# Life in medieval times



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 17, 2011)

No, that's not the title of a BBC4 doc - just something I'd like to discuss.

There are basically two views about the quality of life in medieval Europe - the negative one and the positive one.

The first, which seems to be generally the more dominant, is to associate medieval life with starvation, monotonous and inadequate diets, horrible diseases, cold, damp, windowless homes that people had to share with their animals, ignorance and corrupt robber barons.

The second is that only the poorest were starving, food was as varied then as it is now (although available only at certain times of the year), and although homes weren't comfortable, people didn't expect them to be: they were functional places for working, eating and sleeping. If you wanted to relax, you went to the pub. And while some landlords were corrupt, most were no more corrupt than most modern managers.

Attitudes towards poverty were different, too. The rich weren't contemptuous of the poor like they are now: it was accepted as normal that most people were poor. You were a peasant because you were born a peasant, and most people accepted this. There was no unemployment, and nothing was wasted: everything available was used (so no rows over whether rubbish collections should be weekly or fortnightly, and no one had to be told to recycle). Perhaps we have lost something? Could we combine the best of both worlds - a quasi-medieval society with modern living standards?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 17, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> You were a peasant because you were born a peasant, and most people accepted this.



Is that true though?  We know very little about what peasants actually though as they were very largely illiterate but its certainly the case that when they had the chance to turn the tables on their Masters they took it, think of the jacquaries and peasants revolts.

_"When Adam delved and Eve span who was then the gentleman?"_


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 17, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> food was as varied then as it is now (although available only at certain times of the year)


Actually, no, I disagree. Food was _*more*_ varied than it is now, particularly fruit and vegetables. I have actually done a fair bit of research on this as I do a bit of living history stuff with secondary school children. You should see my mess of pottage, mate 
.


----------



## Santino (Oct 17, 2011)

It's complicated.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 17, 2011)

Belushi said:


> _ Eve span_


...and you should see the size of my distaff and all


----------



## JimW (Oct 17, 2011)

Wasn't one of the main concerns about a vernacular Bible that it would enable the peasants to find scriptural support for their notion that all were equal in the eyes of God?
It's interesting that feudal obligations cut both ways and there was a tension that came when the elite encroached on customary rights, with part of the move into the modern being the breaking of the old moral ties that had ameliorated the oppression somewhat.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 17, 2011)

IIRC Medieval Peasants we're litigious fuckers


----------



## TruXta (Oct 17, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Actually, no, I disagree. Food was _*more*_ varied than it is now, particularly fruit and vegetables. I have actually done a fair bit of research on this as I do a bit of living history stuff with secondary school children. You should see my mess of pottage, mate
> .



Shit, even 25 years ago you got I dare say a ten-fold greater _commonplace_ variety in fruit and veg than you do these days. We have what, 2-3 sorts of bananas easily available, maybe 10 sorts of appples if you're lucky. Back in the days my neighbours had 10 varieties growing in their garden alone.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 17, 2011)

What was that quote ...

Life in olden times : brutal painful and short !

Sommat like that ..


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 17, 2011)

Well, it was said about later times and it was 





> nasty, brutish and short


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 17, 2011)

JimW said:


> Wasn't one of the main concerns about a vernacular Bible that it would enable the peasants to find scriptural support for their notion that all were equal in the eyes of God?


I have heard something to that effect, but I think it was more about protecting the authority of the Church.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 17, 2011)

Hobbes....

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/254050.html


----------



## Belushi (Oct 17, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, it was said about later times and it was
> 
> _nasty, brutish and short_
> _
> _



Yeah, thats Hobbes justifying absolute monarchy.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 17, 2011)

JimW said:


> Wasn't one of the main concerns about a vernacular Bible that it would enable the peasants to find scriptural support for their notion that all were equal in the eyes of God?
> It's interesting that feudal obligations cut both ways and there was a tension that came when the elite encroached on customary rights, with part of the move into the modern being the breaking of the old moral ties that had ameliorated the oppression somewhat.



Plenty of movements - Lollards in England, the Beghards and Beguines in France, the Brethren of the Free Spirit before them - all were anticlerical, antifeudalist, often antimaterialist too. I think all were also linked to preaching, praying and conducting ritual in the vernacular.


----------



## JimW (Oct 17, 2011)

Worse even than Absolut monarchy, rule by the biggest vodka-swilling alcoholic in the kingdom.


----------



## JimW (Oct 17, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Plenty of movements - Lollards in England, the Beghards and Beguines in France, the Brethren of the Free Spirit before them - all were anticlerical, antifeudalist, often antimaterialist too. I think all were also linked to preaching, praying and conducting ritual in the vernacular.


Yes, it was the lollards I had in mind for the association between vernacular texts and more political heresies, but it's all a bit vague.
ETA - I mean I can't remember what I read clearly, not a comment on lollard doctrine


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 17, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, it was said about later times and it was "nasty, brutish and short"


the link I posted later has taught me summat I didn't know for which I am very grateful.



> In 1998, the UK comedienne Jo Brand used the phrase to describe the diminutive, right-wing comedian Jim Davidson.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 17, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> If you wanted to relax, you went to the pub.


Well, if you were travelling (pilgrimage anyone?) you went to a tavern. If you wanted to drink something (anything) that didn't give you dysentery you went to the Alewife. Who often as not had the surname Brewster. Womens professions in those times survive in surnames that end in 'ster' eg Brewster, Webster etc.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 17, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> nothing was wasted: everything available was used (so no rows over whether rubbish collections should be weekly or fortnightly, and no one had to be told to recycle).


No! The place was full of middens...'tis the stuff archaeologists salivate over.....and although later, even Shakespeare got into a little local legal difficulty about his rubbish disposal.


----------



## JimW (Oct 17, 2011)

Was just digging up this link: http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/som.php

It's a database of records of service of medieval soldiers, and there's a few interesting articles on individuals, mostly gentry or better, but also these archers: http://www.icmacentre.ac.uk/soldier/database/August2008.htm


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 17, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> No! The place was full of middens...'tis the stuff archaeologists salivate over.....and although later, even Shakespeare got into a little local legal difficulty about his rubbish disposal.


Well, OK, of course human shit can't be reused or recycled, but I'm comparing it with the tons of stuff that now goes into landfill sites every day.


----------



## JimW (Oct 17, 2011)

Human shit was used as manure in Europe AFAIK, certainly was and still is in China.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 17, 2011)

I've been listening to 'A Time-Traveller's Guide to the Middle Ages' recently, and it says that the word peasant did not actually exist. There were tiers of 'peasants' just as there were tiers of nobility: serfs/villeins were the lowest (with young household servants being the lowest among them), Yeomen had their own farms but were still under the power of the manorial lord in many ways, and franklins were higher still but still not nobles.

Freemen (such as yeomen) could move from manor to manor, but had few people to help them if they were sick; poor villeins were not allowed to leave their Lord's manor without his permission and their lives were controlled by the Lord in severe ways, such as marriage. Occasionally a Franklin in a good area would have a better income than a Lord in a poor area.

And you absolutely could move between those classes, either by marriage or by buying yourself out of serfdom.



Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, if you were travelling (pilgrimage anyone?) you went to a tavern. If you wanted to drink something (anything) that didn't give you dysentery you went to the Alewife. Who often as not had the surname Brewster. Womens professions in those times survive in surnames that end in 'ster' eg Brewster, Webster etc.



I like that.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Oct 18, 2011)

Thomas Hobbes was talking about life in the wild, but was he projecting his own society onto nature?


----------



## Mapped (Oct 18, 2011)

This may be relevant to some people's interests on this thread

http://www.bl.uk/royal

Exhibition starts on 11th November


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2011)

I think it's hard to know with certainty what life was like then, but I think it's possible to get some indication from the smaller things. I'm thinking specifically of nusery rhymes, fables etc, that came to us from that era, like Hansel and Gretel, Ring Around A Rosy etc.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think it's hard to know with certainty what life was like then, but I think it's possible to get some indication from the smaller things. I'm thinking specifically of nusery rhymes, fables etc, that came to us from that era, like Hansel and Gretel, Ring Around A Rosy etc.



I think objectively we know a great deal about how people lived. But questions like "is it really better to a be a medieval King, than a normal person presently with a higher standard of living?" "Could a peasant be just as or more happy than an uncertain prole now" are very difficult.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> I think objectively we know a great deal about how people lived. But questions like "is it really better to a be a medieval King, than a normal person presently with a higher standard of living?" "Could a peasant in 1400's be just as or more happy than an uncertain prole now" are very difficult.



I think we have  some objective knowledge of it, and a lot of conjecture.

Would it be better to be a medieval king? Everything is relative, of course. Being a medieval king would bring with it a greater power than that held by BIll Gates or President Obama, depending on the country or kingdom. A king of those times would have the best life available at that time.

No, he didn't have a Toyota, or central heating; but neither can an average taxpayer of today even one with a Toyota and heating, order the drawing and quartering of someone who displeases him; nor do they have twelve concubines, roast ox for dinner every night accompanied by jesters  fools and jugglers.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 18, 2011)

and people believing that everything you do is god's will.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Ring Around A Rosy


Completely unknown until centuries later according to the undoubted nursery rhyme experts, Iona & Peter Opie


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2011)

A World Lit Only By Fire by William Manchester is one of my fave books. Is readable on the maedival mind, the bible etc and the renaissance etc. I'll hedge this by saying I don't know much about his reputation but it's an interesting view IMO.  

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_World_Lit_Only_by_Fire


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Completely unknown until centuries later according to the undoubted nursery rhyme experts, Iona & Peter Opie



Interesting: I'd believed in the plague origin until now.

It's possible that the middle ages were an undiscovered paradise of sorts, but thinking of the history between 500 and 1500, you have the Anglo saxon invasion, the norman invasion, the plague. People not washing for months due to a fear of illness from taking a bath. Fowl determined ready to eat when it had been hung by the neck, and the body eventually fell off the head due to decomposition. Syphillis. Pepper considered a valuable rarity, because of its use in flavoring regular food. The conquest of Europe by the Christian religion, and all that that portended. Feudalism.

It may have had its advantages, but it had a few negative elements as well.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I No, he didn't have a Toyota, or central heating; but neither can an average taxpayer of today even one with a Toyota and heating, order the drawing and quartering of someone who displeases him; nor do they have twelve concubines, roast ox for dinner every night accompanied by jesters fools and jugglers.



The average person in a rich country has a life expectancy 30 or 40 years longer than that of medieval kings, and a much better chance of having his children survive to adulthood - I don't think I'd be willing to trade that for any number of jesters and jugglers.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 18, 2011)

Are decisions taken late at night ever the best ones?

I've been toying with temp bans in order to spend more time away from u75, on other activities. That's good so far as it goes, but when it's around, I'll use it. A lot. That must be one of the definitions of an addiction.

U75 is too comfortable for me. I can while away hours here, in the blink of an eye. But I've realized of late that my time isn't unlimited, and there are things I want to get done, that will require more attention from me, not to mention getting more work done so that I can actually pay for more things.

It's been ten years. A good ten years. But now I need to focus my energies elsewhere.

Thank you all very much for everything. You've been a source of knowledge, of entertainment, and of solace at times when I needed it.

So long, gang.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 18, 2011)

this has been bugging me for years so it seemed like a semi-relevant thread to ask on. anyone remember a song from a radio 4 comedy programme years ago called (i think?) vote for the middle ages? among the immortal lines were "history books had less pages" and "lunatics were kept in cages" 

edit: oh and "brainy men were known as sages"


----------



## Santino (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are decisions taken late at night ever the best ones?
> 
> I've been toying with temp bans in order to spend more time away from u75, on other activities. That's good so far as it goes, but when it's around, I'll use it. A lot. That must be one of the definitions of an addiction.
> 
> ...



Stealth flounce.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2011)

The hits rate is going to suffer.


----------



## Santino (Oct 18, 2011)

Probably deserves a call-out thread of its own.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are decisions taken late at night ever the best ones?
> 
> I've been toying with temp bans in order to spend more time away from u75, on other activities. That's good so far as it goes, but when it's around, I'll use it. A lot. That must be one of the definitions of an addiction.
> 
> ...



Hasta la vista, hasta Cuba.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> No, that's not the title of a BBC4 doc - just something I'd like to discuss.
> 
> There are basically two views about the quality of life in medieval Europe - the negative one and the positive one.
> 
> The first, which seems to be generally the more dominant, is to associate medieval life with starvation...



Localised starvation was well-known, purely because trade was also fairly localised.



> monotonous and inadequate diets..



Monotonous, yes. Inadequate doesn't really stand up to historical scrutiny, except at times of famine.



> horrible diseases...



Many of which were pretty much a concomitant of poor sanitation.



> cold, damp, windowless homes that people had to share with their animals, ignorance and corrupt robber barons.



Ignorance is relative. By modern standards even the majority of aristocracy were only semi-literate and could therefore be considered "ignorant". As for "windowless, most homes were shuttered. Only the very wealthy had glassed windows.



> The second is that only the poorest were starving, food was as varied then as it is now (although available only at certain times of the year)...



So not as varied, because we didn't, for example, import pasta or rice, and didn't have potatoes, and more dependent on seasons.



> and although homes weren't comfortable, people didn't expect them to be: they were functional places for working, eating and sleeping. If you wanted to relax, you went to the pub. And while some landlords were corrupt, most were no more corrupt than most modern managers.



Most households brewed their own beer (what with water not being terribly trustworthy).



> Attitudes towards poverty were different, too. The rich weren't contemptuous of the poor like they are now: it was accepted as normal that most people were poor. You were a peasant because you were born a peasant, and most people accepted this. There was no unemployment, and nothing was wasted: everything available was used (so no rows over whether rubbish collections should be weekly or fortnightly, and no one had to be told to recycle). Perhaps we have lost something? Could we combine the best of both worlds - a quasi-medieval society with modern living standards?



I don't think that the two are necessarily incompatible, but I do think they're ideologically incompatible, if only because the belief in "place" differs so markedly. Bear in mind that the peasant believed in his place as a peasant because this was a generations-old message reinforced by a group that had an interest in maintaining the _status quo_: The church.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Actually, no, I disagree. Food was _*more*_ varied than it is now, particularly fruit and vegetables. I have actually done a fair bit of research on this as I do a bit of living history stuff with secondary school children. You should see my mess of pottage, mate
> .



