#i am not a library historian

[borgialucrezia]

these parts are from two different books (the first part is from the borgias: blood & beauty by sarah dunant, and the second part is from sins of the house of borgia sarah bower) and i gotta say, the babygirlification of juan borgia is so real!! he's an it girl and we love to see it 🙏

[kazz-brekker]

i regret to inform you all that my curiosity has gotten the better of me and i am now reading the richard the lionheart/philip ii of france book that came out in march. so far it is committing the cardinal sin of being somewhat boring and skipping over the fun bits of history like richard’s literal teenaged rebellion against his dad but i feel obligated to stick with it at least until it gets gay to see what it does with that.

[shewillbethedeathofpoetry]

As a child, I wanted to be an historian, then I became a teen and info-dumping about medieval keeps and Greek philosophers wasn’t cool anymore, in fact, it only caused problems. So, I put that dream on a little shelf in my mind, in a box, the lid covered in dust. I never stopped reading, never forgot the castle from that book about knights, never stopped thirsting for knowledge, for more. But that dream remained in its box. Being an historian isn’t a real career, you won’t find a job, what will you even do with the degree, my father said. He did not mean to discourage me, he simply wanted the best for me, something safe. And so that box collected more dust, became hidden underneath the layers. I’m becoming a teacher, I proclaim one day, history and English, the second best option. My father is proud and my mother is happy that I found my path in life. I forget about the box and the child who yearned for more. There’s a discontent, the nagging sensation that I’m making a mistake, and thus, I look at other programs. Historian, I click it, just for fun, and the box opens and the dream is alive and I feel that childish glee. I smile at my mother and she smiles back because she knows how seldom I experience that unadulterated joy. She also remembers the books. The box gets stored away, waiting to be filled with something else. A voice in the wind whispers, thank you, she says, and I think it’s the little girl, long lost to time.

[sophiamcdougall]

You're a reasonably informed person on the internet. You've experienced things like no longer being able to get files off an old storage device, media you've downloaded suddenly going poof, sites and forums with troves full of people's thoughts and ideas vanishing forever. You've heard of cybercrime. You've read articles about lost media. You have at least a basic understanding that digital data is vulnerable, is what I'm saying. I'm guessing that you're also aware that history is, you know... important? And that it's an ongoing study, requiring ... data about how people live? And that it's not just about stanning celebrities that happen to be dead? Congratulations, you are significantly better-informed than the British government! So they're currently like "Oh hai can we destroy all these historical documents pls? To save money? Because we'll digitise them first so it's fine! That'll be easy, cheap and reliable -- right? These wills from the 1850s will totally be fine for another 170 years as a PNG or whatever, yeah? We didn't need to do an impact assesment about this because it's clearly win-win! We'd keep the physical wills of Famous People™ though because Famous People™ actually matter, unlike you plebs. We don't think there are any equalities implications about this, either! Also the only examples of Famous People™ we can think of are all white and rich, only one is a woman and she got famous because of the guy she married. Kisses!"

Yes, this is the same Government that's like "Oh no removing a statue of slave trader is erasing history :(" You have, however, until 23 February 2024 to politely inquire of them what the fuck they are smoking. And they will have to publish a summary of the responses they receive. And it will look kind of bad if the feedback is well-argued, informative and overwhelmingly negative and they go ahead and do it anyway. I currently edit documents including responses to consultations like (but significantly less insane) than this one. Responses do actually matter. I would particularly encourage British people/people based in the UK to do this, but as far as I can see it doesn't say you have to be either. If you are, say, a historian or an archivist, or someone who specialises in digital data do say so and draw on your expertise in your answers. This isn't a question of filling out a form. You have to manually compose an email answering the 12 questions in the consultation paper at the link above. I'll put my own answers under the fold. Note -- I never know if I'm being too rude in these sorts of things. You probably shouldn't be ruder than I have been.

Please do not copy and paste any of this: that would defeat the purpose. This isn't a petition, they need to see a range of individual responses. But it may give you a jumping-off point.

Question 1: Should the current law providing for the inspection of wills be preserved?

Yes. Our ability to understand our shared past is a fundamental aspect of our heritage. It is not possible for any authority to know in advance what future insights they are supporting or impeding by their treatment of material evidence. Safeguarding the historical record for future generations should be considered an extremely important duty.

Question 2: Are there any reforms you would suggest to the current law enabling wills to be inspected?

No.

Question 3: Are there any reasons why the High Court should store original paper will documents on a permanent basis, as opposed to just retaining a digitised copy of that material?

Yes. I am amazed that the recent cyber attack on the British Library, which has effectively paralysed it completely, not been sufficient to answer this question for you.  I also refer you to the fate of the Domesday Project. Digital storage is useful and can help more people access information; however, it is also inherently fragile. Malice, accident, or eventual inevitable obsolescence not merely might occur, but absolutely should be expected. It is ludicrously naive and reflects a truly unpardonable ignorance to assume that information preserved only in digital form is somehow inviolable and safe, or that a physical document once digitised, never need be digitised again..At absolute minimum, it should be understood as certain that at least some of any digital-only archive will eventually be permanently lost. It is not remotely implausible that all of it would be. Preserving the physical documents provides a crucial failsafe. It also allows any errors in reproduction -- also inevitable-- to be, eventually, seen and corrected. Note that maintaining, upgrading and replacing digital infrastructure is not free, easy or reliable. Over the long term, risks to the data concerned can only accumulate.

"Unlike the methods for preserving analog documents that have been honed over millennia, there is no deep precedence to look to regarding the management of digital records. As such, the processing, long-term storage, and distribution potential of archival digital data are highly unresolved issues. [..] the more digital data is migrated, translated, and re-compressed into new formats, the more room there is for information to be lost, be it at the microbit-level of preservation. Any failure to contend with the instability of digital storage mediums, hardware obsolescence, and software obsolescence thus meets a terminal end—the definitive loss of information. The common belief that digital data is safe so long as it is backed up according to the 3-2-1 rule (3 copies on 2 different formats with 1 copy saved off site) belies the fact that it is fundamentally unclear how long digital information can or will remain intact. What is certain is that its unique vulnerabilities do become more pertinent with age."  -- James Boyda, On Loss in the 21st Century: Digital Decay and the Archive, Introduction.

Question 4: Do you agree that after a certain time original paper documents (from 1858 onwards) may be destroyed (other than for famous individuals)? Are there any alternatives, involving the public or private sector, you can suggest to their being destroyed?

Absolutely not. And I would have hoped we were past the "great man" theory of history. Firstly, you do not know which figures will still be considered "famous" in the future and which currently obscure individuals may deserve and eventually receive greater attention. I note that of the three figures you mention here as notable enough to have their wills preserved, all are white, the majority are male (the one woman having achieved fame through marriage) and all were wealthy at the time of their death. Any such approach will certainly cull evidence of the lives of women, people of colour and the poor from the historical record, and send a clear message about whose lives you consider worth remembering.

Secondly, the famous and successsful are only a small part of our history. Understanding the realities that shaped our past and continue to mould our present requires evidence of the lives of so-called "ordinary people"!

