gaelic questions
Trish
Into the fray with some questions...any help appreciated.
My clan's motto is buaidh no bas, I'd like to know the correct
pronunciation if anyone will help me with that.
The word "failte"...gaelic, Irish or...?
Where did/does Latin come into the picture with regard to Scots
history? I grew up only knowing our clan motto as Vincere Vel Mori,
without knowing there was another one and not thinking about it much til
I got older. Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
Many thanks.
Trish
Craig Cockburn
<fai...@sentex.net>
>Hi all,
>
>Into the fray with some questions...any help appreciated.
>
>My clan's motto is buaidh no bas, I'd like to know the correct
>pronunciation if anyone will help me with that.
>
>The word "failte"...gaelic, Irish or...?
>
--
Craig Cockburn ("coburn") http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/
Port na Banrighinn, Alba. (Queensferry, Scotland) PGP key available.
Sgri\obh thugam 'sa Gha\idhlig ma 'se do thoil e.
Neacalban1
>pronunciation if anyone will help me with that.
Boo-ee no baaaaas.> Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
>mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
The Gaelic wasnt used in many cases. its truly amazing how many clans with
Gaelic roots, whose people were largely monoglot Gaelic speakers until the last
2-300 years, have English or French orLlatin mottoes or slogans, rather than
Gaelic. In large part it likely depends on individual clan history.
Ian O. Morrison
writes
>
>Where did/does Latin come into the picture with regard to Scots
>history? I grew up only knowing our clan motto as Vincere Vel Mori,
>without knowing there was another one and not thinking about it much til
>I got older. Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
>mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
Gaelic was on the way out at about the same time that heraldry was on
the way in, and for the same reasons.
Some of the oldest heraldic devices still extant in Scotland are on the
Bute mazer (a bowl), now on display in the Museum of Scotland. The arms
of various families who supported Robert the Bruce are depicted,
unfortunately without mottoes. Had they been included, I suspect they
would have been in Latin. The six enamelled plaques in the Bute mazer
date from about 1315. For more details, and photograph, search on the
term "mazer" in the SCRAN database at
http://www.scran.ac.uk
--
Ian O. Morrison
http://www2.scran.ac.uk/staff/ianm/index.htm
"It is neither possible nor necessary to educate people who never
question anything." (Joseph Heller)
Bryn Fraser
<i...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <36E2D34F...@sentex.net>, Trish <fai...@sentex.net>
>writes
>
>>
>>Where did/does Latin come into the picture with regard to Scots
>>history? I grew up only knowing our clan motto as Vincere Vel Mori,
>>without knowing there was another one and not thinking about it much til
>>I got older. Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
>>mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
>
>Gaelic was on the way out at about the same time that heraldry was on
>the way in, and for the same reasons.
>
>Some of the oldest heraldic devices still extant in Scotland are on the
>Bute mazer (a bowl), now on display in the Museum of Scotland. The arms
>of various families who supported Robert the Bruce are depicted,
>unfortunately without mottoes. Had they been included, I suspect they
>would have been in Latin. The six enamelled plaques in the Bute mazer
>date from about 1315. For more details, and photograph, search on the
>term "mazer" in the SCRAN database at
> http://www.scran.ac.uk
Nice resource, Ian but password protected.......
>
>
Bryn Fraser
Tha na caileagan fo mhulad......
Ian O. Morrison
<br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> writes
>> http://www.scran.ac.uk
>
>Nice resource, Ian but password protected.......
Access to the higher quality images in SCRAN is password protected for
copyright reasons. Purchase of an appropriate licence (see the other
SCRAN pages) will allow access to the "educational" quality, higher
resolution, images. About half of the schools in Scotland already have
such a licence.
Anyone can access the thumbnail-sized images and read the descriptions,
of course, and the Bute mazer is pretty well known object, illustrated
in a number of (paper) publications.
Another source of information about Scotland's finest historic objects
is the (redesigned) National Museums of Scotland website at
http://www.nms.ac.uk
There is also a directory of NMS staff, with e-mail addresses, should
you wish further information about any item in the collections.
Bryn Fraser
>of course, and the Bute mazer is pretty well known object, illustrated
>in a number of (paper) publications.
>
>Another source of information about Scotland's finest historic objects
>is the (redesigned) National Museums of Scotland website at
> http://www.nms.ac.uk
>There is also a directory of NMS staff, with e-mail addresses, should
>you wish further information about any item in the collections.
Thanks Ian,
My particular interest in the Mazer (of which I had no knowledge prior
to your post) is with regard to the possibility of finding what would be
the earliest form of Fraser arms, three star like objects (non-heraldic
terminology). The earliest I have images of is 1332 (Balliol Roll).
Geddes MacIntyre
> Irish and Scottish Gaelic.
I believe the only real difference is that in Irish,
there is an accent over the "a" (Fáilte), whilst there
is no accent in the Scots Gaelic version (Failte).
Geddes
Craig Cockburn
MacIntyre <ru...@gaelic.net>
Gaelic, the accent goes down.
Stephen Copinger
Ian O. Morrison wrote in message ...
>In article <36E2D34F...@sentex.net>, Trish <fai...@sentex.net>
>writes
>
>>
>>Where did/does Latin come into the picture with regard to Scots
>>history? I grew up only knowing our clan motto as Vincere Vel Mori,
>>without knowing there was another one and not thinking about it much til
>>I got older. Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
>>mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
>
>Gaelic was on the way out at about the same time that heraldry was on
>the way in, and for the same reasons.
>
educated across Europe.
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
Colm O Cinnseala
Phonectics buuey-no-baws
Fáilte means Welcome. I know its Irish possible Gallic also
Trish wrote in message <36E2D34F...@sentex.net>...
>Hi all,
>
>Into the fray with some questions...any help appreciated.
>
>My clan's motto is buaidh no bas, I'd like to know the correct
>pronunciation if anyone will help me with that.
>
>The word "failte"...gaelic, Irish or...?
>
>Where did/does Latin come into the picture with regard to Scots
>history? I grew up only knowing our clan motto as Vincere Vel Mori,
>without knowing there was another one and not thinking about it much til
>I got older. Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
>mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
>
>Many thanks.
>
>Trish
>
Duncan
<S-Cop...@zetnet.co.bounce.uk> wrote:
>Ian O. Morrison wrote in message ...
>>In article <36E2D34F...@sentex.net>, Trish <fai...@sentex.net>
>>writes
>>
>>>Where did/does Latin come into the picture with regard to Scots
>>>history? I grew up only knowing our clan motto as Vincere Vel Mori,
>>>without knowing there was another one and not thinking about it much til
>>>I got older. Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
>>>mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
>>
>>Gaelic was on the way out at about the same time that heraldry was on
>>the way in, and for the same reasons.
>>
>Also during the mediaeval period Latin was the "common language" of the
>educated across Europe.
As well as being the language of the Church (which, let's face it, was
pretty much the intellectual elite of Europe).
-DDM
James C. Woodard
Bryn Fraser wrote in message ...
Bryn Fraser
>>
>>My particular interest in the Mazer (of which I had no knowledge prior
>>to your post) is with regard to the possibility of finding what would be
>>the earliest form of Fraser arms, three star like objects (non-heraldic
>>terminology). The earliest I have images of is 1332 (Balliol Roll).
>>>
>>
>>Bryn Fraser
>>
>>Tha na caileagan fo mhulad......
>>
>>
>>http://finhall.demon.co.uk
>How many points on the stars Bryn?
Tradition says five but I suspect six...
>
>
Bryn Fraser
Tha na caileagan fo mhulad......
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Trish wrote in message <36E2D34F...@sentex.net>...
>Hi all,
>
>Into the fray with some questions...any help appreciated.
>
>My clan's motto is buaidh no bas, I'd like to know the correct
>pronunciation if anyone will help me with that.
Much like liberty or death in America. Buaidh means victory and its spoils
and is cognate with booty.
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Colm O Cinnseala wrote in message <7c1feq$49m$1...@news1.news.iol.ie>...
>buaidh nó bás means Victory or Death
>Phonectics buuey-no-baws
>Fáilte means Welcome. I know its Irish possible Gallic also
There'd be no acute on "no" and the acute on "bas" would be a grave in
Scottish. Bas would be pronounced baas or bas. I expect the Gaelic version
from Ireland would be similar.
Stephen Copinger
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk wrote in message
<7c48ep$7rb$1...@news1.cableinet.co.uk>...
comes around.
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
Trish
> >My clan's motto is buaidh no bas, I'd like to know the correct
> >pronunciation if anyone will help me with that.
>
> Boo-ee no baaaaas.
