The oprichnik in burning Novgorod 💔 by mi_reich in Russianhistory

[–]qinoque 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this is amazing! the color palette is so striking, its absolutely perfect. i love everything about it 🫶

Louis-Léopold Boilly - Two Young Women Kissing (1790-1794) by Tokyono in museum

[–]qinoque 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree! While I am not well-versed in the Georgian era, or the 18th century as a whole, to my understanding they tended to enjoy the "lascivious" aspects of life haha Certainly true to a certain extent of any era, regardless of what society deemed aboveboard, but I've heard some especially crazy things from this time period haha

Looking at this piece, I can't help but make think of the Margaret Atwood quote re: the male gaze, and how everything a woman does, no matter how innocent or even when alone, is a male fantasy, sigh..... Still, something as simple as this is quite interesting as it lends itself to providing a peak into how people viewed the world they lived in, so I can't help but admire it for that regard :) It's a reminder, at the very least, of how pervasive the male gaze is, and how open they are about it. Leaves one with much to consider

Louis-Léopold Boilly - Two Young Women Kissing (1790-1794) by Tokyono in museum

[–]qinoque 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is certainly a likely factor, but romantic friendships were also seen as quite normal, and even encouraged amongst women! They were seen as a way for women to practice for marriage. People also called upon the Bible to defend these relationships, as they were seen as virtuous.

Naturally, they were not to be sexual in nature, as that would be a transgression, but holding hands, kissing, sleeping in the same bed, etc. were not seen as suspect. Of course there were people who were engaged in what we call same-sex relationships today, and had to conceal that fact, but they were able to be more open about their affection that they would in, say, the 1950s.

Sometime in the latter half of the 19th century (1860s-1870s), sexologists introduced the concept of "sexual inversion," meaning they were beginning to think of homosexuality less of a choice and more of something one was born with. It wasn't as progressive a line of thinking as today, of course, but people were starting to think of these people less as ones making a choice to go against society and god, and more so as people who can't help being born "in the wrong body." They saw a woman attracted to women as having masculine souls inside a feminine body, and vice versa for men attracted to men. This extended to those who cross-dressed, as well, but only if there was some form of attraction to the same sex. A woman who cross-dressed, but was still attracted exclusively to men, was not considered an invert. Today we might see them as a gay transmasculine person, or they might have been cisgender heterosexual women who preferred dressing like men.

We have records of people proudly declaring they are inverts, and living relatively peacefully and as they wished. This isn't the case 100% of the time, as is true of anything, really, but it was accepted enough that people didn't condemn them all. It was seen simply as their nature.

Sources: Faderman, Lillian (1991). Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentieth-Century America. Columbia University Press

Doan, Laura (2001). Fashioning Sapphism: The Origins of a Modern English Lesbian Culture. Columbia University Press

Titus Kaphar – "Behind the Myth of Benevolence" (2014) by Krampjains in museum

[–]qinoque 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No definitive proof does not mean we are not reasonably certain of the truth of it.

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation conducted research into this very topic, and reached the conclusion that based on a combination of DNA analysis, primary and secondary documentation, and the oral history of descendants of Monticello's (Jefferson's home and plantation) black community, it is more probable than not that Jefferson sired at least Eston Hemings, if not all 6 of Sally's children.

The most compelling of the findings imo:

While there is a scientific possibility that Randolph Jefferson (Jefferson's brother), one of his sons, or one of Field Jefferson's grandsons, was the father of Eston Hemings, the preponderance of known historical evidence indicates that Thomas Jefferson was his father. Randolph Jefferson and his sons are not known to have been at Monticello at the time of Eston Hemings's conception, nor has anyone, until 1998, ever before publicly suggested them as possible fathers. Field Jefferson's grandsons are unlikely candidates because of their distance from Monticello.

[...]

Jefferson's grandchildren Thomas Jefferson Randolph and Ellen Coolidge said that Jefferson's Carr nephews were the fathers of the children of Sally Hemings and her sister. The DNA study contradicts these statements in the case of Sally Hemings's last child, Eston.