Did you even speak to any historians before coming up with this idea?

Entrusting the documents to the private sector would be similarly disastrous. What happens when a private company goes bust or decides that preserving this material is no longer profitable? What reasonable person, confronted with our crumbling privatised water infrastructure, would willingly consign any part of our heritage to a similar fate?

Question 5: Do you agree that there is equivalence between paper and digital copies of wills so that the ECA 2000 can be used?

No. And it raises serious questions about the skill and knowledge base within HMCTS and the government that the very basic concepts of data loss and the digital dark age appear to be unknown to you. I also refer you to the Domesday Project.

Question 6: Are there any other matters directly related to the retention of digital or paper wills that are not covered by the proposed exercise of the powers in the ECA 2000 that you consider are necessary?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 7: If the Government pursues preserving permanently only a digital copy of a will document, should it seek to reform the primary legislation by introducing a Bill or do so under the ECA 2000?

Destroying the physical documents will always be an unforgivable dereliction of legal and moral duty.

Question 8: If the Government moves to digital only copies of original will documents, what do you think the retention period for the original paper wills should be? Please give reasons and state what you believe the minimum retention period should be and whether you consider the Government’s suggestion of 25 years to be reasonable.

There is no good version of this plan. The physical documents should be preserved.

Question 9: Do you agree with the principle that wills of famous people should be preserved in the original paper form for historic interest?

This question betrays deep ignorance of what "historic interest" actually is. The study of history is not simply glorified celebrity gossip. If anything, the physical wills of currently famous people could be considered more expendable as it is likely that their contents are so widely diffused as to be relatively "safe", whereas the wills of so-called "ordinary people" will, especially in aggregate, provide insights that have not yet been explored.

Question 10: Do you have any initial suggestions on the criteria which should be adopted for identifying famous/historic figures whose original paper will document should be preserved permanently?

Abandon this entire lamentable plan. As previously discussed, you do not and cannot know who will be considered "famous" in the future, and fame is a profoundly flawed criterion of historical significance.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Probate Registries should only permanently retain wills and codicils from the documents submitted in support of a probate application? Please explain, if setting out the case for retention of any other documents.

No, all the documents should be preserved indefinitely.

Question 12: Do you agree that we have correctly identified the range and extent of the equalities impacts under each of these proposals set out in this consultation? Please give reasons and supply evidence of further equalities impacts as appropriate.

No. You appear to have neglected equalities impacts entirely. As discussed, in your drive to prioritise "famous people", your plan will certainly prioritise the white, wealthy and mostly the male, as your "Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin and Princess Diana" examples amply indicate. This plan will create a two-tier system where evidence of the lives of the privileged is carefully preserved while information regarding people of colour, women, the working class and other disadvantaged groups is disproportionately abandoned to digital decay and eventual loss. Current and future historians from, or specialising in the history of minority groups will be especially impoverished by this.  

[brandyschillace]

The Forgotten History of the World’s First Transgender Clinic

I finished the first round of edits on my nonfiction history of trans rights today. It will publish with Norton in 2025, but I decided, because I feel so much of my community is here, to provide a bit of the introduction.

[begin sample]

The Institute for Sexual Sciences had offered safe haven to homosexuals and those we today consider transgender for nearly two decades. It had been built on scientific and humanitarian principles established at the end of the 19th century and which blossomed into the sexology of the early 20th. Founded by Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish homosexual, the Institute supported tolerance, feminism, diversity, and science. As a result, it became a chief target for Nazi destruction: “It is our pride,” they declared, to strike a blow against the Institute. As for Magnus Hirschfeld, Hitler would label him the “most dangerous Jew in Germany.”6 It was his face Hitler put on his antisemitic propaganda; his likeness that became a target; his bust committed to the flames on the Opernplatz. You have seen the images. You have watched the towering inferno that roared into the night. The burning of Hirschfeld’s library has been immortalized on film reels and in photographs, representative of the Nazi imperative, symbolic of all they would destroy. Yet few remember what they were burning—or why.

Magnus Hirschfeld had built his Institute on powerful ideas, yet in their infancy: that sex and gender characteristics existed upon a vast spectrum, that people could be born this way, and that, as with any other diversity of nature, these identities should be accepted. He would call them Intermediaries.

Intermediaries carried no stigma and no shame; these sexual and Gender nonconformists had a right to live, a right to thrive. They also had a right to joy. Science would lead the way, but this history unfolds as an interwar thriller—patients and physicians risking their lives to be seen and heard even as Hitler began his rise to power. Many weren’t famous; their lives haven’t been celebrated in fiction or film. Born into a late-nineteenth-century world steeped in the “deep anxieties of men about the shifting work, social roles, and power of men over women,” they came into her own just as sexual science entered the crosshairs of prejudice and hate. The Institute’s own community faced abuse, blackmail, and political machinations; they responded with secret publishing campaigns, leaflet drops, pro-homosexual propaganda, and alignments with rebel factions of Berlin’s literati. They also developed groundbreaking gender affirmation surgeries and the first hormone cocktail for supportive gender therapy.

Nothing like the Institute for Sexual Sciences had ever existed before it opened its doors—and despite a hundred years of progress, there has been nothing like it since. Retrieving this tale has been an exercise in pursuing history at its edges and fringes, in ephemera and letters, in medal texts, in translations. Understanding why it became such a target for hatred tells us everything about our present moment, about a world that has not made peace with difference, that still refuses the light of scientific evidence most especially as it concerns sexual and reproductive rights.

[end sample]

I wanted to add a note here: so many people have come together to make this possible. Like Ralf Dose of the Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft (Magnus Hirschfeld Archive), Berlin, and Erin Reed, American journalist and transgender rights activist—Katie Sutton, Heike Bauer. I am also deeply indebted to historian, filmmaker and formative theorist Susan Stryker for her feedback, scholarship, and encouragement all along the way. And Laura Helmuth, editor of Scientific American, whose enthusiasm for a short article helped bring the book into being. So many LGBTQ+ historians, archivists, librarians, and activists made the work possible, that its publication testifies to the power of the queer community and its dedication to preserving and celebrating history. But I ALSO want to mention you, folks here on tumblr who have watched and encouraged and supported over the 18 months it took to write it (among other books and projects). @neil-gaiman has been especially wonderful, and @always-coffee too: thank you.

The support of this community has been important as I’ve faced backlash in other quarters. Thank you, all.

NOTE: they are attempting to rebuild the lost library, and you can help: https://magnus-hirschfeld.de/archivzentrum/archive-center/

[nicklloydnow]

“May I be permitted to say a few words? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic & Islamic History under William Montgomery Watt & Laurence Elwell Sutton, 2 of Britain ‘s great Middle East experts. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge & to teach Arabic & Islamic Studies at Newcastle University . Naturally, I am the author of several books & 100s of articles in this field.

I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs & that, for that reason, I am shocked & disheartened for a simple reason: there is not & has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality should anyone choose to visit Israel.

Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that many students are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, & that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby.

Hating Israel

Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I’m not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel . I’m speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies & myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a “Nazi” state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nuremberg Laws?

None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When?

No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is a way to subvert historical fact. Likewise apartheid.

No Apartheid

For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled how things were in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a day in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous this is.

The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country’s 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha’is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world center; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan & elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; or anyone else; the holy places of all religions are protected by Israeli law.

Free Arab Israelis

Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran , the Bahai’s (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren’t your members boycotting Iran ?

Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews — something no blacks were able to do in South Africa.

Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews & Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

Women’s Rights

In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men & women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays oftn escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home.

It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel & say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief.

Intelligent students thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?

(…)

I do not object to well-documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations.

(…)

Israeli citizens, Jews & Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations & call for no boycotts against Libya , Bahrain , Saudi Arabia , Yemen , & Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world’s freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the ME that gives refuge to gay men & women, the only country in the ME that protects the Bahai’s…. Need I go on?

(…)

Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more.”

[mariacallous]

Growing up in Lancaster, Ohio, I remember discovering a book in the local library that ultimately helped to change how I viewed my hometown’s history. The book, “Jewish Literacy” by Joseph Telushkin, had a small sticker on the inside cover indicating it was purchased through the B’nai Israel Synagogue of Lancaster Jewish Book Fund. This was surprising, as there hadn’t been an organized Jewish community in Lancaster for years.

I later learned that the fund had been established by the remaining members of the synagogue after its sale in 1993, with the intention of ensuring that the tradition of Jewish education continued in Lancaster, even in the absence of a physical synagogue.

This discovery, along with other signs like a Star of David engraved next to a cross on the town’s war memorial and the presence of the building that once housed the B’nai Israel synagogue downtown, hinted at Lancaster’s former Jewish community. During its nearly seven decades of existence, B’nai Israel not only served its congregants but also hosted groups — including church youth organizations and civic societies — to educate others about Judaism. As in many small towns across the United States, the synagogue provided the only accessible resources for learning about Jewish culture, history and theology.

For the last several years, I’ve dedicated myself to documenting the Jewish histories of small towns in both my home state of Ohio and my adopted state of New York. I am drawn in by the realization that many of these once-active communities, despite their contributions, were in danger of fading into obscurity. As a volunteer, I have spent countless hours piecing together the stories of Jewish families, tracing their lives and legacies in over 20 small towns. In most of these places, the written record of their Jewish past was sparse, with local historical organizations often lacking the resources or staffing to fully explore these stories. These constraints also create opportunities for volunteers and community members to engage in uncovering stories still waiting to be told.

Small-town synagogues often function not just as religious institutions but as unique centers for education and community engagement. In Lancaster, the B’nai Israel synagogue opened its doors to various groups seeking to learn about Judaism. Its book fund ensured that, even after the synagogue’s closure, locals could continue to conveniently access resources devoted to Jewish culture and history.

Eighty miles to the south, in Portsmouth, Ohio, the Jewish community was also engaged in interfaith efforts from its earliest days. When Beneh Abraham, the local synagogue, was consecrated in 1858, Christian residents of the town supported the construction, and the First Presbyterian Church choir even sang during the dedication. Such partnerships went both ways, with Jews contributing to the building funds for nearby churches.

The local rabbi, Judah Wechsler, taught in both English and German. Wechsler’s leadership helped Beneh Abraham function as more than a religious space — it became a center for community engagement in Portsmouth. Portsmouth’s first synagogue, like many other historic religious structures in America, no longer stands today, but this early story from the town’s Jewish community reminds us of how intertwined religious groups in small towns can be. Beneh Abraham continues to exist in Portsmouth and is one of Ohio’s oldest Jewish congregations.

In Auburn, New York, the former B’nai Israel Synagogue played a crucial role in bringing neighbors together and fostering understanding. Throughout much of the 20th and early 21st centuries, B’nai Israel welcomed interfaith activities, particularly through its long-standing relationship with St. Luke’s United Church of Christ. This engagement included an annual exchange of pulpits, novel when it began in 1939, where the rabbi of B’nai Israel and the minister at St. Luke’s would preach at each other’s congregations. This effort, undertaken each year during the national Brotherhood Week campaign, continued for over 30 years, helping strengthen ties between Jewish and Christian communities in Auburn.

In both Auburn, New York, and Lancaster, Ohio, the B’nai Israel synagogues’ efforts to educate non-Jewish neighbors about Judaism often left lasting impressions, in keeping with studies showing that ​​the more people know about Jews, the less they embrace antisemitic tropes. With the closure of these small-town synagogues in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the physical presence of Jewish life in these towns has largely disappeared, raising questions about how this loss impacts interfaith understanding and broader cultural awareness.

As small-town Jewish communities across America continue to contract, preserving their histories becomes not just an act of remembrance, but also an essential part of understanding the broader American story. Though often small in numbers, small-town Jewish communities have played crucial roles in shaping the civic, cultural and economic landscapes of their communities.

As the physical reminders of small-town Jewish life — such as synagogues, social centers and long standing family-owned businesses — fade, there is a danger that their stories will disappear, a loss not only for Jewish history but American history. They remind us that America’s heartland is not as monolithic as it is often portrayed, and that diversity has long been part of the stories of many communities.

In Lancaster and Auburn, the efforts of individuals and institutions to preserve local Jewish histories stand as models of how this work can be done. In its last years, members of Auburn’s former B’nai Israel synagogue donated many of the congregation’s religious artifacts, including the synagogue’s historic stained-glass windows, to the Cayuga Museum of History & Art, ensuring that the congregation’s memory would live on in a public space.

But in most of the communities I’ve studied, there was no such effort until recently. In some towns, synagogues were demolished or fell into disrepair, their histories largely unrecorded. It wasn’t until I began this work as an undergraduate  that the stories of these Jewish communities began to be gathered and pieced together, bringing their legacies back into the light.

Preservation alone is not enough. These histories must be shared and integrated into broader conversations about American identity. We not only honor Jewish families who helped to build and sustain so many small-town communities but also ensure that future generations understand the complexity and richness of small-town life in America.

In a time when debates about national identity dominate our public discourse, preserving the histories of small-town Jewish communities offers a crucial reminder: that the American story is, and always has been, one of diversity and change.

[the-kr8tor]

Thank you for voting for the name Octobie! Now for the themes! I've combed through every single suggestion you gave me and categorised all of them into 12 themes.

So what I'm gonna do is post the 12 (right here) and from that 12 the 5 most top voted will move up for another poll until the top 3 wins! (Reasons/ and where I got the themes from your suggestions are listed below the poll/cut. W/ brief descriptions also)

Note: Theme names aren't finalized but the meanings will still be the same. (They'll have a cooler name once they get picked!)

Wondering why there will only be three themes? Well the third week theme is called wild card where anything goes! So if your chosen theme doesn't win you can always wait for the third week of octobie to come around and you can do whatever you want in that week as long as Hobie's in it!

