The concept of time, according to Thomas Mann

Literature treats time as one of the most fascinating sources for many authors’ imaginations. However passionately science tries to point out its possibility, actually, time travelling is only available within the extent of fictional stories so far. Authors can use, or even create, the concept of time freely as their stories require. Moreover, authors can philosophise the concept of time as groundwork for their own creations as well. For example, Thomas Mann summarises his opinions on the concept of time, relating to his creation of a story in its Foreword as following:

‘The story of Hans Castorp… belongs to the long ago; is already, so to speak, covered with historic mould, and unquestionably to be presented in the tense best suited to a narrative out of the depth of the past… 

In a word, the degree of its antiquity has noways to do with the passage of time — in which statement the author intentionally touches upon the strange and questionable double nature of that riddling element. 

But we would not willfully obscure a plain matter. The exaggerated pastness of our narrative is due to its taking place before the epoch when a certain crisis shattered its way through life and consciousness and left a deep chasm behind. It takes place — or rather, deliberately to avoid the present tense, it took place, and had taken place — in that long ago, in that old days, the days of the world before the Great War, in the beginning of which so much began that has scarcely yet left off beginning. Yes, it took place before that; yet not so long before. Is not the pastness of the past the profounder, the completer, the more legendary, the more immediately before the present it falls? More than that, our story has, of its own nature, something of the legend about it now and again.’ ( http://prosaicbytrinath.blogspot.com/2010/12/foreword-to-magic-mountain-thomas-mann.html)

Thomas Mann

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/time-in-science-and-literature/

'Time' according to Rob Bryanton

Although it is a common-sense that time seems to flow straightforwardly from the past to the future, people who try to explain complex sciences such as the String Theory may disagree with such a simple explanation. For example, Rob Bryanton mentions on this topic in a video attempting to explain the dimensions, from zero to tenth, in accordance with the String theory:

‘If we think of ourselves as we were one minute ago, and then imagine ourselves as we are at this moment, the line we could draw from the ‘one-minute-ago version’ to the ‘right now version’ would be a line in the fourth dimension. If you were to see your body in the fourth dimension, you would be like a long undulating snake, with your embryonic self at one end and your deceased self at the other.

… One of the most intriguing aspects of there being one dimension stacked on another is that down here in the dimensions below we can be unaware of our motion in the dimensions above…

… time (is)… actually twisting and turning in the dimension above. So, the long undulating snake, that is us, will feel like it is moving in a straight line in the forth dimension, but there will actually be, in the fifth dimension, a multitude of paths that we could branch to at any given moment. Those branches will be influenced by our own choice, chance and actions of others.

.. What if you wanted to go back into your own childhood and visit yourself. We can imagine folding the fourth dimension through the fifth, jumping back through time and space to get there… We can imagine our fourth-dimensional selves branching out from our current moment into the fifth dimension… The shortcut we could take would involve us folding the fifth dimension through the sixth dimension, which allows us to instantly jump from our current position to a different fifth dimensional line.

… In our description of the fourth dimension, we imagined taking the dimension below and conceiving of it as a single point. The fourth dimension is a line, which can join the universe as it was one minute ago to the universe as it is right now.’ (http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php)

For reading the text in full:  http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/time-in-science-and-literature/

Henry VIII - the English Reformation and its early consequences

In the following year of Henry VIII's second marriage, ‘the Parliament pressed on further legislation abolishing all ecclesiastical dependence on Rome. But it was only in March, 1534, that the papal tribunal finally pronounced its verdict upon the original issue raised by the king and declared the marriage between Henry and Catherine to be unquestionably valid’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm). Nonetheless, this came obviously too late. Clement VII ‘has been much blamed for this delay and for his various concessions in the matter of the divorce’ (ibid), which reduced Catherine’s position to be merely ‘referred to as the Princess Dowager in an act of parliament in 1534′ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm). As for her daughter, Thomas Boleyn was sent ‘on 13 July 1534 to the Princess Mary to induce her to renounce her title and acknowledge herself an illegitimate child’ (http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/thomasboleyn.htm). On 25 September, 1534, the Pope Clement VII died and he was succeeded by Paul III, who ‘used his power of excommunication against Henry, followed by his rescinding Henry’s title as “Defender of the Faith.” England’s parliament declared that title still valid. Pope Paul had to watch – powerless – as Henry “nationalized” all Roman Church property in England into his personal ownership and sold off these properties to the highest bidders among the aristocracy and the gentry. Roman priests in England were dismissed unless they swore an oath of conformity to Henry’s new Church. Those who would not were dispossessed of their positions and livelihood, or if made too much political noise they were executed as “recusants” – dissidents’ (http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h18-eu1.htm). In addition, the Parliament of England in 1534 also ratified the ‘decision about the divorce’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm) between Henry and Catherine and passed ‘the Treasons Act, which made it high treason, punishable by death, to refuse to acknowledge the King as head of the Church of England’ (http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h18-eu1.htm).

