Richard II and the Wonderful Parliament

From October to November 1386, the Wonderful Parliament took place in Westminster Abbey. Its initial purpose was to discuss King Richard II's request for money (his uncle, John of Gaunt, was pushing for war with France as part of the Hundred Years War). In fact, a French fleet had been massing across the Channel in Flanders all summer, and the rumor of invasion was credible. Money had been spent to have 10,000 soldiers surround London for protection, and more was requested to prepare for war with France. The king's request would have brought a sum of £155,000—this would have been the largest tax in England's history, and Parliament was alarmed.

Other issues arose as well. Richard's marriage to Anne of Bohemia was supposed to bring her father, Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, onto the English side. There did not seem to be much support from Charles, however, and the man who negotiated the marriage, Michael de la Pole, had been made chancellor a few years before and more recently made Earl of Suffolk. Also, Robert de Vere, 9th Earl of Oxford, had just been made Duke of Ireland. Richard's elevation of his favorites to such positions was very concerning to Parliament, who considered these men and others close to Richard to be out for themselves and inappropriate royal advisors.

Richard was going to absent himself from Parliament—he did not like being told what he could and could not do—but his uncle Thomas of Woodstock, the Duke of Gloucester, threatened him with being deposed if he did not attend.

Parliament considered de la Pole a bad chancellor and wanted him impeached. Richard was forced to get rid of his chancellor and deal in the future only with advisors approved by Parliament. He left Westminster and spent a year traveling the country, ignoring the advice of Parliament's approved advisors and trying to gather support for himself.

As for the French fleet, England got lucky: a rebellion in Ghent took their attention, and there was no invasion of England that season. Also in 1386, Gaunt left England to attempt his dream of succeeding to the throne of Castile. Parliament had never trusted him, assuming that he wanted the English throne himself. Richard was upset with him as well: Gaunt was the chief military leader, and the promise of claiming France did not materialize fast enough. Gaunt's wealth had often supported Richard's desires, but with Gaunt in Spain fighting his own battles, Richard had lost a source of support and felt deserted.

The rest of Richard's reign was going to be one long argument with Parliament about the extent of his power and autonomy. The Wonderful Parliament was considered even more damaging to him that the Merciless Parliament in 1388. That is our next stop on this brief tour of the life of Richard II.

Richard II, the Boy King

When King Edward III died on 21 June 1377, ideally his eldest son would have succeeded him. Unfortunately, Edward (called "The Black Prince") had died almost exactly one year before. History might look back and say the succession should have passed to the next available son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and at the time probably the wealthiest man in England after the Crown. English royal succession didn't work that way, however, and the next in line was the son of young Edward.

That son, Richard of Bordeaux, was 10 years old. Parliament wanted to crown him as quickly as possible, fearing that Gaunt would try to usurp the throne. At his coronation on 16 July 1377, Archbishop of Canterbury Simon Sudbury put the crown on his head and the succession was set.

Normally, a king in his minority would have a regency council that included his uncles—who obviously knew a lot about the administration and defense of the realm—but Parliament feared Gaunt's influence, so others were chosen such as Sir Simon Burley and Robert de Vere, 9th Earl of Oxford.

From 1377 to 1381, little is heard from or about the new king. Regency councils are managing national affairs. It is with the Peasants Revolt of 1381 that Richard becomes more active in public, especially when at 14 he rides out to address the rebels personally.

In many ways he was an oddity. He had picked up some different mannerisms from his upbringing on the continent. One was the eyebrow-raising use of a piece of cloth made especially for dealing with sneezes and coughs. Another was that he did not know English. He was the last English king whose first language was French; Simon Burley was his tutor in the English language.

Months after the Revolt, he married Anne of Bohemia, daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV. This arrangement, negotiated by Michael de la Pole, was supposed to give England a powerful ally in its problems with France.

A few years later came a parliament called the Wonderful Parliament. Unfortunately for Richard, it wasn't wonderful for him. I'll explain that next time.

Katherine Swynford, Widow

After John of Gaunt died, in 1399, his third wife, Katherine Swynford, lost a lot of status. His health had been declining (he was approaching 60 years old), and in 1398 he had been expelled from England because he had displeased his nephew, King Richard II. On 3 February 1399, Gaunt made a detailed will, leaving all movable possessions (clothing, furniture, jewelry, etc.) to Katherine. He died the next day.

Immediately, the king's escheators (officers meant to keep track of where a decedent's inheritance goes) seized everything, including the Lancaster estates. She made a plea to the king in March, and got the estates returned, along with an annuity of £1000. Later, the king allowed her to keep the estates she had been given prior to marriage with Gaunt, but took the Lancastrian estates, since the king would have to find a new Duke of Lancaster. She gave the estates of Kettlethorpe and Colby (received from her first husband, Sir Hugh Swynford), to her only son from that marriage, Thomas as Swynford. She moved to a rented house in Lincoln, where she lived out the rest of her days.

All this took place in 1399. In the fall of that year, Gaunt's son Henry Bolingbroke (who had been exiled for life by Richard) returned to England, deposing Richard and crowning himself Henry IV. Katherine and Gaunt's children, the Beauforts, and Thomas Swynford supported Henry.

Although the new king referred to Katherine officially as "the Mother of the King," she did not return to court life, staying quietly in Lincoln and all but disappearing from history. In 1400 Henry gave her a new estate in Yorkshire, and £200 of the annual rents of Huntingdonshire, as well as an annuity of 700 marks (this was all in addition to the £1000 that had been assigned to her long ago by Gaunt). She had more than enough to live comfortably anywhere in the kingdom.

She died on 10 May 1403 and was buried in a tomb in Lincoln Cathedral (see the illustration). Made of fine marble and decorated with heraldic shields, with a carved likeness of her on top, it was topped with a brass canopy. The figure of her was partially damaged in 1644 during the English Civil War.

The king who exiled Gaunt and Bolingbroke, Richard II, has been mentioned many times, but not directly discussed. I'll tell you tomorrow about a king who was a boy who did not speak the language of the country he ruled.

Katherine Swynford, Royal Bride

The love affair between John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford could hardly be a secret, especially when she started bearing his children while he was married to his second wife, Constance of Castile. Even before that his gifts to her of estates and castles and money could hardly be explained simply because of the care she gave to the daughters from his first wife, Blanche of Lancaster.

Katherine's increased social and economic status began in autumn of 1372, so that is likely when the affair truly began (although there must have been some attraction prior).

Katherine and Gaunt had four children between 1373 and 1381. The English chronicler Thomas Walsingham wrote of an event in March 1378 when Gaunt and Katherine were seen in public together:

...casting aside every shame of man and the fear of God, allowed himself to be seen riding through the Duchy with his concubine, a certain Katherine Swynford. [Chronicon Angliæ]

Supposedly Gaunt's family also warned him about the affair's consequences. His legitimate children might well have been concerned about their step-siblings and whatever favors might have been shown to them instead of to the "originals." In 1381, after the Peasants Revolt, Gaunt accepted that his behavior was partially to blame for the public unrest, and broke with Katherine.

After the death of Constance in 1394, however, Gaunt decided to take Katherine as his third wife and Duchess of Lancaster; this would also legitimize his children by her. They were married in Lincoln Cathedral on 13 January 1396. Gaunt had oral permission from Pope Boniface IX, so he wrote to the pope on 1 September 1396, confessing his affair and that it began while he was married but Katherine was not, laying out the details of her importance to the royal family. Boniface wrote a papal bull, declaring the marriage valid. He also legitimized the Beauforts, their four children born before the marriage.

With the papal blessing, everything changed. While Gaunt lived, no one could accuse Katherine of inappropriate behavior. They were free to be a couple in public. The illustration is of a poetic reading at court at the time, and there is speculation that the audience is meant to represent real people and that Katherine is probably one of them. Gaunt only lived another five years, however. Life as Duchess of Lancaster started well, and worked out well for the Beauforts later, but things changed after Gaunt's death. I'll tell you how next time.

Katherine Swynford, Royal Mistress

Katherine Swynford (c.1350? - 10 May 1403) was the daughter of a knight from Hainaut. Her father, Paon de Roet (his and Katherine's arms are shown), followed Philippa of Hainaut when she came to England to marry King Edward III. Katherine was a lady-in-waiting to the queen.

Just as kings found advantageous marriages for their offspring, so did they help their favorites marry well. Katherine Roet was married to Hugh Swynford, a knight in the retinue of John of Gaunt. Accordingly, Katherine was transferred to the household of Gaunt's wife, Blanche. When Blanche died in 1368, Katherine became lady-in-waiting to her daughters, Philippa and Elizabeth. Katherine and Hugh had three or four children.

In the same year that Hugh Swynford died, 1371, John of Gaunt married Constance of Castile and returned to England from the continent. Katherine was now lady-in-waiting to Constance, the new Duchess of Lancaster and also styled Queen of Castile. Katherine now had a little more to her name: Hugh was not wealthy, but the king and Gaunt made sure his estates in Lincolnshire became Katherine's (Hugh's son and heir being a minor, the estates would have become property of his overlords, the king and Gaunt). Gaunt also increased her annuity from 20 to 50 marks, a very decent sum, to help the upkeep of the estates.

In 1373, Katherine had a child, John Beaufort (the surname came from one of Gaunt's estates in Hainaut). The father was John of Gaunt. They had three more children, all while Constance of Castile was still alive. Gaunt did not exactly keep the relationship quiet: he gave Katherine an annuity and several estates as a sign of his favor. 

Knowing that Katherine was the favorite of Gaunt (the most powerful man in England after the king), many would try to curry favor with her. The mayor of Leicester gave her a gift of 16 shillings' worth of wine, recorded as to "Lady Katherine Swynford, mistress of the Duke of Lancaster." That was in August 1375 and is the first public acknowledgement of the affair. The public in general, however, was appalled at the behavior, and the two were forced to break off the affair in 1381. Katherine left her position as lady-in-waiting to the woman whose husband she was sleeping with and settled in Lincoln, likely the Kettlethorpe estate from her deceased husband.

What did Constance think of this affair? Did she know? Gaunt was her best option for getting to the Castilian throne that had been usurped from her father, so she may have taken the bad with the potential good. Her Castilian ladies-in-waiting, however, likely noticed and complained: in 1373 they were all sent by Gaunt to Nuneaton Priory, a Benedictine monastery many days' journey from London. (They were allowed back a year later.)

Katherine was not completely personae non grata, however. King Richard II made her a Lady of the Garter in 1387. She also was brought back into royal service, so to speak, by joining the household of Mary de Bohun, Gaunt's daughter-in-law by virtue of marriage to his eldest son, Henry Bolingbroke (the future King Henry IV).

Constance of Castile, Duchess of Lancaster, died 24 March 1394 and was buried in Leicester. Gaunt and Katherine were now free to pursue an open relationship. They were still haunted by the scandal, and the shadow of adultery. 

How they handled it, and what happened after, will be tomorrow's topic.

John of Gaunt

John of Gaunt (6 March 1340 - 3 February 1399) was a highly influential man in adulthood. He was the third son of Edward III and Queen Philippa, born while the queen was in Ghent in Flanders (called "Gaunt" in English). (Actually, he was the 4th son, but an earlier son had died after a few weeks, years before John was born.)

In the 1350s, he was raised in the household of his older brother Edward of Woodstock (later known as the Black Prince). Accounting records showed that John had two "Saracen" companions named Sigo and Nakon.

He spent much of his youth in France and Spain where he took part heavily in the "family business," which was fighting France in the Hundred Years War. Edward tried (as kings do) to arrange advantageous matches for his children, and for John he arranged a marriage to Blanche of Lancaster in 1359. Blanche was not only a great beauty, but her father was the powerful first Duke of Lancaster, Henry of Grosmont. (Trivia: both John and Blanche had King Henry III as their great-great-grandfather, making them third cousins.)

John's father-in-law died in 1361, and a year later Edward made John the Duke of Lancaster and gave him half Henry of Grosmont's lands. He inherited even more land when his wife's sister, Maud the Countess of Leicester, died childless in 1362. At this point John owned land in almost every county in England and 30 castles. The rents from these properties flowing upward to John gave him an income of £8,000 - £10,000 annually (the buying power of about $200 million today), and allowed him to maintain a lifestyle comparable to a king's.

In 1370 he took a small army to Aquitaine to reinforce his older brother Edward, whose health was beginning to suffer. John was left in charge while Edward returned to England. In September 1371, John returned to England, but not before re-marrying. Blanche had died in 1368. This time, John married Constance of Castile, daughter of Peter the Cruel. Peter had been king of Castile, but was killed in 1369 by his half-brother Henry. John felt that Constance gave him a potential claim to the throne of Castile. He even introduced her to England as Queen of Castile and tried to style himself King of Spain, or at least "my lord of Spain," but no one was buying it. Ultimately, his and Constance's daughter Catherine married Henry II's son, Henry III of Castile, settling the matter of Castilian succession.

Now I'd like to jump to John's third wife, even though we haven't discussed the death of his second; yes, that's an important clue to what's to come. See you next time.

Who Were the Lollards

Was Lollardy popular? Besides for Sir John Oldcastle and John Wycliffe, I mean.

Because Lollards believed that baptism and confession were not necessary for salvation, many people were drawn to Lollardy: it was comforting to know that generations of good people who were never baptized would be welcome into Heaven.

Many priests appreciated Lollardy for its egalitarian and back-to-basics nature: praying to saints and saints' images was idolatry that should be shunned. A Bible in the vernacular was important so that everyone who wished (but did not know Latin) had access to it. All the "smells and bells" trappings of the Roman Catholic Church (bells, organs, holy water, incense, grand buildings), were not Bible-based and just being grandiose for the sake of it. Clerics should not be allowed to hold positions in government and have temporal power.

Lollards did not bother with fasting or abstinence, and they challenged clerical celibacy. They did not recognize any special authority of the pope, and especially of papal pardons. Personal piety was more important than what the Church said it could do for you. This made the individual feel more responsible for and in charge of his life.

This idea of the importance of the individual rather than the importance of the "higher powers" in society was very attractive to the common people, and spilled over to their notions of the need for social and economic reform. Heavy taxation and always being made to feel that you were less important than the nobility started to be questioned. Lollardy's tenets were intimately tied to movements such as the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.

Not just commoners were drawn to Lollardy. There was a group of Lollard Knights in the last quarter of the 1300s. Among them were Lewis Clifford, John Clanvowe, and Richard Stury. I mention those names particularly because they were all friends of Geoffrey Chaucer, himself someone who was willing to make fun of the clergy, write about the common man, and write in English (court literature prior was usually in French).

