Théodore Géricault

Théodore Géricault was a French romantic fine art painter who lived a sadly short life from September 26 1791 to January 26 1824. He was born to a middle class family in the city of Rouen about 130kms north east of Paris.

Spending much of his childhood in Rouen, he followed his father to Paris in order to complete his studies with Pierre-Narcisse Guérin. His early influence was from the painter Sir Peter Paul Rubens, but he also heavily studied the works of Michelangelo when he spent a couple of years in Florence and Rome between 1816 and 1817.

A passionate horse lover, in 1812 he had already completed his first major work, ‘Officier de chasseurs à cheval de la garde impériale chargeant’ (The Charging Chasseur). This picture won him gold prize at the famous ‘Salon’ in Paris. It now hangs in the Louvre, Paris.

In 1819, he produced his masterpiece, ‘Le Radeau de la Méduse’ (The Raft of Medusa), an enormous oil on canvas painting that shows the horror of the aftermath of the wreck of the French naval frigate Méduse. While a spectacular piece, at the time it was greeted with much skepticism and disdain due to the politics at the time. This piece, along with The Charging Chasseur shall be discussed in greater detail later in this essay.

With the disappointment of the reception of The Raft of Medusa, Géricault spent a couple of years in England where he was able to produce lithographs, water colors and oils of jockeys and of course, his favorite subject, horses. The Derby at Epsom (1821) was another famous work of his and also hangs in the Louvre today.

On returning to France he befriended Etienne Georget, a pioneer of psychiatric studies. This inspired him to paint a series of paintings of insane people.

At the age of 33, he succumbed to a tuberculosis infection and passed away after suffering a long illness.

His tomb can be found in Pére Lachaise cemetery on the west side of Paris amongst many other famous peoples such as Chopin, Rossini, Jim Morrison, Oscar Wilde, Moliére and Bizet to name a few. His tomb is very prominent with a bronze statue of him on top and a reproduction of The Raft of Medusa that was created by the sculptor Antione Etex.

I shall now be considering three of Géricault’s best known works, The Charging Chasseur; Evening: Landscape with an Aqueduct and The Raft of Medusa. For each, I shall attempt to provide a brief history of what was happening around at the time and how it relates or affects the piece, and then lead into a formal analysis of it.

The Charging Chasseur

Quick facts:

This piece can be seen on fig 3 and it currently hangs in the Louvre museum in Paris. It measures 11’ 5” x 8’ 9” and is oil on canvas. It was completed in 1812.

History:

The Charging Chasseur was first exhibited at the Salon, Paris depicting a Napoleonic cavalry officer on his rearing horse. At the time, Napoleon was an undefeated general in his wars across Europe. This status would change by the end of the year, as a massive defeat in Russia left his forces greatly diminished. The painting however, shows a proud and powerful officer upon his steed before Napoleon’s crushing defeat.

Formal Analysis:

Painted in the style of Peter Paul Rubens, Géricault gives us a stark piece and shows his love of horses. It is a representational piece and naturalistic, and because of this, most shapes appearing are organic.

Immediately, the eye is drawn to the central figure of the officer, and we follow his gaze via an imaginary line to the bottom left of the picture to the soldier he has just slain. The rearing of the horse also follows this same line, giving an almost symmetrical balance across this diagonal plane of the painting.

The piece is very well lit, we can clearly see the expression of the officer and it is also quite a colorful piece, certainly in comparison to some of his other works. The strong blue of his uniform, the bright red of his sashes and belt brings him forward from the neutral beige background. On the right of the painting, we see the light of fire, which flows over the top of the painting, turning into thick black smoke, providing a frame.

Amongst the background, we can also see debris, more fighting in the distance and this further enhances the content of the painting and what we are seeing and provides us with the feeling of time and motion.

Evening: Landscape with an Aqueduct

Quick facts:

This piece can be seen on fig 4 and it currently hangs in the Metropolitan Museum in New York. It measures 8’ 2” x 7’ 2” and is oil on canvas. It was completed in 1818.

History:

This painting was supposed to have been one of a series of four paintings depicting different times of the day. Only three were completed, Morning, Noon and this one, Evening. The Metropolitan Museum of Art tells us that “Gericault painted these landscapes at a moment of personal turmoil: his uncle's second wife was about to give birth to a child whom Gericault had fathered” and uses this to suggest why a fourth was not completed.

Formal Analysis:

We can see a slight shift in style from The Charging Chasseur, Géricault has developed his technique under the influence of Michelangelo’s work. This piece exhibits very precise work, almost photographic, making it both naturalistic and representational. Our eye is drawn from the bottom right of the picture, past the two figures, up along the river until it reaches the aqueduct. From there, the eye is drawn to the right to take us into the small hamlet and beyond.

Much of the foreground is in shadow with the sun setting in the bottom left. His use of value here is superb and makes the painting dark, yet inviting through the fading sunlight which strikes a thin edge of the cliff on the left hand side, highlighting a tree on the bottom right after passing under the aqueduct. The colors used are very neutral and thus low in intensity, a lot of beige and dull greens, but this generates a lot of warmth.

The composition is very balanced, but not quite symmetrical. Interestingly, I do not believe it uses the rule of thirds, as the horizon line, the aqueduct is exactly in the centre of the piece.

We are looking at the piece from slightly above the aqueduct and also, we have a two point perspective in looking at the scene.

The Raft of Medusa

Quick facts:

This piece can be seen on fig 5.1 and it currently hangs in the Louvre museum in Paris. It measures 16’1” x 23’ 6” and is oil on canvas. It was completed in 1819.

History:

The Raft of Medusa caused great controversy when it originally went up for display in the Salon in Paris in 1819. The Medusa was an ill piloted ship that had run aground and its survivors left to survive on a small makeshift raft.

It is a protest piece. H.W. & A.F. Janson’s History of Art tells us “Géricault painted his most ambitious work, The Raft of Medusa, in response to a political scandal of epic proportions. The Medusa, a government vessel, had foundered off the West African coast with hundreds of men on board.” Britannica follows this on by stating “The shipwreck had scandalous political implications at home—the incompetent captain, who had gained the position because of connections to the Bourbon Restoration government, fought to save himself and senior officers while leaving the lower ranks to die—and so Géricault’s picture of the raft and its inhabitants was greeted with hostility by the government.”

