faq2
Paul J Gans
This is Part 2 of the soc.history.medieval Question
and Answer file posted by Paul J. Gans
E. Construction:
1. How were cathedrals built?
2. How were castles built?
3. Why do castle staircases all turn the same way?
They don't, but the majority of those in defensive use spiral
down and left from the top of a building so that those defending
it have space to wield their weapon, while those coming up have
the central pillar blocking most of their attacks. However, in
the later period ascetics come into the equation, and it is
sometimes the case that staircases are symmetrical at either end
of a building, giving one left-handed and one right-handed stair.
Since it was expected that fighting in a castle would involve
forcing your way up a spiral staircase, those with formal
military training would have been trained in how to approach this
situation, normally involving the use of short spears and missile
weapons in the confined space rather than facing your immediate
opponent sword to sword.
---- Paul Murphy <paul....@gemini-research.co.uk>
4. Why do some castle staircsases turn the other way?
Practicalities and asthetics are the main reasons, but there are
some which were intentionally designed this way at a time when
others were almost all right-handed. The most well-known example
of this is the Kerr family in the Scottish borders, the more
senior members of which were trained from birth to fight
left-handed, and whose stairs all went in the opposite direction
to normal. The benefit of this is not immediately obvious, since
it means that the man at the top of the stairs has no advantage
over the right-handed attacker except for the fact that he is
left-handed.
---- Paul Murphy <paul....@gemini-research.co.uk>
F. Crime and Punishment:
1. Were people really strung up or put on spikes as
a lesson to others?
2. What were medieval prisons really like?
3. How did trial by combat work?
Trial by combat was a method of proof used in English
courts for both criminal and civil cases. It was introduced
into England by the Normans. The idea behind combat was an
appeal to the supernatural. It was expected that God would
aid the person who was in the right, and that person would
prevail.
Combat as a method of proof fell into disfavor with the
increased use of the jury, particularly after 1215, when
the Lateran Council withdrew official santion of all methods
of proof which appealed to the supernatural (battle, ordeals
of hot iron and hot water, etc). However, in England it was
still technically available as a form of proof until the late
18th or early 19th centuries when trial by battle was demanded
in the case of _Ashford v Thornton_ .
As is the case with many practices that were common throughout
Western Europe, there were regional variation. In general,
women or clerics who were involved in a case where battle
was involved, could use a proxy. However, there are cases
where women did engage in battle. One interesting one I
believe occured in Germany, where the man was "handicapped"
during the battle. He was forced to fight in a pit with only
his head and shoulders above ground and one hand tied behind his
back!
---- Joseph Rooney, Jr. <jr...@mindspring.com>
4. Could people really claim sanctuary in a Church?
Yes. The king's writ did not run to consecrated places.
But the privilege only lasted for forty days. At the end
of forty days the criminal had three choices: (1) He could
try to run and possibly find sanctuary elsewhere; (2) he
could choose to stand trial; or (3) he could choose to
"abjure" (leave) the realm. The felon was followed to
a seaport where he was expected to gain passage on a ship.
If the felon strayed even slightly form the route to the
seaport, he could be executed on the spot.
There were also private sanctuaries, such as monastic houses,
where criminals could seek permanent refuge. courts sought to
curb this practice, and no new private sanctuaries were created
after 1189.
For additional information on both of the above subjects, see
Baker, _An Introduction to English Legal History_ 3d Ed. and
the bibliography therein.
---- Joseph Rooney, Jr. <jr...@mindspring.com>
G. The Crusades:
1. What are the Crusades?
2. Why did they happen?
H. Everyday Life:
1. Did the medievals wash?
Yes.
---- CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk>
2. Did they eat spoiled meat?
No. Meat would often be salted, or cured in some
other way (eg smoking), in order to prevent it from spoiling.
---- CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk>
3. What about chastity belts?
4. How did people in a Medieval city get rid of their excrement?
5. Could people read?
6. Did the average medieval European actually eat corn?
"Corn" in Europe is simply another word for "grain",
so yes. The exact nature of the corn would vary with
location, so in some places corn would refer to wheat,
while in others it might be barley or oats. In England
"corn" and "grain" are still more or less interchangable.
In the United States "corn" means specifically what the
Europeans call "maize".
---- CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> [slightly modified
by Paul J. Gans]
7. What did people wear?
8. What did people eat?
9. What were medieval houses like?
10. Did medievals have hospitals? What were they like?
The word hospital is derived from the Latin _hospitium_,
from which we also get the words hostel, hotel, and hospitality.
Those hospitals which did house the sick were not necessarily
places for healing, but were more often than not a place where
the afflicted would be able to find asylum. Charity was one of
the cardinal virtues, and giving alms to the sick was one of
the ways in which a medieval person could shorten their stay
in purgatory.
---- CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk>
11. What kind of sense of time did the medievals have?
12. Did they really hang their clothes in the lavatory?
Not so far as we can tell. It is most likely that this
misunderstanding arose out of the dual meaning for the
word "garderobe" meaning both a cupboard for clothes
(the modern word waredrobe is from this source) and
a room for shitting in. This is presumably along the same
lines as the more recent use of "closet" to mean the room
for shitting in.
---- CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk>
13. With what did they wipe their arses when they had
used the lavatory?
As with many aspects of medieval daily life, there is little clear
evidence, and it will have varied according to time and place.
We know from archaeological evidence that in some areas during
the Age of Insufficient Light (qv) that mosses were used.
(The best known of these is the Coppergate dig in York which
was later commercialised into the Yorvik Viking Centre) We can
assume that leaves and other plant material were commonly
used everywhere.
A poster to one of the threads on this subject had apparently
read of scraps of cloth having been found by archaeologists.
It is not known whether these were used only once, or whether
they were washed and re-used. Nor is it known how common this
practice was, or even if the cloths were definitely used for
that purpose on a regular basis.
The third possibility is washing. It is known that Romans
had used a sponge on a stick for their ablutions in that
region, and it does not seem too far fetched to assume that
this custom was also practiced in the Middle Ages. It may be
that this is what the cloths referred to above were for.
---- CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk>
Cacata carta (Catullus 36.1).]
That the sponge was used instead of toilet paper of some
kind is a very common misconseption. The Roman toilets had
two water flows. One closed below the person and one open
in front. And soap was used too - Pliny mentioned it.
(possibly in Forbes: Studies in Ancient Technology)
---- SEN...@argo.rhein-neckar.de [edited by Paul J. Gans]
Tony Jebson
[snip]
> 5. Could people read?
Early in the medieval period, it is likely that less than
10% of the population could read, and that this ability
was restricted to a small aristocratic and ecclesiastical
elite.
By the end of the period, over 50% of male urban population
could read and reading was common throughout urban society.
The situation in rural areas is harder to assess, but the
percentage was undoubtedly lower.
[snip]
--- Tony Jebson
PS as usual for me, this is true of England. I'm less sure
of continental rates.
H.D. Miller
> Paul J Gans wrote:
> [snip]
> > 5. Could people read?
>
> Early in the medieval period, it is likely that less than
> 10% of the population could read, and that this ability
> was restricted to a small aristocratic and ecclesiastical
> elite.
>
> By the end of the period, over 50% of male urban population
> could read and reading was common throughout urban society.
> The situation in rural areas is harder to assess, but the
> percentage was undoubtedly lower.
There was also near universal literacy among adult Jewish males throughout
the period. And there is evidence to suggest that literacy rates were
fairly high among Muslim men and certain groups of Muslim women,
especially of the upper classes, although determining an exact percentage
seems impossible.
H.D. Miller
nic...@my-deja.com
je...@texas.net wrote:
> Early in the medieval period, it is likely that less than
> 10% of the population could read, and that this ability
> was restricted to a small aristocratic and ecclesiastical
> elite.
