Stonehenge

What catches people's imagination more than a mystery? A mystery provides a void in information that people want to fill. The mystery of how Stonehenge was created has given many people the opportunity to make up many different myths and fables. Different groups of people seemed to provide some new solution, revealing their ideas about the unknown.

I had the privilege of hearing one of the older theories on the little audio tour at Stonehenge. The little person in the guide talked about how long ago people believed King Arthur, in a desire to commemorate his men that had died in battle, asked Merlin for advice. Merlin suggested getting some large stones set up by giants in Wales. Arthur sent a group of soldiers to collect the stones from a site in Wales, but because they were taking too long Merlin became inpatient and used his magic to bring the stones to England. Merlin set them up exactly how the giants in Wales had set them up.

Another theory, also on the audio tour, demonstrated the people's shift from the magic of Merlin to the Christian God. The story goes that Satan wanted some special bones that were owned by an old woman in Wales. He flew to Wales and offered the old woman all the money she could count while he was gathering the bones. She agrees, knowing the task should take the devil a very long time. Unfortunately for her, the moment she began to count the devil was done and he flew off with his booty. He deposited the bones at Stonehenge.

Modern theories show an equally fanciful nature with a twist. One current idea is that the stones were brought by aliens. The theorist do not explain why the aliens left the stones, only that they did. I do not know if anyone actually believes this theory, or if it was simply created by someone suggesting an idea that had never been discussed. Another theory sounds to me a bit more plausible but only explains who put the stones there not how. One major theorist, Stukeley, believed that the Druids constructed them as a religious sight (Stukeley, 10).

Why do so many people theorize about how Stonehenge was created? The answer is because it really is a mystery how stones that probably weigh close to 45 tons, requiring hundreds of men to move, were put up in a time when there was no heavy machinery (Historical, 1). Experts seriously have no idea how people were able to create the sight. They have found many burial grounds surrounding the place, but they do not even know if these graves were placed there from the people who created the place or later people.

What experts do know, is the original location of the stones. True to myths, the stones really did come from Wales. These stones actually formed in such a way that the great pillars at Stonehenge did not need to be quarried, but they could simply be carried off (Alexander, 53). Pillars litter the landscape catching people's imagination and mystery making them perfect candidates for such a sight like Stonehenge.

Because people have created so many different theories about Stonehenge, when I went to visit the place, I was surprised at it size. I expected something a little larger. I believe the place was so hyped up, I had a greater expectation for it then what was rational. Fortunately, the audio tour really helped me to see how impressive the place really is. It really would take a lot of man power to put those stones in place.

Until experts solve the mystery of Stonehenge, I believe the best thing for us to do is create our own myths and legends. Various theories were tossed around by students on our arrival at the sight, but I do have a favorite. I do believe the best idea was that the pillars were toy blocks for a baby giant. We may never find out how the stones were brought to England, but at least we can have fun making up our own theories.

Alexander, Caroline. “If the Stones Could Speak.” National Geographic (June 2008): Washington DC, 34-59.

Historical Background. English Heritage. June 9, 2008.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.1914

Stukeley, William. Stonehenge, A Temple Restor’d to the British Druids. London: Innys and R, 1740.

Bath

When I think of England, I will be honest, the first thing to come to mind is the power of the Victorian era not the older civilizations. When I think of Bath, I imagine the time when it was the social spot of society and the rich and famous went their on holiday. I do not picture Roman soldiers bathing in the warm luxurious waters, yet that is where the story of this famous spa began.

Between the years 55BC and 450 AD the Romans ruled what is now known as England (Hibbert, 22). While there, they built lots of nice roads buildings and a wall that can still be seen in London, Bath and other places. The Romans discovered the natural water at Bath and made it into one of the most impressive Baths in Western Europe by surrounding the pools with arches and colonnades taken from the local limestone (Roberts, 27).

Although to me this pool of naturally warm water sounds like the best place to take a quick vacation, it was not such an exciting resort for the local people. The “ordinary British Notable” was not interested in spending time in town, but on staying at his own country estate (Roberts, 27). This ensured that when the Roman government failed in the fifth century, the town decayed (Roberts, 27). The nobles remained on their country estates. I love swimming in hot baths, so I hope I would have been different.

Before I actually visited Bath, all that stood out to me was that a natural hot spring was in this town and people went bathing. In my mind this was much like people going hot tubing. I was very surprised to learn that Bath was a very important religious sight. It was the temple of Sulis Minerva, and people from all over the Roman Empire made pilgrimages to Bath to receive the benefits of this sacred water.

Not only did Bath have a natural hot spring, but it was a mystery to the Romans why the waters bubbled when it was not boiling. This was explained by assuming the water was sent by the Goddess Minerva. A temple and shrine were built at the sight to show the people's reverence.

Water straight from a Goddess was expected to heal. People with leprosy, battle wounds, arthritis, and other diseases came to be healed by the water. Some seemed to receive a miraculous healing causing more people to flock to the waters.

Bath disappeared from the notice of the world while the rest of England fought wars and worked on establishing themselves with a stable government. Things did settle down, but it was not until the 18^th century that Bath really became of note. With the emergence of a middle-class structure came the demands of middle-class pleasure: hot tubing (Morgan, 443). It is this culture in the 18^th to the 19^th century that made its way into books. For example, we have various Bath scenes described in Charles Dickens’ The Pickwick Papers and in a couple of the Jane Austen novels. It was a fashionable scene worth describing to the world.

I was very excited that I was able to enjoy the water while I was at Bath. After I went on a tour of the Roman Baths, I went to the Pump Room and had a glass of the special healing water. It, quite frankly, was disgusting. I was still glad I drank the stuff, though, because it is talked about in books as one of the medicinal methods of the eighteen hundreds.

Now the story of Bath is much sadder because it is an unfulfilling tourist spot. The main economy is financed by tourism, but the tourist are only allowed to look at the baths, not swim. Once again, the purpose of the spa has been lost only this time it is not due to political turmoil, but to a nasty little parasite that lives in the water. The waters have been deemed unsanitary to swim in. Overall though, It was still a delightful city to visit. The Baths may only be looked at, but they teach about the past. The disgusting water can be drunk and the streets walked in. All these factors helped me, the traveling student to relieve memories recorded by the pens of various great authors.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2006.

Morgan, Kenneth O. The Oxford History of Britain. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Roberts, Clayton. A History of England: Prehistory to 1714. United States of America: Prentice-Hall, 1998.

Burning

A curse or a blessing can come on the wings of a wind. For London in 1666, a curse blew with the wind for five days, five days that are known as the Great Fire of 1666. This fire changed the face of England permanently, It raged for only those five days yet so much was lost. To really learn about this fire, not only did I make a pilgrimage to where the fire began, but I also visited the exhibit at the Museum of London where I found enough information to produce an informative article on the subject.

The Great Fire began on Sunday, September 2, 1666 In Pudding Lane. When I went to see this little street, I thought it would be an exciting cool street because, come on, its name is Pudding Lane. The lane was quite ordinary. It was an old street that meandered by the Themes. It is ordinary, but because of the fire, it shall be remembered in history by at least the British School children who study about it in class.

This fire can be traced to a Baker’s oven on the street owned by Thomas Farrirer. They believe the fire began in his oven around one AM on that infamous Sunday. It had been a long dry summer and most of London was made out of wood. This provided the perfect fuel to feed a hungry fire that quickly spread, leaving thousands homeless in its tracks. The wind proved to be a curse as it sent this fire spinning from house to house consuming the city.

I was rather shocked to discover that although thousands of people lost their homes, they have only ten people recorded as actually dying. This number does not included the uncalculated number that lost their lives the following winter due to starvations, or exposure, but in the actual five days that fire raged throughout London, less than ten people were actually killed.

The fire was only put out after five days had passed and three fourths of the entire city of London was destroyed. This fire was finally extinguished because the wind died down and soldiers and sailors exploded buildings to create a firebreak. They used gunpowder to smash the building to smithereens, yet it was effective. It reminded me of farmers turning the earth to create a damp dead zone that would prevent the sudden wildfires to from destroying their house. You do what you have to do when their is not a fire truck.

Many people wanted to know why this great tragedy hit the city of London created a lot of theories. There were many various ideas. These included: God was punishing the Londoners for their sins, The French or the Dutch were behind them because of war, the Catholics wanted to destroy this Protestant nation, a crazy guy named Robert Hobart confessed (He was not even in England when the fire started, but he lost his head for the confession), it was an accident, or the Baker forgot to put out the oven (experts think this last one is the most likely). Interesting enough, the idea our text book The Story of England, on includes the idea that God was punishing the Londoners for their sins (Hibbert, 142). I think the experts were right and the poor baker simply screwed up and didn’t put out his oven. His little mistake created a fire so hot, the stones of St. Paul exploded.

England was destroyed, providing lots of opportunity for including new architecture. London had not really built any new churches during the 17^th century until the fire required some new one to be built (Morgan, 396). Christopher Wren took this opportunity to implement a new architectural style that still can be seen throughout London.

It was a great exhibit. I really felt like I learned a good amount of information on the Great Fire of 1666. They provided a detailed and interesting exhibit, that also included a great place where you can try on a fire hat from sometime in the past.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2006.

Morgan, Kenneth O. The Oxford History of Britain. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Museum of London The Great Fire of 1666. June 3, 2006

Cambridge

When going to school at a university, what stands out to people? Is it the large buildings that dot the campus? Is it the library that provides all the research material? While all these things do stand out, they are not what makes the memories. Although I only spent a day at Cambridge, I feel I learned more about the university by floating down the river Cam in a punt, then by touring the school and visiting the library.

A punt is a flat bottomed boat that is stirred by a person with a pole. This provides a slow and enjoyable ride down the river. According to the St John’s College at Cambridge, this activity is fairly young and started at the beginning of the last century when river traffic died down; originally punting was used for hunting waterfowl in the marshlands and other activities that needed to be done in the shallow water (Preston, 1).

As I floated down the river with the guide, not only did I get to see various students studying and heading to exams, but I got to see them drinking and staying off the grass. Cambridge has immaculate grass because the only people who are allowed to step onto it are the professors. Visitors can not walk on the grass, and even students can not place a toe on the perfectly flat, green. immaculate lawn. That would not go over well at BYU.

By floating down the river, I got to see the “Backs.” Literally the back lawns of various colleges, these backs provided a view into the oldest colleges at Cambridge. I loved seeing King’s College and Trinity.

I learned that Stephen Hawking and John Milton both attended Cambridge University. I guess I really have never considered what famous people attended this university.

I find it interesting to learn how many different accounts are floating about over the Mathematical bridge. This bridge crosses the Cam river and is part of the Queens college. According to Professor Talbot, the bridge was originally constructed without any bolts. The Cambridge students wished to know how it was put together; to figure it out they took it apart and were unable to put it back together. Our river guide said this was false, claiming that the bridge was never taken apart but bolts were put in to make it so the bridge could pass the legal requirements of safety. Queen’s college refutes all of these stories saying that the bridge was constructed 250 years ago with coach screws at the joint and “only a pedant could claim that the Bridge was originally built without nails” (Walker, 1). Bless those show offs for messing with the poor tourist’s heads.

Another enjoyable scene I saw as I floated down the river in the Punt, was the lovely sight of King’s college Chapel. This chapel I later went in. It was commissioned by Henry VI who had great ideas for the whole college, but his untimely murder in the tower of London (I saw the room where he died) meant that only his plans for the chapel where completed and that only happened through the patronage of following kings (King’s, 1). This amazing Chapel creates an impressive sight when the visitor first walks in. Narrow but very high, the chapel is eighty feet high with fan vaulting; this breathtaking view was completed between 1512 and 1515(King’s, 2). It was an amazing sight.

Although I did not get to talk to any of the university students, I do feel that floating down the River Cams provided a wonderful look into how the university life is. Unfortunately it was Exam week, so we saw mostly the studious life, but we still were able to catch a glimmer.

King’s College: Cambridge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Preston, Aeron. The History of Punting. April 2008. St. John’s College: May 2008.

Walker, Robin. The Mathematical Bridge. Queens Collage: May 2008.

St Paul’s Cathedral

Do not feed the Birds was the first thing I was told when I decided to go to St. Paul’s Cathedral, much to my disappointment. Although the old lady in Mary Poppins was able to share her generous supply of bird seed, this is no longer allowed. While this fact troubled me, it did not deter me from making the pilgrimage, and I am glad I did.

St. Paul’s is a lovely Cathedral that stands out as a landmark on the London skyline. This cathedral’s architect was Christopher Wren who gave it a more classical style described as cool, light and rational compared with the early Stuart churches (Morgan, 396). I guess I am not exactly sure what the Stuart churches are, because I still found the building to be intense and overwhelming. The building is large in an open air way, enabling it to seem airy, but it is still a rather impressive building. This Cathedral is according to the history channel only second to Westminster Abbey ( St. Paul’s Cathedral, 1) has become an icon of London.

Christopher Wren was quite the architect. Interesting enough, he was not trained as an architect, but was sent to Oxford where he studied mathematics and astronomy (Roberts, 394). Even without a formal education, he was able to design such remarkable buildings that people refer to his London. Everywhere I go, I seem to always be running into something that Christopher Wren designed. For example, we were punting down the river in Cambridge and the guide informed us that the Library at Trinity College has the mark of being designed by him. Anyway, it was still fun to go and see what could be considered his architectural masterpiece.

I decided for my trip to St. Paul’s that I would couple it with enjoying my first Anglican ceremony. I went to Evensong. As I approached the building on a Sunday evening, I could hear the bells tolling throughout the area. It was a beautiful sound. It was a sound that dominated the air until I stepped into the church itself and then a hush seemed to overwhelm this sound. The bells lost their dominance and dropped to a distant hint that could be easily forgotten.

One of the first things to stand out for me as I approached St. Paul’s Cathedral was the amazing dome. I approached from the side and as I looked up, this is what I could see. This dome was, again according to the History channel was designed to give the cathedral a more “reposeful outline than that in St. Peter’s in Rome.” The dome is truly beautiful and it dominates the landscape. I found it interesting inside the church to look up and see the beautiful paintings on the dome ceiling.

The paintings inside the church were to me surprisingly elaborate. I guess because I have seen other churches that were completely whitewashed in during the transition from Catholicism to the Anglicism, I expected people to keep to that tradition. The ceilings are not as elaborate as Catholic cathedrals in still remaining Catholic Cathedrals, but as you enter the St. Paul’s, the level of paintings on the ceiling increased until it reached its max at the Altar.

St. Paul’s really is a beautiful Cathedral. I did feel sometimes that it was a little too ornate, but the overall effect of the building is aesthetically pleasing. I really enjoyed going to Evensong there and hearing the choir's voices echo through the old passageways of the building, delighting even the birds resting on the steps outside.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Story of England. London: Phaidon Press Limited, 2006.

Morgan, Kenneth O. The Oxford History of Britain. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Roberts, Clayton. A History of England: Prehistory to 1714. United States of America: Prentice-Hall, 1998.

St. Paul’s Cathedral. May 24, 2008. The History Channel: 2006.

The Tower

Early one morning, my fellow students and I set out on a mission. It was a mission to visit the infamous and dreaded Tower of London, the famous place of death, murder, treachery, and despair. We set out on this journey with happy hearts for we were simply tourists going to see what all the world goes to see when they come to visit London.

We started our journey by waiting for one of the Yeoman to give us a guided tour. We began the guide with a brief overview of the Tower. To ensure I got my facts straight, I checked out another Yeoman’s brief history. I remembered correctly that the Tower was built by William the conqueror as a symbol of his power and a place to hold prisoners (Mermel, 1).

As we passed through the walls into the main fort, the Yeoman told us the etymology of the word Password. Apparently they used to have a secret word to enter through the gate. The guards would have the individual who wished to come in write the word on a paper and then pass the word through the gate. This evolved into the word password.

Many famous prisoners were held here in The Tower. After we walked in, we saw the lovely tower where Elizabeth I and Sir Thomas More were both held prisoner. This tower overlooked the royal entrance. It is at this royal entrance where Anne Boleyn entered as Henry VIII’s bride.

The next spot the Yeoman took us to see was the Water Gate, later known as Traitor's Gate. This is the entrance Anne Boleyn used when she entered The Tower to lose her head. I found it interesting that even though she was a condemned prisoner, she was still treated royally until the moment of her execution. She was placed in the same chambers where she spent her wedding night and an executioner from France was specially imported for her (Experience, 33).

Anne Boleyn was not the only famous death at The Tower. This was also the sight of the famous murder of the two princes. What is known is that Richard, Duke of Gloucester seized control after his brother died, and his two nephews who were to inherit the throne mysteriously disappeared after being taken to the Tower (Prall ,205). The bodies of what is believed to be the princes were found in one of the towers.

