Tag Archives: tarah leake

Far From the Madding Crowd

Leave a reply

Tarah Leake

Far From the Madding Crowd was written in 1874 by Thomas Hardy and would prove to be his first and greatest literary success. Hardy was a devoted reader of philosophy, science, and Greek literature. Hardy struggled to find a balance between his religious upbringing and his scientific interests influenced by Darwin. In his later years, Hardy had almost completely abandoned the Scriptures and turned to science for knowledge and meaning to life. Fortunately, when Hardy wrote the Romantic novel Far From the Madding Crowd, he still had an appreciation for his religious background and incorporated Biblical values and themes. The major themes in this novel are the rejection of society, the scrutiny of vanity, and the praise of honor and humility. Biblical values are evident in the contrasting qualities of vanity and humility, displayed by Bathsheba, Sergeant Troy, and Gabriel. An evident supporting theme is love’s ability to completely change the mind and attitude of those involved as seen with all characters, especially William Boldwood and Bathsheba. In opposition to these dynamic characters, Gabriel Oak and Sergeant Troy remain true to themselves in both positive and negative ways. The first important theme of this literary work is the rejection of society represented by the title itself.

The title reveals Hardy’s values and view of society; it carries the ideology of reminiscing the “good old days.” Hardy was raised on the English countryside and had an appreciation for hard-working people and simple farm life. As he aged, Hardy witnessed a general depression of work ethic as society became more industrial and modernized. Far From the Madding Crowd illustrates Hardy’s desire to remain separate from the modern city people around him and remain true to the roots of his childhood, which he deemed much more noble. Hardy originally extracted his title for this novel from the poem “Elegy Written in a Country Courtyard” by Thomas Gray. The poem depicts a similar notion of appreciation for a hard day’s work, capturing the typical life of farmers. It is no wonder with this same appreciation for nature and farming, Hardy was inspired by the words of Gray. The line in the poem that inspired Hardy’s novel reads, “Far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife, their sober wishes never learn’d to stray; / Along the cool sequester’d vale of life they kept the noiseless tenor of their way.”

Hardy’s admiration of a virtuous life is not only evident in the title but also in the personifications of his characters. The characters depict both extremes of vanity and humility. The two main characters (and love interests of the novel) are Gabriel Oak and Bathsheba Everdene. Gabriel Oak, the hero of the novel, is a shepherd and farmer who has the greatest moral disposition of anyone. He is humble, honest, loyal, takes responsibility, and is willing to sacrifice his own comfort for that of others. He begins as a successful farmer whose love is unrequited by the beautiful mistress, Bathsheba Everdene. Even after Bathsheba refuses to marry him, Gabriel promises to drop the matter but swears “I shall do one thing in this life — one thing certain — that is, love you, and long for you, and keep wanting you till I die.” When his sheep die in a tragic accident, Gabriel knows he has lost all of his insurance and means of financial security, yet, his first thought is one of selflessness. Gabriel thanks God Bathsheba refused his marriage, because he could have never supported them financially after the accident. Hardy writes, “It was as remarkable as it was characteristic that the one sentence he uttered was in thankfulness.” Gabriel travels around looking for a job and ends up saving Bathsheba’s farmers from a fire, not knowing it is her farm. He is rewarded with an offer to work on the farm and agrees to it. As he works on the farm, he is bothered by Bathsheba’s cold treatment to her next suitor, Mr. Boldwood. Although Gabriel risks losing his job, he reprimands Bathsheba for her actions not because it benefits him, but because he truly sympathizes with Boldwood. In chapter twenty, Hardy praises the fact Gabriel knows he has no chance with Bathsheba but still restrains himself from attempting to sabotage her future relationships: “Thoroughly convinced of the impossibility of his own suit, a high resolve constrained him not to injure that of another. This is a lover’s most stoical virtue, as the lack of it is a lover’s most venial sin.”

In stark contrast to the virtue and morality expressed by Gabriel, Bathsheba is vain, cold, and self-absorbed for the majority of the novel. The first time Gabriel sees her, she is staring at herself in the mirror and Gabriel tells the gate guard the woman has one fault, vanity. When Gabriel comes to ask Bathsheba’s aunt for her hand in marriage, her aunt warns that her niece has several suitors. Bathsheba cruelly chases after Gabriel to tell him this isn’t true, which Gabriel takes to mean she is interested in him. Then she denies his proposal, clarifying she only meant to tell him “nobody has got me yet as a sweetheart, instead of my having a dozen, as my aunt said; I hate to be thought men’s property in that way.” Bathsheba goes on to say, “A marriage would be very nice in one sense. People would talk about me, and think I had won my battle, and I should feel triumphant… I shouldn’t mind being a bride at a wedding, if I could be one without having a husband. But since a woman can’t show off in that way by herself, I shan’t marry.” Bathsheba reveals the extent of her egotism by this remark; the only part she likes about a wedding is how much attention she would receive but doesn’t want the love or commitment associated with it. As if this does not wound Gabriel enough, she refutes his vow to love her forever by harshly retaliating with the statement, “It wouldn’t do, Mr. Oak. I want somebody to tame me; I am too independent; and you would never be able to, I know.” At this time, she is poor and has not yet been given the farm, yet she still carries a haughty attitude and thinks herself too independent for any simple man.

Another major suitor for Bathsheba is the eligible bachelor, William Boldwood. The name suggests his reserved, wooden persona as he is a difficult man to please; every young woman who has tried to woo him has failed. However, Boldwood’s heart is quickly captured by Bathsheba’s beauty and wealth, and when she sends him a valentine for personal amusement, Boldwood falls completely in love. Boldwood expresses how Bathsheba, without realizing it, has changed his entire mindset: “I had never any views of myself as a husband in my earlier days, nor have I made any calculation on the subject since I have been older. But we all change, and my change, in the matter, came with seeing you. I have felt lately, more and more, that my present way of living is bad in every respect. Beyond all things, I want you as my wife.”

Not only does Bathsheba unwillingly enact a change in Boldwood, but this gentleman also awakens a change within her. Instead of reacting sharply, Bathsheba’s heart “swelled with sympathy for the deep-natured man who spoke simply … She had a strong feeling that, having been the one who began the game, she ought in honesty to accept the consequences.” She even admits to Boldwood she never intended for this to happen and she is “wicked to have made [him] suffer so.” Boldwood is quite disheartened and goes away somber and lost. Hardy writes the “realities then returned upon him like the pain of a wound received in an excitement which eclipses it, and he, too, then went on,” depicting the common trend of one’s heart betraying its owner in this novel. Gabriel had thought Bathsheba’s pursuit was an act of love and Boldwood had thought the valentine one as well. These were far too optimistic notions as Hardy cynically writes, “The rarest offerings of the purest loves are but a self-indulgence, and no generosity at all.” Bathsheba begins to crack under the realization of how she has hurt so many others. She even lowers herself enough to work on the farm alongside Gabriel and asks him for his opinion concerning her conduct with Boldwood. Gabriel scolds her for having tricked Boldwood with the valentine and rebukes her character, calling it “unworthy of any thoughtful, meek, and comely woman.” At this comment, Bathsheba turns red and follows Gabriel’s insults with a few of her own, instructing him to leave the farm by the end of the week. Gabriel remains calm and promises to be gone by the end of the day. Bathsheba puts up the front of being strong and offended by his disrespect for her as a boss, but on the inside, she is deeply saddened because she cares about Gabriel’s opinion of her, even if she doesn’t want to. Shortly after Gabriel leaves, Bathsheba must completely humble herself and beg for his return because the sheep are dying and he is the only one who can heal them. At first, Gabriel refuses to help and her farmhands tell Bathsheba she must use more delicate language with him. She struggles to lower herself to him, but she cannot bear to see the innocent animals suffer (another mark of progression in her character). When she sees Gabriel riding up on his horse, she runs to him and reprimands him saying, “Oh, Gabriel, how could you serve me so unkindly!” Author Thomas Hardy clarifies, “It was a moment when a woman’s eyes and tongue tell distinctly opposite tales. Bathsheba was full of gratitude.” After saving nearly all the sheep, Gabriel rejoins Bathsheba’s crew upon her request.

