Religious Women

 There were many ways for women to show their religiosity in the Middle Ages. The most obvious of course was by becoming a nun, entering a monastery for women.  Although such nunneries became common in the late Middle Ages, when a large proportion of the nuns had entered the cloister as girls, for much of the Middle Ages such houses were far outnumbered by male monasteries.

In the early and high Middle Ages, most of the nuns did not enter as girls but rather as mature women.  Men too did not always enter as boys; the Cistercian order, for example, was made up primarily of monks who had converted as young men, and many an elderly man decided to improve his chances at heaven by spending his final year or two as a monk.  But there were a whole lot of nuns who had entered the house in middle age, not old age, usually because they were widowed--a common event when women tended to marry much older men.

It was these experienced middle-aged women who tended to become abbess.  At the double-monasteries of the early Middle Ages and of twelfth-century houses like Fontevraud, where a male house and a female house had a single head, the head was always a middle-aged woman.

But how else could a woman be religious?  Nunneries usually followed the same Benedictine Rule as male monasteries, but just as there were houses of male canons, who lived more or less like monks but who also served as priests for their community, there were some houses for canonesses.  Although of course they did not serve as priests, they might take care of people at a hospital.  (Even today, nurses in Britain are called Sister, a reminder of this old function.)

Canonesses lived in a cloistered setting, like nuns, but one could still be a religious woman outside the cloister.  In medieval cities, from the thirteenth century onward, there grew up forms of the religious life for women where the women continued to live in their own houses and do their normal activities but still practice a more contemplative life.  They might have a rule formally endorsed by a bishop and practice chastity as well as meeting regularly for prayer.

But some of these lay sisterhoods did not bother with a formal rule.  They followed a life that combined religiosity in both a public and private setting but took no vows.  From their point of view, they were living like the original apostles as described in the Book of Acts in the Bible.  The Beguines, found primarily in cities of Flanders, sought to help their fellow citizens through good works as well as trying to be fair and honest in their own commercial dealings.  They met regularly to encourage each other and to pray together.

The danger was that, without vows or formal oversight from the church hierarchy, they were considered (at least by the church hierarchy) to be in danger of slipping into heresy.  Some of them did, making up their own versions of religious doctrine--which of course they believed was true Christianity (the bishops disagreed).  Some got into serious trouble and ended up shipped off to real nunneries.  Some were allowed to continue as long as they kept quiet about it.

And then there were the recluses, women who set themselves up in a tiny house build on the outside of a church.  They would of course need the approval of the priest or bishop.  This practice was more frequent before nunneries became common.  The woman in essence was a hermit in her cell, except that she was usually in the middle of town or village, not out in the woods, where everyone agreed (even including the women) females ought not to be by themselves.  Most of these recluses had enough food to live on donated by the pious and regularly attended Mass in the adjoining church.  But in an extreme version the recluse might be walled up in her cell and not leave at all.

These recluses are often referred to as "anchorites" by British historians, although no anchor was involved, and there is no medieval cognate for the term.

Some of ways medieval women showed their religiosity must have been very hard on their bodies.  But as Peter Abelard pointed out in the early twelfth century,  because women's bodies were weaker than men's, their virtue was so much greater in enduring physical privation.

© C. Dale Brittain 2025


For more on medieval religion and other aspects of medieval history, see my ebook Positively Medieval, available on Amazon and other ebook platforms.  Also available as a paperback.

Ethiopian Miracles of the Virgin

 Ethiopia, in eastern Africa, has been Christian for longer than most of Europe.  The area was never part of the Roman Empire, but missionaries presumably made their way down there from Egypt, which was in the Empire and became Christian early.

Indeed, there has often been assumed to be a long connection between Ethiopia and Judea/Israel.  The Song of Solomon (love poems supposedly written by King Solomon, father of David, now usually interpreted as expressing Christ's love for His church), speak about his beloved as black and comely, and this is often said to indicate that she was from Ethiopia.  Did the queen of Sheba move to the Middle East from Ethiopia?  Hard to say.

