Liceo Artistico
Appunti di inglese
Idoneità alla classe V
− Future Continuous and Future Perfect
− Le “if clauses”
− Meet the Celts
− Henry II
− The Birth of Parliament
− The Act of Supremacy
− James I
− The origin of Thanskgiving Day
− William Shakespeare
− The English Civil War
− The Puritans
− The Scientific Revolution
FUTURE CONTINUOUS AND FUTURE PERFECT
FUTURE CONTINUOUS
Il Future Continuous serve per indicare un’azione che si starà svolgendo in un
determinato periodo di tempo nel futuro o quando si ‘immagina’ un’azione in corso
in un momento fisso nel futuro:
Come si costruisce?
• Forma affermativa: soggetto + will + be + verbo (alla forma -ing);
• Forma negativa: soggetto + will not (won’t) + be + verbo (alla forma -ing);
• Forma interrogativa: will + soggetto + be + verbo (alla forma -ing).
Esempi:
• Tomorrow at 5.00 o’clock I will be working in the office (Domani alle 5 starò
lavorando in ufficio);
• He’ll be travelling to Rome at 8 (Alle 8 sarà in viaggio per Roma);
• Will they be meeting at 9 o’clock on Monday? (Lunedì alle 9 si staranno
incontrando?)
• In 3 years’ time I’ll be leading my team (In 3 anni sarò a capo del mio team).
FUTURE PERFECT
Il Future Perfect serve per esprimere un’azione che sarà già avvenuta nel
futuro; questo particolare tempo verbale si abbina bene con “By….” e un tempo fisso
nel futuro.
Come si costruisce?
• Forma affermativa: soggetto + will + have + verbo (al past participle);
• Forma negativa: soggetto + will not (won’t) + have + verbo (al past participle);
• Forma interrogativa: will + soggetto + have + verbo (al past participle).
Esempi:
• By Monday she will have already had the interview (Lunedì lei avrà già avuto il
colloquio);
• By 2017 my company will have launched the product into the market (Entro il 2017
la mia azienda avrà lanciato il prodotto sul mercato);
• I still won’t have had any management experience by the time I’m 30 (Prima di fare
30 anni non avrò ancora avuto dell’esperienza nell’ambito manageriale.)
LE “IF CLAUSES”
Le “if clauses” (dette anche: Conditional Sentences o Conditional Clauses) servono a
costruire il periodo ipotetico in inglese. Ciò vuol dire che l'azione descritta nella frase
principale (senza if) potrà realizzarsi soltanto se la condizione menzionata nella frase
con if è o sarà reale.
Come si usano e come si formano
1° tipo (condizione possibile)
Utilizziamo la if clause di 1° tipo quando è possibile soddisfare la condizione
menzionata nella frase principale nel presente o nel futuro.
if + Present Simple, will-Future
Esempio: If I have time, I will help you. (Forse dopo avrò del tempo a disposizione.)
2° tipo (condizione non possibile da soddisfare nel presente)
Utilizziamo il 2° tipo quando la condizione menzionata non si potrà soddisfare nel
presente/futuro.
if + Simple Past, would + verbo all'infinito
Esempio: If I had time, I would help you. (Lo so che non avrò del tempo a
disposizione.)
Se nella if clause di 2° tipo è presente il verbo il verbo be, dobbiamo utilizzare la
forma were (e non was).
Esempio: If I were you, I would not do this. (non: If I was you, …)
3° tipo (condizione non soddisfatta nel passato)
Utilizziamo il 3° tipo quando una condizione non è stata soddisfatta nel passato.
if + Past Perfect, would have + Past Participle
Esempio: If I had had time, I would have helped you. (Non ho avuto tempo.)
Nella proposizione condizionale possiamo impiegare anche altri verbi modali al posto
di will/would, cambia però il significato.
Esempio: If I have time, I can/could/may/might help you.
If I had time, I could/might help you.
If I had had time, I could/might have helped you.
Osservazioni sulla costruzione della frase
Se la if clause è preceduta dalla frase principale non si mette la virgola tra le due
frasi.
Esempio: I will help you if I have time.
I would help you if I had time.
I would have helped you if I had had time.
MEET THE CELTS
The Iron Age is the age of the "Celt" in Britain. Over the 500 or so years leading up
to the first Roman invasion a Celtic culture established itself throughout the British
Isles. For a start, the concept of a "Celtic" people is a modern and somewhat romantic
reinterpretation of history. The “Celts” were warring tribes who certainly wouldn’t
have seen themselves as one people at the time. The "Celts" as we traditionally regard
them exist largely in the magnificence of their art and the words of the Romans who
fought them. The trouble with the reports of the Romans is that they were a mix of
reportage and political propaganda. It was politically expedient for the Celtic peoples
to be colored as barbarians and the Romans as a great civilizing force. And history
written by the winners is always suspect.
What we do know is that the people we call Celts gradually infiltrated Britain over
the course of the centuries between about 500 and 100 B.C. There was probably
never an organized Celtic invasion; for one thing the Celts were so fragmented and
given to fighting among themselves that the idea of a concerted invasion would have
been ludicrous. The Celts were a group of peoples loosely tied by similar language,
religion, and cultural expression. They were not centrally governed, and quite as
happy to fight each other as any non-Celt. They were warriors, living for the glories
of battle and plunder. They were also the people who brought iron working to the
British Isles.
The advent of iron
The use of iron had amazing repercussions. First, it changed trade and fostered local
independence. Trade was essential during the Bronze Age, for not every area was
naturally endowed with the necessary ores to make bronze. Iron, on the other hand,
was relatively cheap and available almost everywhere.
Hill forts
The time of the "Celtic conversion" of Britain saw a huge growth in the number of
hill forts throughout the region. These were often small ditch and bank combinations
encircling defensible hilltops. Some are small enough that they were of no practical
use for more than an individual family, though over time many larger forts were built.
