Musings of a Pseudo-Intellectual

I just recently finished this seminar paper on whether historical fiction and the discipline of history have any real significant differences or not.  It's about 9 pages, but it's an easy, interesting read if you ask me.   If you take the time to read it, I hope you like it and thanks for doing so.

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d5xbzzk_9gmwfp8fh

Below is a paper I wrote last semester for my HIS 496 class over Historiography.   The paper itself covers Eugenics, the Birth Control Movement, and the Catholic Church in the Early 20th Century United States.  It's a pretty interesting topic, so if you are into that kind of stuff... check it out. 

You will see words highlighted and comments from the professor within the paper.  I left those in there as well.  That way, you can see how I was assessed.  His comments are at the end too. 

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=d5xbzzk_5ccd5zwf5

The following pertains to readings I completed for my graduate level history course on medieval European magic.   The readings included trials for necromancy, sorcery, and the trials of specific alleged heretics of the times. 

While reading through the trials for magic and witchcraft in late medieval Europe, I found that these readings were extremely intriguing and thought-provoking, to say the least. Many of the different cases brought up questions that I would like to discuss in depth, but I will select just a few to bring up due to the acknowledgement of time and length constraints.

In the 1323 trial for necromancy to detect thieves from G.G. Coulton, the first of our readings, I found this one to be one the most interesting of the group. I felt that there were many ideas that we have discussed in class in the past that resurfaced once again. For instance, I had a tough time with deciphering as to whether the Church was at all worried about the humane treatment of animals, or whether it was entirely and solely condemning the fact that Jean Prevost was practicing witchcraft of any kind at all. The treatment of the animals within the text seems to treat them as simple tools within the act of witchcraft instead of their abuse being treated as a separate crime altogether. Does this make any sense, or am I making too much of that? Furthermore, and most likely more importantly, within the same passage, I had to question to negative reaction of the Church to what seemed to be positive intentions of Jean Prevost, who was looking for the abbey’s thieves through way of magic. This passage openly admitted the severity and seriousness that was taken by the Church in regards to the necromancy that was involved in this case. It seemed to me that the punishments in this particular case were relentless. Were they simply following orders to not allow any type of magic within the realm of the Catholic Church, or did they feel that the practices were entirely too closely-related to something involving the church? It seemed that as soon as they figured out what was going on with the chest, the Church flipped out and was not worried about the thieving that had previously occurred any longer. Also, was there any type of message that you took away from the cat being draped around the neck of Jean Persant when he was burned at the stake?

Another case I found equally as intriguing involved the sorcery trial of Alice Kyteler, mother of William Outlaw, who was purportedly involved in many “heretical” practices. Once again, the concept of the animal sacrifices seems to be more focused on the practice itself rather than the treatment of said animals. It seems to me that they could have really plugged it to them judicially if they wanted to had they issued charges in behalf of the treatment of the animals. Again, that may just be me noticing this and no one else. Another thing I noticed that was a little ironic in this excerpt was the denial of their faith in Christ for a period of time, during which they would take it upon themselves to excommunicate their own husbands and yell “fi[at]: fi[at]: fi[at]: amen” during their ritual. I was not able to find a true translation of this statement, though many people have said that it is anything from a chant to keep evil spirits away from a person to simply the word “yes.” Was anyone else able to make sense of this saying?

Reverting back to a common theme we have discussed this semester, the passage concerning Monna Caterina di Agostino was especially thought-provoking in terms of medieval views on women. The seduction of Caterina that is laid out by this study is overwhelmingly biased and puts most, if not all, of the blame onto the shoulders of Caterina… making the soul of Paolo di Michele Rondinelli a complete victim of her sorcery. The silliness of the spells that are laid out as to have been placed on him, such as the one that leads him into intercourse with her, is laughable. They blamed the total infidelity and irresponsibility of Paolo on Caterina and her sorcery, taking away the fact that he was committing a sin and was an adult making his own choices. Was this kind of condemnation meant to hide the crime on the church’s commandments that Paolo had committed, or am I again looking into it too much? To me, if all it took to “render him incompetent” and horny was to bestow a pinned statue in his presence (they mention that there were other acts but don’t list them), he was beyond help. Luckily, it was mentioned that she later escaped these charges.

Jacopo also was an interesting fellow with his extremely sideways approach to attracting the woman of his dreams. For some reason, I was more sympathetic to the Church’s rulings on the magic that he was practicing in his pursuit of love. Not only were the acts a bit out there, even for today’s standards, but his sentencing seemed to be fairly light in comparison to the likes of the first passage I discussed. For practicing a like magic, he was only condemned to some lashings and a year in confinement. Was the church saying that certain kinds of sorcery and heresy weren’t as bad as others? Is this really an honest way of ridding your society of a problem you feel is detrimental to your cause?

First, I want to begin this post by openly claiming that I am not a religious person, and have basically no religious background whatsoever. My knowledge of religion is solely based on extensive research and conversations throughout my years of life. I mention this because I am willing to admit that I am not as up to date as others on the common practices of the different Christian branches. This being said, it is common knowledge that believing in a supreme being is handing yourself over to the concept that there are divine spirits that watch down on you and supposedly lead you through life. People consistently pray to them, most notably Jesus himself, and believe that their life path can be changed due to their communication with these spiritual beings. The Christian religion has even included/adapted many Pagan rituals to fit their own needs with their practices. These practices include many that the writings listed as having been undermined and abused by the “heretics” who summoned and practiced with demons regularly, such as the Eucharist, Baptism, Anointing of the Sick, and so on.

This kind of thing makes it extremely difficult for me to see the difference between magic and religion in general. In Super illius specula, it is said that Christians are practicing closely with demons, adoring them, and even “binding themselves to the most shameful slavery for the most shameful of things…” Is that Church condemning these practices due to religious texts that reject magical practice or could it be summed up to the Church fearing the loss of members of their congregation to magic? They even threaten excommunication to those who “against our most charitable warnings and orders presume to engage in these things.” This seems to me to be a direct implication of a fear scheme of exclusion to keep people in line, rather than just being a message from God that magic is immoral and heretical. Your thoughts?

To go on further, in the Fifth of the Lollard Twelve Conclusions, exorcism and hallowing are discussed as nothing more than black art and holy water is described as the only true way to cure and purify people. The rationality behind this argument boggles my mind, being that neither had overwhelming evidence of being effective. We even have studies today that show that some of our over-the-counter medicines rely on psychology of the human mind to be effective. In other words, people only need to believe they are working for them to work. The ingredients within the pills or liquids have little to no ability to fix anything abruptly. Basically, my point is that both of these rituals are identical in the fact that they call upon spiritual blessing or intervention to better the person involved.

In Cloud of Unknowing, an extremely well-thought out and vivid portrayal of the devil’s appearance is given as though to be solid fact. To me, this passage was extremely blatant as an attempt to give power to those who would be trying to “identify” so-called heretics and witches and excommunicate them from the church permanently. This would not only rid the church of people who were currently practicing such things, but would put fear of exclusion into the minds of the followers of their church. I say this because the passage gives the common man a depiction of weakness and a seeming inability to fight temptation from the devil. Such an argument can be made from a statement like the following: “And [the devil] seeks for nothing more than to make a man looking into [his head to see the fires of hell]; for in that sight he would lose his mind forever.” Automatically, this statement jumped out at me as a forming of a commitment to the concept that the clerics did not see the followers as intelligent and/or completely committed. To me, it seems that fear was being used just as prevalently back then as it is today to keep people in line and away from doubting or deceiving their supposedly-divine message. Not to mention the fact that the appearance of the devil has been noted through undocumented sightings of the devil through necromancy students and “from others to whom the devil has appeared in bodily likeness.” Not to say that these people are lying, but I have to just run with logic on this one and say that nothing here is documented and he does not’t cite any of his supposed sources.

One of the more contentious practices in magic and religion equally is sacrificing; this involves a sacrifice to a supernatural being, such as a god or demon, who is asked to arbitrate on behalf of the person performing the sacrifice. Sacrificing “to demons” is mentioned throughout the statements of condemnations that we have read this week, like in the passage from Directorium inquisitorum. The King James Version of the Bible included the well-known rendition "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18), and Saul is reprimanded by God for asking for advice from a diviner who could make contact with spirits. However, miracles that are viewed as divine are considered justifiable and valid, such as Moses' cane morphing into a snake. These kinds of things make me question the rationality of the condemnations from the Church that were directed toward the witches and necromancy students of the time.

The following is the topic title and the paper's abstract for a presentation of research that I made in November 2007 and will make again at the end of this month (March 2008).   It is the result of research I conducted for my Historiography graduate history course last semester.  Really, it's just a sneak peek to the project that ended up being about 23 pages or so in length.

Title

CATHOLIC RESPONSES TO THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY UNITED STATES' EUGENICS AND BIRTH CONTROL MOVEMENTS

 
Abstract

The purpose of my project was to dive into the way the Catholic Church responded to the differing broad issues that were being discussed openly during these movements.  This analysis looks at how these two movements compare and contrast with a focus on aspects that surround the feminist and racial components of such movements.  Alongside this, it takes a look at the differing views among the majority of Catholics and a select few who decided to not reject the movement altogether on moral principles alone.  Also, we are to see the way in which Michel Foucault’s work in knowledge/power can demonstrate how religious and public discourse over contraception and eugenics established power for women in their quest for their choice to use birth control as they wished.

To complete this project, working my way through historical works pertaining to the movements themselves was essential.  In addition, I accessed relevant primary sources, such as the main works of various leaders and figures that were prevalent in my study (i.e. Margaret Sanger).  Through this project, I was able to gain an extremely well-rounded background on how the Church handled such controversial issues in this time frame, in accordance to their doctrine.  I was surprised to find that the main members of the Church who ventured to find a positivity to the movements were not punished, or for that matter, never had excommunication threatened. 

My project concludes that the Church, though disagreeing on many facets to do with the movements themselves, was agreed that eugenics could be used as a way to better the race in some fashion.   The disagreements came with how this would be possible, if at all.  My project also concludes that though the members who reached out to eugenics could possibly be seen as indirectly contradicting their views on general birth control, this is not the case in the least.  This case is a perfect example of why it is important for historians to dive deeper into the issues and facts at hand for us to study, and understand the era and the motives behind the people involved in such historical events.

The following is a brief commentary on made on the webboard of my graduate history class that deals with magic, witchcraft, religion, and Europe in the Middle Ages.  If you haven't read the book Conjuring Spirits:  Texts and Traditions of Medieval Ritual Magic by Claire Fanger, you may not get the point of the post.  More or less, this is a post for records sake.  Hopefully though, you can find something educational from it or check out the book itself.  It's interesting stuff to say the least.   I have also included the response I received from a classmate on the same subject.

Me:
As you may remember from Week 8, we discussed in short a few of the chapters from Fanger. I thought that I would see if we couldn’t go further into Chapter 2 with this discussion, being that it was the chapter that I focused on the most last time. There were a few different topics that we briefly discussed in class, so maybe we can rehash those now.

One of the topics was my question to Dr. Clemens on the 28th spell in the Book of Angels that discusses how to conjure the magic of war, battle, and destruction. My question was about whether the beliefs behind menstrual blood being a part of the suffumigation of the thin piece of tin copper. Obviously, this exposes the negativity and inferiority that tags along with women in the mentality of man during those times. The only other two options that one had for this type of ritual was the clothing of a man who had been killed violently or mouse/cat droppings, which all could somehow be loosely argued as evil and connected to such a ritual in easier fashion. Why are women often the subjects of magic, especially in its evilest of forms (in this case, the destruction of war)? Was it, after all, that women were the weaker sex and, therefore, easily found guilty by association to such magical rituals? These questions, or ones similar to them, have been posed all semester long. Every single week, we continue to notice the powerful role of gender in medieval ritual magic. We have seen cases of women being blamed for what would be seen today as the weakness of a man’s lust for the woman “conjuring spirits,” or women being proclaimed and portrayed as radicals due to their supposed inability to control their emotions. This 28th spell that I have mentioned this week only strengthens the argument and points that have been made thus far. The 30th spell in the Book of Angels could also be used in this argument. By simply carrying a thin pure silver plate wrapped in white silk cloth and suffumigated in aloe wood, you can be loved by all women and marry quicker than normal. This spell exhibits the proposed vulnerability of women that could fall so easily to such magic. Do you have any more instances from Fanger’s book that we could reference as part of this same argument?

Another analogy that I wanted to make was fairly simpler. Within the text of that same book, the Book of Angels, lies the ritual for what is called the Trojan Revenge 1 and the Trojan Revenge 2. Both of these spells cast sickness and/or death on the individual of the magician’s choosing. I found this to be interesting not only for the obvious reasoning behind the evilness of such a spell, but the lingering effects that it quite possibly has had on today’s world. One of the most common internet-bound computer software viruses that infects the computers of businesses and other mass communicative places is dubbed the Trojan. Could this be mere coincidence or has the significance of such magic history leaked even into the technology age?

Finally, I would just like to present my overall perception of the seriousness and respect that was given to the rituals and traditions that these people wrote about in these texts. It is obvious to me after reading through books such as this one that the rituals are complex enough to make sure that one is serious about conjuring spirits for purposes of magic. It seems to me that making the rituals complex like they were made it hard for amateurs to practice such things out of simple curiosity; instead, they would have to get the help of someone who is more notably practiced in such traditions. For instance, some of the rituals take a decent amount of time to prepare, which would require dedication and discipline to be carried out properly:

Also, as can be seen in the previous point, timing is a key ingredient in making these spirits conjure as well, which requires in such cases knowledge of astrology and astronomy. Could it be that the success of magic rituals among the practicers was based on the fact that the rituals were complex and, therefore, could be easily determined to have been messed up via human error if they didn’t work the way the guides said they would?

Classmate's Response:
What I find intriguing is that menstrual blood, a decidedly female thing, is associated with war, a "male" activity. The garments of a man killed with a sword makes sense because it's connected with warfare, but menstrual blood doesn't seem to have the same connection. (Unless one wants to make the argument that war is foul and has blood, and the menstrual blood symbolizes the foulness and the blood.) I'm not sure what connection droppings have in terms of "gendered" language.

I've also often wondered at the complexity of the spells. Making them complex does seem like a good "out." If the spell doesn't work, it's because the practitioner messed up somewhere. It had nothing to do with the fact that the spell was completely nonsensical.

I do wonder, however, if the complexity of the spells have something to do with the complexity of ritual in the Church? And maybe the presence of menstrual blood in an evil spell may have a connection to the blood of Christ used in Christian ritual? Good blood vs. bad blood? How much of a connection can we make and how many similarities can we see between the "good" rituals of the Christian Church and the "bad" rituals of the witches/heretics?

My Response:
Yeah, the menstrual blood was definitely the piece of the puzzle that made this particular spell stand out the most. You said, "Unless one wants to make the argument that war is foul and has blood, and the menstrual blood symbolizes the foulness and the blood." The thought of that too, primarily, but then you would have to wonder why they specify menstrual blood rather than blood in general. This would lead one to conclude that it was something to do with the era's negativity toward the female gender.

Also, after thinking on it more, the complexity of the spells could only go so far. Some of these spells would have to at least be PERCEIVED as having worked at some point or another... otherwise, the practice of magic would never have taken off as such a popular craft. However, this doesn't mean that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, the prayers of millions are perceived to be answered once in a while by those who pray. There is not evidence that proves that it is divine intervention rather than chance happening... however, people believe it is the power of their prayer and the "summoning" of God's help. This shows that the magicians and "witches" would most likely just as easily perceive their spells as working once in a while and not working other times. The unsuccessful times, as you put it, could be attributed to human error.

I hadn't thought of the good blood vs. bad blood concept... but it is just as conceivable as any of these other ideas we have tossed out there. :-) It would be nice to be able to uncover these mysteries.

I have had the question posed to me a number of times:  "Well, if there is no god, than why bother living?"

Well, here's the thing....if there is no god, than this is our only possible existence.  Life ends when we die.... it's over.   Why would you WANT to die?    This is your one life... your one chance to make the best of it... make the best out of it!   You would have to be a damned idiot to end your life as an atheist... unless there were outside forces besides that which were driving you to severe depression... but that's neither here nor there. 

This whole idea got me thinking.  What if you're Christian??   If you are a saved Christian, when you die, you go to Heaven!  Why would YOU want to live?   Wouldn't Christians take every high risk job they could so that there chances of dying would increase and they could possibly get to Heaven sooner?  I mean, they'd be able to go on to Heaven (which is supposedly a hell of a lot better than the life here on Earth) and do their heavenly stuff up there in eternal bliss FOREVER. 

In Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, he talks about how more difficult it is for Christians to die who think that their afterlife is so pre-determined, yet non-believers seem to go in peace so much easier.  Atheists believe that when we die, it's over, it's done... so dying isn't that big of a deal.   It just means no more chances, which is the reason you want to live your life to the fullest while you still have chances.    Why would Christians think that atheists would be so prone to not seeing a point in living?   Why is life so bad?  What's so wrong with life?   Is your life so bad that you feel it would be unlivable without your imaginary being?  Sadly, that's the case for some people, which is why we see them dying for religious causes.  The afterlife is MUCH more valuable than the earthbound life to Christians... therefore, you should be the ones that are worried about why you should want to be on the Earth at all.   Not atheists.   The overwhelming majority of atheists value and take pride in their lives because it is what they have to hold onto... not this afterlife that they have never had proven to them that it even exists in the first place! 

Why would an atheist (who doesn't believe in an AFTERlife) want to give his life up... for any reason?? 

People think atheists don't have morals, they think we should kill ourselves because there's no reason to live if there isn't a god and an afterlife... and yet, everything you can see in front of your eyes supports the alternate version of that argument. 

Have you really thought this through?  

Free will... it's what Christians tell us is responsible for all of the evil and injustice on the planet.   "It's not God's fault, it's our own free will that's to blame!" 

God's will...  the Christian reasoning for the things that happen that we, as humans, cannot explain to our liking.... or even things we can explain, but we must be wrong, because it was God doing it. 

How do the two coincide?  How can you have both free will and God's will at the same time?   Is it possible?   Let's find out. 

I hear this argument all the time within the Christian community:   "God has a plan for you."   So, if God has a plan for me, do I have a say-so in this plan?  Surely, if I have free will, I have a say-so in the plan.  If I have a say-so in the plan, and I choose not to go with  God's plan, I just went against God's will... so therefore, whatever God's will was supposed to lead me to didn't happen. 

Can you go against God's will?   If God wants something to happen, in this world that he supposedly created, wouldn't he MAKE it happen?  How can you have the will of God and have it still be able to be free for the humans he created?   Think about it.

If God's purpose for putting you on this Earth was to become President of the United States of America, and you killed yourself at age 13, you just pretty much defeated that whole purpose, didn't you?   God's will failed, and free will took over.   A god that knows everything would know that you would kill yourself.  So, therefore, you would not be a part of his plan, now would you?  Unless you make the argument that most would make, which would be that God knew you would do that all along. 

The point is, you can't have free will and God's will at the same time if he is all-knowing (which he would have to be if he created everything).  At all.  Period. 

Most atheists who used to be Christians would consistently battle with this question, along with many others, before they decided there was no god.  And most Christians who battle with it today apply weak explanations that have no backing whatsoever.  This is to be expected with religion, being that it prides itself on being based SOLELY on blind faith.   But the question would still remain unanswered.   How can God be all-knowing, have created everything, and have a plan for you... and then you can change his plan?  If you can't change his plan, then you don't have free will, which kind of blows the whole thing out of whack. 

If you believe that God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he knows EVERYTHING ahead of time that is going to happen.  This means that the fact that I have a 99.9999999999999999999999999999% hunch that there is no God (only not 100% because we can never be 100% sure about anything as imperfect humans) and doubt the existence of a divine being everyday was what God wanted!  Being all-powerful and all-knowing, he could've changed that fact.  Therefore, it seems awfully silly to punish people for things that he WANTED to happen and gave us no choice over. 

So for him to give me the ability to have a free will and to choose what I want to choose, based on the information he gives me, and knowing that this information would lead me to the conclusion that I have come to today.... I ask you and everyone else who has a problem with the fact that I am an atheist to explain to me:   Why would your god make me smart enough to question him but not smart enough to figure out the answer.

Are you going to blame it on God's will?    Or free will?   Because you can't have both.   You just can't. 

But don't take my word for it.... think for yourself.

It's coming up in just a few days! Be ready to go vote, and pleeeeeease go vote. If you are undecided, do as much research as you can on all candidates and see who you feel can unite this country the best. We need that more than anything so we can get back on our feet as a country and focus on the real issues... the ones here at home. Religion is not an issue in this election.... nor should it ever be. Race is not an issue in this election.... nor should it ever be. Gender is not an issue in this election... nor should it ever be.

And none of these things should matter when that person takes office in January. Because none of them will come into play.

My informed opinion is that Barack Obama is BY AND LARGE the most complete candidate in this race, and has been the entire time. His ability to capture you with his kind words and passion for this country's success is amazing, to say the least. None of these other candidates stand for change in the least.

Huckabee is a joke and would impose too much of his religion on his policy making, which sounds an awful lot like our current ass-wipe of a commander-in-chief. Romney comes off as fake and doesn't know where he stands on any issues. McCain is a decent man, but I don't think that he is what the country needs right at this moment because we need to focus on immigration, economy, and getting away from the Middle East (all of which, his policies are very weak on). Ron Paul is awesome, but has no chance to win because people are afraid of him in the Republican party (because he stands for change over there). And Hillary Clinton, though she has some good policies, just doesn't have that punch that we need coming out of the Bush era.

Just make sure you are informed before you vote. DO NOT vote because of your religious beliefs. They have nothing to do with this election, or any election for that matter. Religion is for individuals, not for the country to worry about legislatively.

Just go vote.