Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 01-12-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that Kapur is not an historian and has never claimed that either of his films about Elizabeth are documentaries or are historically accurate, do you actually think -- and more importantly, are you actually claiming -- that the fact that these words were not part of what known as the Tllbury speech, let alone that Elizabeth never gave "the Tilbury speach" at Tilbury, is news to historians of Elizabeth's life or that any historian of the Elizabethan age and/or biographer of Elizabeth worth his/her salt has ever said she did?

No, I don't. To the contrary, I think that it takes serious historians to figure out what did and what did not "really" happen. As this instance shows, it is not strange or unexpected to find that something folk-history holds dear is, in fact, not historical at all.

Gerard Stafleu

ksen · 01-12-2009, 11:07 AM

Next you're going to tell me that Leonidas didn't really say, "Come and get them!" or that Martin Luther didn't really say, "Here I stand."

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-12-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that Kapur is not an historian and has never claimed that either of his films about Elizabeth are documentaries or are historically accurate, do you actually think -- and more importantly, are you actually claiming -- that the fact that these words were not part of what known as the Tllbury speech, let alone that Elizabeth never gave "the Tilbury speach" at Tilbury, is news to historians of Elizabeth's life or that any historian of the Elizabethan age and/or biographer of Elizabeth worth his/her salt has ever said she did?

No, I don't. To the contrary, I think that it takes serious historians to figure out what did and what did not "really" happen.

That's not an answer to what I asked you.

Quote:

As this instance shows, it is not strange or unexpected to find that something folk-history holds dear is, in fact, not historical at all.

Gerard Stafleu

But was this "finding out" something that was only recently done? Were the facts about the Tilbury speech things that were until only recently hidden away, especially from non specialists in the Elizabethan age and from those who enjoy "folk history, and were privy onlly to a select few?

The real question is whether what you allege to be (I presume) long standing and widely known/accepted folk history really was what you seem to be alleging it to be, let alone that it has been, and is still, (widely) "held dear" (by whom BTW?). Does it's appearance in a flilm which never claimed to be historically accurate and which gives us -- and is known even by nonspecialists to give us -- tropes that don't appear in any folk history of Elizabeth show that it was/is?

Jeffrey

gstafleu · 01-12-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Next you're going to tell me that Leonidas didn't really say, "Come and get them!" or that Martin Luther didn't really say, "Here I stand."

Actually, one of the better ones is a nearly untranslatable Dutch one. During the Belgian independence war (1831) the ship of Dutch commander Van Speijk (

Jan_van_Speijk) was boarded by the Belgians, who demanded he take the Dutch flag down. He refused to do so and lit a barrel of gunpowder, uttering the famous (in NL) words "Dan maar de lucht in," which loosely translates to "OK, let's blow her up instead." Given that he succeeded in this blowing up, it is rather unlikely that any record of these famous last words was actually taken. But the guy turned into quite a hero, a Dutch navy boat was named after him. (And the expression "Dan maar de lucht in," signifying taking what would now be called "the nuclear option" with a certain amount of heroic resignation, is still quite current.)

Gerard Stafleu

Toto · 01-12-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Library of Congress is an official agency of the US government that, like other such bodies, acts through its officers and employees.

Yes, I know what the LOC is. And I also note that contrary to your claim that "It has taken a lot of effort to persuade [the officers and employees of] the Library of Congress that George Washington did not spontaneously add "So Help Me God" to his oath of office", "the [officers and the emplyees of ]LOC" was [were] neither subject to any persuasion in this matter, nor was it [or its officers and employees] in any need of it.

In fact, as is noted in the very article you point us to (presumably) to document your claim, it was "[an employee of] the LOC" [who] which carried out the persuading you mention. And the person whom the article states was in need of the persuading that you refer to was not an officer or employee of the LOC but of the U.S. Senate Historical Office -- one Beth Hahn -- who produced a video called So Help Me God that was posted on the website of The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Jeffrey

There are several private citizens, including Michael Newdow, who spent years researching the issue and presenting evidence to those government agents, which prompted them to do their own reseach which overturned the previous understanding of what happened. Which you might have realized if you read the entire thread and all the previous threads in the CSS forum on that issue.

The point stands that correcting the historical record is not cheap or easy.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-12-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

For reasons particular to this forum, it is often debated how "real" various "well established" historical facts are. Let me add one.

In his The age of the warrior (or via: amazon.co.uk), Robert Fisk takes Shekhar Kapur to task for omitting from his film Elizabeth: The Golden Age the famous line spoken by Elizabeth to rally her troops: "I may have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king." Kapur presumably left this line out because of reasons of political correctness.

But now the interesting bit. Fisk provides a footnote, referring to information sent to him by "an Independent reader" Tracy Martins (The Independent is the paper for which Fisk writes) that the "heart and stomach of a king" speech first appeared (quoting Martins) "only in a letter in 1623, 35 years after the Tilbury gathering... There is no evidence that Elizabeth gave this speech..."

So, the idea that well accepted historical facts are, in fact, possibly not all that historical is not confined to the debate of Jesus' historicity.

I've just looked at Fisk. The really interesting thing here is that his complaint about Kapur and the Tilbury speech is not that Kapur presents as historical something that wasn't, but that Kapur has "ruthlessly expunged" the speech.

And as to Martin's claim, Fisk takes no real stand one way or the other.

And how Martins can claim that there's no evidence that Elizabeth gave a speech at Tilbury when he refers to one such piece of evidence (another being from William Leigh; see further Elizabeth I: Collected Works, Leah S. Marcus , Janel Mueller Mary Beth Rose edd. [University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2000]. pp.325-326.; J.K. Laughton, State Papers relating to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada, Anno 1588. Vol. 2, 82-83; The Progress of Queen Elizabeth to the Camp at Tilbury, 1588. British Museum Quarterly. June, 1936, 164-167; Susan Frye, "The Myth of Elizabeth at Tilbury", Sixteenth Century Journal, The Journal of Early Modern Studies, 23 [1992] is beyond me. He would have been far better off, and certainly more accurate, to have said that there was no [good?] contempory evidence for the text of the speech.

Jeffrey

Ben C Smith · 01-12-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Next you're going to tell me that Leonidas didn't really say, "Come and get them!" or that Martin Luther didn't really say, "Here I stand."

Μολων λαβε. Love those Spartans.

Dienekes comes off well, too. So many Persian arrows they will darken the sun? Very well, then; we will fight in the shade.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-12-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, I know what the LOC is. And I also note that contrary to your claim that "It has taken a lot of effort to persuade [the officers and employees of] the Library of Congress that George Washington did not spontaneously add "So Help Me God" to his oath of office", "the [officers and the emplyees of ]LOC" was [were] neither subject to any persuasion in this matter, nor was it [or its officers and employees] in any need of it.

In fact, as is noted in the very article you point us to (presumably) to document your claim, it was "[an employee of] the LOC" [who] which carried out the persuading you mention. And the person whom the article states was in need of the persuading that you refer to was not an officer or employee of the LOC but of the U.S. Senate Historical Office -- one Beth Hahn -- who produced a video called So Help Me God that was posted on the website of The Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies.

Jeffrey

There are several private citizens, including Michael Newdow, who spent years researching the issue and presenting evidence to those government agents, which prompted them to do their own reseach which overturned the previous understanding of what happened. Which you might have realized if you read the entire thread and all the previous threads in the CSS forum on that issue.

The point stands that correcting the historical record is not cheap or easy.

Never said it wasn't. But as your own words show, that point wasn't the one you made in your OP, let alone was the point or leading theme of the article to which you pointed us, was it? And what specific historical record was being corrected? The article speaks only of "common wisdom".

Jeffrey

HelpingHand · 01-12-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

Next you're going to tell me that Leonidas didn't really say, "Come and get them!" or that Martin Luther didn't really say, "Here I stand."

Actually, one of the better ones is a nearly untranslatable Dutch one. During the Belgian independence war (1831) the ship of Dutch commander Van Speijk (

Jan_van_Speijk) was boarded by the Belgians, who demanded he take the Dutch flag down. He refused to do so and lit a barrel of gunpowder, uttering the famous (in NL) words "Dan maar de lucht in," which loosely translates to "OK, let's blow her up instead." Given that he succeeded in this blowing up, it is rather unlikely that any record of these famous last words was actually taken. But the guy turned into quite a hero, a Dutch navy boat was named after him. (And the expression "Dan maar de lucht in," signifying taking what would now be called "the nuclear option" with a certain amount of heroic resignation, is still quite current.)

Gerard Stafleu

Actually, it's "Dan liever de lucht in."

Walter

Toto · 01-12-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...
Never said it wasn't. But as your own words show, that point wasn't the one you made in your OP, was it or the leading theme of the article to which you pointed us, was it. And what specific historical record was being corrected?

Jeffrey

???

I did not make the OP in this thread. I made a comment and refered to a CSS thread, from which one could learn more, if one cared. Nothing else you say makes any sense. Who mentioned a "specific historical record?" Are you aware that the general expert consensus of historians up to now has been that Washington said "so help me God?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2009, 11:07 AM	#12
ksen Contributor Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 15,946	Next you're going to tell me that Leonidas didn't really say, "Come and get them!" or that Martin Luther didn't really say, "Here I stand."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.