Origins of nationhood (was Re: Saxons and Normans)
CG Luxford
itself there doesn't seem to be such an option on this software, I
therefore ask people reading this elsewhere to follow up to
soc.history.early-modern]
On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Erland Gadde wrote:
> The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
> A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
> in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
> and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
> as an _ethnical_ conflict.
> Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
> to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
> if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
V for evidence of this.
More on topic for the original post is the concept of the "Norman Yoke"
which was prevalent during the English Civil War and Commonwealth
period.
The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least) enslaved
under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of national
identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of nationhood.
Please direct any follow-ups to soc.history.early-modern
Chris,
collou...@my-dejanews.com
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> [I would have set follow-ups to she-m, but for reasons best known to
> itself there doesn't seem to be such an option on this software, I
> therefore ask people reading this elsewhere to follow up to
> soc.history.early-modern]
>
> On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Erland Gadde wrote:
>
> > The British TV-series "Ivanhoe" is currently showed i Swedish Television.
> > A major theme in this TV-series is the conflict between Saxons and Normans
> > in medieval England. The impression is that this conflict was very serious
> > and that influenced all the people, rich and poor. Also, it is described
> > as an _ethnical_ conflict.
> > Now, since nationalism is only about 200 years old, I find this hard
> > to believe. Surely, for majority of the population, it couldn't matter
> > if their masters were Saxons or Normans, or ... ?
>
> While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
> this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
> V for evidence of this.
I don't know about that. The mere use of "nation" and the like, even the
concept of Norman Yoke etc. don't seem to me to be Nationalism ipso facto, as
opposed to other forms of idenity. But then, I guess you might want to first
define what one means by nationalism.
> More on topic for the original post is the concept of the "Norman Yoke"
> which was prevalent during the English Civil War and Commonwealth
> period.
>
> The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
> English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least) enslaved
> under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of national
> identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of nationhood.
Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
identity, that is quite debatable. One needs to look at the sense of the
words at the time, as far as possible, and in the context of other identities
around at the time.
> Please direct any follow-ups to soc.history.early-modern
>
> Chris,
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
CG Luxford
PLEASE SET FOLLOW UPS TO SOC.HISTORY.EARLY-MODERN
On Wed, 9 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
> > this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
> > V for evidence of this.
>
> I don't know about that. The mere use of "nation" and the like, even the
> concept of Norman Yoke etc. don't seem to me to be Nationalism ipso facto, as
> opposed to other forms of idenity. But then, I guess you might want to first
> define what one means by nationalism.
>
Re-reading my post quoted above I can see that my wording was rather
ambiguous.
What I actually _meant_ was that while "nationalism" is an C18/C19
concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
middle ages.
[snip]
> >
> > The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
> > English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least) enslaved
> > under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of national
> > identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of nationhood.
>
> Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
> identity, that is quite debatable.
While the Norman Yoke was not a mainstream concept, I believe that it
was part of a wider sense of English national identity.
From the late C16 there were a number of publications which looked at
various aspects of England, Britain, etc. Camden's _Brittania_, Speed's
_History of Britain_, Foxe's _Acts and Monuments_ etc.
Of the three mentioned above only Speed gives any real justification for
any kind of 'Norman Yoke' type concept, and this only tenuously.
That said however Foxe demonstrates a clear sense of English (and to a
certain extent British) national identity in his development of the
idea of the English as the new chosen people of God.
> One needs to look at the sense of the
> words at the time, as far as possible, and in the context of other identities
> around at the time.
>
Part of this can be found in the Commonwealth's political identity as a
government for and on behalf of the English People. If you read
government declarations between the establishment of the Commonwealth
and the Instrument of Government you will see that they are signed by
the Speaker of the House "on behalf of the People and Parliament of the
Commonwealth of England."
I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
the state by its population, and not just by its government.
Chris,
Chris Williams
> More on topic for the original post is the concept of the "Norman Yoke"
> which was prevalent during the English Civil War and Commonwealth
> period.
It stuck around for longer than that, too. Chartism had a lot to say about
it, as did some post-Chartist movements. Christopher Hill's essay on it is
still OK, but it's 'proletarianist' in a slightly ahistorical way.
Chris
Eric Berge
collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
> > this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
> > V for evidence of this.
>
> I don't know about that. The mere use of "nation" and the like, even the
> concept of Norman Yoke etc. don't seem to me to be Nationalism ipso facto, as
> opposed to other forms of idenity. But then, I guess you might want to first
> define what one means by nationalism.
Seems to me that having an assortment of various brand-names of Germans, Celts,
North Africans, Slavs, and whatnot marching around behind a standard bearing
an acronym for "The Senate and People of Rome" is pretty good evidence for
the emegence of non-ethnically based nationalism at an appreciably earlier date
than "early modern".
Eric Berge
(remove _ for address)
Pilar Quezzaire
: PLEASE SET FOLLOW UPS TO SOC.HISTORY.EARLY-MODERN
: What I actually _meant_ was that while "nationalism" is an C18/C19
: concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
: existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
: middle ages.
Howso? Ethnic identity and even racial identity certainly existed in the
early morden (we have the foundations and justifications for slavery
formed by ethnic attitudes) but in terms of a political consciousness, I
didn't think it possible to consider ideas of nationhood until at least
the concept of democracy was widespread. Absolutism ruled the early
modern, and until the concept of divine kingship was laid aside, democracy
wasn't truly possible. The Glorious Revolution sorta presetned it,
obviously the American revolution did, and finally, the French Revolution
signaled the death knells.
: [snip]
:> >
:> > The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
:> > English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least)
:> > enslaved under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of
:> > national identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of
:> > nationhood.
:>
:> Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
:> identity, that is quite debatable.
I agree. One cannot assume ethnic differentiation is the basis for
nationhood--on the contrary, nationhood is more likely to come about when
ethnic or religious diversity makes it necessary to create a political
distinction. Look at the process of ancient Roman citizenship, or some of
teh central issues concerning religion which in part led to the French
asking this question.
: While the Norman Yoke was not a mainstream concept, I believe that it :
: was part of a wider sense of English national identity.
Or at least, ethnic identity.
: From the late C16 there were a number of publications which looked at
: various aspects of England, Britain, etc. Camden's _Brittania_, Speed's
: _History of Britain_, Foxe's _Acts and Monuments_ etc.
The Greeks and the Romans made similar histories, if you recall. Such was
also done in the Mali and Songhay Empires, whose kingsordered histories of
the region to be made, mostly to prove the contributions of teh ethnic
groups whom those persons belonged to.
: That said however Foxe demonstrates a clear sense of English (and to a
: certain extent British) national identity in his development of the
: idea of the English as the new chosen people of God.
Then were ancient Hebraic people the first true nation?
: I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
: ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
: the state by its population, and not just by its government.
: Chris,
Might we switch gears a bit then, and discuss how other nations have dealt
with the topic for better ideas? I realize this started as a british
newsgroup topic, but I am writing from soc.history.early.modern.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Quezzaire-Belle Art Geek quez...@fas.harvard.edu
"Social historian? Is that some kinda disease? A new virus, perhaps..."
"No. I'm one of those people who gets paid to discuss how stupid the rest
of humanity is. I'm Howard Stern with a respectable rep."
--Conversation online
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
collou...@my-dejanews.com
Not in a thousand years. Come on, we haven't a clue to the living identity,
ethnically or in terms of "nation" of Gauls or North Africans. We have some
elite writings, yeah, but that to me is not a key to taging Roman citizens
with something we could call Nationalism. Again, you really have to define
what one means by the word. Too broad and you just have a synonym for
Ethnicity and absolutely no analytical value.
I think it is quite clear that mass education in the 19th century, along with
new theories of biological relatedness created something different from
previous forms of identity, which were much more locally based (outside of a
national elite). I would call that Nationalism and argue that it is an
essnetially modern phenomena --because this form of idenity is so different
from what came before.
In terms of Rome, you have to convience me that there is some reason that it
differed say from early 19th c. France or Spain --to take two examples-- where
one finds quite clearly that "National" identity did not exist outside of the
center, although mechanisms like general education, regular military
conscription and other national institutions were starting to efface local
identification.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
> > >
> > > While it is true that "Nationalism" is an essentially C18/C19 concept,
> > > this does not mean that it didn't exist before, read Shakespeare's Henry
> > > V for evidence of this.
> >
> > I don't know about that. The mere use of "nation" and the like, even the
> > concept of Norman Yoke etc. don't seem to me to be Nationalism ipso facto,
as
> > opposed to other forms of idenity. But then, I guess you might want to
first
> > define what one means by nationalism.
> >
> ambiguous.
>
> concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
> existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
> middle ages.
Okay, I think that's more workable, although I have --as I outline in another
reply-- severe reservations about extending nationalism as a phenomena beyond
the 19th century. I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept (something like Athenian identity
vis-a-vis the metics -- well that's not a great analogy so don't get hung up
on that one.) which had a situational impact on the common people who
continued (as we see in the more well documented 19th century) to identify
themselves as Basques or Scots or whomever *under* the rule of the French or
the English or whatnot. Still this is a slippery concept.
> [snip]
> > >
> > > The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
> > > English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least) enslaved
> > > under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of national
> > > identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of nationhood.
> >
> > Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
> > identity, that is quite debatable.
>
> While the Norman Yoke was not a mainstream concept, I believe that it
> was part of a wider sense of English national identity.
>
> From the late C16 there were a number of publications which looked at
> various aspects of England, Britain, etc. Camden's _Brittania_, Speed's
> _History of Britain_, Foxe's _Acts and Monuments_ etc.
Yeah, but was this a *mass* concept or an elite one? Did a Yorkshire (or
whereever, my English geography is escaping me) commoners really feel English?
If they did, was it their foremost identification or did they not continue to
identify themselves on a regional basis?
> Of the three mentioned above only Speed gives any real justification for
> any kind of 'Norman Yoke' type concept, and this only tenuously.
>
> That said however Foxe demonstrates a clear sense of English (and to a
> certain extent British) national identity in his development of the
> idea of the English as the new chosen people of God.
Hmm, I think it makes sense for an English identity to emerge early if only
bec. its an Island with a somewhat unique cultural position in relationship
with its neighbors, but I'd be interested to know about (and I know this is
hard) the grass roots. Still it does not strike me as unreasonable to say
that eltie national cultures are springing up in the 15th century (with the
vernacular book taking off and a breakdown in medieval christendom ideas)
> > One needs to look at the sense of the
> > words at the time, as far as possible, and in the context of other
identities
> > around at the time.
> >
> Part of this can be found in the Commonwealth's political identity as a
> government for and on behalf of the English People. If you read
> government declarations between the establishment of the Commonwealth
> and the Instrument of Government you will see that they are signed by
> the Speaker of the House "on behalf of the People and Parliament of the
> Commonwealth of England."
> I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
> ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
> the state by its population, and not just by its government.
I think that is a start. I think it needs to be compared to continental
political rhetoric to test the extant which the "people" were really THE
people. Still, I don't want to discount this period as a start for the seeds
of Nationalism with a big N, but I wanna be cautious.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> In soc.history.early-modern CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> : PLEASE SET FOLLOW UPS TO SOC.HISTORY.EARLY-MODERN
Ooops, sorry my reply missed that.
> : What I actually _meant_ was that while "nationalism" is an C18/C19
> : concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
> : existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
> : middle ages.
>
> Howso? Ethnic identity and even racial identity certainly existed in the
> early morden (we have the foundations and justifications for slavery
> formed by ethnic attitudes) but in terms of a political consciousness, I
> didn't think it possible to consider ideas of nationhood until at least
> the concept of democracy was widespread. Absolutism ruled the early
> modern, and until the concept of divine kingship was laid aside, democracy
> wasn't truly possible. The Glorious Revolution sorta presetned it,
> obviously the American revolution did, and finally, the French Revolution
> signaled the death knells.
I agree in large part. I think raising the phrase "political consciousness"
is key: the modern sense of Nation and Nationalism have a very specific
sense of larger group identity which, I think, require effective political
institutions to support the mythology. One should not assume local
identities just went out of fashiion.
> : [snip]
> :> >
> :> > The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
> :> > English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least)
> :> > enslaved under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of
> :> > national identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of
> :> > nationhood.
> :>
> :> Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
> :> identity, that is quite debatable.
>
> I agree. One cannot assume ethnic differentiation is the basis for
> nationhood--on the contrary, nationhood is more likely to come about when
> ethnic or religious diversity makes it necessary to create a political
> distinction. Look at the process of ancient Roman citizenship, or some of
> teh central issues concerning religion which in part led to the French
> asking this question.
Indeed such an in the English nation, to incorporate Welsh, Cornish, North
English and Scottish, no? (Or France or blah blah) Not that this is the only
way to incorporate, but I think it becomes necessary and effective with a
certain technology allowing strong central institutions but also which have
broken down previous socio-economic relationships and identities.
> : While the Norman Yoke was not a mainstream concept, I believe that it :
> : was part of a wider sense of English national identity.
>
> Or at least, ethnic identity.
>
> : From the late C16 there were a number of publications which looked at
> : various aspects of England, Britain, etc. Camden's _Brittania_, Speed's
> : _History of Britain_, Foxe's _Acts and Monuments_ etc.
>
> The Greeks and the Romans made similar histories, if you recall. Such was
> also done in the Mali and Songhay Empires, whose kingsordered histories of
> the region to be made, mostly to prove the contributions of teh ethnic
> groups whom those persons belonged to.
>
> : That said however Foxe demonstrates a clear sense of English (and to a
> : certain extent British) national identity in his development of the
> : idea of the English as the new chosen people of God.
>
> Then were ancient Hebraic people the first true nation?
>
> : I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
> : ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
> : the state by its population, and not just by its government.
>
> : Chris,
>
> Might we switch gears a bit then, and discuss how other nations have dealt
> with the topic for better ideas? I realize this started as a british
> newsgroup topic, but I am writing from soc.history.early.modern.