Varieties of fruits and vegetables were certainly more varied. Nowadays we have only a fraction of the varieties on offer, because of commercial as opposed to culinary considerations.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, it was said about later times and it was



Said about the effects of a "state of nature", too (a "war of everyone against everyone"), as opposed to the lives of a specific social group.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> Well, OK, of course human shit can't be reused or recycled, but I'm comparing it with the tons of stuff that now goes into landfill sites every day.



A midden in medieval times was a rubbish dump for household refuse. Human waste was generally collected and composted for fertiliser, right up until the early 20th century in the UK and even London, as a matter of fact.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think it's hard to know with certainty what life was like then, but I think it's possible to get some indication from the smaller things. I'm thinking specifically of nusery rhymes, fables etc, that came to us from that era, like Hansel and Gretel, Ring Around A Rosy etc.



Ring-a-ring-of-roses was (IIRC) dated to the 16th century, which is barely still medieval.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Interesting: I'd believed in the plague origin until now.
> 
> It's possible that the middle ages were an undiscovered paradise of sorts, but thinking of the history between 500 and 1500, you have the Anglo saxon invasion, the norman invasion, the plague. People not washing for months due to a fear of illness from taking a bath. Fowl determined ready to eat when it had been hung by the neck, and the body eventually fell off the head due to decomposition. Syphillis. Pepper considered a valuable rarity, because of its use in flavoring regular food. The conquest of Europe by the Christian religion, and all that that portended. Feudalism.
> 
> It may have had its advantages, but it had a few negative elements as well.



You still had plague epidemics well into the 17th century.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

i've just started reading that new steven pinker book and his argument is that society is much less violent than it used to be. it's hard to argue against really. he has graphs n shit to prove it.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i've just started reading that new steven pinker book and his argument is that society is much less violent than it used to be. it's hard to argue against really. he has graphs n shit to prove it.



Check out the (amusingly hyperbolic) review by John Gray. Plenty contentious stuff in that book I'm led to believe.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Check out the (amusingly hyperbolic) review by John Gray. Plenty contentious stuff in that book I'm led to believe.


in what publication?
the book seems to have a lot of graphic depictions of torture in it.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Prospect.


----------



## JimW (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i've just started reading that new steven pinker book and his argument is that society is much less violent than it used to be. it's hard to argue against really. he has graphs n shit to prove it.


I've seen some graph showing the decline in the murder rate in Oxford - because of the university they've got reasonably good stats going back hundreds of years and it sounds like it was stab-you-up central in the alehouses in the middle ages!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Peter Singer gives it a glowing review in the NYT, if you'd like some balance.

One more http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/10/steven-pinker-on-violence.html

One major issue with Pinker's account is that he elides the rise of (inter-)nationalistic, structural violence.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Peter Singer gives it a glowing review in the NYT, if you'd like some balance.


so is gray against it then?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> so is gray against it then?



Very much so.


----------



## IC3D (Oct 18, 2011)

Time Travellers Guide to Great Britain by Ian Mortimer is a good read



> *London*
> No trip to medieval England would be complete without a visit to London. It is not just the largest city in England but also the richest, the most vibrant, the most polluted, the smelliest, the most powerful, the most colorful, the most violent, and the most diverse. For most of the century the adjacent town of Westminster -- joined to the city by the long elegant street called the Strand -- is also the permanent seat of government. To be precise, it _becomes_ the permanent seat of government. In 1300 the government is still predominantly itinerant, following the king as he journeys around the kingdom. However, from 1337 Edward III increasingly situates his civil service in one place, at Westminster. His chancellor, treasurer, and other officers of state all issue their letters from permanent offices there. After the last meeting at York (1335), parliaments too are normally held at Westminster. Richard II does hold six of his twenty-four parliaments elsewhere (at Gloucester, Northampton, Salisbury, Cambridge, Winchester, and Shrewsbury), but doing so only strengthens the feeling that Westminster is the proper place for parliamentary assemblies, so that the commons can more easily attend. All these developments, plus London's links with European traders and banking houses, enhance the standing of the capital. Its importance as an economic and a political center at the end of the century is greater than that of all the other cities in England combined.


not the clearest quote its more social history really


----------



## Miss Caphat (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are decisions taken late at night ever the best ones?
> 
> I've been toying with temp bans in order to spend more time away from u75, on other activities. That's good so far as it goes, but when it's around, I'll use it. A lot. That must be one of the definitions of an addiction.
> 
> ...


 
nooooo, don't go! You were not here for many days recently (am I right?)...and only when you came back did I notice what had been missing. Certain threads needed a JCIII boost to move them along.
And now you're just going to leave?

oh well, good for you. get your stuff done, you're right, it is more important. I shouldn't be on here either.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i've just started reading that new steven pinker book and his argument is that society is much less violent than it used to be. it's hard to argue against really. he has graphs n shit to prove it.


sounds like bollocks.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

discokermit said:


> sounds like bollocks.


not really


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Oct 18, 2011)

They may have only lived to about 40 and most of their children might have died, but were they any less contented than we are? Their expectations must have been incredibly different to ours, simple pleasures like the festivals that punctuated the year which they probably found intensely enjoyable. And then they had the afterlife to look forward too as well.


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


>



lol


----------



## discokermit (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> not really


we've had constant wars since the second world war. fuck know's how many have died in the congo and rwanda, iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, chechnya, palestine, darfur, etc.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

discokermit said:


> we've had constant wars since the second world war. fuck know's how many have died in the congo and rwanda, iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, chechnya, palestine, darfur, etc.



That's the most serious issue with Pinker's thesis. Individual, local violence has gone down massively (homicide rates are way down), but state-level, structural violence is way up.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 18, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are decisions taken late at night ever the best ones?
> 
> I've been toying with temp bans in order to spend more time away from u75, on other activities. That's good so far as it goes, but when it's around, I'll use it. A lot. That must be one of the definitions of an addiction.
> 
> ...



Yeah right! You'll be back. You haven't even left.....


----------



## scifisam (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's the most serious issue with Pinker's thesis. Individual, local violence has gone down massively (homicide rates are way down), but state-level, structural violence is way up.



Really? There were tons and tons of wars in the middle ages.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 18, 2011)

IC3D said:


> Time Travellers Guide to Great Britain by Ian Mortimer is a good read
> 
> not the clearest quote its more social history really



You mean a Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England? Mentioned on page 1.


----------



## trabuquera (Oct 18, 2011)

as a female of the species, with lousy teeth and short sight, it's no contest - NEVER EVER would I go back in time, it wouldn't be worth the pain or the oppression thanks very much, no matter how varied the pottage or how pretty I thought the angels would be after my (extremely premature) death, most likely worn out by childbirth or done in by violence.

Orang, one thing I don't get about Pinker's thesis is his apparent ignorance of the well-known fact that the percentage of war casualties who're civilians has gone massively UP over recent centuries. He can argue away a lot of 20th-century genocides and wars by saying they wiped out a smaller percentage of the world's population than their counterpart atrocities in earlier ages. But any fule kno that in a war with artillery or bombs or nuclear weapons, it's a lot more than just the soldiers who get killed. I can recall some sort of figure that in (say) the Napoleonic wars the dead were 90% soldiers, 10% civilians, whereas in modern wars it's exactly the reverse. How does Pinker's thesis argue its way out of that?


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Really? There were tons and tons of wars in the middle ages.



Quite, but not as deadly as the ones taking place in the last 200 years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2011)

am watching this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8968064794581858968&hl=undefined

a man with a beard challenging the idea of the post-roman invasion of people from the north.

/tangential


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's the most serious issue with Pinker's thesis. Individual, local violence has gone down massively (homicide rates are way down), but state-level, structural violence is way up.


he mentions that very briefly in the intro. iirc, he says that total war was pretty common and not a 20th century phenomenon as is commonly understood. (if that is what you mean by 'state-level structural violence')


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Quite, but not as deadly as the ones taking place in the last 200 years.


this is held to be untrue. medieval warfare was much more destructive.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

trabuquera said:


> as a female of the species, with lousy teeth and short sight, it's no contest - NEVER EVER would I go back in time, it wouldn't be worth the pain or the oppression thanks very much, no matter how varied the pottage or how pretty I thought the angels would be after my (extremely premature) death, most likely worn out by childbirth or done in by violence.
> 
> Orang, one thing I don't get about Pinker's thesis is his apparent ignorance of the well-known fact that the percentage of war casualties who're civilians has gone massively UP over recent centuries. He can argue away a lot of 20th-century genocides and wars by saying they wiped out a smaller percentage of the world's population than their counterpart atrocities in earlier ages. But any fule kno that in a war with artillery or bombs or nuclear weapons, it's a lot more than just the soldiers who get killed. I can recall some sort of figure that in (say) the Napoleonic wars the dead were 90% soldiers, 10% civilians, whereas in modern wars it's exactly the reverse. How does Pinker's thesis argue its way out of that?


i need to read the whole book, but surely old school total warfare, in which everything was despoiled, pillaged, raped and burnt was just as destructive, if not more? in mediaeval times, who was a soldier and who was a civilian anyway? men were soldiers, women were 'civilians' and both men and women suffered horribly.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> this is held to be untrue. medieval warfare was much more destructive.



To whom? As said above, civilian losses are much greater these days than way back when.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i need to read the whole book, but surely old school total warfare, in which everything was despoiled, pillaged, raped and burnt was just as destructive, if not more? in mediaeval times, who was a soldier and who was a civilian anyway? men were soldiers, women were 'civilians' and both men and women suffered horribly.



I don't know that "old school" warfare was like that to be honest.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> this is held to be untrue. medieval warfare was much more destructive.


 
but surely that would have been because of breakdown in supporting structures leading to famine and plague plus the sort of scorched earth tactics as crop burning and the tendency for armies to begave like a horde of rapey locusts


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

discokermit said:


> we've had constant wars since the second world war. fuck know's how many have died in the congo and rwanda, iraq, afghanistan, vietnam, chechnya, palestine, darfur, etc.


pinker's argument is that these atrocities are statistically insignificant compared to previous ones.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 18, 2011)

I spent a lot of time looking online at the Luttrell Psalter when I was making my costume for my living history thing.  http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/luttrellpsalter.html

A BBC clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg5qEWok4n4
A brilliant film based on pictures in the Luttrell Psalter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AnUM1tt54


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> but surely that would have been because of breakdown in supporting structures leading to famine and plague plus the sort of scorched earth tactics as crop burning and the tendency for armies to begave like a horde of rapey locusts


but at least these days, despite the fact that these things still happen, most societies wouldn't condone this kind of violence. it may be flouted all the time, but the fact that we have a geneva convention means things have progressed a little bit, surely?


----------



## scifisam (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> To whom? As said above, civilian losses are much greater these days than way back when.



Isn't that partly because a much greater section of the population was counted as soldiers? Apart from the estate of 'Those Who Fight' who were always soldiers, all bondsmen of the manor were obliged to serve as soldiers for him whenever their Lord asked them to.

Plus, while obviously increased civilian deaths are a bad thing (if that's true), it doesn't actually mean society is more violent, just that the weapons are more effective.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> pinker's argument is that these atrocities are statistically insignificant compared to previous ones.



I quote Ross Douthat (I know I know)



> When he wants to argue, for instance, that the 20th century was not uniquely violent, he cites a list of the 21 worst atrocities in human history and notes that when you adjust for the size of world population only one 20th century horror (World War II, taken as a whole) makes the top ten. But look down his list, and you’ll notice that only five of the atrocities took place before the 16th century — i.e. before the rise of the modern nation-state.
> 
> (The same pattern shows up when Pinker charts a list of the 100 worst wars and atrocities.) What’s more, the pre-modern mass deaths tend to be spread out over long periods of time and carried out by a highly diffuse set of actors (the fall of Rome, the Mid-East slave trade), whereas the more modern atrocities tend to be chronologically concentrated and politically centralized. This lends support to Tyler Cowen’s critique of Pinker:
> 
> ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I don't know that "old school" warfare was like that to be honest.


 
Well surely in the period following the romans the people doing war had learned the hard way not to do the summer war/light raiding tribal thing but to play it roman and go for the total crushing of your enemy even if you have to fight through planting and harvest season, burn him out totally and destroy everything he had worth taking in the proccess.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I quote Ross Douthat (I know I know)


i don't!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

scifisam said:


> Isn't that partly because a much greater section of the population was counted as soldiers? Apart from the estate of 'Those Who Fight' who were always soldiers, all bondsmen of the manor were obliged to serve as soldiers for him whenever their Lord asked them to.
> 
> Plus, while obviously increased civilian deaths are a bad thing (if that's true), it doesn't actually mean society is more violent, just that the weapons are more effective.



First point - dunno really. Second, so what if weapons are more effective - which they clearly are? It only serves to argue against Pinker anyway.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i don't!



http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/steven-pinkers-history-of-violence/


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

ta!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> but at least these days, despite the fact that these things still happen, most societies wouldn't condone this kind of violence. it may be flouted all the time, but the fact that we have a geneva convention means things have progressed a little bit, surely?



I would point the honourable ape to nanking etc- however greater knowledge of medicine, sanitation, transport and shipping might be able to soften the immediate effects of post-war famine and disease. Even so after ww1 we had the massive flu pandemic and after ww2 rationing kept people just barely out of starvation till the 50's


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> but at least these days, despite the fact that these things still happen, most societies wouldn't condone this kind of violence. it may be flouted all the time, but the fact that we have a geneva convention means things have progressed a little bit, surely?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2011)

i'm fed up of being cynical about things. it's boring. i want to be hopeful. i'll give it a try for a while before sucumbing to despair


----------



## TruXta (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm fed up of being cynical about things. it's boring. i want to be hopeful. i'll give it a try for a while before sucumbing to despair



Good luck, ape!


----------



## scifisam (Oct 18, 2011)

TruXta said:


> First point - dunno really. Second, so what if weapons are more effective - which they clearly are? It only serves to argue against Pinker anyway.



