Skip to main content

The Pope's no to The People's yes: The tide of British History. (1).


       '
                                             Henry VIII.- Hampton Court?
                                             No, it's just his new codpiece.


     In its history, Britain (largely England for this period) has been invaded by Romans and Normans, and bossed about by Angles, Saxons and Danes. It has been riven by religious strife and convulsed by civil war and revolution. So how did this "miserable little island off the coast of France" as Frank Zappa called it, manage to develop, by the 19th Century, into the greatest power in the world?
     One of the most important factors in tracing the development of British power is the English Reformation. This action would provide the broad root that would twist, turn and ultimately support the growth of the English oak over the next 100 years. For the step away from traditional thought freed up new information and new ideas,  and  growth is impossible without these things. 
     In 1527, Henry VIII asked Pope Clement VII to annul his own marriage to Catherine of Aragon, his first wife. The King was desperate for a male heir and wished for a new wife to provide that heir (ironic, considering how well his daughter Elizabeth would do as Queen.) The Pope's subsequent refusal led to Henry withdrawing The Church of England from the authority of Rome.
     The context of the times was the Renaissance, when there was an influx of ancient Greek ideas and scholars to Europe. Information, like type and people, had become much more movable, and following inevitably behind new information were new ideas:





                                                        
         
       The English Reformation would turn out to be one of Henry's most important children. With the Pope no longer able to influence England, the country had gained a powerful and important independence, it now had the freedom to explore many new avenues.
    So it was, with the death of Henry, England, in its wisdom, crowned his 9 year old son as Edward VII.   
     During young Edward's six-year reign Protestantism was firmly established as the ruling creed. Until a few years later when Bloody Mary, happily burning Protestants at the stake,  re-established  Roman Catholicism as the correct and Holy ideas to live by.
     All of that would, in turn, be reversed when Mary's half-sister became Elizabeth I in 1558.
     After this swaying back and forth between the religious poles, Elizabeth's reign would provide a fortunate period of stability that allowed more growth.
     The maelstrom of swirling thought created by the previous monarchs produced  waves in the culture great enough to support the rise of English drama. The great writers of the time naturally produced works that addressed recent history, and Shakespeare in particular developed stories and characters that spoke to, and of, the swirling information and ideas of the times:
 
              
                 "O Wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here.
                         How beauteous mankind is!

                              O Brave new world that has such people in't!"

        Independent of Rome, the beauteous English would use their new freedom to attack the other great powers and their allies and holdings. For people from Plymouth to Newcastle, the famous sailor Sir Francis Drake would be a national hero. In Spain he was simply described as: "a pirate." International affairs remain broadly similar today.

       





    After Elizabeth came James I, whose patronage of the world of letters would produce the most famous translation of Christian scripture: The King James Bible.
    The information contained within the most important book in the country was becoming freely available to all who could read. Naturally enough, this new bay of information combined with all the religious earthquakes of the preceding decades to produce a tsunami powerful enough to wash across the land, leaving strange new sects and never-before seen cults wriggling in its wake.
     Those referred to as Puritans would flourish in this fertile ground of early 17th century England as bishops, ministers and lay-people all argued over the correct interpretation of God's word. This tide of un-orthodox thought would eventually rise high enough to engulf the Crown itself;  Charles I would reign in a land which had moved on from asking: Do we need a Pope? to: Do we need a King?
     Charles didn't help his own cause by exclaiming: "Kings are not bound to give an account of their actions but to God alone." On an island now set in surging seas of increased communication, James' refusal to explain himself set him firmly against the tide of history.

     The English Revolution of 1640-1660 saw the execution of Charles I and  Oliver Cromwell take power. His governance of the country would be essentially fascistic with his belief that, guided by God, he should oversee a land where: "A nobleman, a gentleman, a yeoman, the distinction of these: that is a good interest of the nation, and a great one." Domestic affairs remain broadly similar today.
      Fascists are fundamentally anti-communication, and Cromwell ordered the closure of all the theatres to ensure that no naughty and satanic ideas could fester on the open stage. Laws such as this, as well as those preventing the celebration of Christmas and the playing of football on a Sunday would, in fact, quite naturally only ensure that the country would eventually tire of Cromwell's reign. The nation would sway back again towards the crown with the restoration of Charles II.
      Britain, by the end of the 17th Century was profiting from conquest and trade and had a culture that had evolved to cope with a plurality of views. It was a place where describing and explaining and asking and checking  were practiced as much as anywhere on the planet, and this gave it the right soil from which could spring the first shoots of modern science.
      The bonds of religion, loosened throughout the previous 100 years, were now lax enough to allow many cats to slip out of all kinds of bags.
      And all around the country, the natural philosophers were busy opening cans containing all manner of worms.
   