Interestingly, Géricault took his work to England the following year where it was received with great enthusiasm and pleasure. Perhaps this had to do with the great rivalry that existed between the two nations at the time, not long after the English had finally defeated Napoleon.

Formal Analysis:

The painting is clearly a representational piece, as well as being naturalistic. The characters can easily be recognized and the level of detail is astonishing. It is an excellent example of a fine art, and critics even described it as being too realistic. It owes much in style to the Greek and Roman inspired model of art that was so prevalent at the time.

It uses imaginary lines that take the viewers eye from bottom left of the painting and leads it through the main body towards where the group on the top right of the raft are looking, into the distance to their salvation – a ship.

The subject matter is reflected by the darkness of the painting itself. Because it is very large too, it does bring about an overwhelming emotional feeling of oppression and of imminent death and decay. The use of shadows and darkness within the painting really emphasizes this feeling and the analogous colors of browns, yellows and beiges with splashes of red here and there only adds to the depressing subject matter.

Carlo L. Ragghianti in his book, Great Museums of the World suggests that “the whole composition has a severe pyramidal structure that was roundly denounced by many contemporaries.” The first would include the group of men from the bottom left laying in their death and disease and includes the sail. The second can be drawn over the group of men at the top right looking out to sea and perhaps seeing their salvation.

There have been satirical uses of this painting over the years, The Pogues used this painting for the cover of their album ‘Rum, Sodomy and the Lash’, and had pasted members of the band’s heads over the originals.

Conclusion

It is perhaps fitting to conclude with a tribute to Géricault by some of his fellow Frenchmen some 143 years into the future. Goscinny and Uderzo, the creators of the Asterix the Gaul series satirized the Raft of Medusa in their comic book, Asterix the Legionary.

Within the adventures of this Gaulic comic hero, Asterix would from time to time come into contact with a group of pirates, and he would always win and the pirate ship always destroyed.

In this particular scene, we see the pirates on the same raft, waving goodbye to their ship and generally looking very miffed. To further enhance the joke, we see one of the pirates exclaim, “We’ve been framed, by Jericho”, which is both a send off and I imagine also a tribute to Géricault himself.

Asterix is as much a French treasure as Géricault is, and it is likely that Géricault would be happy in his grave knowing that his fellow citizens still remember him fondly.

Grade A 

Philadelphia Museum of Art Visit March 2011

Artists Name: Unknown

Artist’s Nationality: French

Dates of Artists Birth & Death: Unknown

Museum’s Method of Acquisition: Purchased with funds contributed by Elizabeth Malcolm Bowman in memory of Wendell Phillips Bowman, 1928

Work’s Title: Portal from the Abbey Church of Saint-Laurent

Date Work Completed: c 1120 - 1150

Medium and technique: Architecture. Stone masonry.

This entrance to an old French abbey was brought across for display in the Philadelphia museum and no doubt will be well preserved. Had it stayed in France, it would have continued to be exposed to the elements and over time perished, just like many other churches in France. Having said that, I was very surprised how dirty it was, especially in comparison to the photos showing it quite clean and white. No doubt this is due to people touching it and feeling its texture.

Personally, I find it very interesting to note the materials used and style of architecture. My home in France is about half a kilometer away from a church similar in age to this. Yet, despite my home being approximately 150kms away from the original position of this portal, the style of architecture and materials used between the two are very different. This is no doubt down to materials available within both regions.

In terms of design, the Philadelphia Art Museum website describes it perfectly. “It displays bold abstract patterns on round arches and capitals with complicated intertwined branches, leaves, and birds characteristic of Romanesque architecture. The style seen here was inspired by that of the most influential Benedictine monastery in Europe, Cluny…” This also supports the reason for different architecture compared to the church near me, as Cluny is nearer the heavily influenced Roman architecture of the south of France. It is less apparent the further north in France you go.

Construction would have been a team effort, with many skilled artisans employed over the long period of building it took.

It is nice to get up close to this work, to be able to feel its texture and wonder how many other people would have touched it too throughout its long history.

Artists Name: Pietro Berettini (Pietro da Cortona)

Artist’s Nationality: Italian

Dates of Artists Birth & Death: 1596 - 1669

Museum’s Method of Acquisition: Gift of the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, 1959

Work’s Title: Tapestry showing the Sea Battle between the Fleets of Constantine and Licinius

Date Work Completed: 1635

Dimensions: 16’8” x 23’4”

Medium and technique: Tapestry, woven

This very large tapestry was created in order to complete a set of tapestries given to Cardinal Francesco Barberini by Louis XIII of France. It depicts yet another Roman civil war, this time between Emperor Constantine I (ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire) and Emporer Licinius (ruler of the Western Roman Empire). It shows Constantine’s forces overcoming those of Licinius.

We see a very packed image on this tapestry, framed by an almost symmetrical pattern. The designer has used mainly primary colors in the piece, the sky, sea and the uniforms of Licinius’ men all in blue. Constantine’s men are in red, and then gold (close to yellow) for the remainder of the image, for the boats and the standards.

The piece is representational, although the characters are depicted in slightly simpler form than real human beings. We can see straight and curved lines throughout the piece, predominantly on the ships, but also on the standards too.

There are two focal points to the image. The first is on the left, the ship of Constantine (we know this is his ship, because the standard bears the Christian cross and Constantine was the first Roman emperor to become a Christian). The second is the ship of Licinius, with the standard SPQR of Rome. The eye is drawn to both in succession. The two focal points bring the piece into a fine balance.

The other interesting thing to note is the proportions. The men on the ships appear to be too big for the ships. This is to let us know that the battle is the important thing to focus on, the ships are merely there as vehicles to bring the men to the fight. The artist successfully conveys what he is trying to get across, the forces of Constantine are clearly winning the battle, his ship is afloat, while that of Licinius is ablaze, plumes of smoke showing in the background of it.

Artists Name: Pierre Auguste Renoir

Artist’s Nationality: French

Dates of Artists Birth & Death: 1841 - 1919

Museum’s Method of Acquisition: The Henry P. McIlhenny Collection in memory of Frances P. McIlhenny, 1986

Work’s Title: Les Grands Boulevards

Date Work Completed: 1875

Dimensions: 20 ½” x 25”

Medium and technique: Oil on canvas

This impressionist painting of a Parisian scene encapsulates the essence of Paris.

Because it is an impressionist painting, the forms in it are very much simplified and thus idealized. For color, Renoir has focused on colder colors, blue skies, green trees and there can be seen flashes of reds or oranges here and there. There is a great deal of white (the buildings and horse) which gives a very fresh and clean feel to the scene.

The artist has used one point perspective and the focal point is the horse drawn carriage on the right side of the picture. We are at road level in terms of viewpoint and everything is in scale and at the right proportions. Most of the shapes are organic, with the building the most geometric of all the shapes.

When it was painted, it was a view of modern day Paris. This section of the city was brand new and had been designed with wide avenues, and a precise road network. Indeed, if you look at an aerial view of the streets coming off of the Arc de Triomphe, you will see that the roads come from it like segments of an orange. It is in this area that Les Grands Boulevard is situated. The artist has captured the essence of Paris so well, that it is still recognizable even in today’s Paris.

Conclusion

Viewing art in real life is a very different experience than looking at an image of it in a photo, book or poster. This is especially so if one is very familiar with the work, but never seen it in real life. I think the first thing that comes to mind is how different it actually is.

I recall seeing the Mona Lisa for the first time. While it is far from being my favorite work of art, I was staggered by how much I enjoyed seeing it in real life. The sense of history, of age, and of dimension, all this comes through even though it is not possible to view close up and being under a thick layer of protected glass. Since seeing it in real life, whenever I see it in print, it appears even more of a flat image than before.

For the three pieces at the Philadelphia Museum of Art I saw, the first thing I felt was they were not the size I imagined. For the church entrance, I was expecting something smaller, as the description mentioned it was from a small abbey. For the Renoir painting, I was expecting something larger, and for the tapestry, while I was expecting it to be large, I was not expecting the colors to be so vibrant, nor the piece to be so clear.

Compared to just viewing the works in a book where you have no real idea of size, the true colors, texture and so on, viewing in real life is naturally superior.

Grade A

The Development of the Medieval State

In the early Middle Ages, the concept of ‘feudalism’ existed. While the term was created at a later time, it was used to identify the system that was in place back then. Feudalism is a system of rights between a ruler, nobleman or even the church to one who promises allegiance to that lord. This agreement can only exist between the one in authority and a free man (ie not a slave or a serf). The one promising allegiance becomes a vassal to them.

Basically, what happens is the vassal is granted right of use of the lord’s land (called a fief) if the vassal offered continued support and assistance to them. The land granted them is worked by slaves, free peasants or serfs, although these actually are not included within the system.

Vassals included people such as knights (who would perhaps have fought for their lords) and church officials who had promised themselves and loyal to the church. So, the big land owners were the noblemen and the church.

However, as more and more vassals appeared, they became more and more powerful as they “lorded” over their own fiefs. As time progressed, things became more and more chaotic and as fiefs were handed down, generation by generation, it was often forgotten who owned the land in the first place. And so, the vassals grew more and more powerful as power decentralized and the fiefs became more and more independent.

After the Norman conquest of England in 1066, the new rulers successfully manipulated feudal institutions to build up their own power, and slowly but surely the feudal system transformed into a monarchy after the new rulers had to overcome two major problems – that of the powerful vassals who had armies loyal to them, and that of the church with its authority higher than that of any secular power. There were many actions and developments involved within this process and this essay shall discuss several key elements that changed society at this time.

To give a little background and foundation to this, we need to look at some events and changes around Europe leading up to 1066. Firstly, we shall look at the great Charlemagne from the time of the late 700’s. His biographer, Einhard, tells us that during his rulership of the Franks, “Such are the wars, most skillfully planned and successfully fought, which this most powerful king waged during the forty-seven years of his reign. He so largely increased the Frank kingdom, which was already great and strong when he received it at his father's hands that more than double its former territory was added to it.” At the time of his death, he had all of what is known as modern day France, Switzerland, Belgium, Holland, a large part of Germany, half of Italy and into Eastern Europe. He was such a key player in the early Middle Ages.

Despite these conquests, he was also known as a very generous man and had added much to the coffers of the Catholic Church and had even given money to poor Christians in far off lands not ruled by him. This shows his kindness and compassion to foreigners that Einhard speaks of. He also established a series of reforms to update the defective old Frankish law to work better within his new empire.

His reign was to last until his death in 814.

From 980 to the turn of the millennium, a portrait of Otto III shows this German king a very prominent figure. In comparison to the other figures in the painting, nobles on one site, church bishops on the other, he is slightly larger than they are to draw out his importance. Encyclopedia Britannica tells us he was planning to govern from Rome and be above both the state and the church. He failed.

So, the scene is set, we are slowly seeing shifts from smaller tribes or manors, to more central forms of rulership, but what was to happen in 1066 would really set the tone for the ages to come.

In 1066, William the Normandy led an army from the north coast of France, sailed across the Channel and landed on the south coast of England near Hastings. There ensued the Battle of Hastings between the forces of William and the English king, Harold. Harold was defeated, leaving William to become the new king of England (and some might say rightful king anyway, as the throne had been originally promised him by Edward the Confessor).

As is understandable when a new conqueror takes over power, rebellions arise. William had one to deal with around 1068 from the north of England. Two brothers Edwin and Morcar, who had grown wealthy and powerful due to the feudal system, rebelled after William had broken a promise in giving his daughter in marriage to Edwin. The two brothers then set back to their northern realms and staged a rebellion. Blethyn, king of Wales also came to support it, and other inhabitants were urged to conspire against the Normans. York became the focal point of the unrest, but William moved swiftly to survey the most inaccessible, but strategic parts of England and fortified them. The result was that the English were unable to resist and so Edwin and Morcar were forced to back down and the rebellion failed. The fortifications had worked and over the next twenty years, many castles were built to act as deterrents.

These castles, such as the one at Richmond in North Yorkshire, were built on terrain such as hills where they would be very difficult to penetrate and attack. Indeed, they were so well built, that many of them today are still standing, almost a thousand years after construction.

A map from the book ‘Domesday England’ shows locations of castles around England. Many were dotted around various inland strategic positions and it is interesting to note that how many were built on the southern English coastline. This further improved the natural defense offered by the English Channel to ward off any overseas attack, such as the one William had waged in 1066. Since then, England has never been successfully conquered on its own soil.