Did you read the second sentence in full?


----------



## JimW (Oct 18, 2011)

As I recall, the English Civil War (aka Wars of the Three Kingdoms) resulted in the death of about 10% of the population, which is more than either of the two world wars. Mongols invading Hungary depopulated pretty much the entire country. So I think it's more like absolute numbers may have increased, but not percentage casualties.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> A midden in medieval times was a rubbish dump for household refuse. Human waste was generally collected and composted for fertiliser, right up until the early 20th century in the UK and even London, as a matter of fact.


Yes, I realised that later. I think it's a common falacy that a midden was a cesspit. And it explains Mrs Magpie's comment about archeologists getting excited about finding medieval middens - I thought it was a bit strange that they should get excited about cesspits.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 18, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I thought it was a bit strange that they should get excited about cesspits.


Well actually they do as it can tell a lot about about diet.
http://ancientstandard.com/2011/06/29/ancient-excrement-gives-clues-to-daily-life-of-romans/


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 18, 2011)

It's probably very difficult to know what life really was like in medieval times, because the evidence is so scanty, and yes, we have to account for how people thought in those days, you can't really compare it with today. And there are so many myths and falacies. One example, although this is from a bit later than the middle ages, is the mass witch hunts. According to one source (the identity of which I've forgotten, but it's online), the claim that thousands of women all over Europe were accused of witchcraft and executed is based on a story told by one person, who was apparently a fantasist. The witchhunt story may or may not be true, but the point is, the evidence either way is very unreliable.

Some of my information about class relations in the middle ages is based on Alain de Botton's book Status Anxiety, where he says peasants were generally content to be peasants because although there may have been some social mobility, people weren't pressured into trying to climb the social ladder like they are today. Industrialisation changed attitudes towards social inequality and led to contempt for the poor, dividing them into 'deserving' and 'undeserving', leading to the 1834 Poor Law, and attitudes have remained that way ever since. That's partly what I had in mind when I started this thread. That and the matter of how resources were used in those days, and whether that history has something to teach us.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm sorry that Johnny Canuck has decided to leave us - most of what he wrote was worth reading. Hopefully he'll be back, but I know what he means about these forums being rather addictive.


----------



## Dan U (Oct 18, 2011)

i love that Johnny flounced this time on a thread about Medieval times

enjoying the thread too


----------



## JimW (Oct 18, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> <snip>
> Some of my information about class relations in the middle ages is based on Alain de Botton's book Status Anxiety, where he says peasants were generally content to be peasants because although there may have been some social mobility, people weren't pressured into trying to climb the social ladder like they are today. Industrialisation changed attitudes towards social inequality and led to contempt for the poor, dividing them into 'deserving' and 'undeserving', leading to the 1834 Poor Law, and attitudes have remained that way ever since. That's partly what I had in mind when I started this thread. That and the matter of how resources were used in those days, and whether that history has something to teach us.



There's a theory that there was something unique about English feudal social relations, partly because it was easier to get people off the land, that gave rise to capitalism: http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/agrarian-origin-capitalism-darren-poynton-2011
I think he's re-hashing the work of Ellen Meiksins Wood: http://monthlyreview.org/1998/07/01/the-agrarian-origins-of-capitalism

Fits with what you read about deserted villages like the famous Wharram Percy: http://www.abandonedcommunities.co.uk/page57.html where they kicked everyone out because sheep brought in more money.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 18, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> so is gray against it then?



It goes against Gray's inate pessimism, and disbelief in human progress.


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Oct 19, 2011)

JimW said:


> Mongols invading Hungary depopulated pretty much the entire country. So I think it's more like absolute numbers may have increased, but not percentage casualties.



It's believed (but contested) that they brought gunpowder and bomb technology to the Europeans, too.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 19, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I'm sorry that Johnny Canuck has decided to leave us - most of what he wrote was worth reading. Hopefully he'll be back, but I know what he means about these forums being rather addictive.


I am very fond of Johnny and I hope he'll be back too.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 19, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> . . . Some of my information about class relations in the middle ages is based on Alain de Botton's book Status Anxiety, where he says peasants were generally content to be peasants because although there may have been some social mobility . . .


Then I would point him in the direction of the post black-death rise in wages.



JimW said:


> . . . Fits with what you read about deserted villages like the famous Wharram Percy: http://www.abandonedcommunities.co.uk/page57.html where they kicked everyone out because sheep brought in more money.


Again, black-death means not enough people to farm arably therefore turn to sheep farming.



Captain Hurrah said:


> It's believed (but contested) that they brought gunpowder and bomb technology to the Europeans, too.



Pretty sure gunpowder used in Europe before the Q2 of the 1200's
Apols, first Western images of cannons recorded seen in English illustrated manuscript and described in Italian manuals circa 1326. English used cannons in Battle of Crecy 1346.



Apols but can only put up sources when I get home but deffo this and this are relevent, happy to upload to rapidshare if anyone's interested.


----------



## Santino (Oct 19, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> Some of my information about class relations in the middle ages is based on Alain de Botton's book Status Anxiety, where he says peasants were generally content to be peasants because although there may have been some social mobility, people weren't pressured into trying to climb the social ladder like they are today.


Trustafarian wanker that he is.


----------



## JimW (Oct 19, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Again, black-death means not enough people to farm arably therefore turn to sheep farming.


Nope: http://www.timetravel-britain.com/articles/country/wharram.shtml


> Perhaps it was the Black Death, then? Although the plague did kill several inhabitants of the village, including the priest and lord of the manor, the majority of the population survived.
> So why was this village at the bottom of a valley deserted? Famine? Flooding? No. The reason was sheep. As Sir Thomas More wrote in _Utopia_, "Your sheep which are usually so tame and so cheaply fed, begin now, according to report, to be so greedy and wild that they devour human beings themselves and devastate and depopulate fields, houses, and towns."
> Not that sheep were really eating humans, but you can see More's point. By the 15th century, sheep farming had become far more profitable than arable farming, so the lord of the manor turned more of his land into pasture land, leaving less for the farming of crops. This in turn led to less work and less food for the villagers of Wharram Percy, so that they were forced to leave the village to find work and food elsewhere. In the end, documentary evidence shows that there were just four homes left occupied when the landowner, Baron Hilton, evicted the few remaining villagers around 1517. Archaeologists think that the last inhabitant of Wharram Percy was either a vagrant or an inhabitant who refused to move out, who was killed when a dilapidated house collapsed on him whilst he slept.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 19, 2011)

er . . . like I said, can provide extensive written sources when I get home.

But to answer rebut your googled point,

1) first and most devestating occurance of what we call the Black Death (may be the same as the Justinian Plage and the one that hit greece during the Pellopenesian War) was 1350ish NOT 15th Century,
2) a main reason (neccessary but not sufficiant?) why sheep farming became more profitable was the general rise in wages post-Black death ie takes more people to arably farm than to look after a herd of sheep. (other factor top of head would be Englands conquest of Flemmish (?) wool-processing areas during 100 Years War)

While your link may be valid for a specific village, I was talking more generally.


----------



## JimW (Oct 19, 2011)

It's not a 'googled' point, it's a succinct summary of a case made elsewhere, given by serious historians writing for the generalists. Don't be a twat.
Meiksins mentions similar in the longer artile above and I can also dig up proper sources if you want.
You first point counts against your argument; I know when the main depredations of the plague occurred, the effects had largely passed by the time of the depopulation due to the turn to sheep husbandry.
I've got the wage tables somewhere too, and IIRC correctly that rise had also gone by the period in question. Be interested to see your sources, as I'm sure there's an argument to be had, but not by talking like an arsehole.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 19, 2011)

JimW said:


> . . . Don't be a twat.
> . . .
> but not by talking like an arsehole.




whatever.
Uninterested in continuing what was turning into an interesting discussion with someone who thinks this is the politics forum.
However I will check tonight if have time and conceed your point if I'm wrong.


----------



## JimW (Oct 19, 2011)

Then less of the snide comments about 'googled links'; you want good manners, show some.

Wharram Percy is probably the classic study of a deserted village in the UK; it's one of several bookmarks I had with the shortest summary of the point.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2011)

history is by its very nature political. It doesn't exist in some vacuum where the interpretation of facts and the conclusions drawn are free from political bias.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 19, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> history is by its very nature political. It doesn't exist in some vacuum where the interpretation of facts and the conclusions drawn are free from political bias.



Hu-what? Take that back you scamp.


----------



## JimW (Oct 19, 2011)

Just having a look in the Cambridge Historical Encyclopedia (This was Google); first vaguely authorative link to the population and wages points), and if you read from the bottom para of page 175 (http://books.google.com/books?id=0NrVJb1rWq0C&pg=PA175) on, it has population definitely rebounding by 1520 (though not to fully recover to 1620s), saying that in the sixteenth the situation of high wages and low rents of the previous century was reversed, bit of a discussion of whether there was a technological revolution, then on p.178 also saying a capitalist agriculture had emerged. Contrast is then made with Scotland and France, where similar changes hadn't occurred. Think the thesis holds that there was something particular in the change in English social relations in the period.

ETA: forgot to mention the bit about the various Tudor poor laws, which are also taken to be indicative of something changing, as the need to legislate was naturally a reaction to what was actually going on; i.e. you don't need to try to ban enclosures for pasture if it's not happening (and would be surprised if enforcement was sufficient to prevent it to any great extent once the benefits to the landowner became clear. Will have to dig up figures on that though)


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 19, 2011)

Overview here and here for C14th english population

I find it useful to google for Phd theses on a subject for serious in-depth stuff by including "Thesis" as a searchterm and restricting to filetype = pdf (not a dig at anyone, just a helpful hint)!


----------



## JimW (Oct 19, 2011)

Maybe we're at cross purposes then, as the theory I'm advancing supposedly starts in the 16th (ETA, perhaps a bit earlier, will have to check); with population already recovering, though not quite back there yet. Also based on the observation that neighbouring kingdoms underwent similar demographic trajectories but something different happened in England. Anyway, off to bed in a bit but will read those PDFs with interest.

Another ETA: Just skimmed the one of them, Broadberry et al., and what they're saying on pp.9 and 10 seems to fit too (incuding wages post 1450), though can see there's debate, plus the trend in their table 4, section C population trend 1377-1541, with the base 100 in 1377 recovering to 94 by 1522, about when Wharram gets depopulated. Looks like we are talking across each other. Will have a look at the other one rather than kip, as these look good; cheers. Edit again: looks like both links are the same - is there another one. Would fancy a look.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> It's probably very difficult to know what life really was like in medieval times, because the evidence is so scanty, and yes, we have to account for how people thought in those days, you can't really compare it with today. And there are so many myths and falacies. One example, although this is from a bit later than the middle ages, is the mass witch hunts. According to one source (the identity of which I've forgotten, but it's online), the claim that thousands of women all over Europe were accused of witchcraft and executed is based on a story told by one person, who was apparently a fantasist. The witchhunt story may or may not be true, but the point is, the evidence either way is very unreliable.



Are you talking about Margaret Murray's "The Witch Cult in Western Europe"?


----------



## love detective (Oct 19, 2011)

JimW said:


> then on p.178 also saying a capitalist agriculture had emerged. Contrast is then made with Scotland and France, where similar changes hadn't occurred. Think the thesis holds that there was something particular in the change in English social relations in the period.



You already mentioned ellen wood's stuff on this in relation to the uniqueness (and specificity) of the capitalist transformation in the english countryside - but a good book by her on the topic and the contrast with France is _The Pristine Culture of Capitalism: An Historical Essay on Old Regimes and Modern States_. The focus is more on the modern development (17th/18th century on) of England & France, but ties in with the points you make above (for some reason the synopsis of this book on Amazon and other book sites, waterstones etc.. relates to a completely different book her husband wrote called Tyranny in America )


----------



## JimW (Oct 19, 2011)

Thanks, ld, I'll seek that out. Right up my street.
Do you recall Wood's contrast between English feudalism and Ancien Regime version? Something along the lines of Tudor state both more centralised yet weaker, property and customary rights weaker, all tending to enable the enclosure and depopulation. There's then also the geographic and other factors that favoured the greater expansion of capitalist industry like the mines (which had existed for some time in proto-form, esp. up in Durham on a major scale IIRC). ETA: Reads like statements but this is supposed to be a genuine question! While since I read it and will have to do that again.
Going a bit later into the Early Modern saw interesting points made contra Weber contrasting the Dutch Republic and England/Britain; again by his lights there's no particular reason why capitalism thrives particularly in the latter much earlier - you have to look at much more to see why the difference (most of which I only dimly recall).

(Still failing to get to bed here)


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Are you talking about Margaret Murray's "The Witch Cult in Western Europe"?


No. I've just looked that up, and this is the first time I've heard of what Murray says. Sorry I can't name the source, this was a good few years ago.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Oct 19, 2011)

Just remembered. What I read said that although some women were burned as witches, the number was hugely exaggerated.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 19, 2011)

i bet those medieval types would have thrown a few extra witches on the fire the past couple of days


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> No. I've just looked that up, and this is the first time I've heard of what Murray says. Sorry I can't name the source, this was a good few years ago.



It's just that there's a fair bit of extant historical evidence (trial records etc) of both trials and executions of women for witchcraft, Germany being an especially rich source. You've got stuff like Wiesensteig, where more than 60 people, mostly women, were tried, convicted and executed for witchcraft in the mid 16th century, and a host of cases spanning nearly 2 centuries in Bamberg.
In the UK you've got (off the top of my head) Isobel Gowdie and the Pendle witches (11 of whom were executed, again mostly women), and the French and the Spanish (at home and in the Netherlands) were hot to trot, too.

Your "one source" must have been a bit of a spud to make a claim that's so easily contradicted by a cursory look at the historical record.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's just that there's a fair bit of extant historical evidence (trial records etc) of both trials and executions of women for witchcraft, Germany being an especially rich source. You've got stuff like Wiesensteig, where more than 60 people, mostly women, were tried, convicted and executed for witchcraft in the mid 16th century, and a host of cases spanning nearly 2 centuries in Bamberg.
> In the UK you've got (off the top of my head) Isobel Gowdie and the Pendle witches (11 of whom were executed, again mostly women), and the French and the Spanish (at home and in the Netherlands) were hot to trot, too.
> 
> Your "one source" must have been a bit of a spud to make a claim that's so easily contradicted by a cursory look at the historical record.



