← Not Just the Tudors
Not Just the Tudors
Othered: Race, Gender & Human 'Monsters'
00:42:24
How did people become classified into 'normality' versus 'otherness' - or even 'monstrosity'?
Loading summary
Transcript37 lines
- [00:00]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Hello, I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb. If you'd like Not Just the Tudors ad free to get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to historyhit. With a historyhit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my own recent two part series A World Torn the Dissolution of the Monasteries and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com forward/subscribe hello, I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb and welcome to Not Just the Tudors From History Hit the podcast in which we explore everything from Anne Boleyn to the Aztecs, from Holbein to the Huguenots, from Shakespeare to samurais, relieved by regular doses of murder, espionage and witchcraft. Not in other words, just the Tudors, but most definitely also the Tudors. One of the most influential books of medieval history was R.A. more's the formation of a Persecuting Society. More argued that from the 10th to the 13th centuries, states in Europe consolidated their power in a way that facilitated the development of a persecuting force. He examined groups such as heretics, Jews and lepers as groups who could be and were othered. Otherness, being different to a perceived normality, became a problem. But the way in which societies tell themselves stories about what is normal and what is not, the way in which imagination and fear create monsters, is arguably a universal human practice. And if we're going to pick a couple of centuries, maybe three, that were particularly good at defining and vilifying otherness, then the early moderns would be first in class at monster making with their slippage between what is human and what is animal, their characterization by race and gender, and their widespread publication and interpretation of the stories of one off so called monsters. My guest today, Dr. Sureka Davis, is a historian of science, art and ideas. Her first book, Renaissance Ethnography and the Invention of the New Worlds, Maps and Monsters, was multiply award winning. And it's her second book, Humans A Monstrous History, published by the University of California Press, that has prompted today's conversation. I'm Professor Suzanne Lipscomb and you are listening to Not Just the Tudors From History hit. Dr. Davies, welcome to the podcast.
- [02:55]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Thank you for having me on.
- [02:57]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Now your book roams far and wide and so it's rather unfair that I'm going to confine you today, broadly speaking, to the 16th to 18th centuries. But first I want to start with the idea that before modern medicine people believed our bodies were ruled by four fluids or humours, and that keeping them in balance was key to health. But this idea wasn't Just about illness was it. It shaped how people thought about personality, identity, even other cultures. Do you think this belief in the four humors led people to think that humans could be endlessly shaped and changed? And did it perhaps help create the mental space where the idea of radically different peoples, even monsters, as they called them, could exist?
- [03:45]
Dr. Sureka Davis
The humoral framework, which the early moderns in Europe inherited from the Mediterranean from classical antiquity, was hugely important for the way in which early moderns in Europe thought about how flexible individual bodies were. So, in theory, your body had four fundamental substances, blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile. And these humors were ideally in balance, and you could live a happy life and be healthy, but if they were out of sync, you would become ill. Now, alongside the four humors, another theory of how beings were in the world was this notion of kind of climate theory, whereby the external world kind of shape those kind of internal humors. So if you moved somewhere where the climate was very, very harsh, your humors would go out of balance. And in places where the climate was extremely cold or hot or extremely horrible, minds and bodies would actually be denatured to the point where they were monstrified. And so what early modern Europeans inherited from the ancient world was this idea that in distant places where the climate was harsh, there resided these beings called monstrous peoples. And yet, at the same time, in Europe, if your own bodies were malleable, once you were traveling on ocean going ships, that did beg the question, where was the boundary between human space and monster space? So that very malleability built into that humoral theory, together with an understanding of the climate and latitude shaping bodies, meant that suddenly anyone could fear that they might not be a fixed being, but rather potentially monster viable.
- [05:50]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And I suppose it didn't help that it seems that in the 16th and 17th centuries, we have multiple instances of people born with physical abnormalities that deviated from what was considered normal. These might include perhaps conjoined twins, or babies with both male and female genitalia, or excessive facial and bodily hair. One of the cases you draw on in the book is the fascinating story of the Gonsalva or Gonzalez family. Can you tell me their story and the questions that it raised at the time?
