Contrary to what most of us were raised believing, dogs can see in colour. Not the same as we see things, but similar.

Dogs are dichromats which means they have two different colour receptors (we have three). They see the blue/indigo/violet range and the yellow-green range (so that’s the Y G BIV part of the old ‘roy g biv’ mnemonic device.) What they lack (and what we have) is the RO or red/orange receptors.

And grey. It seems grey is the base colour in any creature that uses receptors to see.

So, dogs see in a couple of shades each of blue, and yellow/green and grey. They see red and orange as ‘green’, anything of a greenish blue as gray and they struggle to see purple.

And so now we know!

The first ever captive breeding of Australia’s famous black-swans was by Josephine Boneparte. That’s right… Mrs Napoleon.

Turns out Napoleon and Josephine shared a fascination for Australia which was–back then–deemed the most mysterious and desireable place on the planet (heh…how times change). The Boneparte’s funded an exploration by french artist Nicolas Baudin to come and see what we had, take a bunch of it and hot foot it back to Paris.

Baudin and his crew managed to a) encounter and trade with native aboriginal people amicably and without loss of life, and b) keep 200 plants and countless animals alive on the long journey home to France.  On wine-soaked bread, supposedly.

After arrival in France the male and female black swan specimens bred, making theirs the first ever captive breeding of the species (Cygnus atratus). Swans are fiercly loyal and monogomous, so it’s lucky that Baudin’s crew caught up an already bonded pair or they might never have had any fluffy grey cygnets.

More info (and an exhibition…)

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/napoleons-fascination-with-australia-revealed.htm

Eat dirt and…thrive!

When orangutans (well, primates and also other animals specifically but this bit of info comes from an orangutan source) accidentally eat something that is toxic they quickly descend to the forest floor and eat fistfuls of soil. It seems that dirt quickly draws the toxins out of the food.

I was curious to see if this was true for human primates so I did a bit of fast Googling.

The first recorded incident of geophagy (soil eating) in humans was recorded by Hippocretes over 2000 years ago but, today, it is abundant on every continent.  Almost all human infants will eat soil given a chance, but most move away from the practice after their toddlerhood. What’s  not clear is whether they just naturally drift from the habit or are finger-slapped out of it. Studies of people that don’t grow out of the habit show a particular prevalence during pregnancy and in early adolescence (two periods where humans are particularly susceptible to parasites and pathogens) and also when in intestinal stress. Some cultures, including aboriginal, use clay (as food or as part of food prep) to remove toxins from known poisonous foods before consumption. They may well grind up baked clay as an additive, too.  Monkeys who regularly eat dirt have lower levels of parasites in their bodies. Numbats little bodies have adapted so well to the termite mound material that they ingest along with their 20,000 termites a day that their captive cousins function best with ground up mound material sprinkled on their termites like sugar on cornflakes.

It is interesting that, in animals, geophagy is considered normal behaviour, but it’s considered quite the opposite in humans. In fact it’s considered a disease.

Strangely I find myself willing to experiment with dirt-eating for what ails me (a quick tea-spoon a day washed down with fresh water), but only if I could find myself some rich, clean, non-toxic dirt sourced from somewhere high on a mountain. Or deep inside a cave. Otherwise, with the amount of toxins carried in our air, I think I’d be ingesting more harm than cure.

Something new every day – all human newborns are premature

Who knew?!  Human newborns, unlike the newborns of other mammals (who are born with 80% developed brain) only have a 25% developed brain at birth. Our upright stature and the necessary changes to our hip and pelvic bones to accommodate that means that we couldn’t possibly carry our young until they were as developed as quadrapedal mammals.

This means that human offspring are born much earlier than is really good for them and that they are, for the next six months at least, considered ‘external foetuses’. All human babies, in other words, are born premature. After being delivered they still need the close, secure handling, the constant connection with mother, relentless feeding… all the things they had on tap in the womb.

The 25% brain development that newborn human babies have is all cells, the missing bit (the 75%) is the connections needed for full body function. Human babies have evolved to have massive and rapid neural ‘wiring’ development in the first months of birth. Their brains double in weight in the first year. So they ‘catch up’ really well post-delivery if they’re given all the things they need.

Huh…

A few something else’s new today

• Someone measured the noise level in a womb and it was 85 decibels – same as a train entering and underground station
• Mothers sleep in a ‘protective way’ with infants – their physical position, their depth of sleep, their rousability… everything is about awareness of that little person. It makes mothers the safest/best choice for co-sleeping.

