#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:

[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.

[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.

[darksvster]

okay i was asked to post this on tumblr since i posted a mini essay about it on twitter so here it is, i added some more examples and elaborated on my points that i couldn't over twitter.

so, when i first watched episode 207 i thought it was weird how religious rhaenyra was, until ryan condal mentioned the cult imagery. now i think instead of the show making her paranoid and neurotic in the final arc, they're going to make her more of a cult leader figure.

i think rather than leaning into her paranoia and the idea of a "hysterical paranoid mother" after she loses her sons, they're going to have her drink her own kool-aid more and more. it's interesting that this is what emma and ryan discuss in this scene with the dragonseeds in the inside the episode.

i think it's interesting that instead of the show positioning her like "a leader amongst the smallfolk," this episode positions her in a darker light, like someone who is manipulating the people there for her own goals. and when vermithor turns on the bastards, she doesn't let them run, the guards keep them barricaded in.

she is literally enraptured by the fire in these scenes. now that she knows it's possible for others to claim the dragons, she has been vindicated and wants more. this is not a merciful queen who is reaching out a hand to the smallfolk, she's throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. after all, these are just smallfolk. bastards with no honor. ryan literally describes the scene as a ritual sacrifice.

and who do you conduct sacrifice for? the gods. but in this case, the gods the seven or the old gods, they aren't even just dragons, but the fact that rhaenyra sees herself in the dragons. she says as much in the literal pilot of the episode when viserys asks her what she sees when she looks at the dragons. she understands the power they wield.

she knows that their power lies in the dragons. but she doesn't reflect viserys' belief that they are a power that man never shouldn't have trifled with. she leans into the chaos and fire and blood of the dragons, we see that in the sowing, clearly.

rhaenyra inherited the worst of both viserys and daemon and that will lead to her madness. she's got viserys' strong belief in prophecy (one now exacerbated by her desperation).

we see that faith in the prophecy falter but never truly fade. rhaenyra has always taken is seriously, to the point that everything she's done this season is in response to the prophecy. her pacifism isn't just due to avoiding bloodshed. she makes it clear to jace that before plunging the realm into war she had to know there was no other option because of the burden of the prophecy.

even though daemon has never believed in prophecy or superstition. she's also got daemon's desire and lust for power and strength (something she confessed wanting specifically because daemon is a man when she was speaking to mysaria).

it's a great deconstruction of the chosen one archetype to have her drink this koolaid and believe herself the chosen one only to have that belief corrupt her. emma d'arcy speaks on this in their interview with gq when discussing rhaenyra's growing fanaticism.

I think something that has been happening for Rhaenyra throughout the series is a growing religious fanaticism. After her father’s death, there is this desire to be connected to him in some way. And losing him happens at the same moment as having her throne usurped. And so that thing that would have been such a direct connection to him is also stolen. So in lieu of that, there’s that searching [through] the histories. I think imagining that at some point her name will feature next to her father’s is in some way comforting, and I find it very moving to see a person who in grief has committed themselves to the history books. As the series goes on, I think we see her more and more invested in her faith. She returns to the old gods. I think all of these actions are in search of her right; the thing that she thought she had received from her father, she is looking for evidence again and again. And part of it, I’m sure, is a choice. I think sometimes in times of loss, we can choose the anchors that we are going to cling to, and her faith becomes one. But I think there’s a narcissism in it. I think her connection with her religion is about wanting to reinforce a divine right. And I think, looking at [episode] seven when this miracle takes place, and this man claims Seasmoke, I think she feels that it’s a gift from the gods. I think it’s what allows her to ride roughshod over Jace’s very legitimate concerns about his own status. I think it’s what allows her to stage a massacre, essentially. She feels that she is riding on the wings of her faith. But her faith, and her belief that she is the ruler that is supposed to sit on that throne, are completely enmeshed.

They continue:

What is going through Rhaenyra’s mind as she watches the Targaryen bastards be devoured and torched alive? I think she feels like a god. I think she feels super proud. I mean, I think it’s uncomfortable. I think there’s something, actually, also that ties into the religiosity — even being back in proximity to dragons, to that fire, is to somehow be living her birthright. To be soaking up the divine, somehow. And do you think that she feels as though the decision to essentially stage a massacre, as you say, is vindicated when the two new bastard dragonriders are found? Totally. Without a shadow of a doubt. I mean, it’s horrendous, but I think she is now this sort of emboldened fanatic, [and] I think she’s experiencing events within a far bigger timeline. She’s imagining the history books. And you know, what’s happening right in front of her is awful. But in 300-400 years, what will be documented is possibly a very short war; a huge civil war that was averted, that this was the first ruling queen, that this ruling Targaryen queen expanded the Targaryen’s ability to have dragons within their armoury.

emma's read on this supports what we see on screen when it comes to rhaenyra's newly found zealousness. the religious aspect could lead her to do things that might have been seen as atrocities by her. it could lead to mysaria abandoning her, her riders turning on her, and we would see more of that targ madness.

gods are mentioned several times in 207. first by addam, who says that the gods are calling him to greater things. rhaenyra has never been the extremely religious sort but, in this scene, she looks like she's had a moment of clarity.

importantly, rhaenyra doesn't know who addam's father is, or hugh's or ulf's. this is simply the first time in history that a non-targaryen (at least in her eyes) has claimed dragons. it's something that she believed impossible. it can feel like destiny to the desperate and she's been extremely desperate after losing daemon, rhaenys, and continuous loss after loss with no hope of recourse.

mysaria says that rhaenyra is lucky addam chose to bend the knee to her rather than himself. and her reply is that it is ordained. this religious vocabulary being used is intentional!

her complaint against the lowborn is that there is an ancient fealty from highborn houses. she essentially implies that bastards do not have honor. mysaria corrects her by pointing out that her legitimate half-brothers aegon and aemond aren't exactly delights, but that doesn't make rhaenyra see the light. instead she recognizes that there's fealty to be had from lowborn people too. the order of things have changed, as mysaria says, so she realizes that she can lift up people who have been historically stepped on and give power to the powerless, calling them her army of bastards.

but when jace calls this out, predicting that someone (perhaps hugh?) could lay claim to her throne if she legitimizes these bastards if not by name then by offering them the power of gods. obviously, jace's concern is real, his entire legitimacy lies on both viserys' past support and also the fact that he has a dragon of his own. if any bastard can claim one, what does that make him? but rhaenyra's response isn't logical. she believes that the throne is part of her and her son's destiny. their right.

for years, on some level, rhaenyra has believed that even though people have insulted her sons, they are full-blooded targaryens. she says herself that if she was a man she could father a dozen bastards, and as heir, she gives birth to three without hesitation. these aren't strongs or velaryons to her, her sons are targaryens.

but even when jace essentially begs his mother not to give commoners dragons, bringing up her past sins and pointing out his own struggle knowing that he's harwin strong's son, her response is somewhat cold. she says now that the gods have laid this in front of her and she has no choice.

the dragonkeepers call what she's doing blasphemy and note that it isn't the gods who brought the dragonseeds to her, but she herself has done that.

Dragonkeeper Elder: This is an abomination. You sent an Andal before a dragon. The judgment was delivered. Now you would send more. Rhaenyra: Ser Steffon Darklyn was the blood of the dragon. Dragonkeeper Elder: It was a blasphemy. He was no dragonlord. Neither are these. Rhaenyra: And yet the gods have set them before us. Dragonkeeper Elder: You have set them before yourself! The dragons are sacred; they are the last magic of Old Valyria in this sad world. They are not pieces on a board for the games of men. Our order will take no part in this.

to the dragonkeepers, she's using these bastards and dragons like chess pieces in her war. but to rhaenyra, who has seen addam claim seasmoke, it seems like this is a divine right — a sign from the gods. and that's proven again when hugh claims vermithor.

addam claiming seasmoke changed everything for her. she talks about claiming a dragon as a transformation, and, in many ways, this claiming has transformed her as well. she tells the dragonseeds that their purpose now is the end the hardships of war.

she paints a lovely image promising them peace at the end, but it is a wholly false image. with vermithor and silverwing now in her arsenal, there will be more suffering, more bloodshed. there are no promises of peace now that the war has been given to the dragons, not until everyone is dead. and if that happens, well, the gods willed it, not her.