All these men had another person in common, one far more powerful than they. That was John of Gaunt, third son of King Edward III and uncle of King Richard II. Gaunt was at one time the most powerful and influential man in England, but all things come to an end. I'd love to tell you more tomorrow.

Lollardy

What was Lollardy, and why was it so dangerous or objectionable that Sir John Oldcastle needed to be executed for it in 1414? That Wycliffe had to be condemned for it, especially when he translated the Bible? Why was it part of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381? Why was it important to Thomas Arundel to stamp it out?

Lollardy was an attempt in the later 14th century to make radical reforms in Western Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church. It had a synonym in "Wycliffite," because Lollards were followers of the reform ideas of John Wycliffe. "Lollard" was a pejorative nickname whose origin is uncertain, but may come from Middle Dutch lollaerd, "mumbler." In fact, "lollaerd" was used in the Netherlands much earlier than Wycliffe's movement  for non-mainstream groups such as the Beghards/Beguines and Fraticelli.

So what are some of Wycliffe's points that caught on? One is the belief in consubstantiation. The Roman Catholic Church had been teaching transubstantiation: that the bread and wine were transformed into body and blood in a way that meant they were no longer bread and wine. Wycliffe said they remained bread and wine even though the presence of God was in them as well.

What else? How about that baptism and confession were not necessary for salvation? In the New Testament, in 1 Peter 2:9, it reads:

You are royal priests, a holy nation, God’s very own possession. As a result, you can show others the goodness of God, for he called you out of the darkness into his wonderful light. 

Exodus 19:6 has "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation."

The Lollard idea was that everyone is part of a "universal priesthood" and therefore the Church does not have the ability to give a particular divine authority to a priest. With no special divine authority, there is no value in making a confession to a priest, and anyone can baptize.

Wycliffe also believed that everyone should have access to the Bible, and so he produced the first Bible translation into Middle English vernacular. (The illustration from the 19th century shows him giving his Bible translation to his followers.) I say "produced" because scholars now believe he guided others to write parts of it and did not write it all himself. Some think there were earlier English versions that he used/incorporated/was inspired by.

So how did Lollardy catch on? If it was so different from what the Church officially believed, was it going to receive a wide acceptance? Tomorrow we'll see who from the upper echelons of society might have adopted Lollard ideas.

The Oldcastle Revolt

When Sir John Oldcastle escaped from the Tower of London to avoid execution for the heresy of Lollardy, he fled to Cooling Castle and became the center of an attempt to revolt against King Henry V. Oldcastle sent messages to Lollard friends, many of whom were wealthy and could afford to outfit followers with weapons.

One group started rebelling prematurely on 26 December 1413 in North Lincolnshire, but ended it to head to London, where they were all supposed to meet on 9 January 1414. There were many priests among the Lollards who believed in the need for reform in the Church. They helped organize groups in Derbyshire, Essex, Leicestershire, Bristol—everywhere in England, in fact.

They were not numerous enough to make a difference, however. Two yeomen spied on the rebels and found Oldcastle's hidden location. Oldcastle, learning that he was found out, decided to move ahead and destroy churches, ultimately hoping to overthrow the king.

Henry gathered troops the evening of the 9th to confront the group that was assembling in London, and sent troops on the roads to stop any others from joining the rebels. Dozens of Lollards were taken into captivity after a (not surprisingly) brief battle of two very unmatched armies. On 10 January trials were held for the heretics/traitors.

Oldcastle had managed to evade capture for a few days, but was caught—badly wounded in the process—and brought to London on a horse litter. As a heretic he should have been burned at the stake. As a traitor who turned against his king, he merited hanging (and drawing and quartering). They decided to do both. The illustration in this and yesterday's posts show him burning in the gallows. If he were lucky, then the hanging killed him before he could suffer the agonizing torture of being cooked in the flames. (It is possible that Henry—mindful of their earlier friendship—arranged this so that he would die from hanging first, saving him some suffering.)

I mentioned in yesterday's post that Oldcastle was the subject of an anonymous Elizabethan play that was likely the source material for Shakespeare's treatment of Falstaff. I also said Oldcastle's family would become important later. In fact, when Shakespeare's Henry IV appeared on stage in 1597-98, the character we know as Sir John Falstaff was called "Sir John Oldcastle." In Henry IV, Part 1, Prince Hal calls Falstaff "my old lad of the castle." In an early text of Henry IV, Part 2 in 1600, one of Falstaff's lines is preceded by "Old." instead of "Fals." And the iambic pentameter is thrown off in some lines that include "Falstaff" that would scan properly if "Oldcastle" were substituted.

The truth is, in the Elizabethan Age Protestantism had changed England and the world, and executed Lollards were seen as holy martyrs. Moreover, the Cobhams were very powerful. Objections to their famous ancestor being portrayed in this light caused the change in the Henry plays.

So what ideas was Lollardy promoting that were so threatening to the established order? Let's go into that next.

Sir John Oldcastle

Thinking of King Henry V of England often brings to mind the play by Shakespeare and the characters within. Shakespeare probably learned about them from an anonymous Elizabethan play, The Famous Victories of Henry the fifth: Containing the Honourable Battel of Agin-court: As it was plaide by the Queenes Maiesties Players. The play describes Prince Henry as an irresponsible youth who later becomes king and takes a completely serious turn, turning his back on his earlier lifestyle and the friends he had then. Its first printing was 1594; Shakespeare's first of the Henry plays, Henry IV, Part 1, came out in 1597.

One of Henry's friends was Sir John Oldcastle, the model for the Shakespeare's character of Falstaff. His family was well-to-do (this becomes important tomorrow). He was involved in the Welsh campaigns against Owain Glendower, and was made a captain of some of the Welsh castles. It was probably around this time that he came to know young Henry. Sir John was in parliament in 1404 as a Knight of the Shire for Herefordshire. He was later High Sheriff of Herefordshire and justice of the peace. When he married Joan, heiress of Cobham (an important Kent family), his financial fortunes rose: he came to own several manors as well as Cooling Castle. From then on his title in Parliament was "Lord Cobham."

He had another trait, however, that did not aid him in advancement. He was a Lollard.

Lollards were "proto-Protestants," a movement that was sparked by the ideas of John Wycliffe who wanted reform in Western Christianity. Lollards were considered heretics and dealt with accordingly when confirmed in their ideas. When the churches on his (wife's) estates engaged in unlicensed preaching, Sir John was accused of Lollardy. Henry was informed of this, but refused to take action against his friend until firm proof could be found.

It was. Something he had written was discovered that confirmed his Lollard beliefs. Again, Henry would not condemn his friend until he had spoken to him personally. Oldcastle was willing to offer up to the king "all his fortune in this world," but would not change his beliefs. He fled from Windsor and the king's presence to Cooling Castle. At this point, Henry had to let the wheels of justice run their course. Oldcastle refused the summons by the archbishop to appear before court, but Oldcastle obeyed when Henry issued a Royal Writ. Oldcastle was sentenced to burning as a heretic.

Henry ordered a reprieve of 40 days in the Tower of London to allow Oldcastle to repent. In that time, he escaped the Tower. At that point, with nothing else to lose, he decided to strike back.