I think the French are pretty well researched, as is German identity.
Unfortunately I don't know that much.
Pilar Quezzaire
: Not in a thousand years. Come on, we haven't a clue to the living identity,
: ethnically or in terms of "nation" of Gauls or North Africans
Excuse me? Are you serious? I can at least speak for North Africans, since
I happen to be an African historian. I havea very good idea of what the
North Africans were like from a rather early period, depending upon where
in North African you are talking about.
Try Egypt?
: We have some
: elite writings, yeah, but that to me is not a key to taging Roman citizens
: with something we could call Nationalism. Again, you really have to define
: what one means by the word. Too broad and you just have a synonym for
: Ethnicity and absolutely no analytical value.
Agreed, but Roman legal practices concerning citizenship show at least a
tendency towards a national consciousness. You knew whether you were Roman
or not, and while some siiliarities existed between Roman citizens, they
were still ethnically diverse. I won't go so far as to call this
nationalism, maybe a prototype of it.
: I think it is quite clear that mass education in the 19th century, along with
: new theories of biological relatedness created something different from
: previous forms of identity, which were much more locally based (outside of a
: national elite). I would call that Nationalism and argue that it is an
: essnetially modern phenomena --because this form of idenity is so different
: from what came before.
I agree in part there. I also think the sawitch to democracy and the
advent of colonialism helped to solidify national consciousness. With teh
establishment of teh Other comes a need to define one's self, and this was
done on political rather than personal terms in the 19th century, either
by the colonizer or the colonized.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
Pilar Quezzaire <quez...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> In soc.history.early-modern collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> : Not in a thousand years. Come on, we haven't a clue to the living identity,
> : ethnically or in terms of "nation" of Gauls or North Africans
>
> Excuse me? Are you serious? I can at least speak for North Africans, since
> I happen to be an African historian. I havea very good idea of what the
> North Africans were like from a rather early period, depending upon where
> in North African you are talking about.
You've misundertood me, or rather I see I expressed this in an clumsy way. I
did not mean we don't know objectively (although maybe roughly) what peoples
lived where. What I meant was we don't have a clue as to the
self-identification of the masses of North Africa or Gaul. We know what
they're called but their voices, aside from that of the elites, are silent to
us. Can we say if joe schmoe Berber or whatnot in North Africa identified
with a Roman Imperial nation? I find it doubtful.
> Try Egypt?
Nah, Don't think its going to be Roman identified. Quite the contrary.
> : We have some
> : elite writings, yeah, but that to me is not a key to taging Roman citizens
> : with something we could call Nationalism. Again, you really have to define
> : what one means by the word. Too broad and you just have a synonym for
> : Ethnicity and absolutely no analytical value.
>
> Agreed, but Roman legal practices concerning citizenship show at least a
> tendency towards a national consciousness. You knew whether you were Roman
> or not, and while some siiliarities existed between Roman citizens, they
> were still ethnically diverse. I won't go so far as to call this
> nationalism, maybe a prototype of it.
Maybe, I don't think it is Nationalism though bec. I don't see it overcoming
local identities, but I think this is an unknown. It might have been a
prototype for the larger scale elite identity, but I tend to think that this
must have operated much more like the non-ethnic pan-Christendom sense of self
of the "Middle Ages"
> : I think it is quite clear that mass education in the 19th century, along
with
> : new theories of biological relatedness created something different from
> : previous forms of identity, which were much more locally based (outside of a
> : national elite). I would call that Nationalism and argue that it is an
> : essnetially modern phenomena --because this form of idenity is so different
> : from what came before.
>
> I agree in part there. I also think the sawitch to democracy and the
> advent of colonialism helped to solidify national consciousness. With teh
> establishment of teh Other comes a need to define one's self, and this was
> done on political rather than personal terms in the 19th century, either
> by the colonizer or the colonized.
Yeah, but I think this Other thing is overplayed in terms of colonialism.
(not that I'm putting down the impact of colonialism) Not bec. it's not
important but rather bec. the Other has always been important in Identity,
regardless of the scale. I think the need to define one's self comes....well
this is a bit of the chicken and the egg isn't it. Let's just say they come
hand in hand. I disagree somewhat in saying that in the 19th century this is
suddenly political rather than personal -- rather I think a better way to put
it is it becomes Macro rather than Micro scale bec. of technological changes
which allow larger scale political entities to be more effective.
Pilar Quezzaire
:> Excuse me? Are you serious? I can at least speak for North Africans, since
:> I happen to be an African historian. I havea very good idea of what the
:> North Africans were like from a rather early period, depending upon where
:> in North African you are talking about.
: You've misundertood me, or rather I see I expressed this in an clumsy way. I
: did not mean we don't know objectively (although maybe roughly) what peoples
: lived where. What I meant was we don't have a clue as to the
: self-identification of the masses of North Africa or Gaul. We know what
: they're called but their voices, aside from that of the elites, are silent to
: us. Can we say if joe schmoe Berber or whatnot in North Africa identified
: with a Roman Imperial nation? I find it doubtful.
Oh aha. I fall silent on this issue then, we can only glean from 'elite'
sources the life of the masses, true.
:> Agreed, but Roman legal practices concerning citizenship show at least a
:> tendency towards a national consciousness. You knew whether you were Roman
:> or not, and while some siiliarities existed between Roman citizens, they
:> were still ethnically diverse. I won't go so far as to call this
:> nationalism, maybe a prototype of it.
: Maybe, I don't think it is Nationalism though bec. I don't see it overcoming
: local identities, but I think this is an unknown. It might have been a
: prototype for the larger scale elite identity, but I tend to think that this
: must have operated much more like the non-ethnic pan-Christendom sense of self
: of the "Middle Ages"
I see the relationship of Roman citizens, to "aliens" esp. in the
colonized areas, as having the same status as say, colonial Europeans
living in Africa, South America, etc.
In Rome itself, I would imagine the relationship would have been similar
to Americans and illegal Mexican immigrants living in America.
: Yeah, but I think this Other thing is overplayed in terms of colonialism.
: (not that I'm putting down the impact of colonialism) Not bec. it's not
: important but rather bec. the Other has always been important in Identity,
: regardless of the scale.
There is an awareness of the Other, certainly, but I would argue that the
power relationships established in Otherness during colonial times made
nationalism more possible. Or rather, more urgent for the partines
involved who actually started bandying about the word.
I'm going for Ireland here, folks.
CG Luxford
On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > What I actually _meant_ was that while "nationalism" is an C18/C19
> > concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
> > existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
> > middle ages.
>
> Okay, I think that's more workable, although I have --as I outline in another
> reply-- severe reservations about extending nationalism as a phenomena beyond
> the 19th century.
I wasn't extending national_ism_ so much as the nation state, and
national identity.
Admittedly these are both concepts whithout which nationalism cannot
exist, but it it is not necessary for nationalism to exist in order to
have a concept of the nation.
> I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
Fair point.
> which had a situational impact on the common people who
> continued (as we see in the more well documented 19th century) to identify
> themselves as Basques or Scots or whomever *under* the rule of the French or
> the English or whatnot. Still this is a slippery concept.
>
This does, of course raise the question of what we actually mean by a
nation. Today we tend to think of a nation as more or less synonymous
with a state, the legacy of C19 nationalism. But a nation does not have
to be a political entity.
In the above examples of course Scotland is generally thought
of as a nation or a country, even while it has been politically part of
a united British state.
Well the Norman Yoke idea was current among people from outside the
ruling elite, at Putney for example it was used by the representatives
of the ordinary sodiers, rather than the generals and political leaders.
As for other ideas in other times and places...
Though returning to the example of Shakespeare, his audience was
certainly not an elite one, but we are still in a very narrow
geographical area, in a relatively small time period.
> Still it does not strike me as unreasonable to say
> that eltie national cultures are springing up in the 15th century (with the
> vernacular book taking off and a breakdown in medieval christendom ideas)
>
> <snip>
>
> > I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
> > ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
> > the state by its population, and not just by its government.
>
> I think that is a start. I think it needs to be compared to continental
> political rhetoric to test the extant which the "people" were really THE
> people.
The English rhetoric at the time of the Commonwealth was that they were
"the people". The practice on the other hand remained oligarchical.
The Dutch might be considered the best continental comparison as they
had succesfully shaken off Spanish rule and established a federal
republic.
> Still, I don't want to discount this period as a start for the seeds
> of Nationalism with a big N, but I wanna be cautious.
Well I don't think anyone will have had any notion of Nationalism in
any of the senses that we might mean it today, but I do think that
concepts of nationhood were clearly discernable in a variety of forms,
some of which might no longer be thought of as "national"
Chris,
Chris Williams
Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
>
> Fair point.
Which IMO is why the EM period really did end in the late C18th: along
came the US and French revolutions with a very different concept of
citizenship and nation. The French one had the greater impact, mainly
because the only continental response to a levee en masse is another levee
en masse.
Ta da! Nationalism was born.
We need to forget about Hogarth for a bit, I suppose: or else acknowledge
that in this respect, em kicked in in GB around the 1730s. Or something.
The above is just about close enough to things I'm supposed to know about
for it to be necessary for me to add a disclaimer: I'm mjsing aloud, OK,
and I might be wrong.
Chris W
CG Luxford
On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Chris Williams wrote:
> CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
> >
> > Fair point.
>
> came the US and French revolutions with a very different concept of
> citizenship and nation. The French one had the greater impact, mainly
> because the only continental response to a levee en masse is another levee
> en masse.
>
> Ta da! Nationalism was born.
>
inspiration from the English Civil War, it would appear that they
succeeded where the English failed because the ideas had had time to
develop. The French may not have had a fully formed ideology when they
stormed the Bastille, but it was a lot further down the line than
anything anyone had had earlier.
The Americans of course started off by demanding their rights as
Englishmen.
> We need to forget about Hogarth for a bit, I suppose: or else acknowledge
> that in this respect, em kicked in in GB around the 1730s. Or something.
>
But to what extent was Hogarth responsible for nationalism etc? Was he
not simply reflecting the national identities etc of his time.
Mind you much of what I know about C18 British national identity is
from Linda Colley's _Britons_ (1992?).
Chris,
sch...@my-dejanews.com
CA...@le.ac.uk (Chris Williams) wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.95q.98121...@eis.bris.ac.uk>, CG
> Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
> >
> > Fair point.
>
> came the US and French revolutions with a very different concept of
> citizenship and nation. The French one had the greater impact, mainly
> because the only continental response to a levee en masse is another levee
> en masse.
>
> Ta da! Nationalism was born.
I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
the Hapsburg Empire idea. The revolts in Catalonia, Bohemia, and Ireland
were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
Also to a lesser extent Sweden, France, and Britain(during the rule of
Cromwell anyway and again after 1688) also had a rise in nationalism from
1600 on. Alot of this was due to a great deal, by the efforts of the
monarches to centralize power. When the local lord doesn't have his own army
anymore & is at the mercy of the King/Queen, the locals tend to look towards
the King/Queen more. The introduction of the Reformation, also played a
large part in the rise of nationalism.
---Oscar Schlaf---
John M Chapman
writes
>
> I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
>Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
>the Hapsburg Empire idea. The revolts in Catalonia, Bohemia, and Ireland
>were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
>of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
>
Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
common foe (France)
>
--
John M Chapman
Curt Emanuel
>
> Personally I would push it a lot further back than that. The statute of
> Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
> stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
> There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
> occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
> fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
> common foe (France)
> >
Harold Hutchison, in _Edward II_ also says that by the early 14th
century the beginnings of nationalism could be seen in England. I'd have
to dig for the quote - it's not listed in the index.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
CG Luxford
On 10 Dec 1998, Pilar Quezzaire wrote:
> In soc.history.early-modern CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> : What I actually _meant_ was that while "nationalism" is an C18/C19
> : concept, the nation, national identity and ideas of nationhood had all
> : existed in the early-modern period, and in some cases back into the
> : middle ages.
>
> early morden (we have the foundations and justifications for slavery
> formed by ethnic attitudes) but in terms of a political consciousness, I
> didn't think it possible to consider ideas of nationhood until at least
> the concept of democracy was widespread.
I don't think democracy is necessary for ideas of nationhood.
Admittedly the "free-born Englishman" of the C17 was demanding something
akin to democracy, but he already had the national identity.
> Absolutism ruled the early modern,
Though not in every country.
> and until the concept of divine kingship was laid aside, democracy
> wasn't truly possible. The Glorious Revolution sorta presetned it,
> obviously the American revolution did, and finally, the French Revolution
> signaled the death knells.
>
> : [snip]
> :> >
> :> > The Norman Yoke is basically the idea that before the Conquest the
> :> > English were free, and that they were (metaphorically at least)
> :> > enslaved under the Normans. This shows not only a strong sense of
> :> > national identity, but also an 'ethnic' basis for this idea of
> :> > nationhood.
> :>
> :> Does it? An ethnic basis of identity, yes. Strong sense of national
> :> identity, that is quite debatable.
>
> I agree. One cannot assume ethnic differentiation is the basis for
> nationhood-
No, but it is _a_ form of national identity.
The word 'ethnic' has a number of possible interpretations, some of
which are nationality based, and some are not. All interpretatins
however imply some sort of shared cultural heritage. This shared
culture, whether real or imagined, can form part of a national identity.
> -on the contrary, nationhood is more likely to come about when
> ethnic or religious diversity makes it necessary to create a political
> distinction.
Which can involve the creation of entirely new cultural heritage, like
when Belgium was invented, or the USA.
> Look at the process of ancient Roman citizenship,
I'm not sure whether that would, strictly speaking, come under the
heading of 'national identity'. OTOH, Roman citizens did share the
cultural heritage of Rome, whoever their ancestors may have been, and
this then became part of their ethnic identity.
> or some of
> teh central issues concerning religion which in part led to the French
> asking this question.
