Pilgrims, Apocalypse, Churchill, Fleming and myths that won’t die

 

A few days ago a friend sent me an inspiring story about how the young Winston Churchill was saved from drowning by the father of Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin.  As a reward, Churchill’s father sent young Alexander to medical school.  In 1943 Church was ill and saved by a dose of penicillin.  My bs radar immediately went off.  So I checked and the story has no basis in fact at all.  What is amazing is that this story has been around for decades despite the fact that it is easy to disprove.  There are several sites that give the story and the reality behind it.  The one I used was http://www.snopes.com/glurge/fleming.asp

Was not saved by Fleming's father.

paid his own way through medical school

So, what does this have to do with the Pilgrims — Puritans, actually?   Well, despite lots of research by historians, the records of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and plain old common sense, we still have an image of the First Thanksgiving as a wonderful, squdgy time of friendship and sharing between the English settlers and the Native Americans. It’s an idea of a Golden Age that we somehow have lost, an era of abundance and brotherhood.  And the thing that I still have trouble with is, even though most of us know that this is a myth, we cling to it anyway.   When the first settlers were starving, they stole from the Indians rather than trade.

And now we come to the Apocalypse. I didn’t know about this until I was researching THE REAL HISTORY OF THE END OF THE WORLD.   I knew that the Puritans were Calvinist Protestants who came, according to my schoolteachers, for religious freedom.  What I was ignorant of was that many of them were part of a sect that believed the end of the world was near.  They had come to America to prepare for it.  Converting the natives was part of this belief although some thought that the Indians were in league with demons.

After the Mayflower landed, word came that King Charles I had been overthrown and that England was now a Puritan theocracy.  Some of those who had left England returned to take part in this new society.  They were among those who, by a complex twist of logic and Biblical interpretation, believed that England was the new Jerusalem and that this was where Jesus would arrive at the Second Coming.   For other arcane reasons (see my post on the End in October) 1666 was considered the date for the event.

When the end didn’t come and Charles II did, the American Puritans put their faith in their new colony.   Within a few decades they were expelling dissidents and hanging women for witchcraft.

Not as much good will and mutual respect as we were taught.

Again, most of us know about the downside of the story of the Pilgrims and how that made a deep impression on the country for generations.  And yet, we still cherish the warm, fuzzy, inaccurate memory of the first Thanksgiving.   I really can’t understand this and it fascinates me.  I’m beginning to fear that I need to go back for a degree in behavioral psychology.

ps.  Looking at the list of how many times my posts have been read, I realize that by far the most popular was the one on chastity belts.   No comment.

Catherine short stories again

I tweaked the manuscript of DEATH BEFORE COMPLINE, hopefully getting the typos and correcting one really dumb mistake and it’s now on Kindle and Nook. I understand that you can get revisions for free if you bought it. I hope it’s true.  Let me know.  If you haven’t bought it yet, then you can now get the new and improved version.

here is the link to the kindle:

DEATH BEFORE COMPLINE

And here is the link to nook

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/death-before-compline-sharan-newman/1107069702?ean=2940013627611&itm=1&usri=death%252bbefore%252bcompline

Death before Compline

I Believe, why don’t you?

I have incontrovertible proof that UFOs exist.  I was there.  There is photographic evidence.  Pictures don’t lie.

There was even a witness.  How can you doubt me?

Most of you will realize that this is a mock-up from the museum at Roswell NM.   But what if you had never seen a staged photo before? What if you really wanted to believe that aliens had landed in New Mexico?  What if you were CERTAIN of it?  How would you perceive the image then?

I’m not putting down people who believe in aliens.  They are just as likely as a thousand other things human beings want to believe in: ghosts, vampires, world peace, common sense in politicians.  And, for most of us, something that “proves” what we want to exist is snatched up without much analysis.  Someone once explained to me that people gravitate to things that confirm their prejudices.  This is why some watch Fox News and others PBS news.  Not enough of us (and I include myself) watch both.

This is not a Good Thing.  It is especially not good when we are trying to decide the best course for keeping the world from falling apart.  So many disasters have been the result of decisions made based on inaccurate information.  And often that information was what the decision makers wanted to hear.  “Smoking is good for the digestion.”  “There are no bears in the woods this time of year.”  “The settlers on the other side of the hill want to kill us, so we’d better kill them first.”  “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”  “You can take those Indians, General Custer.”

What if someone had told Custer that he was out-numbered and out-gunned?  Would he have believed them?  He likely wouldn’t have wanted to.  Even if he had known, he might have believed himself so superior that he might have charged in anyway.  Lately it seems to me that this is exactly what we are doing.  We are all so certain about all sorts of things, important things, that we don’t stop to consider that there might be something worth listening to from the other side.  One thing I’ve learned as an historian is that there are no clear lines.  Everything changes according to perspective.  I look at events of the past and think how easy it would have been to avoid doom.  In the Crusades, if Louis VII and Emperor Conrad hadn’t decided to attack Damascus in 1148, the city might have stayed allied with Jerusalem against the fundamentalist Nur-ad-Din.  Damascus and Jerusalem might still be allies.  There were those who advised against the attack at the time, but the rulers only wanted to hear that they could easily conquer the wealthy Muslim city.

Events may not repeat themselves, but human nature seems pretty constant.  How can we break this chain of making short-sighted decisions based on bias and ignorance?   I almost wrote, it beats me.  However, I do think it would help if there were a source that every one  (Ok most everyone) could trust for information.  And then it would be up to us to watch/read/listen to it with open minds and a bit of healthy doubt, just in case.

That is about as unlikely as proving to a true believer that UFOs don’t exist.

By the way, in case you didn’t notice, the world didn’t end on October 21st.  But we’ll have another chance soon.  I’ll keep you posted.

 

Catherine short stories.

After much more technological angst that I could have thought possible, my short story collection, DEATH BEFORE COMPLINE will be ready to download on Nook and Kindle in a week or so. Here is the cover. Don’t be harsh; it was my first try at Photoshop. The background is a picture I took at Carcassonne. There are seven stories about my medieval mystery family, Catherine, Edgar and Solomon. I’ve also included explanations of the root for each story and the background for the series and, oh yes, recipes.

This collection should be in print in a few months. But it can be found on Nook and Kindle within a week or so. If you’ve read the series and miss the characters, this is a chance to see them again. If you have just read my non-fiction, this will give you the opportunity to sample the fiction.

Medieval Myths #4 – The Popes were All Powerful

One of the most persistent and pernicious of the myths about the Middle Ages is that the “Church”, generally meaning the popes, controlled the minds of all Christians. This is another of the beliefs that were created by early Protestants and Humanists. They were mainly against real abuses that existed in the sixteenth century. Their own cause was bolstered by painting the enemy as evil and immensely powerful.

There are problems with this belief, both historical and logical. History first. Consider the following to be a very quick and very generalized summary.

The papacy didn’t really exist for the first several hundred years of Christianity. The bishops of Rome tried to claim superiority, but so did the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and several other places with more credibility. The bishops of Rome won in the West by default when most of the Eastern cities fell to the Islamic invasions in the seventh and eighth centuries.

But that didn’t mean that the popes had much real power outside of Rome, political or religious. Doctrine and dogma were decided by councils, not a single pontiff. And doctrine changed with each one – rather like laws decided in parliamentary sessions. Most legislators agree on important basic beliefs, but the nuances change considerably with each group. So for instance, for a long time priests could be married but there was never a time that I know of where it was considered OK to buy a parish or any other office. That doesn’t mean people didn’t do it of course.

For most of the Middle Ages the popes would have loved to have the kind of power that later critics claimed they did. But it didn’t happen. The pope who came the closest was Innocent III, (1198-1216). He organized the Fourth Lateran Council, which established a number of reforms, including proper education of priests. It was also the first to demand that Jews wear identifying badges. My personal opinion is that society started going downhill than and hasn’t come back yet.

For the most part, religion was an essential part of medieval life. But the bishops were noblemen, often the brothers of kings, and politics generally overruled religion or, more often, religion was used as a tool of the rulers. Popes were ignored, deposed, even driven to their deaths by various factions. At most, the papacy was used as a sort of High Court to resolve disputes. And if powerful rulers didn’t like the papal ruling, they often declared the pope a heretic and elected a more pliable one. See Philip IV in my book on the Templars.

Most attempts by popes to institute a Peace or Truce of God had little success. Rules against the appointment of relatives were ignored. The papal lands were invaded a number of times with no apparent fear of divine retribution.

This leads to the simple logic against the notion that the church was all powerful. Who holds the reins when there are four “popes” at once? If they had such control over minds, where did the Protestants (starting well before Calvin and Luther) come from? Anti-papal satire was much more common and safer than that which made fun of the king. Much is made of Pope Urban’s call for the First Crusade in 1097, but only medievalists are aware that there were many more calls that were ignored.

I hope that this short sketch gives readers some food for thought. There are many fine histories of the medieval and early papacy but I don’t know of any that address, point by point, the popular misconceptions. It may seem minor, of interest only to staunch Catholics. However, as with many myths, this one distorts not the past, but the present. By assuming that religious fanaticism was a natural state of medieval society that modern people have happily escaped, we tend to view deeply religious groups as throwbacks to a dark time rather than part of the fabric of contemporary society. So, instead of trying to understand groups and individuals operating according to their ideas of religion, we dismiss them as “medieval”, and toss them into an historical waste bin as aberration that have nothing to do with us now.

