A Great Way to Start a New year!

What a great way to start 2016!

Woke up this morning to the news that THE JESUIT LETTER has been selected for the Historical Novel Society's 2016 HNS Indie Award Shortlist, alongside eight other terrific books!

About 38 books were long-listed by HNS reviewers throughout 2015, then the list was narrowed to a short-list of nine, to be followed by a selection of four finalists, and then, in September, the Indie Award winner!

It is a huge honour to have made the short-list, as there are some excellent books in competition. Best of luck to everyone! Have a look at the shortlist below, you are sure to find some great historical fiction to get you through the winter!

HNS Indie Award 2016 shortlisted titles :

WHEN SORROWS COME Maria Dziedzan https://historicalnovelsociety.org/revie…/when-sorrows-come/

BLOODIE BONES Lucienne Boyce https://historicalnovelsociety.org/reviews/bloodie-bones/

AURELIA Alison Morton https://historicalnovelsociety.org/reviews/aurelia/

A PRIDE OF POPPIES Julia Bozza & others https://historicalnovelsociety.org/revi…/a-pride-of-poppies/

FOSSIL ISLAND Barbara Sjoholm https://historicalnovelsociety.org/reviews/fossil-island/

FAR AWAY Victoria Blake https://historicalnovelsociety.org/reviews/far-away/

THE JESUIT LETTER Dean Hamilton https://historicalnovelsociety.org/revie…/the-jesuit-letter/

ONE SUMMER IN ARCADIA Bill Page https://historicalnovelsociety.org/r…/one-summer-in-arcadia/

OUT OF TIME Loretta Livingstone https://historicalnovelsociety.org/reviews/out-of-time/

From these nine books, four will be selected as finalists and the winner and runner up announced at HNS Oxford 2016 Conference in September.

"Cogging & Foisting": Elizabethan Cardplay & Gaming

“I never prospered since I forswore myself at primero. Well, if my wind were but long enough to say my prayers, I would repent.” 

– Falstaff, The Merry Wives of Windsor by William Shakespeare

Gambling games in the Elizabethan era variously included tossing the bales (dice), shrove-groat, venter point, cross-and-pile (all coin-tossing games), and wide variety of card games such as gleek, cent, foot-savant, maw, bone-ace, monchance & primero in all its many variations. Queen Elizabeth herself was inordinately fond of card games and played regularly (she apparently took Lord North for £33 playing Maw in August, 1577).

Technically gambling and games (along with bowls, tennis & football among others) were forbidden by law. The government instead encouraged all young males to practice the more martially useful sport of archery, an activity that was rapidly waning in face of gunpowder. The statutes on gambling were so commonly broken that the Queen eventually licensed the Groom-Porter's office in 1578 to allow licenses for gaming establishments, a very lucrative prerequisite for the occupants of the position.

The Cardsharps, by Caravaggio, c 1594 - Note the player in the gold-striped doublet is cheating....

Cheating was wide-spread and common, enough that a very specialized vocabulary for the many different variations has emerged and was in common language usage, often by Shakespeare and other playwrights. Cogging & foisting, cozening, cony-catching, bar-dice, bristle-dice, card chopping, highman & lowman and contraries were all actively in play.  False dice in particular were a concern (with at least 14 distinct variations cited) of the Groom-Porter's office as it cut into their own role as a monopoly supplier for licensed dice and cards.

"If you play among strangers, beware of him that seems simple or drunken; for under their habit the most special cozeners are presented, and while you think by their simplicity and imperfections to beguile them...you yourself will be most of all overtaken." - Reginald Scott, Discovery of Witchcraft, 1584

Elizabethan-era card decks were commonly imported from France or Germany. The earliest, most well-known designs were from Rouen, France by Pierre Marechal.  Spanish and Italian cards typically used 4 suits - chalices, swords, coins, and batons, while Germanic cards displayed hearts, acorns, hawk-bells, and leaves.  The French (and subsequent English cards) used the familiar hearts, spades, diamonds and clubs of today, although the cards did not display any numerals.

