Chastity Belts: Sic et Non?

Kidzworld.com tells us that medieval women were forced to wear chastity belts. Cracked.com reports it as an act of “medieval crotch warfare.” And don’t get me started on Mel Brooks (soon to be reviewed on this blog). But were chastity belts medieval devices used to control women and preserve virginity? Virginity was highly prized in the Middle Ages, but no female was walking around with a chain and lock on her privy parts! Consider how this popular notion of the Middle Ages shapes our ideas of the medieval past . . . yet this idea is wholly invented.  Even though Pope Joan and chivalric King Arthur are also invented ideas, at least they had the decency to emerge pre-1400.

Actual devices apparently were worn in the nineteenth century, though I am no expert. Voltaire wrote The Padlock in 1724, and encyclopedias contained entries on the chastity belt, linking them to medieval barbarism, of course. French literature idealized stories about jealous husbands who had duplicate keys made as a baudy romp through the ridiculous. In a show of misogyny, Johann Zedler, writing in the 1700s tells us that even though husbands required chastity belts, their wives could escape them by “changing their posture” (not sure how that works!). Museums have taken some of those more modern devices and put them on display in Nuremberg, Cluny, and other locations, as if they were medieval devices. If you go to Venice, visit the chastity belt at the Doge's palace. But this is invented history, and more respectable museums have recently removed some of them, although “Torture Museums” hot on the tourist trail wave them as happy flags of enticement to pay an extortionist admission (as you can imagine, profits are much higher with so-called medieval chastity belts). The useful link below asks us to consider how museums not only record and preserve artifacts but also sometimes invent history.

But there is some truth too. The idea of a rope, or girdle of chastity did feature in medieval theological treatises. Alcuin of York (ie., Charlemagne’s best buddy) wrote:  “Divest me of my past sins, protect me from presently imminent ones, fortify me against future ones. Provide me with due abstinence from food and drink, a chastity belt, purity of heart and lips, grant me patience, forbearance, good will, modesty, spiritual joy and total contempt of the world"; however, these are used as ideological symbolism, rather than actual artifacts. The earliest visual image of a chastity belt dates to 1405, and resides in Florence, Italy. Evidently Florentines were linked to the chastity belt in early modern references. Sketched into a book that Kondrad Keyser authored about medieval weapons, he includes the chastity belt as another weapon. Since it is roughly drawn and includes ironic comments, it has been viewed by historians as a kind of gag in the middle of a serious book.  Other images include woodcuts from Germany during the Reformation era when commentary about women was often quite negative (this is the time of the witch-hunts, not the Middle Ages, Monty Pythons!). It's possible some were gag gifts as well; we simply don't have examples to date to the period we are studying. Definitely leave this class knowing that one’s virginity was important; that even men might ask to wear the rope of chastity in their fight against demons, desire, and women; and that the idea may have emerged in literature and art in a commentary on women’s sexuality, but there were not actual locks, keys, and iron that a medieval woman wore under her clothing. So don't spend too much time burdening yourself with medieval torture devices especially designed for women, but on the other hand why is it that only women wear engagement rings?

For more info, see this book Albrecht Classen's The Medieval Chastity Belt: A Myth Making Process

From 1405. The first image of a chastity belt. 

An early modern woodcut; note the man is holding the key.

An example of a European franchise; of course, most of the objects are "medieval devices"

Inside the museum: what tourists see inside museums and then post on websites as an outrageous medieval custom! 

Chevrons!

The chevron appeared frequently in heraldry, particularly with the British and French. "Chevron" is French for "rafter" and looks like a roof, meant to represent protection (NHHC). It was awarded to people who had participated in a notable enterprise, had built churches or fortresses, or had accomplished work of faithful service. The chevron was displayed on shields and coats of arms of knights, barons, and kings, and were considered an honor since at least the twelfth century. At first it would reach the top of the shield, but eventually it was reduced to about 1/3 of the space to provide room for images to be displayed more attractively around it.

French Coat of Arms

Chevrons continue to signify honor today. The United States armed forces, for example, use them to identify rank (NHHC). The stripes worn by Air Force members also use chevrons. Even letterman jackets for sports teams use chevrons. A chevronel is a very small version of the chevron and can be stacked on top of each other or laid side by side. This is the form of which chevrons are used now, as opposed to a big one on a shield.

United States Air Force Airman first Class

Letter jacket

http://www.history.navy.mil/trivia/triv4-4a.htm

Kingdom of Heaven

          The Kingdom of Heaven is a 2005 historical fiction film loosely based on the life of Balian of Ibelin, a crusading French noble in the 12^th century. Like most films set in the middle ages, it is riddled with inaccuracies from the start. Many events are blatantly made up and the protagonist only very slightly resembles the Balian of history. While The Kingdom of Heaven portrays several battles relatively accurately and includes a few truths about Balian’s life, it is far too muddled with fiction to be considered historically accurate.

