Louis XIV Bourbon and Queen-Mother Anne von Habsburg? More like Cersei Lannister and Tommen Baratheon!

The following is an anecdote of a hunting party and the actions by King Louis XIV that followed which the Duke of Saint-Simon attended and wrote about in his memoirs.

One day there was a great hunting party at Saint Germain. The chase was long and hard, it was so long that the King lost interest and returned to Versailles. The rest of the party continued the hunt. They never found their prey, but they did find the country home of a wealthy man who had retired to the country side. The party entered the home and the master of the home warmed them by the fire, provided them rest, and had a supper prepared for them. The master of this house was called Fargues. Fargues was a member of the Parisian Parliament during the troubles instigated by Monsieur de Broussel. For more information on these troubles please check out my blog on the subject, linked at the bottom.  

When the party returned to the court the king inquired about the hunt. The members of the party apparently praised this generous and hospitable man who had given them comfort after many days of being in the wilderness. The king asked the name of this man, when it was given to him he exclaimed, "What, Fargues! Is he so near here, then?"

According to Saint-Simon, the King and the Queen-mother were annoyed that he was living in luxury and peace so near Versailles, thinking it was extremely bold to do so even though he had been included in the pardoned after rebellion. They decided to punish him for this boldness and his former insolence. 

The King appointed Lamoignon to essentially frame Fargues for a murder that had occurred during during the troubles. Lamoignon did so and along with armed men arrested Fargues and brought him before the king. Fargues argued his own defense before the court, claiming that this murder must be under the original pardon. The king had him decapitated immediately after Fargues had made his defense. All of Fargues' wealth and lands were granted to Lamoignon as a reward.  


There are two things in this story that really strike me. 

First, Louis XIV is out hunting. He is doing a very physically intensive task that is similar to military duty. As he is doing this he is becoming more familiar with the land around his palace. This is something that Machiavelli claims is very important. Machiavelli argues that a prince must be a military leader, and in order to do this the prince must be intimately familiar with the land that he might have to fight in. For this, he recommends touring the lands and this can be done through hunts. 

Second, the relationship between Louis XIV and his mother Anne of Austria. The memoir does not indicate the date of this hunting trip, it only says "one day". However, we know that it must have been some years after the troubles because Louis XIV is now a grown man capable of ruling and his mother is no longer regent, so it must have happened in 1651 (the end of Anne's regency) or later. However, the plan to indict Fargues on trumped up charges simply for vengeance was a plan that Louis XIV and his mother came up with together. It appears that Queen-Mother Anne was one of Louis XIV close advisers. I will try to find more information on their relationship and Anne's standing in relation to Louis' other advisers. It makes sense that Louis XIV was very close with his mother, because his father died when he was only five years old. 




Sources: http://seniorseminarhistory.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-arrest-of-parisian-parliament.html

Saint-Simon, Memoirs of Louis XIV and His Court and of the Regency. Vol. 1. New York: P. F. Collier & Son p. 407-418

Contemporary Historical Conservatism in the Study of the Olympics

While Derick L. Hulme Jr. wrote the first scholarly analysis of the 1980 Olympic boycott in 1990, Nicholas Evan Sarantakes seems to be the most ardent and outspoken contemporary scholar on the issue. Interestingly enough, the two take very different positions on the event. Hulme seems to see the boycott as a whitewash, that is to say that any positive effects from an American perspective were outweighed by the damage the boycott did monetarily to private American corporations and ethically to the Olympic spirit itself. Sarantakes see the event as the final and most major catalyst in the “re-ignition” process of the Cold War and the end of détente; as well as a prime example of Carter’s foreign policy ineptitude. As one could guess, the two authors have highly differing background. Sarantakes is a United States Naval officer who teaches at the Naval War College postgraduate studies university. Hulme has a more liberal background, he got his Ph.D. from Tufts University and now teaches at Alma College. Sarantakes has gained steam since the publishing of his book “Dropping the Torch: Jimmy Carter, the Cold War, and the Olympic Boycott” Sarantakes has also written several articles that have been published in a political sport secondary source reader, Diplomatic History, and the English Historical Review. Interestingly enough, he also had an article posted on ESPN.com. The fact of the matter is, Sarantakes hard line conservative stance holds a lot of sway in the contemporary study of the boycott, even though Hulme seems to have more of an objective stance. My research will hopefully be a return to the analytical views of Hulme and a retreat from the conservative attack that is found in Sarantakes writing.

