Generic Villain |
Here's a fun misconception: the child's nursery rhyme "Ring Around the Rosie" is not about the Black Death/bubonic plague that swept Europe in the Middle Ages. The verse best-known in the US is just one of many variations, and it was only in the 20th century that people decided to connect that particular version with the Black Death.
Lyrax |
Here's a fun misconception: the child's nursery rhyme "Ring Around the Rosie" is not about the Black Death/bubonic plague that swept Europe in the Middle Ages. The verse best-known in the US is just one of many variations, and it was only in the 20th century that people decided to connect that particular version with the Black Death.
Hmmm... that sounds tasty. Do you have some sauce for that dish?
Er, I mean source. I must be hungry.Generic Villain |
Hmmm... that sounds tasty. Do you have some sauce for that dish?
Er, I mean source. I must be hungry.
Also from this Source:
"From a purely historical standpoint, there were already difficulties in attributing the rhyme as far back as the 14th century. There are no references to this rhyme in contemporary literature, artwork, or the like that I have been able to discover. The same goes for the 17th century."
"There are also problems with the interpretation itself. First, a red mark is not a sign of the plague; red marks are seen in a variety of other infectious diseases (rubella being perhaps the best known), but not in either variety (bubonic or pneumonic) of plague. Secondly, both explanations of the third line are problematic. Plague victims were not cremated--not in 1347-50, and not in 1665-6. Cremation is a relatively recent practice in Western Europe, even when large numbers of dead were involved. (3). The other interpretation, involving sneezing, is a problem because sneezing was associated only with the pneumonic version of the plague, which did not represent the majority of cases."
"The earliest published version is in Kate Greenaway's Mother Goose , (1881). It goes as follows:
Ring-a-ring o' roses,
A pocket full of posies,
Hush! hush! hush! hush!
We're all tumbled down"
cynarion |
...a red mark is not a sign of the plague; red marks are seen in a variety of other infectious diseases (rubella being perhaps the best known), but not in either variety (bubonic or pneumonic) of plague.
Random aside:
When I was a kid I always heard 'mnemonic' plague rather than 'pneumonic'. I guess that counts as a sort of mondegreen. But it does beg the question of what 'mnemonic plague' would do... : s
LazarX |
Popular American misconception.
The Rebellion of Texas was a fight for freedom. Actually the issue that kicked off the Texas Revolt was Mexico's decision to end slavery. The United States was the last nation in the Western Hemisphere to free it's slaves.
Texas remained an independent nation because the United States refused to annex it for several years. They were hard ones as the government was in a perpetual state of broke, and sold off large swaths of territory for hard cash. When Texas was finally admitted to the Union, a small strip was inconveniently located above the Mason Dixon line. It was removed and grafted to Oklahoma (creating the Panhandle) so that Texas could be admitted as a slave state as per the terms of the Missouri Compromise.
J. Christopher Harris |
Popular American misconception.
The Rebellion of Texas was a fight for freedom. Actually the issue that kicked off the Texas Revolt was Mexico's decision to end slavery.
A fight for freedom, no. A fight over Mexico's decision to end slavery, no. Mexican law didn't change concerning slavery. It was outlawed when they became independent from Spain. They just didn't really care what went on concerning slaves in Texas. The revolution was more to do with the way the Mexican gov't kept rewriting the details of the land deeds they'd negotiated with the new settlers. Quite a few of them got swept up in trying to figure out which horse to back when the state of Mexican politics devolved into a power struggle between the existing body and Gen Santa Anna. Quite a few of them backed Santa Anna, based on his statements that he would honor the deeds as written, but then once he'd taken power he changed his mind. That is what set peoples' hair on fire.
Gark the Goblin |
My understanding is that the Mexican government allowed Anglo proto-Texans to settle the area on two conditions:
1) That they convert to Roman Catholicism;
2) That they free their slaves.
The proto-Texans agreed--with their fingers crossed.
That's what I was lerned in my History class. Our children is lerning!
<Restrains spelling/grammar-Nazism.>
Shadowborn |
Gark the Goblin wrote:So, anyone else hear about how Shakes-a-spear was bisexual? (That is, whether or not it's true?)It would be extremely difficult for us to determine absent him being so kind as to tell us, which he was not. He did marry very quickly, possibly to make Anne Hathaway an "honest woman" as was common right up into the 50s for any lady that got pregnant. Shakespeare moved away from her to London fairly early on, which could be read as a signal of deliberate estrangement but also wouldn't be unusual for a man trying to advance his career at the time. If he was like most men of the era, he probably slept around on her while there.
Was he into guys in addition to, or instead of, women? Maybe. He wrote a lot of love sonnets addressed to a male subject, which might have been intended just for himself or for as special friend or two but got published anyway and perhaps without his permission. Whether this is erotic love or simple affection can be extremely hard to determine. Up until the past century, it was very common for even the straightest of men to use rather gushy, romantic language to refer to their male intimates. The second edition to the sonnets, published when the Bard was feeding worms, flipped the male pronouns to female which admits that even back then people wondered.
Personally my guess is he was probably bisexual since it's a bit hard to believe that a guy even from the uninhibited Elizabethan era would write such homoeroticism without having at least some personal interest in the subject matter.
Of course, one of the pitfalls of analyzing literature is the inevitable viewing of it through chronocentric eyes. The question I have to ask is: What difference does it make? The man is dead; his work is immortal.
The Fair Young Man
Sonnets 1-126 seem to be addressed to an unnamed male friend considerably younger than the poet. At first (1-17) the poet seems driven or commissioned to urge this fellow to marry and breed. But the interpersonal friendship grows in intensity, and separation causes grief. The Young Man belongs to the upper class, is more than handsome, and is somewhat given to wantonness. We end up with true love poems here, causing commentators to fret about whether this was a homosexual relationship or if Elizabethan men simply expressed close friendship in this sort of language. Ultimately, the gender of addressee becomes irrelevant given the intensity of the poetic meditations, and so the sonnets have become a typical gift book for lovers of all persuasions.
Generic Villain |
Ancient Romans certainly were fond of the ol' binge-and-purge, but they DIDN'T do it in a vomitorium.
You know what's disturbing? I had a professor teach me this as fact in a world history class. He also thought that the rhyme "Ring Around the Rosie" was indeed about the Black Death, and that one in every five miles of US insterstate highways had to be straight so that planes could land on them during emergencies. None of these "facts" are true, and yet he oft-handedly mentioned them during class.
I privately approached him later to point out that he was mistaken. Of course, being an older guy who had spent his life travelling and learning (he really was very intelligent), he didn't believe me. I gathered quite a bit of info for him proving he was mistaken, but I still don't think he believed some kid could be correct where he wasn't.
It's amazing how insidious these misconceptions/urban legends are. People will believe them without any proof or evidence, yet when you try teaching them the truth, they outright refuse to hear you out. Something I've experienced multiple times. And don't get me wrong, I'm susceptible to believing myths as well, but the difference is, when someone points out that I'm mistaken, I try to be open-minded about it.
Just for fun, here are some of my favorite (most despised) myths:
-Men think about sex once every six seconds. (Sexist nonsense - I retort with "yeah, and women think about nagging once every six seconds" whenever I hear this)
-Humans only use 10% of their brains. (Really? Then if I cut out the other 90%, you'll be fine right?)
-***** is the most poisonous animal in the world. (Venom affects different animals in different ways, and the only way to see what's most dangerous to humans is through first-hand experimentation)
-The human body immediately loses ***** grams upon death, thus proving there's a soul. (You can thank Dr. Duncan MacDougall and his utterly inconclusive experiments for this one)
-If you let a human tooth/steak soak in Coke overnight, it will dissolve. (No it won't)
Freehold DM |
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:You know what's disturbing? I had a professor teach me this as fact in a world history class. He also thought that the rhyme "Ring Around the Rosie" was indeed about the Black Death, and that one in every 5 miles of US insterstate highways had to be straight so that planes could land on them during emergencies. None of these "facts" are true, and yet he oft-handedly mentioned them during class.Ancient Romans certainly were fond of the ol' binge-and-purge, but they DIDN'T do it in a vomitorium.
