Free Schools for Free People Please

There's recently been more calls for the school day to be lengthened in the media. I can't tell you how much I hate this idea. A while back I wrote a series of pieces stating the opposite - namely that children should spend less time at school (see abolish-education).

My arguments for this at the time were mainly principled and idealistic and they didn't really address the practical problems that most parents would experience if the school week was just suddenly reduced - the main problem being how working parents would find the time to look after their children during those hours they weren't in school.

Anyway, I've been thinking about this problem and now I think I have the answer.

At the moment we have a situation where parents only really have two options;

Option 1: Send your child to a school and hand complete control of their entire education over to said school

Option 2: Take your child out of the education system completely and home-school them yourself

Two quite extreme options, both with their problems. I would change the entire system so that parents would have the choice to send their children to school as much or as little as they wanted. If you want your child at school 2 days-a-week, 3 days, 4 days-a-week, 2 hours-a-day, 4 hours-a-day, whatever, it would be your choice.

After all, they're your schools, paid for by you - shouldn't you be able to use them for your children as you see fit.

In fact, I would solve two problems in one swoop and merge schools with childcare - schools could be opened for even longer hours and parents would then have a truly flexible place where they could send their children at times that suited them and that worked around their employment.

This system would be so much better for everyone. At the moment there are increasing numbers of people dissatisfied with the current system. Some are choosing to home-school their children, but many simply don't have the option because of work and financial constraints ...and those that do often worry that by taking their child completely out the school system they're denying their child the opportunity to develop socially by spending time with other children. A more flexible way of providing education would give parents the genuine freedom to educate their children according to their own design.

We hear the term free school bandied about quite a lot at the moment. To me a truly free school is a school that can be freely used by parents and children. Freedom is choice.

Christina Rossetti Embraced

I've just finished reading a collection of Christina Rossetti's poetry. Normally I'm not a big reader of poetry, but I've really embraced this stuff. Her use of language is really chosen and concise. The combination of religious tones with personal themes like yearning is unique in its nearness. Close to God. This is the first time I've really took poetry to heart. Well impressed.

I found the poem Goblin Market quite fascinating in particular. Unsurprisingly it's a tale about goblins, but more interestingly it seems to be an allegory for sexual temptation. It's etched in my mind now, so I might return to it at a later date.

Eat me, drink me, love me.

Recently Read: Thomas Cromwell by Robert Hutchinson

I've just finished reading this biography of Cromwell. It was interesting. Even though the author is often quite critical of Cromwell a goodness of sorts still shines through. Well worth reading.

One interesting thing that popped up in the book was an alternative version of the story of Thomas Becket. A version promoted by Cromwell (and dismissed as propaganda by Hutchinson). In this version Becket dies in a riot or melee that takes place after one of his servants is arrested;

Becket had then used 'opprobrious words' and grabbed one of his opponents 'by the bosom and violently shook him and plucked him in such a manner that he almost overthrew him to the pavement of the church'... 'and so in the throng he was slain' - a death 'which they untruly call martyrdom'.

Cool.

It's also interesting how few direct sources we seem to have for this period of history. The Spanish Ambassador Eustace Chapuys seems to be the main source for half the information relayed. It's a name I'm now quite familiar with as he tends to be the go to eye witness in most history books on this period. I wonder how much of English history relies upon the testimony of foreign writers.

It was also interesting to note that most of the information regarding Henry's relationship with Anne of Cleves seemed to come straight from a single letter written by Cromwell whilst he was imprisoned in the Tower - a letter strangely out of sync with his other supposed pre-execution letters. The story of Henry going in disguise to inspect his bride-to-be before their marriage seems particularly far-fetched.

live at home, serve God and meddle little.

The Six Lives of Henry VIII

I've recently read two plays that deal with the life of King Henry VIII. The first was the Shakespeare play Henry VIII (said to date from 1613) and the second was a play by a guy named Samuel Rowley called When You See Me You Know Me, first published in 1605.

My main motive for reading them was to look for signs that the conventional account of the Henry VIII story was in error. Incidentally, I should mention that my last post concerning the Thomas More painting was part of the same vein of thought. A debate had been raging on the applied-epistemology website about this painting and the various conspiracies surrounding it. I only really published because I wanted to link to the image and needed somewhere in internet-land to upload it to. Hence the brevity and complete lack of context (anyone interested in the story of that painting will find the relevant links in the Who birthed the Renaissance section of the above mentioned site).

Anyway, back to the plays. The Shakespeare play was pretty standard Shakespeare really. Nothing special, but as ever enjoyable enough to read. It told the story of Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn and the subsequent birth of Queen Elizabeth. In fact, I felt the focus of the play was more on Elizabeth than Henry. The play told the story as we know it today - divorces Katherine, marries Anne, Wolsey dies, Cromwell comes along, etc. The play ends with the birth of Elizabeth so none of the subsequent marriages are mentioned or dealt with. In fact, from a historical revisionist point of view the most interesting thing about the play is the fact that it's alternative title at the time was All is True. A title that may suggest there was some contention over what was the truth at the time of writing.