- [06:24]
Dr. Sureka Davis
This is an extraordinary family history, really, starting with this young boy who was became named Petrus Gonzalez or Pedro Gonzalez, who was captured by Spanish sailors in the Canary Islands. And he ended up being taken to the French court, where he was brought up like a young courtier, learned Latin, was given confined clothes. Now, what was unusual about him was that he was covered in hair, and this made him an object of fascination. And he married an ordinary French woman. They had multiple children, many of whom were also covered in hair. And what this meant was that on the one hand they were raised at court and they had clothing budgets, but their lives were also not their own. A number of them were given away as gifts to other aristocrats. And this little girl, Antoinette Gonsalves, had her portrait painted. There's a drawing of hers that ended up in this 17th century Bolognese physicians, enormous kind of encyclopedic work. So Elisa Aldrovandi in Bologna put together these volumes of natural history illustrations along with his assistants. And Antoinette Gonsalves is described there as looking very much like an ape because of her hair. There were physicians who examined her body to see how far the hairiness went. One of them talks about her cheeks being the most soft, her forehead being the least soft of all the hair that went down to her loins. So you get a picture through the way physicians, through the way aristocrats wrote about the Gonsalves family, that they were explicitly being thought about in relation to animals. The artist Joris Hufnacher created a little album called Rational Animals and Insects. So he's putting together here Gonsalves family and a few other people of unusual embodiment. He has space in the album which he doesn't complete, you know, for a giant, for example, and what he calls a pygmy. And what we see here is that one society thinks person or persons has fallen outside of what they think of as normal. Suddenly they start being treated in different ways. You know, their privacy, their bodily autonomy, their dignity somehow is up for grabs.
- [09:05]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And we see this making its way into medical thought. You feature in your book the seventeenth century anatomist Edward Tyson, who considers this slippage between human and animal. What sort of things are being said in medical thought at the time?
- [09:25]
Dr. Sureka Davis
One of the anxieties for Christian medical thinkers in the 16th, 17th centuries is that the human mind might not be straightforwardly, always safely human and, you know, capable of salvation. So one idea was that all life on earth was arranged on a kind of hierarchical chain, a great chain of being, and each animal was a bit more sentient, rational than the one below it on the chain. And, you know, people were the best of all. But if individual people gave in to that basis, instincts, they would then slip back into what came before people, which was apes, the poor relations, supposedly the last kind of being that was created before humanity. And what anatomists like Edward Tyson thought about was how different were simians, apes and monkeys from people. And Tyson, being an anatomist, actually dissected at one point one of these liminal creatures that potentially resided between humans and apes. So someone had captured a young chimpanzee in West Africa, brought the creature to England, and here Tyson mistook this young chimp for a being that he called the orangutan. And he also called this creature a pygmy baby. Chimps don't look anything like grown up chimps. So he thought this was this mysterious creature. And he compared the anatomy of humans and his specimen, and then he compared his specimen to apes and decided that the orangutan was distinctly and safely a species that wasn't human beings. And he kept that idea of the human comfortably separate. I mean, the fear for anatomists was that the boundary between the human and whatever was closest would not stand up to scrutiny. But the thing is, Tyson did an anatomical comparison of various animals, but didn't really talk about the mind. And so here is this other fear. To what extent could you look at physical differences and establish whether somebody was rational and capable of salvation, whether they really were a person or not? And, and this was an open question that sometimes unscrupulous people used to their advantage to claim, for example, that indigenous peoples of the Americas or enslaved Africans did not have a full capacity for rationality.
- [12:30]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
I really want to ask you more about those questions in particular, but just before we do thinking about the ways in which different races of people, for example, are classified, you also talk about the famous botanist from the early 18th century, Carl Linnaeus, and his system of classification. How did he move the argument forward?
- [12:47]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Linnaeus actually talks about various kinds of monstrous people, but he talks not only about one offs like wild children, children who were lost in the forest and found, but also about peoples in different parts of the world, which he also here and there frames as monstrosis. So he's opening up the possibility that entire peoples can be somehow different to a point where he's raising the question about whether they are a different species, but also whether individual people in the wrong circumstances can be so uncivilized that they have become this object of fascination, just like with the Gonsalves family.
- [13:44]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So let's think then about the debates that are beginning from the late 15th century about the status of people found living far away. So what did colonists arriving from Spain to the so called New World in the late 15th and early 16th century make of indigenous people?
