Back to Top

Category: History

I have been working hard at what’s turning out to be a total rewrite of the WIP (Work In Progress). I hope to have it out for an outside read soon …. Nevertheless, the pages keep needing to be re-written.

It’s been fun learning about boxing in the Regency.  It’s not been so fun learning about how wagers work. It’s slightly more complicated than I wanted it to be.  Lay down money! Lose money/Win money! But now, I hope, I don’t have an egregiously wrong/hopelessly vague scene(s) involving money and betting and such.

My brain hurts. And no effing wonder some of these guys lost fortunes!

An Iniquitous Past

In a previous job, I ran the office football pool. I had all the games, the spread, the actual points scored by quarter etc. in a database and I used to slice and dice the results. This was long enough ago that Joe Montana was the 49ers new QB and it looked like maybe he was a better player than anyone expected… and here’s what I learned:

1. The 49ers ALWAYS beat the spread, even when they lost. There was no point EVER not taking the 49ers. Long before any of the papers were writing about the 49er defense, I could see from the mid-season numbers that there was no team even close to as good as the 49ers D. They were the #1 defense across all teams — that is, basically, almost no one scored against the 49ers D, and if they did, it usually didn’t happen in the 2nd half.

2. There were several teams that were consistently favored to win by large spreads and they almost never did. By mid-season, the numbers simply did not support ever picking those teams. The same was true of a couple of other teams, who were doing consistently better than the spreads would imply.

3. I issued a mid-season report to the office so that everyone had the same data I did. Despite the overwhelming numerical evidence, some people continued to pick teams based on their personal biases and gut feelings.

4. The people who were setting the spreads could not possibly have been looking at the same numbers I was. If they had been, they would have been setting different spreads.

5. I won the end of season pool that year. (There was a weekly pool, but a percentage went toward the end of season pool).

6. The 49ers won the Superbowl.

Yes, it’s true that on any given day, any team can win or lose, but the fact was that there was data in those numbers that predicted with a high degree of certainty the outcome of future games. There’s no question that Joe Montana was magic on the football field. But the 49er defense was completely underrated for three seasons, and the odds makers took a strangely long time to adjust to the facts/data.

The Bill Walsh era transformed football in ways that I think still aren’t entirely recognized. I could see from watching my data  and from watching the games that the West Coast Offense (led by one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game) and what I will call the West Coast Defense (paid for by a very rich owner, Eddie DeBartelo) was essentially not beatable in the long run — until other teams got faster, bigger players (who were in better shape) and learned how to read offenses and defenses more quickly.

5 superbowls people. The 49ers won three superbowls pretty close together because it took about that long for other teams to understand they needed to play a different game and then acquire and train the coaching and athletic talent necessary to do that. The NFL made some rule changes that affected talent acquisition, so Walsh had to tweak his game, as it were. Boom. Two more superbowls.

Magic happens here.

Now watch me tie this into the Regency:

People gamble with their guts. And they do it in the face of mathematical evidence that their gut is wrong. Anyone who is at all interested in gathering information and looking at it over time will have an advantage, in a sport, in the long run, over someone who goes with their guts. You will take a few losses, but in the long run, you will be ahead of everyone who contaminates their picks with emotion.

The math is more like arithmetic, really. It’s not hard. You just assemble your numbers and let them tell the story. Even in the Regency, there just had to have been people who were geekish enough about some sport — like boxing –to do that sort of thing.

Interesting, no?

The last few days I’ve run across some totally awesome things and I am going to share them with you.

Awesome thing number 1:

A Linguist Explains What Old School British Accents Sounded Like

As a matter of fact, there are actually very good reasons to think that neither Shakespeare nor Ichabod should be speaking with what we currently think of as a “British” accent at all. What? Yes, really. Let me explain.

The recitation of the sonnet in the first video. Oh. My.

Awesome thing number 2:


The Hidden Wardrobe – a costume collection explored
From The National Trust. Go there. Look around.

Awesome thing number 3:

“Nuns Can’t Paint”: Sexism, Medieval Art, and Dudes on Mopeds

A reminder of just how deeply “isms” are embedded in our culture, in this case, sexism.

It’s one thing to argue that nuns make bad art because they’re not trained artists; because they’re hyper-emotional; because they’re women. It’s another to imply that at the moment they take their vows, the moment these women simultaneously renounced and calcified their femininity, medieval nuns lost all aesthetic taste.

Enjoy your Wednesday!

Game Laws — More complicated than you think

My current project involves a scene in which my hero (a duke!) is at his hunting box in December. As I was writing this scene, several questions arose.

