#david cressy

[fideidefenswhore]

Hundreds of cases came to Thomas Cromwell's attention, some to be monitored, some to be prosecuted with vigour. The years between 1534 and 1540 saw more than 500 investigations, over 150 trials, and more than 100 executions for treasonous words. [...] Among those held for investigation in 1535 was George Baburney, a tailor of Newport Pagnell, Buckinghamshire, who called King Henry 'a heretic, a thief, and a harlot' and who hoped before midsummer to 'play football with his head', [and said he wished] 'the sword of vengeance' might light on the King and [his] council.

Cressy, David. 2010. Dangerous Talk : Scandalous, Seditious, and Treasonable Speech in Pre-Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[lizziestudieshistory]

Books of 2023 - July

Somehow I've read a lot this month but haven't actually finished that many books considering I've been on holiday? I don't really know what happened.

Books read:

Silas Marner by George Eliot - this is by far the biggest surprise of the year. I was convinced I wasn't going to like George Eliot, but after reading Silas Marner I've been enchanted by her. On the surface I should have found this book a bit tedious, I typically don't like novels set in the countryside, however, I was hooked! Eliot's writing style was the big attraction here, she has such a lively style that I swear could make anything interesting after this, alongside her astoundingly convincing portrait of a village community in the 19th century. I came away believing people like those that inhabited Raveloe existed and I was fascinated by them. (It probably helped that I am VERY familiar with villiage communities in Warwickshire thanks to my research, which is where Raveloe is supposed to be.) Honestly this was the best place for me to start with George Eliot and I will be continuing.

The Age of Innocence by Edith Whaton - this was an impromptu read when I wanted an audiobook to listen to while sewing. However, I thoroughly enjoyed listening to this book! I was swept away into 1870s New York society and was captivated by how casually awful everyone turned out to be. I didn't enjoy it as much as The House of Mirth (mainly because I didn't like Archer, May, or Countess Olenska as much as Lily or Seldon) but I had a fabulous time revisiting Wharton.

Much Ado About Nothing by William Shakespeare - I love this play, it brings me so much joy when I read it and this time was no different. I still believe Beatrice is Shakespeare's best heroine and I will accept no arguments to the contrary.

Approximately 25 articles, reviews, essays, and introductions about Jane Austen's Emma by various authors - I don't know what's happened to me, I've become an obsessive... However, I have had a great time and learnt A LOT about regency literature in the process? It's given me a greater appreciation of Emma and I don't regret a moment I spent on this. My only problem is I don't really know what to do with all my notes!

DNF:

Mansfield Park by Jane Austen - I tried okay? However, I finished volume one and couldn't find a single reason to keep reading except completionism. I hated Fanny and the Bertrams, I was bored by the Crawfords, and I missed the style of Emma. Overall, I was left wondering why I was bothering with Mansfield Park as I wasn't enjoying myself. So, I dropped it to read something else that I'd actually enjoy.

Currently reading:

Evelina by Frances Burney - I'm in love with this book, but for some reason I'm not devouring it? I'm taking my time with it and revelling in the experience - I've made my peace with this and will continue to enjoy my leisurely read.

Richard II by William Shakespeare - I'm rereading this and taking it an act a day because I'm making notes. I'll actually finish it tomorrow, but I'm not counting it as read.

The Book of Lost Tales Part Two by J.R.R. Tolkien - another leisurely read because it's so dense and, like Shakespeare, I'm making notes when I feel inclined. I also really struggled to get through the section on The Tale of Tinuviel... (I don't like ANY of the prose versions of Beren and Luthien? It needs to be in verse for me to get into it 🤷‍♀️) But now I've got through that opening section I'm enjoying this a lot more.

Charles I and the People of England by David Cressy - my current non-fiction tome. I'm having a great time with this, but it was going to be a winner considering my unreasonable love for Charles I!

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke - I have no idea how I ended up in the middle of this but I'm enjoying it well enough that I'm going to continue (although I think I prefer Piranesi?)

[stateofsport211]

Wimbledon MS Q3: Meet Your Qualifiers (2/2)

The atmosphere inside the Wimbledon qualifying rounds, illustrated from 2019 (📸 The Guardian)

The condensed version in a Twitter thread can be found here. The first part of the article, featuring the first 8 qualifiers, can be found here.

As the third qualifying round was held in a best-of-5 sets (compared to the previous rounds' 3) per the Wimbledon tradition, several matches finished later than others due to it being more lengthy, mostly as they went deep into the fourth or fifth sets. They often involved rollercoasters for some reason, but their ability to maintain their range in various possible means, alongside their endurance to complete this match in 5 sets, would also be another aspect of attention toward the later parts of some of these matches.

The remaining matches are also written in the order they advance. Beware, this is a possible long read.

Section 16: Vit Kopriva [16] def. Richard Gasquet [20] 3-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4

Vit Kopriva's point to to 2-1* 0-15, 2nd set (left) and 3-3* 40-ad, 4th set (right) (📸 Wimbledon qualifications feed)

20th seed and 2007 Wimbledon semifinalist Richard Gasquet, who appeared in a Grand Slam qualification rounds for the first time since the 2004 US Open, prevailed in the first two qualifying rounds as he defeated Oliver Crawford 6-2, 7-6(8) and Alexis Galarneau 6-1, 6-0 in a dominant performance, faced an interesting performance in 16th seed Vit Kopriva, who stunned Henri Squire 4-6, 7-6(1), 6-4 and Hugo Dellien 6-4, 3-6, 6-1 to advance to the third qualifying round. Interestingly, while this looked like the draw was built for the Frenchman to advance, it was not the case here throughout the match.

Even though R. Gasquet controlled the first set and took it 6-3, V. Kopriva tried to absorb his pace as he fired a notable cross-court backhand pass to pave the way even if the 20th seed held that game, ultimately breaking to 3-1 before ultimately taking the second set 6-3. Sooner or later, R. Gasquet became out of gas while V. Kopriva appeared slightly more powerful, where the Czech 16th seed was spotted having a forehand winner to generate his break point, breaking to 4-3 before he consolidated his lead. He had not looked back since, trusting the adaptability of his clay-rooted game to take the fourth set 6-4, securing his Wimbledon main draw appearance as this was feared to be "the beginning of the end" for R. Gasquet.

