fbpx
01 / 05
Grim Old Days: Fernand Braudel’s Structures of Everyday Life

Blog Post | Human Development

Grim Old Days: Fernand Braudel’s Structures of Everyday Life

“The poor in the towns and countryside of the West lived in a state of almost complete deprivation."

Summary: Fernand Braudel’s book offers a vivid exploration of the harsh realities of pre-industrial life, from deadly wildlife encounters and frequent famines to the widespread use of primitive table manners. Braudel delves into the grim aspects of daily existence, highlighting the pervasive dangers and struggles that defined life before modern advancements. His work paints a stark picture of a world where survival was precarious, and comfort was a rare and costly luxury.


The French historian Fernand Braudel’s ambitious book, The Structures of Everyday Life: Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, paints a sweeping and vivid picture of many aspects of life in the past, from the shocking frequency of deadly wildlife encounters and famines to plagues and violence.

“There is a drawing which shows Maximilian of Austria at a table, in about 1513: he is putting his hand into a dish. Two centuries or so later, the Princess Palatine tells how Louis XIV, when he allowed his children to sit up to table for the first time, forbade them to eat differently from him, and in particular to eat with a fork as an over-zealous tutor had taught them.” Even the Queen of France from 1615 to 1643, “Anne of Austria ate her meat with her fingers all her life. And so did the Court of Vienna until at least 1651.”

“The individual fork dates from about the sixteenth century. . . . We know that Montaigne did not use a fork, since he accuses himself of eating too quickly so that ‘I sometimes bite my fingers in my haste.’”

How the table settings in various artists’ depictions of The Last Supper (a frequent subject in Western art) changed over time is revealing: “no fork appears before 1600 and almost no spoons either.”

“The use of a spoon did not become widespread until the sixteenth century, and the custom of providing knives dates from the same time—before that the guests brought along their own. Individual glasses for each guest also appeared at about this time. Courtesy formerly dictated that one emptied the glass and passed it on to one’s neighbour, who did the same.” Even individual plates are relatively recent; previously, a single dish was brought out on a wooden board and “each selected the morsel he wanted and picked it up with his fingers.”

The state of table manners is hinted at in an Austrian ordinance from 1624 instructing young officers on how to behave when dining with an archduke, which specifies: “not to arrive half drunk, not to drink after every mouthful, … not to lick the fingers, not to spit in the plate, not to wipe the nose on the tablecloth, not to gulp drink like animals.” Separate dining rooms were rare until the 16th century, and then only among the rich.

Pepper was a rare luxury. Among 15th-century explorers, “as dear as pepper” was a common expression (“dear” being used in the sense meaning “expensive”).

Salt was consumed in unhealthily large quantities in a desperate attempt to improve the taste of the masses’ monotonous and unappetizing diets. “In the Europe of insipid farinaceous gruels consumption of salt was large . . . twenty grams daily per person,” far exceeding the present-day figure.” To put that into perspective, the US Food and Drug Administration’s nutritional guidelines currently recommend limiting salt consumption to 2.3 grams per person per day; on average, Americans eat about 3.4 grams of salt per day, overshooting recommendations but still lagging far behind what was typical in the preindustrial world. Outside of Europe, too, the impoverished majority turned to salt out of desperation to enliven their similarly bland, unvaried staple foods. As an Indian writer put it, “When the palate revolts against the insipidness of rice boiled with no other ingredients, we dream of fat, salt and spices.”

“Famine recurred so insistently for centuries on end that it became incorporated into man’s biological regime and built into his daily life. Dearth and penury were continual, and familiar. . . . Two consecutive bad harvests spelt disaster.”

“Any national calculation shows a sad story. France, by any standards a privileged country, is reckoned to have experienced 10 general famines during the tenth century: 26 in the eleventh; 2 in the twelfth; 4 in the fourteenth; 7 in the fifteenth; 13 in the sixteenth; 11 in the seventeenth and 16 in the eighteenth. . . . [Much] the same could be said of any country in Europe.” Braudel relates that a third of Finland’s population is estimated to have died of starvation during a famine from 1696 to 1697. “Florence . . . experienced 111 years when people went hungry, and only sixteen ‘very good’ harvests between 1371 and 1791.” “Near Blois in 1662, a witness reported that [due to famine] the poor were on a diet of ‘cabbage stumps with bran soaked in cod broth.’” A decade earlier, in 1652, a chronicler noted, “the people of Lorraine and other surrounding lands are reduced to such extremities that, like animals, they eat the grass in the meadows.” In 1694 near Meulan, famine again made it so that “large numbers of people lived on grass like animals.” In 1674–76, in southeastern France, people were reportedly reduced to eating “acorns and roots.”