Baby specialist – Harry Chilton (as heard on ABC Classic FM 13/6/2012)

(and, no, Courtly Love was not married to Curt Cobain… )

Modern romance (and modern romance readers) owe a debt of gratitude to the dark ages for the development of the practise of ‘courtly love’ (or ‘chivalric love’ with which it was closely allied).

Marriage, back then, was a dry affair, usually connected to strategic increase in power, wealth, territories or favour which meant women across the country living in marriages that, at best, would have held affection and respect for their partners but very unlikely to have been great, passionate love matches.

All that passion had to go somewhere.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti - Arthur's Tomb: The last meeting of Lancelot & Guinevere (aka "No I mustn't because I'm virtuous and my denial of you will only make you stronger")

But whether the principles of Courtly Love were literal or purely fictional is a point of disagreement between experts. Like critics of modern-day romance there appears to be a presumption that the consumers of the medieval literary convention were either morally deficient or lonely enough to act out the desires and taboos set out in the tales or intellectually incapable of recognising that it was just pure, escapist fantasy. It took place primarily in the minds and imaginations of the medieval well-to-do.

True ‘courtly’ love—the admiration between knights and ladies or queens and their courtiers or other high born nobles—was primarily glorified flirting in which the woman’s virtue in rebuffing escalation is both desirable and a curse for the worthy man who cannot contain his ardour. He has no choice but to undertake great deeds to demonstrate his worth. It was restrained and forbidden and private-yet-not and exactly as angst-filled and breath-stealing as a lady (or a knight) could wish.

Some historians believe that these stories role-modelled positive social behaviour for young knights by showcasing great acts of valour for the unattainable woman, a pure, admirable, respectful love. The right kind of qualities and the right kind of woman.

Yep, you tell yourselves that historians. I’m not sure you can have it both ways. If these stories didn’t influence the women and men of the time in terms of romantic illusions then why would they modify the social behaviour of young men with too much money and too little obligation?

Courtly love was being consumed en masse by the ladies of the court. Dramatic and poetic narratives, poems and songs glorified and publicised both chivalric code and courtly love and grew in the breasts of upper-class women across the kingdom a desire to be so worshipped by a good and brave man. Travelling troubadours could recite entire hours-long tales of honour and bravery much to the delight of the knights listening. But they liked to eat, too, and so it served them best to weave in elements for the delight of the high-born women in their audience.

Thus courtly tales and chivalric tales began to merge and turned into long, drama-filled tales of passion-denied, the love unspoken between a brave, honourable knight and the woman that could bring him to his knees. The knights and the ladies in the audience listened, wrapt, to these breath-stealing, beautiful stories of lives so much more exciting than theirs, and acts so much more virtuous and romantic than they ever saw, and they did it amongst each other. Which only escalated the rush.

Are ya sensing a theme here…?

Courtly love disempowered men in the service of their lady the way it disempowered knights in fealty to their liege. But the beloved is his inspiration for extraordinary deeds and so it was construed (and thus tolerated) by men as an ‘ennobling force’ and the loyalty and love as highly virtuous. As for the women, given that this convention was entirely contrary to the relationships between males and females of the time it is not hard to see what they found appealing about an artform in which men were obedient and submissive and seeking only the pleasure of their beloved.

Isn’t that what we still love about a great romance? A man—capable or powerful or loyal desirable for other fine qualities—who puts the heroine ahead of all else and who protects and worships her long before he declares it. And our heroines (much like the ladies in the tales of courtly love) are good and virtuous and brave and stoic and they don’t need him to be whole themselves but oh-my-goodness they want him. And the entire plot revolves around why (it seems) she can’t have him. Until she can.

Yay!

Andreas Capellanus  (French but tell me he’s not Roman) captured some of the principles of courtly love in the twelfth century. Capellanus was a learned and religious man and, thus, opinion seems to lean towards this being a satricial work, poking fun at the conventions of the popular form of the time and the minds that enjoyed them.

So romance has been a target for that since the middle ages. Awesome.

Certainly Capellanus has done a bang-up job of belittling the popular ideology of the time. And in contributing to the portrayal of the women of the middle ages as vain, empty-headed ninnies. I hope my editorial additions make it clear why these stories must have been such fun—and such adventurous fantasy—for women who were primarily valued for the depth of their gene pool, the size of their purse and the girth of their hips.

Lord knows they needed something to smile about.