- [14:05]
Dr. Sureka Davis
The early Explorers, soldiers, they encountered people of very different kinds of societies in a variation of environments. Kind of more. In the Mexica empire, For example, in 10 ostrich land, which is now kind of Mexico City, the Spanish conquistadors were encountering an empire with wide ranging tributary structure, with amazing architectural remains. What they encountered, let's say on the coast of Brazil, was smaller communities that were more hunter gathery than the kind of giant stone in the cities they encountered, say in Mexico. And we have to kind of be careful to separate out the kinds of stories that got recorded and written down and what we know less about the runaways from European ships who maybe can settled with indigenous communities. We have a variety of written accounts from very relatively sympathetic European observers, you know, like Jean de Lry, the Huguenots, who lived for a time among the To Minamma peoples on the east coast of Brazil and talked about ceremonial consumption of human flesh and ritual sacrifice type activities and argued that, you know, when he wrote about this decades later, he had witnessed the French wars of religion and he said, well, more horrible things were, you know, happening in Europe.
- [15:53]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
I was exactly thinking of Jean Delaury. I was just thinking, I'm sure that's the same man who survived the siege of Sancerre and wrote about cannibalism because they were so starving. So he knows exactly what he's talking about.
- [16:07]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Yes, indeed. So to kind of connect this back to where we started, which is humoral theory and you know, what Europeans thought people were like around the world. When colonists went to equatorial regions in the Americas, one of the concerns was that this climate was one that was going to predispose bad behavior. So colonial administrators worried about this for their own people. And what you see in the geographical writing quite often is the most kind of unusual accounts in the travel writing is what ends up being turned into visual imagery on prints, on maps. And then you end up with a message in the visual archive which is really focused on motifs that resonate with those ancient ideas of monsters, you know, cannibals in Brazil, there were giants in Patagonia, you know, people with heads in their chests in Amazonia. And these ideas were credible because extreme climates were supposed to engender monstrous peoples. And it sounds fairly preposterous to us today. But of course astrobiologists, as they sit and wonder where there might be life in other galaxies, they're not just looking for life. That's our shape and size that breathes oxygen. They too are thinking in places where the climate is very different. Life might look Very different. So it's the same kind of reasoning that the 16th century thinkers were deploying, although of course they were looking at it in this very Eurocentric fashion whereby they were the pinnacle of humanity and of life.
- [18:05]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Yes, they were the. And everyone else was sort of a deviation from it. You've talked about climate and weather and the environment shaping a person, and you also revealed the ways in which it was thought that consumption, digestion could alter a person's state. I mean, you literally are what you eat.
- [18:26]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Yes, indeed. And today we think of that as being a health food issue. And, you know, am I putting on weight from eating too many cakes or not? But there were deep spiritual fears around becoming what you ate in the 16th century. So, for example, if you were a Catholic taking communion, you supposedly eating the flesh and blood of Christ through the communion wine and wafer. But what if you had moved to somewhere where grapes didn't grow and there was no wheat, so you're making the communion wafers out of something else. What was the wine? Was it still going to have that same miraculous transformation? So that was kind of one challenge of food. And so this is a very volatile spiritual situation. Secondly, if you have colonists eating foods that they wouldn't have eaten in Europe, what did this mean for their humors? What did this mean for their civility? And so in terms of colonial administration, one of the ways in which legislators tried to think about populations and try and figure out who was toeing the line was by looking at these external indicators of what are people eating, but also how are they dressing to try and figure out what was actually invisible, which is their minds and whether they were good Christians or not. And, you know, once you have a mixed multicultural population, that becomes a fear. And, you know, substances like chocolate, which is an indigenous American foodstuff initially and had played a part in various rituals that were not Christian rituals. There then was this kind of question of whether people consuming these kinds of substances were secretly following quote, unquote, idolatrous practices. And, you know, whether this was a threat to the kind of wider colonial society at large.
