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.
A very interesting comment on a very interesting article. Much to chew over for the rest of the day.
I vividly recall what you describe so well as marriage being a component of 'one's metaphysical relation to God'. Even more than that I remember, in the BCP wedding service we had, the sense of God Almighty being the personal witness, the guarantor, the mediator, the conduit, the mortar and almost almost the third party in our marriage. Especially when the Minister pronounced the awful and beautiful sentence -
"I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful."
Before asking me
"WILT thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?"
I have never forgotten that charge and what I consented to and in Whos presence that charge and consent was given. It stays with me everyday.
". . . gives the lie to the idea that the medieval world was some kind of deadening monolith of thought and attitudes . . ."
Indeed so. The very fact that we have inherited a term which means, 'archaic, primitive, barbarous, cruel' (medieval, OED) is much to be lamented. We see our heritage as emanating from Athens and Jerusalem plus Rome, but too rarely do we cite and Winchester and Geatland plus Rouen.
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.
We see the medieval notion of chivalry encapsulated in the older senses of the words 'gentle' and 'gentleman' – not merely urbane, but embodying a well-regulated capacity for both ferocity and tenderness.
Note the words Shakespeare puts to the mouth of Mark Anthony as he describes the departed Julius Caesar:
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!
Yep, if you place individual freedom above all else then the Catholic Church's innovations were indeed a blessing. Even so, I do sometimes wonder if the epidemic of loneliness in western societies doesn't have something to do with those individual freedoms.
The Western commitment to individual freedoms is likely the primary catalyst for Western flourishing. But it does come at a cost. Conversely, the more clannish or communal civilizations have perhaps remained more backwards and narrow. But they do have their benefits.
Ferdinand Tönnies wrote of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (community and society); the former typified by the village the latter the State. There's obviously a tension between the two but, having spent my dotage in a former pit-community, they are not, I think, necessarily mutually exclusive.
Freedom as understood by the religious is not freedom as understood by the secular. Individual freedom is always limited by and subject to the relationship to God. It would not appeal to the secular I’m afraid.
Yes, I imagine you're right. I have always ordered my preferences so:
1. Good marriage with children
2. Good marriage without children
3. On your own
4. Stuck with someone who gets on your nerves.
Occasionally I see happy families go by and I envy them. At other times I hear the way couples talk to each other, or the way children and parents interact, and bless my lucky stars that I'm not them.
p.s. Does your handle have any bearing on your views on marriage?
Anyone you share an abode with (including pets) will get on your nerves at whiles. Sharing a home with someone you end up loathing is one of the dooms found in the lower depths of Hell... and here on Earth too if make thexwring choice.
Ah, nice. I've never been married but regret not having done so, mainly for the children. But then my image of children is quite rosy and whenever I actually come into contact with any, for example through friends, I can't wait to get away. Maybe it's a case of the grass always being greener, or maybe I have read too much Evolutionary Theory, where the whole point of life is to reproduce. Until I read that I was quite happy in my childlessness.
It is quite hard to interpret many items from the past when you don't have the context to understand the way they were used; it is perfectly normal that certain items discovered in old collections of medieval miscellany would have been assumed to be used as such. It is not an especially far fetched conjecture.
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'.
Could you expand on that? I have always understood AM to have been considered a vigorous proponent of the Aristotelian/Thomist ethical model. Something shared, therefore, with the Medieval world view which is described so sympathetically in this article. Have I misundertstood AM, this article, your comment or (more likely) all three?
Most recently AM called himself a Thomist Aristotelian. In the Preface to 'After Virtue' 2nd Ed. he writes ".. the moral defects and failures... of liberal individualism arise.... because it embodies the ethos of the...modernising world". The book goes on to elaborate how a rationally defensible moral standpoint was, and yet could be embodied. AM calls this Neo-Aristotelianism.
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.
That seems to be the case, reading travelogues about modern Egypt. However, empathy is limited, and there is always a tradeoff between the poles of weak personal ties + high-functioning civil society, vs. strong personal ties + weak civic culture.
Personally, I think the ideal space is somewhere in between clans and being a full-on WEIRDo - but closer to being a WEIRDo.
There's also the curious case of East Asia, which has strong interpersonal ties AND prosocial norms on the same level as the West. The Catholic church is what dragged the West from the ancestral state of clannish honor culture, but what social force transformed the East?
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.
A very interesting comment on a very interesting article. Much to chew over for the rest of the day.
I vividly recall what you describe so well as marriage being a component of 'one's metaphysical relation to God'. Even more than that I remember, in the BCP wedding service we had, the sense of God Almighty being the personal witness, the guarantor, the mediator, the conduit, the mortar and almost almost the third party in our marriage. Especially when the Minister pronounced the awful and beautiful sentence -
"I REQUIRE and charge you both, as ye will answer at the dreadful day of judgement, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, that if either of you know any impediment, why ye may not be lawfully joined together in Matrimony, ye do now confess it. For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God's Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful."
Before asking me
"WILT thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God's ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honour, and keep her, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all other, keep thee only unto her, so long as ye both shall live?"