Facsimile based on playing cards by Pierre Marechal of Rouen, c.1567  
Published by Rose & Pentagram Design, 2006. www.historicgames.com

These French card designs formed the basis for the subsequent development of English card decks after foreign cards were banned in 1628. Very few cards remain extant today, only about a dozen cards from the 1590's have survived.

Attitudes of the Puritan authorities towards any type of recreational activity, particularly gaming of any form, was generally negative. Even bowls, the famous pastime Sir Francis Drake was engaged in 1588 while waiting for the arrival of the Spanish Armada, was problematic. Bowling alleys are described in School of Abuse (1579) by Stephen Gosson as "privy moths that eat up the credit of many idle citizens, whose gains at home are not able to weight down their losses abroad, whose shops are so far from maintaining their play, that their wives and children cry out for bread, and go to bed supperless oft in the year."

Of all the card games, Primero was probably the most popular and widespread 16th century card game. The game originated in Italy or Spain.  Widespread across Europe, it is widely considered one of the precursors of modern Poker.  The game was very fashionable during the Tudor and Elizabethan eras.

Primero is commonly played with four to six players, and with a 40-card deck (the 1567 Rouen deck pictured above, of which you can get a gloriously colourful reproduction of from historicgames.com is perfect), with the 8, 9 and 10 cards removed.

Here is a quick (and fairly light) review of the basic rules, in case you wanted to "toss a hand" (be advised, there are a number of variant rules and approaches. This is just one variant, the one I used in illustrating a card-playing scene in my book The Jesuit Letter).

Each card has certain points value, regardless of suit:

• Cards 2 to 5 = 10 points plus their value (i.e. 2 Clubs = 12 pts) 
• Cards 6 and 7 = 3x their value  (i.e. 6 Hearts = 18 pts)
• Face cards all count for 10 pts
• Aces = 16 pts

PRIMERO HANDS FROM HIGH TO LOW

• Chorus (Quartet) = Four  of a kind 
• Fluxus (Flush)  = All cards of the same suit
• Numerus (Point) = Two or three cards of the same suit. 
• Supremus (Fifty-five) = The highest possible three-flush, the Ace, 6, 7 (plus an unrelated fourth card) and Ace card from any other suit.
• Primero (Prime) = One card from each suit. It’s a four-card hand containing one card of each suit, hence the exact opposite of a “Flush” in Poker. 

HOW TO PLAY:

Two cards are dealt to each player (face down).  Players may elect to Vie/Bid, Stake or Pass. 

A Bid is an initial bet, but players must state their supposed point total of their hand, the hand type, and the bid amount (i.e. “Numerus 34, Bid $5).  Players  may understate their hands but you are not allowed to overstate its actual value.  

The next player may elect to Stake (cover) the bid or Pass.  If Staking, the player must cover the $ value bet (toss your coins into the pot), and state a hand of greater value than the previous player’s Bid.  If the player also elects to Bid, the player that follows them only needs to cover the previous player’s Bid, not the original one.

If the player elects to Pass, they put no money in, but must discard two cards and draw another two.

Once all players have Bid, or Passed, the second two cards are dealt.  Each player now has four cards.  Players may elect to Bid, Stake or Pass.

The rounds of Bid, Stake or Pass continues around until the last Bid is staked (similar to a covering the raise in Poker) at which point the winner (highest point value) would take the pot.

EXAMPLE:

The first set of two cards are dealt: 

1. Player 1 is dealt 2 cards, a King of spades (10 pts) and five hearts (15 pts).  If bidding, P1 would state “Primero 20 (understating his actual hand value of Primero 25), $2.”
2. Player 2 is dealt two sevens (hearts & clubs) for a total of 42 pts. He could Pass, putting in no $  (and discard his two cards for another two) , Stake for the previous P1 bid of $2, and then Bid himself with “Primero 34, Bid $15).
3. Player 3 is dealt a three clubs (13 pts) and a four diamonds (14 pts), for a total of  27 pts.  P3 passes puts in no $ and discards his two cards for two new cards. Note, if he had decided to stake, he would be staking for the P2’s bid of $15. By passing, P3 has dumped that option onto P4.
4. Player 4 receives a Queen hearts (10 pts)and an Ace hearts (16 pts) for a total of 26 pts. P4 Stakes the $15 and bids “Numerus 24, Bid $10)