>
> : While the Norman Yoke was not a mainstream concept, I believe that it :
> : was part of a wider sense of English national identity.
>
> Or at least, ethnic identity.
>
The ethnic part of an English identity.
> : From the late C16 there were a number of publications which looked at
> : various aspects of England, Britain, etc. Camden's _Brittania_, Speed's
> : _History of Britain_, Foxe's _Acts and Monuments_ etc.
>
> The Greeks and the Romans made similar histories, if you recall.
I wasn't claiming them to be unique. I was citing them because I've read
them. All three, played a part in shaping the English, and later
British, national identities in the Early-Modern period. I don't doubt
that other books in other countries did much the same thing.
> Such was
> also done in the Mali and Songhay Empires, whose kingsordered histories of
> the region to be made, mostly to prove the contributions of teh ethnic
> groups whom those persons belonged to.
>
> : That said however Foxe demonstrates a clear sense of English (and to a
> : certain extent British) national identity in his development of the
> : idea of the English as the new chosen people of God.
>
> Then were ancient Hebraic people the first true nation?
>
Depends how much you believe the Old Testament. Assuming at least some
of the historical facts to be true, then the Biblical nation of Israel
can be said to be a nation in the modern sense.
> : I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
> : ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
> : the state by its population, and not just by its government.
>
> Might we switch gears a bit then, and discuss how other nations have dealt
> with the topic for better ideas?
I don't have the knowledge, but I was rather hoping for such a
discussion when I sent this thread here. If you (that's a general you to
the whole group) know relevant details in other countries, then please
contribute.
Chris,
John M Chapman
<joa...@lotos-land.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Personally I would push it a lot further back than that. The statute of
>>Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
>>stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
>>There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
>>occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
>>fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
>>common foe (France)
>>>
>
>government perceives nationhood and the common people?
That is undoubtedly true but in early 14th century England there was a
clear sense of identity which made 'us' different from 'them'
>
>From what I've read, it was usual for people to use the word 'country'
>meaning 'county', thier primary allegiance, and to speak of belonging
>to Christendom (a bit like the EU :-))
It was far more parochial than that - if you lived in a village three
miles from a town then you were regarded as a foreigner in the town.
Christendom was very much a scholars concept, not one which the common
people thought much about - it was an assumption that they were part of
Christendom whatever that meant. What had been established in England
pre-Conquest was a hierarchy of land tenure and obligations. No one was
in any doubt that all land belonged to the King who embodied the state,
one had rights of tenure which could and often were terminated. These
had to be renewed every time a tenure holder died. This hierarchy
extended down through earldoms down to serfs tending land under their
lords protection. The point is that this ended abruptly at the waters
edge making England a clearly self contained realm which you either
belonged to or didnt.
>
>Someone else mentioned the Reformation being an early turning point
>and I would have thought there was a lot of truth in that as it broke
>down the concept of Christendom with the Pope and H.R.Emperor at its
>head. From then on, the development of Protestant and Catholic nations
>differs somewhat until the late 18th C. The cites above seem too tied
>up with religion to qualify as truly nationalist (Catalonia excepted).
>
This had clearly broken down when there were two Popes. The HR Emporer
never had any jurisdiction within England although several tried to
meddle. The hierarchies within the HR Empire were quite different from
those in England and explain to a large extent the revulsion that most
English people share towards continentalism as being pushed by the EU.
>
>I do think there is a difference between nationalism and
>ethnic/cultural allegiances which we seem to have returned to right
>across Europe suggesting, perhaps, that they come to us more
>naturally.
>
There is - this was brought out in the 1930s by the Anschluss and the
annexation of Czechoslovakia etc to unify those who saw themselves as
German. England has never cared much for ethnic/cultural allegiances -
just assumed that foreigners who live long enough in England will become
assimilated - this is generally the view taken of Scots and Welsh -
hence the quite different cultural nationalism is Wales and Scotland.
>Joanna
--
John M Chapman
sch...@my-dejanews.com
John M Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <753umv$k9t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sch...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
>
> >
> > I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
> >Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> >the Hapsburg Empire idea. The revolts in Catalonia, Bohemia, and Ireland
> >were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
> >of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
> >
>
> Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
> stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
England was the exception rather then the rule. Being an island & having
a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
states until much later.
And the taxes raised in England at times was used to fund the Burgundians.
Don't know if that constitutes benefiting forgeigners, since it also helped
England in it's war against Royal France.
> There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
> occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
> fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
> common foe (France)
England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
---Oscar Schlaf---
Chris Williams
> I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
> Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> the Hapsburg Empire idea.
Hmm... I disagree there. Obviously it's about lots of things, and it's
hard to eliminate anything - especially something as protean as
'nationalism' - from influencing events.
But before nationalism, I'd blame it on (a) Protestantism; (b) localism
and the jealousy of estates and institutions, and (c) old-fashioned noble
ambition, before I'd cite 'nationalism' as a cause.
Chris
collou...@my-dejanews.com
Hmm, but I thought that the boundaries of Romaness were infinately more
permeable than the pretty impermeable boundaries between the colonial and the
'motherland' national (thinking of the 19th century here). But I haven't read
that much.
> In Rome itself, I would imagine the relationship would have been similar
> to Americans and illegal Mexican immigrants living in America.
Really? I dunno. I've always had the impression that once again Romaness
lacked that 'racial' feature of exclusion which makes nationality so
problematic in modern times.
> : Yeah, but I think this Other thing is overplayed in terms of colonialism.
> : (not that I'm putting down the impact of colonialism) Not bec. it's not
> : important but rather bec. the Other has always been important in Identity,
> : regardless of the scale.
>
> There is an awareness of the Other, certainly, but I would argue that the
> power relationships established in Otherness during colonial times made
> nationalism more possible. Or rather, more urgent for the partines
> involved who actually started bandying about the word.
Hmmm, I'm not disagreeing but I think this has less to do with the abstract
power relationships or a sense of otherness and more to do with a concrete
ability to enforce and define through technological advances.... Well at the
least they are pretty closely connected.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
snip
> > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
>
> Fair point.
>
> > which had a situational impact on the common people who
> > continued (as we see in the more well documented 19th century) to identify
> > themselves as Basques or Scots or whomever *under* the rule of the French or
> > the English or whatnot. Still this is a slippery concept.
> >
> This does, of course raise the question of what we actually mean by a
> nation. Today we tend to think of a nation as more or less synonymous
> with a state, the legacy of C19 nationalism. But a nation does not have
> to be a political entity.
Right, but then we're talking about Nation in its older sense of a "People" or
"Race" (itself in the older meaning of a people, like the Scottish race or
whatnot)
Hmm, that's interesting. It might be a move in the right direction for a
sense of nationhood over local identity, assuming that it is not working
alongside.
> As for other ideas in other times and places...
>
> Though returning to the example of Shakespeare, his audience was
> certainly not an elite one, but we are still in a very narrow
> geographical area, in a relatively small time period.
Right.
> > Still it does not strike me as unreasonable to say
> > that eltie national cultures are springing up in the 15th century (with the
> > vernacular book taking off and a breakdown in medieval christendom ideas)
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I agree that identifying with the people of England is not necessarily
> > > ethnocentric, but in equating the state with the people, it is defining
> > > the state by its population, and not just by its government.
> >
> > I think that is a start. I think it needs to be compared to continental
> > political rhetoric to test the extant which the "people" were really THE
> > people.
>
> The English rhetoric at the time of the Commonwealth was that they were
> "the people". The practice on the other hand remained oligarchical.
Probably the ideas and self-conception were in the process of evolving.
> The Dutch might be considered the best continental comparison as they
> had succesfully shaken off Spanish rule and established a federal
> republic.
Yeah, and they had a nice compact space, which makes it easier to start down
the path to a larger abstraction.
> > Still, I don't want to discount this period as a start for the seeds
> > of Nationalism with a big N, but I wanna be cautious.
>
> Well I don't think anyone will have had any notion of Nationalism in
> any of the senses that we might mean it today, but I do think that
> concepts of nationhood were clearly discernable in a variety of forms,
> some of which might no longer be thought of as "national"
Righto.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
> > Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > > I think the Nation, while the concept existed, tended to
> > > > be an elite concept, an oligarchic concept
> > >
> > > Fair point.
> >
> > came the US and French revolutions with a very different concept of
> > citizenship and nation. The French one had the greater impact, mainly
> > because the only continental response to a levee en masse is another levee
> > en masse.
> >
> > Ta da! Nationalism was born.
>
> Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
> of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
I dunno, how do you distinguish between local particularism and dislike for
outsider's rule and an active sense of a corporate identity replacing local
ones? The Dutch case at least seems to evolve in the proper direction
afterwards, but Catalonia, Bohemia and Ireland?
> Also to a lesser extent Sweden, France, and Britain(during the rule of
> Cromwell anyway and again after 1688) also had a rise in nationalism from
> 1600 on. Alot of this was due to a great deal, by the efforts of the
> monarches to centralize power. When the local lord doesn't have his own army
> anymore & is at the mercy of the King/Queen, the locals tend to look towards
> the King/Queen more. The introduction of the Reformation, also played a
> large part in the rise of nationalism.
Okay, I can go with the 1600s as a start for elites to begin to identify with
a modern idea of a nation-state as their source of self-identification as the
government centralizes but I find it hard to buy that for the normal joe
outside of the "center" -- I think a provencal peasant is still a man of
place X or at least of Provence before being French in his own mind.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <kiJyrFAb...@purley.demon.co.uk>,
> John M Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
> > >Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> > >the Hapsburg Empire idea. The revolts in Catalonia, Bohemia, and Ireland
> > >were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
> > >of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
> > >
> >
> > Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
> > stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
No way, not even close. I don't see that as being an expression of modern
national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in terms
of declarations of self-identity etc.
> England was the exception rather then the rule. Being an island & having
> a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
> nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
> states until much later.
Quite true. And even then recall that "England" in 1300 or even 1400 was
still being consolidated. Sure the "center" around London is well defined,
but what about the northern marches, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall?
> And the taxes raised in England at times was used to fund the Burgundians.
> Don't know if that constitutes benefiting forgeigners, since it also helped
> England in it's war against Royal France.
I think that it is important to recall that just bec. some group of the elite
came out against spending their money overseas on foreigners, that does not
mean they had a corporate identity or that such ideas were the dominant way
of thinking about onself and mobilizing public sentiment. I don't think that
comes for a long time.
> > There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
> > occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
> > fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
> > common foe (France)
>
> England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
> Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
Right, and recall some factions allied themselves with French interests. It
is a gross simplification which overlooks a whole lot of horse-trading. And
as I noted above, the borders were still far from clear. Where to draw the
line in the North? The West?
Inger E Johansson
haven't seen anyone making a big point of what I myself believe to have
been the two main points that formed what we nowadays calls a nationhood:
Family belongings on one hand, since the lineage meant more for man in
older times than we usually understands. In this we also have to understand
that a second cousins second cousin might be have been regarded as close as
we today think our sister or brother to be.
The believes and traditions. In this I refer to what God the big
Familygroup believed in and what traditions the group had. I do believe
that other Familygroups living close intermarried or not to the first
mentioned Familygroup if they believed in the same God and shared the same
tradition as well as living close to the first Familygroup felt being
united to each other in a way that early in mankind formed a belonging
likevise that we today calls nationhood.
I can't refer back prior to the Messopotanian and the Egypts but I do
believe that there might have been the same much much earlier.
Inger E Johansson BA History
<mrs.inger....@swipnet.se>
jr...@yahoo.com
collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In art[big snip]
> Okay, I can go with the 1600s as a start for elites to begin to identify with
> a modern idea of a nation-state as their source of self-identification as the
> government centralizes but I find it hard to buy that for the normal joe
> outside of the "center" -- I think a provencal peasant is still a man of
> place X or at least of Provence before being French in his own mind.
>
>
Christopher Allmand, in _The Hundred Years War_, has this to say about
nationalism and France:
It is arguable that it was the long war with England that was the most
influential single factor to contribute to the growing awareness of French
nationhood in this age...To meet the threat [of the English]...the French
crown had, in the face of strongly-held feelings of local loyalty, to create
a national effort which would both depend upon and reflect a developing sense
of nationhood. Yet, over a period of a century or more, this was
achieved...[I]n the thirteenth century...the idea of the *communis patria*,
the motherland with the king at its head, came to be increasingly employed.
From the same inspiration, that of Roman law, there emerged the idea of the
common good (*res publica*) embracing, in this case, all French people...
[p147]
Allman continues:
The threat of external attack played a crucial role in obliging France to
take stock of her defensive needs, in forcing her to face them in a communal
way, and in creating an awareness that all French people belonged to the same
nation, or patria, owing allegiance and obedience to the same king. [p147]
Allman recognized that this feeling of nationalism grew slowly over the period
of the Hundred Years War, yet he concludes that by the end, both England and
France had national identities.
Even if the common man in the street still felt strong attachments to local
institutions and customs, that does not preclude that he also could develop a
national identity. As an example, look at United States history. For the
first 80 or so years of its existence, Americans were likely to identify
themselves as Marylanders or Virginians or New Yorkers first, and Americans
second. Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate forces in the Civil War,
turned down Lincoln's offer of command of the Union Army because he felt he
could not oppose in battle his home state. Yet would any one seriously argue
that the U.S. did not have a "national" identity at this time? I don't think
so. While conflicting loyalties between a more central state and local
authorities may complicate the issue, it does not preclude the development of
nationalism.
--
Joe Rooney
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade in Sh
John M Chapman
dejanews.com writes
>> >
>> > Personally I would push it a lot further back than that. The statute of
>> > Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
>> > stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
>
>No way, not even close. I don't see that as being an expression of modern
>national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
>particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in terms
>of declarations of self-identity etc.
Could you translate this into English please, I am not well up in US
College speak.
>
>
>I think that it is important to recall that just bec. some group of the elite
>came out against spending their money overseas on foreigners, that does not
>mean they had a corporate identity or that such ideas were the dominant way
>of thinking about onself and mobilizing public sentiment. I don't think that
>comes for a long time.
