… and who discovered the long forgotten burial place of Archimedes in Sicily after everyone told him that it was lost forever? Cicero!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What’s on your mind?
- Thread starter Gutwrench
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wholeheartedly agree. I can tell you that Italian history textbooks tend to be incredibly boring, and divulgative books aren’t much better (with some exception, like Dr. Barbero), which is a pity considering the wealth of history located in that country.
Ah, but the biography of Octavian - Augustus - that you had recommended is excellent; a right, rollicking read, the sort of book that is genuinely well written, interesting, informative, and an utter delight to read, for the story - and many historians tend to forget that what makes history attractive are the stories (the analysis can come later), for, as you have written earlier, it comes complete with all that messy human stuff, love, hate, idealism, intrigue, pain, happiness, sorrow, back-stabbing, war, peace, famine, wealth, poverty, scientific discoveries - and what a story, really grabs you, and drags you along in its wake.
Thanks for the recommendation, for I must say that I am really thoroughly enjoying it.
Last edited:
They are boring because the way history is taught here focuses on the "when" first and "what" second, we're not taught about the "why", so teachers only care about their students knowing dates and what happened, and that's pretty much it. So all books are boring because everyone has been taught this way, then you have the system, the heavily bureaucratized system that must approve textbooks, so if a textbook doesn't focus on dates and what happened, it will not end up in schools.
Historians are a product of that system and most teachers have no incentive at all to think differently (yeah, I just did that) their wages are low, for many years they don't have a stable job, the money stays the same no matter the quality of their work.
Then you have topics that are heavily politicized, so the textbooks that end up in classrooms are those approved either by the elected officials or by bureaucrats appointed (for life) by other politicians.
Barbero is interesting because he talks about the why and he also talks about the life of the average Joe, two things that nobody else is doing, sometimes not even in University courses they care about understanding what happened, when I took my history exam they just wanted me to tell them what happened and when, only when I did take a more advanced course (out of my own will) they started analyzing what happened and why.
I am done with winter, but winter isn't done with me. Days of solid stratus with an occasional tiny break, bitter wind. First time getting a cold in a few years, though not too bad and the worst is past. Too late this weekend but a trip to the mountains and sun above the cloud may be in order, at least the semester has begun well.
Discussion on history has made me nostalgic for a good history series on the lines of the brilliant "Rome" as well as some reading. I recently watched the Netflix series on "Rise of Empires: Ottoman" which the first part on the conquest of Constantinople was pretty good - the second part on an account of Mehmet against Vlad Dracula (ie. the impaler) was not bad but lacked vs the first part and seemed to be less nuanced in the portrayal of the conflict.
Any recommendations for a good history doc?
Discussion on history has made me nostalgic for a good history series on the lines of the brilliant "Rome" as well as some reading. I recently watched the Netflix series on "Rise of Empires: Ottoman" which the first part on the conquest of Constantinople was pretty good - the second part on an account of Mehmet against Vlad Dracula (ie. the impaler) was not bad but lacked vs the first part and seemed to be less nuanced in the portrayal of the conflict.
Any recommendations for a good history doc?
I have, after much effort, found a way to eat kale that is acceptable --
One part Kale to two parts Ketjap Manis (Sweet Soy Sauce)
One part Kale to two parts Ketjap Manis (Sweet Soy Sauce)
Some of the older history documentaries are less driven by CGI, or, for that matter, the ego of the presenter.
A few come to mind for now: World At War (BBC) is an astonishing documentary, while Shoah is extraordinary. Both rely a lot on interviews with people who lived through the time in question.
And, for something more recent, that is simultaneously gripping, horrifying and utterly brilliant, I recommend The Act of Killing.
I have found that steaming it (as with spinach, derived from a Nigel Slater recipe with my tweaks; wash/rinse, shake the water off the leaves, melt a little butter, with minced garlic if desired in a saucepan, add the kale/chard/spinach to the saucepan - a few drops of water still clinging to those leaves, and have a tightly fitting lid to hand which you now use, and cook for about five minutes). The other good way is a stir fry, or some form of frying on a high heat.
In other words, oil, butter, and the application of heat will work, but no water.
Now, I will readily grant that everything goes well with Ketjap Manis; that transforms the most boring ingredient to a culinary treat.
This is what we would do with chokos.
Feed the chokos to the piggies. Wait till they are bigger.
Eat the piggies, accompanied with the choko leaves. Much tastier than kale.
Call me a nerd as much as you want, but I was wandering on Wikipedia and stumbled upon an article on the scriptorium. I ended up devouring it.
One part that intrigued me:
In his comparison of modern and medieval scholarship, James J. O'Donnell describes monastic study in this way:
One part that intrigued me:
In his comparison of modern and medieval scholarship, James J. O'Donnell describes monastic study in this way:
In this way, the monks of the Middle Ages came to intimately know and experience the texts that they copied. The act of transcription became an act of meditation and prayer, not a simple replication of letters.
English teachers are very adept at making students hate classical literature. I hated Shakespeare in high school because we had to analyse every phrase ad nauseum. What was the author's intent?😐 IMO, the author's intent is to entertain the reader.😉 Analysing why the curtain is blue sucks all the joy out of reading. The curtain is blue because it happens to be the color blue. There is no metaphorical meaning behind why the curtain is blue.😖
Same thing happens when Moby Dick, Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist and so many other great works of literature.
Don't forget that they didn't only transcribe religious texts. A large proportion of the work done in mediaeval scriptoria was to do with maths and science, especially astronomy, as well as all the surviving Roman and Greek literature.
I would go full science:
"The curtain is blue because it only reflects the blue wavelength of light"
Absolutely!!
What caught my eye in that passage is not really the religious aspect (which I would expect) but the desire to experience the texts especially after such tedious, manual work as copying. It reminded me of Seneca’s letter in which he says that it’s better to read just a few good books the same way that it’s better to have a few good close friends than many acquaintances (or something like that!).
However if I turn off the lights, the curtain ain’t blue anymore…
If a curtain changes from reflecting blue wavelengths to reflecting red wavelengths while the lights are off, what color is it?
I had tremendous pleasure, good teaching and given an expansive freedom in my studies in Literature and Religion at University. While I found the same subjects boring to death in high-school.
The space of consciousness that great Professors gives, if they are knowledgeable enough, makes students find their joy in investigating their subjects.
We learn when we love something, a lot more, deeper and easier. People who knows a lot of things have those insights. You can’t find inspiration to learn if you don’t really enjoy the subjects.
Yes, this is quite true; via Greek, they copied and transcribed many texts from the Arab world, a surprising number of which were texts from ancient Rome and Greece.
Not quite.
As someone who is not just a lover of the English language, and a former teacher of history, but who regarded (regards?) herself as an historian, allow me to add what @yaxomoxay, at least, may regard, as an interesting foot-note - offering an historical and cultural perspective - to the discussion of the use of the colour blue (or, references to the use of the colour blue) in Shakespeare and elsewhere in medieval and Renaissance times.
Blue was expensive to render (accurately, the sort of accuracy that could be preserved permanently, rather than fade to a muddy blue grey green), in painting (art), - for, pigments differed in quality, and the degree of "blueness" they allowed, and the degree to which they could be preserved accurately - mosaic, glass, and textiles, - including tapestries - differed, and, in fact, "blue" was extraordinarily expensive, and thus, highly prized.
Thus, to use it, and to signal that it was used, was a sign that the picture - (I suspect that this is one of the reasons why Mary - the mother of Christ - traditionally, has been depicted wearing a blue garment - for it would have been - and would have been recognised as such - as a sign of her worth and the respect due to her as the mother of Christ), or glass (there is a reason why the blue tint used in the glazing of the stained glass windows of Chartres Cathedral -a unique process that was known and recognised as "Chartres Blue" was so highly prized in the Middle Ages) - was the product of an affluent society, one that could afford to use this colour in that context.
Traditionally, woad had been used in textiles to give cloth a blue colour; in art, the use of crushed azurite to create blue was expensive, but not as expensive as stratospherically costly ultramarine, which derived from lapis lazuli, - which, when crushed, created vibrant (and long-lasting) blues that were reserved for special subject matters (such as the robes worn by Mary) that were deemed to merit such costly and respectful treatment.
