The Scroll

AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH DR. WILD

2018

THEÂ SCROLL Tea: a brief history

THE SHERBORNE GIRLS HISTORY MAGAZINE

PLUS: QUIZZES!

Secrets of the London Underground the struggles of life under Apartheid Do the Borgias deserve their venomous reputation?

A NOTE FROM THE EDITORS

The Contributors...

Julia Aggett

Penelope Aggett

Natasha Linhart

Serena Mundy

Alice Richards

LVI

Hannah Shirley

LVI

Bella Snow

MV

Emilie Tubbs

LVI

Eleanor Wheatley

LVI

MV LVI LVI LVI

Welcome to The Scroll, 2018

Contents The Powers of Tea

Hannah Shirley

Historical Monuments to controversial figures should remain

Natasha Linhart

Behaving badly in Colonial Kenya

Penelope Aggett

The rumours of Caligula

Alice Richards

Do the Borgias deserve their venomous reputation?

Serena Mundy

An interview with Dr. Wild

Julia Aggett

The Struggles of life under Apartheid

Julia Aggett

A History of the London Underground

Emilie Tubbs

Royal Wedding Dress Quiz

Julia Aggett

The life of Robert Mugabe

Eleanor Wheatley

Book and Film Review

Bella Snow and Penelope Aggett

Profile of a Heroine

Serena Mundy

History Mystery Contest

Julia Aggett

The Powers of Tea: a History of the not-so Quintessentially British Beverage

Britons drink 165 million cups of tea daily, totalling 60.2 billion per year. Served black or taken with milk and sugar, tea is not merely a firm favourite with British taste buds but is embedded securely within our national consciousness; put unambiguously

by George Orwell, "tea is one of the mainstays of civilisation in this country”. And yet it might surprise you to discover that tea is a relative newcomer to British shores; tea brewing and tea drinking became prominent features of Chinese, and shortly afterwards, Japanese, culture long before tea made its first appearance in Britain. Further still, the history of tea goes beyond the recreational and cultural; Han dynasty nobles gazing into tea leaves might have foreseen their future role in shaping politics and diplomacy, as a means of solidifying the political power of the Japanese daimyō, and as the precursor to Anglo-Chinese tensions that endure to this day.

The tree was a Camellia Sinensis, and the resulting drink was what we now call tea. The truth of this tale is open to debate, but evidence of the consumption of tea in China dates back at least a couple of millenia - tea containers have been found in the tombs of Han dynasty (206 BC - 220 AD) aristocrats, and it was under the Tang dynasty (618-906 AD) that tea became firmly established as the national drink of China. During the Sui Dynasty (589–618 AD) tea was first introduced to Japan by Buddhist monks on their return from China, and in the following few centuries tea consumption, first for practical (its high caffeine charge was

The story of tea begins in 2737 BC, as the Chinese emperor Shen Nung was sitting beneath a tree while his servant boiled drinking water. When some leaves from the tree blew into the water, Shen Nung, a prominent herbalist, decided to try the infusion that his servant had accidentally created. A tea plantation in India today. Tea was first introduced to India in 1806 during the British Colonial period.

Green tea has been drunk in China since 2737 B.C

used as a stimulant for monks consigned to long hours of meditation), and then largely for pleasurable reasons, flourished in Zen temples.Concurrently evolving with its function in Japan was the style in which it was prepared in China, termed ‘tencha’, in which finely ground powder of green tea leaves was placed into a bowl, hot water added, and the tea and hot water whipped together - as distinct ‘dancha’ or ‘brick tea’. Ensai, the founder of Zen Buddhism, brought this development back to Japan and began the ceremonial use of tea in Buddhist monasteries, which soon pervaded royal and warrior classes.

Thus the tea ceremony, a more significant development in the history of tea where politics is concerned, was born.

The samurai class embraced wholly the ritual preparation of tea. By the 13th century, under the rule of the Kamakura Shogunate, tea and the utensils associated with it became a marker of status among a warrior class captivated by the accomplishments of Chinese civilisation, and there arose tea-tasting parties wherein

contestants could win extravagant prizes for guessing the geographic origins of different teas.

By the 16th century, the tea ceremony had spread beyond a military elite; the artistic pursuit became a forum for the rulers of Japan, the warrior elite and wealthy merchants to forge social ties. Sen no Rikyū, perhaps the most revered figure in the history of tea, was the leading teamaster of the regent Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-1598), who facilitated Rikyū’s systematisation of ‘the way of tea’ or ‘chanoyu’ as a means of consecrating his reputation as a man of culture and consolidating his own political power. Under Hideyoshi, the symbiotic relationship between politics and tea had reached its zenith; utensils served as war prizes, small gatherings became settings for confidential transactions (overseen by Rikyū), and large celebrations marked military victories. Ultimately, Rikyū was forced to commit ritual suicide because his endorsement of a simpler aesthetic within the tea room was at odds with Hideyoshi’s extravagance, threatening the regent’s authority.

After the death of Rikyū, essentially three schools descended from him to continue the tradition. More recently, the tea ceremony, as well as other practices, such as flower arrangement and kimono dressing, provided material for ‘nihonjinron’ (a genre of text focusing on japanese cultural uniqueness), which heightened Japanese cultural nationalism. This cultural nationalism fed into an political nationalism which was to spark and then be demolished by Japanese involvement in WW2. Today, the tea ceremony persists as a popular cultural activity. The classical Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu dubbed tea an indispensable ingredient in the ‘elixir of life’. Ironically, Britain’s thirst for the beverage engendered moral decline, death, destruction and enduring animosity - just how did this correlation between tea and devastation come about? Due to the rapid industrialisation of late-18th and early-19th century Britain, there emerged a middle class obsessed with luxury and novelty, resulting in the popularisation of teadrinking.

Joseph Van Aken's A Tea Party, 1719-1721.

The Qing government would only accept payment of gold or silver in exchange for tea, on the grounds that Britain possessed no other commodity of value to the Chinese, resulting in a chronic trade deficit for the British. In fact, there was one commodity, monopolised by the British East India Company, which was in demand amongst a growing Chinese middle class; opium. Despite a Chinese ban on opium imports, the drug was smuggled into China from Bengal via private traders, and by 1825, most of the money needed to buy tea in China was raised by the illegal opium trade. Its consumption wrought destruction on moral values, wealth and households across China. Because of its detrimental effect on Chinese society, and because the flow of silver had reversed to the extent that China was going bankrupt, Emperor Daoguang launched a campaign against opium; the world’s first ‘war on drugs’.

Daoguang sent a Special Imperial Commissioner, Lin Zexu, to curb opium smuggling.

Victorian Ladies enjoying Afternoon Tea.

Yet negotiations with the British ultimately failed, and, less than a year later, following a war costly in both lives and capital, British forces took Nanjing. The resulting treaty of Nanking was the first of a series of unequal treaties, opening up five ports to British trade and ceding Hong Kong to the British. The failure of the treaty to satisfy British goals of improved trade and diplomatic relations led to the Second Opium War (1856–60). The ensuing Qing defeat resulted in social unrest within China, culminating in a nationalist revolution which overthrew China’s last imperial dynasty. The wars initiated a century of humiliation in China: as observed by Julia Lovell- “In China the conflicts – the first between it and a western nation – are a national wound: the start of a western conspiracy to destroy China with drugs and gunboats. In Britain the wars barely seem to register in public memory.” - Britain’s only remnant of the conflict is the availability of a cuppa.

Debate between historians concerning the origins of the Opium Wars, whether British profit-seeking or a clash of ideologies (an affinity for free trade versus traditional Confucian bias towards merchants and commerce), continues.

Tea plantations in China today.

The Wars serve as a classic instance of divergence of opinion surrounding the British Empire.

This article has hopefully demonstrated that tea has greater historical significance than you may have guessed. From its mythical genesis in ancient China, to its ceremonial importance in Japan, tea was first tangled up with the power politics of the Japanese warrior elite and then formed the cultural drive behind Japan’s expansionist nationalism in the 20th century.

