Zero, and all that
I’m reading Zero: Biography of a Dangerous Idea at the moment. It’s spinning my head a little bit, and I have to admit that I am skipping the serious maths bits. But it is enjoyable, and it is truly bizarre to think about the consequences of zero and infinity in maths, physics, and… everything else…. I should finish it tonight; I’ll write more about it once my brain recovers.
Kit Marlowe
I’ve just finished reading a book I picked up in Cambridge called The Reckoning: The Murder of Christopher Marlowe. I’ve always loved Kit Marlowe and the stories and conspiracies around him; one of the best college plays I ever saw was a take on his Faust, done with 1930s clothes and a very dark theme song (the Garbage song from Romeo and Juliet done only with sax and bass).
Anyway, this is Charles Nicholl’s attempt to find as much as information as he can about the people who were actually present at Marlowe’s death (Frizer, Skeres and Poley), their various connections and dealings iin life, and make some sense of them. He’s also found as much information as he can about Marlowe and his possible/probable spying efforts.
There is a lot of information gathered here. Some of it at least may have been more suited to a book on spies in Elizabethan times, which I still would have read anyway, although I can see the point of including most of it here – good background, shows just what sort of people were involved, and lends weight to Nicholl’s idea that it wasnt just a drunken brawl over the bill that left Marlowe with a dagger in his eye.
I’m not entirely convinced by Nicholl’s final ideas, which is that Marlowe was being set up in order to discredit Walter Raleigh (who was indeed jailed for treason about a decade later – Marlowe was killed in 1593). Marlowe’s connections to Raleigh seemed a bit tenuous, and even more so did the reasons for wanting to bring Raleigh down. Maybe I am too straight-forward a thinker that I can’t get my head around the convolutions that seemed to be involved in Elizabethan politics (and probably are today, in the murkier side of things).
I enjoyed it as a book. It’s easy to read, although I got lost a few times trying to keep up with who was who and how they were connected, although Nicholls does a fair job of keeping the reader up to speed with little reminders about info that has come before, which was most welcome. As I said, not entirely convinced that Raleigh was ultimately the reason for his death, but I am definitely willing to believe that there was some dastardly conspiracy behind it all.
On a related note, the last board you read as go out of the Globe in London is about the whole Shakespeare and authorship issue. Marlowe is, of course, mentioned… and there are leaflets for the Marlowe Society next to the board. I love that.
Ivanhoe
I am in the middle of Ivanhoe, the TV show. I thought it was much older than it is – it was made in 1997! And there was me thinking there were parts that looked like Monty Python’s Holy Grail! Oops.
I am definitely enjoying it… I got Scott’s book at a second hand book sale ages ago, but haven’t got around to reading it yet. Of course. The romantic entanglements have me very confused about exactly how it will all be resolved in the end. Well, one of them is dead, so I guess that helps… .
Damming Sudan
This is a particularly appropriate title of an article in Archaeology magazine, an exceprt of which can be found here. I am so angry at what is being done here – the lack of attention that is being paid to the remains of the area, which may well be incredibly significant. But it also makes me wonder a lot of things.
How much does it matter if we don’t know about a certain period of time? (and how much is that a heresy for a historian?) We are always told not to make a case from silence, but surely there are many, many things we don’t know because it never got written down, or the mss/artefacts were not preserved… surely some, at least, of what we know is preserved by fluke alone. So does it matter that we don’t know something? How much does it matter? How can we make that call? I just don’t know the answer to that question, and it bugs me a lot. Does it change the world that we don’t know exactly how Nubia/Sudan influenced the ancient Egyptians, or more recently medieval African Christians? Maybe not that much… except that more people might respect the modern inhabitants of the area if that became more well-known (which begs the question, how much do people pay attention to historical/archaeological discoveries? Not that much, I suspect, except when it’s about homo sapiens and Neanderthals having sex…).
How do you make the call between modern needs and archaeological needs? I guess people who are still alive take precedence, but surely there can be ways that both interests can be served? It makes me very sad both that nomads are being displaced by this new dam, and that lots and lots of archaeoloical stuff will be lost. But that tribal elders can think that keeping archaeologists out because it will slow the dam down means either that they are stupid and naive – which I am very not convinced by – or they are getting bad advice….
Richard Pipes
I’ve just finished his Concise History of the Russian Revolution, preparing for next year. The book as a whole is fascinating, and glaringly showed up my lack of knowledge, but the end in particular is interesting, for its ruminations – and, to some extent, attack – on historians and thinkings about history. He says that historians should not be passionless in dealing with their subject, that we should not always be scientific in our thinking about historical events.
He says a lot of other things, but right now I have to both make a cassata and get busy with my reports, so I am going to leave this half-thought-out and do those… because my brain really isn’t on theoretical things at the moment.