How? I'll tell you tomorrow, as well as why I wrote that parenthetical note in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

Henry's College Years

Henry V (16 September 1386 - 31 August 1422) was King of England from 1413 until his death.

For a time, in his youth, he was at Queens College in Oxford. There are no records saying he was enrolled (he would have been very young at the time, considering that he was away from Oxford by the time he was sixteen, fighting the Battle of Shrewsbury), but there is other evidence to examine.

For one, his uncle Henry Beaufort was chancellor there from 1397-99. A resident of Oxford named John Rouse affirms in a history that Henry studied there "under the guardianship of his uncle Henry Beaufort, then Chancellor of Oxford."

As king, Henry supported Queens College's rights in a dispute with Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Arundel. After this, Henry made sure that Queens would not be bothered by Canterbury, and instead put it under the protection of the Archbishop of York.

It is also recorded that he learned to appreciate literature and music while at Queens. Prior to Queens he had learned the harp, the recorder, and the flute. While campaigning in 1421 in France he even had a harp delivered to him. As king he granted pensions to musical composers. He is even known to have set to music two parts of the Mass, the Gloria and the Sanctus. Note the illustration and the words in red in the upper-left corner: "Roy Henry." The music is "highly skillful" and was possibly done with help from a professional composer. You can hear the selections at this link.

In a first for an English king, he learned to write in the Middle English vernacular.

Most people's knowledge of Henry is based on Shakespeare's plays. If they remember anything about the plays, it is probably the larger-than-life character of Falstaff. Falstaff was based on a real friend of Henry, Sir John Oldcastle. And yes, Henry had to change his attitude toward Oldcastle radically from when he was a prince. The colorful Sir John Oldcastle and his fate is a good tale for next time.

The Royal Physician

Where there are royals and people of means, they will endeavor to have the best health care. A physician who had a good track record was well worth his fees (and worth giving special dispensations to; consider the example in the 5th paragraph of this post).

Although I would never want to live in the time before modern medicine, I have to admit there were some clever men and women who certainly made a difference in people's lives. One such was John Bradmore, court surgeon to King Henry IV of England. He was from a family of surgeons: his brother Nicholas was a surgeon, and his daughter Agnes married a surgeon named John Longe.

A lot of surgeons in the Middle Ages had side hobbies as metalworkers, no doubt because it was convenient to be able to visualize and manufacture your own instruments. John was a metalworker (and also called a "gamester," suggesting he made jewelry, or used gems for their supposed curative properties (see the use of amethyst here). Facility with metals could arouse suspicion, however.

The Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 between forces led by King Henry's son Henry (who would become Henry V) and Henry "Hotspur" Percy resulted in an arrow embedded in the prince's left cheek. Higher and it might have taken out an eye and gone into his brain. Lower and it might have hit his throat and he could have bled to death. He survived the blow, but the arrow was going to require careful handling.

Normal procedure for an arrow in the flesh was to push it through and treat the wound; this could not be done without driving it through Henry's skull. The surgeons on hand tried to pull it back out, but either the shaft broke or it came free from the point; either way, the arrowhead was still there at the bottom of a deep wound.

John Bradmore would have been the ideal choice for the procedure. There was one problem: Bradmore was in jail. He was suspected of counterfeiting coins, a serious offense against the Crown. This was no time for standing on principle, however. Bradmore was sent for with haste.

Bradmore wrote one of the first treatises on surgery, called Philomena, and in it he describes his steps to help young Henry. He used the pith from an elder branch wrapped in honey-soaked linen to probe the wound to assess its depth. He then used increasingly larger probes to expand the wound. He designed an instrument (the illustration is one re-creation of it based on his description) that he could insert, twisting a screw to open the tongs and grip the arrowhead. He was able to wiggle the arrowhead back and forth and exact it. He then filled the wound with white wine, laying over it a poultice of bread, flour, barley, and honey. He stayed with the prince, changing the dressing as needed, until Henry recovered.

Bradmore died nine years later, in 1412, but lived on a handsome pension from the King in that time. He deserved it; surviving a wound like that was nearly impossible: septicemia or tetanus would have killed anyone without the extreme care that Bradmore provided. Henry went on to become King Henry V, win the Battle of Agincourt, etc.

Before Henry went on to fight battles and get wounded, he had other pursuits. I want to talk about his youth a little more, and his time at college. See you tomorrow.

Henry V

Henry of Monmouth was so-called because he was born in a tower at Monmouth Castle in Wales, but the date of his birth was not recorded because he was never expected to be king. (It has since been decided to call it 16 September 1386.)

King of England at the time was Richard II. Henry's father was the king's cousin (Henry senior was the son of John of Gaunt, younger brother of Richard II's father, Edward the Black prince.) Henry senior took part in a revolt against Richard, which resulted in his exile in 1398.

At that point, Richard took the twelve-year-old Henry under his wing, taking him to Ireland. A year later, his grandfather John of Gaunt died and the Lancastrian rebellion overthrew Richard and put Henry's father on the throne as Henry IV. Young Henry was now the eldest son of the reigning king, and was named heir apparent, Prince of Wales, and Duke of Lancaster. He also became Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Chester and Duke of Aquitaine.

In 1400 he was named Sheriff of Cornwall and put in charge of part of the military (note that he is about fourteen years old). In 1403 he led an English army to fight Owain Glendower (previously mentioned here). At the battle of Shrewsbury in 1403 against Henry Percy (immortalized as "Hotspur" in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1), an arrow was embedded in the left side of our Henry's face.

This would have been dire for any soldier, but the king's son was going to receive the best care. The royal physician treated it with honey as a natural antiseptic, and developed a tool to extract the embedded arrowhead before flushing the wound with alcohol. The patient survived with impressive scars that proved his battle experience (although you'll note the absence of scars in the portrait above).

That physician was John Bradmore, and is too interesting a character to not stop and talk about him next.

The Order of the Dragon

Sigismund, King of Hungary, had an awkward relationship to that title. He only became king because of his marriage to Queen Mary of Hungary. But let me go back a bit.

Mary was born in 1371, and with the death of her father, Louis I the Great, in 1382, she was crowned "King"; her mother, Elizabeth of Bosnia, managed her regency. A female king did not sit well with the nobles, who would rather have had the throne go to Mary's distant cousin, Charles III of Naples. Charles agreed.

Charles decided he should rule Hungary, and took steps to that end, arriving in Dalmatia September 1385. Meanwhile, Sigismund of Luxembourg invaded Upper Hungary (now Slovakia) in 1385, forcing Elizabeth to give him Mary in marriage. Charles' stronger claim meant he was crowned king on 31 December 1385, but the queen mother Elizabeth managed to get Charles killed in February of 1386. Mary was restored to the throne, giving Sigismund the chance to become king. Charles' supporters captured Elizabeth and Mary that July. Elizabeth was killed in January 1387, but Mary was released in June. During their captivity, Sigismund had been crowned by the nobility, and so was in a position to have his bride freed. Mary died in her early twenties in 1395, falling from a horse on a hunting trip while pregnant. (This is leading to the titular topic, never fear.)

This left Sigismund as King of Hungary under circumstances that seemed very tenuous, especially after Mary's death. He needed a way to elevate his importance in the eyes of Hungary and its neighbors and allies. An example of his status was when, in the 1396 Battle of Nicopolis that attempted to help liberate Bulgaria from the Ottomans, Sigismund's leadership was ignored by the French leader John of Nevers. It was small consolation that John was overwhelmed and Sigismund was one of the few survivors.