1. The term “hunting box.” I have seen the term in historical romances, but is it period? The answer is yes. A hunting box implies something small, but in looking at images and floor plans, these structures were not small. This makes sense if you think about the need to accommodate staff, guests, and their servants AND the equipment, horses and dogs.

2. Who was allowed to hunt and why is, for England, a question of class and rank that comes down to this: if you needed to hunt to put food in your belly, chances are you were legally prohibited from doing so. In order to demarcate who was of sufficient rank to be allowed to hunt, there were any number of thresholds; your family, property you owned, a legal entitlement you might possess, your yearly income, the value of your estate. It’s exactly as complicated as you’d imagine when the real requirement is that you be of sufficient rank–in a culture where rank was derived from ownership of land. Down there at the border between “commoner” and “has enough money and does not need a job” there were ambiguities.

3. If you were a gentleman with the right to hunt—likely on your own property, you also had servants, and those servants, by law, were not permitted to hunt. Laymen could not legally be in possession of the implements of hunting; breeds of hunting dogs, guns, snares, nets, and the like. Nor could they be in possession of game. The penalties could be severe: significant fines, months to years in jail, and, even, transportation. What, then, was the gentleman to do when his servants were prevented from assisting in his hunting? We’ve all seen pictures of servants holding hunting equipment. The answer is a certificate; a document that granted a legal exemption from the laws.

This certificate was a legal document obtained yearly from a local clerk appointed specifically to issue the certificate. If there was no appointed clerk, the local land surveyor would issue the certificate. The certificate cost 3 pounds 1 shilling. The servant or other layman was required to produce the certificate on demand.

Think, then, what this would mean for a household with sporting gentlemen. Legally, only servants who had been issued certificates could accompany their employers on hunts where they would be required to hold or handle dogs, dead or living game, or other hunting paraphernalia.

4. The Gamekeeper was another position entirely, and there were, again, specific legal requirements to be met in order to exempt a layman from the usual restrictions against hunting, and to prevent a land owner from appointing more than one. A Gamekeeper had what amounted to limited police powers. He could seize game and equipment from others, and he could detain them and search property. A lord or lady of a manor could appoint one and only one gamekeeper per property. The position would naturally be one of power, as you would expect, both among and over the local commoners and among other servants. In historical novels in our period, we should be mindful of the importance of the position and of the legal and extra-legal powers that came with it.

Game Seasons, Restrictions etc.

There were also, as you would expect, hunting seasons. Humans the world over have understood that if you do not allow future generations of animals to procreate and raise their young, you will not have future animals. It should be no surprise that the hunting that the proscribed periods coincide with the breeding and raising of young, and that, for birds, that included leaving the nests and eggs alone.

Here is a list I put together from the 1809 Game laws. Obviously, it’s possible the dates were different in different years, but likely not by much, if at all. I did my best to decode the day of certain holidays. For some there were inconsistent results. I also added the NO and YES months for hunting as after a bit my brain hurt.

But, at last, a handy chart to refer to! Would they REALLY have been hunting grouse in June?

1-June to 1-Oct Moulting season for water fowl.
NO: June July Aug, Sep
YES: Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr May
1-Feb to 1-Sep Partridge
NO: Feb, March, Apr, May June July Aug
YES: Sep Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan
1-Feb to 1-Oct Pheasant – unless kept in a mew or breeding place
NO: Feb, March, Apr, May June July Aug Sep
YES: Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan
10-Dec to 20-Aug Black game (birds except grouse) aka heath fowl
NO: Dec-10 Jane Feb March Apr May June July Aug-20
YES: Aug 21, Sep. Oct Nov Dec 9
10-Dec to 12-Aug red game (grouse)
NO: Dec-10 Jane Feb March Apr May June July Aug-12
YES: Aug 13, Sep. Oct Nov Dec 9
1-Mar to 1-Sep bustard
NO: March, Apr, May June July Aug
YES: Sep Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan Feb
10-Dec to 1-Sep Heath fowl in New Forest Co of Southampton (black game)
NO: Dec-10 Jane Feb March Apr May June July Aug
YES: Sep 2. Oct Nov Dec 9
2-Feb to 24-June No burning of gaig, link, heath, furze, goss or fern for preservation of black game and grouse on nay mountains, hills, heaths, moors, forests, chases or other wastes
1-Mar to 30-June No taking eggs of wild birds

HUNTING SEASONS (Possibly Not strictly observed)

Pedestrian animals: hart, hind, buck, doe, boar, fox, and hare

24-Jun to 14-Sep Hart and buck
from St. John the Baptist day til Holyrood-day
14-Sep to 2-Feb Hind and doe:
Holyrood to Candlemas
25-Dec to 2-Feb Boar:
Christmas to Candlemas
25-Dec to 25-Mar Fox:
Christmas to Lady-day. Lady day is either Jan 1 (which does not make sense, or March 25-ish, which makes more sense)
29-Sep to 2-Feb Hare:
Michaelmas til Candlemas

Miscellaneous Rules

No hunting at night. No hunting on Sunday or Christmas. Morning is either 6 AM, 4 AM, or 8 AM depending on the bird and time of year.

