The Romance of the Rose, Part 2

The title of this blog post is almost "literal" in the sense that the Roman de la Rose was written in two parts: one by Guillaume de Loris in the first half of the 13th century and the second by the poet Jean de Meun in the second half. Jean saw nothing wrong with taking what Guillaume had written and adding to it—in fact, adding four times the number of lines as the original—but also changing its themes to those of personal interest to him.

Jean added new allegorical figures such as Nature and Genius, and continued the conversation about the nature of Love and its affect on the narrator. More than that, however, was a cynical approach to other topics, mocking many of the people and conventions of his society.

He attacks the priesthood, monastic orders, and the papacy, considering the Church's fairly recently push to outlaw clerical marriage. He attacked the mendicant orders: they had begun to push into the universities, becoming teachers and threatening the seniority of the secular clergy. He also mocks the nobility and the pretensions of royalty in a pre-echo of the 14th century's peasant's cry of "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?"

He also took the opportunity to express cynical views on women and marriage. He offered his list of women's vices and how men could avoid their traps. Although this may have been entertaining to some readers, as the work became popular it was attacked by many writers of the 14th century, such as by Jean Gerson, Christine de Pizan, and Pierre d'Ailly.

One of its aspects that may have helped its duplication and distribution is that the (second) author had a broad knowledge of current scientific and literary knowledge. He packs into the total work a lot of references to classical authors and historical events. In fact, it is a reference to a specific event that helps place the composition: the execution of Conradin by Charles of Anjou in 1268, so the poem was completed after that date and before Jean's death in 1305.

Despite the hostility it received from some quarters, it was enormously popular. Chaucer made a translation called The Romaunt of the Rose, which he mentions in his poem The Legend of Good Women, but the extant version of The Romaunt of the Rose that we have may not have been produced by Chaucer, since parts of it differ stylistically from Chaucer's other works.

Back to the hostility, however, and a contemporary of Chaucer: Christine de Pizan is considered one of the earliest feminist writers, and we should talk about her more. We'll start that conversation next time.

The Romance of the Rose, Part 1

Let's talk about the most popular secular literary work in the Middle Ages. More manuscripts have survived of the Roman de la Rose than just about any other non-religious work. It has a few other notable aspects. One is its length: 21,782 lines! The other is that it is an unintended collaboration by two men who never met.

Guillaume de Lorris (c.1200 - c.1240) was a French scholar and poet who wrote 4,058 lines of a romantic poem called the Roman de la Rose c.1230. That is all we know about him; we would know even less if not for Jean de Meun. Jean de Meun (c.1240 - c.1305) was a Parisian writer who picked up Guillaume's work and added 17,724 lines. The only reason we know the name "Guillaume de Lorris" is that Jean de Meun names him as the man who started the poem that de Meun continued.

"Continued" should not be construed to mean "carried on in the same vein as the original." Guillaume's section takes place in a walled garden, a stereotypical locus amoenus ("pleasant place") for medieval lovers. The narrator describes a dream he had as a young man, finding the garden with carvings on the outside of the wall of women representing vices such as Cruelty, Covetousness, and Avarice.

When I the age of twenty had attained –
The age when Love controls a young man’s heart –
As I was wont, one night I went to bed
And soundly slept. But there came a dream
Which much delighted me, it was so sweet...

Inside the garden, however, he finds a different situation. A beautiful woman named Idleness introduces him to a young man named Pleasure, who in turn introduces the narrator to Love, Joy, Courtesy, and Pleasant Looks. After spending some time with them, the narrator goes for a walk, unaware that he is being stalked by Love. He comes to a pool in which he glimpses a beautiful rose. Just then, Love shoots him with five arrows— Beauty, Simplicity, Courtesy, Company, and Fair Seeming—and then demands the narrator become a servant to Love.

The narrator's goal then is to pursue the rose (which represents a lady as well as female sexuality). Reason appears and tells the narrator to abandon his quest for the rose. Friend comforts the narrator, who goes back to kiss the rose, but Jealousy builds a castle around the rose to keep the narrator away.

It doesn't seem likely that that is where Guillaume meant his poem to end, but that is all we have from him. When Jean de Meun came across it and decided to add more, he changed the tone a bit (he also might have edited the original, so we cannot be certain we know exactly what Guillaume wrote). Tomorrow I'll tell you how he changed the direction and used it to criticize more than just the act of falling in love.

When a Love Affair Goes Public

The story of Abelard and Heloise—revealed through their own writings and love letters—have intrigued people since the 12th century. They not only reveal the details of their relationship and feelings toward each other, but they also discuss and analyze love and related topics in philosophical terms.

These long letters, it is assumed, were kept by Heloise at the Abbey of the Paraclete, founded by Abelard and conceded to her when her convent was expelled from its original home by Abbot Suger. Their contemporary, the English anecdotalist Walter Map, mentions their story. It is possible that the letters were read by others during the process of delivery.

Eventually, the originals were uncovered at the Abbey of the Paraclete and someone decided they should be read more widely. The earliest manuscript collections are from the later 13th century. Some scholars think that the wounding of the Grail King in Chrétien de Troyes was influenced by Abelard's situation.

Their love story makes it into Jean de Meun's part of the Roman de la Rose ("Romance of the Rose"). Chaucer's Canterbury Tales mentions Heloise in the Wife of Bath's prologue, referring to her husband's book of "wicked wives" in which is mentioned "Heloise, that was abbess not far from Paris."

A 1616 Latin translation in Paris led to several versions in different European languages and kept their story alive into the 18th and 19th centuries where its popularity really took off. They were considered tragic lovers—rebelling against the restrictions of their time and society—who were united in death. Their remains were taken from the Abbey of the Paraclete and re-interred in the Père Lachaise Cemetery, established by Napoleon and housing many famous French citizens.

Speaking of long writings about love, the reference to Jean de Meun's "part" of the Roman de la Rose needs explanation. I'll explain that, and what the Roman was, tomorrow.

Abelard and Heloise, the Letters

The relationship of Abelard and Heloise was not only one of the great (true) "forbidden love" stories of the Middle Ages, it was also one of the greatest intellectual couplings of history. Had the two been able to spend their lives together, they would surely have produced some groundbreaking philosophical works.

Two works provide us with insight into their lives and thoughts. One is the Historia Calamitatum of Abelard, the "History of my Calamities" that explains the origin and downfall of their love affair. The second (and, in manuscripts, always appended to the Historia) was a collection of seven long letters (three by Abelard, four by Heloise), exchanged after they were living separate lives. There is actually a third source: an exchange of letters between Heloise (one letter) and Peter the Venerable (three letters), that have survived.

