More on sex crimes in Venice (long)
Afropea
might answer some of the questions posed by members of SHM.
Paul asked what was meant by sodomy in Venice during the 14th and 15th century.
Here's what Ruggeriro had to say--
"Sodomy, then, although it covered a fairly wide range of sexual activity
labeled unnatural, primarily referred to anal intercourse with males or females
or its external simulation. Occasionally, crimes of bestiality and men living
as women were prosecuted as well, but such cases were so rarely heard that they
appeared to have had little relation to the primary concerns of society. The
records seem to suggest, however, a growing concern in the fifteenth century
with anal intercourse and a willingness to pursue this aspect of sodomy more
aggressively, occasionally even into the marriage bed. Nonetheless, the
patterns of prosecution suggest that throughout our period heterosexual anal
intercourse was more a viable form of birth control for some than an illicit
form of sexuality."
I thought the following was interesting--
<<But the definition of sodomy in Renaissance Venice had one further major
component--a distinction was made between the active and passive partner.
Contrary to the vision of most other Western cultures in which the passive
partner in homosexual relations was considered more objectionable, in Venice
the active partner was seen as more culpable. The traditional vision tended to
reflect the sexual stereotypes of society; Passivity was the "normal" sexual
role of the female; thus a male's taking the passive role made his sexuality
"abnormal." Following the same logic, a man who expressed his sexuality
actively, even though it was with another man, was acting essentially as the
male partner. We might expect to find a similar vision in Venice, for as we
have seen in adultery cases, even the most aggressive women had their sexuality
described by the Avoogadori as passive, almost as if active female sexuality
could not even be expressed.
Yet Venice reversed this tradition. The *patiens*, or passive partner, was
normally let off with a light penalty or no penalty at all while the *agens*,
or active partner, was, as we have seen, normally executed. What caused
Venetian perceptions to be unique? Two reasons seem to stand out. First,
age--the passive partner was often the younger partner, frequently referred to
as a boy (*puer*), an adolescent (*adolescnes*), or an individual under legal
age. According to Venetian custom, male children under the age of legal
responsibility were not culpable and thus not prosecute for their crimes. The
second reason, not unrelated to the first, cuts more deeply into the Venetian
perception of criminality. The *agens*, or aggressor, was the initiator of the
misdeed. He made the decision to commit the act and carried it out; the
*patiens* merely submitted himself to the act. Willed crime, as we have seen
over and over again, was traditionally considered more serious. Youth and the
lack of willed initiative, then, seem to have been the keys to reducing the
culpability of passive partners."
The author also mentions that in Florence punishments for the active and
passive partners were equal.
There was also a question here as to how bad prison life was for those
condemned to it. From this quote, it sounds like it was no picnic--
"The comparative leniency of penalties for the young and the passive should not
be allowed to obscure the fact that even they could suffer at the hands of
Venetian discipline in a way distant from the norms of other sex crime
prosecution. A rather gruesome corrective is provided by the case of Carlo
Bomben. As sixteen Carlo was a little too old to gain the full advantage of
youth, but reference was made to his *etate iuvenili*, with the result that for
sodomy he was sentenced to two years in jail followed by three years of
banishment. Seemingly not that stern a penalty, his escape from jail revealed
that is was not so easy a sentence as we might assume. His father, who
apparently had been content that the penalty had been so moderate, hunted down
the youth to convince him to return and serve his sentence. Eventually he
found his son, but Carlo refused to give himself up, claiming that if he did,
he would die. Upset, the father threatened to disinherit his son if he did not
return to jail. At this point the man with whom Carlo was hiding interrupted
the quarrel, saying, "Tell your father your injuries and show him everything,
for you need not feel ashamed before your father." Those injuries, the result
of his torture and time in jail without medical attention, were extensive and
brutal. Not only were his genitals severely damaged, his left arm was so badly
mutilated that it was a doctors' prognosis that the arm would have to be
amputated to save his life. Carlo's lighter penalty in the records had been
devastating in fact for a sixteen-year-old. Passive partners were not burned,
but they could be treated with great harshness."
I thought this might also be of interest--
<<The contrast to the rape of a woman or even a female child is instructive.
First, the penalties for the rape of a male were much more severe. Even a few
years in jail and a sizable fine, reserved for the most serious rapes of women,
were much less then than the virtually mandatory execution of rapists of males.
Moreover, the rape of males was reported with much more physical detail. This
suggest that the lack of detail in cases involving women was less a matter of
prudery or protecting the woman's reputation than a reflection of the lesser
importance of women and their victimization. And finally, homosexual rape
occasionally went up the social scale in a way that rape involving women almost
never did. This seems to be because of the generally mild penalties for the
latter and the extreme penalties for the former. Because death was virtually
certain for convicted homosexual rapists, they selected their victims
essentially without considering penalties. In addition, their sexual appetites
threatened them with death even if they pursued them nonviolently. In
contrast, men who raped women of lower social status could expect minimal
penalties at most. Heterosexual rape that moved up the social scale would have
perhaps more a social than a sexual crime. Of course, women at the higher
social levels were also less available to rapists as, at least ideally, they
were kept as much as possible within the family orbit. Males, however, at all
social levels were allowed more freedom of movement, which meant that they were
easier targets for victimization.
One qualification, however, should be made. It must be remembered that there
was a strong theological component in the stern penalties for even nonviolent
homosexuality. Violence merely made the already required execution easier to
apply. Rape, on the other hand, seemed to be much less a crime of theological
concern. In contemporary interpretations no cities had been destroyed by God's
wrath because of rape."
Eve
Paul J Gans
>Here are some more excerpts from "Boundaries of Eros" by Guido Ruggeriro which
>might answer some of the questions posed by members of SHM.
>Paul asked what was meant by sodomy in Venice during the 14th and 15th century.
Thanks. I've interspersed a few comment below.
> Here's what Ruggeriro had to say--
>"Sodomy, then, although it covered a fairly wide range of sexual activity
>labeled unnatural, primarily referred to anal intercourse with males or females
>or its external simulation. Occasionally, crimes of bestiality and men living
>as women were prosecuted as well, but such cases were so rarely heard that they
>appeared to have had little relation to the primary concerns of society. The
>records seem to suggest, however, a growing concern in the fifteenth century
>with anal intercourse and a willingness to pursue this aspect of sodomy more
>aggressively, occasionally even into the marriage bed. Nonetheless, the
>patterns of prosecution suggest that throughout our period heterosexual anal
>intercourse was more a viable form of birth control for some than an illicit
>form of sexuality."
There seems to have been a narrowing of the definition with
time. Brundage indicates that earlier (and not referring
to Venice) oral sex was considered to be "unnatural" and
thus "sodomy".
I don't consider these two views at all contradictory. The
(presumed) aggressive partner was the (presumed) "cause" and
was to be punished.
On the other hand there seems to have been a serious concern
about male sexuality and dominance. These activities seemed
to have been rather threatening to the Venetians, Thus the
harsh penalty to the (presumed) aggressor.
The (presumed) victim of the rape was likely seen as a true
victim and punished less.
So I see no conflict there.
>The author also mentions that in Florence punishments for the active and
>passive partners were equal.
Yes. I think that we are delving deep into the psyches of the
(male) lawmakers here. That's always a strange place when it comes
to sex, at least in this (male) opinion.
>There was also a question here as to how bad prison life was for those
>condemned to it. From this quote, it sounds like it was no picnic--
>"The comparative leniency of penalties for the young and the passive should not
>be allowed to obscure the fact that even they could suffer at the hands of
>Venetian discipline in a way distant from the norms of other sex crime
>prosecution. A rather gruesome corrective is provided by the case of Carlo
>Bomben. As sixteen Carlo was a little too old to gain the full advantage of
>youth, but reference was made to his *etate iuvenili*, with the result that for
>sodomy he was sentenced to two years in jail followed by three years of
>banishment. Seemingly not that stern a penalty, his escape from jail revealed
>that is was not so easy a sentence as we might assume. His father, who
>apparently had been content that the penalty had been so moderate, hunted down
>the youth to convince him to return and serve his sentence. Eventually he
>found his son, but Carlo refused to give himself up, claiming that if he did,
>he would die. Upset, the father threatened to disinherit his son if he did not
>return to jail. At this point the man with whom Carlo was hiding interrupted
>the quarrel, saying, "Tell your father your injuries and show him everything,
>for you need not feel ashamed before your father." Those injuries, the result
>of his torture and time in jail without medical attention, were extensive and
>brutal. Not only were his genitals severely damaged, his left arm was so badly
>mutilated that it was a doctors' prognosis that the arm would have to be
>amputated to save his life. Carlo's lighter penalty in the records had been
>devastating in fact for a sixteen-year-old. Passive partners were not burned,
>but they could be treated with great harshness."
Yup. Sounds a bit like our current jail system in the US. I've
always wondered about a system that seems to encourage what amounts
to the sexual torture of inmates. If we are going to allow that,
why not film it and sell the videos for lots of money. Get rid
of the national debt that way.... ;-)
>I thought this might also be of interest--
><<The contrast to the rape of a woman or even a female child is instructive.
>First, the penalties for the rape of a male were much more severe. Even a few
>years in jail and a sizable fine, reserved for the most serious rapes of women,
>were much less then than the virtually mandatory execution of rapists of males.
> Moreover, the rape of males was reported with much more physical detail. This
>suggest that the lack of detail in cases involving women was less a matter of
>prudery or protecting the woman's reputation than a reflection of the lesser
>importance of women and their victimization. And finally, homosexual rape
>occasionally went up the social scale in a way that rape involving women almost
>never did. This seems to be because of the generally mild penalties for the
>latter and the extreme penalties for the former. Because death was virtually
>certain for convicted homosexual rapists, they selected their victims
>essentially without considering penalties. In addition, their sexual appetites
>threatened them with death even if they pursued them nonviolently. In
>contrast, men who raped women of lower social status could expect minimal
>penalties at most. Heterosexual rape that moved up the social scale would have
>perhaps more a social than a sexual crime. Of course, women at the higher
>social levels were also less available to rapists as, at least ideally, they
>were kept as much as possible within the family orbit. Males, however, at all
>social levels were allowed more freedom of movement, which meant that they were
>easier targets for victimization.
The opposite side of the coin you've reported on above. Again
the male lawmakers are protecting the male role in all of this.
After all, the sight of a woman simply renders a man uncontrollable
as we all know.... ;-)
>One qualification, however, should be made. It must be remembered that there
>was a strong theological component in the stern penalties for even nonviolent
>homosexuality. Violence merely made the already required execution easier to
>apply. Rape, on the other hand, seemed to be much less a crime of theological
>concern. In contemporary interpretations no cities had been destroyed by God's
>wrath because of rape."
Though what the actual sins of Sodom and Gomorra were is still
debated... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Afropea
says
An issue that this book brings up, however, is even if something is considered
sodomy, how often and how vigorously is it prosecuted? At least at the civic
level. And does it vary from place to place as well as from the differing
centuries?
It's contrary to some philosophies. I recall in ancient Rome it was the other
way around. I vaguely recall hearing that being considered passive participant
was the worst possible accusation in Norse culture.
>On the other hand there seems to have been a serious concern
>about male sexuality and dominance. These activities seemed
>to have been rather threatening to the Venetians, Thus the
>harsh penalty to the (presumed) aggressor.
>
>The (presumed) victim of the rape was likely seen as a true
>victim and punished less.
>
>So I see no conflict there.
>
You don't, but I believe a lot of cultures did. The cult of the "manly" man.
IOW how could any man "allow" himself to be degraded this way? Didn't the
Brundage book indicate that the man who played what was considered the female
role was all the more cursed for upseting God's plan as well as the order of
things in society?
>>The author also mentions that in Florence punishments for the active and
>>passive partners were equal.
>
>Yes. I think that we are delving deep into the psyches of the
>(male) lawmakers here. That's always a strange place when it comes
>to sex, at least in this (male) opinion.
>
And it reminds one that these places were very different in many ways. They
had different cultural mindsets. Have you ever read Baxandall's "Painting and
Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy"?
Yes. That's why the author is careful to say "in contemporary
interpretations". In this context that's all the really matters.
There's a book called "The Origins of Sodomy". I turned a few heads at ILL
when I ordered that one! It's actually not so much the origins of the
practices as much as the origins and changing meaning of the term. Can't
recall the author, I think he's a Medievalist at the University of Chicago.
Eve
Paul J Gans
>>Paul J Gans ga...@panix.com
>says
>>
>>Afropea <afr...@aol.com> wrote:
[major trims]
>>There seems to have been a narrowing of the definition with
>>time. Brundage indicates that earlier (and not referring
>>to Venice) oral sex was considered to be "unnatural" and
>>thus "sodomy".
