(Please excuse the obnoxiously long title)…

The topics of religion and politics have always been intertwined in the material we’ve discussed for this course, but throughout the past couple of chapters in the narrative and in the source book, the in depth discussion of the various sects of Protestantism have been something I feel is noteworthy. From what I can gather, I feel that politically England was weakened as the number of dissenting sects of the Protestant religion grew. I argue that because the English government was attempting to have their monarchy be the head of both the Church and State, the constantly changing religious landscape made it increasingly difficult for the political realm to function efficiently.

On the religious side of things, since Protestantism was a relatively new creation in the early modern period, the rules that were to govern the new religion were regularly evolving and therefore consistently influencing how the English government was running. The recording and understanding of these new church laws required great effort by those of the nobility and the laity alike as they kept having to redefine how they practiced and lived out their faith. This influenced the political realm significantly in the governance of the monarch and the nobility. There is numerous accounts in the documents we’ve discussed of how much religion played a part in political affairs during the early modern period. The Christian faith motivated the actions of the government as a political body; it was an integral part of the decision making process, ranging across all foreign and domestic issues. I may be oversimplifying the situation, but I feel that if there had been a more set understanding of how the Protestant faith was to be practiced, it could’ve saved the English government quite a bit of time and effort.

Politically, the religious landscape was also being shaped by the monarchy and those in Parliament. The beliefs of those in power had a trickle down effect on the British people as they were often forced to change their practices to those dictated by, or deemed acceptable, to the monarchy and those in the Parliament. The political unrest during the early modern period helped to lay the groundwork for the religious factions to develop. As the common people became more literate, and Bibles were distributed throughout the empire, with each person seemingly being able to speak their mind on the matter of religion, there always was some sort of disagreement politically of how to handle this new religious expression. I am not stating that the government should’ve censored the people and their religious expression, I’m just saying that I think there would’ve been a lot less strife in English history during the early modern period if the leaders of the Protestant religion had followed their own initial ground rules.

My apologies if this seemed a bit like a rant, but I suppose that it kind of was. I simply was getting frustrated in the readings with the constant indecision of the religious and political landscapes of the time period. I hope that you found my viewpoint interesting though, and I’d definitely would like to hear yours.

I appreciate your reading this and again, please let me know what you think about this topic.

After our discussion on Tuesday about document 9.11 (a correspondence between Queen Anne to Lord Treasurer Godolphin) and the significance of Queen Anne’s use of the word “slave,” I decided to go back and look the passage over because, in honesty, on my first read through I didn’t really give it much thought.

Though there was many interpretations of this passage from the rest of the class, one perspective that stuck out to me was that Anne was too removed from the slave trade to have proper understanding to use the word “slave” in its true, horrific and gruesome context. Though I don’t disagree with this assessment, I would like to add to the argument that her connotation of “slave” is more associated to an obedient servant; a servant who is so concerned with the care of her “master” (the Parliament and English people) that it constantly weighs upon her.

This argument may be a bit of a stretch as it may seem a bit unbelievable for a ruler to be that ignorant to the sufferings of so many, but continuing with the aforementioned interpretation, Anne could’ve been so removed in understanding the slave trade that she defined the term in a way that conveys the stress of the responsibility of her position as monarch. Though she was born into royalty, Anne’s education would likely not have centered around knowledge of history and current events because of her being a female therefore, she could’ve understood the term “slave” in context of Biblical references. And though there is great emphasis in the Bible of the suffering that a slave endures, it also implies that a slave is considered worthy of praise and admiration from a merciful master through attentive, dedicated service. I believe that Anne stating, “…though I have the name of queen, to be in reality but their slave, which as it will by my personal ruin, so it will be the destroying all government…,” could be interpreted that she was such a conscientious ruler to her people, that the constant pull between the Parliamentary parties weighed on her in such a way that she felt metaphorically “chained” to the politics of the English government and unable to serve her people as she wished.

As stated earlier, this interpretation may be a bit far fetched, but I enjoyed our discussion about this document and wanted to add my two cents. I would really like to hear what everyone else thinks about my theory.

Thanks y’all!

I found The Bewitching of Anne Gunter to be a fascinating look into how witch trials were conducted and the logistics of what the qualities of a person who is under bewitchment or demonic possession are. It was especially interesting to hear Anne, the supposedly bewitched person, present her side of the story in the book, as this is seemingly rare in the texts that I’ve read. Being from an agrarian community myself, I also enjoyed comparing the similarities and differences between that of North Moreton and my community.

One thing I noticed as somewhat of an underlying theme was that of gender roles and how it played out in the case of witch trials. It is well known that the majority of people accused of witchcraft were women and I feel that can be partially based on the stereotypes and cultural beliefs of the people of the day. It seems as if there is this fear among the early modern British that women with power of any kind was something to be leery of. Because of this, there is reason to believe that many people were suspicious of women who were widowed or single, aged, or well-respected because of the wealth of knowledge they had. It was worrisome for any one women to have too much respect of any kind because that could lead to a desire for even greater status and power which would disrupt their place in society. Therefore making them an easy target for witchcraft accusations as they already fit the mold.

The “mold” I just referenced is something worth noting too, in that how people got information about the symptoms of witchcraft and demonic possessions. People were able to figure out what qualities or symptoms fit into witchcraft and demonic possession from pamphlets that were widely circulated during that time. It may seem obvious to us in 2015, but this plausibly could have been how many people faked demonic possessions. This is because they were able to read about how they should pretend to be possessed and successfully perform it. There also was a great desire for spectacle during the early modern period as well, it covered everyone from the monarchy to the common man. Since women who were often disregarded as members of society, especially those who were of a lower social status, they could perform their “possession” in public and gain recognition of themselves for it. Sadly, as seen with the case of Anne Gunter, this often involved public humiliation along with physical and psychological distress.

Though there are multiple plays used throughout this book, the fifth chapter on “The Imperial Romance of Antony and Cleopatra” I found to be particularly compelling. While reading this chapter a few ideas were brought to my mind that I thought that I would share.

I would like to argue that the early modern British person, in this case, Shakespeare, really struggled with the character of Cleopatra in the play. The struggle being centered around who she was as a person and what she represented as it went against the cultural and social norms of the early modern British, along with comparing she and Marc Antony to members of the British royalty.

Cleopatra is an undeniably strong ruler which threatens the social structure of early  modern England. During that time, women were regarded as lesser beings and held virtually no positions of power. But being as Cleopatra was opposite of what the cultural norm would be, Shakespeare portrays her character not only to have the stereotypical feminine qualities, such as being sensual and persuasive, alluding to her as almost that of a temptress to Antony in order to lure him away from his native land, but also those of a powerful ruler, as she is called “Egypt” and embodies it in the text.

I feel that this too reflects an image of the Tudor royalty. Shakespeare lived and worked during the Tudor reign and I believe that those rulers are exemplified in the characters he writes about, or at least helped to influence them. I find Marc Antony’s character could possibly be inspired by King Henry VII.

Antony’s story is comparable to that of Henry’s in that he is a well- known figure but is tempted by the luxuries of affluent life, including temptations with women, in Henry’s case, Anne Boleyn while in Antony’s, it is Cleopatra. And there is another comparison, of that of Anne Boleyn to Cleopatra. The way Cleopatra is portrayed as a women is that of a cunning, seductive nature in an attempt to lure Antony away from his native land, and its way of life, to that of Egypt. Some people of that time may have considered Anne Boleyn to be of that nature, trying to tempt and lure Henry away from the Catholic Church and in the end was the “cause” for a huge upheaval of the religious system of the entire nation to occur. Her influence on Henry was very strong and in consequence changing the course of history by her actions. Loomba also argues that Antony is “effeminized” by the strength of Cleopatra which could possibly be argued for Henry as after Anne.

When referenced as the powerful political leader I think that Cleopatra’s character could be influenced by Queen Elizabeth I. The way that Cleopatra is portrayed as an embodiment of her people is how the Queen attempted to portray herself. Her only true devotion was perceived to be God and her people, making it easy to compare the two monarchs. Elizabeth’s ability to govern successfully was something that was questioned at doubted among her subjects initially due to the fact she was a women, but as both she and Cleopatra show, their governance is solid.

Whenever I first saw the title of this book on the syllabus, I was very intrigued and excited because who isn’t up for a good spy story? Especially when it involves some of the most famous royal persons in history. I will say though, I felt that the book left a lot to be desired. For the majority of the time I found myself getting lost in attempting to follow who and what Bossy was speaking about. After a relatively short period of time, I came to the conclusion that this text is simply too dense for the average reader to truly comprehend- especially after a certain hour of night- and can really only be fully appreciated by a small group of similar academics, or something of the like. I think the best that the average reader can do is to look for the underlying themes that are present throughout the book in order to come to terms with what they’ve read. Though the details on a small scale are difficult to understand, broader themes can be taken from the text, mainly in regards to the various dynamics of Elizabethan politics, both domestic and foreign, religion and how these matters all were woven through family ties, most especially between Queen Elizabeth and her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots.

The style that the book is written in makes it difficult to comprehend as it seems to switch between a Bossy describing his research and his findings to a nonfiction history novel.  In discussing Bossy writing style though, it does sound very academic but I felt that he took entirely too long to get to the point of what he was trying to say. The descriptions he gives when attempting to get to the point also seemed to lack any real evidence towards his overall argument of who the mole is. There seemed to be “fluff” information in between, which made the pace of reading slow, confusing and somewhat monotonous. Regardless of how one feels about the book though, as with any, it is important to keep in mind that the author spent a great deal of time writing and editing to get it where it is. That is why I try not to be too critical of the little details, but again focus on the bigger picture of things.

Welcome to publish.illinois.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Oh yay it did work!:)

I’m not entirely sure if this thing is actually working….?