cahn | 18th-Century Characters, Including Frederick the Great, Discussion Post 38

Gonna go ahead and make this post even though Yuletide is coming...

But in the meantime, there has been some fic in the fandom posted!

Holding His Space (2503 words) by felisnocturna
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF, 18th Century CE Frederician RPF
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Relationships: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf/Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Characters: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf, Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Additional Tags: Protectiveness, Domestic, Character Study
Summary:

Five times Fredersdorf has to stay behind - and one time Friedrich doesn't leave.

Using People (3392 words) by prinzsorgenfrei
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great/Hans Hermann von Katte
Characters: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great, Hans Hermann von Katte
Additional Tags: Fluff, Idiots in Love, reading plays aloud while gazing into each others eyes
Summary:

Friedrich had started to talk to him because he had thought of him as a bit of a ditz.
And now here he was. Here he was months later, bundled up in this very same man’s blankets with a cup of hot coffee in front of him, its scent mixing with that of Katte’s French perfume.
_
Fluffy One Shot about one traitorous Crown Prince and the sycophant he accidentally fell for.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Again from the History of the Germans podcast, I found this an interesting illustration of how two different historians can put very different interpretations on the same facts.

Here's Wikipedia on Emperor Henry IV (that's mid 11th century,

cahn) and his wife Bertha:

Despite the insults and humiliations to which she was subjected by her husband, Bertha remained true to him. Nevertheless, in 1069, Henry attempted to repudiate her. At an assembly at Worms, he "explained publicly (before the princes), that his relationship with his wife was not good; for a long time he had deceived others, but now he did not want to do so any longer. He could not accuse her of anything that justified a divorce, but he was not capable of carrying out conjugal relations with her any longer. He asked them for the sake of God to remove him from the bonds of a marriage closed under bad signs ... so that the way to a luckier marriage might be opened. And nobody knowing any objection to raise, and his wife being an obstacle to a second marriage ceremony, he then swore that she was as he received her, unstained and her virginity intact."

Here's our podcaster's take, from the transcript of this episode:

Long ago, when Henry IV. was a child, his father had engaged him to marry Bertha, daughter of the Count of Savoy. That seems a rather odd choice, since as future emperor he should get married to a byzantine princess or absent that, at least the daughter of a king, not a mere count. Bertha’s family had however one key asset, which will become important as we go further, and that was the alpine pass of Mont Cenis...

To make sure Bertha was at least brought up to an imperial standard, she was delivered aged 6 to the imperial court where she grew up in the household of Henry’s mother, the empress Agnes of Poitou.

In 1066, shortly after Adalbert had been sent packing and the king had recovered from his illness it was deemed time for Henry IV to finally marry little Bertha as had been agreed all these years ago.

By 1069 Henry IV. wants a divorce. At the Reichstag in Worms he stands up and declares that he simply “does not think he and his wife are a good match”. He says that he is simply tired of pretending that the relationship was ok., when it was not. He does not accuse her of anything, that would warrant a divorce. But he, be it by fate or divine order, cannot be in a marital relationship with her. He therefore asks for the grace of God to be released from these chains. He hopes that she would find a happier life in another marriage and if needed, he would swear that the marriage had never beenconsummated..

This strikes me as a very modern grounds for a divorce. The fact that two people just simply are not meant to be together. But an 11th century royal marriage is not an agreement between two adults looking for fulfilment and happiness. It is a political contract, and that meant, liking each other is not a requirement. The pope sends Peter Damian up to Germany to explain these simple facts to the young king and he accepts the verdict. Henry and Bertha will from then on have a strong relationship where she will stand by him even in the most challenging moments and be more loyal than his own mother was. The couple had 5 children.

Step back. What was that. Henry IV. asks for a divorce because he does not think a relationship is possible and wants her to be happy with someone else. And then -when forced- fulfils the marriage and things turn out ok.

I am going out on a limb here, but it seems as if the most obvious point is completely overlooked by most historians Bertha and Henry have grown up together since they were five. They have grown up in a super tense environment where empress Agnes was clearly out of her depth most of the time. His older sisters have been sent away to become abbesses or have died early. It is not impossible that Henry and Berth felt more like siblings than marital partners. That would explain his insistence on her being blameless and his wish that she would be happy with someone else. It would also explain why the couple could maintain a relationship of trust and friendship despite his attempt at divorce.

This all sounds very plausible to me, but,

selenak, you like family relationships and you're way more conversant with the data than I am. What do you think?

