#c: mathilda

[ihaveitprinteddout]

So bummed for Mathilda Paatz bc she was doing so well & I was so so impressed by her driving this race 🥲

[higherentity]

[ddf-deepcuts]

Bonus:

🥲

[fuzzysparrow]

The Pioneer of Abstract Art

Tate Modern is currently exploring the works of two groundbreaking artists, Piet Mondrian (1872-1944) and Hilma af Klint (1862-1944). The exhibition, subtitled Forms of Life, which runs until 3rd September 2023, displays the works of two artists who never met yet inspired each other. Mondrian is the better-known of the two artists. Even those who do not know his name will recognise his iconic…

[littlepriests]

one last thing. it's extraordinarily funny that she defers to the "sources of the time" when they say that mathilda of flanders got hot and bothered when william beat her in the street when it was likely that she had some other pressure to marrry him after that behavior... like there's a missing piece there. and then that bit when she died where she, again, took for granted the "little mathilda had to give" bc she lived a life of scarcity despite being royalty. girl i doubt that. she didn't have any to give bc the things she enjoyed was just her husband's LOL. and no mention of that at all, or aside, ro anything, omg. Face palming.

[samueldelany]

A bold, clever, and sublimely sinister collection that dares to ask the question: "Are you ready to be un-settled?"

Many Indigenous people believe that one should never whistle at night. This belief takes many forms: for instance, Native Hawaiians believe it summons the Hukai'po, the spirits of ancient warriors, and Native Mexicans say it calls Lechuza, a witch that can transform into an owl. But what all these legends hold in common is the certainty that whistling at night can cause evil spirits to appear--and even follow you home.

These wholly original and shiver-inducing tales introduce readers to ghosts, curses, hauntings, monstrous creatures, complex family legacies, desperate deeds, and chilling acts of revenge. Introduced and contextualized by bestselling author Stephen Graham Jones, these stories are a celebration of Indigenous peoples' survival and imagination, and a glorious reveling in all the things an ill-advised whistle might summon.

Featuring stories by: Norris Black - Amber Blaeser-Wardzala - Phoenix Boudreau - Cherie Dimaline - Carson Faust - Kelli Jo Ford - Kate Hart - Shane Hawk - Brandon Hobson - Darcie Little Badger - Conley Lyons - Nick Medina - Tiffany Morris - Tommy Orange - Mona Susan Power - Marcie R. Rendon - Waubgeshig Rice - Rebecca Roanhorse - Andrea L. Rogers - Morgan Talty - D.H. Trujillo - Theodore C. Van Alst Jr. - Richard Van Camp - David Heska Wanbli Weiden - Royce Young Wolf - Mathilda Zeller

[loveisthedevil1998]

give us gothic literature recs!!!!

here you go anon!

FICTION:

wuthering heights, emily brontë

jane eyre, charlotte brontë

the bloody chamber, angela carter

mathilda, mary shelley

we have always lived in the castle, shirley jackson

the yellow wallpaper, charlotte perkins gilman

rebecca, daphne du maurier

carmilla, sheridan le fanu

dracula, bram stoker

frankenstein, mary shelley

the mill on the floss, george eliot

the orphan's tale, catherynne m. valente

the haunting of hill house, shirley jackson

my cousin rachel, daphne du maurier

the double, fyodor dostoyevsky

the grey woman, elizabeth gaskell

beloved, toni morrison

the fall of the house of usher, edgar allan poe

wise blood, flannery o'connor

white is for witching, helen oyeyemi

wide sargasso sea, jean rhys

our wives under the sea, julia armfield

valerie and her week of wonders, vítězslav nezval

salome, oscar wilde

deathless, catherynne m. valente

piranesi, susanne clarke

picnic at hanging rock, joan lindsay

NON FICTION:

decadent daughters and monstrous mothers: angela carter and european gothic, rebecca munford

the contested castle: gothic novels and the subversion of domestic ideology, kate ferguson ellis

gothic incest: gender, sexuality and transgression, jenny diplacidi

our vampires, ourselves, nina auerbach

the madwoman in the attic, sandra gilbert and susan gubar

a new companion to the gothic, david punter

daughters of the house: modes of the gothic in victorian fiction, alison milbank

women and the gothic, avril horner and sue zlosnik

fairy tale & gothic horror, laura hubner

female gothic histories, diana wallace

women and domestic space in contemporary gothic narratives, andrew hock soon ng

gothic and gender, donna heiland

perils of the night: a feminist study of 19th century gothic, eugenia c. delamotte

the female gothic: new directions, diana wallace and andrew smith

[torridturncoat]