The consequences of Britain’s insatiable craving for tea? A turning point in Chinese history and a continuing animosity between Britain and China. In spite of (but also because of) tea’s tumultuous past, we can be assured that it will have a place at the centre of British life for centuries to come.

BY Hannah Shirley, Lower Sixth

Historical monuments to controversial figures should remain A monument is defined as a structure which was explicitly created to commemorate a person or event. By such a definition, historical monuments therefore represent affirmative morals which we agree to honour and celebrate as enriching our country’s value system in a particular way, whilst bestowing respect upon the particular achievements or schools of thought represented. The status of some such figures as commanding respect and commemoration, however should be subject to scrutiny. Such Statues commemorating Confederate soldiers in New Orleans, is the case with monuments dedicated to Louisiana.

British imperialist Cecil Rhodes as well as the confederate statues in New Orleans, all of which may be seen to act as propaganda to Glorifying such controversial figures in such a way promote the institutional racism which they is an anti-intellectual, ahistorical and inappropriate represent. way to memorialize their blatant brutality. The notion that the present stems from the past entails that if we hope to alter our present outlook upon society, we must critically address elements of our past. As our understanding and interpretation of past events is enriched through additional discoveries regarding past events, we must assess and if necessary adapt our presentation of Should ideologies of racism, misogyny and the past through such monuments in order to general intolerance really continue to be comply with the information which we have since promoted in today’s society? In celebrating gained. Indeed, to reconsider, to recast, is the figures such as Cecil Rhodes, we are in effect essence of historical practice. granting an elevated status to notions of white supremacy through such a monument.

It follows that altering how we present the past through commemorative symbol is not ahistorical on the contrary, it represents a more thorough coming to terms with our past and legacies, a refusal to forget. History is a process of cognition and revision, with all historians being revisionists, writing from the vantage point of their own lives and times.

Although those opposing the removal of such statues may argue that they represent parts of our history which we must come to terms with, this is not in fact the case. In retaining such monuments in their present form, we are preventing our society from truly accepting and understanding the atrocities committed by some of these figures, clouding history with a deceitful shroud of patriotic past. This is therefore linked to the degree of truth promoted by such monuments. In revering figures to present an embellished version of the atrocities committed, the factual accounts of such events are lost, distorting representations of history in which we fail to accept responsibility and guilt for our past actions. Allowing ourselves to critically challenge and posit the validity of such monuments therefore allows us to come to terms with the fact that certain elements of our history should not be uncritically celebrated. In removing such Students of the University of Cape Town deface the statue of Cecil Rhodes in 2015.

monuments, we would be seeking to amend over sentimentalised, simplified and, in themselves whitewashed, accounts and beliefs of history formed from our inability to accept the fallibility of our countries' past actions and preventing academic rigour. It is only through active discussion, debate, curriculum and writings that the many victims of such figures can be provided a platform upon which they can prevent their forgotten histories from remaining forgotten.

Torn down statues of Lenin (left) and Stalin (right) now stand in Grutas Park, Lithuania where they serve as a playground.

All such figures have played substantial parts in creating the world of inequality that we have unfortunately inherited. If we want to create an inclusive society in which all peoples feel welcome and valued, we must reassess our approach to the past and must strive at all costs to allow for the voices and histories which are traditionally marginalized to be voiced and heard.

BY Natasha Linhart, Lower Sixth

Behaving Badly in Colonial Kenya Denys Finch Hatton (24 April 1887-14 May 1931) Denys was born in Kensington and educated at Eton and then Brasenose College, Oxford. He came from an aristocratic family and after he inherited his estates he sold them and moved permanently to Kenya. He first moved to Kenya in 1910 and brought land near the Rift Valley. He was involved with hunting, safaris and trade. He led a safari for Edward VIII and had many documented affairs with women. He enjoyed reading and was a great raconteur and an early aviator.

Karen Blixen (17 April 1885- 7 September 1962) Karen moved to Kenya from Denmark to marry Bror Von Blixen. Together near Nairobi they had a coffee plantation, which today is an area of Nairobi called Karen. She was a published author under the name Isak Dinesen; her most well known book is Out Of Arica, a memoir of her life in Kenya. It was later made into a film starring Meryl Streep and Robert Redford.The love of her life was Denys Finch Hatton and she was one of the first pioneers to Kenya.

Bror (Blix) Von Blixen (25 July 1860- 4 march 1946)

Blix was a nobleman from Sweden who moved to Kenya in 1914 to marry Karen. Their marriage was a marriage of convenience between two friends; one wealthy and the other titled. Their marriage was unsuccessful and ended in divorce because Blix was a philander and a professional hunter which meant he was often away from home.

Beryl Markham (26 October 1902- 3 August 1986) Beryl moved to Kenya with her family at a young age but her mother and brother soon went back to England. She stayed with her father who had a farm in Njoro for race horses. She became the first female race horse trainer and the first person to fly across the Atlantic Ocean successfully. She was married three times and had countless affairs.

Circling the Sun by Paula McLain is a novel based on her life.

Outside a rigid British society, Colonial Kenya became the playground for the rich and famous. Affairs were common and there were more opportunities for women to do a man’s job. Settlers would either take a boat to South Africa and then travel over land to Kenya by wagon or to the port in Mombasa. There they would buy land intended for framing or racehorses. However, these colonists also got up to all sorts of mischief in between the problems of farming. Some settlers like Denys and Blix enjoyed hunting and leading safaris whereas others such as Beryl and Karen fought against a male hegemony (pre-woman suffrage) and still managed to come out successfully; Beryl became the first female racehorse trainer and her horses won many races and Karen fought through her farm’s financial situation until she was forty six and then returned home to Denmark. Where she wrote Out of Africa and other books under the name of Isak Dinesen.

A view of the Rift Valley, Kenya.

Meryl Streep and Robert Redford starred in the 1985 film, Out of Africa, based on Karen's memoir.

Karen had an affair with Denys after her divorce with Blix. Denys would often stay at her farm in between safaris and sometimes they went on safaris together. However, while Karen was selling all her belongings and abut to auction her farm, Denys was killed in his plane flying to Mombasa (14 May 1931), immediately after this she moved back to Denmark.

While Denys was still in a relationship with Karen, he had an affair with Beryl Markham. However Beryl and Karen were good friends so it didn’t last long. Beryl had many other affairs and married three times and each did not work out. The first was to Jock Purves, who she married to stay in Kenya instead of moving to South Africa with her bankrupted father. Her happier second marriage was to Mansfield Markham, together they had a son but as he was weak and lived in England, Beryl barely saw her son or granddaughters. Her third was to Raoul Schumacher a journalist but it was also a short marriage. The reasoning behind Beryl’s behaviour was because she grew up around bad marriages and spent most of her childhood with the local tribe, resulting in this he mother-tongue was Swahili.

Beryl’s most well know affair was with Tom Campbell-Black an avaitor working at Wilson Airport.

He taught Beryl how to fly and motivated her to fly from england to America non stop. However, when he died unexpectadly, Beryl lost interest in flying and retured to kenya until her death in 1986.

Each of these settlers found happiness in Kenya around the chaotic affairs and farming dilemas in a very interesting period of history, where they were free from the constraints of Eurpean society and its norms. I find this period of Kenyan history interesting because my family went to Kenya in 1906 and my Great-Grandmother, Betty Brennand, was a renowned race horse trainer like Beryl.

Further reading: Out of Africa by Isak Dinesen Circling the Sun by Paula McLain White Mischief by James Fox and the 1987 film by the same name

BY Penelope Aggett, Middle Fifth

The rumours of Caligula- the truth about the scandal that surrounds one of Rome’s most notorious rulers When it comes to the ruling emperors of Rome we have a bit of an obsession with the rumours and scandal that surround their lives. Whether it’s the tormenter Caligula who made his own horse consul, or the sex crazed Tiberius who supposedly had an erotic library, their legacy has gone down in history because of these claims. But how much of this is true? Where these men as disreputable as the stories suggest, or are they just what Tacitus and other documenters fabricated to make the lives of these men seem more theatrical? Well here’s a rundown of fact from fiction of one of Rome’s most famed emperors, Caligula.

Perhaps the most tyrannical Roman emperor is Caligula. For a start Caligula isn’t even his real name, he was born Gaius Julius Caesar.

‘Caligula’ was just a nickname given to him by his father’s legions meaning ‘bootikins’ or ‘little soldier’s boot’.

Bust of Caligula.

It was probably fitting for a small boy, running around his father’s base on the Rhine, an image far from the brutal enforcer as he is remembered as today. After Tiberius’, his predecessor’s death, Praetorian Prefect Macro ensured that Caligula would succeed in the line of succession.

There are even rumours that he and Macro hastened Tiberius’ death by smothering him with a pillow, but there is little evidence of this.

Caligula’s reign wasn’t always as unpopular as people are led to believe, at the beginning of his reign he was immensely popular.

He was the renowned son of the popular military leader Germanics, and in fact the first seven months of his reign are described by the philosopher Philo as being “completely blissful�. However after these seven months Caligula fell ill and emerged with an obsessive desire for power. However, claims that he was poisoned or lost his sanity are unpromising.

Caligula often went out of his way to humiliate the senate, and the historian Suetonius mentions he intended to make his beloved horse Consul, whether or not he would have gone ahead with this is another thing entirely.

He insisted on being treated as a God and supposedly would refer to himself as being one when meeting with political figures. And although there is no concrete evidence of this claim, excavations found in the Roman forum confirm that he did in fact incorporate the temple of Pollux and Castor within his palace.

Bust of Caligula.

One of the most peculiar expeditions of his reign was to Britain, in this expedition he even never made it past the channel, and when they arrived there he ordered his troops to gather seashells of the French coast; the reason for which has never been properly explained. The legitimacy of many of these rumours are still up for discussion, but most of these sources were written by the historians Suetonius and Cassius Dio (both of whom were writing over 70 years after the death of Caligula) who, although loved a good scandal as much as the rest of us, had reputations for documenting more genuine sources than those of other historians such as Tacitus. And when comparing many sources about Caligula with each other there are clear similarities, and we can at least conclude that Caligula was a ruler who certainly acted with little sanity, whether or not he suffered from a psychotic illness or not.

Malcom McDowell and Helen Mirren starred in the 1979 film Caligula.

Emperors revealed- the rest are just as crazy It’s not just Caligula who has the wackiest stories surrounding him, here are three of the most bizarre tales about more of Rome’s rulers.

Tiberius was involved in some fishy business...

So the story reportedly goes according to Tacitus, Tiberius was gifted with a fish from a local fisherman. After receiving the fish the man was promptly beaten with it. Later the fisherman revealed that he was relieved that he hadn’t given the Emperor the large crab he had caught, only to be overheard by Tiberius who, upon hearing this ordered that the man be beaten with a crab.

Malcom McDowell as Caligula in the 1979 film.

Claudius, the gambler at heart...

Claudius had a love of gambling, his addiction was commented on by the politician Seneca who said his gambling was so immoral that he deserved to spend eternity in hell picking up dice and putting them in a cup that had no bottom. Rumour has it that he had a board built on to his chariot so that he could play dice in it.

John Hurt as Caligula in the 1976 TV series I, Claudius.

BY Alice Richards, Lower Sixth

Caracalla was a very vain man indeed...

One of the biggest admirers of Alexander the Great, is known to have made every single freeborn male citizen in the empire change their first name to be the same as his (which I imagine would have been very confusing!).

Papal Politics of Late Fifteenth-Century Rome: Do the Borgias Deserve Their Venomous Reputation?

Quattrocento Italy, dominated by various aggrandizing duchies and corrupted papal authority was a simply brutal place.

Inconceivable punishments such as the ‘Pope’s Pear’ and the 'Brazen Bull' were widely circulated, barbarity and gory death was not horrific as we would see it today- in fact many people would, as they have throughout history, gather to spectate as the much-anticipated capital or corporal sentence was carried out. One in today's society might call this vulgar, yet it was merely part of everyday Italian life. Influential families like the Sforza in Milan, the Malatesta in Rimini, the Medici in Florence and the Este in Ferrara held in place their own brutalities- in particular the Malatesta are infamous for their savageries- and yet none of these families quite hold the sheer

sense of horror as to send a shiver down one’s spine like that of the Borgia. What reasoning is behind this? Was this Spanish family really the blood-thirsty ironically antichrist villain that history has doomed them to be? I propose an alternative view on this ambitious papal family and try to find the wonder in their significant achievements of the late fifteenth-century, in particular the astonishing accomplishments of Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia, illegitimate children of Rodrigo, Pope Alexander VI.

John Collier's 1893 painting 'A Glass of Wine with Caesar Borgia'.

A painting said to be of Cesare Borgia, painted between 15001524.

Countless allegations surround this family, stating that they were involved in incest, holding orgies in the Apostolic Palace, the seduction and poisoning of innocent victims (Lucrezia), and unencumbered, wild murder topped off with a side of fratricide (Cesare). With such a venomous reputation, it would be easy to assume that he Borgias were indeed the criminals that they are written down to be.

The Borgias, a Spanish noble family who rose to prominence in fifteenth-century Italy following the election of Alfons de Borgia as Pope Callixtus III, have been accused of almost every sin imaginable. How ironic, one may say that the supposed upholders of morality committed such atrocities, yet it is the irony that has made them so infamous in history as the villains of Renaissance Italy. Rodrigo Borgia was made a cardinal by Pope Callixtus III, being his nephew, then was elected pope in 1492. His children thus became the keys to the continuation of the Borgia legacy, Cesare ascended to the position of Cardinal, while Lucrezia received arguably one of the best educations available, possibly in the hope that she might be able to rule through her future husbands.

Lucrezia Borgia was a simply remarkable woman and her story has been recorded with surprising detail- it was highly unlikely that as a woman, she would have participated much in histories, apart from appearing from time to time as the mother, daughter or wife of a reputable man. I find that this quote from Michael Hicks expresses the nature of this definitively; ‘Historians used to suppose that there could be no history of women; especially medieval women, and certainly none that was worth recounting. Women’s failure to participate in what really mattered in the past meant that women themselves were unhistorical and unworthy of the attentions of historians. Yet Lucrezia seems to have been just as important to the Borgia dynasty as Cesare or her father Rodrigo.

At her birth, Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia supposedly received signs of her alleged 'greatness' from an astrologer. Unsurprisingly, as the daughter of Vannozza Cattanei, the then Cardinal Borgia's mistress, she developed a reputation as rather a scandalous woman, renowned for her beauty. One courtier described Lucrezia's younger self as 'of middle height and graceful of form; the bust admirably proportioned. Her whole being exudes gaiety and humour.' Today she is infamous for being a femme fatale, a deadly poisoner and promiscuous sex symbol. Indeed, she went endured three husbands in her lifetime and this is thought to be the root of her minxy reputation, but when the evidence to suggest this is called into question and examined closely, one can easily find that she was most likely manipulated into wedlock, and that the vast majority of supposed fact surrounding her is mere hearsay.

Contrary to popular belief, Lucrezia surrounded herself with academics and intellectuals such as the poet Pietro Bembo, a man almost entirely disassociated from scandal. By marrying her off firstly to Giovanni Sforza, son of the Duke of Milan, Rodrigo secured himself an invaluable ally in northern Italy. This was clearly a strategic match that was necessary to help the Borgia family secure the Papal northern borders, and thus probably had little to do with Lucrezia's wishes, putting a halt to allegations of seduction and wicked menace.

Painting of Lucrezia Borgia by Bartolomeo Veneto.

The allegations that swarmed her of incest with both her brother Cesare and father Rodrigo appear to be the mere suspicion of a highly dubious society. When Lucrezia was alleged to have had a son, Pope Alexander, probably to save his daughter's reputation, claimed that the child was a product of one of Cesare's numerous conquests, but later changed his mind and made a decree to state that the child was his own. In this way Lucrezia's morality has been called into question and unauthenticated rumours started to circulate her.

A fact that I find particularly inspiring about her is that she was an excellent stateswoman. Given the authority to rule in the absence of her father, she wielded almost complete authority over the church for a period of time. Furthermore, she was appointed Governor of Spoleto and so ruled there for three years. This woman, abiding in the dominant world of men, managed to make herself known for her own accomplishments, though perhaps aided by nepotism, and yet history chooses to make this particular fact rather incognito.

To tackle that infamous rumour of her being a 'deadly poisoner', there simply is no evidence to condemn her. Cesare and Rodrigo also landed themselves with this reputation (although the pile of bodies surrounding their trails would make it easy to recognise them as the poisoners); Lucrezia was merely guilty by association. Her divorce from Sforza for his apparent impotence may have also led to his spreading of unseemly rumours as a petty form of revenge or in a futile attempt to spare his name.

As for the supposed orgies in the Apostolic Palace, apart from the writings of one perverted man, Buchard, there is absolutely no solid incriminating evidence against the Borgias. In fact, other contemporary accounts dismiss Buchard's writings as a figment of a severely twisted mind. The mere suggestion of such a scandal in the very palace of morality must have caused tongues to be wagging wildly.

Therefore, apparently to history's disappointment, the alleged "Banquet of the Chesnuts" was mere sick fantasy.

The contempt held by the Italian Papal families cannot be excluded in a piece to argue the Borgia's misfortune of reputation.

View of the Dome of St. Peter's in Rome today.

As a family of Spanish provenance, the Borgias were sufferers of racism and xenophobia. Their quick ascension to prominence in the papal states led to the green envy of some of the Italian aristocracy. So much, indeed, was the hatred of the Orsini, that although Lucrezia was educated by Rodrigo's cousin Adriana d'Orsini, Cesare supposedly put three members of the family to death. Cardinal Giambattista d'Orsini, however, is reported to have publicly accused Rodrigo of simony, tried to poison both the pope and Cesare at a banquet, and Orsino Orsini married the Pope's favourite mistress, Giulia Farnese. While death is clearly no means of just punishment, it was by no means unusual for the times.

Into a divided and violent Italy swept the fierce yet determined arbitrator of peace, Cesare Borgia, 'self-made Prince of the Romagna'. A man who arguably was one of the most successful, yet feared in the entirety of Italy. However, the reputation of the truly valiant Cesare is, to this day tainted with such inconceivable trepidation that it quite outdoes that of his sister's. Reported to have committed fratricide, then hurled his brother Juan's body into the Tiber, preceding his Il Pinturicchio’s 1492 fresco 'St. Catherine’s Disputation'.

bedding of Lucrezia, Cesare Borgia has disputably the fiercest reputation of them all. And yet he stood only to lose from his brother's death. Cardinal Ascanio Sforza on the contrary was a sworn enemy of the family who had previously been seen arguing with Juan. It seems that the idea of Cesare killing Juan has been romanticised with little incriminating evidence and thus simply accepted by historians.

Cesare's ambition was indeed so vast that he is hailed to be the originator of a unified Italy. 'Cesare Borgia was thought to be cruel, yet his cruelty restored order to Romagna and united it, making the region peaceful and loyal.' Cardinality proved to be too humble a prospect for this avaricious man, the first ever bar pseudocardinals to have resigned this prestigious position, so when awarded the Dukedom of Valentinois, Cesare's covetousness naturally flourished. Titles such as Duke of the Romagna and Captain General of the Church's Armies fell at his feet, he was such a forward-thinking man that Niccolo Machiavelli even cited him in 'The Prince' as a prime example to follow; 'I wouldn’t know what better advice to give a ruler new to power than to follow [Cesare's] example. If his efforts eventually came to nothing, it was not due to his own shortcomings, but to an extraordinary run of bad luck.' As a further example of this man's prominence, when he was just seven, Cesare was made an apostolic prothonotary and canon of the Cathedral of Valencia.

Spanish born Cesare was said to have been one of the most feared warriors of the time.

He had the desire to bring the Papal States under the sole control of the Pontiff, and, if fortuna took to him, to grant himself a permanent residence in 'Italy'. His military efforts in 1499 resulted in the conquest of Imola and Forlì and those of 1500–01 brought Rimini, Pesaro, and Faenza under Cesare’s belt. Lastly, in 1502, he captured Urbino, Camerino, and Senigallia. It was in this last campaign that Machiavelli, as one of the Florentine ambassadors attached to Cesare’s camp, was able to observe at first hand the methods of the man who was to figure so largely in his later writings. Cesare even employed Leonardo Da Vinci as an engineer to help with his military ambitions between 1502 and 1503.

Giuseppe Lorenzo Gatteri's painting 'Cesare Borgia Leaving the Vatican', 1877.

'He surpassed every barbarian in cruelty; his bloody hands wreaked dire torments on innocent and guilty alike'. Though Cesare was a warrior, there are no known accounts of his participation in anything so gut-wrenching as this. Cesare is even compared to Pandolfo Malatesta in sources; 'Pandolfo, a cruel and contemptible tyrant, was expelled from Rimini

by Cesare Borgia in 1500,' where he is depicted to have been a hero for saving Rimini from this autocrat. How is it that this man's reputation is the one to send terror gushing through one's veins?

Paintings of Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia, the latter painted by Dante Gabriel Rossetti in 1860-1.

When compared with the Malatesta family, the Borgias appear as irreproachably angelic. In the 'Condemnation of Sigismondo Malatesta', written by Pope Pius II, it is evident that the Borgias, with all of their alleged incest and murder, in a society so violent as this, have tragically been unjustly condemned. '[Malatesta] raped Christian nuns and Jewish ladies alike; boys and girls who resisted him he would either murder or torture in terrible ways'.

What crime so horrific can be found of the Borgias?

The ceiling of the Borgia apartments in the Vatican.

Il Pinturicchio’s 1492 fresco “St. Catherine’s Disputation,” in the Borgia Apartments of the Vatican. Lucrezia Borgia appears in the centre.

Burchard, a Protonotary to several popes and Master of Ceremonies to Pope Alexander VI, in his diary 'In the Court of the Borgia', had very little negative to say about the family, apart from that he did not admire their papal administration (and falsely accused them of holding orgies).

Even Machiavelli, a man of few praises, wrote that '[Cesare] was much more compassionate than the Florentines whose reluctance to be thought cruel led to disaster in Pistoria.'

On the day of Rodrigo's death, Francesco Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua, wrote the following to his wife: 'There are others who affirm having seen seven devils around [Rodrigo] at the time of his death; at once his body began to boil and his mouth began to foam, like a cauldron on fire.' In this one can see explicitly the very essence of myth and fantasy surrounding the Borgias. Here we see through this absolute fiction that they were plagued by gossip and figments of the imagination and so have been damned throughout time by the people and society surrounding them, not necessarily through their own actions.

A scene taking place in the Borgia Courtyard of the Vatican.

So violently were these rumours circulated, so as a result have been recorded in the histories of the time, for instance in Francesco Guicciardini's 'The History of Italy' when he states "[Cesare] not being able to tolerate that this position should be held by his brother, and furthermore envious that Gandia occupied a greater place than himself in the love of Madonna Lucrezia, their common sister, enflamed with lust and ambition ... had him killed and secretly cast into the Tiber." This was written as fact after the time of their deaths, and although there is no evidence to suggest the validity of an of these allegations, one sadly still, in today's society believes it.

Although the Borgias were inarguably guilty of committing multiple offenses, they were not at any rate extraordinary. Nepotism and simony undoubtedly consisted of some of their crimes, but as the position of pope only lasted until the holder's passing, it was crucial to guarantee the survival of the family whilst power was held. By making Cesare, along with at least ten other family members cardinals, Alexander VI was not acting unusually. For instance, the early fifteenth-century showed Martin V securing large sums of land for his family in Naples; Sixtus IV elevated six of his relatives to the Sacred College of Cardinals and was as a result

apprehended by Cesare's admirer Machiavelli.

Later, Julius II obtained the duchy of Urbino for his nephew, Francesco Maria della Rovere; Clement VII made his illegitimate son, Alessandro, the first duke of Florence; and Paul III gave his son, Pier Luigi Farnese, the duchy of Parma. These examples could be kept flowing almost endlessly; but the underlying point is that Pope Alexander, for all of his crimes, was no worse than any other quattrocento pope.

So why is it that the Borgia's name is regarded with such disgust and animosity? With their sudden fall from power following Cesare and Rodrigo's deaths, the Borgias opened themselves up to a surplus of allegations from spiteful opposing Italian nobles. With exaggeration flourishing and no immediate living relative to defend their reputation, the Borgias suffer eternal damnation in the misinformed person's eyes. This allows a view into the toxic side of history; the side of shameless revenge and ignominious assault through blinkered, xenophobic eyes.

BY Serena Mundy, Lower Sixth

Jeremy Irons, Holliday Grainger and Franรงois Arnaud star in the TV show The Borgias.

What is your favourite fancy dress costume from history?

I think one of my favourite fancy dress costumes is in a private collection in London. Worn by a woman, the simple white cotton gown is decorated with good luck symbols that have been drawn and coloured by hand in black ink; so, horse shoes, four-leaf clovers, black cats, and, perhaps more curiously, a swastika across the front of the dress. When first worn, during the early 1920s, the swastika symbol did not have the negative connotations that it would come to develop over the next decades because of its use by Hitler's National Socialists. Interestingly - and what, for me, makes the dress special - the costume must have been worn at a later date, when the swastika was now a controversial signifier. A white square of fabric has been sewn over the offending design in an attempt to hide it. I think this is a poignant example of how the values of a society change over time. Clothes are often such a valuable indicator of this.

What would you say were the most notable fashion moments of modern history?

The so-called 'youthquake' of the 1960s is often invoked as a major period of sartorial change, and it was, but I think I would opt for a more specific, and earlier, date: 1915. The change in the silhouette of men's and women's clothing during the first full year of WWI was marked and many contemporaries commented on the rapidity, and drama, of the change that occurred. Christian Dior's 'New Look', which appeared after WWII in 1947, was controversial - Britain's Labour government heavily criticised it and thought it should be banned - but I think it was foreshadowed by earlier sartorial changes. The change in 1915 - notably higher, smaller waists - was, I think, much more daring and innovatory.

When and how did you first become interested in the History of Fancy Dress?

I think there were two moments when I realised that fancy dress costume could be interesting to study. First, when I encountered a Latin account of the siege of Kenilworth Castle in 1266 and learned that a member of the garrison dressed up as a member of the church and excommunicated the king and royal army who were attacking them. Second, when working on my book about Cecil Beaton's clothing, I became more aware of how prevalent fancy dress costume was during the interwar period. The fact that costumes were being worn in two, very different contexts, and separated by several centuries, made me curious about how it is that dressing up has endured. If you think about it, fancy dress is probably (one of) the only forms of clothing that all people, regardless of sex, society and status will wear at some point in their lives. This made me think it was worthy of further investigation.

Several of Paul Gavarni's lithographs

What led you to become interested in Paul Gavarni?

Gavarni produced a vast array of beautifully conceived and executed lithographs during the nineteenth century. His images comment, often satirically, on contemporary events and he was particularly interested in carnival and costumed entertainments.

Fortunately, a large collection of Gavarni's so-called 'carnival lithographs' are preserved, in Yale University's art gallery.

What are the main messages behind Paul Gavarni’s lithographs?

Gavarni's 'carnival lithographs' often poke fun at politicians and what he perceived to be the period's focus on consumption and luxury display. A major theme is that men are often weaker, more compromised figures than women, who appear resolute, more in control of their inner natures and less prone to acts of foolishness in the pursuit of love. There is much truth here.

In your opinion which of Cecil Beaton’s photographs was his most famous?

This is a difficult question for there are really so many to choose from! I suppose Beaton's coronation portrait of Queen Elizabeth II would have to be one of the more famous, and widely produced, images. The background behind the monarch - the rose window of Westminster Abbey - was prepared on a screen in advance of the shoot, which Beaton complained he had very little time to complete; apparently, he did not know whether he was using monotone or coloured film. Mercifully for us, he was using Cecil Beaton the latter.

Which do you think is his most overlooked?

Although a recent volume has focused on Beaton's photography during WWII - he worked for the British government's Ministry of Information to take images of the 'empire at war' - I think this series of images is often overlooked in preference for his images of the iconic figures of the twentieth century - Audrey Hepburn, Winston Churchill, Mick Jagger, etc. Beaton's wartime photographs are still incredibly moving and, for all the horror that they have immortalised, full of humanity, even beauty because of the way the image is composed.

What, would you say, was the defining moment in Cecil Beaton’s career?

Audrey Hepburn modelling the costumes of My Fair Lady(1964), photographed by Cecil Beaton

Interviewed by Julia Aggett, Lower Sixth

Again, this is a tough question because he had a long and varied career. I think his solo exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery in 1968 was a defining moment. It was the first time a living artists had ever received the honour of a show at the NPG and people queued around the block literally! - to see Beaton's photographs. Three years later, in 1971, he organised another landmark exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum; a show that did much to augment the Museum's then paltry collection of fashion.

Fours years later, in 1972, he was knighted. So, I think 1968 does mark something of a watershed in his career.

Books Written by Dr. Wild: A Life in Fashion: The Wardrobe of Cecil Beaton by Benjamin Wild Coming soon: Carnival to Cosplay: A History of Fancy Dress Costume by Benjamin Wild https://benjaminwild.co/

The struggles of life under Apartheid

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word which can be literally translated as “separateness”. From 1948-1994 it was the official government policy of South Africa. Drafted by Dr. Heindrik Verwoerd, who later became Prime Minister of South Africa in 1958, Apartheid was based primarily on racial segregation and discrimination against non-whites living in South Africa.

Everyday life in South Africa was profoundly affected by the system of Apartheid, especially if you happened to be black. There were separate beaches, benches and hospitals for so called “europeans” and “non-europeans”.

Blacks had to carry ID papers with them at all times.

They were also forbidden to live in cities and so were forced to move into townships outside major cities, such as Soweto outside Johannesburg. On top of all these severe restrictions there were also many laws, put in place to supposedly protect the white minority from the black majority, which actually served to enhance the already clearly apparent and condoned racism. The Mixed Marriages Act (1949), which forbade inter-racial marriage; the Group Areas Act (1950), which ensured that nonwhites could not live in cities and the Racial Classification Act (1950), which classified everyone according to race were just a few such laws.

Obviously, in the face of such overt racism it is not surprising that there were many riots and protests against the Apartheid regime, all of which were violently put down by the police. For example, during the Sharpeville Massacre of March 1960, 69 were killed and 289 were injured. Similarly, in the aftermath of the Soweto Uprising in June 1976, it was estimated that between 176-700 school children and university students had been killed.

However, despite the violence of the Apartheid era and the severe penalties for opposing the Government there were still many people, both black and white, who fought to end Apartheid.

A sign on a beach in Cape Town during Apartheid.

