The man who hurried the kings in medieval Europe. medieval animators. Charles I the Good
Introduction: Myths about the Middle Ages
There are many historical myths about the Middle Ages. The reason for this lies partly in the development of humanism at the very beginning of the New Age, as well as the formation of the Renaissance in art and architecture. Interest in the world of classical antiquity developed, and the era that followed was considered barbaric and decadent. Therefore, medieval Gothic architecture, which today is recognized as extraordinarily beautiful and technically revolutionary, was underestimated and left aside in favor of styles that copied Greek and Roman architecture. The term "Gothic" itself was originally applied to Gothic in a derogatory light, serving as a reference to the tribes of the Goths who sacked Rome; the meaning of the word is "barbarian, primitive".
Another reason for many of the myths associated with the Middle Ages is its association with the Catholic Church. (hereinafter - "Church" - approx. Newochem). In the English-speaking world, these myths have their origin in disputes between Catholics and Protestants. In other European cultures, such as Germany and France, similar myths were formed within the framework of the anti-clerical position of influential thinkers of the Enlightenment. The following is summary some myths and misconceptions about the Middle Ages, which arose as a result of various prejudices.
1. People believed that the Earth was flat, and the Church presented this idea as a doctrine
In fact, the Church never taught that the earth was flat, not in any period of the Middle Ages. Scientists of that time had a good understanding of the scientific arguments of the Greeks, who proved that the Earth was round, and knew how to use scientific instruments such as the astrolabe to determine the circumference of a circle quite accurately. The fact of the spherical shape of the earth was so well known, generally recognized and unremarkable, that when Thomas Aquinas began work on his treatise "The Sum of Theology" and wanted to choose an objective indisputable truth, he cited this very fact as an example.
Context
Buried like vampires
ABC.es 08.01.2017New-old hero of Kyrgyzstan
EurasiaNet 19.10.2016Russian question or force of destruction
Radio Liberty 28.03.2016Medieval darkness as the basis of the "Russian idea"
Mirror of the Week 08.02.2016And not only literate people were aware of the shape of the Earth - most sources indicate that everyone understood this. The symbol of the earthly power of kings, which was used in coronation ceremonies, was the power: a golden sphere in the left hand of the king, which personified the Earth. This symbolism would not make sense if it were not clear that the Earth is spherical. A 13th-century collection of sermons by German parish priests also mentions in passing that the earth is "round like an apple," with the expectation that the peasants listening to the sermon will understand what it is about. Popular in the 14th century English book The Adventures of Sir John Mandeville tells of a man who traveled so far to the east that he returned to his homeland from its western side; and the book does not explain to the reader how it works.
The common misconception that Christopher Columbus discovered the true shape of the Earth and that the Church opposed his journey is nothing but a modern myth created in 1828. Writer Washington Irving was commissioned to write a biography of Columbus with instructions that he present the traveler as a radical thinker who rebelled against the prejudices of the Old World. Unfortunately, Irving discovered that Columbus was in fact deeply mistaken in the size of the Earth and discovered America by pure chance. The heroic story did not work out, and so he invented the idea that the Church in the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat, and created this tenacious myth, and his book became a bestseller.
Among the congregation popular expressions found on the Internet, you can often see the alleged statement of Ferdinand Magellan: “The Church claims that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. Because I have seen the Earth's shadow on the moon, and I trust the Shadow more than the Church." Well, Magellan never said that, in particular because the Church never claimed that the Earth is flat. The first use of this "quote" occurs no earlier than 1873, when it was used in an essay by the American Voltaireian (Voltarian - a free-thinking philosopher - approx. Newochem) and the agnostic Robert Greene Ingersoll. He did not give any source and it is very likely that he simply made up the statement himself. Despite this, Magellan's "words" can still be found in various collections, on T-shirts and posters of atheist organizations.
2. The Church suppressed science and progressive thinking, burned scientists at the stake, and thus set us back hundreds of years
The myth that the Church repressed science, burned or suppressed the activities of scientists, is a central part of what historians writing about science call "the clash of ways of thinking." This enduring concept dates back to the Enlightenment, but became firmly established in the public mind with the help of two well-known 19th-century works. John William Draper's A History of the Relations Between Catholicism and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's The Struggle of Religion with Science (1896) were highly popular and authoritative books, spreading the belief that the medieval Church was actively suppressing science. In the 20th century, historiographers of science actively criticized the "White-Draper position" and noted that most of the evidence presented was grossly misinterpreted, and in some cases even invented.
In the era of late Antiquity, early Christianity did not welcome what some clergymen called "pagan knowledge", that is, scientific work Greeks and their Roman successors. Some have preached that the Christian should shun such works, for they contain unbiblical knowledge. In his famous phrase, one of the Fathers of the Church, Tertullian, exclaims sarcastically: "What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?" But such thoughts were rejected by other eminent theologians. For example, Clement of Alexandria argued that if God had given the Jews a special understanding of spirituality, he could have given the Greeks a special understanding of scientific things. He suggested that if the Jews took and used the gold of the Egyptians for their own purposes, then Christians can and should use the wisdom of the pagan Greeks as a gift from God. Later, Clement's reasoning met with the support of Aurelius Augustine, and later Christian thinkers adopted this ideology, noting that if the cosmos is the creation of a thinking God, then it can and should be comprehended in a rational way.
Thus natural philosophy, which was largely based on the work of such Greek and Roman thinkers as Aristotle, Galen, Ptolemy and Archimedes, became a major part of the medieval university curriculum. In the West, after the collapse of the Roman Empire, many ancient works were lost, but Arab scholars managed to save them. Subsequently, medieval thinkers not only studied the additions made by the Arabs, but also used them to make discoveries. Medieval scientists were fascinated by optical science, and the invention of glasses is only partly the result of their own research using lenses to determine the nature of light and the physiology of vision. In the 14th century, the philosopher Thomas Bradwardine and a group of thinkers who called themselves the "Oxford Calculators" not only formulated and proved the average velocity theorem for the first time, but were also the first to use quantitative concepts in physics, thus laying the foundation for everything that was achieved by this science. since.