Because Ethiopia was predominantly Christian in the Middle Ages, it had saints and miracle stories, just as Europe did.  And, again like Europe, the most common miracle stories involved the Virgin.  She was Mom, the one who would always love you no matter how bad you were.  God would judge you for your crimes, and Jesus was too awe inspiring to approach for everyday issues (he saved your soul and everyone else's, the church said, isn't that enough of a miracle?) but Mary was right there, even edging out the Holy Ghost as the "real" third member of the Trinity.

Ethiopia's stories of the Virgin, like those in Europe, may seem weird to the modern eye, because someone is very bad yet, because they pray to her, they are saved.  In Europe, for example, one of the most common stories was of a knight on his way to a tournament who stopped to pray to the Virgin and prayed so hard he lost track of time, but no problem! the Virgin put on his armor, rode his horse, and won the tournament.  Because she was wearing his armor, everyone thought it was him, and he won the prize.  In another, a monk rowed across the lake every night to visit his mistress, but he always prayed to the Virgin before going, so when his boat sprang a leak and he drowned, she interceded with God to save his soul.  Mom always will love you!

One of the most common Ethiopian stories, retold and illustrated multiple times, involved a rich lord who was also a cannibal.  (A little dig at the powerful there.)  After eating all his friends and family, he set off to find more people to eat, taking a water skin with him.  Soon he met a dying leper, who begged for a drink.  No way, said the cannibal.  The leper begged in the name of God, in the name of Christ.  No luck.  But then he begged in the name of the Virgin, and the cannibal relented and gave the leper a little water as he finished expiring.  Shortly thereafter, the cannibal too died (not clear why, but let's not spoil the story worrying about it, I doubt that he got sick from eating a dead leper).  The devil was all set to seize his soul, but the Virgin intervened, and he was saved.  Better pay attention when someone asks for something in her name!

Since both Ethiopian and European miracle stories can seem weird to us, maybe our role as historians is to stop trying to make the past fit our idea of what religion and society should properly be like and instead try to understand people for their own sake.

Wendy Belcher of Princeton University is leading a team studying Ethiopian miracles of the Virgin.

© C. Dale Brittain 2025


For more on religion, saints, and other aspects of medieval history, see my ebook Positively Medieval, available on Amazon and other ebook platforms.  Also available as a paperback.

Snakes

 It's Saint Patrick's day! One of the most enduring stories about this late-Roman saint is that he drove the snakes out of Ireland.  But as I noted in an earlier post about good old Saint Paddy, there actually were no snakes for him to drive out.  Pretty much all living things in what is now Ireland, including snakes, had been wiped out by the glaciers, back thousands of years ago, and as the glaciers retreated and plants and animals again reached the British Isles the snakes never made it across the Irish Sea.

Of course for medieval people it was good not to have snakes.  Europe doesn't have all the poisonous snakes found in the Americas (and don't get me started on Australia), but they do have the adder, which while not as serious if it bites you as a rattlesnake, is in fact poisonous, and people can die from the bite.  Great Britain (the island with England, Scotland, and Wales on it) does have adders, even if Ireland doesn't.  So does the European continent (I once almost stepped on an adder in France.  It was cool about it.)

The ancient Hebrews weren't fond of snakes either.  The story of Adam and Eve, where they are tempted to eat from the Tree of Knowledge after God told them explicitly not to, has a snake as a tempter.  The book of Genesis describes the snake as the most sneaky and cunning of all the creatures.

It's not quite clear what the snake's purpose was in tempting Eve, but he certainly paid for it.  God cursed all three of them, telling Adam he'd only get food by hard labor in the fields, Eve that she'd bear her children in pain, and the snake that he'd have to go on his belly in the dust.  Interestingly, the implication is that up until then snakes had had feet.  However, medieval and Renaissance depictions of the Adam and Eve story always have the snake with no feet (though sometimes it has a human face).

The line between snakes and dragons in medieval imagery was rather fluid.  Both were a sort of serpent, though dragons would usually have limbs as well as long snaky tails.

Now in fact snakes play an important role in the ecology.  Water snakes eat frogs and small fish, and land snakes eat insects, mice, and rats (depending on the kind of snake and how big it is).  When you have an animal without predators, it can multiply to the point of causing serious harm to the environment.  (Hmm.  Humans don't have natural predators other than each other.  Let's not talk about that right now.)

© C. Dale Brittain 2025

For more on medieval saints and medieval animals, see my new ebook, Positively Medieval: Life and Society in the Middle Ages.  Also available in paperback.

Performative Acts

 Recently a number of medieval scholars have started examining what are called performative acts, that is not simply that someone did something or other, but that they "performed" it, that is acted in a certain way to underscore what they were doing.  These days a lot of communication is done via text or email or phone call, where you don't see the other person, but medieval communication was more likely to be done face to face.

Now of course we still have performative acts.  People do them instinctively even if they are not thinking through their performance.  Mom coming into the room where she just heard a disturbing crash stands with her arms firmly folded.  The professor steps up to the lectern and gazes sternly out across the students until they stop talking.  The president signs an executive order, waves it back and forth so everyone can see his signature, and hands the signing pen to someone nearby, as (one assumes) a precious souvenir.

Medieval oaths of allegiance were full of performative acts.  One did not simply swear an oath, or (as we do now) raise one's right hand while swearing it.  (Think about it. Why does raising your hand make it more significant? But it does.)  One went down on one's knees and raised one's hands to the person to whom one was swearing allegiance.  This is the basic act of swearing homage, as a knight or noble would do to a lord.  But it doesn't stop there.  The lord would reach down, take the hands, draw the person up, and kiss them on the cheek.  This would be done very publicly.  Everyone would remember it and would understand the symbolism of the person swearing homage both being subservient to and the equal of the lord.

Peasants as well as aristocrats could take part in performances.  In some parts of western France in the eleventh century, a serf was expected to come on hands and knees before his or her lord with a penny balanced on their head.  The value of the penny was trivial.  What was important was the public ceremony.  In some cases the peasant might even have a rope looped the neck, in case the imagery was not clear enough.

Oaths of allegiance among aristocrats were not one-time events.  Chronicles often tell us that, at Easter or other important times, the king might "wear his crown" and have all his men repeat their oaths of allegiance.  Wearing the crown itself was a performative act, as kings did not usually walk around wearing something heavy, valuable, and awkward on their heads.  When they put it on they were signaling their position and authority.

Even property transfers were often performative.  Someone giving land to a monastery would generally place something on the altar, a book, a staff, even a handful of dirt.  Although scholars once considered such acts a sign of a primitive, illiterate society, in fact the public act, which dozens would witness, is only known about today because it was recorded in writing.  The physical action emphasized the spoken and written words and gave the witnesses something striking to remember.

Although the physical act is usually what we think of by a performative act, documents could play a part.  A big piece of parchment with seals dangling from it could be waved around as its own performative act.

© C. Dale Brittain 2025

For more on medieval political acts, see my ebook, Positively Medieval:  Life and Society in the Middle Ages.  Also available in paperback.

The Donkey Playing a Harp

 The donkey playing a harp.  Or, if you prefer, the ass playing a lyre.  It's an image you'll find carved on Romanesque churches (eleventh-twelfth centuries) all over western Europe.  What could this possibly mean? you ask.

The image above is from Compostela, in northern Spain, but there are plenty of others.

But where did such a curious image come from?  It goes back to someone named Phaedrus. But even before we get to Phaedrus, remember Aesop's Fables?  You must have been exposed to them at some point.  Short little stories, usually involving animals, with a moral to the story.  Well, Phaedrus, who lived in Rome in the first century AD but may have been a Greek slave, translated Aesop from Greek into Latin and added some fables of his own.  Later generations seem to have added a few bonus fables to the collection.

And there in the Phaedrus material is the donkey playing a harp.  It's a pretty minimal fable.  A donkey sees a harp lying in a field, tries to play it with his hoof, and does sound a lovely note though he's incapable of playing a tune.  Too bad, he thinks.  If someone who knew what he was doing had tried to play the harp, I would have enjoyed it.  There follows some lame moral about the right person coming along at the right time.

The fables of Phaedrus became well known in the west, along with the image of the donkey trying to play the harp with his hoof, unsuccessfully I'm sure.  The image became a "marvel," something weird and outside of people's normal experience.  The donkey and his harp always appears around the edges of major carvings, usually along with images of strange creatures such as showed up in medieval travelers' tales, like centaurs, or griffins, or mermaids, or people with the head of a dog, or the people who lived down near the south pole who were upside down, needing strong toes to hang onto the earth and keep from falling off.  (The Compostela carvings include some of these.)