Nelson Mandela is probably the most wellknown anti-Apartheid activist. He was tried at the Rivonia Trial in 1963 for “committing sabotage” and was sentenced to life imprisonment, which he served for 27 years between 1962-1990 on Robben Island. In 1994 he became the first democratically elected President of South Africa; before only the white minority could vote. With his election Apartheid officially ended, although it would take many years for the country to heal completely.

Many other people went against Apartheid in smaller, though by no means less important, ways. Pieter Dirk Uys, a well-known South African comedian used his shows to protest against Apartheid and to satirise the ruling government. In this way he was able to bring worldwide attention to the horrors of Apartheid.

Countless ordinary South Africans simply emigrated to Europe, the USA and Australia as their way of protesting against the government’s regime.

Steve Biko was also an internationally renowned anti- Apartheid activist who after being arrested in 1977 was murdered while in detention.

Likewise, Neil Aggett was a Trade Unionist who acted against Apartheid in the 1970s and 1980s. After being detained in November 1981 he was killed while still in detention in February 1982. He was the 1st white person to die in detention and the 51st person to die in detention overall in South Africa.

Apartheid began to come to an end under P.W. Botha, however it was under the leadership of F.W. de Klerk that Apartheid was officially brought to an end after the election of Nelson Mandela as the President of South Africa.

Life under Apartheid was unbearably harsh for numerous people solely because they did not conform to the government’s idea of South Africa, due to their skin colour. This lack of compassion led to some truly horrific atrocities, however thanks to the knowledge that the principle of Apartheid was wrong and the hope that one day it would fall, Apartheid was finally overcome.

BY Julia Aggett, Lower sixth

Nelson Mandela (left) , Steve Biko (centre) and Neil Aggett (right) were all prominent anti-apartheid activists.

The year 1863 was an important one.

January - Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which abolished slavery in the Confederate states. March - Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) married Princess Alexandra of Denmark (later Queen Alexandra). October - the Football Association was formed in London (now the oldest football association in the world) and early on that year the world’s first underground railway was opened in London. Now over 150 years since its creation, the London Underground is a wellknown feature of the city and has become essential to Londoners’ lives.

The idea of an underground railway was formulated in the 1830s. The aim being to connect different parts of the city with the main railways stations within the urban center. The Metropolitan Railway gained permission to do this in 1854 and a test tunnel was built in 1855 in Kibblesworth, in North-East England to develop the first train. The railway was opened in January 1863 as a goods and passenger service between Paddington and Farringdon. The original trains were gas-lit, wooden and electrified.

The logo of the London Underground, first introduced in 1925.

Carriages pulled by steam locomotives were gradually replaced from 1890 as electric rails began to be introduced which then created the world’s first deep-level electric railway. By 1905 both the District and Circle lines had been completed and by 1961 all steam locomotives were no longer being used.

The other lines were opened as follows; 13 June 1864 – Hammersmith + City line 24 December 1884 – District line (Westminster to South Kensington) 1884 – Circle line (Connecting Metropolitan and District line) 1898 – Waterloo + City line 30 July 1900 – Central line (Shepherds Bush and Bank) 10 March 1906 – Bakerloo line (Baker Street to Kennington Road) 15 December 1906 – Piccadilly line

(Hammersmith to Finsbury Park) 1937 – Northern line (Joining the City and South London Railway with Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway) 1960s – Victoria line 1 May 1979 – Jubilee line (Charing Cross and Baker Street) Initially all the different railway services were run by independent services so they were not united under one name. It wasn’t until 1933 that the different lines were nationalised and integrated into a single body, the London Passenger Transport Board. Similarly, the service did not begin as the UNDERGROUND this branding was invented by Frank Pick in the early 1900s.

When the Underground was first set up, it only had six intermediate stations and carried around 38,000 passengers per day. Today, the Underground (or “the Tube”) carries around 4.8 million a day and about 1.37 billion passengers annually to their destinations throughout the city. The network consists of 11 different lines, 270 stations and 400km of track. Despite its name not all of the system is underground. Only 45% runs through tunnels beneath the surface.

Many of the well-known features that we now recognise on the Tube have developed over time. The Roundel sign, which is now one of the most recognised

Beck's map of the London Underground.

The interior of Canary Wharf Tube Station today.

logos in the world, was first used at St James’s Park. It began as just the bar and circle and was designed to make the station’s name stand out against the rest of the stations interior. This design initially started being used in 1908 and from then it has undergone many changes.

However, the symbol today is very similar to the one that was created by Beck in the early 1900s. It was changed during the war; the design was simplified so they could save money for more important things. In 1972 the Roundel became the corporate symbol of London Transport so people could identify all methods of transport and show their company’s logo to everyone.

The early tube maps were based on the city maps with the stations and the different lines placed on top. In 1921 these were edited so there were no background details. At this time there wasno cooperation between the different companies in design so there were separate maps for each of the individual lines that ran through London. These maps caused problems as the central area was very squashed and hard to read. In 1931, Harry Beck (an English technical draughtsman who was an employee of London Underground) came up with the idea of expanding the central area whilst distorting the proportions so it would all fit on one map and be easily interpreted.

This new design was first published in 1933 and was the first schematic Tube map. After Beck, Harold Hutchinson drafted his version and introduced interchangeable symbols which showed that multiple stations ran through them.

Then in 1964 Paul Garbutt restored the curves and bends to the diagram and retained Hutchinson’s black interchange circles. Since then there have been additions to the map with extensions to certain lines as well as additions of new ones that have been created recently. In 2002 fare zones were added to help passengers calculate the cost of their journey.

Similarly, the ticketing system has evolved over time. When the Tube first opened tickets were given out manually. In 1908 the first electric ticket-issuing machine was introduced and then in 2003 the oyster card was introduced along with other initiatives like the zip card. This marked a turning point as these cards could be used across the London transport network on the Underground, buses, Dockland Light Railway and National Rail services within London. They were a lot cheaper and daily caps were introduced so that there was a limit on the cost of a whole day’s travel on all these forms of transport. In 2014 payment from contactless bankcards was introduced, followed by Apple pay in 2015 and android pay in 2016.

A map of the London Underground today.

Health & safety has also meant changes. The Tube used to have designated smoking carriages at the front and rear of the train. These were present until a campaign began by the London Transport Passenger Committee and the Evening Standard newspaper in May 1984 to get rid of them and free all London transport of smoking. This came into effect on 9 July 1984 for several reasons including the fire at Oxford Circus tube station which resulted in several platforms suffering from smoke damage and the northbound Victoria Line platform having to be completely gutted. This decision was enforced when a fire broke out at Kings Cross St Pancreas on the 18th November 1987 which injured 100 and killed 31. The fire was proved to be as a result of a lit match falling into a wooden escalator and igniting the grease under it.

The Underground has also provided shelter for many people over the years. It was used by London citizens throughout the two world wars.

At the height of the Second World War, 30,000 bombs were dropped in London and people used the underground tunnels as protection. In August 1940 there were around 175,000 people using the tube stations each night for protection. For example, Old King William Street was altered so the tunnels had upper and lower bunks. It was able to hold around 2,000 people.

The stations were not only used as shelter; they were used for administration, offices, storage and places of manufacture. Brompton Road Tube Station had previously been shut in 1934 however, it was re-opened to be used as a station for the 1st anti-aircraft division to defend the city. Also the front of the station was converted into offices while the tunnels became the operations centre. Then stations like Earls Court and Gants Hill were transformed to manufacturing aircraft components and other necessary items for the war effort. Finally, Aldwych was used to look after any of Britain’s treasures like Elgin Marbles or Parthenon Marbles. These are only a few examples of how the Underground assisted in protected Londoners and enabled the city to continue running beneath the surface of it.

The interior of an old tube train.

Over 150 years since the creation of the London Underground there have been some huge developments and this is bound to continue into the future with extensions of the night tube, air conditioning on all tubes, introduction of the Elizabeth Line and the addition of crossrails to reduce congestion in peak timings.

Churchill's Bunker.

By Emilie Tubbs, Lower sixth How the stations of the London Undergroud used to look .

Royal Wedding Dresses through the years...

As there was a Royal Wedding this summer, here is a look back at previous Royal Wedding dresses throughout the years. Do you know who is who?

6th July 1893. Dress designed by Arthur Silver.

4th November 1973. Dress designed by Maureen Baker.

6th May 1960. Dress designed

by Norman Hartnell.

20th November 1947. Dress designed by Norman Hartnell.

BY Julia Aggett, Lower Sixth

29th July 1981. Dress designed by David and Elizabeth Emanuel.

16th April 1923. Dress designed by Handley Seymour.

10th March 1863. Dress designed

by Mrs. James of Belgravia.

10th February 1840.

Dress designed by Mary Bettans.

29th April 2011. Dress designed by Sarah Burton for Alexander McQueen.

The life of Robert Mugabe Robert Mugabe, the recently deposed president of Zimbabwe, has long been known as the dictator who “ruined” his country. During his 37 years in power, Mugabe’s policies led to hyperinflation and crumbling infrastructure, while his desire to retain power resulted in rigged elections and corruption.

In November 2017, an unexpected military coup seemingly removed the 93-year-old autocrat from power. But was this dictator always a selfish tyrant who drained the country to feed his own wants or did power simply corrupt him?

Before Zimbabwe was independent, it was a British colony called “Rhodesia” until 1965, so growing up in this environment fed Mugabe’s desire for independence and essentially inspired him to be a politician for his people. He was educated by Catholic missionaries and later attended the same university in South Africa as Nelson Mandela.

He was heavily influenced as a young man by the leaders of the Indian independence movement, including Gandhi and Nehru. He later formed the Zimbabwe African National Union, but in 1963 the British arrested him and his allies and they spent 11 years in prison. This time in prison actually gave Mugabe time to organise his party, gain publicity and support as well as being seen as sort of patriotic martyr; an inspiration to

Robert Mugabe.

people. We’ve seen leaders in the past who’ve been sent to prison that actually earn respect for their fight for their believes, such as Castro in Cuba and Mandela in South Africa. So Mugabe developed a positive persona in which he was seen to fight for the people.

However although gaining independence in 1965, Zimbabwe was an unrecognized state where white people, who made up five percent of the population, forced their rule upon the black majority—in other words, it was just colonialism in a different form. The Prime Minister Ian Smith ruled in which an oppressive, racist and turbulent climate was the nature of Zimbabwe. Smith’s actions sparked the Second Chimurenga, or war for Zimbabwean independence, which lasted from the late 60s to 1979.This gave something Mugabe could fight and indeed attain support for; an alternative leader who was of the same background as the majority.

After being let out of prison, Mugabe went into exile in Zambia and in 1977 he gained full control of ZANU’s political and military fronts. He adopted Marxist and Maoist views and received arms and training from Asia and Eastern Europe, but he still maintained good relations with Western donors.

He then proceeded to win elections in 1980, being Zimbabwe's first elected leader. “Mugabe came to power in 1980 with a huge amount of legitimacy,” historian Teresa Barnes says. That first election was fair, and “really did represent the will of the majority of the people at that particular time.” At the beginning of his rule, Mugabe was a welcome relief from the war that had ripped through the country for over a decade. In that kind of atmosphere, where people really wanted to work politically and work within the new system, Mugabe was able to gradually and then quite tightly consolidate power. In the mid-1980s, Mugabe shored up his popular support by promising to redistribute resources to soldiers who had fought for the war. He would continue to use the promise of land redistribution, which had been a major goal of the Second Chimurenga, as a way to maintain his popularity. In 1982 Mugabe sent his North

Korean-trained Fifth Brigade to the ZAPU stronghold of Matabeleland to smash dissent.

Over five years, 20,000 Ndebele civilians were killed as part of a campaign of alleged political genocide. In 1987 Mugabe switched tactics, inviting ZAPU to be merged with the ruling ZANU-PF and creating a de facto one-party authoritarian state with himself as the ruling president. Although he did end up redistributing land that had been given to white people back to black Zimbabweans in the 1990s, he made sure a lot of land went to his political cronies. But Mugabe was still able to retain his power by persecuting his opponents and holding unfair elections. In 2000 Mugabe organized a referendum on a new Zimbabwean constitution that would expand the powers of the presidency and allow the government to seize white-owned land.

Groups opposed to the constitution formed the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), which successfully campaigned for a “no” vote in the referendum.

That same year, groups of individuals calling themselves “war veterans”—though many were not old enough to have been part of Zimbabwe’s independence struggle— began invading whiteowned farms.

Violence caused many of Zimbabwe’s whites to flee the country.

Zimbabwe’s commercial farming collapsed, triggering years of hyperinflation and food shortages that created a nation of impoverished billionaires.

Robert Mugabe as a young man.

Mr. Mugabe’s singular position as one of the longest-reigning heads of the anticolonialist movement made it difficult for international pressure to have a direct impact.

Within the country, he clung to power by any means necessary. In disputed elections in 2008, beatings and killing of opposition supporters forced his opponent to withdraw from the race, even after he had outpolled Mr. Mugabe in a presidential vote.

Mr. Mugabe won disputed elections again in 2013 making it seem likely that he would remain in power for as long as he was able to rule.

But this national hero “Comrade Mugabe” - as he liked to be called - became such a tyrant that he demolished his 'territory'.

Mugabe with Prince Charles in Harare the day before his inaguration as President of Zimbabwe on 17th April 1980.

The annual inflation is close to a hundred and fifteen per cent. The national treasury is bankrupt. The Army is engaged in a futile intervention in Congo’s civil war, at a cost of dozens of lives and an estimated million dollars a day. The health-care system is essentially defunct, and, with a quarter of the population infected with AIDS, the funeral business is among the country’s last remaining growth industries. The literacy rate plummeted and most of the population scrape by on less than a dollar a day while the former leader lavishly held assets of up to £1bn in worth, the family infamously displaying his undeserved wealth, for example the couple’s youngest son, Bellarmine Chatunga, posted on Instagram a photograph of his watch with the caption: “$60,000 on the wrist when your daddy run the whole country ya know!!!”

The world’s oldest head of state has now been removed from his position (after much fuss) due to a military coup and is replaced by Emmerson Mnangagwa (former Vice-president) ominously nicknamed “the Crocodile”. The new leader has been accused of being instrumental in the crushing dissent in the 1980’s, and his nickname may have stuck because it suited his reputation for ruthless cunning. So although the people of Zimbabwe are relieved to see a new leader replacing the former tyrant, will he truly be divergent or will it be the same regime under a new face?

BY Eleanor Wheatley, Lower Sixth A Zimbabwean stamp.

Book and Film Reviews ‘Darkest Hour’ - directed by Joe Wright (2017) The recent film the ‘Darkest Hour’ is a period film about Winston Churchill and his election to prime minister, it depicts his struggle to decide what to do as the German forces are attacking Europe. It details the early days of the Second World War, Britain’s darkest hour, with there being the threat of German invasion across the channel and troops stuck at Dunkirk being forced into the water. Winston must decide what to do with a war cabinet bent against him. The film focuses on his relationship with his fellow politicians, family, the crown and the ordinary people of Britain. It shows the struggles he had to face, over whether to pursue war, which he wanted to do, or engage in peace talks with Germany with Italy acting as mediator; something which is what the rest of the politicians want him to do, specifically Viscount Halifax and Neville Chamberlain who created a plot against him, to force him to at least consider peace talks. Winston believed that you “cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth!”.

Conflict is readily created throughout the film in all areas of Winston’s working and personal life, as many seemed to be against him at first, and then throughout the film come around to his point of view. An example being members of parliament who were so against him changed their minds after he gave a stirring speech to the outer cabinet. The film also gives us a greater insight into his personality and habits, from which we conclude that he appears to have been a grumpy, unmanageable, semi-alcoholic, who also happens to have great tactical knowledge and a want for the best for Britain.