>An issue that this book brings up, however, is even if something is considered
>sodomy, how often and how vigorously is it prosecuted? At least at the civic
>level. And does it vary from place to place as well as from the differing
>centuries?
I don't think we can know. I looked at it the other 'way round.
Namely as an indication that these things were practiced. Some,
of course, especially those favoring female pleasure, hardly
fit the popular notion we have of knights and chivalry, so it
is good to know that there were possibilities unconsidered (or
at least unmentioned) by Chretien or Malory.
[another large snip]
>>>Youth
>>and the
>>>lack of willed initiative, then, seem to have been the keys to reducing
>>the
>>>culpability of passive partners."
>>
>>I don't consider these two views at all contradictory. The
>>(presumed) aggressive partner was the (presumed) "cause" and
>>was to be punished.
>It's contrary to some philosophies. I recall in ancient Rome it was the other
>way around. I vaguely recall hearing that being considered passive participant
>was the worst possible accusation in Norse culture.
I still think it is, at least in US popular culture. The
active participant is still filling some sort of male role
while the passive one is "feminized".
>>On the other hand there seems to have been a serious concern
>>about male sexuality and dominance. These activities seemed
>>to have been rather threatening to the Venetians, Thus the
>>harsh penalty to the (presumed) aggressor.
>>
>>The (presumed) victim of the rape was likely seen as a true
>>victim and punished less.
>>
>>So I see no conflict there.
>>
>You don't, but I believe a lot of cultures did. The cult of the "manly" man.
>IOW how could any man "allow" himself to be degraded this way? Didn't the
>Brundage book indicate that the man who played what was considered the female
>role was all the more cursed for upseting God's plan as well as the order of
>things in society?
Yes. That's right. But one can look at it as reflecting back
on the male image of maleness. Thus while the passive one is
behaving as "female", the active one is very "unmale". The
possibility that men might enjoy such things must have seemed
very threatening.
Many of us today seem to have a much more fluid interpretation
of sexual roles. But I'm sure that was *not* the case in
the Middle Ages.
>>>The author also mentions that in Florence punishments for the active and
>>>passive partners were equal.
>>
>>Yes. I think that we are delving deep into the psyches of the
>>(male) lawmakers here. That's always a strange place when it comes
>>to sex, at least in this (male) opinion.
>>
>And it reminds one that these places were very different in many ways. They
>had different cultural mindsets. Have you ever read Baxandall's "Painting and
>Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy"?
Sadly, no.
[more large cuts]
>>>Rape, on the other hand, seemed to be much less a crime of
>theological
>>>concern. In contemporary interpretations no cities had been destroyed
>>by God's
>>>wrath because of rape."
>>
>>Though what the actual sins of Sodom and Gomorra were is still
>>debated... ;-)
>Yes. That's why the author is careful to say "in contemporary
>interpretations". In this context that's all the really matters.
I agree.
>There's a book called "The Origins of Sodomy". I turned a few heads at ILL
>when I ordered that one! It's actually not so much the origins of the
>practices as much as the origins and changing meaning of the term. Can't
>recall the author, I think he's a Medievalist at the University of Chicago.
Oh my! I guess sodomy *still* has a bad name.... ;-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Afropea
>>Afropea (Eve) writes
>>And it reminds one that these places were very different in many ways.
> They
>>had different cultural mindsets. Have you ever read Baxandall's "Painting
>and
>>Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy"?
>
>Sadly, no.
You must! It's a classic. This was one of those critical pieces that defined
a new way of approaching the art of the past (although it could be applied to
many other aspects of history as well).
Eve
Eve
Brian M. Scott
On 4 Jan 2002 22:11:06 GMT, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>Afropea <afr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Here are some more excerpts from "Boundaries of Eros" by Guido Ruggeriro which
>>might answer some of the questions posed by members of SHM.
Is this perhaps the Guido Ruggiero who wrote _Violence in Early
Renaissance Venice_?
[...]
Brian
Afropea
>Is this perhaps the Guido Ruggiero who wrote _Violence in Early
>Renaissance Venice_?
It seems to be. Did you read it? Was it any good?
Eve
Simon Pugh
<afr...@aol.com> writes
I have been enjoying your sex threads although I haven't joined in
because I don't know much about medieval sex.
I am struck by the contradiction between what they really got up to and
the attitude of the church to sex and original sin, whilst at the same
time making extensive use of sexual imagery to express divine love.
Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
and the Cart.
They must have been really mixed up <g>.
--
Simon Pugh
Brian M. Scott
I bought and read it a number of years ago. My recollection is that
it was both interesting and informative, but I have to admit that I
was reading it in a bit of a vacuum: Renaissance Italy is not one of
my stronger suits. One of these years I may get around to re-reading
it.
Brian
Afropea
writes
Afropea
><afr...@aol.com> writes
>>>Paul Gans writes
>>
>>>>Afropea (Eve) writes
>>
>>>>And it reminds one that these places were very different in many ways.
>>> They
>>>>had different cultural mindsets. Have you ever read Baxandall's "Painting
>>>and
>>>>Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy"?
>>>
>>>Sadly, no.
>>
>>You must! It's a classic. This was one of those critical pieces that
>defined
>>a new way of approaching the art of the past (although it could be applied
>to
>>many other aspects of history as well).
>>
>>Eve
>That sounds interesting Eve (Baxandall), would you care to tell us more?
Well, only enough to get folks to read the book! There's far too much in it
for me to sum up successfully. And it's only 153 pages so no one has any excuse
for skipping it! ;-)
Baxandall's approach was that of "the period eye". In other words, he proposed
that people saw things differently than we do now based on the experiences they
had at the time. This is based not only on social perception, but on cognitive
perception as well.
In the Renaissance they looked for and valued different qualities in their art
than we do. For example, they might be more concerned with the mathematics of
the composition or the cost of the paint (more important figures should be
painted in more expensive tones)!
Baxandall used the critiques AND contracts written during the period to try to
figure out what was considered important during the time when the work was
made. Doesn't sound that revolutionary now, but it was when it was written
about 30 years ago
BTW, and only slightly off the subject, I read a wonderful book by John Onians
on classical Greece which claimed the the Greeks based the mathematics of their
art on military formations. By "showing off" the subtly of their mathematics
in great works such as the Parthenon they were essentially showing off their
potential military might!) Somehow, I think Baxandall would approve of such a
theory!.
Interestingly enough, in John R. Clarke's "Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions
of Sexuality in Roman Art, 100 b.c. to a.d. 250" Clarke contrasts Baxandall
approach with John Boswell. Boswell tries to identify something from our
culture, in his case the homosexual lifestyle, and tries to place it context of
the past. Baxandall might say that our situation is NOT the same as would have
been in a distant era. Experiences and perceptions were SO different that we
can't look at them as parallel situations transposed in different eras.
Actually, the thing that brought Baxandall to my mind while I was discussing
things with Paul was the difference between Florentines and Venetians.
Baxandall discusses how Florentine merchants were very somber and conservative
in their appearance. Venetians were more colorful. Sort of a difference like
an admiration of a good simple cut of clothes contrasted with a love of
fabulous materials. Florentines found Venetians tacky and flashy. Venetians
found the Florentines dull. In art it's the war between Florentine line and
Venetian color. Of course all this reflected the great differences in the
lifestyles and physical worlds of the two cities.
>I have been enjoying your sex threads
Glad to hear it!
although I haven't joined in
>because I don't know much about medieval sex.
Hope we've been gentle! ;-)
>I am struck by the contradiction between what they really got up to and
>
>the attitude of the church to sex and original sin, whilst at the same
>time making extensive use of sexual imagery to express divine love.
IMHO it's even more confusing than that! According to Ruggiero's book, clerics
were tried separately from the rest of Venetian citizens. Oddly enough, even
for sodomy, the church gave significantly lighter sentences to their own kind.
In fact, when accused, some civilians would try to pass themselves off as
churchmen to get a lighter sentence. This is one of the reasons it appears
there may have been a greater sexual subculture in the church. So though one
might assume that the church would be very strict when it came to sexuality the
reality was much different. At least at this time, in this place.
>Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
>adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
>
>and the Cart.
You could probably do a whole seminar on that subject! Have you ever read the
theories of D.D.R. Owens?
>They must have been really mixed up <g>
I think it's those of us who try to put label on history that get mixed up! ;-)
We'll say that the Middle Ages was a very spiritual age and assume no one had
sex except when absolutely necessary. Or we'll say that it was an "earthy" age
and everyone was sleeping with everyone every which way. The truth is there
was probably a wide variety of sexual experiences. You have a big area of many
cultures which are basically overlapping a variety of previous cultures. And
then you have additional influences from all over. And you'll have different
rules for different classes, different sexes and different ages of life.
Naturally you'll end-up with all sorts of contradictions and complexities.
Just as you do in most historical periods!
It's very frustrating. You can't figure things out just from reading the laws
because they don't necessarily reflect the practices. Paul suggested that laws
reveal that the activities were present or there wouldn't be a law against
them, but though this is possible, it's not necessarily true. Ruggiero
suggests that a lot of the laws may have been due to paranoia rather than what
was really going on. Ruggiero notes an incredible increase of sodomy laws in
15th century Venice. He asks whether this was because there was a new wave of
male/male sexual subculture, perhaps due to the rise in popularity of ancient
cultures? Or suggests that perhaps these new laws came into being due to a
fear that such a thing MIGHT happen and thus turn Venice into a very real Sodom
to be destroyed by a very real and very ticked off God. Hard to say.
It's also difficult to use art and literature as sources. They may reflect
ideals, fears or wishful thinking rather than practice. Or they could be
symbolic. And then there's the danger of assuming things from a lack of
evidence or even making assumptions as to WHY there is a lack of evidence.
Sexual matters may have not been mentioned out of modesty, fear or because they
were just not considered important.
Many things that we "think" are sexual signs, aren't. Like the "ennobling
love" concept described by Jaeger. Or there will be seemingly innocuous
symbols and references which are loaded with sexual meaning as were those
described by Michael Camille in "The Medieval Art of Love". You'll have
fabliaux which people had thought were the exclusive to the "earthy" lower
classes, turn out to be equally favored by the upper classes who also enjoyed
Arthurian romances! So I suppose the key is NOT to stereotype. Neither the
culture nor the individuals. I shudder to think what future historians make of
us! ;-)
Afropea
Thanks for mentioning it. I think I'll try to get a hold of it some time and
read it myself!
Simon Pugh
<afr...@aol.com> writes
>> Simon Pugh Si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk
> writes
>
>Afropea
>><afr...@aol.com> writes
>>>>Paul Gans writes
>>>
>>>>>Afropea (Eve) writes
>>>
>>>>>And it reminds one that these places were very different in many ways.
>>>> They
>>>>>had different cultural mindsets. Have you ever read Baxandall's "Painting
>>>>and
>>>>>Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy"?
>>>>
>>>>Sadly, no.
>>>
>>>You must! It's a classic. This was one of those critical pieces that
>>defined
>>>a new way of approaching the art of the past (although it could be applied
>>to
>>>many other aspects of history as well).
>>>
>>>Eve
>
>>That sounds interesting Eve (Baxandall), would you care to tell us more?
>
>Well, only enough to get folks to read the book! There's far too much in it
>for me to sum up successfully. And it's only 153 pages so no one has any excuse
>for skipping it! ;-)
It's in the university library so I'll give it go. I am a bit over
extended on reading at the moment but 153 pages doesn't sound too bad.
By the way I have no background in art history to I get out of my depth
very quickly <g>
>
>Baxandall's approach was that of "the period eye". In other words, he proposed
>that people saw things differently than we do now based on the experiences they
>had at the time. This is based not only on social perception, but on cognitive
>perception as well.
>
>In the Renaissance they looked for and valued different qualities in their art
>than we do. For example, they might be more concerned with the mathematics of
>the composition or the cost of the paint (more important figures should be
>painted in more expensive tones)!
>
>Baxandall used the critiques AND contracts written during the period to try to
>figure out what was considered important during the time when the work was
>made. Doesn't sound that revolutionary now, but it was when it was written
>about 30 years ago
>
>BTW, and only slightly off the subject, I read a wonderful book by John Onians
>on classical Greece which claimed the the Greeks based the mathematics of their
>art on military formations. By "showing off" the subtly of their mathematics
>in great works such as the Parthenon they were essentially showing off their
>potential military might!) Somehow, I think Baxandall would approve of such a
>theory!.