This is an indication that medieval churches were more than just places to contemplate the saints and one's own salvation.  They were educational centers, centers of ideas, places to marvel at all the amazing things in the world.

© C. Dale Brittain 2025

For more on medieval churches, see my ebook, Positively Medieval:  Life and Society in the Middle Ages.  Also available in paperback.

Medieval and Modern Romance

 I have posted before about medieval romance and epic, the two main fictional forms of literature in the Middle Ages, written in the vernacular rather than Latin from the eleventh or twelfth century on.  These were not always distinct categories, but in general an epic focused primarily on knightly deeds and often ended with a lot of dead bodies, whereas a romance focused more on interpersonal relationships and generally had a happy ending.

There could be plenty of variation. Stories of King Arthur, for example,  could be epic, great struggles against the foe, or a romance, because of the focus on personal betrayal and adultery, which while involving love and other interpersonal relationships did not lead to a happy ending.

Today romance has become more formulaic.  Many have commented that Hallmark Channel original movies, for example, all have the same basic plot.  Young woman from a big city/small town moves to a small town/big city for a Reason.  The Reason is what makes the different ones different from each other (such as they are).  Around Christmas, the Reason is always Christmas-themed.

In the small town/big city, our heroine runs into an old flame/a new handsome guy.  Sparks fly!  After a few bumpy bits, they are happy together, at least for now if not necessarily Ever After.  Time for the closing credits!

Writers of romance books follow pretty much the same formula.  They add originality through the back story of the characters (the TV movies don't have much time for that), have interesting settings (maybe the heroine is from a sheep farm in Montana and moves to a pineapple farm in Hawaii), and may put in such variations as having the heroine be divorced or a widow or more mature.  The bumpy bits can be more complicated, though from the time the heroine and hero meet (or reconnect), even though they aren't yet sure they will end up together (the reader is sure), you won't catch them smooching anyone else.

Contemporary romance, such stories set in the modern era, is the single biggest-selling genre of books in the US.  Some readers just gobble them up, reading maybe one a day.  (They tend to be on the short side, and it's not as if you have to read slowly to follow all the plot twists.)  These stories do especially well through Kindle Unlimited, where readers can borrow and read an unlimited number of Amazon's ebooks a month for only about $12, which is great for voracious readers who will probably not want to read a particular book a second time.

Medieval romance was neither so formulaic nor so focused on the heroine.  One very popular romance was "Guillaume de Dole, ou le Roman de la Rose."  Here the hero, the (fictional) King Conrad, is the chief focus.

The story begins with a swirl of love-making, in which he fully partakes.  But then he hears of the beautiful Lénore and her brother, Guillaume, a great tournament fighter.  He invites Guillaume to fight on his side in the tournament and decides to marry Lénore, even though he's never met her.

Here come the bumpy bits!  Those at court are unhappy and slander Lénore, ending the king's plans.  Now she finally becomes the center of the story and figures out a ruse to trick the slanderers and win the king's heart.  All ends happily.

I've rewritten this story for modern readers, calling it The Sign of the Rose.  (For sale on Amazon and other on-line retailers, ebook or paperback.)

Now I had to add quite a bit to the original story, starting with having the king meet Lénore before he falls in love with her, rather than just doing so from second-hand accounts.  Because the original "Guillaume de Dole" is quite short, I added several subplots, including a possible other suitor for Lénore, and Guillaume's activities at the royal court as more than a tournament fighter.  I also worked in more motivation for the slanderers and expanded the details of the happy ending.

So it doesn't match the modern romance-formula.  As a result, I think those who love reading romance have never really taken it up (it's only ranked 6 thousand and something on Amazon among ebooks of historical romance).  Those who like my wizard stories haven't been sure what to make of a story remarkably short on wizards.  But I like it just fine.