The dispute is about the number of people tried and killed for witchcraft, not whether it occurred. IIRC some of the estimates ranging in the hundreds of thousands have been shown to be well off. We're likely looking at the low tens of thousands. Sorry, no sources atm.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> Just remembered. What I read said that although some women were burned as witches, the number was hugely exaggerated.



Well, it was unlikely to have been the "millions" that some gullible US Wiccans bleat about, with their laments about "The Burning Times", but we can be fairly certain that tens of thousands of women were specifically murdered Europe-wide over the course of 3 centuries or so for the offence of practicing witchcraft.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The dispute is about the number of people tried and killed for witchcraft, not whether it occurred. IIRC some of the estimates ranging in the hundreds of thousands have been shown to be well off. We're likely looking at the low tens of thousands. Sorry, no sources atm.



One of the ways you establish numbers is by inspecting the historical record as to whether, where and when it occurred. This procedure is known as "research".  

Source-wise, E.M. Butler's three volume study of European magic and ritual went for the "tens of thousands", based on the available records, and extrapolating from local history (folk memory etc) where records were unavailable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2011)

wayward bob said:


> i bet those medieval types would have thrown a few extra witches on the fire the past couple of days



Like logs on a blazing hearth.


----------



## wayward bob (Oct 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Like logs on a blazing hearth.



even with their expertly spun and woven clothing i reckon they'd have been saying it's been a bit parky lately.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> One of the ways you establish numbers is by inspecting the historical record as to whether, where and when it occurred. This procedure is known as "research".
> 
> Source-wise, E.M. Butler's three volume study of European magic and ritual went for the "tens of thousands", based on the available records, and extrapolating from local history (folk memory etc) where records were unavailable.



And that research is always fallible and biased. But you know this already.

So, I think we agree on the basics. I'd just like to add that there was something odd going on in Iceland at the time - they were the only country where more men than women were killed for being witches.


----------



## JimW (Oct 20, 2011)

Keith Thomas' Religion and The Decline of Magic has a good section on the witch trials in England and the other home nations. He makes the point that they peak after the Reformation because although the belief in witchcraft had always been there, previously you had counter-magic courtesy of Catholic ritual, but more rational Protestantism denied the efficacy of this. Unfortunately, that rationalism didn't extend to a sharp decline in belief in the powers of witches, so people turned to the law when their cow gave no milk rather than just say a few prayers. Also makes a link with the breaking-down of old moral obligations in village communities leading to the new wealthy resenting old widows, who they ought to have been helping charitably but didn't want to now they were the new godly industrious types. The subconscious anxiety led them to feel the weak were bewitching them.


----------



## Random (Oct 20, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'd just like to add that there was something odd going on in Iceland at the time - they were the only country where more men than women were killed for being witches.


 Probably had too few women to waste any.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

Random said:


> Probably had too few women to waste any.



Nah, think it had more to do with the fact that in Norse religion (which persisted for a long time in Iceland) male witches were seen as more dangerous than the female ones. Odin, ergi, and so on.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 20, 2011)

JimW said:


> Maybe we're at cross purposes then . . .


Was thinking the same 


JimW said:


> looks like both links are the same - is there another one. Would fancy a look.


ADB in "can't work t'interweb mode" I'm afraid, this should have been my first link (specifically part 3)


----------



## JimW (Oct 20, 2011)

Thanks! Were you talking about that period someone called The Golden Age of the Peasant? I've heard this http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/15 is good on that but haven't read it myself.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 20, 2011)

TruXta said:


> . . . Norse religion (which persisted for a long time in Iceland) . . .


Not sure about that, pretty sure there was a Bishopric established on Iceland circa C11th/12th
See here (page3) for introduction to the chronology

Did you mean the Baltic states (Latvia partic iirc) which remained "officially" pagan well into C12th period and against whom crusades were launched.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Not sure about that, pretty sure there was a Bishopric established on Iceland circa C11th/12th
> See here (page3) for introduction to the chronology
> 
> Did you mean the Baltic states (Latvia partic iirc) which remained "officially" pagan well into C12th period and against whom crusades were launched.



No, I meant Iceland. Of course it was officially converted to Christendom in the 11-12th C, but the old religion very much persisted for centuries alongside that, as also happened in Norway and Sweden.


----------



## Random (Oct 20, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Not sure about that, pretty sure there was a Bishopric established on Iceland circa C11th/12th
> See here (page3) for introduction to the chronology


 Lol, a 'bishopric established' means a fat shaven man was living with the king from that period and _maybe even_ a few scared missionaries were sent out to get seagul shit thrown at them by the locals.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 20, 2011)

TruXta said:


> No, I meant Iceland. Of course it was officially converted to Christendom in the 11-12th C, but the old religion very much persisted for centuries alongside that, as also happened in Norway and Sweden.





> Icelandic society stayed pagan till the eleventh century, but when Christianity approached, the change of religion was surprisingly peaceful and quite rapid. During the Age of Settlement, some of future Icelanders converted to Christianity, or at least knew about the new religion. The migrants from Ireland and Scotland could have been Christians as well. Nevertheless, those early contacts with Christianity did not affect Iceland. As Byock (2001: 293) remarks: ‘The majority of settlers were believers in the old gods, and organized worship among the relatively few Christian immigrants probably died out within a generation or two’.
> 
> When two centuries later almost all of Europe was Christian, including Scandinavia, missions were sent to Iceland. There was also a strong pressure from Norway. Finally, according to tradition in the year 1000 there was an open dispute between the Christians and pagans, which was resolved peacefully. The heathen majority agreed to adopt new religion, and thus Iceland was welcomed among other Christian nations (Byock 2001: 300-301).
> 
> Interestingly enough, the pagan society was willing to give up the old cult to avoid social upheavals, and most likely bloody conversion. Considering the long and cruel conversion in Norway, Iceland adopted Christianity quickly and peacefully, by common agreement (Byock 2001: 297).



Source page 38


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

Thanks, DB, that's interesting, but doesn't tally with what I've read. I'll try and dig up some sources before I go spouting off.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 20, 2011)

JimW said:


> Keith Thomas' Religion and The Decline of Magic has a good section on the witch trials in England and the other home nations. He makes the point that they peak after the Reformation because although the belief in witchcraft had always been there, previously you had counter-magic courtesy of Catholic ritual, but more rational Protestantism denied the efficacy of this. Unfortunately, that rationalism didn't extend to a sharp decline in belief in the powers of witches, so people turned to the law when their cow gave no milk rather than just say a few prayers. Also makes a link with the breaking-down of old moral obligations in village communities leading to the new wealthy resenting old widows, who they ought to have been helping charitably but didn't want to now they were the new godly industrious types. The subconscious anxiety led them to feel the weak were bewitching them.



Pretty sure I read somewhere that in Anglo-Saxon times there was little to no persecution of witches, because the church's official line was that black magic didn't exist. Even the later Protestant churches tended to take that line, IIRC, which is why witch trials generally went through the civil courts.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 20, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Thanks, DB, that's interesting, but doesn't tally with what I've read. I'll try and dig up some sources before I go spouting off.


Absolutely understand, seems to me there's never a single right/wrong answer to these sorts of questions, it's always going to be a combination of factors (iyswim)


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Pretty sure I read somewhere that in Anglo-Saxon times there was little to no persecution of witches, because the church's official line was that black magic didn't exist. Even the later Protestant churches tended to take that line, IIRC, which is why witch trials generally went through the civil courts.


i don't believe they had church courts in eg massachusetts in 1692
witchcraft in england was not criminalised until 1541. i don't think it ever went through civil courts.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 20, 2011)

I phrased that badly, I meant they weren't prosecuted by the church as far as I know, but by secular authorities/unwashed mobs.


----------



## JimW (Oct 20, 2011)

He was a social historian, so he's more interested in prevailing popular beliefs than the shifts in theology, by which I mean you might be right about the church's stance (don't recall details as while since I read it), but what mattered was that people were concerned about maleficium and now resorted to the courts where they hadn't before. I think it's true that in England at least it was never the case of a church crackdown per se (not even Hopkins) but people bringing their neighbours to court, though I can see how the church denying it existed would have affected that in A-S times.
Heard of mainstream Protestant theologians who denied existence of witchcraft in Early Modern (Samuel Harsnett), but then James I himself for one also wrote describing and condemning it while king of Scotland and added more capital crimes after he came south.
Any road, I'm mostly rambling based on dim recall, but do read Keith Thomas if you can because it's an absolute classic of social history (which I've likely mangled)
ETA: can you preview and see what's been posted since on these boards? I can't work out how to do that!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 20, 2011)

JimW said:


> He was a social historian, so he's more interested in prevailing popular beliefs than the shifts in theology, by which I mean you might be right about the church's stance (don't recall details as while since I read it), but what mattered was that people were concerned about maleficium and now resorted to the courts where they hadn't before. I think it's true that in England at least it was never the case of a church crackdown per se (not even Hopkins) but people bringing their neighbours to court, though I can see how the church denying it existed would have affected that in A-S times.
> Heard of mainstream Protestant theologians who denied existence of witchcraft in Early Modern (Samuel Harsnett), but then James I himself for one also wrote describing and condemning it while king of Scotland and added more capital crimes after he came south.
> Any road, I'm mostly rambling based on dim recall, but do read Keith Thomas if you can because it's an absolute classic of social history (which I've likely mangled)
> ETA: can you preview and see what's been posted since on these boards? I can't work out how to do that!


i think you'll find glanville was quite a believer in witchcraft


----------



## JimW (Oct 20, 2011)

Had to look him up, Pickman's, is this the man? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Glanvill#The_supernatural


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And that research is always fallible and biased. But you know this already.
> 
> So, I think we agree on the basics. I'd just like to add that there was something odd going on in Iceland at the time - they were the only country where more men than women were killed for being witches.



IIRC that was supposedly something to do (according to a lecture I attended about 20 years ago by a guy called Fries) with the form of "witchcraft" being one that derived from Norse mythology, in particular a form of magic Odin was supposed to have introduced which was basically a kind of men-only shamanism with plenty of shaking, twitching and gabbling with the G-ds while you took a mushroom trip. Of course, the killing was probably more to do with stamping on any vestiges of pre-Christianisation religious practices than "witchcraft" _per se_.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> IIRC that was supposedly something to do (according to a lecture I attended about 20 years ago by a guy called Fries) with the form of "witchcraft" being one that derived from Norse mythology, in particular a form of magic Odin was supposed to have introduced which was basically a kind of men-only shamanism with plenty of shaking, twitching and gabbling with the G-ds while you took a mushroom trip. Of course, the killing was probably more to do with stamping on any vestiges of pre-Christianisation religious practices than "witchcraft" _per se_.



Fries of _Ice Magic_ fame? But yeah, Norse witches were often men.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Not sure about that, pretty sure there was a Bishopric established on Iceland circa C11th/12th
> See here (page3) for introduction to the chronology



Doesn't mean that the country was fully Christianised, though, just that the Church had set up shop.

The Normans found pre-Christians practices extant in some parts of England as the conquered it. Just because the aristocracy bought into it didn't mean that the people did at the same time, in fact in most of the petty kingdoms, there appears to have been a lag of at least a century before Christianity disersed to the lower orders.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Fries of _Ice Magic_ fame?



Yep. Went to hear his lecture because he was/is fairly well-informed on "dark ages" weaponry.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Doesn't mean that the country was fully Christianised, though, just that the Church had set up shop.
> 
> The Normans found pre-Christians practices extant in some parts of England as the conquered it. Just because the aristocracy bought into it didn't mean that the people did at the same time, in fact in most of the petty kingdoms, there appears to have been a lag of at least a century before Christianity disersed to the lower orders.



In most places it was very much a political top-down decision rather than having anything to do with conversion of the masses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 20, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Pretty sure I read somewhere that in Anglo-Saxon times there was little to no persecution of witches, because the church's official line was that black magic didn't exist. Even the later Protestant churches tended to take that line, IIRC, which is why witch trials generally went through the civil courts.



Nope, ecclesiastical courts.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Doesn't mean that the country was fully Christianised, though, just that the Church had set up shop.


Understand what you're saying 110%, but, wrt Iceland, every source I can find suggests that there was this weird "overnight" conversion. Go figure, sounds weird to me as well.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 20, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Understand what you're saying 110%, but, wrt Iceland, every source I can find suggests that there was this weird "overnight" conversion. Go figure, sounds weird to me as well.



That's because it was entirely a political decision that was largely accepted by the population. Doesn't mean that people became Christians tho.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 21, 2011)

Nice feature in this month's Vidimus.
http://www.vidimus.org/issues/issue-54/features/
Mediaeval stained glass and the Samuel Pepys connection....


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 21, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Understand what you're saying 110%, but, wrt Iceland, every source I can find suggests that there was this weird "overnight" conversion. Go figure, sounds weird to me as well.


what sources have you consulted then?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 21, 2011)

A Dashing Blade said:


> Understand what you're saying 110%, but, wrt Iceland, every source I can find suggests that there was this weird "overnight" conversion. Go figure, sounds weird to me as well.



Well, the same was said for a couple of the Saxon kingdoms, but I suspect local politics was at play - go to church, but go to the old places too.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 21, 2011)

If the king converted, the kingdom was said to have converted too. It's like changing the official language- it might look like a sudden shift on paper but it's not really.


----------



## JimW (Oct 21, 2011)

There was a famous 'Christian' warlord in 1920s China who had his armies baptised with firehoses. Don't think they got catechism classes first.


----------



## A Dashing Blade (Oct 22, 2011)

3 x 30 min audio lecture about Viking Iceland and Viking Christianity from this series here for general background.

Have most of the TTC's history lectures on anything up to about 1500, happy to share if anyone's interested.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 23, 2011)

I thought that that the idea of a  medieval 'holocaust' where women were executed in their thousands for witchcraft had been fundementally debunked - as there is abosolutely no evidence to support it.
Also - in england at any rate - women convicted of witchcraft were not burned, they were hung and the peak time for witchtrials was not during the medieval era - but in the 17th centuary.
Burning was the punishment for heresy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 23, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> I thought that that the idea of a medieval 'holocaust' where women were executed in their thousands for witchcraft had been fundementally debunked - as there is abosolutely no evidence to support it.


a hundred thousand between the 15th and 18th centuries, according to RJ Rummel in Death By Government.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 23, 2011)

There were a lot of witchcraft executions, with the majority being concentrated in certain short periods and geographical areas (usually during time of political instability IIRC). What's been debunked, or rather never taken seriously, is the claim from some modern pagans and people with an axe to grind against xtianity that there was some sort of deliberate systematic attempt to wipe out female practitioners of paganism, that ran into millions of deaths.

There was an interesting theory that the Salem witch hysteria came about because a psychotropic fungus had infected the town's grain stores. Seems like a sketchy theory to me (and obv it's post medieval anyway).


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Yossarian said:


> The average person in a rich country has a life expectancy 30 or 40 years longer than that of medieval kings



You what? Where are you getting this crap from?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> There were a lot of witchcraft executions, with the majority being concentrated in certain short periods and geographical areas (usually during time of political instability IIRC). What's been debunked, or rather never taken seriously, is the claim from some modern pagans and people with an axe to grind against xtianity that there was some sort of deliberate systematic attempt to wipe out female practitioners of paganism, that ran into millions of deaths.



It wasn¨t aimed at women in particular, but there most certainly was a concernted campaign to eliminate all magic.

Personally, while it¨s unfortunate that many innocent people died, I think it had to be done.  Witchcraft in general is an extrordinarily nasty, violent business.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

places like this?
http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/?p=453

50  is  about 30 years shorter than  we expectt now


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Personally, while it¨s unfortunate that many innocent people died, I think it had to be done.  Witchcraft in general is an extrordinarily nasty, violent business.


Haha. QFP


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

> Kings did better. The mean life expectancy of kings of Scotland and England, reigning from 1000 A.D. to 1600 A.D. were 51 and 48 years, respectively. Their monks did not fare as well. In the Carmelite Abbey, only five percent survived past 45.
> The royal court, however, managed about as well as their kings, according to the UK & Ireland Genealogical Information Service. The 23 men reported on lived an average of 49 years; only one lived into his 70s (71). All of these men, by the way, lived past adolescence so infant mortality does not bring the average down.
> Another royal court (20 men), born later (from 1600 to 1899 A.D.) lived an average of 62 years. These men also lived past adolescence (earliest death at 36). Five men lived into their 70s but none into their 80s although John Pitt, the Earl of Chatham, lived to 79.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Haha. QFP



QFP?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> QFP?


quoted for posterity


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> quoted for posterity



Oh right.  You don´t read the newspapers then?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Oh right. You don´t read the newspapers then?


sometimes. why do you ask?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

These are taken pretty much at random and here are literally thousands of such cases every year. What did you think witches do, OU, fly around on broomsticks?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0210_020510_tv_witchcraft.html

http://www.newser.com/story/98673/albino-girl-beheaded-in-witchcraft-murder.html

http://blogs.reuters.com/africanews/2009/03/20/east-african-albinos-fear-witchcraft-murders/

http://news.discovery.com/human/canadian-man-fights-african-witchcraft-murders.html


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

i'm not disputing that.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm not disputing that.



So I assume you agree that witchcraft should be stamped out?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> So I assume you agree that witchcraft should be stamped out?


no, i don't.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> no, i don't.



What then?  Just the bad witches?

Tha would be fair enough but, surprise surprise, the sneaky bad witches don´t admit to being bad. In fact they pretend to be good.  And even the ¨good¨ witches often dabble in some pretty nefarious practices.

That is why many countries have recently made wichcraft illegal again.  We should follow suit.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

let's make all religion illegal then, for fairness' sake


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

isn't witchcraft just a blanket term applied to a number of complex religions and philosophies?

does it  not cover much from wicca  to vodou to any number of pagan belief systems

to ban witchcraft is  to employ a variant of ethnic cleansing


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

magic doesn't kill people. people kill people.


you will take my wand from my cold dead hands


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

he's on the windup as usual


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

first phil trys to make us belive in god  now  he  tries to stamp out pagan belife.

i think he  should be banned  for religious intolerance


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

burn him


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> It wasn¨t aimed at women in particular, but there most certainly was a concernted campaign to eliminate all magic.
> 
> Personally, while it¨s unfortunate that many innocent people died, I think it had to be done. Witchcraft in general is an extrordinarily nasty, violent business.



Poor effort. What's the point in a wind-up that won't offend anyone? No witches here.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Poor effort. What's the point in a wind-up that won't offend anyone? No witches here.


there is the odd witch, i'd wager


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

There's certainly a few supernumerary nipples.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Poor effort. What's the point in a wind-up that won't offend anyone? No witches here.


At least one has already posted on this thread. On this page, in fact.  And one of them could very easily eat Dwyer for breakfast if the flavour wouldn't be so disgusting.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> At least one has already posted on this thread. On this page, in fact.



BURN THE WITCH

Do you float?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

Has she got a big nose?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> BURN THE WITCH
> 
> Do you float?


Wasn't talking about me. That's all you get.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> At least one has already posted on this thread. On this page, in fact. And one of them could very easily eat Dwyer for breakfast if the flavour wouldn't be so disgusting.



I fucking knew it! VP, get that ridiculous hat off!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

well it's not me, so it must be truxta. burn him!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> well it's not me, so it must be truxta. burn him!



Methings Greebo thought she was on a different page. Besides I'm not a witch, I'm a warlock.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

i'm a sorcerer


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Has she got a big nose?


No assumptions there then.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm a sorcerer



You mean a saucy red?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm a sorcerer


are you bollocks


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> are you bollocks



Yes he is. All gingers are evil, FACT.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

he's ginger, which was considered evil back in the day. burn him.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Methings Greebo thought she was on a different page.


Was commenting on more or less the last post on the page at the time.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Was commenting on more or less the last post on the page at the time.



So you thought anyway!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> are you bollocks


oops, i meant _saucier_


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> he's ginger, which was considered evil back in the day. burn him.


And your mum would've been carted off too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm a sorcerer


i'd have thought you could conjure yourself up a job and some money then.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd have thought you could conjure yourself up a job and some money then.



Ooooo, cutting!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd have thought you could conjure yourself up a job and some money then.


Some people have other priorities.  And you of all people should know that money is only a means to an end.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd have thought you could conjure yourself up a job and some money then.


what a cunt you are


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Some people have other priorities. And you of all people should know that money is only a means to an end.


i realise that. it's when people start whining - yes, whining - about the lack of these things in their life it suggests they see eg jobs and money as a priority.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> what a cunt you are


you couldn't conjure your way out of a wet paper bag.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i realise that. it's when people start whining - yes, whining - about the lack of these things in their life it suggests they see eg jobs and money as a priority.


more unwelcome pop psychology. thanks!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Apart from the idle rich, who doesn't see money as a priority?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> more unwelcome pop psychology. thanks!


if you whine about the lack of a job and money then you clearly want a job and money. no fucking psychology needed. perhaps the truth is unwelcome.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Apart from the idle rich, who doesn't see money as a priority?


Me?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if you whine about the lack of a job and money then you clearly want a job and money. no fucking psychology needed. perhaps the truth is unwelcome.


i'm not sure what you're getting out of these exchanges. you seem to relish in being spiteful. begone!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm not sure what you're getting out of these exchanges. you seem to relish in being spiteful. begone!


you'll have to try harder than a mere 'begone'.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll have to try harder than a mere 'begone'.


Can anyone hear a mosquito in here?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll have to try harder than a mere 'begone'.


i can't afford a hitman. how about you not responding to any of my posts and vice versa?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i can't afford a hitman.



have you considered using magic?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

no! let's not go there again!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Where's phil when you need a bit of screeching?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Where's phil when you need a bit of screeching?


Turned into a mosquito and buzzed off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> i can't afford a hitman. how about you not responding to any of my posts and vice versa?


how long it's taken you to get the message.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> There were a lot of witchcraft executions, with the majority being concentrated in certain short periods and geographical areas (usually during time of political instability IIRC). What's been debunked, or rather never taken seriously, is the claim from some modern pagans and people with an axe to grind against xtianity that there was some sort of deliberate systematic attempt to wipe out female practitioners of paganism, that ran into millions of deaths.



"The Burning Times".



> There was an interesting theory that the Salem witch hysteria came about because a psychotropic fungus had infected the town's grain stores. Seems like a sketchy theory to me (and obv it's post medieval anyway).



Ergot fungus/ergotomine alkaloid.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Oh right. You don´t read the newspapers then?



I see that yet again you're attempting to conflate the historic practices collectively recorded as "witchcraft" with the specific practices currently turning up in the media.
Please elucidate on what they have in common beyond the name attributed to the practices.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Poor effort. What's the point in a wind-up that won't offend anyone? No witches here.



You say that with such certainty. There's as likely to be witches on the board or thread as Freemasons.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yes he is. All gingers are evil, FACT.



They're only ginger because their ancestors played with forces beyond their mortal ken, and were marked for it forevermore, so that parents could point to gingers in the street and say "if you don't behave, your hair will turn the same colour as theirs!".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I fucking knew it! VP, get that ridiculous hat off!



I don't "do" hats.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I see that yet again you're attempting to conflate the historic practices collectively recorded as "witchcraft" with the specific practices currently turning up in the media.
> Please elucidate on what they have in common beyond the name attributed to the practices.



Sure.  All magic, both white and black, attempts to alter the objective condition of things by the manipulation of signs.  That has always been the primary ethical case against witchcraft.  The ¨witch craze´ of the 16th and 17th centuries occured when the authorities applied the ethical stricture against this practice to white magic as well as to black.  The idea was that the manipulation of signs in order to achieve practical effects was evil, no matter what those effects might be.

Today we no longer see an ethical problem with trying to use signs in this manner, because we live in a society which is entirely dominated by autonomous, perfomative representation (money being the prime but by no means the only example).  Thus the Western world at least is happy to tolerate witchcraft.

But societies that are not as experienced as ours with autonomous representation take a very dim view of wichcraft.  As I metioned, many of them have recriminalized it within the last five or ten years.  They understand it better than we do.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't "do" hats.



You just _do_ them?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Poor effort. What's the point in a wind-up that won't offend anyone? No witches here.



Truxta´s a sort of witch iirc.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Apart from the idle rich, who doesn't see money as a priority?



Me.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Sure. All magic, both white and black, attempts to alter the objective condition of things by the manipulation of signs. That has always been the primary ethical case against witchcraft. The ¨witch craze´ of the 16th and 17th centuries occured when the authorities applied the ethical stricture against this practice to white magic as well as to black. The idea was that the manipulation of signs in order to achieve practical effects was evil, no matter what those effects might be.
> 
> Today we no longer see an ethical problem with trying to use signs in this manner, because we live in a society which is entirely dominated by autonomous, perfomative representation (money being the prime but by no means the only example). Thus the Western world at least is happy to tolerate witchcraft.
> 
> But societies that are not as experienced as ours with autonomous representation take a very dim view of wichcraft. As I metioned, many of them have recriminalized it within the last five or ten years. They understand it better than we do.



 You still have no fucking clue what "magic" can mean to those who engage in it. Do you actually know anyone who's a self-professed magician/witch/warlock/High Wooer? I do, and most of them would vehemently disagree that what they are doing is "altering objective conditions of things by the manipulation of signs". As I've said before, by your definition ordinary talk is magic.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

The primary ethical case against witches in the early modern was that they were consorting with the Devil.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You still have no fucking clue what "magic" can mean to those who engage in it. Do you actually know anyone who's a self-professed magician/witch/warlock/High Wooer? I do, and most of them would vehemently disagree that what they are doing is "altering objective conditions of things by the manipulation of signs". As I've said before, by your definition ordinary talk is magic.



No it isn´t.  Ordinary talk has no objective effects.  Magc is when you say something, like ´open semsame´ and an objective chage takes place in the world with no other cause than the words themselves.

Btw there´s no point in accusing me of ignorance on this issue.  Your Warlock friends are either lying to you (most likely) or simply do not understand the nature of their practice (also very likely).


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> No it isn´t. Ordinary talk has no objective effects. Magc is when you say something, like ´open semsame´ and an objective chage takes place in the world with no other cause than the words themselves.
> 
> Btw there´s no point in accusing me of ignorance on this issue. Your Warlock friends are either lying to you (most likely) or simply do not understand the nature of their practice (also very likely).



Saying "I do" does. Shouting "FIRE" in a crowd does. Don't be daft.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> The primary ethical case against witches in the early modern was that they were consorting with the Devil.



Yep.  Because the objective effcts that magic claims to produce cannot actually be caused by the magic itself.  Saying ´open semsame´ cannot, in reality, cause a door to open.  So what _does _cause the door to open?  It can onIy can only be a power dedicated to the deception of the human race.

That´s part of the logic, there´s much more too of course.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Sure. All magic, both white and black, attempts to alter the objective condition of things by the manipulation of signs. That has always been the primary ethical case against witchcraft.



On what basis do you classify magic as witchcraft, and _vice versa_?



> The ¨witch craze´ of the 16th and 17th centuries occured when the authorities applied the ethical stricture against this practice to white magic as well as to black. The idea was that the manipulation of signs in order to achieve practical effects was evil, no matter what those effects might be.



The evidence of witchcraft specifically (as opposed to when it is lumped in with sorcery, heresy etc and outwith the wet dreams of the churches) is pretty thin, and in many cases amounts to practicing folk medicine of the same kind that a pre-enlightenment physician might.



> Today we no longer see an ethical problem with trying to use signs in this manner, because we live in a society which is entirely dominated by autonomous, perfomative representation (money being the prime but by no means the only example). Thus the Western world at least is happy to tolerate witchcraft.
> 
> But societies that are not as experienced as ours with autonomous representation take a very dim view of wichcraft. As I metioned, many of them have recriminalized it within the last five or ten years. They understand it better than we do.



Certain African states have re-criminalised "witchcraft", not the "societies" of those states.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Saying "I do" does.



