History Higher Level
Internal Assessment
February 01, 2008
Using an historical approach, what were the faulty tactics of presentation used by Colin Powell in his UN address on February 5th, 2003?
A) Plan of Investigation………………………………………………..3
B) Summary of Evidence……………………………………………..4-5
C) Evaluation of Sources……………………………………………..6-7
D) Analysis……………………………………………….....................8-9
E) Conclusion…………………………………………………………..10
F) Bibliography…………………………………………………….11-12
A) Plan of Investigation
Using
a historical approach, this investigation seeks to identify the faulty
tactics of persuasion employed by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State on
February 5th 2003 in his speech to the UN. In order to
recognize the flawed approaches of persuasion used by Powell, claims in
his speech should be compared with the now-accepted counters to US
allegations and each point should be analysed in a historical context to
determine how Powell’s presentation methodology was mistaken. Speeches,
newspaper accounts, expert testimony in interview and documentary form
and government reports are mostly used to evaluate the authenticity of
claims of Iraq’s possession of WMD and of the opposition. The two main
sources to be evaluated are Colin Powell’s February 5, 2003 address to
the UN, and War on Iraq:What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know, an interview-cum-analysis by Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt.
B) Summary of Evidence
George Bush’s State of the Union speech, delivered on January 28th,
2003, introduced the claims made by Powell the following week, and in
fact informed Congress that “United States will ask the U.N. Security
Council to convene on February the 5th” where “Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about…Iraq's illegal weapons programs”[1].
He conveyed his intent to go to war by ending with “If war is forced
upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just … And if war is
forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the
United States …”[2]
On February 5th,
2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the UN Security
Council the US’ case against Iraq, reminiscent of Adlai Stevenson’s UN
presentation in 1958. Powell referred to promises made by Iraq to disarm
and UN Resolution 1441 where it was ruled that Iraq had to comply with disarmament obligations[3].
He
claimed that “the facts and Iraq's behaviour show that Saddam Hussein
and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of
mass destruction”[4].
A tape recording of a conversation between an Iraqi general and
colonel, dated November 22, 2002, where IAEA inspector Mohammed
El-Baradei’s visit[5]
was discussed and orders for a “modified vehicle” to be evacuated were
introduced as evidence. He also displayed photo-enhanced images and
explained them as weapons munitions facilities, active munitions
bunkers, and a nearby decontamination vehicle. To contrast with that
photo, he showed a photo taken of the same area on the 22nd
of December, which showed that “the tents are gone, the signature
vehicles are gone”; Powell stated this evacuation was for the benefit of
the UN inspection teams arriving that day. He also declared that the US
had photos of Iraqi cargo trucks and missile-moving cranes engaging in
unorthodox activities, presumably to move weapons before UN inspections
two days later[6].
Powell
also asserted that Iraq was continuing to possess and produce
biological weapons such as deadly anthrax, and that an Iraqi civil
engineer had witnessed production as recently as 1998. He also spoke of
eyewitnesses describing mobile biological weapons factories on wheels
and rails[7].
Chemical
weapons were also another facet of Powell’s claims on Iraq possession
of WMD; more photos of before/after timings after weapons inspections of
a “chemical complex” and “unusual activity” were shown, and claims of
Iraq’s possession of fatal VX agents were put forth. Powell also states
that “We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit
chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry”[8].
Powell
also repeatedly mentioned Iraq’s possession of chemical, biological,
and nuclear weapons and the fact that they had not been able to account
for their supposed destroying of these weapons. He claimed that “Iraq
today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons
agent” as well as an array of artillery shells, and bombs that were unaccounted for by the Iraqis.
According
to Colin Powell, all information provided by him came from appropriate
channels of information, claiming that “every statement I make today is
backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What
we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”[9].
The
culmination of this diplomatic tour de force conducted by the American
commander-in-chief and his Secretary of State Colin Powell was the
invasion of Iraq on March 20th, 2003, which was, according to
President Bush, in order “to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to
defend the world from grave danger”[10].
C) Evaluation of Sources
Colin Powell’s speech, presented February 5th,
2003 to the United Nations Security Council, mainly regarded the
possession of WMDs by Iraq, and the US’ views on this apparent
transgression of UN Resolutions. According to Powell, the information
originated from “a variety of sources…U.S. sources…other countries… such
as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites.”[11][12]
He explained the purpose of the speech to have two reasons: firstly to
“First, to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr.
ElBaradei” and secondly to “provide…additional information…about Iraq's
WMD”. The underlying purpose of this speech, implied by Powell, was to
present to the world the US’ case for war against Iraq, demonstrated by
the timing of this speech with the State of the Union Speech and the
actual invasion a month later[13].
This speech is extremely valuable in the sense that it is delivered by a
key representative of the United States government, accurately
representing the US governments’ beliefs and views on the situation[14].
However, limitations of this speech include the fact that specific
sources are never named. Furthermore, Powell has a very specific purpose
in his speech and selected facts and information especially to support
these claims[15].
Scott Ritter’s and William River’s Pitt’s novel War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know
is a direct contrast to the claims presented in Powell’s speech,
arguing facts against Iraq’s possession of WMDs. The book is co-written
in 2002 by Ritter[16],
a UNSCOM weapons inspector, and Pitt, the editor at “Progressive
Democrats of America”. Much of the book is written in interview form
between Pitt and Ritter about Ritter’s findings in Iraq, or more
specifically his lack of findings. The purpose of this book was to
counter the US’ government claims about Iraqi possession of WMDs;
interestingly written even before Powell’s speech was made yet rebutting
all claims made in the UN presentation. The value of this source lies
in the fact that the information given is first-hand knowledge of the
topic, as Ritter was actually conducting investigations in Iraq himself,
and also that the book was written before the speech, thus eliminating
accusations of it being a rebuttal specifically designed against Powell.[17]
However, limitations of this source would be that Ritter would have a
direct bias against the claims of the US government and perhaps select
facts to support his bias or views; and the material contained is
designed to be provocative and presented accordingly[18].
D) Analysis
Powell’s claims that Iraq did not fully comply with weapons inspections are supported by other sources[19]
who have all agreed that Iraq did not fulfil inspection requirements
and refused inspectors access to certain presidential palaces and other
Iraqi sites[20].
Powell says this was to prevent inspectors from location hidden weapons
caches or to ensure time to conceal weapons at these sites. However,
Ritter explains it as the reluctance of Iraqi officials to expose inner
areas in fear revealed layout knowledge would be used to plan future
attacks[21].
However Powell did not acknowledge this different interpretation of
Iraqi actions, leading to his first historical fallacy in persuasion,
which was to pretend certainty in a case with ambiguities[22].
The decontamination vehicles shown by Powell were known by UN weapons inspectors to be fire-trucks[23].
Additionally, the intercepted communications between Iraqi generals
discussing possession of munitions vehicles are doubtful due to the
clandestine nature of Iraqi army communications and the improbability of
classified discussions held over radio where high risk of interception
is known. Additionally, the disappearance of vehicles and other
operational equipment from sites, according to both Hans Blix and Ray
McGovern, 27 year image analyst, can be attributed to “routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection”[24][25].
David Albright, nuclear weapons assessor of 20 years, also argues that
there was no way to confirm the actual function of the “weapons
munitions facilities” described by Powell through aerial photographs
without actually entering the premises[26].
These claims by Powell are instances of him substituting a distorted,
exaggerated, or misrepresented interpretation of events, as well as
using illogical, unsupported reasoning, which are further historical
fallacies[27].
Powell’s
claims of biological weapons possession by Iraq were also countered by
Ritter in his argument that anthrax held by the Iraqis would be “brown,
sludge liquid,” that would be “useless today” as the shelf life of
anthrax is three years and the last known production batch was in 1991[28].
Additionally, the “biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails”
described by Powell are proved by UN weapons inspectors to be hydrogen
generation facilities[29].
This is presentation of entirely false evidence, and the selection and
omission of certain facts designed to serve a certain purpose or to
support a social/political cause. This is a flawed approach to
persuasion as facts are intended to be given in context with the
situation’s entirety, while ensuring the veracity of the facts
presented, another way in which Powell’s approach to convince the world
was flawed[30].
Sarin
and tabun nerve agents purportedly in possession by the Iraqis also had
a shelf-life of about 5 years, rendering them useless today. VX nerve
agents, the Iraqis denied having the capabilities, however production
equipment was located and hence destroyed in 1996, destroying all
possibility of further production of VX agents[31]. Additionally, there was no solid proof of dual-capability factories according to weapons inspectors having perused the area[32],
yet the language used by Powell—“we know that…” indicates surety, which
was not the case as proven by the dispute of the apparent facts.
Selecting appropriate language indicates the level to which a persuasive
speaker should be believed, and Powell made the mistake of
demonstrating a false level of confidence.
Powell’s claims of Iraqi possession of “100
and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent” and the 16 122mm shells found
and other artillery, were also rebutted by inspectors and organization
directors. Their counterargument was that if Iraq in fact possessed
these weapons, why were they not found by June 10th, 2003, at which point over 230 sites had been inspected?[33]
Furthermore, Powell’s claims that Iraq possessed WMD merely because
they had not provided proof of their destruction are not grounds to
declare that because they did not prove the weapons’ absence, that meant
that Iraq still possessed them. According to Ritter, Iraq may have
wished to retain autonomy, hence the absence of proof of destruction.
However, Powell simply presented the simpler situation, exhibiting the
unsound tactic of oversimplification of complex events to suit his
purposes and intents.
E) Conclusion
While
Powell’s presentation to the UN may have been a “masterful performance”
in terms of delivery, the techniques used to present the content to
convince the world of Iraqi possession of WMD were severely flawed in
that they did not follow a relation of facts that was historically
appropriate, meaning his delivery was more of a show than a factual
representation of events that transpired. Powell’s main mistakes were
pretending certainty in a case with ambiguities, substituting a
distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented interpretation of events,
using illogical, unsupported reasoning, selection and omission of
certain facts designed to serve a certain purpose, demonstrating a false level of confidence, and oversimplification
of complex events. By pinpointing the variations in data presented by
Powell and data presented by other sources, the faulty tactics of
persuasion were thereby identified. In a historical context, this
question shows how the simple choice of presentation of certain
information can change national policies, and alter the course of
history.
Word Count: 1998
Bibliography
Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003. Na .
Carr, Edward H. What is History? New York: Vintage Books, 1961.
Chanteloupe, M. M. Iraq: the War That Shouldn't Be - You Decide. Infinity, 2006.
Cordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons. Greenwood Group, 2003.
Corn, David. "Bush At the UN." The Nation. 22 Sept. 2003. .
Dodd, Chris. Address. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Na .
El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na .
Fischer, David H. Historical Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. Harper Perennial, 1970.
Goodman, Mel. Interview. Washingtonpost.Com: Live Online. 11 Feb. 2003. .
Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004. .
Kyl, Jon. United States. Chairman. United States Senate. Backgrounder: Shining a Light on the Debate. 17 June 2003. .
Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003. .
Powell, Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007 .
Prados, Alfred B. United States. Cong. CRS Report for Congress: Iraq, Divergent Views on Military Action. 31 Mar. 2003. .
Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
The Situation with Iraq and Kuwait. UN Security Council, 8 Nov. 2002, United Nations. .
Warrick, Joby. "Evidence on Iraq Challenged." Washington Post 19 Sept. 2002. .
[1] Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[2] Bush’s justification for war was his claims of Hussein’s possession of “materials
to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent” as
well as 38,000 unaccounted for liters of botulinum toxin”. Bush,
George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[3]
Interestingly, Powell failed to mention that the title of the
resolution was “The situation between Iraq and Kuwait”, meaning the
resolution dealt directly with these two countries and arms limitations
in this specific context. The Situation with Iraq and Kuwait. UN Security Council, 8 Nov. 2002, United Nations.
[4] Powell, Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[5]
El Baradei’s description of his visit, on March 7, 2003, a month after
Powell’s speech,clearly states there is little proof of Iraqi possession
of WMD. El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na
[6]
Interestingly, Dr. Hans Blix, who Powell quoted in his own speech,
directly rebutted this exact statement in his own speech on February 14th,
2003, stating that “two satellite images Mr Powell showed to the
council on February 5 did not prove that Iraq was clearing the site of
forbidden munitions” Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq."
Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[7] Such claims were supported by other US Government Documents: Prados, Alfred B. United States. Cong. CRS Report for Congress: Iraq, Divergent Views on Military Action. 31 Mar. 2003.
[8] Stewart Stogel, “Iran Agrees Iraq Hid Arms,” Washington Times, June 10, 2003.
A quote from an unidentified “Iranian official” with “ties to Supreme
Leader Khamenei” that states that Iran had knowledge of illicit weapons
being integrated into the civilian black market
[9]Cordesman, Anthony H. The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons. Greenwood Group, 2003. On page 464, it
is claimed that Powell’s speech was primarily based on “information
from a source who was a chemical engineer that managed one of the mobile
plants”
[10] Bush, George. "State of the Union." US Capitol. 28 Jan. 2003.
[11]
His description of other sources was “people who have risked their
lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to” Powell,
Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[12] Discussions
on discovering biological warfare systems in Iraq are described to be
primarily discoveries by “the US military”, “US forces” and Kurdish
forces” who “subsequently turned it over to US military control”. This
brings to question whether any of Powell’s sources were from agencies
outside the US. , Colin. Speech. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Sept. 2007
[13]
Senator Chris Dodds’ speech on February 5, 2003, as a direct response
to Powell’s speech, links Powell’s speech to the decision to invade
Iraq, when he stated “ Powell's presentation before the UN Security
Council shed additional public light on Iraq's WMD programs”, and the
only way to address that “threat” “is to invade Iraq” Dodd, Chris. Address. UN Security Council. 05 Feb. 2003. Na
[14] Washington Times Letter
to the Editor, “For the Record,” June 6, 2003. Condoleeza Rice,
National Security Advisor echoes Powell’s beliefs about Iraq’s
possession of WMD.
[15][15]
Ray McGovern, 27 year analyst of US government affairs, speaks about
Powell’s use of placement of supporters during his speech; the placement
of George Tenet, head of the CIA, right behind him as if to “that the Central Intelligence Agency stands behind…everything Colin Powell says”
[16] Ritter served in Iraq in his capacity from 1991-1998. Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
[17] This
is an advantage due to the precedent of Joe Wilson, US diplomat. He was
asked to verify uranium yellowcake papers and deemed them false, upon
which the White House published that Wilson was a “Democrat”, and then
leaked his wife’s CIA operative identity, thus ending her career. Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[18]
This is shown by the title itself, with the description of the US
administration as “Team Bush”, likening it to an illegal gang or
suchlike. Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002.
[19]
Such as Scott Ritter, UNSCOM director Richard Butler, and UNMOVIC
Executive Director. Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[20]
Nevertheless, Blix himself stated in his March 7, 2003 address that
“Iraq should be given some credit” for their cooperation with
inspectors. However, this cooperation was referring to recent inspection
activity, and not the activity Ritter, El-Baradei, and Butler were
referring to, which occurred primarily in the ‘90s. Oliver, Mark. "Blix
Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[21]
This was echoed by David Albright, who likens placing weapons in
presidential palaces as placing “crown jewels’ in the one building
inspectors would request to inspect. “Evidence on Iraq challenged” Washington Post. September 19, 2002
[22] Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, David Hackett Fischer (pg 13)
[23]
Ray McGovern again refutes the claims of the images as decontamination
vehicles by criticizing Powell’s expertise as an image analyst. “CBC
News In-depth: Iraq”, Ritter does the same in his book
[24] Dr. El-Baradei also echoed this sentiment. El-Baradei, Mohammed. Address. IAEA. UN Security Council. 07 Mar. 2003. Na
[25] Greenwald, Robert. "Outfoxed and Uncovered." Washington Post 25 Aug. 2004.
