Medievalgirl is a British Medieval History graduate, book lover and blogger. Her site, Bookish Medievalist, is dedicated to Christian Historical Fiction and contains reviews, opinions and articles on reading, books, history and any other related subjects. Click this link to check out her blog. She's been kind enough to guest blog for me today. Enjoy reading!
When
Looks Aren’t Everything…
Not so long ago this
history Graduate learned of something known as ‘the Look of
History’. What is it? Well it seems to be something popular with
filmmakers and audience concerning historical authenticity. This
likely means having the right period costumes, sets, buildings,
armour or weapons so that the dramatic offering looks right for
to the time period in question.
Thus a movie set in
Western Europe during the 1100s would probably feature knights
wearing chain mail, covered with a surcoat, and bearing and
impressive looking sword, perhaps throw in a dramatic and suitably
imposing castle or two, some dimly lit rooms illumined only by fire
or torchlight, and epic battle scenes with a suitable number of
mounted warriors or the odd peasant rustic in the duller garb of his
class tilling a field surrounded by wattle and daub huts.
Historical movies may
indeed include visually spectacular settings, and where non-visual
media such as novels are concerned ‘The Look of History’ may also
come down to period details, for which the appropriate terms or
description could be used. Now I for one have no problem with period
details and terms in and of themselves, but sometimes they are not of
themselves enough to make for a convincing or (dare I use the term)
accurate depiction of the past.
As a fan of a Medieval
Christian Fantasy series stated ‘I might call this period fiction,
as there are castles and servants’. Are we indeed inclined to
believe that a setting which ‘looks’ right is an accurate
representation of the past?
It would seem then that,
as the old saying goes ‘appearances can be deceptive’ and
historical details which make a setting appear authentic can be
merely superficial if little or no attention is paid to the norms,
mores, customs, attitudes, values, beliefs, sensibilities,
expectations, and past societies and their people. In this case of
the series above, for instance, it seemed that many of characters’
attitudes and values were more of our time than theirs , the
secondary female protagonist appeared to more like an embodiment of
militant feminist ideology than a real person, Medieval or otherwise,
and the dialogue peppered with modern terms, phrases and
Americanisms. Practically anyone it seems can research a particular
period and learn about its fashion, food, and style of architecture,
but it is I believe not so easy to actually gain an understanding of
the deeper aspects of past epochs, especially if they are very
different from what we are familiar with today.
Take arranged marriage as
another example. In the modern Western world we have something of an
aversion to this practice but for our medieval aristocratic forbears
it could be the norm. For us the notion of a young girl being made to
marry a horrible man that she hates for his money, land or political
convenience is one that seems abhorrent but how might it have seemed
to people ‘back then’ in light of their social expectations,
priorities, and notions of duty?
Or how many modern movies
set during the time of the Crusades feature a major character with
religious doubts agonising over the notion of killing in the name of
God, or at all, or espouses tolerant multiculturalism, and the
baddies be intolerant ‘fanatics’? How often might the attitude
towards religion of characters in movies set in the pre-modern era
resemble those of modern secularists and sceptics? How many Medieval
movies feature heavily made up women sporting loose flowing,
shimmering locks (or styles which can only be created using modern
products). One interesting look is wearing a circlet or headband,
which may have been designed to keep a veil in place- on top of loose
bare hair. It might look nice, but perhaps is not a reflection of
reality as “Broadly speaking; only a woman of very poor breeding
or a prostitute did nothing with her hair and even peasant women made
an effort to appear modest and decent.”
To use the term coined by
British Historian and novelist Alison Weir many historical novels and
movies seem to be populated by ‘modern people in fancy dress’ who
look the part, but might be thoroughly of our time rather than their
own where their worldview, attitudes, behaviour and outlook are
concerned. Now don’t get me wrong, I sometimes do enjoy such
movies, but the imposition of modern standards and ideals onto the
past is generally one of my pet hates in fiction.
Yet I am not a writer, at
least not of fiction, and whilst the historian in me may rally
against such as the above, or be left cringing at medieval people
saying something like ‘I think it’s okay for you to go out with
that cute guy’, writers may find it more difficult to strike a
balance between the needs and expectations of their audience and
historical accuracy, and even their own beliefs.
Speaking of her Crusading
period novel The Road from the West: Book One of the Chronicles of
Tancred author Rosanne E Lortz said:
‘While writing the Chronicles of Tancred, I try to
write about religion as if I were an eleventh century Norman adhering
to the rites and rule of the Church of Rome. In some ways the
fact that I am a twenty-first century American Protestant helps me in
that task; in other ways it hinders me.
But when a scruffy
drunkard has a vision of St. Andrew informing the Crusaders where the
Holy Lance is buried, it's not my place to make my protagonist
distrust him simply because I, the author, am dubious of visions,
don't embrace the Roman Catholic view of sainthood, and don't believe
relics have special powers. Instead, I must put myself in Tancred's
worn-out boots.
Some aspects of the past
may indeed be unpopular, unpalatable, controversial or even downright
offensive to modern sensibilities, or those of a certain cultural
background or ideological position, but does this mean they should be
ignored or replaced? Perhaps not, I for one believe that learning to
appreciate or accept the differences in ideology and belief between
ourselves and our medieval forbears, and perhaps trying to come to
terms with why they believed the things they did may help to greatly
enhance our understanding of this period.
This is not to suggest
that understanding the past on its terms means we have to agree with,
condone or accept the beliefs held by our ancestors, but perhaps we
should refrain from complaining or condemning those who held them
because they do not line up with modern liberal Western ideals. Of
course the, statues and requirements of God are absolute, eternal and
unquestionable, transcending the bounds of time, fashion and human
society so we have every right to judge the events and peoples of the
past according to those, but some aspects of our society and
worldview, even though we may hold that as sacrosanct are not
absolute.
So dressing a modern
European or American, complete with his modern liberal outlook in a
cloak and tunic, putting him on a horse and giving him a sword does
not make him ‘Medieval’, and whilst it may serve to make the past
‘relevant’ or present a sanitized version of it more in tune with
modern sensibilities, does it truly teach us anything?
Perhaps it would instead
be a more valuable, rewarding, and enlightening or indeed challenging
experience to lay aside those modern preconceptions which are
subjective, step outside our comfort zones and explore the past as it
was, not as we would have it. A past in which it may not have
considered sexist and repressive, but perfectly reasonable for women
to stay at home for much of their lives to raise children, or take
economic and practical, instead of just romantic considerations in
mind when choosing their spouse.
Phil Robertson has a stage. The Duck Commander had a stage on the A&E network before they fired him for voicing his beliefs in an unrelated interview (but that's beside the point). Before he had a stage with A&E, he had a stage simply by being a walking/talking person who carries on relationships with other people.
We all judge each other every day. No matter what side of the coin you're on regarding the whole Phil Robertson thing, every one of us has made judgements concerning him. 
__49__.jpg)
