You may have suspected it, but you were too disgusted to say anything.  Perhaps you just didn’t want to believe it, and so you ignored the obvious.  But what else could explain my silence on a topic where I am usually less tolerant than Torquemada.  Why haven’t I denounced the historical inaccuracies on “Spartacus”, the cable series purporting to be the early life of the gladiator who led a slave rebellion against Rome.  Am I that grateful for Lucy Lawless’ nude scenes?  Yes…but that is not my only reason.

“Spartacus” does not affront my love of history because the series is not remotely historical.  “Spartacus” is little more than a toga party–and the characters rarely wear that much.  The series is really a black comedy on social climbing: the slaves want to be plebians, the plebians want to be patricians, and the patricians are bored.  As far as the main characters are concerned, the setting could be New Rochelle, and Spartacus is a comedy writer slaving for a tyrannical if droll master.  (One slight difference: in “Spartacus” Mel Cooley would have the right to kill Buddy Sorrell.)

But even allowing for my appreciation of the satire, isn’t the series making a mockery of history?  No, not really.  In “Spartacus” the history is merely a backdrop, an innocent bystander at the gratuitous orgies and histrionic intrigues.  Most of the show’s characters never existed; so history is uninvolved.  Even for those who were real, the plot takes place before history first took note of them.  They are still blank pages for the scriptwriters to indulge their mischief and prurience.  Yes, it is still an intellectual outrage but “no real history was harmed in the making of this program.”

Since “Spartacus” has proved a success, it no doubt will inspire other historical prequels.  I am going to suggest a series on Napoleon, but focused on his sophomore year at the Brienne military academy.  Of course, the dorm chambermaid will be a nymphomaniac, as well as his geometry teacher, music teacher, fencing coach, career counselor and the headmistress.  If HBO produces this series, we can arrange for Napoleon to have an affair with Abigail Adams, too.

May 2, 1808:  Goya Gets Inspiration and the French Get Target Practice

Whatever Napoleon’s motives for invading Spain, they were not petty. He had no Gallic version of Halliburton, and Sevres was not trying to annex Lladros. None of his siblings were unemployed and needed a spare throne. First, Spain really was a cultural embarrassment; still shackled to its repressive Catholicism, Spain’s political and social development was two centuries behind the rest of Western Europe. (Spanish painting was excellent, however; the Church never discouraged that.) The ruling Bourbons had brought French debauchery to Spain, but not the Enlightenment. In fact, the Bourbons were eager to assimilate Spanish prejudices and rekindled the Inquisition. (There were not any Jews left but Freemasons proved to be flammable.) Furthermore, neither Spain nor Portugal were enforcing Napoleon’s trade boycott of Britain. Napoleon was resolved to “liberate” Spain.

In 1807 the Emperor actually persuaded Spain to permit the entry of the French army. The French purpose was ostensibly to invade Portugal; for its collaboration, Spain expected to be rewarded with most of the conquered country. However, Napoleon had other plans. In 1808, Napoleon coerced the King of Spain and the Crown Prince to abdicate, freeing Spain from Bourbon ignorance and incompetence. In their place, Napoleon set up as King his reluctant brother Joseph–who had been quite happy as the French satrap of Southern Italy. Bringing the Enlightenment to Spain, Joseph abolished the Inquisition and the remaining vestiges of feudalism. Unfortunately, the Spanish preferred their own ignorance and repression to foreign liberation.

On this day in 1808, Madrid revolted. A rallying cry of the resistance was “Down with Liberty”. Of course, the French army crushed the uprising. In his paintings, Francisco Goya depicted the initial slaughter and the summary executions that followed. Madrid may have been pacified, but the revolt spread throughout Spain. The French were unprepared to fight partisan warfare, with the Spanish resistance ambushing the French and then disappearing amidst a sympathetic civilian population. Furthermore, the war had an unparalleled savagery. The Spanish tortured to death their French prisoners; the French responded with wholesale slaughter. Goya also depicted these atrocities in a series of drawings called “The Horrors of War.” Indeed, a word was coined for this type of war: guerrilla–the Spanish for “little war.”

