DOCSLIB.ORG

“Delivered at Second Hand”: Translation, Gifting, and the Politics of Authorship in Tudor Women’S Writing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Delivered at Second Hand”: Translation, Gifting, and the Politics of Authorship in Tudor Women’S Writing University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2014-01-17 “Delivered at Second Hand”: Translation, Gifting, and the Politics of Authorship in Tudor Women’s Writing Inglis, Kirsten Inglis, K. (2014). “Delivered at Second Hand”: Translation, Gifting, and the Politics of Authorship in Tudor Women’s Writing (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/25543 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1272 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY “Delivered at Second Hand”: Translation, Gifting, and the Politics of Authorship in Tudor Women’s Writing by Kirsten Inglis A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH CALGARY, ALBERTA JANUARY, 2014 © KIRSTEN INGLIS 2014 Abstract This dissertation explores manuscript translations made by four women of the English Renaissance, and argues that these translations subvert dominant modes of discourse through the act of translation, both linguistic and inter-semiotic and the performance of self/identity through the conventions of gift-giving. Mary Bassett (d. 1572), Jane Lumley (1537-1578), Jane Seager (fl. 1589), and Esther Inglis (1570/1-1624) each translated an existing printed text into English; each woman translated her source text on a linguistic level – from Greek, or Latin, or French into English – but also translated on an inter- semiotic level – from print to manuscript, sometimes with striking additions in terms of painting, drawing, needlework, calligraphy, and bindings. I argue that the late Renaissance offered a transitional moment in the conceptualization of translation and that each of these women recognized and exploited the ambiguities of translational authority during the period so as to maintain the ability to both claim and repudiate a politicized speaking voice. The early modern women of this study make themselves visible through the materials and partatexts of their manuscripts and through established conventions of gifting and patronage. The particular intersection of translation and Renaissance gift- culture has been little studied, and I argue that Bassett, Lumley, Seager, and Inglis adroitly negotiate the rhetorics of translation and gift-culture in order to articulate political and religious affiliations and beliefs that were allowed no other public outlet. This particular set of translations has not previously been considered as a related group and as a whole this project offers a critical lens through which to read Renaissance translations in relation to the materiality of Renaissance gift culture. ii Acknowledgements I would like to gratefully acknowledge the generous financial support I received while completing this project. The Department of English at the University of Calgary provided research and travel funding, as did the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in the form of a Joseph-Armand Bombardier CGS Doctoral Scholarship and a Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement. I benefitted immensely from the stimulating and collegial environment at the Calgary Institute for the Humanities where I was supported by a Frances Spratt Graduate Fellowship. The work I undertook for this project would not have been possible without the support and guidance of my supervisor, Mary Polito. I am immensely grateful for the time she generously shared with me and for her unfailing encouragement and perceptive questions on the work. I am fortunate to have had wonderfully supportive committee members in Jim Ellis and Susan Bennett. Thank you to the many friends and colleagues who provided support along the way. Early encouragement in the program came in the form of welcoming office mates and ‘noodle days.’ Certainly, I would never have survived this program without the conversations (and coffee) shared with Lourdes over the years! My greatest debt – and the one for which no amount of gratitude can ever be adequate – is of course to my family: Derek, Lorin, and Gwen. Thank you for sharing in this journey with me. iii Dedication Dedicated to the memory of Hilary Mary Inglis 1948-2008 iv Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iiiii Dedication ......................................................................................................................... iiv Table of Contents .................................................................................................................v List of Figures and Illustrations ........................................................................................ vii Chapter 1 Introduction: “Transformance”: Renaissance Women’s Translation and the Performance of Gift Exchange............................................................................1 i. Tracing Early English Theories of Translation: Middle Ages to Renaissance..............................................................................................................5 ii. A “Renaissance in Translation Studies”?: Contemporary Translation Theory....................................................................................................................15 iii. Having it Both Ways: Translation and Renaissance Gift-Culture...................19 Chapter 2: “Thys my poore labor to present”: Mary Basset’s Translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History......................................................................................25 i. Mary Basset and the Morean Educational Legacy............................................26 ii. Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History in Context..................................................32 iii. The Religio-Political Context of Basset’s Ecclesiastical History....................37 iv. Translational Voice and Authority in Basset’s Ecclesiastical History............48 Chapter 3: “For the comodite of my countrie”: Nation, Gift, and Family in Lady Jane Lumley’s Tragedie of Iphigeneia............................................................................59 i. The Arundel-Lumley Household......................................................................62 ii. Nation, Gift, and Family in Jane Lumley’s Iphigenia......................................70 v iii. The Performance of Women’s Rhetorical Power in Lumley’s Translation.....84 iv. The Gift of Performance?.................................................................................95 Chapter 4: “Graced both with my pen and pencell”: Prophecy and Politics in Jane Seager’s Sibylline Gift............................................................................................99 i. Making Meaning: The Materiality of the Manuscript....................................103 ii. Masking Meaning: Timothy Bright’s Characterie..........................................115 iii. Mediating Meaning: Seager’s Sibylline Translation......................................124 iv. Conclusion.....................................................................................................136 Chapter 5: “The fruits of my pen”: Esther Inglis’s Translation of Georgette de Montenay’s Emblemes ou Devises Chrestiennes.....................................................141 i. Emblem Books and the Paradox of Authority...............................................145 ii. Georgette de Montenay and the Protestant Emblem in France......................151 iii. Translation and Authority in Esther Inglis’s 1624 Cinquante Emblemes Chrestienes.........................................................................................156 iv. Inglis’s Emblemes and the Politics of 1622-1624..........................................171 v. Conclusion......................................................................................................187 Chapter 6: Conclusion..................................................................................................201 Bibligography..................................................................................................................209 Appendix 1: Transcription of Mary Basset, Dedicatory Letter......................................232 Appendix 2: Transcription of Esther Inglis, Dedicatory Letter......................................238 Appendix 3: Table of Emblems and Dedicatees in Esther Inglis’s Cinquante Emblemes Chrestiens (1624)...........................................................................................241 Appendix 4: Letters of Permission..................................................................................244 vi List of Figures and Illustrations Figure 4.1. Jane Seager’s Divine Prophecies of the Ten Sibils........................................139 Figure 4.2. Verre Églomisé Front Cover.........................................................................139 Figure 4.3. Damaged Back Cover...................................................................................139
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Mary Roper Clarke Bassett and Meredith Hanmer's
    Mary Roper Clarke Bassett and Meredith Hanmer’s Honorable Ladie of the Lande Eugenio OLIVARES MERINO University of Jaén ABSTRACT In his 1577 English translation of Eusebius’ History of the Church, Meredith Hanmer makes reference to “an honorable Ladie of the lande,” whose identity still remains unknown. My design here is to gather the scarce and scattered available evidence, so as to propose a name that is rather reasonable. In order to contextualize the conclusions, reference will also be made to such issues as women’s literacy and religious controversies in Elizabethan England. KEYWORDS: Mary Roper Clarke Bassett, Meredith Hanmer, translation, Greek, Eusebius Mary Roper,1 Sir Thomas More’s granddaughter by his beloved Margaret, is especially known for an English translation of her grandfather’s Latin book about Christ’s Passion, written while prisoner in the Tower of London.2 This work was included in William Rastell’s edition of More’s English Works (1557), pp. 1350- 1404, and it was the only text by a woman to appear in print during the reign of Mary Tudor (Demers 2001: 5). The editor was enthusiastic about the chance he had to include Mary’s translation, for it seemed to be no translation at all: “so that it myghte seme to have been by hys [Thomas More’s] own pen indyted first, and not at all translated: suche a gyft hath she to followe her grandfathers vayne in writing” (Rastell 1557: 1350). But it is Mary’s partial translation of Eusebius’ History of the Church that I will bring forth into the readers’ consideration, both for it and for the light it might 1 The date of Mary’s birth is not known.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.Mary Roper Clarke Bassett and Meredith Hanmer's Honorable Ladie of the Lande
    SEDERI Yearbook ISSN: 1135-7789 [email protected] Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renaissance Studies España OLIVARES MERINO, Eugenio Mary Roper Clarke Bassett and Meredith Hanmer’s Honorable Ladie of the Lande SEDERI Yearbook, núm. 17, 2007, pp. 75-91 Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renaissance Studies Valladolid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=333527604004 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Mary Roper Clarke Bassett and Meredith Hanmer’s Honorable Ladie of the Lande Eugenio OLIVARES MERINO University of Jaén ABSTRACT In his 1577 English translation of Eusebius’ History of the Church, Meredith Hanmer makes reference to “an honorable Ladie of the lande,” whose identity still remains unknown. My design here is to gather the scarce and scattered available evidence, so as to propose a name that is rather reasonable. In order to contextualize the conclusions, reference will also be made to such issues as women’s literacy and religious controversies in Elizabethan England. KEYWORDS: Mary Roper Clarke Bassett, Meredith Hanmer, translation, Greek, Eusebius Mary Roper,1 Sir Thomas More’s granddaughter by his beloved Margaret, is especially known for an English translation of her grandfather’s Latin book about Christ’s Passion, written while prisoner in the Tower of London.2 This work was included in William Rastell’s edition of More’s English Works (1557), pp. 1350- 1404, and it was the only text by a woman to appear in print during the reign of Mary Tudor (Demers 2001: 5).
    [Show full text]
  • The English Correspondence of Sir Thomas More
    The English Correspondence of Sir Thomas More The letter and line numbers correspond to the 1947 Rogers edition (Princeton UP). The English spellings have been standardized for this edition and its concordance by Andrea Frank. A complete concordance to this work can be found at www.thomasmorestudies.org/publications.html#Concordance. ©CTMS 2014 Thomas More’s English letters, following 1947 Rogers numbering [4] To Sister Joyce Leigh. <London, c. 1 January 1505> …………………………… 3 [11] To the Council, from Tunstall, Sampson, More. Bruges, 9 July 1515………….... 4 [12] To <Henry VIII>, from Tunstall, More, Clyfford. Bruges, 21 July 1515............. 5 [13] To Wolsey, from Knight, More, Wilsher, Sampson,…. Bruges, 1 Oct 1515......... 6 [49] To Wolsey & Council, from Wingfield, Knight, More. Calais, 13 Oct <1517>...... 6 [51] To Wolsey & Council, from Wingfield, Knight, More. <Calais? c. Oct 1517>…... 7 [53] To <Wolsey>, from Wingfield, Knight, More. Calais, 4 <Nov>ember <1517>.... 9 [77] To Wolsey. Woking, 5 July <1519>.......................................................... 10 [78] To Wolsey. Woking, 6 July <1519>.......................................................... 11 [79] To Wolsey. Woking, 9 July <1519>.......................................................... 12 [98] To Wolsey, from Knight, More, Wilsher, Sampson. Bruges, 15 Sept <1520>........ 13 [100] To the Deputy Chamberlains of the Exchequer. <c. May 1521>....................... 15 [109] To Wolsey. Newhall, 14 September <1522> ............................................. 15 [110]
    [Show full text]
  • We Start Our Work When the Child Is Three. As Soon As
    14A Nazi youth policy 277 As you read this chapter, note down points to help you with the following SOURCE 14. 5 Robert Ley,leader of the LabourFront (DAF) structured essay. Westart our work when the child is three. Assoon as it begins to think, a little a) Whatwere the aims of Naziyouth flag is put into its hand. Then comes school, the Hitler Youth Movement, the I and education policy? Storm Troop... Wenever let a single soulgo, andwhen they havegone through b) What methods did they use? allthat, thereis the Labour Front, whichtakes them when they are grown up c) How successful were they in andnever lets hold of them .,. whether they like it or not. achieving their aims? u Theprogress of German youth through Nazi organisations u , ->-'t^. *,; Boys Girls You may like to study the topics in . 6-10 Pimpfen (Cubs) . 10- 14JungMade] ()M) -YoungGirls I Chapters 14 and 15 in a rather different . 10-14Deutsches'Jungvolk . 14-18 Bund Deutscher Madel (BDM) 5 manner. (Young German Boys) - League of German Girls . 14-18Hitlerjugend(HJ)- . 18-21 Glaube und Schonheit- I Divide into groups of three or four. HitlerYouth <( Each group should choose to study Faith and Beauty either Youth or Women in Nazi Germany. Readthe appropriate chapter, making I notes on: I a) Aims of Nazi policy b) Nazi methods Male Both Female i c) The effectiveness of Nazi policy. Reich Labour . German LabourFront (DAF) . NS Frauenwerk (NSF) - Service (RAD) . NSDAP National SocialistWomen's I Discuss your findings with your group. Wehrmacht (army) . German Students' League Organisation s (overwhelmingly male Then one group on each topic can z report its findings to the rest of the membership) class.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaris Capture Pro Software
    Did the Sons of Edward IV Outlive Henry VII: A postscript MUCH INTEREST has been raised by the article by Mr Leslau in the September Ricardian. Some comments have been received, of which the most interesting are given in this postscript. Part of the comment has been centred on the question of who painted the picture discussed. As Mrs Helen Maurer remarks, if it cannot be shown that Holbein painted it, ‘then Leslau’s contention that Holbein’s portraits conceal within them hidden messages cannot be used to lend credence to the presumed existence of a message concealed in this particular painting’. It is a fact that Lord St. Oswald’s painting bears the date 1530 or 1532, and the name Rowlandus Locky. The date is impossible for Locky (fl. 1590), and the painting is generally believed to have been painted about 1593, and to be an exact or modified copy of a Holbein original, now lost or destroyed.‘ Mr Leslau of course believes that the painting is in fact by Holbein, and in support of his belief makes the following comments: ‘The painting was described by both the Reverend John Lewis2 and George Vertue (died 1756)} Neither Lewis nor Vertue report the inscription “Rowlandus Locky” upon the portrait, and both, with little hesitation, attribute the portrait to Holbein. Lewis, in 1717, makes a detailed description of the entire portrait, including specific details within three inches of the area where today can just be seen the inscription ‘Rowlandus Locky’. I conjecture that the inscription was not on th_e_portrait when Lewis and Vertue examined it.
    [Show full text]
  • Mary Roper Basset's English Rendering Of
    Translating Devotion: Mary Roper Basset’s English Rendering of Thomas More’s De tristitia … Christi brenda m. hosington Université de Montréal/University of Warwick La dernière œuvre de Thomas More, composée en 1534–1535 dans la Tour de Londres alors qu’il attendait son exécution, retrace l’agonie du Christ à Gethsémani dans les heures précédant son arrestation. Le De tristitia, tedio, pauore, et oratione Christi ante captionem eius, texte d’une grande intensité dévotionnelle et émotionnelle, n’en est pas moins marqué par les traits d’esprit et l’humour ironique caractéristiques de More. L’œuvre est traduite en anglais quelque temps après le décès de More par sa petite-fille, Mary Roper, mais c’est seulement en 1557, après le mariage de cette dernière à James Basset, et alors qu’elle tient l’office de dame de compagnie (« lady of the privy chamber ») de la reine Marie Tudor, que la traduction est publiée. On la retrouve en effet dans l’édition des English Works de More par William Rastell (1557), qui présente Mary Basset comme une femme « tout à fait experte en latin et en anglais ». Bien que les notices biographiques et les ouvrages de référence sur l’écriture féminine anglaise à la Renaissance fassent mention de cette œuvre — quoique parfois de manière erronée —, ainsi que des passages tirés de l’Histoire de l’Église d’Eusèbe que Basset avait précédemment traduits en latin et en anglais, ces textes n’ont jamais été étudiés. Afin de remédier à cette situation, cet article offre dans un premier temps une analyse détaillée de l’œuvre remarquable que représente Of the sorowe, werinesse, feare, and prayer of Christ before hys taking.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Opposition at the Early Tudor Tower of London: Thomas More’S Dialogue of Comfort*
    Building Opposition at the Early Tudor Tower of London: Thomas More’s Dialogue of Comfort* kristen deiter Tennessee Tech University Medieval and early modern English monarchs constructed the Tower of London’s iconography to symbolize royal power, creating a self-promoting royal ideology of the Tower. However, the Tower’s cultural significance turned sharply when Thomas More wroteA Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation (1534) as a Tower prisoner, laying the foundation for an early modern tradition of liter- ary and cultural representations of the Tower as oppositional to the Crown. In the Dialogue, through four progressive transgressions against Henry VIII, More defies the royal ideology of the Tower and refashions the Tower itself as a symbol of resistance to royal tyranny. Les monarques anglais du Moyen Âge et de la Renaissance ont représenté la Tour de Londres comme un symbole du pouvoir royal, mettant ainsi en place une idéologie de la Tour promouvant la royauté. Toutefois, la signification culturelle de la Tour a subi un retournement rapide lorsque Thomas More a écrit A Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation (1534), alors prisonnier à la Tour ; l’ouvrage a en effet posé les fondations d’une tradition littéraire et culturelle présentant la Tour comme un lieu d’opposition à la couronne. Dans le Dialogue, à travers quatre étapes progressives de contestations à l’égard d’Henri VIII, More remet en question l’idéologie royale de la Tour, et la redéfinit comme un symbole de résistance à la tyrannie royale. n the mid-1530s, Henry VIII had Thomas More imprisoned in the Tower of ILondon and beheaded on Tower Hill to assert royal control over his obsti- nate subject.
    [Show full text]
  • 546 EARL of WARWICK at CALAIS in 1460 October Passage by J3e Grace of God, Hoo Hafie Yow and Alle Yowris in His Gracius Kepyng Body and Soule
    546 EARL OF WARWICK AT CALAIS IN 1460 October passage by J3e grace of god, hoo hafie yow and alle yowris in his gracius kepyng body and soule. Worshipfull Syr, hafie me excuset of myn en- dytyng for I can do none other wyse bot as corse of merchandise askes. Vreten at Cales the xiiij day of June By yowr pore bedeman ffi Symonde L. Endorsed. To my Right Worshipfull and . .Syr and my gode master Thomas Thorpe in pe medyll Temple yn London. Downloaded from A Calendar of the Correspondence of Sir Thomas More THE chief sources here used for More's letters are the following : I. Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, Oxford, 1906- http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/ 4 volumes. II. The Workes of Sir Thomas More Knyght, sometyme Lorde Chauncellour of England, wrytten by him in the Englysh tonge, London, 1557. III. Thomas Stapleton : ' Vita Thomae Mori ' in Tree Thomae. Douay, 1588. Stapleton carried manuscript letters of More with him to at Georgetown University on August 17, 2015 Douay. These he incorporated, in whole or in part, in his Vita Tliomae Mori, published when the Roman Catholics were most hopeful, just before the sailing of the Armada. His extracts are often very brief ; and the few which can be compared with the complete letters preserved elsewhere are found sometimes not to give the most interesting part of the letter. (See cap. iii. 845, Introduction, and W. H. Hutton, Sir Thomas More, 1885, p. vi.) For most of the English letters—those preserved in the British Museum and the Public Record Office, and epitomized in J.
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE of CONTENTS Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………... 1 Humanism ………………………………..………………………………………………6 Foundations of Humanism ……..……………………………………………….. 7 Reformation and Renaissance ...…..…………………………………………… 10 Civic Humanism ……..………………………………………………………….12 Humanism in Education and Royal Service ….....…………………………….. 13 More, the Politician ……..………………………………………....…………....15 Humanist Works ……..……………………………………………………...…..18 Letter to Oxford 1518 ……..……………………………………………..18 Utopia ……..……………………………………………………………..19 The History of King Richard III ……..………………………………….. 21 Erasmian Humanism ……..…………………………………………………….22 More’s Defense of Erasmus ……..………………….…………………...24 Humanism: Conclusion ……..……………………………………………….....25 The Great Matter and the Acts that Followed ……..…….…………………...……... 27 Henrician Reformation ……..…………………………………………….…….31 Conservative Reformation v. Lutheran Reformation …..…………...…... 32 Assertio Septem Sacramentorum ……..……………................................32 Discussions of Supremacy ……..……………...……..……..…..…………........35 More’s Resignation ……..……………...……..……..…..……………............... 35 Acts of Succession and Supremacy ……..……………...……..……..…..…….. 37 More’s Dissension ……..……………...……..……..…..……………....………. 39 Effect on Humanism ……..……………...……..……..…..……………............. 41 More, The Martyr ……..……………...……..……..…..……………....……………… 43 Vita Contemplativa ……..……………...……..……..…..……………..……......44 Valencia holograph ……..……………...……..……..…..…………….... 44 Espositio Fidelis de Morte Thomae Mori ……..……………...………… 47 Martyr Made ……..……………...……..……..…..……………..........................49
    [Show full text]
  • Reformed PERSPECTIVE Perspective? a MAGAZINE for the CHRISTIAN FAMILY
    OCTOBER 2015 Reformed A MAGAZINE FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY Volume 34 Issue No. 12 CELEBRATING 30+ YEARS LEST WE FORGET On May 5, 2015 the Netherlands celebrated the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II with a re-enactment of their liberation ORTH N W O S TI W N E G N .. NOTA BENE picture by Robert Hoetink / Shutterstock.com p. 6 IN A NUTSHELL • FROM THE EDITOR • BOOK REVIEWS • CROSSWORD Is this not your copy of Reformed Reformed PERSPECTIVE Perspective? A MAGAZINE FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY Published monthly by the Foundation for the publication of a Reformed Social-Political Magazine (Reformed Perspective Foundation). JUNE 2015 Volume 34 Issue No. 8 For Subscriptions or to Change your address, contact: Reformed A