Hope is Waking from a Dream

Sometimes you wake up and you wonder what is going on… sometimes you figure it out, sometimes you do not. Aristotle said that “Hope is a waking dream.” However, what if the dream is a nightmare, or simply just neutral… or even a wonderful dream and one’s life is bleak and dark?

If one’s life is wonderful, waking from a neutral or bad dream is hope. Yet, if one’s life is a nightmare, and the dream is good… is waking truly hope? One could argue yes in both cases, obviously the first is easy, the second, well, common sense would dictate that the dream itself is hope.

We must always remember, in either case, all is not lost. For dreams keep us alive, and in waking, we live or lives, and as long as we dream, and as long as we awaken, we live.

Today is troubling times. The economy, no matter what the economist say, is still reeling. People are still dying in Iraq and Afganistan. Genocide still exist in places like Rwanda. North Korea, who has a nuclear arsenal, continues to test fire, successfully, long range missles – as well as beef up thei rhetoric. Religions are tearing themselves apart. AT&T rigged American Idol – just kidding . However, we the people who either read this, or do not, still live, and walk in our daily lives. Do we make mistakes, of course, we are but only human, however we do have hope, for we live.

Beyond that, on a “religious” not, we have even more hope, for our trust should be in God. Do we know what is going to happen in a year… a month… a day… an hour… or even a minute… no, but God does, and in that, our hope should rest. Beyond even that, as one who believes in Christ, no matter what happens, we can rest assured that our lives are not only saved and accounted for, but also important, no matter our situation. From the highest CEO who believes, or a President who believes, or a poor priest who believes, or a mother who believes, or a poor homeless man who believes, our lives matter.

So, what is our problem? We trust in man, and we trust in ourselves… not God at times. This is not a judgement, but a simple truth. If you’re a Catholic, we must serve a penance, do good works, bow at the right times, pay indulgences. For a Protestant (hard… so many different ones), we must go to church on Sunday, we still must do good works… not for salvation, but to show it, do missionary work – evangelize, wear the right clothes, etc. If we do not do these things, at times we might be condemned, and God forbid that you sin. Yet, even sin itself has it’s on purpose – not that we should aim to sin, but sin brought us our salvation in a roundabout way through the need of Christ. The need for Christ enables mankind to live in free will, enables us to learn, and enables us to experience life. Now, this is not the optimum, but bear in mind, God new this before the foundations of the world, so do not fear, have hope, and trust in God.

Original Sin… The Flood… Baptism…

Recently I have been reflecting… beyond what I should be doing for school (summer classes suck you know what since you basically do a week in one day, and I am currently taking two classes… plus readings… again… suck [blank]) on the Flood in Genesis, and its relationship to Baptism and Original Sin.

As most know, Original Sin is a big part of Christianity, for without it, Christ would have no purpose, and therefore Creation itself would be flawed… see my previous articles on God and Evil, etc… I will link them later. However, I aks the question, what was the purpose then of the Flood.

Yes, mankind was wicked, mankind is wicked, and the argument goes back to Original Sin. St. Augustine called this sin Lust (Confessions), however, I believe our beloved theologian was mistaken.

I believe the Original Sin was “uncovering.” Thus why the Flood was insufficient in satisfying the cost of removal and redemption. What do I mean? Simple. Yes, both Eve and Adam sin… Eve was left alone… so it was possible that the serpent could reach her… i.e. Adam did not protect… or rather cover his wife. Once the LORD knew, Adam uncovers Eve (her fault) and Eve uncovers the serpent (his fault… Margaritaville???). Of course, the course of mankind continues until we reach Noah and the Flood.

I believe the Flood, itself, was a Baptism… in its truest and purest form. In fact, I believe it is here that God instituted Baptism… yes, Circumcision can be also seen… but Baptism coexisted with circumcision… therefore, to me that argument is irrelevant. Yes, liturgically, Baptism marks us as Christ’s own, but that is not the point of Baptism, the point of Baptism is to cleans, it is the point of Confirmation to mark us as God’s own, therefore, it is my belief, and argument, that Circumcision relates to Confirmation, the Baptism relates to the Flood… why?

The people of the earth were and are wicked. Yet, Noah was righteous, so the LORD decided to save him, and mankind along with him. However, God destroyed the rest of mankind in a Flood… wait… water… Baptism. This Flood… CLEANSED the earth.. not just mankind, but the entire planet of wickedness… of course we know the rest of the story… Original Sin continues.

The Flood ends… the Baptism is over… and God makes a covenant with Noah, i.e., all mankind. As we often do, man celebrates… and Noah got a little tipsy, and fell asleep naked IN HIS TENT. Ham, being the curious son, went in, saw his father’s nakedness, and reported it to his brothers, Shem and Japeth. Now, segue… Many people like to say that “seeing his father’s nakedness had some sort of sexual connotation…possible, but I do not think so… the logic behind thinking that it must be sexual is obvious… goes back to St. Augustine… the Original Sin was lust… therefore, well… though it does not say this, Ham must have “knew” his father… I highly doubt it… Semites hated homosexuality. Human sacrifice, fine… homosexuality, not so much…. so what was the sin?

He uncovered his father… its that simple. Instead of covering his father up, and keeping his big fat mouth shut, he left him naked, and not only that, he went and told his brothers… he not only left him uncovered – thus is vulnerable, he further uncovered him – to his brothers. What did his brothers do? Again, simple… went to the tent, walked in backward, took a cloth, and covered their father.

Original Sin has been defeated… it was defeated in the Flood… Christ was the New Adam, yes, but it was not Original Sin that he was defeating, it was simply man’s sinful nature… which, for Eve and Adam to eat the fruit, they had to have with them before the sin… oh wait… free will. Original Sin is not what holds us back, it is ourselves. Whats the greatest threat to the Church and her members… again, simple, uncovering. What does that mean? Again, simple, gossip, rumor – whether true or false. Instead of talking about people… we should talk to them, and not condemn them, but love them. Instead of going behind people’s backs to make a point, we should meet them face to face, or not say anything at all. Why did God have to “cover” Adam and Eve with fig leaves, because they were uncovered before each other… not just before God… we are all uncovered before God, the shame hits when we are uncovered before each other… and it is not a “righteous” shame,” but a sinful shame, for we are shamed, yes, because of our sin, but also because of another’s.

Is lust a sin, yes, so is murder… murder happened when a man, Cain, uncovered himself, and he shamed himself. However, both of these sins are by-products of the Original Sin, uncovering… for the one thing God wants us to have with Him, and each other, is relationship. You can have a relationship with lust… though I do believe St. Augustine would disagree… since he was hardly able, however, you cannot have one with uncovering.

On a personal note, I myself have been uncovered many times. However, the most recent was a daunting task, the discovery that my girlfriend was pregnant. I have not need to go in to details, for I do not wish to uncover, however, actions taken by others almost resulted in very dire consequences, and to this day, only one man, outside my family, has talked directly to me about it, to my face, or at least in a manner in which I could respond immediately, yet, more people then both myself and her not only know about the situation, have made judgments, etc. To me this is sad, and yes, to me, this is the Original Sin. I do not feel this way because of this reason, I have felt this way for a long time, for this was the one issue in which my father, Bp. John Holloway, always prided himself in, he never uncovered. I only mention this to note I have personal experience, as I am sure we all do, in this area.

JZ Holloway

Just to say…

I appreciate everyone who vistis my blog… Christians, Muslims, Jews… Believers… Atheists… and I appreciate all of you comments.

My request is simple… comment on my blog… no emails, no matter how personal… unless of course it contains a confidential matter. I will reply, and if you request a personal reply to your email, provided it, and I will comply.

I am a Marine… class of 2000, and I am proud of it. I will take any criticism, or correction on my cheek with no problem. However, if it is something I believe in… hence forth I wrote about it, I will fight, and argue… in a friendly fashion… hence why I ask you to comment on the blog, and not send emails.

I am not against any Christian denomination… well… thats not true… lol… but I respect them all. However, I believe ALL have failed to take care of their own, not just my own… I want to make myself clear, for I was charged with accusing my own denomination… the Charismatic Episcopal Church – http://www.iccec.org http://www.cechome.com with charging them with this. Is it true… we will see… so far, no, not as far as I can tell.

On a note… lastly… taking care of someone is not finacial… well.. it can be… it means being there… always… with them… supporting them, emotionally… physically… etc… It means sacrificing yourself… your time, your wants… your desires… your movies… your beer… your whatever the heck ever…. yeah… I know, I said it… I’m a little hot…. not matter what… the early Christians gave all… why can’t we???  And I am asked why not you??? I have nothing… I lost everything in  a fire… I am $1,700 to BoA (pray they go under)… over 10,000 in debt to the hospital for the fire stuff….  and I have a child on the way… Everything I have ever had I have given… thats how my father… Bp. John Holloway… taught me… and even in my nothingness… people I didn’t know gave me all… while the people who know me gave me nothing (save S+ & J)…. where is the sacrifice? I don’t see it…

Christianity – Then and Now…

I find it interesting that, in virtually every history class, book, lecture or seminar I attend, post Christ’s Ascension into Heaven, there is always some reference to some type of corruption, immorality, abuse, or controversy concerning the leadership of the Church – usually a Western (eventually Roman Catholic and Protestant) phenomenon.

Once the Christian Church “stopped” being persecuted, i.e. after the Edict of Milan (313) by Emperor Constantine, enabling Christian persons to find themselves in leadership positions, there seems to be a “never ending train of goodies” of some sort of abuse. First, going back to the Edict, heavy restrictions placed upon the Jews, greatly excepted by Church bishops. Continuing with Jews, Theodosius, once he made Christianity the Imperial religion, put further restrictions, forbidding intermarriage between Christians and Jews. Next, the “Golden Mouth Preacher,” St. John Chrysostom himself, preached eight sermons against the Jews, even calling for their expulsion and death (for they put Christ to death). The 4th Lateran Council, in all of its wisdom, ordered Jews to wear badges… Hitler anyone? With support of the Church, in the 1200’s, both England and France expelled their Jews, and in the 1400’s, Simon of Trent was called upon by people in Italy to come and do the same… with the support of the Papacy. Martin Luther, the great Reformer, in his writings, called for an attempt of conversion, but if they could not be converted, they should be killed. Of course, Jews were , for necessary, for Christians could not lend money (save the Templar Knights), so the Jews were the lenders. However, because Jews were “sadists,” they were accused of killing children in the middle ages and early Renaissance period as “ritual murder.” The claims were… by the Church and the Inquisition, that Jews required the blood of Christians to complete their rituals… wait… did not Rome accuse Christians of this same practice? Yet, it happened, causing the murder of many Jews. Some Jewish men were even accused… by Dominican Friars, of menstruating, and needing the blood of Christians, especially young boys, to cure this ailment. Of course anti-Semitism came to a for front during the NAZI control of Germany… any wonder, Hitler had read Luther, as any German or Austrian would, and its no wonder why anti-Semitism was rampant in Germany and Middle Europe, since the Protestant and Reform movements, like their Catholic counterparts, actively pursued anti-Semitic policies.

It did not stop with Jews… gypsies, Cathars, and homosexuals were also targeted by the Church… yes, some groups heretical, some living in sin, and yet, killed, by the Church. Wait… in many ways, that still happens, maybe not the body is dead (maybe it is), but the spirit is drilled by fire and sword. Do not forget the Witchcraft Craze… beginning again with an Inquisition and Malleus Maleficarum, and coming to full fruition when it was no longer popular to blame the Jews anymore (Jesus did not come back in 1000 AD, Black Death, dead or missing kids, etc) – because Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor) decreed safety and protection for the Jews – now we will blame midwives – child mortality was terrible, parents figured the midwives put curses on their children, old women (widows or single) because they lived as hermits and produced herbal remedies, beggars, because when you did not give them money and then a piano fell on your head they must have cursed you, or the all too convienent young (poor) woman, who being gorgeous (and a witch) entered your dreams as a Succubus, and “made” you “spill your seed,” thus sin, and bring down a curse one you – these women (and sometimes men) became favorite targets. Not just Catholic mind you, and not just in Europe, just read about Salem, MA. This all, including the atrocities upon the Jews, all in the name of God. All with the blessing of priests and bishops, Reformation leaders, Church councils, and even the Papacy. Do not forget, Joan of Arc… wait, St. Joan of Arc, was tried, condemned, and burned at the stake for witchcraft… the “savior” of Catholicism in France. The only reason why the Witchcraft Craze ended was because of the Enlightenment… ironic, Reason caused people, and the Church, to stop hunting down “witches.”

