#historical theory

[flowwochair]

Why did Jean-Baptiste Bessieres burn his correspondence? (a list of - unprofessional - theories)

Writing a post to de-stress in between one of the most annoying to research university assignments I've done in a while (what historians don't tell you is that research can be the biggest pain in the ass aspect of writing I guess).

Anyways, today in the Napoleonic Bubble server I was talking to some friends about Bessieres's mystery correspondence and reasons why he could've burned them (as his motive for doing such wasn't entirely clear, nor can we be certain of the contents of the many letters he burned). Here's a couple of the theories I came up with, I'm listing them off just for fun and to see what you guys think, I might be a history major but please don't take these too seriously as I literally came up with them on the spot as we were talking.

Let's start with the Murat related theories to get my BessiMu obsession out of the way first: 1 - Bessieres had been secretly corresponding with Murat This one is pretty self-explanatory, especially after Murat's betrayal, Bessieres himself could've been accused of treason had he had been corresponding with Murat. Furthermore, neither seemed to hold disdain for each other following Murat's betrayal. One point I will need you to keep in mind is that Murat grieved for Bessieres death, something I sincerely believe he wouldn't have done had they been in bad terms. In this case, their correspondence may not have been political, instead being general conversation between the two which Bessieres was still scared of being caught for. 2 - Bessieres had been corroborating with Murat in some other way - Bessieres was making plans with Murat either for Murat's return to France or for a potential attack from Murat. Bessieres, as Murat's long-time friend, would've been an excellent source of insider information for Murat if we're to believe they were still communicating. Where this theory falters is where you believe Bessieres's laid his loyalty more strongly/sincerely (with his boss and friend Napoleon, or with his long time friend and coworker Murat), additionally, I am unsure (regardless of Murat's access to insider info and his notorious stubbornness) how viable it would've been for Murat to literally fight his way into good graces again so...

Now for the other theories 3- Bessieres was working with France's enemies (betrayal theory) - Bessieres may have burned evidence of him providing information to France's enemies or requesting to switch over to their side. The realism of this theory once again depends on where you believe his loyalty was and how strong said loyalty was by the later years of his life.

(CW: DISCUSSIONS OF SUICIDE/POOR MENTAL HEALTH FOR THE NEXT 2 THEORIES)

4- Bessieres was planning to commit suicide - Bessieres in 1813 was reportedly in an incredibly depressive state. Although I do not believe his death was nor could've been planned/orchestrated, there is a possibility that him burning his correspondence was him preparing for such. He may have been planning to commit suicide at a later point, and his actual death may have happened to come earlier than he had planned. By 1813 Bessieres had become an incredibly hopeless and broken person, his friends were dying left right and center, one of his best friends had been entirely banned from France, the empire he had sworn loyalty to was on the edge of crumbling apart, he was in extreme debt, he wasn't short of reasons for suicidal behaviour/ideation. 5 - Bessieres was not in a sound state of mind - Bessieres burning his correspondence was an irrational decision. His mental state had been deteriorating and him burning the correspondence was evidence of him thinking illogically as a result of this. Said mental strain could've been caused by his depressive state or by PTSD he had developed along the course of his career.

(END OF CW)

6 - The correspondence was related to the blackmailing which he fell victim to - As you may or may not know, Bessieres's debt was largely caused by blackmailing involving affairs he had. The correspondence he burned could've been related to said blackmailing. Either as fuel for more blackmail or as evidence that he was being blackmailed.

Okay, that's all the theories I have so far, feel free to tell me what you think or even better: add your own theories!!! I'd love to know your thoughts or extra info you may have on this c:

[thewackypegasus]

that mindset always frustrates me because it's such a simplistic approach to a complex and nuanced topic!!!

studying history isn't important because it provides some sort of cheat code to avoiding the mistakes of the past, it's important because it can help provide an understanding of patterns and systems in human history that can help us better understand our present conditions, both how they work and why they work the way that they do. not to just repeat op, but material conditions are important!!! we can use an understanding of past and present structures in order to improve the world we live in, but it's not an easy matter of "just don't repeat the mistakes of the past."

and i also feel like it is part of a larger narrative that perceives the passage of time as a continual upward march of "progress," which is both inaccurate and can be legitimately harmful if people assume that things will automatically get better and they don't have to do anything to make that happen.

it also feels sort of disrespectful to people in the past to just assume that a.) the main thing we have to learn from them is as an example of what not to do, b.) the problems that they faced were easily avoidable, and c.) (if you buy into the "history is a continual upward march of progress" narrative) that we are automatically better than them simply by virtue of living in the present.

it all grinds my gears so much >:III

truly fascinating how frequently the phrase "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it" comes out of the mouth of people who fundamentally refuse to learn or understand the material conditions leading to that history and simply think history is a series of events and battles to be rote learned so you can feel smarter than everyone else.

