Who Was Raphael Holinshed?

Raphael Holinshed (1529-1580) was an English chronicler who wrote the Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland. He was a source of material for Shakespeare in an age where there were no copyright laws. There is almost nothing known about Holinshed. During his time, there was the printing press and it seems Holinshed was hired to compile histories or stories from what is now Great Britain. It is unclear how Holinshed compiled the stories. Did he sit in a pub and listen to stories? Did he travel from county to county talking to commoners? Did he sit in a library and chase vague facts that he could then spin? In age with no internet and no real fact-checking, it doesn’t seem likely that the stories were matched too closely with reality. For Shakespeare, that didn’t matter.

I think of Holinshed as similar to the Brothers Grimm, who collected stories from commoners and nobles alike. Grimm attempted to be objective and were scholars of linguistics. There goals weren’t creative or political. They were collectors. I assume this to be true of Holinshed as the stories on Scotland and Ireland were grappled with by the Privy Council. Some stories were considered harmful to Queen Elizabeth and pages were removed. If Holinshed was engaging in complete fabrication he would have been more careful politically.

What I find interesting is how potent the Chronicles were to Shakespeare. It would be like picking up a book on the history of the USA or England now and creating masterpiece after masterpiece and winning the Nobel Prize and other literary awards. This should be a lesson to writers, inspiration can come from anywhere.  

Who Were the Picts?

The Picts were people living in what is now Scotland during the Late Iron Age and Ear Medieval or Dark Ages. Linguistically, they are similar to the Celts. Hadrian’s Wall protected Romanized Britain from the Picts. The Picts eventually merged with the Gaelic kingdom of Dai Riata. This became known as the Kingdom of Alba and this became known as Scotland. The word Picts derives from the Latin word, Picti, which means to paint. Apparently, the Picts painted themselves, usually in blue, before battle. The Picts competed with the Gaels. There was a struggle to assert dominance over the Britions. The Picts came to the throne of the Dai Riata. When the Vikings began their raids of Britain, the Picts were in the front lines and struggled to protect not only the Picts but the Kingdom of Alba. The Picts also set up various kingdoms in throughout modern day Scotland and Orkney.

The Venerable Bede suggested that the Picts had matrilineal kingship. The Picts practiced farming and lived in small communities. They had livestock and grew cereal crops and vegetables. One such vegetable was skirret, which is now uncommon. The Picts also had wool for clothing and flax.

The Picts did not have a good relationship with the Romans and the raided Roman British encampments. The Picts practiced polytheism but the Pictish nobles eventually converted to Christianity. Pictish art and writing appears on stones that exist in the modern era. The Pictish language is extinct. It is believed it is closely related to the Brittonic language, which predate the Anglo-Saxons. It became replaced by Gaelic. At one point in the Dark Ages, all people of Alba adopted a form of Gaelic, they became known as Scots and the Pictish culture became forgotten. Pictish is not a German language similar to Old English. It is also not believed to be an Indo-European language. Pictish is believed to be an influence on on modern Scottish Gaelic.

So why do we need to know who the Picts were? The Picts are relevant to the King Arthur myth or reality. The Romans built Hadrian’s Wall, in part, to keep the Picts away. When the Romans left, after the sacking on Rome, the Romanized Britons were in danger of being attacked by the Picts and the Saxons. Not to mention the Scots in Ireland (confusing, right?). King Arthur was the charismatic leader who could cull forces and defeat all the threats to a Romanized England. The Picts were seen as barbarians just like the Saxons. The Picts were fierce warriors who were defeated by King Arthur. That is, if King Arthur actually existed. 

Sweating Sickness

If you are a student of Tudor England or a viewer of TV shows and movies depicting the Tudor period, you may have heard of the sweating sickness. It was a disease that killed some of Henry VIII’s friends and court members and it ravaged parts of England in a manner similar to the bubonic plague though in far less numbers.