Thank you. It's one thing to know the text but one should know how to
pronounce it.
> > Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
> >mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
>
> The Gaelic wasnt used in many cases. its truly amazing how many clans
> with
> Gaelic roots, whose people were largely monoglot Gaelic speakers until
> the last
> 2-300 years, have English or French orLlatin mottoes or slogans,
> rather than
> Gaelic. In large part it likely depends on individual clan history.
Latin mottoes came from what influence? English and French *seems*
somewhat obvious. Was Gaelic forbidden? Or did it get diluted? I
suppose this is common history? I've not read enough about this period
of history. I've got vague information. Suppose I better get going on
it. :)
Trish
Trish
> In article <36E2D34F...@sentex.net>, Trish <fai...@sentex.net>
> writes
>
> >
> >Where did/does Latin come into the picture with regard to Scots
> >history? I grew up only knowing our clan motto as Vincere Vel Mori,
> >without knowing there was another one and not thinking about it much
> til
> >I got older. Why wasn't the Gaelic used? Anyone care to solve the
> >mystery for me or point me to a FAQ or site that does?
>
> Gaelic was on the way out at about the same time that heraldry was on
> the way in, and for the same reasons.
>
> Some of the oldest heraldic devices still extant in Scotland are on
> the
> Bute mazer (a bowl), now on display in the Museum of Scotland. The
> arms
> of various families who supported Robert the Bruce are depicted,
> unfortunately without mottoes. Had they been included, I suspect they
> would have been in Latin. The six enamelled plaques in the Bute mazer
> date from about 1315. For more details, and photograph, search on the
> term "mazer" in the SCRAN database at
> http://www.scran.ac.uk
>
I went here (what a great site to go exploring on! thanks for the
pointer to it :) and I'm a little astounded. Is this date
...1315..about the time heraldry started coming in? And if so, if I
read your prior comment correctly, this is also the time that Gaelic was
on it's way OUT? That far back in history? Or not quite so far back?
And Latin was around then?
Hm..well, I recall in the movie Braveheart which is around this period,
is it not? that one of the phrases used by one of the "nasty boys"
seemed like Latin..."prima noctae" or something to that effect. You
mention Gaelic was on it's way out and heraldry on it's way in for the
same reasons. I'm guessing because Scotland was in the process of being
conquered and subdued and this was the influence of it's conquerors?
Forgive me if I'm way off base, I'd rather think myself it was another
reason.
Sigh...questions bubbling in the brain like brew in a cauldron. :)
Trish
James C. Woodard
Trish wrote in message <36E689F1...@sentex.net>...
>
>I went here (what a great site to go exploring on! thanks for the
>pointer to it :) and I'm a little astounded. Is this date
>...1315..about the time heraldry started coming in? And if so, if I
>read your prior comment correctly, this is also the time that Gaelic was
>on it's way OUT? That far back in history? Or not quite so far back?
>And Latin was around then?
>
>Hm..well, I recall in the movie Braveheart which is around this period,
>is it not? that one of the phrases used by one of the "nasty boys"
>seemed like Latin..."prima noctae" or something to that effect. You
>mention Gaelic was on it's way out and heraldry on it's way in for the
>same reasons. I'm guessing because Scotland was in the process of being
>conquered and subdued and this was the influence of it's conquerors?
>Forgive me if I'm way off base, I'd rather think myself it was another
>reason.
>
>Sigh...questions bubbling in the brain like brew in a cauldron. :)
>
Trish, before the Sassenach ever came to the island there were Romans trying
to conquer the Picts. Before Scots Gaelic was spoken or St. Columba came
from Eire, there were Picts. Best guess on their language seems to be some
form of P-celtic, though this is not certain.
Jim
Ian O. Morrison
writes
>
>I went here (what a great site to go exploring on! thanks for the
>pointer to it :) and I'm a little astounded. Is this date
>...1315..about the time heraldry started coming in?
As I said, the Bute mazer is one of the earliest extant pieces showing
heraldic devices. I'm not an expert in heraldry, but I suspect that such
devices probably appear on documents before that. Few objects, of any
kind, survive from as early as the 14th century.
>And if so, if I
>read your prior comment correctly, this is also the time that Gaelic was
>on it's way OUT? That far back in history? Or not quite so far back?
Amongst the aristocratic classes, yes. Documents of that period are
generally written in Scots or Latin. There is little real evidence to
suggest how widespread Gaelic speaking was at the time of Bruce. Its
present stronghold, the Western Isles, had only recently been ceded to
Scotland, and many of the inhabitants probably spoke Norse dialects.
Shetland and Orkney would remain Norse until well into the following
(15th) century, and Gaelic never took a hold there.
So, over Scotland as a whole, at least amongst the emerging aristocracy
(including clan chiefs), Gaelic was in dramatic decline.
>And Latin was around then?
The Book of Deer, source of the earliest known written Gaelic (12th
century) was originally written in Latin in, possibly, the 9th century.
Latin was first developed by a group of Italians based around Rome.
>Hm..well, I recall in the movie Braveheart which is around this period,
>is it not?
The movie "Braveheart" dates from the 1990s ;-)
Memories of events in the late 13th century-early 14th century were a
bit hazy by the time that movie was made. If only we could find a
contemporary movie about Wallace!
>that one of the phrases used by one of the "nasty boys"
>seemed like Latin..."prima noctae" or something to that effect.
It was a practice whereby the Lord of the Manor (or equivalent) had a
right to bed any maiden the first night after her marriage. Although
often referred to in folk mythology, it is rather harder to pin down
documented occurrences in (real) history. As far as I can gather, the
reference in "Braveheart" was inserted (no pun intended) purely to
justify anything the "nice" Scots did to the "nasty" English in the
film. Such simplistic generalisation is usually referred to as "racism"
on Usenet, though Hollywood's standards are somewhat lower.
> You
>mention Gaelic was on it's way out and heraldry on it's way in for the
>same reasons. I'm guessing because Scotland was in the process of being
>conquered and subdued and this was the influence of it's conquerors?
>Forgive me if I'm way off base, I'd rather think myself it was another
>reason.
You are "off base". I don't think the Norman aristocracy (such as Robert
the Bruce himself) could care less what language(s) their vassals and
serfs spoke. To show their credentials as modern leaders and men of
learning, however, they needed to be fluent in (at least) Scots, Latin
and French. Gaelic was of no significance in the wider world, as trade
with Europe became the most important economic factor. Note the fact one
of the few genuine irrefutable objects relating to Wallace is a letter
which he and Moray wrote to the city of Lubeck, with which Scotland had
trading links, pleading for them to continue that trade. This letter
(currently on display in the Museum of Scotland) was not written in
Gaelic, nor was the Declaration of Arbroath (1320). I doubt that Wallace
had any Gaelic.
I haven't seen "Braveheart", but I suspect there was no mention of
socio-economic factors such as the European trade, or the Lubeck letter.
Did the film also cover the repeated punitive burning of English towns
such as Corbridge by Wallace and Bruce? Those events are actually
verifiable (not least by visiting the pretty town of Corbridge itself),
unlike most of the so-called "history" that seems to have been used in
the film.
>
>Sigh...questions bubbling in the brain like brew in a cauldron. :)
My advice is to get hold of an authoritative book on Scottish history -
such as Michael Lynch's "New History of Scotland". Don't rely on
Hollywood to teach you Scottish history!
Stephen Copinger
Ian O. Morrison wrote in message ...
This letter
>(currently on display in the Museum of Scotland) was not written in
>Gaelic, nor was the Declaration of Arbroath (1320).
OTOH even if every single person in Scotland had been a Gaelic speaker, the
Declaration of Arbroath would probably still have been written in Latin,
considering that it was addressed to the Pope.
Ave atque Salve
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
jkw...@cableinet.co.uk
Stephen Copinger wrote in message <7c6hcv$207$1...@roch.zetnet.co.uk>...
I don't remember it. Was it about the slogan then?
One thing I've learnt with bulletin boards, and newsgroups is you sometimes
have to tolerate a bit of repetition, simply because the poster may not have
seen the other thread.
Duncan
<i...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36E689F1...@sentex.net>, Trish <fai...@sentex.net>
>writes
>>And if so, if I
>>read your prior comment correctly, this is also the time that Gaelic was
>>on it's way OUT? That far back in history? Or not quite so far back?
>
>Amongst the aristocratic classes, yes. Documents of that period are
>generally written in Scots or Latin. There is little real evidence to
>suggest how widespread Gaelic speaking was at the time of Bruce. Its
>present stronghold, the Western Isles, had only recently been ceded to
>Scotland, and many of the inhabitants probably spoke Norse dialects.
