Hello! I'm Zeef! I have a degree in history and I like to ramble! I especially like the middle ages and renaissance eras of Europe, but I have other miscellaneous places I like too!
270 posts
Latest Posts by lil-history-egg - Page 2
Ball gown, 1840-41
Maker: Unknown
From the collection of Wien Museum
it REALLY annoys me these days when they show those simple, garishly painted versions of old marble statues and claim that the statues looked like that. like yeah, they were painted, we can find bits of color in various locations, so we know very roughly the color of various locations, but i dont think theres any more reason to believe they were painted in these flat (and matte!) colors than in more detail. like yes, we dont know what that detail was, but that doesnt make the flat version *more plausible*, i dont think you should have like, a stronger prior that they were flat than that they were detailed. these were expensive statues!
I have never heard of Norman Rockwell. I don’t understand anything about art. But this picture shook me and caused a storm of emotions. It is called Breaking Home Ties, 1954
The boy is going to a Uni and wearing his best outfit; the Uni sticker is on his luggage, even his tie and his socks are the colours of the sticker. He is excited and impatient. The father - obviously a farmer, is sitting at the worn farm truck with a flag and a storm lamp, because their place is so small the train won’t normally stop there, so the father will need to “catch” the train and signal with the light and the flag for it to stop.
His son will never come back to the farm.
I think I understand why this picture sold at 15,4 million dollars in 2006.
Sufganiyot! Peach and Nutella gluten free ones made in an air fryer!
Hanukkah Puppy Hanukkah Puppy Hanukkah Puppy
First night concerned
Second night uninterested
Third night sleepy
Fourth night intrigued
Hanukkah sameach!
Happy honk!
Happy Hanukkah!
“I definitely didn’t want to root [Corpse Bride] in a specific place, and wasn’t really interested in what real ethnic origins of the tale were, because the thing that got me was the fable aspect of it”⁹.
Jewish legends are, well, legendary. They are filled with mystery, magic, fascinating creatures, wild adventures, and dazzling heroes. But if you ask most people, even most Jews, they may be largely unfamiliar with Jewish folktales outside of the Bible or Fiddler on the Roof. That is until you unravel the way in which Jewish folklore has been commodified and removed from its Jewish roots in order to be suitable for a non-Jewish audience.
This phenomenon is not new and not singular to Jews–not in the slightest. Cultural stories, and so much more, are routinely co-opted and commodified, erasing the culture, religion, and heritage of the original storytellers in order to make the story palatable for audiences outside of the original group. Sometimes so egregiously or viciously that it is largely unrecognizable to those who aren’t intimately familiar enough to spot it.
One such story is, allegedly, The Corpse Bride.
However, Tim Burton would convince you that the story he heard of (allegedly from within Lilith’s Cave) isn’t actually Jewish–in fact, he doesn't even know the origin. In their 2018 YouTube video, Jewish Erasure in Tim Burton Films, channel The Princess and the Scrivener plays a clip of Burton stating, “Joe had heard a little story, like a paragraph, which was an excerpt from an old fable–I don’t even know from what country it came, my recollection is that it didn’t have a specific place of origin. [I] Wasn't really interested in what the real ethnic origins of the tale were, because the thing that got me was the fable aspect of it”⁹.
READ MORE
Opal necklace, 1895.
I read your blog information and I also really love the Middle Ages! what is something you particularly like? or wish you could see more in media in which the Middle Ages are discussed?
The very messy marriage situation isn't used nearly enough. People could agree to get married without any witnesses or the church, and it wasn't uncommon for people to do that, then like the guy would deny they did it so he could marry someone else. The church really tried to get a hold of things, it's why it became a thing to announce to the church three Sundays in a row that you were getting married, so if you married someone else they could tell on you and such.
That said, there's something just wonderful about the idea of a couple in a stressful situation where all they have is each other, in a candle lit barn on the way to what could be death, saying whispered vows of devotion. I think this whole thing could be used way more.
Also I want more accurate clothing and hair. Give us the silly hats, cowards, hair shouldn't be so loose and visible. Let clothing be colorful, peasants dyed things too. Alack, modern fashions will always get in the way.
Embroidered head cloths and bag at the Museum of Scotland. Aren't they just beautiful? The dyes there in front of the second one is 1800s but the head wraps are 1500s if I remember correctly. Renaissance, but still, they are my beloved.