The sweating sickness began in 1485 and the last outbreak occurred in 1551. The onset of symptoms was swift and people could die within hours of contracting it. Scientists are unsure exactly what it is or where it came from but it is believed to be similar to the hantavirus. The symptoms were as follows: apprehension, cold shivers, giddiness, headache, severe pains, exhaustion. After the shivers, a period of extensive sweating would occur, which led to delirium and intense thirst. There would also be intense sleepiness and then death though some recovered but this did not seem to offer immunity.

There are theories the disease was brought from France when Henry VII returned with his troops to gain the English throne. However, some historians think it dated back to Richard III. It has been thought poor sanitation might have caused or spread the disease. Physicians during the time of the outbreak noted the symptoms and found it similar to typhus. It was also believed that King Arthur, Henry VIII’s brother and Catherine of Aragon’s first husband, might have died from the sickness. The disease spread to Ireland and killed Lord Chancellor, Hugh Inge. Henry VIII was very concerned and left London during an outbreak and switched residences repeatedly during that time. The sweating sickness was last seen in 1578.

The sweating sickness is depicted in The Tudors, in Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel, in The King’s Curse by Philippa Gregory. 

Tudor Period Food Recipes

Ever wondered what they ate in Tudor England? Here’s a few recipes from the cooks at Hampton Court Palace:

Gooseberry Tart with Saffron Pastry

TO MAKE A TART OF GOOSEBERRIES

Take goseberies and parboyle then in white wine claret or ale, and boyle withall a little white bread, then take them up and drawe them through a strayner as thick as you can, with the yolkes of five Egges, then season it up with suger, halfe a dishe of butter, to bake it.

TO MAKE SHORT PASTE FOR A TARTE

Take fine flower, a little faire water, and a dish of sweete butter, and a little saffron and the yolkes of two egges and make it thin and tender as ye may.

Apple Sauce for Roast Pork

PIGGE SAUCE

Take halfe vinegar and half Vergis, a handfull of percely and sage chopte very small, a pomewater shredde very small, then take the gravie of the pigge with sugar and pepper and boyle them together.

French Toast

PAYN PUREUZ

Take faire yolkes of eyren, and try hem from the white, and drawe hem thorgh a streynour; and then take salte, and caste thereto; and then take manged brede or paynman, and kutte hit in leches; and then take faire butter, and clarefy hit or elles take fressh grece and put hit yn a faire pan and make hit hote; And then wete the brede well there in the yolkes of eyren, and then ley hit on the batur in the pan, whan the buttur is al hote; and then whan it is fried ynowe, take sugur ynowe, and caste there-to whan hit it in the dissh. And so serve hit forth.

Lamb Stew with Chicken and Raisins

FOR TO STEWE MUTTON

Take a necke of mutton and a brest to make the broth stronge and then scum it cleane and when it hath boyled a while, take part of the broth and put it into another pot and put thereto a pound of raisins and let them boyle till they be tender, then strayne a little bread with the Raisins and the broth all together, then chop time, sawge and Persley with other small hearbes and put into the mutton then put in the strayned raysins with whole prunes, cloves and mace, pepper, saffron and a little salt and if ye may stew a chicken withall or els sparrowes or such other small byrdes.

Salmon and Fig Fish Pies

NESE BEKYS

Take Fygys and grynd hem wel; then take F(re)yssche Samoun and goode Freyssche Elys wyl y-sothe, and pyke out the bonys, and grynd the Fyssche with the fygis and do there-to pouder Gyngere, Canelle; and take fayre past (of) Floure and make fayre cakys ryth thinne, and take of the fars, and lay on the cake and close with a-nother, then take a Sawcere, and skoure the sydis and close the cake, and Frye hem in Oyle, and if thou wolt have hym partye, coloure hym with Safroun, Percely and Sawndderys and serve forth for a gode fryid mete.

