Chinless in Belgravia
Kerro
Over the years, I have read/heard references to English
aristocracy/upper-classes as having "no chins"; or more specifically,
small, weak, receding chins. I haven't personally met many members
of English aristocracy (well, none really), but...somehow, there
appears to be at least a grain of truth to it. Inbreeding among
the aristos might have happened to some extent but surely not enough
to bring about a common "small-chin gene".
I have never come across any material about a common facial
appearance among Brits, but I can easily spot an Englishman by his
face alone. In fact, the working-class ones, will often have large
"bulldog chins", while the middle-class have their own unique facial
structure. Any takers?
--
Check out the new album by 'Collision Theory' at
http://www.chaosmusic.com.au/shop/detail.asp?productID=735321#tracks
Or visit the band's website at http://www.asteroidmusic.com
Kerro
Richard Chambers
>
> I have never come across any material about a common facial
> appearance among Brits, but I can easily spot an Englishman by his
> face alone. In fact, the working-class ones, will often have large
> "bulldog chins", while the middle-class have their own unique facial
> structure. Any takers?
>
>
enough to scrtinise his chin, which was normal. Hardly a valid statistical
sample, but a start. I have seen various other aristocrats interviewed on
television, and I have not noticed any recessive chins.
You are Australian, I believe. So a little Spanish joke (told to me by a
waiter in Marbella)comes in handy at this point:-
¿Qué llega blanco como un cordero, y sali rojo como un cangrejo? Un turista
inglés[1].
Is this how you recognise the Englishman in Australia, rather than by his
underlying facial features?
Forty years ago, when I was a teenager, people in Britain used to laugh at
their aristocracy because they all [allegedly] used to contract gout at
around the age of sixty. This was attributed to their stereotypical habit of
eating excessive amounts of meat, and drinking too much Port, which
introduced acids into the bloodstream to attack the cartilage in the toes.
Unfortunately, with improved living standards, this has rebounded on the
very people who used to make these jokes. Large numbers of ordinary people
are now eating a lot of meat and drinking wine (but not Port, yet) regularly
enough to get gout at the age of around sixty. [Is this an Urban Legend, or
is it true?]
[1] What arrives white as a sheep, and leaves red as a crab? An English
tourist.
Dick Chambers, Leeds, UK.
20C, just stopped raining. El tiempo que explica porqué soy blanco como un
cordero.
Len Berlind
>Inbreeding among
>the aristos might have happened to some extent but surely not enough
>to bring about a common "small-chin gene".
Actually, "chin" is a well-known euphemism (at least amongst aristos)
for the male member. Entomology unknown, first cite in Chaucer's "Ye
Little Pygges Three" (1523).
Alastair Rae
> Inbreeding among
>the aristos might have happened to some extent but surely not enough
>to bring about a common "small-chin gene".
One could argue that the aristos descend from the Norman's and the
commoners from the Saxons. The two races never fully mixed and this
accounts for the deep class awareness in England. Thus there might be
discernible differences in appearance.
There was fad in C19 for character reading from physical measurements.
I wonder if there is any statistical studies on chin sizes?
--
Alastair Rae, London, Europe.
Remove NOSPAM from my email address to reply.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employers.
Deborah Stevenson
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Alice Faber wrote:
> In article <3B7B8C5D...@mira.net>, Kerro <ke...@mira.net> wrote:
>
> > Maybe some of our British correspondents can clear this one up.
> >
> > Over the years, I have read/heard references to English
> > aristocracy/upper-classes as having "no chins"; or more specifically,
> > small, weak, receding chins.
[snip]
> I've always assumed this was a metaphorical expression, akin to not
> having any backbone or even being limp-wristed.
I've also wondered if it was at all related to perceptions about jaw
position and fluidity in upper-class speech. Still an observer-bias
situation, but a less metaphorical one.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Lizz Holmans
As long as we're indulging ourselves, *I* think it's a perceived
notion that the aristocracy and royal families pass down recognizable
physical characteristics related to marrying their relatives--look at
the Hapsburg family face, for instance, and the Victorian propensity
towards hemophilia.
Lizz 'WAG the chin' Holmans
Deborah Stevenson
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Lizz Holmans wrote:
[re chinlessness]
> As long as we're indulging ourselves, *I* think it's a perceived
> notion that the aristocracy and royal families pass down recognizable
> physical characteristics related to marrying their relatives--look at
> the Hapsburg family face, for instance,
Didn't the Hapsburg face go the other way, though, just to confuse things?
> and the Victorian propensity
> towards hemophilia.
Except that's not inbreeding, that's founder effect--it didn't make any
difference if you were related to them or not, they just dominated the
pool.
> Lizz 'WAG the chin' Holmans
And a wave of the hand back. I like the idea--do we have any notion of
when this concept got started and if there are any royals that were pretty
markedly weak in this area? Or (I'm going to flap my arms so hard I could
fly now) are we talking perhaps even about a style of beauty accentuated
by painters, so that there was an era where people got flattered by being
painted with diminished chins, and the people who got painted were, of
course, the dirty aristos?
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Lizz Holmans
<stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>And a wave of the hand back. I like the idea--do we have any notion of
>when this concept got started and if there are any royals that were pretty
>markedly weak in this area? Or (I'm going to flap my arms so hard I could
>fly now) are we talking perhaps even about a style of beauty accentuated
>by painters, so that there was an era where people got flattered by being
>painted with diminished chins, and the people who got painted were, of
>course, the dirty aristos?
There was a fashion for female beauty in the Middle Ages up through
the Renaissance for double chins, along with small breasts and
protuberant bellies. This is reflected in so much art that I can't
even think of a specific artist--but think Flemish, not Italian. Even
after the Ideal Woman slimmed down a bit, a small chin was always
preferable to a large jaw on a woman.
The range of beauty for men was much less demanding, of course, since
men were doing the painting (by and large). Large jaws and chins on
men were supposed to reflect resolution and courage; on a woman,
stubbornness and pugnacity (exactly the word I was looking for.
Thanks, brain).
Therefore, men with small chins could be considered weak, effeminate,
over-bred, and too, too refained--all the things a good aristocrat
should be.
Lizz 'Not waving, but jawing' Holmans
Michael
> Therefore, men with small chins could be considered weak, effeminate,
> over-bred, and too, too refained--all the things a good aristocrat
> should be.
>
> Lizz 'Not waving, but jawing' Holmans
But didn't men have some sort of beard throughout a good part of
history? How could one tell what type of chin was underneath the
beard? Men had the luxury of concealing the chin----whatever was
underneath the beard was a secret.
Michael
I have three e-mail addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com mitc...@att.net mitc...@home.com
If one doesn't work, well...
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
>But didn't men have some sort of beard throughout a good part of
>history? How could one tell what type of chin was underneath the
>beard? Men had the luxury of concealing the chin----whatever was
>underneath the beard was a secret.
Whiskers went in and out of fashion over the centuries. The Northern
Europeans varied from mustached Vikings to beardy Scots to beardless
Romanized Britains and all variations in time and distance. When you
look at paintings, sculpture, and tapestry, you can find a wide
variety of fads and fancies in men's facial-hair-wear.
I have noted that the higher the social status of the man in most
periods, the more likely it is that he would be at least partially
shaven. This reflects the increased wealth and leisure time of the
moneyed classes--self-shaving not becoming common until fairly
recently (one needs cheap mirrors as well as inexpensive blades for
the proles to be beardless).
Fashion changed nearly as frequently by medieval times as it does
now--and those folks on the cutting edge of the new style were just as
vilified/hooted at as they are today.
Lizz 'tongue like a razor' Holmans
Liam Devlin
>
(snip)
>
> I have noted that the higher the social status of the man in most
> periods, the more likely it is that he would be at least partially
> shaven. This reflects the increased wealth and leisure time of the
> moneyed classes--self-shaving not becoming common until fairly
> recently (one needs cheap mirrors as well as inexpensive blades for
> the proles to be beardless).
>
> Fashion changed nearly as frequently by medieval times as it does
> now--and those folks on the cutting edge of the new style were just
Cute:-)
LiamD
Joe Boswell
<NOSPA...@tertio.com> writes
>
>There was fad in C19 for character reading from physical measurements.
>I wonder if there is any statistical studies on chin sizes?
Not so much a fad as a product of an interest in what were then cutting
edge developments in statistics. De Moivre had described the bell curve
in the early 18th century but the implications only began to be really
appreciated decades later by, for example, Francis Galton, a close
relative of Darwin and as good an example as you could wish of an
eccentric 19th C English dilettante scientist.[1]
Just before Galton, Quetelet in particular made the step of claiming
that measurements of human physique could be used to make predictions
about age, occupation or ethnic origin. He explicitly linked his work to
"moral and political sciences", and for example made an extensive
analysis of variations in conviction rates for various classes of
persons and crimes.
Galton proceeded from Quetelet's work to write his most important book,
"Hereditary Genius". Based on data gathered over three years to 1869, he
suggested that 1 in 4000 of the British population past middle age are
sufficiently talented to be "eminent"[2], while about 1 in 400 is an
idiot or imbecile. He was certain that the distribution of mental
capacity follows a normal distribution, as did his measurements of
height, chest size, head size, brain weight and so on. He was further
convinced that the origin of these variations was completely hereditary.
He showed e.g. that judges were far more often closely related to other
judges than were people in general, and also judges were often closely
related to physicians, admirals, novelists, poets and generals. However,
his own data showed that only 36% of the sons of eminent men were
themselves eminent, and only 9% of grandsons qualified. This was
explained by Galton as resulting from the tendency of the eminent to
marry heiresses. Such women, he reasoned, only inherited great wealth
because of a lack of siblings to share the inheritance; hence, they
tended to infertility.
Upon reading the book, Darwin commented to Galton, "I do not think I
ever in my life read anything more interesting and original... a
memorable work." He conducted experiments to understand better *why* the
bell curve is so universal. He used a mechanical contraption, the
Quincunx, and also carried out experiments on weight distribution in
successive generations of sweet peas. This led him eventually to propose
a general principle now known as regression or reversion to the mean,
and a rather better explanation than his earlier one for the fading away
of eminence in later generations. He wrote, "This law tells heavily
against the full hereditary transmission of any gift... The law is even
handed; it levies the same succession-tax on the transmission of badness
as well as of goodness."
This discovery inspired him in developing and promoting eugenics. He
advocated discouraging breeding by those at the 'bad' end of the
spectrum and encouraging those at the other. In 1885 he was elected
President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He
then carried out some crucial research on height, measuring 928 adult
children of 205 pairs of parents. Careful analysis demonstrated the
expected bell curve and regression to the mean as shown in his earlier
experiments with peas. He could even calculate the rate of regression.
This work led to the statistical concept of correlation.
Galton was certainly not alone in his work in this area, and it could
not reasonably be described as a fad. The range of research and
theorising in this field varied in quality from first class to
phrenology. I do not doubt that if Galton had the chance he would have
gathered data to show that the quality of all the different research on
human characteristics and heredity fitted a normal distribution.
[1] Galton obsessively gathered extraordinary and eclectic data sets,
including many measurements of the physical characteristics of people.
One questionable effort led to his "Beauty Map" of Britain; it
established to his satisfaction that London girls were prettiest while
those of Aberdeen were ugliest. In 1884 he set up his Anthropometric
Laboratory, to record and analyse measurements of as many features of
human bodies as he could. His published work in 1893 showing that
fingerprints, unlike any other characteristic of anatomy he had found,
never changed with age. This quickly led to the police adopting finger
printing. He preferred to study from 10 pm to 2 am. To avoid falling
asleep he invented his "Gumption Reviver", a gadget that wetted his head
with cold water. His later invention of a device for reading books
underwater almost drowned him on one occasion. He enjoyed diversity and
was sometimes dismayed by other statisticians: "It is difficult to
understand why statisticians commonly limit their inquiries to Averages,
and do not revel in more comprehensive views. Their souls seem as dull
to the charm of variety as that of the native of one of our flat English
counties, whose retrospect of Switzerland was that, if its mountains
could be thrown into its lakes, two nuisances would be got rid of at
once."
[2] Being "eminent" is mostly for men. Galton acknowledged "very
powerful women" but noted, "happy perhaps for the repose of the other
sex, such gifted women are rare."
--
Joe Boswell * If I cannot be free, I'll be cheap
Richard Chambers
article:
>
> [1] Galton obsessively gathered extraordinary and eclectic data sets,
> including many measurements of the physical characteristics of people.
> One questionable effort led to his "Beauty Map" of Britain; it
> established to his satisfaction that London girls were prettiest while
> those of Aberdeen were ugliest. In 1884 he set up his Anthropometric
> Laboratory, to record and analyse measurements of as many features of
> human bodies as he could.