Multimedia
memento mori
Medievalists.net 10/31/2014All the scientists of the Middle Ages were not only not persecuted by the Church, but they themselves belonged to it. Jean Buridan, Nicholas Orem, Albrecht III (Albrecht the Bold), Albert the Great, Robert Grosseteste, Theodoric of Freiburg, Roger Bacon, Thierry of Chartres, Sylvester II (Herbert of Aurillac), Guillaume Conchesius, John Philopon, John Packham, John Duns Scotus, Walter Burley, William Hatesberry, Richard Swainshead, John Dumbleton, Nicholas of Cusa - they were not pursued, held back or burned at the stake, but they were known and revered for their wisdom and learning.
Contrary to myths and popular prejudice, there is not a single example of someone being burned in the Middle Ages for anything related to science, just as there is no evidence of the persecution of any scientific movement by the medieval Church. Trial over Galileo happened much later (the scientist was a contemporary of Descartes) and was much more connected with the politics of the Counter-Reformation and the people involved in it than with the attitude of the Church towards science.
3. In the Middle Ages, the Inquisition burned millions of women, considering them to be witches, and the burning of “witches” itself was a common thing in the Middle Ages
Strictly speaking, the "witch hunt" was not a medieval phenomenon at all. The persecution reached its apogee in the 16th-17th centuries and almost completely belonged to the early period of modern times. As for most of the Middle Ages (i.e., the 5th-15th centuries), the Church was not only not interested in hunting so-called "witches", but she also taught that witches do not exist in principle.
Somewhere before the XIV century, the Church scolded people who believed in witches and generally called such a stupid peasant superstition. A number of medieval codes, canonical and secular, forbade not so much witchcraft as belief in its existence. One day the clergyman entered into an argument with the inhabitants of one village, who sincerely believed in the words of a woman who claimed that she was a witch and, among other things, could turn into clouds of smoke and leave a closed room through a keyhole. To prove the stupidity of this belief, the priest locked himself in the room with this woman and forced her to leave the room through the keyhole with a stick. The "witch" did not escape, and the villagers learned their lesson.
Attitudes towards witches began to change in the 14th century, especially at the height of the plague of 1347-1350, after which Europeans became more and more afraid of a conspiracy of harmful demonic forces, mostly imaginary. In addition to persecuting Jews and intimidating heretic groups, the Church began to take covens of witches more seriously. The crisis came in 1484 when Pope Innocent VIII published the bull Summis desiderantes affectibus (“With all the strength of the soul” - approx. Newochem), which set off the witch-hunt that raged across Europe for the next 200 years.
Catholic and Protestant countries were equally involved in the persecution of witches that began. Interestingly, witch-hunts seem to follow the geographical lines of the Reformation: in Catholic countries that were not particularly threatened by Protestantism, such as Italy and Spain, the number of "witches" was small, but the countries on the front lines of the religious struggle of that time, like Germany and France, have experienced the brunt of this phenomenon. That is, the two countries where the Inquisition was most active turned out to be places where witch-related hysteria was the least. Contrary to myth, the inquisitors were much more concerned with heretics and Jewish Christian converts than with any "witches".
In Protestant countries, witch-hunts flared violently when the status quo was threatened (such as the Salem, Massachusetts, witch-hunts), or during times of social or religious instability (as in Jacobean England or the Puritan regime of Oliver Cromwell). ). Despite wildly exaggerated claims of "millions of women" being executed on charges of witchcraft, modern historians estimate the actual number of victims to be between 60,000 and 100,000 over several centuries, and 20% of the victims were men.
Hollywood has perpetuated the myth of the "medieval" witch-hunt, and few Hollywood films set in this period can resist the temptation to mention witches or anyone being persecuted for witchcraft by a creepy priest. And this despite the fact that almost the entire period of this hysteria followed the Middle Ages, and belief in witches was considered superstitious nonsense.
4. The Middle Ages was a period of filth and poverty, people rarely bathed, smelled disgusting, and they had rotten teeth.
In fact, medieval people of all classes washed daily, took baths and valued cleanliness and hygiene. Like every generation before modern system with hot running water, they were not as clean as you and me, but like our grandparents and their parents, they were able to wash daily, keep themselves clean, appreciated it and did not like people who did not wash or smelled bad.
Public baths existed in most cities, and in metropolitan areas they flourished by the hundreds. The South Bank of the Thames was the site of hundreds of "stews" (from the English "stew" - "stew", hence the name of the dish of the same name in English language- approx. Newo what) where medieval Londoners could soak in hot water, talk, play chess and molest prostitutes. In Paris, there were even more of these baths, and in Italy there were so many that some of them advertised themselves as catering exclusively to women or aristocrats, so that the nobles would not accidentally end up in the same bath with workers or peasants.
The idea that the people of the Middle Ages did not bathe is based on a number of myths and misconceptions. First, the 16th century and then the 18th century (that is, after the Middle Ages) became periods when doctors said that taking baths was harmful, and people tried not to do it too often. The inhabitants, for whom the "Middle Ages" begins "from the 19th century and earlier", made the assumption that irregular bathing was common before. Secondly, the Christian moralists and priests of the Middle Ages did indeed warn of the dangers of excessive bathing. This is due to the fact that these moralists warned against excess in everything - food, sex, hunting, dancing, and even in penance and religious commitment. To conclude from this that no one washed is completely meaningless.
And finally, public baths were closely associated with prostitution. There is no doubt that many prostitutes offered their services in medieval public baths, and the "stews" of London and other cities were not far from the areas most famous for their brothels and whores. That is why moralists cursed public baths, considering them to be dens. To conclude that for this reason people did not use public baths is as foolish as to conclude that they did not visit nearby brothels.
