Ivan the Terrible, A&E and historic accuracy (was: Gans ...)
Alex Milman
Did anybody watch supposedly historic program "Ivan the Terrible"
on A&E last week?
All conversations in this NG about accuracy of the particular
website(s) are, IMHO, simply irrelevant in comparison with this
massive dose of an incompetence and disinformation provided by
alledgedly scientific TV program.
Supposedly program had been prepared with the participance of some
professional historians (all speakers had PhD title)
who presumably have some knowledge on the subject.
I'll start with the portraits of Ivan. 2 had been Western contemporary
portraits. 2 had been late XIX - early XX paintings of Ivan. Painting
demonstrated most often had been a portrait of Russian opera singer
Shaliapin playing Tzar Boris Godunov (he also played Ivan in a different
opera and there are photos and even a movie of him playing Ivan
but probably it would be too much to check).
There are plenty of pictures of Medieval Moscow, mostly of post-Ivan
but definitely of a pre-Pater I period. A lot of them are contemporary.
Authors consistently demonstrated pictures of Kremlin of XIX with the
buildings and bridges added during the reign of Catherine the Great
and later. The same applies to the pictures of an everyday life in
Ivan's Moscow.
To demonstrate Ivan's cruelty they provided, among other things
(without any explanation), pictures of: (a) Spaniards burning Indians,
and (b) impailings made by Vlad Dracula. When telling of the execution
and exile of Ivan's early advisors they produced a picture of a ...
foreign embassy at Ivan's court (?)
Discussion of Ivan's reform of Russian military system (creation of a
regular infantry called "streltsy") had been illustrated by a
painting dedicated to the execution of streltsy by Peter the Great
(with Peter clearly visible). To illustrate how the rest of Russian
army looked like they demonstrated another late XIX (or early XX ?)
painting dedicated to premongolian period. BTW, the same painting had
been used in a program about vikings (no they did not have horns or
chin straps on this particular picture :-) )
Ivan's throne still exist but by some unknown reason they demonstrated
a "double" throne used by young Peter I and his brother Ivan.
"Specialists" had been on the same level. One of them claimed that
Ivan had 6 wifes because he wanted "to change a system" when wife's
relatives became important people. To start with, most of his wifes
died from the natural causes (Henry VIII had a more radical solution
but may be he also was changing some system?). He was maried to
his 1-st wife for 11 (or 13?) years and her relatives became a
prominent family (Romanov's claim to the throne was due to a
descendancy from her male relatives). Relatives of each wife who
lived for a considerable period of time became prominent out of
proportion to their position in a hierarchy of Russian nobility.
I did not have patience to watch it to the end but probably you got
the picture.
Few days later they had a program about Hitler. I was "lucky" enough to
turn it on immediately before they called Himmler Reichmarshal (don't
know what was before or after)
The point is, let's leave Paul's website in peace. There are another
juicier subjects to discuss without getting personal (we are not afraid
to hurt these TV folks, are we? :-) )
D. Spencer Hines
Alex,
1. You start out very well.
2. Yes, it IS appalling what supposedly *qualified* academics are willing
to lend their names and reputations to --- in the media.
3. Ignorance of Russia and Russian Medieval History is manifest and very
regrettable. We have seen evidence of that right here on SHM, by folks who
think the study of Medieval History was "invented by the British" and should
be restricted to a "Western Europe" --- so narrowly defined that even Spain
and Portugal are excluded.
4. But, Mr. Gans' "Horse Harness" page, as has been exhaustively pointed
out, is severely and irremediably flawed as well. It should by no means be
given "a D minus passing grade" and allowed to slip through the gate.
5. The "Horse Harness" page rates a clear and unambiguous "F" --- while
other "Medieval Technology" pages are just up now for their examinations.
6. The gross errors, fabrications and fraud of what you refer to as "the TV
folks" and the Gans "Horse Harness" page are part and parcel of the same
errant sloppiness, fabrication and fraud --- not separate and divisible
realms.
D. Spencer Hines
--
"Well, that's what I mean. You know, if all the people who are named
...deny it....That's all, I mean, I expect them to come looking into it and
interview you and everything, uh, but I just think that if everybody's on
record denying it you've got no problem.....I wonder if I'm going to be
blown out of the water with this. I don't see how they can...if they don't,
if they don't have pictures."
Governor Bill Clinton --- Telephonic Advice to Gennifer Flowers [1991]
Alex Milman wrote in message <3506E7...@gte.com>...
>Did anybody watch supposedly historic program "Ivan the Terrible"
>on A&E last week?
<snip>
Alex Milman
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> Alex,
>
> 1. You start out very well.
>
> 2. Yes, it IS appalling what supposedly *qualified* academics are willing
> to lend their names and reputations to --- in the media.
>
> 3. Ignorance of Russia and Russian Medieval History is manifest and very
> regrettable. We have seen evidence of that right here on SHM, by folks who
> think the study of Medieval History was "invented by the British" and should
> be restricted to a "Western Europe" --- so narrowly defined that even Spain
> and Portugal are excluded.
>
> 4. But, Mr. Gans' "Horse Harness" page, as has been exhaustively pointed
> out, is severely and irremediably flawed as well. It should by no means be
> given "a D minus passing grade" and allowed to slip through the gate.
>
Spencer, my point was that there are other subjects which are:
(a) at least as important as horse harness (personally I confess
a profound absence of knowledge and interest to this particular issue)
(b) can be discussed without everybody getting exited and personal,
(c) had not been beaten to death.
Potential errors in the horse harness site(I simply can't judge if
they do exist and never read Paul's website) had been discussed for
at least a month and, IMHO, became too heated and personal.
It's almost like a dicussion of the battle at Agincourt (continued
almost as long as the whole 100 Years War).
> 6. The gross errors, fabrications and fraud of what you refer to as "the TV
> folks" and the Gans "Horse Harness" page are part and parcel of the same
> errant sloppiness, fabrication and fraud --- not separate and divisible
> realms.
But when we discuss TV series nobody (hopefully) gets offended and
they impact much more people than some website. We can rather
comfortably fight _their_ sloppiness for a while :-)
William Hyde
In article <3506E7...@gte.com>, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>Did anybody watch supposedly historic program "Ivan the Terrible"
>on A&E last week?
In converstation I tend to refer to TLC as
"The Liar's channel". I've found A&E's history
to be somewhat better (this could be coincidence),
but shows like the one you saw are common even there.
I think it was A&E that had that absurd Nostradamus
biography, but TLC which rebroadcast the worse
than worthless "myterious origins of man" with
narration by chuck heston, and institute for creation
research personnel cited as scientists.
I could be wrong but it seems to me that in the past
six years or so the accuracy of television history
has increasingly been sacrificed for drama or
controversy. I watch less than I used to.
William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
JudyW1917
>Supposedly program had been prepared with the participance of some
>professional historians (all speakers had PhD title)
>who presumably have some knowledge on the subject.
>
>
I think this is standard A&E "modus operandi". They pay someone, in some
cases actualy academics, to come on an lend an aura of scholarship to
whatever historical era they are talking about.
I started watching "Foot Soldier" and guess who popped up as a participant
-- Kelly deVries.
Judy
Paul J. Gans
Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>Did anybody watch supposedly historic program "Ivan the Terrible"
>on A&E last week?
>All conversations in this NG about accuracy of the particular
>website(s) are, IMHO, simply irrelevant in comparison with this
>massive dose of an incompetence and disinformation provided by
>alledgedly scientific TV program.
>Supposedly program had been prepared with the participance of some
>professional historians (all speakers had PhD title)
>who presumably have some knowledge on the subject.
>I'll start with the portraits of Ivan. 2 had been Western contemporary
Thanks for the sentiments. I appreciate it.
I've seen a number of these shows. They are often quite
awful. What happens is that a number of real experts are
contacted and asked if they'd like to participate. A
film crew comes out along with an interviewer. They
ask a lot of questions and spend hours filming. The
expert (often called a "talking head") is usually told
nothing but the bare outlines of the show.
Then the show is put together. Often only a few minutes
of the hours of commentary filmed is used. The results
are frequently quite embarassing to the participants.
I recall, a few years back, a true disaster of a film
on "King Arthur". They interviewed a number of folks
(whose names I won't mention) who are *still* upset
at the result. The recent series on A&E here in the
States on the foot soldier through history was another
example of a disaster.
Why do they do it? I'm told that the producers come to
you promising that their show is based on "real scholarship"
and isn't at all like "those other shows".
It is sad. _Braveheart_ was bad enough -- we still get
serious problems because of it -- but it *was* a great
film and had the advantage of getting some folks interested
in real Scots history. Films like the one Alex saw are
just disasters.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
D. Spencer Hines
Alex,
With respect:
You say:
>Spencer, my point was that there are other subjects which are:
>
>(a) at least as important as horse harness (personally I confess
>a profound absence of knowledge and interest to this particular issue)
Point taken.
>
>(b) can be discussed without everybody getting exited and personal,
OK, Alex. But the really critical issues in History and Life ARE
controversial and "people do get exited" --- Nyet?
For example, getting rid of the Communist Yoke around the neck of the
Russian People. People got excited about that and even criticized people
who were frauds, nyet?
>
>(c) had not been beaten to death.
Yes, it takes a long time and the miscreants don't give up easily and
confess their errors in a flash with humility and profound apologies. They
stonewall and throw out red herrings until the cows come home, nyet?
>But when we discuss TV series nobody (hopefully) gets offended and
>they impact much more people than some website. We can rather
>comfortably fight _their_ sloppiness for a while :-)
TV series on History are often abysmal. Academics, who are often terminally
naive, are frequently flattered to be interviewed. They let their guards
down and gush for the cameras, flattered by all the attention. Since they
do not have final cut approval --- most of their best stuff winds up on the
editing room floor. They are lambs led to the slaughter. Many have
commiserated with me about their chagrin when they discover they have been
fleeced, seduced and abandoned.
But, Mr. Gans' "Horse Harness" page, as has been exhaustively pointed out,
is severely and irremediably flawed as well. It should by no means be given
"a D minus passing grade" and allowed to slip through the gate.
Alex, I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that we should set very
high standards for integrity and historical accuracy with respect to the TV
programs but that we can afford to lower the bar and relax the standards for
our good buddies here at SHM?
Sincerely,
D. Spencer Hines
Hairballs R Us
Hello to Alex and all following this thread. I wouldn't call myself
an "expert" in the subject, but I do study medieval Russian history
and until a month ago was employed at the Hilandar Research Library
(the world's largest repository of medieval Slavic manuscripts on
microfilm). I wrote my thesis on Muscovite period on the Novodevichii
convent of which Ivan IV was a great patron.
I did not see the TV program on A & E, but your comments about what
they showed make it sound appalling from a historical perspective.
There are numerous contemporary depictions of Ivan and the Kremlin, so
why confuse the issue with flotsam and jetsam from later centuries?
Additionally, there are numerous wonderful documents that describe
everyday life in Muscovy, some, such as the Domostroi and many of the
chronicles, have even been translated into English. There are many
fine secondary sources in English and Russian that examine and explore
both Ivan's court and life under Ivan as a tsar which are readily
available in any academic and some public libraries.
>To demonstrate Ivan's cruelty they provided, among other things
>(without any explanation), pictures of: (a) Spaniards burning Indians,
>and (b) impailings made by Vlad Dracula. When telling of the execution
>and exile of Ivan's early advisors they produced a picture of a ...
