Eric * - 2004-12-22 08:52:29
Christmas wasn't celebrated as a religious holiday in earnest until the early 19th century. Prior to that, it had a Mardi Gras-type of atmosphere. (I don't think it was even made a national holiday in the US until the very late 1800s.) The Feast of Saturnalia is always brought up as some kind of "A-HA" moment about Christmas and it's origin, but I don't know any Christians who don't know that.
As far as Jeremiah 10:3-5 goes, an argument could be made that it refers to idols and false gods. If you put wood in place of tree, it makes more sense.* * * * * * * * * * * *
That is interesting, Eric *. I hadn't realized that Xmas wasn't made a nat'l holiday till the late 19th century, nor was celebrated Mardi Gras style prior to that (my mental picture of early Washtenaw County settlers in gold bras with strings of beads is a vivid one).
You are right, grumpy nonreligious folk like yrs truly always dredge up Saturnalia to the yawns of Christians, who know all about that but don't care.
As for the Jeremiah thing, it's "tree" in more than one translation I checked, though other parts of the verse changed a bit from Harper-Collins (my favorite; it's very scholarly, with tons of cultural footnotes) to King James to Douay.* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-22 09:22:54
The modern celebration of Christmas was invented in American and later spread to the rest of Christiandom. On a more interesting note, Christmas and the Christmas spirit was outlawed in American (mostly New England) in the late 17th century.
The Jeremiah passage is bunk in regards to Christmas trees for another reason -- it was written (debatable) more than 500 years before the birth of Christ. How could an Old Testament passage refer to Christ?* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 09:37:56
Yes, while traipsing around online I did see mentions of the late-17th-century Puritan outlawing of Christmas (such as this brief one). Those people just did not want to have any fun whatsoever.
However, I had had the impression that Christmas was a German cultural import, although Santa--the best part of Christmas, it must be noted--comes from the Dutch Sinteklass, who on his white horse is a version of Odin on his white steed Sleipnir, said some sites I perused. Our image of Santa comes originally from Thomas Nast and subsequently from 1930s Coke ads.
Regarding the Christmas tree, what I meant to say was that Xmas trees were an ancient pagan convention, which is why it's scorned by the non-pagan writer of Jeremiah. Only later was the tree assimilated into Christianity.* * * * * * * * * * * * tom - 2004-12-22 09:46:19
The modern celebration of Christmas draws from many different influences, not just American. The birth of Christ has been celebrated in many different ages and in many different cultures. One way to trace the celebration of Christmas is examine the history of Christmas carols, some of which are many centuries old and from many different cultures. The Puritans did ban Christmas celebrations in both England (under Cromwell) and North America. So, for that matter, did John Knox, one of the founders of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian).* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 09:54:59
That is a good tip about the carols, Tom. It sent me looking online, where I found this tidbit [scroll halfway down]:
"It is known that the Apostles and their congregations sang. However, the earliest known Christmas song, 'Jesus refulsit omnium', comes from the 4th century and was composed by St Hilary of Poitiers. In the 12th century, St Francis of Assisi was the first person to formally introduce Christmas carols in church services. These songs were quite solemn. It wasn't until the beginning of the 15th century that lighter, joyous Christmas music was composed and introduced in Italy."
Also, that same page reveals that Nast also invented our custom of hanging stockings (thank you Thomas Nast!)
At any rate, I wouldn't have known either of those things were I not made curious by the comments people kindly leave here, so thank you. * * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-22 10:02:50
I understood, too, that our celebration of Christmas was heavily influenced by the Germans. I was told recently by a historian who volunteers at one of the historic houses around here that they have a victorian-era book that was translated from the German. There's a footnote in it, explaining what a Christmas Tree was. At that time, Americans, at least in New England, were literally decking the halls with boughs of holly, but no tree.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 10:06:52
That's a good note--now that you mention it, I recall reading elsewhere that the tree itself is a German custom (and, as previously noted, an ancient pagan custom before that).
