I was also agape when Henry uses the nickname Call-me! That was a funny moment. I also liked the passage when Riche says the wrong thing about where a king derives his powers and the others try to minimize the damage.
Simon, I like how Mantel handles the close third person of Crumb in the context of the rebellion. We're as uncertain as he is.
This made me think of all our private nicknames among family and friends, and that terrifying thought that one day we're going to slip in a public space and call our significant other My Little Love Noodle. But this is with the King! I imagine Call-Me cringing in his doublet.
Your identifying Cromwell’s life with OUR life relying on the king really hit home—it helps explain why I’m still rooting for Cromwell so instinctively even though he’s done some quite questionable things by now. Mantel has fused us with his personhood so effectively.
The Flood did a lot of historical heavy lifting back in the day.
"What happened to the giants?"
"Flood."
"Unicorns?"
"Flood."
Might I recommend this extremely entertaining lecture by British Museum Wizard Irving Finkel (Cuneiform Curator), about how he tried to recreate the Ark in real life based on instructions from a Babylonian clay tablet (which looks something like a Weetbix).
I like the fact the giants were tall, but not so tall that they their heads rose above the water. I feel like people have been debating how and why certain mythical/real creatures survived or didn't survive the Flood. Thanks for the link! Brilliant.
One of my favorite Wolf Hall quotes is in this section: "...to this very day, nothing in this kingdom counts so much as how your forefathers behaved on the field at Bosworth."
That fascinates and amuses me because in America, it doesn't matter who your ancestors were or what they did. No one cares how my grandfather behaved in WWII and it has no bearing on how I'm perceived. But to live in a culture where you're closely associated with what your family has done is something that I kinda wish was a thing for Americans. But I guess my culture is too entrenched in being independent and self-made :)
Might a better comparison be if your parents had fought in the American Civil War? Bosworth marks the end of the Wars of the Roses, a generation of civil war. Whether your parents were confederates might matter a lot in the decades after?
That said, I take your point about a society where people feel self-made, less held back by their family name. English feudal society was very rigid and 'mushroom men' were regarded as upsetting the natural order of things. What we are seeing in the 1530s is the breaking down of feudal society, with people like Cromwell rising up. Society becomes more fluid, although capitalism will create a new set of social classes.
I identify as British, but my mother was American, and through her I qualify to join the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Mayflower Society (I haven’t and won’t be). I would say that, in certain places and amongst certain classes in the USA, it is the foundation myth and the revolution, not the civil war, which (to an admittedly limited extent) still define status. I too was struck by that remark about the importance of where your ancestors stood on Bosworth Field, and I understood it in the light of such events as the War of Independence.
I suspect that civil wars are rarely used in quite this way—that for example the American Civil War is still too raw to be treated the way you suggest, Simon. I have always been struck about how rarely if ever English school-children are taught about our civil war, even now, nearly 400 years later. Was Bosworth Field part of a civil war, or a massive aristocratic squabble?
It's true, the Wars of the Roses was more a dynastic struggle than a civil war. The English Civil War was far more fractious, splitting families up and down the country. And in Tudor England, who fought on which side at Bosworth only really mattered to one family: the Tudors. They just happened to also be the royal family.
Yeah, the Civil War is probably a better choice. But people might have been somewhat less fractious in the decades that followed because so much expansion was happening. People could leave for the Oregon Trail and start over far from where the battles were. And there’s the ongoing Industrial Revolution, and transcontinental railroad. There were places to go and maybe hide if you felt the need. Englishmen in Tudor times couldn’t easily go very far, so maybe the consequences of a family’s actions were a little more unavoidable. Just a thought :)
That’s what I was thinking, USA is so big that I guess it’s easier to leave your past and ancestors behind if you didn’t particularly want to be linked with them?
"Gregory says encouragingly, 'They will hate you once they know you, Call-Me." Always with the backhanded compliments! Gregory is such a consistent and consistently amusing character. I imagine Mantel setting him in scenes to amuse herself as times grow dark in the book.
