There is clearly a fear of a third world war. There is a fear of a Soviet stronghold. It's not hard to see where those fears stem from. The lesson from World War II had been learned too well. Churchill feared allowing the Soviets to gain a foothold in Europe in the way Hitler had.

This is a grim line. It shows the huge economic disparity between the two sides of the wall.

This passage reminds me of an episode of Rick Steve's Europe I saw recently where he went to the Berlin Wall Museum. There was an interesting exhibit that displayed all of the ways people tried to get across the wall. People tried to strap themselves under cars or hide in luggage. There was a truck on display that had a fake side gas tank where someone could stowaway.<br> There was even a giant slingshot for someone to leap over the wall. It gives us an insight into how badly people wanted to leave.

Churchill certainly understood the necessity of striking hard and early. Early unity could have prevented Hitler's rise before he became entrenched in power. There was a need for action in order to prevent the spread of conflict into other areas.

Although the concept behind it is frightening, the construction of this line is beautiful. It shows what a great orator Churchill must have been.

People had to just get on with it. It's amazing to think that even as terrifying as the explosions were, the ever-present threat of the bombings became normal.

This imagine is jarring obviously, but it also speaks to a kind of banality of war once someone becomes used to it. Throughout this particular passage, Smith emphasizes his normalcy and ordinariness. There was a everyday kind of stoicism that become normal for Londoners at the time. People just had to get on with their lives because there was nothing else to do. In some ways this recounting of the bombing reminds me of a primary text from a few weeks ago where a former child factory worker casually recounts the cruelty he faced as part of his employment.

As much as Chamberlain did not want to go to war, this line acknowledges the likelihood of it happening. It seems to be saying "nothing is going to happen, but if it does, we are prepared."

As much as he was clearly on the wrong side of history, it's hard not to sympathize with Chamberlain at least a little. At the time, in light of the horrors of the first World War, another war was extremely unpopular with the British public. To many, there didn't seem to be a larger cause that necessitated British involvement. The lesson of aversion to the brutalities of war had been learned too well from WWI, and as a result many did not see the need to become involved early so that future deaths could be avoided.

I imagine the Czechs had a slightly different view of this policy.

It's funny how Jeeves has to agree with the most asinine of observations.

This is a very interesting line because it implies that the general public knows that women's suffrage is a basic right of citizenship. It's not that politicians need to be convinced that women should vote, it's that none of them have gotten around to taking any action. In some ways this is far more infuriating.

Women so far have essentially been punished for peacefully following the law. Pankhurst is right to suggest that quietly waiting for someone to grant you your basic rights of personhood will take a long time and might result in nothing.

There's a stoicism but also a sense of anxiety in this line. Knowing that the Blitz is only short time away from when Hughes wrote this, it's hard to read it as reflective of how the larger British civilian population withstood the demoralizing German air raids and managed to "carry on."

Is the implication that in a truly stable society, no one needs to consider their own mortality and age?

This breeding program "for the good of society" makes me think of who would be left out. It has a not so subtle undertone of eugenics.

Keynes practically predicts the rise of the Nazi party. Germany was completely demoralized by the outcomes of the Versailles Treaty, and because of this, the population was vulnerable.

This argument is about low income families not having access to nutritional food compared to mass produced unhealthy food is still relevant today.

This idea of "cheap luxuries" shows up in 1984 with some of Winston Smith's black market purchases.

This mirrors some early Victorian views that people caused their own circumstances.

Although occasionally monotonous, Loughnan depicts work in factories as a largely positive experience. Had factory working conditions improved so significantly by this time?

This really speaks to the value that work has for the mind. Women could see themselves as real participants not just through their own exercised intellects but through the larger contributions to their country.

This strikes me as the funniest line from the passage. Jeeves is significantly more articulate than Wooster. It's just funny to imagine him being forced to attentiveness with this absurd story about newts. It's easy to see why Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry made such a success of these two characters on TV.

This is a powerful line because it convey that imperialism is inherently destructive and unethical despite the moralistic and "scientific" justifications of the time.

This really speaks to the innocent savage image of native populations. Kipling also notes the inherent absurdity in attempting to reform the natives.