Beyond Europe, famine was also frequent and severe. “In 1555, and again in 1596, violent famine throughout north-west India, resulted in scenes of cannibalism, according to contemporary chroniclers. There was another terrible famine, almost everywhere in India, in 1630–31. A Dutch merchant has left us an appalling description of it: ‘Men abandoned towns and villages and wandered helplessly: It was easy to recognize their condition: eyes sunk deep in the head, lips pale and covered with slime, the skin hard, with the bones showing through, the belly nothing but a pouch hanging down empty. . . . One would cry and howl for hunger, while another lay stretched on the ground dying in misery.’” The famine caused “collective suicides. . . . Then came the stage when the starving split open the stomachs of the dead or dying and ‘drew at the entrails to fill their own bellies’. ‘Many hundred thousands of men died of hunger, so that the whole country was covered with corpses lying unburied, which caused such a stench that the whole air was filled and infected with it . . . in the village of Susuntra . . . human flesh was sold in open market.”

Some Europeans also resorted to cannibalism in times of famine; in 1662 in Burgundy, contemporary accounts say that “famine this year has put an end to over ten thousand families . . . and forced a third of the inhabitants, even in the good towns, to eat wild plants. . . . Some people ate human flesh.”

Even in good times, peasants often subsisted on “gruels, sops and bread” that barely provided any nutritional value. “Bread was almost always hard and mouldy.” “Bread was sometimes bread in name alone.” By some estimates, “no more than 4% of the European population ate white bread. Even at the beginning of the eighteenth century, half the rural population fed on non-bread-making cereals and rye, and a lot of bran was left in the mixture of grains that went to make bread for the poor. Wheaten bread and white bread . . . remained a luxury for a long time.” It was only between 1750 and 1850 that white bread became more widely available.

In some societies, meat was so scarce as to be the preserve of the wealthy. “One has to be a very great lord in Sumatra,’ said one seventeenth-century traveller, ‘to have a boiled or roast chicken, which moreover has to last for the whole day.” Today, meanwhile, one can purchase a whole rotisserie chicken from Costco for $4.99 and casually gorge on what was once a delicacy.

Nutritional deficiencies harmed human health and may have even prevented children from reaching their intellectual potential. “The Dictionnaire de Trévoux (1771) says quite bluntly: ‘The peasants are usually so stupid because they only live on coarse foods.’”

Water was also often scarce. “Whole towns—and very wealthy ones at that—were poorly supplied with water.” One example was Venice. “When no rain fell for weeks on end, the cisterns ran dry; this happened when [the 19th-century French writer] Stendhal was staying in the city. If there was a storm they were tainted with salt water.” “In 1770, Thames water ‘which is not good’ was carried to all the houses in London … but this was not what we would usually think of as running water: it was ‘distributed regularly three times a week, according to the amount consumed per household.”

Even when water was supplied, it was often tainted. The use of lead, a powerful toxin, in piping “is recorded in England in 1236.” Exposure to lead in drinking water is now known to cause many negative health effects, including debilitating lifelong brain damage and stunted growth in children, anemia and cardiovascular problems in adults, and in pregnant women, a heightened risk of miscarriage. In Paris, the main water source was the thick sludge of the Seine: “It was supposed to bear boats well, being muddy and therefore heavy, as a Portuguese envoy reported in 1641—not that this quality would recommend itself to drinkers.” Indeed, the water source doubled as a dumping site for toxic waste. “‘A number of dyers pour their dye three times a week into the branch of the river which washes the Pelletier quay and between the two bridges,’ said an eye witness (1771). ‘The arch which forms the Gêvres quai is a seat of pestilence. All that part of the town drinks infected waters.’”

Such poor diets and tainted water made people more vulnerable to every illness. “The undernourished, unprotected population could offer little resistance to [epidemics, hence] the Tuscan proverb [says] ‘The best remedy against malaria is a well filled pot.’ Undernourishment, on all the evidence, is a ‘multiplying’ factor in the spread of diseases.”

