Edward I does not enjoy a good reputation in the minds of
many historians and most of those who enjoyed the movie, “Braveheart”. It would
appear that, unlike many other English kings, he doesn’t enjoy the benefit of a
contextual view of his life and times. This might be encouraged by the
patriotic and hugely selective view that has made William Wallace become a
virtual saint in Scotland. Without putting too blunt an end on the matter,
Edward was a winner in imperialistic times and those he beat were his next door
neighbours, the Scots, the Welsh and the French. His victory meant oppression
and subjection of his neighbours delivered in a way that befitted a conquering
king of his time. That does not rest well with the sympathies of a modern
English culture that champions temperance, freedom and peaceful negotiation.
However, for his time, Edward was considered a great king by his English
subjects and yet it was a reputation hard-earned.
Vlad III, Prince of Walachia, competes with many other historical monarchs in his position as an icon. However, his fame has more to do with a late Victorian supernatural monster that was given his patronym some 421 years after his death than anything he did during his lifetime. That isn't to say the life of Vlad the Impaler had not achieved notoriety prior to Stoker selecting his title, "Dracula", meaning Son of the Dragon, but it is a fair statement to say interest in this figure has increases every time a high profile adaptation of the 1897 novel is released.
I doubt the writers of "Dracula: Prince of Many Faces", Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally, would have been surprised to see that interest in Vlad would only increase after the publication of their fourth book on the subject in 1989. Their previous works included two on the historical Dracula and one on the fictional Bram Stoker creation. This book, although mainly focused on the life and times of Vlad III, bookends the biography comparing the two Draculas. Therefore, one might assume that the justification for the book is to comprehensively unite their studies and to provide a broad overview of the historical figure of Dracula. In this sense, it delivers what is says in the title and a quarter of a century on from this publication there doesn't seem to be anything in popular historical studies to touch this in terms of content.
Scan of plate in book on Joan of Arc, described as "Joan's Vision" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Icons are not as easy to fathom as we might like. Too many of them have become enshrined in a country's sense of identity and then crossed over as s pure symbol for a philosophy or political ideal. Finally, they make their way into a universal representation of something that dares defiance. Joan of Arc is a prime example. I struggle to find something that properly grounds the person and separates the myth. The below book wasn't the answer.
I came to this book purely by chance. It wasn’t reviewed or recommended to me. I have a rather omnivorous taste in most things and history is no exception. However, if there is an area that attracts my attention more than most it is the dissection and deconstruction of historical icons. I love myths and legends, and part of the process of appreciating a fictionalized story is distilling the actual facts. It seems like a bizarre motivation and against the normal persuasions of a romanticist, but I have never claimed to be a straightforward personality. When one considers that I have a keen interest in endorsing critical thinking, it all makes a bit more sense. Nevertheless, “Beyond the Myth: The Story of Joan of Arc” has never made any sceptical reading list I have seen. I chose it because I wanted to read a compact and comprehensive description of Joan’s life and the title perked the interests I have already mentioned.
“Remember, remember the 5th November. Gunpowder,
treason and plot”
Okay, it’s not the most original way to start a piece of
writing, but I do like its ominous-sounding dramatic emphasis. The day the
British changed a part of the Halloween celebration to celebrate the downfall
of a Catholic terrorist attack against a Protestant King and his establishment
has long since lost most of its significance. The oldest living generations in
Britain have lived under the shadow of terrorism for a long time now. Many of
us were alive when there was another attempt to blow up the head of our
country. More of us were alive when various far larger scale terrorist attacks
occurred, which rocked the global community in so many ways as to define post
2001 cultural ideas. This has led us to look at the broader view of terrorism
and its many complexities. History also tells us that although the Catholics in
question were fanatical, James I and his regime were far from a magnanimous example
of religious tolerance.
The 2000s saw the rise of quality of TV drama. Looking back to the previous decade it was inevitable that this was going to happen and I aim to discuss the matter in an essay on subject. However, for the purposes of this review we find “Gunpowder, Treason and Plot” riding on the wave of historical dramas with rising budgets. The US were already investing in collaborative efforts in Europe that would see series like “Rome” break new ground in terms of mainstream adult-orientated historical drama.
