Micro credit Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Micro credit - Essay Example The success of Grameen Bank, which was started by Yunus Muhammad in Bangladesh has always been used as a demonstration of the creditworthiness of individuals that live in poverty and the possible positive socio-economic effect of microfinance. The Grameen Bank is popular for two practices of innovativeness; these are mainly serving female customers and giving loans to small groups or individuals that come together for common economical purposes, with shared liability that replaces monetary collateral. Being an approach that is market-based to fighting impoverishment, the focus of microfinance and microcredit is on the development of entrepreneurship and the expansion of self-employment (Abed, 2000). Presently, the institutions of microfinance serve about one hundred and fifteen million individuals. They have a close relationship with the customers, simplified processes and support extension to customers via group networks as well as some other resources, like a basic training on the repayment of loan. The industry has been highly diversified, reaching different sections of the society, though not usually reaching the poorest (Yunus and Weber, 2007). The providers also vary as they range from NGOs, cooperative unions, government and commercial banks, point-of-sale partners like post offices and shops, self-help groups and credit unions. Technology is increasingly assisting in the facilitation of access to the financial services and the reduction of costs of administration. The product portfolios are growing to encompass different kinds of insurance mechanisms and savings, remittance services and emergency loaning, demonstrating the rising recognition of the several financial empowerment’s dimensions. The battle against the availability of credit markets and hence against high rates of interests that the moneylenders demand is not new. They use the power of information concerning the potential borrowers and require different rates of interest

The Scarlet Letter | Plot and analysis

The Scarlet Letter | Plot and analysis In this section, the book describes a nameless character who coincidentally shares the same occupation and desires as the author of this book, Nathaniel Hawthorne. The narrator works as a chief executive officer at the Salem Custom House, meaning that he collects tariffs on foreign goods. Unfortunately, not many ships dock at Salems Port for whatever reason, so the narrator often finds himself with little to do during the work week. One gloomy day, the narrator tries to keep himself entertained by exploring the abandoned second floor of the custom house. While checking out a room upstairs, he discovers a scarlet A and an old note written by a former chief executive officer at the Custom House nearly 200 years earlier. While examining the scarlet letter, he holds it over his chest, but drops it immediately because he feels a burning sensation in his chest. He then reads the note, which tells a story about a woman who committed adultery. This inspires him to write his own spin on the n ote, even though it wouldnt be factually accurate. At the end of this section, a new president is elected, and he loses his job, which forces the narrator into following his dream of becoming a writer to make a living. Questions about the Custom House: Who is this nameless narrator who works in the Custom House? Why didnt the narrator follow his dream of becoming a writer? If the narrator hates his job and is bored because there is no work for him to do, why doesnt he quit and follow his dream? What inspired the narrator to go up to the second floor of the custom house knowing that it was unused and probably empty? Why did he feel a burning sensation when he held the scarlet letter up to his chest? Why did the narrator lose his job after a new president was elected? My Reactions towards the Custom House: I was kind of surprised to see that the narrator shares so many traits as the author, but wasnt given a name. I would have assumed that if the author intended to put himself in the story, he would have named his character after himself. I wonder why he did this. The book described the building he worked in as being run down and rotting. I believe that this adds to the narrators resentment of his job because I think it makes him feel as if his job isnt important enough to work in a building that isnt falling apart. The narrator also described that his Puritan ancestors would have looked down upon his desire to become a writer. This shocked me because back in Puritan times, Monks Priests wrote a vast majority of all books, and they were held in high esteem. One would think that his or her ancestors would be proud to have a writer in their bloodline because a studious person was looked up to. Journal Entry: Chapter 1 The Prison Door and Chapter 2 The Marketplace Summary of Chapter 1 In chapter 1, the scene is set at the Jailhouse in Salem. A throng of hooded people dressed in somber clothing are gathered around the jailhouse door to scorn and belittle the offender who is about to be released. The area around the Jailhouse is described as being dreary and dead, even the trees and grasses have died because of the gloom radiating from the jailhouse, except for 1 lone rosebush, which provides a relief for the condemned because it is a sweet moral blossom which shows a sign of forgiveness. Summary of Chapter 2 In chapter 2, Hester is released from the Jailhouse, holding an infant and is escorted up onto the scaffold where she will stand for 3 hours as people stare and taunt her. As she is standing up on the scaffold she reminisces about her parents and their house, until her attention is drawn to an old, misshapen man. This misshapen man is the person she married while in Europe before coming to America. By this point, her attention has been drawn back to the crowd, which scares her briefly, causing her to squeeze her baby out of instinct. Questions about Chapters 1 and 2: Why are people dressed in hoods as they gather around the Jailhouse? How has the Rosebush survived the sullen atmosphere it is growing in? Has Hester seen the rosebush? Has it affected her feelings in any way? Why was Hester allowed to take an infant into a dangerous environment such as the Jailhouse? Didnt the Puritans consider the safety of the baby? While standing up on the scaffold, why did Hester choose to reminisce about her parents? My Reactions towards Chapters 1 and 2: Why do the Puritans consider the suffering and punishment of others as a source of entertainment? Based on their morals, wouldnt they want to alleviate some of Hesters suffering, rather than add to it? I find that the lack of compassion shown by the Puritans in the Scarlet Letter very disturbing. If the Jailhouse was designed to detain violent and destructive criminals, why was Hester held there? Hester did not harm or endanger anyone; therefore I believe that she didnt need to be treated as someone who is dangerous. Was the rosebush planted in front of the Jailhouse intentionally? Or was it a sign of forgiveness from God? I find this very odd that something so beautiful would even survive in an environment so dreary and dead. If wearing the scarlet A was not a repercussion of Hesters offense, why did she even bother making it? If I committed that sin and had to face severe ridicule because of it, I wouldnt want to attract more scorn unto myself by wearing a big, extravagant scarlet A. Journal Entry: Chapter 3 The Recognition and Chapter 4 The Interview Summary of Chapter 3 In this chapter, Hester is continuing her punishment on the scaffold. She sees her husband, who is dressed in Indian clothing. He makes a gesture to Hester, telling her not to draw attention to him. After making this gesture, he begins asking a man in the crowd about Hesters crime and who the co-sinner was. The man replies that she was the wife of a wealthy Englishman from Amsterdam and that she committed adultery, but refuses to reveal the father of the child. For some reason, Chillingworth makes a comment about how such an old man could keep a young woman such as Hester happy. After this, we are introduced to Reverend Dimmesdale, Reverend Wilson, and Governor Bellingham, who question Hester in attempt to get her to confess to who the real father is but to no avail. Then Reverend Wilson attempts to make her reveal the father by giving her a sermon on sin, which makes her scarlet A glow. After the three try everything they can think off, they give up, and Hester is taken back to the Jailhouse. Summary of Chapter 4 In chapter 4, Hester meets her husband face to face for the first time since the beginning of the novel. Since he is a physician, he is called into the Jailhouse to drug Hester, and make her more susceptible to interrogation. When he enters Hesters jail cell, he offers her a potion, but Hester refuses it out of fear of being poisoned for revenge. Chillingworth tries once more to get Hester to reveal the father, but she refuses. As Chillingworth is walking out of the entrance of the cell, he makes Hester promise to keep his identity secret. Because of his evil facial expressions, Hester calls her husband a reincarnated version of the devil. Then Chillingworth vows to find the father of her baby, and leaves the Jailhouse. Questions about Chapters 3 and 4: Did Roger Chillingworth think that Hester would take him back after abandoning her in America for many years? Why didnt Chillingworth want attention drawn to him as Hester was standing on the scaffold? Why did Chillingworth lie about his identity when he asked the man about Hesters crime? Why did Hester withhold the name of the father of her child? Isnt she a little bit angry towards the father for not sharing any of the punishment? My Reactions towards Chapters 3 and 4: I was surprised that Chillingworth sent Hester to America instead of keeping her with him until he finished his work. Wouldnt newlyweds want to stay together no matter what? On top of what was said above, I also wanted to know what Chillingworth was up to in Amsterdam after Hester left. Finishing up some work before he left obviously wasnt the only thing he was up to while in Amsterdam for multiple years after Hester left. When I read his remark about how her husband must have been foolish to think that he could keep a young wife happy, I wondered why he married Hester. Typically, when one is in love, they look out for the best of the other. In this relationship, it seems as if Chillingworth just wanted Hester as a trophy wife. After Reverend Wilson gave Hester the sermon about eternal damnation and sin, I felt really bad for Hester. After all she had been through that day, she must have been feeling many unpleasant emotions, and Reverend Wilson just amplified the feeling of guilt within her. Journal Entry: Chapter 5 Hester at Her Needle and Chapter 6 Pearl Summary of Chapter 5: In chapter 5, the author focuses on Hesters life after being released from prison. Hester is granted her freedom to live wherever she pleases, but she chooses to stay in Boston. Even though many years have passed, Hester was still considered an outcast and was forced to live on the outskirts of town. To support herself and Pearl, she works as a seamstress, and sells her goods in town. Her skill as a seamstress was described as being so great, that even the Governor wore her garments, despite their shameful source. Her work was held in such high regard that people asked her to craft things such burial shrouds, priestly vestments, and officials robes. All of this work afforded both Hester and Pearl a good life, but Hester still felt alienated from her community. Summary