A short biography of Henri de Bourbon

Additionally, it would be interesting to have a look at the situation that surrounded the actual lords, who may have contributed for William Shakespeare to establish three character lords in his play Love's Labour's Lost. As the following web site sums up, these French nobles -  the Baron (the Due) de Biron (or Berowne), the Due de Longueville and The Due de Mayenne (or General D’Aumont) - were ‘involved in a historical struggle between Henry of Navarre… and the Catholic League’ (

http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/lllost1.html). To summarise the complex situation, it would be beneficial and efficient to have a look at a short biography of the key person: Henri de Bourbon.

Henri ‘was the son of Antoine de Bourbon and Jeanne d’Albret. On her death he succeeded to the kingdom of Navarre (1572). He took leadership of the Huguenot (Protestant) party in 1569. His marriage in 1572 with Marguerite de Valois was the occasion for the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day. Henri saved his life by abjuring Protestantism, but in 1576 he escaped from his virtual imprisonment at court and returned to Protestantism. When in 1584 Henri III named him heir presumptive, the Catholic League, headed by Henri 3rd Duc de Guise refused to recognize him and persuaded Henri III to send an army to force his conversion. In the resulting “War of the Three Henries,” Henry de Navarre defeated Henri III at Coutras (1587) but came to the king’s support in the troubles of 1588, and after Henri III’s death (1589) defeated the League forces at Arques (1589) and Ivrey (1590); he was unable to enter Paris until 1594, after he had abjured Protestantism… His war with Spain, the ally of the League, ended in 1598 with the Treaty of Vervins. In 1598 he also established religious toleration through the Edict of Nantes… In 1600 he married Marie de’ Medici, having had his earlier marriage annulled… –Columbia-Viking desk encyclopedia, 1953’ (http://www.lepg.org/people.htm).

Henri de Bourbon

For reading the text in full:  http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/three-character-lords-in-loves-labours-lost/

Lord Longaville and Dumain in W. Shakespeare's 'Love's Labour's Lost'

Similarly, to the origin of lord Biron - a character in a Shakespearean play Love's Labour's Lost - both following sources name ‘A Duc de Longueville’ (http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/lllost1.html) or ‘the Due de Longueville’ (http://hudsonshakespeare.org/Shakespeare%20Library/Character%20Directory/CD_LLL.htm) as the sole candidate for the model of lord Longaville, the character. Both agree that he was also a general of (or an aide to) Henri de Bourbon and latter adds he was ‘a well-known figure in the Wars of Religion’ (ibid). Meanwhile, the latter further argues on the possible model for another lord, Dumain, as following:

The Due de Longueville

‘The Due de Mayenne, well known in Shakespeare’s London for his role in the French Wars of Religion, is usually thought to have provided the name Dumaine.  Unlike the originals of Longaville and Berowne, he was not an aide to the historical King of Navarre (Henri de Bourbon); rather, he was a principal enemy of the insurgent monarch, but this inconsistency would probably not have bothered either the playwright or his audience. An alternative, the less notable General D’Aumont, who was an aide to the King of Navarre at the time, has been proposed’ (ibid).

On the contrary, another source that deals with historical documents relating to Anthony Bacon, brother to the famous writer Francis, gives a different story, which says ‘The names of the three Lords are taken directly from the passport of Anthony when he was living in the Navarre territory (1583-92). The names are signed Dumain, Longaville, Biron(Berowne)’ (http://www.sirbacon.org/links/anthony_bacon.htm).

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/three-character-lords-in-loves-labours-lost/

Armand de Gontaunt, the Baron de Biron and Love's Labour's Lost by W. Shakespeare

Navarre is the name of a region where the play - Love's Labour's Lost by William Shakespeare - takes place and the region was an independent kingdom in northern Spain and southern France in the sixteenth century. However, during the century, ‘Spain annexed most of Navarre’ (http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/xLoveLab.html) in 1515 and eventually ‘in 1589, France annexed the rest of the kingdom’ (ibid).

By narrowing the range of time and place to the kingdom of Navarre in the sixteenth century, and replacing the fictional king Ferdinand in the play to Henri de Bourbon, the historical King of Navarre since 1572, who later became Henri IV of France, some candidates, who might have provided the bases for establishing the play's character lords, can be found; Armand de Gontaut, the Baron (Due) de Biron (Berowne), A Duc (the Due) de Longueville and The Due de Mayenne (or the General D’Aumont).

