Monday, October 9, 2023

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/

Friday, October 6, 2023

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

Thursday, October 5, 2023

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.