Reference: Social Psychology (Sixth Edition), David G Myers, McGraw Hill
College, 1999. Chapter 11.
Myers descibes work by Langlois and Roggman (1990, 1994) to investigate what
makes a human face attractive or unattractive. They took digital photographs
of 32 randomly selected faces, all of people of the same sex and roughly the
same age. They then produced a 33rd photograph by computer-averaging all the
main features of the other 32 photographs. This photograph therefore
portrayed a person with average nose length, average chin, average forehead
dimensions, average lips, etc.
In a laboratory test, subjects were asked to choose the most beautiful face
from the 33 photos. The composite averaged face was chosen by 96% of the
subjects in the test. Langlois and Roggman published their paper with the
title "Attractive faces are only average", Psychological Science, 1, 115-121
(1990).
Dick Chambers, Leeds, UK. 19C, overcast, night time.
Michael Kuettner
Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ci1ont0gad2j88ivf...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> There was a fashion for female beauty in the Middle Ages up through
> the Renaissance for double chins, along with small breasts and
> protuberant bellies.
Fascinating.
The same ideal of beauty for 1000 years ?
I don't think so.
And when I look at the miniatures and other pictures
I see that the beer - gut is also *very* sexy for men.
If you look closely you'll see that *both* men and
women are shown with protruding bellies.
But AFAIK only up to the 9th or 10th century
and mostly in bible - illustrations (and some
frescoes in Ravenna).
But otherwise ? Nope.
A contra - example :
In Konrad Keysers "Bellifortis" (shortly after 1400)
we see a nice bathhouse cum brothel.
In the second window we see some
nekkid women - different breast-sizes
(but not small ones);
one has a very nice (lower) backside;
all are slim and *no* protruding stomachs.
They could easily pass for nowadays
beauties.
Another example :
The illustrations to the "Sachsenspiegel".
And I didn't find anything in "Buchmalereien"
(book illuminations[1] ? - the thingies they painted in books)
after the 10th century showing protruding bellies.
I'm talking about continental Europe here
(TWIAVBP).
Was there a different style in UKoGBaNI ?
> This is reflected in so much art that I can't
> even think of a specific artist--but think Flemish, not Italian. Even
> after the Ideal Woman slimmed down a bit, a small chin was always
> preferable to a large jaw on a woman.
>
Small chin - yep. Protruding bellies - no.
Little breasts ? No.
> The range of beauty for men was much less demanding, of course, since
> men were doing the painting (by and large). Large jaws and chins on
> men were supposed to reflect resolution and courage; on a woman,
> stubbornness and pugnacity (exactly the word I was looking for.
> Thanks, brain).
>
> Therefore, men with small chins could be considered weak, effeminate,
> over-bred, and too, too refained--all the things a good aristocrat
> should be.
>
Regarding chins : Both men and women were depicted with *erm*
ovals as faces (in Med. times) without paying much attention to
details. The importance of the person was established by
a) painting him bigger than the other persons in the picture
b) his 'signs of office' - be it a crown or a heraldic device.
In these times symbols were important - not accuracy.
Things like accurate portraying came later.
Talking about cont. Europe again.
Michael "thinking with my belly" Kuettner
[1] The subset of them which I have with me.
PS:
Double chins ? Where did you find them ?
Michael Kuettner
<snip>
> As long as we're indulging ourselves, *I* think it's a perceived
> notion that the aristocracy and royal families pass down recognizable
> physical characteristics related to marrying their relatives--look at
> the Hapsburg family face, for instance, and the Victorian propensity
> towards hemophilia.
>
It's Habsburg [1]!
You recognize members of the Habsburg family by their
lower lip (protruding) and their ears.
See e.g. the Liechtensteins.
> Lizz 'WAG the chin' Holmans
>
Michael "and flap the lip" Kuettner
[1] Why do all Anglo-Saxons write the name with
a 'p' ? - pet peeve of mine
Lizz Holmans
<mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>Fascinating.
>The same ideal of beauty for 1000 years ?
>I don't think so.
>And when I look at the miniatures and other pictures
>I see that the beer - gut is also *very* sexy for men.
>If you look closely you'll see that *both* men and
>women are shown with protruding bellies.
>But AFAIK only up to the 9th or 10th century
>and mostly in bible - illustrations (and some
>frescoes in Ravenna).
>But otherwise ? Nope.
I suggest you go look some more.The slightly pregnant look was still
quite popular in the 14-15 century, as evidenced by the Arnolfini
painting (which is not a wedding, contrary to popular belief) painted
by Jan Van Eyck, who pioneered the use of oil paints.
This same look is also notable in the figure of Flora in Botticelli's
Primaverdi--this is a rather rarer Italian example, but it is a look
tha Botticelli liked, for his Venus Rising from the Waves has the
exact same figure (not much surprise there, as it was the same model).
Cranach liked slim ladies, but he was rather an exception.
These are only two. If I were in London instead of our other house I
could give you many more from my art history library.
>
>A contra - example :
>In Konrad Keysers "Bellifortis" (shortly after 1400)
>we see a nice bathhouse cum brothel.
>In the second window we see some
>nekkid women - different breast-sizes
>(but not small ones);
>one has a very nice (lower) backside;
>all are slim and *no* protruding stomachs.
>They could easily pass for nowadays
>beauties.
>Another example :
>The illustrations to the "Sachsenspiegel".
>And I didn't find anything in "Buchmalereien"
>(book illuminations[1] ? - the thingies they painted in books)
>after the 10th century showing protruding bellies.
>I'm talking about continental Europe here
>(TWIAVBP).
>Was there a different style in UKoGBaNI ?
Illuminations were standardized all over Western Europe by the 11
century, with slight variations of individual artists. Early English
Bible illuminations tended to have a more nervous line, but this
stopped very soon after 1066, when William the Bastard brought over
his own artists, effectively killing native English art.
Book illuminations were generally done by patterns in workshops by
both clerical and lay illustrators.
>Small chin - yep. Protruding bellies - no.
>Little breasts ? No.
Yes, yes, and yes. Expand your search.
>>
>Regarding chins : Both men and women were depicted with *erm*
>ovals as faces (in Med. times) without paying much attention to
>details. The importance of the person was established by
>a) painting him bigger than the other persons in the picture
>b) his 'signs of office' - be it a crown or a heraldic device.
>In these times symbols were important - not accuracy.
>Things like accurate portraying came later.
These things are true, and have no point whatsoever with my post. I
was not talking about hierarchial size, or heraldry. I was also not
limiting myself to illuminations in books. If you study a wider
variety of works in other media you might be surprised.
>PS:
>Double chins ? Where did you find them ?
If you are still interested after next Sunday, I will post a few
examples. Until then I suggest you look at the Van Eyck oil on panel
as described above. It's an excellent example of the typical look that
was considered very attractive. It also has the advantage of being
*much* easier to locate prints of than the works you cite, with which
I am completely unfamiliar and can find no examples of on the Web. The
Arnofini painting is in the National Gallery in London, and is, I
know, available on CD-ROM as well as reprinted in most art history
texts; do you have a URL of the works you cited, so that I may see
them?
Lizz 'waiting for Rubens to make a comeback' Holmans
Lon Stowell
Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:c90onts0pjncpp915...@4ax.com...
><snip>
>> As long as we're indulging ourselves, *I* think it's a perceived
>> notion that the aristocracy and royal families pass down recognizable
>> physical characteristics related to marrying their relatives--look at
>> the Hapsburg family face, for instance, and the Victorian propensity
>> towards hemophilia.
>>
>Aargh !
>It's Habsburg [1]!
>You recognize members of the Habsburg family by their
>lower lip (protruding) and their ears.
>See e.g. the Liechtensteins.
Waytaminut, we were taught that the Hapsburg lip was a prominent
upper lip that protruded well down over the upper edges of the
lower lip.
Those of us whose ancestors came over with Norman Bates The Conqueror
always use the "p".
K C Chan
>Maybe some of our British correspondents can clear this one up.
>
>Over the years, I have read/heard references to English
>aristocracy/upper-classes as having "no chins"; or more specifically,
>small, weak, receding chins. I haven't personally met many members
>of English aristocracy (well, none really), but...somehow, there
>appears to be at least a grain of truth to it. Inbreeding among
>the aristos might have happened to some extent but surely not enough
>to bring about a common "small-chin gene".
>
Oooh my poor brane.
I think back in Oz I have a book on genetics that talks about this and
has a portrait. I haven't seen it in ages, though.
There was a nobleman who had a particularly small chin (I recall it's
him in the portrait) which was obviously receding under his neck. He
passed this feature onto all of his children, and because of the
aristocratic penchant for 'keeping it in the family' it became a
characteristic of the nobility.
I did a google search on "chinless wonder" (which is the term used to
describe these ... um...specimens) but although coming up with a lot
of references to the English nobility (ie "they dropped off a couple
of chinless wonders who were supposed to help") there wasn't any
reference to the original chinless wonder.
And so, of course, I have to make a trip to Canberra at Christmas to
find out. Damn.
This was definitely a real facial characteristic, and you know it when
you see it. Hong Kong is full of 'em.
K.C. "Proud owner of a definite chin" Chan
Michael Kuettner
> I suggest you go look some more.The slightly pregnant look was still
> quite popular in the 14-15 century, as evidenced by the Arnolfini
> painting (which is not a wedding, contrary to popular belief) painted
> by Jan Van Eyck, who pioneered the use of oil paints.
>
I've got no problem with 'slightly pregnant'; I've got a problem
with 'protruding bellies'.
But compare Van Eyck and Hieronymus Bosch.
No slightly pregnant look there.
> This same look is also notable in the figure of Flora in Botticelli's
> Primaverdi--this is a rather rarer Italian example, but it is a look
> tha Botticelli liked, for his Venus Rising from the Waves has the
> exact same figure (not much surprise there, as it was the same model).
>
One of my favourite painters.
But AFAIK Botticelli was influences by classical art
(Roman and Greek).
> Cranach liked slim ladies, but he was rather an exception.
>
Not exactly; there *was* a difference between German and
NL painters.
> These are only two. If I were in London instead of our other house I
> could give you many more from my art history library.
>
My sympathies.
(I miss (most of) my library, too.)
<snip>
> >Small chin - yep. Protruding bellies - no.
> >Little breasts ? No.
>
> Yes, yes, and yes. Expand your search.
>
If you mean the 'slightly pregnant' look, we agree.
But little breasts ? H. Bosch comes to mind again.
>
> >>
> >Regarding chins : Both men and women were depicted with *erm*
> >ovals as faces (in Med. times) without paying much attention to
> >details. The importance of the person was established by
> >a) painting him bigger than the other persons in the picture
> >b) his 'signs of office' - be it a crown or a heraldic device.
> >In these times symbols were important - not accuracy.
> >Things like accurate portraying came later.
>
> These things are true, and have no point whatsoever with my post. I
> was not talking about hierarchial size, or heraldry. I was also not
> limiting myself to illuminations in books. If you study a wider
> variety of works in other media you might be surprised.
>
The last sentence is a rather cheap shot.
Show me a picture from the 6th century (or the 8th century).
Since you've made a sweeping generalization regarding all
of the Middle Ages, I had to use illuminations because that's
all we've got from the early times.
>
> >PS:
> >Double chins ? Where did you find them ?
>
> If you are still interested after next Sunday, I will post a few
> examples.
I am.
> Until then I suggest you look at the Van Eyck oil on panel
> as described above. It's an excellent example of the typical look that
> was considered very attractive.
Only if you look at H. Bosch.
Btw. I like Van Eyck.
> It also has the advantage of being
> *much* easier to locate prints of than the works you cite, with which
> I am completely unfamiliar and can find no examples of on the Web. The
> Arnofini painting is in the National Gallery in London, and is, I
> know, available on CD-ROM as well as reprinted in most art history
> texts; do you have a URL of the works you cited, so that I may see
> them?
>
No, sorry.
I've cited from some books I have with me.
One which you might find interesting is
'Westeuropaeische Buchmalerei des 8. bis 16.
Jahrhunderts' by Tamarra Woronwa and
Andrej Sterligov.
There must be an English version because
the Copyright is by Editions Parkstone / Aurora, England, 1996.
The ISBN for the German version is 3-8289-0751-2.
Wonderful book.
> Lizz 'waiting for Rubens to make a comeback' Holmans
Michael 'and Raffael and the Breughels and ....' Kuettner
Lizz Holmans
<mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>Ah - the Netherlanders.
>I've got no problem with 'slightly pregnant'; I've got a problem
>with 'protruding bellies'.
>But compare Van Eyck and Hieronymus Bosch.
>No slightly pregnant look there.
Bosch was different in many, many ways from any painter before him.