The second set of two cards is dealt:

1. P1 receives two clubs (12 pts) and five spades (15 pts).  P1 already has a King spades & five hearts, giving him a hand type of Numerus, with a total point value of 52 pts.
2. P2 receives Jack hearts (10 pts) and an Ace spades (16 pts) . With P2’s two sevens, he now has a hand type of Numerus with a point value of 68.
3. P3 passed during the last round, drawing a ten hearts (10 pts) and a six clubs (16 pts). P2 now receives a ten diamonds (10 pts) and a Queen spades (10 pts). This leaves him with a hand type of Primero, with a point value of 46.
4. P4 is dealt another two hearts, the four (14 pts)  and the two (12 pts). This gives him a Fluxus (four of suit) with 52 points.
5. The rounds of Bid, Stake or Pass continues around until the last Bid is staked (similar to a covering the raise in Poker) at which point the winner takes the pot. If the round ends with the current set of cards, then P4 wins with a Fluxus 52.

Now go forth, and win yourself some coin!

"I was as virtuously given as a gentleman 

need to be; virtuous enough; swore little; diced not 

above seven times a week; went to a bawdy-house once 

in a quarter—of an hour; paid money that I 

borrowed, three of four times; lived well and in 

good compass: and now I live out of all order, out 

of all compass." 

- Falstaff, Henry IV Part I

SOURCES:

1. The Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England by Ian Mortimer
2. The Elizabethan Underworld by Gamini Salgado
3. Wikipedia, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primero
4. Primero: A Renaissance Card Game, by Jeff A. Suzuki, 1994.  http://math.bu.edu/people/jeffs/primero.html
5. Game Report: Primero http://jducoeur.com/game-hist/game-recon-primero.html

HOLIDAY SPECIAL!

Still shopping? Need a stocking stuffer?  Grab some great holiday reading!

THE JESUIT LETTER is available on Kindle via Amazon.com for only $.99!

Limited time offer from Dec 23-25.

"a rousingly good debut novel" - The Historical Novel Society 

★HNS Editors Choice★

★HNS Indie Award 2016 Long-list Selection★

Get your copy of THE JESUIT LETTER!

http://amzn.to/1IUH3bC

Note: Apparently the KDP Amazon sales offer is only available via Amazon.com, so if you are looking for it on Amazon.ca, please accept my humblest apologies. Not sure why they have their systems set up in that way, but it is outside of my control...Sorry!

‪#‎histfic‬ ‪#‎Indie‬

A Day in the Life....

Pulled together a few more Gorongosa Wildcam .gifs.

The first one covers a 24-hour period on one of the cams, the other two are some buffalo and baboons enjoying their day.

Elizabethans at the Movies, Part 4

Here’s Part 4 of my Elizabethans at the Movies series, taking a quick look at the most recent crop of modern Elizabethan-era films.

Apologies for not getting this posted earlier in the week but the holiday season and life intervened.  In any case, here is Part 4, where we look at The Other Boleyn Girl:


The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

Director: Justin Chadwick

Stars: Natalie Portman, Scarlett Johansson, Eric Bana

The Other Boleyn Girl is a much romanticized, soap operatic account of the events surrounding Henry VIII’s tempestuous relationship with Anne Boleyn, the subsequent divorce with Catherine of Aragon and Anne’s eventual rise to marriage and the position of Queen, followed by her abrupt fall, trial and execution.

