liberty (noun, 1): freedom or release from slavery, bondage or imprisonment – including arbitrary, despotic or autocratic control [Oxford English Dictionary]
Fascinating analysis! Two phenomena come to mind: firstly, in Australian politics and culture the disastrous campaign at Gallipoli in World War One became the “Gallipoli myth” during the Vietnam War when ordinary Australians perceived themselves (rightly) to be dragged, yet again, into a pointless meat grinder. The unfortunate consequence was that a culture and society that produced some of the very best fighting troops in the world were demoralized and came to see themselves as victims, losing most of their vigour and fighting spirit in the process. An even more extreme situation unfolded with the Kiwis. The point was that an historical event was reinterpreted later and only then acquired its enduring national significance.
The second phenomenon that comes to mind is how the understanding of the Hebrew Tanakh interacted with historical events subsequent to the writing of its various sections and its meaning continued to evolve in a constantly relevant and ever-fresh meaning that inspired and consoled its adherents. Scholars, beginning with the mainly German scholars of the 19th century mocked what they considered naive and inaccurate interpretations of these sacred texts, but the historical achievements of those inspired by these evolving understandings of these ancient texts have changed the world, overwhelmingly for the benefit of humanity.
Your article about the Magna Carta reveals a similarly beneficial process by which momentous political and social benefits were the result of an evolving interpretation rather than a strict historically faithful academic understanding.
Thanks so much for your generous and thoughtful remarks, Chris. It's greatly appreciated.
I think you make so great points, and particularly like the way in which you've outlined how beneficial processes can be the product of evolving interpretations rather than historically accurate accounts. Indeed, it's made me reflect on the processes by which aspects of the past are continually appropriated and reworked in a variety of different contexts to suit what are largely present-day agendas and how these differing, even competing versions of the past then play out in future.
Am I misremembering this — but doesn’t Sellar & Yeatman’s classic, “1066 and All That” express doubts about Magna Carta ? An early instance of revisionism?
Fascinating analysis! Two phenomena come to mind: firstly, in Australian politics and culture the disastrous campaign at Gallipoli in World War One became the “Gallipoli myth” during the Vietnam War when ordinary Australians perceived themselves (rightly) to be dragged, yet again, into a pointless meat grinder. The unfortunate consequence was that a culture and society that produced some of the very best fighting troops in the world were demoralized and came to see themselves as victims, losing most of their vigour and fighting spirit in the process. An even more extreme situation unfolded with the Kiwis. The point was that an historical event was reinterpreted later and only then acquired its enduring national significance.
The second phenomenon that comes to mind is how the understanding of the Hebrew Tanakh interacted with historical events subsequent to the writing of its various sections and its meaning continued to evolve in a constantly relevant and ever-fresh meaning that inspired and consoled its adherents. Scholars, beginning with the mainly German scholars of the 19th century mocked what they considered naive and inaccurate interpretations of these sacred texts, but the historical achievements of those inspired by these evolving understandings of these ancient texts have changed the world, overwhelmingly for the benefit of humanity.
Your article about the Magna Carta reveals a similarly beneficial process by which momentous political and social benefits were the result of an evolving interpretation rather than a strict historically faithful academic understanding.
Thanks so much for your generous and thoughtful remarks, Chris. It's greatly appreciated.
I think you make so great points, and particularly like the way in which you've outlined how beneficial processes can be the product of evolving interpretations rather than historically accurate accounts. Indeed, it's made me reflect on the processes by which aspects of the past are continually appropriated and reworked in a variety of different contexts to suit what are largely present-day agendas and how these differing, even competing versions of the past then play out in future.
Am I misremembering this — but doesn’t Sellar & Yeatman’s classic, “1066 and All That” express doubts about Magna Carta ? An early instance of revisionism?
Thanks Michael. I've never actually read '1066 and All that'! But I expect you're right.
There's also an old Tony Hancock sketch - although I expect only those of a certain generation will know of it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ4mxOluXY4
Really enjoyed this. Many thanks.
Thank you! I'm glad you liked it.