>foreign embassy at Ivan's court (?)
Perhaps I can shed some light on this aspect of Ivan's reign. This is
paraphrased from "Dracula Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His
Times," by Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally ( Boston: Little,
Brown and Co., 1989) ISBN 0-316-28656-7. pages 206-214. Ivan's more
colorful cruelties are thought by some scholars to have originated in
the memoirs and stories of Feodor Kuritsyn, the Russian ambassador to
the court in Buda of the Hungarian king, Matthias. He was there in
1482 during the reign of Ivan's grandfather, Ivan III (the Great) and
wrote of the stories he heard at court about Prince Vlad's various
atrocities although portraying him overall as a "cruel but just"
ruler. Kuritsyn also traveled to Brasov, the scene of many of Vlad's
crimes, where Kuritsyn stayed some months gathering stories. Vlad
had died just 6 years earlier so people's memories were still fresh.
The first instances of Ivan having people impaled occur after he was
supposed to have read these stories.
Ivan also got angry at a foreign delegation and had them executed,
which explains the foreign delegation picture. I can't lay my hands
on a book about Ivan to give you particulars at the moment. As for
the Spaniards burning Indians, that seems rather ridiculous.
>"Specialists" had been on the same level. One of them claimed that
>Ivan had 6 wifes because he wanted "to change a system" when wife's
>relatives became important people. To start with, most of his wifes
>died from the natural causes (Henry VIII had a more radical solution
>but may be he also was changing some system?). He was maried to
>his 1-st wife for 11 (or 13?) years and her relatives became a
>prominent family (Romanov's claim to the throne was due to a
>descendancy from her male relatives). Relatives of each wife who
>lived for a considerable period of time became prominent out of
>proportion to their position in a hierarchy of Russian nobility.
Ivan had 7 wives, not six. The seventh, Maria Nogaia, was the one
that gave birth to Dmitrii of Uglesha, who died as a child and was
later canonized during the Smutaia Vremya (Time of Troubles.) It was
this boy whom at least 3 pretenders claimed to be--known as the False
Dmitriis. I don't think any of these marriages were particularly
political, but they certainly could have been and probably were. My
own research into the position of women in Muscovite society, along
with that of Nancy Shields Kollmann and Robert O. Crummey indicate
that marriages among clans were the cement that bonded and held much
of society together poltically, and that women, while in the
background, were definitely involved in the court.
I hope this helps clarify things a bit. I'm glad I missed this
episode.
Lorraine
MarkDLew
Paul Gans wrote:
<< I recall, a few years back, a true disaster of a film
on "King Arthur". They interviewed a number of folks
(whose names I won't mention) who are *still* upset
at the result. >>
I saw part of that King Arthur show on TV just a few weeks ago (a rerun, I
suppose). I'm relieved to know that at least some of what I saw was
misrepresentative. I'd hate to think all those people with degrees after their
names actually believed that stuff. (Not that I was a big fan of Geoffrey Ashe
to begin with....)
mdl
David
Paul J. Gans wrote in message <6e7bak$6...@panix2.panix.com>...
>Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>>Did anybody watch supposedly historic program "Ivan the Terrible"
>>on A&E last week?
(Alex' very entertaining hatchet job snipped)
>I recall, a few years back, a true disaster of a film
>on "King Arthur". They interviewed a number of folks
>(whose names I won't mention) who are *still* upset
>at the result. The recent series on A&E here in the
>States on the foot soldier through history was another
>example of a disaster.
>
Is that the same thing as the series now running on Discovery Channel? Not
so much foot soldier as soldiers' feet...... Now I understand why they call
it film footage :-)
For those who haven't seen it, the series seems to consist of three
elements:
1. Actors in sandals etc. marching about, shot from the knees down.
For weapon drill close-ups of arms - never faces, so no
illumination of helmets and straps :-) Probably Equity rules and/or
budget.
2.
3.
David
Sorry for the misfire, the cat sent the message prematurely.
Paul J. Gans wrote in message <6e7bak$6...@panix2.panix.com>...
(Alex' very entertaining hatchet job snipped)
>I recall, a few years back, a true disaster of a film
>on "King Arthur". They interviewed a number of folks
>(whose names I won't mention) who are *still* upset
>at the result. The recent series on A&E here in the
>States on the foot soldier through history was another
>example of a disaster.
>
Is that the same thing as the series now running on Discovery Channel? Not
so much foot soldier as soldiers' feet...... Now I understand why they call
it film footage :-)
For those who haven't seen it, the series seems to consist of three
elements:
1. Actors in sandals etc. marching about, shot from the knees down.
For weapon drill close-ups of arms - never faces, so no
illumination of helmets and straps :-) Probably Equity rules and/or
budget.
2. Portentous music
3. V.O.
It's almost as if they think people won't understand the word "march"
without being shown an actor marching. I remember a British humour programme
(Python??) that parodied this tendency - the Lord Privy Seal became three
fast clips, of a guy in ermine, an outhouse, and one of those things with
the big soulful eyes.
Whatever happened to the "talking head" who simply talked to camera? At the
opposite extreme to the above, I also remember AJP Taylor coming into the
studio, standing in front of the mike and speaking for half an hour ex
tempore.
David Pugh
Alex Milman
> >professional historians (all speakers had PhD title)
> >who presumably have some knowledge on the subject.
> >
> >
>
> cases actualy academics, to come on an lend an aura of scholarship to
> whatever historical era they are talking about.
>
> I started watching "Foot Soldier" and guess who popped up as a participant
> -- Kelly deVries.
>
Please, don't mention the name or we are facing a new Hundred Years
deVries War !!!!!! :-)
Alex Milman
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> Alex, I sincerely hope that you are not suggesting that we should set very
> high standards for integrity and historical accuracy with respect to the TV
> programs but that we can afford to lower the bar and relax the standards for
> our good buddies here at SHM?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> D. Spencer Hines
Spencer, I just offered a temporary distraction. After getting relaxed
and refreshed everybody can resume normal activities :-)
I'm sure that SHM bar will be kept intact. People can learn on
other people mistakes (theoretically).
Best wishes.
Alex
Laura Blanchard
Paul J. Gans wrote:
> I recall, a few years back, a true disaster of a film
> on "King Arthur". They interviewed a number of folks
> (whose names I won't mention) who are *still* upset
> at the result. The recent series on A&E here in the
> States on the foot soldier through history was another
> example of a disaster.
>
> you promising that their show is based on "real scholarship"
> and isn't at all like "those other shows".
I don't know why they do it, but at least one, possibly two of the
Arthurian talking heads will show up next Wednesday (I think) on A&E in
a Joan of Arc piece. As usual, I think, the scholar's expectation from
the JoA show hasn't entirely matched the reality.
I think, every now and again, about what one incurable optimist of a
historian with a pragmatic streak wrote in one of those "wasn't
Braveheart terrible?" discussions: he commented that until one of the
purists brings as many folks into his classroom as Mel Gibson in a coat
of blue paint, he wasn't about to knock Mel Gibson. Although we might
all wish that these TV shows and movies have a little more accuracy,
there is something to be said for that.
The foot soldier series was particularly egregious, though. I don't
think any of the talking heads involved expected quite that degree of
slipshoddery (if I may coin a term), based on other A&E productions. Did
anyone else notice that they used a group of military re-enactors
calling themselves "the Duke of Gloucester's men," complete with murrey
and blue livery, Whyte Bore banners, and assorted "footsoldiers" in full
plate armor, for every battle from Hastings to Agincourt (but not,
curiously, Barnet, Tewkesbury or Bosworth)?
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Laura Blanchard
Laura Blanchard wrote:
[snip of prose linking the footsoldier series to A&E]
A subsequent poster has pointed out that this was on the Discovery
channel...he may be right, or it may have been the History channel. I
personally have trouble remembering which is which. I think the JoA
piece may be on the History channel rather than A&E, as well. The
interested had better check their local listings.
Apologies,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Alex Milman
Hairballs R Us wrote:
>
> Hello to Alex and all following this thread. I wouldn't call myself
> an "expert" in the subject, but I do study medieval Russian history
> and until a month ago was employed at the Hilandar Research Library
> (the world's largest repository of medieval Slavic manuscripts on
> microfilm). I wrote my thesis on Muscovite period on the Novodevichii
> convent of which Ivan IV was a great patron.
>
> I did not see the TV program on A & E,
Lucky you :-)
>but your comments about what
> they showed make it sound appalling from a historical perspective.
> There are numerous contemporary depictions of Ivan and the Kremlin,
I heard that quite a few of them can also be found in Sweden.
But probably this would be too much bother for the authors.
>so
> why confuse the issue with flotsam and jetsam from later centuries?
Just because they are easily available in the books you can find
in US. Portrait of Schaliapin probably had been sed because it
looks very impressive.
> Additionally, there are numerous wonderful documents that describe
> everyday life in Muscovy, some, such as the Domostroi and many of the
> chronicles, have even been translated into English.
They would have to read all these books.
> There are many
> fine secondary sources in English and Russian that examine and explore
> both Ivan's court and life under Ivan as a tsar which are readily
> available in any academic and some public libraries.
On a simplest level they could use, say Troyat's "Ivan the Terrible"
which is both entertaining and, AFAIK, reasonably accurate. BTW, my
impression is that some of the pictures they used had been taken
from this book. Part of them are contemporary, some of them, like
Massacre of Novgorod, are of the later period, but in the book most
of them have clear indications of period, author, etc. which, of
course, dissapeared on TV. My impression is that they did not bother
to read, just used the illustrations.
>
> >To demonstrate Ivan's cruelty they provided, among other things
> >(without any explanation), pictures of: (a) Spaniards burning Indians,
> >and (b) impailings made by Vlad Dracula. When telling of the execution
> >and exile of Ivan's early advisors they produced a picture of a ...
> >foreign embassy at Ivan's court (?)
>
> Perhaps I can shed some light on this aspect of Ivan's reign. This is
> paraphrased from "Dracula Prince of Many Faces: His Life and His
> Times," by Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally ( Boston: Little,
> Brown and Co., 1989) ISBN 0-316-28656-7. pages 206-214. Ivan's more
> colorful cruelties are thought by some scholars to have originated in
> the memoirs and stories of Feodor Kuritsyn, the Russian ambassador to
> the court in Buda of the Hungarian king, Matthias. He was there in
> 1482 during the reign of Ivan's grandfather, Ivan III (the Great) and
> wrote of the stories he heard at court about Prince Vlad's various
> atrocities although portraying him overall as a "cruel but just"
> ruler.
One more ruler of the kind Ivan referenced as an example was Sultan
Mohammed II.
>Kuritsyn also traveled to Brasov, the scene of many of Vlad's
> crimes, where Kuritsyn stayed some months gathering stories. Vlad
> had died just 6 years earlier so people's memories were still fresh.
> The first instances of Ivan having people impaled occur after he was
> supposed to have read these stories.
>
There is no question that Ivan impaled people, among other things.
But, IMHO, there was no need to use pictures that show people dressed
in definitely not Russian costumes. Probably it would not be very
expensive to have some drawings done for this show. As it was, they
looked as some claim to a historic accuracy (OTOH, they did mention
Vlad).
> Ivan also got angry at a foreign delegation and had them executed,
Just curious, which delegation was it? Hardly from one of the
countries of any consequence.