From:

selenak

I'm not that much more familiar, not having read an individual biography of Henry IV's. What I do know is that due to who he was -

cahn, the Canossa guy, his big penitence gesture at Canossa but one of many showdowns with the Pope during his reign, and by no means the end of it; he went to Rome, had the Pope deposed and himself and Bertha crowned as Emperor and Empress AFTER Canossa; also, you may recall Mathilde of Canossa, one of the ladies buried at St. Peter like Queen Christina, a very important supporter of the Pope's in this conflict - , you have the obvious source problem, i.e. lots of monkish chronoicles where he is the scum of the Earth and no crime was beneath him, including setting both of his wives up for rape so he could divorce them for adultery, only according to this one "Henry was the Antichrist!" chronicle Bertha managed to hide her servants who beat up both the intended rapist and Henry, Henry so much so he had to stay in bed for a month.

Now, I think the podcaster's theory sounds more psychologically plausible, especially since the "set both of his wives up for rape" story wasn't written in Bertha's lifetime but after the big scandal of the second wife* (and with a lot of Emperor vs Pope, Emperor vs Nobles battles in between). Otoh, the fact that they had five children after he attempted to divorce her by itself is no proof of a good relationship, nor is the fact she went with him on most of his journeys - I mean, just look at SD/FW, a marriage where with the big exceptions of the Northern War and the tail end of the War of the Spanish Succession, they were together most of the time, and produced 13 children. Otoh, Bertha seems to have done the Empress/Queen thing of interceding for people petitioning her regularly and successfully, and royal consorts in bad standing with their husbands usually don't manage that. At any rate, I do like the "the problem wasn't that they didn't like each other, the problem was that they felt like siblings about each other due to having grown up together" theory.

*Second wife: after Bertha's death, Henry married one Adelheid/Praxedis of Kiev, and within a year she divorced him for "unspeakable sexual acts"; she went to the Pope and the cardinals and told them by describing and gesturing that Henry demanded incredibly filfthy acts from her, they agreed no Christian woman should have to put up with that, annulled her marriage, and Praxedis went back to Kiev and became a nun. The "set her up for rape, and btw, his first wife, too" thing is only mentioned by that one chronicler and not given as the official reasons from the church, which was Henry being a sex fiend.

Henrv VIII of England: dammit. Wolsey never told me that was a divorce option! I could have been a sex fiend demanding unspeakable acts, too!

From:

mildred_of_midgard

As you can see,

cahn, history is full of bonkers shenanigans no matter what period you look at. :D

Otoh, the fact that they had five children after he attempted to divorce her by itself is no proof of a good relationship, nor is the fact she went with him on most of his journeys - I mean, just look at SD/FW, a marriage where with the big exceptions of the Northern War and the tail end of the War of the Spanish Succession, they were together most of the time, and produced 13 children.

So, while I had the same "kids =/= good relationship even in our own time, never mind the past" reaction, I would argue that SD/FW isn't comparable:

1. The man wanting to have sex and the woman not wanting to is very different than the man not wanting to have sex. Henry could have pulled a Fritz, but he didn't. There was no question of FW not wanting to have sex with SD, and until she'd produced those 14 children, she wasn't in a very good position to say no. Not that men can't be pressured into having sex with women they don't like, or or that they can't demonstrate their power over the woman by making her have sex, but he did make a choice there.

2. SD accompanying an unchallenged FW in Prussia is a world of difference from Bertha siding with her husband when he'd been excommunicated by Pope Gregory, his nobles were trying to elect another king, even his excommunicated bishops who were *also* trying to get to Italy and get Gregory to lift the ban were refusing to accompany Henry, and his mother Agnes sided with the Pope. Bertha could have been forgiven for going, "Sorry, my higher spiritual duty here is to the Church," and not tobogganing down an Alpine pass in an unsually cold winter to help Henry out. (Even if what she really meant by "higher spiritual duty" was "At last, my chance to be rid of you!" or "Sorry, but I'm not going down with a sinking ship.")

There are many possibilities that aren't "siblings" or even "good relationship," but like you, I do like the theory (and hope it's true, because most of the other possibilities are much worse). Headcanon!

AU scenario: Bertha sides with Henry's enemies. Does her mother open the pass to Italy for him?

(If anyone is wondering where the 18th century went, I have notes on Isabella of Parma and also Fredersdorf from my most recent reading, but it may be a bit before I can write them up.)

ETA: Henrv VIII of England: dammit. Wolsey never told me that was a divorce option! I could have been a sex fiend demanding unspeakable acts, too!

ROFL! Now *there's* an AU. Does Catherine do a 180 and start demanding a divorce?