Interesting, but do you think that the military often is the driving
force behind scientific advances and that it would be only natural to
make use of it in other fields? Showing off yes, but military showing
off, I'm not so sure.
>
>Interestingly enough, in John R. Clarke's "Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions
>of Sexuality in Roman Art, 100 b.c. to a.d. 250" Clarke contrasts Baxandall
>approach with John Boswell. Boswell tries to identify something from our
>culture, in his case the homosexual lifestyle, and tries to place it context of
>the past. Baxandall might say that our situation is NOT the same as would have
>been in a distant era. Experiences and perceptions were SO different that we
>can't look at them as parallel situations transposed in different eras.
I haven't read John R Clarke but I would be very suspicious of trying
find parallels with modern gay lifestyles in the past, sounds like some
kind of vested interest to me.
>
>Actually, the thing that brought Baxandall to my mind while I was discussing
>things with Paul was the difference between Florentines and Venetians.
>Baxandall discusses how Florentine merchants were very somber and conservative
>in their appearance. Venetians were more colorful. Sort of a difference like
>an admiration of a good simple cut of clothes contrasted with a love of
>fabulous materials. Florentines found Venetians tacky and flashy. Venetians
>found the Florentines dull. In art it's the war between Florentine line and
>Venetian color. Of course all this reflected the great differences in the
>lifestyles and physical worlds of the two cities.
>
>>I have been enjoying your sex threads
>
>Glad to hear it!
>
>although I haven't joined in
>>because I don't know much about medieval sex.
>
>Hope we've been gentle! ;-)
One of the things that crossed my mind was oral sex, did they do it? You
may have gathered that I am interested in the origin of syphilis. Non
venereal syphilis (Bejel) occurs in the Middle East and usually affect
the mouth. Crusader oro-genital contact might be a good way to get the
infection into the right area. Of course this could never be anything
but speculation.
>
>>I am struck by the contradiction between what they really got up to and
>>
>>the attitude of the church to sex and original sin, whilst at the same
>>time making extensive use of sexual imagery to express divine love.
>
>IMHO it's even more confusing than that! According to Ruggiero's book, clerics
>were tried separately from the rest of Venetian citizens. Oddly enough, even
>for sodomy, the church gave significantly lighter sentences to their own kind.
>In fact, when accused, some civilians would try to pass themselves off as
>churchmen to get a lighter sentence. This is one of the reasons it appears
>there may have been a greater sexual subculture in the church. So though one
>might assume that the church would be very strict when it came to sexuality the
>reality was much different. At least at this time, in this place.
That's strange, as you said I would have thought they would have been
more strict. Perhaps with all the sexual imagery they were exposed to
the could excuse them from becoming inflamed by it, the Song of Songs
for instance. Incidentally do you think the church intentionally tried
to draw the sting of things like the Song of Songs by turning it into a
religious metaphor? Then there is the metamorphosis of courtly love from
the real thing into chaste version it later became, was this also the
work of the church or a reflection of changing attitudes to women.
>
>>Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
>>adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
>>
>>and the Cart.
>
>You could probably do a whole seminar on that subject! Have you ever read the
>theories of D.D.R. Owens?
No I haven't, more books to read no doubt <g>. Do you have a title?
It always struck me that the Chretien de Troyes romances were written
very much with the enjoyment of women in mind, so different from
Mallory.
>
>>They must have been really mixed up <g>
>
>I think it's those of us who try to put label on history that get mixed up! ;-)
> We'll say that the Middle Ages was a very spiritual age and assume no one had
>sex except when absolutely necessary. Or we'll say that it was an "earthy" age
>and everyone was sleeping with everyone every which way. The truth is there
>was probably a wide variety of sexual experiences. You have a big area of many
>cultures which are basically overlapping a variety of previous cultures. And
>then you have additional influences from all over. And you'll have different
>rules for different classes, different sexes and different ages of life.
>Naturally you'll end-up with all sorts of contradictions and complexities.
>Just as you do in most historical periods!
>
>It's very frustrating. You can't figure things out just from reading the laws
>because they don't necessarily reflect the practices. Paul suggested that laws
>reveal that the activities were present or there wouldn't be a law against
>them, but though this is possible, it's not necessarily true. Ruggiero
>suggests that a lot of the laws may have been due to paranoia rather than what
>was really going on. Ruggiero notes an incredible increase of sodomy laws in
>15th century Venice. He asks whether this was because there was a new wave of
>male/male sexual subculture, perhaps due to the rise in popularity of ancient
>cultures? Or suggests that perhaps these new laws came into being due to a
>fear that such a thing MIGHT happen and thus turn Venice into a very real Sodom
>to be destroyed by a very real and very ticked off God. Hard to say.
And the issue of laws based on fear of what might happen is not unique
to the past <g>
>
>It's also difficult to use art and literature as sources. They may reflect
>ideals, fears or wishful thinking rather than practice. Or they could be
>symbolic. And then there's the danger of assuming things from a lack of
>evidence or even making assumptions as to WHY there is a lack of evidence.
>Sexual matters may have not been mentioned out of modesty, fear or because they
>were just not considered important.
>
>Many things that we "think" are sexual signs, aren't. Like the "ennobling
>love" concept described by Jaeger. Or there will be seemingly innocuous
>symbols and references which are loaded with sexual meaning as were those
>described by Michael Camille in "The Medieval Art of Love". You'll have
>fabliaux which people had thought were the exclusive to the "earthy" lower
>classes, turn out to be equally favored by the upper classes who also enjoyed
>Arthurian romances! So I suppose the key is NOT to stereotype. Neither the
>culture nor the individuals. I shudder to think what future historians make of
>us! ;-)
They will probably see advertisements as our art and regard us as
seriously deranged <g>
>
>Eve
>http://www.trivium.net/books/lion.htm
Light bulb moment, I looked up the URL
>
You have probably gathered that my knowledge of these topics is too
superficial to sustain a serious conversation but I enjoy dabbling.
--
Simon Pugh
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
superficial to sustain a serious conversation but I enjoy dabbling."
--
Simon Pugh
Hmmmmm.
'Strod'nry!
Simon [Pogue Pugh, as he prefers to be called] could just put that at
the TOP, rather than at the BOTTOM of ALL his posts and save himself and
others a great deal of wasted time and effort.
But then, perhaps he's a "bottom man" ---- I certainly would not know.
Deus Vult.
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Simon Pugh
<D._Spencer@_Hines_TD.?.yale.edu.invalid> writes
>"You have probably gathered that my knowledge of these topics is too
>superficial to sustain a serious conversation but I enjoy dabbling."
>--
>Simon Pugh
>-------------------
>
>Hmmmmm.
>
>'Strod'nry!
>
>Simon [Pogue Pugh, as he prefers to be called] could just put that at
>the TOP, rather than at the BOTTOM of ALL his posts and save himself and
>others a great deal of wasted time and effort.
>
>But then, perhaps he's a "bottom man" ---- I certainly would not know.
>
>Deus Vult.
Hmmm, frankly Spencer, some mothers do have 'em.
>
>"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
>kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
>fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
>First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
>
>"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
>nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
>
>All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
>
>All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
>author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
>attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
>given, in writing.
> ----------
>
>D. Spencer Hines
>
>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>
>Vires et Honor
>
>
--
Simon Pugh
Afropea
says
I don't think that should be a problem. And if you need any help with
anything, just let me know and I'll do what I can.
<snips>
>>BTW, and only slightly off the subject, I read a wonderful book by John
>Onians
>>on classical Greece which claimed the the Greeks based the mathematics
>of their
>>art on military formations. By "showing off" the subtly of their mathematics
>>in great works such as the Parthenon they were essentially showing off
>their
>>potential military might!) Somehow, I think Baxandall would approve of
>such a
>>theory!.
>
>Interesting, but do you think that the military often is the driving
>force behind scientific advances and that it would be only natural to
>make use of it in other fields? Showing off yes, but military showing
>off, I'm not so sure.
>
Personally I think that there are a lot of reasons behind scientific and
artistic advances. However, from his thesis it sounds very believable that the
military was the driving force in this particular case. The author goes as far
as to describe the "egg and dart" motif as a sword and shield, which actually
sounds quite credible. Of course, I don't know if asserting one's mathematical
knowledge as a sign of military power is what the Greeks were actually trying
to do, but IMHO it's an interesting thought.
>>Interestingly enough, in John R. Clarke's "Looking at Lovemaking:
Constructions
>>of Sexuality in Roman Art, 100 b.c. to a.d. 250" Clarke contrasts Baxandall
>>approach with John Boswell. Boswell tries to identify something from our
>>culture, in his case the homosexual lifestyle, and tries to place it context
>of
>>the past. Baxandall might say that our situation is NOT the same as would
>have
>>been in a distant era. Experiences and perceptions were SO different that
>we
>>can't look at them as parallel situations transposed in different eras.
>
>I haven't read John R Clarke but I would be very suspicious of trying
>find parallels with modern gay lifestyles in the past, sounds like some
>
>kind of vested interest to me.
>
I agree. Clarke is against the idea. He took the Baxandall approach as
opposed to Boswell's. However, Boswell is very popular among many and his
books can be quite seductive without a balanced view.
<snip>
>
>One of the things that crossed my mind was oral sex, did they do it?
It wasn't discussed in the Venetian book. I got the impression that it wasn't
considered a major part of male/male sex habits, or that if it was it wasn't
important enough to mention. There was also no reference to it in regards to
hetrosexual couples. And female/female relationships weren't mentioned at all.
I think the Brundage book might make mention of this as being considered
unexceptable behavior, but I can't recall. Perhaps someone who owns the
Brundage book could look it up for us.
You
>
>may have gathered that I am interested in the origin of syphilis. Non
>venereal syphilis (Bejel) occurs in the Middle East and usually affect
>the mouth. Crusader oro-genital contact might be a good way to get the
>infection into the right area. Of course this could never be anything
>but speculation.
Interesting. Could be true, but even if it is it might not be mentioned in
records for one reason or another. I'm trying to think of any image in art
that might have a picture of this and I'm drawing a blank (I know of something
in the early 16th century, but that would be too late to be OT) I'll keep my
eyes open and if I come across anything I'll let you know.
>>>I am struck by the contradiction between what they really got up to and
>>>
>>>the attitude of the church to sex and original sin, whilst at the same
>>>time making extensive use of sexual imagery to express divine love.
>>
>>IMHO it's even more confusing than that! According to Ruggiero's book,
>clerics
>>were tried separately from the rest of Venetian citizens. Oddly enough,
>even
>>for sodomy, the church gave significantly lighter sentences to their own
>kind.
>>In fact, when accused, some civilians would try to pass themselves off
>as
>>churchmen to get a lighter sentence. This is one of the reasons it appears
>>there may have been a greater sexual subculture in the church. So though
>one
>>might assume that the church would be very strict when it came to sexuality
>the
>>reality was much different. At least at this time, in this place.
>
>That's strange, as you said I would have thought they would have been
>more strict. Perhaps with all the sexual imagery they were exposed to
>the could excuse them from becoming inflamed by it, the Song of Songs
>for instance.
OTH, the church was made up by a lot of secular people who just found it a good
road to advancement rather than a means of expressing their piety! So though
there may be some sincere clerics who were scandalized by these things there
were still enough in important positions that they turned their heads at was
going on (possibly to do the same themselves.) I'm currently reading a book on
Italian courtesans and some of the episodes involving various Popes are
astonishing!
Another cynical reason might be that a lot of these clerics were from wealthy
families who gave hefty financial support to the church. Or that the church
just liked to assert it's authority by contradicting the sexual authority. But
these are just my theories. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of church
history would know better. And remember! This was just a circumstance in one
particular place at a particular time. In some communities the church may well
have been far stricter!
Incidentally do you think the church intentionally tried
>to draw the sting of things like the Song of Songs by turning it into a
>
>religious metaphor?
YES!
Then there is the metamorphosis of courtly love from
>
>the real thing into chaste version it later became, was this also the
>work of the church or a reflection of changing attitudes to women.
I've read that after the crusades in Southern France there was a reaction
against the troubadours and their sexy lyrics leading to this change. It also
led to some of the troubadours leaving for Italy thus influencing the music and
poetry scene there!
>>>Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
>>>adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
>>>
>>>and the Cart.
>>
>>You could probably do a whole seminar on that subject! Have you ever read
>the
>>theories of D.D.R. Owens?
>No I haven't, more books to read no doubt <g>. Do you have a title?
He discusses it in his biography of Eleanore of Aquitaine. He parallels the
two queens suggesting that some of their similarities (at least in the minds of
the contemporary audience) might have been intentional.
>It always struck me that the Chretien de Troyes romances were written
>very much with the enjoyment of women in mind, so different from
>Mallory.
Wasn't it commissioned by Marie of Champagne? I vaguely recall reading that
Chretian wasn't too thrilled including all the immorality in the stories
nevertheless Marie insisted!
<snip>
>>Eve
>>http://www.trivium.net/books/lion.htm
>Light bulb moment, I looked up the URL
You'll just get my play I'm afraid. Hope you won't be too disappointed!
>You have probably gathered that my knowledge of these topics is too
>superficial to sustain a serious conversation but I enjoy dabbling.
Any contribution to on topic conversation is always appreciated! ;-)
Eve
Afropea
thought this, extracted from the "Boundaries of Eros" book, might be of
interest--
"Marriage, then, especially in the ranks of the more established members of the
lower start of society, seems to have carried with it some expectation of
affection and a certain level of sexuality. That failing, many chose adultery.
Yet, an indication of how strongly marriage served as a focal point of sexual
life is revealed by the fact that even in adultery many couples ran off
together to form new, marriagelike pairings. Those were more discreet and
perhaps less drawn by the marital ideal were probably much more capable of
escaping prosectuion. Their sexuality seems to have had two diverse faces; one
moving down the social scale and largely exploitative and a second with a
common social status often involving neighbors, friend, or persons associated
by craft. In both cases other people did not seem to be particularly troubled
by the sexuality of such relationships"
Another interesting theory the author came up with was in regards to courtly
love. Although the upper classes were more business-like in their marriage
arrangements, there appears to be more actual "courtship" among the lower
classes. Ruggiero suggests that rather than a trickly down theory, the
troubadours may have taken this "quaint" lower class habit, dressed it up in
fancy clothes and presented it to the rich and powerful as a fashion.
In the closing paragraph of the book, Ruggerio summarizes his conclusions on
the sexual irregularities in Venice--
"The boundaries of Eros in Renaissance Venice seem to have been rather broadly
drawn, delineating an area of discourse between a culture of licit sexuality
that focused on marriage and the family and a multifaceted culture of illicit
sexuality. That discourse, viewed from the perspective of sex crimes, reveal a
rich complexity. Fornication that could threaten the formation of family units
was at the same time an informal stage on the way to marriage. Adultery that
could and did tear families apart also provided an escape that may have kept
some together. And tellingly, when it did destroy marriages, it often did so
merely to set up a new, marriagelike paring. Even God was drawn into the
discourse and survived its indignities. Sodomy, however, seemed less capable
of establishing a discourse with the dominant culture, especially in its
primary form, homosexuality. It was clearly perceived as a threat to society
as a whole and its central institution, the heterosexual family, thus is was
the crime, moral strictures aside, that seemed most dangerous, virtually
revolutionary to Venetian eyes. There rhetoric became stern reality;
discipline became repression. In the end, however, God and family, government
and tradition, discipline ad discourse, all so successful in drawing boundaries
for human society, were largely incapable of really doing so for the sexuality
of Renaissance Venice. They all set their boundaries, but Eros, as the Greeks
long ago had learned, refused to be limited--perhaps the ultimate proof of
divinity--and oversaw an uneasy cohabitation of a licit and an illicit culture
of sexuality."
Afropea
>"Marriage, then, especially in the ranks of the more established members
>of the
>lower start of society, seems to have carried with it some expectation of
>affection and a certain level of sexuality
Arrrgh! "strata" not "start"! Damn those spellcheckers! ;-)
Eve
Paul J Gans
>In article <20020104211930...@mb-cn.aol.com>, Afropea
><afr...@aol.com> writes
>>>Paul Gans writes
>>
>>>>Afropea (Eve) writes
>>
>>>>And it reminds one that these places were very different in many ways.
>>> They
>>>>had different cultural mindsets. Have you ever read Baxandall's "Painting
>>>and
>>>>Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy"?
>>>
>>>Sadly, no.
>>
>>You must! It's a classic. This was one of those critical pieces that defined
>>a new way of approaching the art of the past (although it could be applied to
>>many other aspects of history as well).
>>
>>Eve
>>
>>Eve
>That sounds interesting Eve (Baxandall), would you care to tell us more?
>I have been enjoying your sex threads although I haven't joined in
>because I don't know much about medieval sex.
It worked about the same as modern sex, except that women
had not yet been told that nice ones didn't enjoy it. ;-)
>I am struck by the contradiction between what they really got up to and
>the attitude of the church to sex and original sin, whilst at the same
>time making extensive use of sexual imagery to express divine love.
Imagine what you'd think of folks today from a collections
of conservative Sunday sermons...
>Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
>adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
>and the Cart.
Oh, adultery was *always* condemned. As it is now. But
what was the point of all of that testosterone-powered
prowess if not to convince some female that you were
superior breeding stock? And of course women were ranked
the way men were. The Queen was the most desireable woman
around.
>They must have been really mixed up <g>.
Sure.... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <Ff4_7.223$H_3....@eagle.america.net>, D. Spencer Hines
><D._Spencer@_Hines_TD.?.yale.edu.invalid> writes
>>"You have probably gathered that my knowledge of these topics is too
>>superficial to sustain a serious conversation but I enjoy dabbling."
>>--
>>Simon Pugh
>>-------------------
>>
>>Hmmmmm.
>>
>>'Strod'nry!
>>
>>Simon [Pogue Pugh, as he prefers to be called] could just put that at
>>the TOP, rather than at the BOTTOM of ALL his posts and save himself and
>>others a great deal of wasted time and effort.
>>
>>But then, perhaps he's a "bottom man" ---- I certainly would not know.
>>
>>Deus Vult.
>Hmmm, frankly Spencer, some mothers do have 'em.
Is this one of Hines's posts in which he shows great restraint
and forebearance and to which only prigs could take exception?
I do hope that David Read can explain it.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>>Simon Pugh si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk
>says
[big snip]
>>One of the things that crossed my mind was oral sex, did they do it?
>It wasn't discussed in the Venetian book. I got the impression that it wasn't
>considered a major part of male/male sex habits, or that if it was it wasn't
>important enough to mention. There was also no reference to it in regards to
>hetrosexual couples. And female/female relationships weren't mentioned at all.
> I think the Brundage book might make mention of this as being considered
>unexceptable behavior, but I can't recall. Perhaps someone who owns the
>Brundage book could look it up for us.
I looked it up last week. It was certainly in there as
one major form of sodomy. And it was known both with
a male and with a female recipient.
Speaking for myself, I suspect that oral sex goes back a long
way before the Middle Ages. Perhaps thousands and thousands
of years.
I doubt that there is much new in sexual behavior.
[big snip]
The separate treatment of religious and lay persons goes back
a long way as well. It is tied up with the investiture
controversy and the independence of the church from the
secular arm. But the church judged its own.
---- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
[...]
>BTW, and only slightly off the subject, I read a wonderful book by John Onians
>on classical Greece which claimed the the Greeks based the mathematics of their
>art on military formations. By "showing off" the subtly of their mathematics
>in great works such as the Parthenon they were essentially showing off their
>potential military might!) Somehow, I think Baxandall would approve of such a
>theory!.
Urg. That's exactly the sort of idea that triggers loud warning bells
for me.
[...]
Brian
Michael L. Siemon
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
+ On 06 Jan 2002 03:55:24 GMT, afr...@aol.com (Afropea) wrote:
+
+ [...]
+
+ >BTW, and only slightly off the subject, I read a wonderful book by John
+ >Onians
+ >on classical Greece which claimed the the Greeks based the mathematics of
+ >their
+ >art on military formations. By "showing off" the subtly of their mathematics
+ >in great works such as the Parthenon they were essentially showing off their
+ >potential military might!) Somehow, I think Baxandall would approve of such
+ >a
+ >theory!.
+
+ Urg. That's exactly the sort of idea that triggers loud warning bells
+ for me.
Yes. It is _obvious_ garbage, only possible to someone totally ignorant
of Greek mathematics. There is a _faint_ possibility that the earliest,
naive, Pythagorean "counting" math (such as comes into Eleatic paradox)
might have some resonance with phalanx tactics -- but even that is a
huge leap (and utterly unfounded in any Greek source!)
The entasis of the columns of the Parthenon has _zilch_ to do with
any military "formation". And the basic plans of the temples have a
long and utterly unmilitary pedigree (with a heavy dose of Egyptian
influence -- from a time when Egypt is a total joke, militarily...)
Afropea
>way before the Middle Ages. Perhaps thousands and thousands
>of years.
>
>I doubt that there is much new in sexual behavior.
Well, people have probably tried to do everything they could think of in an
attempt at finding pleasure but it doesn't mean that their society will
approve.
According to John R. Clarke in Ancient Rome oral sex was considered
inappropriate for good citizens (although it's not as bad if it is performed ON
you. It's only the one doing it who is beneath contempt and that was solved
through the use of a slave or prostitute). This holds true for both Roman men
and women and had to do with the perceived "sacredness" of the mouth. I don't
know if any of this attitude was carried into the Middle Ages.
Eve
Afropea
Well, it does sound a bit outrageous, but it was interesting, and he made a
good case. I'm not taking it as gospel but it did offer some interesting
possibilities.
Perhaps someday you'll get to take a look at the book and can let me know what
you think. I can't recall the exact title, but it's fairly recent. If you're
interested, even just to scoff at it, I could track it down. He is a well
known classical art historian, although that doesn't mean that you have to buy
everything he has to say!
Afropea
>of Greek mathematics. There is a _faint_ possibility that the earliest,
>naive, Pythagorean "counting" math (such as comes into Eleatic paradox)
>might have some resonance with phalanx tactics -- but even that is a
>huge leap (and utterly unfounded in any Greek source!)
>
>The entasis of the columns of the Parthenon has _zilch_ to do with
>any military "formation". And the basic plans of the temples have a
>long and utterly unmilitary pedigree (with a heavy dose of Egyptian
>influence -- from a time when Egypt is a total joke, militarily...)
Well, I don't think this was a literal thing. I think it was more a question
of the fact that they had a great understanding and control of mathematics and
by showing this understanding and control they demonstrated a source of power.
But then, I have limited understanding of mathematics. Don't condemn the book
based my accounting of it in case I have misunderstood it. It might be garbage
or it might be merely my interpretation of it!
Eve
David Read
writes
>Is this one of Hines's posts in which he shows great restraint
>and forebearance
I wouldn't say that.
> and to which only prigs could take exception?
Certainly not.
>
>I do hope that David Read can explain it.
Good Lord, no, I would not be so presumptuous as to try to offer an
*explanation*. I could offer an *opinion*, with hard data provided to
support that opinion, and would be prepared to argue it out with the
opinions of others, *provided that those opinions were also supported by
hard data*. However, I'm still waiting to see if Martin Reboul is
willing to share with us the *hard data* concerning how Spencer "started
it" with him before I would even think about venturing any opinions
(beyond any that are already on the record) concerning Spencer Hines'
apparent enthusiasm for the human fundament as a metaphor and rhetorical
device.
cheers,
--
David Read
Ma's out, Pa's out, let's talk rude!
Pee! Po! Belly! Bum! Drawers!
Dance in the garden in the nude,
Pee! Po! Belly! Bum! Drawers!
Let's write rude words all down the street;
Stick out our tongues at the people we meet;
Let's have an intellectual treat!
Pee! Po! Belly! Bum! Drawers!
Flanders & Swann
Paul J Gans
>>Speaking for myself, I suspect that oral sex goes back a long
>>way before the Middle Ages. Perhaps thousands and thousands
>>of years.
>>
>>I doubt that there is much new in sexual behavior.
>Well, people have probably tried to do everything they could think of in an
>attempt at finding pleasure but it doesn't mean that their society will
>approve.
I agree. It is interesting that societies in general put limits
on this sort of thing, but almost never totally agree on what the
limits ought to be.
>According to John R. Clarke in Ancient Rome oral sex was considered
>inappropriate for good citizens (although it's not as bad if it is performed ON
>you. It's only the one doing it who is beneath contempt and that was solved
>through the use of a slave or prostitute). This holds true for both Roman men
>and women and had to do with the perceived "sacredness" of the mouth. I don't
>know if any of this attitude was carried into the Middle Ages.
I don't know for sure either. I do know that before what
has been called (wrongly, I think) the sexual revolution of
the 60s, similar attitudes held in the US. There were things
that prostitutes did that nice women were not supposed to
even know about.
Ha! ;-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <a1b1qs$8hj$8...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>writes
>>Is this one of Hines's posts in which he shows great restraint
>>and forebearance
>I wouldn't say that.
>> and to which only prigs could take exception?
>Certainly not.
