While reading from A Revelation of Love, I was actually surprised by the lack of emotion that came through Norwich’s text.  Obviously, she is writing about an experience that was extremely important to her and probably to religion at the time.  She walks us through these visions which are full of suffering, pain, happiness, love — all sorts of emotions — but somehow they didn’t really come through to me as I was reading, as say, the cross’s emotion did in “Dream of the Rood.”  It might be the very matter of fact way that she maps out what will happen in each chapter and the frank descriptions, but despite the levity of what Norwich is describing, the text felt almost bland.  It greatly contrasts (but also compliments) the fervor and emotion of Margery Kempe I think.  But then again, people thought Kempe was insane.  So I wondered: does Julian of Norwich check some of the emotional excitement in order to be taken more seriously?

Pain and suffering are key themes that are repeated again and again in “A revelation of Love” by Julian of Norwich.  To begin the narrator wishes for three wishes from God, first is to watch Jesus suffer during the crucifixion and the second wish was to become deathly ill.    Pain in these sense is a way in which a person is able to become closer and more devote to God.  The sacraments and desire to both receive a form of miracle or to actually die and go to Heaven are keyed upon by the narrator.  Then throughout the text this theme is again and again returned to, whether by humans or Jesus suffering for humans.  It becomes almost a form of prayer to go through a form of hardship.

What I found most interesting when reading Julian of Norwich was the idea that the Trinity is made up of Fatherhead, Motherhead, and Lordhead.  In chapters 58 and 60, God and Jesus are described as mother of mankind.  This surprising view on theology asserts that the Motherhead of the Trinity is merciful and loving.  Jesus is considered like a mother because he feeds mankind with himself, like a mother feeds a baby with breast milk.  This idea relates to the Miracle of the Virgin in which Mary heals a sick man with her breast milk.  We discussed in class that Mary’s breast milk was seen as magnificent.  Julian of Norwich’s chapter 60 also brings up the holiness of breast feeding by paralleling a mother’s milk with Jesus’s sacrifice of himself.  Julian of Norwich describes the Motherhead as merciful, kind, loving, sensual, wise, and knowing.  Many of these words are traditionally used to describe God but as a “Father” not as a mother.  The tenderness, sacrifice, and love of a mother is equated to the Motherhead of the Trinity, which gives us an idea of how women and mothers were seen in this time, which is very comparable to common descriptions of mothers today. In a way, the mother figure conforms to gender norms, of today at least, being loving and tender and the father figure has “high might” like a stereotypical masculine ideal. The Fatherhead is described as mighty and the Lordhead as gracious and greatly loving.  However, Julian of Norwich points out the importance of all three parts that God is made up of, especially the significance of the Motherhead. The idea of the Motherhead, I imagine, would have been a pretty radical idea at the time and even today, it is a new take on classic theology, which is one reason why it was so interesting to read.

I found the three “Miracles of the Virgin” tales to be interesting and even entertaining to read, but in each poem, at least one line or description had me writing “ew” in the margins.  In the first, “The Monk Who Could Only Learn Ave Maria,” I felt humorous pity for the poor guy who could only learn two words of his prayers.  Then I was taken a bit aback when after his death “they dug and discovered the lily root coming right out of his mouth” (23).  They are happy about this discovery, but I found it sort of gross that they dug up his grave and saw a flower growing from the corpse.  In the second poem the poor beggar boy is found “ful depe idrouned in fulthe of fen” and “very foully spattered” as a side note tells us.  He throat has also been split open (which, surprise, a lily is later found in).  Finally, in the last poem, the Virgin Mary breast feeds the sick monk and this is described as “marvelous,” but to me seemed sort of disgusting.  Obviously, the Virgin is rewarding those, whether in life or death, who sang or spoke praises to her.  But they really left me wondering how these things would have been read and received at the time.  Would medieval readers have found these descriptions empowering, humorous, or just gross? And is disgust an emotion??

The Dream of the Rood is about the cross that Jesus was nailed to is telling the narrator the story of the crucifixion. I found it unusual that the author personified the cross itself to speak about the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Unlike other texts that contained magical elements through a dream or appearance of an angel this text shows an actual cross first radiating riches then bleeding and ultimately speaking about its life.  On one hand the poem is promoting Jesus but on the other it is using a magical element to do so.

Dream of the Rood and Miracles of the Virgin are highly symbolic texts. The most noticeable symbol in Dream of the Rood is the cross or the tree, which is also symbolic of God and his suffering. Rather than highlighting the pain and suffering of the Lord The Dream of the Rood is more focused on the rood’s journey and response to the crucifixion. The cross sets a sorrowful tone in the tale as it evoke pity and in the end praise from the reader.

Symbolism in Miracles of the Virgin is the white lily flowers that are found in the throat of the male figures. I’m not sure of the significance of the flower, but I know it has a connection to the Virgin Mary and her purity. The last male figure is healed by the Virgin’s breast milk. There is some significance with the throat and the Virgin but Im not exactly sure what that is. Like The Dream of the Rood this poem focuses a religious figure other than God and her role in his life.

In Dream of the Rood, the cross is obviously the central figure. But what surprised me is just how active a role the cross seems to play in the crucifixion and in the salvation of man. The cross says “they mocked us both together” and “They pierced me through with darksome nails”, both suggesting that the cross is just as actively involved with the salvation of man as Jesus is. The cross even tells how it refused to bow or break at any point during Christ’s Passion. And for its role, the cross is adorned in gold and jewels. To read a text, religious or otherwise, that would give glory to anyone/thing besides Jesus for the salvation of man is just odd. It seems to suggest that Jesus is not solely responsible for salvation and that he never could have been. There needed to be a strong, willing, and able supporter, which would contradict the idea that the Son of God is all powerful.

I was hoping that writing this post would help clear up my own confusion on what the role of the cross says about the Passion and salvation, but I am honestly more unsure now than I ever was.

I found The Dream of the Rood very interesting and emotional.  The poem begins from the point of view of a man who then dreams of the cross that Jesus died on speaks to him.  The perspective of the cross is a unique and emotional first “person” point of view of the death and resurrection of Jesus.  The cross tells of the brutal experience of being “ripped up from [its] roots” and being forced to “bear their criminals” (30-31).  It tells of the painful and sorrowful experience of the cross’s first hand experience with Christ’s death, in which the cross is covered in Jesus’s blood as it witnesses the evil men nail Jesus to itself and die. Its dialogue uses powerful words to portray the experience, calling Jesus “bone-weary” and itself “standing drenched in blood, all shot through with arrows” (62-63).    The story is filled with sorrow and pain on both the cross’s part and Jesus’s.  Not only does the cross tell the story of Jesus’s death but also of the cross’s burial and recovery.  In a way the cross’s story parallels Jesus’s.  The cross suffered and was buried and then is recovered and honored.  The perspective given by the first person point of view is very interesting because I had never read the story of Jesus’s death from any perspective other than the common versions in The Bible.  The cross explains that it was recovered, adorned with gold, honored, and rose up to heaven where it is eternally with God.  The cross’s dialogue ends with a moral lesson, telling the dreamer that God has the judgment and that those who are worthy will rise up to heaven like the cross had.  This tale shares an emotional and unique perspective that adds a new kind of emotion because it describes the pain of being a part of the crucifixion of the cross’s savior.

Having already read this poem was very helpful, since I already understood that it was about the Holy Cross. The narrator was actually being shown its journey from tree to cross through a dream vision. The poem is full of emotions, like pride as well as woe. The rood is proud to have been chosen to serve as a religious icon. It is even called the “victor-tree” early on in the story. The cross describes its grief for the pain that Christ had to endure, but it “needs stand firm” trying to be strong for Him when He was weak. After Christ’s death, the cross speaks of how “on me the Son of God suffered a little time; wherefore in glory now I tower up beneath the sky.” Though I had read this previously, I never really focused on just how prevalent the emotional aspects were because the last time I read it, I was translating it from Old English and focused instead on the linguistic aspects of the poem.

This article resonated with me particularly because I am very interested in neuroscience. While the many different definitions and views of emotion proved a lot to keep track of, Plamper’s examination on the polarity between emotion and reason from a historical perspective was interesting. The example Plamper uses is that of the amygdala being the source of fear. This analysis of emotion as having a direct neuroanatomical source is often misconstrued to be reductionist, in that it assumes that our personality is a mere composite of different neurotransmitters which implies a purely biological view of emotions. However I would argue that the two do not have to be mutually exclusive and can be used in conjunction to better explain the basis of personality. Our genetic make up, and the resulting chemical make up of our brains is the physical source of our expressed emotions and personality.

One example of this could be narcissism. Narcissism, generally considered a negative trait, could be thought to be either a lack or depleted amount of oxytocin, which is a bonding neurotransmitter. However this does not excuse an individual from their selfish actions. Sorry for the thoroughly neuroscience oriented blog post!