Rosenwein establishes, as my classmates have discussed, her view favoring a narrative that takes into account the complexity of emotions and emotional communities rather than viewing emotional history as a “grand narrative.” Having always been interested in health and dietary concerns I thought about how much of an effect quality of life and diet would have had on emotional communities throughout the ages as well as the extent emotional communities in this respect vary in modern times.

While it seems like a stretch, emotional communities can be built around diet. Those who choose to be vegetarian have chosen to enter into a certain emotional community and one that has an immense effect. In this same respect, emotional communities are also built around access to food, or lack thereof. In our relative society we cannot begin to comprehend the complexity of emotion surrounding starvation as we have never felt the effect of this. Malnutrition and starvation in the Middle Ages was a very prevalent and devastating occurrence, building sets of emotional communities that could foster the “childlike” behavior that early emotional historians believed of the Middle Ages. This again reiterates the importance of placing emotions in context while recognizing they are experienced by all.

I found Rosenwein’s piece about emotions and the depiction of the history of emotions very interesting.  Something that especially interested me was theorist, Huizinga’s ideas verses Gerd Althoff’s contradicting notions. Huizinga expresses a stereotypical view on the Middle Ages and suggests that the emotions of that time were “child-like.”  Huizinga interprets the violence, directness, and passionate emotions of everyday life in the Middle Ages as childish.  Febvre took this idea one step further and announced that all emotions are irrational, violent, and passionate, however, unlike the Middle Ages, other times were able to control and restrain this natural impulse.  Gerd Althoff dismantles Huizinga’s theories by looking at ritual and conventions of the Middle Ages.  Althoff asserted that these so-called childlike emotions were not childish at all, in fact they were just part of the social function of emotions at the time and they followed the rules and conventions of the society.  Although, some examples of the expression of violent and extravagant emotions of the Middle Ages may seem foreign and even childlike to modern researchers, those emotions fit the function of emotions at that time.  Emotions like violence were used to convey, comprehend, and shift power. Just as today, emotions are used as tools to navigate through society and life, therefore, we should expect that different “tools” may be needed during different eras, cultures, and situations.  Althoff’s argument against the childlikeness of the emotions of the Middle Ages overthrows a typical stereotype that is accepted by far too many people.

I really enjoyed Rosenwein’s article, as it offered a very expansive view of both how the Medieval era (as well as present day) is thought to have expressed, or in some cases, failed to repress, their emotional states. One goal of this class, I believe, is to continuously look for ways to contextualize the past without letting our present stereotypes about how things must have been affect the way we read these works too much (to ask for this to disappear altogether would be impossible). Rosenwein does a great job of introducing us to her argument of emotional communities, which discredits the “ruling narrative” of an uncontrolled past followed by a controlled present. So, in a sense, Rosenwein is doing something that we, as Medieval scholars, should strive to do – release previous stereotypes and notions and see things more abstractly than what might be the ‘easy’ thing to believe.

Regardless if one agrees or disagrees with Rosenwein’s argument, I think that her article is invaluable to us as we are introduced to more Medieval texts. Now we have a better sense of how emotional studies have developed over time, and are hence offered different ways of considering the Medieval period. That being said, I will argue that Rosenwein’s theory seems to be the most forgiving. I particularly appreciated, as someone has already mentioned, the psychcological theories behind emotion that she introduces to us. Yet more proof that the studies of Psychology and English are wonderful complements of each other.

What I enjoyed most about Rosenwein’s article was her explanation of the evolution of how emotions were viewed by psychologists. She begins explaining the “hydraulic” model of emotions, where emotions are seen as “great liquids within each person , heaving and frothing, eager to be let out” (834). This model helps explain when someone “sees red” or blacks out when they get especially angry, why sometimes we can’t suppress our tears, even in public, or our laughter. In the 60’s and 70’s, this model was replaced by two non-hydraulic models. One was a cognitive view model that explained that “emotions are part of a process of perception and appraisal, not forces striving for release” (836). Another is a model of social constructionism, saying that “emotions and their display are constructed by the society in which they operate (837). What I noticed about all of these models, like the two before me have mentioned, is that they all touched on the first article we read about emotions in our world. It was hard for me to choose which one I though the most logical, so I decided to sort of take pieces of all of them. However, Rosenwein comments that the hydraulic model is no longer “tenable” (836).

I liked this article because it held firm my belief that emotions, especially the most basic (anger, love, hate, etc.) are universal, but also are conformed based on the society and culture in which they are present. I also liked the tidbit (Ethan mentioned this) in which she explains that not only are certain emotions or at least how they are expressed are unique to a culture, but to “emotional communities” within that culture as well. We all belong to many different groups of people and our expressions and behaviors rely on our setting.

Similarly to Josh, this text reminded me of the first text we read for this class in its attempt to provide context for emotion throughout history. I was especially interested by the information discussing the evolution of emotion due to the invention of bureaucracy. It was previously unbeknownst to me that there were scholarly interpretations of the Medieval Period depicting mankind as a more naturally violent and childish race. Though this notion was eventually debunked, it still made for a very curious read.

Equally curious was the revelation that it was through this childlike and violent behavior that politics were enacted. Contextually, that seems strange to a 21st century American reader, though I imagine our political system would appear just as alien and strange if citizens from that time could witness it.

Rosenwein, in looking at the role emotions play and what they tell us about cultures and societies, explored emotional expression versus emotional suppression. Ultimately, her concept of emotional communities was one I generally agreed with. I know I am more likely to show certain emotions (anger, fear) in a more comfortable or private setting than I would in the public eye. That is not to say that it doesn’t happen, but different settings do warrant different emotional displays.

What I found more interesting than Rosenwein’s theory of emotional communities was Gerd Althoff’s view on emotions. “For Althoff,” writes Rosenwein, “emotions have social functions and follow social rules.” This is interesting to me because Althoff considers emotional displays and expression as a form of communication. And I think he’s right. Consider how a conversation can be dictated by someone’s general mood; if you can tell someone is angry, sad, or delighted, it certainly affects the way you interact with them. People’s emotions, which can be observed through tone and body language and ‘the look on your face’, can tell you quite a bit. But don’t look too miserable at your girl friend’s birthday party, or too happy at your Uncle’s funeral. Although we can communicate through emotional expression, sometimes it just isn’t appropriate.

Rosenwein’s piece “Worrying about Emotions in History” reminded me of Evans’ from the first week of class in its attempt to come to terms with the emotional life of the people of the past. Given the significant divide in time and culture between the present day and Rosenwein’s area of study (the Middle Ages), one can ask the reasonable question if the emotional life of a man or woman in the 13th century is readily accessible to a reader today or whether that divide is too difficult to bridge.

One aspect of the text that I found interesting was the author’s condemnation of philosophers who, in the vein of Max Weber, use the Middle Ages as a convenient foil for the present. For another class I have been having to read Weber for the last few weeks and his notion that Western societies have achieved a level of unsurpassed rationality that allows them to manipulate probabilities and attain access to the objective and true, as opposed to people from other cultures (or earlier eras) who lived in superstition. Besides the obvious Euro-centrism of that idea, what this paper reinforces for me is that that notion is very biased toward the present. In an era where we are constantly expanding the boundaries of what it is that we understand (or can be understood), it is too easy to dismiss people from earlier times as backward or fundamentally different from how we are now.

There were both secular and religious lyrics in the set of lyrics we were to read for today. I have a religious background, so the religious ones were easy for me to decipher – I felt that I could anticipate what the author might say next. It seems that religious meditation has not changed too much over the ages.

I particularly enjoyed the repetition and oddness of Maiden in the mor lay. It was a short, secular lyric that made me feel like I was singing a song. Maybe this is the feeling that was intended? I see a difference in the feeling between the secular and the religious lyrics. Religious lyrics also tell a story, but nothing new to the medieval crowd. Telling a familiar tale and bringing about the feeling of sadness or reverence seems to be the point of the religious lyrics.

Gentilesse by Chaucer is an interesting poem discussing what it really means to be a noble man.  “vertu to love and vice for to flee” is the key point Chaucer is pushing meaning that virtue to love and refraining from vices are the most important elements for a man.  Whats even more interesting is that he also says that a person can obtain all the wealth in the world and be the most virtuous man but this is all dependent on whether or not his heirs are also virtuous.  This is an interesting way to depict how to determine nobility based on both the merit of the man and his linage.