femnista nov dec 2015
DESCRIPTION
Raphael, Mary I, Ever After, Elizabeth I, Michelangelo, Katharine von Bora, William Shakespeare, Art & ReligionTRANSCRIPT
HENRY: Looks like the printers can find him easily enough! He’s just published an attack against me as long as my magnificent, muscular arm! (Have you ever seen such a handsome arm as mine? Surely King Francis has not an arm as great as this!) … I am offended, sir! King Francis, are we not offended by this? FRANCIS OF FRANCE: I don’t care, and your arm is as fat as your head. LUTHER: I’m nearly done with my German Bible. Thank you for your excommunication papal bull, Holiness. It kept my hands warm upon a long night as it burned in my hearth! POPE: THAT’S IT, SOMEONE NEEDS TO FIND AND KILL THAT LITTLE MONK. MORE: I’m working on a refuting of his argument that will be longer than any other book in the history of refutations, and it will contain a great many insults too! Can’t we at least wait to kill him until after he’s read it?!? ERASMUS: I think if we sit down
ERASMUS: Now boys, I’m sure we can all get along. LUTHER: I’ve finished more pamphlets. My thesis was just me getting warmed up! Now I’m attacking your beloved saints and sacraments! POPE: HOW DARE YOU, SIR. I will excommunicate you if you do not desist forthwith! LUTHER: You have no authority over me. Only God has authority over me! Thou art a bag full of wind! KATHARINE: That’s it. Charles, you must do something about this at once! He is attacking the sacrament of marriage and you know how important marriage is to us—err, me. CHARLES V: Why is it my problem? KATHARINE: You are Holy Roman Emperor! Martin Luther is in your jurisdiction! Shut him up! CHARLES: I would like to, but no one can find him.
SIR THOMAS MORE: Something must be done about the corrupt Church. It needs reform. ERASMUS: I agree. It is not holy enough. MARTIN LUTHER: Yo! Check out my 95 Thesis about why the Church sucks! HENRY VIII: HERETIC! BUFFOON! YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID BECAUSE OF YOUR FACE! LUTHER: I’ve never known a ‘king’ to simper and whimper like a strumpet in a tantrum before! KATHARINE OF ARAGON: HEY! HENRY: More, do something about this insolent fool! Blast him with language as profane as his own! MORE: … thou art a dog, sir! A contemptible dog! Though not even the dogs shall lick your blood from the cobblestones after your death, your stench be so foul! LUTHER: LOL
Raphael
Page 4 Mary I Page 8 Ever After Page 10 Elizabeth I
Page 12 Michelangelo
Page 14 Katharine von Bora
Page 16 William Shakespeare Page 18 Art & Religion Page 20 Coming Soon: Classic Hollywood Faith & Martyrs … and more!
3
and talk to one another, we can— LUTHER: Pope is the antichrist. ERASMUS: Never mind. KATHARINA VON BORA: What’s this I hear about us not needing popes and stuff? I’ve been bored in this convent for years… can I just leave? LUTHER: Why not? Go forth and populate the earth with heretics! Life is simply not worth living unless you’re hated by every monarch, priest, bishop, and saint in Europe. KATHARINA: Sounds good. I agree. Life is too short not to have what you want. Let’s get married. LUTHER: Wait, what? HENRY: WHAT? POPE: WHAT??? MORE: WHAAT?? WILLIAM TYNDALE: Would now be a good time to mention I’ve finished an English translation of the Bible? No? Okay. I’ll just sneak it in then. HENRY : Charles, what have I told you about doing something about your German printers! They keep sneaking Luther’s tracts and now English Bibles into England! Can’t you control your armies? CHARLES: I’m a bit busy right now with the Peasant’s Revolt. LUTHER: Peasants should know their place. You’re the emperor, put them back in line! CHARLES: I would but I just lost control of my army. POPE: I noticed. They just sacked Rome! DO YOU KNOW WHERE I
AM? NOT IN ROME!! DO YOU KNOW WHERE MY STUFF IS? SMASHED. I’M NOT HAPPY. HENRY: Neither am I! How am I supposed to get my annulment from the Pope if he’s a prisoner of my (soon to be non) wife’s nephew? KATHARINE OF ARAGON: =) MORE: What annulment?!? HENRY: I WANT A DIVORCE. MORE: DON’T DO IT. LUTHER: DON’T DO IT. CHARLES: DON’T DO IT. ANNE BOLEYN: DO IT. ERASMUS: Can’t you just have two or three wives instead? Seems fair. KATHARINE: I’m the one who gave $$ to educate the English scholars. Like they’re going to turn on me? You’re going to lose, Henry! HENRY: I WON’T!! I’M KING!! ANNE: Henry, don’t argue with your not-wife. You know damn well she’s smarter than you. HENRY: I love you, peaches. ANNE: I love you too, sweetums. KATHARINE: You make me sick. HENRY: I’ll dissolve the Church and create my own where I can divorce you and marry Anne! And we’ll see how you like that! I’ll show you smarter! MORE: Bad idea. KATHARINE OF ARAGON: :’( HENRY: =D =D =D ♥
IN THIS ISSUE:
© Charity’s Place. No copyright infringement intended. All written content is original and may not be reproduced without consent. Disclaimer: the opinions of the individual writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Charity’s Place or Femnista; the stories and entertainment mentioned is not always appropriate viewing for all ages. Visit charitysplace.com for future issues, information, movie reviews, and more.
aphael (Raffaello Sanzio
da Urbino) was one of the
great old masters of
painting during the renaissance
along with Michelangelo and
Leonardo da Vinci. He
was born in 1483 in
Urbino, Marches in
Italy to an influential
father that was a court
painter. This allowed
Raphael a certain
privilege that not
everyone experienced.
His mother died when
he was eight and his
father eventually
remarried but died
when he was eleven.