With the rebellion eliminated and England fortified by William, the feudal system had received its first major blow and a step towards a medieval state evolved.

Some twenty years later, we can see in ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’ how further along towards a medieval state things progressed. This short passage indicates all the vassals have submitted to William to become his vassals. Or put into another word, his subjects.

The Assize of Clarendon (1166) marks another major step away from feudalism. The king in power at this time is Henry II of England and we see a series of ordinances initiated to improve procedures in criminal law. Several parts are highlighted for examination, and through it can be seen that the system is moving away from nobles lording over their serfs and peasants, and a more centralized method of policing introduced.

In the first part of the ordinance, we see an establishment of a hierarchy to report to regarding a series of stipulated crimes within a county. The second part deals with determining the guilt of the accused with “ordeal by water”. Skipping the third part and onto the fourth, we are told about where the accused is to stand before the justice, if a justice is not set to take place in the hundred (a part of the county) for a while. The fifth part declares the punishment of the guilty party by the king taking all his goods. The seventeenth part shows the jurisdiction and operating boundaries of the sheriff and finally the eighteenth part sets forth instructions for sheriffs to compile a list of all fugitives so that they may be sought after throughout all of England.

From this, we can see that some form of centralization of government is being developed in order to better control its citizens and to move control and power towards the king.

The Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) were controls to limit the power and effect of the ecclesiastical privileges of the church, and to further give overall control to the king. This constitution is what ultimately led to the martyrdom of Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170. Although the archbishop of Canterbury had originally agreed to the sixteen articles of the constitution, within a year he had rescinded this decision and was then pushed into exile for 6 years. On his return, his martyrdom took place and this led Henry to ease off his attack on the church, although nothing was changed on the constitution.

Meanwhile, over in mainland Europe the coronation of Emperor Frederick Barbarossa had taken place in 1152. At this time, things between the state and church couldn’t have been better. Both were happily working well together with mutual respect. On the day of the coronation of Frederick (who had been voted into kingship from his fellow princes as was the custom; rulership was not hereditary there), the same bishops who had crowned him, also consecrated another Frederick as Bishop of Munster. Gesta Frederici, the commentator states “…so that in truth the highest king and the priest believed this to be a sort of prognostication (or prophecy) in the present joyfulness that, in one church, one day saw the unction (anointing) of two persons, who alone are anointed sacramentally with the institutions of the old and new dispensations and are rightly called the anointed of Christ…”

A great departure from what was happening in England over the previous hundred years or so. Or was it?

Within five years of the coronation, we see from ‘The Deeds of Barbarossa’ that this special relationship had changed drastically. In a letter from the Pope, a critical argument arose regarding whether the German empire was dependent or not on the Papacy. It hadn’t taken long for secular rule to try to oust the church in order to reign supreme.

We move on another thirty years and back to England, for the coronation of a new English king, Richard the Lionheart in 1189. In this text, we read about a very regal and overly ceremonious coronation. It almost appears as church and state are one, but on closer reading, it now appears that the church is becoming subject to the king. The text lists the bishops, earls, barons, clerks and so on walking through Westminster Abbey carrying various golden sheaths, royal scepters etc, and “last of all came Duke Richard, having a bishop on the right hand, and a bishop on the left, and over them was a silk awning”. It almost makes one think of Jesus and the way he sometimes conferred with just two of his disciples, normally Peter and John. 

Perhaps this was a reflection with the two bishops either side, or perhaps not.

However, it is important to note, that “Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury anointed him king in three places…” The key word here is anointed, it was now believed that the king was anointed by God and thus this would likely increased the king’s power over the church some more.

Finally, we turn to the Magna Carta, one of the most important documents in English history. It was the original English charter and was signed by King John on 25 July, 1215. It was drawn up to proclaim certain liberties towards nobles and so that the king could not rule arbitrarily. The king’s powers in the past had grown too great, and now the king was being pulled back. It was forced upon him by his subjects in order to limit his powers and to protect their rights. Although it appears a swing back towards feudalism, it wasn’t, it was another stage in the development of the medieval state. Encyclopedia Britannica states “it became a symbol and battle cry against oppression.”

So, over the course of 400 years, from 814 to 1215 times had changed drastically. What had the biggest impact? Was it the dramatic and efficient rule of Charlemagne that set the tone for the future? Or the Magna Carta that went some way to bringing the king back down to earth and giving some control back to the nobles? Or was it the attempts to centralize control and law over the land with the Assize and Constitution of Clarendon? Certainly all have had a significant impact to the evolution of the State to how it existed in 1215, but I personally believe it to be the quashed rebellion two years after the Norman conquest. This is what set matters in motion into bringing the king more power, to establish strongholds throughout the country in the form of castles and other fortifications. Also, it was the start of the struggle to gain control over the church which by 1534, a certain Henry VIII had finally succeeded by pulling away from Catholicism to form his own church, the Church of England. Of this, he and every ruler of England since has been head of, as well as being head of State.


Grade A

The Emergence and Spread of Christianity

At around the time of 33CE, a young carpenter by the name of Jesus, began a ministry which would change the world forever. He was 30 years old when he started, and preached for a period of approximately three years, principally to the Jewish nation. The four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John relate many stories, parables, words of wisdom and miracles that allegedly took place during his ministry, but it is his death that marks the greatest significance of Christianity and perhaps made his words and teachings even greater than could possibly have been imagined.

Betrayed by his own people , Jesus was crucified with consequences being that the Jewish nation lost its right as God’s chosen people. This meant the word was now opened up to the outside world (or gentiles as the New Testament describes). Claiming resurrection by his followers, they also began preaching that he was the Son of God. Jesus of Nazareth became Jesus Christos (Christ, meaning messiah in Greek).

Soon after, the commission shown in Matt 28:19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” was a direction for the disciples and followers of Christ to preach his word throughout the world. And so Christianity as a religion was born.

The early path the Christian faith took can be seen throughout the New Testament. It was largely moved along by the newly converted apostle Paul who set about spreading its message throughout the Roman Empire . Being a Roman citizen, he had relatively easy passage throughout the Empire and took several missionary trips throughout it. Indeed, it was through Paul that the message was established and put within context of what is known as the Old Testament. Without Paul’s early influence, perhaps Christianity would not be where it is now.