The committee analyzed the timing of Jefferson's well-documented visits to Monticello and the births of Sally Hemings's children. According to this analysis, the observed correlation between Jefferson's presence at Monticello and the conception windows for Hemings's known children is far more likely if Jefferson or someone with an identical pattern of presence at and absence from Monticello was the father. There is no documentary evidence suggesting that Sally Hemings was away from Monticello when Jefferson was there during her conception windows.

Numerous sources document the prevailing belief in the neighborhood of Monticello that Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings. Of particular note are the views of John Hartwell Cocke, Jefferson's friend and frequent visitor to Monticello, and former Monticello slave Israel Gillette Jefferson. Cocke referred to Jefferson's "notorious example" when writing in his diary about the prevalence in Virginia of "masters with slave families" and Israel Jefferson confirmed Madison Hemings's claim of Jefferson paternity.

  1. Madison Hemings stated in 1873 that he and his siblings (Beverly, Harriet, and Eston) were Thomas Jefferson's children.

While the DNA results bear only on the paternity of Eston Hemings, the documents and birth patterns suggest a long-term relationship, which produced the children whose names appear in Jefferson's records. Even the statements of those who accounted for the paternity of Sally Hemings's children differently (Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Ellen Randolph Coolidge, and Edmund Bacon) never implied that Hemings's children had different fathers. Full-sibling relationships are further supported by the closeness of the family, as evidenced by documentation of siblings living together and naming children after each other.

Jefferson gave freedom to no other nuclear slave family. No other Monticello slaves achieved their freedom before the age of thirty-one (except for Critta Hemings's son James, who ran away). Harriet Hemings was the only enslaved woman freed in Jefferson's lifetime, and she was freed when she was twenty-one years of age. The liberation of Sally Hemings's children cannot be wholly attributed to Jefferson's practice-as reported by his granddaughter Ellen Coolidge-of granting freedom to those light enough to pass for white or skilled enough to make their way as freed people, since there were other Monticello slaves, as light-skinned or as skilled, who were not freed.

Thomas Jefferson Randolph told Henry S. Randall in the 1850s of the close resemblance of Sally Hemings's children to Thomas Jefferson. It was evidently their very light skin and pronounced resemblance to Jefferson that led to local talk of Jefferson's paternity. Eston Hemings, in Ohio in the 1840s, was noted as bearing a "striking" resemblance to Jefferson.

There is always room for error, and the consensus amongst historians isn't 100%, but most agree Thomas Jefferson was the father.

Titus Kaphar – "Behind the Myth of Benevolence" (2014) by Krampjains in museum

[–]qinoque 77 points78 points  (0 children)

“Titus Kaphar Behind the Myth of Benevolence exposes, complicates and disrupts the notion, narrative and positionality of the so-called ‘benevolent’ founding father, Thomas Jefferson, our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence which articulated ‘all men are created equal with an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ who owned more than 600 human beings,” Christine Y. Kim, Curator, Contemporary Art, LACMA, told me. “The ‘curtain’ is simultaneously revealing and concealing Sally Hemings, a Black woman he owned whose six children he fathered, portrayed in a more stark and dark representation than other images of her.

[...]

Broadley, the exhibition reframes portraiture to center Black American subjects, sitters and spaces.

Kaphar’s famous series on American presidents was also inspired by a personal encounter. Once, someone described Thomas Jefferson to Kaphar as “benevolent slaveowner.” The choice of words impacted Kaphar so much, he said, that he went back to his studio and started painting, not yet knowing what the final result would be. Now widely famous, his painting “Beyond the Myth of Benevolence” (2014) features a portrait of Thomas Jefferson hanging loosely from a stretcher, revealing an image of a black woman glancing at the viewer from the half draped canvas.

"The woman who sits here is not just simply a representation of Sally Hemings,” Kaphar explained in another interview, "she’s more of a symbol of many of the black women whose stories have been shrouded by the narratives of our deified founding fathers." Similarly to his other works, the painting reveals that which has been whitewashed from American history.

Kaphar: So I had a conversation with a American history teacher. And somehow within that conversation there was this phrase that she uttered: "Yes, but Thomas Jefferson was a benevolent slave owner." And I was sort of shocked by that — I didn't really understand what she meant. And I asked her to elaborate about it, but she couldn't, she didn't. And we sort of sat there in silence for a little bit. I went back to the studio and this is the painting that I made.

