Month: February 2022

Angela Nicholls is an Associate Fellow at the university of Warwick whose research and stated interests on Warwick universities staff page “…focus on the provision of housing for the poor in early modern England, in particular the nature and variety of post-Reformation almshouses”.[1] Nicholls has published ‘only’ one book on the subject though she has written in other scholarly works and published several papers on related subjects. Almshouses in Early Modern England: Charitable Housing in the Mixed Economy of Welfare, 1550-1735 is an academic analysis of the nature of Almshouses and associated poor-relief charity in early modern England. Nicholls states as much in the books prologue and delivers on this promise throughout the book by analyzing almshouses in the English counties of Durham, Kent, and Warwickshire alongside an entire chapter dedicated to an in-depth exploration of a single almshouse in Nicholls native Warwick.

Nicholls main argument is that Almshouses in the early modern period were distinct from earlier forms of housing offered to the poor (namely medieval hospitals) and often far smaller and less well-endowed than the surviving examples of almshouses would suggest, with many consisting of a row of small cottages or a room or two in a larger home that would not have had the resources of the wealthier almshouse to persist over the centuries (61). Rather than maintaining a timeline of all concurrent changes to the structure and functions of almshouses over the centuries, Nicholls makes the structural decision to focus on one particular aspect of almshouses and any related developments over her chosen time period in each chapter while using her final ‘information-presenting’ chapter to show all these developments as they occur over the lifespan of a single almshouse. I personally found this approach to be extremely helpful in both understanding the changes to specific aspects of almshouse life such as accommodations, rules, stipends, and the like while providing a useful example with which to demonstrate how these changes were interconnected and combined to form a picture of life in a specific almshouse.

In my opinion, Nicholls seems to adequately address the concerns she raises with many of the common perceptions of almshouses and charity/poverty in early modern England while detailing how the physical and organizational structure of these institutions lead to certain outcomes such as the issues with inflation faced by many almshouses (164) or how changing attitudes towards the poor lead to changes in who would be admitted to an almshouse (93). One point that Nicholls mentions throughout the book is how the change in religious life in England brought about by Henry VIII changed or failed to change the practices and continuing existences of almshouses in England. Nicholls argues that the increase in poverty in England noticed in this time period had far more to do with population increases and growing urbanization rather than a decline in the number of almshouses in existence as a result of monastic forfeiture. Nicholls further argues that the stated justifications for founding almshouses simply shifted from explicitly catholic motivations towards more generalized Christian ones and that the founding of almshouses was never solely about theological concerns, as evidenced by the proliferation of almshouses meant specifically for certain trades and guild members (100).

Throughout this book, Nicholls uses primary sources mainly in the form of local records to illustrate her arguments while analyzing any data which does not ‘fit’ with the majority of her findings, often stressing the small and largely localized data sets that she is forced to use due to a lack of surviving records. Nicholls is very candid about her difficulties in finding large data sets with which to form generalizations and therefore is highly critical of earlier historians who did so (page 169 has a particularly noteworthy example that may border on excessive). Speaking of other historians, Nicholls frequently references the work of earlier historians throughout her work and makes ample use of secondary sources; making note of any inconsistencies between her own findings and the conclusions presented by her peers with varying degrees of favorableness (169). When reading the arguments and counterexamples, I feel that Nicholls got ‘lost in the reeds’ at times when discussing specific examples/exceptions towards her points; at times I found myself having to go back to earlier in the chapter to remind myself what the initial point of contention or example was, though this was not too frequent of an occurrence. Having said that, this heavy use of primary and secondary sources does appear to support the conclusions presented by Nicholls, namely that the situation of those residing within almshouses could vary drastically from one location to another and that ‘almsmen’ themselves were a diverse group that nevertheless did trend towards being elderly and poor.

Overall, I would say that this book is a good example of an academic work that presents all relevant information and counterarguments while incorporating both data-based trends and specific case studies. While I would not call this book a page-turner, I do believe that it is an informative and well-researched work that achieves its goals of demonstrating the distinctive characteristics of almshouses and the near impossibility of making any generalized statements about them or their inhabitants.

[1] https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/people/honorary/nicholls/

Nicholls, Angela. Almshouses in Early Modern England: Charitable Housing in the Mixed Economy of Welfare, 1550-1725. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2017.

It is a widely accepted principle that shelter is a basic human necessity, and the administrators of almshouses in early modern England attempted to address that need in a way that was fitting for the time. In Almshouses in Early Modern England: Charitable Housing in the Mixed Economy of Welfare, 1550-1725, Angela Nicholls makes the case that the almshouses of this time were highly diverse in their forms and styles of operation, and also served their local communities as vital providers of welfare. She challenges the established historiography by arguing for the high degree of variation in almshouse practices that counters the standard portrayal of the almshouse as “a quaint but largely irrelevant institution, providing care and shelter for a small number of respectable, privileged elderly people” (224).  Nicholls is an Associate Fellow at the University of Warwick, and this book is focused on her particular concentration of research, namely, almshouses and their place in the welfare systems of the early modern period. Here, Nicholls employs archival county records, particularly from Durham, Warwickshire, and Kent, and covers a little less than two centuries to make her arguments about almshouses in early modern England. A good number of primary and secondary sources are utilized in the work as well. She integrates both quantitative and qualitative data throughout the book, including multiple tables and charts as well as numerous examples of the experiences of individuals.

A main theme of Nicholls’ book concerns the difference that existed between the aspiration of housing welfare policy and the real-world actuality of how housing for the poor was tangibly achieved. The legislation of the period reveals a desire for institutional solutions focused on work and discipline in order to address those who were poor for socially acceptable reasons, and also those who were perceived as vagrants and idlers. But the actual administration of housing policy was far less organized or uniform. While legislation enacted parish taxes for poor relief, thereby making local parishes responsible for the poor in their areas, Nicholls shows that even with these taxes, almshouses very often relied on the philanthropy of wealthy benefactors, whose personal whims often dictated how the almshouse was operated. She shows that the founders of almshouses were inspired by an array of diverse motivations, often founding almshouses in order to display their wealth, status, and virtue. These selfish motivations are evident in the fact that founders sometimes named their almshouses after themselves or required almspeople to wear insignia bearing the founder’s initials. But it wasn’t all self-aggrandizement, as many founders were spurred by notions of religious charity or humanist ideas of social responsibility.

