While the trappings of power have changed, the desire to display one's influence is not a new one. As they say, clothes make the man. In Ancient Rome, laws were enacted to limit the use of the Tyrian purple dye which was employed by the Emperor and to a lesser extent the Senators, as a badge of office. During the Tokugawa period in Japan the most widely known example of this practice was limiting the wearing of swords in public to the samurai. In Europe, during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, the implementation of sumptuary laws saw varied application and justification.
One of the key developments of the Medieval period is the return of the middle class with the resumption of trade. This burgeoning middle class saw a steady rise in influence as they amassed greater and greater wealth. Even the poor saw a fair amount of opportunity following the Plague years. Naturally, the entrenched nobility viewed this as impertinence and used their legislative powers to codify the trappings of power, limiting access to various materials as well as colors for clothing.
The aristocracy also had a vested interest in protecting itself from its own wastrels. As clothing is the most visible symbol of wealth, it was not uncommon for the sons of nobility (or their fathers) to go into debt to create or maintain their ostentatious display. Noble rank does not always equate with riches, but what lord wants to play second fiddle when all he needs is a finer bow? It was relatively easy for a noble young man to get a loan against his name (with or without parental knowledge). This served the dual function of enriching the money-lender while impoverishing the nobility. By limiting the legal level of permissible display, it was hoped that a rein might be put on these excesses.
It isn't just the modern world who loves French and Italian style.
Imported fabrics and goods have long been the hallmark of extravagance.
What better for those wasteful young lordlings and presumptuous
peasants to spend their fortunes on? However, in most countries, the
aristocracy had a vested interest in local cloth production (they owned
the land where the sheep grazed after all) and this cut into the taxes
that would otherwise be flowing into their pockets. Sumptuary laws were
then employed as protective tariffs.
The aristocracy was not alone in its desire to place limits on the excessive spending of the people. The clergy had a hand in promoting the limitations on conspicuous consumption. The Church was very active at this time in promoting spiritual health through legislation. Sumptuary laws could be very detailed regarding lengths of hemline, decolletage, and even the amount of hair permissible to be shown. Their influence included laws which limited loan rates as well (though the Jews were outside this law, which is a whole other topic). In theory, if one did not display wealth, others would not be jealous and try to achieve it as well. Remember, wealth is bad because, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into the Kingdom of Heaven."
Throughout the history of sumptuary laws, the focus shifts from men
to women, and back again, but there is no reason to expect one group to
be more ostentatious than the other. Throughout history, men have been into fancy shoes just like women, and do we even need to mention the codpiece? It is difficult to determine what is
the root and what is the symptom at this point as laws and history were written almost exclusively by men. As in many other areas,
women were often blamed for the shortcomings of their male
counterparts, either as objects of affection or browbeating harridans.
They did instigate original sin after all.
When discussing these laws, it's important to note that they were not simply used to stratify society, but also to identify the outsiders. Jews were sometimes made to prominently display a large yellow patch, or to wear a conical hat (as they are often shown in period artwork). Muslims were made to wear a yellow crescent on their clothing. Attempts were also made to force lepers to wear long white robes, but good luck getting the constable to enforce that (they often carried rattles and the like to warn others of their coming). It seems that once you start putting people in boxes that you want a box for everyone.
As fascinating as these laws sound, they were difficult to enforce and could be circumvented. The Jews could often get around the law by paying enough money (laws often seemed to target them for this purpose). Sometimes the sellers of goods simply changed the label on the products ("No, no, that isn't civet. See here on the label? Vair."). To catch these perpetrators, the individuals would have to be spotted in public, then I suppose someone called the fashion police. In certain Italian cities, "denunciation boxes" were put out to inform on your neighbors. I can pretty clearly imagine the repercussions of that little innovation.
Humorous as all of this might seem to the modern reader, identity was a significant issue in this period. There were no ID cards or passports. We couldn't watch the nobles being silly on the television. The only ways to evaluate a person were by manner and mode of dress (unless you trust what his/her friends say). If a man walks up to you wearing a purple robe and carrying a scepter, you're probably going to treat him like a king, since there are serious ramifications to being wrong.
Articles Longer Than Mine (a.k.a. For Further Reading)
International Overview - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law
European Overview - http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/a/sumptuary_law.htm
Good Details - http://camelotcollection.weebly.com/another-look-sumptuary-laws-in-medieval-europe.html
Fantastic clothing overview - http://www.strangehorizons.com/2001/20011022/medieval_clothing.shtml
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
Why do we Dance?
Alright, so things have been a little serious here of late, dealing with deep soul-searing thought-provoking issues, also how people take their tea. Let today be no different! "But Ben," you might say, "dance is hardly a subject of significant moral complexity." To this I would respond, "You must be doing it wrong." No, I'm not good at it, but I am a fan and hope to one day improve. What interests me as a writer is what a dancer can tell my audience about their culture through the way they move.
Terpsichore was the Greek muse who delighted in dance. It has undoubtedly been a form of expression since before humans were human. Across the animal kingdom, creatures seem to express themselves in rhythmic movements, from chimps waving their arms to the flicker of fireflies (okay, maybe that one is a stretch). I can't speak for other species, but humans dance for an enormous variety of reasons (though we may not always be successful in our attempts).
Joy is the simplest reason in the world to dance. Trained dancers may be more likely to express joy in this fashion, but it is by no means restricted to the artist. An uncoordinated person expressing him/herself in public may be one of the greatest proofs of joy (devoid of the fear of ridicule for a lack of coordination or skill) that can be displayed. As a culminating event, I can think of fewer acts with the potential to be more transformative for a character's demeanor. This has its uses, but dancing for joy is an immediate expression and not a deliberate act, which might inform us more how culture views individual expression than how it shapes dance.
Social ritual is a phrase I use to describe the proscribed form dances of the baroque and associated styles, as well as good old North American square dances. These are the kinds you see in the Shakespearean films with blocks of people making formations and patterns in large groups. Square dances (in my limited experience) do the same kind of thing, but with a looser format, as the caller tells you what to do during the dance. This kind of dancing rewards being a part of the group and following the rules with precision. It seems likely that these dances were designed specifically to keep boys and girls at arm's length, while providing relatively chaste opportunities for "accidental" contact. Instead of trying to ban it completely, perhaps it was transformed into a"morally upright" form.