Fantasy— fairy! Hobie, Dragon tamer! Hobie/Dragon rider! Hobie, Mythical creature, Sailor/Pirate! Hobie x deity! R, Time-looped historian! Hobie, fae, Mermaid. (Literally anything to do with the fantasy genre)

Halloween- Cloak Hobie, Witch R & familiar! Hobie, Witch! R and demon! Hobie, accidental summoning, pumpkin, Demon! Hobie and angel! R, death reaper! Hobie and target! R, vampire! R and human Hobie, serial killer! Hobie and detective! R, zombie! Hobie, pirates, thriller! Hobie, (anything spooky or scary!)

Eras swap/ through the decades- Modern! Hobie x 1970s! r, modern au, 1800s, different au Hobies meet and different au readers meet, aged up meet cute (they meet in their 60s), decades, (time is the main gist of it, whether it's hobie through the years or some decade specific scenario)

Music- guitar, record play, music lessons, backstage, concerts, rival bands/musicians, band practice, battle of the bands, (anything that has to do with music!)

Comfort- stray cats, nicknames, arts and crafts, london tings, hate the am (mornings), flowers, cats, snow, cozy/chilling at home, library, favourite au/trope, cottage core, (anything that wakes the butterflies in your stomach or makes you feel the ooeygoeey feeling fluff!)

Anarchy- ACAB, battle vests, protest, punk. (Anything that Hobie would be proud of doing)

Slice of life/ family life- swing date, the twins, first dance, just cozy things, cozy/chilling at home, morning/nighy routine, handsy, date day/night, meet cute, sick day, childhood friends. (Cozy or family related!)

Crossover- villains and/Vs heroes, magical girl! Hobie, tokyo ghoul au, DC Crossover, Hobie meeting batman, android! Hobie and human r, baldur's gate 3 au, hobie and mutant x-men! R, hobie and deadpool!, deadpool! Hobie, gambit! Hobie, ghost rider! hobie, spy family au, nightcrawler! Hobie (whether it's a video game, anime or a different genre of comic, that goes here!)

Medieval- royalty, royal! R and rebel! Hobie, (anything that makes you sing the game of thrones opening lol)

Villain au- black cat! Hobie, deadpool! Hobie, mystique! Hobie, prowler! Hobie x villain! r (evil! Hobie? Evil! Hobie! Or any au pertaining to villainy!)

Movie mashup- scream killer! Hobie and caller! R, freaky friday/body swap, rom-com, will they/won't they?, swan lake au, mad hatter! Hobie, phantom of the opera au, the greatest showman au, avatar au, (general movie au or theatre au)

Runway ready- patches, runway, hair, piercings, braids, dress up/ fashion show, draw in your style. (Fashun!)

[leynaeithnea]

I love history sm

Thank you again for this answer! 😁

👉👈 saw the posts about the ages in the odyssey/iliad

And was wondering do we know how much time (roughly) passed between the suitors of helen made the oath and the start of the trojan war?

Aka how old was Odysseus when he suggested the idea with the Oath and got at the very least engaged with Penelope

Hello Hello! Thank you so much for the question and I am sorry if it is long!

As you know I estimated Odysseus's age in my analysis to be around his mid-30s at the beginning of the war, mid to final 40s at the events of the Iliad till the end of the war and in his mid to final 50s when he returns home to Ithaca. That being said he is one of the oldest kings around probably (although the others of the same age group are most likely close enough)

Time line is not cut clean of course given the many different sources that exist. Apollodorous has a very extended timeline. I believe he got inspired by local traditions but also the phrase that Helen uses at Iliad that she has been "20 years there" which most likely is a euphemism to say "I've been here too long". He has a very extensive timeline that makes the heroes have two gatherings that are a decade apart but I think that is way too outstretched of a timeline so I go with the more simple one at least as far as Homer is concerned with one gathering at Aulis (or even if there was anoter gathering not it being like 10 years apart, that makes the timeline too extensive). I believe there is a general agreement though in the sources that roughly a decade passes from the Oath of Tyndareus till Paris's arrival to Sparta and Helen going with him to Troy. There are some sources that say they spent around a year roaming about in a sort of honeymoon where they consumate their marriage. So I should say around a decade passes from the Oath of Tyndareus till the moment the war breaks out. Maybe with one or two years of difference for the preparation.

Now that second part is interesting. There isn't much to suggest on the maritable ages of the Mycenaean times but during classical Athens the ideal age for marriage for men was considered 30 and for women around 16. I am using this as a guideline but I believe that the ages of mid-20s was a reasonable age for someone at the bronze age to consider marriage. By some accounts Odysseus wasn't even entirely bothered to bring gifts to Helen because he wasn't convinced he had chances with her. That being said that must have been beyond his appearance or his wealth. My estimation would be his age too if let's say he had to compete against Menelaus or Aias/Ajax who were both quite younger than what he was (particularly Ajax)

My estimation is that he was in his mid-final 20s (somewhere between 26 and 28 or 29). Penelope, by my logic, should have been at least a decade younger in order for her 20 years later to still be considered for marriage and having children so obviously she wasn't his age otherwise she would be in her 50s in the Odyssey and even by modern day standards women are not particularly fertile if at all in their 50s. So my estimation is that she must be tops in her mid-40s in the Odyssey making her anywhere between the ages of 16 to 19 when she meets Odysseus. That is even further backed up by the fact that Agamemnon says that he left Penelope a "young bride' (νύμφην και νέην) which is translated both as "newlyweds" or "young wife" implying that Penelope was considered a young woman when she married.

Now I am not sure how much we can assume on engagements in Bronze Age unless it was two kids from families promised to each other. In fact sources like Pausanias speak on how Icarius tries to stop Penelope and Odysseus returning to Ithaca because he wanted Odysseus to remain to Laconia. Odysseus gives Penelope the choice to continue their marriage or stay with her father, implying they were already married by that time he traveled to Sparta.

So yup I believe he was in his mid or final 20s so that around 10 years later he is forced to join the Trojan War in his 30s, finishes by his 40s and finally returns home in his 50s I hope this helps or makes sense to you ^_^

[pub-lius]

hiiii :3

i just read your response to an ask about your reason for disliking ron chernow’s alexander hamilton book, and i wanted to ask if i can still use it as source for some info. i’ve done my fair share of research on various topics and my opinions/what i’ve read differentiated strongly sometimes from what he wrote, but some things are just hard to come by (as somebody not from the US who doesn’t have local resources and has to rely on stuff i can find online). what do you suggest i do if i want more accurate info? i know the founders archive but other than that i haven’t found a lot of trustworthy sources concerning the amrev that aren’t $300 textbooks?

idk- sorry this is really long :,) i’m not sure in im making any sense haha

Girl have you seen the length of my posts? This is not long at all, and you make perfect sense.

And if you have seen my posts, you may notice that Chernow is my most frequent citation because of how valuable his biographies are as sources. He does intensely thorough research and his index and bibliography are so extensive, I can’t even make a joke about getting them as a tramp stamp.