Raphael's stepmother
and uncle Bartolomeo,
whom was a priest,
took care of him as he
grew up. He didn't have
any siblings as a result
of his parents’ early
death. Raphael was
shown how to paint by
his father and was able
to get an early start in
life as a painter. Even
though his father died
when he was young, the
position he had held
while he was alive let
young Raphael be around
courtiers and receive an
education in court manners,
literature, and the arts.
In Raphael's time an artist
needed to apprentice in a master
artist's workshop for years to
master it meant you were fully
trained, could create
masterpieces, and take on
assistants / apprentices.
During the
renaissance, a
person had to go
through all these
steps to become
an artist. Most
people that
succeeded were
men, and very
few women were
allowed to
apprentice.
Raphael began
his
apprenticeship
at seventeen
under Pietro
Perugino which
lasted about
four years
according to one
source, while
another says he
was fully
qualified in
1501. Some of
the details of his
life remain
vague.
Nonetheless
Raphael was heavily influenced
by Perugino early in his career
and later on by Michelangelo and
Leonardo. Raphael often traveled
and created paintings of
Madonnas (“my lady”) and other
portraits. In 1508 he was called
by Pope Julius II to court in
learn art. Afterward they would
attempt to create their own
works of art and if their artist’s
guild approved, they could open
their own professional workshop.
During the renaissance, artists
guilds (a professional association
of artists) could make or break
an artist’s career. Only if the
guild in your region recognized
you as a master artist could you
proceed. Once you were called a
Saint Catherine of Alexandria, 1507
5
Rome and he chose to live there
for the rest of his life. An
architect, Donato Bramante,
sneaked Raphael into the Sistine
Chapel where he was given a
private view of the ceiling.
Julius II preferred Raphael and
let him paint a portrait of
Michelangelo in The School of
Athens frescoe inside the Sistine
Chapel in Michelangelo's style
(the artist in purple and red at
lower center). Though they may
have been rivals, Raphael was
still in awe of him. He was also
hired to complete four “Raphael
Rooms.” Unfortunately he died
before he saw their completion
and his assistants from his
workshop had to finish them.
Raphael was commissioned to
creativity and aesthetics. Before
the renaissance, the arts were
considered a “trade” and artists
weren't seen as any different
from a local stonemason. This
idea changed during the
renaissance, when art became far
more respected and celebrated
for its mythologies and beauty
alongside the advancements in
humanism (the strong pursuit of
knowledge) and learning.
Eventually art was used to make
certain religious and political
views. Churches hired artists to
drive the importance of religious
leaders such as the pope and to
reinforce the power of God, the
divinity and sacrifice of Jesus ,
and any other ideas that a patron
or church wanted to reinforce.
create other great works of art
during his career. He actually
produced a lot of work during his
short life and had one of the
largest work-shops during the
renaissance, which was very
unusual at the time. Raphael
died on April 6, 1520. He never
married nor produced any
children that we know of, but to
put it kindly, Raphael was known
as a ladies man. The cause of his
death is hotly debated but
basically he had an acute illness.
Many people don't realize that
art during the renaissance was a
very political field. Many of us in
the present day understand art is
about creativity, expression,
ideas and freedom. Back in the
renaissance, art wasn't just about
The School of Athens, 1511
Artists also had to paint exactly what they
were commissioned to paint; they couldn't
just paint whatever they wanted, because
the way that artists survived back then
were through commissions by the wealthy
and churches. Commissions by churches
and wealthy families were coveted
positions. It was very challenging to get
hired and an artist had to have a lot of
talent and influence to accomplish it. The
great masters didn't really get along and
considered each other rivals. Michelangelo
and Leonardo said rude things about each
other and although Raphael admired and
copied Michelangelo, they didn't get along
either. Nonetheless, each master painter
left his own impact in history
Though Raphael had connections because
of his father, it is due to his creativity,
diligence, and talent that he became one of
the greatest painters that ever lived.
Connections can open a door but they can't
build an entire career; connections can't
buy talent nor tenacity.
As a Christian, I see our creativity as a
reflection that we are created in the image
of God. We desire to create because He
creates. This is proven in the Bible when
God gifts people with artistic talents
(Exodus 31: 1-6 and Exodus 35:35). ♥
OF THE RENAISSANCE
MICHAELANGELO (1475-1564): “The Creation of Adam”
LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519): “Annunciation”
SANDRO BOTICELLI (1446-1510): “Allegory of Spring”
Thomas More are based in
slander from the period, and
More refuted them violently,
denying that he tortured people
for information; he did put them
in the stocks, but did not “flog
Reformists” in his garden—he
had a man flogged for flipping
women’s skirts up over their
heads during Church prayers).
Fox is unreliable, but a defense
was made for him in the 1930’s
by Historian J.F. Mozley, who
doubted that one could “invent”
the stories in Book of Martyrs.
Considering his agenda (he was
openly, unapologetically biased
toward the Reformists), can we
trust him to have researched this
without a foregone conclusion?
The Stripping of the Altars:
Traditional Religion in England,
1400-1580 by Eamon Duffy
mostly focuses on the beliefs of
the period, but contains a whole
chapter on Mary challenging our
ideas of her reign. It asserts that
England did not yield to Reform;
Henry’s break from the Catholic
Church was seen by the populace
as a means of obtaining a divorce
from a beloved queen, and when
Mary took the throne, despite
her assertion that she would not
outlaw Lutheranism, many
Churches voluntarily reinstated
their Latin Mass and original
prayer books and teachings, to
general public satisfaction,
The author, John Foxe was a
Reformist; his intention was to
draw attention to the lives of the
martyrs and discredit and vilify
Catholics. The book was widely
read by the Puritans, and helped
mold public opinion in negative
ways toward Catholic monarchs,
which was helpful in dissuading
the public from trying to place a
Catholic usurper (Mary Queen of
Scots) on the throne. The stories
were reinforced over time, while
Reformist historians swept the
bloody, barbaric actions of
Reformist monarchs under the
rug. What better way to stay in
power than define the opposition
as a bloody tyrant?