Mating ritual is the flip side to the previous section. However, this ritual can take two rather disparate forms. The first would involve dances like the tango, which requires significant partner work. A performer must certainly train at this art, but the emotional connection of the dance partners is an important part of the performance (which, friends who love tango tell me, often continues off the dance floor). While many of these dances have become highly stylized, there is plenty of room for personal style and flair. A similar, but opposite form is embodied in modern hip hop dance styles which serve to demonstrate the physicality of the performer as an individual (traditional Greek and Russian men dancing also comes to mind). Even when working with in a group, often the best dancers will be featured with a leading or solo part within the routine. It is interesting to note that most of the dance styles of this sort seem to have evolved from the lower economic classes.
Artistic expression encompasses many motivating forces. This is the attempt to tell a story or to relate an emotional experience through dance. Religion has used dance to tell stories or evoke emotional responses in many cultures. Ballet is a storytelling medium. Dance is also incorporated into other art forms, like in Japanese Noh dramas. The use of performance to make social and political commentary has a long tradition and certainly deserves a separate post or fifty at some other time. The forms of movement used in these dances are much more difficult to decode than the content of the story because they deal with how the society views these characters. Costuming and movement can give insight, but if you're using this type of performance in your writing, you might be asking too much from a scene by layering social information with the story being told.
Dance is one of those things that is present in almost every culture (even in small God-fearing Oklahoma towns), but is often omitted in literature, except for comedic purposes. Dance is a universal language that can portray the full range of emotion. It might be the easiest way to immediately access an alien culture. Proper use can establish the social morays of a culture through its form as well as the story it tells. Additionally, it can be a lot of fun. There is nothing wrong with letting your characters lighten their heels and enjoy themselves from time to time.
What do you think? Am I completely off base? Are there any other reasons to dance that I left off or examples that defy categorization? I once watched an entire special on Balinese music and dance where the audience laughed at the dancers if they made the slightest mistake. "Strictly Ballroom" was a surprisingly engaging movie. Come on people, help me. I want to learn.
Terpsichore was the Greek muse who delighted in dance. It has undoubtedly been a form of expression since before humans were human. Across the animal kingdom, creatures seem to express themselves in rhythmic movements, from chimps waving their arms to the flicker of fireflies (okay, maybe that one is a stretch). I can't speak for other species, but humans dance for an enormous variety of reasons (though we may not always be successful in our attempts).
Joy is the simplest reason in the world to dance. Trained dancers may be more likely to express joy in this fashion, but it is by no means restricted to the artist. An uncoordinated person expressing him/herself in public may be one of the greatest proofs of joy (devoid of the fear of ridicule for a lack of coordination or skill) that can be displayed. As a culminating event, I can think of fewer acts with the potential to be more transformative for a character's demeanor. This has its uses, but dancing for joy is an immediate expression and not a deliberate act, which might inform us more how culture views individual expression than how it shapes dance.
Social ritual is a phrase I use to describe the proscribed form dances of the baroque and associated styles, as well as good old North American square dances. These are the kinds you see in the Shakespearean films with blocks of people making formations and patterns in large groups. Square dances (in my limited experience) do the same kind of thing, but with a looser format, as the caller tells you what to do during the dance. This kind of dancing rewards being a part of the group and following the rules with precision. It seems likely that these dances were designed specifically to keep boys and girls at arm's length, while providing relatively chaste opportunities for "accidental" contact. Instead of trying to ban it completely, perhaps it was transformed into a"morally upright" form.
Mating ritual is the flip side to the previous section. However, this ritual can take two rather disparate forms. The first would involve dances like the tango, which requires significant partner work. A performer must certainly train at this art, but the emotional connection of the dance partners is an important part of the performance (which, friends who love tango tell me, often continues off the dance floor). While many of these dances have become highly stylized, there is plenty of room for personal style and flair. A similar, but opposite form is embodied in modern hip hop dance styles which serve to demonstrate the physicality of the performer as an individual (traditional Greek and Russian men dancing also comes to mind). Even when working with in a group, often the best dancers will be featured with a leading or solo part within the routine. It is interesting to note that most of the dance styles of this sort seem to have evolved from the lower economic classes.
Artistic expression encompasses many motivating forces. This is the attempt to tell a story or to relate an emotional experience through dance. Religion has used dance to tell stories or evoke emotional responses in many cultures. Ballet is a storytelling medium. Dance is also incorporated into other art forms, like in Japanese Noh dramas. The use of performance to make social and political commentary has a long tradition and certainly deserves a separate post or fifty at some other time. The forms of movement used in these dances are much more difficult to decode than the content of the story because they deal with how the society views these characters. Costuming and movement can give insight, but if you're using this type of performance in your writing, you might be asking too much from a scene by layering social information with the story being told.
Dance is one of those things that is present in almost every culture (even in small God-fearing Oklahoma towns), but is often omitted in literature, except for comedic purposes. Dance is a universal language that can portray the full range of emotion. It might be the easiest way to immediately access an alien culture. Proper use can establish the social morays of a culture through its form as well as the story it tells. Additionally, it can be a lot of fun. There is nothing wrong with letting your characters lighten their heels and enjoy themselves from time to time.
What do you think? Am I completely off base? Are there any other reasons to dance that I left off or examples that defy categorization? I once watched an entire special on Balinese music and dance where the audience laughed at the dancers if they made the slightest mistake. "Strictly Ballroom" was a surprisingly engaging movie. Come on people, help me. I want to learn.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Morality
Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. (Dictionary.com, definition 1)
I went to Lunacon last weekend hoping to absorb some of the wisdom from the professional types and make new friends (I'm terrible at networking). During a "New Writers" panel, Michael Ventrella (one of the panelists) made the comment, "The villain is the hero of their own story," which I've heard him (and others) say on other occasions. This statement is generally met with thoughtful nods. However, this time, there was a dissenting voice in the audience. A gentleman behind me said something to the extent that Bernie Madoff could not possibly believe that about himself. Now, we could debate all day about whether Bernie thinks he's a bad guy (I don't personally know the fella), but it got me to thinking about the roots of morality. How does one know what is 'Right'?
My entire life has been spent around people who are substantially different than I in one way or another. Growing up in suburban New Jersey, we had all sorts of backgrounds and economic levels represented, most within a mile radius of my house. We had a media mogul down the street and a family (my parents' friends) who had fled Liberia under the cover of darkness (their group having been ousted) to become a bus driver and a librarian in this new world. One of the things I have always been exposed to is other people's points of view. 'Exposed' is the important word in that sentence, because I didn't always recognize it, but it was always there. This experience has been an important part of my growth as a human being and an integral part of my aspirations as a writer. It is through understanding the motivations of my characters that I hope to create honesty (no matter how fantastical) within my work.