In December 1408 he founded a new chivalric order. The primary purpose was to unite leaders in the fight against the Ottomans; its secondary purpose (which could not have escaped notice) was to unite leaders under the founder. He did not give it a name: members wore a badge (the illustration is a recreation based on what remnants exist in museums); since the badge was clearly a dragon, it was referred to by names that were variations on "Order of the Dragon."

It lasted until the 16th century, and included many nobles and princes from that part of the world, including Vlad II Dracul and his son Vlad III Dracul, the inspiration for Bram Stoker's Dracula. There were few members from Western Europe; some of them declared themselves allies because they believed in the anti-Ottoman cause, but did not take the oath and wear the badge. One of these was, like Dracula, also the subject of a work of fiction, this time by Shakespeare (and others, to be honest). Tomorrow I'll talk a little about Henry V of England.

Vlad the Father

Vlad III Dracul was the son of Vlad II Dracul. Vlad the father was an illegitimate son of Mircea I of Wallachia, voivode (military leader) of Wallachia, who died in 1418. Under Mircea, Wallachia controlled the largest territory in its history. After his death, succession passed through a few of his sons before it got to Vlad II.

We know little about Vlad II's early life, but he must have been born prior to 1395 because historians agree that by that date he was sent to Hungary as a hostage to King Sigismund. Vlad spent some time there: Sigismund claimed that Vlad had been educated at his court.

When Vlad's father died (and the succession was fought over by various sons, both legitimate and otherwise), Vlad stayed in Hungary and other parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Sigismund treated him well, inducting him into the chivalric Order of the Dragon (the inspiration for Vlad and his son to add Dracul "Dragon" as an epithet). He was even asked to be the official receiver when the Emperor of Constantinople, John VIII Paleologos, visited to ask for help against the Ottomans in 1423.

Vlad hoped some day to return to Wallachia as its leader, but while waiting for that day he settled in Transylvania. While there he lived in Sighișoara, in a house where there is now a plaque commemorating his time. The plaque claims that his son Vlad II was born there. Vlad the elder also had coins minted there.  Sighișoara is a UNESCO World Heritage Site because it is the model of a small medieval fortified town.

Vlad ruled Wallachia twice. The first time was 1436-1442 after his brother Alexander I. In 1442, after being accused of treachery by the Ottomans (long story), he was summoned by the Ottoman governor of Bulgaria to show loyalty. He left his eldest son Mircea in charge. Vlad was captured by the Ottomans. released later, he returned to Wallachia and became voivode again from 1443-1447, after which he was dethroned by the governor of Hungary who put his nephew Vladislav in place. Vlad II was executed.

Sigismund of Hungary had created the Order of the Dragon ostensibly to fight the Ottoman Empire. Let's see how that worked out for him next time.

The Night Attack at Târgoviște

Most of the history of human beings was spent in the dark; that is, without efficient illumination. There were ways and ways of maneuvering in the dark of the night, but they were a far cry from flashlights and streetlights. Accomplishing tasks in the dead of night were hampered by the lack of lighting. War, especially, was difficult, because you needed to distinguish friend from foe, and not trip over things. Military engagements were rarely staged at night.

So when Vlad Tsepes, voivode of Wallachia, chose a night-time attack on Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire, he showed particular daring. Here's why and it happened.

Mehmed had aided Vlad in re-taking Wallachia from Vlad's usurping cousin, but was outraged that Vlad would not therefore pay him homage (he impaled the two envoys sent to collect the homage, called jizya). 

But let's jump back a bit. Mehmed would have really liked free rein of the Danube, whose left bank was controlled by Wallachia from which an attack on Ottoman ships could come. Pope Pius II had called for a Crusade against the Ottomans in 1460, but Vlad was the only potentate who showed any interest in it. The lack of enthusiasm for a Crusade emboldened Mehmed to spread his power further. In pursuit of his goal, he wound up capturing a friend of Vlad's, torturing his men and sawing Vlad's friend in half.

This is when Vlad wrote to Mehmed, saying he could not afford to pay the jizya, nor could he accept Mehmed's offer to meet and negotiate because he feared Hungary would try to conquer Wallachia if he left. That is when Mehmed discovered that Vlad was going to actually meet with Hungary's Matthias Corvinus, and Mehmed sent men to arrange an ambush. Vlad learned about it beforehand and ambushed the ambushers, attacking with handguns while they were trapped in a narrow pass.

Shortly after, Vlad invaded Bulgaria and caused great devastation and death. When Mehmed next entered Bulgaria, he discovered (by Vlad's count, in a letter to Corvinus) 23,884 Turks impaled waiting for him. There were several skirmishes and battles between Vlad's and Mehmed's armies, and Vlad prevailed in all.

Later, Mehmed advanced toward the Wallachian capital of Târgoviște. On 17 June 1462, Vlad attacked during the night. He was prepared: he had disguised himself as a Turk and snuck into the camp, wandering around the make sure he knew the layout of the camp and where the Sultan's tent was. He attacked in the night with thousands of horsemen, blowing bugles and carrying torches (see illustration). An Italian chronicler claims they attacked several times from three hours after sunset until four in the morning. A recounting by a Wallachian veteran claims that Mehmed fled shamelessly in the confusion.

Vlad's army was pursued days later, leading to another grisly sight: the road leading to the Bulgarian capital was lined with 20,000 impaled Ottomans. Vlad certainly understood the value of psychological warfare.

A note on the name "Dracula." It simply means "Son of Dracul." Vlad was the third of that name, the son of Vlad Dracul II. Dracul means "Dragon." So did Vlad III get his bloodthirstiness from his father, along with the name? We'll look at dad Dracul next time.

Dracula versus the Turks

Long before he engaged in the bloodthirsty military tactics that made him the historical inspiration for a vampire count, Vlad Tsepes (a young teen) and his brother Radu (12; called "the handsome") were hostages of the Ottoman Empire to ensure the loyalty of their father, Vlad II "The Dragon," Voivode (Prince, military leader) of Wallachia.

Vlad's father and eldest brother were killed when a governor of Hungary invaded Wallachia in 1447 and installed Vlad's cousin Vladislav, but then Hungary tried to attack the Ottomans with Vladislav along. The Ottomans decided the best counter was to invade Wallachia with Vlad Tsepes along. It was successful, but when Vladislav re-invaded within a year, Vlad had to return to the Ottoman Empire for safety.

Later, Vladislav's alliance with Hungary deteriorated, and Hungary threw its influence in with Vlad, so he invaded Wallachia, and after some bloody exchanges including starting the practice of impaling enemies (and earning the nickname "Vlad the Impaler"), he installed himself as voivode in 1460.

Because he had been freed and had help from the Ottomans, Sultan Mehmed II sent two envoys to Vlad to demand homage; Vlad had them impaled (of course). In February 1462 he invaded Ottoman territory, impaling (of course) tens of thousands of Turks. Mehmed decided that revenge was best served by replacing Vlad in Wallachia with his younger brother Radu. Vlad decided an alliance with the King of Hungary, Matthias Corvinus, was his next best option for help. Mehmed learned that Vlad was heading to see Corvinus, and had his men ambush Vlad. Vlad managed to escape the ambush.

