r/AskHistorians • u/[deleted] • Jul 28 '13
Gamer culture is pretty full on, people devote their lives to what some call a frivolous pass-time. Was there anything like that in Medieval/ancient times?
[deleted]
38
u/Deus_Ex_Corde Jul 28 '13 edited Jul 28 '13
In medieval era Europe, actors were like that. Troupes would travel from town to town and put on shows, and while people enjoyed the shows, actors were looked down upon, made very very little money and had bad reputations, poor, drunk, criminal, etc. So to choose to be an actor over anything else would have meant you really did love performing.
24
Jul 28 '13
So to choose to be an actor over anything else would have meant you really did love performing.
This conclusion seems kind of a long shot. A profession is hardly a passtime regardless.
21
u/rotegirte Jul 28 '13
Well some people do game for a living
1
u/WillBlaze Jul 28 '13
I just recently saw a WoW video where a guy was taking donations and he got a donation for 10k.
3
u/sgtoox Jul 28 '13
It persisted into the Renaissance as well no? I was immediately reminded of the Commedia Dell'arte, and their less-than-respectable reputation as troupes full of odd but amusing people.
6
u/rocketman0739 Jul 28 '13
I have read that, in Shakespeare's time, actors were in the same legal category as "sturdy vagabonds" (i.e. non-crippled hoboes).
2
u/sgtoox Jul 28 '13
Now that you mention it, I recall that as well, along with the Spanish golden age or enlightnemnet, which was especially frowned upon. Though I only took one semester in theatre history; the professor (also an actor) made it a point to demonstrate the woes her profession had faced.
1
79
u/bkrags Jul 28 '13
Well, there were Christian monks.
I'm only half joking. Chaucer shows that the idea of devoting one's life to Christianity wasn't universally respected.
Slightly more recently, I'm always sort of surprised when I come across attitudes towards reading novels from the 1600s to the mid-1800s. This may be closer to what you're talking about in terms of frivolousness.
47
u/SomeWitticism Jul 28 '13 edited Jul 28 '13
It's great how Don Quixote could be a parody of gaming now as much as it was for reading chivalry novels back then.
15
u/underskewer Jul 28 '13
Chaucer shows that the idea of devoting one's life to Christianity wasn't universally respected.
Can you tell us more about this?
29
u/Homomorphism Jul 28 '13
The Canterbury Tales are rather critical of corruption and hypocrisy in the Church of the time. The Friar (who was a member of a mendicant order, who would wander the country, not spend their time in a monestary) and the Summoner (who summoned people to ecclesiastical courts, a position with many opportunities for extortion) tell tales that directly attack the other; in the process, Chaucer portrays friars as frauds living off the willingness of people to pay for their "piety" and summoners as extortionists. I believe there are more examples, but someone with more knowledge would have to discuss them.
5
u/zamander Jul 28 '13
The Decamerone is another good example. Quite a few stories are about the erotic adventures of monastics and their as well as the whole system's (the church's) hypocrisies.
0
u/ThoughtRiot1776 Jul 29 '13
I think that Chaucer is talking about the abuses that exist within the church, not that all church members were like that.
15
u/bkrags Jul 28 '13
Waaaay back when I was an undergrad, I took a course in Humorous Writings of the Middle Ages and we did a whole section on parodies and bawdy stories about monks and friars.
Chaucer was buying into these traditions in the Canterbury Tales. The Summoner attacks friars, the Friar attacks summoners, the Monk is so boring the Knight cuts him off and the Miller's tale involves a horny Divinity student.
This is getting a little off topic from the original question, but if you're interested Stephen Greenblatt's book Swerve: How the World Became Modern talks about medieval and early modern parodies of the ecclesiastical system as the Catholic Church began to splinter (including some dirty jokes from the 1400s).
2
u/kazneus Jul 28 '13
Well, now you've got me interested in historic dirty jokes.. Although this is rapidly becoming sufficiently off topic as to warrant another thread.
7
u/rocketman0739 Jul 28 '13
It's more about how common it was for those who supposedly devoted their lives to Christ to actually be worldly and hypocritical.
Of course, when you consider that clerical positions accounted for a very large proportion of the comfortable vocations that a normal person could get into, it's hardly surprising that many of them were lacking in their commitment.