“Gunpowder, Treason and Plot” was a two-part TV production made for the BBC by a key Scottish crew, including Gillies MacKinnon as director. It exhibited a lot of what was to come, but still retained certain elements from the previous era. Jimmy McGovern, creator the critically acclaimed crime series, “Cracker”, wrote the screenplay. For the most part, he does a decent job framing a complex story and takes some original angles with historical characters. He also clearly had his eye on the changing face of historical dramas for an adult audience. The violence and sex scenes, although not gratuitous, ensured a wider audience. Whilst the story featured complex characters played by the principal cast. We are not relegated to a limited number of unconvincing studio sets either. Instead the entire production was shot in Romania and it convincingly recreates Scotland and England. The audience gets a real feel of scope that many previous history-based BBC productions were missing. A peculiar quirk that seems to have bene left over from the past is the peculiar decision to break the fourth wall a couple of times in the second episode. This is done to reveal the
Melvyn
Bragg has earned himself the rare distinction of being a true celebrity
academic in modern times. His achievements are vast and impressive. His career
got off the ground as a successful novelist in the 1960s and he has gone onto
win several critical awards up until the late 1990s. I grew up seeing him as
the presenter with the peculiar nasally voice, regularly lampooned by the
satirical puppet show Spitting Image,
who hosted The South Bank Show. Bragg
had a reputation for arts and culture, but I later discovered he was a huge
driving force behind science in the Radio
4 programme, In Our Time, which he
took over hosting and currently still presents. The show presents itself as a
history programme with Bragg hosting or, to be more accurate, chairing a panel
of university lecturers on a particular event or person from history. However,
in line with Eleanor Roosevelt’s regular quote regarding small minds discussing
people and medium minds discussing events, the listener quickly discovers the
strength in the show is its exploration of ideas. Bragg does well to keep the
discussing going along certain channels and even testing certain arguments with
the impartial view his role demands. Such a role reveals a broad yet in depth
understanding of a vast array of subjects that straddle the worlds of
imagination and fact-finding. As a fellow writer that does not like to be
confined to a narrow path, I find it is truly inspiring to see now that his
published work includes a wide range of subjects in both fiction and
non-fiction. Therefore, I shouldn’t have really been surprised to see the
hugely disparate selection of books he chose for 12 Books That Changed the World.
Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Stipple engraving. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
"[He] then proceeded, with much eagerness and enthusiasm, to show me the
various instruments, especially the electrical apparatus; turning round
the handle very rapidly, so that the fierce, crackling sparks flew
forth; and presently standing upon the stool with glass feet, he begged
me to work the machine until he was filled with the fluid, so that his
long, wild locks bristled and stood on end. Afterwards he charged a
powerful battery of several large jars; laboring with vast energy, and
discoursing with increasing vehemence of the marvellous powers of
electricity, of thunder and lightning; describing an electrical kite
that he had made at home, and projecting another and an enormous one, or
rather a combination of many kites, that would draw down from the sky
an immense volume of electricity, the whole ammunition of a mighty
thunderstorm; and this being directed to some point would there produce
the most stupendous results."
If you don't know already, my guess is that if I told you the above description was taken from another novel based on Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" you would not challenge me. Besides his wild eyes, Mary Shelley offers us no physical descriptions of Victor Frankenstein in her novel. However, the above text comes from Shelley's biographer, Thomas Jefferson Hogg when he describes the famous poet during his time at Oxford University. It's an interesting image. Like Victor Frankenstein, Shelley combined an avid interest in the metaphysical and the occult with the ways of modern science. His spirit and manic enthusiasm paint the very picture many actors would take on board when they portrayed this character.
I am currently reading "Dracula: Prince of Many Faces - His Life and Times" by Radu Florescu and Raymond McNally and I came across this wonderful passage:
"Although folklore has to be used with caution by the historian, it can be a legitimate tool. There are perhaps more reason to trust collective folk wisdom, because people can be more discriminating on what they chose to remember, than the memoirs of statesmen, diplomats, and kings, who often to chose to deceive posterity to enhance their reputation."