Chernow is a great source and I do recommend any starting Hamilton scholar to get a copy, if you have the means and patience. The downfalls of it are its a hard read and his personal interpretations are heavily skewed and biased in various directions, which is only different from other historians because he doesn’t give proper evidence and substantiation to these claims. All you need to have in order to recognize this is basic critical thinking skills. Tl;dr: Chernow is a great source, he’s just fucking annoying and I hate him.

One very good thing about Chernow is that his book is so (painfully) extensive, that it can serve as a source for more than just Hamilton, so there’s no shame in using him as a source for *checks notes* how the island of St. Kitts and Nevis was formed from a volcano, if you’re into that.

I see your inability to access US propaganda and I raise you youtube documentaries. That may sound crazy, but you can put it on in the background and cross reference between them (usually repeated details are closest to the truth). They can also be entertaining, especially if they’re from the 80s (i love the 80s). Additionally, if you’re looking for archives, @maip--macrothorax can tell you all the benefits of Internet Archive (if they aren’t too busy borrowing all of the books on there /lh). You can also find a lot of things on the Library of Congress’s website, and also my favorite governmental department:

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE!!

Go to the national park service, it includes all the battlefields, important buildings, where important buildings used to be, the houses of historical figures, and really pretty parks (also like mount gaymore (rushmore) and shit but wtvr). They have tons of information and great archivists and librarians and i long for their jobs. Also, American Battlefield Trust, Mount Vernon, The Museum of the American Revolution, etc. also have great sources and tons of information- along with wonderful reenactments that they have on youtube!!

I also do my best to make these sources as accessible as possible, so if you do some perusing you might be able to find some of this stuff here, but I am always happy to answer asks with links or research though I am very slow (sorry). And of course, my dms are open and I probably wouldn’t be totally infuriated if you found me at my local library and asked for directions to the non-fiction section. I am the personal librarian of tumblr.com, so ask away and I’ll be there!!

[my-deer-friend]

I have a stupid question. How do you find out about current history scholarship and research? I am sick of reading books I've read a hundred times and were published decades ago. Is there like a forum or something where historians share research or lectures or things?

Not stupid at all!

The key is 1) knowing which sources provide the most up-to-date information, and then 2) using the appropriate strategy to access them.

Conference and lectures

Conferences are where you find the most cutting-edge research – usually work that has not been published yet, or is still in progress. Accessing conferences can be both expensive and difficult (if they're limited to people with certain affiliations, for example), but there are also conferences that are free for the public, and ones run by groups like the Organization of American Historians that are reasonably priced for the digital attendance option. You can browse conference programmes (here is the OAH's 2024 version) to at least find the names of academics relevant to your field of interest, which will help with the kinds of searches you will want to conduct below.

Finding these is a mix of luck and effort. You can set a search alerts on various platforms, literally just do a search for "[topic] academic conference", find relevant organisations and subscribe to their newsletters for updates, or do some browsing on social media. I found History Symposium (free, current, deep-dive history lectures and a virtual conference) because of something shared here on Tumblr. Following the Instagram account of the Powder House in Charleston keeps me updated on their history lecture programming (which host virtual talks including showcasing new research on the US colonial era). Then there are institutions like the Royal Museums Greenwich who publish a range of high-quality historical content on their YouTube account (they have a good series on black history and the Transatlantic slave trade, as well as a fascinating recent lecture by a historian on the queer history of the British navy, which I also found here on Tumblr).

Academic journals

Journals are where you get the most recent published academic scholarship. A journal article generally is a fairly narrow/focused exploration of a topic that adds something new to the ongoing academic conversation (e.g., a new discovery, a new analysis of existing material, a new theoretical perspective, a challenge to a previous author's work).

Other useful kinds of journal content are book reviews, as well as "review" articles, which summarise and synthesise recent research in a field – as well as newly arising questions and research directions.

Getting your hands on articles requires two steps: 1) finding the research, and 2) accessing the research.

Finding articles

For better or worse, the best generalist search tool for journal articles is Google Scholar – it allows you to search across hundreds of databases and independent publishers for relevant content.

If you're a member of a university library (not necessarily staff or student – check if your library allows external membership), it will have its own search tool which allows you to find material in the databases and journals that the university is subscribed to. Individual databases, archives or publishers (think JSTOR) will also have their own internal search.

My advice is to start your search as narrowly as possible, and then expand out slowly if you don't find anything relevant. So, for example, I might start my search with "same-sex relationships london 1780s", and if nothing comes up, I might broaden it out to "england" or "late eighteenth century", and so on.

The other thing to do is follow citations (i.e., who referenced what?). You can travel "backwards" through the literature by looking at the reference lists of books or articles you already have (in other words, which works the author used to base their research on).

But you can also travel forwards – the "cited by x" link below a reference on Google Scholar is your friend, because it shows you who used that particular source in their (by default, more recent) work.

Accessing articles

Unfortunately, a lot of academic research is gatekept by the academic publishing industrial complex – not by academics themselves, to be clear. This results in those ludicrous charges for single papers:

(And $30 is hardly the upper limit...)

But hope is not lost! You still have some options if you're willing to do a bit of work.

1) Sometimes, if you're lucky, the article will be freely available online. In Google Scholar, for example, check for the "PDF" or "HTML" link to the right of the title:

Some entire journals are freely available (usually called "open access") – one example is the Journal of the American Revolution. You can also search on DOAJ for open-access-only articles and journals.

2) I've also occasionally found the article just by googling "[article name] pdf". Some scholars will make these available for free on their personal websites, for example.

3) You can also try contacting the scholar directly through a platform like Academia.edu. Find the article there, and check if there is a "request full-text" option on its page (or, even, if the full text version has already been posted).

4) For slightly older articles, try searching on JSTOR, which gives anyone with an account free access to 100 articles a month. (I say "older", but there's even scholarship from 2024 on there these days.)

5) If all else fails, definitely do not type "sci hub" into your search engine and check there. That would be bad and naughty and very, very sexy of you. I repeat, do not do this. 🤫

Academic books

Books are not usually a great source of super-current research, both because the format doesn't lend itself to it and the publishing cycle can be very long, but they can be an excellent source for a decently recent and detailed overview of the topic. Note that you specifically want academic books here (not the ones in the "history" section of your local chain bookstore).

If you've done some digging in journal databases, you should have a good sense of which authors are writing about the topics you're interested in. Find their websites or social media feeds and subscribe to get updates on their latest work. For example, historian and Tumblr darling Joanne Freeman has a website with links to her books, lectures and podcast, as well as other media. The Museum of the American Revolution has a "Read the Revolution" speaker series featuring newly published books on relevant topics (and they're certainly not the only museum or public institution to do this). Their newsletter will keep you updated on the upcoming sessions, and the website often has a free recording of the talk available.

The prices can be quite extortionate, so again, see if you can find a free version online using the methods above. You might also have some luck finding the book on Archive.org (which might allow you to loan it out for free for an hour at a time) or Google Books (which sometimes shows you a decently large preview). Definitely do not type "libgen" into your search engine and try to download the book form there.

In summary...

There's a lot out there. A bit of persistence and a lot of searching (on databases, social media and the internet in general) will open up a huge spectrum of intereting and relevant resources!

[smellofemale]

introduction post woohoo yeah!

about me!

♍️☀️♏️⬆️♈️🌙

infp :)

my name is priscilla!

i post about the void state, law of assumption, shifting all through a religious perspective (Christian)!

on this page we believe in a free Palestine, we are pro-equality, anti-colonialism and open minded to everything!

my personal interests are: reading, poetry, music(my favorite bands are the kinks, christian death, hanoi rocks, new york dolls, the damned, icky boyfriends, blondie, tears for fears and the velvet underground! this is my spotify <3) john waters, history, and documentaries!

i have tapped into the void state multiple times! i am just working on like actually affirming when i'm in it hehe. i have also shifted! i've only done 1 BIG shift and that was actually before i even knew about shifting, it was completely accidental and just to a better cr when i was quite young! but i have mini-shifted more times than i can count :")

my current drs: rozz williams, historian, church dr (one where i literally just have a better relationship with the church and heal my religious trauma haha), warhol superstar, library (i literally just have a gigantic library with every single book in the world), director, Claude cahun (i literally just want to have a first hand experience of speaking with them. they are so interesting to me.), Max's Kansas city and cbgb dr!

i mainly shift to learn about my interests first hand but i also have a few where i can *meet* my celebrity crushes hehe.

my void state list

things to add to your void state list

my void state master affirmation tape

some of my favorite void state subliminals

currently shifting to: my rozz dr

[nesiacha]

Excerpts from Letters and Chapters of Historians on the Break Between Babeuf and Fouché

Yes, we all know the story of Babeuf, who was at one point manipulated by Fouché. But contrary to what Stefan Zweig describes, Babeuf is far from being a simpleton (by the way, Fouché manipulated many intelligent people, whether they were aware of it or not). He was an engaged revolutionary, far more humanitarian than others, while still having insightful reflections (I admit, it's my fan-girl side of Babeuf speaking, but the letters, especially those from the storming of the Bastille and the murder of Foulon, where he condemned this murder while offering very just opinions, can be found here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/766775982269087744/gracchus-babeufs-opinion-on-the-storming-of-the?source=share). Yes, Fouché did manipulate him at one point because he knew Babeuf had humanitarian values, and here is an excerpt:

"Ordered by Fouché, who seeks to make common cause with the Thermidorians, in the context of the trial of Carrier, the man behind the Nantes drownings, it serves as an alibi for the former machine-gunner of Lyon. The method is classic. It consists of denouncing one's former political allies, exaggerating, in order to better save oneself." (Emmanuel de Waresquiel, Vendée and Chouannerie: Two Centuries of Memory, Revue des Deux Mondes, September 1993).

But Babeuf always denounced the double standard of morality (I am deliberately exaggerating here), and here is an excerpt from the historian Claude Mazauric:

"Babeuf is on the side of the Revolution and the Republic, not the opposite; it is precisely on the basis of republican and revolutionary values, which, according to him, are grounded in universal principles, that he protested against the 'decemviral tone,' the 'proconsular exactions,' the unnecessary and arbitrary violence, etc."

Moreover, Babeuf was a man who never abandoned his true friends, even in their time of need. He often wrote, for example, to the widow of Chaumette (even though she was considered the widow of a traitor). I really need to find these letters one day. In lieu of the letters to the widow of Chaumette, here is an excerpt from a letter Babeuf sent to Chaumette when he was still alive:

"Philanthropists! I announce to you my book on Equality, which I will present to the world. Sophists! With it, I will destroy all the false reasoning by which you have misled, chained, and made the Universe suffer; and despite you, men will know the full extent of their rights, nature's vow will no longer be violated, and they will all be happy."

Moreover, we see Babeuf gradually realizing Fouché's true nature. He distances himself from him until their eventual break.

Babeuf wrote on the 19th of Germinal Year III to Fouché after the popular insurrection of the Sans-Culottes due to famine and misery (Babeuf would lose his daughter Sophie because of this, a loss from which he never recovered):

"The catastrophe of the 12th of Germinal makes way for great changes. This does not mean that I renounce it and leave the party. The ideas that occupy me, together with the conclusion I wish to establish in this letter, will lead me, my friend, to speak to you about the great battle we just lost... but must we be crushed by it? No. It is in great dangers that genius and courage unfold."

But here is what he writes to Fouché in his journal The Tribune of the People:

"You have become very rich, Fouché. When I left to be relegated to the North, I believed I could place enough trust in you to recommend my children. They went to see you. You gave them ten francs one day. You took no more interest in the family of an honorable victim of the patriciate. Today, you would sacrifice four to five thousand francs to stifle a few truths. This last object deserves far more than the other to affect your heart. It is exactly a year ago, Fouché, that there was with the then government, another director or syndic of the library, than you: it was Lanthenas. He wrote to me. I still keep his letters, and I can still justify the similar propositions he suggested to me, though with a little more finesse. You don’t write to me; but you speak to me in front of Antonelle and company. I give you the same response I gave to Lanthenas. I don’t want a censor, a corrector, or a whisperer; I still opt for persecution, if necessary; I will not tune in with the Méhée, and I insist on maintaining, against you, that the time has come when every truth must be spoken. You may conspire with the current government: we know how every government conspires. I declare that I am also part of a conspiracy. It is not yours. Send your agents on the campaign as much as you want; you will not destroy it. If this letter were to be read by the patriots, I would tell them: remember that a year ago, I was more right on my own than all the Jacobins together. I loudly demanded the constitution of that time. If they had demanded it at the same time as me, they would have saved the people and themselves. On the contrary, they were long in opposition to me, constantly seeking to delay the implementation of that constitution. In the end, they recognized I saw better than them, and they came to echo me. They demanded, through Barrère and Audouin, the swift establishment of the constitutional regime; but it was too late. A few days later, their society died assassinated. Their demand, therefore, lost all force. The time for delays is over. We are no longer in times when one can wait. They say public opinion must be redone. It is too formed. The people feel too much the extent of their suffering; they can no longer bear it. To help them, there is no quicker remedy than to put them at odds with their enemies, with all those who are the cause of all they suffer. Wanting to make them wait is asking that each day add to the destructive force that is depopulating our country at terrifying speed, sending each of us, in turn, to death, in slow and horrible anguish."

And he adds to Fouché: "It has been said for some time that you were my Mentor [...] I don’t want a censor, a corrector, or a whisperer: I still opt for persecution, if necessary [...] And I insist on maintaining, against you, that the time has come when every truth must be spoken."

