7. A DISTANT MIRROR... August 1st ~ August 7th ~~ Part One - Chapters NINE, TEN and ELEVEN (204 - 245) - No Spoilers Please

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Hello Everyone,

For the week of August 1st - August 7th, we are reading approximately the next 41 pages of A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman.

The seven week's reading assignment is:

Week Seven - August 1st - August 7th -> PART ONE - Chapters NINE, TEN and ELEVEN p. 204 - 245
NINE - Enguerrand and Isabella and TEN - Sons of Iniquity and ELEVEN - The Gilded Shroud

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

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Folks, I am back and in the states as of this morning. Glad to be back and we will catch everything up and see how folks are doing.

['Aussie Rick']

Welcome back Bentley

[Theresa]

Isabella's reckless spending throughout chapter 9 suprised me a bit. But I am easily surprised by things like this happening today. She is the epitome of a spoiled child. It doesn't seem as if marriage and motherhood does anything to change her ways since her father King Edward was still directly or indirectly paying her debts. I am interested to read more about her; especially how she handled her role as Mother. Hopefully Tuchman comes back to her later on.

[Vincent]

Well I am behind again but finished this section.

This is hard to get a handle on for me and the focus of Coucy is probably, for me, a necessary fulcrum.

Here, I think for the first time, we have real illustrations of the wealth that the rich and nobility of the time had. I want to not really believe it but once we through in locations such as the Louvre it becomes hard not to accept it.

The evolution of the companies and their final, seeming final, dilution to "safe" was very interesting and otherwise one might wonder where the poor warriors would have gone.

Tuchman's inclusion of the clergy and all the component parts of society - small facts (if you don't have the money you won't get into a convent) add to understanding the complexity of the society.

- Any thoughts on who could be the "fulcrum" for the "Eventful 20th Century"?

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

@ Vince
I am not really sure how to answer than Vince; but it is a great question. Maybe some of the other group members can respond and discuss possibilities.

@Theresa
An interesting characterization.

[Elizabeth S]

Vince wrote: "Well I am behind again but finished this section.

This is hard to get a handle on for me and the focus of Coucy is probably, for me, a necessary fulcrum.

Here, I think for the first time, we have..."

The sad thing for me, Vince, is that I'm a month behind you, and you were behind to begin with! Oh, well. As long as the book gets read (and discussed) (and enjoyed).

Interesting question as to who the fulcrum of the 20th century might be. Thinking through Tuchman's criteria outlined in the forward, it can't be someone really famous who already has extensive biographies written. But yet it should be someone involved enough to have connections with many of the century's big events. It seems impossible to find such a person for the 20th century because so much happened. But how much of that perception is because the 20th is more recent than the 14th? Perhaps they both were the "same", and if we wait 6 centuries we could have the perspective to see a suitable fulcrum. But then, the 20th century began with horse and carriage and ended with supersonic jets. That seems to be a lot more variation than the difference between the beginning and end of the 14th century.

Did you have anyone in mind as a possible fulcrum, Vince?

[Elizabeth S]

Some of my thoughts as I read:

I kinda expected Chapter 9 to be something of a love story. (As much of a love story as two marriageable people can have given the ideal of courtly love.) But there just isn't enough info to make it seem that way. Maybe as we get further into the story there might be more material. Enough to make an interesting historical fiction? Maybe.

One of my favorite lines: page 206, while debating the possible reasons that Isabella jilted yet another fiance: "Or was the whole affair a contrivance to acquire revenues and a new wardrobe?" Sounds silly, and yet could actually be the truth.

From page 208, "No female iniquity was more severly condemned than the habit of plucking eyebrows and the hairline to heighten the forehead." Yick. Better than bound feet, I guess.

So much of all that female beautification stuff (other than the brow plucking) is so familiar with the efforts many females put into beauty in our day. Yes, a "distant mirror."

Here is a point that I often like to make in similar situations, "So much emphasis is repeatedly placed on compliance and obedience [of women] to suggest that opposite qualities were more common" (page 214). Seriously, if women really were so compliant and obedient, the men wouldn't have to make such a big deal about it. Reading between the lines is so interesting.

On page 229, when the companies are marching on the pope, it made me both laugh and shiver that the pope tells them to go away or "I will excommunicate the whole company." The laughing part of me imagines the reply, "Fine, excommunicate me. See if I care." The shivering part of me realizes that excommunication is not an empty threat to people who think their eternal salvation is dependent on their connection with a church led by such a man.