                The plot of The Kingdom of Heaven takes off quickly, with Balian learning of his wife’s suicide and subsequently murdering his half-brother and town priest for decapitating her corpse before burial. Partially out of rage and partially pilgrimage, Balian flees his French village with a band of crusaders heading for the Holy land. True to Hollywood, blood begins flying when the village’s lord ambushes the band of crusaders after discovering the priest’s murderer was among them. The crusaders put up a righteous fight and manage to defeat their attackers, although the crusaders’ leader (later revealed to be Balian’s true father) is killed. Before he dies, however, he knights Balian and makes him promise he will restore holiness in Jerusalem.

Liam Neeson... much better in Non-Stop

                Balian takes on his father’s vision and makes it to the Holy Land relatively unscathed. Soon after arriving, a company of rogue Christian cavalry massacre one of Salah ad-Din’s trade caravan, provoking Salah ad-Din to lay siege to castle Kerek, a strategically important fortress. Balian gathers his band of knights and directly confronts Salah ad-Din, giving the civilians of Kerek time to escape. Needless to say, the entirety of his “army” of less than a hundred is either killed or taken captive. Balian negotiates a diplomatic escape, but the same group of Christians again recklessly antagonizes Salah ad-Din. Low on supplies and short on water, they engage in a confrontation with the Arabian army and are predictably decimated. While this Christian army was led by foolhardy nobles, it was sizeable, well-equipped, and formally trained. This unfortunately leaves Balian as essentially the only commander of a Crusader army.

                Encouraged, Salah ad-Din prepares to finally siege Christian Jerusalem while Balian rushes to the city’s defense. The French knight shows his ability as a tactician by holding off the superior Arabian force for three days, toppling siege towers, defending an unwalled portion of the city, and finally negotiating admirably light surrender conditions when defeat is inevitable.

Balian beseaching Salah ad-Din for surrender

               The Christians are to be allowed safe passage to Crusader lands, and Salah ad-Din honors these arrangement. Our protagonist returns to France and the film closes with King Richard the Lionhearted passing through Balian’s home village. The English king requests Balian join him in his march to Holy Crusade, but he refuses, telling Richard he is just a simple blacksmith.

                While The Kingdom of Heaven certainly has a basis in history, most of the plotline is completely fictional. Balian was no common blacksmith, having inherited castle Ibelin and named vassal to his brother Baldwin. Balian, after a series of political skirmishes, became advisor to Guy of Lusignan, ruler of Jerusalem. The initial conflict between the crusaders and Salah ad-Din was indeed started when Guy’s ally Raymond of Chatillon attacked a caravan, but the film depicts Guy and Raymond acting in accordance with one another, when in truth Guy was furious with his ally. Balian actually travelled to Tripoli with the Grand Master of the Knights Templar and Knights Hospitaller to reconcile Raymond with Guy, as opposed to the film’s depiction of Balian heroically leading an outnumbered cavalry charge against the Arabian army to give Raymond enough time to escape. After Salah ad-Din slaughtered most of the Christian embassy, Raymond returned with Balian and the Christian forces coalesced at the city of Sephoria. At this point, history and The Kingdom of Heaven fall out of agreement, save a few small details.

The Christian army led by Guy begins to march across a desolate, uninhabitable wasteland, intending to relieve the siege of the Christian castle of Tiberius and bolster their forces with those at the castle. Unfortunately for the Christians, this is where The Kingdom of Heaven is on par with fact; the army had no water to speak of, very little food, and were relentlessly harassed by Salah ad-Din’s light cavalry. Seeing what they thought was their salvation ahead, a landmark called the Horns of Hattin, the beleaguered Christians made their stand between the two earthen mounds and prepared to fight the full force of Salah ad-Din. 

The Horns of Hattin

The battle that ensued is perhaps one of the greatest defeats in history, leaving nearly every Christian in a pool of their own dehydrated blood and the Arabians scarcely sweating. Salah ad-Din swept across the land and, with victory after victory, reclaimed Christian domain. Balian, who managed to survive the bloodbath, returned to Jerusalem and helped defend the city. In surprising agreement with the film, Salah ad-Din besieged Jerusalem for a time, leveling several walls but never gaining entrance. Balian did indeed negotiate the same surrender as depicted in the film, but the successive event is the most laughable inconstancy of all.

Richard the Lionhearted made his way to the Holy Land, but instead of seeking out Balian as was shown in the film, he vehemently despised the man, saying he was worse than a goblin and he and his wife (in fact, was living) were “steeped in Greek filth from the cradle, she had a husband whose morals matched her own: he was cruel, she was godless; he was faithless, she was fraudulent.” The fact that the directors of The Kingdom of Heaven did not bother to adhere to this last detail draws doubt to the rest of the production, and upon closer examination, it is clear the film is very inaccurate in regards to the majority of events. While the film would be of some limited use in a history class, the professor would be so weary of explaining what was true and what was Hollywood, he/she would likely follow suit of Balian’s wife.                                                                                                                                            

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/battleswars10011200/p/jerusalem.htm

http://king-baldwin.livejournal.com/45702.html

Lost and Found: Templar Edition

In October 2007, the Vatican added a document to the Papal report about the Knights Templar that had been missing for 699 years.  This document which dates back to 1308, is titled Processus Contra Templarios, which translates as “Trial of the Templars”. This Papal manuscript archives the accounts of treason against the Templars, their defense, and Pope Clement V’s absolution order. 

