Up in Smoke (The Gunpowder Plot)

Ever want to blow stuff up because some bigwig politicians screwd you over? That's exactly what the above men thought of James I's England. To fully understand the Gunpowder Plot one must look at the religious background of the time. Henry the VIII was a remarkably upstanding Catholic... until the Pope refused his divorce that is. After that he cut most ties to the catholic faith; a practice that continued through his successors until finally during Elizabeth I's reign the remaining catholics were persecuted so badly they would turn almost anywhere for protection. Since James Stuart of Scotland was next in line, the Catholics turned to him and gained promises of toleration once he reached the throne. Once crowned, James I waffled, and vehemently raised the persecution levels. At this time a Catholic man named Catesby decided something needed to be done to save his people from persecution.

He first sent a messenger, Thomas Winter to Spain seeking if not support, at least an ally. He returned with Fawkes and together the three began a secret conspiratory organization. After aquiring a building near Parliament the team, adding seven to their number, began tunneling under Parliament. The job wasn't particularly well thought out however, for when they finally reached the tough outer masonry of the House of Lords, they discovered they could've just rented out the cellar under the House of Lords to begin with. This is what many modern highschool students would refer to as an "epic fail." From here they added three wealthy members, to pay for the operation, and began filling the cellar with powder. However the Parliamentary session was delayed due to plague in London, giving the Thirteenth member, Tresham time to tip off his friend in the House of Lords as to the affairs, and allowing time for the powder to decay to uselessness.

The House of Lords was searched twice, at last finding the powder and Fawkes standing guard. At this, the remaining conspirators fled but were either captured and sentenced to death or killed during arrest. The men not shown above, but active in the Plot were: Robert Keyes, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Evererad Digby, and their betrayer Francis Tresham.

For those interested here's the youtube video of the beginning of V for Vendetta. This video shows Fawkes's capture and the fate that befell his fellow conspirators. It also raises the question: Should one be condemned for what he/she believed to be right at the time?

Another interesting thing to think about is how the plot would have been recieved; at the time it was terrorism and high treason, but would the people have responded favorably and joined the uprising? What if a similar action took place today?

King James I of England

King James I is best known today for the translation of the Bible that bears his name. In his time, however, James was also known as a religious fanatic who tolerated no departures from his own views. James outlawed Catholicism and was obsessed with prosecuting 'witches'.

Check out this link to an article that highlights some of James' practices.

In addition to his persecution of others, King James held a strong belief in the divine right of monarchs. He was not alone in this - many rulers of the time claimed their rule was willed by God and thus any opposition to them was sin. Part of James' persection of Catholics and witches was based on his religion, but a large part was simply because he felt they threatened his rule.

Do think James' fears justify his actions? Do you believe that rulers are appointed by God for a purpose?

DÆMONOLOGIE

Written by James I of England (James VI of Scotland), Daemonologie is a wide-ranging discussion of witchcraft, necromancy, possession, demons, were-wolves, fairies and ghosts in the form of a Socratic dialogue. James developed something of an obsession with Witches and of hunting them following a plot by the Berwick Witches to shipwreck him when on his way home from Denmark. Following this attempt, James wrote Daemonologie and gave his support and whole-hearted approval to the attempt to try and execute Witches within Scotland. He contended that witchcraft was a reality and that it's practitioners must be punished. King James didn't just slab some words together in this book; he did his research. He attended trials and examinations regarding witchcraft, including the examination of Dr. Fian, a Scottish schoolmaster who was an alleged witch. The charges leveled against Fian included practicing wicked acts with other witches, possessing an attendant spirit, and making curses against the king. All in all, the book is indicative of James' credulity toward witchcraft. After all, it was his passion.

James wrote Daemonologie into three books. James didn't exactly write in modern day speech. If you go to this link you can catch a glimpse of the dialogue taken straight out of James' book. Now annotate that.

People everywhere read James' book, starting to acquire the custom of witchcraft. Why was James' book so popular to the public? What beliefs (past his obsessions for witchcraft) led James to write such a book?

Tired of Sleepless Nights?

Are you tired of having those sleepless nights? Constantly trying to make yourself fall asleep. After such a long day at school or work all you expect is to be able to get a good night's sleep. But instead you spend your night tossing and turning, contemplating if there is something wrong with you. But don't worry, you're not crazy. You just have insomnia.

Insomnia: difficulty/inability to initiate sleep or maintain sleep; early morning awakening; non-restorative sleeping.

Causes: stress, anxiety, depression, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, chronic pain, trouble breathing, and most ironically- worrying about getting insomnia.

Many people throughout the world suffer from insomnia. Even historical figures have been known to be inept to falling asleep. Some include Napoleon, Winston Churchill, Sir Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt. One of the most influential public figures to have insomnia was Marilyn Monroe. There has been speculation that her chronic insomnia is accountable for her suicide. What would you do if you had this disorder so severe it affected your everyday life? Do you think it would push you as far as it pushed Marilyn? How would you cope?

Signs of the Times

“As a relatively privileged European man of the late Middle Ages, Dante certainly shares - despite his intellect and imagination - many views that we moderns might rightly consider unenlightened. These could include religious and ethnic intolerance, a reductive attitude toward women, and a heterosexist understanding of love and sexuality. In some respects - for instance, his advocacy of the empire (and opposition to more democratic, republican ideas) - he could be considered reactionary even for his own time and place.”

While we might think of ourselves as enlightened, open-minded people today, what might our descendants say about us a century or two from now? What specific issues or attitudes do you think will change so much in the future that our current views may come to be seen as "medieval"?

Shades of Dante

(Get it? Shades?--nobody groan.)

Here is a link to a blog about the mural that the Los Angeles Police Department commissioned Birk to paint inside their headquarters. Here's the entire photo gallery.

Let's just say Birk deviated from the original sketch and treated topics the LAPD would never have OKed, ala Dante-style. Are you attracted to art with an edge? In other words, does your aesthetic desire works of art, literature, and music that touch upon the controversial, the angst-ridden, the unsolved and disenfranchised? Or do you prefer art that soothes and calms--rather than instigates. Please comment.

Who's responsible?

From Dante's presentation of Francesca and Paolo, he brings to mind the question of moral responsibility in depictions of love, sex, and violence in our own day. Check out the below links.

FCC looks to block sex, violence

Media violence spurs fears

Violence in media entertainment

*The Killing Screens: Media & the Culture of Violence (not for the light-hearted!)

Here's the question: Who is more (or less) responsible and therefore accountable for unacceptable attitudes and behavior in society: the creators and vehicles of such messages or the consumers and audiences?