From Early Modern Notes, described as a “meme with a difference”:

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

So I did: from Diary of Mrs Kitty Trevylyan: A Story of the Times of Whitefield and the Wesleys, 1866: I’ve bolded the relevant sentence but left in those around it for context.

“This morning two gentlemen who were calling on papa were lamenting the degeneracy of the times.

One was an old general, and he said —

“We have no heroes now — not a great soldier left. Since Marlborough died, not an Englishman has appreared who is fit to be more than a general of a a division ….

“My great-uncle, a Fellow of Brazennose, took up the wail. ‘No indeed he said; the ages of gold and iron and brass are over; the golden days of Elizabeth and Shakespeare, and the scattered Armada; the iron of the Revolution (for rough as they were, these men were iron; the brass of the Restoration ; and now we have nothing to do but beat out the dust and shavings into tinsel and wire.”

“We have plenty of wood at least for gallows,” interposed my brother Harry. “Cartloads of men are taken every week to Tyburn. I saw one myself yesterday,”

“For what crimes?” asked the general.

“One for stealing a few yards of ribbon; another for forging a draught for £50,” replied Harry.

“Ah,” sighed the general, “we have not even energy left to commit great crimes!”

Oddly enough, Sharon also managed to get to a hanging, or at least a sentence therefor.

Perhaps others can find something more cheerful, although this passage does make me think about something universal in human nature – the memories of the “good old days”.

To the Almeida theatre this evening, for The Earthly Paradise:

“June 1871. William Morris spends summer in Kelmscott, Oxfordshire in the company of Dante Gabriel Rossetti and their beloved Janey – the wife of one and muse of the other.

It seemed that they had found their ideal, in harmony with nature, a garden of earthly delights. But cynics whispered that the move from London was to conceal the very Pre-Raphaelite affair between Janey and Gabriel… ”

An excellent, if very showily theatrical show. If you are planning to go, you might want to stop now …

If not, then I can say that although it focuses for much of its length on the two men, the enthusiastic, boyish Morris, and the self-consciously arty, dramatic Gabriel, it turns out in the end to be largely about Janey, and how both have treated her for their own ends. William wanted to self-sacrificingly throw her into his friend’s arms (he only married her originally because the already committed Gabriel couldn’t). Gabriel wanted to worship her “purely” from afar, and reacted to the opportunity by pushing her away, driving himself mad in the process.

(Of course in the background is his relationship with his dead wife Lizzie, to which there is a famous story attached – he buried the only copy of his poems with her, guilty over neglecting her for his work when she lived, then seven years later had her exhumed so he could get them back.)

Janey is, we eventually learn, tormented by this – tormented by her desire for Rossetti (which she is not supposed to feel as a Victorian woman), and also tormented by her feelings of being out of place, since she was dragged up from being a stableman’s daughter to being a “lady” by these two men for their own purposes, having had no real say in the matter herself.

This of course is the (male) playwright’s view – and quite a feminist one it is too. But it seems to be close to the facts, at least in outline, see for example here.

See also the Rossetti archive. I found one webpage about her.

P.S. I should say that after my brief post on Aphra Behn, Sharon on Early Modern Notes compiled a whole web bibliography – definitely worth checking out.

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

chessqueen, originally uploaded by natalieben.

Luckily, most of the sales of review copies of books held in newspaper offices (which raise money for charity) are held at lunchtime, when I’m not there, otherwise I’d have already had to move out of home to make space for the bookshelves.

But I was reminded of what I’m missing by a rare sale I managed to get to, where I bought (along with lots of other books), Birth of the Chess Queen: A History, by Marilyn Yalow, 2004, Pandora.

It explains that when chess was invented in India, then transplanted into the Muslim world (where non-figurative pieces were used because of Islamic iconoclasm), and finally arrived in Europe with the Moors, the piece that stood beside the King was the vizier.

The first chess queen recorded appears in a manuscript written in the late 990s in the Einsiedeln Monastery in Switzerland. The monk who wrote it was German-speaking, although of course he was working in Latin. He makes no particular remark about her presence, so the piece was obviously well established. (p. 17)

A pawn, as today, could become a queen by getting to the other end of the board, but only if the original queen had been taken.

“…an attempt to preserve the uniqueness of the king’s wife, his only permissible conjugal mate, according to Christian doctrine…. The idea of multiple queens on the chessboard proved so anxiety-making for Europeans that it remained a subject of contention for centuries to come”. (p. 18)

The author seeks to find a unique model for the chess queen, proposing either Adelaide of Germany, queen to Otto I, “a second Charlemagne”, or her daughter-in-law, Theosophano, the Byzantine princess, queen to Otto II and mother and regent to Otto III.

This I’d suggest is problematic – perhaps one sycophantic courtier might have had the idea of commissioning a set featuring a single powerful queen, but the idea would sure have not caught on broadly, with chess seen as a model for courtly life, unless queens in general were significant “players” in politics and war.

Yalow indeed makes this point, saying: “for a brief period in the 980s, the rule of queens regent was dominant in Western Europe. Not only were Adelaide and Theophano regents for Otto III, but Adelaide’s daughter Emma was regent for the French King Louis V, the duchess Beatrice of Lorraine ruled for her minor son, and the youthful Aethelred II in England was under his mother’s tutelage.” (p. 26.) It is surely no accident that about this time the chess piece appeared.

It’s “funny” how little focus gets put on such periods of history.

P.S. This is an interesting read, but irritating when the academic writer makes patronising attempts to cater to an “ordinary” audience. Reaching them surely does not require the profuse use of exclamation marks!

Virginia Woolf said: “All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn, which is, most scandalously but rather appropriately, in Westminster Abbey, for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds. It is she — shady and amorous as she was — who makes it not quite fantastic for me to say to you tonight: Earn five hundred a year by your wits.”

Not quite, I would argue in the light of today’s knowledge, historically accurate, but Behn deserves it anyway today, on the anniversary of her baptism. (Her birth date is not known).

Which I know from Today in Literature’s free newsletter. (This link will only work for a couple of days.)

I’ll be raising my glass this evening for this, and for my cricket club (belated) end of season dinner. It may be some time before I return.

Half an ounce each of ginger, cinnamon, galingale, aniseed, carraway seed, fennel seed and two drams each of mace and nutmegs, to be reduced to powder and taken before or after meat.

(Galingale seems to be galangal, as used in Asian cooking.)

There’s certainly plenty of testament to the early spice trade there – and I reckon it might have even worked. Certainly aniseed and cinnamon help to settle my stomach.

(The English Abigail, by Dorothy Margaret Stuart, London, Macmillan & Co, 1946, p. 22.)

… about the EU. It might even (partially) save the US from itself, by tightening standards for consumer goods in chemical content, recycling.

“Cameron points out that the United States and the European Union remain each other’s most significant trading partners in the world–our entanglements are deep and abiding. But as Europe becomes a more assertive political force, the question will become, as he puts it, “Why shouldn’t Americans enjoy the same standards as Europeans?”

Such a basic question used to run in the other direction, when the United States set the gold standard for the world’s environmental health. And the answer strikes at the core of the Bush Administration’s most savored narratives–that we, alone, are masters of our nation’s fate.”

From The Nation, via Arts and Letters Daily.

I’ve another celebration here.

Now I’m off to write my Christmas cards. My record is sending them on Boxing Day, but this year I’m aiming to actually get them to (most) people by Christmas Day.