>Shetland and Orkney would remain Norse until well into the following
>(15th) century, and Gaelic never took a hold there.
And for supporting evidence, look at the folklore of Shetland and
Orkney, which tend to show significant Norse-influence, as do the
Western Isles to a lesser extent (even into Martin's time).
>So, over Scotland as a whole, at least amongst the emerging aristocracy
>(including clan chiefs), Gaelic was in dramatic decline.
Not all clan chiefs were <ahem> emerging aristocracy...
>>And Latin was around then?
>
>The Book of Deer, source of the earliest known written Gaelic (12th
>century) was originally written in Latin in, possibly, the 9th century.
>
>Latin was first developed by a group of Italians based around Rome.
They're still using it, too.
Pax Nabisco (lit. "peace on a tasty snack cracker")
<ouch!>
>>Hm..well, I recall in the movie Braveheart which is around this period,
>>is it not?
>
>The movie "Braveheart" dates from the 1990s ;-)
>
>Memories of events in the late 13th century-early 14th century were a
>bit hazy by the time that movie was made. If only we could find a
>contemporary movie about Wallace!
Wallace was notoriously camera-shy, but that's just a rumour I heard
from his makeup girl, who also knows a bloke who knew a girl who had a
cousin was in a pub once with Rob Roy...said he's just as tall as he
looked in the fillum.
>>that one of the phrases used by one of the "nasty boys"
>>seemed like Latin..."prima noctae" or something to that effect.
>
>It was a practice whereby the Lord of the Manor (or equivalent) had a
>right to bed any maiden the first night after her marriage.
Man...how come they didn't have this custom when *I* was a landlord?
> Although
>often referred to in folk mythology, it is rather harder to pin down
>documented occurrences in (real) history. As far as I can gather, the
>reference in "Braveheart" was inserted (no pun intended) purely to
>justify anything the "nice" Scots did to the "nasty" English in the
>film. Such simplistic generalisation is usually referred to as "racism"
>on Usenet, though Hollywood's standards are somewhat lower.
I call that same simplistic generalisation "Gross Historical
Inaccuracy." No sense in starting a flame war, I just got my monitor
fixed from last time. Then again there's no excuse for gross
historical inaccuracy, either. Whom do I sue?
Personally, I think that the idea of "odor-scope" should be revived,
and that all films should be required by law to at least *smell*
authentic. This would prevent the making of many poorly-done costume
pieces, and would prevent all but the most determined from seeing
them.
>> You
>>mention Gaelic was on it's way out and heraldry on it's way in for the
>>same reasons. I'm guessing because Scotland was in the process of being
>>conquered and subdued and this was the influence of it's conquerors?
>>Forgive me if I'm way off base, I'd rather think myself it was another
>>reason.
>
>You are "off base". I don't think the Norman aristocracy (such as Robert
>the Bruce himself) could care less what language(s) their vassals and
>serfs spoke. To show their credentials as modern leaders and men of
>learning, however, they needed to be fluent in (at least) Scots, Latin
>and French. Gaelic was of no significance in the wider world, as trade
>with Europe became the most important economic factor. Note the fact one
>of the few genuine irrefutable objects relating to Wallace is a letter
>which he and Moray wrote to the city of Lubeck, with which Scotland had
>trading links, pleading for them to continue that trade. This letter
>(currently on display in the Museum of Scotland) was not written in
>Gaelic, nor was the Declaration of Arbroath (1320). I doubt that Wallace
>had any Gaelic.
Then again, it hardly seems likely that anyone in their right mind in
1320 would have written a letter to the *Pope* in Gaelic? Really, now!
>I haven't seen "Braveheart", but I suspect there was no mention of
>socio-economic factors such as the European trade, or the Lubeck letter.
>Did the film also cover the repeated punitive burning of English towns
>such as Corbridge by Wallace and Bruce? Those events are actually
>verifiable (not least by visiting the pretty town of Corbridge itself),
>unlike most of the so-called "history" that seems to have been used in
>the film.
I saw about an hour of it on video, but opted to clean out my office
instead of watching the rest (those knowing the state of my drawers
will glean from this episode just how badly I wanted to get away).
Let's all remember that there's at least twelve sides to every
historical event? Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle,
between the GibsonGod and the Spawn of Satan? I know you're a
reasonable guy...
And besides...socioeconomic factors make lousy movies, lousy legends,
and lousy PR. Remember the tragidian in _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
are Dead:_
"We can do you Blood and Rhetoric without the Love, or we can do you
Blood and Love without the Rhetoric, or we can do you all three
concurrent or consecutive...but Blood...Blood is compulsory."
>>Sigh...questions bubbling in the brain like brew in a cauldron. :)
>
>My advice is to get hold of an authoritative book on Scottish history -
>such as Michael Lynch's "New History of Scotland". Don't rely on
>Hollywood to teach you Scottish history!
Any book is better than a film any day.
-DDM
"Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is scholarship."
-Saul Lieberman
Ian O. Morrison
<fog...@kezarcelts.net> writes
>Not all clan chiefs were <ahem> emerging aristocracy...
No, of course not.... Just the ones who wholeheartedly adopted feudalism
(i.e. most).
>Pax Nabisco (lit. "peace on a tasty snack cracker")
><ouch!>
I thought Gerald Nabisco was an eccentric Tory MP of the 1960s and early
1970s, with a prominent handlebar moustache and ludicrous views,
exceeded in his right-wingery during that period only by that ultimate
nutcase, M Thatcher.
I could be wrong, though. Gerald Nabisco certainly never advocated Pax
of any kind.
>I call that same simplistic generalisation "Gross Historical
>Inaccuracy." No sense in starting a flame war,
Awwwww...... why not? We haven't had a decent one here for, ohhhh.....,
hours!
>I just got my monitor
>fixed from last time. Then again there's no excuse for gross
>historical inaccuracy, either. Whom do I sue?
>
>Personally, I think that the idea of "odor-scope" should be revived,
>and that all films should be required by law to at least *smell*
>authentic. This would prevent the making of many poorly done costume
>pieces, and would prevent all but the most determined from seeing
>them.
I think it was April 1st 1998 when the Scottish Cultural Resources
Access Network launched its "scratch 'n' sniff" interface for historical
records. Another great Scottish invention!
>Then again, it hardly seems likely that anyone in their right mind in
>1320 would have written a letter to the *Pope* in Gaelic? Really, now!
No, quite. That was actually my point. The same applies to clan mottoes.
>
>I saw about an hour of it on video, but opted to clean out my office
>instead of watching the rest (those knowing the state of my drawers
I don't think we want to know the state of your drawers. Fortunately,
scratch 'n' sniff attachments to postings are banned from s.c.s (see the
charter), so don't even think about it.
>will glean from this episode just how badly I wanted to get away).
>
>Let's all remember that there's at least twelve sides to every
>historical event? Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle,
>between the GibsonGod and the Spawn of Satan? I know you're a
>reasonable guy...
Flattery will get you everywhere......
>
>And besides...socioeconomic factors make lousy movies, lousy legends,
>and lousy PR. Remember the tragidian in _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
>are Dead:_
>
>"We can do you Blood and Rhetoric without the Love, or we can do you
>Blood and Love without the Rhetoric, or we can do you all three
>concurrent or consecutive...but Blood...Blood is compulsory."
A tragedian would say that, wouldn't they?
Trish
<read and absorbed the historical info...nothing to add from my
mulling..just added it to my knowledge base :)>
> I haven't seen "Braveheart", but I suspect there was no mention of
> socio-economic factors such as the European trade, or the Lubeck
> letter.
>
No, I don't recall that. Seemed to focus solely on regaining lost lands
and liberties, and taking over England finally, til Wallace got
captured.
> Did the film also cover the repeated punitive burning of English towns
>
> such as Corbridge by Wallace and Bruce? Those events are actually
> verifiable (not least by visiting the pretty town of Corbridge
> itself),
> unlike most of the so-called "history" that seems to have been used in
>
> the film.
>
Seemed to but glossed, really. There was a period in the film where it
was going from English stronghold to English stronghold within Scotland
and burning them down. Finally after a certain amount of victory, there
was some move to take over England as well. The film is not clear on
how far Wallace intended to go with that and no matter as he was
captured some time shortly thereafter..in film minutes. :) It does show
him taking revenge on the clansmen he felt betrayed "the cause".
I found the role of "The Bruce" intriguing, at least as portrayed in
this movie, and will have to read as you suggest later in this post, to
get the actual facts. It makes it that he couldn't make up his mind
where his allegiances should lie and that Wallace was a strong influence
to cause him to decide to stop playing both sides of the fence. It
portrays the Bruce as having killed a number of his own countrymen
fighting for the English from time to time before deciding to keep his
loyalties at home...and yet I note Scots speak of him as one of the
leaders in Scots history so it leaves me intrigued as to what his story
actually is overall. I have some reading to do. :)
> My advice is to get hold of an authoritative book on Scottish history
> -
> such as Michael Lynch's "New History of Scotland". Don't rely on
> Hollywood to teach you Scottish history!
>
Well, generally I don't, it's just that there are SOME factual
references in there somewhere only you don't know which ones and it
makes you wonder about ALL of it in relation to the bit you know (which
isn't much in my case). If I knew the history better to begin with, I
might not have enjoyed the movie so much but hard to say. It was the
*spirit* of the thing that I enjoyed and it was a good movie..as a
movie. I knew smatterings of history but nothing complete and mostly
about the highland clearances and related bits. Thanks for the
reference above. Time to get reading and see if Braveheart becomes
nothing more than blue-eyed Mel in a kilt...or if the spirit remains. :)
Trish
Duncan
<i...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <36e70d40...@news.gwi.net>, Duncan
><fog...@kezarcelts.net> writes
>
>>Not all clan chiefs were <ahem> emerging aristocracy...
>
>No, of course not.... Just the ones who wholeheartedly adopted feudalism
>(i.e. most).
"Most" was all I wanted to hear.
>>Pax Nabisco (lit. "peace on a tasty snack cracker")
>><ouch!>
>
>I thought Gerald Nabisco was an eccentric Tory MP of the 1960s and early
>1970s, with a prominent handlebar moustache and ludicrous views,
>exceeded in his right-wingery during that period only by that ultimate
>nutcase, M Thatcher.
>
>I could be wrong, though. Gerald Nabisco certainly never advocated Pax
>of any kind.
Okay...that was for an American audience (the reference being to RJR
Nabisco, manufacturer of snack foods). However, "Pax Nabisco" is just
one of those little mis-hearings that stuck in my head, like "a monk
swimming" and "Harold be thy name."
>>I call that same simplistic generalisation "Gross Historical
>>Inaccuracy." No sense in starting a flame war,
>
>Awwwww...... why not? We haven't had a decent one here for, ohhhh.....,
>hours!
Okay, if you insist...museum workers stink on ice. Your turn.
>>Personally, I think that the idea of "odor-scope" should be revived,
>>and that all films should be required by law to at least *smell*
>>authentic. This would prevent the making of many poorly done costume
>>pieces, and would prevent all but the most determined from seeing
>>them.
>
>I think it was April 1st 1998 when the Scottish Cultural Resources
>Access Network launched its "scratch 'n' sniff" interface for historical
>records. Another great Scottish invention!
I've scratched all the glare protector off my screen and I still don't
smell anything...what am I doing wrong?
In honesty, I think that the "odor-scope" cinema idea has already been
attempted in the US some time ago. IIRC, it was a dismal failure.
>>Then again, it hardly seems likely that anyone in their right mind in
>>1320 would have written a letter to the *Pope* in Gaelic? Really, now!
>
>No, quite. That was actually my point. The same applies to clan mottoes.
I guess that didn't come across clearly.
I think it's a mistake to underestimate the influence, overt or
otherwise, of the pre-Reformation church on Western culture. OTOH, I'm
rather more familiar with the history of heresy than of piety.
>>I saw about an hour of it on video, but opted to clean out my office
>>instead of watching the rest (those knowing the state of my drawers
>
>I don't think we want to know the state of your drawers. Fortunately,
>scratch 'n' sniff attachments to postings are banned from s.c.s (see the
>charter), so don't even think about it.
*File* drawers, sir.
>>And besides...socioeconomic factors make lousy movies, lousy legends,
>>and lousy PR. Remember the tragidian in _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
>>are Dead:_
>>
>>"We can do you Blood and Rhetoric without the Love, or we can do you
>>Blood and Love without the Rhetoric, or we can do you all three
>>concurrent or consecutive...but Blood...Blood is compulsory."
>
>A tragedian would say that, wouldn't they?
Damn! How on earth did I mis-spell "tragedian?" No matter. I think
it's remarkably relevant anyhow, especially when you're discussing
historical films...we've somehow gotten the idea that history has to
be exciting for it to be worth noticing, and that's just not true.
Let's face it: the "Blood, Love, and Rhetoric" school won; unless it's
romantic, it ain't history...sort of a return to Victorianism all
round these days, isn't it?
-DDM
Lesley Robertson
Duncan wrote in message <36e7dd97...@news.gwi.net>...
>On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 09:11:08 +0000, "Ian O. Morrison"
><i...@nmsdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <36e70d40...@news.gwi.net>, Duncan
>><fog...@kezarcelts.net> writes
>>
>>
>>(i.e. most).
>
>"Most" was all I wanted to hear.
>
>>><ouch!>
>>
>>1970s, with a prominent handlebar moustache and ludicrous views,
>>exceeded in his right-wingery during that period only by that ultimate
>>nutcase, M Thatcher.
That was Gerald Nabarro
Lesley Robertson
Alan Hardie
Trish wrote:
>
> I found the role of "The Bruce" intriguing, at least as portrayed in
> this movie, and will have to read as you suggest later in this post, to
> get the actual facts. It makes it that he couldn't make up his mind
> where his allegiances should lie and that Wallace was a strong influence
> to cause him to decide to stop playing both sides of the fence.
Robert the Bruce was only in his early twenties during the period shown
in Braveheart and was certainly under the influence of his (Norman)
father. The film is wrong in that it showed Robert's father conniving in
Wallace's capture, whereas he had died a couple of years beforehand
although they were probably right to imply that he would have sided with
Edward Plantagenet. The way to understand Bruce is to see him as someone
who, by his late twenties and after his fathers death, had detached
himself from his fathers influence and become his own man. In fact it's
possible that he was "his mother's son" as she was a native born Scot
and his (recorded) behaviour seems to imply that he adopted Scottish
cultural traditions. Certainly once he had made his mind up about who to
side with he seems to have been somewhat single-minded in his goals.
Some people regard him as nothing more than a man with his eye on the
crown. But there must have been easier ways to win power and influence
with Edward Plantagenet.
>It
> portrays the Bruce as having killed a number of his own countrymen
> fighting for the English from time to time before deciding to keep his
> loyalties at home...and yet I note Scots speak of him as one of the
> leaders in Scots history so it leaves me intrigued as to what his story
> actually is overall. I have some reading to do. :)
He killed his rival to the throne in a church for which he was
excommunicated. He was a thug (like the rest of them including Wallace)
but these were thuggish times...as to his story it is actually more like
a Hollywood story than a real life. Astonishing stuff, but his
importance is more about what came after. Scotland would probably not
have existed as a country without him, or Wallace.
>
> > My advice is to get hold of an authoritative book on Scottish history
> > -
> > such as Michael Lynch's "New History of Scotland". Don't rely on
> > Hollywood to teach you Scottish history!
> >
>
> Well, generally I don't, it's just that there are SOME factual
> references in there somewhere only you don't know which ones and it
> makes you wonder about ALL of it in relation to the bit you know (which
> isn't much in my case). If I knew the history better to begin with, I
> might not have enjoyed the movie so much but hard to say. It was the
> *spirit* of the thing that I enjoyed and it was a good movie..as a
> movie.
I disliked Braveheart intensely the first time I saw it *because* I knew
the history. Strangely though I caught it when it was shown on TV a
couple of months ago (except for the first half hour or so) and actually
enjoyed it. As you say it was the *spirit* of the movie which was
enjoyable.
--
regards
Alan Hardie
remove *X* to reply
Marjorie
>
> In article <36E689F1...@sentex.net>, Trish <fai...@sentex.net>
> writes
>
> >
> >pointer to it :) and I'm a little astounded. Is this date
> >...1315..about the time heraldry started coming in?
>
> As I said, the Bute mazer is one of the earliest extant pieces
> showing heraldic devices. I'm not an expert in heraldry, but I
> suspect that such devices probably appear on documents before that.
> Few objects, of any kind, survive from as early as the 14th century.
>
One of the books I happen to be reading right now is The Chronicles of
England, France, and Spain by Sir John Froissart. He was born in
Valenciennes about 1337 and wrote from ca. 1355 to 1400. He was
particularly interested in 'chivalry' i.e. the activities of knights.
[So far in his book I've only found one reference to plague, which wiped
out 1/3 of Europe during that time, but he devotes pages to descriptions
of tilts or other engagements of knights.]
