Boethius sits alone in his prison cell, encased in a darkness hardly illumed by the one flickering candle. Once he was an important man: a philosopher, politician, scholar, poet, musician, orator. He was feted, admired, even envied. He had a beautiful wife, high-achieving sons, renowned ancestors. Now he has been condemned to die, executed on his King’s orders.

Hard men wielding clubs will smash the life out of him, beating his head to pulp. That’s the way they did it in this Rome of 523 CE.

Then suddenly manifesting out of the darkness, a beautiful woman appears before him. Her name, she tells him, is Philosophy. In a loud voice she asks:

“Art thou that man who, erstwhile fed with the milk and reared upon the nourishment which is mine to give, had grown up to the full vigour of a manly spirit? And yet I had bestowed such armour on thee as would have proved an invincible defence, hadst thou not first cast it away.”

When she saw that he was incapable of speech, she gently touched his chest with her hand, and said:

“There is no danger; these are the symptoms of lethargy, the usual sickness of deluded minds. For awhile he has forgotten himself; he will easily recover his memory, if only he first recognises me … And that he may do so, let me now wipe his eyes that are clouded with a mist of mortal things.’

She dries his eyes with a fold in her dress, and at once his melancholy lifted …

“… I saw the clear sky, and regained the power to recognise the face of my physician. Accordingly, when I had lifted my eyes and fixed my gaze upon her, I beheld my nurse, Philosophy, whose halls I had frequented from my youth up.” (The Consolation of Philosophy Of Boethius Trans H.R. James, Gutenberg e-book, London 1897. Quotes in the essay are from this work)

Foundational philosophical text

The above is extracted from The Consolation of Philosophy Of Boethius, one of the foundational texts of Western philosophy. It is hard to overstate its significance for the discipline.

The Consolation became one of the most popular and influential books of the Medieval era and beyond. For example, Alfred the Great translated it into Anglo-Saxon, Queen Elizabeth 1 into English, and Notker Labeo into German.

And in a later age, the 20th Century, the Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey argued that the author of The Lord Of The Rings was much influenced by Boethius, particularly in the conceptualization of the Orcs who he says are…

“… moral beings who talk freely and repeatedly of what is ‘good’ … The puzzle is that this has no effect at all on their actual behaviour … [they] quite clearly and deliberately dramatize what I call the Boethian view: evil is just an absence, the shadow of the good.” (T.A. Shippey, JRR Tolkien, Author Of The Century, HarperCollins, London 2000 p133ff)

The ‘advantage’ of bad luck

Boethius’s discourse can be summed up in one sentence from Book II of The Consolation “… that ill fortune is of greater advantage to men than good fortune”. The purpose of the entire work is consolation, which is “the end of every word, every song, every argument … it is a text pervaded by a gaping and painful honesty,” writes Stephen Blackwood …

“… The consolation is for the author, a man stripped of everything he once knew as his own, and who surely knew his death might be as near, and as brutal, as it was … [the book] is not about the abstract theory of music, poetry, rhetoric, mathematics, or theology, but their embodied practice …

“Philosophy gathers the metres of the ancient world and makes of them a single divine song, a poetic liturgy that heals both body and soul.” (Blackwood, The Consolation of Boethius as Poetic Liturgy, Oxford University Press 2015 pp242-243

Father of medieval thought

Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius was born around 480 CE into a distinguished Roman family - the Anicii, a dynasty of lawyers and scholars. However, his father died while Boethius was a child, and thereafter he was brought up by a relative, the influential Roman aristocrat, Quintus Aurelius Memmius Symmachus who ensured he received an excellent education, studying in Rome and Athens.

Under the rule of Theoderic the Great, the Ostrogothic king who governed Italy after the fall of the Western Empire, Boethius served as Consul and later as Magister Officiorum - head of the entire civil administration.

He had a close circle of friends, a contented domestic life, and with his wife Rusticiana had two sons, Symmachus and Boethius (junior).

In scholarly pursuits, he devoted much time in translating and commenting on Greek and Roman philosophical texts; he also wrote scholarly treatises on arithmetic, logic, and music - taken together these formed the foundations of medieval education.

Boethius considered philosophy a way of life whose primary goal was to connect the human soul with the divine, writes Antonio Donato, adding that his treatises on the liberal arts, translations of Aristotle’s works into Latin, and commentaries on the Aristotelian Organon aimed to keep Classical wisdom alive amid cultural decline …

“… Yet Boethius’ intellectual endeavor did more than save Greek culture from oblivion; it also had a clear pedagogical goal. His texts devoted to logic and mathematics constitute a comprehensive curriculum of studies, combining introductory and advanced works.

“A student working carefully through Boethius’ texts would acquire a sophisticated understanding of Greek logic and mathematics. … His works also had a specific spiritual aim - Boethius considered philosophy a way of life whose primary goal is to connect the human soul with the divine,” (Donato, Boethius the father of medieval thought, Credo Magazine, June 2, 2026, Vol 19, Issue 1)

Next to Augustine, Boethius ranks as one of the most influential thinkers in the middle ages prior to Thomas of Aquinas. His De institutione musica, for example, shaped Western musical theory for centuries; while his translations of Aristotle’s logical works went on to underpin medieval scholastic training. Also …

“… It is his peculiar distinction to have handed on to the Middle Ages the tradition of Greek philosophy by his Latin translations of the works of Aristotle,” writes H R James, Consolation, op cit, Preface.

For more details of Boethius’s philosophical and other scholarly works prior to The Consolation see this article in the Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy.

As good as it gets …

Around 510 CE Boethius embarked on a public career as a Roman Consul and in 520 King Theodoric appointed him Magister Officiorum - head of the entire government and court services …

“… Noble, wealthy, accomplished, universally esteemed for his virtues, high in the favour of the Gothic King, he appeared to all men a signal example of the union of merit and good fortune,” (H R James, op cit)

To Boethius’s great pride and pleasure, in 522 CE his sons were appointed joint Consuls in King Theodoric’s government.

The two young men “… rode to the senate-house attended by a throng of senators, and the acclamations of the multitude. Boethius himself delivered the public speech in the King’s honour usual on such occasions”. (James, ibid)

This was as good as it would get for Boethius.

Suddenly, without warning, King Theodoric turned on him, accusing him of treason - allegedly conspiring with the Eastern Roman Empire against Theodoric, who also accused him of sacrilege (the practice of astrology) and magic-making.

Boethius was arrested, tortured, and locked in solitary confinement at Pavia. The King stripped him of all honors and wealth. Friends abandoned him, looked the other way. He was condemned to die, the sentence ratified by the Senate.

A number of sources report that he was bludgeoned to death - beaten around the head with clubs - possibly with a cord tightened around his face until his eyes burst and his skull cracked.

His remains were entombed in the church of San Pietro in Ciel d'Oro in Pavia, also the resting place of Augustine of Hippo. His wealth was confiscated and his wife, Rusticiana, reduced to poverty.

An intricate literary wonder …

In solitary confinement, Boethius awaits his execution. The situation is hopeless. How is to he make sense of it all? If God is so good, how and why can life be so bad?

He decides to write a book which, more than 1000 years later, will be described as “an intricate literary wonder of incontestable power”. It takes the form of a prosimetrum, a literary combination of prose, poetry, rhetoric and drama which …

“… gathers the metres of the ancient world and makes of them a single divine song, a poetic liturgy that heals both body and soul …” (Blackwood, The Consolation of Boethius as Poetic Liturgy, pp2-3, 238, op cit, passim)

Boethius - an experienced writer and pedagogue - composed it without access to books or any other reference material, relying entirely on a brain fortified by an education system that privileged memorization.

Furthermore, there was an overarching driver, a mission if you like - as a Neoplatonic scholar he considered philosophy “to be a way of life whose primary goal is to connect the human soul with the Divine”. (Donato, Boethius father of medieval thought, ibid)

And that’s what he endeavored to do.

Divine mediator in human form

So, in the intro to this essay we have an incarcerated and grief-stricken Boethius who becomes aware of a new presence in his cell - Lady Philosophy, in the guise of a woman of superhuman dignity and beauty who has come to help him make sense of his plight.

She is “a divine mediator who takes human form and who teaches her disciple how to pray”. She exists only in his imagination, and within the pages of the book. (Blackwood, ibid, pp238-239)

The Consolation, then, is actually an inner dialogue with Lady Philosophy representing Boethius’s philosophical knowledge.

She is an “authority figure” who speaks in both poetry and prose, while the Prisoner expresses Boethius’ emotional nature, and frequently challenges what she says. (Donato, Boethius father of medieval thought, Credo Magazine)

A major theme centers on what Boethius frequently terms as “fortune” (luck or chance) - why do some people just sail through life with few problems while others struggle and suffer? Why are so many bad people successful, why do so many good people struggle and suffer? Why has an evil fate doomed Boethius himself?

The “greatest misery in adverse fortune” is once to have been happy, he laments.

And how is it that, while there exists “a good ruler of the universe”, it is possible that evil should exist all, and why should it go unpunished?

“Surely thou must see how deservedly this of itself provokes astonishment,” he says.

Lady Philosophy responds that Boethius is “wasting away in pining and longing” for his former good fortune - the loss of which has corrupted his mind …

“… I know the many disguises of that monster, Fortune, and the extent to which she seduces with friendship the very people she is striving to cheat, until she overwhelms them with unbearable grief at the suddenness of her desertion.”

However, “all fortune is good fortune”, she says, “for it either rewards, disciplines, amends, or punishes, and so is either useful or just.”

Boethius asks Lady Philosophy how can a person’s freedom to choose be reconciled with God’s absolute foreknowledge?…

“… If man has no freedom of choice, it follows that rewards and punishments are unjust as well as useless; that merit and demerit are mere names; that God is the cause of men’s wickednesses; that prayer is meaningless.” (CH. III)

She explains that a human’s reasoning faculties are not adequate to understand the ways of God’s foreknowledge … “If we could know, as He knows, all that is most perplexing in this problem would be made obvious.”

People become confused because they view God’s foreknowledge from the standpoint of human reason, Lady Philosophy tells him. To understand this higher form of cognition, we must consider God’s nature, she explains.

God is eternal - and Eternity is more than mere everlasting duration …

“… Accordingly, His knowledge surveys past and future in the timelessness of an eternal present. His foreseeing is seeing. Yet this foreseeing does not in itself impose necessity, any more than our seeing things happen makes their happening necessary. We may, however, distinguish two necessities - one absolute, the other conditional on knowledge. (CH VI)

“In this conditional sense alone do the things which God foresees necessarily come to pass. But this kind of necessity affects not the nature of things. It leaves the reality of free will unimpaired, and the evils feared do not ensue. Our responsibility is great, since all that we do is done in the sight of all-seeing Providence. (CH VI)

Perhaps, in his final hour, Boethius realized that turning toward God is the only source of consolation, writes Turner, op cit Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius, New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia.

A Poem by Lady Philosophy

The Upward Look

In what divers shapes and fashions do the creatures great and small

Over wide earth’s teeming surface skim, or scud, or walk, or crawl!

Some with elongated body sweep the ground, and, as they move,

Trail perforce with writhing belly in the dust a sinuous groove;

Some, on light wing upward soaring, swiftly do the winds divide,

And through heaven’s ample spaces in free motion smoothly glide;

These earth’s solid surface pressing, with firm paces onward rove,

Ranging through the verdant meadows, crouching in the woodland grove.

Great and wondrous is their variance! Yet in all the head low-bent

Dulls the soul and blunts the senses, though their forms be different.

Man alone, erect, aspiring, lifts his forehead to the skies,

And in upright posture steadfast seems earth’s baseness to despise.

If with earth not all besotted, to this parable give ear,

Thou whose gaze is fixed on heaven, who thy face on high dost rear:

Lift thy soul, too, heavenward; haply lest it stain its heavenly worth,

And thine eyes alone look upward, while thy mind cleaves to the earth! (Song V)

Please consider taking a Paid Subscription!

The England of that dawn remains/ And this of Alfred and the Danes

Seems like the tales a whole tribe feigns/ Too English to be true

Yet Alfred is no fairy tale;/ His days as our days ran,

He also looked forth for an hour/ From those few windows in the tower

That is the head of a man …

- From ‘The Ballad Of The White Horse’ in The Collected Poems of G K Chesterton, Methuen & Co, 1933, p222

By DAVID MYTON

Violent Vikings: coming to a monastery near you

In early January 793CE the people of Northumbria quaked in fear as “terrible foreboding omens” in the shape of “whirlwinds, lightning storms, and flying fiery dragons” raged in the skies above their homes. They understood it to be a sign of impending doom, and they were right: soon after “ravages of heathen men” from Scandinavia across the North Sea, proceeded to plunder and slaughter their way through Lindisfarne monastery on Holy Island. (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, trans Anne Savage, Guild Publishing London/Phoebe Phillips Editions, 1983, p73)

The Vikings had arrived …

“… They sacked the place, devoured the cattle, killed many of the monks, and sailed away with rich booty in gold, jewels, and sacred emblems, and all of the monks who were likely to fetch a good price in the European slave-market. The raid had been planned with care and knowledge. It was executed by complete surprise in the dead of winter ...” (Winston S Churchill, A History of the English-speaking Peoples, abridged by Christopher Lee, Cassell, London, 1998, p37)

In Old Norse the word Viking means something like pirate raider, from either vikja (to move swiftly) or vik (an inlet). The sea was their highway - the whale road - which led them across the northern Atlantic, around the coasts of Europe and up its rivers, to trade, raid and, eventually, to settle.

To the Anglo-Saxons they were Danes, Norsemen, Northmen, the Great Army, sea rovers, sea wolves, or The Heathen. They provoked a desperate prayer (possibly apocryphal) - A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine - “From the fury of the Northmen, save us”.

They were the enemy, and their piratic raids eventually morphed into permanent Norse settlements. By 865CE they had assembled the Great Heathen Army - a large force whose goal was the conquest and occupation of the four kingdoms of East Anglia, Northumbria, Mercia and Wessex.

“No longer content with sporadic raids, the Danes were now prepared to stay year after year in England, striking at every weak point with the object of seizing land on which to settle. In 865 a great host landed in East Anglia, and within a year received the submission of that kingdom,” writes H. P. R. Finberg, The Formation of England 550-1042, Hart-Davis, MacGibbon, Paladin, London, 1974, p123.

On November 1 866, the Vikings seized York and established their own kingdom in the south of Northumbria. The Great Heathen Army (led by the superbly-named Ivar The Boneless) crushed resistance in Anglo-Saxon East Anglia and Mercia, ousting their respective kings in the process. They were formidable, pitiless warriors.

“The Danes took the victory, killed the King [Edmund, ruler of East Anglia] and overcame all the land. They destroyed all the churches they came to. In Peterborough they burned and broke, killed the abbot and monks, and all they found there. They made that which was very great such that it became nothing.” (Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, 870CE, p92)

Mobility, speed, and a united command made their onslaughts virtually irresistible.

Their ships could move faster than any Saxon land army, and once ashore they seized horses “and rode in any direction they chose, looting and burning monasteries, and withdrawing as quickly when threatened by superior forces. Great sums had to be paid in order to pay them off”. (Finberg (op cit p124).

In early 871CE, in search of land and plunder and “after finding the east coast no longer sufficient for their maintenance” they turned their attention to Wessex:

“They entered the Thames in their ships, and before long the southern shores of the West Saxons were overrun by the Pagan hordes, who, like a mighty stream, carried all before them. Their number was so great that they could only proceed in separate divisions … They soon arrived at the royal fortress of Reading … without the least opposition they made themselves masters of the place, from which they could conveniently carry on their plundering expeditions …” (R Pauli, The Life Of Alfred The Great, AMS Press, New York, 1968, p78 - first published Munich 1853, trans. from the German by B Thorpe)

On January 8 the Vikings were confronted by a Wessex army led by King Æthelred and his younger brother, Prince Alfred, the future king.

This Battle of Ashdown raged for many hours but eventually the Viking forces crumbled “and what had been an army degenerated into a panic-stricken mob”. (Richard Abels, Alfred The Great. War, Kingship and Culture in Anglo-Saxon England, Longman, London, 1998, p131)

Alfred’s work was just beginning. The Great Heathen Army would soon be back, thirsting for revenge and plunder.

The young prince and future king would face many challenges, physical, psychological, intellectual, and grave matters of life and death, not only his own, but also that of his people.

But Alfred was up for it. He was resilient, confident, optimistic, strong-willed, flexible, tenacious and, crucially, lucky …

“Good fortune accompanied him in all things, like a gift from God,” writes Pauli (op cit p67)

Alfred assumed the throne in 871 at the age of 21 following the death of his brother, King Æthelred. He would rule as King of Wessex for 28 years until his death in 899…

“… His success in fighting the Vikings not only preserved Wessex from conquest but kept Britain from becoming an outlier of Scandinavia. His administrative and military innovations provided the tools with which his son and grandsons conquered the Danelaw and established a precocious royal administration that shaped the governance of medieval England … Wessex survived the onslaught because of Alfred’s military and political genius.” (Abels, op cit, p xvi)

Farmers doubled as warriors (and vice versa)

Alfred was born in 849 at Wantage, Berkshire, the fifth and youngest son of King Æthelwulf and his wife Osbur, of the House of Wessex - a dynasty likely founded by the Saxon chieftain Cerdic on landing in Hampshire around 495CE.

Ninth century Wessex was blessed with lush forests and fertile valleys, home to settlements and small farms bounded by the Thames in the north and the English Channel to the south.

These West Saxons, converts to Christianity since King Cynegils of Wessex was baptized in 635CE at Dorchester-on-Thames, were farmers who doubled as warriors when needed.

Their kingdom spanned the River Trent and its tributaries in the Midlands, absorbing smaller Anglo‑Saxon polities while pushing back against Mercian dominance forged by powerful kings such as Penda and Offa.

By the time of Alfred’s birth, Wessex was the principal rival to Mercia, the traditional hegemon of southern England. Æthelwulf, a devout and competent ruler, had strengthened Wessex’s political position through diplomacy and marriage alliances.

Alfred’s mother, Osburh, was known for her learning and piety and her great ability as a teacher.

A famous anecdote describes her showing her sons a beautifully illuminated book of Saxon poetry and promising it to whichever boy could learn it first. Alfred, though the youngest, won the prize. Osburh was “eminently qualified” to teach Alfred and his siblings for she was …

“…well acquainted with the whole poetical treasure of her people, which still lived entire on all lips and in all hearts" and of the “heroes of past days, and of their battles with men and monsters … and of this her Alfred could never hear enough, and his young heart rejoiced, day and night, in those powerful ballads which sang of his ancestors and his people.” (Pauli, The Life Of Alfred The Great, op cit, pp52-53.

Alfred’s early formal education, however, was limited. He learned to recite and appreciate vernacular poetry, but did not master Latin until adulthood. However, at the age of 12, he developed “ an intense desire” to learn to read and write …

“Undauntedly, but with much toil, the boy overcame all obstacles; he began to read in his mother-tongue what he had already learnt by heart, and the old poetry became all the more dear to him as he understood it better. He soon began to turn his attention to the writing and songs of the Church. He collected into one book the services of the hours, and many psalms and prayers, and always carried it about with him in his bosom. (Pauli, op cit, p66)

Much of Alfred’s early education was experiential. As a young boy - “who more than all the rest of their children, had won his parents’ hearts by his amiability and brilliant qualities” - Alfred made two pilgrimages to Rome, one alone, and another accompanied by his father. (Pauli, ibid)

In the first visit, in 853CE, Pope Leo IV received the young Alfred in grand fashion, “feted and honoured in a way calculated to impress the English boy and his entourage and guarantee the good will and gratitude of his father” …

“… The pope stood sponsor for the boy at his confirmation, becoming his ‘spiritual father’, and invested him as a Roman consul in a ceremony that may have somewhat resembled the papal consecration of kings …” (Pauli, op cit)

Then in 855CE Alfred made a second visit to Rome, this time as one of the “great number of nobles and commoners” whose task was to make preparations for his father King Æthelwulf’s pilgrimage to the Holy City. It was an arduous two-month journey spanning 1,600 or so kilometers across difficult terrain …

“… a veritable obstacle course beginning with the brief but hazardous Channel crossing and continuing with the great trek through Francia and northern Italy … Alfred and his companions faced many perils … road conditions were abysmal and robbers lurked in the forests and defiles through which travelers had to pass …” (Abels, Alfred The Great pp65-66 passim)

The journey was a great learning experience: it exposed Alfred to the wider Christian world, to Roman education, and to the idea of kingship as a sacred vocation. The papacy reportedly blessed Alfred personally, a symbolic gesture that later chroniclers would treat as a sign of divine favour.

Living in an heroic age

It’s important to remember that Alfred existed in what was an “heroic age” in which “the greatest virtue” was loyalty to one’s lord: the warrior shared the spoils of battle, but he was also willing to die in the service of his king.

Indeed, “it was considered a disgrace to leave the field of battle if one’s chief were dead”. (David Wilson, The Anglo-Saxons, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1971, p108)

Warriors were concerned to establish what they considered to be a good reputation, expressed concisely in the epic poem Beowulf …

“Each of us must experience an end to life in this world; let him who can achieve glory before he die; that will be best for the lifeless warrior afterwards.” (cited in Dorothy Whitelock, The Beginnings of English Society, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1952, p27)

The first years of Alfred’s reign were marked by exhaustion and compromise. After further battles, he negotiated a fragile peace with the Vikings, paying tribute to secure a temporary withdrawal. Some critics later accused him of weakness, but the kingdom was depleted, and Alfred needed time to rebuild.

The crisis reached its nadir in 878CE. A Viking force under Guthrum launched a surprise winter attack, capturing much of Wessex and forcing Alfred into hiding in the marshes of Athelney in Somerset.

This period produced the famous story of Alfred burning the cakes while sheltering in a peasant woman’s hut - a story that, most likely apocryphal, symbolised his humility and perseverance.

From Athelney, Alfred organised resistance, rallying local militias and coordinating with loyal nobles. In the spring he emerged to confront Guthrum at the Battle of Edington in which Alfred pursued the Danes to their stronghold, besieged them, and forced their surrender.

Guthrum accepted baptism, with Alfred as his godfather, and withdrew to East Anglia under terms that established a stable frontier between Wessex and the Danelaw.

“This sublime power to rise above the whole force of circumstances, to remain unbiased by the extremes of victory or defeat, to persevere in the teeth of disaster, to greet returning fortune with a cool eye, to have faith in men after repeated betrayals, raises Alfred far above the turmoil of barbaric wars to his pinnacle of deathless glory,” (Churchill, History Of The English Speaking Peoples, ibid p49)

Alfred’s bride and joy: ties that bind

Alfred married Ealhswith, a noblewoman from Mercia, around 868. Their union strengthened ties between the two kingdoms at a time when Mercia’s power was waning. They had several children, including:

Edward the Elder, Alfred’s successor

Æthelflæd, later the “Lady of the Mercians,” a formidable ruler in her own right

Ælfthryth, who married Baldwin II of Flanders

Æthelgifu, who became abbess of Shaftesbury

Æthelweard, a son noted for his learning

Alfred’s children played crucial roles in the consolidation of Anglo‑Saxon England after his death.

Rebuilding Wessex: Military and political reforms

After Edington, Alfred embarked on an ambitious program of reform. His military innovations were among the most significant in early medieval Europe.

The Burh System: Alfred constructed a network of fortified towns - burhs - strategically placed across Wessex. These served as defensive strongholds, administrative centres, and hubs of trade. The Burghal Hidage, a later document, lists more than 30 such sites. This system allowed rapid mobilisation and denied Viking armies the easy plunder they relied upon.

A reorganised Army: Alfred restructured the fyrd, the traditional militia, into a rotating service so that part of the force was always available for defence while the rest tended to their farms. This innovation addressed the chronic problem of short-term levies.

Beginnings of a naval tradition: Recognising the maritime nature of the Viking threat, Alfred built ships - “neither Frisian nor Danish, but as we ourselves thought they might be most useful”- to patrol the coasts. Though not always successful, this was the beginning of an English naval tradition.

Political moves: Alfred strengthened royal authority, codified laws, and promoted justice. His law code drew on earlier West Saxon and Mercian precedents but framed them within a Christian moral vision. He emphasised fairness, protection of the weak, and the king’s responsibility as shepherd of his people.

A patron of learning and the Church

Alfred believed that ignorance was a root cause of England’s vulnerability. The Viking wars had devastated monasteries, the traditional centres of learning. Latin literacy had declined sharply. Alfred lamented that few priests south of the Thames could translate a Latin letter.

To address this, he launched a cultural revival: He invited scholars from Mercia, Wales, and the Continent to his court, including Asser, Grimbald, and John the Old Saxon.

He sponsored translations of key Latin works into Old English, some of which he personally supervised or contributed to, such as Gregory the Great’s Pastoral Care, Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy (a favorite of future queen Elizabeth 1, see my earlier essay on Elizabeth), and Bede’s Ecclesiastical History.

He promoted education for both clergy and laity, establishing schools and encouraging noble families to educate their sons.

Alfred’s relationship with the Church was cooperative and reformist. He saw spiritual renewal as inseparable from political stability.

Why ‘the Great’? Reputation, legacy, and critics

Alfred is the only English monarch known as “the Great.” The title was not used in his lifetime but emerged in the 12th Century, particularly through the writings of historians such as John of Worcester and William of Malmesbury. They admired Alfred’s piety, learning, military success, and statesmanship, presenting him as an ideal Christian king.

His “greatness” rests on several pillars:

Military resilience: He saved Wessex from conquest and laid the foundations for the reconquest of the Danelaw.

Vision of unity: He articulated the idea of a single English people (Angelcynn), a concept his successors would realise.

Administrative innovation: His burh system - a new defensive network of more than 30 fortified towns across Wessex. Spaced no more than 20 miles apart, they provided safe refuge for locals, blocked Viking river movements, and served as economic hubs. This grid system allowed Alfred to mobilize the army and thwart Viking attacks.

The scholar Dorothy Whitelock writes that Alfred “succeeded in government as well as at war”…

“He was a wise administrator, organizing his finances and the service due from his thanes (noble followers). He scrutinized the administration of justice and took steps to ensure the protection of the weak from oppression by ignorant or corrupt judges.

“He promulgated an important code of laws, after studying the principles of lawgiving in the Book of Exodus and the codes of Aethelbert of Kent, Ine of Wessex (688–694), and Offa of Mercia (757–796), again with special attention to the protection of the weak and dependent.” (Alfred, Britannica)

Alfred was most exceptional, however, not for his generalship or his administration but for his attitude toward learning, writes Whitelock …

“He shared the contemporary view that Viking raids were a divine punishment for the people’s sins, and he attributed these to the decline of learning, for only through learning could men acquire wisdom and live in accordance with God’s will.” (Ibid)

Much of what we know of Alfred comes from Asser’s biographical Life of King Alfred (Vita Ælfredi regis Angul Saxonum) written in 893CE.

Asser’s ‘Alfred’ is a model Ninth Century Christian king … “a lover of wisdom, truthful, patient, munificent, just, a defender of the poor and weak, incomparably affable, faithful to his God and, to top it all off, a victorious warrior in a holy war”. But …

“… Though historical accuracy is of paramount concern to modern historians, it may have been less critical to Asser and his audience … Asser’s truth was moral rather than empirical.” (Abels, Alfred The Great, op cit, p12)

By DAVID MYTON

I recently returned to my home in Sydney, Australia, after spending several weeks in the city of my birth and upbringing: York in North Yorkshire, UK. I have had a life-long passion for history - clearly the result of growing up in York, today a living, breathing, interactive museum.

