The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of September 12th - September 18th, we are reading approximately the next 39 pages of A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman.

The thirteenth week's reading assignment is:

Week Thirteen - September 12th – September 18th -> TWENTY-ONE and TWENTY-TWO p. 438 - 477
TWENTY-ONE – The Fiction Cracks and TWENTY-TWO – The Siege of Barbary



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

Various thoughts:

From page 438: "What knights lacked in the fading 14th century was innovation." It seems that a lot of groups in history have this problem. How many battles have we heard of where one side basically says, "Marching in one big line has always worked before, why wouldn't it work against..." and you can put in cannon, an entrenched position, camouflaged enemy, etc.

By contrast, on page 444 we read of a significant invention that has influenced mankind for many ages: the handkerchief. It is fun to read the history of some random things like that.

Also from page 444, another gem: "If autocrats always acted wisely they would not furnish history with moral lessons." I suppose this is the most positive thing one can say about certain choices made.

The stuff about the copying of manuscripts on page 453 was very interesting. Makes one wonder about the accuracy of anything written before the printing press. Not that the printing press has been exactly infallible, either, but surely a sharp improvement.

Something to ponder and perhaps debate, from page 455, "What is government but an arrangement by which the many accept the authority of the few?"

I don't know if I agree with the statement that Tuchman states on 455.

I think the basic premise of our government - is that it is a government by the people and for the people which some of our political parties forget - but that is the basic idea - not an arrangement by which the many accept the authority of the few.

I do take exception to some of Tuchman's musings but still think that she is a extremely credible historian. A good question though in terms of thinking about Tuchman's general philosophy and opinions.

And as always, I enjoy reading your various thoughts.

Interesting thoughts, Bentley. It is something to ponder.

But isn't the system of the United States (the whole "by the people and for the people" thing) essentially a method by which the many select a few to whom they give authority for a given amount of time? Perhaps it depends on definitions. I guess if Tuchman's "accepting" does not include an option for choosing the authority figure, then many democracies would not fit in her statement.

I don't think they (us) are giving them authority like a king or queen or prime minister has authority; nor do I think that given any responsibilities to conduct our affairs like elected Senators and Representatives or even the President allows them to operate without our oversight and checks and balances. You are probably right in assuming that if Tuchman's accepting does not include an option for choosing an authority figure (which I deem a representative of the people), then many democracies would not fit her statement. I guess that is a question to ask Tuchman isn't it; but since she has passed away - I guess we can't.

Tuchman did not have much faith in the concept of governments. If you get a chance read March of Folly.

by Barbara W. Tuchman

This is a synopsis of the book so you can see where I am going with my beliefs about Tuchman's views on government:

Twice a winner of the Pulitzer Prize, author Barbara Tuchman now tackles the pervasive presence of folly in governments through the ages. Defining folly as the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interersts, despite the availability of feasible alternatives, Tuchman details four decisive turning points in history that illustrate the very heights of folly in government: the Trojan War, the breakup of the Holy See provoked by the Renaissance Popes, the loss of the American colonies by Britain's George III, and the United States' persistent folly in Vietnam. THE MARCH OF FOLLY brings the people, places, and events of history magnificently alive for today's reader.

Not that I do not think that she has made her point about poor decision making some of the time.

Tuchman also stated the following:

"The power to command frequently causes failure to think," concludes the author who sees that folly is a child of power. Later, in her essay 'Learning from History,' she stated that young people opposed to war shouldn't turn their backs on military service and other Vietnams can be prevented only by the presence of the college-educated in the Army.

You can see that she had her opinions and some I can concur with and some I do not. But to each their own opinions and interpretations. And of course Ms. Tuchman is entitled to hers; I love when an historian lets us know their true opinions because then we can read between the lines and know where their interpretations of history are headed and why.

I love your question by the way Elizabeth S and I hope that others might want to jump in and give their opinions and perspectives on how they view the statement on page 455.

Bentley

Folks, all of the weekly threads are up through the end of the book; please look for them in the listing and post appropriately as you move forward. There is no rush. But I do want you to know that all 17 weeks are up.

By the way Elizabeth S, I did not necessarily agree with Jacques Barzun either and all of his side comments; but I loved him and the book in spite of that. I learned so much from him and that book and I am doing something similar but on a much smaller scale with this book.

by Jacques Barzun

I think I see, now. It sounds like it does depend a lot on various word definitions. Since you've read more Tuchman than I have, it looks like you have a better perspective on what she meant.

So perhaps we should say that her statement applies more to the 14th century governments than today's. We see a number of times in that century that a group of The People rise up and try to wrest the authority from the few. But really they don't know what to do with that authority, so someone else takes over. Like Marcel back in Chapter 7. It really took a long time before people were able to figure out how to set up something more democratic.

The part of her statement that seems true for both centuries is that basically some subset of people has to have authority. If everyone has the same authority, we have anarchy, right? The trick is to limit that authority by having accountability from the few to the many--which basically gives some authority to the many and hopefully makes for a more fair system.

As Bentley says, it will be interesting to see what others think as you get to this point in the book.

Various thoughts on Chapter 22:

On page 461: "Courtly love was an accustomed game, not a motivating ideal." Takes me back to Week 2 when we were discussing courtly love. :)

So, the descriptions of various future saints in the book (Pierre de Luxemburg in this chapter, pages 465-467) have me curious as to what the requirements are for Catholic sainthood? According to a Saints for Dummies webpage, the requirements are basically 2 miracles and either being really super good or dying a martyr or having a dramatic conversion. (See http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content...) If there are any other nuances I'm missing, I hope Mary Ellen (since she is Catholic, I'm thinking she is more conversant with how sainthood is bestowed) or someone else can fill me in.

Oh, on page 467 it says Pierre was "ultimately beatified but not canonized". The webpage says that only 1 miracle, not 2 miracles, are required for beautification.

Wasn't it interesting to read about the landing craft for the invasion (page 472)? As Tuchman mentions in various places in the book, I keep comparing with D-day in World War II.

How clever of the Saracens to try to attack "when the sun was hottest, forcing [the Christians] into combat in their heavy armor" (page 473).

I liked the phrase that something was "as well known to knights as the inside of their helmets" (page 476). Clever.

Elizabeth S wrote: "I think I see, now. It sounds like it does depend a lot on various word definitions. Since you've read more Tuchman than I have, it looks like you have a better perspective on what she meant.

So..."

I think the basic idea of our form of government is that all of us have the same authority if we register to vote and are of a certain age. We fulfill those requirements and then we are all equal. We all get one vote including the sitting President. This was not always the case but is now.

We do allow the various folks in these positions to act on a day to day basis on our behalf in terms of their specific responsibilities but if they mess up then we have the ability through our representatives and through town hall meetings to voice our opinions and have them removed if they are not following the laws. They do our work for us. We have laws so that everything runs smoothly for everyone. Some folks like some laws better than others but most of us follow them despite this. If we did not follow for example our traffic laws; we would most likely have chaos and more accidents on our highways and we are not allowed by this covenant to take the law in our own hands as the farmers once did on the fields at Concord and Lexington.

But I think Tuchman has a very dim view that anything works in government once folks assume this so called power. She claims that this power leads to folly. Well in some cases that is probably true but we still have at some level if motivated the power to correct these abuses....if we choose to voice our objections in one form or another. We can speak out which is the beauty of our form of government without being shot or worse. As far as rising up our people and citizens have done this since our government's inception: at Lexington, at Concord, at the Boston Tea Party, for Civil Rights, Women's Rights, etc. - folks do have the right to assembly and the right to voice their demands in a peaceful way. I think that is the beauty of our government in terms of our freedoms and rights.

I still think that Tuchman has a different slant on all governments whether it be the 14th century or the present one we have but I do agree that what she is saying seems to run through all of her viewpoints on government and she is consistent. I think what she is saying has more validity for the 14th century than the present one but I think all of this is a matter of interpretation and how we define her terminology. I do agree with you on that.

Semantics, definitions, and maybe our own experiences may vary and influence how we read Tuchman.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Various thoughts on Chapter 22:

On page 461: "Courtly love was an accustomed game, not a motivating ideal." Takes me back to Week 2 when we were discussing courtly love. :)

So, the descriptions..."

