Ariel refers to "'...mushrumps...'" (p. 176)
He continues:
"'Soon hazlenuts and quinces will be ripe, and I could hymn what hymeneal things occur when they are introduced to trout.'" (ibid.)
That diet fertilizes trout?
Jennifer meets Caliban. (See image.)
Rupert tells Will that the Dutch are:
"'...tolerant of religion, if not of whatever might stand in the way of their merchants' profits.'" (p. 179)
That reminded me of Nicholas van Rijn and, sure enough, the following page refers to Rembrandt van Rijn.
Rupert refers to "'...King Charles' Wain...'" (p 183)
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
"Mushrump" did catch my eye as an interesting, faintly "risque" word!
And Prince Rupert was wrong. Dutch Protestants, at that time, did oppress and discriminate against Dutch Catholics. Tho probably not to the brutal extent seen in the British Isles. That might have been what Rupert meant.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Also, in some quarters, discrimination against mere Catholics would not be regarded as intolerance.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly! If Dutch Calvinists were not hanging, drawing, or quartering Catholics some of the more fanatical British Protestants would consider them disgustingly tolerant.
Ad astra! Sean
To be fair, Protestants in the Spanish Netherlands were persecuted much more viciously (and effectively) than Catholics in the Netherlands. Large parts of the urban population of the Dutch Republic were refugees from the south. Protestants all over Europe were fully aware that the authorities in Catholic countries regarded them as vermin with no right to exist, and reciprocated those sentiments.
The Dutch (usually) left Catholics more or less alone if they kept their heads down and were politically loyal. The problem is that it was quite difficult for a pious Catholic to be loyal to a Protestant state in the 17th century, because the Papacy didn't want them to be.
Catholics were widely regarded as "fifth columnists" because a lot of them actually were.
The Papacy should have preached and practiced church-state separation. They could still try to give a moral lead to other Christians whatever their theological disagreements.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I mostly agree, the situation you described fitted most neatly into the history of the 1500's. I would merely add the Catholics felt THEY were the victims of aggression, because of how the early Protestants seized power in many states and then proceeded to persecute them. Many secular princes found it profitable to become Protestant if that would increase their power, for example.
Paul: I THINK, by the early 17th century, some Catholic thinkers were starting to be open to such ideas. That Catholics could be loyal to non Catholic gov'ts.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment