From this site-
These are somewhat hard to believe. Are these true?
Which one of these medieval factoids ISN’T true:
-
A popular amusement at 10 century county fairs was to nail a cat to a post by its tail, so it was good and mad. Then hunky young peasants would line up and ahve their hands tied behind their backs, and try to beat the cat to death against the post with their heads.
-
In Normandy in the 10th century, knights would go raiding the lands of opposing barons. If they found a peasant belonging to the other baron, they would cut off his hands and feet but not kill him, so that he would be useless to til the soil, but would be a mouth to feed.
-
Due to the exceedingly high infant mortality rates, some toddlers were kept in barrels until they were old enough to survive most childhood diseases and work usefully on the farm (about six) in hopes they would survive.
Three is the only lie. Medieval folk responded to high infant mortality by treating their kids coldly and distantly until they reached a certain age, since forming a warm emotional bond with them would make their very likely death in childhood all the more painful.
These factoids are from “1066: A Distant Mirror” by Barbara Tuchman.
Snopes.com again, IIRC
I rather like the idea of keeping children in barrels (some really need that) BUT, um, they would not be able to walk etc and would not be much use on the farm, I think.
Read the spoiler box. Number 3 was false.
Actually, those factoids come from the 14th century, not the 10th. The name of the book is “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century”. The book is about the Hundred Years War.
The one about Ethelred the unready, although not exactly appetising, does not seem particularly impossible. Sexual morals, though strongly governed by the church, weren’t upheld when the church didn’t happen to be looking (oldest story in the world, right?). The wedding night story does remind me of the “lord’s right”: in medieval times, when a knave got married, some lords reserved the right to consume the wedding night with the blushing bride. This may or may not have been a written law, but at least some lords strongly insisted on keeping it alive.
Ah, but just because they shared the bed, it didn’t meany anything was going on. Beds were rare in those days, so people would literally sleep together – for warmth and not for sex.
I’d take the factoid in the spoiler tag (sorry, I haven’t the foggiest idea how to quote a spoiler tag) with a grain of salt as well. We don’t know much about how medieval and early modern parents treated young children in practice; most of the documentary evidence about childrearing comes from prescriptive texts, which usually contained stern warnings against treating children with too much indulgence. Of course, the fact that the authors felt such warnings were necessary suggests that many parents were inclined not to follow them.
There are abundant records of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century parents expressing profound grief over the death of infants, and I’d be surprised if things were very different in the period Tuchman was writing about.
Back to the OP and #1. This would mean that 1/7 of all children born during those years would be put to death at birth. I think this might have be noticed. I would need exceptional proof of this claim before I put the slightest credence in it.
This isn’t strictly counter-evidence, but I notice that Medieval Times quotes another old chestnut - that the word “testimony” allegedly derives from Roman men holding their testicles to make an oath - which is notable for a) its widespread repetition on the Web, and b) invariable failure to produce a Roman citation for the practice.
Well now! I guess that explains why women werent allowed to testify in those days… or would they have called that titimony?
:rolleyes:
actually:
Main Entry: ** tes·ti·mo·ny **
Pronunciation: 'tes-t&-"mO-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin testimonium Decalogue, from Latin, evidence, witness, from testis witness – more at TESTAMENT
Date: 14th century
1 a (1) : the tablets inscribed with the Mosaic law (2) : the ark containing the tablets b : a divine decree attested in the Scriptures
2 a : firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE b : an outward sign c : a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
3 a : an open acknowledgment b : a public profession of religious experience
According to Snopes, this is false:
Well… live and learn.
Short Guy:
Checking Snopes is well and good, Caesar, but you should check the Master first, and you would thus confirm that Snopes got it right. Did medieval lords have “right of the first night” with the local brides?
No sweat, Short Guy, we’ve all been there, having cherished notions debunked.
What kind of name is C K Dexter Haven?
It was the name of Cary Grant’s character in The Philadelphia Story. http://us.imdb.com/Title?0032904
Haj
Besides, the whole thing’s an SCA site. It’s not like they’re known for their scholarship.
Well, I think Cicero in Ad herrenium, in order to illustrate his memory mansion idea, recommends that one trying to remember that a witness is involved in the scenario include a set of cow testicles in the image.
The Random House Word Maven of Testify/Testicles.
Regarding the OP, I have heard #2, before, but I have no idea how much accuracy I would ascribe to the story. As noted by RealityChuck, there are various possible explanations for it that are less lascivious, even if the story were true.
Regarding #1: As noted by Exapno Mapcase, someone is suggesting that 1/7 of all births ended in deliberate infanticide and that it somehow did not get remarked upon by the other peoples in surrounding lands? The Normans did not use that little tidbit as propaganda to show that they were “saving” England (as well establishing the “rightful” king)?
Beyond that, there are/were no “Anglo Saxons.” Anglo-Saxon is the single label applied to the dominant groups preceding the Norman conquest (since the Danes and Jutes and others were less successful at getting their names into the books). However, the Angles and the Saxons were distinct groups, so was this supposed to be an Angle practice or a Saxon practice (and why was it not recorded in the Germanic lands from which they originated).
(I am also leery of the Friday=unlucky connection, as I suspect that that is a later Christian development. And, while I do not know the exact chronology of this tale in relation to the naming of weekdays, it seems odd to kill children born on the day named to honor the goddess of Motherhood.)