Sultan Abdülaziz's Grand European Tour: Paris, London, and Beyond

O

ttoman sultans did not travel to any city, except for Bursa, İstanbul, Manisa, Amasya, and Edirne. Despite being caliphs, they did not even perform the pilgrimage. This remained the case until the 19th century when Sultan Abdülaziz made an exceptional journey in 1867. His travel to Europe, especially France, England, and Austria, was the first and only event in Ottoman history. This journey, which lasted for 47 days, significantly affected Ottoman society. The Sultan's return was great, with celebrations lasting three days and three nights across the Ottoman lands. The apparent reason for Abdülaziz's trip was his desire to attend the International Paris Exhibition, to which he had been invited by French Emperor Napoleon III. However, the trip also extended to Britain.

The portrait of Sultan Abdülaziz, who was deposed on the night of May 30, 1876, and murdered by having his veins cut, at the Malta Pavilion.

Sultan Abdülaziz was the 32nd Ottoman sultan and the 97th caliph of Islam. He was born in 1830 as the second son of Sultan Mahmud II. His mother was Pertevniyal Sultan. At the age of 32, he ascended to the throne in 1861 following the death of Sultan Abdülmecid I.

One of the most important matters he focused on was the reorganization and modernization of the army and navy. A significant portion of the loans obtained from Europe was spent on these efforts. The Ottoman Navy became one of the most strong in the world. He prepared a military force of over 700,000 soldiers, categorized as regulars, reserves, militia, and home guards. To meet their artillery and rifle needs, he also established modern facilities.

Sultan Abdülaziz, who was intelligent, perceptive, and well-versed in global politics, visited Egypt in the second year of his reign (1863). This trip, accompanied by a large entourage, was highly ceremonial. Sultan Abdülaziz toured Cairo on horseback. This journey strengthened the Egyptian people's loyalty to the caliphate.

In 1867, Sultan Abdülaziz accepted an invitation from Emperor Napoleon III to visit France in order to see the grand exhibition held in Paris. From there, he returned home via England, Belgium, Germany, Austria, and Hungary. During these travels, he met with several prominent leaders, including Napoleon III of France, Queen Victoria of England, King Leopold II of Belgium, King Wilhelm I of Prussia, Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria and Hungary, and Prince Carol I of Romania. He visited eight countries and met with five rulers.

Abdulaziz Imperial Yacht “La Reine Hortense” in Le Havre Harbor 1856.

On July 10, Abdülaziz departed from Paris, accompanied by Napoleon III, and headed to England as the second stop of his journey. After boarding ships again in Boulogne, he landed at Dover Port in England, where he was greeted by Prince Edward. After travelling by train to London, he met with Queen Victoria and settled into Buckingham Palace, which had been allocated for his stay. During his 11-day visit to London, Abdülaziz attended several official receptions and meetings, including a session in the House of Commons. Together with the Queen, he observed a naval drill of the British fleet, toured the shipyards of Portsmouth, and other dockyards, and accepted the honorary citizenship of London at City Hall.

According to one story, at a ball held at Buckingham Palace by Queen Victoria, Prince Murat danced with the Queen's granddaughter for a while. This prompted Sultan Abdülaziz to call Mehmet Emin Ali Pasha over and tell him, "Go tell him to leave the girl alone. What are we here for, to look like cuckolded p*mp?"

Reception by the Corporation of the City of London for His Imperial Majesty Sultan Abdülaziz Khan at the Guildhall.

 

On Tuesday, July 18, 1867.

Storming the Isles: Caesar's Invasion of Britain

Storming the Isles: Caesar's Invasion of Britain

 

In 55 and 54 BCE, Julius Caesar launched two military campaigns against Britain. Although Caesar achieved only limited success and failed to establish a permanent Roman presence in the British Isles, he forged treaty relations with numerous British tribes. He brought Britain into the sphere of Roman political ambitions.

A

 nti-Roman revolt by the Veneti of Armorica (modern Brittany) in 56 BCE, which likely received some support from Britain, prompted Julius Caesar to shift his focus northward. Venturing into Britain, an island seen as impossibly distant beyond “the bounds of the ocean,” would have earned him immense prestige. However, political difficulties delayed his invasion plans for a year. Finally, in 55 BCE, Caesar prepared to cross the Channel with a small expeditionary force. His main adversary was Cassivellaunus, probably the king of the Catuvellauni, a tribe expanding from its base at Wheathampstead in Hertfordshire to dominate much of southern England.

Preparation

Caesar received envoys from several British tribes eager to show their submission and avoid having their lands invaded. He dispatched a small reconnaissance force under the tribune Volusenus to scout suitable landing beaches and sent a diplomatic mission under the Gallic chieftain Commius to rally pro-Roman opinion. Unfortunately, both missions failed—Volusenus was unable to locate a sheltered harbour for the Roman fleet, and Commius was promptly arrested.