York is a fascinating place that boasts (among many things) a magnificent Gothic cathedral - The Minster, with its stunning stained-glass windows - Roman artifacts, medieval fortress-like walls, a Viking museum, scores of historic churches, a Norman-era tower, 22 registered ancient monuments, and more than 2000 listed buildings.

York’s got history. Lots of it.

Generations of people lived, loved, worked, worshipped, planted, reaped, struggled and fought here: bringing up their children, caring for their animals, in a world filled with perils and strife, in which - until the dawn of modernity in the 19th century - they co-existed with magic, ghosts, sprites, fairies, demons, raiders, invaders, violence, sudden death.

Despite everything - wars, revolts, plagues, tempest and deluge - York has a parallel life as a modern city, home today to more than 140,000 people.

Here follows a short history - a biography if you will - of the City of York.

The River Ouse: perilous lifeline

York’s story begins long before the Romans. Archaeological evidence shows human presence in the region between 8000 and 7000 BCE, with Neolithic axes, Bronze Age tools, and Iron Age burials found along the banks of the Ouse, the great navigable river that flows through the city down to the Humber and thence to the North Sea.

The river’s role as a commercial artery would endure for centuries. On the downside, enemies (looking at you, Vikings) could sail up river to pillage and plunder

Eboracum: Rome’s Northern capital

Rome arrived in 71CE, when Quintus Petillius Cerialis led the Ninth Legion north to establish a fortress at the confluence of the Ouse and River Foss. The site - strategically situated between the Brigantes and Parisii tribes - became Eboracum, the Roman Empire’s northern military headquarters.

The fortress and its civilian settlement grew into a major administrative centre, visited by emperors including Hadrian (122CE) and Septimius Severus, who died in York in 211CE. It was also here that Constantine the Great was proclaimed emperor of Rome in 306CE.

Anglo‑Saxon York: the Birth of the Minster

By around 400CE the Roman Empire was in retreat and as the legions hustled back to Rome, the Angles took control of the city. Rome’s Eboracum became Eoforwic - “wild‑boar town.” By the early 7th century, York had become the royal heart of the kingdom of Deira, later part of Northumbria.

In 627, the Italian Christian missionary Paulinus baptized King Edwin in a temporary wooden church on the site where York Minster now stands. When in 632 Edwin was slain by the Anglo-Saxon kings Caedwalla and Penda, Paulinus fled to Kent, and later became bishop of Rochester.

A stone church followed in 637, and by 735, York had its first archbishop, Ecgbert, who established a library and school that became renowned across Europe.

In 866CE, the Great Heathen Army (aka the Vikings) captured York, renaming it Jórvík. Under Viking rule, the city became a thriving trading hub, minting coins and connecting the North Sea world with Ireland and Scandinavia.

The Viking impact on York remains visible to this day. For example, many of the city’s streets (such as Goodramgate and Micklegate ), end in “gate” - a derivation from the Old Norse word gata, which means “street,” or “road”

By about 954CE Jorvik had integrated with the surrounding Saxon culture and as the years passed into the 11th century the city came under the control of the dominant Saxon Godwin family. Unfortunately, the man the Godwins put in charge of the city was none other than King Harold’s bad boy brother Tostig and the citizens rose in revolt - for more on this see my essay One in the eye for Harold .

York and the North resisted the Normans after their defeat of the Saxons at Hastings in 1066. This prompted William the Conqueror’s brutal Harrying of the North (1069–70), a genocidal attack on large tracts of northern England. For more check out my essay Smashing a culture, plundering an economy.

In 1069 the old Anglo-Saxon-era church in York was destroyed by fire during the Harrying. However, between 1080-1100CE the newly-appointed Archbishop of York, Thomas of Bayeux, built a large, cross-shaped cathedral above and across the earlier Roman foundations although this was extensively remodeled during the Middle Ages.

York Minster - Beautiful examples of English Gothic architecture

“The earliest portion of the building we now see is the South Transept, begun about 1225 on the orders of Walter de Gray, Archbishop of York 1215-1255 … Building works took place steadily over some 400 years; what we now see above ground belongs to the last 250 years of the time span, so that the Minster now beautifully illustrates examples of all three phases of English Gothic architecture: the Early English style of the 1200s in the North and South Transepts, the Decorated style of the 1300s in the Nave, and the Perpendicular style of the 1400s in the East End.

“The underlying instability of the foundations caused the Central Tower to collapse in on itself in 1405, and in the ensuing decades the new Central Tower was built …

“The two western towers, which had been built only to half height during the construction of the replacement nave, were finished off to full height. The Minster was finally regarded as complete enough to be reconsecrated on July 3, 1472 …

“Most recently, conservation efforts have focused on the Minster’s unrivalled collection of stained glass windows, which tell stories of the Church and the Christian faith across the centuries, and on the stonework at the East End, which has been meticulously restored over the past decade …” (York Minster Souvenir Guide, Chapter of York and Jigsaw Design & Publishing. www.yorkminster.org)

York and the Wars of the Roses

By the 14th and 15th centuries, York had graduated to be England’s second city after London. The city’s medieval buildings - Merchant Adventurers’ Hall, the Guildhall, St William’s College - reflected its wealth and civic pride. Its craft guilds produced the famous York Mystery Plays, a cycle of 48 biblical dramas performed on wagons through the streets.

York’s name is preserved in the House of York, one of the two rival dynasties in the Wars of the Roses (1455–1487). Richard III, otherwise known as Richard of York, was the last Yorkist king.

Although Richard’s reign ended when he was killed at Bosworth Field, the city retained its symbolic association with the white rose and the Yorkist legacy.

For more on Richard and the Wars of the Roses check out my articles Hacked to death in battle: the grim fate of Richard III and how Shakespeare tarnished Richard’s reputation From Richard The Third to Richard the Turd

Tudor and Stuart York

Under the Tudors, York remained a regional administrative centre. The dissolution of the monasteries reshaped its religious landscape, but the Minster endured.

During the English Civil War, York was a Royalist stronghold until its siege and capture by Parliamentary forces in 1644.

Check out my essays Oliver Cromwell: the dead again Christian who brought down a king and The role of religion in the beheading of King Charles I of England.

After the Restoration, York regained prominence and by 1660 was England’s third‑largest city.

The Railway Age: York as a National Hub

The 19th century transformed York again. The arrival of the railways made the city a major transport hub, linking London and Edinburgh.

York’s National Railway Museum preserves this heritage, showcasing locomotives and engineering innovations that reshaped Britain. Railways brought jobs, growth, and new suburbs, expanding the city beyond its medieval walls.

Chocolate City: Sweet Innovation

York became Britain’s Home of Chocolate thanks to 19th‑century firms like Rowntree and Terry. Their factories produced iconic treats - KitKat, Smarties, Terry’s Chocolate Orange - and shaped the city’s social fabric. These companies were also pioneers in social welfare, building model villages and supporting workers’ education and wellbeing. For more on this check out my essay The chocolate Christian soldier’s mission in the slums.

York in the World Wars

During World War I, York contributed troops, supplies, and railway logistics. In World War II, the city suffered bombing raids, including the Nazi Baedeker Raid of 1942, which damaged historic buildings such as the Guildhall.

Yet York’s medieval core survived, and postwar restoration preserved the architectural heritage we see today.

By DAVID MYTON

It is late February in the Year of our Lord 1003 and it is time for Leofhelm to plough his field in readiness for the first spring plantings. The year just gone was a grievous time in this land of England with manifold taxes, death of cattle, and perished crops (both corn and all fruit). And on St Lawrence’s Day last August “the wind did more harm than any man ever remembered before”. (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, p241)

Before Leofhelm cuts the first furrow he kneels to scoop a shallow hole in the soil. In it he places a cake (baked last night by his wife Eawyn from the same grain he is hoping soon to cultivate). And as he did so he chanted these verses from an old pagan charm:

Earth, Earth, Earth! Oh Earth our mother!

May the all-wielder, Ever-Lord grant me

Acres a-waxing, upwards a-growing,

Pregnant with corn and plenteous in strength.

- (Eileen Power, Medieval People. A Study of Communal Psychology, London 1937, p23)

This resort to the old magic and the old gods was because the Lord Above and His Son Jesus didn’t always respond positively to the Saxons’ pleas. And anyway they remembered the words (passed on by their parents) of old King Ethelbert in his reply to the Christian missionaries who urged him to take up their faith maybe 500 years ago now:

“Your words and promises are fair indeed; but they are new and uncertain, and I cannot accept them and abandon the age-old beliefs that I have together with the whole English nation …” (Bede, A History Of The English Church and People (trans. Leo Shirley Price), Penguin Classics, 1955)

The England of the 11th Century was not England now. Except for the noises of humans, animals and nature - the wind, thunderstorms, heavy rain and the like - quietness prevailed.

Large tracts of forests covered much of the land; and many marshes and fens remained undrained. In the words of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Britain was “the best of islands” that provided “unfailing plenty” of everything suited to the use of human beings:

“Through its forest glades stretch pasture lands for cattle, and there too grow flowers of every hue which offer their honey to the flitting bees … clear springs flow into shining streams which ripple gently; it is watered by lakes and rivers full of fish …” (Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, Penguin Classics, 1966, p53)

Necromancers, magicians and monsters

The old gods and the old magic lived on here. From the beginning, the Christian missionaries had their work cut out with the “English” (comprising a mix of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts and, later, the Norse Vikings).

Geoffrey of Monmouth, writing in the mid-12th century, recounted a past where ordinary humans encountered dragons and demons; and in which many believed that gods including Saturn, Jove, Mercury, and Freia “ruled over the world”.

Merlin the magician also was making a name for himself fighting gods and monsters, and besting many a demon.

The Roman historian Tacitus had told of an English “inviolate grove” said to be a sanctuary of the goddess Nerthus. After the Saxons and their gods Seaxneat, Eostre, and Beowa had arrived from Germany, the Norse Vikings brought with them Woden, Thunor, and Tiw, and these too took up residence.

Indeed, they are still recalled in many of today’s English place names such as Woodnesborough; Thundridge; Tuesley. (Dorothy Whitelock, The Beginnings Of English Society, Penguin, 1952, pp21-22):

Before the Christians came, the people venerated trees, wells, and stones, and put their trust in “incantations, amulets, and other mysteries of devilish art”:

“ … The Church preached for generations against these and other superstitions … People came to rely on Christian prayers, holy water, and the relics of saints to protect them from the evil powers with which they felt themselves surrounded, and which could be fitted into the Christian scheme of things as the monstrous offspring of Cain, from whom sprang ogres and elves and ghouls, and giants who fought against God for a long time.” (ibid, p29)

To be sure, Leofhelm and Eawyn said their prayers to the Christian Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (and Mother Mary, and numerous saints). But should their pleas go unanswered on their pilgrimage of life and death, they would fall back on the magic of the old gods. Christianity co-existed with fairies, demons, ghosts, and magic:

“The world which Christians inhabited was the playground of powerful forces. Evil constantly threatened the unwary; the Devil and his minions were realities to be taken seriously, necessitating defensive measures … [People] just lived their lives, with their beliefs as an incoherent whole. Fairies, ghosts and suchlike were accepted; as was the devil.” (R N Swanson, Religion and Devotion in Europe c.1215-c.1515, Cambridge, 1995, p187)

Masses, prayers, invocations of saints

However, Christianity proved adaptable and persuasive: masses, prayers, invocations of saints and incantations sometimes delivered the desired results. New magic for old was the language of conversion:

“The custom of measuring candles to saints in the hope of relief from threats; the ringing of bells to turn away thunderstorms; the blessings of fields; all operated not as independent entities, but part of a totality …” (Swanson, ibid)

The church adapted to its environment, working to supply an acceptable code of moral, religious, and spiritual obligations:

“… one not so demanding that it repelled, nor so undemanding that it offered no challenges; not so complex that it was impractical or incomprehensible … all this tied it to a form of spiritual market forces. Medieval Christianity was a demand-led religion”. (op cit, p316)

The French sociologist and anthropologist Marcel Mauss (1872-1950) contended that humans thought in magical terms from the earliest times. Magic was a social phenomenon woven into the fabric of everyday life. Magical rites were “traditional facts”:

“… a magical rite is any rite which does not play a part in organised cults - it is private, secret, mysterious and approaches the limit of a prohibited rite. Magical rites are commonly performed in woods, far away from dwelling places, at night or in shadowy corners, in the secret recesses of a house or in some out-of-the-way place…” (Marcel Mauss, A General Theory of Magic, London 1972, pp24-25. First published in Sociologie et Anthropologie, 1950)

Magic, he says, is a priori a belief derived for experience. Nobody sought out a magician unless he believed in him:

“Magical beliefs derive from experience: nobody seeks out a magician unless he believes in him; a remedy is tried only if the person has confidence in it … Magic has such authority that a contrary experience does not, on the whole, destroy a person’s belief.” (ibid)

Ancient Egypt: the emergence of magic

Magic likely first emerged in Ancient Egypt where it was understood that the cosmos was animated and controlled by a morally neutral spiritual power. According to the British scholar Ronald Hutton, this power “was used by the deities to sustain the natural order but could also be employed by human beings for their own ends”.

This was achieved through spoken and physical rituals which allowed humans the power to coerce the deities. Further, the Egyptians “lacked any distinction between religious and magical acts” and so “the practice of these acts was therefore quite legal, even when performed against enemies”.

However, the “category of behaviour known in English pejoratively as witchcraft was therefore both absent and meaningless”.

Over time, and influenced by other Near Eastern cultures, the employment of magic spread across the known world to eventually take root in Western Europe. (Hutton, YouTube lecture The Western Magical Tradition)

Religion and magic then became “bound up with each other” such that …

“… whenever spiritualty in general has gone through a period of intense creativity, development and renewal, magic has entered another dynamic phase of its history … At the same time it represented an attitude to the cosmos which was at variance with ancient European tradition, and so Christian orthodoxy”. (op cit)

By the 1500s the Church had hardened its attitude towards folk religion, specifically magic. Rome determined to stamp out one of its manifestations: witchcraft.

Witches ‘in league with the Devil’

Religious authorities in England and across Europe charged that witches (in reality just ordinary women) were in league with the Devil, for whom, it was said, they had renounced baptism and sold their immortal souls.

The witch-hunt mania began in earnest from 1485 under Pope Innocent VIII, who had pronounced himself “sincerely alarmed” at the vast number of witches allegedly practising their maleficent arts. In 1488 he called on the nations of Europe to rescue the Church from “the perils and horrors of Satan”.

The Devil, said the Pope, encouraged both men and women to have sex with “infernal fiends”, which caused numerous stillbirths and destroyed crops, fruit trees and cattle. These “fiends” were witches - and so the Pope appointed Inquisitors in every country to find and eliminate the witches.

In his 1841 book Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds the Scottish journalist Charles Mackay observed that people often were swept up in what he termed “moral epidemics” … “They think in herds and go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one”.

Under torture, these poor women confessed to such things as midnight rendezvous with the Devil, attending Witches’ Sabbath, raising whirlwinds and calling down lightning, and particularly horrifying - having sex at midnight with Satan.

Found guilty, as they usually were, they would be burned alive. And so it went year after year, for years on end – the fires for the execution of witches blazing in almost every town in Europe.

A number of male wizards were also executed for such things as attending “saturnalian orgies with fiends” and preparing “infernal unguents for the blighting of cattle and crops”.

Mackay notes also that Protestants were just as eager to hunt witches as Catholics, with both Martin Luther and John Calvin “zealously encouraging the persecution of witches”.

In 1562 Queen Elizabeth I recognised witchcraft as “a crime of the highest magnitude”. Many women faced “mob justice” and were executed without so much as a show trial.

By the mid-1600s England had its own chief Witch Finder General - a certain Matthew Hopkins, who possessed the uncanny ability to discover “the mark of the Devil” on numerous women across the country, whom he then had burned at the stake.

The Witch Finder General travelled from town to town, “always residing at the very best inn” and charging 20 shillings a time for his witch-finding services.

Terrible persecution, ghastly execution

So it went, year after dismal year, many hundreds of unfortunate women “suffering the most terrible persecution and ghastly execution”.

The mania slowly faded, although Mackay notes that even in the mid-1800s - at the time of his writing this book - the superstition that witches were real still lingered to “an almost inconceivable extent”, although nobody at that time was getting burned alive.

Mackay is not an apologist at all for the witch hunters, but he does attempt to contextualize them within the available knowledge at the time. After all, in any era, including our own, we don’t know what we don’t know.

Humans feel, he says, that they have within them a spirit that never dies, and all our experience of this life makes us cling to this hope. But “in the early days of little knowledge” this grand belief became the source of a whole train of superstitions “from which flowed a deluge of blood and horror”.

For more than 250 years, Europe brooded on the idea that not only parted spirits walked the Earth to meddle in human affairs; but that humans had the power to summon evil spirits to their aid and to work woe upon their fellows.

It was believed that the Earth “swarmed with millions of demons of both sexes, which increased and multiplied … evil spirits were so numerous they couldn’t be counted”. Furthermore, these spirits could and did spread pain, diseases, and terrible dreams.

As an epidemic of terror took hold of entire societies, nobody thought themselves secure from the machinations of the Devil and his agents, writes Mackay:

“Every calamity that befell them they attributed to a Witch. If a storm wrecked their barn, if their cattle got sick, if a beloved relative died, or if they themselves got sick” – well, it wasn’t simply bad luck “but the works of some neighbouring hag whose wretchedness or insanity caused the ignorant to raise their finger and pointed at her as a witch”.

The British historian Norman Stone, writing in 1995, said Mackay’s book was as relevant today as it was more than 100 years ago because “folly changes only in detail and not in scale”.

REFERENCES

Bede, A History Of The English Church and People (trans. Leo Shirley Price), Penguin Classics, 1955

Ronald Hutton, The Western Magical Tradition, YouTube lecture

Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Wordsworth Editions Ltd, 1995. (Originally published 1841)

Marcel Mauss, A General Theory of Magic, London 1972. First published in Sociologie et Anthropologie, 1950

Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain, Penguin Classics, 1966

Eileen Power, Medieval People. A Study of Communal Psychology, London, 1937

Anne Savage (trans/collated) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles

R N Swanson, Religion and Devotion in Europe c.1215-c.1515, Cambridge, 1995

Dorothy Whitelock, The Beginnings Of English Society, Penguin, 1952

By DAVID MYTON

On June 22 in the year 1583 the Archangel Gabriel, celestial messenger of annunciation, resurrection, and revelation, guardian of Eden and the Gates of Paradise, engaged in conversation with John Dee, a man of learned repute - mathematician, astronomer, geographer, court advisor, teacher, and not least, astrologer and alchemist.

Gabriel was not the first angel to converse with Dee: others who had made an appearance previously included Michael (on March 15, 1582) holding the sword of justice; Raphael, angel of knowledge; as well as Uriel, Anael, Salamian, Och, and Nalvage, among others.

There was another man in the room that day, one Edward Kelley, a young scryer who possessed the uncanny ability to see and hear angels through a crystal or obsidian mirror (called a Showstone) and who passed on their messages to Dee.

Scrying was already an ancient method of divination in the 16th century, with a history dating back to ancient Greece:

“Dee’s scryers were not mediumistic in the Victorian sense. Spirits of the dead did not speak through them, and the angel conversations cannot properly be called seances … Dee’s use of a specific physical object to facilitate visions was part of the tradition. Scryers were the skilled laborers who made such an inquiry into the mysteries of nature possible.” (Deborah E. Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels. Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p17)

Message from the Angel Gabriel - Sunday, October 13, 1583

Dee asks Gabriel “Is charity the son of God? Gabriel replies:

“It is so: He that walketh in charity walketh in God; for charity is the will of the father, is his own delight, and illumination of the faithful, through his Holy Spirit. The charity of the Church, is the Holy Ghost. But he that dwelleth in charity, dwelleth in the bloud of the lamb, which is the will of the Father, which is the Holy Ghost. Blessed are those that dwell in charity. Persevere to the end: Not negligently, but with good will, which good will, is called fear. Which fear is the beginning of wisdom.

He that continueth to the end, receiveth his reward: But he that leaveth off, is a damned Soul. Many men begin, but few end … He that dwelleth to the end, is the Childe of God: inherited of everlasting life; and equal with joy himself … Even in this place, many persons had conspired against you. But the strength of God hath sealed them: And they shall not be unpunished. For the Angel of the Town is sealed, and his seal is to destruction. Thrice cursed are those which dwell within his government. But you are safe, and shall be safely delivered from them … For the Lord is angry with them: and he saith, Judge you the wicked people, their Town, Men, Women, and Children: And it shall be seen that the Lord, the God of Heaven and Earth, hath mercy on you.”

- Dr John Dee’s Spiritual Diary (1583-1609) being a completely new & reset edition of A True & Faithful Relation of what passed for many Yeers between Dr John Dee and some Spirits, edited by Stephen Skinner, Golden Hoard Press, Singapore, 2011, (page 185). First edition 1659 Timothy Garthwait, St Paul’s, London.

Angelic conversations, cosmological revelations

Dee’s Spiritual Diaries - the records of his angelic conversations from 1582 to 1609 - are among the most extraordinary documents of the early modern period. They contain detailed (if not entirely understandable) accounts of his visions, angelic conversations, cosmological revelations, and the transmission of the so‑called Enochian language.

Written in Dee’s careful hand, they reveal a mind striving to reconcile Christian devotion, Hermetic philosophy, and a profound desire for divine knowledge.

John Dee may seem very odd, perhaps even psychologically disturbed, to many of us today.

In his own time, however, Dee was one of England’s most highly-regarded natural philosophers, a scholar who held valued opinions on, and was consulted about, a wide range of topics - including what would be the most astrologically auspicious day for Elizabeth I’s coronation, writes Deborah E. Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels. Cabala, Alchemy and the End of Nature, (pdf) Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp5-6.

“He entertained guests including Sir Walter Raleigh, the Earl of Leicester, and the Dutch geographer Abraham Ortelius at his home outside of London on the river Thames. He was generous with his expertise and with the unparalleled resources of his famous library. The relationships Dee had with the intellectual and political elite of his own country were matched, if not exceeded, by those he enjoyed on the European continent.” (p13)

Peter Ramus, the French humanist and methodologist, considered Dee to be one of the most learned men in England. The Italian mathematician Federico Commandino described Dee to his patron, Francesco Maria II of Urbino, as “a man of excellent wit, and singular learning”. (Harkness, ibid)

Dee’s interest in angels wasn’t entirely something left-field. Angels were everywhere in the 16th century - on stained glass windows, interior beams, and exterior arches of great cathedrals; in the altars and choir stalls of village churches; in tapestries, book covers, and numerous paintings …

“… Dee’s belief in the potential value of angelic guidance was shaped by his understanding of the structure and working of the cosmos, which allowed for both natural laws and a providential deity, for both predictable and miraculous events. In his cosmology, angels were aspects of faith as well as significant intermediary features, and in his deeply held belief that angels were divine messengers … Dee and his contemporaries were interested in angels because, in their cosmology, the most important relationships were those between God, the angels, and human beings … In the world promised after the apocalypse, angels and humanity would live in harmony with nature, in perfect communion with God and all levels of the cosmos.” (Harkness, op cit, pp102-104)

A prodigious appetite for learning

Dee was born in London on July 13 1527 to a Welsh family of modest but respectable status. His father, Roland Dee, served as a gentleman sewer for Henry VIII, a courtly connection to the Tudor elite that would help to shape Dee’s ambitions and political aspirations.

Dee was blessed with a prodigious appetite for learning. He attended Chelmsford Chantry School before entering, aged 15, St John’s College, Cambridge where he would study up to 18 hours a day, excelling in mathematics, astronomy, and classical languages.

After graduating, Dee travelled to Europe, taking in the latest developments in mathematics, navigation, and astronomy while studying at Louvain University. He went on to lecture in Paris, where his public demonstrations of Euclidean geometry drew large audiences.

His reputation as a brilliant mathematician was firmly established by his mid‑20s. For Dee, mathematics was not merely a practical discipline; it was a divine language, a means of understanding the hidden architecture of the cosmos.

This period also exposed him to the Hermetic and Neoplatonic traditions flourishing in Renaissance Europe. The works of the Italian scholar and priest Marsilio Ficino, the esoteric philosopher Pico della Mirandola, and German polymath Cornelius Agrippa helped to shape his intellectual worldview.

Visit from the Angel Madini, Anno Domini 1584, Prague

- Dr John Dee’s Spiritual Diary (with original spelling):

The Skryer Edward Kelley: Now Madimi appeareth, and she seemeth bigger than she was.

Madimi: The blessing of God the Father, the Son, and (in the Father and the Son) of the HolyGhost, in power and comfort rest upon you, take hold of you, and dwell within you, that you may be apt to receive the comfort of my childishness, and the reward of such Innocents, as my voice beareth witness of.

Believe me, many are the woes of the world, and great are the sorrows that are to come: For the Lord prepareth his rainbow, and the witness of his account: and will appear in the heavens to finish all things: and the time is not long.

Blessed are those that believe; for faith shall flee from the Earth, and her dwelling places shall be caves, & unknown mountains, and in parts of the Earth, which the Lord hath kept secret for such as shall triumph: and rejoyce in the Judgement to come.

Woe be to women great with child, for they shall bring forth Monsters

Woe be unto the Kings of the Earth, for they shall be beaten in a Mortar

Woe be unto such as paint themselves, and are like unto the Prince of pride; for they shall drink the blood of their neighbours, and of their own children

Woe be unto false preachers, yea seven woes be unto them; for they are the teeth of the beast - He that hath ears, let him hear

Woe be unto the Virgins of the Earth, for they shall disdain their virginity, and they shall become Concubines for Satan, and despise the God of Righteousnesse

Woe be unto the Merchants of the Earth, for they are become abominable … Behold, they become spyes of the earth, yea they shall fall into the pitt, that they have digged for others

Woe be unto the books of the earth, for they are corrupted; and are become a wrasting stock, and firebrand to the conscience

- Stephen Skinner (ed) Dr John Dee’s Spiritual Diary (1583-1609) op cit, p394

Treason and sorcery: the perils of esoteric interests

On his return to England in the 1550s, Dee enjoyed the patronage of Edward VI, and contributed to the young king’s educational program. In the reign of Queen Mary I, he was briefly imprisoned on suspicion of treason and sorcery - an early sign of the dangers that accompanied his esoteric interests - but he was eventually cleared.

With Elizabeth I’s accession in 1558, Dee’s fortunes improved dramatically.

(For more context on this era check out my essay on Elizabeth)

He became an informal advisor to the new Queen, offering astrological guidance on the timing of her coronation and advice on matters of navigation, imperial expansion, and national identity.

In his 1577 treatise General and Rare Memorials Pertaining to the Perfect Art of Navigation Dee argued for the creation of a British Empire (he probably invented the term) and positioned himself as a visionary of England’s maritime destiny.

Centrality of mathematics to the arts and sciences

Dee’s intellectual output was vast and varied.

His Mathematical Preface to Henry Billingsley’s 1570 English translation of Euclid became one of the most influential mathematical texts of the English Renaissance.

In it, Dee argued for the centrality of mathematics to all the arts and sciences, from architecture and engineering to navigation and music. The Preface helped establish mathematics as a legitimate and essential field of study in England.