in this moment, when she says "may the gods bless you" i have to wonder, is she talking about the seven? or the valyrian gods? or the dragons? i don't think she's fully in deep, but i can see the set up for a much darker storyline for rhaenyra rather than the book plot. every time her beliefs are proven or something impossible happens, that could reinforce her zealousness.

i have always said that rhaenyra is a combination of viserys and daemon, and i think that still. i think that she has both of their madnesses within her. as she loses more, the only thing she'll have to hold onto is that prophecy and the divine right she believes in now.

even this scene from the finale promo has over-the-top messiah, chosen apostles, last supper vibes. her saying "i have entrusted you with a power only few have known" as if she wasn't desperate for them and had no say in who the dragons chose. i love it!

honestly i'm totally here for it, i think it's an exciting direction to take. i don't think rhaenyra was always like this, she might have had the proclivity for it growing up under viserys' wing, but it's the war that's pushed her to this point. desperate people will turn to things like faith in order to guide them when the real world disappoints. i think it's a far more nuanced look at a sort of "madness".

and i'm here for the conflict that will happen with daemon as a result. i think daemon will be in direct opposition to this. he's NOT the type to follow cult leaders. this will be their conflict on top of the existing power struggles. this, to me, is far more interesting of a struggle as opposed to nettles causing romantic tension. this show has a tendency to lean away from harmful stereotypes about women. pitting woman against woman is one of them, as is the hysterical woman.

daemon dying for her could be a form of devotion, or perhaps even a command from a delusional rhaenyra who believes he will survive it. daemon could end up drinking the kool-aid too after the devastations of the war or simply realize that this is the last thing he can offer to someone who is too far gone to be saved.

THIS IS THE FIRE I WANT FOR RHAENYRA. this is the mad queen setup that we could have had! targ exceptionalism and completely going off the deep end as a way of coping with an unwinnable conflict. without viserys, without rhaenys, no one is there to temper the fire within her.

[whiskeyswifty]

GOD THIS IS INCREDIBLE!!!!! Marys Song AND So High School AND Everything Has Changed like yeah!!!! It's always about that feeling like you're 16 and looking at them like the stars that shine and cheeks pink the the twinkling light and eyes that look like coming home!!! The core of swiftieism romance!! Across fifteen years of her life she always finds it again!! you're never too old to dust off your highest hopes!!! this mashup fucking smashed it out of the park!!!!!! THIS IS IT!!!!! HELL YEAHHHHHHHH!!!!!

[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]

[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.

[trash-and-trash-accessories]

The fear of the masculine woman predates any modern conception of transness and gender. There are stories about monstrous women with masculine traits from the ancient world, they were objects of fear or disgust or hatred. This is not misdirected transmisogyny, it's not transphobia misdirected at cis women, it's a fear of female transgression and masculinity. The two are inter-related and trans women are affected by this fear of female masculinity too, and cis women are affected by transphobia but the fear of the masculine woman didn't come from transmisogyny. It predates it. It could be seen as a fear of transmasculinity, even those early examples of women becoming like men and taking on or embodying masculine traits. But it's also not necessarily that. It contains aspects of intersexism, but isn't strictly that either. It's a fear of female masculinity and the transgression of gender norms and fear surrounding women's control over fertility, and so many other things.

Anyone who sees the way masculine women (and transmasculine people) are treated as purely a result of transmisogyny is mistaken, or actively engaging in misogyny, intersexism, and erasure. It's so much more complicated than that.

I'm sorry but not everything is about you.

[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.

.

[shaylogic]

Checking out a bunch of books from the library for fanfic research. One was a 1980s fashion book.

ARE YOU SEEING WHAT I'M SEEING?

Did Edwin choose for his Confession Outfit, not something from his own time or modern times (though men's fashion doesn't change much)

BUT FROM THE '80s SPECIFICALLY?!?!?!?!

Someone better versed in historical fashion, please help me out!

[merrysithmas]

headcanon that Charles Xavier and Princess Diana were close friends and he was devastated when she died

[mouthpoisons]

like we are going to see one of the best Or worst disabled narratives ever written unfold in a couple days im so scared. does viktor just spend the rest of his life at the mercy of his terrible fate and other people/magical forces (youll see me on the news) or does viktor gloriously break the hell out of it all and reclaim his mind and body and finally assuredly save his life and become Free and Un Fuck Withable. i have faith. i have faith