This is blatantly untrue. Colonial efforts in Africa were horrific and torturous. There were rebellions in India. What peace and prosperity was there really?

It's astonishing that this is intended to be the scientific justification for decimating people. It's easy to see how some later social darwinists were proponents of eugenics.

The argument doesn't seem to be for assimilating occupied foreign lands into English culture but rather just decimating others so that the English can populate the globe.

Rhodes suggests that the British need to enslave more people in order to free them through English superiority. It reads almost like 1984 doublespeak.

This is such an interesting line because it implies that most people of the time acknowledged women's suffrage as a basic and logical right.

Given Victorian views on the innocence of women, I wonder if female suicide was considered somehow more tragic than the male counterpart.

I think too with this line there is the implication that Dickens believes women are inherently innocent but have the misery of life unjustly thrust upon them.

Tell that to the children who were in fear of being crushed by giant machinery. Even if they weren't horribly maimed, they lived in terror and misery of the prospect.

Were children who had been out of school since the age of eight, if they ever did attend, literate? What perusal of books is this?

Even if this were true, the child is still trapped in a factory for a 12 hour day.

This passage really bothers me. It makes no allowance for the limited access women had to artistic training. It is not a lack of talent but a lack of opportunity that produced fewer female geniuses. This reminds me of Jane Eyre's line about sisters needing as much exercise of their faculties as their brothers. While Sanford acknowledges that women can influence the world by influencing their husbands, this remark about the inherent lack of female talent and intellect is deeply troubling. Perhaps though she is following her own advice of maintaining humility.

Unless I am missing a note of intentional irony, Booth seems to overlook the horrors of the slave trade by dismissing Africa as uncivilized. Booth is certainly not arguing that slavery is a pleasant system, but he does seem to suggest that it is not as bad as poverty in England in part because of the inferiority of the people it affects.

The specter of prostitution must have been terrifying to poor destitute women.

This speaks not only to the lack of nutrition but also the tremendous physical toil and the long term effects on the body.

I'm struck by how casual the descriptions of abuse are. Saddler almost has to coax further details from the interviewee. It's truly horrific when the worker describes children having their heads "broken" for being late. The casual descriptions really show how common these working conditions must have been.

Wordsworth seems to be acknowledging the necessary difficulty that comes with a revolution. The French Revolution was violent because, to Wordsworth's mind, that violence was required to undo the system.

Paine is acknowledging that there have been numerous inept kings in the history of Britain. Accepting this kind of rule is accepting that you are livestock to be passed on from one generation to another. It's easy to see why Paine was supportive of the French Revolution. The very idea of absolutist kingship was absurd to him. There was no distant history to draw from, as Burke suggests, because all of history needed to be undone so that the system could be made over.

Complacency is not the same as consent to a law. It's incredible to think how much had changed at this point from the Divine Right of Kings to being able to question the authority and legitimacy of a ruler.

What does it mean to have never earned something through one's own merit? Women were set up almost to be children forever. They had no way to support themselves after their husband's death. That constant dependence must have created such a sense of anxiety.

France suffered more and received less for its revolution than other European countries. Burke is also arguing here that in their violent replacement of former power, the French have become just as bad as the powers that they usurped.

Burke clearly believes that French revolutionaries have attempted to undo the entirety of civilized history. There's also a very clear "you guys screwed up" sentiment. It's not that Burke would have been completely opposed to the revolution, but, as we have read, he is opposed to the extent of its destruction.

There is a clear anxiety about food scarcity in relation to an increased population. I wonder how much of Malthus' anxiety was born out of the starvation that spurred the French Revolution.

Women first have an obligation to themselves as individuals. It must have seemed revolutionary to placed the role of the individual before the role of mother.

This is such a jarring description. It's as though women's affection means nothing more than a dog happy to see a bowl of food because, much like a dog, that affection is born only out of dependence. Wollstonecraft vividly describes how trapped women were by the conventions of the time.

Hume, like Bacon and Newton, recognizes the importance of creating hypotheses that are shaped by the evidence available, not selectively choosing evidence that supports preexisting ideas of how the universe works.