The basic story centres around the ambitious Boleyn family – the uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, and Thomas Boleyn (the father) plot to introduce Henry VIII (Eric Bana, in a not particularly believable portrayal) to Boleyn’s daughter Mary (played by Scarlet Johansson) as a potential mistress (a most disquieting effort to pimp out his daughters…). Boleyn hopes to have position, titles and revenue as a reward for Henry’s possibly being able to sire a son and heir on his daughter. Henry duly becomes infatuated with Mary and becomes involved. Anne Boleyn (played by Natalie Portman) meanwhile secretly marries a nobleman, a marriage that Anne, fearing the King’s displeasure, rats out to her father and results in Anne being exiled to France and the marriage annulled. When Mary becomes pregnant, the Boleyn’s fear the King will lose interest, so they bring Anne back to keep the King’s attentions. Mary gives birth to a son but, alas, he’s a bastard, and so Mary and her new child are exiled to the country, while Anne replaces her sister as Henry’s new favorite. Anne pressures Henry to break with the Church and divorce Catherine, eventually he agrees, declares himself head of the church, has the marriage annulled and marries Anne Boleyn, who is now…wait for the drumroll…Queen of England. Anne gives birth to a daughter (Elizabeth, eventually to become Cate Blanchett..er…uhm…Queen Elizabeth) but fails to deliver to Henry the long-sought son and heir, for which he sundered the religious equanimity of his kingdom.

Fearing the King’s wrath over the miscarriage of his supposed son, Anne plots to father a child with her brother (spoiler: they don’t). The plot is reported, the two arrested for treason, incest and adultery. Her brother George loses his head, followed swiftly by Anne after a trial. Mary attempts to intercede but fails and is warned to no longer appear at Court. Henry VIII goes on to marry his next wife (Jane Seymour), Mary returns to her country exile, helping to raise Elizabeth, and Anne gets to fatally meet the Swordsman of Calais…

The Other Boleyn Girl is, as with so many of the Tudor/Elizabethan period pieces, gorgeous to watch. Sumptuous costumes, terrific historical locations and tolerable acting make what is a fairly pedestrian and overly melodramatic script work as a decent, if not particularly memorable film. There is nothing terrible in this movie, but nothing particularly memorable either. Both Portman and Johansson give strong performances as the Boleyn ladies but they are somewhat undone by the overall structure and pace of the movie. There seems to be little urgency around their actions (at least until Portman suddenly begins suggesting incest to her brother as a solution to their problems – a moment that feels highly forced and bluntly, illogical).

Historically there are a number of issues with this film, aside from the usual time-compression and conflation that almost all Hollywood historical dramas are guilty of when brought to the screen. The film understates Mary Boleyn’s role as a mistress, deliberately creating an air of innocence around a woman who historically had purportedly been the previous mistress of the King of France (who also, in the classy manner of so much royalty, described her as “a hackney” because she was fun to ride). The dual portrait of the Boleyn sisters as either naive innocent vs. scheming vixen ends up being both shallow and historically inaccurate.

As an added bonus, the film doesn’t do Henry VIII much justice either. The King is generally treated as a smoldering sex obsessive, slipping from one fruitless, frustrated dalliance to the next, trying in vain to beget an heir. Henry VIII was a complex character in his own right – vain, very much a man who believed in his own eminence and God-given divine right to rule but clever, manipulative and often mercurial.  The Henry VIII in The Other Boleyn Girl is a one-dimensional shade of the real character.

Overall The Other Boleyn Girl is a decent, if uninspired film, with good acting, nice sets and an overly melodramatic plot line that frankly, doesn’t treat the material with the respect it probably deserves. If you are looking for a more interesting take on the era, check out the miniseries The Tudors, which offers a longer and more nuanced look at the characters (particularly Anne Boleyn, archly acted by Natalie Dormer) and the era, although it also suffers from significant historical accuracy.

Ranking: B- / C+

Attention Shoppers.....