Edited Date: 2022-10-18 12:38 am (UTC)

From:

cahn

ngl, I want Henry and Bertha as a Yuletide story now (not this year, obviously) where this theory is true and they felt like siblings and there's a whole lot of angst about how they feel it's wrong to have sex. But then when the Pope is like "no sorry you actually do have to stay married" they turn out happy and loyal to each other. (I just want historical people to have been happy sometimes, okay! Except for the Duke of Alba, he can be in comic farces.)

within a year she divorced him for "unspeakable sexual acts"; she went to the Pope and the cardinals and told them by describing and gesturing that Henry demanded incredibly filfthy acts from her, they agreed no Christian woman should have to put up with that, annulled her marriage, and Praxedis went back to Kiev and became a nun.

WOW.
Is it possible that maybe Bertha wasn't into unspeakable sexual acts and Henry felt bad about her having to do them because she was like his sister, but didn't feel so bad about Adelheid? Or was Bertha the one who was into unspeakable sexual acts and got Henry interested? I suppose we'll never know but I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS NOW.
BONKERS SHENANIGANS INDEED.

Henrv VIII of England: dammit. Wolsey never told me that was a divorce option! I could have been a sex fiend demanding unspeakable acts, too!

...I laughed so hard at this!

From:

selenak

WOW.
Is it possible that maybe Bertha wasn't into unspeakable sexual acts and Henry felt bad about her having to do them because she was like his sister, but didn't feel so bad about Adelheid? Or was Bertha the one who was into unspeakable sexual acts and got Henry interested? I suppose we'll never know but I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS NOW.

Well, me too, but alas the internet won't provide which unspeakable acts exactly we're talking about, and I'm currently v.v. real life busy with maxing out my Stabi library loans (20, if not sent by mail - the mail limit was 6 at a time, but I can now pick them up in person again), so it will be a while till I can get around to finding a Henry IV biography. Preferably one printed after WWII, because I'm pretty sure any earlier one would want to spare the readers.

More seriously, though, I do have an idea, which alas isn't that adventurous but is based on the question:l which sexual acts between man and wife would have been reason for marriage annullment in the 11th century if cited by the woman? I.e. at a time where the patriarchy reigned supreme, and it was a wife's duty to deliver the sexual goods?

1) Refusing sex altogether. This can't have been it for obvious reasons, but non consumation, on the male's side as well, is a genuine reason.

2) Sex which cannot result in procreation, and might even be designed to prevent it. I.e. anal or oral sex. And I'm pretty sure this must have been it. Remember, 11th century church speaking, the entire point of marital sex (which is the only allowed sex anyway) is procreation, and if Henry IV. is having sex in a way that CANNOT result in procreation, and demanding it from his wife, Praxidis is entitled to refuse and ask the church to annullment.

3.) Threesomes. This would be Henry forcing adultery on his wife, and again, in this case she's entitled to refuse, which would fit with that one chronicler, but if that had been the case, all the other chronicles would not have said Praxidis told the synod via word and gestures what kind of filfthy sex her husband wanted, and also, as in the case of the Finnish Sex Machine so many centuries later, the third party would have been named.

so my money is on 2.) Leaving aside that whichever it was, the whole affair was of course happening in the mjiddle of an ongoing long term clash between Emperor and Church and caused the then current Pope (Gregory of Canossa fame was long dead) to say, you're excommunicated again, Henry! So there's always the option of Praxidis being offered a deal by church officials - annullment vs her providing the current Pope with a new reason to excommunicate Henry IV.

ROFL! Now *there's* an AU. Does Catherine do a 180 and start demanding a divorce?

Well, first of all, while I'm pretty sure Henry VIII would think he could be a sex fiend, I really doubt his abilities there. For starters, the man according to his own evidence could not tell whether a woman was a virgin or not. I mean, he changed his mind about whether or not Catherine of Aragon had been one, and Anne Boleyn. And evidently could not tell that Katherine Howard had not been one, poor kid. Secondly, even before his weight exploded and he had an open leg, back he was still in fine athletic form, he was having performance problems according to the trial of George Boleyn. (Where one of the charges was that Anne had told George's wife Jane, her sister-in-law, that Henry couldn't get it up anymore.) Thirdly, the ladies he's known to have had sex with who weren't married to him were: 1.) Bessie Blount (mother of his male bastard Henry Fitzroy), 2) Mary Boleyn (Anne's and George's sister), and 3.) Unnamed lady-in-waiting to Anne whom Henry first cheated with on her. All of whom were unmarried when he had his affairs with them, and with the exception of Mary Boleyn, almost certainly virgins. (With Mary, it depends on whether or not you believe Francis I., I guess.) I therefore conclude that despite his "lusty" King reputation - which comes from the sheer number of wives, not mistresses -, Henry was presumably pretty standard and none too adventurous in bed, and also, given his obsession with getting a male heir, I very much doubt he ever got into sex not designed for procreation.