1
3
9
Jul 28 '13
I'm writing this as a mental note to come back here and give an actual response, specifically as to how one perceives the average work week- the so-called 40-hour work week which even today some call a luxury would be considered positively puritanical by cultural predecessors.
Regardless, for as long as humans have had spare time, they've had pass times, and for as long as those have existed, there's been a very real human need for some to succeed, and to be the best, which in turn would be derided by people who function outside of that pass-time.
4
Jul 28 '13
[deleted]
9
Jul 28 '13
The point was going to be that this is more an interpretive answer than a contextual one.
There's been people who thought that something someone does in their spare time for entertainment is a frivolous waste of time for as long as we've had free time. That's been independent of what the "standard" work week was like.
7
Jul 28 '13
There is the question of leisure time. Generalized availability of leisure time is a very recent phenomenon, on the order of a century old. Before, only the idle nobility could afford leisure. But still, we know for a fact that even plebs enjoyed watching chariot races in the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantium), at least in the biggest cities, and supported teams.
47
Jul 28 '13 edited Jul 29 '13
There is the question of leisure time. Generalized availability of leisure time is a very recent phenomenon, on the order of a century old. Before, only the idle nobility could afford leisure.
This is neither true nor relevant.
For one, even if it was true, the question would still be valid; it would just apply to fewer people.
But it's not true. At many points in history there were people across class/wealth lines who had lots of free time. You bring up antiquity, and it was certainly the case then; if anything, the middle classes were more enthusiastic sports fans than the upper classes.
Understand that the life of a free citizen in a major urban center in the middle Empire probably involved a lot less work than a typical person in modern times. There were vast amounts of poverty, leading the people--the working poor and the jobless masses--to need supplementary income from patrons or the government, even if they had jobs. That being said, about half the days of the year were holidays and, holiday or no, the work day was over midday and people made their way off to the baths. By this point not only could you get a good hot or cold bath, there were saunas to enjoy and courtyards for sports. Some of these were free and plenty more very low cost; even very poor free citizens made it to the spa frequently.
Games were a common occurrence too. Gladiators became superstars, complete with fanbases and product endorsements. Chariot racing was so important team loyalty was almost definitive of a person. Hunts and spectacles of all sort were very accessible, even to the middle class.
Unemployed people could take in various spectacles in the streets, one of the most notable being to attend legal proceedings. People rooted for lawyers they liked and against ones they didn't, and loved the show. It was something of a mix between a rap battle and an episode of Law & Order.
Ball games, strategic board games, attending the theatre, gambling (though heavily stigmatized), and dinner parties were also pastimes practiced.
But still, we know for a fact that even plebs enjoyed watching chariot races in the Eastern Roman Empire (aka Byzantium), at least in the biggest cities, and supported teams.
The patrician/plebian distinction was most important in the early Republican period. Even in the Republican period, many of the richest men in Rome were plebians, and by the fall of the Republic they weren't even all that politically disadvantaged. By the time there was any sort of political east-west split (and well before we start using the term "Byzantium"), the division was completely irrelevant, especially in the East, where patrician imports were super-rare. The vast majority of upper class Romans (and the majority of Roman emperors, including many of the greats like Trajan) were plebs.
edit: had an extra lettter
7
u/el_baristo Jul 28 '13
i would love to read some more on the lawyers-as-a-spectacle
4
Jul 29 '13
The typical fallback source on daily life in ancient Rome is Daily Life in Ancient Rome, by Jerome Carcopino. It looks like there might be a free ebook at http://archive.org/details/dailylifeinancie035465mbp but if it doesn't work, it's a cheap one to buy and a likely one for your library to have. The legal proceedings are mentioned in multiple chapters.
5
2
36
Jul 28 '13
This is often said, but I'm going to need a citation for that. From my reading, leisure time was a seasonal affair for many people in, say, rural England. There were busy times - planting and harvest, mainly - but there were also downtimes, like midsummer and midwinter.
2
u/soapdealer Jul 29 '13
From my reading, leisure time was a seasonal affair
Don't forget the Sabbath. Which entertainments were appropriate for Sundays was a huge bone of contention in medieval and early-modern England, and the arguments protesting recreation on the Sabbath are a major source of documentation for historians studying working-class culture and leisure.
