A review of PBS's “Catherine the Great”

Warning: This post contains some mature themes in it. Although I have tried to cover them tastefully, there's no way to take them out – they are too prominent in this story.

Catherine the Great

Before I watched this documentary, I had seen parts of the 1995 television movie “Catherine the Great,” starring Catherine Zeta-Jones in the title role. I fast-forwarded through certain bedroom scenes, but this film did have a good dose of politics and intrigue as well. Indeed, this aspect of the story was the part that I most wanted to learn about. This is part of why I wanted to see this other film in the first place, in fact. This PBS documentary (starting Emily Bruni) turned out to be as good as expected, but it also had many surprises for me.

How is Catherine's personal life connected with her political life?

Because of my prior experience with the Catherine Zeta-Jones movie, I was not too surprised to learn that Catherine was somewhat loose in her personal life. But the degree to which her life was a soap opera was something that I did not expect. Indeed, one cannot leave it out of the story, even if politics and intrigue are the primary focus. Her personal life is a part of the political story; and is almost inseparable from it. Thus, a few comments about Catherine's personal life may be warranted here, to help explain why it played such a prominent role in her life. This will also help to shed some light on what kind of film this is.

The future Catherine the Great, in an equestrian portrait

A review of “Egypt's Golden Empire” (PBS Empires)

The Egyptian language might have been the first language in human history to have been written down. (Although some scholars have argued that Sumerian was actually the first, and that Egyptian was only the second.) Regardless of whether it was first or second, though, the earliest known records of the Egyptian language actually go back to two or three thousand years before Jesus Christ. But unexpectedly, that is not where this documentary begins its history. This is actually a history of the “New Kingdom” in Egypt, which goes from about 1500 BC to 1000 BC – long after the earliest known records in Egypt. I would presume that PBS wanted to focus on a narrower period of Egyptian history (only five centuries or so), to allow for a simpler story. With less than three hours to tell the story here, you can see why PBS would want to do this. But one can only speculate as to why they decided to focus specifically on the “New Kingdom,” rather than on some other period of a similar duration. There are a number of other periods that would have made for equally interesting television, I think; and if someone decided to cover one of them, I would probably view their coverage with more than a little interest.

A review of “Peter & Paul and the Christian Revolution” (PBS Empires)

“Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cæsar.”

– The New Testament, “The Acts of the Apostles,” Chapter 26, Verse 32 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

This documentary gets some things right, and some things wrong. It's not exactly a hatchet job on the Christian religion, but one gets the impression that it's made by nonbelievers, and that its opinion of Christianity is somewhat lukewarm at best.

A review of “Rebels & Redcoats: How Britain Lost America”

“... That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King's majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever … ”

– American Colonies Act 1766 (better known as the “Declaratory Act”), as passed by the Parliament of Great Britain

A British view of the American Revolution, which is somewhat different from our own ...

This documentary has much to admire, and much to disagree with. Its opening credits advertise it as “A British View,” and this title is certainly accurate. I picked it up hoping to hear the other side of this war, and I was not disappointed. However, it also has some weaknesses which I will note here. To be fair, it is actually fairly balanced regarding the military campaigns, but it is also somewhat less than balanced regarding some of the politics of this war. The British filmmaker Richard Holmes is a genuine military historian, and has a deep knowledge of military strategy and tactics. He has a gift for bringing the human drama of these campaigns to life. He has the ability to make you sympathize with both sides to some degree. But when it comes to the political issues of this war (and there are quite a few of them), he shows that he is not very well-versed in the politics of the Revolution. He compares people like Samuel Adams to Marx and Lenin, and it is clear that this comparison is meant to be unflattering (and not a comparison that is meant to be complimentary, as it might be if spoken by someone else).

Giving Congress the power to coin money was a break with British precedents

“The coining of money is in all states the act of the sovereign power; for the reason just mentioned, that it's value may be known on inspection.”

– William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 7

You might expect that in the Founding Fathers' time, the British Constitution would place the power of coining money into the Parliament. If so, you'd be wrong – in their time, it was the British monarchy that had this power, and the related power to regulate “weights and measures” as well. By contrast, the Constitution of the United States said that the Congress shall have the power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5). The Constitution thus vests these powers in the legislative branch, rather than the executive branch. This was a major break with British tradition.

To illustrate this, I will quote from a source that was used by a number of our Founding Fathers. This source is William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (better known as Blackstone's “Commentaries”), which was used specifically by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. (All quotations from Blackstone's “Commentaries” in this particular post are from Book 1, Chapter 7, so I will not note this every time.) Everything in the first volume, including this chapter, was written in 1765.

Sir William Blackstone

How to write a killer history paper

You've probably heard of the six “journalist's questions”: who, what, when, where, how, and why. To a large degree, they are also the historian's questions; and may be good things to know about before you write that great paper about history.

Thus, I will spend some time here on each one of them, and show you the issues that might be raised by any one of them. You might not have to answer all six of them for every one of your papers, but giving some thought to each of them is not necessarily a bad idea, and might make the difference between a hit paper and a miss paper.

What's the difference between the presidency and the prior British monarchy?

“The supreme executive power of these kingdoms is vested by our laws in a single person, the king or queen : for it matters not to which sex the crown descends ; but the person entitled to it, whether male or female, is immediately invested with all the ensigns, rights, and prerogatives of sovereign power ; as is declared by statute 1 Mar. st. 3. c. 1.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 3

Americans discarded monarchy during their Revolution

In prior times, British laws vested the “supreme executive power” of the kingdoms into a “single person, the king or queen.” (Source: Blackstone's “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 3) The constitutional monarchy of Britain now has very little power today; but then, it was a force to be reckoned with. Blackstone further wrote that “With us therefore in England this supreme power is divided into two branches; the one legislative, to wit, the parliament, consisting of king, lords, and commons; the other executive, consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Thus, the king was technically considered a part of the parliament with the “lords and commons”; although these two houses of Parliament did have a few checks on him in return. (All quotations from Blackstone in this post are from the “Commentaries,” so I will not note this every time.) As Blackstone wrote, the executive branch was “consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 2) When America was created, one of its most radical departures from British tradition was the total discarding of any form of monarchy. Monarchy was incredibly unpopular in the thirteen states at this time. Thomas Paine expressed this attitude well when he said: “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” (Source: “Common Sense,” Chapter III) Thus, America had a president instead; declaring in its Constitution that “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years ... ” (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1)

The White House