The curious thing is that we don't know if the hill forts were built by the native
Britons to defend themselves from the encroaching Celts, or by the Celts as they
moved their way into hostile territory. Usually these forts contained no source of
water, so their use as long term settlements is doubtful, though they may have been
useful indeed for withstanding a short term siege. Many of the hill forts were built on
top of earlier causewayed camps.
Celtic family life
The basic unit of Celtic life was the clan, a sort of extended family. The term
"family" is a bit misleading, for by all accounts the Celts practiced a peculiar form of
child rearing; they didn't rear them, they farmed them out. Children were actually
raised by foster parents. The foster father was often the brother of the birth-mother.
Clans were bound together very loosely with other clans into tribes, each of which
had its own social structure and customs, and possibly its own local gods. The Celts
lived in huts of arched timber with walls of wicker and roofs of thatch. The huts were
generally gathered in loose hamlets. In several places each tribe had its own coinage
system. The Celts were farmers when they weren't fighting. One of the interesting
innovations that they brought to Britain was the iron plough. Earlier ploughs had
been awkward affairs, basically a stick with a pointed end harnessed behind two
oxen. They were suitable only for ploughing the light upland soils. The heavier iron
ploughs constituted an agricultural revolution all by themselves, for they made it
possible for the first time to cultivate the rich valley and lowland soils. They came
with a price, though. It generally required a team of eight oxen to pull the plough, so
to avoid the difficulty of turning that large a team, Celtic fields tended to be long and
narrow, a pattern that can still be seen in some parts of the country today.
Language
There was a written Celtic language, but it developed well into Christian times, so for
much of Celtic history they relied on oral transmission of culture, primarily through
the efforts of bards and poets. These arts were tremendously important to the Celts,
and much of what we know of their traditions comes to us today through the old tales
and poems that were handed down for generations before eventually being written
down.
Religion
From what we know of the Celts from Roman commentators, who are, remember,
witnesses with an axe to grind, they held many of their religious ceremonies in
woodland groves and near sacred water, such as wells and springs. The Romans
speak of human sacrifice as being a part of Celtic religion. One thing we do know,
the Celts revered human heads. Celtic warriors would cut off the heads of their
enemies in battle and display them as trophies.
They mounted heads in doorposts and hung them from their belts. This might seem
barbaric to us, but to the Celt the seat of spiritual power was the head, so by taking
the head of a vanquished foe they were appropriating that power for themselves. It
was a kind of bloody religious observance. The Iron Age is when we first find
cemeteries of ordinary people’s burials (in hole-in-the-ground graves) as opposed to
the elaborate barrows of the elite few that provide our main records of burials in
earlier periods. The main problem with the Celts was that they couldn't stop fighting
among themselves long enough to put up a unified front. Each tribe was out for itself,
and in the long run this cost them control of Britain.
HENRY II
King of England from 1154, Henry strengthened royal administration but suffered
from quarrels with Thomas Becket and his own family.
Henry was born at Le Mans in north west France on 4 March 1133. His father was
Count of Anjou and his mother Matilda, daughter of Henry I of England. Henry had
named Matilda as his successor to the English throne but her cousin Stephen had
taken over.
In 1150 - 1151, Henry became ruler of Normandy and Anjou, after the death of his
father. In 1152, he married Eleanor of Aquitaine, the greatest heiress in western
Europe. In 1153, he crossed to England to pursue his claim to the throne, reaching an
agreement that he would succeed Stephen on his death, which occurred in 1154.
Henry's now began to restore order. Using his talented chancellor Thomas Becket,
Henry began reorganising the judicial system. The Assize of Clarendon (1166)
established procedures of criminal justice, establishing courts and prisons for those
awaiting trial. In addition, the assizes gave fast and clear verdicts, enriched the
treasury and extended royal control.
In 1164, Henry reasserted his ancestral rights over the church. Now archbishop of
Canterbury, Becket refused to comply. An attempted reconciliation failed and Becket
punished priests who had co-operated with Henry. On hearing this Henry reportedly
exclaimed, 'Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?' Four knights took his words
literally and murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral in December 1170. Almost
overnight Becket became a saint. Henry reconciled himself with the church, but royal
control over the church changed little.
In 1169, an Anglo-Norman force landed in Ireland to support of one of the claimants
to the Irish high kingship. Fearing the creation of a separate Norman power to the
west, Henry travelled to Dublin to assert his overlordship of the territory they had
won. And so, an English presence in Ireland was established. In the course of his
reign, Henry had dominion over territories stretching from the Ireland to the
Pyrenees.
Henry now had problems within his own family. His sons - Henry, Geoffrey, Richard
and John - mistrusted each other and resented their father's policy of dividing land
among them. There were serious family disputes in 1173, 1181 and 1184. The king's
attempt to find an inheritance for John led to opposition from Richard and Philip II of
France. Henry was forced to give way. News that John had also turned against him
hastened Henry's death on 6 July 1189.
THE BIRTH OF PARLIAMENT
When John Lackland died, his nine year-old son became the new king of England.
His name was Henry III (the third) but he was too young to rule the nation so a group
of barons decided to help him govern the country. Initially it was called “the Great
Council” and it was composed by the barons but also by two knights from every
shire and two merchants from the big towns (who represented the ordinary freemen).
These meetings were immediately called “Parliaments” from the French word
“parler” because they discussed the decisions to take. When Henry died his son
Edward I who succeed him wanted to continue this experiment and he gave life to
what was called “model Parliament” in 1295. It now included barons, the clergy, two
knights from each shire and two citizens from each town. In this first form of
Parliament there was the initial structure of Modern Parliament in England with its
two Houses: the House of Commons and the House of Lords. (anyhow at that time
the Commons, that were the knights and the citizens, were not necessary because
they had little part in the real decisions of the Parliament).
Consent for taxation
At the close of the 13th century the idea that Parliament had to give consent to the
changes and demands that the king wished to make became an essential ingredient in
the granting of taxation. Kings originally demanded taxes to make up shortfalls in the
income from their personal estates, but during the reign of Edward I the cost of
almost constant warfare compelled the king to ask Parliament for authority to levy
taxes. As a result, taxation and representation became linked - the consent of the
people of the realm being required before they would allow the king to tax their lands
and goods. This was formally established by statute in 1362.