 Cappellanus’s Courtly Guidelines for Her…

• Marriage is no real excuse for not loving –Marriage suck? Get out there and find someone worthy of you. Settling is discouraged.
• He who is not jealous, cannot love If he doesn’t burst into a ball of fury when you flutter your eyelashes at someone else he doesn’t love you  
• No one can be bound by a double love Is this like double jeopardy? You can’t be tried twice for the same crime? (It’s okay not to love your husband while you’re busy loving your TRUE beloved)
• It is well known that love is always increasing or decreasing – it waxes, it wanes, it’s all good. Static love is doomed love. Bosom heaving encouraged.
• That which a lover takes against the will of his beloved has no relish – It’s not good if it’s easy. Nanna was right about playing hard to get…
• Boys do not love until they arrive at the age of maturity – That squire you’ve always got hot and heavy over is not a patch on the knight who’s horse he tends. Real love = real man.
• When one lover dies, a widowhood of two years is required of the survivor – At least maintain the illusion that it was meaningful.
• No one should be deprived of love without the very best of reasons – and you should require those reasons before letting him go
• No one can love unless he is impelled by the persuasion of love – All those secret voices telling you not to do it? Yeah, ignore those.
• Love is always a stranger in the home of avarice – it’s okay to shop around, your husband doesn’t love you. You’re just a thing to him.
• It is not proper to love any woman whom one would be ashamed to seek to marry – The mere act of being loved is validation of your own worth
• A true lover does not desire to embrace in love anyone except his beloved – Why would he when he has you?
• When made public love rarely endures – it’s just not exciting if others know about it. Hold it to your chest…tight…until it can’t breathe…

Cappelanus’s Courtly Guidelines for Him…

• The easy attainment of love makes it of little value; difficulty of attainment makes it prized – the thrill is in the hunt
• Every lover regularly turns pale in the presence of his beloved – All the world’s a stage…and every man on it a big, fat fake.
• When a lover suddenly catches sight of his beloved, his heart palpitates – that’s going to be hard to demonstrate, maybe stagger and grab a table edge for support
• A new love puts to flight an old one – move on and move up
• Good character alone makes any man worthy of love – yep, you fellas keep telling yourselves this
• If love diminishes, it quickly fails and rarely revives – Run, don’t walk
• A man in love is always apprehensive – and he should be considering what he’s doing
• Real jealousy always increases the feeling of love – Or at least the dopamine rush that goes with it will make it seem so
• Jealousy, and therefore love, are increased when one suspects his beloved – oh, the brooding, hypocritical angst…
• He whom the thought of love vexes eats and sleeps very little – who has the time with all that angsting and raging going on?
• Every act of a lover ends in the thought of his beloved – if it doesn’t you’re not doing it right
• A true lover considers nothing good except what he thinks will please his beloved – now we’re getting somewhere (p.s. a woman wrote these, right?)
• Love can deny nothing to love – Medieval England is a small place. You WILL get found out. Best to just come clean up front.
• A lover can never have enough of the solaces of his beloved – or her opinions. or stories of her day. (yeah, a woman definitely wrote these)
• A slight presumption causes a lover to suspect his beloved But we love a man who is jealous enough to care if we’re looking askance at another so the welcome mat is out for slight presumptions
• A man who is vexed by too much passion usually does not love – You mean the sight of my heaving, breathless bosom is not a turn-on?
• A true lover is constantly and without intermission possessed by the thought of his beloved – god, it’s exhausting being a medieval knight…
• Nothing forbids one woman being loved by two men or one man by two women –Whoa, go twelfth century babes. You’d be so welcome in the twenty-first century.

Something new every day – The origins of ‘romance’

This was not actually covered in the ‘Medieval England’ course but it was briefly mentioned and so I detoured to go find out more about the origins of the word ‘romance’. And unexpectedly I also uncovered the origins of the prejudice against romance. Read on…

In twelfth century England, the upper-classes spoke French. They also spoke English but it was deemed pedestrian to speak in English when you could speak in French. But, equally, it was deemed crude to read/recite French when you could be reading/reciting Latin, yet French was what the courtly/chivalric tales of the middle ages were created (and recited) in.  So Latin beats French, French beats English, English beats paper, paper beats rock. (and Spock beats lizard…but I digress…)

Therefore the style of speech/prose particular within the elite class became known as ‘romances’ after Romanicus the Latin word for ‘of the roman style’. In other words, chivalric tales of adventure and courtly love (including all the slaying and the death and the grandeur as well as all the love and angst) were romances.

And so then, just as now, the word carries with it—and perhaps has carried with it since then—the suggestion that it is somehow inferior to other, higher forms of prose/speech. But then, just as now, they are the popular stories being consumed wholesale by the masses and capturing their imagination.