Make sure to read further on Jewitches.com
I was working on a history paper today and found a book from 1826 that seemed promising (though dull) for my topic, on an English Catholic family’s experience moving to France.
And it ended up not really being suitable for my purposes, as it goes. But part of the book is actually devoted to Kenelm, the author’s oldest son…and man, his dad loved him.
Kenelm seems to have had a fairly typical upbringing for a young English gentleman, although he is a bit slow to read. At twelve he’s sent to board at Stoneyhurst College—often the big step towards independence in a boy’s life, as he’ll most likely only see his parents sporadically from now on, and then leave for university.
When he’s sixteen, however, his father moves the whole family to France, so Kenelm gets pulled out of school to be with them again. Shortly after the move, his dad notices that he seems depressed. Kenelm confides in him that he’s been suffering from “scruples” for the last eighteen months—most likely what we’d now call an anxiety disorder.
And his dad is pissed—at the school, because apparently Kenelm had been seeking help there and received none, despite obviously struggling with mental health issues. So his dad takes it seriously. He sets him up to be counseled by a priest—there were no therapists back then—and doesn’t send him away to be boarded again, instead teaching him at home himself.
And his mental health does improve. His dad describes him as well-liked, gentle, pious, kind and eager to please others; at twenty he’s thinking about a career in diplomacy or going into the military—which his dad thinks he is not particularly suited for, considering his favorite pastimes are drawing and reading. He’s excited about his family’s upcoming move to Italy, and he’s been busy learning Italian and teaching it to his siblings.
Henry Kenelm Beste dies of typhus at twenty years, four months, and twenty-five days. That’s how his dad records it. That’s why his dad is telling this story. It’s not an extraordinary story—Kenelm’s story struck me because he sounds so…ordinary, like so many kids today. And he was so, so loved. His dad tried hard to help him compassionately with his mental health at a time where our current knowledge and support systems didn’t exist. You can feel how badly he wanted his son to be remembered and loved, to impress how dearly beloved he was to the people who knew him in life.
I hope he’d be glad to know someone is still thinking of Kenelm over 200 years later.
Anyway, that’s why I’m crying today.
every now and then i have to think of the roman family from two thousand years ago that buried their little daughter in a boy’s athletic-themed sarcophagus and i weep a little because that’s the softest declaration of love i can possibly imagine
Oldest medical amputation on record was performed on a Stone Age child in Borneo 31,000 years ago
About 31,000 years ago, a skilled prehistoric surgeon cut off the lower leg of a child hunter-gatherer in Borneo. Now, archaeologists have concluded that this ancient surgery is the earliest medical amputation on record.
The skill of the Stone Age surgeon was admirable; the patient went on to live an additional six to nine years after the surgery, a radiocarbon dating performed by researchers of the individual’s tooth enamel revealed, according to a study published online Wednesday (Sept. 7) in the journal Nature.
“It was a huge surprise that this ancient forager survived a very serious and life-threatening childhood operation, that the wound healed to form a stump and that they then lived for years in mountainous terrain with altered mobility,” study co-author Melandri Vlok, a bioarchaeologist and postdoctoral research associate at the University of Sydney,“ said in a statement. ”[This suggests] a high degree of community care.“ Read more.
This 1960s children's toy named Gaylord the dog is literally the most depressing, miserable looking creature I have ever seen just fucking look at it
This 1943 colorized performance by Cab Calloway and the Nicholas brothers
I am 100% convinced that “exit, pursued by a bear” is a reference to some popular 1590s meme that we’ll never be able to understand because that one play is the only surviving example of it.
The reconstructed face of the “Cheddar Man” (c. 7,000 BCE) compared to his living descendant, Adrian Targett
The Cheddar Man is a Mesolithic skeleton that was recovered from England’s Cheddar Gorge in 1903. At around 9,000 years old, the Cheddar Man is the oldest complete skeleton ever discovered in the UK, and has long been hailed as the “first Briton.” DNA analysis on the Cheddar man from 2018 indicated that he was lactose intolerant, had light-colored eyes, dark brown or black hair, and had a dark to black skin tone. Although the discovery of the Cheddar Man’s dark skin tone was surprising for both scientists and the public alike, it corresponds with recent research suggesting that genes linked to lighter skin only began to spread about 8,500 years ago - approximately 32,000 years later than what was previously believed.