Representing the whole nation
In the 14th century Parliament began to involve the three estates of the realm (lords,
clergy and commons) more fully. In 1312, during Edward II's troubled reign, a group
of lords, led by Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, claimed to represent the whole nation
when they introduced ordinances to limit the king's reliance on 'bad' councillors and
to trim his power. These ordinances made no reference to the voice of the clergy or
the commons. Then in 1322 Parliament repealed the ordinances because they had not
been agreed by the full council of the realm, but only by a council of lords. From that
time, all major matters were to be 'treated, accorded and established in Parliament' by
agreement between the king and all the estates of the realm.
Growth of Parliament's scope and power
The outbreak of the Hundred Years' War in 1337 enhanced the importance of
Parliament's function, since many more taxes were levied to raise funds to fight the
French and Scots. The focus of the entire country upon maintaining armies in the
field took place against the disastrous background of the Black Death (1348-50). The
leaders of the realm used Parliament to preserve their position at the top of society as
the decline in population gave the peasantry economic power for the first time.
Important Acts were passed that enforced economic ties to the land, hunting rights,
and the prices that labourers could charge. As an agent of aristocratic influence,
Parliament played a part in creating the conditions that prompted the Peasants' Revolt
in 1381.
The right of Parliament to criticise the Crown and its choice of ministers developed
more strongly towards the end of the 14th century. For example, the Good Parliament
of 1376 criticised the government carried on in the name of the ageing Edward III.
This parliament also saw the first instance of impeachment - the procedure whereby
the Commons, representing the realm, brought an offender to trial before the House
of Lords.
After 1399, when Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne as Henry IV, Parliament
became a tool in the struggle for the Crown among the descendants of Edward III.
Because Henry was aware of the uncertain foundations on which his kingship rested,
Parliament was able to secure concessions from him. In 1401 the Commons insisted
that they would only grant taxes after their grievances had been addressed, and in
1407 they stipulated that all grants of taxation were to originate from the Commons.
By 1414, the first year of Henry V's reign, the Commons had gained an equal footing
with the Lords in passing legislation - an important stage in acknowledging the voice
of the wider population.
From the 1450s to the 1520s Parliament helped to unravel the legal and political
consequences of the Wars of the Roses. The ability of 'overmighty' nobles to
undermine royal authority was challenged through legal manipulation of inheritances
and landholding. Rebels and traitors were attainted in Parliament, and their lands
forfeited. Political opponents found themselves denounced and excluded by factions
among the Lords and their followers in the Commons. Parliament's role in passing
such Acts did not directly affect the rights of the whole population, but it did alter the
power and influence of the political leaders, which in turn affected how local
communities functioned. This period also witnessed the first widespread attempts to
influence elections through bribery and intimidation and to pack the Commons with
sympathetic MPs.
Late medieval and Tudor monarchs tried to use Parliament as the forum where their
personal wishes were turned into law. The election of a friendly speaker of the
Commons could determine how votes were cast and what Bills were passed. In 1484
Richard III used just such a technique when the speaker, his close ally William
Catesby, used the authority of Parliament to endorse the deposing of Edward V.
Parliament under the Tudors
During Henry VIII's reign, parliamentary Acts helped to shape modern England. The
authority of Parliament was employed to make the massive changes to English
society in measures such as the dissolution of the monasteries and the establishment
of the Church of England. These changes had a profound effect on how ordinary
subjects viewed their nation and its rulers, since they removed the ancient monastic
presence from English communities and introduced religious divisions that
reverberated throughout the United Kingdom.
The result was a major protest from the northern counties, in the shape of the 1536
rebellion known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. At the same time, Henry's reign
witnessed important political steps towards a united kingdom. The Acts of Union of
1536-43 brought Wales into the English pattern of lordship, and the new Welsh
counties were first represented in Parliament in 1536.
During the Tudor period detailed records of proceedings in the House of Commons
began to be kept. A number of test cases, such as those of George Ferrer in 1543 and
William Strickland in 1571, defended the rights and privileges of MPs against Crown
intervention in Parliament's operation. Disputed elections were to be decided by
standing committees from 1586.
Although parliaments were still called by the monarch, Parliament was becoming
determined to preserve its independence from the Crown. By 1621, when James I
asked for taxes to send military aid to the Palatinate, the Commons used the
opportunity to debate the matter against the king's wishes - thus asserting their
ancient right to debate any subject, without royal interference.
Enduring principles
Parliament has remained a stable institution - the basic principle of representation
through election remains unaltered, and the idea of consent for taxation is still a vital
aspect of any democratic political system. Especially since the 17th century,
Parliament has played a central role in shaping the development of Britain and in
defining the rights and responsibilities of British citizens.
THE ACT OF SUPREMACY
The Acts of Supremacy are two acts of the Parliament of England passed in 1534
and 1559 which established King Henry VIII of England and subsequent monarchs as
the supreme head of the Church of England. Prior to 1534, the supreme head of the
English Church was the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church.
First Act of Supremacy 1534
The first Act of Supremacy was passed on 3 November 1534 (26 Hen. VIII c. 1) by
the Parliament of England. It granted King Henry VIII of England and subsequent
monarchs Royal Supremacy, such that he was declared the supreme head of the
Church of England. Royal Supremacy is specifically used to describe the legal
sovereignty of the civil laws over the laws of the Church in England.
The act declared that the king was "the only supreme head on Earth of the Church of
England" and that the English crown shall enjoy "all honours, dignities,
preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits, and
commodities to the said dignity." The wording of the act made clear that Parliament
was not granting the king the title (thereby suggesting that they had the right to
withdraw it later); rather, it was acknowledging an established fact. In the Act of
Supremacy, Henry abandoned Rome completely. He thereby asserted the
independence of the Ecclesia Anglicana. He appointed himself and his successors as
the supreme rulers of the English church. Henry had been declared "Defender of the
Faith" (Fidei Defensor) in 1521 by Pope Leo X for his pamphlet accusing Martin
Luther of heresy. Parliament later conferred this title upon Henry in 1544.