Something to add to your holiday shopping list...‪‎

THE JESUIT LETTER will be available on Amazon Kindle for $0.99 from Dec 23-25th!

http://amzn.to/1IUH3bC

Elizabethans at the Movies Part 3

Here’s Part 3 of my Elizabethan's at the Movies series taking a quick look at the most recent crop of modern Elizabethan-era films. Today:

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Director: John Madden

Stars: Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Tom Wilkinson

Shakespeare in Love is an exceptionally enjoyable film (though whether it deserved to win Best Picture in a year with Saving Private Ryan and Life is Beautiful is very debatable). Oddly enough, 1998 saw Joseph Fiennes playing Shakespeare while simultaneously playing Robert Dudley in Elizabeth alongside Geoffrey Rush playing theatre-owner Henslowe and Francis Walsingham. A good Elizabethan year for them both, I presume. (FYI some spoilers in the review I’m afraid…)


The movie is a romantic comedy that follows struggling playwright Will Shakespeare, suffering from penury, romantic loss, and one of the better cases of writer’s block set to film. Having sold a yet unwritten play to both Henslowe’s Rose Theatre and Burbage’s Curtain, Shakespeare must re-discover his muse, while simultaneously penning the epic Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter. Meanwhile Viola de Lessops (Gwyneth Paltrow), a wealthy merchant’s daughter, disguises herself as a man (Thomas Kent) in order to audition for Shakespeare’s new work. The playwright follows the “actor” back to the de Lessop household and crashes the party being given for Lord Wessex, where he espies Viola (resuming her role as herself) dancing and is immediately smitten.

Inspired, he begins to write again and, as the play progresses, so does Shakespeare’s infatuation with Viola, which deepens into an affair when he discovers that she and Thomas Kent are one and the same.

Eventually Shakespeare discovers Viola is to be married to Lord Wessex, and Viola discovers that the playwright already has a wife waiting in Stratford, a very Shakespearean back and forth ensues that culminates in the performance of the tragic romance of Romeo and Juliet at the Curtain when Viola is forced to step into the role of Juliet when circumstances require it. Alas, the fates are destined to part the tragic lovers, with Viola married off to Lord Wessex and gone to the New World and Virginia. Shakespeare, however has re-inspired his muse and sets forth to write Twelfth Night.

One of the standout elements of the film is the dialogue, which is simultaneously snappy and clever. Here’s a brief excerpt of Henslowe facing down his creditors:

Philip Henslowe: Mr. Fennyman, allow me to explain about the theatre business. The natural condition is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster.
Hugh Fennyman: So what do we do?
Philip Henslowe: Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well.
Hugh Fennyman: How?
Philip Henslowe: I don't know. It's a mystery.

Overall this is a vastly more enjoyable look at Shakespeare than Anonymous was, although with its historical or literary accuracy served in broad strokes.  It is fun, light-hearted and soulful by turns, with more respect for the characters and the setting than Anonymous ever cared to display. It feels more Shakespearean and in tune with the Bard’s work. The acting is solid with both Paltrow and Fiennes offering superb work in their respective roles, supported by a vast array of excellent character actors that, oddly enough, includes Ben Affleck as Edward Alleyn, the premier actor in the Admiral’s Men. Affleck delivers what was my favourite line:

William Shakespeare: You, sir, are a gentleman.
Ned Alleyn: And you, sir, are a Warwickshire shithouse.

So what is inaccurate? Much, but more in realism than in approach. The film is set in 1593, which does fit with the timelines of when Romeo and Juliet was estimated to have been written and performed. Kit Marlowe did die in a Deptford tavern brawl in 1593 (knife through the eye in a dispute over the bill, although he was also, at the time, hanging about with several of Francis Walsingham's agents, so read into that what you will...), so the film gets its major key facts correct. Despite the ostensibly setting and era Shakespeare has a souvenir mug from Stratford-upon-Avon sitting on his shelf, and consults a doctor/astrologist/psychologist for advice on how to re-ignite his literary passions. These type of clever references abound and anyone with a knowledge of Shakespeare’s works will have an enjoyable time picking out all the many references and in-jokes.

As an added bonus, apparently the film is now in the process of being converted to a stage play, so the circle is now complete...

In sum, Shakespeare in Love is a witty, engaging and energetically fun film, and highly recommended!

Ranking: A

Tomorrow, The Other Boleyn Girl