Archive for the ‘Living History’ Category

Runaway Mind Train?

Thursday, February 16th, 2012

I love romantic historical tales and have no idea why. Why would a woman (me) living in an era that affords females more power and choice than any time in history (now) fantasize about living in Regency England or medieval Scotland? To be sure, these stories, whether written in the past or present, all involve heroes and heroines of the genteel class. They may not be rich, but they are hardly what we would call poor either. So part of the fantasy may involve commanding a household of servants or living in a castle. But even if the best of all possible circumstances, life back in the day had some serious drawbacks that should send modern women running in terror.Kate Dolan equates Regency romance to a roller coaster

For a control-freak like myself, I think one of the biggest problems with the life of a historical romance heroine would be the lack of choice and corresponding lack of control. (more…)

Have women gotten sluttier over time? Or do romances just make it seem that way?….

Monday, February 6th, 2012

If you look at the way love has been portrayed in fiction over the last 200 years, you might think that human nature has changed drastically. In Francis Burney’s Camilla, for example, published in 1796, the virtuous young hero considers his engagement with the heroine with at an end (after hundreds of pages of obvious attraction between the two) when he witnesses his bethrothed receiving a kiss on the hand from another gentleman. That’s it. That kiss on the hand is enough intimacy to constitute serious commitment (or in this case, infidelity) to the eye of the beholder. In Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, Jane Bennet is too modest to even give any sign whatsoever of her affection for Mr. Bingley—she won’t even flirt.

Kate Dolan's Deceptive Behavior

This is a traditional Regency with absolutely no sex, but you'd never know it from all the groping hands on the cover

Now let’s consider the story in similar settings, popular Regency-set historical romances, which take place during the same time period, between 1790 and 1820. But these stories are written by 21st Century authors for 21st Century audience. In public, the conventions remain the same—if anything, those in the more recently-written stories are more rigid. The heroine must not be alone with a man or she could be “ruined.” If she is caught alone with a man, particularly in a compromising position, friends will force them to marry. Many plots hinge on this convention, whether it truly existed or not. A heroine must behave in public.

But in private, she’s expected to be something of a nymphomaniac, (more…)

Is Twelfth Really Eleventh?

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

I think tonight is Twelfth Night. I know that Twelfth Night used to be considered the highlight of the Christmas season, but the fact that a history nut like me is not even sure when it falls is an indication that this holiday doesn’t mean much in our society these days.

Twelfth Night is part of the twelve days of Christmas that stretch from Christmas day to Epiphany, the day Christians celebrate the arrival of the Magi or wise men who came to pay homage to the baby Jesus. Epiphany is set for January 6, which is just as arbitrary as deciding that Jesus was born on December 25 on a calendar that hadn’t been invented yet. Scholars can’t even decisively determine what year Jesus was born, let alone what month or day. And the wise travelers following the star probably arrived a little more than twelve days after his birth. Historians believe Jesus was a toddler by the time they made it, since Herod ordered the killing of all boys under age two. (more…)

Enigmatic Eggnog

Saturday, December 24th, 2011

As I was celebrating Christmas Eve-Eve with a glass of eggnog I wondered how long people have been drinking this stuff to celebrate the holidays.

I started my research with a book on “Colonial Christmas Cooking,” partly because it’s relevant to the season and mostly because it’s one the rabbit pulled off the shelf so I had to pick it up anyway before she ate it. Eggnog certainly seems like it could have been consumed in the 18th Century, when milky drinks like syllabub and posset enjoyed great popularity. Syllabub is a mixture of wine, sugar, spices and milk that was sometimes squirted directly from the cow to give a bubbly effect. In fact, my Christmas cookbook says the strange name of the drink derives from the town in France from which the wine was imported (Sillery) and “bub” which is an Elizabethan word for bubbly drink. Posset is a similar drink served warm.

in the colonial Gunshop at Jerusalem Mill

"What is this? Posset? Syllabub? Eggnog?"

My colonial Christmas book discusses syllabub, posset and eggnog, but the footnote for the recipe for eggnog refers to a book written in 1958. So we’ve got a lapse of a couple centuries and I need to dig a little more if I want to find early references to eggnog. (more…)

Colonial Humbug

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

Christmas in colonial Williamsburg? Bah, humbug!