Clever lad.

Yes indeed, saying ´I do´ in the right circumstances is an example of a performative sign.  So are promises, naming of ships etc etc.  See JL Austin, _How To Do Things With Words._

Magic occurs when an attempt is made to extend the power of performative signs beyond such legitimate uses.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You just _do_ them?



Only if by "do", you mean "take a dump in them".


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Clever lad.
> 
> Yes indeed, saying ´I do´ in the right circumstances is an example of a performative sign. So are promises, naming of ships etc etc. See JL Austin, _How To Do Things With Words._
> 
> Magic occurs when an attempt is made to extend the power of performative signs beyond such legitimate uses.



Right, so you're just taking the piss. Saves me wasting more time on you then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Truxta´s a sort of witch iirc.



Aren't we all, nowadays? You yourself certainly are.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

I think you're performing a more complex theological breakdown than most did at the time Phil. AFAIK it was usually an accusation of maleficium and the power to achieve that comng from hob-nobbing with Beelzebub.
Not something I know a great deal about, but your version actually looks more like the way it was seen earlier, as I think the idea of Satan as a major figure and antagonist actually coalesced and got more prominent in the high middle ages whereas he'd not really figured before.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Certain African states have re-criminalised "witchcraft", not the "societies" of those states.



The people demanded it (they were sick of sorcerers terrorizing and taking over their communitites) and the state, belatedly and reluctantly, followed.

One of the major objections to the colonial states was that they legalized magic on the deeply stupid and Eurocentric grounds that ´it dos not exist.´  Well they know better now.

I have to go now, but I shall return in due course to answer any futher queries people may have.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Truxta´s a sort of witch iirc.



The hell are you on about?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

again phil spouts off his hate speech against magical practitioners

his intolerance of these traditions  should simply not be accepted.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

I'm with him. Sooty to the stake!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> I think you're performing a more complex theological breakdown than most did at the time Phil. AFAIK it was usually an accusation of maleficium and the power to achieve that comng from hob-nobbing with Beelzebub.
> Not something I know a great deal about, but your version actually looks more like the way it was seen earlier, as I think the idea of Satan as a major figure and antagonist actually coalesced and got more prominent in the high middle ages whereas he'd not really figured before.



There were plenty of very intelligent and learned theologians who spent their lives studying magic.  If anything I think we´re a good deal less sophisticated today than they were then.

Good point about how Satan only really emerges in the 16th century.  Have you ever considered the reasons for that?

Really gotta go now...


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> The primary ethical case against witches in the early modern was that they were consorting with the Devil.


Or that they used poisons.  Not v surprising, given that a lot of medicinal herbs have a toxic threshold dangerously close (if you're not careful and don't know what you're doing) to that of the dose needed to have a benign but useful effect.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The evidence of witchcraft specifically (as opposed to when it is lumped in with sorcery, heresy etc and outwith the wet dreams of the churches) is pretty thin, and in many cases amounts to practicing folk medicine of the same kind that a pre-enlightenment physician might.



Complete and utter bullshit, rubbish, trash and garbage.  You have no idea what you´re talking about.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You still have no fucking clue what "magic" can mean to those who engage in it. Do you actually know anyone who's a self-professed magician/witch/warlock/High Wooer? I do, and most of them would vehemently disagree that what they are doing is "altering objective conditions of things by the manipulation of signs". As I've said before, by your definition ordinary talk is magic.



Phil's formula is merely his own masturbatory take on Crowley's definition of magic as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will". Phil's formula allows him to update Crowley's definition in such a way that he can deploy it in, say, essays about Faust.

Most of the many and varied occultists I am (or have been) acquainted with/friends with would tend toward Crowley's formula, as it gets to the heart of the matter without the self-indulgence that phil's contains.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Or that they used poisons. Not v surprising, given that a lot of medicinal herbs have a toxic threshold dangerously close (if you're not careful and don't know what you're doing) to that of the dose needed to have a benign but useful effect.



Yep, should have made it clearer, which I tried to do in a follow-up. There was usually some accusation of evil-doing in the English trials at least AFAIK.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Complete and utter bullshit, rubbish, trash and garbage. You have no idea what you´re talking about.


F.O.D.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Complete and utter bullshit, rubbish, trash and garbage. You have no idea what you´re talking about.



Oh, sorry, I forgot. Only you and your acolytes know what they're talking about. 

Dissect my statement, tell me *why* it is as you claim, and maybe I'll give your views credence.

Maybe.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Right, so you're just taking the piss. Saves me wasting more time on you then.



He wasn't *just* taking the piss, he was being quite patronising too, what with the "clever lad"!


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> There were plenty of very intelligent and learned theologians who spent their lives studying magic. If anything I think we´re a good deal less sophisticated today than they were then.
> 
> Good point about how Satan only really emerges in the 16th century. Have you ever considered the reasons for that?
> 
> Really gotta go now...


Very dim recall of the argument, but IIRC it was about the response to the plague and the wars of religion - a social order in incipient crisis becoming less tolerant and imagining a scapegoat figure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> The people demanded it (they were sick of sorcerers terrorizing and taking over their communitites) and the state, belatedly and reluctantly, followed.
> 
> One of the major objections to the colonial states was that they legalized magic on the deeply stupid and Eurocentric grounds that ´it dos not exist.´ Well they know better now.
> 
> I have to go now, but I shall return in due course to answer any futher queries people may have.



Oh look, the standard bail-out clause. Dwyer has to go now, but shall return!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The hell are you on about?



Psychology, the practice of which can bring about objective change in subjects, is loosely speaking a form of magic.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

As if by magic, Phil was off in a puff of brimstone


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> I'm with him. Sooty to the stake!



Rascist!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> Yep, should have made it clearer, which I tried to do in a follow-up. There was usually some accusation of evil-doing in the English trials at least AFAIK.



And let us not forget Pyewacket and his kin.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Oh, sorry, I forgot. Only you and your acolytes know what they're talking about.
> 
> Dissect my statement, tell me *why* it is as you claim, and maybe I'll give your views credence.
> 
> Maybe.



Damn, I can´t get away.  Someone has put a spell on me.

VP, you said that the evidence for magic as opposed to folk medicine in the 16th was ´pretty thin.´  And yet I have on my bookshelves literally thousands of primary texs from the period giving detailed, well verified accounts of magic.  Nobody who knows anything at all about the subject would say that the evidence was ´pretty thin.´


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Damn, I can´t get away. Someone has put a spell on me.
> 
> VP, you said that the evidence for magic as opposed to folk medicine in the 16th was ´pretty thin.´ And yet I have on my bookshelves literally thousands of primary texs from the period giving detailed, well verified accounts of magic. Nobody who knows anything at all about the subject would say that the evidence was ´pretty thin.´


can you take a pic of your vast library please? i don't believe you.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Phil's formula is merely his own masturbatory take on Crowley's definition of magic as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will". Phil's formula allows him to update Crowley's definition in such a way that he can deploy it in, say, essays about Faust.
> 
> Most of the many and varied occultists I am (or have been) acquainted with/friends with would tend toward Crowley's formula, as it gets to the heart of the matter without the self-indulgence that phil's contains.



I know some people who broadly accept Crowley's take on it too, but I also know people who absolutely disagree with it. Some of them follow traditions where the existence of spirits, gods and whatnor is taken for granted, in which case it's a category error to think of magic as _The Science and Art etc_.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> <snip> I have on my bookshelves literally thousands of primary texs from the period giving detailed, well verified accounts of magic.<snip>


We only have your word for that.  How much is that worth around here, I wonder?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> Very dim recall of the argument, but IIRC it was about the response to the plague and the wars of religion - a social order in incipient crisis becoming less tolerant and imagining a scapegoat figure.



Which is why it's never a good time to be a Jew when things are going tits-up.

WRT to the whole "burning" thing, IIRC the largest mass burning was of heretics, Cathars to be exact, when the walled town of Montsegur was razed while still occupied. The Cathars were, of course, *retrospectively* accused of witchcraft too, as well as heresy.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> Very dim recall of the argument, but IIRC it was about the response to the plague and the wars of religion - a social order in incipient crisis becoming less tolerant and imagining a scapegoat figure.



That´s one way of putting it.

In my view however, the crucial factor was the emergence of capital as an independent power able to reproduce as if it were alive.

It is for the same reason that witch beliefs are flourishing today in societies that are being newly introduced to a money economy.  The classic sociological text on this Michael Taussig´s _The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America.  _I can´t recommend it too highly.

And now the spell is broken and I´m going.  Back laters...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> As if by magic, Phil was off in a puff of brimstone



Ah, that's what the farty smell emanating from the boards is!


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Psychology, the practice of which can bring about objective change in subjects, is loosely speaking a form of magic.



I only indulge in Reichian therapy. Fewer words, more wanking.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> We only have your word for that.



Please do not be silly.

It would be the work of perhaps 15 minutes for you to verify the existence of the accounts to which I refer.  And if you think I´m doing that work for you you are even sillier than I thought.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

as  an old hate figure in the world of witchcraft i was assailed by many curses in years gone by.

i ran  the withfinder army website (something of a joke)  many people who self identify as of the magical persuation didn't seem to get the joke and i had many an email  to notify me that i had be  cursed.

either cursing doesn't  work  or  the magic arts are subtle  and shippouism is a magical byproduct


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I only indulge in Reichian therapy. Fewer words, more wanking.



i prefer reichan therapy


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Therory?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

my keyboard is cursed


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

I wasn't sure whether it was a manga term or not.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> That´s one way of putting it.
> 
> In my view however, the crucial factor was the emergence of capital as an independent power able to reproduce as if it were alive.
> 
> ...


We actually basically agree on this then, but unless you're doing it for the laugh, you seem to be taking the particular form the social anxiety took for something more real than these underlying causes. Not saying I sit here with the benefit of the enlightenment and all that and think only morons could have believed what some did then, but doesn't make magic real. Even if your whole thing about manipulation of signs is a metaphor, still don't think that's the basic cause of discontent with the emerging capitalist social relations - by that token, there was unhappiness aplenty with the old concrete stratification of society.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Damn, I can´t get away. Someone has put a spell on me.
> 
> VP, you said that the evidence for magic as opposed to folk medicine in the 16th was ´pretty thin.´ And yet I have on my bookshelves...



Hmm, weren't you recently complaining that most of your "tens of thousands" of volumes are in storage?



> ...literally thousands of primary texs from the period giving detailed, well verified accounts of magic.



I'm familiar with the sources you cite in your published work. "Detailed" isn't the word I'd use, and verification of an account by a second observer bound to the same religious doctrine as the original observer isn't verification of anything except a narrative.



> Nobody who knows anything at all about the subject would say that the evidence was ´pretty thin.´



Well you *would* say that, wouldn't you? You're hardly going to gainsay your own published work! 

"Literally thousands" that are "detailed" and "well verified", eh, and they're just the ones o your shelves?
If nothing else, you're always good for a laugh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I only indulge in Reichian therapy. Fewer words, more wanking.



Fueling up the orgone accumulator, eh?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Please do not be silly.
> 
> It would be the work of perhaps 15 minutes for you to verify the existence of the accounts to which I refer. And if you think I´m doing that work for you you are even sillier than I thought.


A list of the titles of the ones you own then, if you please.  All of them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Please do not be silly.
> 
> It would be the work of perhaps 15 minutes for you to verify the existence of the accounts to which I refer. And if you think I´m doing that work for you you are even sillier than I thought.



Interesting. The old "it's so obvious and easy to find that I'm not going to post anything to prove my claims" ploy.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Fueling up the orgone accumulator, eh?



Cloudbusting with my cock.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I wasn't sure whether it was a manga term or not.



I think he was summoning rorymac.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think he was summoning rorymac.



The Reichian Rory would indeed be a sight to make mortals tremble and gods weep.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> A list of the titles of the ones you own then, if you please. All of them.



Careful. Push him too far and he'll stalk you over the boards belittling you, and/or PM you to death.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Careful. Push him too far and he'll stalk you over the boards belittling you, and/or PM you to death.


Ooh I'm quivering in me boots.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Ooh I'm quivering in me boots.



According to my feline familiar you aren't wearing boots, but moccasins. CONFESS/REPENT!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Okay, okay, the boots are under the settee.

But moccasins?  Please don't project your sartorial disasters on me.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Okay, okay, the boots are under the settee.
> 
> But moccasins? Please don't project your sartorial disasters on me.



Blame the fucking cat!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Blame the fucking cat!


Why?  You listened to it.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Anyway, mustn't give Phil the wrong impression here, right? Let's just say it was an educated guess.


----------



## Meltingpot (Oct 24, 2011)

I once had a friend who was a medievalist and used to go on reenactments etc. He thought  that one thing about that time was that everyone had a place in that society and knew how important it was to the community as a whole - for example, if you were a blacksmith, a lot of people depended on you to shoe horses properly (or else people and goods wouldn't get around). I later worked with a woman who had a history degree from Oxford and despite describing herself as a Marxist, had a similarly positive view of medieval England vis-a-vis our own times.

Whatever the downsides of the old order (I'd hate to have to tug my forelock to anybody for a start), I think he was right and that's one thing we've lost now (or most of us have - farmers and medics, for example, probably still get the same feeling). Maybe it was inevitable as society got richer and fewer people's jobs were life and death matters, but still.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> We actually basically agree on this then, but unless you're doing it for the laugh, you seem to be taking the particular form the social anxiety took for something more real than these underlying causes. Not saying I sit here with the benefit of the enlightenment and all that and think only morons could have believed what some did then, but doesn't make magic real. Even if your whole thing about manipulation of signs is a metaphor, still don't think that's the basic cause of discontent with the emerging capitalist social relations - by that token, there was unhappiness aplenty with the old concrete stratification of society.



The problem here is the term ´real.´  The witch hunters were perfectly convinced that magic was unreal.  The crime, for the most part, lay in the _attempt _to perform magic.  Such attempts revealed a faith in the power of Satan, hence the concept of the pact with the devil.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

I read a book by Christopher Hill in which he made the point that part of the reason for the development of Heaven and Hell as concepts was the fact that until about the 17th century when major breakthroughs in science and medicine began to be made, most people, rich and poor, lived much of their lives in constant pain of one sort or another - so the tortures and hell fire etc would have seemed, to some, quite realistic. I'll try and dig out the quote later, but while I can see some of the positive aspects of medieval life it's not really a time I'd want to go back to tbh!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> The problem here is the term ´real.´ The witch hunters were perfectly convinced that magic was unreal. The crime, for the most part, lay in the _attempt _to perform magic. Such attempts revealed a faith in the power of Satan, hence the concept of the pact with the devil.


'ere!  Dwyer!  Where's that extensive bibliography you were going to supply me with so that I could verify it for myself?


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> The problem here is the term ´real.´ The witch hunters were perfectly convinced that magic was unreal. The crime, for the most part, lay in the _attempt _to perform magic. Such attempts revealed a faith in the power of Satan, hence the concept of the pact with the devil.


Real's always a problem! Not sure I entirely buy your argument - was that level of theological sophistication operating in most trials? Will have to check the accounts of a few; but even if it was you're left with people resolving all these tensions into the Satan figure, not as a metaphor but as a genuine force in the world.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> 'ere! Dwyer! Where's that extensive bibliography you were going to supply me with so that I could verify it for myself?



I can tell that your impudent attitude conceals a sincere desire for instruction, and so I have decided to grant your request.  This six volume collection of early modern witch tracts is an excellent place to start.

http://www.pickeringchatto.com/major_works/english_witchcraft_1560_1736


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> This six volume collection of early modern witch tracts is an excellent place to start.
> 
> http://www.pickeringchatto.com/major_works/english_witchcraft_1560_1736


And the rest of the books?  I'd be very interested to see what you've got that I haven't.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> Real's always a problem! Not sure I entirely buy your argument - was that level of theological sophistication operating in most trials?



Pretty much, yes. The people of the 16th and 17th centuries were far more learned than we are in such matters. Theological debate was of considerable public interest and, by and large, even local authorities were fully cogniscent of the essential issues at stake (so to speak).



JimW said:


> but even if it was you're left with people resolving all these tensions into the Satan figure, not as a metaphor but as a genuine force in the world.



Yes. In fact, Satan was conceived as an _antidote _to superstition. In many accounts of trials the prosecutor will say something like this, ´the accused claims to regularly ride to the North Pole on a magical horse. This horse is in reality the devil.´

The idea was that only Satanic possession could cause people to believe in experiences that were manifestly impossible. And since Satan only has access to the human mind if he is invited, anyone experiencing such delusions must have made a pact with him.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> I'd be very interested to see what you've got that I haven't.



And I would be very happy to show you.  Unfortunately though, I dont think VP would approve.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I read a book by Christopher Hill in which he made the point that part of the reason for the development of Heaven and Hell as concepts was the fact that until about the 17th century when major breakthroughs in science and medicine began to be made, most people, rich and poor, lived much of their lives in constant pain of one sort or another - so the tortures and hell fire etc would have seemed, to some, quite realistic. I'll try and dig out the quote later, but while I can see some of the positive aspects of medieval life it's not really a time I'd want to go back to tbh!



Hill deserves major respect for his ground breaking work, but he´s pretty dated now. Very orthodox, class determinist Marxism, rather anachronistic when applied to this issue.

Basically he takes the simplistic, mid 20th century view that religion and theology were masks concealing material class interests. Not entirely wrong, but he fails to engage with the historical texts on their own terms.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

literally thousands


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

I like the bit in mallus maleficarum where the authors recount of a man coming home to find his wife being swived by an invisible entity. Now thats an elaborate excuse for having been caught rubbing one out.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> ... the essential issues at stake (so to speak).


Groan!
Do agree that there was a reasonable level of interest in theology and a fair chance of a scholar, but other side of the coin is all that stuff you get from the Feofees for Impropriations bemoaning the lack of gospel knowledge and 'dumb prelates' too ignorant to preach.


phildwyer said:


> Yes. In fact, Satan was conceived as an _antidote _to superstition. In many accounts of trials the prosecutor will say something like this, ´the accused claims to regularly ride to the North Pole on a magical horse. This horse is in reality the devil.´
> 
> The idea was that only Satanic possession could cause people to believe in experiences that were manifestly impossible. And since Satan only has access to the human mind if he is invited, anyone experiencing such delusions must have made a pact with him.



Again, not sure this follows - I think the prosecutors often if not usually also believed in the claimed experience in the form it was reported, just that this was the Devil in one of his manifestations - they accepted the impossibilities had occurred.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I like the bit in mallus maleficarum where the authors recount of a man coming home to find his wife being swived by an invisible entity.



i think i have that woodcut


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> And the rest of the books?



You haven´t really got the 6 volume Chatto collection have you?  It costs an absolute fortune, I certainly wouldn´t have paid money for them myself.

Anyway, most of the primary texts still aren´t available in book form.  There´s quite a lot on line though.  This collection is open to the public--http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/w/witch/

And if you have access to databses like EEBO, as I know you do, you can find loads more there.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> And I would be very happy to show you. Unfortunately though, I dont think VP would approve.


The books, you vile degenerate!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> literally thousands


Sounds about as convincing as a teenager's love life  - not very.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> Groan!
> Do agree that there was a reasonable level of interest in theology and a fair chance of a scholar, but other side of the coin is all that stuff you get from the Feofees for Impropriations bemoaning the lack of gospel knowledge and 'dumb prelates' too ignorant to preach.
> 
> Again, not sure this follows - I think the prosecutors often if not usually also believed in the claimed experience in the form it was reported, just that this was the Devil in one of his manifestations - they accepted the impossibilities had occurred.



Well obviously the level of knowledge varied greatly with time and place.  But witchcraft was a burning issue (so to speak) at the time, and aroused an enormous amount of public interest, so I suspect that most prosecutors were skeptical of magic, though not of course of Satan.

And in any case, the charges did not usually address the _effects _of magic at all.  That is why white magic was held to be just as evil as _maleficia.  _In fact many people (for example William Perkins, the leading theologian of his day) argued that white magic was _worse _than black magic, because it could fool people into thinking that magic was harmless.  And this despite the fact that white magic actually did good.  What it did was not the problem.  The problem was the belief in efficacious representation that magic inculcated in its practitioners.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

christian theosophy- heresy. Heresy was always worse than witchcraft. Divination using the holy ghost and powers which were granted to solomon then took away from later peeps because god felt they were misusing it.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You haven´t really got the 6 volume Chatto collection have you? It costs an absolute fortune, I certainly wouldn´t have paid money for them myself.<snip>


You really know how to disappoint a lady - first you tell me that you've got literally thousands of books, now I find that you don't.  FWIW I can assure you that ViolentPanda would have absolutely no problem with you showing me what's in your library - the insignificance of it would provide him with amusement for several months.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> The books, you vile degenerate!



You mean you want me to list all the books about witchcraft that I own?

I can´t, I´m in Mexico (for the Day of the Dead, topically enough) and so away frm my library.  But I have stuff like James Stuart´s _Daemonologie _and the _Malleus Maleficarum_ and Scot´s _Discovery of Witchcraft _and basically pretty much everything in print.

Or are you after secondary sources?  Stuart Clark´s _Thinking With Demons _is the one that´s imprssed me most lately.

And you?  Is this something you´re seriously interested in?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> You really know how to disappoint a lady...



Since when have you been a lady? 



> ....first you tell me that you've got literally thousands of books...



No, literally thousands of primary texts on the subject under discussion that prove me wrong. According to phil he's actually got a collection of actual texts that runs to 6 figures.



> now I find that you don't.



Oh he has, they're just not easily to hand/in storage/a big boy stole them from him. 



> FWIW I can assure you that ViolentPanda would have absolutely no problem with you showing me what's in your library - the insignificance of it would provide him with amusement for several months.



Well, a few chuckles for a handful of seconds, anyway.


----------



## Stigmata (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ergot fungus/ergotomine alkaloid.



Yeah. It seemed to me like an attempt to grasp for an exotic explanation when none was necessary.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> FWIW I can assure you that ViolentPanda would have absolutely no problem with you showing me what's in your library



Great!  When can you come over?  I also have a fine collection of etchings that you might find instructive.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Well obviously the level of knowledge varied greatly with time and place. But witchcraft was a burning issue (so to speak) at the time, and aroused an enormous amount of public interest, so I suspect that most prosecutors were skeptical of magic, though not of course of Satan.
> 
> And in any case, the charges did not usually address the _effects _of magic at all. That is why white magic was held to be just as evil as _maleficia. _In fact many people (for example William Perkins, the leading theologian of his day) argued that white magic was _worse _than black magic, because it could fool people into thinking that magic was harmless. And this despite the fact that white magic actually did good. What it did was not the problem. The problem was the belief in efficacious representation that magic inculcated in its practitioners.


Only really know a bit about the English cases, so may have been different on the continent, but fairly certain the overwhelming majority in England (in the era in question) were neighbours prosecuting neighbours for maleficium, not the church authorities seeking out evil-doing witches, let alone white magic. Have you got any figures for the proportion of cases? Don't doubt theologians could have argued like you say, but don't think it's reflected in the prosecution record.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You mean you want me to list all the books about witchcraft that I own?
> 
> I can´t, I´m in Mexico (for the Day of the Dead, topically enough) and so away frm my library. But I have stuff like James Stuart´s _Daemonologie _and the _Malleus Maleficarum_ and Scot´s _Discovery of Witchcraft _and basically pretty much everything in print.



So, basically the bog standard stuff that every Goth and Emo who ever listened to a Marilyn Manson coon has nicked off of the shelves at Foyles. 

_Malleus Malleficarum_ in the original, or the Montague Summers "translation"?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You mean you want me to list all the books about witchcraft that I own?<snip>


Pray forgive me for assuming that, with English being your mother tongue, you had understood my request. Seeing as you misunderstood that, I find your claims of owning and having read all those primary texts to be a tad lacking in credibility.

As for your etchings, which you claim would be so instructive, I don't believe you. Theory is one thing, practice another, and IMHO even your personality is sufficiently vile that the only practice you'd be able to get would be with your hand. After paying it. Or failing that, with a watermelon which lacked self-esteem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Yeah. It seemed to me like an attempt to grasp for an exotic explanation when none was necessary.



Well, it does rather go with their mythology. They explain (probably entirely accurately) Jamestown through reference to the British troops having their food "doped" with datura, and we have instances in British folklore of mass hallucination caused by the communal granary harbouring ergot.

Of course, mass neurosis and/or psychosis doesn't *require* a physical or chemical trigger. It's just easier to explain if we can attribute one.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

Stigmata said:


> Yeah. It seemed to me like an attempt to grasp for an exotic explanation when none was necessary.


 
The symptoms of ergot poisoning do seem to match up to the accounts given of those claiming witch persecution. I wouldn't rule it out as a factor, if not cause then bad timing that exacerbated community tensions and so on with physical evidence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 24, 2011)

JimW said:


> Only really know a bit about the English cases, so may have been different on the continent, but fairly certain the overwhelming majority in England (in the era in question) were neighbours prosecuting neighbours for maleficium, not the church authorities seeking out evil-doing witches, let alone white magic. Have you got any figures for the proportion of cases? Don't doubt theologians could have argued like you say, but don't think it's reflected in the prosecution record.



Post-fat Henry England didn't have quite the same impetus toward ecclesiastic prosecution of/searching out "witchcraft", and although when English witchcraft is mentioned, Hopkins springs to mind, even the likes of him were thin on the ground. Most cases were local disputes, as you say, neighbours on neighbours. Of course, the English attitude suffered a bit of a reverse when a royal plonker decided he was some kind of victim-cum-expert, and his toadies latched onto it.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Pray forgive me for assuming that, with English being your mother tongue, you had understood my request. Seeing as you misunderstood that, I find your claims of owning and having read all those primary texts to be a tad lacking in credibility.
> 
> As for your etchings, which you claim would be so instructive, I don't believe you.



OK, the etchings bit wasn´t really true.  I fear it was something of a ruse.  I should have known better than to try it on a woman of such penetrating intuition as yourself.

But I don´t understand why you think I don´t own the books.  Why wouldn´t I?  As I told you, I am in Mexico and can´t access them.  How can I prove I´m in Mexico?  I know, look at this ¿¿¿¿¿¿.  That´s not on English keyboards is it?  So there.



Greebo said:


> Theory is one thing, practice another, and IMHO even your personality is sufficiently vile that the only practice you'd be able to get would be with your hand. After paying it. Or failing that, with a watermelon which lacked self-esteem.



You´re not fooling anyone here you know.  Your insolence is positively begging for correction.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

you've used the words insolence and impudence on this thread. how very dare you!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan mislikes your verbiage


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>I have stuff like James Stuart´s _Daemonologie _and the _Malleus Maleficarum_ and Scot´s _Discovery of Witchcraft _and basically pretty much everything in print.


Was that supposed to impress me? Pfft - I used to read those for a bit of light relief.



phildwyer said:


> Or are you after secondary sources? Stuart Clark´s _Thinking With Demons _is the one that´s imprssed me most lately.


Well, you're quite easily impressed, aren't you?



phildwyer said:


> And you? Is this something you´re seriously interested in?


What business is it of yours? I've had a lot of reading time in my life, and primary sources from the 17th century or earlier make light reading after a crash course in immunology. Or did you think my main literary diet would be chick lit?[/quote]


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> You´re not fooling anyone here you know. Your insolence is positively begging for correction.



Phil, sausage week doesn't start until next Monday.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> you've used the words insolence and impudence on this thread. how very dare you!


I wouldn't mind, but Dwyer's using words he probably doesn't understand.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Hill deserves major respect for his ground breaking work, but he´s pretty dated now. Very orthodox, class determinist Marxism, rather anachronistic when applied to this issue.
> 
> Basically he takes the simplistic, mid 20th century view that religion and theology were masks concealing material class interests. Not entirely wrong, but he fails to engage with the historical texts on their own terms.



I dont think that's quite the arguement that he was making tho since he makes the point that the rich suffered from this stuff too. He was making the point that the concepts of heaven and hell as developed in Tudor times would have seemed more realistic than people now imagine them to be.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

AA Gill has only met one Welshman and it was Phil Dwyer


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Or did you think my main literary diet would be chick lit?



I had you down as an Austenite actually, which is basically Chick Lit I suppose.

In fact I am willing to bet that you have read all of her work. And that your favorite is _Pride and Prejudice _and that as a ten year-old you wanted to grow up to be Elizabeth Bennett.

I´m right aren´t I?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> I had you down as an Austenite actually<snip>I´m right aren´t I?


No


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Phil, sausage week doesn't start until next Monday.


 
early entry for chippolatas


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> early entry for chippolatas


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> No



Nabokov then.  And your favorite is _Laughter in the Dark.  _And you used to think _Lolita _was disgusting until you were about 20, when you figured out the allegory.  And since then you´ve read it five times.  And you hate the film version, although you think Peter Sellers was good as Quincy.

Don´t try to deny it.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Nabokov then.<snip>.


Wrong again, I have catholic tastes when it comes to reading.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

How much are you gonna bet then Phil?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Wrong again, I have catholic tastes when it comes to reading.



Catholic eh?  Got to be Flaubert then.  In your adolescent fantasies you were Emma Bovary.  And, just possibly, you still are.

Either her or Anna Karenina.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Catholic eh?<snip>


Phil, sweetie, you're so limited. Both of those I read in my A level years (and didn't enjoy) - Flaubert in the original French.  As for your allusion to the eponymous heroines, be assured that I have no fantasies or inclinations of that kind.


----------



## JimW (Oct 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Post-fat Henry England didn't have quite the same impetus toward ecclesiastic prosecution of/searching out "witchcraft", and although when English witchcraft is mentioned, Hopkins springs to mind, even the likes of him were thin on the ground. Most cases were local disputes, as you say, neighbours on neighbours. Of course, the English attitude suffered a bit of a reverse when a royal plonker decided he was some kind of victim-cum-expert, and his toadies latched onto it.


Yep, whole impression I got from that Keith Thomas book I mentioned way back was that the sudden upsurge in prosecutions in England (Scotland different too at these times) was all about new social tensions in village communities, coupled with post-reformation England leaving people without recourse to counter-magic or just doing the sign of the cross, so they took matters to court. Not actually a top-down phenomenon.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> AA Gill has only met one Welshman and it was Phil Dwyer


Poor AA Gill


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Phil, sweetie, you're so limited. Both of those I read in my A level years (and didn't enjoy) - Flaubert in the original French.



French eh?  Probably Baudelaire then.  And definitely Verlaine.  This one brings me to tears every time.  Do find yourself similarly moved I wonder?

´Colloque Sentimental´

Dans le vieux parc solitaire et glacé
Deux formes ont tout à l'heure passé.
Leurs yeux sont morts et leur lèvres sont molles,
Et l'on entend à peine leurs paroles.

Dans le vieux parc solitaire et glacé
Deux spectres ont évoqué le passé.

--´¨Te souvient-il de notre extase ancienne?´¨
--´¨Pourquoi voulez-vous donc qu'il m'en souvienne?

-- ´¨Ton coeur bât-il toujours à mon seul nom?´¨
-- ´¨Toujours vois-tu mon âme en rêve?´¨
— ´¨Non.´¨

-- ´¨Ah! Les beaux jours de bonheur indicible´¨
    Où nous joignions nos bouches:´¨
— ´¨C'est possible.´¨

-- ´¨Qu'il était bleu, le ciel, et grand l'espoir!´¨
--  ´¨L'espoir a fui, vaincu, vers le ciel noir.´¨

Tels ils marchaient dans les avoines folles,
Et la nuit seule entendit leurs paroles.
_
_
You´re tearing up now aren´t you?  I know you are.



Greebo said:


> As for your allusion to the eponymous heroines, be assured that I have no fantasies or inclinations of that kind.



Well if you´re into the Frogs, I´m afraid there´s only one possibility about your fantasies.  You know what it is, and so you know why it´s not my place to say it here.  You say it.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> French eh? Probably Baudelaire then. And definitely Verlaine. This one brings me to tears every time. Do find yourself similarly moved I wonder?
> <snip>
> 
> You´re tearing up now aren´t you? I know you are.


Non.  Your imagination ran away with you, nothing more.



phildwyer said:


> Well if you´re into the Frogs<snip>


Where did I say that? I haven't once on this thread stated which genres, authors or books I'm into. Congratulations on working out that I may have read French authors - I should bloody well hope so after this many years of knowing their language. That, however, doesn't mean I'm "into the Frogs", any more than reading the cereal packet makes me "into cornflakes".
As for my fantasies, they are for me and whichever partner I choose to share them with. You will never be that person.

Care to state which German authors I've read too? Or perhaps another stab at what I've read in my mother tongue, fiction or otherwise. Too hard?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Care to state which German authors I've read too? Or perhaps another stab at what I've read in my mother tongue, fiction or otherwise. Too hard?



Oh yes. But let´s carry on talking about literature first.

Germans eh?  Heinrich Boll is your favorite, though you also have a soft spot for Brecht.  Your favorite poem is ´¨The Harlot Evelyn Roe.´¨

I´m right aren´t I?

As for your mother tongue, you´ll have to tell me what it is first.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Non. Your imagination ran away with you, nothing more.



Sorry, but I don´t believe you. I´ve never met a woman worthy of the name who didn´t shed a tear at that poem.  And you are certainly worthy of the name.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 24, 2011)

Literally thousands?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> Germans eh? Heinrich Boll is your favorite, though you also have a soft spot for Brecht. Your favorite poem is ´¨The Harlot Evelyn Roe.´¨


Wrong again. 



phildwyer said:


> As for your mother tongue, you´ll have to tell me what it is first.


The one I thought I was posting in, but apparently not.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Literally thousands?


One for each of his bedtime companions.

In his dreams.


----------



## TruXta (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Wrong again.
> The one I thought I was posting in, but apparently not.



I'm amazed you can be bothered to be honest!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Wrong again.



Well that´s a shame for you.  Brecht is the greatest poet in the language.

But you really seem more like a fan of the Russians to me.  Dostoevsky in particular.

If I´m wrong about that too, then I´m afraid you are in serious need of a proper education.  And I kow just where you can get one.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'm amazed you can be bothered to be honest!



How little you know of women, you picayune _naif._


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I'm amazed you can be bothered to be honest!


He's a walkover.

And I'm watching that documentary about mummification (quite interesting, actually).

And I might just get the last word.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> <snip>I´m afraid you are in serious need of a proper education. And I kow just where you can get one.


Mystic Greebo predicts that you're gong to make that oh so kind offer of your personal services.  Fuck off.  

Furthermore it isn't nice to call people names which you assume they won't understand.  IMHO another very telling trait of substandard performance between the sheets.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 24, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Plenty of movements - Lollards in England, the Beghards and Beguines in France, the Brethren of the Free Spirit before them - all were anticlerical, antifeudalist, often antimaterialist too. I think all were also linked to preaching, praying and conducting ritual in the vernacular.


Not enough in the vernacular to be entertaining though.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 24, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Mystic Greebo predicts that you're gong to make that oh so kind offer of your personal services.



Huh? What on earth gave you that idea? I´m sorry if your hopes were raised, but I´m afraid you seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.



Greebo said:


> Furthermore it isn't nice to call people names which you assume they won't understand. IMHO another very telling trait of substandard performance between the sheets.



Huh? Who said anything about ´between the sheets?´ Not I. You. The phrase ´one track mind´ seems appropriate here.

And anyway, what makes you think Truxta won´t understand the word ´wanker?´ I´m sure he´s heard it before.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 24, 2011)

That's not what you called Truxta.  You know it.  I know it.

FWIW were I to seek instruction of any kind, it wouldn't be from you.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 25, 2011)

Greebo said:


> FWIW were I to seek instruction of any kind, it wouldn't be from you.



Um excuuuuse me, but I don´t recall offering you any ´instruction.´  Once again it seems that your fantasies are running away with you.

Having said that, I could probably be prevailed upon to give you a spanking.  I´d have to charge though, and I don´t come cheap.  Just ask Truxta.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 25, 2011)

You could try, but I wouldn't recommend it.  The last person who crossed me ended up working in a plastic bag factory.  Don't be the next.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 25, 2011)

Greebo said:


> You could try, but I wouldn't recommend it. The last person who crossed me ended up working in a plastic bag factory. Don't be the next.


You mean they got an actual Job!? 

<insert many insults aimed at Greebo>

*Got to be worth a try...


----------



## Greebo (Oct 25, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> You mean they got an actual Job!?
> 
> <insert many insults aimed at Greebo>
> 
> *Got to be worth a try...


  He'd been an MD before that in one of the small businesses hit by Black Wednesday.  And FWIW AFAIK I didn't lift a finger.
Here's hoping your job situation improves soon, you deserve it.


----------



## stuff_it (Oct 25, 2011)

Lol, typing test now...


----------



## TruXta (Oct 25, 2011)

Greebo said:


> He'd been an MD before that in one of the small businesses hit by Black Wednesday. And FWIW AFAIK I didn't lift a finger.
> Here's hoping your job situation improves soon, you deserve it.



Best kind of magic right there. Wu Wei!


----------



## Greebo (Oct 25, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Best kind of magic right there. Wu Wei!


Word.


----------



## JimW (Oct 25, 2011)

For Daoist magic, you need to get your ink and brush out and knock up some 符 fu:


----------



## rover07 (Oct 28, 2011)

Urban during the Middle Ages 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA&feature=related


----------



## dilute micro (Oct 28, 2011)

rover07 said:


> Urban during the Middle Ages
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA&feature=related



It would be nice to know how many times that movie has been referenced during serious discussions.  On another board I get on a guy posted up the 'french taunting' skit because it totally totally totally fit the situation of the topic.  Didn't matter that I've seen the movie countless times it was hilarious because everything matched perfectly.


----------



## bi0boy (Dec 3, 2015)

Anyone know what's up with the snails:


----------



## ringo (Dec 3, 2015)

Love those. No idea. Medieval scrolls are full of weird animals and animals doing weird things.


----------



## trabuquera (Dec 3, 2015)

just another iteration of the popular "world turned upside down" trope (mice torment cats, sparrows enslaving eagles etc) innit? with a nice little dash of mocking the heavily-armed hardmen of the social elite by nerdy scribes added in? that would be my guess. Or perhaps they all reference a then-well-known pun, adage or verse? Amazing pics though.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Dec 3, 2015)

Something to do with the Frenchies?


----------



## QOTH (Dec 3, 2015)

wayward bob said:


> this has been bugging me for years so it seemed like a semi-relevant thread to ask on. anyone remember a song from a radio 4 comedy programme years ago called (i think?) vote for the middle ages? among the immortal lines were "history books had less pages" and "lunatics were kept in cages"
> 
> edit: oh and "brainy men were known as sages"



My contribution to this very interesting thread is that I think it might be from The Consultants


----------



## ringo (Dec 3, 2015)

trabuquera said:


> just another iteration of the popular "world turned upside down" trope (mice torment cats, sparrows enslaving eagles etc) innit? with a nice little dash of mocking the heavily-armed hardmen of the social elite by nerdy scribes added in? that would be my guess. Or perhaps they all reference a then-well-known pun, adage or verse? Amazing pics though.



These would have been drawn by scribes in the employ of the church and paid for by rich aristocratic/royal/clerical patrons who represented and embodied that hardman social elite, so unlikely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2015)

did epic bullshitter pliny ever write aboout giant snails? maybe it filtered down through that. They had the old greek and latin texts in those days didn't they. Albeit known only to the minority of literates


----------



## trabuquera (Dec 3, 2015)

ringo said:


> These would have been drawn by scribes in the employ of the church and paid for by rich aristocratic/royal/clerical patrons who represented and embodied that hardman social elite, so unlikely.


 
But the clergy and the fighting men were entirely different ranks and classes of society - they might have both been drawn from the same posh families but there was a LOT of vying for temporal power between priests & knights, right? And while the bullyboys had all the weapons, the bald-headed kids got to be all morally superior and wield all their spiritual authori-tie. I can't help  liking the idea of a scribe getting a bit of passive-aggressive payback in via the medium of giant-snail illumination.

People who know more than I do:
Knight v Snail - Medieval manuscripts blog
Why Were Medieval Knights Always Fighting Snails? | Smart News | Smithsonian


----------



## ringo (Dec 3, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> did epic bullshitter pliny ever write aboout giant snails? maybe it filtered down through that. They had the old greek and latin texts in those days didn't they. Albeit known only to the minority of literates


No idea, I read very little of Pliny and that was 25 years ago.


----------



## Blood Tonic (Dec 4, 2015)

Dr Dolittle said:


> No, that's not the title of a BBC4 doc - just something I'd like to discuss.
> 
> There are basically two views about the quality of life in medieval Europe - the negative one and the positive one.
> 
> ...



Life expectancy is medieval England was 30-45 yrs old, which is a good indicator of how harsh life was in that era.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 4, 2015)

Blood Tonic said:


> Life expectancy is medieval England was 30-45 yrs old, which is a good indicator of how harsh life was in that era.



This figure would be heavily skewed by high infant mortality though.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 4, 2015)

It wasn't called the Medigoode period for a reason. No more debate or evidence needed.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 4, 2015)

Blood Tonic said:


> Life expectancy is medieval England was 30-45 yrs old, which is a good indicator of how harsh life was in that era.






SpookyFrank said:


> This figure would be heavily skewed by high infant mortality though.



This, most deaths were between birth and 5 years old. 

Childbirth was fairly risky though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 4, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> did epic bullshitter pliny ever write aboout giant snails? maybe it filtered down through that. They had the old greek and latin texts in those days didn't they. Albeit known only to the minority of literates


they're still only known to a minority of literates.


----------



## Blood Tonic (Dec 4, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> This, most deaths were between birth and 5 years old.
> 
> Childbirth was fairly risky though.



If I had lived back then, then I'd have died at 7yrs old when I had appendicitis.


----------



## Gromit (Dec 4, 2015)

Blood Tonic said:


> If I had lived back then, then I'd have died at 7yrs old when I had appendicitis.


Maybe you did and you are pulling a Bruce Willis on us


----------

