Historical Fictionistas discussion
Historical Fiction Discussions
>
A Question of Age
I can totally get behind the idea of human sacrifice. If someone told me they could guarantee a Red Sox World Series victory by sacrificing a Yankee fan in Fenway Park, I'd be standing on home plate with a butcher knife. :D
Jackie wrote: From what I've seen it also makes certain readers uncomfortable. I remember when I read Outlander with a group there was a reader who went ballistic over one particular scene."Haha that was perhaps the best thing in the horrid book, I applauded it because frankly I thought she deserved it. What outraged me most was how completely infuriatingly stupid I thought the so called heroine and narrator was.
Not to get off topic and start a whole Outlander debate. I just really did not like the book and despised Claire.
Kate wrote: "I can totally get behind the idea of human sacrifice. If someone told me they could guarantee a Red Sox World Series victory by sacrificing a Yankee fan in Fenway Park, I'd be standing on home pla..."Well, when you put it like that I cannot but accept the necessity of an occasional offering... :D
Preferably one of those guys who shows up in NY body paint, and is drunk by the second inning, yelling "You SHUCK!" at every single batter. Yet I digress.
I got about three chapters into Outlander before I gave up in total boredom.
With regard to older men and younger wives, this was very common. Particularly in rural areas with a high mortality rate amongst women and children. Many men would have two or three wives over the course of time in order to have sufficient children survive to adult-hood. Even as late as the 1880s this occurred. My great-grandfather (a merchant in Indianapolis) remarried a much younger woman when his first wife died. She died a few years after my grandmother was born so that her older half-sister from the first marriage, ran the household and raised her.
Kate wrote: "Preferably one of those guys who shows up in NY body paint, and is drunk by the second inning, yelling "You SHUCK!" at every single batter. Yet I digress."Ugh, I never even went there when adding a conventional thought pattern to the necessity of human sacrifice. But, thinking back on some of the concerts I have been to...
The age question is really interesting! Mortality patterns were very different in the past. Lots of infant mortality. A few plagues would wipe out everyone. Youngish women die in childbirth; youngish men die in battle.But some people did live a long time. The three great tragedians of Classical Greece were all very long lived.
Hahahaha Kate we Cubs fans here in Chicago have tried human sacrifice and it doesn't work :)This is a great thread I wish I found it sooner
Silver wrote: "There is something which I have noticed occurring in a few different works of historical fiction which I find to be a bit of a minor pet peeve, and that is the fact that it seems that HF writers ha..."I don't know, I seem to be constantly running into characters who live to a ripe-old age, even by our standards. The two (sister) MCs in my current novel live to their late 60s early 70s and this was in the 13th century. In the book I am working on now (16th century) I am again confronted with main characters who lives until their late 60s. So I guess my thought would be while "old" certainly happened earlier and many people died earlier, we make assumptions (in either direction) at our own risk.
There seems to be a whole breed of reader out there who think that the views expressed in a book are by necessity the author's views. Richelle Mead recently did an interesting blog post where she said that some readers accused her of glorifying anorexia because one of her characters felt she was fat at size four. Which really says something about the character, not the author, but try telling people that.."Very true! It wouldn't be historical fiction imo if it didn't reflect appropriate historical/cultural values. Otherwise it's just modern people wearing historical costumes -- we've all seen bad movies like that.
Sophie wrote: "Silver wrote: "There is something which I have noticed occurring in a few different works of historical fiction which I find to be a bit of a minor pet peeve, and that is the fact that it seems tha..."There where people who did live to be older, but the idea of 50 being the new middle age, is a modern idea. While there may have been people that lived to their 80s ors 90s a person between the ages of 40-50 would not have been viewed as being young throughout most of history.
Silver wrote: "Sophie wrote: "Silver wrote: "There is something which I have noticed occurring in a few different works of historical fiction which I find to be a bit of a minor pet peeve, and that is the fact th..."Totally agree. But I guess I don't view them as young now -- just delusional, lol. To me middle-aged means you have a reasonable expectation of living as many more years as you've already lived. So it's mid-30s, to, perhaps, mid-40s.
Sophie, We are not delusional; we are baby-boomers who grew up watching Mary Martin in Peter Pan!