Right was defined in my youth as what I was taught in Church. I grew up in a pretty liberal Protestant household (Hell was only in the subtext, we were focused on getting into Heaven). My folks and I have our differences in the details, but the basics of human decency and respect seem to be agreed upon. Growing up firmly in the middle class, I never really wanted for anything I needed and my parents didn't believe in using violence as a teaching technique. You put all of those together and you get a pretty good picture of how I try to conduct myself on a day to day basis. As an individual, I seem to be directed by the total of my experience.
Like myself, many people have the grounding of their understanding of Right on religion. If God says something is cool, then it is (we will ignore for the moment how much of European history hinges on attempts to circumvent this limit). Most people are thoroughly entrenched in the Judeo-Christian ethics focused primarily on the Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule. Ask most folks on the street and they'll tell you that it is wrong to kill other people, want their stuff, and sleep with their wife (though we often forget about honoring our parents, and so on). The simple truth is that other cultures aren't so cut and dry on this. Think about the long term impact of Confucian filial piety on the women of China. Do a little research and you'll find that these "universal truths" aren't quite so universal and that what you view as cruel may be perfectly justified to someone else (as well as all their kin). Religion has been used as a tool to advocate all kinds of (white I believe is) abominable behavior throughout history.
The second primary influence on an individual's morality is the code of ethics imposed by their government. Modern democratic countries create their laws with the stated intent of protecting the rights of the individuals who are citizens of that country. Growing up in the USA, I firmly believed in my rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (though being in "The Declaration of Independence," it's not a law). Faith in the country of our birth is drilled into most of us right along with our parents' religion. Freely flowing populations who have no allegiance to any specific country are generally frowned upon as untrustworthy (sorry Roma). Here again though, we find that countries with different forms of government create radically different moral guidelines. Czech friends tell me that in Communist Czechoslovakia, "If you don't steal from others, you are stealing from your family," was a common axiom. Feudal societies may excuse any action as long as it was commanded by the lord of that particular vassal. Additionally, the ethics that regulate our relationships with our fellow citizens have not always protected outsiders. The rules of The Geneva Convention (1949) were designed particularly with this in mind. People who are taught to 'trust the system' become molded by the system.
The third primary influence forming one's "moral compass" is their community. Hardest to define, this may be a complex of cultures and religions mingling value systems and economic factors. These are the influences of friends and neighbors, the events of childhood. It is these mitigating real life influences which seem to create the shades of grey in our otherwise black/white morality. Growing up with some of my best friends being Jewish started me asking, "Are they all going to Hell?" Others in a more homogeneous community might simply have their beliefs reinforced. In these groups, the 'other' is often the most strongly affected, perhaps feeding the ego of the rich kid or fueling the rage of the poor one. These circumstances of youth are usually what teach us which of the other ethical codes are flexible.
Some will argue that there is an inborn sense of Right that all humans are born knowing; that children have to be taught hate and avarice. There may be some truth to that, but it's hard to design experiments to prove these ideas (see examples of such below). It is possible that basic morality is a genetically encoded survival instinct. We routinely create ethical systems of right and wrong which are beneficial to survival, like "it's a bad idea to kill people who will protect me," but this is not morality. This is the foundation of a successful society. It seems reasonable to believe that those who develop successful rules would survive to pass these impulses on. However much inborn justice a baby has, it is quickly molded by the other factors surrounding it.
While humans may be born with an innate sense of right and wrong, as societies become more complex, there is plenty of opportunity for divergent systems of Right to be equally successful. The world is full of faiths, governments, and societies all trying to improve the lot of their adherents; each taking its own path to fulfillment. What is Right for each individual springs from the confluence of these influences. If there was a simple answer, Philosophy would have gotten bored with itself long ago. As a wise sitcom once sang, "What might be right for you, may not be right for some."
In summary: The villain is the hero of his own story.
Confucianism - http://www.ibiblio.org/chinesehistory/contents/02cul/c04s04.html
The Geneva Conventions - http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/publication/p0173.htm
Child Experiments - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-your-child-fair-when-no-one-is-watching/
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Creature Culture (part 5)
I must admit that I expected a bit more response on the previous post of this series. I've gotten a private comment or two, but mostly about feeling dissatisfied with my conclusions, not in refutation. I'd summarize the post, but I want you to go read it and come back... I'll wait.
*whistling*
There, now that we're all on the same page, I want to continue the thought experiment. The goal is not to have women as the power behind the throne, or for limited duration, but to make them sustainable authority figures. I've been doing some thinking on the subject and returning to my scientific roots to provide an alternate approach. The essence of that being: if we are trying to create a different outcome (females ascendant) while maintaining the subject (humans), then we need to change the conditions that affect the subject.
Simply removing the physical dangers, that give men value in the evolutionary scheme, should theoretically work. With no need for that role, those big brutish males (if they persist) might then become a labor force for the women, building and farming their lives away. Unfortunately, that doesn't really fit with a "Fantasy" world filled with fantastic creatures (who usually like to cause a ruckus). Modern humans aren't especially troubled by the natural world, but seem to have plenty of need for strength and violence when contending with our own species. Removing the need for violence would require planet-wide peace (though maybe a small isolated population could work). This holds some possibilities for a Sci/Fi creation, but not really what I want. Similarly, guns provide some balance in terms of equalizing force potential, but things always seem to come down to close quarters work (see: all wars, excepting the Pacific Theater ending of WWII).
Active gods are a quite simple way to establish any societal rule. "Women run things because God said so," is much more reasonable than many of the laws established in religious texts the world over. Many works of fiction put women in positions of influence using religion, but not control. In an unstable and violent world, making this sustainable would require that these women can call upon the power of the gods with some regularity (and the men can't in the same way/scale). Perhaps the god identifies as female, being a Mother Goddess, or prefers female worshipers just because he/she feels like it (I'm not going to dispute with a god). The power provided to these worshipers need not be physical, though that would simplify things. Necessary levels of intervention would vary depending on the stability of the society.
Trade is a possible gateway to egalitarianism, though not especially likely to make women ascendant (that would probably need some kind of additional nudge). A society focused on long-distance trade would require strong women to keep the home fires burning. Robin Hobb employs this concept in her The Liveship Traders series. Business owners away for months or years can be a leadership vacuum. This could create a real husband/wife partnership in the business and consequently alter societal norms. Wealth is often connected with political power, thus the women might start having a voice in politics as proxies for absent husbands and then eventually in their own right (are you not watching "Vikings" on the History channel?). Historically, the owners of the ships and their cargoes were not often the ones on the boat, but it's your world, make it happen.