<snip more good stuff>
It might be worth adding that unlike today, illiteracy and ignorance
were not synonymous; that is, it was entirely possible to be a fully
functional member of society without being able to read. Those who
point to literacy rates in the Middle Ages as an implicit statement of
the ignorance prevalent "back then" are applying a modern Western
standard of literacy. Apples to oranges.
Susan Carroll-Clark
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Paul J Gans
>Early in the medieval period, it is likely that less than
>10% of the population could read, and that this ability
>was restricted to a small aristocratic and ecclesiastical
>elite.
>By the end of the period, over 50% of male urban population
>could read and reading was common throughout urban society.
>The situation in rural areas is harder to assess, but the
>percentage was undoubtedly lower.
>[snip]
>--- Tony Jebson
>PS as usual for me, this is true of England. I'm less sure
> of continental rates.
I've just started Clanchy's _From Memory to Written Record_.
His take on the causes of literacy will make many howl... ;-)
But I think he'd agree with your numbers in general.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Paul J Gans
>> 10% of the population could read, and that this ability
>> was restricted to a small aristocratic and ecclesiastical
>> elite.
><snip more good stuff>
>It might be worth adding that unlike today, illiteracy and ignorance
>were not synonymous; that is, it was entirely possible to be a fully
>functional member of society without being able to read. Those who
>point to literacy rates in the Middle Ages as an implicit statement of
>the ignorance prevalent "back then" are applying a modern Western
>standard of literacy. Apples to oranges.
>Susan Carroll-Clark
Michael Clanchy notes, in _From Memory to Written Record_
that there were a fair number of folks who could read but
not write. They *are* two distinct skills... Such folks
would not have been counted as "literate" back then.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Trubert
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:7os7pu$lk5$6...@news.panix.com...
> Michael Clanchy notes, in _From Memory to Written Record_
> that there were a fair number of folks who could read but
> not write. They *are* two distinct skills... Such folks
> would not have been counted as "literate" back then.
Not sure I agree, but there certainly were a number with limited ability to
read and write, and at the time, resources were so expensive that the main
method of text transmission was probably oral - even for those who could
read and write.
Trubert
David C. Pugh
Trubert wrote in message <7osavv$8mh$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Not sure I agree, but there certainly were a number with limited ability to
>read and write, and at the time, resources were so expensive that the main
>method of text transmission was probably oral - even for those who could
>read and write.
>
Another Clanchy, his life of Abelard, also emphasises the expensiveness of
writing resources. He claims that masters of the schools did not have access
to scriptoria, which is why we have far more writings from monks than from
the "secular" schools of the 12th century. (Another reason was that, in a
volatile and competitive market, for a teacher to write his works down would
be financial suicide, as people would read it instead of paying to hear his
lectures.)
David
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:7os7pu$lk5$6...@news.panix.com...
>> Michael Clanchy notes, in _From Memory to Written Record_
>> that there were a fair number of folks who could read but
>> not write. They *are* two distinct skills... Such folks
>> would not have been counted as "literate" back then.
>Not sure I agree, but there certainly were a number with limited ability to
>read and write, and at the time, resources were so expensive that the main
>method of text transmission was probably oral - even for those who could
>read and write.
Yes. Clanchy's point is that there were folks who could, perhaps
with some difficulty, read a document but could not write one
out due to inability to draw letter forms. Remember, it took
all of us some time to learn how to do that.
Clanchy's entire book is devoted to just your point. He goes
into the entire process of the transformation.
If I get a chance I'll try to scan in some choice bits later.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Trubert
> with some difficulty, read a document but could not write one
> out due to inability to draw letter forms. Remember, it took
> all of us some time to learn how to do that.
>
> Clanchy's entire book is devoted to just your point. He goes
> into the entire process of the transformation.
Okay, sounds better put that way - a relatively common example of this
might be individuals such as ministeriales, able to write just enough to
keep records (of stores etc.), yet not enough to e.g. write up a treaty.
Wolfram von Eschenbach fell pretty much into this bracket, for a famous
example.
David C. Pugh
Trubert wrote in message <7ossp9$lm6$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> Okay, sounds better put that way - a relatively common example of this
>might be individuals such as ministeriales, able to write just enough to
>keep records (of stores etc.), yet not enough to e.g. write up a treaty.
>Wolfram von Eschenbach fell pretty much into this bracket, for a famous
>example.
If "literacy" means being able to draft a _treaty_, that surely makes
literate synonymous with lawyer?
(Next period, Class will draft the Final Settlement for Palestine. Dismiss.)
David
Trubert
David C. Pugh <davi...@online.no> wrote in message
news:Qivs3.51$Sm....@news1.online.no...
>
> Trubert wrote in message <7ossp9$lm6$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> > Okay, sounds better put that way - a relatively common example of this
> >might be individuals such as ministeriales, able to write just enough to
> >keep records (of stores etc.), yet not enough to e.g. write up a treaty.
> >Wolfram von Eschenbach fell pretty much into this bracket, for a famous
> >example.
>
> If "literacy" means being able to draft a _treaty_, that surely makes
> literate synonymous with lawyer?
Maybe that's why several famous authors in the period denied being able to
read or write...
Trubert
David C. Pugh
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>
>This is Part 2 of the soc.history.medieval Question
>and Answer file posted by Paul J. Gans
>
>[snip]
>F. Crime and Punishment:
>
> 1. Were people really strung up or put on spikes as
> a lesson to others?
>
>
Under English law, the answer is yes, under certain circumstances.
In instances of highway robbery or aggravated homicide, the judge had
the discretion to order that the accused be gibbeted or "hang in
chains." The execution was a typical hanging, after which the body was
placed in a cage which hung by the side of the road, near where the
offence took place, and left to rot.
In the case of treason, the condemned would be hung and quartered.
This involved a partial strangulation, disembowlment, and finally
quartering of the body. The body parts were drenched with tar, and
then hung up in various parts of the realm as a warning.
On the continent, this was also practiced, but there is so much
variation, as to make generalization difficult. Hanging in chains,
impaling and the use of the wheel (a form of crucifiction) were
employed.
Joe Rooney
-Friends help you move. Real Friends help you move bodies.
H.D. Miller
> In instances of highway robbery or aggravated homicide, the judge had
> the discretion to order that the accused be gibbeted or "hang in
> chains." The execution was a typical hanging, after which the body was
> placed in a cage which hung by the side of the road, near where the
> offence took place, and left to rot.
This was also done with in cases of piracy and mutiny, with the corpses
being displayed at the entrances to English ports. The practice lasted
until the first decades of the 19th century.
H.D. Miller
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>
>This is Part 2 of the soc.history.medieval Question
>and Answer file posted by Paul J. Gans
>
>
>
>F. Crime and Punishment:
>
>
>
> 2. What were medieval prisons really like?
>
>
As is usual, my answer focuses primarily on England.
The use of prisons as a form of punishment is really a modern day
phenomenon. Prisons were primarily custodial, used to hold the
accused until trial. It was expensive to keep inmates in prison and
philosophically imprisonment was seen a s a mild punishment.
Prison life was usually very uncomfortable, particularly if you were
poor. Jails were usually privately operated and the jailor charged a
fee for everything. If you couldn't pay the jailor's fees, you did
without. For those of little means, this meant death or misery.
Starvation was a very real possibility. Sanitary conditions were
atrocious and there was a very serious risk of contracting disease
(jail fever- typhus). Many people died in jail before their trial was
even held. Prisoners of both sexes were housed together, which meant
that females were often subjected to rape (either by their fellow
inmates or by the jailor in return for other favors). Jailors would
often sell liquor to inmates, so drunkedness, brawls and other
violence were the norm.
On the other hand, if you were rich and could afford to pay the jailor
his fees, you might enjoy reasonable comfort. A bribe would allow
you to bring your personal possessions with you, and possibly a room
away from the rest of the prison population.
D. Spencer Hines
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Fortem Posce Animum
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:7ovnoe$jj9$3...@news.panix.com...