It’s quite disappointing to see how much
flack this excellent little book has received. I was under no illusion that the
book I was about to read was going to be a light read. The book’s title does
imply that it is to be considered to be in the same category as Ben Goldacre’s
“Bad Science” and Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy”. Despite both of these books
being written for a lay audience they were not shot in details or text. Emma
Marriot’s slim collection of short essays might be with Goldacre and Plait in
sentiment, but the work isn’t intended to educate the reader in good historical
research. However, it does provide examples of what good research achieves and
how good historians view the past. Unfortunately I think many history buffs
were looking forward to a heavily cited and in depth analysis of historical
myths and a debunking of pseudohistory; not a book strictly for academics, but
nevertheless one with a scholarly appeal. Recent years have seen some good
academics, like Richard J Evans take on the postmodern anti-historical wave and
others like David Aronovitch, Kathryn S. Olmsted and even
sceptical scientist Michael Shermer produce sterling investigations that both
debunk and seek to understand the nature of conspiracy theory.
In Defence of History by Richard J Evans is an effective baseline yet intellectually detailed argument for rational historical investigation. I highly recommend to anyone who has been bamboozled by the idea that history is just one person’s opinion.
2009 marked the anniversary of several important historical events. The one that got the most attention was the 200th anniversary of the birth of pioneering English naturalist Charles Darwin, the date also coinciding with the 150th anniversary of his revolutionary book on the theory of evolution, “On the Origin of the Species”. This has seen several films and documentaries, plus some great programmes and lectures – Melvin Bragg’s four part edition of “In Our Time” being a stand out example - I have enjoyed commemorating the man’s life and work. My parents’ company also worked on the biopic “Creation” and, best of all, got a contract at the OldVicTheatre to supply a trained monkey for the critically acclaimed stage play “Inherit the Wind” starring one of my favourite actors, Kevin Spacey. The run has been packed at every performance and one my regrets has been that I haven’t found the time to watch it. The play is a 1955 fictional piece that was inspired by on 1926 Scopes Trial that saw a Tennessee high school teacher tried and convicted for teaching evolution.
Darwin is quite rightly considered by many to be one of the greatest Britons that ever lived. However, other historical events also deserve some consideration. 1 September saw the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II. September saw several programmes and books released used to commemorate the biggest crisis of the 20th century. It made me consider the generation still alive that lived through those terrible times. It feels especially poignant today as many of us know of soldiers who fight in far away lands and we are all too aware of the dangers of bigoted fanaticism. This has happened in the form of extremist fundamental religiosity that has haunted the 2000s and in the rise of far-right groups in the developed world. Most of the people I knew that lived through that era were circus people who had a hard enough time before the war. During the war some of them would fight – my great-uncle was a fighter pilot and my grandfather and great-grandfather were in the home guard – and others would struggle to keep their business running, entertaining those who lived in the shadow of the blitz and the fear of invasion.
My third anniversary is a far less commemorated one. The “BBC History Magazine” – a great publication and podcast by the way – was the only time I saw this anniversary covered in the mainstream. Mary Wolstonecraft was a brilliant British intellectual, born on 27 April 1759, who wrote on a wide range of subjects. She wrote a treatise, history, philosophy, a book on conduct and even a children’s book. Wolstonecraft was a revolutionary thinker remembered almost completely for her feminism. Her reputation was seriously damaged when her well-meaning, honest and loving husband the great philosopher, William Godwin, wrote his memoir on her life after she died. By revealing her illegitimate children and her suicide attempts he only helped fuel the fire of his wife’s anti-feminist critics. A century later and Wolstonecraft’s argument for female equality was being voiced by angry numbers. Wolstonecraft put forward the argument that women were every bit man’s intellectual equal and should be treated as such, the only thing holding them back was education. The Suffrage Movement may have started in France, but much of its inspiration clearly comes from this remarkable human being. A relative of mine on the circus side actually marched and was egged on a Suffrage march during the early part of 20th century. Traditional circus people tend to be more right leaning than left due to their association with tradition and the fact that they are very much products of free enterprise. However, as I have argued before, much of what they have done is as much a shining example of liberal or even socialist ideals as it is of Capitalism. Feminism can be seen through the way women were taking on roles associated with male courage, such as wild animal presenters, and my book “The Legend of Salt and Sauce” reveals Madame Clara Paulo becoming the head of a British circus family a year before women were granted the right to vote at the same age as men.
However, my interest in Mary Wolstonecraft did come through an interest in feminism. It came through the daughter, Mary Wolstonecraft Godwin Shelley, the author of one of favourite novels, “Frankenstein”. But that is a topic for another day.