Mary’s reputation started with a
bias, continued with an agenda,
and despite its questionable and
biased origins, is still propagated
as fact, which means we must ask
the reason why? What purpose
other than continued prejudice
against her faith causes us to
care more about those martyred
under her reign than that of any
other British monarch in history?
All we know about Mary’s reign
and how the populace responded
is propaganda; we can’t trust it.
Doubts about the reliability of
Foxe’s statistics are based in the
statements he produces as “facts”
refuted by his contemporaries
(certain nasty stories about Sir
H ow much of history
can we trust? Asking
that question leads to
a disquieting silence, because if
we begin to question established
history, it unravels. The truth is,
we can accept nothing and must
question the motives and sources
for everything that is established
as fact. In doing that, we find the
“facts” less factual than we might
have thought, and that history is
often defined not by the reality,
but the perceptions and biases of
those who recorded it.
This is never truer than in the
case of Mary Tudor. Though her
sister and father had many more
executions during their reigns, it
is she who has become known as
“Bloody.” Her father’s death toll
estimates at 74,000, including
cousins, wives, trusted advisors,
politicians, friends, governesses
to the royal children, and clergy.
A large portion of that number
comes from the Pilgrimage of
Grace, where a great many loyal
Catholic subjects rebelled against
the oppressive new Reformist
regimes that destroyed their
Churches and forbid them from
practicing their faith. Henry VIII
is the true “bloody” tyrant, but
Mary is given the title for the 284
Reformists burned at the stake
during her reign, if you go by the
numbers in The Book of Martyrs
first published in 1563.
BY CHARITY BISHOP
9
States, have gone a long way in
the unfair vilification of Mary;
her representation as a brutal
and unpopular ruler during her
reign (instead of cast that way
after her death) is reinforced by
cultural depictions of Mary that
show her in a negative light while
casting Elizabeth in a favorable
one. Much emphasis is placed on
Elizabeth’s virtues, reminding us
of her long, prosperous, popular
reign, her feminist ideals, and
her victories against the Spanish
Armada, while showing us a
nation terrorized by the Catholic
Mary, who burns “heretics” every
day and “sleeps with a sword
under her pillow,” she is so afraid
of the populace that despises her.
Bias toward Elizabeth is also
reflected in the greater emphasis
on her parents over Mary’s,
and how their mothers are
portrayed.
The “love affair” of Henry
and Anne Boleyn has been
told many times, and with
only a few exceptions the
story begins when Anne
first catches his eye. She is
young, pretty,
opinionated, and feisty; his
Catholic wife, Katharine of
Aragon, is dowdy, boring
and old, and he had to marry
her against his will. In truth,
Katharine was immensely
popular, wore a constant smile,
and kept the
because the populace had never
truly abandoned their traditional
roots. The Marian regime came
up with a long-term plan to
gradually reinstate Catholicism,
and incorporate Reform in the
publication of an English Bible
and new liturgies. Duffy states
the burnings, while deplorable,
were “accomplishing what the
Marian regime” intended to do,
and that was bring order. The
fires were “slacking off” toward
the end of her reign and may
have soon ceased completely. It
does not justify the actions of her
government, but it does raise the
question of if Mary had not died
so young, whether history would
have seen her in a far different
light (without Reformist bias)
once she reformed the Church.
In Foxe’s Reformist eyes, Mary
was a loathed Papist murderer.
His prejudices have carried on
into modern times, reinforced by
ongoing distrust and hatred for
Catholics generated during the
English Reformation. In Duffy’s
eyes, as a self-confessed “cradle
Catholic,” she is neither saint nor
monster, but overshadowed by
the burnings of the period, which
prejudice the reader and make
them less inclined to see her as a
well-intentioned but misguided
advocate for a different brand of
religious reform in England that,
had it been allowed to continue,
might have been successful. Both
men are biased, but together they
present a complex woman about
whom, tragically, the entire truth
will never be known.
Reformist influences in England
and by extension, in the United
company of the period’s greatest
intellectuals. Though devout, she
loved art, literature, and music;
her court was known for dancing,
pageants, and entertainment.
Her love story with Henry is as
romantic and tragic as that of
Henry and Anne Boleyn… so why
has it never entirely been told?
Favoritism toward Elizabeth, her
mother, and Reform, and bias
against Mary, her mother, and
Catholicism is obvious… my
question is, now that we are
aware of it, when will it end? ♥
Having spent many years
studying how to effectively tell a
story, I am fascinated by the way
it still manages to be
recognizable as the Cinderella
story despite changing the time
period, setting, character details,
and so on. By setting Ever
After solidly in Renaissance
France, the filmmakers are able
to keep many of the physical
trappings of a fairy tale: beautiful
dresses, royalty, coaches and
horses and country estates. But
they can also update the
sensibilities of the characters. An
educated, intelligent,
argumentative, outspoken
woman like Danielle (Drew
Barrymore) would feel out of
place in the more medieval
setting that typical fairy tales use.
Ever After had characters and
themes we could all appreciate.
It's 2015 now. I've been married
for over a decade; I have three
children; I'm living my own
happily-ever-after. And I still
love this movie. However, my
reasons for loving it have
changed a bit over the years.
Initially, I loved getting lost in
the triumphant story of how a
patient, hard-working, intelligent
girl is rewarded with love and
honor. It's what I love about
every retelling of the Cinderella
story, and I do still like it for
those reasons. Now, however,
I'm also drawn to Ever
After for the creative way it goes
about spinning the familiar tale
in new ways.
