The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of June 27th - July 3rd, we are reading approximately the next 20 pages of A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman.

The second week's reading assignment is:

Week Two - June 27th - July 3rd -> PART ONE - Chapter THREE p. 49 - 69
THREE - Youth and Chivalry

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on June 20th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is time still remaining to obtain the book and get started.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL



by Barbara W. Tuchman

Before we begin new discussions for this chapter; I want to make sure that we have responded to the questions that came before for the previous chapters. By answering them here, there will be no problem with spoilers because they dealt with earlier material.

These were the questions from the Prologue that were not tackled so let us try to tackle these first. Tackling them here does not spoil it for anyone just starting to read the first segment because that is long past and folks still in the first thread will not see these responses since we are past those pages assigned in Week One.

From the Foreward:

Barbara Tuchman discusses in the foreward some of the occupational hazards that a writer faces when trying to write history. She also presents some suppositions as to why historians disagree.

From your viewpoint, what are the problems historians face when they study, try to interpret and write about past ages or times? - Covered

Do these same problems exist when studying other eras, such as Ancient Rome or Athens, Classical Ancient History, various dynasties in China like the Ming Dynasty or the various periods in Middle Eastern history? - Covered

Why do you think historians have different or opposing views or opinions about historical events and/or people? - Covered

What roles did Christianity and chivalry play in the lives of Europeans in the 14th Century? - Covered

Question One:

From your viewpoint, what are the problems historians face when they study, try to interpret and write about past ages or times?

First, Barbara Tuchman stated that even her query about trying to find what the effects on society were from the Black Death of 1348 - 50 proved elusive to her.

She stated that finding that answer "proved elusive because the 14th century suffered so many "strange and great perils and adversities" (in the words of a contemporary) that its disorders cannot be traced to any one cause; they were the hoofprints of more than the four horsemen of St. John's vision, which had now become seven - plague, war, taxes, brigandage, bad government, insurrection, and schism in the Church. (page xiii)

What were the Four Horsemen of St. John's version?

This is the wikipedia write-up on the Four Horsemen:

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are described in the last book of the New Testament of the Bible, called the Book of Revelation of Jesus Christ to Saint John the Evangelist at 6:1-8.

The chapter tells of a scroll in God's right hand that is sealed with seven seals. The Lamb of God (Jesus Christ) opens the first four of the seven seals, which summons forth four beings that ride out on white, red, black, and pale horses.

Although some interpretations differ, the four riders are commonly seen as symbolizing Conquest,[1] War,[2] Famine[3] and Death, respectively. The Christian apocalyptic vision is that the four horsemen are to set a divine apocalypse upon the world as harbingers of the Last Judgment.

Source:

Here is the famous painting depicting the Four Horsemen:



Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, an 1887 painting by Victor Vasnetsov. Only Death (far left) is specifically named in the Bible. The Lamb is visible at the top.

Barbara Tuchman calls them the "hazards of the enterprise".

1) First are uncertain and contradictory data with regard to dates, numbers, and hard facts. Dates may seem dull and pedantic to some, but they are fundamental because they establish sequence--what precedes and what follows - thereby leading toward an understanding of cause of effect. Unfortunately, medieval chronology is extremely hard to pin down.

2) They seemed to not put down a fixed date. (through xv)

3) Even the change to New Style took place in the 16th century but was not everywhere accepted until the 18th, which leaves the year to which events of January, February, and March belong in the 14th century a running enigma further complicated by use of the regnal year.

4) Even the inhabitants of the 14th century disagreed on what was the actual date for any event.

5) Numbers are no less basic, because they indicate what proportion of the population is involved in a given situation. The chronic exaggeration of medieval numbers - of armies, for example - when accepted as factual, has led in the past to a misunderstanding of medieval war as analogous to modern war, which it will not, in means, method, or purpose.

6) The chroniclers did not use numbers as data but as a device of literary art to amaze or appall the reader. (page xvi)

7) It may be taken as axiomatic that any statement of fact about the Middle Ages may (and probably will) be met by a statement of the opposite or a different version. Barbara Tuchman then gives this example: " Women outnumbered men because men were killed off in the wars; men outnumbered women because women died in childbirth." (xvii)

8) Barbara Tuchman then stated that "Contradictions, however, are part of life, not merely a matter of conflicting evidence. I would ask the reader to expect contradictions, not uniformity. No aspect of society, no habit, custom, movement, development, is without cross-currents. She then gave some examples: "Starving peasants in hovels live alongside prosperous peasants in featherbeds. Children are neglected and children are loved."

9) Barbara Tuchman goes on to say: "One must also remember that the Middle Ages change color depending on who is looking at them. (page xvii) Historians' prejudices and points of view -- and thus their selection of material--have changed considerably over a period of 600 years. During the three centuries following the 14th, history was virtually a genealogy of nobility, devoted to tracing dynastic lines and family connections and infused by the idea of the noble as a superior person.

10) Barbara Tuchman indicates that she has to use the annoying words "probably" and "presumably" because there were a vast number of empty historic spaces.

11) She goes on to say that another hazard which was built into the very nature of recorded history. There is an overabundance of the negative. (This was pointed out in the thread discussion).

12) She indicates that there is a preponderance of lawsuits, treaties, moralists' denunciations, literary satire, and papal Bulls.

13) Difficulty of empathy, of genuinely entering into the mental and emotional values of the Middle Ages, is the final obstacle. The main barrier she points out from her viewpoint was the Christian religion as it then was: the matrix and law of medieval life, omnipresent, indeed compulsory.

14) She thought that the gap between medieval Christianity's ruling principle and everyday life is the great pitfall of the Middle Ages.

The next discussion question from last week was the following:

Do these same problems exist when studying other eras, such as Ancient Rome or Athens, Classical Ancient History, various dynasties in China like the Ming Dynasty or the various periods in Middle Eastern history?

From what Tuchman stated it appears at least to me that in other eras the situation would be different:

a) First, there would not be the gap between medieval Christianity's ruling principle and everyday life which Tuchman regarded as the great pitfall of the Middle Ages.

b) Following the Medieval Ages, things changed and there was a greater selection of materials even in the next three centuries.

c) Change to the New Style took place in the 16th century and was widely adopted in the 18th century which would assist with the date scenario.

d) Swiss Historian Sismondi summarized that the 14th century was a "bad time for humanity." And until recently, historians tended to dislike and to skirt the century because it could not be made to fit into a pattern of human progress.

I guess as time progressed some of the issues with time and the recording of events probably became easier. But I am sure that there are challenges in every era for historians.

Sismondi

The next discussion question from last week was the following:

Why do you think historians have different or opposing views or opinions about historical events and/or people?

1) From Tuchman's view, some of the issues go all the way back to the chronic exaggeration of medieval numbers. Chroniclers did not use numbers as data but as a device of literary art to amaze or appall the readers. Many of these inflated numbers were used and accepted by generation after generation of historians. Only since the end of the last century have scholars re-examined the documents and found out some of the true numbers. And still they disagree.

2) There were many discrepancies of supposed fact which were often mistakes of oral transmission or later misreading of a manuscript source.

If there are other responses worth noting, please post and add.

Please at any time jump in with any discussions or questions on this week's reading. Right now I am trying to move forward from last week by transitioning last week's questions so that we have the foundation ready for this week's reading.

Finally, the last question related to last week's Prologue:

What roles did Christianity and chivalry play in the lives of Europeans in the 14th Century?

1) It appears that Tuchman blames Christianity and the Catholic Church at that time for a whole host of sins. Tuchman discussed the "overload of the negative" and that many of the documents that survived were against something or someone. She documented that papal Bulls survived and that "No Pope ever issued a bull to approve anything.

2) Tuchman on page xix stated:

"Difficulty of empathy, of genuinely entering into the mental and emotional values of the Middle Ages, is the final obstacle. The main barrier is, I believe, the Christian religion as it was then was: the matrix and law of medieval life, omnipresent, indeed compulsory. Its insistent principle that the life of the spirit and of the afterworld was superior to the here and now, to material life on earth, is one that the modern world does not share, no matter how devout some present day Christians may be. The rupture of this principle and its replacement by belief in the worth of the individual and of an active life not necessarily focused on God is, in fact, what created the modern world and ended the Middle Ages."

3) Tuchman stated: "What compounds the problem is that medieval society, while professing belief in renunciation of the life of the senses, did not renounce it in practice, and no part of it less than the Church itself.

4) Tuchman believed that the gap between medieval Christianity's ruling principle and everyday life is the great pitfall of the Middle Ages.

5) Man himself was the formulator of the impossible Christian ideal and tried to uphold it, if not live by it, for more than a millenium.

These were some of the other questions from last week that I think we still need to address and cover so I am reviewing this from last week on this thread:

From Chapter One:

How did the Europeans of the 14th century view the world? In terms of the material world? In terms of the spiritual view and spirituality in their lives? In terms of the Church and their religious views? - Covered

What was the impact of the Crusades if any upon the lives of the people who lived during the 14th Century?

Describe the earlier periods of history specifically the 11 - 12th Century Renaissance.

Discuss the way of life in France. What was the king's justice like; what were the expectations of the population. Discuss Louis IX.

Taxation seems to be always with us since the beginning of time; what were the views and practices regarding taxation during this time period?

What were the functions of the three estates?

And these were some of the discussion questions from last week's Chapter Two:

From Chapter Two:

Were there environmental issues and problems that plagued Europe? What were these climate, environmental impacts and what were the results of these situations? How did the time period influence how these were handled? How different would be these same situations if they were handled now?

What were some of the issues that periled the Church at this time? What was the impact of the Church on the 14th Century inhabitants? Were their evils in the Church and were there protests against the Church and these perceived evils? - Covered

Discuss William of Ockham, Marsillius of Padua.

Discuss the origins of the Hundred Years War? How did this expansive war affect the population and their way of life?

What was the role of Christianity and the Church in how people lived (their lifestyle) or in terms of their belief systems? Did the populace have a materialistic outlook as many folks seem to have today or did they possess anti-materialistic viewpoints? -Covered

If you were living during the 14th century, what would your economic outlook have been? What were the demarcations between the rich and the poor and how did they view one another?

Were there any anti semitic views at this time and how did Tuchman introduce them?

Usury is defined as follows:

Usury ( /ˈjuːʒəri/, from Medieval Latin usuria, "interest", or from Latin usura, "interest") originally was the charging of interest on loans; this included charging a fee for the use of money, such as at a bureau de change. In places where interest became acceptable, usury was interest above the rate allowed by law. Today, usury is commonly used to refer to the charging of unreasonable and excessive rates of interest. The term is largely derived from Christian religious principles; Riba is the corresponding Arabic term and ribbit is the Hebrew word.

In terms of usury, how was money lending, loans and banking handled during the 14th century?

These are some of the questions and discussion points for this week's Chapter Three:

What was marriage like during this period? (covered)
What types of literature and learning were occurring in the 14th century.
Define the ideas of chivalry and courtly love. (covered)

Feel free to discuss any of the above.

OK, let us try to tackle one of the back questions as we move along:

How did the Europeans of the 14th century view the world? In terms of the material world? In terms of the spiritual view and spirituality in their lives? In terms of the Church and their religious views?

Tuchman actually in the Foreward said the following:

Page xiv - "There never was a time when more attention was given to money and possessions than in the 14th century, and its concern with the flesh was the same as any other time. Economic man and sensual man are not suppressible."

Do you believe this to be true?

One thing that I thought was interesting which we also did not talk about in thread one was the choice of epigram that Tuchman chose"

"For mankind is ever the same and nothing is lost out of nature, though everything is altered."

