#St. Charles Chronicle | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

une-sanz-pluis · 8 months

Note

What's the relationship between Henry V and his wife?

Hey, thank you for this question since it covers a topic I'd been wanting to talk about for awhile. Sorry it took so long to give you an answer. In my defence, I've had a lot on and I wrote a lot (a lot, like nearly 10,000 words a lot) in reply.

Unfortunately, we don't know an awful lot about Catherine de Valois's relationship with Henry V. This is largely because they were only married for just under 2 years and 3 months.* That brief a time tends to leave little evidence behind - it's also one of the reasons we know very little about Catherine's queenship. In spite of the lack of evidence, the relationship has been subject to much speculation, mythologising and (over)interpretation, and it can be hard to drill down through these layers to come to any kind of certainty about how they felt about each other.

There are three main interpretations of the marriage. The first is the romantic. This tends to work with the more romantic legends of both Henry and Catherine, and its roots lie in contemporary narratives, quite likely promoted by Henry himself. The second is that there was some kind of infatuation on Henry's behalf that was followed by disillusionment as he realised Catherine was not who or what he thought she was. The third interpretation argues that Henry was a cruel and abusive husband to Catherine.

I, personally, don't find any of these interpretations particularly convincing. The politics around the marriage suggest that we should be sceptical of the romantic, while the evidence of there being some kind of disillusionment or cruelty in the marriage is... pretty much non-existent; the evidence that is cited has to be heavily interpreted, with at least a pre-existing bias against Henry and/or Catherine in mind (if not a pre-conceived conclusion) to conclude that the marriage was unhappy.

I'm going to start with my own interpretation and then talk more in depth about these interpretations, debunking particular assertions said because there's a lot about them that annoy me.

Evidence, or something like it.

We have very little evidence of Henry or Catherine's personal lives at all and once we also factor in the limited evidence of their relationship, it gets very tricky to discuss this in any meaningful sense. Another issue is that their relationship was both personal and political. What might read as a personal gesture of love has to be understood as also existing in a public, political world. Being publicly seen as part of a functioning, loving marriage was advantageous to both Henry and Catherine's reputations and their rule, whatever they felt about each other privately, and unfortunately, it's the public face that largely survives. I'm going to discuss the public/political side of their marriage first and then turn to what little evidence there is to suggest at their private relationship.

A Partnership

Chroniclers in both England and France report romantic stories about Henry and Catherine. I'll discuss these more further below and the possibility of these being the result of some romantic gloss, but it's enough to say that the chronicles do uniformly give a similar view. The English king was in love and the French princess was beautiful (women very rarely get given any interiority in chronicle accounts). There are no reports of discontent between the couple, no complaints of mistreatment of one by the other.

It is easy to argue that the English chroniclers and those French chroniclers sympathetic to the English occupiers were unlikely to depict Henry V in a bad light but that would not explain the silence of chroniclers sympathetic to the then-Dauphin (the future Charles VII). We even have complaints of Henry's behaviour from French sources but these relate by claim that Charles VI and Isabeau of Bavaria were left to lodge at the Hôtel de St Pol in less grand estate than they were accustomed to while Henry and Catherine lodged at the Lourve in luxury and splendour. Jean de Waurin records:

And on this said day [Whitsun 1422] the King and Queen of England sat grandly and magnificently at table to dine, crowned with their precious diadems. There sat also at other tables in this hall the ecclesiastics, dukes, princes, barons, knights, and noble men, who were all honourably served, each one according to what belonged to his rank. So the king and queen that day held a court grand and rich beyond the French custom; and the people of Paris went in crowds to the castle of the Louvre to see the style and demeanour of the King and Queen of England holding open court and wearing crowns. On the other hand the King and Queen of France held their Court by themselves in their Hotel of St. Pol, but by no means so grandly or plentifully as they were accustomed to do in days gone by. .

I quoted it at length because it also gives a glimpse of how a French chronicler viewed Catherine at the time of her marriage, which as Henry's partner of equal standing (for as much as that was possible for a medieval queen-consort). This sense of partnership is also found in some of the surviving evidence: she received gifts alongside him, accompanied Henry on some ceremonial entries (the exceptions being when she made her own entry or when they made the ceremonial entry into Paris in 1420 where Henry entered with Charles VI and Catherine with Isabeau of Bavaria). It doesn't tell us much about the inner-workings of their relationship but it does tell us that, at least publicly, their marriage was not one where one spouse was drastically unequal to the other, but one where they were partners of equal standing.

As far as we can tell, Henry also gave Catherine the space to establish herself as queen. She was welcomed to England with pageantry that befitted her status and that centred her, not Henry, and took part in a ceremonial entry to Paris in 1422 where she was the centre. He was not present at her coronation - this has, perhaps unsurprisingly, been interpreted as Henry slighting her but it was custom for a king not to attend his wife's coronation unless they were being coronated together, so not to draw attention away from her. It's possible that the parts of their 1421 progress through England where they travelled separately served a similar purpose in allowing Catherine the opportunity to be centred as queen, though practicalities (such as the exorbitant costs of a combined household on progress, a frequent cause of complaint for other medieval kings) were undoubtedly at play too.

On a similar note, we have a letter from Henry seconding Catherine's request that her physician would have a benefice without cure. This isn't anything special or unusual but it does show that Catherine felt she could make these requests and Henry trusted her judgement enough to grant them. In the Calendar of Patent Rolls, we also find that he granted Catherine's confessor £20 yearly and that he pardoned Beatrice, Lady Talbot of a fine in part because of her good service to Catherine - which may suggest Catherine had interceded privately for her, or had spoken to Henry of her service.

Henry also named Catherine as one of the supervisors in his last will, written in June 1421. In the codicils added just days before his death in August 1422, he states:

we wish that our said consort after our death should live and reside with our most beloved son in his office

This, again, is fairly standard stuff since the children of medieval nobility tended to reside with their mother in the nursery until they were around 8 years old. But again, it does indicate that Henry saw Catherine as someone worthy of trust and that he wished for her to live with their son, where she might not be at the centre of the court during the minority, but would develop a close rapport with her son and quite possibly come to wield a great deal of influence as Henry matured and took on more responsibility. It also ensured her a continuing presence in the royal court. The chroniclers depicted Catherine as a prop to support the infant king, carrying him to parliament and so on, which does mean she was present on those occasions at, like Henry VI, at the symbolic centre of them. But this does not necessarily mean that was all she did. Queens were supposed to work behind the scenes.

Another piece of the puzzle may be the coupling of mottoes. At some point in 1420, a red cloth covering for the king's barge was embroidered with Henry's motto of une sanz pluis coupled with a second motto, humblement le requier ('I humbly request it') - this barge covering was said to have been for the "for the king and the queen", while the 1423 inventory of Henry's goods referred to a similar barge covering embroidered with the "mottoes of the king and queen". If they are the same barge covering, humblement le requier may be Catherine's motto or at least connected to her (Henry also had a tunic of white and blue satin embroidered with humblement le requier, which may have meant he was wearing clothes decorated with her motto or in his own motto referring to her). Malcolm Vale argues that these mottoes are a love dedication - a request by Catherine (she humbly requests Henry's fidelity), and Henry's answer (Catherine is Henry's "one" and there will be none other than her). It is likely, as Vale notes, that these are fairly conventional mottoes, gesturing towards courtly love rather than a heartfelt dedication but if Vale is correct in reading them as a "statement and response", they suggest that Henry and Catherine wanted their relationship to be seen as a partnership.

I also wonder if Catherine's motto of humblement le requier (if it was her motto) may have been a broader statement on her queenship, setting up her as an intercessor. We have very few indications of Catherine interceding to Henry - there is a story that she interceded with Henry for the release of James I of Scotland at her coronation feast but given Henry was not present, it's likely this story confused her role in James I's release during the minority of Henry VI - but the motto may be a suggestion that this was the role Henry wanted for his wife. My own gut feeling is that Henry intended to model his marriage with Catherine on that of Edward III's marriage to Philippa of Hainault, a famous intercessor and the woman who was seen as the paragon of medieval queenship.

Everything in this section is pretty typical queenly stuff. It can't tell us about Catherine and Henry's personal relationship but it does show that Catherine's queenship was conventional. There is nothing - nothing at all - that suggests her position was being undermined by Henry. Unless we wish to argue that medieval queenship was effectively a symbolic and utterly powerless role - and there's a whole bunch of queenship studies that says differently - Catherine was or at least intended to be a vital partner in Henry's kingship. That Henry did not live long enough for Catherine to get the chance to exercise this role long enough for a record of it to survive does not mean that she never played that role because he devalued her or refused to let her be a queen in more than name.

Personal Relationship.

There's very little surviving evidence of their personal relationship but there is some evidence that we can tease out that might tell us a bit more about their relationship.

One of these is that two harps were shipped from England to France in October 1420 for their use. This may have formed an entirely conventional gift, since playing musical instruments was a common hobby amongst the nobility. However, we know Henry had a particular interest in music himself - he'd played the harp since a child, purchased another new harp with a set of strings and a case in in September 1421, purchased bags to carry his own recorders and pipes/flutes and was possibly the "Roy Henry" who composed two mass movements. He was also part of a musical family - his mother may have composed music herself, as may his father (who is the other contender as the composer of the Roy Henry movements), while his brothers were patrons of noted composers of the era. So, the fact that two harps were shipped over for their use could indicate that they had a shared interest or Henry was attempting to share his interest with Catherine or introducing her to a hobby that his family prized. We know nothing about whether Catherine had an interest in music or what kind of interest she had to be more precise and of course it could just be a fairly conventional gift.

Another piece of evidence is Henry's will. In the original will, drawn up in June 1421, left Catherine a great deal of moveable goods. From his chapel and altar, he left her all the"gold, silver-gilt and silver treasures and all other ornaments", as well as vestments and books for 20 clerks that would serve Catherine after his death. He also left her all the beds, furnishings, vessels, instruments and possessions of his chamber and hall. He notes two indentures left that specifically detail the items he wishes specifically to be bequeathed to her and states:

we wish our aforesaid most beloved consort to have and enjoy all the aforesaid items bequeathed to her in this way if she should be happy to be satisfied with them as her interest and share of all our moveable goods that can come to her in any way after our demise. Otherwise our said executors should dispose of all the aforesaid items, thus bequeathed to our aforesaid consort, as is said above, as our other goods.

In other words, he's leaving her a lot of stuff, he's got stuff he wants her specifically to have but he's also giving her the freedom to pick and choose what she wants, and if she doesn't want them, they're to be dealt with like his other goods. (n.b. "our most beloved consort" was a standard term of address, it isn't necessarily a statement of his true feelings).

This paragraph also ends with this note:

Item, we bequeath to our same consort a golden cross of ours with a piece of the wood of the Holy Cross, now in her custody, which we were accustomed to wear.

Which suggests that he might have lent this relic to her - one that might have been important to him, given he states he was "accustomed" to wear it - and wishes that it belong to her now. It may have been a gesture of affection that he loaned the relic to her, or it may have been another conventional gift, perhaps given when he left England for France in June 1421, knowing she was pregnant.

Just four days before his death, Henry added codicils to his will. Most of these codicils is concerned with the future - making provisions for his son - but the first codicil concerns itself with more bequests for Catherine, this time fairly specific bequests, and the provision of her dower. While these may have been a fairly standard provision and may reflect Catherine's enhanced status following the birth of a son and heir, it also indicates that he was thinking of her. Interestingly, the fact that this is the first codicil may well indicate that he was thinking of her in his last days, regardless of the fact that she wasn't physically present.

None of this tell us a great deal about what Henry felt for Catherine. Because their lives were heavily politicised, it's impossible to know what was a gesture of genuine affection between the two and what was a politic action that showed the respect of a king for his queen. Determining which was the primary motivation for any of Henry's actions is an exercise in speculation led by our own feelings, not an exercise that finally reveals Henry's.

Catherine's perspective.

Thus far, I've spoken mainly about evidence that hints at Henry's feelings and actions towards his wife, not Catherine's. By and large, the main reason for this is that we simply don't have evidence for her perspective. This isn't unusual; as Ruth Mazo Karras points out, it's rare that the surviving historical evidences any woman's perspective on her marriage.

The closest thing we have to evidence is a letter Agnes Strickland mentions in Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest:

Early in the same spring [of 1422] Katherine wrote her warlike lord a most loving letter, declaring that she earnestly longed to behold him once more.

However, Strickland does not give a source for her letter and in Letters of the Queens of England, 1100-1547, Anne Crawford says that none of Catherine's letters are known to survive though she (nor anyone else) doesn't mention Strickland's citation of a letter. Having said that, Strickland is nowadays notorious for inventing "facts" about her subjects that are have no basis in truth. So I'm inclined to treat this letter as a bit of romantic fakery, whether by Strickland or by someone else.