Anyway, he often mentions banners and pennons flying in battle and on
several occasions actually describes the arms individual men bore...
E.g. "The attack upon Hennecourt lasted that day till vespers. Many of
the assailants were killed and wounded, and Sir John of Hainault lost a
knight from Holland, called Sir Herman, who bore for arms a fess compone
gules, and in chief, three buckles azure.."
A bit later he describes an encounter between French and English armies
at Vironfosse: "Mass was heard, and many confessed themselves and took
the sacrament. The English order of battle formed three battalions of
infantry, the horse and baggage being placed in a small wood to the
rear. There were about seventy-four banners, 230 pennons, in all 27,000
men under command of the King of England in person... On the side of
the French there were eleven score banners, four kings, six dukes,
twenty-six earls, upwards of 5,000 knights, and more than 40,000 common
men."
Obviously heraldry, in the sense of using symbols on banners and
personal arms was well underway in 14th c.
[snip]
>
> Memories of events in the late 13th century-early 14th century were
> a bit hazy by the time that movie was made. If only we could find a
> contemporary movie about Wallace!
>
On the other hand, Trish, if you want to read a nearly contemporary and
far from unbiased account of Robert the Bruce, try John Barbour's The
Bruce. Barbour wrote it in about 1365-75, i.e. some 35-50 years after
Robert the Bruce died. His patron was Robert II, the grandson of Robert
the Bruce. Its available in paperback. Its also one of the oldest
poems (and longest!) in Scots. [The book has English alongside.]
Regards,
Marjorie
Trish
> On the other hand, Trish, if you want to read a nearly contemporary
> and
> far from unbiased account of Robert the Bruce, try John Barbour's The
> Bruce. Barbour wrote it in about 1365-75, i.e. some 35-50 years after
>
> Robert the Bruce died. His patron was Robert II, the grandson of
> Robert
> the Bruce. Its available in paperback. Its also one of the oldest
> poems (and longest!) in Scots. [The book has English alongside.]
>
Sounds excellent. Hope I can track it down over here. Thank you! :)
Trish
Trish
> Edward Plantagenet. The way to understand Bruce is to see him as
> someone
> who, by his late twenties and after his fathers death, had detached
> himself from his fathers influence and become his own man. In fact
> it's
> possible that he was "his mother's son" as she was a native born Scot
> and his (recorded) behaviour seems to imply that he adopted Scottish
> cultural traditions. Certainly once he had made his mind up about who
> to
> side with he seems to have been somewhat single-minded in his goals.
>
At least the movie implies that he went on to do noble deeds..if I
recall, in the end, it was he who picked up "the torch" after Wallace's
death and continued the fight. Your info clarifies. I found myself
frustrated with him as he was portrayed in the movie, especially when
they portrayed him fighting alongside Edward's forces. Ah well. Will
have to read about his exploits beyond the time period of this film and
see what became of him.
> He killed his rival to the throne in a church for which he was
> excommunicated. He was a thug (like the rest of them including
> Wallace)
> but these were thuggish times...as to his story it is actually more
> like
> a Hollywood story than a real life. Astonishing stuff, but his
> importance is more about what came after. Scotland would probably not
> have existed as a country without him, or Wallace.
>
Hm. That explains the reverence that seems to be attached to his name
that I couldn't reconcile with the bit I knew. (My lack of knowledge is
becoming ever more apparent. :) Did they ever fight *together*? Bruce
and Wallace? (Small question..is he "Bruce", "The Bruce"..or both?)
I'd like to read a well-written book on *both* of them. I have a couple
of titles already to check out about this period in general. Do you
have any to suggest as well? These two characters and their place in
Scottish history I would like to understand better.
> I disliked Braveheart intensely the first time I saw it *because* I
> knew
> the history. Strangely though I caught it when it was shown on TV a
> couple of months ago (except for the first half hour or so) and
> actually
> enjoyed it. As you say it was the *spirit* of the movie which was
> enjoyable.
>
You're a brave man. I don't think it's popular to admit any liking,
however scant, for this movie, for the spirit or otherwise. :) History
almost always suffers at the hands of hollywood. As for the *spirit* of
it, I admit, there's a place in this movie where, if I had me sword
handy, I'd be hard put to resist swirling it over my head, thrusting it
into the air and crying "freeeeeeee-dommm!" Okay, I'll settle down now.
:)
Trish
Clan Mac Neil (Barra)
but in Canada
Duncan
<snip>
>You're a brave man. I don't think it's popular to admit any liking,
>however scant, for this movie, for the spirit or otherwise. :)
Allow me to refine my earlier comments...I walked out of "Braveheart"
because I didn't think it was a good or interesting film...it left me
bored and uninvolved. In contrast, I've seen "Rob Roy" a couple of
times and enjoyed it despite its glaring inaccuracies. I've also seen
"Cromwell" a few times, and enjoyed it a great deal *as a film,* but
that in no way indicates that I have any sort of warm fuzzy feeling
for Oliver himself (<gak>). As a rule, I love historical films of all
sorts...but IMO, this is one case where the movie failed to redeem its
own weaknesses.
> History
>almost always suffers at the hands of hollywood.
History is seldom a good, clean, simple story suitable for movie
magic. You either punch it up for effect or you don't make the film.
The filmmakers are in the entertainment business...it's not their
fault if viewers believe everything they see. They discard history
because (for the most part), no one wants to see a pure historical
film...that's no reason to accuse them of making *us* stupid!
>As for the *spirit* of
>it, I admit, there's a place in this movie where, if I had me sword
>handy, I'd be hard put to resist swirling it over my head, thrusting it
>into the air and crying "freeeeeeee-dommm!" Okay, I'll settle down now.
The point that some have been trying to make is that what got you so
worked up is, largely, a lie (at worst...at best, gross historical
inaccuracy; pick your pejorative). If you go on comparing history to
"what happened in the movie," you run the risk of developing a
seriously warped and prejudiced historical view. The study of history,
to some extent, requires emotional detachment and an open mind. As I
said upthread, there are (at least) twelve sides to every story in
history; it's a grave error to start research with a violent emotional
attachment to one particular version of a story. It makes one immune
to opposing viewpoints and tends to alienate people who could be of
assistance. And in the instance of researching any matter that has
emotionally or religiously charged views on either side, prejudiced
thinking is absolutely *lethal.* Give yourself a chance to be the best
historian you can.
-DDM
Marjorie
>
> Marjorie wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, Trish, if you want to read a nearly
> >
> > contemporary and far from unbiased account of Robert the Bruce,
> > try John Barbour's The Bruce. Barbour wrote it in about 1365-75,
> > i.e. some 35-50 years after Robert the Bruce died. His patron was
> > Robert II, the grandson of Robert
> > the Bruce. Its available in paperback.
>
>
> Trish
published by Canongate Books, Edinburgh. $14.95 US.
Marjorie
Alan Hardie
Trish wrote:
>
>
> Hm. That explains the reverence that seems to be attached to his name
> that I couldn't reconcile with the bit I knew. (My lack of knowledge is
> becoming ever more apparent. :) Did they ever fight *together*? Bruce
> and Wallace?
Not as far as I am aware.
>(Small question..is he "Bruce", "The Bruce"..or both?)
Both. From the Norman "De Brus". Brus (I think that's how it's spelt) is
a small village in France which is still in existence.
> I'd like to read a well-written book on *both* of them. I have a couple
> of titles already to check out about this period in general. Do you
> have any to suggest as well? These two characters and their place in
> Scottish history I would like to understand better.
Any history of Scotland will give you some decent background on the two
of them.
>
> > I disliked Braveheart intensely the first time I saw it *because* I
> > knew
> > the history. Strangely though I caught it when it was shown on TV a
> > couple of months ago (except for the first half hour or so) and
> > actually
> > enjoyed it. As you say it was the *spirit* of the movie which was
> > enjoyable.
> >
>
> You're a brave man. I don't think it's popular to admit any liking,
> however scant, for this movie, for the spirit or otherwise. :)
My own feeling is that some people took it all too seriously.
>History
> almost always suffers at the hands of hollywood. As for the *spirit* of
> it, I admit, there's a place in this movie where, if I had me sword
> handy, I'd be hard put to resist swirling it over my head, thrusting it
> into the air and crying "freeeeeeee-dommm!"
That's what's meant to happen. That's what movies are for. that's what
Mel Gibson understands.