[26] This is supported by Mel Goodman in his interview “Did Powell Make the Case?” Goodman, Mel. Interview. Washingtonpost.com: Live Online. 11 Feb. 2003.
[27]
History as representation of hazy facts can be considered as history,
but with the addition of logic to piece together those facts, which was
not apparently Powell’s doing. “What is History” Edward Hallet Carr
[28] Ritter, Scott, and William R. Pitt. War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know. Allen & Urwin, 2002. , also echoed in “Úncovered: The War on Iraq” documentary
[29] David Corn, Washington Editor of “The Nation” also supports this in his article Bush At the UN." The Nation. 22 Sept. 2003.
[30] Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought, David Hackett Fischer (pg 18)
[31]
Hans Blix, also states that the inspections that occurred in 1998 would
mean that substances found today manufactured then would have expired. Oliver, Mark. "Blix Queries US 'Evidence' on Iraq." Guardian 14 Feb. 2003.
[32]
Upon hearing Powell’s speech, a “BBC reporter” went to the exact sites
exhibited in images shown by Powell, and found nothing there, according
to Chanteloupe, M. M. Iraq: the War That Shouldn't Be - You Decide. Infinity, 2006. (pg 109)
[33]
The US Government’s primary rebuttal to this claim (supporting Powell),
as shown in the Senate’s document, was that if Iraq truly had gotten
rid of all its WMD, why was there no documentation of such removal of
their WMD? Kyl, Jon. United States. Chairman. United States Senate. Backgrounder: Shining a Light on the Debate. 17 June 2003.
Did Mary, Queen of Scots, write the Glasgow Letter?
A: Plan of the Investigation
The Glasgow Letter, the alleged reason for the Scottish Lords’ rebellion against her, proves Mary Stuart’s guilt in murdering Henry, Lord Darnley if she truly wrote the Letter. ‘Did Mary, Queen of Scots, write the Glasgow Letter?’ is the question this investigation answers. To do so, the copies and translations of the Letter made in 1568 will be used to compare its style with that of known works of Mary’s. Additionally, the manner of the Letter’s discovery and presentation to Queen Elizabeth I will be assessed and the motives of other suspected authors of the Letter evaluated, using 17th century accounts –the earliest analyses available– in conjunction with interpretations of more contemporary historians. The 1568 copy and translation of the Glasgow Letter and Mary, Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters by A.E. MacRobert will be evaluated because the 1568 copy is the only current record of the Letter, and MacRobert’s book offers the most specific analysis of the question of the contemporary works.
B: Summary of Evidence
In November 1566, leading Scottish nobles and Mary probably swore to get rid of Darnley, Mary’s second husband. In 1567, he recuperated from an illness in Kirk O’ Field, where, on 9 February, Mary visited him. Mary was “suddenly reminded” to attend wedding celebrations in Edinburgh. That night, an explosion killed Darnley, to which Mary’s first reactions were “horror and shock”. She then married the chief suspect, Lord Bothwell, was forced to abdicate, and fled to England, where her cousin Queen Elizabeth I ordered an inquiry into whether or not Mary was guilty of murdering Darnley.
This inquiry took the form of two conferences in York and Westminster from October 1568 to January 1569, at which Mary’s half-brother, the Earl of Moray, presented the Casket Letters –eight unsigned letters allegedly from Mary to Bothwell– to the English commissioners. Mary denied writing them, arguing they were forgeries, and that her handwriting could easily have been duplicated.
According to Moray’s diary, the letters were acquired on 20 June 1567. The Earl of Morton, the most prominent Scottish noble against Mary, declared at Westminster that he received a tip-off from Sir James Balfour regarding a casket of letters that Bothwell, who was planning his escape from Scotland, was anxious to retrieve. He sent his servant, George Dalgleish, to do so, but Dalgleish was intercepted by a servant of Morton’s, and produced the silver casket after being subjected to interrogation. Morton kept the Casket overnight and opened it the following morning. According to A.E. MacRobert, “there is no certainty that the contents were not… manipulated… between 15 June and 20 June”. It was “distinctly affirmed” by those who took up arms and captured Mary on 15 June that it was from the Letters they derived knowledge of her responsibility for Darnley’s death. On 26 June, however, Morton issued a proclamation blaming Bothwell for Darnley’s death, and that he had forced Mary into marriage.
Contrastingly, the Glasgow Letter’s contents, if accurate, reveal Mary’s love for its recipient, including the phrase “Being gon, from the place where I had left my harte” (see Appendix A) when referring to Edinburgh where Bothwell lived. It also contains something resembling a table of contents. Like the other Casket Letters, there is no existing copy of the original letter, and the contents must be analysed using the English and Scottish translations, first supplied by Moray to Queen Elizabeth in 1567. Noteworthy are the differences between the English and Scottish versions: the last six lines of the Scottish version do not appear in the English version. These lines instruct the reader, allegedly Bothwell, to “Remember you…Of the Erle of Bothwell” (See Appendix A). John Guy points out that the contents and fluidity of the Letter is highly disjointed and that the French grammar used in the Letter is rather too poor for a woman of Mary’s education, especially given her having lived in France for thirteen years.
Queen Elizabeth wrote to Moray in May 1568 after Mary had fled to England, enquiring into his reasons for his conduct towards his Queen. Moray replied in June by sending Scottish translations of the Letters, although Elizabeth had assured him she spoke better French than Scottish. During the conferences, furthermore, the original Letters in French were not produced. The enquiry was ended with the majority of the commissioners accepting the Letters as genuine after comparing them with examples of Mary’s handwriting, but Queen Elizabeth concluded that nothing was proven.
C: Evaluation of Sources
Mary, Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters by A.E. MacRobert offers a contemporary analysis of who wrote the Casket Letters, published in 2002. Its purpose is to identify what truly occurred between 1567 and 1568 and offer a re-examination and interpretation of existing evidence. Being a secondary source, and having been published well after the Letter’s publication, it is of value as its author has access to most documents relating to the case (the official state papers regarding Mary having been published in 1900). The author is therefore able to collate and build upon other historians’ views, with the benefit of hindsight. However, his argument can only be classified as an interpretation of documents relating to the case – the state papers which included the minutes from the York and Westminster conferences; Moray’s diary – but cannot draw an absolute conclusion since the original Letter has been lost and his interpretation comes long after the event. MacRobert is a Cambridge graduate also the author of “The 1745 Rebellion and the Southern Scottish Lowlands” - he is well acquainted with Scottish history of this time period. However, not much further information about him is available. The source’s purpose is valuable since it answers the question specifically, focuses on a very specific time period (1567-1568), considers solely the events in this period which pertain directly to the Letter and has access to all evidence currently available to do so.
The 1568 copy and translation of the Glasgow Letter was transcribed by Scottish translators in Moray’s service, and was sent to Queen Elizabeth following Elizabeth’s questioning of Moray’s treatment of Mary, with the purpose of providing evidence to Elizabeth that the Scottish nobles’ actions against Mary were justified. Being a primary source, and having been used in the actual enquiry in 1568, it is of great value because it contains those contents that were used against Mary, and influenced decisions made against her. Furthermore, it is the only record of the document. However, having been transcribed by those in service of Mary’s greatest antagonist, the source presents limitations in that it cannot be considered an accurate representation of the contents of the original Letter. It having been transcribed by clerks, furthermore, presents a limitation as the handwriting of the copy is not representative of that of the original. The copy’s purpose also presents a limitation in that its contents may have been altered for this purpose, as contemporary historians (Fraser, Guy and MacRobert) argue.
D: Analysis
The Scottish Lords that took up arms against her used the assertion that Mary killed Darnley as justification. By forcing her abdication, they allowed her son, James, to ascend the throne – that throne which became united with that of England in 1603. If, however, the Scottish Lords fabricated the Glasgow Letter, their assertion of Mary’s murdering Darnley is unsupported, and their actions, against her and in crowning James, unjustifiable.
The discovery of the casket and the time between this event and the Letter’s publication, firstly, raises doubts on its authenticity. The Glasgow Letter was, as they affirmed, the reason for the Scottish Lords taking up arms against her on 6 June 1567 and capturing Mary on 15 June, but according to Moray’s diary, the letters were not acquired until 20 June. The Letter, thus, is highly unlikely to have been the true reason for the Lords’ political agitation, unless they had prior knowledge of its contents or had fabricated the Letter after capturing Mary to justify their unlawful actions. The latter theory fits with the Lords’ curious approach to presenting the Letter to Queen Elizabeth in 1568 after she requested a reason for the Lords’ motivations against their Queen: after a month’s delay, the Letter was sent in a Scots, not even English, translation rather than the ‘original’ French, which Elizabeth had requested. If the Letter had been sent in the original French, it could have been argued Moray was merely “wary of Elizabeth’s reaction”, as Henderson argued in 1889. Contrastingly, MacRobert, perhaps the most capable current expert on this age, concludes the Scots translation “raises question-marks against [Moray’s] integrity”. The Lords’ integrity may further be questioned as Morton, having acquired the Casket on 20 June, kept it overnight and only opened it officially the following morning, substantiating MacRobert’s assertion that “there is no certainty that the contents were not… manipulated”. Furthermore, Morton issued a proclamation blaming Bothwell for Darnley’s death on 26 June 1567, though the Letter subsequently used as evidence for Mary’s guilt in murdering him was discovered on 20 June.
The contents of the letter itself, secondly, should be evaluated. The issue, of course, is that the actual contents of the original Letter (if it existed) cannot be examined because it disappeared around 1581 – instead, only the 1568 copy made by Moray’s translators can be used. The divergences between the English and Scottish translations (most notably the exclusion of the last six lines of the Scots version from the English version), could reveal the substandard accuracy of the translators at this time and shows the letter is a poorly constructed forgery (why would Mary ask Bothwell to remember himself of himself?), as MacRobert argues, but contrastingly, Henderson concluded these last six lines were not important enough to be included in the English translation as he supposed these were but a list of things for the messenger to remember. The disjointed structure of the Letter, furthermore, is curious: towards the middle, it includes a list of things resembling a table of contents. More recent historians (Fraser, Guy and MacRobert) conclude from this that the Letter was either a letter written by Mary with incriminating passages inserted, or that Mary had sent this letter to someone other than Bothwell. Henderson, however, argues that the structure of the letter supports either Mary having written it herself completely, or that the Letter was “founded on some original composition of hers”, which is a logical conclusion as most paragraphs that do not include incriminating details are compatible with other writings of Mary’s.
It was clearly in the Lords’ interest to either completely fake the Letter, or insert incriminating passages into a letter of Mary’s: they only published it in 1568 when asked for a justification for their actions towards their Queen even though the Letter had been found in 1567. Furthermore, the Lords gained from Mary’s abdication: firstly, Morton himself became Regent of Scotland in 1572, and secondly, the Protestant Lords had disagreed heavily with Mary’s Catholicism during her reign.
E: Conclusion
Though it is impossible to conclude with absolute certainty that Mary wrote the Letter because it has disappeared, the evidence collected in this investigation suggests that Mary wrote an original composition, which the Scottish Lords modified to include incriminating passages. Including incriminating passages in a letter of Mary’s will have served the Lords well, as those passages actually written by Mary would have convinced the English commissioners of her guilt. This is supported by the disjointed structure of the Letter, with some passages resembling Mary’s style well, while others (including incriminating details) do not. The Casket’s discovery would have been a pleasant surprise for the Lords after they had taken up arms against Mary – here was an opportunity to ‘legalise’ their actions. The delay between the Casket’s discovery and its opening will have given the Lords time to insert the passages, and sending Elizabeth a Scottish translation can be explained by the Lords’ proficiency in that language over French. It can be concluded, then, that Mary wrote certain parts of the Letter, but she is not the author of the whole.
Works Cited
Bain, Joseph. "Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume 2 - 1563-69." 1900. General Register Office (Scotland). Edinburgh. British History Online. Web. 14 Oct. 2012..
Chalmers, George. The Life of Mary, Queen of Scots; Drawn from the State Papers with Six Subsidiary Memoirs. London: John Murray, 1818. Print.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.
Wormald, Jenny. Mary, Queen of Scots. London: George Philip, 1988. Print.
The reasons for the Lord’s discontent with Darnley was primarily his being a Catholic. Darnley increased tensions between himself and the Catholic nobles when he demanded the Crown Matrimonial (which would allow him to rule if Mary died before him), which Mary refused. In 1566, leading nobles met with the Queen to discuss Darnley – they discussed divorce, but it is now believed that they swore to get rid of him by other means.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
The marriage was actually supported by the Lords at first, they having signed the Ainslie Tavern Bond, expressing their support for the marriage.
Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.
Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
Ibid.
Wormald, Jenny. Mary, Queen of Scots. London: George Philip, 1988. Print.
Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
Sir James Balfour was the Captain of Edinburgh Castle, of which Bothwell was the governor
Bain, Joseph. "Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume 2 - 1563-69." 1900. General Register Office (Scotland). Edinburgh. British History Online. Web. 14 Oct. 2012..
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Ibid.
Mary, after the Scottish Lords had taken up arms against her, surrendered to the Lords on 15 June at the Battle of Carberry Hill. The Lords claimed the marriage between the Queen and Bothwell was the reason for Carberry Hill, but later changed their reason, stating they took up arms against Mary because of the Casket Letters.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
Ibid.
Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
“The message of the Father by the way
The talk of Sir James Hamilton of the ambassador
That the Lard of Luss hath told me of the delay
The questions that he asked of Jochim
Of my state
Of my company
And of the cause of my coming
And of Joseph”
(See Appendix A)
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Chalmers, George. The Life of Mary, Queen of Scots; Drawn from the State Papers with Six Subsidiary Memoirs. London: John Murray, 1818. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Ibid.
Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
“The aim is to unravel what actually happened during the years 1567-68 from the myths and lies and misconceptions which have persisted for over four centuries. The original evidence has been re-examined rigorously and many new questions have been raised and probed. There is a detailed analysis of the events and the Casket Letters. The result is a much-needed measure of historical revision.”, MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
Ibid.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Ibid.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.
Ibid.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
-->
Is a reluctance to tactically
innovate responsible for English Football’s lack of success post-1966?
The Glasgow Letter, the alleged reason for the Scottish Lords’ rebellion against her, proves Mary Stuart’s guilt in murdering Henry, Lord Darnley if she truly wrote the Letter. ‘Did Mary, Queen of Scots, write the Glasgow Letter?’ is the question this investigation answers. To do so, the copies and translations of the Letter made in 1568 will be used to compare its style with that of known works of Mary’s. Additionally, the manner of the Letter’s discovery and presentation to Queen Elizabeth I will be assessed and the motives of other suspected authors of the Letter evaluated, using 17th century accounts –the earliest analyses available– in conjunction with interpretations of more contemporary historians. The 1568 copy and translation of the Glasgow Letter and Mary, Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters by A.E. MacRobert will be evaluated because the 1568 copy is the only current record of the Letter, and MacRobert’s book offers the most specific analysis of the question of the contemporary works.
B: Summary of Evidence
In November 1566, leading Scottish nobles and Mary probably swore to get rid of Darnley, Mary’s second husband. In 1567, he recuperated from an illness in Kirk O’ Field, where, on 9 February, Mary visited him. Mary was “suddenly reminded” to attend wedding celebrations in Edinburgh. That night, an explosion killed Darnley, to which Mary’s first reactions were “horror and shock”. She then married the chief suspect, Lord Bothwell, was forced to abdicate, and fled to England, where her cousin Queen Elizabeth I ordered an inquiry into whether or not Mary was guilty of murdering Darnley.
This inquiry took the form of two conferences in York and Westminster from October 1568 to January 1569, at which Mary’s half-brother, the Earl of Moray, presented the Casket Letters –eight unsigned letters allegedly from Mary to Bothwell– to the English commissioners. Mary denied writing them, arguing they were forgeries, and that her handwriting could easily have been duplicated.
According to Moray’s diary, the letters were acquired on 20 June 1567. The Earl of Morton, the most prominent Scottish noble against Mary, declared at Westminster that he received a tip-off from Sir James Balfour regarding a casket of letters that Bothwell, who was planning his escape from Scotland, was anxious to retrieve. He sent his servant, George Dalgleish, to do so, but Dalgleish was intercepted by a servant of Morton’s, and produced the silver casket after being subjected to interrogation. Morton kept the Casket overnight and opened it the following morning. According to A.E. MacRobert, “there is no certainty that the contents were not… manipulated… between 15 June and 20 June”. It was “distinctly affirmed” by those who took up arms and captured Mary on 15 June that it was from the Letters they derived knowledge of her responsibility for Darnley’s death. On 26 June, however, Morton issued a proclamation blaming Bothwell for Darnley’s death, and that he had forced Mary into marriage.
Contrastingly, the Glasgow Letter’s contents, if accurate, reveal Mary’s love for its recipient, including the phrase “Being gon, from the place where I had left my harte” (see Appendix A) when referring to Edinburgh where Bothwell lived. It also contains something resembling a table of contents. Like the other Casket Letters, there is no existing copy of the original letter, and the contents must be analysed using the English and Scottish translations, first supplied by Moray to Queen Elizabeth in 1567. Noteworthy are the differences between the English and Scottish versions: the last six lines of the Scottish version do not appear in the English version. These lines instruct the reader, allegedly Bothwell, to “Remember you…Of the Erle of Bothwell” (See Appendix A). John Guy points out that the contents and fluidity of the Letter is highly disjointed and that the French grammar used in the Letter is rather too poor for a woman of Mary’s education, especially given her having lived in France for thirteen years.
Queen Elizabeth wrote to Moray in May 1568 after Mary had fled to England, enquiring into his reasons for his conduct towards his Queen. Moray replied in June by sending Scottish translations of the Letters, although Elizabeth had assured him she spoke better French than Scottish. During the conferences, furthermore, the original Letters in French were not produced. The enquiry was ended with the majority of the commissioners accepting the Letters as genuine after comparing them with examples of Mary’s handwriting, but Queen Elizabeth concluded that nothing was proven.
C: Evaluation of Sources
Mary, Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters by A.E. MacRobert offers a contemporary analysis of who wrote the Casket Letters, published in 2002. Its purpose is to identify what truly occurred between 1567 and 1568 and offer a re-examination and interpretation of existing evidence. Being a secondary source, and having been published well after the Letter’s publication, it is of value as its author has access to most documents relating to the case (the official state papers regarding Mary having been published in 1900). The author is therefore able to collate and build upon other historians’ views, with the benefit of hindsight. However, his argument can only be classified as an interpretation of documents relating to the case – the state papers which included the minutes from the York and Westminster conferences; Moray’s diary – but cannot draw an absolute conclusion since the original Letter has been lost and his interpretation comes long after the event. MacRobert is a Cambridge graduate also the author of “The 1745 Rebellion and the Southern Scottish Lowlands” - he is well acquainted with Scottish history of this time period. However, not much further information about him is available. The source’s purpose is valuable since it answers the question specifically, focuses on a very specific time period (1567-1568), considers solely the events in this period which pertain directly to the Letter and has access to all evidence currently available to do so.
The 1568 copy and translation of the Glasgow Letter was transcribed by Scottish translators in Moray’s service, and was sent to Queen Elizabeth following Elizabeth’s questioning of Moray’s treatment of Mary, with the purpose of providing evidence to Elizabeth that the Scottish nobles’ actions against Mary were justified. Being a primary source, and having been used in the actual enquiry in 1568, it is of great value because it contains those contents that were used against Mary, and influenced decisions made against her. Furthermore, it is the only record of the document. However, having been transcribed by those in service of Mary’s greatest antagonist, the source presents limitations in that it cannot be considered an accurate representation of the contents of the original Letter. It having been transcribed by clerks, furthermore, presents a limitation as the handwriting of the copy is not representative of that of the original. The copy’s purpose also presents a limitation in that its contents may have been altered for this purpose, as contemporary historians (Fraser, Guy and MacRobert) argue.
D: Analysis
The Scottish Lords that took up arms against her used the assertion that Mary killed Darnley as justification. By forcing her abdication, they allowed her son, James, to ascend the throne – that throne which became united with that of England in 1603. If, however, the Scottish Lords fabricated the Glasgow Letter, their assertion of Mary’s murdering Darnley is unsupported, and their actions, against her and in crowning James, unjustifiable.
The discovery of the casket and the time between this event and the Letter’s publication, firstly, raises doubts on its authenticity. The Glasgow Letter was, as they affirmed, the reason for the Scottish Lords taking up arms against her on 6 June 1567 and capturing Mary on 15 June, but according to Moray’s diary, the letters were not acquired until 20 June. The Letter, thus, is highly unlikely to have been the true reason for the Lords’ political agitation, unless they had prior knowledge of its contents or had fabricated the Letter after capturing Mary to justify their unlawful actions. The latter theory fits with the Lords’ curious approach to presenting the Letter to Queen Elizabeth in 1568 after she requested a reason for the Lords’ motivations against their Queen: after a month’s delay, the Letter was sent in a Scots, not even English, translation rather than the ‘original’ French, which Elizabeth had requested. If the Letter had been sent in the original French, it could have been argued Moray was merely “wary of Elizabeth’s reaction”, as Henderson argued in 1889. Contrastingly, MacRobert, perhaps the most capable current expert on this age, concludes the Scots translation “raises question-marks against [Moray’s] integrity”. The Lords’ integrity may further be questioned as Morton, having acquired the Casket on 20 June, kept it overnight and only opened it officially the following morning, substantiating MacRobert’s assertion that “there is no certainty that the contents were not… manipulated”. Furthermore, Morton issued a proclamation blaming Bothwell for Darnley’s death on 26 June 1567, though the Letter subsequently used as evidence for Mary’s guilt in murdering him was discovered on 20 June.
The contents of the letter itself, secondly, should be evaluated. The issue, of course, is that the actual contents of the original Letter (if it existed) cannot be examined because it disappeared around 1581 – instead, only the 1568 copy made by Moray’s translators can be used. The divergences between the English and Scottish translations (most notably the exclusion of the last six lines of the Scots version from the English version), could reveal the substandard accuracy of the translators at this time and shows the letter is a poorly constructed forgery (why would Mary ask Bothwell to remember himself of himself?), as MacRobert argues, but contrastingly, Henderson concluded these last six lines were not important enough to be included in the English translation as he supposed these were but a list of things for the messenger to remember. The disjointed structure of the Letter, furthermore, is curious: towards the middle, it includes a list of things resembling a table of contents. More recent historians (Fraser, Guy and MacRobert) conclude from this that the Letter was either a letter written by Mary with incriminating passages inserted, or that Mary had sent this letter to someone other than Bothwell. Henderson, however, argues that the structure of the letter supports either Mary having written it herself completely, or that the Letter was “founded on some original composition of hers”, which is a logical conclusion as most paragraphs that do not include incriminating details are compatible with other writings of Mary’s.
It was clearly in the Lords’ interest to either completely fake the Letter, or insert incriminating passages into a letter of Mary’s: they only published it in 1568 when asked for a justification for their actions towards their Queen even though the Letter had been found in 1567. Furthermore, the Lords gained from Mary’s abdication: firstly, Morton himself became Regent of Scotland in 1572, and secondly, the Protestant Lords had disagreed heavily with Mary’s Catholicism during her reign.
E: Conclusion
Though it is impossible to conclude with absolute certainty that Mary wrote the Letter because it has disappeared, the evidence collected in this investigation suggests that Mary wrote an original composition, which the Scottish Lords modified to include incriminating passages. Including incriminating passages in a letter of Mary’s will have served the Lords well, as those passages actually written by Mary would have convinced the English commissioners of her guilt. This is supported by the disjointed structure of the Letter, with some passages resembling Mary’s style well, while others (including incriminating details) do not. The Casket’s discovery would have been a pleasant surprise for the Lords after they had taken up arms against Mary – here was an opportunity to ‘legalise’ their actions. The delay between the Casket’s discovery and its opening will have given the Lords time to insert the passages, and sending Elizabeth a Scottish translation can be explained by the Lords’ proficiency in that language over French. It can be concluded, then, that Mary wrote certain parts of the Letter, but she is not the author of the whole.
Works Cited
Bain, Joseph. "Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume 2 - 1563-69." 1900. General Register Office (Scotland). Edinburgh. British History Online. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
Chalmers, George. The Life of Mary, Queen of Scots; Drawn from the State Papers with Six Subsidiary Memoirs. London: John Murray, 1818. Print.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.
Wormald, Jenny. Mary, Queen of Scots. London: George Philip, 1988. Print.
The reasons for the Lord’s discontent with Darnley was primarily his being a Catholic. Darnley increased tensions between himself and the Catholic nobles when he demanded the Crown Matrimonial (which would allow him to rule if Mary died before him), which Mary refused. In 1566, leading nobles met with the Queen to discuss Darnley – they discussed divorce, but it is now believed that they swore to get rid of him by other means.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
The marriage was actually supported by the Lords at first, they having signed the Ainslie Tavern Bond, expressing their support for the marriage.
Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.
Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
Ibid.
Wormald, Jenny. Mary, Queen of Scots. London: George Philip, 1988. Print.
Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
Sir James Balfour was the Captain of Edinburgh Castle, of which Bothwell was the governor
Bain, Joseph. "Calendar of State Papers, Scotland: Volume 2 - 1563-69." 1900. General Register Office (Scotland). Edinburgh. British History Online. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Ibid.
Mary, after the Scottish Lords had taken up arms against her, surrendered to the Lords on 15 June at the Battle of Carberry Hill. The Lords claimed the marriage between the Queen and Bothwell was the reason for Carberry Hill, but later changed their reason, stating they took up arms against Mary because of the Casket Letters.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
Ibid.
Guy, John. "My Heart is my Own": The Life of Mary Queen of Scots. London: Fourth Estate, 2004. Print.
“The message of the Father by the way
The talk of Sir James Hamilton of the ambassador
That the Lard of Luss hath told me of the delay
The questions that he asked of Jochim
Of my state
Of my company
And of the cause of my coming
And of Joseph”
(See Appendix A)
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Chalmers, George. The Life of Mary, Queen of Scots; Drawn from the State Papers with Six Subsidiary Memoirs. London: John Murray, 1818. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Ibid.
Weir, Alison. Mary, Queen of Scots and the Murder of Lord Darnley. London: Random House, 2003. Print.
Fraser, Antonia. Mary Queen of Scots. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Print.
“The aim is to unravel what actually happened during the years 1567-68 from the myths and lies and misconceptions which have persisted for over four centuries. The original evidence has been re-examined rigorously and many new questions have been raised and probed. There is a detailed analysis of the events and the Casket Letters. The result is a much-needed measure of historical revision.”, MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
Ibid.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Ibid.
N., J.F. Mary Stuart and the Casket Letters. Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1870. Print.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Henderson, T.F. The Casket Letters and Mary Queen of Scots: With Appendices. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1889. Print.
Ibid.
MacRobert, A.E. Mary Queen of Scots and the Casket Letters. London: I.B. Taurus, 2002. Print.
Were the religious reforms during the reign of Henry VIII the cause
of the execution of Lady Jane Grey?
A: Plan of Investigation
In 1554 Lady Jane Grey (born 1537), also known as the Nine
Day Queen was executed in London1. She was the great granddaughter
of King Henry VII[1]
This investigation will establish whether there is a link
between the religious reforms put in place during the time of Henry VIII’s
reign and the causes of Lady Jane Grey’s execution. For this investigation many
sources will be consulted, and will be searched for evidence suggesting a link
between the Religious Reforms and Jane’s execution. This essay will address the
question: Were the religious reforms
during the reign of Henry VIII the cause of the execution of Lady Jane Grey?
B: Summary of Evidence
Background Information
· King
Edward died on 6 July 1553. Four days later, Jane was proclaimed queen. Mary
Tudor had widespread popular support and by mid-July, even the Duke of Suffolk
[Jane’s father] had abandoned his daughter and was attempting to save himself
by proclaiming Mary queen.3
· The
Duke of Northumberland’s A supporters melted away and The Duke of
Suffolk easily persuaded his daughter to relinquish the crown.2
·
She was deposed 19th July 1553, 9
days following her instatement as Queen on the 10th. [2]
·
She was protestant, and those trying to have her
as the monarch were strong protestants including her parents and father-in-law.3
·
Religions of the relevant Tudor monarchs:
1.
Henry VIII – initially Catholic but reformed the
Church in order to get a legitimate divorce and became protestant.
2.
Edward VI – under his reign the Church of
England became more protestant, as he was fiercely protestant.
3.
Lady Jane Grey – protestant.
4.
Queen Mary I – strongly Roman Catholic; went
about to change the religion of the country from protestant.
5.
Queen Elizabeth I – protestant; but wanted to
have a compromise between the Catholics and Protestants. [3]
Suggesting a link between Religious Reforms and Jane
Grey’s Execution
·
Mary Tudor became a catholic icon during the
reign of Edward VI, due to his increasingly protestant policy. [4]
·
C S L Davies describes Jane Grey’s rise to power
as “the only successful rebellion of Tudor England” [5]
·
There was a plan, on Thomas Seymour’s B part,
to marry Jane to King Edward. [6]
·
Lady Jane Grey was one of more than 100 people
to be beheaded during the reign of Mary I, including Jane’s husband. 9
·
Edward VI had wanted Lady Jane Grey to succeed
him in order to maintain the protestant succession. 10
·
By the time of the Tudor era in England, the
reformation was already beginning in Europe, challenging the rule of the
Catholic Church. 10
·
The reformation in England reached fever pitch
in the middle of the 16th century. It was an upheaval of
“far-reaching political and social significance.” 10
·
It is considered that Henry VIII’s love letter
to Anne Boleyn was the trigger of the religious reformation in later years. 11
·
The Reformation stemmed from Henry’s Desire to
marry Anne after a divorce from Katherine of Aragon. Which could only be given
to him by the Pope. The Pope did nothing to help Henry and Henry decided he
would only get a divorce if he made his own church. In order for this to
happen, Henry needed legislation from the Reformation Parliament. 11
Suggesting no link between religious reforms and Jane
Grey’s Execution
·
Edward VI was privy to Northumberland’s plans
for Jane accession. 9
·
On June 21 1553, the Duke of Northumberland,
drafted letters bastardising Mary and Elizabeth and thus making them ineligible
to ascend to the throne. 9
·
Not only did her ascension disregard the Tudor
line of accession; it also disregarded the Stuart line of accession. 9
·
Henry VIII wrote in his will that should his
three children die without children of his own the crown should be passed to
his niece Frances Grey, mother of Jane Grey. 12
Miscellaneous Information
·
This oil painting (see below), currently hanging
in the National Gallery in London was painted in 1883 by Paul Delaroche and
depicts the execution of Jane Grey. [7]
·
·
Lady Jane Grey was one of the best scholars of
her day.[8]
·
After Catherine Parr’s death, her husband,
Thomas Seymour, gave Parr’s household to Jane Grey. 7
·
The library of Henry VIII was searched for
information that would back Henry’s case in setting up a new church. 11
·
It was this research from the libraries, that
Henry became convinced that he was the leader of his own national church, and
thus, encouraged him to break from Rome, in the 1530s. 11
C: Evaluation of sources
The sources used as evidence in this essay, are of varying
degrees of subjectivity. Obviously all the sources are secondary sources,
because none of the authors of the sources were alive at the time of Lady Jane
Grey’s life. This is a limitation of all the sources referenced in this essay.