By the way, after the reference to that teeny, tiny library a few chapters ago, it is nice to read about Charles' library containing over 1000 volumes (page 238). Very impressive given that it was before the printing press.

So much of these chapters tell the extremes: how terrible torture could be, the extravagance of weddings (not that different from today's royal weddings, right?), the slaughter and burning, etc. So it is nice to be reminded, "Havoc in a given period does not cover all the people all the time, and though its effect is cumulative, the decline it drags behind takes time before it is recognized" (page 234).

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Some great comments Elizabeth; I will come back to this tomorrow and comment more fully.

[Scott]

Elizabeth S wrote: "Some of my thoughts as I read:

I kinda expected Chapter 9 to be something of a love story. (As much of a love story as two marriageable people can have given the ideal of courtly love.) But ther..."

[Scott]

Elizabeth, It is easy for us today to laugh off the warnings of the Pope. But if you were brought up from birth to belive that the Pope never errered and the Kings ruled by divine right, this would take a lot of courage. Eric Ericson, in his book, "Young Man Luther" states that somewhere deep down inside there was a part of Martin Luther who never got over his early upbringing of Catholic hellfire and brimstone.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Hi Scott - a great comment but remember the citation rule: bookcover, author's photo (when available) and always the author's link.

by Erik H. Erikson (no photo available on goodreads)

[Elizabeth S]

Oh, I know what you're talking about Scott. That's why I said I was both laughing and shivering.

[Mary Ellen]

True enough about the threat of excommunication, though probably not all that potent a threat against those already taking arms against the Pope! However, the concept of Papal infallibility (which is much more limited that a general "the Pope can't make a mistake") was not defined as dogma until the 19th century.

The conjunction of the level of luxury (conspicuous consumption!) in the lives of nobility and royalty and the penury to which the common people were reduced - they whose work was the foundation of all that wealth - really sickened me. Perhaps this would resonate with the folks camping out on Wall Street?

[Elizabeth S]

Mary Ellen wrote: "True enough about the threat of excommunication, though probably not all that potent a threat against those already taking arms against the Pope! However, the concept of Papal infallibility (whic..."

So what is the Papal infallibility dogma? Now I'm kinda curious.

In general, we read about the pope as someone with a lot of power. And yet when it comes right down to it, there seems to be very little he can do besides excommunicate people.

[Vincent]

Elizabeth S wrote: "Vince wrote: "Well I am behind again but finished this section.

This is hard to get a handle on for me and the focus of Coucy is probably, for me, a necessary fulcrum.

Here, I think for the first..."

I had no one in mind - I am pretty direct and if I had one I probably would have mentioned it.

With speed of communication and change maybe one person could not be enough.............

[Mary Ellen]

Papal infallibility is a dogma that the Pope, when speaking "ex cathedra"(basically, in his role as Pope, to the universal Church) on matters of faith or morals, cannot err. IIRC, since the dogma was defined in the 19th century, it has only been invoked twice. or maybe once?

I mentioned this in response to Scott's statement that the folks threatened with excommunication would have believed that the Pope could not err.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Great discussion and comments folks.

[Elizabeth S]

Mary Ellen wrote: "Papal infallibility is a dogma that the Pope, when speaking "ex cathedra"(basically, in his role as Pope, to the universal Church) on matters of faith or morals, cannot err. IIRC, since the dogma ..."

Thanks, Mary Ellen. It has really only been used once or twice? Seems rather rare, then. So, does that mean that everything else the Pope says is questionable? That sounds bad, doesn't it. I'm not sure what the right choice of words is. Is the idea that the Pope may not be 100% accurate, unless he invokes Papal infallibility and then he is absolutely correct? (Please correct me if I said anything inappropriate.)

[Mary Ellen]

I'm no theologian myself, but I think that is the idea. There are many teachings the Church holds to be unchangingly true, but they weren't all defined by Popes. (In fact, most of them were defined at international meetings of bishops, etc., called "councils." For Catholics, any Papal teaching touching on matters of faith theoretically holds a lot of weight, but yes, if it's not "infallible," a given teaching could be mistaken or could be changed at another point in time. It's that long-range view of time, I imagine, that would give anyone pause before declaring one's teaching infallible.

[Elizabeth S]

Thanks, that helps a lot. I think I see your last point, as well. You have to be very sure to say something is absolutely true forever and ever.