But it was not a little war. The initial uprising drove the French out of most of Spain in 1808. Then Napoleon had to invade the country a second time. He did regain control of the major cities, but he had to leave 300,000 men to hold Spain. Two-thirds of the army were assigned to protecting the supply lines against the Spanish guerrillas. The rest of the French force had to contend with the British force that occupied Portugal and was supporting the Spanish resistance. The British commander was unusually competent, a chap named Arthur Wellesley. Wellesley had already established himself (and a fortune) in India, where he had been a tax collector and enforcer (the two professions overlapped). Now this younger son of Anglo-Irish gentry would really make a name for himself; the French would certainly remember it. Leading the British as well as Spanish and Portuguese troops, Wellesley began a five-year campaign that would drive the French from Spain; and this time, the French could not afford a third invasion. There was no additional army to sacrifice. The Russian campaign precluded that possibility. For his victories in Spain, Wellesley was granted the title of Duke of Wellington in 1814. (And we should be grateful that the Duke was too important to be sent to America in 1814. Otherwise, Francis Scott Keyes would have composed the “White Flag Rag”.)

Perhaps the French also should have been grateful to Wellington. At least, they could fight a conventional war against him; when they lost, it was within the rules of military etiquette. But there were no rules, no etiquette in the war with the Spanish guerrillas; the French were trying to fight an enemy whom they could not find and could never understand. The French had cannons but were not sure where to aim; the Spanish had daggers and no doubts.

Yes, it is the first of May.

Before you start romping around a ribboned pole or while you are recovering from a Walpurgis Night binge, let me tell you about May.  The month had to be named for something.  Of course, the only May you knew was that elderly friend of your grandmother, and you still shudder at the memory of May’s arm flaps–they could have been used as semaphores.

In fact, the Romans had her in mind when they named the third month of their calendar.  Maiores is the Latin word for senior; it is also the gnarled old root for our words mayor and major.  The month of Maius was originally dedicated to seniors.  Coming in contact with the Greeks (and Southern Italy was really western Hellas) the Romans became self-conscious about their crude, prosaic culture.  A month in honor of senior citizens?  No, the Romans wanted to be as refined as the people they were slaughtering. 

It just so happened that the Greek pantheon had a minor celebrity named Maia.  She was the daughter of Atlas and had a fling with Zeus (who didn’t?) and that tryst resulted in Hermes.  To the Greeks, she was merely another cute nymph; but to the Romans, she was a homophonic gift.  The Romans now claimed that the month of Maius was named for her.  They promoted Maia to a Goddess of Spring (confiscating the attributes of their old Latin deity Bona Dea) and even arranged her marriage to their God Vulcan.  They weren’t even dating in Greek mythology. 

Now the Romans were sophisticated, having dumped the generic  maiores for the glamorous Maia.  So May is the trophy wife of months.

The headline read “People’s Most Beautiful 2010”.  I assumed that it meant the most attractive of the year 2010.  Perusing the article, however, it really refers to 2,010 celebrities.  (I gave up after the first 56.) 

But why was I reading such inane fluff in the first place?  Of course, I could huff myself into a self-righteous indignation and exclaim that “today’s gossip is tomorrow’s history”.  But, to be honest, I was in a masochistic mood and I wanted to feel ancient.  Would I even know who these beautiful specimens of gossip fodder were?  Well, I did recognize everyone over 40.  (Only one was older than me:  bless you Meryl Streep.)  Julia Roberts, Jennifer Aniston, Johnny Depp, Robin Wright–yes, I am actually familiar with them.

I also could recognize some of the 30 year-olds:  Jennifer Garner, Reese Witherspoon,  Charlize Theron, Drew Barrymore–my eyesight still is maintaining a heterosexual perspective even if the rest of me is atrophying–oh, and Jake Gyllenhaal.  But in most cases, the names were either completely unknown or only vaguely identifiable.  I know that Zoe Saldana played in a popular cartoon; face it, her part of ‘Avatar’ was a cartoon.  And Kim Kardashian is famous for a sex tape and a reality TV series (or is that the one in the same?)  But who are Bradley Cooper, Sofia Vergara and Isaiah Mustafa? 

I might know a 20 year-old if he or she has made an appearance on The Daily Show.  Robert Pattison certainly impressed me: he plays a vampire when he really is a zombie.  Well, catatonia must be more sensual than I realized.  But I have no idea as to the identity or significance of Katy Perry, Amanda Seyfried, Jessica Szohr and Justin Bieber.

(However, the names of Zoe and Justin may indicate a revival of Byzantine chic.  How can I cash in?  We’ll know that the Byzantines are really “retro” when children are being named Basil, Theodora and Nikephoros.)