He also amassed one of the largest private libraries in Europe at his home in Mortlake - more than 4,000 volumes. Dee’s library functioned as an intellectual hub - scholars, explorers, and courtiers visited him to consult his books and seek his advice.

Astrology, Alchemy, and the Turn to the Occult

Dee’s interests extended deeply into astrology, alchemy, and the occult. In the 16th century, these were seen as legitimate avenues for understanding the natural world. Through a combination of mathematics, natural philosophy, and spiritual revelation, Dee believed he could discover deep spiritual truths.

This shift would define the latter half of his life and shape his posthumous reputation.

In 1582, Dee met the above-mentioned Edward Kelley who claimed the ability to see and hear angels through a crystal or obsidian mirror.

Dee, convinced that angelic guidance could help him unlock the secrets of creation, entered into a long and intense partnership with Kelley. Together they conducted hundreds of spiritual sessions, recording the angels’ messages in what would become the Spiritual Diaries.

Their quest took them across Europe - to Poland, Bohemia, and the Holy Roman Empire - where they sought patronage from powerful rulers. Dee hoped to secure support for a universal reformation of knowledge; Kelley sought alchemical secrets and personal advancement.

Their relationship was fraught, with Kelley claiming in 1587 that the angels had commanded them to share all things between them, including their their wives - which they duly did.

But this placed “an unbearable strain on the already difficult relationship between the two men … Within days of the pact the angel diary entries ceased, and the Dee-Kelly partnership was formally ended in December 1588. There was no bitterness on Dee’s part, only disappointment.” (Harkness, op cit)

Library plundered, reputation tarnished

Dee returned to England in 1589 to find his library plundered and his reputation damaged.

The climate of the 1590s, marked by increasing suspicion of magic and Catholic intrigue, was hostile to his pursuits. Elizabeth granted him the wardenship of Manchester College, but the position proved difficult and unrewarding.

After Elizabeth’s death, Dee’s fortunes declined further.

James I, hostile to occult practices, offered no support. Dee spent his final years in poverty at Mortlake, dying in 1609 at the age of 81.

His library dispersed, his manuscripts scattered, his reputation tarnished, he died largely forgotten. Yet his legacy endured - in mathematics, navigation, esotericism, and the mythology of the English Renaissance.

After Dee’s death, the Angel Diaries remained largely unknown until the 17th century, when they were rediscovered and circulated among antiquarians and occultists. In the 19th and 20th centuries, they became foundational texts for ceremonial magic.

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Aleister Crowley, and later occult movements adopted and adapted the Enochian system, often transforming it far beyond Dee’s original intentions.

Please consider taking a paid subscription!

By DAVID MYTON

A surge of outrage roiled through Mary Wollstonecraft as she read the fifth and final volume of the renowned philosopher’s work titled Emilius and Sophia: or, a new system of education. Its author was none other than Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the greats of the European Enlightenment, who had died in 1778. Mary had read the first four volumes with growing interest, but this last was making her see red.

“In the union of the sexes” wrote Rousseau … “… [the man] should be strong and active, the [woman] weak and passive … it follows that woman was specifically made to please man. If man ought to please her in turn, the necessity is less direct. His merit lies in his power; he pleases simply because he is strong … it is the law of nature, which is older than love itself …

“… the whole education of women ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honored by them, to educate them when young, to care for them when grown, to council them, to console them, and to make life agreeable and sweet to them - these are the duties of women at all times, and should be taught them from their infancy.” (Jean–Jacques Rousseau, Emile (1762),” Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring The French Revolution, accessed April 1, 2026 - https://revolution.chnm.org/d/470

There was much more of this from Rousseau; for example he also asserted that “women have, or ought to have, but little liberty [because] they are apt to indulge themselves excessively in what is allowed them”.

In their “moral relations” the man should be strong and active, the woman weak and passive …

“ … This principle being established, it follows that woman was specifically made to please man. If man ought to please her in turn, the necessity is less direct. His merit lies in his power; he pleases simply because he is strong … it is the law of nature, which is older than love itself.”

Mary had had enough of this. She decided it was time for a female to express her views about gender relations. So she wrote her own book - A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) - see this Project Gutenberg eBook.

If women appeared inferior to men, she wrote, it was only because they were denied the opportunity of a decent education. Women were rational beings who deserved the same opportunities as men - “as they would in a society built on reason rather than tradition” …

“… Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but, as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right when they endeavour to keep women in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing.” ‘Vindication’ Project Gutenberg eBook.

Mary Wollstonecraft was a feminist almost 40 years before the word itself had been invented. The French philosopher and utopian socialist Charles Fourier had coined the word “féminisme” in 1837 to mean advocacy of women’s rights. (Michelle Potter, The Etymology of Feminism, Medium, May 6, 2017)

Mary’s former husband William Godwin wrote this about her …

“… She considered herself as standing forth in defence of one half of the human species, labouring under a yoke which, through all the records of time, had degraded them from the station of rational beings, and almost sunk them to the level of the brutes. She saw indeed, that they were often attempted to be held in silken fetters, and bribed into the love of slavery; but the disguise and the treachery served only the more fully to confirm her opposition.” - Godwin, Memoirs of the Author of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Project Gutenberg eBook

But this was the late 18th century and not that long ago France had been upended in a violent revolution. The British government, fearful of a similar uprising on England’s shores, cracked down on anything and anyone it deemed seditious.

“Despite her insistence on women’s domestic responsibilities, in the conservative backlash against her revolutionary ideals, both Wollstonecraft and her rational conception of liberty were associated with sexual radicalism and libertinism and with political and domestic disorder. While many feminists read and were influenced by her writing, in public they were careful to distance themselves from her dangerous reputation.” (Helen Rogers, ‘Women and Liberty’ in Peter Mandler (ed), Liberty and Authority in Victorian Britain, Oxford University Press, 2006, p127)

Mary would have to tread very carefully.

Mary’s not-very-happy family

Mary Wollstonecraft arrived in this world on April 27 1759 in Spitalfields, London, the second of seven children in a not-very-happy family which was compelled to move house several times in a spiral of financial and social decline.

Her father, the abusive and ill-tempered Edward John Wollstonecraft, continually lost money on unwise speculative farming ventures. Only Mary’s brother, Edward (Ned) - who became a lawyer - had a formal education.

This unstable home life exposed her early to the precariousness of women’s dependence on men - an experience that would shape her later arguments for women’s autonomy. Despite limited formal schooling, she educated herself voraciously, reading widely and cultivating intellectual friendships.

“Wollstonecraft’s own somewhat haphazard education was, however, not entirely unusual for someone of her sex and position, nor was it particularly deficient. Her published writings show her to have acquired a true command of the Bible and a good knowledge of the works of several of the most famous Ancient philosophers.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

With few respectable occupations open to women, Mary worked as a lady’s companion, then as a governess in Ireland, where she observed first-hand the narrow expectations placed on girls.

In 1784, Mary - then aged 25 - and her sister Eliza founded a girls’ school close to the Newington Green Meeting House, London, home base of the Protestant English Dissenters.

She joined the congregation (her pew can still be seen), and its minister the Reverend Richard Price became an important friend and mentor. It was at his house that she met her future publisher, Joseph Johnson.

“This was a crucial encounter for Mary … it was through her connections to members of this community that she was to gain an introduction to her future publisher, friend, and one might even say, patron, Joseph Johnson. Though the school failed financially, it brought her into contact with radical thinkers and strengthened her belief that education was the key to women’s liberation.” (‘Mary Wollstonecraft’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Setting context: the demographic shift

The period 1700-1880 was a time of great change in England in the wake of the Industrial Revolution. A huge demographic shift saw people moving from the country to find work in the newly-industrialised towns and cities.

For example, in 1700 Manchester with just 10,000 inhabitants was still more or less a big village. By 1801 the population had surged to some 328,600 people. Between 1801-1891 London’s population grew from just over one million to over 5.5 million. (For more context check out my earlier post The new industrial disease)

“Unprecedented population growth in England during the 18th century coupled with industrialization began transforming a society of small-scale, personal communities into one dominated by a network of greatly enlarged and anonymous urban settlements … There was even greater fear that the disproportionately large number of young, single men and women would be ill-equipped to counter the vast array of dangerous influences waiting to ensnare them.” (Marjorie Morgan, Manners, Morals and Class in England, 1774-1858, St Martin’s Press, London, 1994 pp43-49 passim.)

So amidst all this change and disruption, how were people meant to behave? The late 18th century saw the rise of the Conduct Book - popular advice manuals, primarily targeting women, that dictated rules for morality, behavior, and social etiquette, often promoting ideals of submission, modesty, and piety. (Conduct Book - Wikipedia)

Writers of conduct books “strove to cultivate individuals encrusted with the moral armor necessary to shield them from worldly persuasions”. (Morgan, op cit, p16)

“The most important, reliable guides in this endeavor included older relatives, experienced and virtuous friends, and Scripture … Men and women who neglected domestic life and shirked its duties were severely criticised. Conduct books repeatedly exhorted readers to court favour more from God than from men and women … their goal was to help people become well-behaved, virtuous and happy in whatever rank God had seen fit to place them.” (Morgan, passim, pp16-17)

Mary ventured into this milieu in 1787 with her first major publication, her own conduct book Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, (Published in 1787 by her friend Joseph Johnson) in which she argued that girls deserved a rational, moral education, and encouraged mothers to teach daughters analytical thinking, self-discipline, and marketable skills.

She would soon become a professional writer - an extraordinary achievement for a woman of her time - while working as a translator and reviewer for the publisher Joseph Johnson.

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, published in 1789, propelled Mary into a new league. It remains a landmark in the history of political thought - a bold declaration that women are not born inferior but are made so by society.

A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (an extract)

I earnestly wish to point out in what true dignity and human happiness consists - I wish to persuade women to endeavour to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to convince them, that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost synonymous with epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are only the objects of pity and that kind of love, which has been termed its sister, will soon become objects of contempt.

Dismissing then those pretty feminine phrases, which the men condescendingly use to soften our slavish dependence, and despising that weak elegancy of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweet docility of manners, supposed to be the sexual characteristics of the weaker vessel, I wish to show that elegance is inferior to virtue, that the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a character as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex; and that secondary views should be brought to this simple touchstone.

… I may be accused of arrogance; still I must declare, what I firmly believe, that all the writers who have written on the subject of female education and manners, from Rousseau to Dr. Gregory, have contributed to render women more artificial, weaker characters, than they would otherwise have been; and, consequently, more useless members of society.

Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but, as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right when they endeavour to keep women in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing. - From Project Gutenberg eBook A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Mary’s personal life was unconventional for her era. She had a passionate but troubled relationship with the Swiss artist Henry Fuseli, then a liaison with American adventurer Gilbert Imlay, with whom she had a daughter, Fanny. After Imlay abandoned her, she attempted suicide twice.

In 1797 she married the philosopher and leading radical thinker William Godwin. Their marriage was intellectually rich but tragically short: Mary died of complications shortly after giving birth to their daughter Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, future author of Frankenstein.

Of his wife, Godwin said she had a “rigid, and somewhat Amazonian temper” but it was “impossible not to remark a luxuriance of imagination, and a trembling delicacy of sentiment, which would have done honour to a poet.”

Brainy men moved to offer opinions

Unsurprisingly, I suppose, there was no shortage of male intellectuals who felt moved to offer their negative opinion of Mary.

For example, the writer Horace Walpole (youngest son of former Prime Minister Robert Walpole) branded her a “hyena in petticoats” who was unfeminine, immodest, and socially dangerous - so reflecting a broader discomfort with women who stepped outside traditional roles.

The Anti-Jacobin Review, an influential English newspaper founded by George Canning in 1797 and devoted to opposing the radicalism of the French Revolution, condemned Mary’s work as subversive and immoral, especially after the posthumous publication of Godwin’s Memoirs revealed her unconventional relationships.

Her personal life discredited her arguments, it claimed, while branding her as radical, dangerous, and unfeminine.

Mary Wollstonecraft’s life was brief but transformative. Emerging from a turbulent childhood, she forged an intellectual path that defied the constraints of her era with a bold and brave declaration that women are not born inferior, but are made so by society.

Her insistence that women are rational beings deserving of education and political rights anticipated the arguments of later feminists from John Stuart Mill to Simone de Beauvoir.

Please consider taking a paid subscription!

Be not offended with this book, whilst on it you look: For it contains no badness, nor infection: ‘Tis true that it brings forth to you no birth Of any value, but in point of mirth; Thinking how sorrow might your mind Consume, I could no apter subject find; One inch of joy surmounts of grief a span; Because to laugh is proper to the man. - Rabelais

By DAVID MYTON

Allow me to introduce you to Quaresmeprenant, their Lordships Kissmyarse and Suckfizzle, to Gargantua and Pantagruel, the Sausage People, Friar John, and to The Gastrolators and Xenomanes.

These and other characters sprang from the fertile imagination of the 16th Century French literary genius Francois Rabelais. They came to improbable life in The Five Books of the Lives and Deeds of Gargantua and Pantagruel (Les Cinq livres des faits et dits de Gargantua et Pantagruel) published between 1532 and 1564 and known collectively as Gargantua and Pantagruel.

The series began with folktales about the giant Gargantua, which Rabelais expanded into a sprawling, erudite, wildly imaginative narrative containing characters “so full of vitality and joy of living that they became infinitely more real than hundreds of millions of people who have actually existed”, writes Hendrik Willem van Loon (Van Loon’s Lives, George Harrap & Co, London, 1943, pp 542-543)

At first glance the books (published between 1532 and 1564) appear to be a bizarre hodgepodge of characters acting out mad and improbable roles. But their words and actions held layers of meaning and significance readily apprehended by contemporaries.

For one example, Quaresmeprenant was a common word in 16th century France that referred to Mardi Gras or Carnival time - occasions of multiple meanings, embracing both the deadly serious and the outright silly.

Thus Quaresmeprenant character is full of contradictions: he dresses in joyous bright clothes but “whips children and sits about weeping … Who is this fellow, whose appearances and activities seem so absurdly, violently irreconcilable?” writes Samuel Kinser, adding “… Word games gave wings to Rabelais’s fantasy.” (Rabelais’s Carnival. Text, Context, Metatext, University of California Press, 1990, pp11-12 passim)

Rabelais also drew on traditions of Medieval farce and fabliaux - a comic, often anonymous tale written by jongleurs and clerics in France between c 1150 and 1400. Generally these were characterized by sexual and scatological obscenity, and by criticism and mockery of church and nobility.

While most fabliaux were anonymous, we do know some of their authors such as Jean Bodel, who wrote during the peak of the genre’s popularity. (Incidentally, several fabliaux were reworked by Giovanni Boccaccio for the Decameron and by Geoffrey Chaucer for The Canterbury Tales.)

For Rabelais, Gargantua, Pantagruel and the rest of the crew were intended “to entertain the cultivated reader at the expense of the follies and exaggerations of his times”. (Britannica, Francois Rabelais)

Rabelais himself offered guidance to readers on how to approach and understand his work …

“It becomes you to be wise, to smell, feel and have in estimation these fair goodly books, stuffed with high conceptions, which, though seemingly easy in the pursuit, are in the cope and encounter somewhat difficult. And then, you must, by a sedulous lecture, and frequent meditation, break the bone, and suck out the marrow, - that is, my allegorical sense, or the things I to myself propose to be signified by these Pythagorical symbols, with assured hope, that in so doing you will at last attain to be both well-advised and valiant by the reading of them.” (The Project Gutenberg eBook of Gargantua and Pantagruel, Book 1 - pdf)

Stirrings of Renaissance humanism

Rabelais was born between 1483 and 1494 at La Devinière, a farm in Seuilly near Chinon in the Loire Valley of France. His father was a lawyer, suggesting Rabelais had a comfortable, educated (though not aristocratic) family background.

His childhood was spent in the Loire Valley - “the garden of France” - close to a number of monasteries, but nevertheless his inquiring mind was drawn to the teachings of Renaissance humanism. This shaped his intellectual curiosity and his later fascination with education, language, and the absurdities of authority.

Rabelais initially was educated within the Franciscan monastic order, where he studied ancient languages with a focus on Greek - then controversial among conservative theologians wary of humanist learning.

Frustrated, he transferred to the Benedictine order, which offered greater scholarly freedom. Eventually he abandoned monastic life - an unusual and bold step at the time - to pursue a secular career in medicine.

Rabelais went on to study at the universities of Poitiers and Montpellier, two of the most prestigious medical schools in Europe. Montpellier, in particular, was a centre of Renaissance medical humanism, where classical texts were being rediscovered and integrated into medical practice.

Montpellier also allowed him to deliver lectures on Galen and Hippocrates whose books (written respectively 1300 and 1900 years before) were still studied for their diagnoses and clinical information. (Van Loon, op cit, p545)

This medical training profoundly influenced his writing: the body, digestion, anatomy, and physicality are central motifs in his writings, and are often exaggerated to grotesque and comic extremes.

Rabelais can be seen as a Renaissance humanist, skeptical of dogmatism and hostile to intellectual repression. However, although his works satirised scholastic theology, monastic corruption, and religious hypocrisy, he did not attack the Christian faith itself.

But that did not stop criticism of him from both sides of the Reformation divide.

The French theologian John Calvin accused him of “frivolity and impiety” - although, to be fair, Rabelais in the Fourth Book had referred (via Quaresmeprenant-Sausages) to “demoniacles Calvins, Genevan impostors”; while conservative Catholic theologians deplored his ribald humor and mockery of all things sacred.

Indeed, all Rabelais’ works were condemned by the Roman Catholic Index in 1564. (Kinser, Rabelais’s Carnival. Text, Context, Metatext, pp 33-34)

Rabelais had to be careful not to push the envelope too far. In January 1545 a secretary to Rabelais’ patron and protector, Cardinal Jean du Bellay, was burned at the stake for heresy; the following year a friend, Etienne Dolet, was burned in Paris for the same crime. (Kinser, p35)

“Literature did not yet exist as a university subject separate from the study of grammar and rhetoric. There were no research libraries, no scholarly gatherings, no means of obtaining and consolidating opinion … How could informed opinion about his polymorphic novels possibly emerge? … Books are social, not only cultural, tools, and they can cut deeply. All social factions, including governmental, therefore have a legitimate interest in what is published, and an author, soon or late, takes a position in relation to them.” (Kinser, pp 36-37)

Although today remembered primarily as a writer, Rabelais in his own time was also known as a physician, scholar, and diplomat. His medical career included work as a doctor in Lyon, then a major center of printing and scholarship. He also published medical texts and commentaries and served as physician to influential patrons, including the cardinal Jean du Bellay.

Meanwhile, diplomatic travels to Rome had exposed him to the cosmopolitan world of Renaissance courts and humanist networks - experiences that enriched the geographical and cultural references in his fiction.

Bakhtin’s Soviet deep-dive

One of the first serious deep-dives into Rabelais’ work was by the Russian philosopher and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1895-1975) in his seminal Rabelais and his world - written in the Soviet Union in the 1930s at the height of the Stalin era but only published there in 1965 - which captured the attention of many western academics in Literary and Cultural Studies, as well as in History.

This new version of Rabelais arrived just as the postmodernism craze was sweeping through Western academe: bursting with signs and signifiers, it was ripe for deconstruction, intertextual analysis, and fabulation. (My attempt at a playful pomo hermeneutic)

Anyway, Bakhtin identified Rabelais’s work as “carnivalesque” - a literary and cultural concept describing the subversion of social hierarchies, norms, and authority through humor, chaos, and irony.

“Bakhtin explored the dual nature of life in medieval culture, highlighting the dichotomy between the serious everyday existence governed by strict hierarchies and the liberating, playful realm of the carnival, which serves as an expression of freedom, change, and renewal - and so breaking down boundaries to foster temporary equality.” (Maira Fahim, Carnival and the carnivalesque, Academia.edu)

How to read Rabelais, by Rabelais

“For so much as you, my good disciples, and some other jolly fools of ease and leisure, reading the pleasant titles of some books of our invention, as Gargantua, Pantagruel, Whippot (Fessepinte.), the Dignity of Codpieces, of Pease and Bacon with a Commentary, &c., are too ready to judge that there is nothing in them but jests, mockeries, lascivious discourse, and recreative lies; because the outside (which is the title) is usually, without any farther inquiry, entertained with scoffing and derision. But truly it is very unbeseeming to make so slight account of the works of men, seeing yourselves avouch that it is not the habit makes the monk, many being monasterially accoutred, who inwardly are nothing less than monachal, and that there are of those that wear Spanish capes, who have but little of the valour of Spaniards in them. Therefore is it, that you must open the book, and seriously consider of the matter treated in it. Then shall you find that it containeth things of far higher value than the box did promise; that is to say, that the subject thereof is not so foolish as by the title at the first sight it would appear to be.” - Prologue to Five Books Of The Lives, Heroic Deeds and Sayings Of Gargantua and His Son Pantagruel (eBook)

He’s the Greatest

The Soviet-era writer A. K. Dzhivelegov declared Rabelais to be “the greatest artist of the French Renaissance, perhaps the greatest French writer of all time, and one of the greatest humanists of the era” …

“His work is a great cultural milestone. His novel stands at the high rise of the Renaissance wave, as Dante’s Divine Comedy stands at the origins of the Renaissance. Both books are encyclopedias in their scope: Dante’s poem is full of pathos, Rabelais’ novel is full of irony, both are combative, directed against antiquity …” Dzhivelegov, Rabelais

For Pierre Beaudry, Rabelais was the best writer France had ever produced, and represented for French culture “what Shakespeare is to English culture, and Cervantes to the Spanish speaking world; and then again, he might represent a little bit more.” (Beaudry, ‘What Does It Mean To Be Rabelaisian?’, Fidelio, Vol.IX, No 4. Winter 2000, The Schiller Institute)

Rabelais, adds Beaudry, wielded his pen as a weapon for the love and justice of mankind. The adjective Rabelaisian remained a testament to his enduring impact …

“… He set the tone and stage for a real revolution in the France of the Sixteenth century, as well as in society as a whole, in any period of history.” (op cit)

By DAVID MYTON

Karl Jaspers had good reason to be content with his career. He was doing ok. He’d been working at the University of Heidelberg since 1916, first as an assistant professor in psychology before switching disciplines to philosophy five years later. He’d survived World War Two (as did his wife, who was Jewish), clocked up some promotions, and authored some well-regarded books including Philosophy of Existence (1932), and The Question of German Guilt (1946, pdf)

Then in 1949 Jaspers published a work which transformed him into something of a celebrity academic, at least for a time. It was a double-edged sword: he received much praise - and a barrage of criticism.

In a book titled The Origin and Goal of History Jaspers introduced a new concept: the Axial Age.

Humanity, he argued, underwent a profound and simultaneous spiritual, philosophical, and cultural transformation across several civilizations between roughly 800 and 200 BCE.

This period formed the “axis” around which human history turned: thus, the Axial Age.

Prof Jaspers and the inner life

Karl Theodor Jaspers was born on February 23 1883 in Oldenburg, Germany. His father was a banker, and his mother’s family were farmers.

Originally intending to study law, he soon shifted to medicine, completing his medical degree in 1909. His early work in psychiatry was groundbreaking, especially General Psychopathology (1913) which emphasized the subjectivity of mental illness while relegating biological explanations.

This orientation toward understanding the inner life of individuals later informed his philosophy which is often associated with existentialism - but not as full on as contemporaries such as Heidegger and Sartre.

Jaspers emphasized a number of concepts:

Existenz: in which the authentic self emerges through confrontation with life’s limits;

Transcendence: the dimension of meaning beyond empirical reality; and

Communication: the dialogical process by which individuals encounter truth; and

The Encompassing (das Umgreifende) “the totality of being” that cannot be reduced to any single perspective.

Jaspers’ marriage to Gertrud Mayer, a Jewish woman, placed him in danger during the Nazi era. He was dismissed from his university post in 1937 and lived under constant threat of deportation. After the war, he became a moral voice in Germany, urging collective responsibility and democratic renewal. He died on February 26, 1969 in Basel, Switzerland.

Foundational transformations

In The Origin and Goal of History Jaspers proposed that between 800 and 200 BCE several different civilizations underwent distinct and parallel transformations in thought and outlook. These transformations, he said, produced the foundational ideas, religions, and philosophies that still shape humanity.

This was the Achsenzeit (Axial Age) because, he said, it represented the axis around which human history pivoted - from mythological to reflective, ethical, and philosophical modes of understanding.

Jaspers identified four major Axial Age cultural centers and their philosophies, religions and prominent individuals including:

China: Confucius, Laozi, and the Hundred Schools of Thought

India: The Upanishads, the Buddha, and early Hindu traditions

Persia: Zarathushtra and the development of ethical monotheism

Greece: The pre‑Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Greek tragedy

Expanding the argument

The following is summarised by me from Jaspers, The Origin and Goal of History pp 8-34 passim

In the Western World the philosophy of history was founded in the Christian faith, he writes. In a sequence of works ranging from St Augustine to Hegel this faith “visualised the movement of God through history. God’s acts of revelation represent the decisive dividing lines”. Thus Hegel could say:

“All history goes toward and comes from Christ. The appearance of the Son of God is the axis of world history. Our chronology bears daily witness to this Christian structure of history.”

But, writes Jaspers, the Christian faith is only one faith, not the faith of mankind. This view of universal history therefore suffers from the defect that it can only be valid for believing Christians … An axis of world history would have to be discovered empirically, as a fact capable of being accepted as such by all, Christians included:

“It would seem that this axis of history is to be found in the period around 500 BCE in the spiritual process that occurred between 800 and 200 BCE - the most deepcut dividing line in history. Man, as we know him today, came into being. This is the ‘Axial Period’.

The “most extraordinary events” were concentrated in this period.

Confucius and Lao-tse were living in China, and all the schools of Chinese philosophy came into being.

India produced the Upanishads and Buddha and, like China, ran the whole gamut of philosophical possibilities from scepticism to materialism, sophism and nihilism.

In Iran, Zarathustra taught a challenging view of the world as a struggle between good and evil; in Palestine the prophets appeared, from Elijah, by way of Isaiah and Jeremiah to Deutero-Isaiah.

Greece witnessed the appearance of Homer, of philosophers such as Parmenides, Heraclitus and Plato, Thucydides and Archimedes.

Everything implied by these names developed during these few centuries almost simultaneously in China, India, and the West, without any one of these regions knowing of the others. … What is new about this age, in all three areas of the world, is that man becomes conscious of Being as a whole, of himself and his limitations. Man experiences the terror of the world and his own powerlessness. He asks radical questions.

Face to face with the void he strives for liberation and redemption. By consciously recognising his limits he sets himself the highest goals. He experiences “absoluteness in the depths of selfhood and in the lucidity of transcendence”.

Consciousness became once more conscious of itself, thinking became its own object. Spiritual conflicts arose, accompanied by attempts to convince others through the communication of thoughts, reasons and experiences. The most contradictory possibilities were essayed. Discussion, the formation of parties and the division of the spiritual realm into opposites which nonetheless remained related to one another, created unrest and movement to the very brink of spiritual chaos.

The fundamental categories within which we still think today, and the beginnings of the world religions by which human beings still live, were created.

As a result, hitherto unconsciously accepted ideas, customs and conditions were subjected to examination, questioned and liquidated. Everything was swept into the vortex. The Mythical Age, with its tranquility and self-evidence, was at an end.

Myth became the material of a language which expressed something very different from what it had originally signified: it was turned into parable.

Myths were remoulded, were understood at a new depth during this transition, which was myth creating after a new fashion, at the very moment when the myth as a whole was destroyed. The old mythical world slowly sank into oblivion, but remained as a background to the whole through the continued belief of the mass of the people (and was subsequently able to gain the upper hand over wide areas). This overall modification of humanity may be termed spiritualisation.

The first philosophers appeared. Humans dared to rely on themselves as individuals. Hermits and wandering thinkers in China, ascetics in India, philosophers in Greece and prophets in Israel all belong together, however much they may differ from each other in their beliefs, the contents of their thought and their inner dispositions.

Man proved capable of contrasting himself inwardly with the entire universe. He discovered within himself the origin from which to raise himself above his own self and the world.

What was later called reason and personality was revealed for the first time during the Axial Period. Corresponding to this new spiritual world, we find a sociological situation showing analogies in all three regions …

In China the small States and cities had achieved sovereign life under the powerless imperial rulers of the Chou dynasty; the political process consisted of the enlargement of small units through the subjection of other small units.

In Hellas and the Near East small territorial units - even, to some extent, those subjected by Persia- enjoyed an independent existence. In India there were many States and free cities. Reciprocal intercourse set a spiritual movement circulating within each of these three regions.

The Chinese philosophers - Confucius, Mo-ti and others - wandered about the country and met in places of renown favourable to the founding schools which are termed academies by sinologists: the sophists and philosophers of Hellas travelled about in similar fashion and Buddha passed his entire life in wandering from place to place.

Human existence becomes the object of meditation, as history.

History as a whole is seen either as a process of continual decline, or as a circular motion, or as an ascent. Thought is devoted to the manner in which human beings may best live together, may best be governed and administered. Practical activity is dominated by ideas of reform.

Philosophers travel from State to State, become advisers and teachers, are scorned or sought after, enter into discussions and compete with one another. A sociological parallel can be drawn between Confucius’ failure at the court of Wei and Plato’s failure at Syracuse, between the school of Confucius, which trained future statesmen, and the academy of Plato, which served the same purpose.

Mighty empires, made great by conquest, arose almost simultaneously in China (Tsin Shihwang-ti), in India (Maurya dynasty) and in the West (the Hellenistic empires and the Imperium Romanum). Confucianism evolved under the Han dynasty, Buddhism by Asoka, and the age of Augustus consciously established Graeco-Roman cultural education.

The universal empires which came into being at the end of the Axial Period considered themselves founded for eternity. But their stability was only apparent. Even though these empires lasted for a long time by comparison with the State-formations of the Axial Period, in the end they all decayed and fell to pieces.

When Jaspers introduced the Axial Age concept in 1949, it attracted interest from scholars across philosophy, sociology, and religious studies.

It offered a meta-narrative of human development which chimed with post-World War II historical thinking (although such grand narratives soon fell out of fashion with the rise of the Frankfurt School and postmodernism)

Major critics and their objections

But there were critics (note that in this context criticism is derived from the word’s Greek root krinein, suggesting something more akin to analysis).

The sociologist S. N. Eisenstadt accepted the idea of a transformative period but argued Jaspers had oversimplified the diversity of civilizations. Eisenstadt proffered a more nuanced theory of “multiple modernities,” suggesting each Axial civilization developed along its own trajectory.

To the distinguished philosopher of religion John B. Cobb Jr Jaspers’ Axial Age was too Eurocentric and privileged certain traditions over others. For instance, he felt that Jaspers had neglected African and indigenous cultures.

The sociologist Robert Bellah admired Jaspers but questioned his chronological boundaries for the Axial Age. He suggested that the transformations were more gradual and extended beyond Jaspers’ 800–200 BCE window.

Jaspers’s colleague, the cultural sociologist Alfred Weber (brother of Max Weber) in his 1935 book Kulturgeschichte als Kultursoziologie, had referred to a “synchronistic global age” (“synchronistisches Weltzeitalter”) that he attributed to the overlaying of the West by the equestrian peoples of the East.

This bore similarities to Jasper’s Axial Age thesis - and Weber had written this book well before Jaspers:

“Jaspers’s ‘extraordinary insight’ did not, therefore, consist in the insight per se, but in the philosophical interpretation of the phenomenon at issue - which Weber interpreted quite differently.”

For more on this see Jaspers and the Axial Age (Cambridge University Press).

Despite criticisms, the Axial Age remains influential. For example, the sociologist Hans Joas argues that the Axial Age marks the emergence of universal moral ideals while philosopher Charles Taylor sees it as the birth of interiority and moral self‑reflection.

Karen Armstrong, writer on religion, employs the Axial Age to explain the origins of compassion‑based ethics. In her book A History Of God. The 4000-year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam (Ballantine, New York, 1993) Armstrong mentions Axial Age as presumed fact no less than eight times.

Whatever Jaspers intended with his book, it certainly kicked off a lasting debate.

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber

By DAVID MYTON

They had turned up in their thousands to applaud and cheer the little old lady sitting in the fancy carriage being pulled through the crowded streets of London by eight snowy white horses. Soldiers from across the Empire lined the route from Buckingham Palace to St Paul’s Cathedral, snapping to attention as the coach passed by, their Lee Enfield rifles held respectfully at Port Arms in her honor.

This was no ordinary little old lady. It was Queen Victoria. And this warm and sunny Tuesday morning, June 22 1897, marked her Diamond Jubilee to celebrate her 60-years reign since ascending the throne in 1837 aged just 18.

She had reigned longer than any other British monarch.

An outdoor religious service would be held outside St Paul’s with thousands of visiting dignitaries - including 11 prime ministers from across Britain’s empire - looking on.

Not only was Victoria the Queen, she was also Empress of a worldwide realm that included India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Cape Colony (South Africa), Natal, Malaya, Ceylon, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Uganda, and various islands in the Caribbean and Pacific.

Victoria had never visited her Empire. On this day, however, it had to come to her. The Crown had provided the link between “the growing family of nations and races”, wrote Winston Churchill …

“The Queen herself was seized with the greatness of her role. Homage from a stream of colonial dignitaries was received by her in England. She appointed Indian servants to her household, and from them learnt Hindustani … Thus she sought by every means within her power to bind her diverse peoples together in loyalty to the British Crown, and her endeavours chimed with the Imperial spirit of the age,” (Churchill, A History of the English Speaking Peoples, Cassel, London, 1998 [Abridged by Christopher Lee,] p610)

The well-known English author and literary critic Lytton Strachey described the “splendid procession” as it passed on its way to St Paul’s …

“… the greatness of her realm and the adoration of her subjects blazed out together. The tears welled to her eyes while the multitude roared round her: ‘How kind they are to me! How kind they are!’ she repeated over and over again. That night her message flew over the Empire: ‘From my heart I thank my beloved people. May God bless them …’ “ (Strachey, Queen Victoria (1921), Chapter 9 accessed through Standard E-Books.

The service on the steps of St Paul’s passed off without a hitch as Victoria remained seated in her carriage, shaded from the blazing sun. As the formalities concluded, the Archbishop of Canterbury cried ‘Three cheers for the Queen’.

The spectators “roared at the top of their voices, and the people sang along” as a military band played God Save The Queen, the national anthem …

“The return journey to Buckingham Palace was deliberately routed through the poorer sections of the metropolis south of the Thames. It turned out to be the greatest ceremonial occasion in the history of London and in the life of the queen,” (Walter L Arnstein, Queen Victoria, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2003, pp188-189)

Writing in her journal later, the Queen described it as …

“A never-to-be-forgotten day … No one ever, I believe, has met with such an ovation as was given to me, passing through those six miles of streets … The crowd were quite indescribable, and their enthusiasm truly marvelous and deeply touching. The cheering was quite deafening, and every face seemed to be filled with real joy'.” (cited in Arnstein, p189)

In the crowd that day was American author and essayist Mark Twain, who wrote that the world had “moved further ahead since the Queen was born than it had in the previous 2000 years”. Victoria had reigned longer than any British monarch before her. She had seen …

“… more things invented than any other monarch that ever lived … [such as] the railway, steamship, telegraph, telephone, sewing machine, electric light, typewriter, camera, and more … the people were cheering the might of the British name, for 60 years of progress and accumulation, moral, material and political,” (Twain, cited in Julia Baird, Victoria The Queen. An Intimate Biography of the Woman Who Ruled an Empire, Random House, New York, 2016, pp465-466

Victoria had also witnessed the expansion of suffrage, the creation of cheap newspapers, the development of copyright, anesthetics, and modern sanitation. Two hundred crimes previously subject to capital punishment had been removed from the statute books. (ibid)

In the years she was Queen, wrote Twain …

“… Victoria saw woman freed from the oppression of many burdensome and unjust laws, colleges established for her [and] in some regions rights accorded to her which lift her to near political equality with man, and 100 bread-winning occupations found for her where hardly one existed before - among them medicine, the law, and professional nursing”. (cited in Baird, op cit, p466)

But one man sounded a note of restraint amid the jingoistic self-congratulation - the Empire’s first poet, Rudyard Kipling, in the poem Recessional (published in The Times), spoke of a coming time when “the tumult and the shouting dies” …

Far-called, our navies melt away;

On dune and headland sinks the fire:

Lo, all our pomp of yesterday

Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,

Lest we forget - lest we forget! (Cited in Roberts, Salisbury, op cit pp 656-666)

The human cost of that empire had been enormous. For instance, millions of Chinese died in the Opium Wars of 1839-1842, again in 1856-60, and again in the Taiping Rebellion of 1815-64 …

“… Mass deaths of indigenous people in Canada, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands occurred under Victoria’s rule. Native people were trotted before her as spectacle and trophy. Victoria marveled at their strangeness but, like most, did not consider what British occupation of their lands had meant for them. The assumption of many in England was that colonization meant only progress, not subjugation … The spoils of empire sparkled on Victoria’s neck and wrists, hung on her walls, and scented her palace kitchens … It is difficult to imagine that Victoria knew nothing of the ugly, brutal results of the scramble for Africa in the late 19th century …” (Baird pp467-469)

End of an era, another begins

Victoria died on January 22, 1901, aged 81. It was the end of an era. Public mourning of her death was “widespread and almost universal” but it wasn’t long before a counter reaction emerged.

“[The] values of her age, and to some extent her personality - at least its public image - already seemed to the young to be outdated, narrow, philistine, moralistic and prudish,” writes Dorothy Thompson …

“… For nearly half a century the word ‘Victorian’ was to be a term of dismissal, occasionally colored only by a slight nostalgia for its implications of moral certainty. Most articulate people expected the new century to turn away from the old restraints and to bring liberation, expansion, toleration, and a recognition of new possibilities of experience …” (Thompson, Queen Victoria. Gender & Power, Virago, London, 1990)

Victoria’s nearly 64-year reign had coincided with massive political, social, economic, and technological transformation. She left a legacy (good, bad, indifferent) so vast that an entire era bears her name.

(For additional context on Victoria’s reign check out my previous posts - Why the Luddites raged against the machines Exposed: London’s dirty downtrodden underbelly The Christian soldier’s mission in the slums Engels: The man who made Marx a Marxist Tomorrow the world: the rise of Imperialism Scandal and shame in the Fin de Siecle Sorry, but we’re closed: industrial disease )

The little princess ..

Princess Alexandrina Victoria entered this world on May 1819 at Kensington Palace, the only child of Edward, Duke of Kent (1767-1820), and Princess Marie Louise Victoire, Duchess of Kent, (1786-1861) Victoria of Saxe‑Coburg‑Saalfeld.

Her father died when she was an infant, leaving her to be raised in a tightly controlled household dominated by her mother and the manipulative Sir John Conroy (1786-1854) whom Victoria grew to despise. The duchess reared Victoria according to “the Kensington system,” by which she and Conroy systematically isolated Victoria from her contemporaries and her father’s family.

Victoria’s path to the crown was shaped by a dynastic accident. She became heir because the three uncles ahead of her in the line of succession - George IV, Frederick Duke of York, and William IV - had no surviving legitimate children.

Her childhood was lonely, structured, strictly supervised and with limited contact beyond her mother’s circle. Educated at home by governesses, she developed strong skills in drawing, painting, and writing. She kept a diary throughout her life, a habit that shaped her reflective temperament.

Victoria was aged 11 when she learned from a genealogical table inside one of her history books that she was destined to be Queen. After absorbing its message she declared “I will be good” …

“Her mother tried to guarantee that oath in its narrowest sense. Boys older than six were forbidden in Victoria’s presence. From her 13th birthday on, she travelled the country once a year, staying in great country seats and becoming familiar with her realm … At night she slept in her mother’s bedroom” (Adrienne Munich, Queen Victoria’s Secrets, Columbia University Press, New York, 1996, pp13-14)

When King William IV died on June 20, 1837, Victoria awoke to the news she would now be Queen. Her youth, inexperience, and sheltered upbringing raised immediate questions about her readiness. Victoria was the youngest queen Britain had known and it had been 123 years since the last female monarch, Queen Anne. (Baird, p61)

But there is no evidence Victoria believed herself unready or unhappy to take the throne. In her journal she wrote …

“… Since it has pleased Providence to place me in this station, I shall do my utmost to fulfil my duty towards my country. I am very young and perhaps in many, though not in all things, inexperienced, but I am sure that very few have more real good will and more real desire to what is fit and right than I have.” (cited in Munich, op cit, p15)

The following year, on Thursday, 28 June 1838, Victoria was crowned Queen at Westminster Abbey in a spectacular five-hour ceremony.

Thousands lined the streets to watch the procession to and from the Abbey, including huge numbers who flocked to London via the newly built railways.

Many on the radical left, trades unionists, Chartists and general anti-monarchists boycotted the event. But whether they liked it or not, Queen Victoria was there to stay.

“She blended into her age while standing apart from it,” writes Adrienne Munich:

“Her uniqueness enabled those of differing interests and needs to create the Victoria of their particular dreams. To characterize the Queen in one way or another would distort Victoria’s multiple significations. Further, to the extent that Victoria shaped her own image, she could not control many of its cultural meanings. The power of fixing the meanings to one’s own carefully managed self-representations escapes everyone - even a monarch.” (Munich, op cit, pp12-13)

Whatever, her new role involved the reality of working with senior politicians. She established a routine that involved rising at 8am, reading the Bible, writing dispatches until breakfast at 10am, then seeing her government ministers between 11am-1.30pm. (Baird, op cit, p66)

She thrived on her new workload declaring “it is my greatest pleasure to do my duty for my country and my people, and no fatigue, however great, will be burdensome to me if it is for the welfare of the nation” (ibid)

Victoria’s Prime Ministers

Over time Victoria consulted with:

Lord Melbourne (aka William Lamb)

The young Victoria’s first major political relationship was with the Whig Prime Minister. William Lamb, otherwise known as Lord Melbourne.

Melbourne, then aged 58 - a Member of Parliament since 1806 and a peer since 1829 - became her trusted mentor and counsellor, guiding her through constitutional practice and political etiquette in her transition from sheltered princess to constitutional monarch.

To Victoria, Melbourne was a “truly romantic figure”. But he failed (or never much tried) to stimulate her social conscience, championing an ideological position “halfway between despotism and democracy … he deplored absolute rulers but feared the prospect of popular democracy”. (Arnstein, op cit, pp38-39)

“He strongly impressed upon her that any uprisings, protests, or demands for change were driven by a small group of individuals. He kept from her the reality of explosive growth during the Industrial Revolution, which saw an entire group of people thrust into urban poverty as ugly, crowded shanties mushroomed around large towns, given no opportunity for escape and no voice in Parliament,” (Baird, op cit, p91)

Her early reign was not without missteps. The Bedchamber Crisis of 1839 - when she refused to dismiss her Whig ladies‑in‑waiting at the request of the then-incoming Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel - revealed her political inexperience. It also demonstrated her strong will and she developed a more balanced understanding of her constitutional role.

Sir Robert Peel

Initially strained due to the Bedchamber Crisis, but over time Victoria came to respect Peel’s integrity and administrative skill. As Home Secretary, Peel - leader of the Whig Party - had also created the Metropolitan Police in 1829, leading to the nicknames of ‘bobby’ and ‘peeler’ for London’s police officers. Victoria found Peel “awkward and cold” but his political abilities soon impressed her and he won her confidence. (Churchill, op cit, p526)

Lord Palmerston

This was a more turbulent relationship. Palmerston’s assertive foreign policy and habit of acting without royal consultation frustrated her. Yet he remained a dominant political force, an “experienced and versatile statesman with a clear head and a trenchant mind … Time and again Victoria marveled that however difficult a subject might be Lord Palmerston explained it in such a very clear, plain and agreeable manner”. (Arnstein, op cit, p89)

Benjamin Disraeli

Perhaps Victoria’s favorite prime minister. Disraeli flattered her, treated her as a partner in his imperial vision, and supported her elevation to Empress of India in 1876. She admired his charm and imagination … Disraeli “had proved himself a master parliamentarian”, but he was also “clever and sensible and so loyal and anxious to please me in every way …” (Ibid, pp128-9)

William Gladstone

The opposite of Disraeli. Gladstone’s moral earnestness and lecturing manner irritated her. She once complained he addressed her “as though she were a public meeting”. Their relationship was marked by tension, but she respected his abilities … “he repeatedly swallowed his frustrations with the person of the Queen as he continued to exalt an institution that he revered as a symbol of national unity and continuity.” (Arnstein, pp129-130)

Victoria had strong preferences, emotional loyalties, and a keen sense of her own dignity. These relationships revealed a monarch who was far from passive …

“She was a female ruler in a patriarchal society, and she accepted the widespread belief that men and women occupied ‘separate spheres, in society. Yet her very presence as queen ultimately strengthened the modern women’s movement.” (ibid, pp202-203)

Albert and Victoria: a royal love story

On February 10 1840, Victoria married her first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe‑Coburg and Gotha. Their marriage was a genuine love match, and Albert became the central emotional and intellectual force in her life.

Victoria had met Albert in 1836, and wasn’t much impressed. She had told Lord Melbourne that of several princes she had seen (including Albert) “not one would do … at present my feeling was quite against marrying…”

All that changed in October 1839 when Albert visited her at Windsor. He was “beautiful” with “blue eyes, exquisite nose, broad shoulders, fine waist”, was a great conversationalist, loved music, and could dance like a dream. (Arnstein, op cit, p46)

“With Melbourne’s encouragement, she plucked up her courage to reverse traditional gender roles and to propose marriage to Albert. He said ‘Yes’, and they melted into each other’s arms.” (ibid)

Albert was not only handsome, he was also studious, earnest, and reform‑minded. “He seems perfection … I love him MORE than I can say. He seems to have great tact, a very necessary thing in his position”, Victoria wrote. (Baird, op cit, p121).

Gradually he assumed a major advisory role, steering her toward the view that non-partisanship was crucial for a sovereign. Together they cultivated a domestic, moral image - emphasizing family life, duty, and respectability - that resonated with Victorian values. They had nine children: Victoria, Edward, Alice, Alfred, Helena, Louise, Arthur, Leopold, and Beatrice.

Victoria spent around 80 months pregnant in the 1840s-1850s - more than six years in total - and “even longer recovering from childbirth”. (Baird, op cit, p150)

Albert encouraged Victoria’s interest in social reform, science, and the arts, and he played a key role in organizing the Great Exhibition of 1851, a symbol of Britain’s industrial and imperial confidence. The monarchy itself evolved …

“… they ushered in an era when the monarchy would shift from direct power to direct influence, and from being the fruit of the aristocracy to becoming the symbol of the middle-class.” (Baird, p150)

Victoria and Albert set the template for modern monarchy via a new “royal populism”:

“Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, through the impact of a burgeoning print and visual culture, set the model for the serious duties and pleasurable diversions that we have come to expect from a constitutional monarchy … The roles they created were inseparable from the modernity of their lives existing as royal news, disseminated as never before by prints, periodicals and newspapers.” (John Plunkett, ‘Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch’, Oxford University Press, cited in The Victorian Studies Reader (eds Kelly Boyd & Rohan McWilliam), Routledge, Oxon 2007)

On December 14 1861 at 10.50pm the partnership came to an end. Albert died, aged 41, after a long illness (typhoid fever) in the Blue Room at Windsor Castle.

“Albert took three, long, gentle breaths, and then it was over. She cried out in a howl of anguish … ‘Oh! my dear darling!’ She dropped to her knees, numb and distraught … Her family stood, stricken, looking at the woman who ruled millions but had loved only one … The proud queen became a wretched woman who would forever be defined by her loss.” (Baird, pp318-319)

Victoria was devastated. She withdrew from public life for years, wearing black mourning dress for the rest of her life. As time passed she displayed “extreme affection for some relatively lowly employees” such as Abdul Karim and John Brown - this latter probably the most controversial.

Victoria’ reign reshaped the monarchy, aligning it with middle‑class values and imperial pride.

“The fact that she was a woman helped to strengthen and stabilise the monarchy … she also kept a feminine presence in British public life in an age in which masculine dominion was in most areas strengthened …there must have been many ways in which the presence of a woman at the head of the state worked at a deeper level to weaken prejudice and make change more possible in the century following her reign,” (Dorothy Thompson, Queen Victoria. Gender & Power, Virago Press, London, 1990, p145)

By DAVID MYTON

Dear Subscribers - This is my regular Rambling On history post - not the usual referenced, research-essay style. Feel free to chip in with (preferably polite, informative) comments and/or examples.

I have my Dad to thank for my love of libraries. Way back when I was a little kid, aged seven or so, living in North Yorkshire, UK, my old man had a bright idea - he would couple his love for beer with my passion for reading. It worked like this. Once a fortnight he would walk a mile or so with me to the main road which, as luck would have it, was home to a pub which was just a few doors down from a small public library. He would park me in the library while he repaired to the pub. He’d have a couple of pints while I selected book to borrow. Then we’d walk home.

It worked a treat. My Dad liked a drink (but I never saw him drunk) and chatting with his old army buddies. I was right at home browsing the shelves. I wasn’t any kind of genius, I just liked kids’ books - eg, Biggles, The Famous Five, The Secret Seven, Billy Bunter, Tom Brown’s Schooldays, Oliver Twist, and, a little later, absolutely anything and everything about World War Two.

I’ve spent a lot of time in libraries since. One of my favorites is the State Library of New South Wales, Sydney, whose books were invaluable for my academic research back in the day. My go-to spot now is Macquarie University Library (at my old alma mater) whose books are invaluable for my Substack stuff.

Anyway, libraries are great, right? But how, when and why did they come into being?

For your delectation I have compiled a history of libraries cobbled together from a bunch of online sources which are listed at the end.

Taxes, trade and religion

The earliest libraries emerged in ancient Mesopotamia sometime in the late third to early second millennium BCE, usually attached to temples or palaces in cities such as Nippur and Nineveh.

Generally they were archives for clay tablets in cuneiform, created by priestly and administrative elites to store records for taxes, trade, legal codes, religious texts, omens, and royal inscriptions and so on.

The famous Library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh (7th century BCE) was assembled under Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, who ordered scribes to copy and collect texts from across his empire.

The earliest libraries stored state and temple records such as economic accounts, contracts, inventories as well as religious and scholarly texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, omens, plus medical and astronomical writings.

They were not for “public” education but served elites - rulers, priests, and scribes - enabling them to consult government records, rituals, and ancient scrolls.

Something old, something new

The Library of Alexandria (3rd century BCE), established under the Ptolemies in Egypt, aimed at something new: a universal collection of all Greek knowledge (and beyond). Books were variously bought, confiscated or copied from visiting ships’ scrolls.

Other major libraries followed, such as that in Pergamum, Asia Minor; and royal and aristocratic libraries in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. These collections were still for the elites, but with broader motives - including prestige, scholarship, and cultural power - not just administration.

China, India, and the Islamic world

Parallel traditions developed elsewhere in China, India, and the Islamic world. For instance, imperial and scholarly libraries sprang up in China, attached to courts and academies, and designed to preserve classics and state records. Meanwhile, monastic and temple libraries in India were preserving religious and philosophical texts.

Islamic libraries (bayt al‑hikma, madrasah libraries) from the 8th century onward collected Greek, Persian, and Indian works, translated them into Arabic, and became drivers of science, philosophy, and law. Again, access was limited to scholars, clerics, and officials - but the intellectual ambition was wide.

Monastic libraries in Europe: After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, monasteries became key sites of book preservation. Monks copied classical and Christian texts, building collections that were often small but culturally significant. These libraries were primarily for the religious community, not the laity.

University libraries: Between the 12th–13th centuries, universities in places including Paris, Bologna and Oxford, created libraries to support teaching in theology, law, medicine, and the arts.

Access was still restricted to scholars, but the notion of a corporate, institutional library serving a community of learners was now firmly in place.

The printing press and private collections: As books became cheaper and more numerous, princes, nobles, wealthy merchants and scholars built large, private libraries. Some of these developed into national or public libraries.

The motive mix included notions such as prestige and status; Humanist ideals of learning and personal improvement; and the practical needs of administration and law.

The rise of public libraries

The truly public library - with free or low-cost access for ordinary citizens - is largely a 19th‑century phenomenon, especially in Europe, North America, and later in the British Empire.

Key drivers included industrialization and urbanization, with people in crowded cities needing both educational and recreational resources. Mass literacy movements spurred educational reforms and created new readers.

Libraries chimed with new civic and philanthropic ideals, being seen as tools of moral improvement, social order, and democracy.

In Britain, the Public Libraries Act of 1850 allowed towns to fund libraries through local taxation. In the United States, Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropy funded more than 2,500 libraries worldwide, often on the condition that communities would commit to maintaining them

Moral, practical, or both?

Public libraries were never purely moral or purely practical - they were a mix of both.

In the moral-civic realm, it was thought they would uplift the working classes by providing “improving” reading and so counteract the lure of taverns and vice.

In the practical-economic sphere it was understood they would create a more literate workforce, support self-education, and integrate immigrants.

Politically, it was hoped they would create informed citizens who would be steered towards “respectable” ideas. Governments, churches, and elites often saw libraries as tools for shaping society.

Were libraries always public?

In antiquity and the Middle Ages, libraries were almost never open to the general public. Instead, they served the needs of rulers and officials (state archives); priests and monks (religious libraries); and scholars and students (university libraries).

The idea that anyone could walk in and borrow a book is modern. Even early “public” libraries were often subscription-based (you paid a fee) and were reading-rooms only (no lending).

Free, tax-supported lending libraries open to all are mostly a 19th–20th‑century development, spreading across Europe, North America, Australasia, and later much of the world.

Famous quotations about libraries

Cicero: “If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.”

Jorge Luis Borges: “I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library.”

Albert Einstein: “The only thing that you absolutely have to know, is the location of the library.”

Neil Gaiman: “Google can bring you back 100,000 answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.”

Are new libraries still being built?

Yes, they are. Many countries continue to invest in striking new national, university, and city libraries, often as architectural statements and community hubs. Contemporary libraries host not only books but makerspaces, language classes, exhibitions, and social services.

Meanwhile, digital libraries emerged in the late 20th century, driven by computing, storage, and the internet. Key milestones here include:

Project Gutenberg (1971): Michael S. Hart’s initiative to digitize public-domain texts and make them freely available - often called the first digital library and a seed of the e‑book revolution.

Online databases and institutional repositories with universities digitizing theses, journals, and special collections.

Large-scale digitization projects such as national digital libraries and mass-scanning partnerships.

Motives for all this echo the old story - democratize access, preserve fragile originals, and extend a library’s reach beyond its walls.