But wait, you say. That’s Scrooge’s catchphrase. Written by Dickens. So it’s Victorian.

Ah, but so are most of the holiday traditions of “Colonial” Williamsburg.Popular but probably anachronistic decoration in colonial Williamsburg

Several people told me they’d always wanted to see the recreated colonial village decorated for Christmas. And I considered myself fortunate that we had the chance to spend a day in December enjoying the sights of the old rebuilt colonial town before moving on to the real purpose of our visit – a day at the indoor waterpark. But while Colonial Williamsburg was quite festive, it was not really colonially festive. (more…)

Hair Care in the Toilet

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

Obsession with hair care is nothing new. Before there was Rogaine and Clairol, women made their own concoctions to “prevent baldness” and “die the hair.”

Ladies elaborate hair in the 1770s

If you had hair like this, would you be worried about losing it?

 It’s no secret that women frequently color their hair, but the subject of hair loss is one that women rarely talk about and would never dream of ridiculing the way that men do. But our sex probably spends more money than men on products designed to camouflage or reverse hair loss, and that trend is not at all new, as recipes from a 1772 beauty book demonstrate. (more…)

Possessed by an evil spirit? It might not be your fault

Monday, October 31st, 2011

“[W]here the Devill findes greatest ignorance and barbaritie, there assayles he grosseliest, as I gave you the reason wherefore there was moe Witches of women kinde nor men.” Daemonologie, Volume the Third, Chapter III

That’s what King James had to say about witchcraft in a three volume treatise he wrote a few years before he issued instructions for the translation of the Bible that bears his name. Last week I discussed the first volume of his Daemonologie, which covered sorcery, in my post “King James and the Zombies”.  On Friday, I talked about the second volume, which deals with witches, in a guest blog “Witchcraft is Where You Find It.”  Today, in honor of All Hallow’s Eve, we’ll see what James had to say about ghosts in Volume Three.illustration from King James's Daemonologie

He divides spirits into four categories—those that haunt a place, those that follow a person, those that possess a person and “fayries.” Regarding the first type, he explains that devil sends ghosts to haunt solitary places because man is at his weakest there and because God will not permit him to “dishonour the societies and companies of Christians, as in publicke times and places to walke visiblie amongst them.” But what about hauntings that occur in a house full of supposedly Christian people? James says that’s a sign of either “grosse ignorance” (he doesn’t specify whose) or “grosse and slanderous sinnes among the inhabitantes” of the house. In other words, if your house is haunted, it’s your fault and your neighbor should be wondering whether you are sinful or just stupid.

James wrote Daemonologie specifically to refute the notion that there is no such thing as magic and witchcraft. Practitioners of the “devill’s arts” are all around, he argues, and they need to be recognized and punished. (Some rulers focus on conquering territory, others on stabilizing the economy. Clearly James had different priorities.)

So when people argue that ghosts do not exist because most people never see them, James answers that God only allows some people to know of their existence. So there. But he also says that just because ghosts and witches exist doesn’t mean that every supernatural tale should be taken as truth. For instance, he discounts the existence of “men-woolfes”, saying that it is just an overabundance of melancholy that makes men think they’re animals so they act that way. And he makes no mention at all of vampires. But though he doesn’t use the word, he spends a number of pages explaining the presence of zombies as the devil reanimating dead bodies, even the dead bodies of very “good” people. So if your body rises from the grave to terrorize people, it’s not necessarily your fault.

The same thing can be said for those who are haunted or even possessed. James explains that God allows the devil to torment people in this way either because they have sinned and need to be punished or because they’re really good and need to have their strength tested. So if your daughter is possessed, you can tell your neighbors that this is a status symbol of your extraordinary faith. Try to top that, if you dare!