Anne Boleyn

In the years to follow, Catherine ‘continued with her appeal to Rome against the divorce and would listen to nobody but a few Spanish advisers. She rejected the universities opinion and procured from the Pope [contrary to the law as it happened] declarations and admonitions followed by excommunication and interdiction against the king and the whole realm… The Duke of Suffolk was subsequently sent to Bugden, near Huntingdon, where Catherine was… [and] proceeded to break up her court and dismissed many servants, leaving but a few who were clearly instructed to serve her as a princess, not a queen. Those who would not so serve her were dismissed’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm). She was separated from her daughter and lived in ‘several dank and unhealthy castles and manors with just a few servants. However, she seldom complained of her treatment and spent a great deal of time at prayer (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/). Four months before the downfall of Anne Boleyn, who was arrested and executed on 19 May, Catherine died on 7 January 1536 ‘at Kimbolton Castle and was buried at Peterborough Abbey’ (ibid).

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Henry VIII: secret marriage with Anne Boleyn and the break with Rome

On 22 August 1532 William Warham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, died and this ‘allowed Henry to press for the institution of [Thomas] Cranmer’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm) as his successor. Though the pallium was ‘granted to him by’ (ibid) pope Clement VII, ‘Almost immediately after his consecration Cranmer proceeded to pronounce judgment upon the divorce’ (ibid) between Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon.

It would be appropriate to point out that dates given within this blog entry are basically on the Julian Calendar, in which, ‘New Year’s Day had been March 25... Thus, 24 March 1532 was followed the next day by 25 March 1533′ (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MvXREWlRtPUC&pg=PA190&lpg=PA190&dq=julius+calendar+1532+new+year%27s+day&source=bl&ots=jK3UzKynyl&sig=). Therefore, in theory, the following accounts should have occurred after the consecration of Crammer: ‘In January 1532 Parliament met again’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm) and Henry attacked ‘the oath of the clergy to the Pope that had been disclosed by [Thomas] Cromwell’ (ibid) and replaced it with the oath of the clergy to the King, which ‘was the physical act that made the break with Rome a reality. But it still kept catholicism as the faith’ (ibid). In the meantime, the Pope ‘prepared’ the third breve addressed to Henry ‘on 25 January 1532 which named Anne [Boylen] for the first time and firmly rebuked Henry for cohabiting with her. It further ordered him to dismiss Anne and take back Catharine; if he failed to do so within one month of receiving the breve he would be excommunicated’ (ibid). However, this breve was actually ‘posted at Dunkirk and Bruge on 21 and 23 January 1533′ (ibid), nearly a year later.

Thomas Cranmer

Coincidently, the day Clement ‘prepared’ the third breve fell upon one of the same dates when Henry alleged to contracted a secret marriage with his mistress. By that time, it became clear that Anne Boylen was pregnant and in order to secure the legitimacy of the child to be born, Henry ‘contracted a secret marriage with Anne Boleyn’ (ibid) on either ‘St Erkwald`s Day, 14 November 1532′ (ibid) or ‘about St Paul`s Day, 25 January’ (ibid) 1532*. On this occasion, however, Cranmer ‘was not present and did not learn of it until a fortnight later’ (ibid). Meanwhile, ‘the convocations of the clergy and a meeting of parliament concluded that appeal to Rome was not necessary’ (ibid). As things got this far, Henry ‘declared his marriage to Catherine invalid’ (http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h18-eu1.htm), and as for his marriage to Anne, ‘Cranmer, in May, 1533, declared to be valid’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm). As a result, ‘Anne Boleyn was consequently crowned on June the 1st’ (ibid).
*The blog author modified the year given as 1533 in the quoted web site to 1532 because in the Julian Calendar, January 1533 comes after May 1533, when Cranmer acknowledged this secret marriage valid.

In the meantime, Catherine ‘was summoned on 10 May 1533 to appear in a matrimonial court but did not appear. Neither did she appear on the next fifteen days on which she was cited. Eventually she was cited for contumacy and by the assent of those present declared divorced on 25 May, and the marriage declared void and of no effect’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm). Now, despite the huge efforts Henry had made for securing him a male heir, ‘On 7 September 1533 Queen Anne gave birth to Elizabeth’ (ibid), a girl child.

