Columbus Discovers the New World

Christopher Columbus is believed to have been born in Genoa, Italy in 1451, although some have claimed him to have been born in Spain. He was not from a wealthy family, although they were by no means impoverished.

He is of course, famous for his four transatlantic voyages from Europe and subsequent discovery of the America. Little is known of his early life, but by the time he was 16, he was already embarking on a naval career, and following a shipwreck incident off of Portugal, he and his brother were employed as cartographers in Lisbon, Portugal.

However, it was the sea which was to captivate him and through his marriage to a wealthy nobleman’s daughter, it seems he was to acquire charts of the winds and currents of the Atlantic Ocean. During the years 1482 – 1485, he made several voyages whereby he gained further knowledge of these ocean properties. This coupled with a need to find a new trade route to the Indies after Islamic countries to the east had effectively blocked that route; Columbus eventually secured the patronage of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain in order to fund a voyage across the Atlantic in 1492.

Encyclopedia Britannica states further reasoning for the voyage, “Christian missionary and anti-Islamic fervour, the power of Castile and Aragon, the fear of Portugal, the lust for gold, the desire for adventure, the hope of conquests, and Europe’s genuine need for a reliable supply of herbs and spices for cooking, preserving, and medicine all combined to produce an explosion of energy that launched the first voyage.”

And so, on 3^rd September 1492 as Admiral, the seagoing entrepreneur Christopher Columbus and his ship the Santa Maria left the Spanish port of Palos and set sail to the west in search of an alternative route to the Indies.

The Santa Maria was accompanied by two other ships which were used for supplies and so on. The fleet contained in all, some 120 men forming the party.

After being at sea for a little over a month, the crew became disheartened. On October 11^th, a near mutiny was narrowly avoided due to the fact land had not been seen for weeks and the crew did not yet know the true nature of the voyage. Fortunately for Columbus a day after, a crewman from one of the three ships, the Pinta had finally spotted landfall.

On October 12^th 1492, Christopher Columbus lands somewhere in the Bahamas and believes he has found the fabled western passage to India and China. What he didn’t know (and never would know in his lifetime) was a big land mass and an even larger ocean stood between him and the Indies.

Nonetheless, over the next few months, he set sail and discovered other islands within the Caribbean including Hispaniola, Jamaica and Cuba also, and he narrowly missed out on setting foot on North American soil in Florida. For some reason, he had changed his mind and set sail southwards in search of China.

Columbus discovered Haiti and acquired gold from there, which would of course bode well for him on his return to Spain in January 1493. He had left a small garrison to set up the first Spanish settlement there, with further materials being supplied by the Santa Maria that had previously run aground and sunk.

The return trip to Europe was horrendous. Caught in strong storms, his remaining two ships limped into port in the Azores. Here, they were captured by the Portuguese and Columbus spent time trying to secure their freedom. Eventually they were freed and departed and arrived at the port of Lisbon where Columbus was obliged to speak to the Portuguese King. When eventually he arrived back in Spain, his arrival was marred significantly because of this meeting, the Spanish being suspicious of collaboration. Columbus was not of Spanish blood, and so his true loyalty could be questioned.

However, Columbus brought back his news of this new world, along with the gold and various objects he had collected and another voyage was commissioned for later on in autumn that same year (1493).

The near munity of his first voyage and various other tensions under his leadership, perhaps by the way he handled his men, had led to many difficulties for Columbus. He was very autocratic in his leadership and had very high religious standards which many would find very difficult to work under. This was to be a common factor throughout all of his voyages and led to him making many enemies.

However, due to his desire to bring home both material and human cargo, he had to give his crew certain leeway and allowed them to loot and to perform other violent acts, else he would lose their support. And so, because his high moral grounds had been compromised he could no longer maintain a consistent level of leadership.

This second voyage contained some 16 ships with over 1500 men, including a group of friars in order to preach the Christian message to the natives and it also contained a group of military personnel.

Columbus expertly made the crossing again with apparent ease which further enhanced his reputation as an expert navigator. On this visit, he further established settlements on the islands and discovered even more, but his methods remained harsh and he left a great deal of devastation in his wake, most particularly to the natives he was to encounter.

He left the islands to return to Spain in the autumn of 1496, leaving his brothers in charge of the settlements and immediately pressed for plans for a further expedition. Although the spoils from this second voyage were significantly less than anticipated, he was granted permission to return with a smaller fleet of six ships. By this time, Spain and France were at war, and Portugal was still a threat, so it was with reluctance that a third voyage was granted.

His third voyage set sail from Sanlucar in Spain in May 1498, with a modest 6 ships in his fleet. Still believing he had found the Far East, he decided to split this fleet, three ships to voyage to Hispaniola, while his three would sail further south from his previous discoveries in search for a strait to India. He did not find this path to India, but Encyclopedia Britannica tells us “by August 15 he knew by the great torrents of fresh water flowing into the Gulf of Paria that he had discovered another continent—“another world.” But he did not find the strait to India, nor did he find King Solomon’s gold mines, which his reading had led him and his sovereigns to expect in these latitudes; and he made only disastrous discoveries when he returned to Hispaniola.”

His brothers whom he had left in charge before setting back for Spain in 1496 had suffered rebellion by some of their men along with the inhabitants. Columbus managed to regain some sort of control and order through use of hanging the ringleaders of the rebellion. Word had already reached Spain though, and the Spanish Chief Justice had been sent over to investigate. Essentially what had happened was Columbus’s brothers had exploited the inhabitants with the help of favored Spanish personnel. Those who were not in favor, had rebelled against them along with the inhabitants.

Nonetheless, Columbus and his brothers were held responsible by the Chief Justice and were imprisoned and sent back to Spain to answer for their actions. During the voyage home, Columbus penned an intricate letter to his sovereigns detailing his navigational abilities, the fact he believed he was so close to finding gold and “asserted that he had reached the outer region of the Earthly Paradise”. They arrived back in Spain in late October, 1500.

