Did the Russian State... Part XII by Nils Johann (Father of all Things)

“Lupus est homo homini, non homo, quom qualis sit non novit.”

As discussed up to this point, the reason for the acts of our Monarchs, amount to the end-goal of being able to finance, and field their war-machine. War was, during that age, the normal state of affairs. Both Ivan and Henry fielded gunpowder armies, with a core of drilled regulars. It is hard to find a great difference in the way the Monarchs ran their campaigns, or in how they treated the
conquered.

Ivan's cruel treatment of Novgorod is held up as an extraordinary example of cruelty. What seems to be forgotten is that it remained common practice to treat resisting fortresses in a cruel way, if they during a siege resisted, up until the time that the breaches had to be stormed, even throughout the time of the Napoleonic Wars. 'The Hundred-years-war' had started with the 'English' sack and slaughter of Caen. Henry VIII continued this tradition. It was done in this manner, because it was quite costly in human resources to storm a fortification, and thus the example made of an resisting city, should encourage others to not resist. (We could take it further and say Coventry, Dresden, Hiroshima, Ho-Chi-Minh, and Fallujah, are a few of the cities that fell to the same principle during the last hundred years, even though the means of achieving the slaughter had changed.) An almost contemporary example would be Ferdinand II Habsburg's razing of Magdeburg (1631) during the thirty-years-war (1618-1648). His Field-marshal Pappenheim later wrote:

“I believe that over twenty thousand souls were lost. It is certain that no more terrible work and divine punishment has been seen since the Destruction of Jerusalem. All of our soldiers became rich. God with us.”

Henry had a long going hostility with the French 1511-15, and in 1521-25,torching and plundering the land from Calais to Paris. And then again in 1543-46, after the sack of The Church had filled the war-chest again. In conjunction to this Henry employed tactics similar to those of Ivan. Scotland and Ireland were at the time not yet firmly dominated by the English Crown, and the Scottish Parliament favored close ties to the Valoais-French, in order to contain English aggression and dictatorship.

For Henry VIII, a war against the French would entail the potential for Scottish intervention throughout his reign. When the Scottish Parliament revoked the 'Greenwich peace-accord' (1542-43) because, amongst several grievances, it intended a marriage between Mary I (*1542-1587) and Edward, Henry's son, Henry sent his March-Lords north to wreak havoc and punish the Scots (1544-50). The Earl of Hertford and Viscount Lisle, stood under direct orders to raze Edinburgh and they turned a great many towns, cities and the countryside to ash and ruin.

"English policy was simply to pulverise Scotland, to beat her either into acquiescence or out of existence, and Hertford's campaigns ... reign of terror, extermination of all resisters, the encouragement of collaborators, and so on.”

Ivan waged war in two general directions during his reign. South-East, down the Volga Valley, and towards west, in order to gain a foothold on the Baltic shore. The southern conquest of the Nogai tributaries, Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1556) were among the early successes of Ivan's reign. The dynamics induced by the expanse of the steppe was a long going, back and forth struggle, but by the taking of the two cities, a better possibility for the containment of the enemywas created. At first the paperwork, and a puppet government were put in order, to legitimize the Russian claims on the area. The Russians came to 'help', and after politics, they let the guns 'do the talking'. The siege of Kazan was an exercise in the gunpowder-siege-warfare, signifying of the age, with a breach being made by sappers and artillery bombardment. The Russian forces were resisted to the bitter end. The cease of hostilities only followed, after the last defenders within the citadel took to flight. The customary pillage, and the murder of survivors, was topped by the destruction the city’s libraries, mosques, and archives. Several years of 'counter-insurgency' within the area followed as well. Four years later the time had come for Astrakhan. Its rulers might have gotten the example statuaeted with the sack of Kazan. Gaining sight of the Russian avant-guard Dervish Ali Khan, who had been sitting unsteady for many years, fled with his forces to the Turks. The city in the Volga-delta was captured without a fight. The area remained contested by the Ottoman Turks for some years, but accord was reached in 1570 after a failed attempt by the Turks to capture the modern Russian kremlin guarding the city. The conquest of Kazan and Astrakhan was to serve as the Russian 'gate' to oriental trade, and to facilitated further expansion into Siberia.