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Henry VIII - points of dispute in the divorce case and 'the supreme head'

Whilst the Pope Clement VII was busy working on negotiating with the Holy Roman Emperor in 1529, Henry VIII ‘finally sent the Earl of Wiltshire, Dr Lee, Bishop of York, and Stokesley Bishop of London as delegates to the Pope then at Bologna where he was meeting with the Emperor, Charles V. Again Clement ducked the issue and said he would consider it when he returned to Rome… Henry’s response was to… obtain the opinion of the Divines of leading universities in Europe for their opinion about a divorce’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm).
It would be important to summarise the points of dispute claimed from the both sides: while Henry argued that his marriage to Catherine had been against God’s law, making use of Leviticus 20:16 to back up his case, Catherine was adamant that ‘she and Arthur, her first husband and Henry’s brother, did not consummate their marriage and therefore were not truly husband and wife’ (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/). Moreover, on contrary to Henry’s claim, the Rome dissected what Leviticus had actually meant was ‘you should not marry your brother’s wife while he was still alive’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm). In addition, opposing to what shall happen as a result of such forbidden marriage, ‘Catherine and Henry were far from childless, and still had one living child. But that child was a girl, and didn’t count in Henry’s mind’ (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/). It should be noted that Catherine also ‘appealed directly to the Pope… since her nephew was Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor… not only to retain her position, but also that of her daughter Mary’ (ibid).
Consequently, the twelve of the Divines of leading universities in Europe, who responded to Henry’s request, concluded as following: ‘affirming plainly his marriage, in case as it standeth, both to be unlawful, and repugnant to the express word of God: and that no man is able to dispense with the same’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm).

Henry VIII

In the following year, it seems that Henry changed his strategy for appealing his case directly to Catherine’s nephew and appointed Thomas Boylen, in January 1530, along with other bishops, ‘to go to the Emperor Charles V, and explain to him the king’s reasons for seeking a divorce from his aunt, Catherine of Arragon. The pope [Clement VII] and the emperor at that time had met together at Bologna, and the ambassadors were further commissioned to treat with both of them, and with other potentates, for a general peace. But, of course, the main object was to counteract, as far as possible, the influence which the emperor would bring to bear upon the pope in favour of Catherine. The ambassadors, however, failed to impress the former with the justice of the king’s cause; and the latter very naturally kept his sentiments to himself’ (http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/thomasboleyn.htm). This followed an issue of breve by Clement on 7 March 1530, in which, the Pope indicated that ‘he knew of Henry`s intention to seek a decision elsewhere’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm) and pronounced ‘censure against those who threatened to have the king’s divorce suit decided by an English tribunal, and forbade Henry to proceed to a new marriage before a decision was given in Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm). In the beginning of the following year, on 5 January 1531. the Pope further ‘issued a breve [warning letter] that peremptorily warned of excommunication if Henry proceeded to a second marriage before the existing marriage state was decided’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm). Reacting to this, in March 1531, Henry ‘sent the matter before Parliament’ (ibid), in which, it was explained that Henry had consulted with ‘the chief universities of all christendom, to know their opinion and judgment’ (ibid) on his marriage to Catherine, and ‘The replies from the universities were produced and read out. The significance of the decisions was to demonstrate that the Pope was not what he claimed, and secondly, he presumptuously took unto himself powers that he was not able to dispense’ (ibid). As a result, the prelates were made to call Henry ‘”the supreme head of the Church of England” which they had never admitted before’ (ibid) and consequently the king ‘extorted a vast sum of money from the English clergy upon the pretext that the penalties of præmunire had been incurred by them through their recognition of the papal legate, and soon afterwards he prevailed upon Parliament to prohibit under certain conditions the payment of annates to Rome’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm). Thus, in effect, the English Reformation has been launched.

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Pope Clement VII's escape and Cardinal Thomas Wolsey's downfall

After the summer, regarding to Henry VIII's divorce issue, Cardinal Campeggio, the papal representative, went back to ‘England by the end of September, 1528, but the proceedings of the legatine court were at once brought to a standstill by the production of a second dispensation… in the form of a Brief… The production of the Brief, now commonly admitted to be quite authentic, though the king’s party declared it a forgery, arrested the proceedings of the commission for eight months’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm), while pope Clement VII managed to escape from being a prisoner in the Castle of St. Angelo by disguising himself as a peddler and ‘returned to a depopulated and devastated Rome… in October 1528′ (http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h18-eu1.htm).