If anyone is interested in a fictional account of the Peasant's Revolt, I can recommend "Katherine" by Anya Seton (1954).
The titular character is Katherine Swynford, who was the mistress and, later, third wife of John of Gaunt (and was an ancestor of Henry VII). She was also the sister-in-law of Geoffrey Chaucer, who also appears as a character in the novel. Through her eyes we see life at the courts of Edward III and Richard II, including the Peasant's Revolt and the destruction of John of Gaunt's Savoy Palace.
I'm not sure how much of the novel is factual, but it gives a really good sense of life in those times.
Thanks! In all the excitement I forgot to recommend The Man on a Donkey, HFM Prescott's historical novel about The Pilgrimage of Grace. I'll try and mention it next week.
I don’t know where else to post this, but reading onward in the second half of Vile Blood and I’m so moved by Henry and Cromwell’s musings on the past. Swooning at the writing and feeling all the feels. Had to share with those who would appreciate.
I'm in catch-up mode again... In this section I particularly enjoyed Cromwell's interactions with Queen Jane. I love the richness and playfulness of the writing, where Cromwell's suggested phrase "you have raised me to a sphere apart" becomes: a comedic misunderstanding as Jane thinks he means himself; an observation on his own elevated position as the words fit him just as well; an example of his ability/willingness to imagine Jane’s situation as he expands on the topic ("There is no lady of rank with whom I can share a confidence"); a natural lead-in to the next section where Jane fills that gap by confiding in Cromwell himself about the king’s dreams; and eventually a return to comedy as Jane garbles her rehearsed speech ("I am in a sphere.") I'm also inclined to think that the clumsiness of this petition is intended to contrast with the fluency of her next request, for a return to traditional religion, making me think that those dangerous words really are her own heart's misgivings.
I was also agape when Henry uses the nickname Call-me! That was a funny moment. I also liked the passage when Riche says the wrong thing about where a king derives his powers and the others try to minimize the damage.
Simon, I like how Mantel handles the close third person of Crumb in the context of the rebellion. We're as uncertain as he is.
This made me think of all our private nicknames among family and friends, and that terrifying thought that one day we're going to slip in a public space and call our significant other My Little Love Noodle. But this is with the King! I imagine Call-Me cringing in his doublet.
Your identifying Cromwell’s life with OUR life relying on the king really hit home—it helps explain why I’m still rooting for Cromwell so instinctively even though he’s done some quite questionable things by now. Mantel has fused us with his personhood so effectively.
That's how it feels to me!
The Flood did a lot of historical heavy lifting back in the day.
"What happened to the giants?"
"Flood."
"Unicorns?"
"Flood."
Might I recommend this extremely entertaining lecture by British Museum Wizard Irving Finkel (Cuneiform Curator), about how he tried to recreate the Ark in real life based on instructions from a Babylonian clay tablet (which looks something like a Weetbix).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_fkpZSnz2I
I like the fact the giants were tall, but not so tall that they their heads rose above the water. I feel like people have been debating how and why certain mythical/real creatures survived or didn't survive the Flood. Thanks for the link! Brilliant.
One of my favorite Wolf Hall quotes is in this section: "...to this very day, nothing in this kingdom counts so much as how your forefathers behaved on the field at Bosworth."
That fascinates and amuses me because in America, it doesn't matter who your ancestors were or what they did. No one cares how my grandfather behaved in WWII and it has no bearing on how I'm perceived. But to live in a culture where you're closely associated with what your family has done is something that I kinda wish was a thing for Americans. But I guess my culture is too entrenched in being independent and self-made :)
Might a better comparison be if your parents had fought in the American Civil War? Bosworth marks the end of the Wars of the Roses, a generation of civil war. Whether your parents were confederates might matter a lot in the decades after?
That said, I take your point about a society where people feel self-made, less held back by their family name. English feudal society was very rigid and 'mushroom men' were regarded as upsetting the natural order of things. What we are seeing in the 1530s is the breaking down of feudal society, with people like Cromwell rising up. Society becomes more fluid, although capitalism will create a new set of social classes.