Barbara wrote: "Sophie, We are not delusional; we are baby-boomers who grew up watching Mary Martin in Peter Pan!"I am past middle-age myself by my definiation, lol. Doesn't bother me a bit. I always knew I was going to grow up. Doesn't mean I can't live life to the fullest as I choose to. What should the label matter?
I have known figures in my history (13th century Mongols) who live to 90 and 80 - enough of them not to be taken as isolated instances. They boast of their healthy lifestyles, too: they maintain that fermented mare's milk guarantees you'll live to a ripe old age. I scratched my head about this. Do I dare have agile old folk on the 13thC steppe? Readers won't believe me.Then I got a hint from an equivalent. There was a big deal about the age people lived to in the Caucasus Mountains or thereabouts, when modernity was just beginning to change their lifestyles - reports of people cheerily active at ages outside our experience, and Westerners went along to prove whether the rumours were true. I took a pinch of this over for my steppe people. Because it's what they themselves tell me, and early modern travel accounts remark on how hale and hearty and healthy the general population is.
Not that most of the khans after Genghis didn't kill themselves in the forties with alcohol. I tend to think live expectancy took a dive with the luxurious new lifestyle they had. Not to mention the new diseases.
Sophie wrote: "Barbara wrote: "Sophie, We are not delusional; we are baby-boomers who grew up watching Mary Martin in Peter Pan!"I am past middle-age myself by my definiation, lol. Doesn't bother me a bit. I..."
You are so right!
Regarding the character's views versus the author's: so true! I was once at a workshop where some actors performed an act of my play. At one point a couple of characters were arguing, the way characters in plays do... Afterwards someone objected to one side of the argument, implying that that was what I thought. But I had written and presented the other side at the same time...
I can't go back more than the 1800's but I can say that my relatives all lived up to their 80's and 90's in those years and I don't think they were unique. Those years were where people plowed the land, etc., and they were very active and DID live long lives. And I also think that was true in the years before. People were not sedentary. Certainly, people did die young especially with disease and accidents, etc., but they didn't just die off because of an early age.
Mod
Somewhat off topic, but funnily enough, I did have the experience recently reading a modern novel. For the last challenge, I needed to read a book by an author with the same first or name. Both of my names are unusual so I had limited selection. I ended up reading a YA (LSD) christian fiction centered kids going to Brigham Young University. In the book, most of the characters were looking to get married at the ripe old age of 18-20. While there is nothing wrong with this (and I didn't go "eewww"), it did stand out to me as nowadays that seems a bit on the young side.
I would just like to clarify something, in case there is any confusion about what my original intention was. I do not question the ability for people to live to be old, but rather I question the terminology and way of viewing age which is used within many works of HF. As example, it seems to be unlikely that say in the Middle Ages a person were to die at the age of 50. I do not think other people would say "He was only 50 when he died, he died at such a young age" as such seems to be the modern way of viewing age.
While in the past people had the same physical ability to live into their 80s or 90s, people would not have perceived one between their 40s and 50s as being young.
But the modern idea of viewing the 50s as the new middle age is an idea I have seen transcribed into works of HF.
Silver wrote: "I would just like to clarify something, in case there is any confusion about what my original intention was. I do not question the ability for people to live to be old, but rather I question the te..."You are DEAD right about that (sorry -- couldn't resist). Nobody would say "only 50" in the High Middle Ages for sure.
Indeed they would not!
I think Bernard Cornwell handled this well in the latest book in his series about Alfred the Great. That's a very dark and gritty period of history; lots of violence and poverty and disease made life hard, and it's clear that life was shorter. Girls are referred to as women by thirteen or fourteen; men are no longer referred to as boys by the time they reach twenty; Alfred the Great himself is described as old when he is forty. Clearly, life is shorter. Yet, how old someone is considered is also dependent on their condition and health. The hero, 45 in the latest book, is startled to realize that his beard is gray and the younger warriors are starting to call him "old man." Yet he is a vigorous and fit 45, and is thus still considered a warrior in his relative prime. Whereas King Alfred, who spends most of his life skinny, sickly, and constantly worn down by illness and the burdens of ruling, is referred to as "old" by the time he is 35 because he is not nearly so hale a specimen and is clearly headed for the grave sooner rather than later.
Class would make a huge difference - not to everyone, of course - but generally the upper classes would have better access to essentials such as food, shelter, warmth and hygiene.