of Chapter 6: In chapter 6, the author focuses on Pearl for the first time through the entire novel thus far. Much like the rosebush in chapters 1 and 2, Pearl is the only consolation for Hester as the rosebush is the only consolation for the prisoners. Hester dresses Pearl in fine clothing, despite Puritan ethics. In addition to the scarlet letter, Pearl is another symbol of Hesters sin. Pearl is described as being a defiant child, for example, when Hester attempts to teach Pearl about God, Pearl refuses to listen, and she constantly produces mischief. Pearl also seems to be a little more aware of her surroundings than other infants. While many other 2 or 3 year olds would have disregarded the scarlet A entirely, Pearl asks Hester about it constantly. Questions about Chapters 5 and 6: Why doesnt Hester leave Boston after she is granted her freedom? Why hasnt her community let bygones be bygones and re-accepted Hester back into their community? Why does Hester violate Puritan dress ethics with her sewing? Hasnt she offended the Puritan community enough? Even though Hesters products violate the dress code for Puritans, why do people still purchase them? If Pearl wasnt an illegitimate child, would her behavior have changed? My Reactions towards Chapters 5 and 6: I was shocked to read that Hester decided to stay in Boston, despite her reputation there. If I were in this situation, I definitely would have left and started anew in a new colony or even Europe, that way Chillingworth would have been off of my back, and I wouldnt have to face any more scorn. It was a very brave mood on her part. While reading this section, I half-expected Hester to be allowed back into the community, because people started to interact with her in a positive way for the first time in a long time, by buying her stuff. Unfortunately for her, that was the only positive interaction she would ever receive from them. Towards the end of chapter 5, I was disgusted to read how she was treated by the poor people she served. Even though she made them clothes free of charge, the poor people still treated her in a disrespectful manner. The least they could have done was treat her with respect. After reading chapter 6, I discovered that Pearl was nothing like what I expected her to be. When I first saw the title of chapter 6, I expected a sweet little girl, who was perfect in every way, and caused no trouble, but in actuality, Pearl was every parents nightmare. Journal Entry: Chapter 7 The Governors Hall and Chapter 8 The Elf Child and the Minister Chapter 7 Summary In this chapter, Hester is summoned to the Governors hall to defend her custody over Pearl. While on the way to the Governors hall, a group of children harass Hester and Pearl, but Pearl throws a tantrum and scares the group of children off. Rumors have spread that Pearl is a demon child, and it is questionable if Hester should raise her, because she is alone, and Pearl is a handful in addition to her work to support them. It is also questioned if Hester can raise Pearl in a moral and God-infused environment. While entering the hall, Hester and Pearl take notice of the ornate portraits and suits of armor which decorate the hall. While passing an especially lustrous set of armor, Pearl points out her mothers reflection in the statue, which frightens Hester because the fiery scarlet A dominates the reflection. Chapter 8 Summary In this chapter, Hester meets with the Governor, Reverend Wilson, and Reverend Dimmesdale. Upon entering the conference room, Hester is asked why she feels she deserves to keep Pearl. She points out that she should keep Pearl because she can teach Pearl not to make the same choice she did. Then Wilson tests Pearl on her knowledge on religious topics. Unfortunately, this doesnt seem to sway any of their choices in her favor, so Hester begs Dimmesdale to speak on her behalf. Dimmesdale says that Pearl is both a blessing and a curse from God. Pearl is a blessing because she is a smart and healthy child, but also a curse because on top of being mischievous, she is a constant reminder of her sin. He also says that the best place for a child to be is with its mother because there is a sacred bond between them. After this, the Governor and Reverend Wilson decide to let Hester keep Pearl. Infuriated that Hester was allowed to keep her child, Chillingworth went to the Governor, demanding that he reopen the case to determine who Pearls father is, but he refuses. Hester is also asked by Mistress Hibbins if she would like to join a sà ©ance, but she refuses because she got to keep Pearl. Questions about Chapters 7 and 8: How was Pearl able to scare off a group of children easily twice her age? Why does Pearl point out the scarlet letter often, knowing that it causes her mother pain each and every time she is reminded of it? How did rumors of Pearl being a devil child spread? Hester lives on the outskirts of town and doesnt appear to be in the loop. Why does Pearl refuse to answer any of Reverend Wilsons questions, knowing full well that will allow her to stay with her mother? What makes Reverend Dimmesdale vouch for Hester? Considering he is the moral guru for the town, one would think that he wouldnt be inclined to speak on a sinners behalf. My Reactions towards Chapters 7 and 8: While reading the body of Chapter 7, I was confused on how the townspeople questioned whether or not Pearl was human. I assumed that this question arose from Pearls bad behavior and extreme awareness for her age, which made me seriously consider the theory that Pearl was the spawn of the devil. Also while reading the body of Chapter 7, my perspective of the Governor changed. When he was first introduced, I imagined him as a shorter and wider fellow, but when I learned that he fought battles against the Indians with the suit of armor in the hall, my picture of him changed. Instead of a short, stocky man, I re-imagined him as a taller, well built character. While glancing at the title of Chapter 8, I noticed that it is titled The Elf Child and the Minister. The title made me wonder if little Pearls facial figures had literally begun to look like those of an elf. Even having finished the book, I still cannot make sense of the title. After reading the beginning of Chapter 8, I was flabbergasted at Reverend Dimmesdales, Reverend Wilsons, and Governor Bellinghams treatment of Pearl. Upon entering the room these 3 fully grown men begin to tease a toddler by calling her a bird and demon child. On top of being fully grown men, these are the town leaders who are teasing Pearl. These men are supposed to be the epitome of morality and good behavior. Journal Entry Chapter 9 The Leech and Chapter 10 The Leech and his Patient Summary of Chapter 9: In Chapter 9, Chillingworth has changed his name, and nobody knows his real past, except for Hester, who is bound to secrecy. He has become the town doctor, and has been accepted by the townspeople because they dont have access to quality medical supplies. The town sometimes refers to Chillingworth as a leech, because the use of leeches to cure diseases was common at that time. He is also referred to as a leech because Dimmesdale has been suffering from health problems because of Chillingworths prodding and interrogation. It is also noted that Dimmesdale clutches his heart often. Because Dimmesdale has no wife or companion to live with, Chillingworth demands to live with him for health reasons. The ministers room is hung with pictures showing biblical scenes of adultery biblical punishment. As time passes, Chillingworths trust is questioned because rumors spread of his past. Summary of Chapter 10: In this chapter, the ministers signs of torture are becoming more and more visible. To make matters worse for Dimmesdale, Chillingworth is showing incredible persistence when it comes to discovering what Dimmesdale is hiding. Despite all of his attempts, Chillingworth still cannot determine what secrets Dimmesdale struggles to keep hidden. One day, Dimmesdale inquires Chillingworth about an odd herb. The doctor says that he found it above the grave of someone who buried their sins with them. Then Chillingworth begins to prod Dimmesdale more about buried sin, but Dimmesdale backs out. Suddenly the sounds of Pearl playing are heard from Dimmesdales window, but Pearl drags her mother away when she sees Chillingworth because she thinks that he is the devil. The doctor asks Dimmsdale about his spiritual condition, but Dimmesdale basically tells him that its Gods business. The minister then apologizes for his behavior and then goes to bed. While Dimmesdale is sleeping, Chillingworth pulls back his shirt and reveals the ministers deepest secret. Questions about Chapters 9 and 10: Why didnt Dimmesdale refuse when Chillingworth insisted on living with him? He knew that Chillingworth was after something that he was hiding. Why is Dimmesdale punishing himself so severely? How did the townspeople catch wind of Chillingworths secret past? Can Pearl detect evil in people she hasnt been in contact with? (I.E. Chillingworth?) My Reactions towards Chapters 9 and 10: Since the Puritans believed in superstitions such as witches, etc, I cannot believe that the townspeople trusted a man with such an evil appearance. After learning that Dimmesdale had a secret earlier on in the novel, Chillingworths body transformed from a tired, and old man to a nasty, dark being from all of his attempts to get Dimmesdale to reveal it. After reading that Chillingworth insisted on living with Dimmesdale for health reasons, I cannot believe that Dimmesdale actually accepted and allowed him to move in. He knew from previous chapters that Chillingworth would stop at nothing to find out about his secret. After finishing Chapter 9, I learned that the term leech had 2 meanings when referring to Chillingworth. Originally it was a term used for all doctors at that time period, but as the chapter progressed, Chillingworth sucked all of the life out of Dimmesdale from his persistent questioning. While reading Chapter 10, I was stunned that Pearl detected that Chillingworth was evil. She didnt really have any prior contact with him, and she doesnt live within the community. I believe that she is either really smart or observant or she has a special power. Journal Entry: Chapter 11 Interior of a Heart and Chapter 12 The Ministers Vigil Summary for Chapter 11: In this chapter, Dimmesdale is at the peak of his misery. Chillingworth will not stop playing games with him, and he is getting no sleep because of his guilt. Even though he is suffering mentally, physically, and even spiritually, he keeps his secret bottled up. While Dimmesdale feels worse, his sermons on sin keep getting better and better. To make things harder, he punishes himself physically, by whipping his back repeatedly with a lash, in addition to extreme fasting. One night, he plans to have a vigil where Hester once stood in an attempt to relieve his sin. Summary for Chapter 12: In this chapter, Dimmesdale carries out his plan for a vigil on the scaffold. While standing up there, he fantasizes about revealing his sin, until Reverend Wilson, who is coming from a funeral for Governor Winthrop, passes by the scaffold. He thought about laughing when Wilson passed, but decided against it. After Wilson is gone, Dimmesdale laughs a little bit, which is accompanied by Pearls laugh, who is also standing on the scaffold with Hester. The three hold hands and Dimmesdale feels energized. Pearl asks if Dimmesdale will stand with them tomorrow, but he says no. Suddenly, a meteor flies across the sky, which is in the shape of an A, which frightens Dimmesdale because its a sign of his sin. After the meteor is out of sight, Chillingworth