Always between two trains, or two countries, or two towns, catch me if you can. You may find me in English, except if I am in Pali or some other more or less exotic language, or book. Have you tried the Dhammapada recently? If not, just give it a try, in Pali of course. You may also have a try at looking for me on the Internet, simply Coulardeau with Google, but on the global web, not on the French pages of it. Have a good trip.
Monday, August 31, 2015
What about the devil residing in innocence and virginity?
LARS VON TRIER
– CARL-THEODOR DREYER – MEDEA – 1988
This is an adaptation of
Euripides’ play. It starts with Jason and his new wife, but on a very political
tone: Creon is yielding power to Jason and to make it more powerful and
official in this Greece
moving towards hereditary kingship he gives him his daughter Glauce. But Creon
requires – and orders – the banishment of Medea and her two sons. We all know
what comes after that. Medea begging Creon for one day’s suspension of his
decision. Then the hypocritical change of mind with Jason that she seduces
again but he reacts violently, after yielding to the desire, and yet accepts to
convince Glauce to ask her father to keep the two children. He goes with them
to give her a present: Medea’s bridal crown. Glauce will die poisoned and Creon
too. Then Medea will have to kill the two sons and go away. Told like that this
fable is as simple as a cold draft in a heating deprived house in winter when
it is snowing outside.
Lars von Trier in 1988 only had
the very low definition of the television of these days in Denmark to make his
film but he already had his brilliant both lethal and murderous imagination
rooted in the war and the German defeat which is also the allies’ victory. But
Lars von Trier could never decide which was good and which was bad and he only
saw the bad side of things.
In this film he modifies some
elements to adapt them to this low definition television. The killing of the
children is not spectacular with blood. He wants to have them there dead
hanging in front of our shocked eyes in a long lasting full screen frame. So he
has them hanged to the two branches of a totally dead tree. You can imagine the
silhouette of these cadavers, these hanging bodies against the sky. That’s more
spectacular than some blood on a nightshirt. But that’s too static, dead in a
way. He wants life in his vision of death.
So Lars von Trier has to add
something a lot more odious, repulsive. The younger boy runs away. The older
boy gets him and brings him back and pulls on his leg to help him die faster on
the rope that his mother had tied to the tree branch. On the following morning
he asks his mother to help him. He ties the rope to the second tree branch, he
puts the noose around his neck and she only has to let him go and pull
slightly. The final embrace of the mother letting the child die hanged by that
mutual desire shared in this final act is more than frightening. It is blood
curdling and yet who is at fault, who is wrong somewhere? And during that time Jason
is getting crazy.
Medea goes to a ship, waits for the
tide. The sail is rolled down and she unties her hair and she goes away. No
god, no divine intervention, no Deus ex Machina, just a plain ship going away
from Greece probably to some distant country. Maybe Colchis
after all.
But where is Euripides in all
that? In the final caption on the screen: “A human life is a journey into the darkness
where only a God can find the way for what no man dares believe God can bring
about.” Finally a reference to God but this final caption means nothing and yet
so much. That’s in fact the vision of Lars von Trier about humanity. He cannot
bring man out of this darkness of the cataclysmic war and the ruined Europe and the viciously hypocritical people from both
sides who have to save what they can in order to get some kind of revenge, not
to speak of vengeance. Lars von Trier has a totally morbid and death-bound understanding
of life, though understanding is not the proper word. It should be ignorance,
and yet he knows too much, so what? Errant banishment from any over-lording understating
understanding! That might be it. He sure wants us to somewhere believe we
understand Medea in her suffering, but in fact he probably just wants us to
wonder where can she find any haven, refuge, sanctuary with a condescending and
understanding God. And if it were a Goddess? Hecate for example? But that’s
beyond Lars von Trier. A Godless world is his final affiliation and conviction –
and the sentence will be unsuspended.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 2:41 PM 0 comments
Kenjita Wurst - Travelo ( Florent Peyre )
Yagg can pritest they are wrong. That humor is fire and ice together.
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 11:45 AM 0 comments
Sunday, August 30, 2015
The children are transcending reality into surreality, a note on Stephen King at the end
LUIGI CHERUBINI –
MÉDÉE – LA MONNAIE BRUXELLES – 2011
This version of the opera sung in
French is absolutely amazing and astounding. The libretto was adapted for this
stage production and the recitatives have been reduced and replaced by some
modern language unsung passages, dialogues most of the time. That probably
shortens the opera but it gives to it a tremendous power in its condensed form.
The arias and duets are kept of course with the music of course and they
explode in quality and force due to the shortened and demusicalized
recitatives.
Along with this modernization of
the opera to present-day taste the stage production is of course in modern
costumes and uses modern visual techniques to build a background referential
décor to what is happening on the stage. Opening sections and other overtures
are using vast video projections on a screen and such video moments are used
now and then to widen the stage with elements that are either magnified or
contextual. The most striking element here is the use of the two children, the
two sons. First they are older than they should be because they play an active
role in the opera: they even once speak. They are more young teenagers than
children.
They open the opera during the
overture with a screen projecting videos of Jason’s wedding with Medea. They
are showing their boredom by more or less falling asleep on the stage. During
the first act and the preparations of Jason’s new wedding with the local
princess, Creon’s daughter Dircé, the two kids are writing graffiti on the back
wall of the stage behind a glass separation. I will not reproduce what they
wrote. It is in both English and French and it is gross accusations against
Dircé.
All along they are present and
active. In the last act they are preparing for their last night with their
mother. They are in their underwear before putting on their pajamas. They are
extremely active with their mother in a scene that is ambiguous in many ways:
Medea is wavering ,between killing or not killing. She finally lets the
children go only to run after them later with nthe fatal blade. It is also
ambiguous sexually. We can wonder if Medea is not transferring her love for
Jason specifically associated to his “sperm” onto the fruits of this “sperm”
hence the children who are more than half nude and embracing Medea in the most
intimate way. The first distance at this level is provided by the covering of
this nudity with pajamas.
In this version Creon is reduced
to very little singing in spite of a heavy presence on the stage and on the
screen. Jason is quite present but is also densified since we only have his
arias and not his long recitatives that explained many things that are today
beyond any explanation since we know the details. He appears as a real fool as
well as a lustful ambition-motivated social climber of some sort. He is trying
to recapture his noble position in Greece by marrying a Greek
princess, by rejecting his Colchian wife but at the same time trying to keep
and recuperate his mixed blood children. He impersonates a very negative
character and we are deprived of any sympathy for him, let alone empathy. He is
repulsive.
