If one was to discern Maria Theresa’ character from reading her Political Testament, one would say that she was a practical, clever, and devote Catholic woman who despite the lack of resources or empire’s affair knowledge of the empire, managed to restore the empire. One aspect in her political Testament that made her look practical was when she recognized her ignorance of the situation of the empire by admitting to be “devoid of the experience and knowledge needful to rule dominions so extensive” (Theresa, 2). She was aware of not being informed of the empire’s situation and, as a result, she depended on her advisers to solve the empire’s dilemmas. On the other hand, she was a devote Catholic but not to the point of unconditionally supporting
Catherine the Great, really was a great ruler. I think that overall, she was trying to be very fair to everybody. In 1773 Catherine the Great had an edict called “Toleration of All Faiths.” With this edict I thought she was showing how everybody should be treated fair by tolerating free practice of people’s faith. However, the main purpose she did this was she thought it was a good way to pacify frontier territory. Then there were some instances such as how she treated the Jews and when she attacked the privileges of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was not tolerating all faiths. Putting that instance behind though I think that she really was aware of what her duties were and what she was supposed to do. She made it very clear in her law code that the End of Monarchy was to “Not to deprive People of their natural Liberty; but to correct their Actions, in order to attain the supreme Good.”
As a young woman, Elizabeth was wealthy, popular, and well-liked, however, she was not a Catholic. Since
Einhard, in his The Life of Charlemagne, makes clear the fundamental integration of politics and religion during the reign of his king. Throughout his life, Charles the Great endeavored to acquire and use religious power to his desired ends. But, if Charlemagne was the premiere monarch of the western world, why was religious sanction and influence necessary to achieve his goals? In an age when military power was the primary means of expanding one's empire, why did the most powerful military force in Europe go to such great lengths to ensure a benevolent relationship with the church? One possibility may be found in the tremendous social and political influence of Rome and her papacy upon the whole of the continent. Rather than a force to be opposed, Charlemagne viewed the church as a potential source of political power to be gained through negotiation and alliance. The relationship was one of great symbiosis, and both componants not only survived but prospered to eventually dominate western Europe. For the King of the Franks, the church provided the means to accomplish the expansion and reformation of his empire. For the Holy Roman Church, Charles provided protection from invaders and new possibilities for missionary work.
At the beginning of the 17th century, France was a place of internal strife and bickering bureaucrats. The king, Louis XIII, had come to the throne in 1610 at the age of nine, leaving the running of the kingdom to his mother, Marie de Medici. One of her court favorites, Armand de Plessis de Richelieu, rose through the ranks, eventually gaining the title of Cardinal and becoming one of Louis’ key advisors and minister. His political manifesto, Political Testament, was a treatise for King Louis XIII that offered him advice mainly concerned with the management and subtle subjugation of the nobles and the behavior of a prince. Beneath all of the obeisant rhetoric, Richelieu was essentially writing a handbook for Louis XIII on how to survive as a king in a political landscape increasingly dominated by the aristocracy. Richelieu’s ideology shows a pragmatic attitude reminiscent of The Prince, a political work by 15th century Florentine politician Niccoló Machiavelli.
“To think I have had more than 60 years of hard struggle for a little liberty, and then to die without it seems so cruel.” (Susan B. Anthony)
Politique rulers were often more concerned with their people obeying the laws with which they laid out rather than what religion they were practicing. These rulers usually supported the religion they practiced, but they also tolerated the opposing religion in their land. Each ruler had a certain degree of tolerance with which they accepted the opposing religion. For Elizabeth I it was truly symbolic.
Catherine de Medici’s culpability for the turbulent events in France in 1559-72 remains a topic of some debate. Highly personal protestant pamphleteers associated Catherine with sinister comparisons to the contemporary evil Machiavelli which eventually developed into the ‘Black Legend’. Jean.H. Mariégol consolidates this interpretation, overwhelmingly assuming Catherine’s wickedness; the Queen Mother was deemed to be acting for ‘personal aggrandizement’ without an interest in the monarchy. Neale provides a corrective arguing a ‘dominant maternalism’ drove Catherine’s policies. Sutherland critiques Neale, suggesting he is guilty of using misconceived qualifying phrases from the ‘Black Legend’ stemming from the contemporary pamphlets, instead Sutherland and Heller attempt to disentangle Catherine from the context of the xenophobic Protestant pamphleteers that shaped much of Catherine’s historical analysis thus far, revealing the ‘politique’ whose moderate policies were a force for stability. Knecht is most convincing in his assertion that whilst the ‘Black Legend’ is a misrepresentation of her character and policies, Sutherland goes too far in whitewashing Catherine. Ironically, Catherine as a ‘politique’ aimed for complex policies and yet her role in French politics was over-simplified by contemporaries and arguably even by modern historians contributing to overly polarised interpretations. Instead we should bear in mind the violent pressures Catherine faced in the context of the collapse of monarchical authority and follow the more nuanced interpretation of her role.