> Joseph Rooney, Jr <jr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>This is Part 2 of the soc.history.medieval Question
> >>and Answer file posted by Paul J. Gans
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>F. Crime and Punishment:
> >>
> >> 1. Were people really strung up or put on spikes as
> >> a lesson to others?
> >>
> >>
> >Under English law, the answer is yes, under certain circumstances.
>
> >In instances of highway robbery or aggravated homicide, the judge
had
> >the discretion to order that the accused be gibbeted or "hang in
> >chains." The execution was a typical hanging, after which the body
was
> >placed in a cage which hung by the side of the road, near where the
> >offence took place, and left to rot.
>
> >In the case of treason, the condemned would be hung and quartered.
>
> Hung, drawn, and quartered. It was the intestines that
> were drawn, as you've indicated below.
<snip>
>
> ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Hanged, drawn and quartered. Venison and studs [also men of a
particular type] are hung. Criminals and Traitors are hanged.
Hanging need not involve instant death.
Professors at New York University don't even seem to know simple
English grammar. They should lower the tuition to the parents and
students who are being cheated. <g>
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Fortem Posce Animum
Paul J Gans
>>
>>This is Part 2 of the soc.history.medieval Question
>>and Answer file posted by Paul J. Gans
>>
>>[snip]
>>F. Crime and Punishment:
>>
>> 1. Were people really strung up or put on spikes as
>> a lesson to others?
>>
>>
>Under English law, the answer is yes, under certain circumstances.
>In instances of highway robbery or aggravated homicide, the judge had
>the discretion to order that the accused be gibbeted or "hang in
>chains." The execution was a typical hanging, after which the body was
>placed in a cage which hung by the side of the road, near where the
>offence took place, and left to rot.
>In the case of treason, the condemned would be hung and quartered.
Hung, drawn, and quartered. It was the intestines that
were drawn, as you've indicated below.
>This involved a partial strangulation, disembowlment, and finally
>quartering of the body. The body parts were drenched with tar, and
>then hung up in various parts of the realm as a warning.
>On the continent, this was also practiced, but there is so much
>variation, as to make generalization difficult. Hanging in chains,
>impaling and the use of the wheel (a form of crucifiction) were
>employed.
Oh yes. In general, from what I've read, torture was not
used that frequently. As you've indicated, it tended to
be reserved for capital offenses and offenses of particular
concern to the ultimate authority -- the king or sometimes
on the continent the count or duke.
It was, IIRC, outlawed in England with the exception that
the crown could use it in cases of treason. However, I'd
not bet that a prisoner here and there at times did not
have a bit of a restless night...
Joseph Rooney, Jr
>Joseph Rooney, Jr <jr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>This is Part 2 of the soc.history.medieval Question
>>>and Answer file posted by Paul J. Gans
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>F. Crime and Punishment:
>>>
>>> 1. Were people really strung up or put on spikes as
>>> a lesson to others?
>>>
>>>
>>Under English law, the answer is yes, under certain circumstances.
>
>>In instances of highway robbery or aggravated homicide, the judge had
>>the discretion to order that the accused be gibbeted or "hang in
>>chains." The execution was a typical hanging, after which the body was
>>placed in a cage which hung by the side of the road, near where the
>>offence took place, and left to rot.
>
>>In the case of treason, the condemned would be hung and quartered.
>
>Hung, drawn, and quartered. It was the intestines that
>were drawn, as you've indicated below.
True. I guess my typing couldn't keep up with my thinking.
>
>
>>This involved a partial strangulation, disembowlment, and finally
>>quartering of the body. The body parts were drenched with tar, and
>>then hung up in various parts of the realm as a warning.
>
>>On the continent, this was also practiced, but there is so much
>>variation, as to make generalization difficult. Hanging in chains,
>>impaling and the use of the wheel (a form of crucifiction) were
>>employed.
>
>Oh yes. In general, from what I've read, torture was not
>used that frequently. As you've indicated, it tended to
>be reserved for capital offenses and offenses of particular
>concern to the ultimate authority -- the king or sometimes
>on the continent the count or duke.
>
>It was, IIRC, outlawed in England with the exception that
>the crown could use it in cases of treason. However, I'd
>not bet that a prisoner here and there at times did not
>have a bit of a restless night...
>
Yes. I meant to include a piece on that as well. IIRC torture wasn't
used in England until the early modern period in cases of treason.
however, even then it was used differently. Those convicted of treason
were subjected to torture to find out the identity of accomplices or
co-conspirators.
Mary Fisher
D. Spencer Hines <D._Spence...@aya.yale.edu> wrote in message
news:7ovtq4$gah$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
> Vide infra pro risibus.
>
> D. Spencer Hines
>
> Lux et Veritas
> Fortem Posce Animum
> --
>
> D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
> gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
> [1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
> and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
> while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
> ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
>
> news:7ovnoe$jj9$3...@news.panix.com...
>
> > Joseph Rooney, Jr <jr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >>and Answer file posted by Paul J. Gans
> > >>
> > >>F. Crime and Punishment:
> > >>
> > >> 1. Were people really strung up or put on spikes as
> > >> a lesson to others?
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > >In instances of highway robbery or aggravated homicide, the judge
> had
> > >the discretion to order that the accused be gibbeted or "hang in
> > >chains." The execution was a typical hanging, after which the body
> was
> > >placed in a cage which hung by the side of the road, near where the
> > >offence took place, and left to rot.
> >
> > >In the case of treason, the condemned would be hung and quartered.
> >
> > Hung, drawn, and quartered. It was the intestines that
> > were drawn, as you've indicated below.
>
> particular type] are hung.
and pictures
Criminals and Traitors are hanged.
Yes, this is a word I've been trying to explain for years. Even the
English - perhaps especially the English? - use the wrong word. I shall not
give up.
Mary the Chandler
Liz Broadwell
: Criminals and Traitors are hanged.
: Yes, this is a word I've been trying to explain for years. Even the
: English - perhaps especially the English? - use the wrong word. I shall not
: give up.
I remember this phrase because of its use in Tolkien's essay "On
Fairy-Stories". He speaks of going to a performance of _Puss-in-Boots_
which he disliked because watching it required his disbelief to be, not
suspended, but hanged, drawn and quartered. I've been using this phrase
with respect to bad movies ever since I discovered it. I expect I may
well have to use it when I go to see _The Thirteenth Warrior_, the
ill-omened John McTiernan-Michael Crichton adaptation of Crichton's
_Eaters of the Dead_, itself a mind-bending amalgamation of _Beowulf_, Ibn
Fadlan, and anthropological speculation.
Don't ask why I'm going to see it. I just feel compelled. :-)
Peace,
Liz
--
Elizabeth Broadwell | There are always two ways
(ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu) | to hear a thing. That's why
Department of English | we have two ears and an ego.
at the University of Pennsylvania | To stay confused.
Philadelphia, PA | -- W.F. Van Wert, "Cassandra"
D. Spencer Hines
for Lux et Veritas.
The serious problem is these college professors who haven't gotten the
word and who continue to pump out bum dope.
Now, perhaps if we took one and made an example of him, the others
might shape up.
We could make sure he was Hanged, Drawn and Quartered [completely
humanely, of course --- with the ASPCA and ACLU in attendance]. Then
we could put a piece of him on prominent display in each of the five
boroughs of New York City, saving the head for Manhattan.
Yes, the head would be the most important emblem for driving the
lesson home to the other academics. On a pike, out of reach of the
homeless, who might try to do something weird with it, under the
Washington Square Arch would be an excellent and apposite site. By
Christmas it should make quite a good object lesson.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
Fortem Posce Animum
--
D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
[1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
Liz Broadwell <ebro...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:7p1qc1$aru$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
Mary Fisher
> Don't give up the good fight. You are obviously a stalwart fighter
> for Lux et Veritas.
>
> The serious problem is these college professors who haven't gotten the
> word and who continue to pump out bum dope.
And journalists and 'intellectuals' and lecturers and teachers and writers
and many others who simply don't understand that the two words are not just
participles of the same word. I can almost forgive non British English
speakers but not those from these sceptred isles.
