4 ms·

Absolutely. So many people believe that: 1) ius primae noctis was a thing (it wasn’t) 2) witch hunting was a medieval thing (very late medieval thing, maybe,

Absolutely. So many people believe that: 1) ius primae noctis was a thing (it wasn’t) 2) witch hunting was a medieval thing (very late medieval thing, maybe, but mostly it was in 15-17th century) 3) flat earth as a widespread belief for wise men (it wasn’t, and both Columbus and the Council of Salamanca knew that) We’re willing to believe that for about 1000 years Europe collectively abandoned reason, while before and after it was there. Sure, sounds logic.

simbolit 3y ago
(re1) while ipn wasn't a law, we have to keep in mind, the lord was also the judge. so if your lord raped you, good luck finding justice.
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  There is no documentation of this period of it being “a thing” (while we have, for example, plenty of stories or fableaux talking about men and women cheating, priests and monks having sex, etc.), afaik. That is to say, it wasn’t a law but not even an accepted custom. Raping is something else, unfortunately I’m sure that happend. So are power dynamics and sex, but it wasn’t connected to the first night.
  - simbolit 3y ago
    "There is no documentation" is too strong. There is a document from Maur, Canton Zurich, Switzerland, stating: "...soll der Bräutigam den Meyer in der Hochzeitsnacht bei seiner Frau liegen lassen oder fünf Schillinge und vier Pfennige bezahlen" (Rough translation: "...the groom should let the Meier [administrative manager] lie with his wife during the wedding night, or he shall pay five Shilling and four pence"). The document is from 1543, but it states in the very beginning that these rules are "von alters her" (rough translation: "since an old age"). Source: (University of Zurich, Faculty of Law) https://www.ius.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-1e72-6fc8-0000-00003edb822a/080208_T3K3_Reichs_Landes_und_Grundherrschaftsrechte.pdf https://www.ius.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-1e72-6fc8-0000-00003... It surely wasn't widespread or normal, as rennaissance and early modern porn fantasies would want us to believe. But it surely happened. I think this is the right conclusion, given the available evidence: "....the so-called right was simply the ability of the powerful to subject the less powerful to their will. Rape might be a better term to apply since husbands and families had to resort to subterfuge to thwart the desires of the powerful.? Source: Vern L. Bullough (1991) Jus primae noctis or droit du seigneur. The Journal of Sex Research. Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 1991), pp. 163-166 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812958 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812958
    - gattilorenz 3y ago
      I said there is no contemporary documentation of it being “a thing”, which I meant as “a widespread/accepted custom” (this being one of the false belief about the dark ages). I’m not sure what to make of the document you shared: does it mean that in 1543 near Zurich this right was still being upheld? Because in Italy there are plenty of documents and popular stories in which “in the past we were subject to this horrible practice by an evil Lord”, but no contemporary source. In these cases it is likely a local legend to emphasise the improvements of living in a city and not under a lord. I can only see the preview of the article you linked, but it mentions the culagium (a tax on marriage, fundamentally), and it has been speculated that its name had an influence on the later perception of jpn: culagium sounds very much as “culus”, which means “ass” in Latin. For another explanation and a reference, see https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2omu3t/was_prima_nocta_an_actual_thing_in_european/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2omu3t/was_p...
      - simbolit 3y ago
        > does it mean that in 1543 near Zurich this right was still being upheld I don't know. I am just saying: (1) there are rennaissance and early modern authors who want to make us believe this was common and usual and happening widely during the 'dark ages' (likely from a mixture of anti-medieval sentiment and pornographic fantasy, but I am speculating). (2) there are 20th Century and contemporary authors, who want to make us believe this was just a renaissance invention with no basis in fact whatsoever. (3) given the available sources (like some religious texts, like the 1543 document I linked, like a very few other sources) and what we know about power dynamics and the 'justice system' (lol) in the European Middle Ages (there were very few limits on what a lord could do to local peasants without repercussions), probably neither is true. (4) It likely happened, and it likely happened not just thrice over 1000 years. But it also wasn't something happening everywhere and all the time, and as a codified law. It wasn't "part of the package" of