In addition to the development on his skin tone, the Cheddar Man surprised scientists in 1997 when DNA analysis revealed that he had a living descendant - a retired history teacher named Adrian Targett. Targett and the Cheddar man share the same mtDNA, which is passed down from mother to daughter. In other words, they share a common maternal ancestor. What is even more remarkable is that Targett lives in Cheddar, only a half mile away where his 9,000-year-old ancestor was discovered.
Targett was not invited to the initial reveal of his ancestor’s new facial reconstruction, but he has since seen it and has commented on the family resemblance. “I do feel a bit more multicultural now,” he once joked in an interview “And I can definitely see that there is a family resemblance. That nose is similar to mine. And we have both got those blue eyes.”
The development of the Cheddar Man’s skin tone has generated resistance, especially among far-right and white supremacist circles. Targett, however, is unbothered by it, stating that it is “marvelous what scientists can reconstruct once they sequence the DNA.” When asked if he thought whether the findings affected the way people think about race, Targett responded: “Yes, I do think it’s significant. Not many people in Cheddar mind it. But the lesson is that we’re all immigrants, whether you’ve been in a place for 10 minutes or 9,000 years. We’ve all come from somewhere.”
Overdress of a woman’s robe à l’anglaise English dress of Indian export chintz Painted and resist-dyed cotton tabby Centimetres: 118.5 (width) circa 1780
Ice age children frolicked in 'giant sloth puddles' 11,000 years ago, footprints reveal
More than 11,000 years ago, young children trekking with their families through what is now White Sands National Park in New Mexico discovered the stuff of childhood dreams: muddy puddles made from the footprints of a giant ground sloth.
Few things are more enticing to a youngster than a muddy puddle. The children — likely four in all — raced and splashed through the soppy sloth trackway, leaving their own footprints stamped in the playa — a dried up lake bed. Those footprints were preserved over millennia, leaving evidence of this prehistoric caper, new research finds.
The finding shows that children living in North America during the Pleistocene epoch (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago) liked a good splash. “All kids like to play with muddy puddles, which is essentially what it is,” Matthew Bennett, a professor of environmental and geographical sciences at Bournemouth University in the U.K. who is studying the trackway, told Live Science. Read more.
Art Nouveau doors in Brussels ❦
I thought this was really good, so I wanted to share. Some of the images were missing, so I did my best to substitute based on the description.
Since the ancient Maya have been added to the Key Stage 2 national curriculum for History (non-European Study), there’s been a ‘mushrooming’ of online resources covering the topic. Most of which are downright awful!
After the recent flawed news story about a teenager finding a Maya site, I thought it an apt moment to let both teachers who are teaching the Maya as well as the general public know what they need to be looking out for to confirm a resource’s unreliability
Beware!
Here are 10 tell-tale signs that expose unknowledgeable sources
1. The term ‘Mayan’ is used instead of ‘Maya’
The term ‘Mayan’ is ubiquitously used by ill-informed sources: ‘Mayan people’, ‘Mayan pyramids’, ‘Mayan civilisation’…
All Maya specialists -and, for that matter, all non-specialists who’ve read a book or two on the ancient Maya- know that the right word is Maya.
Their calendar is called the ‘Maya calendar’, their civilisation is called the ‘Maya civilisation’, their art is called ‘Maya art’…
The only time you should use the adjective ‘Mayan’ is when you are talking about their languages, the ‘Mayan languages’.
So, if you see ‘Mayan people’, ‘Mayan pyramids, ‘Mayan art’, ‘Mayan civilisation’, etc, on a publication (website or magazine), you can be sure the person who wrote the article doesn’t know a thing about the ancient Maya.
2. The image of the Aztec calendar stone is presented as the Maya calendar
Unscrupulous sources will use the ‘Sun Stone’ to illustrate texts about the Maya calendar.
Unfortunately, the famous sculpture is Aztec. Not Maya.
Using the ‘Sun Stone’ to talk about Maya calendar system is like using photos of theElizabeth Tower at Westminster (AKA ‘Big Ben’), which was completed in 1859, to illustrate time keeping in ancient Rome!
And yes I have even seen this image adorning the front cover of books on the Maya! Beware! Which leads nicely onto point 3-
3. The Maya are identified as the Aztecs
This confusion is very common but the truth is the Aztecs were very different to the Maya. They spoke a different language and had a different writing system.
Also the Maya civilisation began at least 1500 before the Aztecs.
The Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan is as far away from the great Maya site of Tikal as London is from Milan, Italy!