His next move is known as the Night Attack at Târgoviște. That, and the end of Dracula, will be presented tomorrow.

The Pope and Dracula

Pope Pius II (18 October 1405 - 14 August 1464) was very busy, looking for political alliances and ways to expand his authority.

It wasn't all politics: in 1461 he canonized Saint Catherine of Siena. Much of the rest of his energy was put into more worldly actions, however, even if they had religious goals.

One of his first actions in 1458 was to make an alliance with Ferdinand II of Aragon who was pressing a claim to Naples (Naples was being contested between the House of Aragon and the House of Anjou.) In 1461, however, he persuaded King Louis XI of France to abolish something called the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, established in 1438 that required a Church Council every ten years that had power to overrule the papacy in France. Louis thought that, in turn, Pius would support him in the Naples question, but Pius stood by his alliance with Ferdinand and Louis reinstated the Pragmatic Sanction again.

He tried to mediate between the two sides of the Thirteen Years' War between Poland and the Teutonic Knights. Failing to bring them to agreement, he declared both groups anathema.

When Duke Sigismund arrested Nicholas of Cusa (when he was bishop of Brixen) for attempting reforms and reclaiming lost diocesan revenue, Pius excommunicated Sigismund.

He was very concerned about the Turks, who had come as far west as they ever had in 1453 with the taking of Constantinople. He convened a congress in Mantua in 1459 to arrange a new Crusade against the Turks. The attempt failed; Christendom did not rise to the occasion. He did, however, inspire a prince of Wallachia, a province in Romania, to mount a war against Sultan Mehmed II of Turkey. That prince was named Vlad Tsepes, also known as Vlad III, or Vlad the Impaler, but whose other nickname came down to modern times as a famous literary figure: Dracula.

Tomorrow I'll tell you about how Dracula tried to save Christendom from infidels.

The Loving Pope Pius II

Pius II was the only pope to write an autobiography while he reigned. Lest you think he probably sanitized his life so that it seemed more appropriate for a pope, in this case he included events that were quite the opposite. He was an author of more than an autobiography: he also wrote Historia de duobus amantibus ("A Tale of Two Lovers"; see the illustration), and others.

Born Enea Silvio Bartolomeo Piccolomini to a soldier, he was one of 18 children (many of whom did not live long). He worked at the family farm until the age of 18, when he left to study at Siena, where he settled as a teacher. In 1431 he left teaching to be secretary to a bishop who was on his way to the Council of Basel, but changed jobs when that bishop ran out of money. He then went to Scotland on a secret mission, where he had a dalliance and fathered a child, who died young. He described Scotland as "wild, bare and never visited by the sun in winter."

Back in Basel, he was offered a diaconate, but disliked the obligation of abstinence. He was sent to Strasbourg, where he fathered another child (who died at 14 months). Later, at the court of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick III, he was named court poet for his cleverness and facility with language. While there, it is believed that he observed events that were turned into the "Tale of Two Lovers."

Enea did not care much for morals or strictness, but he realized that the way to power lay in the Church. His diplomatic skills working for Pope Eugene IV impressed those around him, so Eugene's successor Nicholas V made him Bishop of Trieste, and later Bishop of Siena. Now he wanted to advance, and desired to become a cardinal. He thought his chance came in 1455, but then Pope Calixtus III wanted to promote his own nephews first, and so Enea did not become a cardinal until 1456.

That meant, however, that he was part of the papal conclave on 10 August 1458, right after Calixtus died. Enea did his best to work his diplomatic skills among the cardinals and, although there were many with more experience and better ethical reputations, he managed to gather the votes so that a second ballot elected him unanimously.

According to his own writing, he did not rise above the desires of the flesh, but he did not neglect papal duties, and was keen on spreading Christianity, calling for a crusade against the Turks, who had taken Constantinople in 1453 and were now a strong presence in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Politics makes strange bedfellows, and successful Crusades sometimes required allying oneself with potentates you would not normally work with. Pius reached out to a voivode ("chief military leader") of a region in Romania called Wallachia, whose position north of the Turks would make him a helpful ally in surrounding them. Tomorrow, I'll talk about the link between Pius and a few other people mentioned in this blog, and then about his alliance with someone who had never before been mentioned: Dracula.

See you then.

Decline of the Republic of Siena

After a number of different governing bodies (a pun will become clear once you read this), Siena turned to Gian Galeazzo Visconti to lead them against the threat of Florentine expansion. He was thrust out of power five years later, however, and they went back to a council, in this case the Ten Priors. In an even more surprising move, they allied with Florence against Naples' King Ladislaus.

Also, although the Noveschi families had been exiled, a prominent Sienese named Enea Silvio Bartolomeo Piccolomini became Pope Pius II, and his influence allowed the nobles to return. The head of the Noveschi was Pandolfo Petrucci, who spent his time gathering political power until finally he was able to set himself up as a tyrant.

As with Gian Galeazzo Visconti, sometimes a strong individual is needed to get a government back on track. (Machiavelli's advice on this came about a decade after Petrucci's coup.) He did lead Siena back to greatness, promoting arts and sciences. Unfortunately, the Petrucci family was power-hungry. Pandolfo was succeeded by his son Borghese, but four years later Borghese was ousted by his cousin Raffaello. Raffaello was a cardinal, and his duties forced him to hand the control his nephew Francesco, who managed a year before Pandolfo's youngest son Fabio ousted him. Fabio was not well-liked, and in 1525 Siena exiled him.

With the Petrucci family gone, Siena saw even more internal strife. Once again the Noveschi were ousted. They were supported by Pope Clement VII, who sent an army to Siena, but it was defeated. Taking advantage of the chaos, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V installed a Spanish garrison about 1529, but Siena got rid of them in 1552 with help from France. Charles sent an army with Florentine help to lay siege to Siena, who endured for 18 months before giving up, surrendering to Spain. Since King Philip II of Spain owed large sums to the Medicis, he gave Siena to Florence. Self-rule was denied them for a long time.

One of the creations of the Republic was the Monte di Pietà or "mount of piety," founded in 1472, where poor people could get loans with manageable interest. It got its funds from charitable donors, and loans would be assured by the borrower handing over possessions as collateral. Yes, it functioned more like a pawnbroker, or an organized charity, but it helped numerous people and inspired similar arrangements all over Europe. This Siena institution never stopped functioning. Today it is called the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, and qualifies as the oldest continuously functioning bank in the world.

Pope Pius II has been mentioned before, once even involving politics, but I'd like to look at him more closely, especially because he has a link to an even more interesting character that you all have heard of, but has not yet been mentioned here. More tomorrow (and, of course, the next day).

Republic of Siena

According to legend, Siena was founded by Senio and Ascanio, who were sons of Remus (who founded Rome with his brother Romulus). More verifiably, Romans established a military outpost in 30CE.

After the fall of Rome and prior to the Republic of Siena, for many years the city and area was run by the bishops. During a territorial dispute with Arezzo, the bishop asked for help from the nobility, who demanded a greater say in administering the city in exchange. This led eventually to ending the control by the bishops and the founding in 1125 by a consular government.

Siena prospered under the Republic, becoming a center of money-lending and the wool trade. It expanded its influence over Southern Tuscany. In 1286 the government evolved to the Nove, "The Nine," chosen from the Noveschi political party of wealthy merchants. Under the Nove Siena rose to new heights of power, producing the Cathedral of Siena and improving the city walls.