On August 26, Caesar set sail with a force composed of the Seventh and Tenth Legions. The cliffs and beaches around Dover were occupied by British defenders, forcing the Roman ships to run aground near Deal in Kent. The legionaries had to disembark in relatively deep waters under a constant hail of missiles. Although the legions managed to establish a beachhead, disaster struck four days later when a severe storm scattered the ships bringing over 500 cavalry reinforcements, and badly damaging many of the landing craft. Deprived of cavalry support, Caesar was vulnerable, and after the Seventh Legion was severely mauled in an ambush, he chose to declare the expedition a success and returned to Gaul, accompanied by a number of British hostages.

A New Campaign

Preparations soon began for a new expedition, as Caesar had learned valuable lessons from the relative failure of his first invasion into Britain. This time, he brought five legions—amounting to over 30,000 men—and around 2,000 cavalry. The cavalry was a critical component in countering the battle tactics of the Britons, who, unlike their counterparts in mainland Europe, still used chariots in battle to harass infantry units lacking mounted support.

On July 6, 54 BCE, Caesar set off for Britain once more. His navy of 800 ships landed near Deal, this time unopposed, apparently because the Britons were so intimidated by the size of the force that they chose not to resist. However, the Roman fleet was again battered by a serious storm. The ten-day delay in building a rampart extensive enough to beach their remaining naval force encouraged the Britons, who then offered a more effective defending under the leadership of Cassivellaunus.

The Romans won a series of engagements, capturing a hillfort at Bigbury near Canterbury, overcoming an attempt to entrap a Roman foraging force, and pushing on toward the Thames. Diplomatic pressure also began to tell, as Caesar had with him Mandubracius of the Trinovantes, one of Cassivellaunus’s arch-enemies. Some British chieftains, fearing that Cassivellaunus might use success against Caesar to increase his power, began to waver in their support for the campaign against the Romans. The capture of Cassivellaunus’s chief stronghold—likely the oppidum at Wheathampstead—led to a desperate attempt to stir the Kentish tribes into a final uprising against Caesar. This attempt was to no avail, and Cassivellaunus sued for peace. Caesar readily accepted, having already decided not to overwinter in Britain, fearing a revolt might break out in Gaul during his absence. He accepted British hostages and fixed a tribute to be paid by Cassivellaunus before returning across the Channel in mid-September. The Trinovantes became, in effect, a client kingdom of Rome, and Cassivellaunus was forbidden to interfere in their territory. Whatever his intentions regarding a third and more decisive invasion of Britain might have been, Julius Caesar was distracted from taking any action until 51 BCE by a major uprising in Gaul and later by his involvement in the Roman civil wars, which led to his appointment as Dictator in Rome in 47 BCE.

… Britons dye themselves with woad… and as a result their appearance in battle is all the more daunting.”

JULIUS CAESAR, THE GALLIC WARS, .47 BCE

 

Attempts by Augustus

Augustus, Caesar’s adoptive son and successor and the first Roman emperor, made plans to invade Britain at least twice, in 34 BCE and 26 BCE. However, suspected revolts elsewhere in the Empire caused him to call off both expeditions. Instead, the Romans, who regarded "the whole of the island as Roman property" according to the historian Strabo, supported client-kings like Tincommius and Verica, who ruled over a Belgic kingdom in southern England. This support was aimed at countering the growing power of the Catuvellauni, who overran the Trinovantian capital of Camulodunum (Colchester) around 9 CE. By involving themselves in British politics, the Romans maintained their influence on the island.

Conquest and Resistance

The Romans began their conquest of Britain in 43 CE. After initial successes, they faced persistent and bitter resistance in Wales and the north, as well as revolts in the south. Forty years after the landing, however, their armies stood on the borders of the Scottish Highlands, the furthest north they would reach.

The immediate pretext for the Roman invasion of Britain was the appeal by Verica, the exiled king of the Atrebates, to Emperor Claudius for help in restoring him to power. In response, four Roman legions—comprising more than 20,000 men—embarked for England in late April 43 CE. Under the command of Aulus Plautius, the Claudian invasion force established its main base at the sheltered harbor of Richborough in eastern Kent and began advancing westward. The Britons, led by Caratacus and Togodumnus, leaders of the Catuvellauni tribe, resisted the Roman advance but were eventually pushed back to the Thames. Finding a crossing point, the Romans engaged in fierce fighting, resulting in the death of Togodumnus. A pause in the campaign allowed for the arrival of Emperor Claudius himself, who took personal command. With Claudius leading, the Romans captured the capital of Camulodunum (Colchester). Following this success, Claudius returned to Rome, celebrating the glory of his new conquest.

Roman Expansion in Britain

Over the next four years following the Claudian invasion, the Romans expanded their control over Britain. They absorbed the remnants of the Catuvellaunian kingdom, while future Roman emperor Vespasian subdued resistance in the south and southwest. By around 47 CE, the Romans had secured a defensive line roughly along the future Fosse Way, extending from the Devon coast to Lincolnshire. They established a network of forts to solidify their control.

The Romans then turned their attention westward into Wales, where they encountered vigorous opposition from Caratacus, who had escaped and was leading renewed British resistance. In 51 CE, Caratacus was finally captured after seeking refuge with Cartimandua, queen of the Brigantes, who subsequently handed him over to Roman authorities.

Crossing the Rubicon

Crossing the Rubicon: A Journey into the Unknown

Caesar, near the end of his nearly decade-long Gallic Campaign, was recalled by the Senate, instigated by Pompey. Caesar, sensing that accepting this would mean the end of his political career, arrived at the banks of the Rubicon River with his army. As Caesar advanced, Pompey retreated. Then he set sail towards Greece. The two armies met on June 6, 48 BC, at Pharsalus. Defeated, Pompey fled to Egypt. However, he was caught there and beheaded. Thus, the first triumvirate period was coming to an end. As I stood at the edge of the Rubicon, the ancient river that separated the known from the unknown, I felt a surge of anticipation and fear. This was no ordinary river; it was a boundary, a line in the sand that once crossed, would change everything. The phrase "crossing the Rubicon" has come to symbolize a point of no return, a decision or action that irreversibly changes the course of events. As I contemplated my own metaphorical Rubicon, I couldn't help but draw parallels to Caesar's bold move. Like him, I was faced with a decision that would alter the trajectory of my life. It was a moment of reckoning, a test of courage and conviction.

 César Franchit le Rubicon
Adolphe Yvon

The Rubicon represents the threshold between safety and uncertainty, familiarity and novelty, conformity and rebellion. It is the point where we confront our fears and embrace the unknown. Crossing it requires faith in our abilities and a willingness to embrace change. For some, crossing the Rubicon may mean leaving behind a stable career to pursue a passion, starting a new chapter in life after a significant loss, or making a daring choice that defies societal norms. It is an act of defiance against complacency and a declaration of independence. As I waded into the river, I felt the weight of history and the burden of responsibility. The waters were swift and unforgiving, much like the currents of change that awaited me on the other side. But I was determined to press on, propelled by the belief that great rewards awaited those who dared to challenge the status.

Crossing the Rubicon is not without its perils. The unknown is rife with uncertainty, and the path ahead is shrouded in mystery. Doubt and hesitation gnaw at our resolve, tempting us to retreat to the safety of familiar shores. But as Caesar himself proclaimed, "The die is cast." Once we take that leap of faith, there is no turning back. As I emerged on the other side of the Rubicon, I felt a sense of liberation and empowerment. The landscape before me was uncharted and full of possibilities. I had shed the shackles of doubt and embraced my newfound freedom with open arms. In crossing the Rubicon, I had discovered a reservoir of inner strength and resilience that I never knew existed. I had proven to myself that I was capable of defying convention and forging my own path. The journey had transformed me, and I emerged as a bolder, more self-assured version of myself. The Rubicon is not merely a physical boundary; it is a state of mind. It is a symbol of our capacity for bravery and audacity in the face of uncertainty. It reminds us that true growth lies beyond our comfort zones and that embracing change is essential for personal evolution.

As I reflect on my journey across the Rubicon, I am filled with a profound sense of gratitude for the experience. It has taught me that taking risks and embracing the unknown is not just about reaching new destinations; it is about discovering our true potential and living life to its fullest. So, dear reader, I urge you to seek out your own Rubicon, whatever form it may take. Embrace the uncertainty, defy convention, and dare to cross into uncharted territory. In those transformative moments, we truly come alive and discover the boundless potential within us.

As Caesar famously said, "Alea iacta est"– the die is cast. Are you ready to cross your Rubicon?

 

 

Pope Joan: The Female Pope Who Defied History

Pope Joan: The Female Pope Who Defied History

The story of Pope Joan, a woman who supposedly ascended to the papal throne in the 9th century, has captivated the imaginations of historians, theologians, and storytellers for centuries. Despite its roots in medieval folklore, the tale of Pope Joan raises intriguing questions about gender, power, and the nature of historical truth. While some dismiss her as a just legend or myth, others argue that there is compelling evidence to suggest that she was a real historical figure who defied the norms of her time. Our first encounter with Pope Joan was in a document. At the beginning of the year, I studied Top Girls by Caryl Churchill, which presents the evolution of the status of women from the past to the present from a female writer’s objective perspective. At the same time, it points out the weaknesses in their struggle. In the first scene of the play, there are plenty of women who have been wronged. One of them is Pope Joan. This was the second encounter. In this blog, I will strive to comprehend her story. Let's start!

The story of Pope Joan first came up in the Middle Ages, with various accounts claiming that she was a highly educated woman who disguised herself as a man to pursue a career in the male-dominated world of the clergy. According to these accounts, she rose through the ranks of the church hierarchy and eventually became pope, only to be exposed when she gave birth during a papal procession. This sensational tale has captured the imagination of countless people over the centuries, and it continues to be a subject of fascination and debate to this day. While there is no definitive proof of Pope Joan's existence, there are several historical sources that mention her, including chronicles, papal records, and medieval manuscripts. One of the most famous accounts of her reign comes from the writings of Martin of Opava, a 13th-century chronicler who claimed that Pope Joan's true identity was revealed when she went into labor during a procession and subsequently died. Other sources, including the Sponheim Chronicle and the writings of Jean de Mailly, also mention Pope Joan and her alleged pontificate.

Despite these accounts, many historians remain dubious about Pope Joan's existence, pointing out significant gaps and inconsistencies in the historical record. Some argue that the story of Pope Joan was fabricated by anti-papal writers as a means of discrediting the papacy, while others believe that it may have originated as a cautionary tale about the dangers of women assuming positions of power within the church. In the absence of concrete evidence, the question of Pope Joan's existence continues to be a matter of speculation and debate.

Regardless of whether Pope Joan was a real historical figure or a fictional creation, her story has had a lasting impact on popular culture and has inspired numerous works of art, literature, and scholarship. She has been depicted in paintings, plays, novels, and films, with each interpretation offering its take on her life and legacy. In addition, her presumed reign has sparked discussions about gender equality, women's rights, and the role of women in religious leadership, making her a symbol of defiance against traditional gender norms and institutional barriers. The legend of Pope Joan also serves as a reminder of the complex and often enigmatic nature of history. Whether she was a historical figure or a product of myth and legend, Pope Joan continues to captivate our imagination and challenge our understanding of the past. Her story raises important questions about the ways in which history is recorded, interpreted, and remembered, and it serves as a powerful example of how narratives can shape our understanding of the world around us.

In conclusion, the story of Pope Joan is a fascinating and controversial chapter in the history of the Catholic Church. Whether she was a real historical figure or a mythical creation, her alleged reign as pope has captured the imagination of people for centuries and continues to be a subject of debate and speculation. As we continue to explore and reinterpret historical narratives, Pope Joan stands as a potent symbol of the enduring struggle for women's recognition and empowerment.

PHOTO IV

References

1. Martin of Opava. "Chronicon Pontificum et Imperatorum."
2. Schmitz, M. (2021). Pope Joan: A Historical Exploration. Historical Insights Press.
3. Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press.

Further Reading

1. The Mystery of Pope Joan by Peter Stanford
2. Pope Joan: The Legend of a Woman Pope by Alain Boureau
3. The Female Pope: The Mystery of Pope Joan by Rosemary and Darroll Pardoe

The Grapes of Wrath

John Steinbeck's 'The Grapes of Wrath: A Tale of Hardship and Hope

 

I am so excited to write this blog because I have been eagerly waiting to share my thoughts on The Grapes of Wrath. In my previous blog, I discussed the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. To fully understand this blog, I suggest you read that post first, as it outlines some factors that influenced the novel. America is one of the most dominant countries in the world, but its rise to power was fraught with disasters. The path to achieving this power was not easy for America. In The Grapes of Wrath, we witness the adventure and hope of the Joad family. John Steinbeck depicts the Joads as an ordinary American family facing extraordinary hardships. Through their story, we experience the struggles and troubles that many poor families in America endured on their journey to a better life. Sometimes, we will find ourselves in a dilemma, and sometimes, even when we wish otherwise, we will have to do things we do not prefer. The author provides us with a different perspective, and I hope you will gain new insights when reading this novel.

The Grapes of Wrath was written by John Steinbeck, and was set during the period of the Great Depression in the United States. In this novel, we will focus on the Joad family who represent families experiencing the Great Depression. Through the Joads, Steinbeck provides us with a clearer perspective to comprehend the effects of the Great Depression fully. Our protagonist, Tom got out of prison and returned to his family moving into his uncle John’s house. Other members of the family are Granma, Grampa, Pa Joad, Ma Joad, Noah Joad, Al Joad, daughter Rose of Sharon and her husband Connie; and two youngest children Ruthie and Winfield. Furthermore, Jim Casy, a former priest, joins them. The family is forced to leave their home because of the landowners. Consequently, they decide to move to find jobs and a better life for the family. The Joads set out for California in hopes of living under better conditions. The setting is one of the main themes in the novel, emphasizing the importance of the land. Steinbeck illustrates the significance of the land itself for the people and the profound effects of leaving their homeland. During this time, the condition of the land is crucial for the survival of the people living on it and for their crops. 