No tracing and killing hares in the snow.

No lord or lady of any manor shall appoint more than one gamekeeper within one manor, with power to kill game. Gamekeeper must be registered with the clerk of the peace in the county in which said manor lies.

Persons are forbidden to bear any hawk of the breed of England called nyesse, goshawk, passel, laner, loneret or falcon or disturb or slay them. Same for eggs.

FISHING

No unauthorized fishing between 6:00AM and 6:00PM.

There you have it.

Last week I was at the RWA National conference in San Antonio. I can reliably report that it is too hot in San Antonio for this California girl. I was all about the AC.

[Watch me appear to change the subject and then not really — CAUTION!! Advanced Blogging technique!]

In this year’s Brenda Novak Diabetes auction, I bid on and won a very lovely scarf. Here is a picture of it:

a cream, silver and light plum scarf with a floral pattern

Scarf!!

I was in the elevator at RWA with my spiffy red hair and my beautiful scarf, and a gentleman who looked a little bit hipsterish was in the elevator with me. We said nothing. As he got off on his floor he said, “Love the red hair and the Pashmina.”

Pashmina? Then I remembered that my scarf is, indeed, Pashmina, which I had not understood until that very moment, was something quite so recognizable.

You guys. It is one hell of a moment when the woman who wore jeans and Keds for the ENTIRE CONFERENCE manages to impress a hipster with her fashion “sense.” Admittedly, my jeans were black, as were my Keds. I’m pretty sure I was wearing socks.

This is living proof that the right accessories make all the difference.

Just think what a Regency heroine could do with a cashmere scarf. Why, she could impress a hipster duke.

 

Ahhh…. The joy of vacation.  I’m just back from NYC where I was able to meet up with Risky Megan which was loads of fun. I am assuming she will have excellent news to share with us soon.  My trip to NY was writing business related as it turns out I got elected to the RWA Board of Directors. And yes, for those of you wondering, my tiara was a perfect fit. (grin) I looked very spiffy.

I’m home now and on vacation for the rest of the week, which is lovely and so far I have done an epic amount of not very much at all.

I am going to share an interesting thing I came across the other night as I was procrastinating, beginning my vacation doing important research.

This pdf about medieval pigments is my favorite thing ever  just about since that time I was working with my son on the Roman wax tablet project.

Don’t be fooled by the rather boring B&W cuneiform tablet photo on the first page. The rest of this document discusses pigments and bonding agents identified from the beginning of human history through about 1500 and talks about how to make them. With pictures.

This is fascinating for history geeks. And how did I find this you might ask? Because of twitter. Someone remarked on a story in which the author compared the heroine’s breath (or something) to cinnabar. And there was a WTF discussion and much wondering about cinnabar in food. And one person said the most they could find was some medieval references to recipes.

And I thought, huh. This cannot be right. If cinnabar was safe to eat we would be eating it now. And if it was not safe to eat, we would have stories that listed poisonous food people ate in times past, and we do not have such stories involving cinnabar. So I Googled the subject myself and found that first off, cinnabar is toxic. And second off, cinnabar and recipes occur in the context of recipes for paint.

And that lead me to the medieval pigments pdf which I read from start to finish with much excitement because that’s how we roll here at the Riskies.

It’s not much of a surprise to learn that modern chemistry has taken some of the vibrancy out of paint pigments. Some modern colors don’t have the iridescence of pigments that were once made from organic minerals or metals.  OK, yes, also much of the poison (but not all). Don’t distract me with product safety arguments. Orpiment, by the way, is actually arsenic. Who knew? Certain colors and their composition are lost to us. The ingredients point, as well, to the importance of world trade. Ear wax, my friends, reduces froth in a binding agent. I did not know that either. Nor do I know who dug around in their ear and said, huh. I wonder what happens if I put this in the binding agent for my paint?

Now I am sharing this information with you. Because that’s how I roll.

You’re welcome.

Follow
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com