However, his ladies were not exceptional. If I've got the Garden of
Earthly Delights clear enough in my head (and I should, as a print of
it hung on my wall for 25 years), Eve in the Creation panel had the
small breasts and tummy bulge so common in works of other artists.
>
>> This same look is also notable in the figure of Flora in Botticelli's
>> Primaverdi--this is a rather rarer Italian example, but it is a look
>> tha Botticelli liked, for his Venus Rising from the Waves has the
>> exact same figure (not much surprise there, as it was the same model).
>>
>One of my favourite painters.
>But AFAIK Botticelli was influences by classical art
>(Roman and Greek).
He was. He was also influenced--like most Italian artists of his
time--by Northern European painters. There was a constant interchange
of ideas back and forth; not only that, but artists themselves were
very mobile.
>
>> Cranach liked slim ladies, but he was rather an exception.
>>
>Not exactly; there *was* a difference between German and
>NL painters.
Now that I think about it, though, Cranach's women in his work that
shows Paris and the three Goddesses (can't think of its proper name,
dammit) have--small breasts and definite bellies, although they are
slim through the hips.
>
>> These are only two. If I were in London instead of our other house I
>> could give you many more from my art history library.
>>
>My sympathies.
>
>(I miss (most of) my library, too.)
>
><snip>
>> >Small chin - yep. Protruding bellies - no.
>> >Little breasts ? No.
>>
>> Yes, yes, and yes. Expand your search.
>>
>If you mean the 'slightly pregnant' look, we agree.
>But little breasts ? H. Bosch comes to mind again.
See above.
>The last sentence is a rather cheap shot.
>Show me a picture from the 6th century (or the 8th century).
>Since you've made a sweeping generalization regarding all
>of the Middle Ages, I had to use illuminations because that's
>all we've got from the early times.
It was a generalization, but you are starting Medievalism much earlier
than I was taught to. Just a difference in education, I suppose. The
manuscript illuminations you refer to are post-Empire, to be sure, but
quite early to be considered purely Medieval--art of the Merovingians
and Carolingians are very heavily Roman in influence without really
understanding much about how the Greeks and Romans actually worked.
Ottonian painters were starting to look around a bit.
>
>Only if you look at H. Bosch.
>Btw. I like Van Eyck.
My favorite painter is Roger Van der Weyden.
>I've cited from some books I have with me.
>One which you might find interesting is
>'Westeuropaeische Buchmalerei des 8. bis 16.
>Jahrhunderts' by Tamarra Woronwa and
>Andrej Sterligov.
>There must be an English version because
>the Copyright is by Editions Parkstone / Aurora, England, 1996.
>The ISBN for the German version is 3-8289-0751-2.
>Wonderful book.
I'll look for it when I return to London.
Lizz 'Or they *could* move all the galleries to West Yorkshire'
Holmans
Keith Willis
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I suggest you go look some more.The slightly pregnant look was still
>quite popular in the 14-15 century, as evidenced by the Arnolfini
>painting (which is not a wedding, contrary to popular belief) painted
>by Jan Van Eyck, who pioneered the use of oil paints.
Found this one at
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/van_eyck/arnlfini.jpg.html.
"Slightly pregnant"? She looks about 8.9 months gone, particularly
with that trademark 'resting the hand on top of the lump' posture.
>This same look is also notable in the figure of Flora in Botticelli's
>Primaverdi--this is a rather rarer Italian example, but it is a look
>tha Botticelli liked, for his Venus Rising from the Waves has the
>exact same figure (not much surprise there, as it was the same model).
First at
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botticelli/primavera.jpg.html, and
the second at
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botticelli/venus.jpg.html. Rather
less exaggerated in the rounded tummy stakes.
--
For PGP key, send email to kwillis...@yahoo.co.uk
(no subject or message content required)
Kerro
> >
> > Over the years, I have read/heard references to English
> > aristocracy/upper-classes as having "no chins"; or more specifically,
> > small, weak, receding chins. I haven't personally met many members
> > of English aristocracy (well, none really), but...somehow, there
> > appears to be at least a grain of truth to it. Inbreeding among
> > the aristos might have happened to some extent but surely not enough
> > to bring about a common "small-chin gene".
> >
> > I have never come across any material about a common facial
> > appearance among Brits, but I can easily spot an Englishman by his
> > face alone. In fact, the working-class ones, will often have large
> > "bulldog chins", while the middle-class have their own unique facial
> > structure. Any takers?
>
> having any backbone or even being limp-wristed.
I wasn't aware of that. Certainly *many* of the references I've come
across were quite literal. For example, an article about the pop singer,
Nick Cave; the writer was describing his facial appearance, including:
"Like British aristocracy, he has no chin to speak of...." Other past
references have also referred to physical dimensions - not metaphorical.
>
> In the absence of empirical data, I'm going to have to dismiss your
> claim that you can distinguish aristocratic types from the working
> class based on their chins; there's too much potential for an observer
> bias here.
I should qualify my sweeping statement. I can't always recognise an
Englishman by his facial appearance, of course, but there are occasions
when I can tell someone is unmistakably English, from their facial
structure - regardless of clothes, hairstyle etc. I would say there
are two basic types of Anglo face. The first type has a very "human",
intelligent look to it, managing to look both slightly bland and
distinctive at the same time. The second type is the "British Bulldog";
with a full, heavy face, pug-like nose, droopy eyelids and the largish
jaw. Of course, both those descriptions, in writing, sound completely
vague and meaningless. If I can find a couple of good photos, I might
scan them in. I think Brits would instantly recognise their fellow-Poms
from such photos.
Kerro
>
> Kerro <ke...@mira.net> wrote
> >
> > I have never come across any material about a common facial
> > appearance among Brits, but I can easily spot an Englishman by his
> > face alone. In fact, the working-class ones, will often have large
> > "bulldog chins", while the middle-class have their own unique facial
> > structure. Any takers?
> >
> >
> In all my long life in Britain, I have met only one true aristocrat for long
> enough to scrtinise his chin, which was normal. Hardly a valid statistical
> sample, but a start. I have seen various other aristocrats interviewed on
> television, and I have not noticed any recessive chins.
Prince Charles?
>
> You are Australian, I believe. So a little Spanish joke (told to me by a
> waiter in Marbella)comes in handy at this point:-
> ¿Qué llega blanco como un cordero, y sali rojo como un cangrejo? Un turista
> inglés[1].
> Is this how you recognise the Englishman in Australia, rather than by his
> underlying facial features?
That's *one* way, though I believe "the colour of Pomengranates" (hence,
possibly, "Poms") is the tried an true method.
>
> Forty years ago, when I was a teenager, people in Britain used to laugh at
> their aristocracy because they all [allegedly] used to contract gout at
> around the age of sixty. This was attributed to their stereotypical habit of
> eating excessive amounts of meat, and drinking too much Port, which
> introduced acids into the bloodstream to attack the cartilage in the toes.
> Unfortunately, with improved living standards, this has rebounded on the
> very people who used to make these jokes. Large numbers of ordinary people
> are now eating a lot of meat and drinking wine (but not Port, yet) regularly
> enough to get gout at the age of around sixty. [Is this an Urban Legend, or
> is it true?]
>
> [1] What arrives white as a sheep, and leaves red as a crab? An English
> tourist.
>
> Dick Chambers, Leeds, UK.
> 20C, just stopped raining. El tiempo que explica porqué soy blanco como un
> cordero.
--
Lizz Holmans
<ke...@bytebrothers.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:48:41 +0100, Lizz Holmans
><di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>I suggest you go look some more.The slightly pregnant look was still
>>quite popular in the 14-15 century, as evidenced by the Arnolfini
>>painting (which is not a wedding, contrary to popular belief) painted
>>by Jan Van Eyck, who pioneered the use of oil paints.
>
>Found this one at
>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/van_eyck/arnlfini.jpg.html.
>"Slightly pregnant"? She looks about 8.9 months gone, particularly
>with that trademark 'resting the hand on top of the lump' posture.
It's difficult to get a true sense of the body beneath the layers of
clothing worn (quite sensibly) by Northern Europeans in the days
before reliable heating systems. The woman may have been pregnant, of
course, but the effect was also accentuated by the clothing styles of
the time when the painting was done.
In the relatively rare female nudes we have before 1400 the belly is
definitely there. Individual artists liked different things in their
models, of course, but women were usually shown to have definite
bulges. One can argue the difference between 'slightly pregnant' and
'protuberant', but bellies did seem to be in fashion for women.
I have yet to see a female nude, even in Hieronymous Bosch's work,
that would wear a C-cup. None would be especially popular at topless
joints.
>First at
>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botticelli/primavera.jpg.html, and
>the second at
>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botticelli/venus.jpg.html. Rather
>less exaggerated in the rounded tummy stakes.
Venus was wearing significantly fewer clothes, if I recall correctly.
Lizz 'If cellulite was good enough for Rembrandt, it's good enough for
me' Holmans
deacon b.
<dick.no_spam_p...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>Forty years ago, when I was a teenager, people in Britain used to laugh at
>their aristocracy because they all [allegedly] used to contract gout at
>around the age of sixty. This was attributed to their stereotypical habit of
>eating excessive amounts of meat, and drinking too much Port, which
>introduced acids into the bloodstream to attack the cartilage in the toes.
>Unfortunately, with improved living standards, this has rebounded on the
>very people who used to make these jokes. Large numbers of ordinary people
>are now eating a lot of meat and drinking wine (but not Port, yet) regularly
>enough to get gout at the age of around sixty. [Is this an Urban Legend, or
>is it true?]
Medical UL. Since the 1940s, we've known that gout is more likely to
be caused by weight *loss* than by eating rich foods.
Other common medical ULs:
- gastric ulcers are caused by stress
Most are caused by heliobactor pylorii
- diabetes is caused by eating sugar (or eating too much),
Multiple causes, including genetics and viruses.
- diets work
Virtually all lose up to 10% of body weight temporarily,
but regain in the second year and have net weight gain
after 4-5 years.
deke
deacon b.
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I have yet to see a female nude, even in Hieronymous Bosch's work,
>that would wear a C-cup. None would be especially popular at topless
>joints.
You'd be surprised.
Having studied dancers at strip joins for decades, I'd assert that the
popular dancers are the ones with grace, style, and attitude, rather
than the ones with the most impressive bodies. A fun, flirty dancer
who makes the audience think she *enjoys* dancing? She will be more
popular, even with A-cups, than a dancer with JJ-cups who acts like
shy and embarassed.
But I'll agree with you that the standards of beauty change over the
years. Just compare Playboy centerfolds of the 1950s and 1960s with
the ones of the last decade. They used to be rounded, with moderate
well-shaped breasts. These days, they are angular and bony, with
massive balloons on their chests.
Best playmate ever? Probably it was De De Lind, back in the 1960s. And
it all has more to do with grace, style, and attitude than her body.
deke
Jon Miller
Many foreign words are "localized" when they enter a language. The
English, being particularly insular, are particularly prone to do this, but
other languages are not immune. Hapsburg has entered the English language,
and the voiceless bilabial stop is always written 'p', while the voiced
bilabial stop is always written 'b'. So, in English, Habsburg would be
*wrong*. It would, of course, be okay to refer to a foreign
place/person/etc. by its/his/her/etc. own name, but Hapsburg has become an
English name (perhaps because of the lip, but that is purely my
conjecture).
Jon "and Louie the Lip wasn't related" Miller
Jon Miller
> There was a fashion for female beauty in the Middle Ages up through the
> Renaissance for double chins, along with small breasts and protuberant
> bellies. This is reflected in so much art that I can't even think of a
> specific artist--but think Flemish, not Italian.
I would describe "almost all" nudes from the rebirth of nudes through the
middle of the 19th century, and the vast majority through the end of the 19th
century and even into the 20th (but how far, I am unprepared to argue) as
"Rubenesque". Sure, there are varying degrees, but compared to what was
painted in the 20th, they're all pretty hefty.
I have heard(tm) that large is still the standard of beauty (male and female)
in societies where there is a chronic shortage of food, which was the case in
most of the world for most of history. In fact, I just attended a
retrospective of a (now deceased) "minor artist" (possibly "folk artist" or
"primitive") who's name I promptly forgot, but I remember being impressed by
the heft of the nudes. Almost like the fertility symbols of ancient (and
modern "primitive ) peoples.
> Even after the Ideal Woman slimmed down a bit, a small chin was always
> preferable to a large jaw on a woman.
>
> The range of beauty for men was much less demanding, of course, since men
> were doing the painting (by and large). Large jaws and chins on men were
> supposed to reflect resolution and courage; on a woman, stubbornness and
> pugnacity (exactly the word I was looking for. Thanks, brain).
>
> Therefore, men with small chins could be considered weak, effeminate,
> over-bred, and too, too refained--all the things a good aristocrat should be.