- John Dryden,
"On the Characters in the Canterbury Tales," in Preface to Fables, Ancient and Modern

Does anybody want to comment on why this choice of quote for her book? How is this relevant to the story she is about to begin concerning the 14th century and why the Canterbury Tales by Chaucer and then why Dryden? What did Tuchman see was the connection between this quote, those works, those two men and the 14th century and A Distant Mirror?

by Geoffrey Chaucer

by John Dryden - there are multiple volumes

What were some of the issues that periled the Church at this time? What was the impact of the Church on the 14th Century inhabitants? Were their evils in the Church and were there protests against the Church and these perceived evils?

The Church was much more "worldly" back then. When we think of the Church today we think of a not-for-profit organization that collects money to redistribute to those who need it the most. But this was not the case in the 14th century. "Money could buy any kind of dispensation." Tuchman also talks about how those who wouldn't pay would be excommunicated, which is supposedly reserved for only those who have most offended the Church and its doctrine.

I supposed this was almost a natural progression, because as Tuchman writes there was no alternative to the Church. It was mandatory and compulsatory, and already deeply ingrained into the everyday life. It was only a matter of time until corruption became the norm.

There definately were some protests to the hypocrisy of this time. Tuchman writes of Bishops being mobbed and imprisoned. There were also what in modern times would be called counter-movements with the mystical sects that rejected the material world.

Theresa, thank you for jumping in and handling one of the discussion questions from Chapter Two which we did not discuss last week. I wanted to make sure we covered all of the important questions before we moved on to Chapter Three (this week's assignment). I hope that others who are reading A Distant Mirror jump in to comment on your response and/or any of the other discussion questions so that we can cover more ground.

You raise some interesting points about the church being not as close to God and spiritual needs as one would think. During that age, materialism was rampant. According to Tuchman, the church was more corrupt or as corrupt as other organizations during the 14th century so what you are saying rings true.

An excellent post and you raise some interesting points. Who would have thought that the 14th century church was less altruistic than the ones of today. Especially when one thinks of the Crusades and the sacrifices made to wage these wars.

Bentley raises so many valid questions for consideration -

Theresa's focus on the Church is easier for me to comment on because it is one topic.

First of all it was "the Church" not a church - it seems that the Church is setting the stage for a Martin Luther to come along.

The Church was probably corrupt because it was run by men and was the most powerful entity in Europe at that time - holding the keys to heaven after what for most would be, compared to us today, a rather short and hard life.

Also as for “non for profit” I used to do business with a large religiously oriented organization, and the folks who ran it made lots of money as I recall – like the Church with no personal investment. Tammy Lee Baker and her husband forgot his name, were also non-for profit I am sure.

I am very impressed at Tuchman’s approach - this week’s chapter Youth & Chivalry - the youth going from the end of their section to the knighthood training if in that class.

The soft, explained, orientation for us, such as dates and how children were valued or not and brought up builds an understanding - building blocks - modes of transport, styles of dress etc etc.

The "stability" that you would generally stay in your station and live your life - reinforced by the power and presence of the Church gives, maybe, an opportunity to see how static life was.

Travel was heavily "Church oriented" - Crusades and pilgrimages.

The descriptions of battles exhausted me. The pains that men (people) suffered must have been overwhelming.

Anyway I see that the nobles would be pleased to have a Martin Luther come along and tell them they could be holy, not go to hell, and not have to pay Rome or the local Church people.

I also think there was some mention of people not moving much - I cannot find it upon casual looking back, but I think much of this attitude stayed in much of western Europe until the last century. I remember in the 1980s meeting young people living in small villages (5,000 people) in France looking very hard for local work opportunities not wanting to move if avoidable. – I think part of the success of America is that those Europeans who came to America were open to change (and not very many Catholics to what became the US) - (this is a personal note and has really nothing to do with the 14th century in France)

Anyway I am surprised also there was no estimate of percentage of literate people in the different segments of society.