>>
>>I do hope that David Read can explain it.
> Good Lord, no, I would not be so presumptuous as to try to offer an
>*explanation*. I could offer an *opinion*, with hard data provided to
>support that opinion, and would be prepared to argue it out with the
>opinions of others, *provided that those opinions were also supported by
>hard data*. However, I'm still waiting to see if Martin Reboul is
>willing to share with us the *hard data* concerning how Spencer "started
>it" with him before I would even think about venturing any opinions
>(beyond any that are already on the record) concerning Spencer Hines'
>apparent enthusiasm for the human fundament as a metaphor and rhetorical
>device.
>cheers,
>--
>David Read
Perhaps Martin got fed up with the way people were being
treated? You know, knight errant to the rescue sort of
thing.
I'd say that was entirely appropriate to this newsgroup,
wouldn't you?
--- Paul J. Gans
David Read
writes
>
>Perhaps Martin got fed up with the way people were being
>treated? You know, knight errant to the rescue sort of
>thing.
>
>I'd say that was entirely appropriate to this newsgroup,
>wouldn't you?
And how can a knight in shining armour show his mettle unless there are
dragons to be slain and fair damsels to be rescued ?
I wonder who gave this particular crusader for truth and justice the
favour that he wears ? And just how many black knights are there left to
be conquered ?
cheers,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Read
"If writers would adhere to the golden Rule for an Historian,
viz. to write nothing which they did not know to be true,
the Duke apprehends they would have but little to tell."
The Duke of Wellington to Sir John Alexander
Simon Pugh
<da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <a1b1qs$8hj$8...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>writes
>
>>Is this one of Hines's posts in which he shows great restraint
>>and forebearance
>
>I wouldn't say that.
>
>> and to which only prigs could take exception?
>
>Certainly not.
>>
>>I do hope that David Read can explain it.
>
> Good Lord, no, I would not be so presumptuous as to try to offer an
>*explanation*. I could offer an *opinion*, with hard data provided to
>support that opinion, and would be prepared to argue it out with the
>opinions of others, *provided that those opinions were also supported by
>hard data*. However, I'm still waiting to see if Martin Reboul is
>willing to share with us the *hard data* concerning how Spencer "started
>it" with him before I would even think about venturing any opinions
>(beyond any that are already on the record) concerning Spencer Hines'
>apparent enthusiasm for the human fundament as a metaphor and rhetorical
>device.
>
>cheers,
It's a shame my news reader takes out your sig but in the spirit of
Flanders and Swann:
Mud mud glorious mud
Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood
So follow me follow
Down to the hollow
And there let us wallow in glorious mud
Any one for a face pack?
But seriously folks perhaps this is a sign that things are getting back
to normal on shm.
--
Simon Pugh
Afropea
Here's some background on John Onians.
Born in 1942, he studied Classics and Classical Archaeology at the University
of Cambridge, and European art history and the Classical Tradition at the
Courtauld and Warburg Institutes, London. He's taught at the Universities of
Leeds, Syracuse and Amsterdam, and is currently a Professor and the Director of
the World Art Research Program in the School of World Art Studies of Anglia and
Consultive Chair, Research and Academic Affairs at the Sterling and Francine
Clark Art Institute. He's also the founding editor of the journal "Art and
History".
The first book I read of his was "Art And Thought in the Hellenistic Age--The
Greek World View 350-50 BC." This was through the classics dept. and taught by
an archeologist (my Greek professor of Art History was a strict formalist and
would never let any history or speculative theories taint the purity of her
concept of art in a vacuum). The book blurb claims his book, "Bearers of
Meaning" is a classic, but I'm not personally familiar with it.
The title of the book in question is "Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece
and Rome". The particular theory (one among many) is in chapter 2. Here's the
google site which would include reviews of the book.
http://www.google.com/search?q=John+Onians+Classical+Art+and+the+Cultures+
of+Greece+and+Rome&btnG=Google+Search
What I read on Google seem good, but I admit I haven't time to read them all.
I was unable to access the review in the Journal of Archeology and I'm very
sorry about that. I'm sure it would have been interesting. If anyone else
does read this review I'd love to know what was said.
Not to say that good reviews and impressive credentials mean a book can't be
garbage, but I do think that you ought to at least look through it before you
make your condemnation. I'd be very interested in hearing your opinions after
reading the book, good or bad.
Eve
Afropea
Perhaps, but unless you guys manage to work Venetian sex crimes into the
conversation, perhaps we should change the header?
Eve
David Read
<si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>It's a shame my news reader takes out your sig but in the spirit of
>Flanders and Swann:
>Mud mud glorious mud
>Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood
>So follow me follow
>Down to the hollow
>And there let us wallow in glorious mud
>
>Any one for a face pack?
>
>But seriously folks perhaps this is a sign that things are getting back
>to normal on shm.
You mean you've set up your newsreader to cut out all my great
signature files ?! There's another new one below you're going to miss
too, Simon.
I just lurv thread drift.
As for getting back to normal on s.h.m, this calls for a Bonzo track
for Martin.
"We are normal and we want our freedom*
We are normal and we dig Bert Weedon"
* Cue next "Braveheart" thread.
cheers,
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Read
"I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet"
Michael J. Fox in _Back to the Future_
Simon Pugh
<afr...@aol.com> writes
>>
>>That's strange, as you said I would have thought they would have been
>>more strict. Perhaps with all the sexual imagery they were exposed to
>>the could excuse them from becoming inflamed by it, the Song of Songs
>>for instance.
>
>OTH, the church was made up by a lot of secular people who just found it a good
>road to advancement rather than a means of expressing their piety! So though
>there may be some sincere clerics who were scandalized by these things there
>were still enough in important positions that they turned their heads at was
>going on (possibly to do the same themselves.) I'm currently reading a book on
>Italian courtesans and some of the episodes involving various Popes are
>astonishing!
I have just started a book called "The Great Pox: The French Disease in
Renaissance Europe". It has a whole chapter devoted to The French
Disease in the Papal Court, but I haven't got there yet.
>
>Another cynical reason might be that a lot of these clerics were from wealthy
>families who gave hefty financial support to the church. Or that the church
>just liked to assert it's authority by contradicting the sexual authority. But
>these are just my theories. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of church
>history would know better. And remember! This was just a circumstance in one
>particular place at a particular time. In some communities the church may well
>have been far stricter!
Didn't the clergy get special treatment in Trial By Ordeal? Instead of
the red hod poker or whatever they had to pray in the church all night
and if they were guilty god would strike them dead?
>
>Incidentally do you think the church intentionally tried
>>to draw the sting of things like the Song of Songs by turning it into a
>>
>>religious metaphor?
>
>YES!
>
>Then there is the metamorphosis of courtly love from
>>
>>the real thing into chaste version it later became, was this also the
>>work of the church or a reflection of changing attitudes to women.
>
>I've read that after the crusades in Southern France there was a reaction
>against the troubadours and their sexy lyrics leading to this change. It also
>led to some of the troubadours leaving for Italy thus influencing the music and
>poetry scene there!
Could the culture in Southern France also be something to do with the
Cathars and their different attitude to women?
>
>>>>Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
>>>>adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
>>>>
>>>>and the Cart.
>>>
>>>You could probably do a whole seminar on that subject! Have you ever read
>>the
>>>theories of D.D.R. Owens?
>>No I haven't, more books to read no doubt <g>. Do you have a title?
>
>He discusses it in his biography of Eleanore of Aquitaine. He parallels the
>two queens suggesting that some of their similarities (at least in the minds of
>the contemporary audience) might have been intentional.
>
>>It always struck me that the Chretien de Troyes romances were written
>>very much with the enjoyment of women in mind, so different from
>>Mallory.
>
>Wasn't it commissioned by Marie of Champagne? I vaguely recall reading that
>Chretian wasn't too thrilled including all the immorality in the stories
>nevertheless Marie insisted!
So Chretien says, but do we believe? him.
>
><snip>
>
>>>Eve
>>>http://www.trivium.net/books/lion.htm
>>Light bulb moment, I looked up the URL
>
>You'll just get my play I'm afraid. Hope you won't be too disappointed!
>
>>You have probably gathered that my knowledge of these topics is too
>>superficial to sustain a serious conversation but I enjoy dabbling.
>
>Any contribution to on topic conversation is always appreciated! ;-)
>
>Eve
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
writes
<snip>
>
>
>>Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
>>adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
>>and the Cart.
>
>Oh, adultery was *always* condemned. As it is now. But
>what was the point of all of that testosterone-powered
>prowess if not to convince some female that you were
>superior breeding stock? And of course women were ranked
>the way men were. The Queen was the most desireable woman
>around.
if you got caught. My impression is that it was accepted as a fact of
life as long as people were discrete and didn't get caught.
My point was more to do with literature. In the Knight and the Cart, the
Queen and Lancelot were clearly doing something outrageous and yet we
are not invited to think badly of them. They continue in their noble way
throughout the story without coming to a sticky end as punishment for
their sins.
Later in the Arthurian stories things do go wrong for them but I am not
sure when the later part of the story was written. Perhaps the story
Guinevere's infidelity was common knowledge at the time the Knight and
the Cart was written? Doesn't her name mean faithless?
>
>
>>They must have been really mixed up <g>.
>
>Sure.... ;-)
>
> ---- Paul J. Gans
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
<da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <WRQk1rBh...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk>, Simon Pugh
><si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>It's a shame my news reader takes out your sig but in the spirit of
>>Flanders and Swann:
>>Mud mud glorious mud
>>Nothing quite like it for cooling the blood
>>So follow me follow
>>Down to the hollow
>>And there let us wallow in glorious mud
>>
>>Any one for a face pack?
>>
>>But seriously folks perhaps this is a sign that things are getting back
>>to normal on shm.
>
> You mean you've set up your newsreader to cut out all my great
>signature files ?! There's another new one below you're going to miss
>too, Simon.
>
Don't worry, It only cuts out sigs in replies. But it does turn sigs
blue.
--
Simon Pugh
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
the conversation, perhaps we should change the header?"
"Eve"
-------------------------
Tamara Barber Mazzei Home Page
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Tamara Barber Mazzei, alias "Edith Cortland Lee", alias "Eve", alias
"Afropea" ---- and her Home Page.
http://www.trivium.net/about.htm
And:
So many false identities ---- interesting.
"Tamara Barber Mazzei (that's me) is a technical and historical fiction
writer with a special interest in genealogy, medieval history, and the
Web."
And yes ---- Advertising.
Deus Vult.
tiglath
"D. Spencer Hines" <D._Spencer _Hine...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:s6n_7.351$H_3....@eagle.america.net...
> "Perhaps, but unless you guys manage to work Venetian sex crimes into
> the conversation, perhaps we should change the header?"
>
> "Eve"
> -------------------------
>
> Tamara Barber Mazzei Home Page
>
> Hmmmmmmmmm.
>
> Tamara Barber Mazzei, alias "Edith Cortland Lee", alias "Eve", alias
> "Afropea" ---- and her Home Page.
>
> http://www.trivium.net/about.htm
>
> Afr...@aol.com
>
> And:
>
> tma...@trivium.net
>
> So many false identities ---- interesting.
>
> Afr...@aol.com
>
> "Tamara Barber Mazzei (that's me) is a technical and historical fiction
> writer with a special interest in genealogy, medieval history, and the
> Web."
Q: What's a technical fiction writer.
A: She wrote Windows XP's User Guide.
Afropea
says
>
><afr...@aol.com> writes
>>>
>>>That's strange, as you said I would have thought they would have been
>>>more strict. Perhaps with all the sexual imagery they were exposed to
>>>the could excuse them from becoming inflamed by it, the Song of Songs
>>>for instance.
>>
>>OTH, the church was made up by a lot of secular people who just found it
>a good
>>road to advancement rather than a means of expressing their piety! So
>though
>>there may be some sincere clerics who were scandalized by these things
>there
>>were still enough in important positions that they turned their heads at
>was
>>going on (possibly to do the same themselves.) I'm currently reading a
>book on
>>Italian courtesans and some of the episodes involving various Popes are
>>astonishing!
>
>I have just started a book called "The Great Pox: The French Disease in
>
>Renaissance Europe". It has a whole chapter devoted to The French
>Disease in the Papal Court, but I haven't got there yet.
Oh, that sounds fascinating! I'll file the title away in my mind (are we weird
or what? ;-))
>>Another cynical reason might be that a lot of these clerics were from wealthy
>>families who gave hefty financial support to the church. Or that the church
>>just liked to assert it's authority by contradicting the sexual authority.