The 1534 Act marks the beginning of the English Reformation. There were a number
of reasons for this Act, primarily the need for a male heir to the throne. Henry tried
for years to obtain an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and had
convinced himself that God was punishing him for marrying his brother's widow. But
Pope Clement VII was under the control of Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor and
Catherine's nephew; he refused to grant the annulment because, according to Roman
Catholic teaching, a validly contracted marriage is indivisible until death, and thus
the pope cannot annul a marriage simply because of a canonical impediment
previously dispensed. The Treasons Act was later passed: it provided that to disavow
the Act of Supremacy and to deprive the King of his "dignity, title, or name" was to
be considered treason. The most famous public figure to resist the Treason Act was
Sir Thomas More.
Irish Act of Supremacy, 1537
In 1537, the Irish Supremacy Act was passed by the Parliament of Ireland,
establishing Henry VIII as the supreme head of the Church of Ireland, as had earlier
been done in England.
Second Act of Supremacy 1559
Henry's Act of Supremacy was repealed in 1554 in the reign of his staunchly Roman
Catholic daughter, Queen Mary I. It was reinstated by Mary's Protestant half-sister,
Queen Elizabeth I, when she ascended the throne. Elizabeth declared herself Supreme
Governor of the Church of England, and instituted an Oath of Supremacy, requiring
anyone taking public or church office to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of
the Church and state. Anyone refusing to take the oath could be charged with treason.
The use of the term Supreme Governor as opposed to Supreme Head pacified some
Roman Catholics and those Protestants concerned about a female leader of the
Church of England. Elizabeth, who was a politique, did not prosecute layman
nonconformists, or those who did not follow the established rules of the Church of
England unless their actions directly undermined the authority of the English
monarch, as was the case in the vestments controversy. Thus, it was through the
Second Act of Supremacy that Elizabeth I officially established the now reformed
Church of England.
Historian G. R. Elton argues that, "in law and political theory the Elizabethan
supremacy was essentially parliamentary, while Henry VIII's had been essentially
personal." Supremacy was extinguished under Cromwell, but restored in 1660. The
Stuart kings used it as a justification for controlling the appointment of bishops.
Richard Hooker put it in a nutshell:
"There is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is a member
of the Commonwealth, nor a member of the Commonwealth which is not also
a member of the Church of England."
The Act was passed in 1559, but is dated 1558 because until 1793 legislation was
backdated to the beginning of the session of Parliament in which it was passed.
JAMES I
James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scotland as James VI,
and King of England and King of Ireland as James I.
James was the son of Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband Henry Stewart,
Lord Darnley. He was descended through the Scottish kings from Robert the Bruce,
and the English Tudors through his great grandmother Margaret Tudor sister of
Henry VIII. His parent’s marriage was short-lived and Darnley was found murdered 8
months after James was born in June 1566. His mother married again, but in 1567
was forced to renounce the throne of Scotland in favour of her infant son. James
became King James VI of Scotland aged 13 months in July 1567, and was crowned at
Stirling. Mary fled to England where she was eventually executed following Catholic
plots against Elizabeth I in 1587.
His childhood and adolescence were unhappy, abnormal, and precarious; he had
various guardians, whose treatment of him differed widely. His education, although
thorough, was weighted with strong Presbyterian and Calvinist political doctrine, and
his character – highly intelligent and sensitive, but also fundamentally shallow, vain,
and exhibitionist – reacted violently to this. He also sought solace with extravagant
and unsavoury male favourites who, in later years, were to have a damaging effect on
his prestige and state affairs. A suitable Queen was found for him in Anne of
Denmark and they were married in 1589. As King of Scotland, he curbed the power
of the nobility, although his attempts to limit the authority of the Kirk (Church of
Scotland) were less successful.
When Elizabeth I of England died in 1603 unmarried, James moved to London and
was crowned King James I of England the first of the Stuart Kings of the combined
crowns of England and Scotland. The English courtiers were wary of his Scottish
favourites, affairs with male courtiers and uncouth ways. He was however a supporter
of literature and arts. William Shakespeare was among the ‘Kings Men’ troupe of
actors who performed plays for their patron James. He commissioned the King James
Authorized Version of the Bible, published in 1611, which remains one of the most
important English translations of the Bible. He initially acted mainly upon the advice
of Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, but on Salisbury’s death all restraint vanished. His
religious policy consisted of asserting the supreme authority and divine right of the
crown and suppressing both Puritans and Catholics who objected. Guy Fawkes'
attempt to blow up Parliament in 1605 produced an anti-Catholic reaction, which
gave James a temporary popularity which soon dissipated.
His foreign policy aimed primarily at achieving closer relations with Spain was not
liked by Parliament who saw Spain as the Old Catholic enemy of the Armada and
competitor for world trade. During his reign the East India Company expanded trade
bringing spices from the East, and Jamestown was founded in Virginia. His
willingness to compromise politically, even while continuing to talk in terms of
absolutism, largely accounts for the superficial stability of his reign. However, the
effects of many of his actions were long term, becoming fully obvious only after his
death. James and Anne had 8 children only three of whom survived infancy. Their
eldest son Henry died aged 18 of typhoid, and their 2nd son Charles became King
Charles I. The marriage of their daughter Elizabeth to Frederic V, Elector Palatine
and King of Bohemia, was to result in the eventual Hanoverian succession to the
British throne.
THE ORIGIN OF THANKSGIVING DAY
In 1621, the Plymouth colonists and Wampanoag Indians shared an autumn harvest
feast that is acknowledged today as one of the first Thanksgiving celebrations in the
colonies. For more than two centuries, days of thanksgiving were celebrated by
individual colonies and states. It wasn’t until 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, that
President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national Thanksgiving Day to be held each
November.
Thanksgiving is America's preeminent day. It is celebrated every year on the fourth
Thursday in the month of November. It has a very interesting history. Its origin can
be traced back to the 16th century when the first thanksgiving dinner is said to have
taken place.