Stating the Maya were the same as the Aztecs, is basically saying that all Europeans are the same, having the same language, culture and beliefs…
Would you like to see an image of Stonehenge on the front cover of a book on the French? I think not!
Then we get the Egyptians….
4. Maya pyramids are said to be similar to Egyptian pyramids
I am afraid not!
Firstly, the ancient Maya and ancient Egyptians lived during different time periods. The time of pyramid building in Egypt was around 2000 years earlier than the earliest Maya pyramid.
Secondly, Egyptian pyramids have a different shape and use to those of the Maya.
Maya pyramids are not actually pyramidal! They have a polygonal base, but their four faces do not meet at a common point like Egyptian pyramids. Maya pyramids were flat and often had a small room built on top.
Pyramids in Egypt were used as tombs for the dead rulers, for the Maya, though the pyramids were mainly used for ceremonies carried out on top and watched from below.
Lastly, they were built differently. Maya pyramids were built in layers; each generation would build a bigger structure over the previous one. Egyptian pyramids, on the other hand, were designed and built as a single edifice.
5. It is claimed that the Maya mysteriously disappeared in the 10th century AD
Uninformed sources talk about the ‘mysterious’ disappearance of the ancient Maya around the 10th century AD., which mislead people to think that the Maya disappeared forever….
Firstly, the Maya did not disappear. Around 8 million Maya are still living today in various countries of Central America (Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador and Honduras); in fact half of the population of Guatemala is Maya.
Although they do not build pyramids like the ancient Maya did, modern Maya still wear similar dress, follow similar rituals and some use the ancient Maya calendar. I am sure they would all like to assure you that they have definitely not disappeared!
We know now that what is called ‘Classic Maya Collapse’ was actually a slow breakdown, followed by a reconstruction, of a number of political, economical and cultural structures in the Maya society.
Archaeologists see cities being abandoned over the course of the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, and people travelling north into the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) building new great cities such as Mayapan, which was occupied up until the 15th century.
Secondly, there was nothing mysterious about it! A number of associated factors were at play.
There was a severe drought in the rainforest area that lasted decades, so people moved north where water sources were more easily available. The competition between waring factions and cities for natural resources led to increased warfare. Which, in turn, led to the breakdown of trade networks.
All this was likely exacerbated by political and economical changes in Central Mexico.
So, very much like the French did not disappear after the French Revolution -although they stopped building castles and some big political, economical and cultural changes occurred in the French society- the Maya did not mysteriously disappear around the 10th century.
6. The Maya are portrayed as blood-thirsty sacrifice-loving psychos
The Maya are often portrayed in the media and popular culture as blood-thirsty (see for example Mel Gibson’s 2006 Apocalypto), so the commonly accepted -and oft-repeated- idea is that the Maya carried out lots of sacrifices.
Actually, there is barely any trace of sacrifice in the archaeological record of the Maya area. The rare evidence comes from pictorial representations on ceramics and sculpture.
Warfare amongst the Maya was actually much less bloody than ours and no, they did not use a real skull as a ball in their ballgame! And no the loser was not put to death!
In warfare, they did capture and kill opponents, but it was on a small-scale. Rulers boasted of being “He of five captives” or “He of the three captives”.
The heart sacrifices that were recorded by the Spanish chroniclers were those of the Aztecs.
It is also important to keep in mind that the Spanish Conquistadors had lots of incentives to describe the indigenous people of the Americas as blood-thirsty savages.
It made conquest and enslavement easier to justify (see the Valladolid Debate) so lots of stories were exaggerated.
And who are we to judge when we used to have public spectacles of people being hanged or having their heads chopped off and placed on spikes on London Bridge!
7. The ancient Maya predicted that the world would end on 21 December 2012
The 2012 phenomenon was a range of beliefs that cataclysmic events would trigger then end of our world on December 21st.
This date was regarded as the end-date of a 5,126-year-long cycle in the Maya Long Count calendar and it was said that the ancient Maya had prophesied the event.
This is not true and all Maya people today and Maya specialists know this!
Very much like a century and a millennium ended in the Christian calendar on December 31st 1999, a great cycle of the Maya Long Count -the 13th b’ak’tun– was to end on 21 December 2012.
In Maya time-keeping, a b’ak’tun is a period of roughly 5,125 years.
Only two Maya monuments –Tortuguero Monument 6 and La Corona Hieroglyphic Stairway 12– mention the end of the 13th b’ak’tun. None of them contains any speculation or prophecy as to what would happen at that time.
