History and Accuracy

Image via Wikipedia

Recently I've been reading collections of the homilies of John Chrysostom an early church father who lived during the fourth century. I began reading him and other early church writers in a collection of commentaries on the book of Corinthians with the idea that since these writers were much closer in time to the writing of the original letters they would have more to offer on the difficult contextual passages.

Unfortunately this has not been the case. The three hundred year gap is enough to make their lack of knowledge just as great as mine. I've learned more from the modern writer Ben Witherington.

Most recently in my readings, Chrysostom mentioned in a homily that the apostles were busy men who had established many monasteries and religious orders. As a modern I know this is incorrect the monastic movement didn't begin until the middle of the third century.

So sometimes what seems as an advantage, turns out not to be one.

Salt

As I've been reading How the North Won: A Military History of the Civil War,

Cover via Amazon

I've learned how the details of a campaign that seem small to us on the side lines can be vitally important to those fighting. Take salt in the Civil War.

The CSA estimated that it needed a cup and half of salt per soldier in the army per month. Through out the war there was an ongoing struggle over salt and its production and distribution. You might wonder why this would be so or why each soldier would need a cup and a half a month which seems a huge amount of salt. At the time food and meat in particular was preserved with salt so the salt ration would have been vitally important to each army.

Contrast this to Mel Gibson's Mad Max movies where individuals are shown fighting over gasoline. Although I can understand a global war beginning over gasoline or other energy supplies, it's less understandable that after that war individuals would fight for gasoline. Instead they would fight for water, food and shelter.

Like most science fiction readers, I'm left to ponder what things we would need to continue. What items our culture would fight for.

Classical P.E.

Image via Wikipedia

In the homeschool world there's a whole philosophy of education called "Classical." Some private schools have even picked up on this idea. Many use an essay by Dorothy Sayers on what she thought such an education would look like. It's assumed that many of our founding fathers had this sort of education, but it seems few study what exactly they studied.

Instead over the years a shorthand version of a "classical" education has evolved. Generally history is study in a four year cycle. Children learn Latin at a young age and possibly another classical language later on (although this is much rarer). They also often study logic as they come to middle and high school. Most of the other subjects of a standard American education remain in place. Sometimes children are taught chants to aid them in their acquisition of various bits of knowledge (parts of speech, continents, historical facts and dates).

As many people are drawn to this overall idea there have been disputes about what exactly a classical education is. Some don't like Sayer's essay. Others think we should return to the Greeks and study what they meant.

I admit that I've found some of this amusing and I occasionally like to stir the waters with irreverent thoughts about what a classical education would include. One thing that I've yet to see in any theory of classical education is a classical style of physical education. In Greece that would have involved a variety of sports and competitions. Often half the day or more was spent on such activities. Many of these would have been useful to the man who goes to war (and I suspect that modern practitioners of a classical education ignore another related area of study).

Later in history these games changed as the technology of war changed. Some like wrestling continued, but later hunting on horseback and fencing were added to the mix. Thomas Jefferson's father was a vigorous man and is said to have required his children to spend four hours everyday in the saddle.

I often wonder why this portion of a classical education is so overlooked by most sources or classical teaching. How would schools and homeschools change if this was incorporated?

Fie on Historical Fiction!

Image via Wikipedia

Have I got your attention? Truth be told I like historical fiction as much as the next home school mom, but over the last two years I've had to reshape a commonly mentioned point about historical fiction: "It really helps me and my my children to understand the time period."

After being challenged by the writers of Tapestry of Grace curriculum to read their high school level literature which is the literature of the time studied, I've found this often stated truism isn't true.

I've always been aware that some historical novels don't exactly get their details right and that often characters are portrayed in ways that don't really fit with the time period. Further it is clear that different periods of historical fiction write differently about a time period than each other. I probably would have agreed that the ideals found in historical characters mouths and thoughts are thrust back into the past from the time of the writer.

But until you've delved into literature actually written during the time period it isn't clear just how different people in the past thought. Just how different and shocking the past can be.

My best examples come from my present year's readings which thus far encompass medieval and renaissance times. But one Roman piece was so different and so flew in the face of what I've heard said and preached about Roman times that I need to mention it. Lately I've often heard commentators talk about how New Testament writers were actually much more respectful of marriage than were those of the surrounding Jewish and Greek culture. I agree that is the case, Greek's didn't raise women and marital faithfulness very high. But in Virgil's Aeneid written in the decades just before Jesus' birth we have a different picture. Now family is raised very high. Aeneid must turn from his love interest (who also could give him power and money) to instead continue on to find his fate with his family in Italy not Carthage.

On to medieval times and suppose for instance you were reading a novel about Charlemagne. Would you expect to find in it a bishop who rides with Charlemagne as a warrior? How would this character be described? Would he be a positive or negative character?

Yet, in the Song of Roland written about 200 years after this time period we find just that. The only real details we are given about this man is that he is brave and a good fighter. I can't imagine such details in a novel written today.

In Beowulf you find the odd clash of a Christian writer writing glowingly of pagans who lived about 200 years before. In one of two commentaries supplied by Norton the scholar claims that the writer was respectful of these pagan's religion. But in truth that was his (the scholar's) opinion. It is clear that the writer admires these men of the past, but still thinks they are doomed.

In my final work, I found myself on a voyage through hell. A hell populated with notable people of the writer's day. If such a novel was written today who would be there? Hitler, Stalin, other super bad guys right? Would you put any relgious figures there, if so which ones? Would a writer in a fairly controlled society where a dominant ruler and religious rulers could easily condemn you to death for a slight include those folks in his work in a negative light? Especially if he wasn't writing for political or religious reasons?

Yet, again, right there in the Inferno is Dante with hordes of clerics, bishops, and yes, even popes. Further he even includes that the current pope will be joining the previous one in the same hole in Hell. All very odd and shocking to my modern mind. It makes me reevaluate many things: how much control rulers had in this past time and how religious folk were viewed by others in their culture are just two of the points I find myself considering.

I find myself becoming cautious about whether books written about a past long gone can really capture that time. Yes, they may get many historical details correct, but will they be able to capture how differently people thought then? Will their heroes and heroines instead think like modern Americans?

Certainly by the time your student reaches high school, it is time to read some of these pieces of literature and ask how they differ from the historical novels not written in the time period you've assigned. Will this be easy reading? No, but it will open the past in a way historical fiction cannot.