The taxes being generally referred to were being paid to the Pope (one
or other of them)
>
>> > There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
>> > occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
>> > fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
>> > common foe (France)
>>
>> England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
>> Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
The Wat Tyler rebellion was a political march against the poll tax which
got out of hand on occasions. In no way could it be compared with the
Frnch/English conflict of the Hundred years war. The wars of the Roses
were mainly dynastic struggles for power and again no comparison is
sensible. In neither case could you describe them as England fighting
against itself in the sense of both the English and Americam Civil Wars.
Battles against Scotland were relatively common and would be seen by
both sides as nation versus nation.
>
> And
>as I noted above, the borders were still far from clear. Where to draw the
>line in the North? The West?
Much of the England/Scotland border area was disputed and populated by
the Rievers (robber barons) who owed allegience to no one. There were no
borders then in the west, both Wales and Cornwall were well and truly
incorporated - think how well the Welsh did at Crecy.
>
--
John M Chapman
Gareth
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, John M Chapman wrote:
>
> Much of the England/Scotland border area was disputed and populated by
> the Rievers (robber barons) who owed allegience to no one.
>
If you're talking about the early bit of the early modern period that's
not entirely correct. By the sixteenth century the Anglo-Scottish borders
were fairly well fixed - even Berwick had been in English hands since
1482. True, there was one area on the borders know as the "Debatable
Land", the ownership of which was never fully sorted (although that in
part ws due to the fact that neither the English nor the Scots actually
wanted to be the ones who got the fun of enforcing the law in it...), but
most of the borders were fairly well defined.
As to the Rievers, whilst some of them were barons, most of them
were your normal every day farming types who might own a house and
some land. And, with the exception of the notable outlaws in the Debatable
Land, they alled owed allegience to one or other of England and Scotland.
It ws just that they didn't always like to remember the fact...
Gareth
collou...@my-dejanews.com
> dejanews.com writes
>
> >> >
> >> > Personally I would push it a lot further back than that. The statute of
> >> > Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
> >> > stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
> >
> >No way, not even close. I don't see that as being an expression of modern
> >national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
> >particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in
terms
> >of declarations of self-identity etc.
>
> Could you translate this into English please, I am not well up in US
> College speak.
Which words don't you get? The issue is self-perception.
> >I think that it is important to recall that just bec. some group of the elite
> >came out against spending their money overseas on foreigners, that does not
> >mean they had a corporate identity or that such ideas were the dominant way
> >of thinking about onself and mobilizing public sentiment. I don't think that
> >comes for a long time.
>
> The taxes being generally referred to were being paid to the Pope (one
> or other of them)
So?
> >> > There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
> >> > occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
> >> > fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
> >> > common foe (France)
> >>
> >> England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
> >> Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
>
> The Wat Tyler rebellion was a political march against the poll tax which
> got out of hand on occasions. In no way could it be compared with the
> Frnch/English conflict of the Hundred years war. The wars of the Roses
> were mainly dynastic struggles for power and again no comparison is
> sensible. In neither case could you describe them as England fighting
> against itself in the sense of both the English and Americam Civil Wars.
Uh, those were not me, but in any event the issue is national identity,
nationalism. If one is saying that there is an English national identity at
the time then it certainly would be an English civil war of sorts.
> Battles against Scotland were relatively common and would be seen by
> both sides as nation versus nation.
> >
>
> > And
> >as I noted above, the borders were still far from clear. Where to draw the
> >line in the North? The West?
>
> Much of the England/Scotland border area was disputed and populated by
> the Rievers (robber barons) who owed allegience to no one. There were no
> borders then in the west, both Wales and Cornwall were well and truly
> incorporated - think how well the Welsh did at Crecy.
"Welsh" or Welshmen in service of a king? Again, the issue is whether people
are identifying themselves as English in a modern way.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
Absolute rubbish. I'll have to rummage to find something from "Peasants into
Frenchmen" but it is absolutely clear that "all French people" is an
overstretch. Right through to the 19th century much of Provence did not even
speak French and showed strong local particularism, treating Paris rule as
virtually foreign. Allman is clearly forgetting declarations by the center do
not speak for popular consciousness.
> Even if the common man in the street still felt strong attachments to local
> institutions and customs, that does not preclude that he also could develop a
> national identity. As an example, look at United States history. For the
> first 80 or so years of its existence, Americans were likely to identify
> themselves as Marylanders or Virginians or New Yorkers first, and Americans
> second. Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate forces in the Civil War,
> turned down Lincoln's offer of command of the Union Army because he felt he
> could not oppose in battle his home state. Yet would any one seriously argue
> that the U.S. did not have a "national" identity at this time? I don't think
> so. While conflicting loyalties between a more central state and local
> authorities may complicate the issue, it does not preclude the development of
> nationalism.
And here we have an inappropriate comparision. The US is firstly serveral
hundred years along the path towards nationalism and a greater central
identity. And I believe there are in fact historians of the colonial period
and pre-Civil War period who would argue from such as the linguistic pointers
as the shift from the plural for the United States to the singular that a US
national identity was only just forming, coalescing. You can look at how
colonial settlers in the Texas territory felt free to form a new state for a
while (in truth divided between US and independant sentiments). From our
point of view, Texas long absorbed, this is a mere detial. But let us not
commit the common historical error of analysis assuming the result. When
Texas was formed it might very well have formed a new state. The same with
the Confederacy. That was a signicant statement on the perceptions of at
least some of the US elite of where their real "national" loyalties lay.
Thus, I restate your statement, unless there is reason to believe there are
national loyalties, there is no reason to believe particular ones are
dominant.
collou...@my-dejanews.com
CA...@le.ac.uk (Chris Williams) wrote:
> In article <753umv$k9t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
> > Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
> > the Hapsburg Empire idea.
>
> hard to eliminate anything - especially something as protean as
> 'nationalism' - from influencing events.
>
> But before nationalism, I'd blame it on (a) Protestantism; (b) localism
> and the jealousy of estates and institutions, and (c) old-fashioned noble
> ambition, before I'd cite 'nationalism' as a cause.
I agree. I think it is important for posters to recall that they should not
assume the existance of an idea, but rather look for the proof that it had
germinated against points such as Chris cites above.
jr...@yahoo.com
collou...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>[snip]
Why don't you define "local particularism." Are you stating that one can not,
on one level, identify with king and country and not, on another level, feel
loyalty to local customs and traditions? Does one preclude the other?
>
> > Even if the common man in the street still felt strong attachments to local
> > institutions and customs, that does not preclude that he also could develop
a
> > national identity. As an example, look at United States history. For the
> > first 80 or so years of its existence, Americans were likely to identify
> > themselves as Marylanders or Virginians or New Yorkers first, and Americans
> > second. Robert E. Lee, who commanded the Confederate forces in the Civil
War,
> > turned down Lincoln's offer of command of the Union Army because he felt he
> > could not oppose in battle his home state. Yet would any one seriously argue
> > that the U.S. did not have a "national" identity at this time? I don't think
> > so. While conflicting loyalties between a more central state and local
> > authorities may complicate the issue, it does not preclude the development
of
> > nationalism.
>
> And here we have an inappropriate comparision. The US is firstly
serveral
> hundred years along the path towards nationalism
Are you saying that the US did not achieve nationalism by the time of the
Civil War? Just what is your definition of nationalism?
and a greater central
> identity. And I believe there are in fact historians of the colonial period
> and pre-Civil War period who would argue from such as the linguistic pointers
> as the shift from the plural for the United States to the singular that a US
> national identity was only just forming, coalescing.
Who?
You can look at how
> colonial settlers in the Texas territory felt free to form a new state for a
> while (in truth divided between US and independant sentiments). From our
> point of view, Texas long absorbed, this is a mere detial. But let us not
> commit the common historical error of analysis assuming the result. When
> Texas was formed it might very well have formed a new state. The same with
> the Confederacy. That was a signicant statement on the perceptions of at
> least some of the US elite of where their real "national" loyalties lay.
>
> Thus, I restate your statement, unless there is reason to believe there are
> national loyalties, there is no reason to believe particular ones are
> dominant.
Could you clarify this? I don't understand the point you were tryuing to make.
My point, in giving the example about Lee, was to illustrate that sectional or
local loyalties could co-exist along with larger, "national," loyalties.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
--
Joe Rooney
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade in Sh
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
CG Luxford
On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Inger E Johansson wrote:
> Many people have participated in this debate. But till this moment I
> haven't seen anyone making a big point of what I myself believe to have
> been the two main points that formed what we nowadays calls a nationhood:
>
> Family belongings on one hand, since the lineage meant more for man in
> older times than we usually understands. In this we also have to understand
> that a second cousins second cousin might be have been regarded as close as
> we today think our sister or brother to be.
>
While kinship ties and the language of family were much stronger in
pre-industrial society, I think it might be stretching a point to link
them to national identity in the periods under discussion.
Of course the 12 tribes of Israel are all descended Abraham, via Jacob.
> The believes and traditions. In this I refer to what God the big
> Familygroup believed in and what traditions the group had. I do believe
> that other Familygroups living close intermarried or not to the first
> mentioned Familygroup if they believed in the same God and shared the same
> tradition as well as living close to the first Familygroup felt being
> united to each other in a way that early in mankind formed a belonging
> likevise that we today calls nationhood.
>
> I can't refer back prior to the Messopotanian and the Egypts but I do
> believe that there might have been the same much much earlier.
>
Anthropologists do identify kinship ties as the most important part of
social identity in "primitive" cultures today. So you probably are right
about this as an early form of proto national identity, though I don't
think it was quite as binding by the time we get states developing.
Chris,
Inger E Johansson
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> skrev i inlägg
<Pine.SOL.3.95q.98121...@eis.bris.ac.uk>...
>
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
> > Many people have participated in this debate. But till this moment I
> > haven't seen anyone making a big point of what I myself believe to have
> > been the two main points that formed what we nowadays calls a
nationhood:
> >
> > Family belongings on one hand, since the lineage meant more for man in
> > older times than we usually understands. In this we also have to
understand
> > that a second cousins second cousin might be have been regarded as
close as
> > we today think our sister or brother to be.
> >
> While kinship ties and the language of family were much stronger in
> pre-industrial society, I think it might be stretching a point to link
> them to national identity in the periods under discussion.
>
Well my point is two: first of all there will be a Diss. up in Odense in
January the writer is Ingemar Nordgren. In this Diss I. Nordgren manage to
prove the things I states above......
My second point is that if You read old source written prior to 550 AC You
will find that Julius Caesar wasn't the first nor the last one to make this
connection in older times. Read for ex. Caesar's book about the War in
Gaul.......
> Of course the 12 tribes of Israel are all descended Abraham, via Jacob.
>
> > The believes and traditions. In this I refer to what God the big
> > Familygroup believed in and what traditions the group had. I do believe
> > that other Familygroups living close intermarried or not to the first
> > mentioned Familygroup if they believed in the same God and shared the
same
> > tradition as well as living close to the first Familygroup felt being
> > united to each other in a way that early in mankind formed a belonging
> > likevise that we today calls nationhood.
> >
> > I can't refer back prior to the Messopotanian and the Egypts but I do
> > believe that there might have been the same much much earlier.
> >
> Anthropologists do identify kinship ties as the most important part of
> social identity in "primitive" cultures today. So you probably are right
> about this as an early form of proto national identity, though I don't
> think it was quite as binding by the time we get states developing.
Read above. I stand by my statement.
John M Chapman
dejanews.com writes
>> >No way, not even close. I don't see that as being an expression of modern
>> >national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
>> >particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in
>terms
>> >of declarations of self-identity etc.
>>
>> Could you translate this into English please, I am not well up in US
>> College speak.
>
>Which words don't you get? The issue is self-perception.
as 'an expression of modern national consciousness' then by definition
you are referring to a concept which you and only you can date by your
own definition of modern. Personally I see modern as post roman.
--
John M Chapman
Pilar Quezzaire
: Uh, those were not me, but in any event the issue is national identity,
: nationalism.
Are we? I thought we were keeping these two issues (national identity and
nationalism) separate.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Quezzaire-Belle Art Geek quez...@fas.harvard.edu
"Social historian? Is that some kinda disease? A new virus, perhaps..."
"No. I'm one of those people who gets paid to discuss how stupid the rest
of humanity is. I'm Howard Stern with a respectable rep."
--Conversation online
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilar Quezzaire
:> I see the relationship of Roman citizens, to "aliens" esp. in the
:> colonized areas, as having the same status as say, colonial Europeans
:> living in Africa, South America, etc.
: Hmm, but I thought that the boundaries of Romaness were infinately more
: permeable than the pretty impermeable boundaries between the colonial and the
: 'motherland' national (thinking of the 19th century here). But I haven't read
: that much.
I think Homi Bhabha's work on the mimic best expresses the ambiguous
indentity of colonized locals and mixed identities. The colonial state was
a hierarchy, and while the boundary between top and bottom was very
pronounced, the liminal peoples (Western-edcuated, multiracial, civil
servants) did enjoy more benefit than say, non-Romanized aliens would
have, even with a more permeable system. It evens out.
:> In Rome itself, I would imagine the relationship would have been similar
:> to Americans and illegal Mexican immigrants living in America.
: Really? I dunno. I've always had the impression that once again Romaness
: lacked that 'racial' feature of exclusion which makes nationality so
: problematic in modern times.
Who needs a racial feature to be an alien? Slaves and non-Romans didn't
have to be of a particular race to be marginalized in similar ways.
:> power relationships established in Otherness during colonial times made
:> nationalism more possible. Or rather, more urgent for the partines
:> involved who actually started bandying about the word.
: Hmmm, I'm not disagreeing but I think this has less to do with the abstract
: power relationships or a sense of otherness and more to do with a concrete
: ability to enforce and define through technological advances.... Well at the
: least they are pretty closely connected.