As for the model for lord Biron, plural sources agree to see the Baron (the Due) de Biron (or Berowne) as the sole candidate. One source says he was a French Protestant general, ‘who was a principal adviser to the historical King of Navarre (Henri de Bourbon)’ (http://hudsonshakespeare.org/Shakespeare%20Library/Character%20Directory/CD_LLL.htm), whilst another source basically says the same with adding his personal name Armand de Gontaut, who was Henri’s ‘military leader’ (http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/lllost1.html) and ‘died in battle in 1592’ (ibid).

Armand de Gontaut

In addition, looking at biographic information of Henri de Bourbon, the King of Navarre, could provide a plausible explanation for the death of the Baron de Biron, because if he was serving for the King, he could go into the battle of Craon, which took place on May 1592 between his king, Henri IV, and Spain, the alley of the Catholic League. The result of the battle also gives more likelihood for the death of Biron, an important figure for Henri’s side, because it ended up ‘carrying a brilliant victory’ (http://www.multilingualarchive.com/ma/frwiki/en/Bataille_de_Craon) to the side of the League.

To read the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/three-character-lords-in-loves-labours-lost/

'Love's Labour's Lost' - basic info

Love’s Labour’s Lost is a play written by William Shakespeare. It is said that the play ‘was first printed in 1658’ (http://www.william-shakespeare.info/shakespeare-play-loves-labours-lost.htm) and was written relatively in the early days of the author’s writing career. It is also pointed out that the play is ‘the first play printed under the Bard’s name’ (http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/lllost1.html) and it contains some ‘signs of early composition’ (ibid), although the play is also known for its complex use of language that ‘includes considerable punning and rhyming – more rhyming than any other Shakespeare play’ (ibid). As for its story’s historical background, the former simply says the play ‘is not based on any historical events or people’ (http://www.william-shakespeare.info/shakespeare-play-loves-labours-lost.htm). However, it would not be so difficult to find some clues that can connect the story and its historical background by conducting researches especially focusing on some characters’ names in the play, for example: Biron, Logaville and Dumain.

These three characters are described as ‘lords attending on the King’ (http://www.sacred-texts.com/sks/lll/lll.htm) in the Dramatis Personae section of the play. Their names are usually found just below the name of Ferdinand, another character who is described as ‘king of Navarre’ (ibid) and this normally implies that the ‘King’ three characters attend to is the ‘king’ listed just above them, in this case Ferdinand, whose name is also put on the top of the list.

William Shakespeare

To read more... http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/three-character-lords-in-loves-labours-lost/

Augustus's succession problems up to the year of Ovid's banishment

Augustus's daughter Julia’s disgrace and banishment in 2 B, C. were followed by further misfortunes and grieves that fell upon both of Julia’s sons through her marriage to Agrippa. It is said that ‘Lucius Caesar, on his way to Spain in AD 2 fell ill at Marseilles and died… (then) Gaius Caesar, died of wounds on his way back from the east in AD 4’ (http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=8C2huNvRQOQC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Agrippa+Postumus+julia+younger&source=bl&ots=WckE4lc4r3&sig=A%E2%80%93Xtl5Hz469ybR8cPAX6xytuT0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s2RyUdPoAoK3kAW8jIGYCA&sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Agrippa%20Postumus%20julia%20younger&f=false). Having lost all his realistic male heirs from his daughter Julia, Augustus arranged for Agrippina the Elder, daughter of Agrippa and Julia, to marry Germanicus, a nephew of Tiberius, who had been allowed to return from Rhodes in AD 2 to be adopted by the emperor, together with Agrippa Postumus, in AD 4. Despite the latter was the sole surviving son between Agrippa and disgraced Julia, he ‘was never seriously considered’ (ibid) to be a candidate for Augustus’s successor, presumably because he was born on ‘after 26 June’ (http://www.livius.org/vi-vr/vipsanius/agrippa_postumus.html) of 12 B. C., probably after his father’s death that took place in the same year. Though he managed to be adopted, his good fortune did not last long and it was followed by being sent to exile within a couple of years and he ended up to receive a decree of ‘eternal exile’ in AD 8, the year in question.

Ovid was relatively a less important figure in comparison with those who had to face cruel punishments sentenced by Augustus in between AD 6 and AD 8. Along with Agrippa Postumus mentioned above, whose sister Julia, who is usually called Julia the Younger to avoid confusion with her mother – Julia the disgraced – ‘was convicted of adultery’ (ibid) and banished in AD 8, whilst her husband, ‘Lucius Aenilius Paullus, was put to death for conspiracy against Augustus’ (http://www.poemhunter.com/ovid/biography/).

Julia the Younger

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/ovids-banishment-and-the-julian-marriage-laws/

Augustus's marriage law reforms and his daughter Julia

Augustus’s marriage law reforms in 18 B. C. is also known as the Julian Marriage Laws, named after the Emperor’s daughter, who became one of representing figures of the consequence of the law reforms. Julia was born in about 36 B. C. and was ‘a highly intelligent woman, well read and knowledgeable, with a penchant for lively and witty company (http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=8C2huNvRQOQC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Agrippa+Postumus+julia+younger&source=bl&ots=WckE4lc4r3&sig=A%E2%80%93Xtl5Hz469ybR8cPAX6xytuT0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s2RyUdPoAoK3kAW8jIGYCA&sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Agrippa%20Postumus%20julia%20younger&f=false). She married Agrippa, one of close friends of her father Augustus and gave birth to several children including prospective successors of the emperor, Gaius Caesar and Lucius Caesar, before her husband’s sudden death in 12 B. C. Facing to his close friend’s death, Augustus ‘forced Tiberius to … marry Julia’ (http://library.thinkquest.org/26907/emperors/tiberius.htm) by also forcing him to divorce his wife Vispania Agrippina, ‘whom he loved dearly’ (ibid). Tiberius was one of candidates for the future successor of Augustus and he had no choice but to obey the order. Nonetheless, it is said that ‘his marriage to Julia was not a very happy one. Julia bore Tiberius only one son who died soon after birth and there were no other children made between the two’ (ibid). Despite her father’s marriage law reforms, which made adultery a criminal offence, she ‘took lovers from at least the time of her marriage to Agrippa’ (http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=8C2huNvRQOQC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Agrippa+Postumus+julia+younger&source=bl&ots=WckE4lc4r3&sig=A%E2%80%93Xtl5Hz469ybR8cPAX6xytuT0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s2RyUdPoAoK3kAW8jIGYCA&sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Agrippa%20Postumus%20julia%20younger&f=false) since she was ‘quite “bohemian” and considered any behaviour socially acceptable if her own personal inclinations recommended it’ (ibid).

In 2 B. C., while Tiberius was voluntarily withdrawing to Rhodes since 6 B. C., Augustus, in his age of 60 years old, heard shocking accounts of then 38 years old Julia, who allegedly ‘had scores of lovers and roamed about the city looking for thrills, even prostituting herself with strangers in the forum at the statue of Marsyas’ (ibid). Although this made Augustus so angry that he intended to ‘put her to death… he limited himself to denouncing his daughter in a letter to the senate and requesting strict exile’ (ibid) and accordingly, Julia ‘was sent to the island of Pandateria, off the coast of Campania’ (ibid).

Julia, daughter of Augustus

Full text is available: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/ovids-banishment-and-the-julian-marriage-laws/

The Amores - a poem in charge of Ovid's banishment(?)

In the meantime, Ovid’s most famous work Metamorphoses is generally regarded as his masterpiece and it is said that the work was completed ‘By AD 8’  (http://www.poemhunter.com/ovid/biography/), the year in question when Ovid was allegedly banished. However, ‘a poem’ in question that implied by Ovid himself as a possible cause for his banishment is usually regarded as his earlier works, The Amores and The Ars Amatoria. Whilst the latter was pointed out by Ovid himself as the poem, which was the ‘cause of his banishment’ (ibid) during his exile, the former has been speculated as the poem in charge, due to its contents. Although both seem to have much in common in their contents – whilst the latter is about the Art of Love, which ‘parodies didactic poetry whilst being a manual about seduction and intrigue’ (ibid), the former ‘made fun of conventional (socially accepted) love poetry and offered vivid portrayals of contemporary Roman society’ (http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ni-Pe/Ovid.html) – a significant difference between them is that the author ‘writes about adultery, rendered illegal in Augustus’s marriage law reforms of 18 BC’ (http://www.poemhunter.com/ovid/biography/) in the former.