T he summer before I left for
college, my three friends and
I went to see Ever After, the
last movie we ever saw together
in a theater. After that summer,
we were never all four together
again. Life took us our separate
ways, and I've lost all contact
with one of those girlhood
friends, though I see the other
two once or twice a year . But at
the very end of July, 1998, we
were still friends, four girls who
had yet to fall in love with
anyone, who enjoyed fairy tales,
who wanted to wear Drew
Barrymore's butterfly dress and
lose ourselves in a sparkling
whirl of imagination.
It was a rare occurrence, all four
of us loving the same movie, but
BY RACHEL KOVACINY
But in the Renaissance, when
everything in the known world
was changing, when everyone
was fascinated with knowledge
and learning -- such a woman fits
quite nicely there.
And then there's Prince Henry
(Dougray Scott). He's also
intelligent, an emerging
intellectual, and initially more
interested in discussing abstract
concepts of love than in finding a
wife. Still
charming, but
not exactly the
easily-
enamored type
who will fall in
love with a
stranger the
minute she
steps into the
ballroom in a
pretty dress.
Which leads to
one of the
things I like
best
about Ever
After: no love
at first sight.
Call me unromantic, or boring,
or overly modern, but I am not a
fan of the idea of "love at first
sight." Attraction at first sight?
Sure. Lust at first sight? Sure.
But love? Nope. Love is deeper
than just emotions and
pheromones. Those can bring
together two people who then fall
in real love, absolutely. Which is
what happens here. The prince
encounters a pretty woman
embroiled in a vehement
argument. He's attracted to her,
yes. But more than that, he's
and intellectual in a fairy tale
might seem incongruous at first,
but it works beautifully here. In
fact, he's what ties the updated
characters and setting together
with the traditional story so well.
He embodies all the new,
marvelous ideas and pursuits of
the Renaissance, and can bring
art, science, and philosophy very
naturally into the story. Without
him, such topics might seem like
convenient plot devices, not
organic parts
of the world,
but with
Leonardo da
Vinci on hand,
they make
complete sense
in the story.
And with his
help, Danielle
and Prince
Henry can find
their happily-
ever-after as
well.
I might not
have a great
desire to wear body glitter and
fairy wings anymore, but my
desire for a good story well told
has not diminished. I know I'll be
enjoying and learning from Ever
After for years to come. ♥
interested in her. She's unusual,
spouting philosophy and
economics instead of twittering
about feelings and fashion. And
so he pursues her not because he
is already in love with her, but
because he wants to understand
her, to get to know her. And by
doing those two things, he then
begins to fall in love with her.
Danielle is attracted to Prince
Henry physically as well, but she
likes him more because he takes
her seriously than because she
appreciates his appearance or
rank. She isn't out to snag a
prince, or out to have a good
time at a fancy party -- she wants
to get to know and understand
him too. There's just that one
pesky problem of her being a
common servant and him being a
prince.
Who better to solve such a
problem than the ultimate
Renaissance Man, Leonardo da
Vinci (Patrick Godfrey). Having
such a famous artist, inventor,
FUN FACT: This story is set in an
“alternate history” of the period.
Utopia was published in 1516.
Leonardo Da Vinci died in 1519.
King Francis’ son Henry (born in
1519) married Catherine
de’Medici. Charles, the Spanish
monarch, was in his 20’s and
unmarried. And the queen says
“divorce is only something they do
in England” a full decade ahead of
Henry VIII’s divorce.
11
I t is well known by
now that the term
"renaissance"
translates to "rebirth"
and it is fitting that the
word is now used to
refer to the period in
Europe from the 14th to
the 17th centuries which
saw a flourishing of
ideas and culture.
Though the concept of a
rebirth was supposed to
bring to mind the
advances of the ancient
period, the Renaissance
progressed society in at
least one way that was
quite new—women in
positions of power.
Women had been the
daughters, sisters,
mothers, and wives of
rulers before this era and
often acted as regent for
underage sons who
would be future
monarchs but it was
during the Renaissance
that the idea of a woman
in charge in her own
right would be set as a
historical precedent.
Near the end of the
Renaissance, England's
Queen Elizabeth I would
become history's most
significant examples of a
powerful female ruler.
The circumstances of
Elizabeth's birth and BY RACHEL SEXTON
later ascendance to the throne
are obviously just as well known
as her reign itself. Her father was
Henry VIII whose love life made
him notorious. He was single-
minded in his pursuit of a male
heir, so much so that he broke
with the Catholic Church in order
to divorce his first wife,
Catherine of Aragon, and marry
Anne Boleyn who would give
birth to Elizabeth. Anne would
be beheaded before Elizabeth's
third birthday. Though she
was a King's daughter,
Elizabeth actually assuming
the crown was a distant
possibility due to the fact that
Henry had a daughter from his
first marriage, Mary, and a son
from his third marriage to
Jane Seymour, Edward. After
Henry's passing, the sickly
Edward died as well. Though
Edward named a distant
cousin, Lady Jane Grey, his
successor, she was deposed.
Mary was only shortly on the
throne until her own death.
Elizabeth was now queen as
the only Tudor heir left.
Elizabeth I assumed the crown
at the age of 25 and reigned for
nearly 45 years. Perhaps the
most important fact about her
time as a monarch is the fact that
she never married or had
children. She kept all the power
she wielded in her own hands
until she died; she seemed to
know that in a patriarchal world,
any husband she took would
become the ruler instead of her.
Her reign has also been called
"the Golden Age" and the reason
her reign. Though historically
inaccurate, the drama is
deliciously presented. After
initial setbacks, the audience
sees a consolidation of power for
the new Queen play out that
rivals those in organized crime
stories like The Godfather. Cate
Blanchett plays Elizabeth and
her performance is stunning. The
other film is Shakespeare in
Love and an aging Queen takes a
small but commanding role
in the narrative. Played by
Dame Judi Dench, Elizabeth
is on screen for less than 10
minutes but viewers sense
her imperiousness,
mischievousness, and love
for art. The quality of both
productions cannot be
overstated: Shakespeare in
Love won the Oscar for Best
Picture that year and both
ladies were nominated for
Oscars in their respective
categories, with Dench
winning in hers.
