5 ms·

"A dance of “glorious and strange beauty” took place in a wintry garden in the south of England on January 6, 1614." So specific!! And that's just the first l

"A dance of “glorious and strange beauty” took place in a wintry garden in the south of England on January 6, 1614." So specific!! And that's just the first line! Is it just me, or are they just telling stories about the 16th century? Historians themselves will say history is an interpretative act. 'History' is for us in the present - it only lightly relates to what may or may not have occurred in the past, even if it presented as a fait accompli. I don't think it is possible to get this detail about what went on back then. I see this sort of article as 'myth making'. Its not to do with reality - no sources are provided for us to check. Its just presented as a ready narrative, and we are meant to accept it. So, what if that is the myth what are meant to take from it? I think we are meant 'edu-tained'. We can laugh at the fools back then who were literally blowing smoke up each others arses, in reclined splendour. We can enjoy a cannabis narrative - this talks to how we legalise it nowadays. These sorts of myths support the idea of how we are progressed, superior, etc.

Synaesthesia 6y ago
There's nothing about how we have progressed or become superior in this article. We've just acquired smoking as a habit. I'm pretty sure everything here is historically accurate. I'm aware of some of the anecdotes mentioned in the piece.
benbreen 6y ago
Author here - was it really glorious and strange and beautiful? All subjective judgements, so who can truly say. But I can tell you that those judgements are at least drawn from an actual primary source, published in 1614: the stage directions for the performance itself. The link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qCQ_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=glorious https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qC... Incidentally, that source is linked in the article more than once, along with others.
- Woberto 6y ago
  Perhaps similar to the OP, I'm accustomed to more explicit citations, so throughout the article it's really unclear to me what source applies to which quote. Is that standard practice in your domain?
  - benbreen 6y ago
    I much prefer footnotes myself, where you can see directly what is being cited. Unfortunately there's a wide range of practices for online writing, but the norm I've found is usually just hyperlinks to digitized sources. The Appendix, the online history journal I helped create back in the day, tried to experiment with a more detailed way of doing in-line citations, via small icons that you can click to see images, citations of primary source texts, even music or films on occasion. You can see it in action here: http://theappendix.net/issues/2013/10/made-in-taiwan-an-eighteenth-century-frenchmans-fictional-formosa http://theappendix.net/issues/2013/10/made-in-taiwan-an-eigh...
- feralimal 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. You also say "January 6, 1614". Very specific again! Where did you get that from? There are no dates that I can see, nevermind the 6th of January. Did you read the cover page? Not where it confirms that the book is a reproduction of another book held at Chatworth House. Ie not an original. I mean the bit where it says: "By the Gentlemen of Graies-Inne, at the Court of White-hall, in the Banquercing House, vpon Twelfe night, 1613." Here's a link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qCQ_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=1613 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qC... This says to me that the book although published (perhaps) in 1614 relates to a time in 1613. Whenever I look into this stuff, I get more uncomfortable.
  - benbreen 6y ago
    Correct. There were two recorded performances, one in December, 1613, the second in January, 1614. I went ahead and described the second because it's better documented. I got the exact date from a journal article by a garden historian. [0] These are the kind of things that footnotes are helpful for - if I were writing this up as an academic paper, I'd get into the weeds with these details, but unfortunately it just doesn't work when you're writing it as a straight-ahead narrative without footnotes. That's especially true because it was basically just an introductory anecdote, not the focus of the piece. I agree though, digging deep into historical sources, I think, should make us all uncomfortable. As you said, historians should never claim to have direct access to historical truth. It's all mediated and all potentially corrupted by the bias of observers/recorders. That's just a fact of doing history, and it's why we're not humanists, not scientists. It's also why I find it so endlessly interesting. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472393?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472393?seq=2#metadata_info_ta...
    - feralimal 6y ago
      That's a refreshingly honest reply! Thanks! This is why I said that history is an interpretative act. I don't have an issue with the making the best of a past that is hard (impossible?) to discern. And that while our subject matter might be the past, we ourselves are in the present and express our understanding from our own biases and understandings - we talk ourselves into the past, in a way. What I object to is the indisputable tone - this happened, these are the reasons, etc. It gives the reader the impression of knowledge, but this is an illusion, possibly a dangerous one. It conveys none of the reasoning, jumps and ambiguity that, I think, are the main part of these sorts of investigation. Personally I would rather have the ambiguity, referring to source material, and try to develop a theory given the evidence - evidence-driven theories. I don't mind if there is no overarching narrative to explain it all. But it seems to me that professional historians feel empowered to present exactly that sort of a narrative, sometimes whether or not it is really supported by the evidence.