One thing I think "Guillaume de Dole" illustrates is that medieval romance was intended for a male readership as well as a female one.  Modern romances are overwhelmingly bought and read by women, and the authors also are usually women (or men writing under a female pen name).  After all, finding the right person through all the bumpy bits has never been an issue only for women.

© C. Dale Brittain 2025

Rois fainéants

 The Merovingians have always held an ambiguous position in medieval history.  On the one hand they are considered the founders of France, because, after all, the Merovingian dynasty ruled the Franks, the people who essentially gave France its name, "land of the Franks," rather than Gaul, which is what the Romans had called it.

On the other hand, they are often derided as "do-nothing kings," rois fainéants, which if said in French in a sneering tone really sounds bad.  And not only did they "do nothing," the account goes, they were barbarians! ethnic Germans, part of the supposed fall of Rome (on which see more here).

So how do we reconcile this image, the glorious founders of France, those who first adopted Christianity, with the concept of crude barbarians who were probably half pagan as well as murderers, to say nothing of being weaklings who sat around not doing anything?  Well, we don't.  Let's break it down.

Clovis, considered first king of France (481-511), did indeed adopt Christianity, doubtless urged on by his Christian wife. He also surely realized that getting along with the bishops, who were major political figures in Gaul at the time, would be a whole lot easier if he were Christian.  Saint Remigius, bishop of Reims, baptized him, as commemorated in the ivory carving seen below, dating to somewhat later.  Clovis is seen here sitting in a baptismal font.  Note the dove coming down with an ampoule of holy oil (used to consecrate kings).

 

The bishops of Reims never forgot this glorious moment.  From the tenth century or so on, most French kings were crowned at Reims, in honor to Clovis and tradition.  If one visits the thirteenth-century cathedral of Reims today (well worth a visit), one can see a plaque marking the spot where the baptism supposedly happened.

The Merovingians were a lively bunch.  Clovis's descendants all had it firmly in their minds that anyone descended from him ought to be king, and if Brother stood in the way, well, that was too bad for Brother.  Accounts from the sixth and seventh centuries are full of murders, poisonings, people hustled off to join a monastery whether they wanted to or not, people sent off on pilgrimage whether they wanted to go or not, betrayals, plots, and lots of wicked women.  Someone should make a mini-series out of it.  It would put Game of Thrones to shame.

And yet abruptly the accounts change.  According to Einhard, writing in Charlemagne's court in the early ninth century, two generations after the Merovingian dynasty ended in 751, these active, blood-thirsty kings, who often had multiple wives and concubines (and who founded and supported monasteries), were instead rois fainéants, weaklings who were cognitively impaired and had lost all their wealth on top of it.

Einhard describes them as having long hair and dangly beards, sitting on the throne with no idea what was going on, repeating whatever they were told to say by the mayor of the palace, that is the head of palace activities (we would say "chief of staff").  By a bizarre coincidence, Charlemagne's ancestors were mayors of the palace.

The Merovingian kings, Einhard continued, were driven around in ox carts, like peasants, because they were too feeble to ride a horse.  All they had was a single manor to call their own.  If it weren't for the kindly mayors of the palace, he indicated, they would have perished long since.  And it was almost an act of mercy, he suggested, for Pippin, Charlemagne's father, last mayor of the palace, to depose the last Merovingian king and make himself king instead.

For almost 1200 years historians have believed Einhard.

All of a sudden his creating the image of weakling kings makes a lot more sense.  The Merovingians had been kings of the Franks for three centuries before 751, appreciably longer than the US has existed.  The dynasty of Pippin and Charlemagne, the Carolingians, had to find a justification for deposing them.  Indeed, during the two generations between Pippin taking the throne and Einhard writing about it, royal accounts did not mention the Merovingians at all.  The deposition was too horrible to talk about.  Although Einhard claimed the pope approved the deposition, papal accounts from the 750s record nothing of the kind.

It was a lot better to suggest a confused old man (the last Merovingian) being "put out of his misery" by being sent to a monastery, and the mayor of the palace patriotically stepping up to be crowned because somebody had to do it, than to admit that the Carolingians were usurpers who had staged a coup.

© C. Dale Brittain 2025

For more on medieval kings, see my ebook, Positively Medieval:  Life and Society in the Middle Ages.  Also available in paperback.