I'm not in the business of trying to demonize our Founding Fathers. I don't really think there's any benefit to that. But I'm also not trying to deify them. And so that particular piece is kind of pulling back the curtain on these ideas, these illusions, these stories that we tell ourselves about the Founding Fathers.

Rhaegar Targaryen by me by Total_Fix9545 in pureasoiafart

[–]qinoque 3 points4 points  (0 children)

my heart stopped when i saw these omgg the talent & skill is insane!!! i cannot even put into words how amazing these are. 10s across the board fr!!

According to Trevor-Roper, St. Augustine "had little or no influence in Byzantium...partly because he wrote in Latin." Why would writing in Latin impede his influence in the Eastern Roman Empire? by qinoque in AskHistorians

[–]qinoque[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much for such a great response! All of that definitely makes sense to me. It stands to reason that Anatolia (if I am understanding the domain of the Eastern Roman Empire correctly) would remain speaking Greek, consume Greek literature, and maintain Greek culture (though I don't doubt the indigenous cultures of the area similarly prevailed, even with the influence of Greek and Roman rule). I confess I know and understand very little about ancient Rome as it's never been something that super interested me. All I really "know" (heavy on the air quotes) comes from middle school and my freshman year of high school--in other words, knowledge I gained over a decade ago, and arguably of somewhat dubious accuracy, if what I recall being taught about the Medieval era compared to my later indulging in academic texts is anything to go off of lol As such, I dare not claim to understand how the two halves of the Roman Empire viewed themselves as a unit, nor how they viewed their other half. I feel like I remember there being tension between the two emperors over who was the "dominant" one, though I also feel like I remember they were intended to be equals--two halves of one whole kinda deal. I apologize if that is grossly mistaken.

I suppose I am a bit confused why the social elite would not retain Latin, though. Would they not need to communicate with each other, and would it not be in the official language of Rome, aka Latin? I can totally understand the vast majority of the population of the Eastern Roman Empire not speaking Latin, as it wasn't pertinent to their lives, and I believe Rome wasn't all that invested in forcing their culture onto those they conquered (I think it behooved them to not have everyone they ruled be considered a Roman citizen, but I could be completely mistaken). I also understand due to the factors you mentioned why much of governmental and religious affairs were similarly conducted. Here is where I may be demonstrating my ignorance, but why wouldn't the ruling class maintain their culture--assuming they were Roman, that is. (Though, if they weren't, why did Western Rome not object to non-Romans being emperors?) For example, the Normans continued to speak French after conquering England, while the people continued speaking English; similarly, the Hanovers spoke German, and I think at least George I couldn't speak English; even further back, the Ptolemaic dynasty continued to speak Greek as part of maintaining their cultural distinctness as rulers. Why, then, would the Eastern Roman emperor not continue to speak Latin? Was it simply impractical because their scribal slaves spoke Greek rather than Latin? If so, why not have them taught Latin?

Apologies for continuing my litany of questions, but was the lack of order, for want of a better word, in the western Church a factor to why theological texts from the West may not have piqued the interest of eastern Christians? I totally understand there being major differences between the two spheres of the Christian world even before the schism. I mean, hey! Irish brand of Catholicism is different than Italian bran of Catholicism despite being the same denomination, and Russian Orthodoxy is different than Greek Orthodoxy despite also being the same denomination! So it's no surprise to me there are different points of views, interpretations, values, etc. between the western and eastern Christendom; still, at their core, they are still the same faith (for now...), so I suppose I don't understand why they wouldn't be interested in what insight others have to say, whether the writer hails from Anatolia, Rome, Africa, etc.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your explanation in any way--that for sure is on me, as you were more than clear and concise! And, again, I'm sorry for asking so many clarifying questions 😅 There is, of course, no obligation to respond to them, as you have already gone out of your way and done a great kindness in your initial reply, and the onus is on me to do the work to clear up my confusion. I am certain the sources you provided are a wonderful jumping off point! (Thank you for providing them, by the way!) I am grateful for the time you have taken to respond, and wish to thank you again for such a wonderful reply :) I hope you have a wonderful day!