In other words, my point is that referencing blue curtains or furnishings came complete with a socio-economic context (which would - undoubtedly - have been known - and appreciated - fully by an audience at the time, just as we are more than aware of prestigious brands today, and who might be able to afford to avail of them) in Shakespeare's time, which - perhaps - may need an informed teacher - someone who knows what they are talking about and teaching - to bring to the awareness of students.
Around a decade ago, I remember visiting a fascinating exhibition in The National Gallery in London on the use of the colour blue in medieval art and society.
Last edited:
Wow, I just learned something I had no idea of. Always heard that blue and white somehow signified majesty and purity but I never thought there were practical - rather than mainly symbolic - reasons for it.
“more practical explanation for the use of this color is that in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, the blue pigment was derived from the rock lapis lazuli, a stone imported from Afghanistan of greater value than gold. Beyond a painter's retainer, patrons were expected to purchase any gold or lapis lazuli to be used in the painting. Hence, it was an expression of devotion and glorification to swathe the Virgin in gowns of blue”
Marian blue - Wikipedia
On any (and every) occasion when I have visited Paris over the past couple of decades, I have found - or made - the time to spend several hours in the Cluny Museum, the Musée de Cluny - Musée National du Moyen Âge - in central Paris. It is one of my favourite museums of all, an amazing and atmospheric and surprisingly restful place.Wow, I just learned something I had no idea of. Always heard that blue and white somehow signified majesty and purity but I never thought there were practical - rather than mainly symbolic - reasons for it.
“more practical explanation for the use of this color is that in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, the blue pigment was derived from the rock lapis lazuli, a stone imported from Afghanistan of greater value than gold. Beyond a painter's retainer, patrons were expected to purchase any gold or lapis lazuli to be used in the painting. Hence, it was an expression of devotion and glorification to swathe the Virgin in gowns of blue”
Marian blue - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It is an extraordinary and quite incredible place, with several spectacular exhibits; it is also home to the stunning set of enigmatic tapestries known to history as The Lady and the Unicorn; now, I have sat and gazed - enrapt - for almost hours at a time at this astounding and incredible set of medieval/Renaissance tapestries.
However, in the context of this particular discussion, it is worth noting that while many of the colours of some of the quite spectacular and stunning tapestries still astound and reward the wide eyes of the wandering visitor, the blue in those medieval tapestries has faded to a sort of dull muddy green.
The other thing to note - apart from the cost of creating, replicating, and preserving, the authentic appearance of the colour blue (and the glaziers of Chartres jealously guarded their secret, too - after all, this was , to use a modern term, their unique selling point), the use of blue (in art, religion, tapestry, sculpture - for statues were painted, in those days), came complete with many metaphors, which would also have been well known to any medieval or Renaissance artist and audience.
Anyway, I would argue that there are both practical - and symbolic - reasons for the use of blue in religious art in the Middle Ages, the latter, possibly deriving (partly) from the known expense of the former, for, as is sometimes the case in our own society, cost can become conflated with the value we ascribe, or attribute, to something.
Last edited:
Wasn't the same true of the somewhat earlier Roman "taking (born into) the purple" - a very expensive sea shell dye (albeit not strictly modern purple) that was reserved for Emperors etc.
Also, I've understood that impressionism (all those spectacularly vibrant beautiful paintings of river banks, bright skies, lilies, sunsets etc) was only really enabled by the industrial revolution's 'modern' chemical industry and the production of modern bright pigments etc?
Also, I've understood that impressionism (all those spectacularly vibrant beautiful paintings of river banks, bright skies, lilies, sunsets etc) was only really enabled by the industrial revolution's 'modern' chemical industry and the production of modern bright pigments etc?
Tyrian Purple, but then who are we to speak, when we use cochineal?
As for French impressionists, one painted like that because he had bad cataracts, and everything looked fuzzy, and another suffered from schizophrenia, compounded with brain injury from wormwood.
OTOH, I still can't understand Mondrian...