Hook us up with the facts, then!
Just for fun, here are some of my favorite (most despised) myths:-Men think about sex once every six seconds. (Sexist nonsense - I retort with "yeah, and women think about nagging once every six seconds" whenever I hear this)
-Humans only use 10% of their brains. (Really? Then if I cut out the other 90%, you'll be fine right?)
-***** is the most poisonous animal in the world. (Venom affects different animals in different ways, and the only way to see what's most dangerous to humans is through first-hand experimentation)
-The human body immediately loses ***** grams upon death, thus proving there's a soul. (You can thank Dr. Duncan MacDougall and his utterly inconclusive experiments for this one)
-If you let a human tooth/steak soak in Coke overnight, it will dissolve. (No it won't)
Some of these are my favorites as well. Where was the first one disproven? I know it's not true, but I can't quite recall where it was disproven. I think the brain percentage thing refers to active use as opposed to passive use...I'm not sure. There are always numbers thrown around on that one, but in terms of the removing the other 90%, there is a lot of the human body that we don't actively use and removing that might kill us due to copious amounts of blood loss and general infection issues. In terms of the venom issue, I *think* that one relates to the type and amount of venom being injected as well as the overall lethality by weight of the creature vs. the weight of the average human being. Then again, some animals and people have immunities, but I'm not going to test that out first hand(although my ex girlfriend found out she was highly resistant to snake venom at a young age when she was bit). The last two are old favorites that have been disproven time and time again.
Generic Villain |
Some of these are my favorites as well. Where was the first one disproven? I know it's not true, but I can't quite recall where it was disproven.
It's not so much disproven, as never proven to begin with. I mean think about it: you'd have to literally follow a sample size of men around 24/7, recording whenever they think about sex. There's no mind-reading machine that can tell you when someone has thought about sex (and most guys don't become aroused by just thinking about sex - at least, not immediately). This one is just too ridiculous to even try proving, much less disproving.
I think the brain percentage thing refers to active use as opposed to passive use...I'm not sure. There are always numbers thrown around on that one, but in terms of the removing the other 90%, there is a lot of the human body that we don't actively use and removing that might kill us due to copious amounts of blood loss and general infection issues.
Here's the best way to look at it: you don't use 100% of the muscles in your body at all times. In fact, sitting here typing, I'm only using a small subset of them. Yet, over the course of a day, I'll end up using most/all of my muscles. The brain works the same way - different tasks use different areas of the brain. This "fact" is typically brought out to support theories of psychic power.
In terms of the venom issue, I *think* that one relates to the type and amount of venom being injected as well as the overall lethality by weight of the creature vs. the weight of the average human being. Then again, some animals and people have immunities, but I'm not going to test that out first hand(although my ex girlfriend found out she was highly resistant to snake venom at a young age when she was bit).
That's the thing - it can be very difficult to predict what effect venom will have on an organism without actually injecting said venom into said organism. There was a study where cultured human heart cells were exposed to several snake venoms in an effort to determine their lethality, though clearly not all snakes were tested. Outside of tests like these, there's really no way to know what venom will do to you, your girlfriend, your dog, etc. Oh, and on while I'm on this subject: the daddy-long-legs spider is NOT the most poisonous spider in the world, despite having fangs too small to penetrate human skin.
Doodlebug Anklebiter |
Ancient Romans certainly were fond of the ol' binge-and-purge, but they DIDN'T do it in a vomitorium.
I am sad that this thread seems to have puttered out. :(
Vomit Guy missed his cue. :(
[Ahem]
Blllllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggg(cou gh*cough)ggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
[Washes face]
Readerbreeder |
I had a professor teach me this as fact in a world history class. He also thought that the rhyme "Ring Around the Rosie" was indeed about the Black Death, and that one in every five miles of US insterstate highways had to be straight so that planes could land on them during emergencies. None of these "facts" are true, and yet he oft-handedly mentioned them during class.