gets Dimmesdale off of the scaffold and takes him home. My Questions about Chapters 11 and 12: Is Dimmesdale even worried about being caught anymore? Or has his guilt focused all of his energy to punishing himself? How didnt Wilson notice Dimmesdale up on the scaffold? Is the meteor a coincidence? Or a sign from God? My Reactions towards Chapters 11 and 12: I was really shocked when I read that Dimmesdale was at the point that he was hitting himself to express his pain inside. I am really puzzled as to why he just doesnt confess now. He is at the point of death, is his secret really worth his life? I could understand why he chose to stand on the scaffold to release his guilt. He chose to stand on the scaffold to mimic Hester punishment because he is the co-adulterer. I believe that it took real strength to do that because anyone could have seen him doing that, and then he would have had to face his worst fear. At first, while reading, I was a bit confused when Pearl asked if the minister would stand with them again tomorrow, because I thought that they had to keep standing up on the scaffold as a continuation of their punishment, but then it hit me that they were only standing up there because Dimmesdale was up there. Chapter 13 Another View of Hester and Chapter 14 Hester and the Physician Summary for Chapter 13: In this chapter, Hester is becoming more and more active in the town. She frequently makes trips into town to donate food to the poor and to nurse the sick and injured. While she is still subject to prejudice even after 7 years, she is gradually being accepted back into the community. The weight of Pearl, her jobs, and prejudice have finally taken their toll on Hester. Much like Dimmesdale, the weight of their suffering has taken a toll on their physical appearances. She is no longer the beautiful woman she once was. Summary for Chapter 14: In this chapter, Hester tries to alleviate some of Dimmesdales suffering by telling Chillingworth to back off of him. When they go to speak with him, he tells her that he has heard that she can take off the scarlet letter, but she describes that it cannot be removed by human hands. She also thinks that it is time to tell Dimmesdale who Chillingworth really is, which makes Chillingworth realize that he has become a figure of pure evil, instead of the brilliant man he once was. My Questions about Chapters 13 and 14: Why is Hester still the object of scorn after 7 years? Shouldnt the Puritans move onto something else? Why is Hester still so kind to the people that treat her like dirt? How can Chillingworth realize that he is so evil and not want to change his ways? My Reactions towards Chapters 13 and 14: While reading, the author mentioned that Hester still accepted scorn from the townspeople after 7 years. I wondered if anyone else committed a serious sin in those 7 years who deserved a punishment similar to Hester. Or has Hester been used as a deterrent to keep everyone from messing up? After reading chapter 13, I couldnt believe that Hester was still in Boston after all the insults she had taken, let alone taking care of and helping the people that put her down. That just goes to show that Hester is not only a model for sin but a model for supreme compassion. What probably shocked me out of the whole book more than anything else was the fact that Chillingworth knew that he was evil, and still didnt want to change. Any normal human being can be inconsiderate or hurtful, when they are confronted about their behavior; they examine themselves and desire to change. Journal Entry: Chapter 15 Hester and Pearl and Chapter 16 A Forest Walk Summary for Chapter 15: In this chapter, Hester resolves that she truly hates her husband, after the pure hatred he showed in the previous chapter. After Chillingworth leaves to go mix potions from the weeds he collected, Hester goes to find Pearl. She finds Pearl playing in the puddles on the beach, with an A shaped in seaweed on her chest. When Hester sees the A, Pearl and she engage in conversation about the A. Pearl mentions that she sees that Dimmesdale clutches his heart often. This shocks Hester because she learns that Pearl is supernaturally observant, which might endanger them all. Summary for Chapter 16: In this chapter, Hester goes to meet with Dimmesdale in the forest to reveal Chillingworths real identity to him. While walking through the forest, she decides to take Pearl along with her. The sunlight seems to follow Pearl as she plays in the forest, but seems to avoid Hester. Upon reaching a stream, they wait for Dimmsdale to arrive, and Pearl asks about the black man and how he correlates to the scarlet letter. To avoid conversation, she tries to get Pearl to play, but Pearl doesnt want to out of fear of the black man. Hester tells Pearl that it is not the black man who gave her the symbol; it was the minister who did. My Questions about 15 and 16: Why did Hester even marry Chillingworth in the first place? She knew full well that neither of them were in love. Is Pearl really as observant as she is believed to be? Or is gathering this information from an outside source? How does Hester think that revealing Chillingworths real identity going to help Dimmesdale? My Reactions towards Chapters 15 and 16: I was felt almost scared for Hester, Pearl and Dimmesdale at this point in the story. I was sure that Chillingworth had something even more sinister up his sleeve. After reading about Pearls constant haranguing about the scarlet letter, I began to doubt that she was thinking for herself at this point. Someone must be putting her up to it to either test how Hester responds when Pearl asks that question or to gain information about the ties between Dimmesdale and Hester. When Pearl and Hester went to go tell Dimmesdale who Chillingworth really was, I wondered how Hester thought that would help Dimmesdale. Journal Entry: Chapter 17 The Pastor and his Parishioner and Chapter 18 A Flood of Sunshine Summary for Chapter 17: In this chapter, Hester and Dimmesdale meet in the forest to avoid Chillingworth and the public. They join hands, and Hester reveals Chillingworths real identity to him. This makes Dimmesdale angry, and he starts blaming her for his sin. To get him to stop, Hester pulls him in close to see the scarlet letter, which makes him forgive her because it shows him that Chillingworth is a bigger sinner than the both of them. To avoid any more suffering caused by Chillingworth, they plan to sail away to Europe, and live with Pearl as a family. Realizing that this is his opportunity to finally release all of the pain and suffering within him, Dimmesdale plans to reveal his secret to everyone in Salem. Summary for Chapter 18: After plotting their escape, the couple feels a burst of new life within them. Hester unties her hair for the first time in many years and removes the scarlet letter and Dimmesdales sullen face has finally picked up. He tells Hester that he can feel joy again, and is excited to finally get to know his daughter. My Questions about Chapters 17 and 18: Why didnt Hester fight back when Dimmesdale was yelling at her? Will Chillingworth expose Dimmesdale and Hester before Dimmesdale can do it himself? Why is Pearl cautious of her transformed mother? My Reactions towards Chapters 17 and 18: When I read that Dimmesdale yelled at Hester and blamed her for his sin, I was surprised that she acted in the manner that she did. I would have expected her to break and fight with Dimmsdale because she easily could have defended herself in that argument. But her action did make sense, because a fight would have divided them, which is the exact opposite of what they needed at that moment, if they wanted to steal away and start a new life. After Hester confronted Dimmesdale about Chillingworth I could really feel the all of the suspense. It was like I was experiencing the same fear of Chillingworth that Dimmesdale and Hester felt. After reading that Pearl was afraid of her transformed mother, I was mystified. I expected Pearl to love her mother even more than she did before, now that she was finally happy. Journal Entry: Chapter 19 The Child at the Brookside and Chapter 20 The Minister in a Maze Summary for Chapter 19: In this chapter, Hester calls Pearl to rejoin her, but Pearl refuses, because she doesnt recognize her transformed parents. To get Pearl to come back, Hester ties her hair back up and pins the scarlet letter on once more. After the letter is fully secured, Pearl rushes back to her mother and father. She envelopes Hester in a hug and kisses her, along with the scarlet letter. Without revealing that Dimmesdale is her father, Hester tries to get Pearl to embrace Dimmesdale as well. Dimmesdale kisses her once, but then washes the kiss off in the stream. Summary for Chapter 20: On the way back to the town, Dimmesdale cannot believe the energy he feels. He even runs and skips with Pearl. When they reach the town, Hester makes reservations on the ship to Europe because she has become acquainted with the captain due to her chari

Pike Ted Hughes Essay -- English Literature

Pike Ted Hughes Choose a poem you studied recently which challenges the reader to view something familiar in a new and thought provoking way. Pike Ted Hughes Stanzas one to four of the poem are there to describe the Pike, its nature, what it looks like and it’s destiny in nature as a predator. The poet, Ted Hughes, in writing this poem challenges the reader to view nature in a totally new perspective by exploring the power and violence in it by using one animal in river life, the Pike, since the Pike is the supreme species of fish in river life he uses it to full extend to show the power and violence of nature. Hughes starts the poem with â€Å"Pike, three inches long, perfect† using this as a start to describing the Pike, he begins to build up the Pike’s image as a predator, always being a predator with no change required through evolution therefore using â€Å"perfect† as another way of saying that the pike was designed perfectly as a predator and will never need to change as it will always remain supreme in its habitat. â€Å"Pike in all parts, green tigering the gold† the use of the word â€Å"tigering† giving a comparison of the Pike to the Tiger, completely different creatures but in their own worlds they are just as deadly as each other, the Tiger being supreme in the jungle just as the Pike is supreme in the river. â€Å"Killers from the egg† using this Hughes re-enforces his point of the Pike being born to killer, always meant to be a predator. â€Å"The malevolent aged grin† the poet strongly uses â€Å"malevolent† to catch the reader and fully describe the evil that the Pike is designed for, even since the moment of birth the Pike’s features have already been aged with the evil, menacing look, to show its potential fo... ...move, the still splashes on he dark pond†. Assuming that the poet was on a small boat â€Å"owls hushing the floating woods† he hears the owls in the woods that seems to float as he sits on this boat, â€Å"frail on my ear against the dream† just managing to hear the owls as the only noise - almost as if the owls â€Å"hushing† the rest of the woods to be silent, adding more fear to this trip – just keeping him aware of this world that seems so much like a dream. â€Å"Darkness beneath night’s darkness had freed† this meaning the darkness of the water beneath the night’s darkness and also the darkness of the Pike, as darkness is associated with evil, now moving â€Å"freed† under him, â€Å"that rose slowly towards me, watching.† The pike, the evil slowly rising towards him watching his every move, he makes it as if the pike seeing him as prey, slowly approaching him, ready to strike.