“To mention only smallpox: in 1775, when inoculation was beginning to be discussed, a medical book considered it ‘the most general of all diseases’; ninety-five in every hundred people were affected; one in seven died.” In 1780, a mysterious illness dubbed “purple fever” is said to have killed so many hundreds of Parisians that “the gravediggers’ arms were falling off.” Influenza struck often as well. “In 1588, it laid low (but did not kill) the entire population of Venice, to the point where the Grand Council was empty.” A mysterious “sweating sickness” plagued England from 1486 to 1551, with five major outbreaks, also striking Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland: “The victims had fits of shivering and sweated profusely and were often dead within hours.” Even the rich could not escape the ravages of disease. “Tuberculosis was also an old scourge of Europe: Francis II (tubercular meningitis), Charles IX (pulmonary tuberculosis) and Louis XIII (intestinal tuberculosis) all fell victim to it (1560, 1574, 1643).”

Even royalty received atrociously ineffective and occasionally deadly medical care. The itinerant physician Arnaud de Villeneuve (c. 1240–c. 1313) claimed, “brandy, aqua vitae, accomplished the miracle of preserving youth, dissipated superfluous body fluids, revived the heart, cured colic, drops: paralysis, quartan ague, calmed toothache and gave protection against plague. But his miracle cure brought Charles the Bad, of execrable memory, to a terrible end (1387); doctors had enveloped him in a brandy-soaked sheet sewn up with large stitches for greater efficiency so that it fitted rightly round the patient. A servant held a candle up close to try to break one of the threads, and sheet and invalid went up in flames.”

Outbreaks of deadly disease caused not only deaths but social discord among survivors. Braduel quotes the English diarist Samuel Pepys in 1665 calling the bubonic plague “the plague making us cruel, as doggs, one to another.” Braudel quotes Daniel Defoe’s account of the 1664 plague of London, saying that the dead were thrown “for the most part on to a cart like common dung.” The outbreaks were frequent. “Plague occurred in Amsterdam every year from 1622 to 1628 (the toll: 35,000 dead). It struck Paris in 1612, 1619, 1631, 1638, 1662, 1668 (the last).” Those who did survive the poverty, famines, and plagues of the past were often prematurely aged. In 1754, Braudel quotes one author as noting that “the peasants in France . . . begin to decline before they are forty.”

“The poor in the towns and countryside of the West lived in a state of almost complete deprivation. Their furniture consisted of next to nothing, at least before the eighteenth century, when a rudimentary luxury began to spread (chairs, where before people had been content with benches, woollen mattresses, feather beds) … But before the eighteenth century, … inventories mention only a few old clothes, a stool, a table, a bench, the planks of a bed, sacks filled with straw. Official reports for Burgundy between the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries are full of references to people [sleeping] on straw with no bed or furniture’ who were only separated ‘from the pigs by a with a screen.’”

“Travellers’ tales are full of savage beasts. One seventeenth-century account describes tigers prowling round Asian villages and towns, and swimming out into the Ganges delta to surprise fisherman asleep in their boats.”

“No one feels safe after nightfall, not even inside a house. One man went out of his hut in a small town near [Guangzhou], where the Jesuit father [Adriano] de Las Cortes and his fellow sufferers were imprisoned (1626), and was carried off by a tiger.”

“The whole of Europe, from the Urals to the Straits of Gibraltar, was the domain of wolves, and bears roamed in all its mountains. The omnipresence of wolves and the attention they aroused make wolf-hunting an index of the health of the countryside, and even of the towns, and of the character of the year gone by. A lapse in vigilance, an economic setback, a rough winter, and they multiplied. In 1420, packs entered Paris through a breach in the ramparts or unguarded gates. They were there again in September 1438, attacking people this time outside the town, between Montmartre and the Saint-Antoine gate. In 1640, wolves entered Besançon by crossing the Doubs near the mills of the town and ‘ate children along the roads.’”

