Gossip and Graffiti This Blackboard forum in the Reacting game Henry VIII and the Reformation Parliament drew over 1500 posts, written by students writing in character about issues and texts in the course. Dr. Martha Driver occasionally intervened in the debates and received a number of amusing responses from the students. A small sampling of the dialogues is below:

Subject: Poor Relief

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 3:15 PM Important information to know on the issue of poor relief 1. The Bible says to give charity to the all those less fortunate than yourself. "Bible instructions given to all Christians in Matthew Chapter 25 which stated that all Christians shall: feed the hungry give drink to the thirsty welcome the stranger clothe the naked visit the sick visit the prisoner bury the dead" source: http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/the-poor-law.htm 2. supports giving charity to the poor. "She also gave generously to charity and sewed shirts for the poor." source: http://amolife.com/personality/anne-boleyn-the-most-important-queen-consort-england- has-ever-had.html "She was also supposedly quite devout, and contemporaries wrote that she was kind and gentle, engaging in acts of charity for people in lesser positions." source: http://www.wisegeek.com/who-was-anne-boleyn.htm "She was also a generous patron of charity far more so than . Anne gave heavily to poor relief, agricultural programs and educational foundations. Often, she and her ladies would sew shirts for the poor or beautiful cloths to decorate High Altars in churches." source: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/anne-boleyn/life-as-queen.html Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 9, 2008 8:29 PM

Greetings, Just a point about the history here: all of your comments are on the mark except the last one, with which I take issue. Katherine gave charity regularly and was noted for her piety. She also donated lots of money to the RC Church and its foundations. Here is a line about her from the Dictionary of National Biography:

Among the religious orders Katherine especially supported the Observant Franciscans; she was a member of their third order. Popular in Spain, the Observants were established in England from 1482 under the auspices of the court, as an élite group of mature and well-motivated religious.

Anne did support the development of educational institutions but this was directly connected with the seizing and dissolution of the monasteries, which took their wealth and redistributed it. She protected the importers of illegal English scriptures. She promoted evangelical clergy, placing "reformers in the episcopal hierarchy. As well as Cranmer, Anne patronized , Nicholas Shaxton, Edward Fox, Thomas Goodrich, and William Barlow" (DNB).

The two ladies had somewhat different agendas -- even charity can be political. all best, dr d

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 9:41 PM

It is clear, Dr. Driver, that the comment you take issue with was stated not out of any misunderstanding of the facts, but out of a political bias. I would assert that the [original anonymous author] is not as neutral as s/he would like us to believe.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 10:10 PM Good point! … On a side note this poor relief is ridiculous and the money spent on the poor can be put to much better use in our country's defenses.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 10:47 PM Thank you for the correction. I am trying to keep my comments as accurate as possible so I very much appreciate your guidance. I will be sure not to include my last comment in any game session. With that being said, if an error in my information is found in the future, I hope everyone feels free to notify me. I'm trying my very best to provide truthful facts, but at times it is difficult. Therefore, I deeply appreciate all the help I can get. Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 11:17 PM

Any good Catholic would be willing to help the poor! You clearly have more than enough money and are incredibly greedy. Are you sure you're a Catholic??? You sound more like a Lutheran to me!

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 11:45 PM

Why put money towards the country's defenses, i.e., prepare for war, if we can just avoid fighting altogether, using diplomatic means?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 11:46 PM

I second that.

From a discussion on Princess Elizabeth: Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 18, 2008 4:43 PM

Rumor has it that the infant princess is physically deformed and monstrous in appearance.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 18, 2008 5:09 PM

You mean Prince Elizabeth?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 18, 2008 4:55 PM

Yes, the same one. Still, you don't have to be so harsh, she's just a baby.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 19, 2008 1:45 PM

You're jealous; she’s beautiful!

Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 19, 2008 5:06 PM

But haven't I heard Anne B. has an extra finger on her left hand, an extra nipple (check out your history books), and other strange maladies because of her purported dabbling in the black arts? Fortunately, I cannot be prosecuted for my wide reading which encompasses both pros and cons of the arguments, including the Maleus Malificarum and other related works. But, according to one of my sources, "Anne's minor physical defects, namely an extra digit on her hand and a prominent neck mole added to the belief that she was a 'she-devil'." (BBC)

Post: On Queen Ann Boleyn Author: Christopher Schweitzer (Thomas Boleyn) Posted Date: November 19, 2008 10:05 PM

Dr. Driver, are you attacking my daughter? I do not appreciate this type of comment, nor do I think the King would. And as for the rest of the comments if you intend on attacking members of my family perhaps you would be so bold to tell us your names. Clearly you take issue with this and should come out of the shadows. If you choose not to, I will find you anyway and you will be forced to answer to Parliament. Tell us all who you are now and I shall show mercy. You have been warned.

Author: Garry Hayden Posted Date: November 19, 2008 10:13 PM Charles Brandon here [and] I hope this mercy you speak of involves my holding an axe. Let it be known that attacking Boleyn in this matter is ridiculous. First [there is] the thread about his trickery and now attacking his daughter, the Queen. If anyone finds substantial evidence that Thomas Boleyn has wronged the King in any way, come forward with it ,and I will personally see him apprehended in the name of the King. But since he has not, leave those accusations in the pubs.

The King's loyal servant, Duke of Suffolk.

Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 19, 2008 10:58 PM

Everyone knows your daughter has eleven fingers (I am not entirely certain about the extra nipple though some historians do record this). Just count them (I refer to fingers only!)! And some folk say this is a sign of a witch, though of course this may be sheer superstition. Anne is highly intelligent which is really more important than the number of fingers and toes, don't you agree? She is well educated, too, in French and English.

Author: Christopher Schweitzer Posted Date: November 19, 2008 11:01 PM

The 11 fingers [are true. However, she is clearly not a witch, she has no warts, no large nose, and has not turned anyone into a newt, so I think were safe.

Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 19, 2008 11:05 PM

She may have turned someone into a newt, but he got better. (Sorry cannot help Monty Python refs).

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 19, 2008 11:05 PM Ah yes, but we shall bring the largest scales to class next week... For if she weighs the same as a duck...

Author: Pearson Browne Posted Date: November 19, 2008 11:08 PM

Ah, it seems our race to the "weigh the same as a duck" comment has resulted in an "11:05 P.M" tie! I hereby unveil my cloak of anonymous comedy references and announce the following.

Master Cromwell will challenge any man or duchess to a "Monty Python Line-Off!" and assure you his victory. I advise against it, however. You will not succeed!

Author: Christopher Schweitzer Posted Date: November 19, 2008 11:10 PM

Perhaps we should have a Monty Python night when all this is over then.

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 19, 2008 11:12 PM I will also throw off my cloak. However, I am sure that Master Cromwell would school me easily. So, I bow to your knowledge of all that is Monty Python - related....NEE! Author: Pearson Browne Posted Date: November 19, 2008 11:13 PM

A wonderful idea! Perhaps, and just a thought, we could also take advantage of living in NYC and bang our coconuts together all the way to go see Spamalot! (although, I'll warn you... don't look straight into Clay Aiken's eyes...)

No longer do we say Ni! For we are now the Knights who say... Ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-P'tang, Zzoo-Boing, gdgdbaaoizen!

From a discussion of Lutherans: Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 11:24 PM Status: Published I heard that the Duke of Suffolk got a chit from Cromwell-- a chit from the German Protestants. The Lutherans!!!! This kind of worries me. What do you think?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 11:27 PM

The Germans could be powerful allies if the situation is right.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 11:52 PM If the German States display Lutheran sympathies, then they harbor heresy and are inherently the enemies of Christendom. To even breathe word of an alliance with the enemies of God is tantamount to heresy in-and-of itself. Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 9, 2008 11:59 PM I agree. Why even bother with foreign stuff when we've got so many problems here at home? Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:10 AM

Forget that! Let's go to war. The plunder should be enough to bolster the economy.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:17 AM Really war with the HRE??? [the Holy Roman Empire] Really?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:21 AM

Sure. As the old adage goes, they're neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. They're a bunch of fractured states in the early stages of revolt. That's clear [from] this upsurge in Lutheranism. Let's invade while the opportunity is ripe. Sure, we'll have to hike taxes quite a bit to build a sufficient army and navy, but then we can just loot the pants off the HRE to make up for it.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:25 AM