Did the Russian State... Part VIII by Nils Johann (The Circumstance of the Two Ruling Houses, and their Nobility)

“And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.”

Henry VIII Tudor (*1491-†1547) took the throne in 1509 as a young man, 17 years old. He was not supposed to become king, but his older brother, Arthur, had suddenly died. Leading up to this point in time, England had been a unruly place, where only 25 years earlier, feuding nobles had been tearing the realm apart. The House of Tudor, was the product of the alliance by marriage of the Houses of York and Lancashire in 1486. A compromise that symbolically ended the Wars of the Roses (1455-1485). They had been in open conflict since 1399.

These Wars of English succession, had happened shortly after the wars for French succession, also known as the 'Hundred Years War'. The 'English' (Normans) withdrew from the continent and relinquishing their prospects to gain the French Crown. The wars had strengthened the Crown, vis-a-vis the Barons, establishing large military forces under direct control of the Monarch. Having standing armies is of course expensive and having them, it probably did become a great temptation to utilize them in order to 'resolve' the claim to the English Crown. Henry’s father Henri VII Tudor (*1457–†1509) had won the title of King by waging war on Richard III (*1452–†1485). He was killed by Henri's henchmen during the battle of Bosworth field in 1485. Henri had after that, tried to confiscate all lands belonging to supporters of the late King, by declaring himself King retroactively, making his opponents traitors. During Henri VII's reign, he four times faced larger rebellions by the Barons, triggering a crackdown on their right to keep 'private security forces'. Harsh realities like these are not easy forgotten by the young King and his advisers, and one can in his actions during his reign, see a constant maneuvering in order to keep the nobility at bay.

One of Henry VIII first actions was to 'cleanse' the Nomenclature of The Crown, of some his father's advisers that he disliked. The Yorkist 'White Rose Party' could still challenge Henry VIII for the throne and in 1513 he had Edmund de la Pole, the leader of the 'Party', murdered. Henry constantly worked to intimidate the members of the high nobility. In the following years he also had Henry Brandon, the Duke of Suffolk and Buckingham, indited for 'treason' by his Minister, Cardinal Wolsey. He had Brandon murdered in 'The Tower'. Wolsey would in the end suffer the same faith, and the same is true for the man who was to fill his place, Thomas Cromwell. The corpses in gibbets, or the head of these “traitors” on a spike, would often greet visitors who entered London through Tower Bridge. It shows the ambivalence of relations, between the Crown and its supporting nobility, as we enter an age of more powerful monarchs, that are increasingly able to rule without the political support of the high nobility. This tendency, we can also observe in Russia. From 1237 until 1240 the Rus princes had been overwhelmed by the conquering Tartar armies of Batu Khan. Kiev, the cultural capital of the region was razed. Other parts of the region, like Moscow, were only sacked. The Rus Principalities were made subsidiaries to the vast empire of the Golden Horde. In the same period the cultural centre of The Orthodox Church, and the central trading partner of Kiev, Constantinople, had been conquered and occupied by Latin “Crusaders” from 1204 till 1267. During the suzerainty of the Horde, a small difference in the customs of inheritance in Moscow allowed for the most eligible prince (though usually by primogeniture) to inherit the major share of property, unlike other parts of the region where every heir got an equal share, and the estates were divided.

By the time of Ivan III (*1440-†1505) the Tartar suzerainty was beginning to properly disintegrate. The Horde had started breaking up into several feuding parties after an interregnum in 1410. He exploited the situation to further expand the dominion of Moscow, unifying a vast Rus territory under his rule. In 1472, he took as his second wife, Zoe (Sophia) Palaiologina, the niece of the last Roman Emperor. The family-crest of the Palaiologians, the double-headed eagle was adopted by the grand princes of Muscovy. In addition to bringing with her a grand number of technocrats, there was also the baffling amount of eight-hundred books in her baggage, further strengthening the technocratic bond between the 'Second'- and 'Third Rome'. The library is supposed to have contained works of law by Constantine 'The Great' (*272–†337), and Justinian I (*482-†565), and several 'princes mirrors'. Vasili III (*1479-†1533) son of Ivan III and Zoe took several steps at defining his reign as continuation of the Roman Empire. In Zoe's retinue followed, artists, physicians, and politicians, who were well connected to the general developments elsewhere in contemporary Europe. There are many cases of integration of both, talented Greek refugees and other artist coming to the land. It is interesting to note the both Henry and Ivan, amongst other precedence, base their claim to autocracy on the Roman Law of Constantine. The Byzantine influx spurred after the fall of Constantinople in 1204, may very well have been a large contributing factor to the Renaissance, as Roman-Greek technocrats traveled westward, and northward.

Ivan IV is born near Moscow on August 25th 1530 as the only son of Vasily III. His father passed away when Ivan was only three years old. By the leading Bojars, Ivan was accepted as the legitimate heir to the throne. He was proclaimed Grand Prince of Moscow, while his mother Yelena Glinskaya acted as Regent in his place. After Ivan had turned eight she died. Maybe naturally, maybe by poisoning, initiated by a noble faction biding for power. Other different factions in court started biding for power and influence. The next decade was a time of political turbulence in Russia. Three, and at times more, Bojar 'parties' used this period to try and gain political superiority over each other. They gravitated around the families; Shuiskii, Bel'skii, and Glinskii. Ivan had been eight years old, alone, and at the same time surrounded by power-grabbers pretending to the position of Regent. They had schemed, plotted, and murdered, and used violence to attain their goals, and thus it is possible that the nobles had made a bad impression on the young Prince.

Ivan had slowly started to take command as Grand Duke at about age thirteen. It seems that Ivan stemmed the bickering, by having a Shuiskii Prince torn by his hunting-dogs in the Kremlin- Square. In political terms, we call that establishing credibility. Just like Henry, Ivan had to use force and terror to get his Barons in line, in order to lay the foundation for future negotiation.

After he turned sixteen in 1547, Ivan was Crowned as the first 'Czar of all Russians'. In the first years of Ivan's reign, reforms were made to gather more power around the Sovereign, centralizing government and formalizing and reformulating acts of government. Like in other domains in Western Europe, a move away from feudal structuring towards an attempt at central bureaucracy was in formation.

The similarity that we can recognize, in the background of the two rulers, is that their position is the result of preceding conflict between their respective houses, and other noble families. Their realms had been formed by the use of organized violence and were maintained by the use of force...deadly if need be. This is nothing especially original. An anecdote from Herodotus' Histories comes to mind, that might illustrate this. It is a story about Thrasybulus, the Despot of Miletos and Periander, the Tyrant of Corinth. Periander sends a messenger to asks Thrasybulus for advice on ruling, and on how to stay in power. Instead of responding verbally Thrasybulus takes the messenger for a walk in a field of corn.

“he kept cutting off the heads of those ears of corn which he saw higher than the rest; and as he cut off their heads he cast them away, until he had destroyed in this manner the finest and richest part of the crop.”

The messenger conveys what he had seen happen, to Periander, adding that he has doubts about Thrasybulus sanity. The message was still correctly interpreted by Periander; a wise ruler would pre-empt challenges to his rule by removing those prominent men who might be powerful enough to challenge him. “...to put to death those who were eminent among his subjects.”

It is the simple story about how power is taken and maintained and it is foolish to assume that not any person of power operates in this way, because social bonds are fragile. It is perfectly rational for a monarch to harbor some resentment towards nobles because he often would be in economical counter-conjuncture to them. More 'taxes' for the monarch would mean less for the nobles or vice versa. It would also be rational to feel insecure about them as they, (the other wealthy and powerful families,) were the ones the Monarch had to rely on for the stability of his reign. Monarchy (Autocracy) is a 'reference-system' for organization and order, no-one has, or will ever, rule alone.

Did the Russian State... Part VII by Nils Johann (The Development after the Time of the Black Death)

The Black Death had spread westwards, disrupting the societies it infected. Old bonds were broken and ruling structures were destabilized. Power dispersed, even to the point that peasants were able to renegotiate the conditions of their bondage, as a result of the shortage in workforce, in relation to workable natural resources. Strong central government had not been materialized in the west since the Roman empire contracted eastwards. Coming into the middle of the 15th century we can see a renewed effort among the warlords in the peripheral regions, bordering on Islamic civilization to their southeast, to gather grater territories and to build state-institutions, like stable dynasties and monarchical hierarchies. Barons (*local strongmen) would not cede power easily to pretenders to monarchy. On the Iberian Peninsula, Ferdinand (*1452–†1516) and Isabella (*1451–†1504) fought a decade long civil war against their Barons and succeeded. Matthias Corvinos (*1443-†1490) tried something similar in the area of modern-day Hungary but failed to establish a stable monarchical institution.

Up until 1453 the 'Hundred Years War' (1337 to 1453) had made it easier for the French Monarch to gather his power. The conflicts had introduced the first large standing armies in North- Western Europe since the decline of the western Roman Empire. The armies started to replace the role of the retinues of Feudal Lords in warfare. In the resolving part of the conflict, even zappers, and cannon with iron shot had started to play its part, next to the traditional bowmen, lancer infantry, and heavy knights.

War is in the period the general vehicle for gravitating power towards the King, as the war, as part of foreign policy, gives the King reason to levy taxes, where he usually would only have right to the tariffs and tolls. Standing armies are expensive, and in connection with them, we also see the rise of a bureaucratic tax-system with an annual tax, further increasing the power and reach of the Monarchs. Henri VII Tudor, took in twenty times more taxes, than any of his predecessors since 1066.

Other notable state-formations rising in this period, besides the more peripheral English and Russian, are, the Habsburg Empire, the Jagiellonian Empire(s) and the Ottoman Empire. They were all bureaucratic states with standing gunpowder armies, and the predecessors to still familiar modern states.

The monarchy itself also changes in the period, as the pen becomes mightier than the sword, from bloodthirsty field commander, to a high level paper-pusher. Philip II Habsburg (*1527–†1598), rarely leaves his desks in Valadolid and at El Escorial, in contrast to his father Carl V Habsburg (*1500-†1558), who spent much of his time, personally leading the army in the field. The nobles also lost their traditional role as plated knights on horse. The superiority of cavalry that amongst others also Machiavelli notes in 'The Art of War' (1521), peters out during this century. Cavalry’s expensive, time-consuming, training can be made to nothing, by any peasant wielding a hand-arkebus, in between a phalanx of Landsknechten pike-men, or by field-artillery. Quite suddenly, accompanied by Cervantes' satire, they change form and live on as the less dominant gunmen on horseback.

The Rise of Universities in the Middle Ages and the World of Gregory Chaucer

So when I was at work today, I heard two customers chatting about the past and an author that one of their children was studying. They mentioned the ridiculous refrain that people in the Middle Ages were all uneducated unthinking idiots (not my word by the way.) As part of the discussion that these two individuals were having, they discussed both the idea that the medieval people thought the world was flat and that Chaucer is a bore. I don't know if my studies have truly given me a unique perspective on this time in history or if I simply take that knowledge for granted and assume that other people know it as well. But, I soon found myself holding a pile of prescriptions in my hand, standing behind the corner of the wall and avidly listening to the conversation while pretending to rearrange toothpaste – that must have been pretty silly to watch. :)

When these to men shook hands and appeared to go their separate ways to finish their errands, I found myself really thoughtful. It is so clear looking at older maps and studying the early scientists that well before the Middle Ages- the time frame that is generally accepted is 500 AD- 1500 AD and this time frame may be considered to include the Dark Ages and is also known as the Medieval Period. Depending on how you look at this time and what has been documented of its history truly colors how you see it and judge its people and history. I don't think that addressing whether people at the time thought the world was flat is useful- there is so much evidence that has been collected over the years that strongly suggest that we moderns who believe these ideas about the people/past are really 'culturally snobbish' and ignorant of our ancestors and our collective past. I did think I would take the time to talk a little bit about Chaucer and his work as well as the rise of education and universities during the Middle Ages... because the idea of higher education/degrees and a college/university themselves were developed during the Middle Ages and are not products or children of the Renaissance or later modern times.

Gregory Chaucer was probably born in 1343 in London, England. While we do not know much about any of the other poets and writers of this age, Chaucer is an exception due to his decades of work in his government – as a courtier, a diplomat (who was captured by the enemy and ransom paid by King Edward III during the Hundred Years War), and a public servant. So many aspects of his life are actually quite well documented giving us a great portrait of this man's life and the world he tried to describe in his works. He studied law, traveled around Europe and married... being blessed with a few children. Hi writing career includes several works and translations- not only the famous 'Canterbury Tale' – most that are believed to have been written between 1374-1386. His famous work is very different from other literary works of the period and far from being boring, it gives us images into the lives and occupations of different people during this time. In some cases, historians feel they have been able to actually determine some of the individuals that were used by the author for characters. Gregory Chaucer also is known for his metrical innovation as well as the first user of many English words in his works- these words were probably in common use at the time and many are still in use today. He is also credited to helping to standardize the Middle English language and is known as the 'Father of English Literature' – his writings in it were uncommon at the time as most writing in England was written in either French or Latin. It is unknown exactly when he died or even how he died- there is some speculation that he was murdered for political reasons during a regime change, etc.... One interesting tidbit of information was that Mr Chaucer owned a building in London that (while unknown if Chaucer was in it at the time) would have given him a great view of the Peasant's Revolt and it's leaders passing under his windows at Aldgate... that would have been an interesting thing to see!

So, some of Chaucer's work is able to tell us about a lot about his society's problems in the fourteenth century! The Canterbury Tales helps us to see some of the problems that Chaucer's society needed to deal with at the time... or at least we can understand what problems he saw around him. One focus in his work is on the Catholic churchman and the corrupt practices of these men and the church. (It goes without saying that Chaucer is probably describing the vast majority of churchmen, but not an absolute truth.) Two characters in the book are members of the Catholic church who sell indulgences or whose jobs are to bring people to the church for excommunication and repentance- characters that both are portrayed as greedy, selfish, and even guilty of the same charges that they bring against others... suggesting they are corrupt and dishonest as well. Other characters that represent church members, such as the monk, the nun, etc..., tend to also suggest corrupt and spiritually lacking individuals with the exception of the nun. So it seems clear that concerns about the Catholic church were fairly widespread and not easily fixed during this time. (I make the assumption that they are not easily fixed if they are so widespread and 'in the open'.) Chaucer's writing when looking at the story of the Knight suggests that violence was too often resorted to for 'noble' or 'pure' reasons... which in the grand scheme of things were useless and ridiculous motives. Many of the stories also suggest problems in society between the different classes of people in the society as hierarchy is starting to be eroded in public thought and expression.

One important thing to note about the culture of reading and writing during the Late Middle Ages is that is that education was still something that was only 'trickling' down a little bit. The vast majority of people did not know how to read or write. Some of the poetry and music movements of the time gave the educated few more opportunities to express and enjoy a change in the culture that made it acceptable to talk about relationships and love in society. In the past, music and poetry was really a bizarre form of propaganda in the sense that the cultural writings , etc... tended to focus on war and the heroes of war, their deaths, etc.... Talking about love or relationships was quite taboo and for this idea to come out into the open society was quite new and also helped change some societal attitudes. Love poetry was also used to develop acceptable patterns of behavior for the society at large which gave rise to some of the behaviors that we see as chivalry. Fables and fairy tales became popular at this time... and it is this period that we can thank for Grimm's fairy tales and Aesop's fables. In fables, various characters of medieval society were thinly disguised as animals and were very entertaining... still are actually. :)