Comments

  1. If Japan is particularly bad at communication how do you think Japan has advanced so fast?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you're talking about Japan becoming a modern nation-state from Meiji onwards, then I think it's clear that Japan's "amount" of communication increased enourmously in that time. Information increased as more people were taught to read and many many more books were printed. Japanese government policy was to send people to the great powers to look for information, to find out new descriptions and explanations. Inevitably, new ideas came behind all this new information. Japan changed enormously. Communication increased. During Edo, a farmer would have to stick his face in the dirt if a samurai was coming down the road. I think we can agree that the general communicative situation is better now.
    Regarding the idea of 'so fast', it's alot easier to create a modern industrial nation when it's already been done by several other countries. As with any basic learning, you simply learn the techniques and apply them yourself. One simple technique the Japanese learned from the great powers was, if you want to BE a great power then you need to get yourself some colonies.
    When Japan pinched Singapore and Hong Kong, there was outrage in Britain. The question of our right to be there was hardly raised.
    In regard to "bad at communication", I think that every culture is institutionally anti-communication. Some more than others.
    In Japan, techniques of discussion were often not applied as they were in other countries. To take a simple example: In Japan, the guy in charge before the war, a war that the victors had very clearly described as CRIMINAL, was the same guy at the top AFTER the war. With the emperor still there, and with no clear explanation of why Japan's supreme commander hadn't been executed along with everybody else, the only thing you can do is put your head down and ignore it. If, at the same time, Mammon is making inroads, then people will not be encouraged to consider their own culture. Especially, and most importantly, people will not be encouraged to think of BETTER ideas. People will be encouraged to fit into the status quo (and I don't mean grow long hair,wear jeans and play the guitar.) That situation is similar to recent British experience. Recently, police entered the offices of The Gaurdian newspaper and smashed some hard-drives in the passive presence of the editor. This is not imperial Japan, this is Britain, a few weeks ago. I don't think Britain's communicative ability is anything to crow about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Neil. I had no idea about the police at the Guardian.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cleopatra, a cowboy, then screaming!. - How we understand things.

“We, ignorant of ourselves, Beg often our own harms, which the wise powers Deny us for our good; so find we profit By losing of our prayers.”                 “Finish, good lady; the bright day is done, And we are for the Dark. ” ― William Shakespeare, Antony and Cleopatra   Cleopatra, a cowboy, then....screaming!       Presented with this information, how does the brain deal with it? Necessarily, the brain must deal with it as it does with all information:                                 Information -------------> Idea        Consequently, you might sort it out like this:                        Cleopatra   --------------> Queen Of Egypt                        A cowboy   --------------> Tom Mix                       Screaming! --------------> Expressing a strong emotional state         And then, in an example of the fundamentally creative aspect of basic communication, our brains start to fill in the blanks, to describe and e

"And do the other things" - Kennedy, Context and the Matrix.

Around the time of the anniversary of Apollo 11, or of the famous assassination in Dallas, the clip of President John F. Kennedy talking about going to the Moon has often been wheeled out: Ever since I saw this for the first time, maybe 35 years ago, I was always slightly baffled by the phrase: "We choose to go to the Moon and do the other things , not because they are easy, but because they are hard." What does "and do the other things" mean, I wondered? Why did Kennedy just presume his audience would know what these other things were? Or was it some sophisticated rhetorical device that I was unaware of? Should I start using it to give whatever I was saying some much-needed gravitas? However, just last week I happened upon a fuller version of the speech: Clearly then, the other things are referring to the climbing of Everest and the flying of the Atlantic, conquering the challenges necessary for progress.  With context, it is obvious what "and do the other th

A whale is a tree; obviously.

When I was young enough to be sat in school within glancing distance of a small library space that was dominated by a Miffy Wendy house# and contained, in my opinion, far too many Miffy books, yet just old enough to be offended that people would think that I would want to read about Miffy; the cover of one book spoke louder than all of those that surrounded it and thoroughly intrigued me.     The title of this book was: Jonah and the Whale.     Of course, this title referred to the famous Bible story, but at that age (maybe I was five or six) I don't think I knew of it. What I did know was what a whale was: a massive fish*, and that Jonah was someone's name, probably because of Ken Reid's comic character: Jonah . Jonah- not the Biblical one     So, the book's cover was something that drew my interest because, I wondered, why did the cover show an illustration of a man sitting under a tree? It was similar to this: Jonah...and... something.        Why did