When I visited the Waterloo Area Farm Museum, I saw another German tradition, a goosefeather tabletop tree. People took goose feathers, dipped them in green paint, combed out the plumes to make needlelike shapes, inserted wire into the quills, and wired the "branches" to a stick "trunk." This was in addition to the regular-size tree. Around the goosefeather tree would be arranged a miniature village, mini-animals, &c; a little rural diorama. The whole shebang was quite pretty.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-22 10:15:46
I just had a chance to check out those links. Very interesting -- I didn't notice until the end that the one about Christ's birthday was actually published by the Presbyterian Church. I've always thought that if I really had to practice Christianity I'd go to either the Congregationalists or the Presbyterians. Practical, sensible people.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 10:19:57
I'm glad you enjoyed the links--I also liked that fact that that last page was written by Presbyterians and share your impression of those 2 denominations.* * * * * * * * * * * * Brett - 2004-12-22 10:34:26
I believe the key factor in the sequence you're missing is that the American Christmas tradition was most specifically influenced by mid-19th century women who wanted to emulate Queen Victoria, and when Vic's German consort Prince Albert set up a Tannenbaum in their palace, the news spread around the world and many non-germans began to celebrate the holiday simply for the reason that it was suddenly 'in fashion'.
I would strongly recommend to anyone interested in the subject to pick up a copy of Nisenbaums's The Battle for Christmas, which is a very insightful guide to the complex maturation of the current version of the holiday.* * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura - 2004-12-22 10:36:27Yet another great book recommendation. That sounds fascinating. I love reading about subjects like that--the history of culture. I hadn't known about the emulation of Queen Victoria, thought--thank you Brett.* * * * * * * * * * * * lynne - 2004-12-22 10:44:44
I always think of the pagan rituals whenever I start celebrating Christmas. Mostly because I am not a Christian although I was raised as one. I kind of like the traditions and the celebration of it all. It seems like a fitting thing to do around the darkest time of the year. So, to me, Christmas is just a fun secular holiday and since Christians kind of used other people's celebrations for their own purposes, I have no guilt about using a Christian holiday for *my* own purposes :) * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 10:48:12
Yes, it's an old human habit indeed to have a festival of light at this hinge of the year when the sol is stice (standing still). Your comment about using holidays for one's own purposes is funny and apt. :)* * * * * * * * * * * * Eric * - 2004-12-22 11:47:28
The Coke/Santa thing is a myth.
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/santa.asp
* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 11:56:42
I'll be darned. I done been Snopesed--my fault for not checking my sources carefully enough. I apologize, and am chagrined, not to mention embarrassed, for misleading people.
Eric *, that page is very informative and interesting; thank you for posting it!
I had falsely thought that Coke introduced the red and white suit. That isn't so. Key passage:
"A Boston printer named Louis Prang introduced the English custom of Christmas cards to America, and in 1885 he issued a card featuring a red-suited Santa. The chubby Santa with a red suit (like an "overweight superhero") began to replace the fur-dressed Belsnickle image and the multicolored Santas...The success of [Coke's] advertising campaign has helped fuel the legend that Coca-Cola actually invented the image of the modern Santa Claus, decking him out in a red-and-white suit to promote the company colors � or that at the very least, Coca-Cola chose to promote the red-and-white version of Santa Claus over a variety of competing Santa figures in order to establish it as the accepted image of Santa Claus. This legend is not true. Although some versions of the Santa Claus figure still had him attired in various colors of outfits past the beginning of the 20th century, the jolly, ruddy, sack-carrying Santa with a red suit and flowing white whiskers had become the standard image of Santa Claus by the 1920s, several years before Sundlom drew his first Santa illustration for Coca-Cola."
Very good and interesting link--thanks again Eric *.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 12:02:43
Holy cow: there's a whole page of Christmas-related urban legends! Fascinating. The WW I truce soccer game...the song "The 12 Days of Christmas" as a code made by persecuted Catholics...did a Japanese department store, in its attempt to seem Western, display a Santa nailed to a cross...wow, these are great. Thanks again, Eric *.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 12:09:53
Yeeoowww....there's something really, really disturbing about the picture of the crucified Santa. For some reason, it's five times more disturbing than a regular crucifix, probably because the former is so unfamiliar.
