Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Frontal nudity okay in period??

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Gedney
    ... who cares? 17th century is NOT within the SCA period. Capt Elias ... The Purpose of the First Amendment is not to protect only comfortable speech. Such
    Message 1 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      >What do you guys think of this article? Wild! 8-o
      >
      >http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003

      who cares?
      17th century is NOT within the SCA period.

      Capt Elias

      --------------------------------------------------------------
      The Purpose of the First Amendment is not to protect only
      comfortable speech. Such speech needs no protection. It is,
      rather, the daring, the profound, the probitive, and yes, the
      offensive, that needs that shield. For nothing significant,
      not in art, culture, or even in politics, has ever arisen
      from pandering to the whims of majority.
    • Willow Polson
      ... It s my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in some areas. - Willow MacPherson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rev.
      Message 2 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        At 03:21 PM 6/1/2004 -0400, you wrote:
        >Um...
        >
        >17th century isn't period.

        It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in some areas.

        - Willow MacPherson

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Rev. Willow Polson www.willowsplace.com
        Give my Pagan Paradise Live365 Radio Station a listen!
        http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=willowpolson
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      • aheilvei
        ... some areas. ... This is something that is consistantly argued. On this list we have historically chosen to keep the 1600 date as the cut-off date for SCA
        Message 3 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in
          some areas.
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          This is something that is consistantly argued. On this list we have
          historically chosen to keep the 1600 date as the cut-off date for
          SCA period.

          There are posts about it in the archives from the first couple of
          years, please search for them.

          Despina
        • Talia
          Nope!! And there s a lot of us who think the cutoff date should be even earlier than that. Talia
          Message 4 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Nope!! And there's a lot of us who think the cutoff date should be even
            earlier than that.

            Talia

            >
            > > It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in
            > some areas.
            > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
            >
          • Cathal@mindspring.com
            ... It s a matter of local common wisdom over statutory fact. The Governing Documents of the SCA specify pre-17th century western culture and always have.
            Message 5 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              > > > It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in
              > > some areas.

              It's a matter of local common wisdom over statutory fact. The Governing Documents of
              the SCA specify "pre-17th century western culture" and always have. In even the most
              generous of interpretations, that means the SCA's period of focus ends at 12:00 midnight
              on 31 December, 1600 CE. That, imo, settles the 'official' end of things

              The confusion over the 1650 usage comes from the mid 1970's when a brief flirtation
              with 'cavalier' costume in some of the Kingdoms became a chronic manifestation. Things
              were a lot looser back then and no-one really wanted to bully folk on the grounds of a 50
              year deviation in costume choice. Once it became tolerated, however, it didn't take long
              for the great masses of the misinformed to assume that it was a change in Da Rules
              (tm).

              Cathal.




              Na sir 's na seachain an cath.
            • Cannoneer
              ... Yes, but if you read the entire article, it says it started in France in the 1400 s. The 17th century connection seems to be Henrietta Maria. so it seems
              Message 6 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                At 03:21 PM 6/1/2004, you wrote:

                > >What do you guys think of this article? Wild! 8-o
                > >
                > >http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003
                >
                >who cares?
                >17th century is NOT within the SCA period.
                >
                >Capt Elias

                Yes, but if you read the entire article, it says it started in France in
                the 1400's. The 17th century connection seems to be Henrietta Maria. so
                it seems that in places, it IS period.

                Hawkyns


                Roderic Hawkyns
                Master Gunner

                Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl

                Its like I always say, you get more with a kind word and a two-by-four then
                with just a two-by-four - Marcus Cole
              • Mary Taran
                ... 17th century fashion is not the topic of this list. The SCA may not be very definitive about a start date, but pre-17th century is pretty clear. Mary
                Message 7 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 10:36 AM 6/1/2004, you wrote:

                  >What do you guys think of this article? Wild! 8-o
                  >
                  ><http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003>http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003

                  17th century fashion is not the topic of this list. The SCA may not be
                  very definitive about a start date, but pre-17th century is pretty clear.