Still in the Kingdom of Heaven
Gosh, it’s so useful to have a leader who used to be a blacksmith, isn’t it? You can think up all sorts of useful little tricks to bring down the belfries.
And, much as I am embarassed to admit it, Orlando really is a bit of a cutie (sorry J, but he is). He does always play the same character, though… much like Hugh Grant. And bordering on being almost as weak-looking, too. Perfect for Paris Alexandros… what a pansy.
Kingdom of Heaven
So I borrowed this out for viewing with some students on a Medieval Day we had at school. We offered Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and Monty Python and the Holy Grail also, and I watched the former. I was glad I did, since half way through one of the teachers came and asked whether I had seen it, and if I knew where to forward it to. I hadn’t, so I didn’t; she said the kids were getting bored because it was a talkfest, with very little fighting.
Anyway, we decided to watch it tonight, since it’s our Friday and there is nothing else on TV. It’s not quite as bad as the teacher suggested yesterday, but I can see why the kids were bored. The fighting is – well, I think it’s stylised in some ways, and there really isn’t as much as I had expected. I had thought that this was set during one of the actual Crusades, but it isn’t. (but OH – we just got to the Saladin bit, and that is clever! I knew the Saracen he didn’t kill wasn’t a servant or slave… oh hang on, I thought he was Saladin himself. OK, that’s not quite as cool as I originally thought. Oh well.).
There is a lot of talking. And some bits that I find highly dubious. However, the fact that I picked it was going to be Baldwin the Leper as king has me very smug (and the mask is very cool; I wonder how Edward Norton felt about that, since you basically don’t know it’s him). And the portrayal of Saladin is very positive, for a Hollywood film. Made in 2005… so after the latest crusade was preached by Bush… I wonder if that is deliberate.
Lots of familiar faces in this film too, which is fun. Reinault, he fauning leader of the Templars, was Menelaos in another role. Jeremy Irons, hurrah! Liam Neeson, for all of 10 minutes. Guy de Lusignan… what a different role for Martin Csorkas. I loved him in Aeon Flux, and of course as Celeborn. And the lord not killed by Orlando was blown up in Spooks in very sad fashion. (Notice how I am not bothering to mention Orlando? Pft. Playing Will, again, basically.)
BBC radio shows
I’ve been listening to “In our Time” today: my house has been invaded by musos, taping a demo of some new songs written by Esther. So I’m banished to the bedroom, with my puter and a couple of books.
So I’ve listened to the episode on the Diet of Worms, on the EncyclopeÌdie, and at the moment to Poincare and his conjecture… which I admit I’m not listening to very carefully, so I’m actually not really sure what the conjecture is. Nevertheless, I do enjoy these episodes, despite the fact that often I think Melvyn is a but of a knob, and seems to try and trip his guests up. Sometimes I guess his seeming-abrasiveness is to get the entire thing done in 40 minutes, which is always an effort.
Venus
…and her head are being re-attached.
Cool!
(Pseudo?) Historical films
I am flabbergasted that someone has bothered to make a film about Romulus Augustulus; I would not have thought that enough people would know about him and the Goths to make it worthwhile. Maybe it is indicative of the perennial hold that the Romans still seem to have over the Western imagination and self-identity… or myabe because it is relatively unknown, the producers/director thought it would be easier to cut historical corners on. Who knows; I think I will go and see it, whenever it gets released, just for curiosity’s sake. Romulus is played by that kid from Love Actually – that, I am not convinced by. Nor am I entirely convinced by Colin Firth as Aurelius – nice choice of name though.
The other, more probably pseduo, historical movie that has caught my attention recently is 300, which is about the Spartans at Thermopylae. This has great potential, I feel – nice bit of self-sacrifice, high drama, etc. I am a bit dubious, though, because it is based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller… and, having seen the trailer, it has a very similar feel to Sin City. I imagine it will be very gruesome, probably highly sexual, and – I dread – a long way from any sort of historical accuracy. I am a fan of Gerard Butler, and heck, it’s got David Wenham too (hasn’t he done well from himself?), so maybe they will be saivng graces.
I guess this brings up the whole issue of whether movies ought to be ‘factual’ and ‘true to history’ or not, much like the Inga Clendinnen question about ‘historical’ fiction. Having not seen Alexander, I won’t even bring that one up, but… I’m really not sure where I stand with this issue. I like my movies that are based on history to be fairly ‘true to life’ (ack, such tricky waters… I know this brings up all sorts of issues about what we actually can know blah blah blah). That said, if a movie is blatant about the fact that they are not, in fact, striving for accuracy, but for a jolly good movie – and they actually manage a good movie – then I can forgive a fair bit….
Randomly Yours, Alex 