Under the Noveschi, Siena's political and economic power grew in southern Tuscany until it became a rival to Florence. Of particular issue was the fact Siena was predominantly Ghibelline versus the Florentine Guelphs. This post explains the difference; Dante mentions their conflict in his Commedia. With help from Manfred of Sicily, Siena defeated Florence in the 1260 Battle of Montaperti. Some 15,000 Florentines were killed in the battle, and Siena entered a Golden Age until...

...the Black Death. Siena was devastated, In 1355, just as they might have been recovering from the plague, Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV of Luxembourg entered Siena and the population decided to throw out the Nove and the power of the Noveschi, replacing it with the Dodici, "The Twelve." They were presently replaced by the Quindici, "The Fifteen" in 1385, then the Dieci (Ten, in 1386), then the Undici, (Eleven, 1388-1398), followed by the "Twelve Priors" from 1398-99. Ultimately, all these experiments in governing by councils ended when the fear of Florentine expansion motivated the city to turn to a single strong ruler, Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the first Duke of Milan.

Tomorrow I'll tell you about the return of the Nove, the decline of the Republic, and (my favorite), the "mount of piety," which still exists.

The Start of the Italian Renaissance

Because there are no "hard and fast" dates for cultural eras (although I nominate 1453CE for one), the Italian Renaissance painting is carefully divided up into four phases: the Proto-Renaissance (1300–1425), the Early Renaissance (1425–1495), the High Renaissance (1495–1520), and Mannerism (1520–1600, which we in this blog can safely ignore). Cimabue (c.1240 - 1302) is often called the first great artist of the Proto-Renaissance period in Italian art. Why "photo"? If it's new and part of the rebirth, why can't we just say he is the first of the Italian (prefix-free) Renaissance?

Part of the problem is that the Renaissance does not begin everywhere all at once. These phases represent trends in art and are tied to specific artists who tried something "new" and whose work influenced the style of others. The Proto-Renaissance in Italian art was dominated by two figures: Cimabue and Duccio of Siena (his Madonna and Child, now in the London National Gallery, is shown above). Along with two contemporaries, Guido of Siena and Coppo di Marcovaldo, they seem to have been influenced by the unknown the so-called Master of St Bernardino. They specialized in stylized religious paintings in which the angle of the head and position of the hands, for instance, were determined by traditional icon paintings in the Byzantine style.

Proto-Renaissance painting was dominated by religious art. During this Proto period the Black Death inspired a change in theme to the need to approach death in a state of penitence; images of death and the torments of Hell began to dominate church art. More than one painting is named "Triumph of Death" from this era.

Much of this was happening in Siena, ruled by a republic since 1125. I'd like to talk about its history next time.

Cimabue

Cimabue (c.1240 - 1302) was an Italian painter and a designer of mosaics. In case you have not yet heard of this man, his name is pronounced (forgive the amateur phonics) chim-uh-boo-ee. His real name was Cenni di Pepo. The nickname is thought to mean "bull-headed" (see the third paragraph for a possible explanation).

Born in Florence, he probably studied originally under Byzantine-style artists, but he "rose above it." His painting style is credited with defying the usual flat medieval style and developing more realistic proportions with lifelike shading. Giorgio Vasari centuries later told the tale that it was Cimabue who came across a young Giotto sketching sheep and, so amazed at his realistic drawing, invited him (with Giotto's father's permission) to come to Cimabue's studio.

Vasari, supposedly quoting a contemporary of Cimabue, says "Cimabue of Florence was a painter who lived during the author's own time, a nobler man than anyone knew but he was as a result so haughty and proud that if someone pointed out to him any mistake or defect in his work, or if he had noted any himself... he would immediately destroy the work, no matter how precious it might be."

In a case of the student exceeding the master, Dante mentions (not places, although Cimabue was dead by the time Dante was writing the Commedia) Cimabue in the Purgatorio as an example of fleeting fame while discussing those who suffer from excessive pride: “Cimabue thought himself the master of painters; Giotto took from him the glory and relegated him to oblivion.”

To be fair, however, Cimabue was not relegated to oblivion. We are aware of several works by Cimabue (more than those of which we can be certain were made by Giotto). For instance, the illustration above is a small detail (Judas betraying Christ) from a fresco in the Church of San Francesco (St. Francis) in Assisi, commissioned by Pope Nicholas IV (the first Franciscan who became pope).

Cimabue is also credited with the round stained glass window of the choir of Siena Cathedral, as well as a painted Madonna and Child (now in the Louvre), and the fresco Christ Enthroned between the Virgin and St. John the Evangelist in Pisa Cathedral.

One interpretation of Cimabue's impact on art is to call him the first great artist of the Italian Porto-Renaissance. I suppose Proto-Renaissance could use some explanation, which I'll provide tomorrow.

Giotto

Giotto (c.1267 - 8 January 1337) is one of the best-known painters and architects of the Italian Renaissance, and yet we know very little for certain about his life or work. An 1850 plaque exists in a tower house in a village north of Florence declaring it was his birthplace, but recent documentary evidence shows that he was born in a farmhouse in Florence. His father was a blacksmith named Bondone.

As a boy he was discovered by the famous artist, Cimabue, who saw him sitting on a rock drawing such lifelike pictures of sheep that Cimabue offered to take him on as an apprentice. "Lifelike" was the hallmark of his art. His contemporary Giovanni Villani called him "the most sovereign master of painting in his time, who drew all his figures and their postures according to nature."

Many of the stories about Giotto's life and work come from much later, in the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects by Giorgio Vasari (1511 - 1574). Vasari mentions that Giotto painted a fly on a face in a painting of Cimabue's so lifelike that Cimabue kept trying to brush it off. Another anecdote by Vasari tells that Pope Benedict XI sent a messenger to Giotto, asking for a sample of his artwork to determine if he was good enough to commission. Giotto sent a red circle by hand that was so precise it looked as if it had been drawn with a compass. The messenger reported to the pope that Giotto had not moved his arm when he drew it.

Vasari attributed many works to Giotto, but there are only a few with provenance that tie them directly to him. One is the decoration of the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, completed around 1305. Its frescoes of the life of the Virgin and the life of Christ is regarded as one of the supreme masterpieces of the Early Renaissance. He was also chosen by the commune of Florence in 1334 to design the new campanile (bell tower) of the Florence Cathedral.

While we are on the subject of Italian Renaissance artists, we should not neglect Cimabue. We'll look at him tomorrow.

Medieval Mosaics

Mosaic art—arranging pieces of stone, glass (called tesserae), or other material to make shapes and pictures—has existed since the 3rd millennium BCE, when pebbles were used to make floors with designs. They became widespread in ancient Greece and Rome, not just as public art but for domestic use: every household would be enhanced by mosaics on the floors (not usually on the walls, where fresco was used for decoration).

The earliest mosaics, found in a temple in Mesopotamia, were roughly cube-shaped bits of stone, along with pieces of shell and ivory. Around 1500 BCE we start to see evidence of glazed tiles being used. Rome and Greece elevated mosaic use to a high art (although most named mosaic artists in the Roman Empire have Greek names).