Section 2: Hugo Gaston [2] def. Mikhail Kukushkin [27] 6-2, 1-6, 7-5, 6-1

Hugo Gaston's point to *0-3 40-40 (first break point save) in the 2nd set (left) and to lead 6-5* 0-15 in the 3rd set (right) (📸 Wimbledon qualification feed)

Despite being eliminated early in the first round of the Ilkley Challenger (l. M. Tomas Barrios Vera) after winning the Lyon Challenger back on clay, second seed Hugo Gaston continued his journey as he defeated Shintaro Mochizuki 7-6(5), 6-4 and Dino Prizmic 4-6, 7-5, 6-2 in several chaotic showings, ultimately finding the way out with a victory before facing 27th seed Mikhail Kukushkin, who also qualified for Roland Garros, carrying on his resurgence after two quarterfinal finishes in Surbiton and Nottingham (grass), both lost (the second one was a retirement) to Billy Harris as he knocked out both Vitaliy Sachko and Benjamin Bonzi in straight sets. The best-of-five sets might have tested M. Kukushkin's endurance, but he left it all out there.

The first two sets started chaotically as H. Gaston's dominance secured him the first set before M. Kukushkin tried to raise his level. Interestingly, after a break thanks to the latter's aggression, H. Gaston had initial break-back points, to no avail as the Kazakh consolidated to 3-0. The 2nd seed then tried to avoid further demolition through a backhand finish after a net exchange to save a break point, ultimately putting his name on the board before the second set ended with a breadstick (1-6). Somehow, H. Gaston successfully broke for the third set as he started the 12th game there with a working volley, going after M. Kukushkin's forehands until the latter went out of gas, taking a medical timeout before finally getting breadsticked back (1-6) by the end of the fourth set, thus advancing H. Gaston to the main draw.

Section 5: Lloyd Harris [5] def. Hugo Grenier 6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 7-6(5)

Lloyd Harris' point to 4-4* 15-40 (1st set, left) 6-6(2-1) in the 4th set tie-break (right) (📸 Wimbledon qualifications feed)

5th seed Lloyd Harris spent some time in the Asian Challenger swing, where this part of his post-injury rebuilding paid off as he won the Surbiton Challenger title (d. Leandro Riedi) despite exiting earlier in Nottingham (grass) and Ilkley Challengers, putting himself back to the Top 100. However, since this was achieved past the Wimbledon direct entry deadline, the South African had to play the qualification rounds, where he defeated Andrea Vavassori and George Loffhagen, the latter in two tie-break sets. He faced an intriguing challenge in Hugo Grenier, who defeated Murkel Dellien and knocked out 24th seed Zachary Svajda en route to the third qualifying round.

L. Harris had a convincing start to the match as he maintained his service games more consistently, somehow paving the way to break from H. Grenier's failed smash before a working drop shot secured his break point. The break succeeded, and the South African took the first set 6-4 before extending his dominance as he took the second set 6-2. However, a slight dip happened as an erroneous service game resulted in H. Grenier being able to break and taking the third set 6-3, and L. Harris hung on well to take the match to the fourth set tie-breaker, where another failed smash from the Frenchman set up the former's mini-break before his consolidation, and he had not looked back since before taking the fourth set 7-6(4), thus confirming his place in the main draw after his absence due to injury.

Section 8: Radu Albot def. Daniel Elahi Galan [8] 6-4, 6-2, 6-7(6), 6-3

Radu Albot's point to 4-2* 30-40 (initial break point, 2nd set) (📸 Wimbledon qualifications feed)

Having qualified for Wimbledon last year, Radu Albot tried to repeat the feat once again within the past year as he knocked out both Francesco Maestrelli 6-2, 6-7(5), 6-2, and one of this section's (on-paper) favorites, Bu Yunchaokete, 7-5, 6-7(10), 6-4 in both thrilling encounters. He then faced 8th seed Daniel Elahi Galan, who relied on his experience to defeat Oriol Roca Batalla 6-3, 6-4 and Gabriel Diallo 6-4, 7-6(5) in the first two qualifying rounds. There might have appeared to be a tiny difference between both players, but the (slightly) more aggressive one took it at the end of the day.

In this case, R. Albot's forehand might have been slightly too powerful to handle as evident toward the end of the second set, with Galan being run over from his forehand side before being broken again to 5-2 due to another +1 forehand error. By the end of that set, the Moldovan took it 6-2, but his mini-break lead in the tie-breaker (which occurred after his pass secured the last service-game hold of the set) was neutralized, prompting the fourth set as Galan took the said set. Somehow, Albot managed to maintain his range, taking the fourth set 6-3 to secure another Wimbledon main draw appearance.

Section 9: Mattia Bellucci def. David Goffin [9] 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(4), 6-4

Mattia Bellucci's point to 2-2* 40-ad (one of the break points in the 1st set, left), and to convert his match point to 6-4 in the fourth set (📸 Eurosport SE via Wimbledon qualifications World Feed)

Some might have thought in-form ninth seed David Goffin would have it all, topping his form by winning the Ilkley Challenger (d. Harold Mayot), following it up with a straight-set victory against Marc Polmans and Yasutaka Uchiyama in the first two qualifying rounds. However, the Belgian had an intriguing challenge as he faced a fellow in-form player Mattia Bellucci, who notably reached the Nottingham (grass) Challenger semifinal (l. Jacob Fearnley) before surviving several tussles in the qualifying rounds here in Wimbledon: stunning 31st seed Duje Ajdukovic 5-7, 7-6, 7-6(12) before defeating Bernabe Zapata Miralles 7-6(3), 6-3.

M. Bellucci had a confident start to the first set thanks to his point construction, brilliantly volleying his way after his drop shot to save a break point before holding his serves, eventually breaking before taking the first set 6-3. D. Goffin tried to match the pace, somehow taking the second set before M. Bellucci struck back, notably hitting a dive volley midway. However, D. Goffin's unforced errors in the third set tie-breaker resulted in the Italian taking the set 7-6(4), and the latter found his way through a 4-1 lead before the Belgian 9th seed bounced back with a break-back, leveling the play to 4-4 after. It took two more games before M. Bellucci had an inspired return game, perfectly finishing a rally with a volley to break for the match, taking the fourth set 6-4 to secure his spot in the main draw.