Secondly, let's say Henry gets a tip from one of his buddies about alternate sex methods. Catherine of Aragon seems to have truly loved him. And while obviously it's entirely possible for a family to consist of some members who like sex and others who don't, it's worth remembering that Catherine's sister Juana (the so called Mad) was so attracted to her future husband upon sight that the two of them didn't want to wait for the big wedding and Philip the Fair hastily arranged for an emergency wedding so they could leagally have non stop sex, that Catherine's brother Juan who married the first Margaret of Austria (sister of Philip, daughter of Maximilian, aunt of Charles V., Regent of the Netherlands) supposedly had so much sex with her post wedding that it contributed to his early demise (and thus to the Habsburgs inheriting Spain), and that Catherine's father Ferdinand was as opposed to Henry VIII a King who really did have a lot of extramarital sex, in addition to the marital variety, and he and Isabella were famously very much into each other. Basically, what I'm saying is that I think chances are that Catherine liked sex with the man she loved, and would have accepted any variety.

Edited Date: 2022-10-18 06:50 am (UTC)

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Briefly: I'm currently halfway through a bio of Otto the Great, but when I finish, I will grab Gerd Althoff's 2006 bio of Henry IV, which is available as an e-book for not a lot of money, and which, according to the table of contents, has 4 pages dedicated to "On the Question of Henry's Sexual Misconduct." I will let you know what I find!

From:

cahn

Yay! I am cheering you on.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Thank you! I should report that despite lack of sleep and consulting busy-ness, I have been doing some German (not as much as I want, but keeping steadily at it), and have not only kept up my French streak, have now gone from 1 paragraph a day minimum to 2 paragraphs a day, and am 20% of the way through this bio of Louis XI! Thank you for your promises to yell at me, v. v. helpful. :)

From:

cahn

I have entirely given up on French. This was actually due to having to teach a couple of weeks, because I can't do detailed reading in French even when it's the Bible. But maybe this will inspire me to start back up again :P

Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed

From:

mildred_of_midgard - Date: 2022-10-23 04:32 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed

From:

cahn - Date: 2022-11-03 04:59 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

mildred_of_midgard

2) Sex which cannot result in procreation, and might even be designed to prevent it. I.e. anal or oral sex. And I'm pretty sure this must have been it.

Yep, this is exactly what I was imagining too.

and also, as in the case of the Finnish Sex Machine so many centuries later, the third party would have been named.

I keep forgetting I've been meaning to ask

luzula if she will read the Swedish sources on the Finnish sex machine for us! (Mostly because then I'd have to dig them up again, and I've been quite busy.) But I still think it would be cool to get the deets on that little episode!

Well, first of all, while I'm pretty sure Henry VIII would think he could be a sex fiend, I really doubt his abilities there.

LOLOLOL that is so true and at the same time, such a great burn! Actually laughed out loud here.

For starters, the man according to his own evidence could not tell whether a woman was a virgin or not.

To be fair, my understanding is that the presence or absence of a hymen and bleeding is a really poor predictor of whether someone is a virgin or not. But in general: yes, you may be on to something there.

And while obviously it's entirely possible for a family to consist of some members who like sex and others who don't

See also: my sister (pregnant at 16) and me (virgin at almost 40). ;)

Basically, what I'm saying is that I think chances are that Catherine liked sex with the man she loved, and would have accepted any variety.

Aww, poor Catherine.

I guess Wolsey's off the hook, then, if the sex fiend demanding unspeakable acts wouldn't have worked on two counts! But it was a hilarious mental image, and

cahn and I both laughed so much!

From:

luzula

I keep forgetting I've been meaning to ask luzula if she will read the Swedish sources on the Finnish sex machine for us! (Mostly because then I'd have to dig them up again, and I've been quite busy.) But I still think it would be cool to get the deets on that little episode!
Definitely, do give them to me! : D

I guess Wolsey's off the hook, then, if the sex fiend demanding unspeakable acts wouldn't have worked on two counts! But it was a hilarious mental image, and cahn and I both laughed so much!
I also laughed. : ) And I laughed at the original comment in this thread, which had Henry IV simultaneously saying that he not capable of carrying out conjugal relations with her any longer AND that she was a virgin. Perhaps he should pick a story and stick to it? *g*

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Awesome, thank you! It may be a while, but I will try to find time to pull them together.

