Talk:Bal des Ardents

Later legacy
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)


 * Thanks Johnbod - it does seem to be one of those events that caused a turning point in the perception of the noble chivalric code. I'm mostly working off of Barbara Tuchman's history of the 14th century and she alludes to that slightly, but I need to search for more sources. According to Tuchman de Guisay's "madness" was caused by the pain of his severe burns - I'll clarify that. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning de Guisay - that's what happens when I don't look at the source so that I won't paraphrase too closely. I've added a quote instead. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I may have found a source for this which I consider a huge victory. Have to read it first, but it looks promising on a quick scan. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Masque
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)


 * Yeah, I realized that. I have a book about medieval theatre that I looked in hoping it would mention this particular event but it didn't. Tuchman calls it a masquerade; but that doesn't seem right either, although I can use that because it's in a source. I'll spend some time looking through the theatre book and think about what to do. Adding; our masquerade page does mention this event, so maybe that's the right term. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, its flawed logic to make that connection on that basis alone. Dig a bit deeper, I'm sure you can turn up something more apt.Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll just trawl through my 500 page long book about the medieval stage. Seriously though (that was sarcasm), I agree. That part needs a bit more digging which was the reason I dragged out the book in the first place. Got a little sidetracked this weekend ... Truthkeeper (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll give you ten minutes to fix this unholy mess before the page is deleted. Reason provided will be: Sloth. Unless you get your shit correct. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tap tap tap. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Suppertime. Chomp, chomp, chomp. Getting to it - someday. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:25, 21 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)
 * Rather than reach a conclusion, its sometimes best to mention the ambiguity in a footnoth in the lead, and mention the conflict within the different sources in the body. Article coming on v nicely bty; has the multi prongs of illuminated manuscriopts and drama and high level plotting and sceming in the aftermat. V strong potential, watching and really looking forward to more. No pressure, though like. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add a note. The article is very messy; I hadn't sandboxed and now can't find most of the sources so have to re-do and retrieve again. Getting there, slowly. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ritual burning
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.
 * 1) The fire was not accidental, but a deliberate deed by Orléans undertaken because of its ritual significance?
 * 2) The fire was accidental, but was believed to be deliberate and for ritual purposes by (some) of Orléans' contemporaries?
 * 3) The fire was accidental and believed to be so by contemporaries, but would have been been understood by them to have ritual or spiritual significance?
 * 4) Or is the link between fire and rituals of burning wildmen entirely a post-medieval observation?

Hope this helps, Choess (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. I'm thinking about taking the section out entirely, but I'd added it because there seemed to be correlation between the fact the event was for a remarriage which was considered "unnatural" and because the folklore seemed interesting. But what I think is interesting isn't necessarily what needs to be in the page. Thinking about this. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add - some chroniclers suggested strongly the fire was not accidental - that Orleans intentionally entered the hall with a lit torch. The problem is that according to modern scholars the chroniclers are not always correct. The dance itself was ritual as I mentioned above, but one source said that the ritual because real at the bal - will have to find that - it's not Veenstra. Yes, the audience would have understood the ritual significance and no the link is not a post-medieval observation. The section has to go if I can't make that all clear. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't have to be lengthy, just a quick tying-up to the effect of "In light of these traditions, contemporaries would have seen in the disaster, accidental or not, a ritual purgation of the evils of the court" or whatever the sources will bear. Choess (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've tried restructuring a little and need to go back to the sources. What the audience would have seen is that this was normal for a woman's re-marriage - except of course the dancer's weren't meant to catch fire! I'm trimming back too - I liked the images so wrote unnecessary text to support them. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Poe connection
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)


 * Thanks for asking and that's fairly interesting. It looks like it's been done correctly with the Poe article linking in to this article. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Too Much Tuchman?
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)


 * Hi, yes this is the place to bring it up. Mostly is was done in response to reviewer requests such as at peer review, and as a featured article candidate. Philosophy about this varies. I can go either way, so let's see what others think, and if people agree it comes across as too academic (I think you've made a good argument in that sense), then those attributions can be cut. Adding: Also there's a remark about de Guisay at the top of this page, so sometimes if there's a question about it's best to attribute directly to the scholar who makes the claim. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Apathy monk, welcome to wiki. I think you have a good point; generally I would only explicitaly attribute a writer if they were making an origional point, not if they reinforcing something widely held and contained in many other sources. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I just did a search and the only place I attributed to her is where direct quotes are used. I agree it's a an academic style rather than encylopedic and have no objection if the attributions are removed with the understanding the someone else might come along replace them. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If its direct quotes there is no issue. You have to attribute there, no questions. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the replies! I didn't realize the discussion here was so active. As for direct quotes, there are several in this article which are given a reference, but not mentioned in the body of the article. For example:


 * Charles continued to be mentally fragile, believing he was made of glass, and running "howling like a wolf down the corridors of the royal palaces".


 * This is a direct quote from Seward, who is given a proper cite, but there is no mention of the author in the text itself. And here is another:


 * In 1407, Philip the Bold's son, John the Fearless, had his cousin Orléans assassinated because of "vice, corruption, sorcery, and a long list of public and private villainies"; at the same time Isabeau was accused of having been the mistress of her husband's brother.


 * Now that I look back at the article, I do notice that there are many more in-text attributions than I noticed at first. The Tuchman ones probably just stood out to me because I knew that book. So I guess my question is: is there an accepted style for this type of short quote in an article? It just seems that it should be consistent either way, though leaving the author to the reference section makes more sense to me. And by the way, thank you to all who took part in creating this article, it is very well done! Apathy monk (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, it should be made consistent. I'd like to give this some thought for a few days, probably some or even many of the direct quotes can be eliminated. I tend to fall back on direct quotes when I'm building a page so as to avoid close paraphrasing, but this was done six months ago and it this point it might simply be easier to reword. In some cases the quotes are necessary, so it needs to be gone through carefully. I've been waiting for things to calm down a bit because it was featured on the front page. Thanks by the way for bringing this up and thanks for the praise; it was very much a joint effort and a fun article to write. It's not usually a very active page, but I just happen to be around gathering notes for spin-off article so seeing the comments as they appear on my watchlist. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)