Pope Clement VII

Eventually, on 8 November 1528, Henry ‘gave a masterful speech to the country’s nobles at Bridewell, London… explaining that Catherine was noble and virtuous and that in other circumstances he would marry he[r] again. But because of what had happened he lived in “detestable and abominable adultery” (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm). This was followed by a change in the continental political tide that saw Francis I and Charles V ‘agreed on a Treaty at Cambrai… As a result Wolsey’s grand plan for conservative reform and England holding the balance of power in Europe, fell by the wayside’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm). This was a fatal blow for Cardinal Wolsey’s political life, who ‘was ordered to leave London and live in much lesser circumstances in York [where he was the archbishop]’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm). Additionally, ‘In a final and almost bizarre act the kings’ officials ransacked Campeggio’s bags before he was allowed to leave the country at Dover. Henry had hoped to find the decretal which might have been used to secure the divorce. But it was not found’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm).

To read the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Pope Clement VII's initial reaction to Henry VIII' plea for divorce

Meanwhile, in the continent, Francis I of France and Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, were at war and Pope Clement VII, who supported the former, had to witness German mercenaries came to attack Rome; ‘On the 5th of May they reached the walls, which… were almost undefended. Clement had barely time to take refuge in the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, and for eight days the “Sack of Rome” continued amid horrors almost unexampled in the history of war (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm). In this circumstance, Henry ‘asked Cardinal Wolsey to appeal to Pope Clement VII for an annulment [of his marriage to Catherine] … But, unwilling to anger Catherine of Aragon’s nephew – the most powerful ruler in Europe, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V – the Pope refused’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/henry_viii). More precisely, it is argued that Clement simply ‘did what he had to do – prevaricate and procrastinate. What this charade demonstrated was that the earthly concerns of the prelates – their personal security and wealth, was the determining factor even in the weightiest of decisions. Indeed it was the Church’s involvement in temporal politics that eventually determined the Pope’s decision and had very little to do with the rule of the Scriptures or perceived rules of consanguinity’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm). Having faced to the Pope’s refusal, Henry and Wolsey sought for an alternative way, to ask ‘the Pope to allow the matter to be resolved “locally”, ie Wolsey as Papal Legate… [This was] to declare the Pope incapacitated and Wolsey would hold a Convocation of cardinals to agree the matter of the divorce. In the event a second papal representative, Cardinal Campeggio, was sent to help Wolsey determine the facts – with instructions to prevaricate while Clement sought to extricate himself from the dominance of Charles V. Importantly the Pope declined them any plenary powers and reserved the decision to himself’ (ibid).

Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor

With these instructions in his mind, Cardinal Campeggio ‘first tried to dissuade Henry from divorce and when he got nowhere turned to Catherine to seek her agreement to the king’s wishes’ (ibid). It would be worth to point out that ‘At first, Catherine was kept in the dark about Henry’s plans for their annulment and when the news got to Catherine she was very upset’ (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/). Rejections from the both sides made the cardinals – Campeggio and Wolsey – being ‘left with nothing else to do but proceed to trial with the instruction [to Campeggio] that the decretal was only to be shown to the king, and then burnt' (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm). Regarding to this document, it is also argued that ‘The commission was to be shown to no one, and was never to leave Compeggio’s hands. We do not know its exact terms’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm). Whichever the case, ‘Both Henry and Catherine appeared before the court and made representations… On 23 July 1528 the court was due to report its decision at which Campeggio foolishly sought to invoke the Roman courts’ timetable and take two months vacation until October’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm).

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Henry VIII: his use of Leviticus 20:16

It is said that Henry, being ‘tired of Queen Catherine,… and passionately enamoured of Anne Boleyn, had made known to [Thomas] Wolsey in May, 1527, that he wished to be divorced. He pretended that his conscience was uneasy at the marriage contracted under papal dispensation with his brother’s widow (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm), though others argue that the year 1527 ‘may be when he decided that a divorce was needed. [but] The truth is that historians simply do not know’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm). Whatever the case, once he made a decision to divorce Catherine, Henry began to act ‘to solicit from the Holy See contingently upon the granting of the divorce, [and] a dispensation from the impediment of affinity in the first degree [an impediment which stood between him and any legal marriage with Anne on account of his previous carnal intercourse with Anne’s sister Mary]’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm). In short, Henry needed to obtain a permission from judicial authority of the Roman Catholic Church to divorce his wife Catherine, and a pardon for having an affair with Mary Boleyn, in order to marry her sister Anne because ‘the beliefs within the Catholic Church were clear and simple. Only the Pope could annul a marriage and as the Church believed in the sanctity of marriage and family, this was a reasonably rare occurrence. In many senses, royal families in Western Europe were expected to set the standards that others should follow’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm). 

Mary Boleyn

In his petition to the Pope, ‘Henry used his knowledge of the Bible to justify his request for a marriage annulment. Henry used the Old Testament [Leviticus Chapter 20 Verse 16] where it stated:

“If a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an impurity; he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.”