- [20:52]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So this was a time when European countries were starting colonies in the Americas. And along with that came the beginning of the transatlantic slave trade, where people were taken from Africa and forced to cross the so called Middle Passage, the Atlantic, into enslavement. You mentioned that before the 1600s, slavery wasn't always permanent. It depended on the situation. But then laws started being created that connected a person's physical appearance, especially their skin color, to both their value in the economy and their very identity as human beings. Can you explain more about these black codes or laws that were created around that time? And also, there's a question I remember being asked back in college that I want to bring up again now. Did racism lead to slavery or did slavery create racism?
- [21:40]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Huh? Firstly, the black code. So these are legal codes that lawmakers in places like Barbados, Jamaica, Virginia, kind of wrote down. So these are moments of monster making that happen in real time that we can trace in the archives. Archives. And what these slave and servant codes did was to define two categories of worker, for lack of a better term. There were what they called, you know, basically black enslaved Africans and white Christian servants. So here's this kind of binary framework that separates out into two categories the various very poor people who are working very hard. And what these laws did is to define these two types of people and also write down in law the different kinds of punishments that would be meted out to them for various crimes, and also rewards that were available for anyone who captured an escaped enslaved person, a fugitive slave, and the penalties of not turning in an enslaved person. So with these laws, the kind of worker solidarity was broken apart. And you have to remember that in these plantation societies, planters and their families were vastly outnumbered by the enslaved people on their plantations, and so they feared rebellions. And one of the ways to attempt to deal with that was to have these laws that made it legal to capture and be rewarded for capturing enslaved people who'd run away. There were also laws that defined what happened, how you classified a child of, let's say, a white planter, an enslaved African woman. And whereas in Europe, typically for a married couple, the children would be associated with the father, would inherit the name, inherit the property, laws that were written during the era of Atlantic slavery decreed that the child of an enslaved woman was also enslaved. So it was, you know, more important to define this child as property than actually the child of the father. So to your question of whether racism preceded slavery, child slavery, or child slavery preceded racism, Racism in Europe is actually much, much older than the middle passage. And it didn't always used to simply be about skin color and two or three kind of facial features and hair. That idea of something innate that passes down through your family and that makes different families, if you will, sit on different places of a hierarchy, was something that in Europe in the middle ages, around religion, for example. So there was an earlier kind of version of hierarchy that justified differential access to power and protection. But what happens with the Atlantic voyages and this attempt to Turn these quote unquote new worlds into, into places that are profitable for the people who have been given or have taken appropriated land was multiple little pieces that came together to create a very strong version of anti black racism that kind of metastasized during the slave trade due to two things. I think there was an anxiety about white people changing. So the need to write a story whereby, you know, so if you moved as a plantation owner, you might get a little bit seasoned if you've survived your first kind of year, but you were not going to turn into some quote unquote uncivilized person. And the language of anti black racism also had within is this convenient theory that, that black people were better suited to work in those conditions. So it was a very sophisticated kind of dehumanization that got written into law to, you know, really justify plantation capitalism.
- [26:28]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So the idea that some people were naturally inferior could be used as a way to make sense of or justify the cruelty of slavery. Did that end up making racist beliefs even stronger and more deeply rooted?
- [26:42]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Yeah, deeply rooted and permanent. And I guess that's what chattel slavery did. To say that these people were fundamentally and forever going to be inferior. And that, you know, resonates with some of those earlier ways of thinking of say, Muslims and Jews and Christians being fundamentally in different places in hierarchies.
- [27:03]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
The other fundamental inferiority and hierarchy comes when we think about gender.
- [27:09]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Indeed.
- [27:10]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And the book the first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of Women in 1558 literally codifies the idea of women rulers as monsters. Can we talk about the gender of female monarchs as a problem and the problem being their monstrosity?