                  Mary Taran

                  ----------


                  ---
                  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                  Version: 6.0.692 / Virus Database: 453 - Release Date: 5/28/2004


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • hunyddthered
                  ... some areas. Can t speak for the rest of the Knowne Worlde, of course, but from a Lochac point of view, the whole 1660 s thing seems to be becuase we do a
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Willow Polson wrote:

                    > It's my understanding that SCA period goes to 1660, at least in
                    some areas.

                    Can't speak for the rest of the Knowne Worlde, of course, but from a
                    Lochac point of view, the whole 1660's thing seems to be becuase we
                    do a lot of country dances that were first recorded in the mid-
                    1600s. The wisdom was that they would have been danced before this
                    date, but being peasant dances were not considered worthy of writing
                    down until much later (or something along those lines). Therefore,
                    they were included as "period" which pushed the cut-off date back.

                    I think we also mark the official end-of-period date as the death of
                    Elizabeth I, which is 1603 (I think) to tie it to an era, rather
                    than a date.

                    Cheers,
                    Hunydd
                  • bex_1014
                    To be honest, I think it s a sensationalist article which is taking things out of context as support for its dodgy theory. You may notice that they never
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To be honest, I think it's a sensationalist article which is taking
                      things out of context as support for its dodgy theory.
                      You may notice that they never define anywhere exactly what they mean
                      by "bared breast", and the only woodcut they do show has cleavage,
                      not what most people would call a breast.
                      The portrait of Agnes Sorel (1400's) has her painted as the Virgin
                      Mary, breast-feeding the infant Jesus. Her dress is clearly supposed
                      to be fully laced up over the breasts when worn normally.
                      The bodices of dresses in the 1500's show cleavage in some cases, but
                      I have never seen an illustration anywhere of a respectable woman,
                      either at rest or going about her business, with nipples showing,
                      unless she is breast-feeding. (Or naked, as in about to enter a bath
                      or something, but that's not the gist of the article.) People painted
                      in saint's poses or as legendary figures are a different matter, but
                      certainly not one that should be taken as representative of every-day
                      life. I would add, the most famous bare-breasted saint (St. Agatha) I
                      have seen has them sitting on a platter in front of her, and her
                      dress goes up to the neck. (St Agatha had her breasts removed as part
                      of the torture during her martyrdom... a rather unlikely candidate to
                      be portrayed as, I would have thought.)
                      What they did after 1600 of course, is probably entirely different...
                      Rebecca

                      --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Willow Polson <willow@c...>
                      wrote:
                      > What do you guys think of this article? Wild! 8-o
                      >
                      > http://scatoday.net/story.php?search_id=N-20040517-195506-0003
                      >
                      > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                      > Rev. Willow Polson
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                    • Willow Polson
                      Okay, I ve been misinformed for all these years then. Forget my previous post. - Willow MacPherson
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Okay, I've been misinformed for all these years then. Forget my previous post.

                        - Willow MacPherson
                      • Willow Polson
                        ... Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jun 1, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 03:51 AM 6/2/2004 +0000, you wrote:
                          >To be honest, I think it's a sensationalist article which is taking
                          >things out of context as support for its dodgy theory.
                          >You may notice that they never define anywhere exactly what they mean
                          >by "bared breast", and the only woodcut they do show has cleavage,
                          >not what most people would call a breast.

                          Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts
                          including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
                          coronation of William & Mary with Mary's full breasts exposed. That's what
                          I saw anyway... maybe they changed the slide show since this morning.

                          - Willow MacPherson
                        • JessicaHie@aol.com
                          .........what ever floats one boat..... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            .........what ever floats one boat.....


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • wodeford
                            ... a ... The first edition of Playford s The English Dancing Master dates to 1651. Jehanne de Wodeford
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "hunyddthered"
                              <mel_elliott100@h...> wrote:
                              > Can't speak for the rest of the Knowne Worlde, of course, but from
                              a
                              > Lochac point of view, the whole 1660's thing seems to be becuase we
                              > do a lot of country dances that were first recorded in the mid-
                              > 1600s.

                              The first edition of Playford's "The English Dancing Master" dates to
                              1651.

                              Jehanne de Wodeford
                            • Maura Folsom
                              ... Actually, I understood that the 1650 tolerance had less to do with cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts, period or not,
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "Cathal@..." wrote:

                                > The confusion over the 1650 usage comes from the mid 1970's when a brief flirtation
                                > with 'cavalier' costume in some of the Kingdoms became a chronic manifestation. Things
                                > were a lot looser back then and no-one really wanted to bully folk on the grounds of a 50
                                > year deviation in costume choice. Once it became tolerated, however, it didn't take long
                                > for the great masses of the misinformed to assume that it was a change in Da Rules
                                > (tm).

                                Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                                cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                                period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                                where it came from originally in the West.

                                I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let the 1650
                                thing go now, right?"

                                Marguerie
                              • rowen_g
                                ... 1650 ... Somehow I m not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We get a fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Maura Folsom <jauncourt@v...> wrote:
                                  > Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                                  > cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                                  > period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                                  > where it came from originally in the West.
                                  >
                                  > I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let the
                                  1650
                                  > thing go now, right?"
                                  >

                                  Somehow I'm not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We get a
                                  fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
                                  comunity, and from a number of older folk who were told "1650's ok"
                                  when we joined (yes, I got it too) and tend to stick with it. I keep
                                  to pre-1600 myself, but a nice 1630s outfit doesn't bother me nearly
                                  as much as any number of other things.

                                  Rowen
                                • Hasoferet@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 6/1/2004 10:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, ... William n Mary were crowned 1689, though. Really post-period. I haven t actually read this
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 6/1/2004 10:57:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
                                    willow@... writes:


                                    > Actually, the slideshow has four woodcuts, all of which show full breasts
                                    > including nipples. The first woodcut is apparently an announcement of the
                                    > coronation of William & Mary with Mary's full breasts exposed. That's what
                                    > I saw anyway... maybe they changed the slide show since this morning.

                                    William'n'Mary were crowned 1689, though. Really post-period. I haven't
                                    actually read this article, so can't say nothin' about it, but 1600s portraits tend
                                    to show a lot of nipple. Usually just one, peeking out from under the edge of
                                    your chemise, but definately a lot of nipple on display. It's a cute look,
                                    but not one I've seen during our period...

                                    Raquel, who tends to behave badly in London's National Portrait Gallery.

                                    (Not as badly as the random man who attached to her and a friend there,
                                    though, to inform us that James I was 'the first known homosexual'.)

                                    ((Ah, the 1600s--age of nipples on display, and men who wore sober suits with
                                    Fredericks of Hollywood mules...))
                                    _______________________________________________________
                                    Kamatz katan le'olam!


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • bex_1014
                                    These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period (before 1600). Connecting
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did
                                      note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period
                                      (before 1600). Connecting the fashion post-1600 with
                                      the "Agnes Sorel" picture, IMO is going too far. The AS
                                      picture in question can be seen here:
                                      http://gallery.euroweb.hu/cgi-bin/gallery/highlight.cgi?
                                      file=html/f/fouquet/madonna.html&find=Agnes+Sorel
                                      (Hope that link works. If it doesnt, go to the Web Gallery of Art and
                                      search for Agnes Sorel, by Jean Fouquet, c.1450.) It is clearly
                                      allegorical/mystical, albeit in a rather odd way. (Painting the
                                      king's mistress as the Virgin Mary???)
                                      While what the article proposes may be more accurate for the 17th
                                      century, in certain circles, I would still not think that bare
                                      breasts were common for the average woman. But that is OOP anyway, so
                                      I'll leave it.
                                      Rebecca
                                    • Sharon L. Krossa
                                      ... Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper (Scottish male skirt) are
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 12:10 PM -0500 6/2/04, Maura Folsom wrote:
                                        >Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                                        >cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                                        >period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                                        >where it came from originally in the West.