The origin of the sources varies; some from more subjective websites written in
favour of the British Monarchy, (source 4) to more deeply researched history
books (sources 7 and 9). Source 10 is a book: Tudor England by Peter Brimacobe, it was written in 2004. The
origin of the book is a British historian who specialises in Tudor history. the
purpose of the book is to entertain and to educate. The value is that it seems
to be that it is a well researched and as it is a published work, it is likely
to have been reviewed, it is good for taking in facts but it shows only one
side, and doesn’t show alternate points of view. Its limitations are that it
isn’t trying to a great work of historical literature and is purely to entertain
and to provide the reader with background knowledge of the subject. Another
source of use is source 9: The Tudor
Years by John Lotherington. The origin is a British historian; he is also a
history teacher in a UK school. The purpose of this publication is to educate,
and therefore we can assume that it is more objective than some other sources
may be. The value of this book
is that it offers a range of causes for Lady Jane Grey’s crowning, which lead
to her execution. The limitation of this source is the fact it is a secondary
source and therefore may not be as factual as a primary source could be.
D: Analysis
The vast majority of the sources consulted agree that the
reason for Lady Jane Grey’s execution was the fact that she was queen, because
of this we need to look at the reasons she became queen, due to the fact that
the causes of the latter are also the causes of the former. With this in mind
we can look purely at the causes of her ascension to the throne. Lady Jane Grey
was executed, in short, because she was a protestant queen, in the way of
Catholic Mary’s ascension to the throne. So with that in mind, the causes of
Jane being queen, and Mary’s Catholicism become important. It is an interesting
point to note that Henry VIII was only able to marry Anne Boleyn and Jane
Seymour because of the split with Rome, noting that Edward was a product of
Henry’s marriage to Jane Seymour, and Edward was one of the people who allowed
Jane to become queen, it is vital to state that perhaps in this sense the religious
reforms are indirectly responsible for her ascension and execution. Whilst
correlation is obvious: the religious reforms happened, and in 1554 Lady Jane
Grey was executed, but causation would be more difficult to prove. In this
case, it would be near impossible to prove that there was a cause and effect
link between the Religious Reforms and the execution of a queen 21 years later.
The Tudor Years by John Lotherington states that one of the
main reasons for the crowning of Lady Jane Grey was her father’s want to
further his own status. Additionally, her ascension disregarded both Tudor and
Stuart lines of monarchies, implying that Edward’s plan was for her to purely
maintain the protestant monarchy, probably due to the fact that his father’s
views had had an impact on him in his childhood, which implies that this may
have been another way in which the religious reforms indirectly caused Jane
Grey’s death. Despite these two indirect causes, there is no historiography
suggesting a direct link between the reformation of the Church and the
execution of Lady Jane Grey. On the
other hand it is widely accepted that without the pressures of the Protestant Catholic
divide at the time, there would have been no need for Lady Jane Grey to be
queen and by extension executed. It is noteworthy that it was the catholic Mary
I who sentenced Jane to death3. But this is still an indirect link –
a secondary cause- as such and a long term cause at that, the Catholic
Protestant divide was only a side effect of the Church Reformation and was not
the goal of the reformation as much as the goal was to allow Henry VIII to
divorce Catherine of Aragon.
E: Conclusion
The
historiography supports the idea that whilst the religious reforms were a long
term; secondary; indirect cause. It was in no way the “trigger” cause of the
execution of Lady Jane Grey. This puts the research question of “Were the religious reforms during the reign of Henry VIII the cause of
the execution of Lady Jane Grey?” in a somewhat grey area. Due to the fact
that it has neither no effect nor is the only cause of the execution.
The trigger
causes were the Duke of Northumberland’s desire to get ahead in life, and the
fact that Mary I felt insulted by Jane’s ascension. Two main points caused this
offence: firstly, that Jane’s crowning disregarded the pre-decided line of
succession, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that Jane was
protestant. The historiography of this topic suggests that whilst the long term
causes stretch back decades before the execution the trigger- her ascension-
was just a few months before her execution. As Lotherington says in his book,
Jane Grey was executed because she was used as a pawn in other peoples’ power
games.
F: Bibliography
2 www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/grey_lady_jane.shtml
3http://tudorhistory.org/jane/
4
www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland
/TheTudors/HenryVIII.aspx
5 http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk
6 theguardian.com (24.02.2010)
7Elizabeth; David Starkey;2000
8 England
Under The Reign Of Edward VI and Mary I; Patrick Fraser Tytler; 1839
9 The Tudor Years; John Lotherington, 1994
10
Tudor England;
Peter Brimacombe; 2004
11
Henry VIII, Man
and Monarch; David Starkey and Susan Doran; 2009
12
Henry VIII, Eric Ives;
2007
How
accurately does Les Misérables portray the 1832 June Rebellion in Paris?
|
Section A –
Plan of the Investigation
The aim of this investigation is to
answer the question: How accurately does Les Misérables[1]
portray the 1832 June Rebellion in Paris? Although this question stemmed
from my admiration for the musical, I felt confirmed to do it after discussing
the question with Dr. Robert Tombs of the University of Cambridge. To answer
the question, I will focus primarily on the latter part of the play where the
rebellions are portrayed[2].
Although it will not be the focus of this investigation, characters and music
lyrics will be considered. Since Les Misérables is not playing where I live[3],
I will have to use the 2012 Tom Hooper movie as my primary source for the
musical. For the other side of this investigation, I will implement a number of
books, documentaries, and other sources to build up my argument.
Among these sources will be Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France,
1814-1871 by Pamela M. Pilbeam (recommended to me by Professor R. Tombs)
and The Age of Revolution by Eric
Hobsbawm. Both historians are well versed in this topic and hopefully will
provide the evidence I need to answer this question. The evaluation of these
sources will be presented in Section C.
Word Count: 199
Section B –
Summary of Evidence
In response to the proclamation of
the four ordinances, the people of France rose up in revolution against King
Charles X (July 1830). These revolutions stemmed from Charles X dissolving the
Chamber of Deputies, limiting franchise to the wealthy members of the
population, and restraining the freedom of press.[4]
As a result of the ‘Three Glorious Days’[5],
the people of Paris gained hold of the capitol city and Charles X abdicated.
With support from France’s upper bourgeoisie[6]
, Charles’s cousin Louis-Phillipe became the new King of France. In comparison
to France’s past monarchs, Louis-Phillipe was a good king- he recognized that
his people wanted liberty, the Chamber of Deputies was reinstated (and used),
the government became anti-clerical and censorship was discontinued. Nonetheless,
not having been elected into power gave him a bad reputation among the people
who still wanted a real republic.[7]
This became the context for the June Rebellion of 1832.
The June Rebellion was an
unsuccessful insurrection that lasted for two days (June 5th
1832-June 6th 1832). Along with the context given in the first
paragraph, this rebellion sprang from years of having a bad economy (“harvest failures, food shortages, and
increases in the cost of living”[8]),
a cholera outbreak in the spring of 1832 and the death of General Jean Lamarque
in June. General Jean Lamarque was a favorite since he showed sympathy towards
the lower class and appreciated their desires. After his death on June 1st
1832[9],
Lamarque became the catalyst the rebels needed to start the uprising.
On the morning of Lamarque’s
funeral (June 5th, 1832), students, workers, and refugees gathered
in the streets. During the procession, “a
member of the crowd waved a red flag bearing the words "Liberty or
Death", the crowd broke into disorder and shots were exchanged with
government troops.”[10]
After this, the insurgents moved quickly and began setting up barricades in
the streets of Paris. Unfortunately for the rebels, the uprising did not
spread. With no popular support and a huge army against them, the odds for the
revolutionaries were not great. By the next day, the National Guard had
deployed cannons on the barricades and those few who remained were surrounded.
The rebellion was a fast failure.
Despite the fact that the rebellion
accomplished nothing, it has become subject to romanticism in Victor Hugo’s
book Les Misérables. This book was transferred
to film in 1906 and in 1980, the Boubil-Schönberg musical was presented in
Paris.[11]
Word Count: 581 words
Section C – Evaluation of Sources
Source A- ‘Les Misérables’ (film), by Universal Pictures, 2012
I am going to analyze how accurate the
musical Les Misérables is in portraying the June Rebellion of
1832. Since the musical is not playing where I live, I am using the most recent
film version. In terms of origin, this
movie was made in 2013 and was filmed in several locations across England. The
movie and musical is inspired by Victor Hugo’s book “Les Miserables”.[12]
Hugo, who witnessed the June Rebellion first hand[13],
created all the characters and events featured in the play. Just like the
musical, this film was created purely for entertainment purposes. One aspect of
this movie that makes it valuable for the historian is that you don’t have to
go see it in a theater and you can fast forward to different parts[14].
Another thing that makes the movie valuable over the play is that you get to
see action that is a little more realistic.[15]
The main limitation to this piece is the rebellion is greatly romanticized by
the love story and the music. The focus is less on the rebellion and more on
the characters.
Source B- ‘Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814-1871’, Pamela
Pilbeam, 1995
The second source I will asses is ‘Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France,
1814-1871’ by Professor Pamela Pilbeam. Concerning the origin of this book,
the work was originally published in the United States in 1995. Pilbeam is
Emeritus Professor of French History at the University of London and has
published several other books concerning nineteenth-century Europe[16]. The purpose of this publication was to answer
questions concerning the French Revolution such as why it took “three attempts over nearly half a century
before a permanent republican regime could be established. [17]
This source is valuable to the historian studying the June Rebellion since she
covers the rebellion and puts it in context to other events happening in France
at that time. The limitation to this piece is the fact that she covers the
rebellion in about 200 words. Since the rebellion itself was so short, I have
had difficulty finding historians who mention it at all.
Word Count: 358
Section D – Analysis
Historical Significance
The June
Rebellion of 1832 is not a hugely significant part of France’s history. The
rebellion was primarily Parisian and only lasted two days. In fact, many would
agree that without Victor Hugo and Les
Misérables the June Rebellion wouldn’t have the same popularity it has
now. “The
novel [Les Misérables] is one of few
works of literature that discusses the June Rebellion and the events leading up
to it.”[18]
Leading up to the Rebellion
Les
Misérables is fairly limited when it comes to detailing the reasons for the uprising.
For example, they forget to mention the cholera outbreak that swept the country
in the spring of 1832.[19]
Something that I discovered while researching for this investigation was that
the lyrics are different between the musical and the movie. This proved to be
an important find since in different adaptations, more or less information is
given about the causes of the rebellion. For example, in the Tom Hooper movie,
the second rendition of Look Down includes a part where the character Gavroche
sings about the King who’s “no better
than the last”.[20]
He sings about France being a “land that
fought for liberty” but is now stuck in the hands of a monarch again. This
gives us some more details about the rebellion then the musical does. On the
other hand, in the musical they add the line “See our children fed/Help us in our shame/Something for a crust of
bread” to same song. This points
out the starvation among the people and the desperation that spawns from that.
One aspect
that makes Les Misérables more
historically accurate (in terms of what caused the rebellion) is their mention
of General Lamarque. His influence over
the people and the effect his illness had on the rebellion is portrayed in the
second rendition of Look Down[21]
and the song Red and Black. We also
see in the musical how Lamarque’s death becomes the catalyst for rebellion
(which did occur in 1832).[22]
At the end of Red and Black, Enjolras[23]
comes up with the plan for the June Rebellion (starting with the interruption
of Lamarque’s funeral).
Rebellion and Results
Les Misérables is quite accurate in depicting the actual course of the rebellion.
Although they separate Lamarque’s death and the funeral by one day rather then
five[24],
the progression of the rebellion is correct. During the song Do You Hear the People Sing, they show
the interruption of the Jean Lamarque’s funeral and the shots that are fired
shortly afterwards. They then show the erection of the barricades and the
fighting and canon fire that occurs between the two parties. The results in the
end are also the similar- there are men killed from both sides and the
rebellion is a failure. Most importantly in my opinion, they show how the
people of Paris did not rise up to the rebellion. This is not only portrayed
through the verbal dialogue between the rebels[25]
but in the last fighting scene when the rebels are knocking on the doors of
houses surrounding them and the residents are too scared to help.
Nevertheless,
there are still loads of inaccuracies. Since the book only focuses on one group
of students- the friends of the ABC, this was translated into the musical. Although
this was done to make the performance more entertaining, this completely distorts
the rebellion for the historian. Since there is this focus on one group, we
don’t realize how big the rebellion was. In the June Rebellion, a total of 800
people were killed or injured.[26]
In the musical we get the impression that maybe 40 died. Also, to make the
story more heart wrenching, all the
rebels die the throughout the musical (minus Marius)[27].
This was not the case in the June Rebellion since the remaining alive rebels
were arrested and charged. Another mistake that came from focusing on the
Friends of the ABC was not talking about the other barricades around the city.
We do hear Enjolras[28]
mention that the other barricades have fallen down and that theirs was the “only barricade left”[29]
but the only other time we hear of the other barricade is the glimpse of
another barricade at 98:27. To sum it up, “the
musical’s writers chose to concentrate on Hugo’s more romantic themes of
individual redemption and simplified ideas of social justice”. [30]
They wanted to make a emotional piece, not a documentary.
Word Count:
686 words
Section E - Conclusion
In
conclusion, I would argue that the musical Les
Miserables is only partially accurate in portraying the June Rebellion in
Paris, 1832. Since the focus is less on the rebellion and more on the
characters involved in it, we lose details that weren’t essential to the Les Misérables playwrights. With that
said, Les Misérables as a June
Rebellion source is very useful since there are very few sources that detail
the short rebellion. It’s really the only piece that focuses on the rebellion
and without it, the June Rebellion may have become another event that’s lost in
history.
Section F - Bibliography
Books
Pilbeam, Pamela M. Republicanism
in Nineteenth-century France: 1814-1871. New York: St. Martin's, 1995.
Print.
Hobsbawm, E. J. The
Age of Revolution, 1789-1848. Cleveland: World Pub., 1962. Print.
Harsin, Jill. The
War of the Streets in Revolutionary Paris, 1830–1848. N.p.: n.p., n.d.
Print.
Jean Maximilien Lamarque» in Charles
Mullié, Biographie des célébrités militaires des armées de terre et de mer
de 1789 à 1850, 1852
Mark Traugott, The
Insurgent Barricade, University of California Press, 2010
Graham, Robb (1998).
Victor Hugo: A Biography. W.W. Norton and Company.
Godfrey, Elton. The
Revolutionary Idea in France. Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold & Co.,
1923.
Websites
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica.
"Louis-Philippe (king of France)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online- Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 29
Sept. 2014. - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/349203/Louis-Philippe
"Les Misérables:
Creation of the Musical - Walnut Street Theatre." Les Misérables: Creation
of the Musical - Walnut Street Theatre. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014. - http://www.walnutstreettheatre.org/season/lesmis-creation.php
"Les Miserables
Soundtrack Lyrics | Musical." Les Miserables Soundtrack Lyrics | Musical.
N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014. - http://www.stlyrics.com/l/lesmiserables.htm
"Pamela Pilbeam."
Professor — Department of History, Classics and Archaeology, Birkbeck,
University of London. N.p., 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Oct. 2014 - http://www.bbk.ac.uk/history/our-staff/teaching-and-scholarship/pilbeam
Gossard, Julia. "Les
Misérables: A Historian’s Review." The Alcalde RSS. N.p., 16 Jan. 2013.
Web. 02 Oct. 2014. - http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2013/01/les-miserables-a-historians-review/
Bradford, Wade.
"The Historical Background of Les Miserables." About. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014. - http://plays.about.com/od/musicals/a/Les-Miserables-Historical-Background.htm
PDFs
Spirit., and Backg.
"Les Mis Study Guide 1." Les Miserable Study Guide 1 (n.d.): n. pag.
Official Website for Les Miserables- London. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. This PDF is
supplied for education purposes by Les Miserables Educational Team
Movies/Videos
Les Miserables 2012.
Dir. Tom Hooper. Universal, 2012. DVD.
"June Rebellion of 1832 Mp4 HD." YouTube. YouTube, 4 June
2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
Presentations
Foster, Meredith. "Ten-Minute
History: The June Rebellion of 1832." Prezi.com. N.p., 18 Jan. 2013. Web.