Oh? We still don't have much technology in many parts of Africa, but there
is a national identity all the same. Whatc tehcnologies are you speaking
of exactly? technology becomes an issue in Africa AFTER indepence, because
African countries had to be come self-sustaining.
M.Serve
In article <758no8$m92$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, collou...@my-dejanews.com (collou...@my-dejanews.com) writes:
>In article <757npa$qv1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> sch...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> John M Chapman <jo...@purley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In article <753umv$k9t$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, sch...@my-dejanews.com
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I personally would place the birth of nationalism a bit earlier. The
>> > >Dutch War of Independence(1568-1648) was about Low Lands Nationalism vs.
>> > >were also associated with the idea of nationalism & a feeling of unity
>> > >of thier populations, cutting across social lines.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Provisors (1306) made it quite clear that taxes raised in England had to
>> > stay in England and were not to be used for the benefit of foreigners
>
>national consciousness. You can easily explain this in terms of local
>particularism, and in any event you also have to place acts like this in terms
>of declarations of self-identity etc.
>
>> a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
>> nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
>> states until much later.
>
>Quite true. And even then recall that "England" in 1300 or even 1400 was
>still being consolidated. Sure the "center" around London is well defined,
>but what about the northern marches, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall?
>
>> And the taxes raised in England at times was used to fund the Burgundians.
>> Don't know if that constitutes benefiting forgeigners, since it also helped
>> England in it's war against Royal France.
Wars at this time were concerned with claims to crowns and/or other
inherited wealth and status by individuals. Henry V probably spoke
French most of the time and had a legitimate claim to the French
crown as well as legally possessing the crown of England. Was it not
Offa, who first proclaimed himself King of England and was the
first to put his head on coinage? This concept embraced the
kingdoms of Mercia, Wessex, East Anglia (after the murder of
Aethelberht). I don't think it included Northumberland.
So it wasn't the even the English against the Norman French in 1066.
It was Harold's supporters against William's. Not until the time of
Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
England and Englishness thus became defined it terms of loyalty to
the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority. As the struggle
between catholic universalism and secular protestantism intensified
during the latter period of Tudor rule, plays of the era, such as
Shakespeare's Henry V, indoctrinated people further. The play was
used in exactly the same way during WWII when the nation's sinews
required tightening.
>
>I think that it is important to recall that just bec. some group of the elite
>came out against spending their money overseas on foreigners, that does not
>mean they had a corporate identity or that such ideas were the dominant way
>of thinking about onself and mobilizing public sentiment. I don't think that
>comes for a long time.
>
>> > There was by this time a very clear sense of an English nation who
>> > occupied a country called England. This was considerably aided by the
>> > fact that there were fairly clear borders and a common language and a
>> > common foe (France)
>>
>> England fought it's self & Scotland as much as it did the French. The Wat
>> Tyler Rebellion & the War of the Roses comes to mind.
>
>Right, and recall some factions allied themselves with French interests. It
>is a gross simplification which overlooks a whole lot of horse-trading. And
>as I noted above, the borders were still far from clear. Where to draw the
>line in the North? The West?
>
CG Luxford
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, M.Serve wrote:
> In article <758no8$m92$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, collou...@my-dejanews.com (collou...@my-dejanews.com) writes:
> >In article <757npa$qv1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> >> > >
> >> a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
> >> nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
> >> states until much later.
> >
> >Quite true. And even then recall that "England" in 1300 or even 1400 was
> >still being consolidated. Sure the "center" around London is well defined,
> >but what about the northern marches, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall?
> >
> So it wasn't the even the English against the Norman French in 1066.
> It was Harold's supporters against William's. Not until the time of
> Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
> This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
> the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
>
It was also under Henry VIII that Wales was formally brought into the
English state. It had been a de facto part of the English realm for
generations (IIRC it was Henry IV who finally "conquered" it, though it
was much earlier that English rule first entered the principality)
The consolidation of England is perhaps earlier than Henry VIII, though
not that much. Centralisation is usually credited to Thomas Cromwell
acting under Henry VII's instructions, though some historians are
putting in a claim for the Yorkists as the originators of this process.
> England and Englishness thus became defined it terms of loyalty to
> the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority.
The associated translation of the Bible into English also helped to
standardise the language as the same Bibles were read in churches in
every part of the realm.
> As the struggle
> between catholic universalism and secular protestantism intensified
> during the latter period of Tudor rule, plays of the era, such as
> Shakespeare's Henry V, indoctrinated people further. The play was
> used in exactly the same way during WWII when the nation's sinews
> required tightening.
>
Chris,
John M Chapman
<star...@starblazer.win-uk.net> writes
>So it wasn't the even the English against the Norman French in 1066.
>It was Harold's supporters against William's.
I would agree with you there but no further
>Not until the time of
>Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
>This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
>the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
>
>England and Englishness thus became defined it terms of loyalty to
>the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority.
That was precisely what the laws of Praemunire, beginning with the
statute of Provisors in 1306 was all about. Henry VIII was very much a
Johnny-come-lately in all this
--
John M Chapman
M.Serve
In article <NlXIKCAt...@purley.demon.co.uk>, John M Chapman (jo...@purley.demon.co.uk) writes:
>In article <4...@starblazer.win-uk.net>, M.Serve
><star...@starblazer.win-uk.net> writes
>
>>It was Harold's supporters against William's.
>
>>Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
>>This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
>>the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
>>
>>England and Englishness thus became defined it terms of loyalty to
>>the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority.
>
>statute of Provisors in 1306 was all about. Henry VIII was very much a
>Johnny-come-lately in all this
>
I must submit to your superior knowledge. Please expand on the acts
referred to.
Rob FF
M.Serve
>> >In article <757npa$qv1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
>> >> > >
>> >> a rather centralizied state from 1066 on helped it greatly. Ideas on
>> >> nation unity & countrymanship didn't develop in any of the other European
>> >> states until much later.
>> >
>> >Quite true. And even then recall that "England" in 1300 or even 1400 was
>> >still being consolidated. Sure the "center" around London is well defined,
>> >but what about the northern marches, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall?
>> >
>
>> So it wasn't the even the English against the Norman French in 1066.
>> It was Harold's supporters against William's. Not until the time of
>> Henry VIII does one see the emergence of the nation state ideology.
>> This was characterised by the break with Rome and the rejection of
>> the the Pope's unique power to legitimise all claims to crowns.
>>
>English state. It had been a de facto part of the English realm for
>generations (IIRC it was Henry IV who finally "conquered" it, though it
>was much earlier that English rule first entered the principality)
>
>The consolidation of England is perhaps earlier than Henry VIII, though
>not that much. Centralisation is usually credited to Thomas Cromwell
>acting under Henry VII's instructions, though some historians are
>putting in a claim for the Yorkists as the originators of this process.
>
>> the Crown *and* repudiation of Papal authority.
>
>standardise the language as the same Bibles were read in churches in
>every part of the realm.
It was in 1376 that Wycliffe delivered his course of lectures "On
Civil Dominion", was it not? That was before he translated the
Vulgate.
This period saw the Papacy in a very weak condition, but it was also
a period of enormous economic upheaval. The Black Death in Europe
had irrevocably damaged feudalism by destroying a substantial
portion of the workforce. This led to a growth in wage labour and,
presumably, also the yeomanry.
Simultaneously, during the latter part of the century, Europe
experienced a dramatic change in its climate which, from about 1200
- 1350, had gone through a mini ice age. The better weather of the
late 14th century generated a lot more food and, one assumes, wealth.
No doubt this renewed prosperity encouraged the more speculative
philosophical currents of the time. The growth of a merchant class,
of freeholders, wage labourers and craftsmen, may have led the state
to respond with an alternative ideology to replace the automatic
allegiance secured through feudal ties. The idea of people not
being owned by, or owing allegiance to something, or somebody, is
always deeply troubling to the state.
Rob FF
>
John M Chapman
>>statute of Provisors in 1306 was all about. Henry VIII was very much a
>>Johnny-come-lately in all this
>>
>
>I must submit to your superior knowledge. Please expand on the acts
>referred to.
writ of enforcement started 'Praemunire facias xxx' ie Cause xxx to be
forewarned...'They began when in November 1296 Pope Boniface VIII issued
a Bull 'Clericus laicos' which forebad any cleric giving or any secular
authority receiving a grant of aid which Edward I reckoned he needed
from the church which had acquired considerable wealth from lay sources
by this time. Edward wanted the money for his wars with Scotland.
After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing one of Edward's implacable foes became
Pope Clement V in 1305 and summoned the archbishop of Canterbury to Rome
to answer all his alleged crimes. Edward told him that if he went he
need not come back. He then passed the First Statute of Provisors in
1306 which enacted "that no tax imposed by any religious persons should
be sent out of the country whether under the name of rent, tallage,
tribute or any kind of imposition'
The second Statute of Provisors was passed in 1351 by Edward's son
Edward II which ordained 'the free election of all dignatories and
benefices elective in the manner as they were granted by the king's
progenitors' - in other words 'Pope don't try appointing clergy in
England!'
The First Stature of Premunire came in 1353 "all people of the king's
ligeance of what condition they may be which shall draw any out the
realm in plea .. shall be allowed two months in which to answer for
their contempt of the king's rights in transferring their pleas abroad'
In 1365 a further act imposed heavy penalties on anyone who tried to get
a bene3fice or citation from the Pope and suspened the payment of Peters
Pence.
In 1390 there was another Statute of Provisors (referred to as the
Second) and in 1393 the Second Act of Praemunire (one got tyher idea
they couldn't count very well)
Many more such acts followed over the years until the Royal Marriages
Act of 1772.
Cardinal Wolsey was prosecuted under the 1353 Act in 1529.
Hope this answers your queries; but above is a gross oversimplification
of a very long and protracted dispute which probably goes back to the
days of the excommunication of England in the time of King John. All
goes to show how significant Magna Carta was and why it makes England a
very different place than most continental countries.
Most of the English speaking world has a legal system based on the two
simple principles that someone is assumed innocent until proven guilty
and an accused has to be brought to a public trial (even if occasionally
the evidence can be delivered in camera) This is all in sharp contrast
to Roman law where you have to prove your innocence and anyone in power
can act arbitrarily. It was quite a shock to the popes to have their
authority challenged by this clear assertion of English nationalism. It
was a pretty hard lesson for the Popes to learn and it took until
Vatican II to get the message across.
--
John M Chapman
David Soderberg
In article <4...@starblazer.win-uk.net>, "M.Serve"
<star...@starblazer.win-uk.net> writes
>
--
David Soderberg
M.Serve
In article <f07cOBAZ...@purley.demon.co.uk>, John M Chapman (jo...@purley.demon.co.uk) writes:
>In article <4...@starblazer.win-uk.net>, M.Serve
><star...@starblazer.win-uk.net> writes
>
>>>
Thank you for your explanation of the above.
I was aware that growth of strong national kingdoms occurred around
the same time in France and Spain in the face of a weakened Papacy.
If Edward I (who we all know was a tough cookie) had also legally
inherited the French crown, he would have forced his writ there
too. It was in his *power* to do this. I can't believe he did it on
behalf of England or the English, or even used these concepts as
legal justifications.
If nationhood or nationalism are to mean anything, they can only be
in terms of ideology. Are you saying that Edward deployed these
concepts in this way?
Rob FF
John M Chapman
>the same time in France and Spain in the face of a weakened Papacy.
>If Edward I (who we all know was a tough cookie) had also legally
>inherited the French crown, he would have forced his writ there
>too. It was in his *power* to do this. I can't believe he did it on
>behalf of England or the English, or even used these concepts as
>legal justifications.
The positions of the King of England and the King of France were quite
different. In England the king held all the land and the barons held it
of the king whereas in France there was only a much vaguer concept of
suzerainty and most Dukes or Princes reckoned they held their lands by
virtue of right not obligation. I think you will find that the king of
France's writ did not run very strongly whoever held the position
>
>If nationhood or nationalism are to mean anything, they can only be
>in terms of ideology. Are you saying that Edward deployed these
>concepts in this way?
Yes I think he did. In later years Henry VIII expressed it in the form
'England is an Empire entire unto itself'
--
John M Chapman
M.Serve
What a genius! Is it coincidental that the notion of a wider
empire develops over the next few hundred years?
But if I understand you correctly, it is that Edward I, in 1306,
began a process that might be considered concluded in 1536, when
Henry's parliament divested the Pope of all authority in England.
It's a rather exciting thought. But the intervening years seem so
turbulent, it's difficult to conceptualise a "national" conciousness
developing amongst the populace. I can fit Wycliffe into the picture
as a very radical exponent of the idea, but it seems a long time
from then to the "nationalisation" of the monasteries.
Presumably, the dynastic wars of the 15th century represent a
reactionary interlude. But I'm stumbling into dangerous waters.
Season's greetings!
Rob FF
John M Chapman
>>'England is an Empire entire unto itself'
>
>What a genius! Is it coincidental that the notion of a wider
>empire develops over the next few hundred years?
Not really - many countries developed empires in the modern sense made
up of settlements, colonies, trading outposts and conquests - but these
arose more from greatly improved ship design and the enterprise of the
seamen and merchants. Henry used the term Empire in a different sense
more reminiscent of the Roman Empire which systematically incorporated
territory into an economic sphere. The Holy Roman Emperors tried to
carry on the tradition but such was the fragmentation of the western
empire that most HREs were little more than figureheads in most of the
Empire. Henry's point was that England formed an entire, self contained
empire which was not part of the wider federation of alliances.
>
>But if I understand you correctly, it is that Edward I, in 1306,
>began a process that might be considered concluded in 1536, when
>Henry's parliament divested the Pope of all authority in England.
Yes that is certainly true in the region of ecclesiastical law but the
process in civil terms went back far beyond Edward and well before the
conquest. William was very careful to preserve the developed common law
and customs which had evolved in Anglo-Saxon days in England whereas he
remained Duke of Normandy with nominal allegiance to the French king in
France.