The facts that medieval literature sings of the delights of bathing, that the medieval knighting ceremony includes an aromatic bath for the ordained squire, that ascetic hermits took as much pride in refusing to bathe as in renouncing other social pleasures, and that soap makers and owners of baths put on noisy sales performances, shows that people liked to keep themselves clean. Archaeological excavations confirm the absurdity of the idea that they had rotten teeth. Sugar was an expensive luxury, and the average person's diet was rich in vegetables, calcium, and seasonal fruits, so medieval teeth were in fact in excellent condition. Cheaper sugar flooded the markets of Europe only in the 16th-17th centuries, which caused an epidemic of caries and bad breath.
A medieval French saying demonstrates how fundamental bathing was to the pleasures of the good life:
Venari, ludere, lavari, bibere! Hoc est vivere!
(Hunt, play, swim, drink! This is how life should be lived!)
5. The Middle Ages - a dark period regarding technological progress, in which almost nothing was created until the Renaissance
In fact, during the Middle Ages, there were many discoveries that testify to the technological process, some of which are on a par with the most significant in the history of mankind. The fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century had a devastating effect on the entire material and technological culture of Europe. Without the backing of the empire, many grandiose engineering and infrastructure projects, as well as many of the skills and techniques involved in monumental buildings, were lost and forgotten. The break in trade ties meant that people became more economically independent and produced everything they needed themselves. But this stimulated the introduction and development of technologies rather than vice versa.
Advances in technology have helped autonomous rural communities increase the popularity of such unions across Europe, leading to the development of the yoke to allow for more efficient hauling and plowing; there was also a horseshoe, a mouldboard plow that made possible the cultivation of the heavier northern European soil; water and tidal mills began to be used everywhere. As a result of these innovations, many lands throughout Europe that had never been cultivated during the time of the Roman conquests began to be cultivated, making Europe richer and more fertile than ever before.
Water mills were introduced everywhere on a scale incomparable with the Roman era. This led not only to the widespread use of hydropower, but also to a surge in active mechanization. The windmill is an innovation of medieval Europe, used along with a watermill not only for grinding flour, but also for the production of cloth, leather goods, bellows and a mechanical hammer. The last two innovations led to the production of steel on a semi-industrial scale, and along with the medieval invention of the blast furnace and cast iron, the advanced medieval technology of metal production was far removed from the era of the Roman conquests.
By the second half of the Middle Ages (1000-1500), wind and hydropower had driven the agricultural revolution and turned Christian Europe into a wealthy, densely populated, and ever-expanding area. Medieval people began to experiment with different ways mechanization. When they noticed that warm air makes the stove work (another invention of the Middle Ages), in large medieval kitchens, a fan was installed on the stoves so that it automatically turned the spit of the gear system. The monks of that time noted that the use of a gear system driven by a decreasing weight could serve to mechanically measure the hour of time.
In the 13th century, mechanical clocks began to appear throughout Europe, a revolutionary medieval invention that allowed people to keep track of time. The innovation spread rapidly, and miniature table clocks began to appear just a couple of decades after the invention of the tool. Medieval clocks could have combined with computing devices. The extremely complex mechanism of the astronomical clock, designed by Richard of Wallingford, abbot of St Albans, was so intricate that it took eight years to learn the full cycle of its calculations, and it was the most intricate device of its kind.
The rise of universities in the Middle Ages also stimulated some technical innovations. Optical students of Greek and Arab scientists experimented on the nature of light in lenses, and in the process invented glasses. Universities also supplied the market with books and encouraged the development of cheaper methods of printing. Experiments with woodcuts eventually led to the invention of typesetting and another remarkable medieval innovation, the printing press.
The very existence of medieval shipping technology meant that for the first time Europeans had the opportunity to sail to the Americas. Long trade voyages led to an increase in the size of ships, although the old forms of ship rudders - they were huge, paddle-shaped, mounted on the side of the ship - limited the maximum size of the ship. In the late 12th century, shipwrights invented a stern-mounted hinged rudder that allowed much larger ships to be built and steered more efficiently.
It turns out that not only was the Middle Ages not a dark period in the history of technological development, but it also managed to give life to many technological inventions, such as glasses, mechanical watches and the printing press - one of the most important discoveries of all time.
6. The medieval army was an unorganized group of knights in massive armor and a crowd of peasants, armed with pitchforks, led to battle, more reminiscent of street showdowns. This is why Europeans during the Crusades often died at the hands of tactically superior Muslims.
Hollywood created the image of a medieval battle as a chaotic chaos in which ignorant knights greedy for glory rule over peasant regiments. This notion was spread by Sir Charles Oman's The Art of Combat in the Middle Ages (1885). While a student at Oxford, Oman wrote an essay that later grew into a full-fledged work and became the author's first published book. It later became the most widely read book in the English language on medieval warfare, in large part because it was the only one of its kind until the first half of the 20th century, when more systematic research began on the subject.
Oman's research has lost a lot of weight due to the unfavorable factors of the time in which the author worked: the general prejudice that the Middle Ages is a dark and underdeveloped period compared to antiquity, the lack of sources, many of which were yet to be published, and the tendency not to check the information received. . As a result, Oman portrayed medieval warfare as an ignorant battle, without tactics or strategy, fought to win glory among knights and nobles. However, by the 1960s more modern methods and a wide range of sources and interpretations were able to shed light on the Middle Ages, initially thanks to European historians in the person of Philip Contamine and J. F. Verbruggen. New research has literally revolutionized the understanding of medieval warfare and clearly demonstrated that while most sources focused on the personal actions of knights and nobility, the use of other sources painted a completely different picture.
© RIA Novosti Demonstration fight
In fact, the rise of the knightly elite in the 10th century meant that medieval Europe had a special class of professionally trained warriors ready to devote their lives to the art of combat. While some won glory, others trained from childhood and knew for sure that the battle was won by organization and tactics. The knights were trained to act in foot troops, and the nobility to manage these troops (often referred to as "lances") on the battlefield. Control was carried out using trumpet signals, a flag, as well as a set of visual and verbal commands.
The key to the tactics of medieval combat lies in the fact that enough gaps are formed in the heart of the enemy army - the infantry - so that heavy infantry can deliver a decisive blow to it. This step had to be carefully calibrated and carried out, ensuring the protection of one's own army in order to prevent the enemy from doing the same trick. Contrary to popular belief, the medieval army consisted primarily of infantry and cavalry, with the elite heavy cavalry being a minority.
The Hollywood idea of the medieval infantry as a crowd of peasants armed with agricultural implements is also nothing but a myth. The infantry was drawn from recruits in the countryside, but the men called for service were either untrained or poorly equipped. On the lands where universal military service was declared, there were always men who were ready to prepare for war in a short time. The English archers who won the battles of Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt were peasant recruits, but they were well trained and very effective in force majeure.
The authorities of the Italian cities left one day a week to prepare the townspeople for the performance as part of the infantry. After all, many chose the art of war as a profession, and the nobility often collected funds from their vassals through military taxes and used this money to fill the ranks of the army with mercenary soldiers and people who wielded specific types of weapons (for example, crossbowmen or craftsmen for siege weapons).
Decisive battles were often a huge risk and could fail, even if your army outnumbered the enemy's army. As a result, the practice of open combat was rare in the Middle Ages, and most wars involved strategic maneuvers and most often lengthy sieges. Medieval builders took the art of fortification to a new level: the great castles of the Crusades, like Kerak and Krak des Chevaliers, or Edward I's chain of massive buildings in Wales, are masterpieces of defensive design.
Along with the myths about the medieval army, when the mob, led by mediocre idiots, goes to war, there was the idea that the crusaders were losing in battles with tactically more trained opponents from the Middle East. An analysis of the battles fought by the crusaders shows that they won slightly more battles than they lost, using each other's tactics and weapons, and it was a completely equal fight. In reality, the reason for the fall of the Outremer crusader states was a lack of human resources, and not primitive combat skills.
After all, there are myths about medieval weapons. A common misconception is that medieval weapons were so prohibitively heavy that the knights had to be mounted in the saddle by some kind of lifting mechanism, and that a knight, thrown from a horse, could not stand up on his own. Certainly, only an idiot would go into battle and risk his life wearing armor that impedes movement. In fact, medieval armor weighed a total of about 20 kg, which is almost half the weight with which modern infantry is sent to the front. Battle reenactors these days love to perform acrobatics, demonstrating how agile and fast a fully equipped warrior can be. Previously, chain mail weighed much more, but even in it a trained person was quite mobile.
The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.
On his accession to the throne of the Duke of York, he received permission to be called Lord David Derry-Moir, after the name of the estate, which, dying, bequeathed to him by his mother; the estate was in Scotland, in a large forest where the krug bird is found, gouging its nest with its beak in the trunk of an oak.
James II was a king, but he claimed to be a military leader. He liked to surround himself with young officers. He willingly showed himself to the people on horseback, in a helmet and cuirass, in a huge fluttering wig that fell from under the helmet onto the cuirass; in this form, he resembled an equestrian statue, personifying war in all its senselessness. He liked the graceful manner of the young Lord David. He even had a kind of gratitude towards this royalist for being the son of a republican: it is not useless to renounce a rebel father at the beginning of a court career. The king made Lord David Derry-Moir his bed-keeper, with a salary of a thousand livres.
It was a big raise. The bed-keeper sleeps in the same room as the king, on the bed that is placed for him next to the royal bed. There are twelve bed-keepers in all, and they take turns guarding the king.
Lord David was, moreover, appointed chief stableman of the king, whose duty it was to release oats for the king's horses, for which he received another two hundred and fifty livres a year. Under him were five royal coachmen, five royal postilions, five royal grooms, twelve royal traveling footmen and four royal porters. He was in charge of the six racehorses which the king kept at the Haymarket, and which cost his majesty six hundred livres a year. He was the absolute master of the royal dressing room, which supplied the ceremonial costumes of the Knights of the Order of the Garter. The royal doorman bowed to the ground, holding a black wand. Under James II, this position was held by the cavalier Düpp. Lord David was shown every sign of respect by the king's clerk, Mr. Becker, and the parliamentary clerk, Mr. Brown. The English court was a model of magnificence and hospitality. Lord David presided over feasts and receptions among the twelve nobles. He had the honor to stand behind the king on the "days of offering", when the king donates to the church a golden bezant, byzantium, and on "order days", when the king puts on the chain of his order, and on "communion days", when no one takes communion except the king and blood princes. On Good Thursday, he brought twelve poor people to the king, to whom the king gave as many silver pennies as he was years old, and as many shillings as he had reigned for years. When the king fell ill, it was Lord David's duty to call on two of the highest dignitaries of the church, who were supposed to look after the king, and not to allow doctors to see him without the permission of the state council. In addition, he was a lieutenant-colonel of the Scottish King's Guard, the same one that plays the Scottish march.
In this rank, he participated in several campaigns and gained well-deserved fame as a brave warrior. He was a strong, well-built, handsome, generous man, with a noble appearance and excellent manners. His appearance suited his position. He was tall and of high birth.
Derry-Moir was already a step away from becoming a groom of the stole, which would have given him the right to present a shirt to the king, but for this you had to be a prince or a peer.
Making someone a peer is serious business. It means to create a peerage and thereby give rise to envious people. This is mercy, and by showing mercy to someone, the king gains one friend and a hundred enemies, not counting the fact that the friend later turns out to be ungrateful. James II, for political reasons, with great difficulty granted his subjects the dignity of a peer, but he willingly passed it on. The transferred peerage causes no excitement. This is done simply for the sake of preserving a noble name, and such a transfer did not move the lords much.
The King had no objection to introducing Lord David Derry-Moir into the House of Peers, as long as it happened as a result of a transfer of the peerage. His Majesty was waiting for the right opportunity to make David Derry-Moir, Lord "out of courtesy", a Lord by right.
This case presented itself.