I would also think, and maybe assume, that our hero Enguerrand VII, due to being orphaned, may not have gone to squire elsewhere and I wonder if we will find out how and where and by who he was trained in combat.

Think about having the “good fortune” of being a male born into nobility and you have to learn to fight and fight for your life.

Outline and Summary of Chapter 3 - Youth and Chivalry

Chapter three begins with the comparison between modern day and the 14th century in terms of the interest in children. In fact, Tuchman states: "Of all of the characteristics in which the medieval age differs from the modern, none is most striking as the comparative absence of interest in children." Women appear rarely as mothers even in the literature of that period.

The attitude of the period was that a child was born and died and another took its place. Parents appeared to vacillate between not getting too attached to their offspring because most children die anyways and then articulating their child-rearing philosophy as being in tune with the maxim of the period which stated: "Spare the rod and spoil the child".

Books of advice on child rearing were rare. Boys were left in the charge of others until age seven; if they survived they became miniature adults. They learned to ride, fight and hawk. They played chess and backgammon, learned how to sing and dance and learned romantic skills. Girls of noble estate were actually more accomplished in Latin and other school learning just in case they went into the nunnery.

Doctors were admired and lawyers were hated.

Time, calendar and history were calculated by the Christian scheme. Modern history was calculated starting with the birth of Christ. It was odd that even with the Christian religion, the population at that time believed in demons and they thought the noblest science was the study of astronomy and they believed that astrology could predict their future. Alchemy was the most popular applied science and mental depression and anxiety were considered illnesses but the church considered both caused by the sin of sloth.

Travel brought news and a messenger on horseback could travel 40 to 50 miles a day. But travel time was lengthy, unpredictable, and sometimes dangerous. But people still traveled to an astonishing degree.

Long before Columbus, the upper classes knew that the earth was round not flat. However, there were many questions that appeared as puzzles to medieval people.

Engurerrand at age seven had a horrendous event occur when his father was killed in the war against the English. And then he lost his mother and became an orphan. However, like so many medieval childhoods, Enguerrand's is blank and nothing is known about our protagonist until 1358 when he is 18.

Chapter Three then turns its attention to the discussion of chivalry and that being the "culture that nurtured him". Chivalry was known as a moral system that governed the whole of noble life. Fighting became a symbol of chivalry as a military order or guild. It was sport which was enhanced in all sorts of competitions and tournaments.

Tuchman turns her attention next to courtly love. Romance was always pictured as extra-marital because love was considered irrelevant to marriage.

However, Tuchman concluded for the reader that chivalry might have been a code of outward behavior but that it did not transform human nature.

Vince wrote: "Bentley raises so many valid questions for consideration -

Theresa's focus on the Church is easier for me to comment on because it is one topic.

First of all it was "the Church" not a church ..."

Wow Vince there are so many interesting topics that have been introduced thus far and in only three chapters no less.

The Church as you so aptly coined was the most powerful entity and with power there is always corruption.

A child from what I can see was never a child - in the sense that a child has such a remarkable childhood and so many opportunities today. Maybe in today's society we spare the rod and do spoil the child with too much being given with very low expectations in return. Maybe this is the other extreme with the polar opposite being the 14th century where a child either grew up or not and was of no consequence unless they survived and then at that point maybe they became useful. Odd isn't it how the women would give birth and then others brought these children up. These other caretakers were never the parents who had other fish to fry and other births to participate in. It really was the attitude that you have to give birth continuously in order to secure the advancement and succession of your line because any or most of your children could die at any time and usually did.

Somewhere I think Tuchman notes that this lack of childhood nurturing might have influenced the rather juvenile behavior of adults at the time. They had not really had early emotional guidance. Certainly, a harsh childhood in which adults paid little attention to a child would seem to be self-perpetuating. It seems to me that parents or caregivers who love and nurture young children give them the ability to love and nurture others. So if you were seen as an object, you would tend to see others the same way, even your own children. It's one more way that it's hard for us to imagine the mindset of their world.