Henry argued that his marriage to Catherine had been against God’s law from the start despite the Pope’s blessing for it to go ahead in 1509. He was therefore living in sin and that the Pope had to annul his marriage so that he could rectify this. As “Defender of the Faith”… Henry believed that such an annulment was almost a foregone conclusion’ (ibid).

To read the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Henry VIII's decision to divorce Catherine - 1527

1527 was an important year for Henry VIII, not only regarding to the divorce case but also in the field of international politics. Despite his wife Catherine had ‘her family ties to Catholic Spain and her nephew Charles had succeeded Maxmillian as Holy Roman Emperor… Henry had grown tired of Charles V and allied himself with France, now ruled by Francis I, and he betrothed daughter Mary to the Dauphin (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm). The negotiation for this new alliance resulted in a treaty on 30 April, 1527, that stated Princess Mary ‘should be married either to Francis himself or to his second son Henry Duke of Orleans. But the real object was only to lay the foundation of a perfect mutual understanding between the two kings’ (http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/queenmary.htm). Interestingly enough, this treaty was later associated with a following allegation:

‘It was during this negotiation, as Henry afterwards pretended, that the question was first raised whether Henry’s own marriage with Catherine was a lawful one. Grammont, Bishop of Tarbes, who was one of the ambassadors sent over by Francis to ask the princess in marriage, had, it was said, started an objection that she might possibly be considered illegitimate on account of her mother having been once the wife of her father’s brother. The statement was a mere pretence to shield the king when the unpopularity of the divorce became apparent. It is proved to be untrue by the strongest evidence, for we have pretty full contemporary records of the whole negotiation. On the contrary, it is quite clear that Henry, who had already for some time conceived the project of a divorce, kept the matter a dead secret, and was particularly anxious that the French ambassadors should not know it, while he used his daughter’s hand as a bait for a new alliance’ (ibid).

Thomas Wolsey

In the following month, it is said that Henry, being ‘tired of Queen Catherine,… and passionately enamoured of Anne Boleyn, had made known to [Thomas] Wolsey in May, 1527, that he wished to be divorced. He pretended that his conscience was uneasy at the marriage contracted under papal dispensation with his brother’s widow (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm), though others argue that the year 1527 ‘may be when he decided that a divorce was needed. [but] The truth is that historians simply do not know’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm). 

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Henry VIII in 1520s: background of his decision for divorce

It should be pointed out that ‘No one is sure when Henry decided that his marriage to Catherine had to end simply because the evidence does not exist that can pinpoint an exact date’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm), nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to present some known facts and allegations in chronological order from early 1520's, as it follows:

First of all, it is known that Henry ‘had at least two mistresses that we know of: Elizabeth “Bessie” Blount and Mary Boleyn’ (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/). It is also said that ‘There were rumours in court of Henry wanting a divorce as early as 1520 but this was probably nothing more than mere court gossip based on no fundamental facts’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm).
Since Henry ‘was acutely aware of the importance of securing a male heir during his reign’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/henry_viii), his daughter Mary’s ‘prospects in life were made a matter of sordid bargaining from the first’ (http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/queenmary.htm). She ‘was little more than two years old when she was proposed in marriage to the dauphin, son of Francis I. Three years afterwards the French alliance was broken off, and in 1522 she was affianced to her cousin the young emperor Charles V by the Treaty of Windsor. No one, perhaps, seriously expected either of these arrangements to endure… [and] not many years passed away before Charles released himself from this engagement’ (ibid). Some argue that this marriage proposal for Mary already triggered the very issue; ‘whether the marriage between the king and the mother of lady Mary, were good or no ?’ (http://www.thereformation.info/Divorce.htm).

Thomas Boleyn

Whilst ‘the Cardinal de’ Medici was eventually chosen pope’ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm) as Clement VII on 18 November, 1523, Henry VIII was told from his physicians ‘either in 1524 or 1525… that Catherine was unlikely to give birth again’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm). In the meantime, Thomas Boleyn, father of Mary Boleyn – one of Henry’s mistresses, was ‘first ennobled as Viscount Rochford’ (http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/thomasboleyn.htm) on 16 June, 1525. It is said that ‘There cannot be a doubt that not only his elevation to the peerage, but several earlier tokens of royal favour besides, were due to the fascination his daughter had begun to exercise over the king’ (ibid). A further twist then followed. By 1526, Henry began ‘to separate from Catherine because he had fallen in love with one of her ladies [and sister of one of his mistresses]: Annee Boleyn’ (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/).