One fine day it became known that various events had happened to the old exile, and the main one was that he had died. Death is good because it makes you talk at least a little about the deceased. They began to tell what they knew (or rather thought they knew) about recent years the life of Lord Linnaeus. Obviously, these were conjectures and fictions. If these tales are to be believed, no doubt wholly unfounded, Lord Clencharlie's republican feelings were so sharpened towards the end of his life that he married - the strange stubbornness of an exile! - on the daughter of one of the regicides, Anna Bradshaw - the name was given with precision - who died giving birth to a child, a boy, who is alleged, if all this is true, the legitimate son and heir of Lord Clancharlie. This information, very vague, was more like rumor than fact. For England of that time, everything that happens in Switzerland was as far away as for present-day England what is happening in China. Lord Clancharlie was supposedly fifty-nine when he married, and sixty when his son was born; it was said that he died a short time later and the boy was left an orphan. Well, it's possible, of course, but unlikely. They added that this child was “good as day,” as they say in fairy tales. King James put an end to these unfounded rumours, most graciously declaring, one fine morning, David Derry-Moir as the sole and indisputable heir of his illegitimate father, Lord Linnaeus Clancharlie, "for lack of legitimate children, and since no other kinship or offspring has been established" - a charter to that effect was entered into the registers of the House of Lords. By this charter the King recognized to Lord David Derry-Moir the titles, rights and privileges of the late Lord Linnaeus of Clancharlie, on the sole condition that Lord David should marry, on her coming of age, a girl who at that time was still an infant at the age of a few months, and whom the king, for unknown reasons, made her a duchess while still in her cradle. However, these reasons were well known.
The little bride was named Duchess Josiana. In England there was then a fashion for Spanish names. One of Charles II's illegitimate children was named Carlos, Earl of Plymouth. It is possible that the name Josiana was an abbreviation of two names - Joseph and Anna. Or perhaps there was a name Josiana, as there was a name Josiah. One of Henry II's associates was called Josiah du Passage.
It was to this little duchess that the king granted the Peerage of Clancharlie. She was a peer waiting for her peer: her future husband was to be a peer. This peerage consisted of two baronies: the barony of Clancharlie and the barony of Genkerville; besides, the Lords of Clencharlie, as a reward for some military feat, were granted the highest title of the Sicilian Marquesses of Corleene. How general rule, peers of England may not bear foreign titles; however, there are exceptions - for example, Henry Arundel, Baron Arundel-Wordour, was, like Lord Clifford, Earl of the Holy Roman Empire, of which Lord Cowper was prince; the Duke of Hamilton bears the title of Duke of Châtellerault in France; Basil Feilding, Count of Denbigh, in Germany holds the title of Count of Habsburg, Laufenburg and Rheinfelden. The Duke of Marlborough was Prince Mindelheim in Sweden, just as the Duke of Wellington was Prince Waterloo in Belgium. The same Duke of Wellington was the Spanish Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo and the Portuguese Count of Vimeira.
In England already in those days there were, as they still are, estates of nobles and estates of non-nobles. These lands, castles, boroughs, leases, fiefs, estates, allods, and fiefdoms of the Peerage of Clancharlie-Genkerville were temporarily held by Lady Josiana, and the King declared that as soon as Lord David of Derry-Moir married Josiana, he would be made Baron Clancharlie.
In addition to the Clancharlie inheritance, Lady Josiana had a fortune of her own. She owned large estates, some of which were once donated to the Duke of York by Madame sans queue [Madame without further definition (French) (Madame is the title of the eldest daughter of the French king, daughter of the Dauphin and wife of the king's brother.). Madame sans queue simply means Madame. So they called Henriette of England, the first woman of France after the queen.
Lord David, who prospered under Charles and James, continued to prosper under William of Orange. He did not go so far in his commitment to Jacob as to follow him into exile. Without ceasing to love his rightful king, he had the prudence to serve the usurper. However, Lord David was, though not very disciplined, but an excellent officer; he changed the land service to the sea and distinguished himself in the "white squadron". Lord David became, as they called it then, the captain of a light frigate. In the end, he turned out to be a completely secular person, covering his vices with grace of manners, a bit of a poet, like everyone else at that time, a good servant to the king and the state, an indispensable participant in all festivities, celebrations, “small royal exits”, ceremonies, but he did not avoid and battles, a rather obsequious courtier and at the same time a very arrogant nobleman, short-sighted or sharp-sighted, depending on the circumstances; honest by nature, respectful towards some and arrogant with others, sincere and sincere at first impulse, but able to instantly put on any mask, perfectly taking into account the bad and good mood of the king, carelessly standing in front of the point of the sword pointed at him, by one sign of his majesty ready to heroically absurdly risk his life, capable of any tricks, but unfailingly polite, a slave of etiquette and courtesy, proud of the opportunity on solemn occasions to kneel before the monarch, cheerful, brave, a true courtier in his appearance and a knight in his soul, a man still young despite his forty-five years.
The features of a medieval king are important not only for understanding the era, but also because the rulers of states with a republican system or a democratic form of government will often perform the same functions or embody the same image. The king under the feudal system is the image of God, Rex imago Dei. This aspect has naturally been blunted since the 19th century, but modern European leaders often retain such privileges as the right of pardon or personal legal immunity, which are the consequences of this idea of the ruler as a sacred person. Note that the medieval kings sent three functions of power, that is, they combined all three functions of the Indo-European ideology, which determines the functioning of society through the division of its members into three categories. The king embodies the first function, the religious one, because although he himself is not a priest, he deals with the very essence of this function - he administers justice. He is also the supreme ruler in the sense of the second function - military, since he is of noble birth and a warrior himself (the President of the French Republic is to this day the supreme commander, although this is more a political function than a military one). Finally, the king embodies a third function, which is somewhat more difficult to define. This function, which the medieval formulation associates with labor, in fact implies concern for the prosperity and beautification of the state. That is, the king is responsible for the economy and prosperity of his kingdom, and for him personally this function means the obligatory manifestation of mercy, in particular the generous distribution of alms. It can be assumed (although this side of the matter is not so obvious) that the third function obliged the king to also be in a certain sense a patron of the arts: for example, the task of building new churches followed from it.