On the other hand Medea is the
very embodiment and impersonation of suffering due to an unjust brutality that
is imposed onto her by the Greeks who are obviously xenophobic if not plain
racist since Medea being from Colchis is from the Old European stock of Turkic
language, culture and origin, whereas the Greeks are the new comers of Indo-European
origin, culture and language. Though the libretto insists on Medea’s betrayed
love for Jason as her main motivation, this production with the active role the
children play emphasizes her motherly dimension which really makes the final
decision a lot more difficult since she has to hurt her children in order to
hurt her husband. Her vengeance becomes a vendetta and this is the alienation
if not negation of her motherly side?
This production thus tremendously
magnifies the deeper meaning of the tragedy the way we can see it with modern
eyes. She then can leave the scene, though without any chariot and supernatural
horses or dragons. She just steps to the foreground of the stage while the
metal security screen comes down and she will exit through the small door on
the right that opens onto the back stage for her.
But this music and this poetry
(in the arias) is still what they always were and that is definitely the best
part of this opera. French is not a tonal language but a syllabic language, meaning
there are no stressed syllables, only a certain number of such syllables. The
music plays on that dimension of the language by building many arias on half
alexandrine lines, hence on units of six feet. But Cherubini then works on the
possible variants of this six foot unit that has to ,be cut in two and it
becomes most powerful when it is divided in blocks of three syllables. The
music can easily emphasize this rhythm and it becomes some kind of hammering
and pounding for highly dramatic scenes though it could also be very fluid for
more romantic scenes, but there are very few romantic moments in this opera.
Take those instances at the end
of the second act:
« Aux larmes – d’une mère
« O triste – souvenir ! »
Or again :
« Vainement – de mon cœur
« Je veux vous – effacer ! »
But Cherubini is able to vary
this 3-3 rhythm with a 4-2 rhythm that sounds cold, distant, cruel like in
Medea’s last pronunciamento, 4-2 / 3-3:
« Et sur les bords – du Styx
« mon ombre – va t’attendre ! »
And Cherubini can even do further
and express Medea’s condescending hatred with a 2-2-2 rhythm like in:
« Par des – chemins – connus
« Pour moi – toujours – secrets.
»
And the last cry from Jason is
this time purely inhuman by using a 2-4 rhythm that could maybe be captured as
2-2-2:
« Mes fils – rends-moi mes fils ! »
The last note I will give here is
the fact that the main singers are not French natives and the director and
probably the conductor chose to have them sing with some accent making them
sound unreal like foreigners in that land of hatred. This use of a slight
accent now and then is of course remarkable because we feel as if we were in
some other land, some other country, some supernatural empire of unethical
power-hungry monsters. That gives to Medea a human dimension that is rarely
captured the way it should be.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
STEPEHN KING – GLENN CHADBOURNE –
THE DARK MAN – 2013
This
is a small 41 line poem written by Stephen King when he was a college student,
in other words a college poem for publication in the local college student
daily or weekly. As such it is not worth much though on the cover only one name
is printed.
Thanks
god this average example of college creative writing is amplified tremendously
by the graphic work of the artist whose name is not mentioned on the cover.
Glenn Chadbourne he is called. These illustrations are in black and white and
in ink. They are ghostly fuzzy and perfectly fascinating in their uncertain
strokes and shapes. It all works on what is not clear, what is not
identifiable, what is not visible.
The
other theme is the misery of buildings, infrastructure and people who are
living on the side, under the margin or the social rug, in the ditches along
the road or crossing some waste land where they can each bugs and survive.
That’s the world of Randall Flagg, the Dark Man who can turn into a crow and
vanish in thin air when the fire comes too close.
That
small book would be a good present for some young child or teenager who likes
things from beyond the normal looks they have in everyday life. What is behind
the curtain of reality? Spiders, mutants, misery with or without a diabolical
nurse?
Dr
Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 4:03 AM 0 comments
Friday, August 28, 2015
Décevant et plus que surprenant: fast food plus que grande bouffe
SALIHA AZZOUZ –
CONTACT LAW – 2015
Les Français enfin se mettent à publier des manuels d’anglais en anglais.
Cela semble naturel, et pourtant cela est une innovation récente et les cours
en anglais dans les universités continuent à défrayer la rumeur et les aigreurs
de tous les professeurs d’université qui ne parlent pas d’anglais qu’un enfant
auvergna t de trois ans. Cela ne concerne que l’enseignement supérieur
évidemment. Dans ce cas précis cela concerne les études de droit. Et pourtant
les éditeurs s’arrangent à mettre l’essentiel de la couverture et de la page de
titre en français. Comme quoi on n’apprend pas à de vieux singes à faire la
grimace.
Je vais me permettre quelques remarques dans le désordre, au fur à mesure
de mon parcours de l’ouvrage. Je mélangerai sans vergogne le français et
l’anglais.
Pourquoi page 7 y a-t-il une note en français dans le texte
principal ? Cette note en plus est titrée de deux expressions latines que
les Anglais, mais aussi les Américains, adorent. Les notes de bas de page sont
des traductions mot à mot et font donc double emploi avec le
« glossary » final. C’est pratique de ne pas avoir à tourner les
pages, mais c’est mauvais mnémotechniquement et donc pédagogiquement car sans
effort il n’y a pas d’acquisition. En rendant facile ce travail de traduction
au lieu de compréhension qui doit à tout prix disparaître on l’encourage et
donc le maintient, ce qui empêche l’acquisition des sens (au pluriel) des mots.
Si on considère ici le « Bilingual Glossary » je ferai plusieurs
remarques.
J’aurais nettement séparé le « legalise » ou « jargon
juridique » comme d’ailleurs elle en donne un exemple pages 53-55 pour
tous les composés de « here », « there » et « where ».
Mais pourquoi alors retrouver quatre de ces composés dans le glossaire :
« here », « hereafter », « hereto » qui donne
« the hereto parties », « heretofore », concernant « here »
(plus quatre composés de « there » et aucun de « where ») alors
que dans les pages précitées l’auteur donne 33 dérivés de ce genre construits
sur « here », « there » et « where ». Remarquons
qu’il y en a beaucoup moins en français qui soient de ce genre (« ci-après »
et « ci-inclus »).