“There was an example of this in Gevaudan ‘where the ravages of the wolves made people believe in the existence of an unnatural monster.’” A creature so lethal that it has become the stuff of legends, nicknamed the Beast of Gévaudan, terrorized France between 1764 and 1767, allegedly killing over 100 victims and maiming many more. The tragic loss of life even prompted King Louis XV to send troops to hunt the predator. Some scholars think the infamous maneater may have been a hyena or lion escaped from a menagerie based on conflicting descriptions of its appearance from the period, but details from the autopsy report after the animal was finally slain by a hunter suggest it was a canine, probably an unusually large wolf or wolf-dog hybrid that developed a marked taste for human flesh.

Knowing firsthand how deadly wolves could be, the French even considered using wolves as a form of biological warfare against the English. “In fact the Députés du Commerce were discussing in 1783 a proposal made several years earlier, to ‘introduce into England a sufficient number of wolves to destroy the greater part of the population.’”

And that is only a small taste of the past from Braudel’s lengthy tome.

Blog Post | Population Demographics

Grim Old Days: Pat Thane’s History of Old Age

"He who has made himself dependent on his children for bread and suffers from want, he shall be knocked dead by this club."

Summary: Pat Thane’s book explores the harsh realities faced by the elderly in pre-industrial societies, including early aging, high mortality rates, and widespread elder abuse. The book reveals that old age, often accompanied by physical disability and poverty, was generally marked by isolation, familial neglect, and societal contempt. Thane’s volume challenges the romanticized notion that the elderly were once universally respected, showing that industrialization brought both longer lifespans and improved intergenerational relationships.


A History of Old Age, edited by the British historian Pat Thane, features contributions from several scholars exploring old age in different eras, from antiquity to the recent past. The volume reveals that in the pre-industrial era, premature aging, early death, and elder abuse were far more common than today.

In the 17th century, “due to inadequate diet and poor living standards . . . poor women [were considered] to have entered old age around age 50.” “Mother” became an honorary title for women over 50, such as the famously ugly “Mother Shipton” of Yorkshire, born toward the end of the 15th century and who, like many old women of the era, was “reputed to be a witch.” In 1754, one author noted that “the peasants in France . . . begin to decline before they are forty.” For ordinary people, the injuries of old age reflected a lifetime of painful toil. There was a “high probability of some physical disability stemming from earlier, work-related injuries.” For example, female lacemakers “suffered debilitating blindness and stiff fingers.” “The ‘Dowager’s Hump’ of osteoporosis was the stereotypical hallmark of the elderly women in the 17th century, as were the broken hips and arms of the aged male.” Given the harsh toll that the challenges of preindustrial life took on the body, and the prevalence of early aging, it is not surprising that fewer people survived to old age.

While a preindustrial adult had a much better shot at reaching old age than did a preindustrial child (owing to the latter group’s horrifically high rate of early death), it was still a long shot relative to today. The 16th-century French philosopher Michel de Montaigne observed, “To die of age, is a rare, singular, and extraordinary death, and so much lesse naturall [sic] than others.” In the preindustrial era, “the elderly generally constituted not more than 8 per cent of the population, and in some regions and periods it was not more than 5.” (Although after outbreaks of bubonic plague, which disproportionately killed off the young, the elderly share of the population temporarily increased). With industrialization, the relative rarity of older adults began to change; “in England and the Low Countries, the numbers of elderly began to increase earlier” than elsewhere.

Even among royalty, living into old age was once relatively rare. “Of all the kings of Europe from the 11th to the beginning of the 15th century, the longest living king was Alfonso VI, king of Castile and León (1030–1109), who reached the age of 79. Of all his predecessors and successors only two made it to their 60s. Only three of the kings of Aragon reached their 60s, and only four of the German emperors. Three of the kings of England reached their 60s, but only one of the Capetian kings of France—Louis VII (1120–80). All other kings, in all European countries, died younger.” That bears repeating: For a king to live past 70 was extraordinary, and most kings did not live to see age 60. Among common peasants, typical lifespans were, of course, shorter still.

In antiquity, old age was also relatively rare. There were, of course, exceptions, such as the famed stoic philosopher Diogenes the Cynic, who lived to be 96, and the philosopher Chrysippus, who is said to have died around age 80, but such longevity was unusual. In the classical past, most of the population was young. “For example, around 6–8 per cent of the population of the Roman empire in the 1st century AD was over the age of 60.” This had many repercussions, including that fewer people ever knew their grandparents. “By the age of ten years, the average ancient individual had only a one-in-two chance of having any of his grandparents still alive. Fewer than one in a hundred Greeks or Romans of the age of 20 would have had a surviving paternal grandfather.”

Close, long-term relationships between grandchildren and their grandparents were thus relatively rare. “Most adult Greeks or Romans would have had only shadowy memories of their grandparents.” In fact, it was not until industrialization began in parts of Europe in the latter half of the 18th century that close grandparent-grandchild relationships such as those that are typical today started to become more common, as “longer lives meant greater opportunity to play the roles associated with the aged.” The archetypes associated with grandparents are newer than many realize, although they do slightly predate industrialization. “Only at the end of the [17th] century does the social, ‘spoil-the-child’, modern-looking ‘grandparent’ appear.” In other words, “the modern social role of the grandparent was just beginning to develop at the end of the century.” One might imagine that doting grandparents have existed since time immemorial, and some likely did, but high rates of early death and widespread material poverty deprived most ordinary people of the experience prior to the wealth generated by the Industrial Revolution. “A new representation of grandparents can be recognized in French culture in the late 18th century, preparing the way for the great stereotype of 19th-century grandparents spoiling their children’s offspring.” That was a consequence of more grandparents living long enough to form deep bonds with their grandchildren, and greater prosperity enabling the former to lavish gifts on the latter, as wealth and longevity spread: “Old age, traditionally viewed as a period of social isolation, was being experienced by greater numbers.”

Poor people continued working as long as possible—no matter how long they lived. “Bridget Holmes [(1591–1691)] was a servant in the Stuart royal household who was still working hard at the age of 96.” Beetty or Betty Dick, the town-crier of Dalkeith in Scotland continued to work until her death at age 85 in 1778, wandering the town beating a wooden plate with a spoon to draw public attention and making local announcements. This lengthy working life took a heavy toll. “The lifestyle of the poor was physically and mentally demanding even for those in the pink of health” and could be devastating in old age. Nonetheless, working until one’s dying day or the arrival of debilitating infirmity was a common fate among poor people, who once comprised the greater share of humanity.

The idea of a leisurely retirement being within ordinary people’s reach is a modern concept. For most of history, ordinary laborers worked until they became bedridden or died, owing to the extreme poverty of the preindustrial world. “Most of them were unable to save enough for their old age during their working years. They could thus not afford to retire and were obliged to continue working as long as they could.” Old age and poverty were practically synonyms. “As women generally worked in more poorly paid occupations than men, they were even more exposed to dire want in their old age.” By the 17th century, “at a certain stage in his life the peasant handed over his farm to one of his offspring [and] moved from the main room to a back room, or to the attic, or to a spare cottage.” After the handover, he would still assist with farmwork to the extent of his abilities. For women, living with family in old age was less common, at least partly because women who avoided childbirth had better chances of surviving to old age than women who had children.

A common narrative maintains that in the past, the elderly received far better treatment, enjoying greater respect and more familial support than today. “Insofar as old age is thought to have a history, it is presented as a story of decline . . . [in the past, the elderly] were valued, respected, cherished and supported by their families as, it is said, they are not today.” Nowadays, in contrast, the narrative holds that disrespect and loneliness are more likely to characterize the last years of life than in ages past. Yet in reality, “none of [the evidence] suggests that comfortable succour in the household of one’s children was the expected lot of older people in pre-industrial . . . Europe.” The evidence suggests quite the opposite, in fact.

Contrary to popular belief, preindustrial people were far less likely to have any surviving children or grandchildren to care for them in old age than modern people. That is partly because even though birth rates were higher in the past, children died with such horrifying frequency that they often predeceased their parents. “Given the higher rate of death at all ages before the later 20th century, older people could not be sure that their children would outlive them. In the 18th century just one-third of Europeans had a surviving child when they reached their 60th birthday.” Hence, the majority of those who lived to old age had no surviving children. In the modern world, in contrast, that is only the case for a minority. For example, US Census Bureau data suggests that among adults age 55 and older, over 83 percent have living adult children. Despite “today’s pessimistic narrative of old age [that] stresses the increasing loneliness of older people in the modern world,” loneliness was more pervasive in the preindustrial past.

What became of the childless majority of elderly people in the preindustrial era? “If they had no surviving children, they entered hospitals and institutions for the poor, which, throughout pre-industrial Europe and early America, were filled with older people without surviving relatives. Or they died alone.” Conditions in the hospitals were famously unsanitary and overcrowded. “There, sharing a bed with whoever else needed one, the destitute elderly lived out their final years.” Despite the poor conditions, demand for a hospital bed far exceeded the supply. “Seventeenth-century Brunswick had only 23 beds for every 1,000 inhabitants, Rheims had 24.94 for every 1,000; and in Marne, they were particularly scarce, with just 2.77 beds per 1,000. Furthermore, the elderly were only one of many eligible groups vying for accommodation. . . . It has been suggested that 74 per cent of all applications were denied.”

Some were even less fortunate: Older people without relatives also often faced harassment and even accusations of witchcraft. While old men also suffered through such allegations, old women were particularly likely to be targeted. That is at least in part because, then as now, women often outlived men, so there were more elderly women around. (Although in some times and places, men outlived women, such as Quattrocento Venice). “A physician in 17th-century south Germany explained why old women were so often accused of witchcraft: ‘They are so unfairly despised and rejected by everyone, enjoy no-one’s protection, much less their affection and loyalty . . . so that it is no wonder that, on account of poverty and need, misery and faint-heartedness, they often . . . give themselves to the devil and practice witchcraft.’ A 70-year-old woman said at her trial, ‘The children call all old people witches.’”

In other words, many communities violently scapegoated the aging. Any local misfortune, from illness to a house fire, could be blamed on supposed witches, usually impoverished older women without surviving children. Superstitions related to menopause did not help matters. “It was said that a menopausal woman could cause grass to dry up, fruit to wither on the vine, and trees to die. Dogs would become rabid and mirrors crack by her mere presence. Such women, without even trying, could cast the evil eye. With malice and aforethought, the glance of the post-menopausal woman could kill.” In reality, it was the aging women themselves who were killed by such delusions. From the 14th century through the 17th century, between 200,000 and 500,000 alleged witches—over 85 percent of them female and mostly middle-aged or elderly—were executed. Public shaming, harsh interrogations, and torture often preceded witch burnings.

Such violence was enabled by attitudes toward the elderly that were often grotesquely negative. “Literary depictions of old men in epics and romances [show] the old man is an object of contempt.” In the 17th century, “the Italian theatrical genre of Commedia dell’Arte reflected the Europe-wide characterization of old men as objects of mockery and disdain,” featuring a prominent stock character called Pantaloon, who was meant to represent a decrepit and ridiculous old man. “The 17th-century stage, elite literature and the sayings of peasants belittled and mocked the old in ways that few groups are targeted today.”

Old women often fared even worse in the public imagination. “Generally old women were feared or held in contempt.” To give an example, in the allegorical text Le Pèlerinage de la vie humane, “The Pilgrimage of human life,” written in the 14th century by the monk Guillaume of Deguileville, the virtues are all personified by beautiful young women, while ugly old women represent the vices. Even in the 17th century, women “were thought to grow increasingly evil and dangerous as menopause set it.” A literary genre popular from the 13th century onward known as “sermones ad status”—sermons divided according to their audience (i.e., sermons to the nobility, to merchants, and so forth)—reveals how the people of the past viewed different groups. In this classification scheme, “the elderly, like women and children, were represented as a single marginal group irrespective of social stratum, rank, profession or lifestyle. In some texts they were classed with invalids, foreigners or the very poor, the emphasis being on their . . . social inferiority.”

Public ridicule of the elderly was also commonplace and considered an ordinary pastime for children. A description of each decade of life “popular in Germany in the 16th century and probably familiar still in the 17th” describes a man of 90 years as ‘the scorn of children.’” A Viennese woodcut from 1579 depicts a nonagenarian man derided by a young child.

The minority of old people who did have surviving children were not necessarily much better off, as treatment of the elderly was often appalling, even by close family members. One “popular . . . tale, already old in medieval Europe, told of a man who, tired of caring for his old father, starts to carve a trough from which the old man is to eat, instead of sitting at the family table, or, in another version, starts to exchange his father’s bedding for a piece of sacking.” Similar stories abounded that depict cruelty toward the elderly. “In another, bleaker version, the old man is gradually demoted from a place of honour at the head of the table to a bench behind the door, where he dies in misery.” In some areas, this power imbalance was reversed. “In late 17th century Upper Provence, for example, until the death of his father, the heir was ‘completely subservient to his father economically, socially, and legally, just as though he were still a child.’ He could not, without his father’s permission, buy, sell, trade, make a will or complete any legal contract. Trouble arose repeatedly as a consequence.” In most areas, however, elder abuse was likely more frequent than aging parents legally tyrannizing their adult children.