Criticisms and censorship

Libraries have been criticized from multiple angles. These include …

Moral panics: fears about “dangerous” novels, radical politics, and/or obscene materials.

Economic critiques: claims that libraries are expensive, underused, or redundant in the age of the internet.

Ideological disputes: arguments over which books to stock, how to classify them, and whose voices are represented.

Government interference and shutdowns

Governments and authorities over time and in various places have:

Censored collections: banning or removing books, especially under authoritarian regimes or during wartime.

Closed or defunded libraries: often as part of austerity measures or cultural repression.

Destroyed libraries: from the various destructions associated with the Library of Alexandria to the burning of libraries in conflicts and purges across centuries.

Libraries are not just quiet havens - they are also battlegrounds over memory, identity, and power.

Sources

History of libraries - Wikipedia

A Brief History Of Libraries - Oxford Open Learning

The History of Libraries: From Ancient Archives to Modern Knowledge Centers - PublishingState.com

A Brief History of Libraries - Britannica

From clay tablets to the digital age: History of public libraries - ABC News

Historical Evolution of Digital Libraries – Wikipedia

Background, History and Philosophy - Project Gutenberg

Digital libraries and their impact on modern library science (PDF) - Aakash Vasant Shekade

By DAVID MYTON

It is a challenge to contain the life of Otto Bismarck within a relatively short essay. Actually, it’s difficult to contain him anywhere at all. The German Chancellor is the subject of more than 7000 biographies, including numerous academic and scholarly works. He also features prominently in many political histories of 19th century Europe. Bismarck has also made it into fiction: starring, for example, in George Macdonald Fraser’s comedic novel Royal Flash (1970) and also the movie of the same name in which he is played by Oliver Reed.

At least six generations of students have studied his life …

… “one can fairly say that almost every second German generation has encountered another version of Bismarck. No other German historical figure has been as used and abused for political purposes,” writes Karina Urbach ‘Between Saviour and Villain: 100 Years of Bismarck Biographies’, The Historical Journal, 41, 4 (1998), pp 1141-1160

Bismarck was a political genius and an astute strategist with an uncanny ability to decode the arcana of European diplomacy to advance the cause of his native Prussia. His great achievement - in 1871 - was to mastermind the unification of Germany, hitherto a patchwork of diverse states.

He was its first chancellor - the Eiserner Kanzler (Iron Chancellor) - a strong-willed, dogmatic pragmatist who scorned Liberalism and embraced power until he reluctantly resigned in 1890.

In creating a unified German state “he carried out a revolution from above comparable in historical importance to the French Revolution”. (Edgar Feuchtwanger, Bismarck, Routledge, London, 2002, p1)

For Bismarck, politics was not a science with quantifiable or even hidden rules; it was “the art of the possible” focused on “the retention and extension of power … based on a hard-headed appreciation of one’s own country’s interests”. (Bruce Waller, Bismarck, Blackwell, Oxford, 1985, p16)

The great questions of the age would not be decided through speeches and majority decision, said Bismarck: it would be “through iron and blood”. (George O Kent, Bismarck And His Times, Southern Illinois University Press, 1978, p41).

This phrase was soon misquoted as “blood and iron”.

Says Kent: “Contrary to many interpretations, this statement simply recognised existing political realities - it said nothing about Bismarck’s plans for the unification of Germany.” (ibid)

Professor W N Medlicott writes that Bismarck was a passionate and dogmatic man who spoke often about his duty and commitment to Prussia and the Lutheran Church. However …

… “apart from these fundamentals he was consciously a Machiavellian statesman, coolly analysing alternative courses, suiting his actions to the needs of policy, putting success before consistency”. (Medlicott, Bismarck and Modern Germany, English University Press, London, 1965, p17)

Behold the junior Junker

Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck came into this world on April 1, 1815, at Schönhausen, a family estate in Saxony, Prussia, 60 miles west of Berlin. He was born into the privileged and deeply conservative Junker class - landed aristocrats steeped in military tradition who professed deep loyalty to the Prussian monarchy.

These ancestors had served the Hohenzollern rulers of Brandenburg-Prussia “with unfailing loyalty and unswerving mediocrity since the 16th century”. (Medlicott, op cit, p1)

Otto’s father, Karl Wilhelm Ferdinand von Bismarck, was a former army officer turned estate manager, a Junker squire whose family had been landowners in the Brandenburg mark since the time of Charlemagne. His mother, Wilhelmine Luise Mencken, came from a non-Prussian family of academics. Well-educated and pedigreed, she nursed big ambitions for little Otto, directing his schooling and selecting for him suitably upper-crust friends.

Bismarck enjoyed life on the Junker rural estates but his mother ensured he also spent time in cosmopolitan Berlin. She secured a place for him there at the Plamann Institute, a strict school emphasizing morals, discipline and patriotism …

“Children were taught a higher regard for what has moral or religious worth than for the most brilliant intellectual achievements.” (Plamann, Wikipedia)

This duality - Junker conservatism and urban sophistication - significantly shaped a sharp, analytical mind capable of navigating the complexities of modern politics.

Otto landed a place at to study law at the University of Göttingen, where he gained a reputation for “hard-drinking, hard-fighting and whoring …

“… Tall and physically imposing, averse to discipline and conformity, contemptuous of bureaucracy, he dressed extravagantly, went around with a large dog, and fought 25 duels”. (Edgar Feuchtwanger, Bismarck, Routledge, London, 2002, p17).

Nevertheless, he excelled in languages, history, and political theory. Then in 1835, Bismarck passed the exams to become a civil servant (Auskultator) and found work as a bureaucrat in Aachen (where, bored, he indulged in gambling and drinking).

He traveled to England, read widely (including Shakespeare), learned how to speak English and French, and “made useful and interesting friends”…

“… The wildness was not necessarily typical of the youth of the times. There were tensions and contradictions in his character which were personal to himself … The difficulty of making much headway in anything that he undertook in his earlier years did not lessen his arrogant confidence in his own will-power and genius, and when he entered politics these in turn were not diminished by his contemplation of the unprofitable moderation and inelastic conservatism of the Prussian politicians of the day.” (W.N. Medlicott, Bismarck and Modern Germany, English Universities Press, London, 1965, pp2-3)

Following the death of his father in November 1845, Bismarck quit the Prussian civil service and returned home to Schoenhausen to help to manage the family estates. Back on the land, he threw himself into the work and became a staunch conservative and lifetime defender of aristocratic privilege. He had grown …

“… into a large and splendid but decidedly dissatisfied young man restless like many others amid the stagnant politics of post-Napoleonic Germany.” (Medlicott, p1)

Hello God, it’s me, Bismarck

And then things changed. On July 28, 1847 he married a noblewoman, Johanna von Puttkamer, a deeply religious and supportive woman who provided him with emotional stability and a grounded domestic life.

Under Johanna’s influence and persuasion, Bismarck found God, and became with some eagerness a Lutheran pietist. They had three children: Marie (1847–1926); Herbert, (1849–1904), a diplomat and politician; and Wilhelm, (1852–1901), a bureaucrat. Johanna remained a trusted advisor and partner until her death in 1894.

“Historians cannot agree as to the extent of the changes wrought by Bismarck’s conversion. It did not make him into what we may call a Christian statesman, but it did give his character sufficient direction and integration to play an effective role in public life. His career began immediately, and his rise was meteoric.” (Bruce Waller, Bismarck 2nd ed, Blackwell, Oxford, 1985, p11)

For Bismarck, it was time to focus on what he wanted to do with the rest of his life. He determined to be a politician.

His career began in earnest when in 1847, at the age of 32, the electors of Magdeburg voted for him to represent them in the Prussian United Diet, an assembly convened by King Frederick William IV in April that year.

Bismarck’s fiery speeches defending monarchical authority and attacking liberal reformers made him a polarizing figure - but he had everyone’s attention …

“He had something which nobody of his social set and generation could offer - an astonishingly powerful personality and a magnetism which must have attracted them. This self and the gigantic frame in which it rested was his only claim on them. He had no experience, no credentials, and no obvious qualifications, but he was Bismarck. That turned out to be enough.” (Jonathan Steinberg, Bismarck. A Life, Oxford University Press, 2011, p70)

Springtime for Otto and Germany

In 1848 a series of revolutions - often referred to as the springtime of the peoples - erupted across Europe engulfing a majority of countries. The “Old Europe” of principalities and empires was rocked by the revolutionary fervor of a “young Europe” outraged by economic hardship and social inequality.

The people wanted reform, and soon. It was clear that changes had to be made to pacify the mobs.

Bismarck, however, wasn’t having any of this: he opposed any concessions to liberalism and nationalism. Prussia, he insisted, must remain strong, authoritarian, and loyal to its king. He delivered fiery speeches defending monarchical authority while attacking liberal reformers.

Bismarck had truly arrived on the Prussian political stage, which he was never to leave until his death in July 1898.

However, in December 1848 the ‘Basic Rights for the German People’, passed by the Frankfurt parliament, announced equal rights for all citizens; these included freedom of the press, assembly, association, research/teaching, and religious conscience, alongside equality before the law, and abolition of the death penalty (except in certain cases).

Germany was to be a constitutional monarchy, and the office of head of state (‘Emperor of the Germans’) would be hereditary and held by the respective King of Prussia.

The constitution was recognized by 29 smaller states but not by Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover and Saxony. (For more details see German Revolutions 1848-1849).

For Bismarck, his loyalty to the monarchy earned him the trust of King Frederick William IV, who showed his appreciation by appointing him to diplomatic posts in Frankfurt, St Petersburg, and Paris.

Bismarck learned the intricacies of European diplomacy, observed the weaknesses of Austria (Prussia’s main rival for dominance in Germany), and refined his belief that German unification must occur under Prussian - not Austrian - leadership.

But by September 1862, Prussia was in crisis. A bitter conflict between the king and the liberal-dominated parliament over military reforms threatened governmental paralysis. King Wilhelm I, frustrated and contemplating abdication, turned to Bismarck as a last resort, offering him the role of Minister-President of Prussia.

A few days later, Bismarck appeared before the House’s Budget Committee and stressed the need for military preparedness to solve the German Question. He concluded his speech with the following statement:

The position of Prussia in Germany will not be determined by its liberalism but by its power [...] Prussia must concentrate its strength and hold it for the favourable moment, which has already come and gone several times. Since the treaties of Vienna, our frontiers have been ill-designed for a healthy body politic. Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided—that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849—but by iron and blood (Eisen und Blut).

He bypassed parliament, collected taxes without approval, and pushed through military reforms. His actions were constitutionally dubious, but effective. Prussia emerged with a modernized army capable of reshaping Europe.

The Duchies in their clutches

Bismarck’s strategy for unification unfolded through three calculated wars, each designed to isolate Austria and rally German states behind Prussia:

The Danish War (1864) Otherwise known as the Second Schleswig War, Bismarck allied with Austria to seize the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark with the goal of merging them into Prussia. The victory boosted Prussian prestige but set the conditions for conflict with Austria over who would administer the territories.

However, writes Medlicott, Bismarck was…

“… developing an arrogant pride in his skill in manipulating political forces … he was quite ready to use war as an instrument of policy if necessary and convenient … but he was clever and very cautious in keeping alternative courses open … It was a case of getting the right war at the right time”. (Medlicott, op cit, pp43-44 passim)

The Austro-Prussian War (1866) - This resulted in a shift in power among the German states away from Austrian and towards Prussian hegemony. The new North German Confederation excluded Austria, thus weakening its influence.

Through adroit diplomatic maneuvering, Bismarck ensured Austria stood alone without allies. Prussia’s swift victory at the battle of Königgrätz shattered Austrian influence in Germany.

However, Bismarck showed restraint by not annexing Austrian territory, instead creating the North German Confederation under Prussian leadership.

The Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) -

Bismarck manipulated diplomatic tensions with France, famously editing the Ems Dispatch to provoke French outrage and inciting the Second French Empire to declare war on Prussia on July 19 1870 - which ended with France’s defeat.

In 1870 Bismarck had annexed the province of Alsace-Lorraine to “protect the south of Germany against French incursions” in response to nationalist clamor in Germany for annexation “such that it would have been useless, even for Bismarck, to resist it”. (Feuchtwanger, Bismarck op cit pp172-173)

The German victory led to the proclamation of the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles, France, in January 1871. King Wilhelm I became German Emperor, and Bismarck became the first Imperial Chancellor.

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said after the 1870-1 war that “public opinion practically forbids mentioning the evil consequences of war, especially of a victorious war ... A great victory is a great danger. It is more difficult for human nature to bear than a defeat”.

Achievements as Chancellor

Bismarck was formally appointed the first Chancellor (head of Government) of the German Empire on March 21, 1871, following the unification of Germany. He served until 1890, wielding immense power as the “Iron Chancellor" under Emperor Wilhelm I, shaping the nation’s political structure and its relations with other countries.

Domestic Policies

Kulturkampf (“culture struggle”): This was a battle against the Roman Catholic Church’s political influence within the new German state. Though ultimately moderated, it demonstrated Bismarck’s willingness to use state power aggressively against perceived opponents. For example, a controversy erupted over the Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility which the government considered unwarranted interference in its domain …

“To the liberals, the Kulturkampf signified a struggle between modernity and medievalism … Just as the Holy See defended the powers of the Church against the encroachments of the state and modern science, the government and the liberals meant to extend the knowledge of science for the improvement of mankind, the recent discoveries of Darwin being a special case in point.” (George O. Kent, Bismarck And His Times, Southern Illinois University Press, 1978, pp 84-85)

Social Welfare Legislation: Bismarck pioneered modern welfare programs -such as health and accident insurance and old-age pensions - in a pragmatic bid to undercut the appeal of Socialism …

“The system of social security that Bismarck built in the 1880s, including accident, medical, invalid, and old-age insurance and limited factory inspection, was the first of its kind in Europe … [but] he would not accept suggestions which tended to damage employers economically or to turn social reform into an end in itself and to elevate it above the preservation of the existing structure of society and power.” (W.M. Simon, Germany In The Age Of Bismarck, Allen and Unwin, London, 1968, p71)

Anti-Socialist Laws: While offering welfare reforms, he simultaneously repressed socialist organizations, newspapers, and meetings …

“The depth of Bismarck’s hatred of Socialism is rarely stressed as it should be. There was a strain of insanity running through it. Sometimes it has been presented as an artificial mood especially engendered to rally the Conservatives. But in fact it was elemental … The anti-Socialist law of September 1878 was only the beginning of a campaign to eradicate Socialism from the German consciousness.” (Edward Crankshaw, Bismarck, Macmillan London, 1981 pp359-360)

Foreign Policy

Bismarck built a complex system of alliances, including the Dreikaiserbund - League of the Three Emperors - (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy). Bismarck aimed to maintain conservative monarchical stability, isolate France, and manage rivalries between Austria and Russia in the Balkans. His goal was always the same: to prevent a two-front war and maintain Germany’s dominant but non-threatening position.

Pragmatic political outlook and method

Bismarck was a conservative realist who distrusted ideology, preferring pragmatic solutions for political problems. His political method combined:

Realpolitik - Politics based on practical objectives and not on ideology.

Incrementalism: Methodically managing problems/issues step by step and generally spurning maximalist goals.

Authoritarianism: He believed in strong monarchical authority with parliaments restrained by limited powers …

“The essentials of the political system of imperial Germany were shaped by him and designed to suit the retention of power by him. The custom and practice of operating this system were established in the 20 years Bismarck remained in office after 1870. His was a charismatic rule, preserved through manipulation of opinion, instrumentalization of political and societal forces for his own ends.” (Feuchtwanger, op cit, pp11-12)

The good, the bad, and the ugly

It is generally agreed Bismarck was the chief architect of German unity - his military and diplomatic strategies achieved what generations of nationalists could only dream about. In diplomacy, his methodically structured alliance system kept Europe at peace for nearly two decades.

And in the area of social reform “his sickness, accident and old-age insurance laws were a progressive and pioneering series of measures and became the model for similar laws in many other countries”, (Kent, op cit, p 94)

However, Bismarck tended towards authoritarianism, centralising power in his own person and was not shy about undermining parliamentary democratic decision making when it suited him to do so.

Similarly, he would target minorities and people he saw as his opponents with Catholics, Poles, and Socialists facing discrimination or suppression. Further, his reliance on selective wars to achieve political goals set an unhappy militaristic precedent.

He was the brilliant architect of German unity, but his methods sometimes sowed the seeds of instability …

“Bismarck’s frequent appearance in uniform was a pose. He gained respect through association with the victorious army and the soldiers, too, won distinction from him. The man of ‘blood and iron’ was prominent, the diplomat was not … He made opposition look like treason. The lesson conveyed was that firmness of purpose and toughness in action succeed. But that these things were, and should be, controlled by a sense of realism was not so apparent and was less appreciated.”(Waller, Bismarck, p111)

Bismarck’s fall from power came in 1890, after nearly three decades at the top. The proximate cause was his deteriorating relationship with the new emperor, Wilhelm II, who ascended the throne in 1888. Wilhelm admired Bismarck but resented his dominance and sought to assert his own authority.

They clashed over both domestic and foreign policy but the clincher was control of the Cabinet - Bismarck demanded ministerial independence from the emperor; Wilhelm said no and in March 1890 he demanded Bismarck’s resignation.

The old chancellor, exhausted and increasingly out of step with the new political climate, stepped down. He spent his remaining years writing his memoirs.

Bismarck remains one of history’s most studied statesmen. He forged a nation but struggled to shape its long-term political culture. He died on the night of July 30 1898.

The renowned German sociologist Max Weber said this of Bismarck:

“He left a nation totally without political education … totally bereft of political will, accustomed to expect that the great man at the top would provide their politics for them … they had grown accustomed to submit patiently and fatalistically to whatever was decided for it in the name of monarchical government.” (Weber cited in Steinberg, op cit, p479)

REFERENCES

Rene Albrecht-Carrie, A Diplomatic History of Europe Since the Congress of Vienna, Methuen & Co, London, 1958

Edward Crankshaw, Bismarck, Macmillan London, 1981

Edgar Feuchtwanger, Bismarck, Routledge, London, 2002George O. Kent, Bismarck And His Times, Southern Illinois University Press, 1978

George O Kent, Bismarck And His Times, Southern Illinois University Press, 1978

W.N. Medlicott, Bismarck and Modern Germany, English Universities Press, London, 1965

Otto Pflanze, Bismarck And The Development Of Germany - The Period Of Unification, 1815-1871, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1961

Agatha Ramm, Europe In The 19th Century 1789-1905, Longman, London, 1984

W.M. Simon, Germany In The Age Of Bismarck, Allen and Unwin, London, 1968

Jonathan Steinberg, Bismarck. A Life, Oxford University Press, 2011

Karina Urbach ‘Between Saviour and Villain: 100 Years of Bismarck Biographies’, The Historical Journal, 41, 4, 1998

Bruce Waller, Bismarck 2nd ed, Blackwell, Oxford, 1985

By DAVID MYTON

Dear Subscribers - This is my regular Rambling On history post - not the usual referenced, research-essay style. Feel free to chip in with (preferably polite, informative) comments and/or examples.

Hands up anyone out there who owns a television. And one more time, hands up those of you who watch it. By which I mean watching actual television programs broadcast by an actual television channel - NOT streaming movies or playing games or any other modern-day fancy-pants techno-novelty stuff.

I ask because the other day I bought a newspaper - like, one made of paper with pages and ink and type and headlines and photos and what not - and I was mildly surprised to find on the page badged TELEVISION the details and times of programs on 23 different channels. For Sydney, Australia. Not the entire country.

Then I bought Sunday edition of the paper which had seven full pages devoted to what’s on TV for the coming week. All kinds of things - lame newish movies, old movies, sport, news and current affairs, endless stuff about cooking and food, crime dramas, “reality” shows for singers and dancers and chancers, plus kids things (including Gardening Australia Junior), etc.

People are still watching Telly (as we English call it) … who knew? And I thought TV was dead. It appears not.

Mind, when I looked in detail at what’s being broadcast, a song popped unbeckoned in my head - 57 Channels (And Nothin On) by The Boss, Bruce Springsteen (which he recorded way back in June 1992 for his album Human Touch). It may not be relevant any more, I don’t know. I’m not being judgmental here - if telly is your thing, go for it.

Now I confess that I bought a new TV in November, but with one purpose in mind - to watch the cricket, specifically Australia v England, across five Test Matches played between 21 November 2025 and 8 January 2026.

What can I say, I’m nuts about cricket and while I live in Australia I support (to my chagrin because they got hammered) England.

Anyway, the TV it replaced had been broken for the past several years and I haven’t watched the new one since the cricket ended. That doesn’t mean I haven’t watched anything - I’m as addicted to YouTube as anyone.

But the whole television thing got me thinking about TV and the role it played in my life (and others like me) way back in the day. Funnily enough, when I recall those times of the late 1950s-1960s) it comes back to me in black and white.

Working-class zeros

I grew up in a working-class area of North Yorkshire, UK; we lived in what was known as a council house (aka social housing), we were poor (not Charles Dickens squalid poor) but had enough to get by from day to day.

Eventually we got a TV - it was a rental, and you paid for it by putting money in a slot mounted on the back - five shillings for 10 hours or something like that. It came out of my dad’s beer money … he was grudgingly prepared to make the sacrifice.

I can see myself sitting cross-legged on the floor, mouth gaping open, awe-struck, watching stuff like Torchy The Battery Boy, Supercar, Sooty and Sweep, Bill and Ben the Flower Pot Men … you could even see the strings on the puppets being pulled from above; it was all lame but simultaneously awesome.

And then the gates of Heaven swung open: shows from America began to appear - Popeye the Sailor Man, Yogi Bear, Huckleberry Hound, Leave it to Beaver, Mr Ed (the talking horse), The Lone Ranger and Tonto, The Beverley Hill Billies et al.

It was brilliant.

The Americans were so cool, I wanted to be one when I grew up … until Monday November 4 1963, that is, when The Beatles performed at the Royal Variety Performance at the Prince of Wales Theatre in London, in the presence of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, no less.

Me and my mother watched it on the TV. Both of us were gobsmacked - me because I thought they were awesome; my Mother because they were cheeky in front of all those posh toffs.

I was transfixed - John, Paul, George and Ringo were unmistakably working class lads, with broad Scouse accents, cheeky sense of humor, and oodles of talent. It was now ok to be working class. Suddenly we were cool. There might even be room at the top for us!

Anyway, this Ramble is getting out of hand. What’s been your experience of TV? Love it, hate it, don’t care? To help you locate yourself I’ve cobbled together a briefish history of TV in America and the UK, with help from Wikipedia and other online resources (see references at the end).

In the beginning …

Television was kind of a corporate invention; lots of people were involved in its creation beginning in the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries when some bright sparks in Europe and the US attempted to turn moving images into electrical signals and back again.

For example, the German electrical engineer Paul Nipkow in 1884 invented a disc for the “electric reproduction of illuminating objects”, so “laying the goundwork for first-generation television technology”.

On 26 January 1926 the Scottish inventor John Logie Baird, employing “a mechanical system that produced ghostly, low-resolution images”, revealed his prototype TV in a public demonstration to the Royal Institution in London.

Meanwhile, in the US during the late 1920s, Philo T. Farnsworth and Vladimir Zworykin helped to develop fully electronic television by “replacing spinning discs with electronic scanning and display functions”.

By the late 1930s, the vital components of modern TV - camera, transmitter, receiver, cathode-ray screen - were up and running.

The message is the medium

At London’s Alexandra Palace on November 2 1936, the BBC began a regular “high-definition” television service which included studio dramas, variety shows, news, and live outside broadcasts beamed to just a few thousand sets in and around London,.

In the US in 1939, NBC launched its regular schedule from New York World’s Fair. Early American programs included sports, variety shows, and news adapted from radio bulletins. For the Americans, commercial sponsorship was integral to their business model in contrast with the BBC’s licence-fee only system.

World War II put a halt to TV development in both countries but after war’s end in 1945 it quickly became a mass medium.

Every home should have one

In the UK, television ownership surged from about three million privately owned sets in 1953 to one in almost every home within a decade. It had become the primary domestic source of entertainment and news.

The coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 was pivotal: families bought their own TVs or packed into neighbours’ living rooms to watch. Television had taken off, nationwide.

In the US, TV watching boomed on the back of postwar prosperity, suburbanisation, and a highly adaptive advertising industry. By the mid‑1950s, most households owned at least one set. The big networks - NBC, CBS, ABC - were ubiquitous.

Viewing soon settled into a pattern: prime-time family viewing in the evening, daytime programs aimed at women and, increasingly, their children.

The arrival of colour in the 1960s, remote controls and video recorders in the 1970s, gradually loosened the rigid “appointment viewing” model. However, the nation watched the same few channels at the same time.

I Love Lucy meets Twilight Zone

TV developed apace across this era :

1950s–60s: In the US, staged dramas and live plays gave way to filmed series such as I Love Lucy, Gunsmoke, and later The Andy Griffith Show and The Twilight Zone.

In the UK, the BBC and commercial ITV (from 1955) offered drama, light entertainment, and news; much-loved shows such as Dixon of Dock Green, Coronation Street (1960–), and Doctor Who (1963–) drew large audiences.

1970s: American TV featured “socially aware” sitcoms and dramas such as All in the Family, MASH*, Dallas, and Roots.

British TV produced comedies such as Fawlty Towers and The Likely Lads, as well as quality series such as The Forsyte Saga and I, Claudius (one of my personal favorites; I rewatched it recently via YouTube)

1980s: The US saw the rise of glossy soaps such as Dynasty and Dallas, Saturday‑night comedy-entertainment shows, and new cable channels such as HBO and MTV. In the UK, Channel 4 (1982) turned out high-brow niche stuff for the brainiacs (a minority).

Television had become the default adult leisure activity.

Kiddies’ corner …

In the UK, the BBC’s Children’s Hour on radio migrated into early TV, and by the 1950s there were dedicated children’s slots in the late afternoon featuring programs such as Muffin the Mule, Blue Peter (from 1958), and later Grange Hill - all a blend of entertainment and education.

In the US, children’s programing flourished from the 1950s, much of it with an educational bent such as Sesame Street (1969–) which aimed to teach literacy, numeracy, and social skills to preschoolers, especially in disadvantaged communities. Early studies found that television could have positive learning and social benefits.

At the same time, psychologists and sociologists studied television’s broader impact. Educators and child‑development experts were divided: educational series and documentaries were praised as democratizing knowledge. However, there were concerns about attention spans, reduced reading, and stereotyped gender and racial roles.

Linear broadcast television peaked between the 1970s-early 1990s. A small number of channels commanded enormous audiences; major events - the moon landing, royal weddings, presidential debates, finales of shows like MASH* - were watched live by millions, creating a sense of shared national time.

But from the early 1990s the internet transformed viewing habits to an on‑demand, networked service.

Nevertheless, television survives.

SOURCES

History of Television - Wikipedia

The History of Television (or, How Did This Get So Big?) - Cornell University

History of British television: Timeline, 1926–2017 - National Science and Media Museum blog

Television – Museum Of Communication

The First TV: A Complete History of Television

By DAVID MYTON

Rene Descartes was a seminal figure in the era we now know as the Age of Enlightenment, a deeply perceptive thinker whose insistence on reason, clarity, logic and method helped to shape the era’s intellectual landscape.

Descartes (1596–1650) stimulated new ways of thinking and of examining concepts of knowledge and truth in an era of tumult and change. An ardent Rationalist, he maintained that reasoning should begin with the author doubting all existing knowledge, in order to approach their subject as a neutral observer free of preconceived ideas:

“I resolved never to accept anything as true if I had not evident knowledge of its being so,” he said. (cited in Michael Stanford, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998, p6)

Perhaps his most famous work, the Discourse on the Method (1637) outlines his modus for acquiring certainty of knowledge: systematic doubt, clear and distinct ideas, and the primacy of reason. It contains perhaps philosophy’s most well-known statement cogito ergo sum — “I think, therefore I am” …

“… when I considered that the very same thoughts which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams … whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search.”

- (R Descartes, Discourse On The Method Of Rightly Conducting The Reason, And Seeking The Truth In The Sciences, Part IV, Project Gutenberg eBook, trans John Veitch, June 28, 1995 - pdf)

The basis of the Cartesian method, a generalisation of the procedure followed by mathematicians, is “the principle that we should begin always with the simplest and most evident truths and proceed to more complex ones in an orderly manner, through a series of evident steps (op cit, Rule V - quoted in Margaret D Wilson (ed) The Essential Descartes, Meridian, New York, 1969, p. ix)

“Productive scientific employment of the reason” requires the observance of principles that will guide and control the mind, free it from natural illusions and educated prejudices, and teach it its own limitations, writes Descartes, adding it is important that …

“… we do not attempt to extend our knowledge into areas where reason cannot get a firm foothold; otherwise we shall simply mystify ourselves and slow the progress of science with vague speculations”. (ibid, Rules II, VIII)

As author Karen Armstrong points out, Descartes - a devout Catholic - found evidence of God in human consciousness: even doubt proved the existence of the doubter.

However, his philosophical method may have had some unintended consequences …

“… Even though the idea of God gives man certainty about his own existence and is, therefore, essential to Descartes’s epistemology … the Cartesian method reveals an isolation and an image of autonomy that would become central to the Western image of man in our own century. Alienation from the world and a proud self-reliance would lead many people to reject the whole idea of a God who reduces a man or woman to the condition of a dependent.” (Armstrong, A History of God, Ballantine Books, New York, 1993 pp300-301)

Descartes, the early days

René Descartes was born on March 31 1596 in La Haye en Touraine, France, a village now renamed ‘Descartes’ in his honour.

His father, Joachim Descartes, was a lawyer and councillor in the Parliament of Brittany, a position that placed the family among the provincial nobility. His great-grandfather, Jean Ferrand, was a doctor to Queen Eleanor of Austria, wife of Francis I.

His mother, Jeanne Brochard, died while giving birth to another son, who died three days later, when René was just one year old. He and his siblings were raised largely by their maternal grandmother and a devoted nurse to whom Descartes remained deeply attached throughout his life.

He spent most of his childhood in La Haye with his elder siblings, Pierre and Jean. From his childhood he developed a deep love of the countryside and of gardens

The young Descartes was often sickly, which paradoxically granted him unusual freedom. Because of his fragile health, he was permitted to rise late in the mornings - a habit he maintained for life and which he credited for his most productive hours of thought. (Genevieve Rodis-Lewis, Descartes. His Life And Thought, Cornell University, 1999, pp2-3)

At age 10, Descartes entered the newly-founded Jesuit college of La Flèche, one of the most prestigious schools in France. There he received a rigorous education in classical literature, Aristotelian philosophy, mathematics - he became a highly accomplished mathematician - and scholastic theology. He also developed a keen love of poetry.

Although he later criticised scholasticism for its reliance on authority rather than reason, the intellectual discipline of Jesuit education shaped his lifelong passion for clarity and method.

After La Flèche, Descartes studied law at the University of Poitiers, earning a law degree in 1616. He briefly attended the University of Franeker and Leiden University, though without taking degrees.

However, these northern universities exposed him to the scientific and mathematical innovations of the Dutch Republic — a fertile environment for a mind increasingly drawn to the new sciences. He was past 30, however, before he began to devote himself to the systematic development and presentation of his ideas.

For more context on Descartes and his era check out some of my related previous posts:

Isaac Newton, Light, Law, and the Divine, The Enlightenment in the History of History, The Enlightenment and the rise and fall of the witch-hunters, Holy smoke: the rise of the Spanish Inquisition, The Heretic and the Inquisitor: why Bruno was burned alive

Descartes: The thinking man’s soldier

Rather than practice law, Descartes embarked on a period of travel and military service. He joined the armies of the Dutch Republic and later Bavaria because military life “offered mobility, exposure to new ideas, and long stretches of time for private study”. (Margaret D Wilson (ed) The Essential Descartes, Meridian, New York, 1969, p viii)

A pivotal moment occurred in 1619, when Descartes, wintering in Germany, experienced a series of “vivid and curious dreams” one November evening that convinced him he had….

“… divine approval to reform all knowledge through a new method grounded in reason … Out of these meditations came the vast project of developing a unified science that would bring a single method to bear on all possible subjects of human knowledge”. (Wilson, op cit)

Over the next few years he slowly worked out some of the details of his methodology and his scientific system. He was past 30, however, before he began to devote himself to the systematic development and presentation of his ideas.

Descartes spent the period 1619-1628 traveling in northern and southern Europe, where, as he later explained, he studied “the book of the world.” While in Bohemia in 1619, he devised analytic geometry, “a method of solving geometric problems algebraically and algebraic problems geometrically”. (Britannica, Descartes Biography)

He also devised a universal method of deductive reasoning, based on mathematics, intended to be applicable to all the sciences. This method, which he later formulated in Discourse on Method (1637) and Rules for the Direction of the Mind (written by 1628 but not published until 1701), consisted of four rules:

(1) accept nothing as true that is not self-evident

(2) divide problems into their simplest parts

(3) solve problems by proceeding from simple to complex, and

(4) recheck the reasoning - key notions and limits of each problem must be clearly defined:

“We must doubt everything about which there can be the slightest uncertainty - a man who seeks truth must call in doubt whatever can be doubted,” he said. (Descartes, ‘First Meditation’, cited in Anthony Kenny, Descartes. A Study Of His Philosophy, Thoemmes Press, Bristol, 1968, pp14-15)

Even mathematics is subject to Cartesian doubt:

“One reason is that people have made mistakes in reasoning in such matters, and have held as certain and self-evident what we see to be false. A more important reason is that we have been told that God who created us can do all that he desires, and we do not yet know whether he may not have willed to create us in such a way that we shall always be deceived even in the things that we think ourselves to know best.” (Descartes, ‘Principles’, in Kenny, op cit, p17)

In 1628, Descartes settled in the Netherlands, where he would live for more than 20 years. The Dutch Republic offered him intellectual freedom, political stability, and a thriving scientific community. Here he produced his major works and developed his mature philosophy:

Discourse on Method (1637): Perhaps his most famous work, the Discourse on Method (1637) outlines his method for acquiring certainty of knowledge: systematic doubt, clear and distinct ideas, and the primacy of reason. It contains the famous cogito ergo sum — “I think, therefore I am”.

Meditations on First Philosophy (1641): A deeper exploration of metaphysics, the Meditations examines the nature of the self, the existence of God, and the distinction between mind and body. It remains a foundational text in Western philosophy.

Principles of Philosophy (1644): An ambitious attempt to present a unified system of physics and metaphysics, blending mathematical reasoning with natural philosophy.

Passions of the Soul (1649): A treatise on human emotions, written partly in correspondence with Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, exploring the interaction between mind and body.

Descartes also delved into optics, geometry, and physics. His geometry introduced the Cartesian coordinate system, laying the groundwork for analytic geometry and influencing later mathematicians, including Isaac Newton.

In 1649, Descartes accepted an invitation from Queen Christina of Sweden to tutor her in philosophy. The queen insisted on early morning lessons - a shock that rocked Descartes’ lifelong habit of late rising. The harsh Swedish winter and disrupted routine weakened his health, and he died of pneumonia in Stockholm on February 11 1650.

His remains were moved several times, ultimately resting in the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris. His famous declaration - cogito ergo sum - is one of the most recognisable philosophical statements in history.

It is also notable that Descartes features in at least one modern popular song - Bruce’s Philosophers Song from Monty Python's 1973 album Matching Tie and Handkerchief in which Descartes is described as “a drunken fart” who sings: "I drink, therefore I am". To be fair, a bunch of other philosophers are cited including Socrates who is “permanently pissed” [English for drunk], Aristotle is “a bugger for the bottle”, Plato consumes half a crate of whiskey a day; Immanuel Kant is “a real pissant who is very rarely stable”; while Martin Heidegger is “a boozy beggar who could think you under the table”. (see Wikipedia entry for more info)

Descartes the Enlightenment man

Descartes’ career coincides with the early days of an era that has become known as The Enlightenment, “the beginning of modernity” in which science began its rise to become recognised as the “supreme cognitive authority” …

“ … the intellectual system to which all others should defer … a period when the finite spherical and earth-centered universe of pre-modern times was replaced by the notion of a sun-centered solar system in an infinite expanse of space … these changes in cosmology were accompanied by numerous astronomical discoveries, including new stars, satellites and the magnetic nature of the earth”. (M Fitzpatrick, P Jones, C Knellwolf & Ian McCalman (eds) The Enlightenment World, Routledge, Oxon/New York, 2007, p10)

It is marked by the work of scientists such as Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Francis Bacon and Christiaan Huygens while its philosophical foundations were laid by thinkers including Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, and, not least, René Descartes …

“The movement was characterized by the widespread circulation of ideas through new institutions: scientific academies, literary salons, coffeehouses, Masonic lodges, and an expanding print culture of books, journals, and pamphlets. The ideas of the Enlightenment undermined the authority of the monarchy and religious officials and paved the way for the political revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries.” (cited in Age of Enlightenment, Wikipedia)

The new “scientific method” of inquiry had a profound influence on Enlightenment thinkers because its practitioners had discovered so much new knowledge about the way the Earth worked. It was, they considered, simply a case of adapting such inquiry to other aspects of life and thought. However, there were differences in French approaches to research in comparison with the English.

As Voltaire (1649-1778) wrote:

“A Frenchman arriving in London finds quite a change in philosophy as in all else. Behind him he left the world full; here he finds it empty. In Paris one sees the universe composed of vortices of subtle matter; in London one sees nothing of the sort. With us it’s the pressure of the moon that causes the rising of the tide; with the English it’s the sea gravitating toward the moon; so that when [the French] think the moon ought to give us high tide, these gentlemen think it ought to be low.” (Voltaire 1734, Letter 14, 60, cited in Knellwolf & McCalman (eds) The Enlightenment World, op cit, p12)

Voltaire compares the philosophy of Descartes with that of the genius scientist Isaac Newton (1642-1727) - according to Descartes, the world was full; according to Newton it must be empty. And Newton, in Voltaire’s view, was correct thus acknowledging “the superiority of Newtonian science over Cartesian mechanical philosophy”. (ibid, pp14-15)

Much of Descartes’s philosophy was developed as a response to Aristotelian perspectives, the teaching of which had been enshrined in school and university curricula in continental Europe. Descartes knew it well; he had been educated this way.

But by the mid-17th century it was becoming increasingly obvious that Aristotelian philosophy was seriously flawed, maybe even untenable, while acceptance of Copernican astronomy or the Galilean theory of motion, immediately raised many questions about other aspects of physics never addressed by Copernicus or Galileo …

"… What was required was a complete system of natural philosophy, able to offer an account of all phenomena - precisely what the Aristotelian system provided … Descartes was the first philosopher ever to provide a coherent, all-embracing system that could replace the Aristotelian system, lock, stock and barrel … For many, this had been the major strength of the Cartesian system …” (John Henry, ‘Science and the coming of Enlightenment’, in M Fitzpatrick et al, The Enlightenment World, pp14-15)

• A number of Descartes' works including Meditations and other philosophical-scientific writings, were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) by the Catholic Church in the 1660s-1670s, over concerns some of his views threatened orthodox theology and undermined faith by questioning established truths. See here for more information

Please consider taking a Paid Subscription

REFERENCES

Karen Armstrong, A History Of God. The 4,000-Year Quest Of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Ballantine Books, New York, 1993

Desmond M Clarke, Descartes. A Biography, Cambridge University Press, 2006

John Cottingham (ed), The Cambridge Companion to Descartes, Cambridge University Press, 1992

M Fitzpatrick, P Jones, C Knellwolf & Ian McCalman (eds), The Enlightenment World, Routledge, Oxon/New York, 2007

Anthony Kenny, Descartes. A Study Of His Philosophy, Thoemmes Press, Bristol, 1968

Genevieve Rodis-Lewis (trans. Jane-Marie Todd), Descartes, His Life and Thought, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1995

Michael Stanford, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998

Margaret D Wilson (ed) The Essential Descartes, Meridian, New York, 1969

Dear Subscribers - This is my regular Rambling On history post - not the usual referenced, research-essay style. Feel free to chip in with (preferably polite, informative) comments and/or examples.

Due to overwhelming demand (cheers Mark and Dennis!) I hereby present the second half of my essay begun last week highlighting some of the arcane, mysterious and obscure references to be found in the brilliant Brewer’s Dictionary Of Phrase and Fable, first published in 1870. (Full publication details below.)

As I said last week, it’s good to know stuff - and people in the writing business can never know too much, I figure. In my previous post I gave examples of references from the book in alphabetic order up to and including the letter M. This post goes up to and includes the letter Z.

So join me on this revelatory Ramble towards the gnosis with the mostest …

N

NINE (along with five and three) are mystical numbers (the Diapason, diapente, and diatrion of the Greeks. Nine consists of a trinity of trinities. Three, being the Trinity, represents a perfect unity; twice three is the perfect dual; and thrice three is the perfect number. From ancient times the number nine has been held of particular significance. There were nine Muses, nine virgins priestesses of the ancient Gallic oracle; and Lars Porsena swore by nine gods.

(Note from me: Lars Porsena features in Lays of Ancient Rome, an 1842 collection of narrative poems, or lays, by Thomas Babington Macaulay recounting heroic episodes from early Roman history - we had to learn and recite this stuff when I was at school in England decades ago. Winston Churchill, it is said, memorised them all while a schoolboy to demonstrate what a clever chap he was.)

The Hydra had nine heads; there were nine rivers of Hell; the Styx encompassed the infernal regions in nine circles. In Scandinavian mythology there were nine earths, Hel being the goddess of the ninth. The ABRACADABRA, a cabalistic charm, was worn for nine days; in order to see fairies one must put “nine grains of wheat on a four-leafed clover”. The weird sisters in Macbeth sang as they danced around the cauldron “Thrice to thine, and thrice to mine, and thrice again to make up nine.” There are nine orders of angels; a cat has nine lives.

Narcissus: In Greek mythology, the son of Cephisus; a beautiful youth who saw his reflection in a fountain, and thought it the presiding nymph of the place. He jumped in the fountain to reach it, where he died.

Noblesse oblige (Fr): Noble birth imposes the obligation of high-minded principles and noble actions.

O

O tempora! O mores!: Alas! How the times have changed for the worse! Alas! How the morals of the people have degenerated! From Cicero’s In Catalinan.

Odium theologicum (Latin): The bitter hatred of rival theologians. No wars so sanguinary as holy wars; no persecutions so relentless as religious persecutions; no hatred so bitter as theological hatred.

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which effect is produced by the juxtaposition of contradictory terms, such as “Make haste slowly”, “Faith unfaithfully kept him falsely true.” The word is Greek for “pointedly foolish”.

P

Palimpsest: A parchment or other writing surface on which the original writing has been effaced and something else has been written, anciently common practice owing to the shortage of material. As the writing was not always entirely effaced, many works, otherwise lost, have been recovered. Thus Cicero’s De Republica was restored, though partially erased to make way for a commentary of St Augustine on the Psalms.

Parolles: A pretender, a man of words, and a pedant. The allusion is to the faithless, bragging, slandering villain who dubs himself “captain”, pretends to knowledge which he has not, and to sentiments he never feels (from Shakespeare All’s Well That Ends Well).

Pentacle: A five-pointed star, or five-sided figure, used in sorcery as a Talisman against witches etc, and sometimes worn as a folded headdress of fine linen, as a defence against demons in the act of conjuration. It is also called the Wizard’s Foot, and is supposed to typify the five senses, though as it resolves itself into three triangles, its efficacy may spring from its being a triple symbol of the Trinity. It is also a candlestick with five branches.

Q

Quack, or Quack doctor: Once called quacksalver, a puffer of salves; an itinerant drug vendor at fairs who “quacked” forth the praises of his wares to the credulous rustics. Hence, a charlatan.

Quiddity: The essence of a thing, or that which differentiates it from other things … “the Correggiosity of Correggio”, “the Freeness of the Free”. Hence used of subtle, trifling distinctions, quibbles, or captious argumentation.

Quodlibet, or Quidlibet: (Latin, what you please). Originally a philosophical or theological question proposed for purposes of scholastic debate; hence a nice and knotty point, a subtlety.

R

Rabelaisian: Coarsely and boisterously satirical; grotesque, extravagant and licentious in language; reminiscent in literary style of the great French satirist Francois Rabelais (1495-1553). When Rabelaisian is used it implies coarseness and complete frankness and ignores Rabelais’s humanism.

Rampant: The heraldic term for an animal, especially a Lion, shown rearing up with the forepaws in the air; strictly, a LION RAMPANT should stand on the SINISTER hind-leg, with both forelegs elevated, and the head in profile.

Rosicrucians: A secret society of Cabbalists, occultists, and alchemists that is first heard of in 1614 when the anonymous Fama fraternitatis des loblichen Ordens des Rosenkreuzes was published at Cassel. It was reputed to have been founded by a certain Christian Rosenkreuz in the mid-15th century … Rosicrucian societies still exist.

S

Sabbataeans: The disciples of Sabbatai Sebi (1626-1676) or Zebi of Smyrna who proclaimed himself Messiah in 1648. He was arrested at Constantinople in 1666 and accepted the Moslem faith. In his heyday he had thousands of followers. He was a Jew of Spanish descent.

Saturnian verses: A rude metre in use among the Romans before the introduction of Greek metres. Also a peculiar metre consisting of three iambics and a syllable over, joined to three trochees, as

The queen was in the par-lour …

The maids were in the garden…

Slubberdegullion: A base fellow, a nasty oaf. To slubber is to do things carelessly, in a slovenly way …

Quoth she, Although thou hast deserved,

Base-slubber degullian, to be served

As thou didst vow to deal with me

Butler: Hudibras, I, iii

T

Trump: This word in such phrases as “a trumped-up affair” (falsely concocted etc.), trumpery (showy finery, worthless stuff) etc., is the same word as trumpet; from French trompe, a trumpet, whence tromper, which, originally meaning “to play on a trumpet”, came to mean to beguile, deceive, impose upon.

Tabby: Originally the name (from Arabic) of a silk material with a “watered” surface, giving an effect of wavy lines; applied to the brownish cat with dark stripes, because its markings resemble this material…

Demurest of the tabby kind,

The pensive Selima reclined.

Gray: On the death of a Favourite Cat.

Thing: The Old Norse word for the assembly of the people, Parliament etc., the original meaning of which was a discussion (from thingian, to discuss), hence a cause, an object.

Tom and Jerry: Types of the roystering young men about town; from Pierce Egan’s Life in London; or The Day and Night Scenes of Jerry Hawthorn esq, and his Elegant Friend Corinthian Tom (1821). Also a hot, spiced drink made from eggs, sugar, rum, cinnamon, etc.

U

Unmentionables: One of the 19th century humorous colloquialisms for trousers, pantaloons, breeches, etc; also known as inexpressibles.

Utnapishtim: The Babylonian counterpart of Noah, whose story is told in the Gilgamesh Epic, and which has many notable resemblances to the Bible story. The Hebrews almost certainly derived their account from Babylonia.

Utopia: Nowhere (Greek). The name given by Sir Thomas More to the imaginary island in his political romance of the same name (1516), where everything is perfect - the laws, the morals, politics etc, and in which the evils of existing laws etc, are shown by contrast. Hence Utopian, applied to any idealistic but impractical scheme.

V

Vade mecum (Latin, go-with-me): A pocket-book, memorandum book, lady’s pocket companion, or anything else which contains many things of daily use in a small compass.

Vandals: A Teutonic race first recorded in north-east Germany which in the fifth century ravaged Gaul, Spain, and North Africa, and in 455 Rome itself, when they despoiled it of its treasures of art and literature. The name is hence applied to those who willfully or ignorantly indulge in destruction of works of art etc. Vandalism is now applied to most forms of wanton damage.

Vulcanist: One who supports the Vulcanian or Plutonium theory, which ascribes the changes in the Earth’s surface to the agency of fire.

W

Wallflower: So called because it grows on old walls etc. Girls who sit along the wall without partners during a dance are called wallflowers.

Wergild: The blood money (wer, man; gild, payment) paid in Anglo-Saxon times by the kindred of the slayer to the kindred of the slain to avoid a blood-feud in cases of of murder or manslaughter. There was a fixed scale, 1200 shillings for a thegn, 200 shillings for a ceorl, etc.

Wiseacre (German, Weissager, a soothsayer or prophet): This word has quite lost its original meaning and is applied to dunces, wise only in their own conceit.

X

Xenocratic: Pertaining to the doctrine of Xenocrates (396-314 BCE) a disciple of Plato, noted for his continence and contempt of wealth. Even the courtesan Lais failed to tempt him from the path of virtue.

Xiphias: The name used in medieval times for a sword-shaped comet; also for the southern constellation now called Dorado; and a poetical name given to the swordfish.

Xylomancy: A form of divination using twigs, rods, etc.

Y

Yank, Yankee: A citizen of the USA, properly a New Englander. The derivation is probably from the Dutch Janke, a diminutive of John, perhaps used originally of the Dutch of New Amsterdam. The word was popularized by the mid-18th Century song Yankee Doodle. America is often referred to as Yankee-land.

Yggdrasil: The world tree of Scandinavian mythology that, with its roots and branches, binds together heaven, earth, and hell. It is an ash, evergreen, and at the root is a fountain of wonderful virtues. It is the tree of life and knowledge, and of time and space.

Yew: The Yew is a native British tree (Taxus baccata) and is commonly planted in churchyards because, as an evergreen, it is a symbol of immortality. Yew leaves are poisonous. A Yew in Darley churchyard, Derbyshire, is claimed to be well over 2000 years old and 33 feet in girth.

Z

Zeitgeist (German Zeit, time; Geist, spirit): The spirit of the time; the moral or intellectual tendency characteristic of the period.

Zephyr, Zephyrus: In classical mythology, the west wind, son of Astraeus and Aurora, and lover of Flora, identified with the Roman Favonius; hence, any soft, gentle wind.

Zoot-suit (USA): An exaggerated style of clothing adopted in the late 1930s by Hep-cats and followers of fashionable swing music. It usually consisted of baggy trousers caught in at the bottom, a long coat resembling a frock coat, a broad-rimmed hat, and a flowing tie, all in vivid colors. An essential article of equipment was a vast key-chain.

All references in this article are from Dr Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, Brewer’s Dictionary Of Phrase And Fable (Centenary Edition), Book Club Associates, London, 1978 (First published 1870)

Please consider taking a paid subscription

Dear Subscribers - This is my regular Rambling On history post - not the usual referenced, research-essay style. Feel free to chip in with (preferably polite, informative) comments and/or examples.

Hands up those of you who know the meaning of the word Odyle. What about Frankpledge? The phrase De mortuis nil nisi bonum? What is the Tetragrammaton? Who or what is Calliope? What’s the Nutter’s Dance? (answers at the end)

Perhaps esoteric pejoratives, grandiloquisms and cacophemisms are not your tasse de thé. But it’s good to know stuff - and people in the writing business can never know too much, I figure.

We can’t remember everything, but the good news is we don’t need to. For obscure quotations, odd bits of history, arcane literary references, fables, fairy tales, smart sayings, myths and legends, you can’t go past Brewer’s Dictionary Of Phrase and Fable, first published in 1870. (Full publication details below.)

So I’m going to share with you a few extracts from my copy (in alphabetic order up to and including the letter M). I will finish it off later if there’s a decent interest in it.

So join me on this revelatory Ramble towards the gnosis with the mostest.

A

Abraxas: A cabalistic word used by the Gnostics to denote the Supreme Being, the source of 365 emanations, the sum of the numbers represented by the Greek letters of the word. It was often engraved on gems (Abraxas stones) used as Talismans - a charm or magical figure or word which is cut on metal or stone under the influence of certain planets; it is supposed to be sympathetic and to communicate to the wearer influence from the planet.

Artemus Ward: The name of an imaginary Yankee showman and writer, the guise adopted by the American humorist Charles Farrer Browne (1834-1867) for a series of books which became popular in America and England.

Asclepiads, or Asclepiadic Metre: A Greek and Latin verse, possibly invented by Asclepiades (3rd Century BCE) consisting of a spondee, two or three choriambi, and an iambus usually with a central caesura.

The first ode of Horace is Asclepiadic:

Dear friend, patron of song, sprung

from the race of kings;

They name ever a grace and protection brings …

My name, if to the lyre haply you chance to wed,

Pride would high as the stars lift my exalted head

Auri sacra fames: A Latin tag from the Aeneid meaning the “cursed hunger for wealth”, which almost amounts to monomania.

B

Baba Yaga: A cannibalistic ogress of Russian folk-lore who stole young children and cooked them. She lived in a remote forest, sailed through the air in an iron cauldron raising tempests on her way, and swept with a broom all traces of her passing. She bears a strong resemblance to Berchta of South German folk-lore.

Baga de Secretis: Records in the Public Record Office of treason and other State trials from 1477-1813. These records contain the proceedings in the trials of Anne Boleyn, Sir Walter Raleigh, Guy Fawkes, the regicides, and of the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745.

Bridge of Sighs: Over this bridge, which connects the Doge’s palace with the state prisons of Venice, prisoners were conveyed to the judgment hall to the place of execution. The passageway which used to connect the Tombs prison in New York with the criminal court was so dubbed for similar reasons. Waterloo Bridge, London, was also called the Bridge of Sighs when suicides were frequent there. Hood gave the name to one of his poems:

One more Unfortunate,

Weary of breath,

Rashly importunate,

Gone to her death

C

Calembour (Fr): A pun, a jest. From Wigan von Theben, a priest of Kahlenberg in Lower Austria, who was introduced in Till Eulenspiegel and other German tales. He was noted for his jests, puns and witticisms. In the French translation he appeared as the Abbe de Calembourg.

Calliope (Gr. beautiful voice): Chief of the nine Muses; the muse of epic or heroic poetry, and of poetic inspiration and eloquence. Her emblems are a stylus and wax tablets. The name is also applied to a steam organ, making raucous music on steam whistles.

D

Dactyls. Mythical beings connected with the worship of Cybele in Crete, supposed to be the discoverers of iron and copper; also called Idaean Dactyls (the fingers of Ida), after their mountain home. In prosody a dactyl is a foot of three syllables, the first long and the others short - again from the similarity to the joints of a finger.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum (Latin): Of the dead speak kindly or not at all. “Speak not evil of the dead” was one of the maxims of Chilo.

Deus ex machina (Latin): The intervention of of some unlikely or providential event just in time to extricate one from difficulties or to save a situation; especially as contrived in a novel or a play. Literally it means “a god let down upon the stage from the machine”, the “machine” being part of the stage equipment in an ancient Greek theatre.