Property is the measure of power in most Medieval societies. Kings may have been ordained by God, but without the nobles paying tribute (the King of France did not own France per se, much like the Emperor of Japan was given an allowance by his lords) they were up the creek. Women became extremely desirable matches if they were well endowed (with money and property (come on people, stay with me)) or sole heirs to their fathers' fortunes. Control of that land then passed to their husbands. It is conceivable that you could devise a society which allows the inheritance of land and title only through the female line to simplify succession (it is her kid) and protect the ladies. Women often ran the household, directing servants and doing the books (freeing men to focus on doing business), is it such a big step from there to having them run domestic policy? Let the King play warlord while the Queen controls the purse strings and thus the kingdom. It wouldn't take long for the lower classes to follow suit.
I'd love to suggest some deeper society specific changes to make, but some ideas seem so ingrained, that it's tough to mess with them. Part of the conversation following the "Avengers" movie has been the continued sexualization/objectification of women in comic books and their films (which is certainly true). An interesting point is that both genders are sexualized (sexualization being based on what makes either gender attractive to the other) in these mediums. Scarlett Johansson is certainly selected for her build, but it's no different than Chris Hemsworth or any of the other men in the "superhero" cast (the baddie is relatively reedy). Even Iron Man has clearly defined muscles built into his suit, just like depictions of Fantasy heroins often have breast emphasizing chest protectors. When you hear about the diets and routines that these guys go through to get into that kind of shape, it is as unrealistic (though probably less damaging) as the "ideal" that is established for women. The difference is in the male/female audience response to these images and why they respond that way (I would postulate that it's related to moving away from the violent society and the subsequent changing requirements of "provider" which has broadened what is considered sexually appealing in men).
In many ways, nothing has changed. Modern society is still primitive. Motivating factors have not changed that much and evolutionary imperatives are not so easy to turn off. Exemplary individuals and outliers certainly exist, but it isn't so easy to invent a stable society which maintains human females in ascendance. Starting with the limitation of a Medieval type setting, the opportunities decrease substantially. Perhaps we should instead strive to create a world where men and women work hand in hand, each using their abilities to complement the other for the benefit of all.
So what do you think? Any ideas? I'm asking for help and insight here.
*whistling*
There, now that we're all on the same page, I want to continue the thought experiment. The goal is not to have women as the power behind the throne, or for limited duration, but to make them sustainable authority figures. I've been doing some thinking on the subject and returning to my scientific roots to provide an alternate approach. The essence of that being: if we are trying to create a different outcome (females ascendant) while maintaining the subject (humans), then we need to change the conditions that affect the subject.
Simply removing the physical dangers, that give men value in the evolutionary scheme, should theoretically work. With no need for that role, those big brutish males (if they persist) might then become a labor force for the women, building and farming their lives away. Unfortunately, that doesn't really fit with a "Fantasy" world filled with fantastic creatures (who usually like to cause a ruckus). Modern humans aren't especially troubled by the natural world, but seem to have plenty of need for strength and violence when contending with our own species. Removing the need for violence would require planet-wide peace (though maybe a small isolated population could work). This holds some possibilities for a Sci/Fi creation, but not really what I want. Similarly, guns provide some balance in terms of equalizing force potential, but things always seem to come down to close quarters work (see: all wars, excepting the Pacific Theater ending of WWII).
Active gods are a quite simple way to establish any societal rule. "Women run things because God said so," is much more reasonable than many of the laws established in religious texts the world over. Many works of fiction put women in positions of influence using religion, but not control. In an unstable and violent world, making this sustainable would require that these women can call upon the power of the gods with some regularity (and the men can't in the same way/scale). Perhaps the god identifies as female, being a Mother Goddess, or prefers female worshipers just because he/she feels like it (I'm not going to dispute with a god). The power provided to these worshipers need not be physical, though that would simplify things. Necessary levels of intervention would vary depending on the stability of the society.
Trade is a possible gateway to egalitarianism, though not especially likely to make women ascendant (that would probably need some kind of additional nudge). A society focused on long-distance trade would require strong women to keep the home fires burning. Robin Hobb employs this concept in her The Liveship Traders series. Business owners away for months or years can be a leadership vacuum. This could create a real husband/wife partnership in the business and consequently alter societal norms. Wealth is often connected with political power, thus the women might start having a voice in politics as proxies for absent husbands and then eventually in their own right (are you not watching "Vikings" on the History channel?). Historically, the owners of the ships and their cargoes were not often the ones on the boat, but it's your world, make it happen.
Property is the measure of power in most Medieval societies. Kings may have been ordained by God, but without the nobles paying tribute (the King of France did not own France per se, much like the Emperor of Japan was given an allowance by his lords) they were up the creek. Women became extremely desirable matches if they were well endowed (with money and property (come on people, stay with me)) or sole heirs to their fathers' fortunes. Control of that land then passed to their husbands. It is conceivable that you could devise a society which allows the inheritance of land and title only through the female line to simplify succession (it is her kid) and protect the ladies. Women often ran the household, directing servants and doing the books (freeing men to focus on doing business), is it such a big step from there to having them run domestic policy? Let the King play warlord while the Queen controls the purse strings and thus the kingdom. It wouldn't take long for the lower classes to follow suit.
I'd love to suggest some deeper society specific changes to make, but some ideas seem so ingrained, that it's tough to mess with them. Part of the conversation following the "Avengers" movie has been the continued sexualization/objectification of women in comic books and their films (which is certainly true). An interesting point is that both genders are sexualized (sexualization being based on what makes either gender attractive to the other) in these mediums. Scarlett Johansson is certainly selected for her build, but it's no different than Chris Hemsworth or any of the other men in the "superhero" cast (the baddie is relatively reedy). Even Iron Man has clearly defined muscles built into his suit, just like depictions of Fantasy heroins often have breast emphasizing chest protectors. When you hear about the diets and routines that these guys go through to get into that kind of shape, it is as unrealistic (though probably less damaging) as the "ideal" that is established for women. The difference is in the male/female audience response to these images and why they respond that way (I would postulate that it's related to moving away from the violent society and the subsequent changing requirements of "provider" which has broadened what is considered sexually appealing in men).