It was during this time that the idea of universities was envisions and began to take shape. Universities were first envisioned by the emperor Charlemagne who saw the need to have a large group of educated men (priests) that his communities could draw from for leadership... so he wanted to develop a program in which all the cathedrals and monasteries in his lands would provide a free education for any male child who was intelligent enough and motivated enough to complete the study (not just from a wealthy family). However, Charlemagne died before his dream became a reality. Some schools had been established and these schools managed to continue.... even through the worst of times they would continue to train priests. These schools basically taught two distinct groups of teaching. There was the 'grammar' school which taught grammar, rhetoric and logic and then the 'humanity' portion which included math, geometry, astronomy and musical studies. All of these studies were necessary to work in many capacities in the church so all were considered essential. Around the year 1000, some schools began to add more elements of education to their grammar and humanity studies. Universities began to not only try and teach knowledge that was known, but they also tried to learn and extend knowledge itself. Mathematics and classical studies as well as the study of law was expanded. By the time of Pope Gregory VII in 1079, in which he issued a papal decree for all cathedrals and monasteries to establish schools for the training of clergy, education and the idea of learning for people interested was on the rise. So the first universities were established in Italy (Bologna, Modena, Siena, and Padua), England (Oxford and Cambridge), France (Paris, Toulouse, Orleans, and Montpellier) and Spain (Palencia, Salamanca and Coimbra). The city of Paris developed a few great centers of learning that were associated with their monasteries. Qualified teachers could apply and become part of the teaching faculty there. The terms professor- reserved for the teachers that lived within the monastery- and associate professor- for the teacher who lived outside provided the words that we still use today in a slightly different context at our modern universities. In Paris, students at universities could pick which lectures and courses they took and they would settle in an area that was closest to the desired regions. Professors would then rent halls to lecture in and this area in Paris became known as the Latin Quarter- due to the common language of the people living, teaching, and studying there. The idea of a university separate from the Catholic church and the monasteries began to form as the Chancellors and leaders in their local areas in the church would try to control all subjects and knowledge taught under their jurisdiction. (This is a struggle that will still continue today between the Heads of Universities and the professors themselves). Around this time, students were not just taught to 'regurgitate' the knowledge that was taught to them, but also to use logic and reason to interpret and use it.... which began the public 'debate'. In fact, science was a heavier portion of a degree in those days and was required course work... not mainly electives. Due to a small but nasty incident of violence between students and teachers and others, the first truly separate university was developed in Paris and was called the University of the Masters and Students of Paris. This university fought and gained many rights that all colleges and universities take for granted today... such as the rights to pick curriculum, the right to choose their own faculty, etc...

This was also the time of the rise of the Humanists. The Humanists were individuals who thought that humanity itself was a grand miracle and to study humanity and its culture and accomplishments would help you to be a better person in your life and society around you. If you went to a university at that time, there was very little difference in the few degree programs that were offered in the beginning because the classes that you would take were the 'humanities'- language and grammar, history and law, poetry and classical writing as well as philosophy. (When you get a liberal studies degree today, you are getting many of the same kind of ideas that you would have received in the past... with updates of course :) It was thought that well rounded educated people would be better equipped and able to participate in their communities and civil obligations. It was also thought that the more educated and capable you were, the more likely you were to not only live a good life, but to influence those around you to do go as well and to help people around you to become better. I don't disagree with them at all really. I think that sometimes we can get too focused on a small part of education and lose our 'humanity' in that, but otherwise I think that education only helps us to help ourselves and others.

So, far from boring, I guess I tend to find this time in history fascinating. So much or our modern world was shaped by this time period and those who helped develop it. I speak a language that began to be developed during this time, attend colleges that came to exist because of the fights and challenges and hopes of past generations, and I am even getting a degree based on the medieval ideal... although I will say that the degree has changed a bit over the centuries. :) Can you imagine a world without these changes... a world where we all write mostly in Latin with Greek and French as secondary languages... a world where only those of more privilege birth are able to afford education at all and a world where you are very must limited by your birth and place. While our modern world still has some of these limitations, our ancestors have managed to remove some of the barriers that would have restricted us. I f you have attended a university in your life, would you be willing to comment on how it has benefited you, what it means to you in your life, etc....? I would love to hear your experiences! :)

A Day at the Temple

Yesterday was such a blessing. When I heard a week ago that a spontaneous temple trip was developing within my local Relief Society, I felt really impressed that I needed to go. There were so many reasons to not go. For one, my week is so full and busy that Saturday is my only day for any rest whatsoever. In fact, the last few Saturdays I have found that staying in bed for most of the day has been really necessary to give me energy and motivation to get to church and through the next week. Last Saturday in fact, I got up and did some things and in the late morning I sat down on the bed... and fell asleep for almost four hours! I must have needed it. :) Another reason is that Saturday is the only day that I get a lot of time to spend with Bug and get everything done and prepared for the coming week. The idea of not seeing Bug was extremely painful. But the idea took hold and I immediately called and booked myself a seat in one of the cars for the trip. The next week passed pretty much uneventfully with only slight problems with anxiety about it until yesterday morning.