Journey of Pilgrims
The legendary pilgrims, crossed the Atlantic in the year 1620 in Mayflower-A 17th
Century sailing vessel. About 102 people travelled for nearly two months with
extreme difficulty. This was so because they were kept in the cargo space of the
sailing vessel. No one was allowed to go on the deck due to terrible storms. The
pilgrims comforted themselves by singing Psalms- a sacred song.
Arrival in Plymouth
The pilgrims reached Plymouth rock on December 11th 1620, after a sea journey of
66 days. Though the original destination was somewhere in the northern part of
Virginia, they could not reach the place owing to winds blowing them off course.
Nearly46 pilgrims died due to extreme cold in winter. However, in the spring of
1621, Squanto, a native Indian taught the pilgrims to survive by growing food.
Day of Fasting and Prayer
In the summer of 1621, owing to severe drought, pilgrims called for a day of fasting
and prayer to please God and ask for a bountiful harvest in the coming season. God
answered their prayers and it rained at the end of the day. It saved the corn crops.
First Thanksgiving Feast
It is said that Pilgrims learnt to grow corn, beans and pumpkins from the Indians,
which helped all of them survive . In the autumn of 1621, they held a grand
celebration where 90 people were invited including Indians. The grand feast was
organized to thank god for his favors. This communal dinner is popularly known as
“The first thanksgiving feast”. There is however, no evidence to prove if the dinner
actually took place. While some historians believe pilgrims were quite religious so,
their thanksgiving would've included a day of fasting and praying, others say that the
Thanksgiving dinner did take place.
Turkey and First Thanksgiving Feast
There is no evidence to prove if the customary turkey was a part of the initial feast.
According to the first hand account written by the leader of the colony, the food
included, ducks, geese, venison, fish, berries etc.
Pumpkin and Thanksgiving Feast
Pumpkin pie, a modern staple adorning every dinner table, is unlikely to have been a
part of the first thanksgiving feast. Pilgrims however, did have boiled pumpkin.
Diminishing supply of flour led to the absence of any kind of bread.
The feast continued for three days and was eaten outside due to lack of space. It was
not repeated till 1623, which again witnessed a severe drought. Governor Bradford
proclaimed another day of thanksgiving in the year 1676. October of 1777 witnessed
a time when all the 13 colonies joined in a communal celebration. It also marked the
victory over the British.
After a number of events and changes, President Lincoln proclaimed last Thursday in
November of thanksgiving in the year 1863. This was due to the continuous efforts of
Sarah Josepha Hale, a magazine editor. She wrote a number of articles for the cause.
WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE
William Shakespeare was an English poet, playwright, and actor. He was born on 26
April 1564 in Stratford-upon-Avon. His father was a successful local businessman
and his mother was the daughter of a landowner. Shakespeare is widely regarded as
the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He
is often called England's national poet and nicknamed the Bard of Avon. He wrote
about 38 plays, 154 sonnets, two long narrative poems, and a few other verses, of
which the authorship of some is uncertain. His plays have been translated into every
major living language and are performed more often than those of any other
playwright.
Marriage and career
Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway at the age of 18. She was eight years older than
him. They had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. After his
marriage information about his life became very rare. But he is thought to have spent
most of his time in London writing and performing in his plays. Between 1585 and
1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner of a
playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men.
Retirement and death
Around 1613, at the age of 49, he retired to Stratford , where he died three years later.
Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive. He died on 23 April 1616, at the
age of 52. He died within a month of signing his will, a document which he begins by
describing himself as being in "perfect health". In his will, Shakespeare left the bulk
of his large estate to his elder daughter Susanna.
His work
Shakespeare produced most of his known work between 1589 and 1613. His early
plays were mainly comedies and histories and these works remain regarded as some
of the best work produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until about
1608, including Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, considered some of the
finest works in the English language. In his last phase, he wrote tragicomedies, also
known as romances, and collaborated with other playwrights.
Shakespeare's plays remain highly popular today and are constantly studied,
performed, and reinterpreted in diverse cultural and political contexts throughout the
world.
THE STRUCTURE OF THEATRE
The theatre in Shakespeare’s time was much different than it is today. Authors wrote
plays for the masses, especially those who couldn’t read or write.
The theatre changed a lot during Shakespeare’s lifetime. The authorities didn’t like it
and didn’t allow acting in the city itself. They thought it had a bad influence on
people and kept them from going to church. Queen Elizabeth, on the other hand,
loved acting and helped the theatre become popular.
As time went on more and more popular theatres emerged outside city walls. This
was considered an unsafe area with crime and prostitution.
Shakespeare’s theatre was full of life. People did not sit all the time and it was not
quiet during the performance. The audience could walk around, eat and drink during
the play. They cheered, booed and sometimes even threw objects at the actors.
Theatres were open arenas or playhouses that had room for up to three thousand
people. They were structures made mainly of wood. There was no heating and actors
got wet when it rained. The stage was higher and there was an open pit in front of it
where most of the people could stand in. Richer people and noblemen sat in the
gallery. There was almost no scenery because the dialogue was the most important
part of the play. Colourful and well-designed costumes were very important and told
the people about the status of a character. Women never performed in plays, so young
boys played female characters. The performances took place in the afternoon because
it was too dark at night.
There was no stage crew as there is today. Actors had to do everything themselves -
from making costumes to setting the stage.
Plays were organized by acting companies. They performed about 6 different plays
each week because they needed money to survive. They had almost no time for
rehearsals.
The companies in Shakespeare’s time had a hierarchical system.
• The company belonged to shareholders and mangers. They were responsible for
everything and got most of the money when the company was successful.
Sometimes they even owned there own buildings.
• Actors worked for the managers and after some time became a permanent member
of the company.
• Apprentices were young boys were allowed to act in menial roles. They also
played females characters in plays.
Lord Chamberlain’s Men and the Admiral’s Men were the two most important
companies in London at that time. Among the most famous theatres during were the
Globe, the Swan and the Fortune.