Trish
> Allow me to refine my earlier comments...I walked out of "Braveheart"
> because I didn't think it was a good or interesting film...it left me
> bored and uninvolved. In contrast, I've seen "Rob Roy" a couple of
> times and enjoyed it despite its glaring inaccuracies. I've also seen
> "Cromwell" a few times, and enjoyed it a great deal *as a film,* but
> that in no way indicates that I have any sort of warm fuzzy feeling
> for Oliver himself (<gak>). As a rule, I love historical films of all
> sorts...but IMO, this is one case where the movie failed to redeem its
>
> own weaknesses.
Haven't seen either of the above, the former for lack of opportunity,
the other because I haven't heard of it. Either too long before my
tastes piqued or wasn't given enough exposure in my part of the world.
Heard good things about Rob Roy. However, watched "In The Name Of The
Father" and found it intense and one of my favourites for my own
reasons. As did I "Braveheart" for my own reasons and you not, for
yours. :)
> History is seldom a good, clean, simple story suitable for movie
> magic. You either punch it up for effect or you don't make the film.
> The filmmakers are in the entertainment business...it's not their
> fault if viewers believe everything they see. They discard history
> because (for the most part), no one wants to see a pure historical
> film...that's no reason to accuse them of making *us* stupid!
>
*I* would prefer a mostly historical film. The parts I don't mind being
inaccurate are those that don't really matter or that aren't known but
don't change the outcome at all. I never assumed Braveheart was
historical. If I didn't care for accuracy, I suppose I wouldn't be
asking questions designed to give me truth. If my kids asked me if this
was the way it went down, I wouldn't dreamily answer "of course, did you
see those eyes? How could you ask that?" I'd be more likely to say "I
haven't a clue" and tell them the things I *suspect* are accurate but
would not be able to answer them definitively by a long shot.
> The point that some have been trying to make is that what got you so
> worked up is, largely, a lie (at worst...at best, gross historical
> inaccuracy; pick your pejorative). If you go on comparing history to
>
No laddie, that isn't it. It's what you *fear* worked me up, and for
good reason, so we'll leave it at that. :)
> "what happened in the movie," you run the risk of developing a
> seriously warped and prejudiced historical view. The study of history,
>
> to some extent, requires emotional detachment and an open mind. As I
>
And the desire to know the *truth*, regardless of whether it's
unpleasant or otherwise, imho. The movie is jumping off of a series of
historical events. I'm rather saying, this is what the movie portrays,
but what is the truth?
> said upthread, there are (at least) twelve sides to every story in
> history; it's a grave error to start research with a violent emotional
>
> attachment to one particular version of a story. It makes one immune
>
Yes, well, I hope anyone who has one of those kind of attachments gets
some help before looking for accuracy. :)
> to opposing viewpoints and tends to alienate people who could be of
> assistance. And in the instance of researching any matter that has
> emotionally or religiously charged views on either side, prejudiced
> thinking is absolutely *lethal.* Give yourself a chance to be the best
>
> historian you can.
>
If you're attributing any or some of the above to myself, I'd politely
say you're making a number of assumptions about myself because I liked
the movie. I've already said that if I'd known the history beforehand,
might not have enjoyed it and would have likely ended up blathering thru
the whole thing "but that's not the way it happened...they could have
put the truth in and it still would have been just as good" to the point
where my kids would have told me to just shut up and watch the movie or
go do something else. Has happened before. :)
And, I'm afraid that once I know the history, I won't like the movie
anymore. My dear son spent a goodly chunk of his hard-earned paper
route money buying it for me so he could see my face on Xmas morning
when I opened it. Only, his thinly-veiled comments to his sisters
containing the emphasized words of "brave" and "heart" gave it away.
What a darlin'. :) Ah well. Then I'll just enjoy it as a "long-haired,
blue-eyed gorgeous Mel in a kilt" movie that my son bought for me. :)
But seriously, your point, however, is well taken and a good one,
especially within the context of your obvious concerns. Have tucked it
in my tam for future reference if needed and much appreciated. I'll be
searching out the books that have been suggested to me and others, if I
can find them.
Trish
Trish
> Trish wrote:
> > Hm. That explains the reverence that seems to be attached to his
> name
> > that I couldn't reconcile with the bit I knew. (My lack of
> knowledge is
> > becoming ever more apparent. :) Did they ever fight *together*?
> Bruce
> > and Wallace?
>
> Not as far as I am aware.
>
Hm. Curious.
> >(Small question..is he "Bruce", "The Bruce"..or both?)
>
> Both. From the Norman "De Brus". Brus (I think that's how it's spelt)
> is
> a small village in France which is still in existence.
>
Hm. Interesting.
> Any history of Scotland will give you some decent background on the
> two
> of them.
>
Good. Then this particular curiosity shall be easy to satisfy. Thank
you for the info. :)
> > You're a brave man. I don't think it's popular to admit any
> liking,
> > however scant, for this movie, for the spirit or otherwise. :)
>
> My own feeling is that some people took it all too seriously.
>
Yes, it appears that way sometimes. If everyone starts spouting history
a la Braveheart, et al, then I suppose those fears will have some
grounding to some extent.
> >History
> > almost always suffers at the hands of hollywood. As for the
> *spirit* of
> > it, I admit, there's a place in this movie where, if I had me sword
> > handy, I'd be hard put to resist swirling it over my head, thrusting
> it
> > into the air and crying "freeeeeeee-dommm!"
>
> That's what's meant to happen. That's what movies are for. that's what
>
> Mel Gibson understands.
>
For what, I shan't explain, but..thank you. :)
Regards,
Trish
Trish
> Much like liberty or death in America. Buaidh means victory and its
> spoils
> and is cognate with booty.
Okay..so, if you're still with me on this, the followup question
becomes..is there another Gaelic word that means victory of another
sort? I've always rather liked that this was my clan's motto as
"Conquer or Die" is how I like to approach life..conquer it or you might
as well roll over and die...I'd rather know the *real* translation of
what was intended by the word, so if it means "beat the s*** out of them
and grab the booty, or die as the alternative" I'd rather know. :)
I can still keep "Conquer or Die" as my own personal motto but I'll have
to accept the meaning of "buaidh no bas" for what it was intended. :)
Trish
Duncan
>Hello Duncan,
<"Rob Roy" and "Cromwell">
>Haven't seen either of the above, the former for lack of opportunity,
>the other because I haven't heard of it. Either too long before my
>tastes piqued or wasn't given enough exposure in my part of the world.
>Heard good things about Rob Roy. However, watched "In The Name Of The
>Father" and found it intense and one of my favourites for my own
>reasons. As did I "Braveheart" for my own reasons and you not, for
>yours. :)
Is that a Neil Jordan film? Just curious, as I've liked some of
Jordan's other work.
<snip>
>*I* would prefer a mostly historical film. The parts I don't mind being
>inaccurate are those that don't really matter or that aren't known but
>don't change the outcome at all.
But, unfortunately, that's what history is, at least 95% of it,
anyhow...nobodies from nowhere who didn't do anything important. A
more accurate portrayal of Medieval warfare would have been a bunch of
ugly, smelly guys with ratty clothes and no teeth sitting round in a
mudhole scratching themselves...for hours on end. This, unfortunately,
wouldn't have sold many tickets. Even *I* don't expect that kind of
accuracy!
>I never assumed Braveheart was
>historical. If I didn't care for accuracy, I suppose I wouldn't be
>asking questions designed to give me truth.
That's why, ma'am, I'm pushing the point. If I thought you were just
some bimbo who likes guys in kilts (and no, there's nothing wrong with
that), I'd have killfiled you already. I just see indications that
some your replies are skewed, as in "it didn't happen that way in the
film..."
<snip>
>> The point that some have been trying to make is that what got you so
>> worked up is, largely, a lie (at worst...at best, gross historical
>> inaccuracy; pick your pejorative). If you go on comparing history to
>>
>
>No laddie, that isn't it. It's what you *fear* worked me up, and for
>good reason, so we'll leave it at that. :)
Let's you and I make a deal...I don't call you "girlie," and you don't
call me "laddie," okay? It's infantalizing and insulting.
>> "what happened in the movie," you run the risk of developing a
>> seriously warped and prejudiced historical view. The study of history,
>> to some extent, requires emotional detachment and an open mind. As I
>>
>And the desire to know the *truth*, regardless of whether it's
>unpleasant or otherwise, imho. The movie is jumping off of a series of
>historical events. I'm rather saying, this is what the movie portrays,
>but what is the truth?
A desire to know the truth will only draw you into a quagmire.
Truth (historical truth, I mean) is entirely relative and can't be
articulated in 20th-century terms...which is one of the problems with
historical films. We can only think one way. Everything was different
then; morals, religion, food, clothing, physic...we can only base our
reactions on our own frame of reference. *Facts* you'll find in
abundance, but truth?? Good Luck.