> which explains the foreign delegation picture.
But it was shown within a completely different context.
> Ivan had 7 wives, not six.
IIRC, Ivan argued that Martha Sobakina (?) had not been _really_
his wife because she died before marriage had been consumed.
He could not legally have more than 6 wifes according to the Church
rules but there were ways around (Henry used the same type of the
arguments when he tried to divorce his first wife). OTOH, an existence
of the 6th wife did not prevent Ivan from asking for a hand of
Elizabeth's niece.
>The seventh, Maria Nogaia, was the one
> that gave birth to Dmitrii of Uglesha, who died as a child and was
> later canonized during the Smutaia Vremya (Time of Troubles.) It was
> this boy whom at least 3 pretenders claimed to be--known as the False
> Dmitriis. I don't think any of these marriages were particularly
> political, but they certainly could have been and probably were. My
> own research into the position of women in Muscovite society, along
> with that of Nancy Shields Kollmann and Robert O. Crummey indicate
> that marriages among clans were the cement that bonded and held much
> of society together poltically, and that women, while in the
> background, were definitely involved in the court.
One of the participants of the program claimed that Ivan _intentionally_
married often to "confuse" Russian nobility and to destroy a system
when wife's family raised to a prominence. AFAIK, this claim is not
true. Families of the wifes (providing the marriage period was not
too short) had been raised in their status: Zachariev's and Nagie had
been, AFAIK, relative nobodies and the same applies to Temruk's
family. Later these families could fell into a disfavor (with the
mass executions as a result). AFAIK, the same was a fate of the
families of some Henry VIII's wifes.
Probably Ivan's marriages had been political in a sense that he
avoided top aristocratic families.
JudyW1917
In article <3507E2...@pobox.upenn.edu>, Laura Blanchard
<lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu> writes:
>I think, every now and again, about what one incurable optimist of a
>historian with a pragmatic streak wrote in one of those "wasn't
>Braveheart terrible?" discussions: he commented that until one of the
>purists brings as many folks into his classroom as Mel Gibson in a coat
>of blue paint, he wasn't about to knock Mel Gibson. Although we might
>all wish that these TV shows and movies have a little more accuracy,
>there is something to be said for that.
>
>The foot soldier series was particularly egregious, though. I don't
>think any of the talking heads involved expected quite that degree of
>slipshoddery (if I may coin a term), based on other A&E productions.
I finally got around to seeing Braveheart - it was trully dreadful. Did it do
well
commerically or not -- just curious.
The Foot SOlider show is a really shoddy production -- esp. with the talking
buffoon that does the voice and some acting. I was really surpised at how
bad the show is -- normally A&E do a better job than this. Maybe they felt
if it was too scholarly they would lose their audience. In a lot of ways the
History Channel isn''t much better.
Judy
Laura Blanchard
JudyW1917 wrote:
> I finally got around to seeing Braveheart - it was trully dreadful. Did it do
> well
> commerically or not -- just curious.
I can't speak to the degree of dreadfulness of the movie -- I've seen
less than half of it, on video when I was someone's houseguest, and we
all nodded out toward the end of the first tape, which now that I come
to think of it may be a commentary. But I understand that it did well
commercially.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Kerber,Andy
Of course, this is the same network that called the shotgun the 'gun
that won the west', despite the well known fact by everyone else in the
world that the 'gun that won the west' referred to the Winchester .30,
model 1876, called the Winchester '76
Alex Milman
Laura Blanchard wrote:
> I think, every now and again, about what one incurable optimist of a
> historian with a pragmatic streak wrote in one of those "wasn't
> Braveheart terrible?" discussions: he commented that until one of the
> purists brings as many folks into his classroom as Mel Gibson in a coat
> of blue paint, he wasn't about to knock Mel Gibson. Although we might
> all wish that these TV shows and movies have a little more accuracy,
> there is something to be said for that.
There are 2 completely different issues. "Braveheart" was not supposed
to be a scientific research and to assess it from this point of view
would be, IMHO, just as useful as discuss historic accuracy of
Leonardo's "Battle of Angiarany". They must be assessd based on
their artistic meris.
OTOH, when somebody claims that his/her book, TV program or whatever
are scientific or educational, you expect completely different
approach. Artistic merits of these shows are zero (probably less)
and they supposed to have some value as a source of correct (or at
least not of a definitely incorrect) information.
>
> The foot soldier series was particularly egregious, though. I don't
> think any of the talking heads involved expected quite that degree of
> slipshoddery (if I may coin a term), based on other A&E productions.
They had few funny moments here and there but otherwise they looked
horrible.
>Did
> anyone else notice that they used a group of military re-enactors
> calling themselves "the Duke of Gloucester's men," complete with murrey
> and blue livery, Whyte Bore banners, and assorted "footsoldiers" in full
> plate armor, for every battle from Hastings to Agincourt (but not,
> curiously, Barnet, Tewkesbury or Bosworth)?
>
They used the same guys (extremely unmilitary looking, IMHO) in most
of the "historic" programs I (unfortunately) saw. BTW, their "Roamn",
"Greek" and "Medieval" equipment looks like it was nickelplated. What
did they use?
Alex Milman
JudyW1917 wrote:
>
> I finally got around to seeing Braveheart - it was trully dreadful.
Movie itself or historic inaccuracy?
Probably historically accurate movie would be much more dreadful to
watch. To be accurate and to give a correct picture of a time it
should include nice episodes of Wallace using human skin for a
scabbard of his sword and, definitely, rather repulsive details of
Wallace's execution: castration, disemobowlment, etc. Personally,
I prefere absence of accuracy of _this_ type.
>Did it do
> well
> commerically or not -- just curious.
Very well. And got quite a few Oscars. None of them for a historic
accuracy :-)
Bringing "Braveheart" as an example is wrong: Gibson did not pretend
that he made a historically correct movie.
>
> The Foot SOlider show is a really shoddy production -- esp. with the talking
> buffoon that does the voice and some acting.
At least he provides some comic relief. Otherwise you'd turn TV off
much faster (not that he helped me too much).
EddieEffie
>>He could not legally have more than 6 wifes according to the Church
rules but there were ways around
The Orthodox Church does not allow more than THREE.
There are cases of patriarchs going to their death for forbidding emperors to
take a fourth wife.
Anthony
Anthony J. Bryant
St. Tikhon's Orthodox Theological Seminary
South Canaan, PA 18459
--------------
"Of what hell will he not be worthy, who taketh the body of Christ and rendeth
it limb from limb?" ---St. John Chrysostom
Alex Milman
EddieEffie wrote:
> The Orthodox Church does not allow more than THREE.
>
> There are cases of patriarchs going to their death for forbidding emperors to
> take a fourth wife.
>
Was the same practice followed in Russia? AFAIK, there was no
Church opposition to Ivan's multiple marriages. He definitely had
6 or 7 wifes (depending on how to count).Were there any
official/unofficial loopholes?
Paul J. Gans
MarkDLew (mark...@aol.com) wrote:
>Paul Gans wrote:
><< I recall, a few years back, a true disaster of a film
>on "King Arthur". They interviewed a number of folks
>(whose names I won't mention) who are *still* upset
>at the result. >>
>I saw part of that King Arthur show on TV just a few weeks ago (a rerun, I
>suppose). I'm relieved to know that at least some of what I saw was
>misrepresentative. I'd hate to think all those people with degrees after their
>names actually believed that stuff. (Not that I was a big fan of Geoffrey Ashe
>to begin with....)
I've been told that one of the interview techniques was to ask
something like "can you give us a historical scenario in which
Arthur might have lived." and then present the answer as if
that was the speaker's unqualified belief.
JudyW1917
>
>Movie itself or historic inaccuracy?
>
>Probably historically accurate movie would be much more dreadful to
>watch. To be accurate and to give a correct picture of a time it
>should include nice episodes of Wallace using human skin for a
>scabbard of his sword and, definitely, rather repulsive details of
>Wallace's execution: castration, disemobowlment, etc. Personally,
>I prefere absence of accuracy of _this_ type.
>
Well both -- I got the feeling that Gibson made up part of the story. I got
rather bored with it. Fortunately it was on Video, so I could just turn it
off when I lost interest -- I thought it was even more broing than the latest
Jurassic Park ( althought the special effects do save that one in places).
I am just glad that I didn't pay money to see Braveheart.
The best actor was Patrick McGoohan -- Mel Gibson is pretty bad. Was
he the guy who played Mad Max??
Judy
JudyW1917
>
>I've been told that one of the interview techniques was to ask
>something like "can you give us a historical scenario in which
>Arthur might have lived." and then present the answer as if
>that was the speaker's unqualified belief.
>
If that is the way they "do business" I am surprised that anyone who is truly a
certifiable scholar would even allow themselves to be used that way. Surely
word has to get around about how they do stuff. Either that or the pay is
so good that the historians swallow their pride and go on the show.
What did Kelly DeVries say about his appearance on Foot Soldier?
Judy
Caedmontwo
Fairly obviously, Ivan did manage to come up with some unofficial loopholes but
there certainly aren't any official ones in Orthodox canon law. Canon law
allows no more than 3 marriages under any circumstances (i.e., even if earlier
marriage ended with death or such justifiable divorces as adultery). I can't
think of any example of "annulment" being used in the Orthodox East in the way
it was used in the Latin West but perhaps Ivan managed to use that as his
loophole.
Probably a sidenote: In the eighth-century, the divorce and remarriage of the
Byzantine Emperor for political reasons caused a schism in Constantinople over
the "adultery heresy". St. Theodore the Studite led the anti-adultery party.
In Him,
the sinner Caedmon
Laura Blanchard
JudyW1917 wrote:
[snip]
> If that is the way they "do business" I am surprised that anyone who is truly a
> certifiable scholar would even allow themselves to be used that way. Surely
> word has to get around about how they do stuff.
I suppose that Judy really meant "certified scholar" although some of
them may now feel, upon reflection, that they were actually
"certifiable" to have appeared.
There have been some real name brands on those A&E specials. I remember
seeing John Gillingham on one of them.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Jon
I must say that I am truly proud of the state of Medieval History today.
When the only thing worth criticizing is an insignificant website authored
by a chemist (no disrespect meant to Mr. Gans), it is clear that the
academic world must be nearly flawless. If I am wrong, then I would
appreciate it if the world's greatest critic (D. Spencer Hines) would be so
kind as to find another website/book/person/whatever to "bash." I don't
mean to speak for the whole newsgroup, but I think the objections to Hines'
posts are not because they are negative and abusive, but because they never
meander from the topic of Gans and his Medieval Tech page. I am honestly
interested in hearing some criticism on ANYTHING else.
Jon
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message <6e7sv1$r...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>But, Mr. Gans' "Horse Harness" page, as has been exhaustively pointed out,
>is severely and irremediably flawed as well. It should by no means be
given
>"a D minus passing grade" and allowed to slip through the gate.
>>
>Sincerely,
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
>
Gabriel Ataya
JudyW1917 wrote:
>
> In article <3507E2...@pobox.upenn.edu>, Laura Blanchard
> <lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu> writes:
>
> >historian with a pragmatic streak wrote in one of those "wasn't
> >Braveheart terrible?" discussions: he commented that until one of the
> >purists brings as many folks into his classroom as Mel Gibson in a coat
> >of blue paint, he wasn't about to knock Mel Gibson. Although we might
> >all wish that these TV shows and movies have a little more accuracy,
> >there is something to be said for that.
