I would also add here that Christianity's (and especially Catholicism's, far beyond say Orthodox christianity that permitted divorce in cases of infidelity) absolute hostility to divorce was also relatively unusual, and I suspect also played a role in making marriage and love something more than a business contract - as it was for the Romans and indeed most cultures. For the Romans divorce was not only possible but it was the prerogative of the paterfamilias - if the contract between two familes broke down then the head of a family was perfectly entitled to force his children to divorce and marry more economically or politically beneficial unions - as for example happened with the daughter of Augustus, Julia, when she was forced to marry his adopted son the later emperor Tiberius.
Even today in Islam this ancient sense that marriage is a sublunary contract above all pervades - divorce is certainly possible in Islam and is relatively easy for the man to obtain if his family/tribe deem it expedient. There is the whole concept of temporary marriages in traditional Arab cultures to girls who are in effect prostitutes in order to meet the requirements of Islamic law - relatively common in the Arabian penninsula to this day - I think shows the extent to which marriage is regarded in highly contractual terms. Not that marriage doesn't have theological or moral purpose - it does - but it does so at an arms remove from the divine in the sense of it corresponding to a divine social order, rather than being a direct union that is formed in the image of one's metaphysical relation to God - the "great mystery" of St Paul. Like many aspects of Christianity it took centuries for the full consequences of these radical doctrines to fully reconfigure society, but the kernel of it was there from the start.
The laws around consanguinity and annulment were often cynically exploited by the aristocracy in order to keep the contractual definition of marriage alive and possible. Indeed this was the root of Henry VIII's incomprehension with the papcy for not granting him an annualment with Catherine of Aragon given she was the widow of his brother, something that in previous ages would have been nigh-on automatic. (And indeed had Catherine's brother the Emperor Charles V not controlled Rome and the Pope at that time it probably still would have been.) I think this situation shows the extent to which there was indeed a clash between Christianity and the aristocratic (and more ancient) visions of the world in the Middle Ages, something that in political terms expressed itself in the Gregorian Reform movement, but which I think gives the lie to the idea that the medieval world was some kind of deadening monolith of thought and attitudes (c.f. the introduction of Aristoteleanism in the 13th century) - rather than an era of real social and intellectual tumult that reverberates to our own day.
The fact that marriage was something divine - a sacrament indeed - and could not be broken by humans I think was a crucial step towards it being seen as something that was not merely a contract between families but had some kind of metaphysical purpose beyond pragmatic social functions.
Lovely article! If you find yourself in search of a historical topic, please consider writing on the 10th century Peace Movement.
This pivotal period of European history banished the violent anarchy of the Dark Ages, and effectively changed the connotation of the title 'knight' from 'member of a roaming gang of thugs' to 'member of a chivalrous order, sworn to protect the weak'.
It's virtually unheard of, even in some historian circles, but constitutes one of the most dramatic changes in European society of the medieval era. Siedentop has a chapter on it in 'Inventing the Individual'.
C.S. Lewis' essay 'The Necessity of Chivalry' is a good reference point, when it comes to its enduring legacy in the modern mind.
Another great article…. If people only realised how many of our freedoms do come downstream of Christianity it would perhaps change the narrative on religion. The big shock though - chastity belts are a myth! I was convinced (no idea how) that they were used by knights riding off to the crusades to ensure spousal fidelity. That having been said, I did wonder how the unfortunate women coped with bodily functions without incurring horrific infections…glad I was misinformed!
It's good to see someone acknowledge that modern individualism has deep roots and wasn't something invented out of whole cloth in the 60s.
I find it odd though that the Middle Ages would approve of the act of armed robbery Mr. West mentions early in the piece. Theft has been a sin in Christian thought for time immemorial.
It is greatly to be hoped that Ed has read Alasdair MacIntyre's 'After Virtue' and perhaps also AM's 'Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity' wherein he will find an entirely different approach to the virtues as perceived in the Mediaeval world and the systematic extinction of classical (or Aristotelian) morality together with the birth of the modern conception of the 'self'.
Looks like it's down to me to have the balls to say there's nothing strange about wanting to avoid a marriage featuring unattractive feet. Loved this piece.
I always felt sorry for Catharine of Aragon because her whole lifelong raison d’etre went up in smoke when Henry’s member malfunctioned (it’s the mans sperm which determines the sex of a child and pretty easy now to raise your odds of boy or girl). Honestly what a ghastly toad he was wrecking that marriage and England with it.
Thanks for using the words member and organ neatly slotted in to your piece. Sorry to all the humiliated men who had women of good standing 💪🏼 prancing around their beds trying to encourage some action but it’s 2024 and women can confirm that most implements used on them from forceps to speculums are still very much medieval!
In the last but one picture the Calvin Klein-style trunks the man is wearing look suspiciously modern, as does his Phil Foden-esque haircut. And is that pillowcase intentionally emboidered to look like two, though not a pair of, breasts?
I realise that since we are all children of the Catholic Church's individualist revolution, individualism looks pretty good and normal to us. Still, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what we left behind. For example, while from the outside MENA-style clannishness looks like a recipe for nepotism, corruption and never-ending clan rivalry, from within I suspect it feels a lot more natural, meaningful and web-like in its relationships than our more open societies.
I would also add here that Christianity's (and especially Catholicism's, far beyond say Orthodox christianity that permitted divorce in cases of infidelity) absolute hostility to divorce was also relatively unusual, and I suspect also played a role in making marriage and love something more than a business contract - as it was for the Romans and indeed most cultures. For the Romans divorce was not only possible but it was the prerogative of the paterfamilias - if the contract between two familes broke down then the head of a family was perfectly entitled to force his children to divorce and marry more economically or politically beneficial unions - as for example happened with the daughter of Augustus, Julia, when she was forced to marry his adopted son the later emperor Tiberius.
Even today in Islam this ancient sense that marriage is a sublunary contract above all pervades - divorce is certainly possible in Islam and is relatively easy for the man to obtain if his family/tribe deem it expedient. There is the whole concept of temporary marriages in traditional Arab cultures to girls who are in effect prostitutes in order to meet the requirements of Islamic law - relatively common in the Arabian penninsula to this day - I think shows the extent to which marriage is regarded in highly contractual terms. Not that marriage doesn't have theological or moral purpose - it does - but it does so at an arms remove from the divine in the sense of it corresponding to a divine social order, rather than being a direct union that is formed in the image of one's metaphysical relation to God - the "great mystery" of St Paul. Like many aspects of Christianity it took centuries for the full consequences of these radical doctrines to fully reconfigure society, but the kernel of it was there from the start.
The laws around consanguinity and annulment were often cynically exploited by the aristocracy in order to keep the contractual definition of marriage alive and possible. Indeed this was the root of Henry VIII's incomprehension with the papcy for not granting him an annualment with Catherine of Aragon given she was the widow of his brother, something that in previous ages would have been nigh-on automatic. (And indeed had Catherine's brother the Emperor Charles V not controlled Rome and the Pope at that time it probably still would have been.) I think this situation shows the extent to which there was indeed a clash between Christianity and the aristocratic (and more ancient) visions of the world in the Middle Ages, something that in political terms expressed itself in the Gregorian Reform movement, but which I think gives the lie to the idea that the medieval world was some kind of deadening monolith of thought and attitudes (c.f. the introduction of Aristoteleanism in the 13th century) - rather than an era of real social and intellectual tumult that reverberates to our own day.
The fact that marriage was something divine - a sacrament indeed - and could not be broken by humans I think was a crucial step towards it being seen as something that was not merely a contract between families but had some kind of metaphysical purpose beyond pragmatic social functions.
Lovely article! If you find yourself in search of a historical topic, please consider writing on the 10th century Peace Movement.
This pivotal period of European history banished the violent anarchy of the Dark Ages, and effectively changed the connotation of the title 'knight' from 'member of a roaming gang of thugs' to 'member of a chivalrous order, sworn to protect the weak'.
It's virtually unheard of, even in some historian circles, but constitutes one of the most dramatic changes in European society of the medieval era. Siedentop has a chapter on it in 'Inventing the Individual'.
C.S. Lewis' essay 'The Necessity of Chivalry' is a good reference point, when it comes to its enduring legacy in the modern mind.
Another great article…. If people only realised how many of our freedoms do come downstream of Christianity it would perhaps change the narrative on religion. The big shock though - chastity belts are a myth! I was convinced (no idea how) that they were used by knights riding off to the crusades to ensure spousal fidelity. That having been said, I did wonder how the unfortunate women coped with bodily functions without incurring horrific infections…glad I was misinformed!
Great article - I learned a lot. Now I can pontificate on stuff without having to read all the books you’ve read.
It's good to see someone acknowledge that modern individualism has deep roots and wasn't something invented out of whole cloth in the 60s.
I find it odd though that the Middle Ages would approve of the act of armed robbery Mr. West mentions early in the piece. Theft has been a sin in Christian thought for time immemorial.
It is greatly to be hoped that Ed has read Alasdair MacIntyre's 'After Virtue' and perhaps also AM's 'Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity' wherein he will find an entirely different approach to the virtues as perceived in the Mediaeval world and the systematic extinction of classical (or Aristotelian) morality together with the birth of the modern conception of the 'self'.
Looks like it's down to me to have the balls to say there's nothing strange about wanting to avoid a marriage featuring unattractive feet. Loved this piece.
Great stuff Ed
I always felt sorry for Catharine of Aragon because her whole lifelong raison d’etre went up in smoke when Henry’s member malfunctioned (it’s the mans sperm which determines the sex of a child and pretty easy now to raise your odds of boy or girl). Honestly what a ghastly toad he was wrecking that marriage and England with it.
Thanks for using the words member and organ neatly slotted in to your piece. Sorry to all the humiliated men who had women of good standing 💪🏼 prancing around their beds trying to encourage some action but it’s 2024 and women can confirm that most implements used on them from forceps to speculums are still very much medieval!
In the last but one picture the Calvin Klein-style trunks the man is wearing look suspiciously modern, as does his Phil Foden-esque haircut. And is that pillowcase intentionally emboidered to look like two, though not a pair of, breasts?
I realise that since we are all children of the Catholic Church's individualist revolution, individualism looks pretty good and normal to us. Still, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what we left behind. For example, while from the outside MENA-style clannishness looks like a recipe for nepotism, corruption and never-ending clan rivalry, from within I suspect it feels a lot more natural, meaningful and web-like in its relationships than our more open societies.
What became of the princess who could not speak?