This desperate letter gained Columbus his freedom and an audience in Granada in late 1500 whereby he convinced them to grant him one final expedition to the New World to search for the treasures. His sovereigns were convinced of his navigational abilities, but not of his leadership abilities and so control of the settlement was passed to another.

And so, in May 1502, Columbus embarks on what would prove to be his fourth and final voyage to the New World, this time with just four ships.

By now, his health was failing him, and he also was forbidden to return to Hispaniola due to the previous events there. He was ordered instead to continue his search to the south of the existing colonies to seek gold and locate the passage to India. The expedition was not a happy one despite exploring the likes of Honduras, and the Mosquito Coast of Nicaragua. His fleet by now was in very poor condition and only two of the four ships remained. In his search, he narrowly missed the passage to the Pacific due to extreme weather conditions and attacks from various Indian tribes and in the summer of 1503 he and his fleet had run aground and were castaways.

His navigational skills were put to the test again and he accurately predicted an eclipse which frightened the natives there into providing them with food and shelter until rescue arrived around a year later in 1504.

Towards the end of that same year, Columbus made his final voyage back to Spain and two years later in 1506, he passed away.

Despite leading a troubled and brilliant life, Columbus’s legacy paved the way for new exploration, new understanding of navigation and of how the world was made up. And of course he unknowingly had laid the foundations for a “New World” to be opened up and discovered. This “New World” would bring new riches, new ideas, new hope, new freedoms and new life to many. At the same time it would also bring poverty, hardship, no hope, slavery and bondage to many others.

His discoveries also changed the way western civilizations perceived themselves and led to many other European countries like Portugal, England, France and the Netherlands to also create strong navies and head westwards across the Atlantic Ocean to claim these new lands for themselves. He also influenced other great navigators over the following centuries to explore and chart the remainder of the world; explorers such as Sir Francis Drake who became the first to circumnavigate the earth and James Cook to establish colonies in Australia and New Zealand.

So, Columbus’s discovery of the Americas truly marked a major turning point in the history of Western Civilization.

The Spread of the Reformation

Catholicism was the major vehicle for Christianity and had gone largely unchallenged for nearly 1500 years. Over this time, false doctrine, paganism and perverted teachings had crept into its belief system. The fact that only a select few could read at the time (the majority of these being monks), poor teaching and perhaps inaccurate copying of the Bible also played its part in Christianity moving away from its origins.

Although the churches teachings had been unchallenged for this time, a couple of men had expressed concerns but they were quickly snuffed out for various reasons. John Wycliffe (1328 – 1384) had been the first and John Hus (1369? – 1415) the other, and it wasn’t until an Augustinian monk by the name of Martin Luther in 1517 actually began preaching against the church.

Amongst his beliefs, he felt that the Bible should be made available to all and translated into languages other than just Latin in order for the people to read for themselves, and most significantly he believed that the only way a man can be saved is through belief in Jesus Christ.

Through advances in technology via the printing press, his location in a country that was not united, the threat of invasion from the Ottoman Turks and the Renaissance in full swing, his beliefs and ideas were spread quickly and effectively throughout Europe. He raised important questions against the Catholic Church and these would ultimately change religion in Europe for good.

His beliefs led to his excommunication from the Church in 1521 at the Diet of the Worms, following his grievances and for the Ninety-five Theses that he had published and distributed four years earlier in 1517.

So what made Luther’s challenges successful where others before had failed? And what were the differences in belief between him and the Catholic Church?

It is important to firstly know what each side claims. So firstly, what does the Bible say about how sin came to be with mankind and how is man able to be saved?

Genesis chapter 3 tells of how mankind originally came to be under sin. Adam and Eve were told in Genesis 3:3, “But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.” However, Eve was deceived by the serpent and consequently ate the fruit and gave some to Adam who also ate. God then proceeded to drive them from the Garden of Paradise in order to punish for their disobedience and to make sure that Adam did not eat of the tree again. Genesis 3:21 states “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life and eat and live to time indefinite,—”. Most significantly of all though, they would eventually die.

How mankind is to be saved is through the ransom sacrifice that Jesus Christ made many years later. Exodus 21:24 states “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,” This principle may also be applied to the ransom sacrifice. A perfect man in Adam had sinned, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), therefore the logic is that a perfect man (Christ) must die in order to pay that price, to balance the books.

And so, it was Christ’s death that enabled mankind to have the chance of eternal life. To link in further, Christ has also been called ‘the tree of life’, which from Genesis 3:21 above, reinforces this belief.

That is salvation as taught by the Bible in a very simple form, and probably one of the most famous Biblical quotes is John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Therefore, the only way for a person to gain everlasting life is to believe in Jesus Christ.

This is not what was being taught in Luther’s time. The Catholic Church was teaching indulgencies. About indulgencies, the Encyclopedia Britannica states “The debt of forgiven sin could be reduced through the performance of good works in this life (pilgrimages, charitable acts, and the like) or through suffering in purgatory. Indulgences could be granted only by popes or, to a lesser extent, archbishops and bishops as ways of helping ordinary people measure and amortize their remaining debt. “Plenary,” or full, indulgences cancelled all the existing obligation, while “partial” indulgences remitted only a portion of it. People naturally wanted to know how much debt was forgiven (just as modern students want to know exactly what they need to study for examinations), so set periods of days, months, and years came gradually to be attached to different kinds of partial indulgences.”

This is clearly very much against what the Bible teaches in that to be saved, one simply has to believe in Christ.

In a sermon preached by Martin Luther in Erfurt, 1521 (written down by a member of the audience) we are given an excellent summary of the teachings in the Bible compared against the false teachings told by the Catholic Church.

