That's wrong!

[Laura]

Back when I was trying to publish Helen's Daughter the old fashioned way, I was told that double first cousins Hermione and Orestes (their parents were two sets of siblings) couldn't marry because that was incest. Well, it's part of the legend, it wasn't considered incest back then, and what did the agent(s) expect me to do about it? Just about everybody in Greek myth is related to everybody else in some degree.

Just another reason why I decided to self publish.

[Maggie]

What burns me is all the historical novels set in ancient and even medieval times that completely ignore slavery, calling them 'servants' and thus implying this was a job they got paid for. Hey - 25% of Roman population were slaves and many of the others owned slaves. Certainly all prosperous people [and those are the ones historical novelists write about] did. And don't get me started on how the majority of people in medieval Europe weren't peasants - they were serfs. But just try to write about a slave-owner who accepts the status quo and doesn't care about the 'humanity' of his/her slaves.
Maggie Anton

[Kate]

Something I always loved about the "I, Claudius" mini-series: there are a number of throw-away lines like "I can implicate So-and-so with the testimony of slaves who will talk, freely and under torture." Zero discussion afterward of whether that is, um, humane. Perfect for the time period and setting, though, and it tells you a lot.

[Laura]

Maggie wrote: "What burns me is all the historical novels set in ancient and even medieval times that completely ignore slavery, calling them 'servants' and thus implying this was a job they got paid for. Hey - 2..."

In my latest book, my protagonist raids other citadels, lets his men pillage and rape, takes female captives, kills the children of his enemies through political necessity, and is generally not politically correct. That's just how it was back then.

[Diane]

I'm so weary of PC.
Even the much lauded Poldark novels would have trouble being published today because the 27 year old protagonist marries his kitchen maid who is barely 17. And the stark brutality of every day life is depicted in all its lice-infested reality.

[[deleted user]]

Someone, (a good friend) listening in on a similar discussion, commented that while he felt it necessary to be realistic, he thought we had to remember the various filters through which we view things in the past. For example, to this society (I am speaking of humans of European ancestry living in an area that has readily accessible water) someone who smells strongly of sweat is something to be deplored. Two hundred years ago, sweaty, smelly people were the norm, and the smell was not horrific to those people.

We have NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) that can knock out a fever or muscle aches pretty quickly. They did not have those five hundred years ago and were (he said) inured to those problems to a great degree.

I thought that interesting. The lice-infested reality of every day life was not (for that era, and according to my friend) bad at all. He said you had to look through their eyes.

I suggested he write something along those lines. He smiled and said he'd leave it to the writers.

[Diane]

I read somewhere that some people objected to the stink of body odor in the past, but, you're right, most people took it as the norm. Bathing was seen as wrong!

[Ann]

Sigh, yes sometimes it's best to give all the lice to the villains.

[[deleted user]]

Diane wrote: "I read somewhere that some people objected to the stink of body odor in the past, but, you're right, most people took it as the norm. Bathing was seen as wrong!"

I should have clarified: he was speaking of the normal smell of sweat, such as a man might have after working out for an hour.

I wish I could find the reference, but one sourcebook cited 'bath-houses' as dens of licentiousness and lust in the middle ages. (An adjunct, I gather, of brothels...)

[Steelwhisper]

Actually I have absolutely no problem with a day's smell of labour on someone. Instead I freak out over people smelling like a perfumery and resent lovers who shower more often than once a day. I prefer less, like 2-3 times a week only. I love natural body odour. I don't own perfumes and use unperfumed soaps and shampoos.

I spent 6 weeks in Mongolia on holidays once, as well as two months in the Sahara Desert, that means each time I didn't wash, shower or bath. I gave myself a few catlicks with very small amounts of water or none at all. All that was no problem. None of us smelled rank or looked particularly dirty. You get used to the natural smell of people, yes, even when they sweat. It's not obnoxious.

Lice were as much a nuisance then as they are now, people just weren't as scandalised when they got them. Think Great War, practically everyone crawled with lice then.