From:

cahn

Aw YES. I am very excited about getting more on that episode, which I think may still win salon for jaw-dropping gossipy sensationalism (and there are a lot of contenders!)

From:

cahn

Guys, ToT is killing me (I have now finally churned out a bus pass but will probably still be out of commission for the next week because it's a pretty rough bus pass) but you have to go and gossip about unspeakable acts!

Hmm, if it's anal/oral sex (and now I find the "showed them through words and gestures" part even more hilarious) I guess it's possible that maybe Bertha liked it! Or was up for it, anyway!

Well, first of all, while I'm pretty sure Henry VIII would think he could be a sex fiend, I really doubt his abilities there.

I also find this sentence EXTREMELY amusing :D

For starters, the man according to his own evidence could not tell whether a woman was a virgin or not. I mean, he changed his mind about whether or not Catherine of Aragon had been one, and Anne Boleyn.

AHAHAHAHA oh Henry. ...I certainly hope someone pointed this out to him. (I imagine no one pointed this out to him.)

it's worth remembering that Catherine's sister Juana (the so called Mad) was so attracted to her future husband upon sight that the two of them didn't want to wait for the big wedding and Philip the Fair hastily arranged for an emergency wedding so they could leagally have non stop sex

Oh, I'd forgotten that, thank you for the primer! I did remember she was really into him. :(

From:

mildred_of_midgard

Guys, ToT is killing me (I have now finally churned out a bus pass but will probably still be out of commission for the next week because it's a pretty rough bus pass) but you have to go and gossip about unspeakable acts!

Hee! ~~Blame~~ praise Selena! I was going to make you all wait until I had finished one German book, started another, and done a write-up, which as we all know, can take months! (I have finished Otto and am about to start Henry IV, but sleep is killing me and so is my consulting gig, so...thank goodness for Selena, as always.)

Oh, I'd forgotten that, thank you for the primer! I did remember she was really into him. :)

Same!

From:

selenak

It's not my fault if Mildred is doing medieval German history and medieval Emperors also have lots of scandals to offer. :) Or if my mind can't help wondering how certain Tudor monarchs would react to this information.

AHAHAHAHA oh Henry. ...I certainly hope someone pointed this out to him. (I imagine no one pointed this out to him.)

Wellllll, there's the slight problem of suicidalness and the lack of same when doing so. I mean, even his long term bff Charles Brandon probably knew better than to risk that. Someone of equal rank and no dependence on Henry to survive could have, so, say, Francis I. during one of those summits when they kept triyng to show each other up. At a stretch, I could also see Anne (Boleyn) making a comment in that direction in the heat of an argument during the last weeks before her arrest, but while Anne daring to argue with him was both what originally attracted him and then doomed her, I doubt she would have even in argument at that point, since she knew her time was up. (Not in the sense of getting executed, I think she probably assumed he'd do to her what he did to Catherine of Aragon, have their marriage declared invalid, plus getting her locked up in a nunnery if he was really angry.)

Still another possibility: Martin Luther. Who had been trading insults with Henry via pamphlets anyway, didn't take him seriously as a true reformer, didn't need his support, and certainly would not have been above that particular observation in writing. Alas, as far as I know, he did not.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

I was reminded of this when I was listening today and got to this part. For context, there is a papal schism, and Bernard of Clairvaux is expressing his strong opinions for one pope and against another. From the transcript:

He even pushed the argument that the Pierleoni had only recently converted from Judaism and who could ever let a Jewish convert onto the throne of Saint Peter. I assume that nobody dared to enlighten St. Bernhard about St. Peter’s religious affiliation before he became an apostle?

Also, Cahn, I thought of you when I got to:

This week we take a little detour to catch up with our friends in Rome, the popes. Do not worry, the popes are no longer all goody two shoes, we are back to the usual shenanigans of murder, backstabbing, betrayal and the Normans.

This guy gets it!

From:

cahn

I assume that nobody dared to enlighten St. Bernhard about St. Peter’s religious affiliation before he became an apostle?

Lololololol, well played podcaster!

This week we take a little detour to catch up with our friends in Rome, the popes. Do not worry, the popes are no longer all goody two shoes, we are back to the usual shenanigans of murder, backstabbing, betrayal and the Normans.

I am intrigued by "Normans" showing up with all the other shenanigans. What makes Normans more shenanigan-prone than anyone else?

Also, who were the popes who were goody two-shoes? Living in a primarily-Protestant world, I was under the vague impression that none of them were, back then.

