#Book a table Kinross

[ottomanladies]

Another interesting ask. I have read on Lord kinkross"s book that, Padishash"s didnt share his dinner table with anyone except 10 persons. Who they are actually? I read somewhere that Safiye couldnt sit and eat with Murad in spite of being haseki, just because she is not married to him[source is probably "Safiyes Household"] Can you write about this? One more thing am I asking you too much? Am I bothering you? Please take my apology if so!I cant resist me from asking someone too wise on Ottomans

I must be honest with you: I've never read Kinross' books because I didn't read many good things about him.

That said.

It is true that the sultan would not dine with his concubines unless there was a particular degree of affection etc. Dining with his consorts wasn't, in any case, a habit.

The same information [the wedding between Selim II and Nurbanu Sultan] is given by Giovanni Correr in 1578 and Giacomo Soranzo in 1584. They also add that for this reason, Nur Banu could sit and eat in the presence of the sultan, while Safiye could not. — M. Pedani, Safiye's household and Venetian Diplomacy

I cannot read the whole reports because I haven't been to my university since February 2020 so I'm not sure I should comment on them but what strikes me is that they're reports from Murad III's reign. So, who is the sultan in question? Is it Murad III or Selim II? If it's the former well... of course Nurbanu can sit and eat in the sultan's presence, she's his mother and she's the only person in the empire that can do that. If it's the latter the wedded/not wedded reasoning makes sense, I guess.

As I said, I cannot say much more because I don't have the whole reports.

It is worth noting, though, that a century later it was still unusual for a sultan to dine with his consorts. Giacomo Querini, Venetian ambassador at the court of Mehmed IV, says in his 1676 report:

The King loves [Emetullah Râbia Gülnuş] and keeps her in the highest regard, practising with her what the other emperors were not used to do, that is to eat with wife and children...

In 1676 (but of course this happened before because 1676 is just the year the report was read in Venice), Emetullah Râbia Gülnuş's children were still quite young so I guess that's what surprised the ambassador.

As for the people the sultan would actually dine with: they were men, of course, and his favourites. I can think of Murad IV and Evliya Çelebi, for example. Selim II had a favourite with which would sit at his table "two or three days in a row": he was Yasef Nasi, a Portuguese Jewish man who settled in Istanbul and caught Selim's eye.

Yeah, again, I must be honest with you: it is very hard to keep up with your questions. Some require research in several books (because I cannot remember everything) and therefore can't be answered in 10 minutes.

[auroravioletmodel]

My garden. Please #dm me if you would like to book me at my home garden location and if you have any specific ideas let me know. We are just outside Perth so it does help if you drive. I am happy to do duo shoots here aswell. Taken in July 2019. I am gradually getting more props but currently I have an old bath which can make for interesting shots, a swing from the Willow tree, a little woodland area ,apple tree and we are trying to add little features here and there. There is also a large green grass area, table/umbrellas and chairs, a long track and large field, larger woodland at the back with a fallen tree in the field and there are a few different locations within a 10-30 minute drive away. Plus the Highlands are right on my backdoor. What's not to love. Let's get experimental. I have done numerous shoots here already with positive results. #mylocation #props #sneakpeak #scottishmodel #modeluk #aurora_violet_model #garden #letsgettowork #magical #outdoors #swing #oldbath #bath #outsidebath #woodland #metalgate #photographylover #perthartist #Perthshire #perthscotland #scotland (at Perth, Perth and Kinross) https://www.instagram.com/p/B0ygDp3An_C/?igshid=rm1hbq8yl9uy

[ellafryme]

The Raj Mahal Indian Restaurant is an indian Restaurant and Takeaway in Kinross KY13. Located in the heart of Kirkcaldy, The Raj Mahal Indian Restaurant offers fresh Indian food and fast service for delivery & collection Order takeaway food and book a table online from The Raj Mahal Indian Restaurant through ChefOnline in just a few clicks.

[aaron-noodleman-blog]

Legibility

When we hear mention of legibility, we think of clarity and how easily a thing can be read – can be made out. We think of something like Robin Kinross’ example of a test for legibility given in his book Modern Typography. In this example, two typefaces (Didot versus Garamond) are held next to each other and incrementally distanced from an impartial reader until one of the two typefaces can no longer be seen (22-23).

 But legibility is not limited to this, nor are the tests of legibility always a matter of distance and discernibility. Kinross offers a helpful definition in chapter three, by which considerations for legibility might benefit: “…it was only when the general theoretical climate in psychology had changed that legibility could be accepted as the comprehension of meaning: not recognition, but reading” (32).

 More than just recognition, legibility came to be understood as practice toward the best method for engaging a reader: “The project of legibility research raised the prospect of a typography that could do something more than be beautiful: it might be effective” (33). Thinking about legibility in these terms – in in providing a pleasurable and fruitful experience for the reader engaging with the work – gives us a wider range of creativity that is made clearer through the implication of hard standards. That is, being effective is a general enough idea to allow for all sorts of exciting experimentation, yet, at the same time, to the point enough, that the person striving for legibility must also work within clear bounds that structure his care and respect for the reader (Kinross 34).

 In chapter three of Post-Digital Print, Alessandro Ludovico gives plenty of examples of how this careful creativity of legibility (fruitful pleasurable engagement with a text) can take place. There are probably many ways that we could think about legibility through Ludovico’s examples. I want to consider some conceptual as well as physical ideas that he provides.

 Humor and imagination are a pair of conceptual pathways for improving legibility. Ludovico cites the “brilliant 2009April Fools’ Day announcement, explaining that the highly respected British newspaper, the Guardian, had decided to switch entirely to Twitter” (57). While the story was ultimately exposed as being false, the humor of the stunt also exposes certain anxieties – as humor often does – concerning the rapidly technologizing world. Instead of merely putting together an article of a what-if? formula, the designer in this case has made the imagined to look legibly real, also exposing the taken for granted authority of announcement with such a look.

 Similarly, in chapter two, there is the example of the happy, though fake, special edition of the New York Times made by The Yes Men (51-53). In this case, legibility is configured through the imagination – wishful thinking even – of a group; while, at the same time, the imagination itself – again, wishful thinking – is made more legible. The possibility for such a happy day is better realized insofar as it is seen in material reality and bearing all the weight of the New York Times. This provides a clear example for how print can be a radical force for change, insofar as it can empower people to see a hoped for thought as legitimate.

Chapter two gives examples for affective legibility, or (say) holistic legibility – engaging the reader through more than just the eyes. I have in mind Fluxus and “‘Fluxus boxes’ filled with organized collections of games, concepts, plastic objects and miscellaneous printed materials” (39). Chapter three offers the example of “Marcus Weskamp’s online artwork Newsmap, a powerful visual representation of the news mediascape. Using data from Google News, the site’s mapping technique divides the screen into columns (topics) in which the size of each article’s headline is in direct proportion to its popularity” (65) This instance, while still considering legibility in a way that is focused on engaging the eyes, does so in a fresh way.

 Returning to the idea that publication can make an imagination or idea legible, the article “Typeface as Programme,” touches on a similar thought: namely, that through technology’s making publication more accessible to the masses, more people are now able to see themselves as writers and publishers; hence, a new idea of the self is made more possible, more legible: “Democratisation is another important part of these developments. The sudden general availability of processes through computerisation has continued to increase the number of people who have access to and start engaging in them.”

Furthermore, the two online articles for this week deal with legibility as it relates with process, beauty, and perfection. In the “Prints and the Pauper,” we get short, though detailed, recounting of China’s painstaking printing process. Stylistically and aesthetically, this process would remain a standard-bearer for some time; however, the amount of time and effort needed in order to bring about the end product was so much that a different a kind of legibility threatened success: namely, the fact that something unwritten for all its requirements is illegible in that it does not exist yet. For this reason, Gutenberg’s press would outshine all contenders for printing. Though perhaps not as beautiful, it was, nevertheless, more than capable at making the baseline requirement for mass legibility – that is, having a lot of output.

 Returning again to “Typeface as Programme,” we get the example of computer programmer and perfectionist, Donald Knuth: “When in 1977 due to financial restrictions the new edition of volume 2 (of The Art of Computer Programming) was to be reproduced with a new optical typesetting system rather than the already disappearing Monotype machines…he decided there was no point in continuing to write them since the finished products were just too painful to look at.” Complementary to Knuth’s work ethic toward a perfected visual presentation of his scientific content is the chart he provides in his book. The chart proceeds the table of contents and demonstrates how the reader should go about reading the book and completing its exercises, taking into account variables such as sleepiness and confusion. These considerations engage the concept of legibility on a more holistic level that, while more restrained or minimal, have a similar methodology to that of the earlier mentioned Fluxus boxes.

from The Art of Computer Programming, 1997 Addison-Wesley