Silver wrote: "... As example, it seems to be unlikely that say in the Middle Ages a person were to die at the age of 50. I do not think other people would say "He was only 50 when he died, he died at such a young age"..."I could not agree more.
While some people lived to be quite old (the nobility in most cases, I would assume), it could not be viewed as a rule, and certainly not in a way we view our age categories today.
(I keep thinking how would I look like with no Pilates, a hair dye and after bearing a child every year for years (instead of the two I have). I'm sure it would add a decade or two to my looks ;))
Zoe, that's a great point you made about having so many children. Many women were dead by 20 because of the dangers of childbirth. Others were 'old' by 30 because they had so many children. It must have also taken a toll on people's health to have their children die. In many places up through 1800 people expected only half of their children to survive to become adults.
I'm struggling with how to present the ages of my main characters in my WIP. In my mind, to be age-appropriate for the times (1848), the male protagonist should be about 19 and the female protagonist 18. Beta readers have criticized me both for the characters being too young for their adult, worldly behavior, and for being too old for their circumstances (should have been already married, for example). What's an author to do?My solution is to punt the problem by no longer explicitly presenting a numerical age. The male protagonist is the oldest of three siblings and still living on the farm, and the female is described as "a young woman about my age". That leaves it up to the reader to mentally assign an age based on the character as presented.
This may not be the best from the standpoint of educating the reader about every reality of the historical period, but it should prevent a disconnect over what is, to me, relatively unimportant. It also falls in with giving only basic physical descriptions of each character, rather than every last detail, thus allowing the reader to fill in the rest in constructing a mental image of the person.
On a side note on an issue brought up on this thread, a beta reader, a devout Christian, took serious issue with one of my characters, a fortune-teller with mixed Christian and African religious beliefs. I got quite a lecture on how that character's beliefs were wrong. It was only with some difficulty that I was able to point out that it was a CHARACTER, and that the beliefs were FICTIONAL, and not my own.
To Loren: sometimes it's not you; it's really the reader...
In 1848 it wouldn't have been that unusual for an 18 and 19 year old not to be married. Depended on the circumstances, especially if they couldn't afford to be married. Your solution though I think was a good one and to just give clues to their age through interestes and other reference points rather than a stark statement. As for your fortune teller, I love Loren's comment...
I think there's a persistent idea that all people from historical periods (any historical period) were married extremely young. Not true. It depended on the time; it depended on the social status. A girl in 1848 could very definitely not be married yet, and not be considered an old maid - girls at that point "came out" into society at 18, and frequently had long engagements afterward of a year or more, so marriage might not occur until into the 20s. And men almost always married when they were older than 19, since most men waited to start a family until they were well established in business and could support one.
PDFSuggests average age of FIRST marriage was c. 27 in the Early Modern period. It had fallen a bit by the mid 19th Century, to 26 for men and 23 for women.
And don't forget this is an AVERAGE, so in half (more or less) of first marriages the woman was older than 23.
So... not unusual at all!
Does it say which classes these data belonged to and whether pre-marital births were also recorded?
Donna wrote: "This has been a topic of discussion in my in-person book group too. We are always amazed to realize that most of the rulers/leaders through early history were in their 20s - an age we think of toda..."True. I remember reading about Joan of Arc at 18 or 19 and being amazed that she led a revolution when she was just about my age. I kept thinking, "My gosh, I can't get my life together, and she was leading her people and fighting the British at 19 years old!"
Looking back, it does seem like a few of the characters my age in the historical fiction books I read as a child or young adult were a tad immature, or the characters were modern characters in historical clothing. I suspect part of that was so the target audience, namely preteen and teenage girls, would relate to the characters better, and we'd learn something about history in the process.
Kate wrote: "The idea of being a "teenager" is such a modern idea. In a great many historical periods, you were a child and then when you hit a certain age (marriageable age, in the case of girls) ..."The idea of childhood is to some extent a modern idea - see Phillipe Aries
Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life
As for longevity in the past, Jefferson and Adams lived into their 90s, and Socrates was 70, and died of unnatural causes.
Paul wrote: "Kate wrote: "The idea of being a "teenager" is such a modern idea. In a great many historical periods, you were a child and then when you hit a certain age (marriageable age, in the case of girls)..."Average life expectancies in the past are deflated by the high infant mortality rates in the past—up to 50% before the age of five in some places. If you survived past that age (and childbirth, for a woman), nothing intrinsic prevented you from living as long as people do today. War, epidemics, and famines could end a life, but they still do.