Did he also claim that Columbus sailed west to prove the world was round? That's one of my personal favorites...
Crimson Jester |
Generic Villain wrote:I had a professor teach me this as fact in a world history class. He also thought that the rhyme "Ring Around the Rosie" was indeed about the Black Death, and that one in every five miles of US insterstate highways had to be straight so that planes could land on them during emergencies. None of these "facts" are true, and yet he oft-handedly mentioned them during class.Did he also claim that Columbus sailed west to prove the world was round? That's one of my personal favorites...
I had a teacher do that, I got in trouble correcting him in class until the Vice Principle got a chance to talk to me. Then I got a new teacher who wasn't ignorant. Messed my whole schedule up but I did not have to deal with him for two years.
Generic Villain |
I had a teacher do that, I got in trouble correcting him in class until the Vice Principle got a chance to talk to me. Then I got a new teacher who wasn't ignorant. Messed my whole schedule up but I did not have to deal with him for two years.
One thing I can't stand is people who assume, just because of their age/experience/education, that they are infallible. It's funny too, because study after study has shown that the more educated someone is, the more likely they are to fall for scams (pyramid schemes for example). Pride goes before the fall.
LazarX |
Crimson Jester wrote:5. Cinderella Wore Glass Slippers
Ask anyone and they'll tell you that Cinderella wore glass slippers to the ball, but historians say that part of the legend isn't true.Just that part? )
You do understand that Cinderella is a fairy tale and not a historical document? That's the point of the glass slippers they're magical creations, shaped precisely for her feet alone, hence the resolution process at the climax.
Crimson Jester |
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:You do understand that Cinderella is a fairy tale and not a historical document? That's the point of the glass slippers they're magical creations, shaped precisely for her feet alone, hence the resolution process at the climax.Crimson Jester wrote:5. Cinderella Wore Glass Slippers
Ask anyone and they'll tell you that Cinderella wore glass slippers to the ball, but historians say that part of the legend isn't true.Just that part? )
Yes but as with many such stories, there are much older versions than Disney.
The Cinderella theme may well have originated in classical antiquity. The Ancient Greek historian Strabo (Geographica Book 17, 1.33) recorded in the 1st century BC the tale of the Greco-Egyptian girl Rhodopis, "rosy-cheeked", who lived in the Greek colony of Naucratis in Ancient Egypt. It is often considered the oldest known version of the story:They tell the fabulous story that, when she was bathing, an eagle snatched one of her sandals from her maid and carried it to Memphis. While the king was administering justice in the open air, the eagle, when it arrived above his head, flung the sandal into his lap. The king, having been stirred both by the beautiful shape of the sandal and by the strangeness of the occurrence, sent men in all directions into the country in quest of the woman who wore the sandal. When she was found in the city of Naucratis, she was brought up to Memphis and became the wife of the king...
Herodotus, some five centuries before Strabo, supplied further information about Rhodopis in his Histories, writing that Rhodopis came from Thrace, and was the slave of Iadmon of Samos, and a fellow-slave of Aesop. She was taken to Egypt in the time of Pharaoh Amasis, and freed there for a large sum by Charaxus of Mytilene, brother of Sappho, the lyric poet.
The story later reappears with Aelian (ca. 175–ca. 235),showing that the Cinderella theme remained popular throughout antiquity.
The magical significance of the pumpkin in the Cinderella story (which has led to a modern expression for a person who desires an early bedtime, 'after midnight, I turn into a pumpkin') might derive from the 1st century comic work of Seneca 'On the Pumpkinification of Claudius', playing on a pun for the word for deification and the word for pumpkin.
Another version of the story, Ye Xian, appeared in Miscellaneous Morsels from Youyang by Tuan Ch'eng-Shih around 860. Here, the hardworking and lovely girl befriends a fish, the reincarnation of her mother, who was killed by her stepmother. Ye Xian saves the bones, which are magic, and they help her dress appropriately for a festival. When she loses her slipper after a fast exit, the king finds her slipper and falls in love with her (eventually rescuing her from her cruel stepmother). Another version of the story, which is similar to the Chinese version, exists in the Philippines. The story is known as "Mariang Alimango" (Mary the Crab). In this version, the spirit of her dead mother reincarnates as a crab, hence the title, and serves as her "fairy godmother".