I believe this attitude keeps us from facing and solving our own problems. As I try to explain the facts about these myths, that remains my underlying theme. We are different in many respects from people of the past, but not as many as we would like.

In response to many requests (OK 2) I have reproduced the chapter from the book THE REAL HISTORY BEHIND THE TEMPLARS on recognizing pseudo history.  (see my previous blog)  Since it’s rampant these days, I think we all should cultivate a talent for spotting the signs.  It pleases me greatly to know that this cahpter is being used in at least one classroom!

Ps. I’d show the picture of the helicopter but secret government agents have erased them from my computer.  I’d show you the book that tells of the Irish monk, but I promised the owner to protect his identity.  Sorry.

How to Tell if You are Reading Pseudo-history.

            There are so many published theories about the Templars that it’s difficult to keep up with them.  In this book I have attempted to give the story of the Order and also address some of the illogical or unsubstantiated claims about them.  But this is very difficult.  Every time I think I’ve found them all, new Templar stories pop up like dandelions on a lawn.  So, I’ve decided to give the reader a few guidelines to help in judging the material. Many of these are well-written and sound authoritative.    But there are some clues that can help the reader make a decision about how trustworthy the writer is.

Here goes.

1.    Is the book published by a university press?  If yes, then it’s been checked by other historians and, while there may still be errors, it’s likely to be as accurate as possible.

If no, then…

2.   Are most of the footnotes to primary sources that any scholar can find?  If yes, then you may be ok and, if you doubt something, you can go look it up.

One mark of pseudo-history is that most of the footnotes are to other pseudo-histories or “secret” books (see no. 4) and it’s impossible to trace down the original information to check it.

If no, then…

3.    Does the author use phases like “everybody knows” and “historians agree”?  If yes, then don’t bother reading further.  There is nothing that “everybody” knows.  That’s just a quick way of saying, “I haven’t done my research and want to make you feel too ignorant to call me on it.”

Historians do agree on things like, “there was a battle of Hastings and William of Normandy won”.  Or “Machu Pichu is an amazing feat of engineering.”  Beyond that, everyone has a different way of evaluating the available data.  One other thing historians agree on is that someone who presents work that’s not based on information that others can check isn’t going to last long in the rough and tumble academic world.

4.   Does the author insist that the theory can’t be proved with available data because there was an immense cover-up or that the knowledge is guarded by a select secret society?  If yes, then how did the author find the information?  How was it authenticated?

An alternate to this is that the author has a “secret” source, a lost book or a document that reveals all.  This was used often in the Middle Ages.  The most famous is Geoffrey of Monmouth who wrote some of the earliest King Arthur stories.  He found the information in a book “in the British tongue”, that is, Breton or Welsh.  Since no one else had the book and Geoffrey wouldn’t show it to anyone, only he could transmit the truth.  I must admit, he did well with it.

Finally…

5. Does the author pile one supposition upon another, assuming they are all true?  For instance, a book may begin with a known fact, such as, “the Templars had their headquarters at the al-Aqsa mosque” and then continue with something like, “As is well-known, the area in front of the mosque is large enough in which to land a helicopter.”[1]  Then the author might continue by wondering why the space was there before helicopters had been invented.  Perhaps he has found, by chance, a manuscript illustration that resembles a helicopter about to land.  Even though the manuscript was made in, say,Ireland, the author of a pseudo history will imagine a previously unknown Irish monk coming to Jerusalem in time to see the Templars’ secret helicopter landings.  “Everybody knows” the Irish were great pilgrims.

From this, the author will claim to have established that there were helicopters flown by Templars and that it is proved by the picture made by the phantom pilgrim monk.  Of course, the only way this could be is if the Templars were really time-traveling soldiers of fortune determined to grab all the artifacts they could, including mystical talking heads (really a 24^th century communication device) that would give them the secret of the universe.  This makes perfect sense because “everyone knows” that this is the site of Solomon’s temple and Solomon, as you must have heard, was a great magician who hid advanced technology in the basement of the Temple to keep ignorant and superstitious people from gaining knowledge that their primitive minds couldn’t handle.

The author is sure that now is the time when all should be revealed.

You heard it here first.

---

[1]  Another interesting trait of pseudo historians is that the author won’t have bothered to find out that the Templars filled in the courtyard with buildings, including a large church and that it was only when Saladin took the city ofJerusalem and cleared them out that there was room to land a helicopter.

Ready for the Rapture?

