![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnGonna 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:
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:
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.
Re: Henry IV and Bertha
Date: 2022-10-18 04:44 am (UTC)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!
Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-18 06:48 am (UTC)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.
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-18 07:13 pm (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 05:19 am (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 03:19 pm (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 06:44 pm (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-23 04:32 am (UTC)Also Katte. I have to admit, German was more relevant to my Katte interests, and that played a really significant role. (Which is silly, because our German readers had read me literally everything having to do with Katte, and even went and talked to Wust local historians, so there was no need, and also French doesn't have this RIDICULOUS FONT I still can only sort of read, but what can I say. I just always liked German better, even before salon.)
At some point, I swear, my German reading will be fast enough that I can give French some proper focus time, and then I hope it will go faster than German. But for now, even 2 paragraphs a day is really helping.
And I'm staying strictly away from fic writing this Yuletide season to focus on languages, even though some of your prompts and Selena's are so tempting it should be illegal. :P (Only for very long fics, though, which is helping me resist temptation.)
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
From:Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-20 04:53 am (UTC)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
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
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-20 08:11 am (UTC)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
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*
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-20 10:49 am (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 05:21 am (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 05:18 am (UTC)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. :(
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 03:13 pm (UTC)Hee!
Blamepraise 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!
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-23 10:40 am (UTC)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.
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-26 03:20 pm (UTC)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!
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-11-03 05:06 am (UTC)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
Date: 2022-11-04 09:12 pm (UTC)Lol, well, maybe not exactly more shenanigan-prone per se, since everyone is shenanigan-prone, but I think from the papal and imperial perspective they were something of a wild card. They might take the Pope prisoner, protect the Pope, sack Rome, all of the above, whatever they were in the mood for. And they had a formidable army and navy, so you messed with them at your own risk.
See, once upon a time, some Norman mercenaries went down to Italy because there wasn't enough for younger sons to do back home in Normandy. (When your dad has 12 sons, that's a lot of younger sons to become mercenaries.) One day, they realized that money was good, but land was better. And since they were *really really* good mercenaries, they managed to conquer southern Italy and work out some deals with the Popes. The Popes officially granted them that land, even though the throne of St. Peter had exactly zero claim to southern Italy, and Sicily was still in the hands of the Saracens. But hey, granting somebody something you already don't own is cheaper than paying them, so, "If you can conquer Sicily, you can keep it as far as I'm concerned!" is a pretty sweet deal for a Pope who has an emperor and Roman nobility to deal with.
Until the Normans finished conquering the area, and managed some domestic stability by allowing Jews and Muslims to practice their religion and serve in the military in return for a tax. Which from the papal point of view was like, "A, you're not allowed to do religious tolerance, and B, what do you mean religious tolerance gets you loyal and competent Saracen troops, shit, now I have a really powerful neighbor with expansionist tendencies!"
So sometimes the popes fight the Normans and sometimes the popes hire the Normans to deal with the emperors, and sometimes they all go on crusade together while on really bad terms back home, and it's shenanigans everywhere. To quote the podcaster loosely from memory, "During the Second Crusade, Roger of Sicily offered to provide the French and German crusaders passage to the Holy Land via his navy, but they declined, as they had no interest in being thrown into the sea halfway there."
And to quote me when talking to my wife, "Gregory VII will later die in exile with his pet Normans. And having a pet Norman is like having a pet wolf: you know who's in charge, and it's not you." Very next episode, the podcaster said something about the Normans having pet popes, and I was like, "Yeeeeeep. Exactly."
So while I'm not sure the Normans are *more* prone to shenanigans than their already shenanigan-prone contemporaries, having them as neighbors definitely makes the geopolitics more interesting. For example, Southern Italy, which the Normans owned, was claimed by the Holy Roman Emperors, the Popes, and the Byzantine Emperors, all of whom said the Normans were their vassals, and very few of whom had any power to make the Normans do anything they didn't already want to do. And since there were three of these supposed overlords of Southern Italy at any given time, it was even harder to make the Normans do anything. So like if the Pope and the Emperor invaded Southern Italy together, they would end up squabbling with *each other* over who was really in charge there, much to the Normans' advantage.
Eventually, Barbarossa's son will marry Roger's daughter (going from memory here, but I think that's right), and the product will be Selena's fave Frederick II Hohenstaufen, "stupor mundi", who will be a German-Norman Holy Roman Emperor who lives in Sicily. I did read a bio of him for German practice earlier this year, but I haven't yet got to that part of the podcast, so he's still a little hazy in my memory.
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.
So you are generally right--but! A thousand-plus years is a long time for there to be fluctuations in papal trends.
Somewhere around the end of the first millennium, the Roman aristocracy is very powerful and major clans fight with each other, and the Pope can best be defined as "some dude a powerful Roman clan managed to put on the throne of St. Peter so they could get money out of him." It was actually preferable that he *not* have a religious calling. This was the period of the "pornocracy", because the Popes were basically just fucking and gambling all the time, and sometimes the city was even being de facto run by a WOMAN. This lack of moral high ground meant the popes had relatively little influence outside of Rome and were not at this time the powerful autocrats of Europe that you probably think of them as. And inside Rome, they were largely puppets at the mercy of whatever clan had put them on the throne.
Every so often, a German emperor would have the time to go "OMGWTF" and try to do something about the situation, but the German emperors also had their hands full with things like the German dukes and the Poles and the pagan Slavs and the Bohemians and the Hungarians and trying to make sure the French didn't get Lotharingia back and trying to get the Byzantines to acknowledge that the Holy Roman Emperor was at least as prestigious as the Byzantine Emperor, and all the other things you can imagine they were busy with.
