Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Reasons for the decline of Anglo-Spanish relations under Elizabeth I


I've decided to have a look into some history for a change. Elizabeth I remains a fascinating topic, and this will cover events that led up to the Spanish Armada of 1588. 

Anglo-Spanish relations under Elizabeth I

England's relationship with Spain was complicated by four factors:

1) Philip was the leading Catholic monarch in Europe. Elizabeth could not expect that he would tolerate her Protestantism indefinitely.

2) Philip was the ruler of the Netherlands. The Netherlands had recently embraced Protestantism and was seeking independence from its Catholic master, and members of Elizabeth's privy council wanted to assist them in this quest. Philip would not tolerate this.

3) The possibility of a Catholic alliance between France and Spain worried Elizabeth. The Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis (1559) had already shown Elizabeth that this was not impossible.

4) The New World had created a cause for competition between England and Spain.
However, Philip was not openly hostile to England in 1558. He preferred Elizabeth to Mary Queen of Scots because of Mary's French connections.

Why did relations deteriorate?

Philip thought that he could convince Elizabeth to return to Catholicism. However, Elizabeth took a number of actions that proved she would not be easily swayed.

The Treaty of Berwick (1560)
Elizabeth supported to the Protestant Lords in Scotland who were trying to bring military action against the rule of the Guise family.

The French Wars of Religion: The Treaty of Hampton Court (1562-64)
Elizabeth intervened on behalf of the French Huguenots by promising them military aid. This offended Philip, who saw it as clear proof that she was heretic sponsoring Protestant rebels.

Elizabeth and the Relationship with the Netherlands, (1562-72).

Although Philip had opposed the excommunication of Elizabeth, there was a significant deterioration in their relationship during this period.  Cardinal  Granvelle told Philip that he believed  Elizabeth used English traders to foment Protestant rebellion in the Netherlands. In 1563 he used the outbreak of plague in London to ban the import of English cloth. Elizabeth retaliated by prohibiting all imports from the Netherlands. Although trade was eventually resumed, this did not reconcile the underlying differences.
In 1566 there was an outbreak of Calvinist revolts in Dutch towns. Philip despatched the Duke of Alba to the Netherlands to crush Protestantism there. The presence of such a large Spanish force across the channel presented a significant threat to England. The situation worsened when many Protestant refugees flooded into England, making it look as though she was harbouring rebels. Elizabeth's relationship with Philip went into sharp decline.
By 1568, the Duke of Alba was victorious. The Protestant leader William of Orange was defeated in battle and Elizabeth came under pressure from her Privy Council to intervene. Since Elizabeth could not openly assist intervention (she preferred Spanish control in the Netherlands to French control), she opted instead for the policy of harassment. This involved:
  •          Seamen like Francis Drake attacking Spanish shipping in the New World
  •          In November 1568, a storm drove Spanish ships to take refuge in English ports in Devon and Cornwall. The ships were carrying 400,000 gold florins, which were bound for the Netherlands to pay the Spanish army. Elizabeth seized the gold and in doing so struck a great blow against the Duke of Alba.

Philip was outraged by this seizure of gold. In both Spain and the Netherlands he ordered the seizure of English ships and property. Within weeks a full trade embargo existed between the two countries.
Although Philip did not support Elizabeth's excommunication in 1570, he was increasingly ready to support Catholic plots against Elizabeth in England. He sent financial aid to English Catholics and also promised 10,000 troops to support the Ridolfi Plot of 1571.

Elizabeth continued her policy of harassment and explored the possibility of a marriage alliance with the Duke of Anjou. Later, she negotiated marriage with the Duke of Alencon.

The Treaty of Blois (1572)

·         England and France established a league to defend themselves against Spanish aggression.
·         France abandoned the claims of Mary, Queen of Scots to the throne of England.
In 1572, Elizabeth expelled the Sea Beggars from English ports. At this point Elizabeth's motivation for her actions are unclear.

Did she want to improve relations?