I don't know. I don't think they would use those words to describe themselves
(except possible refined). Keep in mind that until the end of the 19th century
they were the leaders of society (and thought themselves so well into the
20th). Granted, they (usually?) thought that, as leaders, they had the right
to play in ways not allowed the commoners, but as caricatures they are
relatively recent. Caricatures of them in the past were very politically
motivated, and hence cannot be relied upon to accurately represent the people.
Jon "I can measure precision, but accuracy is much more difficult" Miller
Lara Hopkins
> Medical UL. Since the 1940s, we've known that gout is more likely to
> be caused by weight *loss* than by eating rich foods.
Oh yay, a nit-picking mission.
Both medicos and laypeople noted gout to be a disease primarily of the
rich a long time ago. According to one medical historian[1], Lord
Chesterfield asserted: "Gout is the distemper of a gentleman, whereas
the rheumatism is the distemper of a hackney coachman." Could diagnostic
bias/misnaming be an issue here? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced.
Morgagni (1761) lamented the absence of gout in the poor, as it hampered
anatomical studies[2]:
"As the gout is generally a disorder of the rich, and very seldom of the
poor; and the carcasses of the latter, not the former, are delivered to
anatomists; or as, if at any time the bodies of the rich are to be
opened, the viscera only are subjected to examination, for the most
part, and scarcely ever the limbs; it happens from hence, that
observations which properly relate to the gout, are far more rare in the
books of anatomists, than those of a great number of other diseases."
Most gout is idiopathic/multifactorial - hyperuricaemia (high blood uric
acid) related to genetic/hormonal defects in purine metabolism; risk
factors also include obesity and being middle-aged. Gout attacks can
then be triggered by a multitude of different things, including:
- diminished kidney function
- alcohol intake
- some medications (eg diuretics, cyclosporine)
- stress (eg illness, infection, surgery, dehydration), sudden weight
loss
- psoriasis, chemotherapy, some blood disorders and hereditary metabolic
syndromes
- a high-purine, high-protein diet
- lead poisoning: early ports and wines were frequently lead-laden,
leading to "saturnine gout"[3].
Purines are present in liver, kidney, pancreas (sweetbreads), anchovies,
sardines, mussels, bacon, all flesh foods, meat extracts, legumes,
mushrooms, asparagus, and a few other things.
So gorging and carousing aren't the whole story; neither is crash weight
loss. Gradual weight loss is said to be beneficial in preventing further
attacks.
The original assertion that the lower classes started to get more gouty
attacks when they ate more meat and fat and drank more alcohol - well,
I'm plumping for a "pretty likely" right now.
Huh. William Heberden had it pretty much right in 1802 [4]:
"The gout is derived from gouty ancestors, or is created by
intemperance, or arises from some unknown causes, which are sometimes
found in the sober and abstemious, none of whose family had previously
been afflicted with this distemper."
> Other common medical ULs:
> - gastric ulcers are caused by stress
> Most are caused by heliobactor pylorii
Not a correction but an elaboration: virtually all duodenal ulcers, and
about 70% of gastric ulcers are caused by the "helicopter bug" - at
least, H Pylori is present. Almost all of the remainder of the gastric
ulcers are caused by non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Lara
[1] http://www.anat.ucl.ac.uk/brochure/page45.htm
[2] http://www.acponline.org/cgi-bin/medquotes.pl?subject=Gout
[3] http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/xmas98/phan/phan.html
[4] http://www.acponline.org/cgi-bin/medquotes.pl?subject=Gout
Jerry Gorline
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:48:41 +0100, Lizz Holmans
> <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I suggest you go look some more.The slightly pregnant look was still
> >quite popular in the 14-15 century, as evidenced by the Arnolfini
> >painting (which is not a wedding, contrary to popular belief) painted
> >by Jan Van Eyck, who pioneered the use of oil paints.
>
> Found this one at
> http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/van_eyck/arnlfini.jpg.html.
> "Slightly pregnant"? She looks about 8.9 months gone, particularly
> with that trademark 'resting the hand on top of the lump' posture.
Notice the reduced erect image in the mirror. Here, the mirror must
be convex or protruding from the wall. A concave mirror produces a
reduced inverted image, like in a spoon. Maybe van Eyck was trying to
say that protruding is good, not bad. The artist is in the mirror
too, of course.
> >This same look is also notable in the figure of Flora in Botticelli's
> >Primaverdi--this is a rather rarer Italian example, but it is a look
> >tha Botticelli liked, for his Venus Rising from the Waves has the
> >exact same figure (not much surprise there, as it was the same model).
>
> First at
> http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botticelli/primavera.jpg.html, and
> the second at
> http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/botticelli/venus.jpg.html. Rather
> less exaggerated in the rounded tummy stakes.
And if you take the ratio of the distance from the feet to the head
and the feet to the belly button, you get about eight to five, or 1.6.
This is the Golden Ratio, definitely influenced by the ancient
Greeks. There is a story that when Michelangelo unveiled "David" he
invited all of his contemporaries. Everybody knew that he was trying
to produce Plato's ideal. When he announced "perfecti mundo?" one
critic said that the nose was too big. So he climbed up the ladder
and appeared to chip away at the nose while letting some gravel fall
that he had secretly hidden in his other hand. Michelangelo climbed
down and asked again but all were content. Notice that David's hands
are overly large[1]. But according to the story, nobody complained
about that. David also has that eight to five ratio. By the way,
thanks for the neat website. It's great for the splelling challenged.
Jerry
Mitch Barrie
> Many foreign words are "localized" when they enter a language. The
> English, being particularly insular, are particularly prone to do this, but
> other languages are not immune.
Similarly, you got yer Koeln anglicized to Cologne, Deutschland to
Germany, Wien to Vienna, Oesterreich to Austria, and, most egregiously
and bizarrely, Hannover is anglicized to Hanover (no fooling, look it
up).
How the hell we get Switzerland out of Helvetia is anyone's guess.
For whatever reason, we don't usually anglicize French place names, we
just mispronounce them. On the other hand, the French have a pretty
free hand with other folks' place names (London = Londres, England =
Angleterre, Germany, er, Deutschland = Allemagne, etc).
Mitch
--
The Urban Redneck : red...@goathill.net : Goat Hill, California
http://www.employees.org/~redneck
Lizz Holmans
<jonatha...@home.com> wrote:
>
>I would describe "almost all" nudes from the rebirth of nudes through the
>middle of the 19th century, and the vast majority through the end of the 19th
>century and even into the 20th (but how far, I am unprepared to argue) as
>"Rubenesque". Sure, there are varying degrees, but compared to what was
>painted in the 20th, they're all pretty hefty.
>
>I have heard(tm) that large is still the standard of beauty (male and female)
>in societies where there is a chronic shortage of food, which was the case in
>most of the world for most of history. In fact, I just attended a
>retrospective of a (now deceased) "minor artist" (possibly "folk artist" or
>"primitive") who's name I promptly forgot, but I remember being impressed by
>the heft of the nudes. Almost like the fertility symbols of ancient (and
>modern "primitive ) peoples.
People in Olde Times worked a *lot* harder than we do. Using up
calories was not a problem. That layer of fat was covering up quite a
bit of muscle. Even ladies worked like women. Too many people did not
get enough calories--or enough high-quality food--and for a woman to
be rather bigger than is fashionable nowadays was a sign of health as
well as wealth.
The Big Woman's last Golden Age was the Edwardian period (pre-World
War I). Lily Langtry was no frail flower. The wasp waist was achieved
by tight corsetry from a very young age, but below and above was
supposed to be bountiful.
Then that damn Coco Chanel came along and ruined it for all of us.
>I don't know. I don't think they would use those words to describe themselves
>(except possible refined). Keep in mind that until the end of the 19th century
>they were the leaders of society (and thought themselves so well into the
>20th). Granted, they (usually?) thought that, as leaders, they had the right
>to play in ways not allowed the commoners, but as caricatures they are
>relatively recent. Caricatures of them in the past were very politically
>motivated, and hence cannot be relied upon to accurately represent the people.
What made you think I was describing them as *they* would describe
themselves?
Lizz 'Only a peerage could make a Lady out of me' Holmans
Richard Chambers
>
> For whatever reason, we don't usually anglicize French place names, we
> just mispronounce them. On the other hand, the French have a pretty
> free hand with other folks' place names (London = Londres, England =
> Angleterre, Germany, er, Deutschland = Allemagne, etc).
>
>
your side of the pond. There's a certain tit-for-tat across the (English)
Channel/La Manche, particularly with the Channel Ports. The French, of
course, started it by insisting on calling Dover by the name Douvres. This
was at a time when the Brits were quietly trying to maintain the peace by
not only spelling Calais correctly, but pronouncing it correctly as Calay.
In retribution for the Douvres atrocity, some British hotheads, regrettably,
started to pronounce Calais as if it were Calaze. Then things got right out
of hand. With air travel to Manchester Airport, the French arriving there
were pronouncing the place as Mong-shestair, where the "ong" is pronounced
rather more nasally and with much less "g" than an English "ong". And it
wasn't long before they started calling Nottingham by something that sounds
like Nuttin'am. Bir-meen'am suffered a similar fate. Then Edimbourg fell to
a simultaneous spelling and pronunciation atrocity.
In a situation like this, the British always hit back even harder than they
themselves have been hit. As a Brit, I am ashamed to have to report the
Dunkerque atrocity (no, not the 1940 one), the spelling of which we changed
to Dunkirk. Then Marseilles, which until recently we pronounced Marsay, has
been changed to Marsails, although we continue to spell it the French way.
The French city of Caen has undoubtedly suffered the worst. In French, this
city is pronounced as if it were the letter C followed by a half-hearted
grunt. To English ears, C-grunt is not a viable name for a city; nobody in
England can make any sense at all of such a sound. The trouble is that there
has been no planning and organisation in our attempts to anglicise the name.
Some people try, very badly, to do it the French way as C-grunt. Others
pronounce it Cayne or Cah-en. Cayenne is quite popular too, but tends to
confuse with the pepper. I've heard Cann too, but this confused me with
Cannes, which we sometimes pronounce with an "s" and sometimes with a silent
"s".
Dick Chambers L'ids Royaume Uni. 20C, 80% nuages, gris mais minces.
Michael Kuettner
Lon Stowell <lsto...@lenny.sfrn.dnai.com> wrote in message
news:9li1cf$9i6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In article <F0Ze7.141$AY4....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net>,
> Michael Kuettner <mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
> >
> >Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:c90onts0pjncpp915...@4ax.com...
> ><snip>
> >> As long as we're indulging ourselves, *I* think it's a perceived
> >> notion that the aristocracy and royal families pass down
recognizable
> >> physical characteristics related to marrying their relatives--look
at
> >> the Hapsburg family face, for instance, and the Victorian
propensity
> >> towards hemophilia.
> >>
> >Aargh !
> >It's Habsburg [1]!
> >You recognize members of the Habsburg family by their
> >lower lip (protruding) and their ears.
> >See e.g. the Liechtensteins.
>
> Waytaminut, we were taught that the Hapsburg lip was a prominent
> upper lip that protruded well down over the upper edges of the
> lower lip.
>
Habsburgs have lower lip which is rather big and slightly sagging.
> Those of us whose ancestors came over with Norman Bates The
Conqueror
> always use the "p".
>
>
Michael 'Then his name should be Norman Pates ?' Kuettner
Mitch Barrie
> Bir-meen'am suffered a similar fate.
So how do the French pronounce it?
Joe Boswell
<dick.no_spam_p...@cwcom.net> writes
>The French, of
>course, started it by insisting on calling Dover by the name Douvres.
Hence the appetiser named in memory of the shady ladies of that port.
Michael Kuettner
> Bosch was different in many, many ways from any painter before him.
> However, his ladies were not exceptional. If I've got the Garden of
> Earthly Delights clear enough in my head (and I should, as a print of
> it hung on my wall for 25 years), Eve in the Creation panel had the
> small breasts and tummy bulge so common in works of other artists.
Also one of my favourite painters.
But I have another picture of him in mind; I'll see if I can find
it on the net.
And AFAIR the women on the right part of this triptychon is
rather well-endowed.
> >
> >> This same look is also notable in the figure of Flora in
Botticelli's
> >> Primaverdi--this is a rather rarer Italian example, but it is a
look
> >> tha Botticelli liked, for his Venus Rising from the Waves has the
> >> exact same figure (not much surprise there, as it was the same
model).
> >>
> >One of my favourite painters.
> >But AFAIK Botticelli was influences by classical art
> >(Roman and Greek).
>
> He was. He was also influenced--like most Italian artists of his
> time--by Northern European painters. There was a constant interchange
> of ideas back and forth; not only that, but artists themselves were
> very mobile.
