Important research question: snails with little arms, y/n?
[Source]
h
RMH

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Alisa U Zemlji Chuda
AnasAbdin
hello vonnie

No title available

⁂
Today's Document
One Nice Bug Per Day

izzy's playlists!
tumblr dot com
ojovivo
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
sheepfilms

if i look back, i am lost
art blog(derogatory)
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
Jules of Nature
No title available
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from United States

seen from Germany
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Poland
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Australia
seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Türkiye

seen from Romania
seen from Canada
@ides-aglaecwif
Important research question: snails with little arms, y/n?
[Source]
I know I make fun of Pliny the Elder a lot, but I genuinely can’t stop thinking about this approach to taxonomy:
[There is a fish called the tursio, which bears a strong resemblance to the dolphin; it differs from it, however, in a certain air of sadness, and is wanting in its peculiar vivacity.]
Like, imagine someone describing an animal to you, but the only information they’ll provide is that it’s sort of like another animal, but much much sadder.
okay so apparently the word “Tursio” is what people in Pliny’s time called the porpoise. for reference, here is a dolphin:
and here is a porpoise:
anyways long story short Pliny was entirely correct stop bullying him
Pendant with St. George and The Dragon, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Medieval Art
Rogers Fund, 1974 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Silver, parcel gilt
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/465976
Glass Fragment, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Medieval Art
Gift of George D. Pratt, 1930 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Pot metal glass
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/467108
Dish, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Cloisters
The Cloisters Collection, 1956 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Tin-glazed earthenware
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/471795
Salt Cellar by Elkington & Co., Metropolitan Museum of Art: Medieval Art
Dodge Fund, 1911 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Silver gilt, glass
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/463505
Manuscript Leaf with Initial F, from an Antiphonary, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Medieval Art
Gift of Miss Alice M. Dike, in memory of her father, Henry A. Dike, 1928 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Tempera, ink, and metal leaf on parchment
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/466742
Panel with Standing Figure under Architectural Detail, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Cloisters
The Cloisters Collection, 1948 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Glass
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/471324
Doorway, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Cloisters
The Cloisters Collection, 1934 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Limestone
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/471134
Finger Ring, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Medieval Art
Gift of J. Pierpont Morgan, 1917 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Silver
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/465149
The problem started with stirrups.
So I’ve been working on writing Merlin fanfic and, like a moron, I decided I wanted it to be more historically accurate because the actual canon is a shitshow about that.
I start doing some writing, some researching, and discover that stirrups won’t arrive in Britain until the 10th century or so. King Arthur is like… early 500′s roughly.
So no stirrups. That’s not a big problem. Except it is argued that it might have been a major contributor to feudalism. Which, ok, good to know. So Arthur is pre-feudalism, got it. Shouldn’t change too much, right? (wrong)
Oh, what’s this that feudalism requires for those new wealthy landowners?
Fucking. Primogeniture.
(friendly reminder: this is the right of inheritance for the firstborn son. Like for land, or titles of nobility… or kings)
So if my research is right, King Arthur didn’t have an inherent right to the throne because he was the firstborn male heir. He was fucking ELECTED. (or maybe a lady in the lake threw a sword at him, who knows, this is all myth anyway)
But the fucking kicker?
The thing that DOESN’T EXIST in King Arthur’s time?? Because feudalism won’t show up for several centuries?
Fucking.
Knights.