> >
> >think any of the talking heads involved expected quite that degree of
> >slipshoddery (if I may coin a term), based on other A&E productions.
>
> well
> commerically or not -- just curious.
>
> bad the show is -- normally A&E do a better job than this. Maybe they felt
> if it was too scholarly they would lose their audience. In a lot of ways the
> History Channel isn''t much better.
>
> Judy
Braveheart did ridiculously well at the box office. So much so that lots
of people here still say its their favorite film a couple of years after
it was released.
I think it was great, not totally correct, but still a good story.
G
EddieEffie
>>Was the same practice followed in Russia?
YES. It's Orthodox. Those are the canons.
>>AFAIK, there was no Church opposition to Ivan's multiple marriages.
>>Were there any official/unofficial loopholes?
Nope. Not even emperors are allowed a fourth wife.
Tony
Hairballs R Us
Alex wrote:
>IIRC, Ivan argued that Martha Sobakina (?) had not been _really_
>his wife because she died before marriage had been consumed.
Perhaps, but he still married her and so I'd count her.
>He could not legally have more than 6 wifes according to the Church
>rules but there were ways around (Henry used the same type of the
>arguments when he tried to divorce his first wife). OTOH, an existence
>of the 6th wife did not prevent Ivan from asking for a hand of
>Elizabeth's niece.
The Orthodox Church recognizes only 3 marriages. Royalty were
sometimes allowed a fourth for dynastic reasons, but dispensations had
to be sought and granted. Under no circumstances did they recognize
either 6 or 7. (At least not in the Orthodox Church, I don't know the
conventions in the western Church.) Dmitrii of Uglesha was
considered a bastard by virtually everyone in Russia at the time, even
though he was clearly Ivan's offspring.
>
>One of the participants of the program claimed that Ivan _intentionally_
>married often to "confuse" Russian nobility and to destroy a system
>when wife's family raised to a prominence. AFAIK, this claim is not
>true. Families of the wifes (providing the marriage period was not
>too short) had been raised in their status: Zachariev's and Nagie had
>been, AFAIK, relative nobodies and the same applies to Temruk's
>family. Later these families could fell into a disfavor (with the
>mass executions as a result). AFAIK, the same was a fate of the
>families of some Henry VIII's wifes.
>Probably Ivan's marriages had been political in a sense that he
>avoided top aristocratic families.
Nancy Shields Kollmann's research indicates that marriage into the
tsar's family brought about an increase in stature and influence that
lasted for at least a generation or more in most instances. I don't
doubt that Ivan chose his subsequent wives after Anastasiia Romanova
with the intent of confusing and/or pissing off the boyarii. Most of
the actions in the latter part of his reign, including the period of
the Oprichnina, were calculated to diminish the power and influence of
the boyarii with respect to the autocracy of the tsar. Sounds like
this participant in the A&E show to which you refer was stretching
things or at least grossly oversimplfying them to the point of
inaccuracy.
Lorraine
PS. Will hunt up the info on the delegation for you.
Lorraine
Alex Milman
Caedmontwo wrote:
>
> In article <35081C...@gte.com>, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>
> >EddieEffie wrote:
> >
> >> The Orthodox Church does not allow more than THREE.
> >>
> >> There are cases of patriarchs going to their death for forbidding emperors
> >to
> >> take a fourth wife.
> >>
> >
> >Was the same practice followed in Russia? AFAIK, there was no
> >Church opposition to Ivan's multiple marriages. He definitely had
> >6 or 7 wifes (depending on how to count).Were there any
> >official/unofficial loopholes?
> >
> >
>
> Fairly obviously, Ivan did manage to come up with some unofficial loopholes but
> there certainly aren't any official ones in Orthodox canon law. Canon law
> allows no more than 3 marriages under any circumstances (i.e., even if earlier
> marriage ended with death or such justifiable divorces as adultery). I can't
> think of any example of "annulment" being used in the Orthodox East in the way
> it was used in the Latin West but perhaps Ivan managed to use that as his
> loophole.
IIRC, he sent one or 2 wifes to a monastery but I don't think that
he officially divorced them: monastery was usually enough to make
man free.
>
> Probably a sidenote: In the eighth-century, the divorce and remarriage of the
> Byzantine Emperor for political reasons caused a schism in Constantinople over
> the "adultery heresy". St. Theodore the Studite led the anti-adultery party.
>
AFAIK, Ivan's 4th marriage had been first denounced, then approved
by a Russian Partiarch (Leonid ?). The following marriages went,
again AFAIK, without a noticeable opposition. But, IIRC, "6" as a
number was somehow important because Ivan was forced to argue that
one of his marriages (to Martha Sobakina) had not been commensed
Otherwise Maria Nagaya would be 7th wife which, for some reason,
was too much even for Ivan. Any ideas?
Best wishes
Alex
Alex Milman
EddieEffie wrote:
>
> >>Was the same practice followed in Russia?
>
>
>
>
> Nope. Not even emperors are allowed a fourth wife.
Nice answer. The only problem is that it contradicts to a known
fact. Question was not, if Ivan could have more than 3 wifes,
because he definitely had more, but how did he manage to get Church
blessing for these extra marriages.
BTW, Ivan's title "Tzar" supposed to make him equal to Emperor so
there was no "even" :-)
Alex Milman
Hairballs R Us wrote:
>
> Alex wrote:
>
> >IIRC, Ivan argued that Martha Sobakina (?) had not been _really_
> >his wife because she died before marriage had been consumed.
>
I was talking only about "official" not a real count. With Martha
he had 7 wives.
> >He could not legally have more than 6 wifes according to the Church
> >rules but there were ways around (Henry used the same type of the
> >arguments when he tried to divorce his first wife). OTOH, an existence
> >of the 6th wife did not prevent Ivan from asking for a hand of
> >Elizabeth's niece.
>
> The Orthodox Church recognizes only 3 marriages. Royalty were
> sometimes allowed a fourth for dynastic reasons, but dispensations had
> to be sought and granted. Under no circumstances did they recognize
> either 6 or 7. (At least not in the Orthodox Church, I don't know the
> conventions in the western Church.)
>
But had been these marriages officially blessed by Russian Church?
Illigitimacy of a marriage with Marya Nagaya was, IIRC, an issue
when Ivan made an offer to marry Elizabeth's niece. Argument was
that Tzar is not really married and that, anyway, it's not a problem
to get rid of an existing wife.
>Dmitrii of Uglesha was
> considered a bastard by virtually everyone in Russia at the time, even
> though he was clearly Ivan's offspring.
That's understandable because Ivan definitely overstepped the
traditional limits. Still, Nagye had been raised in a status and
Dmitry had been, IIRC, called "Tzarevitch" which gave him at least
some official legitimacy.
> >
> >One of the participants of the program claimed that Ivan _intentionally_
> >married often to "confuse" Russian nobility and to destroy a system
> >when wife's family raised to a prominence. AFAIK, this claim is not
> >true. Families of the wifes (providing the marriage period was not
> >too short) had been raised in their status: Zachariev's and Nagie had
> >been, AFAIK, relative nobodies and the same applies to Temruk's
> >family. Later these families could fell into a disfavor (with the
> >mass executions as a result). AFAIK, the same was a fate of the
> >families of some Henry VIII's wifes.
> >Probably Ivan's marriages had been political in a sense that he
> >avoided top aristocratic families.
>
> Nancy Shields Kollmann's research indicates that marriage into the
> tsar's family brought about an increase in stature and influence that
> lasted for at least a generation or more in most instances.
Not necessarily in Ivan's case. Zacharin-Yriev family definitely
had been raised in s status and stayed this way (some members still
had been executed, IIRC). Actually, they had been rasing in status
(starting with having Patriarch in a family) until 1917.
But, IIRC, Temruk's family had been executed and Sobakin's family
also suffered. Nagye went from the scene very soon.
>I don't
> doubt that Ivan chose his subsequent wives after Anastasiia Romanova
> with the intent of confusing and/or pissing off the boyarii.
Why? IIRC, his mother Elena Glinskaya was not from the top of a Russian
nobility. He married whomever he wanted and this was not boyar's
business. AFAIK, Tzar Aleksey did not marry Natalia Narishkina to
piss somebody off (even worse pedigree than Maria Temrukovna).
> Most of
> the actions in the latter part of his reign, including the period of
> the Oprichnina, were calculated to diminish the power and influence of
> the boyarii with respect to the autocracy of the tsar.
> Sounds like
> this participant in the A&E show to which you refer was stretching
> things or at least grossly oversimplfying them to the point of
> inaccuracy.
True, he took it to an extreme. Following this simplified approach
(extremely popular in the Stalinist historiography) _everything_
Ivan did could be considered and justified as an
intentional act of a statemanship wisdom.
>
> Lorraine
>
> PS. Will hunt up the info on the delegation for you.
Thanks
> Lorraine
Rune Braathen
judy...@aol.com (JudyW1917) writes:
> I finally got around to seeing Braveheart - it was trully
> dreadful. Did it do well commerically or not -- just curious.
Yes, it did...
But I have my doubts whether any sane person would regard the film as
historical, er even _expect_ it to be historical.
Especially because of the scene where Braveheart himself is going on
some sort of prom-date with his gf, and they have to avoid her
parents, who live in a pile of dung. :) Hilarious yes, historical no.
--
runeb
John M. Atkinson
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>Nice answer. The only problem is that it contradicts to a known
>fact. Question was not, if Ivan could have more than 3 wifes,
>because he definitely had more, but how did he manage to get Church
>blessing for these extra marriages.
Probably has something to do with those nasty thugs he employed. Not
all Churchmen have a hankering for martyrdom.
John M. Atkinson
Cogito Ergo BOOM!
--Button purchased at a Con
JudyW1917
In article <863egme...@sunruneb.mediascience.no>, Rune Braathen
<ru...@mediascience.no> writes:
>
>But I have my doubts whether any sane person would regard the film as
>historical, er even _expect_ it to be historical.
>
>Especially because of the scene where Braveheart himself is going on
>some sort of prom-date with his gf, and they have to avoid her
>parents, who live in a pile of dung. :) Hilarious yes, historical no.
>
>
Yes I got a laugh out of that too -- that was pretty silly. I wonder who writes
this dreck and if they know anything about the period before they embarked
on writing this script.
Judy
Mary Gentle
In article <19980314162...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
judy...@aol.com (JudyW1917) wrote:
What would you estimate the chances of someone who is
interested in historical accuracy being hired to write a
script in Hollywood?!
And if they did, I doubt it would get past second
draft. *sigh*
There are times when I think the most accurate medieval film
ever made is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". :) Yup,
those dung-heaps look pretty authentic to me...
JudyW1917
In article <Eptp3...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Mary Gentle") writes:
>
>What would you estimate the chances of someone who is
>interested in historical accuracy being hired to write a
>script in Hollywood?!
>
>And if they did, I doubt it would get past second
>draft. *sigh*
>
>There are times when I think the most accurate medieval film
>ever made is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". :) Yup,
>those dung-heaps look pretty authentic to me...
>
>
Hey you can try -- nothing lost.