> >
Indeed.
> >> Cranach liked slim ladies, but he was rather an exception.
> >>
> >Not exactly; there *was* a difference between German and
> >NL painters.
>
> Now that I think about it, though, Cranach's women in his work that
> shows Paris and the three Goddesses (can't think of its proper name,
> dammit) have--small breasts and definite bellies, although they are
> slim through the hips.
>
Like his 'Venus' from 1532 ?
<snip>
> It was a generalization, but you are starting Medievalism much earlier
> than I was taught to. Just a difference in education, I suppose. The
> manuscript illuminations you refer to are post-Empire, to be sure, but
> quite early to be considered purely Medieval--art of the Merovingians
> and Carolingians are very heavily Roman in influence without really
> understanding much about how the Greeks and Romans actually worked.
> Ottonian painters were starting to look around a bit.
>
Ah, then it was a misunderstanding.
Around here it's defined from the 5th till the early 16th (or late 15th)
century.
Early Middle Ages 5th to 11th century
High Middle Ages 11th to the middle of the13th century
Late Middle Ages 13th till Renaissance
How was it defined over yonder ?
> >
> >Only if you look at H. Bosch.
> >Btw. I like Van Eyck.
>
> My favorite painter is Roger Van der Weyden.
>
Another painter from the Netherlands (15th
century, IIRC ?). The plot thickens...
<Hand waving>
Wasn't he court painter in Burgundy ?
And also something to do with Bruxelles ?
</Hand waving>
<snip>
Michael "are posts about breasts on-topic ?" Kuettner
PS : And your favourite sculptor ?
(My fav. is Donatello)
Michael Kuettner
Mitch Barrie <red...@goathill.net> wrote in message
news:n8lqnt8j2tfifis92...@4ax.com...
> Jon Miller <jonatha...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Many foreign words are "localized" when they enter a language. The
> > English, being particularly insular, are particularly prone to do
this, but
> > other languages are not immune.
>
> Similarly, you got yer Koeln anglicized to Cologne,
> Deutschland to
> Germany, Wien to Vienna, Oesterreich to Austria, and, most egregiously
> and bizarrely, Hannover is anglicized to Hanover (no fooling, look it
> up).
>
You also use Styria for Steiermark and Carinthia for Kaernten, IIRC.
> How the hell we get Switzerland out of Helvetia is anyone's guess.
>
Schweiz ?
> For whatever reason, we don't usually anglicize French place names, we
> just mispronounce them. On the other hand, the French have a pretty
> free hand with other folks' place names (London = Londres, England =
> Angleterre, Germany, er, Deutschland = Allemagne, etc).
Oesterreich = Autriche.
But the Germans hit back at them by pronouncing Bordeaux Bordau
(au like in foul) and similar atrocities. Since we're a little country
and don't want any troubles we try to pronounce it correctly.
Michael "Taking the Chateau Neuf de Piss" Kuettner
Joseph M. Shair
di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk says...
<hack/>
>
For a significant % of men, having their partner
enjoy sex is a major factor in their own enjoyment
(otherwise why would women learn to "fake it"?)
Such men tend to associate attractiveness far more
with sensuality (plus intelligence and wit) than
with slenderness or bust size. Some significant %
of those men (rightly or wrongly) believe that a
woman who takes sensual pleasure in food is more
likely to take pleasure in sex.
ObPersonalObservation:
The amount of pleasure a woman receives from
having her breasts fondled is in inverse
proportion to the size of her breasts.
Joe "Will research the above
ObPersonalObservation for food." Shair
ObAlt.Usage.English:
Should that be "believes" rather than "believe",
is "percentage" singular or plural? It seemed
to me "believes" was correct, but it *looked*
so wrong...
--
Remove invisible fnord words to reply.
"May you have splendid access to breasts for the
rest of your days." 'Traditional' RHOD benediction
Richard Chambers
> "Richard Chambers" <dick.no_spam_p...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> > Bir-meen'am suffered a similar fate.
>
> So how do the French pronounce it?
>
>
I can see where you're coming from on this one; you've evidently been there
and heard the way the locals say it.
It is very difficult to portray sounds through the written word. To answer
your question, I'm going to have to do something that I've always thought
I'd never do, because it's sooooooo illiterate. Yes, just that.
Additionally, a single "g" will represent a half-sounded "g", while a double
"gg" will represent a fully sounded "g". OK, we're ready:-
USA Biir-mmingg-hhamm,
Alabama
UK Birmingham, local pronunciation Biiiiirmeeng'um ( ee as in meet)
UK, rest of Birming'am
French pronunciation Bir-meen'amm ( ee as in
meet)
(slight extra stress on the second and
third syllables)
That's about the best I can manage to answer your question.
Dick Chambers, Leeds, UK. 18C, night time.
Nathan Tenny
Joseph M. Shair <sant...@adams.fnordnet> wrote:
[on the virtues of Rubens]
>For a significant % of men, having their partner
>enjoy sex is a major factor in their own enjoyment
>(otherwise why would women learn to "fake it"?)
>Such men tend to associate attractiveness far more
>with sensuality (plus intelligence and wit) than
>with slenderness or bust size.
Cite?
I mean, I *believe* this to be true, as does, I think, every man I know.
But they all consider themselves to be in that "significant percentage",
yet there's an obvious critical mass[1] of people whose tastes run more to
stick figures and silicone[2]. I wonder, a bit, if we noble, tasteful,
enlightened men aren't in some measure engaging in the same fallacy that
leads (ObUL) 85% of Americans to believe that they're above-average
drivers.[3]
>Some significant %
>of those men (rightly or wrongly) believe [...]
>
>ObAlt.Usage.English:
> Should that be "believes" rather than "believe",
> is "percentage" singular or plural? It seemed
> to me "believes" was correct, but it *looked*
> so wrong...
The party line sez it's "believes", because "percentage" is singular (note
that you said "*a* significant [percentage]", not "many significant
percentage"). I tend to think there's room for legitimate argument, with
distant reference to the distinction between UKoGBaNIan and USAn usage for
collective nouns ("Arsenal were victorious" vs. "St. Louis was victorious").
NT
[1] By "critical mass" I mean roughly "enough to form recognizable social
tastes".
[2] Or should that be "silicones"? Can "silicone" refer to the stuff as
well as the family of plastics?
[3] Of course, depending on how you define "average", this could be true.
The guy in front of me enroute to work this morning was doing a really
astonishing job of bringing the mean down below the median.
--
Nathan Tenny | Words I carry in my pocket, where they
Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA | breed like white mice.
<nten...@qualcomm.com> | - Lawrence Durrell
Simon Slavin
Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As long as we're indulging ourselves, *I* think it's a perceived
> notion that the aristocracy and royal families pass down recognizable
> physical characteristics related to marrying their relatives--look at
> the Hapsburg family face, for instance, and the Victorian propensity
> towards hemophilia.
The expression the original poster was looking for was
'chinless wonder'. It refers to any member of the upper-classes
who is perceived as being unintelligent.
As for the accuract of the expression, I have seen people who
have receeding chins occasionally and they do seem to be more
likely to be upper-class than a normal distribution would suggest.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | I have a hunch that [] the unknown sequences
No junk email please. | of DNA [will decode into] copyright notices
| and patent protections. -- Donald E. Knuth
The French Was There.
Deborah Stevenson
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Michael Kuettner wrote:
[re Medievalism]
> Ah, then it was a misunderstanding.
> Around here it's defined from the 5th till the early 16th (or late 15th)
> century.
> Early Middle Ages 5th to 11th century
> High Middle Ages 11th to the middle of the13th century
> Late Middle Ages 13th till Renaissance
> How was it defined over yonder ?
Just in case we're genuinely risking transatlantic understanding here, I
wish to point out that not only are the time periods defined differently
across cultures, they tend to get defined quite differently from
discipline to discipline.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Christine Malcom-Dept.
>Maybe some of our British correspondents can clear this one up.
>
>Over the years, I have read/heard references to English
>aristocracy/upper-classes as having "no chins"; or more specifically,
>small, weak, receding chins. I haven't personally met many members
>of English aristocracy (well, none really), but...somehow, there
>appears to be at least a grain of truth to it. Inbreeding among
>the aristos might have happened to some extent but surely not enough
>to bring about a common "small-chin gene".
>
>appearance among Brits, but I can easily spot an Englishman by his
>face alone. In fact, the working-class ones, will often have large
>"bulldog chins", while the middle-class have their own unique facial
>structure. Any takers?
I have no light to shed on whether "chinless wonder" is meant to be
literal or metaphorical, but I think your questioning a "common
'small-chin' gene" is somewhat lateral to the issue of facial
similarity in a population
Facial structure is the result of a combination of genetic and
environmental influences. People who have occupied the same geographical
region that functions more or less as a breeding population will have
similar facial features that reflect both shared genetics (very broadly
speaking) and similar environments.
It is possible to make generalizations about genetic relationships from
the measurements of the head. The group of measurements that can be used
are often divided into those that describe the vault, the face, and the
mandible. Mandibular proportions are the most functionally constrained. As
a result, they are the least conducive to distinguishing among
groups. Thus, in theory, the purported chinlessness of the upperclass
should be their least distinctive trait.
Christine "A theory with which I concur" Malcom-Dept. of Anthropology
(cm...@harper.uchicago.edu)
____________________________________________________________________________
We *are* the neighbors, and we *don't* think - Lisa Simpson
SilverWear
deacon b. <deke...@BLOCK.generous.net> wrote in message
news:2u8qntodfo427mhcd...@4ax.com...
the girls over the years.The old Playboys & more likely Penthouse issues
(pre 1980's) showed the models with a bit more furryness in the groinal
region ;o)Now they're all shaved up.Its such a shame really :o/
> deke
>
>
>
>
SilverWear
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:10:44 GMT, Jon Miller
> <jonatha...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >I would describe "almost all" nudes from the rebirth of nudes through the
> >middle of the 19th century, and the vast majority through the end of the
19th
> >century and even into the 20th (but how far, I am unprepared to argue) as
> >"Rubenesque". Sure, there are varying degrees, but compared to what was
> >painted in the 20th, they're all pretty hefty.
> >
> >I have heard(tm) that large is still the standard of beauty (male and
female)
> >in societies where there is a chronic shortage of food, which was the
case in
> >most of the world for most of history. In fact, I just attended a
> >retrospective of a (now deceased) "minor artist" (possibly "folk artist"
or
> >"primitive") who's name I promptly forgot, but I remember being impressed
by
> >the heft of the nudes. Almost like the fertility symbols of ancient (and
> >modern "primitive ) peoples.
>
pleases him.He'd naturally bend to the tradition of the times.Sure.
>
> People in Olde Times worked a *lot* harder than we do. Using up
> calories was not a problem. That layer of fat was covering up quite a
> bit of muscle. Even ladies worked like women.
Huh? Whats that supposed to mean?
>Too many people did not
> get enough calories--or enough high-quality food--and for a woman to
> be rather bigger than is fashionable nowadays was a sign of health as
> well as wealth.
>
Mistakenly, but yes.
> The Big Woman's last Golden Age was the Edwardian period (pre-World
> War I). Lily Langtry was no frail flower. The wasp waist was achieved
> by tight corsetry from a very young age, but below and above was
> supposed to be bountiful.
>
Chicks who wore those passed out a lot from hypoxia.
> Then that damn Coco Chanel came along and ruined it for all of us.
>
Ah...you one of them "big boned" gals ain't ya?
Thats ok, I like em a little fat :o)
SilverWear
Simon Slavin <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost> wrote in message
news:B7A354DA...@10.0.1.4...
> In article <c90onts0pjncpp915...@4ax.com>,
> Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > As long as we're indulging ourselves, *I* think it's a perceived
> > notion that the aristocracy and royal families pass down recognizable
> > physical characteristics related to marrying their relatives--look at
> > the Hapsburg family face, for instance, and the Victorian propensity
> > towards hemophilia.
>
> The expression the original poster was looking for was
> 'chinless wonder'. It refers to any member of the upper-classes
> who is perceived as being unintelligent.
>
> As for the accuract of the expression, I have seen people who
> have receeding chins occasionally and they do seem to be more
> likely to be upper-class than a normal distribution would suggest.
>
for them like animals do for their young.After generation upon generation of
this, the chin, being a somewhat vestigial appendage, shrank from
dis-use.Now, perhaps you'd like to discuss microcephaly as a requirement to
be elected to Parliament :o)
SilverWear
Lara Hopkins <wa...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:1eyb5pi.110hcon1j6s2psN%wa...@iinet.net.au...
[.......]