Mais pour revenir à l’anglais le glossaire a un défaut important. Alors que
les adverbes sont dûment identifiés, les verbes ou les adjectifs ne le sont
pas. Ainsi on a « claim » : faire une demande, donc verbe mais
non indiqué soit par une catégorisation comme les adverbes (vb. Comme adv.),
soit par la particule de l’infinitif « to ». La traduction est trop
vague : c’est le terme qu’utilisaient les nouveaux arrivants dans un
territoire ouvert aux Etats-Unis pour recevoir une parcelle de terre. On voit qu’alors
le « Claims Office » dans la conquête de l’ouest a un tout autre sens
non couvert ici avec toutes sortes de dérivés du genre « fraudulent
claims » et « land claims ».
Ce manuel ne donne pas l’histoire des mots listés dans le glossaire. Et
l’index ne permet pas de les retrouver dans le texte.
On a ensuite « claim » : réclamation. C’est un nom mais on
voit tout de suite que la traduction est insuffisante et négative. Il faudra
alors m’expliquer ce qu’est le « State Farm – claims office » de El Paso,
Texas.
On a ensuite « claim » non marqué comme verbe bien que traduit
par réclamer sans plus de précision. C’est insuffisant. “You can only
claim what you are entitled to getting due to a contract you have signed, a
license [note “licence” is not standard at all in American English either as
verb or as noun.] you have duly acquired or a law that gives you some privilege
or some right.” La traduction
réclamer est beaucoup trop négative. D’où le dernier « claimant » :
traduit par requérant est loin de la valeur de ce mot et un requérant est
quelqu’un qui introduit une requête or « claim » n’a jamais été
traduit dans ce glossaire comme signifiant requête, qui n’est pas une réclamation.
Notons en plus que le terme « claimant » en Grande Bretagne a un
sens propre dans le domaine social ou syndical ou simplement
professionnel : quelqu’un qui a un droit reconnu, quel que soit ce droit.
Sous Margaret Thatcher il existait un « Claimants Union » pour
s’opposer à sa politique et aujourd’hui des « claimants unions » se
mettent en place localement. L’auteure me dira que ce n’est pas un manuel de
droit social. Certes mais le droit social est fondé sur des pratiques
contractuelles et légales, de code ou de jurisprudence que l’on appelle
« common law » dans les pays anglo-saxons.
Dans ce glossaire il y a d’autres éléments surprenants. Par exemple
« fee » au singulier n’est en rien un honoraire mais un tarif de
service public ou privé comme le tarif des transports en commun, et encore de
façon concrète : « Two pounds is the fee I paid from Westminster to
Tooting Bec. » Pour des avocats, docteurs et autres professions libérales
on emploie normalement le mot au pluriel « fees » sur le modèle
j’imagine de « wages » et ce n’est pas le seul mot pour le français
honoraires car il existe « An honorarium; a fee for
services of no fixed value » généralement au pluriel,
« honoraria » ou « honoraries » employé comme nom bien sûr
car en adjectif il a un tout autre sens et ne prend pas le pluriel. Notez en
plus que le « h » n’est pas aspiré en anglais pour « an hour »,
« an heir », « an honor », et « an honest man »
ainsi que tous les mots commençant par « h » et ne portant pas l’accent
tonique sur la première syllabe. Ici l’accent tonique est sur la première
syllabe de « honorary » ou « honorarium » ou « honoraria »
mais la racine est « honor » d’où la non aspiration de l’ « h ».
Dans la législation et la réglementation des salaires, revenus et fiches de paye
ce terme est standard. Et « fees » avec ce sens s’emploie au pluriel,
bien que la plupart du temps « fees » fera alors référence au
paiement d’un service non-libéral et qu’il peut alors s’employer au singulier.
La « Latin Contract Terminology » est une excellente idée mais
largement insuffisante par rapport à la quantité d’expressions latines dans les
procédures judiciaires, juridiques et contractuelles tant en Angleterre qu’aux
Etats-Unis. Remarquons que l’expression latine employée page 7 « obiter
dictum » n’est pas listée. La traduction de « quid pro quo » par
contrepartie est insuffisante. C’est un terme latin qui remonte au Moyen Âge et
donc à des pratiques féodales concernant la propriété mobilières et
immobilières, sans oublier que la propriété mobilière comprenait le « chattel »
c'est-à-dire tous les animaux domestiques ET les serfs.
L’index est beaucoup trop court (notons que le glossaire aurait du stipuler
la première page ou chaque terme concerné était mentionné dans le texte) et
donc insuffisant. Mais il lui manque trois pratiques contractuelles
importantes, hélas me semble-t-il non abordées dans le texte, à savoir le
copyright, les patentes (ou brevets) et la pratique de la vente ou la
cession ou la location sous licence.
Dans ces domaines on a un discours mixte qui concerne la pratique contractuelle
générale mais aussi la pratique spécifique de chacun de ces trois domaines.
Revenons maintenant à la structure des chapitres qui est la même pour tous
sauf le troisième qui n’a pas ce que l’auteure appelle des
« activities » et qui deviennent à la fin du manuel des
« exercises » quand elle en donne la « key » c’est à dire les solutions (p. 117) Ces
« activities » sont toutes des exercices d’application du savoir
donné dans les chapitres et en rien un travail de recherche par exemple d’une
jurisprudence particulière ou d’une décision de la Cour Suprême spécifique. Les
étudiants sont ainsi traités – et croyez-moi je le regrette et je sais que les
étudiants le regrettent aussi – comme des machines à assimiler et non des
moteurs de recherche (au singulier car il s’agit de faire de LA recherche).
L’auteure dira que c’est le travail du professeur. Mais je dirai que c’est le
manquement de l’auteure qui à chaque chapitre aurait du ajouter deux ou trois
activités suggérées qui soient des activités de recherche et d’approfondissement.
On n’a plus le droit de traiter – comme cela se fait toujours en France – les
étudiants universitaires comme des bachoteurs de lycée, et croyez-moi que je
regrette que les étudiants de collège et lycées soient traités comme de simple
bachoteurs. On sait le ou les résultat-s qui s’ensuive-nt.
Notons uniquement pour l’anecdote qu’on ne peut pas simplement définir
comme l’implique l’exercice page 15 le Commonwealth comme une simple
« federation of states ». Le Commonwealth n’a rien à voir avec les
pays qui se définissent comme des fédérations ou des états fédéraux : les
Etats-Unis, l’Allemagne, ou la Fédération de Russie, sans parler de l’es-Yougoslavie.