His endeavors were not without opposition and he, along with many other early Christians were heavily persecuted. Responsible for writing many of the letters that would eventually make up a large portion of what would become the New Testament, his explanations of Christ’s teachings were generally very well thought out and logical. This would no doubt have helped its establishment from the start.

However, from the early days of Christianity to the late fourth century, Christians would be greatly attacked and persecuted for their beliefs. Indeed, when Nero set fire to Rome, he originally blamed it on the Christians . This period also saw the sacking of Jerusalem with the second temple (Herod’s) destroyed, it saw the four gospel accounts written along with Paul’s and other follower’s writings, the Bible as we know it today was slowly pulled together and agreed upon, and it also saw the emergence of the Roman Catholic Church.

Eventually, the persecution of the Christians subsided with the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great converting to Christianity around 312CE. Constantine would have a great role to play in the new direction Christianity would take.

In 325CE, the first great Christian Council formed. This famous Council of Nicaea established doctrine to attempt to set straight a variety of issues that had confused and perplexed many of the time . Possibly the greatest of these was the introduction of the concept of the trinity which claims God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are each the same person, yet different. Although this concept does not appear in the Bible at all, it has by and large been accepted by the Christian world and explained away as “a mystery of God”. Perhaps this was introduced to help other cultures better accept the Christian teaching as many cultures of the time came from polytheistic backgrounds. Christianity, which can claim its roots in Judaism, was essentially monotheistic. There would have been plenty of religious competition that Christianity would have had to overcome in order to establish itself.

So, with the help of the Roman Empire that stretched from the borders of Scotland throughout central and southern Europe, to northern Africa and as far west as the Fertile Crescent and Asia Minor, Christianity had managed to survive its early trials and become a major player of the ancient world.

By the end of the fifth century, the Roman Empire had ended and Visigoths had sacked Rome and taken Spain, the Franks had taken Gaul and Britain too was having its own invasions from Anglo Saxons, Vikings and the like, and much of Europe was plunged into what is known as the Dark Ages. And so as the Roman Empire subsided, so the rise of the Roman Catholic Church increased in power and influence.

Catholicism (meaning one church) was still the principle formation of Christianity, and during these Dark Ages, was kept alive by monks who continued to hand write the Bible in Latin. No doubt this will have kept the religion ticking over until these times were over.

For the next few hundred years, most of the populous could not read and so their only contact with the teachings of the Bible were by the spoken word only. They would therefore have received interpretation only by the priest or person conducting the sermon, and so less able to form their own opinion or belief.

Within this time, Crusades to the Holy Land of Jerusalem were made in order to rid the land of Islam control. The major crusades took place over a period of three hundred years or so, with other minor ones occurring up to Napoleon’s time. The end result was the same. Christian forces failed to regain control over the Holy Land. One has to wonder whether this Holy Land was ever actually significant, because surely if the Christian god deemed it important enough, he surely would have allowed the Crusaders to have captured it. What is significant is that the relationship between Muslim and Christian was severely damaged, and to this day many problems between the two abound.

In 1517 came the start of a major split within the Catholic Church. Unhappy with doctrines, rituals and other elements of what the church was turning into, a Christian reform movement known as the Protestant Reformation was led by a man called Martin Luther. These reformers created new churches and Martin Luther published a document called the Ninety Five Theses designed to reject the validity of the many indulgencies that were taking place within the church. For example, instead of the populous coming to have their sins heard and pardoned, certain priests were actually selling these pardons. This contradicts what the Bible teaches, and so Martin Luther and his followers came out in protest and the Ninety Five Theses became the catalyst for this reformation.

The reformation would start a series of wars throughout Europe, but once settled down, basically much of northern Europe moved towards the Protestant movement, while southern Europe remained Catholic.

From this point on, Christianity was forging down two paths, and thereafter, there developed many smaller denominations off shooting from the Protestant reform, such as the Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Pentecosts and so on and so forth.

It continued to spread all over the world, as the age of exploration expanded into new lands such as Africa, the Americas, Australia, and the Far East. So too did the word of God and eventually to the present we can assuredly say that most of the world has heard this message, as commanded in Matt 28:19, that it should be preached to all the world.

Today, Christianity remains very strong with approximately a third of the world’s population claiming to be Christian of some kind. It is interesting to note that in many of the western first world countries that Christianity does not directly form government. The United Kingdom can claim its Head of State (the Queen) to also be head of the Church of England. But many countries such as the United States and France have taken steps in their respective histories to separate its government from Christianity. France did this forcefully in its revolution, eliminating both royalty and the church from power, and to this day, despite it being seen as a Catholic country, its separateness goes as far as not even teaching religious education at schools to its youth.

In its two thousand year history, it can be seen that Christianity has taken both a physical and spiritual route that has transformed many lives, sometimes for the good and sometimes for the bad. Unfortunately its message has often been corrupted, manipulated and interpreted in ways often for the advantage of those in power.

There are so many different doctrines and offshoots of Christianity and it is fascinating to see how one message has been interpreted in so many different ways. From Catholicism to Protestantism and the many, varied offshoots of that; to the newer sects, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses along with others who have tried to get back to the root source of the Bible to seek its original message; it is certainly a minefield in itself to know what the true form of Christianity is. Indeed, in John 18:38, when Pilate asked Christ “What is truth?” it is quite interesting to note that no answer to that question has been actually recorded.

Grade A 

Invading Barbarians

Barbarian. The word conjures up visions of dumb burley men with rippling muscles, long hair, giant swords and Austrian accents. Although perhaps some of the barbarian people did share many of those traits, originally the term barbarian was simply one who didn’t speak Greek. To the Greeks, when these people spoke, it sounded like they were saying “bar, bar, bar...” and so the Greek word ‘Barbaros’ was formed.

The barbarians came from all over Europe, from the far north in countries such as Norway and Sweden, central Europe in the Germanic areas and to the east where modern day Romania and Bulgaria are.

