# Chairs and drinking glasses



## Brian G Turner

I'm reading Tyrant by Valerio Massimo Manfredi, but what appeared at first to be a set of anachronisms appears in the first scene - a character enters a common Greek tavern (circa 400 BC) - and proceeds to sit on a chair at a table, where he is served wine in a glass.

Hm...my impression of this period is fuzzy, but I am under the impression that chairs were reserved for people in nobility (essentially, the chair as an imitation "throne"), and that although I don't dispute people drinking from glasses of the period, I'm under the impression that a common tavern certainly wouldn't be serving wine from glasses, but instead from cups.

What's surprising is that the novel is written by a classical scholar, so I figure he should know what he's talking about - but somehow I find the issue of sitting on a chair drinking wine in a common tavern hard to believe for the period.


----------



## littlemissattitude

Brian.  That's the kind of thing that would make me throw the book across the room.  And, believe me, I've done that more than a few times.

Seriously, if it bothers you that much, you could do a little research, I suppose, to see if there is any validity to there being chairs and glasses in taverns during that time period.  But me?  I probably wouldn't bother; I'd just throw the book.


----------



## Omega

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, that is if the story is good though.


----------



## chrispenycate

Remembering trips to greek taverns, they were still using benches and earthenware beakers in the twentieth century - however, that might have been partly to conceal what they were putting into them. Previous to the roman empire, as far as I can tell, glass was a phonecian speciality, coming (mainly) from Lebanon. It was also very expensive, and will have been considerably more fragile than nowadays. Pottery, even glazed, was widely available, and, one imagines, considerably cheaper, and metal beakers were probably used because of their hard wearingness, since, with the metals available, I'd bet heavily on them adding a certain flavour to the beverage. They can't have been that cheap either, considering how much work is required to beat out a metal goblet. Leather jacks, waterproofed with pitch (that doesn't sound too gustitavely attractive, either) from that sort of period  have been found further north, and possibly were used in greece as well, but haven't happened to survive - or possibly I just missed them. For travellers, soldiers and the like it seems a good solution - and these are exactly the people who'd transport the tecnology fastest.
So, no, unless it was a very posh tavern, I would expect earthenware, or served from the amphora into your personal jack (so you'd know where it had been, even if not what had gone into it.
About chairs, unfortunately, I am ignorant.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

I'm not so familiar with the period around 400 B.C. but I do know that glass drinking vessels go back a lot further than most people think and that some of the early ones were so heavy and clunky they probably were sturdy enough to be used in a tavern, so I might be tempted to trust the author on that one ... but then he'd lose a lot of credibility with the chairs, which I know aren't right, and that would revive my doubts about the glasses.


----------



## dwndrgn

Does it matter that much?  Essentially, he took a seat and had a drink - those are the facts of the case.  That he either sat at a bench, on a rock or on a chair seems totally irrelevant.  Now, that's my opinion on that.  

Since I've opined above, I'll ask a question here:  Are you interpreting the author's writing to say that he took a seat in a chair and drank from a glass when what he is actually saying is something like, "he took a seat and a hearty drink..."?  I cannot recall a book where the author is so specific unless they are sure they want to convey that specific thing "he sat down on the bench, the far end from where the others sat.  He slowly picked up his tankard and took a cautious sip."  There, I'm not only conveying the action but the atmosphere.  Unless the author specifically believes that glass and chairs are used during the time of his/her historical period of choice, they wouldn't specifically note them.

Therefore, that author knows something you don't, OR, that author is just dimwit who, throughout all of his/her studies has never realized that glass and chairs aren't widely used in these periods.

**On a side note: Roman soldiers used portable fold-up chairs that they carried with them.  This is something I saw on the History Channel somewhere so it has _some _credibility.  However, I know nothing of the period in question and the show I was watching could have been incorrect.  (Or, even more possible, I misinterpreted the show and just proved what a dimwit I am to the rest of youse guys.)


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Oh April, to some of us history buffs _everything_ matters -- if only to prove that the writer knows at least as much about the period as we do, and can therefore be trusted when it comes to the more important things.  Plus we take a perverse pleasure in that kind of nitpicking, and you wouldn't want to rob us of that enjoyment, would you?

(Just for curiosity, did those fold-up seats you saw on the special about Roman soldiers have backs?  If it doesn't have a back, it's not a chair.  And I'm betting anything with a back would be used only by officers in command of large armies, not by common soldiers.)

I have just consulted a book that I have on the history of glassmaking.  Glass drinking vessels (among other things) were made as early as the late Bronze age, and the glass making industry was quite active by the middle of the third millenium B.C. using the core or cast mosaic technique. 

There are some pictures of bottles, flasks, jars, etc. made about 1500-1300 B.C. and they look quite sturdy, but then, those that lasted long enough to get photographed intact would just about have to be.

By the middle of the fourth century B.C. (says this reference book) glass was being made in several centers around the Mediterranean, but it was still an item associated with a certain amount of affluence.

Therefore, we can assume, not at all likely to turn up in a common tavern.


----------



## dwndrgn

Yeah, I know.  Nitpicking is one of my hobbies (and boy do the monkeys love it  ) so I can understand why a little detail might derail your enjoyment of a book.  I had a similar problem with Perdido Street Station.

I just enjoy being the devil's advocate.

Oh, and the little thing that folded up did not have a back.  So that means it wasn't a chair?  To me, anything that you can sit on that is separated into individual seats is a chair.  A stool has to be either markedly higher or lower than standard seating to be considered a stool.  Anything portable that creates a seat is a chair.  Of course, I am sure that there are technical toes I've just stepped all over (sorry, I'm not a good dancer) but that is the way I, as a common person, interpret these things.


----------



## cornelius

if the story is really good, it will survive this onslaught on history, but I would halt and think about it when reading that part , probably with a frown...

I wouldn't tolerate the waiter having nike Airs though...


----------



## littlemissattitude

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> Of course, I am sure that there are technical toes I've just stepped all over (sorry, I'm not a good dancer) but that is the way I, as a common person, interpret these things.


 
Now, now.  You are not a common person...especially on this of all days.  And you can advocate for the devil - or whoever you wish  - on your birthday.  Not to mention dance any way you want. 

But I do have to agree with Kelpie that it has to have a back to be a chair.  Us August 23rds have to stick together, you know.


----------



## Brian G Turner

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> Does it matter that much? Essentially, he took a seat and had a drink - those are the facts of the case.



Indeed - but when the book is supposed to be historical fiction and written by a university scholar, you expect they'd at least get some basics right - otherwise it kills suspension of disbelief. And in the first chapter of all places...

I think the general concensus here is that the writer messed up on some simple details, and for a novelist in his position, it really is inexcusable.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> To me, anything that you can sit on that is separated into individual seats is a chair.



Oh, but in days gone by these distinctions could be of earth-shaking importance -- at least in regard to the status of the person whose nether parts were about to make contact with the seat in question.  In any social setting, the difference between a chair (with a back) and a stool (no back or arms), not to mention who was allowed to sit down at all, was monumental.  

In certain times and places, courtiers schemed for _years_, duels were fought, plots were plotted, and virtue was bartered, all for the privilege of sitting in a chair rather than on a stool.

You don't want to get me started on the social nuances of different kinds of furniture.

(People born in late August just naturally care about that sort of thing.)


----------



## Esioul

*plunks self down on chair*]

If the story is good enough, personally I'm not fussy. And there's alswaysdebate about history- who can really say for certain that people in taverns in that area always sat on chairs/or not or alwaysdrank otu of glasses/pottery containers?


----------



## chrispenycate

The story obviously *wasn't* good enough; otherwise he wouldn't even have noticed. And, despite not having been born in august, I am amoung the world's worst at being distracted by inconsistancies in detail (oh, you'd noticed)(in french we say "enculer les mouches", which is extremely impolite, but fairly accurate) No-one can be certain of historical details- but you can't be certain of what's happening now, only to a certain percentage. Pottery shards and glass splinters last more or less for ever, so, unless they were recycling the glass, one gets a reasonably accurate (not perfectly certain) idea of the ditribution of the two. Metal vessels are far more likely to be melted down for reuse, meaning that the estimates for metal drinking vessels is likely to be less precise. Biodegradables (if they were using waxed papyrus cups we'd never know) depend on conditions, meaning that estimating the distribution of wooden mugs (or leather jacks) is guesswork- that they existed is certain, whether they existed outside the regions where, by desert or peat bog or glacier, they were preserved will remain uncertain.
Still, the important point is whether the detail shocks you enough that you drop out of the story, whether or not you put the book down and start doing research to find out if you were right. Some of us are simply more sensitive to these problems (and I'm someone who can keep reading while the plane I'm in flies through a thunderstorm, feeling quite agrieved when the light flickers) and I suppose this is one of the factors that divides people on favorite books.
But one thing is certain- the earlier in the story the problem arrives, the less likely a reader is to gloss over it and continue in the thread.


----------



## Esioul

That's true Chris- the record certainly is baised in favour of pottery and to some extent metal and glass. It could be quite possible that vessels were frequently made from wood- a material unlikely to survive unless in dessicated conditions etc.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Indeed, I have a replica mediaeval drinking vessel by my desk - wooden base, and hardened leather water-proofed inside with pitch, to drink from. It wouldn't last long in the ground, but would be practical for a while.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

Esioul said:
			
		

> And there's always debate about history



There are always debates about history, but that's not to say that every aspect of history is debatable.  

And I doubt that the author himself would or could make an argument in favor of chairs or glasses being used in low taverns during his period -- he was just being careless.

For me, those kinds of mistakes, besides being distracting, are a red flag; I've found them to be a fairly reliable warning that major plot points are going to hang on similar historical improbabilities.

There's nothing more distracting than reaching some dramatic moment in a book and asking oneself "why on God's green earth did he do _that_, when he could have done [insert simple, obvious, and appropriate option that would have been available to him] instead."  This is the point where I would chuck the book across the room, but I find it easier on the binding (and my nerves) to simply put a book aside when small signs of trouble ahead start adding up early.


----------



## Dead Riverdragon

Well Manfredi's pretty knowledgeable, but he doesn't write in English- I'm wondering whether it's simply a matter of the translator being to blame?


----------



## Teresa Edgerton

In that case, it could well be the translator's fault.


----------

