Archive for the ‘Living History’ Category

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…)

Beyond the Statue of Liberty

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011

Some people are excited to go to New York to see a Broadway show. Some plan elaborate shopping trips. Some come to see famous sights like the Statue of Liberty.

But the last time I traveled to New York, I went to see an old tenement, or more specifically, an old tenement building that has been turned into a museum. Kate Dolan recommends the Tenement Museum

The word “tenement” has an ugly connotation these days, but it really just means apartment or apartment building. It brings to mind much more than that, though. We think of long dark hallways, dingy rooms with stained wallpaper, appalling sanitation and immigrants living in dire poverty. (more…)

A plaintive mania

Wednesday, August 10th, 2011

“One thing that surprises me more and more every day; it is the great number of people in the opposition.”

Louis Simond observed a state of near riot in London in 1810. Everyone complained vociferously. London riots 2011 vs. London near-riots 1810The wealthy were indignant over a high income tax, the middle class complained over the closure of markets due to the war and the instability of prices, and the poor were engaged in a desperate battle to fend off starvation. The government which had outlawed trade unions and undertaken other measures in the effort to fight Napoleon, was denounced on all sides as “vicious and corrupt.” Reform seemed not enough—people were demanding revolution. (more…)

Hard Knocks

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

I used to think the doorbell was a modern invention. Push the button on the porch and a bell rings in another part of the house entirely. Like switching on a light or answering a telephone call, I assumed it was a modern sensation.

But no, the electric doorbell was invented in 1831. And the word “doorbell” itself dates back to at least 1815. The concept itself is even older. Don Manuel Alvarez Espriella, writing of a visit to London in 1808, observes with surprise that unlike houses in other parts of Europe, the houses in London feature doorknockers instead of bells to announce visitors. He found the knockers infinitely more useful than a bell because “the knocker may be so handled as to explain who plays upon it, and accordingly it has its systematic set of signals. The post-man comes with two loud and rapid raps, such as no person but himself ever gives. One very loud knock of less vehemence denotes a servant or other messenger. Visitors give three or four. Footmen or coachmen always more than their masters; and the master of every family has usually his particular touch, which is immediately recognized.” (more…)

Almacks = All That

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

I’m going to keep with a Regency theme for the next few weeks in honor of the release of Deceptive Behavior. I’ve discussed the politically incorrect sport of beagling on the Risky Regencies  and more tourist impressions of London on Moonlight, Lace and Mayhem.  link. This week on Living History I’ll say a quick word about a London institution that is legendary to readers of Regency romance and pretty much unknown to everyone else.

The place is Almack’s. When I did a little research, I found that there were actually two Almack’s, a gentleman’s club at No. 50 Pall Mall and Alamack’s Assembly Rooms on King Street, St. James. William Almack founded his club in 1762 and had so much success that he decided to open assembly rooms in 1765 to compete for the female crowd. But where men used their clubs as a retreat from the world, in the female world of Almack’s Assembly Rooms, everything was on display. In the Regency era, those of the fashionable world sought vouchers of admission to a weekly ball. The guest lists were strictly controlled by seven formidable ladies of rank and strict rules were enforced such as a dress code requiring men to wear knee breeches and white cravats.

However, in the earlier era when Almack opened his club to rival the assembly rooms of Mrs. Cornely’s Assembly Rooms at Carlisle House, he envisioned something a little more lively. It was essentially a casino, allowing women to gamble as well as men.

But business gradually declined over the years until Almack’s was remade as a place not to gamble not so much on short terms games of chance as on long term places in society, not to mention husbands and wives. Instead of gaming every night, there was only the Wednesday night ball, preceded by a Monday meeting during which the patronesses would decide who needed to have their membership vouchers rescinded and who might be then added to the list.

This would be Snobbery with a capital “S.”

And it didn’t sound like much fun, either. Dances were selected to avoid any hint of impropriety. No alcoholic beverages were served and food was limited to bread and butter and pound cake. It all seems designed to avoid the decadence of the previous generation.

Frankly, I think I prefer the decadence of the Georgians. I’m not quite sure why the Regency era is so popular with everyone, including myself!