Normans and Popes

From:

mildred_of_midgard - Date: 2022-11-04 09:12 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Normans and Popes

From:

luzula - Date: 2022-11-04 09:27 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Normans and Popes

From:

mildred_of_midgard - Date: 2022-11-04 09:29 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

mildred_of_midgard - Date: 2022-11-11 05:31 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

cahn

I am also happy to learn about medieval emperors!

Yeah, I figured no one would point it out to him for that reason! But I like the Martin Luther angle! Alas that he doesn't seem to have.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

ngl, I want Henry and Bertha as a Yuletide story now (not this year, obviously) where this theory is true

I thought you would like this!

they felt like siblings and there's a whole lot of angst about how they feel it's wrong to have sex

Wilhelmine and Fritz: We're not seeing the problem here? :P

Is it possible that maybe Bertha wasn't into unspeakable sexual acts and Henry felt bad about her having to do them because she was like his sister, but didn't feel so bad about Adelheid? Or was Bertha the one who was into unspeakable sexual acts and got Henry interested? I suppose we'll never know but I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS NOW.

I had the same questions!

From:

selenak

Okay, after employing some more google fu, which alas included some of the depths of 19th century nationalism again (Henry IV was rediscovered in the 19th century as a champion of German independence vs evil Rome, which is very anachronistic indeed but predictable, while otoh his second wife was rediscovered as a Russian (despite her being Ukrainian, from Kiev) martyr to German perversion by the obvious suspects, also predictable), I came across two reasonable-sounding overviews, this 2010 essay, and this blogging essay. Incidentally, the reason for the many names was that unlike Theophanu, the lady in question married into the West AFTER the great schism, which meant she had to convert from Greek/Russian Orthodoxy to not yet called that Catholic faith (this being pre Protestantism), that's where the "Adelheid" moniker comes from. (The marriage with Henry IV was her second marriage, the first one being to Heinrich/Henry of Stade (because there really are only five names available in history, aren't there), from which she was widowed early, so she had already become Adelheid by the time he married her.)

Firstly, both essays are open about the source problem, and about the extremely biased (in both directions) way historians dealt with the entire saga. The original source problem is every single report on it comes from monastery chronicles hostile to Henry. The historian problem is that the nationalistic 19th century, see above, decided on the German side that Praxedis was a liar in the service of Henry's enemies and naturally not a single accusation could be true, while the Russian side decided naturally, they were all true and Henry was a mad pervert and they were all true. (

What happened in 1092 was that Adelheid/Praxedis fled from Verona, where she was "under custody" (why? We don't know) to Mathilde of Tuscany, that enterprising Church-supporting lady we've encountered a couple of times before, remained with her and in 1095 at the Council of Piazenza in person (according to one of these two essays) accused Henry of...

...this is where the Chronicles come in, and the further the temporal distance is, the greater the accusation.

Bernold of Konstanz: "unspeakable infamies of prostitution", against which there was no remedy but flee her perverted husband.

Cardinal Priest Deusdedit in a pamphlet: She accuseed him of forcing her to have sex with other men; clearly, Henry IV is the new Nero.

Ekkehard of Aura: That, and also clearly that's why the Pope hat to excommunicate him again.

Annals of the Monastery Disibodenberg, written shortly after 1125 (i.e. more than a quarter of a century later): So, Henry locked her up in Verona to have her gangraped by multiple men. Then he ordered his own son Conrad to rape her as well, at which occasion he said that Conrad wasn't his kid because the late Bertha had cheated on him, so raping Adelheid would be no incest. Conrad refused, and that's why he rebelled against his father, in case you were wondering.

Gerho von Reichenbergt: Henry perverted the divine order, ignored divine and secular law and dirtied his own body as well as submitting his wife to unspeakable crimes.

Praxedis' English wiki entry: "She accused Henry of holding her against her will, of forcing her to participate in orgies, and, according to some later accounts, of attempting a black mass on her naked body.[8] According to these later chroniclers, Henry became involved in a Nicolaitan sect, and hosted the sect's orgies and obscene rituals in his palaces."

The 2010 essay also mentions the "Nicolatan sect" bit and attributes it to one Helmold von Bessau, who was born in 1120 and thus write three quarters of a century after everything had happened.

Nationalist historians: see above.

Current day historians: Okay, the black mass on her naked body thing is ridiculous and a late addendum, we can agree on that, escept for the Russians. But what about the rape charge per se? On the one hand, believing a woman who says she was raped = good. Otoh, why should he do something so counterproductive? Leaving morals and humanity aside, she was the Empress. Handing over your Empress to be gang raped would be incredibly face losing to any medieval monarch.