I shall not give up - on this or any other pedantry. Our language is too
precious to squander.
>
> Now, perhaps if we took one and made an example of him, the others
> might shape up.
>
> We could make sure he was Hanged, Drawn and Quartered [completely
> humanely, of course --- with the ASPCA and ACLU in attendance]. Then
> we could put a piece of him on prominent display in each of the five
> boroughs of New York City, saving the head for Manhattan.
>
> Yes, the head would be the most important emblem for driving the
> lesson home to the other academics. On a pike, out of reach of the
> homeless, who might try to do something weird with it, under the
> Washington Square Arch would be an excellent and apposite site. By
> Christmas it should make quite a good object lesson.
I'll leave that to you, too far for me to go just for a bit of fun.
Mary the Chandler. That's why
tiglath
Mary Fisher wrote in message <7p1pe4$rkd$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>> Vide infra pro risibus.
>>
>>
>> Lux et Veritas
>> Fortem Posce Animum
>> --
>>
>> D. Spencer Hines --- "Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini Tuo da
>> gloriam, propter misericordiam Tuam et veritatem Tuam." Henry V,
>> [1387-1422] King of England --- Ordered it to be sung by his prelates
>> and chaplains --- after the Battle of Agincourt, 25 Oct 1415, ---
>> while every able-bodied man in his victorious army knelt, on the
>> ground. [Psalm CXV, Verse I]
>>
>> news:7ovnoe$jj9$3...@news.panix.com...
>>
>> > Joseph Rooney, Jr <jr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > >Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >>
>> > >>and Answer file posted by Paul J. Gans
>> > >>
>> > >>F. Crime and Punishment:
>> > >>
>> > >> 1. Were people really strung up or put on spikes as
>> > >> a lesson to others?
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>> > >In instances of highway robbery or aggravated homicide, the judge
>> had
>> > >the discretion to order that the accused be gibbeted or "hang in
>> > >chains." The execution was a typical hanging, after which the body
>> was
>> > >placed in a cage which hung by the side of the road, near where the
>> > >offence took place, and left to rot.
>> >
>> > >In the case of treason, the condemned would be hung and quartered.
>> >
>> > Hung, drawn, and quartered. It was the intestines that
>> > were drawn, as you've indicated below.
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > ------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
>>
>>
>> Hanged, drawn and quartered. Venison and studs [also men of a
>> particular type] are hung.
>
The most vivid depiction of this execution is at the end of "Braveheart."
The Hanged, appears to be just enough to let him feel the rough end of the
gallows and then dropped, a kind of strappado of the neck. The Drawn, at
least in the film, is done in two ways. First, drawn by horse pulling at
ropes around feet and hands, a la rack, and then drawing the intestines a la
gutting a fish. Quartered is mercifully not felt by the victim and is just
to deny the dead to rest in peace, I think. The title of the execution
leaves off a couple of minor details, the removal of the genitals by cutting
them off, and the cutting of the head.
Thus, according to Mel Gibson the name is more appropriately: Hanged, Drawn,
Castrated, Drawn again, Decapitated and Quartered.
Don't mess with Long Shanks.
Gerrit Bigalski
Rooney, Jr) wrote:
[...]
>On the continent, this was also practiced, but there is so much
>variation, as to make generalization difficult. Hanging in chains,
>impaling and the use of the wheel (a form of crucifiction) were
>employed.
What makes you think of the wheel as "a form of crucifiction"?
As for display of executed: Here in Münster at the tower of St.
Lamberti are still hanging the three cages in which the anabaptist
leaders had been displayed after execution in 1535. (Okay, the
churchtower is a 19th century 'gothified' replacement, and the
original cages are actually in the Landesmuseum - but you still can
see cages high up at a churchtower here. ;-)
Gerrit
PS: This is a repost of a message which seems not willing to leave my
home-server. Sorry if the old message should finally decide to show up
in the world.
CG Luxford
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, tiglath wrote:
>
> The most vivid depiction of this execution is at the end of "Braveheart."
Not, it must be said, a historical source with the best reputation for
veracity on this ng.
> The Hanged, appears to be just enough to let him feel the rough end of the
> gallows and then dropped, a kind of strappado of the neck.
Generally medieval hangings were done without a drop. The executee was
pulled up. The drop was introduced much later in order to speed the
process up (and possibly to reduce suffering).
When hanging, drawing and quartering, the first part was until partially
axphixiated, a pretty vague definition. But as long as they were taken
down before actually dying, I guess it wasn't really all that important.
> The Drawn, at least in the film, is done in two ways. First, drawn by
> horse pulling at ropes around feet and hands, a la rack, and then
> drawing the intestines a la gutting a fish.
Drawing, in this context, refers only to the disembowelling. Th ehorse
thing may well have happened on occassion, but sounds like something
thought up by the film makers.
Sometimes the intestines would be burnt in front of the, still just
about alive, victim, Though this was not always the case.
> Quartered is mercifully not felt by the victim and is just
> to deny the dead to rest in peace, I think. The title of the execution
> leaves off a couple of minor details, the removal of the genitals by cutting
> them off, and the cutting of the head.
>
Chris,
Jonathan Hendry
Gogmagog wrote in message <7p523d$85r$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au>...
>
>CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:Pine.SOL.4.05.990814...@eis.bris.ac.uk...
>> > The Drawn, at least in the film, is done in two ways. First,
>drawn by
>> > horse pulling at ropes around feet and hands, a la rack, and then
>> > drawing the intestines a la gutting a fish.
>>
>> Drawing, in this context, refers only to the disembowelling. Th
>ehorse
>> thing may well have happened on occassion, but sounds like something
>> thought up by the film makers.
>
>the horses tug away until the person comes apart in quarters.
>Thinking about it though, I imagine it would be five pieces as the
>limbs would probably come off at the joints.
Only if the torso was fastened to something. Otherwise, it will
remain attached (somewhat) to one of the limbs.
Curt Emanuel
>
> CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.SOL.4.05.990814...@eis.bris.ac.uk...
> > > The Drawn, at least in the film, is done in two ways. First,
> drawn by
> > > horse pulling at ropes around feet and hands, a la rack, and then
> > > drawing the intestines a la gutting a fish.
> >
> > Drawing, in this context, refers only to the disembowelling. Th
> ehorse
> > thing may well have happened on occassion, but sounds like something
> > thought up by the film makers.
>
> I have a dim memory of the horse bit being part of 'quartering' i.e..
> the horses tug away until the person comes apart in quarters.
> Thinking about it though, I imagine it would be five pieces as the
> limbs would probably come off at the joints.
>
I can't recall an instance of this in England, however what you seem to
be referring to is being sentenced to be torn apart by horses. This was
occasionally used by the Merovingians, (they also liked to just drag
criminals to death) not in the quartering referred to here.
Quartering was pretty much a postmortem operation. I assume it was done
with an ax or sword. Pieces of the offender would be sent to various
places to remind folks of what might happen if they were naughty.
Of course the head was the prize section and was the most prominently
displayed.
--
Curt Emanuel (cema...@accs.net)
tiglath
> >
> > The most vivid depiction of this execution is at the end of
"Braveheart."
>
> Not, it must be said, a historical source with the best reputation for
> veracity on this ng.
Probably this newsgroup ran lengthy threads on Wallace after the movie came
out. I missed that but I am sure each inaccuracy was abundantly commented.
Hollywood has needs. Despite that, except for rare notable exceptions,
movie makers still don't have a clue as to what it takes to produce
blockbusters consistently. Yet, most believe a love story is of essence.
Never mind the Prince of Wales future wife was only nine at the time the
movie has her having a fling with Wallace, and who are we to say that
scriptwriters should be detained by cold hard history facts?
>
> > The Hanged, appears to be just enough to let him feel the rough end of
the
> > gallows and then dropped, a kind of strappado of the neck.