>
> > Other common medical ULs:
> > - gastric ulcers are caused by stress
> > Most are caused by heliobactor pylorii
>
> Not a correction but an elaboration: virtually all duodenal ulcers, and
> about 70% of gastric ulcers are caused by the "helicopter bug" - at
> least, H Pylori is present. Almost all of the remainder of the gastric
> ulcers are caused by non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
>
persons.HTH
Lara Hopkins
> Lara Hopkins wrote:
> > Not a correction but an elaboration: virtually all duodenal ulcers, and
> > about 70% of gastric ulcers are caused by the "helicopter bug" - at
> > least, H Pylori is present. Almost all of the remainder of the gastric
> > ulcers are caused by non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
> Caffiene is also implicated in the formation of gastric ulcers in suceptible
> persons.
Caffeine is implicated as a symptom trigger in non-ulcer dyspepsia and
gastro-oesophageal reflux, as it increases stomach acid production and
decreases lower oesophageal sphincter pressure.
I find the evidence for caffeine as a factor in the aetiology of peptic
ulcer disease unconvincing at best.
Lara "IOW, Cite?[1]" Hopkins[2]
[1] One that's less than ten years old.
Mike Holmans
>
>Lara "IOW, Cite?[1]" Hopkins[2]
>
>[1] One that's less than ten years old.
Almost any map of the British Isles, old or new, will show you it,
just off Southampton.
Mike "the Wight stuff" Holmans
Mike Holmans
>Michael Kuettner wrote:
>>
>> [1] Why do all Anglo-Saxons write the name with a 'p' ? - pet peeve of
>> mine
>
>Many foreign words are "localized" when they enter a language. The
>English, being particularly insular, are particularly prone to do this, but
>other languages are not immune. Hapsburg has entered the English language,
>and the voiceless bilabial stop is always written 'p', while the voiced
>bilabial stop is always written 'b'. So, in English, Habsburg would be
>*wrong*. It would, of course, be okay to refer to a foreign
>place/person/etc. by its/his/her/etc. own name, but Hapsburg has become an
>English name (perhaps because of the lip, but that is purely my
>conjecture).
Well, well, well, you learn something every day, don't you?
I've always been English, as far as I know, and have lived most of my
life here in England. I haven't spent an awful lot of time researching
the Habsburgs, so it's possible I haven't caught up with the general
usage, but I don't think I've ever written "Hapsburg", which seems to
me quite obviously misspelt, except for when I just did it fifteen
words ago.
I don't think I'm now going to change the hapit of a lifetime just to
accommodate fellow-countrymen who can't speel, though.
Mike "Habsburg Lib" Holmans
Kai Henningsen
> In article <MPG.15e7467d7...@news.supernews.com>,
> Joseph M. Shair <sant...@adams.fnordnet> wrote:
> [on the virtues of Rubens]
> >For a significant % of men, having their partner
> >enjoy sex is a major factor in their own enjoyment
> >(otherwise why would women learn to "fake it"?)
> >Such men tend to associate attractiveness far more
> >with sensuality (plus intelligence and wit) than
> >with slenderness or bust size.
>
> Cite?
>
> I mean, I *believe* this to be true, as does, I think, every man I know.
> But they all consider themselves to be in that "significant percentage",
> yet there's an obvious critical mass[1] of people whose tastes run more to
> stick figures and silicone[2].
Cite for that obvious critical mass?
It's easy to show that the common fashion model is not considered ugly by
the majority of males around, but I'd think it is far harder to show that
they prefer it over other variants, or even over completely different
factors of desirability.
And you only need the first to keep the fashion industry pushing their
current ideal.
Compare a typical fashion model to a typical porn actress. Then reconsider
how much the looks of a typical fashion actress actually says about what
the males prefer.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Kai Henningsen
> Mitch Barrie <red...@goathill.net> wrote in message
> news:n8lqnt8j2tfifis92...@4ax.com...
> > How the hell we get Switzerland out of Helvetia is anyone's guess.
> >
> Schweiz ?
Svizzera? I once dug out all the four original spellings from the suiss
gov't's website, which was fairly easy to find, though I don't quite
remember the URL (though maybe Dejagoogle does - probably either here or
in aue, no promises though). Not only four very different spellings, also
several different capitalizations, *and* the official name is in neither
of those four languages - I think it was confederatio helvetica. (Thus
*.ch.)
> But the Germans hit back at them by pronouncing Bordeaux Bordau
> (au like in foul)
That one is unfamiliar.
Of course, we even have problems pronouncing our own city names. Rather
few Germans pronounce Leipzig the way the inhabitants do (very
approximately "Leibzsch"). And I wonder how many people get some of the
local names right: Coerde, pronounced with ö (o-Umlaut), vs. Coesfeld,
pronounced with a long o. Logic in names? Whoever told you that?
Lee Rudolph
>mik...@eunet.at (Michael Kuettner) wrote on 17.08.01 in <92ff7.123$565....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net>:
>
>> Mitch Barrie <red...@goathill.net> wrote in message
>> news:n8lqnt8j2tfifis92...@4ax.com...
>
>> > How the hell we get Switzerland out of Helvetia is anyone's guess.
>> >
>> Schweiz ?
>
>Svizzera?
Kanton Schwyz.
Lee "Hi-ho, Silver!" Rudolph
Joseph M. Shair
n_t_e_nn_y_@q_ual_c_o_m_m_.c_o_m says...
> In article <MPG.15e7467d7...@news.supernews.com>,
> Joseph M. Shair <sant...@adams.fnordnet> wrote:
> [on the virtues of Rubens]
> >For a significant % of men, having their partner
> >enjoy sex is a major factor in their own enjoyment
> >(otherwise why would women learn to "fake it"?)
> >Such men tend to associate attractiveness far more
> >with sensuality (plus intelligence and wit) than
> >with slenderness or bust size.
>
> Cite?
Damn, man, do you think if I had a cite this post would
have contained such a high % of weasel-words?
(I wish I could have done that in pseudo-Scottish.)
>
> I mean, I *believe* this to be true, as does, I think, every man I know.
> But they all consider themselves to be in that "significant percentage",
I think you've just provided my cite. If you add all
the people you know who believe it to all the people
they know who... and all the people I know etc. you'll
approach a % of a % of a %. (The miracle of weasel-words!)
> yet there's an obvious critical mass[1] of people whose tastes run more to
> stick figures and silicone[2].
Perhaps. It's possible though that this is a false
perception brought about by the Hollywood movie
industry. If that's all that is offered, it gives
the impression that this is the desired image no
matter what real preferences might be. Whether
this started from "the camera adds 10 pounds" or not
I don't know. Recall that in earlier movies (up to
the L70s) women tended to be slender rather than
anorexic. The stick figured women were primarily
runway models with very small breasts ("zo dat ze
clothes she would hang properly").
Remember the tempest which surrounded the appearance
of Maria de Lourdes Villiers "Mia" Farrow on her entry
into the movie scene (1959 in her father's _John Paul
Jones_ but not generally noticed until 1964 _Guns at
Batasi_ and the TV series _Peyton Place_). As far as
I recall, she was the first (and even to today the most
extremely) stick figured actress to become successful.
I doubt anyone would have described her as large breasted.
As far as I am aware (but I am not very knowledgeable
in this area) the stick figured, large breasted,
model/actress is a phenomenon of the 90s.
Just to define a few terms, YMMV:
Stick-figured, body-builder, anorexic: 0" fat at waist.
Slender: ~1/4 - 1/2"
Normal [Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!]: ~1/2 - 1"
Robust: ~1 - 2"
Rubensesque ~2 - 3"
From which we can derive waist measurements
for women (arbitrarily starting at 24"):
1/4" (+1.6") ~25.5"
1/2" (+3.1") ~27"
1" (+6.3") ~30.3"
2" (+12.6") ~36.5"
3" (+18.8") ~43"
(For men it's more complicated because most men have a pad
of fat under their stomach muscles which is not typically
found in women. [Omentum?])
> I wonder, a bit, if we noble, tasteful,
> enlightened men aren't in some measure engaging in the same fallacy that
> leads (ObUL) 85% of Americans to believe that they're above-average
> drivers.[3]
Well, *I*, for one *am* an above...
(Although perhaps not statistically since I have
had an "accident" which was almost entirely my
fault. It was caused more by failure in sense
than driving skills in that I was so sick I had
no business being out of bed, to say nothing of
being behind the wheel of a car. And I was so
sick that I didn't realize this.)
>
> >Some significant %
> >of those men (rightly or wrongly) believe [...]
> >
> >ObAlt.Usage.English:
> > Should that be "believes" rather than "believe",
> > is "percentage" singular or plural? It seemed
> > to me "believes" was correct, but it *looked*
> > so wrong...
>
> The party line sez it's "believes", because "percentage" is singular (note
> that you said "*a* significant [percentage]", not "many significant
Had I said "a" I don't think I would have had a
problem with "believes". What I said was "some
significant" which is what made it questionable
(to me). "A significant" would certainly have
had the same meaning so I thought "believes" to
be right, but couldn't convince myself. (Changing
it to "a significant" didn't occur to me.)
Anyway, thanks.
Joe "Don't confuse me with the facts." Shair
--
Remove invisible fnord words to reply.
"And some rin up hill and down dale, knapping
the chucky stanes to pieces wi' hammers, like
sae mony road-makers run daft -- they say it is
to see how the warld was made!" - Charles Dimmick
Lee Rudolph
>Damn, man, do you think if I had a cite this post would
>have contained such a high % of weasel-words?
>(I wish I could have done that in pseudo-Scottish.)
Fuckin' damn, mon, do ye fuckin' think if I fuckin' had a fuckin' cite
this fuckin' post would hae fuckin' contained such a fuckin' high % of
fuckin' weasel-worrrds? Eh?
Lee "My Name is Joe...no, wait, *your* name is Joe" Rudolph
Mitch Barrie
> Fuckin' damn, mon, do ye fuckin' think if I fuckin' had a fuckin' cite
> this fuckin' post would hae fuckin' contained such a fuckin' high % of
> fuckin' weasel-worrrds? Eh?
You mispled "fock."
deacon b.
<jonatha...@home.com> wrote:
>I have heard(tm) that large is still the standard of beauty (male and female)
>in societies where there is a chronic shortage of food, which was the case in
>most of the world for most of history.
And the current attraction to morbidly emaciated physiques is because
of the chronic shortage of cocaine?
deke
Michael Kuettner
Kai Henningsen <kaih=875GS...@khms.westfalen.de> wrote in message
news:875GS...@khms.westfalen.de...
> mik...@eunet.at (Michael Kuettner) wrote on 17.08.01 in
<92ff7.123$565....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net>:
>
> > Mitch Barrie <red...@goathill.net> wrote in message
> > news:n8lqnt8j2tfifis92...@4ax.com...
>
> > > How the hell we get Switzerland out of Helvetia is anyone's guess.
> > >
> > Schweiz ?
>
> Svizzera? I once dug out all the four original spellings from the
suiss
> gov't's website, which was fairly easy to find, though I don't quite
> remember the URL (though maybe Dejagoogle does - probably either here
or
> in aue, no promises though). Not only four very different spellings,
also
> several different capitalizations, *and* the official name is in
neither
> of those four languages - I think it was confederatio helvetica. (Thus
> *.ch.)
>
And Schwyz to Swiz to Switz is rather easily explained
(especially if you listen to a Italian or French Swiss pronouncing
the name).
No cite; just personal experience.
> > But the Germans hit back at them by pronouncing Bordeaux Bordau
> > (au like in foul)
>
> That one is unfamiliar.
>
Try Oberfranken (Northern Bavaria).
And what the Saxons (Zoenis[1]) do to the French language is
to be admired (from the point of view of a demolition expert
and from a safe distance, of course).
Boerdoe[1] ?
I can't describe it it, you've got to hear it !
> Of course, we even have problems pronouncing our own city names.
Rather
> few Germans pronounce Leipzig the way the inhabitants do (very
> approximately "Leibzsch"). And I wonder how many people get some of
the
> local names right: Coerde, pronounced with ö (o-Umlaut), vs. Coesfeld,
> pronounced with a long o.
Yes, I know. Same here in Austria.
> Logic in names? Whoever told you that?
The man who died when he ran out of breath trying to pronounce
'Llwerygghwierthyaddfgg[2]".
Michael "Oachkatzlschwoaf" Kuettner
[1] oe = umlaut; like ae and ue. I don't use the umlauts so
that I don't cause troubles in some newsreaders.
[2] Dunno the rest. That's where he gave up on the word and life.
Michael Kuettner
Deborah Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SGI.4.10.1010817...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu...
Middle Ages or Mittelalter was invented in the 16th century to coin
a term for the times between the fall of Western Rome and the
start of the Renaissance *in Europe*.
So other cultures have no point in using Middle Ages.
Take Japan. Middle Ages from 500 - 1500 ? Does it make sense ?