Situating Educational Thought

One particular insight that I came across in a secondary source (Foucault and Marxism: rewriting the theory of historical materialism, Mark Olssen), is that Foucault intentionally situates discourses in terms of other discourses. In hindsight, this seems like an obvious idea to me; after all, Foucault’s philosophy emphasizes interconnectedness to an amazing extent. With this in mind I began looking for other discourses that I could frame the educational within. I did not have to look very far, I chanced upon a strongly related, but much more pervasive, neoliberal discourse.

   

I have, up until now, thought of neoliberalism in a global economic sense. The trends and processes that have led to the distinction and decline of the third-world, as well as the proliferation of the power of the international corporation. However, it seems that free-market ideology is, according to many sociologist, much more prevalent in the public or civil sphere.  

                Most of these secondary sources are by the sociologist Henry Giroux are oriented towards the explication of neoliberal politics and their effects on democracy. Namely, that neoliberal thought opposes and subverts democratic ideals. In the context of higher education, Giroux contends that neoliberal thought has compelled many universities to adopt a business like model. This business model leads to more corporate influence in higher education and in curriculums geared more towards preparation for the workplace and less for the critical thought necessary to make informed democratic decisions. An increased emphasis on professional studies, in other words, on instrumental skills, runs counter to the emphasis on critical thinking.

                As I continue I will look to see to what extent Giroux’s ideas are relevant to my discussion of curriculum change here at Drury and how his ideas of these driving forces pan out in terms of Foucault’s thoughts. It is possible that neoliberal political ideas could explain how power is distributed, or how power distribution is changing.

Giroux, Henry A. Against the Terror of Neoliberalism: Politics beyond the Age of Greed. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2008.

Giroux, Henry A. Twilight of the Social: Resurgent Publics in the Age of Disposability. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2012. 

Posing a Threat

The closest anyone has ever come to dismantling Kim’s cult of personality occurred in Jul-Aug of 1956. The event took place during the period of de-Stalinization in the USSR. At the time, North Korea had increasingly limited oversight from Russia; the interest Stalin had placed in the DPRK had diminished, along with its influence as well. This created a unique opportunity for the elite ruling class of Korea. They no longer needed to be wary of being purged – as Stalin had done to those who contradicted him before – and they had the freedom to strategize – due to Kim’s absence.

Kim had planned a two month trip to a number of communist countries, including a double booking to Moscow.  He was absent beginning in the 1^st of June and ending around the 19^th of July. As one of my authors points out, “the physical absence of a dictator from his country always provides favorable conditions for discontent” (Lankov 156). Kim, a dictator himself, witnessed the growing opposition with his return. During the time he had been gone, a growing force of Yanan (Chinese interest) faction members, within the KWP (Korean Workers Party), had assembled a number of complaints against Kim’s leadership style. The complaints were first presented to Moscow (in order to pacify the possible shock) and were to be showcased at a plenum shortly following Kim’s arrival, in which the leaders hoped to achieve one of two things: either a public acknowledgement of self-criticism or the weakening of Kim’s presence as a member of the KWP.

However, due to Kim’s vigilance when absent and his vast connections within inner party circles, he was able to sway the general opinion, a few members at a time. Therefore, when it came time for the plenum, Kim had already assembled a number of defendants on his part, subsequently thwarting the efforts of the Korean elite. Despite the failures of the party members to shift public opinion, the language used to canvass their situation has survived through Soviet archives. Some examples are shown below:

Yi P’il-gyu: “Kim Il Sung’s personality cult has become intolerable. He will not brook any criticism or self-criticism. His word is law. He has gathered sycophants and lackeys… around him in the Central committee” (Lankov 159).

            Ch’oe Ch’ang-ok: “I am becoming more and more convinced that Kim Il Sung does not understand how harmful his behavior is. He intimidates everyone. Nobody can voice an opinion on any question…. Sung’s personality cult has infiltrated our party… it has spread… democratic legality is distorted and the Leninist principle of collective leadership is not adhered to” (Lankov 160-161).

The dialogue is highly suggestive of dictatorship. Kim has run away with power, disregarding the opinions of his allies in the process. The inter-party struggle lacks the authority to control the growing threat posed by Kim. Only the Soviet Union could combat his influence at this point, but their attention is turned far away and towards other matters.

Lanʹkov, A. N. From Stalin to Kim Il Sung: The Formation of North Korea, 1945-1960. New              Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2002.

Was Age Binary in Ancient Greece?

Chris Gilleard’s “Old Age in Ancient Greece: Narratives of Desire, Narratives of Disgust” discusses one of my major themes at length: the physical plight of the elderly. While old age is mocked for its misfortune in Classical comedy, tragedy, and poetry in general, it is revered in Sparta, particularly because of their Gerousia, or Council of Elders (Gilleard 89). This is an important distinction to make in my paper; it is important for the audience to know that Athenian society, rooted in free, male power, affected the perceptions of the elderly and other marginalized groups.

Like Thomas Falkner (previously mentioned in blog posts) and I, Gilleard examines similar texts; Aristophanes, Sophocles, and Homer are all used in our analyses. But Gilleard concludes something much different than I. He believes that age is binary in ancient Greece: young and old (Gilleard 88-89). I believe it is more complex than this. For example, Aristotle distinguishes two vices in book two of Rhetoric: youth and old age. Implicitly, this means the virtue is somewhere in between; he even mentions “prime age” throughout the explanation of both vices  (Aristotle 109-111). Furthermore, Hesiod describes five distinct age groups in his poem “The Five Races,” and the ideal race is the “Heroes,” who encompass the physical abilities of youth and the experience of age. Falkner also agrees with this notion. In his essay “Homeric Heroism, Old Age and the End of the Odyssey,” he concludes that Odysseus himself consolidates the tension between youth because of his feats in war and his ability to advise the Achaian army (Falkner 29).

Ultimately, while Gilleard’s conclusion is rooted in similar evidence, interpretations can differ vastly. His article was published in 2007, so it provides a fresher, more contemporary gerontological argument – something that was needed to provide a more holistic historiography in my research.

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. Hazelton: Electronic Classics Series, 2010. Print.

Falkner, Thomas. “Homeric Heroism, Old Age and the End of the Odyssey.” Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature, edited by Thomas Falkner and Judith de Luce. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989. Print.

Gilleard, Chris. “Old Age in Ancient Greece: Narratives of Desire, Narratives of Disgust.” Journal of Aging Studies 21 (2007): 81-92. Print

Christianity—Buddhism; Participation vs. Identity

Christianity and Buddhism developed separately from each without any possibilities of one influencing or affecting the other. Tillich had the chance to not only converse with Zen Buddhism scholars in the U.S. but also the chance to visit Japan for two months in a “intellectual exchange” (Boss, 262). There are some fundamental differences, as one could guess, between Christianity and Buddhism. Aside from the obvious being and nonbeing, these differences rested on the principle of participation and the principle of identity for Tillich. “One participates, as an individual human being, in the Kingdom of God. One is identical with everything that is in Nirvana” (Tillich, 68). A relationship between self and God is not really possible in Buddhism due to everything and everyone being identical while everyone and everything could not participate in the ultimate in Buddhism as “I am thou” (Boss, 257). Boss italicized on purpose to highlight the different focus between the two religions and made for a clear contrast. It is important to note that the “I” does not cancel out the “thou” in Buddhism. “Any exclusively undifferentiated non-duality in which everything is reduced to a sheer sameness is branded a false sameness” (Tillich, 142). Tillich admitted having trouble understanding “how the individual is simultaneously preserved and not preserved” (Tillich, 148). This contrast between the Western and Eastern religions still essentially focuses on the same question of existence. One focuses on the individual and through the individual one finds existence. The other focuses on everything else but the individual and through nonbeing one will exist.

Boss, Marc. Tillich in dialogue with Japanese Buddhism. Edited by Re Manning, Russell. The Cambridge Companion to Paul Tillich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Tillich, Paul. Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions. New York City: Columbia University Press, 1963.

A Traveler at Heart: Joan Vokins

As I have continued to explore Quaker women narratives, I am drawn to the autobiographical renderings of their lives, travels, and sufferings. This week I looked at an account written by Joan Vokins, an English Quaker woman of the seventeenth century.  Published in 1691 shortly after her death, the text is a varied collection of her experiences in the Quaker world and her extensive travels. In fact, Vokins appears a well-travelled globetrotter, making acquaintances and visiting friends both in the Old and New World. Additionally, the author consistently attributes the fortunate happenings of her travels and at the meetings she visited to the Lord, even as she is weary at times from the travel. The text stands as support to the ways in which Quaker women clearly disengaged from the domestic sphere at times (as Vokins left husband and children to missionize), specifically due to an adherence to their spiritually-rooted agency.

Here are two small excerpts from her writing about travel:

in Sandwich, Ireland- “when they came from their worship I met them, first the Mayor and his Company, then the Lawyer and his, and after that the Priest, with many more; and invited all to come to our Spiritual Worship, and I would engage that if any of them, young or old, male or female, had a Message from the Lord to deliver there, that they should have liberty and not be abused” (Vokins 271).            

In New York - “it was with me to go to Long Island, and there the Ranters oppressed Friends, but the Lord had a tender People there...and we were sweetly refreshed together; for God’s Almighty Power was over all, in all Meetings wherever I came, to the subduing of the dark Power that raged in the Ranters....and for its sake my Soul was in deep travel;” (Vokins 265).

The first one is intriguing for the ways in which Vokins approaches the male figures of the town’s power structure. She paints them with entourage in tow, yet still she, as a single person, addresses the audience with a persuasive defense of women’s speaking and an invitation to all for spiritual liberation.

The second quote shows how Vokins places herself centrally at the heart of the “refreshment” of the meetings she visits. Although stressing God’s power, the reader can’t help but be compelled to acknowledge that conflict is resolved “wherever I came” in relation to Joan.  Additionally, the frequent and actual travel that Vokins’s account depicts is reflected by the author in her conception of the “Soul.” In this manner, Joan must have connected her literal travels with spiritual progress as well. The author may have seized travel for spiritual ends, but in some ways, travel also enchanted this Quaker woman and was intermingled with her sense of self and power. I believe her account will be useful to my exploration of Quaker women at large.

 

Vokins, Joan. "God's Mighty Power Magnified." Hidden in Plain Sight: Quaker Women's Writings, 1650-1700. Edited by Mary Garman. Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Publications, 1996.

 

 

Another Source on the Dependence Claim

This week I'd like to talk about another article that attacks the interdependence of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, so it looks like I'm not attacking some odd weirdo, so it doesn't seem like I'm using a strawman argument. To that end, I'd like to talk about Jeff McMahan and his "Proportionality in the Morality of War."

In this article, McMahan basically attacks several different "considerations" that he feels are propping up the interdependence of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, namely (1) epistemological considerations, (2) pragmatic considerations, and (3) institutional considerations (McMahan 703-704). Epistemological considerations basically say that one cannot expect soldiers to know the entire jus ad bellum justifications, and as such should merely concern themselves with jus in bello, and as such the two are interdependent (McMahan 703). This McMahan says does not work historically, and honestly comes across as more of an excuse than any sort of reasonable argument (McMahan 703). Pragmatic considerations say that, practically speaking, the only way a military can function is if soldiers assume jus ad bellum so that they can focus their entireties on jus in bello, which McMahan says only defends unjust wars, and doesn't work for just wars (why would one want to keep the rationale for a just war from one's soldiers?), and again, does not work historically (McMahan 704). Lastly, institutional considerations rely on social contract theory, and say that those institutions that declare war are "necessary to achieve important social goods" and as such we have prima facie reason to give our moral support to these institutions, an argument which as McMahan points out pales in the face of the fact that history is full of immoral institutions that gain no such social goods, and such an argument would seek to justify all of them in one fell swoop (McMahan 704).

McMahan's argument is a little more subtle than this, but what I have presented here gets the general gist of the matter, and I believe serves to show that Toner is not the only person asserting the Depenence Claim that I am studying in relation to Augustine's just war theory.

War and Age

In class Monday we talked about how papers regarding age might have to define age.  A tricky thing considering different life expectancies, different accepted norms for age groups, and the events surrounding them.  According to Edmund Drago, "It seemed the children were aging a year each month."  (Drago 2).  This is important to note because in todays society we see children as a somewhat protected class of citizens.  We shelter them from worries as best we can, we try to hide the state of our finances, make sure they don't injure their self, provide a hug or shoulder to cry on during times of emotional grief and so on.  However, when these children's parents and siblings were dying in the front lines in the worst kind of war, they often had to fend for their selves.  Images that todays children would never be permitted to see even on television were occurring in Civil War children's homes as the wounded were brought in off the field of battle. 
I believe I will make clear at the start of the paper that this paper will be about biological age and not the age of a child's emotional state.  For these children had no doubt grew more emotionally by 1865 than many college seniors have.  It is important to stress their biological age versus cognitive/emotional age because these children were dealing with hardships that forced them to mature quickly cognitively.  These children had their youthful ignorance, or innocence, stolen from them by the ravagings of war.

Drago, Edmund L.  Confederate Phoenix: Rebel Children and Their Families in South Carolina.  New York: Fordham University Press, 2008.