It is said that The Amores is one of Ovid’s early works and its original edition can be traced back to ‘a five-book collection, circa 20 BC’ (ibid), before the marriage law reforms take place. Furthermore, it seems that Ovid continued to work on this title for a couple of decades because there is a ‘surviving, extant version, reduced to three books, includes poems written as late as AD 1’ (ibid). This means that despite the criminalising of adultery with severe penalties such as ‘exile and confiscation of property’ (http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-romanlegal120.shtml) nearly a couple of decades ago, the final form of completed work was not only yet in circulation but also was described as ‘an immediate and overwhelming success in fashionable society’ (http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ni-Pe/Ovid.html) roughly for eight more years until the author’s banishment.

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/ovids-banishment-and-the-julian-marriage-laws/

Ovid: brief biography

Ovid was born Publius Ovidius Naso on March 20, 43 B.C.E., at Sulmo (modern Sulmona), Italy, about ninety miles from Rome. His father was wealthy {equestrian} and intended for him to become a lawyer and an official. He gave Ovid an excellent education, including study under great rhetoricians (masters of language and speech).
Ovid preferred exercises that dealt with historical or imaginary circumstances… {After the death of his brother, Ovid renounced law and began travelling to} Athens, Greece, {then, further} toured the Near East, and lived for almost a year in Sicily. His father convinced him to return to Rome, where he served in various minor legal positions, but he disliked the work and {resigned to pursue poetry}.

After leaving legal work, Ovid moved in the best literary circles. He had attracted notice as a poet while still in school and in time came to be surrounded by a group of admirers {including his patron Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus, a Roman General}. This period of Ovid’s life seems to have been relatively peaceful as well as productive. Of his private life we know little except that he was married three times…
In 8 or 9 C.E. Ovid was banished to Tomi, a city on the Black Sea in what is now modern Romania. The reasons behind Ovid’s exile have been the subject of much guessing. He himself tells us that the reason was “a poem and a mistake.”

summary from (http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ni-Pe/Ovid.html), with supplemental information from {http://www.poemhunter.com/ovid/biography/}.

Ovid

It is said that it took Ovid nearly a year for his journey to exile in Tomis, where ‘was subject to attack by hostile barbarians and to bitterly cold winters’ (http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ni-Pe/Ovid.html). Although he consistently wrote letters of appeals to be allowed to return to Rome by lamenting his situation in Tomis, where ‘books and educated people were not to be found and Latin was practically unknown’ (ibid), his laments only fell into deaf ears of successive Emperors; Augustus, who excluded Ovid’s works from the public libraries of Rome, and his successor Tiberius, who ‘was even more unyielding’ (ibid) against Ovid’s appeals. Nevertheless, it seems that the poet of poets did not only bear with his misfortune. On the contrary, it is said that ‘Ovid’s exile was not so unbearable as his letters indicate. He learned the native languages, and his pleasantness and friendliness made him a beloved and revered figure to the local citizens. They exempted him from taxes and treated him well’ (ibid). Ovid died in Tomis in his exile in circa 18 A. D.

To read the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/ovids-banishment-and-the-julian-marriage-laws/

Solomon's succession followed by Adonijah's rebellion

At this stage, Adonijah, ‘taking advantage of David’s sickness... assembled his followers’ (http://rinahshal.tripod.com/id161.html) and proclaimed himself as King Adonijah in Ein Rogel, ‘one of Jerusalem’s sources of water’ (ibid). However, ‘Many of the court dignitaries refused to attend while others, including Solomon…, were not even invited. Because Adonijah’s claim to the throne lacked legitimacy, Nathan, David’s spiritual leader, moved at once to install Solomon on the throne’ (ibid). In this way, ‘David ordered his servants to bring Solomon to the Gihon spring where the priest anointed him’ (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Solomon.html) publicly and this finalised ‘the failure of Adonijah’s rebellion and Solomon’s ascent to the throne after his father’s death’ (http://rinahshal.tripod.com/id161.html).