While the end of the 13th b’ak’tun would perhaps be a cause for celebration, the next day the Maya believed that a new cycle -the 14th b’ak’tun- would begin; much like our New Year’s Eve.
In fact, in the temple of Inscriptions at Palenque, where we find the tomb of King Pakal, it was written that in AD 4772 the people would be celebrating the anniversary of the coronation of their new King Pakal!
8. The Maya are described as primitive people
The Maya created an incredible civilization in the rainforest where it is extremely humid, with lots of bugs and dangerous animals and little water.
There they built spectacular temples, pyramids and palaces without the use of metal tools, the wheel, or any pack animals, such as the donkey, ox or elephant.
The Maya were the only civilization in the whole of the Americas to develop a complete writing system like ours.
They were only one of two cultures in the world to develop the zero in their number system and so were able to make advanced calculations and became great astronomers.
The Maya were extremely advanced in painting and making sculptures, they played the earliest team sport in the world and most importantly, for me anyway, is that we have the ancient Maya to thank for chocolate!
So no, they were definitely not primitive!
The problem with this view of the ancient Maya is that their achievements are then explained by the help of Extra-terrestrial beings or other civilisations.
9. The great achievements of the Maya are in thanks to the Olmecs
The Olmec civilisation is an earlier culture located along the Gulf coast of Mexico.
This myth of the Olmecs being a ‘mother culture’ to the Maya and other cultures in Mesoamerica had been questioned over 20 years ago and has been long put to rest.
Excavations have shown that they were many other cultures, other than the Olmec living in Mesoamerica before the Maya and that rather than a ‘mother culture’ we should be looking at ‘sister cultures’ all influencing each other.
Furthermore, Maya achievements in hieroglyphic writing and calendrics which no other culture in Mesoamerica had seen or used, indicate that they were much more innovators than adopters.
So, if the resource mentions the above, then it is obvious that they are not specialists and are using redundant information written over 20 years ago.
10. Chichen Itza is used as the quintessential Maya site
Chichen Itza was inhabited quite late during the Maya time period, about 1400 years after the first Maya city and is not purely Maya.
The city was quite cosmopolitan and was greatly influenced by Central Mexico, particularly the Toltecs, who may have lived there.
Therefore, its architecture and art -such as the ‘chacmools‘ or the ‘tzompantli‘ (AKA ‘skull-racks’) actually are Central Mexican, and not Maya, features.
A much better example of a typical Maya city would be Tikal, which was occupied for more than 1500 years.
So, if all you see on a website is about Chichen Itza, chances are this is not a reliable source of information about the ancient Maya and your ‘charlatan alarm-bells’ should go off!
Love ABBA's insinuation that Bonaparte fell in love with Wellington
Dog of Randall the jeweller, ca. 1875
This is controversial I know, but as someone who loves learning new things and hates feeling stupid, I always err on the side of simple when I’m teaching people about history, particularly when I’m working with niche equipment or antiquated terms.
When you’re so enmeshed in a subject, it can be all too easy to forget that your knowledge and vocabulary is now different from everyone else’s. I go to a lot of reenactments where the people there are passionate about history, but don’t know how to teach it, or deal with museums where the curator rather than the educational staff writes labels. Far too often I’ve had to step in and explain a concept or word because someone else thought it was obvious so it wasn’t.
Just in the 18th century alone I’ve had explain when people were confused by someone using period appropriate, but confusing words such as:
“Stays” rather than corset
“Chocolate” rather than “hot chocolate”
“Petticoat” rather than “skirt”
“Shrewsbury cake” rather than “cookie”
“But Beggars!” you say, “it’s wrong to use modern terms for things when we know what they were actually called! They’re not the same!” Not if you explain yourself. You and I both know that stays and corsets are differently shaped, but to 99% of the population, it’s a support garment, and that’s what they need to know. I will generally use the appropriate term and then explain using more colloquial language. “I’m wearing stays - what we would today call a corset, although they’re differently shaped.” Making the person guess what you’re talking about is putting more mental strain on them and causing them to lose track of the discussion.
As a professional who still looks like a child, I know how awkward it can be when someone assumes that you have a negative level of knowledge, but I am always going to err on that side and then beef up my interpretation later, rather than starting at a master’s degree level, making someone feel stupid, and then having to backtrack. A good interpreter will be able to glean someone’s general level of knowledge very quickly.