Our voyage is starting…

During their journey to California, all the members of the Joad family undergo a range of emotions, However, one member in particular, Grampa Joad, begins to act out of character. Back when they were still in their homeland, he was a fierce, hardworking, and somewhat angry man. Grampa wants to stay on his land, like Muley (Muley was a neighboır of the Joad family and when all the families, including his own, left to find a better place, he did not.) After the family stops and encounters another family who allows them to put Grampa in their tent, Grampa falls ill with a fever. He becomes paralyzed and ultimately passes away. The family buries his body, and then they gather around a fire, eating dinner and discussing Grampa’s death. No matter what happens, they have to continue on the road. Steinbeck masterfully depicts the desperation of the people experiencing the Great Depression. Grampa Joad experienced significant distress after being compelled to leave his homeland due to circumstances beyond his control. This suffering ultimately leads to his death.  Granma will be the second family member of the Joad family, who dies on the road. Another significant setting is the highway, the road that the family travels on to California. On one hand, the highway represents a path to something new, a fresh start that the family believes will improve their lives. However, it is also a place where unfortunate events occur, events that would never have happened if they were able to remain at home.

As Rick Marshall argues in his work called Steinbeck's Cognitive Landscapes in "The Grapes of Wrath": The Highway as Commentary on 1930s Industrialization (2011), the highway was a way to escape for the migrants, however, the highway does not mean freedom for them because it represents the fact that they lost their homes. As mentioned earlier, the highway is where both of the eldest family members, Grampa and Granma, pass away. They were both fierce, strong, and respected members of the family. Despite their age, they did not require assistance or care. Another unfortunate event that occurs on the highway is Noah's departure from the family. Noah, the eldest son of Ma and Pa, decides to stay behind when the family stops by a stream in Arizona, near the California border. He believes that people do not genuinely care for him and only tolerate his presence because he is a family member. While the highway may initially appear to be a path to a better life for the family by leading them to California, it is also a place where they experience significant losses, losing several members along the way. The final significant setting in the story is California, the promised land that lies at the end of the highway. The Joad family anticipates a fresh start in California, hoping for good jobs, a comfortable home, and a better life. The family's decision to move to California is largely based on an advertisement, which sets their expectations high.

As the conditions of the road are harder, people have to help each other to survive. In the novel, Steinbeck shows that no matter who you are when you work together as a group, you will achieve great results. For instance, as the family sets out, each member of the family is aware of what needs to be done to prepare and what items to bring along for the journey. Whether it's cleaning, preparing food, organizing the car, or deciding what to take, everyone in the family knows their role. Interestingly, they don't need to discuss or assign tasks—whether due to their familial bond or not, they function as a cohesive unit, each understanding their responsibility. This early example showcases the Joad family's ability to work together seamlessly, without the need for verbal communication. Throughout the story, they demonstrate that this unity extends beyond their family, proving the benefits of collaboration with others. Now, we just observe that the family works excellently as a unit. In the following parts, it will be demonstrated how strangers from various parts of the country can collaborate effectively, focusing particularly on women. This unity is evident when the Joad family finally arrives in California, specifically at the Weedpatch camp. The Weedpatch camp is comprised of people from diverse regions, beliefs, and backgrounds. Nevertheless, they all cooperate seamlessly as one unified community within the camp. Following their time at the Weedpatch camp, the family secures a job picking peaches at Hooper's Ranch. However, this employment doesn't endure for long, prompting them to move on. Later, they encounter boxcars with signs indicating the need for cotton pickers. Opting to seize this opportunity, the family decides to stay and work, with the added benefit of being able to live in one of the boxcars. The Joads' new job brings improvement to their circumstances. With regular income, they are able to afford dinner every night and purchase new clothes. 

When The Joads are on their way with Wilsons to California, they have to cross the desert. However, the conditions of the desert are tough for the old family members of both families. Wilsons prefer to stay, yet the Joads decide to cross the desert. In particular, Ma is very decisive, even if she knows that crossing the desert has a cost to her family. This cost would be the death of Ma. Steinback leaves us in an ethical dilemma in this context:

Are you on the side of the Wilsons, who consider their family and take a break on the road, or the Joads, who want to see the end of the road no matter what?

On the other hand, when the Wilsons encounter car trouble with their broken-down vehicle, Al Joad's automotive skills come in handy. In a mutual gesture, the Joads help the Wilsons repair their car. This embodies the importance of helping others in need, as one never knows when they may require assistance themselves. The mutual helping extended by these two families, who serendipitously cross paths on the road, highlights the selflessness and compassion inherent in human nature. 