Marriage ages varied by population. In England, by 1300 if not before, 27 was the average plus 10% never married. In Catholic Europe ages tended to be a bit younger. In Eastern Europe, where extended families predominated and infant mortality rates were higher, teenage marriages were common. But the extremes of kids betrothed at five and the like were always an aristocratic, or even a royal, phenomenon—at least in Europe. (Maybe elsewhere, too: I just don't know.)
But it is also true that society, as a whole, was younger. Boys became men at 15, and girls women by 17 (menarche came later then). For one great, if dated, exploration for what that meant in practice, see Johann Huizinga's The Waning of the Middle Ages.
On a more general theme, it strikes me that the more you find out about people's lives centuries ago, the more you realise they were just like us. It shouldn't be a surprise really, but somehow it is.
I recently read a history book about 7th century Persia in which it quoted a primary source that said soldiers for a particular battle were "hand-picked, and not one was a day under 40," which seemed to imply that 40 was the prime age for a soldier. They also didn't send soldiers into battle until the age of 20.However, 15 was the recommended age of marriage for both men and women.
C.P. wrote: "Paul wrote: "Kate wrote: "The idea of being a "teenager" is such a modern idea. In a great many historical periods, you were a child and then when you hit a certain age (marriageable age, in the c..."Fascinating, C.P.!
It's certainly an intersting question. For example, Lorenzo the Magnificent died when he was 43 and the historian Guicciardini commented that "he died too young", meaning not, of course that he was in his youth but "too young too die". On the other hand, early forties was the upper age when men usually married in Renaissance Florence at the time. It made sense because that way they could expect to see most their children grown and provided for, not left to the not always tender mercies of the relatives. The humanist Filelfo's late first marriage (he was in his sixties) was seen as just another example of his general irresponsibility and selfishness.The women, on the other hand, were considered old much younger. The same Guicciardini dissaprovingly commented on the Magnificent's last love that she was an old woman, while she was in her early thirties, ten years younger than her lover.
But that's just one city in one period of time.
And views change over time. Renaissance Italy favored grooms around 30, or even older, and brides in their teens. Other places and times had different views.A lot of it has to do with the relative availability of women. More female infanticide > fewer women > higher bride price > greater age spread between spouses.... Eventually daughters become too valuable to kill at birth, and the trend reverses. Then the number of girls increases, and women become less valuable again. You can see it happening even today in places like China.
As for Renaissance Italy (not rural), I think that the marriage pattern you described had more to do with the city culture than with availability of women (though the young women mortality rate was much higher due to childbirth, true). But the same pattern can be observed in Victorian times, for example, because it's the same city culture that presupposes a long period of apprenticeship/study for a young male before he can become a provider for the family. That's why city males in their twenties were considered youngsters while their peasant and noble counterparts were already grown men and could marry if they/their families so wished.
Something else to remember about these studies about age is that in many eras like the Middle Ages, the mortality rate is high overall simply because so many children die young. But I remember one scholar pointing out that if a baby boy managed to live to the age of, say, 20 - then his odds of making it to 50 and beyond were actually quite good. It's just the early part of life that was so very vulnerable. Women, though, had it harder than that because death in childbirth rendered them much more vulnerable as adults.
In cultures where a lot of mummies are left over (or other remains on a large/relatively intact scale) it's fairly easy to get a handle on actual life expectancies. Ancient Egypt seems to have had lots of deaths between the ages of 30 and 50 -- that is, there is a higher percentage of mummies who made it to the 30 - 50 range before checking out. A few lived a lot longer, and of course there are lots of young people who died of various accidents or illnesses. But the largest percentage presently on record falls in that range. I think it's safe to say in such cases that average life expectancies were around 40 - 50 years for the upper classes which could afford mummification, rarely longer. It is probably reasonable to extrapolate that peasant-class citizens, who had crummier nutrition and harder labor, likely had a shorter life expectancy, but how much shorter is anybody's guess. There aren't many mummies of working-class folks.It gets so much harder to have a clear feel for true average age at death in cultures that didn't leave behind many easily analyzed remains. I think that's where a more statistical approach comes in handy, such as the one taken by the scholar Kate referenced. (That is, making broader extrapolations based on the likelihood of surviving childhood.)