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Henry VIII - his first marriage and the title of 'Defender of the Faith'

14 months after the death of his eldest son, Henry VII ‘was [still] interested in keeping [hid deceased son's young widow] Catherine’s dowry’ (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/) and made a new arrangement to betroth Catherine of Aragon to his younger son Henry, who now became hair to the English throne but ‘was too young to marry at the time’ (ibid). However, ‘By 1505, when Henry was old enough to wed, Henry VII wasn't as keen on a Spanish alliance, and young Henry was forced to repudiate the betrothal. Catherine’s future was uncertain’ (ibid) until Henry VII dies in 1509, when Prince Henry duly succeeds his father’s throne as King Henry VIII, at the age of eighteen. Interestingly, it is said that ‘one of the new young king’s first actions was to marry Catherine’ (ibid). In doing so, Henry ‘obtained the papal dispensation required to allow him to marry his brother’s widow’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/henry_viii) and married Catherine on 24 June, 1509. It must be important to point out that at this stage, both Henry and Catherine ‘were Roman Catholics. Everybody in England was – the penalty for heresy [being found guilty of being a non-believer] was death… such was the tie to Rome and the Roman Catholic faith, that he felt it necessary to effectively get Papal permission [from Pope Julius II] to marry Catherine’ (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_catherine_divorce.htm).

Catherine of Aragon

Although ‘In the first years of his reign Henry VIII effectively relied on Thomas Wolsey to rule for him… he joined Pope Julius II’s Holy League against France in 1511′ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/henry_viii). On top of that, in terms of his relationship with Rome, he was ‘conferred the title of Defender of the Faith’ (ibid) in 1521 by Pope Leo X ‘ for his book “Assertio Septem Sacramentorum”, which affirmed the supremacy of the Pope in the face of the reforming ideals of the German theologian, Martin Luther’ (ibid).

In the meanwhile, Henry had to struggle to produce his heir, especially a son, as it follows:

‘Shortly after their marriage, Catherine found herself pregnant. This first child was a stillborn daughter born prematurely in January 1510, but this disappointment was soon followed by another pregnancy. Prince Henry was born on January 1, 1511 and… was christened on the 5th. There were great celebrations for the birth of the young prince, but they were halted by the baby’s death after 52 days of life. Catherine then had a miscarriage, followed by… another short-lived son. On February 1516, she gave birth a daughter named Mary, and this child lived. There were probably two more pregnancies, the last recorded in 1518′ (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/) .

For reading the text in full:  http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Henry VIII in his early life- Arthur, his elder brother

Henry VIII is one of the most popular monarchs in English history. He is known as the pioneer of the English Reformation but is most notably known for having his six wives. As everything has its first time, when Henry decided to go forward for his second marriage, he had to go through inevitable obstacles associated with his first marriage; to divorce.

Henry was born as ‘the second son of King Henry VII and Elizabeth of York… on 28 June 1491 at Greenwich Palace’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/people/henry_viii). Since his elder brother Arthur ‘was the Prince of Wales and heir to the throne of England… Arthur was therefore given royal responsibilities whereas Prince Henry was destined to a secular life, his possible future role might have been the Archbishop of Canterbury’ (http://www.sixwives.info/henry-viii-education.htm). Because of this reason, Henry ‘was also taught religious studies in the Roman Catholic religion’ (ibid). Whilst his parents marriage in January 1486 symbolised the unity of ‘the houses of Lancaster and York, the rivals of the Wars of the Roses’ (http://tudorhistory.org/people/arthur/), his elder brother’s name ‘was purposely chosen to evoke memories of the great British king of the same name’ (ibid); King Arthur of the round table. Moreover, negotiations for Prince Arthur’s future marriage followed soon as early as 1488-9 and Henry VII won ‘the proposal that Arthur would be married to Catherine of Aragon’ (ibid), who ‘was the youngest surviving child of Ferdinand and Isabella, the joint rulers of Spain’ (http://tudorhistory.org/aragon/). Despite this kind of political match, in this case –  to strengthen the unity between England and Spain – was common practice in those days, at this stage of betrothal, Catherine ‘was three year old… [while] Arthur was not even quite two’ (ibid).

Arthur, Prince of Wales

With further negotiations, it was agreed  in 1496 that ‘Catherine would come to England in 1500, when Arthur was 14… [and] did eventually arrive in October 1501′ (http://tudorhistory.org/people/arthur/). The marriage ‘took place 14th November 1501 in old St. Paul’s Cathedral in London… [and] After the wedding, Arthur and Catherine went to Ludlow Castle on the border between England and Wales to set up their household’ (ibid).
However, in March of the following year, ‘Arthur fell ill, possibly of tuberculosis, the plague or the dreaded “sweating sickness” and died’ (ibid) on 2 April, 1502. Now, ‘Catherine was left a young widow in a foreign country. The question of whether or not Arthur and his bride ever consummated their marriage became crucial’ (ibid) in decades later.