After the tour, it was exciting to go and see the crown Jewels. I for some reason had not thought through exactly what the crown Jewels were. I thought it was really cool when I found out that they were not simply a bunch of jewels owned by the royal family, but that they were the Jewels owned by the British people and used in the actual ceremony to crown their new king and queen. It was amazing to think the gigantuous jewels were really jewels and not costume jewelery. The two things that helped to demonstrate the value of what I was looking at was the thick walls giving the impression that you were walking into a vault when you walked into the jewel room, and the conveyor-belt moving people quickly past the row of crowns. It was very cool.

After we saw the crown jewels we went to take a tour of the White tower. This tower, had a lovely museum that included lots of armour, mostly from Henry VIII. It also had nice area where visitors could practice pulling a longbow and find out lots of information on weapons. According to our guide, this building had an observatory until it was moved to Greenwich.

Although The London Tower is a very touristy thing to do, I will say the afternoon was a well spent afternoon. I loved the tour by the Yeoman and enjoyed the historic moment I was able to enjoy in these walls.

Eperience the Tower of London. Surrey:Historic Royal Palaces, 2007.

Mermel, Craig. The Tower of London. August 2004. VirREn Team: May 2008.

Prall, Stuart E. Willson, David Harris. A History of England: Volume I Prehistory to 1714. United States: Dryden Press,1991.

The Globe

“The Theater, the Theater, what’s happened to the theater?” Although this exact question is asked in the modern movie White Christmas, it is a question that can equally be applied to Shakespeare’s Globe theater. What did happen to the Globe, and how did it get to its present state?

Shakespeare and his companions decided they needed to change venues, and in May 1599 they began building anew what later became known as the Globe theater (Aaron, 281). When I say anew, I mean there was something existing in the spot, and they used that material to build on. Shakespeare owned a portion of the theater, and commented in his play Henry V over his frustration in the delay before he was able to switch theaters (Aaron, 282).

Unfortunately nothing remains the same, especially in an age lacking fire sprinklers. Fire struck the Globe in 1613. Recovery from this tragic event was immediate as it was rebuilt in 1614 (Saunders, 401). Sadly, Shakespeare died only two years later in 1616 (tear). The Globe continued on without Shakespeare until the Puritans shut it down and then destroyed it in the year 1644. The Globe remained in this non existing state for many a year.

Time passed, and with it the memory of where exactly the Globe used to be. Finally in 1989, the remains were discovered, surprising people by not being the same dimensions as they expected (Egan, 11). The stage was is a different place, and the walls were a different shape. They recovered from the shock and went on to try and recreate it in the Elizabethan style. This, also according to Egan, was not possible (Egan, 14). Too much time has passed and people have changed. I tend to agree with Egan. No matter what the actors did to convince me that I was in Elizabethan times, the occasional noise of an airplane flying overhead, drowning out their voices, forced me to come to terms with where I was. I was in theater pretending to exist in a different time.

Overall, the Globe theater is a delightful place to pretend you are in Shakespearian times. Even if I was unable to suspend my belief through the entire play, I was able to do it enough to have a great time. The Globe is built with the idea of giving the same atmosphere and although the rebuilding crew included some differences from the original theater (they made it bigger), it still a delightful place to see a Shakespearian play. I will be honest, seeing the Globe from the outside was pretty cool because it looked like it was from the Elizabethan period. Seeing A Midsummer Night's Dream was even better because it was experiencing the period. I found it interesting that to provide lights, the theater provided a giant white glowing orb. It gave light without the effect of being modern. The theater took the liberty of being modern in some aspects (dyed blue hair) but not with technology. There were no special effects that could not be accomplished in Shakespeare’s time.

Even though the building now known as The Globe was built in the 1990s, it still creates a delightful experience for a Shakespearian play. It was O.K. to be sitting on a hard wooden bench, because many others have done it before. Besides I was glad that I was not one of the people in the crowd on the floor standing in the rain watching the play. The theater tried to convey the way it was, but there have been changes. What has happened to the theater? A lot, but the magic is still there.

Aaron, Melissa D. “The Globe and Henry V as Business Document.” SEL: Studies in

English Literature 1500-1900. (2000) 277-292.

Egan, Gabriel. “Reconstructions of the Globe: A Retrospective.” Shakespeare Survey,

(1999) Vol. 52. 1-16.

Saunders, J.W. “Staging at the Globe, 1599-1613.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol. 11, No.

4 (Autumn, 1960), 401-425.