This could take a while.
I was originally going to talk about Cheney giving a guy a mouth full of lead, Saddam is going to starve himself to death (as if we really are going to lose sleep over that), and the cartoon attacks (for an singularly kick-ass article on that issue click here), among other things. However a story that has greater impact on my own life has come to light and I need to rant.
I have come to a point in life where I can respect those who differ in opinion with me (right). It was a long and arduous journey, but here I am (I did not know there were so many ways to get AIDS). Though I am very sure of my own opinions the beauty of this nation is that other people, no matter how misguided, can spew their own incendiary B.S. But when someone (who has, by the way, a Ph.D.) constructs an argument about an important era in World/Church history bases his argument on one fictional account and then attempts to discredit every historical figure of authority during this period I do, on occasion, become mildly upset. To be fair to this man, Dr. Steven Wright, it was not as bad as all that, but it came pretty close.
The class by Dr. Wright that I am taking is the course called Charlemagne to Chaucer. It is the second course of an humanities honors track about the history of the Christian world. The teacher who taught the first course, Jesus to Muhammad, was excellent though maybe a little dry. I had high hopes for a course on the Middle Ages, since it is one of my favorite eras of history. The hopes were shot, stabbed, blown up, disemboweled, and drawn and quartered. To begin with, the material is not studied in any chronological order. OH NO!! That would be too intelligent. Instead, we are doing it by categories. Part of our grade is to make a timeline so that we can keep all the information in order.
You can't study history out of order
Half the time I (and some others that I have talked to) cannot keep the dates straight. This could come from the fact that we will move from 1284 to 1129 within one class and there will be no warning. This could be from the fact that Dr. Wright is not a professor of History or Medieval Studies. He is instead an English professor (what the f*&^?).
OKAY....... I believe his tendency toward looking at history through books (it was the dark ages--that means the arts were in recess) makes him miss some parts of history. One of the books that we read was The Song of Roland. Dr. Wright took every chance he could to poke fun at those silly Franks who admired Roland, despite the obvious fact that this story couldn't be true. Hilarious though it may seem, I am of the opinion that the Franks enjoyed the story of Roland and even sang the poem as a rallying cry during the Crusades because a heroic figure like Roland gave hope and confidence to those fighting the Muslims because they were fighting for God.
Don't be silly
Dr. Wright also couldn't understand why we would like Roland because of his great pride. Not giving in or taking quarter does appeal to my sense of honor and courage. That might play a role.
Today took the cake. We are studying the French romantic poem Yvain and Dr. Wright was convinced that this poem showed a marked change in the character of the Medieval Knight. In Roland the knight was fighting the enemy on a battlefield, in Yvain the knight is winning the hearts of damsels and going off into quests against dragons and so forth. Though these poems are only separated by around 75 years the entire nature of knighthood has changed. I asked Dr. Wright point blank "Did the role of knights change that completely in 75 years." He answered yes immediately and then went back to his tirade. Never mind the fact that there was a Crusade going on at the time. Someone has seen Camelot too many times.
What's more, he related the nobles care-free lifestyles against the lives of the serfs. The Marxist inside came out as he recounted their pain and suffering. He used the pictures of the Les Tres Riches Heures as a way that the nobles were covering up their atrocious deeds. He remarked that the serfs look awful happy and there could be no way that the poor serfs could be happy. Notice the amount of serf revolts during this time of history. The understanding within the church that one is to work in one's place to the best of their ability is an idea that was quite important in feudal Europe. And do you really think for a second that even if the noble was "serf-conscious" he would not draw dirty serfs on his expensive illumination. Duh...
I could go on forever....but I think that about says it all
This has been a an official rant....hopefully I will talk about real news next time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
There are few moments in history that we can rally behind in our pursuit of greatness. Can a book actively reflect history? At times it can, be it Einhard or actual accounts. Now what about 'The Song of Roland'? Of course, the actual slaughtering of Moslems is rather out of scope, but truly indicative of the glory of Roland. Instead of knitpicking over effeminate details about political correctness, one must look at the role of the hero. Count Roland of the Britanny Marches is a hero...period. So is Lord Oliver and Archbishop Turpin. These men are the TRUE men who stand up against diversity. Roland does not attack these Moslems and most importantly it is not as if these Moslems are involved in anything of use like science or brokering peace deals or even, dare I say, attending to Ramadan? They are milling about, much like the case of Moslem pirates in the Meditteranean, waiting to prey on unsuspecting Christians. Moslems are scary! Franks thought so, Angles thought that, jews thought that, and the Holy Roman Empire thought that. The "turko-glocken" pealed throughout Europe to warn of Moslem advances....NOT of Moslem peace efforts. The turk know nothing of the whit eflag, a Janissary does not lay down his arms to some idea of reason. Islam wishes to expand in this era, they actively attack France to convert her, and aim at the subjegation of Europe. THAT is scary. NOT moslems being defeated in a bloody fashion, but the threat of annihilation at the hand of our misguided brothers. This modern society hails men who have stood against the threats of oppression, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther (ugh), and, dare I say it, Count Roland. He is a hero worthy of praise, if any of our politicans had half the ability inspired by Roland, America would be the source of such stories against other enemies...the south?...the indians?...vermont? You shall choose, oh most worthy writers of the future, but please, all of you who attempt to discount the importance of such a work and its inspiration, how to relate our actions, but you are not capable of understanding the world only in the sense of peace and love...Christian Pacifism is an exception, not the rule. oh yeah, if you quote that lousy statement by Paul VI, I can give you ten that support war by far more capable Popes. Pax Vobiscum.
Post a Comment