If you visit that page, be sure to read all the text...to the very end.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-22 12:31:58
Thanks for that link -- you did it again. I actually laughed out loud at the picture. I am weirdly not disturbed as much as very, very giggly.* * * * * * * * * * * * Anna - 2004-12-22 12:51:30
Oh, and one of my favorite sites has a new one for the holidays: "It's a wonderful life", in 30 seconds, re-enacted by bunnies. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-12-22 12:56:52
That "Wonderful Life" movie is hilarious; thank you, Anna. I noted that they also have "Jaws," "The Shining," and a couple other gems for perusal.
Well, I'm glad you found the crucified Santa funny. I was creeped out. I hope I don't dream about that tonight. Ugh.* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-22 13:15:33
one aspect of santa's popularity and adoption into the culture, which is touched upon very briefly in the book i mentioned above, involves the matter of him representing a very scaled-down version of the christian concept of "Judgement Day", insofar as the whole 'keeping a list and checking it twice' business goes. Parents could employ the myth to show their children how their actions will have consequences, basically.
Initially the Santa archetype in American tradition was known as 'Belsnickle', who was a very frightening character dressed in rags and covered in soot, who carried a bundle of branches with him, which he used to beat bad children with. He gave no presents or rewards to good children, but rather was purely focused on the corrective punishment of bad behavior.* * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura - 2004-12-22 13:47:46The more I hear about this book, the more interested I become.
Dangit, I tried Googling up an image of the scary Belsnickle, but couldn't hack my way past the five thousand resulting pages of smarmy craft ideas and antique yet tacky Xmas ornaments! Gahh!* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-22 14:47:25
welcome to my world. obviously nobody wants to propogate the 'evil santa' image, so all the craft projects you found try to make him basically a slightly drab version of the modern image. I doubt there were many period images of him, as it's a lot like saying "What does the boogey man look like?"- it was supposed to just be a terrifying phantom to scare kids with.
There were other characters like Kristkind and st. nicholas, and the evolution of santa involves integrating all of them into one package and then refining the look (Nast), as well as the M.O. (i.e., not have him actually beat children, but just leave a lump of coal in their stocking).
The battle for christmas book has become a basic text for all the museums that do christmas programs, although it varies how carefully they actually read it, and at the museum i worked at another problem was how far you want to take realism which could disturb modern visitors. The 'family' i belonged to generally took things as far as we could, and most of us were eventually let go because of it.
Mumming was a big problem they had, because to do it right you basically have a huge drunken group of semi-violent cross-dressers harrassing people, which most visitors weren't comfortable with. They also had to tone down belsnickle so as not to scare the hell out of the children.
Fortunately, while i was influencing the above, i only personally had to deal with the administrative blow-back of my subsection of the program being 1) to negative 2) too risque and 3) too funny. these were always are main faults. My character was a bitter rationalist with no patience for the holidays, but nonetheless forced to engage in seasonal activities such as elaborately decorating the house for his mother. One year the punchline involved me throwing the bough of evergreens into the fire as a protest. Visitors loved it. Especially the men. * * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura - 2004-12-22 14:50:43I'm smiling just reading about it. I sure wish I could have seen such work. It sounds wonderful--dark and funny. Just thinking about the phrase "bitter rationalist" is making me smile.* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-22 15:29:55
Here are a couple composite photos i took the last christmas event i worked (2001).
I'm sitting at the table, the woman in the background is my mother and the woman on the floor is our irish domestic, about to be beaten by her.
..at the end of the presentation i'm found in a compromising position with the 'biddy', under the kissing ball, and my mother reprimands me for not wearing gloves (as i'm touching her bare flesh):
pardon me for getting sentimental here, but i thought i'd point out that tomorrow (the 23rd) is the official end of the above pictured reality for good. While some of us were fired, and some simply quit, the museum I had been at kept weakly trying to run the program, but now it's really finished. Next year, if they can operate at all, it's going to start being (yawn) 1861, so none of the original scenarios or characters we developed, nor the combined thousands of hours of research we did, will ever be employed anymore. Rest in peace. * * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura - 2004-12-22 15:36:39Brett: those are amazing. Just amazing. I can't imagine how much work went into creating that. Also, the photos have a sort of vibrating intensity--I'm not sure how you produced that, but it's very arresting. Thank you so much for sharing that. What a fabulous job it must have been, when you had free rein to create your own productions. * * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-22 15:45:48
each of those photos was made by sweeping a videocamera around the scene, and then taking digital pictures from the still-screens of each frame, and then reassembling them in a photo program. A tedious technique i never quite perfected.