Just as there were many differing motivations to found almshouses, their administration and operation was also highly variable, as were the residents whom they accepted. Almshouse residents could be young or old, male or female, they were sometimes able to work, and experienced differing levels of poverty. The high degree of variation in the demographics and circumstances of residents supports Nicholls’ argument of the diversity of almshouses in different locations. The most common requirements for residents were that they had been living in the local parish, not in a faraway place, and that they were ‘deserving’ poor, generally defined as someone having been reduced to poverty through no fault of their own.

Many almshouses were quite small, in that they had room for relatively few people, and Nicholls demonstrates that gaining a place in an almshouse was most likely highly desired by poor people due to the substantial benefits that it brought. There were numerous advantages in being an almshouse resident, the principal one being that placement in an almshouse was for life, with expulsions rarely occurring. Many residents had a room to themselves and their own hearth for warmth and cooking, and some almshouses also provided stipends to residents. While these stipends were often insufficient for survival, necessitating almspeople to work or rely on other forms of charity, their advantage came from the fact that they were guaranteed and regular, providing a certain amount of stability for almshouse residents. In addition to the tangible benefits, there were social benefits to having a place in an almshouse. The general design and functioning of almshouses conferred a degree of individuality and autonomy on the people who lived there. It afforded them the opportunity to live as independently as one could while receiving this kind of charity. Additionally, a place in an almshouse served as a signal of acceptance in the local community. Though poor, almspeople seemed to enjoy social inclusion in their communities; the fact that they depended on charity did not seem to be stigmatized. Despite these points, Nicholls still argues that almshouses differed so widely across localities that “it would be hard to say that there was such a thing as a typical almshouse” (138).

Nicholls concludes the book with a case study of a specific almshouse that effectively supports the arguments she makes throughout the book. She details the specific workings of the almshouse in the parish of Leamington Hastings in Warwickshire to show how this particular almshouse fit in with the surrounding community. The almshouse presents a picture of pragmatic decisions being made to meet the needs of the local poor while maintaining social order and economic stability in the parish. Essentially, decision makers were attempting to do what was best for their community, and Nicholls is attempting to show that what was best would differ across communities, and therefore, there was not a typical way of managing and operating almshouses.

A shortcoming of Almshouses is that it leaves readers in the dark about the broader facts of poverty in early modern England. One is left wondering just how much of a social problem poverty was at this time, and what became of poor people who did not find a place in an almshouse. Nicholls does mention that parishes were engaged in poor relief outside of almshouses, but as almshouses had relatively few spaces, one wonders where other poor people went. Were they funneled into workhouses or prisons? Were they left in wandering homelessness? More background on the wider issue of poverty may have given readers a greater appreciation of the important role that almshouses played in communities. Despite that drawback, Almshouses should appeal to both economic and social historians. Nicholls’ examination of how almshouses fit into the wider issue of welfare will be useful to those historians focused on economics, and her inclusion of many examples of the individual people involved in and affected by the almshouse system, from founders to almspeople, will be of interest to historians concerned with the social aspects of the topic. The case study of the Leamington Hastings almshouse also contains aspects that brush up against perspectives of microhistory and history from below.

Overall, Nicholls’ examination of the administration of almshouses in early modern England reveals a surprisingly benevolent, non-judgmental, and localized system of welfare provision in communities, and demonstrates their diverse and philanthropical provision for the genuinely impotent poor.

Michelle Beer, Queenship of the Renaissance Courts of Britain: Catherine of Aragon and Margaret Tudor, 1503-1533. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2018.

Reviewed by Edward Kirsch

Michelle Beer’s history is focused on the nature, power, and expectations of queenship in early modern Europe and Catherine of Aragon’s and Margaret Tudor’s deliberate, most often astute, performances of this role. Beer shows that these two queens purposefully performed their roles of queenship in nuanced ways that utilized material culture, court life, entertainments, pilgrimages, their piety, patronage, and above all their partnership with their husband kings to influence events and legitimize their respective dynasties and their personal queenships. (22) Beer’s history is not chronological. Rather, she juxtaposes the reigns of Catherine and Margaret around common themes, roughly one per chapter, to reveal similarities and differences. The work departs from most prior histories by studying Catherine’s reign on its own terms rather than as an aside to Henry VIII’s “Great Matter” in which she has been reduced to “the themes of dutiful wife, pious Catholic, and wronged woman.” Similarly, Beer focuses on Margaret’s role as queen rather than her regency for her son James V which is the focus of most histories according to Beer. (19-21)

Beer encountered difficulties in following their lives through archives in which the relevant records are fragmentary and “often subsumed within the records of the king and his court” or have simply not survived. (22) She does a remarkable job of piecing together their achievements, concerns and follies by assembling fragments of evidence from a wide range of sources including the king’s accounts, dispatches of ambassadors, gift records, the National Archives at Kew, Calendar of State Papers relating to Spain and Venice, and other sources.

In the first chapter, Beer argues that Elizabeth of York, Margaret’s mother and Catherine’s mother-in-law, provided a model for queenship, piety, Renaissance magnificence, and an exemplar for how queens should participate in the life of the court. (24-25) In Chapter two, Beer discusses how Catherine and Margaret “used their agency and superior social status compared to the men around them in order to maintain royal dignity and their own authority,” particularly when faced with challenges. (45) Beer’s analysis stands in contrast to that of historians that have disparaged Margaret, for example, as “frivolous” because of her frequent pleading with her brother Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey for funds to purchase sumptuous clothing after she fled Scotland in secret in 1515 with few of her possessions. (56) Such criticisms, Beer maintains, reflect a failure to understand that “clothing was self-performance that could carry multiple types of meaning – legitimacy, political relevance, dynastic loyalty” that was essential to the honor of the queen and the king’s honor as well. (69) Henry VIII grasped that “magnificence” was an important “humanist virtue” for renaissance royalty to display and promptly financed her wardrobe.

Beer is a good storyteller. She argues that Catherine cleverly used her own clothing and that of her retinue to subtly express her opposition to the pending Anglo-French alliance at the Field of Cloth of Gold in 1520. (60) Catherine made her views known while remaining loyal to Henry by deliberately wearing, and requiring her retinue to wear, elements of Spanish fashion in dress such as Spanish sleeves, Spanish hairstyles, and Spanish dynastic symbols in addition to English symbols during the jousts, feasts and other public events. (67-68) As noted by Samson, Catherine’s daughter Mary showed similar understanding of the legitimating power and messaging inherent in magnificent clothing by ensuring Phillip II dressed in the English manner during their wedding. (Samson, 110-111)

In chapters three and four, Beer focuses on both queens’ close relationships with their respective kings and their roles as royal hostesses in displays of magnificence, relaxing court pastimes, and diplomatic discussions, and as the prime audience for the court’s chivalrous displays, which taken together supported their informal role in dispensing patronage. (71) Beer emphasizes that in the lavish courtly pageants, tournaments, processions, and tradition of New Year’s gift giving “the queen and her ladies were . . . the center of attention, the axis around which chivalric events revolved” and the dramatic focus of the performance of these active and competitive kings. (81) Their partnership with the king was publicly demonstrated by these events, underscoring their soft power to influence the king’s patronage. Beer underscores that aside from the King, Catherine had her own ability to bestow patronage relating to her dower estates, as well as arrange elite marriages. (103) A queen’s hospitality was recognized as an important “humanist virtue” by Castiglione in The Book of the Courtier (1528). In their outer chambers, diplomatic dialogue was exchanged along with witty conversation during informal past times such as musical performances, card playing, chess, and dancing. (88) Performing their roles as distinguished, honorable hostesses solidified their relationships with the center of power for the elite to witness. (96)

In Chapter five, Beer analyzes how Catherine and Margaret used public performances of piety including almsgiving, pilgrimages, processions to mass, and the ritual of Royal Maundy, to fulfill queenly duties before God, connect with elites and the common people, and set a moral example for their people. Beer notes that prior historians have largely ignored how their “piety informed their queenship.” (124) Beer describes the Royal Maundy ritual on Holy Thursday as the most important annual almsgiving event and a powerful ritual that bathed queens in “sacerdotal power.” In addition to a public mass and almsgiving, the ritual included the queen and king performing the pedilavium in which the king washed the feet of poor men and the queen washed the feet of poor women. This powerful ritual invoked images of Christ washing the feet of the apostles during the Last Supper. (134) Beer notes that Mary I practiced the Royal Maundy and Elizabeth I used this ritual as “part of a deliberate strategy” to legitimate female rule by claiming “sacred status for the monarchy.” (135) Rituals such as Royal Maundy and Queen Catherine’s joint coronation in which she was “anointed with holy oil,” as well as the commonplace association of queens with the Virgin Mary, gave these astute pious queens an aura of “quasi-sacerdotal status.” (126)

Beer’s analysis of “receiver’s accounts” indicates Catherine gave a minimum of “between £160 and £190 a year from 1525 to 1530” in alms, while Margaret’s cannot be established. (130) This pious giving had the intended effect. Even John Foxe had to admit Catherine was popular. Henry VII and Anne Boleyn understood that Catherine’s displays of public piety were a source of her moral authority. Beer observes, for example, that in 1534 Henry precluded Catherine “from holding her Maundy while she was under house arrest.” (136) Further, Anne Boleyn tried to stop Catherine’s almsgiving because she understood “’the alms she has been accustomed to give have attracted the love of the people.’” Both Catherine and Margaret made public pilgrimages to shrines, particularly those associated with child birth, which provided interaction with the public along their leisurely route and served their political and spiritual purposes. (143)

In sum, Beer’s work is well researched, a great read, and accessible to a general audience. Yet it is also an excellent monograph for both professional historians researching the expectations, challenges, and strategies exercised by these astute queens in performing their role of queenship.

Miranda Kaufmann’s Black Tudors: The Untold Story was a wonderfully written exploration of the lives of people of color during the Tudor reign of England. By using a variety of primary government and church sources, and secondary sources from other leading scholars on the topic, Kaufmann was able to paint a picture of what it was like to be Black living in Early Modern England. With this picture displayed for readers, she urges them to question what they think they know about Black people during history. Miranda Kauffman has an extensive history on the topic of Black people in England throughout time. This book, which won two awards and is now being used to inform a new TV drama on the topic is probably one of her most successful works. She currently works at the University of London where she is a research fellow with the Institute of Commonwealth Studies. Kauffman has a slightly different career path than most historians because she also considers herself a journalist. She writes for popular news outlets about the topic of Black people in Early Modern England and often speaks at conventions, festivals, and schools on the topic. She seems very interested in making this topic available to people other than academics, which is reflected in this book that reads very easily. Some might argue that her “pop-history” interests may take away from her credibility as a historian writing on this topic, I would argue that she has plenty of experience and research under her belt that gives her credibility for the book. Overall, this book allows the topic and historical methods of uncovering Black people in Early Modern England accessible to people of all backgrounds. 

The layout of this book highlights a different “Black Tudor” per chapter. While her research uncovered almost 300 Black Tudors within England at this time, she only chose to focus her book on 10 different people. However, the stories of the 200 some others are not lost within this book. Within each chapter, she provides great historical context for each person’s life, while also tying in the stories of other Black people who were known to have lived in England at the time. The first chapter starts by talking about the life of John Blanke The Trumpeter. John Blanke was a Trumpeter for Henry VIII who is visible in a giant piece of art depicting him playing music for a jousting tournament of Henry VII. Kauffman goes into great detail about the various other Africans that might have been present in similar ways in the royal courts of this time. Additionally, Kauffman goes on to prove that John Blanke likely had a lot of freedom and independence as a man employed by King Henry VII. Next, chapter two tells the story of a skilled diver from Africa, Jaques Francis. Francis was hired by the royal court to help recover remains from the shipwreck of the Mary Rose. Kauffman poses the question, Why were Africans so good at diving? Did his skill of diving impact how he was viewed in England? How was his evidence taken in Royal Court as a Black man? He was indeed ridiculed in court, not because of his race, but because the evidence he found went against the economic goals of the people testifying against his master. The third chapter is about Diego the Circumnavigator. He was an African enslaved by the Spanish in a village called Nombre de Dios in Panama. He eventually abandoned his master to join the voyage of Sir Francis Drake around the world. 