>> said upthread, there are (at least) twelve sides to every story in
>> history; it's a grave error to start research with a violent emotional
>> attachment to one particular version of a story. It makes one immune
>>
>Yes, well, I hope anyone who has one of those kind of attachments gets
>some help before looking for accuracy. :)
It generally requires surgery. Preferably with a heavy blunt object.
>> to opposing viewpoints and tends to alienate people who could be of
>> assistance. And in the instance of researching any matter that has
>> emotionally or religiously charged views on either side, prejudiced
>> thinking is absolutely *lethal.* Give yourself a chance to be the best
>> historian you can.
>>
>If you're attributing any or some of the above to myself, I'd politely
>say you're making a number of assumptions about myself because I liked
>the movie.
I was directing it primarily at you, yes...because I think you're a
person who'd like history in all of its inane and arcane forms (I
assume this because you're here asking) and you've already expressed
that you're unfamiliar with a lot of it. Rather than give you book
titles which could easily be found at the local library, I'm trying to
forewarn you of the most common pitfalls you'll likely encounter.
Besides, this *is* one of those debates that occasionally takes on a
quasi-religious tone, and has a big "EITHER-OR" stamped on it (which
you've already seen to some extent).
<snip>
>And, I'm afraid that once I know the history, I won't like the movie
>anymore. My dear son spent a goodly chunk of his hard-earned paper
>route money buying it for me so he could see my face on Xmas morning
>when I opened it. Only, his thinly-veiled comments to his sisters
>containing the emphasized words of "brave" and "heart" gave it away.
>What a darlin'. :) Ah well. Then I'll just enjoy it as a "long-haired,
>blue-eyed gorgeous Mel in a kilt" movie that my son bought for me. :)
Which is sort of what I'm getting at. Films are films, history is
history, and ne'er the two shall meet. Oh, and you've got a thoughtful
son, as well.
(BTW, the chances that Wallace wore a belted plaid are infinitesimal)
>But seriously, your point, however, is well taken and a good one,
>especially within the context of your obvious concerns. Have tucked it
>in my tam for future reference if needed and much appreciated. I'll be
>searching out the books that have been suggested to me and others, if I
>can find them.
A goodly part of my spare time is taken up trying to undo what Mel
himself hath wrought. BTW, has anyone yet sent you to the
soc.culture.scottish FAQ's? They're at:
http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/scotfaq.html
And have a wealth of information on all sorts of things (and I'm sure
there's a section on William Wallace in there, even if there's none on
Rob Roy...blatant discrimination, if you ask me <grumblegrumble>...)
Seriously, give the FAQ a try.
-DDM
Trish
> Is that a Neil Jordan film? Just curious, as I've liked some of
> Jordan's other work.
>
I don't know..did he do "The Crying Game"?
> <snip>
> >*I* would prefer a mostly historical film. The parts I don't mind
> being
> >inaccurate are those that don't really matter or that aren't known
> but
> >don't change the outcome at all.
>
> But, unfortunately, that's what history is, at least 95% of it,
> anyhow...nobodies from nowhere who didn't do anything important. A
> more accurate portrayal of Medieval warfare would have been a bunch of
>
> ugly, smelly guys with ratty clothes and no teeth sitting round in a
> mudhole scratching themselves...for hours on end. This, unfortunately,
>
> wouldn't have sold many tickets. Even *I* don't expect that kind of
> accuracy!
>
I just meant accuracy by degrees. Whether they walked on the right side
or the left side of the road is generally irrelevant. The fact they got
there is moreso. If they got there by horse or by chuckwagon a little
more important but not as. And so on. Anyway, as accurate as can be
and still be interesting but without changing relevant facts as much as
possible. Anyway, this is my own preference and relevant to no one.
> >I never assumed Braveheart was
> >historical. If I didn't care for accuracy, I suppose I wouldn't be
> >asking questions designed to give me truth.
>
> That's why, ma'am, I'm pushing the point. If I thought you were just
> some bimbo who likes guys in kilts (and no, there's nothing wrong with
>
> that), I'd have killfiled you already. I just see indications that
> some your replies are skewed, as in "it didn't happen that way in the
> film..."
>
Hm, well, it's all in the interpretation I guess. Your intention is
understood, even if I haven't been.
> >No laddie, that isn't it. It's what you *fear* worked me up, and for
>
> >good reason, so we'll leave it at that. :)
>
> Let's you and I make a deal...I don't call you "girlie," and you don't
>
> call me "laddie," okay? It's infantalizing and insulting.
It's a deal and my sincerest apologies. A foolish attempt to lighten
things up. No infantalizing or insult intended.
> >And the desire to know the *truth*, regardless of whether it's
> >unpleasant or otherwise, imho. The movie is jumping off of a series
> of
> >historical events. I'm rather saying, this is what the movie
> portrays,
> >but what is the truth?
>
> A desire to know the truth will only draw you into a quagmire.
>
Not my experience but rather, my sanity. I suppose it depends on what
one means by truth.
> Truth (historical truth, I mean) is entirely relative and can't be
> articulated in 20th-century terms...which is one of the problems with
> historical films. We can only think one way. Everything was different
>
do you think so? I always thought that thinking was rather like turning
around a prism. To view it from that perspective is to turn the prism
until the relevant colour is there and view it through that angle. Of
course, nothing like actually experiencing it but I like to get as close
as I can and never call myself an expert, not even on myself. :) But
then, this becomes a philosophical discussion and again, simply open to
interpretation.
> then; morals, religion, food, clothing, physic...we can only base our
> reactions on our own frame of reference. *Facts* you'll find in
> abundance, but truth?? Good Luck.
>
I guess it depends on what one means by truth. I suppose I meant in
this reference as close to actual facts as one can get with the
knowledge and information available. But again, point well taken.
> >> said upthread, there are (at least) twelve sides to every story in
> >> history; it's a grave error to start research with a violent
> emotional
> >> attachment to one particular version of a story. It makes one
> immune
> >>
> >Yes, well, I hope anyone who has one of those kind of attachments
> gets
> >some help before looking for accuracy. :)
>
> It generally requires surgery. Preferably with a heavy blunt object.
>
Sometimes. :)
> >> to opposing viewpoints and tends to alienate people who could be of
>
> >> assistance. And in the instance of researching any matter that has
> >> emotionally or religiously charged views on either side, prejudiced
>
> >> thinking is absolutely *lethal.* Give yourself a chance to be the
> best
> >> historian you can.
> >>
> >If you're attributing any or some of the above to myself, I'd
> politely
> >say you're making a number of assumptions about myself because I
> liked
> >the movie.
>
> I was directing it primarily at you, yes...because I think you're a
> person who'd like history in all of its inane and arcane forms (I
> assume this because you're here asking) and you've already expressed
> that you're unfamiliar with a lot of it. Rather than give you book
> titles which could easily be found at the local library, I'm trying to
>
> forewarn you of the most common pitfalls you'll likely encounter.
> Besides, this *is* one of those debates that occasionally takes on a
> quasi-religious tone, and has a big "EITHER-OR" stamped on it (which
> you've already seen to some extent).
>
Yes, seems to have taken on a quasi-religious tone. Thank you for the
warning. I get it. (I think. :) I like history factually, pretty or
not. I ask for referrals to books from some as I trust the source. A
bit lazy on my part, as I have little time to do extensive research.
Too many books asking for attention on my shelf as it is. Even then, I
read with a healthy dose of skepticism which means I always have to be
open to adjusting the viewpoint if the evidence warrants it.
> Which is sort of what I'm getting at. Films are films, history is
> history, and ne'er the two shall meet. Oh, and you've got a thoughtful
>
> son, as well.
>
I understand the point.
> (BTW, the chances that Wallace wore a belted plaid are infinitesimal)
>
And the chance that Wallace looked like Mel the same. :)
> A goodly part of my spare time is taken up trying to undo what Mel
> himself hath wrought. BTW, has anyone yet sent you to the
> soc.culture.scottish FAQ's? They're at:
>
> http://www.scot.demon.co.uk/scotfaq.html
>
> And have a wealth of information on all sorts of things (and I'm sure
> there's a section on William Wallace in there, even if there's none on
>
> Rob Roy...blatant discrimination, if you ask me <grumblegrumble>...)
> Seriously, give the FAQ a try.
>
Will do. Much appreciated. And will give Rob Roy a gander...film-wise
and text-wise. :)
Trish
Stephen Hamilton
Duncan wrote:
> I disagree. There is nothing in your (or my) experience that could
> enable us to understand the mindset of, say, a 14th-century
> flagellant. If we try, we can really twist our minds and make guesses
> at religious fervor taken to an extreme by fear of God and
> plague...but we can only get so close, and it's all guessing in the
> end.
Oh I don't know about that. April 15 is coming up fast!
Stephen
Duncan
>Duncan wrote:
>
>> Is that a Neil Jordan film? Just curious, as I've liked some of
>> Jordan's other work.
>>
>I don't know..did he do "The Crying Game"?
Yup.
<snip...BTW, the laddie/girlie issue is over, no harm, no foul>
>> Truth (historical truth, I mean) is entirely relative and can't be
>> articulated in 20th-century terms...which is one of the problems with
>> historical films. We can only think one way. Everything was different
>>
>do you think so? I always thought that thinking was rather like turning
>around a prism. To view it from that perspective is to turn the prism
>until the relevant colour is there and view it through that angle.
I disagree. There is nothing in your (or my) experience that could
enable us to understand the mindset of, say, a 14th-century
flagellant. If we try, we can really twist our minds and make guesses
at religious fervor taken to an extreme by fear of God and
plague...but we can only get so close, and it's all guessing in the
end.
>Of
>course, nothing like actually experiencing it but I like to get as close
>as I can and never call myself an expert, not even on myself. :) But
>then, this becomes a philosophical discussion and again, simply open to
>interpretation.
Have you considered getting into living history? You can, if you like,
get fairly close to the experience (well, smell-wise, at least!).
<snip>
>> I'm trying to
>> forewarn you of the most common pitfalls you'll likely encounter.
>> Besides, this *is* one of those debates that occasionally takes on a
>> quasi-religious tone, and has a big "EITHER-OR" stamped on it (which
>> you've already seen to some extent).
>>
>Yes, seems to have taken on a quasi-religious tone.
You noticed? Wait until the Grand Inquisitor comes round and gets out
the thumbscrews! It's a grand time altogether. I hear I'm first on the
rack this month!
>Thank you for the
>warning. I get it. (I think. :) I like history factually, pretty or
>not. I ask for referrals to books from some as I trust the source. A
>bit lazy on my part, as I have little time to do extensive research.
>Too many books asking for attention on my shelf as it is. Even then, I
>read with a healthy dose of skepticism which means I always have to be
>open to adjusting the viewpoint if the evidence warrants it.
Primary references (written during the period you're researching) are
great tools for getting closer to the mind of the times, as long as
you have the grain of salt to go with them. You'll also find that your
sphere of research keeps creeping outward...for this time period, also
consider looking at what was going on on the continent (particularly
in France) and in the Church. It keeps you in perspective.
Try The Medieval Sourcebook at Fordham
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html#index
>> (BTW, the chances that Wallace wore a belted plaid are infinitesimal)
>>
>And the chance that Wallace looked like Mel the same. :)
No greater than the chances that Rob Roy was six and a half feet tall
and from Ballymena. Sorry.
>Will do. Much appreciated. And will give Rob Roy a gander...film-wise
>and text-wise. :)
Drop an email if you need reference tips on that subject. Oh...and the
movie's inaccurate...
Thus, we come full circle.
-DDM
(posted and emailed)
Richard Kaulfuss
It's also available on-line, minus the translation. (It's been out of
copyright for a while :-)). I don't have the URL handy, but any of the
search engines should be able to find it.
--
Dick
Stephen Copinger
Trish wrote in message <36EC47AC...@sentex.net>...
<snip>
> Okay..so, if you're still with me on this, the followup question
>becomes..is there another Gaelic word that means victory of another
>sort? I've always rather liked that this was my clan's motto as
>"Conquer or Die" is how I like to approach life..conquer it or you might
>as well roll over and die...I'd rather know the *real* translation of
>what was intended by the word, so if it means "beat the s*** out of them
>and grab the booty, or die as the alternative" I'd rather know. :)
>
>I can still keep "Conquer or Die" as my own personal motto but I'll have
>to accept the meaning of "buaidh no bas" for what it was intended. :)
The motto is variously translated as:
"Conquer or die" - English
"Vincere vel mori" - Latin
"Buaidh no bas" - Scots Gaelic
The point about any translation is that phrases or words are not *identical*
in both languages, both sets of words have different connotations. Also a
language has its "usual" manner of saying something, so an exact word for
word translation means the translated phrase is different: an example, "S'il
vous plait" translates to "Please" but literally translates as "If it you
pleases"
So, you can keep thinking of "Buaidh no bas" as "Conquer or die" if you
like, it is one interpretation. The words in both phrases have different
connotations - it can be argued these are reflections of different cultural
mindsets [warning : this argument can get very heated between certain
posters]. Depending on the common connotations you are seeking you may amend
the phrase eg "Victory or death" could be considered another valid
translation.
As pointed out in another thread the only way to truly understand another
language is to learn to think in it - the trouble then is *you* can
understand all your implications of a phrase, but then you can't really
explain it to someone who doesn't know that language. (To think about,
what's English for "mot juste"? and for advanced thinkers, what's French for
the same concept?)
Beannachd leibh
Stephen
Ian Stewart
-0500:
>
>
>Duncan wrote:
>
>> I disagree. There is nothing in your (or my) experience that could
>> enable us to understand the mindset of, say, a 14th-century
>> flagellant. If we try, we can really twist our minds and make guesses
>> at religious fervor taken to an extreme by fear of God and
>> plague...but we can only get so close, and it's all guessing in the
>> end.
>
>Oh I don't know about that. April 15 is coming up fast!
Is this a Hallmark Holiday or something else ??
--
IRS
Seeker of knowledge.
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/ian.stewart
>
>Stephen
Stephen Hamilton
Ian Stewart wrote:
Tax day.
grumblegrumblegrumble
David Allison
>> Tell you what. I'll do you a deal.
>>
>> Make your check out for what you owe to IRS.
>> Send it to me and I'll refund 50% of the face value.
>> Then you can produce the documents from the bank
>> as proof of your payment and that the check was cashed
>> when the Internal Revenue come after you !
Look mate I will give you 60% - 40% thats my last offer.
Bank of Scotland used notes.
>>
>> But let's just keep this quiet, we don't want the whole
>> world to know about this idea !
dave
Trish
> Trish wrote in message <36EC47AC...@sentex.net>...
> <snip>
> > Okay..so, if you're still with me on this, the followup question
> >becomes..is there another Gaelic word that means victory of another
> >sort? I've always rather liked that this was my clan's motto as
> >"Conquer or Die" is how I like to approach life..conquer it or you
> might
> >as well roll over and die...I'd rather know the *real* translation of
>
> >what was intended by the word, so if it means "beat the s*** out of
> them
> >and grab the booty, or die as the alternative" I'd rather know. :)
> >
> >I can still keep "Conquer or Die" as my own personal motto but I'll
> have
> >to accept the meaning of "buaidh no bas" for what it was intended. :)
>
> The motto is variously translated as:
> "Conquer or die" - English
> "Vincere vel mori" - Latin
> "Buaidh no bas" - Scots Gaelic
>
Mm hm.
> The point about any translation is that phrases or words are not
> *identical*
> in both languages, both sets of words have different connotations.
> Also a
>
Was the connotation I was after rather, once we moved on from word for
word.
> language has its "usual" manner of saying something, so an exact word
> for
> word translation means the translated phrase is different: an example,
> "S'il
> vous plait" translates to "Please" but literally translates as "If it
> you
> pleases"
>
> So, you can keep thinking of "Buaidh no bas" as "Conquer or die" if
> you
> like, it is one interpretation. The words in both phrases have
> different
> connotations - it can be argued these are reflections of different
> cultural
> mindsets [warning : this argument can get very heated between certain
> posters]. Depending on the common connotations you are seeking you may
> amend
> the phrase eg "Victory or death" could be considered another valid
> translation.
>
Yes, this one's been mentioned aplenty. I was after some confirmation
of the connotation but I think it's becoming rather apparent that one
can only get so close and that'll have to do.
> As pointed out in another thread the only way to truly understand
> another
> language is to learn to think in it - the trouble then is *you* can
> understand all your implications of a phrase, but then you can't
> really
> explain it to someone who doesn't know that language. (To think about,
>
>
Okay. So I'm as close as I'm going to get and I won't press the point
but I understand the motto, among other things, much better than ever
and am much obliged.
> what's English for "mot juste"? and for advanced thinkers, what's
> French for
> the same concept?)
>
I'm as advanced as my French dictionary allows, which my kids have
absconded, for the time being. But inherent and infuriating curiosity
will cause me to root it out for I *must* know. :) However, seeing as
I've managed to exhaust this thread most completely, shall keep it to
myself. :)
Regards,
Trish