In many ways, nothing has changed. Modern society is still primitive. Motivating factors have not changed that much and evolutionary imperatives are not so easy to turn off. Exemplary individuals and outliers certainly exist, but it isn't so easy to invent a stable society which maintains human females in ascendance. Starting with the limitation of a Medieval type setting, the opportunities decrease substantially. Perhaps we should instead strive to create a world where men and women work hand in hand, each using their abilities to complement the other for the benefit of all.
So what do you think? Any ideas? I'm asking for help and insight here.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Jobs - Midwife
Reproductive health is an area of specialization that throughout history has been in the almost exclusive purview of women. While it is unclear when "Midwife" became an occupation, they are referenced in many cultures, even making an appearance in the first book of The Bible. Most likely, professionals were focused in population centers for simple economic reasons. Texts were produced for the Greek or Roman Professional Midwife from the Third Century BCE up to the Sixth Century AD dealing with obstetrics any gynecology. These women were not only literate, but up to date on current medical philosophies (though these were relatively frightening, based on today's standards). When these urban communities disappeared in Europe with the fall of the Roman Empire, this brand of Midwife disappeared with them. With the descent into the "Dark Ages," the title of midwife often fell to the most experienced woman on hand. In small towns this might be the eldest of the community or the woman who had birthed the most children. Family or servants might act as midwives, especially in the case where no trouble was expected during the birth. The development, or reemergence, of the professional midwife in Medieval Europe was gradual and progressed at varying rates from region to region. When it did developed a profession, the skills were often passed down from master to apprentice over a period of years, like many other trades, but without formal written agreements. Other medical practitioners could also impart the requisite knowledge and training to to the initiate. The only requirement for candidacy seems to have been a recommendation from the local priest that the woman wishing to become a midwife be of strong moral character. Whoever was handling the delivery, the birthing bed was solely the province of women during this period in time.
The majority of Medieval midwifes seem to have practiced natural and 'common sense' methods of aiding births. Pepper might be used to cause the patient to sneeze, thereby inducing labor. Various herbal remedies might be used to soothe the patient. The midwife would wash the mother, then use butter or oils to aid in lubrication and stretching of the perineal area. Delivered children would first be cleansed with water and then salt to dry the humors. Honey might be applied to the gums of the child to encourage hunger. The health of the newborn was also the province of the midwife, why might apply oils or unguents thought to be beneficial. Some midwives dealt in 'magic,' providing charms to aid in conception or to ease childbirth (though the extent to which they were persecuted as witches is debated).
Trotula was a practicing midwife in 11th Century Italy, who quite literally "wrote the book" for her profession. Medieval Woman's Guide to Health covers abnormal birth presentations, Cesarian procedures, delivery techniques, herbal remedies and more. Though she may have worked in the field previously, she studied and refined her work in the medical school of Salerno and helped to define her specialty as a separate discipline within medicine. While widely read in Southern Europe at the time, it seems to have not infiltrated the North until later.
Under the Church, midwives took on additional roles. They would bring the children to the church for baptism. It was their responsibility to question the mother during labor as to the parentage of the child in the case of illegitimate births. They could also stand as witnesses in cases regarding infanticide related to premature births. When the newborn was in danger, they could perform an emergency baptism. If it became clear that a mother was to die, it was the midwife's responsibility to send for a doctor to perform a c-section to remove the fetus for baptism.
It is important to note that not all female medical practitioners in the Middle Ages were midwives. Women also served as physicians, empirics (or Matrons: kind of like the local 'wise women'), surgeons/barbers, apothecaries, and nurses. It wasn't until the establishment of Universities around the 13th Century, that women were pushed out of the doctors' ranks. The strength of the Surgeons' and Barbers' Guilds allowed women to hold those positions for a while longer against state restrictions. As physicians became formally trained and licensed in the Late Middle Ages, they took over are of gynecology, reducing the role of the midwife to aiding primarily in delivery.
women in medieval medicine - http://www.maggietron.com/med/women.php
Middle Ages and Renaissance - http://www.gallowglass.org/jadwiga/herbs/WomenMed.html
detailed encyclopedia entry - http://cw.routledge.com/ref/middleages/women/midwives.html
professional paper - http://courses.washington.edu/hsteu305/Greilsammer%20Midwives.pdf
Professionalization of Midwifery - http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/cjmrp/article/viewFile/1993/1969
check pg 108 and on - http://books.google.com/books?id=VPDqnGGHpHYC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=medieval+midwife&source=bl&ots=UqOiEo_fGP&sig=YmF-AqGhQkuABZ_p0q18jRpfGSw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pAAhU42CMMWkkQesmIH4Dw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAjgo#v=onepage&q=medieval%20midwife&f=false
Representation in Spanish Literature pg 98 - http://books.google.com/books?id=IjjAV7G4iJwC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=medieval+midwife&source=bl&ots=mXtyuxgc91&sig=uwW9MOaGiE9dLCn2T44CF7ZMZZw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TQEhU7LONIrpkAeznIHwAQ&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAzgy#v=onepage&q=medieval%20midwife&f=false
Trial of a midwife 1403 - http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2808%2961467-1/fulltext
(1400-1800) - http://www.hsj.gr/volume5/issue1/515.pdf
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Beyond the Basics of Naming
Alright, I think I've got it sorted this time. The last post was necessary to lay the groundwork for naming. It's important to have a basic skeleton so that when you put on the flesh it doesn't become one massive pile of... well that took a nasty turn. Anyway, once you have decided on a naming structure to use (given and surname; given and nickname; given and place-name, etc) there is still plenty of work to do. 'Bob the Mighty' just won't cut it with most readers for some reason. So, the following are some of the considerations I've made (am making) while determining names for my characters.
1) Language of Origin - Quite naturally, names used by a culture follow the rhythms and pronunciation of their parent tongue. When building a world, many times an author models their cultures on their real world climatic equivalents. For example, countries comprised primarily of deserts will often have Arabic sounding names and lands that spend most of the year covered in ice may have names based on a Scandinavian tongue. Doing this has its inherent dangers (related to a reader's real world connection to these peoples), but allows us to group characters of the same nationality or region simply, using established rules. If you want to avoid these connections, you need to create your own rules for the sounds of this new language (which is a whole different post). Additionally, sticking with established patterns may be the best option, as it will be easier for your readers to pronounce and remember your characters' names.