THE ENGLISH CIVIL WAR
Fought 1642-1651, the English Civil War saw King Charles I battle Parliament for
control of the English government. The war began as a result of a conflict over the
power of the monarchy and the rights of Parliament. During the early phases of the
war, the Parliamentarians expected to retain Charles as king, but with expanded
powers for Parliament. Though the Royalists won early victories, the
Parliamentarians ultimately triumphed. As the conflict progressed, Charles was
executed and a republic formed. Known as the the Commonwealth of England, this
state later became the Protectorate under the leadership of Oliver Cromwell. Though
Charles II was invited to take the throne in 1660, Parliament's victory established the
precedent that the monarch could not rule without the consent of Parliament and
placed the nation on the path towards a formal parliamentary monarchy.
Causes
Ascending to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland in 1625, Charles I
believed in the divine right of kings which stated that his right to rule came from God
rather than any earthly authority. This led him to frequently clash with Parliament as
their approval was needed for raising funds. Dissolving Parliament on several
occasions, he was angered by its attacks on his ministers and reluctance to provide
him with money. In 1629, Charles elected to stop calling Parliaments and began
funding his rule through outdated taxes such as ship money and various fines. This
approach angered the population and nobles. This period became known as the
personal rule of Charles I as well as the Eleven Years' Tyranny. Consistently short of
funds, the king found that policy was frequently determined by the state of the
nation's finances. 1638, Charles encountered difficulty when he attempted to impose
a new Book of Prayer on the Church of Scotland. This action touched off the
Bishops' Wars and led the Scots to document their grievances in the National
Covenant.
The Road to War
Assembling an ill-trained force of around 20,000 men, Charles marched north in the
spring of 1639. Reaching Berwick on the Scottish border, he encamped and soon
entered into negotiations with with the Scots. This resulted in the Treaty of Berwick
which temporarily defused the situation. Concerned that Scotland was intriguing
with France and chronically short on funds, Charles was compelled to call a
Parliament in 1640. Known as the Short Parliament, he dissolved it in less than a
month after its leaders criticized his policies. Renewing hostilities with Scotland,
Charles' forces were defeated by the Scots, who captured Durham and
Northumberland. Occupying these lands, they demanded £850 per day to halt their
advance.
With the situation in the north critical and still needing money, Charles recalled
Parliament that fall. Reconvening in November, Parliament immediately began
introducing reforms including a need for regular parliaments and prohibiting the king
from dissolving the body without the members' consent. The situation worsened
when Parliament ordered the Earl of Strafford, a close advisor of the king, executed
for treason. In January 1642, an angry Charles marched on Parliament with 400 men
to arrest five members. Failing, he withdrew to Oxford.
The First Civil War - Royalist Ascent
Through the summer of 1642, Charles and Parliament negotiated while all levels of
society began to align in support of either side. While rural communities typically
favored the king, the Royal Navy and many cities aligned themselves with
Parliament. On August 22, Charles raised his banner at Nottingham and commenced
building an army. These efforts were matched by Parliament who was assembling a
force under the leadership of Robert Devereux, 3rd Earl of Essex. Unable to come to
any resolution, the two sides clashed at the Battle of Edgehill in October. Largely
indecisive, the campaign ultimately resulted in Charles withdrawing to his wartime
capital at Oxford. The next year saw Royalist forces secure much of Yorkshire as
well as win a string of victories in western England. In September, Parliamentarian
forces, led by the Earl of Essex, succeeded in forcing Charles to abandon the siege of
Gloucester and won a victory at Newbury. As the fighting progressed, both sides
found reinforcements as Charles freed troops by making peace in Ireland while
Parliament allied with Scotland.
First Civil War - Parliamentarian Victory
Dubbed the Solemn League and Covenant, the alliance between Parliament and
Scotland saw a Scottish Covenanter army under the Earl of Leven enter northern
England to reinforce Parliamentarian forces. Though Sir William Waller was beaten
by Charles at Cropredy Bridge in June 1644, Parliamentarian and Covenanter forces
won a key victory at the Battle of Marston Moor the following month. A key figure
in the triumph was cavalryman Oliver Cromwell. Having gained the upper hand, the
Parliamentarians formed the professional New Model Army in 1645 and passed the
Self-denying Ordinance which prohibited its military commanders from holding a
seat in Parliament. Led by Sir Thomas Fairfax and Cromwell, this force routed
Charles at the Battle of Naseby that June and scored another victory at Langport in
July. Though he attempted to rebuild his forces, Charles' situation declined and in
April 1646 he was forced to flee from the Siege of Oxford. Riding north, he
surrendered to the Scots at Southwell who later turned him over to Parliament.
The Second Civil War
With Charles defeated, the victorious parties sought to establish a new
government. In each case, they felt that the king's participation was critical. Playing
the various groups off one another, Charles signed an agreement with the Scots,
known as the Engagement, by which they would invade England on his behalf in
exchange for the establishment of Presbyterianism in that realm. Initially supported
by Royalist revolts, the Scots were ultimately defeated at Preston by Cromwell and
John Lambert in August and the rebellions put down through actions such as Fairfax's
Siege of Colchester. Angered by Charles' betrayal, the army marched on Parliament
and purged those who still favored an association with the king. The remaining
members, known as the Rump Parliament, ordered Charles tried for treason.
The Third Civil War
Found guilty, Charles was beheaded on January 30, 1649. In the wake of the king's
execution, Cromwell sailed for Ireland to eliminate resistance there which had been
directed by the Duke of Ormonde. With the assistance of Admiral Robert Blake,
Cromwell landed and won bloody victories at Drogheda and Wexford that fall. The
following June saw the late king's son, Charles II, arrive in Scotland where he allied
with the Covenanters. This forced Cromwell to leave Ireland and he was soon
campaigning in Scotland. Though he triumphed at Dunbar and Inverkeithing, he
allowed Charles II's army to move south into England in 1651. Pursuing, Cromwell
brought the Royalists to battle on September 3 at Worcester. Defeated, Charles II
escaped to France where he remained in exile.