Judy
JohnS426
In article <35094343.53199881@gateway>, wa...@axs2k.net (Hairballs R Us)
writes:
>
>Hello to Alex and all following this thread. I wouldn't call myself
>an "expert" in the subject, but I do study medieval Russian history
>and until a month ago was employed at the Hilandar Research Library
>(the world's largest repository of medieval Slavic manuscripts on
>microfilm). I wrote my thesis on Muscovite period on the Novodevichii
>convent of which Ivan IV was a great patron.
>
>
Very delightful to read something excellent about Muscovy. I will be going to
Novodevitchi again in June to take more photos. I collect information on all
the fortified monasteries in Russia and Ukraine that I can get to.
I think you are right about Ivan's marriages and marriage in general. In as
much as 'politics' in those days was a family matter so family politics was
conducted via appropriate marriages. Of course NOT marrying a family is just
as political as marrying.
best wishes
john sloan
John Sloan
http://members.aol.com/johns426/xenophon.htm
JohnS426
In article <3506E7...@gte.com>, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>
>Did anybody watch supposedly historic program "Ivan the Terrible"
>on A&E last week?
>
>
HI Alex
I make a point of Not watching TV and certainly not A& E shows and don't look
at the TV listings. But if I had known this likely travesty you have so well
described was going to be on AND a topic we could discuss, I would have
watched.
I had to sit through "Braveheart" without headphones on an airplane flight
once, what torture that was.
EddieEffie
>>IIRC, he sent one or 2 wifes to a monastery but I don't think that
he officially divorced them: monastery was usually enough to make
man free.
Academic. Free, perhaps; but once you've been married, you've been married.
>>one of his marriages (to Martha Sobakina) had not been commensed
Consummated. Not commensed. THAT would be an out. <G>
EddieEffie
>>BTW, Ivan's title "Tzar" supposed to make him equal to Emperor so
there was no "even" :-)
That's the whole point.
If he *did* marry more than three times, it violated church law.
Mary Gentle
In article <19980315043...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
john...@aol.com (JohnS426) wrote:
[...]>
> I had to sit through "Braveheart" without headphones on an
airplane flig
> ht
> once, what torture that was.
>
>[...]
You mean, you would have liked the headphones, so that you
could fully appreciate it?
:)
Mary Gentle
In article <19980315003...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
judy...@aol.com (JudyW1917) wrote:
> In article <Eptp3...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
mary_...@cix.compulink.c
> o.uk
> ("Mary Gentle") writes:
>
> >
> >What would you estimate the chances of someone who is
> >interested in historical accuracy being hired to write a
> >script in Hollywood?!
> >
> >And if they did, I doubt it would get past second
> >draft. *sigh*
> >
> >There are times when I think the most accurate medieval
film
> >ever made is "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". :) Yup,
> >those dung-heaps look pretty authentic to me...
> >
> >
>
> Hey you can try -- nothing lost.
>
> Judy
Would that be 'try Hollywood scriptwriting', or 'try
dung-heaps'?
No prizes for the first person to say 'no difference'!
It really does bother me that even approximate authenticity
is not the first thing on any visual media's mind - this
means, for our purposes, that the Man on the Clapham
Omnibus's opinions about medieval history are going to be
almost automatically wrong. This strikes me as a Bad Thing,
but it's one for which I don't have a good answer.
Not that I haven't tried. For my last book cover, I sent a
stack of photocopied armour references _that_ high, and they
still managed to screw it up. I give up. Next time they can
use silver-sprayed knitted stringmail and be done with it. :(
The sound of a ridden hobbyhorse clatters off into the
distance...
Sfz
Suppose an author came to this newsgroup and offered the chance for readers
to review his manuscript for historical accuracy. From what you all are
saying,
you would jump at the chance to correct that work, at least to within
plausability.
Is that right?
Regards
Steve (have I got a manuscript for you) Zeigler
Laura Blanchard
Sfz wrote:
If your ms is about horse harness, ca 200-1200 AD, you might not find
this to be the ideal forum....
But we'll all be happy to edit it for you. Of course, when we're
finished you'll have seven different (and wildly contradictory) books!
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
P.S.--My husband and I were at the University Museum today -- spouse got
all excited because he was sure he'd found a Roman horsecollar for me to
look at. It turned out to be an Assyrian horse doodad, but his heart was
in the right place.
Alex Milman
Eventually I had found how Ivan's "extra" marriages had been arranged.
He applied to the Russian Church authorities for a permission to get
married in a 4th time. Argument was that his previous wifes had been
poisoned by his enemies and that he needs a wife to look for his
children, etc. He got a permission (and some Church pennance).
Simultaneously Church forbade to anybody to have more than 3 wifes.
In a couple years Ivan divorced his 4th wife, Anna Koltovskaya (sent
her to a convent).
His 5th marriage, on Anna Vassilchikova, probably got only blessing,
not a complete ceremony. After this wife died, there was certain
Vasilissa Melentieva, whom he probably did not marry at all (AFAIK,
this is a "grey area"). She had been caught on adultery. Lover had
been impaled, she had been sent to a convent.
6th, Maria Dolgorukova, was not a virgin and had been drowned in a
river.
7th was Maria Nagaya whom Ivan had been planning to divorce to marry
Mary (?) Hastings.
So all marriages after 4th, as somebody correctly noticed, had not
been legal from the Church point of view.
It looks like a practice of the "easy" marriages (which were not
legal) had been in use at least until the end of XIX. Russian writer
of XIX, Leskov, wrote a novel "Russian secret marriages" in which
he described in some details how in some "questionable" cases (marriage
on a sister of a late wife, etc.) priest could conduct an incomplete
ceremony and did not make an entry in the church book. Some dishonest
priests made a whole complicated (and profitable) business out of it.
Of course, all this was absolutely unofficial.
Alex Milman
JohnS426 wrote:
>
> In article <3506E7...@gte.com>, Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Did anybody watch supposedly historic program "Ivan the Terrible"
> >on A&E last week?
> >
> >
>
> HI Alex
> I make a point of Not watching TV
Hello John
Not everybody has will as strong as yours!!!
> and certainly not A& E shows and don't look
> at the TV listings. But if I had known this likely travesty you have so well
> described was going to be on AND a topic we could discuss, I would have
> watched.
Initially it was a lot of fun to look for all these incorrectnesses.
But after 40 minuts I run out of patience. My wife kept watching and
I heard that they ended with some comparisons between Ivan and Stalin.
>
> I had to sit through "Braveheart" without headphones on an airplane flight
> once, what torture that was.
I liked it. Just did not consider it a historic documentary.
One of the very few movies made in the last years with the impressive
(if not necessarily accurate) battle scenes and without extreme
political correctness.
I still prefere "Potop" (did you see it?) but it's not on TV... :-(
Alex Milman
EddieEffie wrote:
>
> >>IIRC, he sent one or 2 wifes to a monastery but I don't think that
> he officially divorced them: monastery was usually enough to make
> man free.
>
> Academic. Free, perhaps; but once you've been married, you've been married.
>
Interesting. I was under impression that convent was enough to
make man free and marry again. Isn't it correct?
> >>one of his marriages (to Martha Sobakina) had not been commensed
>
> Consummated.
Thanks for a correction.
MarkDLew
So how about the History Channel? Is it as bad as A&E, or somewhat better? My
mother watches the History Channel a lot and wants to know how reliable it is.
mdl
Paul J. Gans
>mdl
My subjective impression is that it is better. The problem in
all of this is that an hour or two for presentation cannot
possibly do anything but skim the highlights. That's fine
(or close to fine) for current events about which the viewer
has much background information, but the Middle Ages...?
One thing that everyone interested in the Middle Ages has to
develop for themselves is an internal idea of the "flavor"
of the period. One cannot reason from what we do today.
One has to come to grips with *their* reality.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
EddieEffie
>>Simultaneously Church forbade to anybody to have more than 3 wifes.
In a couple years Ivan divorced his 4th wife, Anna Koltovskaya (sent
her to a convent).
That was an ancient canon, substantially predating Ivan the Extremely
Persnickity.
Tony
EddieEffie
>>Interesting. I was under impression that convent was enough to
make man free and marry again. Isn't it correct?
No, my goodness, no.
A marriage is a marriage. You can't change your status retroactively.
Donald Tucker
MarkDLew (mark...@aol.com) writes:
> So how about the History Channel? Is it as bad as A&E, or somewhat better? My
> mother watches the History Channel a lot and wants to know how reliable it is.
The key thing to check is not the channel but the source of the
program. Both channels make some of their own programs and
purchase the right to run others. Their own programs suffer
from having limited budgets, which seem to be spent primarily
on finding visuals.
Sometimes you can find some real gems -- that have nothing
to do with WW II or American pop culture. A film shown
recently on the History channel -- produced by an Australian
group -- reenacted the first European arrivals in Western
Australia in the early 17th century. This consisted of a
shipwreck and and exploitation and murder of most of the
survivors by a company official and his cronies. Attitudes,
actions and behavior of the Dutch VOC officials in dealing
with the survivors and other issues seemed quite authentic.
There are few documentaries on medieval or early modern topics.
I have been less disatisfied by the documentaries produced
by British and Canadian sources than US ones. There are
excellent historical documentaries in French and German, but
they are rarely translated into English. Your best bet is
to check the listings and seek out programs from these sources.
But be aware that documentaries are often produced to
revise history to match current political concerns. You
will appreciate the program much more if you can deduce
the probable bias *before* you watch the program. The
most interesting thing is to try and find different
national interpretations of the same event.
For example the the mythology of the Battle of Kosovo
Polji in 1389 is at the heart of current politics in
the southern Balkans.
Donald ___,__<@~__,___ World history; Alternate history FAQs
/^/^/^[#]^\^\^\ Ideas; Maps; Timelines; Buddhism
Pteranodon logo _/|\_ Millennium countdown clocks
Copyright 1996 " " © http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4123/
Alex Milman
EddieEffie wrote:
> >>Interesting. I was under impression that convent was enough to
> make man free and marry again. Isn't it correct?
>
> No, my goodness, no.
>
> A marriage is a marriage. You can't change your status retroactively.
>
That's strange. I don't have any reason to think that you are wrong but
thispractice had been, AFAIK, rather a commonplace in Russia.
EddieEffie
>>That's strange. I don't have any reason to think that you are wrong but
thispractice had been, AFAIK, rather a commonplace in Russia.
You may be talking about something different.
You can put ASIDE a spouse by causing him/her to enter a monastery, but that
does not mean the marriage has never taken place. You can remarry, yes (if you
have the rank to pull it off <G>) but you've still got a marriage on the books.
In other words, you can put a spouse aside to marry someone else; you can't put
aside a third spouse to "allow" a fourth (illegal) marriage.
EddieEffie
>>For example the the mythology of the Battle of Kosovo
Polji in 1389 is at the heart of current politics in
the southern Balkans.
What mythology? That there WAS no battle? But there was...
Alex Milman
EddieEffie wrote:
>
> >>That's strange. I don't have any reason to think that you are wrong but
> thispractice had been, AFAIK, rather a commonplace in Russia.
>
> You may be talking about something different.
>
> You can put ASIDE a spouse by causing him/her to enter a monastery, but that
> does not mean the marriage has never taken place. You can remarry, yes (if you
> have the rank to pull it off <G>) but you've still got a marriage on the books.
>
Yes, this is what I had in mind. Just a way to get rid of a current
wife.
> In other words, you can put a spouse aside to marry someone else; you can't put
> aside a third spouse to "allow" a fourth (illegal) marriage.
This issue already had been clarified. In Ivan's case, he got a
special permission (in a combination with some punishment) from an
assembly of the Russian leading Churchmen.
Alex Milman
EddieEffie wrote:
>
> >>For example the the mythology of the Battle of Kosovo
> Polji in 1389 is at the heart of current politics in
> the southern Balkans.
>
> What mythology? That there WAS no battle? But there was...
Yes, this was a rather strange statement. Battle definitely
happened and it definitely was between Serbs and Turks. King of
Serbia definitely had been killed in this battle. What's so mythological
about it. I had read 2 different versions regarding Sultan's death
but this is probably not what this post had in mind.
Liz Broadwell
Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
I think the original poster was not using the word "mythology" to mean
that the battle of Kosovo was a fabrication but to indicate the cluster of
meanings which people have attached to that battle (some of which may not
have been part of the understanding of the battle when it took place).
Sort of the like the difference between the promulgation of Magna Carta, a
bunch of nobles attempting to preserve their prerogatives in the face of
increasing pressure to centralize authority in the monarch/monarchal
bureaucracy, and The Promulgation of Magna Carta, A Founding Moment In The
Development Of Our Country. (Okay, I'm overstating things, but does this
help?)
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | At Christmas I no more desire a rose
(ebro...@english.upenn.edu) | Than wish a snow in May's new-fangled mirth;
English Department | But like of each thing that in season grows.
University of Pennsylvania | -- William Shakespeare
Donald Tucker
EddieEffie (eddie...@aol.com) writes:
[quoting me]
>>>For example the mythology of the Battle of Kosovo
> Polji in 1389 is at the heart of current politics in
> the southern Balkans.
>
> What mythology? That there WAS no battle? But there was...
Demonstrates my point.
*Everyone* involved in the battle sees it as a victory of
some sort or other.
Ottoman Turks defeated a combined army of Serbs, Albanians,
Bosnians, Montenegrins and Bulgaria, breaking the power
of Serbia and Bulgaria, and subjecting them to the Ottoman
Empire.
The Serbs, for example, see the battle as the birth
of Serb nationalism and object to the removal of Serb
predominance in the region 600 years ago. For this reason
the present Serbian Republic is unwilling to part with the
Kososvo region, which includes the battle site, even though
it is now inhabited almost entirely by Albanians.
The Turks and Albanians have very different myths about the
battle, to say nothing of the Bulgarians who believe this
should all be part of Bulgaria, which ruled the southern
Balkans north of Greece after the Romaioi (Byzantine) lost
control over the region.
Now try and tell all of this on TV without taking somebody's side!
Donald Tucker
Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) writes:
> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
> : EddieEffie wrote:
> : > >>For example the the mythology of the Battle of Kosovo
> : > Polji in 1389 is at the heart of current politics in
> : > the southern Balkans.
> : >
> : > What mythology? That there WAS no battle? But there was...
>
> : Yes, this was a rather strange statement. Battle definitely
> : happened and it definitely was between Serbs and Turks. King of
> : Serbia definitely had been killed in this battle. What's so mythological
> : about it. I had read 2 different versions regarding Sultan's death
> : but this is probably not what this post had in mind.
See my other post for my reply to EddieEffie
>
> I think the original poster was not using the word "mythology" to mean
> that the battle of Kosovo was a fabrication but to indicate the cluster of
> meanings which people have attached to that battle (some of which may not
> have been part of the understanding of the battle when it took place).
Precisely.
> Sort of the like the difference between the promulgation of Magna Carta, a
> bunch of nobles attempting to preserve their prerogatives in the face of
> increasing pressure to centralize authority in the monarch/monarchal
> bureaucracy, and The Promulgation of Magna Carta, A Founding Moment In The
> Development Of Our Country. (Okay, I'm overstating things, but does this
> help?)
This is another good example. Our present mythology of Magna Carta
is a development of English Parliamentary claims during later
centuries. The application to *individual* liberties is a still
later myth. The film maker chooses the myth to emphasize and
finds support by constructing imaginative visuals and some
rather deceptive voice overs.
TV and film are inherently poor media for presenting historical
fact as opposed to building emotions. The dialog between
presenter and viewer is very subjective compared to that
between wrtier and reader. This observation is nothing
new. MacLuhan knew it. Even Dr. Goebbels knew it. The best
advice for a TV viewer watching a historical documentary
is Caveat viewer!
John M. Atkinson
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>EddieEffie wrote:
>>
>> >>For example the the mythology of the Battle of Kosovo
>> Polji in 1389 is at the heart of current politics in
>> the southern Balkans.
>>
>> What mythology? That there WAS no battle? But there was...
>Yes, this was a rather strange statement. Battle definitely
>happened and it definitely was between Serbs and Turks. King of
>Serbia definitely had been killed in this battle. What's so mythological
>about it. I had read 2 different versions regarding Sultan's death
>but this is probably not what this post had in mind.
The mythological connotations that have sprung up about the battle.
Also the importance is so grossly exaggerated. Anyone here actually
read modern Serb propoganda, besides myself? It's entertaining stuff,
heavy with references to the Battle of Kosovo in contexts that make
more or less no sense whatsoever.
John M. Atkinson
Cogito Ergo BOOM!
--Button purchased at a Con
David
Liz Broadwell wrote in message <6euibo$qqr$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
(sign.)
>I think the original poster was not using the word "mythology" to mean
>that the battle of Kosovo was a fabrication but to indicate the cluster of
>meanings which people have attached to that battle (some of which may not
>have been part of the understanding of the battle when it took place).
>Sort of the like the difference between the promulgation of Magna Carta, a
>bunch of nobles attempting to preserve their prerogatives in the face of
>increasing pressure to centralize authority in the monarch/monarchal
>bureaucracy, and The Promulgation of Magna Carta, A Founding Moment In The
Development Of Our Country. (Okay, I'm overstating things, but does this
>help?)
I for one think so, and took the original reference to Kosovo in the same
way. One could also talk of the "mythology of the Battle of Hastings", and
mean a bunch of people claiming that their families came over with William.
We could surely make a list of battles which carry a heavy mythopoetic
baggage for someone, even if the actual encounter was a drawn skirmish.
David Pugh
JohnS426
In article <Epv1G...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Mary Gentle") writes:
>
>You mean, you would have liked the headphones, so that you
>could fully appreciate it?
>
>
Not a chance. I don't ever ask for the headphones. I was trying to study
something and the TV monitor was right in front of me. I didn't look up too
much but when I did it was awful.
take care
JohnS426
In article <19980315193...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, s...@aol.com (Sfz)
writes:
>
>Suppose an author came to this newsgroup and offered the chance for readers
>to review his manuscript for historical accuracy. From what you all are
>saying,
>you would jump at the chance to correct that work, at least to within
>plausability.
>Is that right?
>
>
Hi Steve
I have read quite a few manuscripts for historical books and offered comments
to the editors or publishers - you got one I will be glad to read it. I also
know some publishers if your topic is in their field
best to you
john s
John Sloan
http://members.aol.com/johns426/xenophon.htm
JohnS426
>
>I liked it. Just did not consider it a historic documentary.
>One of the very few movies made in the last years with the impressive
>(if not necessarily accurate) battle scenes and without extreme
>political correctness.
>
>I still prefere "Potop" (did you see it?) but it's not on TV... :-(
>
>
HI Alex
in our home TV is downstairs and my son watches it. I am upstairs in computer
room with little interest in the TV unless the PBS is doing a Metropolitan
Opera special - then I tape it. - back in 91 I did watch the Gulf war on CNN
because one of my sons was over in it.
I didn't like the Braveheart much but will say that "First Knight" was worse.
Sorry Ididn't see Potop
Thanks for the details on Ivan's wives.
best wishes
John Sloan
http://members.aol.com/johns426/xenophon.htm
Mary Gentle
In article <199803211225...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
john...@aol.com (JohnS426) wrote:
<snip>
> I didn't like the Braveheart much but will say that "First Knight" was
worse.
"First Knight" may have been better in that, if you could forget it was
supposed to have anything to do with the (fictional) Arthur, it was an
averagely-crap fantasy movie, whereas it's far more difficult to forget
the historical basis for "Braveheart"? Just a thought.
Paul J. Gans
EddieEffie (eddie...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>Interesting. I was under impression that convent was enough to
>make man free and marry again. Isn't it correct?
>No, my goodness, no.
>A marriage is a marriage. You can't change your status retroactively.
>Tony
What happens if a marriage is annulled? I believe that in the
west it was (is) then deemed never to have happened. Or am
I off base?
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Paul J. Gans
Donald Tucker (bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) writes:
>> Alex Milman (am...@gte.com) wrote:
>> : EddieEffie wrote:
>> : > >>For example the the mythology of the Battle of Kosovo
>> : > Polji in 1389 is at the heart of current politics in
>> : > the southern Balkans.
>> : >
>> : > What mythology? That there WAS no battle? But there was...
>>
>> : Yes, this was a rather strange statement. Battle definitely
>> : happened and it definitely was between Serbs and Turks. King of
>> : Serbia definitely had been killed in this battle. What's so mythological
>> : about it. I had read 2 different versions regarding Sultan's death
>> : but this is probably not what this post had in mind.
>See my other post for my reply to EddieEffie
>>
>> I think the original poster was not using the word "mythology" to mean
>> that the battle of Kosovo was a fabrication but to indicate the cluster of
>> meanings which people have attached to that battle (some of which may not
>> have been part of the understanding of the battle when it took place).
>Precisely.
>
>> Sort of the like the difference between the promulgation of Magna Carta, a
>> bunch of nobles attempting to preserve their prerogatives in the face of
>> increasing pressure to centralize authority in the monarch/monarchal
>> bureaucracy, and The Promulgation of Magna Carta, A Founding Moment In The
>> Development Of Our Country. (Okay, I'm overstating things, but does this
>> help?)
>This is another good example. Our present mythology of Magna Carta
>is a development of English Parliamentary claims during later
>centuries. The application to *individual* liberties is a still
>later myth. The film maker chooses the myth to emphasize and
>finds support by constructing imaginative visuals and some
>rather deceptive voice overs.
>TV and film are inherently poor media for presenting historical
>fact as opposed to building emotions. The dialog between
>presenter and viewer is very subjective compared to that
>between wrtier and reader. This observation is nothing
>new. MacLuhan knew it. Even Dr. Goebbels knew it. The best
>advice for a TV viewer watching a historical documentary
>is Caveat viewer!
Absolutely true! On the other hand, the impact of a visual
is stunning. I've used a number of videos to good effect
in my class -- but always with caveats and warnings.
A picture is worth a thousand words, but what if the
words are lies?
Warren B. Hapke
Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) wrote:
:
: >A marriage is a marriage. You can't change your status retroactively.
:
: >Tony
:
: What happens if a marriage is annulled? I believe that in the
: west it was (is) then deemed never to have happened. Or am
: I off base?
:
: ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
I understand a little bit about the current teachings on annullment, but
I'm no canon lawyer. (Heck, I'm Presbyterian, not Catholic.) The marriage
is not considered a valid sacramental one, but it's not deemed never to
have happened; any children resulting from the marriage, for example, are
considered legitimate, and the acts of sexual intercourse that took place
within the marriage are not considered fornication. What an annullment
does is allow the person to contract a valid marriage within the Catholic
Church. I think the reasoning in the MA would have been similar, but I
don't know for sure.