2) Position in Society - In the history of the genre, we have seen protagonists of all classes, bearing all kinds of names. Pug (from Raymond E. Feist's "Riftwar Saga") was an orphan who rose to great power. Can you think of a less auspicious name? In The Farseer Trilogy, Robin Hobb's royalty are given names to aspire to (Verity, Patience, Chivalry). George Martin's lordly characters born out of wedlock in "A Song of Ice and Fire" all have the same regionally assigned surname (Snow, Rivers, Sand, etc.), whose shame follows them wherever they go (much like the unfortunately named Tanis Half-Elven from the Dragonlance Series). If I can believe Shogun, the peasants or servants of feudal Japan might not have even had names (I'm not sure how to research a lack of a name). Conversely, Sir Launcelot du Lac, of Arthurian fame, is clearly a renowned knight from a foreign land before we ever meet him in the story. To give a learned person distinction, or an old world an even older world touch, many authors use names from ancient Rome, using Latin.
3) Non-Human Names - This is an important category for the aspiring fantasist. Many times this is accomplished by including lots of apostrophes and doubled letters (for example, Mr. Salvatore's much loved Drizzt Do'urden). Mr. Martin's shifty Jaqen H'gar, uses the apostrophe and a 'q' without a 'u'. I'm still not sure of its derivation or how to pronounce it, but the name doesn't sound human to me (he may be human in actuality, but I'd argue that it depends on your definition). Using these kinds of tricks can help to make these other races/species seem otherworldly or at least strange. Also remember that words have a visual impact created before it can be sounded out, like Douglas Adams' character drinking "jynnan tonnyx," which adds a touch of strangeness without the alienation.
If you choose to use the same methods as recommended in Item 1, you can make it easier to relate to non-human characters, like Tolkien's dwarfs (Thorin Oakenshield). To achieve lighthearted names for his Hobbits, Tolkien's often used alliteration in combination with familiar earthy visuals (Bilbo Baggins, Otho Proudfoot). Likewise, using simple names for a folk (his trolls: Tom, Bert, and William) will generally imply simplicity or baseness (of station or character). Tom Bombadil is a simple soul filled with humor and light who is obviously something we have never seen before with a touch of menace (you don't pronounce it Bomb-a-dil, but I still see the word (I may be reading into this a bit much)). As you might expect from his background, Mr. Tolkien was a master namer.
4) Fame - As discussed in the previous post, not all names are given at birth, some are earned. These are the names that inform more about personality than about his/her forebears. Blackbeard has an obvious trademark and Eric the Red doesn't sound like a very congenial fellow (sorry, William of Orange refers to a place, not necessarily the gent's fashion preferences), likewise Vlad the Impaler and Ivan the Terrible. Not all of these earned names have to instill instill fear: Richard the Lionhearted and Charles the Bald (son of Louis the Pious) were obviously named with other thoughts in mind. I must say that I've always felt sorry for Pepin the Short. Having a moniker of this sort not only informs the character of the individual, but implies a certain degree of fame.
5) The Rule of Cool - I've brought this up before and stand firmly by it. If something sounds cool, go with it. As a Fantasy writer, you should be able to explain away everything (though you are welcome to secrets), just be prepared for it. If you've got the perfect name for your lead character and it has no vowels, he might be Czech. If your character has six surnames, then maybe his culture is really into genealogy, or he's Brazilian. Obviously, the creators of "Guardians of the Galaxy" followed this rule when naming Star Lord, yeah.
In this post, I'm just pulling examples from cultures I'm familiar with. If you pick a language group to follow, do a little research and you can find thing like: in Czech today there is a specific list of names you can give children (though you can ask for an exemption); they celebrate Name-Days; and that the diminutive forms can be really funky (Josef to Pepa, for instance). To my mind, if you work with names from another language, doing research and being consistent is simply being respectful. Who knows? It may add to the flavor of your world. One final note: be careful of using too weirdly specific a name (like Fortinbras), unless you want to use this reference to reinforce some aspect of your character (remember, taking a whole character without permission is bad and lazy). Hmmm it seems I have much work to do yet in my own world. Time to get back to it.
Czech names - http://www.myczechrepublic.com/czech_culture/czech_name_days/dimm.html#P
1) Language of Origin - Quite naturally, names used by a culture follow the rhythms and pronunciation of their parent tongue. When building a world, many times an author models their cultures on their real world climatic equivalents. For example, countries comprised primarily of deserts will often have Arabic sounding names and lands that spend most of the year covered in ice may have names based on a Scandinavian tongue. Doing this has its inherent dangers (related to a reader's real world connection to these peoples), but allows us to group characters of the same nationality or region simply, using established rules. If you want to avoid these connections, you need to create your own rules for the sounds of this new language (which is a whole different post). Additionally, sticking with established patterns may be the best option, as it will be easier for your readers to pronounce and remember your characters' names.
2) Position in Society - In the history of the genre, we have seen protagonists of all classes, bearing all kinds of names. Pug (from Raymond E. Feist's "Riftwar Saga") was an orphan who rose to great power. Can you think of a less auspicious name? In The Farseer Trilogy, Robin Hobb's royalty are given names to aspire to (Verity, Patience, Chivalry). George Martin's lordly characters born out of wedlock in "A Song of Ice and Fire" all have the same regionally assigned surname (Snow, Rivers, Sand, etc.), whose shame follows them wherever they go (much like the unfortunately named Tanis Half-Elven from the Dragonlance Series). If I can believe Shogun, the peasants or servants of feudal Japan might not have even had names (I'm not sure how to research a lack of a name). Conversely, Sir Launcelot du Lac, of Arthurian fame, is clearly a renowned knight from a foreign land before we ever meet him in the story. To give a learned person distinction, or an old world an even older world touch, many authors use names from ancient Rome, using Latin.
3) Non-Human Names - This is an important category for the aspiring fantasist. Many times this is accomplished by including lots of apostrophes and doubled letters (for example, Mr. Salvatore's much loved Drizzt Do'urden). Mr. Martin's shifty Jaqen H'gar, uses the apostrophe and a 'q' without a 'u'. I'm still not sure of its derivation or how to pronounce it, but the name doesn't sound human to me (he may be human in actuality, but I'd argue that it depends on your definition). Using these kinds of tricks can help to make these other races/species seem otherworldly or at least strange. Also remember that words have a visual impact created before it can be sounded out, like Douglas Adams' character drinking "jynnan tonnyx," which adds a touch of strangeness without the alienation.