So fast forward to the 11th century, and there's a reform movement going in Europe. People have started to care deeply that the Church is corrupt as anything, and if your priest paid for his office and has a mistress or even wife and six kids, are your baptism and your last rites and other sacraments that he performed really valid? And if not, does that mean you're going to hell?
Here's where Henry III of Germany comes in. He's been elected king by the German nobles. In order to become emperor, he has to get crowned by the pope. (This will later change, precisely because it's so complicated to go all the way to Italy to get a coronation from a pope you might not be on good terms with, and even if you are, you might have to leave your squabbling nobles behind in Germany.) Henry marches down to Italy and goes, "I'm here!...Oh shit, there are three popes, and one of them straight up bought his office, and the other two are sketchy in other ways, and if I get crowned by any of them, I'm going to have a hard time passing that off as a valid coronation, and then my status as emperor will be invalid! I need a holy man to be Pope."
So Henry III deposes three sketchy popes in one go, and starts putting goody two-shoes on the throne of St. Peter, and telling them to behave themselves!
This works great for a while: he gets his coronation, and Leo IX gets the papacy some much-needed respect and influence. He travels all over western Europe telling people what to do, and boom! The papacy is now the "I tell monarchs what to do because I am the supreme moral authority" institution that you probably think of it as.
Then the German emperors have a *big problem* that the papacy is now a legitimate contender for "top dog in Europe," and they're all, "That's not what we meant! We depose popes, popes don't depose us!"
Gregory VII: "Tough shit, I depose you."
Canossa: *happens*
Shenanigans in Italy and Germany: *happen at great length*
Normans: *happen* (sack of Rome)
So after a string of goody two-shoes popes, the Roman nobility decides it's time to go back to the good old pornocracy days. I'm now at the point in the podcast where this papal election is happening:
On September 7, 1159, an unknown number of cardinals gather behind the high altar of the Basilica of St. Peter to elect the new pope. The majority vote for Roland Bandinelli, and he proceeds to put on the Papal mantle. At that point Cardinal Octavian rugby-tackles the elected pontiff and grabs the mantle. He then tries to put the mantle on himself, but the pro-Bandinelli rip it out of his hands. An attendant brings Octavian a copy of the original mantle he now attempts to put on, but gets it back to front. Despite the wardrobe malfunction, the minor clergy of St. Peter acclaims him as Pope Victor IV.
So now there's yet another papal schism, and this time it isn't even the emperor's fault.
Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2022-11-06 10:16 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-11-03 05:00 am (UTC)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.
Re: Henry IV and Bertha
Date: 2022-10-18 09:40 pm (UTC)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!
Re: Henry IV and <s>Bertha/s> Eupraxia/Adelheid/Praxidis
Date: 2022-10-19 07:08 am (UTC)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.
Re: Henry IV and <s>Bertha/s> Eupraxia/Adelheid/Praxidis
Date: 2022-10-20 04:43 am (UTC)(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. :/
Catholicism
Date: 2022-11-03 04:54 am (UTC)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
Date: 2022-11-04 09:39 pm (UTC)Yeah, I thought about talking about lower-c catholic, but then decided it would open this whole other can of worms I didn't have time for. :P But now that we're here and I have the day off work...
If you look at Isidore of Seville, 7th century author of the Etymologies, and instrumental in converting the Visigoths of Spain from Arianism to Catholicism, he's got an explicit definition of "catholic" that is our lower-c "catholic" and an implicit definition that is pretty close to (but not quite) our upper-c "Catholic."
When he defines "catholic", he gives the "general, universal" definition. But when he starts defining heresies, he says, "These sects are not Catholic:" and he lists almost 70 sects, including the Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Manichaeans, and Nazarenes. He also says the Visigoths "became Catholic," by which he means they were one of those non-Catholic sects before.
If you look the bull that excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 and kind of accidentally triggered the schism, it uses the word "Catholic." If you asked the authors, I'm sure their explicit definition would be our lower-c sense. But implicitly, it defines Catholicism by saying they're excommunicating this guy and his followers because the excommunicates are harming the Catholic faith by being like the: Arians, Donatists, Nicolaitists, Severians, Pneumatomachoi, Manichaeans, and Nazarenes.
In other words, the authors of this bull are joining Isidore of Seville in using "Catholic" to mean "not subscribing to beliefs that we of Rome think are heresies."
Now, does this mean the so-called heretics automatically agree? No, now you've got one side going, "We are catholic and orthodox and you are not," and the other side going, "No, we are catholic and orthodox and you are not!" (Lower-o "orthodox" is used both by Isidore of Seville and the authors of the 1054 bull of excommunication.) The schism wasn't automatic or immediate, either, so it's not like everyone promptly divided them by consensus into upper-C Catholic for one and upper-O Orthodox for the other.
But while the capital-C usage hadn't evolved in quite the same sense that we have it today, and they weren't making a distinction between upper and lower c orthographically (as far as I know)...it's so close to contemporary usage and there's so much continuity between the 11th century institution and meaning of the term and the current institution and meaning of the term that I'm comfortable using it for this period. Though qualifying it with something like "Roman", "Western", or "Latin" would be even safer.
Re: Catholicism
Date: 2022-11-11 05:40 am (UTC)But yeah, I reckon if you have and accept the hierarchical organization with a Pope and so on, I'm not going to quibble with calling you the large-C Catholic church :) I guess the thing that's actually sort of amazing is that everyone these days (except I reckon the Eastern Orthodox? I don't know much about them) considers both Catholics and Protestants members of the catholic church, to the best of my knowledge. (Of course, they both accept the Creeds.)
Re: Catholicism
From:Re: Catholicism
From:Re: Henry IV and <s>Bertha/s> Eupraxia/Adelheid/Praxidis
Date: 2022-10-22 05:32 am (UTC)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 tooAnd 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.
:(