As we learned in class the Knights Templar was a prestigious organization which aided in the Crusades of the 11-13^th centuries.  During these Crusades, Christian Armies would travel from Europe to the inhabited Muslim territory in order to take back the Holy Land.  According to this TIME article, in 1187 (which would be during the 3^rd Crusade) the Templars lost holding in Jerusalem, which attributed to their loss in credibility.  In 1303, they lost holdings in present day Syria and failed to take Cyprus in 1307.  It was soon after that event King Philip IV of France drew up charges where he had the Templars arrested, tortured in hopes to contain confessions of heresy.  The following year the matter was brought to the Pope. 

The transcripts of this trial had been misplaced in the Vatican archives until 2001.  The official verdict of the trail of the Templars concluded that they were immoral but not heretical.  Dude to outside pressure following the trial, the Pope then disbanded the Templars and gave a majority of their wealth to a rival group. 

Here is a replica of the court transcripts dating from 1308.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1674980,00.html  

The Missing Page...

In 1128, the Council of Troyes approved for a group of religious knights to form under the rule of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. These knights became known as the Templars and they were considered a religious military world order with religious protections (CP 62). The Templars were justified as a warrior of Christ and their job was to make sure evil did not survive. It is believed that in the 14th century, King Phillip IV of France had all of the Templars arrested because of his greed for their wealth.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux

The charges included 127 articles accusing the Templars of various heretical activity. In 1312, the Templars were burned at the stake before they were even put through a legal process. For many centuries, there was no indication that the Templars were anything more than heretics that had no support from the papacy, until 2001. In 2001, Barbara Frale stumbled upon a piece of parchment within the records of the Vatican archives revealing that in 1308 Pope Clement V absolved all of the Templars of their accused heretical activity.

The Templars Burning

This missing parchment is known as The Chinon Parchment, which helped fill in the missing gap between papal support and the Templars. After finding this document, the Processus Contra Templarios was created in 2007. This book includes exact replicas of all the documents regarding the Templars. Sadly only 799 copies were created, but Stanford library has one if you ever decide to transfer there!  

Partial of Processus Contra Templarios

This website contains the document of St. Bernard in support of the Templars: In Praise of the New Knighthood

If you ever think you can afford a copy of the Processus Contra Templarios, here is a link to one on Ebay: Processus Contra Templarios

And the trumpets, they go...

As a trumpet player myself, I was immediately drawn to all the references of trumpets in the Song of Roland.  Seemly used to in the song as a declaration of the start of the battle, and to signal need for help or reinforcement.


Marginalia of a bunny playing the trumpet
Petrus Comestor, Historia scholastica
England c. 1283-1300



  " 'To let my pagans know this [the arrival of Charlemagne], sound your trumpets.'

Throughout the host they beat upon the drums

and sound those horns and brilliant clarions."
-Song of Roland (155-54)

 

 

 

 The first trumpets were made of horn, animal skin, or wood, and resembled nothing of the modern trumpet used today.  Used by the Roman Empire as a signaling device during war, this practice for the most part was not present in the Medieval Ages.  It was not until the crusades until trumpets would reenter medieval military practices.  Clarions, a medieval trumpet with a long bell and no values, was of basic design and could only produce a few distinct pitches.  These trumpets would not be used widely in Charlemagne's time, with instead bugle like horns, such as Roland's oliphant, were much more common.  However, once the trumpet was commonplace in military practices, they were the most guarded person in the troop, for all communication relied on them.  Outside of the military, ceremonies often time featured trumpets, such as the royal welcome that comes to many peoples minds.  It was a great event to hear a trumpet for common folk, as trumpet players were associated with these important events.  Many times a royal standard or flag would hang down from the long neck.

 

Horn in the Bayeux Tapestry.
This was used to call William the Conqueror to dinner, not to battle.
More typical of a wartime "trumpet" used in the Song of Roland.

More marginalia, this time showing what
a typical clarion would look like with long bell and flags.
This type was more common among royalty and
ceremonies, not warfare. 

 

 

Fun fact:

Although I could not find any true fanfares from the medieval period, I did run across a renaissance period piece that is suppose to feature military calls and signals of the late Medieval era.  La bataille by Clément Janequin was composed in 1515.  Although preformed by a choir, this piece is the earliest know work to incorporate military signals that could have elements of medieval uses of military signaling.  Please take a listen below but keep in mind that this is NOT medieval music but renaissance.  The best part is at 2:32, that section seemed most fanfare and "trumpet-like" to me.

 

 

Sources:



http://www.middlehornleader.com/Evolution%20of%20the%20Bugle%20--%20Section%201.htm

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/musicalinstruments/trumpets___horns

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpet