested in the New Testament, for example, it allows Biblical scholars to study the scriptures in their original languages, without replying upon another person's translation. Outside the Bible, knowledge of Hebrew and Greek can also benefit those studying historical documents from other writers of ancient times such as Josephus, Philo, and the works of early Christianity. 

3. If I should end up getting a Ph.D. in history with a specialization in Medieval Times, this would provide me the option to teach history for academia---a desire that I began at least as early as the age of fifteen. Over the years, I felt conflicted between the study of theology and history. I'm grateful, however, that Liberty allows those who study Biblical Studies/Biblical languages to be admitted into the doctorate in history. Furthermore, around 2019, I started to wonder if I should major in English rather than in history (part of my inclination towards English was due in part to the influence of J. R. R. Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, and Michael Shaara on my writings). Indeed, many novelists often major in either history or English, and for those who write historical fiction, there is debate about what major is better. Since Liberty does not currently offer a Ph.D. in English, it's hard to say what the future will hold. I'm definitely open to graduate studies in either English literature or history. Personally, I wish that history and English literature were seen more as one discipline (as they used to be) rather than two. I'm a huge fan of historical fiction, which is usually what I write, and this genre borders significantly on both. 

Interestingly enough, with a master's in Biblical languages and a master's thesis on early Christianity (my choice of topic), I will be a historian of the first century (if I do the thesis). Personally, I'm unsure yet whether or not I will do the thesis should I do this program. Likewise, if I should end up doing a Ph.D. in Medieval history then I will also be a historian of the Age of Chivalry. It would also mean that I'm I would be somewhat theologian (though arguably, more of a Biblical scholar as theology is more philosophical). As someone who has always found the study of early Christianity to be inspirational, knowing Hebrew and Greek would aid me in instructing others about its expansion throughout the Roman Empire. 

All of that said, I will begin a master's degree in divinity school as of next year. I appreciate all prayers for my benefit. Knowing the Biblical languages of the scriptures is not only important for theological debates over the meaning of baptism or church government, but defending the faith in a world that is increasingly hostile to Christianity. 

Papal Supremacy and Medieval Celibacy

 

                                                                     Introduction: 

It is commonplace for Roman Catholic apologists to conflict with the historical record when the historical record doesn't benefit the teachings of Rome. This is the case, for example, in how many Catholic apologists present the Catholic Church as an unchanging church since ancient times. 

During the ninth and tenth centuries, the Medieval western church went through many changes and reforms. Belief in the sacrifice of the mass became widely accepted during this time, as I was learning from Anthony E. Gilles's The People of the Faith. This book, which is about the history of Christianity during the Middle Ages, also has other invaluable histories of other aspects of historical theology within it. 

One of the most striking aspects of Gilles's book that I have learned is the complicated history of clerical celibacy in the early Middle Ages. While the Byzantine Empire had long had married priests, the west followed a pattern by the early Middle Ages that was more restricting (though, as shall soon be shown, clerical celibacy did not receive automatic universal support). 

Clerical celibacy had been first proposed in fourth-century Spain. The idea never gained much acceptance in the east and struggled to gain universal approval even in the west. Even during the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII, a major reforming pope, came into conflict with married priests throughout western Christendom. He went so far as to mandate clerical celibacy as to separate married men who were already priests from their wives and children. 

With clerical celibacy being such a controversial issue, it makes us ask why? Why did the issue matter so much? In the east, the issue had never been a major one to the church. How did it become a major issue for the western church? 

This post shall address two points concerning clerical celibacy. The first shall demonstrate the lack of Biblical support for the mandating of clerical celibacy. The second shall show how and why it developed to as widely accepted in the medieval west. 

                                             1. Scripture and Clerical Celibacy

Peter the Apostle had been married (Matthew 8: 14). At least several of the apostles were married (1 Corinthians (9: 5). While some have suggested that Peter was a widower before he became pope, I believe that this is a forced interpretation of scripture----something certainly never mentioned in the New Testament. Exegesis aside, however, even if Peter had been pope after his wife passed, it's quite clear that many of the apostles were prominent leaders in the New Testament Church (Acts 15) and were clearly not living celibate lives. 

Scripture is clear that there were church leaders who were married. Some, though see 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7 as evidence that Paul set a new example for the church. Because of this, many have suggested that Paul believed celibacy was now ideal for church clergy. A major problem with the Roman Catholic view of 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7, however, is that Paul never mandated any such thing. He respected both celibacy and marriage as beneficial to the church. 

In conclusion on this first point, scripture simply does not teach the Roman Catholic concept of a celibate priesthood. Since Catholics believed that their bishops are successors of the apostles, it seems unreasonable to believe that celibacy was required more for those who didn't walk with Christ than for those who had had a direct fellowship with Him. Paul exhorted celibacy and encouraged the church in that direction, but never called for any sort of mandate on those God called to ministry, in terms of them being withheld from marriage. 

So if scripture lacks support for clerical celibacy, how did it become so common in the west? What were the reasons for the Catholic Church in promoting it?

                                        2. Papal Supremacy and Medieval Celibacy

Several ancient bishops of Rome had been married. As mentioned earlier, clerical celibacy did not receive much support until centuries after Christ. Clerical celibacy did not receive universal recognition until at least the eleventh century (even then, it took another hundred years before an ecumenical western church council taught this as official teaching). 

The acceptance of clerical celibacy came at a time when much was drastically changing for western Christianity. The Carolingian Empire was exercising by this point an influence over church matters that had only once been shared by the Byzantines. The issue of the Filioque was also dividing Christians between the west and the east from each other. 

To make matters even more complicated, the papacy took on roles in the early Middle Ages that it had generally not done before. Popes came to see themselves gradually as having the right to institute kings into power. Gradually, there became a great rivalry between the Carolingian Emperors and those of the Byzantines. Likewise, the papacy and the Carolingians shared a different type of rivalry than between one king and another. Both the pope and the Carologian family saw themselves as the head of western Christianity. In the case of the papacy, much of this was attributed to its supposed authority from Emperor Constantine. This view had been elaborated within a work called The Donation of Constantine, which scholars later recognized as a forgery. Despite having been a forgery, however, the document showcased the view that Emperor Constantine gave his authority over Christendom to the bishop of Rome---a claim that the popes benefited from for centuries long after Constantine's reign. 

Much was changing in the ninth century. It was during this time (and slightly before) that the papacy became more central to the political affairs of Christendom. Despite no pope having been present at the first seven ecumenical councils of the Christian Church, the bishop of Rome was growing in influence upon the western church. These matters affected the church into the early eleventh century and beyond. 

With papal supremacy on the rise in the ninth century, it makes sense that this would change not just how people viewed the current pope, but also, how the doctrine of papal supremacy would affect other changes in the church. 

Emperor Henry II and Pope Benedict VIII were two key figures in the church's turn to clerical celibacy. These men lived during the early eleventh century. Much of my information on their relationship to this topic I've drawn from Anthony E. Gilles's book, The People of the Faith. 

Henry was quite authoritative over the church in his lands. He made sure to handpick all the bishops throughout his territory; saw their jurisdictions as his lands. Pope Benedict, a slick politician, managed to convince the emperor to give the pope complete independence from Italian rule. As a result, the pope ended up in a position of war against his fellow Italian states while attempting to assert his papal supremacy over the prominent Italian families. 

Both emperor and pope met at Pavia in 1022. They agreed to summon a council that would reinstate clerical celibacy throughout the Holy Roman Empire. Neither Henry nor Benedict sought clerical celibacy for any theological or moral reason---it was simply a way to grant the more power. In the case of Benedict, clerical celibacy benefited papal supremacy. 

The reason that clerical celibacy was important to Henry and Benedict must be understood because of the power that it would give each. During the eleventh century, one's heritage was important and sons often were the successors of their fathers. By promoting and mandating celibacy throughout the western church, it ensured that priests would have no successors to inherit church lands. For Benedict, this was important, as he wanted all church lands under his supremacy rather than in the hands of the local family. Likewise, the emperor benefited from church authorities who had no direct successors in their bloodline to challenge him for control of their claimed lands. 

While a universal reform for the church did not come about until after Benedict's death, the council of Pavia paved the way for the western church to accept clerical celibacy. Benedict had succeeded. The council mandated clerical celibacy for all those holding church offices. This accepted not only his power in the church but for all popes ever since. 

Although clerical celibacy became officially mandated in the church in the twelfth century, Pope Benedict had laid good reasons for its practice beforehand. Clerical celibacy was not about a scriptural or historical practice---it was simply to further papal supremacy as accepted teaching throughout the west. 

                                                              Conclusion:

It's truly ironic that many traditionalist Catholics see an end to clerical celibacy as a potential moral and theological failure for the church. To many of them, this is a liberal idea even though they are actually the ones embracing the liberal position. For most of Christian history, there were married priests in both the west and the east. 

As a final point, I do find it strange how so many people will hold onto ideas without questioning their origins. This is especially the case for many who believe in clerical celibacy being a rightful mandate from the church. Learning about how it evolved mostly from the desires of the pope and emperor for more power, shows me why more Christians should question its legitimacy. Certainly, I believe that the Protestant Reformation had good reason to bring the mandate of clerical celibacy into question. Likewise, the Church of England at the time of the English Reformation was not breaking from traditional western practice on this issue (as some medieval priests were married) but from papal supremacy itself. 

Further Sources: 

Anthony, E. Gilles. The People of the Faith. (1986). Messenger Press.