E

E pluribus unum (Latin): One out of many. It is taken from Moretum, a Latin poem attributed to Virgil, and was long regarded as the motto of the United States of America; but in 1956, Congress formally adopted the motto “In God we trust”.

Eutychians: Followers of Eutyches (c. 380-c. 456), archimandrite of Constantinople, and author of the Eutychian controversy. He fiercely opposed the Nestorians and held that Christ, after the incarnation, had only one nature, the divine. He was excommunicated, reinstated, and later exiled. They were the forerunners of the Monophysites.

F

Flibbertigibett: One of the five fiends that possessed “Poor Tom” in King Lear. Shakespeare got the name from S Harsnet’s Declaration of Egregious Popish Impostures (1603) where we are told of 40 fiends which the Jesuits cast out, and among the number was “Flibbertigibett”, a name which had been previously used by Latimer and others for a mischievous gossip. Elsewhere the name is apparently a synonym for Puck.

Forgotten Man, The: A phrase derived from W G Sumner (1840-1910), the American sociologist, to describe the decent, hardworking, ordinary citizen. It was later popularised by F D Roosevelt in 1933 during the Presidential election campaign, although he actually used the expression before his nomination. He advocated a New Deal and appealed to the “forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid”.

Futhorc: The ancient Runic alphabet of the Anglo-Saxons and other Teutons; so called (on the same principle as the ABC) from its first six letters, viz, f, u, th, o, r, k.

G

Galimatias: Nonsense, unmeaning gibberish. The word first appeared in France in the 16th Century, but its origin is unknown; perhaps it is connected with Gallimaufry. In his translation of Rabelais, Urquart heads Chapter 2 of Book 1 “Galimatias of Extravagant Conceits found in an Ancient Monument”.

Gypped: Many of the rivers and creeks in the cattle country of the USA contain so much gypsum, or alkali salts, that anyone drinking immoderately therefrom suffers a stomach attack, and is referred to as “gypped”.

Gytrash: A north of England spirit , which in the form of horse, mule, or large dog, haunts solitary ways, and sometimes comes upon belated travelers … “I remembered certain of Bessie’s tales, wherein figured a spirit called a Gytrash” (Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre. ch 12)

H

Harum Scarum: Giddy, hare-brained, or a person so constituted. From the old hare, to harass, and scare; perhaps with the additional allusion to the madness of a March hare.

Hengist and Horsa: The semi-legendary leaders who led the first Saxon war-band to settle in England. They are said to have arrived in Kent in 449 at the invitation of Vortigern, who offered them land on the understanding that they would help against the Picts. Horsa is said to have been slain at the battle of Aylesford (c455) and Hengist to have ruled Kent till his death in 488.

Hocus Pocus: Words formerly uttered by conjurors when performing a trick: hence the trick or deception itself … The phrase dates from the early 17th century, and is the opening of a ridiculous string of mock Latin used by the performer (Hocus pocus, toutous talontus, vade celerita jubes) the first two words possibly being a parody of the words of consecration in the Mass (Hoc est Corpus). Our word hoax is probably a contraction of hocus pocus.

I

Illuminati: The baptized were at one time so called, because a lighted candle was given them to hold as a symbol that they were illuminated by the Holy Ghost. The name has been given to, or adopted by, several sects and secret societies professing to have superior enlightenment, especially to a republican society of deists founded by Adam Weishaupt (1748-1830), at Ingoldstadt in Bavaria in 1776, to establish a religion consistent with “sound reasons”. They were also called the Perfectibilists.

Iris: Goddess of the rainbow, or the rainbow itself. In classical mythology she was the messenger of the gods, and of Juno in particular, and the rainbow is the bridge or road let down from heaven for her accommodation.

J

Jackanapes: A pert, vulgar, apish little fellow; a prig.

Janus: The ancient Roman deity who kept the gate of Heaven; hence the guardian of gates and doors. He was represented with two faces, one in front and one behind, and the doors of his temple in Rome were thrown open in times of war and closed in times of peace. The name is used allusively both with reference to double-facedness and to war.

Jettatura: The evil eye, a superstition that certain persons have the power, by looking at one, of casting malevolent spells.

K

Kalevala: The national epic of the Finns. compiled from popular songs and oral tradition by the Swedish philologist Elias Lonnrott (1802-1884), who published his first edition of 12,000 verses in 1835, and a second, of some 22,900 verses, in 1849. The epic is influenced by Teutonic and Scandinavian mythology ... it is written in unrhymed alliterative trochaic verse, and is the prototype both in form and content of Longfellow’s Hiawatha.

Knight errant: A medieval knight, especially a hero of those long romances satirized by Cervantes in Don Quixote, who wandered around the world in quest of adventure and in search of opportunities of rescuing damsels in distress and performing other chivalrous deeds.

L

Lamia: Among the Greeks and Romans a female demon who devoured children and whose name was used to frighten them … Witches in the Middle Ages were called Lamiae and Keats’s poem Lamia (1820) relates the story of how a bride, when recognized by Apollonius as a serpent or lamia, vanished in an instant.

Laodicean: One indifferent to religion, caring little or nothing about the matter, like the Christians in that church mentioned in the Book of Revelation (Ch3 14-18)

Lapsus Linguae: A slip of the tongue, a mistake in uttering a word, an imprudent word inadvertently spoken.

M

Memento mori (Latin: remember you must die): An emblem of mortality, such as a skull; something that puts us in mind of the shortness and uncertainty of life.

Midas: A legendary king of Phrygia who requested of the gods that everything he touched might be turned to to gold. His request was granted, but as his food became gold the moment he touched it, he prayed for the gods to take their favour back. He was ordered to bath in the Pactolus, and the river ever after rolled over golden sands.

Mob: A contraction of the Latin mobile vulgus, the fickle crowd. In subsequent years the word was applied to an organized criminal gang.

Muses: In Greek mythology the nine daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne; originally goddesses of memory, later identified with individual arts and science.

That’s it for now. I’ll return to this in a future Ramble if people are interested

Answers to questions in intro:

Odyle - The name formerly given to the hypothetical force which emanates from a medium to produce various phenomena,

Frankpledge - A system originating in Anglo-Saxon times by which all men were to be grouped in a tithing or frankpledge and to be responsible for each other’s actions.

Barataria - Sancho Panza’s island city in Don Quixote, over which he was appointed governor.

De mortuis nil nisi bonum - Of the dead speak kindly, or not at all.

Tetragrammaton - A word of four letters, especially the Biblical name of the Deity, JHVH, probably pronounced Yahweh.

Calliope - Chief of the nine Muses, the muse of epic or heroic poetry, and of poetic inspiration and eloquence.

Nutter’s Dance - A dance performed at Bacup, Lancashire, on Easter Saturday. The nutters are eight men clad in black, with white skirts and stockings, with wooden “nuts” fastened to their hands, waist and knees.

All references in the article are from Brewer’s Dictionary Of Phrase and Fable, Centenary Edition, Book Club Associates London, 1978.

Dr Ebenezer Cobham Brewer, Brewer’s Dictionary Of Phrase And Fable (Centenary Edition), Book Club Associates, London, 1978 (First published 1870)

By DAVID MYTON

So there you are on a warm summer day, sitting in a shady English orchard, back reclining on a tree, bees a-buzzing, butterflies a-flying, birds a-cheeping, when you observe an apple falling to the ground from the branches up above.

That’s convenient, you think, that will do for a nice snack. I was feeling a bit hungry. Praise the Lord.

And you would think that because you are just a regular, average person - not unlike everyone who ever existed since Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden of Eden.

But when the apple thing happened to Isaac Newton - an out-and-out fully fledged genius - in the late summer of 1666 in his garden at Woolsthorpe Manor, near Grantham, Lincolnshire …

“… He thought he to himself … Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground … It was then that the notion of gravitation came into his mind. (William Stukeley, Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton’s Life, 1752.)

And so, because he could, Newton postulated a law of universal gravitation according to which each body in the universe was attracted toward every other body by a force that was stronger the more massive the bodies and the closer they are to each other.

It was this same force that caused objects to fall to the ground …

“Newton went on to show that gravity causes the moon to move in an elliptical orbit around the earth and the planets to follow elliptical paths around the sun,” writes Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History Of Time. From The Big Bang To Black Holes, Bantam Press, London, 1988, p5)

Newton’s laws formulated the three laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation, providing a unified framework for celestial and terrestrial mechanics. These laws explained planetary orbits, tides, and the motion of projectiles, laying the foundation for classical physics.

Newton gave a full explanation of all this in 1687 in his great book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica - “probably the most important single work ever published in the physical sciences”. (Hawking, ibid)

His ideas built on earlier work by Galileo Galilei, who studied acceleration, and Johannes Kepler, who described planetary motion. Newton tied their insights together into one theory that explained why objects move the way they do in both the sky and on the ground.

Crucially, Newton avoided any serious bother with England’s religious authorities. While he wanted to rid Christianity of anything he deemed magical and mystical, nevertheless a sovereign God was an essential part of his system.

“When Newton contemplated the universe he was convinced he had proof of God’s existence,” writes Karen Armstrong (A History of God. The 4,000-Year Quest Of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, p303)

In a letter to Richard Bentley, Dean of St Paul’s, Newton wrote …

“Gravity may put ye planets in motion but without ye divine power it could never put them into such a Circulating motion as they have about ye Sun, and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe ye frame of this Systeme to an intelligent Agent.” (A. R. Hall and L. Tilling, eds, The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, Cambridge, 1959-77, December 10, 1692 Vol 3, pp234-235)

Although Newton became wealthy and “a hero in his own time” he was famously rude, mean spirited and bad tempered. He remained …

“… a remote, chaste, humorless figure who published his discoveries with reluctance and initially only when it seemed that rivals might first take the credit for a discovery … he brazenly accused those working on similar problems of copying, and was ungenerous in acknowledging what he had learned from others…”

Nevertheless this did not stop the English poet Alexander Pope from comparing Newton’s accomplishments with those of God on the first day of creation …

“Nature and Nature’s laws lay hid in night; God said, ‘Let Newton be! and all was light!

- John Merriman, A History Of Modern Europe, Vol 1, From The Renaissance To The Age Of Napoleon, Norton, New York, 1996, pp300-301

Revolutionary concepts and ideas

Isaac Newton was born on 25 December 1642 - Christmas Day, no less - at Woolsthorpe Manor, Lincolnshire. His father, also called Isaac, had died three months before he was born. His mother, Hannah, remarried three years later and moved in with her new husband, the Reverend Barnabas Smith, leaving little Isaac with his maternal grandmother, Margery Ayscough.

Newton attended The King’s School in Grantham, where he showed early talent for constructing mechanical devices and drawing. In 1661, he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, initially studying Aristotelian philosophy but soon immersing himself in the works of fellow European brainiacs Descartes, Galileo, and Kepler.

He was later appointed a fellow of Trinity and, in 1669, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, a position he held for over three decades.

The outbreak of plague in 1665 had forced him to return home for nearly two years. During this period of isolation, Newton developed his most revolutionary concepts and ideas: the laws of motion, universal gravitation and calculus - this latter contested by German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, leading to one of the great intellectual disputes of the era.

Newton also demonstrated that white light is composed of a spectrum of colors, using a prism to separate and recombine light. His work led to the invention of the reflecting telescope in 1668.

Newton also devoted considerable time to the study of alchemy, hoping to find hidden truths about matter and transformation. Nothing came of it.

He spent the last 30 years of his life in London, serving as president of the Royal Society (1703–1727), and as Warden (1696–1699) and Master (1699–1727) of the Royal Mint, in which he increased the accuracy and security of British coinage. He was relentless in tracking down counterfeiters, and often personally interrogated suspects.

He was knighted by Queen Anne in 1705, becoming Sir Isaac Newton. He died on March 31, 1727, aged 84. He was granted the high honour of a State Funeral, and is buried in the nave of Westminster Abbey - an area now known as “Scientists’ Corner”.

Today, his legacy endures in the very language of science: terms like “Newtonian mechanics” and “Newtonian telescope” testify to his lasting influence.

The Principia: synthesis of scientific principles

Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica postulated the three laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation, thus providing a unified framework for celestial and terrestrial mechanics.

The book “is one of the most important single works in the history of modern science”, according to Encyclopedia Britannia.

It is divided into three sections - the first two contain the mathematical principles of philosophy, “namely, the laws and conditions of motions and forces; and they are illustrated with several philosophical scholia, which treat of some of the most general and best established points in philosophy, such as the density and resistance of bodies, spaces void of matter, and the motion of sound and light”. (David Brewster, The Life Of Sir Isaac Newton, (pdf) J& J Harper, New York, 1833 )

The object of the third part, writes Brewster, “is to deduce from these principles the constitution of the system of the world”. Its explanations of planetary orbits, tides, and the motion of projectiles, “lay the foundation for classical physics”.

“The great discovery which characterizes the Principia is that of the principle of universal gravitation, as deduced from the motion of the moon, and from the three great facts or laws discovered by Kepler. This principle is, that every particle of matter is attracted by, or gravitates to, every other particle of matter, with a force inversely proportional to the squares of their distances.” (ibid)

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, no work was more seminal in the development of modern physics and astronomy than Newton’s Principia.

“Its conclusion that the force retaining the planets in their orbits is one in kind with terrestrial gravity ended forever the view dating back at least to Aristotle that the celestial realm calls for one science and the sublunar realm, another … the ultimate success of Newton’s theory of gravity made the identification of the fundamental forces of nature and their characterization in laws the primary pursuit of physics. The success of the theory led as well to a new conception of exact science under which every systematic discrepancy between observation and theory, no matter how small, is taken as telling us something important about the world.”

The Principia had its faults and some of Newton’s conclusions were later found to be off the mark; however the work at core has been of enormous value. His laws of motion and gravitation remain cornerstones of physics, while his theological writings remind us of the deep interplay between science and religion in the 17th century.

His legacy endures in the very language of science: terms like “Newtonian mechanics” and “Newtonian telescope” testify to his lasting influence.

Ultimately, Newton’s achievements transcended his flaws, securing his place as one of the greatest minds in human history. Newton was not shy in proclaiming his brilliance, but he did acknowledge the supreme role of the Almighty …

“… This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being … He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done … All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing …” - (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, trans A Motte, ed F Cajavi, Berkeley 1934, pp 234-235)

By DAVID MYTON

On the evening of November 4 1963 four working class young men from Liverpool – The Beatles: John, George, Paul and Ringo - topped the bill at that year’s Royal Variety Performance at London’s Prince of Wales Theatre. They played four songs for the Queen Mother and her posh family and friends. Between songs, John Lennon cracked a joke and everyone laughed.

I was watching the performance on our rented television in the front room of my North Yorkshire council home. We were a working class family, along with the scores of other residents who inhabited council house estates.

For the most part our parents (and grandmas and granddads) had manual jobs such as cleaners and porters, worked in factories and shops, or on the roads and railways in various capacities. Many were veterans of the century’s World Wars (including my father and grandfather).

By and large they voted for the Labour Party, which regularly won the seat. The “posh” people who owned their own homes voted Tory. A few whackos voted Liberal.  

Most people were happy, if not a little surprised, that The Beatles had made it to the toppermost of the poppermost. Whether the mop-tops liked it or not, they served as an example of what could be achieved with hard work, application, and a modicum of talent.

The barriers of class were now not insurmountable - embourgeoisement beckoned the ambitious.

This was the early 1960s, and English society was changing – including the working class, which had been around since industrialisation transformed the nation between 1780-1830.

Shocking violence, horrendous conditions

That the working class existed at all was remarkable – its birth and gestation took place amid shocking violence and horrendous living conditions.

The emergence of this new class had been described in a brilliant book published in January 1963: EP Thompson’s The Making Of The English Working Class.

It told a hell of a story about a people who had emerged during the Industrial Revolution and had been, in Thompson’s words, subjected simultaneously to economic exploitation and political oppression leading to mass immiseration and suffering …

“The process of industrialisation was carried through with exceptional violence in Britain,” wrote Thompson. “… this violence was done to human nature”.

During the Industrial Revolution, relations between employer and labourer became harsher and less personal. Whenever workers sought to resist exploitation, he said, they were met by the forces of the employer or State, and commonly both.

For most working people the crucial experience of the Industrial Revolution involved changes in the nature and intensity of exploitation … 

“The process of industrialisation must, in every conceivable social context, entail suffering and the destruction of older and valued ways of life.”

The new economic conditions “cast the blackest shadow over the years of the Industrial Revolution”.

Class, Thompson argued, is not a structure, but rather is a relationship based on common experiences and interests. It is as much a cultural formation as it is economic and is “defined by people as they live their own history”.

By 1833, he wrote, the working class presence could be felt in every county in England, and in most fields of life.  Their culture was perhaps “the most distinguished England has known” and contained a “massive diversity of skills”.

Despite repressions and being told they had no rights, the working class “knew that they were born free”.  They fought, not the machine, “but the exploitive and oppressive relationships intrinsic to industrial capitalism”.

Condemned to live in atrocious housing

A significant part of this exploitation and repression included being condemned to live in atrocious housing.

In 1844 a 22-year-old Prussian man decided to investigate the lives of the poor in northern England. Enter Friedrich Engels, son of a wealthy businessman who owned a cotton textile mill in Salford, Lancashire. (See my previous post The man who made Marx a Marxist.)

Engels, who would later team up with a certain Karl Marx, was shocked and appalled by the atrocious housing conditions in which many workers were condemned to live.

His book, The Conditions of the Working Class in England, was first published in German in Germany in 1845 and the English language edition only came out in 1887.  It was a horror story.

Every working man, Engels wrote, was constantly exposed to loss of work, and food, and to death by starvation. The dwellings of the workers “were everywhere badly built, badly planned, badly ventilated, damp and unwholesome”.  Further, many people had died of starvation “under the most revolting circumstances”. The English working class, says Engels, called this “social murder”.

But change was on its way. In 1884-85 the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes investigated the situation, culminating in the Housing Acts of 1885. By the outbreak of World War One about 24,000 new council houses had been built in England and the number grew as the years passed.

Out of all this turmoil there emerged the British Labour Party, created in 1900 – “the result of many years of struggle by working class people, trade unionists and socialists, united by the goal of working class voices represented in British Parliament” – and led by the genuinely working class Scottish trade unionist and coal miner, Keir Hardy.

From the bowels of the union movement

Hardy and his colleagues bequeathed a political party which, at that time, genuinely represented and supported the working classes, now beginning to make their presence felt throughout society.

In the words of renowned trade union boss Ernest Bevin: “The Labour Party grew out of the bowels of the trade union movement”.

When Ramsay MacDonald became the Labour Party’s first Prime Minister in 1924, he inherited a position made more complex by a changing international system and a world economic crisis. However, his government knew who and where its major supporters were – the working classes – and so worked to improve housing and social security, among other things.

Clement Attlee, who became Labour’s leader in 1935, put the working class front and centre of Labour’s policy direction.

Attlee, born into a bourgeois family and having studied at Oxford University, became deputy prime minister in Winston Churchill’s wartime coalition government. He then led Labour to a shock victory in the 1945 general election and went on to introduce a raft of policies that would benefit the working classes (and others) – a sweeping nationalisation program, a new National Health Service offering free treatment at the point of delivery (brain child of Aneurin Bevan), a major house-building drive, and a “cradle to the grave” welfare system envisioned by William Beveridge.

The Conservatives soon won power again before the likes of Labour’s Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan came to power, both profoundly influenced by the “white heat of the technological revolution”. Although still bonded to the party’s working class roots, nevertheless there was growing conflict with the trade union movement.

Society was changing and by the late 70s public sector strikes had become endemic leading to the bitter “winter of discontent” disruption in 1978-79.

After Callaghan lost a “no confidence” motion in March 1979, the resultant general election that May saw Margaret Thatcher installed as PM and the Conservatives back in power.

Now it was all change with the dawn of neoliberalism and the free market fetish. If a public industry could be privatised, then it would be, including much of the nationwide transport; while traditional heavy industries were also fading away as new, faster and cheaper, methods emerged. It was an echo of what was happening in the US under President Ronald Reagan.

And then came the general election of 1997 in which a youthful Tony Blair led the re-branded New Labour into power.  Pragmatism counted more than ideology while radicalism was given a new meaning.

The new radicalism: ‘what counts is what works’

“We will be a radical government,” said Blair, “But the definition of radicalism will not be that of doctrine, whether of left or right, but of achievement. New Labour is a party of ideas and ideals but not of outdated ideology. What counts is what works.”

Blair also drove the replacement of the Party’s Clause IV – commitment to the common ownership of the means of production – with a “third way” committed to both social justice and the market.  There was also a shift to “globalisation” involving policies designed to make the economy “more productive and flexible in the face of international competition”.

This and other reforms centred on promoting equality, human rights and social justice set the template for future Labour governments.

Parallel to all of these changes was a continuous growth in access to higher education following the Robbins Report of 1963. By  1999-2000 there were 1,259,700 full-time students, a 10-fold increase over 46 years, with also an increase in part-time students from 123,700 in 1965-66 to 764,400 by 1999-2000, writes Andrew Rosen …

“Moreover, there were more female than male students and the proportion of students who were members of ethnic minorities was larger than the proportion of Britons who belonged to those minorities … By the end of the 20^th century, greatly-increased numbers of students and the expanded role of higher education made it a far more important determinant of social class than ever before” .

History shows, however, that while the trade unions generally have supported the Labour Party “they will not support a Labour Government when they feel that their interests are directly threatened,” according to Professor Vernon Bogdanor in a Gresham College lecture.  However, he adds, those who were closest to the working class understood it was not militant.

Ernest Bevin, he records, once said …

“… The most conservative man in the world is the British trade unionist when you want to change him. You can make a great speech on unity, but when you are finished, he will say, “What about the funeral benefits?”

The making of the English working class was characterised by high levels of violence and the imposition of terrible living and working conditions. But once established as a social and cultural force, generally it became conservative and in the most part rejected ideologies such as Marxism.

Political theorist and academic Tom Nairn writes that after the 1840s it quickly turned into “an apparently docile class … The ideas of Marx penetrated the consciousness of the English workers less than anywhere else”.

‘Wedded to bourgeois ideologies’

Instead, the working class “embraced one species of moderate reformism after another, became a consciously subordinate part of bourgeois society, and has remained wedded to the narrowest and greyest of bourgeois ideologies in its principal movements”.

Professor Bogdanor says that the views of the working class appear to have little in common with those of middle class Labour leaders:

“Working class voters, it has been discovered, are not sympathetic to the international ethos of Labour, an ethos which welcomed immigration and multiculturalism and championed the rights of ethnic and sexual minorities,” he says. “Paradoxically, the electoral success of the most left-wing leader in Labour history [Corbyn] came not from an increase in working class support but from an increase in middle class support.”

According to author Michael Lind, today’s democracies are “polarised along class lines between a college-educated metropolitan overclass of managers and professionals, on one side, and, on the other, a majority working class divided among old stock natives and newer immigrants” …

“… As the old institutions that once defended the interests and reflected the interests of working class citizens – trade unions, religious congregations and local political parties – have weakened or vanished, power in the three realms of government, the economy and culture, has become increasingly centralised in the managerial elite and the non-democratic institutions that it dominates, including bureaucracies, judiciaries, corporations, the media, universities and non-profit organisations.”

‘Labour the party of university graduates’

The working class movement away from Labour was seen dramatically in last year’s July 4 British general election (won by Keir Starmer’s Labour Party)

According to Joanna Williams, a YouGov survey of how people actually voted “shows that Labour is the party of university graduates”…

“…Forty-two per cent of those with a degree voted Labour, compared with only 18 per cent who backed the Conservatives. When it comes to those who have no education beyond GCSEs only 28 per cent backed Labour, compared with 31 per cent who voted for the Conservatives and 23 per cent who opted for Reform UK”.

It appears that many working class citizens had embraced populism, opting to vote for the new Reform party.

“Labour is in charge, sure, but … nipping at its heels is a very big section of the public who outright reject the political ideas, moral crusades and green lunacy of the establishment,” writes Brendan O’Neill.

The Labour Party has changed but so have the working classes. This class was born amid terrible violence and exploitation. Nevertheless it became a potent force in English society, politically and economically. Now, not so much.

EP Thompson wrote about the “making” of the English working class. Will it – is it - being unmade?

References

The Royal Commission On The Housing of the Working Classes 1885 - https://www.le.ac.uk/eh/teach/ug/modules/eh3107/rchousing.pdf

Professor Vernon Bogdanor, Gresham College Lectures -https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU3TaPgchJtQDcBVdJ24qKjG7kNJVDi_z

The Labour Party, The British attempt to construct a socialist commonwealth 1945-1951, The General Election of 1945, and Britain in the 20^th Century

Stephen Driver and Luke Martell, New Labour 2^nd Edition, Wiley, 2006

Frederick Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England - https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-working-class/index.htm

Labour’s Legacy - https://labour.org.uk/about-us/labours-legacy/

Michael Lind, The New Class War. Saving Democracy from the Metropolitan Elite, Atlantic Books, London, 2021 pp 141-42

Tom Nairn, The English working class, New Left Review – March-April 1964 - https://newleftreview.org/issues/i24/articles/tom-nairn-the-english-working-class

Brendan O’Neill, ‘The true story of this election: populism is here to stay’ Spiked Online - https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/05/the-true-story-of-this-election-populism-is-here-to-stay/

Andrew Rosen, The Transformation of British life 1950-2000. A social history, Manchester University Press 2003

E P Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, Gollancz, London, 1963

Joanna Williams, Labour is no friend of the working classes, Spiked Online - https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/16/labour-is-no-friend-of-the-working-classes/

What is History? Silly question, because it’s obvious isn’t it … it’s the factual record of the lives and times of the people of the past: dates and battles, kings and queens, explorers, soldiers, men and women achievers of one sort or another, that kind of thing.

Well, yes - but wait. History is the recorded past, not the past itself. So how do historians access those records and how do they know they are genuine? How do they decide what to leave in and leave out? How do they determine accuracy? How do they know the documents are real, that the people being written about actually existed? If they existed but did nothing “notable” are they worth recording? And how do we know we can even trust the historians’ conclusions?

As historian David Thomson writes …

“The past is dead but not done with. It is dead because it cannot now be changed in any detail whatsoever. It is not done with because its relics and consequences surround us in our daily lives and it is believed, and with good reason, to matter to us greatly.” (The Aims Of History. Values of the historical attitude, Thames and Hudson, London, 1969, p17)

History is not merely “one damned thing after the other”. Indeed, there is a history of History itself, and that process is Historiography - which I will be examining in this essay. However, this is an introduction to Historiography, just the first in an occasional series spread over the next several months.

Traditionally, the delivery of History in the West has occurred via manuscripts and books written chiefly by monks and scribes, then later academics and scholars. But recent years have seen the rise of new delivery media - the podcast and YouTube videos.

Those by the likes of Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook (The Rest Is History), James Holland and Al Murray (We Have Ways Of Making You Talk) - all reputable historians - are certainly educational but they are also entertainment. To my mind redolent of the sagas and poetry dramatically spoken in the mead halls of Early Medieval Britain and Continental Europe. There are also numerous channels and film documentaries dedicated to the history of war - especially, but not solely, World War 2 - and these show no sign of a decline in popularity. What will be their place in Historiography?