Synaesthesia 6y ago

There's nothing about how we have progressed or become superior in this article. We've just acquired smoking as a habit. I'm pretty sure everything here is historically accurate. I'm aware of some of the anecdotes mentioned in the piece.

benbreen 6y ago

Author here - was it really glorious and strange and beautiful? All subjective judgements, so who can truly say. But I can tell you that those judgements are at least drawn from an actual primary source, published in 1614: the stage directions for the performance itself. The link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qCQ_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=glorious https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qC... Incidentally, that source is linked in the article more than once, along with others.

Woberto 6y ago
Perhaps similar to the OP, I'm accustomed to more explicit citations, so throughout the article it's really unclear to me what source applies to which quote. Is that standard practice in your domain?
- benbreen 6y ago
  I much prefer footnotes myself, where you can see directly what is being cited. Unfortunately there's a wide range of practices for online writing, but the norm I've found is usually just hyperlinks to digitized sources. The Appendix, the online history journal I helped create back in the day, tried to experiment with a more detailed way of doing in-line citations, via small icons that you can click to see images, citations of primary source texts, even music or films on occasion. You can see it in action here: http://theappendix.net/issues/2013/10/made-in-taiwan-an-eighteenth-century-frenchmans-fictional-formosa http://theappendix.net/issues/2013/10/made-in-taiwan-an-eigh...
feralimal 6y ago
Thanks for the link. You also say "January 6, 1614". Very specific again! Where did you get that from? There are no dates that I can see, nevermind the 6th of January. Did you read the cover page? Not where it confirms that the book is a reproduction of another book held at Chatworth House. Ie not an original. I mean the bit where it says: "By the Gentlemen of Graies-Inne, at the Court of White-hall, in the Banquercing House, vpon Twelfe night, 1613." Here's a link: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qCQ_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=1613 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Maske_of_Flowers/qC... This says to me that the book although published (perhaps) in 1614 relates to a time in 1613. Whenever I look into this stuff, I get more uncomfortable.
- benbreen 6y ago
  Correct. There were two recorded performances, one in December, 1613, the second in January, 1614. I went ahead and described the second because it's better documented. I got the exact date from a journal article by a garden historian. [0] These are the kind of things that footnotes are helpful for - if I were writing this up as an academic paper, I'd get into the weeds with these details, but unfortunately it just doesn't work when you're writing it as a straight-ahead narrative without footnotes. That's especially true because it was basically just an introductory anecdote, not the focus of the piece. I agree though, digging deep into historical sources, I think, should make us all uncomfortable. As you said, historians should never claim to have direct access to historical truth. It's all mediated and all potentially corrupted by the bias of observers/recorders. That's just a fact of doing history, and it's why we're not humanists, not scientists. It's also why I find it so endlessly interesting. [0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472393?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents https://www.jstor.org/stable/25472393?seq=2#metadata_info_ta...
  - feralimal 6y ago
    That's a refreshingly honest reply! Thanks! This is why I said that history is an interpretative act. I don't have an issue with the making the best of a past that is hard (impossible?) to discern. And that while our subject matter might be the past, we ourselves are in the present and express our understanding from our own biases and understandings - we talk ourselves into the past, in a way. What I object to is the indisputable tone - this happened, these are the reasons, etc. It gives the reader the impression of knowledge, but this is an illusion, possibly a dangerous one. It conveys none of the reasoning, jumps and ambiguity that, I think, are the main part of these sorts of investigation. Personally I would rather have the ambiguity, referring to source material, and try to develop a theory given the evidence - evidence-driven theories. I don't mind if there is no overarching narrative to explain it all. But it seems to me that professional historians feel empowered to present exactly that sort of a narrative, sometimes whether or not it is really supported by the evidence.