|
July 29, 2009
escapism and the politics of the past
WARNING: May contain spoiler! (Depending on your point of view, that is. I discuss an old conspiracy theory that does figure in the plot of an excellent book. If you haven't read it, I hope this post encourages you to do so!) I'm back from Seattle, where I had the honor of being a groomsman at Dennis's wedding. (I actually read from Homer; what a kick that was!) It was nice to have a break from politics, and for several days I barely got online. Instead of reading online analyses of contemporary events, as part of my little bout of "escapism" I drifted back into time, reading the third novel in the Matthew Shardlake series; Sovereign. If ever there was a book to be judged by its cover, it's this one: Great cover; great book! By most standards, Henry VIII was a cruel and tyrannical monarch. Even though his times were cruel, he more than lived up to the cruelty of his times. At least, I think most reasonable people would consider the slow disemboweling of political opponents to be cruel. Plus hanging people in chains, boiling them alive, and the routine burnings at the stake, mutilation and torture that constituted justice at the time. And even if you're one of those anti-social types who prefers animals to people, Henry loved nothing more than watching captive bears and trained dogs tear each other to pieces in the ring (as did his daughter Elizabeth). But again, such an attitude was not unique to the monarchy; animal torture was conventional popular entertainment. (BTW, the Puritans took a dim view of animal sports, not because of the cruelty to the animals, but because they disapproved of human entertainments!) I suspect that if you could travel back in time, whether Henry would have been considered cruel would depend on the political sympathies of whomever you asked. Those in the so-called "Papist" faction would have doubtless screamed about what a murderous, torturing bastard the heretic king was. But given their turn, the only thing that would change was the religious convictions of their victims. That each side considered the other to be heretical and treasonous virtually guaranteed that in the holding of power, torturing and killing was a feature and not a bug. Is that moral relativism? Had Henry been overthrown, his enemies would doubtless have engaged in retributory torture and killing; hundreds of Protestants were in fact burnt at the stake during the reign of his (Catholic) daughter Mary. Anyway, in the course of my summer reading, an interesting tidbit I stumbled upon was a medieval conspiracy theory (recently reemerged as a modern conspiracy theory, BTW) which holds that Henry VIII was not the legitimate heir to the throne, because his grandfather Edward IV was the bastard son of a Kentish archer instead of the legitimate son of Richard the Duke of York (also father of Richard III, who along with his supporters advanced the illegitimate birth claim). Prior to his succession, on 22 June 1483, Richard III declared that Edward was illegitimate, and three days later the matter was addressed by parliament. In Titulus Regius (the text of which is believed to come word-for-word from the petition presented by Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham to the assembly which met on June 25, 1483, to decide on the future of the monarchy), Richard III is described as "the undoubted son and heir" of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York and "born in this land" -- an oblique reference to his brother's birth at Rouen and baptism in circumstances which could have been considered questionable. Dominic Mancini says that Cecily Neville, mother of both Edward IV and Richard III, was herself the basis for the story: when she found out about Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, in 1464, "Proud Cis" flew into a rage. Mancini reported that the Duchess, in her anger, offered to declare him a bastard. However, this is not supported in contemporary sources, but is most likely reflective of contemporary opinion. According to Polydore Vergil, Duchess Cecily, "being falsely accused of adultery, complained afterwards in sundry places to right many noble men, whereof some yet live, of that great injury which her son Richard had done her." If she had indeed complained -- as would befit a high-ranking lady of renowned piety, as she had been regarded -- these petitions may have had some effect: the allegations were dropped and never again pursued. Richard III's claim to the throne is generally believed to be based upon his claim that Edward IV's children were illegitimate.This touches on the still-unsettled double murder of the famous "Princes in the Tower," which will be argued from now till Doomsday. (My personal opinion is that the clever schemer Henry VII was somehow behind it, as his claim to the throne was even shakier than Richard's, and had the boys lived, he'd have never been King. But we'll never know.) Anyway, as I was reading, it occurred to me how quaint and silly the medieval obsession with birth and bastardy was. And what a relief from modern politics! We are much too sophisticated to worry and obsess over conspiracy theories involving the birth details of our leaders. Or potential leaders. Medieval thinking belongs in the past! Today, we judge people on the basis of their political views and the legitimacy of their ideas, not their genealogy, or the legitimacy of their children. So much for my escapism. posted by Eric on 07.29.09 at 12:46 PM
Comments
Anyway, as I was reading, it occurred to me how quaint and silly the medieval obsession with birth and bastardy was. Do you think if we re-established the stigma related to being a bastard child, the single motherhood rate would go down? We've found out what happens when we make fathers financially and shame-wise unnecessary. We get criminals. Lots and lots of criminals. dfenstrate · July 29, 2009 04:09 PM Stigmatizing a child for the circumstances of his birth strikes me as ridiculous and illogical. I suspect the high crime rate associated with single mothers is associated more with welfare. Welfare creates an economic disincentive to marry, which has little to do with stigmatization of bastardy. Eric Scheie · July 29, 2009 04:33 PM
NCC · July 29, 2009 07:56 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Exposing and facilitating debauchery
Iraq: Progress Continues In Absence Of Media Attention A New Right A sixteenth is a half, in the less is more narrative! A Rebirth Of Mainstream Libertarianism? No Limit A fate worse than Hitler escapism and the politics of the past The Sarah Palin Show? Correcting Their Stance?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Heh.
People don't change, only the technology they use to be bastids to each other does.