Catherine did pay for Henry's tomb but this seems to have been a standard action for a widowed queen and we don't know whether she had any influence on the design and construction of the tomb. She was not buried beside Henry or in the same chapel, but in the Lady Chapel (her tomb was dismantled and her body exhumed in 1502, she is now interred in Henry's chantry chapel), which is very close to the chapel of St. Edward where Henry was buried. We don't know why she chose this burial location, or if she chose it at all.

Given her status as Henry V's widow and queen and the fact that she was footing the bill for his tomb, it seems likely that she had some opportunity to be buried beside him, but it wasn't taken up. It might not have been wholly her choice. There was limited space in St. Edward's chapel (Henry VI struggled to find space for his own tomb, which was never built) and there might have been political issues or propaganda at play. Depending on how quickly she had to make that decision, Catherine may have been considering an uncertain future where she might not remain in England (if her son was to achieve France, if she married a foreign lord). Alternatively, her second marriage may have meant that burial beside Henry was a denial of Owen and their children or, given the heights of Henry's reputation, was no longer something she (or others) felt she "deserved" following her re-marriage. We just don't know.

And that pretty much sums up Catherine's perspective: we just don't know what she felt about Henry.

Success or failure?

Politically and dynastically, I think we can say the marriage was successful - it produced an heir, it promised peace with France and Catherine appears to have been a popular and successful queen-consort in England. It is true that the peace with France never came to fruition or that the birth of more children could have safeguarded Henry VI's reign and the Lancastrian dynasty but... these issues were caused more by the marriage's end than by its actuality, and other factors were at play - not least Henry V's premature death.

Personally? We just don't know. The evidence isn't there. We don't know what Catherine felt about Henry, we know frustratingly very little about her. Henry's actions suggest that he was treating Catherine with the respect her station and status as his wife deserved, that he was using the tropes of courtly love to do so, but we have no idea whether this reflected anything of his own feelings for her.

The Romantic Fairy Tale

The romantic interpretation of their marriage tends to fit in with the more romantic legends of both Henry and Catherine; at its core it is quite simply a fairytale-type of story. He is a handsome warrior king who sweeps the beautiful French princess (most commonly the most beautiful woman in existence) off her feet, she falls instantly in love with the magnanimous conqueror.

It is true that chronicles have fostered a view that the relationship between Catherine and Henry was a romantic one, and this view is perhaps aided by William Shakespeare's depiction of their courtship in Henry V. Although some productions and a great deal of scholarship offer up much darker interpretation of their one scene, a lot of times it is presented as a romantic one - particularly in the filmed versions of the play. As big as a shadow as Shakespeare casts, Catherine's scenes in Henry V are ahistorical, appearing to be Shakespeare's inventions.

Chronicle accounts of Catherine and Henry's relationship need to be viewed with a good deal of cynicism. They could be written to promote certain messages or to flatter patrons (or potential patrons), dedicatees and/or desired readers. Titus Livius Frulovisi reports in the Vita Henrici Quinti that Henry fell in love with Catherine at their first meeting but as Katherine J. Lewis points out, the book was addressed to their son, Henry VI, and the story's inclusion may have been to please him. Frulovisi was also employed by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, Henry V's brother, and the Vita was intended to lionise Henry V, so these no doubt played a role in its depiction of Henry V's marriage to Catherine. Being a good husband was an ideal of kingship, since the king could be said to be metaphorically married to his kingdom and the way he was perceived to treat his wife could be seen as reflecting his ability to rule well.

There are similar stories of Henry V being greatly pleased when he receives a portrait of Catherine or becoming lovesick upon hearing the report of his ambassadors' meeting with her. In these stories, the moment of "instant love" comes before Henry ever meets her. Those particular stories could be said to be deploying the tropes of courtly romance to gloss over the fact that Henry's intention to marry Catherine was driven by much less emotive reasons. Given one of these stories is contained with the letter of a Venetian merchant who was trying to sell Henry a balas ruby (a red spinel), this may have even been a story deliberately publicised by Henry - perhaps with the intention of making himself look eager for marriage, perhaps to put pressure on the French.

Monstrelet tells us that Henry greeted Catherine "joyously, as if she were an angel of God" upon her arrival in Paris in May 1422. This might be a sign of personal affection for Catherine but there are other factors at play. Given his goals in France and her status as Charles VI's daughter, it'd be especially politic for Henry to greet Catherine affectionately. The fact that this was the first time they'd seen each other after the birth of their son may have also played a role in this greeting.

Henry V does seem to have been especially conscious of the ideals of kingship and trying to behave in line with them. As I've already indicated, his behaviour around Catherine - especially in public - may well have been intended to give the image of himself as a devoted suitor and husband. It doesn't necessarily mean that there was nothing but cold-blooded cynicism in his approach to Catherine but it's pretty clear that Henry had an acute understanding of his image and what was desired of him, and it would be short-sighted not to imagine that this understanding didn't play a role in his relationship with Catherine. The relationship between a king and queen was political just as much as - if not more than - it was personal.

There is little evidence that Henry was moved by any romantic impulse into fast-tracking his marriage to Catherine. During initial negotiations with the French, he asked for a dowry of 2 million crowns and rejected the French's counter of 800,000 crowns. His decision in 1420 to forgo a dowry for Catherine might have been a gesture of love or some other romantic feeling - or it might have been (and is, in my opinion, more likely) a shrewd political move, where Henry avoided taking a dowry that implied his inheritance of the French throne was through his marriage to Catherine rather than in his own right.

At the end of the day, too, they didn't marry because they fell desperately in love. They married for diplomatic reasons, for political reasons and for a peace treaty. It was the politically wise thing to do. It was, after all, a fairly standard marriage within the context of his own family and the medieval and early modern European monarchy. This doesn't mean it was a bad marriage or that there was no possibility of love. But it's not the reason they got married. We have very little evidence of their married life together to know whether any romance did develop.

Infatuation Followed By Disillusionment

This interpretation generally follows a particular narrative where the stories about Henry falling in love with Catherine at their first meeting are true but it's more of an infatuation or crush and as he gets to know Catherine better, he finds himself disillusioned by her and they become estranged. This might happen for a variety of reasons: a realisation that the Treaty of Troyes was not the win he thought it was, the realisation that while she's pretty, she's unintelligent, or the realisation that she's ruled by lust.

There is no real evidence for an estrangement. I believe it draws mainly on the idea that they spent about half of their marriage apart but, personally, I suspect that time was more of a reaction to the military situation in France following the Battle of Baugé and the fact that Catherine was pregnant for the first time (I'll discuss in much more detail below).

Catherine as the femme fatale and the Treaty of Troyes.

There have been reassessments of the Treaty of Troyes that argue far from the disastrous blow to France, put England at a disadvantage. The argument then follows that after Henry's rather slow realisation of this fact, he came to blame Catherine (...somehow) or at least distanced himself from her as a result. I'm... not entirely sure what logic Henry would have used since Catherine appears to have had no role in the actual negotiations and Henry was a 33-year-old man surrounded by the best people to advise him. Frankly, this interpretation seems to be heavily based on the misogynistic narrative of "a pretty young woman bamboozles an older man with her beauty in order to ensnare him in her evil trap otherwise he wouldn't have made such a stupid error" (we find a similar narrative with Margaret of Anjou and the surrender of Maine and Anjou). There are no indications that the Treaty of Troyes came to be viewed as an unfair bargain in England or that Catherine's reputation or relationships suffered as a result.

Catherine as a "dumb blonde".

This view is best surmised by novelist Anne O'Brien who describes historians' typical depiction of Catherine is the "archetypal ‘dumb blonde’", or Anne Crawford who claims:

Katherine had beauty to recommend her but neither the intelligence nor personality to captivate for long a man of Henry V's qualities.

There is no evidence that Catherine was lacking in intelligence, education or personality. Even if she was, she is still deserving of respect and personhood. The idea that Catherine was poorly educated comes from now-debunked claims that Isabeau of Bavaria neglected her children; most likely Catherine was educated to the standard for royal women and knew how to speak both French and English upon her marriage to Henry. It has been suggested that poems like John Lydgate's Temple of Glas and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight could be connected to Catherine, which could, in turn, make her the patron behind them. It's difficult to tell what the evidence to support this interpretation of Catherine is. Largely, it seems to insist on her lack of intelligence on the basis the misogynist claim that she was governed by lust and thus "unwise" and the belief that the absence of evidence on Catherine's life and personality tells us something meaningful about her personality. It does not. Absence of evidence isn't evidence, it is only an absence.

Catherine as a nymphomaniac.

Uncritically accepting the claim that Catherine was "unable to fully control her fleshly passions", this view is often an extension of the "dumb blonde" narrative wherein Henry eventually learns that Catherine is a hollow creature who cares only for lust and pleasure and is repulsed by her. The most extreme example I know of is Denise Giardina's novel, Good King Harry, where Henry first falls in love with Catherine only to discover that Catherine is the young and beautiful version of her monstrously oversexed and monstrous mother, Isabeau of Bavaria. Catherine is neither a virgin on her wedding night nor faithful to Henry, at one time even boasting that he didn't father Henry VI. Giardina's depiction is tied up in the incredibly misogynist depictions of Catherine as a slut or a nymphomaniac.

There is no evidence that Catherine was an adulteress. There were no contemporary claims that she committed adultery or that any of her children were bastards - even when we might imagine that it would be beneficial for these claims to be aired (i.e. if it was plausible that Henry VI wasn't Henry V's son, why didn't Richard, Duke of York claim that? Why didn't Richard III claim Edmund Tudor was a bastard when he was denigrating Henry VII's ancestry and falsely claiming Owen Tudor was a bastard?). The evidence for Catherine being a "slut" are basically a standard antifeminist smear by a chronicler that has been uncritically repeated. We know of only two sexual relationships she had - both of which were with men she married (and she was married to Owen Tudor), her second marriage was made years after being widowed in her early 20s. The view of her as "sluttish" because of her Tudor marriage may reflect moralistic outrage over the fact that Owen was Welsh and of much lower status than Catherine, as well as the possibility that the marriage was perceived as a "profound betrayal of Henry V's memory". There is no evidence that her relationship with Edmund Beaufort was sexual and the idea of Catherine marrying Beaufort may have even originated from the Beauforts, not Catherine. Even if she did have a sexual relationship with Beaufort (which we do not and cannot know), are we really saying that a woman having sex with three men, two of which were her husband and the other she almost married, over the course of a lifetime makes her a slut? Even if Catherine had sex with 58 trillion different people (which she very obviously didn't), we as modern commentators should do better that to uncritically repeat and confirm the misogynistic and slut shaming rhetoric of medieval and early modern writers.

But to come back to the question that this behaviour could have had on her marriage to Henry - well, we have no evidence of this. It is incredibly unlikely that she cuckolded him or had any affairs, and we have no evidence that Henry was repulsed by Catherine liking and wanting sex. It's possible, of course, that there was some kind of sexual incompatibility between them though we don't and can't know that. At the end of the day, there is no evidence to hang a theory on.

A "Cruel" Marriage?

The interpretation that the marriage was a cruel one. Typically, this is hand-in-hand with the revisionist interpretations of Henry (cf. Ian Mortimer, Keith Dockray, A. J. Pollard) that see him as a warmongerer and the worst of the late medieval English kings, utterly unredeemable. This interpretation most commonly features an cold and brutal Henry, often a marital rapist, abusive, neglectful or just not interested in Catherine beyond the getting of heirs.

There is no real evidence that the marriage was an unhappy one, that Henry raped, abused, neglected or otherwise mistreated Catherine. I am aware in saying this, I am making it sound like evidence of any of this would have naturally existed and survived to be picked over; I don't believe this to be the case. Abuse often occurs in secrecy and silence and it is perhaps to be expected that any evidence of historical cases of abuse would be limited and fragmentary, if it survived or even if it existed in the first place. But an absence of evidence is still an absence of evidence. It's not proof, it doesn't provide any support for a theory.

In view of the absence of this evidence, the arguments that the marriage was unhappy or cruel largely heavily interpret (if not over interpret) the few facts of their marriage that we can talk about. These are:

That they spent about half of their marriage apart

Catherine did not attend Henry V's deathbed

The marriage was political and/or the result of a peace treaty.

General unsupported assumptions of their personalities

Catherine was "very young" at their marriage

It took them a while to conceive a child.

But almost all begin with the argument that Shakespeare's depiction of Henry and Catherine in Henry V was unquestionably a romantic one and that Shakespeare (as he always does) has muddied the waters, ensuring that we cannot perceive the truth. To be entirely blunt, if one dips their toe into the scholarship on Shakespeare's Catherine, one very quickly finds that Shakespeare's depiction is far more complicated with its view on Catherine and her relationship with Henry.

They spent about half their marriage apart.

This is usually marshalled into an argument about there being some incompatibility or dislike between the two. That if Henry had really cared for Catherine, he would have been at her side at all times, or at least spent less time away from her (see above for the idea that there was an estrangement).

The extreme brevity of their marriage and the paucity of evidence of their lives makes the time spent apart very difficult to assess clearly. The statistic of "half their marriage was spent apart" seems like a cold, hard fact but we are talking about a marriage that lasted just over two years. We have no idea whether that statistic would have remained the same had Henry V not died in August 1422 and their marriage lasted for longer, or whether that statistic would be the same if England and France had been at peace. Medieval kings and queens often spent time apart - at times, they were even criticised for spending time together because it cost more money to maintain the two separate households as one.

What we do know, however, is that the lengthiest time Catherine and Henry spent apart - from June 1421 to May 1422; a little less than a year - was impacted by two major developments. The Battle of Baugé (22 March 1421) was the first English defeat in France since the hostilities had reignited in 1415 and it was there that Henry's brother and heir, Thomas, Duke of Clarence, died. Clarence was a major commander in Henry's campaigns; the impact of his loss cannot be understated. In addition to any personal grief Henry felt at Clarence's loss (who was the brother he spent most of his childhood with), it is likely that Henry believed that his presence was needed in France, that he needed to step up to cover the loss of Clarence and ensure the fallout of their military defeat was minimal. Given that chronicle accounts depict Henry as trying to attend to military matters despite being ill (an action that quite possibly led to his own death), this seems like a fairly solid bit of speculation. If he was unsparing of his own physical health, even when near death, the idea that he only went on campaign to be cruel to his wife doesn't really stack up. He believed his presence was necessary and went.

The second major development was Catherine's pregnancy. Ironically, Henry VI was probably conceived around the same time as the Battle of Baugé was being fought and it is likely that Henry knew Catherine was pregnant when he returned to France. While queens did sometimes accompany their husbands on campaigns, it is possible that, this being Catherine's first pregnancy and in the uncertain atmosphere after Clarence's death, it was considered too risky for Catherine to return to France with Henry. Henry's time in France was marked by attending sieges, where disease was rife and would risks to the health of both Catherine and their unborn child. Given English concerns that the Treaty of Troyes would undermine English independence, it may have also been considered politically expedient that their first child was born in England, rather than in France (one French chronicle claims Catherine did accompany Henry into France but was sent back to England upon the discovery that she was six months' pregnant). Another possible factor here is how Catherine experienced her pregnancy - she may have had a difficult time with it and the idea of travelling to France utterly unappealing or deemed unwise.

This separation could be said to make up the bulk of their time spent apart and we have two major developments that may have impacted on it. Henry likely felt his continuous presence in France was necessary after Clarence's loss, Catherine may have remained in England for a variety of reasons, not all controllable. Yes, one of those reasons could possibly be a dislike of one spouse by the other or a mutual dislike but it could just have easily been an external factor (and I think the latter more likely, given the lack of contemporary comment). We don't and can't know.

Catherine did not attend Henry's deathbed.

There are a few things to note about this. Firstly, there may have been a fear of contagion. We don't know exactly what Henry died of** to know whether contagion was a valid fear or not, but it's possible it was. Catherine's absence may well have been designed to protect her from illness and death. Secondly, Henry's health seems to have deteriorated rather quickly. John, Duke of Bedford - Henry's brother - was summoned to Henry's deathbed late and "found him worse than he had been told". It is possible that it was not thought Henry was in great danger until it was too late.

Thirdly, less than two months after Henry's death, Charles VI also died. His death seems to have been expected. Catherine was staying with Charles in August 1422 and it's possible that she was there not just because Henry was meant to be on campaign but to attend her father's deathbed. In other words, Catherine (or those around her) may have had to choose between being with her father or husband for their death. And if Henry deteriorated quickly, that choice was may have been made for her. (It may have also been in response to the criticisms of how Charles and Isabeau had been treated, cited earlier).

Fourthly, Henry was sick and dying. Although he's typically discussed as being rational and clear-minded to the very end, he may not have been lucid. David Rundle notes that one of the codicils added to Henry's will while he was dying was "hardly grammatical" and suggests that Henry was "less than lucid". Commonly suggested ailments such as dysentery, dehydration and/or heatstroke could made him feverish and delirious. In other words, he may not have been in a sound mind to summon Catherine or for the lack of summons to be a deliberate slight against her.

And to underscore that point, Henry was dying. To me, when someone is dying, they get to choose, free from recriminations, who they want at their deathbed. We don't have access to Henry's emotions to know his specific motivations, we could just as easily argue that he didn't want Catherine there because he didn't want her to see him to die or in the state he was in. We have the exact same evidence for both. Regardless, Catherine was fit and healthy and Henry was literally dying.

Finally, Katherine J. Lewis makes the point when discussing Catherine's presence at Henry VI's French coronation that while contemporary accounts make no reference to her presence, administrative records place her with Henry VI on the coronation expedition:

It has been argued that she did not accompany Henry [VI] to France, yet while she is not mentioned in chronicles, administrative records indicate that she was with Henry in Rouen at least, if not at the French coronation itself. This is a reminder that Katherine’s absence from narrative sources should not be taken as evidence that she was no longer important.

Perhaps her absence from chronicle accounts of Henry's death do not necessarily mean she was not important or not present at the actual event? It may be worth noting that one of Henry V's biographers, John Strecche, claimed Catherine was present (however, Monstrelet claims she was kept ignorant of Henry's death for some time after).

The marriage was political and/or the result of a peace treaty.

Pretty much every royal medieval marriage was political and quite a few of them were in attempt to put an end to hostilities between nations or hostilities. Yes, Catherine and Henry's marriage was this in this category. It was normal and expected for them. Catherine had first been the subject of marriage negotiations when she was two years old. All of her siblings had married for politics except those who tied very young and Marie, who became a nun.

It doesn't make the marriage automatically cruel or destined to be unhappy. Most couples ended up in a relationship that was workable. Some of the more celebrated loving marriages in the history of English monarchs were political matches to begin with (e.g. Richard II and Anne of Bohemia) and even matches designed to end hostilities (e.g. Henry VII and Elizabeth of York). It is entirely possible that Catherine and Henry could have had a loving, affectionate marriage along those lines.

The idea that there was some family tradition in the Plantagenet royal family about marrying only for love and that Henry callously spat on this tradition, as Ian Mortimer has suggested, is nonsense. Edward III did not marry for love; he married so his mother could get an army to depose his father. If he got to choose his bride from the daughters of his mother's ally, his choice was between a girl close to his own age or a toddler. Richard II did not marry for love, he married as part of a political alliance - and these marriages did, in fact, become loving, or at least strongly affectionate. Henry IV had likely met Joan of Navarre once or twice when he married her. Historians have suggested that some of the "love matches" in the Plantagenet family (e.g. Joan of Kent and Edward of Woodstock, Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt, Joan of Navarre and Henry IV) may have been had more pragmatic reasoning behind them.

The main arguments for the "arranged marriage" showing Henry's disregard for Catherine are:

the unrealistic demand of 2 million crowns for her dowry and his refusal to countenance Charles VI's counter-offer

that there were other brides he had negotiated marriage with.

Honestly... both are all pretty standard features of marriage negotiations. The marriages of medieval royalty weren't really about them as individuals; it was about getting the best deal. They were about the country, about the political, the financial and the territorial. Henry's unrealistic demand for 2 million crowns as a dowry probably reflected his lack of interest in peace at the time (it should be noted, as Anne Curry does, France also showed a similar lack of interest).

As far as Henry's potential other brides... again, standard. Chaucer's Parlement of Foules has been argued to represent the many suitors vying for Anne of Bohemia's hand; other brides were also considered for her eventual husband. It didn't mean they thought any less of each other. It is not... really true, either, as Ian Mortimer and the novelist Anne O'Brien have claimed, that Henry considered marriage to two of Catherine's sisters before settling on Catherine. That's actually incredibly disingenuous - Henry had been suggested as a prospective husband for both Michelle de Valois and Isabelle de Valois but these matches had been raised by Richard II in 1395, when Henry was 9, and Henry IV in 1400, when Henry was 13, respectively. Henry V had nothing to do with these negotiations beyond the being the subject of them. Possibly, he was more involved in the negotiations for a marriage between himself and an unnamed daughter of Charles VI in 1408, but we don't know this for sure. By the time Henry V acceded in 1413 and gained total control over his own marriage, Catherine had been the subject of marriage negotiations with France since 1409. Nor does Henry's attempt at negotiating marriage between himself and a daughter of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, in 1411 suggest any real disrespect for Catherine; it was simply standard practice.

Personalities.

Another argument that their marriage was a cruel or unhappy one is generally the argument that they possessed certain personalities that were incompatible. Needless to say, the view of Henry as an abusive or cold husband is often tied to the revisionist view of him that tend to read him as monstrous. There isn't the space to go into my feelings about these reassessments but to me, these arguments run to extremes and never come to grips of why Henry was so beloved beyond complaining about "luck" and "Lancastrian propaganda".

We know very little about Henry's personality; very little of his private/personal life survives. We know even less about Catherine's. What we think we know about Catherine's personality comes from the myths about her relationship with Owen Tudor, the posthumous attacks on her as oversexed, and the supposition that her absence from the historical record tells us something important about her personality. None of these are reliable sources; the latter tells us more about the assumptions and biases of historians than they do Catherine. An absence of evidence is just that - an absence - not evidence itself.

(For more about the problems in determining personality in late medieval figures, see the first section in my post on Margaret of Anjou)

The most recent development of this supposed incompatibility is the idea of incompatible sexualities, where Henry is "something of a prig" (or a prude or a misogynist) because he apparently gave up sex with women after his accession to the throne and Catherine was "rather jolly", as Lisa Hilton puts it, because of all those marvellous myths about how she hooked up with Owen Tudor. In both cases, they show the difference between medieval/early modern and modern attitudes towards sex. From a medieval and early modern perspective, a chaste king was a good king as it reflected their capacity for restraint and ability to rule not only their body, but the realm (see here and here), while female sexuality was always suspect. We have very little evidence of their sex life, either together or with other partners. It's possible there was some incompatibility - but there's no real evidence of it and this narrative relies on criticising Henry for living up to contemporary ideals and praising Catherine for the contemporary and historiographical reports of her behaviour that are awash with misogyny and slut-shaming.

Catherine was "very young" at their marriage.

Catherine was born 27 October 1401, meaning she was 18 years old when she married Henry on 2 June 1420. This might seem young to modern eyes - "barely an adult" - but that's to modern eyes, not medieval. 12 was the minimum age of consent for marriage in canonical law though this was not necessarily the age at which most women married or when their marriage was consummated (most waited until later). The evidence suggests that most women married in their late teens or early twenties, though women of the gentry and nobility typically married in their teens or below canonical age - and for these women, that consummation was often delayed to their mid-to-late teens. For a comparative statistic in Catherine's own social class, the average age for the first marriage for English princesses from Edward I to Henry VII was 16.65 according to Kim Philips.

Catherine's age, then, was entirely average for her sex and even a little later than her class and later still within her family. Comparing her to her female relatives shows that Catherine was actually older at her wedding than all but four of her relatives.*** The age at which Catherine gave birth - 20 - was also unexceptional and a far cry from her sister-in-law, Blanche, who gave birth when she was 14 or her daughter-in-law, Margaret Beaufort, who gave birth when she was just 13.

The alarm bells Ian Mortimer rings at the idea of the "pubescent" Catherine marrying Henry is also... incredibly disingenuous. The appeal of her as a bride was not her age but her connections and status as the last unmarried daughter of Charles VI. Judging a marriage on an alternate history is not history or even an argument. It doesn't tell us what actually happened or even what would have happened had this alternate history really taken place. It's true that Catherine was 8 when a marriage with her was first posed in Henry IV's reign and in her pre- and early teens when marriage negotiations appear to have been seriously considered. But she didn't marry Henry then, she married him when she was 18. She was an adult. Even by modern standards, she was an adult.

It is true, too, that Henry V, born 16 September 1386, was 33 and thus 15 years Catherine's senior. This sort of age gap is unexceptional for their own time, particularly because Catherine was an adult when they got married. And, as I've said, we have very little evidence of their relationship to know what role this this age gap played in their marriage, whether Henry was truly a domineering partner as Anne O'Brien claimed.

It took awhile for them to conceive a child.

This one truly boggles the mind.

Henry VI was born on 6 December 1421, which means he was probably conceived in mid-March (possible dates are March 12, 1421 - March 22, 1421). This was around 10 months after Henry V and Catherine had married. We don't know why it took them 10 months to conceive so to presume it tells us something about their relationship or even their sex life is a very limited perspective. Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester never conceived a child with his second wife despite being very into her and very into sex.

There are many reasons why that ten month gap could have occurred. One of the reasons may well be that Henry didn't want to spend any time with Catherine and was snubbing her, though we have no supporting evidence or this. Another reason might be that Catherine did a conceive a child earlier but had a miscarriage. There's no evidence of this, true, but we have very little evidence of specific occurrences of miscarriage. Another reason may be that Catherine and Henry were taking the time to ease into their relationship before they had sex. One or both of them may have had subfertility problems (it might be telling that Catherine only had 3 or 4 children with Owen Tudor, despite being with him for around 10 years, or that in spite of the stories of Henry's wild youth, there are no known illegitimate children for him). And, quite simply, sometimes it can just take that long to conceive a child without there being a particular reason behind it.

We don't know anything about Catherine and Henry's sex life, (obviously; we know precious little about them). But interestingly, those dates for Henry VI's conception? They fall in Lent and a good medieval Catholic wasn't supposed to have sex at all in Lent. If either Henry or Catherine wanted to avoid having sex with each other, they had the perfect excuse to avoid it. This doesn't necessarily mean that they were in love or that they sexually desired one another; there may well have been more pragmatic motivations at play (the desire for an heir, for one). It does tell us, though, that they had sex at a time when one or both of them could have had the perfect reason to opt-out and didn't take it. Perhaps they didn't find each other as repellent as some historians, novelists and commentators think they did.

And, really, I don't think Henry could win the "not an evil abuser" prize with this kind of logic. If Catherine had gotten pregnant immediately after their marriage, it'd be proof Henry saw her as his "broodmare" and cared nothing for her beyond the getting of sons. Instead, the delay in conceiving a child is proof of his disregard of her. It's not really about the evidence, it's about taking a preconceived idea and looking for evidence to support it, even when the evidence could have multiple meanings. I could easily spin both potentials as proof of romance.

What was it like, really?

In some ways, I want to answer this with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ We just don't know, the evidence isn't there. I know, I know, I took 10,000 words to say "who knows lol".

Their marriage was absolutely a standard medieval royal marriage. It was arranged and political, like the vast majority of medieval royal marriages, and like a not insignificant portion of marriages in the nobility, it was intended to bring an end to (or at least respite from) hostilities. There was nothing particularly nefarious in the idea, anymore than there was for Edward I and Marguerite of France, Edward II and Isabella of France, Henry Vi and Margaret of Anjou, and Henry VII and Elizabeth of York.

What limited evidence for their relationship shows that Henry V treated Catherine with respect and care. It doesn't necessarily mean he loved her or even that he particularly liked her - at the very least, he was aware of that, as his wife and queen, she was due these things and ensured she got them. That doesn't mean he couldn't have liked her, or even loved her, just that a royal marriage was both a political and personal relationship and it's impossible to determine, at this great distance, with the limited surviving evidence, just what was politics and what was personal.

Very likely, he was also aware of the way that his behaviour towards Catherine would impact his public image. Whatever his faults, Henry V was incredibly skilled at public relations. He was adept at giving his people what they wanted, at being their perfect king - and likely knew that he needed to be (seen to be) a good husband to maintain that image. And he wasn't stupid. Catherine was the daughter of Charles VI "le Bien-Aimé"; she was in, a way, France in a way that Henry could never to be. Regardless of what he actually felt for Catherine, he knew that if he wanted to be accepted as regent and later king of France, he could hardly mistreat Catherine. Her mistreatment could easily become a public scandal and a focal point for dissatisfaction - disastrous for an usurper.

We'll never know whether his treatment of Catherine was solely inspired by good politics and image; he may have very well cared for her in her own right. Or he might not. But I really don't see that he would have been callous, abusive or neglectful of her. There is no hint of it in the historical records and it would have been disastrous for his goals in France.

We don't know how Catherine felt about Henry. We have so little evidence about Catherine's life that anything could be true and any claims as to "what she was really like" are disingenuous, whether they're arguing for her victimhood or her love affair or her failure to be the true equal of the "great man" she married.

It speaks to the way that Catherine has primarily been seen as a romantic object that everything in her adult life must be explained by a romantic or emotive relationship instead of seeing her as a woman who was at the centre of the political sphere and who had more in life than romance, sex and men. We don't know that she loved Henry or that he loved her; we don't know that she expected or wanted that from her marriage. But in accepting that, we have no reason to assume that therefore, the marriage was doomed her to deep unhappiness and a cruel husband.

In short, I think their marriage was a standard marriage rather than uniquely cruel. I do not think it was abusive. I think it was respectful and that Henry saw Catherine as his partner. I think their relationship was more likely to have been companionable than antagonistic. I don't think it was romantic, though I can't say we can rule out the possibility that love might have (or could have had) entered into it once they got to know each other.

* They married on 2 June 1420 and Henry died in the very early morning of 31 August 1422. This comes out to 2 years, 2 months and 29 days, not counting 31 August 1422.

** The main consensus on Henry V's death is some kind of gastrointestinal illness, most commonly given as dysentery though it's unlikely to be a single dysentery infection, acquired in December 1421, that killed him. For more detail, see this post.

*** Catherine's mother, Isabeau of Bavaria, was around 15 when she married Charles VI. Of the sisters who married, Isabelle had been just shy of her 7th birthday, Jeanne 4 and Michelle 16. Of Catherine's French sisters-in-law, Margaret of Nevers was 9, Jacqueline of Hainault 14 and Marie of Anjou was 18. Of Catherine's mothers-in-law, Mary de Bohun was probably 10, Joan of Navarre 18. Of Catherine's English sisters-in-law Blanche and Philippa of England were 10 and 12 years old respectively. Of the wives of Catherine's English brothers-in-law, Anne of Burgundy was 19, Jacquetta of Luxembourg was 17, Jacqueline of Hainault 14, Eleanor Cobham around 28 and Margaret Holland around 12. Of Catherine's daughters-in-law (it is not certain that she had a daughter herself and if she did, there is no evidence this daughter ever married), Margaret of Anjou was 15, Margaret Beaufort was 1 or 3 (12 when she married Edmund Tudor), and Katherine Woodville 7 years old or under. In the cases where the marriage produced offspring, we're looking at the women being in her mid-to-late teens when she gave birth to her first child. The two exceptions are Blanche of England (14) and Margaret Beaufort (13). In cases where their first marriage produced no issue (e.g. Anne of Burgundy, Jacquetta of Luxembourg, Eleanor Cobham) we cannot know when the marriage was consummated. Eleanor Cobham, at 28, was the oldest at her marriage but her sexual relationship with her spouse likely predated their marriage by some years. n.b. the ages given are consistent with each woman's first marriage, not the age at which they married into Catherine's family; Jacqueline of Hainault married both Catherine's brother, Jean, and Catherine's brother-in-law, Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, and so is listed twice.

References

Tracy Adams, The Life and Afterlife of Isabeau of Bavaria (John Hopkins University Press 2010) Anne Crawford, Letters of the Queens of England, 1100-1547 (Sutton 1997) Anne Curry, Henry V: From Playboy Prince to Warrior King (Penguin 2015) Anne Curry & Susan Jenkins (eds.), The Funeral Achievements of Henry V at Westminster Abbey (Boydell Press 2022) Geoffrey Hilton, A New Biography of King Henry V: Told by John Strecche Canon of Kenilworth 1426 (2017) Lisa Hilton, Queens Consort: England's Medieval Queens (Phoenix 2008) Katherine J. Lewis, Kingship and Masculinity in Late Medieval England (Routledge 2013) Katherine J. Lewis, “Katherine of Valois: The Vicissitudes of Reputation”, Later Plantagenet and the Wars of the Roses Consorts: Power, Influence, and Dynasty (Palgrave Macmillan 2023) Ruth Mazo Karras, Unmarriages: Women, Men, and Sexual Unions in the Middle Ages (University of Pennsylvania Press 2012) Carolyn King Stephens, The “Pentangle Hypothesis”: A Dating History and Resetting of “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight”', Fifteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 31, 2006 John D. Milner, “The Battle of Baugé, March 1421: Impact and Memory”, History Vol. 91, No. 4, October 2006 J. Allan Mitchell, "Queen Katherine and the Secret of Lydgate's 'Temple of Glas', Medium Ævum, Vol. 77, No. 1, 2008 Ian Mortimer, 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory (Vintage 2010) Kavita Mudan Finn, The Last Plantagenet Consorts: Gender, Genre, and Historiography, 1440-1627 (Palgrave Macmillan 2012) Neil Murphy, "Ceremony and Conflict in Fifteenth-Century France: Lancastrian Ceremonial Entries into French Towns, 1415-1431", Explorations in Renaissance Culture, vol. 30, no. 2, December 2013 Anne O'Brien, blog, The Love Affair That Never Was Maria Pia Pedani, 'Balas Rubies for the King of England (1413-15)', EJOS, V, No. 7, 2002 Kim M. Phillips, Medieval Maidens: Young Qomen and Gender in England, 1270-1540 (Manchester University Press 2003) David Rundle, "Of Republics and Tryants: aspects of quattrocento humanist writings and their reception in England, c. 1400 – c. 1460" (unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1997). Agnes Strickland, Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, vol. 3 (Lea & Blanchard, 1841) Malcolm Vale, Henry V: The Conscience of a King (Yale University Press 2016)

Novels Mentioned Denise Giardina, Good King Harry (Random House 1999) Anne O'Brien, The Forgotten Queen (Mira Books 2013)

Shakespeare Criticism (selection) Kavita Mudan Finn and Lea Luecking Frost, "“Nothing Hath Begot My Something Grief”: Invisible Queenship in Shakespeare’s Second Tetralogy", The Palgrave Book of Shakespeare's Queens (Palgrave Macmillan 2018) William B. Robison, "The Bard, the Bride, and the Muse Bemused: Katherine of Valois on Film in Shakespeare’s Henry V", The Palgrave Book of Shakespeare's Queens (Palgrave Macmillan 2018)

This post may also be of interest.

#ask #anon #catherine of valois #catherine de valois #henry v #long post #in case the cut fails

27 notes · View notes

sherlockianscholar · 2 months

Text

part 2 (1991-1995): the saga of jeremy brett through the scuttlebutt archives

go here for part one!

since 1971, sherlockian and baker st irregular, peter blau has published a small "gossip" sheet for all sherlock holmes news under publication of the "Scuttlebutt from the Spermaceti Press." after the advent of computers, peter started digitizing all his sheets from 1985 onward.

we are now officially in the later stage of granada's sherlock holmes. production was driven by the desire to make large profits. thus, the quality of the show took a significant dip. our only remaining constants were jeremy and edward. but their acting stood strong even through significant trials and tribulations. by 1991, jeremy's health (mentally and physically) would continue to worsen dramatically, which ultimately led to his death in 1995.

March 1991: mmmm, not sure he's joking there

October 1991: jeremy finally commits to doing all of the stories

January 1992: first of all, Y I K E S. this is so messed up and homophobic to sherlock holmes. why, because of his usual celibacy?and "to the relief of fans who have wondered about his bachelor lifestyle." what the fuck.

this might be reading too much into it, but i think it might've been a jab at jeremy's sexuality. He had (at least) two long-term homosexual relationships: gary bond (1969-1976) and paul shenar (~1973-1978). while jeremy never publicly came out as bisexual, his relationship with gary bond was considered "one of the first relatively out" couples in the acting world. at least in the industry, it was common knowledge.

now i'm going to wildly speculate, so here goes. jeremy and joan married in 1976, which is also when jeremy and gary bond broke up. it's unknown how long jeremy and joan dated prior to their wedding. reportedly, jeremy dated paul shenar from 1973-1978 (and they remained close friends until paul died of aids in 1989), which overlaps with jeremy and joan's marriage. jeremy and joan spent a lot of time apart, with her in the usa and him in manchester. now, i don't think jeremy would EVER cheat on joan. but, i wonder if they had an open relationship (or maybe some form of polyamory). mind you, i have nothing to back that up, but it's something i've wondered about before.

circa 1993: this is the earliest article i've been able to find on jeremy's mental illness, which still makes me wonder when his difficulties became public. the details of his psychotic break in this article are heartbreaking to read.

as stated prior, linda pritchard (the interviewee) was jeremy's companion/probable girlfriend for the last seven years of his life. they met backstage during the secret of sherlock holmes. linda approached jeremy for help raising money for cancer research, which he naturally supported with a passion. she nursed and took care of him. she provided life-saving mental support and no matter how painful or how much jeremy's bipolar lashed out, she made sure he felt safe and loved. she's kind of controversial because she's written a lot of books about jeremy. firstly, she doesn't actually profit off them at all--she just wants to share jeremy's story. and at the end of the day, who cares? that woman loved and protected jeremy during the most vulnerable chapter of his life. she was there till the end. she will always have my respect.

March 1993: okay, sean day-lewis, you have no idea what you're talking about and your views are bad.

June 1993: we have 1 hour episodes back! but it's too little, too late.

July 1993: happy birthday, young michael! according to the sherlock holmes society of st. charles, "jeremy became very fond of the young boy by his side and they corresponded for many years. his father was one of the leaders of the chester baskerville society and editor of the devonshire chronicle."

on a heavier note, this is the beginning of the end. jeremy's health began slipping faster and faster. as did the the future of granada's sherlock holmes. once again, what could've been if jeremy hadn't gotten ill?

September 1993: okay, so there's a lot to unpack here.

firstly, they label jeremy as "a heavy drinker." this is the only thing/quote i know of that could approach that statement:

"i started drinking champagne as a kind of celebration to lift my spirits. it started with just a glass in my bath, and grew until i needed a whole bottle to put me to sleep at nights. well, that was getting entirely out of hand, and it had to stop." -jeremy brett during the beginning of granada

but i don't think that really spells out "heavy drinker" or "alcoholic."

secondly, jeremy's physical illness has become extremely noticeable and is officially out of the bag. but not the specifics. "jeremy brett has been struck down by a crippling illness." he "was taking medication for most of the day and at one stage had an oxygen mask to help him breathe." jeremy is now "suffering from pleurisy," which a granada spokesperson "confirmed" was true. but they were only the symptoms of a far greater problem--jeremy's heart disease and the lithium poisoning/complications that led to it.

November 1993 #1: and now we're calling it an "asthma attack." again, stating a symptom, but failing to understand how that piece fits into the big picture.

November 1993 #2: the big picture is revealed (except for the key piece of info--that this was because of the lithium). granada's june wyndham-davies (and presumably the rest of the major staff) remained publicly optimistic.

December 1993

February 1994

Spring 1994: JEREMY BRETT BREAKS HIS CONTRACT WITH GRANADA

March 1994: another psych ward stay. although it says that jeremy had a "nervous breakdown" in 1986, it's highly probable that it was actually a psychotic break. i believe the quote below is about the article cited above, but i'm not certain b/c i don't have an exact date for this quote nor do i have the article in question:

"i went there to pick him up, and two tabloid newspaper men, from the sun, had actually been clever enough to use his real name at the door, which is jeremy huggins. they went up to his bedroom where he was waiting for me, burst in with a camera, and said, 'we have come to see if you have got aids.' he kicked them out." -june wyndham-davies

April 1994: "i have bounced back like bambi," said brett. "i'm as fit as a fiddle, though still a little fragile." if only...

his second psych ward stay in a month. jeremy's lithium poisoning becomes public. (i'm on lithium! which literally saved my life. when i was first prescribed it, a nurse actually sat me down to make sure i knew how serious potential complications could be if i didn't adhere to exactly what the doctors told me. that never happened with any other medication.)

when the very last episode of jeremy brett's sherlock holmes premiered: "after completing 'the cardboard box', jeremy brett was back in the hospital--a mental hospital. in his own self-effacing way he called it 'the nuthouse.' when the memoirs was screened in britain, the man who was sherlock holmes failed to see his own last series because he was in a ward where the other patients preferred to watch another station. jeremy brett deferred to their choice of viewing." -david stuart davies from bending the willow

June 1994: jeremy continues to remain optimistic

December 1994: even though jeremy was incredibly ill, he decided to try and continue acting as best he could. "after mad dogs and englishmen, he had to renounce the fine projects proposed to him: the role of ebenezer scrooge at the national theater with a script by john mortimer, a season in chichester and the role of professor higgins in a new version of my fair lady. he hoped to at least to be the voice of a deer or an elephant in a future disney cartoon, but even this modest ambition proved impossible." (ACD encyclopedia)

can you even imagine how delightful jeremy would've been as a disney character? that would've been priceless.

January 1995: at this point, i believe jeremy began to realize he was dying

February 1995: jeremy is "on the mend"

July 1995: jeremy is forcibly retired from acting

September between 3rd-11th 1995: jeremy's doctor told him that he needed a heart transplant. jeremy's reply, “that's too dramatic, darling, even for me.”

September 12, 1995: peter jeremy huggins dies at the age of 61

“bless your darling hearts. much love, keep warm and dry and if you see him whisking around the corner – you know who, SH – then wave, because that’s all you’ll see of him. bless his darling heart, isn’t he wonderful, streets ahead of us – still.” -jeremy brett, 1995

and bless your darling heart, jeremy. thank you for everything.

#sherlock holmes #jeremy brett #granada #edward hardwicke #michael cox #june wyndham-davies #granada holmes #long post #bending the willow #granada meta #scuttlebutt from the spermaceti press #peter blau #bipolar #mental illness #part 2 #original post

11 notes · View notes

ginandoldlace · 4 months

Text

Robert Wynn-Carington, Viscount Wendover by Philip de Laszlo 1911

Style note: out of the darkness into some colour

“Albert Edward Samuel Charles Robert Carington, known as Robert, was born on 24 April 1895, at 50 Grovesnor Street in London. He was the sixth child and only son of Charles Carington, then Baron Carrington, and his wife the Hon. Cecilia Margaret Harbord. A close friend of Robert’s father, the Prince of Wales, was his sponsor at his christening on 5 June 1895 at Wycombe Parish Church. On 16 July that year, Charles Carington was created 1st Earl Carrington, and Robert Viscount Wendover. He retained this title even after his father was created Marquess of Lincolnshire in 1912.

Wendover attended Eton College from 1908 until 1912. Following in his father’s footsteps, he joined the Royal Horse Guards and gained the rank of Lieutenant. It was as a subaltern, in the Charge of the Blues 10th Hussars and Essex Yeomanry, that he died from wounds received in action near Ypres on 13 May 1915. He died in hospital in Boulogne on 19 May, his parents at his bedside. On 27 May a Greek verse, In Memoriam, was published in The Eton College Chronicle. His parents repatriated his body for the funeral, which took place at Moulsoe, Buckinghamshire, with full military honours. He was buried in St Mary’s Churchyard, Moulsoe.

This portrait was painted in September 1911 in the dining room at Daws Hill, the Carringtons’ family home on the Wycombe Abbey Estate in Buckinghamshire. De László had painted the sitter’s sister Myee, Viscountess Bury, in July that year, which may have been a catalyst for this commission.

11 notes · View notes

amphibious-thing · 1 year

Text

Shoelaces

[Detail of the Meagre Company, oil on canvas, c. 1633-1637, by Frans Hals, via Wikimedia.]

While shoelaces had been fairly common in the 17th century by the beginning of the 18th century they had been surpassed in popularity by buckles.

[Detail of Declaration of Independence, oil on canvas, c. 1819, by John Trumbull, via Wikimedia.]

The most common style of men's shoe in the 18th century was black leather buckled shoes, typically with a small heel (see above). Even fashionable men often wore these simple black buckled shoes, though they may accessorise them with ornate buckles rather than plain ones. Even on men's high heels we see buckles replacing ribbons at the turn of the century.

[Left: Detail of Charles II of England, oil on canvas, c. 1670-1675, by Simon Pietersz Verelst, via Wikimedia.

Right: Detail of Louis XIV of France, oil on canvas, c. 1700-1701, by Hyacinthe Rigaud, via Wikimedia.]

During the first few decades of the 18th century shoe ties remained popular alongside buckles in women's footwear. However extant examples of buckled shoes outnumber those of laced shoes, though this may in part be due to shoes being converted to accommodate the fashionable buckle.

[Left: Shoes with ribbon ties, leather & brocaded silk, c. 1730s, via V&A (accession number: T.197&A-1927).

Middle: Buckled shoes, painted kid leather & silk, c. 1760s, via V&A, (accession number: 270&A-1891).

Right: Shoes with eyelets, leather & silk, c. 1700–1720, via The Met (accession number: 2009.300.1480a, b).]

In their description for the shoes on the right the Met writes:

Most aficionados of historic fashion are well acquainted with 18th century ladies' shoes in the classic buckled latchet style, as they survive in fairly good number. The predecessor of these - latchet ties shoes - are however fairly scarce in good unaltered condition. In order to extend their life as fashionable footwear, latchet tie shoes were frequently modified to accommodate a buckle.

By the 1780s shoe strings in menswear was so unpopular in mainstream Parisian fashion they were seen of being indicative of sodomy. In his article Commissioner Foucault, Inspector Noël, and the “Pederasts” of Paris, 1780-3 Jeffrey Merrick explains how Foucault and Noël used men's clothes to identify them as suspected sodomites. These men wore “some combination of frock coat, large tie, round hat, small chignon, and bows on the shoes.” Merrick speculates that these men were using fashion to signal to each other. Understandably when questioned by police men would deny such a purpose.

In England men who wore shoe strings were seen as effeminate. In their issue of 6-9th of December 1788 the St. James's Chronicle or the British Evening Post describes the "Jessamy or Petit-Maitre" (both terms for effeminate men) as follows:

The Jessamy or Petit-Maitre are so nearly allyed that the Rules that serve for one will do for the other-These He-She Beings should always take particular Care in the Decoration of their sweet Persons-Their Clothes should be cut to the very extreme of the Mode, their Hair dressed particularly nice, even if they sit two Hours under the Hairdresser's Hands, and while under the Operation, are to take out their Pocket Glass and give the Hair Dresser Instructions form Time to Time-When they walk the Streets of London, they are to make short Steps, as was formerly the Fashions of the fine Ladies, wear Shoe-Strings-paint their Faces, and be alarmed at every little Noise they hear in the Streets. In short it will be necessary to keep up their Reputation that they assume a Behaviour more feminine than masculine-and by all Means to imitate the Behaviour and Looks of the Females in the Days of their Great Grandmothers. Such Conduct will stamp their Characters in the Eyes of their Brethren.

[Sir John Coxe Hippisley, oil on canvas, c. 1779–80, by William Pars, via Art & the Country House.]

However by the late 1780s shoe strings were already starting to have a resurgence, in part due to their cost. With shoe strings being cheaper than buckles many men started to adopt them in spite of the associations with effeminacy. On the 21st September 1786 The Times reported:

The shoe-strings are now the fashion wit all the barbers boys, hair-dressers, and waiters, in London. The charity schools have also adopted them, as they are much cheaper than buckles. A man of sense, and a real man of fashion, has never yet dishonoured his instep with such a piece of mean folly.

And on the 12th of July 1787 The Times suggests that when a "tolerably well-dressed man wears them, the general conclusion is, that his buckles are in pawn." However in spite of the comparative cheapness of shoe strings the association with effeminacy persisted.

One intriguing instance of the cultural perception of shoe strings comes from a 1789 adaptation of the Tempest that opened on Drury Lane on Tuesday the 13th of October. The play included an epilogue written by General John Burgoyne. The epilogue fear-mongers the growth of effeminacy in England writing that "we may lack men, though over-run with males." Burgoyne depicts the middle class John Bull as an effeminate "He-Miss" Milliner:

Yet John sometimes his shape and sex degrades, And stoops to rob his sisters of their trades. Six feet in height, with sinews of an ox, Shoulders to carry coals, and fists to box,- Behold-O shame!-a thing of whip and hem- A He-Miss Millener-"Your orders, Me'm?- "Rouge, lipsalve, chicken gloves, perfumery, "Hair cushions, gauzes, bustles?-HE! he! he!"-

Burgoyne then shifts to men "of higher bearing";

Still Falstaff's men, all radish and cheese-paring!- Oh! could he sketch some figures that one sees- Tied up with strings at shoes and strings at knees! So thick the neck-cloth, and the neck so thin! He'd swear they bore a poultice for the chin:- And lest the cold the adjacent ears should harm, See half a foot of cape to keep 'em warm; While the stiff edge, for better purpose made, Rubs off the whiskers it was form'd to shade. With eyes of fire that vie with snuffs in sockets, And hands distress'd for want of waistcoat pockets: The crutch of levity directs their gait; And wanghee bends beneath their wangling weight.

On the 14th The World praises the epilogue as a "pleasant satyr upon modern modes" noting in particular;

the perversion of his good parts into effeminate pursuits-the Man-Milliner-the strings at shoes, and strings at knees-the stiff stand-up cape, "chasing the whisker it was meant to hide"-the waistcoat pockets-were all perfection, in what is the Epilogue's best praise, knowledge of effect, and strong accomplishment of it.

In contrast to Burgoyne's depiction of him as a "He-Miss Millener" John Bull, a personification of England (much like Uncle Sam is to the US), was typically depicted as a plainly dressed middle class Englishman. Some satires such as James Gillray's Politeness would compare the masculine English John Bull to the effeminate French archetype. Bull is depicted sitting with his legs open, wearing blue, red and buff with short un-powdered hair and wearing boots. The Frenchman is sitting with his legs closed, wearing pink and green (colours that were considered effeminate) with white powdered hair tied back with a ribbon and wig bag. However he is wearing bucked shoes.

[Politeness, hand-coloured etching, c. 1779, copy after James Gillray, via The Met.]

Another example of a typical depiction of John Bull can be seen in The Honest Pickpocket published by William Holland which comments on the clock tax enacted by the Pitt government. The cartoon depicts Prime Minister William Pitt taking a watch out of John Bulls pocket. Pitt is saying "Don't be alarmed, Johnny, I only want to see whether it is Gold or Silver - you know there is a great deal of difference between Half a Crown and Ten Shillings."

In this anti-Pitt satire, Bull is depicted again in blue, red and buff with un-powdered hair, however this time he is wearing buckled shoes. Pitt in contrast is depicted in green with powdered hair tied back with a ribbon and wig bag. His shoes are fastened with strings.

[The Honest Pickpocket, hand-coloured etching, c. 1797, published by William Holland, via The British Museum.]

However in An Enquiry Concerning the Clock Tax Pitt is depicted in blue and red with buckled shoes. The satire is playing on a pun, the clock tax was a tax of the time keeping devices but in the 18th century stockings sometimes had decorative embroidery known as clocks. In the print a delegate "from the worthy and respectable Society of Hosiers" asks Pitt "to know whether your Honor means to extend the Tax to Clocks upon Stockings." In contrast to Pitt the hosier wears not only stockings with clocks, but also shoes with strings as well as breeches with strings at the knees. Pitt is holding a quill labeled "Tax Pen", he is halfway through writing a list of taxes which includes "Shoe Strings", "Knee Strings" and "Hair Strings".

[An Enquiry Concerning the Clock Tax, hand-coloured etching, c. 1797, after George Moutard Woodward, published by S. W. Fores, via The British Museum.]

While this satire was clearly playing on the pun, it's not too far off what some were proposing. With the popularity of shoe strings increasing during the 80s the buckle makers were starting to get concerned for their livelihood and hoped a shoe string tax would combat the price difference. On the 22nd of November 1788 The Times reported:

The buckle makers it is said intend to petition for a tax on shoe strings by an eighteen penny stamp on each pair. This, although somewhat extraordinary, yet is in agitation, and might be easily effected.

With most of the buckle manufacturing coming out of Birmingham it was reportedly a risky move to wear shoe strings there. On the 28th August 1789 the Oracle reported:

At Birmingham, the man who dares appear with ribband-ties in his shoes, is certain not to pass current. He is instantly seized, his shoes taken off and cut to pieces; and no shoe maker can dare to sell him a new pair, unless he buys a pair of buckles first!

Much of the public was on the side of the buckle makers and against the shoe strings. On the 12th August 1789 the Oracle bemoans that "thousands of His Majesty's loyal subjects are now starving, from the introduction of the effeminate fashion of shoe-strings." On the 6th of November the Oracle reported that on "being asked by a Nobleman, why he had such an objection to Shoe Strings-His Royal Highness replied in these emphatic words-"

In the first place, I dislike them, for they look effeminate, are neither genteel or becoming; but give a certain air of meanness to the foot, which should be avoided. In the next place, I do not wear them, for it shall never be said of me, that any whim of mine has been instrumental in bringing the hard labouring Mechanic to Ruin!

A letter signed "Cheapside" published on the 5th January 1789 in The World was a bit more extreme suggesting that men who wore shoe strings "ought, in plain English, and with a good sufficient English cord, to be hanged". While Cheapside was concerned that the buckle makers were being "tied up from getting their bread" the true dislike of shoe strings and the men who wore them seem to be more due the their "intimations" that were "most disgraceful to manhood."

#to my amerev followers yes its the same General John Burgoyne he became a playwright after the war #fashion history #queer history

54 notes · View notes

thebirdandhersong · 1 year

Text

Top 25 books of my heart, as tagged by @rowenabean! Thank you for tagging me! I had SUCH a hard time trying to narrow it down :')

Here they are, in no particular order:

Far from the Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy

Piranesi - Susanna Clarke

David Copperfield - Charles Dickens

Persuasion - Jane Austen

Sense & Sensibility - Jane Austen

Northanger Abbey - Jane Austen

North and South - Elizabeth Gaskell

The Story of a Soul - St. Therese of Lisieux

Chronicles of Narnia - C.S. Lewis

The Lord of the Rings - J.R.R. Tolkien

The Wee Free Men - Terry Pratchett

Shakespeare's Complete Works (ESPECIALLY Twelfth Night, Much Ado About Nothing, Cymbeline, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth)

Leave it to Psmith - P.G. Wodehouse

Walking on Water - Madeleine L'Engle

The Time Quartet (first three specifically) - Madeleine L'Engle

Night Watch - Terry Pratchett

Howl's Moving Castle - Diana Wynne Jones

The Man Born to be King - Dorothy Sayers

Middlemarch - George Eliot

Fahrenheit 341 - Ray Bradbury

Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

Sea of Tranquility - Emily St. John Mandel

Anne of the Island - L.M. Montgomery

Moominland Midwinter - Tove Jansson

Moominvalley in November - Tove Jansson

Tagging @lovesodeepandwideandwell @swinging-stars-from-satellites @madamescarlette @stories-dearheart @permanentreverie @incomingalbatross and you, if you want to list YOUR top 20-25 books of your heart!!!

#i am in fact cheating by grouping shakespeare/lotr/narnia/time quartet but. they are part of a bigger picture so #songbird again #i will elaborate on this list at a later date but rest assured i can and will talk your ear off continuously about these books!!!

25 notes · View notes

homomenhommes · 3 months

Text

THIS DAY IN GAY HISTORY

based on: The White Crane Institute's 'Gay Wisdom', Gay Birthdays, Gay For Today, Famous GLBT, glbt-Gay Encylopedia, Today in Gay History, Wikipedia, and more … April 1

1647 – John Wilmot , 2nd Earl of Rochester (d.1680), English libertine, friend of King Charles II, and writer of much satirical and bawdy poetry was the toast of the Restoration court and a patron of the arts.

If you've never read the poetry of Rochester, run, don't walk, to the nearest library and, after leafing through the pages, order a copy of your very own. He is easy to read, witty, very funny, and delightfully obscene. He's also proof positive that the world didn't begin with Queen Victoria, his age being almost as unzipped as he.

Rochester was an incomparably dissolute rake whose sexual philosophy was clearly "any port in a storm." Consequently his poetry extols the joys of every possible type of human coupling. One poem, possibly unique in the language, is about two men entering a woman fore and aft, but obviously making love to each other.

Other poems are about the pleasures of boys:

"If by chance then I wake, hot- headed and drunk, What coyle do I make for the loss of my Punck? I storm and I roar, and I fall in a rage, And missing my Whore, I bugger my Page."

Rochester was once banished from the court of Charles II for smashing the king's clocks and dials when they refused to answer his drunken question, "Dost thou fuck?" He was like that; he was also burned out at age 33. The film The Libertine, based on Stephen Jeffreys' play, was shown at the 2004 Toronto Film Festival and was released in the UK on November 25, 2005. While taking some artistic liberties, it chronicles Rochester's life, with Johnny Depp as Rochester, Samantha Morton as Elizabeth Barry, John Malkovich as King Charles II, and Rosamund Pike as Elizabeth Malet.

1801 – Nikolai Gogol was born in the Ukraine to small-time nobility (d.1852).

Between the ages of twelve and nineteen, Gogol stayed at an all-male boarding school in the town of Nezhin. There, he began to write prose and poetry for the school's literary journal, had great success in school theatricals, especially in the parts of comical old women, and formed a sentimental attachment to his older fellow student, Gerasim Vysotsky.

Vysotsky graduated two years before Gogol and departed for St. Petersburg. During the two years Gogol had to wait for his own graduation, he yearned to join his friend and wrote him a series of amorous letters. But their reunion in 1828, when Gogol, too, moved to St. Petersburg came to naught—the first instance of Gogol's later infatuations with heterosexual men unable to respond.

In St Petersburg he taught and wrote a number of short stories set in St Petersburg and Ukrainian folk-tales, and began to enjoy sporadic success as a writer. In 1836 he produced the satirical farce The Inspector General in 1836, which caused much controversy and he fled to Rome.

In Italy, Gogol's inhibitions were loosened to the point where he allowed himself to love openly a young nobleman, Iosif Vielhorsky. It was a reciprocated love, but the young Iosif died of consumption less than a year after he and Gogol met.

Two years later, Gogol became hopelessly infatuated with the poet Nikolai Yazykov, whose verse was mostly about women's beauty and his attraction to it. After trying for months to win Yazykov and addressing passionate letters to him, Gogol understood the futility of this undertaking.

He spent 5 years in Germany and Italy and produced the first volume of his best known work, Dead Souls. Seeking a spiritual regeneration to match that of his main character and continue the novel, he subjected himself to a strict regime of prayer and fasting, but only succeeded in nervous collapse and burnt his work.

He spent the next seven years attempting to continue the novel, but became even more influenced by Orthodox Christianity, fell under the influence of a priest named Father Matthew Konstantinovski, who viewed his literary work - and his confessed homosexuality - as an abomination and prescribed abstinence from food and sleep to cleanse his 'inner filth'. Gogol again burnt his work and, despite the efforts of his friends, died of starvation. He was 43.

His work was a major influence on Dostoevsky and later, 20th Century Russian authors. Complex and original, his work, which uses elements of the fantastic and grotesque, social realism and humour, is permeated by his repressed homosexuality, especially in the fear of marriage that is a constant theme throughout.

1970 – The Arizona Supreme Court rules that masturbation of another person violates the "lewd or lascivious conduct" law.

1971 – Staff Sergeant Eric Alva, born today, was the first U.S. military service member injured in the Iraq Occupation. He is a native of San Antonio, Texas. He joined the United States Marine Corps in 1990 at the age of 19. He was in charge of 11 Marines in a supply unit when, on March 21, 2003, he stepped on a land mine, losing his right leg.

Alva, a native of San Antonio, Texas, grew up in a military family. He graduated from high school in 1989, weighing just 90 pounds. He joined the United States Marine Corps in 1990 at the age of 19 when he already knew he was gay and the U.S. military excluded all gays and lesbians from service, open or not. He served for 13 years, including postings in Okinawa and Somalia. For much of his career, he was out to his fellow Marines.

On July 23, 2008, Alva testified about DADT before a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. He said: "Unit cohesion is essential. What my experience proves, they are wrong about how to achieve it. My being gay and even many of my colleagues knowing about it didn't damage unit cohesion. They put their lives in my hands, and when I was injured, they risked their lives to save mine." He described intimate living conditions while stationed in Somalia. He also reported conversations with military personnel from other countries in which they uniformly expressed surprise that "our Nation is so further behind others when we seem to be the forefront of trying to be the example."

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, General Peter Pace said, "I believe homosexual acts between individuals are immoral." Alva commented: "His remarks were insensitive and disrespectful to the thousands of men and women who are serving in the military at this current time under the policy." In December 2010, Marine Corps commandant Gen. James F. Amos said the presence of homosexuals in the marines would pose a "distraction" and that "I don't want to have any Marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction." Alva commented: "He pretty much spit on me, my Purple Heart, and my 13 years of service. I would definitely ask Amos for a meeting to explain his comments, and I’d bring my Purple Heart with me."

He worked with Democratic representative Martin Meehan of Massachusetts and, with a bipartisan group of representatives to Capitol Hill, reintroduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, legislation that would repeal the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding homosexual conduct. Of this, he said: "We're losing probably thousands of men and women that are skilled at certain types of jobs, from air traffic controllers to linguists, because of this broken policy." Alva also served as the Grand Marshall of the 2008 Chicago Gay and Lesbian Pride parade held on Sunday, June 29, 2008.

1971 – The French newspaper Tout calls for complete sexual liberation in France. Police seize the publication calling it an "outrage to public morals."

1978 – A new Canadian Immigration Act goes into effect which removes the prohibition against gays and lesbians from entering the country.

1993 – Andy Brennan is an Australian professional soccer player who plays as a winger or striker for South Melbourne.

In May 2019, Brennan came out as gay, becoming the first openly gay Australian male footballer.

Brennan joined the Newcastle Jets on 29 April 2015 from National Premier League side South Melbourne, signing a two-year deal. Due largely to ongoing injury problems, Brennan was forced to wait until 26 March 2016 to make his A-League debut against Perth Glory, replacing Mitch Cooper in a 2–1 loss. Brennan went on to make a total of three appearances in his maiden A-League season, all off the substitutes' bench.

On 19 January 2017, it was announced that Brennan had parted with the Jets by mutual consent. He made a total of five A-league appearances during his time with the Jets. He then returned to Bentleigh Greens SC in the Victorian Premier League. In November 2018, Brennan signed with Green Gully of the NPL Victoria League.

In an interview with the Herald Sun, Brennan came out as gay after being closeted for several months. He had previously dated women, but had been unsure of his sexuality for years, stating that it had been a "mental burden". Brennan is the first male Australian footballer to come out as gay, and one of only a few openly gay players playing professionally.

TODAY'S GAY WISDOM:

April Fools' Day or All Fools' Day, though not a holiday in its own right, is a notable day celebrated in many countries on April 1 and a date of some significance in queer history.

The day is marked by the commission of hoaxes and practical jokes of varying sophistication on friends, enemies and neighbors, or sending them on fool's errands, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. In some countries, April Fools' jokes (also called April Fools) are only made before noon on April 1st. April Fool's is second only to Halloween for queer history.

For LGBT people, the Fool, the Jester, the Joker/Jokester, the buffoon, the juglar, the trickster, the heckler, the scaramouche, the clown, or the harlequin are specific archetypes in same-sex history. All are traditionally linked with same-sex-oriented people: The Fool was a type of entertainer that came into popularity in the Middle Ages. Jesters typically wore brightly colored clothing in a motley (as the harlequin) pattern and his role was to speak truth to power and puncture the vain egos of leaders.

The Jester was a symbolic twin of the king. Like "in-betweens," all jesters and fools were thought of as special cases whom God had touched with a childlike madness—a gift, or perhaps a curse. Mentally handicapped people sometimes found employment by capering and behaving in an amusing way. In the harsh world of medieval Europe, people who might not be able to survive any other way thus found a social niche.

Jesters have long been featured on playing cards. Their hats, sometimes called the cap 'n bells, cockscomb or coxcomb, were especially distinctive; made of cloth, they were floppy with three points each of which had a jingle bell at the end. The three points of the hat represent the ass's ears and tail worn by jesters in earlier times. Other things distinctive about the jester were his incessant laughter and his mock scepter, known as a bauble or maharoof.

Clown society is a term used in anthropology and sociology for an organization of comedic entertainers (Heyoka or "clowns") who have a formalized role in a culture or society. Many clown societies have sacred roles, to represent a trickster or coyote character in religious ceremonies. Other times the purpose served by members of a clown society is only to parody excessive seriousness, or to deflate pomposity.

In the sense of how clowns serve their culture: A clown shows what is wrong with the way things are. A clown shows how to do ordinary things the wrong way. A clown makes fun of the serious, lightens the moment. A clown "speaks truth to power."

Members of a clown society always dress in some kind of a special costume reserved for clowns, which is usually an absurdly extreme form of normal dress. The sacred clown and his apparently antisocial behavior is condoned in some Indian ceremonies. While in their costume, clowns have special permission from their society to parody or criticize defective aspects of their own culture. They are always required to be funny. In the case of the "jester" at the English Royal Court with his cap of bells and pig's bladder stick he was allowed to make fun of, be indelicate and sometimes downright rude to members of the royal family and their entourage without fear of reprisal.

Clown societies usually train new members to become clowns. The training normally takes place by an apprentice system, although there may be some rote schooling as well. Sometimes the training is improvisational comedy, but usually a clown society trains members in well known forms of costume, pantomime, song, dance, and common visual gags. Occasionally these include a scripted performance, or skit, which is part of a standard repertoire that "never gets old," and is expected by members of the culture that the clown society is part of.

Another well known image of the Trickster/Fool is the flute-playing fool. What is not so commonly known is that the flute-player, in his older forms was, in fact, self-fellating, not playing a flute.

Finally, modern queer culture, of course, has developed the traditions of drag and genderfuck that is a continuation of this archetypical social role.

2 notes · View notes

thecambriaone · 3 months

Note

most wanted?

we'd love to see:

finn, obi-wan kenobi, qui-gon jinn, ezra bridger, sabine wren, captain rex, hunter, bo-katan kryze, din djarin, wrecker, tech, echo, crosshair, baylan skoll, boba fett, fennec shand, cassian andor, bix caleen, rose tico, lando calrissian, jyn erso, nightsister merrin, bodhi rook, chirrut imwe, garazeb 'zeb' orrelios, amilyn holdo, bail organa, breha organa, the hero of tython/jedi knight, ashara zavros, doc, theron shan, satele shan, lord scourge, lana beniko, talos drellik (star wars) sam wilson, steve rogers, thor odinson, bruce banner, carol danvers, scott lang, miles morales, jessica drew, cindy moon, mj watson, ned leeds, harry osborn, lorna dane, pietro maximoff, erik lehnsherr, charles xavier (marvel) percy de rolo, vax'ildan, grog strongjaw, scanlan shorthalt, yasha nydoorin, beauregard lionette, fjord, caduceus clay, veth brenatto, kingsley tealeaf (critical role) dame aylin, alfira, lae'zel, wyll ravengard, halsin, jaheira, minsc (baldur's gate) captain john price, kyle 'gaz' garrick (call of duty) cullen rutherford, alistair theirin, josephine montilyet, cassandra pentaghast, the inquisitor, the warden, hawke, varric tethras (dragon age) sir malcolm murray, sembene, alexander sweet/dracula, dorian gray, brona croft/lily frankenstein (penny dreadful) edward cullen, esme cullen, carlisle cullen, leah clearwater, seth clearwater (twilight)

and:

armand, nicolas de lenfant, gabrielle de lioncourt, daniel molloy, jesse reeves, merrick mayfair, mona mayfair, tarquin blackwood, julien mayfair, jojo mayfair, ciprien grieve (the vampire chronicles/lives of the mayfair witches) lucerys velaryon, jacaerys velaryon, harwin strong, laenor valeryon, baela targaryen, aemond targaryen, helaena targaryen, missandei, grey worm, jorah mormont, sansa stark, ned stark, catelyn stark, bran stark, robb stark, davos seaworth, gendry (game of thrones/house of the dragon) betty cooper, archie andrews, jughead jones, dilton doiley, sabrina spellman (archie comic/riverdale/sabrina) josie saltzman, lizzie saltzman, milton greasley, landon kirby, rebekah mikaelson, marcel gerard, stefan salvatore, bonnie bennett, enzo st john, nadia petrova, jenna sommers, davina claire, freya mikaelson (the vampire diaries universe) rose tyler, donna noble, the fifteenth doctor, martha jones, amy pond, rory williams, bill potts, yasmin khan, ryan sinclair, graham o’brien, dan lewis (doctor who)

#multifandom rp #fandom rp #comics rp #video games rp #star wars rp #cambria:mw

2 notes · View notes

nellie-elizabeth · 6 months

Text

2024 Book-Tracking Post!

GOAL 1 BOOKS: OWNED & NOT READ (13 as of 1.2.24)

Red Rising - Pierce Brown

The Mighty Nein Origins: Fjord Stone

The Dispossessed - Ursula K. Le Guin

Promise of Blood - Brian McClellan

Words of Radiance - Brandon Sanderson

Edgedancer - Brandon Sanderson

Dawnshard - Brandon Sanderson

Yumi and the Nightmare Painter - Brandon Sanderson

The Sunlit Man - Brandon Sanderson

The Last Hero - Terry Pratchett

Harrow the Ninth - Tamsyn Muir

[The Adventure Zone - Suffering Game] - preordered

[What Doesn't Break (Bells Hells)] - preordered

~~~~~~~~~~

GOAL 2 BOOKS: BOOK CLUBS! (1 as of 1.2.24)

The Robber Bride - Margaret Atwood

~~~~~~~~~~

GOAL 3 BOOKS: RE-READ OLD BOOKS (40 as of 1.2.24)

Peter and the Starcatchers

Peter and the Shadow Thieves

Peter and the Secret of Rundoon

In Cold Blood

The School Story

The Wish List

Walk Two Moons

Bud, Not Buddy

The BFG

Crime and Punishment

Adam Bede

The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down

The Princess Bride

The Blithedale Romance

Olive’s Ocean

Our Only May Amelia

The Valley of Secrets

Cages

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

The Girl Who Played with Fire

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest

The Magician’s Nephew

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

The Horse and His Boy

Prince Caspian

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

The Silver Chair

The Last Battle

Gathering Blue

The Host

Beloved - Toni Morrison

Mama Day - Gloria Naylor

The Accursed - Joyce Carol Oates

Ivanhoe - Walter Scott

The Cricket in Times Square

The Hobbit

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn

Slaughterhouse-Five

Charlotte’s Web

The People in the Trees

~~~~~~~~~~

GOAL 4 BOOKS: CONTINUING SERIES/AUTHORS

Books are available & not read:

Discworld series [14]

Brandon Sanderson Novels [17]

Red Rising series [7]

Powder Mage series [3]

The Locked Tomb series [3]

The Poppy War [3]

The Machineries of Empire (Ninefox Gambit) [4]

Dresden Files [17]

Chronicles of the Avatar - F.C. Yee (Kyoshi and Yangchen) [4]

Singing Hills Cycle [2]

NK Jemisin - short stories [1]

Series/Author New Releases to keep tracking:

Outlander Series - Diana Gabaldon

Cosmere - Brandon Sanderson

The Adventure Zone - Graphic Novels

The Old Guard - Comics

Murderbot Diaries - Martha Wells

Noumena - Lindsay Ellis

Singing Hills Cycle

Nampeshiweisit - Moniquill Blackgoose

Edward Rutherfurd

Kate Alice Marshall

Critical Role Content

ATLA/LOK Comics

WTNV

Madeline Miller

Hank Green

John Green

Authors to buy additional:

Philippa Gregory

Kazuo Ishiguro

Hilary Mantel

Evelyn Waugh

Ursula K. Le Guin

Tom Stoppard

Elizabeth Jane Howard

F. Scott Fitzgerald

Barbara Kingsolver

James Baldwin

Charles Dickens

Bronte Sisters

Neal Stephenson

Alexandre Dumas

Emily St. John Mandel

Dan Jones

Ruth Ozeki

Natasha Pulley

Neil Gaiman

Margaret Atwood

Leo Tolstoy

Tamora Pierce

Andy Weir

Greenhollow Duology - Emily Tesh

The Saint of Steel - T. Kingfisher

Time Traveller's Guides - Ian Mortimer

#my posts #book tracker #dani's reading goals

5 notes · View notes

stonecoldhedwig · 6 months

Text

Ten characters, ten fandoms - name your top 10 characters in 10 fandoms, then tag 10 others to play.

Thank @blitheringmcgonagall for the tag! Although why was this weirdly difficult; as soon as I had to write anything, I immediately could not think of any TV/books. I also watch/read a lot of historical fiction and it feels weird to put "I fucking love Charles, 1st Duke of Suffolk".

James Potter (HP)

Oliver Wood (HP - I'm having 2 and no one can stop me)

River Cartwright (Slow Horses)

Dr Madeleine Maxwell (St Mary's Chronicles)

Carol Hathaway (ER)

Sam Gillespie (Sister Boniface)

Prince Hal (the Henriad - okay, I know I said I wouldn't do this because it's technically 15th century RPF but I love him, let me live)

Dimitri Levendis (Spooks)

Flo Brooks (The Burning Girls - just started this and am OBSESSED)

Rev. Merrily Watkins (Merrily Watkins)

Taggins @midnightelite @magic-girl-in-a-muggle-world @nymphadoratonqs @jennandblitz @brokentoasterrr @siriusly-sapphic @chierafied @siriuslychessi @matrixaffiliate

#tag games #fandoms #not all hp #stonecoldhedwig

5 notes · View notes

yatescountyhistorycenter · 9 months

Text

The ultimate sacrifice, three times over

By Jonathan Monfiletto

According to the Civil War monument that stands in Courthouse Park in the vicinity of the Yates County Courthouse and county office building, 2,109 people from Yates County served in the military during the Civil War – out of a population in 1860 of 20,290 or a little more than 10 percent of the residents here at the time.

Of those 2,109 people, approximately 200 – another 10 percent, this time of those who served – died during the war, according to Penn Yan and How It Got That Way, by Frances Dumas.

And of the families of those 200 people, possibly none suffered more than the family of Romeo and Rachel Gaylord, of Bellona. The family sent three sons off to fight in the conflict between the North and the South – the rebellion, as contemporary newspaper reports often called it – and two of their sons died during their service while the third was wounded during the war.

I began to learn this family’s story when I went for a walk through the Bellona Cemetery one day earlier this summer and came across the Gaylord family gravestone there. The gravestone tells quite a story if you take the time to listen to it.

The marker lists parents Romeo and Rachel on the front of its four sides; Romeo died in 1867 at age 66, while Rachel lived to be 90 years old. Another side lists daughters Amanda and Emily, who both died in childhood at age 7 and less than a year old, respectively. A third side lists son Charles W., who died at age 25 in the Battle of Gettysburg while serving as a private with Co. B of the 126th New York Volunteers, along with daughter Lydia A. Cooper, who died at age 51 in 1891. The final side lists son Oliver C., who died at age 31 in St. Louis while serving as a private in Co. G of the 3rd Michigan Cavalry, along with son Benjamin F., who died at age 37 in Mississippi in 1872. He had been a corporal with Co. H of the 102nd New York Volunteers during the Civil War; whether he was still serving the military at the time of his death, I haven’t been able to determine.

A letter to the editor in the March 3, 1864 edition of the Yates County Chronicle titled “An Afflicted Family” and signed “A Friend” adds more details to the story already told by the gravestone. “There are so many cases of affliction all over our land – caused by this most unholy war and about which so much has been said – that it sems almost like needless repetition to speak of others; but finding that the patriotism of this family is worthy of at least a passing notice, I have ventured, although unaccustomed to writing for the public prints, to state the simple facts in regard to them,” the letter begins its tribute to the Gaylord family.

Friend notes the Gaylord family “has been long and favorably known by many who will peruse this notice,” before he tells of the fates of the three sons called away by military service during the war. Oliver, the eldest son, had resided in Michigan “for several years past,” according to the letter, and enlisted in Co. G. of the 3rd Michigan Cavalry in October 1861. Six months later, in April 1862, he died of chronic diarrhea in St. Louis, having never been in battle.

Frank – as Benjamin F. seems to have been called – the next eldest son, enlisted in Co. H of the 102nd Regiment in December 1861 and was wounded in August 1862 at the Battle of Cedar Mountain in Culpeper County, Virginia. The wound was enough to disable him from further service during the war, and he was discharged in October 1862. It seems he returned to the family property in Bellona, at least for a period of time.

Charles enlisted in August 1862 – August 8, in fact, just a day before Frank was injured on August 9 – in Co. B of the 126th Regiment. He was killed in July 1863 during the Battle of Gettysburg, the northernmost battle of the war but not the only battle to take place outside of the Confederacy.

“And we have the fullest assurance that the two [Oliver and Charles] who have been ‘relieved from duty,’ were well prepared to report to the head-quarters of the Captain of their Salvation,” Friend concludes his letter.

According to Census records, the Gaylord family had at least two other sons – Byron, who was 13 in 1855, and Edward, who was 8 at that time – and at least one other daughter, Elizabeth, who was 21 in 1855. In 1855, the Gaylord family is listed in Torrey, but in 1865 the family is listed in Benton.

Frank’s gravestone indicates he died in Mississippi in 1872. Though I have been unable to find any further information, other than Frank married his wife in New York and they bore their son in Mississippi, I wonder if Frank had somehow re-enlisted in the military and served as part of the occupation of the South during Reconstruction and then somehow died during this service.

Perhaps this was another sacrifice made by the Gaylord family – a family who had already witnessed so much sacrifice and heartache during the Civil War.

#historyblog #history #archives #museum #yatescounty #bentonny #bellonany #newyork #american history #us history #local history #civilwar

2 notes · View notes

dwellordream · 2 years

Text

“For medieval people, a kiss represents far more than the romantic. From the Old English “to touch with the lips,” the kiss in history went far beyond its modern association with love in all its forms. Indeed, most public kisses involved men kissing other men for reasons that had little or nothing to do with sentiment.

Multifaceted, the kiss could represent honor, loyalty, legality, veneration, adoration, passion, treachery, and opportunities for misbehavior. Sources spread across the genres give us a glimpse into what kissing meant to medieval people: Danish king Hrothgar “kissed Beowulf and embraced his neck” when the hero departed after slaying Grendel.

As Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss, so did Lancelot and Guinevere betray Arthur. In the comical vignette from the Annals of St Denis, the Norse warrior Rollo refused to bow to kiss his liege lord Charles’ foot, and instead lifted the king’s foot to his mouth, “causing the king to tumble over backwards” to the ringing laughter of the crowd.

It even appears in theological and ecclesiastical sources: though Thomas Aquinas condoned certain instances, the Council of Vienne tried to condemn kissing a woman as “a mortal sin since nature does not incline one to it”—though sexual intercourse was deemed perfectly natural! What made medieval people pucker up?

In Latin, the general term for a kiss was literally “little mouth” (osculum), positioning the kiss as a seal, an externalization of one’s spoken vows or intentions. It was about exchange and union. In the feudal era, one foundational use of the kiss was to formalize a transaction.

At a standard homage or commendation ceremony, in which lords and vassals pledged mutual loyalty, the kiss was the reification of the oath, performed for all the witnesses of the ceremony. The Flemish chronicler Galbert of Bruges describes a homage ceremony in 1127. The process began with a spoken oath in which the vassal pledged to become the “man” of Count William, followed by the clasping of hands.

After this, “they were bound together by a kiss.” Finally, “he who had done homage”—implying that the ritual was now completed—swore on saints’ relics (in other cases on the Gospels). In a society that privileged ritualistic action over the written word, the kiss served as the official performance of the spoken oath.

This act of kissing was so crucial to the legality of the traditional homage ceremony that omitting it threatened to render the pledge null and void. In a 1439 petition to King Henry VI, members of Parliament requested that the kiss be omitted due to the Black Death, an “infirmity most infective,” if the king “desir[es] the health and welfare” of his people and himself.

They sought confirmation that even without the kiss to seal the deal, those performing homage could trust that “at your will the homage [would be] of the same force as though they kissed you.” This anxiety centers the kiss as the ultimate mark of legitimacy on the ritualized transaction—without which, Parliament feared, the act of homage would not hold up.

Despite a dramatically different meaning today, a medieval groom kissing his bride was borrowing from the same authenticating power of the kiss in homage ceremonies. In the thirteenth-century Sarum Missal (an English variation on the Roman rite), the author describes how to preside properly over a marriage.

After reading the banns, double-checking any potential impediments to the pairing, and performing the appropriate liturgical steps, the priest should give the sign of peace to the groom, who then would repeat it to his bride and give her a kiss. Thus bound, “neither of them are to kiss anyone else.”

Afterwards, the priest should bless the bedchamber that will be witness to the legally binding consummation of the marriage. Clearly less romantic than the jubilant “you may now kiss the bride” to which we are accustomed at weddings today, the use of the kiss in the medieval marriage rite again underscores its power of solemnization and legitimation.

Within medieval romances—both real and written—the kiss serves as a microcosm of the passions, appetites, and yearnings of a lover for his or her beloved. As the acme of pleasure, the kiss often resulted in downfall or death. In his History of my Misfortunes, Abelard contrasts his physical attraction to his student Heloise with his intellectual endeavors, juxtaposing the sweetness of a kiss with the thrill of study.

He writes, “with our books open before us, we exchanged more words of love than of lessons, more kisses than concepts.” Enervated by the love spawned from these kisses, Abelard’s famously brilliant lectures grew “lukewarm and slack.” The end of their love story is well known: Abelard is castrated and Heloise enters the convent.

Nearly two centuries later, when Dante encounters the noblewoman Francesca in Inferno, he learns that merely reading about the affair between Guinevere and Lancelot triggered the actions that ultimately condemned her and her brother-in-law Paolo to the second circle of hell, where carnal lust is punished.

In a scene that echoes Abelard and Heloise’s textual/sexual encounter, Francesca describes how “one moment alone…overcame us…when we read how that longed-for smile was kissed by so great a lover, this one [Paolo], who never shall be parted from me, kissed my mouth all trembling…that day we read no farther…”

Paolo’s brother finally discovered their secret and killed them both, relegating the lovers to an eternity of being buffeted by “warring winds” and “hellish hurricane[s]”—a dire price to pay for an affair begun by a clandestine kiss.

Within a courtly love context, the kiss was the ultimate gift that a lady could bestow upon her lover. Troubadour poetry is rife with longing for this sweet reward, which may never be accorded: one poet yearns to “kiss her mouth in such a way / it would show for a month and a day.”

(For those who overindulged in smooching, the medical compendium Trotula advises a salve made from fleawort or lilies to assuage chapped lips!) The famous trobairitz (female troubadour) the Comtessa de Dia lords her love over her “sweet friend” by hinting that she might “grant [him] kisses amorous” in the dark cover of the night until “he’d think himself in paradise.”

This gifted kiss can both wound and heal. One poet begs his beloved to “soothe [my] pain and sorrow with a kiss” when his love makes his heart painfully “crackle and flare.” Another writes:

Lady, for whom I sing and more,

Your lips wounded me to the core,

With a sweet kiss of love heart-true,

Grant joy, save me from mortal sorrow too.

Alongside the overt sensuality and eroticism, this romantic kiss also acts as a promise of fidelity, broken only at the lover’s peril. Borrowing from the homage ceremony, the lover puts himself in the subordinate role to his beloved, who plays the lord to his vassal. A female-voiced chanson d’amour highlights this elision between love and loyalty:

…I, who am a loyal friend,

Cannot find any love in my friend.

In the past I received a kiss from him.

I put him under the jurisdiction of my love.

If there are those who kiss without loving,

By a kiss, one betrays one’s lovers well.

Such kisses are inverted and lampooned in the fabliaux, bawdy tales where most kisses land crudely on the protagonist’s nether regions. In Guérin’s account of “Long Butthole Berengier,” a peasant-knight is forced to bestow a “filthy kiss of peace” on bent-over Berengier (actually his wife in disguise), a demand designed to humiliate and debase him.

Chaucer offers a similar kiss in The Miller’s Tale, where the cleric Absalom gets his osculatory comeuppance for his risible pursuit of Alison. Recognizing a chance to steal a kiss, Absalom, whose “mouth’s been itching all this livelong day,” slinks to Alison’s house in the dark only to lay a smack on her “nether eye.”

Quite at the opposite end of the spectrum, the kiss in the Middle Ages served as a gateway to the mystical divine. Bishops bestowed the holy kiss upon recipients of sacraments like baptism, penitential absolution, and ordination. Christians kissed relics, icons, episcopal rings, and the liturgical pax (a board decorated with sacred imagery that was offered before parishioners received communion).

In Mecca, in imitation of Muhammed, Muslims kissed the holy relic of the Black Stone on the Ka’aba. Jewish worshippers at a synagogue kissed the mantle of the Torah. In each case, the mouth communicated reverence and humility.

For Bernard of Clairvaux, the kiss was the highest attainable union with Christ. In his 86-sermon collection on the Song of Songs, the Cistercian mystic hinges his ecstatic musings on the bride’s plea to her bridegroom: “‘Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth’” (Song of Songs 1:2).

More than a joining of lips or hearts, the kiss of Christ’s mouth is revelation, sublimation, and rhapsody. Bernard distinguishes three hierarchically arranged kisses in the approach to union with Christ. Rather than “rashly aspir[ing] to the lips of a most benign Bridegroom,” worshippers must begin in penitence by kissing Christ’s feet, and then ascend to kiss his hands to “give glory to his name.”

Only then are they worthy for “the most intimate kiss of all, a mystery of supreme generosity and ineffable sweetness.” This, of course, is the kiss of the mouth. In a dizzying rapturous crescendo, Bernard states that Christ’s

living, active word is to me a kiss, not indeed an adhering of the lips that can sometimes belie a union of hearts, but an unreserved infusion of joys, a revealing of mysteries, a marvelous and indistinguishable mingling of the divine light with the enlightened mind, which, joined in truth to God, is one spirit with him.

Like an unsatisfied lover, “anyone who has received this mystical kiss from the mouth of Christ…seeks again that intimate experience, and eagerly looks for its frequent renewal.”

Bernard’s contemporary, the mystical abbess Hildegard of Bingen, bridges the external and internal through the kiss:

The soul is kissed by God in its innermost regions. With interior yearning, grace and blessing are bestowed.

Another mystic, Angela of Foligno, related a vision in which she was “in ecstasy” in the tomb with Christ on Holy Saturday, between his Crucifixion and Resurrection. In consummate intimacy, she “kissed his mouth from which she received a wonderful and indescribably delightful odor breathing forth” as Christ revealed the extent of his love for her.

Similarly, the Sufi mystic Rumi frames all of human desire in the embodied terms of a kiss: There is some kiss we want with our whole lives, the touch of spirit on the body.

The eroticism associated with high medieval mystical traditions encapsulates both the understanding of a kiss as an expression of hunger for supreme union in love, and as a sacred and ritual mark of achieving those spiritual gains.

A multivalent act, both flexible and formal, to kiss in the Middle Ages was to position oneself vis-à-vis another. By binding a legal or marital transaction with a kiss, one emphasized the mutual exchange of oaths and trust. By kissing a shoe or hem of a superior’s cloak, or by planting lips on a cross or Gospel book, one could display deference, respect, and veneration.

By deigning to bestow a kiss on a lover, one could subvert mores or gender roles, all the while retaining the upper hand. And there are still manifold categories of kisses not discussed here: erotic same-sex kisses, kisses of homage between a celibate monk and a noblewoman, illicit kisses between those who professed to the religious life, parents’ kisses conferred on their children, &c.

The closer we examine medieval references to kisses, the more the simple touching of lips unspools into layered, complicated, and ambiguous practice and meaning—each example more compelling to unpack than the last.”

- Christine Axen, “Kissing in the Middle Ages.”

#christine axen #medieval #history

9 notes · View notes