If you choose to use the same methods as recommended in Item 1, you can make it easier to relate to non-human characters, like Tolkien's dwarfs (Thorin Oakenshield). To achieve lighthearted names for his Hobbits, Tolkien's often used alliteration in combination with familiar earthy visuals (Bilbo Baggins, Otho Proudfoot). Likewise, using simple names for a folk (his trolls: Tom, Bert, and William) will generally imply simplicity or baseness (of station or character). Tom Bombadil is a simple soul filled with humor and light who is obviously something we have never seen before with a touch of menace (you don't pronounce it Bomb-a-dil, but I still see the word (I may be reading into this a bit much)). As you might expect from his background, Mr. Tolkien was a master namer.
4) Fame - As discussed in the previous post, not all names are given at birth, some are earned. These are the names that inform more about personality than about his/her forebears. Blackbeard has an obvious trademark and Eric the Red doesn't sound like a very congenial fellow (sorry, William of Orange refers to a place, not necessarily the gent's fashion preferences), likewise Vlad the Impaler and Ivan the Terrible. Not all of these earned names have to instill instill fear: Richard the Lionhearted and Charles the Bald (son of Louis the Pious) were obviously named with other thoughts in mind. I must say that I've always felt sorry for Pepin the Short. Having a moniker of this sort not only informs the character of the individual, but implies a certain degree of fame.
5) The Rule of Cool - I've brought this up before and stand firmly by it. If something sounds cool, go with it. As a Fantasy writer, you should be able to explain away everything (though you are welcome to secrets), just be prepared for it. If you've got the perfect name for your lead character and it has no vowels, he might be Czech. If your character has six surnames, then maybe his culture is really into genealogy, or he's Brazilian. Obviously, the creators of "Guardians of the Galaxy" followed this rule when naming Star Lord, yeah.
In this post, I'm just pulling examples from cultures I'm familiar with. If you pick a language group to follow, do a little research and you can find thing like: in Czech today there is a specific list of names you can give children (though you can ask for an exemption); they celebrate Name-Days; and that the diminutive forms can be really funky (Josef to Pepa, for instance). To my mind, if you work with names from another language, doing research and being consistent is simply being respectful. Who knows? It may add to the flavor of your world. One final note: be careful of using too weirdly specific a name (like Fortinbras), unless you want to use this reference to reinforce some aspect of your character (remember, taking a whole character without permission is bad and lazy). Hmmm it seems I have much work to do yet in my own world. Time to get back to it.
Czech names - http://www.myczechrepublic.com/czech_culture/czech_name_days/dimm.html#P
Thursday, March 6, 2014
The Basics of Naming
It seem like such a simple, innocuous thing, doesn't it? Why do I have such difficulty slapping an identifier on a character, city, or people? Perhaps it is true, as many before have suggested, that there is power in the naming. T.S. Elliot tells us that cats have three names: one for everyday, one for pride, and one known only to itself. It is thought that knowledge of a demon's true name can give you power over it, much like knowledge of your name can put you in the power of wielders of dark magics. Even if you don't believe in magic, there is power in a name; there is meaning. Names can serve as windows into history and culture.
Given names are the ones bestowed upon us by our parents, the everyday name. Where these names came from is difficult to say. Most (in English) seem to have some original deeper meaning steeped in history, language mangling, and tradition. Many popular given names derive from the Bible and have been translated across cultures, with each altering the spelling or pronunciation as appropriate to their language. Other famous figures are likewise honored by having children named after them as well. In Brazil today, that can lead to some lengthy multi-part monikers (*see after). Some children are named for their parents, though Jewish tradition forbids naming after a living family member. Some names run in families with multiple children, or cousins bearing the same name. My mother tells me of a family she worked with who had six different Roccos and eight Maries. One night over dinner we listed at least nine families in my hometown who had sons (brothers) named Matthew and Michael.
Family names seem to have originated largely to differentiate one "Rocco" from another (though it probably didn't help much in that family). I guess too many people got into fights over which one would be "The Greater" and which "The Lesser." This lead to many patronymics referring to professions (Smith, Potter, Mason) or kinship (Peterson, Anderson, Johnson). Place names or descriptors were also used as familial names (Corleone, anyone? as well as any name that has a "von" prefix, or the "-burg" finish). An interesting note is that in Chinese and Japanese culture, the family name is used before the given name, emphasizing the importance of the family over the individual. For many people, the family name is a source of pride, a connection to their ancestors. As property traditions evolved, the right to carry a certain name might have a significant financial aspect as well. Impressive ancestors carried a lot of weight long before we knew anything about DNA (just check out that latest episode of "Vikings").
I can't say much about secret names (obviously), so I'll talk about nicknames. These are the names designated to us by friends or enemies. These are the names that we earn by our words or deeds. In a sense, it was one of the earliest forms of advertizing. Most often today we assign them to athletes and serial killers, but history has a plethora: Phillip the Bold, The Iron Chancellor, The Sun King, Old Hickory, Randy "Macho Man" Savage (sorry). Some of these are earned and some bestowed. A good nickname has a life of its own (I was nicknamed "Damage" in college, which is a complete farce, though I admit to helping cement it) and can travel ahead of its bearer like a standard. How many of these names grew wild and how many cultivated would be an interesting question.
The names that our characters carry aren't just place holders. Names give hints to history, family and tradition without the author offering a whiff of exposition. Without even meeting, the name "Benjamin" marked me as an outsider in Brazil. Many names have been mangled by parents and immigration officers the world over, whether by creativity or neglect, giving clues to the socioeconomic origin of the bearer. Some given names seem to represent hopes of parents for their wearers (Prince, Champ, Rex). Many people spend their whole lives trying to live up to their name (yes, that bit from "Gladiator" springs to mind). Alternatively, the reason someone would cast off the name of their birth is also a worthwhile exploration. Naming should never be taken lightly. A name stands for us when we are gone and its essence colors our image to those who we have never met.
This all may not exactly be why I have trouble naming characters and places, but it's a beginning. Do you have any thoughts or knowledge on the subject? I'd love to hear.
Brazilian names today - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/world/americas/his-friends-know-him-as-petroswickonicovick.html?action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry136%23%2Fbrazilian%2520names&_r=0
Given names are the ones bestowed upon us by our parents, the everyday name. Where these names came from is difficult to say. Most (in English) seem to have some original deeper meaning steeped in history, language mangling, and tradition. Many popular given names derive from the Bible and have been translated across cultures, with each altering the spelling or pronunciation as appropriate to their language. Other famous figures are likewise honored by having children named after them as well. In Brazil today, that can lead to some lengthy multi-part monikers (*see after). Some children are named for their parents, though Jewish tradition forbids naming after a living family member. Some names run in families with multiple children, or cousins bearing the same name. My mother tells me of a family she worked with who had six different Roccos and eight Maries. One night over dinner we listed at least nine families in my hometown who had sons (brothers) named Matthew and Michael.