Those critics who read Frankenstein as an incest tale see the monster as a psychoanalytic symbol, as a living psychic projection whose importance lies in what he means to Frankenstein rather than in what the monster himself feels and suffers. Those critics who read the monster as a daughter focus on the monster's anger and pain, but tend to skirt the importance of the incest theme to the monster's anguish. When Frankenstein is read through the lens of Mathilda, the tale of father-daughter incest that Shelley wrote immediately after Frankenstein, one can propose a fuller interpretation: Frankenstein tells the story of a father and daughter locked in bitter conflict; more specifically, Mary Shelley portrays Victor Frankenstein as a paternal figure who projects his own incestuous guilt upon his creature and, having made it monstrous, rejects it.

My Hideous Progeny by Katherine C. Hill-Miller

[stay-close]

She is all that exists on earth that interests me.

Mary Shelley, from “Mathilda,” originally published c. October 1912

[thoughtkick]

She is all that exists on earth that interests me.

Mary Shelley, from “Mathilda,” originally published c. October 1912

[twinwound]

Those critics who read Frankenstein as an incest tale see the monster as a psychoanalytic symbol, as a living psychic projection whose importance lies in what he means to Frankenstein rather than in what the monster himself feels and suffers. Those critics who read the monster as a daughter focus on the monster's anger and pain, but tend to skirt the importance of the incest theme to the monster's anguish. When Frankenstein is read through the lens of Mathilda, the tale of father-daughter incest that Shelley wrote immediately after Frankenstein, one can propose a fuller interpretation: Frankenstein tells the story of a father and daughter locked in bitter conflict; more specifically, Mary Shelley portrays Victor Frankenstein as a paternal figure who projects his own incestuous guilt upon his creature and, having made it monstrous, rejects it.

‘My Hideous Progeny': Mary Shelley, William Godwin, and the Father-Daughter Relationship by Katherine C. Hill-Miller

[perfectfeelings]

She is all that exists on earth that interests me.

Mary Shelley, from “Mathilda,” originally published c. October 1912

[quotefeeling]

She is all that exists on earth that interests me.

Mary Shelley, from “Mathilda,” originally published c. October 1912

[nightlyquotes]

She is all that exists on earth that interests me.

Mary Shelley, from “Mathilda,” originally published c. October 1912

[perfeqt]

She is all that exists on earth that interests me.

Mary Shelley, from “Mathilda,” originally published c. October 1912

[wonder-worker]

Why was empress Mathilda not able to become the ruler?

Hi! There were lots of reasons, and historians have gone back and forth between them over the years. I am not an expert at all, but the way I see it, it was a combination of factors - be it social, structural, or plain bad luck - that resulted in Matilda's inability to claim the throne of England. To list a few I think were relevant:

Misogyny. After his son's death in 1120, Henry I's first instinct doesn't seem to have been to name his daughter his heir but instead to conceive another son with his second wife Adeliza of Louvain. William of Malmesbury wrote that the lords swore to accept Matilda as their sovereign only if Henry I died without a male heir; John of Worcester wrote that Henry designated Matilda as heir as "he had as yet no legitimate heir to the kingdom", implying that Matilda would be the one to provide that heir (ie: a son); and it seems that some of Matilda's supporters like Robert of Gloucester stressed the claims of infant Henry (the future Henry II) from the onset. Some historians have argued that Henry I wished to live long enough to transfer the kingdom and duchy to his eldest grandson, though this is of course mere speculation and Matilda would have been her father's immediate successor for the foreseeable future regardless. So even during Henry I's life, while Matilda was named heir and was expected to inherit & rule England, her exact situation appears to have been complex, and her gender was - directly or indirectly - at the heart of the complication.

Moreover, during the Anarchy, while Stephen technically did not justify or defend his claim to the throne explicitly because of his gender, there was clearly public debate over female succession at that time: for example, Matilda's illegitimate brother Robert of Gloucester was known to reference the Bible, where the Book of Numbers depicted God sanctioning female inheritance when there were no sons. This indicates that Matilda faced opposition from enemy quarters specifically for those reasons. Also, during Matilda's brief assumption of power as a female king, gendered ideals of masculinity/femininity and kingship/queenship entirely dictated public response to her and shaped her negative reputation.

Xenophobia. The Normans and Angevins were historic enemies, and many nobles were incredibly worried about Matilda’s second husband Geoffrey Plantagenet becoming king. I don't think it's a surprise that the Gesta Stephani repeatedly called Matilda "Countess of Anjou" or emphasized the presence of "Angevin knights" among her entourage. This had something to do with gendered expectations as well, but it was also likely meant to highlight Matilda's presumed foreignness, despite the fact that she was a princess of England by birth.