Aftermath
With the final defeat of Royalist forces in 1651, power passed to the republican
government of the Commonwealth of England. This remained in place until 1653,
when Cromwell assumed power as Lord Protector. Effectively ruling as a dictator
until his death in 1658, he was replaced by his son Richard. Lacking the support of
the army, his rule was brief and the Commonwealth returned in 1659 with the re-
installation of the Rump Parliament. The following year, with the government in
shambles, General George Monck, who had been serving as Governor of Scotland,
invited Charles II to return and take power. He accepted and by the Declaration of
Breda offered pardons for acts committed during the wars, respect for property rights,
and religious toleration. With Parliament's consent, he arrived in May 1660 and was
crowned the following year on April 23.
THE PURITANS
Like the Pilgrims, the Puritans were English Protestants who believed that the
reforms of the Church of England did not go far enough. In their view, the liturgy
was still too Catholic. Bishops lived like princes. Ecclesiastical courts were corrupt.
Because the king of England was head of both church and state, the Puritans'
opposition to religious authority meant they also defied the civil authority of the state.
In 1630, the Puritans set sail for America. Unlike the Pilgrims who had left 10 years
earlier, the Puritans did not break with the Church of England, but instead sought to
reform it. Seeking comfort and reassurance in the Bible, they imagined themselves
re-enacting the story of the Exodus. Like the ancient Israelites, they were liberated by
God from oppression and bound to him by a covenant; like the Israelites, they were
chosen by God to fulfill a special role in human history: to establish a new, pure
Christian commonwealth. Onboard the flagship Arbella, their leader John Winthrop
reminded them of their duties and obligations under the covenant. If they honored
their obligations to God, they would be blessed; if they failed, they would be
punished.
Arriving in New England, the Puritans established the Massachusetts Bay Colony in a
town they named Boston. Life was hard, but in this stern and unforgiving place they
were free to worship as they chose. The Bible was central to their worship. Their
church services were simple. The organ and all musical instruments were forbidden.
Puritans sang psalms a cappella.
The Puritans were strict Calvinists, or followers of the reformer John Calvin. Calvin
taught that God was all-powerful and completely sovereign. Human beings were
depraved sinners. God had chosen a few people, "the elect," for salvation. The rest of
humanity was condemned to eternal damnation. But no one really knew if he or she
was saved or damned; Puritans lived in a constant state of spiritual anxiety, searching
for signs of God's favor or anger. The experience of conversion was considered an
important sign that an individual had been saved.
Salvation did not depend on outward behavior, but on a radical undertaking that
demanded each individual to plumb the very depths of his heart and soul. This
"Covenant of Grace" contrasted with the "Covenant of Works," which stressed the
importance of righteous behavior. Faith, not works, was the key to salvation. The
experience of conversion did not happen suddenly; it proceeded in fits and starts
punctuated by doubt, as divine power worked its way on fragile human material.
But it was not only individual salvation that mattered; the spiritual health and welfare
of the community as a whole was paramount as well, for it was the community that
honored and kept the covenant. The integrity of the community demanded religious
conformity. Dissent was tolerated, but only within strict limits.
John Winthrop understood that people were bound to disagree and was willing to
tolerate a range of opinion and belief. But he also recognized that if dissent were not
kept within bounds, it would undermine the community. And that is precisely what
happened. Two members of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, Roger Williams and
Anne Hutchinson, challenged the religious authority of the Puritan commonwealth
and threatened to destroy Winthrop's vision of "a city upon a hill."
The colony survived, but over time its religious fervor diminished. Scholars disagree
about when and why this happened. The Puritans themselves found it difficult to
maintain a society in a state of creative uncertainty. In 1679, a Puritan synod met to
deliberate the causes of widespread spiritual malaise. Blame was assigned to an
increase in swearing; a tendency to sleep at sermons; the spread of sex and alcohol,
especially in taverns, where women were known to bare their arms and, upon
occasion, even their breasts; and, most telling, the marked increase in lying and
lawsuits.
THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
By tradition, the "Scientific Revolution" refers to historical changes in thought &
belief, to changes in social & institutional organization, that unfolded in Europe
between roughly 1550-1700; beginning with Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543), who
asserted a heliocentric (sun-centered) cosmos, it ended with Isaac Newton (1642-
1727), who proposed universal laws and a Mechanical Universe.
Was there such a thing as the 'Scientific Revolution' -- and if the question makes
sense, what is it, or what was it? Better still, what do historians mean when they
speak of the 'Scientific Revolution'?
What follows is a modest attempt to clarify basic issues and suggest others that are
less obvious. As an introduction to the concept of the Scientific Revolution, the
following narrative provides examples that make the story increasingly complex,
arguably, it may seem to undermine the very notion of a Scientific Revolution. In any
case, this short essay should be viewed as but one example of how historians more
generally think about history.
Which is to say, the Scientific Revolution provides an excellent exercise for thinking
about how historical periodizations emerge, develop, and mature. Arguably,
periodizations serve as paradigms, for students and scholars alike. They also serve as
a forum for debate. Good periodizations foster debate, and the best among them grow
more richly problematic, they promote ever more focused research and ever more
imaginative and satisfying interpretations of past events.
All students of history confront these kinds of issues. They are ever present in any
historical periodization, whether it be the Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific
Revolution, and Enlightenment, or the Colonial Period, Civil War, Gilded Age,
'Sixties', or Harlem Renaissance.
More About the Scientific Revolution
A traditional description of the Scientific Revolution would go much further than our
opening mini-definition allowed. A good basic description would include some of the
following information (and inevitably) interpretive claims. Most specialists would
agree on the following basic interpretations traditionally associated with the
'Scientific Revolution'. As we have said, in European history the term 'Scientific
Revolution' refers to the period between Copernicus and Newton. But the
chronological period has varied dramatically over the last 50 years.
The broadest period acknowledged usually runs from Nicholas Copernicus (1473-
1543) and his De Revolutionibus to Isaac Newton (1642-1727). Some historians have
cut this back, claiming that it properly extends only to the publication of Newton's
Principia (1687) or to his Opticks (1704) or to Newton's death (1727). More radical
proposals have suggested that the Scientific Revolution might apply to the so-called
Enlightenment 'Newtonians' thus extending to roughly 1750. Further, as we shall see
below, some historians have cut back the earlier period. Some have all but removed
Copernicus from their chronological definition, claiming that the 'Copernican
Revolution' virtually began and ended in 1610 with the work of Galileo and Kepler.