These are only two groups of people… how bout the faithful. Well… Indulgences ran rampant, with even Catholic scholars, such as Savonarola (burned at the stake) and Erasmus coming out against those. Others, who dared challenge the Papacy, i.e. Jan Hus, ordered to death at the Council of Constance (they were also figuring out their three popes at one time problem – because John XXIII actually wanted reform, yet he is an anti-pope, enabling the more recent John XXIII – the big guy in the picture – to reclaim the name for a true pope). Luther, if not protected by German nobles, would have met the same fate as Savonarola, and Jan Hus. All the while the Roman Church grew fat off of people’s sin and fear… oh yeah, and completed St. Peter’s, paid Michelangelo (who did not even want to do it), Caravaggio (a murderer, womanizer and a drunk), and Bernini, to rebuild Rome (thank you Alexander VI, Nicholas 5, Leo X, etc).

Next, war. The Crusades, or as my high school education would call it, “The Just Wars,” yet, it ended in “Christian” defeat… so maybe there was justice, since Christians raped and pillaged Constantinople, desecrating Hagia Sopia… but wait, its all good, the Eastern Church is anathema… Lets all smile Again, the killing of Jews and Arabs for Christ… oh, and also the Pope and the Church, let us not leave them out. Thank you Council of Clermont.

It does not stop there… there is the “Glorious Revolution,” you know, Cromwell and his hatred for Catholics and even Anglicans (and kings) in England. The war in France between Christians..err… Catholics and Huguenots (Reformed Protestants). Of course… it continues today… Ireland, Eastern Europe, all in the name of God.

Keeping with the Church of England… Henry VIII, his quest for a male heir, and because he was king, many bishops supported him – in divorce (Cardinal Woolsey) and in his decision to leave Rome… fantastic. Let us leave Rome so our king can marry another woman, wonderful decision, and we sit back, as non Anglicans and wonder why ECUSA, I mean TEC, and the whole CoE has the problems she does.