I identify as British, but my mother was American, and through her I qualify to join the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Mayflower Society (I haven’t and won’t be). I would say that, in certain places and amongst certain classes in the USA, it is the foundation myth and the revolution, not the civil war, which (to an admittedly limited extent) still define status. I too was struck by that remark about the importance of where your ancestors stood on Bosworth Field, and I understood it in the light of such events as the War of Independence.
I suspect that civil wars are rarely used in quite this way—that for example the American Civil War is still too raw to be treated the way you suggest, Simon. I have always been struck about how rarely if ever English school-children are taught about our civil war, even now, nearly 400 years later. Was Bosworth Field part of a civil war, or a massive aristocratic squabble?
It's true, the Wars of the Roses was more a dynastic struggle than a civil war. The English Civil War was far more fractious, splitting families up and down the country. And in Tudor England, who fought on which side at Bosworth only really mattered to one family: the Tudors. They just happened to also be the royal family.
Yeah, the Civil War is probably a better choice. But people might have been somewhat less fractious in the decades that followed because so much expansion was happening. People could leave for the Oregon Trail and start over far from where the battles were. And there’s the ongoing Industrial Revolution, and transcontinental railroad. There were places to go and maybe hide if you felt the need. Englishmen in Tudor times couldn’t easily go very far, so maybe the consequences of a family’s actions were a little more unavoidable. Just a thought :)
True. Within a couple of generations, people would have somewhere to go: the New World.
That’s what I was thinking, USA is so big that I guess it’s easier to leave your past and ancestors behind if you didn’t particularly want to be linked with them?
I noted that quote as well. It's consistent with the idea that one's blood, i.e., ones' ancestors determines behavior. But that's for nobles only.
In modern America, it's wealth that gets handed down for a few generations.
"Gregory says encouragingly, 'They will hate you once they know you, Call-Me." Always with the backhanded compliments! Gregory is such a consistent and consistently amusing character. I imagine Mantel setting him in scenes to amuse herself as times grow dark in the book.
That cracked me up. Gotta love Gregory.
Footnote. Henry VIII's psalter, Henry as King David: https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2012/01/henry-viii-as-king-david-1.html
If anyone is interested in a fictional account of the Peasant's Revolt, I can recommend "Katherine" by Anya Seton (1954).
The titular character is Katherine Swynford, who was the mistress and, later, third wife of John of Gaunt (and was an ancestor of Henry VII). She was also the sister-in-law of Geoffrey Chaucer, who also appears as a character in the novel. Through her eyes we see life at the courts of Edward III and Richard II, including the Peasant's Revolt and the destruction of John of Gaunt's Savoy Palace.
I'm not sure how much of the novel is factual, but it gives a really good sense of life in those times.
Thanks! In all the excitement I forgot to recommend The Man on a Donkey, HFM Prescott's historical novel about The Pilgrimage of Grace. I'll try and mention it next week.
I don’t know where else to post this, but reading onward in the second half of Vile Blood and I’m so moved by Henry and Cromwell’s musings on the past. Swooning at the writing and feeling all the feels. Had to share with those who would appreciate.
We will get there next week!
I'm in catch-up mode again... In this section I particularly enjoyed Cromwell's interactions with Queen Jane. I love the richness and playfulness of the writing, where Cromwell's suggested phrase "you have raised me to a sphere apart" becomes: a comedic misunderstanding as Jane thinks he means himself; an observation on his own elevated position as the words fit him just as well; an example of his ability/willingness to imagine Jane’s situation as he expands on the topic ("There is no lady of rank with whom I can share a confidence"); a natural lead-in to the next section where Jane fills that gap by confiding in Cromwell himself about the king’s dreams; and eventually a return to comedy as Jane garbles her rehearsed speech ("I am in a sphere.") I'm also inclined to think that the clumsiness of this petition is intended to contrast with the fluency of her next request, for a return to traditional religion, making me think that those dangerous words really are her own heart's misgivings.