Despite the Joad family having barely enough food for themselves, Ma Joad shows admirably good character. After Granma’s death, the family stops at the closest camp near Bakersfield. Several other migrant families are already camping there. After settling down, Ma starts cooking dinner. Several other migrant families are already camping there. After settling down, Ma begins to prepare dinner. After a while, the fifteen children stand silently and watch. They feel embarrassed to be there, but they remain nonetheless. Ma learns from the children that some of them hadn't even had breakfast. Ma shares the food among the Joad family but ensures there's enough left to share with the children. Even though this means each of her own family members will receive a little less food than usual, Ma still chooses to do it. As a mother herself, she cannot bear to see starving children. Furthermore, her strong morals compel her to ensure that the children do not go hungry.

At the end of the story, a profoundly significant act of morality and strength occurs. Rose of Sharon, the eldest daughter of the family, gives birth to a stillborn baby during a flood while the family is living in boxcars and picking cotton. The flood compels the family to leave, and they come across an old barn where they find a little boy with his sick and starving father. Despite their own hardships, the Joads choose to stay and help the boy and his father. The boy expresses concern about his father starving to death and implores the Joads for help. In a moment of shared silence and understanding between Ma and Rose of Sharon, they grasp what needs to be done. Despite Rose of Sharon mourning her dead baby, she selflessly offers her breast milk to the dying old man so he can survive. This act of compassion is extraordinary, especially considering Rose of Sharon's young age and the discomfort she may feel in offering her breast milk to an older man. However, she recognizes that it is a moral thing to do and acts accordingly.

The following chapter will examine how the higher class, the powerful individuals, are depicted in the novel, and how they exert their control over the lower or working class. The powerless individuals are subject to the control of the higher class and lack agency over their own lives, even during a national crisis like the Great Depression. However, throughout the novel, there are instances where the lower-class people begin to realize that they have the potential to wield power over the higher class. Initially, an analysis will provide examples from the novel illustrating how the powerful higher class or institutions are portrayed in the story.

Some properties are owned by companies or banks, and the owners men blame them as though the bank or company were a monstrous entity, capable of thought and feeling, ensnaring them. The banks are depicted as "machines and masters," while the owners are portrayed as their "slaves." The banks, described as monsters, are portrayed as needing profits constantly to survive, unable to wait or they will perish. They are one part of the powerful upper class. The owner men, though slightly less powerful than the banks or companies, still exert control over the tenants, effectively enslaving them. The banks compel people to do jobs they would not normally be morally capable of, exploiting the desperation of hard times. People are encouraged by these entities to harm other families for higher pay, with the implication that they are willing to do so for the sake of their own families. The bank's influence drives people to act inhumanely, demonstrating the extent of the upper class's power over the lower class.

In conclusion, the communication between the powerful and the working class is often reprehensible. There is a clear lack of equality in their interactions, particularly evident when powerful entities, such as banks or companies, are involved in taking away homes or exerting control over the working class. Additionally, other powerful groups may feel the need to assert their superiority by belittling the intelligence of the working class during communication. This pattern of communication underscores the hierarchical power dynamics at play, where the powerful seek to maintain their dominance and control over the working class.

William Shakespeare: Historical Interpretation #3

William Shakespeare: Historical Interpretation #3

 

Shakespeare certainly wrote his plays more than four hundred years ago. So how much should we reckon the past?

I have received a comment from under “A Frame of William Shakespeare's Life: Timeline”:

“Nothing. "Probably". "Would have". "Could have". Ridiculous myths, speculation and wishful thinking pawned off as biography. Nonsense. If you have evidence this man was a writer, please post it. We've been waiting for 400 years.”

As well as literature, I'm interested in history. I'd rather read and research about history. In fact, this comment touches on a good point to understand. Surely, history is a science. However, we need proof and documents to make history. Otherwise, we can't convince anyone of anything. In this context, most people believe that history is fiction. For instance, a historicist critic is someone who seeks to place a text in its context, revealing the embeddedness of, for example, Shakespeare's Macbeth in the witch-hunting mania of King James I's early reign. A historicist critic tries to understand a text by examining the time and place it was written, showing how, for example, Shakespeare's Macbeth reflects the widespread fear of witches during the early rule of King James I. (I will mention "New Historicism" that pertains to this issue). They might also conduct primary research in a historical archive, uncovering documents that shed new light on aspects of the text that readers removed by several centuries from its original publication could not previously see.

'The Enchanted Island Before the Cell of Prospero - Prospero, Miranda, Caliban and Ariel (Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act 1, Scene 2)', engraved after Henry Fuseli by Peter Simon

We know very little about the time between the birth of Hamnet and Judith Shakespeare, the twins, and the moment when Shakespeare is first mentioned in the theatre scene in London. This intervening period, often referred to as the lost years of Shakespeare, remains largely mysterious. However, it is certain that he somehow made his way from Stratford-upon-Avon to London. Whether he joined a traveling theatre company in need of an extra actor or fled due to trouble with a local landowner for poaching deer, remains unknown. Despite numerous stories circulating since the 18th century about why Shakespeare left Stratford, no concrete records exist from Shakespeare's lifetime or shortly after to clarify the circumstances surrounding his move to London with three young children and no clear career prospects. Nonetheless, Shakespeare did make this daring move and began establishing himself in the London world from the early 1590s onwards.