Babeuf understood Fouché’s ambitions and wanted nothing to do with him anymore. Personally, I’ve discussed with friends passionate about the French Revolution (some of whom have opinions different from mine, even very different, but that’s fine because otherwise, it would be boring, we wouldn’t learn as well, and everyone must benefit from free judgment) who hypothesized that if Babeuf had followed the tide, like Fouché, and had not denounced him, perhaps Fouché would have allowed him a pension. The same goes for Marie-Anne Babeuf, the wife of Gracchus Babeuf and his right-hand woman (she helped him print, managed subscriptions, was imprisoned under the Directory for her activism, tried to help him escape, walked many miles pregnant with 8-months-old to organize his defense, and kept her married name after her husband's execution), who continued her political activities after her husband's death (some sources describe her as a woman with a strong character who did not back down in the face of adversity and I believe it given the trials she has undergone and how she has reacted), to the point of being arrested twice by the Napoleonic police (more precisely, she was arrested by the police for the first time during the affair of the infernal machine in 1801, actually perpetrated by the royalists, and questioned a second time by the police who took all her papers and those of her son so her property in 1808) . We know that Félix Lepeletier was a close friend to her and her children and always helped them after her widowhood. Turreau adopted one of her sons, Camille (the only good deed I found from him), and maybe Réal. But nothing from Fouché (while one of the few good deeds he did in his life was granting a pension to the widow of Collot d'Herbois). Some of my friends have suggested that it was precisely because she was cut from the same cloth as Gracchus (or maybe she wanted nothing to do with Fouché, which makes sense) and given that she continued her political activism against those whom Fouché served, without abandoning her cause. This is a hypothesis I should look into one day.

P.S.: It is interesting to see the quote from Barère, as well as Xavier François Audouin, who played an important role in the period of the French Revolution, both in the 1792 years, and was a well-known neo-Jacobin opponent of the Directory, especially according to historian Bernard Gainot (he was a Hébertist who escaped deportation under Bonaparte, either through the intervention of Monge, or because Bonaparte hoped to win over his father-in-law Pache to his side, but this didn’t work out; indeed, Xavier Audouin had married Sylvie, who according to Mathilde Larrère, though young, was known for her Hébertist activism; in 1816, Xavier Audouin, under pressure from the Bourbon laws, became a royalist). As for Antonelle, I’ve already spoken about him here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/761515728971202560/the-political-career-of-the-revolutionary?source=share

About Pache and the Audouin couple: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767044131014033408/very-mediocre-and-horrible-quote-from-buzot?source=share https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/767308509546266624/this-is-the-principle-of-a-friendship-triangle?source=share

(I warn you, it’s not much, but I plan to do a post about Pache one day unless someone else does it for me).

And Barère, well… Let’s just say that many people better informed than I am have already said everything there is to say in my place. I couldn’t have said or done better.

Sources:

Eric Walter

Claude Mazauric

Mathilde Larrère

Bernard Gainot

[askganon]

Greetings your majesty, I am a traveller from overseas, I come to ask of your people’s culture and gods. While the Hylian library had much information I’d rather have a primary source as well as give you a look into how you are viewed on their side.

As an archival historian it is my life purpose to do I hope this message finds you in good spirits and tides.

-The Archivist

I will grant you this knowledge, provided you ask a specific question.

[ironwoman359]

i saw your tag about how in 500 years we WON'T be calling britney spears' "toxic" classical music, and i am willing and able to hear this rant if you so wish to expand upon it :3c

You know what, it's been over six months, so sure, why not, let's pick today to have this rant/lesson!

To establish my credentials for those unfamiliar Hi my name's Taylor I was a music teacher up until last year when the crushing realities of the American Education SystemTM led me to quit classroom work and become a library clerk instead. But said music teaching means that I have 4+ years of professional classical training in performance and education, and while I'm by no means a historian, I know my way around the history of (european) music.

So, now that you know that I'm not just some rando, but a musical rando, let me tell you why we won't be calling Britney Spears or [insert modern musician(s) that'd be especially humorous to today's audience to call classical] "classical music."

The simple answer is that "Old music =/= Classical music," which is usually the joke being made when you see this joke in the first place.

As funny as this joke can be when executed well (this is one of my favorite versions of said joke, especially since this is a future world where there's very little accurate surviving info about the culture from the 21st century), there is VERY little likely of this actually being how music from today is referred to in the future, because, again, music being OLD does not automatically make music CLASSICAL.

If you'd indulge me a moment, have a look at these three pieces from the early 1900s, which is now over 100 years ago. That's pretty old! You don't have to listen to the whole of all of them if you don't want to, but give each around 30 seconds or so of listening.

All three pieces are over 100 years old, but would you call "In the Shade of the Old Apple Tree" classical? Or "The Entertainer?" Most likely not. You'd probably call these songs "old timey" and you may even be savvy enough to call "The Entertainer" by it's actual genre name, ragtime. But if either of these songs came on the radio, you wouldn't really call them classical, would you? They're just old.

Whereas Mahler's Symphony No. 5, now that sounds like classical music to you, doesn't it? It's got trumpets, violins, a conductor, it's being played by a philharmonic! That's a classical musicy word!

The short answer of why we in the real, nonfictional world won't be calling Britney Spears's "Toxic" classical music in 100 years is it simply doesn't sound like classical music.

.....and the long answer is that Mahler's Symphony No. 5 isn't actually classical either.

See, music, just like everything in culture from dress to art to architecture changed with the times, and therefore 'classical music' is technically (although not colloquially) only one of about four to five musical periods/styles you're likely to hear on one of those "classical music tunes to study to" playlists.

Our dear friend Mahler up there was not a classical composer, he was a composer of the late romantic era.

So now, because I have you hostage in my post (just kidding please don't scroll away I had a lot of fun writing this but it took me nearly 3 hours) I'm going to show you the difference between Classical music and the other musical eras.

These are the movements we'll be dealing with, along with the general dates that define them (remembering of course that history is complicated and the Baroque Period didn't magically begin on January 1st, 1600, or end the moment Bach died) :

The Baroque Period (1600-1750)

The Classical Period (1750-1820)

The Romantic Period (1820-1910)

The Impressionist Movement (1890-1920)

You'll notice that as time goes on, the periods themselves grow shorter, and there starts to become some overlap in the late 19th to early 20th century. The world was moving faster, changing faster, and music and art began changing faster as well. Around the beginning of the 20th century music historians quit assigning One Major style to an entire era of history and just started studying those movements themselves, especially since around the 20th century we were getting much more experimentation and unique ideas being explored in the mainstream.

Even the end of the classical to the beginning of the romantic period can get kind of fuzzy, with Beethoven, arguably one of the most famous classical (and yes he was actually classical) composers in history toeing the line between classical and romantic in his later years. The final movement of his 9th symphony, known as Ode to Joy, far more resembles a romantic work than a classical one.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

To oversimplify somewhat, here are the main characteristics of said movements:

The Baroque Period (1600-1750)

Music was very technical and heavily ornamented. This coincided with a very "fancy" style of dress and decoration (the rococo style became popular towards the latter half of this period). The orchestras were far smaller than we are used to seeing in concert halls today, and many instruments we consider essential would not have been present, such as the french horn, a substantial percussion section, or even the piano*. Notable composers include Vivaldi (of the Four Seasons fame), Handel (of the Messiah fame) and Bach:

*the piano as we know it today, initially called the pianoforte due to its ability to play both softly (piano) and loudly (forte) in contrast to the harpsichord, which could only play at one dynamic level, was actually invented around 1700, but didn't initially gain popularity until much later. This Bach Concerto would have traditionally been played on a harpsichord rather than a piano, but the piano really does have such a far greater expressive ability that unless a group is going for Historical Accuracy, you'll usually see a piano used in performances of baroque work today.