@mrchicsaraleo @britomartis @el-shab-hussein @paintedwiththecolorsofthewind @stephanemiroux
this is vile
STANDING ROCK INDIAN RESERVATION, S.D. — Ray Taken Alive had been fighting for this moment for two years: At his urging, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Council was about to take the rare and severe step of banishing a nonprofit organization from the tribe’s land.
The Lakota Language Consortium had promised to preserve the tribe’s native language and had spent years gathering recordings of elders, including Taken Alive’s grandmother, to create a new, standardized Lakota dictionary and textbooks.
But when Taken Alive, 35, asked for copies, he was shocked to learn that the consortium, run by a white man, had copyrighted the language materials, which were based on generations of Lakota tradition. The traditional knowledge gathered from the tribe was now being sold back to it in the form of textbooks.
Keep reading
Concerning Juliet’s age
I find a big stumbling block that comes with teaching Romeo and Juliet is explaining Juliet’s age. Juliet is 13 - more precisely, she’s just on the cusp of turning 14. Though it’s not stated explicitly, Romeo is implied to be a teenager just a few years older than her - perhaps 15 or 16. Most people dismiss Juliet’s age by saying “that was normal back then” or “that’s just how it was.” This is fundamentally untrue, and I will explain why.
In Elizabethan England, girls could legally marry at 12 (boys at 14) but only with their father’s permission. However, it was normal for girls to marry after 18 (more commonly in early to mid twenties) and for boys to marry after 21 (more commonly in mid to late twenties). But at 14, a girl could legally marry without papa’s consent. Of course, in doing so she ran the risk of being disowned and left destitute, which is why it was so critical for a young man to obtain the father’s goodwill and permission first. Therein lies the reason why we are repeatedly told that Juliet is about to turn 14 in under 2 weeks. This was a critical turning point in her life.
In modern terms, this would be the equivalent of the law in many countries which states children can marry at 16 with their parents’ permission, or at 18 to whomever they choose - but we see it as pretty weird if someone marries at 16. They’re still a kid, we think to ourselves - why would their parents agree to this?
This is exactly the attitude we should take when we look at Romeo and Juliet’s clandestine marriage. Today it would be like two 16 year olds marrying in secret. This is NOT normal and would NOT have been received without a raised eyebrow from the audience. Modern audiences AND Elizabethan audiences both look at this and think THEY. ARE. KIDS.
Critically, it is also not normal for fathers to force daughters into marriage at this time. Lord Capulet initially makes a point of telling Juliet’s suitor Paris that “my will to her consent is but a part.” He tells Paris he wants to wait a few years before he lets Juliet marry, and informs him to woo her in the meantime. Obtaining the lady’s consent was of CRITICAL importance. It’s why so many of Shakespeare’s plays have such dazzling, well-matched lovers in them, and why men who try to force daughters to marry against their will seldom prosper. You had to let the lady make her own choice. Why?
Put simply, for her health. It was considered a scientific fact that a woman’s health was largely, if not solely, dependant on her womb. Once she reached menarche in her teenage years, it was important to see her fitted with a compatible sexual partner. (For aristocratic girls, who were healthier and enjoyed better diets, menarche generally occurred in the early teens rather than the later teens, as was more normal at the time). The womb was thought to need heat, pleasure, and conception if the woman was to flourish. Catholics might consider virginity a fit state for women, but the reformed English church thought it was borderline unhealthy - sex and marriage was sometimes even prescribed as a medical treatment. A neglected wife or widow could become sick from lack of (pleasurable) sex. Marrying an unfit sexual partner or an older man threatened to put a girl’s health at risk. An unsatisfied woman, made ill by her womb as a result - was a threat to the family unit and the stability of society as a whole. A satisfying sex life with a good husband meant a womb that had the heat it needed to thrive, and by extension a happy and healthy woman.
In Shakespeare’s plays, sexual compatibility between lovers manifests on the stage in wordplay. In Much Ado About Nothing, sparks fly as Benedick and Beatrice quarrel and banter, in comparison to the silence that pervades the relationship between Hero and Claudio, which sours very quickly. Compare to R+J - Lord Capulet tells Paris to woo Juliet, but the two do not communicate. But when Romeo and Juliet meet, their first speech takes the form of a sonnet. They might be young and foolish, but they are in love. Their speech betrays it.