The Triumphant Reign of Henry the Viii-V02

â€Å"Alexandru Ioan Cuza† National College Specialization: Philology – Bilingual English Discipline: English The triumphant reign of Henry the VIII Coordinating Professors: Mariana Gaiu Sorina Soaica Student: Irina Stan 2011 Contents Introduction2 1. Social background of the age3 2. Henry VIII9 2. 1 Henry VIII’s character10 2. 2 Cardinal Wolsey11 2. 3 Henry VIII & Christianity12 a)Popular religious idealism12 b)Christian Humanism and the influence of Greek learning14 2. 4 Henrician Reformation16 a)Henry VIII’s first divorce16 )Supreme head of the Ecclesia Anglicana18 c)The dissolution of the religious houses20 2. 5 The matrimonial adventures of Henry VIII22 2. 6 An extension of English hegemony23 a)The Union of England and Wales23 b)Tudor Irish policy24 c)The need to control Scotland25 Conclusions28 Bibliography29 Introduction The age of the Tudors has left its impact on Anglo-American minds as a watershed in British history. Hallowed tradition, native pa triotism, and post imperial gloom have united to swell our appreciation of the period as a true golden age.Names alone evoke a phoenix-glow – Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, and Mary Stuart among the sovereigns of England and Scotland; Wolsey, William Cecil, and Leicester among the politicians; Marlowe, Shakespeare, Hilliard, and Byrd among the creative artists. The splendors of the Court of Henry VIII, the fortitude of Sir Thomas More, the making of the English Bible, Prayer Book, and Anglican Church, the development of Parliament, the defeat of the Armada, the Shakespearian moment, and the legacy of Tudor domestic architecture – there are the undoubted climaxes of a simplified orthodoxy in which genius, romance, and tragedy are superabundant.Reality is inevitably more complex, less glamorous, and more interesting than myth. The most potent forces within Tudor England were often social, economic, and demographic ones. Thus if the period became a golden age, it was primarily because the considerable growth in population that occurred between 1500 and the death of Elizabeth I did not so dangerously exceed the capacity of available resources, particularly food supplies, as to precipitate a Malthusian crisis. Famine and disease unquestionably disrupted and disturbed the Tudor economy, but they did not raze it to its foundations, as in the fourteenth century.More positively, the increased manpower and demand that sprang from rising population stimulated economic growth and the commercialization of agriculture, encouraged trade and urban renewal, inspired a housing revolution, enhanced the sophistication of English manners, especially in London, and (more arguably) bolstered new and exciting attitudes among Tudor Englishmen, notably individualistic ones derived from Reformation ideals and Calvinist theology. In order to present a clear picture of 16th century England, we considered depicting Henry VIII reign in a period of instability from the point of view of religion and state limits.The king’s egoism, self-righteousness, and unlimited capacity to brood over suspected wrongs, or petty slights, sprang from the fatal combination of a relatively able but distinctly second—rate mind and a pronounced inferiority complex that derived from Henry VII’s treatment of his second son. For the first of the Tudors had found his younger son unsatisfactory; on Arthur’s death, Henry had been given no functions beyond the title of Prince of Wales—a signal of unmistakable mistrust. As a result, Henry VIII had resolved to rule, even where, as in the case of the Church, it would have been enough merely to reign.He would put monarchic theory into practice; would give the words Rex Imperator a meaning never dreamt of even by the emperors of Rome, if he possibly could. Henry was eager, too, to conquer- to emulate the glorious victories of the Black Prince and Henry V, to quest after the Golden Fleece that was the French Cr own. Repeatedly the efforts of Henry’s more constructive councillors were bedevilled, and overthrown, by the king’s militaristic dreams, and by costly Continental ventures that wasted men, money, and equipment.Evaluation is always a matter of emphasis, but on the twin issues of monarchic theory and lust for conquest, there is everything to be said for the view that Henry VIII’s policy was consistent throughout his reign; that Henry was himself directing that policy; and that his ministers and officials were allowed – freedom of action only within accepted limits, and when the king was too busy to take a personal interest in state affairs. 1. Social background of the ageThe matter is debatable, but there is much to be said for the view that England was economically healthier, more expensive, and more optimistic under the Tudors than at any time since the Roman occupation of Britain. Certainly, the contrast with the fifteenth century was dramatic. In the hu ndred or so years before Henry VII became king of England in 1485, England had been under populated, underdeveloped, and inward-looking compared with other Western countries, notably France. Her recovery after the ravages of the Black Death had been slow – slower than in France, Germany, Switzerland, and some Italian cities.The process of economic recovery in pre-industrial societies was basically one of recovery of population, and figures will be useful. On the eve of the Black Death (1348), the population of England and Wales was between 4 and 5 millions; by 1377, successive plaques bad reduced it to 2. 5 millions. Yet the figure for England (without Wales) was still no higher than 2. 26 millions in 1525, and it is transparently clear that the striking feature of England demographic history between the Black Death and the reign of Henry VIII is the stagnancy of population which persisted until the 1520s.However, the growth of population rapidly accelerated after 1525: Betwe en 1525 and 1541 the population of England grew extremely fast, an impressive burst of expansion after long inertia. This rate of growth slackened off somewhat after 1541, but the Tudor population continued to increase steadily and inexorably, with a temporary reversal only in the late 1550s, to reach 4. 10 millions in 1601. In addition, the population of Wales grew from about 210,000 in 1500 to 380,000 by 1603.While England reaped the fruits of the recovery of population in the sixteenth century, however, serious problems of adjustment were encountered. The impact of a sudden crescendo in demand, and pressure on available resources of food and clothing, within a society that was still overwhelmingly agrarian, was to be as painful as it was, ultimately, beneficial. The morale of countless ordinary Englishman was to be wrecked irrevocably, and ruthlessly, by problems that were too massive to be ameliorated either by governments or by traditional, ecclesiastical philanthropy.Inflation , speculation in land, enclosures, unemployment, vagrancy, poverty, and urban squalor were the most pernicious evils of Tudor England, and these were the wider symptoms of population growth and agricultural commercialization. In the fifteenth century farm rents had been discounted, because tenants were so elusive; lords had abandoned direct exploitation of their demesnes, which were leased to tenants on favourable terms. Rents had been low, too, on peasants’ customary holdings; labour services had been commuted, and servile villeinage had virtually disappeared from the face of the English landscape by 1485.At the same time, money wages had risen to reflect the contraction of the wage-labour force after 1348, and food prices had fallen in reply to reduced market demand. But rising demand after 1500 burst the bubble of artificial prosperity born of stagnant population. Land hunger led to soaring rents. Tenants of farms and copyholders were evicted by business-minded landlords. Several adjacent farms would be conjoined, and amalgamated for profit, by outside investors at the expense of sitting tenants. Marginal land would be converted to pasture for more profitable sheep-rearing.Commons were enclosed, and waste land reclaimed, by landlords or squatters, with consequent extinction of common grazing rights. The literary opinion that the active Tudor land market nurtured a new entrepreneurial class of greedy capitalists grinding the faces of the poor is an exaggeration. Yet it is fair to say that not all landowners, claimants, and squatters were entirely scrupulous in their attitude; certainly a vigorous market arose among dealers in defective titles to land, with resulting harassment of many legitimate occupiers. The greatest distress sprang, nevertheless, from inflation and unemployment.High agricultural prices gave farmers strong incentives to produce crops for sale in the dearest markets in nearby towns, rather than for the satisfaction of rural subsisten ce. Rising population, especially urban population, put intense strain on the markets themselves: demand for food often outstripped supply, notably in years of poor harvests due to epidemics or bad weather. In cash terms, agricultural prices began to rise faster than industrial prices from the beginning of the reign of Henry the VIII, a rise which accelerated as the sixteenth century progressed.Yet in real terms, the price rise was even more volatile than it appeared to be, since population growth ensured that labour was plentiful and cheap, and wages low. The size of the work-force in Tudor England increasingly exceeded available employment opportunities; average wages and living standards declined accordingly. Men (and women) were prepared to do a day’s work for little more than board wages; able-bodied persons, many of whom were peasants displaced by rising rents or the enclosure of commons, drifted in waves to the towns in quest of work.The best price index hitherto const ructed covers the period 1264-1954, and its base period is most usefully 1451-75 – the end of the fifteenth-century era of stable prices. From the index, we may read the fortunes of the wage-earning consumers of Tudor England, because the calculations are based on the fluctuating costs of composite units of the essential foodstuffs and manufactured goods, such as textiles, that made up an average family shopping basket in southern England at different times.Two indexes are, in fact, available: first the annual price index of the composite basket of consumables; secondly the index of the basket expressed as the equivalent of the annual wage rates of building craftsmen in southern England. No one supposes that building workers were typical of the English labour force in the sixteenth century, or at any other time. But the indexes serve as a rough guide to the appalling reality of the rising household expenses of the majority of Englishmen in the Tudor period. t is clear that in the century after Henry VIII’s accession, the average prices of essential consumables rose by some 488 per cent. The price index stood at the 100 or so level until 1513, when it rose to 120. A gradual rise to 169 had occurred by 1530, and a further crescendo to 231 was attained by 1547, the year of Henry VIII’s death. In 1555 the index reached 270; two years later, it hit a staggering peak of 409, though this was partly due to the delayed effects of the currency debasements practiced by Henry VIII and Edward VI.On the accession of Elizabeth I, in I5 58, the index had recovered to a median of 230. It climbed again thereafter, though more steadily: 300 in 1570, 342 in 1580, and 396 in 1590. But the later ISQOS witnessed exceptionally meagre harvests, together with regional epidemics and famine: the index read 515 in 1595, 685 in 1598, and only settled back to 459 in 1600. The index expressed as the equivalent of the building craftsman’s wages gives an equally sob er impression of the vicissitudes of Tudor domestic life.An abrupt decline in the purchasing power of wages occurred between 1510 and 1530, the commodity equivalent falling by some 40 per cent in twenty years. The index fell again in the 1550s, but recovered in the next decade to a position equivalent to two-thirds of its value in 1510. It then remained more or less stable until the 1590s, when it collapsed to 39 in 1595, and to a catastrophic nadir of 29 in 1597. On the queen’s death in 1603 it had recovered to a figure of 45—which meant that real wages had dropped by 57 per cent since 1500. These various data establish the most fundamental truth about the age of the Tudors.When the percentage change of English population in the sixteenth century is plotted against that of the index of purchasing power of a building craftsman’s wages over the same period, it is immediately plain that the two lines of development and commensure (see graph). Living standards decl ined as the population rose; recovery began as population growth abated and collapsed between 1556 and I560. Standards then steadily dropped again, until previous proportions were overthrown by the localized famines of 1585-8 and 1595-8—though the cumulative increase in the size of the wage-labour force since 1570 must also have had distorting effects.In