The sermon describes how man came to be in sin and how this sin was paid by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It was based on Biblical teachings and backed up with several scriptures. It is a very positive and freeing sermon, which no doubt captured many people’s attentions thus helping Reformation along its way (indeed, the person taking notes of this sermon, wrote it up and delivered it to a printers in order for copies to be made and distributed).

In contrast to what the Church was preaching, this message is one of good works being done by the person as a consequence of believing in Christ and being Christian, whereas the Church was effectively ordering persons do to works in order to gain salvation. There is a clear and distinct difference – one cannot earn salvation.

This sermon, and no doubt others like it, was the first stepping stones to the movement of the Reformation. To have something worthy of spreading, a quality source will always be the foundations of a successful campaign. And already, this sermon was quickly republished in order for others to hear about it.

The second way for the Reformation to be spread was in the form of hymn. Luther penned many hymns and the key element in it was for the congregation to sing them together. Not only did it help reinforce the message within people’s minds (remembering still many people were unable to read at this time), but outside the church, people would have been singing them as they did their daily chores and other people hearing them. And repetition is an important key to learning. Often in teaching, a teacher will state the same point several times over the course of a lecture or class in order that it may remain in the students heads thereafter.

‘Lord, Keep Us Steadfast in Thy Word’ was such a hymn written by Luther around 1541. The first verse is a blatant attack and defense against the Pope and the Turk who were the threats. “Lord, keep us steadfast in thy Word, And curb the pope’s and Turk’s vile sword, Who seek to topple from the throne, Jesus Christ, thine only Son.”

Not only would these words have been taken in deeply by the followers of the Reformation, but Luther seems to show a great deal of lack of respect of the authority of the Pope in this verse. The word ‘Turk’s’, ‘Son and Lord all start with a capital letter, but the Pope, technically a pronoun does not have this. This again shows how much Luther questions the authority of the Pope and the Catholic faith as being truly Christian.

The hymn ‘A Mighty Fortress Is Our God’ written in 1527 is another hymn written by Luther and enforces that the Protestant Reformation is attempting to go back to the roots of Christianity. He really seems to claim God, as his own, the opening lines “A mighty fortress is our God, A sword and shield victorious; He breaks the cruel oppressor’s rod…” again show the movement away from Catholicism and towards what he sees as a truer Christianity. The Catholic Church is no doubt the target of the third line there.

 In 1524, Paul Speratus wrote the hymn ‘Salvation unto Us Has Come’ and the entire message or theme of this hymn is one of salvation through Jesus Christ.

There were many other hymns sung throughout which have helped people understand and receive the message that Luther was trying to put across, these three highlight some of the things the people were singing about and thus another reason why the Reformation took off in the way it did and people’s movement from Catholicism to this new freer church.

The printing press was an extremely effective medium for the new message of Reformation to reach the people, even if perhaps most still couldn’t read. The next five sources are all pictorial and use images and pictures to get the message across. A little like early graphic design, and the old saying of a picture telling a thousand words comes to mind.

In a 1546 broadsheet, Matthias Gerung contrasts the two Christian religions, what he now deems the ‘false’ Christian religion at the bottom with the Pope two the right looking over what appears to be demon type figures handing out papers, no doubt the indulgencies. In contrast, the top shows a peaceful vision of a sermon under Protestant reform along with babies being baptized.

Another image by Gerung, once again split into two parts, shows the righteous being received into heaven by Christ at the top, and those rejected at the bottom being tortured and tormented amongst demons. Interestingly, both Protestant and Catholicism still believe that when a person dies, they will either go to heaven or a fiery hell despite the Bible not being very clear as to whether this is the case or not.

From a pamphlet in 1521, Lucas Cranach has produced four images with those on the left showing Biblical scenes, and those on the right, the equivalent Catholic misdemeanors. We have the image of Christ in the top left, humbling himself and washing the feet of his disciples. The contrasting image to the right is people worshiping the Pope, highlighting that the Pope does not have a humble attitude as Christ did. The bottom two pictures depict money within the temple or church. Bottom left, Christ throwing the men making money in the temple out, and the contrasting picture with the Pope receiving money for indulgencies.

An unknown artist in 1522 portrays the Pope and his followers as wolves and geese. These were symbolic as wolves seek prey and are dangerous, while geese are seen as foolish followers. Also, Matthew 7:15 warns followers of Christ to “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves”, again linking scripture with what was happening in the day.

The final print, a rather comical image of defecation into the Pope’s hat from a pamphlet by Lucas Cranach in 1545, really underlines what the Reformed Church thinks of Catholicism.

From these various images, one can conclude a real war of propaganda against the Catholic Church which accelerated the new movement and gained many, many new converts.

Finally, in an anonymous German pamphlet from 1523, we are shown a dialogue between two friends. One is telling the other about a sermon he heard. This piece tells a lot about other aspects on how the Reformation spread. Not only were dialogue of this kind distributed in pamphlets, but they taught people not only about Biblical matters, but it showed them how to spread this news to others. This dialogue shows how excited Hans was about what he had heard and how he wants to speak out about it. It also shows how he reasoned with Claus (his friend) when asked about it. So not only is the Reformed church teaching (what they perceived as the truth in the Bible), but they were indirectly teaching the followers how to speak about it and spread the word further.

Through various mediums, such as sermons, pamphlets, images, posters, and word of mouth and, it is clear how the Reformation spread so quickly and widely. The printing press was certainly a major player in this, getting the same message spread throughout, as well as people’s educational skills improving and along with the oppression that the Catholic Church had imposed on everybody, it’s very understandable people were excited and wanted to talk more and more about it.

“In conclusion, then, every single person should reflect and remember that we cannot help ourselves, but only God, and also that our works are utterly worthless.” This piece of advice from Luther’s sermon makes for a fitting conclusion. And perhaps this was the most motivating feature of the entire spread of the Reformation across Europe, and a new fresh hope.