[Steelwhisper]

Diane wrote: "I'm so weary of PC.
Even the much lauded Poldark novels would have trouble being published today because the 27 year old protagonist marries his kitchen maid who is barely 17. And the stark brutali..."

What books are you referring to plz?

As to PC, you are not alone. It has turned out to be a blight of the English language, a smokescreen for what actually should be done to change matters instead and when applied to history I consider it dangerous.

And I mean dangerous--next thing authors and artists get forced to bowlderise important lessons we have to learn from history because someone's tender sensibilities are too riled by stating the facts.

It's also really not as if everyone had been terminally unhappy because of differences between the here and the then.

[Diane]

Here's the beginning of the series, which takes place in eighteenth century England, the time period I write in. Ross Poldark
The author started writing them in the late forties and just finished it in the 90's. He's dead now, unfortunately. You can also see him changing as a writer, as the earlier ones had sex behind the scenes and were wordy, the later ones sharper and sexier. He changed with the times obviously.

[Steelwhisper]

Oops. You are not good for my book budget ;)

Thank you!

[Victoria_Grossack]

Laura wrote: "Back when I was trying to publish Helen's Daughter the old fashioned way, I was told that double first cousins Hermione and Orestes (their parents were two sets of siblings) couldn't marry because ..."

And what do you do about all the Egyptians?

[Shomeret]

Diane wrote: "I read somewhere that some people objected to the stink of body odor in the past, but, you're right, most people took it as the norm. Bathing was seen as wrong!"

I did read that aristocrats in France used to hold perfumed handkerchiefs to their noses.

[Steelwhisper]

A good idea is watching the movie "Perfume" ;)

[[deleted user]]

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "And what do you do about all the Egyptians?..."

In her book Red Land, Black Land: Daily Life in Ancient Egypt Barbara Mertz spoke of the notion of brother/sister marriages in Egypt. (She had apparently done a graduate study of the notion of the 'Great Royal Heiress' and this came up.) She cited an exhaustive study done by one Egyptologist on the subject. (sorry - don't have the citation because I loaned the book and don't have it right now. I suspect someone might be able to find the info.)

Leaving the royals aside, he concluded that sibling marriages were not common at all. He went through all sorts of documents to find any reference at all to a marriage that might be brother/sister - where both partners were named and the relatives of both were known. He found only a handful that might have been sibling marriages, but in over half the cases the names were very common - our equivalent of John and Mary.

The Royals were different. The XVIIIth dynasty in particular had sibling marriages from the very beginning. And didn't National Geographic run a recent article on the extremely inbred nature of Akhenaten's immediate family? IIRC the surviving fetus found in Tutankhamun's tomb had a condition brought about by extreme inbreeding. (Must reread the article...)

But again - Just my opinion, and certainly not ironclad by any means - without the actual antecedents of the person in question it's hard to establish, and made more difficult by the sheer number of identical names that I suspect were ceremonial names given to royal women (Iyneferti a/k/a Astnofret, for example.)

[Laura]

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "Laura wrote: "Back when I was trying to publish Helen's Daughter the old fashioned way, I was told that double first cousins Hermione and Orestes (their parents were two sets of siblings) couldn't ..."

Exactly. And the Spartan kings in Classical times married their own nieces and such. Different times, different values.

[Kate]

Even as late as the medieval period (and in Europe rather than in more eastern cultures) you saw the occasional niece/uncle marriage. It was rumored Richard III thought about marrying his niece Elizabeth of York, after his wife Anne Neville died. Never happened, but there were other niece/uncle marriages that were allowed, with the proper dispensation.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Heck, the Emperor Claudius married one of his nieces - after changing the law in order to do so.

[Victoria_Grossack]

Susanna wrote: "Heck, the Emperor Claudius married one of his nieces - after changing the law in order to do so."

Although that did not turn out so well, given that she's widely believed to have murdered him...

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Yeah, there is that.