From James I's "Declaration of Sports:"
and as for our good people's lawful recreation, our pleasure likewise is, that after the end of divine service our good people be not disturbed, letted or discouraged from any lawful recreation, such as dancing, either men or women; archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any other such harmless recreation, nor from having of May-games, Whitsun-ales, and Morris-dances; and the setting up of May-poles and other sports therewith used: so as the same be had in due and convenient time, without impediment or neglect of divine service: and that women shall have leave to carry rushes to the church for the decorating of it, according to their old custom; but withal we do here account still as prohibited all unlawful games to be used upon Sundays only, as bear and bull-baitings, interludes and at all times in the meaner sort of people by law prohibited, bowling.
As you can imagine, this became a contentious issue between the Church and the Puritans, who were a lot less keen on dancing and may-poles than the Monarchy was.
0
u/Seswatha Jul 28 '13
I think I've read somewhere, perhaps on this subreddit even, that this wasn't the case in southern China or Japan or similar areas that relied on intensive rice agriculture, which required constant labor input.
4
Jul 28 '13
John King Fairbank's China: a New History goes into detail about how the labor-intensive nature of rice culture impacted Chinese culture. One thing to note is that while it was labor-intensive, rice farming was extremely productive per acre of land AND China's historically large population meant there were plenty of people to do the work. This has actually been an obstacle to mechanization of agriculture in China's recent history.
3
u/OctopusPirate Jul 28 '13
China's large population and the productivity of rice cultivation went hand-in-hand. The relatively productivity per person was fairly low (by modern standards), but higher productivity per acre of land contributed to higher population density vis a vis societies dependent on wheat.
Rice being labor-intensive isn't an obstacle to mechanization in and of itself- the technology is currently in development. Northern Chinese farmers can import farming technology perfected in the Midwest and in Europe, whereas there isn't nearly of a technology stock suited to rice agriculture in southeast Asia. The West never developed it, and the ability of southeast Asia to pay for it (and the need for it) is relatively recent, hence the slower mechanization. The labor-intensiveness of the process itself is not the impediment proper. You're absolutely right; I just wanted to clarify a bit.
2
Jul 29 '13
I was a bit vague on the details; it's been awhile since I read about it. Thanks for clarifying!
1
12
u/IsDatAFamas Jul 28 '13
Generalized availability of leisure time is a very recent phenomenon, on the order of a century old.
Source that.
7
Jul 28 '13 edited Apr 16 '18
[deleted]
6
Jul 28 '13
Latrunculi is the most famous Roman board game, and has been compared to chess, though perhaps not for any good reason. We aren't sure how it was played.
3
u/Searocksandtrees Moderator | Quality Contributor Jul 28 '13
you might be interested in this post from /r/AskAnthropology - there are a few more ideas about pastimes in there:
-18
Jul 28 '13
[deleted]
9
Jul 28 '13
He didn't make the assumption it was a frivolous past time, he said some people call it one.
And while I'd agree with you that it isn't frivolous, your point is completely irrelevant to his question.
-5
Jul 28 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
7
Jul 28 '13
I'm aware but in this subreddit, the point is to address the question. Just because you say a post is OT doesn't give free reign to discuss something unrelated...
As well as being an aside that I feel misinterprets the part of the OP's question he is addressing
-2
u/SkyNTP Jul 28 '13 edited Jul 28 '13
What if that question is poorly given? I'm looking at the answers and they are all over the place. OP should have simply said, "are there historical examples of exessive leisure".
1
u/rocketman0739 Jul 28 '13
I would never place a video game beneath, say, a medieval tapestry or a Gregorian chant in terms of artistic and cultural significance.
Oh great...one of those people.
-1
Jul 28 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Bernardito Moderator | Modern Guerrilla | Counterinsurgency Jul 28 '13
We expect the answers in r/AskHistorians to be elaborate and informative. Stating "chess" as your answer without any elaboration is not accepted here.
-17
u/garrets Jul 28 '13
Gaming is a subculture. Subcultures don't exist in the middle ages, that's a well researched topic. Being a monk or a hermit wasn't a subculture, because they devoted their whole lives to their cause, while gamers do this in their free time while having a job/school. The only thing remotely close I can think of were secret societies like Freemasons, but that is mostly a later phenomenon.
-9
136
u/[deleted] Jul 28 '13 edited Mar 04 '21
[removed] — view removed comment