I could even go out on a limb and suggest that maybe chivalry, which didn't really foster emotional closeness but a sort of prolonged infatuation, might have been one of the results of this kind of childhood. I know I'm going in to pure speculation here.

Some very interesting points you have made Andrea and I think you hit the nail on the head when you said: "It's one more way that it's hard for us to imagine the mindset of their world", very true but sometimes its an interesting journey in history trying to find out.

Andrea, excellent comments. Folks live what they learn.

Bentley wrote: "OK, let us try to tackle one of the back questions as we move along:

How did the Europeans of the 14th century view the world? In terms of the material world? In terms of the spiritual view and sp..."

Bentley wrote: "One thing that I thought was interesting which we also did not talk about in thread one was the choice of epigram that Tuchman chose"

"For mankind is ever the same and nothing is lost out of natur..."


This quote seemed a fancy way of saying for as much as things change, they stay the same...or at least people do. Ms. Tuchman seems to have this as a running theme throughout the book...the inevitibility of human nature.

Also, Andrea's comments on the mindset of the 14th century...that was a significant interpretation advanced by Ms. Tuchman that I could not get out of my head the entire book. The concept of retarded emotional development and the role it may have played in the entire culture of the time is so compelling...and I've been trying to project it forward in thinking of contemporary culture...

Vince wrote: "Bentley raises so many valid questions for consideration -

Theresa's focus on the Church is easier for me to comment on because it is one topic.

First of all it was "the Church" not a church ..."

In terms of how the Church dominated everything in everyone's lives...I tried to draw parallels to the modern world...and sure, we have contemporary Western examples but they are more isolated than widespread given the multiple Christian interpretations that exist and a much greater secular tolerance...but isn't that same theocratic domination alive and well in a number of Middle Eastern countries? Different religion, same concept?

It made me do a lot of thinking about what the Western world would look like if there had never been the shift from a theocratic system...and why there was a shift in Christendom but no so much in Islam...but perhaps I am painting with too broad a stroke here.

Kim wrote: "Bentley wrote: "OK, let us try to tackle one of the back questions as we move along:

How did the Europeans of the 14th century view the world? In terms of the material world? In terms of the spiri..."


Good point about the epigram. The further along man things he has progressed; human nature does not seem to change oddly enough - thank you for digging right in Kim; I think that Andrea hit the nail on the head.

Kim wrote: "Vince wrote: "Bentley raises so many valid questions for consideration -

Theresa's focus on the Church is easier for me to comment on because it is one topic.

First of all it was "the Church" not..."

I wondered about that but then the Crusades were really about Christianity versus other religions or pagans and one of the religions which provided the greatest adversity during the Crusades was Islam or depending upon how you looked at it - Christianity.

It does seem that theocracy has progressed and evolved as far as Christianity is concerned; the church leaders seem content to live peaceably in terms of a separation of Church and State. However, in Islamic countries that does not seem to be the case whatsoever and they seem stuck in the past and frankly in the type of religious environment found in the 14th century.

I do not think you are painting such broad strokes. One only has to look at how women are also treated in these countries and the serious human rights issues and it is obvious that different groups of people and minorities seem destined for a much different quality of life than what they would have enjoyed under any of the other religions or in any other of the other countries where religion does not rule the state and there is tolerance.

I think of Iran for example and even Saudi Arabia to a certain extent as examples.

Of course, everybody is entitled to their own viewpoint on this and I hope that we hear from others concerning these ideas.

I have read some Medieval History but I did not know about the relationship between infant mortality and the alienation of the connection between child and parents during the early years that resulted from the low survival rates. The brutality of knights errant may have been an attempt to fill the emotional void by excitement that was missing from a life empty of other emotions. A theory of courtly love that required adultery which entailed a conflict with the values espoused by the church and a potential violation of an oath of fealty means that the pursuit of normal expressions of love and sex required a certain rebellious stance against values the knight had sworn to uphold. It certainly represents a way of life with built in tensions and pressures. No wonder these people were so violent. It doesn't seem like a healthy, balanced state of mind.

Jeffrey thank you for your post. It does seems that parents were extremely alienated from their children; they had them and quite a few but they promptly forgot them. What a horrible empty existence for a child. There also had to be a certain degree of intrigue with all of these romantic conflicts and agendas. Real love would never thrive in this sort of environment.

So some comments/observations on the above.

I think that children were still children playing with each other and maybe not being "counted" as people yet. I did not finish Wolf Hall

Hilary Mantel

- my growing list of to finish -

But there was affection for children.

Also the road to Chivalry was certainly limited to a very small percentage of the population.

I also think that the Crusades and Islam and other religions did not enter the horizon for the average denizen of that century in France or England or Holland (Flanders) - The Church was the only road seen by the average person to eventual salvation - there was, it seemed, no other option. This is particularly in response to Kim's and Bentley's remarks.

Regarding Kim's remarks about "inevitability of human nature" & " contemporary culture" (msg 24) - I am drawn to the title "A Distant Mirror"

Vince, thanks for the book post (Wolf Hall)...added it to my to read list!

Throughout the book, I think the hardest concept for me to get my arms around is that whole "Church is only road to salvation" thing...As a non-believer in a world where secularity and other religions abound, I simply can't wrap my arm around the total mind control the Church had over, as you said, the average person. The machinations people went through to manipulate their situations so they could both do naughty things but still get their much desired salvation...it blows my mind...talk about mental and spiritual gymnastics! The omnipresence of the whole cult of relics and saints, the selling of dispensations, the games of excommunication and so on was so carnival like, I coulde understand the constant cries for reform, but what I can't comprehend is why more people didn't simply make the leap that the whole thing was bunk. Maybe they did but given the superstition and fear, nobody actually ever did so in a way that history could record it for posterity...or maybe not...

Hi Kim

I think we are seeing things from a 20th/21st century perspective as Americans.

I would guess that Muslims living in Iraq would better understand and accept it.

We have science, freedom, and free time and do not work with such a limited horizon.

But I think what Tuchman wants to do is make us understand their mindsets and their world and I think to do that for the most part we have to accept it.

Don't forget that if you made the leap to believe it was all bunk then you would face ostracizing - your children might not be baptized etc.

Just my thoughts

Vince wrote:

I think that children were still children playing with each other and maybe not being "counted" as people yet.

And this alienation of childhood may not have been limited to the Middle Ages. In Citizens, Schama noted that the upper classes were farming children out to be raised in absentia. The parents didn't share in their development but they also didn't have to watch them die were they to succumb to a childhood disease.

It's easy for us to assume the parents were too filed with pleasure seeking to care for their children but they could just as easily have had a retainer raise the kids as send them off. It's very difficult to change our world view to someone so far removed in place and time.


Citizens: A Chronicle of the French RevolutionSimon Schama

I can recall the view expressed that the violence and brutality of the early Roman empire was moderated by the introduction and acceptance of Christianity into the empire. Tuchman's presentation of the European nobility as warriors who loved battle, participated with enthusiasm in every available war, fought each other when peace broke out and re-created combat in their recreation leads me to consider that Christianity may not have been very effective in the final result. Is this our heritage from the Medieval Era?

Kim wrote: "Vince, thanks for the book post (Wolf Hall)...added it to my to read list!

Throughout the book, I think the hardest concept for me to get my arms around is that whole "Church is only road to sal..."

Every time we mention a book or author (which is not our selection) we must do a citation:

Hilary Mantel

Garret led a discussion of that book just a short time ago.

Good comments everyone; Vince, I do think some of your views though are not Tuchman's but they are still very interesting points of view and of course other historians would have varying opinions on these matters.