LOL

[Libbie Hawker]

The Egyptian stuff is complicated by the fact that "brother" and "sister" were common terms of endearment. So a husband and wife would refer to one another as brother/sister as a way to be sweet to one another...and close business associates might refer to each other as brother, etc. That complicates things for researchers. There were, however, close familial marriages in the royal families, where kings could only be legitimized by their marriage to a woman of the royal line (at least, that seems to be the case from the Middle Kingdom era on...it may not have been so earlier). So in royal families there were indeed marriages between brothers and sisters, cousins, fathers and daughters, etc. However, average Egyptians didn't practice incest as a matter of course.

[Libbie Hawker]

Diana mentioned the family of Tutankhamun -- his Great Royal Wife Ankhesenamun was married to Tut, who was either her half-brother or full brother, to their grandfather, and possibly to their father at different points in her life. Quite an interesting situation. As far as I am aware, the family of Akhenaten (Tutankhamun's and Ankhesenamun's father) was the most inbred of all the Egyptian royals. It's quite a mess trying to make sense of their family tree.

[Suze]

Kate wrote: "It really does come down to the author's note, I think. Most readers will forgive changes if you just explain what and why you changed historical record."

I completely agree with this statement! Otherwise, I feel cheated, and often ignore all works by that author in the future. Judgemental? Maybe, but I so love history that I truly want to *learn* from historical fiction....or at least know which part is true as opposed to creative history.

[Diane]

Kate wrote: "Even as late as the medieval period (and in Europe rather than in more eastern cultures) you saw the occasional niece/uncle marriage. It was rumored Richard III thought about marrying his niece El..."

For a fictional turn, in her wonderful novel, The Dark RoseHarrod-Eagles has her hero, Paul, marry his half-niece, who is much younger than he is.

[Kate]

Diana mentioned the family of Tutankhamun -- his Great Royal Wife Ankhesenamun was married to Tut, who was either her half-brother or full brother, to their grandfather, and possibly to their father at different points in her life. "

I can't help but think That is a hell of an interesting family dinner party right there.

[[deleted user]]

Kate wrote: "I can't help but think That is a hell of an interesting family dinner party right there...."

There's a corny old song by Ray Stevens; 'I'm my own grandpa...'

Now if my wife is my grandmother,
then I'm her grandchild
And every time I think of it,
it nearly drives me wild
'Cause now I have become
the strangest 'case you ever saw
As husband of my grandmother,
I am my own grandpa

Here's the link. I'm going to save it in case I need to use it to explain the royal family interrelations in any story I may write about the XVIIIth dynasty...

http://www.metrolyrics.com/im-my-own-...

[Victoria_Grossack]

What about the Ptolemies? They were pretty inbred. And Hatshepsut married her half-brother.

Not to mention some of the examples in the OT. Abraham married Sarah, who he claimed was his sister in one verse, but who appears to actually have been his niece...

[[deleted user]]

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "What about the Ptolemies? They were pretty inbred. And Hatshepsut married her half-brother.

Not to mention some of the examples in the OT. Abraham married Sarah, who he claimed was his sister i..."

Hatshepsut was XVIIIth dynasty, so see above. ;) The ptolemies... Well.

Abraham told Pharaoh that Sarah was his sister so that they would not desire and kill him in order to get her. When the truth came out that she was his wife, Pharaoh kicked them both out for making him inadvetently do something wrong and call a plague down on Egypt.

First cousin marriages were OK until fairly recently (at least in Europe).

[Steelwhisper]

Diana wrote: "First cousin marriages were OK until fairly recently (at least in Europe). ..."

They still are. There's no European country which forbids them.

[[deleted user]]

Steelwhisper wrote: "They still are. There's no European country which forbids them."

I wonder if double first cousins are forbidden... I suspect not.

[Robin]

Steelwhisper wrote: "Diana wrote: "First cousin marriages were OK until fairly recently (at least in Europe). ..."

They still are. There's no European country which forbids them."

That doesn't mean it's socially acceptable though. Something can be legal but taboo.

[Steelwhisper]

Robin wrote: "That doesn't mean it's socially acceptable though. Something can be legal but taboo. ..."