What also needs to be taken into count is that some of these data are clearly skewed, insofar that a lot of these couples lived as husband and wife way before they actually married. This was--depending on era and class--condoned even, because everyone knew how much money it cost to marry, pay the license, the bride price etc.. Thus an average of 27 doesn't mean these couples hadn't been together since they were 14 or 15. They more often than not may have made vows before God on consecrated ground and waited with the marriage for affluent times.
Which is something I read a study about, because the actually most fertile phase of a woman is not past 27, it's between 14-15 to 25. Much younger and it is very likely the mother suffers from carrying a child to term, much older and you already get a lot of miscarriages and birth defects. That was particularly true for the eras prior to any knowledge what substances are noxious. And it is also borne out when you compare with the registered births.
Steelwhisper wrote: "What also needs to be taken into count is that some of these data are clearly skewed, insofar that a lot of these couples lived as husband and wife way before they actually married. This was--depending on era and class--condoned even, because everyone knew how much money it cost to marry, pay the license, the bride price etc.."A professional genealogist once told me about this because there are cases of it in the Norwegian branch of my family tree. I've never read it in any non-fiction book though - can you recommend one?
"Which is something I read a study about, because the actually most fertile phase of a woman is not past 27, it's between 14-15 to 25. Much younger and it is very likely the mother suffers from carrying a child to term, much older and you already get a lot of miscarriages and birth defects. That was particularly true for the eras prior to any knowledge what substances are noxious. And it is also borne out when you compare with the registered births."
In my family tree, it was normal for woman to continue having children into her 40s and sometimes even 50s - but my mom (who is a nurse) says this is because a woman who starts having children when she's younger has lower risks carrying to term later in her life than a woman who tries to start having kids later in life.
Robin wrote: "I've never read it in any non-fiction book though - can you recommend one?..."Not really, this has to have been an article in a scientific journal. Books in that field are so prohibitively expensive that it's either that or I may have loaned it from the uni library.
But I am quite positive about that, as I was much astounded at the time. One would think that in eras which were so zealous and religiously fired couples should have to have been married before any consumption.
However, apparently "marriage vows before God" were considered just as valid as long as they were taken in front of the godly presence/representative. It took me a while to understand (me being an atheist ;)) that with "presence" the consecrated altar and cross was enough and considered to be representative of God enough for valid vows. These even the local priest would accept.
I also remember some form of marriage which was consecrated by a priest, but without an official licence, so the licence (and the full registration in the church books) came much later.
Anyway, not all is as cut and dried as we today may think looking at the mere statistics.
As to childbearing duration, yes, that's also something I had heard before. But also that a lot of women suffered from the ingestion of such substances as lead or mercury, which weren't yet know to be as poisonous as they are, and that effect is cumulative for some of them.
Any which way, I find this a very interesting field of research.
The "marriage has to be made official to be valid" concept is a relatively new one. It has more to do with the rise of modern bureaucracy than with religion. Religion asks only that you are true to your vows:)The Catholic Church made a Church marriage obligatory only on the Council of Trent (16 C), that is after the breakup with the Protestants. I assume that the Protestant Churches did the same on their own at the same time or a bit later.
However the privileged classes always made only official marriages, otherwise there'd be too much confusion over the questions of power and inheritance. The most interesting cases are those where there is a privileged/underprivileged relationship involved. There's an interesting book about such a case (non-fiction)
It's available on Googlebooks.
Historical Fictionistas
Books mentioned in this topic
The Believers (other topics)Giovanni and Lusanna: Love and Marriage in Renaissance Florence (other topics)
The Waning of the Middle Ages (other topics)
Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life (other topics)
Outlander (other topics)
I think it's about understanding a different culture and all cultures are different.
We can't judge by the standards of our own culture, as there is a good basis to assume it will look completely wild in someone else's eyes (let alone, the modern times vs the more ancient ones).
I think if we decide to research and write about this or that culture or time period, we have to accept it wholly, try not to let our upbringing influence our characters, the way of our writing.
It's not like I think it would be nice to sacrifice someone on the city hall of my town around this weekend to make the rain bountiful (and my country can really do with more rains, lol), or I would run to buy a slave given a chance :D
but when I write I should transfer into a different set of mind, otherwise my characters wouldn't be real and the time period and the culture presented wrongly and therefore completely wasted.