I don't think the Eastern Orthodox adopt a similar policy. Since we
have a EO seminary student in the group, he might be able to tell us.
Warren B. Hapke
wbh...@prairienet.org
JohnS426
In article <Eq6J7...@cix.compulink.co.uk>, mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
("Mary Gentle") writes:
>
>"First Knight" may have been better in that, if you could forget it was
>supposed to have anything to do with the (fictional) Arthur, it was an
>averagely-crap fantasy movie, whereas it's far more difficult to forget
>the historical basis for "Braveheart"? Just a thought.
>
>
Quite right from that point of view. 'Braveheart by being pseudo-history would
generate more false ideas than First knight being only pseudo myth
but really - who ever heard of a crossbow with pistol grip and made of spring
steel in Arthur's time.
I remember on the internet discussion maybe this very group one lady wrote that
the most unbelievable part was that a woman would give up Shaun Connerly for
what's his name.
bestwishes
JohnS426
In article <6evgqi$5...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
Jatk...@REMOVE.ix.netcom.com (John M. Atkinson) writes:
>
>The mythological connotations that have sprung up about the battle.
>Also the importance is so grossly exaggerated. Anyone here actually
>read modern Serb propoganda, besides myself? It's entertaining stuff,
>heavy with references to the Battle of Kosovo in contexts that make
>more or less no sense whatsoever.
>
>
Yes, this is what I gather by idea of "myth" around Kosovo - that it was a
heroic moment for the Serbs but with precious little heroism. I don't have
references at the moment but it seems to me I read there was quite a bit of
side changing and possibly one might say treachery involved. Moreover just
because a people fought a battle in a location doesn't mean that people must
for evermore stay there. If everyone owned the spots where they had some
historical 'heroic' event the world map would be quite different indeed. Dare
I mention it but maybe the English would reclaim Agincourt - there I said the
word.
cheers
Tony Jebson
John Sloan wrote about Braveheart:
[snip]
> I remember on the internet discussion maybe this very group one
> lady wrote that the most unbelievable part was that a woman
I've heard rumours that there are women who don't like Sean
Connery... but I haven't met one yet ;-)
On the accuracy of movies and things, has anyone else noticed
how _bad_ some of the History Channel stuff is? In particular
the _In Search of History_ series ... they had someone the other
week claiming that dragons were real!
Basically, unless it is a Time Watch import, anything they do
before the US civil war is pretty awful. [as I'm posting from
Texas, perhaps that should be "The War of Northern Aggression" ;-)]
Speaking of civil wars, how about Richard II: was he the tyrant
as claimed by Walsingham or was Bolinbroke the bad guy?
Hah! Finally dragged it back to the middle ages...
--- Tony Jebson
EddieEffie
>>What happens if a marriage is annulled? I believe that in the
west it was (is) then deemed never to have happened. Or am
I off base?
I've never heard of such a thing in Orthodox contexts. That is a product of
Western legalism in religion.
In the East, once you were married, you were married.
The biggest difference: in the West, it is the couple who are marrying each
other; the priest is witness and celebrant (note, the priest has them recite
vows I TAKE THEE...). In the East, the couple never say anything. Not even "I
do." The priest is performing the wedding as the representative of God, so it's
God making the wedding.
Tony
EddieEffie
>>I don't think the Eastern Orthodox adopt a similar policy. Since we
have a EO seminary student in the group, he might be able to tell us.
Just did. <G>
Actually, I need to change that sig. file... I've left the seminary for REAL
grad school. <G>
EddieEffie
>>I remember on the internet discussion maybe this very group one lady wrote
that
what's his name.
Well, it WAS a fantasy... <G>
A bad one, albeit, but...
Mary Gentle
In article <3514A2...@texas.net>, je...@texas.net (Tony
Jebson) wrote:
> John Sloan wrote about Braveheart:
> [snip]
> > I remember on the internet discussion maybe this very
group one
> > lady wrote that the most unbelievable part was that a
woman
> > would give up Sean Connery for what's his name.
>
> I've heard rumours that there are women who don't like Sean
> Connery... but I haven't met one yet ;-)
>
>[...]
Oh yes you have - now. I'm afraid my fancy for that man went
plummeting when he made his remarks about it being an ok
thing to slap a woman around. What's sad is, I can't
distance Connery-the-man from his roles, so I've lost the
enjoyment of several films (including "The Man Who WOuld Be
King", dammit).
To wrench this round to topic again, possibly this is an
entirely authentic medieval attitude to women...
Donald Tucker
Paul J. Gans (ga...@panix.com) writes:
> Donald Tucker (bs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> [cut]
>>TV and film are inherently poor media for presenting historical
>>fact as opposed to building emotions. The dialog between
>>presenter and viewer is very subjective compared to that
>>between wrtier and reader. This observation is nothing
>>new. MacLuhan knew it. Even Dr. Goebbels knew it. The best
>>advice for a TV viewer watching a historical documentary
>>is Caveat viewer!
>
> Absolutely true! On the other hand, the impact of a visual
> is stunning. I've used a number of videos to good effect
> in my class -- but always with caveats and warnings.
>
> A picture is worth a thousand words, but what if the
> words are lies?
Stunning visuals are the main value of films. I recently
re-watched _The Agony and the Ectasy_ (1965). This is the
famous film showing Charleton Heston lying on his back
on top of a scaffold with paint in his face as he portrays
the years that Michaelangello spent painting the
ceiling of the Sistine Chappel. The meticulous production
shows the stepm by step creation of the artistic product.
This is interreupted by other visuals. Rex Harrison gets
to wear fine suits of armor as he portrays Pope Julius II
(r. 1503-13) as a "freebooter" is spends his time fighting
wars against the French and others. Some nice hints of the
nature of Itallian battles at the time.
But nowhere is there a clear explanation of what was at
issue. FWIIW Julius II restored the papal states to the
papacy by suppressing Venice (1509) and driving France
from Italy (1511) with the aid of the Holy League (mainly
Spain).
Some more nice visuals show the broad outlines of the
construction of St. Peter's and how to quarry marble
by hand.
The acting is satisfactory. Matlin rates the film
2 1/2 out of 4.
BTW, by the standards of historical films, whether
fictional or documentary, this one is superior. At
least it is not full of clearly false statements
about historical events and developments.
Jgissw
>From: Tony Jebson <je...@texas.net>
>Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 05:31:03 GMT
>Speaking of civil wars, how about Richard II: was he the tyrant
>as claimed by Walsingham or was Bolinbroke the bad guy?
So what is your opinion?
John
Paul J. Gans
I think perhaps a medieval would put it slightly differently,
namely that it is incumbent on a husband to ensure that his
wife does her duty and not stray into error.
Corporal punishment was used by superiors on inferiors with
some frequency. By this I mean that a student was apt to
be cuffed or whipped by a teacher, a peasant to have his
ears boxed by a superior, and a monk told to scourge his
own flesh. The Bible was then, as now, cited as the ultimate
sanction for such behavior.
It was *not* considered proper to injure someone this way.
As in anything else, the medievals considered that there
were limits to behavior.
By the way, I recall a discussion on either this group or
another regarding a marriage contract in Spain of a rather
high-ranking couple which had the specific provision that
if the wife were beaten "unreasonably" she was entitled to
return to her parents home *with* her dowery.
Of course, we today have no idea what "unreasonable" meant,
but the medievals certainly had an idea.
David
Paul J. Gans wrote in message <6f3o6i$r...@panix2.panix.com>...
(....)
>Corporal punishment was used by superiors on inferiors with
>some frequency. By this I mean that a student was apt to
>be cuffed or whipped by a teacher, a peasant to have his
>ears boxed by a superior, and a monk told to scourge his
>own flesh. The Bible was then, as now, cited as the ultimate
>sanction for such behavior.
A couple of quotes that may be of interest. (Someone tell me if I've
violated copyright with this size of chunk.)
"…. Once I had been beaten in school..... When my studies, such as they
were, had come to an end about the time of vespers, I went to my mother’s
knee after a more severe beating than I had deserved. And when, as often
happened, she began to ask me repeatedly whether I had been whipped that
day, I, not to appear a telltale, entirely denied it. Then against my will
she threw off my inner garment (which is called a shirt or chemise) and saw
my little arms blackened and the skin of my back everywhere puffed up with
the cuts from the twigs. Grieved to the heart by the very savage punishment
inflicted on my tender body, troubled, agitated and weeping with sorrow, she
said: "You shall never become a clerk, not any more suffer so to get an
education."
Guibert de Nogent, Monodiae, translated John F. Benton
"There was also some doubt about the precise application of the canon that
anyone who had laid violent hands on clerks, monks, lay-brethren or nuns
must go to the pope for absolution. But the pope made his intention clear by
saying that this canon was not to be applied to those who had committed such
violence in the performance of their just duty. I say, just, because if
anyone had used force to carry out a tyrant's unrighteous command or wreak
another's violence he would not be spared the rigours of the law but would
share the penalty with the instigator or tyrant who was author of his guilt.
But the case would be different if by chance a doorkeeper, trying to hold
back a crowd of clerks from rushing through a door, accidentally struck one
with his staff; or if an acolyte struck somebody with his rod or baton,
colloquially called a birch. Again the canon would not apply if a master in
the schools struck his pupil, or one master another, or one monk struck
another monk, or one lay-brother another, or the head of a household his son
or servant. For it is more desirable to settle such matters in the schools
or cloisters than to provide an excuse for the idle and dissolute to roam
about under pretext of going to the pope. Indeed anything which is not done
maliciously or with evil intent, ought by no means to incur such a penalty;
and no hand should be called violent which helps to ensure another's
well-being or good behaviour."
John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, translated Chibnall.
David Pugh
Liz Broadwell
EddieEffie (eddie...@aol.com) wrote:
: The biggest difference: in the West, it is the couple who are marrying each
: other; the priest is witness and celebrant (note, the priest has them recite
: vows I TAKE THEE...). In the East, the couple never say anything. Not even "I
: do." The priest is performing the wedding as the representative of God, so it's
: God making the wedding.
Er, AFAIK, God is considered to be acting sacramentally in the western
marriage rite also; it's just that instead of the priest being the
minister of the rite, the couple being married are. We do have that line
in the marriage liturgy, "What God has joined together, man must not
divide" (or "let no man put asunder," in the older translation).
Yours for better understanding between sister churches,
Liz "RC" B.
Alex Milman
Tony Jebson wrote:
> John Sloan wrote about Braveheart:
> [snip]
> > I remember on the internet discussion maybe this very group one
> > lady wrote that the most unbelievable part was that a woman
> > would give up Sean Connery for what's his name.
>
> I've heard rumours that there are women who don't like Sean
> Connery... but I haven't met one yet ;-)
>
Well, I know one: she prefers Timoty Dalton as James Bond ... :-(But
even she considered Connery more attractive than Cevin Costner
so we probably have a consensus about "First Knight". IMHO, "Escalibur"
had been much more impressive (but probably made on a tighter budget).
Alex Milman
Paul J. Gans wrote: By the way, I recall a discussion on either this
group or
> ... regarding a marriage contract in Spain of a rather
> high-ranking couple which had the specific provision that
> if the wife were beaten "unreasonably" she was entitled to
> return to her parents home *with* her dowery.