Section 15: Otto Virtanen def. Roman Andres Burruchaga 6-1, 6-2, 5-7, 7-6(4)

Otto Virtanen's point to break 3-1 in the 1st set (left) and to take the fourth set 7-6(4) (right) (📸 Wimbledon qualifications feed)

While some also expected this draw to be built for him, Otto Virtanen survived 2 different rollercoasters as he saved 4 match points before defeating Franco Agamenone 6-7(6), 6-2, 7-6(5) and saved another 4 match points before knocking out Alexander Ritschard 6-7(1), 7-5, 5-4, setting up an intriguing clash in another Roland Garros qualifier, Roman Andres Burruchaga, who stunned Gustavo Heide 5-7, 7-6(4), 6-1 before defeating 18th seed Stefano Napolitano 6-4, 6-4 in the first two qualifying rounds. On paper, this might have been O. Virtanen's match for the taking, but even if it was the case, it ended up in another rollercoaster as most of the flow was on his racquet.

O. Virtanen initially had a dominant start to the match, serving the first-set breadstick 6-1 2 games after he broke thanks to a forehand down-the-line winner to finish the first set in 26 minutes, extending his dominance as he took the second set 6-2. However, his classic rollercoaster occurred in the third set despite leading by a break before going deep into the set, somehow on par with R.A. Burruchaga stepping up as he took advantage of the Finn's unseriousness, thus the Argentinean took the third set 7-5. Somehow, the fourth set ended in a tie-breaker, which fittingly ended with a backhand let-cord moment from O. Virtanen as he served it out, taking the fourth set 7-6(4) to finally secure his main draw place after bringing himself (and everyone) to another rollercoaster.

Section 13: Felipe Meligeni R. Alves d. Maxime Cressy 6-4, 1-6, 7-6(5), 4-6, 6-4

Felipe Meligeni R. Alves' point to break 2-0, 3rd set (left) and to break 3-1, 5th set (right) (📸 Wimbledon qualifications feed)

Despite suffering an early exit from the Ilkley Challenger first round (l. Lloyd Harris), Felipe Meligeni R. Alves had a strong campaign in the Wimbledon qualification rounds, defeating Illya Marchenko 6-2, 6-4 and Joris de Loore 7-6(3), 6-4 in the first two qualifying rounds before facing Maxime Cressy, who tried to regain his form in the grass season as the latter defeated Marc-Andrea Huesler 6-7(3), 6-3, 7-5 in a competitive and possibly crucial encounter in the first qualifying round before edging out 21st seed Thiago Agustin Tirante 7-6(9), 6-3 in the round after. Somehow, this match became extended into 5 sets and showed the importance of accurate rallying while maintaining consistent service games, which were hard in practice on this match.

F. Meligeni Alves began the match convincingly as he took the first set 6-4, but there was a slight dip in the second set as M. Cressy served his way to take the second-set breadstick (6-1). There was a moment where the Brazilian broke to 2-0 thanks to a successful backhand lob to start the third set, but he got broken back (thanks to M. Cressy's forehands) with the tie-breaker became inevitable several points later, where the Brazilian's forehand return ace played a pivotal role for a mini-break (2-1) before he held to 3-1. Eventually, F. Meligeni Alves took the 3rd set 7-6(5) but experienced another slight dip as Cressy took the fourth set 6-4. Interestingly, the former's swift returns not only generated his break point, but also converted it (from his backhand side) to break 3-1 in the fifth, and he had not looked back since, surviving Cressy's cumulative 32 aces and 96 net approaches as he took the deciding set 6-4, thus qualifying for another Grand Slam main draw.

Section 11: Alex Bolt [Alt] def. Leandro Riedi [32] 6-7(2), 2-6, 7-6(7), 7-5, 6-4

Alex Bolt's point to 5-5* 15-40 (initial break point from the fourth set, left) and to 3-3* 30-40 (another break point from the fifth set, right) (📸 Wimbledon qualifications feed)

Entering the Wimbledon qualification rounds last-minute as an alternate due to Valentin Vacherot's withdrawal, Alex Bolt proved himself to be one of those to be watched out for with his decent grass-court game as he defeated both Nicolas Kicker and Rudolf Molleker in an identical scoreline (6-1, 6-4). In the third qualification round, he faced an intriguing opponent in Leandro Riedi, who was the Surbiton Challenger runner-up (l. Lloyd Harris) before withdrawing from his Ilkley Challenger second qualifying round match (v. Denis Kudla). Riedi defeated Juan Pablo Ficovich 6-0, 7-6(1) and Patrick Kypson 6-2, 3-6, 7-5, where this match became an interesting clash despite their almost similar approaches, coming down to their shot execution in crucial times.

Indeed, L. Riedi looked to be on the course to victory as he dominated the second set as a continuation to another dominant showing in the first-set tie-breaker, but it was a different story starting the third-set tie-breaker. There, L. Riedi started the tie-breaker with a forehand winner (1-0) before another unforced error steadily equalized the point. A. Bolt saved a match point, ultimately taking the third set 7-6(7) before steadily turning it around. This became more visible as his preceding forehand outhit L. Riedi's lob side before breaking to 6-5, finally sealing the fourth set 7-5. As a result, this match became the second of the day that went to the fifth, where A. Bolt's crucial pass secured his break point, ultimately breaking to 4-3 before taking the fifth set 6-4 several games later, thus securing his Grand Slam main draw debut in relief (and simultaneously, disbelief and elation).

The draw ceremony will be conducted at 10am local time, and the lucky losers will also feature in a separate article should there be any withdrawals.

[amphibious-thing]

I’ve seen people theorise that Lucius comes from an upper class background because he can read which is such a odd interpretation. The hints we get about his past suggest he’s from a working class background. In A Gentleman Pirate we learn he used to be a pickpocket, and in This Is Happening he tells the crew that Stede got the map “by giving her a lot of money. Like more money than I’ve ever seen in my life.” But most importantly I need people to know that there were working class people who were literate.