>
> Generally medieval hangings were done without a drop. The executee was
> pulled up. The drop was introduced much later in order to speed the
> process up (and possibly to reduce suffering).
Matthew of Westminster was an onlooker at Wallace execution; between him and
Mackay the process is clarified.
Great care would be taken to ensure that he running noose was at the side
rather than the back of the neck, so that the neck would not be broken and
cause death prematurely.
Victims writhing in their agony invariably urinated and defecated during the
process and men, as a final obscene touch, had a massive erection and
involuntarily ejaculated, to the amusement and entertainment of onlookers.
Wallace's executioner judged matters finely and cut the rope before death.
Fiendish care would be taken to revive him for the next treat. His genitals
would be sliced off as part of the routine punishment meted out to traitors
since the time of William The Conqueror, keenly regarded as the last
dishonor that could be inflicted on manhood.
> > The Drawn, at least in the film, is done in two ways. First, drawn by
> > horse pulling at ropes around feet and hands, a la rack, and then
> > drawing the intestines a la gutting a fish.
>
> Drawing, in this context, refers only to the disemboweling. Th ehorse
> thing may well have happened on occassion, but sounds like something
> thought up by the film makers.
Listening to the Congress it would seem evil film makers are out to do outdo
Edward Plantagenet.
> Sometimes the intestines would be burnt in front of the, still just
> about alive, victim, Though this was not always the case.
After disembowelment, life wasn't extinguished until the executioner reached
into the chest cavity and plucked out the pulsating heart with a flourish
for all to see. The removal of each internal organ was accompanied by
rousing cheers.
This punishment, it appears, remained on the statute books until the
nineteenth century. Although the full rigor of the sentence had stopped
being applied much before. Does anybody know when?
tiglath
Curt Emanuel <cema...@accs.net> wrote in message
news:37B61A...@accs.net...
> Gogmagog wrote:
> >
> > CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.05.990814...@eis.bris.ac.uk...
> > drawn by
> > > > horse pulling at ropes around feet and hands, a la rack, and then
> > > > drawing the intestines a la gutting a fish.
> > >
> > ehorse
> > > thing may well have happened on occassion, but sounds like something
> > > thought up by the film makers.
> >
> > the horses tug away until the person comes apart in quarters.
> > Thinking about it though, I imagine it would be five pieces as the
> > limbs would probably come off at the joints.
> >
>
> I can't recall an instance of this in England, however what you seem to
> be referring to is being sentenced to be torn apart by horses. This was
> occasionally used by the Merovingians, (they also liked to just drag
> criminals to death) not in the quartering referred to here.
>
> Quartering was pretty much a postmortem operation. I assume it was done
> with an ax or sword.
With a heavy cleaver.
Gerrit Bigalski
Rooney, Jr) wrote:
[...]
>On the continent, this was also practiced, but there is so much
>variation, as to make generalization difficult. Hanging in chains,
>impaling and the use of the wheel (a form of crucifiction) were
>employed.
What makes you think of the wheel as "a form of crucification"?
Gogmagog
CG Luxford <hi...@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.05.990814...@eis.bris.ac.uk...
> > The Drawn, at least in the film, is done in two ways. First,
drawn by
> > horse pulling at ropes around feet and hands, a la rack, and then
> > drawing the intestines a la gutting a fish.
>
> Drawing, in this context, refers only to the disembowelling. Th
ehorse
> thing may well have happened on occassion, but sounds like something
> thought up by the film makers.
I have a dim memory of the horse bit being part of 'quartering' i.e..
the horses tug away until the person comes apart in quarters.
Thinking about it though, I imagine it would be five pieces as the
limbs would probably come off at the joints.
G.
--
"Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual"
Friedrich Nietzsche
P A MagLOCHLAINN
the Roman habit of crucifixion?
It would appear (from the evidence of millions of crucifixes the world over)
that a man suffering the Roman death did NOT suffer as much agony -
otherwise, surely, he too would have developed an erection and ejaculated.
But then, the same images make it clear that the Romans were a lot more
sporting to their victim than were the mediaevals. The Romans made care
that their victim, even while crucified, was allowed to preserve his modesty
under a loin-cloth.
Or [dreadful thought] are ALL these images false and misleading?
P A MagLochlainn (magloc...@dnet.co.uk)
====================================
(snip)
>Victims writhing in their agony invariably urinated and defecated during
the
>process and men, as a final obscene touch, had a massive erection and
>involuntarily ejaculated, to the amusement and entertainment of onlookers.
>
>Wallace's executioner judged matters finely and cut the rope before death.
>Fiendish care would be taken to revive him for the next treat. His
genitals
>would be sliced off as part of the routine punishment meted out to traitors
>since the time of William The Conqueror, keenly regarded as the last
>dishonor that could be inflicted on manhood.
(snip)
==========
Joseph Rooney, Jr
What you are referring to was done on the continent, at least in early
modern times. Michel Foucault (sp?) wrote a book on crime and
punishment a number of years ago (Sorry, I can't remember the title)
where he begins the book with a description of an execution for
treason in France during the 16th or 17th century. After having a
number of abuses to his body, the condemned was to be pulled apart by
four horses. But, apparantly because the horses were new at this, the
limbs wouldn't separate. The executioner had to hack at the joints
with a knife to assist the horses. Though this method of execution
might be termed quartering, it wasn't part of the method of execution
for traitors in England. I also don't think that the removal of the
heart was part of English practice. J.S. Cockburn's book _History of
English Assizes_ contains a quote from a judge handing down the
sentence for a traitor. It does not mention removal of the heart, yet
the judge describes everything else that was to be done to the
traitor. Supposedly, the court read from a standard script, so there
shouldn't be any variance in the sentence handed down to each traitor.
Of course, this is not to say that executioners didn't add their own
little 'touches."
tiglath
P A MagLOCHLAINN <magloc...@dnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:37b6...@royan.d-n-a.net...
> Would this whole process have been more or less painful to the victim than
> the Roman habit of crucifixion?
Wallace was dragged on a hurdle from Westminster to Smithfield (about 4
miles), through fetid streets while the populace pelted him with offal,
garbage, and excrement, and hit him with cudgels and whips. He was quite
groggy by the time he got to the scaffold.
The Romans whipped their victims brutally before crucifixion to get the body
accustomed to pain, and avoid a quick death by shock. I don't know how to
compare the pain of one and the other, but it seems that HD&Q would take
much less time, which is a redeeming value. A fit body would linger for
days on a cross. Adding sunburn, insect and bird attacks, and thirst to the
ordeal. To speed things up, the Romans would sometimes break the legs of
the victim to remove any support the feet provide. Death would ensue by
asfixia when the chest weighted down was unable to expand freely.
> It would appear (from the evidence of millions of crucifixes the world
over)
> that a man suffering the Roman death did NOT suffer as much agony -
> otherwise, surely, he too would have developed an erection and ejaculated.
Slow hanging brings a paroxism of imminent death which results in loss of
control of bodily functions. The erection and ejaculation is the effect of
the such loss of control together with the well-know vascular effect of
contricting blood circulation at the neck. Some walking on the wild side
like to half-hang themselves to divert extra blood to the genital area and
enhance sex. More than a few miscalculate terribly, lose consciousness and
end up hanging themselves properly. A British CID detective friend of mine
has seen a few such cases where the victim hangs dead, with a tie around his
neck, pants at his ankles, as a pinned up Playboy centerfold before him
lustily looks on.
I think you are right about crucifixion, it might not approach the horror of
being gutted alive. Those who know can't tell us. The Japanese had a
variation of this, in which they let the entrails hang out and set the
victim free to run away from the village dogs chasing his trailing innards.
> But then, the same images make it clear that the Romans were a lot more
> sporting to their victim than were the mediaevals. The Romans made care
> that their victim, even while crucified, was allowed to preserve his
modesty
> under a loin-cloth.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. This might be a touch of the church in their
never ending prudishness.