                                        Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made
                                        sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper
                                        (Scottish male skirt) are an 18th century invention, so extending
                                        period to 1650 doesn't help at all for them. Plaids worn belted, of
                                        course, (modernly often called "belted plaids" or "great kilts") are
                                        entirely period by the official definition, the first unambiguous
                                        description dating to 1594 (in Gaelic, no less, and contrasting the
                                        attire of Scottish Gaels to that of Irish Gaels -- as said,
                                        unambiguous ;-) so no extension of period is needed for them.

                                        Affrick
                                        --
                                        Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                                      • Wanda Pease
                                        I always understood that the 1650 date came from an early, maybe first, printing of the Known World Handbook, and Queen Carol s Guide. Neither of these were
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Jun 2, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I always understood that the 1650 date came from an early, maybe first,
                                          printing of the Known World Handbook, and Queen Carol's Guide. Neither of
                                          these were blessed as "canon" by the Board of Directors of their day. In
                                          later years the 1650 date was pretty firmly disavowed by the BoD which
                                          caused screams of "They're changing the SCA arbitrarily!!!!!" The fact
                                          that nothing was being changed had nothing to do with it. I've seen a 1st
                                          generation copy of the original Articles of Incorporation, and they said
                                          "Pre-17th Century" very clearly. These are the ones that established the
                                          SCA so we could go and play in a Berkley (?) park.

                                          Regina
                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: Sharon L. Krossa [mailto:skrossa-ml@...]
                                          Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:52 PM
                                          To: Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com
                                          Subject: [Authentic_SCA] 1650 Tolerance (was: Frontal nudity okay in
                                          period??)


                                          At 12:10 PM -0500 6/2/04, Maura Folsom wrote:
                                          >Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do with
                                          >cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing kilts,
                                          >period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least that's
                                          >where it came from originally in the West.

                                          Which, while I have no problem believing people thought this made
                                          sense at the time, is really kind of funny since kilts proper
                                          (Scottish male skirt) are an 18th century invention, so extending
                                          period to 1650 doesn't help at all for them. Plaids worn belted, of
                                          course, (modernly often called "belted plaids" or "great kilts") are
                                          entirely period by the official definition, the first unambiguous
                                          description dating to 1594 (in Gaelic, no less, and contrasting the
                                          attire of Scottish Gaels to that of Irish Gaels -- as said,
                                          unambiguous ;-) so no extension of period is needed for them.

                                          Affrick
                                          --
                                          Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...



                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • mastergunner1588
                                          ... I don t think I d agree with that. Number 4 certainly appears to be Elizabethan, not Jacobean. It closely resembles some of the dresses worn by
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "bex_1014"
                                            <tonkin.rebecca@s...> wrote:
                                            > These woodcuts are all post-1600 though, as far as I can see. I did
                                            > note that what I wrote was intended to apply to the SCA period
                                            > (before 1600).
                                            > Rebecca

                                            I don't think I'd agree with that. Number 4 certainly appears to be
                                            Elizabethan, not Jacobean. It closely resembles some of the dresses
                                            worn by Elizabeth. There are also a number of broadsheet wood cuts
                                            that do show similar styles that cut across a broad section of
                                            society from the Elizabethan period. (not at home or I'd post some
                                            links). Was it common? Not something that every woman would wear, I
                                            would say, but not unheard of, either.

                                            Just as a nitpick, I saw a lot of people rush to say 'not period' on
                                            the list. The article covers a lot more than just the headline, and
                                            does discuss more than just 17th C. I would hope that people on this
                                            list would not be more concerned with a modern attitude to these
                                            fashions, rather than historical accuracy, and use the 'not period'
                                            argument to dismiss the entire article.