One can only imagine after many years of oppression by the Church, what hope through the Reformation must have given them. That they didn’t feel hopeless, that their lives need to be controlled by the Church, that they themselves would eventually have the opportunity to read and learn for themselves and to be finally in charge of their own destiny.

Graphic Design

Graphic design (or visual communications) is the way of communicating an idea or a message through simple text, colors, shapes, symbols and image to produce a clear idea to people. As writers produce text to communicate their ideas to the readers and photographers or artists use the medium of visuals, so the graphic designer uses a combination of the two to convey his ideas to the world.

Ideally, the message should be understood immediately or at least spark an interest whereby the observer may have to delve a little deeper to discern the message (which also could be the designer’s intention).

But is it a really new idea? Or is it one that is old as the passage of time itself? Can graphic design be compared to the writings of the ancients who used symbols and simple drawings to communicate their message?

Certainly throughout history various concepts and forms have existed which could be considered ‘graphic design’ such as Hieroglyphics, and even the before in ancient Mesopotamia. But graphic design as it is known today was introduced by the American book designer William Addison Dwiggins in 1922.

Various forms of graphic design exist in the world today, in posters, logos, brochures, pamphlets, signs, book covers, packaging, DVD & CD covers, magazines, graphics for web pages, trademarks, advertisements, pens, mugs, t-shirts, stickers and so on. The list is endless.

A good design will always capture the imagination, it will always strike the eye and make the observer sit up and take notice. It should be balanced between simple and complex and convey whatever message is required. A good design will stay long in the mind and whenever a person sees it again, they should instantly be able to identify with whatever the message is.

However, with good must always come the bad, and there is a lot of bad graphic design out there. I should know, I’ve produced a bit of it myself!

Examples of bad graphic design include the 2012 Olympic Games logo which looks like Lisa Simpson bending down and um… (I know this was in the article, but I instantly thought of it as a bad design before even reading the article, and it’s that bad that it has to be included even if it costs me points). That design apparently cost £14k! Easy money.

Another truly awful example of a logo is the BP shield that has been changed to a washy yellow and green flower thingy. I can’t describe it as anything else; it certainly doesn’t pertain to what its product is in any way, shape or form. The old green shield with yellow lettering was far better, and far more appropriate.

Having said that, perhaps by having such a poor logo, it has helped, in that when it first was introduced in the early millennium, it certainly got people talking, and as they say any form of advertising is good advertising. BP certainly needs that right now!

The first logo I have chosen as an example of good graphic design is the Hush Puppies logo. This logo is interesting for a start because it has not been designed using vectors. The vast majority of logos that are constructed have been done with sharp, precise and clear lines - vectors. In contrast, the Hush Puppies logo is an extracted photo of a good ol’ faithful, comfortable Bassett hound.

Why was this chosen? Well, I imagine because a Bassett hound portrays a sense of comfort (like the shoes), is dependable (like the shoes), is warm and welcoming (like the shoes), and his colors are largely neutral, browns, tans and whites. He provides a very homely image which has been attached to the product. Or perhaps Basset hound skins were used as material for the shoes when the company first started. Perhaps not.

Now that the product is extremely well established worldwide, whenever you see a Bassett hound, even not in relation to shoes, instantly thoughts are of Hush Puppies. The Bassett hound symbolizes Hush Puppy shoes in the same way the Statue of Liberty symbolizes freedom. Well maybe not to that extreme.

The typeface used for Hush Puppies is very classy, further enhancing the feeling of a luxury, quality product. From the attached image, we can see the colors utilized on various forms of packaging, the bag and the box. On the box, we can see a monochrome version of the Bassett and the Hush Puppies typeface blended in with the word ‘Outside’, making it a quite versatile logo. And a versatile logo is fun for both the end user and the designer alike.

The second logo selected is from Pentech Pencils, and is very different in design from the Hush Puppies. It is a more dramatic and ‘in your face’ type design with a fist clenched bursting through something holding tightly onto the pencil. This is a typical vector type image that is more usual in logo design.

And whoever knew that a pencil could be made to appear so exciting?

The logo itself is yellow and red, two of the three primary colors, and black. Well, McDonalds too have used red and yellow on their logo and it works for them, so why not? Ok, a Big Mac may taste nicer than a pencil (just), but even so, the real experts are at McDonalds, so why not follow their lead?

This logo also lends itself well with the packaging used, with its funky design, obviously aimed at the younger generation.

The logo incorporates the actual use of the pencil too, with the hand holding it, which tells the purchaser what the item is for very quickly.

However, since choosing this logo, I have discovered that Pentech have changed their design, so either it wasn’t doing a good enough job, or they just fancied a change. Who knows? But it is certainly nowhere near as exciting and funky as their old one; maybe their target audience has changed as their new one is quite mechanical and higher tech.

So, in conclusion, graphic design is a very complicated concept and industry whereby the simple seems to say a lot more than the complex at times and it is often very hard to say what will work and what won’t. Sometimes the designs which look like they will do well don’t and the one’s that look bad do good.

The Renaissance Man and Woman

Renaissance is the rebirth of the mind, of learning, of education. This intellectual revolution began in the early part of the 14^th century, most notably in Florence, Italy. The time of Renaissance had arrived. It was a literary movement among the learned and mostly upper class that sought to recapture the classical past of Rome and to recreate it. The Greek civilization was later considered very important too.

Petrarch was the early pioneer who was fascinated by the language, literature, architecture and art of the ancient classical civilization. He put forward a study of humanity called studia humanitates (meaning liberal arts) that formed the philosophy of humanism.

It was a gradual revolution that slowly spread throughout Europe, France, Germany and Spain by the end of the 15^th century and into England by the start of the 16^th.

Its philosophy was in direct contrast to the previous centuries where group effort and team work was the fundamental basis of civilization. Now with the Renaissance, a new concept of individualism was being introduced and these were based on the talents and hard work of the individual. Artists began painting self portraits and signing them with their own names, writers would create autobiographies and give themselves the credit and they believed all these new works as caused by individual genius.

Key to all of this was education, and they believed it to be vital to not only to the individual, but to society as a whole. In this day, this belief still holds true, and so our education systems and sources of information and knowledge all can trace their roots back to the Renaissance.

Part of their new intellectual thinking was in creating ideals for human behavior. As they pondered and developed these ideas, the conclusion was that the ‘ideal’ Renaissance man came out to be quite different to the ‘ideal’ Renaissance woman. This essay shall explore some of those differences and show what the ideal man and ideal woman is.

We begin with three visual elements to consider. Firstly, the self portrait of Albert Dürer in 1500 shows a sturdy well kept man giving the illusion of strength, confidence and purpose. His fur coat makes him appear rich and is well made.

The so called Simonetta from the workshops of Botticelli around 1444 – 1510 shows the profile image of a lady of the age. She appears very dainty, beautiful and well dressed. Her hair is platted and very well kept.

And thirdly, Andrea del Verrocchio’s sculpture of General Bartolommeo Calleoni shows a proud and strong man ready for battle in his armor. His stance is one of power and authority (as it should being the leader) and he appears to be looking out surveying the battle field.

The Renaissance was primarily about enlightenment, a new understanding, and so education proved to be the foundation and key.

Within 13 years of one another, two letters were written by humanists to nobles indicating what type of learning would be required by men and women.

For the men, the letter to Ubertinus of Padua written in 1392 by Peter Paul Vergerius indicates what is important for men to learn. Firstly, history was the most important “on grounds both of its attractiveness and of its utility, qualities which appeal equally to the scholar and to the statesman.” Moral philosophy is the second important subject in order “to teach men the secret of true freedom.”

The logic of the first two subjects was that together “…one shows what men have said and done in the past, and what practical lessons we may draw therefrom for the present day.” With men still being the dominant sex in leadership and headship, this type of learning is very important.

The third discipline to learn is eloquence “which indeed holds a place of distinction amongst the refined arts.”

In contrast, although women should learn history, it is in a different context. The letter from Meonardo Bruni to Lady Baptista around 1405 suggests that history be learned simply “to understand the origins of our own history and its development; and the achievements of Peoples and of Kings.” There is no responsibility in that learning, simply the knowledge will suffice, no need to apply it as men should.

Bruni believes that the primary discipline for women is learning religion and the literature that goes along with it “affords her the fullest scope for reverent, yet learned inquiry”. Again, there is no responsibility in the learning; it is there for her to learn in order to continue to be subjected to the man.

The final discipline for a lady is poetry and poets.

Already, it is apparent that the two sexes have very different roles within Renaissance society and accordingly, the subject matter of both is quite different.

In terms of behavior and demeanor, Baldassare Castiglione had the following to say in his ‘manual’ for each sex from The Courtier 1508 – 1516.

The men were to be of arms, meaning to “be known among the others as bold, energetic, and faithful to whomever he serves.” He is to be well educated and to be conversant in both Latin and Greek because there is much to learn from literature written in both. The logic in these studies was to make him confident and fluent and thus a strong person. Despite these many learnings and behaviors he was to undertake, he must also essentially be modest.

In contrast, women were to be less bold and strong, they were to be tender, sweet and graceful amongst other things. Effectively, she was to be subservient to the man and apparently for his pleasure. She should be educated in order to provide conversation to entertain a man.

For a ruler, in Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince in 1513, he describes the appropriate behavior and learnings of a ruler. Although history, once again is a common discipline to learn, in this context it is the learning of great men and leaders in the past who were successful in warfare and applying these principles. This leads onto the primary learning of the ruler, and that is the art of warfare and its associated teachings. If a ruler was to lose sight of this, he will most likely lose his state.

He should therefore also try to attain the respect of his followers, preferably through one of fear and love, but if love is not possible, then it is safer to be feared. If he is to lead his army into battle, he will need to do it with his men obeying him for the right reasons.

Leon Battista Alberti’s autobiography sometime after 1460 tries to present himself as the ‘ideal’ Renaissance man. He appears very learned and dedicated in literature (which he calls letters) and when he needs a break from this delves into art where he strove to become a big name. In fact he states that “His genius was so versatile that you might judge all the fine arts to be his”, which is in direct contrast to Baldassare that “in this as in everything else, to be cautious and reserved rather than forward…” So Alberti is coming across as rather boastful, which would probably explain why he proceeds to talk about how resented he is within society.

However, he had a sense of humor by writing a funeral oration for his dog!

Polydore Vergil’s Anglia Historia around 1540 portrays King Henry VII of England as the perfect Renaissance ruler. He is described as being a very attractive and slender man, who was wise and prudent. Brave when tough challenges came his way, but gracious, generous and just. Despite preferring peace, he was also successful in war.

Good Queen Bess, Queen Elizabeth I was the complete opposite of how an ideal Renaissance woman should have been. Daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Bolyen, she had a hard beginning to her life, and for her to inherit the throne, it looked an extremely unlikely event. Henry was obsessed with siring a male heir and when he finally begat one, the reign of this son lasted only 6 years before death took him. Elizabeth finally took the crown and became one of the longest serving monarchs in English history. Her rule was not only long, but overall very successful and strong. The restoration of Protestantism to the English church, the start of the colonization of the Americas and defeat of the Spanish Armada were some of the highlights in a very accomplished reign. It wasn’t dubbed the Golden Age for nothing.