It might be appropriate to use 'Japan in Med. times' but 'Mediaeval
Japan' ?
How would you define it ?
If someone wants to use sloppy terminology and use 'Middle Ages'
on American or other cultures, fine with me.
But it doesn't make sense.
Michael "and don't get me started on flat earth" Kuettner
PS : I've already asked this - How do you define MA in the USA ?
deacon b.
<red...@goathill.net> wrote:
>How the hell we get Switzerland out of Helvetia is anyone's guess.
Switzerland comes from the German, while Helvetia comes from the
Latin; both mean "geometric sans-serif face".
deke
Deborah Stevenson
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Michael Kuettner wrote:
> Deborah Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SGI.4.10.1010817...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu...
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Michael Kuettner wrote:
> >
> > [re Medievalism]
actually re Time Period Terminology
> >
> > > Ah, then it was a misunderstanding.
> > > Around here it's defined from the 5th till the early 16th (or late
> 15th)
> > > century.
> > > Early Middle Ages 5th to 11th century
> > > High Middle Ages 11th to the middle of the13th century
> > > Late Middle Ages 13th till Renaissance
> > > How was it defined over yonder ?
> >
> > Just in case we're genuinely risking transatlantic understanding here,
> > I wish to point out that not only are the time periods defined
> > differently across cultures, they tend to get defined quite
> > differently from discipline to discipline.
> >
> Why ? That doesn't make sense.
I'm so postmodern I figure you've just answered your own question.
However, I wasn't referring just to medieval/renaissance here, but even
the m/r split is considered, I believe (my supporting resources are
unreachable at the moment), to be differently situated in music, drama,
and fine art. Certainly that's so with other terms for artistic
phases, such as Impressionist, and those that also have historical meaning
(medieval and renaissance have nothing on Modern for confusion value
there) can mean another, only perhaps overlapping, time period still.
> Middle Ages or Mittelalter was invented in the 16th century to coin
> a term for the times between the fall of Western Rome and the
> start of the Renaissance *in Europe*.
> So other cultures have no point in using Middle Ages.
Other cultures aren't allowed to talk about Europe? You guys are really
possessive.
> PS : I've already asked this - How do you define MA in the USA ?
It's the degree following--oh. Damned if I know--I was sticking pretty
much to "medieval" and "renaissance" in my Olde Worlde thoughts, and I'm
not on the thickest of ice even there.
Basically, I wasn't talking about anybody's middle age, but I was pointing
out that scholars of different disciplines will have different views as to
when a particular movement or time period began.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Mitch Barrie
> > Switzerland comes from the German, while Helvetia comes from the
> > Latin; both mean "geometric sans-serif face".
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrongitty, wrong. The "chinless in Belgravia" thread is
> two doors down and one floor up.
I hope this entry is noted by the judges for AFU's Best of 2001.
Mitch
Gotta go change trousers now.
Karen J. Cravens
<MeCf7.46$If5....@nreader1.kpnqwest.net>:
>PS : I've already asked this - How do you define MA in the USA ?
"One of them funny little dinky states on the East Coast."
(Well, in my part of the USA that's how.)
--
Karen J. Cravens
Lon Stowell
Kai Henningsen
> It would, of course, be okay to refer to a foreign
> place/person/etc. by its/his/her/etc. own name, but Hapsburg has become an
> English name (perhaps because of the lip, but that is purely my
> conjecture).
So, can you point to some English people named Ha*p*sburg then?
Google finds 19500 pages with Hapsburg, 66000 with Habsburg. And at least
anything on the first page of "Hapsburg" does seem to refer to the people
in Austria. Oh, and the "Habsburg" hits certainly include lots of English
language ones, too.
Oh, when I tell Google I want English pages only, it's 17100:38600. When I
additionally request .uk, it's 787:1740. (For German-language pages it's
109:15400, and many of those 109 seem to be links to English-language
pages.)
Dan Fingerman
news:Xns9101C6C9...@192.168.0.3:
I'd say that's right everywhere else outside of New England.
--
DTM :<|
Flat Ware
>
> wa...@iinet.net.au (Lara Hopkins) decided to say:
>
> >
> >Lara "IOW, Cite?[1]" Hopkins[2]
> >
> >[1] One that's less than ten years old.
>
> Almost any map of the British Isles, old or new, will show you it,
> just off Southampton.
>
D.M. Procida
> People in Olde Times worked a *lot* harder than we do. Using up
> calories was not a problem. That layer of fat was covering up quite a
> bit of muscle. Even ladies worked like women.
Ladies didn't even dress themselves. The only thing ladies had to do was
to learn how to make entertaining conversation and how to play the
harpsichord or piano for their husband's guests.
D.M. Procida
--
A multipart copy & paste encyclopaedia of popular music for you to keep
45. The Rolling Stones in descending order of intelligence: Mick Jagger,
Charlie Watts, Keith Richards, Bill Wyman, Ronnie Wood. Ronnie Wood is
exceptionally unintelligent.
Lizz Holmans
Procida) wrote:
>Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> People in Olde Times worked a *lot* harder than we do. Using up
>> calories was not a problem. That layer of fat was covering up quite a
>> bit of muscle. Even ladies worked like women.
>
>Ladies didn't even dress themselves. The only thing ladies had to do was
>to learn how to make entertaining conversation and how to play the
>harpsichord or piano for their husband's guests.
The harpsichord and piano hadn't even been invented in the time period
I'm talking about.
And ladies may have had assistance dressing, but they still either
walked or rode horses everywhere they went (and they did travel; many
went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land); hunted for sport; were expected
to be able to run a household, which means they had to teach servants
they way they wanted things done, which means they had to be able to
*do* such things; bore children willy nilly; span, wove cloth, and
made clothing; and made their own fun. Not many modern women have to
work as hard as any medieval lady just to maintain herself and her
family. Very few ladies had the sort of wealth that allowed complete
idleness.
Fat was attractive because it was rare, in the same way blondes are
considered lovely by most of Western society because it is rare. To
become fat one has to take in fewer calories than one expends. For
humans who had, for the most part, no conveniences except other
humans, this was not easy.
Lizz 'I would rather have a good vacuum cleaner' Holmans
Keith Willis
<dick.no_spam_p...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>It is very difficult to portray sounds through the written word. To answer
>your question, I'm going to have to do something that I've always thought
>I'd never do, because it's sooooooo illiterate. Yes, just that.
>Additionally, a single "g" will represent a half-sounded "g", while a double
>"gg" will represent a fully sounded "g". OK, we're ready:-
>
>USA Biir-mmingg-hhamm,
>Alabama
>UK Birmingham, local pronunciation Biiiiirmeeng'um ( ee as in meet)
>UK, rest of Birming'am
>French pronunciation Bir-meen'amm ( ee as in
>meet)
> (slight extra stress on the second and
>third syllables)
Might I, if it doesn't threaten to drag this thread off into the
bushes and give it a damned good thrashing, recommend a reading of the
material to be found at
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~laker/ipa/index.html which makes all this
sort of thing a great deal less... well... subjective.
/Kith/ "How do I sound?" /WIllIs/
--
Welcome to Folklore group of singing and dancing "AFU"
Jim Segrave
Alice Faber <fab...@rcn.com> wrote:
>In article <99stnto3ai7uut7gl...@4ax.com>, deacon b.
><deke...@BLOCK.generous.net> wrote:
>
>two doors down and one floor up.
That doesn't change the odd, no matter which door Monty opens. I can
prove it.
Jon Miller
> > Other common medical ULs:
> > - gastric ulcers are caused by stress
> > Most are caused by heliobactor pylorii
>
> Not a correction but an elaboration: virtually all duodenal ulcers, and
> about 70% of gastric ulcers are caused by the "helicopter bug" - at least,
> H Pylori is present. Almost all of the remainder of the gastric ulcers are
> caused by non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
In some sources (which I haven't checked, I'm just quoting them) to the tune
of 10-20 thousand deaths per year (in the US).
Jon Miller
Jon Miller
> Then Marseilles, which until recently we pronounced Marsay, has been changed
> to Marsails, although we continue to spell it the French way.
That's understandable. You're confusing it with Marseilles, Illinois. Rhymes
with Versailles.
Jon "and what ails you?" Miller
SilverWear
Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bul1otkmuhl0440g6...@4ax.com...
{.......}> Fat was attractive because it was rare, in the same way blondes
are
> considered lovely by most of Western society because it is rare.
*blink* Huh??? Get out of the house much dear?
>To
> become fat one has to take in fewer calories than one expends.
I think you got that bass ackwards hon :o)
>For
> humans who had, for the most part, no conveniences except other
> humans, this was not easy.
>
Sure it was.They did the work and you threw them the scraps. Its called
surfs and lords.The head guy eats first.
> Lizz 'I would rather have a good vacuum cleaner' Holmans
>
Waiting for a riding vacuum cleaner like Roseanne ,huh?
>
>
Lee Ayrton
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Jon Miller wrote:
> Richard Chambers wrote:
>
> > Then Marseilles, which until recently we pronounced Marsay, has been changed
> > to Marsails, although we continue to spell it the French way.
>
> That's understandable. You're confusing it with Marseilles, Illinois. Rhymes
> with Versailles.
Oh, hell, I'm always up for a stupid place-names thread, and since I just
saw some interstate highway names float by, I knew that this was coming.
Versailles, Connecticut, located on the mighty Shetucket River, was once
the location of the Ver family's knitting mill, now not much more than a
dot on a map and a weedy crossroads. But late in the middle of the 19th
century the Ver family sold the place, lock, stock and carding looms to
the Sales family, which operated the mill for many years and appended
their name to it, making it the Ver Sales Mills. The name stuck. Early
in the 20th century the local authorities decided (for reasons unrecorded)
to change the spelling to "Versailles", but the old way of saying it
remained "versales".
No, I'm not trolling.
Viv
:jonatha...@home.com (Jon Miller) wrote on 17.08.01 in <3B7D3D32...@home.com>:
:
:> It would, of course, be okay to refer to a foreign
:> place/person/etc. by its/his/her/etc. own name, but Hapsburg has become an
:> English name (perhaps because of the lip, but that is purely my
:> conjecture).
:
:So, can you point to some English people named Ha*p*sburg then?
My Oxford Companion to British History agrees with you on the
correctness of Ha*b*sburg. However, considering that at the time the
Habsburgs arrived on the British commonality's radar spelling still
left much to be desired in the standardisation department, the b/p
confusion is easily explained. This may also have something to do
with a large distinction in the relative plosiveness of 'p' and 'b' in
English, whereas to my ears the germanic plosiveness of 'b' is much
closer to that of 'p', hence a possible source of confusion. Also the
'bs' consonantal combination strikes me as an unusual one in English,
whereas 'ps' is quite common.
I would expect, if I got pedantic about the pronunciation 'Habsburg'
in a pub conversation (using anglophonic plosive weightings for the
'b's), either incomprehension or correction by a self appointed
know-all git, because "everybody knows" that it's 'Hapsburg'.
Viv
--
...the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you
realize...
something is FUCKED-UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death,
destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and
the Ice Capades. [George Carlin disapproves]
Maggie Newman
>
>Sure it was.They did the work and you threw them the scraps. Its called
>surfs and lords.The head guy eats first.
>
And all this time I thought surf and turf was fine dining. I should have
been asking for a lord?
Maggie "once knew a turf accountant at Lord's" Newman
Dr.Huggy Bear Phd.
Maggie Newman <smne...@gsbfac.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:SHyg7.311$N4.3...@news.uchicago.edu...
> SilverWear <te...@too.net> wrote:
> >
> >Sure it was.They did the work and you threw them the scraps. Its called
> >surfs and lords.The head guy eats first.
> >
>
> And all this time I thought surf and turf was fine dining. I should have
> been asking for a lord?
>
D'OH!
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> I have never come across any material about a common facial
> appearance among Brits, but I can easily spot an Englishman by his
> face alone. In fact, the working-class ones, will often have large
> "bulldog chins", while the middle-class have their own unique facial
> structure. Any takers?
Check out the following and tell me where you place me.
http://www.physics.ccsu.edu/dimmick.html
Over 1000 years of British ancestry.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Michael
> Check out the following and tell me where you place me.
>
> http://www.physics.ccsu.edu/dimmick.html
>
> Over 1000 years of British ancestry.
>
> Charles Wm. Dimmick
Not particularly British at all. You could walk down my Mid-Western USA
street and 'pass'. (Unless you wear a bowler)
Michael
I have three e-mail addresses :
mitc...@image-link.com mitc...@att.net mitc...@home.com
If one doesn't work, well...
em
> "Charles Wm. Dimmick" wrote:
>
> > Check out the following and tell me where you place me.