29 Sept. 2014
Pictures
Digital image. Here Is the City.
N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
.
[1] The world renowned
musical/movie
[2] Starting at Gavroche’s solo in the song Look Down, minute 66:49 in the Tom Hooper movie
[3] I did see the play
live in London, November 2013
[4] "June Rebellion of 1832
Mp4 HD." YouTube. YouTube, 4 June 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
[5] Another name for the July Revolution of 1830 (Used in Pamela Pilbeam’s
research article The ‘Three Glorious Days’: The Revolution of 1830 in Provincial France )
[6]
The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica.
"Louis-Philippe (king of France)." Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2014.
[7] Foster,
Meredith. "Ten-Minute History: The June Rebellion of 1832." Prezi.com.
N.p., 18 Jan. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2014
[8] Harsin, Jill. Barricades: The War of
the Streets in Revolutionary Paris, 1830–1848. New York: Palgrave, 2002.
[9] Jean Maximilien Lamarque» in Charles
Mullié, Biographie des célébrités militaires des armées de terre et de mer
de 1789 à 1850, 1852, pp.153-9
[10] Mark Traugott, The Insurgent
Barricade, University of California Press, 2010, pp.4-5.
[11] Spirit., and Backg. "Les
Mis Study Guide 1." Les Miserable Study Guide 1 (n.d.): n. pag. Official
Website for Les Miserables- London. Web. 30 Sept. 2014. This PDF is supplied
for education purposes by Les Miserables Educational Team
[12] "Les
Misérables: Creation of the Musical - Walnut Street Theatre." Les
Misérables: Creation of the Musical - Walnut Street Theatre. N.p., n.d.
Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
[13] Graham, Robb (1998). Victor Hugo: A
Biography. W.W. Norton and Company.
[14] For example, I’m skipping the first hour of the movie since it doesn’t
apply to the investigation
[15] In the play for example, you
see the barricade come on stage. In the movie, you get to see the rebels build
the barricade in front of your eyes (and
for the 2012, Tom Hooper had the actors actually build the barricade to make it
the experience more realistic).
[16] "Pamela Pilbeam."
Professor — Department of History, Classics and Archaeology, Birkbeck,
University of London. N.p., 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
[17] Pilbeam, Pamela, ‘Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814-1871’,
pp. xi
[18] Godfrey, Elton. The
Revolutionary Idea in France. Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold & Co.,
1923.
[19] In the film there are some times when groups of people look sick
[20] King Louis-Phillipe
[21] MARIUS:
Only one man and that's Lamarque speak for the people here below... Lamarque is
ill and fading fast. Won't last the week out, so they say. ENJOLRAS: With all the anger in the land how long before the
judgment day? Before we cut the fat ones down to size? Before the barricades
arise?”
[22] ENJOLRAS: “Lamarque! His death is the hour of fate. The people's man. His death
is the sign we await!”.
[23] The head of the Friends of the ABC
[24] Depicted by the song One Day More
[25] See minute 117 in the Tom Hooper
[26] Pilbeam, Pamela, ‘Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century France, 1814-1871’,
pp. 121
[27] During the song, The Final Battle.
[28] The main leader of the rebellion
[29] Les Miserables, Tom Hooper, 117:36
[30] Gossard, Julia. "Les
Misérables: A Historian’s Review." The Alcalde RSS. N.p., 16 Jan. 2013.
Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
What was the strongest dividing factor during Franco’s Reign; Football, Economy, Religion?
A: Plan of the Investigation
What was the strongest dividing factor during Franco’s Reign; Football, Economy, Religion. In order to answer this questions we must evaluate the significance of each aspect studied and how impactful said aspects are to the Spanish populous. Economic figures of both Franco’s anti-market policies (1939-59) and his post 1959 free trade policies will be measured in response to its significance with the population. Religion in the life of the population and the differences between State sponsored Catholicism and Catholicism directly from the Vatican. Also how a Football team served as a representation of citizens who did not agree with their government.
B: Summary of Evidence
Economy
During its early years, “the new regime introduced a set of anti-market policies that altered the previous behavior of the Spanish economy dramatically” International markets were closed off, and as a result the population could not export nor import goods.
This meant that there was only a limited supply of goods and excessive demand, causing prices and inflation to skyrocket. As a response “inflation was repressed through officially established prices” however as seen in Figure 1 (see appendix) by setting prices lower than the market equilibrium price a shortage is created. This meant that a large segment of the population could not access basic commodities. A British Consul in Malaga wrote “Rice, flour, sugar and many other essential foodstuffs are still practically unobtainable;potatoes have once again disappeared from the markets; meat, which in June and July could generally be bought, is now very seldom on sale, and prices of all commodities have greatly increased. But the shortage of bread is the main concern of the multitude whose main sustenance it is; for weeks during the months of August and September queues waited all night outside the bakeries, more often that not only to be bitterly disappointed by the meagre allowance they received in the morning, and there have actually been a number of entirely bread less days. This would be perceived as harboring discontent by the population with its government considering the lengths of time citizens had to wait for their rations.
Unsurprisingly the long lines and uncertainty regarding the availability of food allowed for “the development of ‘black’ markets” Where prices were raised disproportionally due to the dwindling supply of commodities. All this economic turmoil meant that “Spain did not recover its pre-Civil War per capita GDP peak levels (1929) until 1955, while Western European countries reached, on average, 1938 levels of GDP per head by 1950.” However due to strict border restrictions it wasn’t until later (1059) where the population were able to compare their per capita GDP levels with those of the tourists that came on holidays.
Among this succession of economic hardships “the Government budget did not contribute to raise effective demand by establishing unemployment benefits” meaning that unemployed people became not only a burden on their families but also on the general population due to not being able to consume, thus decreasing the consumption section of Aggregate Demand.
Religion
Initially religion served as a deterrent of factionalism, since under Franco (and through most of history) the majority of Spaniards were Catholic. In june 1941 the Catholic Church’s rights were outlined the most important ones “1. recognition of Catholicism as the official religion of the country; 2. mandatory religious instruction at all educational levels in conformity with Catholic dogma.” Homogenous religious beliefs backed by the state suggest an intent to generate a strong sense of unity. By installing mandatory religious instruction during education the government hoped national identities would shift into an all-encompassing Religious identity, thus suffocating all other identification sentiments.
However the very foundations of the Church were shaken with Pope John XXIII statement “We were all made in God's image, and thus, we are all Godly alike.” Now Catholic intellectuals and even Politicians found contradicting messages from Spanish Catholicism and the Vatican’s approach. Such was the case with José María Llanos, a “Jesuit from a wealthy family” who had pastored for the government was shocked with the conditions of the citizens from the slum El Pozo del Tío Raimundo and radically changed his views on politics. He got involved with the Workers Commission and even joined the illegal communist party. He wasn’t the only one, a new group of priests known as curas rojos or red priests.
Football
A Spanish newspaper called “La Vanguarida asks on Sunday October 7th 2012: “Only football?” [except] They know the answer: with Barcelona versus Real Madrid is never just about football.” “Today [Barcelona’s] traditional pre match mosaic will be a Senyera (catalan flag).” It’s significance is the upcoming referendum for Catalan independence. However, today is not an exception as Classico’s (Barcelona vs Madrid games) are never just football. As Marcos Alonso (played for Barcelona and Madrid) put it “ In Barcelona, you have a sense of complete identification with the club. It means a massive amount for Catalan society” That is because Barcelona’s Identity has evolved from being just a football club to something more than just a club. President Joan Gaspart phrased like this “History has transformed us into something more than just a football club: Barcelona is the defense of a country, a language, a culture.”
Such is the importance of Barcelona that Radi Antíc who managed both Madrid and Barcelona said “Being a director of Barcelona or Madrid is more important than being a minister in any country” Which while it might be an exaggeration it shows the immense representational value that Barcelona has, not only in Catalan Society but also the world. This feeling of being part of something larger stems from the belief that “When Barcelona face madrid it is ... the nation against the state, freedom fighters against Franco’s Facists” And all the participants are automatically elevated from just a football club director or player.
Catalan Sociologist Luis Flaquer attributes it to Madrid serving as a scapegoat to citizens disapproval of State. “[Citizens] couldn’t shout “Franco you murderer” on the streets so people shouted at Real Madrid players instead” Another factor is that “the regime used sport to assert its power” Which Citizens responded to by supporting Madrid’s rival Barcelona as a sign of rebellion against the state’s power. FC Barcelona player, Stoichkov, described it as “a rebellion against the Establishment” supporting the notion that “Catalonia is a country and Barcelona is its army”
C: Evaluation of Sources
Note From the British Consul in Malaga
The note originated from the Foreign office consulate in Malaga. It was written on the 22-12-1939. This situates it a couple months after the Civil War has come to an end, which means that while the rationing system was already in place the cost of war in regards to production and crops was still very high. The Consul of Malaga wanted to inform the Foreign British Office of the living conditions faced by Spaniards, “Rice, flour, sugar and many other essential foodstuffs are still practically unobtainable” The importance of this note lies in the fact that its a Human reaction and description simultaneously with the events that where unfolding. However that is also its limitation, its a human reaction based on sense perception. It offers no realistic quantifiable information as its just an observation from a Consul denouncing the living conditions of citizens.
Fear and Loathing in La Liga Sid Lowe
Fear and Loathing in La Liga was written by Sid Lowe, it was published on the 23 of September 2013 (hard cover). Sid Lowe is a British historian It describes itself as a book that has “lift[ed] the lid on sport’s greatest rivalry” so it was written to shed light and mythify the Barcelona’s and Real Madrid’s Relationship with each other. However as a book it also serves an economic purpose, while as enticing and passionate the narrative it was written to sell and make money. Its strength lies in that Sid Lowe has had to interview many people in order to get primary accounts of what happened as well as also not get carried away with the romanticism of the rivalry and instead give a detailed account of how its stood at various points in time. Also always looking at both sides of every controversy, for every segment on something Barcelona did there was always a quotation of a Real Madrid directive or player and vise versa. By showing both sides of the argument and opting for the readers to choose a middle ground it distances itself from any internal bias from the author and the people giving the account of the events. Its not without limitations, as even though Lowe attempts to give bipartisan accounts, he does not always achieve it, letting the individual who is narrating the anecdote be the sole defender of bias or leniency. Something hard to achieve when talking about your rival football team.
D: Analysis
All three factors discussed resulted in people unhappy with the state and adversity against the state with varying degrees of intensity. First the economical factors surrounding Spain immediately after the crisis. It has been observed the effect of anti-market based policies and fixed prices that lead to the discontent of the people through not being able to purchase primary commodities such as bread. However while these economic situations deeply affected the Spanish Individuals it didn’t give them a method of voicing their disapproval and not conforming to the state. However the economic turmoil served to motivate individuals to voice their criticisms through other channels, this as because due to Spain’s economy there were large sections of the population left with famine. Due to the price ceiling set on primary commodities there was a supply shortage, which either meant that the population would go malnourished (which it did) or there would be a surge in black markets. Inside these black markets the prices were higher than unadulterated market price. These economic factors impulsed the population into disagreement with the state. However it also fortified communities and neighborhoods. It was only through mutually aiding one another that neighborhoods, villages and communities were able to survive. In this sense it brought the population to coo-operate in an effort to survive the hardships of the time.
Another factor was religion. Originally believed by the State to unify Spain under 1 religious belief system and that national identities would shift into an all-encompassing Religious identity, thus suffocating all other identification sentiments. For the first ten years this was the case, however a structural change in the Vatican toppled the system of unity that linked Spaniards together. The new Pope Joan XXIII started preaching “We were all made in God's image, and thus, we are all Godly alike.” Now religious officials were conflicted. This was due to the Vatican preaching slightly different messages than state sponsored Catholicism. This lead some religious leaders to verge from the path of state sponsored Catholicism and look inward of spiritual guidance. An example was José María Llanos, a “Jesuit from a wealthy family” who had pastored for the government was shocked with the conditions of the citizens from the slum El Pozo del Tío Raimundo and radically changed his views on politics. In his instance religion served as a way for him to oppose the state, by preforming Labour Union duties (labour unions were banned) under the mantle of Religious service. He was not alone as a whole new demographic of Priests arose. They were known as red priests, red symbolizing their affinity to communist beliefs, and helped workers dialog with their employers. However while their actions were radical and against the state, there weren’t many and paled in comparison to supporters for the countries most popular sport, Football.
More than a club. Barcelona served as the weaponless army of Catalonia. Such is the importance and symbolism of the club, that it served as a “rebellion against the Establishment”. Not my words but from Hristo Stoichkov, star FCBarcelona player. It was the only section of society where one could express, through the sentiment of Barcelona’s colors, any sort of belligerence against the state. Barça evolved from a football club into a symbol of defiance, of resistance, a last piece of hope that invoked deep sentiments of nationalistic pride. A place where citizens frustrations could be voiced as sociologist Luis Flaquer has said ““Franco you murderer” on the streets so people shouted at Real Madrid players instead” It was the sentiment of the continuance of the struggle. A instance wheret the dictator would not go unopposed “When Barcelona face madrid it is ... the nation against the state, freedom fighters against Franco’s Fascists” Thats why Randi Antíc described being a director at Barcelona, more important than serving as a minister in any country. Because not only do you act as a political beacon of hope but the fate and existence of a nation rests on your every move. Its importance stems from the regime wishing to assert its power through popular activities, and none was more popular than football. Because the state asserted its power through sport, the resistance needed to match it in the same arena. Which is why teams such as Madrid and Barcelona became much more important, and their matches more significant than just a sporting event.
E: Conclusion
In conclusion, the economic situation of the country established on a general level of discontent with the government. However this discontent stemmed due to economic circumstances did not materialize itself as factionalism (as is happening now) but rather brought communities and villages together in order to affront the difficult economic times. However the discontent, misery and poverty did affect other sections that were more vocal in their opposition to the regime. Red Priests surge due to the large poverty and the living conditions that citizens experienced. This lead them to take up membership in the communist party (illegal) and also serve as Union Worker delegates under the mantle of religion. Lastly, and the most vocal forms of opposition to the government was football, more specifically FCBarcelona. It went from a football team started by a Swiss to representing a nations hopes and dreams against an oppressive regime and becoming a key pillar in the Catalan identity.
F: Bibliography
Prados De La Escosura, Leandro, Joan R. Rosés, and Isabel Sanz-Villarrya. "Economic Reforms and Growth in Franco's Spain." Diss. Carlos III De Madrid, 2011. Economic Reforms and Growth in Franco's Spain (2011): n. pag. E-Archive. Universidad Carlos III Madrid, 18 July 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Martínez Ruiz, Elena. EL SECTOR EXTERIOR DURANTE LA AUTARQUÍA UNA RECONSTRUCCIÓN DE LAS BALANZAS DE PAGOS DE ESPAÑA (1940-1958) Study N 43 (2003): 1-191. Banko De España. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Llopis, E. Historia Económica De España, Siglos X-XX. By M. Hernandez. Barcelona: n.p., 2002. N. pag. Print.
Prados De La Escosura. "Growth and Macroeconomic Performance in Spain." Diss. Carlos III De Madrid, 1994. Universidad Carlos III De Madrid, Dec. 1994. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
image. N.p.: Microeconomics World, 6 June 2013.
The National Archives (TNA), PRO, FO 371/24507, Malaga Consul Report , 22-12-1939
G Margaret. "Franco and the Catholic Church." Spainthenandnow. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
Canonisation of Blessed John Paul II and Blessed John XXIII, The National Catholic Church of the United Kingdom and Ireland, 4 July 2013
Lowe, Sid. Fear and Loathing in La Liga: The True Story of Barcelona and Real Madrid. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
What was the strongest dividing factor during Franco’s Reign; Football, Economy, Religion?