The Classical Period (1750-1820)

In the classical period, music became more "ordered," not just metaphorically but literally. The music was carefully structured, phrases balanced evenly in a sort of call and response manner. Think of twinkle twinkle little star's extremely balanced phrasing, itself a tune that Mozart took and applied 12 classical variations to, cementing it in popularity. And speaking of twinkle twinkle, memorable melody became more important to the composition than ornamentation, and many of our most universally known melodies in the west come from this period. The orchestra also grew bigger, adding more players of all kinds as now we didn't have to worry about overpowering the single-volume harpsichord, and additional instruments like more brass and woodwinds were added. Notable composers include Haydn (of The Surprise Symphony fame) Beethoven (of, well, Fame), and Mozart:

Pay attention to the size of the orchestra here, then go back to the Bach concerto. Notice how in that very typical Baroque setting, the orchestra sits at maybe 20 people, and that here in a Classical setting, there's nearly two times that!

The Romantic Period (1820-1910)

In the romantic period, it was all about BIG FEELINGS, MAN. It was about the DRAMA. Orchestras got even bigger than before, the music focused less on balance and became more dramatic, and there was a big focus on emotions, individualism, and nationalism. Discerning listeners will notice a lot of similarities between romantic symphonies and modern film scores; John Williams in particular is very clearly influenced by this era, any time I'd play the famous Ride of the Valkyries by Wagner in a class, the kids would remark that it sounds like it should be in Star Wars. A lot of romantic composers were German, including Beethoven, if you want to call his later works romantic (which I and many others argue you can, again, compare Ode to Joy to one of his earlier works and you can hear and see the difference), but you also have the Hungarian Liszt (of the Hungarian Rhapsodies fame), the Russian Tchaikovsky (of the Nutcracker and 1812 Overture fame), and the Czech Dvořák:

See how this orchestra is even bigger still? Modern orchestras tend to vary in size depending on what pieces they are playing, but the standard is much closer to this large, romantic size, and it's far less typical to see a small, intimate Baroque setting unless specifically attending a Baroque focused concert. Also I know I embedded Dvořák because Symphony From a New World slaps but please also listen to Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 it's one of my all time favorite pieces and NOT just because of the Tom and Jerry cartoon, alright? Alright.

The Impressionist Movement (1890-1920)

A bit after it began but definitely still during the romantic period, a counter movement began in France that turned away from the emotional excess of romanticism and focused less on standard chord progression and explored more unconventional scales. This music was less worried about how it 'should' sound and was more concerned with evoking a certain emotion or image, giving you an "impression" of an idea. Debussy is by far the most well known name in this movement, even though he personally hated the term 'impressionism,' lol.

Notice the way the periods build on each other naturally, literally, physically builds on the orchestras that came before, evolving in style and structure until you get to the late 19th and early 20th century when things were built up so big that a response to that excess started to develop, first in the impressionist movement, and then into 20th century music in general, which got much more experimental and, as we say, "weird." (frickin 12 tone scales, man)* *i do not actually dislike the sound of 12 tone, it's interesting and unique, but it is HELL to analyze in music theory, which is unfortunately when a lot of us classical musicians are first introduced to it, therefore tarnishing our relationship to the genre as we cannot separate it from our own undergrad anguish

Even if you're not a super active listener and you have a harder time discerning the difference between, say, late baroque and early classical, you cannot deny that the first piece I've linked by Bach and the last piece I've linked by Debussy sound completely different. They're both orchestral pieces (I intentionally chose all orchestral pieces as my examples here, getting into solo works, opera, and chamber ensembles would take too long), but other than that, they couldn't be more different.

Wait, so what are we talking about again?

Classical Music is first a period of music, a specific artistic movement with music typically written in Europe between 1750 and 1820 with a specific sound that is distinct from these other styles I've outlined here.

And Classical Music is second a genre. Because while academically and historically Baroque music is not classical, and Romantic music is not classical...colloquially it is. They sound similar enough that it makes sense to put them on the same playlists, the same radio stations, the same 'beats to study to' youtube compilation videos. While individuals may have favorites and preferences, it's not far fetched to say that if you like listening to one of these styles, you'll at least like one of the others.

But whether you're being broad and referring to our modern idea of the classical genre, or you're being pedantic like me and referring to a specific period of musical history (or modern compositions emulating that style, because yeah, modern compositions of all of theses styles do exist), I think we can all agree that, as much as it slaps, "Toxic" by Britney Spears is not classical music, and 500 years is unlikely to change our perspective of that.

A Traditional Ballad though?

Yeah, I can see us calling it that in 5 billion years.

(the full version of this scene is age restricted for some reason, but you can watch it here)

Anyway, thanks for reading y'all, have a good one!

[amielbjacobs]

@yaoist

Yessss let me list my favorite Soviet history books

The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia, by Orlando Figes - I wound up doing a lot of deep dives into very specific subjects without ever reading a good general history book, so this was one of the more general histories I've read. As a writer, I love all of the specific detail. Figes himself is kind of a . . . character (read: writes his own Amazon reviews under a sockpuppet) and there's a few weird moments in the text that seem to reflect that, but it was really enlightening.

Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia, by Dan Healey - the definitive book on queer Soviet history. My favorite parts are the portraits of early trans people - although like many historians, Healey is (imo) way too eager to label historical people as cis when the evidence is at best mixed.

Red Closet: The hidden history of gay oppression in the USSR, by Rustam Alexander - A series of portraits of queer people in the USSR. As someone morbidly fascinated by the secret police, my favorite was the case of the KGB officer who was 1) gay and 2) weirdly obsessed with arresting gay people, to the point where it made all of his comrades very uncomfortable. It's a fascinating window into the institutional KGB approach to the "crime" of sodomy.

The Lost Spy: An American in Stalin's Secret Service, by Andrew Meier - I picked this one up at random at a library book sale and loved it. An investigation into an American agent of the NKVD who vanished into the USSR during the great purges and was never seen again. My favorite part is how the writer (a journalist) makes his own research part of the story, a kind of detective story.

Police Aesthetics: Literature, Film, and the Secret Police in Soviet Times, by Critina Vatulescu - this is another academic book so it might be really boring to anyone who isn't me, but I am fascinated by the interplay between propaganda and the people who propaganda depicts, especially in terms of spy fiction. I quote the line "In classic secret police fashion, the true secret is that there is no secret at all," all the time to my other war-crimes-special-interest friend.

Next Stop Execution, by Oleg Gordievsky - A memoir by KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky. I found this a fascinating look into the inner workings of the KGB, as well as into the mind of a man willing to risk everything for what he believed in.

Those are my history book recs, I have some more historical fiction or Soviet fiction recs!