I will let Mary Ellen take a stab at the sainthood question; I am not really up on those requirements.

Tuchman has a way with words and I like how she phrases her thoughts and her historical perspective. You are so right about all of her witticisms which you have so kindly pointed out to us again. Sometimes we just plow through and miss these gems.

Great posts by the way Elizabeth S; your thoughts add so much to the reading and discussion experience.

I just realized that my edition has different page numbers! (The pages for 21-22 are pp. 460-502, for example.)

Two interesting topics. For now, I'll tackle one: sainthood. I'm not really sure what process was followed in naming Philip of Luxembourg "blessed." The Council of Trent came up with stricter standards for evaluating a proposed candidate (beyond the miracle requirements). Now it takes more than 1 or 2 miracles for a canonization. Those promoting the canonization have to assemble testimony of those who knew the person, as well as all extant writings - whether for publication or not, when written - and they are reviewed with a fine-toothed theological comb.

Of course, a pre-condition for all this is a group of people who are interested enough to propose the candidate and to do the work (or pay for others to do the work) of research, compilation and analysis. And, this being a process that involves human beings, politics of one stripe or another will inevitably, even if unconsciously, be in play. Pierre was such an odd character - vow of celibacy at 6? - that I am not surprised he wasn't canonized. The decision not to canonize someone is not the Church's judgment on his Final Judgment, but rather whether he is an example of holiness that others could follow, or whether he exemplifies a virtue particularly relevant for the era in which he is canonized.

In early times, many saints were "canonized" by popular acclaim. But in the time of the pious Pierre, obviously there was a more formal process. Somewhere in between "anything goes" and what we have now, I guess!

All interesting stuff, Mary Ellen. Thanks! Out of curiosity, how common is thought that people perform miracles today? It seems to be rather common back in the 14th century. At least more common than what is reported as a miracle on the nightly news.

Interesting question. I guess it depends on what circles one travels in. Catholicism is a pretty big tent, and some folks are more fascinated by reports of the supernatural-in-the-world than others. Miracles are required for beatification and canonization so, for example, a miracle was reported after prayer to Pope (now Blessed) John Paul II. But not, like, 600 miracles.

Mary Ellen wrote: "I just realized that my edition has different page numbers! (The pages for 21-22 are pp. 460-502, for example.)

Two interesting topics. For now, I'll tackle one: sainthood. I'm not really sur..."

Mary Ellen, thank you for your comments. There are a variety of editions out there; that is why we include the chapter titles to try to help folks cross reference the books that they have,

I found out that the edition I'd been reading, though the same publisher/date as the featured edition, was the "book club edition." I now have, I think, the edition that others have been citing to here.

That is fine Mary Ellen; any edition is a good one; we just indicate which edition the moderator happens to have; but every edition has different pagination, etc. Just try to make sure that you are reading the correct chapters and titles and go from there.

Mary Ellen wrote: "Interesting question. I guess it depends on what circles one travels in. Catholicism is a pretty big tent, and some folks are more fascinated by reports of the supernatural-in-the-world than othe..."

Thanks, that helps! Saying "Catholicism is a pretty big tent" is a good way to put it. Covers a lot of territory.

Mary Ellen wrote: "I found out that the edition I'd been reading, though the same publisher/date as the featured edition, was the "book club edition." I now have, I think, the edition that others have been citing to..."

I just realized it is probably my use of page numbers that has made things difficult for you, Mary Ellen. I'm glad you've found the same edition, it does make things easier. If it would help for me to give other landmarks to find what I'm referring to, just let me know. :)

Elizabeth S, that might be the case - but the chapter titles usually help.

Bentley wrote: "Elizabeth S wrote: "I think I see, now. It sounds like it does depend a lot on various word definitions. Since you've read more Tuchman than I have, it looks like you have a better perspective on..."

I agree with Bentley that Tuchman is looking differently - what Bentley says works if it is a government by the people - which we generally believe we have - and which the American Revolutionaries thought they shoudl have had, be it less strong, as a part of the British Empire compared to teh 14th century.

Thank you for the comment Vince; and glad you are back in the discussion.