We learn a lot of their two natures and temperaments. The first letter in the series, from Abelard, refers to their last time together when she expressed how miserable she was and he tried to comfort her. Failing to do so, he tries again to make her feel less sad about her condition in the most arrogant way imaginable, by telling her that her troubles are nothing compared to his life:

The last time we were together, Philintus, you gave me a melancholy account of your misfortunes. I was sensibly touched with the relation, and, like a true friend, bore a share in your griefs. What did I not say to stop your tears? I laid before you all the reasons Philosophy could furnish, which I thought might anyways soften the strokes of Fortune: but all endeavors have proved useless: grief I perceive, has wholly seized your spirits: and your prudence, far from assisting, seems quite to have forsaken you. But my skilful friendship has found out an expedient to relieve you. Attend to me a moment; hear but the story of my misfortunes, and yours, Philintus, will be nothing, if you compare them with those of the loving and unhappy Abelard. Observe, I beseech you, at what expence I endeavour to serve you: and think this no small mark of my affection; for I am going to present you with the relation of such particulars, as it is impossible for me to recollect without piercing my heart with the most sensible affliction. [Gutenberg Project]

Her response was much more kind-hearted than one would expect:

I do not, however, reproach you for the innocent artifice you made use of to comfort a person in affliction, by comparing his misfortune to another much greater. Charity is ingenious in finding out such pious artifices, and to be commended for using them.

But she has accepted her fate, although she did not choose it and does not enjoy it:

You know it was neither zeal nor devotion which led me to the cloister. Your conscience is too faithful a witness to permit you to disown it. Yet here I am, and here I will remain; to this place an unfortunate love, and my cruel relations, have condemned me. But if you do not continue your concern for me, If I lose your affection, what have I gained by my imprisonment? What recompense can I hope for? The unhappy consequence of a criminal conduit, and your disgraces, have put on me this habit of chastity, and not the sincere desire of being truly penitent. Thus I strive and labour in vain.

She is far more mature and far less self-centered than the man she fell for.

The letters not only give insight to their relationship, but also comments that explain monastic life. Still, it is the love story that captured the attention of centuries to come. I'll talk a little more about their letters and story next time before we move on.

Abelard and Heloise, After the Fall

After the lives of Peter Abelard and Heloise d'Argenteuil took a catastrophic turn, they both entered cloistered settings.

Abelard retired as a monk at the Abbey of Saint-Denis near Paris, refusing to discuss his actions with the public that had revered him as a scholar and debater. He could not stay away from intellectual pursuits, however, and eventually left Saint-Denis and opened a school in a priory owned by the Abbey. He lectured more on theology and the spiritual, rather than Logic and Dialectic. He discovered what he considered many inconsistencies in church writings, and produced a work he called Sic et Non ("Yes and No") to explain them.

It was another work, the Theologia Summi Boni ("Theology of Supreme Good") that got him in trouble. His explanation of the Trinity differed from the accepted dogma, and he was charged with thinking there was only one person in the Trinity, not three separate entities working as one. His teaching was condemned at a synod in 1121, and he was forced to burn a copy of the Theologia himself. He was sentenced to remain always in a monastery not his own, but it must have been revoked because he quickly returned to Saint-Denis.

In 1122, the newly appointed Abbot Suger allowed Abelard to go live wherever he wished. Suger likely did not want the controversial figure under his roof. Besides, he was annoying his fellow monks with frivolous conjectures about the founding of the monastery. He went to a deserted area of Champagne, built a cabin of reeds, and created a rough oratory dedicated to the Trinity. When his presence became known, students flocked to him for learning. He began to teach again, and the revenue and donations that came as a result led to a building of wood and stone, the Oratory of the Paraclete. He founded a Benedictine monastery there, and taught there for five years

Meanwhile, Heloise was a nun. He had strongly urged Heloise to take vows; she did not have many options in 12th century France. She quickly rose in the ranks, becoming a prioress at Argenteuil, but it was seized by Abbot Suger in 1128 for his monks, offering nothing to the nuns resident there in exchange. Abelard offered her the Abbey of the Paraclete (illustrated above from a 19th century history of France), re-dedicating it as a nunnery, and he moved on to the Abbey at Saint-Gildas-de-Rhuys in Brittany. Heloise remained Abbess of Paraclete for the rest of her life.

Saint-Gildas was in a rough area, full of lawlessness; the abbey itself was undisciplined. Abelard did not enjoy his time there, and started teaching again. He must have been back in Paris teaching by 1136, because John of Salisbury mentions listening to him there.

During all the time, he was writing. He revised the Theologia, and wrote other works that also proved to be controversial. Heloise also wrote, and the two wrote letters to each other that were so intellectually stimulating that they actually put them together for publication to educate theorists world about love and theology. I'll tell you more about them next time.

Abelard and Heloise

When Peter Abelard met Heloise d'Argenteuil in 1115, he was a famous teacher approaching 40 years of age whose lectures drew hundreds from all over Europe. She was a 15-year-old girl known for being an excellent scholar, her young age making her rather famous.

She was too old for the convent education available to young girls, and too female for university education, so her uncle Fulbert, a canon of Notre-Dame, arranged for private instruction for her with Abelard. Abelard needed a place to live, and Fulbert took him in in exchange for tutoring. Abelard was enamored of his new clever student. He admitted, in his autobiographical writing, Historia Calamitatum ("The History of My Calamities"), that he embarked on a plan of seduction with her.

When Fulbert found out that their relationship was going beyond that of teacher-student, he sent Abelard from the house and forbade them from continuing. The relationship carried on in secret, however, and came to light again when Heloise became pregnant. Abelard protected Heloise by getting her out of Filbert's home and sending her to Abelard's sister, Dionysia in Brittany. The boy to whom she gave birth was named Astrolabe, after the astronomical instrument. (After what followed, Astrolabe was raised by Dionysia.)

Fulbert wanted the two to marry, and Abelard agreed to the union if Fulbert would keep it secret to protect Abelard's career. Heloise also wanted the marriage secret to protect Abelard's reputation. Abelard had been named a canon of the cathedral of Sens in 1115, and the Church was moving toward forbidding any clerical marriage. Heloise returned from Brittany to Fulbert's home. Soon, however, Fulbert reneged on the agreement and spread the knowledge of Abelard's affair and marriage.

Heloise denied this information, angering Fulbert. Abelard once again took her away and sent her to the convent at Argenteuil, the site of her first years of education. She dressed as a nun and lived among them. Fulbert arranged for a band of men to break into Abelard's place one night and castrate him. This was satisfying for Fulbert, but was illegal. The men were punished, and Fulbert was put on leave; his name does not appear in records for several years.

Abelard, disgraced in his career and by his castration, became a monk. Heloise became a nun; there were few other options available to her: living with Fulbert, retreating to Abelard's family in Brittany, or divorcing and finding another husband.

Separate living situations did not end the relationship between the two. I'll talk about Abelard and Heloise, post-split, tomorrow.

Heloise d'Argenteuil

Heloise d'Argenteuil (c.1100 - 1164) was the daughter of a woman named Hersinde. Her parents have been speculated to be Hersinde of Champagne and Gilbert Garlande, which would place her among the nobility, but she herself made a statement that contradicts that idea.

Alternately, she may be the daughter of a nun called Hersinde at the convent of St. Eloi, which could be the source of the name Heloise.

It is certain that she was raised by her uncle, Canon Fulbert of Notre-Dame. Her surname is from the convent of Argenteuil outside of Paris, where she studied as a child under the nuns. She became a scholar of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. In her mid-teens, Fulbert brought her to live with him and study at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame.