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/the-divorce-between-henry-viii-and-catherine-of-aragon/

Samuel, the last Judge of ancient Israel

Samuel is the key figure who concerned to the change of the regimes in ancient Israel from the rule of Judges to the rule of sovereign Kings. The life and deeds of Samuel can be found in a couple of books in the Old Testament, which are obviously attributed to his own name. Following is a summary from the contents of these books with some extra information:

‘Samuel was a Levite, the son of Elkanah and Hannah (1 Samuel 1:1-2, 20). At a very young age his parents took him to Shiloh and consecrated him to The Lord, serving under Eli the priest (1 Samuel 1:23-2:11).

Samuel was eventually chosen by God to succeed Eli because Eli’s sons had become corrupt beyond hope (1 Samuel 2:12-26, 3:19-21). The succession became final after the Israelites temporarily lost The Ark Of The Covenant, which had been carried from The Tabernacle in Shiloh into battle against the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:1-17). Eli’s sons were killed in the battle (1 Samuel 4:11), and Eli himself died when he was told the news (1 Samuel 4:17-18).

After becoming their leader, Samuel turned the Israelites away from their gross Idolatry, and led them to an overwhelming victory over the Philistines, who had been severely troubling Israel for over 40 years (1 Samuel 7:2-17).

The victory over the Philistines was followed by a long period of peace for Israel (1 Samuel 7:13-14), during which Samuel served as a “circuit judge,” going each year from his home in Ramah, about 20 miles north of Jerusalem, around the neighboring towns… (1 Samuel 7:16).

Samuel

Samuel established regular worship of The Lord at Shiloh, where he built an altar, and he established a school of the prophets at Ramah (1 Samuel 19:20).

When Samuel grew old, and (just as had happened with Eli) it became obvious that his sons fell far short of the integrity of their father (1 Samuel 8:1-3), the people demanded a king “such as all the other nations have.”(1 Samuel 8:5). They foolishly ignored the fact that they already had a King, Almighty God, guiding and protecting them. Reluctantly, but in obedience to The Lord’s instruction… Samuel then found himself as Israel’s “king maker” – he anointed Saul as Israel’s first king (1 Samuel 10:20-24), and after Saul proved himself to be unstable and unwise, Samuel anointed Israel’s second king – David (1 Samuel 16:13).

When Samuel died, he was buried in Ramah (1 Samuel 25:1).

2 Old Testament books are named after Samuel, with, it is generally believed, multiple authors.’ (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/samuel.htm)

The full text with brief intro is available: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/samuel-the-first-prophet/

Ontological Difference - Gilles Deleuze / Martin Heidegger

Gilles Deleuze, a famous French modern thinker, argues in his Difference and Repetition(Preface to the Original Edition, translated by Paul Patton, Columbia University Press, New York, 1994, p.5), ‘The subject dealt with here is manifestly in the air. The signs may be noted’ (http://andrewburgess.wordpress.com/category/study-notes/philosophy/giles-deleuze/). This argument is followed by pointing out of some examples such as, ‘the structuralist project, based upon a distribution of differential characters within a space of coexistence; the contemporary novelist’s art which revolves around difference and repetition, not only in its most abstract reflections but also in its effective techniques; the discovery in a variety of fields of a power peculiar to repetition, a power which also inhabits the unconscious, language and art.to’ (ibid). In addition, the list of such example starts with the following one: ‘(Martin) Heidegger’s more and more pronounced orientation towards a philosophy of ontological Difference’ (ibid).

Gilles Deleuze

Though all these examples seem to be difficult to understand, it would be most plausible to make an attempt for finding any relating information about the definition of Heidegger’s so-called ontological difference to decode what these examples could mean. It is said that this concept can be explained as following:

‘Heidegger’s  so-called “ontological difference,”…distinguishes between an entity (das Seiende) and the being (das Sein) of an entity. He calls this distinction the “ontological difference.” An entity, [a being] for Heidegger is on the one hand, anything that is or can be, whether it be physical, spiritual, or whatever –  for example, God, human beings, socialism, and the number nine  are all entities. On the other [ontological] hand, he posits the “Being” of an entity, which has to do with the so-called”is-ness” or “existence” of whatever is. For him, “Being” designates what an entity is or entities are, how it/they is/are, and the fact that it/they is/are at all.’ (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/madman.htm)