Family names seem to have originated largely to differentiate one "Rocco" from another (though it probably didn't help much in that family). I guess too many people got into fights over which one would be "The Greater" and which "The Lesser." This lead to many patronymics referring to professions (Smith, Potter, Mason) or kinship (Peterson, Anderson, Johnson). Place names or descriptors were also used as familial names (Corleone, anyone? as well as any name that has a "von" prefix, or the "-burg" finish). An interesting note is that in Chinese and Japanese culture, the family name is used before the given name, emphasizing the importance of the family over the individual. For many people, the family name is a source of pride, a connection to their ancestors. As property traditions evolved, the right to carry a certain name might have a significant financial aspect as well. Impressive ancestors carried a lot of weight long before we knew anything about DNA (just check out that latest episode of "Vikings").
I can't say much about secret names (obviously), so I'll talk about nicknames. These are the names designated to us by friends or enemies. These are the names that we earn by our words or deeds. In a sense, it was one of the earliest forms of advertizing. Most often today we assign them to athletes and serial killers, but history has a plethora: Phillip the Bold, The Iron Chancellor, The Sun King, Old Hickory, Randy "Macho Man" Savage (sorry). Some of these are earned and some bestowed. A good nickname has a life of its own (I was nicknamed "Damage" in college, which is a complete farce, though I admit to helping cement it) and can travel ahead of its bearer like a standard. How many of these names grew wild and how many cultivated would be an interesting question.
The names that our characters carry aren't just place holders. Names give hints to history, family and tradition without the author offering a whiff of exposition. Without even meeting, the name "Benjamin" marked me as an outsider in Brazil. Many names have been mangled by parents and immigration officers the world over, whether by creativity or neglect, giving clues to the socioeconomic origin of the bearer. Some given names seem to represent hopes of parents for their wearers (Prince, Champ, Rex). Many people spend their whole lives trying to live up to their name (yes, that bit from "Gladiator" springs to mind). Alternatively, the reason someone would cast off the name of their birth is also a worthwhile exploration. Naming should never be taken lightly. A name stands for us when we are gone and its essence colors our image to those who we have never met.
This all may not exactly be why I have trouble naming characters and places, but it's a beginning. Do you have any thoughts or knowledge on the subject? I'd love to hear.
Brazilian names today - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/02/world/americas/his-friends-know-him-as-petroswickonicovick.html?action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry136%23%2Fbrazilian%2520names&_r=0
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Glass and Windows
The basic foundation material for the creation of glass is silica (commonly found in quartz). However, pure quartz takes some serious heat to make this change (over 1200degC), so we need a few additives to make it work. Early recipes used quartz sand mixed with soda ash. Impurities in the sand of certain regions might give the glass a characteristic color, like the German waldglas, which has a green tint. Eventually, recipes were also specifically developed to create various colors for decorative purposes (stained glass windows, mosaics, cameo glass, etc). Lime, magnesium oxide, and aluminum oxide are common additives used to increase durability.
Like many great discoveries, glass is thought to have been stumbled upon as a byproduct, a beautiful accident. Its origins may be as deep as 3500BCE in Syria, Mesopotamia, or Egypt. At that time they were simply making beads or small decorative items. Development may have occurred independently in other parts of the globe, but it seems to be found in all major population centers well before the Medieval period (which is what I generally care about, in terms of writing). Around 1500BCE hollow containers started to be made by covering a sand core with molten glass. Glass-blowing was discovered in the 1st Century BCE along the Syro-Judean coast. Because of this, glass became less expensive than pottery for small containers and proliferated throughout the Roman Empire, though its making was a closely guarded secret.
Development of glass manufacturing in Europe came in fits and starts. After the Roman Empire fell to bits, glass production decreased significantly until it was revived through Italian trade with Byzantium. In Northern Europe, ca 1000CE, the widely available potash (do you remember this from a previous post?) came to replace the soda ash used in the South, significantly decreasing materials cost for production. Around this same time, new methods were developed in Germany for producing sheets of glass from blown cylinders of glass (still relatively small panes). The glass was thick and wavy, so while it would admit light, it was hard/impossible to see through clearly. Windows constructed of this material remained primarily within religious buildings in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. It took until the late 17th Century, around the time the Brits added lead oxide to the mix, for glass to become a common sight in windows of the common people of Europe.
Local specialties arose throughout Europe, spawning some of the brands famous still on the market today. Bohemian Crystal (rock crystal) production began in the mid 13th Century, with its intricately etched tableware (and later chandeliers and such). The luxuriously colored Murano Glass was first produced in that Italian town in the late 13th Century (after the glassmakers were forced to leave Venice to protect it from fire). In the 15th Century, a Murano glassmaker discovered how to make clear flat glass, making Murano the first glass mirror manufacturers in Europe at that time (though the technology quickly spread). I'm sure there are other manufacturers of note, but this ain't no commercial.
Ah, what a thoroughly useful night of research. It seems I'll keep shutters on my windows in general, but a lord may get some of those thick bottle-glass looking ones like those I loved in Prague Castle's majestic Vladislav Hall (thanks again Mr. Sula for the lovely book). I can start putting my booze back in glass bottles (though earthenware jugs can be nice and characterful, especially for moonshine). Glasses are a possibility for drinking out of, though I may stick with tin, pewter, or even horn for most regular folks. As we discussed before, spectacles are generally off the list unless they're for priests. Oh and remember people, if you want to manufacture glass, sand doesn't only come from the sea shore. Take a wander sometime through Berlin's Grunewald for some nice sandy beaches (well sand and nudists around the Teufelsee). I hope you enjoyed this brief survey of the history of glass and that it made you think, just a little.*as a side (er, end) note, much "stained glass" you see in churches is not colored glass, but clear glass which has been painted
good history - http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/histppg.htm
muddle of history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_glass
technical materials - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass
general history - http://www.historyofglass.com/glass-invention/first-glass/
general history with techniques - http://timeline.cmog.org/
Murano - http://www.glassofvenice.com/murano_glass_history.php
for descriptions and diagrams of technique - http://mikegigi.com/tubeshet.htm
Bohemian Glass - http://mybohemia.com/glass_history.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)