[kaiserin-erzsebet]

One of the more frustrating things about the particular kind of anti-intellectualism directed at the humanities here and on places like tiktok is that pointing it out makes you seem like a killjoy.

No, I actually didn't find your "historians will say they were just friends" joke funny. No I don't think speculating that old photos are in black and white to make them seem older is harmless. But I seem uptight and "not fun" when I say these things.

[perplexingly]

I kinda genuinely don't understand this fandom tendency of interpreting things a Certain Way and believing that all else is incorrect

You guys really need to get into some 500 year old theatre play, watch 50 different performances and understand that even the "set in stone 100% acknowledged by scholars" interpretations can be disputed

[nonbinarynow]

How would you describe antibinarism?

To me, antibinarism is to be against the current gender binary in a manner that recognises the colonialist, bourgeois roots of the system.

Binarism is the Western imposed gender binary is a tool of colonialism, neo and classical. As a black person with direct African heritage, it broke my heart to find out how the West steamrolled the nuances of gender experience in my native culture, and imposed a very strict sex and gender binary. It divided them, it alienated them from their own culture and set them into rigid worker identities. Binarism shows why binary gendered POC are held to unrealistic standards that they will never reach because they are not going to fit into the patriarchal, white, bourgeois cishet binary. It shows how the binary was used to dehumanise us though that effect. It explains why queer people have always been genderqueer by nature of their sexualities. It explains why the nuclear family model was developed in that particular manner economically (domestic labour mother, market labour father and 2.5 children) and why it is upheld as a finality (to produce workers at an effective rate; to manage and engage with private ownership). Binarism is down to capitalism and it's effects on society, culture and mentality.

So for me as an antibinarist, I am specifically anticapitalist because of this. They are inseparable. I feel that anti-binarism is to be against the sociocultural mindset of the gender binary and the reasoning why it exists (capitalism, exploitation and private property.)

[studyinglogic]

Two small comments, then two substantive issues:

It is very funny and very useful to reverse the cultural gaze. "The American Civil War was a conflict that occurred in North America in the late Edo Period."

It matters whether you're trying to keep to actor's categories or not. (As you mentioned, people in the Middle Ages didn't think of themselves as living in the Middle Ages, but the Renaissance humanists did self-identity as being of the Renaissance.)

The two larger issues are stake:

The main issue here is: should you try to change people's views by using more accurate terms so that they get used to it (in this case, names of dynasties) or try to communicate by using terms more familiar to people (in this case, European periodisation)? Should one try to change the system or work with the system?

The major problem with describing Chinese history with European periodization is that any dynasty can be described in multiple ways using European periodization.

Take the Song dynasty: I've seen it described as Medieval China (by scholars of Chinese Buddhism), the Chinese Renaissance (by Jacques Gernet), and Early Modern China (by Naitō Konan and scholars following him like Reischauer).

Which one are you going to pick? Are you going to match by time period (in which case the Song dynasty is in the Medieval period) or by cultural and economic developments (in which case it might be Renaissance or Early Modern)? Choosing any one option will bring in its own Eurocentric assumptions; there's no easy answer.

________________

Perhaps the most detailed short overview of periodisation I've read comes from the introduction to Endymion Wilkinson's Chinese History: A New Manual, which gives a quick survey of many different ways of periodising Chinese history (Neo-Confucian, Japanese, Marxist, and so on). He concludes (and here I leave his section references intact):

A major disadvantage of trying to squeeze Chinese history into the European three stages is that the labels ancient, medieval, and modern are already closely attached to particular attributes and assumptions associated with European history. These used to be considered universal. No longer.

. . . Controversies have raged as to which method of periodization to use and where the demarcation lines should be drawn, but periodization is not a science. The whole argument becomes more interesting as soon as it is allowed that different types of history have different stages of development.

For example, the history of Chinese mathematics (§38.16) does not necessarily coincide with changes of production or of political institutions and the same applies to the history of the Chinese language, the start of whose “modem” phase begins six centuries before the start of “modern” political history (§1.1).