                                            Hawkyns
                                          • Aliskye
                                            It should be noted that a number of the flyers for early events before things were codified do state before 1650 for the cut-off. regards, aliskye ... with ...
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              It should be noted that a number of the flyers for early events
                                              before things were codified do state before 1650 for the cut-off.

                                              regards,

                                              aliskye

                                              --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, "rowen_g" <rowengr@h...> wrote:
                                              > --- In Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com, Maura Folsom <jauncourt@v...>
                                              wrote:
                                              > > Actually, I understood that the "1650 tolerance" had less to do
                                              with
                                              > > cavaliers than with Edwin Bearsark, who insisted on wearing
                                              kilts,
                                              > > period or not, pretty much from the Very Beginnings. At least
                                              that's
                                              > > where it came from originally in the West.
                                              > >
                                              > > I remember someone actually saying at his wake that "we can let
                                              the
                                              > 1650
                                              > > thing go now, right?"
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              > Somehow I'm not surprised (having known the gentleman).... We
                                              get a
                                              > fair amount of early 17th c folk around here, from the large fencing
                                              > comunity, and from a number of older folk who were told "1650's ok"
                                              > when we joined (yes, I got it too) and tend to stick with it. I
                                              keep
                                              > to pre-1600 myself, but a nice 1630s outfit doesn't bother me nearly
                                              > as much as any number of other things.
                                              >
                                              > Rowen
                                            • Marc Carlson
                                              Not that it will alter anything, nor that it should - but when I was first introduced to the SCA (in 1979 in Ansteorra) I was taught that the ending date was
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Not that it will alter anything, nor that it should - but when I was
                                                first introduced to the SCA (in 1979 in Ansteorra) I was taught that
                                                the ending date was 1600 with a slop-over date of about 50 years for
                                                people who wanted to go that far. OTOH, I was also taught that you
                                                shouldn't claim to be anything you can not prove yourself to be (i.e.
                                                Elf, Witch, Priest, Doctor, whatever). And those are more or less the
                                                guidelines I've tried to stick with for me.

                                                Marc/Diarmaid
                                              • Ealasaid nic Suibhne
                                                delurking to add: And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain percentage of folk out there that think 17th Century means 1700 through
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  delurking to add:

                                                  And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain
                                                  percentage of folk out there that think "17th Century" means 1700
                                                  through 1799. I've had mild arguments with several SCA people who
                                                  didn't understand that the 17th Century started on January 1, 1601.

                                                  Ealasaid nic Suibhne
                                                  Kingdom of Atenveldt
                                                  main focus of study: very early period textiles/embroidery
                                                • aheilvei
                                                  Personal opinion. The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth it s been dead a while and the continued flogging isn t doing any good.
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Personal opinion.

                                                    The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth
                                                    it's been dead a while and the continued flogging isn't doing any
                                                    good.

                                                    Personal opinion.

                                                    Smiles,
                                                    Despina de la gets to go home from work before 11pm for the first
                                                    time this week - bubye
                                                  • Dianne & Greg Stucki
                                                    ... From: aheilvei To: Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:58 PM Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: 1650 Tolerance
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      From: "aheilvei" <aheilvei@...>
                                                      To: <Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com>
                                                      Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:58 PM
                                                      Subject: [Authentic_SCA] Re: 1650 Tolerance (was: Frontal nudity okay in
                                                      period??)


                                                      >
                                                      > Personal opinion.
                                                      >
                                                      > The horse has crumbled to dust and is fading back into the earth
                                                      > it's been dead a while and the continued flogging isn't doing any
                                                      > good.

                                                      So it's an ex-horse? It has ceased to be?