It’s true that illiteracy was more common amongst working class people but not all working class people were illiterate. Literacy varied significantly not only by class but by occupation. For example in his study of illiteracy in Norwich between 1580-1700 David Cressy found that 0% of clergy and professions and only 2% of gentry were illiterate, while 35% of yeomen, 44% of tradesmen and craftsmen, 79% of husbandmen and 85% of labourers were illiterate. But there was also a huge variance within the category of tradesmen and craftsmen, with only 6% of grocers being illiterate while 97% of thatchers were illiterate. (see David Cressy, Levels of Illiteracy in England, 1530-1730) How likely you were to ensure you’re children could read depended on how important the skill would be for their future careers. Clergymen and lawyers had 100% literacy because it was a prerequisite for the job. Literacy was a more valuable skill to a grocer than a thatcher or a labourer. But even amongst labourers there were some who could read.

[csajokamotoron]

Kihirdették a Sturgis Motorcycle Museum and Hall of Fame 2024-es jelöltjeit

A Sturgis Motorcycle Museum bejelentette a 2024-es hírességek csarnokának kitüntetettjeit, akik alegkülönfélébb módokon jeleskedtek a motorosok érdekében: támogatták a veteránokat és az időseket, kiálltak a motorosok jogaiért, és művészi tehetségüket vásznon és két keréken is megmutatták. "A 2024-es Hírességek Csarnokának osztálya a motorkerékpáros kultúrában való mély gyökereiről nevezetes" - mondta Craig Bailey, a múzeum igazgatótanácsának elnöke. "A kitüntetettek mindegyike egyedülálló módon érintette meg sportunkat és a motoros közösséget. Nem is lehetnénk boldogabbak, hogy elismerhetjük ezeket az igazán különleges egyéniségeket"." A beiktatási reggeli ünnepségre 2024. augusztus 7-én, szerdán kerül majd sor. A Sturgis Motorcycle Museum and Hall of Fame 2024-es beiktatottjai James Gregory Kitüntetett vietnami veterán, aki több mint 20 évig szolgált a tengerészgyalogságnál, mielőtt 1989-ben létrehozta és vezette az első "Run For The Wall" futást. Ez az évente megrendezett, országot átszelő futás és a Memorial Day hétvégéjén Washington DC-be való megérkezés a hadifoglyok és a harctéren eltűntek leglátványosabb amerikai támogatása. Roger Goldammer https://csajokamotoron.hu/harmadszor-is-goldammer-a-legjobb Roger az AMD World Championship of Custom Bike Building és a Las Vegas-i Artistry in Iron Show háromszoros győzteseként szerzett hírnevet. A középiskola utáni tanulóévek, a Motorcycle Mechanics Institute-ban eltöltött idő és egy Harley teljesítményguru oktatása segített neki a mesterségének tökéletesítésében. Egy motorépítő kollégája megismertette őt a földi gyorsulási versenyekkel, ami hatással volt a motorépítési stílusára, és a sós síkságon való teljesítmény iránti szenvedélyét is ösztönözte. Ed Kerr Ed már korán felfedezte, hogy szenvedélye a motorozás, és tehetsége van a díjnyertes egyedi motorkerékpárok építéséhez. Számos kétkerekű alkotása megnyerte a kiállításokat, és népszerű motoros magazinok címlapján szerepelt. Ed alapító tagja a Hamsters USA-nak, és büszke a szervezet számos jótékonysági rendezvényére, beleértve az általa a Meals on Wheels számára összegyűjtött közel 100 000 dollárt. Christine LePera és Bob LePera Jr. Ez a testvérpár folytatja a LePera Industries motorkerékpár-kiegészítőket gyártó cég sikerének örökségét, amelyet édesapjuk indított 1972-ben. Bob Jr., a tervezés látnoka, és Christine, a marketing és üzletfejlesztési guru tartja cégüket az iparág élvonalában, és mindketten büszkék arra, hogy cégük minden típusú motorosnak támogatást nyújt. David Uhl David kereskedelmi illusztrátorként kezdte pályafutását, több száz bestseller ruhadarabot készített egy Harley-Davidson licenctulajdonos számára. 1998-ban kezdett el képzőművészeti alkotásokat készíteni történelmi motorkerékpárok képei alapján, és ő lett a Harley-Davidson első licencelt olajfestője. Portfóliójában számos ikonikus festmény szerepel, köztük egy megrendelésre készült alkotás, amelyet Ferenc pápának mutatott be a Harley-Davidson 110. évfordulójának római ünnepségén. https://csajokamotoron.hu/a-harley-davidson-hivatalos-muvesze Életműdíj Pete Hill, egy dél-karolinai bolt tulajdonosa kapja idén az életmű díjat. Pete mesterien ért a versenygyőztes teljesítményű motorkerékpár-motorok megalkotásához, és a világ minden tájáról kiszolgálja ügyfeleit. Emellett kiváló motoros dragversenyző, aki számos győzelmet és bajnoki címet szerzett, köztük kilenc Top Fuel győzelmet Sturgisben. Szabadságharcos-díj Jiggs Cressy a dél-dakotai ABATE fáradhatatlan vezetéséért kapja ezt a díjat, ahol 14 éven át állami koordinátorként dolgozott. Cressy számtalanszor kiállt a dél-dakotai motorosok mellett az állam fővárosában, és nyolcszor utazott Washingtonba is, hogy ugyanezt megtegye. Cressy 2018-ban megkapta a John "Farmer" Eggers-díjat is, amely a Motorcycle Riders Foundation legértékesebb kitüntetése. Kickstands Down díj A posztumusz díjat egy olyan személynek ítélték oda, aki további elismerésre érdemes. James Sherwin "Bud" Ekinst széles körben a filmipar egyik legelismertebb kaszkadőreként tartották számon - olyan filmekben végzett munkájáról híres, mint "A nagy szökés" és a "Bullitt". Mielőtt a filmiparban dolgozott volna, Ekins sikereket ért el a terepversenyzésben, és olyan neves versenyeken vett részt, mint a Nemzetközi Hatnapos Trial, a Mint 400 és a Baja 500. Forrás Read the full article

[sacramentonewsjournal]

Gonzalez & Molteni Oust Cabral & Murray In Gijon | ATP Tour

Andres Molteni and Maximo Gonzalez defeat Francisco Cabral and Jamie Murray on Thursday in straight units in Gijon. Second seeds Mektic/Pavic upset in Florence Andres Molteni has received 4 ATP Tour titles alongside Santiago Gonzalez. This week, the Argentine is pursuing glory with one other Gonzalez. Molteni and Maximo Gonzalez defeated Portugal’s Francisco Cabral and former doubles World No. 1 Jamie Murray 6-3, 7-5 on Thursday to achieve the semi-finals of the Gijon Open. They’ll subsequent play Serbian Nikola Cacic and Monagesque Hugo Nys, who upset second seeds Simone Bolelli and Fabio Fognini 6-4, 6-2. In different Gijon motion, Individuals Nathaniel Lammons and Jackson Withrow eradicated third seeds Rafael Matos and David Vega Hernandez 6-7(8), 6-4, 10-6. Italians Thrill House Followers In FlorenceItalians Lorenzo Sonego and Andrea Vavassori earned the doubles upset of the day Thursday after they ousted second seeds Nikola Mektic and Mate Pavic 6-1, 6-4 within the quarter-finals of the UniCredit Firenze Open. Frenchmen Nicolas Mahut and Edouard Roger-Vasselin additionally superior to the semi-finals with a 6-4, 6-1 win towards American Maxime Cressy and Australian John-Patrick Smith. Mahut and Roger-Vasselin are pursuing their eighth tour-level crown as a staff this week. Extra tales like this in: Originally published at Sacramento News Journal

[brechtian]

someone on tiktok responded to a joke tiktok about the beef btwn protestants & catholics with a very confused "is there beef btwn protestants & catholics????" and then a third guy added on like 20 seconds of them staring at the camera like "are you stupid"

cryingggg. tbh allll protestant catholic and anglican theologians ever did in tudor england was argue about truly everything relating to religion & daily life I think they must have just been desperate for something to do.

like sorry but this is so funny to me. when ur only hobbies are reading the bible and abstaining from sex.

[onpoli]

With the continued operation of Toronto’s supervised injection services under threat now that Doug Ford has been elected, Toronto City Council has voted unanimously to push Ford to not cut their funding.

David McKeown, formerly Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health, reported in 2016 that supervised injection services play a vital role in saving lives and curbing the spread of disease. One overdose prevention site alone has reversed over 200 overdoses. Ford said at a campaign rally in April that he is “dead against” these services.

[synchronousemma]

2nd March: Mr. Elton is news item #1

Read the post and comment on WordPress

Read: Vol. 2, ch. 13; pp. 173–175 “It was well to have a comfort” through to “‘changes Emma for Harriet!’”).

Context

Mr. Elton’s imminent return takes over Frank Churchill’s latest letter as a news item in Highbury. Emma continues to try to get Harriet to speak of something else.

We know that this occurs “three weeks” after “Frank Churchill’s arrival” was spoken of (p. 173), and that there has been “hardly time” (ibid.) to speak over his letter from Enscombe.

Jo Modert writes that the “holy period/holiday” of the Shrovetide sequence leading into Ash Wednesday on February 23 “explains the Eltons’ hurried nuptials, as no marriages were performed during the Lenten season” (p. 57). In fact this was not an absolute prohibition, but rather a strong cultural disinclination that could be ignored; per David Cressy, parish registers show that March weddings “remained below average” compared to other months in the 19th century, but were not non-existent. “Statistical evidence suggests that the Lenten prohibition endured but was subject to gradual erosion over time” (p. 301).

It nevertheless seems likely that this period of relative prohibition influenced the speed of the Eltons’ courtship. If they did not marry during Lent, we must assume that “his wedding-day was named” (p. 173) refers to a state of affairs a week or so ago, before Ash Wednesday, but that the news had been drowned out at the time by the anticipated ball.

Readings and Interpretations

Self-Control

Emma, tired of Harriet’s continued angst regarding Mr. Elton, “attack[s] her on another ground,” accusing Harriet of ingratitude and of wishing to reproach her; the tone into which Emma finally falls in this endeavor is highly manipulative and recalls her tactics when advising Harriet to refuse Robert Martin’s proposal. Yet with “‘I would wish it to be done, for the sake of […] a habit of self-command in you,’” it appears that Emma is saying something she really believes in her attempts to instill bourgeois morality into Harriet (see also “Where There’s a Will…”). It must also be remembered that Emma did not enter this mode of speech immediately—she has been soothing Harriet, by her account, multiple times a day since the end of December.

Howard Babb takes Emma’s exhortation to Harriet to be representative of some general patterns in her speech:

Emma’s rhetoric impulsively piles one verbal unit on another, moving by accumulation rather than through antitheses [as Knightley’s rhetoric does in vol. 1, ch. 5], until even the real distinctions that she feels between herself and Harriet become blurred, or at least reduced to the difference between “pain” and “greater pain”: [quotes from “‘I have not said, exert yourself Harriet’” to “‘what would be kind by me,’” p. 174].

[…] Emma, though using [conceptual] words freely in the first part of her speech, will not entrust her case to them finally, turning rather to the more directly emotional “pressing,” “sorry,” and “kind” in her closing sentences. (pp. 189–90)

Michele Larrow argues that Austen’s conception of sympathy in Emma is influenced by Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which calls upon people “imaginatively to feel others’ emotions” and “offers insight into how we should feel and act in order to receive social approval”:

As humans we desire “the pleasure of mutual sympathy” (Smith 13) and want others to approve of our emotions. We know that observers do not feel our emotions as strongly as we do since they are using their sympathetic imaginations; we thus lower our emotions to a level that observers will approve of, a process that Smith calls “self-command” (Smith 21-26). When Emma chides Harriet, urging her to regulate her disappointment about Mr. Elton, she uses a Smithian vocabulary of self-command, including the mention of duty and propriety. (n.p.)