As I said, 'free reign' is definitely too strong a phrase, but we did manage a couple years of getting away with things much more interesting than that. Probably the sum total of our work was when we were able to produce a complete week-long funeral scenario for my character's 5-year-old nephew who died from scarlet fever. That was as 'hardcore' as we were ever able to do anything there, mainly because none of the staff wanted to touch the subject matter with a ten foot pole. We covered the protracted illness, the medical treatment, the details of the funeral, mourning, i made a tombstone, burned his bedclothes, and then we buried him.
One last image, depicting the moment we all realize the child has died:
* * * * * * * * * * * *
That is an astounding photo. It's just beautiful, Brett. How I wish I could have seen that production. But please forgive a question: it was a week-long production; did you do a different "scene" each day? So that a museum visitor would see one (of 7) scenes upon their visit?
Also, when you say "none of the staff would touch...10-foot pole" do you mean the people pictured, or the museum admin? Why is history so sanitized all the time? Real stories like the sickness story are so much more compelling. Also, may I ask why did you say, in hte last post, "1861..yawn"...did you mean (guessing) that they will do a sort of canned son-off-to war skit, or something kind of pat like that?* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-22 17:00:17
no, the people in the photo are the 'family members' i did work with. I meant the 50 or so other employees and administrators were uncomfortable with the death subject (among other things). We ran through the process in around a week, starting with him getting sick, then sicker, then around day five he died, then we dressed the house in mourning, buried him, etc. (actually we did bury him twice- it was the weekend!). So if you stopped in at some point, you only saw what was happening right then in the sequence.
They basically decided to do 1861 because the executive director is a self-proclaimed 'civil war buff', and they figured (thanks, ken burns) more people like the civil war era. The reason we originally did 1848, though, was because nobody else did- and few people know much about the period, hence we offered something very interesting to visitors they couldn't find elsewhere.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Laura - 2004-12-22 20:21:40It is indeed very interesting. I really wish I could have seen it, each of the 7 days. The Civil War has more or less been done to death; I think 1848 is much more original and intriguing; but that's just me.* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-12-22 21:22:15
it's a very vicious cycle. 'More' people are interested in the civil war, so that's what ken burns makes a documentary about (Knowing the audience is already there and he'll make an easy buck), as a result even MORE people get interested in the civil war, and therefore more history-peddlers see easy money in playing up to that fact. I kind of liken it to something walter cronkite said once about the new 'customizable' internet news pages (like yahoo!), insofar as there are lots of people that skip to the funnies or sports page while ignoring a paper's headlines, and that frankly people should somewhat be forced to at least glance at the big news stories, because it's really for their own good. He was suggesting that you could customize your yahoo page to just have sports news, for example, and then never have a clue what was going on in the world.
I think that theory applies well to the history business. Playing up to the common denominator is always dangerous because visitors, consumers, etc. will lose sight of the big, crazy, broad picture of history and get lost in an oversentimentalized version of a single narrow, specific era. They might know what they 'think' they like to hear about, but they don't really know for sure because they aren't given enough options to choose from. The average person isn't prepared to make certain decisions, and that's why we have specialists in different fields to handle the detail work (doctors, lawyers, underwater arcwelders). The role in society of the person whose job it is to make people appreciate (and understand) history is called, simply enough, 'the historian'. When people don't care about aspects of history (1848, paper mills, diamond rings, belsnickle, etc), THAT is the person (or museum, or historical group) who is to blame for that fact. I don't think there's really that clear a sense of responsibility in the industry, though.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
add your comment: