God

Matt Pearson Professor Ansell Humanities 201 5 August 2013 Scholasticism in Religious Architecture “Sacred architecture is not, a ‘free’ art, developed from ‘feelings’ and ‘sentiment’, but it is an art strictly tied by and developed from the laws of geometry” (Schneider). This is a governing principle behind the architecture and stained-glass images in Chartres Cathedral: the building wasn’t Just built without a plan or the art didn’t Just happen, it is a systematic creation using geometry (Crossly 232). Scholasticism is the main contributor to the use of geometry to organize how the Cathedral was built.

Briefly described, scholasticism is taking events, concepts, or miracles, that we can’t understand, and organizing a structured argument to provide an explanation. In the Chartres Cathedral, the architecture and art not only display sacred religious events and scenes from the Bible, but also secular events, such as everyday chores like farming or cleaning. There is clearly a union trying to be made here between things of this earthly world – science, philosophy, reason – and things that go beyond the earthly world – faith, theology, revelation.

This is where scholasticism is found, cause it organizes events and understanding to find God in the secular and sacred. In Chartres Cathedral, the building as a whole is meant to take us from the corruption of this world and into the presence of God, which embodies light. There is great detail in each stained-glass window, specifically in the exactness of the geometry and also in the Biblical stories they portray, which again point us to God, and also show how scholasticism has helped shape the organized design behind many things in the Cathedral. Scholasticism is a “term used to designate both a method and a system.

It is applied to theology as well as to philosophy’ (Turner). Historically, it came from early Christian institutions. They would have someone as the head of the school that would act as the philosopher or theologian to help carry out the method of dialectical teaching to the students. This is done in an attempt to put understanding and reason to mysteries like science and faith or reason and revelation, and how these conflicting pairs can exist together. Not only can these opposites exist, but they “must harmonize” together to form greater understanding (Turner). SST. Thomas

Aquinas was one of the greatest Scholastics of his time. He was monumental in bridging the gap between theology and philosophy by his reasoning that “God is the author of all truth, and it is impossible to think that He would teach in the natural order anything that contradicts what He teaches in the supernatural order” (Turner). A structure, as grand as the Chartres Cathedral, introduces an interesting paradox for religious and secular views, because the architects “however much directed towards the glory of God, still turned man’s eyes elsewhere and diverted elsewhere he wealth he could have put to better purpose” (Affair 55).

This meaner that the architects were trying to turn people’s hearts and minds to God, but, in an attempt to do so, they were expending vast amounts of resources on secular architecture. They wanted to build a place that would mentally take you from this world and into God’s world. This concept is easily seen as people enter the doors of the Cathedral and see all the light that is coming in through the stained-glass windows at all times of the day. These windows truly illuminate the building and allow the participants to feel God or light.

The Cathedral also was a place for people to make their religious pilgrimages and would aid them in their search for God. Many of the stained-glass windows show events of Chrism’s ministry, but for the sake of exploring scholasticism and its relation to Chartres Cathedral, we are going to focus on Just two windows: The Tree of Jesse and the Rose Window. The Tree of Jesse shows “Chrism’s royal genealogy [rising] up from Jesse, who lies at the bottom of the window, to Christ, who sits enthroned at the summit” (Preach 42). The window is a column of squares made up of smaller rectangles.

In each square is figure and a continuation of the tree stemming from Jesses frame, which represents the continued line from Jesse to Christ and how Christ is born an heir to the king because of the unbroken chain. At Chrism’s feet sits Mary, and around both of them are seven doves, which represent the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, “the gift of wisdom… The gift of understanding… The gift of counsel… The gift of fortitude… The gift of knowledge… The gift of fear of the Lord… The gift of Reverence” (Aquinas).

Having Christ, Mary, and the doves all together at the top also represents something else, the double personality of Christ, human through His lineage, divine through His union with the Holy Spirit” (Preach 44). The miracle of Chrism’s birth can’t be explained through science, because of Mary and the Immaculate Conception, but some understanding is given to Chrism’s lineage through the structure of the window. It shows Christ is connected to being a King through Mary, or God, and through Jesse, who was an earthly king. The organized structure shows the use of scholasticism, because of its push for organization to explain miraculous events.

A main contributor to scholasticism is SST. Thomas Aquinas and his text Sum Theological. One argument he presented was “The Life of God” and “Whether all things in God are life? ” (Aquinas). He takes all the objections he can find to the question he has asked. He will then make a “response” or an explanation to every objection to explain the initial question being asked. This is a very structured procedure, but it is seen in “The Tree of Jesse” window, because it addresses the concern, is Christ really God and is He an earthly and heavenly king.

It then takes each objection and finds a response: Christ is an earthly king because of his genealogical connection to Jesse, ND Christ is a heavenly king, because of his miraculous or immaculate conception by the Holy Ghost, through his virgin mother, Mary. The Rose Window is actually in two places in Chartres Cathedral on the south and north walls. The Rose on the south transept has Christ at the center, surrounded by apostles. Below the Rose Window are five “lancet” windows, which have, from left to right, Isaiah, Daniel, Virgin Mary holding Christ as an infant, Ezekiel, Jeremiah (Affair 90).

This is to surround Mary with the “four great prophets” (Preach 89). On their shoulders sit the “Evangelists,” Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke, which symbolizes their role in proclaiming Chrism’s birth and divinity. The Rose itself symbolized beauty and perfection, which represents Mary as a fair virgin and also Christ as the only perfect human. The Rose symbolism is only strengthened by the presence of these stained glass windows that surround the rose. To give an example, in one of the medallion windows that surround the center of the rose, “Mary, is exalted as Queen of Heaven… He is seated on a throne and holds a scepter” (Preach 93). The Rose on the north transept has SST. Anne holding Mary at the center. This is a unique image, because now it isn’t Christ who is the infant, but it is Mary and she is “in the arms of her mother Anne, the person who establishes the genealogical link with the Old Testament” (Preach 93). This shows us the importance of Mary in all of Christianity. Below the Rose are five more “lancet” windows, like on the south side, except these stained-glass windows have different images, which are, from left to right, Milkweed, David, SST.

Anne holding Mary as an infant, Solomon, and Aaron (Affair 91). Anne is “surrounded by the most famous of the ancient kings” which show how important Anne is and the oracle that came from her (Preach 93). All of this detail and organization in both Rose Windows shows scholastic thought, because, as mentioned before, Chrism’s birth and conception is an unexplainable miracle, but guiding our train of thought with these images helps to explain the miracle. There is one more detail in the Rose that really cements scholasticism in the Cathedral, it is the process to create the Rose.

First, a process is carried out to find twelve evenly spaced spaces around a circle. Second, a star with twelve points is drawn in the middle, every line being exactly the name length. At the base of each point, close to the center, twelve equal circles are made. Another star with twelve points is then drawn inside the bigger star, once again each line being the same length. A circle is made around the inner star and in the center of this circle is where Christ is placed in one window and Anne and Mary are placed in the other window.

The precision that is used reflects the scholastic procedure Thomas Aquinas uses. Great care and concern are taken to create the desired result and to give an explanation too miracle. Thomas Aquinas used this teeth in writing to explain the miracle of God and the Rose Windows use this method in imagery and biblical symbolism to explain the miracle of Christ and Mary. Thus, we can see that Chartres Cathedral has Biblical symbolism in the stained-glass windows and scholasticism is used within these windows as the organization.

Chartres Cathedral is built in great geometric precision to take people’s thoughts from this world into God’s world (Crossly 233). Through the geometric precision, scholasticism is very present. Scholasticism is found in the Stem of Jesse by the organizational structure used to present the explanation of Chrism’s divine birth. This is a miracle that can’t simply be explained, but the Stem of Jesse window systematically takes us from Jesse to Mary and then to Christ to explain the miracle.

Scholasticism is also found in the Rose Windows in the precise geometric construction and also in the images that are shown. The conception of Christ is a miracle, but the different images show how it can be explained. In all of these Biblical events and miracles, scholasticism creates an organized way to understanding them. Works Cited Aquinas, Thomas. Sum Theological. Kevin Knight, 2008. New Advent. Web. 6 August 2013. Crossly, Paul. Rhetoric Beyond Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

In the passage of Job 42:1-6 there appears to be an interpretation of a divine speech to be supported by Job’s response. There also occurs to be a conclusion about Job’s debate with God as Job acts humbly in acknowledging his presumption about God. God, however, acts displeased by Job and his friends because of Job’s friends presumptions about God as they didn’t speak about God in the “right” way. When Job gets confronted by God, he surrenders, yet acts without sorrow. One may question the response that Job had towards God in verses 1-6 as he acted in a peculiar unexpected manner.

In most reactions towards God there comes a reaction of fear; however Job seemed calm with his reactions towards God. Job doesn’t have a proper response to God in verse 4 he says that “I will question you, and you will declare me. ” In the form criticism of the text the verses 1-6 are being presented as a form of prayer to the Lord. Job never says that he was wrong to question God’s justice. Job feigns submission and accepts that he will never get a straight answer from God.

Source criticism is being used as the verses in three and four, Job quotes the Lord’s words which were also used previously in Job 38:2-3 and uses them to make his surrender appear to be in defence to God’s power. Job’s true attitude however is revealed in verse six “therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes. ” In the NRSV translation of this verse reflects the traditional view that Job is confessing to his sin in challenging God’s justice. In most Bible translations and commentators there is a twist in verse 6 to make Job’s speech an acknowledgement of sin in challenging God.

There is textual criticism being presented in comparison to the original Hebrew text, though, the Hebrew text allows for a variety of translations; most of which render Job’s words as anything but a confession. The verb “I despise myself” (Hebrew: ’emas) is not a reflexive form. Its other occurrences are all rendered as a simple verb “I hate/ regret”. The second Hebrew verb, nikhamti, has been translated as “repent” but other uses of the verb argue for a meaning of “rue/regret”, usually the word is not associated with sin, but with a change of mind or with finding comfort.

Thus, a more accurate rendering of the verse might read: “I reject and regret dust and ashes. ” Or in alternative, clearer translations which have been suggested, such as: “Therefore I retract and change my mind, being but dust and ashes”, or “I yield, and am comforted, being but dust and ashes”. Job is therefore not sorry for confronting God. Instead he seems to be accepting that God will never give him what he wants: an apology. However, how could anyone expect an apology from a supreme power as divine as God?

Job has had a life-transforming visitation with God (Job 42:5): the god whom Job worshipped, based on what he had heard of him, has now made himself known through a face-to-face encounter. Job had earlier expressed his belief that he would see God at the future resurrection (19:25-27); that expectation was brought forward in an unexpected way. One can thus imagine the scene as Job having presented his case for why he should not be suffering, God then responds to Job by asking, “What exactly is it that you think you know? (38:1-41:34), and Job then expresses his satisfaction “with the humble knowledge that his sufferings were all part of the purposes of God… even if he could not understand those purposes with his finite mind”.

It is simply incredible to realise that Job was proved correct in his righteousness and assessment of the situation (42:7-8); thus, he offers no admission of wrongdoing, despite the more traditional exegesis of this passage. Instead, God challenges the bad theology and counsel of Job’s friends and requires their confession to and submission before Job.

Job’s prayer for them brings forgiveness from God (:9). This is a complete reversal of our expectations for this story of suffering. In verse seven, God admits that Job was correct in accusations against the deity. The Lord tells Eliphaz that he and the other two friends have incurred God’s anger and that they were wrong in what they said about God to Job. One wonders if God’s anger derives not from the friends’ statements about God but, rather, from their failure to minister to Job in his time of need.

There original intentions were admirable they came to console and comfort (2:11) Job. Unfortunately they let their fears, instead of compassion guide their actions. The friends’ first response was their silence. Whatever their sin to avoid divine punishment they must make an offering and have Job pray on their behalf. Only Job can save them now. Towards God’s response to his human accusers (Job’s friends), God acts in an offended manner as he wasn’t being spoken to in the “right” way. There comes the question: Is God’s response intended to be punitive or restorative?

As God sort to punish the friends of Job, he gave them a chance to repent and feel remorse for their actions. God was teaching them a lesson that God must be obeyed and respected. However if God sort to act out in a punishing manner then what them men had falsely spoken about God, would then be true. In this aspect is the reason why God had punished the men in such an approach to see these men’s obedience towards God, God gave them a chance for repentance. Therefore in this characteristic God is being both restorative and punitive; for each sin doesn’t go unpunished.

The men were asked to present “seven bulls and seven rams” in this concept the number seven is being used a significant amount of times in the bible. There is the rhetorical feature of the passage that what is the significance of the number seven? And what would happen if any other number was being used? These questions arise the implications of the bible and also the narrative criticism of the type of character God was, the constant use of the number seven could reveal that perhaps seven is God’s “lucky number. “

On one hand, the phrase, “good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people”, is completely disproved and disqualified. On the other hand, Job is not ‘blasted’ for questioning God; he is corrected for his presumption and arrogance in asking such questions. Our suffering does indeed lead us to question our situation, but the story of Job promotes composure in suffering as in celebration. Job is blessed after praying for his friends’ forgiveness, not after his own surrender. This could simply be a matter of timing or it could be a consequence.

There is rhetorical criticism shown as to whether Job would have been blessed to the same degree if he had not prayed for the forgiveness of his friends? While we cannot answer this question, it does suggest a standard set by this passage for the care provided by Christians to pray for each other with consideration in faith. There is blessing in serving the spiritual needs of others. Job’s fortunes and position are restored. He is first restored to his spiritual authority (Job: 10a). Then, his prosperity is restored doubly (Job: 10b).

Then, his status is restored as his ‘fair-weather’ family and friends acknowledge him with gifts (Job: 11). In addition, Job’s financial means are increased beyond his starting fortune (Job: 12). In a response to narrative criticism there is a response to cultural aspects of the text, in taking the passage to a literal sense, as the regard and provision for his daughters is beyond expectation; interesting for the comparative value of girls to boys (Job: 13-15). In this peculiar event of Job’s daughters receiving inheritance, it reflects a cultural break through in the historical patriarchal context of the bible.

This total scenario provides a wonderful closure to Job’s story, reflecting cultural norms rather than spiritual norms. There is a question that can we expect the same kind of material blessing if we’re righteous? One possible answer is, “no”, because we cannot possibly imagine the same level of righteousness for ourselves, that we could ever display such brash confidence before God. The conclusion to Job’s story is one of the most troubling aspects of the text. Job receives even more blessings than before. God appears to be atoning for mistreating Job.

Despite this happy ending the reader begins to wonder if the rewards given to Job could make up for what he has lost. In verse 11, the text states that Job’s family and friends came to comfort him. Where was this community earlier? They are described as bringing him gifts of money and jewellery. Perhaps this is how Job achieved the status of wealth again; as a result of compassion and charity. Whatever the source, Job’s material possessions (e. g. sheep, camels, oxen and donkeys) are described as twice as much as he had before his tragic demise.

His children, however, number the same: seven sons and three daughters. The difference is how the children are described. Whereas at the beginning of the story more attention was given to the sons, here the daughters receive the most attention. Their names are given, each having a symbolic meaning. The name of the first, Jeremiah, is difficult to render in English but may be related to “day” or “dove. ” Keziah, the name of the second daughter, means “cassia,” a perfume. The third one’s name, Keren-happuch, translates as a “container of Khol,” which was an eye cosmetic.

They are declared to be of incomparable beauty. Job gives his daughters an inheritance equal to that of their brothers. The mention of this action would suggest that it is unusual because in patriarchal cultures, only the sons receive inheritance, and the daughters depended on a male relative or husband for survival. Perhaps Job’s suffering has made him more sensitive to the plight of the powerless, especially women. The harmony of Job’s life has been resorted, and he lives another 140 years, long enough to see four new generations of his family.

The end of Job’s life is described succinctly; “he died old and full of days” (verse 17). Nevertheless the story of Job is reassuring to note that God was aware of Job’s righteousness and boasted about it. Even though Job was allowed to suffer at the hands of God’s enemies, God cared for Job and helped him to appreciate better the condition of the world in which Job lived. Perhaps here is the source of Job’s prosperity, that he had a wise understanding of his position in the world and a healthy appreciation for the difficulties that could befall him at any time.

Job maintained his composure in the face of his suffering and maintained his trust in the God who is far beyond all understanding. Suffering is a mystery. To reduce suffering to the simple formula, “do good and good things will happen to you; do bad and you will suffer”, is to ignore the complexity of the human condition. We will apply human standards to God, in order to understand him better. Yet, God cannot be so easily understood, or manipulated. However it raises the rhetorical criticism of God’s character and whether God can even make himself feel pain and suffering that he inflicts (God made us to feel pain) on human beings?

God did not intend for his creation to suffer; yet, our rebellion against him places under the influence of all kinds of evil. The relational meaning of the passage is used to express the implicational measures that are associated with the suffering one undergoes and the consequences that are faced when one undermines God’s righteousness. The final irony of the book of Job is that the author has used a traditional story about a holy man, a non-Israelite named Job, to explore the mystery of suffering in a very untraditional manner, suffering by his enemies.

The ending of the passage ends with Job’s renewed blessing, one may suggest that the ending of the new blessing of Job is the perfect ending. As a literal critic would say that it was the perfect ending to the story as “Job died old and full of days” suggesting that he was happy and fulfilled at the time of his death. However, one may question the character of Job in whether he deserved such blessing by God, as he was questioning God in the beginning of the passage.

Throughout the novel, Ort indeed tries to make sense of his existence in many ways. It is also true to say that his relationship with Henry Warburton helps him with this discovery. Their relationship, although time-taking to discover, is beneficial towards Ort’s understanding of his existence, and his character in particular is greatly benefited.

Ort’s quest to make sense of his existence is brought on by the car crash in which Sam, his father, is put into a coma. From this moment on, the whole family in fact tries to make sense of their existence, and Warburton is a useful influence towards the whole family in this sense, not just Ort.

Before discussing the ways in which Warburton is useful influence in the process of identifying Ort’s existence, it needs to seen in which ways he tries to make sense of his existence;

After the car crash, which left the father, Sam, out of the picture for the family, Ort has been given the responsibility of the father figure. Of course, for this to happen to a twelve year old boy, it leaves him lost, and obviously misled towards what exactly has just happened.

One important thing that Ort considers during this period of discovery is about his own form of religion, or some sort of deity like figure to look up to. It is seen by the audience that the only thing that Ort can look up to and get any help from is that newly formed deity figure apparent in the sky. He uses this deity in the sky to hopefully save him from non existence and subsequently help him discover his current existence.

Henry Warburton is then brought into the discussion, as he has a positive effect on Ort’s outlook on life, and existence. He helps Ort understand his place in life, and is almost the deity for Ort, providing assistance and support, and also helping with Ort’s self discovery. Even Henry Warburton claims that he is a god, and that he has come to help Ort, promoting himself as a god like figure. Warburton provides the positive influence for Ort’s discovery of his existence, as he provides help surrounding certain paths of life. Warburton has the ability to see and believe things that no one else in the family, including Ort, does, therefore providing assistance in Ort’s self discovery.

In many scenes throughout the novel, Henry Warburton’s influential figure is scene, which brings support for Ort’s understanding. He acts as a father like figure to Ort, even providing discipline to other members of the family on occasions, and supporting Ort’s actions and ways of thinking.

Despite these obvious ‘perks’ on Warburton’s behalf to help Ort’s understanding, some less positive aspects about Warburton’s influence are apparent, when deeper aspects of the novel are analysed. Warburton’s character inevitably appears flawed to the family, through a number of faults such as the fact that he has a glass eye and a speech impediment. ‘Geez, he’s got troubles’. Coinciding with this realisation by the family, Warburton decreases his rhetoric, and shows the audience that Ort has become quite dependant by this stage in the novel.

Throughout the novel, Ort experiences things which would normally never be experienced by a boy that age. With all the crises he goes through, Henry Warburton, a strange but loving preacher who shows up on the doorstep, shows Ort the way to understanding, and self realisation, and is therefore a useful influence towards Ort’s understandings.

The concept of what constitutes a hero varies according to the values, culture, context and setting of the society in question. Homer in his epic poem The Odyssey and Arthur Miller in The Crucible through the portrayal of the hero’s in their texts; Odysseus and John Proctor, reflect the values of the time in which the text was set but more importantly provide a social commentary on the context of the texts. Both looking to the past to provide answers and draw parallels with the present.

The Odyssey was written approximately in 700 BC and was set in twelfth century BC, in what was known as the Bronze Age. The Greeks believed that this earlier period was a more glorious and sublime age, when Gods still frequented the Earth and heroic, godlike mortals with superhuman attributes populated Greece. The Odyssey is episodic in nature and in many ways consisted of nation building myths which were unifying and drew on what was common in Greek culture by detailing the exploits of the classical archetypal Greek hero, Odysseus.

Essentially it is an epic tale in which the wicked are destroyed, right prevails, and the family is reunited. On the other hand, The Crucible was written in the early 1950’s in America and is set in 1692 in Salem, a small town in colonial Massachusetts. It follows the witch-hunts of 1692 which began when several young girls were stricken with an illness characterized by symptoms of hallucinations and seizures, which were ascribed to witchcraft. This led to the eventual execution of thirty individuals for the crime of witchcraft.

They were tried and convicted in an atmosphere of moral absolutism through which Miller alludes to the events which took place in the 1950’s before the House of Un-American Activities Committee in Washington. The Crucible can be viewed as allegorical text not for anti-communism, or as a faithful account of the Salem trials, but as a powerful timeless description of how intolerance and hysteria can intersect and tear a community apart. Furthermore, in contrast with Odysseus, John Proctor is a tragic hero, who would rather die then confess and lived with a marred name.

This idea of nobility is inseparable from the tragedy genre. Tragedy in many ways enlightens, in that it points the heroic finger at the enemy of a man’s freedom. The quest for freedom is the quality in the tragedy which exalts. Both texts are framed by religious imagery. In The Odyssey Odysseus does not question the power of the Gods and in many ways Homers text can be viewed as a moral lesson, through the omnipresent nature of the god’s as they guide the wandering hero home.

This reflects the Greek notion that the gods exercise absolute power over the mortal world. In the poem mortals are constantly to the gods to earn their favour. Conversely, offending the gods creates immense problems as is illustrated through Poseidon’s grudge against Odysseus for blinding his son Polyphemos. Moreover, it is only through Athena’s guidance throughout the text that Odysseus can survive his dangerous adventures.

This distinguishes an important point as it reiterates not only the all-powerful nature of the gods but also introduces the idea that if Odysseus the hero cannot survive without guidance from the gods then the rest of the members of society must accept their fate as lying in the hands of the gods. What must also be noted however are the characteristics of the gods, which were a mixture of magical, immortal powers and basic human instincts, the gods were not perfect. Through this portrayal of the gods in the text Homer presents a more glorious time in Greek culture in a time when Greece was only a shadow of its former greatness.

This however varies in The Crucible which is set in a theocratic society, in which church and state are one and the religion practised was very austere form of Protestantism known as Puritanism. In this form of society there is no room for deviation from social norms, since any individual whose private life does not conform to the established moral laws presents a threat not only to society but also to the rule of God: “You must understand, sir, that a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between”.

John Proctor challenges this religious identity of time and shows how man has used god to manipulate and control individuals and it is ultimately his choice not to confess to witchcraft, which is a true religious and personal stance. In this way The Crucible can be viewed a symbolic of the paranoia of the communism which pervaded America in the 1950s. Several parallels existed between the witch hunts of 1692 and the House Un-American Activities Committee’s rooting out of suspected communists.

As with the alleged witches of Salem, suspected Communists were encouraged to confess their crimes and to “name names,” identifying others sympathetic to their radical cause. Miller through the actions of the hero Proctor foregrounds the McCarthyist excesses, which wronged many innocents, making a strong political statement. Furthermore, both Odysseus and Proctor are flawed and fallible and both of them fall into the seductive charms of the ‘seductresses’ as is portrayed in the texts.

Women are presented as either ‘sainted virgins’; Elizabeth and Penelope or ‘seductresses’; Abigail and Calypso this dichotomy represents the patriarchal structures of the context of the texts. Moreover the texts also highlight the dangers of giving women power and of female sexual potency. Odysseus’ infidelity when he is trapped by Calypso serves to reflect gender roles and the double standard in Greek society. Homer does not invite the responder to view Odysseus’ infidelity with any disdain or disapproval: “withdrawing into the cavern’s deep recesses, long in each others arms they lost themselves in love” (#250-51).

It is somehow acceptable for Odysseus to sleep with another woman, while Penelope is represented as morally dubious for allowing the suitors to remain in the house. It is only Calypso who challenges these gender roles: “You unrivalled lords of jealously/ scandalized when goddess sleep with mortals… ” (#131-32). While Homer portrays these sexist views, he also through Calypso’s dialogue brings to attention the double standards of the society and more importantly introduces a new idea which may have been viewed as subversive in Greek culture at the time.

On the other hand in The Crucible, John Proctor as the play’s tragic hero is honest, upright and blunt spoken, Proctor is a good man however his fatal flaw is his lust for Abigail Williams which leads to their affair. Proctor is very self-critical and this in a way reflects how his moral code is a product of the society in which he exists: “But I will cut my hand off before I’ll ever reach for you again”. Once the trials begin, Proctor realizes that he can stop Abigail’s rampage through Salem but only if he confesses to this adultery.

This highlights how the hero must face a series of trials and tribulations in order to be redeemed, in Proctor’s case these are more physiological battles whereas Odysseus faces more physical challenges. This illustrates the way in which the different contexts result in the formation of varying hero’s reflecting the values of that particular society. Finally, Arthur Miller once said: “Nobody wants to be a hero… but in every man there is something he cannot give up and still remain himself… If he gives that up, he becomes a different man, not himself… It is Proctor’s self-critical nature which distinguishes him because he does not set out to be a hero.

Normally he would not be considered a saintly individual, and he has not great eagerness to be a martyr due to his underlying guilt at his infidelity, which in turn he projects on Elizabeth: “I do not judge you. The magistrate sits in your heart that judges you. ” Nevertheless when put to the final test, the meaning here of ‘crucible’, he will go to his death rather than irrevocably compromise his integrity.

Through his representation of Proctor as the tragic hero Miller creates a new post-modern ideology of the hero in which the hero is not extraordinary physically or mentally but rather what is heroic is the individual who stands by his personal principals, he does not set out to be the hero but rather the situation merely reveals the hero within. This notion explores the concerns of 1950 America in which the hero’s were not the

McCarthyist’s as it might seem on outward examination but rather those who only through their personal actions transpired to be essentially heroic. In conclusion, The Odyssey and The Crucible through the representation of the hero in text foreground the concerns of their times. The texts have revealed to me that what constitutes the hero varying according to context and setting and can help us gain further insight into the concerns of the society in question. Essentially the characteristics, which form the hero, are fluid subject to the values and culture of the times.

Dogma A system of doctrines offered by some religions. It is proclaimed and accepted as true specific answers to the religion it is being offered for. 9. Monotheistic Is not a believer in unseen reality but can be spiritual without labeling themselves a certain religion. 10. Transcendent The belief that a greater power exists outside the material universe. 11. Incarnations The living embodying the divine or spirit. 12. Soul The spiritual part of the body that exist separately form the physical body. 13. Atheism

The belief that there Is no god because no proof exist. 14. Agnosticism The belief that humans cannot be able to know the existence of a higher power. 15. Rituals The repeated actions by people or groups. Some religion rituals are dancing, singing, reciting prayers and sharing food to symbolize spirituality. 16. Symbols A borrowed image that represents some form of a spiritual experience. 17. Myths Symbolic stories that used for explanations for with in the universe. 18. Orthodox Abiding to a particular form of religion by practicing established traditions. 19. Rotationally of charisma

The Institutionalizing of religion that can damage the Inspiration of religion. 20. Absolutists Believe In traditional forms of religions as being true and unchangeable. 21 . Charisma 22. Fundamentalism Emphasizes on what form one perceives as historical in religion. 23. Phenomenology Analyzing religion practices to better understand their purpose. 24. Liberal Take a flexible and unpredicted approach to interpreting religion traditions. 25. Mysticism To believe the truth despite human belief because it was perceived directly by experience. 26. Sacred The realm of extraordinary which lies the source of the universe and its value.

The Tamburlaine plays are two works written by Christopher Marlowe. In this essay I will discuss why the plays were so appealing to audiences in Marlowe’s time and whether they are still as appealing to a modern audience and why. The character of Tamburlaine can be compared to some historical characters the most accurate being Timur the Lame, a historical ruler over most of central Asia. Richard Wilson compares him to Tsar Ivan IV, commonly known as Ivan the Terrible, the 16th Century Emperor of Russia, whose tyrannical rule, may well be replayed in Tamburlaine. (pp.51, R. Wilson, 1996.)

The first of the two Tamburlaine plays was performed in 1587, following Marlowe’s graduation from Cambridge. The second was most probably written and performed later following the success of Tamburlaine Part 1 in the theatres. Some critics however believe that the two plays were written and performed together;

‘in November 1587…Philip Gawdy describes how in a piece recently presented by the Lord Admirals Men an actor, called onto fire a gun at one of his fellows tied to a stake, missed his aim killing a pregnant woman, a child and maiming others. This has often been taken to refer to Tamburlaine’s execution of the governor of Babylon in the final act of Part II, but the assumption cannot be verified.’

(pp. 69, V. Thomas and W. Tydeman, 1994)

Also

‘in 1588 Robert Greene…could allude to Marlowe ‘daring God out of heaven with the Atheist Tamburlan’, a far less ambiguous reference to the scene in which Tamburlaine…orders the destruction of the Koran and defiantly daring Mahomet to come down and punish his impiety.’

(pp. 69, V. Thomas and W. Tydeman, 1994)

Conversely it may be possible that in the eyes of a 16th Century audience, Tamburlaine’s actions would not be considered heretical because the Elizabethans knew Tamburlaine to be an infidel and would be not see the Qu’ran as a Holy book compared to their own Bible. Had he burned the Bible the case would have been very different. The issues of holy texts were hotly debated during this time as in each English church there had now been placed a new English language bible, which was in many parishes regarded as an alien book. The emphasis on holy text would have resonance for an Elizabethan audience having suffered over the last 40 years the changes between English and Latin Bibles and the Catholic and Protestant religion.

Tamburlaine often refers to God as Jove, the Roman divine ruler, but only when he is expressly defying God.

‘Tamburlaine: The God of war resigns me to his room,

Meaning to make me general of the world;

Jove viewing me in arms looks pale and wan,

Fearing my power should pull him from his throne.’

(Act V, scene ii, line 388.)

This quote shows Tamburlaine referring to God as Jove while believing he has the power to overthrow god, he says God fears him. This could show a certain awareness of the heretical nature of his deeds. He would rather refer to a God that he does not believe in than use the one he does. A part of him does fear God but Tamburlaine does not want to recognise it. To show fear is weakness. Weakness is not acceptable in a man in Tamburlaine’s position of power and his self-importance. Tamburlaine although essentially Muslim, seems to be indecisive in his religious beliefs. In the first play he refers extensively to the way of Mohammed or Mahomet as he is called in the text, then nearing the end of the second play he denounces him as ‘not worthy of being worshipped’ and burns the Qu’ran. This act which would cause uproar today especially to British Muslims, if not Muslims of all nationalities, would not have had the same effect on a sixteenth-century audience, in 1587 there were few if any British Muslims, they were thought of and referred to as infidels, ungodly and wicked.

A recent production of Tamburlaine at the Barbican in London in 2005, directed and adapted by David Farr, censored this part of the text in order to not incite religious reprisals, ‘key references’ to Mohammed were also cut from the play especially from the book burning scene;

‘Simon Reade, artistic director of the Bristol Old Vic, said that if they had not altered the original it “would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world’s great religions”.

The burning of the Koran was “smoothed over”, he said, so that it became just the destruction of “a load of books” relating to any culture or religion. That made it more powerful, they claimed.’

(D. Alberge, 2005)

In my opinion the final sentence of this quote is inappropriate because I feel that the burning of the Qu’ran is an incredibly important part of the play, without it being the Qu’ran it completely changes what the scene means and how controversial it would be to modern audience. The Qu’ran is a holy text, burning just ‘a load of books’ renders the scene completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the play and takes Tamburlaine’s death, completely out of context, if indeed his death is an act of God, for him burning the Qu’ran, as many interpretations claim. Terry Hands the director of Tamburlaine by the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1992 and Charles Nicholl, the author of The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe, opposed this censoring as did Inayat Bunglawala, the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, who said ‘In the context of a fictional play, I don’t think it will have offended many people.’ Britain was a wholly and strongly Christian nation in 1587; no one would oppose the destruction of a book of another holy order, which they believed to be blasphemous.

Violence and the disorder of war was part of contemporary Elizabethan England. Public execution and punishment in gruesome manners was a form of entertainment at the time of the Tamburlaine plays. As was making an example of those executed, as Tamburlaine’s victims are hung on the city walls, many beheaded criminals had their head displayed on spikes to warn others. Many plays performed at this time used war or famous historic heroes of war as a basis for their storylines and often had what is to a modern eye grotesque and appalling episodes of violence. This is shown in Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus (1584), without doubt his most bloody play.

‘Marlowe achieved far greater fame and popularity than Shakespeare at the same point in their theatrical careers (both born 1564).’

(pp.95, C. Breight, 1996)

With the exception of Titus Andronicus Shakespeare did not really come into his own until the early 1590’s and was not recognised as great playwright until his later life, whereas Marlowe was celebrated through his early life before he died at the age of 29. Marlowe was genius and his work was well known and widely performed by the time of his death.

The language in much of Shakespearean text is very elaborate and although a sixteenth-century audience may have been able to understand it better than a modern audience, Marlowe’s language is much more direct. This gives much more impact and ‘says what it means’ leaving the dramatic potential for the delivery.

‘Tamburlaine: Your fearful minds are thick and misty then,

For there sits Death, there sits imperious Death,

Keeping his circuit buy the slicing edge.

But I am glad you shall not see him there.

He now is seated on my horsemen’s spears,

And on their points his fleshless body feeds,

Techelles, straight go charge a few of them

To charge these dames, and show my servant Death

Sitting in scarlet on their arm�d spears.’

(Act V, scene ii, line 47)

This quote shows how Marlowe uses a straightforward and more direct form of language than Shakespeare’s and this is and was part of his appeal to contemporary and modern audiences.

The aggressive and ego-centric speech is impossible to perform in a retiring and introverted manner and the stage presence of the actor is larger than life. In accordance with modern audiences, sixteenth-century audiences loved a character that they can hate, Tamburlaine can be compared to more modern comedic characters such as Flashheart in Blackadder and Jafar in Disney’s Aladdin. These words and others in the play need to be performed to understand the full effect of what Tamburlaine is saying. He is teasing the virgins, he is making a joke out of the fact that they begged for mercy and he is still going to kill them. This ruthless and cruel nature is what makes Tamburlaine the man he is, it makes him such a loathsome character.

Despite being a dislikeable character Tamburlaine is also a very passionate character, his determination and victory in all his conquests, his love for Zenocrate, his mercy shown in sparing her father after conquering Egypt almost make him a worthy role model for the 16th century man.

‘Audiences were not necessarily intended to understand Tamburlaine; such was his shock value and his capacity to break through the very fabric of society with his ceaseless conquests and unquenchable thirst for power. (novelguide.com, 2009)’

This quote describes Tamburlaine as shocking character which he is; he is designed to shock and inspire an audience, his inspiration may not be as noticeable today in a less barbaric and more modern way of life, but to a 16th Century audience it would have been obvious, Tamburlaine’s enthusiasm for war was what England at the time wanted from its people for the impending war with Spain. He is a ruthless, power hungry, slaughterer who does not give the audience a chance to see how he would cope with defeat.

Defeat is not an option for Tamburlaine, just as defeat was not an option for Queen Elizabeth I when she launched the fire ships against the Spanish Armada just a year later in 1588. Tamburlaine shows determination but it also shows him going too far, he forgets that he’s mortal and he is still down here on the ground. He is still subject to God, although he heretically believes himself to be more powerful.

All Elizabethans knew that a strong sometimes even aggressive leader was essential for their safety in the 16th Century. Their experiences in the reigns of Edward VI and Mary Tudor both weaker monarchs in their capacities of leadership and war must have been unsettling and remembered by theatre goers. Strong dynamic leaders such as Henry VIII and the later Elizabeth I gave a sense of peace and safety to at least part of the nation although there were still dissidents. The appeal of Tamburlaine as play could be partly because people could discuss him and his activities without fear of being thought treasonable. His strength as leader would have been commendable.

‘A Prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank.’

This quote from Machiavelli’s The Prince was a European view on how a prince or other leader should be, it states how a person of a lower status can raise himself up from private to Prince as Tamburlaine has done from shepherd to King. It states that a prince’s sole study should be the art of war in his role as protector. Tamburlaine is a strong leader, his subjects are safe from any surrounding forces as shown in the way that Tamburlaine has fought off two advances from Callapine, the son of Bajazeth the former Turkish ruler whom Tamburlaine tortured and humiliated. His knowledge and performance in war is unmatchable.

In conclusion the Tamburlaine plays would have appealed to a 16th century audience for a number of reasons. Mainly for the various ways in which the character of Tamburlaine presents himself, as villain but also as an inspiration, as a man who has become drunk with power, but also a strong leader who knows what he is doing on the battlefield. Tamburlaine’s self contradictions are endless. A 16th Century audience would have enjoyed the build up to ultimate power then the anti-climatic downfall of their ‘hero’!

What do you believe about God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ BY abbey0883 It is important to know what you believe so you can make the correct decisions in life based on your personal values, and Judge the best way to solve problems in your life. It is also important to know what you believe so if questioned you can intelligently address the concern. If you KNOW you can present the inquisitor with facts so they can evaluate them for themselves. My Beliefs 1 . ) in God.

He is the creator of all things Including me. The world and everything in it is so intricate It could not have happened by chance or evolved over billions of years. 2. ) I believe the Bible Is the word of God. I believe this because the Bible meets the needs of all mankind. If you need comfort, love, forgiveness, or faith you can find some verse or chapter to address the need. I also believe the Bible because I have accepted Jesus Into my life and have faith that that the Bible Is true. 3. ) I believe In Jesus Christ.

I believe In him also because of faith. Jesus died In order to forgive us of our sins. Just because I cannot see him It does not mean he Is not real. No matter what I am going through I know he’s there. If I need healing I pray and believe In him. If I need guidance In making a decision I ask and trust he will gulled me. The hard part Is to remain patient while waiting for him to show me the answers I seek. While waiting I keep praying to stay close to him. This way I do not stray and follow my own path.