Of course, individuals varied, and many adult children dutifully supported their aging parents and maintained positive relationships with them. But economic stress made it hard even for willing adult children to support their parents. “As the younger generation was typically poor themselves and overburdened by children, leaving little food or money to spare for an aged parent. Barbara Ziegler, from Bächlingen in southwestern Germany, described what the 1620s had been like for her: ‘I stayed with my son for four years, but the food was bad and [he] supported me only with great effort.’” Far from the romantic notion that the past offered greater familial support to older adults, the prevailing attitude toward any older person relying on their adult children was often one of bitterness and disgust.

This is true even in antiquity, despite the “common myth about the classical past . . . that older individuals enjoyed something of a golden age when they were treated with great respect.” The reality was that attitudes toward the elderly were often cruel. Classical literature often depicted the old as “witches or alcoholics.” In Greek and Roman mythology, the personification of old age, Geras or Senectus, is said to be “the offspring of Night, and has siblings Doom, Fate, Death, Sleep, Blame, Nemesis and Deceit, among others.” The philosopher Juncus noted that even to his friends and family, an aging man is nothing but “an oppressive, painful, grievous and decrepit spectacle: in short, an Iliad of woes.” The Greek satirist Lucian in his work On Grief points out, albeit jokingly, that one benefit of a man’s untimely demise is that “by dying young, he will not be scorned in old age.” In fact, “it was a common proverb that old age and poverty are both burdensome—in combination they are impossible to bear.” Even when adult children took care of their parents, it was often with great resentment. In the playwright Aristophanes’ comedy Wasps, a son is depicted supporting his father but without any hint of the filial respect often imagined to characterize the past. The son character says with disgust, “I’ll support him, providing everything that’s suitable for an old man: gruel to lick up, a soft thick cloak, a goatskin mantle, a whore to massage his . . . loins.” At the beginning of Plato’s Republic, the elderly Cephalus says this of “old men”: “Most of them are full of woes [and] grumble that their families show no respect for their age.” The old were often despised as “marginal members of society.”

Even in the later 18th century, “the town gates of some cities in Brandenburg hung large clubs with this inscription: ‘He who has made himself dependent on his children for bread and suffers from want, he shall be knocked dead by this club.’”

These facts and more can be found in this fascinating book.

Live Science | Human Development

Genome Stored In Crystal Could Survive to the End of the Universe

“For the first time, scientists have stored a copy of humanity’s genetic blueprint inside a near-indestructible ‘5D memory crystal’ — a new data storage format that could keep the valuable information safe for billions of years, or even potentially to the end of time.”

From Live Science.

Bloomberg | Communications

Audible to Start Generating AI Voice Replicas of Select Narrators

“Amazon.com Inc.’s Audible will begin inviting a select group of US-based audiobook narrators to train artificial intelligence on their voices, the clones of which can then be used to make audiobook recordings. The effort, which kicks off this week, is designed to add more audiobooks to the service, quickly and cheaply — and to welcome traditional narrators into the evolving world of audiobook automation which, to date, many have regarded warily.”

From Bloomberg.

MIT Technology Review | Science & Technology

Roblox Is Launching a Generative AI That Builds 3D Environments

“Roblox plans to roll out a generative AI tool that will let creators make whole 3D scenes just using text prompts, it announced today. 

Once it’s up and running, developers on the hugely popular online game platform will be able to simply write ‘Generate a race track in the desert,’ for example, and the AI will spin one up. Users will also be able to modify scenes or expand their scope—say, to change a daytime scene to night or switch the desert for a forest. 

Although developers can already create similar scenes like this manually in the platform’s creator studio, Roblox claims its new generative AI model will make the changes happen in a fraction of the time. It also claims that it will give developers with minimal 3D art skills the ability to craft more compelling environments.”

From MIT Technology Review.