- [27:30]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Oh my goodness, yes. John Knox was one of those most bad tempered, vibrant preacher types of the mid 16th century. He was a Scottish preacher who wrote this bad tempered pamphlet in which he used the word monster or monstrous over and over again in a diatribe against Mary I. So this is England's first Catholic full on monarch. But this idea that women seeking power were deviants or monsters, or that indeed women were somehow monsters, that isn't something that he invented. And in a way, kind of Aristotle, the ancient naturalist, had planted some of these seeds by saying that any person who didn't resemble their parents and especially their father was basically a monster. You supposed to kind of be like your parents, especially your father. So that made women already a bit of a failure. So as nature had worked on matter, it had failed to make a man, even though he conceded that women were necessary. So women were on the One hand, vaguely monstrous for failing to have been born as men. But they were also monster incubators because there was this tradition of explaining, you know, unusual babies as being quote unquote monstrous births. So that's the second way in which women were associated with monstrosity. But, you know, women also failing to behave in a stereotypically womanly, that was something else that made them, earned them the label of a monster. And John Knox in the 1580s drew on Aristotle. He drew on those early Christian authorities and said, well, actually God wouldn't see a woman reigning as a Moloch as being appropriate. He called reigning queen a monster of monsters. So all women were like not quite normal, but then you give them power and they're even more abnormal. And he was trying to encourage the aristocracy to kind of rise up against Mary I. But what he really had a problem with was the fact that Mary I was Catholic. But how he tried to create unrest was by going at something else, by activating that age old misogyny and saying that a body politic with a woman at the head was a monster. Women should not hold high public office. And that rhetoric of, you know, what lane women should be in is one that is often used against women seeking power or used to criticize ambition.
- [30:24]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And he draws a vivid image, particularly coming from those creatures drawn on maps that didn't have heads and makes the parallel you say in your book that having a woman on the throne was like having a state that lacked a head. And given that people are starting to think about the possibility of monsters overseas, it's a very vivid image.
- [30:46]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Yes, it is. And the idea of a headless creature, a headless being, was part of the, should we say, like the geographical general knowledge for the reading public in Renaissance England. And he was kind of leveraging some of the everyday experiences people would have had of children with severe disabilities, for example. And the classical idea of one of those monstrous peoples being these blemmies or these people whose faces were in their chests was another way in which he was able to draw on this popular reservoir of monster thinking to say, oh my goodness, do you really want to be in a kind of nation that is this monstrous? This is a problem for the entire Commonwealth. It's, you know, your duty to rise up against someone like this. But unfortunately for Knox, Mary I died by the time his pamphlet was published, and Elizabeth I, who was of the same faith as Knox, took over as queen. And so Knox continued to be Persona non grata, having written a rude pamphlet about how women on the Throne was basically a monstrous situation.
- [32:15]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And of course, Knox's conception of gender is very binary, but this is a period in which concerns about intersexuality are manifest. And that's very interesting as well, because you also draw on the ideas that the Mexica had in their understandings of gender, which relate far more to their ideas about the possibility of shape shifting and make it something much more fluid. Can you give me a bit of a sense of the different perspectives on gender that existed at the time?
- [32:48]
Dr. Sureka Davis
And intersexuality, particularly Magica and various other indigenous cultures in the 16th century Americas, were cultures in which gender was much more fluid category. And you could even be placed in a different notional gender, depending on your age and physical fitness at different points in your life. And there was a larger sense in the classical Mishika thinking of how people were capable of really getting inside very different kinds of subjectivities from the one that was their visible body. You could, for example, effectively look out at the world through the eyes of something like a jaguar, you know, wearing a jaguar pelt, understanding the animal. If you were a hunter, you would understand the animal, your prey, in ways that were as if you had almost become them. And in colonial times, what some of the religious figures, and, you know, colonists from Europe looked out and saw was these people who seem to believe that they were capable of physically shape shifting. And that kind of volatility was something that created a lot of anxiety within the Christian tradition. And in Christianity, by the time you get to the 16th century, there's been a hardening of gender roles, of kind of male and female binaries that wasn't there at the start. So in early Christianity, one of the things that theologians wondered about is whether Adam, the first person, might actually have been simultaneously male and female, or perhaps have had no sex at all. So there was this range of theories about whether intersex was normal, whether there were many, many sexes. But what hardened and became part of Christian norms was the idea of an inferior sex that owed allegiance and obedience to the superior one, men. And this was what was kind of rolled out and very established when you get to the 16th century. And in a lot of the Monster pamphlets include individuals who are unusually hairy, individuals who are intersex. And so you can see the norm for the human being devised by looking at a host of different groups who were in a minority. But stories get written about how they fall outside of humanity or how they are blurring edges in a way that is threatening and that wasn't necessary. That Wasn't the way that they had to think about people who were not in a majority, because that's not how many kind of indigenous cultures have thought about gender roles.