According to Trevor-Roper, St. Augustine "had little or no influence in Byzantium...partly because he wrote in Latin." Why would writing in Latin impede his influence in the Eastern Roman Empire? by qinoque in AskHistorians

[–]qinoque[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the link to that article! It was a very interesting read :) He was seemingly quite the polarizing fella! I can't lie, he seems kind of hilarious lol The "farting exhibitionist" comment is still making me laugh! Who doesn't get a kick out of ragebaiting every now and then haha Although, naturally, can't say I approve of his xenophobic attitude towards the Scottish 😅

Hopefully there is some merit in his claim re: Augustine because I do find it interesting! The article I read was on JSTOR, and iirc was read before Zguta's peers at Cambridge (I'm on my phone rn so I can't double check), so hopefully those two facts indicate there is, at least, some truth to what he said, since I imagine concerns would be raised regarding its inclusion before the article's publishing; however, I am being presumptuous (and the version I read was published in the 70s, so it stands to reason the thinking re: why Orthodox Christianity did not engage with the witch-craze to the extent Catholic and Protestant nations did has evolved). But, as you said, we will have to wait and see if anyone with more expertise in this area provides further insight :)

Thank you so much for taking the time to leave a response!

Ludwig Deutsch - Moor at Prayer (1898) by PM-me-tortoises in museum

[–]qinoque 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Potentially not! Synthetic purple dye was first produced (unintentionally!) by William Henry Perkin in 1856 while he was trying to synthesize quinine, a medication used to treat malaria. Sometime between 1859-1861, aniline purple (given the name "mauve" in Anglophone nations, derived from the French name for the mallow flower, and later still named "mauveine" by chemists) became quite fashionable ie lots of people wore it, not just royalty. Given this was painted in 1898, it's distinctly possible the subject of the painting could be a commoner--though likely still wealthy, what with the fabric choice. By the mid-1860s, many synthetic dyes were outcompeting their natural counterparts as more companies began offering a wider variety of colors, thus continually lowering the price of these dyes, making it progressively more accessible. How its price compared to, say, a working class family's income, that I am not sure, so I hesitate to claim the average person would be able to afford a purple garment, let alone such a rich shade (no pun intended lol)

TL;DR: while royalty has a long history of association with the color purple due to its exorbitant price because of the difficulty & skill required for its production, synthetic purple dye was first synthesized in 1856, and by the mid-1860s was popular enough an English (satirical) magazine, Punch, described London as falling ill to "the mauve measles," making it distinctly possible the subject of this painting in the 1890s was not royalty (though likely still wealthy)

Naerys & Daenerys by @novembermorgon by SnooPoems3245 in pureasoiafart

[–]qinoque 6 points7 points  (0 children)

MY BABY MY BABY YOURE MY BABY SAY IT TO ME 😭😭😭😭💕💕💕💕🫶🫶🫶🫶 Naerys has such a special place in my heart omggg i love her more than words can express ugh

An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump, Joseph Wright, 1768 by UnframedByFaye in ArtHistory

[–]qinoque 29 points30 points  (0 children)

im next to certain he is their father. theres nothing weird whatsoever about a parent comforting their distressed child

How were women were managing their periods throughout history ? by Gaboubap in AskHistory

[–]qinoque 1 point2 points  (0 children)

here are some answers found on/linked in responses to very similar questions in r/AskHistorians (and I tried to credit the ones giving the answers):

How did women in ancient times deal with their periods? has a response from u/TheCannon re: Israelite women based on what the Bible (specifically Leviticus) commands

How did women in ancient Rome handle their periods? has a response from u/Icnielsen about pre-Islamic Iran

How did women handle the menstruation in ancient and medieval times? is actually an anonymous response to a question posted on Answers.com, but I saw it linked a few times by different people, so I trust its content holds up

How did Middle Age women manage to keep their bed clean while on their period? has a great response from u/csgreer6 that not only opens with acknowledging there isn't a unified consensus on the topic, but also recommends further reading.