Don't forget to check out Jamie Clubb's main blog www.jamieclubb.blogspot.com
Voodoo Histories is a long overdue scholarly yet entertaining rational study on the history of the 20th and 21st century's rising interest in conspiracy theory. He looks at its uses in propaganda and its emergence as pop history phenomenon. A common myth among conspiricists is that conspiracy theories are often anti-right wing, but as David Aaronovitch points out, they have no political preference. There have been very popular left and right wing conspiracy theories propagated over time.
Beginning with the fictional Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Aaronovitch shows how a proven piece of 19th century anti-Semitic propaganda, undeniably plagiarized from a French satire on Napoleon III, wove its way into global consciousness. It was endorsed by people such as Henry Ford, then used by Adolph Hitler and finally found its way into the 9/11 conspiracy theories and the Middle East. Even when it was satisfactorily debunked a type of post-modernist argument began that its authenticity was irrelevant, what it revealed was the reality of today. This time of irrational disregard for evidence and truth became closely associated with many conspiracy theories that followed. As real government-level conspiracies were revealed with the Freedom of Information Act, matters only got worse as paranoia and mistrust grew. For example, the discovery that a suggestion was made to the US government by their agents to hijack and crash planes in order to blame the Cubans and justify a war gathered little press before 21st century, despite being in the public domain and commented on in various media. After 9/11, of course, it became a type of proof that this is what had actually happened with the TwinTowers.
After the Protocols there was Stalin’s use of conspiracy theory to back up the infamous show trials that saw the extermination of his last rival for power in Soviet Russia. Aaronovitch carefully argues the model of paranoia found in totalitarian despots like Stalin and his Chinese counterpart Mao or Cambodian one, Pol Pot, would be replicated by many individuals who bought into conspiracy theory then and buy into it today.
Next there was the persistent belief that PearlHarbour was not a surprise attack at all, but yet another set-up by Roosevelt to wage the war he was arguing for prior to the event. The ‘50s saw matters go back to right wing conspiracy theories with Senator McCarthy’s anti-communist witch hunts whilst pop interest grew around the death of Marilyn Monroe. It was back to the left during the liberal ‘60s with the JFK assassination and the moon landings. Nixon’s very real conspiracy really fired paranoia up in the 1970s and the cult of interest grew to ridiculous proportions taking us through the next three decades with the growth of a whole pseudohistory business, which was best illustrated by the huge success of Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and the “factual” book that inspired it. Interestingly “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail”, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, can also be easily traced back to a single hoax.
Aaronovitch is a thorough author who has far from a pro-establishment background and acknowledges its equally destructive other extreme, contingency theory. His work here not shows us that although often thought as fun as other forms of urban legend, there are real dangers in unfounded conspiracy theory. This danger is indicated in the growing trust in unsupported claims and ideas by many people in the media eye, including prominent politicians. He nicely defines what is meant by a conspiracy theory, as a type of reverse Occam’s Razor. Rather than opting for the solution that requires the least number of assumptions, the conspiricist goes for the solution that has the least amount of probability and requires faith over evidence.
If you enjoyed this review please show your appreciation by voting for it on
The following are three articles I posted on my main blog. They very well-suited here. My intention initially was to interview a respected friend and historian, Dr Heather Vallance regarding reasoned historical research versus the pulp non-fictionconspiracy theory type that litter our airports and clutter many a dinner/pub conversation. I then wrote up some follow up information regarding the psychology of the conspiracist and the alarming popularity of pseudo-history.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tcxulaMXyMD3IeeOJAT4ZxLTTVqEmlfIFfh5lqjYgDyw4OW7bCBeQ-C0ZMr8GBG7ulPp89garIL4q25CwKnj1BVvhM8iU-wvO9-sPFm2gQmGVVbJm4X1MdmxSzX5qtX6kTXrlKkQr1BgalMwLUswI=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vABcilkP6zjmS-xbKNeDz6Q_qIe0h8hLxqe0jnGDwjjQAzLnvo6mM56gLPGx3BR4RqRrAlUubzxcOQ_BJAXKBjJvZXQTXoeglrC3qYObK0XTujj2h_gPNCO8qoTcjxzsWqk0x6fDu0AcdHReow_yAq=s0-d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sGSBeGWNlIEgPY8DlzYCQw_QlAZEvepj_v16LaJ5fp9I1M9wz132tHO7OyzMBrGT45OgiEd1FRYTG72_XEqU_8htj8Z6SPPiRNKY1DEOoffOYIkZPPoa4u75c17_vk6WUSUqQdmZC6UwK96nT0qtG7=s0-d)