les mesures de temps au 18ème siècle

Dans l'Histoire de sa vie Jacques Casanova nous raconte d'une conversation qu'il ait en 1749 dans la ville de Parme en Italie. À cette époque, Philip d'Espagne et devenu duc de Parme après la mort du dernier duc de la maison Farnèse.

Ma nièce Janeton n'étant pas jolie, j'ai poursuivi à faire babiller la mère. Je lui ai demandé si les Parmesans étaient contents d'être devenus sujets d'un Espagnol.
— Contents? Nous nous trouvons tous dans un vrai labyrinthe ; tout est bouleversé, nous ne savons pus où nous sommes. Heureux temps, où régnait la maison Farnèse, tu n'es plus ! [..] Nous sommes réduit à une confusion incroyable. Depuis trois mois il n'y a pus personne à Parme qui sache l'heure qu'il est.
Depuis que Dieu a fait e mode, e soleil s'est toujours couché à vingt-trois heures et demie, et à vingt-quatre on a toujours dit l'angélus ; et tous les honnêtes gens savaient qu'à cette heure-à on allumait la chandelle. Actuellement, c'est inconcevable. Le soleil est devenu fou : il se couche tous es jours à une heure différente. Nos paysans ne savent plus à quelle heure ils doivent venir au marché. On appelle cela un règlement : mais savez-vous pourquoi ? Parce qu'à présent tout le monde sait qu'on dîne à douze heures. Beau réglement ! Au temps des Farnèse on mangeait quand on avait faim et cela valait bien mieux.

Je pense à l'époque les montres et horloges n'étant pas très précis, il fallait les régler tous les jours. Pour cela faire on doit s'orienter dans la nature et le coucher du soleil était un événement bien lisible à ce but. Le régime espagnol (qui était aussi le régime français à l'époque) était le plus moderne. On s'oriente au midi – l'instant ou le soleil est le plus haut de le ciel – ce qui fait que chaque jour fait exactement 24 h. Le désavantage c'était qu'il faut des instruments pour déterminer c'était instant assez précisément. Je suppose que juste cela est devenu possible à l'époque, d'où le changement de régime.

historical movies

Here's a very profound quote regarding the recent Hollywood-Rendering of the 1944 German "Valkyrie" plot:

"It seemed that [Stauffenberg] was the man who unmistakably wore the mantle of a near-mystic German past, a warrior Germany, a noble Germany, a poetic Germany, a Germany of myth and longing."

British novelist Justin Cartwright is saying this and he has probably a lot of evidence since he already wrote a book about this part of history. His take on the movie can be read in an article he wrotre for the Guardian.

The movie "Valkyrie" has generally been praised for it's historic accuracy. I saw it Yesterday and also think that the movie-makers managed to be quite true to historic facts while still keeping the tension up and making a great Hollywood movie!

Why am I citing the above lines? I think that movies are a great way to learn about historic facts and to illustrate how thrilling history actually is! When I saw the 1944 plotters shortly after the assassination attempt trying to convice other officials to join them and to give up their allegiance to the regime, I was also thinking about the Chinese Civil War between "Nationalists" and "Communists" which the Nationalists lost partly because their army was corrupted, generals would mind their own cause, instead of the common cause. A very similar pattern to that seen in the movie!

While we can easily understand this today, the philosophy and ways of thinking of those people in their time can't be illustrated in a movie. Instead, movie makers have to "translate" words and actions from history figures so they can be understood today. I think this is especially noteworthy when we consider that even Today's philosophy and way of thinking is not consciously known by people. We take many things for granted and think they have always been that way, although notions might have changed a lot even in a very short amount of time, and are still different in different places / cultures of our planet. What we mean by "justice" now is very different from what the 1944 plotters meant and it might again be different in a future society only fifty or a hundred years from now! I think it is actually a very valuable part of history to learn about the evolution of thoughts, of people's self-perception, because it allows us to me more conscious about our own situation. If we take things for granted, we wouldn't think about changing them. But once we realise that it has not always been like that, even that it's not like that in other places of the world, then we are able to imagine an even better world and push for change.

Stauffenberg wished his old, romantic Germany back. Many people probably voted for Obama because they wished their familiar, pre-Bush America back. But their is no way back! Or even if their is, it's much better to go forward, towards a more modern age. To envision that age we have to look behind the surface of change... (There's more to say, but I'll leave that to another post.)

Suffice it to say, I had the same feeling of missing historical philosophy when I watched another movie, "The Duchess". I liked both movies a lot and I hope they will inspire some people to look behind the curtain of history... to understand the world better and understand themselves better.

Understanding is the basis for change!