>
>It's a rather exciting thought. But the intervening years seem so
>turbulent, it's difficult to conceptualise a "national" conciousness
>developing amongst the populace. I can fit Wycliffe into the picture
>as a very radical exponent of the idea, but it seems a long time
>from then to the "nationalisation" of the monasteries.
Mostly taken up with wars against Scotland and France, plus a few family
squabbles. One could argue that it was the Black death which was the
deciding factor as the number of labourers and working people who died
created a tremendous labour shortage in England and the legal climate
allowed individuals to assert rights in a way which never happened on
the continent.
>
>Presumably, the dynastic wars of the 15th century represent a
>reactionary interlude. But I'm stumbling into dangerous waters.
Sort of I guess - weak rulers with powerful relatives does tend to lead
to anarchy. However Henry Tudor sorted them out in the end.
--
John M Chapman
Larry Caldwell
writes:
> >Yes I think he did. In later years Henry VIII expressed it in the form
> >'England is an Empire entire unto itself'
> What a genius! Is it coincidental that the notion of a wider
> empire develops over the next few hundred years?
Did you mean a few hundred days? By the time Hank's daughter Liz was
done with the throne, England had its empire.
-- Larry
Peter Wilkinson
lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
Scarcely. I can't think of any remotely permanent English possessions
outside Europe earlier than the Jamestown settlement a few years after
Liz's death, though I might have forgotten something. English overseas
possessions only really start amounting to an empire in the more
modern sense some time after 1650.
Peter Wilkinson
p...@pwilkinson.compulink.co.uk
Mary Gentle
p...@pwilkinson.compulink.co.uk (Peter Wilkinson) wrote:
> In<MPG.10f3617d5...@news.teleport.com>,
> lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
>
> >In article <4...@starblazer.win-uk.net>,
>star...@starblazer.win-uk.net
> >writes:
> >>
> >> In article <4mG1aGAQ...@purley.demon.co.uk>, John M
>Chapman (joh n...@purley.demon.co.uk) writes:
> >
> >> >Yes I think he did. In later years Henry VIII expressed
>it in the form 'England is an Empire entire unto itself'
> >
> >> What a genius! Is it coincidental that the notion of a
>wider empire develops over the next few hundred years?
> >
> >Did you mean a few hundred days? By the time Hank's
>daughter Liz was done with the throne, England had its
>empire.
>
> Scarcely. I can't think of any remotely permanent English
>possessions outside Europe earlier than the Jamestown
>settlement a few years after Liz's death, though I might
>have forgotten something. English overseas
> possessions only really start amounting to an empire in the
>more modern sense some time after 1650.
Leaving aside possessions for the moment, and the 'modern
sense', John Dee certainly conceptualised a British Empire
during Elizabeth's reign.
I don't have the books to hand, so I can't recall how much of
his writings on navigation formed the engine, if you will,
that drives the urge to exploration and possession of other
territory.
Mary
jr...@yahoo.com
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
> In article <368ab253...@news.compulink.co.uk>,
> p...@pwilkinson.compulink.co.uk (Peter Wilkinson) wrote:
>
> > In<MPG.10f3617d5...@news.teleport.com>,
> > lar...@teleport.com (Larry Caldwell) wrote:
> >
> > >Did you mean a few hundred days? By the time Hank's
> >daughter Liz was done with the throne, England had its
> >empire.
> >
> > Scarcely. I can't think of any remotely permanent English
> >possessions outside Europe earlier than the Jamestown
> >settlement a few years after Liz's death, though I might
> >have forgotten something. English overseas
> > possessions only really start amounting to an empire in the
> >more modern sense some time after 1650.
>
> Leaving aside possessions for the moment, and the 'modern
> sense', John Dee certainly conceptualised a British Empire
> during Elizabeth's reign.
>
> I don't have the books to hand, so I can't recall how much of
> his writings on navigation formed the engine, if you will,
> that drives the urge to exploration and possession of other
> territory.
>
during Elizabeth's reign:
[S]ome Englishmen were ready to think of English freedom in global terms. Two
in particular, who both bore the name Richard Hakluyt, had begun to urge
their countrymen to bring the blessings of English rule overseas and to bring
to England the riches that could be found not only in New Spain but elsewhere
in the wide world. P.14. Edmund S. Morgan. _American Slavery, American
Freedom_
The Hakluyt's published several works, the earliest (that I can date off the
top of my head) was 1570. I thought I had a collection of primary sources
which had some of Hakluyt's writings, but couldn't find it. But anyway, it is
clear that England was only beginning to think about expansion well into
Elizabeth's reign. -- Joe Rooney
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade in Sh
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
CG Luxford
On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, Mary Gentle wrote:
> p...@pwilkinson.compulink.co.uk (Peter Wilkinson) wrote:
> >
> > Scarcely. I can't think of any remotely permanent English
> >possessions outside Europe earlier than the Jamestown
> >settlement a few years after Liz's death, though I might
> >have forgotten something. English overseas
> > possessions only really start amounting to an empire in the
> >more modern sense some time after 1650.
>
> Leaving aside possessions for the moment, and the 'modern
> sense', John Dee certainly conceptualised a British Empire
> during Elizabeth's reign.
>
> I don't have the books to hand, so I can't recall how much of
> his writings on navigation formed the engine, if you will,
> that drives the urge to exploration and possession of other
> territory.
And of course as Elizabeth's reign wore on it was more and more obvious
that England would soon find itself sharing a monarch with Scotland, and
the likelihood of a British state, without which one cannot have a
British Empire.
The size of England's overseas territories may not have been much, but
as Mary points out the will for exploration was there, as were the
earliest roots of what would eventually become the USA and Canada.
Ireland was also an overseas territory at this point.
Chris,
jr...@yahoo.com
During Elizabeth's reign, Ireland would have been the most active venue for
English expansionism.
David Brooks
>outside Europe earlier than the Jamestown settlement a few years after
>Liz's death, though I might have forgotten something. English overseas
>possessions only really start amounting to an empire in the more
>modern sense some time after 1650.
Apropos...
I read a squib in the local rag, where a poll in Britain decided the Man of
the Millennium was William Shakespeare, with Churchill a close second. I
assume the poll was restricted to choosing Britons, and I don't know if
there were any criteria for judging the relevance of the candidate; perhaps
someone in Blighty can provide the details.
Being a sucker for such games, I thought for a moment and came to the
opinion that the British Man (sic) of the Millennium has to be Elizabeth I.
It was she who inspired the maritime and commercial expansion whose benefits
are still there; I think that was a more fundamental foundation than the
Empire itself. Shakespeare may be revered, but his impact on the nation at
large is probably less.
The trouble is, Liz was a Twdor and hence technically Welsh.
-- David Brooks
Mike Oborski
>>Scarcely. I can't think of any remotely permanent English possessions
>I read a squib in the local rag, where a poll in Britain decided the Man of
>the Millennium was William Shakespeare, with Churchill a close second. I
>assume the poll was restricted to choosing Britons, and I don't know if
>there were any criteria for judging the relevance of the candidate; perhaps
>someone in Blighty can provide the details.
>
Yup, it was run by BBC Radio 4 and was restricted to famous Brits.
There was no criteria so you just nominated whoever you liked and then
there was a phone in run off between the most nominated names.
However, Im part Polish so my man of the millenium is Jozef Pilsudski.
Regards,
Mike
===============================================
Cllr Mike Oborski
Honorary Consul of the Republic of Poland
con...@oboofcom.demon.co.uk
http://members.tripod.com/~oboofcom/index-html
===============================================
CG Luxford
On Mon, 4 Jan 1999, David Brooks wrote:
> I read a squib in the local rag, where a poll in Britain decided the Man of
> the Millennium was William Shakespeare, with Churchill a close second. I
> assume the poll was restricted to choosing Britons, and I don't know if
> there were any criteria for judging the relevance of the candidate; perhaps
> someone in Blighty can provide the details.
>
The poll was indeed restricted to Britons. Candidates were nominated by
listeners to the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, the six most popular
were then voted on, also by listeners to Today.
Nominations could be made by phone post or e-mail, voting was by phone
only.
> Being a sucker for such games, I thought for a moment and came to the
> opinion that the British Man (sic) of the Millennium has to be Elizabeth I.
She was a popular nominee, IIRC she came 7th, and was therefore outside
the shortlist.
The poll was actually Person... not Man. It so happens that the
shortlist were all male, and for reasons which should be obvious most of
the nominees were also male.
> It was she who inspired the maritime and commercial expansion whose benefits
> are still there; I think that was a more fundamental foundation than the
> Empire itself. Shakespeare may be revered, but his impact on the nation at
> large is probably less.
>
> The trouble is, Liz was a Twdor and hence technically Welsh.
>
*grin* But the Welsh are the true Britons, everyone else (including
me) is a foreign invader.
Of the six shortlisted candidates I personally think Newton had the most
impact, though had I bothered voting I might have gone for Cromwell.
The other shortlisted candidates were Darwin and Caxton, the latter
being falsely believed by nost of us on this island to have invented the
printing press, when all he actually did was set up the first English
one.
Chris,
James Tuttle
Biggest developments of the last millennium were the Age of Discovery,
symbolized by Columbus, and the Communications Revolution, symbolized by
Gutenberg.
Interestingly, both lived around the middle of the millennium. The
years 1000-1500 and 1500-2000 roughly split the millennium into medieval
and modern.
Honorable mention to a scientist -- Galileo or Newton; to an Italian
Renaissance person (Leonardo?); and to whoever got the Industrial
Revolution going in England.
Those were all the major developments of the millennium. Very clearly,
it was dominated by Europe.
Curt Emanuel
>
> Christopher Columbus or Johann Gutenberg -- take your pick.
>
> Biggest developments of the last millennium were the Age of Discovery,
> symbolized by Columbus, and the Communications Revolution, symbolized by
> Gutenberg.
>
Gutenberg's fine, but I think Prince Henry the Navigator had much more
to do with the Voyages of Discovery than Columbus.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Piers Longhorn
<dbr...@microsoft.com> writes
>I read a squib in the local rag, where a poll in Britain decided the Man of
>the Millennium was William Shakespeare, with Churchill a close second. I
>assume the poll was restricted to choosing Britons, and I don't know if
>there were any criteria for judging the relevance of the candidate; perhaps
>someone in Blighty can provide the details.
>
The only criterion was the number of votes polled (a telephone poll so
you could vote twice if you really cared)
--
Piers Longhorn
James Tuttle
> Gutenberg's fine, but I think Prince Henry the Navigator had much
> more to do with the Voyages of Discovery than Columbus.
Well, yes, but Columbus is the icon, the poster boy. Man of the
Millennium needs that aura. Time Magazine would feature Columbus, not
the good prince.
Curt Emanuel
Yes, and you did say symbolized in your last post. Don't suppose we
could start an "Obscure but Essential Man of the Millennium" Contest?
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
Andrew Thomas
David Brooks wrote in message <76r0q4$5...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
(snip)
>assume the poll was restricted to choosing Britons, and I don't know if
>there were any criteria for judging the relevance of the candidate; perhaps
>someone in Blighty can provide the details.
>
It was conducted on BBC Radio 4 - a 'cultural/news' station frequented by
'intellectuals'.
I think it was restricted to Brits.
>
>Being a sucker for such games, I thought for a moment and came to the
>opinion that the British Man (sic) of the Millennium has to be Elizabeth I.
>It was she who inspired the maritime and commercial expansion whose
benefits
>are still there; I think that was a more fundamental foundation than the
>Empire itself. Shakespeare may be revered, but his impact on the nation at
>large is probably less.
>
>The trouble is, Liz was a Twdor and hence technically Welsh.
>
If she was Welsh she will also be British.
Andy
Mary Gentle
Emanuel) wrote:
<snip>
> Yes, and you did say symbolized in your last post. Don't
>suppose we could start an "Obscure but Essential Man of the
>Millennium" Contest?
I propose John Harrington, the chap who solved the longitude
problem. Without that, a whole lot of stuff just doesn't
happen.
Mary
Gerrit Bigalski
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
You mean, these things would have fallen short?
Gerrit
Gerrit Bigalski
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>In article <3691A4...@accs.net>, cema...@accs.net (Curt
>Emanuel) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Yes, and you did say symbolized in your last post. Don't
>>suppose we could start an "Obscure but Essential Man of the
>>Millennium" Contest?
>
>I propose John Harrington, the chap who solved the longitude
>problem. Without that, a whole lot of stuff just doesn't
>happen.
BTW, Harri*s*on, not Harri*ngt*on. Also, it should be pointed out
that it was not exactly his idea - he tried to win the price set up by
the British Board of Longitude - and that it could be argued that he
just refined the concept invented by Huygens. On the other hand -
might be a nice change to award the chap who did the work, as opposed
to Henry and Vail, who remain unknown while Samuel Morse takes all the
credit.
Gerrit
CG Luxford
On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, Mary Gentle wrote:
> In article <3691A4...@accs.net>, cema...@accs.net (Curt
> Emanuel) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Yes, and you did say symbolized in your last post. Don't
> >suppose we could start an "Obscure but Essential Man of the
> >Millennium" Contest?
>
> I propose John Harrington, the chap who solved the longitude
> problem. Without that, a whole lot of stuff just doesn't
> happen.
>
the BBC thinks it is, there's a documentary coming up, but I don't have
a TV listing handy to tell you when.
Chris,
David Read
Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> writes
>Topical too. Longitude is one of this years big anniversaries, at least
>the BBC thinks it is, there's a documentary coming up, but I don't have
>a TV listing handy to tell you when.
You just missed it. It was on Horizon last night.
cheers,
--
David Read
Mary Gentle
big...@uni-muenster.de (Gerrit Bigalski) wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:43:04 GMT,
>mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>
> >In article <3691A4...@accs.net>, cema...@accs.net
>(Curt Emanuel) wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Yes, and you did say symbolized in your last post. Don't
> >>suppose we could start an "Obscure but Essential Man of
>the Millennium" Contest?