Russian historians: why else should his own son rebel against him?

Everyone else: *tiredly gesture at the countless father/son conflicts throughout history involving rebelling sons of monarchs*

Gert Althoff, apparently, according to the 2010 essay: I have a new theory! Maybe Adelheid/Praxedis was treated as a hostage for the Saxon nobles against whom Henry was fighting at the time due to her first marriage with one, and was abused like hostages are if things go south?

2010 Essay writer:....yeah, I don't think so. Even Althoff has to admit there is no comparable case, and also, the Henry/Adelheid match didn't happen as a result of his negotiating with the Saxons, it happened via her father the Grand Duke of Kiev. Henry couldn't afford any more enemies and he wanted that alliance, why the hell would he insult her father that way?

Tentative theory of yours truly, based on both essays: Eupraxia/Adelheid/Praxedis marries or is married against her will to a near 40 years old depressed guy who has recently lost the previous wife and has been fighting on/off battles against the church, and occasionally his own nobles, since he was a child. Whatever she expected from becoming Empress, this was not it. Also, they hardly seem to have been together, with her in Verona and him travelling up and down the HRE, and if they were, bonding evidently did not happen. And the only way she would have been able to get out of this marriage was via annulment, and the only person able to annull an imperial marriage was the Pope. Who sure as hell wasn't going to do it out of the goodness of his heart, and who had a Henry-installed rival Pope (Clemens III) to defeat. As to the rape question, let's not forget: if she didn't want to be married to him (and presumably no one asked her in the first place), then any consumnation of said marriage would have been rape - to our pov, though not to that of the medieval church.

From:

mildred_of_midgard

The royal reader turns detective! *applause*

(Henry IV was rediscovered in the 19th century as a champion of German independence vs evil Rome, which is very anachronistic indeed but predictable, while otoh his second wife was rediscovered as a Russian (despite her being Ukrainian, from Kiev) martyr to German perversion by the obvious suspects, also predictable)

Yeah, this is all terribly predictable. From my reading, 19th and early 20th century nationalist historians stanned the Ottonians, Salians, and Hohenstaufen like there was no tomorrow, then the later twentieth century went, "...Awkward. Let's talk about something else," and only very recent decades have started engaging with this period again, in a less nationalist, pro-imperial centralization way. So I was fully expecting that you would find mostly what you found.

Ukrainian: Hmm, I had the impression that though the Russians and the Ukrainians claim the Kievan Rus' as their predecessor, "Russian" vs. "Ukrainian" isn't a well developed concept for this period. I.e. that the Kievan Rus' was its own thing, with a mixture of ethnicities and territory covering both modern Russia and modern Ukraine, and that you can't map modern borders onto the 11th century territory and expect to come out with anything meaningful.

Incidentally, the reason for the many names was that unlike Theophanu, the lady in question married into the West AFTER the great schism, which meant she had to convert from Greek/Russian Orthodoxy to not yet called that Catholic faith (this being pre Protestantism)

From my studies of early Christianity, I seem to recall that the word "Catholic" was applied to the ancestor of the modern Catholic church since very early on (googling gives me 2nd century), and was used by contemporaries to mean "not Arian or Donatist or any of those other heresies," and then I'm pretty sure it was used to mean "and also not the Eastern Orthodox heresy" after the East-West Schism, and then it was used to mean "and also not one of those damned Protestants" after Protestantism came along.

It's been used in both lowercase and uppercase form with subtle differences throughout its history, but in this case (unlike with "Prussians"), I see enough continuity in how it was used then and how it's used now to use "Catholic" for what Eupraxia/Adelheid converted to, with the understanding that there are no Protestants yet (but there have always been plenty of other "non-Catholics" that said Catholics have been eager to distinguish themselves from).

Russian historians: why else should his own son rebel against him?

Everyone else: *tiredly gesture at the countless father/son conflicts throughout history involving rebelling sons of monarchs*

I see they've forgotten about Peter and Alexei? Wow. He locked Alexei's mother in a convent, he didn't have her gang-raped.

See, and this is why I was so pleasantly surprised to find that Anisimov *didn't* say all the things I'd expect from a Russian nationalist!

Gert Althoff, apparently, according to the 2010 essay: I have a new theory! Maybe Adelheid/Praxedis was treated as a hostage for the Saxon nobles against whom Henry was fighting at the time due to her first marriage with one, and was abused like hostages are if things go south?