other words, population trends, rather than government policies, capitalist entrepreneurs, European imports of American silver, the more rapid circulation of money, or even currency debasements, were the key factor in determining the fortunes of the British Isles in the sixteenth century. English government expenditure on warfare, heavy borrowing, and debasements unquestionably exacerbated inflation and unemployment. But the basic facts of Tudor life were linked to population growth. In view of this fundamental truth, the greatest triumph of Tudor England was its ability to feed itself.A major national subsistence crisis was avoided. Malthus, who wrote his historic Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, listed positive and preventive checks as the traditional means by which population was kept in balance with available resources of food. Positive ones involved heavy mortality and abrupt reversal of population growth. Fertility in England indeed declined in the later 1550s, and again between 1566 and 1571. A higher proportion of the population than hitherto did not marry in the reign of Elizabeth I.Poor harvests resulted in localized starvation, and higher mortality, in 1481-3, 1519—21, 1527-8, 1544-5, 1549-51, 1555-8, 1585-8, and 1595-8. Yet devastating as these years of dearth were for the affected localities, especially for the towns of the 1590s, the positive check of mass mortality on a national scale was absent from Tudor England, with the possible exception of the crisis of 1555—8. On top of its other difficulties, Mary’s government after 1555 faced the most serious mor tality crisis since the fourteenth century: the population of England quickly dropped by about 200,000.Even so, it is not proved that this was a ‘national’ crisis in terms of its geographical range, and population growth was only temporarily interrupted. In fact, the chronology, intensity, and geographical extent of famine in the sixteenth century were such as to suggest that starvation crises in England were abating, rather than worsening, over time. Bubonic plagues were likewise confined to the insanitary towns after the middle 1 of the century, and took fewer victims in proportion to the expansion of population.The inescapable conclusion is that, despite the vicissitudes of the price index the harsh consequences for individuals of changed patterns of agriculture, and the proliferation of vagabondage, an optimistic view of the age of the Tudors has sufficiently firm foundations. The sixteenth century witnessed the birth of Britain’s pre—industrial politi cal economy—an evolving accommodation between population and resources, economics and politics, ambition and rationality. England abandoned the disaster-oriented framework of the Middle Ages for the new dawn of low-pressure equilibrium.Progress had its price, unalterably paid by the weak, invariably banked by the strong. Yet the tyranny of the price index was not ubiquitous. Wage rates for agricultural workers fell by less than for building workers, and some privileged groups of wage-earners such as the Mendip miners may have enjoyed a small rise in real income. Landowners, commercialized farmers, and property investors were the most obvious beneficiaries of a system that guaranteed fixed expenses and enhanced selling prices—it was in the Tudor period that the nobility, gentry, and mercantile classes alike came to appreciate fully the enduring qualities of land.But many wage-labouring families were not wholly dependent upon their wages for subsistence. Multiple occupat ions, domestic self-employment, and cottage industries flourished, especially in the countryside; town-dwellers grew vegetables, kept animals, and brewed beer, except in the confines of London. Wage-labourers employed by great households received meat and drink in addition to cash income, although this customary practice was on the wane by the 1590s.Finally, it is not clear that vagabondage or urban population outside London expanded at a rate faster than was commensurate with the prevailing rise of national population. It used to be argued that the English urban population climbed from 6. 2. per cent of the national total in 1 520 to 8. 4 per cent by the end of the century. However, London’s spectacular growth alone explains this apparent over-population: the leading provincial towns, Norwich, Bristol, Coventry, and York, grew slightly or remained stable in absolute terms—and must thus have been inhabited by a reduced share of population in proportional terms. . Henry VIII Henry VII’s death in 1509 was greeted with feasting, dancing, universal rejoicing—for no one who survived until 1547 could have thought, with hindsight, that it was the accession of Henry VIII that inspired the nation’s confidence. Henry VIII succeeded, at barely eighteen years of age, because his elder brother, Arthur, had died in 1502. Under pressure from his councillors, essentially his father’s executors, Henry began his ‘triumphant’ reign by marrying his late brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon—a union that was to have momentous, not to say revolutionary, consequences.He continued by executing Empson and Dudley, who were now thrown to the wolves in ritual expiation of their former employer’s financial prudence. Needless to say, these executions were a calculated ploy to enable the new regime to profit from the stability won by Henry VII without incurring any of its attendant stigmas—no one complained th at Henry VIII’s government omitted to cancel the last batch of outstanding bonds until well into the 1520s.Yet Henry VIII had started as he meant to go on; something of the king’s natural cruelty, and inherent assumption that clean breaks with the past could solve deep—rooted problems, was already evident. 2. 1 Henry VIII’s character Henry VIII’s character was certainly fascinating, threatening, and intensely morbid, as Holbein’s great portrait illustrates to perfection.The king’s egoism, self-righteousness, and unlimited capacity to brood over suspected wrongs, or petty slights, sprang from the fatal combination of a relatively able but distinctly second—rate mind and a pronounced inferiority complex that derived from Henry VII’s treatment of his second son. For the first of the Tudors had found his younger son unsatisfactory; on Arthur’s death, Henry had been given no functions beyond the title of Prince of Wale s—a signal of unmistakable mistrust. As a result, Henry VIII had resolved to rule, even where, as in the case of the Church, it would have been enough merely to reign.He would put monarchic theory into practice; would give the words Rex Imperator a meaning never dreamt of even by the emperors of Rome, if he possibly could. Henry was eager, too, to conquer- to emulate the glorious victories of the Black Prince and Henry V, to quest after the Golden Fleece that was the French Crown. Repeatedly the efforts of Henry’s more constructive councillors were bedevilled, and overthrown, by the king’s militaristic dreams, and by costly Continental ventures that wasted men, money, and equipment.Evaluation is always a matter of emphasis, but on the twin issues of monarchic theory and lust for conquest, there is everything to be said for the view that Henry VIII’s policy was consistent throughout his reign; that Henry was himself directing that policy; and that his mini sters and officials were allowed – freedom of action only within accepted limits, and when the king was too busy to take a personal interest in state affairs. 2. 2 Cardinal Wolsey Cardinal Wolsey was Henry VIII’s first minister, and the fourteen years of that proud but efficient ascendancy (15 15-29) saw the king in a comparatively —restrained mood.Henry, unlike his father, found writing ‘both tedious and painful’; he preferred hunting, dancing, dallying, and playing the lute. In his more civilized moments, Henry studied theology and astronomy; he would wake up Sir Thomas More in the middle of the night in order that they might gaze at the ‘stars from the roof of a royal palace. He wrote songs, and the words of one form an epitome of Henry’s youthful sentiments. Pastime with good company I love and shall until I die. Grudge who lust, but none deny; So God be pleased, thus live will I; For my pastance,Hunt, sing and dance; My heart is se t All goodly sport For my comfort: Who shall me let? Yet Henry himself set the tempo; his pastimes were only pursued while he was satisfied with Wolsey. Appointed Lord Chancellor and Chief Councillor on Christmas eve 1515, Wolsey used the Council and Star Chamber as instruments of ministerial power in much the way that Henry VII had used them as vehicles of royal power—though Wolsey happily pursued uniform and equitable ideals of justice in Star Chamber in place of Henry VII’s selective justice linked to fiscal advantage.But Wolsey’s greatest asset was the unique position he obtained with regard to the English Church. Between them, Henry and Wolsey bludgeoned the pope into granting Wolsey the rank of legate a latere for life, which meant that he became the superior ecclesiastical authority in England, and could convoke legatine synods.Using these powers, Wolsey contrived to subject the entire English Church and clergy to a massive dose of Tudor government and ta xation, and it looks as if an uneasy modus vivendi prevailed behind the scenes in which Henry agreed that the English Church was, for the moment, best controlled by a churchman who was a royal servant, and the clergy accepted that it was better to be obedient to an ecclesiastical rather than a secular tyrant—for it is unquestionably true that Wolsey protected the Church from the worst excesses of lay opinion while in office. . 3 Henry VIII & Christianity The trouble was that, with stability restored, and the Tudor dynasty apparently secure, England had started to become vulnerable to a mounting release of forces, many of which were old ones suppressed beneath the surface for years, and others which sprang from the new European mood of reform and self—criticism. Anti – was the most volcanic of the smoldering emotions that pervaded the English laity; an ancient ‘disease’, it had been endemic in British society since Constantine’s conversion to Christianity.By the sixteenth century, English anti-clericalism centered on three major areas of lay resentment: first, opposition to such ecclesiastical abuses as clerical fiscalism, absenteeism, pluralism, maladministration, and concubinage; secondly, the excessive numbers of clergy, as it appeared to the laity—monks, friars, and secular priests seemed to outnumber the laity, and form a caste of unproductive consumers, which was untrue but reflected lay xenophobia; and thirdly, opposition to the jurisdiction of the bishops and Church courts, especially in cases of heresy.It was pointed out by prominent writers, notably the grave and learned Christopher St. German (1460-1541), that the Church’s procedure in cases of suspected heresy permitted secret accusations, hearsay evidence, and denied accused persons the benefit of purgation by oath helpers or trial by jury, which was a Roman procedure contrary to the principles of native English common law—a clerical plo t to deprive Englishmen of their natural, legal rights. Such ideas were manifestly explosive; for they incited intellectual affray between clergy and common lawyers. a) Popular religious idealismPopular religious idealism was another major problem faced by the English ecclesiastical authorities. Late medieval religion was sacramental, institutional and ritualistic; for ordinary people it seemed excessively dominated by ‘objective` Church ritual and obligation, as opposed to ‘subjective’ religious experience based on Bible reading at home. The educated classes, who were the nobility clergy, and rich merchants, knew that traditional Catholic piety and meditation did not lack for subjectivity and individual introspection, but few non-literate persons had the mental discipline needed to meditate with any degree of fulfillment.For ordinary people, personal religion had to be founded on texts of Scripture and Bible stories (preferably illustrated ones), but vernacular B ibles were illegal in England—the Church authorities believed that the availability of an English Bible, even an authorized version, would ferment heresy by permitting Englishmen to form their own opinions. Sir Thomas More, who was Wolsey’s successor as Lord Chancellor, was the premier lay opponent of the commissioning of an English Bible, and ally of the bishops.He declared, in his notorious proclamation of 22 June 1530, that ‘it is not necessary the said Scripture to be in the English tongue and in the hands of the common people, but that the distribution of the said Scripture, and the permitting or denying thereof, dependant only upon the discretion of the superiors, as they shall think it convenient’. More pursued a policy of strict censorship: no books in English printed outside the realm on any subject whatsoever were to be imported; he forbade the printing of Scriptural or religious books inEngland, too, unless approved in advance by a bishop. It wa s a case of