In summary, the story of King Arthur is just modern day fanfiction from medieval/feudal Europe with rampant OCs, overpowered everyone, too much fucking drama, and like three different werewolves.
Also no stirrups.
this is how i learned young there’s no such thing as canon
King Arthur was ahistorical fanfic in the 12th century when the tales as we know them took shape, and in every retelling since then. It’s basically always been about projecting the author’s values backwards in time to an idealized past.
There’s literally a book exploring this and how modern retellings have continued the spirit of High Medieval versions called Silk and Potatoes: Contemporary Arthurian Fantasy. Because silk and potatoes, like stirrups, knights, and feudalism, also didn’t exist in post-Roman Britain.
There really is no “historically accurate” way to write King Arthur. Even attempts to set the story in the 6th century are constructed ahistorical fantasies. You basically just have to decide which brand of anachronism you want to go with.
Which is why the Good Omens Arthurian scene was aggressively anachronistic.
*Medieval celestial scenes* - 30.05.2020 3:22PM GMT-4
Manuscript Leaf from a Missal, Metropolitan Museum of Art: Medieval Art
Bequest of Mrs. A. M. Minturn, 1890 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY Medium: Tempera, ink, shell gold, and gold on parchment
http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/468977
Concept: a medieval heist movie about monks stealing relics from another monastery.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/a-business-of-bones-relic-trafficking-in-the-middle-ages
It’s hard to fathom now but there was a time (specifically, ninth-century Holy Roman Empire) when the bones of Christian martyrs provoked th
Medievalists: what are some of the most weirdest medieval texts you’ve read? I’m looking for primary sources that are just bonkers to give to a friend. Here’s what I have so far:
Þrymskviða
Chapter 43 of Prose Edda (origin of Sleipnir)
Quant fu en ma jevente (Harley 2253)
Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Martyrdom of St. Edmund
Letter 221 of Saint Catherine of Siena (foreskin wedding ring)
The Fates of Men (Old English Poem)
Passages Omitted from the Second Battle of Mag Tured
Chaucer’s Miller’s Tale
Exeter Riddle 74, 75, 76, 77, 80
The Mead of Poetry from Norse myth
Bérangier au lonc cul (Bérangier of the long arse)
Le Chevalier qui fit les cons parler (The Knight who made c*nts speak)
The Pangs of Ulster
Mac Datho’s Pig
I’m a little biased toward Middle English sources but I’ll try do add some!
- The Book of Margery Kempe. Margery is quite a trip.
- The Book of Marvels and Travels by John Mandeville
- The Life of St. Christopher
- The Decameron by Boccaccio. Just the whole thing
- The Lais of Marie de France can get pretty WTFy. Especially the one about the songbird. And the werewolf.
- The Romance of Silence (because it’s weird but also awesome)
- Cú Chulainn’s Boyhood Deeds
All excellent, but also:
- Old English Metrical Charms (the one “For a Sudden Stitch” is like the most amusing thing I’ve read in a while)
Pretty much everything Chaucer wrote other than the Canterbury Tales (which have their own moments of wtf) is SO FUCKING WEIRD but probably the House of Fame is the weirdest. Troilus and Criseyde has a coherent plot but occasionally veers off into tangents about what sitting in chairs can tell us about fate and free will, and a friend of mine once wrote me a fic that posited that the Legend of Good Women was a joint effort by Anne of Bohemia and the ladies of the court to troll Chaucer mercilessly and honestly I feel this theory has a lot to recommend it.
Thomas Usk’s Testament of Love is also pretty bizarre but don’t give that to your friend because it’s also boring.
Also, for OE texts that are weird there’s Wulf and Eadwacer and the Wife’s Lament, which are so weird that nobody knows what the hell they’re about (possibly badgers)?
The Mabinogion also gets pretty wild at some points.
You know what I love about A Knight’s Tale?
The director, during the director’s commentary, makes a point of informing the audience that the female blacksmith character is historically accurate, and that widows of blacksmiths did in fact take over their late husbands’ blacksmithing businesses in medieval Europe and it was one of the relatively rare circumstances wherein women were permitted to legally run their own businesses in medieval Europe.
This is literally the only historically accurate detail in the entire movie.
I am 300% behind this EXCEPT it’s actually not the only historically accurate detail! A Knight’s Tale is, in addition to being anachronistically soundtracked and costumed, a really fabulous example of the medieval tradition of Courtly Love. The exact language isn’t all the same obviously (the nobles would have been speaking French, probably, and our boys would definitely have been speaking in Middle English most of the time) but the dynamic between Jocelyn and William is spot on. Courtly Love is the root of where we get most of our modern ideas of romance, and is a tradition nebulously started in France, that spread as French culture spread. It’s intimately tied to the notion of Chivalry, which applied more specifically to knights, and became pervasive more or less concurrently. By the 1400s it was well entrenched in all aspects of English noble society, and dictated the way nobles related to each other, to commoners, to knights, and to royals. In particular, all courting rituals were dictated pretty strictly by the rules of Courtly Love. The Lover would fall in love with a Lady (usually) of higher rank, often married or otherwise unavailable. He would then employ wit, charm, and creativity to gain her attention. He would be expected to think of nothing else, prioritize her above all else, waste away for want of her gaze, obey her every whim… He would write poetry, songs, elaborate letters. He would yearn for a token of her affection. He would be transfixed by her gaze, so that if she looked at him he could not physically look away (seriously, look up some of the stories about Lancelot fighting three knights behind his back because he was caught by Guinevere’s eyes, and to look away from her would be fatal). William falls for Jocelyn before he ever speaks with her. They then engage in witty banter, wherein she refuses to give him her name, and proves herself both smarter and more genteel than he is. This is par for the course with Courtly Love. She doesn’t give him her name until he’s proved himself a bit. She then makes him prove himself further, “I want you to lose,” and he does it, even though it means both personal embarrassment and physical pain. In the meantime, they engage in more love-talk, both in person and via letters. I actually can’t think of a better film example of Courtly Love. It’s well-interpreted for a modern audience, but it sticks to the form like glue. It’s amazing and every time I watch it I fall more and more in love with that movie. Also, the jousting is pretty accurate. They use real jousting rules, and the portrayal of it as a huge spectator sport is obviously played up, but more or less true. TL;DR: A Knight’s Tale is a fabulous example of a very well-researched movie adapted for a modern audience. It preserves all the important bits of Courtly Love, Chivalry, and Jousting, as well as details like women being blacksmiths, and nobody wanting to joust royalty.
THE WHITE HAT IS REAL.
here is my research paper on the history and making of them
Also gonna add that one of the things I love about this movie is that the name and he inclusion of Geoff Chaucer as a character are a well-duh callback to The Canterbury Tales, but this idea of taking an old setting and some trappings of it and then just throwing in your own cultural values and storylines? Absolutely a thing medieval literature does. Especially Chaucer, especially in The Knight’s Tale.
Like fuck historical accuracy, Chaucer had no concept of what the hell that even meant, so sure Theseus was going to rule like a medieval king even if the story was set in Ancient Greece. The characters are all going to have the same values as the English wealthy for whom Chaucer is writing, because that is what they’ll understand and enjoy. (Much like how we get a rags-to-riches story of a poor squire being more than his birth rank because who loves those stories? A MODERN AUDIENCE THAT’S WHO.) Bits from the source material that don’t make sense to the medieval audience are quietly swept away. They’ll even have a bigass tournament that sounds suspiciously like a jousting match because why the hell not.
I have no idea if this was an intentional inside joke from some literature nut on the production team or just accidental, but I think it’s kind of cool that the tradition lives on in a silly big budget rom com.
I very much enjoy the style of ignoring strict historical accuracy in favor of trying to get the feel of the time (hence We Will Rock You at the joust, etc.) It gets across to a modern audience the emotions of the time by using media that evokes those emotions in our time, which obviously has changed over the centuries. It works much better than a film which claims historical accuracy without actually adhering to it.
TL;DR go big or go home.
(Also A+ for not making everything brown and grey; medieval colors could be gaudy as hell.)
p.s. - the aforementioned white hat:
@fade-steppin
Also! Edward, Prince of Wales/the Black Prince, appears, placing it in a very specific timeframe! And there’s a priest doing a one-man morality play!
Also Ulrich von Liechtenstein was a real guy. A famous Minnesänger.
William Morris