And what a day! I wasn't sure when I started out why I felt prompted to come. And with everything going on in my life a trip to the temple frankly seemed a little foolish. When I left yesterday, I had pretty much decided that I was going to the temple to do something for myself and because I thought I should. But this has turned out to be a day to remember. The five hour drive down to Boston was spent with some other members that I didn't know terribly well and I feel a lot more comfortable with them now. I feel like I know them better now and I feel a little less shy. When I got to the temple, a small group of people asked if we would help with photos and so I enjoyed some talk and banter while taking photos for them. When I went into the temple and presented my recommend, I found that I was lucky enough to be able to join a group from Connecticut who were performing baptisms. (I don't know how it is for some members in larger areas, but to do baptisms in the temple in Boston, you must have a group, several priesthood leaders and an appointment... which usually must be made at least eight months in advance. So I was aware of the real possibility that I might arrive at the temple and spend the full time in the visitor's room or walking around the outer grounds... it has happened before.) But I was whisked into the baptistry and given clothing and joined the tail end of the group. My mind was already a bit full with my thoughts and I found a line from a song constantly playing over and over in my mind as I sat and waited to do confirmations. I tried to focus on the list of women in my hand; what were they like, were they happy I was there, would they accept the work and was I truly worthy to help them when my life feels like it is in tatters. But I found a feeling of comfort and peace as I performed the ordinances and a feeling that suggested that my life is about to begin anew... and I have a fresh start. I felt impressed that this time in my life is my opportunity to take the time to do some things that I have wanted and needed to do and haven't been able to accomplish in my life so far.

I was able to do two sessions with two different groups – one from Lincoln, Maine. I felt so blessed and was treated like a valued guest by the Lincoln group and I didn't feel awkward joining at all. I also attended a spontaneous talk and testimony meeting in the temple set up by my branch president and his wife. I should technically have missed it by attending the second session, but as I walked out to head upstairs I found that a member was just walking into the baptistry to get me to make sure I was able to attend... another blessing of the day. There were so many blessings that I received today. I received a few small promptings and thoughts that I really needed. I found some peace and some moments that I felt simply fine and calm... I didn't feel like I was dealing with the problems that I am or that my trials are so large. For a brief moment of time, I simply felt peaceful and enjoyed the ability and opportunity to provide service for someone else. I can't express how grateful I am that I came today. My cup is very full and I am almost sorry to leave and head back to the life I know I must continue to live and grow in.

One aspect of yesterday that I enjoyed was that I found a few of the names and individuals on my cards stick with me throughout the day. And so I arrived home, tired but well, and ready for bed. But before I tuck in, I thought I would take some time to research and present to you the two women whose names have stayed in my mind and who seemed to reach out to touch me today. I am grateful that I helped many more than these two, but as these women have stayed in my mind, I will take a few moments to try and discover a few pieces of their lives to know for myself and to share with you. I am thankful for the opportunities that they gave me today.

Clara Elizabeth Collins was born on July 23, 1890 in North Carolina. Her parents were Joseph Collins and Ann Rebecca Gupton and she was one of ten children... born in her parents later years. She had six older brothers and one older sister and when she was old enough, she fell in love and married Augustus Adolphus Drake. She lived with him until his death and bore him four children: three girls and a boy. She passed away on April 30th, 1978 in Nashville, North Carolina. She would have come to adulthood around the time of World War I.... lived through the Great Depression and the second World War, and having to deal with and understand the racial divisions that were slowly trying to unravel in the south.

Anne de Fayolle was born in 1532 in Francia. She was born the year of the union of the land of France and Brittany... lands that are still unified today. Born in the aftermath of the Hundred Years War, she would have grown up learning and living in a culture consciously separating itself as a nation and as a people from England. The House of Valois was in power and she would have lived during the reigns of Henry II and Francis II. This time was a period of change and she would not have failed to have noticed and even have been affected by it. The Medieval period of time was ending and people in general were questioning the Catholic church and monarchy in general. During the reign of Henry II, the Protestant religion became an important it minor religion... important enough that as the strength of the monarchy declined the last decades of her life and after would be filled with violence between the Catholic church and other Protestant groups.


I didn't find much, and I truly wish I had found more. I feel like I only got a small taste of what these women might be like, but its time to go to church so I should head off. Happy Sabbath. :)