Yes - Elizabeth may have believed that the expulsion of the Sea Beggars would be regarded favourably by Spain.

No - The Sea Beggars returned to the Netherlands and were instrumental in encouraging renewed revolt in the Port of Brill. Some historians suggest that this was a deliberate move to incite further rebellion in the Netherlands.

Although Anglo-Spanish relations had deteriorated the conflict of 1588 was by no means inevitable. Elizabeth wanted to preserve the cloth trade and maintain a secure frontier. None of these objectives would be achieved by open war.  Similarly, Philip was involved in a conflict with the Ottomans and another war would be expensive and too risky.

The deterioration of relations with Spain,  1573-85.

The conflict over the Netherlands:
It was the precarious position of the Netherlands that was the catalyst for collision.
There was a brief moment of peace between the countries with the Treaty of Bristol in1574:
·         the gold dispute was settled
·         English rebels were banished from the Netherlands
·         English Protestants in the Netherlands were permitted to practice their religion
·         Elizabeth closed her harbours to Dutch rebels and refused them assistance

The Convention of Nymegen:
·         Elizabeth agreed to withdraw support for raids on Spanish  shipping in the Indies.
However, this did not last long. It was the unstable condition of the Netherlands that led to the resurgence of hostility between England and Spain. The Spanish army in the Netherlands mutinied because they  hadn't been paid. This resulted in them sacking Antwerp (The Spanish Fury) and uniting the 17 provinces of the Netherlands in rebellion against their overlords.

The Pacification of Ghent (1577):
·         Spain was forced to accept that all foreign troops should be expelled from the Netherlands and all their traditional liberties should be restored (Elizabeth offered a loan of £100,000 to ensure this).
However, by 1578 Philip had disregarded the Treaty and appointed Don Juan of Austria as Governor General of the Netherlands.
Therefore, Elizabeth was forced to use a new version of harassment:
·         she sent a 6,000 mercenary force to the Netherlands
·         She financed Drake's circumnavigation of the globe, which included a voyage to the Spanish Indies where he was authorised to attack Spanish shipping. Elizabeth knighted Drake on his return, effectively giving her approval to piracy.
After Philip's acquisition of Portugal (1580), Elizabeth provided Alencon with £70,000 in an attempt to establish independence in the Netherlands. However, Elizabeth was still not prepared to give whole hearted support to the United Provinces in their struggle. (Alencon's mission failed because of the Duke of Parma)

The catholic assassination of William of Orange (1584):
This plunged the Netherlands into crisis and confirmed the significance of the threat posed to all Protestants from Catholicism. The Privy Council were convinced that Elizabeth herself was directly threatened and that the advance of Philip in the Netherlands had to be checked.

The Secret Treaty of Joinville (Dec 1484) :
The death of Alencon had significant consequences in the internal affairs of France, as well as leaving a void in the leadership of the Dutch rebels. The heir to the throne was now the protestant Henry of Navarre. The Guise faction was alarmed and sought a Catholic league with Spain. Philip II pledged to assist the Guise party in its plan to disinherit Navarre. This carried the threat of a full Franco-Spanish alliance that posed the greatest danger of a Catholic attack on England from the continent. This fear was enhanced by Philip's seizure of English ships docked in Spanish ports. The Privy Council became convinced that decisive steps needed to be taken and that Elizabeth must prevaricate no longer.

The Treaty of Nonsuch (August 1485):
·         She promised to send 6,400 foot soldiers and 1,000 cavalry under the command of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.
·         She received the ports of Flushing and Brill in return
Leicester accepted the title of Governor-General of the Estates General which was against Elizabeth's orders but nevertheless gave the impression that she had accepted sovereignty over their Netherlands, and that Leicester was acting as her viceroy.

The Catalyst to War: Mary, Queen of Scots

The Northern Rebellion demonstrated that there were already Catholics who were sympathetic to her cause and regarded her claim to the throne as more legitimate than that of Elizabeth's. Elizabeth and her councillors did not underestimate the threat that came from those Catholics who gave their loyalty to the Pope first, and whose opposition to Elizabeth was justified by the papal bull of excommunication (1570). The arrival of seminary priests from the Netherlands and the Jesuits further strengthened the threat, as their aim was to rekindle Catholicism in England.

The Throckmorton Plot (1583-86):
The Catholic Duke of Guise and the Spanish Ambassador Mendoza conspired to reassert Catholic control of Scotland and use it as a base for an invasion of England, with the intention of putting Mary on the throne. Throckmorton was an English Catholic who acted as an intermediary between Mary and Mendoza. When uncovered, Mendoza was expelled from England and the Privy Council drew up the Bond of Association.

The Act for the Preservation of the Queen's safety (1585)

 Mary Queen of Scots barred from the succession if Elizabeth were killed.

The Treaty of Berwick (1586):

England and Scotland signed a mutual defensive alliance pact to guarantee aid should an invasion of either homeland take place. James VI of Scotland was recognised as Elizabeth's heir.

The Babington Plot (1586-86):

A member of the Catholic gentry, Anthony Babington, was persuaded to lead an insurrection of English Catholics to coincide with an invasion led by the Catholic league. The plot had Spanish and Papal support and involved an assassin who had sworn to kill Elizabeth.  Due to Mary's involvement, she was executed in 1487. Mary had bequeathed her claim to the English throne to Philip II. He now had the justification he required to launch 'The Enterprise of England'. 


Wednesday, 7 May 2014

The Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem concerns the literary relationship between the first three gospels of the New Testament. They share a great number of parallel accounts, arranged in a similar order and often containing similar wording. This is even more striking when it is realised that Jesus would have spoken these words in Aramaic but the agreements are in Greek. What is the likelihood that all three evangelists wrote their accounts very similar without sharing some sources or even reading each other's Gospels? Very unlikely! Think about it in terms of a schoolteacher marking his or her student's work and noticing very similar work, as if one had copied another or they had worked together.

Equally, there are some marked differences. Order changes to suit the author's purpose and each gospel has material unique to itself (as expected - you wouldn't write an account exactly the same or else there would be little point in writing it).

Therefore, the synoptic problem is that of determining the inter-relationship between the first three gospels that explains both their similarities and differences.

You might wonder, what is the point of this? Isn't the message what is important?
The message is ultimately what's important but this is a useful process as it enables us to see how the gospels writers have manipulated their written sources. Their use of sources will have questions about authenticity, and ultimately what sort of message is being portrayed.

SO what theories have been suggested by theologians?

Oral Source: This is an early attempt at explaining the nature of the literary relationship focused on an oral rather than written source. This was proposed by J.G von Herder, who argued for a common oral tradition used by all three synoptic gospel-writers. However, this does not adequately explain the close wording, which implied there was some sort of written link between the gospels. Although this had been generally sidelined by scholars, it makes sense that there would have been common information circulating about Jesus and through conversation the evangelists would have acquired some information about Jesus. Herder goes some way to explain their relationship.

One-Source Solution: This theory was proposed by Griesbach in the 18th century. It claims that Matthew was the first gospel to be written. Luke, then used Matthew, and Mark used both Matthew and Luke. This coincides with the traditional Church view which also claimed that Matthew's gospel was written first.  This view also follows the fact that where Matthew and Luke have different versions of a story, Mark uses both. Additionally, no other sources are needed to explain their literary interdependence. Finally, since Matthew's gospel is seen to be written for Jews much more explicitly than any other gospel, and given that it was Jews who formed the first bulk of the Early Church membership, it seems more likely that Matthew wrote his first.

Two-Source Solution: This is the most popular and widely accepted theory. This claims that Mark was written first, but also that there was another source called 'Q' that existed of the sayings and teachings of Jesus. Both Matthew and Luke used this source.

What evidence supports Mark's priority?

- Mark is the shortest gospel it makes sense that he wrote his gospel first and the other gospels added to his information. It is hard to see why Mark would omit material.