My facebook page friends have been discussing Signs and Portents of the End.   As I noted in an earlier post, the news that the Rapture is prophesied for May 21, 2011, is spreading.  Earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, revolutions, tsunami, volcanoes, bookstores closing!  It does look suspicious to me.   However, I’ve been reading Matthew of Edessa, who wrote in the 1150s and, except for the bookstores, he cites the very same signs!  He even adds the invasion of the Turk, Zengi, who conquered Matthew’s home.  Poor Matthew was very disappointed that God didn’t come through and divide the sheep from the goats, or even the Orthodox Christians from the heretics.

But that doesn’t mean we should get complacent.  And, if the Rapture doesn’t come on May 21, we still have another chance on Dec. 21, 2012!  So don’t give up hope.  As this picture, kindly provided by the Bible Society, shows, Ascension robes will one day come in handy.

Chastity belts and Lord’s right, medieval myths.

Two medieval myths that seem to go together in people’s minds are the lord’s “right of the first night” or “droit de seigneur” and the ever popular “chastity belt”.   Even though both these myths have long been disproved, they are fixed in the public imagination as prime examples of  medieval cruelty and subjugation of women.

Would it surprise anyone to learn that these are both nineteenth-century inventions?

Let’s start with the chastity belt.  I found one from a torture museum that had metal teeth placed strategically that are meant to shred a would-be seducer/rapist.  That one is supposed to be from the fourteenth century.  A modern reproduction is simply a metal belt with a solid attachment that goes between the legs.

See any problem here?  Clearly, the first objection is that the belts are incredibly unsanitary and would cause infection fairly quickly.   The  “copy” doesn’t even allow for natural elimination.  The second problem is that these were supposed to be used by women while their husbands or other male relatives were at war.  Well, a lot of these husbands were very active before leaving, hoping that there would be a son born while they were gone.  Want to try delivering a baby through one of those?  And, of course, any woman with a hair pin could get out of the thing in about five minutes.

But the real problem with the chastity belt and the lord’s right, is that they presume women were property.   In the nineteenth century, under law in many countries, women were treated as children, without reasoning capacity.  Medieval women were not.  Of course there were barriers in law.  They couldn’t be priests or war leaders (but don’t tell Matilda of Tuscany) and, while women made most of the beer in Europe, they couldn’t be official beer tasters.  Go figure. But women could inherit, buy and sell, property and speak for themselves.  And a lot of them did at all levels of society.

Now, this First Night nonsense also assumes that peasants were slaves.  Depending on the time and place, their lot wasn’t great but any lord saying that he would get to sleep with a bride from his village on the wedding night would not have lasted long.  “The peasants are revolting” is not an idle phrase.  A wonderful example is from the miracle stories of St. Cuthbert.  It seems that a Scottish lord once decreed that all his female field hands work naked.  In Scotland?  According to the story, the next morning the lord was found dead “pecked to death by crows”.  Sure.  It doesn’t matter if the story is true; it makes clear what the twelfth century thought of high-handed noblemen and implies that peasants didn’t take such things lying down (so to speak).

Of course women were prey to some men in power.  This behavior was called seduction or rape and generally frowned upon by all.  Of course that never happens now.

There are two fine books that cover these two topics. The Medieval Chastity Belt

http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?is=9781403975584 for Albrecht Classen’s explanation of the chastity belt myth.

Alain Boureau’s study of the Droit de Seigneur is at http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/author/B/A/au5252640.html

Boureau has also written on the myth of Pope Joan.  He discovered that the droit de seigneur was first found in Beaumarchais’ Marriage of Figaro. Both books explain the social and political reasons why these two stories became part of history and folk belief.

Sorry this is so long, but I hope I’ve cleared up a few things.  If not, read the books I’ve recommended before you get back to me, please!

Don’t Wait for 2012! The End is Closer

I don’t know how I missed this one.  Thanks to the mediev-l list for letting me know. Medievalists are always interested in the end times.  We’ve seen so many of them come and go.  Anyway….

Evangelist Harold Camping has used the tried and not yet true method of calculating the end of the world by figuring the length of time from the Creation and predicting the end of the final age or “the eighth day”.  Interestingly, he believes the earth to be much older that other Bible mathematicians do, almost 14,000 years.  He has written an eighty page explanation of his methods, along with supporting references from Revelations etc.  If you want to check it out, you can get an Adobe copy at

http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/waat/waat.pdf

The bottom line is that the Rapture will be May 21, 2011, giving believers six months to donate all their property to the poor and prepare.  The next five months will be pretty rough for the rest of us, but it will all be over at the final destruction of the earth on October 21, 2011.

Isn’t it nice to know we can all stop fussing over the Mayan calendar?   Isn’t it great to realize that we don’t have to do holiday cards next year?   For all those people about to go into foreclosure, just hold out a few more months and the problem will be solved.  Why move when soon the house, the car and the planet won’t be here next year?

Now doesn’t that take a weight off?