> But
>>these are just my theories. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of
>church
>>history would know better. And remember! This was just a circumstance
>in one
>>particular place at a particular time. In some communities the church
>may well
>>have been far stricter!
>
>Didn't the clergy get special treatment in Trial By Ordeal? Instead of
>the red hod poker or whatever they had to pray in the church all night
>and if they were guilty god would strike them dead?
I don't know. I only know, as Paul pointed out, that the church was
responsible for dealing with their own. A major bone of contention for rulers
such as England's Henry II.
<snip>
>>
>>Then there is the metamorphosis of courtly love from
>>>
>>>the real thing into chaste version it later became, was this also the
>>>work of the church or a reflection of changing attitudes to women.
>>
>>I've read that after the crusades in Southern France there was a reaction
>>against the troubadours and their sexy lyrics leading to this change.
>It also
>>led to some of the troubadours leaving for Italy thus influencing the music
>and
>>poetry scene there!
>
>Could the culture in Southern France also be something to do with the
>Cathars and their different attitude to women?
>
That's one of many, many, theories. Many of them sound good, and many of them
conflict! I'm not so sure about that one. Didn't the Cathars push an equality
of the sexes? Troubadour poetry hardly encouraged that. OTH, I think it was
that same creative freedom and looser attitudes of the South was able to
accommodate both the troubadours and the Cathars. I also think the reactions
against the Cathars ultimately effected the troubadours. But that's JMHO and
I'm hardly an expert on this.
<snip>
>>>It always struck me that the Chretien de Troyes romances were written
>>>very much with the enjoyment of women in mind, so different from
>>>Mallory.
>>
>>Wasn't it commissioned by Marie of Champagne? I vaguely recall reading
>that
>>Chretian wasn't too thrilled including all the immorality in the stories
>>nevertheless Marie insisted!
>
>So Chretien says, but do we believe? him.
>
I'm willing to buy it, though you're right, we don't know for sure. Actually,
one of his big stories was about a faithful couple. Wasn't it "Erec and
Enide"?
Afropea
>From: "D. Spencer Hines"
>"Perhaps, but unless you guys manage to work Venetian sex crimes into
>the conversation, perhaps we should change the header?"
>
>"Eve"
>-------------------------
>
>Tamara Barber Mazzei Home Page
>
>Hmmmmmmmmm.
>
>Tamara Barber Mazzei, alias "Edith Cortland Lee", alias "Eve", alias
>"Afropea" ---- and her Home Page.
>
>http://www.trivium.net/about.htm
>
>Afr...@aol.com
>
>And:
>
>tma...@trivium.net
>
>So many false identities ---- interesting.
>
>Afr...@aol.com
>
>"Tamara Barber Mazzei (that's me) is a technical and historical fiction
>writer with a special interest in genealogy, medieval history, and the
>Web."
>
>And yes ---- Advertising.
>
>Deus Vult.
>
the play! Did you like it?
Spencer, you should really do better research before you post things. I'm
afraid you've made several assumptions that weren't based on fact.
"Eve" is a net name I've used for years. Long before SHM. I continue to use
it as many others use their "net" names.
Edith is my real name. This is the first place that a name I've always hated
might actually be appreciated and I don't get to use it. Oh well!
My play is not on my homepage. I have no homepage. Tamara is a VERY nice
woman who has been so kind as to let me use her page to house my fiction. I've
never met her personally. I met her in a Medieval related mailing list.
Personally, other than writing a Medieval play I have no particular interest in
historic fiction. I don't even read it. Not a big fiction reader in general.
I tend towards nonfiction. And I've no interest in genealogy, although I do
like medieval history and enjoy the web. At times. Other than the fact that
it would be childish for me to make this up, those who have read my posts for a
while can probably attest that this is obviously not a false front.
So what did you think of the play?
Eve
Simon Pugh
<afr...@aol.com> writes
<snip>
>>>going on (possibly to do the same themselves.) I'm currently reading a
>>book on
>>>Italian courtesans and some of the episodes involving various Popes are
>>>astonishing!
>>
>>I have just started a book called "The Great Pox: The French Disease in
>>
>>Renaissance Europe". It has a whole chapter devoted to The French
>>Disease in the Papal Court, but I haven't got there yet.
>
>Oh, that sounds fascinating! I'll file the title away in my mind (are we weird
>or what? ;-))
Arrizabalaga, Henderson and French. Its declared objective is to deal
with the new disease from the point of view of contemporary observers,
what they thought and did about it.
>
<snip>
>>>Chretian wasn't too thrilled including all the immorality in the stories
>>>nevertheless Marie insisted!
>>
>>So Chretien says, but do we believe? him.
>>
>I'm willing to buy it, though you're right, we don't know for sure. Actually,
>one of his big stories was about a faithful couple. Wasn't it "Erec and
>Enide"?
>
edition of Chretien de Troyes (Indiana University Press) is very good.
--
Simon Pugh
Afropea
Thanks for the recommendations. I'll keep them in mind!
Eve
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
Fascinating!
Eve 'The Temptress' ---- blanket, picnic basket, reading material ----
and post-prandial treats aplenty.
Lovely!
But, somewhat tawdry, I fear.
Multiple Identities ---- But She So Obviously WANTS to be found!
As to the play, it needs more women characters ---- toothsome ones.
Great-Grandmother Alienor d'Aquitaine is a bit long in the tooth by
1192, [70] when William The Marshal [Yes, that's the correct form of his
name] is in his mid-forties ---- and Henry II has been dead since 1189.
Richard I 'Coeur-de-Lion' is King in 1192.
So, we need some recasting and character modification.
Otherwise, it reads a great deal like one of our Plantagenet Family
Reunions ---- except they all speak French and are not so stuffy.
Cheers.
Deus Vult.
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Afropea" <afr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020107160934...@mb-ci.aol.com...
Lblanch001
>
> "We are normal and we want our freedom*
> We are normal and we dig Bert Weedon"
>
>* Cue next "Braveheart" thread.
I guess I need an interpreter. I recall "We are normal and we want our freedom"
as a line from Marat/Sade and am having trouble relating that to Braveheart.
And I haven't got a clue who Bert Weedon is/was/will be.
--
Laura Blanchard
lblan...@aol.com (or lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu)
http://www.r3.org/
(see http://orb.rhodes.edu/ to reach major medieval gateway sites)
David Read
<lblan...@aol.com> writes
>David Read writes:
>
>>
>> "We are normal and we want our freedom*
>> We are normal and we dig Bert Weedon"
>>
>>* Cue next "Braveheart" thread.
>
>I guess I need an interpreter. I recall "We are normal and we want our freedom"
>as a line from Marat/Sade and am having trouble relating that to Braveheart.
>And I haven't got a clue who Bert Weedon is/was/will be.
Where to begin...
Martin wrote that he preferred the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band to Flanders &
Swan. We're talking English musical whimsy here. So I've dropped in a
couple of references to some Bonzo tunes, "My Pink Half of the
Drainpipe" and "We are Normal". Viv Stanshall apparently nicked the line
"We are normal and we want our Freedom" from Marat/Sade. Bert Weedon was
a very staid guitarist who wrote a teach-yourself-to-play-the-guitar
book in the 50's or 60's, best beloved by all aspiring pasty-faced
British youth of the time with ambitions to play guitar and to be rock
stars. If one was a small child in the 60's Bert Weedon, complete with
Pringle sweater, will be mostly remembered for appearing on a TV show
with Muriel Young and Pussycat Willum.
Scottish rebels in the Middle Ages (traditionally covered in fetching
patterns of blue woad, showing their fundaments to the world), loudly
proclaimed their desire for freedom, just like French revolutionaries
and would-be rock stars. All quite normal, really. Hence the
"Braveheart" reference.
And from there, we go Back to the Future...
cheers,
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Read
<da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> writes
> If one was a small child in the 60's Bert Weedon, complete with
>Pringle sweater, will be mostly remembered for appearing on a TV show
>with Muriel Young and Pussycat Willum.
Oh no he wasn't. That was Wally Whyton with Pussycat Willum. Perhaps
Bert guested for the Christmas shows. Google rules.
Michael L. Siemon
<afr...@aol.com> wrote:
...
+ The title of the book in question is "Classical Art and the Cultures of Greece
+ and Rome". The particular theory (one among many) is in chapter 2. Here's
+ the
+ google site which would include reviews of the book.
+
+ http://www.google.com/search?q=John+Onians+Classical+Art+and+the+Cultures+
+ of+Greece+and+Rome&btnG=Google+Search
The blurb is exceptionally unpromising. Effectively, "let's psycho-
analyze over a 1000 years of classical culture(s) by way of projecting
arbitrary modern sensibilities onto their artifacts." If I come across
the book in a library or store, I'll take a closer look -- but the ad
for it makes it appear barfworthy.
Afropea
I'd hate to think you'd judge a book by an ad. I don't think that describes it
at all. If anything, I think the attempt is the opposite. Whether it succeeds
or not is another story.
Glad you're willing to take a look in the library and store and plan to remain
objective! ;-)
Eve
Brian M. Scott
>Afropea <afr...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>>According to John R. Clarke in Ancient Rome oral sex was considered
>>inappropriate for good citizens (although it's not as bad if it is performed
>>ON
>>you. It's only the one doing it who is beneath contempt and that was solved
>>through the use of a slave or prostitute). This holds true for both Roman men
>>and women and had to do with the perceived "sacredness" of the mouth. I don't
>>know if any of this attitude was carried into the Middle Ages.
>I don't know for sure either. I do know that before what
>has been called (wrongly, I think) the sexual revolution of
>the 60s, similar attitudes held in the US. There were things
>that prostitutes did that nice women were not supposed to
>even know about.
>Ha! ;-)
There's a nicely realistic take on that in a decent medieval-ish
fantasy for youngsters by Tamora Pierce. The protagonist, Keladry,
is the only female squire in a kingdom that until very recently
has had all of the expected gender and class inequities and
prejudices; most of its citizens probably still have most of them.
She's advising a couple of young girls who want to follow in her
footsteps.
'Nobody will make it easy. You'll be called names and
accused of doing things you'd expect from the worst
slattern who works the upstairs rooms at inns.' Though
girls of their age and station weren't supposed to know
of such things, Kel's experience was that they nearly
always did.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
says...
>For Brian and Michael S.
>Here's some background on John Onians.
[...]
>The title of the book in question is "Classical Art and the Cultures
>of Greece and Rome".
I saw some descriptions on the web when I went searching for him. To
be honest, what I saw almost guarantees that I'll not go looking for
the book: it sounds like speculation about things that are at best
inaccessible and at worst too ill-defined to be discussed usefully.
This may just be a blind spot, of course. Or it may be that the
descriptions that I found don't do justice to the book.
[...]
Brian
Michael L. Siemon
<afr...@aol.com> wrote:
+ >"Michael L. Siemon" m...@panix.com
...
+ I'd hate to think you'd judge a book by an ad. I don't think that describes
+ it
+ at all. If anything, I think the attempt is the opposite. Whether it
+ succeeds
+ or not is another story.
+
+ Glad you're willing to take a look in the library and store and plan to remain
+ objective! ;-)
I'm seldom "objective" -- but I do believe in both self-criticism and
a (reasonable) critical reading of others, even when initial impressions
are not favorable. Publisher's blurbs are indeed not a particularly good
basis for choosing one's reading matter!
Paul J Gans
>In article <a1cmqa$fkf$2...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>writes
>>
>>Perhaps Martin got fed up with the way people were being
>>treated? You know, knight errant to the rescue sort of
>>thing.
>>
>>I'd say that was entirely appropriate to this newsgroup,
>>wouldn't you?
> And how can a knight in shining armour show his mettle unless there are
>dragons to be slain and fair damsels to be rescued ?
>
> I wonder who gave this particular crusader for truth and justice the
>favour that he wears ? And just how many black knights are there left to
>be conquered ?
There is an endless series of adventures waiting. In the
end Arthur will die, but so will Mordred.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Let's all calm down... Trial by ordeal went out fairly early,
the Church having become convinced that the outcome did not
represent the will of God.
The Church had many faces and many heads. In the main it was
a force for what we'd consider good. Their main attempts in
dealing with sinners, especially those inside the Church was
to reform them. The secular arm was less interested in
the re-education of malefactors and more in their eradication.
>>
>>Incidentally do you think the church intentionally tried
>>>to draw the sting of things like the Song of Songs by turning it into a
>>>
>>>religious metaphor?
>>
>>YES!
Exactly. Jews have done some of this too. But not as much.
>>
>>Then there is the metamorphosis of courtly love from
>>>
>>>the real thing into chaste version it later became, was this also the
>>>work of the church or a reflection of changing attitudes to women.
