Back to Top

Monthly Archives: February 2006


Time to clear the literary palate…I was brought up in England, so I read some peculiarly English things–for instance, much Enid Blyton, the bane of teachers and parents for her awful and clunky prose, overuse of exclamation points (!!) and general idiocy, but beloved by many generations of English kids. I was a big admirer of the Famous Five series, starring Julian (older brother), Dick (fairly useless younger brother), Anne (their sister, a girly girl), their cousin George and her dog Timmy. George, aka Georgina, really really wanted to be a boy and I think she was destined to have some problems later on in life. The Five, in a fantasy world of endless school holidays, spent their time tracking down Evil Foreigners/Criminals who were doing Dastardly Deeds (usually involving the kidnapping of a geeky sort of scientist for his Big Secrets). Fab stuff. At a tender age I did some math and figured out, that counting three school holidays a year, the Famous Five were well into their 30s (and Timmy must have been a doddering canine geriatric), but they hadn’t aged a bit. Just as well, for George’s sake.


That’s the low end of the pile. How about the good stuff? One outstanding book is A Traveller in Time by Alison Uttley, one of the best time-travel stories I’ve ever read. It’s about a young girl who, when visiting her family in the country, goes back in time to become involved in the Babbington plot to overthrow Elizabeth I and put Mary Queen of Scots on the throne. It is a wonderfully dreamy and evocative book with a great use of language and historical detail, and the time travel details are absolutely convincing.


Another writer whose stuff I occasionally dip into now is Rosemary Sutcliffe, who wrote historical novels, concentrating mainly on the Roman-British occupation, and the period after the departure of the Roman legions from Britain. She’s another writer who created a vivid and believable world–you know she’s making stuff up but it feels absolutely right.


I could, but won’t, write a whole blog entry on Edith Nesbit, socialist, feminist, author, whose most famous book in the US is The Railway Children. I was fascinated by the adventures of children in the late Victorian period–even in the books that feature fantasy and magic, it was the ordinary fabric of everyday life that I found the most interesting. The Railway Children was made into a movie starring Jennie Agutter as its heroine Bobbie (another girl who wanted to be a boy but not as adamantly as George), and she starred as the children’s mother in a more recent version made by the BBC. A wonderful, major tearjerker.


And then there’s Rudyard Kipling. Yes, I know he was a racist, sexist misogynous product of his times, but boy, could that gent write. I feel an immediate kinship with anyone who knows what I’m talking about when I mutter the great, grey greasy Limpopo River or I am the Cat who walks by himself and all places are alike to me–both quotes from the Just-So Stories. Check out the lovely art-deco style illustrations by Kipling himself–here, the Elephant’s child is discovering what the crocodile has for dinner.

So, what did you read when you were a kid?

Posted in Reading | Tagged | 14 Replies

Elena, Regency Research Nerd, back for more myth-busting on the history of pregnancy and childbirth.

#3: Babies were born in the same ancestral bed where previous generations were born, consummated their marriages and died.

No! I’ve seen this concept many times, and I can’t decide if it gives a sweeping sense of history or is just gross.

Several facts here:

Fabric was expensive and childbirth is messy. I won’t go into details for fear of offending the squeamish and scaring male visitors from the blog. So let me just add three words–“No rubber sheets”.

From the earliest times until well into the 19th century, most women usually gave birth in upright or semi-upright positions: squatting, standing, kneeling, sitting on the lap of a midwife or husband or in a birthing chair or stool.

However, from the 17th century or so toward “our” period, male obstetricians (called accoucheurs) who attended ladies, were beginning to move away from the birthing chair and/or redesigning it. Ladies (as opposed to working class women) were regarded as more delicate, and recumbent positions were increasingly recommended for them.

During the Regency, ladies usually gave birth in a specially designed birthing bed or cot, which was often portable and could be shared between friends.

The recommended position was the “Sims” position: woman on her side, knees drawn up, doctor BEHIND her. The lack of eye contact was supposed to preserve modesty and prevent embarrassment.

By Victorian times the “lithotomy” (on the back, legs up) position was more common, making for easier access for the doctor though not the best biological position for the woman. Conversely to Regency doctors, Victorian doctors worked under sheets by feel alone and maintained eye contact with their patients to prove they were not, um, peeking. Seems creepy to me.

Thanks for indulging me, everyone! Next week: husbands in the delivery room.

Elena
LADY DEARING’S MASQUERADE, an RT Reviewers’ Choice Award nominee
www.elenagreene.com

As I mentioned in last Tuesday’s post, I’m currently in a production of Shakespeare’s AS YOU LIKE IT. Which, of course, makes this the perfect time for me to go over John Philip Kemble’s version of the play — which was the version used at the Theatre Royal Covent Garden during the Regency, and was also published and sold (for eighteen pence a copy).

So, what changes did the great actor/manager/director (pictured here) make to Shakespeare’s text?

I was delighted to find that the answer is, very few!