Several different variants of the story appear in the medieval One Thousand and One Nights, also known as the Arabian Nights, including "The Second Shaykh's Story", "The Eldest Lady's Tale" and "Abdallah ibn Fadil and His Brothers", all dealing with the theme of a younger sibling harassed by two jealous elders. In some of these, the siblings are female, while in others, they are male. One of the tales, "Judar and His Brethren", departs from the happy endings of previous variants and reworks the plot to give it a tragic ending instead, with the younger brother being poisoned by his elder brothers.
Aspects of Cinderella may be derived from the story of Cordelia in Geoffrey of Monmouth's The History of the Kings of Britain. Cordelia is the youngest and most virtuous of King Leir of Briton's three daughters, however her virtue is such that it will not allow her to lie in flattering her father when he asks, so that he divides up the kingdom between the elder daughters and leaves Cordelia with nothing. Cordelia marries her love, Aginippus, King of the Franks, and flees to Gaul where she and her husband raise an army and depose her wicked sisters who have been misusing their father. Cordelia is finally crowned Queen of the Britons. However her reign only lasts five years. The story is famously retold by Shakespeare, but given a tragic ending.
Freehold DM |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shinmizu wrote:Ah thats where the golden fiddle comes from. You know this sounds like a new artifact that should be written up Asmodeus' golden fiddle.Garydee wrote:Needless to say the violin/fiddle wasn't even invented at the time.Nero won the fiddle at the same time he won rulership of Rome from Satan in a harp duel.
Going to use this in My Golarion.
MY PLAYERS KEEP OUT!!!!
Freehold DM |
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:Yeah, my experience with the novel was outside of school. I can't imagine what I would've done if I'd've been assigned it for class. Well, actually, I can: I wouldn't have read it, like I did with every other book my Jr. English teacher assigned. School sucks!Amen to that. The problem with assigning classics to high school kids is that 99% of kids that age lack the life experience needed to make the classics even vaguely relevant to them. I'm glad I waited until I was a lot older, with a lot more water under my personal bridge, before I tried tackling Moby Dick or Walden.
The world is different when life expectancy is somewhere in the late 50's as opposed to the late 80's.
Freehold DM |
So much that we believe is in the Bible, isn't. The story that Jesus upon his death went into Hell and broke down the gates is from a medival play. Dante has played a HUGE role in Bible belief. I have a lot of christian friends that believe that Dante lifted his description straight from the Bible.
To really understand the bible, just watch how the Devil developed. A lot of what we believe about angels and the Fall isn't biblical, but comes from sources like The Book of Enoch and Jubilees.
Hm.
Samnell |
Sanakht Inaros wrote:Hm.So much that we believe is in the Bible, isn't. The story that Jesus upon his death went into Hell and broke down the gates is from a medival play. Dante has played a HUGE role in Bible belief. I have a lot of christian friends that believe that Dante lifted his description straight from the Bible.
To really understand the bible, just watch how the Devil developed. A lot of what we believe about angels and the Fall isn't biblical, but comes from sources like The Book of Enoch and Jubilees.
A lot of what people believe isn't biblical is sometimes biblical. :) The Book of Enoch is in the canon of the Ethiopian & Eritrean Orthodox churches. The Ethiopian Orthodox church also accepts Jubilees. Both books are likewise canonical in Bete Israel communities of Jews in, you guessed it, Ethiopia and thereabouts and various diaspora communities.
The notion of X or Y not being biblical and therefore religiously just fan fiction is also, of course, not biblical. It dates back only to Martin Luther and sola scriptura. Before that, especially in the first few centuries CE, believers recognized a more diverse range of divinely-inspired texts which could have theological significance (plus, of course, "tradition"), if not necessarily quite so much so as those they chose to canonize. Enoch and Jubilees are among the many texts treated like that.
And, of course, canonization amounts to just another tradition.