A Nut, A Tree, Prospering into Possibility

An image that really stood out to me while reading about Julian was the vision she had of God holding a nut within his hand. It said, "She describes seeing God holding a tiny thing in his hand, like a small brown nut, which seemed so fragile and insignificant that she wondered why it did not crumble before her eyes. She understood that the thing was the entire created universe, which is as nothing compared to its Creator, and she was told, 'God made it, God loves it, God keeps it.'" This fragility described by her of the entire universe was perplexing--balance is required for it to remain, and balance, especially by God's creation of humanity, is difficult to maintain.

Her relation to this created universe being lesser than God himself was a little over the top for me. I'm not a religious person, but if this universe was created by someone, do we think the creation is better than the Creator? Personally, I think the former is more important, more impactful, and more compelling. The universe theoretically would not exist without the creator, sure, but then when God separates himself completely as Julian described, does that really make him better?

Especially when going into what was later pointed out in the document of when Julian was living during the plague--as many religions point out similarly to Julian, there is no mercy or good fortune without some suffering. But such levels of anguish and disparity between people seems immoral, at the very least. It was what the universe, or the creation, does with this suffering that becomes more important and impactful than God's creation of them. Julian had a very holistic view of the universe, which I think is apt to her idea that if we are all created by God, then we are all intentionally connected to one another. What exactly do we do with this connection, and how do we hold ourselves accountable to our impact on one another? Going back to the imagery of the nut, humanity is fragile and significant, and I feel that especially now that nut is on the verge of cracking.

DO NOT get on a SINGLE persons bad side in the 16th century...

So during my reading over this beautiful weekend the part that stuck with me the most was the fact that anyone could just SAY you were a witch and that would be enough probable cause to have a full on investigation on your whole life. God FORBID if you had a couple pet lizards or some leftover chicken bones from dinner because now the "evidence" is stacking up against you. This was really unsettling because on page 295 it says,

"It is sufficient, therefore, to have strong presumptions to impose corporal punishment in such a revolting case, and up to but not including death. That is to say, beatings, amputations, brandings, life imprisonments, fines, confiscations, and other such penalties except banishment, unless the witch is confined to a particular place."

So this literally says YOU COULD LOSE A LIMB OR BE BRANDED LIKE FOREVER by someone having a "strong presumption" that you were a witch. But don't you worry they won't kill you, just some light maiming. I feel a little disturbed knowing if Agatha's husband dies after her neighbor tells him to go to hell that there might be a branding or even an amputation in the near future.

                                  

Is being married to a women really THAT bad?

There were many aspects of this reading that shocked me. I was mostly shocked by how there was a common theme to how women were terrible and men are in a lose-lose situation.  One section that completely shocked me was in The Malleus Maleficarum when they quoted Socrates: "When the philosopher Socrates was asked if one should marry a wife, he answered: If you do not, you are lonely, your family dies out, and a stranger inherits; if you do, you suffer perpetual anxiety, querulous complaints, reproaches concerning the marriage portion, the heavy displeasure of your relations..." (Kors and Peter, 185). This really shifted my view on how they viewed women back then. I mean obviously most people know women haven't been treated great throughout history but from my past knowledge I still got the vibe that there was love and families being made out of love. This reading gives off the major theme that most women are evil. I just feel like this may not have been the accurate view of all women during this time, but hey I could be wrong and all women maybe loved to be one with the devil.

Exodus 20:3-5

The whole purpose of the 22nd document very much just feels like an emphasis on the first of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt honor no other God but me", which at the time, I suppose was customary, but still very thought provoking. Examples like:


"They invoke, in as much as they sacrifice to them, adore them, offer up horrible prayers to them, vow themselves to the service of the demons, promise them their obedience, and otherwise commit themselves to the demons, swearing by the name of the superior demon whom they invoke" (p. 123). Nicolau Eymeric also goes on to state that "These acts are true sacrifices only when exhibited to God, and not to the demons".





I thought it was really interesting that, despite worshiping demons, the concept of honoring another (for lack of a better word) deity was illegitimate. Yes, it was not legal, but even in the 1300s, at least one, other religion existed. Based on evidence presented by Eymeric, these people had legitimized rituals and worshiping ceremonies for the demons, so was it as bad as it actually was made out to be, or did Catholicism just try to stop the influence of other religious beliefs?