>
> Of course, we today have no idea what "unreasonable" meant,
> but the medievals certainly had an idea.
>
In Medieval Russia they had a whole set of rules.
First of all, there were "beating" and "teaching". It was duty of a head
of a houshold to teach his family and to make these lessons fruitful he
should
use his fists, whip, or stick. After had been taught, his "student"
would bow
and thank for the lesson. Beating supposed to be a punishment for some
misdeed or it can be used simply because a head of household felt this
way.
It could involve the same instruments (applied in greater quontities) or
anything
that was handy. AFAIK, the major difference was that after beating it's
subject
was not obliged to say "thank you".
But my impression was that everything was in a "reasonable" category.
Laura Blanchard
Alex Milman wrote:
> Well, I know one: she prefers Timoty Dalton as James Bond ... :-(But
> even she considered Connery more attractive than Cevin Costner
> so we probably have a consensus about "First Knight".
Quick correction for the record. Connery/Costner was Robin Hood: Prince
of Thieves; Connery/Gere was First Knight. But it's the same general
idea, except that I don't think the Marian character was ever in the
running to marry the Lionheart.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
Jgissw
>From: ga...@panix.com (Paul J. Gans)
>Date: 22 Mar 1998 14:18:42 -0500
>Of course, we today have no idea what "unreasonable" meant,
>but the medievals certainly had an idea.
In the Celtic legend, the Shepherd of
Muthven(sp.?) the shepherd marries a woman
who comes out of the lake. If he hits her three
times without cause, she will return. He merely
taps her three times over the years to get her attention,
and loses her. So the mores probably varied between
nations.
Cheers,
John
Mary Gentle
In article <6f3o6i$r...@panix2.panix.com>, ga...@panix.com (Paul
J. Gans) wrote:
> Mary Gentle (mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk) wrote:
> >In article <3514A2...@texas.net>, je...@texas.net
(Tony
> >Jebson) wrote:
>
> >> John Sloan wrote about Braveheart:
> >> [snip]
> >> > I remember on the internet discussion maybe this very
> >group one
> >> > lady wrote that the most unbelievable part was that a
> >woman
> >> > would give up Sean Connery for what's his name.
> >>
> >> I've heard rumours that there are women who don't like
Sean
> >> Connery... but I haven't met one yet ;-)
> >>
> >>[...]
>
>
> >Oh yes you have - now. I'm afraid my fancy for that man
went
> >plummeting when he made his remarks about it being an ok
> >thing to slap a woman around. What's sad is, I can't
> >distance Connery-the-man from his roles, so I've lost the
> >enjoyment of several films (including "The Man Who WOuld
Be
> >King", dammit).
>
> >To wrench this round to topic again, possibly this is an
> >entirely authentic medieval attitude to women...
>
> I think perhaps a medieval would put it slightly
differently,
> namely that it is incumbent on a husband to ensure that his
> wife does her duty and not stray into error.
>
> Corporal punishment was used by superiors on inferiors with
> some frequency. By this I mean that a student was apt to
> be cuffed or whipped by a teacher, a peasant to have his
> ears boxed by a superior, and a monk told to scourge his
> own flesh. The Bible was then, as now, cited as the
ultimate
> sanction for such behavior.
>
> It was *not* considered proper to injure someone this way.
> As in anything else, the medievals considered that there
> were limits to behavior.
>
> By the way, I recall a discussion on either this group or
> another regarding a marriage contract in Spain of a rather
> high-ranking couple which had the specific provision that
> if the wife were beaten "unreasonably" she was entitled to
> return to her parents home *with* her dowery.
>
> Of course, we today have no idea what "unreasonable" meant,
> but the medievals certainly had an idea.
>
>
"A woman, a dog, and a walnut tree: the more you beat 'em,
the better they be."
- I have no idea whether this proverb is medieval or not, but
I thought someone out there might know?
I think it's true about walnut trees.
Mary Gentle
In article <35166A9E...@gte.com>, am...@gte.com (Alex
Milman) wrote:
>
>
> Tony Jebson wrote:
>
> > John Sloan wrote about Braveheart:
> > [snip]
> > > I remember on the internet discussion maybe this very
group one
> > > lady wrote that the most unbelievable part was that a
woman
> > > would give up Sean Connery for what's his name.
> >
> > I've heard rumours that there are women who don't like
Sean
> > Connery... but I haven't met one yet ;-)
> >
>
> Well, I know one: she prefers Timoty Dalton as James Bond
... :-(But
> even she considered Connery more attractive than Cevin
Costner
Be fair: the average plank of wood is more attractive than
Kevin Costner - and far more interesting.
> so we probably have a consensus about "First Knight". IMHO,
"Escalibur"
> had been much more impressive (but probably made on a
tighter budget).
>
"Excalibur" had the advantage of being closer to Mallory's
Arthur, at least; and the advantage of being made with some
passion. The first and only time in my life that I've ever
cheered fiberglass armour. :)
Curt Emanuel
Alex Milman wrote:
>
> Paul J. Gans wrote: By the way, I recall a discussion on either this
> group or
>
> First of all, there were "beating" and "teaching". It was duty of a head
>
> of a houshold to teach his family and to make these lessons fruitful he
> should
> use his fists, whip, or stick. After had been taught, his "student"
> would bow
> and thank for the lesson. Beating supposed to be a punishment for some
> misdeed or it can be used simply because a head of household felt this
> way.
> It could involve the same instruments (applied in greater quontities) or
> anything
> that was handy. AFAIK, the major difference was that after beating it's
> subject
> was not obliged to say "thank you".
>
> But my impression was that everything was in a "reasonable" category.
I recall reading once that it was not appropriate for any punishment(for
the non-criminal of course) to result in the breaking of the skin or
significant bruising.
This isn't surprising with the risk of infection in an era without
antibiotics and where many people lived in rather unsanitary(by today's
standards) conditions.
I can try to hunt down the references if anyone's interested - but I
can't recall if I read this in something I bought or in a library.
BTW - the above refers to Western Europe.
Curt Emanuel
Paul J. Gans
Liz Broadwell (ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) wrote:
>EddieEffie (eddie...@aol.com) wrote:
>: The biggest difference: in the West, it is the couple who are marrying each
>: other; the priest is witness and celebrant (note, the priest has them recite
>: vows I TAKE THEE...). In the East, the couple never say anything. Not even "I
>: do." The priest is performing the wedding as the representative of God, so it's
>: God making the wedding.
>Er, AFAIK, God is considered to be acting sacramentally in the western
>marriage rite also; it's just that instead of the priest being the
>minister of the rite, the couple being married are. We do have that line
>in the marriage liturgy, "What God has joined together, man must not
>divide" (or "let no man put asunder," in the older translation).
>Yours for better understanding between sister churches,
>Liz "RC" B.
Be a bit careful here. In the west marriage did not become
a sacrament until fairly late.
Paul J. Gans
>>Date: 22 Mar 1998 14:18:42 -0500
> >Of course, we today have no idea what "unreasonable" meant,
>>but the medievals certainly had an idea.
> In the Celtic legend, the Shepherd of
> Muthven(sp.?) the shepherd marries a woman
> who comes out of the lake. If he hits her three
> times without cause, she will return. He merely
> taps her three times over the years to get her attention,
>and loses her. So the mores probably varied between
>nations.
> Cheers,
> John
Hmm. Two different things. In your story I gather that
there was no real cause. In the case I mentioned the
punishment was not to be unreasonable given that there
was cause.
Or do I misunderstand?
Dentarthurdent
>>
>> I've heard rumours that there are women who don't like Sean
>> Connery... but I haven't met one yet ;-)
>>
>>[...]
>
>
>Oh yes you have - now. I'm afraid my fancy for that man went
>plummeting when he made his remarks about it being an ok
>thing to slap a woman around. What's sad is, I can't
>distance Connery-the-man from his roles, so I've lost the
>enjoyment of several films (including "The Man Who WOuld Be
>King", dammit).
Mary,
If it makes you feel any better, I saw a recent interview with Sean
Connery in which he said how much he regretted that remark and that it
was "taken out of context." Whether it was or not, he does seem to
count it as one of the great regrets in his public life. I was
horrifed at the original remark, but I have never quite been able to
really believe he meant it the way it sounded. I am gullible I guess.
Hope this helps.
Lorraine
Dentarthurdent
>Well, I know one: she prefers Timoty Dalton as James Bond ... :-(But
>even she considered Connery more attractive than Cevin Costner
>so we probably have a consensus about "First Knight". IMHO, "Escalibur"
>had been much more impressive (but probably made on a tighter budget).
Anyone preferring Timothy Dalton as 007 has kangaroos in their top
paddock.
Lorraine
Dentarthurdent
Hi Liz and Tony,
I have to get my 2 cents in here as an Orthodox Church historian.
One thing that is different between the two besides the marriage
ceremony is the practices regarding life after divorce or after the
death of a spouse. Tony can give you the details on the canonical
part of it, but I am referring to the actual practices.
Certainly in medieval times and often still today, widows/widowers
tend not to remarry, although they are free to do so. The reason is
as Tony has pointed out below, that God married the couple and
therefore they remain spiritually joined. That's why there's no "til
death do us part" in the ceremony.
In practice, this attitude carries over for many people like myself
who are divorced. In fact, the 2nd marriage ceremony (whether for the
widowed or divorced) differs from the first in that it is not
celebratory in nature, but penitential. It basically states that the
Church is allowing this subsequent marriage to keep the new couple
from the sin of fornication.
Lorraine
On 23 Mar 1998 12:25:20 GMT, ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Liz
Mary Gentle
In article <3517f91f.16236405@gateway>, wa...@axs2k.net
(Dentarthurdent) wrote:
Did he happen to specify exactly the context in which he
thought it _would_ be reasonable to make that remark?
But thanks for the thought, anyway.
Mary
Tony Jebson
Jgissw wrote:
[snip]
> >Speaking of civil wars, how about Richard II: was he the tyrant
> >as claimed by Walsingham or was Bolinbroke the bad guy?
>
> So what is your opinion?
Well, I don't think he was as bad as Walsingham painted him, but I
think he did some really daft things! He (probably) got Thomas
Mowbray to murder his uncle Gloucester and his confiscation of
the Lancastrian inheritance did little but gain sympathy for
Bolinbroke.
He also seems to have rather arbitrarily interferred in local
politics, appointing county officers, etc.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that he was tricked out of
Conway and probably killed sometime in Jan/Feb 1400. I don't
believe he starved _himself_ to death after the failure of the
Epiphany Rising -- the interval between when he probably knew
of its failure (mid Jan?) and when it is known he was dead
(17th Feb but he was probably dead by the 14th) seems too short
to me.
--- Tony Jebson
EddieEffie
>>God is considered to be acting sacramentally in the western
marriage rite also; it's just that instead of the priest being the
minister of the rite, the couple being married are.
Ummm... yeah. The point is, in an Orthodox service, the couple aren't doing
anything; THEY aren't taking into their hands the power to bind, implied by the
Western recital of vows.
>>Yours for better understanding between sister churches,
Well, not to throw in a bad word, but that's not the case... there's ONE
church, and a heck of a lot of heresies. There are no "sister" or "cousin"
churches. The Anglican "branch theory" isn't one the Orthodox subscribe to.
Tony