> Botanicals were also used to help choose between a slew of suitors. One game involved girls naming chestnuts after men and then roasting them
on a fire: ‘If a nut cracked and jumped away from her then the suitor with that name would not be true; the one that stayed and was burnt alongside the chestnut with her name would remain true and they would consequently marry.’
My guess is that games of chance involving potential mates have always been a popular activity when a bunch of young single women got together. I doubt they took it any more seriously back then than they do now.
> In September 1890 Maud Berkeley, aged 29 and living on the Isle of Wight, and her sister attempted a similar divination which she recorded in her diary: ‘dropped … hazelnut, into the fire’, which, to her disappointment, ‘chose to “burn and die” instead of “crack and fly” as it ought to have done’. She came to the conclusion that ‘such practices were mere nonsense’ – but that did not stop her continuing to play them.
It would be interesting to know further how seriously these rituals were taken.
Most societies have some sort of magical thinking, but it seems to be that fervent belief in omen-like phenomenon decreases as the metaphysic of a given culture becomes more naturalistic and mechanistic. Magical thinking tends to emerge in situations of uncertainty and disorder, and even if there's no honest conscious belief in a supernatural process, there's often a vestige of comfort and romanticism in being able to influence a system with technically uncontrollable parameters. Bronisław Malinowski talks about this in his anthropological work on traditional Pacific Islander cultures:
> They have, in fact, a whole system of principles of sailing, embodied in a complex and rich terminology, traditionally handed on and obeyed as rationally and consistently as is modern science by modern sailors. How could they sail otherwise under eminently dangerous conditions in their frail primitive craft? But even with all their systematic knowledge, methodically applied, they are still at the mercy of powerful and incalculable tides, sudden gales during the monsoon season and unknown reefs. And here comes in their magic, performed over the canoe during its construction, carried out at the beginning and in the course of expeditions and resorted to in moments of real danger. If the modern seaman, entrenched in science and reason, provided with all sorts of safety appliances, sailing on steel-built steamers, if even he has a singular tendency to superstition— which does not rob him of his knowledge or reason, nor make him altogether pre-logical—can we wonder that his savage colleague, under much more precarious conditions, holds fast to the safety and comfort of magic?
One thing I've learned over time is that leaving the magical aspects aside performing a ritual can have an advantageous emotional effect on the participants.
A silly example: A distant relative explained how he'd seen a stone healer about curing his smoking addiction. We're talking about a down-to-earth man, a small-scale factory owner. She did a ritual involving burning incense and putting stones on his back. Then as he was getting ready to leave, she said to him: "Oh, by the way, no more smoking, not even nicotine gum". He promptly quit smoking completely.
I think the odd situation of the ritual prepared his mind to fully accept the conclusion. I don't know how effective this stone healer is overall compared to other means of quitting smoking. But it was impressively efficient for my relative, just a one hour job.
I've heard similar things from missionaries who have lived in very remote cultures with witch doctors who will take someone who's extremely sick and feeble to being able to stand perfectly upright after a "faith healing."
If we want to fit it in our metaphysical paradigm, we can say it seems like the placebo effect could be much stronger when there's genuine belief in the process, and that psychosomatic issues can engender actualized physical symptoms when there's a meaningful expectation that an outcome is likely. But by looking at it systematically, maybe we're weakening these sort of effects?
"(It was customary for couples kissing under the mistletoe in the 19th century to remove a berry each time a kiss was had. Once the berries were gone, no more kisses.) After locking the door she swallows the berry and works by candlelight to complete the charm."
If you are in the Americas you can eat the seed to your heart's content, they are not poisonous. The European mistletoe is, however: https://www.poison.org/articles/mistletoe
> Holly berries can cause vomiting and diarrhea. They are especially dangerous in cases involving accidental consumption by children attracted to the bright red berries.[30] Ingestion of over 20 berries may be fatal to children.[29][30]
Nice short read. Can't help but wonder how young people's rituals today would be viewed by historians hundreds of years from now!
They seek companionship by swiping right on each others' photos in dating apps, hoping to initiate a conversation. The photos are carefully curated to prominently display their most attractive attributes or eschew visual insecurities. Most men throw caution to the wind and swipe on everyone, while a few select women do their best to sift through the deluge of attention. Sadly this custom only created a 'wealth' inequality which left them with an indelible generational impression for years to come.
My guess is that games of chance involving potential mates have always been a popular activity when a bunch of young single women got together. I doubt they took it any more seriously back then than they do now.