The final suitor Bathsheba encounters is the reckless and proud Sergeant Troy. They have a flirtatious relationship together and Bathsheba allows him to kiss her and take her on a date, which she would have refused entirely in the past. However, Sergeant Troy is a poor person for Bathsheba to relinquish her independence to and Hardy writes, “When a strong woman recklessly throws away her strength, she is worse than a weak woman who has never had strength to throw away.” Hardy is once again revealing how the haughty rich are undeserving of love, while the honest farmer is far more virtuous. Gabriel and Boldwood know of Troy’s reckless past with the now pregnant and abandoned Fanny Robin. They are concerned and decide to confront Bathsheba about her infatuation with this undesirable man. Bathsheba is crass with Gabriel and refuses to listen to him. She attempts to fire him again, but he refuses to leave for her own safety. When Bathsheba hears others gossiping about her relationship with Troy, she is furious and orders them not to discuss her personal life. She claims she loves Troy but then proceeds to burst into tears as she realizes she has completely lost herself.

Bathsheba finalizes her feelings for Boldwood in a letter clearly expressing her disinterest in marrying him; however, Boldwood cannot let her go. Bathsheba is frightened by Boldwood’s obsession and his threats to bring misery upon Sergeant Troy. Bathsheba defends Troy’s honor and begs Boldwood not to hurt him, but Boldwood is blinded by his jealousy. Bathsheba would have once found it amusing to have men fighting over her, but she is now wrecked with worry and guilt of a possible quarrel ensuing on her behalf. Boldwood offers Troy money to leave or at least honor Bathsheba by marrying her. Troy plays along for a while but then reveals he and Bathsheba are already married. Troy has cruelly humiliated Boldwood and proceeds to lock him out of the house all night. Troy boasts about the secret marriage and patronizes the farmhands. Gabriel sees problems arising in the marriage and sympathizes with the miserable Boldwood. Troy gets all of the male farmhands drunk, demonstrating Troy’s recurring pride and lack of responsibility. Gabriel slips out and realizes there is a terrible storm coming; he is again the hero and single-handedly saves all of the crops and animals from the rainstorm. The only one who comes to his aid in the downpour is Bathsheba. Once again, Bathsheba admits her personal struggle with relationships, seeking approval and guidance from Gabriel. She confesses she did not mean to marry Troy and did so in a state of “jealousy and distraction.” Gabriel cannot form an appropriate response and asks Bathsheba to go inside and rest.

As the marriage ensues, Bathsheba is miserable due to Troy’s irresponsibility with their money. Troy reacts with the cold and immature response, “You have lost all the pluck and sauciness you formerly had.” One day, Troy encounters a woman who turns out to be Fanny Robin, alive and breathing. Troy recognizes her and offers money and shelter, but he swears to Bathsheba he has no idea who this woman is. Shortly after this encounter, Fanny gives birth to Troy’s child, but both she and the baby die in the process. Rumors spread quickly and Bathsheba desires the advice and guidance of Gabriel alone. Despite the crass whispers surrounding her, Bathsheba takes it upon herself to oversee the burial of Fanny and her child, demonstrating a huge growth in maturity and virtue. Sergeant Troy demonstrates his first moment of weakness and remorse as he looks in the coffin of his lawful wife and child; Troy confesses everything to Bathsheba. He tells her he is a bad, black-hearted man, admitting Fanny is his wife in the eyes of God and “I am not morally yours.” Bathsheba spends the night outside; Troy is gone in the morning.

The following months involve Bathsheba believing Troy drowned himself and she relinquishes the farm to Gabriel as she is weakened by the previous events. This surrendering of her main source of income demonstrates her trust and confidence in Gabriel. Boldwood attempts to regain Bathsheba’s love and again asks for her hand in marriage, proving his insane persistence in winning her love. Bathsheba goes to Gabriel for advice worried that if she refuses Boldwood again, he may lose all hope for living; she says this “in a spirit the very reverse of vain” for she is grieved and troubled by it, displaying regret of her past attitudes toward people. Gabriel tells her honestly “the real sin, ma’am in my mind, lies in thinking of every wedding wi’ a man you don’t love honest and true.” In the past, Bathsheba would have been outraged by this comment, but she now simply replies, “That I am willing to pay the penalty of.”

The story comes to a close with Boldwood hosting a suspicious Christmas party, at which he murders Sergeant Troy. Troy had meant to remain hidden, however, when he hears of the possibility of Boldwood’s proposal, he decides to attend the party in disguise. Even in his last moments, Troy is self-obsessed and physically clutching Bathsheba, claiming her as his territory. After committing murder, Boldwood goes into temporary hiding and is sentenced to death by hanging. Gabriel, once again in his infinite compassion, requests the courts to reconsider the case, which results in Boldwood’s pardon. Gabriel and Bathsheba admit their love and decide to get married. Gabriel’s humility has clearly rubbed off on Bathsheba as seen when she requests “the most private, secret, plainest wedding that is possible to have,” an obvious antipode to her narcissistic personality at the beginning of the novel. She has learned the painful price of sitting in the constant spotlight with other lives revolving around her own. Many characters failed to adapt and recognize their faults, and in Troy and Boldwood’s case, they paid the ultimate price for their stubbornness. However, the pure light in Gabriel’s heart is enough to open Bathsheba’s eyes to her sinful ways. Bathsheba no longer desires to be the talk of the town; she is content to be far from the madding crowd with the man she loves.

The Immorality of Capital Punishment

Leave a reply

Tarah Leake

Let’s imagine tomorrow morning you receive a call your beloved brother has been arrested for murder. After vigorous trials, your brother is found to be guilty and is sentenced to death. Let’s also assume the evidence appears valid, as though he has in fact committed the accused crime. How many of you would cease to love your brother? Despite the action he is accused of committing, would that be enough to completely extinguish your love and compassion for a member of your family? More importantly, how many of you could be the actual individual to pull the lever or inject the drugs into your sibling’s system that stops his heart? How many of you could extinguish the life of someone you love? Someone born of the same flesh, someone raised in the same home, someone cradled by the same mother. How many of you could easily and unalterably remove life from someone you used to share life with, share clothes with, share friends with? You may think this has no connection to capital punishment, but it has everything to do with it; in the eyes of Christ, everyone is our brother.

Capital punishment is not a new idea; it has been present in societies since ancient times. However, public opposition of capital punishment did not surface until the 1700s. Capital punishment laws were instituted as Europeans began to settle in America and the colonists retained many of these laws. During the eighteenth century, a group of Americans began to speak out in opposition of the death penalty, believing it morally and politically wrong. Benjamin Rush, a physician, country founder, and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was among this group. Rush wrote several essays throughout the late 1700s denouncing capital punishment and calling for it to be outlawed. In one essay, entitled “Abolish the Absurd and Unchristian Practice,” Rush wrote, “I have said nothing upon the manner of inflicting death as a punishment for crimes, because I consider it as an improper punishment for any crime. Even murder itself is propagated by the punishment of death for murder.” He was stating here the very act of punishing murder with death was proven to actually propagate (or promote) more killing in society.

Italian philosopher and criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote an essay in 1767 titled, “Of Crimes and Punishments.” Beccaria wrote there was no excuse or justification for the intentional killing of a criminal and commented the system was an “example of barbarity.” After years of working in his chosen field, Beccaria had come to understand “the punishment of death has never prevented determined men from injuring society” and therefore, he advocated a system of lifetime imprisonment he believed would be a “much more powerful preventative than the fear of death which men always behold in distant obscurity.” Thomas Jefferson was inspired by the writings of Beccaria and attempted to pass a bill that would limit the use of capital punishment only in response to murder and treason; however, his bill was defeated by one vote.

In the early part of the nineteenth century, several states revised their death penalty laws. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey abolished public executions. By 1849, 10 other states followed after them. Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty completely except in cases of treason. Tennessee and Alabama broke away from their fellow states by enacting discretionary death penalty laws, giving them the right to choose whether a convicted person should die or not depending on circumstances. In 1895, a total of 18 states enacted these discretionary laws. The 1900s gave rise to the Progressive Era when revisions of federal law were abundant. By 1917, a total of nine states had abolished the death penalty. The Prohibition created an unfortunate setback in the crime rates of America. By 1933, the homicide rates had nearly doubled since 1915. Because of this increase in crime, support of capital punishment escalated dramatically. In the 1930s, more criminals were put to death than any other decade in American history. The steadfast support of the death penalty continued until the 1960s when anti-death-penalty movements became popular. Since then, disputes persist within the country whether the use of capital punishment is justified and should be performed. Since November 9, 2016, thirty-one states in America retain the use of capital punishment, and nineteen states have eradicated this system of punishment. These nineteen states have acknowledged the moral indecency of utilizing capital punishment, however several states and individuals are still blind to its dishonorable components.

I will now define some terms that will be discussed frequently in my paper so you may have an accurate interpretation of the arguments I wish to convey. I will be using “capital punishment” and “death penalty” interchangeably because they represent the same legal process. Merriam-Webster defines capital punishment as “punishment by death: the practice of killing people as punishment for serious crimes.” As I go on to argue the death penalty is immoral, I am discussing morality on the basis of Merriam-Webster’s definition of moral, which states, “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.” I will specifically argue on the basis of biblical ethics and morality expressed in Scripture.

What does this have to do with you? Loving your brothers and sisters does not mean never letting them face punishment for their sins. In fact, Revelation 3:19 states, “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.” However, is capital punishment a moral act of loving, biblical discipline? — I do not believe so. The truth is this topic applies to all Christians, because God calls us, without excuse, to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). If Christians desire to love God with all of themselves and glorify Him, then they must love their neighbors. Because the death penalty does not exemplify a spirit of loving one’s neighbor as I will later discuss, it should not be supported by Christians. Even non-Christians may see the immorality of the death penalty through the following arguments.

My thesis is capital punishment should be considered immoral in the eyes of Christians. I will defend this statement by confirming three points: the system devalues human life by utilizing cruel and unusual punishment, prevents a chance for the salvation and restoration of prisoners, and is unsupported by the Bible in light of the New Testament. I will then refute three counterarguments: capital punishment is morally justified through due process of law, capital punishment is morally practical because it has served as a successful crime deterrent for centuries, and capital punishment is justified by the laws of the Old Testament.

My first confirmation argument is capital punishment devalues life by utilizing cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. “Cruel punishment” suggests something that causes undue pain, stress, or anxiety. The definition of “unusual punishment” is continually modified by the government to suit the evolving standards of decency the world declares as appropriate. This can make it difficult to judge whether a punishment is moral. For instance, it was once considered appropriate, but now considered cruel and unusual, to punish by the flaying of skin, crushing by an elephant’s foot, or the breaking of one’s back repeatedly. No matter the evolving standards of decency, punishment is considered cruel and unusual when it causes unpleasant and embarrassing pain that devalues human life. The devaluation of life is directly connected to human dignity, which is negatively affected by emotional devastation through humiliation, lack of respect, and abasement in front of public, family, or friends. These individuals are criminals, but according to the law, that does not make them any less human and they deserve to be treated as such.

In Supreme Court case Glossip v. Gross, Justice Breyer stated “the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment.” Breyer asserts the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment and should be prohibited by the government. In this same case, the state’s expert claimed the first administered drug would make “virtual certainty” inmates do not feel pain caused by the second and third drug. However, there is a term in the medical world called the “ceiling effect,” which represents the optimal effect of a drug. Once a specific limit is reached, any additional administration may produce negative side effects. This means although the first drug in an execution is meant to prevent the potential for intense pain, this is only plausible if it is administered properly. Most states have adopted a three-step protocol of sodium thiopental to cause unconsciousness, a paralytic agent, which inhibits muscular movement and causes respiratory arrest, and finally potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest. David Waisel, an associate professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School, discusses the most common anesthetic drug used in executions, midazolam, and claims “mounting evidence suggests that midazolam does not anesthetize inmates during executions, as shown by movement and difficulty breathing long after injection.” When Kenneth Williams was executed in Arkansas in May of 2017, several witnesses reported movements that indicated Williams was not unconscious after midazolam was administered. His “head began rocking forward and back,” and his chest “began convulsing up from the table.” A few moments later the convulsions became increasingly violent and “there was an audible cry of pain.” Four minutes into the execution, Williams was still struggling and “repeatedly clenching and unclenching his jaw.” This was not a random case but has been seen multiple times and has become almost predictable in the system today, Waisel remarks. In the execution of Clayton Lockett in 2014, the IV was administered improperly, causing the initial anesthetic drug to enter into the inmate’s system at far too low a rate. It was recorded the “physician determined that Lockett was unconscious,” but after the second and third drug were administered, Lockett began to move and speak. He claimed to be in an extreme amount of burning pain, a result of the second and third drugs, which cause the body to shut down. Waisel expresses the effectiveness of the first drug is imperative for the process to be considered humane. He goes on to say the drug must have “rapid onset so that the inmate does not go through an extended period of difficulty breathing and to block the burning pain of potassium chloride.” Since the current system of capital punishment continues to utilize midazolam, despite medical studies displaying its lack of effect, the system remains inhumane. Even if the drugs could eliminate pain, the process of taking a life as punishment is still immoral as I will discuss in my following confirmations.

My second confirmation argument is capital punishment prevents a chance for the salvation and restoration of prisoners. I recently had the opportunity to attend a Prayer Breakfast hosted by several Virginia legislators. The guest speaker was Reverend Eric Manning, who serves at Emmanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina where the horrific mass shooting took place. I was absolutely struck with the amount of love and mercy he had after everything his church endured. He made an outstanding comment I believe is essential to daily life as Christians: “When we acknowledge that we are all sinners saved by grace, we have no need to be hostile or hate.” While capital punishment does not prevent prisoners from hearing God’s word, it does hinder their willingness to accept the message and use the rest of their life for the better. Bishop Dominick Lagonegro of the Chaplains Apostle Committee frequently visits death row inmates and stated, “it is extremely challenging to bring hope when there is no room for rehabilitation.” Even those placed in prison for brutally killing another person are sinners equal in God’s eyes, saved through Christ’s blood, and deserve to hear the Good News of forgiveness and salvation. By neglecting to show mercy and sentencing these individuals to death, we miss an opportunity to be used by God to alter the direction of their lives. We can have a positive influence on prisoners by aiding in their restoration and acknowledgment of being a chosen child of God.

Another issue with capital punishment is its prevention of restoration when innocent lives are taken. Utilizing life imprisonment instead of the death penalty can not only allow prisoners a better opportunity to find Christ and receive spiritual salvation, but also physical salvation when wrongly accused. Here are two examples of cases where an individual went to prison for a murder they did not commit. Thankfully, death penalty was not inflicted and they were able to continue their lives.

On February 17, 1987, Michael Morton was convicted of murdering his own wife and sentenced to life in prison. In 2011, DNA was retested on the bloody bandana and the DNA was found to match a convicted felon named Mark Norwood. Norwood had been found at the scene of the murder of Debra Masters Baker, who had been murdered in the same method Morton’s wife had. Debra was murdered 2 years after Morton’s wife was, while Morton was in prison. Michael Morton was released in 2011 after spending nearly 25 years in prison. Upon further investigation by the Innocence Project, it was also discovered that the judge had concealed evidence that could have initially proven Morton innocent. This judge served a sentence for criminal contempt and resigned from his position as district court judge, permanently surrendering his law license. In this case, a judge made a personal judgment to conceal evidence, which only succeeding in forcing an innocent man to serve 25 years for the murder of his own wife. Thankfully, Morton faced life imprisonment and not the death penalty, so when his innocence was discovered he could continue to live out the rest of his life.

When Marvin Anderson was only 18 years old, he was wrongfully convicted of rape, robbery, abduction, and sodomy. After spending 15 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, he was paroled in August, 2002. Four years later, the Innocence Project discovered new DNA evidence and he was finally proven innocent. Marvin was the 99th person exonerated in the United States due to post-conviction DNA evidence. Today, he serves as Chief of the Hanover, Virginia Fire Department and an active Innocence Project Board Member, helping other wrongfully convicted prisoners get their lives back.

These men were given a second chance at life, because their innocence was discovered, but this is not the case for all prisoners. Innocent people have lost their lives for crimes they have not committed. As Christians, we have no excuse not to make every single effort to save any lives we can. Life imprisonment allows for discoveries of innocence and the possibility of spiritual restoration and salvation. Not all prisoners will come to Christ, but if we could save just one, it would be worth it. If a bus filled with children was going to drive off of a bridge tomorrow to certain death and you had the chance to save at least one child, would you not try? The same applies to our world. We are all heading off a bridge to eternal death because of sin. Not all will find God before they die, yet Christ chose to die on the cross for every one of us. If God loved the world enough to sacrifice His son, how can we refuse to love these prisoners? How can we execute them and withhold the love and compassion Christ showed us? Even making a small shift from execution to life without parole, could give prisoners the extra time they need to prove their innocence or to find God and be used for His glory.

My final confirmation argument is the current application of capital punishment is unsupported by the Bible in light of the New Testament. Although the death penalty is often mentioned in the Old Testament, it is not mandated in the New Testament. Because the New Testament gospel of grace is meant to fulfill the Old Testament practices, it is worth questioning whether capital punishment is valid today or only appropriate within the context of the Old Testament covenant. Christ’s death on the cross took the place of all sacrifices and fulfilled the old covenants of law, thrusting the world into a new relationship with the Lord. His death made it unnecessary to execute persons to maintain human dignity, because his crucifixion and message established human worth and value forever. Christ’s sacrifice relieves us of eternal, spiritual death as expressed in Hebrews 9:14, which states, “How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God.”  Ephesians 2:14-16 conveys Christ’s sacrifice also relieves us of the physical laws of the Old Testament and hostility itself shall be dead: “For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing hostility itself.”