Her father Henry would no doubt have been proud of her accomplishments, but perhaps still disappointed that his long planned dynasty had failed in the very next generation. Elizabeth was never to marry, she was married to her country so great was her devotion. She was the Virgin Queen and one of the strongest rulers England had ever known.

Two years before her death, she addressed her parliament for one last time in what would become known as The Golden Speech. In it are examples of how strong she was, and how this strength shows how unlike the ideal Renaissance woman should be. Richard Cavendish in the November 2001 History Today magazine in an article called ‘Queen Elizabeth I’s Golden Speech’ describes her as “Highly intelligent, maddening, and enchanting, she staged a one man show in which, beautifully costumed and blazingly bejeweled, she created a starry image for herself as Gloriana, Spenser’s faerie queen, as the ‘chaste and fair’ Diana, virgin and huntress of the moon, as Astraea, the personification of justice or ‘Albion’s golden sun.”

Certainly these words from her Golden Speech highlight this wonderful description, “There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself.” Ideally, these would have been the feats and words of a king, not a queen and it is in this way that Elizabeth was not the ideal Renaissance woman. She was the ideal man.

To conclude, the time of the Renaissance was a period where mankind reawakened to himself. After nearly 1000 lost years after the rule of the Romans, mankind has rediscovered the direction and momentum that perhaps should have followed the Romans. Instead man and society in the west had fallen back and now was being restarted again.

Men and women alike found for themselves that education, culture and the sciences led to a more civilized society and so this developed into ideals and standards by which each sex should strive to attain. The documents examined do provide us with those standards, and perhaps a few of them are overzealous in their writings in that they portray certain figures as being absolutely perfect, which of course it is not possible for man to be this way. And so, a more objective and general outlook must be applied to such documents in order to obtain a clearer picture.

However, the Renaissance led to better standards and provided men and women alike a goal in which to aim for, and these goals and ideals pave the way for growth to become a better and more informed race.


Grade A

The Return of Martin Guerre

Under the kingship of François 1^er around 1527 in the region of the Basque, South West France close to the Atlantic Ocean, a young boy and his family make the slow trek inland towards the region of Languedoc just to the south of the city of Toulouse and north of the Pyrenees. Their final destination, a small village called Artigat where they plan to settle and live. This young man’s name would be the subject of a great scandal with events to occur later in his life. His name was Martin Guerre.

This scandal has intrigued historians and people alike in the centuries since. Several books and movies based on the events have been written on it, and the legend is still very much alive with locals in the region today.

However, the two works that this essay will investigate are a film and a written work. The two are closely linked, in that the consultant historian working on the film went onto produce the written work. She felt that the film had not been faithful to the true story, and so she researched further to seek the truth. The film was produced in 1982 under the title Le Retour de Martin Guerre (The Return of Martin Guerre) and starred top French actor, Gérard Depardieu. The book of the same English title and was written by the said historian, Natalie Zemon Davis a year later.

As with many book to film productions (or film to book in this case), many discrepancies are normally found. When the production is based on history, discrepancies between what’s portrayed on film or book can also be found.

The basic premise of the histoire (the story) is one of impostor and identity theft. The film begins in 1542 with the marriage of Martin Guerre and his bride, Bertrande de Rols. They both appear to be in their late teens, perhaps 16 or so. After their wedding ceremony and Bertrande’s dowry had been sorted, the pair is blessed in their wedding bed so that they may have many children together. Once the blessing has occurred, instead of following the usual practice of the wedding night, Martin rolls over, shunning his new wife.

The film shows the arrival of a Councillor from the Parlemant de Toulouse, Jean de Coras. He questions Bertrande over a series of events that have occurred since the disappearance and reappearance of her husband. At this time, we are unaware of why this questioning is taking place. She explains to him what happened and how events unfolded. She tells of how her husband Martin was teased and tormented by the villagers because he couldn’t father a child, how he was very much dominated by his father and then how they finally came to be with child after 8 years without.

The film shifts us back in time to where Martin is accused by his father of stealing some grain. This is probably the straw that broke the camel’s back, and Martin disappears with no trace and we see his father pining away awaiting his return each and every day. Eventually Martin’s father and mother die, leaving Martin’s uncle Pierre as family head. During this period, Pierre had also married the mother of Bertrande to try to keep the family together.

For 8 years, Martin was away and had not sent any word, but in that entire time Bertrande was loyal and she was virtuous.

Then one day a man arrived at the village. Martin Guerre, il eut retour (he had returned).

Everyone was pleased to see him (despite their torment of him many years earlier), he reminded them of the past times, and even his family, after being initially perplexed, took him in. The following scene he is reunited with his wife, Bertrande, and then together with his son Sanxi.

Throughout the next portion of the film, we see Martin tell stories of his travels, where he’s been, the war in the north and we see him reminisce with old friends and acquaintances within the village.

We are brought back to the questioning where we discover Martin and Bertrande had another two children together (although one died) and then Coras asks a curious question, “When did the doubts first begin?” Betrande answers and we are taken back in time to when some vagabonds had arrived in the village and claimed that Martin Guerre was not in fact Martin Guerre, but on fact a man called Pansette. The first seeds of doubt are cast.

Martin then questions his uncle regarding his inheritance and demands his portion. Pierre is quite shocked and angry that after Martin being away for so long, he should dare make such demands, and especially as Martin threatened court action very early on in the debate. However, we see Pierre back down shortly after and make arrangements with Martin for him to collect his money in a barn. What with the vagabond’s claim and money demands of Martin, Pierre is suspicious and the collection is in fact a double cross. Martin is beaten up and almost killed, but for Bertrande flinging herself dramatically in front of a fork that was destined for Martin’s chest. She was ready to die for him.

Coras asked if she had any doubts over his identity, she claimed she wavered for a little, but restated her claim that he is in fact her husband. In the meantime, the villagers are split between whether he is who he says he is, or an imposter. And this is what Coras is in the village for, to discover the truth.

By now, this Martin is under arrest with Pierre his chief accuser, but Martin responds in his defence that Pierre is trying to cheat him out of his inheritance. Coras calls the village together and after a few questions, pronounces Martin not guilty of imposter and orders Pierre to pay a fine.

He is free, for a while at least. After taking to bed with his wife, he is arrested the following morning and taken away to Toulouse. A document signed by various people, apparently including Bertrande, has been produced, and this is seemingly enough evidence for the arrest to take place.

The following sequences show further questioning by Coras to Martin and various villagers are also questioned regarding Martin’s physical appearance and features. Finally, we discover that Bertrande didn’t sign the document that caused Martin’s second arrest, because in fact she can write (this Martin had taught her) and so would have signed using her own name, rather than the cross mark that was there.

Pierre’s attack was dented, but the trial would still go ahead.

The trial consisted of more questioning, Martin defended himself to the hilt, he is able to talk about the past in precise detail, and he is adamant that he is who he says he is. Various witnesses are called, some back him up, others deny him, and the court has to conclude that the only humane thing they can do in the absence of absolute proof is to declare him not guilty.

Just as his innocence is to be declared, proceedings are halted in favour of one more witness. A man with a wooden leg and crutches enters the court and marches across to the counselors and claims to be… Martin Guerre. Gasps and shocks all round around the courtroom, and so he is questioned and claims he knows the defendant as Arnauld du Tilh, otherwise known as Pansette. The defendant claims never they have never met before.

Pierre and his wife declare the new man to be the true Martin Guerre and the defendant counters by claiming that Pierre paid the man to say these things against him as a last resort. And so a test between the two, back and forth seeing who remembers things from the past. Strangely, the new Martin’s memory isn’t as good as the defendant’s who remembers things so much better.

And this is what trips the defendant up. On being questioned regarding a certain object, the defendant gets irritated and insists that he had told the new Martin Guerre about it. However, just before, the defendant claimed never to have met him before. And so, the imposter has made his fatal mistake and is shown for the charlatan he is.

The game is up, the defendant has been proven not to be Martin Guerre and is eventually sentenced to death. Bertrande privately indicates to Coras that she knew the truth all the time, but in the end knew it was hopeless to be with Arnaud, which is why she went to her original husband once the game was up. Even though he was an imposter, the film makes it clear that he truly loved Bertrande.

After hearing his confession, Arnaud, the false Martin is led to the gallows where he is hanged. The year is 1560.

We are finally told of Coras’ continued involvement in that he was to write a record down of the case. Twelve years later he was murdered as part of the St Bartholomew’s massacre of the Protestant Reformists, plotted by Catherine de Médicis in Paris.

This was the basic storyline of the film, and it led to the film’s historian (Davis) to delve deeper and research more as she was not happy about how the film makers had portrayed the events inaccurately.

The immediate thing to notice about the film compared to the book is that the book is far more detailed and in depth. This is true for the majority of book and film comparisons. The Green Mile, The Good, the Bad & the Ugly, Stand by Me and the Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe and the Shawshank Redemption can all testify to this. Each are relatively short in book form, yet still manage to reproduce on film well in excess of two and a half hours and they still don’t include everything in despite being quite true to its original. In contrast, Martin Guerre, although not adapted from book form, still approaches the two hour mark in comparison to a little over 100 pages in the book, and yet leaves out so much.

Although the basic story is the same for both book and film, there are many details that are different, some of these are key to the development.

To begin with, the book provides us with far more detail and background information. Whereas the film begins with the marriage of Martin and Bertrande, the book starts in 1527 and gives us the background of Martin and his family, where they originally came from and how they came to be in Artigat. The dates of the marriage are different, the film dates it as 1542, the book tells us it took place in 1538 which falls in line with the report written by Coras. The book informs us Martin was no older than 14 and Bertrande even younger than that. In the film, they appear much older and in fact, checking the ages of the actors portraying these two characters at the time of filming, they were both in their early 30’s!

The reason for that is likely that showing two children in marriage on film especially with the suggestion of intercourse (particularly in the early 80’s) would have caused a fair bit of controversy. From the film’s point of view, their ages are not critical to the storyline so it is more sensible the route the filmmakers took, whereas in the book, it is critical to the accuracy and authenticity of the history.

There are many other discrepancies in the film, such as the way the fraudulent Martin was exposed (which I personally enjoyed), the fact there was just the one proper trial (the first trial was more of an informal judgment in the film). Also, the initial judgment in the film was not guilty, in the book he was guilty and the reason the case was heard in the Parlement de Toulouse was in appeal to the original judgment. The epilogue telling us that Coras was hanged for his Protestant beliefs along with 100 of his friends at Parlement de Toulouse after the St Bartholomew’s Day massacre in 1572 was another innaccuracy. Raymond A. Mentzer’s ‘Blood & Belief: Family Survival and Confessional Identity among the Provincial Huguenot Nobility’ tells us he was murdered in prison following the aforementioned massacre. Why that truth couldn’t have been told at this point, who knows?

The book also goes into detail regarding the shift of many people at the time from Catholicism to Protestantism, which was quite significant to the development of what was happening. It is plausible that Bertrande really knew the truth that this Martin was not her true husband, but for a variety of reasons was to her advantage to conceal the truth. The Protestant church would certainly have been far more tolerant of the situation compared to the Catholic Church. After all, hadn’t the King of England just created a new religion from Protestantism for much the same purpose in 1534? In contrast, the sole mention of this religious strife in the film came at the end with the inaccurate telling of the death of Coras, previously mentioned.

Despite these and many other inaccuracies, the film does well in bringing over the point of the story – how a man can convince so many people that he is someone when he actually he is not. It successfully shows that not only would his memory have had to be extremely good, his persuasive powers and his own belief in himself in order to carry the deception out must have been something extraordinary. Perhaps he carried off the deception and lies so well, that he had himself convinced so much that he was actually Martin Guerre and that he was telling the truth.