                                                      Laurensa de la watched too much Monty Python today....
                                                      >
                                                      > Personal opinion.
                                                      >
                                                      > Smiles,
                                                      > Despina de la gets to go home from work before 11pm for the first
                                                      > time this week - bubye
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > ----------------------------------------------------
                                                      > This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                                                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                    • Sharon L. Krossa
                                                      ... and ... While I agree that the 17th century is, roughly, the 1600s, I advise against insisting on too precise exact end points for it (or other
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , Jun 3, 2004
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        At 5:28 PM -0400 6/1/04, Cathal@... wrote:
                                                        >It's a matter of local common wisdom over statutory fact. The
                                                        >Governing Documents of the SCA specify "pre-17th century western
                                                        >culture" and always have. In even the most generous of
                                                        >interpretations, that means the SCA's period of focus ends at 12:00
                                                        >midnight on 31 December, 1600 CE. That, imo, settles the 'official'
                                                        >end of things

                                                        and

                                                        At 8:17 PM +0000 6/3/04, Ealasaid nic Suibhne wrote:
                                                        >And another contributor to the problem is that there is a certain
                                                        >percentage of folk out there that think "17th Century" means 1700
                                                        >through 1799. I've had mild arguments with several SCA people who
                                                        >didn't understand that the 17th Century started on January 1, 1601.

                                                        While I agree that the 17th century is, roughly, the 1600s, I advise
                                                        against insisting on too precise "exact" end points for it (or other
                                                        centuries).

                                                        Precise hours are too exact and even precise days are not safe -- in
                                                        many SCA period cultures the calendar year did not start on 1 January
                                                        (in England, for example, it started on 25 March until the mid-18th
                                                        century) and, further, circa 1600, because some countries had adopted
                                                        the Gregorian Calendar but others had not, 1 January occurred on
                                                        different days in different parts of Europe.

                                                        Calendars and associated concepts, such as named/numbered centuries,
                                                        are socially constructed concepts and not inevitable absolutes, and
                                                        as such they tend to change and vary and they aren't always derived
                                                        logically purely from consistent first principles. So even whether
                                                        the 17th century starts with 1601 or 1600 is not clear cut and is
                                                        legitimately arguable... **

                                                        And this isn't even to get into the issue of "long" centuries as used
                                                        by historians to lump together trends that don't fit neatly into
                                                        numbered centuries!

                                                        Africa

                                                        **PS In anticipation of those who will try to argue it is not
                                                        arguable, based on appeals to logic, just contemplate the "logical"
                                                        consequences of a year numbering system where the (6th century AD)
                                                        inventor set the theoretical beginning of "Year 1" on the 1 January
                                                        after the 25 December birth of Christ but where later people, without
                                                        changing the year numbers, changed the beginning of the year to 25
                                                        March, the anniversary of the conception of Christ -- and then later
                                                        others, at different times, changed it back to 1 January (not to
                                                        mention others still changing the start of the year to yet other
                                                        dates...). Logic doesn't provide one inevitable answer, nor is actual
                                                        practice -- usage by different people and/or in different times --
                                                        consistent (as evidenced by the huge celebrations over 31 Dec 1999-1
                                                        Jan 2000 compared to 31 Dec 2000-1 Jan 2001 ;-).

                                                        PPS It occurs to me to wonder -- when did Europeans start
                                                        numbering/naming centuries, that is, using terms like "10th century",
                                                        "17th century", etc?
                                                        --
                                                        Sharon L. Krossa, skrossa-ml@...
                                                      • Karen Hall
                                                        ... As common usage, at least it was in the nineteenth century. There is quite a lot of scholarly writing on the Victorian period and cultural understandings
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , Jun 4, 2004
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          > PPS It occurs to me to wonder -- when did Europeans start
                                                          > numbering/naming centuries, that is, using terms like "10th century",
                                                          > "17th century", etc?

                                                          As common usage, at least it was in the nineteenth century. There is quite a
                                                          lot of scholarly writing on the Victorian period and cultural understandings
                                                          of history. But that's probably not relevant to this list, so anyone wanting
                                                          part of chapter one of my thesis can contact me offlist :).

                                                          Alessandra
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.