Just as God gifted us with an opportunity to receive forgiveness for our sins through love and repentance, Christians should likewise mirror God’s love when approaching crime. When reciting the Lord’s Prayer, people ask God to “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” As he suffered on the cross, Christ called out, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). Christ asked his Father to forgive those who willingly tortured, whipped, stabbed, and killed him. If Christ can find forgiveness in His heart for these citizens, how dare we cast forgiveness to the side in our own lives? Keep in mind I am not arguing no one should ever face punishment for their actions; forgiveness is not the same as neglecting safety for society. I am arguing punishment does not have to mean a permanent execution of life.

The first counterargument I will refute is capital punishment is morally justified through due process of law. Those embracing this argument claim the Fifth Amendment is moral justification for capital punishment, because it guarantees everyone due process of law; therefore, each person convicted of murder and sentenced to death is rightly deserving of it. Justice Scalia argued the Fifth Amendment is the constitutional basis for capital punishment because, “It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital…crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,” and no one will be “deprived of life…without due process of law.” Joseph Blocher, Professor of Law at Duke University, explains if the Fifth Amendment were to be used in moral defense of the death penalty, “the Court would have to first reject the ‘evolving standards of decency’ and embrace an especially strict ‘originalist’ approach to cruel and unusual punishment that it has consistently rejected.” What Blocher means by this statement is the current methods used in capital punishment do not meet the standards of decency the government has established in the Eighth Amendment, because it has become “cruel and unusual.” Christians may not conform to the idea of “evolving standards of decency” due to our beliefs in moral absolutes, however, this argument does demonstrate the government itself cannot use the Fifth Amendment as justification since the process no longer adheres to its own stated guidelines. Justice Brennan, when discussing the Fifth Amendment, stated, “it merely requires that when and if the death penalty is a possible punishment, the defendant shall enjoy certain procedural safeguards, such as indictment by a grand jury and, of course, due process of law.” This means the Fifth Amendment provides the right for people to be punished by death, if the process meets specific standards, but does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. Once again, I am not claiming if the process was humane, it would be biblically moral. I am stating the entire argument of the Fifth Amendment as justification for the death penalty is invalid because the process does not meet the standards the Amendment requires. Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons stated, “By protecting even those convicted of heinous crimes, the Eighth Amendment reaffirms the duty of the government to respect the dignity of all persons.” French President Jacques Chirac stated in an address to America, “You are well aware of the European Union’s determined stand on the abolition of the death penalty. It is based on the conviction that this penalty is contrary to human dignity.” The cruelty of capital punishment methods today, recognized by some countries, cannot continue to be ignored by others on the supposed moral basis of the Fifth Amendment. Individuals must understand the validity of the Fifth Amendment as a moral basis for capital punishment is only appropriate in light of other Amendments which protect human dignity. Because capital punishment devalues human life and dignity as explained by my first confirmation, the Fifth Amendment cannot be used as moral justification for the death penalty by anyone, including Christians.

The second counterargument I will refute is the concept capital punishment is morally practical because it has served as a successful crime deterrent for centuries. The first problem with this argument is the assumption if something has been “successful” throughout history, it is morally just. If past effectiveness was the sole determiner of morality, we would still be promoting slavery, sexist prejudices, and child labor. These acts viewed as immoral and dehumanizing today were once seen as completely acceptable and even biblical in the eyes of some of their advocates. Arguments stating capital punishment is practical for today’s world on the basis it was utilized “effectively” in the past hold no real significance for judging the morality of capital punishment according to the true word of God.

The second problem with this argument is its dependence on capital punishment being an effective crime deterrent, while statistical data disproves this concept. Since 2000, the effect of incarceration on the crime rate has been essentially zero. Increased incarceration only made up 6% of the reduction of crime in the 1990s and today accounts for less than 1% of the crime decline. When comparing crime rates in states with capital punishment and those without, The Brennan Center for Justice concluded, “Based on empirical analysis [real world data and results, not concepts or theories], this report finds that increased incarceration at today’s levels has a negligible crime control benefit.” The Brennan Center adds, “In line with much of the past research, this report finds that the use of the death penalty has no significant effect on crime…The same is true for the effect of the use of the death penalty on homicides specifically.” Professor John Blume of Cornell University Law School found states which have abolished capital punishment “by and large have lower murder rates than states that retain capital punishment.” The most notorious killers, such as Bundy, Gaskins, and Gacey, committed their crimes in states with active death penalties, and as Blume points out, “The threat of capital punishment, in short, was no deterrent to them.”

The final counterargument I will refute proposes capital punishment is justified by the laws of the Old Testament. Many Christians and Jews alike refer to the books of the Torah and Pentateuch as “God’s Law,” because they contain the Mosaic law. Believers often use arguments stating the Mosaic Law explicitly calls for the use of the death penalty for certain crimes. The verses most often quoted in support of the death penalty are Exodus 21: 23-25, Leviticus 24:17, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Exodus reads, “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Leviticus reads, “If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth…Whoever kills a man must be put to death.” Deuteronomy reads, “Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” After reading these verses, it would logically follow the Scriptures support capital punishment. However, one must read beyond these verses to understand the context.

The biggest problem with this belief is that in the New Testament, God clearly releases man from the bond of the law through Christ. In Matthew 5:17, Christ affirms, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Christ, the Son of God incarnate, directly references the verses from the Old Testament used to justify capital punishment in his New Testament ministry in Matthew 5:38-39; Christ instructs, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil.” Christ restates a law of the Old Testament and follows with “but I say to you” showing this is not an addition to the law but a replacement. There is more to our walk with God than law.

In 2 Corinthians, Paul condemns those still blinded by the law of Moses and points us to Christ: “But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:14-17). In Galatians 3:23-26, Paul explains the death of Christ has replaced our need to obey the Mosaic Law: “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” The laws in the Old Testament were not meaningless in their time, but now through Christ we no longer must obey them.

As Christians, we must be careful not to allow ourselves to be blinded by law and neglect a personal relationship with the Lord and our fellow brothers and sisters. Someone using the laws of the Old Testament as moral justification for capital punishment is in danger of getting caught up in Pharisaical thinking, picking and choosing the scriptures which suit their needs and ignoring the redemptive truth of the New Testament. Even if one were to completely ignore the work of Christ and insist on obeying the laws of the Old Testament, he or she would be forced to apply the laws to all aspects of life, not just capital punishment. According to these verses, every act against a neighbor must be returned to him in the same way. The government would have to blind everyone who has blinded, steal from everyone who has stolen, hit anyone convicted of a hit-and-run with a car­­­—where does it end? This form of “lawful punishment” would certainly classify as “cruel and unusual” and reach an inevitable state of unethical and immoral basis well beyond where it currently is. The argument the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament justifies the use of capital punishment is clearly refuted by the New Testament covenant secured by the death of Christ.

Many argue the death penalty not only punishes a criminal act but also provides “justice” and “closure” for the families of victims. I wish to clarify what people truly desire from this punishment. Through capital punishment, many are blinded by their hatred and grief and desire to see the assailant suffer themselves for their actions. This is not justice nor closure, but the desire for revenge. Christ warns the life of hatred toward enemies makes people no different from the very ones they hate:

You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (Matthew 5:43-47)

Although the Old Testament seems to be characterized by lawful instruction more than mercy and love, Leviticus 19:18 still warns readers that “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” Loving someone and expressing forgiveness does not suggest an endorsement of lifestyle or choices. God chose to hate the sin not the sinner, and we have no excuse for refusing to do the same. No one is perfect and therefore none is justified in condemning his brother. In Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus instructs his followers to remove the log in their own eyes before ordering their neighbor to remove the speck in his or her eye. Jesus insists in John 8:7 that those who are without sin may cast the first stone. God himself can determine all fates because he alone is just and perfect. James 4:12 warns, “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” Christians will argue the Bible is contradictory and there is no obvious argument for, nor against capital punishment. However, God is clear in His word how He desires us to treat other human beings no matter what they’ve done. Bishop Dominick Legonegro remarks, “Every human being possesses a basic dignity that comes from God, not from any human quality or accomplishment, not from race or gender or age or economic status. Human life is inherently precious.”