Economic watersheds, too, often occur at different periods than do political ones, because in China, as elsewhere, economies change faster than do political systems.

Finally, it is worth recalling that the fundamental periodization provided by climate change has the advantage that it links China with changes affecting the rest of the world within broadly the same time frame (§13.1).

No matter which method of presenting the story is chosen (and each has drawbacks and advantages), it should serve to clarify analysis; to stimulate comparisons with the historical experience of other civilizations, countries, and peoples; and to assist the memory, not to provide a procrustean bed into which to fit the data in order to buttress the self-serving claims of this or that political party.

My own preference is to use the terms

pre-imperial China or classical China (pre-Qin)

early imperial China (Qin to Han)

middle imperial China (post-Han to Yuan)

late imperial China (Ming to Qing)

These terms aren't so specific as to be unintelligible (recall xkcd's point about overestimating what people know) while still keeping to the broad brushstrokes of history.

Note about periodization

I am going to starting describing time periods in Chinese history with European historical terms like medieval, Renaissance, early modern, Georgian and Victorian and so on, alongside the standard dynastic terms like Song, Ming and Qing I usually use. So like something about the Ming Dynasty I will tag Ming Dynasty and Renaissance. I already do it sometimes but not consistently. Here’s why.

A common criticism levied against this practice is that periodization is geographically specific and that it’s wrong and eurocentric to refer to, say, late Ming China as Renaissance China. It is a valid criticism, but in my experience the result of not using European periodization is that people default to ‘ancient’ when describing any period in Chinese history before the 20th century, which does conjure up specific images of European antiquity that do not align temporally with the Chinese period in question. I have talked about my issue with ‘ancient China’ before but I want to elaborate. People already consciously or subconsciously consider European periodizations of history to be universal, because of the legacy of colonialism and how eurocentric modern human culture generally is. By not using European historical terms for non-European places, people will simply think those places exist outside of history altogether, or at least exist within an early, primitive stage of European history. It’s a recipe for the denial of coevalness. I think there is a certain dangerous naivete among scholars who believe that if they refrain from using European periodization for non-European places, people will switch to the periodization appropriate for those places in question and challenge eurocentric history writing; in practice I’ve never seen it happen. The general public is not literate enough about history to do these conversions in situ. I have accumulated a fairly large pool of examples just from the number of people spamming ‘ancient China’ in my askbox despite repeatedly specifying the time periods I’m interested in (not antiquity!). If I say ‘Ming China’ instead of ‘Renaissance China’ people will take it as something on the same temporal plane as classical Greece instead of Tudor England. How many people would be surprised if I say that Emperor Qianlong of the Qing was a contemporary of George Washington and Frederick the Great? I’ve seen people talk about him as if he was some tribal leader in the time of Tacitus. European periodization is something I want to embrace ‘under erasure’ so to say, using something strategically for certain advantages while acknowledging its problems. Now there is a history of how the idea of ‘ancient China’ became so entrenched in popular media and I think it goes a bit deeper than just Orientalism, but that’s topic for another post. Right now I’m only concerned with my decision to add European periodization terms.

In order to compensate for the use of eurocentric periodization, I have carried out some experiments in the reverse direction in my daily life, by using Chinese reign years to describe European history. The responses are entertaining. I live in a Georgian tenement in the UK but I like to confuse friends and family by calling it a ‘Jiaqing era flat’. A friend of mine (Chinese) lives in an 1880s flat and she burst out in laughter when I called it ‘Guangxu era’, claiming that it sounded like something from court. But why is it funny? The temporal description is correct, the 1880s were indeed in the Guangxu era. And ‘Guangxu’ shouldn’t invoke royal imagery anymore than ‘Victorian’ (though said friend does indulge in more Qing court dramas than is probably healthy). It is because Chinese (and I’m sure many other non-white peoples) have been trained to believe that our histories are particular and distant, confined to a geographical location, and that they somehow cannot be mapped onto European history, which unfolded parallel to the history of the rest of the world, until we had been colonized. We have been taught that European history is history, but our history is ethnography.

It should also be noted that periodization for European history is not something essentialist and intrinsic either, period terms are created by historians and arbitrarily imposed onto the past to begin with. I was reading a book about medievalism studies and it talked about how the entire concept of the Middle Ages was manufactured in the Renaissance to create a temporal other for Europeans at the time to project undesired traits onto, to distance themselves from a supposedly ‘dark’ past. People living in the European Middle Ages likely did not think of themselves as living in a ‘middle’ age between something and something, so there is absolutely no natural basis for calling the period roughly between the 6th and 16th centuries ‘medieval’. Despite questionable origins, periodization of European history has become more or less standard in history writing throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, whereas around the same time colonial anthropological narratives framed non-European and non-white societies, including China, as existing outside of history altogether. Periodization of European history was geographically specific partially because it was conceived with Europe in mind and Europe only, since any other place may as well be in some primordial time.