MAGAZINE FOR THE CHRISTIAN FAMILY Joanna deBoer - Reformed Perspective Administration, CELEBRATING 30+ YEARS Box 1328, 230 2nd AV NW, Carman, MB, R0G 0J0 [email protected] 1-855-527-1366 For Letters to the Editor, Advertising and Submissions, contact: FALSE DILEMMAp.16 Is Genesis 1 Historical or Poetic? E-mail: [email protected] THROUGH WHICH Editor: Jon Dykstra GLASSES? P.18 Regular Contributors: Sharon Bratcher, Christine Farenhorst, Margaret Helder, A BOOK FOR EVERY MINISTER, ELDER, AND Anna Nienhuis, Michael Wagner DEACON P.24 Board of Directors: John Voorhorst (Chairman); Henry Stel (Managing Editor); Ken Stel (Secretary); Chris deBoer (Treasurer); Bob Lodder Template Design: Compass Creative Studio Inc. compasscreative.ca Art Direction, Design and Layout: Annelies Schoen www.facebook.com/FreshDesignByAnnelies Contact Address for South Africa: Arie Roos, Box 584, Kuilsrivier, 7580 Republic of South Africa TH N OR OT W IN S G W .
    [Show full text]
  • Review Essay: Whence Did German Propaganda Films
    Reason Papers Vol. 38, no. 1 Review Essay: Whence Did German Propaganda Films Derive Their Power? Ian Garden’s The Third Reich’s Celluloid War: Propaganda in Nazi Feature Films, Documentaries, and Television Gary James Jason California State University, Fullerton The history of cinema is an important tool for understanding the use of film for propaganda and indoctrination. Scholars of propaganda should be grateful to Ian Garden, because his The Third Reich’s Celluloid War1 is a comprehensive and insightful history of Nazi propaganda films. He holds that the Nazis understood propaganda to be a powerful weapon and that they wielded it more effectively than did the Allies. He also notes, though, that the Nazi propaganda machine made a great number of mistakes. He seeks to explain the key features of the major German propaganda films, the degree to which they were propagandistic, and how effective they were. Upon reviewing his work, I conclude that although Garden offers thoughtful reflections in many ways, he understates the unique power of Nazi propaganda film. Garden discusses briefly the nature of propaganda, defining it as messaging aimed at persuasion (p. 11). Understood that way, propaganda is a benign concept; however, after persistent misuse over a century by political agents, it now pejoratively means the dispersing of mendacious information. On his view, propaganda doesn’t necessarily involve lying or distorting the truth—though it often does. Propaganda may involve stating facts that are true, but they are so selectively presented that they mislead the audience into the point of view the propagandist is pushing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Old Church of Chelsea
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 2 Number 4 Volume 2, October 1956, Number 4 Article 3 The Old Church of Chelsea Richard O'Sullivan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Catholic Studies Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Old Church of Chelsea RICHARD O'SULLIVAN T HE OLD CHURCH OF CHELSEA, with which the name of St. Thomas More is associated, was in his day already venerable. There is said to have been a church upon this site even from Saxon times. In the Calendar of Papal Registers there is a record of a dispensation granted by Pope Nicholas IV, who died in 1292: [R]elaxation of one year and forty days of enjoined penance to penitents who visit the Church of Thelchuche on the Feast of All Saints, to whom it is dedicated, and on the anniversary of the dedication. The Church is mentioned also in Papal Letters of the late 13th century as the Church of "Thelchurche" and "Chelchuthe." It consisted origi- nally only of Chancel and Nave, the Chapels to north and south being in private hands. The freehold of the north Chapel belonged in succes- sion to the Lord of the Manor of Chelsea, Gervase, Abbot of West- minster; to Sir Reginald Bray; to King Henry VIII and his Queens, Anne of Cleves and Catherine Parr; to John Dudley, Duke of North- umberland, father-in-law of Lady Jane Grey, the unhappy young "Nine- Days Queen." In this Church, in May, 1536, Henry VIII was secretly married to his third wife, Jane Seymour; and during her childhood, Queen Elizabeth I attended service here.
    [Show full text]