Wallace was stark naked on the scaffold.
John Wilson
Joseph Rooney, Jr wrote in message
<37b6cf75....@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Gogmagog" <gogm...@earthling.net> wrote:
>What you are referring to was done on the continent, at least in early
>modern times. Michel Foucault (sp?) wrote a book on crime and
>punishment a number of years ago (Sorry, I can't remember the title)
>where he begins the book with a description of an execution for
>treason in France during the 16th or 17th century. After having a
>number of abuses to his body, the condemned was to be pulled apart by
>four horses. But, apparantly because the horses were new at this, the
>limbs wouldn't separate. The executioner had to hack at the joints
>with a knife to assist the horses. Though this method of execution
>might be termed quartering, it wasn't part of the method of execution
>for traitors in England.
about the Irish treatment of the Viking who killed King Brian(?). Tied his
intestines to a tree and then led him round and round it. Wonder if they
joked with him about it.
Regards
John GW
CG Luxford
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, P A MagLOCHLAINN wrote:
> Would this whole process have been more or less painful to the victim than
> the Roman habit of crucifixion?
Crucifixion lasted longer (several days usually) so must of inflicted
more pain and discomfort over all. The Drawing was more excrutiating,
but didn't last all that long.
Chris,
alex milman
> be referring to is being sentenced to be torn apart by horses. This was
> occasionally used by the Merovingians, (they also liked to just drag
> criminals to death) not in the quartering referred to here.
Quartering by horses was a widely used execution. Murderer of Henry IV
of France had been quartered this way (after some other things). Tupac
Amaru
had been executed this way by Spaniards, etc. There is no need to go all
the way
back to the Merovingians. :-)
>
> Quartering was pretty much a postmortem operation.
Maybe in England. In Russia it was a real thing at least until middle XVIII
Criminal was alive and quartering started with his arms or feet.
> I assume it was done
> with an ax or sword.
Probably this depends on a country and social status. In Russia it was
always an ax.
John Wilson
alex milman wrote in message <7pbilf$ssj$1...@news.gte.com>...
>
>Quartering by horses was a widely used execution. Murderer of Henry IV
>of France had been quartered this way (after some other things). Tupac
>Amaru
>had been executed this way by Spaniards, etc. There is no need to go all
>the way
>back to the Merovingians. :-)
>
Louis XIV, being done this way?
Maybe _just_ broken on the wheel? (too lazy to look it up.)
Believe the Chinese use this method of execution, too.
John GW
Paul J Gans
Warning: gruesome material below....
It has struck me that the business of being "broken on the
wheel" is rather typical of some of the confusions about
the Middle Ages. The term is attested in the late medieval
period and evidently was rather fatal to the victim. However,
nobody seems to have explained how it was done. References
go back to Catherine, IIRC, but there too, nobody seems to know.
I've seen it described as (1) having a heavy wheel rolled over
one, breaking bones, which seems to me to be rather a bit of
work for the executioners. (2) Being pushed against a
rotation wheel which had sharp knives attached to the rim,
which seems to me to be rather a bother; why use a wheel?
(3) being tied to a wheel on a cart which was then driven
through the streets, possible, but the sources don't seem
to talk about the execution being public. And (4), being
laid across a wheel with one's arms and legs braided through
the spokes, bones being smashedd with a sledgehammer to
introduce joints where none existed before. This seems
more likely to me -- being sufficiently gruesome, painful,
and time-consuming.
But in fact we just don't know. I know that many folks
out there can cite sources for (1)-(4) and perhaps others.
So can I. There seems to be no definitive answer.
Just another of those late medieval passtimes that are
a mystery to us.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
alex milman
> Warning: gruesome material below....
>
> It has struck me that the business of being "broken on the
> wheel" is rather typical of some of the confusions about
> the Middle Ages. The term is attested in the late medieval
> period
And was going all the way to the "enlightened" times.....
>and evidently was rather fatal to the victim. However,
> nobody seems to have explained how it was done.
Are you kidding?
> References
> go back to Catherine,
Which one?
> IIRC, but there too, nobody seems to know.
>
> I've seen it described as (1) having a heavy wheel rolled over
> one, breaking bones, which seems to me to be rather a bit of
> work for the executioners. (2) Being pushed against a
> rotation wheel which had sharp knives attached to the rim,
Example you can see in London in Museum of Mme Tusseau (sp).
Which does not mean that it has anything to do with a reality. :-)
> which seems to me to be rather a bother; why use a wheel?
In this version wheel had been rotated over a fire. So a victim
(while still alive) would also be fried... The whole construction
(as shown in a museum) looks rather inpractical to me.
> (3) being tied to a wheel on a cart which was then driven
> through the streets, possible, but the sources don't seem
> to talk about the execution being public.
Quite a few of them had been public but I don't recall anything
like what you described.
> And (4), being
> laid across a wheel with one's arms and legs braided through
> the spokes, bones being smashedd with a sledgehammer
or a heavy iron rod.
>to
> introduce joints where none existed before. This seems
> more likely to me -- being sufficiently gruesome, painful,
> and time-consuming.
This method is well-known and there are clear historic references
to it dated by XVIII century. E.g., execution of von Patkul by the order
of Charles XII of Sweden. Officer, who supervised execution had been
punished because he ordered executioner to strike a deadly blow (to
the chest) too early.
>
> But in fact we just don't know. I know that many folks
> out there can cite sources for (1)-(4) and perhaps others.
> So can I. There seems to be no definitive answer.
Why? Judging by the fact that in the "civilized times" only
(4) had been in use, we probably can make some conclusions.
I agree that there could be an earlier period of the experiments,
as with many other things (electric bulb, etc.) but only the most
efficient survived.
CG Luxford
On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, alex milman wrote:
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:7pc4lm$465$4...@news.panix.com...
> > Warning: gruesome material below....
> >
> > It has struck me that the business of being "broken on the
> > wheel" is rather typical of some of the confusions about
> > the Middle Ages. The term is attested in the late medieval
> > period
>
> > References go back to Catherine,
>
> Which one?
>
The one with the firework named after her.
> > IIRC, but there too, nobody seems to know.
> >
> > I've seen it described as (1) having a heavy wheel rolled over
> > one, breaking bones, which seems to me to be rather a bit of
> > work for the executioners. (2) Being pushed against a
> > rotation wheel which had sharp knives attached to the rim,
>
> Example you can see in London in Museum of Mme Tusseau (sp).
> Which does not mean that it has anything to do with a reality. :-)
>
True enough. I've not been to Madame Tussaud's since I was little, I
don't remember that particuar waxwork, which probably means they didn';t
have it then. Don't think they had it in the London Dungeon either,
which I also haven't been to since I was little.
The latter museum did have someone being pressed though. That's
pressed as in having rocks piled on top of them obviously, not pressed
as in being compelled to do something.
> > which seems to me to be rather a bother; why use a wheel?
>
> In this version wheel had been rotated over a fire. So a victim
> (while still alive) would also be fried... The whole construction
> (as shown in a museum) looks rather inpractical to me.
Sounds it. Though IIRC Catherine, of firework fame, was burned on her
wheel.
>
Chris,
Paul J Gans
According to what has come down to us. Seems unlikely though,
doesn't it? Rather a waste of a good wheel. If you are
interested in cooking folks, there are cheaper ways.
Perhaps here tormenters were trying to make a statement?
Chris Dickinson
"
>According to what has come down to us. Seems unlikely
though,
>doesn't it? Rather a waste of a good wheel. If you are
>interested in cooking folks, there are cheaper ways.
>Perhaps here tormenters were trying to make a statement?
"
erm ..... "WE'LL torture you unless you confess" ......
maybe?
Chris
John Trungove
For pressing, refer the tale of St Margaret Clitherow, who was despatched in
this awful manner in York, 25 March 1586, for the heinous crime of refusing
to plead to charges of harbouring priests and hearing Mass. [Yes, that is
the Margaret Clitherow of the little house in the Shambles, York.]