She became known throughout France as a scholar of language and writing. She wrote poems and plays, a few of which have survived.  Peter the Venerable writes that he was aware of her fame when she was still very young. She is also said to have learned medicine.

In 1115, she met Peter Abelard. He was a master at the cathedral school of Notre-Dame, and so became her teacher. He was at the height of his fame, with a reputation that drew hundreds to come and learn philosophy and theology from him. He was very much drawn to this highly intellectual girl who was at least 20 years younger than he. In his autobiographical writing, Historia Calamitatum ("The History of my Calamities"), he admits that he embarked on a plan of seduction. He used example phrases in his teaching such as "Peter loves this girl," and began to write poems and songs about love that were copied and shared.

Heloise herself wrote about their relationship, declaring it a mutual attraction between equals. Unfortunately, Fulbert discovered their relationship, and forbade them from seeing each other. They continued the relationship, however, meeting in secret.

Then Heloise became pregnant, and things got really wild. See you next time for more.

Peter Abelard

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy called Peter Abelard "the pre-eminent philosopher and theologian of the twelfth century. The teacher of his generation, he was also famous as a poet and a musician." Seems like someone we should get to know a little better.

Born about 1079 in the Duchy of Brittany to a minor French noble and soldier, Peter proved to be a clever boy who was encouraged by his father to study the Liberal Arts. He chose the path of academic over his father's military career. Around 1100 he went to Paris and started calling himself Peter "Abelard." The reason for the name change—and the etymological source of the surname itself—is unclear. In Paris he studied under one of the great French teachers of the age, William of Champeaux. Abelard's own account of his time there claims that his master's attitude turned to hostility when Abelard proved to be smarter and better at debate than William. Abelard began to make a career out of arrogantly quarreling with anyone and everyone.

He decided he should become the master, and so he established his own school, first away from Paris at Melun, and then between 1102 and 1104 moving nearer Paris to provide competition for the schools there. He found willing students, but the stress of running a school himself led to a nervous breakdown, so he went home to Brittany for several years.

He returned to Paris after 1108, setting up a rivalry between his school and that of William of Champeaux. One of the big philosophical quarrels was over the topic of universals. Abelard defeated William in a debate on the topic so efficiently that he was in line to be offered a position at the school at Notre-Dame, but William's influence managed to prevent Abelard from being allowed to teach in Paris. Abelard returned to Melun to run his school, but did manage to move it to a hill overlooking the left bank of the Seine, overlooking Notre-Dame.

He attended theological lectures by Anselm of Laon, but was unimpressed and started lecturing on the book of Ezekiel himself, but Anselm forbade him from teaching his way, so Abelard abandoned Laon for Paris. In 1115, he was offered the position of master of the Cathedral school of Notre-Dame.

At this point, he was a well-established and popular teacher in his late 30s. Into his social sphere came a girl of about 15 named Heloise d'Argenteuil. We need to talk about her next.

Peter the Venerable

Peter of Montboissier was born to a woman who was called "Blessed Raingarde" (she was revered as saintly but not formally canonized).

His mother dedicated him to God and handed him to a Cluniac monastery early in his life. By the time he was twenty years old he was the prior of a monastery at Vézelay. He was so good at his job that by the age of thirty he was named abbot general of the Cluniac Order, and embarked on a campaign of reform and stricter discipline.

Peter favored education, and promoted learning in his monasteries. This put him at odds with Bernard of Clairvaux, who preferred the life of a monk to be spent in prayer and manual labor. He charted his own course in other ways: he supported the election of Pope Innocent II against that of Pope Anacletus, even though Anacletus also began as a Cluniac monk, like Peter. Peter also protected Peter Abelard when he was being persecuted for his Trinitarianism (more on that later).

He was prominent in many religious councils, such as Pope Innocent II's Council of Pisa, where he supported Innocent's reforms. He tried to persuade the political figures of Europe that the Crusades should be nonviolent missionary campaigns, not military campaigns intended to subjugate.

His defense of Christianity against other religions was fierce. He wrote treatises against Jews. He called for the Koran to be translated into Latin (which was completed in 1143) so that it could be debated properly, meaning refuted properly. He traveled to Spain (possible Toledo) to meet the translators. Later scholars criticized the translation for its errors.

His responses to the translated texts were two treatises, the the Summa totius heresis Saracenorum ("The Summary of the Entire Heresy of the Saracens") and the Liber contra sectam sive heresim Saracenorum ("The Refutation of the Sect or Heresy of the Saracens"). He essentially labels them heresies so far from Christianity that they are equivalent to paganism.

Peter died on Christmas Day 1156. Peter was thought of as a saint, but was never canonized. As of 2004, the Roman Catholic Church considers him "Blessed."

I now want to turn to his support of Peter Abelard, another French scholar who caused a stir in religious circles. See you tomorrow.

Alberic of Ostia

Alberic started in Beauvais in France but went everywhere once he became a papal legate. Born in 1080, he entered Cluny and became a Benedictine monk, becoming prior of Saint-Martin-des-Champs in Paris. Cluny's abbot, Peter the Venerable, brought him back in 1126 to help restore Benedictine discipline.

In 1135, he attended the Council of Pisa, called by the newly (and suspiciously) elected Pope Innocent II. This brought him to Innocent's attention, and Alberic was named Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia in 1138. Innocent immediately sent him as a papal legate to England.

This was important because papal legate authority had been given to the Archbishop of Canterbury at the strong request of King Henry II. The recent Archbishop, William of Corbeil, had died, and the post was vacant due to the ongoing period called the Anarchy. Alberic helped negotiate a resolution to the war between Stephen of Blois and David I of Scotland (who supported Empress Matilda). Afterward, Alberic visited abbeys and churches and convened a council that elected Abbot Theobald of Bec as Archbishop of Canterbury.

Alberic brought Theobald and others back to Rome in January 1139 where they attended the Second Lateran Council. He was then sent to repeat his English success in Bari on the Adriatic, where the citizens refused to accept Roger II of Sicily as their ruler. He failed that time: the citizens wouldn't allow him into the city.

Still, Innocent relied on him to build deeper ties to the Armenian Church, that had split centuries earlier from Rome over doctrinal differences. There he met with the Armenian Catholicos (leader) Grigor III Pahlavuni. The two traveled on pilgrimage to Jerusalem where, at the Templum Domini, the Dome of the Rock, Grigor pledged to improve relations with Rome.

In the summer of 1144, Alberic was in France, traveling round and resolving ecclesiastical disputes. While there, he persuaded Bernard of Clairvaux to preach against heresy in the Southwest of France. Alberic then returned to Rome in time to help plan the Second Crusade.

Alberic died on 20 November 1148 and was buried in Verdun Cathedral. Bernard of Clairvaux said Mass at his grave, calling Alberic "the venerable Bishop of Ostia, a man who has done great things in Israel, through whom Christ has often given victory to His Church."

It's nice to be considered venerable, even nicer when you are so respected that Venerable becomes part of your name, such as the Venerable Bede. Another person so highly respected was Peter the Venerable, and I'll tell you more about him tomorrow.