A: Plan of the Investigation
What was the strongest dividing factor during Franco’s Reign; Football, Economy, Religion. In order to answer this questions we must evaluate the significance of each aspect studied and how impactful said aspects are to the Spanish populous. Economic figures of both Franco’s anti-market policies (1939-59) and his post 1959 free trade policies will be measured in response to its significance with the population. Religion in the life of the population and the differences between State sponsored Catholicism and Catholicism directly from the Vatican. Also how a Football team served as a representation of citizens who did not agree with their government.
B: Summary of Evidence
Economy
During its early years, “the new regime introduced a set of anti-market policies that altered the previous behavior of the Spanish economy dramatically” International markets were closed off, and as a result the population could not export nor import goods.
This meant that there was only a limited supply of goods and excessive demand, causing prices and inflation to skyrocket. As a response “inflation was repressed through officially established prices” however as seen in Figure 1 (see appendix) by setting prices lower than the market equilibrium price a shortage is created. This meant that a large segment of the population could not access basic commodities. A British Consul in Malaga wrote “Rice, flour, sugar and many other essential foodstuffs are still practically unobtainable;potatoes have once again disappeared from the markets; meat, which in June and July could generally be bought, is now very seldom on sale, and prices of all commodities have greatly increased. But the shortage of bread is the main concern of the multitude whose main sustenance it is; for weeks during the months of August and September queues waited all night outside the bakeries, more often that not only to be bitterly disappointed by the meagre allowance they received in the morning, and there have actually been a number of entirely bread less days. This would be perceived as harboring discontent by the population with its government considering the lengths of time citizens had to wait for their rations.
Unsurprisingly the long lines and uncertainty regarding the availability of food allowed for “the development of ‘black’ markets” Where prices were raised disproportionally due to the dwindling supply of commodities. All this economic turmoil meant that “Spain did not recover its pre-Civil War per capita GDP peak levels (1929) until 1955, while Western European countries reached, on average, 1938 levels of GDP per head by 1950.” However due to strict border restrictions it wasn’t until later (1059) where the population were able to compare their per capita GDP levels with those of the tourists that came on holidays.
Among this succession of economic hardships “the Government budget did not contribute to raise effective demand by establishing unemployment benefits” meaning that unemployed people became not only a burden on their families but also on the general population due to not being able to consume, thus decreasing the consumption section of Aggregate Demand.
Religion
Initially religion served as a deterrent of factionalism, since under Franco (and through most of history) the majority of Spaniards were Catholic. In june 1941 the Catholic Church’s rights were outlined the most important ones “1. recognition of Catholicism as the official religion of the country; 2. mandatory religious instruction at all educational levels in conformity with Catholic dogma.” Homogenous religious beliefs backed by the state suggest an intent to generate a strong sense of unity. By installing mandatory religious instruction during education the government hoped national identities would shift into an all-encompassing Religious identity, thus suffocating all other identification sentiments.
However the very foundations of the Church were shaken with Pope John XXIII statement “We were all made in God's image, and thus, we are all Godly alike.” Now Catholic intellectuals and even Politicians found contradicting messages from Spanish Catholicism and the Vatican’s approach. Such was the case with José María Llanos, a “Jesuit from a wealthy family” who had pastored for the government was shocked with the conditions of the citizens from the slum El Pozo del Tío Raimundo and radically changed his views on politics. He got involved with the Workers Commission and even joined the illegal communist party. He wasn’t the only one, a new group of priests known as curas rojos or red priests.
Football
A Spanish newspaper called “La Vanguarida asks on Sunday October 7th 2012: “Only football?” [except] They know the answer: with Barcelona versus Real Madrid is never just about football.” “Today [Barcelona’s] traditional pre match mosaic will be a Senyera (catalan flag).” It’s significance is the upcoming referendum for Catalan independence. However, today is not an exception as Classico’s (Barcelona vs Madrid games) are never just football. As Marcos Alonso (played for Barcelona and Madrid) put it “ In Barcelona, you have a sense of complete identification with the club. It means a massive amount for Catalan society” That is because Barcelona’s Identity has evolved from being just a football club to something more than just a club. President Joan Gaspart phrased like this “History has transformed us into something more than just a football club: Barcelona is the defense of a country, a language, a culture.”
Such is the importance of Barcelona that Radi Antíc who managed both Madrid and Barcelona said “Being a director of Barcelona or Madrid is more important than being a minister in any country” Which while it might be an exaggeration it shows the immense representational value that Barcelona has, not only in Catalan Society but also the world. This feeling of being part of something larger stems from the belief that “When Barcelona face madrid it is ... the nation against the state, freedom fighters against Franco’s Facists” And all the participants are automatically elevated from just a football club director or player.
Catalan Sociologist Luis Flaquer attributes it to Madrid serving as a scapegoat to citizens disapproval of State. “[Citizens] couldn’t shout “Franco you murderer” on the streets so people shouted at Real Madrid players instead” Another factor is that “the regime used sport to assert its power” Which Citizens responded to by supporting Madrid’s rival Barcelona as a sign of rebellion against the state’s power. FC Barcelona player, Stoichkov, described it as “a rebellion against the Establishment” supporting the notion that “Catalonia is a country and Barcelona is its army”
C: Evaluation of Sources
Note From the British Consul in Malaga
The note originated from the Foreign office consulate in Malaga. It was written on the 22-12-1939. This situates it a couple months after the Civil War has come to an end, which means that while the rationing system was already in place the cost of war in regards to production and crops was still very high. The Consul of Malaga wanted to inform the Foreign British Office of the living conditions faced by Spaniards, “Rice, flour, sugar and many other essential foodstuffs are still practically unobtainable” The importance of this note lies in the fact that its a Human reaction and description simultaneously with the events that where unfolding. However that is also its limitation, its a human reaction based on sense perception. It offers no realistic quantifiable information as its just an observation from a Consul denouncing the living conditions of citizens.
Fear and Loathing in La Liga Sid Lowe
Fear and Loathing in La Liga was written by Sid Lowe, it was published on the 23 of September 2013 (hard cover). Sid Lowe is a British historian It describes itself as a book that has “lift[ed] the lid on sport’s greatest rivalry” so it was written to shed light and mythify the Barcelona’s and Real Madrid’s Relationship with each other. However as a book it also serves an economic purpose, while as enticing and passionate the narrative it was written to sell and make money. Its strength lies in that Sid Lowe has had to interview many people in order to get primary accounts of what happened as well as also not get carried away with the romanticism of the rivalry and instead give a detailed account of how its stood at various points in time. Also always looking at both sides of every controversy, for every segment on something Barcelona did there was always a quotation of a Real Madrid directive or player and vise versa. By showing both sides of the argument and opting for the readers to choose a middle ground it distances itself from any internal bias from the author and the people giving the account of the events. Its not without limitations, as even though Lowe attempts to give bipartisan accounts, he does not always achieve it, letting the individual who is narrating the anecdote be the sole defender of bias or leniency. Something hard to achieve when talking about your rival football team.
D: Analysis
All three factors discussed resulted in people unhappy with the state and adversity against the state with varying degrees of intensity. First the economical factors surrounding Spain immediately after the crisis. It has been observed the effect of anti-market based policies and fixed prices that lead to the discontent of the people through not being able to purchase primary commodities such as bread. However while these economic situations deeply affected the Spanish Individuals it didn’t give them a method of voicing their disapproval and not conforming to the state. However the economic turmoil served to motivate individuals to voice their criticisms through other channels, this as because due to Spain’s economy there were large sections of the population left with famine. Due to the price ceiling set on primary commodities there was a supply shortage, which either meant that the population would go malnourished (which it did) or there would be a surge in black markets. Inside these black markets the prices were higher than unadulterated market price. These economic factors impulsed the population into disagreement with the state. However it also fortified communities and neighborhoods. It was only through mutually aiding one another that neighborhoods, villages and communities were able to survive. In this sense it brought the population to coo-operate in an effort to survive the hardships of the time.
Another factor was religion. Originally believed by the State to unify Spain under 1 religious belief system and that national identities would shift into an all-encompassing Religious identity, thus suffocating all other identification sentiments. For the first ten years this was the case, however a structural change in the Vatican toppled the system of unity that linked Spaniards together. The new Pope Joan XXIII started preaching “We were all made in God's image, and thus, we are all Godly alike.” Now religious officials were conflicted. This was due to the Vatican preaching slightly different messages than state sponsored Catholicism. This lead some religious leaders to verge from the path of state sponsored Catholicism and look inward of spiritual guidance. An example was José María Llanos, a “Jesuit from a wealthy family” who had pastored for the government was shocked with the conditions of the citizens from the slum El Pozo del Tío Raimundo and radically changed his views on politics. In his instance religion served as a way for him to oppose the state, by preforming Labour Union duties (labour unions were banned) under the mantle of Religious service. He was not alone as a whole new demographic of Priests arose. They were known as red priests, red symbolizing their affinity to communist beliefs, and helped workers dialog with their employers. However while their actions were radical and against the state, there weren’t many and paled in comparison to supporters for the countries most popular sport, Football.
More than a club. Barcelona served as the weaponless army of Catalonia. Such is the importance and symbolism of the club, that it served as a “rebellion against the Establishment”. Not my words but from Hristo Stoichkov, star FCBarcelona player. It was the only section of society where one could express, through the sentiment of Barcelona’s colors, any sort of belligerence against the state. Barça evolved from a football club into a symbol of defiance, of resistance, a last piece of hope that invoked deep sentiments of nationalistic pride. A place where citizens frustrations could be voiced as sociologist Luis Flaquer has said ““Franco you murderer” on the streets so people shouted at Real Madrid players instead” It was the sentiment of the continuance of the struggle. A instance wheret the dictator would not go unopposed “When Barcelona face madrid it is ... the nation against the state, freedom fighters against Franco’s Fascists” Thats why Randi Antíc described being a director at Barcelona, more important than serving as a minister in any country. Because not only do you act as a political beacon of hope but the fate and existence of a nation rests on your every move. Its importance stems from the regime wishing to assert its power through popular activities, and none was more popular than football. Because the state asserted its power through sport, the resistance needed to match it in the same arena. Which is why teams such as Madrid and Barcelona became much more important, and their matches more significant than just a sporting event.
E: Conclusion
In conclusion, the economic situation of the country established on a general level of discontent with the government. However this discontent stemmed due to economic circumstances did not materialize itself as factionalism (as is happening now) but rather brought communities and villages together in order to affront the difficult economic times. However the discontent, misery and poverty did affect other sections that were more vocal in their opposition to the regime. Red Priests surge due to the large poverty and the living conditions that citizens experienced. This lead them to take up membership in the communist party (illegal) and also serve as Union Worker delegates under the mantle of religion. Lastly, and the most vocal forms of opposition to the government was football, more specifically FCBarcelona. It went from a football team started by a Swiss to representing a nations hopes and dreams against an oppressive regime and becoming a key pillar in the Catalan identity.
F: Bibliography
Prados De La Escosura, Leandro, Joan R. Rosés, and Isabel Sanz-Villarrya. "Economic Reforms and Growth in Franco's Spain." Diss. Carlos III De Madrid, 2011. Economic Reforms and Growth in Franco's Spain (2011): n. pag. E-Archive. Universidad Carlos III Madrid, 18 July 2011. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Martínez Ruiz, Elena. EL SECTOR EXTERIOR DURANTE LA AUTARQUÍA UNA RECONSTRUCCIÓN DE LAS BALANZAS DE PAGOS DE ESPAÑA (1940-1958) Study N 43 (2003): 1-191. Banko De España. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
Llopis, E. Historia Económica De España, Siglos X-XX. By M. Hernandez. Barcelona: n.p., 2002. N. pag. Print.
Prados De La Escosura. "Growth and Macroeconomic Performance in Spain." Diss. Carlos III De Madrid, 1994. Universidad Carlos III De Madrid, Dec. 1994. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.
image. N.p.: Microeconomics World, 6 June 2013.
The National Archives (TNA), PRO, FO 371/24507, Malaga Consul Report , 22-12-1939
G Margaret. "Franco and the Catholic Church." Spainthenandnow. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2014.
Canonisation of Blessed John Paul II and Blessed John XXIII, The National Catholic Church of the United Kingdom and Ireland, 4 July 2013
Lowe, Sid. Fear and Loathing in La Liga: The True Story of Barcelona and Real Madrid. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
A: Plan of Investigation
Is a
reluctance to tactically innovate responsible for English Football’s lack of
success post-1966? In order to answer this question the
views of educated football journalists, analysts, and influential managers will
be analysed. Jonathan Wilson’s
“Inverting the Pyramid” will be a main source, whilst analytic works such as “Soccernomics”
and “The Numbers Game” will offer insight into the statistical findings that provide
reasons and evidence for England’s lack of success. Primary sources from
managers such as Jimmy Hogan and Helenio Herrera will provide first hand evidence
as to why the English game has failed to meet expectations since the year
England were crowned World Champions in 1966. Few other sources will be used
due to the vast amount of unreliable and subjective information the topic of
football breeds.
B: Summary of Evidence
(See Fig. 1 for all Football
Definitions)
In the earliest years of football, dribbling and all-out
attack was the primary characteristic of English football with very little
regard for the passing game. Scotland however evolved their game, passing and
combination play becoming the norm in Scotland.[1]
England and English teams maintained the more physical kick and rush game although the passing game had proven through the
Scottish team Queen’s Park to be more successful. Although certain players such
as G.O Smith of Corinthians adapted their style to develop the kick and rush game the majority of
England remained stubborn and did not adopt a different style of play until
forced to by a change in the offside rule in 1925.[2]
England’s national team has failed to reach the final of any
competitive international tournament since 1966. Up to 2004 the World Cup has
been won 5 times by Brazil, 3 times by Italy and Germany, twice by Argentina and
Uruguay and once by France and England. With the Netherlands reaching the final
twice.[3]
England have failed to win the UEFA European Championship whereas Germany have
won it 3 times, France have won it twice and Italy, Netherlands, Denmark,
Greece, Spain, and the Soviet Union have won it once.[4]
England won the World Cup in 1966 managed by Sir Alf Ramsey playing
the majority of the tournament with a long ball and pace driven 4-1-3-2 (See
Fig. 3).[5]
4-4-2 (See Fig. 3), a formation derived from Ramsey’s 4-1-3-2, became the
default formation for the majority of English clubs with differing styles.
Paisley’s Liverpool and Clough’s Nottingham Forest saw European and Domestic
success through a possession based 4-4-2, whereas Wimbledon and Watford
succeeded through a pressing, offensive 4-4-2.[6]
4-4-2 remained the orthodoxy for England until the mid-90s.[7]
Using stats taken since 1972, if a draw counts as half a
win, England have won approximately 66% of their matches (including
friendlies), Brazil have won 80%.[8]
With Foreign managers winning 73% and
English managers winning 64%, using a draw as half a win. Foreign managers have
qualified for 5 out of 5 tournaments whereas English managers have qualified
for 4/6.[9]
In the 1930s Vittorio Pozzo introduced a 2-3-2-3 (See Fig. 3)
to Italy’s national team using a third
back for more defensive shape and style.[10]
Italy won two World Cup’s in a row in 1934 and 1938.[11]
Italy did not win another World Cup until Bearzot introduced a midfield libero into Italy’s defensive Catenaccio for the World Cup 1982, with
which they won.[12]
Rinus Michels’ Netherlands incorporated the highly energetic
Total Football in the early 1970s[13]
and although they never won a World Cup, they finished runner’s up at both the
1974 and 1978 final.[14]
A
Feola’s Brazil implemented the back four in 4-2-4(See Fig.3) for the first time at the World Cup
1958 and then kept it for 1962.[15]
Both of which they won.[16]
Zagallo’s Brazil won in 1970 with the same 4-2-4.[17] Winning again in 1994 and 2002 with a narrow
4-2-2-2(See Fig.3) and wide 5-2-3(See Fig.3) respectively.[18]
Since the introduction of the Bosman Ruling(See Fig. 2) in 1996 the Premier League has seen an
increase in international footballers. England’s win percentage (when draws
count as half a win) has increased by 5.1% since 1996.[19]
C: Evaluation of Sources
Jonathan Wilson’s “Inverting the Pyramid”:
Written by Jonathan Wilson, this
book on the history of football tactics is a secondary source published in 2008
and updated in 2013. Described by the Scotsman as “revelatory”[20]
and the winner of the British Sports Book Award’s “Football Book Of The Year”
award.[21]
It is written with the purpose of selling books by informing the reader of the
history of football tactics and entertaining through anecdotes and insightful
arguments. Gathering information from footballing journalists of their times
such as Willy Meisl and Brian Glanville, historical records of football
matches, and information from primary sources of managers such as Jimmy Hogan
and Helenio Herrera, to create an extremely thorough analysis and commentary on
the history of tactical innovations, successes, and failures, to enhance
football watching and understanding. The greatest value of this source is in
the number of sources it draws from, which provide a range of knowledge on the
subject. Another value is that, in a topic so flooded with sources of vast
subjectivity and unreliability, this book provides intellectual and evidenced
statements and points of discussion. The limitations of this source are in the
limitations of football analysis in itself. The book’s observation of
pre-televised football are based on potentially subjective opinion of early
football writers and managers, and without a visual record of the matches
football is an incredibly difficult game to judge.
“Soccernomics” by Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski
Written by Financial Times sports columnist Simon Kuper, and professor
of sports management and economics, Stefan Szymanski PhD, Soccernomics is a
secondary source, originally published in 2009. The purpose of this book is to
evaluate the statistics behind footballing occurrences, producing arguments
from numerical data and economic studies. The purpose is also to entertain and
sell books. Soccernomics offers insight into the effects of background dealings
on football such as the hosting of tournaments and a country’s economic
standing. The value of this source is in its ability avoid the ever present
subjectivity of football by merely looking at statistics. The book’s gathering
data from Russell Gerrard’s football database and Optastats provides a purely
objective outlook on the phenomena that occur in football. The late cup winning
manager Vujadin Boskov stated that, “Football is unpredictable”[22]
and therein lies the limitation of this source. Due to football’s
unpredictability, events cannot be fully explained through numbers and
statistics, and without the full story of each football match it is made more
difficult to conclude the reasons for its outcomes.
D: Analysis
A reluctance to innovate post
1966 has caused a lack of success for English football. When England reached
the peak of their football success, winning the World Cup in 1966, it was seen
as the greatest thing to happen to English football. However a theory has
grown, that in the long term, it was in fact, the worst thing. David Downing in
his books on England’s Rivalries[23]
and Rob Steen, in The Mavericks[24]
argue that the victory of 1966 has set English football back. Jonathan
Wilson states that “The problem is not so much the way Ramsey’s England played
as the fact that, in the minds of generations of fans and coaches in England,
it laid down a ‘right’ way of playing”[25]
and after Ramsey’s 4-4-2 saw success at club level with Liverpool and
Nottingham Forest, it had certainly cemented itself as this “right” way. The
4-4-2 remained the staple of English coaches until the mid 90s, but since 66 is
yet to see any form of competitive international success. This lack of
innovation amongst English coaches, which blossomed after Ramsey’s era, has
demonstrated its failings as the more creative minds of foreign managers have
seen greater progress with the English national team. The relative success of
these foreign managers shows that innovation has bred more success for the
English team than tactical stagnation. Although since 1966, England’s inability
to adapt has been ever present, it has been a feature of English football since
its inception.
It could be argued that England’s
lack of innovation was not solely sparked by 1966, but it has been ingrained in
England since football began. After annihilating the English champions Wolves
in 1960, Barcelona coach Helenio Herrera stated, “When it came to modern
football, the Britons missed the evolution. The English are creatures of habit:
tea at five.”[26] Although
from 1960, this quote reigned true in describing the 100 years prior. In the
first years of football, contested only between England and Scotland “kick and rush” was the norm, and England
remained happy with that, but Scotland developed a more fluid passing game. The
passing game saw success with Scottish clubs and Scotland themselves, but
England remained stubborn. It wasn’t until a change in the offside rule that
England, reluctantly, attempted to change their style. The natural reluctance
to innovate England seemingly possess didn’t end there. Football journalist of
the 1950s Willy Meisl compared England’s approach to football in the 1930s to
their approach to Germany in the interwar period. “Round the thirties
and towards the World War II we in Britain were living through a ‘safety-first’
period.” Later in the book he then states, “The fact is that English soccer has
an enormous amount to learn from the rest of the world, about training,
courses, tactics, organisation and strategy.”[27]
The man considered the founder of Hungarian football[28]
Jimmy Hogan stated “I still maintain we have the best players, but it is our
style of playing that has gone wrong.”[29]
These early opinions suggest that English football’s tactical mind has always
been stale and in need of rejuvenation. However to truly assess the lack of
success invoked by a reluctance to innovate, the success of innovation must be
observed.
It is not only Scotland who have
seen relative due to new ideas. Throughout footballing history it seems that
innovation has bred success. Brazil, the most successful international team in
football history, have thrived with adaptation. They developed four in defence, whilst others used three, and
won three World Cups. Then by narrowing their midfield won another, and won their fifth by introducing five in
defence. In comparison to England, Brazil have been far superior, and seemingly
through innovation. However Brazil are not the only team to see success through
new ideas. Italy are another prime example, developing defensive shape as their
new Catenaccio led them to two World
cup victories. However they experienced a similar trophy drought to England,
until the subtle innovations of their manager Bearzot in midfield saw World Cup
victory and demonstrated that after a length of stagnation, innovation has been
the key to success.
Due to the unpredictability of
football, it could be argued that there are far too many variables to determine
that innovation is the single cause for a success or lack thereof. The
Netherlands are the perfect support. Praised by David Winner and many others as
“The best team never to win a World Cup”[30]
the Dutch reached the 1974 and 1978 final with the genius Ajax innovation; total
football. However they didn’t win, suggesting other factors of luck, individual
skill, and many more, can have just as much of an effect on success as tactical
innovation. The most prevalent argument for England’s lack of success is that
the increase of foreign players playing the English League is responsible,
however Kuper and Szymanski suggest “The experience of playing against the best
foreign players every week has probably helped English Internationals to
improve.”[31]
And support this with the statistics that since the Bosman Ruling, England’s national team has won 5% more than it did
prior to the increase in foreign players.
E: Conclusion
“Seven
words have long dominated football: That’s the way it’s always been done.”[32]
Having assessed the evidence available,
it is clear that this statement is true for the majority of England’s
footballing history. Since 1966 England have obeyed the “rules” Ramsey set for
football and England have failed to tactically innovate. Given events pre-1966
England have always “proved themselves unwilling to grapple with the abstract”[33]
and have failed to succeed because of it. The victories of other international
teams shortly after their tactical innovations suggest that innovation plays a
large role in an international team’s success. However other variables such as
the skill of players, luck, and more factors on football’s unending list of
unpredictability, suggest that England’s failure to succeed is impossible to
deduce. Nevertheless from the statistical analysis and observations of football
history it is clear that tactical developments play a large role in the history
of many international teams, and no matter what other factors affect them, England’s
reluctance to innovate and failure to adapt have prevented them from succeeding
since 1966.
F: Bibliography
Glanville, Brian. Soccer Nemesis. London: Secker
& Warburg, 1955. Print
Harris, Tim. "Jimmy
Hogan." Players: 250 Men,
Women and Animals Who Created Modern Sport. London: Yellow Jersey, 2009. N.
pag. Google. Web. 18 Aug. 2014.
Wilson, Jonathan. Inverting the Pyramid: A History of
Football Tactics. London: Orion, 2008. Print.
Kuper, Simon, and Stefan
Szymanski. Soccernomics: Why
Transfers Fail, Why Spain Rule the World and Other Curious Football Phenomena
Explained. London: HarperSport, 2012. Print.
"Previous Winners." British Sports Book Awards 2014
Previous Winners. British Sports Book Awards, n.d. Web. 20 Aug. 2014.
"Book Review: Inverting the
Pyramid." The Scotsman.
The Scotsman, 05 June 2008. Web. 20 Aug. 2014.
"FIFA World Cup™ Final." FIFA.com.
FIFA, 01 Aug. 2010. Web. 21 Aug. 2014.
"UEFA EURO 2016 Finals - History –
UEFA.com." UEFA.com. UEFA, 2014. Web. 25 Aug. 2014.
Adams, Adrian. We Love Football:
Best Football Quotes On Earth. N.p.: on Demand, 2014. Print.
Steen, Robert. The Mavericks:
English Football When Flair Wore Flares. Edinburgh: Mainstream, 1995.
Print.
Downing, David. The
Best of Enemies: England v. Germany, a Century of Football Rivalry. London:
Bloomsbury, 2000. Print.
England v Argentina:
World Cups and Other Small Wars. London: Portrait,
2003. Print.
Herrera, Fiora
Gandolfi, Tacalabala, Esercizi di magia
di Helenio Herrera. Tapiro, 2002.
Winner, David. Brilliant
Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football. London: Bloomsbury, 2000.
Print.
Meisl, Willy. Soccer
Revolution. London: Phoenix Sports, 1955. Print.
SoccerCoachingInternational’s
Glossary of Soccer Terms (n.d.): n. pag. Soccer Coaching
International. 16 Apr. 2007. Web. 30 Sept. 2014
Bosman Law Citation:
Judgment on Freedom
of movement for workers delivered by European Court
Union royale belge des
sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois
SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de
football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman, Case
C-415/93, ECLI 1995 I-04921
"Lineup
Builder." : Football Formations and Tactics. N.p., n.d. Web. 30
Sept. 2014.
G: Appendix
Fig. 1:
Glossary of Football
terms used: (as stated in Soccer Coaching International’s Glossary of Terms)[34]
Defence- A team's function of preventing the opposition from
scoring.
Midfield-
The group of players who function primarily in the centre (neutral) third of the
field
Libero-
(Italian for
"free player") sweeper or stopper who may go forward to support the
attack
Catenaccio-(Italian for "chain") - A
defensive playing style (formation, etc.) developed by the Italians, often
using a sweeper, that gives up few goals while degrading the game to boredom.
Total
Football- a philosophy (system, style, organization) of play
popularized by the Dutch in the 1970's that allows any player to attack or
defend, with others moving around to cover vacated areas. Total Football
requires players to be highly fit and above average in intelligence.
Third Back- A third central
defender added to two central defenders for increased defensive stability.
Back
Four- A formation of
deep defenders comprised of the left and right outside defenders and two other
central defenders.
Kick and Rush- Football played vigorously but with little skill. Involves
long passing across the pitch to score, involving very few small passes.
Note: When
using Nation names (ie. England) reference is to that Nation’s national
football team.
Fig. 2:
Bosman Ruling-
“Judgment of the Court of 15 December 1995.
Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d'appel de Liège - Belgium.
Freedom of movement for workers - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Professional footballers - Sporting rules on the transfer of players requiring the new club to pay a fee to the old club - Limitation of the number of players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match.
Case C-415/93.”[35]
Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d'appel de Liège - Belgium.
Freedom of movement for workers - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Professional footballers - Sporting rules on the transfer of players requiring the new club to pay a fee to the old club - Limitation of the number of players having the nationality of other Member States who may be fielded in a match.
Case C-415/93.”[35]
[1]
Wilson p. 22
[2]
ibid p. 30-35
[3] FIFA
[4] UEFA
[5]
Wilson p. 179
[6]
ibid p. 304-308
[7]
ibid p. 446
[8] Kuper and Szymanski p. 309-310
[9] ibid p. 332
[10]
Wilson p. 85
[11]
FIFA
[12] Wilson p. 296
[13] Wilson p. 254
[14]
FIFA
[15] Wilson p. 150
[16] FIFA
[17] Wilson p. 285
[18] ibid p. 299
[19] Kuper and Szymanski p. 314
[20] The Scotsman
[21] British Sports Book Awards
[22]
Adams p. 121
[23] Downing
[24] Steen
[25] Wilson p. 7
[26] Herrera
[27] Meisl
[28] Wilson p. 38
[29] Harris
[30] Winner
[31] Kuper and Szymanski p. 314
[32] Anderson and Sally p. 1
[33] Wilson p. 5
[34]
SoccerCoachingInternational
[35]
Bosman Law Citation
[36] Lineupbuilder.com
To what extent was religious duty a
more popular reason than absolution or acquisition of wealth for bearing the Cross
in the First Crusade?
Part A: Plan of Investigation
The intention of this investigation is
to assess the reasons for which people chose to respond to Pope Urban II’s call
to arms at Clermont on November 27th and embark on the First Crusade
in 1096, and the years following. This
is a topic which has been readily studied for decades, and has produced a
variety of theses, antitheses and syntheses, my objective is to review several
of these arguments and produce a conclusion regarding whether or not the
peoples’ sense of religious duty was truly a more influential reason for
crusading in 1096, than the possibility of wealth acquisition. Prominent
theories include the promise of penance and absolution of sins, religious duty,
and the acquisition of new lands in the West. Much of the historiography
surrounding the Crusades, including that of Jonathan Riley-Smith, points to religious
duty as the reasoning adopted by the majority of crusaders. The bulk of these theories can divided into
two basic schools of thought, realism[1],
humans are inherently selfish and would only embark on the dangerous crusade in
self interest, and idealism[2],
where humans are inherently good and would therefore risk their lives crusading
out of religious duty.
Part B: Evidence
In 1090 there was a brutal massacre of
Christians in Jerusalem by Fatimid Hakim[3]. In
1009 the Church of the Holy Sepulchure was nearly obliterated[4],
and Christians were banned from visiting and praying there for eleven years
thereafter[5].
In 1071 the Byzantine Empire lost a large sum of its territory known as Asia
Minor, to the Turks, this significantly decreased the size of their empire[6]. During
the eleventh century Gregory IV established the militia sancti Petri, a military devoted entirely to the Church. At
this time there was no separation of Church and State, the Church and therefore
the Pope was the supreme power. In the latter half of the decade preceding
Urban II’s call to arms there had been a severe famine[7],
affecting the livelihood of many peasants. In what is now Spain, there had been fighting
between the Spanish Christians[8]*2,
and those they considered infidels for the majority of the century. In March 1095 Emperor Alexius I requested aid
from Pope Urban II in fighting the Seljuk Turks. Several months after Pope
Urban II responds to Alexius saying he is willing to help and issues call to
arms[9].
The bible states explicitly that
Christians should “love thy neighbor”.[10]
In 1095 Pope Urban II delivered a call to arms at Clermont, in response to
Emperor Alexius’ request for aid in battle against the Seljuk Turks.[11]
Urban II declared that anyone who took the cross would be absolved of all
previous sins.[12]
Eustace II Count of Boulogne had three
sons[13],
of which Godfrey of Bullion was the second, and Baldwin was the third. Godfrey
was made to receive a magnanimous inheritance from his father, whereas Baldwin,
being the third son was not, he was due to spend his life working humbly within
the Church though no tangible evidence has been found tying him to the Church,
or with having any extraordinary affiliations with the Church[14].
Baldwin would have gained much land from going on crusade. Godfrey dies an
untimely death in July of 1100; his inheritance and status is passed,
subsequently, to Baldwin[15].
Baldwin is crowned king of Bullion; he becomes the first King of Bullion. [16]
Robert the monk incentivized[17]
the people in his speech[18],
“but if you are hindered by love of children, parents and wives, remember what
the Lord says in the Gospel, "He that loveth father or mother more than
me, is not worthy of me."[19]
"Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father,
or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake shall receive an
hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life” and “on whom therefore is the
labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if
not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable
glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy
scalp of those who resist you.” And “that a race from the kingdom of the
Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation
forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to
God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the
sword, pillage and fire;”[20]
These are three very different
approaches of persuasion yet they mention three of the prevalent reasons for crusading,
and he is clearly attempting to appeal to a wide range of potential crusaders.
In the latter half of 1095, Pope Urban II
gave a speech to the people, urging them to join his cause[21], appealing
to their sense of religious duty in this quotation from Thomas Asbridge’s book,
“The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam”, “He called upon the warriors of
the Latin West to avenge a range of ghastly ‘crimes’ committed against Christendom
by the followers of Islam, urging them to bring aid to their eastern brethren
and to conquer again the most sacred site on earth, the city of Jerusalem.”[22]
Historian Steven Runciman, one of the most acclaimed historians of the Crusades
regarded the First Crusade "as a barbarian invasion of a superior
civilization, not that of the Muslims but of the Byzantines."[23]
Part C: Evaluation of Sources
Source One: What
Were the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith
Jonathan Riley Smith, Professor of Ecclesiastical
History at Cambridge University published his book “The Crusades, Christianity
and Islam” in 2008, introducing an unique argument to the melting pot of
theories regarding the motivation for people joining the First Crusade in 1096
and thereafter. The purpose of Riley- Smith’s book is to propose that the
people were drawn into a “penitential warfare” out of love, stemming from the
Christian concept of “love thy neighbour”, and persuade readers to believe
religious duty and “love for thy” neighbour” were more influential reasons for
going on Crusade than acquisition of wealth. His arguments were “provocative”, using
comparisons with the flammable recent event, the bombing of twin towers on
9.11., setting his book aside from drier accounts of the First Crusade. The
valuable aspect of this book is that it offers a modern comparison with 9.11.,
and makes strong links between the ancient history of the Crusades, and contemporary
events also rooted in conflict between Christianity and Islam; by making
relevant comparisons, Riley-Smith’s evaluation is more thorough than a
post-revisionist account which only looks at prior publications. Riley-Smith’s
vague generalizations towards both the Islamic and Christian perspectives lower
his credibility, thus acting as a limiting factor to the value of his
publication as a source, as his conclusions can only be as accurate as the
specificity and detail of his research and his understanding of the material.
Source Two: Speech by Pope Urban II at
Clermont 1095*2
The speech given at Clermont in 1095 by
Pope Urban II was the formal beginning of the Crusades, its purpose was to call
forth people of various backgrounds and circumstances to venture on crusade in
aid of Emperor Alexius, as a response to his earlier call to arms. The value of
this source lies in that it is essentially, there are no external
interpretations given by historians, momentarily setting aside the translation,
and thus readers can determine for themselves the meaning, and importance of
the source. Alternatively, the fact that many, if not all Crusade historians
have studied and written about this speech suggests that by the consequence of
its popularity it is a valuable source. Urban II’s speech was meant to persuade
the people, particularly the peasant class to join the Crusade. This source is
limited, however, in its accuracy as the speech was given nine centuries ago,
and was only formally written down between 1100 and 1106. Reasonably, until the
time of the documents publication, the contents of Urban II’s speech had been
passed by word of mouth, and therefore subjected heavily to unintentional
distortion. Moreover, and perhaps most
importantly, in terms of the speech’s limitations as a source, it has been
translated into many languages since its delivery in 1095; the fact of the
matter is, it was delivered in ancient Latin, and as consequence it would have
had to be translated for historians to read it. Translations between languages
can never be entirely accurate, ergo, the initial limitations of Pope Urban
II’s speech at Clermont is it hasn’t been studied in its original language. Though
it is unlikely this copy of the speech written by Fulcher of Chartes is an
exact replication of Urban II’s speech, it is still a valuable insight into the
types of words used to persuade people to embark on the perilous journey of the
First Crusade.
Part D: Analysis
Theories of the reasons which drove people
from varying backgrounds to participate in the First Crusade can be divided,
essentially, into two people of two schools of though, realism and idealism.
Those believing in the idyllic “love thy neighbor” concept preached to them by
the Church, were compelled, Riley-Smith argues, to undertake the brutal First
Crusade to save their Christian brothers in the East. Erdmann offers a similar
argument, but it follows a more realistic interpretation of human nature, that it
was an act of revenge against Jerusalem and the Christians who were suffering
under Alexius; their anger stemming from the fighting over The Church of the
Holy Sepulchure a decade prior. The difference between the two historians’
beliefs is that Riley-Smith is arguing people are intrinsically good and
willing to risk their lives in the pursuit of being good Christians, whereas
Erdmann considers that crusaders used the excuse of “loving thy neighbor” to
satisfy their own vengeful motives.
The strongest counterclaim to Riley-
Smith’s argument is in the imminent danger crusaders would have faced on their
journey; people would have been, if Riley-Smith was correct, selflessly risking
their lives, and the lives of their families for their fellow Christians across
the world, an idea which goes against the most basic principles of human
nature. Following a similar structure is the argument which claims the most prominent
reason to crusade was the pursuit of total absolution. The grounds for this
arguments lie within the fact that, due to the lack of separate of Church and
State, people were deeply religious, and in the West, where Pope Urban II drew
his crusaders from where devout Catholics. The sheer number of crusaders is
enough to support the claims naming penance the reason.
It is known people were religious, and
thus were easily persuaded into risking their lives for absolution; essentially
absolution was the best thing a person could obtain. The realistic counter
argument to the previous argument is one which applies primarily to the knights
who participated in the First Crusade, supported by historians Penny Cole and
Hans Mayer; crusading offered a welcomed opportunity for knights to participate
in the secular community. Killing, regarded as a sin under usual circumstances
was allowed, and even rewarded during the Crusade, allowing the knightly class
an opportunity to continue their gruesome occupation and simultaneously gain
absolution for their previous less than savory acts. Respectively, both knights
and peasants crusaded in the pursuit of absolution, but they are separated in
that the peasants, Riley-Smith claims, crusaded in order to have their
Christian souls saved, whereas the knights sought to be absolved of their
murders. The knights were, not unlike
revenge-seeking crusaders, parading with the façade of Christian intent when
their true motives were self-serving.
The final group of people who were incentivized to bear the cross in
1095 were those who sought land acquisition and wealth in the east. In the
conquering of new lands there is always the opportunity to increase ones one
wealth by taking that of the conquered peoples. The inherently selfish nature
of human is reason enough to substantiate the claims that crusading was a
selfish act, however, the case study provided by Godfrey of Bullion, as the
second son of Count Eustace II of Boulogne provides ample evidence for these
claims. Historians who believe the opportunity
to gain wealth was a stronger driving force than religious pursuits to go on
crusade belong to a more realistic school of thought; it does not, however,
mean their reasoning was more widely followed than those arguments of their
more idyllically minded counterparts.
Conclusion
The academic discourse surrounding the
motivations of the crusaders in 1095 is one of the longest standing historical
debates, which is to say, there can never be any one answer. Realistically, all
35,000 (see David Nicolle, historian as source) members of the first crusade ventured
out with the same reasoning in mind. Each historian puts forth reasonable
arguments and at least one crusader must have used that line of reasoning thus
verifying, to an extent their argument. When attempting to determine something
as abstruse as the intention of one person’s line of reasoning towards
embarking on something as dangerous as the First Crusade, there can never be definitive
answers. The people of the 11th
Century decided to become, or not become, crusaders for whatever reasons applied
directly to them, wealth, absolution, acceptance and so on. Riley-Smith’s
arguments for a “crusade of love” is refreshingly optimistic considering the
horror which was the First Crusade; like all theories, however, Riley-Smith’s
stemmed from the fundamental principle of human nature being intrinsically
good, or bad.
Appendix
*2 Pope Urban II’s Speech at
Clermont 1095
This
account of Urban II's speech was written toward twenty-five years after Urban's
visit to France and does not claim to give more than a general idea of the
pope's arguments
In
the year of our Lord's Incarnation one thousand and ninety-five, a great
council was celebrated within the bounds of Gaul, in Auvergne, in the city
which is called Clermont. Over this Pope Urban II presided, with the Roman
bishops and cardinals. This council was a famous one on account of the
concourse of both French and German bishops, and of princes as well. Having
arranged the matters relating to the Church, the lord pope went forth into a
certain spacious plain, for no building was large enough to hold all the
people. The pope-then, with sweet and persuasive eloquence, addressed those
present in words something like the following, saying:
"Oh,
race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race beloved and chosen by God,
- as is clear from many of your works,- set apart from all other nations by the
situation of your country as well as by your Catholic faith and the honor which
you render to the holy Church: to you our discourse is addressed, and for you
our exhortations are intended. We wish you to know what a grievous cause has
led us to your country, for it is the imminent peril threatening you and all
the faithful which has brought us hither.
From
the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report
has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a
race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly
alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose
spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those
Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away ap
art of the captives into their own country, and a part have they have killed by
cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated
them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having
defiled them with their uncleanness....The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered
by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be
traversed in two months' time.
"On
whom, therefore, is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this
territory incumbent, if not upon you, you upon whom, above all other nations,
God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and
strength to humble the heads of those who resist you ? Let the deeds of your
ancestors encourage you and incite your minds to manly achievements:-the greatness
of King Charlemagne, and of his son Louis, and of your other monarchs, who have
destroyed the kingdoms of the Turks and have extended the sway of Church over
lands previously possessed by the pagan. Let the holy sepulcher of our Lord and
Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially arouse you, and the
holy places which are now treated, with ignominy and irreverently polluted with
the filth of the unclean. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of
invincible ancestors, do not degenerate; our progenitors., but recall the valor
of your progenitors.
"But
if you are hindered by love of children, parents, or of wife, remember what the
Lord says in the Gospel, `He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me', 'Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters,
or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall
receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' Let none of your
possessions retain you, nor solicitude for you, family affairs. For this land
which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the
mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in
wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is
that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many
among you perish in intestine strife.'
[Another
of those present at the Council of Clermont, Fulcher of Chartres, thus reports
this part of Urban's speech: "Let those who have formerly been accustomed
to contend wickedly in private warfare against the faithful fight against the
infidel, and bring to a victorious end the war which ought already to have been
begun. Let those who have hitherto been robbers now become soldiers. Let those
who have formerly contended against their brothers and relatives now fight
against the barbarians as they ought. Let those who have formerly been
mercenaries at low wages now gain eternal rewards. Let those who have been
exhausting themselves to the detriment both of body and soul now strive for a
twofold reward" See a complete translation of Fulcher's report of Urban's
speech in Translations and Reprints, Vol. 1. No. 2.]
"Let
hatred therefore depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease,
and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the
Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to
yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and
honey' was given by God into the power of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is
the center of the earth ; the land is fruitful above all others, like another
paradise of delights. This spot the Redeemer of mankind has made illustrious by
his advent, has beautified by his sojourn, has consecrated by his passion, has
redeemed by his death, has glorified by his burial.
"This
royal city, however, situated at the center of the earth, is now held captive
by the enemies of Christ and is subjected, by those who do not know God, to the
worship the heathen. She seeks, therefore, and desires to be liberated and
ceases not to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks
succor, because as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all
other nations great glory in arms. Accordingly, undertake this journey eagerly
for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the reward of
imperishable glory in the kingdon of heaven.."
When
Pope Urban had urbanely said thes and very similar things, he so centered in
one purpose the desires all who were present that all cried out, " It is
the will of God! I It is the. will of God 1 " When the venerable Roman
pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven, he gave thanks to God and,
commanding silence with his hand, said:
"Most
beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel,
`Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them'; for unless God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not
have uttered the same cry; since, although the cry issued from numerous mouths,
yet the origin of the cry as one. Therefore I say to you that God, who
implanted is in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let that then be
your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed
attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of
God: 'It is the will of God! It is the will of God!' [Deus vult! Deus Vult!]
"And
ee neither command nor advise that the old or those incapable of bearing arms,
undertake this journey. Nor ought women to set out at all without their
husbands, or brother, or legal guardians. For such are more of a hindrance than
aid, more of a burden than an advantage. Let the rich aid the needy and
according to their wealth let them take with them experienced soldiers. The
priests and other clerks, whether secular or regulars are not to go without the
consent of their bishop; for this journey would profit them nothing if they
went without permission. Also, it is not fitting that laymen should enter upon
the pilgrimage without the blessing of their priests.
"Whoever,
therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage, and shall make his vow to
God to that effect, and shall offer himself to him for sacrifice, as a living
victim, holy and acceptable to God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the
Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When, indeed, he shall return from his
journey, having fulfilled his vow, let him place the cross on his back between
his shoulders. Thus shall ye, indeed, by this twofold action, fulfill the
precept of the Lord, as lie commands in the Gospel, 'he that taketh not his
cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."'
[1] Schuett, Robert. Political Realism,
Freud, and Human Nature in International Relations: The Resurrection of the
Realist Man. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.
[2] Berkeley, George, Howard Robinson, and
George Berkeley. Principles of Human Knowledge ; And, Three Dialogues.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Print.
[3] Scaruffi, Piero. "A Timeline and
History of the Arabs." A Timeline and History of the Arabs. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2014. .
[4] "The Holy Sepulchre - The Great
Destruction of 1009." The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of
1009. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
.
[5] Harpur, James. "Islam
Triumphant." The Crusades The Two Hundred Years War: The Clash Between
the Cross and the Cresent in the Middle East 1096-1291. New York: Rosen
Group, 2008. N. pag. Print.
[6] Frankopan, Peter. "Collapse of
Asia Minor." The First Crusade: The Call from the East. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2012. 57-70. Print.
[7] Kostick, Conor. "From the
Preaching to the Rise of the Visionaries." The Social Structure of the
First Crusade. Leiden: Brill, 2008. N. pag. Print.
[8] "Europe During the Crusades."
European History Boise State. Ed. E.L. Skip Knox. N.p., n.d. Web.
.
[9] Corbo, Virgilio, Michele Piccirillo,
and Eugenio Alliata. "The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of
1009." The Holy Sepulchre - The Great Destruction of 1009. Christus
Rex, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2001.
[10] Mark.
The Holy Bible. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
[11] Runciman, Steven, and Steven Runciman. A
History of the Crusades. N.p.: Cambridge U.P, 1952. Print.
[12] Phillips, Jonathan.
"Context." Introduction. The Crusades, 1095-1197. Harlow:
Longman, 2002. 13. Print.
[13] Mayer, Hans Eberhard. "The
Succession to Baldwin II of Jerusalem: English Impact on the East." Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 39 (1985): 139-47. JSTOR. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
.
[14] Snell, Melissa. "Godfrey of
Bouillon - Crusader." About. About Education, n.d. Web. 02 Oct.
2014. .
[15] Tozer, Tom. Godfrey De Bouillon:
Defender of the Holy Sepulcher. N.p.: PublishAmerica, 2004. Print.
[16] Andressohn, John C., and Gottfried Von
Bouillon. The Ancestry and Life of Godfrey of Bouillon. Bloomington, IN:
Ind. U, 1947. Print.
[17] Napier, Gordon. "Robert the Monk
and the Council of Clermont." Web log post. Gordon Napier History.
N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web.
.
[18] Napier, Gordon. "Robert the Monk
and the Council of Clermont." Web log post. Gordon Napier History.
N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web.
.
[19] Monk, Robert the.
"Http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2a.html." Speech at
Clermont. Fordham. Web. 1095.
.
[20] Munro, Dana Carleton. Urban and the
Crusaders. Vol. 1:2. Philadelphia, PA: Dept. of History of the U of
Pennsylvania, 1895. Print
[21] Munro, Dana Carleton. "The Speech
of Pope Urban II. At Clermont, 1095." The American Historical Review
11.2 (1906): 231. Web.
[22] Asbridge, Thomas S. The First
Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict between Christianity and Islam.
New York: Oxford UP, 2005. 16. Print.
[23] John M Riddle (2008).
A
History of the Middle Ages, 300 - 1500. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing
Group, Incorporated. p. 315.