Une telle définition pose problème, mérite débat et je suis persuadé que ce
terme serait mal reçu par beaucoup au Canada, en Australie ou en Nouvelle
Zélande, sans parler des anciennes colonies qui ont conservé une attache très
lâche avec la Grande Bretagne, comme par exemple le Sri Lanka. Les pratiques
constitutionnelles sont des pratiques contractuelles que ce soit en contrats
dits sociaux ou que ce soit en lois fondamentales.
La « Part 3 » est pratique mais réserve quelques surprises. Je
n’ai en aucune façon l’ambition d’être exhaustif. Page 64 « shall »
n’est pas défini. Je ne peux qu’approuver le conseil d’être très prudent, mais encore
faudrait-il savoir le danger. « Shall » implique une prédiction
future basée sur l’existence d’une loi, d’une règle ou d’une relation
d’autorité. « Shall » n’exclut en rien le non respect de cette règle,
de cette loi, ou de cette autorité. La désobéissance citoyenne est même un
droit universel de l’ONU. « Shall » implique donc que étant données
les réglementations ou les pratiques contractuelles courantes un certain agent
est pronostiqué comme allant faire telle ou telle action et que vous devez vous
attendre à ce qu’il le fasse. La limite courante à la première personne est
bien sûr absurde, mais l’auteure ne semble pas faire cette erreur. Réfléchissons
à des exemples comme : « Of course he shall do it because I say
so. » Ou encore « you shall not kill. » Il est clair que dans
ces deux cas « must » est impossible. Dans le premier cas il est Presque absurde. Il n’y a aucune obligation,
mais il y a une acte d’autorité quasiment terroriste. Dans le deuxième cas ne
pas le faire est défier l’autorité divine, ce qui représente tout au plus un
manquement éthique. Parlez-en aux forces de police américaines qui abattent des
jeunes noirs comme s’ils étaient des cancrelats. « Thou shall not kill »,
qu’ils chantent ensuite tous les dimanches dans leurs églises et leurs temples.
Il ressort alors de ce chapitre que l’étudiant ne sait pas pourquoi il ne doit
pas utiliser « shall » non pas parce qu’il n’a pas compris mais parce
qu’on ne le lui a pas dit.
Notons que « must » implique une obligation qui s’applique au
sujet concerné mais ce sujet concerné peut désobéir. Ce sujet conserve un degré
de liberté. « Of course I mustn’t cross when the light is red but I have
no time to waste, so I will go on doing it, and let the cop who can catch me
give me ticket for jay-walking. » D’un autre côté « have to » ne
saurait accepter un manquement. « OK, let’s talk but I must catch a train
in twenty minutes. . . (fifteen minutes later) Well thank you for your opinion but now I have to catch my
train. » Il n’est pas impossible de trouver quelqu’un qui vous
dira: « Of course you must NOT do it, you could even say you shoudln’t do
it, in fact you don’t need to do it, but you have to do it because you cannot
evade my order and my presence. So just do it and stop bickering. »
Le « Grammar reminder » est une bonne idée.
Page 121 concernant les adverbes, « only » dans « only
because » ne se rapporte pas à la conjonction ici de subordination mais à
la subordonnée conjonctive complète. Non pas « the conjunction » mais
« the conjunctive clause. » De même dans « only after »
l’adverbe ne modifie pas la préposition mais le complément prépositionnel qui
se compose normalement de la préposition « after » et d’une groupe
nominal complet. Dans « You go only after him » l’adverbe
s’applique à « after him ».
Page 124 « uncountable » est possible en anglais mais serait
gênant en français car on ne fait plus la diffférence oralement entre un nom
comptable et un non-comptable et cela entraine des erreurs. Je considère qu’il
serait plus judicieux pour des étudiants francophones d’opposer
« countable » à « compact ». Il manque cependant une
catégorie de ces noms compacts : ceux qui désignent un processus, une
procédure, une action, un phénomène parfois naturel comme dans : « Ø walking
is important », « Ø nomimnalization is fundamental in all human
articulated languages », ou encore « John put Peter under Ø constant
pressure till the end of his exam. »
Cela implique d’ailleurs que pages 125-130 sur les articles il n’y ait
aucun système et surtout que l’opération de généricité de la détermination de
l’extension d’un nom ne soit pas explicitée alors qu’en français et en anglais
elle s’applique de façon contradictoire comme dans « Je n’aime pas les
chats » (pluriel défini) contre « I don’t like cats » (pluriel
indéfini). Encore une fois le système est extrêmement formel dans les deux
langues et on ne trouve pas cela dans ces pages qui sont une suite de cas
particuliers.
Page 132 il y a une erreur de « typographie » qui produit un non-sens :
« A judge might a order a contract to be . . . »
Page 135 une erreur magistrale est faites sur tous les nombres à partir de
mille. Toutes les tranches de trois chiffres sont marquées par une virgule en
anglais. L’auteure ne respecte pas cette règle pour un seul de ses exemples.
Sauf pour les dates, toutes les tranches de trois chiffres sont marquées par
des virgules. Notons d’ailleurs que pour la préhistoire quand on passe à 10,000
BCE et au-delà vers le passé on utilise normalement des virgules qu’on a pu
éventuellmement négliger jusqu’à 9999 BCE. Cette faute est énorme car les
Français utilisent la virgule pour les décimales et qu’entre 3,141 (three
thousand one hundred forty one) et 3.141 (three point one for one) il y a le
fait que le second est PI un nombre plus qu’important en mathématiques car il
est en fait devenu de facto un concept, celui de la circularité des choses.
Il y a une erreur dans la façon d’écrire et de lire les dates. Les Britanniques
ont des pratiques qui peuvent varier et ce que l’auteure en dit est juste mais
il y a une erreur du côté américain : New York Times : Friday, August
28, 2015, The Guardian et The Financial Times ne donnent même pas la date sur
leurs éditions virtuelles, The Times (London) donne Friday, August 28, soit la
même chose que le New York Times. Si bien que quand l’auteure dit que les Américains
sont spéciaux car pour « 2nd/2 June à the second of June, June the
second » « ‘the’ is often omitted in American English » elle se
trompe car en américain l’ordre standard est le mois puis le jour comme dans
« 9/11 » qui ne saurait être le 9 novembre et qu’alors « June
2 » écrit dans cet ordre se lirait « June second » et même
probablement « June two » et au-delà définitivement « June
three. . . June twenty two. . . »
Enfin pour conclure page 171 dans les ressources je suis étonné qu’elle
n’ait pas mentionné le US Code (http://uscode.house.gov/,
notons d’ailleurs l’extension du domaine pour les sites gouvernementaux US
qu’elle ne mentionne pas non plus), ni la US Supreme Court (http://www.supremecourt.gov/), ni le
site de la Cornell University (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/)
qui a un centre de ressources sur la loi sans équivalent, le Legal Information
Institute [LII] (https://www.law.cornell.edu/)
qui donne les lois et les décisions de justice avec commentaires faits par les
professeurs de la Cornel University Law School.
Ce livre n’a pas de concurrent en France mais est loin de ce que l’on peut
attendre d’un manuel universitaire de niveau licence-mastère car en anglais
l’Internet regorge de ressources et avec LII de discussions et de questionnements
de et sur ces ressources. Si l’auteure voulait amener ses étudiants à vraiment
réfléchir et construire dans le domaine choisi elle suggèrerait tout un travail
personnel d’étudiant sur la loi (constitutionnelle, commune et de code) et
toutes les procédures de niveau au moins fédéral et de Cour Suprême sur les
conflits contractuels concernant le copyright, les patentes (ou brevets) et les
licences de session quelles qu’elles soient. En fonction du niveau des
étudiants il suffit de concentrer sur un cas particulier, une décision qui fait
jurisprudence particulière ou une décision de la US Supreme Court pour vraiment
permettre à tous d’avancer de L1 à M2.
Si j’avais un conseil à donner aux étudiants je suggèrerais qu’au lieu de
dépenser 19 euros sur ce manuel (que les étudiants peuvent acheter à trois ou
quatre) ils feraient mieux de consacrer au moins huit heures par semaine à
travailler sur les ressources de la Cornell University, voire les MOOC dans le
domaine, et en anglais bien sûr pour à la fois pratiquer l’écoute et la lecture
ou l’écriture.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 7:18 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
The devil is a woman, what an invention!!!
ROMAN POLANSKI – JOHNNHY DEPP – THE NINTH GATE – 1999
A small film with a rather big
budget travelling from New York to Spain (more or less not famous places) and to
France, Paris
of course. A film about the Devil or Satan or Lucifer had to be produced in the
satanic year 1-999, just before the diabolical new millennium.
Apart from that the plot is so light
we could think it was bought as a premium in a barrel of washing powder. The
only interesting element is the suspenseful editing that makes the film have good
rhythm. But the rhythm of the editing is not enough to make a good film.
Clichés upon clichés. The best
ones are the baroness in a wheel chair with a “secretary” that looks like a
prison warden and goes out in the morning to buy oranges. The younger desk
clerk in a four or five stars hotel in Paris
who is authorizing a woman to go to the main character’s room because she
claims to be his wife. The concierge will apologize later on but it will be too
late. I guess that younger desk clerk had not gone through the proper
vocational training.
The best cliché is the fact that
the devil is a woman, white of course and blonde of course again. She is s
devilish person obviously since she can move around without any means of
transportation except thin air. But she
is the excuse for Polanski to put some female flesh on the screen. He is a lot
more modest about male flesh. Why did he get Johnny Depp then? A fatso like Depardieu
would have been just alright, and a lot more impressive.
Johnny Depp is underused indeed. He
is static, unexpressive, cold like a slithering snake, badly dressed and hardly
human.
Well enjoy it if you can. I guess
with a good shot of vodka maybe. . .
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 2:02 PM 0 comments
You just can't neglect and overlook this book if you want to learn Maya
JOHN MONTGOMERY – DICTIONARY OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHS – 2002-2006
This is a dictionary and you
cannot expect more than it proposes. It is organized in alphabetical order but
based on the phonetic transcriptions of the glyphs. Note they use two phonetic
transcriptions: Ch’olan and Yucatec.
The glottalized consonants
(consonants followed by a glottal stop marked in the transcription with an
apostrophe) follow the non-glottalized consonants in the alphabetical order. Thus
CH’ comes after CH.
But the great advantage is that
you can really understand the composition of the glyphs thanks to the
transcriptions first but also because you will find the various components in
the dictionary as such. The writing system is thus a composite writing system
since the glyphs are composed of various glyphs associated to build new words. We are dealing here with
the morphology of the compound words and many Mayan words are compounds.
It also gives you the various
categories and declension or conjugation elements of the words. Hence you have
nouns, verbs, adjectives. Nominal phrases are often treated as one glyph
composed of various elements showing that the syntax of the nominal phrase is
treated as if it were morphology. And we have the same thing for verbal
phrases. That seems to show this language is developing on the basis of the
second articulation of human language, though it seems to be developing the
first steps towards the realization of the third articulation which implies
declensions and later prepositions to express nominal cases, and conjugations
for the verbs.
To specify that language more we
will enter the details of the description of its syntax. Since it is a Native
American language we know today it comes from Siberia
where two vast families of languages, and ethnic groups, cohabited. DNA has
confirmed these dual origins. On one hand the agglutinative languages of the
Turkic family mostly settled in Central Asia, South West Siberia (Urals for
example), Asia Minor and the whole of Europe
before the last ice age up to the arrival of Indo-Europeans in Europe a few thousand years after the ice age. On the
other hand the Sino-Tibetan family us composed of isolating languages.
Most of Native American languages
are thus mapped on one pattern or the other. Further studies have to be made to
check if the two affiliations are strictly respected or if some languages
actually merged the characteristics of both families. The Turkic family is
third articulation, whereas the Sino-Tibetan family is second articulation.
I will then have to come back to
the subject after more studies.
This dictionary has many indices
at the end and these indices transform the dictionary into a multilingual and a
practical tool. Three languages are concerned first with the Mayan Index, the
English Index and the Spanish Index. Then you have the Index of Visual Elements
and then a collection of Subject Indices: Numbers, Days, Months, Long Count,
Phonetic signs, Verbs/Verbal Phrases, pronouns, adjectives. T-numbers.
Per se this dictionary cannot
teach you the language, but it is an indispensible tool for learning that
language.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 2:34 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
A great purge must have been organized to get rid of these Gnostics
RODOLPHE
KASSER – MARVIN MEYER – GREGOR WURST – FRANÇOIS GAUDARD – THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS and
other texts of the CODEX TCHACOS – CRITICAL EDITION – NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC –
2007
This book is of course essential. But I would like to
make several remarks that imply a wider opening of the perspective under which
we consider these documents.
To say that these documents were written at the end of
the second century or the beginning of the third century is correct but only
formally? They were written then, at least 150 years after the events they
speak of but from a long oral tradition from the very time when these events
took place. They were transmitted orally from one generation to the next and
they started from people who had been witnesses of the events and that could
remember what the various characters did or said and first of all Jesus and of
course Judas. The proof of this oral tradition is in the fact that there are
differences between three of these documents who have other versions in the Nag
Hammadi Library for example. And I find it rather easy to say it is only a
question of varying translation from Greek. In fact originally all that started
in Jerusalem
meaning it started in a Semitic language, either Hebrew or rather Aramaic, the
colloquial language of Jesus and his direct associates.
The proof is in the fact that the disciples address Jesus as
“Rabbi” and not “Lord” or even “Master.” The term “Rabbi” is Jewish and from
Hebrew or other directly connected Semitic languages. It is one way to
differentiate the parallel verses of the New Testament: the original verses
were in a Semitic language and call Jesus “Rabbi” whereas the added verses were
in Greek and address Jesus as “Lord.” (Note Lord is used in the first document
the Letter of Peter to Philip.) This
tradition was transmitted at first in those Semitic languages, Hebrew or
Aramaic over at least five generations and it was set in Greek progressively
and finally written in Greek at the end of the 2nd century or the
beginning of the 3rd. Then it was translated into Coptic and this
time from the Greek version with maybe some older people who might have
remembered the old oral Semitic version.
This is essential because these documents are not forgeries
or fakes but they are truly coming from the time of the events, the time when
Jesus was preaching and was crucified and then when James later was stoned to
death. Note by the way the document called “James” could not come from James
himself because he was not able to tell the way he ended up stoned by illegal
decision of the High Priest of the temple, since the Great Sanhedrin did not
meet in the temple but at the High Priest’s home. Obviously this text is from
that period (62 CE) but told by a witness who could report on what James had told him about
his conversations with Jesus before and after the crucifixion. It is a typical
case where only someone very close to James could start the story, the telling,
the memory, the oral tradition.
Apart from the first document the three others report about
what Jesus actually told his disciples. That could only come from people in the
inner circle around Jesus. Even Paul could not have been one of these because
he had not yet declared himself an apostle since he had not had yet his vision
on the road to Damascus.
This remark is essential because numerous apocryphal documents contain such
reports of Jesus telling one of his disciple something personal, inspired and visionary.
I insist on the personal dimension because too often critics want to generalize
what is being said, abstract it from the direct context and from the people it
was said to. They have the tendency to dehumanize Jesus though they assert all
along Jesus made himself a man to be close to other human beings. If he is a
man in a man’s body then he has normal human reactions and what is says is
supposed to be understood in the context and the direct environment at that
moment.
The best part is when Jesus comes back after his
resurrection. It is the basic debate here. Did he come back in a man’s body and
Thomas could put his fingers in the holes of the feet and the hands, or did he
come back as a spirit and Thomas could not put his fingers in non-corporeal
feet and hands. You cannot “touch” a spirit, though you can be in contact with
it, if you believe in spirits, of course. But that’s not the point here.
Was Jesus still in his human body after his resurrection or
was he a pure spirit visible as if he were in his human body, hence in an image
of this body. Martin Meyer says very clearly: “The Letter of Peter to Philip shares with the other three texts in the
codex a commitment to a spiritual understanding of Jesus, in particular a
spiritual understanding of his passion and death.” (p. 86) That does not mean
his crucifixion is fictional but it means that his crucifixion and his
subsequent resurrection have to be understood as a spiritual event and
experience. The trauma for the people directly associated to Jesus was probably
too strong to be alleviated in a minute and survival to this trauma could only
be a spiritual dealing with it that made it bearable. What I say here is that
the resurrection and the coming back of Jesus is not at all an illusion but it
is a direct construction of the traumatized and mourning passion (in the
meaning of love, attachment, fascination) nourished and nurtured in the
followers by Jesus himself and the very difficult atmosphere in Jerusalem at
the time. In fact I am quite ready to say that this is Post Torture and Martyrdom
Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and this particular PTSS inspired the surviving
witnesses into creating a whole religion out of it, out of what after all was a
common death penalty in those days. This creative procedure has more to do with
the charisma and brilliance of Jesus and his teachings than with the inhumane and
nonhuman method used to accuse him and execute him, an obvious miscarriage of
justice and vengeful retribution against someone who had dared to challenge the
authority of established temple bureaucrats and executives turning themselves
into executioners.
The questions asked by the disciples are typical of something
that is not said by the commentators. Let me quote them: “Lord, (…) [the]
deficiency of the aeons and their fullnesses, [how] are we detained [in this]
very dwelling [place]? [Again, how] have we come to this place? And, how [shall
we] leave? And, how do [we] have the authority [of] this very boldness? [Why]
do [the] powers fight against [us]?” (p. 97) The idea that is behind these
questions is that the people asking the questions, hence the disciples, the
apostles are not originally from this world but are from another world and they
have been in a way or another transported to this world where they are
detained. The answer with the “Mother” is supernatural and sets at the original
point of the existence of human beings, and these disciples or apostles are
human beings, the “Mother” ’s decision to do something that was not supported
by the Great One. We can interpret that Mother the way we want, humanity is
thus brought into existence out of nothing at all and under a fatal sin by the
Mother herself that dooms this humanity to its or their fate. If sin has
brought humanity into its alienated existence, then they have to “arm yourselves
with the power of my Father and express your prayer.” (p. 103) Their mission is
to go and preach for the salvation of the world. “. . . ‘You will have joy and
peace and power. Do not be afraid. [I] am with you forever.’ Then the apostles
parted [---] sent them too [preach. And] they went in the power of Jesus, in peace.”
(p. 109) But that peace comes from the knowledge of the end of this alienation
on earth is in the end of life itself that enables man to merge with the divine
dimension of this creation: “ ‘I often told you, you are to die, and you are to
be brought into synagogues and before governors, and you are to [---]” (p. 105)
It is clear they have to integrate the spiritual dimension of
Jesus’ teachings and that gives them the power and the motivation to preach for
the salvation of the world that can only be reached individually when death
comes as the final test of Christian peace and Christian faith. The questions
then lead to the strange idea that humanity came from some other place by being
created out of a fundamental disobedient sin by the Mother herself. And to
correct this mistake humanity has to find its salvation in the repented sins of
each sinner at the moment of their death. This repentance will be all the more
effective if the power and conviction to preach salvation in the name of Jesus
has been achieved as soon as possible in life.
The document called James
is one more piece in the puzzle of James’ death, Jesus’ brother, though the
text is ambiguous in its form on the subject of being the brother of Jesus
since it says: “For not without reason are you called ‘brother,’ though [you]
are not physically a brother. . . “ (p. 121) It does not mean James is not the
son of Joseph and Mary (if we consider James as younger than Jesus) but Jesus
is not the son of Joseph, and Mary, his mother, is only a vessel used by God to
bring his son into a human body. And yet James is called “brother” “not without
reason,” thus meaning that spiritually James is the brother of Jesus. But the
interest of the document is it first asserts that James was stoned to death and
second it gives a rather long testimony about what kind of accusations were
leveled at him and what kind of defense he brought forward. This could only be
known by very few people who actually took part in the Sanhedrin meeting which
was an emergency meeting that was not held in the legal proper place. And that
could only be after James’ death and not from him. That’s what the oral
tradition is all about. The procedure in the Sanhedrin must have been in
Hebrew, certainly not in Greek. And that oral tradition was kept for five
generations.
The Gospel of Judas is interesting but I have already discussed it in
the earlier National Geographic edition of this Gospel alone. I would like to
come back on a couple of points. Page 207, Jesus calls Judas the “thirteenth
daimon.” We could discuss this word “daimon” a long time especially since it is
rendered in French by the word “démon.” In English the word comes from Greek
and means a lesser divine being, like a dead hero, or the inner spirit of a
person. The American Heritage Dictionary says: “1. An inferior deity,
such as a deified hero. 2. An attendant spirit; a genius.”
In French the word “démon” is definitely connected to devils and satanic beings
like a bad spirit possessing a person and requiring exorcism. But the point is
not there. The point is in the number thirteen. It is in those days a zodiacal
sign, the Serpent holder who represents knowledge, science, medicine, healing,
and many other things. On the Benedictine abbey church
of Issoire, France, there used to be the
thirteenth zodiacal sign at the meeting point between the choir of the abbey
church and the scriptorium or library of the abbey. The meaning was clear and
it was there till at least the thirteenth century. It has just been reinstated.
That implies that this “daimon” is someone who has the key to healing, who is
the key to healing, and Judas sure is that key since Jesus asks him to help him
get rid of his body by enabling the crucifixion that could not happen since the
Temple people
did not know who Jesus was, but Judas did. And there the “thirteenth” reference
is clear: “. . . You will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man
who bears me. . . “ (p. 231) “. . . And Judas received money and handed him
over to them.” (p. 235) The translation into French of this last sentence is
very poor by making the thing miserable and so little that we wonder where the
dignity of the fulfilled mission has gone: the “money” is translated by “des
sous” meaning precisely “a few pennies” or “their few pennies.” A “sou” is an
old French currency in the times of French francs. In the 1950s twenty “sous”
were equivalent to one old Franc of the time, and was worth nothing or so
little. Note that’s the second time I wonder about the French version of this
text. Without having checked it all I am surprised that on these two crucial
elements the French version is from my point of view wrong.
Note the vision Judas has of being stoned by the twelve apostles is
strange since at the time of this vision he is one of the twelve. But then the
remark from Jesus about the “thirteenth daimon” before and the second remark
after the vision this time: “You will become the thirteenth, and you will be
cursed by the other generations, and you will come to rule over them. In the last
day they to you, and (that?) you will not ascend on high to
the holy generation.” We can see how ambiguous this thirteen becomes: a curse,
and yet Judas will rule over the other twelve, and yet again he will “not
ascend to the holy generation.” It is regrettable that the critics do not
discuss these numbers and this Gospel contains a whole set of number: 5, 6, 12,
24, 72, 360; 5 firmaments, 6 heavens, 12 aeons and luminaries. Obviously 13 is
not in that logic. It should have been discussed.
The last document, Allogenes,
is about Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve to replace Abel killed by Cain,
the latter banned by God. That Seth is identified with Jesus, which sounds
normal if we remember that Jesus defines himself as the “son of man” and that
man is Adam, derived from Adamas, the earth. Adam is the first man and his son
is Seth, hence Jesus is Seth. The interest though of this identification is
that Seth is the very symbol of one trend in the emerging Christian faith and
church in the second and third centuries. That trend is the Gnostics also
called Sethians. Here we are dealing with an essential school of Christian
affiliation in those distant centuries and this trend is declared heretic by
Iraneus and the documents that compose the Nag Hammadi Library and this Codex
are definitely sethian and hence gnostic. These documents were stored away in
the Egyptian desert by communities that were following that branch of
Christianity, a branch that was banned. Were they dispersed, or eliminated, we
do not know. Probably some of both.
These documents are essential if we want to understand how Christianity
emerged in nearly three centuries from the crucifixion and martyrdom of one man
in Jerusalem in
33 CE and then the stoning of his brother in 62 CE. This led to the destruction
of the temple of Jerusalem
and then of the walls of the city and the order of all Jews to disappear from
the Levant. That was the radical Diaspora that
is still haunting our modern world. It seems in the case of the Roman Empire and Christianity the emergence of this new
faith would never have occurred if it had not been unified enough via the elimination
of some trends to impress a Roman Emperor and inspire him into declaring this
new religion the official and only religion of the empire. What I say here is
that without the elimination of the “heretic” Gnostics and the unification behind
Pauline and Petrine vision Christianity would never have been able to become
the religion we know. Was it though justified? That’s another question these
documents cannot answer. It is the more spiritual, philosophical and maybe
rebellious side of Christianity that was eliminated in the name of the more down
to earth, realistic and maybe submissive side.
A shame that specialists of this subject remain closed up in their
Biblical learned erudition because there was a whole world out there and they
do not consider it.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 2:25 PM 0 comments
Monday, August 24, 2015
The thirteenth century is the diabolical turning point in the Middle Ages
SIMON DE KÉZA – THE DEEDS OF THE HUNGARIANS (GESTA
HUNGARORUM) – CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY PRESS – 1999
This work from the end of the 13th
century is not a masterpiece in literature. It is in no way supposed to be
fictional, I mean fiction of any sort, but it is not necessarily the historical
truth we could expect from an official historian. In other words this work
cannot be considered as historically accurate in spite of course of its
pretention to be. The notes are clear about the details on that account.
Yet it is an essential book about
Hungary,
the Hungarians and the Huns before them with Attila at their spear head. But it
is a book that essentially lists battles, military campaigns, struggles and
other types of conflicts in Europe whose stake is Hungary
called here Pannonia.
It very quickly becomes a catalogue of such events and the barbarity of all
sides since killing enemies or plain people for the sole pleasure of killing,
raiding, looting, destroying, burning, blinding, and many other sadistic, cruel
and blood curdling mistreatment of the bodies, and only the bodies, of the
concerned individuals who are systematically negated in their very human
nature. Later on a difference is even clearly stated at the very end that the
non-Christians are barbarians and pagans but they also are chattel since
“Pagans should be subject to Christians. These captives were termed uheg [Note
1: . . . the term uheg . . . ‘a
heathen slave’]; as far as the Church was concerned, any Hungarian could
possess and keep such persons.” (p. 185)
And that brings the main interest
of the work.
The author has to explain why the
Hungarian society is divided among people who are nearly slaves, people who
serfs and thus chattel, and various levels of freedom among the others. It is a
hard task since the Hungarians are supposed to descend from a limited number of
equally free people. He can only level three explanations. The first one is
simple: pagans, hence non-Christians, also called barbarians are naturally
subject to Christians, hence slaves. But that does not explain the other cases.
So he goes back to what Charlemagne supposedly did one day when he summoned all
men who were all free (that is good news about Charlemagne empire) to arms for
battle and all those who refused to come without a valid excuse were turned
into some service position, in other words were made serfs. But even so that
did not explain the fact that the vast majority of the society was composed of
such slaves and serfs. So then he went to standard Christian explanations.
Those who were serfs must have committed a sin. And that satisfies him, though
it should not since Jesus said that the man who has never committed a sin is
the only one entitled to throw the first stone and no one did claim that honor.
We are all sinners.
But this discussion leads to
another which is far from being clear in the text. In feudal times the
sovereign was king or emperor by decision of God himself represented by the
Pope who certified those kings and emperors who owed him full respect and
obedience as the representative of God on earth. This would be simple if there
had been no feudal wars. They tried to solve that war spirit with the famous
Peace of God movement starting at the end of the tenth century and more or less
successful at the end of the eleventh century, when the first crusade was
started. War was only justified against pagans and infidels.
That can explain the war against
Attila and the Huns but how can it explain the wars between Hungary and Germany
or Austria, or many other
Christian kingdoms around Hungary
once Hungary
had become a Christian country? In fact it could not and we are then confronted
to a second problem. The fact that the successive kings of Hungary are set
on the throne by the German Emperor or some German intervention, or other
foreign interventions. Even worse how can it explain that one noble faction can
depose a king and elect or select another one to get on the throne? That is the
pure negation of feudal principles.
The introduction suggests it is a
movement that is strongly evolving in the 13th century. For sure we
have the Magma Carta in 1215
inEngland.
But in that case the king is not deposed and it is the King who accepts to
decide on a few measures that had only been peacefully suggested by the joined
delegates of the nobility and the Church. And that is just the point. How can
the church support one faction against the others. Did the Church support the
white rose of York or the red rose of Lancaster in the War of the Roses in England? The two
houses were descending from the Plantagenet for sure but it was a civil war
between two factions of nobles fighting for the throne of England to
which they were entitled both of them at various degrees of legitimacy.
In fact in the 13th
century new principles were starting to emerge in the Middle Ages. First the
king was divine in nature or essence but he had to have the agreement of
several institutions to be able to claim his title: first the church, second
the nobility at large and third in England
the City of London.
In the same way this book shows how the king had in fact to be accepted by the
representatives of the nobility and by the church. The book centers this
evolution on the concept of “community” and even that of nation. But these
words do not mean what we understand today. They mean that this community or
this nation is in fact the free or more or less free people of the country who
elect or appoint their representatives who have to be consulted and who have to
agree with the King’s decisions for these decisions to become official. In this
community of more or less free people there are levels from the top aristocracy
to the plain free urban working people or landlords of anything that can have a
non-noble landlord. This community excludes slaves altogether and serfs are not
directly represented but only through their owners or the owners of the land to
which they are attached and whose chattel they are. That’s why many of the
military episodes are ambiguous when they say they killed everyone including
women and children. We can never be sure that includes those who are nobody,
those who are not members of the community or the nation, the serfs and the slaves,
those who actually work and without whom there would be no production, no
output and no riches
But this is not typical of this
work or author. In the Middle Ages only those who had a certain degree of
nobility and/or freedom were considered as real human beings (though of course
from the Christian point of view they were all human since they all had a soul),
as real members of the community. All the others were just standing on the
side, working and being exploited. There was no reason to kill them in a war
since they were part of the chattel of an estate. The only reason to do that
was not to defeat the landlord of that estate but to ruin the landlord of that
estate. But feudal wars were meant to take the control of various estates and
thus take the control of these estates’ means of production: the slaves and the
serfs were part of these means of production. To kill them would imply that the
plunderer is not planning on conquering the land at all but only looting the
valuables in churches and so on. It would be gratuitous violence but the
plunderer does not give the slightest thought to what he cannot loot, and since
slaves and serfs are not fighting he could not care less about them. This point
of view has never been, as far as I know, explored and explained: the civilian
non free casualties in the feudal wars.
This book then is interesting in
the commentaries it contains because it really points out that the 13th
century was crucial in Europe. All the more
crucial due to the beginning of the demographic overpopulation crisis that will
lead to all kinds of heresies and campaigns against such including the Cathars’
Crusade and the Inquisition and also the building of all kinds of Devil’s
bridges in Europe and the starting of the burning of witches in Europe. The
Black Death will come only fifty years later (1348) but it will not solve those
problems either because they had been expurgated by fire and death, or because
the plague was seen as a divine punishment onto a sinning population if not
populace. The only problem the Black Death solved was the excess of population
as compared to the resources, produced as I have said by slaves and serfs who
were victims too, because the Black Death did not make any difference between
the Pope or a starving homeless outlaw.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 12:24 PM 0 comments
6 years spent in foreign countries: 1 year in North Carolina USA, 1 year in California USA, 1 year in Zaïre (Kinshasa), 3 months (2005, August-November) in Sri Lanka on research with an NGO attached to the UNESCO site of Sigiriya, numerous shorter periods in Great Britain, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany (East and West), Austria, among others