Margery Kempe did something that many people (especially women) would not dare to do- she broke away from the identity that her society had molded for her. The Book of Margery Kempe is one of the most astonishing documents found of the late medieval era and is the first autobiography to have been discovered. Margery Kempe does not shy away from telling the story of the personal and intricate details about her adventurous life. It is hard to say what influenced Kempe to go through such lengths to have her book written. Many think she wanted others to understand and witness how difficult it was to live through the social norms and expectations as a typical wife and mother of the 14th century. Little did she know, her life story would travel through history and show how molding of society influences social norms and self-identification, which are prominent, combating issues today.
Upon the death of her sister--in November of 1558--Elizabeth ascended to the thrown of England. Until Mary’s rule, no woman--apart from the unrecognized rule of Matilda, daughter of Henry I--had ruled England of her own right1. Much like her sister, Elizabeth began her rule widely accepted and welcomed2. There were, however, still many who felt that women were unable to rule, being that women were said to be the weaker sex. John Knox argued that, “God by the order of his creation hath spoiled women of authority and dominion, [and] also that man hath seen, proved and pronounced just causes why that it so should be.”3 Women had always been no more then property, first to their fathers and then their husbands. If a women were to be the anointed queen of a realm of her own right and then marry, whom was beholden to whom? A woman was to do as instructed by her husband in all things, yet a sovereign was to be under the command of God only.
The monastic houses underwent a tremendous overhaul, ensuring the true nature of the Benedictine Order was upheld throughout the country of England, and false clergy and rectories were abolished, creating an altogether more cohesive image of the Church. The extent of the role St. Dunstan played in this reformation movement can be debated, however it is clear that he did play a pivotal role through his experiences in Cluny and the subsequent ideas of reform in England that may have been a direct result of this. Although there is no doubt that other people played an important role in the 10th century reforms in the English Church, such as the support from both monarchical figures and from Church figures, it can be said that, without St. Dunstan, the movement would not have came about with the results that it did. The chances of the reformation movement that was spreading throughout mainland Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries, reaching England without the intervention of St. Dunstan can be debated, and in all likelihood, these reforms would have reached England as some stage, however, how efficient these reforms would have been is unsure. I believe that, without the involvement of St. Dunstan, and the support for the reform movement that he experienced from other ecclesiastical figures and other secular figures, such as kings, as well as the relative stability of England and peace, under the rule of King Edgar, the Benedictine reformation movement of the 10th century in England, would not have developed in the way that it did and, in all likelihood, would not have taken root in English society, due to the geographical isolation England faces from mainland Europe and the lack of powerful figures in support of
The renaissance and the reformation were two of the most significant changes in history that has shaped our world today. Both of these great time periods are strikingly similar in some ways and totally different in others. This is because the renaissance was a change from religion to humanism whether it is in art or literature; it is where the individual began to matter. However, the reformation was,” in a nutshell,” a way to reform the church and even more so to form the way our society is today. The first half of this paper will view the drop in faith, the economic powers, and the artistic and literary changes during the renaissance, while the second half will view the progresses and changes the church makes during the reformation.
Women in the Catholic Church take on many roles, from parishioner to laywoman to nuns. Women parishioners help prepare for the mass. They can be lectors, choir members, CCD instructors, etc. Laywomen “…are the Catholic women traditionally permitted certain ministerial responsibilities (Wessinger, 244).” They work in churches, schools, prisons, etc. Nuns dedicate their lives to religious devotion. They take three vows; poverty, chasity, and obedience. They are to live simple lifestyles. They live their lives teaching others and helping others.
...tism because she had made a stand for it by starting the English Protestant Church, she wished to keep peace in England, and also most likely because she had been greatly influenced by many Protestants in her youth. So once again, even though the English Reformation did not have any great reformers, it still managed to succeed due to the hard work of Thomas Cranmer, and the support of many rulers during the English Reformation.
A Feminist Perspective of The Lady of Shalott In an essay on feminist criticism, Linda Peterson of Yale University explains how literature can "reflect and shape the attitudes that have held women back" (330). From the viewpoint of a feminist critic, "The Lady of Shalott" provides its reader with an analysis of the Victorian woman's conflict between her place in the interior, domestic role of society and her desire to break into the exterior, public sphere which generally had been the domain of men. Read as a commentary on women's roles in Victorian society, "The Lady of Shalott" may be interpreted in different ways. Thus, the speaker's commentary is ambiguous: Does he seek to reinforce the institution of patriarchal society as he "punishes" the Lady with her death for her venture into the public world of men, or does he sympathize with her yearnings for a more colorful, active life?
The future Queen of France was born on All Souls' Day, 2nd November, 1755, in Vienna as the youngest daughter of Maria Theresa and the Emperor Franz Stephan. She was baptized under the names Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna. A glorious future seemed to await the little Archduchess. Not only would she grow up in the bosom of a large and affectionate family, but from the very beginning her mother intended to marry her youngest daughter to the glittering Crown of France. The traditional marriage politics of the Habsburgs would secure her beloved daughter a brilliant position and help guarantee the peace and stability of Europe at the same time.