>>
>>I've read that after the crusades in Southern France there was a reaction
>>against the troubadours and their sexy lyrics leading to this change. It also
>>led to some of the troubadours leaving for Italy thus influencing the music and
>>poetry scene there!
>Could the culture in Southern France also be something to do with the
>Cathars and their different attitude to women?
Whoa! That's a whole 'nother story. The culture in southern
France was far more liberal in many ways than that of the much
more austere north. So too was the culture in Catalonia and
in Tuscany. A new and excellent book covering a good bit of
the culture of southern France and the Cathars, the troubadors,
etc., is:
Fredric L. Cheyette, _Ermengard of Narbonne and the World
of the Troubadors_, Cornell, 2001, ISBN 0-8014-3952-3.
>>
>>>>>Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
>>>>>adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
>>>>>
>>>>>and the Cart.
>>>>
>>>>You could probably do a whole seminar on that subject! Have you ever read
>>>the
>>>>theories of D.D.R. Owens?
>>>No I haven't, more books to read no doubt <g>. Do you have a title?
>>
>>He discusses it in his biography of Eleanore of Aquitaine. He parallels the
>>two queens suggesting that some of their similarities (at least in the minds of
>>the contemporary audience) might have been intentional.
>>
>>>It always struck me that the Chretien de Troyes romances were written
>>>very much with the enjoyment of women in mind, so different from
>>>Mallory.
>>
>>Wasn't it commissioned by Marie of Champagne? I vaguely recall reading that
>>Chretian wasn't too thrilled including all the immorality in the stories
>>nevertheless Marie insisted!
>So Chretien says, but do we believe? him.
Huh? Chretien says almost nothing about his own feelings,
unless I misremember. Many folks think that that it was
through Chretien that the chivalric ideas of the south came
to the north.
The stories are generally assumed to have been composed for
oral performance. And the audience would have been the court
of Marie of Champagne -- which would have had a substantial
female component. The stories were *immensely* popular and
have remained so for the next 800+ years. Of course, they
were "cleaned up" in the 19th century, the only one that
felt the need to do so.
I doubt that the original auditors thought them immoral.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Eve
>>>>http://www.trivium.net/books/lion.htm
>>>Light bulb moment, I looked up the URL
>>
>>You'll just get my play I'm afraid. Hope you won't be too disappointed!
>>
>>>You have probably gathered that my knowledge of these topics is too
>>>superficial to sustain a serious conversation but I enjoy dabbling.
>>
>>Any contribution to on topic conversation is always appreciated! ;-)
>>
>>Eve
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>In article <a1b0c5$8hj$2...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>writes
><snip>
>>
>>
>>>Also the attitude to sex in the early phase of courtly love when
>>>adultery was not condemned such as Lancelot and Guinevere in The Knight
>>>and the Cart.
>>
>>Oh, adultery was *always* condemned. As it is now. But
>>what was the point of all of that testosterone-powered
>>prowess if not to convince some female that you were
>>superior breeding stock? And of course women were ranked
>>the way men were. The Queen was the most desireable woman
>>around.
>I thought someone would pick me up on that. Of course it was condemned
>if you got caught. My impression is that it was accepted as a fact of
>life as long as people were discrete and didn't get caught.
>My point was more to do with literature. In the Knight and the Cart, the
>Queen and Lancelot were clearly doing something outrageous and yet we
>are not invited to think badly of them. They continue in their noble way
>throughout the story without coming to a sticky end as punishment for
>their sins.
As with all sets of social mores I think it impossible to
summarize them correctly in a paragraph or two -- even if
I understood them at all... ;-)
Nevertheless.... Illicit liasons were a norm among the
nobility. It isn't true that everyone engaged in them or
even that a majority did, but it was common enough. The
social problem was age disparity. Men married when they
finally inherited the family lands. Typically they were
older when that happened. And they often ended up with
very young wives.
Women were not then shy about expressing sexual needs or
judging the men around them that way. That sort of repression
is quite modern and hardly exists in other time periods.
So you have the perhaps 18-year old sexually active woman
married to the perhaps 50-year old noble lord (who is often
not home). And she is surrounded by men of noble birth,
often landless and young, who are possessed of prowess
(or they would not be where they were.)
What would the men think in this situation? What might
happen? A smile here, a nod there,...
So the general rule then seems to have been that *if* you
must do it, don't make a fool of your husband. Privacy
was important, and, in the typical noble household, almost
impossible to obtain. So some folks likely knew.
[NB: recall that when Lancelot visits Guinevere who is
being held captive in the tower, they enjoy each other,
but cautiously, because Sir Kay is sleeping several feet
away.]
For example, there is ample evidence that Arthur (who in
this story is represented as being old, or at least older)
knows that Lancelot and Guinevere (who are much younger)
are involved. But as long as it is not "public" knowlege
he is content not to shatter the peace of the kingdom by
*making* it public (which he'd have to do if he charges
Lancelot with adultery).
It is only when their affair becomes public knowlege that
his hand is forced and he must deal with the situation --
a situation that leads to the end of Camelot.
Of course, this is not in _The Knight of the Cart_, but a
later story.
>Later in the Arthurian stories things do go wrong for them but I am not
>sure when the later part of the story was written. Perhaps the story
>Guinevere's infidelity was common knowledge at the time the Knight and
>the Cart was written? Doesn't her name mean faithless?
Whoa! These are *ALL* stories. Stories written later built
upon the "gaps" in the earlier stories. Most later writers
would have known of the _Knight of the Cart_. The progression
of these stories is complex (there are tons of them), one of
the most important collections being the Vulgate Cycle,
a *huge* collection of the tales of the deeds of Lancelot
*before* the final end of Camelot.
Of course, the fit among the stories isn't perfect. And
even later stories modified the earlier ones. In particular
entire modern generations have grown up on the expurgated
versions in which Guinevere and Lancelot have this tremendous
Platonic relationship going.
>>
>>
>>>They must have been really mixed up <g>.
>>
>>Sure.... ;-)
>>
>> ---- Paul J. Gans
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>...
Let's not be too harsh. I've noticed over the years that
folks discover a Neat Fact from another field, apply it to
theirs, and run with it.
Examples abound. Professionally I'm most familiar with "The
Second Law says life could not have evolved" and similar
statements.
You are too, I know... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael L. Siemon
wrote:
...
+ Let's not be too harsh. I've noticed over the years that
+ folks discover a Neat Fact from another field, apply it to
+ theirs, and run with it.
+
+ Examples abound. Professionally I'm most familiar with "The
+ Second Law says life could not have evolved" and similar
+ statements.
+
+ You are too, I know... ;-)
My favorites are actually on sci.math, in the innumerable
(countably so, I hope...) "Goedel showed [something or
other incoherent]" threads. I always read Torkel Franzen,
at least at the start of the various threads he response to...
:-)
Paul J Gans
>...
Oh, you mean the famous "Goedel showed that you couldn't
prove anything so why bother being logical?" argument? ;-)
----- Paul J. Gans
Michael L. Siemon
wrote:
...
+ Oh, you mean the famous "Goedel showed that you couldn't
+ prove anything so why bother being logical?" argument? ;-)
That's the most common subtext :-) What is weird and wonderful
is the number of folks who think it applies (with Goedel's
apparently necessary "proof" as blessing!) _selectively_ to
_their_ context, without their having a _clue_ what the context
was for the actual Goedel theorems!
Lblanch001
> Martin wrote that he preferred the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band to Flanders &
>Swan. We're talking English musical whimsy here.
Okay, thanks. I got the Flanders and Swann bit (I'm a gnu, I'm agnother gnu...)
and I found Bert Weedon in all his glory on the web after the hasty posting,
but I missed the bonzo doo dah thing entirely. And I fell asleep midway through
the first of the two Braveheart tapes and never went back to it...
Gilmore, Phyllis
afr...@aol.com (Afropea) wrote:
> I'd hate to think you'd judge a book by an ad.
Or even back cover or dust cover copy.
I admit fiction is the worst--I never cease to be amused when the
"advertising" materials demonstrate that the person(s) who composed them
never read the innards.
But I've found the same thing with nonfiction--and I'm not just talking
about blurbs on Amazon.com.
Phyllis
Paul J Gans
>...
I know. *My* favorite warping is to sometimes claim that
Goedel's proof shows that I can be correct even if I can't
prove it.
Of course, that's wrong too, the way I stated it.
--- Paul J. Gans
Brian M. Scott
<si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>Later in the Arthurian stories things do go wrong for them but I am not
>sure when the later part of the story was written. Perhaps the story
>Guinevere's infidelity was common knowledge at the time the Knight and
>the Cart was written? Doesn't her name mean faithless?
No. It's a French version of Welsh <Gwenhwyfar> (standard modern
spelling; <Gwenhwyvar> is a more typical medieval form). The name
subsequently acquired a connotation of 'one who is no better than she
should be', but this has nothing to do with its etymology. Cf. the
obsolete use of <gill> ~ <jill> 'girl, wench', from the personal name,
as a contemptuous term for a woman.
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<m...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <a1dppd$ar0$4...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com>
>wrote:
>+ Let's not be too harsh. I've noticed over the years that
>+ folks discover a Neat Fact from another field, apply it to
>+ theirs, and run with it.
>+ Examples abound. Professionally I'm most familiar with "The
>+ Second Law says life could not have evolved" and similar
>+ statements.
>+ You are too, I know... ;-)
>My favorites are actually on sci.math, in the innumerable
>(countably so, I hope...) "Goedel showed [something or
>other incoherent]" threads. I always read Torkel Franzen,
>at least at the start of the various threads he response to...
>:-)
They do tend to go downhill a bit after that, don't they? Sci.math is
too much of a busman's holiday for me, but I used to enjoy just about
anything by Ilias Kastanas.
Brian
Martin Reboul
D. Spencer Hines
> Yeah, Sure.
>
> Fascinating!
>
> Eve 'The Temptress' ---- blanket, picnic basket, reading material ----
> and post-prandial treats aplenty.
Er, hate to spoil your fantasy David - that isn't her!
> Lovely!
Not bad - not a patch on Eve however. But then you don't know what she looks
like, do you?
> But, somewhat tawdry, I fear.
Tut tut! Was it me who said you were 'ungentlemanly, rude, oafish, coarse
and unpolished'? I was being too generous.....
> Multiple Identities ---- But She So Obviously WANTS to be found!
You are so easily confused aren't you David? Little wonder the 'Intelligence
Community' dispensed with your services as soon as they decently could!
> As to the play, it needs more women characters ---- toothsome ones.
Not raunchy enough eh Spence?
> Great-Grandmother Alienor d'Aquitaine is a bit long in the tooth by
> 1192, [70] when William The Marshal [Yes, that's the correct form of his
> name] is in his mid-forties ---- and Henry II has been dead since 1189.
Lacking in teeth I'd have thought? Even so, she's about the same age as you,
give or take a couple of years?
> Richard I 'Coeur-de-Lion' is King in 1192.
>
> So, we need some recasting and character modification.
>
> Otherwise, it reads a great deal like one of our Plantagenet Family
> Reunions ---- except they all speak French and are not so stuffy.
I thought Great Grandfather John had you turned away from the last one? What
was it he said? "I may be a nasty, sneaky, bad-tempered loser, but that
Spencer's quite beyond the pale! William - make sure he's off the guest list
next time...." Something like that....
I hope you're reading this Edie?
You see - at least two of us have read it, so don't worry!
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
David Read wrote...
> Paul J Gans writes
>
> >
> >Perhaps Martin got fed up with the way people were being
> >treated? You know, knight errant to the rescue sort of
> >thing.
Knight Errored I prefer....
> >I'd say that was entirely appropriate to this newsgroup,
> >wouldn't you?
>
> And how can a knight in shining armour show his mettle unless there are
> dragons to be slain and fair damsels to be rescued ?
>
> I wonder who gave this particular crusader for truth and justice the
> favour that he wears ? And just how many black knights are there left to
> be conquered ?
Ah, so much evil, so little time. More than I alone can handle in the great
Realm of Usenet alas. I haven't even subscribed to alt.talk.abortion yet,
never mind alt.talk origins......
As for wearing 'favours', I need no snotty hankie on my lance to tell right
from wrong!
And I always thought I was 'The Black Knight'? (with the pale face - it's a
sort of 'gothy' thing). Chivalry seems sadly lacking in the ranks of mine
enemies.
Cheers
Martin
(Iron Duke's wise words snipped)
Simon Pugh
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> writes
"faithless" story.