Perhaps in the future there will develop global periodizations that consider how interconnected human history is. There probably are already attempts but they’re just not prominent enough to reach me yet. Until that point, I feel absolutely no moral baggage in describing, say, the Song Dynasty as ‘medieval’ because people in 12th century Europe did not think of themselves as ‘medieval’ either. I am the historian, I do whatever I want, basically.

[enchanting-chit-chat]

Beetlejuice's Backstory and the Black Plague 💚🕷️🥀💀 PART 1

I went and watched the new Beetlejuice movie twice already, can’t wait to share my thoughts! I’ve decided to make a series of posts mainly dedicated to people that are curious about the Black Plague era and BJ's past life. Join me for a historical dive that might make you appreciate Tim Burton’s work even more!

Warning: This post contains SPOILERS for the 2024 movie Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.

Premise

In European countries, we often study the Black Plague in schools. In Italy specifically, the disease spread multiple times throughout the Middle Ages, with the two worst pandemics occurring around 1350 and 1630. The first one alone spread in many countries and caused a total of 20 million deaths - a THIRD of the population of the whole European continent at the time.

However, the 1630 outbreak is the one we know about the most, thanks to author Alessandro Manzoni (1785-1873), who described it meticulously in his masterpiece, ‘I promessi sposi' (The Betrothed): This book is one of the most important works in Italian literature. Although it is a novel, it is often treated as historical evidence because Manzoni actually shaped the story referring to archival documents and chronicles of the time.

Introducing: Monatti, the corpse carriers

In his book, Manzoni recalls a group of people called 'monatti' - the only ones allowed to practice public services such as collecting the dead and washing roads during those hellish times. This concession was motivated by the fact that monatti were considered immune to the disease.

However, they were feared and hated by the rest of the population, because they often misused their ‘privileged’ position: they were untouchable. They often extorted money from the living and stole the belongings of the dead and the sick alike, without repercussions. What made them special was the fact that monatti typically gained immunity after surviving the disease themselves.

“Farewell to Cecilia,” one of the most heart-wrenching moments in Manzoni’s novel, beautifully captured by Francesco Gonin.

In fact, the Black Plague typically spread in three ways: through skin contact (bubonic plague), lungs (pneumonic plague) or blood infection (septicemic plague). The Bubonic form was, and still is, the most common and had the highest survival rate, though it was still quite low. It was easily identifiable because it caused the lymph nodes to swell and become infected, forming characteristic 'buboes'.

It was believed that if a plague victim survived five days, the fever would subside, and they would recover within two weeks. This is what usually happened to the monatti. Similarly, Renzo, the protagonist in Manzoni’s book, recovers, though he never becomes a public worker.

Now, let’s dive back into Beetlejuice’s backstory.

Amidst the eerie glow of moonlight, he's depicted among corpses, at night, behind a wagon, stealing from the dead that were just thrown into a communal pit by plague doctors.

Notice how he’s directly touching the bodies with his bare hands, without any protection: usually, that was considered a death sentence.

In Manzoni’s book, there is a character that meets their end in a similar way, simply by touching the clothes of an infected person. During that era, the danger was so great that people used to burn the bodies of the plague victims along with their clothes, beds, and other possessions.

It is also worth mentioning that, during plague outbreaks, some city governments (particularly in Italy and Poland) imposed strict limitations on the movement of people and goods. In some areas, a nighttime curfew was also enforced (Yes, we invented the lockdown centuries ago!). Under those circumstances, being caught outside your own house at the wrong hour could mean instant death. But guess who had the freedom to roam as they pleased? Yes, monatti and plague doctors (and those with special permits).

Conclusion: Beetlejuice wasn’t just 'a humble grave robber', as he claims. He was definitely a plague survivor and, most likely, a monatto.

The fact that this scene was unveiled and narrated in Italian during the Venice Film Festival further convinces me that this is the correct interpretation of the sequence.

So, what do we think? Have you ever heard or read about The Betrothed before? Anyways, if you liked this analysis, make sure to check out PART 2, in which we can delve even deeper into Beetlejuice’s mysterious past!

Until then, have a fantastic week! ✨

[oneanothername]

[alberichfanpage]

With St. Patrick's Day coming up, I wanted to bring up this idea about Elden Ring that I have not really seen.

I feel like the Golden Order is a loose analogy of the Christianization of Ireland. Taking Celtic imagery and either morphing it into their doctrine or demonizing it. The DLC only furthered this by giving the Hornsent characters Irish accents.

Also, St. Patrick chased the "snakes" out of Ireland and I think that is enough to connect it with the Golden Order's take on snakes.

[clonehighdoublehelix]

[redditantisemitism]

Sigh. I’ve had conflict with this person in the past, and I’ve been avoiding talking about them again, but this is especially egregious and I do want to address it.

How do you think the language and religion spread? People didn’t just decide to switch over en masse, they were conquered. It’s ahistorical to deny that.

The idea that Jews are “white” is complicated, but the idea that Jews possess whiteness is a relatively new concept. Conversations about this have been going on inside the Jewish community for a while. The key there is that it’s inside the community. The idea that this individual feels they, as a non-Jew, are the arbiter of Jewish identity is disgusting.

The idea that Jews aren’t the “real Jews” is not only blatantly antisemitic, it plays into conspiracy theories.

The use of Jewish tags (jumblr, am yisrael chai) are yet another instance of this individual trying to make sure Jews see this post, even when those tags are incorrect. This is clearly harassing, and this user does it frequently.

[sausage-rolll]

thinking long and hard about Godwyn and Fortissax's friendship like

>the dragons begin a war with the golden order

>Godwyn and Fortissax become “good friends” which brings an era of peace between the golden order and the dragons

>Godwyn goes on to begin the golden lineage with a completely unmentioned partner

>dragons are known to take the form of humans and even have relations with them, as seen with Vyke and Fortissax's sister Lanssax

>One of Godwyn’s many descendants is Godrick, who refers to the dragon in his arena as “kindred one”

>While Godwyn was the first demigod to fall during the night of the black knives, it’s implied that many others followed at the hands of the assassins. Due to the rest of the known descendants of Marika being alive, and no one else having a child pre-shattering it can be inferred that Godwyn's bloodline was specifically targeted for some reason. Since those are the only other demigods that existed at the time.

>Godwyn is assassinated and because him and Fortissax are such “Good friends” Fortissax proceeds to enter godwyns mind and spends decades, possibly centuries attempting to fight off the deathblight from within him, eventually succumbing to it themselves but still unwilling to abandon their “good friend” regardless.

[willowgannet11]

The Three Branches of the Hamilton Fandom

(Psssst, historical hamliza art is coming your way soon!)

Ok so hey lol. Now, this is not saying that you have to be in a specific branch, but I’m just pointing out the big differences in the Hamilton fandom.

Meanings:

Musical external: It is the skin, the wall of the fandom. It is what most people will see first. It is outside of the more in depth fandom.

Musical internal: This is the rabbit hole of the fandom. It includes shipping, fanfics, animatics, theories, and much more. And even some facts!

Historical: One that tumblr is very familiar with. It includes of the actual events of Hamilton, and how it realistically/historically is.

[hypothermiatapes]

I’ve been doing some research into WWII for a while now, and considering Tom Riddle grew up during that time I thought I’d detail what his life during the summers was probably like at the orphanage.

(Note that it’s hard to find information, so some of this is more guessing and not fully backed.)

There were two blitzes, the first one being from September 7, 1940 to May 11, 1941 while the baby blitz was from January 21 to May 29 in 1944 (he would be an adult by that summer so I guess it’s not relevant). This means that Tom wasn’t in London during the blitz, but he was there for the aftermath.

This means that when Tom returned from Hogwarts in 1941 it was likely he had to aid in the clearing of rubble. At this time he was fourteen which means that he was most likely working a full time job which wasn’t uncommon at the time for 14-17 y/o’s. This means that Tom either spent most of his summer either clearing rubble or was working in major industries at the time (engineering, aircraft production, shipbuilding, etc…).

I think this is very likely considering he was living in an orphanage and at this time many orphanages in London were operating in over capacity. It is extremely likely the older kids were forced to work to make some income no matter how little and support themselves. The youngest were probably sent to the countryside before the blitz to be kept safe, but I highly doubt the orphanage would have the resources to completely relocate and they were still needed in London.