Juliet, on the cusp of 14, would have been recognised as a girl who had reached a legal and biological turning point. Her sexual awakening was upon her, though she cares very little about marriage until she meets the man she loves. They talk, and he wins her wholehearted, unambiguous and enthusiastic consent - all excellent grounds for a relationship, if only she weren’t so young.
When Tybalt dies and Romeo is banished, Lord Capulet undergoes a monstrous change from doting father to tyrannical patriarch. Juilet’s consent has to take a back seat to the issue of securing the Capulet house. He needs to win back the prince’s favour and stabilise his family after the murder of his nephew. Juliet’s marriage to Paris is the best way to make that happen. Fathers didn’t ordinarily throw their daughters around the room to make them marry. Among the nobility, it was sometimes a sad fact that girls were simply expected to agree with their fathers’ choices. They might be coerced with threats of being disowned. But for the VAST majority of people in England - basically everyone non-aristocratic - the idea of forcing a daughter that young to marry would have been received with disgust. And even among the nobility it was only used as a last resort, when the welfare of the family was at stake. Note that aristocratic boys were often in the same position, and would also be coerced into advantageous marriages for the good of the family.
tl;dr:
Q. Was it normal for girls to marry at 13?
A. Hell no!
Q. Was it legal for girls to marry at 13?
A. Not without dad’s consent - Friar Lawrence performs this dodgy ceremony only because he believes it might bring peace between the houses.
Q. Was it normal for fathers to force girls into marriage?
A. Not at this time in England. In noble families, daughters were expected to conform to their parents wishes, but a girl’s consent was encouraged, and the importance of compatibility was recognised.
Q. How should we explain Juliet’s age in modern terms?
A. A modern Juliet would be a 17 year old girl who’s close to turning 18. We all agree that girls should marry whomever they love, but not at 17, right? We’d say she’s still a kid and needs to wait a bit before rushing into this marriage. We acknowledge that she’d be experiencing her sexual awakening, but marrying at this age is odd - she’s still a child and legally neither her nor Romeo should be marrying without parental permission.
Q. Would Elizabethans have seen Juliet as a child?
A. YES. The force of this tragedy comes from the youth of the lovers. The Montagues and Capulets have created such a hateful, violent and dangerous world for their kids to grow up in that the pangs of teenage passion are enough to destroy the future of their houses. Something as simple as two kids falling in love is enough to lead to tragedy. That is the crux of the story and it should not be glossed over - Shakespeare made Juliet 13 going on 14 for a reason.
Wedding Dress
Lucile
1908
Fashion Museum Bath Twitter
my grandma has this 115 year old picture book, and apparently in 1907 they would just let you publish anything
You know how fantasy worlds are almost always based on (mostly Central and Northern) European Medieval aesthetic and folklore?
For a while I’ve been thinking that if we had a fantasy world made here, it would be interesting to have it be inspired by Modernisme (the Catalan artistic movement from the late 19th century - early 20th century). I mean, look at this and tell me it doesn’t have potential:
Interior of the Sagrada Família basilica, Barcelona. The stained glass in different sides of the temple are different colours, so the light changes colour depending on the hour of the day. (Photo sources x x)
Illa de la Discòrdia, Barcelona. x
Benches in Parc Güell (Barcelona), made with the “trencadís”, the typical mosaic used in many of Antoni Gaudí’s works (he’s one of the most famous Modernist architects, and one of the most famous Catalan architects of all times too). x
A hall in Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona. x
Ceiling of Palau de la Música Catalana, a concert hall in Barcelona.
Lots of these things. This one is in Argentona (Catalonia, too). x
And fashion would be like this:
Stained glass in Cerdanyola, Catalonia. x
Illustrations by Gaspar Camps.
More stained glass, now in Museu del Modernisme, Barcelona. x
Modernist jewels by Lluís Masriera (I’ve talked about Modernist jewels in this previous post). x
Even the furniture:
x
Interior of Casa Amatller in Barcelona. x.
Even in wood looked pretty.
x
And lots of cool windows inspired by nature!
And from outside
Olot, Catalonia. x.
And of course all kinds of windows. Light is important!
Torre Bellesguard. x.
Barcelona. x.
This ceiling in Palau Güell with holes to let light in. x.
And this lamp?? Also in Palau Güell. x.
Everything would have to be very curvy.
Casa Milà, Barcelona. x.
And shops
This bakery in Palma, Mallorca. x.
And I won’t begin with the tiles to not make the post longer…
What do you think?
And for people from other countries, what element in your culture do you think a fantasy world could be based on, aesthetically?