Hair and Religion, Part 2

What does hair have to do with piety? Well, monks would get tonsured so that their outward appearance signified their role in society. As mentioned, hair outside the monastery was a way to make oneself more attractive, and so shearing most or all of it off was a way to make the individual less attractive and less "worldly."

On the other hand, excessive hair could also be a sign of piety. Anchorites—people who removed themselves from the world in order to devote themselves to prayer—could find separation by being enclosed in a small chamber (often connected to a church or monastery), or by becoming hermits, living away from others in the wilderness.

St. John Chrysostom (c.347 - 407, mentioned here) was a hermit. In the later Middle Ages, he is represented in illustrations as being excessively hairy. Another early hairy saint, Onuphrius, who became popular in Spain and Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries, proved his devotion by leaving his Egyptian monastery and living alone, naked, for 70 years near Thebes. He grew thick hair all over his body to protect himself from the elements.

Hairiness may have been seen as a a sign of such a strong rejection of worldly things that the saint was living simply, like a wild beast in the wilderness.

There were also several female hairy saints. Pictured above in a late 15th century manuscript is St. Mary of Egypt. Mary ran away from home in Egypt to Alexandria where she lived a dissolute life. Eventually turning to religion, she stopped focusing on her appearance, and is shown with matted and dirty hair as well as hair all over her body.

So if hirsute bodies could be a sign of turning from material cares toward spiritual purity, could the opposite take place? Here is where we turn away from the topic of "hair and religion" and look at simple "hair care." The artist Jean Bourdichon painted for King Louis XII the scene of Bathsheba bathing and being watched by King David [2 Samuel 11]. The water is transparent, and every part of her is visible in the water. The pink-red coloring of parts of her body show the she is pictured without pubic hair. If Michelangelo could carve it out of stone, there's no impediment to artists drawing it. The contention is that women must have shaved their pubic hair. Was this considered a choice for vanity's sake? Was it supposed to be a way to enhance sexuality or sensuousness? These questions are not answered in any contemporary texts.

Of course, there may have been an obvious reason for shaving hair around the genitals, one we rarely have to deal with in the Modern Age. Next time, let's look at the problem of lice in history.

The Tour de Nesle Affair

In the early 13th century, Philip II of France fortified Paris with four large guard towers. The Tour de Nesle (the "s" is silent) on the south bank of the Seine was 10 meters in diameter and 25 meters tall. The illustration shows it in 1608, a few decades before it was taken down. In 1314, it became the site of a huge royal scandal.

King at the time was Philip IV, who in 1307 had managed to get the pope to condemn the Templars, allowing him to seize all their assets for himself. He had three sons and one daughter, Isabella of France. The sons (each of whom had a turn as king) were Louis, who was married to Margaret, daughter of Robert II, Duke of Burgundy; Philip, who married Joan the daughter of Otto IV, Count of Burgundy; and Charles, who married Blanche, another of Otto's daughters.

In 1313, Isabella and Edward II of England visited her parents in France, during which Isabella presented her sisters-in-law with embroidered purses. (Note that these would not have been a modern "lady's purse" but a pouch for carrying coins.) Upon the couple's return to England, a feast was held in their honor. During the gathering, Isabella saw two of the embroidered purses in the possession of two visiting Norman knights, the brothers Walter and Philip Aunay.

Walter was an equerry to Prince Philip, and Philip was an equerry to Prince Charles. An equerry was a "personal assistant" responsible for the horses of a royal personage. Isabella concluded that her sisters-in-law had given the purses to the men for "special favors" and, when she re-visited France in 1314, informed her father of her suspicions. Philip placed the men and his daughters-in-law under surveillance, eventually deterring that Blanche and Margaret had been meeting the two men for drinking and debauchery in the Tour de Nesle, while the third daughter-in-law, Joan, had been aware of the carousing (though not a participant).

Philip gathered enough evidence to accuse those involved publicly. The two sisters were found guilty of adultery, had their heads shaved, and were sentenced to life imprisonment. Joan was found innocent, especially with her husband speaking up for her. (Joan and Philip had a notably romantic marriage: several children in a short space of time, and numerous love letters written by Philip.)

The brothers (under torture) confessed their adultery, were found guilty of lèse-majesté, "crime against the dignity of the crown," and were beaten, skinned alive, covered in boiling lead sulfite, and hanged. Other reports say they were castrated and beheaded. Whatever their fate, it was brutal and terminal.

Some think the stress of the Tour de Nesle affair contributed to Philip IV's death later that year. He was succeeded by Louis in 1315. Margaret, held underground at Château Gaillard, became Queen of France automatically. Louis would have liked to avoid this, but he could not get his marriage annulled because to do so required the pope. Why could he not procure an annulment from the pope? Simple: there wasn't one.

I'll explain next time.

The King's Favorite

In 1307, the Knights Templar were condemned in France by Philip IV and lost their possessions and lives. One of the accusations was that they indulged in sodomy. Sexual morality was a concern in Western European society, and accusations of perversion had great consequences for the accused.

A year later, Philip married his daughter, Isabella of France, to Edward II of England. Edward's letters to Isabella while he was away show affection. Later, however, his closeness to Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger became an issue: Edward spent his coronation feast in 1308 by Gaveston's side and not Isabella's. Isabella and Gaveston did form a relationship, and Edward and Isabella had children in 1312, 1318, 1321, and 1324.

Gaveston had many strikes against him in the barons' eyes: he was wittier than they, tended to give them unflattering nicknames, and was a better jouster. When Edward made the young man from Gascony Earl of Cornwall, there were many complaints about an earldom in foreign hands. His closeness to Edward meant Edward ignored the counsel of many more established men, although not all: Edward had plenty of well-respected men in positions of authority to run the kingdom.

But the barons' and Edward were in conflict during his entire reign, as was the case with his father's. When they decided that he needed to be deposed in favor of his eldest son (who would become Edward III), they drew up the Articles of Deposition (1327). There were six items:

1. That he is incompetent
2. That he won't listen to good counsel
3. That he lost Scotland (honestly, his father never gained Scotland, so to say he "lost" it...)
4. He has destroyed holy church (he actually built and supported many churches)
5. He has not done justice according to his coronation oath (see here)
6. He has done all he could to ruin his realm.

Curiously, no hint of improper sexual behavior.

The first hint of such comes 50 years later when a Cistercian in the abbey at Meaux accuses the king not of sodomy but of "too much sodomy." A contemporary historian, writing two years before Edward's death, refers to Edward's and Gaveston's relationship in comparison to David and Johnathan from the Old Testament, "a love which is said to have surpassed the love of women." That writer claims the hatred of Gaveston is because he was a foreigner and an upstart.

Did Edward and Gaveston have a homosexual relationship? It is certainly possible. Did they? Even those who hated Gaveston and killed him, and hated Edward and deposed him, never chose to accuse either of that sexual activity. The popularity of that view starts with Christopher Marlowe (1564 - 1593), and has provided fodder for controversy among historians ever since. The illustration is a 19th century painting showing the two cavorting while courtiers look on in concern. People can (and do) read into the facts whatever conclusion they prefer.

But those Despensers? So despised that devout Christians would even hire a magical hitman to eliminate them? Let's find out what they were guilty of next time.