Now we come to the meat. I am not a “liberal,” nor am I a “conservative.” As one girl pointed out in a political science class one day, I am a Theocratic Socialist… to which I proudly reponded “amen.” I am against abortion and Gay Marriage (I support civil unions, after all we are a free country founded by Unitarians who did not even believe Jesus Christ to be divine… Thomas Jefferson even wrote his own version of the Gospels taking all of the divinity references out, John Adams, Unitarian, George Washington a devout Mason, etc etc). However, I found myself agreeing with Bill Maher (yes I know, scary), with both his movie Religulous and some of his other assertions, mainly of why he is afraid of organized religion, and therefore God. The Church’s mission to take care of the poor, the widow, the orphan, the sick, the lonely, the desolate, the prisoner, the slave… the Church’s mission is to serve, to be a slave to humanity, not just to each other, but to all. The Church is supposed to take care of Her own, not just itself. The Gospel – God loves you, He is not mad at you, He forgives you, and He will never leave you nor forsake you – it might be preached, but it is not followed. Wait you say.. that is God… wait I say, we are the Body of Christ, and Christ is our head, and we sit at the right hand of the Father… wait… do you see it… though not God ourselves, we are to act in his capacity, through His Grace and Mercy. Yet, we forsake each other every day, we judge, we do not forgive, we do not love. We do not only forsake the world, we forsake our own. Yeah, we will “pray” for you, and sometimes we do, often we just try to forget. When everything is great, we love ya, we smile, hug, etc, yet once tragedy strikes, we search for a way out. We will make rules and regulations, and force them upon people, yet when the Church is to be bound… sorry, it just cannot work… you know, know money, not enough people, not enough time. When the wind and the waves of the Sea of Galilee (I think that was the sea, could be wrong, it was one of them we insist on waking Jesus up instead of using the faith He has imparted in us, however, for some reason, we assume Jesus will not wake up, so we say… well… this is a “Christian” blog, cannot use that four letter word hear. Christian… no, for we do not show it in our actions. Yes, we will put on a pretty face, tell the world how great, yet humble we are… yeah, we give out food, or I gave a buck to some homeless guy, or I have a PhD from some place like Oxford, Emory, or Trinity, yet, I am not willing to give all of myself, all the while judging others, and yet ignoring… no, not the plank, but the Redwood shoved… wait again… in my eye. We say we love, we say we trust God, hell, we say we follow the Will of God, but we do not. We have not given up everything, sold everything and laid the money at the apostles feet, for our brethen. We still wear our Armani suits, drive out nice cars, have our fancy buildings, take our sweet vacations, go out to Ruth’s Cris Steak House, or some other 4 or 5 star joint. We talk a good talk, but we do not walk a good walk. It is not Sola Fide, works matter, for it is works that Christ commanded and it is works in which the apostles walked in. Will works save us, no, but I will get back to that. We cry out against abortion and “fags.” We cry out against liberals, or in some cases conservatives. We are very willing to talk about politics, or how evil President Obama is. We cry out about Rwanda, China, Venezuela. We were eager to spill the evils of Communism and Socialism (yet Peter and John were very much Socialist). We are so eager to condemn and judge, just like the Church has always been. We are so eager to rebel against “social injustice”… i.e. American “Revolution.” Yet, we cannot even see our own past, though we claim to have learned from it. We cannot even take care of our own, even when we swear and promise… make law… Canon Law to do so, claiming one excuse for another, then daring to blame the one needing to be taken care of for not being able to take care of him or her. Hypocrisy I say. Am I a Christian, no, as I have said before, I dare not say I am, for I do not walk in that path. Am I a believer, yes, and I know God’s Love, Mercy and Grace. Am I a Christian, no, and looking at those, not all, but some, who claim to be, I am proud to say I am not. As Dr. Peter J. Leithart said, (against Christianity, Canon Press 2003) – and keep in mind, he is a Presbyterian Theology Professor and ordained minister… “Christianity is the heresy of heresies”… think about it. Going back to works… Evil exists in the world to prove ones faith, but it also exists to keep other’s faith – those who should stand with you, etc. – alive… for Faith without works is dead. Works will not save us… works is what gives us a reason to live, for without works, without full and ultimate sacrifice, the willingness to give all, even in the threat of losing all, for our brothers and sisters, we all are dead. Faith without works is dead, Christianity without good and righteous works – full surrender, full sacrifice, no excuses… for no money, nor resources, no time is no excuse, for if it was, there would be no sacrifice -  is not Christianity, but a joke.

The “Decameron” and the “Book of the Courtier” – a Discovery of Society

The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio and the Book of the Courtier by Baldassare Castiglione, gave its readers insight into the period and atmosphere in which these two men lived. For Boccaccio, this was the period shortly after the plague of the Black Death in the middle of the 14^th century. This was a time in which there was great displeasure and discontentment with the European Church of Rome due to the plague. Likewise, while Castiglione was writing his work, the Roman Catholic Church was going through a crisis with the Protestant Reformation, and Europe was in the thralls of the Renaissance. The themes of The Decameron, published in 1353, surround the discontentment with the religious organization. It also portrayed people of different social classes, as well as genders, join together in their daily lives. Yet, the central theme for Boccaccio is what makes a man worthy of being respected and honored. The Book of the Courtier, published in 1528, sought to determine what made a man the perfect courtier. It also defined place of women in society. The work maintained that though a noble birth, and the trappings that go with it, such as education and social graces, the man of the court must also carry himself in a noble manner. Both works contain a type of morality, or social instruction, one attempts to blend society, while the other focuses more on the upper, noble class. Lastly, while both works place men and women together, The Decameron placed them as equals and explained the evils of those in the elite strata. The Book of the Courtier gave instructions on proper actions and decorum for those same people.