The Middle Ages chose brightly colored glass and gold leaf to make mosaics. When Ravenna became the capital of the Western Roman Empire, it became the site of several magnificent buildings with equally impressive mosaics. When the Lombards were problematic, Pope Adrian I turned to Charlemagne for aid. For Charlemagne's reward, he was allowed to take away from Ravenna anything he wanted. What he wanted was Roman art and architecture, so a number of Roman columns, statues, and mosaics traveled north to become a part of his complex at Aachen.

Taking and re-using older architecture and artwork was actually a recognized practice, and the elements were called spolia, from the Latin for "spoils." An example of spolia in Aachen is the porphyry columns in the Palatine Chapel which likely came from Ravenna. Charlemagne must have liked what he saw in Ravenna, because his Palatine Chapel's design is very similar to the church of San Vitale in Ravenna. The Palatine's ceiling and walls are covered in mosaic that is clearly Byzantine in style (see the illustration).

As the 13th century approached, mosaicists were also painters. One of the best known now (in the Modern Age) was Giotto, whom we'll talk about next time.

Ravenna, the Capital Cities

Ravenna in northern Italy has been occupied since at least the 5th century BCE, when a tribe called the Umbri lived in dwellings built on poles over the swampy area. Pliny the Elder said they were considered by some to be the oldest people in Italy, and that their name came from the Greek word for thunderstorm, because they survived the great deluge spoken of in Greek mythology.

They came under Roman control in 89 BCE under Octavian, who built a harbor there on the Adriatic shore. In 408CE, the Emperor Honorius moved his court there from Rome, making it his capital. When Odoacer overthrew Romulus Augustus and the Western Roman Empire collapsed, Odoacer made Ravenna his capital. Then Theodoric attacked Ravenna in 489 and made it the capital of the Ostrogothic kingdom. This lasted until 540, when Belisarius captured Ravenna for the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, who made it the capital of Byzantine Italy.

Difficulty managing that part of Italy (and attempting to conquer more) from Constantinople caused the Byzantine emperors to rely more on the authority and aid of the pope, who was becoming a powerful landowner due to gifts, but when the Lombards descended into Italy the pope turned to a more local solution: Charlemagne. As a result of Charlemagne's aid, Ravenna became part of the Papal States. It remained part of the Papal States for centuries, until it was incorporated into a unified Italy in the mid-19th century.

During this constant "changing of hands" Ravenna did not lose some of its amazing early architecture. The UNESCO World Heritage Sites List has eight sites in Ravenna, all built between 430 and 549 CE, as well as several other historical sites.

Dante Alighieri retired to Ravenna after being rejected by his home town of Florence for his past actions. There is an annual music festival with operas performed at a theater named for him. Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, Herman Hesse, and T.S.Eliot all visited Ravenna and wrote poems about it, and Tolkien fans will be interested to know it may have been the "inspiration behind Minas Tirith."

Ravenna did not earn itself an epithet like "The Eternal City" or the "City of Light," but it is sometimes called the "capital of mosaics." I'll be happy to explain that tomorrow.

Paolo and Francesca

In the 2nd circle of Hell in Dante's Inferno, Dante and Virgil see two lovers, Paolo and Francesca, condemned for lust (see the illustration by Dante Gabriel Rossetti). Just as they allowed themselves to be swept away by their passions, they are buffeted by heavy winds. Francesca tells her story, while a silent Paolo weeps in the background.

She was seized with a powerful passion while reading the story of Galehaut (mentioned in yesterday's post). the theme of such a strong love "overpowered" the two. Unfortunately, she was married to Paolo's brother, who killed the two for their affair.

The two were historical figures: Francesca da Polenta, married to Giovanni Malatesta, and Giovanni's brother Paolo Malatesta (who was also married). The marriage was not one of love. Francesca's father was at odds with Giovanni's father, who was lord of Rimini. The marriage was designed to make peace between two noble and powerful families. Some time in the early 1280s, Giovanni found the two in Francesca's bedroom, and killed them.

In Dante's telling, Francesca blames the overwhelming power of Love for her actions and misfortune, accepting no blame on the part of the two lovers. Despite this, she becomes for Dante an example of the love poetry he himself wrote about earlier in his career. She tells her story without interruption, and becomes a symbol of a strong woman condemned by circumstance outside her control, because of the power of the story of Galehaut. Dante draws a parallel between the great love tale from literature and the real love tale before him.

So now we come to the point of what we started yesterday: why did Boccaccio subtitle his Decameron with Prencipe Galehaut? Boccaccio uses Galehaut—especially through the lens of his hero Dante's use of Galehaut as inspiration for Francesca's and Paolo's actions—as a symbol of his regard and compassion for women who have never been allowed the freedom of men to do as they wished. It is his acknowledgement that women should be given agency: as the women in the Decameron not only share equal social standing with the men in their ten-day community, but also in the stories told of women who manage by their wits or gain the outcomes they want.

If they were historical figures, was their affair so well-known that Dante would know the details? As it happens, remember that I told you here that he spent his final years in Ravenna? His host was Guido Novello, also known as Guido Il da Polenta, lord of Ravenna from 1316 to 1321, and the nephew of Francesca da Polenta!

Ravenna must be a little interesting, since Dante chose it for his retirement. Let's learn the delights of Ravenna next time.

The Titles of the Decameron

Giovanni Boccaccio played around with titles, and not only for his own works. Dante Alighieri's magnum opus was called by the author Commedia, "Comedy," but in later years it began being referred to as the "Divine Comedy" by Boccaccio, and the name stuck. Boccaccio had a good reason for tacking that adjective onto Dante's work, and not just because of the obvious reason.

When Boccaccio wrote his Decameron (c.1353), he apparently thought of it as a parallel or complement to Dante's work, because Boccaccio sometimes called his tale of ten young people telling ten stories per day for ten days  l'Umana commedia ("the Human comedy").

Besides that, Boccaccio also had a subtitle for the Decameron that is often overlooked, and the explanation for it has a couple of layers. His subtitle (seen above in an early Italian edition) was Prencipe Galeotto, or "Prince Galehaut." Who was that, and why was it important to Boccaccio? What message did it convey to his audience?

Galehaut was well-known to the medieval literary crowd as a prince from the Arthurian legends, specifically from the French Lancelot cycle. Galehaut was a half-giant who brings a massive army to challenge King Arthur's rule over Logres. Galehaut's forces are superior, but he is so enamored of the prowess of a Black Knight fighting for Arthur's side that he stops the battle solely for the opportunity to meet this knight and spend time with him. TheBlack Knight turns out to be a young Lancelot, and thus begins a deep friendship between the two, interpreted by some as a strong chivalric bond and by some as a homosexual bond.

Enter Guinevere. Galehaut realizes Lancelot's love for Guinevere, and steps back from Lancelot to avoid being "in the way." Later, when Guinevere is accused oof infidelity to Arthur and flees, Lancelot and she find refuge in Galehaut's castle. Galehaut dies at the age of 39 from his unrequited longing for the man he gave up. He is laid in a magnificent tomb that he had built to commemorate their friendship. Lancelot at his death is also laid in that tomb, side by side with Galehaut.*

Galehaut becomes a symbol of greatness, abandoning one's own desires for the sake of another's. How does this apply to the Decameron? 

For that, we need to turn to Dante again, and visit the second circle of Hell where we meet two lovers, Paolo and Francesca. Come back tomorrow, and we will start to put it all together.

*Malory changes this story, using the name Galahad.