Historians have consistently disputed the presumed beginning and ending dates of the
much-disputed 'Scientific Revolution'.
Most historians agree, however, that the traditional interpretation (which has its own
history) was based on belief in a core transformation which began in cosmology and
astronomy and then shifted to physics (some historians have argued that there were
parallel developments in anatomy and physiology, represented by Vesalius and
Harvey). Most profoundly, some historians have argued, these changes in "natural
philosophy" (= science) brought important transformations in what came to held as
"real" (ontology) and how Europeans justified their claims to knowledge
(epistemology).
The learned view of things in 16th-century thought was that the world was composed
of Four Qualities (Aristotle's Earth, Water, Air, Fire). By contrast, Newton's learned
contemporaries believed that the world was made of atoms or corpuscles (small
material bodies). By Newton's day most of learned Europe believed the earth moved,
that there was no such thing as demonic possession, that claims to knowledge (so the
story goes) should be based on the authority of our individual experience, that is, on
argument and sensory evidence. The motto of the Royal Society of London was:
Nullius in Verba, roughly, Accept nothing on the basis of words (or someone else's
authority).
Further Complexity for the Scientific Revolution
As a periodization, the Scientific Revolution has grown increasingly complex. As it
has attempted to take account of new research and alternative perspectives, new
additions and alterations have been made. Among the most obvious additions over
the last 50 years have been a number of sub-periodizations that have been spawned
by more narrow research topics, usually from a more focused topical theme or from a
more narrow chronological period. Among these sub-periodizations, the more widely
accepted include: The Copernican Revolution; the Galilean Revolution; the Keplerian
Revolution; the Cartesian Synthesis; and not least, the Newtonian Revolution and the
Newtonian Synthesis.
Understood as an historical periodization (which inevitably place limits of 'space,
time & theme' -- that is, periodizations are defined by geographical, chronological,
topical elements) the Scientific Revolution refers to European developments or
movements extending over periods of at least 75 to 185 years.
These developments involve changing conceptual, cultural, social, and institutional
relationships involving nature, knowledge and belief.
As mentioned, specialist do not agree on the exact dates of the Scientific Revolution.
Generally speaking, most scholars have reduced or entirely denied the earliest years
of the Scientific Revolution, usually associated with what has been long known as the
'Copernican Revolution'. One noted historian, for example, has argued that if there
was a Copernican Revolution, then it began and ended in 1610 with the work of
Galileo and Kepler. Other specialists, emphasizing the development of key
conceptual elements, have suggested that the key period of the Scientific Revolution
was 1610-1660. Other scholars, specializing in social and institutional elements, have
suggested that the period after 1660 was critical, as it was then that scientific
periodicals and state-sponsored science emerged.
Additional Details - The Scientific Revolution
As we have said, a strong traditional claim is that the Scientific Revolution stands for
a series of changes that stemmed from Copernicus' bold claim that the earth moves.
This claim clearly ran contrary to tradition, to the authority of the Ancients and to
established views in the universities and most church officials. Copernicus claimed
that the earth is not fixed and stationary in the center of the cosmos (geocentric and
geostatic) but instead argued that it rotates on its axis each day and revolves around
the sun each year.
From Copernicus' bold but simple claim, so the story goes, a complex series of new
developments were necessary to support his view and, at the same time, to replace
earlier beliefs. What was needed, at least in retrospect, were new astronomical
observations, these now associated with Tycho Brahe (1546-1601); new theoretical
modifications concerning planetary orbits and their motions, now associated with
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630); and not least, new theories of motion that would
accommodate a moving earth, these theories now associated with Galileo Galilei
(1564-1642), René Descartes (1596-1650), Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), and of
course, Isaac Newton (1642-1727). The latter, by acclaim, joined heaven and earth by
uniting terrestrial and celestial bodies under one set of universal laws of motion.
Newton invented the universe. It displaced the traditional Aristotelian cosmos. This
widely held view was due largely to the work of the historian Alexandre Koyré.
In this view, the 'Newtonian Synthesis' marked the shift from a closed, finite,
hierarchical, qualitative cosmos to an infinite, homogeneous, quantitative universe.
This change signaled that all things were one. There is one kind of matter, one set of
laws, one kind of space, one kind of time. Everything is always and everywhere the
same: Space, Time, Matter, Cause. Hence the very word: Universe.
This shift from Cosmos to Universe also marked a transformation from an Organic
Worldview to a Mechanical World Picture. That is, the Modern World Machine. All
of this, according to traditional definitions, would have been rather important in itself,
given the importance of science to 20th-century civilization.
But in the bargain, so the argument goes, not only was the world of Nature entirely
re-conceptualized, so was the nature of Human Knowledge. This in turn raised
questions about the traditional Human Eternal Verities -- how humans understood
themselves in relation to 'God, Nature, and Man'.
From these concerns came the 'Clockwork Universe' debates about God's relationship
to Nature and whether God was rational or willful. One historian suggested that God,
in effect, had been excommunicated from the world of humans -- not to the edge of
Space (as with Aristotle and Aquinas) but left there at the beginning of Time. From
such debates (according to this narrative) came new distinctions that walked the line
from Theism to Deism to Agnosticism and Atheism. Koyré, among others, was
concerned about alienation. In sum, as a simple overview, the traditional definition of
the Scientific Revolution with which we began focused on a wholesale redefinition of
nature and the categories of human knowing. The result was a deep and enduring
shift that led some historians to make the first appearances of Science synonymous
with Modern and Western. These historians found it difficult to talk meaningfully
about their world without 'Science' -- the defining characteristics of Modern and
Western, they seemed to suggest, were inconceivable without 'Science'. Further, they
saw Science as the defining element of the early modern period, more important than
the wars or forgotten treaties.