one law for the rich and educated, who could read the Scriptures in Latin texts and commentaries, and another for the poor, who depended on oral instruction from semi-literate artisans and travelling preachers. But More and the bishops were swimming against the tide. The invention of printing had revolutionized the transmission of new ideas across Western Europe, including Protestant ideas. Heretical books and Bibles poured from the presses of English exiles abroad, notably that of William Tyndale at Antwerp.The demand for vernacular Scriptures was persistent, insistent, and widespread; even Henry VIII was enlightened enough to wish to assent to it, and publication an English Bible in Miles Coverdale’s translation was first achieved in 1536, a year after More’s death. b) Christian Humanism and the influence of Greek learning Of the forces springing from the new European mood of reform and self-criticism, Christian Humanism and the influence of Greek learnin g came first.The humanists, of whom the greatest was Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467-1536), rejected scholasticism and elaborate ritualism in favor of wit and simple biblical piety, or philosophia Christi, which was founded on primary textual scholarship, and in particular study of the Greek New Testament. Erasmus read voraciously, wrote prodigiously, and travelled extensively; he made three visits to England, and it was in Cambridge in 1511-14 that he worked upon the Greek text of his own edition of the New Testament, and revised his Latin version that improved significantly on the standard Vulgate text.But the renaissance of Greek learning owed as much to a native Englishman, John Colet, the gloomy dean of St. Paul’s and founder of its school. Colet, who was also young Thomas More’s spiritual director, had been to Italy, where he had encountered the Neo-Platonist philosophy of Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola. He had mastered Greek grammar and literature, which he then helped to foster at Oxford and at his school, and the fruits of his philosophical and literary knowledge were applied to Bible study—especially to the works of St. Paul. The result was a method of Scriptural exegesis that broke new ground.Colet emphasized the unity of divine truth, a literal approach to texts, concern for historical context, and belief in a personal and redemptive Christ. These were exciting ideas, and they inspired both Erasmus and the younger generation of English humanists. The clarion call of humanist reform was sounded in 1503, when Erasmus published A Handbook of a Christian Knight, a compendium, or guide, for spiritual life. (Parvulorum Institutio, 1512-13) This book encapsulated the humanism, evangelism, and laicism that its author had imbibed from Colet, and made Europe uncomfortably aware that the existing priorities of the Church would not do.Erasmus added reforming impetus to traditional lay piety, and his pungent criticisms of the scholasti c theologians, of empty ritual, ecclesiastical abuses, and even the mores of the Papacy, were as stimulating as they were embarrassing. For Erasmus, whose classic satire was Praise of Folly (1514), highlighted his reforming posture by means of his immortal wit, combining the serious, the humorous, and the artistic in peerless texture, and delighting everyone except the senior Church authorities.Wit is an essential literary commodity, and Erasmus drew on his as from a bottomless purse—which was just as well, for it was his sole pecuniary endowment. His effervescent humor flowed quite naturally. Works of piety, that might otherwise have been mere pebbles thrown into the European pond, thus generated ripples that increasingly had the force of tidal waves. The best English exponent of humanist satire in the wake of Praise of Folly was Thomas More, whose Utopia, first published at Louvain in 1516, described imaginary and idealized society of pagans living on a remote island in acc ordance with principles of natural virtue.By implicitly comparing the benign social customs and enlightened religious attitudes of the ignorant Utopians with the inferior standards, in practice, of (allegedly) Christian Europeans, More produced a strident indictment of the latter, based purely on deafening silence—a splendid, if perplexing, achievement of the sort More perennially favored. But to the distress of Erasmus, More abandoned reform for repression and extermination of heresy during his thousand days as Lord Chancellor, and has gone down to history , save in the writings of his a apologists as persecutor rather than a prophet.However, his terrible end in 1535 as a victim of Henry VIII’s vengeance, and his willingness to suffer torment for the truth he had discovered in the (then controversial) dogma of papal primacy, perpetually guarantee that his steadfastness was not a delusion; when the axe fell, Utopia’s author earned his place among the few who hav e enlarged the hori2ons of the human spirit. In fairness to More, the Brave New World of Utopia had been crudely shattered by Luther’s debut upon the European stage in1517. For the Christian Humanists, to their sorrow, had unintentionally, but irreversibly, prepared the way for the spread of Protestantism.In England, the impact of Lutheranism far exceeded the relatively small number of converts, and the rise of the â€Å"new learning†, as it was called, became the most potent of the- forces released in the 1520s and 1530s. Luther’s ideas and numerous books rapidly penetrated the universities, especially Cambridge, the City of London, the Inns of Court, and even reached Henry VIII s Household through the intervention of Anne Boleyn and her circle. At Cambridge, the young scholars influenced included Thomas Cranmer and Matthew Parker, both of whom later became Archbishops of Canterbury.Wolsey naturally made resolute efforts as legate to stamp out the spread of Pro testantism, but without obvious success. His critics blamed his reluctance to burn men for heresy as the cause of his failure—for Wolsey would burn books and imprison men, but shared the humane horror of Erasmus at the thought of himself committing bodies to the flames. However the true reason for Luther’s appeal was that he had given coherent doctrinal expression to the religious subjectivity of individuals, and to their distrust of Rome and papal monarchy.In addition his view of the ministry mirrored the instincts of the anticlerical laity, and his answer to concubinage was the global solution of clerical marriage. 2. 4 Henrician Reformation a) Henry VIII’s first divorce Into this religious maelstrom dropped Henry VIII's first divorce. Although Catherine of Aragon had borne five children, only the Princess Mary (b. 1516) had survived, and the king demanded the security of a male heir to protect the fortunes of the Tudor dynasty.It was clear by 1527 that Cather ine was past the age of childbearing; meanwhile Henry coveted Anne Boleyn, who would not comply without the assurance of marriage. Yet royal annulments were not infrequent, and all might have been resolved without drama, or even unremarked, had not Henry VIII himself been a proficient, if mendacious, theologian. The chief obstacle was that Henry, who feared international humiliation, insisted that his divorce should be granted by a competent authority in England-this way he could de rive his wife of her legal rights, and bully his Episcopal judges.But his marriage had been founded on Pope Julius II’s dispensation, necessarily obtained by Henry VIII to enable the young Henry VIII to marry his brother’s widow in the first place, and hence the matter pertained to Rome. In order to have his case decided without reference to Rome, in face of the Papacy’s unwillingness to concede the matter, Henry had to prove against the reigning pope, Clement VII that his predecesso r’s dispensation was invalid — then the marriage would automatically terminate, on the grounds that it had never legally existed.Henry would be a bachelor again. However, this strategy took the king away from matrimonial law into the quite remote and hypersensitive realm of papal power. If Julius II’s dispensation was invalid, it must be because the successors of St. Peter had no power to devise such instruments, and the popes were thus no better than other human legislators who had exceeded their authority. Henry was a good enough theologian and canon lawyer to know that there was a minority opinion in Western Christendom to precisely this effect.He was enough of an egotist, too, to fall captive to his own powers of persuasion—soon he believed that papal primacy was unquestionably a sham, a ploy of human invention to deprive kings and emperors of their legitimate inheritances. Henry looked back to the golden days of the British imperial past, to the time of the Emperor Constantine and of King Lucius I. In fact, Lucius I had never existed- he was a myth, a figment of pre-Conquest imagination.But Henry’s British ‘sources’ showed that this Lucius was a great ruler, the first Christian king of Britain, who had endowed the British Church with all its liberties and possessions, and then written to Pope Eleutherius asking him to transmit the Roman laws. However, the pope’s reply explained that Lucius did not need any Roman law, because he already had the lex Britunniue (whatever that was) under which he ruled both regnum and sacerdotium: For you be God’s vicar in your kingdom, as the psalmist says, ‘Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness to the king’s son’ (Ps. xxii: 1) . . . A king hath his name of ruling, and not of having a realm. You shall be a king, while you rule well; but if you do otherwise, the name of a king shall not remain with you . . . God grant you so to rule the realm of Britain, that you may reign with him forever, whose vicar you be in the realm. Vicarius Dei-vicar of Christ. Henry’s divorce had led him, incredibly, to believe in his royal supremacy over the English Church. b) Supreme head of the Ecclesia Anglicana With the advent of the divorce crisis, Henry took personal charge of his policy and government.He ousted Wolsey, who was hopelessly compromised in the new scheme of things, since his legatine power came directly from Rome. He named Sir Thomas More to the chancellorship, but this move backfired owing to More’s scrupulous reluctance to involve himself in Henry’s proceedings. He summoned Parliament, which for the first time in English history worked with the king as an omnicompetent legislative assembly, if hesitatingly so. Henry and Parliament finally threw off England’s allegiance to Rome in an unsurpassed burst of revolutionary statute-making: the Act of Annates (1532. , the Act of Appeal s (1533), the Act of Supremacy (1534), the First Act of Succession (1534) the Treasons Act (1534), and the Act against the Pope’s Authority (1536). The Act of Appeals proclaimed Henry VIII’s new imperial status-all English jurisdiction, both secular and religious, now sprang from the king-and abolished the pope’s right to decide English ecclesiastical cases. The Act of Supremacy declared that the king of England was supreme head of the Ecclesia Anglicana, or Church of England—not the pope. The Act of Succession was the first of a series of Tudor instruments used to settle the order of succession to the hrone, a measure which even Thomas More agreed was in itself unremarkable, save that this statute was prefaced by a preamble denouncing papal jurisdiction as a ‘usurpation’ of Henry’s imperial power. More, together with Bishop Fisher of Rochester, and the London Carthusians, the most rigorous and honorable custodians of papal primacy and the legitimacy of the Aragonese marriage, were tried for ‘denying’ Henry’s supremacy under the terms of the Treasons Act. These terms inter alia made it high treason maliciously to de rive either king or queen of ‘the dignity, title, or name of their royal estates’—that is to deny Henry’s royal supremacy.The victims of the act, who were in reality martyrs to Henry’s vindictive egoism, were cruelly executed in the summer of 1535. A year later the Reformation legislation was completed by the Act against the Pope’s Authority, which removed the last vestiges of papal power in England, including the pope’s ‘pastoral’ right as a teacher to decide disputed points of Scripture. Henry VIII now controlled the English Church as its supreme head in both temporal and doctrinal matters; his ecclesiastical status was that of a lay metropolitan archbishop who denied the validity of external, papal authority within his territories.He was not a riest, and had no sacerdotal or sacramental functions—the king had tried briefly to claim these but had been rebuffed by an outraged episcopate. Yet Henry was not a Protestant, either. Until his death in 1547, Henry VIII believed in Catholicism without the pope—a curious but typically Henrician application of logic to the facts of so—called British ‘history’ as exemplified by King Lucius I. As a lay archbishop, Henry could make ecclesiastical laws and define doctrines almost as he pleased—provided he did not overthrow the articles of faith.In fact, this gave