I have never forgotten that charge and what I consented to and in Whos presence that charge and consent was given. It stays with me everyday.
". . . gives the lie to the idea that the medieval world was some kind of deadening monolith of thought and attitudes . . ."
Indeed so. The very fact that we have inherited a term which means, 'archaic, primitive, barbarous, cruel' (medieval, OED) is much to be lamented. We see our heritage as emanating from Athens and Jerusalem plus Rome, but too rarely do we cite and Winchester and Geatland plus Rouen.
Good comment Sjk, from a very informed reader!
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.
it's a great subject, I should do that
We see the medieval notion of chivalry encapsulated in the older senses of the words 'gentle' and 'gentleman' – not merely urbane, but embodying a well-regulated capacity for both ferocity and tenderness.
Note the words Shakespeare puts to the mouth of Mark Anthony as he describes the departed Julius Caesar:
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mixed in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world: “This was a man.”
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!
Yep, if you place individual freedom above all else then the Catholic Church's innovations were indeed a blessing. Even so, I do sometimes wonder if the epidemic of loneliness in western societies doesn't have something to do with those individual freedoms.
The Western commitment to individual freedoms is likely the primary catalyst for Western flourishing. But it does come at a cost. Conversely, the more clannish or communal civilizations have perhaps remained more backwards and narrow. But they do have their benefits.
Ferdinand Tönnies wrote of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (community and society); the former typified by the village the latter the State. There's obviously a tension between the two but, having spent my dotage in a former pit-community, they are not, I think, necessarily mutually exclusive.
Freedom as understood by the religious is not freedom as understood by the secular. Individual freedom is always limited by and subject to the relationship to God. It would not appeal to the secular I’m afraid.
There is nothing lonelier than a miserable marriage you cannot escape from.
Divorce may be seen as a curse but for some poor souls it is a release from Hell.
Yes, I imagine you're right. I have always ordered my preferences so:
1. Good marriage with children
2. Good marriage without children
3. On your own
4. Stuck with someone who gets on your nerves.
Occasionally I see happy families go by and I envy them. At other times I hear the way couples talk to each other, or the way children and parents interact, and bless my lucky stars that I'm not them.
p.s. Does your handle have any bearing on your views on marriage?
Anyone you share an abode with (including pets) will get on your nerves at whiles. Sharing a home with someone you end up loathing is one of the dooms found in the lower depths of Hell... and here on Earth too if make thexwring choice.
No I never thought of that!
Poor Miss H - jilted at the altar and forever stuck at that traumatic moment.
I am very untidy and one day I looked at my house and thought this looks like a crack den (it probably doesn't - I've never been in one!)
I am also fast approaching 70 so I thought "It would have to be Miss Haversham's crack den" hence my online name.
I have never wanted children ever not even happy families make me regret my childless state.
Twice married, twice divorced - both times fairly amicably - I love the single life so much more than being a wife.
Ah, nice. I've never been married but regret not having done so, mainly for the children. But then my image of children is quite rosy and whenever I actually come into contact with any, for example through friends, I can't wait to get away. Maybe it's a case of the grass always being greener, or maybe I have read too much Evolutionary Theory, where the whole point of life is to reproduce. Until I read that I was quite happy in my childlessness.
It is quite hard to interpret many items from the past when you don't have the context to understand the way they were used; it is perfectly normal that certain items discovered in old collections of medieval miscellany would have been assumed to be used as such. It is not an especially far fetched conjecture.
Great article - I learned a lot. Now I can pontificate on stuff without having to read all the books you’ve read.
thank you. that is why I'm here.
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'.
Could you expand on that? I have always understood AM to have been considered a vigorous proponent of the Aristotelian/Thomist ethical model. Something shared, therefore, with the Medieval world view which is described so sympathetically in this article. Have I misundertstood AM, this article, your comment or (more likely) all three?
Most recently AM called himself a Thomist Aristotelian. In the Preface to 'After Virtue' 2nd Ed. he writes ".. the moral defects and failures... of liberal individualism arise.... because it embodies the ethos of the...modernising world". The book goes on to elaborate how a rationally defensible moral standpoint was, and yet could be embodied. AM calls this Neo-Aristotelianism.
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.
haha
The funny thing is that she was 20 and he was 60. Very 'problematic'
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!
He was history's greatest monster, Alison.
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.
That seems to be the case, reading travelogues about modern Egypt. However, empathy is limited, and there is always a tradeoff between the poles of weak personal ties + high-functioning civil society, vs. strong personal ties + weak civic culture.
Personally, I think the ideal space is somewhere in between clans and being a full-on WEIRDo - but closer to being a WEIRDo.
There's also the curious case of East Asia, which has strong interpersonal ties AND prosocial norms on the same level as the West. The Catholic church is what dragged the West from the ancestral state of clannish honor culture, but what social force transformed the East?
What became of the princess who could not speak?
Don’t know. Will have to look it up.
It would be wrong to say that her husband lived happily ever after, wouldn't it?