As a young boy, Shakespeare would have witnessed actors in Stratford-upon-Avon, as touring acting companies frequently visited the town. These companies would seek permission from the town's bailiff, the administrative leader, before performing. In 1569, when Shakespeare was five, this would have been his father. It's likely that permission was granted, and the first performance, known as the mayor's play, would have taken place. The mayor and his family were expected to attend, and even a curious 5-year-old Shakespeare might have witnessed his first play not far from where he grew up. Touring companies continued to visit Stratford, and in Shakespeare's early 20s, the renowned Queen's Men came to town. While we don't know what they performed, we do know that shortly before their visit, two of their actors were involved in a serious brawl, resulting in one fatality. This incident might have created an opportunity for Shakespeare to enter the professional theatre world, as the troupe may have been in need of additional talent. Thus, despite his humble origins as the son of a glover in Stratford, Shakespeare likely demonstrated enough promise to be recruited into the world of professional theatre.

Shakespeare's house, New Place, the Chapel and Grammar School, Stratford-on-Avon. From Samuel Ireland "Picturesque Views on the Upper or Warwickshire Avon"

Stephen Greenblatt describes the area we are currently in, on the south bank of the Thames in London, as a vibrant entertainment zone. People from different parts of the city would visit, knowing they had various activities to choose from. They could hire a boatman to ferry them across the river and then attend theaters like The Globe or The Swan. Alternatively, they could engage in other pastimes such as archery practice, visiting brothels, or patronizing taverns. Additionally, they could watch bull baiting and bear baiting exhibitions, where savage dogs attacked these animals, providing excitement for spectators. However, during the English Civil War, Puritan soldiers killed most of the bears, leading to the decline of this practice.

The area's history as the center of monasteries in the Middle Ages meant it had different legal arrangements from the rest of the city, allowing activities that the city authorities disapproved of but couldn't prevent. The city fathers had various concerns about the theatres, including traffic congestion, people skipping work, the potential for prostitution, and the spread of diseases like bubonic plague. Due to outbreaks of plague, the theatres would periodically be shut down until the death rates decreased. This caused economic difficulties for theatre companies, like Shakespeare's, who had to find ways to pass the time until the theatres reopened.

Stephen Greenblatt 

The Globe, where we're currently positioned, stands as the most renowned among England's grand amphitheatres during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. It emerged from a groundbreaking initiative in 1576 by James Burbage, a builder and entrepreneur originating from the carpentry trade. Burbage ventured to invest his resources in a groundbreaking endeavour: a purpose-built, freestanding theatre—an unprecedented concept not seen since late antiquity. This endeavour involved substantial risk capital, banking on the idea of attracting large audiences willing to pay upfront for entertainment, rather than relying on post-performance donations as customary in inn yards. The model operated on a system of admission fees, with patrons paying a penny for entry or more for premium seating, ensuring performers received their due applause after the show.

However, The Globe wasn't the sole venue for Shakespearean or contemporary playwrights' performances. Officially, acting as a profession was forbidden, categorized as vagrancy, and punishable by whipping. To circumvent this restriction, actors claimed to be servants of nobility or royalty, thus legitimizing their performances as entertainment for their employers. While court appearances provided prestige, theatres like The Globe and others generated the bulk of their revenue from ticket sales. Performances also took place at venues like the Inns of Court, and legal institutions in 16th-century London, with known productions of Shakespeare's works such as Comedy of Errors at Gray's Inn in 1594 and Twelfth Night at The Middle Temple in 1602. Additionally, plays were staged at universities like Oxford and Cambridge. The necessity for mobility was ingrained in theatre practice; companies had to adapt to closures due to plague outbreaks and relocate for various reasons, reflecting the transient nature of theatrical performances during Shakespeare's era and continuing into modern times.

The Great Depression and the Dust Bowl

Economic Despair and Environmental Disaster: The Great Depression and the Dust Bowl

The 1930s was a decade of unprecedented hardship for the United States. The country was reeling from the effects of the Great Depression, a severe economic downturn that left millions of people unemployed and struggling to make ends meet. To make matters worse, the Great Plains region was hit by a series of devastating dust storms known as the Dust Bowl, which further compounded the suffering of the American people.

I have completed studying The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. Before publishing, I would like to touch on two significant events that have a crucial effect on the novel. Like other novels, The Grapes of Wrath is based on significant events. One of them is the Great Depression, and the other is the Dust Bowl. If you have not read the novel yet, you should definitely look into these events to fully comprehend the novel. They are also pivotal events in American history. In our class, we study both American history and American literature. Therefore, in this blog, I will examine these events and then discuss John Steinbeck's 'The Grapes of Wrath: A Tale of Hardship and Hope' in this context. I hope to provide some insights to help comprehend these events, which are significant in American history.

