So, for the past year or so I've been slowly working my way through Herodotus' massive Histories. It's a great snapshot of the ancient world leading up to and culminating in the Greek/Persian wars (5th c bc).
But why....why, in this pragmatic age, is this of any use? Especially when Herodotus is wildly inaccurate in some places? I suggest a few reasons why.
1) the world of the Bible is the ancient world. While we know that the main things of scripture are plain and clear, a fuller appreciation of scripture can only come through a fuller appreciation of the ancient world. We can particularly get a greater understanding of Esther, Ezra/Nehemiah, the prophets, and certain parts of the OT history books from Herodotus.
2) The challenges of the past help us grapple with the challenges of today: Herodotus shows us that globalization is not really anything new. Local cultures existed, but there was plenty of back and forth/ give and take. In some ways the struggle of militant Islam vs western liberalism is prefigured in the struggle of Persian expansionism vs Greek independence.
3) Ancient histories are not just descriptive, but didactic. The ancients were not simply concerned with relating what happened. They were concerned with fostering virtue. Herodotus tells us stories from history in order that we might learn and grow in virtue. Simply put, there are some really great stories in there (that can be looted for sermon illustrations, for instance).
4) I have a bias for primary sources. Many times I'll come across a commentary that will cite Herodotus.... When one sees a text cited enough times, it is well worth reading it to make decisions for oneself.
Case in point..... I'm preaching through Isaiah. I have to explain the role of the biblical prophet (whether the writing prophet, the court prophets, or the wandering band of prophets)... and how it differs from the oracles of the pagan nations. So I use Herodotus' stories about the most famous of them all -- the oracle at Delphi. He tells of how king Croseus of Lydia sent a message asking if he should attack the Persian army. The oracle replied "If you cross the Halys river, a mighty empire will fall"....Croseus assumed that the mighty empire was Persia....he invaded and was defeated, only to realize that the "mighty empire" was his own.
Simply put, the oracles of the ancient world dealt in ambiguity. You had to go to them to pay them for their utterings, and then you had to take what you got. In contrast, the biblical prophets sought you out...they went to the kings. They spoke painfully clearly (though they also used riddles, and jokes, and prophetic action -- but they always explained those things).
Just a tiny example. There's much more gold to be found in Herodotus for those who venture there.
Excelsior
Russell
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Monday, July 21, 2008
Friday, January 19, 2007
Now Playing: Cromwell
Tammy's out of town this weekend, and I'm here at the house with the children. Got the girls in bed by 8pm, so what's a guy to do? Have a testosterone film fest -- lots of epic Braveheart kind of stuff. When Tammy leaves town, I get to watch films like Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Tonight's feature: Cromwell.
This title has been sitting on my shelf for about 6 months since John Jensen loaned it to me as a means of sharing our passion for history, things Puritan, action flicks, and really good battle scenes. However, I must admit that the shaky reviews from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes didn't give me much hope. I just read this Pop Matters review that rakes the film over the coals as a work of historic revisionism. DVD Savant believes the history is on, but the production is terrible. Interestingly, Britmovie's biography of director Ken Hughes suggests that Cromwell was meant to be a pale foreshadowing of Castro's takeover in Cuba (remember this was in the 1970s).
Here's my short take on the qualities of the film: Coming in a little over two hours, Cromwell gives us action and court suspense. Richard Harris as Cromwell seems to thrive in shout mode for most of the film, punctuated with a few moments of humor (His pre-battle delivery of the line "Put your faith in God... and keep your powder dry." is priceless). We get the sense that he's a noble man who is sucked into weilding absolute power, in the irony of becoming the very absolutist that he deposed.
Alec Guinness, on the other hand, delivers a complex and nuanced performance as Charles I -- at times playful, affectionate with his children, imperious, wily, waffling, and in the end facing his impending execution with dignity. The execution scene is one of the longest in the film, and it had me on the edge of my seat, mainly by virtue of Guiness command of the role. He invests Charles with a slight, almost imperceptible studder -- which invests both a sense of vulnerability and distance from commoners.
Interestingly, the film lingers for a bit on the families of both these men. We see Cromwell brooding over the grave of his son, killed in the Civil War; we see Charles comforting his two youngest children before he is led out to execution. Hughes does his best to portray these men, at times beatified and at times vilified, as men.