This means Tom was working full time every summer from the age of 14 to 16/17 (completely dependent on when he left). When he was sixteen Tom could have participated in the Civil Defence and from what I’ve read some form of national service was required at this age. This means Tom could have very well been participating in Civil Defence or something similar.

Nightly during 1941 and 1942 the air raid sirens would go off and people would have to go to the closest tube of air raid shelter so that is likely where most nights were spent. These places were often extremely crowded as well, people basically laying shoulder to shoulder. For someone like Tom I assume this meant getting no sleep whatsoever.

I couldn’t find information on bombs being dropped outside of the blitzes, but I do think it was possible. So, Tom may have lived through a few bombings, but not to the extent of what happened during the blitzes.

Rationing was a large thing at this time and considering Tom was older at this time he would not get as much aid. There is a high probability that he wasn’t eating enough for what he was doing. Including food clothes were rationed significantly and Tom would be at the peak of his growth at this time and considering how tall he is getting fitting clothes would have been extremely difficult. Though minors were given more clothing coupons at this time due to growth.

Rationing also brought the need for people to grow their own food, so Tom and the other children would most likely be responsible for growing and harvesting food.

Now, this goes into theory territory.

I do believe there is a high chance Tom was kicked out of the orphanage for large amounts of time during the summers due to him being old enough to work and little space and resources. This means he was probably homeless a couple times over the summer, and possibly he was for several summers altogether. He also wasn’t liked at Wool’s so this makes it even more likely.

If anyone wants me to go more into detail on any of these points please send me an ask because I would love to.

[tellius-to-fodlan]

Fódlan dress theories:

Underwear

They must wear underwear, but the silhouettes and exposed skin show that it's not the underwear of an equivalent period of earth history, but I doubt they have the materials for modern underwear, with its rubber elastic and foam. So, what would they wear?

We can see on Raphael that the closest garment to the skin for men (at least in the officers academy) is a shirt fastened with buttons:

Shirts of an equivalent time in Europe wouldn't open in the front, but that's not really relevant. I imagine the shirt is made of linen for easy laundering.

As for the bottom, I assume that men and women alike wear linen braies. They can probably be omitted by people wearing long skirts and not riding horses in favor of bare pussy for ease of toilet access when wearing an outfit that makes taking off underpants difficult/time consuming. They're probably short and close fitting, making tight pants easier to wear without obvious panty lines. My evidence besides history:

Look at those little shorts.

As for the apparent leggings some of the girls wear

I bet those are woolen hose, which fasten to the braies.

What about bust support, though? Well, the lifted silhouette is more like a modern push-up bra than anything else, but since I'm assuming they don't have the elastic and foam those are made of, my next guess is regency style short stays

They give considerable lift to the bust without giving a particularly distinctive silhouette like a longer support garment would.

Now, we get one mention of underwear in the game, and that's Dorothea's lost piece of cloth, which was unrecognizable as clothing to Caspar, so I'm assuming it's an unshaped rectangle. My hypothesis on the purpose of this cloth, which I have no historical evidence for, is that it wraps around the torso under the stays to serve at a buffer between the tough, but difficult to launder stays, and the sweaty, sensitive skin. We see no evidence of a chemise or shirt over Dorothea's ample bust, while a wrapped rectangle could be positioned directly at the stay line for total concealment, held on solely by the stays, would have a plenty of wiggle room for weight gain, and only requires hemming, making it a solid skin layer option for a lady on a tight budget who wants to show off her assets. Although given the lack of obvious voluminous chemises on any of the ladies, this could be a common choice across social classes.

Then..... There are the people who don't seem to have underwear on their torsos at all.

I'd guess that Judith is relying on clever tailoring for support, Dorothea's armored girdle does the job for her, and Manuela actually has something really interesting going on, with her bodice being laced close under the bust, and then the breast cups suspended from her neckband for lift. I want to try making that dress.

However, the pre-automatic washing machine laundress in me is screaming at the good fabric right next to the skin. I want to believe that these garments have removable linen linings where they touch skin. Maybe that's what's tied across the back of Dorothea's shoulders.

[canisalbus]

translated by GT

Today I learned that the Pope has the right to appoint secret cardinals, and even the cardinals themselves may not realize that they now have a new position. Popes have the right to make the name public at any time, but if the Pope dies before the Cardinal's name is made public, the individual ceases to be a Cardinal.

Yes, Catholicism is weird.

But more importantly, there is only one person in the world who can prove that I am not a cardinal.

.