The Decameron follows ten friends, seven of which were women, three who were men, who leave Florence for the countryside in the wake of the Black Death (Boccaccio 5, 10).  Each person took turns telling a story. In total, one hundred stories were published. For ten days, each person told one story a day and each told ten stories apiece. Although the stories involved subjects and persons related to the Roman Catholic Church, they did not portray the Roman Catholic Church in a positive light. In contrast, the stories were whimsical and satirical in nature in relation to the Church and her persons. This was due to the ill will felt toward the Roman Catholic Church because of the recent plague. The Church was not able to control the disease, nor did obedience to Church authorities in relation to the plague appear to alleviate the crisis. The stories mingled peasants, nobles, Jews, monks, thieves, lawyers, pilgrims and servants and more to show the Roman Catholic Church in a whimsical and comedic light.

For Boccaccio, the key for merit and self worth of men was their works and character. Though one might have been born a noble or into wealth, it did not make this person worthy of praise or respect. By using both men and women to tell the stories, he equated intelligence, not by social class or gender, but to the person themselves. Boccaccio allowed the ten friends, both male and female, to mingle together and tell stories to each other on equal terms. Along with this, the friends were shown with equality in their intelligence and life experience. This is not consistent with the European view of the day; women were not equal to men as well as notary intelligent as men.

Throughout the narrative, by using religious figures, who, in the eyes of humanity should be holy and righteous, or in their own right noble, Boccaccio showed that even though one might supposed to be respectable, it did not mean that someone was. The first instance of this is told in the very first story. A man named Ser Cepperallo, who was dying, is able to convince a friar that he was truly a righteous man, and becomes revered as a saint (25). This man was a notary and created fraudulent documents. He willingly gave “false testimony” and enjoyed doing so (27). He asked for a priest so he could give his confession, knowing that he was a sinful man (29). He was able to procure a friar. However, once he began his confession he continued his fraudulent ways (30-36). After he died, many miracles became to be attributed him and he was declared a saint by the people (37).

In another story, Boccaccio showed again how a good man, in the service of the Roman Catholic Church, could be tricked. Along with this, he also told how a man of the Church used this trickery to act in an unrespectable mannor (216). This again showed that just because someone was a nobleman, it did not mean that this man was worthy of his title. A rich man decided to, himself, become a friar (216). Though he was married, he would not engage in carnal acts, in contrast, he would “lecture” his wife on the “life of Christ” (217). He eventually became very good friends with a monk, Dom Felice. In the progression of their friendship, he eventually introduced him to his wife (217). With this introduction, the monk lusted after the friar’s wife and noticed that the wife also lusted after him (217). The monk was able to convince the friar, Puccio, to perform a ritual of penance for forty days in which he would be away from his wife for a set period of time (218-219). He believed that this act of penance would enable him to be received into Paradise (221). While he engaged in this penance, the monk, Dom Felice, and the Friar Puccio’s wife, would engage in sexual activity, right next to the room in which the friar would be conducting his penance (220). The wife was even able to convince her husband, one night when she and the monk caused to much shaking in the floor, that the shaking was caused by her fasting (220). This story not only showed the wiliness and irreverence of someone who was considered to be respectable, but it also showed the ignorance of one who was rich and became a friar. Again, for Boccaccio, just because one was born rich or noble or because one claimed to be righteous and a servant of God, their actions and intelligence could show otherwise. Also, concerning the woman, just as with the ten friends having shared a common and equal ground with their story telling, the wife of the friar shared a common and equal ground in the sexual impropriety. Thus, this elevates her, and her actions, as well as her intelligence by being able to convince her husband, to the level of Dom Felice. Not only did it raise her level of intelligence to the monk’s, but it also raised her level of intelligence above her husband’s.

The Book of the Courtier, by Castiglione, traced the route in which a man became a perfect member of the court, and how a woman became a lady of nobility and how they both should act. Castiglione himself was a courtier, so in essence, by having written this book, he was a primary source and witness to these types of events. Castiglione comprised the work with four imaginary conversations that discussed the manner in which a courtier should act, as well as including a series of letter dedicating his work. The first, second, fourth conversations, or books, discussed what defines a perfect courtier, while the third book addressed what defines the perfect or noble lady. For Castiglione, not only must a man possess noble qualities, but he must also practice these with “a certain nonchalance,” or in his native tongue, sprezzatura (Castiglione 35, 336). Clearly written for the more noble class, the imaginary conversations took place between people such as dukes and the Medici. The Book of the Courtier, is considered to be one of the spyglasses into the court of Renaissance society.

The discussions found within the Book of the Courtier, displayed differences of opinion on what is required of a courtier. Within the narrative, the qualities accounted for perfection continue to build upon each other. In the first book, it is written that the courtier must be a warrior, strong and bold. He should also avoid cowardice (25). However, he should avoid praising himself, and instead, dress himself in the praise of others (27). Next, everything the courtier does should be done with a certain grace (32). Echoing the call for gracefulness, the courtier’s language, both in speaking and writing, both in public and in private, should avoid “faulty” words (38-39). This is illustrated by the example of whether or not it was proper to use the Tuscan language in both written and oral dialogue (40). The morality of the courtier also played a very important role. He should be an “honest and upright man” (55). This includes “prudence, goodness, strength and temperance of mind” (55). The narrative continued to expound that the courtier must be proficient in the arts, such as music and painting (62, 67).

The second book continued were the first finished. Included in this is that a courtier should be a well dressed man (100). Also, the friends he chose should be of the proper sort, and beyond this, the courtier should treat them with respect and properness (103-104). Again, this harkens back to the courtier acting in a graceful manner, and that grace should not be tainted by impropriety. The courtier should not be a drunk, or given to gluttony, nor to any other “evil habit” (113). Also, if the courtier does not have knowledge of a certain topic, he should not try to “win any fame,” but should claim his ignorance, lest he appear foolish and prideful (114).

The third book, or conversation, primarily discussed the role of women in the court and the proper way for them to act. First, the book described how the courtier and the lady of the court had qualities in common, as well as those befitting only a lady. These qualities befitting only a lady of the court included such things as her “manners, words, gestures and bearing” (173). In this, the lady should show “an air of womanly sweetness,” unlike a man being stout, sturdy and manly (173). However, like the courtier, the woman should also have a grace about her actions. Likewise, she should not be arrogant; she should be clever, prudent and should not be vain (173). Though in contrast, for the lady, beauty is more important (173-174). Also, she should have been able to entertain and converse intelligently with a man, yet at the same time not seem to overcome the man at court (174). Ironically, Castiglione, like Boccaccio, used the Roman Catholic Church, particularly its friars, to elaborate on women. By this, women were contrasted with the hypocrisy of the friars of the day (186). Certain women were placed above those men, such as the Virgin Mary, Octavia, Porcia, Caia Caelia, and Harmonia (186, 188-189). Castiglione noted that, though not equal to men, by their virtue they rose above lesser men who had no virtue.

Both The Decameron and The Book of the Courtier gave glimpses into the society of their day. While The Decameron showed a picture of simple equality between both social classes and gender, The Book of the Courtier, though seemingly egalitarian in ways, further divided society. Boccaccio, through the telling of stories by both men and woman, brought gender together. Likewise, by showing the persons of the Roman Catholic Church in the light that he did, he showed that all men and women were merely human. To be respectable, one does not need to be a noble, a cardinal, a king, or a monk; one simply needed to act in a virtuous manner. In contrast, Castiglione gave a glimpse into the life of the princely court of the Renaissance. Yes, both men and women had roles, and yes, the required virtues were similar. However, there was a stark contrast in responsibility and graceful manner. A man was supposed to be strong, the courtiers being required to be a man of war, yet graceful. A woman was to be strong and intelligent, yet never outshining the man, especially the lord of the court. Further, simply being a man was not enough. One must have had to possess noble qualities; in fact, being nobility itself was a requirement. In conclusion, the observation is that, in tragedy, such as the plague of the Black Death, men and women, peasant and noble, come together to cope with the crisis. Again, in contrast, tragedy has passed, and humanity had the ability to rest and enjoy themselves, as in the Renaissance, classes become distinct, and gender once again began to determine one’s role in society.