In general, compared with more civilized cultures such as the Greeks and Romans, the barbarians were more primitive and basic. In some cases, they were quite anarchic which was in direct contrast to the ideals and philosophies of the more learned cultures. Because of this, much of what we know of these peoples comes not from the barbarians themselves, but from the other more sophisticated cultures, such as the Greeks, Romans and Arabs. These cultures were more civilized and had greater understandings of philosophy, government, religion etc, and so provide us with their insights to the barbarian peoples.

This essay shall describe these barbarians and look at the continuities and changes of them over the centuries from a variety of different commentator’s perspectives, and highlights some of the good characteristics along with the bad.

Our first encounter with the barbarian race comes from the Roman senator and historian, Tacitus. In his writings Germania around 100 CE, he provides us with an ample description of his perception of a few types of barbarians found directly to the north of Rome.

In the first tribe he gives us quite a positive and complimentary view of them. Describing their physical appearance of having blue eyes, red hair and “bodies fit for exertion”, they have kept themselves to themselves inasmuch they only marry within their race and they are quite Spartan like in the way they beget their children i.e. the marriages are based on partners having similar strengths in order for the children to come out strong. They are a tight knit group and families are close by when the men go to war.

He goes on to describe another tribe, the Chatti, who in comparison have hardier bodies, sinewy limbs and greater liveliness of mind. They tend to be braver and one of their customs is to grow their beard and hair long until such time as they have slain an enemy. To them this pays the debt of their birth and shown themselves worthy.

Next, the Chauci are perhaps the noblest of the Germanic tribes with their preference to look for greatness with fair play. Although they will defend themselves if the need arises, they do not go out of their way to seek conflict or war. In contrast, the Fenni tribe is extremely poor, very savage, and quite primitive; they have no homes, live off of herbs and the like and use bones as weapons rather than iron.

Let us skip on 280 years to the year 380 CE and here we shall see Ammianus Marcellinus’ view of barbarians at this time and see what differences there are. Again, we are looking at the barbarians from a Roman historian’s point of view.

The first thing to note about this group particular group is that they “exhibit every degree of savagery”. They are quite compact, stocky type of people with thick necks. They eat raw meat and roots. They wear clothing from skins until it falls apart and it can be noted that they are very much like the description of the Fenni whom Tacitus described nearly 300 years before. This group however, is far more dangerous and savage. They are the Hun, and they are a ferocious race. Their fighting methods are extremely savage, but it also very disorderly, but it is this disorder that confuses the enemy. They are a nomadic people and it is virtually impossible for any of them to say where they were originally born. One unusual aspect of the Hun is that they apparently have no religion, and this enhances the concept of them not knowing right from wrong and can constitute another reason why they are so ferocious in battle.

The Alans is the second tribe he tells us of. They are similar to the Hun, with the exceptions of being less savage, taller and more handsome. Those killed in battle are honored, but those who die a natural death are reproached.

So, in the couple of hundred years we have looked at so far, we can see few major changes in the barbarian people. They still appear generally quite savage, disorganized and some actually appear to fit the idea of a certain barbarian from Austria quite well.

This leads us onto the Greek poet, Agathias and his Histories some two hundred years later around 570 CE. Will we see any major differences with the people he describes? Or are the apparent savagery and primitiveness still evident?

Well, the first group he tells us about is the Franks. The most apparent thing to note about the Franks is that they appear to be rather civilized and have even modeled their government on Rome’s. It could be said that they are the exact opposite to the idea of the barbarian because they do not seek war; they are very well bred, well spoken, dress well and live virtuous lives. In fact they are Christian and adhere to the “strictest orthodoxy”.

The second group discussed is a mixed mongrel people known as the Alamanni. These are similar to the Franks in terms of administration and government, but they follow their own traditions and their religious observance is different. Their religion is more of one of the worship of nature and the like, so very pagan, but their contact with the Franks is changing some of the more astute ones perceptions and beliefs towards Christianity. Agathias is none too complimentary of their sacrificial religious ways however, although from his writings, he is quite positive towards this people.

Next, we turn our attentions towards the viewpoint of the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, Maurice and his manual of war which gives us some excellent biographies of some of the barbarians we have already met, and some new ones. His Strategikun was written in 600 CE and discusses some ways of war of the barbarians.

Firstly, we meet a new pair of barbarian people, the Turks and the Avars. Both are considered Scythian, and although there are many other peoples under this race, only the Turks and Avars offer any form of military discipline.

The Turks are very independent and numerous, but their weakness is that they are not very versatile. They are trained only in warfare and are brave (remember, bravery is our common element in dealing with barbarians). Avars are more devious, clever and quite scoundrelous in their warfare. They are not to be trusted and often in agreements, they are deceitful, often agreeing to something and then doing what they want anyway. Their monarchial governments do not allow much room for mistakes from their people and harsh punishments are often inflicted upon them.

Next we revisit the Franks and along with them, we meet the Lombards. Both being light haired peoples, they are bold and undaunted when in battle and place great value on freedom. Maurice gives us positive praise of these barbarians and so far, they seem to be the most civilized of the barbaric races with respect to the Roman and Greek historians who have made these observations thus far.

He then speaks of the Slavs and Antes who have similar customs to one another and both refuse to be enslaved or governed, especially on their own land. Although very tough, they are quite welcoming to strangers and have livestock and store produce. Their uniqueness comes in the way they fight. As they live in dense woodland or marshes they fight more like bandits, and do not like to fight in open spaces. If in the open, they will let out a battle cry to ward of threat, but if their cry does not frighten their assailants, they will retreat to their woodlands and shelter and fight from there.

The next group of people are thought to have come from Iran and Turkey and settled into Europe around the 4th century. In this account, our new commentator, the Arab Ibn Fadlan tells of his meeting of the people of the Bulghars in the 920’s. So we have gone forward in time another 300 years or so to see what changes, if any to the barbarian people.

This people are extremely dirty. Despite having great physiques, they do not bathe or clean themselves after fornication or excreting. Although they do wash their hands and faces once a day, they use the same bowl of water as the next man, and each spits, blow their noses in it and so on. They do have religious beliefs and they believe that burning their dead rather than burying them (which they find crazy and abhorrent), enables their dead to enter paradise quicker.

With our penultimate commentator, Ibrahim Ibn Jakub investigates Christian Spain and Poland and tells us of the barbarians there around 960 CE. The barbarians in Spain are very similar to the Bulghars, spoken of by Ibn Fadlan, in that personal hygiene is not the main priority in their lives. In fact, they believe it to be healthier to stay dirty.