It's easy to read this as an argument for deism. God sets in motion an organized universe, and it is up to humankind to discover and understand the laws that govern that universe.

Pope acknowledges the limited perspective of humankind. This was especially true prior to the Enlightenment.

Newton, like Bacon, recognizes the importance of not forcing the evidence to fit prior assumptions. Real progress comes from developing hypotheses based on the evidence rather than the other way around.

There is a danger in relying in prior assumptions without examining the evidence that supports them. It's easy to seem how Bacon's scientific method challenged the preexisting religious ideas of the time.

The scientific method requires shaping the hypothesis to the evidence, not selecting evidence in order to support preexisting hypothesis.

Locke is arguing that people have the right to rebel when they are not lawfully represented. It's easy to see the seeds of larger European revolutions in the writings of philosophers like Locke.

Hobbes' support of Divine Right of kingship is evident in this line. "Awe" is an interesting choice of word because it implies both wonder and terror. As can be seen in our reading, king's were gradually losing their power. Charles I was not executed as an ordinary man but as the king. That sense of "awe" was disappearing. Hobbes mention of unending war without strict kingship is reminiscent of James I comparing himself to a father who knows what the subjects need.

This is no doubt a reflection of the trouble with Charles I attempting to force Parliament to fund an unwanted war just 60 years earlier. The English Bill of Rights is evidence of an increasingly savvy and experienced Parliament prepared to limit the power of unlawful kingship.

Ireton obviously fears the loss of all property rights. Within much of his debate is a fear of mass revolution.

It's jarring to us nowadays that landholders would be considered the only people in England to have a real interest in the government of the country. This is an argument that continued in one form or another for centuries. It wasn't just in England. I think part of Ireton's argument is that landholders are better informed than other members of the British public. It reminds me of the debate over iq tests and voting rights in America-- as though individuals had to prove that they were citizens worthy of making decisions.

This lines really gets at the shocking nature of what was happening. The king was being tried for treason without first being deposed as a ruler. Although Charles asserts that he only answers to God, he is facing inevitable execution. Just as we have read about, this event was unprecedented in European history at that point.

This is also contradictory to the "father knows best" tone of James I on kingship. It implies that king can't just punish his subjects if they haven't broken a specific law.

Parliament is establishing a historical precedent for refusing the fund the king's wars if those wars are against the best interest of the country. Ironically, this is not unlike what James I is attempting to do in the document above when he attempts to establish a biblical precedent for his own unquestioned rule.

I find this line interesting. The implication seems to be that whether or nor his subjects realize it, they crave his leadership and laws without their own input. It makes the earlier line about being a father to his subjects have the ring of "I'm doing this for your own good even if you don't realize it."

James I is establishing a biblical precedent for his divine right of rule. He is situating himself alongside King David and Solomon. It is interesting that James has to work so hard to do this. Perhaps this is a sign of people questioning the unquestionable rule of kings, especially given the history of terrible rulers in the past.

There is so much room for Henry VIII to make changes as he sees fit. "Most to the pleasure of Almighty God" is an interesting line because it implies that the king could interpret such a thing. This is perhaps a reference to the argument that Arthur and Catherine had consummated their marriage and therefore Henry had to divorce her because he had been cursed to miscarriages by marrying his brother's wife. The Act of Supremacy gave Henry the power to make changes as though he were acting on behalf of God.

Elizabeth was such a savvy politician.. There were many who would disagree with her rule because she was the daughter of Henry's second wife (a very hated queen), she was not Catholic, and she was a woman. Here Elizabeth acknowledges her subject's hesitancy but assures them that she has the grit necessary for conflict.

This is an interesting way of putting slavery in a positive light. Moore obviously believed that even in a utopia there would be slavery, and yet it would somehow be fair. This is also an interesting line about treating Utopians harsher than anyone else because they had been educated and therefore had no excuse for their behavior. Moore seems to be a man who possibly understands that some crime stems from lack of opportunity.

This is an interesting point of religious hypocrisy. Chaucer's Monk clearly has not taken seriously any vow of poverty. He dresses well. He not only eats well if hunting is his passion, but this line also seems to hint that he doesn't spend much time in pious contemplation.

Is this because she emasculated him throughout their marriage? Or was she just a bit to vigorous?

Is this a reference to loving the lord of the land loyally? If he was obedient to his overseer, perhaps be would never have to worry about clothing or food. In the Feudal Contract we annotated a few weeks ago, there was a reference to being rewarded in clothing and food for the work done, "as far as I shall merit by my services."

This is an interesting passage because it shows how women's domestic responsibilities extended beyond the home. Paston is obviously very aware of weaponry and the necessity of home defense.

Is this a euphemism for child birth?

This is such an endearing reference to her pregnancy and their marriage. She's casually reminding him of the minor physical discomforts of being pregnant and unable to sleep. It's also interesting how the pregnancy is never directly addressed in the letter. It makes me wonder what the social conventions around women and pregnancy of the time were. For example, were pregnant women not meant to tell anyone outside of the immediate family until they were very far along.

It's not hard to see the seeds of future European revolutions in these smaller peasant revolts. This particular storming of a local jail reminds me of the Bastille. It is an interesting question whether or not these people were genuinely coerced into helping in the revolt or if they were swept up in the mob mentality and became willing participants. Surely some of these people were jailed for unfair reasons, including debts.

Given the stipulation above mentioning the need for a lord's approval prior to marrying out of the manor, I wonder if this "carnal sin" applies to marriages that the lord had not approved of. This reminds me of King John's treatment of women when he required widows to pay a fee if they did not want to be forced into another marriage. There's something deeply troubling about the entire notion. No only does a lord own the land and the products produced by those working the land, but he also has monetary claim over their bodies.

It's not enough to bring down the mill, he must also confiscate the wood used to build it. That's striking evidence of how much the Abbot had to lose if the mill were rebuilt.

This is such an interesting opening. It acknowledges the divinity of God, but it also suggests that logic should be applied to faithful examination. If no logical conclusion can be made, Adelard suggests that the issue must simply be given up to faith. He certainly acknowledges the controversy of exploring religious matters with logical reason, and he seems to try to put the minds of those who might consider it sacrilege to ease.

It's easy to see how intimidatingly powerful some guilds must have become. They almost operate by mafia rules. This particular passage reminds me of royal rights to forests in which all game in the forest belonged to the king. Here people are limited by whether or not they are members of a guild.

Even in medieval times, fires were a problem. I wonder why this was. The Great Fire of London was caused in part by narrow overcrowded streets, thatched roofs, smithing and other industries requiring fire, and a lack of stone structures. These could all have been problems in medieval times as well. There likely was not a coherent structure for any sort of fire brigade. Fires probably spread very quickly.

Although the colleges of Cambridge and Oxford aren't located in London, it's easy to see here the connection between the church and the establishing of educational institutions.

evidence of the influence of Christianity

This is interesting because it implies that people might have been visiting these burial sites. Did they visit dead ancestors? Were certain lineages buried together one generation after another?

As much as King John was an incompetent ruler, it's hard not to feel sorry for him here. He lost much of the Plantagenet empire built by those that came before him.

The notion that God has ordained that the Pope should control all of this land.

There was definitely a need for Henry II to change the prosecution system.

I can see the Biblical symbolism of the serpent, but what does the lion culturally symbolize in this moment in time?

This is also an interesting idea. There seems to be an idea that monarchy goes against godly order.

This seems revolutionary for the time.

A real sense that if the lord was not taking care of his vassal, it was the vassal's fault.

Were peasants literate?

Previous concerns over the Vikings

Ouch. These laws were serious.

That's a lot to say as one is dying

idea of a lord not just being a militaristic model but also a moral model

very clear rules on how one could behave with the opposite sex. This makes Tacitus' account of the treatment of adulterous women seem more plausible.

A man could fight on behalf of his lord without others coming after him later.

code of not killing those taken unarmed into custody.

This need for these specific laws is fairly strong evidence of troubles with violence in the past.

Christianity had clearly reached Britain at this point.

Again, a very telling characterization

Again, Tacitus is quite unkind.

It's interesting how Tacitus gives them no credit for basic competency.

This is funny characterization. That stereotype is still around.