tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post7015394562600240918..comments2023-10-10T05:17:55.737-07:00Comments on Crushed By Ingsoc: King Arthur and The Mutability of The PastCrushedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02479751225625007588noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-10587312204064576802008-10-28T17:27:00.000-07:002008-10-28T17:27:00.000-07:00Thanks Crushie! That's the stuff!When I read all t...Thanks Crushie! That's the stuff!<br><br>When I read all these historical accounts the same thought goes round and round in my head: what would history be if written by women? Would we hear more of the 'real' everyday stories...the stuff that connects us all to one another..a more human introspection. That is the stuff that would interest me..but men seemed to write with an agenda - for power and for ego. <br><br>Anyway, I enjoyed this. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-9750377279640418972008-10-28T22:52:00.000-07:002008-10-28T22:52:00.000-07:00Didn't Herodotus preface his work with the disclai...Didn't Herodotus preface his work with the disclaimer that he reported it the way he was told it? <br><br>Hasn't the fashion in which historical events have been recorded evolved in line with human and societal development and education becoming more common place?<br><br>And isn't it the case, particularly pre 18th century, that there is no finite account that be given on issues that involve a number of different people, ethnic groups. religions, political systems etc, and that the interpretation and acceptance of "fact" will often be subject the to the belief systems of any given person, group or country?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-71343441691644853792008-10-29T00:09:00.000-07:002008-10-29T00:09:00.000-07:00Lordy, lordy that was a ten fag post for sure. Bu...Lordy, lordy that was a ten fag post for sure. But I bet you never cracked a book or googled a thing. <br><br>The Arthurian legends and myths abound and when so little is known the sky is the limit.<br><br>I'm reading a book at the moment called A Short History of Myth by Karen Armstrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-48828578977557580972008-10-29T05:21:00.000-07:002008-10-29T05:21:00.000-07:00Interesting post and wow! A (probably undeserved) ...Interesting post and wow! A (probably undeserved) dedication too. TY.<br><br>But I guess you mythed something ^_^.<br><br>Henry wasn’t so far wrong in believing the British Isles had their own independent Christian church/tradition. It did. <br><br>The so-called British Church AKA the insular, or Celtic church. A rather wide "home brew" version of Christianity that developed separate from Rome when the empire withdrew, based round monasteries.<br><br>It was eventually suppressed and brought into line with Rome. As was the Cathar "heresy". I figure that’s one plank to how Henry interpreted/justified his moves.<br><br>As as return to the true, original British non Romano-centric Christian tradition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-57929922230991852008-10-29T10:57:00.000-07:002008-10-29T10:57:00.000-07:00Crushed- I'm less enamoured of Livy than trying to...Crushed- I'm less enamoured of Livy than trying to work him out :)<br><br>But I'd agree with you if you said that historians have a project- Geoffrey definitely did. On the Lucius point with Henry- its there but its only a secondary consideration- I think its first mentioned by Norfolk to Chapuys as a threat in 1530 (we have the church to be independent- look at Lucius) and actually isn't that major in the future. In Elizabeth's reign it gets taken up again- though in reality I'd argue Foxe's book of martyrs was more important. I have to say I am basing this on a half remembered paper from Felicity Heal at Cambridge a couple of years ago- Foxe though is the key and you are right both the Cathars and the Hussites come into that story.<br><br>I'd also say that religion here intersects with the story of law- which goes back through Coke and Selden to Fortescue and eventually to the accounts of Bracton (c. 1220) about where the law of England originated- most of them are trying to place that origin before the conquest and to some extent when they say Arthur or time immemorial, they are not as interested in the previous period than in the fact that they can prove the existance of English law prior to 1066 and the fact that it is English law which makes England a separate realm (as Henry's propagandist St German argued) and thus a separate ecclesiastical regime is justified. English law and English religion are opposite sides of the same coin in this reading.<br><br>Sorry for the long comment but its an interesting subject and there is so so much detail to be observed (too much to be dealt with in one comment or one post)- part of what I'm trying to do with Livy is the kind of detailed analysis that I think a great historian needs to understand him- I cannot do it perfectly as I don't know enough about Livy's intellectual milieu- for a wonderful exploration of a historian you should read Pocock's four volume study of Gibbon and his time which is excellent and very interesting.<br><br>I think what your post reinforces is how important not only it is to study history but also to study the kind of stories that people tell about themseles: as essentially those stories are the ideology of the people telling them- and incidentally on a last point that's why I disagree with Kate, history written by women would be very similar (often has been very similar) to men's- because for both sexes indeed for all human beings history is a way of stringing together events into something that we can comprehend- chaos into a substance.<br><br>Right that's a mammoth comment- hope some of it is interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-4055984011197997352008-10-29T15:35:00.000-07:002008-10-29T15:35:00.000-07:00Kate- This post, or the concept of it, has been on...Kate- This post, or the concept of it, has been on my to do a list a while. It just seemed apt right now, for a lot of reasons. Nor is the subject done to death yet. Historical myth is a rich subject.