The second people Fadlan informs us of, the Slavs are quite similar to the Hun, they are typically aggressive and would become a strong force if they could unite their kingdoms together. They have fought against the Franks, Byzantines and Langobards with varying degrees of success. They have interesting morals regarding their women. Before marriage, a woman can sleep with many men and it is actually preferable for her not to be a virgin when she is married. If she is still a virgin, it is likely that she would be cast aside as not being good enough.

And so finally, we meet our last commentator and final barbarian people. In the 1070’s, Adam of Breman wrote the History of Archbishops of Hamburg Breman. In it, he talks of the northern most parts of Europe, Sweden & Norway, and the people there. In Sweden, the land is very fertile and the people there are quite well off. The men can have up to three wives, princes can have unlimited wives. All offspring of these marriages are considered legitimate. Despite this, adultery is punishable by death.

In contrast, the neighboring Norway is very unproductive due to its mountainous environment and the harsh cold. The people resorted to pirating in order to survive and collect wealth from other lands. Over the passage of time, they have accepted Christianity and have learnt to be more content with their lots.

In conclusion, I believe that our commentators all highlight one thing in common that all barbarian people share with one another, (this despite the vast range of distances that separated them), and that is in most cases they were all very brave and strong.

Over the course of the 900 years or so, it is difficult to say what changes or continuities have been made as the comparisons have been over different races and kingdoms throughout Europe. It would be like comparing the English to the Italians over a set period of time, they’re not the same people. The barbarians of Sweden cannot be directly compared to the barbarians of Turkey for example in this way.

In some cases, we can see that there are differences between barbarian peoples. Take the Franks and the Huns, complete opposites in outlooks, but many other barbarian races each have elements of both within their cultures. We can see the barbarians in Christian Spain are similar to those in the Bulghars in that both have very poor hygiene standards (compared to the commentators), but within those two societies, being dirty is perfectly normal and acceptable. From a certain point of view for example, these two peoples, both have been commentated on in the latter part of the barbarian day, and one could normally assume that this type of behavior towards hygiene would have been seen in the early days rather than later days.

It is interesting to note that in the later days, we see Christianity moving in and having an effect on various barbarians. The Franks are the obvious example, but in other barbarians, we can see its influence on them, and in turn we see the influence on the Alamanni, who also slowly embraced it due to their contact with the Franks. The Vikings in Norway came to accept it, thereby accepting their lot in life.

However, one thing that has never changed is the wars and fighting. But history also tells us that is not solely exclusive to the barbarian world and is totally irrelevant to how civilized a people may or may not be.

Grade A

The Achievements of Augustus

Rome. The year is 44 BCE, and the greatest city on earth has experienced a torrid hundred years with conquests, war, failed dictatorships, civil wars, political shifting and power struggles between major generals of the time. At this time, the great general and statesman, Gaius Julius Caesar had been declared dictator for life, and Rome seemed to be slowly losing its status of a republic. Thus, it was decided by a small group within the senate that for the sake of Rome, that Caesar must die. And so it was, on the 15 March 44 BCE, Caesar was assassinated by this group led by Brutus and Cassius. It was for the good of Rome, or so they believed.

Unfortunately, this action did not restore Rome to its former glory, and in time was plunged back into civil war. Mark Antony, ally of Caesar rivaled a young general named Octavian, who was the nephew and adopted son of Caesar. The conflict between the two would last around ten years, after which Antony was finally defeated. Octavian now stood supreme with Rome effectively at his mercy.

Would Octavian follow the mistakes of Caesar, or would he learn by history and succeed where so many others had failed to become a successful ruler of Rome? And how did he turn Rome from a republic to an empire and why was he successful?

To answer these questions, it is necessary to look at various historical documents in order to understand and gain a picture of how Octavian (who would be later known as Augustus, meaning “the revered one”, and hereafter known in this essay as Augustus) perceived himself and how he was perceived by others. History is rarely absolute and a truth for one person is not necessarily the truth for another, so an understanding of various sources is required in order to come to a reasonable conclusion.

When Julius Caesar embarked on his personal quest to become sole ruler of Rome, his methods and desires were quite direct and in conflict to what Rome stood for, and this of course would have riled a lot of people, especially those whose family tradition went back to beginnings of Rome. It was only a matter of time before important people would get together and rebel against Caesar, and of course, the rest is history.

The transformation for what would become Augustus’ empire was very slow, he was clever in that he made no major changes, only gradually taking over each office himself and he managed this by making these changes actually in accordance with the constitution. He had this ability, this knack of getting his peers to award him these privileges and slowly and surely he took everything over, this in stark contrast to his predecessor, Julius Caesar. For example, he was appointed imperator and pontifex maximus, (the two big roles in Rome) by the senate, and yet, he had not demanded either role.

By analyzing various historical data and documents, we can gain further insight to his success and how his peers regarded him. In the primary document of a Decree issued by Emperor Augustus in 4 BCE which deals with extortion, we can see a leader who is firstly concerned about the subjects of Rome and is attempting to make their lives more just and easier.

For example, the law speaks about the “established legal process for extortion so that the allies might more easily be able to take action for any wrongs done them and recover moneys extorted from them, and whereas this type of process is sometimes very expensive and troublesome for those in whose interest the law was enacted, because poor people or persons weak with illness or age are dragged from far-distant provinces as witnesses, the senate decrees as follows:” The new law basically follows on to describe that any person wishing to recover extorted money will be assigned an advocate to bring the matter before the senate. This makes the process for all much easier and trouble free, as they will not have to travel potentially great distances in order to state their complaint.

Although this is a minor law in the grand scheme of things, from it, it can be seen that Augustus does seem to be looking after his subjects. It also shows that Augustus and the senate are operating as a unit, in agreement with one another by comparing the first line to the closing line of the decree. It states in its opening line “The Emperor Augustus, pontifex maximus, holding the tribunician power for the nineteenth year, declares…” and the closing line states “The senate likewise decrees that the judges who are selected in accordance with this decree of the senate shall pronounce in open court each his several findings, and what the majority pronounces shall be verdict.”