Luckily, however, the second play provided much more canon fodder. This play dealt with the birth of Edward, the death of Jane Seymour and the King's marriage to Catherine Parr. This play was all over the place chronologically speaking. Most bizarrely, Cardinal Wolsey was still alive at the end of it! The conventional account of history states that he died in 1530, three years before Anne Boleyn became Queen. Yet in this play he's managing England's affairs during the subsequent reigns of Queen Jane and Queen Catherine. He himself even states that he was responsible for her execution at one point in the play! Thomas Cromwell isn't mentioned once throughout the entire thing either and is nowhere to be seen.

Another odd thing is the fact that Catherine Howard and her beheading don't even get a mention. It just jumps from Jane Seymour to Catherine Parr. Catherine Howard is completely missed out and Anne of Cleves gets just a single line spoken about her. All very strange.

Six-Fingered Woman in Painting?

This insert is from the painting Thomas More and his Family by Rowland Lockey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:More_famB_1280x-g0.jpg

Does the painting deliberately portray a woman with an extra finger?

Why Not March Fools' Day?

A belated happy new year to y'all.

At this time of year I always end up musing about the months of the year and why the new year starts where it starts. To be honest I don't get New Year's Eve, it doesn't have the same natural vibe that Christmas has and it always feels like a forced celebration to me. Consequently I always end up arguing with friends and family that it would be much better to have it sometime in spring - the natural beginnings of things.

Looking at the calendar March 1st seems like a natural break point. Apparently March was the first month of the Roman calender and this is said to be why our calender looks so fudged when we contemplate the names of the months. They supposedly had ten months originally and then added January and February later on. Logically, January and February should be the 11th and 12th months, but for some reason they come at the start of our year.

September - septem means seven in Latin yet it's our ninth month
October - octo, eight, yet our tenth month
November - novem, nine, yet our eleventh month
December - decem, ten, yet our twelfth month

Also, to me, the fact that February contains the extra day in a leap year also makes it a more logical twelfth month - it makes sense to add the extra day to the end of the year, rather than at some random intersection between two months.

Anyway, this led me to wonder why not March Fools' Day instead of April Fools' Day. Looking at the conventional explanations for all this calendar mayhem on Wikipedia etc it kind of looks like April Fools' is pretty much a consequence of the new year beginning in March (sometime). Although what with all the various local traditions and the changes from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar it gets pretty confusing. I feel a bit like I've wandered down a rabbit hole.

(The traditional quarter days seem like an interesting thing to look at next. Also the name Gule of August caught my eye - another name for Lammas. Gule - yule?)

Oh and before I forget, going back to the Roman months I've always found it odd that the months of July and August were renamed for Caesar and Augustus. I feel the worship of these two blurs into Christianity somewhat.  Anyway, I was wondering if maybe August shares its root with the Latin word aurum meaning gold. It would be quite fitting for a summer month and also the name Augustus was a title used by many emperors (likewise Augusta for empresses) - maybe it simply meant golden one. An augur in ancient Rome was a religious official or priest.

Also an aureus was a gold coin - so maybe a link to the person depicted on the coin. I think the Latin word chrysos means gold too - Christ? Do Augustus and Christ mean the same thing?

The Hunger Games - Christian Symbolism?

I've just finished reading the first book of The Hunger Games Trilogy. I really enjoyed it actually. I was inspired to read it after seeing the video for Coldplay's Atlas single (which is on the soundtrack to Catching Fire - the second Hunger Games movie). The video looked a little bit esoteric and it aroused my curiosity. I wasn't really aware of The Hunger Games at that point. In fact, the first time I'd even heard the name was just a few months ago when a younger, cooler girl I work with asked me if I'd read them, and then looked in horror when I said I didn't even know what they were.

Having seen the Coldplay video, I then had a little Google search and came across various conspiracies suggesting that the book and movie franchise are part of some New World Order template to prepare the ground for a real life 'hunger games' of the not too distant future. That kinda made me wanna go and read the books more.

Anyway, reading the first one I was more struck by the Christian symbolism than by any Illuminati nods and winks. I don't know if this symbolism is intentional, but I found it quite striking. Bread is a symbol of 'hope' throughout the book. There are 12 districts in Panem (the nation where it's set), there were 13 but one was destroyed - the crucified Jesus and his twelve disciples? The Capitol (the central controlling metropolis) is Rome (complete with Roman names - Octavia, Flavius, etc). The Games where the contestants fight to the death no doubt the games where Christians were thrown to their death. The name Panem even comes from the Latin phrase panem and circenses (bread and circuses). The two main characters (Katniss and Peeta) even spend some time half-dead in a cave! In fact, come to think of it, Katniss and Peeta - Catholic and St. Peter?? I think I'm pushing it too far now.

I think I'll definitely have to read the next two.