<br><br>Most history prior to the eightentrh century concerned itself mainly with Kings.<br><br>Geoffrey's is actually one of the better pseudo histories because at least you are ware of a civilian population. If you read Saxo Grammaticus (the Danish equivalent), you wonder how Denmark survived, its Kings were too busy conquering to do any ruling, if you believe Saxo.<br><br>I can't think of any histories from these days written by women, by that was probably because most history in the Middle Ages was written by monks or noblemen.<br><br>However, if you want to read legends written from a female perspective, may I recommend the Lays of Marie de France. In many ways, quite feminist in their viewpoint. Women are actually allowed to love who they choose in them :)<br><br>Le Femme- He does, but one wonders who he listened to. He can't have got his Egyptian history direct from egyptian priests unless they got him drunk before they told him. It bears no ressemblance to real history and adds kings of Egypt from Greek myth, such as Proteus.<br><br>And his account of Cyrus is pure mythology.<br><br>The Middle Ages was a time in which documents were accurately preserved. So it wasn't that 'facts' weren't collated, just they weren't so often questioned.<br><br>So many things were taken as ospel truth based on the 'authority' of the author.<br><br>Case in point, Aristotle's statement that heavier objects fall faster. No one actually tested it. they assumed Aristotle had. He hadn't.<br><br>Your last point is kind of one of the points I was aiming at.<br><br>History is so often about interpretation and the significance of an event can change as history progresses.<br><br>Take the Glorious revolution. At one time, it was believed to be the most significant event in British History. Now it is largely forgotten. The truth is probably somewhere between the two.<br><br>jmb- I think I had two fag breaks :)<br><br>I didn't, because I'm lazy. There was a point where I did search in my head to be sure of something, but I couldn't be bothered to go to the living room and actually find my copy of Geoffrey.<br><br>It's worth reading though and it's easy to find copies.<br><br>I specialised in the legend at degree level.<br><br>I find these later legends fascinating. people tend to ignore them, but in a way they made the world we live in.<br><br>Take Sweden. It's King is Carl XVI. But the first six Carls were made up.<br><br>I'll have to see if I can find an online write up of that book :)<br><br>Moggs- It did, yes, and Geoffrey wrote his book partly to promote that at a time when the see of Canterbury was asserting its authority over the Church in Wales. Geoffrey maintained that Caerleon had once been a Metropolitan see in its own right.<br><br>Incidently, I live not to far from the place which may have the best claim to be 'Augustine's Oak'. It's nothing exciting and it has a ghadtly pub with a vast children's play area.<br><br>'Who holds the keys to Heaven, St Peter or St Columba?' As was said at the Synod of Whitby :)<br><br>The Cathars. Well, they gave us the word buggery :)<br><br>The Celtic church wasn't strictly heretical, just divergent, primarily on technicalities like Easter and Tonsures. The Cathars were part of an alternative Christian concept I have alluded to before, going right back to Marcion and Gnosticism and basically saying that the God of the OT is the Devil of the new.<br><br>Grachhi- It wouldn''t have mattered later. In 1530, Henry was kind of bartering for a position kind of like the Patriarchs of Eastern churches. Not part of the Church of Rome, but not quite heretical either. The Popes had learned to co-exust with Constantinople, he figured they could co-exist with him. He was, after all, very Catholic.<br><br>In fact, he converted More away from his early sympathies with Luther. Irony of ironies.<br><br>Its the concept of an 'Imperial Crown' that is the key. The Popes argued that their authority derived from the donation of Constantine. thus, they were temporal masters of all the land of the Empire, west of Illyria.<br>And thus the lawful masters of Kings whose authority derived from being part of the Imperium. Thus, all the land of the HRE, Spain, etc.<br><br>The argument was that whilst other european monarchies were monarchies originally part of the Roman system (and observing Roman law), Britain lay outside that Imperium, and indeed was 'Imperial' in its own right, the scottish and Irish kings bearing the same rwelations to it that Bohemia bore to the HRE.<br><br>And of course, that France did until Philip IV successfully proved that it didn't. Though since he had the Pope under his thumb, he could hardly lose.<br><br>I've still not got round to rreading Gibbon, though I enjoy MacCauley's indignant and totally partian work. In fact on the whole, I rate it quite highly even if he didn't much care for 'papists'.<br><br>I think ALL history is written with the final chapter in mind, and the final chapter is always the present.<br><br>All historians see history as primarily the task of explaining why something is the way it is NOW.<br><br>I'm not sure we can ever escape that flaw.<br><br>Comments can be as long as they need to be, I have the floor with the post, it's good to have considered responses which add to it :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-89101148283850252762008-11-01T15:06:00.000-07:002008-11-01T15:06:00.000-07:00Wow what a fascinating post Crushed. And it happen...Wow what a fascinating post Crushed. And it happens time and time again. <br><br>I've been thinking about putting up some posts about my favourite historical characters. One them will be William Bligh. While he was no angel, he was not the tyrant portrayed on film.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com