In addition, the medieval king had to have authority in the field of knowledge and culture. John of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres, in defining monarchy in his famous 1159 treatise Polycraticus, picks up on an idea expressed in 1125 by William of Malmesbury: "Rex illiteratus quasi asinus coronatus" ("An illiterate king is nothing but a crowned donkey") .
During the feudal era, the role of the king underwent other important changes. From Roman law and Roman history, he inherited the division of power into two categories: auctoritas (authority) and potestas (power), defining, respectively, the nature of royal power and the means enabling the king to fulfill his role. Christianity added another component, namely dignitas, which characterizes certain rights in the ecclesiastical sphere and royal dignity. In the feudal period, perhaps as a reaction, there is a revival of Roman law and an update in relation to the new kings of the Roman concept of majestas. It allows us to define two royal rights of that time: the first of them, the right of pardon, we have already mentioned, and the second, even more important, the right to protection from crimen majestatis, from treason. However, the medieval king was not an absolute monarch. Historians wonder if he was a constitutional monarch. This too cannot be asserted, since there was no text that could be regarded as a constitution; closest to it - while being a very peculiar document - was probably the Magna Carta (Magna Carta), a document that the nobility and the church elite imposed on the English king John Landless (1215). This text remains an important milestone on the path towards the establishment of constitutional regimes in Europe. The most accurate way to formulate the most important feature of medieval royal power is as follows: to be a king meant to assume certain contractual obligations. During the ritual of anointing and coronation, the king took oaths to God, the Church and the people. The first two “treaties” have lost their significance in the course of the historical process, but the third, innovative formulation will also become a kind of stage on the way to accountability of the government to the people or the institution that represents it. And finally, in the feudal era, the king, both in theory and in practice, was entrusted with a double mission associated with the concepts of justice and peace. “Peace” in this sense can be translated as “order”, understood, however, not only as a calm earthly life, but at the same time as a movement along the path of salvation. One way or another, with the feudal monarchies, Christendom is embarking on the path to what we today call the rule of law. Another fact, less significant in terms of the long-term development of Europe: the feudal monarchy was an aristocratic monarchy, and since the king was the first in the nobility of origin, the legitimization of the nobility of blood took place. Today, lineage is not taken so seriously, but in the Middle Ages, this factor guaranteed the stability and continuity of royal power, reinforcing the legal basis for the existence of royal dynasties. In addition, in the French kingdom, from the end of the 10th century to the beginning of the 14th century, sons were born to the French kings. Only in 1316, when the problem of succession to the throne arises, will the exclusion of women from the throne be made a formal rule and called it, remembering the ancient custom of the Salic Franks, “Salic law”.
So, it was precisely the fact that royal power was associated with certain obligations that determined the further path of development of feudal monarchies in the long-term European perspective. The twelfth century was great age of justice. First of all, and much has been said about this, there is a process of revival of Roman law, but in addition, there is an active development of canon law, which begins with the "Decree" (c. 1130-1140), compiled by the monk Gratian from Bologna. Canon law recorded not only the influence of Christianity on the spirit and apparatus of jurisprudence, but also the role of the Church in society, and in addition, innovations that arose in justice in the course of the development of society and the emergence of new problems, for example, changes in the economy and new forms of marriage.
For a modern person, his menu still depends on the thickness of his wallet. And, moreover, it was so in the Middle Ages. Already by the clothes of the owner of the house, it was possible to say with certainty what would be served at his dinner.
Peter Brueghel, Peasant Wedding.
Many poor people have never in their lives tasted the dishes that the aristocrats devoured almost daily.
The main and vital product was, of course, grain, from which bread was baked and porridge was cooked. Among many types of cereals, buckwheat was also popular, now almost forgotten in Germany. Bread was eaten in huge quantities - up to a kilogram per day per person. The less money there was, the more bread in the diet.
The bread was also different. White and barley bread was intended for the rich, artisans ate oat bread, peasants were content with rye bread. For reasons of austerity, monks were not allowed to eat wheat bread; in exceptional cases, the content of wheat in flour should not exceed a third. In difficult times, roots were used for baking: radish, onion, horseradish and parsley.
In the Middle Ages, they ate relatively few vegetables: only in spring and summer. Basically, these were cabbage, peas, garlic, onions, celery, beets and even dandelions. They especially loved onions, which were considered useful for potency. It must be served at any holiday. Salads began to be made in Germany only in the 15th century; vegetable oils, vinegar and spices were brought from Italy as delicacies.
The cultivation of vegetables also began relatively late, for a long time only monks were engaged in this. Apples, pears, plums, nuts, grapes, strawberries began to enter the menu only in the late Middle Ages. However, eating raw vegetables and fruits was considered unhealthy. To avoid pain in the abdomen, they were first boiled for a long time, stewed and richly flavored with vinegar and spices, while raw juice caused, according to a medieval person, a disease of the spleen.
As for meat, it was eaten quite often, but game (and the right to hunt) was the privilege of the nobility. However, ravens, eagles, beavers, and ground squirrels were also considered game. Peasants and artisans ate beef, pork, lamb, chicken and horse meat. Meat dishes were served with sauces, for which there were a huge number of recipes. Especially popular was the "green sauce" of plants, spices and vinegar. Only on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday I should have given up meat. The quality of the meat that was imported into the city was strictly controlled.
Spices were the most important ingredient in medieval cuisine. They were added not only to food, but even to beer and wine. Poorer people used local spices: dill, parsley, green onions, fennel, rosemary, mint. The rich allowed themselves goods from the east: pepper, nutmeg, cardamom, saffron. The prices for such spices were very high. For example, one nutmeg sometimes cost as much as seven fat bulls. Healing qualities were also attributed to spices.