While you may not know whether a possessed person is saintly or riddled with sin, you can be sure if you do see a spirit, it’s evil, even if it is disguised as an angel. James says all Christians should know “that since the comming of Christ in the flesh, and establishing of his Church by the Apostles, all miracles, visions, prophecies, & appearances of Angels or good spirites are ceased.” Though I’ve heard some theologians despair over the cultish fascination with angels, I’ve never heard one flat out say that they don’t ever appear to humans anymore. For his proof, James offers the parable of Lazarus and the rich man who begs Jesus to send a ghost to his brothers to warn them to change their ways. Jesus refuses, saying “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” It’s an interesting argument, but I’m not sure I buy it.

Besides, who wants to argue about “good spirites” on Halloween? We want the scary stuff.

So how about stories of the devil’s spawn—is that scary? James devotes several paragraphs to a scientific explanation of why sex with a spirit (or a dead body reanimated) could not result in pregnancy.  So like “men-woolfes,” James says he also doesn’t believe in midwives’ tales of monstrous births and he doesn’t believe in “phairies” with their woodland courts and frolics.

I’m not quite clear on all his arguments, but somehow, I think he blames women for most of the evils of witchcraft. Remember, he said that there are more women witches than men because they are weaker and more subject to temptation from the devil than men. And he also said that witches (predominantly women) are motivated by greed to follow the devil whereas sorcerers (mostly men) are motivated by intellectual curiosity. I’m guessing James was bullied by his nurse—he seems to be afraid of women and belittles them to make himself feel better.

I must say, though, that while he seems almost ready to excuse the male sorcerers for the temptation to follow their art, he absolutely does not. They are “all alike guiltie” and must be put to death, regardless or age, sex or rank. While fire is “commonly used,” he leaves it up to the custom of the individual country as to what sort of death is needed.

He counsels that it is important not to condemn the innocent, but it would still be a little worrisome to me, especially since he believes that because witches have rejected the water of their baptism, God reveals witches with the sign that “water shal refuse to receive them in her bosom.” In other words, they float.

So I won’t be inviting James to my next pool party.

Happy Halloween!

King James and the Zombies

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

Did you know that before James I of England began work on the Bible that bears his name, he wrote a book about witchcraft? That’s not something we ever learned about in Sunday School, although interestingly enough, it was religious fervor that inspired King James to write his three volume Daemonologie.

In fact, he opens the book by explaining that it was “[t]he fearefull aboundinge at this time in this countrie, of these detestable slaves of the Devill,” that prompted him to write to demonstrate that the “assaultes of Sathan are most certainly practized.”King James writes about witches and zombies

He covers different topics in each volume. The first discusses magic and “Necromancie.” Volume Two covers sorcery and witchcraft and Volume Three is devoted to ghosts and spirits. In honor of Halloween, I’ll explore each volume of Daemonologie in a different post between now and October 31. (more…)

Talk like a what?

Monday, September 19th, 2011

A friend just wished everyone a “Happy Talk like a Pirate Day” on Facebook and since it’s too early to start on the rum (never a good idea before jump rope practice), I thought I’d write about this strange phenomenon that proves once again, just how much spare time we have on our hands in this society.Jack Rackam's Flag

When people say they mean to “talk like a pirate,” they presumably refer to the Anglo-American pirates from the so-called golden age in the early 18th Century. If they referred to the earlier buccaneers, the pirate-talkers would be speaking French and no one would laugh (except the real French who would be in hysterics over our bad accents). And if they referred to modern pirates, who seem to be enjoying their old golden age at the moment, the pirates would do all their talking with semi-automatic weapons and a few choice Somali curses. (more…)

What day is it?

Tuesday, September 6th, 2011

September 6 – if you’d been alive on this date in 1752, it would be have been September 14. And so would yesterday and tomorrow and, well, most of next week, really. September was a really messed up month in 1752, at least for Protestants.

Let me back up a bit.

This all has to do with something we take for granted – the calendar. We look at it to see what day it is, but we don’t question whether it’s accurate (unless it has pictures of pet rocks and Mr. T on it, in which case we might want to check the year).Kate Dolan writes about the evolution of the calendar

Mankind’s earliest calendars predate most other forms of writing. They were pretty accurate, which is good since they were carved in stone and not real easy to change. But they could never be completely accurate because they were based on two natural phenomena with conflicting numbers- the cycle of the seasons and the phases of the moon. (more…)