That probably depends on whether you are religious and if yes which religion you belong to.

I have family married this way and it is no taboo among them, nor for anyone they so far met among their friends or aquaintances.

[Steelwhisper]

Diana wrote: "I wonder if double first cousins are forbidden... I suspect not."

I'm not aware that there are any restrictions on cousin marriage in Europe.

Until extremely shortly ago it was for instance possible in France to marry within incestuous relationships, such as brother and sister, as incest laws had been abolished. They were recently reinstated but regulate only child abuse. All closely non-married incestuous relationships still are legal in France by the way.

Quite a few countries around the world still allow for very close marriages.

[Libbie Hawker]

Kate wrote: "I can't help but think That is a hell of an interesting family dinner party right there. "

No kidding! It's so interesting that I'm tinkering with my own version of the story. No idea how long it will take me to outline, but it's pretty intriguing research.

[Libbie Hawker]

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "What about the Ptolemies? They were pretty inbred. And Hatshepsut married her half-brother."

I'm not very knowledgeable on the Ptolemaic period of Egyptian history (I'm a New Kingdom kind of girl...) but my understanding is that the Ptolemies tried to cleave to old Egyptian tradition as nearly as possible, and so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that they kept alive the belief that the right to the throne depended on a man's marriage to a woman related by blood to the previous Pharaoh. Therefore, close-kin marriage wouldn't surprise me.

Of course Hatshepsut married her half-brother! How else could he become the king? There were apparently no other eligible females from Thutmose I's family whom he could marry. The mere fact that he was the son of the previous king wasn't enough. :)

[[deleted user]]

Lavender wrote: "How else could he become the king? There were apparently no other eligible females from Thutmose I's family whom he could marry. The mere fact that he was the son of the previous king wasn't enough. :)..."

Uh-oh. The 'Great Royal Heiress' controversy. Some day when I have the time and have donned my flame-proof suit and am sheltering behind my heavy bronze shield, I'll give my read on the right of the eldest son of the king by the chief Great Royal Wife to succeed to the throne without it being necessary for him to marry his full sister.

But that's another story for another time.

Meanwhile, I ran across someone who believes that they did not have wine in ancient times because they lacked the technology to make fruit juices ferment. O_O

[Libbie Hawker]

Er...haha! No fermentation? Who on earth believes that? You don't need much. Incidentally, the documentary "How Beer Saved the World" is a good one. Lots of history of ancient fermentation. Pretty interesting.

Yeah, there have been points of Egyptian history where they've gone against the trends. I've seen sufficient evidence in my research that I'm confident in using the device in my fiction. It could certainly be that the throne could be inherited by a son of the Pharaoh + Great Royal Wife regardless of the son's marriage, OR anybody who could marry a woman of the royal line, depending on availability. If that was the case, Thutmose II was not the son of the Great Royal Wife (according to most sources), so marriage to Hatshepsut would have been necessary to legitimize his claim.

[[deleted user]]

Lavender wrote: "If that was the case, Thutmose II was not the son of the Great Royal Wife (according to most sources), so marriage to Hatshepsut would have been necessary to legitimize his claim..."

We agree. I don't think it was absolutely necessary, but degree of relationship was a factor (a son of the chief queen outranked a son of a secondary queen.) And the son of a secondary queen would be advised to cement his inheritance by marrying a daughter of the chief queen). It makes sense. Actually, there's some indication that Merneptah (succeeded Ramesses II) may have married his half-sister whose mother was Ramesses II's original chief queen. But the lady's name - Iyneferti - was given to quite a crowd of royal women, so you can't be sure.

I would think that a Crown Prince who is the son of the king and his chief queen would most likely inherit in his own right with no need to worry about marrying his full sister. (Just consider the Horus legend...)

There's a lot of ink and breath wasted arguing, and since I am currently working on a story based on my (rather broadly based) interpretation of the life of Ramesses XI and his relationship with Herihor as well as the means of his accession, I certainly can't object to well-thought-out conclusions based on sane thought.