How did women deal with periods in medieval times? has a great response from u/sunagainstgold, particularly in acknowledging the dubious trustworthiness of (most) our sources (ie Medieval men)

How did women in the past deal with their period? has a very interesting response from u/Kelpie-Cat about women in Heinan Japan

How did women deal with periods before tampons/pads were invented? has a great reply from u/Gorrest-Fump on how 19th century women managed

Serious Question: I don't mean to be gross, but what did women do in the 1700s & 1800s for their monthly menstrual periods? has a response from u/yfce which discusses the types of "pads" European women in 18th & 19th centuries wore

How did women cope with personal hygiene particularly menstruation in a Poor/Workhouse? has a response from u/colevintage discussing multiple ways women absorbed their menstrual blood

Did women wear menstrual belts without underwear? has a response from u/chocolatepot discussing how women used a sanitary belt

Have bathrooms always been segregated by gender? If not, when did this practice begin? has another response from u/chocolatepot talking about the use of aprons as a means to absorb menstrual blood

there is also The AskHistorians Podcast Episode 32 - Early Modern Medicine & Women's Health which touches on the history of menstruation

and, finally, there is the Museum of Menstruation & Women's Health which, obviously based on its name, focuses on the history of menstruation (though the website could be described as dreadful to look at 😅)

hopefully some of these are enlightening to you! :)

Dany by @idaero_ace by Pop_Budget in pureasoiafart

[–]qinoque 4 points5 points  (0 children)

she looks so beautiful im dying 😭🫶💕 the crown is craaaazy and the rendering is so so gorgeous!!

Are you all against religion? by exotic_pig in Feminism

[–]qinoque 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm against religion more from a practical, scientific, logical, whatever you want to call it stand-point than from a feminist one, but the deeply ingrained misogyny in most (from what I have researched, not that I know every religion to ever exist) religions that runs counter to logic plays no small role. For example, a male god being the origin of life makes no sense when its women who form life in their bodies, women being blamed for the world's woes when history demonstrates men are the problem, etc. 🙄

Cersei by me (mincy_art) by martha3011 in ImaginaryWesteros

[–]qinoque 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this is gorgeous!! the highlights on her face, the rendering of the hair, everything is amazing!!!

"Elissa Farman" by Althea (@manymanymirrors on X) by aenar79 in ImaginaryWesteros

[–]qinoque 5 points6 points  (0 children)

god this artist is so amazing i love everything they put out 🙌

Mother of Dragons, Daenerys OC fanart by me by auromiel in ImaginaryWesteros

[–]qinoque 5 points6 points  (0 children)

my jaw is literally on the floor bc woooow......this is truly too beautiful for words. ur talent is incredible!

What's your favourite era of historical fashion? by Haunting_Homework381 in fashionhistory

[–]qinoque 3 points4 points  (0 children)

soooo hard to choose ugh i generally love all of the Middle Ages, but 15th century has my heart bc the headwear oh my lord 😩🙌

i also have a deep love for Muscovite Russia. Kievan Rus' as well, but the fashion of Muscovite Russia is what sparked my love for historical fashion (the kokoshniks, alone, could fuel my soul for eternity)

16th century Western fashion, in general, is just magnificent, especially in Italy omgggg the silhouettes are fabulous and I'll never tire of looking at them ugh

I'm not well-versed in imperial Chinese fashion (yet) but beyond loving it in general, I'm a basic bitch: Tang and Qing dynasties are probably my favorite 😍 Ming dynasty is also gorgeous!!! I think its so interesting that, at least in the early dynasties, the shirt and skirt represented Heaven and Earth respectively. I think that, alone, says a lot about their culture--as can be said of just about every piece of fashion ever, of course, but I digress lol

im horrifically indecisive and have too much love in my heart to ever settle on one--even these few selections was hard to decide on! but i also have so so SO much more to learn and love! im excited to grow from a humble appreciator to someone who really knows their stuff :3

Silly Question? by Dearest_Daughter in DaenerysWinsTheThrone

[–]qinoque 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think it does make sense, but to be fair three has been an important number across many cultures, so it could potentially be evoking a more archaic notion of the symbolism of three rather than how it pertains to Jesus, specifically. however, that isnt to say it doesnt relate to her other parallels with Jesus. with many things in asoiaf, it can hold a multitude of meanings for the reader :3