Ursula

There's an interesting review of Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America’s Public Universities at the MAA website. Bressoud writes:

The most interesting observation made by these authors [William Bowen, Matthew Chingos, and Michael McPherson] is the importance of the selectivity of the university. It is not surprising that the more selective the university, the better the graduation rate. What is surprising is that this effect is still substantial even when controlling for SAT scores and high school GPA. At the most selective flagship universities, a student with a combined SAT score between 1000 and 1100 and a high school GPA between 3.00 and 3.33 has a 72.5% chance of graduating within six years. As selectivity decreases, so does the probability that this student will graduate within six years. It drops to only 53.5% at the least selective state universities.

The evidence is that more selective universities really do offer a better education. Higher expectations from faculty and peers, better educational resources, and more complete financial aid are certainly among the factors at play. The authors found evidence that overmatching (going to a university where one’s academic record is near the bottom of those accepted) still improves the probability of graduating within six years, and undermatching (choosing a less selective university when fully qualified for a more selective one) seriously decreases the probability of graduating within six years.

In the Society for Creative Anachronism, rulers of a kingdom are chosen by tournament. Each entrant in the tournament must designate a person as "inspiration", who will serve as consort if that entrant wins the tourney; fighter and inspiration must be of opposite sex. Sovereign principalities must have one prince and one princess. Baronies may have one baron, one baroness, or a baron and a baroness, but may not have two ruling nobles of the same sex.

Debate about this policy within the Society generally follows the lines of the gay marriage debate. Supporters of the status quo often add that there's no historical basis for two men or two women in a romantic relationship serving as rulers of a medieval kingdom; opponents of the status quo concede this point, but argue that the policy should be changed anyway, for reasons of basic fairness.

I believe that the gay marriage analogy is flawed, for a simple reason: there is no requirement in the SCA, tacit or explicit, that ruling nobles have any sort of romantic or sexual relationship. If Duke Hypothetical, having divorced Countess Mundania, chose to fight for his grown daughter Lady Hypothetica, the populace's response would be, "Why, isn't that sweet!" not "Incest is disgusting! I can't subject my children to this filth!" I've heard young men advised to choose a long-time SCA member, someone old enough to be their mother, as inspiration (to provide grounding experience to a reign). And I've known multiple pairs of ruling nobles and fighters/inspirations who were not involved romantically and not ever planning to start.

Thus, the appropriate historical question is not "Did two men or two women in a romantic relationship serve as rulers of a medieval kingdom?" The appropriate question is, "Did two men or two women ever share ceremonial rulership of a medieval kingdom?" (I specify ceremonial rulership since, in the Middle Ages as in the Society, the precise balance of real power varied based on time, place, and circumstance.)

Did two men or two women ever share ceremonial rulership? Absolutely! Those of us raised on English fairy tales often assume that a king's oldest surviving son must inherit the kingdom; but in much of medieval Europe, succession by primogeniture was neither obvious nor inevitable. Kings, counts, dukes, princes, and emperors often chose to crown a successor while they were still alive to pick one. The chosen co-ruler was often a son, brother, or spouse of the first ruler, but not always: sometimes an ambitious person finagled a co-rulership, and sometimes co-rulership solved a territorial dispute.

A random selection of co-rulers in medieval Europe follows.

• In June 1170, Henry, the second (and then oldest surviving) son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, was crowned king by the Archbishop of York. He is generally known as Henry the Young King; since he died before his father, he never reigned alone.
  
• French kings who ruled with their fathers include Hugh, son of Robert II (eleventh century), and Philip, son of Louis XI (twelfth century)
  
• Several of the English kings of Kent ruled jointly with fathers, sons, brothers, or nephews.
  
• Harold Hardrada forced his nephew Magnus the Good to share the kingdom of Norway with him.
  
• In the Italian principality of Capua-Benvenuto, brothers as well as fathers and sons shared the title of prince (The New Cambridge Medieval History notes, "On one occasion, very briefly in 939-40, this meant that there were no less than four persons using the princely title: Landulf I, two of his sons and his younger brother, Atenulf II.")
  
• The German region of Oels-Cossil had brothers ruling as co-princes in the fifteenth century.
  
• A thirteenth-century treaty made Andorra a principality governed by two unrelated co-princes, the Count of Foix and the Bishop of Urgell.
  
• In the tenth-century, the duchies of Naples and Amalfi had father and son co-dukes.
  
• Father/son pairs served as co-counts of Flanders (twelfth century), Toulouse (tenth century), and Macon (tenth century).
  
• Pairs of brothers shared countship in medieval Catalonia (see Ch. 8 in The Experience of Power in Medieval Europe)
  

I have listed western European examples above. In the Roman empire, and later in the Byzantine empire, multiple emperors were quite common: examples include Justin and Justinian, as well as the two empress plus emperor combination of the sisters Zoe and Theodora together with Zoe's husband Constantine IX. (See
Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium.)

The Claremont libraries have a digitized edition of Shelley's friend Edward Ellerker Williams's sketchbook:

http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/collection.php?alias=joe

(Click on the image to see a list of the book's pages.)

Williams was a retired Navy officer; he, Shelley, and another Englishman died when Shelley's schooner was caught in a storm. The notebook has drawings of ships from different countries & Shakespearean characters, pressed flowers, fragments of verse.

We made it to Claremont last night, and are now off to find breakfast.

Anyone want a Dreamwidth invite? I have five codes at the moment, though one may be spoken for.

Baronial Banquet was last night. The food was tasty as always, and I am now the proud owner of two pewter spoons. (I'm kind of tempted to take up eating with knife, spoon, and my hands at events, though the sad truth is I'd be conspicuous.)

The beginning of event season makes me think about all the stuff I want. Here are some things I'd be interested in trading for:

• A bit of tablet-weaving for a fillet
  
• Lampworked beads
  
• A simple late-period skirt
  
• Ottoman pants
  

In return I can offer knitting (socks, stockings, bags, women's gloves or mittens, maybe a hat though I'm kind of bored of doing those), poetry, Latin translation, persona genealogies (hire a herald to prove your nobility!), or scribal stuff (if you're patient). (Oh, I can also offer portable medieval food, or fancy library tricks.)

Anyone interested?

Made it to my parents' house at 9 PM Christmas Eve. That's about 9 hours door to door, with a break for curry in the middle.

A World War Two poem, for the Armistice Day that was.

NAMING OF PARTS
(by Henry Reed, 1914-1986)

To-day we have naming of parts. Yesterday,
We had daily cleaning. And to-morrow morning,
We shall have what to do after firing. But to-day,
To-day we have naming of parts. Japonica
Glistens like coral in all of the neighboring gardens,
And to-day we have naming of parts.

This is the lower sling swivel. And this
Is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see,
When you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel,
Which in your case you have not got. The branches
Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures,
Which in our case we have not got.

This is the safety-catch, which is always released
With an easy flick of the thumb. And please do not let me
See anyone using his finger. You can do it quite easy
If you have any strength in your thumb. The blossoms
Are fragile and motionless, never letting anyone see
Any of them using their finger.

And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this
Is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it
Rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this
Easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards
The early bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers:
They call it easing the Spring.

They call it easing the Spring: it is perfectly easy
If you have any strength in your thumb: like the bolt,
And the breech, and the cocking-piece, and the point of balance,
Which in our case we have not got; and the almond-blossom
Silent in all of the gardens and the bees going backwards and forwards,
For to-day we have naming of parts.

My poem "To Seek Her Fortune" is live at Goblin Fruit.

An excerpt from Taras Grescoe's book Bottomfeeder follows. Short version: you should not be eating farmed shrimp, especially imported farmed shrimp, unless you are a big fan of diesel oil, carcinogens, and drug-resistant salmonella. This is pretty much all inexpensive shrimp, including the stuff at your local chain restaurant or supermarket.

( poisonous details )