- [36:21]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
We've mentioned a little about how certain kinds of phenomena, such as conjoined twins, were deemed monstrous births in the language of the time. And around 1700, Samuel Pepys manservant James Paris du Plessis kept a scrapbook of such examples. What does it tell us about what was thought to be normal for a human body at the time?
- [36:45]
Dr. Sureka Davis
James put together this extraordinary scrapbook, this miscellany that's in the manuscript department of the British Library now. And the range of individuals who are in this book that he calls a history of human prodigious and monstrous births is very telling. For example, he has what he calls a hermaphrodite. In it is a spotted negro prince. There's a wild and hairy Irishman, he has something he calls a Tartar with a horse's head. There's a man with a goiter, so not enough fish in his diet. And what the scrapbook shows is how the volatility of and variety of humanity was something that was capable of capturing someone's imagination for years of their life. The books about geography, anatomy, natural history romances that were in circulation in print at the time were also full of stories that prototyping the various edges between human and something else, whether it's human and animal, you could say human and God and, you know, also individual monstrous births that might be signs from God and, you know, during the Reformation, births of unusual babies, unusual animal births were, you know, weaponized first by Protestant thinkers, but later more broadly. So people are trying to explain causes that they can't apprehend through their senses and that he's looking at their forms of classification to do that. But this is also a sort of like a scientific inquiry. And for du Plessis this was something of a hobby. And he would later sell his Monster compendium to Sir Hans Sloane, who became president of the Royal Society. And all of his natural history collections ended up in places like the British Library and the Natural History Museum. And so that the monster collector urge is one that transcended the high culture, low culture boundary. The Royal Society did it. And then you have these ordinary individuals collecting stories about people that they saw as expanding or troubling the category of the human.
- [39:27]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
How different though, did someone actually have to be before they were classified as a so called monster? And how was giving birth to a child with such characteristic scene what did it mean.
- [39:40]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Monstrosity was in the eye of the beholder? In the end, no one is actually monstrous, but it's a label thrown out at people from the observer. And you know, monstrous births could have one of a variety of causes in the early modern period. One was that they were caused by just accidents or jokes of nature. You know, nature would just allow some amusing being to be born. All monstrous births were the product of a woman's imagination. So if a woman fantasized about a different person from her husband or even an animal during sex, she could give birth to a child who looked like that. And, you know, if she was so unfortunate as to have a fright during pregnancy, that fright and that imagination would imprint something of what she saw on her child. So Du Plessis writes about how his own mother in law was frightened by a lobster in Leadenhall Market in London while she was pregnant and supposedly gave birth to a lobster child. But another example was that a monstrous birth could have been sent by God either as a sign that someone had committed a sin, or a community was in trouble, or. Or it could be a punishment. But the thing is, you couldn't look at a monster and know which of those many causes of this monster of birth was the actual cause. The monsters didn't turn up with tags attached. And so everything is open for interpretation that people would make their claims and then there would be potentially real world consequences. One way that one scholar gave to decide what the cause of a monster was from how you felt about it. So from your feeling, you would decide whether something was monstrous or not and whether it was ominous or not. So this puts a great deal of storytelling power in the beholder. And of course, how beholders then judge people shapes the kinds of lives they will have.
- [41:53]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And that really is the question that your book is asking, isn't it? How do we look at people and monster them? Thank you so much, Dr. Davies, for taking the time to come and share some of these fascinating ideas about monster making in the early modern period. Just drawing on a little bit of your expertise that ranged so much further. Thank you.
- [42:18]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Thank you for having me.
- [42:22]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Thank you for listening to this episode of Not Just the Tudors From History Hit. And to my producer, Rob Weinberg, we are always eager to hear from you, including receiving your brilliant ideas for subjects we can cover. So do drop us a line and notjusthetutorshistoryhit.com and I look forward to joining you again for another episode. Next time on Not Just the Tudors From History.
- [42:45]
Dr. Sureka Davis
Hit. Now you can fly anywhere in the world and pay discount prices on your airline tickets. Book a flight today to London, Paris, Madrid or anywhere else you want to go and pay a lot less guaranteed. Call the the International Travel Department right now at low cost airlines, 8002-1551-4180-0215-5141.
- [43:23]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
That's 800-21551.