Complicated inheritance patterns. Succession in England, both before and after the Norman Conquest, was incredibly tricky. I'm not even going to get started on the Anglo-Saxons, but going by William the Conqueror's children: his eldest son rebelled against him, his second son inherited while keeping the eldest one imprisoned for life, and was in turn most likely murdered by the third son, who also kept the eldest son imprisoned for life. Hereditary claims were thus overridden in both cases. As Charles Beem points out in the Lioness Roared about Matilda's own father: "Henry I promoted a system of lineal inheritance based on a firm rule of primogeniture [for his children]. However, his own legitimacy as king was not based on this principle, a concept that infiltrated Anglo-Norman inheritance practices during his reign. Instead, he based his self-representation as a legitimate king on a medieval hodge-podge of justifications: porphyrogeniture, or having been “born to the purple” after his father had become king of England, sacralization from his anointing and consecration, and the acclamation of the people: Finally, Henry I secured papal recognition for his title, and convinced Pope Calixtus II to reject the claims of William Clito, the son of Henry’s eldest brother Robert Curthose, in effect dealing a severe blow to the legitimacy of primogeniture." So even in an ideal scenario, the idea of a designated heir and eldest child succeeding without hindrance would have been unusual. Unfortunately, this was not an ideal scenario by any circumstances.

Also, England seems to have functioned with an interregnum at that time, meaning that Matilda would not have been immediately considered ruler upon her father's death. To quote Beem: "To become king of England in the year 1135 required positive, immediate action; although the theory of the king’s two bodies had already begun to develop, the idea that an immediate succession occurred upon the death of a king had not. Instead, an interregnum occurred, which ended only when the crown was placed on the next king’s head. This had been the case with William Rufus’s accession in 1087 and that of Henry I in 1100, both of whom overrode the hereditary claims of William the Conqueror’s eldest son Robert Curthose. Although Matilda had received oaths to support her candidacy, the oaths in themselves did not make her king. Like her uncle and her father before her, Matilda needed to be physically present in London, to receive formal homage from her tenants-in-chief, to accept the acclamation of the people, and to be anointed and crowned in Westminster by the archbishop of Canterbury". I think the first heir to be regarded as king despite not being physically present in the country was Edward I in 1272 - a while away. Which brings me to...

Bad Luck. At the time of her father's death, Matilda wasn't in England or Normandy. She seems to have left her father's court after a disagreement where he refused to be reconciled with William Talvas without punishing him despite Matilda's wishes on the contrary. As Robert of Torigny notes, in the end of 1135, "the empress Matilda, who he [Henry I] had long before appointed heir to his realm, was staying in Anjou with her husband count Geoffrey and her sons"; William of Malmesbury likewise stated that she was staying in France “for certain reasons.” The fact that Matilda wasn't physcally present made it easy for Stephen and the nobles to sideline her and overrule Henry I's appointment.

Matilda was also pregnant at the time, and it's possible that this prevented her for making the crossing, either due to physical reasons (we know she nearly died during her second childbirth) or due to ideological ones (she may have "considered such a state to be a liability in constructing herself as a viable contender for an office essentially gendered male", as Beem speculates).

An insufficient power base: Yet another one of her misfortunes was the fact that Henry I seems to have withheld his daughter's dowry till the end of his life. For example, Torigny writes that "the king was unwilling to do the fealty required by his daughter and her husband for all castles in Normandy and in England". Nor does Henry seem to have associated her with direct kingly governance during his life that could have made the transition to rulership more natural for her and for English & Norman magnates. This meant that Matilda and Geoffrey didn't seem to have had a solid power base to rely on at the time of her father's death with which she could directly launch her claim. It's no surprise that their first move was to try and secure her dowry castles (Exmes, Domfront, Argentan, Ambrières, Gorron, Colmont, etc), and that Matilda installed herself in one of them.

And, of course, Matilda's ultimate bad luck was the existence of a rival claimant (Stephen) with sufficient resources and backing who chose to press his own - theoretically inferior - claim. Ultimately, after the majority of nobles sided with or acquiesced to Stephen, Matilda's doors were shut - without tangible support, she was stuck. It's not surprising that it was only after Stephen began to alienate his followers (particularly Robert of Gloucester, who had initially supported him) a few years later that Matilda got an opportunity to press home her advantage.

Hope this helps!