Sunday, August 14, 2016

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.  

Monday, August 8, 2016

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. 

Sunday, December 7, 2014

The Link Between Childeric I and Napoleon: More Than Just Bees?

 
 
 
 
When Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor of France in 1804 and was looking for a suitable personal emblem, he and his advisors looked back to the very earliest days of French history for inspiration. This inspiration came from an unusual and unlikely place: the tomb of a long deceased French King who had ruled over 1300 years earlier. The objects of Napoleon’s affection would turn out to be even stranger: bees.


The King at the heart of Napoleon’s strange affection was Childeric I, one of the first in a line of kings of the Merovingian Dynasty, who ruled over the Franks in the mid 5th century.  Among all the magnificent treasures of gold and silver uncovered in the tomb by construction workers in the Austrian Netherlands in 1653, from jewelry to weapons, even a crystal ball, a golden bull’s head and a horse harness, the hundreds of bees made of gold and garnet had received the least amount of attention up until Napoleon.


Bees have a long history in mythology from the Greeks to the Mayans to the Egyptians, where they were worshipped as symbols of resurrection, industriousness, and organizational efficiency, stemming from the hive mentality of the worker bees and their Queen. It is the idea of bees as symbols of resurrection in ancient Egypt that point to one of the most interesting connections between Childeric I and Napoleon: they were both forced into exile during their respective reigns, and were later able to return from it, even if only for a short duration.


Childeric I was forced into exile for seducing the wives of his countrymen, but was finally able to return after 8 years. Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba after his failed invasion of Russia and capture, but escaped and was able to return to France to rule for 100 days before being captured again and permanently exiled to the island of St. Helena off the west coast of Africa in the Atlantic Ocean.


Both forced into exiled and then able to return,  these two leaders are also characterized by their excessive womanizing, even if in Napoleon’s case it was supposedly Josephine that committed the first infidelity.


Can you think of other interesting links between these two powerful French leaders connected across the ages?


Further reading:


Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Hadrian's Wall - A Sign of a Shrinking Rome




Hadrian's Wall, which is an 80 mile long wall in the North of England, was a sign that Hadrian (the Roman Emperor) wanted to pull back the Roman Empire and not expand it. The wall began construction in AD 122 and took six years to complete. Hadrian was experiencing trouble and attacks in other Roman provinces and Hadrian's Wall was a way of assessing resources, retreating to a safe place and strenghtening local governments and battalions.

What was Hadrian's Wall defending against? The barbarians on the other side, who at that time, were the Picts and the Celts. The soldiers stationed at the wall were "wordly", at least by Roman standards. They were fluent in Latin, wore underwear (a Roman custom), and generally followed Roman custom. The Roman soldiers were the boundary of the Roman Empire in Britain. However, the wall was not impenetrable. People, the Romans and the barbarians, crossed it daily. The wall provided some control over immigration, smuggling and customs. Hadrian's Wall might be similar to the border between the US and Mexico, and particularly the area where an actual wall has been constructed.

Hadrian's Wall still exists and is now a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Here are some helpful links:

Visit Hardrian's Wall

Hadrian's Wall Gallery




Welcome to the Series Brain Bites

Radion Media is publishing a line of books called Brain Bites written by Risa Peris and Todd Thommes. The series will debut in 2015. It will focus on histories, biographies and concepts. Each e-book will provide short sections tackling the subjects. The sections will be followed up with questions and check your knowledge exercises as well as suggested readings.

The first Brain Bite to launch will be a short history of World War II.

We are excited for the launch of the series and are planning upcoming roll outs.

This website will provide short historical snippets and links for further reading. It is meant to be a resource.

Welcome to our blog!