Mary and Elizabeth: No Guile and Sly

The relationship between Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I was less than straight forward. Mary had resentment to the baby Elizabeth. Her mother helped destroying their father’s relationship with Catherine of Aragon. Mary disliked Anne Boleyn and refused to recognize her as queen. Anne got Henry to remove Mary from court. Mary had already been living near the Welsh border in a castle with her own court. When Elizabeth was born, Mary’s court was dissolved and she was moved to Elizabeth’s home and was required to attend the new baby. Mary was supposedly not treated well in this new household. When Anne was executed, Elizabeth was downgraded to a lady and she and Mary were both removed from the line of succession. Mary, however, never showed cruelty to Elizabeth and she must have felt sorry for Elizabeth who was without a mother, an experience Mary understood. It was generally believed Mary was kind to Elizabeth. When they became adults they developed a dislike for one another.

Mary was devoid of guile. She was sincere in her religion and faith and did not have the snake like tendencies of a political viper. Elizabeth, on the other hand, was sly and was more Machiavellian in her approach to public life. Mary never quite trusted Elizabeth and Elizabeth definitely didn’t trust Mary. Mary wanted to love her sister but politics and a difference in character made it difficult. Also, Elizabeth was considered an attractive woman though not conventionally beautiful. She met the public with smiles and lovely waving. Mary, while considered pretty as a young woman, was prematurely aged, small, and short-sighted so that she narrowed her eyes at you. Mary also seemed gruff and didn’t deal well with the public.

There difference between Mary and Elizabeth was one of temperament and physical attributes. But both of their characters were strong and resilient. 

Did Henry VIII Have Six Wives?

Legally, Henry only had three wives. His marriage to his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, and mother to his eldest daughter, Mary (later to be Queen of England), had been declared an annulment. An annulment cancels the marriage between a man and a woman (though in our age between same sexes). An annulment erases the marriage as if it never happened.

Modern grounds for annulment are as follows:

Bigamy - either party was already married to another person at the time of the marriage

Forced Consent - one of the spouses was forced or threatened into marriage and only entered into it under duress

Fraud - one of the spouses agreed to the marriage based on the lies or misrepresentation of the other

Marriage Prohibited By Law - marriage between parties that based on their familial relationship is considered incestuous

Mental Illness - either spouse was mentally ill or emotionally disturbed at the time of the marriage

Mental Incapacity - either spouse was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the marriage and was unable to make informed consent

Inability to Consummate Marriage - either spouse was physically incapable of having sexual relations or impotent during the marriage

Underage Marriage - either spouse was too young to enter into marriage without parental consent or court approval

These reasons are similar to the reasons in Henry VIII’s time though underage marriage was not one of the reasons.

Henry’s Wives:

Catherine of Aragon – This marriage was annulled and causes a spiritual crisis in England and forced Henry to separate from the Catholic Church.

Anne Boleyn – She was beheaded but Henry also got the marriage revoked or deemed invalid. Henry, when Anne fell out of favor, declared the Anne used witchery to seduce him. It is likely that Henry deemed his marriage invalid due to fraud.

Jane Seymour – This marriage ended when Jane died less than a week after giving birth to a male heir.

Anne of Cleves – Henry had this marriage annulled as he failed to find Anne sexually attractive. The marriage was never consummated. Also, Henry disbelieved that she was a virgin upon his marriage to her.

Catherine Howard – The marriage ended when she was executed or beheaded for adultery. Her lover was also executed. The marriage was not declared invalid.

Catherine Parr – Henry died while still married to Catherine, which made Catherine a royal widow.

Legally, Henry only had three wives though he was married six times. But three of those marriages were annulled. 

Cardinal Wolsey: Puppeteer or Puppet?

Cardinal Wolsey was a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and attained the position of Lord Chancellor under Henry VIII. Wolsey had immense power and was the King’s chief adviser and was considered an “alter rex” or “other king”. Wolsey failed to secure an annulment from the Catholic Church for Henry. Henry was infatuated with Anne Boleyn and his marriage to Catherine of Aragon had failed to produce a male heir. Henry wanted to dissolve his marriage, not through divorce but annulment. The papacy, who had strong ties to Spain where Catherine was from, refused to grant the annulment despite herculean efforts by Wolsey. Henry became enraged and stripped Wolsey of his titles. Wolsey retreated to York and carried out his duties as Archbishop of York. However, this was not enough for Henry who was desperate to marry Anne and cut his bond with Catherine who believed their marriage valid and considered herself the true queen of England. Henry charged Wolsey with treason and had him recalled back to London. He died in route.

Shakespeare’s Henry VIII paints a picture of Wolsey as a devious puppeteer controlling Henry and the state. This is final speech in the play:

So farewell to the little good you bear me.

Farewell! a long farewell, to all my greatness!

This is the state of man: to-day he puts forth

The tender leaves of hopes; to-morrow blossoms,

And bears his blushing honours thick upon him;

The third day comes a frost, a killing frost,

And, when he thinks, good easy man, full surely

His greatness is a-ripening, nips his root,

And then he falls, as I do. I have ventured,

Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders,

This many summers in a sea of glory,

But far beyond my depth: my high-blown pride

At length broke under me and now has left me,

Weary and old with service, to the mercy

Of a rude stream, that must for ever hide me.

Vain pomp and glory of this world, I hate ye:

I feel my heart new open'd. O, how wretched

Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favours!

There is, betwixt that smile we would aspire to,

That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin,

More pangs and fears than wars or women have:

And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer,

Never to hope again.

Wolsey considers himself to be great even after his fall in Henry’s favor, according to Shakespeare. The play was written during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. It depicts a horrid Wolsey who was unsuccessful in securing an annulment for her mother, Anne Boleyn, and who took advantage of King Henry VIII. The play did not challenge the political stance that Wolsey disliked Anne and that he was controlling Henry. The play praises Elizabeth and Henry and falls short of presenting Anne’s beheading. The play, undoubtedly, pleased Elizabeth. But Wolsey it seems, from the historical record, was not in control of Henry. Wolsey did Henry’s bidding. Wolsey was very much anti-war but when Henry wanted to go to war against France Wolsey had to convince the council members and find money. Henry was always in control and considering Wolsey as the “other king” provides him with a ruling power that was illusory.  

Queen Isabella: What Was Her Position on Slaves?

Christopher Columbus, as every American student has learned, proposed an expedition to the New World and was funded by the Spanish government and had the support of the King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. In fact, Isabella was the primary supporter of his expedition. She managed to convince the Council members to dedicate Spanish funds. The myth was that she pledged the worth of her jewels to support the trip. However, there is no support for this fact. It appears Isabella was able to allocate money raised from taxes. But it was not meant to be a grant. Ferdinand and Isabella entered into a business contract that stated the following:

"that of all and every kind of merchandise, whether pearls, precious stones, gold, silver, spices, and other objects and merchandise whatsoever, of whatever kind, name and sort, which may be bought, bartered, discovered, acquired and obtained within the limits of the said Admiralty, Your Highnesses grant from now henceforth to the said Don Cristóbal [Christopher Columbus] ... the tenth part of the whole, after deducting all the expenses which may be incurred therein”

Columbus was to have 10% of all profits from his expedition. This meant Ferdinand, Isabella and the royal house were to receive 90% of the profit.

Isabella was not entirely focused on new trade routes and profits from goods and resources. Isabella was a highly pious woman. Her dedication to Catholicism was great even though she could be imperious with the papacy. The idea of discovering new lands presented an opportunity to spread Christianity. Isabella’s chief goal was granting the knowledge of God to the natives.

When Columbus returned from his expedition he brought a few natives that he had enslaved. He presented the slaves to Isabella but she was unsettled by it. Isabella ended up freeing the slaves and allowing them to return to their native land. Columbus was violent and decimated whole populations of people. He tortured and murdered and had no compassion for their plight. He wanted gold and other resources and would not restrain himself. Isabella had a strong distaste for slavery and she was concerned by how Columbus treated the native populations. But Isabella was not highly vocal about this and one wonders if she had been more vigorous in her defense of the native populations if the slave trade would have been less entrenched and widespread.