- Mark has the poorest command of Greek, suggesting that Luke and Matthew improved on him.

- As far as order is concerned, Matthew and Luke generally follow Mark.

- Luke and Matthew rarely agree against Mark, suggesting that Matthew and Luke had independently relied on Mark.

What evidence supports the 'Q' hypothesis?

- The source explains the similar wording between Matthew and Luke

- It accounts for the existence of doublets (sayings that occur twice in Matthew and Luke). It is argued that one is from Mark and one is from Q.

Four-source Solution: This hypothesis is accredited to Streeter. He simply extends the two source theory but adds two additional sources, M (Matthew's Source) + L (Luke's Source). These two sources, according to Streeter, represent the traditions of the Christian communities in Caesarea  (L) and Jerusalem (M). Luke was influenced by traditions in Caesarea while Matthew used those in Jerusalem. This theory explains the unique material in Matthew and Luke, that 'Q' doesn't account for. (I.e. there are more similarities than can be taken from a 'sayings of Jesus' source).

----------------------------

It is impossible to know which theory is the correct one, if any. Perhaps the answer is a more fluid inter-relationship between the gospels. Within a short space of time after Jesus' death, there would have been a multitude of information circulating about him, and therefore it may be impossible to disentangle the sources of any of the synoptic gospels as they were collected from a vast array of data.



Monday, 5 May 2014

Evaluating Hume's claim that miracles are the least likely of events.

For Hume a miracles is 'A transgression of a law of nature brought about by a particular violation of Deity.'
Hume was an empiricist and believed that it was more likely the report of a miracle was mistaken than the laws of nature were violated. Hume is arguing inductively from observation that the laws of nature cannot be violated. He is not directly saying that miracles do not happen but that the probability of a miracle actually happening is so low that is is illogical to believe that they do occur.

Hume emphasises the fixed and universal nature of natural laws. According to Hume, laws of nature appear to be fixed and unvarying (e.g the law of gravity.) Since Miracles appear to violate the laws of nature, it is more likely that the report of miracle happening is incorrect than the laws of nature were violated.

Consider the story of Jesus bringing Lazarus back from the dead. (John 11) According to the Bible, people witnessed the event. However, our experience of nature is that people do not come back to life. So there is a conflict between a law of nature and the miracle. Hume's question is: Which is more likely? - That the laws of nature has been violated or the eyewitness account is mistaken? Hume's conclusion is that miracles do not happen because there is so much clearly testable evidence in favour of the laws of science.

Hume's argument has been very influential amongst philosophers. However, Richard Swinburne has recently defended the idea of God acting and performing miracles.

Swinburne points out a problem with Hume arguing inductively from observation. The only way to challenge his argument would be to find new empirical evidence. From our experience, the fact that something is not probably is not on its own proof that a miracle does not happen. Let's consider the Lottery. The likelihood that you or I would win the National Lottery in our lifetimes is improbable but that does not mean that people never win the lottery. Thousands of people have won the lottery and will continue to win it.

Swinburne's defence of miracles considers first what it is meant by natural laws.
He argues:
1. Laws of nature are generalisations i.e. they communicate a general picture of how things work as simply as possible.
2. Swinburne says that all nature laws are 'corrigible', meaning that a law of nature is the best description of how the world works at this moment in time, but a new discovery may mean that a law of nature has to be modified or changed.

This leads Swinburne to define a miracle as 'an occurence of a non-repeatable counter instance to a law of nature'. By this Swinburne means that a miracle is an event that does not fit in with the laws of nature as we understand them, but equally you could not define a new law from an instance which does not fit into the normal laws.

Swinburne also adds that the more evidence there is for a miracle for a miracle, the stronger the possibility that it happened, providing that the sources of evidence support one another.

So...are miracles the least likely of events?

Of course, by definition a miracle is the least likely of events but this does not mean, as Hume argues, that miracles cannot happen. The occurrence of miracles must be a very rare event, however not impossible.