But further reading the People list, I see that the beautiful include Kelly Osbourne, Gabourney Sidibe–and that victim of the Mengele school of plastic surgery–Meg Ryan.  I know what they look like, and “beautiful” ain’t the word.  What is the magazine’s criterion for pulchritude?  Perhaps all these celebrities have never threatened “People”  with a lawsuit?  I guess that’s what makes them beautiful.

April 28, 1789:  Captain Bligh’s First Mutiny

Of course, you know about the mutiny on the Bounty.  Hollywood won’t let you forget it.  There have been three versions of the Fletcher Christian’s revolt against Captain Bligh (At least in English; there was also an Australian version.)  In 1935, handsome noble Clark Gable leads a revolt against the cruel and thieving Charles Laughton.  Then, in 1962 sensitive Marlon Brando ousts the sadistic Trevor Howard.  Finally, in 1984 party animal Mel Gibson overthrows bourgeois killjoy Anthony Hopkins–and, yes, this is the most historically accurate version, although I can’t help but call it “Fast Times at Bounty High.”  In fact, the next production is overdue.  This one will probably depict Renee Zellweger mutinying against Meryl Streep.

After the Bounty was seized by the mutineers, Bligh and 18 loyal crew members were cast adrift in an open boat.  Of course, they were expected to die but Bligh, however deficient his charisma, was a superb navigator.  He determined that the nearest European outpost was the Dutch colony at Timor, so he set sail for it–a mere 3600 miles away.  And 47 days later he and his crew were there.  The etiquette of the British Navy did require a formal inquiry into the mutiny.  Had Bligh been a raving sadist, the Admiralty still might have exonerated him; but by a pleasant coincidence he actually deserved to be found innocent.  Besides–navigating the Pacific in an open boat–he was such a brilliant sailor, who cared if he was a charmless drip.

William Bligh continued his naval career, achieving successes and promotions.  Lord Nelson personally commended him for his heroism at the battle of Copenhagen in 1801.  By 1806, the Bounty incident was a mere anecdote in an otherwise laudable record.  The British penal colony of New South Wales–alias Australia–needed a governor and the stalwart, efficient Bligh seemed the perfect choice. 

Since Britain was somewhat preoccupied with Napoleon, the Australian colony had been left virtually autonomous.  With a scarcity of money, the unofficial currency of Australia was rum.  And that was one of the more decorous aspects of the colony.  Corruption was rampant.  The prison guards–the New South Wales Corps– were themselves criminal,  “recruited” from army gaols, and their officers the rejects from reputable regiments.  The Corps soon was dominating and ruling the colony.  What the Corps did not own outright, it extorted a cut.  Of course, the officers got the choice tracts of lands, establishing themselves as the colony’s aristocracy and they very much acted the part.  Convicts worked as serfs on the officers’ estates.  The colony was less than 20 years old but the Corps was thoroughly entrenched.

This was the situation when Bligh arrived as governor.  His predecessors had either succumbed to bribes or the languor, but Bligh intended to make New South Wales into a proper British colony.  He tried curtailing the trading of rum, which happened to be a major business of the Corps; he tried breaking the Corps’ monopolies and he tried firing the most conspicuously corrupt officers in the Corps.  In theory, Governor Bligh had every right to do so.  However, the only military or police force in the colony happened to the Corps–and for some reason, it wasn’t cooperating.  Bligh was powerless and he never had the charm to negotiate a compromise.  All he really could do was to annoy the Corps.  He didn’t last two years. 

On January 26, 1808 William Bligh faced his second mutiny.  He was overthrown by the Corps which declared martial law over the colony.  The mutineers offered to let Bligh return to England but he refused, insisting that he was the rightful governor and would not abandon his post.  He even attempt to incite a popular uprising to reinstate him; of course, popularity was never his skill.  So, at his own insistence, Bligh remained in Australia until his officially designated successor arrived.  That was in 1810.  The new governor also had a way with dealing with the New South Wales Corp; he brought along his own regiment of troops.  Under these circumstances, the Corps accepted reassignment back to Britain.  However, many of its officers resigned their commissions to enjoy their baronial estates in the colony.  Their descendants remain the creme of Australian society.

As for Bligh, he was exonerated by another official board of inquiry.  Ironically, he would be assigned to a post in Ireland.  But of all places, somehow he didn’t cause a mutiny there.