Queen Elizabeth I remains
one of the most powerful
women of the past, and is a
true Renaissance queen,
reigning near the end of that
period and being an unshakable
part of the growth of culture that
defines that time. Other women
wielded power during the
Renaissance, such as Mary
Queen of Scots and Catherine de
Medici, and England has had
Queen Victoria and the current
Elizabeth II on the throne since,
but in the scope of history
Elizabeth I still rules. ♥
why is what firmly sets it as a
part of the Renaissance. In the
military arena, England's defeat
of the Spanish Armada in 1588
ranks as one of the best victories
in the country's history and its
maritime dominance under
explorers like Francis Drake was
well established. Drama in
England reached a staggering
peak as well, with the Bard
himself, William Shakespeare,
and also Christopher Marlowe
working during this time.
In terms of screen time in film
and television, Elizabeth I gets a
vast share. The year 1998 was a
particular high point with
regards to this; it saw the release
of two films in which her
character was a significant part.
Elizabeth is a sumptuous
production covering her coming
to the throne and early years of
13
the project becomes a battle of
wills fueled by artistic and
temperamental differences
that form the core of this
movie. The Agony and the
Ecstasy is ultimately an
intimate film about an epic
work. Heston and Harrison
are excellent, and the process
of creating a masterpiece is
fascinating. Alex North’s score
gives heart and humanity to
divine inspiration. The film was
nominated for an Oscar in
Cinematography and named one
of the year’s best films by the
National Board of Review.
Michelangelo “sketched his
roughhewn young contandino
just in from the fields, naked
except for his brache, kneeling to
take off his clodhoppers; the
flesh tones a sunburned amber,
the figure clumsy, with graceless
bumpkin muscles; but the face
transfused with light as the
young lad gazed up at John.
Behind him he did two white-
bearded assistants to John, with
beauty in their faces and a
rugged power in their figures.
He experimented with flesh
tones from his paint pots,
enjoyed this culminating
T he Agony and the Ecstasy
(1961) is a biographical
novel of Michelangelo
Buonarroti and his troubles
while painting the Sistine Chapel
at the urging of Pope Julius II,
written by American author
Irving Stone. Stone lived in Italy
for years, visiting many of the
locations in Rome and Florence,
worked in marble quarries, and
apprenticed himself to a marble
sculptor. A primary source for
the novel is Michelangelo’s
correspondence, all 495 letters of
which Stone had translated from
Italian by Charles Speroni and
published in 1962 as I,
Michelangelo, Sculptor.
Part of Stone’s novel was adapted
to historical drama in a film by
the same name in 1965, starring
Charlton Heston as Michelangelo
and Rex Harrison as Pope Julius
II. When the pope commissions
Michelangelo to paint the ceiling
of the Sistine Chapel, the artist
initially refuses. Virtually forced
to do the job by Julius, he later
destroys his own work and flees
to Rome. He evades the pope’s
guard and flees into the
mountains, where he becomes
inspired. Eventually resumed,
BY MARIANNA KAPLUN
“The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.” — Michelangelo
Unknown believed portrait of Michelangelo
“Pope Julius II” by Raphael
physical effort of bringing his
figures to life, clothing them in
warm-colored lemon-yellow and
rose robes.”
Raphael: For what is an artist in
this world but a servant, a
lackey for the rich and
powerful? Before we even begin
to work, to feed this craving of
ours, we must find a patron, a
rich man of affairs, or a
merchant, or a prince or... a
Pope. We must bow, fawn, kiss
hands to be able to do the things
we must do or die. We are
harlots always peddling
beauty at the doorsteps of
the mighty.
Michelangelo: If it comes
to that, I won't be an
artist.
Raphael: [scoffs] You’ll
always be an artist. You
have no choice.
After Ghirlandaio looks at
Michelangelo’s sketches of
Christ drawn with a
stonemason as the model,
he tells Michelangelo the story of
Donatello showing his newly
carved crucifix to Brunelleschi,
who observes that it seems to
him Donatello has, “put a
plowman on the cross, rather
than the body of Jesus Christ,
which was most delicate in all its
parts.” Donatello, upset by his
friend’s criticism, challenges
Brunelleschi to make Christ’s
figure himself. When
Brunelleschi presents his own,
newly finished crucifix,
“Donatello, who could not take
his eyes off the beautiful Christ,
answered, ‘It is your work to
make Christs, and mine to make
the Pope’s army is threatened by
French and German forces, and
cardinals recommend fleeing
Rome to safer territory. The
painting scaffolds are torn down,
and the commission is given to
Raphael. Insulted and beaten,
Michelangelo packs for Florence.
Raphael, impressed with the
work done, pleads with
Buonarroti to finish his work.
Contessina de’Medici, a former
lover, convinces Buonarroti to
beg the Pope for the commission
again. A battle-bruised
Pope is convinced a sacking
of Rome is in order, but
gives permission to
continue painting.
Late at night in Rome, a
war-torn and ailing Pope
criticizes the images of God
and Man (in The Creation
of Adam), claiming they are
too serene. The Pope
becomes bedridden, and
denies a request to stop
painting the chapel ceiling.
The conclusion is a Mass
where the congregation is shown
the completed ceiling. After the
congregation leaves, the Pope
offers Michelangelo work on
painting the lower walls, but
seeing his own life fading, the
Pope rescinds and asks him to
complete the tomb.
As Michelangelo once said: “In
every block of marble I see a
statue as plain as though it stood
before me, shaped and perfect in
attitude and action. I have only
to hew away the rough walls
that imprison the lovely
apparition to reveal it to the
other eyes as mine see it.” ♥
plowmen.’ ” Michelangelo,
familiar with both carvings, tells
Ghirlandaio that he, “preferred
Donatello’s plowman to
Brunelleschi’s ethereal Christ,
which was so slight that it
looked as though it had been
created to be crucified. With
Donatello’s figure the crucifixion
had come as a horrifying
surprise…”
On a battlefield, Michelangelo
convinces the Pope to change the
grand design and paint not just
the panels of the ceiling, but the
entire vault. The work proceeds
nonstop, even with mass in
session. Months turn to years.
Michelangelo is accused of
blasphemy and heresy by
portraying Pagan symbols and
myths but is allowed to continue.
Buonarroti suffers from
blindness as a result of paint
poisoning and fatigue from
overwork. While recovering, the
Pope’s architect Donato
Bramante pressures the Pope to
use Raphael to finish the ceiling.
But Michelangelo garners the
strength to continue. Meanwhile,
15
Katharine had to learn how to
run a proper household. She
became a living Proverbs 31 wife.
On top of that, she had to be the
encourager and the strong one
for a temperamental man prone
to depressions and eccentricities.
Somehow they balanced each
other out. He liberated Katharine
from a life of service and showed
her there was another way to
live. Half-teasing and half-
respectful, Luther called her “my
lord Katy.”
They had six children, one of
which died young. Through all of
life’s challenges, the opposition
and dark times, they were able to
keep faith in the Lord. Their
union was considered a fine
example of how a Christian
marriage should operate, one
complementing the other. Their
None of her suitors… well, none
of her suitors suited her. She
teased Luther that she was only
interested in marrying him. He
had been toying with the notion
of matrimony as of late. When he
went to visit Katharine, he would
refer to her as “my Katy.” There
may not have been a grand,
passionate romance between
them in the beginning, but there
was something there.
Accepting his offer of marriage,
Luther and Katharine were wed.
Luther was 42 and Katharine was
26. Life was not to be easy for the
Luthers. While Martin Luther
was a famous reformer, in the
eyes of many he was an infamous
heretic. From opposing forces,
together they faced the threat of
death every day. Since she had
never been taught in the convent,
B ehind every great man is a
great woman. Often
enough these ladies go
unnoticed or are forgotten. But
even the smallest contributions
leave their mark.
Katharine von Bora was born in
1499 and in all likelihood lost her
parents at a young age. She was
sent to the monastery, first for
education, but then later became
a nun. Years passed. Whispers of
a new reformation reached even
the convent she was interned at.
Six miles away, Martin Luther
was preaching to the common
man straight from the Bible.
Katharine was one of the nuns
who soon came to believe that
forgiveness, grace and salvation
could only come directly from
God. Soon she and nine other
nuns no longer felt the call to
serve God in a convent. They felt
led to serve Him in a different
capacity. Upon delivering a
message to Martin Luther
himself, he arranged for a rescue
wagon to be sent to the convent.
The nine former-nuns huddled
down in a wagon carrying barrels
of herrings and managed to
escape unnoticed. They were
finally free to live their own lives.
Luther placed them in families
and went as far as arranging
marriages for the majority of
them. Except for Katharine.
BY VERONICA LEIGH
lives together continued on for 21
more years. Then in February of
1546, on a trip to his birthplace
to settle a dispute, Luther fell ill
and died before Katharine could
be brought to him. Her husband,
friend and helpmate was gone.
Having to flee their farm due to
war and heavy taxes, the
remainder of her days were spent
in poverty; she and the children
were supported through the
generosity of others. In 1552,
when another outbreak of the
Black Plague struck, she was
forced to leave the city of
Wittenberg.
Katharine was involved in an
accident at the city gates. Having
been thrown from a wagon
and into a body of icy water,
she was carried out, her body
covered in bruises. Her
health never recovered. On
her deathbed three months
later, she was purported to
say, “I will cleave to my Lord
Christ as the burr to the
cloth.”
From the casual observer, it
may seem that Katharine had
very little influence on the
world. Most of what we do
know of her comes from
Martin Luther himself. Even
so, she had the heart and ear
of the man who led the
Protestant Reformation. ♥
17
uttered to this very day, through
popular culture, parody, or
everyday dialogue: “To be or not
to be”, “My kingdom for a horse”,
“All the world’s a stage”, and
“What’s done is done”
just to name a few.
Shakespeare’s works
continue to be a
source of study in that
it crosses boundaries
and classes. The
characters that
inhabit his works
come from a broad
spectrum of society:
his characters were
members of royalty,
well-off merchants,
foot soldiers, holy
men and women, and
peddlers. His works
comment on a wide
range of issues, from
carrying out the law
(Measure for
Measure) to religious
discrimination (The
Merchant of Venice)
and divine right
(Richard II) to filial
love and obedience
(King Lear). His works of course
reflected much of the times he
lived in, such as Elizabethan
politics (Julius Caesar), recent
history (Richard II) and
written in, Shakespeare’s usage
of the language has, in some
ways, solidified its place in the
language as a whole. He even
created words that have found
places in contemporary English
such as “lacklustre”, “frugal”, and
“star-crossed.” Additionally, he
coined a number of phrases and
expressions that continue to be
D ramatist Ben Jonson
once praised William
Shakespeare in a poem,
declaring that he “was not of an
age, but for all time!” Indeed
William Shakespeare,
the playwright from
Stratford-upon-Avon
who lived from
c1560s to 1616, very
much embodied the
burst of creativity and
art that came out of
England during the
sixteenth century.
Having written over
thirty six plays and
numerous poems and
sonnets, his works
not only encapsulated
the fervour of the
English Renaissance
but have also endured
the test of time.
The staying power of
his works and
continued prevalence
in today’s culture—
from English studied
to theatre and
popular culture—lies
in several factors.
There is of course its
contribution to the English
language. Despite of the obvious
difference in usage from today’s
English and the style that it is
BY LIANNE M. BERNARDO
incorporating Scottish politics
and lore (Macbeth), but the
issues he presented continue to
resonate today as our societies
continue to struggle against
discrimination, poverty, and war
and confront moments of
conflict, anger, and mercy.
Whether it is Hamlet
contemplating life and death or
Viola pleading her case for the
strengths and constancy of
women or Shylock listing out the
injustices made against him,
Shakespeare’s plays provides an
earnest grasp of a situation,
leaving his characters and the
audience to come to their own
conclusions and opinions.
What is also very compelling
about Shakespeare and why he
continues to endure despite of
the times is the fact that his
stories and the themes he
grapples with are universal and
timeless: love, ambition,
betrayal, guilt, pride, losing loved
ones. Even when one is
scratching one’s head
deciphering the language and the
deeper meanings (or lewd jokes)
behind the dialogue, one can
easily relate to what the
characters are going through. His
plays reveal a whole range of
emotions and situations that cast
light on the human condition,
the dilemmas of decision-
making, the conflict of different
goals, ideas, and desires: Do you
save one’s brother at the expense
of your principles? Do you go
against the king, God’s appointed
on earth, in the name of justice
and the goodwill of the people?
Do you allow nature to take its
course or do you seize destiny in
Shakespeare’s works continue to
endure and continue to be
performed in our day and age.
His work, inspired from other
sources, have gone on and
inspired many playwrights,
artists, and novelists after him.
His works resonate because of
the story arcs that the characters
undergo, connecting the modern
audiences to their experiences
despite the time gap. They also
resonate because despite the
difference in life and times, some
things have not changed: war,
sickness, love, hate, guilt—the
human condition remains the
same. That Shakespeare was
able to encapsulate these
feelings and emotions
rightfully places him at the
head of great English
playwrights to emerge in
the English Renaissance. ♥
your hands? These individuals
may have completely different
life experiences from ourselves—
Richard II’s Bolingbroke,
Othello’s titular character, Much
Ado About Nothing’s Beatrice—
but we know what it’s like to fall
in love, how difficult it is to make
a life-altering decision, what it’s
like to hold a grudge. Their
emotional responses to the
dilemmas they face are what
enables the modern reader and
viewer to connect with them over
the course of their stories.
In the end,
despite the fact
that these plays
were written in
a time vastly
different from
our own and
written in a
way that is
different
from
modern
plays,
19
Sack of Rome, by Francisco Javier Amérigo Aparicio, 1884
U pon the arrival of
Katharine of Aragon
to the great city of
London, as she progressed
through the streets at the side of
a child Henry Tudor, she saw a
number of pageants at each point
blending the virtues of faith with
chivalry and symbolism of the
period. Her arrival was such a
lavish event that her mother
expressed some concern that
“too much expense” had been
made, in “honoring” a humble
daughter of Spain. But pageants,
tournaments, and suchlike were
a popular form of entertainment,
for nobility and peasants alike.
Thousands flocked to observe
them and just as many made
annual pilgrimages to shrines
and churches across Europe,
observing religious imagery and
symbolism along the way (the
pilgrimage being representative
of our journey from salvation
onwards). And once Katharine
reached the palace, there she
found hundreds of tapestries
illustrating Biblical events for her
continual study and pleasure.
Modern audiences are familiar
with religious symbolism
presented in allegorical form in
Pilgrim’s Progress, which takes
the metaphorical journey of life,
salvation, death, repentance, and
the divine and transforms it into
a literal journey through which
the characters mature and grow,
some reaching their end through
martyrdom before the others,
who must take the harder, slower
path. In the middle ages, this
kind of spiritual pageantry and
artistic expression was common,
not merely in events but in the
art of the churches themselves. A
peasant might, on a good year,
observe a number of staged
events in which virtues and vices
were portrayed as characters,
illustrating the need for salvation
and repentance. In their local
church, they would encounter a
number of carvings, paintings,
and other artwork outlining the
seven deadly sins or bringing to
life pertinent spiritual passages.
Above the altar might be the
Stations of the Cross (significant
The Renaissance Catholic Church
BY CHARITY BISHOP
moments in Christ’s journey) in
stained glass; or it might be the
apostles, surrounding the Virgin
and Her Holy Child. Martyrs and
saints would be honored through
remembrance as a reminder that
martyrdom is for a cause greater
than oneself and is a holy and
divine choosing.
As the printing press came into
full use, Biblical paraphrases and
rewritten Bible stories, famous
sermons, loose translations of
scripture, 10 Commandments,
the Lord’s Prayer, and essential
doctrinal teachings were made
available as pamphlets, along
with scholarly works from the
great philosophers and thinkers
of the period.
Though the Medieval Catholic
Church brought on Reformation
through its refusal to debate
doctrine with Martin Luther, it
also employed hundreds of
thousands of artisans throughout
the middle ages and renaissance
in the continual building and
beautification of churches across
Europe. Faith was so entwined
with beliefs of the time that they
were inseparable in the minds of
many; those who renounced
Catholicism also sadly inevitably
renounced art, a practice which
lasted for centuries and is still
obvious in some Protestant
denominations, where the
Church building is devoid of
anything that might be seen as
“imagery to be worshipped.”
Leaving that argument aside,
such imagery kept the disciples,
the apostles, Christ, and other
Biblical figures (and their vices,
virtues, sins, and atonement)
of the pure divine creativity of
generations of people must have
grieved the heart of God. After
all, we are “made in His image,”
for no other creature on earth is
a conscious creator of art in any
form; the spider does not think
how beautiful her web will be
glistening with dew in the first
light of dawn, nor does the zebra
choose where to stand to make
the most striking impact on the
observer. It is humans who use
their divine gifts in a multitude
of ways to celebrate creation, through their own creativity—
music, art in all its many forms,
literature, poetry, and dance. We
alone take pleasure in the beauty
of God’s creation, which is much
more majestic than ours. It is not
God who wants to destroy art or
creativity, but the forces of evil.
While the Reformation had a
tragic impact on art, the Catholic
tradition of blending elements of
faith, of transforming virtue into
living entities in art, in capturing
the essence of a being over its
true likeness, has continued ever
since in drama, literature and
film. J.R.R. Tolkien famously
wove his faith throughout his
stories of Middle-earth, a tale in
which there is no religion, for the
religion itself is woven into the
characters and their stories. The
longstanding tradition of
merging art, beauty, and the
divine continue to influence
artists, filmmakers, novelists,
and storytellers in unique ways,
as a reminder not only of the
enormous impact such teachings
have upon our lives, but the
power of art as a storytelling
technique. ♥
present in the minds of laymen
as well as the wealthy. What a
peasant might not have in daily
life, they might glimpse in the
Church… for their Church was as
glorious and majestic as the
Church of the Kings and Queens.
When Martin Luther’s teachings
began to spread across Europe,
famous martyr and philosopher
Sir Thomas More feared the
repercussions on the Church…
and his fears became reality.
Having demolished the Church
as an icon of God’s presence on
earth, and its servants as mere
mortals in the minds of the
masses, regard for the sanctity of
the Church all but disappeared;
the infamous “Sack of Rome” by
the out of control (German)
imperial army in 1527 leveled
most of the Churches and raped
and murdered thousands of
people (including priests and
nuns). Once Henry VIII enforced
the “new” religion in England,
working together with his Lord
Chancellor, Thomas Cromwell,
the Churches of England were all
stripped of their wealth and
much of their beauty, the profits
going straight into the royal
treasury. Irreparable damage
was done to most of the Catholic Churches in England—hundred
year old murals desecrated by
having the faces of apostles and
saints scraped off, limbs and
heads chiseled or broken off of
statues, and ornamentation torn
off walls and altars. Anything of
worth was sold for profit.
Though to modern eyes, restored
or intact Catholic Churches may
seem “gaudy,” such destruction
21
When she's not writing, Rachel Kovaciny passes the time by reading, baking, watching movies, crocheting,
blogging, and homeschooling her three children. Her least favorite activities are house-cleaning and wearing shoes, and she's been known to go to great
lengths to avoid both. She blogs about books, and also has a personal blog
that talks about movies and other important things.
Charity Bishop is fanatical about this time period in history and loves to bore her friends with it. Her free time is spent writing novels & movie reviews, blogging, and personality typing fictional characters on tumblr.
Jaime Donovan is a Christian and a university student. She loves to read, draw, write, and has a blog.
Rachel Sexton is from Ohio and has a Bachelor's Degree in Communication Arts. She loves her parents and her dog Lily. She has to have acting, film, reading, and dance in her life. She is described as quiet and her biggest vice is cupcakes. Her hobby is editing fan videos.
Marianna Kaplun was born in Moscow. She is a philologist
specializing in Ancient Russian drama and theatre. She’s also a film and television critic by calling and
librarian by profession. You can find her essays on her Facebook
page and on Lumiere. She also blogs in English and Russian.
Lianne Bernardo is a 20-something Canadian who loves history, period dramas, British TV, photography, and (European) football. She is an avid reader, from fantasy to literature to historical fiction, and extensively blogs about them on her website, When she isn't reading, she’s working on her writing projects. Her Twitter: @eclectictales.
Veronica Leigh is an aspiring novelist, who lives in Indiana with her family and six furbabies. Her obsessions range from Jane Austen to the Holocaust to Once Upon a Time. She has published two short autobiographical pieces and hopes to see more in print. She also lurks on her blog.
23
Young people gifted with supernatural abilities for a divine purpose encounter all manner of conflict and spiritual awakening in this terrific new book series by Femnista editor Charity Bishop.
A haunted assassin’s academy, a would-be-nun, an army of ghosts, and Napoleon Bonaparte feature in Ravenswolde
Purchase at Amazon
A family curse, a band of Romani, the famous Dr. Joseph Bell, and Jack the Ripper feature in The Giftsnatcher
Purchase at Amazon
A cleric with a closet full of weapons, a mysterious aunt she has never heard of, a villainous neighbor, and a cunning cat feature in Thornewicke
Purchase at Amazon
A diabolical past, a possessed house, a secret organization, and the RMS Titanic feature in The Secret in Belfast
Purchase at Amazon
Due to intense themes and violence, the series is recommended for ages 13+.
WANT TO CONTRIBUTE? Claim your topic before someone else does!
“Classic Hollywood”
Actors, actresses, directors, and films from the early years of Hollywood. Promised: Audrey
Hepburn, The Philadelphia Story, Norma Shearer, Sorry Wrong Number, The Honeymooners, Judy
Garland, John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara.
AND THEN...
March/April: Keeping the Faith (Bible Stories, Martyrs, Christianity) Promised: Joan of Arc, Perpetua, Moses, Lydia, Augistine, Junia, One Night With the King, the dynamics of Peter & Paul) Suggestions: theology and significant theological figures, your favorite Biblical figures, the history of the Church, spiritual growth.
Need a suggestion? The costumes (how do they differ from reality?) Early silent screen actresses that are nearly forgotten Charlie Chaplain and how he changed Hollywood Significant early filmmakers and how they influenced art in cinema Before there were censors, and how there came to be a moral “code” The changing “fads” of Hollywood (musicals, Bible films, major epics) Historical epics and their financial impact on the studios (Cleopatra nearly bankrupted the studio) Your favorite actor and their body of work
Coming Feb 1st!