Martin Heidegger

Plato's proto-feminism and Spartan women

Whilst eugenics is largely approved in his ideal state, when it comes to make differentiations in each individuals, sexism seems to have little room for Plato, who suggests ‘women in the guardian class should receive the same education as men, so that the best of them can assist in war and governance’ (http://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Platos_Just_State), despite the background where, ‘the ancient Greeks held a rather low opinion of women’ ( http://www.albany.edu/womensstudies/journal/2007/dubois.html). Plato’s argument for gender equality could be acknowledged as a logical extension of his fundamental principle for the ideal state, in which, ‘jobs and functions in an ideal state ought to be distributed according to one’s nature, inclination, and capability’ (ibid). Then he asks ‘if anything aside from physiology separates men and women; he soon concludes not’ (ibid). Therefore, men and women ‘are endowed equally with “natural capacities” for all “administrative occupations,” including the Guardianship (rule) of the city as well as its defense (sic), and that there is no sufficient difference between them to justify the exclusion of women from the most important duties of the state’ (ibid). Even though he believes that ‘since women are traditionally the physically weaker of the sexes, nature also dictates they be given a “lighter share” of these duties in keeping with their (assumed) level of strength’ (ibid), in terms of providing fair opportunities, ‘Plato advocates a system of equal education for men and women being raised as Auxiliaries (soldiers) and Guardians (philosopher-rulers)’ (ibid).

Spartan gym exercises

Again, it is quite interesting that referring to the education of the guardian class, Plato gives a suggestion that ‘women ought to be allowed to exercise naked in the gymnasia (athletic training-grounds) alongside the men as part of their physical education regimen, to keep them healthy and fit for military service’ (ibid) since this particular practice coincides with what could be seen among Spartan women, who ‘could enjoy athletics (done in the nude like men), and even drink wine’ (http://www.ancient.eu.com/sparta/). It is also worth to mention that ‘Women in Sparta had a better lot than in other Greek city-states. In Sparta they could own property which they often gained through dowries and inheritances. In fact, women became amongst the richest members of society, as their men were killed in the many wars, and eventually controlled 2/5th of Spartan land. In addition, Spartan women could also move around with reasonable freedom… All of these freedoms would have been unacceptable in other Greek poleis’ (ibid). Even though it could be assumed that Plato might have taken some ideas from Spartan politics, in terms of gender equality, it has been pointed out that he ‘obviously held women in a lower regard than men’ (http://www.albany.edu/womensstudies/journal/2007/dubois.html); for instance, he ‘posits that cowardly or immoral men are reborn as women’ (ibid), therefore, he could be regarded to have advocated ‘a “proto-feminist” viewpoint’ (ibid) at the best.

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/platos-republic-with-its-historical-background/

Plato on eugenics and discouraging of family life

The system used for upbringing Spartan soldiers might have inspired the following account recommended for Plato’s ideal state; that ‘the traditional form of the family should be done away with. Men should have women and children in common, such that no man knows who his children are or has excessive love for one woman in particular. Even mothers are not allowed to know who their children are. Their children are taken from them after birth, and they are given other children to suckle as long as they have milk’ (http://philosophynow.org/issues/90/Platos_Just_State). 
Furthermore, in terms of reproduction, Plato even goes further to seemingly the field of eugenics, when he says ‘the best of either sex should be united with the best as often [as possible], and the inferior with the inferior as seldom as possible’ (ibid), which may remind of Spartan practice of ‘killing weak and deformed infants’ (ibid).

An old manuscript of The Republic by Plato

In Republic, Plato also argues about ‘the policy of ensuring “judicious matings”‘ (http://jme.bmj.com/content/24/4/263.full.pdf). In which, ‘He proposed that marriage for the guardian classes (guardians were the premier class of Athenian citizens, selected by their natural capacities and attainments to govern the state) be abolished and that provision be made for men and women of the same natural capacities to made. He drew an analogy with the selective breeding of sporting dogs and horses in order to obtain the desired stock… Inferior members of the guardian classes should be discouraged from reproducing. Only the best of the offspring should be kept in the guardian class and the inferior children should be relegated to the civilian classes’ (ibid). As for child bearing, he continues that ‘The newborn children were to be taken from their mothers and reared in special nurseries in a separate quarter of the city. Family life was to be discouraged as it provided a distraction from the business of governing, of defending or extending the city state by conquest. Any children born defective would be “hidden away” in some appropriate manner. This may actually a euphemism for instance. However neither infanticide nor exposure as practised in Sparta and other Greek cities was recommended by Plato for his republic’ (ibid).

For reading the text in full: http://wrex2009.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/platos-republic-with-its-historical-background/