Melvyn Bragge
I’ve been listening to a lot of BBC Radio’s “In our time” today. It’s good, but Bragge really is quite arrogant and butts in a lot; I guess he needs to do this to some extent, to keep the speakers in order because it’s radio, but still – he wants to be an expert on everything and keep on proving himself to be the best. Boring.
The Vandals
Vandal, or wandali, originally means Wanderers… makes a lot of sense. I might have to go and find out more about these Eastern barbarians who moved west.
Terry Jones’ Barbarians #2
He just said ‘inevitable’! Ooh-er, tut tut, not meant to say that sort of thing in history….
I do like seeing the landscape of the place in question, in the doco: I think it’s one of the few reasons why docos can be better than books.
Terry Jones and Barbarians
I’m watching the Atilla episode on Google video, which is quie interesting having just read Man’s bio of the man. There are a few differences…. One thing I am really curious about, is whether Jones ever actually questions the word ‘barbarian’ itself, given it’s a farily perjorative word.
I do like Jones, but I think I agree with the people I’ve read on lots of blogs, saying it’s a bit generalised and slams the Romans more than they deserve to make the ‘barbarians’ the heroes. A bit Mike Moore-ish, actually, now I think about it….
Entertaining turns of phrase
From the BBC Radio 4 episode on Charlemagne: he had a ‘legitimacy deficit’ (and therefore used Christianity to prop his rule up).
Origins and Forms of Greek Tragedy
I finished Origins and Form of Early Greek Tragedy on the weekend. It was fun – I really enjoyed it. He’s quite convincing, about tragedy not actually starting from satyr plays and Dionysus, but rather developing through Solon’s ideas (that bit I’m not entirely convinced about, not least because I don’t actually know enough about the time or the man), and Athens’ experiences in the Persian Wars, etc. What I really need to know now is why people today don’t take any notice, apparently, of what the dude said – this was published in the 1960s, and yet to this day it’s said that tragedy started from the “goat-songs” of Dionysus. So did someone write a rebuttal? Or has it just been ignored? Very curious… I might have to ask some people.
Attila the Hun
I’ve been fascinated by Attila for a while, at least partly because there seems to be so little actually known about him and he – along with his Huns – have become synonymous with evil bad rampaging Vandals (with whom they were contemporaneous – lovely). So when I saw a bio of him written by John Man, who I just love after reading Alpha Beta and The Gutenberg Revolution, I was very impressed. And I am still impressed after reading it. He does a lot to make his work accessible, and bring the subject to life: I wonder how many other would-be biographers of Attila would go to Hungary and find the man who has, single-handedly, basically reinvented the art of horse-mounted archery? And from he description, this is quite an amazing feat.
So anyway, finally I have an understanding of where Attila actually fits into the whole world history picture. I also really appreciated Man spending a chapter on later representations of Attilla and the Huns, since I never understood why the Germans suddenly became Huns in WWI. Plus, to read about the near-veneration of Attila frm modern Hungarians is also eye-opening; that old chestnut about one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…
Sucks be to Post-modernism
How I enjoy being me: not being at BDO, I have put on the Wolfmother concert I taped off Rage ages ago (bad me). I am also reading Charles Freeman’s The Greek Achievement.
This is not the reason I can say nasty things to postmodernists, although it is a bit out there.
No, the reason I am feeling smug towards PMs at the moment is what I just read in the aforementioned book. There was a philosopher who lived around 490-420BC, name of Protagoras. His most famous words, apparently, are “man is the measure of all things.” He claimed that if one person said a drink was bitter, then it is true to say that it is bitter; and if another person said the same drink was sweet, it was true to say it was indeed sweet. Ha ha! PMs are not so postmodern after all! They are indeed rehashing ancient ideas! And to add a cherry to this glorious statement, Freeman continues with: “This was easily challenged by Democritus, and after him, Plato. If all beliefs are true, so too is the belief that no beliefs are true and there is an insoluble contradition.” Mahahahaha.
*sigh* Back to school tomorrow.
Cornelia Funke and Anna Lanyon
I know it’s a bit sad, but for only the second time in my life I sent a fan email to an author – to Cornelia Funke. I got areply today, from her sister, who apparently has taken on the task of answering the fan mail Cornelia receives. (Although of course, she still reads all of it, and it’s very precious to her….) Anyway, she let me in on the tentative title of the third Ink book: Inkdeath. Oh dear.
I think I quite like being a fan. I think I’ve written before about the issues of being a fan, me being such a snob and all… but the look on Anna Lanyon’s face, after I heard her speaking about her books Malinche and The New World of Martin Cortes, and then I asked her for her autograph, was incredibly worthwhile. I think, if I were an author, I would get a kick out of anyone saying they liked my work. Surely you don’t get sick of that too quickly?
Caligula
Just about to finish a bio of Caligula, which I have quite enjoyed – which is a good thing, since I recently bought a book on Agrippina (the Younger) by the same author. I had to laugh, though; I don’t know whether he did it deliberately, but I thought he was aiming for a dispassionate account, or as dispassionate as an historian is capable of being, but there’s a great line about Caligula being condemned by historians through the ages largely because he deserves it! Ah, Objectivity; how we worship Thee. As well, i’m not entirely convinced by his treatment of the sources, who are basically Suetonius and Dio, with a bit of Philo and Seneca thrown in. He says they’re unreliable, and totally dismisses some stories – and I think I agree with his rationale in those cases – but I wasn’t always able to follow his logic for the stories that he accepted as likely to be basically true, or containing some useful historical nugget.
Nonetheless, it was an interesting read. And the above issues are always interesting for an historian, and perhaps especially a history teacher, to be reminded of.
Randomly Yours, Alex 