The stories continue with Edward Swarythe the Porter who became the first man ever to publicly whip a white man. This story helps readers to reassess what they might know about how Black people were treated in Tudor England at the time. Chapter five talks about Reasonable Blackman, a silk weaver living on the outskirts of London. His story proves that like himself and his family, there could have been many other Black people living in England financially independent and making a life for themselves. Chapter six talks about Mary Fillis, a Morrocan who worked for a seamstress and eventually was converted to the protestant church. This shows that people of all backgrounds were accepted and welcomed into the Church of England at the time. Chapter seven talks about Dederi Jaquoah, the prince of a kingdom in west Africa. His story is significant because he spent a good amount of his life in England learning English and creating good relationships for trading success. In Chapter eight John Anthony’s story was significant because he was hired as a sailor during the same time period when the English started bringing slaves to Virginia. It is incredible how the lives of Africans differed from the colonies to mainland England. The last two chapters detail the lives of Anne Cobbie a prostitute and Catellena a modest countrywoman. Both accounts show the ability of women of color to lead independent lives for themselves in Early Modern England. 

Kauffman did an amazing job writing this book, and she blends the historical academic world with the pop-history world. One of the biggest strengths of this book is the organization. She organized the book by the stories of individual people and their lives in Early Modern England. By organizing the book in this way she humanizes history. Oftentimes, academic history writing gets bogged down by facts, themes, sources, and rants. However, she attracts readers to this book by giving them sneak peeks into the lives of 10 different people of color living in Early Modern England. By doing this, she draws the readers in making them more hooked on the actual history that was happening at this time. Additionally, I think she used her sources exceptionally. For example, she mostly uses primary sources from the government, church, diary, letters, and trading documents. The fact that she is able to create such a colorful and vivid picture of these people’s lives from these dry documents is incredible. Although we cannot be sure that the conclusions she draws from these documents are 100% accurate, there is enough backup from both primary and secondary sources that give readers enough evidence to believe what she is saying. 

As far as weaknesses, there were not many I could pick out. The only aspect of this book that may be considered a weakness is the fact that she often gets off track in the middle of the chapters. She will begin a chapter explaining the situation of the person that she is focusing on, and then in a few pages be “zoomed out” and explain the greater historical context of the situation. This can be good, however, I think she took it too far sometimes, and never really tied her chapters back together. This could have made it difficult for more non-academic readers to understand the purpose of this book. Overall, this was a great book that achieved its purpose of proving to the world that not all Black people during this time were enslaved. This book has the potential to reach both academic and popular audiences, which is good because this topic deserves to be talked about and explored further.

Alexander Samson, Mary and Phillip: The Marriage of Tudor England and Habsburg Spain. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2020. 279 pp. $39 paperback ISBN 9781526160249.

Reviewed by Edward Kirsch

Alexander Samson’s Mary and Phillip falls within a revisionist trend that emerged over the past several decades that reassesses the traditional narrative of Mary I’s brief reign which the author argues was unjustifiably and unfavorably colored by the anti-Catholic, anti-papal, religious and political propaganda of her own age, authored and promoted by radical Protestant exiles, that resulted in the epitaph “Bloody” Mary, which was not applied until 1658. (9) Samson argues these negative anti-Catholic narratives were used, alongside the “Black Legend” of Spain, to rationalize the British Empire’s displacement of Spanish colonial power and frame the Reformation as a national liberation movement well into the twentieth century. (1, 3) Samson argues convincingly against the commonplace that Mary was an unstable, dour, “tragic”, “desolate” figure in a failed marriage who was ineffective as a ruler and whose brief reign was a regrettable “’barren interruption’” in Britain’s destiny to lead the Protestant world. (4, quoting Harbison (1970), 6) These images persist in popular culture today and the author argues they are unsupported.

The book is not a comprehensive biography of Mary; rather, it addresses these negative historical interpretations and tropes by “foregrounding” alternative narratives that cast Mary in a positive light. In the first Chapter, “Prenuptial,” Samson demonstrates that Mary was shrewd and prepared to take power and was far from the “rather stupid” political neophyte described by Geoffrey Elton. (5) Rather, she cultivated local alliances such that within hours of confirming Edward VI’s death, she was sending circular letters to mobilize the nobles and gentry in the areas where she had large landholdings demanding she be proclaimed queen. She quickly mobilized supporting forces among Catholic sympathizers, but also among many Protestants and urban elites which resulted in the Privy Council backing her and Northumberland’s arrest and execution. (28-29, 33) Samson argues far from being imposed on a reluctant populace, “the return of traditional [Catholic] religion was joyfully celebrated” with the ringing of bells, processions of the rosary and images of the Virgin in London. (34)

The second chapter, “Contracting Matrimony,” focuses on the strategic considerations underlying the marriage contract, also an international treaty, by which Mary and Phillip were married, and the Hapsburg Empire and England allied. Samson deftly uses contemporaneous Spanish and English sources to reveal the parties’ strategic goals and counter long-standing arguments that the marriage undermined English sovereignty due to the anomaly of a female ruler, and that Phillip was reluctant to marry. He notes the terms of the treaty, negotiated by Mary and Stephen Gardiner for the English, included measures to “safeguard English sovereignty” beginning with the recitation that Phillip would be an English “’subject,’” and therefore incongruently “subordinate to his wife as queen,” notwithstanding the social and legal inequality of husband and wife in the period. (67-68) The treaty also sought to preclude Phillip from developing an independent power base in England by precluding him from “independent powers of patronage with English royal lands, income, or appointments,” and from “’innovation’” in the laws and customs of England. (68, 72) The treaty also contemplated Phillip merely “’adyd[ing]’” the queen in “’administration.’” and precluded him from interfering in the succession upon Mary’s death, a provision he subsequently honored. (68, 73)

Throughout the work, Samson adroitly weaves together contemporaneous narratives by Spanish and English sources to buttress his arguments. (34) The author is a “Reader” in Early Modern Studies at University College London who has conducted significant research in the early colonial history of the Americas, the reign of Mary I, and Anglo-Spanish intercultural interactions. He teaches courses in Spanish drama and history and is fluent in Spanish. Thus, his work foregrounds Spanish original sources that have often been overlooked by other historians.