But what about the lives that will be lost in the war? I'm not just talking about the people of the HRE, but our own English brethren. Would you support war even knowing that we may lose many of our fellow countrymen?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:26 AM

Yep. So what if a few lives are lost? England will benefit in the end. Heck, it's probably in our favor to kill as many in the HRE as possible. Corpses have little use for valuables.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:30 AM

That's disgusting! Have you no morals? I mean, what are you, a follower of Machiavelli?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:32 AM Status: Published Well that seems like a very rash and unnecessary action. And old adage? I'm not familiar.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:32 AM Yeah, I'm a fan of some of [Machiavelli’s] works. Actually, my favorite is The Prince. Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:36 AM

Rash and unneccessary? That's the understament of the century (the 16th)! I mean, it all makes sense, since he's a follower of the devil-incarnate, Machiavelli. …It’s pretty easy to see by what he says that he has no Christian conscience or morals. No good man should suffer such filthy notions.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:37 AM

I'm just being realistic. That moral mumbo-jumbo you're spouting off will get us invaded and killed. What good is your "Christian conscience" then?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:40 AM

You seem to be forgetting: our lives here on this Earth aren't about hoarding power and wealth! They're about living lives by the principles of the Bible so that our souls may ascend into heaven. We are here to do God's work, not Machiavelli's.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:41 AM

So you’re essentially saying invade or die? And what proof of a threat do we see in the Germans? They are a group to be allied with, not to attack. Diplomacy is the best path.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:45 AM

Allied with? I'm surprised to hear that from people pushing morality. England's supposed to be a good, Christian (read: Catholic) nation, right? How can you call yourself pious if you ally with heretics? That's why Machiavellian principles are much the superior: by definition, you don't run into moral dilemmas since you always work for self-interest (in this case, invasion). Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:51 AM This is getting twisted beyond belief. I can assure you, this guy is going straight to hell. Remember, as Erasmus argues, a Christian ruler models himself after the king of kings: Jesus Christ. No ruler can possibly hope to lead their people by rejecting Christian teachings, as this Machiavellian devil would have us believe. Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:52 AM

You’re right. You don't run into moral issue because clearly morals are just thrown out the window. How do you personally gain from invasion?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:53 AM

I told you: plunder. To the victor go the spoils, and I have no intention of letting the HRE be the victor.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:56 AM

Ridiculous!

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 1:58 AM

Could you attempt to debate with more than a one-word-answer? That's not what you would call persuasive.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 2:00 AM

If you need to be persuaded to hear the word of God then clearly this is a useless cause.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 10, 2008 2:11 AM

Enlighten me, oh holy (Lutheran) man.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 11, 2008 2:10 AM

My goodness, is that what the Machiavellians are after? Wow... who thinks we should stop them? The leather merchant, the Burgess of Plymouth, and his feud with the Deacon of Barnstable (thread titled “Anyone interested in purchasing any leather products?) Author: Burgess of Plymouth Posted Date: 2 PM … by trade, I am both a tanner and merchant and that I have a large surplus of fine leathern wares. If anyone is interested in making a purchase, feel free to contact me here. I've been hitting some hard economic times as of late, so any business would be much-appreciated.

Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 11, 2008 2:25 PM

To the Burgess of Plymouth, sir, I might be in the market for a new pair of shoes, something stylish and up-to-date not like those medieval shoes with the pointy toes I've been seeing around town. And I might also like a scholar's hat made of leather. How much do you charge? I have been spending way too much time reading these posts which are very amusing.

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 11, 2008 4:51 PM To Dr. Driver, I am delighted to receive your business, though there is no need to address me as sir, since my blood is of humble lineage. It should be no trouble procuring a hat and shoes. As I said, I have a large surplus of quality leather and as such, prices are very low right now...... In fact, they're too low for me to make any decent living. A bunch of clergy-turned-merchants to the north, in Barnstable, are selling leather at such blatant under-value that my fellow merchants and I cannot possibly hope to compete. Sure, their intentions are good, donating all procedes to the poor, but that begs the question: what good is helping the poor if your efforts drive yet more people into poverty? I fear that I, too, may soon be thrown out onto the streets. What am I to do? Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 11, 2008 5:16 PM Dear Master Fetto, I shall place a large order then, for myself and for my family (14 children). How much do you charge? You neglected to respond to that question. We do have a budget unfortunately, and the current taxation rates are exorbitant even for us.

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 11, 2008 5:59 PM Dr. Driver, I can sell the boots you describe at 4 pence a pair, and the hat at 3 pence. Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 11, 2008 9:33 PM

Granted, sirrah, I shall place the order then for 15 pairs of boots + one pair of lady's shoes for my wife and a hat. Your prices are very reasonable. Have you any sheepskin or vellum on which to write letters or books?

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 12, 2008 1:14 AM I thank you for your business, good Doctor. However, I deal only in leather goods and possess no sheepskin or vellum. However, your inquiry raises an interesting question that I shall pose to anyone well-versed in the matter: Given current economic circumstances, would it be advisable for me to expand my business into realms beyond leather i.e. could I make a good living from such expansion? Author: Christopher Schweitzer Posted Date: November 12, 2008 1:45 PM

I need you to make me some leather pants for a party. Ya know, nice leather pants with flaired bell bottoms. I'll pay what you need.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 12, 2008 2:18 PM

Dude, the 1580's are still like 50 years away...

Author: Christopher Schweitzer Posted Date: November 12, 2008 2:19 PM

I'm trying to start a trend; will you make me my pants?

Author: Javier Grullon Posted Date: November 12, 2008 4:43 PM

While you’re at it... do you think you can whip me up a couple of pairs of leather gloves? It is getting a bit chilly nowadays. What would such things cost me?

Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 12, 2008 10:22 PM

One might wish to order a number of interesting leather garments, but let's confine ourselves to necessities like shoes, bags, jerkins, belts, and scholars' hats, of course.

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 4:53 PM If I may be so bold, good doctor, I have no objections to creating novel garments (within reason), and certainly, such pants as have been described are not so outlandish as to deny their creation. However, since they must be designed from scratch, I must ask Your Grace of Wiltshire 2 shillings for the initial pair. However, subsequent pairs will cost far less. The gloves are of no great [moment], so I would ask Your Grace of Norfolk for 1 pence and-a- half a pair. I am delighted that such eminent persons would take an interest in my humble business. However, though your patronage is greatly appreciated, I fear that those wolves in sheep’s clothing, those clergy buying up all the leather in Devon, may yet drive me out of business... Perhaps I should address Parliament? Author: Anonymous Posted Date:

November 13, 2008 5:18 PM

What would you expect parliment to do on the matter? Put another worker out of business for your benefit? If the other worker can afford such low wages, why can you not?

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 5:51 PM

I don't know what you mean by "put another worker out of business." As it stands, it is the clergy-turned-merchants that are putting people like myself out of business. As I said, they are buying up all the leather in Devon they can get their hands on. It is generous patronage like you have seen above that keeps me from joining the ranks of the unemployed. Furthermore, what business does the church have in (temporal) business? Such an occupation is unbecoming of holy men, who are supposed to take vows of poverty.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:00 PM

So you’re saying that the church is making ridiculous amounts of money off leather products and selling cheaper? Again I ask, what do you want parliament to do about this?

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:33 PM

I would recommend a bill either barring the church from entering temporal business, or price controls in order to curtail the church's predatory undervaluing of various goods.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:36 PM Status: Published You claim to be a devout Catholic and then bash the Church and want laws against them? Pick a side, man!

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:40 PM What catholic would call the church "predatory?"

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:40 PM

I am, in fact, a devout Christian man. However, I believe that the Church should confine itself to the spiritual realm, that engaging in temporal business is a station beneath it. At the very least, if they are heaven-bent on engaging in business, then at the very least, they should be stopped from having a monopoly and from running tradesmen, like myself, out of business through unfair business practices. That is the extent of my "church-bashing."

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:42 PM

Allow me to refine my statement: the churchmen of Devon are being "predatory."

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:43 PM

And why should we stop the church from producing goods to the common people for you when they are supplying quality? Are you trying to get rich by removing church goods as competition?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:44 PM

“Predatory” implies that they are doing this purposely to put you out of business. You have proof of this? Or are you just assuming that it is predatory as opposed to kind to the consumers?

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:46 PM

I can assure you, there is (or was, before the clergy's meddling) competition aplenty in Devon such that I make (made, rather) a good living. Yes, I had more than many, but I was far from rich (even truer today). I welcome competition, but nowadays, the only competition I'm seeing is from the Devon clergy, since other merchants have already been run out of business by them.

Actually, I do have proof. I lent some leather to one of the clergy a few years back, not thinking that much harm would come of this. Boy, was I mistaken! Anyway, this clergyman never paid me back. He claims he did, but he has no receipt to prove it. So, he refuses to pay back his debts to me even as he continues to by all the leather he can get his hands on. Doesn't exactly sound honest, does it? More like biting the hand that feeds.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 6:54 PM

That is a dispute for the courts. Not Parliament.

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 7:13 PM

The debt, yes, that is for a common law court to decide. However, the predatory business practices must be addressed in Parliament, as they affect the entire county of Devon and could soon affect neighboring regions.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 7:38 PM A finalized court decision could be used as evidence, yes. However accusations of a he said / she said type argument cannot be used as proof in our parliament.

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 7:40 PM

Very well, however, I must submit a bill to Parliament so that the case may, in fact, be tried in a common law court.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 7:43 PM

Sounds like a case for equality courts, if you ask me.

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 7:44 PM

Do you, perhaps, mean an "equity" court? Why is this case?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 7:56 PM

I apologize for the typo. I spoke with my advisors on law. As you always say, on law matters ask a lawyer and on spiritual matters ask a spiritual man, and he advised me to approve this for Equity Courts. Perhaps if you can explain your argument in detail for what you want I can reconvene with my law advisors.

Author: Aaron Fetto Posted Date: November 13, 2008 8:03 PM

Certainly, it is my understanding (as my lawyer explained it to me), cases are generally brought before an equity court when the strict rules of common law have failed. Since my case has not even been heard yet, it would be best to start in the common law court and then proceed to equity court if common law cannot, for whatever reason, settle the issue.

Author: Martha Driver Posted Date: November 14, 2008 9:33 AM

Can you tie your observations to the current economic crisis and the expeditures on expensive warfare in France and elsewhere? You might also bring in your valuation chart so students (with calculators?) can figure out the financial picture in Henry's England. Just a thought.

Author: Gillian Kirsch Posted Date: November 14, 2008 12:59 PM

OK, Plymouth, I've had enough of this! I tried to be the bigger person here, but you're continuously pointing at me, as if I am a terrible person, and I just can't stand it anymore. I have taken a vow of poverty and how dare you say I'm not living by it!? I have every right to be involved in temporal business! How else do you suppose I raise money to help the poor?! God knows no one else is gonna do it! Certainly not you anyway! And like you've said, prayer alone is not going to fix this problem. Members of the clergy have to get involved in secular matters in order to bring an end to the poverty created by selfish business men like yourself. Don't you dare say I'm not living by my vow of poverty!!! And as for this lawsuit-- why don't we stop talking about it and let Parliament decide?!

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 14, 2008 4:31 PM

Them be fighting words! About the resignation of Thomas More:

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 12, 2008 4:31 PM

Top of Form What we witnessed today in More's resignation was a selfless commitment to principle over power. [Is there] anyone else of such moral fiber to take such action? Regardless, More's contributions should not be forgotten: he advanced humanist, Christian ideals; he defended the kingdom against seditious heretics, and he was a loyal servant to the king. As such, I would call upon Parliament to appoint More to a special advisory role in parliamentary proceedings, so that we may yet [hear] his wise discourse.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 12, 2008 4:55 PM I am inclined to agree with you but there is one issue.....

More resigned from his post. If he cannot seem to stomach the submission of clergy, how can we trust him to handle other ordeals?

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 12, 2008 9:47 PM

Why would More [even] accept a position that was extended to him? Clearly the prestige and influence mean little in the face of his moral obligations, or he would not have resigned in the first place!

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 4:39 PM The position would have no official power, but merely allow More to voice his opinion on legislative matters. Whether you agree or disagree with his views, it cannot be denied that he is a man of great wisdom, mental and spiritual. Parliament would be at great disadvantage, lacking his presence.

Author: Anonymous Posted Date: November 13, 2008 5:13 PM

Are you suggesting that More come back to parliament? I'm not sure this is possible.