History is a eulogic textbook in remembrance of our ancestors. Life, on the other hand, is a tacit death sentence. People come and go, their existence is quantitatively recorded, and rarely remembered. Because it is impossible to remember someone whom you have never met, intellects depend on these eulogic textbooks, passed down over centuries, to tell them who the crucial figures of the past were. But who writes these eulogies? Clergy? Politicians? God? The Clergy would write the history in the word of God, Politicians would write to restore power to their king, and God rested on the seventh day. Nevertheless, all or none of the aforementioned had the capacity to become prejudiced eulogy-makers. Whoever these historians may be, two things are certain. First, they were men, and secondly, they are now dead.
Perhaps a third certainty could be added, they all found King Henry VIII to be quite blood-lustly. Although, some people see him as a man who put many other men to death, personally I characterize him as nothing more than the expediator of life. The introduction found in Norton's Anthology is over-literary and under-informational. Because it is a literature book, I do understand it's predisposition to being 'Literary,' this section is also an Introduction to the time period, and should read as such. Moreover, the text containing the beliefs and reasoning behind the Tudor's actions should be taken as invalid, because only they (Both Henrys, Little Eddie, Bloody Mary, and Queen Bess) know why they acted in the manner in which they did.
It may be arrogance, pompousness, or the complete disregard for factual information but it irritates me that an educated person could deem to know that Queen Elizabeth, "Insisted on making many of the crucial decisions herself." (Page 493) Insisted, in itself has a negative connotation to it, am I wrong in assuming that Kings made decisions by themselves? So for Elizabeth to have 'insisted,' portrays her as being a whining woman, as opposed to a ruler who by occupational description must make tough decisions.
This brings me back to my comments on history being a eulogic textbook. Fore, when one dies it is fairly typical for people to recite how honest, philanthropical, fun, and loving they were, and how missed they will be. However, not everyone who dies is a good person. This means that eulogy-makers, obituary-writers, and tombstone-engravers blatantly lie. This also makes some historians liars as well. A prime example being that Mary is nicknamed 'Bloody Mary' for her persecution of Protestants, however Elizabeth killed more people than Mary did. Almost every Tudor leader was brutally insane. However, Norton seems to look upon them in a somewhat high revere. My history will be different in two ways from that of the royal deceased - short and true.
Perhaps a third certainty could be added, they all found King Henry VIII to be quite blood-lustly. Although, some people see him as a man who put many other men to death, personally I characterize him as nothing more than the expediator of life. The introduction found in Norton's Anthology is over-literary and under-informational. Because it is a literature book, I do understand it's predisposition to being 'Literary,' this section is also an Introduction to the time period, and should read as such. Moreover, the text containing the beliefs and reasoning behind the Tudor's actions should be taken as invalid, because only they (Both Henrys, Little Eddie, Bloody Mary, and Queen Bess) know why they acted in the manner in which they did.
It may be arrogance, pompousness, or the complete disregard for factual information but it irritates me that an educated person could deem to know that Queen Elizabeth, "Insisted on making many of the crucial decisions herself." (Page 493) Insisted, in itself has a negative connotation to it, am I wrong in assuming that Kings made decisions by themselves? So for Elizabeth to have 'insisted,' portrays her as being a whining woman, as opposed to a ruler who by occupational description must make tough decisions.
This brings me back to my comments on history being a eulogic textbook. Fore, when one dies it is fairly typical for people to recite how honest, philanthropical, fun, and loving they were, and how missed they will be. However, not everyone who dies is a good person. This means that eulogy-makers, obituary-writers, and tombstone-engravers blatantly lie. This also makes some historians liars as well. A prime example being that Mary is nicknamed 'Bloody Mary' for her persecution of Protestants, however Elizabeth killed more people than Mary did. Almost every Tudor leader was brutally insane. However, Norton seems to look upon them in a somewhat high revere. My history will be different in two ways from that of the royal deceased - short and true.
No comments:
Post a Comment