In the third chapter, Samson analyzes contemporaneous representations of Wyatt’s revolt by the conspirators as an anti-Spanish, patriotic revolt to prevent Spanish domination, and the Marion reply that the conspirators were motivated primarily by religion. Samson concedes historians are divided on the conspirator’s motives, notwithstanding Protestant propaganda claiming a nationalist motivation, and concludes that whether motived by hatred of Spain or Catholicism, such sentiments were not widely held as evidenced by the limited support for the revolt. (90-91) Returning to this theme in chapter 7, Samson argues that England was not “inexorably xenophobic” which is an assertion employed by historians of an earlier generation to assert Phillip II was unacceptable to the English people, resulting in the failure of the co-monarchy. (137) Samson argues convincingly that the acerbic “propaganda of evangelical Marian exiles” circulated principally among literate elites and did not result in widespread “Hispanophobia” until the era of the Spanish Armada. (222)

Samson’s view is consistent with Immigrant England which concludes England was not xenophobic during the period. Omrod demonstrates that violence against aliens was rare and most often led by London merchants resentful of competition from foreigners – a conclusion shared with Samson. (Omrod, 117) Both authors view the cause of events such as the 1517 Evil May Day riots as rooted in economic rivalry and conclude the presence of Spaniards in England was small and did not engender hatred. (140, 143, 257) These conclusions are significant because purported English xenophobia and hostility to Spain underlie traditional arguments that the marriage was foisted upon a reluctant English people, inevitably resulting in the failure of the marriage, co-monarchy, and alliance, which Samson disputes. (137-39)

In chapters 4 and 5, Samson explores the co-monarchy’s messaging and how the wedding ceremony, and the couple’s entry into London were staged to placate the English populace by reinforcing the Queen’s precedence, memorialized in both the marriage treaty and an Act of Parliament. Mary’s primacy was underscored by the couple’s choice of dress, and positioning in relation to each other. (116) During the wedding and entry, Mary occupied the position on the right associated with the dominant male, while Phillip was to her the left in the traditional position of a Queen consort. (110-11) Further, Phillip was dressed in English style, and with the Order of the Garter given him by Mary. Samson asserts the monarchs were aware of the gender inversion embodied in these symbols and hoped the symbols would buttress Phillip’s acceptance in England and assuage fears of a loss of sovereignty. (111) Samson argues Phillip, far from being loathed, was greeted with enthusiasm upon his entry into London with the foreign merchant community assuming a large role in funding and planning the welcoming pageants in anticipation of enhanced trade. The Hanse merchants, for example, financed a triumphal arch that emphasized the alliance secured by the marriage treaty which promised closer ties between London and its most important trading partner – the low countries. (129)

Samson argues convincingly that despite gender expectations, Mary was an able and engaged monarch “perfectly capable of following her own counsel and refusing to do [Phillip’s] bidding” by, for example, declining to enter the war with France for two years until the Stafford Raid. (175) He shows Mary was deeply involved in establishing a more humanist English Catholic restoration that “absorbed” positive aspects of reform including a focus on clerical education, evangelism, theological reform, and spirituality, while downplaying the miracles, saints, relics, and shrines of the pre-Henrician Catholic church. (185) In sum, far from a failure, Samson’s Mary set a precedent for ably exercising both queenly and kingly power and established an “iconography of female power to legitimate” female rule, both of which benefited her half-sister, Elizabeth upon her accession. (7, 186-88)

In Mary and Philip: The Marriage of Tudor England and Hapsburg Spain by Alexander Samson tries to explain a lot about the relationship between Mary and Prince Philip of Spain, how the commoners felt about having a foreign ruler, how the English adapted to having a queen for the first time, and how England handled the growing divide between Catholics and Protestants This book contributes to the existing historiography that we’re studying in this class by showing the divide that exists amongst historians on the marriage. Samson’s studies and focus are not on Early Modern England which would usually lead me to take what they say with a grain of salt, but I believe that Samson provides strong analysis of the relationship of the two monarchs and how it affected those around them. 

In modern interpretations of Mary I, we how historians have depicted her. In Lady Jane (1985) A reviewer called Mary ‘Edward’s half-wit sister’ which is based on Geoffrey Elton’s of the first Tudor queen statement that she was stupid. Another depiction was Kathy Burke who played Mary opposite Cate Blanchett’s Elizabeth, Mary was portrayed here as hysterical and neurotic as she moved around the dark world with her consort who was brooding and wanted nothing to do with her, this is based off the claims by Sir Francis Hastings in 1598 who said that the marriage “could not drawe the least sparke of true loue from him to his noble Queene, who so louingly made choice of him to be her husband.” and this was because Philip was unenthusiastic about their marriage.1 These are just two examples of Mary I and her husband Philip that have been played on the big screen and the performance is based off a historical source that described the character like that. The official view of Britian’s past is built around the Reformation, that the Tudors ‘rode on the back of anti-clericalism’ and turning their back on the church for encroaching on the liberties of the English Church and that the concept of the Reformation as a national liberation which restored England’s independence which would lead to England and its establishment of colonies, which would exist if not for Mary who helped Elizabeth by paving the way. 

What I gathered from the book was that the English and the Spanish were close, the two countries were tied together not only economically but also socially. There was a series of treaties between the two countries that went as far back as 1252 which was an agreement between Henry III and Castile that preceded the marriage between Edward I and Eleanor of Castile. Merchants from both countries traveled and traded in the other, showing how close the two powers were to each other. The relationship between the two started to become frayed when Henry VIII married Boleyn but a treaty in June 1542 that halted the deterioration of relations between the two countries, the Spanish responded to the despoliation of the San Salvador by Robert Reneger in 1545 by seizing English merchants’ goods in Andalusia which violated the terms of Medina Del Campo. The treaty of the Low Countries would serve as a template for the later marital agreement under Mary and Philip.  

With the death of Henry VIII, England’s new monarch was Henry’s only son Edward, but his reign only lasted until 1553 when he died of TB. After Edward, England gained its first female monarch in Mary. England had never had a female ruler, so there was anxiety surrounding her rule. The Spainards though were familiar with having a female monarch so the treaty between England and Spain surrounding foreign succession handled the gender transition. With Mary’s succession to the throne and her marriage to Philip I of Spain, the Catholic Church returned to England and those that had fled European countries to escape Catholicism under Mary’s father Henry VIII were now homeless once again, they were immediately associated with heresy and sedition under Mary. The emperor wrote in a letter that “[it] is clear that the foreign refugees with oppose her as much as any other class of people, in their fear of a change of religion.”2 At the end of the paragraph, it is noted that relations between Protestants and Catholics were not as divided as they would become later in the century.  

The marriage between Mary and Philip was met with skepticism by the English people, they did not like foreigners are they believed that they [the foreigners] only cared about themselves and not the country that they were in. Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle, bishop of Arras admitted to the Cardinal of Jaen that “the English may come with the greatest difficulty to consent to the marriage and so much more as they naturally detest foreigners.”3 The people of England did not want a foreign ruler, and that sentiment and belief led to Wyatt’s revolt where the people revolted against a Spanish ruler. Another factor that played into the English people’s distrust was that the Philip and his court did not speak English and that there would be confusion. 

Something that I like about this book is that the author tells you the truth and the sources they have at their disposal, a great example of this is in the Wyatt revolt chapter where it is stated that the verdict of historians on the cause of Wyatt’s revolt is divided. For example, David Loades argues that the reason is political and that the main concern of the English was Spanish domination. Others point to the fact that the areas where it achieved its greatest success were areas that the Reformation had its greatest effect. While the Tonbridge schoolmaster John Proctor compared the revolt to the religious wars that had desolated Germany.  

Samson went on in the later chapters by showing us the power dynamic of the relationship between Mary and Philip. What surprised me about their relationship and challenged what I knew prior to reading this book was that when they got married, both were outfits that were similar in style and Mary sat on the right of Philip which is usually reserved for the King. Prior to this book, my thought was that Philip was just using Mary for England and that he went out of his way to show people that England now belonged to Spain. Samson also in chapter seven tackled what I believe was one of the central points of the book, people in England did not believe that Mary could be a successful monarch, that she would lead England to ruin. 

Like every book that we read, there are strengths and weaknesses that we identify as we read. A strength that I noticed as I was reading was that Samson always had an example and backed up a point that he made, he never left me confused because he had a source for all the points that he was arguing in his book. A weakness that I identified almost immediately was that Samson lacked a strong opening/introduction. Instead of giving us a small summary or introduction to what he would be arguing in his book, he jumped straight to the point and left the reader in the dust. Also, there were points in the chapters that Samson lost the point, he was providing us with so much information and evidence that he could not bring it all together in the end. I believe that if Alexander Samson had given us a better introduction and wrapped all the evidence that he provided us with in the chapters and related it to his thesis/main point, that this book would be more coherent and readable.  

Reviewed By Vincent Cervone, George Mason Graduate Student.

In Mary and Philip: The Marriage of Tudor England and Hapsburg Spain, Alexander Samson sets out to achieve a dense amount of goals based on the perceived success and failures of the marriage of Mary Tudor and Philip of Spain. This book not only covers the failures of the marriage through discussions of existing historiographical research on the topic, but Samson brings his own ideas of the consequences of this marriage to the playing field. In the introduction, he stated that he hopes to provide a balanced view of the impacts this marriage had on the British Empire and the rest of Europe. Alexander Samson is an intellect with a wide background. He has focused his career on the colonial history of the Americas, Anglo-Spanish intercultural relations, and Early Modern English and Spanish drama. He does not focus specifically on Early Modern England, which may lead to some skepticism on his qualifications to write such a niche topic book. However, his diversity of experience within the field may allow him to bring in ideas and evidence not usually used by historians within this topic. Overall, Samson surveyed the reaching impacts and dynamics of this marriage along many different intersections. Readers should leave this book feeling slightly overwhelmed with information, but having new thoughts about the marriage of Mary and Philip. 

The book starts off with an introduction where the author takes readers through a detailed overview of the various opinions through the historiography of Mary and Philip. He sets up this chapter so that at the end he can state his goal for the book. Throughout the introduction, the author seems to have an ambitious purpose in mind. Overall, the goal of the book is to provide a balanced analysis of the impacts and dynamics of the Mary and Philip marriage. Some of the main themes he brings up are economic and commercial links between England and Spain, the ceremonial and material culture of royal marriages, the skepticism surrounding a female ruler, revolts against Mary’s reign, xenophobia, hispanophobia, and the power dynamics between the king and the queen. By analyzing all of these things he paints a new picture of how the couple was perceived in an economic, political, and cultural sense around Europe. 

Chapter 1 The Prenuptial takes readers through the political and economic situation of England right before Mary was crowned queen. It is argued that one of the main reasons for setting up the Marriage between Mary and Philip was to keep the Channel open for trade and decrease the threat of the French. This goal was always in the back of the mind of the two countries as Edward VI decreased in health. This chapter also focuses on the symbolism within the coronation of Mary Tudor. She was given material symbols of both King and Queen and was triple crowned with Henry VIII’s Imperial crown. The three-tiered crown was supposed to represent the universal catholic jurisdiction of the pope. Chapter 2 goes through the difficulties of outsider opinion the couples faced as they were contracting their matrimony. Some of these issues included xenophobia, anti-Spanish sentiment, gender expectations of a ruler, betrayal, and Mary’s catholicism. Much of this suspicion came from England’s lack of experience with female rulers, while Spain had had much experience with female and foreign rulers. Chapter 3 goes over Wyatt’s revolt and the Act for the Queens Regal Power. In a way, these two events are connected. Many people within England did not think that as a female Mary had the right to rule, which sparked many revolts when she was coronated. Consequentially, the Act was passed stating that Mary possessed all the same powers as ruler as the kings that had followed her. Although there were many doubters throughout the realm, it cannot be assumed that everybody felt this way about her. Chapters 4 and 5 talk more about the symbols seen by the people throughout Mary and Philip’s marriage that alluded to their power dynamics. For example, on their wedding day, they each wore almost identical outfits and Mary was seated on the right side of Philip, the side usually reserved for the King or the Male. Chapter 6 dives deeper in xenophobia and hispanophobia. The author attempts to argue that the xenophobia of the time did not negatively impact Anglo-Spanish relations. Xenophobia and Hispanophobia were largely confined to the London area, and usually only existed out of economic jealousy. Chapter 7 analyzes how the government functioned under Mary and Philip, as well as explores the misogynistic opinions often aimed at Mary. 

This book has some strengths and weaknesses as to how the author went about proving his point. First, the idea of this book is quite unique in the historiography of the topic. The author set out to change how historians, and possibly normal people view the marriage of Mary and Philip. It was very nice how Samson laid out the overall feeling of historians towards Mary and Philip in the beginning of the introduction. He took readers through a summary of what has already been said about the successes and failures of this marriage. Additionally, the end of the introduction where the author very clearly lays out his arguments was helpful for the reader to get an idea of his goals. The author also used a variety of sources to help him write this book, which he pulled into his writing quite often. There was never a statement made by the author that wasn’t lacking an example. Lastly, the author did an amazing job of using intersectionality to examine this marriage. Not only did the book look at gender, but it also looks at the racial, ethnic, economic, and political aspects of this marriage. Even the author’s analysis of the material symbols such as clothes and crowns used in the coronation and wedding helped readers to envision the power dynamics of the couple. 

In terms of weaknesses, this book lacked a streamline organizational system which made it hard for readers to connect his evidence to his main purpose. The first example of this was the introduction where he dove immediately into anlyzing the current historiography of Mary and Philip. It took him far too long into the introduction to state his point. Secondly, the chapters did not seem to be organized in a specific way. Although the titles of the chapter led readers to believe it would talk about a certain theme, the end of the chapter would stray away from that idea. Within the chapters, there was a lack of connections to his main points and purpose. He would sometimes get so caught up in providing details, evidence, and examples that he would forget to remind the readers how these points connect to the main goal. The previous point can be seen as a strength or a weakness depending on your reading skill/style. Lastly, this book was definitely meant for more of an academic audience. Better organization, concise writing, and purposeful statements might have made this book more suitable for the average reader.

Neil Murphy. The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Hardback

Murphy is a professor of Medieval and Early Modern France, emphasizing the reign of English King Henry VIII. In The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550, Murphy argues that the English occupation of the Boulogne region in France was a significant shift in the imperial history of England. Murphy is filling a spot in the scholarship of empire building in Early Modern England. Murphy argues, “First of all, rather than view the establishment of colonies in the midlands of Ireland in the mid-sixteenth century as marking the beginning of a nascent British Empire, we should consider them concerning Henry VIII’s actions in France in the 1540s.” (230) Murphy argues that the study of the English Empire glosses over their actions in Northern France in the 1540s and starts with expanding into Scotland and Ireland in the 1570s. Murphy also points out that the English invasion of Boulogne differed from previous monarch’s wars in France due to Henry VIII not claiming his right to the French throne, but instead claiming the land by right of conquest. 

King Henry VIII invaded the Boulogne region in North-East France in 1544 and proceeded to Anglicanize the region. The population was deported from the area by the king, and English subjects were brought in to populate the now vacant land. The region was placed under English law and officially became English land rather than an English possession in France. The occupation and subsequent repopulation of Boulogne by the English was a major change in the English attitude towards territory outside of England proper. Before the invasion of Boulogne in 1544, English kings would justify an invasion of France by claiming the French throne. The English king would have to win over the population of France to support their adventure and occupation of land in France. Henry VIII, however, did not need to win over the population because he would import his population of English citizens into the region. 

Murphy spends a significant chunk of the book explaining the actions taken by Henry VIII in Boulogne and how those actions foreshadowed those that were taken in Ireland and Scotland by the British decades later. Actions such as the violence and the military action that Henry VIII used to conquer the region. The English army that Henry VIII assembled for the conquest was the largest force that England had amassed up to that point. The violence that came with the attacks was not uncommon according to standards of war at the time. However, the violence was uncommon when it came to the English invading France. As Murphy notes, “As we shall see, the killing of peasants, scouring of woods, burning of houses and destruction of crops to create famine conditions amongst a people the English deemed to be rebels were all measures Henry VIII had implemented in the Boulonnais in the 1540s, almost seven decades before Mountjoy laid waste to Ulster.” (2) English violence during a period of conquest was not a unique phenomenon, but the English had before been attempting to win over the native population in France to lay claim to the crown. Henry VIII abandoned that idea and set about to occupy the French lands as their conqueror and not their king. 

The subsequent paragraphs explain how the English conquered their newly acquired land. Henry VIII forced out the French peasants and brought in English peasants to populate the land. Bringing in English subjects made it easy for English laws and customs to be adopted. Henry VIII broke from traditional war aims and turned the newly conquered land in France into English land with English laws and subjects. 

Murphy’s intended audience is an academic one. He provides archival sources and primary sources that could be hard to understand for someone who does not understand the period. Many of the archival sources are written in English; however, their form of English is different and makes some of the sources challenging to understand. Murphy uses archives, primary printed references, and secondary printed sources to build his argument and weaves them together eloquently. One downside that the sources have is that Murphy uses a large number of secondary sources. He wraps his major argument around archival sources but more primary sources would have strengthened the argument. 

The book overall has many strong points. The argument is original and sets itself firmly within the field of Early Modern England. Murphy is filling a gap in the historiography and is challenging other scholarship that has been created surrounding the early British Empire. The previous historiography has placed English holdings in France and English conquests of Ireland and Scotland as distinctly different. They point out that the violence and occupation of Scotland and Ireland were unique to the region and started the first steps for the English Empire. Murphy, on the other hand, argues that English holdings in France were the beginning of England expanding outside its borders for the sake of claiming territory. The English expansion into Northern France was the first step for the English to create an empire that would span across oceans. Before England expanded into Scotland and Ireland, Henry VIII experimented with colonial conquest in Northern France. 

The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550 by Neil Murphy is a wonderful book that argues against the previous historiography and creates an original argument. Murphy has created a new argument that predates the conventional starting point of the English Empire. The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne is a must-read for anyone who is studying Early Modern England or the English Empire. Murphy challenges conventional historiography and treads into uncharted territory and delivers an original argument that is delivered with eloquence. Murphy uses archives, primary sources, and a large number of secondary sources to build his argument and writes in a clear manner that allows anyone to read. Without background knowledge of England in the early modern period, a reader can still understand his argument and its impact on historiography. 

Reviewed by Tyler Thompson, Graduate Student at George Mason University. 

Murphy, Neil. The Tudor occupation of Boulogne: conquest, colonisation, and imperial monarchy, 1544-1550. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 

Published in January 2019

https://doi-org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1017/9781108653046

When you think of Early Modern England and what family was responsible for stabilizing and growing England into a global empire, the Tudor family is that family. In Neil Murphy’s The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation, and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550. Murphy examines and analyzes the occupation of Boulogne under the rule of King Henry VIII which would start British Imperialism. Neil Murphy is an associate professor of History at Northumbria University in Newcastle, England and is the author of three books. The Captivity of John II, 1356-60: The Royal Image in Later Medieval England and France (2016), Ceremonial Entries, Municipal Liberties, and the Negotiation of Power in Valois France, 1328-1589 (2016) and The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation, and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550 (2019). Which is his latest published book.  Murphy specializes in Medieval and Early Modern France.

Neil Murphy’s book The Tudor Occupation of Boulogne: Conquest, Colonisation, and Imperial Monarchy, 1544-1550. He analyzes and examines historical data on Henry VIII’s occupation of Boulogne and how it impacted the Boulonnais people and the economics of the area. The occupation and colony in Boulogne is/was one of his most significant ventures despite not getting much attention. Henry VIII’s occupation in France and the way that he handled the conquest would lay the groundwork for future English occupations such as Ulster. “David Potter has provided a thorough study of the organisation of the war between Henry VIII and Francis I in the 1540s, though he does not deal with the nature of English rule at Boulogne and usually focuses instead on the religious change that occurred under his children, ignoring the final years of his reign.”1 When you think of Henry VIII; you think about his children and the fact that he had six wives His examination of the occupation of Boulogne gives us an insight into a military occupation that is rarely talked about when you discuss the Tudor dynasty and how it ties into the Early Modern England period that we are talking about in class 

Murphy relies on and ties in several historical evidence that supports the two arguments that are discussed in each chapter. In the first chapter, King Henry VIII is starting his venture into Boulogne, where he will establish a colony. The only prior knowledge that I had of Boulogne was what William Palmer had to say about the conquest, having previously learned about the conquest when I was in high school. Murphy argues that the conquest was not a waste of millions but instead a sign of what was to come for the future of imperialism in England, that what happened in Boulogne served as a sort of blueprint to the future of England under the Tudors. The occupation of Boulogne was not seen by everyone as a success or even necessary. William Palmer called it a “useless military endeavor that cost £1,000,000” and Bruce Lenam said that that “he [Henry VIII] was pouring millions into a futile bid to re-create the Anglo-French empire of Henry V’ and placing his government ‘deep into debt in pursuit of strategic lunacies in France” (2) 

Henry’s strategy in France was to lay claim to France and demand that the French pledge themselves to him, Henry VIII knew that the French would not listen to his demand and by making this demand/summon he was able to label those who did not pledge to be traitors and apply harsh methods of warfare against them which included taking their goods and their homes. Henry’s claim wasn’t based on claiming the throne, instead his claim to the French land was by conquest, which was unique. In 16th century Europe, the rules that were used in siege warfare offered little protection to those we were under siege and the citizens of Boulogne knew that. Henry VIII was clever in his tactics, he knew what the rules were, and he used them to further his cause in France, another unique about the occupation of Boulogne was that King Henry VIII personally led the siege himself, which was uncommon because being on a battlefield meant that the monarch was vulnerable and that enemies would target them. Henry leading the siege also gave him the ability to grant clemency to anyone that surrendered to him, which the port city of Boulogne did when they saw the size of Henry’s army. Henry VIII spared the citizens and gave them safe passage to the city of Abbeville. Even though Henry went against all rules of warfare up to this point, this moment would be essential to his occupation, this made him look like a just ruler and that those who fell in line behind him would be treated fairly. Which was not the truth because Henry would employ other tactics to keep the peasants in line. The takeaway from this chapter that I got was that King Henry’s occupation of Boulogne and the surrounding area did not go over well. The villagers who left Boulogne with Henry VIII’s protection were pillaged once they were out of sight by both the British and the French and were left exposed to the elements and at the mercy of others. Britian’s scorched earth policy along with the famine that would take place would result in the deaths of the refugees and other villagers.  

Chapter 3’s focus was on Cartography and how King Henry and the British used treaties and their power to enact laws upon the Boulonnais along with the use of maps to benefit Henry VIII’s occupation of the Boulonnais lands. As stated in the second paragraph by William Palmer, the occupation and conquest in the area put significant financial strain on the British people and played a factor in the Treaty of Camp, the people back home did not want to be involved in conflict in France. So, Henry agreed to give the area back to the French after a period of eight years in exchange for money, although evidence shows that Henry planned to keep the territory for longer, if not permanently. Mapping was another way that Henry and the British ruled over the area, they would change the landscape in the Boulonnais to support their occupation. In the figure below, what you see is the village of Ambleteuse, the picture shows the village which contains a church and 32 houses. The figure after that is when the church and the surrounding houses were destroyed and replaced by a large fortress.  

Both maps were made by John Rodgers, and they show how the area was developed and changed under Henry VIII, it went from containing housing and a church to becoming New Haven, a military stronghold that helped the British keep control of the Boulonnais.  

In the next chapter, it discusses the British Settlement in the Boulonnais which had been started in the previous chapters.  

The above photo shows English Settlements in France if you look closely at the above figure, you will note that all settlements by the British were either on the coast of France or had direct access to a river. This was because the British would use waterways to transport goods and men to and from locations. The lands that came under English rule, cultivation of the land played a significant role in the success of the colonies that Henry set up, without proper cultivation of the land, “As part of its efforts to encourage the cultivation of land, the privy council set limits on the number of animals those people given lands in the Boulonnais were permitted to transport from England.”3 These themes would continue in the following chapters and would lead to the author’s central point that the occupation of Boulogne under King Henry VIII was the start of English imperialism and was a pivotal moment and action late in his lifetime that would set up England under his children.  

So, in conclusion, the strength of Neil Murphy’s book was that he showed both sides of the story, he showed those that agreed with Henry’s decisions and those that did not agree, and he then provided his own educated, scholarly opinion on what was going on and what was going on. He also was able to detail how Henry’s conquest in France during the 1540’s would be echoed later when England went into Ireland. The weakness of the book in my own opinion was that Murphy tried to cover so much in this book that details were missing, there is so much information that is being given to you that you are almost forced to accept what the author was saying and some of the sources that he (Murphy) used didn’t seem to originally be in English so the translations were difficult to understand, so I had trouble understanding the context of the quote or if it was accurate

Reviewed by Vincent Cervone, Graduate Student at George Mason University.