The film also gives us some wonderful lines. When protesting the idea of Civil War, Cromwell states "Every man who wages war believes God is on his side. I'll warrant often God should wonder who is on his." and later "When men run out of words, they'll reach for swords" Charles gets this masterpiece as Cromwell advocates for democracy "Democracy, Mr. Cromwell, was a greek drollery based on the foolish notion that there are extraordinary possibilities in very ordinary people."
The film does take historic liberties with Cromwell's role in the events leading up to the Civil War -- he was in reality a minor player until his battlefield genius came to the fore. We catch a sense of the spirit of the times in the maelstrom of power politics between Parliament and Crown -- but we miss out on the religious tensions at play, save for one early scene where Cromwell protests the king's order to have candles and ornamentation in churches (an allusion to Archbishop Laud's attempt to make the churches more sacramental and less Calvinistic). Interestingly, the film portrays both men and faithful believers who put their trust in Christ, indeed it deliberately plays on the tensions of both men practicing their faith as a way of bolstering their souls for the minefields of high politics.
All told, I think this a fine film -- a few poor cuts from one scene to the next, overdone music typical of the 1970s, but a fine script, good acting, outstanding costume and set design, combine to make this a fine film. Forget about the critics, this one is worth at least one viewing.
Excelsior
Russell
For further edification, I recommend the Oliver Cromwell website.
This title has been sitting on my shelf for about 6 months since John Jensen loaned it to me as a means of sharing our passion for history, things Puritan, action flicks, and really good battle scenes. However, I must admit that the shaky reviews from IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes didn't give me much hope. I just read this Pop Matters review that rakes the film over the coals as a work of historic revisionism. DVD Savant believes the history is on, but the production is terrible. Interestingly, Britmovie's biography of director Ken Hughes suggests that Cromwell was meant to be a pale foreshadowing of Castro's takeover in Cuba (remember this was in the 1970s).
Here's my short take on the qualities of the film: Coming in a little over two hours, Cromwell gives us action and court suspense. Richard Harris as Cromwell seems to thrive in shout mode for most of the film, punctuated with a few moments of humor (His pre-battle delivery of the line "Put your faith in God... and keep your powder dry." is priceless). We get the sense that he's a noble man who is sucked into weilding absolute power, in the irony of becoming the very absolutist that he deposed.
Alec Guinness, on the other hand, delivers a complex and nuanced performance as Charles I -- at times playful, affectionate with his children, imperious, wily, waffling, and in the end facing his impending execution with dignity. The execution scene is one of the longest in the film, and it had me on the edge of my seat, mainly by virtue of Guiness command of the role. He invests Charles with a slight, almost imperceptible studder -- which invests both a sense of vulnerability and distance from commoners.
Interestingly, the film lingers for a bit on the families of both these men. We see Cromwell brooding over the grave of his son, killed in the Civil War; we see Charles comforting his two youngest children before he is led out to execution. Hughes does his best to portray these men, at times beatified and at times vilified, as men.
The film also gives us some wonderful lines. When protesting the idea of Civil War, Cromwell states "Every man who wages war believes God is on his side. I'll warrant often God should wonder who is on his." and later "When men run out of words, they'll reach for swords" Charles gets this masterpiece as Cromwell advocates for democracy "Democracy, Mr. Cromwell, was a greek drollery based on the foolish notion that there are extraordinary possibilities in very ordinary people."
The film does take historic liberties with Cromwell's role in the events leading up to the Civil War -- he was in reality a minor player until his battlefield genius came to the fore. We catch a sense of the spirit of the times in the maelstrom of power politics between Parliament and Crown -- but we miss out on the religious tensions at play, save for one early scene where Cromwell protests the king's order to have candles and ornamentation in churches (an allusion to Archbishop Laud's attempt to make the churches more sacramental and less Calvinistic). Interestingly, the film portrays both men and faithful believers who put their trust in Christ, indeed it deliberately plays on the tensions of both men practicing their faith as a way of bolstering their souls for the minefields of high politics.
All told, I think this a fine film -- a few poor cuts from one scene to the next, overdone music typical of the 1970s, but a fine script, good acting, outstanding costume and set design, combine to make this a fine film. Forget about the critics, this one is worth at least one viewing.
Excelsior
Russell
For further edification, I recommend the Oliver Cromwell website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