him a wider latitude than might be thought, because the bishops could not agree what the articles of faith were, beyond the fundamentals of God’s existence, Christ’s divinity, the Trinity, and some of the sacraments. The Greek scholarship of the Christian Humanists had weakened the structure of traditional, medieval Christian doctrine by questioning texts and rejecting scholasticism: a mood of uncertainty prevailed. Before 1529, then, Henry had ruled his clergy through Wolsey; after 1534 he did so personally, and through his new chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, whom Henry soon appointed his (lay) vicegerent in spirituals.A former aide of Wolsey, Cromwell had risen to executive power as a client of the Boleyn interest, and had taken command of the machinery of government, especially the management of Parliament, in January 1532. By combining the offices of Lord Privy Seal and vicegerent, Cromwell succeeded Wolsey as the architect of Tudor policy under Henry, until his own fall in july 1540—but with one striking difference. As vicegerent he was entirely subordinate to Henry; Wolsey, as legate, had been subordinate only as an Englishman.Yet the accomplishment of Henry’s dream to give the words Rex Imperator literal meaning raises a key historical question. Exactly why did the English bishops and abbots, the aristocr acy of the spirit who held a weight of votes in the House of Lords, permit the Henrician Reformation to occur? The answer is partly that Henry coerced his clerical opponents into submission by threats and punitive taxation; but some bishops actually supported the king, albeit sadly, and a vital truth lies behind this capitulation.Those clerics who were politically alert saw that it was preferable to be controlled by the Tudor monarchs personally, with whom they could bargain and haggle, than to be offered as a sacrifice instead to the anticlerical laity in the House of Commons, which was the true alternative to compliance. For as early as 1532, it was on the cards that the Tudor supremacy would be a parliamentary supremacy, not a purely royal one, and only the despotic king’s dislike of representative assemblies ensured that Parliament’s contribution was cut back to the mechanical, though still revolutionary, task of enacting the requisite legislation.It was plain to a ll but the most ultramontane papalists on the Episcopal bench that a parliamentary supremacy would have exposed the clergy directly to the pent—up emotional fury and hatred of the anticlerical laity and common lawyers. The laity, furthermore, were fortified for the attack by the humanists’ debunking of ritualism and superstition. In short, royal supremacy was the better of two evils: the clergy would not have to counter the approaching anticlerical backlash without the necessary filter of royal mediation. c) The dissolution of the religious housesHenry VIII’s supremacy did save the bishops from the worst excesses of lay anticlericalism, and the king’s doctrinal conservatism prevented an explosion of Protestantism during his reign. However, nothing could save the monasteries. Apart from anticlericalism, three quite invincible forces merged after 1535 to dictate the dissolution of the religious houses. First, the monastic communities almost parent instituti ons outside England and Wales—this was juridically unacceptable after the Acts of Appeals and Supremacy. Secondly, Henry VIII was bankrupt. He needed to annex the monastic estates in order to restore the Crown’s finances.Thirdly, Henry had to buy the allegiance of the political nation away from Rome and in support of his Reformation by massive injections of new patronage—he must appease the lay nobility and gentry with a share of the spoils. Thus Thomas Cromwell’s first task as vicegerent was to conduct an ecclesiastical census under Henry’s commission, the first major tax record since Domesday Book, to evaluate the condition and wealth of the English Church. Cromwell’s questionnaire was a model of precision. Was divine service observed? Who were the benefactors? What lands did the houses possess? What rents? and so on. The survey was completed in six months, and Cromwell’s genius for administration was shown by the fact that Valor Ec clesiasticus, as it is known, served both as a record of the value of the monastic assets, and as a report on individual clerical incomes for taxation purposes. The lesser monasteries were dissolved in 1536; the greater houses followed two years later. The process was interrupted by a formidable northern rebellion, the Pilgrimage of Grace, which was brutally crushed by use of martial law, exemplary public hangings, and a wholesale breaking of Henry’s promises to the ‘pilgrims’.But the work of plunder was quickly completed. A total of 56o monastic institutions had been suppressed by November 1539, and lands valued at ? 132,000 per annum immediately accrued to the Court of Augmentations of the King’s Revenue, the new department of state set up by Cromwell to cope with the transfer of resources. Henry’s coffers next received ? I5,000 or so from the sale of gold and silver plate, lead, and other precious items; finally, the monasteries had possessed the right of presentation to about two-fifths of the parochial benefices in England and Wales, and these rights were also added to the Crown’s patronage.The long-term effects of the dissolution have often been debated by historians, and may conveniently be divided into those which were planned, and those not. Within the former category, Henry VIII eliminated the last fortresses of potential resistance to his royal supremacy. He founded six new dioceses upon the remains of former monastic buildings and endowments—Peterborough, Gloucester, Oxford, Chester, Bristol, and Westminster, the last-named being abandoned in 1550. The king then reorganized the ex-monastic cathedrals as Cathedrals of the New Foundation, with revised staffs and statutes.Above all, though, the Crown’s regular income was seemingly doubled-but for how long? The bitter irony of the dissolution was that Henry VIII’s colossal military expenditure in the 1540s, together with the laity’s d emand for a share of the booty, politically irresistible as that was, would so drastically erode the financial gains as to cancel out the benefits of the entire process. Sales of the confiscated lands began even before the suppression of the greater houses was completed, and by 1547 almost two thirds of the former monastic property had been alienated.Further grants by Edward VI and Queen Mary brought this figure to over three—quarters by 1558. The remaining lands were sold by Elizabeth I and the early Stuarts. It is true that the lands were not given away: out of 1,593 grants in Henry VIII’s reign, only 69 were gifts or partly so; the bulk of grants (95. 6 per cent) represented lands sold at prices based on fresh valuations. But the proceeds of sales were not invested – quite the opposite under Henry VIII. In any case, land was the best investment.The impact of sales upon the non-parliamentary income of the Crown was thus obvious, and there is everything to be s aid for the view that it was Henry VIII’s constant dissipation of the monarchy’s resources that made it difficult for his successors to govern England. Of the unplanned effects of the dissolution, the wholesale destruction of fine Gothic buildings, melting down of medieval metalwork and jewellery, and sacking of libraries were the most extensive acts of licensed vandalism perpetrated in the whole of British history.The clergy naturally suffered an immediate decline in morale. The number of candidates for ordination dropped sharply; there was little real conviction that Henry VIII’s Reformation had anything to do with spiritual life, or with God. The disappearance of the abbots from the House of Lords meant that the ecclesiastical vote had withered away to a minority, leaving the laity ascendant in both Houses. With the sale of ex-monastic lands usually went the rights of parochial presentation attached to them, so that local laity btained a considerable monopoly of ecclesiastical patronage, setting the pattern for the next three centuries. The nobility and gentry, especially moderate—sized gentry’ families, were the ultimate beneficiaries of the Crown’s land sales. The distribution of national wealth shifted between 1535 and 1558 overwhelmingly in favor of Crown and laity, as against the Church, and appreciably in favor of the nobility and gentry, as against the Crown. Very few new or substantially enlarged private estates were built up solely out of ex—monastic lands by 1558.But if Norfolk is a typical county, the changing pattern of wealth distribution at Elizabeth’s accession was that 4. 8 per cent of the county’s manors were possessed by the Crown, 6. 5 per cent were Episcopal or other ecclesiastical manors, II. 4 per cent were owned by East Anglican territorial magnates, and 75. 4 per cent had been acquired by the gentry. In 1535, 2. 7 per cent of manors had been held by the Crown, 17. 2 per c ent had been owned by the monasteries, 9. 4 per cent were in the hands of magnates, and 64 per cent belonged to gentry’ families.Without Henry VIII’s preparatory break with Rome, there could not have been Protestant reform in Edward VI’s reign——thus evaluation can become a question of religious opinion, rather than historical judgment. However, it is hard not to regard Henry as a despoiler; he was scarcely a creator. Thomas Cromwell did his utmost, often behind the king’s back, to endow his contemporaries with Erasmian, and enlightened idealism: the Elizabethan via media owed much to the eirenic side of Cromwell’s complex character.But Cromwell’s reward was the block—ira principis mors est. He was cast aside by his suspicious employer, and fell victim to the hatred of his enemies. And without Wolsey or Cromwell to restrain him, Henry could do still more harm. He resolved to embark on French and Scottish wars, triggering a slow-burning fuse that was extinguished only by the execution of Mary Stuart in February 1587. Yet if Henry turned to war and foreign policy in the final years of his reign, it was because he felt secure at last.Cromwell had provided the enforcement machinery necessary to protect the supreme head from spontaneous internal opposition; Jane Seymour had brought forth the male heir to the Tudor throne; Henry was excited about his marriage to Catherine Howard, and was happily cured of theology. 2. 5 The matrimonial adventures of Henry VIII The matrimonial adventures of Henry are too familiar to recount again in detail, but an outline may conveniently be given. Anne Boleyn was already pregnant when the king married her, and the future Elizabeth I was born on 7 September 1533.Henry was bitterly disappointed that she was not the expected son, blaming Anne and God—in that order. Anne had turned out to be a precocious flirt, who meddled fatally in politics: she was ousted and execute d in a coup of May 1536. Henry immediately chose the homely Jane Seymour, whose triumph in producing the baby Prince Edward was Pyrrhic, for she died of Tudor surgery twelve days later. Her successor was Anne of Cleves, whom Henry married in January 1540 to win European allies. But this gentle creature, which Henry rudely called ‘the Flemish mare’, did not suit; divorce was thus easy, as the union was never consummated.Catherine Howard came next. A high-spirited mind, she had been a maid of honour to Anne of Cleves—entirely inappropriately—and became Henry’s fifth queen in July 1540 as the key to the coup that destroyed Cromwell. She was executed in February 1542 for adultery. Finally, Henry took the amiable Catherine Parr to wife in July 1543. Twice widowed, Catherine was a cultivated Erasmian, under whose benign influence the royal children lived under one roof, and were spared the more malign components of Henry’s paternal indulgence. 2. 