Tenderness of Heart

The volubility of Harriet’s contrition upon Emma’s change of tactic inspires her to reflect that “‘[t]here is no charm equal to tenderness of heart” (p. 174). Marvin Mudrick seems to take this speech literally, arguing that Emma’s main flaw is having “no tenderness,” “as she herself admits”: despite the ending of this self-reflective passage, “Emma does not know how to prize and respect tenderness in anybody who rejects her domination. Still, she recognizes her defect. Emma is a beautiful and clever girl, with every grace but tenderness. Without it, she exhibits [a] strong need to dominate, […] protective playfulness, […] malice” (p. 193).

Claudia Johnson writes that Mudrick’s is an example of a reading with “transparently misogynist” subtext (p. 122); for him, “Emma’s want of feminine softness and compliancy is her most salient and most grievous shortcoming. Mudrick’s assertion that Emma is a ‘confirmed exploiter’ is an erotic complaint disguised as a moral one. His ‘Emma has no tenderness’ really means that she is not sexually submissive to and contingent upon men: hers is ‘a dominating and uncommitting personality’ (pp. 181–206)” (p. 123). Like other male critics who “darkly hint” about Emma’s “sexuality,” he “treat[s] Emma’s ‘coldness’ as though it were a culpably perverse [read: lesbian] refusal of [his] own sexual advances” (ibid.).

Susan Morgan also takes issue with Mudrick’s reading of this scene, on the grounds of its literalism:

Emma is Jane Austen’s most fully developed and successful creation and she is also the most morally flawed heroine of them all. The sweet and gentle characters are unobtrusive compared to her. And Mr. Mudrick would account for the fact that Jane Austen is at her best with her worst heroine on the grounds that Emma is successfully treated because the one quality she lacks is tenderness. Her creator can deal with her so well because she does not have to deal with her feelings.

[…] But does Emma lack tenderness? And what does tenderness mean in this novel? Emma herself brings up the subject and acknowledges her own lack. […] [Quotes from “‘There is no charm equal’” to “‘the coldness of a Jane Fairfax,’” p. 174.] By the end of this revery tenderness seems to mean an uncritical adoration of Emma. And in that sense of the term Emma herself must be granted an extremely tender heart. Emma’s clear sense of superiority to the characters whom she grants tenderness to also seems to mean a quality of imperceptiveness, of stupidity even, which Emma could never apply to herself. (pp. 35–6)

Ultimately, Emma “sees tenderness as a negative attribute. To her it means weakness, lack of independence, lack of will, lack of a personal destiny,” as with Harriet, Isabella Knightley, and Mr. Woodhouse. “In her false praise of Harriet she does not understand that tenderness need not mean weakness. It is the strong characters [Robert Martin, John and George Knightley, Jane Fairfax] that provide a true definition of tenderness. It can mean the sympathetic perception of the independent existence of other human beings,” which Emma is deficient in at this point in the novel (p. 36). Thus, in evaluating this incident,

deciding whether Emma has a tender heart is not immediately important. The author obviously does not intend these thoughts to be taken at face value. The reader’s focus is not on Emma’s surface denial of a warm heart. The interest is in how she is using this quality to justify her preference for Harriet over the clearly superior Jane Fairfax. The effect of the quotation is to make easy definitions dissolve and to remind us that we are inside a person’s consciousness. The point is not to act out our definitions upon Emma but to watch her doing it to others—and thus become wary of the whole process. (ibid.)

For Eugene Goodheart, this is an instance in which “seriousness and vanity are […] intertwined in [Emma’s] thoughts and behavior,” and an example of why she is such a “particularly interesting” character. Here “she turns upon herself without tutorial prodding and breaks through, as it were, the brittle manners that govern the social conduct of her little world” (p. 593):

She is too generous in her view of Harriet, too kind in her judgment of her father, ignorant of circumstances in her condemnation of Jane, and perhaps too harsh in her self-judgment. And still she is plotting Harriet’s future. But her appreciation of warmth and tenderness of heart as well as her own deficiency in these qualities is genuine and moving. Emma here strikes a romantic note in affirming feeling over clearheadedness, a note that persists in the novel as a sort of dissonance that “clearness of head” (valued throughout the novel) does not entirely overcome. (Incidentally the reader may wonder whether Austen is self-critically addressing her own clearheadedness purchased at the expense of tenderness of heart. Or does Emma’s idealization of Harriet and her father simply provide further evidence that she is deficient in clearheadedness?) (pp. 593–4)

J. S. Lawry also doubts the truth of Emma’s self-assessment, writing that Emma “in her contrition” is “[m]istakenly charitable about Harriet’s simple vanity,” and “also keeps the world topsy-turvy by assuming that she herself lacks charity, being notable instead for her ‘clearness of head.’ From such half-truth that creates total error, only increased difficulties can be expected” (p. 11).

On the subject of Harriet’s tenderness see also “So Truly Artless.”

Discussion Questions

How do you feel about the tone that Emma takes towards Harriet in this section? What does Harriet's continued upset about Mr. Elton say about her?

What is the novel's approach to "tenderness"? Is it a valued or derided quality? Do either Emma or Harriet possess it?

Is Claudia Johnson correct in seeing misogyny in Mudrick's reading (and those of others like him) of Emma?

Bibliography

Austen, Jane. Emma (Norton Critical Edition). 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, [1815] 2000.

Babb, Howard S. “Emma: Fluent Irony and the Pains of Self-Discovery.” In Jane Austen’s Novels: The Fabric of Dialogue. Columbus: Ohio State University Press (1962), pp. 175–202.

Cressy, David. Birth, Marriage, and Death: Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England.

Goodheart, Eugene. “Emma: Jane Austen’s Errant Heroine.” The Sewanee Review 116.4 (Fall 2008), pp. 589–604. DOI:10.1353/SEW.0.0087.

Johnson, Claudia L. “Emma: Woman, Lovely Woman, Reigns Alone.” In Women, Politics and the Novel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1988), pp. 121–43. Excerpted in Austen [1815], pp. 400–13.

Larrow, Michele. “‘Could He Even Have Seen into Her Heart’: Mr. Knightley’s Development of Sympathy.” Persuasions On-Line 37.1 (Winter 2016).

Lawry, J. S. “‘Decided and Open’: Structure in Emma.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction 24.1 (June 1969), pp. 1–15. DOI: 10.2307/2932348.

Modert, Jo. “Chronology Within the Novels.” In The Jane Austen Companion, ed. J. David Grey et al. New York: Macmillan (1986), pp 53–9.

Morgan, Susan J. “Emma Woodhouse and the Charms of Imagination.” Studies in the Novel 7.1 (Spring 1975), pp. 33–48.

Mudrick, Marvin. Jane Austen: Irony as Defense and Discovery. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1952).

[dwellordream]

“The ritual isolation of post-parturient women is inherited from Jewish purification laws, but has an ambivalent status in medieval culture. As early as the sixth century, Bede records a letter from Pope Gregory— the same letter about ritual pollution that I cited in Chapter 1—in which Gregory redefines the blessing of the mother after the one-month postpartum seclusion ritual. Gregory claims that churching is not a purification ritual, it is a ritual of thanksgiving. Women may enter the church to give thanksgiving immediately after childbirth, he claims, and in his elimination of the mother’s confinement after birth, he seems to disassociate the ritual from notions of purification. But as Dyan Elliott has noted, Gregory points to childbirth as linked to sin, in the act of pleasure that accompanies conception. More broadly conceived, the relationship between childbirth and sin is seen in women’s pain in childbirth which is a legacy from Eve, and thus it is related to original sin.

While childbirth is not a sin in itself, it is associated with the pollution of sin, and the logic of churching reflects that association, even though the ritual is often characterized as one of thanksgiving. Gregory’s ambivalence about the impurity of childbirth was also typical of later medieval views of the ritual. A woman who entered the church before completing her lying-in was subject to penance. At the same time, however, the church continued to treat the ritual as one of thanksgiving, not of purification, though churching may have been perceived as a purification ritual by its practitioners and their families. Or, as David Cressy has argued, “an alternative case can be made for the view that women normally looked forward to churching as an occasion of female social activity, in which the notion of ‘purification’ was uncontentious, minimal, or missing.”

Gail Gibson has further suggested that the public liturgy of Candlemas, a yearly celebration that honors the purification of the virgin and the presentation of Christ in the temple, like the representation of Mary’s churching in medieval plays, may have offered women viewers a spectacle “about the powerful centrality of Mary’s female body in a preordained plan for salvation . . . a theater that celebrated the female body in both the fleshly and the corporate senses of the word.” The lying-in period and the ritual blessing that concluded it suggest the contested values of the female body and its blood in medieval culture: Mary’s churching may offer the spectacle of a celebrated maternal body, as Gibson suggests, whereas churching as a purification ritual points to the pollution of the bleeding maternal body. 

The representation of the lying-in period in medieval fiction is thus a narrative site in which it is possible to interrogate the values associated with women’s blood. And unlike menstruation, which is almost never represented in medieval fiction, parturition and the lying-in do appear in narratives. …The exaggerated attention to ritual purity in this romance might point to several concerns. Although I have suggested that the story does not stress the weakness of the postpartum body, the focus on the mother’s failure to complete her lying-in period does point to the vulnerability of the mother and her child who are in exile, without resources and, at least initially, without allies. It also offers a representation of women caring intimately for other women, and identifies the care of the postpartum body as the domain of women. 

…Finally, the focus on postpartum ritual purity suggests an attention to mother’s blood—to the blood of parturition, to the mother’s bloodlines, and ultimately to the blood of menstruation. …Breast milk not only nourishes a baby, it also transmits the mother’s or the nursemaid’s qualities to the child. According to Bernardino of Siena, “The child acquires certain of the customs of the one who suckles him. If the one who cares for him has evil customs or is of base condition, he will receive the impress of those customs because of having sucked her polluted blood.” According to Alfonso el Sabio’s Siete Partidas the best wet-nurses are “well-mannered and healthy, and beautiful, and come from a good family.” The idea that mother’s milk carries an essential identity from the breast to the child is demonstrated even further in stories about Jewish families who required that Christian wet-nurses express their milk into a latrine for three days after receiving the eucharist.

These stories are antisemitic fictions that promote the doctrine of transubstantiation, but they are based on the plausibility of the idea that breast-milk carries more than simple nourishment, that it can pass on the characteristics of the woman who nurses—even if she is not the mother of the child. And if breast-milk can pass on religious identity, it can also pass on sin: saints like Katarina of Sweden are said to have refused to nurse after their mothers had engaged in sexual relations. Since intercourse was forbidden during lactation, the baby demonstrates its sanctity in avoiding the impurity of the mother’s polluted body. The story of Katarina of Sweden characterizes the maternal body as a site of danger and sin, and recalls Gregory’s link between childbirth and the sinful pleasure of conception. And the impurity of the maternal body is demonstrated in its products: its monstrous offspring, its polluted milk, its dangerous blood.”

- Peggy McCracken, “Menstruation and Monstrous Birth.” in The Curse of Eve, the Wound of the Hero: Blood, Gender, and Medieval Literature

[fideidefenswhore]

Thomas Burchall, one of Princess Elizabeth's servants, spent two months in the Marshalsea in 1554 for 'sundry lewd and seditious words of the estate of the realm.' Unfortunately the records of the Privy Council give no further particulars about these offending speeches.

Cressy, David. 2010. Dangerous Talk : Scandalous, Seditious, and Treasonable Speech in Pre-Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[lizziestudieshistory]

Now THIS what I'm talking about when I say I need NOTES in my nonfiction! Thank you David Cressy 🙏

(The book is Charles I and the People of England by David Cressy, it's really good!)

[keeperofthesunandmoon]

brynn u gotta show us ur spotify wrapped!! i already know from the character playlists that u have immaculate taste

*cries in Apple Music* 

Some songs I’ve been listening to on repeat this year, paired with KOTSAM characters

Cardigan by Taylor Swift - Astrid

Venus by Bananarama - Astrid

Boyfriend by Tegan and Sara - Cressy

Angel by Theory of a Deadman - Cyrus

Kiss From a Rose by Seal - Cyrus

As the World Falls Down by David Bowie - Katia

everything i wanted by Billie Eilish - Katia

Youngblood by 5 Seconds of Summer - Kol

Teeth by 5 Seconds of Summer - Leon

All You Wanna Do by Aimie Atkinson - Roxana

Shameless by Camilla Cabello - Sera

How to Save a Life by The Fray - Yakov

Boulevard of Broken Dreams by Green Day - Yakov

Don’t Cry by Guns and Roses - Yakov

[daikenkki]

Wimbledon 2023 - Gentlemen's Singles Draw

Carlos Alcaraz (1) (ESP) vs Jeremy Chardy (PR) (FRA)

Alexandre Muller (FRA) vs Arthur Rinderknech (FRA)

Jason Kubler (AUS) vs Ugo Humbert (FRA)

Marco Cecchinato (ITA) vs Nicolas Jarry (25) (CHI)

Alexander Zverev (19) (GER) vs Gijs Brouwer (Q) (NED)

Marc-Andrea Huesler (SUI) vs Yosuke Watanuki (LL) (JPN)

Matteo Berrettini (ITA) vs Lorenzo Sonego (ITA)

Kimmer Coppejans (Q) (BEL) vs Alex De Minaur (15) (AUS)

Frances Tiafoe (10) (USA) vs Yibing Wu (CHN)

Dominic Stricker (Q) (SUI) vs Alexei Popyrin (AUS)

Ilya Ivashka vs Federico Coria (ARG)

Sho Shimabukuro (Q) (JPN) vs Grigor Dimitrov (21) (BUL)

Alejandro Davidovich Fokina (31) (ESP) vs Arthur Fils (WC) (FRA)

Zhizhen Zhang (CHN) vs Botic Van de Zandschulp (NED)

Matteo Arnaldi (Q) (ITA) vs Roberto Carballes Baena (ESP)

George Loffhagen (WC) (GBR) vs Holger Rune (6) (DEN)

Daniil Medvedev (3) vs Arthur Fery (WC) (GBR)

Adrian Mannarino (FRA) vs Alexander Shevchenko

Marcos Giron (USA) vs Hugo Dellien (PR) (BOL)

Marton Fucsovics (HUN) vs Tallon Griekspoor (28) (NED)

Francisco Cerundolo (18) (ARG) vs Nuno Borges (POR)

Jiri Lehecka (CZE) vs Sebastian Ofner (WC) (AUT)

Milos Raonic (PR) (CAN) vs Dennis Novak (Q) (AUT)

Shintaro Mochizuki (Q) (JPN) vs Tommy Paul (16) (USA)

Cameron Norrie (12) (GBR) vs Tomas Machac (Q) (CZE)

Christopher Eubanks (USA) vs Thiago Monteiro (BRA)

Christopher O'Connell (AUS) vs Hamad Medjedovic (Q) (SRB)

Jiri Vesely (PR) (CZE) vs Sebastian Korda (22) (USA)

Ben Shelton (32) (USA) vs Taro Daniel (LL) (JPN)

Maxime Cressy (USA) vs Laslo Djere (SRB)

Ryan Peniston (WC) (GBR) vs Andy Murray (GBR)

Dominic Thiem (AUT) vs Stefanos Tsitsipas (5) (GRE)

Jannik Sinner (8) (ITA) vs Juan Manuel Cerundolo (ARG)

Miomir Kecmanovic (SRB) vs Diego Schwartzman (ARG)

Aleksandar Vukic (AUS) vs Daniel Altmaier (GER)

Quentin Halys (FRA) vs Daniel Evans (27) (GBR)

Yoshihito Nishioka (24) (JPN) vs Daniel Elahi Galan (COL)

Dominik Koepfer (GER) vs Oscar Otte (Q) (GER)

Mikael Ymer (SWE) vs Alex Molcan (SVK)

Yannick Hanfmann (GER) vs Taylor Fritz (9) (USA)

Borna Coric (13) (CRO) vs Guido Pella (PR) (ARG)

Benjamin Bonzi (FRA) vs Harold Mayot (Q) (FRA)

Corentin Moutet (FRA) vs Richard Gasquet (FRA)

Roman Safiullin vs Roberto Bautista Agut (20) (ESP)

Denis Shapovalov (26) (CAN) vs Radu Albot (Q) (MDA)

Lloyd Harris (PR) (RSA) vs Gregoire Barrere (FRA)

Liam Broady (WC) (GBR) vs Constant Lestienne (FRA)

Laurent Lokoli (Q) (FRA) vs Casper Ruud (4) (NOR)

Andrey Rublev (7) vs Max Purcell (AUS)

Luca Van Assche (FRA) vs Aslan Karatsev

Sebastian Baez (ARG) vs Tomas Barrios Vera (Q) (CHI)

David Goffin (WC) (BEL) vs Nick Kyrgios (30) (AUS)

Alexander Bublik (23) (KAZ) vs Mackenzie McDonald (USA)

J.J. Wolf (USA) vs Enzo Couacaud (Q) (FRA)

Maximilian Marterer (Q) (GER) vs Borna Gojo (CRO)

Filip Krajinovic (SRB) vs Felix Auger-Aliassime (11) (CAN)

Lorenzo Musetti (14) (ITA) vs Juan Pablo Varillas (PER)

John Isner (USA) vs Jaume Munar (ESP)

Jan Choinski (WC) (GBR) vs Dusan Lajovic (SRB)

Albert Ramos-Vinolas (ESP) vs Hubert Hurkacz (17) (POL)

Tomas Martin Etcheverry (29) (ARG) vs Bernabe Zapata Miralles (ESP)

Emil Ruusuvuori (FIN) vs Stan Wawrinka (SUI)

Jordan Thompson (AUS) vs Brandon Nakashima (USA)

Pedro Cachin (ARG) vs Novak Djokovic (2) (SRB)

[historystudies]

hello! I'm wondering if you know of any books about medieval views on death, the supernatural, burial, witchcraft/witches, & other morbid things along that line which you would recommend?

Hello! for books on witchcraft I’d recommend Witch Craze, The Witch in the Western Imagination, and Oedipus and the Devil by Lyndal Roper (my queen); and Witchcraft, the Devil, and Emotions in Early Modern England by Charlotte-Rose Millar. Birth, marriage, and death by David Cressy goes into rituals relating to death and burial; also The Supernatural in Tudor and Stuart England by Darren Oldridge and History and the Supernatural in Medieval England by C. S. Watkins are good places to start 💕