Perhaps historian Beverley Southgate is correct when she says:

“It’s possible now to identify numerous threats to the discipline of history in its traditional form … The other country of the past may have long been colonized by historians and adopted as their own, but there are many other claimants to that territory, and the age of academic imperialism has passed.” (What Is History For?, Routledge, Oxon, 2005, p133)

In this essay - the first in an occasional series - I will be looking at the development of Historiography in the British-European context, with the major focus being on the 17th-19th centuries: an epoch of substantial and significant change in the study of History.

Mind and discourse dependent

Today there is a widespread belief that historians cannot represent the past as it truly was “They can only take control of it through their preferred theory of knowledge and/or perception,” writes Professor of History and Historical Theory, Alun Mounslow. (The New History, Pearson Education, Harlow 2003, p4-5)

History, he says, is a “mind and discourse dependent performative literary act” in which historians “ascribe meaning to the past” rather than discover its inherent meaning.

The Modernist idea of “truthful interpretation” should now be replaced by the more “helpful notion of history as a form of representation”.

“Modernist” history - a model of history that evolved from ancient times to become “professionalised” in the 19th century - assumed that past “reality” could be retrieved by neutral historians, be viewed objectively, and revealed as “truth” about the past within a well-constructed narrative.

In this view “it is the task of the historian to describe, as accurately as possible, former states of the world”, writes Michael Stanford. (An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998, p12)

In the words of the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga: “If the deeply sincere desire to to find out how a certain thing ‘really happened’ is lacking … [the writer] is not pursuing history”, (cited in Southgate, op cit, p14)

But is past reality already a narrative? Does it somehow exist as a “story”? Do events and human actions carry within themselves an intrinsic narrative shape? Not really.

Historians provide the narrative, the shape, the representation. And the historians’ education and mindset “whether they choose to acknowledge them or not, are always the filter through which their epistemology works and their factual statements and narratives are written”. (Mounslow, pp13-14)

Around 300 years ago it was assumed that “facts” could be discovered in the records, and then be woven into a narrative that represented the past - a past over which God had been, and still was, in charge.

The greatness of the Almighty

Writing in the early 18th Century the then-popular French historian Charles Rollin (1661-1741) declared that History …

“… proclaims universally the greatness of the Almighty, his power, his justice, and above all the admirable wisdom with which his providence governs governs the universe”. (Rollin, The Ancient History … Ward Lock, London, 1881 piii, cited in Southgate, op cit, p50)

This was a common view throughout northern Europe which had been held, in one form or another, since the widespread conversion to Christianity across the Continent in the early centuries of the Common Era.

For example, in the Venerable Bede’s A History Of The English Church and People, written in the 8th Century CE, and Geoffrey Of Monmouth’s The History Of The Kings Of Britain (12th Century CE) references to God/Jesus are common in both narratives.

Indeed, the Devil also makes at least one appearance in Bede’s History during a guided tour of Hell narrated by one character. And the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, compiled by monks over several centuries to 1154CE, are interlaced with religious themes throughout.

As I have pointed out in my post on Martin Luther and the development of printing, the Bible was understood by most Medieval-era readers as narrating factual history that in itself proclaimed the greatness of God and to which Jesus Christ gave meaning. Indeed, Jesus himself appeared to authenticate this view, declaring that Scripture itself had foretold his mission in…

“… everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms” and which foretold his destiny … “it is written that Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead...” (Luke 24, v44 v46)

Literacy rates across Europe shot up as more people were able to read the Bible for themselves as well as texts written by monks and other clergy. Many educated citizens would also be familiar with early Greek and Latin historical-religious narratives. Men wrote histories that proclaimed the greatness of a God who oversaw the running of reality.

William Shakespeare (1564-1616) famously wrote the past into his plays, which more often than not featured real historical characters speaking the playwright’s sublime (but invented) verse and prose at a time when factual accuracy was not deemed to be necessary.

However, the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) presaged new trends in thinking when he declared: “The philosophic doubt is the beginning of the search for truth.” (cited in David Thomson, The Aims Of History. Values of the historical attitude, Thames and Hudson, London, 1969, p83).

Introducing the Enlightened

A major shift occurred in the late 18th Century with the advent of the Age of Enlightenment. Across Europe, especially in France, Germany and Britain, philosopher-scholars began to look at History in new ways, presaging modern methods of historical investigation.

On a practical level, for example, the University of Gottingen’s History school in 18th Century Hanover had accumulated massive numbers of documents and texts cluttered randomly in their archives.

Motivated by a desire for accuracy and method, scholars examined and classified the documents “with the most meticulous scholarship and critical apparatus” with the aim of eliminating “the haphazard and the slipshod from historical learning, to destroy inaccuracy and error, to provide history with a firm bedrock of proven and verifiable facts …setting a new standard of scholarship”. (Thomson, op cit p38)

This practical achievement was a reflection of Enlightenment rationalism and empiricism aimed at “discovering the true nature of reality through the application of inductive and deductive reasoning, and then representing it accurately … Rationalism holds the view that it is feasible to discover truths about the character of reality by the application of reason.” (Munslow, op cit, p30)

The work of the English polymathic scientist Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) underscored the new importance of empirical investigation and “the application of reason”.

Mathematics key to the physical world

Newton with his great work The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (aka Science) demonstrated how mathematics is the key to the physical world. He invented calculus and revealed the structure and forces of the solar system …

“… The essential revolutionary element was that Newton had conceived a working universe wholly independent of the spiritual order”. (Charles Singer, A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900, Oxford University Press 1959, cited in Michael Stanford, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998, p155)

Newton didn’t intend it, but “the conflict between science and religion began and raged on for centuries”. Stanford, op cit p155)

New ways of looking at history emerged. For example, the French thinker Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) in works such as The Age of Louis XIV (1751), and Essay on the Customs and the Spirit of the Nations (1756) broke away from the then-standard military and diplomatic narratives to focus on topics including social history, customs, culture, the arts, politics, economics, and world history. He declared…

“… You have to write history like a philosopher. My chief object is not political or military history, it is the history of the arts, of commerce, of civilization - in a word - of the human mind.” (Michael Stanford, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998, p15)

One of the most remarkable of the Enlightenment philosopher-historians was René Descartes, author of the highly influential Discourse on Method (1637) - from which his famous I think, therefore I am epigram is first stated.

Descartes is important to Historiography because he stimulated new ways of thinking and addressing concepts of knowledge and truth. Reasoning, he said, should begin with the author doubting all existing knowledge, in order to approach their subject as a neutral observer free of preconceived ideas. “He resolved ‘never to accept anything as true if I had not evident knowledge of its being so’,” he said. (Descartes cited in Stanford, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, op cit p6)

The examination of causality

Another Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu (1689–1755) - again influenced by the rise of science - argued in his 1748 book The Spirit of Laws that economies and political systems could be explored by examining causality: for example, the larger the country the more its rulers would incline to despotism; republics should be ruled small governments; while large countries such as Russia required despotism; although constitutional monarchy was ideal for stable, smaller states). Montesquieu’s notion of small government was influential on America’s Founding Fathers.

One of the most influential figures to emerge later in this time was the German philosopher Georg Hegel (1770-1831) who developed the concept of Zeitgeist (spirit of the age)…“

Whatever happens,” he wrote, “every individual is a child of his time; so philosophy too is its own time apprehended in thought… The Historian is a child of their time”, thinking the thoughts of the current zeitgeist.

The “greatest historian” of the time, Leopold von Ranke (1795-1886), placed a similar emphasis on the spirit of the age - “Every epoch is immediate to God and its worth rests in its own existence, its own self,” Ranke wrote.

Observes the historian Michael Stanford…

“… Here again we see a well-founded belief about the human individual (the belief, common to great religions as well as to secular humanism, of the inherent value of every man and woman) being illegitimately transferred to a notional construct - this time the age. In fact, Ranke did hold similar (surely unjustified) belief about states, which are ‘thoughts of God’.’ (Stanford, op cit, pp158-159)

In England the philosopher-historian David Hume (1711–76) rejected grand, overarching narratives but embraced empiricism in his History of England (published in six volumes between 1754–62) from the invasion of Julius Caesar in 54BCE to the Revolution of 1688 about which he wrote:

"By deciding many important questions in favour of liberty, and still more, by that great precedent of deposing one king, and establishing a new family, it gave such an ascendent to popular principles, as has put the nature of the English Constitution beyond all controversy".

A new approach to writing history

One of the most outstanding Enlightenment historians was Edward Gibbon (1737–94), who in his six-volume The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–88) displayed, according to David Thomson, an “ironic rationalism that marked a new approach to the writing of history … Gibbon broke dramatically from the powerful theological tradition of western culture. His ironic rationalism marks a new approach to the writing of history.”

“Gibbon dismissed the providential approach to historical explanation, and took his stand on the analytical, secular historical attitude favoured by most modern historians. Their concern is not with divine purpose or miraculous interventions, but with those secondary causes - the interplay of personality, ideas, conditions and events which can yield some description and explanation of the fascinating process of historical change.” Thomson, The Aims Of History, pp 64-65)

As Gibbon himself noted: “To the believer all religions are equally true, to the philosopher, all religions are equally false, and to the magistrate, all religions are equally useful.”

This ends this introductory essay to the history of Historiography. I have barely scraped the surface of the topic but I hope it serves as some initial guide to the development of the discipline of History, especially in the pivotal years of the European Enlightenment.

REFERENCES

Alun Mounslow, The New History, Pearson Education, Harlow 2003

Michael Oakeshott, What is History? And other essays (ed Luke O’Sullivan), Imprint Academic, Exeter, 2004

Leon Pompa, Human Nature And Historical Knowledge. Hume, Hegel and Vico, Cambridge University Press, 1990

William H Shaw, Marx’s Theory Of History, Hutchinson, London, 1978

Beverley Southgate, Postmodernism In History. Fear or Freedom, Routledge, London, 2003

Beverley Southgate, What Is History For?, Routledge, London, 2005

Michael Stanford, An Introduction to the Philosophy of History, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998

David Thomson, The Aims Of History. Values of the historical attitude, Thames and Hudson, London, 1969

By DAVID MYTON

(With thanks to my daughter Hayley for the idea and lots of info)

Dear Subscribers - This is my regular Rambling On history post - not the usual referenced, research-essay style. The focus (or lack of it) in this Ramble is the Moon - that is, the Moon we see in the night sky from Earth. I confess, prior to this article I knew very little about the Moon (except that, as everyone knows, it is made of cheese and at whiles a cow jumps over it). My daughter Hayley informed me that Thursday night will see the final Super Moon of the year and that it will sit higher in the sky than the two previous super moons. She added: “The Moon will always remain a thing of beauty, wonder and mystery …” Do you think she is right? Or has it been totally de-mystified since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took a stroll on its surface as part of the Apollo 11 mission in July 1969?

Anyway, what follows is a randomish assortment of Moon facts and references cobbled together from the Internet. Feel free to chip in with (preferably polite, informative) comments and/or examples.

Tonight, December 5 2025, we Earthlings will be able to witness (given clear skies) a Super Moon - that is, when the full Moon coincides with the point in its orbit closest to Earth (perigee), making it appear larger and brighter than usual. I live way down south in Sydney, Australia, so I will see it before you denizens of the Northern Hemisphere get a look.

Anyway, ancient societies saw the Moon as a powerful force shaping time, fertility, and fate, and was often worshipped as a deity. While many cultures personified the Moon as female, others saw it as male, and its meaning shifted dramatically with the Scientific Revolution, when it became an object of study rather than worship.

🌕 What is a Supermoon?

- A Supermoon occurs when the Moon is both full and at its closest orbital point to Earth (perigee).

- Because the Moon’s orbit is elliptical, its distance from Earth varies between ~363,300 km (perigee) and ~405,500 km (apogee).

- At perigee, the Moon can appear up to 14 per cent larger and 30 per cent brighter than at apogee.

- The term “Supermoon” originated in astrology but is now widely used in astronomy.

🏺 The Moon in Pre-Christian Societies

- Mesopotamia: The Moon god Nanna (Sin) was central to timekeeping and celestial order. Temples aligned with lunar cycles reinforced its divine role.

- Egypt: Deities like Khonsu and Thoth embodied lunar power, linked to fertility, protection, and wisdom.

- Mesoamerica (Maya): Lunar phases guided agriculture and ritual calendars, symbolizing cycles of life and death.

- The Moon’s phases were universally tied to fertility, rebirth, and cosmic rhythm, shaping calendars and rituals.

🌙 Three Examples of Moon-Worship

- Greek & Roman: Worship of Selene/Luna, later merged with Artemis/Diana, goddesses of the Moon’s phases.

- Mesopotamian: Temples dedicated to Sin, who governed time and celestial events.

- Egyptian: Khonsu, protector of travelers and fertility, and Thoth, associated with wisdom and lunar cycles.

Moon worship was widespread, reflecting its perceived control over tides, fertility, and fate.

- 👩‍🦰 Was the Moon Always Female? Not always:

- In European traditions, the Moon was often female (Selene, Artemis, Luna).

- In Mesopotamia and Egypt, it was male (Sin, Khonsu).

- Gender associations arose from cultural norms:

- The Sun was often seen as active, creative, and masculine.

- The Moon, with its cyclical, receptive qualities, was linked to femininity, fertility, and mystery.

- Languages reinforced this: Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian) treat the Moon as feminine, while German and Slavic languages often treat it as masculine.

🔭 The Moon in the Scientific Age

- Scientific Revolution (16th–17th centuries):

- Copernicus and Galileo shifted the Moon from mystical object to celestial body governed by natural laws. (See my previous article on Galileo)

- Galileo’s telescope revealed craters and mountains, proving it was not a perfect divine sphere.

- Isaac Newton explained lunar motion through universal gravitation, integrating the Moon into a rational cosmos.

- By the Enlightenment, lunar worship faded, replaced by scientific curiosity. Astrology and alchemy lost credibility, while astronomy became a respected discipline.

✨ The inspirational Moon …

The Moon’s journey from divine mystery to scientific object mirrors humanity’s intellectual evolution. Once worshipped as a goddess or god shaping fertility and fate, the Moon became a subject of rational inquiry, its beauty preserved but its meaning transformed.

The Moon has inspired music, poetry, literature, medicine, and science alike. It appears in countless songs, poems, and books, is a recurring theme in classical compositions, and was long believed to influence health and illness.

🎶 Five Songs with Moon in the Title

- Bad Moon Rising (YouTube vid) – Creedence Clearwater Revival

- Blue Moon – The Marcels (YouTube vid))

- Man on the Moon – R.E.M.

- Fly Me to the Moon – Frank Sinatra

- Moon River – Andy Williams

📜 Five Poems Referencing the Moon

- Percy Bysshe Shelley – To the Moon

- Emily Dickinson – The Moon Was But a Chin of Gold

- Robert Frost – The Freedom of the Moon

- Federico García Lorca – Ballad of the Moon, Moon

- Wallace Stevens – Lunar Paraphrase

📚 Five Books with Moon in the Title

- Goodnight Moon – Margaret Wise Brown

- New Moon – Stephenie Meyer

- The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress – Robert A. Heinlein

- From the Earth to the Moon – Jules Verne

- Killers of the Flower Moon – David Grann

🎼 The Moon in Classical Music

The Moon has been a muse for composers across centuries:

- Beethoven – Moonlight Sonata

- Debussy – Clair de Lune

- Dvořák – Song to the Moon (from Rusalka)

- Mozart – Die Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute, with lunar symbolism)

- Einaudi – Under the Moon (modern classical)

🩺 Moon and Medicine

- Ancient and medieval medicine often linked the Moon to illness and behavior.

- The word lunatic derives from luna, reflecting belief that the full Moon caused madness.

- Egyptian medicine tied lunar phases to healing rituals and fertility.

- Medieval European physicians used lunar cycles to time treatments and harvest herbs.

- Folklore connected the Moon to sleep disturbances, menstrual cycles, and violent behavior, though modern science finds little evidence.

Have a good night folks!

Please consider becoming a paid subscriber

By DAVID MYTON

The Enlightenment is aptly named. Slowly at first, and virtually unregistered by the mass of peoples across Europe, a new way of thinking emerged that ultimately would erode the Medieval framework laboriously constructed on religious belief, tradition, and folk superstitions.

As a result, the medieval witch mania and its attendant superstitions would fade to the margins, if not disappear entirely.

Belief in Satan had been part of the normality of medieval religion during the Middle Ages, as was the understanding that the devil actively worked to deprive people of their salvation.

Demons were treated as part of the physical creation, Satan’s presence was ubiquitous, and magic “was a given in Christian Europe”, writes R.N. Swanson.

“After 1400, uses of magic which previously had been denounced as ignorant and misguided began to attract attention as diabolic and Satanic … The stereotype of the witch owed much to the traditional bogey of the heretic with the practices ascribed to them - cannibalism, child-murder, sexual orgies, and the desecration of of Christian symbols - repeating allegations made about heretical sects for centuries,” (Swanson, Religion and Devotion in Europe c.1215-c.1515, Cambridge Medieval Textbooks, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p292)

The misogeny implicit in witchcraft was further stirred by contemporary publications such as the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) - by the German clergyman Heinrich Kramer (under his Latinized name Henricus Institor) - first published in 1486:

“Witches are so called on account of the blackness of their guilt, that is to say, their deeds are more evil than those of any other malefactors … they distract the minds of men, driving them to madness, insane hatred, and inordinate lust … A wicked woman is by her nature quicker to waver in her faith, and consequently quicker to abjure the faith, which is the root of witchcraft.” (Malleus Maleficarum, passim)

However, whilst all this was taking place, the educational and social conditions that gave rise to the witch-hunt mania were slowly being undermined.

New thinking challenges Church

The intellectual and political edifice of Christianity, seemingly impregnable in the Middle Ages, was being challenged by new thought forms flowing from the Renaissance, humanism, and the Protestant Reformation.

The Renaissance had rediscovered much of Classical culture and revived the notion of humans as creative beings, while the Reformation, more directly but in the long run no less effectively, challenged the monolithic authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Humanism - employing reason, logic, and the scientific method as the primary tools for understanding the world and solving problems - bred the experimental science of Francis Bacon, Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo, and the mathematical investigations of the likes of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and Isaac Newton.

Out of this emerged the Enlightenment - an era characterized by an emphasis on reason, empirical evidence, and scientific method, at least on the part of scholars and intellectuals.

Key rationalist philosophers including Baruch Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz helped to create a new intellectual framework which would set in motion the demise of witchcraft and witch-hunts.

Support for Sorcery slips

Diabolical witchcraft came into being in the Middle Ages, flourished between 1450-1650, then slowly faded away, persisting in the countryside longer than in the cities. The same legal, intellectual, and religious elites who had fomented the witch-craze now slowly brought it to a halt, writes Jeffrey B Russell …

“… Belief in witchcraft and sorcery no longer had their stamp of approval. Only after the governing elites had rejected witch beliefs did popular support wither away … it was as intellectually disreputable to defend witchcraft under the new system as it had been to attack it in the old …

“Witchcraft declined because a new world view made it a superstition … a philosophical and religious revolution had changed the whole concept of the cosmos and how it worked.” (Russell, A History of Witchcraft. Sorcerers, Heretics and Pagans, Thames & Hudson, London, 1980, pp123-124)

The traditions of medieval philosophy were thus overturned. The existence of universal, observable, mechanical, and describable laws of nature rendered angels and demons unnecessary and illogical.

For one example, the jurist Christian Thomasius, chancellor of the University of Halle, Saxony, was extremely skeptical about the reality of witchcraft, declaring it was “an imaginary crime” and denying the existence of the witches’ sabbath and the influence of evil spirits on corporeal bodies.

“He never denied the existence of the Devil, but his concept of demonic power was so limited that it rendered the crime of witchcraft impossible … the power of the Devil was exercised only in the spiritual sphere; it thus had only moral influence,” writes Brian P Levack, The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe (3rd ed), Pearson Education, London, 2006, p265)

Thomasius recommended that when cases of witchcraft came before the courts, judges needed to proceed with great caution, investigate the possibility of deception, and demand more proof than was required under existing criminal law.

In his 1705 book Dissertation concerning Torture, Thomasius argued that the practice of torture was irreligious and unjust and must be prohibited. (Brian P Levack, The Witchcraft Sourcebook, 2015)

Opposition to trials and torture

The German Jesuit priest, professor and poet Friedrich Spee opposed witch trials and argued strongly against the use of torture, which he said had “the power to create witches where none exists.”

In his book Cautio Criminalis, first printed anonymously in 1631, Spee - a Jesuit confessor during sessions of torture and executions of alleged witches - listed more than 50 “doubts” (Dubium) regarding witch trials and called for reform.

His recommendations and observations included the following Dubium:

That the accused should be provided a lawyer and a legal defense, the enormity of the crime making this all the more important.

That most prisoners would confess to anything under torture in order to stop the pain.

Condemning the accused for not confessing under torture (so-called “sorcery of silence”) was absurd.

Torture - including “barbarous cruelty” and sexual assaults on women - did not produce truth, since those who wished to stop their own suffering could stop it with lies.

Accusations against alleged accomplices stemming from torture were of little value: either the tortured person was innocent, in which case she had no accomplices, or she was really in league with the Devil, in which case her denunciations could not be trusted either.

Louis XIV and the sorcery scandal

It wasn’t just the intellectuals who’d had enough of witchcraft. King Louis XIV of France also helped to hurry along its decline thanks to the Affair of the Poisons, one of the most sensational criminal cases of 17th-century France.

In this, nobles, prosperous bourgeois and commoners secretly met with Parisian female fortune-tellers to access drugs and poisons for black masses and other maleficent goings-on.

In April 1679, following a secret investigation lasting three years, a special tribunal was set up to judge the more than 300 culprits of whom 36 were sentenced to death for witchcraft, including poisoner La Voisin (Catherine Deshayes), who was burned at the stake on February 22, 1680.

Implicated in the scandal was Madame de Montespan, the celebrated mistress of Louis XIV. She had been accused of resorting to magic and philtres to win the King’s love; of participating in black masses; and attempting to poison her rival, Mlle de Fontanges, and the King.

Louis XIV came to her rescue and issued several edicts which in 1682 led to the decriminalization of witchcraft in France. Torture, once central to extracting confessions, was restricted or abolished. Without coerced testimony, cases collapsed.

Barbaric relics of ignorance

The influential French philosopher Montesquieu ridiculed witch trials as “barbaric relics of ignorance” and witchcraft itself as nothing more than “fraudulent magic and trickery”.

Another French intellectual, Rene Descartes, also contributed to the demise of demons, imps, witches and magicians. His influential book Discourse on the Method (published in 1637), argued for “systematical disbelief” in more or less everything unless there was a well-founded reason for accepting it:

“Cartesianism led to the assumption of an orderly universe whose regular operations, ordained by the Deity from the beginning, were unlikely to be disturbed by the intervention of spiritual powers. God would have no wish to upset the laws he himself had established; much less would he give the Devil power to do so. Mysterious events, whether supposed miracles caused by God or supposed maleficia brought about by the power of the Devil, were either false reports or could be assigned a material explanation. The ‘liberal’ religious thought that grew out of the Enlightenment abandoned the ancient struggle between the good Lord and the Devil [and] postulated instead a dispassionate, just, orderly, rational Deity … a kindly and reasonable God.” (Russel, op cit, pp124-125)

England repealed its witchcraft laws in 1736, and other states followed suit. The machinery of persecution slowed, then stopped. Witchcraft was no longer a crime and so, without clerical or judicial backing, witchcraft beliefs lost their power to trigger mass persecutions.

Further, advances in medicine, physics, and meteorology explained illness, storms, and crop failures without recourse to witches. Satire and ridicule turned witch trials into objects of mockery, stripping them of legitimacy.

What had once been deadly serious became laughable in the salons of Paris and the lecture halls of London.

By the late 18th and early 19th centuries …

“… no educated person believed that witchcraft had ever existed or ever could exist and folk wisdom, always at least half a century behind the intellectuals, followed, proclaiming that ‘there is no such thing as as witch’ … the diabolical witch returned to the real of fantasy whence she had sprung”. (Russell, op cit, p131)

As educated elites rushed to dismiss witchcraft as superstition, in the broader community many ordinary people still nursed magical explanations for unusual events - but without clerical or judicial backing, witchcraft beliefs lost their power to trigger mass persecutions.

In Europe’s more marginal rural areas, misfortune often was still explained through witchcraft; while protective charms and rituals endured well into the 19th century.

The decline of witchcraft trials in Europe did not immediately extend to colonial societies. In America, for example, Salem’s infamous trials in 1692 occurred just as prosecutions were waning in Europe. Elsewhere, some colonial legal codes retained witchcraft statutes longer than their European counterparts, allowing accusations to linger.

From felony to folklore

By the late 18th century, Europe had entered a new era. Witchcraft, once seen as a deadly threat to Christian society, was increasingly dismissed as delusion or folklore. Judicial reform, religious moderation, Enlightenment rationalism, and social change dismantled the scaffolding of persecution. Yet the persistence of witchcraft beliefs in rural and colonial contexts reminds us that cultural transformations are uneven.

The witch-hunt craze ended not with a sudden enlightenment of the masses, but with a shift in power: courts, clergy, and intellectuals no longer gave credence to accusations.

What had once been a terrifying reality became, in the Enlightenment age, a cautionary tale of superstition and injustice - a marker of Europe’s transition from demonological terror to skeptical modernity.

Even as courts and elites abandoned witch trials in the 18th century, belief in witchcraft did not simply vanish.

Elite vs. Popular Culture

The decline of witch hunts highlighted the widening gap between elite intellectual culture and popular belief. Enlightenment thinkers dismissed witchcraft as superstition, and courts followed suit.

Ordinary people, especially in rural areas, continued to fear witches and rely on magical explanations for misfortune. However, over time, education, urbanisation, and the spread of rationalist thought eroded these beliefs, but the process was uneven and slow.

The end of witch trials was not simply the disappearance of belief but a shift in authority:

Courts and churches no longer validated accusations.

Intellectual elites redefined witchcraft as folklore rather than crime.

Popular culture retained elements of fear and superstition, but without institutional backing, these beliefs lost their power to trigger mass persecutions.

By the 18th century, witch-hunts had ended in Europe’s courts, but the cultural memory of witchcraft endured in rural communities and colonial societies.

The craze’s decline was thus both a triumph of Enlightenment rationalism and a reminder of how deeply rooted supernatural beliefs can be.

Witchcraft survived as folklore, not felony - a shift that marked Europe’s transition from a world of demonological terror to one of skeptical modernity.

For extra context on this era check out my previous posts:

The shocking persecution of Europe’s weather witches

Magic, spells, old gods and witches: how to survive in medieval England

Holy smoke: The rise of the Spanish Inquisition

Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada: monster ... or just misunderstood?

Oliver Cromwell, the dead again Christian who brought down a King

The role of religion in the beheading of King Charles I of England

REFERENCES

Wulfgang Behringer, Weather, Hunger and Fear: Origins of the European Witch-Hunts in Climate, Society and Mentality (pdf)

George L. Burr, ed., The Witch Persecutions in Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History. University of Pennsylvania History Department, (1898-1912) vol. 3, no. 4

Richard Kieckheffer, Magic in the Middle Ages, Cambridge University Press, 1989

Heinrich Kramer, Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches)

Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Wordsworth Edition Ltd, London, 1995

Marcel Mauss, A General Theory of Magic, London 1972

Jeffrey B Russell, A History of Witchcraft. Sorcerers, Heretics and Pagans, Thames & Hudson, London, 1980

R N Swanson, Religion and Devotion in Europe c.1215-c.1515, Cambridge Medieval Textbooks, 1995