And even within the body of the document, Augustus states “…it will be evident to all the inhabitants of the provinces how much both I and the senate are concerned that none of our subjects should suffer…”

This is a small step into making a successful empire, the attention to detail, rather than just looking at the bigger picture. Any successful politician throughout history is one that deems the smaller matters of state as important as the larger ones.

In an inscription from the city of Narbonne in 11 CE, it orders three Roman equities and three freedmen to sacrifice animals for supplication to Augustus on various dates. This shows another positive aspect of the reign of Augustus that a conquered people (Narbonne is a city in Gaul, what is now known as France), are to supplicate to Augustus and he is perhaps viewed as godlike by them. This could be because Narbo (as it was known back in those days) was the wealthiest city in Gaul, so the people are thus very happy with their prosperity and supplication to Augustus would be something they would be happy to do.

More support for a successful reign comes in the Odes by Horace, a well renowned poet of Augustus’ day. He suggests that Augustus is responsible for bringing back fertile crops, restored great military pride, revived ancient virtues and great majesty. “As long as Caesar [Augustus] is the guardian of the state, neither civil dissension nor violence shall banish peace, nor wrath that forges swords and brings discord and misery to cities.” Great praise indeed and it is clear that Augustus has been placed on a pedestal.

The secondary source material from Suetonius’ “Life of Augustus” is again indicative of a successful reign. It shows Augustus’ cleverness in appearing humble when offered the title “father of his country” in 13 CE, a year before his death. Originally he refused the title, but when a certain Valerius Messala, on behalf of the body of the senate said “Good fortune and divine favor attend thee and thy house, Caesar Augustus; for thus we feel that we are praying for lasting prosperity for our country and happiness for our city. The senate in accord with the Roman people hails thee ‘Father of thy Country’.”

At this, Augustus broke with tears in his eyes and replies “Having attained my highest hopes, members of the senate, what more have I to ask of the immortal gods than that I may retain this same unanimous approval of yours to the very end of my life?”

In Augustus’ own words in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti, (meaning The Deeds of the Divine Augustus), he speaks of this too, as his final deed.

So far, the documents appear favorable to the reign of Augustus. It seems his people and his peers support him and worship him. He had been granted great honors and had bestowed upon him great offices of responsibility. Did everyone feel the same way? Were all the people happy with his reign and view it as being successful?

The following two sources available are both secondary, Roman History from Dio Cassius was written some two hundred years after the death of Augustus. The other, Annals from Tacitus was slightly closer to the time Augustus, written within forty years.

Both form a more cynical view of his reign, but it has to be remembered these are secondary accounts and so are subject to interpretation of the authors based on primary documents they would have studied. However, they do have the advantage of hindsight and also more time to reflect on what the reign of Augustus did at the time, and how it had affected the empire since.

Dio Cassius’ view of events were that he felt Augustus had manipulated the senate by hand picking and nominating supporting peers into positions of power. Although elections were held to keep in with the ancient traditions, Dio Cassius feels that Augustus took care that no persons should hold office that he felt were unfit for or if they were susceptible to bribery etc.

Tacitus backs up this thinking by suggesting that Augustus greatly took advantage of the fact that he was the sole strong power after dispatching Antony as his main rival. There was really no one else to challenge him. He also suggests that Augustus bought a lot of his power. Augustus himself does admit to in his writings by stating that he had “transferred out of my own patrimony 170,000,000 sesterces to the soldier’s bonus fund...” It can be argued that he bought support; but it could also be argued that Augustus loved Rome so much he would do anything to build it up and make it great. Augustus also stated in his own writings that he made up various tributes by money or grain when the provinces taxes fell short. Not to mention the various games, shows and exhibitions he also put on for the people out of his own pocket. Had he bought the people, or did he love Rome so much he would do all he could to protect her?

Tacitus continues by declaring that the nobles were made wealthier and they preferred the safety of the new regime compared to the perils of the old. And of course, as time went by, a younger generation was coming through, one that had never experienced the old republic, so the transformation from republic to empire slowly came to fruition. And remember, all this was done without any direct confrontation to the constitution by Augustus; he had played it all to his advantage.

Dio Cassius makes note that Augustus had absolute power, including all finances. He also notes that Augustus paved the way for future rulers of Rome by the fact “at all events, when his ten year period came to an end, there was voted him another five years, then five more, after that ten, and again another ten, and then ten for the fifth time, so that by succession of ten year periods he continued to be sole ruler for life.”

Even though these two secondary documents are more negative towards the reign of Augustus, they do clearly show that he had successfully transformed Rome from a republic to an empire. In their opinion, it was via more foul means. The result is still the same though; Augustus generally had a successful reign.

Rome as a whole was happy, coins issued in 2 BCE show the prominent head of Augustus, and coins issued around 20-16 BCE showed Augustus triumphant on a chariot pulled by elephants with a slave holding a laurel above his head. The Arch of Augustus built in the north eastern town of Rimini is indeed a splendid reflection of his rule, once again showing the support of him by those in the provinces away from Rome. Maps show how he established the foundations for a road network throughout the empire that would grow and expand to be at their peak some two hundred years later.

The means by which Augustus changed the Republic of Rome to an empire are most likely a mixture of the facts mentioned in the sources. He was very patient and understood that the way to success was not by direct confrontation as per Julius Caesar, or by any triumvirate (he had even been part of the second one along with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus), nor by a dictatorship like Sulla’s in the early part of the first century before Christ. His success in transforming to an empire was by working with the system, rather than against it. He knew his history, he knew about those who before had tried and failed and then he applied this knowledge to great effect.

The cynic in me wants to suggest that he did it by use of manipulation, money, use of the circumstances to his advantage and the use of his supporters in key roles, but the general consensus of all the documents is that Rome was a much more vibrant, happier and healthier place to be than under the old regime. Where were the wars? The civil unrest? The Roman armies marching on Rome herself as before? It is quite clear that Rome was better off at this time than certainly the previous hundred years.

The optimist in me sees a man who truly loved his country with a passion, and he did everything he could in his power to control it in order to make it more prosperous, successful and beneficial for all, Romans and provincials alike.

In reality, perhaps it was a mixture of the two, because certainly one does need an ego to have the self confidence and belief in oneself to rule and so each method most likely fed into the next and this in turn brought a momentum that slowly but surely changed Rome forever.

Grade A.