> >
> >I propose John Harrington, the chap who solved the
>longitude problem. Without that, a whole lot of stuff just
>doesn't happen.
>
> BTW, Harri*s*on, not Harri*ngt*on.
Thanks, HRE - the Margravine knew she could rely on you!
I did, of course, mean Harrison; this is what comes of
posting in the early hours with half a brain...
>Also, it should be pointed out that it was not exactly his
>idea - he tried to win the price set up by the British Board
>of Longitude
In what sense was it not his idea - because he hoped to get
money out of it? Ye gods! Admitted he finally got his cash
(after the King stopped the Board weaselling out of it for
the umpteenth time), but you don't slog away at something for
twenty-five years just to get a prize...
>- and that it could be argued that he just refined the
>concept invented by Huygens. On the other hand -
> might be a nice change to award the chap who did the work,
>as opposed to Henry and Vail, who remain unknown while
>Samuel Morse takes all the credit.
Harrison was clock-making for years while everyone else was
sitting there fixating on the moons of Jupiter, _and_ he had
the mind-boggling idea of switching to watch-making to get
the idea to work. Neat stuff, in my book.
And if I get to pick a second obscure Person of the
Millennium, who was it who created the manual typewriter?
Mary
Brant Gibbard
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>
>I did, of course, mean Harrison; this is what comes of
>posting in the early hours with half a brain...
>
What a glutton you are Mary. Not content with eating Paul's brain, now
you start in on your own. I've heard of people chewing their
fingernails, but this is ridiculous!
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
Toronto, Ont.
Mary Gentle
bgib...@inforamp.net (Brant Gibbard) wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:34:28 GMT,
>mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I did, of course, mean Harrison; this is what comes of
> >posting in the early hours with half a brain...
> >
>
> What a glutton you are Mary. Not content with eating Paul's
>brain, now you start in on your own. I've heard of people
>chewing their fingernails, but this is ridiculous!
:-)
Be fair, I never said it was _my_ brain.
As Robert Bloch used to remark, "I have the heart of a little
child - I keep it in a jar on my desk..."
Mary
David Brooks
>>
>If she was Welsh she will also be British.
Yes, I know that. The point is, it's a bit of an embarrassment for the Home
Counties when the family that finally whipped the place into shape were a
bunch of Taffs, hwot?
-- David Brooks
Gerrit Bigalski
("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>In article <3699216e...@news.uni-muenster.de>,
>big...@uni-muenster.de (Gerrit Bigalski) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:43:04 GMT,
>>mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>> ("Mary Gentle") wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3691A4...@accs.net>, cema...@accs.net
>>(Curt Emanuel) wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >> Yes, and you did say symbolized in your last post. Don't
>> >>suppose we could start an "Obscure but Essential Man of
>>the Millennium" Contest?
>> >
>> >I propose John Harrington, the chap who solved the
>>longitude problem. Without that, a whole lot of stuff just
>>doesn't happen.
>>
>> BTW, Harri*s*on, not Harri*ngt*on.
>
>Thanks, HRE - the Margravine knew she could rely on you!
My imperial duty.
>I did, of course, mean Harrison; this is what comes of
>posting in the early hours with half a brain...
What have you done with the other half?
>>Also, it should be pointed out that it was not exactly his
>>idea - he tried to win the price set up by the British Board
>>of Longitude
>
>In what sense was it not his idea - because he hoped to get
>money out of it? Ye gods! Admitted he finally got his cash
>(after the King stopped the Board weaselling out of it for
>the umpteenth time), but you don't slog away at something for
>twenty-five years just to get a prize...
[...]
>Harrison was clock-making for years while everyone else was
>sitting there fixating on the moons of Jupiter, _and_ he had
>the mind-boggling idea of switching to watch-making to get
>the idea to work. Neat stuff, in my book.
The way I was told the story the Board had *asked* for a clock, and
that only after that many years (accounts differ when it was accepted)
Harrison was able to come up with one that was exact enough (but still
to delicate and costly to become actually standard ship equipment).
Never studied this in any detail, so your story might well be closer
to reality.
>And if I get to pick a second obscure Person of the
>Millennium, who was it who created the manual typewriter?
Construction of first practical typewriter usually credited to
Christopher Latham Sholes, who recieved the patent for it in 1868
together with Samuel W. Soule and Carlos Glidden; before that
typewriters had been constructed by Henry Mill (patent 1714), William
Austin Burt (1829), Karl Friedrich Drais Freiherr v. Sauerbronn (1832,
first with letter rods [1]), Xavier Progin from Marseille (1833,
alternativly given as first with letter rods), Charles Grover Thurber
(1843, first with cylinder carriage), G. Ravizza from Novara (1855,
first one with inked ribbon) and Peter Mitterhofer from Tyrol (four
models 1864-69). It was however Sholes et al. patent which was bought
by Remington 1873 and first produced for and sold in the market.
Take your pick.
Gerrit
[1] Drais is probably most famous for inventing the draisine or
"dandy-horse", a proto-bicycle.
Peter H.M. Brooks
dbr...@microsoft.com "David Brooks" writes:
On a scale of one to ten of embarrassment, I would put it at about one,
compared to working for, say, microsoft.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
vjmorton
> Being a sucker for such games, I thought for a moment and came to the
> opinion that the British Man (sic) of the Millennium has to be Elizabeth I.
> It was she who inspired the maritime and commercial expansion whose benefits
> are still there; I think that was a more fundamental foundation than the
> Empire itself. Shakespeare may be revered, but his impact on the nation at
> large is probably less.
I vote for Luther and Machiavelli as the theorists of modernity.
Peter H.M. Brooks
vjmo...@groupz.net "vjmorton" writes:
Shouldn't that be de Sade and Machiavelli? Luther was just another god
botherer.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
vjmorton
No.
1) Modernity was already well under way before De Sade.
2) The irrational hatred you have for religion is preventing you from
seeing what an epochal event the Reformation was and how much modernity
owes to Protestantism. Some would go so far as to say that liberalism and
capitalism are secularized derivatives of Protestantism and that
nationalism, romanticism and totalitarianism only make sense in a
post-Protestant space.
Victor
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Remedium Irae Est Mors.
vjmorton wrote in message ...
Vagor
>Some would go so far as to say that liberalism and
>capitalism are secularized derivatives of Protestantism and that
>nationalism, romanticism and totalitarianism only make sense in a
>post-Protestant space.
>
>Victor
And thus at once heretical, and reactionary. Catholicism itself makes sense
only in the post-polytheistic space of bankrupted gods, who failed the
heightened, romantic, spiritual needs of a sophisticated populace. Woe to
the bored.
Peter H.M. Brooks
vjmo...@groupz.net "vjmorton" writes:
> > > > are still there; I think that was a more fundamental foundation than the
> > > > Empire itself. Shakespeare may be revered, but his impact on the nation at> > > > large is probably less.
> > >
> > > I vote for Luther and Machiavelli as the theorists of modernity.
> > >
> > Shouldn't that be de Sade and Machiavelli? Luther was just another god
> > botherer.
>
> 1) Modernity was already well under way before De Sade.
>
Depends on what you call modernity. I would say that it owes considerably
more to the philosophy of De Sade than to that of Luther.
>
> 2) The irrational hatred you have for religion is preventing you from
> seeing what an epochal event the Reformation was and how much modernity
> owes to Protestantism. Some would go so far as to say that liberalism and
> capitalism are secularized derivatives of Protestantism and that
> nationalism, romanticism and totalitarianism only make sense in a
> post-Protestant space.
>
I don't have a hatred for religion any more than I have a hatred for the
'flu virus that currently infects me. My dislike of both is perfectly rational.
I understand your point about the reformation, there is some logic to liberalism
and capitalism being protestant in nature, but their true nature is more sadeian
than lutheran. Since Rome is the template for totalitarianism, I can't agree
that protestantism made sense of it. Nationalism certainly existed before
christianity, as did romanticism, as any reading of the song of songs will
tell you.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
dave...@worldnet.att.net "Vagor" writes:
>
> >Some would go so far as to say that liberalism and
> >capitalism are secularized derivatives of Protestantism and that
> >nationalism, romanticism and totalitarianism only make sense in a
> >post-Protestant space.
> >
> >Victor
>
> And thus at once heretical, and reactionary. Catholicism itself makes sense
> only in the post-polytheistic space of bankrupted gods, who failed the
> heightened, romantic, spiritual needs of a sophisticated populace. Woe to
> the bored.
>
Why post-polytheistic, surely you mean post-theistic. How many jesuits are
theists? Answer that truthfully and you will see Catholicism for the secular
autocracy that it is.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Liz Broadwell
: Why post-polytheistic, surely you mean post-theistic. How many jesuits are
: theists? Answer that truthfully and you will see Catholicism for the secular
: autocracy that it is.
I've met two American Jesuits to know them; they were both theists. I've
known, more intimately, at least five people who were trained by American
Jesuit schools who are, themselves, theists, who report to me the theism
of their Jesuit teachers, and who are or have been engaged with me in
promoting theism within a non-Jesuit Catholic milieu. I've been reading
_America_, a Jesuit publication, off and on for a couple of years now, and
it certainly espouses theism as an editorial position. A small sample
set, but mine own.
Follow-ups trimmed, since the Jesuits were founded in s.h.e.m territory,
IIRC.
Peace,
Liz "who is actually more interested in the Benedictines than the Jesuits
these days, but retains her admiration for an order whose educational
institutions have produced some of the most intelligent, thoughtful, and
loving people with whom she has ever had the privilege to be associated"
B.
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "Well, I've never been to Greenland & I've
(ebro...@english.upenn.edu) | never been to Denver, & I've never buried
English Department | treasure in St. Louis or St. Paul, & I've
University of Pennsylvania | never been to Moscow & I've never been to
34th and Walnut Sts. | Tampa, & I've never been to Boston in the
Philadelphia, PA | fall."--"The Pirates Who Never Do Anything"
Peter H.M. Brooks
ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu "Liz Broadwell" writes:
> Peter H.M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : Why post-polytheistic, surely you mean post-theistic. How many jesuits are
> : theists? Answer that truthfully and you will see Catholicism for the secular
> : autocracy that it is.
>
> I've met two American Jesuits to know them; they were both theists. I've
> known, more intimately, at least five people who were trained by American
> Jesuit schools who are, themselves, theists, who report to me the theism
> of their Jesuit teachers, and who are or have been engaged with me in
> promoting theism within a non-Jesuit Catholic milieu. I've been reading
> _America_, a Jesuit publication, off and on for a couple of years now, and
> it certainly espouses theism as an editorial position. A small sample
> set, but mine own.
>
I haven't met many Yank Jesuits. They may be different. Obviously the
Jesuit publication would claim theism as its editorial postion.
How do you know that the Yank Jesuits you knew were theists?
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
CG Luxford
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> In article <vjmorton-270...@ags-5200-5-p35.groupz.net>
> vjmo...@groupz.net "vjmorton" writes:
>
> > > Shouldn't that be de Sade and Machiavelli? Luther was just another god
> > > botherer.
> >
> > 1) Modernity was already well under way before De Sade.
> >
> Depends on what you call modernity. I would say that it owes considerably
> more to the philosophy of De Sade than to that of Luther.
> >
> > 2) The irrational hatred you have for religion is preventing you from
> > seeing what an epochal event the Reformation was and how much modernity
> > capitalism are secularized derivatives of Protestantism and that
> > nationalism, romanticism and totalitarianism only make sense in a
> > post-Protestant space.
> >
> 'flu virus that currently infects me. My dislike of both is perfectly
> rational.
>
true that we sometimes say of new converts that they have "caught
religion" I feel that the subject is a little more complex than that.
You may not like a given religion, which is fair enough, but you have to
remember that until comparatively recently, no more than a couple of
hundred years, the idea of a secular society either didn't exist, or was
seen as a dangerous fringe belief.
> I understand your point about the reformation, there is some logic to
> liberalism and capitalism being protestant in nature, but their true
> nature is more sadeian than lutheran.
> Since Rome is the template for totalitarianism, I can't agree
> that protestantism made sense of it. Nationalism certainly existed before
> christianity, as did romanticism, as any reading of the song of songs will
> tell you.
>
The Reformation is however one of the defining features of the Early
Modern era in Western Europe.
What influence has de Sade actually had beyond giving us the word
sadism?
Chris,
CG Luxford
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Joanna Prescott wrote:
> >> >
> What about Caxton? Hasn't access to the printed word and the spread of
> literacy had more impact than anything else?
>
IIRC Caxton came 4th in the BBC poll which triggered this thread. Caxton
did not of course invent the printing press, he merely introduced it to
England. Gutenburg is the chap who is usually given credit for the
invention, though I believe there are some other claimants.
Chris,
Laura Blanchard
>
[snip of earlier quotation, with one piece retained]
> >> >
> >> > > Being a sucker for such games, I thought for a moment and came to the
> >> > > opinion that the British Man (sic) of the Millennium has to be
> >Elizabeth I.
> Those are all excellent reasons for rejecting Luther.
> What about Caxton? Hasn't access to the printed word and the spread of
> literacy had more impact than anything else?
>
Luther, of course, is not a good candidate for the British Man of the
Millennium. I like Joanna's suggestion -- although Caxton is not
responsible for the invention of the printing press, he certainly gets
the credit for establishing an English publishing enterprise catering to
the tastes of a lay audience. Literacy was surprisingly widespread in
fifteenth-century England (I think I recall reading that 25% of London
apprentices could read and write *Latin* in the early fifteenth century)
but there's no doubt that the printing press accelerated the trend to a
wider literacy.
Many of Caxton's marketing methods are still used today by Time-Life
Books....
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
John Lynch
Or John Charles
--
John Lynch
Sig removed until further notice
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Joanna Prescott wrote:
>> What about Caxton? Hasn't access to the printed word and the spread of
>> literacy had more impact than anything else?
>IIRC Caxton came 4th in the BBC poll which triggered this thread. Caxton
>did not of course invent the printing press, he merely introduced it to
>England. Gutenburg is the chap who is usually given credit for the
>invention, though I believe there are some other claimants.
movable type printing press.
I believe that mass printing was possible before but it was done with
woodcut type stuff.
Gutenburg apparently had to solve a great number of problems/made a
great number of improvements to arrive at his "finished" product.
Robert
Peter H.M. Brooks
hi...@bris.ac.uk "CG Luxford" writes:
>
> > I don't have a hatred for religion any more than I have a hatred for the
> > 'flu virus that currently infects me. My dislike of both is perfectly
> > rational.
> >
> Comparing religion and a viral infection is hardly rational.
>
It is just that, a virus of the mind, a malignant meme - not a comparison,
the same thing.
>
> While it is
> true that we sometimes say of new converts that they have "caught
> religion" I feel that the subject is a little more complex than that.
>
It is. There is the temporal lobe siezure that leads people to believe
that events that occur during it have a special significance - are not
just understood, but 'known'.
>
> You may not like a given religion, which is fair enough, but you have to
> remember that until comparatively recently, no more than a couple of
> hundred years, the idea of a secular society either didn't exist, or was
> seen as a dangerous fringe belief.
>
Not quite. Socrates lived rather longer ago than that.
>
> What influence has de Sade actually had beyond giving us the word
> sadism?
>
His philosophy is modernity. You should read him some time, then you wouldn't
ask questions like that.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Liz Broadwell
They told me so, and appeared (to my observation) to be living their lives
in consonance with that belief. Beyond that, I can't judge. After all,
the only way I know you're not a theist is because you tell me so -- you
could be putting me on. :-) I also must admit to a certain suspicion of
statements that sound like "Jesuit conspiracy theories" due to the long
history of canards associated with them, at least on this side of the
Atlantic (Maria Monk, Jack Chick, and so forth). People just don't seem
to go after the Benedictines like that, at least not lately. Even the
mendicant orders have lost ground since the Reformation as the Great
Threat to Humanity, and they had a corner on the market for a while, IMHO.
(In one of her recent books, probably _Of Good and Ill Repute_, Barbara
Hanawalt compares the friar's position in late medieval urban folklore to
that of the milkman in the mid-twentieth century's.)
Peace,
Liz "on the internet, no one can tell you're a theist" B.
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | "The mind reels with metaphors.
(ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu.) | Imagine Sisyphus opening Russian
Department of English | nesting dolls designed by M.C.
at the University of Pennsylvania | Escher." -- J.G. Blight & D.A. Welch
Peter H.M. Brooks
ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu "Liz Broadwell" writes:
> Peter H.M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : How do you know that the Yank Jesuits you knew were theists?
>
> They told me so, and appeared (to my observation) to be living their lives
> in consonance with that belief.
>
What change in behaviour would there have been if they were not theists?
>
> (In one of her recent books, probably _Of Good and Ill Repute_, Barbara
> Hanawalt compares the friar's position in late medieval urban folklore to
> that of the milkman in the mid-twentieth century's.)
>
Perceptive comparison - even down to the increased evolutionary fitness.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Liz Broadwell
: > Peter H.M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: > : How do you know that the Yank Jesuits you knew were theists?
: > They told me so, and appeared (to my observation) to be living their lives
: > in consonance with that belief.
: What change in behaviour would there have been if they were not theists?
I don't think I can answer that question -- I can only describe these
people as I have observed them to be; I have no idea what they would be
like if they were not who they are. I can say that one of the defining
characteristics of these theists, in my observation, is their practice of
prayer, and that they have indicated to me that their values and
commitments are grounded in a relationship with God fostered through
prayer.
: > (In one of her recent books, probably _Of Good and Ill Repute_, Barbara
: > Hanawalt compares the friar's position in late medieval urban folklore to
: > that of the milkman in the mid-twentieth century's.)
: >
: Perceptive comparison - even down to the increased evolutionary fitness.
Oh, yeah? When was the last time *you* saw a milkman going house-to-house
in the suburbs? :-) Another ecological niche sadly trashed by the
development of the supermarket, at least on this side of the Atlantic ...
Peace,
Liz "but the mendicant orders are still with us" B.
Gordon Johnson
>
>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Joanna Prescott wrote:
>> >> >
>> What about Caxton? Hasn't access to the printed word and the spread of
>> literacy had more impact than anything else?
>>
>IIRC Caxton came 4th in the BBC poll which triggered this thread. Caxton
>did not of course invent the printing press, he merely introduced it to
>England. Gutenburg is the chap who is usually given credit for the
>invention, though I believe there are some other claimants.
**** Such as the Chinese, who invented moveable type (but failed to
develop it properly) about a thousand years earlier.
Gordon.
Gordon Johnson:
Retired public librarian;
professional genealogist since 1996,
specialist in pre-1750 Scottish records.
vjmorton
joa...@lotos-land.demon.co.uk (Joanna Prescott) wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 1999 00:33:00 GMT, vjmo...@groupz.net (vjmorton)
> >> > I vote for Luther and Machiavelli as the theorists of modernity.
> >> >
> >> Shouldn't that be de Sade and Machiavelli? Luther was just another god
> >> botherer.
> >
> >No.
> >
> >1) Modernity was already well under way before De Sade.
> >
> >2) The irrational hatred you have for religion is preventing you from
> >seeing what an epochal event the Reformation was and how much modernity
> >owes to Protestantism. Some would go so far as to say that liberalism and
> >capitalism are secularized derivatives of Protestantism and that
> >nationalism, romanticism and totalitarianism only make sense in a
> >post-Protestant space.
> >
> Those are all excellent reasons for rejecting Luther.
They may very well be reasons for thinking Luther did something bad - if
modernity and/or those specific identified strands of it be considered
bad. But as the personification of modern individualism - here I stand, I
cannot do otherwise - he influenced everything that came after him, for
good or ill. Basically, this is Time magazine's argument for naming Hitler
and Ayatollah Khomeini as men of the year.
> What about Caxton? Hasn't access to the printed word and the spread of
> literacy had more impact than anything else?
If you're going to pick an inventor, Caxton is as good a choice as any
Briton (although it would be more emblematic in the big picture to pick
Guttenberg). And nobody like me who thinks the Protestant Reformation one
of the millennium's two or three defining events can deny the importance
of widespread literacy and cheap books. The first book Guttenberg printed
was, after all, a Bible. The Reformation and literacy were two sides of
the same coin.
BTW, I do realize that I picked non-Britons ... mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
maxima culpa. I didn't read the thread closely enough and just assumed we
were talking man of the millennium.
Victor
Peter H.M. Brooks
ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu "Liz Broadwell" writes:
> Peter H.M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu "Liz Broadwell" writes:
> : > Peter H.M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> : > : How do you know that the Yank Jesuits you knew were theists?
> : > They told me so, and appeared (to my observation) to be living their lives
> : > in consonance with that belief.
> : What change in behaviour would there have been if they were not theists?
>
> I don't think I can answer that question -- I can only describe these
> people as I have observed them to be; I have no idea what they would be
> like if they were not who they are. I can say that one of the defining
> characteristics of these theists, in my observation, is their practice of
> prayer, and that they have indicated to me that their values and
> commitments are grounded in a relationship with God fostered through
> prayer.
>
I see, no change in behaviour. Unless you consider prayer behavior.
Interestingly current theology holds that prayers cannot be 'answered', nor
can they form a relationship, other than with the self. If this god is one
with foreknowledge, then the content of the prayer must be known in advance,
as must be the 'answer' or lack of 'answer'. Consequently prayer is simply
a form of meditation. Buddhists are not theists, but they meditate, so, given
that meditation and prayer are the same, there is no defining behaviour of
theists. One wonders why they bother.
>
> : > (In one of her recent books, probably _Of Good and Ill Repute_, Barbara
> : > Hanawalt compares the friar's position in late medieval urban folklore to
> : > that of the milkman in the mid-twentieth century's.)
> : >
> : Perceptive comparison - even down to the increased evolutionary fitness.
>
> Oh, yeah? When was the last time *you* saw a milkman going house-to-house
> in the suburbs? :-) Another ecological niche sadly trashed by the
> development of the supermarket, at least on this side of the Atlantic ...
>
I see the milkman whenever I leave home at six in the morning.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
michael zalar
DaBeing a sucker for such games, I thought for a moment and came to the
> opinion that the British Man (sic) of the Millennium has to be Elizabeth I.
> It was she who inspired the maritime and commercial expansion whose benefits
> are still there; I think that was a more fundamental foundation than the
> Empire itself. Shakespeare may be revered, but his impact on the nation at
> large is probably less.
>
Man of the Millennium, overall catagory: Ghengis Khan - changed the world from
Japan to Europe, both through conquests, and in result a peaceful trading route
between East and West allowing Eruopean eyes to turn outward. Also assited in
the Eastward expansion of Islam...
British catagory: a dark horse here, Geoffrey of Monmouth - presented England
with a unifying history and a great mythic symbol.
-Michael
Peter H.M. Brooks
mi...@primenet.com "michael zalar" writes:
>
>Man of the Millennium, overall catagory: Ghengis Khan - changed the world from
>Japan to Europe, both through conquests, and in result a peaceful trading route
>between East and West allowing Eruopean eyes to turn outward. Also assited in
>the Eastward expansion of Islam...
>
>British catagory: a dark horse here, Geoffrey of Monmouth - presented England
>with a unifying history and a great mythic symbol.
>
So nobody was up to these chaps despite having almost 800 years to compete? I
doubt it.
I don't see how the expansion of Islam is anything to be proud of either. It
certainly didn't do the art any good, much as I like a good mosque and an
attractive carpet, there hasn't been much progress there.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Liz Broadwell
: ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu "Liz Broadwell" writes:
: > Peter H.M. Brooks (pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >
: > I don't think I can answer that question -- I can only describe these
: > people as I have observed them to be; I have no idea what they would be
: > like if they were not who they are. I can say that one of the defining
: > characteristics of these theists, in my observation, is their practice of
: > prayer, and that they have indicated to me that their values and
: > commitments are grounded in a relationship with God fostered through
: > prayer.
: >
: I see, no change in behaviour.
I didn't say that. I said I can only describe what I see. Since these
people remain theists, I can't describe how they would behave if they were
not theists. I find conjecturing about people's possible behavior under
circumstances which do not presently obtain to be an extremely dicey
occupation. Now, if you had asked me which behavior(s) I have observed in
these theists which I believe distinguish(es) them from non-theists, and
whether I could go on from there to generalize about the difference(s)
between theists and non-theists, I would have have formulated a different
response. But you didn't, and I didn't care to conjecture that you
actually wanted me to answer a question you hadn't asked. There's nothing
like talking past someone to make a total hash out of a conversation,
which I prefer not to do (well, most of the time, anyway).
: Unless you consider prayer behavior.
From the OED:
behaviour, sb. 1. a. Manner of conducting oneself in the external
relations of life; demeanour, deportment, bearing, manners. b. Also in pl.
c. The bearing of the character of another; personification, `person.'
Obs. d. `External appearance with respect to grace.' Johnson. Obs. e.
absol. Good manners, elegant deportment. 2. Conduct, general practice,
course of life; course of action towards or to others, treatment of
others. 3. Phrase. to be or stand on or upon one's behaviour, or one's
good behaviour: to be placed on a trial of conduct or deportment, to be in
a situation in which a failure in conduct will have untoward consequences;
hence, to behave one's best. 4. Handling, management, disposition of
(anything); bearing (of body). Obs. 5. transf. The manner in which a thing
acts under specified conditions or circumstances, or in relation to other
things. 6. attrib. and Comb., esp. in Psychol., as behaviour-cycle, data,
behaviour-study, behaviour-system, behaviour-trend; behaviour pattern, a
set or series of acts regarded as a unified whole; behaviour segment, a
part of a behaviour pattern; behaviour therapy, a method of treating
neurotic disorders (see quots.).
I would consider prayer a behavior under definitions 2, 4, and probably 6.
: Interestingly current theology holds that prayers cannot be 'answered', nor
: can they form a relationship, other than with the self.
Current theology not being a monolith across theism, I'm not surprised my
readings therein (Rahner, Cooke, Brown, Nouwen, Chittister, and Pennington
most recently) disagree. :-)
: theists. One wonders why they bother.
I know why I bother, but I suspect (leaping into conjecture based on the
tone of prose you've used in this and other posts, which conjecture you
are free to correct) you're not really interested in hearing my subjective
impressions of the experience of prayer in the context of an ongoing
relationship with God. Besides which, I'm not that good at it yet, and I
wouldn't want to set myself up as an expert -- there's enough "experts" of
that stripe roaming around Usenet as it is. :-)
: > : > (In one of her recent books, probably _Of Good and Ill Repute_, Barbara
: > : > Hanawalt compares the friar's position in late medieval urban folklore to
: > : > that of the milkman in the mid-twentieth century's.)
: > : >
: > : Perceptive comparison - even down to the increased evolutionary fitness.
: >
: > Oh, yeah? When was the last time *you* saw a milkman going house-to-house
: > in the suburbs? :-) Another ecological niche sadly trashed by the
: > development of the supermarket, at least on this side of the Atlantic ...
: >
: I see the milkman whenever I leave home at six in the morning.
Wow. I've never seen one, except in films, and that great "Monty Python"
sketch. I hope you're doing your part to preserve the species. :-)
And now that this line of discussion has officially wandered outside the
charters of all the groups to which it's been crossposted (well, the bit
about the survival of milkmen in the British Isles may still be relevant
to soc.culture.british) -- not to mention the fact that my adviser wants
to see a bit more of my thesis this week -- I must bid it a civil adieu.
Follow-ups trimmed.
Peace,
Liz "save the milkmen!" B.