Let’s start with what Kemble left in. The following are words and phrases that Kemble clearly thought acceptable for general audiences to hear and read: damn’d, damnation, bastard, foul, slut, puking, belly, stomach, body, bawdry, udders, country copulatives, virgin, maid

The most vulgar speech that I could find that he left in was said by Touchstone the Fool, who is pretending to scold a shepherd for the immorality of his profession:

That is another simple sin in you: to bring the ewes and the rams together, and to offer to get your living by the copulation of cattle: to be bawd to a bell-wether; and to betray a she-lamb of a twelvemonth, to a crooked-pated, old, cuckoldy ram, out of all reasonable match. If thou be’st not damn’d for this, the devil himself will have no shepherds…

Some of the cuts (most of them quite short — a line here or there) were, as far as I can tell, just for length, or occasionally to cut an obscure passage. Some, though, were probably for the indelicacy of the topic, or the vulgarity of the phrasing — but even this seems not to be invariable. Touchstone talks a fair amount about horns (a constant joke in Shakespeare’s plays, where all men seem to eternally fear being cuckolded), but a couple lines of Rosalind’s joking about horns was cut. Perhaps in this case, the jokes themselves were not too warm, but the character of Rosalind was now thought to be too refined to make such jokes?

And yet Rosalind did keep some of her suggestive lines. Kemble left in the passage which reads:

ROSALIND: … till you met your wife’s wit going to your neighbor’s bed.
ORLANDO: And what wit could wit have to excuse that?
ROSALIND: Marry, to say,–she came to seek you there.

On the other hand, Kemble cut the passage:

ROSALIND: I prithee take the cork out of thy mouth, that I may drink thy tidings.
CELIA: So you may put a man in your belly?

Other passages that were presumably cut for indelicacy include:

CELIA: You will cry in time, in despite of a fall. (This is a double joke, referring to both sex and childbirth)

TOUCHSTONE: He that sweetest rose will find, must find love’s prick and Rosalind.

Also cut was a longish passage in which Touchstone and the shepherd compare a shepherd’s greasy hands (due to handling ewes’ “fells”) and a courtier’s hands, perfumed with civet (“the very uncleanly flux of a cat.”)

Kemble invariably cut “God” (e.g. “I thank God” and “God save you”) and changed it to “heaven” (so: “I thank heaven” and “Heaven save you”) — so I presume this was consistently done on the Regency stage.

Well, that’s AS YOU LIKE IT as Kemble liked it! Hope you liked it too…

Cara
Cara King, www.caraking.com
MY LADY GAMESTER — out now from Signet Regency!

Posted in Regency, Research | Tagged , | 4 Replies


I was inspired by Megan’s Quizilla post a few days ago (and also seeking to procrastinate at work!), so spent waaay too much time taking on-line quizzes and reading various England-travel websites planning a fantasy tour. The product is today’s post–a fill–in-the-blank Janeite quiz I found! Each quote comes from an Austen novel (and movie, as the case may be), and you just have to fill in the blanks with the missing word. (I got 7 out of the 10 right). I’ll post answers tomorrow, and just for fun will send a copy of one of my books to the person who posts the most right answers here before then!

1) “For what do we live, but to make ( ) for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?”
a) Amusement
b) Sport
c) Spruce beer

2) “Oh, who can ever be tired of ( )?”
a) Bath
b) Brighton
c) cake

3) “One half of the world cannot understand the ( ) of the other”
a) Jokes
b) Amusement
c) Pleasures

4) “A large ( ) is the best recipe for happiness I have ever heard of”
a) Income
b) Estate
c) Umbrella

5) “An ( ) is a very serious business”
a) Engagement
b) Annuity
c) Entailment

6) “There will be very few dates in this ( )”
a) History
b) Pudding
c) Loaf

7) “I am cruelly used, nobody feels for my poor ( )”
a) Daughters
b) Health
c) Nerves

8) “A ( ) boiled very soft is very wholesome”
a) Fowl
b) Calf’s foot
c) Egg

9) “A lady, without family, was the best preserver of ( ) in this world”
a) Fruit
b) Furniture
c) Flowers

10) “and what are you reading, Miss…?” “Oh,, it is only ( )”
a) Fordyce’s Sermons
b) a letter
c) a novel


An Englishman liked his drink. Gin, rum, and brandy was the ordinary fare, found in pubs and taverns across England. One could not trust the water, after all, and water did not rouse the spirits half so well.

Gentlemen had to be more particular in their choice of drink–good wines and spirits did for him–although I imagine the effect was the same.

I thought it would be interesting to see some examples of the serveware that would have been used. Above is an example of six sherry or port glasses circa 1810 and at the left is a wine glass circa 1750–that is, if it is not an ale flute–I’m not quite sure of that, but it looks like a wine glass to me.

Following first is a decanter circa 1820. The quality seems quite fine; I expected to find more irregularities in the glass when I began this search, but it seems that there is quite a variety, I
suppose depending on the maker and the market the piece was intended for.

Next is a very nice etched wine glass circa 1770 with a very inter-esting swirled stem. You may notice that the bowl is not very big; in formal dinners where there might be numerous toasts, one could not get “potted” after the first two.

Finally, there is a pair of cobalt decanters marked “rum” and “brandy” (1790)

and a “rummer”–a rum glass of which it seems many have survived, since I found quite a few examples for sale on the internet.

Armed with this information, as little as it is, you can at least imagine what a gentleman might have thrown at his grate at the end of a rousing toast…or perhaps, in a fit of temper!

Glass enthusiasts–I am a novice in this arena and would love your input!

Laurie
LORD RYBURN’S APPRENTICE
Signet, Jan. 2006