6 An extension of English hegemonyHenry VIII’s plans for war which were conceived after his marriage to Catherine Howard, and which hardened when he learned of her infidelity, resurrected youthful dreams of French conquests. Wolsey had monitored the king’s futile early campaigns of 1 511-16, and brilliantly transformed Henry’s military failures into the diplomatic prize of the treaty of London (1518). At the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1520, Henry had feted Francis I of France in a Renaissance extravaganza that was hailed as the eighth wonder of the world, for Francis was the king whom Henry loved to hate.More wasteful campaigns in 1522 and 1523 were curtailed by England’s financial exhaustion—then Henry’s policy fell into labyrinthine confusion. England was at war with France; then in alliance with France. In the end, Henry was perhaps grateful for the European peace which prevailed from 1529 to 1536, and even more relieved by the resumed riva lry that kept Habsburg and Valois mutually engaged until the reverberations of the Pilgrimage of Grace had died away. By 1541 Henry was moving towards a renewed amity with Spain against France, but he was prudent enough to hesitate.Tudor security required that before England went to war with France, no doors should be open to the enemy within Britain itself. This meant an extension of English hegemony within the British Isles—Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Accordingly Henry undertook, or continued, the wider task of English colonization that was ultimately completed by the Act of Union with Scotland (1707). a) The Union of England and Wales The Union of England and Wales had been presaged by Cromwell’s reforming ambition and was legally accomplished by Parliament in 1536 and 1543.The marcher lordships were shired, English laws and county administration were extended to Wales, and the shires and county boroughs were required to send twenty-four MPs to Parliament at Westm inster. In addition, a refurbished Council of Wales, and new Courts of Great Sessions, were set up to administer the region’s defenses and judicial system. Wales was made subject to the full operation of royal writs, and to English principles of land tenure. The Act of 1543 dictated that Welsh customs of tenure and inheritance were to be phased out and that English rules were to succeed them.Welsh customs persisted in remote areas until the seventeenth century and beyond, but English customs soon predominated. English language became the fashionable tongue, and Welsh native arts went into decline. Englishmen have regarded the Union as the dawn of a civilizing process that ended with the abolition of the Council of Wales in 1689 and of the Great Sessions in 1830. Welshmen, by contrast, view Henry VIII’s Acts as a crude annexation, which technically they were—for they were not in the nature of a treaty between negotiating parties as was the case with Scotland in 1 707.In fact, Welsh civilization was already advanced in the sixteenth century, and flourished despite the Acts. Sir John Prise, ia relation of Thomas Cromwell, defended Welsh history against the skepticism of Polydore Vergil; Humphrey Llwyd of Denbigh supported him with geographical learning—and there were others. John Owen of Plas Du, Llanarmon, and New College, Oxford, enjoyed a higher literary reputation abroad during his lifetime than did William Shakespeare, his contemporary. He wrote 1,500 Latin epigrams in the style of Martial.Welsh grammars were compiled to perpetuate the native tongue—by Sion Dafydd Rhys (1592. ), who wrote in Latin in order to reach the widest European audience, and by john Davies of Mallwyd (1621), who publicly justified the utility of Welsh studies. b) Tudor Irish policy Tudor Irish policy had begun with Henry VII’s decision that all laws made in England were automatically to apply to Ireland, and that the Irish Parliament could only legislate with the king of England’s prior consent.English territorial influence, in reality, did not extend much beyond the Pale—the area around Dublin—and the Irish chiefs held the balance of power. Henry VIII ruled mainly through the chiefs before the Reformation, but was obliged to protect England in the 1530s from a possible papal counter—attack launched from Ireland. Lord Leonard Grey was named deputy of Ireland by Cromwell, but his coercive actions proved counter-productive. He was replaced by Sir Anthony St. Leger, who made a fresh start. St.Leger reshaped the Irish policy of the Tudors, and his basic philosophy persisted until 1783. Instead of consolidation and coercion, he proposed friend-ship and conciliation, but the essence of the plan was to create a subordinate national superstructure for Ireland by translating Henry VIII’s lordship into kingship. The kings of England were dominus Hiberniae, not rex. But St. Leger persuaded Henry to assume the Crown—that would overthrow papal claims to feudal overlordship, and subordinate the chiefs to royal authority. Henry assented, and was proclaimed king in June 1541.His understanding was probably that kingship would enhance his security within the British Isles. Moreover, if the idea was to form a framework for peaceful, constitutional relations between the Crown and the Irish nation, that was laudable and altruistic. Yet it was also visionary and impractical. The Irish revenues were insufficient to maintain royal status—a separate Council, Star Chamber, Chancery, and Parliament in Dublin, operating independently of, but subject to controls from, the English Parliament and Privy Council.Above all, kingship committed England to a possible full-scale conquest of Ireland in the future, should the chiefs rebel, or should the Irish Reformation, begun by Cromwell, fail. As it turned out, ‘conciliation’ by benevolent kingship was probably worse than ex ternal ‘consolidation’ and ‘coercion’, since Tudor attitudes to conquest in Ireland were based on experiences in the New World, something the disillusioned Edmund Spenser, who lived in Ireland, pointed out in Elizabeth’s reign. The harsh vicissitudes of Irish history, especially in the seventeenth century, were hardly attributable to Henry VIII and St.Leger. However, the new policy of the Tudors perpetuated the disadvantages both of subordination and of autonomy. In the wake of Irish pressure and the revolt of the American Colonies, the British Parliament abandoned its controls over Ireland in 1783. The Act of Union of 1801 reversed this change in favour of direct rule from Westminster, after which Irish history owed nothing to the Tudors. c) The need to control Scotland Yet the linchpin of Tudor security was the need to control Scotland.James IV (1488-1513) had renewed the Auld Alliance with France in 1492 and further provoked Henry VII by offering support for Perkin Warbeck. But the first of the Tudors declined to be distracted by Scottish sabre-rattling, and forged a treaty of Perpetual Peace with Scotland in 1501, followed a year later by the marriage of his daughter, Margaret, to King James. However, James tried to break the treaty shortly after Henry VIII’s accession; Henry was on campaign in France, but sent the earl of Surrey northwards, and Surrey decimated the Scots at Flodden on 9 September 1513.The elite of Scotland—the king, three bishops, eleven earls, fifteen lords, and some 10,000 men—were slain in an attack that was the delayed acme of medieval aggression begun by Edward I and III. The new Scottish king, James V, was an infant, and the English interest was symbolized for the next twenty years or so by the person of his mother, Henry VIII’s own sister. But Scottish panic after Flodden had, if anything, confirmed the nation’s ties with France, epitomized by the regency of john d uke of Albany, who represented the French cause but nevertheless kept Scotland at peace with England for the moment.The French threat became overt when the mature James V visited France in 1536, and married in quick succession Madeleine, daughter of Francis I, and on her death Mary of Guise. In 1541 James agreed to meet Henry VIII at York, but committed the supreme offence of failing to turn up. By this time, Scotland was indeed a danger to Henry VIII, as its government was dominated by the French faction led by Cardinal Beaton, who symbolized both the Auld Alliance and the threat of papal counter-attack. In October 1542 the duke of Norfolk invaded Scotland, at first achieving little.It was the Scottish counterstroke that proved to be a worse disaster even than Flodden. On 25 November 1542, 3,000 English triumphed over 10,000 Scots at Solway Moss—and the news of the disgrace killed James V within a month. Scotland was left hostage to the fortune of Mary Stuart, a baby born on ly six days before James’s death. For England, it seemed to be the answer to a prayer. Henry VIII and Protector Somerset, who governed England during the early years of Edward VI’s minority, none the less turned advantage into danger.Twin policies were espoused by which war with France was balanced by intervention in Scotland designed to secure England’s back door. In 1543 Henry used the prisoners taken at Solway Moss as the nucleus of an English party in Scotland; he engineered Beaton’s overthrow, and forced on the Scots the treaty of Greenwich, which projected union of the Crowns in form of marriage between Prince Edward and Mary Stuart. At the end of the same year, Henry allied with Spain against France, planning a combined invasion for the following spring.But the invasion, predictably, was not concerted. Henry was deluded by his capture of Boulogne; the emperor made a separate peace with France at Crepi, leaving England’s flank exposed. At ast ronomical cost the war continued

Movie: The Party’s Over

Political party is a way where people of the same interest or ideas are joined together to expressed their ideas.   Conflicts between humans in terms of their views and opinions about certain topics and issues are normal.   Thus, it is where they balance each opinion and come up with the decision everyone agreed upon after the discussion. However, this may sometimes not work perfectly enough for the public and is signaled through the formation of the third parties like in United States.   This means that the two major parties have become unresponsive to the needs of the public (Wahler 1996). Today, the two major political parties of the United States are Democratic Party which evolved in 1782 from Thomas Jefferson party, and Republican Party established in 1850s by Abraham Lincoln and others who opposed the expansion of slavery (Consulate General of the United States). There are already a number of minor or third parties in United States that have evolved through time.   Green Party, Constitution Party, Independence Party, New Party, Reform Party and Labor Party are just to name some (Gunzburger 2007). The movie The Party’s Over is a documentary about the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election which follows the actor Philip Seymour Hoffman as he took an inside look at the 2000 Democratic and Republican Convention for Al Gore and George Bush. The movie draws attention for the problems of our government system especially during the 2000 United States election. Hoffman gathered views and personal opinions from a very wide range of people in society.   His interviewees are ranged from musicians like Ben Harper, to Bill Maher a political comedian, to Democrat representatives like Harol Ford Jr., to rally organizers, to a homeless woman (Lebowski 2007). Bill Maher said that American politics is run by â€Å"a system of open bribery† and the public’s voices are not heard by the government which led to a largely apathetic voting public.   Tim Robbins expanded the idea by saying that it is not mere apathy which stops many people from voting, the people are protesting against the government that’s why they do not vote (Lebowski 2007). Democrat representative Harold Ford Jr. said that the fact is that our government is a service.   And no matter how frequently poor the service is, you have no choice but to â€Å"avail† it.   It’s like you have to pay taxes even if the government is too bad for you, or else you will be jailed and tried (Lebowski 2007). On the other hand, Noam Chomsky explained that the theory is that people’s role in democracy is not just as participants but as spectators as well. She further said that during the election period, we are given two candidates to choose from, a democrat and a republican, who are actually and essentially one in the same.   Both of these parties’ candidates have the same goals and want the same outcomes for the government. But then they tend to disagree with each other violently and publicly. As a result, it doesn’t really matter to us which of the parties we elect.   And we are stuck in choosing from Democracy and Republican parties that we barely look at the third parties and independent candidates.   We are focused on our differences instead of our similarities (Lebowski 2007). Minor parties or what we call third parties often call attention to an issue that is of interest to the voters but that has been neglected by government like consumerism and environment as what Ralph Nader focused (Consulate General of the United States). The movie leaves the audience a fair question of whether the Democratic and Republican parties are different or not.   Also, it wonders on how much one’s priority is put and should put over the politics. It also seeks to get and feel the public pulse about the American politics.   And since it seeks to reach out the larger audience, it promotes the awareness of people on politics and made them have a discussion about it among themselves (Curry 2003). Works Cited Curry, Warren. â€Å"The Party’s Over.† 21 October 2003. CinemaSpeak.Com. 3 November 2007 . Gunzburger, Ron. â€Å"Directory of U.S. Political Parties.† 2007. Politics1.com. 11 November 2007 < http://politics1.com/parties.htm>. Lebowski, Jeff. â€Å"You have to insist you're right even if you know you're wrong.† 4 October 2007.   Spout LLC. 11 November 2007. â€Å"U.S. Government.† Consulate General of the United States. 3 November 2007 < http://krakow.usconsulate.gov/parties.html>. Wahler, Brenda. â€Å"Poli Sci 101: The Role of Parties.† January 1996. Montana State University.   11 November 2007 < http://home.mcn.net/~montanabw/polisci101.html>.