From the 14th century, raisins and dates, rice and figs began to be brought from the east. No trade was as profitable as trade in goods from distant countries. Of course, the poor could not afford these exotic products. Fortunately, the favorite seasoning of the Middle Ages - mustard - was enough at home. In addition, merchants often cheated: for example, they mixed black pepper with mouse excrement, wild berries and grain. A case is known when a Nuremberg merchant had his eyes gouged out for counterfeiting saffron. But rich people had to buy spices to maintain their status. No wonder the proverb of that time said: the spicier the food, the richer the owner.
A woman carries water from a well. Tacuinum sanitatis, 15th century.
But the choice of sweets was quite small. To put it bluntly, the only sweetness was honey, and it was expensive. I had to make do with dried fruit. Sugar appeared in Germany only in the late Middle Ages, although in Asia it has long been eaten. Marzipans were considered a delicacy, they were sold in pharmacies.
Spicy food, dried meat, salted fish - all this caused intense thirst. And although milk satisfied her, people preferred beer and wine. Raw water from rivers and wells was undrinkable, it was boiled with honey or boiled with wine.
Sale of sugar. Tacuinum sanitatis, 15th century.
Beer is one of the most ancient drinks. In the 8th century, only monasteries and churches received the right to brew beer. The most popular was wheat and oat beer. Spices, herbs and even spruce cones were added to some varieties. Gagelbier beer, especially loved in the north of Germany, was an integral ingredient in the wax plant, the use of which could lead to blindness and even death, but this beer was banned only in the 18th century.
In 1516, the variety of varieties was finished. In Germany, a law on the purity of beer was introduced everywhere, which is valid to this day (by the way, in Nuremberg such a law was adopted as much as 200 years earlier).
Publication date: 07.07.2013The Middle Ages originate from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 and end around the 15th - 17th centuries. The Middle Ages are characterized by two opposite stereotypes. Some believe that this is the time of noble knights and romantic stories. Others believe that this is a time of disease, dirt and immorality...
Story
The very term "Middle Ages" was first introduced in 1453 by the Italian humanist Flavio Biondo. Prior to this, the term "dark ages" was used, which at the moment denotes a narrower segment of the time period of the Middle Ages (VI-VIII centuries). This term was introduced into circulation by the professor of the Gallic University Christopher Cellarius (Keller). This person also shared world history for antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times.
It is worth making a reservation, saying that this article will focus specifically on the European Middle Ages.
This period is characterized by a feudal system of land use, when there was a feudal landowner and a peasant who was half dependent on him. Also characteristic:
- a hierarchical system of relations between feudal lords, which consisted in the personal dependence of some feudal lords (vassals) on others (seigneurs);
- the key role of the church, both in religion and in politics (inquisitions, church courts);
- ideals of chivalry;
- the heyday of medieval architecture - Gothic (including in art).
In the period from the X to the XII centuries. the population is increasing European countries which leads to changes in the social, political and other spheres of life. Starting from the XII - XIII centuries. in Europe there has been a sharp rise in the development of technology. More inventions were made in a century than in the previous thousand years. During the Middle Ages, cities develop and grow rich, culture is actively developing.
With the exception of Eastern Europe, which was invaded by the Mongols. Many states of this region were plundered and enslaved.
Life and life
The people of the Middle Ages were highly dependent on weather conditions. So, for example, the great famine (1315 - 1317), which happened due to unusually cold and rainy years that ruined the harvest. As well as plague epidemics. It was the climatic conditions that largely determined the way of life and the type of activity of medieval man.
During the period early medieval a very large part of Europe was covered with forests. Therefore, the economy of the peasants, in addition to agriculture, was largely oriented towards forest resources. Herds of cattle were driven into the forest to graze. In oak forests, pigs gained fat by eating acorns, thanks to which the peasant received a guaranteed supply of meat food for the winter. The forest served as a source of firewood for heating and, thanks to it, charcoal was made. He added variety to the food of a medieval person, because. all kinds of berries and mushrooms grew in it, and it was possible to hunt outlandish game in it. The forest was the source of the only sweet of that time - the honey of wild bees. Resins could be collected from trees to make torches. Thanks to hunting, it was possible not only to feed, but also to dress up, the skins of animals were used for sewing clothes and for other household purposes. In the forest, in the glades, it was possible to collect medicinal plants, the only medicines that time. The bark of trees was used to mend animal skins, and the ashes of burnt bushes were used to bleach fabrics.
As well as climatic conditions, the landscape determined the main occupation of people: cattle breeding prevailed in the mountainous regions, and agriculture prevailed in the plains.
All the troubles of a medieval person (diseases, bloody wars, famine) led to the fact that the average life expectancy was 22 - 32 years. Few survived until the age of 70.
The way of life of a medieval person depended largely on his habitat, but at the same time, people of that time were quite mobile, and, one might say, were constantly on the move. At first, these were echoes of the great migration of peoples. Subsequently, other reasons pushed people on the road. Peasants moved along the roads of Europe, singly and in groups, looking for a better life; "knights" - in search of exploits and beautiful ladies; monks - moving from monastery to monastery; pilgrims and all kinds of beggars and vagabonds.
Only over time, when the peasants acquired certain property, and the feudal lords acquired large lands, then cities began to grow and at that time (approximately the 14th century) Europeans became “homebodies”.
If we talk about housing, about the houses in which medieval people lived, then most of the buildings did not have private rooms. People slept, ate and cooked in the same room. Only over time, wealthy citizens began to separate the bedroom from the kitchens and dining rooms.
Peasant houses were built of wood, in some places preference was given to stone. Roofs were thatched or reeds. There was very little furniture. Mostly chests for storing clothes and tables. Slept on benches or beds. The bed was a hayloft or a mattress stuffed with straw.
Houses were heated by hearths or fireplaces. Furnaces appeared only at the beginning of the XIV century, when they were borrowed from the northern peoples and Slavs. The dwellings were lit with tallow candles and oil lamps. Expensive wax candles could only be purchased by rich people.
Food
Most Europeans ate very modestly. They usually ate twice a day: in the morning and in the evening. Everyday food was rye bread, cereals, legumes, turnips, cabbage, grain soup with garlic or onions. Little meat was consumed. Moreover, during the year there were 166 days of fasting, when meat dishes were forbidden to be eaten. Fish was much more in the diet. Of the sweets, there was only honey. Sugar came to Europe from the East in the 13th century. and was very expensive.
In medieval Europe they drank a lot: in the south - wine, in the north - beer. Herbs were brewed instead of tea.
The dishes of most Europeans are bowls, mugs, etc. were very simple, made of clay or tin. Products made of silver or gold were used only by the nobility. There were no forks; they ate with spoons at the table. Pieces of meat were cut off with a knife and eaten with the hands. The peasants ate food from one bowl with the whole family. At the feasts of the nobility, they put one bowl and a goblet for wine on two. The bones were thrown under the table, and the hands were wiped with a tablecloth.
clothing
As for clothing, it was largely unified. Unlike antiquity, the church considered the glorification of the beauty of the human body to be sinful and insisted that it be covered with clothes. Only by the XII century. the first signs of fashion began to appear.
The change in clothing style reflected the then social preferences. The opportunity to follow the fashion had mainly representatives of the wealthy strata.
The peasant usually wore a linen shirt and pants to the knees or even to the ankles. The outer garment was a cloak, tied at the shoulders with a clasp (fibula). In winter, they wore either a roughly combed sheepskin coat or a warm cape made of dense fabric or fur. Clothing reflected a person's place in society. The attire of the wealthy was dominated by bright colors, cotton and silk fabrics. The poor were content with dark clothes made of coarse homespun cloth. Shoes for men and women were leather pointed boots without hard soles. Hats originated in the 13th century. and have changed continuously since then. Habitual gloves acquired importance during the Middle Ages. Shaking hands in them was considered an insult, and throwing a glove to someone was a sign of contempt and a challenge to a duel.
The nobility liked to add various decorations to their clothes. Men and women wore rings, bracelets, belts, chains. Very often, these things were unique pieces of jewelry. For the poor, all this was unattainable. Wealthy women spent considerable money on cosmetics and perfumes, which were brought by merchants from eastern countries.
stereotypes
As a rule, certain ideas about something are rooted in the public mind. And ideas about the Middle Ages are no exception. First of all, it concerns chivalry. Sometimes there is an opinion that the knights were uneducated, stupid dorks. But was it really so? This statement is too categorical. As in any community, representatives of the same class could be completely different people. For example, Charlemagne built schools, knew several languages. Richard the Lionheart, considered a typical representative of chivalry, wrote poems in two languages. Karl the Bold, who is often described in literature as a kind of boor-macho, knew Latin very well and loved to read ancient authors. Francis I patronized Benvenuto Cellini and Leonardo da Vinci. The polygamist Henry VIII knew four languages, played the lute and loved the theatre. Should the list continue? These were all sovereigns, models for their subjects. They were guided by them, they were imitated, and those who could knock the enemy off his horse and an ode to beautiful lady write.
Regarding the same ladies, or wives. There is an opinion that women were treated as property. And again, it all depends on how the husband was. For example, Senor Etienne II de Blois was married to a certain Adele of Normandy, daughter of William the Conqueror. Etienne, as it was then customary for a Christian, went on crusades, and his wife remained at home. It would seem that there is nothing special in all this, but Etienne's letters to Adele have survived to our time. Tender, passionate, yearning. This is evidence and an indicator of how a medieval knight could treat his own wife. You can also remember Edward I, who was killed by the death of his beloved wife. Or, for example, Louis XII, who, after the wedding, from the first debauchee of France turned into a faithful husband.
Speaking about the cleanliness and level of pollution of medieval cities, they also often go too far. To the extent that they claim that human waste in London merged into the Thames, as a result of which it was a continuous stream of sewage. Firstly, the Thames is not the smallest river, and secondly, in medieval London, the number of inhabitants was about 50 thousand. So they simply could not pollute the river in this way.
The hygiene of medieval man was not as terrible as it seems to us. They are very fond of citing the example of Princess Isabella of Castile, who made a vow not to change linen until victory is won. And poor Isabella kept her word for three years. But this act of hers caused a great resonance in Europe, in honor of her it was even invented new color. But if you look at the statistics of soap production in the Middle Ages, you can understand that the statement that people did not wash for years is far from the truth. Otherwise, why would such an amount of soap be needed?
In the Middle Ages, there was no such need for frequent washing, as in modern world - environment was not as catastrophically polluted as it is now ... There was no industry, the food was without chemicals. Therefore, water, salts, and not all those chemicals that are full in the body of a modern person, were released with human sweat.
Another stereotype that has become entrenched in the public mind is that everyone stank terribly. Russian ambassadors at the French court complained in letters that the French "stink terribly." From which it was concluded that the French did not wash, stank and tried to drown out the smell with perfume. They really used spirits. But this is explained by the fact that in Russia it was not customary to suffocate strongly, while the French simply doused themselves with perfume. Therefore, for a Russian person, a Frenchman who smelled abundantly of spirits was "stinking like a wild beast."
In conclusion, we can say that the real Middle Ages was very different from the fairy-tale world of chivalric novels. But at the same time, some facts are largely distorted and exaggerated. I think the truth is, as always, somewhere in the middle. As always, people were different and they lived differently. Some things really seem wild compared to modern ones, but all this happened centuries ago, when mores were different and the level of development of that society could not afford more. Someday, for the historians of the future, we will also find ourselves in the role of a “medieval man”.
Recent tips from the History section:
Did this advice help you? You can help the project by donating any amount you want for its development. For example, 20 rubles. Or more:)
- Dignities and clothes of Orthodox priests and monasticism
- Healers and fortune tellers - why do people go to them?
- During confession. Preparation for confession. List of sins for confession. How to dress for confession
- Praise of the Most Holy Theotokos Praise of the Mother of God with an Akathist for what they pray