The Great Depression was triggered by the stock market crash of 1929, which sent the economy into a downward spiral. Banks failed, businesses closed, and unemployment soared to unprecedented levels. Families across the country found themselves struggling to survive, with many unable to afford even the most basic necessities. The government's response to the crisis was slow and ineffective, leaving millions of Americans to fend for themselves. Oklahoma was one of the regions that experienced disasters caused by the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression in a particularly adverse way; therefore, the author must have chosen it for this reason. As if the economic hardship wasn't enough, the Great Plains region was hit by a series of severe droughts in the 1930s. With much of the land already over-farmed and over-grazed, the topsoil became loose and vulnerable to erosion. When strong winds swept across the region, they picked up the dry, dusty soil and created massive dust storms that blotted out the sun and turned day into night. These dust storms not only destroyed crops and livestock but also caused widespread respiratory problems among the people living in the affected. As if the economic hardship wasn't enough, the Great Plains region was hit by a series of severe droughts in the 1930s. With much of the land already over-farmed and over-grazed, the topsoil became loose and vulnerable to erosion. When strong winds swept across the region, they picked up the dry, dusty soil and created massive dust storms that blotted out the sun and turned day into night. These dust storms not only destroyed crops and livestock but also caused widespread respiratory problems among the people living in the affected. In particular, from Texas, Arkansas, or Oklahoma, they were called Arkies and Okies, and they traveled to California because it offered a warm climate and undamaged agriculture. In response to the dual crises of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented a series of New Deal programs aimed at providing relief, recovery, and reform. These programs included public works projects to create jobs, financial reforms to stabilize the banking system, and agricultural programs to restore the fertility of the soil. While these efforts helped alleviate some of the suffering, it would take years for the country to fully recover from the devastation of the 1930s.

I have just mentioned the Great Depression. Now, I will strive to illuminate the Dust Bowl, which is a crucial period in American history. Indeed, there are plenty of examples, such as the Dust Bowl, that have influenced a country. No need to look far; last year in my country (Turkey), we experienced earthquakes of 7.8 and 7.7 magnitudes. Therefore, I understand how disasters can influence the future of a country and its people. In my next blog, I will be observing The Grapes of Wrath, where you will come across the effects of disaster from Steinbeck's perspective. Dust Bowl is a natural disaster that was one of the causes of the Great Depression.

The Dust Bowl along with uneven stock market crashes, was a natural disaster that contributed to the Great Depression. Due to this, a significant number of American citizens had to relocate to another part of the United States due to the loss of their homes and crops. In fact, American agriculture had already been in crisis before the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. Therefore, United States government had to take precaution to save farmers. President Herbert Hoover reached out to Congress to establish the Federal Farm Board in order to stabilize prices by buying agricultural products from farmers on the open market. A successful Agricultural Marketing Act was passed in May 1929. Nevertheless, shortly after, the Farm Board ran out of money and could not provide financial support for American farmers, causing many to go bankrupt. In 1932, almost a third of farm estates—60 percent in South Dakota alone—were taken from their owners and later auctioned off.

During the worst year of the Dust Bowl, which was in 1938, more than 850 million of topsoil were ruined. Moreover, the dust destroyed people’s homes, clothing, furniture, and food. In short, this natural disaster caused damages to the crops and properties in the Great Plain parts, making it impossible to keep living there.

Kurfürstová, T. (2021). The Great Depression and working class in novels by John Steinbeck (Bachelor's thesis). Palacký University Olomouc, Faculty of Arts, Department of English and American Studies.

As a result, farmers had already begun to suffer. Although the Act appeared successful, the situation remained unclear. It became impossible to sustain the farmers, their crops, and their estates. 

The beginning of the Great Depression led to an increase in strikes organized by unions and the working class. Author George Rawick in his work Working-class Self-Activity (1983), which focuses on the struggles of American workers up to the 1970s, describes that “[i]n 1932 there were only 840 strikes; in 1933 there were 1,700; by 1936, 2,200; by 1937, 4,740; in 1938, only 2,500; in 1941, 4,000.” All the disasters and factors contributing to the Great Depression led to enormous unemployment within a few years, causing significant problems for American citizens. Due to unemployment, people experienced quiet desperation; no job meant no bread, which in turn meant no family, emotional turmoil, and deep-seated fears. However, I believe that hard times create strong people. Because of these disasters, people learned how to be union. Workers came together to organize strikes, and from those movements, unions were born. These unions eventually became powerful advocates for improving working conditions. In The Grapes of Wrath, I will examine deeper into these issues. So far, we've had a brief overview of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. I hope I've provided some clues to help you understand them better.