Bentley wrote: "Good comments everyone; Vince, I do think some of your views though are not Tuchman's but they are still very interesting points of view and of course other historians would have varying opinions o..."



Absolute correct -

I don't disagree with her I just sometimes am looking from a different perspective and questioning a bit the overall view of her presentation. She certainly cannot present all views.

And that is very true Vince - I just try to point out the differences for folks who are tuning in - and I have questioned some of her sidebars as well myself.

Different perspectives are good; it gets everyone to think.

Finished Chapter 3 earlier this week. The biggest thing that stuck out to me was the whole courtly love game. On the one hand, it makes sense. After all, how can you prove you really love someone if there isn't some huge obstacle to overcome? On the other hand, what a dumb situation where the ideal is immoral (by one's own standards).

Which got me thinking of chickens and eggs. It seems that so much of the 14th century contains this type of hypocrisy: the religious leaders who drip with wealth, the caretakers who care not for their stewardships, killing for the glory of one who is named the Prince of Peace (i.e. the crusades), and this courtly love as a part of chivalry thing. Did any one thing spawn the others? However they all originated, it seems they fed each other.

Oh, the other thing that was extremely interesting to me was the mindset against innovation. On page 54, Tuchman writes, "Progress, moral or material, in man or society, was not expected during this life on earth, of which the conditions were fixed."

And yet there were changes. "Eyeglasses had been in use since the turn of the century" (page 55), and "the sidesaddle was to appear before the end of the century (page 57). I would think that the former was a general improvement. The latter is more debatable. Personally, in today's world I would most definitely rather ride astride. But if I only wore skirts? Not sure.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Finished Chapter 3 earlier this week. The biggest thing that stuck out to me was the whole courtly love game. On the one hand, it makes sense. After all, how can you prove you really love someon..."

Probably all about power and money and keeping the masses under their control while they lived it up.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Oh, the other thing that was extremely interesting to me was the mindset against innovation. On page 54, Tuchman writes, "Progress, moral or material, in man or society, was not expected during th..."

Yes, it is hard to circumvent and squelch change and great ideas. It is like cream; it will always rise to the top. Where would I be without eyeglasses? So even though progress was not expected; no matter what the conditions - great ideas and innovations from my viewpoint are hard to keep under wraps. None of us wanted an iPad when it was invented or an iPhone or iMac but Apple somehow made some of us want all of these.

Bentley wrote: "...None of us wanted an iPad when it was invented or an iPhone or iMac but Apple somehow made some of us want all of these. "

Funny. Basically, invention first, and then figure out a need for it. And really, a lot of things are/were that way.

The courtly love section really surprised me quite a bit. I thought the ideal of courtly love was kind of an "in love with love" phenomenon, in which the knight and the "lady" had no real contact. Silly me. The whole thing seems absurd either way! There were so many real things for people to worry about in this period, I don't know why they went out of their way to create these artificial angst-ridden situations.

I believe Vince pointed out that many of these issues - courtly love for one - did not touch the majority of people in the Middle Ages. The poorer people were engaged in daily struggles for survival, like peasants of every era and society (and being taxed to pay for the nonsense of the "upper" ranks!). Several have discussed Tuchman's point that people are people, in every time and place. So no doutt the "lower" classes engaged in adultery as well, but without the ritualized dance of the courtly love model.

Just a thought, I wonder if the courtly love thing was the people's escape from reality. (Perhaps I should say the nobility's escape.) Yes, they did have a lot of real things to worry about. But they didn't have fiction books to read or movies to go to or TV to watch to give them an escape from it. I guess there were plays and such, but that wouldn't be as "on demand".

Elizabeth, maybe you are on to something; they had more time on their hands; everybody did their work for them. And of course there were no technological diversions.

Good point. When the "fighting season" was over, what else was there to do? This always amazes me in Jane Austen novels - reading about a group of people who had no work, and indeed for whom work would be demeaning. Now I know that it continued in this way for centuries. Poor nobility: without their dramatic intrigues, life would have been tedious!