Thus, Solomon inherited his father’s kingdom after the death of David but Adonijah’s attempted rebellion continued to overshadow the new king’s authority. Actually, ‘Two of David’s closest advisors, Joab… and the priest Abiathar, sided with Adonijah’ (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Solomon.html) and it looks like they were planning a conspiracy. Therefore, ‘When Adonijah came to Solomon and requested the king’s servant as a wife, Solomon saw that this was a veiled threat to take over his kingdom and sent a messenger to kill Adonijah. He banished Abiathar to the city of Anathoth. Solomon then followed his father’s last instructions in which David had ordered him to kill both Joab and one of his father’s enemies, Shimei… Solomon thus overcame the last potential threats to his kingdom. He then appointed his friends to key military, governmental and religious posts’ (ibid).

Adonijah

You can read the full text at: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/succession-from-king-david-to-king-solomon/

Absalom's civil war and king David's deathbed

‘King David mourned for his dead son, Amnon, and also for the fugitive Absalom, although guilty of fratricide (2 Samuel 13:39)’ (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/absalom.htm) and ‘Eventually, David permitted Absalom’s return to Jerusalem’ (ibid). However, Absalom took this opportunity ‘not merely to succeed his father as king, but to replace his father while he was still reigning’ (ibid). Cunningly, Absalom ‘managed to gain the support of a large portion of the people… then moved to Hebron, the previous capital city of Judah, and declared himself king – thereby triggering a civil war between himself and his father (2 Samuel 15:1-12)’ (ibid).

However Absalom was so successful at the beginning of the civil war that ‘David found it necessary to flee from Jerusalem to Mahanaim, across the Jordan (ibid), consequently it was settled in a battle where Absalom ‘lost 20,000 of his troops’ (ibid) and met his own death, soon after he ‘got his head caught in the branches of an oak tree… while (he was) making a hasty retreat riding a mule’ (ibid).

Absalom, caught in the tree

Nonetheless, Absalom’s death did not pave the way smoothly for Solomon’s succession. When King David was seventy years old, on his deathbed, he ‘confirmed to his wife Bathsheba that Solomon, her son, would be his heir to the throne’ (http://rinahshal.tripod.com/id161.html). At that time, it was Adonijah, David’s fourth son, who ‘considered himself next in line to the throne’ (ibid), due to the facts that ‘David’s first and third sons were already dead and his second son never showed any interest in the throne’ (ibid). On top of that, actually Adonijah was much older than Solomon as well.

Full text is available at: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/succession-from-king-david-to-king-solomon/

Solomon's birth and his half-brothers - Amnon and Absalome

Solomon was the fourth son of King David and his wife Bathsheba. David already had six sons before he began to develop his relationship with Bathsheba and their first intercourse is depicted in the Old Testament in a following way: ‘the thing that David had done displeased the LORD’ (2 Samuel 11:27), because what David committed at the time was an adultery. Thus, the given situation for Solomon to succeed his father’s throne was obviously quite unlikely because he was not the oldest son of David and his mother’s status as David’s wife originally built upon a formidable sin. Nevertheless, it was Solomon who could secure the strongest endorsement for the succession; a promise made by King David himself. Even so, it was not the case where some other half-brothers of him, who were born from David’s earlier marriages, quietly approved the promise their father made behind a closed door.

Apart from the issue of succession, some of David’s sons seem to have been natively vicious, ambitious and disloyal to their father’s authority so that it led them struggle against each other almost inevitably. The series of struggles began ‘when Amnon, David’s oldest son, assaulted his half-sister Tamar, Absalom’s sister (2 Samuel 13-1-22)’ (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/absalom.htm). 

Amnon rapes Tamar

At first, Absalom, David’s third son, ‘bided his time, and when the opportunity arose two years later during the sheep shearing time at Baal Hazor, he had his brother Amnon killed (2 Samuel 13:23-29)’ (ibid). This incident was alarming enough for other ones to think ‘that it was the start of a general massacre of competitors to the throne’ (ibid) and made ‘all of the king’s other sons fled for their lives back to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 13:29-33)’ (ibid). Meanwhile, ‘Absalom then took refuge with his mother’s father at Geshur, northeast of The Sea of Galilee, where he remained for three years (2 Samuel 13:37-38)’ (ibid).

You can read the full text here: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/succession-from-king-david-to-king-solomon/