‘A translation of the main text of Coras, Arrest Memorable’ by Jeanette K Ringold of Virginia University in 1982 has proved to be invaluable to deciphering the accuracy of the film and the book. Although it should be noted that the translation is not perfect, French in those days was quite disjointed, (most of the population did not speak the language, rather their own dialects which are still very strong today from region to region) so we are reliant on the skill of the interpreter, not only in the translation of words, but also in the translation of the logic, the context and message the writing is trying to portray. And of course we have to take into account Coras’ own perception of events, his own judgment on who was speaking the truth and who not as well as his own biases. Nonetheless, this translation of source material is still an extremely useful tool in comparing the authenticity of the film to book.

One part the film was accurate on is when talking about how Arnaud du Tilh came to know so much about Martin Guerre. Now while this is also speculation on Coras’ part, it does feature in the film, towards the end when Arbaud is confronted by Martin. To quote the above translation “And the said du Tilh, as is likely, being comrade in arms of the said Martin Guerre, heard from him (under pretext of friendship) several private and personal things about him and his wife.” The book also highlights this point, also with conjecture, although the film is rather more direct in its interpretation of this.

In my opinion, the film blends the history with entertainment well. It does take many liberties and ignores a lot of historical fact, but the basic message and essence of the history is there. Perhaps adding more fact would have slowed the film down and made it unnecessarily long, in my opinion a film should last not much longer than 2 hours, it is a good length and unless absolutely necessary or spectacular, shouldn’t go on for much longer. As it stands, it is close to two hours in length. In terms of set and location, it looked and felt real. Whether the costume or customs of the day are that closely reproduced is hard to say, but they did use real buildings from long ago, and most certainly the church part of the film was set in was real. I have visited many churches and cathedrals in my time in France and England from a tourist perspective, and the feeling I received from the film was the same as the memory I have from visiting those places. The footsteps echoing inside, the reminder of the chill always felt inside those large stone structures like that, to the architecture, the stonework and the size.

Also, the village felt real. It was real mud and grass, the barn, the straw, the tools in the background and there being no special effects either added to the authenticity. The villagers looked the part, their activities, their clothing and so on. However even today in rural Languedoc, the French there is very difficult to understand; even the French from other regions have trouble with the dialect. But of course, the actors involved are no doubt from various other regions throughout France and of course trained to speak clearly and losing their regional dialect, so the French was too good. With the aid of subtitles, I was able to pick out most of the words in French relatively easily, which is very unusual for me. I have recently spoken with French friends regarding this film and they have assured me that there was very little in the way of Languedoc dialect within it. Not so much a problem for non French speakers, but for the French perhaps it would spoil its realness a little.

So, the film was good in a visual sense to gain an understanding of the past, to see how certain activities were carried out, to see how they lived and under what conditions, to see some of things they wore, to gain a sense of the isolation they would have been under as other villages would have been a trek away. But for the deeper meaning and understanding of the time, it didn’t do as much. The book gave me a much a greater understanding and along with imagination, a greater sense of what actually happened. A film will always be hard pressed to achieve that, not even with the greatest CGI a film maker could ever come close to replacing the imagination. But Le Retour de Martin Guerre did a good job on the visual aspects in a historical sense.

The main points that struck me in the film regarding artistic license or liberties were with Bertrande learning to write (which was how she proved that she didn’t sign that document to send Martin back to court) and in the confrontation between the two Martins where Arnaud claimed never to have met Martin and then a couple of minutes later tripped himself up by saying “it was me who told him these things”. These two aspects did enhance the film, but of course they didn’t happen in reality. The book tells us there were hundreds testifying in this case, to reproduce this on film would have been difficult and ultimately rather boring for the viewer, so highlights or snapshots were used to show the opinions of the people regarding the case.

I found the book didn’t have much bias in it, but on reading other people’s reviews and essays of Davis’ thoughts towards Bertrande and how she portrayed her as a strong (modern) independent woman, I can see where they’re coming from. It’s not something I picked up on originally, but perhaps these writers are correct in their opinion on this. Regarding the film, I felt the bias was very much in favour of the fake Martin. Throughout I felt myself hoping he would win through (despite already knowing the ending), and I have put this bias down to the film makers perhaps pandering to their star actor, Gérard Depardieu.

In conclusion, one has to wonder how the film would have turned out had Davis penned the book before the film was created. It would certainly have made life easier for the director as he would have had a clearer overall picture in his mind as to how events occurred.

Nonetheless, personally, I have always viewed films based on history as a shop front, a glossy image of how a certain past unraveled. They serve to entice, to give a taste of snippets of a far greater history and to gain an overview of it. And from there to be able to take it further by reading the source materials and other writings in order to really find out what happened and finally to explore the differences and to wonder why the director decided to choose the path he chose.

The Return of Martin Guerre is no different. Primarily the film is there to make money, so the makers have to make it accessible to as many people as possible. To keep too true to history, sometimes does make a drab story, and so artistic license is needed to add extra spice to the story. In this format, I believe it doesn’t hurt too much, but in written format, it doesn’t work as well, and yet the true story has more impact. I enjoyed reading both the book and the film, and in my opinion both worked well within their respective formats. Reading the book before the film helped flesh out the film some more, especially the background stuff like what Martin was doing while away, his early background and the events of the church that were occurring at the time. Of course all are necessary for an authentic accurate writing, but for film in this case, they are not essential to the plotline.

And that’s essentially the difference. Both are telling the same story but with different aims. The point of the film is to provide an entertaining tale from the annals of history with a twist. The point of the book is to provide an accurate and authentic factual work, a proper record of historical events.


Grade A