The method of execution in the case of St Margaret was that she was
stripped, laid on the ground with a sharp stone beneath her spine and a door
or large board was placed on top of her. Then the door was loaded up with
several hundred pounds weight of stones. The death agony lasted over 15
minutes. It is chilling to think that, being of 3/8 Yorkshire blood, I may
be descended from such barbarians!
Gerrit Bigalski
>John Wilson <jgi...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>alex milman wrote in message <7pbilf$ssj$1...@news.gte.com>...
>>>
>> >Quartering by horses was a widely used execution. Murderer of Henry IV
>>>of France had been quartered this way (after some other things). Tupac
>>>Amaru
>>>had been executed this way by Spaniards, etc. There is no need to go all
>>>the way
>>>back to the Merovingians. :-)
>>>
>> Ah yes, so was I wrong about Jean whoseyurfather , the one who attacked
>>Louis XIV, being done this way?
>>Maybe _just_ broken on the wheel? (too lazy to look it up.)
>> Believe the Chinese use this method of execution, too.
>> John GW
>
>
>Warning: gruesome material below....
>
>
>
>
>
>It has struck me that the business of being "broken on the
>wheel" is rather typical of some of the confusions about
>the Middle Ages. The term is attested in the late medieval
>period and evidently was rather fatal to the victim. However,
>nobody seems to have explained how it was done. References
>go back to Catherine, IIRC, but there too, nobody seems to know.
Paul, after the "breast rippers" that's the second ... Could you
please name your source of disinformation as a warning for all?
>I've seen it described as (1) having a heavy wheel rolled over
>one, breaking bones, which seems to me to be rather a bit of
>work for the executioners.
Rolled is wrong.
>(2) Being pushed against a
>rotation wheel which had sharp knives attached to the rim,
>which seems to me to be rather a bother; why use a wheel?
Sounds like some 'martyrdom fantasy'; you know, the stories the
medievals told each other about the "Dark Ages" = pre-Christian Roman
antiquity. (Of course as many medieval things this reached real
perfection only in 19th century.)
>(3) being tied to a wheel on a cart which was then driven
>through the streets, possible, but the sources don't seem
>to talk about the execution being public.
ditto
>And (4), being
>laid across a wheel with one's arms and legs braided through
>the spokes, bones being smashedd with a sledgehammer to
>introduce joints where none existed before. This seems
>more likely to me -- being sufficiently gruesome, painful,
>and time-consuming.
This is almost it, though the convict was usually not placed on the
wheel - too inconvenient for the executioner - but on the ground with
strips of wood under the limbs near the joints. To break the limbs in
Germany were used wheels (first big ones, later special small ones
with extra enhancements for the task), in France iron bars. Then, and
this is the most prominent feature, the 'broken' convict was woven
into the spokes of a big wheel which was placed on top of a high pole
next to the execution place.
>But in fact we just don't know. I know that many folks
>out there can cite sources for (1)-(4) and perhaps others.
>So can I. There seems to be no definitive answer.
Well, I can present pictures of the convict woven into the wheel
since at least 14th century and pictures of the breaking since at
least 15th century; as the practice lived on until at least 18th
century, there will probably be even manuals.
As for sources saying "St. X was ..." - see above.
>Just another of those late medieval passtimes that are
>a mystery to us.
Little Mythmaker Paul? ;-)
Gerrit
CG Luxford
Chris,
Paul J Gans
> Rolled is wrong.
> ditto
> Little Mythmaker Paul? ;-)
Nope. Just reporting what I've heard, read, seen on the
net, etc. I *did* say that I did not believe them.
And by the way, you too think that a wheel was used to
break bones. I still doubt that.
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Brian Austin
forcing someone to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, without which, a
trial could not commence. The reason why some people refused to enter a plea
was that if found guilty, all their property was forfeit to the Crown. So to
preserve their property for their next of kin, they chose to be pressed. Of
course, this often resulted in death but at least they saved their property.
Brian Austin
John Trungove wrote in message ...
D. Spencer Hines
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris
Justificatio Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
MARTIN REBOUL <martin...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:7pi97r$bmn$1...@nclient15-gui.server.virgin.net...
> Has nobody else noticed the rather strange devices that appear in
many 15th
> & 16th century paintings associated with suffering, judgement, and
so-on? H.
> Bosche was obviously familiar with the sight of (what appears to be)
a
> cartwheel mounted on a pole - usually unoccupied, but awaiting a
suitable
> victim perhaps? I wondered what these symbolised for many years, and
assumed
> it had something to do with agriculture....... alas not it seems.
> Fortunately such vicious forms of execution were not in general use
in a
> civilised country like England, where miscreants were dealt with far
more
> humanely by being burned, boiled (in water or lead), hung drawn and
> quartered, or just jolly well hung (the cheapest option). Even
impaling was
> somewhat frowned upon here, as Lord Justice Tiptoft found out when
he got
> carried away and ordered it done (albeit posthumous impalement).
> Such things are responsible for giving us English that annoying air
of
> being morally superior to other Europeans (esp. from the low
countries,
> Germany and of course France), which lasted until very recently when
the
> Court of Human Rights spoilt everything. I think this may be why you
don't
> see such sinister things in pictures of Merrie England from the same
> era...... though most probably because cart-wheels were in short
supply or
> far too expensive to waste on mere executions......
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
MARTIN REBOUL
Christopher Adams
>> victim than the Roman habit of crucifixion?
>
> Crucifixion lasted longer (several days usually) so must of inflicted
> more pain and discomfort over all. The Drawing was more excrutiating,
> but didn't last all that long.
It depends, though. If a crucified criminal had his legs broken, things went
much quicker for him, as he could not hold himself up. If the legs were left
intact, it took several days to die. Whether or not your legs were broken
depended on the severity of the crime.
--
Christopher Adams
A man of no fortune, and with a name to come.
The stage but echoes back the public voice,
The drama's laws the drama's patrons give
For we that live to please, must please to live.
- Samuel Clemens
The secret thoughts of man run over all things,
holy, profane, clean, obscene, grave and light,
without shame or blame.
- Thomas Hobbes
Joseph (Buck) Stephen
MARTIN REBOUL <martin...@virgin.net> wrote:
>Has nobody else noticed the rather strange devices that appear in many 15th
>& 16th century paintings associated with suffering, judgement, and so-on? H.
>Bosche was obviously familiar with the sight of (what appears to be) a
>cartwheel mounted on a pole - usually unoccupied, but awaiting a suitable
>victim perhaps? I wondered what these symbolised for many years, and assumed
>it had something to do with agriculture....... alas not it seems.
I always thought of storks when I saw those wheels. When I was
a kid I remember seeing wheels put up to attract storks -
gives a good platform for their large nests. I have no idea
when people began trying to attract storks though.
Buck
D. Spencer Hines
Where was this? In the Heartland somewhere?
Did putting out the wheels in fact succeed in attracting storks?
Storks are certainly desirable.
They help to increase the population --- so one hears. <g>
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris
Justificatio Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
Joseph (Buck) Stephen <bu...@shuksan.math.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:7pk5k5$opp$1...@gannett.math.niu.edu...
John Trungove
You imply that some survived long enough undamaged to enter a plea? To what
end - so that they could enjoy the subtle delights of the OTHER method - AND
forfeit their property?
John
Brian Austin <Brian....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7phuq9$k9h$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Paul J Gans
>As I said, they were barbarians.
>You imply that some survived long enough undamaged to enter a plea? To what
>end - so that they could enjoy the subtle delights of the OTHER method - AND
>forfeit their property?
Not all the folks pressed were men (or women) of property.
Some were quite ordinary peasants. Given the conviction
rate in more or less ordinary trials (about 30% according
to Barbara Hanawalt) one might take one's chances with
a jury. Unless, of course, one wasn't much liked, in
which case...
Brian Austin
the past by modern standards of thought or morality. Whilst one can observe
that we look at things very differently today, it is silly merely to call
those that administered the law as it then was as "barabarians". The usual
method of pressing was to apply the weights progessively so that it was
perfectly possible to give up and enter a plea long before any permanent
damage was done. What happened afterwards depended on the weight of
evidence.
Brian Austin
John Trungove wrote in message
<5fKv3.3294$ei1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>...
>As I said, they were barbarians.
>You imply that some survived long enough undamaged to enter a plea? To
what
>end - so that they could enjoy the subtle delights of the OTHER method -
AND
>forfeit their property?
>
>John
>
Paul J Gans
>The point has often been made in this group that it is very foolish to judge
>the past by modern standards of thought or morality. Whilst one can observe
>that we look at things very differently today, it is silly merely to call
>those that administered the law as it then was as "barabarians". The usual
>method of pressing was to apply the weights progessively so that it was
>perfectly possible to give up and enter a plea long before any permanent
>damage was done. What happened afterwards depended on the weight of
>evidence.
You didn't say that, did you? The *weight* of the evidence.
Good grief man!!!!!
;-)
Joseph (Buck) Stephen
It does indeed attract storks.
Buck
In article <7pk6j5$63c$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
D. Spencer Hines <N...@ToSpam.edu> wrote:
>That's a great point, Buck.
>Where was this? In the Heartland somewhere?
>Did putting out the wheels in fact succeed in attracting storks?
>Storks are certainly desirable.
>They help to increase the population --- so one hears. <g>
>D. Spencer Hines
>Lux et Veritas
John Trungove
Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:7pp9ie$lkl$1...@news.panix.com...
> John Trungove <rave...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >As I said, they were barbarians.
> >You imply that some survived long enough undamaged to enter a plea? To
what
> >end - so that they could enjoy the subtle delights of the OTHER method -
AND
> >forfeit their property?
>
> Some were quite ordinary peasants. Given the conviction
> rate in more or less ordinary trials (about 30% according
> to Barbara Hanawalt) one might take one's chances with
> a jury. Unless, of course, one wasn't much liked, in
> which case...
>
... or already had a "record" for recusancy and suspected harbouring of
priests, as was the case with St Margaret Clitherow, who had previously
spent a couple of years in the slammer (York Castle).
John
John Trungove
> The point has often been made in this group that it is very foolish to
judge
> the past by modern standards of thought or morality. Whilst one can
observe
> that we look at things very differently today, it is silly merely to call
> those that administered the law as it then was as "barabarians". >
Some may say that it foolish to judge the past by present standards.
Nevertheless, do not be so free with your use of the term "silly" in
response to views such as mine, lest you be understood to ENDORSE such
barbarian methods.
I maintain that those in authority in Elizabethan England WERE barbarian in
imposing judicial treatment such as pressing or applying a procedure of
successive partial strangulation, emasculation, disembowelling and (human)
vivisection. My description of such people applies to anyone throughout
history who defied, while in authority, moral codes concerning the treatment
of their subjects. The activities of the Nazis in the 20th century were
equally barbaric. The Protestant authorities in England had no monopoly
over barbarism , as witnessed by the actions of both sides during the
persecutions attendant upon the "Reformation". Using the Judaeo-Christian
example, for instance, was not such behaviour prohibited as far back as the
time of Moses?
The standards of today have always existed and are not modern creations.
They have just not been observed consistently over time or even today, when
one considers the behaviour of certain regimes. If the law as it stood at a
particular time was morally wrong then it remains indefensible, particularly
when the methods used to enforce the law violated basic human rights that
existed in one form or another from the time that our civilisation first
developed moral codes.
You seek to impose a restriction on the application of a particular
viewpoint in the study of history. You have no such right. Nor can you
dictate what can be said in this newsgroup as long as the contributor
conforms to acceptable standards of behaviour. I'm sure that feminist
historians would insist upon their right to apply their world-view to all
aspects of history. It is not something with which many of us would agree
but those people are entitled to their opinion. Why then object to the
application of moral standards when others wish to judge historical actions?
History is more than analysis of facts, motives and consequences. Past
events can be judged, according to the perspective of the commentator. This
also serves the principle of drawing lessons from history.
>The usual
> method of pressing was to apply the weights progressively so that it was
> perfectly possible to give up and enter a plea long before any permanent
> damage was done. What happened afterwards depended on the weight of
> evidence.
Weight of evidence or weight of stones - an interesting choice. However,
the placing of a sharp stone beneath the spine would surely result in early
and permanent spinal damage once weight was applied, no matter how soon a
change of heart occurred concerning the entering of a plea.
John
Paul J Gans
mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Paul J Gans) wrote:
> Brian Austin <Brian....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >The point has often been made in this group that it is
>very foolish to judge the past by modern standards of
>thought or morality. Whilst one can observe
> >that we look at things very differently today, it is silly
>merely to call those that administered the law as it then
>was as "barabarians". The usual method of pressing was to
>apply the weights progessively so that it was perfectly
>possible to give up and enter a plea long before any
>permanent damage was done. What happened afterwards
>depended on the weight of evidence.
>
> You didn't say that, did you? The *weight* of the
>evidence. Good grief man!!!!!
>
> ;-)
>
> ----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Damn, you got in before me. <g> Another great entry in the
I Know What You Mean But I Heard What You *Said* stakes...
Mary
D. Spencer Hines
You don't think it was a deliberate pun?
DSH
--
D. Spencer Hines --- Sol Remedium Optimum Est. Peccatoris
Justificatio Absque Paenitentia, Legem Destruit Moralem.
<mary_...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ps1rl$903$1...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk...
Brian Austin
Brian Austin
D. Spencer Hines wrote in message
<7ps2dm$2d8$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
Brian Austin
from!
Brian Austin
John Trungove wrote in message ...
Gerrit Bigalski
>Gerrit Bigalski <ger...@bigalski.de> wrote:
>> On 17 Aug 1999 17:03:50 GMT, Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>>John Wilson <jgi...@gte.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>alex milman wrote in message <7pbilf$ssj$1...@news.gte.com>...
>>>>>
>>>> >Quartering by horses was a widely used execution. Murderer of Henry IV
>>>>>of France had been quartered this way (after some other things). Tupac
>>>>>Amaru
>>>>>had been executed this way by Spaniards, etc. There is no need to go all
>>>>>the way
>>>>>back to the Merovingians. :-)
>>>>>
>>>> Ah yes, so was I wrong about Jean whoseyurfather , the one who attacked
>>>>Louis XIV, being done this way?
>>>>Maybe _just_ broken on the wheel? (too lazy to look it up.)
>>>> Believe the Chinese use this method of execution, too.
>>>> John GW
>>>
>>>
>>>Warning: gruesome material below....
[...]
>> Well, I can present pictures of the convict woven into the wheel
>>since at least 14th century and pictures of the breaking since at
>>least 15th century; as the practice lived on until at least 18th
>>century, there will probably be even manuals.
>
>> As for sources saying "St. X was ..." - see above.
>
>>>Just another of those late medieval passtimes that are
>>>a mystery to us.
>
>> Little Mythmaker Paul? ;-)
>
>Nope. Just reporting what I've heard, read, seen on the
>net, etc. I *did* say that I did not believe them.
>
>And by the way, you too think that a wheel was used to
>break bones. I still doubt that.
Paul, what exactly is your problem with that? A cartwheel taken by
its spokes is quite useful for the task, makes e. g. aiming probably
easier than with the iron bar the French used.
But however practical or impractical it was - it was just the way
they were doing it, and it is the way it is depicted by the
contemporaries, as said above. Shall I send you some of the pictures?
Or you could come over and bring an, er, volunteer along, I provide
the cartwheel, and you could do some 'experimental law history'. ;-))
Gerrit
Paul J Gans
> [...]
I've got just the subject to experiment on.... ;-)
No, I'm not at all an expert on this. I was just reporting
what I've found in several books I've picked up here and
there. I'd not trust any of them very far at all.