Gary Oldman as Winston Churchill in the Darkest Hour.

The ‘Darkest Hour’ is a historical masterpiece which gives many of us a greater knowledge into what went on at that time. Winston is played superbly by Gary Oldman, who won a Bafta and an Oscar for best actor because of his performance. The rest of the cast worked superbly around him and created a very interesting and enjoyable film. If you have a slight interest in history and would like to see a wellproduced and well-acted film then it is perfect; you do not need much knowledge of this period to enjoy this film.

‘Victoria' - ITV Series created by Daisy Goodwin (2016- ) This period drama of Victoria’s early reigning years creates a clear picture of the trials and tribulations of Victorian life and conveys what royal life would have been like. It compares and contrasts the lives of the servants and their roles in the palace to the extravagant existence of Queen Victoria herself. The series gives us an understanding of the Victorian Government and of the difficulties the lower-class workers faced in keeping their families alive, in this era. It touches upon major moments in history such as the Irish potato famine and raises our awareness to what life would have been like for the ordinary person in that period.

The series is focused on Victoria’s transformation from an innocent girl to the Queen of England. Victoria herself is depicted as a headstrong and independent woman who takes matters, which traditionally the men would deal with, into her own hands. Her strength of belief in the nation and of herself remains strong throughout the programme. Jenna Coleman plays Victoria extremely well and embodies what Victoria was like and throws a different light on her, compared to our common perception of her as an old fat woman who is dressed perpetually in black. This drama shows her as a young, fun loving and spirted woman which is different from what we have generally seen before.

The program also gives greater insight into her husband Albert and her relationship with him, in which she is very dominant and Albert sometimes struggles with that. The programme does not solely focus on Victoria, which makes it a more interesting drama.

We learn about the Saxe-Coburg family, the servants and the politicians of the time; the drama is guaranteed to bring a greater understanding of the era. It is a family drama which everyone will watch, and it invokes many emotions, you are kept interested throughout and I would thoroughly recommend this to anyone.

BY Bella Snow, Middle fifth Jenna Coleman as Oueen Victoria.

Albert Finney Timothy Spall Brian Cox Gary Oldman John Lithgow Michael Gambon Laurence Olivier

David Ryall Julian Fellowes Rod Taylor Brendan Gleeson Richard Burton Robert Hardy Bob Hoskins Simon Ward

a)Jenna Coleman b)Judi Dench c)Imelda Staunton d)Emily Blunt

Book and Film Reviews Testament of Youth - directed by James Kent (2015) Testament of Youth is a film based around Vera Britten’s life in WW1 as told in her autobiography of the same title. The film is about how Vera, her brother, fiancé and admirer manage during the war. Vera postpones going to Oxford and becomes a nurse and Roland, Edward and Victor join up to fight. It is a beautiful film that tells the true story of Vera Britten’s life.

The Girl You Left Behind by Jojo Moyes (2012) The Girl You Left Behind by Jojo Moyes is two stories woven together. In France 1916 the Germans occupy Sophie Lefevre’s village. She has a portrait her husband painted of her, the German commander is fascinated with the painting. She offers the painting to him in return for her husband’s freedom from a German camp. Unexpectedly she is arrested and never seen again.

In England 2006, Liv Halston owns Sophie’s painting and is taken to court when Sophie’s descendants want the painting back. She refuses to give it to them and wins the court case. She also discovers what happened to Sophie and her husband.

BY Penelope Aggett, Middle fifth

Profile of a Heroine Elizabeth Charlotte, Madame Palatine, Duchesse d'OrlĂŠans 1652-1722 Elizabeth Charlotte was the second wife of Phillipe, Louis XIV's only brother, who enjoyed an intriguing court life, documented mainly by contemporaneous correspondence consisting of some 90,000 letters to and from her.

Affectionately known as Liselotte by her fellow courtiers, or Madame to those less well acquainted with her, she remained at the centre of court life for half a century and has thus provided historians with some of the key evidence into the opulence of life at the court of the Sun King. She was the mother of Phillipe II d'OrlĂŠans, Regent of France from 1715 to 1723 and held considerable influence with both the Sun King and his subsequent successor. As the cousin of King George I of England, greatgrandmother of Marie Antoinette, and distant grand-daughter of Mary Queen of Scots, Princess Elizabeth Charlotte was extraordinarily well-connected, emphasised by her being born the daughter of Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine, a small yet important Germanic state.

Born a protestant, she was forced to convert to Catholicism before her marriage by proxy, it reflects on her brilliance in how she was thrown into a world quite unlike that of her upbringing and yet managed to thrive.

When did you first hear about Elizabeth Charlotte, Madame Palatine?

As someone immensely fascinated by the grandeur and intrigue at the court of Louis XIV, I stumbled across Liselotte a few years ago, when reading through some of her correspondence whilst looking for evidence for something completely unrelated to her. I was immediately struck by her fantastic relationship with the King. Owing to her position (she held one of the highest positions in court due to her marriage to the Duc d'OrlĂŠans), she is mentioned a fair amount in the books concerning this period.

As soon as I had explored her life in greater detail I felt instantly intrigued by her controversial behaviour and stubborn, domineering personality.

Liselotte.

What kind of person was Liselotte?

Liselotte was a highly adaptable and admirable woman with a strong sense of loyalty and duty. She was also highly intelligent and above all, wise. In her documentations, one particular line of hers stands out as being so freakishly pre-eminent, in capturing what the world now sees as one of the most opulent and fantastical periods of history; 'I believe that the histories that will be written about this court after we are gone will be better and more entertaining than any novel, and I am afraid that those who come after us will not be able to believe them and think they are just fairy tales.' The way in which this quote predicts history, I think shows a great deal about her personality in that she was well-educated and unafraid to ostentate her wisdom.

What made her stand out as a heroin to you?

Liselotte.

Her bold nature that allowed her to speak her mind in a time when it was highly controversial and improper to publicly voice opinions on matters that concerned her husband and children. One documented show of her audacity can be found when she discovered that her son had agreed to marry the youngest illegitimate daughter of the king and his maĂŽtresse-en-titre Madame de Montespan at the king's persistence.

She supposedly 'slapped her son's face in front of the whole court and then turned her back on the king when he greeted her with a bow' but later addressed the matter in a letter, saying with artful grace and composure; 'If, by shedding my own blood, I could have prevented my son's marriage, I would willingly have done so; but since the thing was done, I have had no other wish than to preserve harmony.'

The phenomenal loyalty that she showed to her husband and his brother, the King, throughout her time as Madame and subsequent years of widowhood makes her stand out as a heroin to me as the I value the strength of this quality.

What was her finest hour?

I do not believe that one particular hour could be described as her finest, as it is the numerous actions and decisions of hers that constitute her brilliance. Little facts like she hunted alongside the King (as she was said to be an excellent horsewoman) and the way in which she lived when the Duke had died- she continued to be a prominent character in court and to exercise her influence accordingly, capture her magnificence.

One documentation in particular of hers displays her inner strength and fidelity to her late husband with ease; 'If those who are in the next world could know what was happening in this one, I think His Grace, the late Monsieur, would be most pleased with me, for I have gone through his boxes to find all the letters written to him by his boyfriends and have burnt them unread, so that they will not fall into other people's hands.'

The Duc d'OrlĂŠans was, of course, renowned for his homosexuality.

Liselotte's conduct against this background shows huge strength of character, which, in my opinion, makes the life and works of this extraordinary woman so interesting.

Portrait of Elizabeth Charlotte, Madame Palatine, Duchesse d'OrlĂŠans.

BY Serena Mundy, Lower sixth

History Mystery Contest

Can you identify this object and its historical importance?

The winner will recieve an edible prize.

HINT: THE QUEEN WHO LIVED HERE LOST HER HEAD

Email 12AggettJul@sherborne.com with your entries