Storytime - The Reluctant Monk

A woman was leading an unhappy life with her husband, and came  to dislike him intensely. Therefore she thought up a wicked trick to play on him, putting into his wine the juice of certain herbs. He was not merely drunk, but lay there on his bed, acting like a madman, twisting and turning, foaming at the mouth, and unable to speak. His wife hurried off to the nearby monastery, weeping.

She said to the monks: "For the love of God, come to my house, for my husband seems to be dying. He can't speak, but  before he lost the power of speech he told me that above all else he wanted to become a monk, or if, through this illness, God took him, he must be dressed in monk's habit  before  he was buried. I don't want to stand in the way of his wishes, so I'll swear to give up sex for as long as I live, even if God restores him to health. But for God's sake hurry, and dress my poor husband in a monk's habit, for he's at the point of death."

She pressed them so much that they had to go. They shaved her husband, gave him a large tonsure, and dressed him in the habit of their order. The next morning he got up, sober again, and was astonished to find himself with shaved head and dressed as a monk, so he asked his wife what had ben happening who had done that to him.

She, pretending to weep, said: "Oh, my dearly-beloved husband! Don't you remember that last night you were made a monk, and that when you were in agony from your illness that was the only thing you wanted? And for your soul's sake I promised perpetual chastity, so no I must live alone and like an inconsolable widow."

He husband protested that he certainly didn't want to become a monk, and that he wanted to live a normal married life with her, just as before, but she said that she couldn't go against the oath she had sworn, for he most assuredly was a monk, and God would never permit her to sleep with a monk.

"Oh you wretch," she added, "wouldn't you even be ashamed  if you broke your vow? If you became a layman again, everyone would call you an apostate, a renegade monk."

She spoke so persuasively, and shed so many false tears, that the unhappy man, through shame and because of all the things she had said to him, took holy orders. He became a monk, and entered the monastery, leaving her in possession of their house and of all the jewels and other goods.
______________________________

Taken from Medieval Comic Tales, ed. D. Brewer (Cambridge, Boydell & Brewer Press: 1973) and originally from the 15th century Spanish MS,  Libro de los exenplos por a.b.c., a collection written by Clemente Sánchez (Archdeacon of Valderas)

Of Gardens and Ladies

So...

Today's title is fairly indicative of my sense of humour if I'm perfectly honest, but I will be leading you down a vaguely scholarly thought path today.

Recently, I was searching for references to the "Hortus Conclusus" (enclosed garden) in the Patrologia Latina in Oxford. It is essentially a printed compendium of early latin documents written by Church Fathers from Tertullian in 200 AD, up to the death of Pope Innocent III in 1216.

It's a massive work of untranslated latin, but it does give you the opportunity to try and wheedle out the opinions and personal views of contemporary 'big wigs' and their views on the church and passages in the bible.

My tedious index skimming brought me eventually to discussions on this passage of the Song of Solomon:

A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse: a spring shut up, a fountaine sealed.

Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits, Camphire, with Spikenaed,

Spikenard and Saffron, Calamus and Cynamom, with all trees of Frankincense, Mirrhe and Aloes, with all the chiefe spices.

A fountaine of gardens, a well of liuing waters, and streames from Lebanon.

Awake, O Northwinde, and come thou South, blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out: let my beloved come into his garden, and eate his pleasant fruits.

 - Chapter 4, 12-16

I was reading for something else so I'm afraid I do not have the specific commentaries to hand, but several of the commentaries compared the enclosed garden/shut spring/sealed fountain of this passage to Mary and her immaculate conception -  the connotations are fairly obvious. The pomegranates come in too with their associations with fertility. 

Now, some of these biblical commentators were not content with leaving this comparison there. 

Oh no. 

By comparing Mary's state to this enclosed garden/fountain etc. they extrapolated that it was in fact the enclosed/shut nature of her....garden/fountain....which led to her painless childbirth. After all,  it was argued by some that women suffer during childbirth because of Eve's sin, and a women such as Mary who is able to get pregnant while remaining a virgin is thus absolved of Eve's sins and blessed to be pain free.

This was all terribly interesting as I love discussions like this but I'm resisting the urge to dabble in a wholly new area of research so my curiosity has to stop here.

What has caught my attention though, as a half formed thought, is whether there is any connection between the modern slang "lady garden" and these early comparisons between women, reproductivity and this holy garden. A Lady Chapel  for example is a chapel dedicated to the Virgin Mary so I'm not completely out on a limb here.

I have no idea as I'm not a biblical scholar, or expert in the history of the English language, but I thought I'd share my academic musing for the week. 

 

Trial by combat, dispute resolution

It's a trope that appeals to Hollywood. Two great warriors staring one another down before the first move; a highly choreography fight scene, preferably with special effects, then ensues.

How often does the hero have to battle the robot monster from mars alone? Why does no one ever try and help Super Man? Why does MI6 only have one competent spy?

One-on-one combat is deeply embedded across human cultures and comes laden with honour and valour. It was a passage from the 14th century St Albans Chronicle that had me musing upon it this week and wondering when the tradition started. In it, the abbot of Battle Abbey is attempting to defend the town of Rye from the French whom he threatens with eternal damnation, and refuses to permit single combat to take place due to his position and ethics as a religious man (St Albans Chronicle, eds. Taylor and Watkiss, I, pp. 133).

Make love not war and all that.

Judging by the chronicle's evidence, it was still a widely acceptable way of deciding a dispute but I'm sure you're already been reminded of a much more famous instance:

Now the Philistines gathered together their armies to battle, and were gathered together at Shochoh, which belongeth to Judah, and pitched between Shochoh and Azekah, in Ephesdammim.

And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and pitched by the valley of Elah, and set the battle in array against the Philistines.

And the Philistines stood on a mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on a mountain on the other side: and there was a valley between them.

And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.

And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders.

And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him.

 And he stood and cried unto the armies of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? am not I a Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and let him come down to me.

If he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants, and serve us.

And the Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.

When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid.

 - Book of Samuel, Chapter 17

Written somewhere around the 7th century BC, we're getting closer to lending some antiquity to this practice. But wait, Troy wasn't just a poor film starring Brad Pitt I hear you cry. No, no it wasn't.

"As he spoke he drew the keen blade that hung so great and strong by his side, and gathering himself together be sprang on Achilles like a soaring eagle which swoops down from the clouds on to some lamb or timid hare--even so did Hector brandish his sword and spring upon Achilles. Achilles mad with rage darted towards him, with his wondrous shield before his breast, and his gleaming helmet, made with four layers of metal, nodding fiercely forward."

 - The Iliad, Book XXII, Chapter 22 

(Pot image above, https://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/online_tours/greece/the_myth_of_the_trojan_war/achilles_fights_hector.aspx)

So famous is this particular example of single combat (written around the 8th century BC) that the British Museum even has examples of 6th century BC merchandise.

Zipping back now all the way to 2000 BC, the Epic of Gilgamesh recounts the meeting of the King Gilgamesh and the wildman Enkidu who was sent to combat Gilgamesh's tyranny:

Strewn is the couch for the love-rites, and Gilgamish (now) in the night-time

Cometh to sleep, to delight in the woman (but) [Enkidu], coming

(There) in the highway, doth block up the passage to Gilgamish, [threat’ning]

He with his strength . . .Burgeon’d [his rage], (and) he rush’d to [attack] him: they met in the highway. Enkidu barr’d up the door with his foot, (and) to Gilgamish entry—

[He] Would not concede: they grappled and snorted(?) like bulls, (and) the threshold

Shatter’d: the (very) wall quiver’d as Gilgamish 1, Enkidu grappled,

Snorting(?) like bulls, (and) the threshold they shatter’d, the (very) wall quiver’d.

 - 2nd Tablet, translated here: http://king-of-heroes.co.uk/the-epic-of-gilgamesh/reginald-campbell-thompson-translation/of-the-meeting-of-gilgamish-and-enkidu/

Which summed up means that Enkidu fought Gilgamesh (elaborate prose is hard when you're writing on stone). The conclusion of the fight is that Gilgamesh sees the error of his ways and repents.

Sources dry up after this and I'm left wondering just when and where the practice did begin. Was it born out of a desire to settle disputes and avoid the suffering of many; or is it instead a primal instinct from our early ancestors, pitted against nature itself for survival, given a romantic twist?

N.B.

I'm not a classicist so do please feel free to correct my google found dates for the pre-medieval sources.