![]() | Bal des Ardents is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 14, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
You might add (I can't reference I'm afraid) that the bal remained a focus for later French historians' disapproval of the frivolous royalty & nobility of medieval France right through the Enlightenment & 19th century - a strong theme in French history - very different from the English attitude to their monarchy. Also, as I remember it "Huguet de Guisay lived for three days in near madness, ranting and raving." is maybe rather POV - he made some very critical remarks about his betters, that were no doubt shocking to those listening (because in semi-public), but not exactly evidence of "near madness" under the circumstances. Johnbod ( talk) 14:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is really the right word to use - it is mainly now reserved (whatever the contemporary usage in French) for the Renaissance & Baroque shows, often with leading personages taking parts (Charles I, Louis XIV etc) that were typically on a raised stage etc. Medieval court entertainments could be very elaborate but are harder to characterize as they often occupied spaces around and among the "audience". Johnbod ( talk) 22:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
According to sources it was a masquerade & I've fixed accordingly. Still need to dig into my book on medieval theatre but at least now I know what I'm looking for. Truthkeeper ( talk) 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I need advice. This source, page 67 (don't know if it's visible) calls it a masque, others a masquerade. Do I need a section on masques vs. masquerades & explain that the sources differ? My book on the medieval stage is a modern reprint of an older book and am not sure it's the best source to use. Truthkeeper ( talk) 01:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't given this article a detailed peer review, but I'd like to second some of Sarastro's comments about the "Folkloric and Christian representations of wild men" section. The first paragraph, describing masquerades, feels as though it should live somewhere else in the article. The remainder of the section is obviously useful in explaining to the reader why these costumes would have been chosen and how they might be interpreted by contemporaries. What confuses me is the discussion of ritual burnings. It seems as if I'm being led toward some inference, but it's not clear what. Is it that:
It sounds as though Veenstra might perhaps provide some insight here, although the last two sentences in the section aren't very clear as to exactly what he was implying.
Hope this helps, Choess ( talk) 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there a connection with Edgar Allan Poe's Hop-Frog? That story's article claims there is, so it should be mentioned in this article as well. 24.138.77.113 ( talk) 18:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, first of all let me say I'm fairly new to Wikipedia (done a few small edits here and there, starting to get into it more now) so sorry if this is the wrong forum, please let me know if it is. But one thing I noticed in this article is a lot of Tuchman mentions in the text. I happen to love the Tuchman book, she is one of my very favorite historians, and her Distant Mirror book provides some great references here. But I count three mentions of Tuchman in the text itself, and these feel out of place to me in an encyclopedia article.
For example, take this:
On the suggestion of Huguet de Guisay, whom Tuchman describes as well known for his "outrageous schemes" and cruelty, six high-ranking knights performed a dance in costume as wood savages.
It seems like a preferable style would be:
On the suggestion of Huguet de Guisay, well known for his "outrageous schemes" and cruelty, six high-ranking knights performed a dance in costume as wood savages.
The former style is more in line with academic writing, in which detailed discussion of sources is sometimes desirable. But in an encyclopedia article, there are not many occasions where it seems necessary to bring the referred author into the main discussion. One might be if we are discussing some sort of insight that Tuchman herself came up with as a historian. But that's not the case here, we are just using her as a trusted compiler of primary source materials.
To put it another way, why don't we bring Tuchman into the discussion in other places where she's cited? There are many other quotes taken from her in this article, and all of them could have an "according to Tuchman" added to them. Why have them in some spots and not others? It's more consistent and encyclopedic to cut out these in-text citations and leave them to the reference section. What do you think? Apathy monk ( talk) 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathy monk ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | Bal des Ardents is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 14, 2012. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
You might add (I can't reference I'm afraid) that the bal remained a focus for later French historians' disapproval of the frivolous royalty & nobility of medieval France right through the Enlightenment & 19th century - a strong theme in French history - very different from the English attitude to their monarchy. Also, as I remember it "Huguet de Guisay lived for three days in near madness, ranting and raving." is maybe rather POV - he made some very critical remarks about his betters, that were no doubt shocking to those listening (because in semi-public), but not exactly evidence of "near madness" under the circumstances. Johnbod ( talk) 14:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is really the right word to use - it is mainly now reserved (whatever the contemporary usage in French) for the Renaissance & Baroque shows, often with leading personages taking parts (Charles I, Louis XIV etc) that were typically on a raised stage etc. Medieval court entertainments could be very elaborate but are harder to characterize as they often occupied spaces around and among the "audience". Johnbod ( talk) 22:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
According to sources it was a masquerade & I've fixed accordingly. Still need to dig into my book on medieval theatre but at least now I know what I'm looking for. Truthkeeper ( talk) 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I need advice. This source, page 67 (don't know if it's visible) calls it a masque, others a masquerade. Do I need a section on masques vs. masquerades & explain that the sources differ? My book on the medieval stage is a modern reprint of an older book and am not sure it's the best source to use. Truthkeeper ( talk) 01:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I haven't given this article a detailed peer review, but I'd like to second some of Sarastro's comments about the "Folkloric and Christian representations of wild men" section. The first paragraph, describing masquerades, feels as though it should live somewhere else in the article. The remainder of the section is obviously useful in explaining to the reader why these costumes would have been chosen and how they might be interpreted by contemporaries. What confuses me is the discussion of ritual burnings. It seems as if I'm being led toward some inference, but it's not clear what. Is it that:
It sounds as though Veenstra might perhaps provide some insight here, although the last two sentences in the section aren't very clear as to exactly what he was implying.
Hope this helps, Choess ( talk) 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Isn't there a connection with Edgar Allan Poe's Hop-Frog? That story's article claims there is, so it should be mentioned in this article as well. 24.138.77.113 ( talk) 18:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi all, first of all let me say I'm fairly new to Wikipedia (done a few small edits here and there, starting to get into it more now) so sorry if this is the wrong forum, please let me know if it is. But one thing I noticed in this article is a lot of Tuchman mentions in the text. I happen to love the Tuchman book, she is one of my very favorite historians, and her Distant Mirror book provides some great references here. But I count three mentions of Tuchman in the text itself, and these feel out of place to me in an encyclopedia article.
For example, take this:
On the suggestion of Huguet de Guisay, whom Tuchman describes as well known for his "outrageous schemes" and cruelty, six high-ranking knights performed a dance in costume as wood savages.
It seems like a preferable style would be:
On the suggestion of Huguet de Guisay, well known for his "outrageous schemes" and cruelty, six high-ranking knights performed a dance in costume as wood savages.
The former style is more in line with academic writing, in which detailed discussion of sources is sometimes desirable. But in an encyclopedia article, there are not many occasions where it seems necessary to bring the referred author into the main discussion. One might be if we are discussing some sort of insight that Tuchman herself came up with as a historian. But that's not the case here, we are just using her as a trusted compiler of primary source materials.
To put it another way, why don't we bring Tuchman into the discussion in other places where she's cited? There are many other quotes taken from her in this article, and all of them could have an "according to Tuchman" added to them. Why have them in some spots and not others? It's more consistent and encyclopedic to cut out these in-text citations and leave them to the reference section. What do you think? Apathy monk ( talk) 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathy monk ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)