The Dome of the Rock

When the First Crusade captured Jerusalem, they took over the Dome of the Rock, a temple built on the site where tradition said God created the world and Adam. Also, it was the traditional site where Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac. For Muslims, it is believed to be the site from which Muhammad began the spiritual Night Journey around the world.

It had been the site of the Second Jewish Temple (c.516BCE) that was built to replace Solomon's Temple (between 10th and 6th centuries BCE). The Second Jewish Temple had been destroyed by the Romans in 70CE. The 5th Umayyad Caliph built on that site the Qubbat aṣ-Ṣaḵra, the Dome of the Rock, the oldest surviving work of Islamic architecture. The leaders of the Crusade in 1099 called it the Templum Domini, the "Temple of the Lord," and handed the management of it over to the Augustinians.

The actual rock was originally left exposed, but later covered with white marble. In 1138 the Temple Domini was given the status of an abbey. A few years later, on 1 April 1141, the church was dedicated by the papal legate Alberic of Ostia (on pilgrimage there with Armenian Catholicos Grigor III Pahlavuni).

An adjacent mosque became a royal palace for the King of Jerusalem and the image of the dome became an important symbol of the Jerusalem royalty. When a new royal palace was built, the old palace became the local headquarters of the Knights Templar, who provided protection to pilgrims. The design of the Dome of the Rock became copied by the Templars for their round churches across Europe.

The general shape has not changed over 13+ centuries. It is an octagonal structure with a dome. It displays the earliest public inscriptions of the sayings of Islam and Muhammad. The traveler Ibn Battuta in 1326 said:

Any viewer's tongue will grow shorter trying to describe it. This is one of the most fantastic of all buildings, of the most perfect in architecture and strangest in shape.

 It is still one of the most visited places on earth.

This is the second time that the papal legate Alberic of Ostia has appeared (although in reference to the same event), and I'd like to look at his life and travels next time.

Armenian-Roman Relations

When Pope Innocent II decided to try to reconcile the Roman Catholic Church with the Armenian Apostolic Church, he wrote to its current head, the Catholicos Grigor III Pahlavuni (1093 - 1166).

The Armenian Church had split in its doctrine from the Roman Church after the Council of Chlcedon in 451 over monophysitism. At Chalcedon it was affirmed that, in the person of Jesus, there were two distinct aspects, both the human and the divine. Armeni embraced monophysitism, declaring that Jesus was wholly divine.

The two Churches remained in communication, however. Grigor, for instance, participated in a council at Antioch presided over by the papal legate Alberic of Ostia in November 1139. Grigor accompanied Alberic on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem where, in April 1141, he attended a synod at the Templum Domini ("Temple of the Lord") at the Dome of the Rock. While there he vowed to reconcile the Armenian Church with Rome. Alberic reported this to Pope Innocent, who sent Grigor a letter and a pallium, conferring on Grigor a high rank.

With travel to the East becoming common due to the Crusades, envoys from Rome followed along and went to Armenia, continuing dialogue. According to the Armenian Church's own website:

Pontifical Envoys from Rome established continuous contact with the clergy of the Armenian Church, who were hoping to receive political and economic support from the Pope and the Western powers for the Armenian Kingdom. During this period, the Armenian Church adopted some Catholic Church ritual traditions, and Western culture left a tangible trace on Armenian science, art, miniature painting, literature, as well as in various spheres of public life. [source]

The "political and economic support" would have been helpful against enemies both foreign and domestic. Not only were there foreign invaders to contend with, but also the Armenian government could be a problem. The secular ruler of Armenia in 1037, King Hovhannes-Smbat, deposed the Catholicos Petros and appointed a replacement (we'll call him an "anti-catholics," since there were "anti-popes"). The rest of the clergy were so overt in their condemnation that Petros was re-instated.

By the 14th century, a reconciliation between the two entities had been firmly established, and doctrinal differences were being overlooked in order to maintain healthy relations. (The Second Vatican Council in 1962 - 1965 confirmed the reconciliation.)

The Dome of the Rock has been a important site for many groups over the centuries; next time, let's talk about the place and the temple there.

The Armenian Church

According to tradition, the apostles Bartholomew and Jude Thaddeus (the double name was to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot and from stories of Jude the brother of Jesus) preached the Gospel in Judea, Samaria, Edom, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Libya. They were the first to bring Christianity to Armenia. Jude Thaddeus is said to have cured Abgar V of Edessa of leprosy by exposing him to the Image of Edessa.

There is also an "Apostle to the Armenians," Saint Gregory the Illuminator (pictured in a Constantinople mosaic), who converted the Armenian king in 301CE thereby stopping his persecutions of Christians. The king, Tiridates III, made Christianity the official state religion. This was not that radical a change, since Christianity had been growing steadily since the 1st century. Tiridates declared Gregory the Illuminator to be the first Catholicos, a term used to denote the head of a church in some of the Eastern Christian traditions.

In 325, at the First Council of Nicaea designed to create consensus among the Christian world (where Arianism was literally slapped down by Santa Claus), the Armenian Catholicos (Gregory's son Aristaces) attended. At that time, the Armenian Church was subordinate to the Bishop of Caesarea, where Tiridates had sent Gregory to be consecrated and where Gregory adopted the Byzantine rites. Over the following years, however, Armenia started adopting Antiocian/West Syriac rites, which blended with the Byzantine rites to create the Armenian Rite.

Translation of the Bible into Armenian in the early 400s helped Christianity spread faster. Over time, however, differences arose between what was being practiced/believed in Armenia and the West. The biggest difference was over monophysitism; that is, the divine nature of Jesus. Eastern Orthodox churches professed monophysitism, the idea that Christ had a single nature, that of the divine. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 approved that Christ had two inseparable natures: human and divine. The Armenian Church severed ties with Rome in 610 over this difference.

It was Pope Innocent II who tried to reconcile Rome and Armenia. To do that, he knew he could not simply order the Armenian Church to fall in line; he had to work with his contemporary, the Catholicos Grigor III Pahlavuni. We'll talk about that process tomorrow.

Pope Innocent II

Gregorio Papareschi was a Cluniac monk who was made a cardinal deacon in 1116 by Pope Paschal II. After Paschal, Pope Calixtus II sent him on various important missions, including to the Concordat of Worms. In 1124, Gregorio as an advisor to Pope Honorius II.

Honorius died on 13 February 1130, and six cardinals quickly appointed Gregorio as the next pope, consecrating him the very next day and supported by the powerful Frangipani family. This was highly irregular (only six cardinals!), and a larger group of cardinals chose Pietro Pierleoni, whose family was the enemy of the Frangipani, as Pope Anacletus II. Anacletus was able to drive Innocent from Rome.

The conflict between the two went on for years until Anacletus died in 25 January 1138. This did not make Innocent's life conflict-free, however. Roger of Sicily opposed him, especially after Innocent had him excommunicated at the Second Lateran Council (Innocent was not alone in objecting to Sicily being in Roger's possession). Roger's son, Roger III of Apulia, captured Innocent and forced him to acknowledge the kingship of Sicily.

Among Innocent's decisions was a papal bull in 1139 declaring that the Knights Templar should be only answerable to the papacy. He established ties with Armenian Catholics and began the process of ending the schism between Armenia and Rome. He also made cardinals of several of his nephews.

The Second Lateran Council (or "Second Council of the Lateran") was Innocent's attempt to unify policy across Roman Catholicism. Some of the canons established were mentioned here. Besides the prohibition against tournaments and jousts,

Kings were to dispense justice with the advice of bishops
Lay people who did not pay tithes were to be excommunicated
After a bishop died and a church was vacant, a replacement must be found within three years
The use of bows or slings against Christians was prohibited.
Clergy were not allowed to accept a benefice from a layman that would obligate them to the layman.

When Innocent died on 24 September 1143, he was interred in a sarcophagus the supposedly once held the body of Emperor Hadrian.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that the original Britons came from Armenia, and Armenia has been mentioned many times over the course of this blog, but we've never talked about the Armenian Church before today. Next time, let's look at where it came from and its connection (or lack thereof) to Rome.

The Joust

The Joust was a specific kind of tournament, and was one of the few types of military contests that had to be on horseback and involved only two combatants at a time. This one-on-one duel involved two men, each mounted, riding at each other with lances, attempting to unseat the other or break their lance. In some cases, a wooden barrier was placed the length of the lists to prevent the horses from colliding.

In the 12th century, jousting was sometimes not allowed because it distracted from the excitement of the other events, especially the mêlée, but Edward II of England in 1309 banned all forms of tournament except the joust. For him, it was more exciting to watch than the Pas d'armes or Tupinaire or Quintain, easier to see than the Mêlée because the men were higher off the ground and there were only two, a bit safer because there was a specific goal.

Some people spoke out against any form of tournament. Pope Innocent II at Clermont forbade Christian burial for anyone killed in a tournament. He was all for warfare against the heathen, but did not want Christians endangering each other's lives. And tournaments could be dangerous; just a few posts back we learned of someone dying because of a tournament. Henry II imposed a ban on tournaments because knights traveling from far and wide to join one were indulging in harassment of the population along the way. His son Richard, however, loved fighting, and established six locations where they were permitted to hold tourneys (and established a fee structure—payable to the Crown—for those who wanted to hold them and participate).

Richard's brother, John, and John's son, Henry III, made jousting more difficult with restrictions that encouraged safety but limited the excitement. Some of the rules that developed over time were necessary, to help figure out who won. After a day of pairs of knights going against each other, the winners could be declared as follows:

1st place: unhorsing the opponent; extra if the horse falls down.
2nd place: breaking lances
3rd place: most striking of the opponent's visor (this was particularly dangerous, but got you points)
4th place: breaking the most spears

There were also rules that could disqualify you:

Striking a horse
Striking a man's back from behind him

You could also be penalized for breaking your spear on the opponent's saddle (a forbidden target).

Some of the last tournaments and jousts took place during the reign of Henry VIII, who used elaborate ones to celebrate momentous events, such as the birth of a son.

Next time, I want to talk about Pope Innocent II and his Second Lateran Council that forbade jousts and tournaments.

Tournaments

The Medieval and Renaissance tournament, was a mock battle that had several styles and purposes. The word comes from an English word meaning "to turn," and developed into several different versions in Europe such as tourney and tournoi. Roger of Hoveden described the torneamentum as "military exercises carried out, not in the knight's spirit of hostility, but solely for practice and the display of prowess."

They were training exercises as well as ways to show off, and there were several different styles of event set up for the participants, and not all pitted fighters against each other. For example:

The Quintain was a simple test of accuracy. The word comes from quintana, Latin for the lane in a military camp that divided the fifth and sixth tactical units of a Roman army. This lane was used for practice. It was a lance game, and the knight would ride down the lane, aiming for an object, which could be a shield or a ring through which he would insert his lance point at speed. 12th century London also used boats!

The Tupinaire was a dual between two knights, fought until one of the knights received three solid blows from his opponent. In such a case, judges on the field would have to determine whether a blow was glancing or solid enough to do damage. Real damage was avoided, if possible.

A more intense game was the Pas d'armes, or passage of arms. This was a later medieval development in which one knight (or more) would "hold" a bridge or gate and defend it against all comers. The Pas d'armes was also a serious strategy and used to refer to knights outside of entertainment purposes taking up the protection of a spot and vowing to fight anyone who wished to in order to show their prowess and honor or to settle some wager. A famous 15th century Pas d'armes was chronicled by a local and lasted a month, where the men vowed to break 300 lances; after 166 individual fights, they were too hurt to go on, and declared their vow complete.

The Mêlée is one that everyone's heard before. Groups of fighters would clash until one side had withdrawn from the field.

The type of tournament that has become the centerpiece of Renaissance Fairs in the modern age is the Joust. The Joust actually evolved beyond the tourney, in the sense that a tournament could range over a large area, and the joust was two men on horseback in a relatively confined space, the lists. Also, the joust specifically used the lance. The joust also has some very specific rules, which we can talk about tomorrow.

Isabella's Other Husbands

Isabella, Countess of Gloucester, was married to the King of England for a short time, making her technically a queen, but she was set aside for reasons of consanguinity. That didn't bother her husband when he married her, but of course he just wanted the estates that came with her title, which he did keep when he had the marriage annulled in 1199.

She still had some land, and was not left destitute or alone. On 20 January 1214, she married the 2nd Earl of Essex, Geoffrey FitzGeoffrey de Mandeville, still a young man in his 20s. Geoffrey was an opponent of King John during the Barons War. John saw fit to charge Geoffrey 20,000 marks for the privilege of marrying Isabella and gaining her inheritance and the title Earl of Gloucester.

Geoffrey himself was on his second marriage when it came to Isabella. He had been married to Matilda, daughter of a leader of John's opponents in the hostilities leading up to the Magna Carta, Robert Fitzwalter. Matilda died young and childless. Geoffrey did not last long as a husband: he died on 23 February 1216, wounded fatally during a tournament.

Isabella did not remain single for very long. The Chief Justiciar of England, Hubert de Burgh, was widowered, and open to remarriage. Coincidentally (?), Hubert was also having trouble getting along with the king, this time John's son Henry. They married in September 1217. Isabella, who was in her 50s, died only a month later. Her name is listed in the obituary lists of deceased nobles at Canterbury Cathedral, but her final resting place is unknown.

We've been talking about nobles and marriages and conflict with kings. Let's shift to another type of conflict, mentioned in paragraph three above: how dangerous were tournaments? That's for next time.

Isabella, Countess of Gloucester

Isabella of Gloucester (c.1160/1166 - 1217) was the youngest (surviving) daughter of the 2nd Earl of Gloucester, William FitzRobert, and Hawise of Beaumont, daughter of the Earl of Leicester. We call her Countess of Gloucester now, but she was actually Queen of England. To explain, we have to step back and talk about King Henry II and his youngest son, John.

Henry seemed to consider John his favorite, perhaps because John was the only one of Henry's son who never rebelled against his father and tried to take the throne. I think Henry understood that John was not likely to inherit the throne: he had brothers who were ahead in line of succession, and were also aggressive enough that they would easily usurp the throne from John.

Henry dealt with this situation by increasing John's real estate holdings, and therefore the revenues from said properties. He did this sometimes at the expense of Henry's nobles, appropriating their estates and giving them to John. In September 1176, Henry argued with Isabella's father, William. To resolve the dispute and ensure amity between earl and king, William promised Isabella's hand to John in marriage, and to recognize John as the heir to the estates of Gloucester. (Even if William and Hawise had another son, John would still get half the estates.)

Well, William died in 1183, and even though Isabella had sisters, Henry declared Isabella sole heir to all of her father's lands, and also declared her his ward, giving him control over all the Gloucester property. He retained this control until he died in 1189, at which point Richard became king and Isabella was given to John in marriage. (This was risky in the eyes of the Church and its rules of consanguinity, since Isabella and John were closely related, having the same great-grandfather.) Since they did not get a dispensation from the pope to override the consanguinity issue, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Baldwin of Forde, put John under Interdict. The Interdict was removed by the papal legate, but the marriage was never condoned.

It stayed intact, however, and when Richard I died in 1199, John became king in May. John then requested that his marriage to Isabella be annulled on the grounds of consanguinity; this was granted in August.

But John kept the lands.

Isabella had a nephew, Amaury, Count of Évreux. John gave him the title Earl of Gloucester. He died in 1213, and Isabella became Countess of Gloucester. It is possible that she was never formally crowned, but she was married to the King of England, for however brief a time, making her something of a "forgotten queen." In fact, her likeness is hard to find. The illustration above is a generic royal woman.

Isabella was not left out in the cold. She had two advantageous marriages after John, and I'll tell you about those tomorrow.

The Pope Steps In

Despite Hubert de Burgh's support of Henry III at the start of his minority reign, the two had fallen out and Hubert was in danger. Ultimately, a letter from the pope tried to resolve the situation.

Pope Gregory IX sent Henry a letter, chastising him for his treatment of Hubert who had been so loyal and helpful for so long. Henry did not want to disobey the pope: not only was he a faithful Christian, but his father, King John, had offered England as a vassal state to the papacy during his troubles, expecting that papal support would be enormously useful against his barons and France. Henry gave Hubert back his status as Earl of Kent, but only some of the lands he had formerly possessed.

In 1234, some of Hubert's enemies, including the king's former tutor, the French Peter des Roches, were dismissed from court (there was some anti-French feeling among the increasingly "English-oriented" Anglo-Norman country). This made Hubert's life even easier, until 1236, when the king found out about Richard de Clare.

Richard de Clare was the young Earl of Gloucester. In 1236 he was only 14 and the king's ward, but Henry had asked Hubert to raise him. While in Hubert's care, Hubert had married his daughter Margaret to Richard, although they were both children. This had been done without the king's blessing or his knowledge. The earldom of Gloucester was large and powerful, and Henry realized this alliance would potentially give more power to Hubert's family. Hubert's argument when called to court was that he was in sanctuary from the king's wrath at the time and had nothing to do with it. The king was ultimately convinced of Hubert's lack of involvement, but the marriage ended—we're not sure by annulment or Margaret's death. (Richard de Clare married Maud de Lacy, daughter of the Earl of Lincoln.)

Henry did not give up, however (we just don't know why he wanted so desperately to destroy Hubert). Hubert was accused by Henry of deliberately losing Poitou to the French, inappropriately seducing the Scottish princess who was his wife (his daughter Margaret's mother was Princess Margaret of Scotland, daughter of William the Lion and sister of Alexander II), and even attempting to assassinate Henry. Hubert's lawyer successfully defended him against all the charges. Hubert retired to his estates and stayed out of the public eye until his death on 12 May 1243. He had two sons from his first marriage, but they were not allowed to inherit the earldom, as it was limited to descendants of Hubert and his third wife, Margaret. They only had the one daughter.

In between those two was a second marriage, to the queen of England! That is a story worth telling next time.

The Fall of Hubert de Burgh.

Hubert de Burgh was one of the most important figures in England during the reign of Henry III. Not only had he helped ensure Henry would succeed his father, John; he had been Regent during Henry's minority, and Henry in gratitude had given him several properties and titles, even making his Chief Justiciar for life.

He had enemies, however, who were jealous or wary of his growing power. One was William Marshal, the most respected man for decades, who had in fact recommended Hubert as Regent. Another was the Frenchman Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester during the reigns of John and Henry and Henry's childhood tutor. A third was Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, who alternately worked with and opposed Hubert (as well as the king).

It was June of 1232 that Hubert's appointment as Justiciar of Ireland was made an appointment for life. But then, something happened, some incident that changed Henry's mind toward his biggest supporter. In July, Hubert was dismissed as Justiciar and replaced with Stephen de Seagrave, a close friend of Peter des Roches.

Whatever the turning point was, it was significant enough that Hubert feared for his life—or at least for his freedom. He fled to Merton Priory (where another courtier-and-friend-of-the-king who fell from grace had gone to school—and requested sanctuary (see illustration , from the Historia Anglorum of Matthew Paris). Henry wanted him dragged out physically, but this was opposed by his Chancellor, Ralph Neville.

Sanctuary had a time limit, however: forty days. Henry's soldiers were stationed outside of the chapel where Hubert sat, limiting how much food and drink could enter. When the forty days ended, Hubert was taken from Merton, imprisoned, and forced to surrender a large sum of money that he had left with the Knights Templar (who functioned as bankers because of their reliability and presence across Europe and the Middle East). Once he had the money in hand, Hubert was released into the custody of his fellow earls.

Later, Hubert's gentle captivity became more rough on the king's orders, and Hubert escaped and sought sanctuary again. The king had him dragged out of the church, but the bishops made such a fuss about violating sanctuary that Henry had to allow Hubert back in while the forty days passed. Again, the plan was to starve him out, but the tide of public opinion was turning.

His replacement, Stephen de Seagrave, turned out to be not a great replacement, and Peter des Roches administration was not well received. William Marshal's son, Richard Earl of Pembroke, plotted Hubert's escape. Hubert was taken to Marshal's castle of Striguil (also called Chepstow), between the Rivers Usk and Wye. This kept him well away from London and Henry, where Hubert could rest and recover for months.

Henry was wary of offending his earls: he was well aware of their desire for more independence from the Crown during his father's reign and his own. The resolution for their conflict came in a letter from the pope. I'll wrap up the saga of Hubert de Burgh tomorrow.

Hubert de Burgh

When King John of England died on the night of 18/19 October 1216, he was in the middle of warring with his barons, who wanted more control over the country to be vested in them instead of the king. This left his heir, his nine-year-old son Henry, in danger. One of John's retainers, the Chief Justiciar Hubert de Burgh, raced to Henry's side and took him to safety among those loyal to John, potentially saving his life from the barons who might have wanted to set up a different dynasty.

We aren't sure of Hubert's origin, although there are guesses about minor landholders in Norfolk. He had a brother William who made a name for himself in Ireland, a brother Geoffrey who became Archdeacon of Norwich and Bishop of Ely, and a brother Thomas who became castellan of Norwich.

Hubert, who was born probably about 1170, entered John's service by 1198, and was chamberlain of the household, an ambassador to Portugal, a sheriff in the early 1200s of Dorset and Somerset, Berkshire and Cornwall, and later of the Welsh Marches. During this time he was granted manors and castles.

Sent to France in part of the unending wars between the two countries, he defended Poitou against King Philip II, holding the castle of Chinon against French forces for a year until he was finally captured and held from 1205 until 1207. While imprisoned in France, John gave his gifts of real estate away to other men whom John needed to placate or reward. Once Hubert returned to England, he began to acquire through John other lands.

In 1215, with hostility between John and his barons at their peak, Hubert was one of the men who urged John to sign the Magna Carta and end the conflict. Soon after, Hubert was made Chief Justiciar of England and Ireland, essentially the prime minister. He continued at time to manage military campaigns; it was Hubert who captured the flagship of Eustace, the pirate monk.

Then came John's death. and Hubert saving the young prince. Hubert was named regent to the new king, and took over managing the ongoing war against the barons. Besides the barons, France was using the strife in England as an opportunity to attack. Hubert's primary role at this time was defending Dover Castle. Its position on the cost made it the doorway to England, and French forces under Prince Louis laid siege to it. A decisive victory of the royal army against the barons at the Battle of Lincoln meant the royal army could now march to Dover. Louis gave up.

 

In 1227, Henry came of age and made Hubert governor of Rochester Castle, lord of Montgomery Castle, and created a new earldom, Kent. A year later Hubert was named Justiciar for life. Things were going well, but there were three men who saw his increasing power and did not trust it, despite his loyal service. Next time we will look at his fall from grace.

Illiteratus

Things seemed to be going well for Ralph Neville, the Bishop of Chichester and Lord Chancellor for life. He had a nice new manor on New Street, appointments that brought him revenues, he was reforming the way Chancery and records-keeping were managed, and the monks of Canterbury Cathedral elected him Archbishop of Canterbury on 24 September 1231. There was opposition to this, from an important roadblock: Pope Gregory IX. Gregory declared Neville illiteratus.

Now, the term wasn't used the same way as it is today. At the time it did not mean he couldn't read and write, just that he was "unlearned." Many important positions were appointed from the clergy, and clergy were often university trained. Neville was not. In fact, there's no reason to believe he ever intended to be educated or a priest: he started a royal clerk under King John and was ordained to legitimize his lucrative appointment as Bishop of Chichester (arms shown to the left). Stephen Langton, the Archdeacon of Canterbury, described Neville as a courtier instead of a true priest.

With Canterbury denied him*, he was still secure in his positions at Chichester and as Chancellor. Or was he? He had been granted, by the king, the right of exemption from seizure of his possessions if he fell out of favor. King Henry also agreed not to interfere with Neville's will (yeah, the king could say "Hey! You cannot bequeath that property to someone else; I gave it to you and I'll decide where it goes once you're dead!").

Henry decided, however, to take away the Chancellor position in 1236. We're not sure why, but perhaps the courtier did not appear to support the king in all things. When Hubert de Burgh (mentioned here and an even more significant supportive figure in Henry's life) fell out with the king and sought sanctuary, Henry wanted him dragged physically out of the church to face punishment. Neville opposed the king on this. Neville also was elected, by the cathedral chapter of Winchester, as Bishop of Winchester. Henry had wanted them to elect William of Savoy, the Bishop of Valence, who happened to be the uncle of Eleanor of Provence, Henry's queen. There may have been other arguments.

Neville argued with Henry that, since the chancellorship had been given to him by the Great Council during Henry's minority, only the Great Council had the authority to take it away. Henry was able to deprive Neville of possession of the Great Seal, but Neville retained the title Chancellor. In May 1242, however, Henry went to France, and the Great Seal needed a responsible holder for official documents, so it went back to Neville temporarily. Although Henry returned from France in September 1243, the Great Seal along with Neville's signature is found on some documents after that date.

Neville died in the first week of February 1244 in his palace on New Street and was buried in Chichester Cathedral. 

Kings giveth, and kings taketh away. The falling out with Hubert de Burgh would have shocked many, considering how much Henry owed him, including (possibly) his life! I'll dig into that relationship tomorrow.

*...and by the way, the next two appointments were also squashed by Gregory, preventing a true Archbishop of Canterbury until 1240

Ralph Neville

Ralph Neville is an example of a powerful figure in Medieval English administration whose personal details are little known. He was ordained on 21 April 1224, and if that ere his first step onto a public stage it would have been likely that he was born about 1200, or not much before. Ordination would also have required a special dispensation, because he was known to be illegitimate.

Ordination was not his first step into adulthood, however; he had been a known quantity for some time, and ordination was merely a formality so that he could be given more positions.

We do not know when he was born, but in 1207 he was already a royal clerk under King John (1166 - 1216), and by 1213 he was entrusted with the Great Seal, used to show royal approval of documents. The Great Seal is usually held by the Chancellor, but the chancellor at the time was Walter de Gray, who was also Archbishop of York (successor of another illegitimate cleric—this one the son of a king—whose story was told here and here). Walter was a steadfast supporter of John, and there was a reason for having the Seal given to another, but maybe I'll save that for his story some day.

Anyway, Nevile was moving up in the ranks. In 1214 he was appointed to Chancery through the effort of one of King John's favorites and his son Henry's tutor, Bishop of Winchester Peter des Roches. After John's death, Neville remained at court, still holding the Great Seal as vice-chancellor under Richard Marsh. Marsh had been appointed Bishop of Durham and was off dealing with diocesan affairs, leaving Neville effectively running the administration of the kingdom, since King Henry was only ten years old.

Keep in mind that a bishop had access to revenues from all the lands in the diocese, so appointing someone a bishop was a greta gift—even if they did not do anything to administer to their diocese. Neville was ordained in 1224 so that he could properly be Bishop of Chichester, to which he had been appointed two years earlier! He, however, remained in London with the king, often ignoring requests to come to Chichester and manage disputes there.

His own appointment to Lord Chancellor came on 17 May 1226, with the promise that it would be for life. He started reforms in Chancery, evolving it into its own governmental department and not just a division of the king's household. The contemporary Matthew Paris praised him for fairness and transparency in his office.

He built a grand manor, the Bishop of Chichester's Inn, to the west of London proper on a street called New Street (but now Chancery Lane), a short walk north of the Domus Conversorum. All was going well, until he was elected Archbishop of Canterbury, the prime ecclesiastical position in England. His journey hit a speed bump in the name of Pope Gregory IX. I'll explain tomorrow.

"Taking Care of" the Jews

"Know that we, in the sight of God, and for our souls, and for the sake of our predecessors and heirs, have granted and confirmed by this our charter, for us and our heirs, eternally to God and to the glorious Virgin Mary, and to the church, the house of the converts which we founded in the suburbs of London. Namely, a village called New Street, in honor of the same Virgin, and to the converts who reside there and who will reside in the future, seven hundred marks to support those converts and to make the construction of their church and their buildings, to be received every year to our treasury, that is to say, one half to the Easter treasury, and another half to the treasury of St. Michael, until we or the heirs of the same converts shall provide more abundantly in lands or rents, assigned to them in a certain place, from which they can competently support themselves and their families to the honor of God and the aforesaid glorious Virgin."

This was the beginning of a charter by King Henry III (1207 - 1272) in January of 1232. It established a building to house Jews who were willing to convert. This was the Domus Conversorum, or "House of Converts." It was also referred to as the "Converts' Inn." A Warden was established to oversee the place and disburse funds.

As part of their conversion, they gave up all property except personal possessions such as clothing, and moved into the building. They were paid pauper's wages that amounted to 1.5 pence/day for a man, and 1 pence/day for a woman. They were required to attend Mass each day and pray for the king, his ancestors, and his descendants.

Complete records exist of the converts who entered. In 1232, there was one, Roger de Parton. In 1233, John of Lincoln entered. In 1234, for reasons unknown, there was a sudden influx of converts: William the Clerk; Matilda; Adam and Leticia of Norwich (who transferred from Shaftesbury Abbey, where supposedly they had converted and were living); Hugo of Norwich (he was baptized after entering); Emma of Ipswich; Mariota; Isabella of Canterbury; Johanna the Convert; Isabella of Bristol & son; siblings John and Johanna from Bristol; Alexander with his wife Goduse & their sons.

The last-named Alexander and family were ejected by the will of the converts themselves, for what transgressions we will never know. It shows, however, that the converts retained some agency. In fact, in later years, records show that the converts brought successful complaints to the king of their wages not being paid.

What did they do all day? They could work jobs outside the Inn, but if they made more than their weekly sum, the weekly sum was withheld. They could, therefore, treat their new situation as a life of leisure.

Some of the land for the site was taken from the gardens (more an outdoor area or yard than formally planted beds of flowers) of the Bishop of Chichester, whose manor was a couple minutes' walk up the road and on the opposite side of the street. I want to tell you about the then-current Bishop of Chichester, and illegitimate man who rose to some of the highest offices in England.

Misconceptions

Hollywood and the simplification of history studies in the lower grades have left most people with misconceptions about what the Middle Ages was like. Readers of this blog know better, of course, but let's summarize some of the medieval misconceptions.

How about the Church controlling everything and no one being allowed to think for themselves? The number of different religious movements—not all of them declared heresies—shows that there were different interpretations of his divinity "worked." There was no universal view, for instance, on abortion, nor on how the Jews should be treated. They were protected in some places, persecuted in others, and even given an opportunity to be housed and clothed on the king's budget.

Armored knights have conjured images of men who could barely move, and who were helpless if they fell. Texts of the time, however, tell us that a knight was trained to move and fight in armor and should be able to mount his horse without assistance, in some cases leaping onto it.

Table manners is a hot topic. Hollywood loves raucous scenes of meals where bones are thrown on floors, people are guzzling beer and spilling their drink, etc. The 15th century illustration above is called "The Temperate and the Intemperate." It shows two different sets of table manners: formal and informal. Some were neat, others not. Also, note the dog in the lower-right corner, watching; he would be acting differently if there were scarps making their way to the floor.

Peasant huts were filthy is another misconception. No one wants to live in squalor, and everyone knew that rubbish attracted vermin. Archaeological digs at sites of abandoned medieval villages show the dirt floors of peasant huts were like a shallow bowl. The logical conclusion is that they were swept so frequently and carefully to remove trash that the dirt floors were made concave.

Peasants had no money, only barter. It turns out that peasants in England could earn money by selling goods, beer, food. As I pointed out long ago here, unfree peasants could earn enough to buy their freedom and leave their lord's demesne and set up shop elsewhere. They often did not, however, choosing to use their funds to rent more land to farm to make more money.

Part of the reason I started this blog was to provide, each day, a small piece of forgotten history to ad another facet to the jewel that is our knowledge of the Middle Ages. Tomorrow, I'd like to expand on the link above about the king "taking care of" the Jews in London.

The Iron Maiden

This is a story told by Johann Philipp Siebenkees (1759 - 1796), a German philosopher. There was a mention of such a device in a 1756 edition of Johann Georg Keyssler's Travels through Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, and Lorrain - 1st edition, so it appears Siebenkees got the idea from somewhere.

Look up "Iron + Maiden + torture" (to exclude references to the musical group), and you'll find links to the "medieval torture device." The idea of a tax with spikes in which you'd put a human and then close the doors sounds "medieval" to most. The problem with that adjective is that there is no evidence that the Middle Ages used them. The earliest references don't appear until the 16th century.

On August 14, 1515, a German who had forged coins was tortured with a device called the Iron Maiden. It was a cabinet sized for a human, lined with spikes. As the doors were slowly shut, spikes penetrated the forger's body just enough to cause excruciating anguish but not enough to kill him. Crying in vain, the forger—according to the tale—lived two days.

In fact, there was a much earlier reference that might have inspired it, from no unlikely a source as Augustine of Hippo's City of God. In it, he describes a martyr whom the Carthaginians shut "into a tight wooden box, where he was forced to stand, spiked with the sharpest nails on all sides so that he could not lean in any direction without being pierced."

Such a device would not have been casually made or kept. You would expect it to be maintained by whichever lord had it made. We have plenty of remnants of torture devices, but the first iron maidens that exist today were not constructed until (drumroll) the 19th century! The first one appeared in Nuremberg (see illustration) no earlier than 1802. Several have been made since then, mostly as tourist attractions in castles and museums.

Most modern historians agree that the "Iron Maiden" as it is thought of was not only not medieval, but not a torture device used in any era.

While we're on the subject, tomorrow we'll look at some other medieval misconceptions. See you then.

The Honeymoon

So what is the origin of the word "honeymoon"? Was it a medieval term for the first month of marriage? Well, in times like these I turn to the Oxford English Dictionary, in which the earliest we see that phrase in English where we are certain it refers to the first month of marriage comes from 1592:

They were marryed: well that daye was past with dauncing and Honney moone it was for a moneth after.

This was written by a writer and playwright Robert Greene (1558-1592). There was an earlier entry. It was yet but hony moone. This is from John Heywood's A dialogue conteinyng the nomber in effect of all the prouerbes in the englishe tongue, 1st edition, 1546. It is likely that this is also the familiar use of "honeymoon." We simply don't know when the phrase was first used. The common notion in cases like this is to say "Well, it must have been around for awhile." Fine, but for how long? Marriages are pretty common, and writing about them is also pretty common, so not finding an earlier reference to a couple embarking on the "honey moon" should give us reason to pause in our assumptions.

Another theory about the origin is that newly married couples were gifted a month's worth of honey mead. I like it. Women were the brewers in the household, since they could stay in and work while the men farmed. A gift like this would allow her time to follow other home-making (baby-making) pursuits. I wish I could find a source for this.

Old English had a term, hony moone, but it refers to a moon during June. Now, perhaps they associated June with marriage, the way the Romans did (June being named after Juno and Juno being the goddess of marriages, and all that), but unless June was the only month that Anglo-Saxons got married...

Speaking of the Northern European types, I found one website that claimed the Norse word hjunottsmanathr meant honeymoon. I can see the resemblance, since "hjuno" looks like "Juno" and would be pronounced "hyuno" and sound a little like "honey." But...no. hjunott means "in hiding" and referred to spending time alone and away from others, celebrating your newly wedded bliss.