Ukraine Passes Deal Under Hail of Eggs

By The New York Times

 

MOSCOW — Lawmakers pelted the podium with eggs and catcalls before stalking across the aisle, putting their colleagues in headlocks and engaging in other tactics not exactly covered by Robert’s Rules of Order. Smoke bombs were set off in the chamber.  Glue was poured into voting machines. The legislative leader directed the session behind umbrellas held by his aides, to protect him from projectiles.

 Ukraine’s Parliament was supposed to conduct a weighty debate on Tuesday revolving around the country’s sovereignty and relationship with neighboring Russia, but the proceedings often seemed more like a food fight in a high school cafeteria.

At issue was whether to ratify an agreement to extend the lease on a Russian naval base on the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine by 25 years. In the end, it was narrowly approved, with 236 votes out of a possible 450, but not before the Parliament appeared to do some damage to its own reputation. The two sides even got into a shoving match and tug-of-war over a giant Ukrainian flag.

Shamed as underachievers, the Republican members of Congress are changing their monthly toupee fittings to a weekend course in martial arts.  While respecting the Ukrainian chaos, the Republicans prefer to model themselves after the Ninjas.  As Yellow Belt Pundit William Kristol explained, “you can increase the deadliness of rotten eggs by adding nails to them.”  Another advantage of hurling the Ninja Omelet is that most of the Dry Cleaners in Washington D.C. are owned by the Unification Church. 

As further proof of its new militancy, the GOP has filed papers–in the Bahamas, of course–to have the Republican Party reorganized as a street gang.  A Frank Luntz focus group will determine the most terrifying but appealing name for the gang.  Among the most promising choices are Freedom’s Stormtroopers,  Tanks for Jesus and–if a corporate sponsor has his say–Rupert’s Rippers.

p.s.  Obviously the Enlightenment is in the past tense but let’s remember the historic significance of this day: https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/04/27/casus-belli-laugh-2/

Mickey Rourke to play Genghis Khan?

Star talks up role in historical epic…

Apr 26th 2010: Movie News

 Let it never be said that Mickey Rourke is one to shy away from a scrap. Fresh from action-packed roles in Iron-Man 2 and The Expendables, Rourke is set to play Asian warlord Genghis Khan in John Milius’ forthcoming biopic.

Whilst official confirmation has yet to emerge, Rourke sounds pretty sure the role is his, telling the Orlando Sentinal he’s keen to start work with Conan helmer Milius.

“I read his script and you know, the man is known for his tough writing,” says Rourke. “He wrote Conan and Dirty Harry and Apocalypse Now and it’ll be interesting to see how he works behind the camera. I’m playing Genghis.”

Well, if the film was meant to be a profound, insightful biography of Genghis Khan, the role would have been given to Meryl Streep. Even for the battle scenes, she is in better shape than Rourke.  I will tell you who else would have been better:  John Travolta.  With that extra 80 pounds, Travolta has the heavy lids and sated feline self-satisfaction of a mandarin.  At least, he should be cast as the Chinese Emperor.

Of course, an Asian actor couldn’t possibly be considered for the role of Genghis Khan.  That is a Hollywood tradition.  If you think that Mickey Rourke is a joke, how about John Wayne?  He played the Mongol warlord in “The Conqueror”; his leading lady was the equally oriental Susan Hayward.  The film did not attempt to be a historical narrative; it was just a far eastern western–with even the same backdrops.  Who is to say that the Gobi Desert doesn’t look like Utah?

Then there was Omar Sharif in “Genghis Khan”.  Well, Egypt is almost in Asia.  That 1965 film did attempt to recount the history–without Sharif discernibly aging.  (Genghis evidently conquered China and Persia in just two hours.)  And if this was supposed to be a serious film, someone should have told the cast.  They all were doing a different movie.  You have Stephen Boyd in “The Yellow Perils of Pauline”, Telly Savalas in “Mongol Beach Party”,  James Mason in “Charlie Chan at the Sack of Peking” and Eli Wallach in “Fiddler on the Yurt”.  The film is ridiculous but everyone seemed to be having a great time.  (Except Omar Sharif–quick, name all of his comedies.   See, you’re already done.)

Mickey Rourke.   Can he live up to these standards?  I am afraid that he will.

SKorean minister: Torpedo likely sank warship

By AP

SEOUL, South Korea — An explosion from a torpedo likely sank a South Korean warship that went down near the tense border with North Korea last month, the South’s defense minister said Sunday amid growing speculation Pyongyang may be behind the blast.

Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said the most likely cause of the disaster was a torpedo exploding near the ship, with the force of the underwater blast ripping the vessel apart. Investigators who examined salvaged wreckage separately announced Sunday that a close-range, external explosion likely sank it.

Kim, however, did not speculate on who may have fired it and said an investigation was ongoing and it’s still too early to determine the cause.

But here is a list of possible culprits:

A.  France did it out of uncontrollable revulsion to the idea of kimchee.

B.  Israel did it because no one has blamed the Jews for anything this week–and they missed the guilt.

C.  Dan Brown did it to promote his novel in which he reveals that Jesus was also married to a geisha and the bridal registry is hidden somewhere in Asia.

D.  The features staff of the New York Times did it to see how many times they could put the name Kim in one story.

E.  North Korea–nah, too obvious.

UK apologizes to Vatican over Pope visit jokes

By AP

LONDON — Britain’s Foreign Office issued a hasty apology Sunday to Pope Benedict XVI after publication of an internal memo in which officials joked he could open an abortion clinic, launch a range of condoms or sing a duet with Queen Elizabeth II during a four-day visit in September.

The document, sections of which were published in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper, also proposed the pope could bless a gay marriage, and acknowledge the clerical sex abuse scandal by establishing a hot line for abused children, or honoring abuse whistleblowers.

Junior officials wrote the memo following a brainstorming session intended to discuss ideas for the visit, the first to Britain by the head of the Roman Catholic Church since Pope John Paul II in 1982.

Though some included advice for Britain’s government on how to approach the abuse scandal, the ministry condemned many of the proposals as “ill-judged, naive and disrespectful.”

But not all of the proposals?  The dueling divas duet is on!  But if the Queen thinks that she can do a better Marlene Dietrich impression than Benedict, she is going to lose this battle of Britain.  No, he’s the one with the German accent and the fabulous legs. The Pope’s Dietrich impersonation has long been a hit at Vatican parties and at old soldiers’ homes in Argentina. His rendition of “See What the Altar Boys in the Backroom Will Have” will delight the British audience just as it did the College of Cardinals.

p.s.  Let’s not forget the historic–and melodic–significance of this day:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/04/24/if-there-had-been-ipods-on-april-241792/

 

U.S.’s Toughest Immigration Law Signed in Arizona

PHOENIX — Gov.  Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.

Phoenix–State police arrested half of the cast of a high school production of “West Side Story”.  Some question was raised why it was also necessary to incarcerate the teenagers playing Lieutenant Schrank and the kindly old pharmacist Doc.  As the arresting officer explained, “We had to make sure that the characters weren’t Sephardic.”

Of course, some of you would like my solution to the question of illegal aliens.  Here it is.  First, we provide all of them with a handwritten apology for the Treaty of Guadalope-Hidalgo. (A translation will be provided for Polish cleaning ladies.) Furthermore, we establish a rewards program based on the number of miles that illegal aliens travel. Anyone who accumulates 25,000 miles will receive a green card. So, it would encourage “surprise visitors” (the liberals’ term) to go to Minnesota or Alaska rather than all those states with inexplicably Hispanic names.

At the other extreme, there is Glenn Beck’s plan.  He would move Mexico’s northern border to the Yucatan peninsula. Pointing to a Risk board, Beck pointed out how much smaller a Yucatan boundary would be to barricade.  Reporters–but none on Fox– noted that this plan would actually incorporate one hundred million Mexicans into the United States. Beck explained that Mexico had never really been a national state but simply the result of Spanish coercion. “This is Madrid’s problem.”  But acknowledging the difficulty of 100 million people floating to Barcelona, he said that “some would be welcomed to stay here.”

Recalling a guest workers program of the past, Beck suggested “If these people are willing to do a couple centuries of pro bono work and learn at least six Stephen Foster songs, I don’t see why they would not qualify for three/fifths of a citizen.”

The state legislature of Arizona has just passed a bill to enforce genetic testing on anyone suspected of being an illegal alien.  To pass the test, the accused must match at least 98 percent of the genome of Edith Wharton.  (Her genetic material was obtained from an antimacasser she failed to launder.)  Responding to criticism that the Wharton genome would fail anyone who wasn’t of British extraction, the bill’s defenders explained, “So?”  They added that the testing would also detect extraterrestrial spies and so avert an invasion from outer space.

And let’s not forget the historic frustration of this day:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/04/23/the-barred-of-avon/