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
Of course they are all stories! My point was that if the Chretien had
used part of a larger Welsh legend about Guinevere's infidelity as a
source for the Knight of the Cart, then perhaps the fact that he doesn't
deal with consequences in this particular story doesn't mean the his
audience did not know that in the end Guinevere was exposed. This is
pure speculation of course but we can't necessarily assume tacit
approval just because Chretien doesn't deal with consequences in The
Knight of the Cart. But as you say it is probably more likely that the
rest of the story was added later.
>
>Of course, the fit among the stories isn't perfect. And
>even later stories modified the earlier ones. In particular
>entire modern generations have grown up on the expurgated
>versions in which Guinevere and Lancelot have this tremendous
>Platonic relationship going.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>They must have been really mixed up <g>.
>>>
>>>Sure.... ;-)
>>>
>>> ---- Paul J. Gans
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans
--
Simon Pugh
Afropea
>"Martin Reboul" martin...@virgin.net
>
>
>>D. Spencer Hines
>
<Lots of snips of Spencer's fantasies about Tiglath's fantasies of me. Geez
guys, get a life! ;-)
>> Multiple Identities ---- But She So Obviously WANTS to be found!
Huh? LOL! I'm totally confused. Didn't realize I was lost. Honestly
Spencer, I don't think using a net name is that unusual and crediting my real
name on some fiction I wrote isn't all that extraordinary. When I start
leaving my address and phone number around, then you'll have a good case. But
I assure you, that's something I WON'T be doing! ;-) (Any efforts to seriously
track me down would result in a phone call to the police dept. and another to
my lawyer!) ;-)
I do regret that you didn't have the opportunity to use the title "Three Faces
of Eve" now that we've established that there aren't three of me. There is
still the opportunity to use "The Lady Eve" which would be nice because I love
Preston Sturges. And what? No "Happy New Years, Eve"? Tsk, tsk!
>
>> As to the play, it needs more women characters ---- toothsome ones.
Thanks for the comment. So you're saying there's not enough sex? Damned if I
do, damned if I don't! ;-) A few people did suggest that, but I didn't really
think it worked in the context of the play. If I ever do a sequel or the movie
version I can work in Agnes who's "not from the Rhineland" and Ingeborg of
Denmark. Maybe a few of John's laundresses and his Isabelle. Hopefully that
would make you and the others happy.
>
>> Great-Grandmother Alienor d'Aquitaine is a bit long in the tooth by
>> 1192, [70] when William The Marshal [Yes, that's the correct form of his
>> name] is in his mid-forties ---- and Henry II has been dead since 1189.
>
>> Richard I 'Coeur-de-Lion' is King in 1192.
>>
>> So, we need some recasting and character modification.
I'm surprised at you. Weren't you one of the big advocates of "since
Braveheart is a work of fiction it has every right to modify history"? AND I
stated in the very beginning that I modified things for what I thought would be
the benefit of the play. I said, "this is not a historic recreation" and as a
result I took whatever liberties I felt necessary.
Frankly, compared to most historic fiction I've come across from that used this
period, I think I did pretty well with historic accuracy! And unless the
transition from my copy to the net changed the dates, I think I had most of
them correct. I did play a bit with the ages of some of the characters though,
but tried not to do it too much.
>> Otherwise, it reads a great deal like one of our Plantagenet Family
>> Reunions ---- except they all speak French and are not so stuffy.
Since most of the people reading this would be English speakers I figured it
would be a bad idea to write it in French. Not only that, if I tried to be too
authentic I'd have to switch from Northern French and Southern French here and
there, and maybe even throw in some Norman French. WAAAAY too confusing for
most folks!
I agonized over the spellings of the names and how characters should refer to
each other but decided to go with the easiest choices. I want this to be of
interest to people who have no knowledge of the period as well as for those who
do.
Umm, when you talk about your family reunions, are these more of those fantasy
things of yours or something real that Plantagenet descendants go to? If the
latter, those must be pretty wild events.
As for the historic characters, I figured that some of them would be a
pretentious lot who liked to show off their knowledge, power, taste. That's
how I interpreted Eleanore and Richard. I thought Henry would be a lot looser,
John would be snippier, and Philip simpler, more down to earth and yet still
very aware of his position. I based this on the things I'd read about them.
Actually, the real Philip could be quite crude at times, but I didn't think
there was room for that aspect of his character. One of Richard's lines, BTW,
was actually based on something Philip allegedly said, but in the context of
the play it seemed more appropriate for Richard to say it.
If that's your only comments, I take that as a pretty gentle review. Thanks
for giving it your time.
>You see - at least two of us have read it, so don't worry!
Thanks! Maybe all this silliness will inspire others to read it as well and
therefore not a total waste of time!
sophia
Read <da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <a1cmqa$fkf$2...@news.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com>
>writes
>
>>
>>Perhaps Martin got fed up with the way people were being
>>treated? You know, knight errant to the rescue sort of
>>thing.
Beowulf got to be a hero by defeating trolls.
--
Sophia
Faith in Fabulousness
www.arxana.demon.co.uk/
icq: 93834408
Dick Wisan
David Read, (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) says...
>
> And how can a knight in shining armour show his mettle unless there are
>dragons to be slain and fair damsels to be rescued ?
>
> I wonder who gave this particular crusader for truth and justice the
>favour that he wears ? And just how many black knights are there left to
>be conquered ?
Please. Nowadays, we say African American knights. These, I take it,
were pre-Columbian?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'amяяяя
Mike Dana
>
> In article <LFMPnDAE...@dreadful.demon.co.uk>,
> David Read, (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) says...
> >
>
> > And how can a knight in shining armour show his mettle unless there are
> >dragons to be slain and fair damsels to be rescued ?
> >
> > I wonder who gave this particular crusader for truth and justice the
> >favour that he wears ? And just how many black knights are there left to
> >be conquered ?
>
> Please. Nowadays, we say African American knights. These, I take it,
> were pre-Columbian?
Paradox! How can they be "African *American*" _and_ "pre-Columbian"?
--
Mike Dana Everett, Washington, U.S.A.
"It's all just bubblegum and baloney!"
--Eliseo Soriano, 18 September, 2001
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
As I was saying...
This funny little Wisan chap, the philosophy professor from Hartwick
College ---- is *thoroughly* confused and farblondjet.
And he just keeps digging a deeper hole for himself...
Deus Vult.
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Mike Dana" <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote in message
news:3C3C4613...@NOSPAMboeing.com...
David C. Pugh
Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote in message
news:3C3C4613...@NOSPAMboeing.com...
> >
> > In article <LFMPnDAE...@dreadful.demon.co.uk>,
> > David Read, (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) says...
> > >
> >
> > > And how can a knight in shining armour show his mettle unless
there are dragons to be slain and fair damsels to be rescued ?
> > >
> > > I wonder who gave this particular crusader for truth and justice
the
> > >favour that he wears ? And just how many black knights are there
left to be conquered ?
> >
> > Please. Nowadays, we say African American knights. These, I take
it,
> > were pre-Columbian?
>
> Paradox! How can they be "African *American*" _and_
"pre-Columbian"?
>
>
And do we need an affirmative action programme for knights exercising
the valid lifestyle choice of standing on bridges and doing
differently-pleasant things to persuns who attempt to cross or
otherwise impose their arbitrary constructions of "right" upon them?
David
Gilmore, Phyllis
afr...@aol.com (Afropea) wrote:
> >> Otherwise, it reads a great deal like one of our Plantagenet Family
> >> Reunions ---- except they all speak French and are not so stuffy.
>
> Since most of the people reading this would be English speakers I figured it
> would be a bad idea to write it in French. Not only that, if I tried to be
> too authentic I'd have to switch from Northern French and Southern French here
> and there, and maybe even throw in some Norman French. WAAAAY too confusing
> for most folks!
Good choice <grin>.
I seem to recall some discussion, looooong years ago, of the BBC
production of I, Claudius (OT, I know). IIRC, the producers and
directors actively chose to use a variety of English accents as well as
accents of various foreigners speaking English to indicate different
social classes and national origins. It was, they said, the only way to
get the flavor of the relationships across to the viewer.
That didn't surprise me, because it is a very common tactic in fiction,
even fiction attempting to be historically accurate.
I'm trying to remmber, though--I seem to recall at least one movie or TV
program on a Medieval subject that started with "authentic" dialog (with
subtitles) and transitioned into modern English, having made the point.
Am I merely confusing fantasies with reality, or can someone else place
this? (No, I'm not muddling in the Olivier Henry V, which visually
starts out as the Elizabethan play, then segues into Henry's own
period.)
Phyllis
Dick Wisan
David C. Pugh, (davi...@online.no) says...
>
>Mike Dana <mike...@NOSPAMboeing.com> wrote in message
>news:3C3C4613...@NOSPAMboeing.com...
>> Dick Wisan wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <LFMPnDAE...@dreadful.demon.co.uk>,
>> > David Read, (da...@dreadful.demon.co.uk) says...
>> > >
>> >
>> > > And how can a knight in shining armour show his mettle unless
>> > > there are dragons to be slain and fair damsels to be rescued ?
>> > >
>> > > I wonder who gave this particular crusader for truth and justice
>> > > the favour that he wears ? And just how many black knights are
>> > > there left to be conquered ?
>> >
>> > Please. Nowadays, we say African American knights. These, I take
>> > it, were pre-Columbian?
>>
>> Paradox! How can they be "African *American*" _and_
>> "pre-Columbian"?
I wondered about that, too. But, after all, this is soc.history.medieval,
so they must predate Columbus. They need not predate the Vinland expedi-
tions, though, so perhaps they were looking for either the KRS or a place
to put it. Could they have been African Swedes?
>And do we need an affirmative action programme for knights exercising
>the valid lifestyle choice of standing on bridges and doing
>differently-pleasant things to persuns who attempt to cross or
>otherwise impose their arbitrary constructions of "right" upon them?
Certainly we do. You have to remember they had a different culture
than we do and you may not judge them by your own standards. (That
rule is valid because it is part of our own culture, but it does not
apply to people of other times and cultures.) It is not an easy thing
to keep _all_ your attitudes up to date. Occasionally, it may be
necessary to accept a certain number of contradictions.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
Dick Wisan
D. Spencer Hines, (D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu) says...
>
>Indeed.
>
>As I was saying...
>
>This funny little Wisan chap, the philosophy professor from Hartwick
>College ---- is *thoroughly* confused and farblondjet.
And I can profess rings around you with one eye closed.
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
_Hines_TD@aya.yale.edu D. Spencer Hines
As I was saying...
This funny little Wisan chap is long on wisecracks ---- and VERY short
on substance, when it comes to ANY sort of History.
Point Proven, Several Times Over.
How Sweet It Is!
Deus Vult.
"Much have I travelled in the realms of gold, And many goodly states and
kingdoms seen; Round many western islands have I been, Which bards in
fealty to Apollo hold." -- John Keats [1795-1821] -- Poems [1817] -- "On
First Looking Into Chapman's Homer"
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." -- Attributed to Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.
All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.
----------
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> wrote in message
news:a1ht4...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Paul J Gans
>In article <p3Y_7.585$H_3....@eagle.america.net>,
>D. Spencer Hines, (D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu) says...
>>
>>Indeed.
>>
>>As I was saying...
>>
>>This funny little Wisan chap, the philosophy professor from Hartwick
>>College ---- is *thoroughly* confused and farblondjet.
>And I can profess rings around you with one eye closed.
I'm jealous. *I* am the farblondjet professor. You are
a mere imposter.
---- Paul J. Gans
Frank Martin
"sophia" <sop...@arxana.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XHbLksAp...@arxana.demon.co.uk...
Martin Reboul
D. Spencer Hines wrote ...
> Hilarious!
>
> As I was saying...
>
> This funny little Wisan chap is long on wisecracks ---- and VERY short
> on substance, when it comes to ANY sort of History.
>
> Point Proven, Several Times Over.
>
> How Sweet It Is!
(snip PLS)
> | D. Spencer Hines says...
> | >
> | >Indeed.
> | >
> | >As I was saying...
> | >
> | >This funny little Wisan chap, the philosophy professor from Hartwick
> | >College ---- is *thoroughly* confused and farblondjet.
> |
> | And I can profess rings around you with one eye closed.
Indeed you have Dick - good man.
I'd lay off the points and rings stuff though, it gets him all excited.
So Freudian.....
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
Afropea wrote...
> I wrote
>
> >"Marriage, then, especially in the ranks of the more established members
> >of the
> >lower start of society, seems to have carried with it some expectation of
> >affection and a certain level of sexuality
>
> Arrrgh! "strata" not "start"! Damn those spellcheckers! ;-)
There their, don't worry abort it my deer...........