2010 Essay writer:....yeah, I don't think so. Even Althoff has to admit there is no comparable case, and also, the Henry/Adelheid match didn't happen as a result of his negotiating with the Saxons, it happened via her father the Grand Duke of Kiev. Henry couldn't afford any more enemies and he wanted that alliance, why the hell would he insult her father that way?

Wow. I mean, I feel like if we dug around enough, we could turn up something comparable, because history is vast and full of terrible people, but...yeah, where do the Saxons come in here? If he'd said Henry abused her because he was mad at the Rus', I'd be more inclined to consider the possibility, but "first husband" seems like a real stretch.

Well! I suppose "We have no idea, so we're stuck speculating" is the answer we always knew we were going to get. But having the details as to which chronicler said what when is great, thanks for digging that up and sharing it!

And the only way she would have been able to get out of this marriage was via annulment, and the only person able to annull an imperial marriage was the Pope. Who sure as hell wasn't going to do it out of the goodness of his heart, and who had a Henry-installed rival Pope (Clemens III) to defeat.

Makes as much sense as anything else, and more sense than a number of these theories!

As to the rape question, let's not forget: if she didn't want to be married to him (and presumably no one asked her in the first place), then any consumnation of said marriage would have been rape - to our pov, though not to that of the medieval church.

Yep, this. :/

From:

cahn

From my studies of early Christianity, I seem to recall that the word "Catholic" was applied to the ancestor of the modern Catholic church since very early on (googling gives me 2nd century), and was used by contemporaries to mean "not Arian or Donatist or any of those other heresies," and then I'm pretty sure it was used to mean "and also not the Eastern Orthodox heresy" after the East-West Schism, and then it was used to mean "and also not one of those damned Protestants" after Protestantism came along.

It's been used in both lowercase and uppercase form with subtle differences throughout its history, but in this case (unlike with "Prussians"), I see enough continuity in how it was used then and how it's used now to use "Catholic" for what Eupraxia/Adelheid converted to, with the understanding that there are no Protestants yet (but there have always been plenty of other "non-Catholics" that said Catholics have been eager to distinguish themselves from).

I mean... lower-c catholic just means "universal," and until very recently was a word people still said in the Creeds even in Protestant churches. (And maybe some of them still do! Dave's Lutheran church has now changed the relevant passage in the Nicene Creed from "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church" to "one holy Christian and apostolic church" instead, I suppose not to be confusing to younger folk, but the older church elder types at his church learned and will still stubbornly say "catholic" instead of "Christian" when it is recited (and so do I, lol).)

Heh, Wikipedia says that after the East-West schism the Western church referred to itself as Catholic, but also that the Eastern Orthodox Church also referred to itself as Catholic and the Western Church was referred to just as Latins. No information on when that stopped, though.

Re: Catholicism

From:

mildred_of_midgard - Date: 2022-11-04 09:39 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Catholicism

From:

cahn - Date: 2022-11-11 05:40 am (UTC) - Expand

Re: Catholicism

From:

luzula - Date: 2022-11-11 12:43 pm (UTC) - Expand

Re: Catholicism

From:

mildred_of_midgard - Date: 2022-11-13 02:39 am (UTC) - Expand

From:

cahn

Ah. Thank you for combing through all of this! And, wow to all the extreme biasing of the sources. That's... so much that it's not even funny any more. (Although I guess also because it's sad, because whatever Adelheid's story is, it sounds like it was a sad story.)

Russian historians: why else should his own son rebel against him?

Everyone else: *tiredly gesture at the countless father/son conflicts throughout history involving rebelling sons of monarchs*

After these years in salon, I did laugh at this. WTF Russian historians! Even I know that sons rebel against fathers! ~~in operas too~~

And the only way she would have been able to get out of this marriage was via annulment, and the only person able to annull an imperial marriage was the Pope. Who sure as hell wasn't going to do it out of the goodness of his heart, and who had a Henry-installed rival Pope (Clemens III) to defeat.

Okay, yes, that makes sense.

As to the rape question, let's not forget: if she didn't want to be married to him (and presumably no one asked her in the first place), then any consumnation of said marriage would have been rape - to our pov, though not to that of the medieval church.

:(

From:

cahn

This is amazing.

At an assembly at Worms, he "explained publicly (before the princes), that his relationship with his wife was not good; for a long time he had deceived others, but now he did not want to do so any longer.

he stands up and declares that he simply “does not think he and his wife are a good match”. He says that he is simply tired of pretending that the relationship was ok., when it was not.

Huh. I wonder what he said exactly and in context? Because I have now had a few object lessons in historians taking texts and interpreting them every which way!