After these arguments I have both made and refuted, you may still wonder if it is even possible for Christians to act on this realization of capital punishment’s immorality. One remarkable woman set a standard with her Christ-like love. Mark Bingham was one of the many to die in the Pennsylvania plane crash of September 11, 2001. His mother, Alice Hoagland would have had every right to hate the al-Qaeda members responsible for this but this is not what she did. Alice argued against the death penalty for Zacarias Moussauoi, a member convicted of helping plan the attacks. Hoagland stated, “We Americans have the opportunity to demonstrate our compassion toward a man who has shown no compassion for America. We are a nation of laws, of justice, and of mercy. By sparing his life, we can demonstrate our humanity by acknowledging the humanity of a man who badly needs compassion.”

One could not present a better example of the kind of love Christ calls us to. As Jesus hanged on the cross, a criminal suffering the same punishment asked Him for forgiveness. Jesus answered, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).  Today.  Not tomorrow. Not after you check off this list of good deeds. Moments before death, Christ found mercy in His heart for a guilty and impure man. My fellow Christians, we have no excuse.

The question becomes, what can you do with this information? How can you demonstrate your Christ-like love and compassion? The best way you achieve this is by aiding in public awareness of the immorality of this system. This can include donating to non-profit organizations such as the Innocence Project, The Center for Justice and Reconciliation, and the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty that work towards freeing those wrongfully convicted, rehabilitating and witnessing to prisoners, and ultimately eliminating the current, inhumane system. You can start a ministry group in your church designed to spread awareness of injustice of the death penalty. You can witness to and serve prisoners for it is written, “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did to me’” (Matthew 25:40).

Look to your left and right. God calls you to love the people sitting next to you, everyone in this room, everyone on this earth, every person with a heartbeat as if he or she is your biological brother or sister. If you could not pull the switch, inject the drugs, or turn your back on the brother or sister you love so dearly, you should not be capable of doing that to any human being. Do you honestly believe your personal vendetta, flawed legal system, or fabricated practicality of this system morally justifies terminating the life of your brother or sister? If you could follow through with this immoral execution with no remorse or regret for the life you’ve taken, then please ask yourself what makes you any different from the very criminals you seek to kill? “Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, ‘Execute true judgment, and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother’” (Zechariah 7:9, KJV). Capital punishment is not the enactment of true justice; it is the legitimization of our personal retaliations. Without a doubt, capital punishment should be viewed as immoral in the eyes of Christians.

Bibliography

Blocher, Joseph. The Death Penalty and the Fifth Amendment. Vol. 111. Northwestern University Law Review. Joseph Blocher, 2016. PDF.

“Capital Punishment.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 06, 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capital%20punishment.

“The Cases — Marvin Anderson.” Innocence Project. Accessed February 15, 2018. https://www.innicenceproject.org/cases/marvin-anderson/.

Glossip v. Gross. 14US7955. June 29, 2015.

Guernsey, JoAnn Bren. Death Penalty: Fair Solution or Moral Failure? USA Today’s Debate: Voices and Perspectives. Twenty-First Century Books, 2010.

Lentol, Joseph, Helene Weinstein, and Jeffrion Aubry. The Death Penalty In New York. Report. Assembly on Codes, Judiciary and Correction. New York City, NY, 2005.

“Michael Morton.” Innocence Project. Accessed February 15, 2018. https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/michael-morton/.

“Moral.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 06, 2018. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral.

Parks, Peggy J. Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime? In Controversy. San Diego, CA: Reference Point Press, 2010.

Roeder, Dr. Oliver, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Julia Bowling. What Caused the Crime Decline? New York City, NY: Brennan Center For Justice, 2015.

Waisel, David. “The drugs we use for executions can cause immense pain and suffering.” The Washington Post, May 11, 2017. Accessed January 17, 2018.

Religion in British Literature

Leave a reply

Tarah Leake

A popular theme in British literature exemplified during Anglo-Saxon era, the Medieval era, and again in the Neoclassical era was that of religion. During the Anglo-Saxon era, life was heavily affected by the threat of conquest and war as seen through the Norman Conquest. Possibly because of the lingering presence of death, people gravitated toward old, recited tales and religious works. Christianity helps spread literature, and oral traditions unite groups of people. A popular piece of literature from this era is the Junius Manuscript, which is similar to today’s well-known Message Bible. The manuscript contained a poetically-rephrased account of Scripture passages and lessons. Editors have titled the four sections of the manuscript “Genesis,” “Exodus,” “Daniel,” and “Christ and Satan.” The first three express poetic adaptations of the popular Old Testament narratives. The fourth division of text combines several New Testament occasions, both real and prophesied, which feature moments of Christ’s victory over Satan. This compilation helped artistically capture God’s word in a way that had not commonly been done until then.

Another example of Old English literature was that of the monk, Bede, known more commonly as The Venerable Bede. He authored many works that helped frame a religious outlook on the occurrences of this world and provide moral instruction. Religion’s influence in British literature did not cease after the Norman invasion; it continued into Middle English, better known as the Medieval era.

The Medieval era brought an even stronger focus on religious devotion and instruction. As the Crusades began to take shape, Christians were expected to prove their obedience and loyalty to God. People would not be willing to sacrifice their lives for God’s will if they could not understand exactly what His will was. Illiteracy was common in these times, especially regarding the complex text of Scripture. Wishing its authority to thrive, the Church began to instruct its members through morality and miracle plays making it far easier to comprehend for those who could not read the word themselves. The Church was not alone in its pursuit of righteousness; several other works of literature focused on cultivating positive, moral habits although not necessarily religious ones. An example of this is Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. This ballad proposed many moral notions such as hospitality toward others, loyalty in friendship (to the point of sacrificing your life for another’s), and steadfastness in one’s promises.

As the Church gained power and influence, it became naturally susceptible to corruption, as any institution would be. When the institution that should display the highest levels of integrity and morality, as they taught to others, began falling into the deceit of wealth and power, an English poet and author would take note. Geoffrey Chaucer, author of The Canterbury Tales, came from a religious upbringing and Catholic school. When he was older, Chaucer became an esquire to King Edward III and rose up to the point of engaging in a few diplomatic journeys on the King’s behalf. Chaucer’s experience not only allowed him to be awakened to the crime and extortion within the government, but his religious childhood also contributed to his ability to identify the fraud happening within the Church. In The Canterbury Tales, Chaucer uses the traditional style of oral storytelling to convey his disapprovals of the lack of morality in society. As the pilgrims tell their stories, some characters seem to have no purpose while others seem to represent either moral characteristics Chaucer praises or fraudulent, hypocritical ones Chaucer detests. He especially focuses on those in the Church who are bribed with money and more concerned with women than helping people, such as the Friar and Pardoner. Chaucer however does acknowledge the Church is not completely devoid of good people, as seen with the Parson, who is decent and dedicated to his congregation. However, it is not difficult to perceive Chaucer had a fairly condescending view of the Church.

Religion in British literature reappears during the Neoclassical era roughly two hundred years after Chaucer’s tales are published. The Neoclassical era brings about the Age of Enlightenment and with it a dramatic shift in society’s focus to glorify man. The Age of Enlightenment emphasizes reasoning and logic as being the most powerful aspects of mankind. Man arises on the highest pedestal and this requires mankind to unite and harmonize since they are the most perfected and intelligent species. Although it should unite the masses, instead the Age of Enlightenment causes a division in the people as those considered more intelligent and logical view themselves higher than the rest. The entirety of the government’s role shifts from being less consumed with regulating its populace and more concerned with protecting the rights of man and property. This shift demonstrates a need for God’s reality more than ever. Authors and poets alike begin dedicating works to bringing the light of righteousness back into their people’s dark hearts.

Mankind was completely consumed with itself, so an obvious demand for humility and reassessment asserts itself. Author John Milton steps in and answers this call for a reevaluation of values in life. Milton starts at the beginning of time with his famous epic poem Paradise Lost. Through Paradise Lost, Milton wishes to accurately express the story of how man fell so far from God’s grace and transgressed his will for a bite of fruit, and how Jesus offered himself in man’s place. Although Milton does utilize creative freedom, he depicts the events in Scripture in an easily understood and conceivable manner, without at all discrediting the intended message. Paradise Lost benefits readers of any century by helping to identify just how imperfect man is and how fortunate he is Christ took God’s wrath in his place. One can only imagine the illuminating impact this book would have had on a people whose society was overtly captivated by exalting human will, a complete contradiction of religious morals and God’s will.

In 1749, roughly eighty years after Milton published Paradise Lost, Samuel Johnson wrote a poem entitled “The Vanity of Human Wishes.” In this poem, Johnson illustrates the futility of the carnal pursuit of greatness and happiness in this material world. He compares well-known, wealthy figures in society with commoners and scholars. He explains no matter what social class someone thrives in, everyone experiences disappointment and dissatisfaction in life because everyone is human. This world will never completely please mankind because it was not created for that purpose. This example of Johnson’s work is heavily influenced by Old Testament values and Ecclesiastes’s chapter one message of the downfalls of vanity. Throughout the early 1750s, Johnson reached his career climax writing over two hundred entries of his famous periodical, The Rambler. As the title suggests, his writings were often random in style and topic, but he clarified that no matter what topic he discussed, it would be centered on stimulating wisdom in readers with a tone consistent with God’s word. Johnson’s wise, straightforward expression of the importance of eternal value over earthly value would have been especially significant for those alive during his time of the Enlightenment. Unfortunately, much of his work would not reach popular levels of interest for years to come.

God’s will shall be done no matter what humans decide they want to happen. Each time mankind has slipped away from God’s set morals and laws, He finds a way to call them back to Him. The beauty and intrinsic value of literature is simply one of the many avenues for God to reach His people, as seen through His inspired, written Scripture. When faced with the threat of death and war, God offered his promises for Christ’s victory and goodness in the Junius Manuscript and the writings of the Venerable Bede. When the centuries uncovered a side of both Church and man that was bloodthirsty and power-hungry, God gifted individuals like Geoffrey Chaucer, John Milton, and Samuel Johnson with spiritual vision. Chaucer recognized the bribery spreading throughout the Church prevented them from placing God’s will above all else as they should. As the Enlightenment blinded humanity with false goals of personal success and material happiness, John Milton creatively captured the essence of God’s undeserved grace provoking an admittance of humility within its readers. Johnson, inspired by his wife’s religious devotion, used his poetic insight to convey to people that no matter the social class every person is composed of the same ingredients and all will experience defeat in this broken world. Mankind simply cannot glorify itself and its own needs, because everything about this world is flawed and imperfect.

In the midst of chaos and moral obscurity, God never abandoned His children, working through the incredible works of British authors and poets to answer the calls of His people.

Bibliography

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396584/obo9780195396584-0145.xml

https://www.biography.com/people/geoffrey-chaucer-9245691

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Samuel-Johnson

“Broken Curses” and “The Princess and the Curse”

Leave a reply

Melissa Yeh and Tarah Leake

For their Honors English task, Melissa and Tarah created their own fairy tale in two versions: Melissa told it in the traditional style, and Tarah told it in a contemporary Disney fashion.

“Broken Curses,” Melissa Yeh

In a quiet kingdom just beyond the distance, there lived a princess.  She possessed all the characteristics of an ideal maiden; she was beautiful, graceful, and as delicate as a flower.  At least that is what the kingdom painted her to be.  In all reality, she was just as any other girl.  The only difference was the tragic turn in her life.  At sixteen, a dreadful curse fell upon her, a misfortune resulting in the devastation of the king and queen.  Two years.  That is what her disease entitled her to.  Fully aware of everything that had suddenly become of her life, the princess paused, furrowing her brows, closing her eyes, and then sighing deeply.  She decided she would simply accept it and make the most of it.  However, the king, queen, and the rest of the kingdom thought differently.  They became overly sensitive around the princess, putting up masks of synthetic happiness in attempt to comfort her. The entire kingdom pitied her, all except two people.  These two were her handmaid and a blacksmith’s apprentice.

Although to anyone else they were royalty, a servant, and a commoner, to themselves, they saw three of the closest friends, inseparable to all costs.  The trio shared all secrets and kept all secrets.  The friendship rooted from as young as little children to all the more closer for those last two years.  The princess’s life was beginning to close, and the other two felt it as well.  They spent their final years going the distance, ignoring forced sympathies that had become ritualistic chants lacking emotion.  They followed only the setting sun on the horizon, leaving worries and regrets in the last room.

This time they had wandered into the forest just beyond the castle walls.  The boy apprentice held a sword he had recently finished making, swinging it around as if in a dance, cutting through the wind.  The maid sat on the ground against the trunk of a tree watching the boy.  The princess perched herself above the maid on a tree branch near the edge of the cliff with a view of the whole kingdom before her.  She was staring into the afternoon sky.  The sunlight filtered through the leaves and the branches, scattering spotlights here and there.  She marveled at the warmth of the sunlight mixed with the coolness of the shade.  Silence, absolute silence between the three slowed time, the kind of silence that held comfort.

“Remember,” the princess began, still looking at the sky, “the rose cake?”

The maid glanced up, and the boy lowered his sword, both smiling.

—

A very young princess enters the scene, along with a young maid in training, both the same age.  The princess had snuck out once again, this time, climbing out of a castle window.  After running through the streets, they had stopped at the sight of an enormous rose cake.  As if in a trance they were drawn to it immediately.  The delicacy and the fragrance tempted the young girls.  The maid then shook her head, grabbing hold of the princess’s arm.  Just as they were about to leave, a boy spoke behind them.  Startled, the two girls spun around facing a boy they had never seen before.  The young maid prepared for the girls’ escape, should the boy call out. To their surprise, he waltzed up to the enormous cake, which, when compared next to each other, were about the same size.  He stood up on his tiptoes, taking out three chunks of the dessert.  He proceeded to shove one of them into his mouth, while holding the other two out to the princess and her maid.  The girls turned toward each other, hesitated for a moment, then grabbed the cake from the boy’s hand.

After a little while, the three were sitting on the floor lost in laughter and cake.  The boy asked for the names of his new friends, and when the princess told him, he nodded and continued as he had no clue the princess was right beside him.  An hour later, the baker came in with a couple and found the children asleep on the ground, curled up next to each other.  He nearly fainted from the fact the wedding cake had been half eaten, and also from the fact the very princess of the kingdom had somehow appeared in his bakery.

—

“Then the castle guards brought me in as if I was some horrendous criminal,” the boy recalled.

“You couldn’t stop crying for three hours,” the princess added in laughter.

“I had to explain everything to the king and queen for you,” the maid mentioned, shaking her head.  She stopped and leaned forward,  “Do you remember the bear?”

—

The princess at the age of twelve sat staring at the field outside the castle library distracted from the book she had in hand.  Her maid was seated across from her, focused on her story.  Out of nowhere, the boy appeared in front of them, a sly grin painted across his face.  At once the girls dropped their novels, jumping up to accompany the boy on each side.  That day they secretly went backstage of the traveling circus that had been visiting the kingdom.  They roamed through the tents meeting and casually talking to the members.  Eventually they found themselves in the area with all the animals in their cages, where no one else seemed to be around.  They stood up close to the metal bars, watching the different behaviors of the animals, completely fascinated.  Each animal seemed to amaze the three children more than the last one.  Approaching one corner, they noticed a cage was empty.  At first they joked around: the princess stood inside the cage, pretending to be an animal, until the maid noticed a sign hanging off sideways on the other side.  Peculiarly, the words had been faded and three lines were marked across the words.  It resembled a claw.  She squinted, her stomach dropping as she realized it read: bear.

The boy, who stood next to the maid, also recognized the words on the sign.  He heard a low growl behind him and saw the princess’s eyes completely widen.  Immediately he grabbed the maid’s hand and dragged her into the cage with the princess, shutting the door.  The trio backed to the far end, farthest from the large brown bear clawing at the cage.  They clung to each other, each quivering in absolute fear.

Eventually, relief flooded through them as they heard multiple voices behind the bear, luring it away from the cage.  The men that appeared, halted, shocked to see the princess and two others had been trembling in the bear cage at a circus.

—

“After that we agreed never to enter a circus again,” she noted.

All of the sudden, the princess swung forward, falling off the tree.  The boy rushed forward, just in time to break her fall; he leaned her against the tree as she had fainted.  She was sweating and feverish, though she had showed no signs of it before.  The maid dropped to her knees checking her forehead.  Looking up urgently, she felt the princess’s breath become slow and start to fade.  But the boy and the maid did not move an inch.  For this situation had happened before.  The first time, they darted back to the castle with the princess in the boy’s arms.  A few minutes later she was back to normal.  The next time they were in the library, when the princess passed out; yet before the physician even arrived, she had returned to normal.  The same happened another time, then another, then almost every week.  The trio, however, refused to acknowledge that any day now, they would lose her.  For losing her meant losing a part of them, a relationship broken and never to be repaired again.  Their souls were woven together and tightened through the fact that she was quickly going, but at the same time would completely wreck them in the process.

They waited. Five minutes went by.  Then ten went by.  The boy began pacing to and from the tree, back and forth between the sunlight.  “We should take her back to the castle,” he said restlessly.

“This happened last time,” the maid insisted, holding the princess’s hand tightly.

“I don’t think we should stay here, I mean, better safe—”

“You’re just overthinking it.”

“Perhaps you’re underestimating it.”

“Are you giving up on her, then?”  The maid stared, making direct eye contact with him.

“Giving up?” the boy frowned.

“Can’t you wait just another moment?  Or are you just waiting for the moment she finally gives?” the maid snapped.

“How could you assume that?” his voice rose in anger.  “I don’t want this any more than you do, but we can’t do anything about it and—”

“We should be trying to do something about it.  We’ve ignored it for long enough.”

“We’ve gone over this.  The princess specifically decided no one would try to look for a cure; she knew this was inevitable.”

“You would just sit there uselessly without even trying to solve the problem whatsoever?”  She got up on her feet, facing him with the princess in the grass in between them.

“You would disrespect her wishes?”

“Listen to yourself, talking as if she has already left us.”

“Yet you talk as if deaf to everything that has been going on.  It’s pointless, your words are only a maid’s speculation,” he finished, sharply.

The maid looked crestfallen.  “As if someone like the princess would acknowledge someone as lowly as a blacksmith’s apprentice.  To think that must be the only reason you’re here; if I had this curse, no one would give a second look,” her voice cracking as she felt anger and heartbreak rush through her body.

The boy raised his hand and slapped her across the face.  “You’re right,” he hissed, making direct eye contact with her.

The maid completely drowned out all other rational decisions.  Noticing the boy’s sword next to her, she snatched it up with both hands.  Only seeing red, she plunged the sword deep through the boy.  Her stomach plummeted as she looked up to see the princess’s face.  The princess’s face, stained with tears, displayed disappointment and sorrow.  Realizing what she had done, the maid let the sword fall from her hands.  She had been right; the princess’s collapse was just like any other time.  When the princess awoke to hear the argument and see the sword, she pushed herself in time to shove the boy out of the way.  The boy cried out in agony when he saw the ailing princess and what the maid had done.  The boy noticed the princess begin to fall backwards over the cliff.  In an attempt to save her, the boy grabbed her arm to pull her back.  However, it was too late, as he misjudged the distance, sending both of them over the cliff, plunging down a long drop.  The maid reached her hand out, screaming and sobbing.  Her head collapsed into her hands.  The curse had broken.

“The Princess and the Curse,” Tarah Leake

Once upon a time there was a beautiful kingdom called Merryland. All those in the kingdom were pleasant, kind folk. All helped one another and sought to bestow no harm. None was fairer than the young princess, Evangeline. Evangeline was anything but selfish and carried no hate in her heart. Her two closest friends were Millie, a maid of the castle, and Will, a boy apprentice. The three were the best of friends, but Will always cared for Millie in a fonder way. However, he was far too shy to mention it.

One bright day in Merryland, a sudden darkness enveloped the kingdom.  The people, frozen in fear, heard a stern voice call from the skies. A shapeless figure declared, “Within one year’s time, before the princess of your kingdom turns sixteen, she shall die at the hand of one she trusts the most.” The darkness dispersed. The frantic Merrylanders ran to the palace to seek comfort and explanation. The king assured the people the princess would be protected and never harmed. The people felt calmed, but Evangeline feared the worst.

And so, Evangeline was kept locked away in the palace for one year. She was not permitted to leave nor accept visitors. Even Millie and Will were prohibited from seeing their dear companion. Millie and Will made several attempts to sneak into the castle and see Evangeline, but time and time again they failed. After a while, Millie and Will accepted the fact they might never see Evangeline again.

Evangeline trusted no one, for the threat had made her paranoid. She refused to eat food made by any cook she knew the name of. She refused her music lessons, her father’s goodnight kisses, and her mother’s lullabies. Evangeline shut herself away from everything and everyone, for she was destined to die at the hand of someone she loved. This rejection and fear had upset not just herself, but her mother as well. The beloved Queen Elvina fell ill and tragically passed in her sorrow.

The night before Evangeline’s sixteenth birthday, Millie and Will sat in the fair forest and shared stories of their time together. The three met when they were simply toddlers running around the palace courtyard. Millie was one year older than Evangeline, but that made no difference. They spent every moment together as if they were sisters.

—

On a bright spring day, the adolescent Millie and Eve were playing when suddenly they discovered a rose cake. It was a beautiful cake made for a beautiful couple. Young Evangeline cared not to whom it belonged, rather, she went for a bite. Millie grabbed her arm and with a stern glance proclaimed, “We can’t eat this. It’s not for us!” Suddenly, a third voice was heard from behind the shadows, “Sure it is!”

“Who’s that? Who’s there?” Millie inquired. A young boy stepped into the light.

“I’m…” he paused and looked at the names on the cake, “Groom.” He finished.

“Really, you’re name is Groom?” Evangeline giggled.

“I’m Bride,” Millie began to play along, “Look here is a cake for ‘The Bride and Groom.’ That must be for us!” she declared. The three began devouring the cake, when in walked the baker and King Gregory himself. Outraged, King Gregory made the three apologize to the baker. Millie, however, had to scrub the bakery from floor to ceiling. The three were friends ever since, but Will always noticed that when they got into trouble, Millie would receive stricter punishments from the King. King Gregory never seemed to be fond of Millie, but Will figured the King wasn’t fond of either of them.

—

“Ahhhh yes,” Millie sighed. “I remember the rose cake.”

“That wasn’t even as much fun as the fair!” Will continued.

—

When Evangeline was twelve, she requested Millie, Will, and herself be allowed to attend a fair in the neighboring kingdom. King Gregory, cautiously, agreed. The three ran around, giving the nanny a frightful headache. They had sweets of all kinds and saw things they’d never seen. At one point, they found themselves by an open cage and the nanny was nowhere in sight. Evangeline stepped inside the cage and began acting like an animal. Will joined in, but Millie stood staring idly at the sign on the cage. It was old and scratched up, but she could barely make out the words, “B-Be-Bar….”

“BEAR!” Evangeline screamed. Will grabbed Millie’s arm, pulling her into the cage, and closing the door. The bear clawed at the children between the bars. Millie looked at Will in amazement and gratefulness. “Thank you,” she whispered, withholding her tears. Will smiled and Evangeline continued screaming until someone came and lured the bear away and freed the kids.

—

“I was so scared,” Millie recalled, “but somehow you made me feel safe.”

Will smiled, “That’s why we’re such good friends. We always look out for each other.”

“We can’t just sit around!” Millie exclaimed. “It is Evangeline’s birthday, and she is just as much our friend!”

“You’re right,” Will prompted. “We have to find a way into the castle to see her.”

“I think I know how…” Millie smirked.

Millie’s mother was the head maid at the castle and was a beautiful and loving person. Millie and Will had not asked for her help before because they couldn’t bear to get her in trouble, but tonight they had no such worries. Millie explained to her mother they simply had to celebrate Ev’s birthday. With a concerned smile, her mother let the friends into the castle. They entered the kitchen and Millie explained she could climb up the laundry chute into Evangeline’s bedroom. Millie’s mother warned the children to be careful, for there were extra guards, since this was the forsaken night. Millie climbed up the chute and Will followed behind.

Millie reached the top. The room was dark and she could not focus her eyes on any one thing.

“Evangeline?” she whispered quietly, “are you here?” Suddenly, a quick, piercing pain shattered through Millie’s lungs. The lights turned on and Evangeline stood holding the dagger.

Will hopped out of the chute, “Happy Bir…” he stopped staring at Millie’s body on the floor. He collapsed. “Wh…How could you do this?!” Will screamed at Evangeline. She was staring, in shock of what she’d done.

“I’m…I’m sorry…I was so worried and I heard someone coming up the chute…I didn’t think it would be you two!” Evangeline cried. King Gregory and the guards came rushing in along with the servants, led by Millie’s mother, Wendolyn. She screamed at the sight of her beloved daughter.

“You monster,” she screamed, not at Evangeline, but at King Gregory, “This is all your fault!”

Everyone turned to look at the King for a due response. “Evangeline, Will, there’s something you need to know….” Wendolyn’s voice shook while her hands curled into fists.  She explained before Evangeline had been born, the king was in love with her. When Millie was born, the king had already been engaged, so he rejected Wendolyn and his illegitimate daughter and made them servants in his own castle. The curse was meant for his daughter, the eldest heir to the throne. The kingdom assumed it was Evangeline, but by blood the curse fell to young Millie.