> >
> > http://www.physics.ccsu.edu/dimmick.html
> >
> > Over 1000 years of British ancestry.
> >
> > Charles Wm. Dimmick
>
> Not particularly British at all. You could walk down my Mid-Western USA
> street and 'pass'. (Unless you wear a bowler)
>
Heh. Shows you how silly or subjective this is. I'd have placed him
in Surrey, England (or at least the South East), but that's purely
because I know of people in my locality who share many similar features
with Charles.
How do you get to be an expert on who looks British and who doesn't?
--
em 'cornish, irish and english, or piecemeal'
Michael Kuettner
>
> On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
You should have inserted handwaving here.
This sentence is simply meaningless.
Of course there's no clear-cut break between artistic phases.
But what has that got to do with my question how the term
"Middle Ages" is defined by Merkins ?
> > Middle Ages or Mittelalter was invented in the 16th century to coin
> > a term for the times between the fall of Western Rome and the
> > start of the Renaissance *in Europe*.
> > So other cultures have no point in using Middle Ages.
>
I thought it was polite over here to indicate when one snips
part of a post ?
> Other cultures aren't allowed to talk about Europe? You guys are
really
> possessive.
>
Oh - a smartass remark. Then of course we don't indicate a snip.
Michael "snip rest" Kuettner
deacon b.
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
>Over 1000 years of British ancestry.
Beg pardon. sir, but I don't think you know that.
If you figure 20 years to the generation, that's 50 generations, which
means 2^50 great-whatever-grandparents. It would be a non-trivial task
to determine that each of them was British.
And that's assuming you know who your parents are, and they knew who
their parents were, etc. through all those generations. Obviously, a
lot of people are mistaken about the identify of their father.
And a lot of them are even mistaken about the identity of their
mother. It's not uncommon to hear of people learning in their 50s, 60s
and later that they were adopted; consequently, one might assume that
some people *never* learn that they were adopted.
But if you say it's true, I'll believe it.
deacon "and three other things before breakfast, too" b.
Gerald Belton
<deke...@BLOCK.generous.net> wrote:
>If you figure 20 years to the generation, that's 50 generations, which
That's quite an assumption, just to start with.
>means 2^50 great-whatever-grandparents.
And there's another... you're assuming that no ancestor is represented
in more than one branch of the tree. This is highly unlikely, given
enough generations.
Besides, would ALL of his ancestors have to be British for him to
claim 1000 years of British ancestry?
Gerald
--
Newly redesigned website:
http://www.beltonphoto.com
Deborah Stevenson
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Michael Kuettner wrote:
> Deborah Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SGI.4.10.1010818...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu...
> >
> > However, I wasn't referring just to medieval/renaissance here, but
> > even the m/r split is considered, I believe (my supporting resources
> > are unreachable at the moment), to be differently situated in music,
> > drama, and fine art. Certainly that's so with other terms for
> > artistic phases, such as Impressionist, and those that also have
> > historical meaning
> > (medieval and renaissance have nothing on Modern for confusion value
> > there) can mean another, only perhaps overlapping, time period still.
> >
> You should have inserted handwaving here.
No need; it's not guesswork, it's elaboration of my statement about time
period terminology.
> This sentence is simply meaningless.
Which one? I think we're doing a bit of talking past each other for no
particular reason, Michael--I can't tell whether you're making a little
self-referential postmodern joke there or are referring to one of my
sentences above, and I think perhaps you've been misreading my meaning as
well.
> Of course there's no clear-cut break between artistic phases.
No, that's not my point--my point is that the term "medieval" will
translate to different years depending on what you're talking about.
That's why I made the point about my post being about terminology for
different periods rather than being about the term "Middle Ages."
> But what has that got to do with my question how the term
> "Middle Ages" is defined by Merkins ?
Beats me; when did you ask such a question? I only saw a question where
you asked London-living Lizz Holmans, who'd used the term "medieval," how
"was it defined over yonder?" I wasn't clear where "over yonder" was and
I thought by "it" you had meant the term she employed, so I thought it
useful to point out that "it" might have depended in what context she was
using "it."
> I thought it was polite over here to indicate when one snips
> part of a post ?
I don't think the default assumption is that the quoted material is whole,
and silent editing is certainly widespread (I just checked several other
posts in this thread to verify). I find it cleans up a longer post, sort
of like removing the paper cups of the chocolates one has removed from the
box.
I certainly haven't performed any elisions with the intention of changing
your meaning, and I apologize if you feel you've been misrepresented in my
quotes of you.
> Oh - a smartass remark. Then of course we don't indicate a snip.
Smartass remarks should be snippy enough in their own right.
Deborah Stevenson
(stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu)
Lizz Holmans
<stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>Beats me; when did you ask such a question? I only saw a question where
>you asked London-living Lizz Holmans, who'd used the term "medieval," how
>"was it defined over yonder?" I wasn't clear where "over yonder" was and
>I thought by "it" you had meant the term she employed, so I thought it
>useful to point out that "it" might have depended in what context she was
>using "it."
I tell you how I was defining 'Medieval' in the context of art history
only--medieval art, for me and my professor, started about 900 C.E.
Before that Western European art was still heavily influenced by
Graeco-Roman Classicalism, only with a very poor understanding of how
the original art actually worked. Doesn't mean it wasn't beautiful--at
least some of it was. Some of it was downright bad. Just because an
artwork is old doesn't make it good.
Medievalism in art started when the art became more original, less
bound by misunderstood Romanism, and developed its own themes and
iconography.
This is *only* an art historical perspective on the Middle Ages.
Historical history is much more easily defined.
Your definitions may vary.
>
>I certainly haven't performed any elisions with the intention of changing
>your meaning, and I apologize if you feel you've been misrepresented in my
>quotes of you.
I generally snip without notification, only for bandwidth
consideration. I've never felt the need to bring this to anyone's
attention in the 12 years or so I've been posting to various kinds of
'nets, nor have I expected anyone to notify me when they've snipped my
posts, as long as the meaning hasn't been radically altered.
Your snippage may vary.
Lizz 'not getting into a c*rc*mc*s**n thread' Holmans
Joseph Michael Bay
>Besides, would ALL of his ancestors have to be British for him to
>claim 1000 years of British ancestry?
Say, could you count the entire lifespans of all your ancestors?
--
Joe Bay
Stanford University
Cancer Biology Program
CERTIFYED MICROS~1 SYSTEMS ENJINEAR
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> Serf, surf.You wanna split hairs?
That's 'bunnies', damn it!
CWD
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> Oh, hell, I'm always up for a stupid place-names thread, and since I just
> saw some interstate highway names float by, I knew that this was coming.
> Versailles, Connecticut, located on the mighty Shetucket River, was once
> the location of the Ver family's knitting mill, now not much more than a
> dot on a map and a weedy crossroads. But late in the middle of the 19th
> century the Ver family sold the place, lock, stock and carding looms to
> the Sales family, which operated the mill for many years and appended
> their name to it, making it the Ver Sales Mills. The name stuck. Early
> in the 20th century the local authorities decided (for reasons unrecorded)
> to change the spelling to "Versailles", but the old way of saying it
> remained "versales".
For those of you playing along at home: Versailles is a village
within the town of Sprague, CT, only nobody lives in Sprague. They
all live in Baltic or Hanover, which are also villages in Sprague.
And maybe 40-50 of them live in Versaille, and another dozen in
Versille Station.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Jeff Lanam
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>This is *only* an art historical perspective on the Middle Ages.
>Historical history is much more easily defined.
>
Not necessarily. The folks over in soc.history.medieval tend
to go from 500 to 1500 AD. The phrase "Dark Ages" is a no-no. From
the FAQ:
soc.history.medieval is an unmoderated newsgroup for the discussion of
the historic period known as the Middle Ages. For the purposes of this
group, the term "Middle Ages" is interpreted broadly as the period of
European History ranging from the fall of the Western Roman Empire up
to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the beginnings of European
overseas expansion. This corresponds roughly to the thousand years
from about 500 AD to 1500 AD.
Of course "fall of Rome" is contentious, too. Applying "medieval" to
non-European history is common; I've seen it used about Japan
in particular. I can't remember what the usual period is.
Jeff Lanam
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Fat was attractive because it was rare, in the same way blondes are
>considered lovely by most of Western society because it is rare. To
>become fat one has to take in fewer calories than one expends. For
>humans who had, for the most part, no conveniences except other
>humans, this was not easy.
>
s/fewer/more/
You're right, however, particularly when you consider the difficulties
in storing food. People at a lot at harvest time because by the time
spring rolled around, the cupboards would be bare. Clothing was
made to expand and contract as the waistline did.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> >Over 1000 years of British ancestry.
>
> Beg pardon. sir, but I don't think you know that.
>
> If you figure 20 years to the generation, that's 50 generations, which
> means 2^50 great-whatever-grandparents. It would be a non-trivial task
> to determine that each of them was British.
1. I forgot to add: over 1000 years of other ancestry also.
2. The British Isles were a melting pot for far longer than
the U.S. of A. was. Among my British ancestry are people from
Scotland, Wales, Norway, France, Netherlands, Denmark, North
Germany, and Ireland. Funny thing is: my non-British ancestry
includes the same countries.
3. Collecting ancestors can be a lot cheaper than collecting
coins.
4. My family is like the sweet potato plant.
Charles Wm. 'best part underground' Dimmick
Michael Kuettner
<snip>
> I tell you how I was defining 'Medieval' in the context of art history
> only--medieval art, for me and my professor, started about 900 C.E.
> Before that Western European art was still heavily influenced by
> Graeco-Roman Classicalism, only with a very poor understanding of how
> the original art actually worked. Doesn't mean it wasn't beautiful--at
> least some of it was. Some of it was downright bad. Just because an
> artwork is old doesn't make it good.
>
> Medievalism in art started when the art became more original, less
> bound by misunderstood Romanism, and developed its own themes and
> iconography.
>
> This is *only* an art historical perspective on the Middle Ages.
> Historical history is much more easily defined.
>
> Your definitions may vary.
>
clear[1].
But how is the Irish ornamental art (Celtic influences) classified ?
Michael "nosy person" Kuettner
[1] It seems to me that the definition of Europe in historical
disciplines is restricted to Western Europe (UKoGBaNI, France
and Italy). Is this true ?
Michael Kuettner
>
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Michael Kuettner wrote:
>
> > Deborah Stevenson <stev...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> >
news:Pine.SGI.4.10.1010818...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu...
> > >
> > I thought it was polite over here to indicate when one snips
> > part of a post ?
>
> I don't think the default assumption is that the quoted material is
whole,
> and silent editing is certainly widespread (I just checked several
other
> posts in this thread to verify). I find it cleans up a longer post,
sort
> of like removing the paper cups of the chocolates one has removed from
the
> box.
>
> I certainly haven't performed any elisions with the intention of
changing
> your meaning, and I apologize if you feel you've been misrepresented
in my
> quotes of you.
No harm done.
(The part you snipped expanded my point why it's no use to
define "Middle Ages" across cultures - IMO).
Michael " " Kuettner
Lizz Holmans
<mik...@eunet.at> wrote:
>
>>
>Thank you. If you restrict Europe to Western Europe it becomes
>clear[1].
>But how is the Irish ornamental art (Celtic influences) classified ?
As Celtic art.
>
>[1] It seems to me that the definition of Europe in historical
>disciplines is restricted to Western Europe (UKoGBaNI, France
>and Italy). Is this true ?
No, I don't think so. I know, in limiting my studies to Western
Europe, I've studied art from Germany, the Low Countries, Spain,
Scandinavia, Greece, and Russia, as well as the three you name. And
was expected to know about those for the test.
This isn't AFU territory any longer, is it? I would be happy to
continue in e-mail, but I don't think we need delight the masses any
further, unless it's by popular demand.
Lizz 'I don't hear any elephants' Holmans
Kerro
A very dignified-looking chap, Charles, but I would have picked you
for an American. ("How does he do it?", they're all asking....)
Kerro
Alastair Rae
Britain has only existed for 300 years. Where'd you get the other 700?
--
Alastair Rae, London, Europe.
Remove NOSPAM from my email address to reply.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employers.
deacon b.
Belton) wrote:
>Besides, would ALL of his ancestors have to be British for him to
>claim 1000 years of British ancestry?
Uh, because otherwise, it would be 1000 years of MIXED ancestry?
deke
deacon b.
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
>2. The British Isles were a melting pot for far longer than
>the U.S. of A. was.
Unquestionably.
The United States of America is a *political* entity, that has only
been in existance since the 18th century.
The British Isles is a *geographical* entity that has been in
existance considerably longer.
Why is it that talking about "melting pot" won't make Miss Grundy
blink, much less blush, but talking of "getting the hots for strange
stuff" will get a kid kicked out of school for a couple of days?
deke