I do want to see the beer documentary. I've heard a lot about it. I had to grab my jaw as it bounced off the floor on the subject of fermentation. It was only recently that we developed the technology to keep fermentation from happening! yikes!

[Libbie Hawker]

The beer documentary, in spite of its somewhat silly title, is one of the coolest historical documentaries I've ever seen. It's usually streaming on Netflix. Well worth the watch!

[[deleted user]]

For ancient / classical world culture stuff you could do worse than read Caesar's Gallic Wars. It's basically his war diary from ancient Gaul but he descibes a lot of the cultures he er conquered: druids, the fact that women, like slaves, were considered to be incapable of telling the truth UNLESS they were tortured etc etc. I read it in Latin class years and years ago but remember that bit (Girls' school).

Richard III was apparently planning to marry his niece but it's worth pointing out that that wasn't considered in the best of taste even then as the consanguinuity was an issue. Legal but not considered decent.

[Joyce]

Gary wrote: "I write Historical Fiction, and I do quite a bit of research to get things right and avoid anachronisms. Glaring errors can take readers out of the story. Writers have the primary responsibility in..."

I write historical fiction about the Pacific WWII. So much has been written about it and is on film, that it isn't hard to check the facts. I will admit it's time consuming, but shouldn't we as authors, put the effort into it? I know I do. I had a publisher even talk to me about the characters on the Home Front watching NBC Nightly News. Are they crazy, or what? Even the President was listening on the radio!
I appreciate it when authors take the time to check the facts. We all have should do it. I've even had family members and veterans (sadly dying away now), call me and thank me for staying true to the facts. Anyway, I feel that you if you don't take the time, then you don't deserve a single reader.
Joyce Shaughnessy
blessedarethemerciful.net & ahealingplace81680.net

[Diane]

I've read many major authors who get the facts wrong, as discussed before. It's so easy to check things now, so it's no excuse. I cringe when I read these awful blunders published by the BIG houses.

[Steelwhisper]

Diane wrote: "I've read many major authors who get the facts wrong, as discussed before. It's so easy to check things now, so it's no excuse. I cringe when I read these awful blunders published by the BIG houses."

One which really killed me recently was latex condom use right after the second Boer war. Please. It's a simple peek into Wikipedia for something as simple.

I'm currently writing a story set in 1918. I needed to know working class male nightwear and what a worker and the middle-class man of the time would use for aftershave. That's not that difficult to find out if you go for it. It was slightly more work to find out why the British army suddenly tolerated clean-shaven faces in the Great War when the mustache was part of the uniform rules.

[[deleted user]]

I have a story - in limbo at the moment - involving the American Civil war and set in early 1864. One of the characters is a corporal (cavalry regiment). He is of Welsh descent, and he is the youngest of seven brothers, as was his father before him. As the group is riding along he starts singing 'Marching Through Georgia'.

It's a catchy tune and song, and several of the men are trying to catch the words. The singer looks at them and says, "You can't sing it. It has not been written yet."

I wrote that as a joke (the character is 'fey' in the old-fashioned sense) but decided to leave it in. If and when the thing is published, I wonder if anyone will notice it. (The song was written and published in 1865.)

[Joyce]

I actually think that's kind of funny. It reminds me of the humor of SIMPLY GOLD written by the man who wrote CATCH 22. I can't remember his name. Anyway, the other book is absolutely hilarious.
I just realized that I made a mistake on the website for A Healing Place. It is: ahealingplacebook.net
Sorry about that. Guess we all make mistakes.
Joyce Shaughnessy

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Joseph Heller.

[Ann]

I love your 'Marching Through Georgia', Diana. I know another Diana--Gabaldon--discovered a character in 1700s Scotland speaking like a more modern woman. Thus was born the OUTLANDER series. I once had to do a quick shuffle when I discovered I had a character still alive and important to the plot whom another chapter in the Bible--the Bible, no less--said had already died. I just had him say, "Some people say I died at that event. They lie."

[Libbie Hawker]

That's an elegant work-around, Ann!