—

The King looked down, ashamed of his actions, and admitted Wendolyn’s story was true. The guards took King Gregory to the jailhouse, for it was a terrible crime to lie in the kingdom of Merryland. Evangeline cried while holding her sister’s hand. Will looked at Wendolyn, “Is there anything I can do?” he begged, but Wendolyn shook her head.

“True love’s kiss!” Evangeline shouted. “Will! You must. True love’s kiss breaks all curses and evil.” Will was silent with wide eyes. “Come now,” Evangeline grinned, “I’ve been friends with you for too many years not to pick up on these things. Please, Will, you are her only chance.” Will held Millie’s head and stroked her long, blonde hair. He leaned close to her young, porcelain face.

“Millie,” he whispered, gently, “Come back to me,” and with a kiss more romantic and powerful than any had seen before, Millie’s porcelain skin returned to her sun-kissed color, her cold, blue lips became pink and plump, and her green, sparkled eyes opened.

“How could I ever leave my true love and best friend?” she smiled. The whole event was explained to Millie and the kingdom. Evangeline reformed her friendship with the two, and Evangeline and Mildred co-ruled the kingdom with more grace and kindness than any other before. At age eighteen, Queen Mildred and Will wedded, demanding a rose cake with “Bride and Groom” written on it for the wedding. Merryland was at peace once more. The three companions were together at last. And all lived happily ever after.

Cinderella

Leave a reply

Tarah Leake

Written by (among others) the Brothers Grimm, the story of Cinderella has survived for decades. About one hundred twenty-five years later, Disney produced a film based on the Grimms’ tale. Today, Cinderella presents a beautiful princess who marries a charming man and lives happily ever after. However, this story is not to be taken casually; rather, the telling of Cinderella’s family, trials, and outcome holds intrinsic educational value for the real world. In both versions, characters demonstrate inverse and similar characteristics, themes of humility and judgment transpire, and symbolism is apparent.

After her mother dies of ailment, young Ella is lost in a world with her dreadful stepsisters and stepmother. She is treated awfully and forced to sleep by the fireplace, covering her in cinders and deriving the nickname, “Cinderella.” Even after this, Cinderella remains humble and grateful for what she does possess. The stepsisters and stepmother, on the other hand, are selfish and arrogant. In the Grimms’ tale, when Cinderella’s father goes to a fair, he promises to bring back gifts for the girls. The stepsisters request dresses, pearls, and jewels. Cinderella, however, simply asks for the first branch that knocks off her father’s hat. This demonstrates Cinderella accepts her life and is not concerned with obtaining carnal, materialistic desires. When the stepsisters are preparing for the ball, Cinderella helps them with their hair and dresses instead of focusing on herself. This shows maturity, because the stepsisters would never help Cinderella prepare for the ball; they treat her like a slave, and yet she still offers up her assistance.

The stepmother is conceited and demanding. She places her personal satisfaction above others’ needs. She marries Cinderella’s father, not because she loves him, but rather she loves his money. She does everything in her power to eliminate competition for the prince’s hand in marriage; in her mind, forcing Cinderella to stay home and do chores confirms the choosing of one of her daughters. This shows the stepmother recognizes Cinderella’s elegance and feels threatened by it. Disney makes a point of highlighting the stepmother’s extreme jealousy of Cinderella’s beauty and her hatred of the young girl. The Grimm Brothers demonstrate this hatred by the stepmother’s constant attempt at the humiliation of Ella. When Cinderella asked if she could go to the ball, the stepmother reprimanded her for even considering going to the ball looking as vile as she does. The stepsisters assumed their mother was trying to help them; however, once again the stepmother was conceited and wanted her daughters to marry the prince so she could be recognized and respected. The stepmother was also quite demanding and cruel in both stories. According to the Grimm Brothers, the stepmother poured lentils into the hearth and told Cinderella she must pick all of the lentils out if she desired to go to the ball. In Disney’s story, she forced Cinderella to cook all of their meals, do their laundry, and clean the house. Even with how dreadful she treated Cinderella, Cinderella never disrespected her. Not only was the stepmother demanding of Cinderella, but even to her own daughters. In the Grimms’ tale, when the messenger arrived with the golden shoe looking for the owner, the stepsisters’ feet were too large. The mother was so determined to have her daughters marry the prince, she forced them to cut off parts of their feet so the shoe would fit, finishing with the cruel demand to swallow the pain. This is far removed from anything Cinderella would do especially to her own children. This shows, yet again, the inverses of characters’ morals in this classic.

Along with these varying morals and aspirations, two major themes are scattered throughout the story: sacrifice and judgment. Self-sacrifice was seen with the stepsisters when they brutally removed portions of their body in order to be accepted by the prince, which proved useless in the end. Cinderella made self-sacrifices by choosing to be humble and respectful to her stepmother and by choosing to help the stepsisters with their dresses rather than make her own. This theme pairs perfectly with Christ’s words in Mark 10:45, “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The second major theme is judgment. The stepsisters’ hearts were full of arrogance and conceit, and they were judged accordingly. The Grimm Brothers describe the haunting event where the stepsisters’ eyes were plucked out by the bird on Cinderella’s shoulder during the wedding. Judgment is not always bad, simply a conclusion based on one’s choices. Cinderella was humble, kind, and a servant to others and was ultimately rewarded for her actions. The Bible often announces the rewards of humility and kindness; James 4:10 says, “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.” Proverbs 22:4 explains the wages of humility are riches, honor, and life. This is applicable to eternal life as well: Matthew 20:16 says, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.” In the end, the sacrifices and responses of Cinderella were judged accordingly, and she was granted a beautiful life and husband. The stepsisters and stepmother, however, who desired only to please themselves, paid the ultimate price in the end.

The use of symbolism is frequent in both versions of Cinderella. In many ways, Cinderella represents a Christ-like attitude. She was rejected and terribly punished in her own home, yet continued to serve others with love, willingness, and humility. Christ also came to the world to serve others and demonstrate love and humility even when persecuted. When the stepsisters arrived at Cinderella’s wedding in the original, they desired to befriend Cinderella so they could share in her wealth and recognition. They attempted to beg Cinderella for forgiveness, however, Cinderella ignored the sisters, and the once beautiful girls lived in pain and blindness the remainder of their lives. This is symbolic of people in the world who choose to neglect God’s word and live out their carnal desires. When the bird removed the sisters’ eyes, Proverbs 30:17 comes to mind. It reads, “The eye that mocks a father, that scorns an aged mother, will be pecked out by the ravens of the valley, will be eaten by the vultures.” Just as Cinderella ignored the sisters, so will Christ ignore the evil on the Day of Judgment. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 reads, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” Matthew 7:23 reads, “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Another example of symbolism is the likeness of Cinderella’s relationship with her stepsisters to the Biblical story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Luke 16:19-31 describes the story of how a rich man mistreats poor Lazarus. When both men die, the rich man calls up to Lazarus from Hell and requests just a drop of water to quench his thirst. Likewise, in the story of Cinderella, the stepsisters were tormented by their judgment and sought refuge in the very individual they disgraced. The final demonstration of symbolism is the false promises of the stepmother. Three times the stepmother promised Cinderella permission to attend the ball as long as she completed her tasks.  Each time, however, Cinderella was met with rejection and disappointment. This represents how Satan can promise individuals their innermost desires in exchange for something else; however, he never fulfills his agreements and many are left disappointed like Cinderella.

Although written during different centuries and varying in minor details, both the Grimm and Walt Disney versions share similar values and lessons. Cinderella is often regarded as a light-hearted fairytale with the classic happy ending; however, when truly analyzed, it outlines many real-life applications of consequences and judgment, humility and reward, and biblical symbolisms. Cinderella showed humility and respect in the presence of cruelty and arrogance. The stepsisters chose selfish desires over good morals and were judged accordingly, spending the rest of their lives as cripples. The stepmother was the epitome of jealous hatred and conceit, the opposite of Cinderella’s gentle nature. Elements of the story symbolize the rewards God honors the humble with, judgment upon the wicked, and deceitful promises of the Devil. Cinderella is not simply a fairy-tale for children; rather it is comprised of moral lessons that individuals of any age can benefit from.

Bibliography

BibleGateway.com: A Searchable Online Bible in over 100 Versions and 50 Languages. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.

“Cinderella.” Grimms’ Fairy Tales. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. <https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/grimmtmp/016.txt&gt;.

“Cinderella’s Story — Disney Princess.” Disney Princess. Disney Entertainment. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. <http://princess.disney.com/cinderellas-story&gt;.