being a lord, with everyone just shrugging, saying "that's the way things are and ought to be". (5) the idea of a culturally-homogeneous medieval Europe is laughable, before printing and modern-ish communication networks, customs were very likely more varied than they were in early modern times. The only (exaggeration!) trans-european force were the Catholic (which back then had a meaning of 'universal') church, and gold coins being accepted everywhere. So, except a few ways of trading goods and a standardized-ish Latin mass there were very few things true for all of the european Middle Ages. (6) lords surely raped the peasant girls on their lands, and usually without any negative effect on the lord. That is the right way of putting it: rape. Even if there was (there very likely wasn't) such a 'law of the first night', it would still have been the same: rape. These are my points, and they seem well supported by our current historical knowledge. For anything more specific, ask not just a historian, but a historian specializing in sexual relations in pre-modern Europe. I am not.
bombcar 3y ago
The flat earth one is super annoying, because the argument against Columbus was actually correct - they didn't say he'd fall off the end of the world, they said it was way further than he thought and he'd run out of food. They were right, he just happened to run into a giant continent instead of dying.
- EdiX 3y ago
  This is also a misconception. The Invention of Science by David Wootton has a long chapter on this. They believed it was impossible because in aristotelian cosmology the planet earth is actually two spheres: a sphere of earth floating in a 10x times larger sphere of water, so that only a small dome emerges from it (both of them are then inside a larger sphere of air which is inside a sphere of fire). In this model reaching china by sailing west is impossible because the sphere of water is absolutely enormous and all the possible emerged land is already known so there can not be any antipodal land you could find to restock on food.
  - gattilorenz 3y ago
    I've never heard of this theory, I'm curious how much it reflects a consensus among historians
hammock 3y ago
>Ius primae noctis was a thing (it wasn’t) Source? It’s literally in the Talmud, and many other histories. https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubot.3b.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubot.3b.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=...
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  I think the consensus among contemporary historians is that it was not an accepted custom among Christians. Also, that one source mentions it (I have no idea what that says, when it is from, what is the context etc. - I’m also no historian myself so an English translation would not necessarily help) it doesn’t mean it’s true, otherwise we would have to believe that Pegasus existed… or the myth of Salamanca’s council. Update: ah, I found the English translation. Indeed, by reading it like this I see what you mean, but I have no idea when, where and in what context it’s been written, whether it talks about a widespread thing, etc. For more context: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2omu3t/was_prima_nocta_an_actual_thing_in_european/#:~:text=The%20TL%3BDR%20is%20no,developed%20after%20the%20middle%20ages https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2omu3t/was_p.... My sources are, unfortunately, in Italian only :)
- Ialdaboth 3y ago
  I think (for obvious reasons) people should really stop blaming the Talmud for everything - Jules Michelet is probably more to blame for the modern prevalence of the Ius primae noctis belief, XIXth century republicanism too had more than its share of disinformation about the middle ages that they pushed for political reasons.

simbolit 3y ago

(re1) while ipn wasn't a law, we have to keep in mind, the lord was also the judge. so if your lord raped you, good luck finding justice.

gattilorenz 3y ago
There is no documentation of this period of it being “a thing” (while we have, for example, plenty of stories or fableaux talking about men and women cheating, priests and monks having sex, etc.), afaik. That is to say, it wasn’t a law but not even an accepted custom. Raping is something else, unfortunately I’m sure that happend. So are power dynamics and sex, but it wasn’t connected to the first night.
- simbolit 3y ago
  "There is no documentation" is too strong. There is a document from Maur, Canton Zurich, Switzerland, stating: "...soll der Bräutigam den Meyer in der Hochzeitsnacht bei seiner Frau liegen lassen oder fünf Schillinge und vier Pfennige bezahlen" (Rough translation: "...the groom should let the Meier [administrative manager] lie with his wife during the wedding night, or he shall pay five Shilling and four pence"). The document is from 1543, but it states in the very beginning that these rules are "von alters her" (rough translation: "since an old age"). Source: (University of Zurich, Faculty of Law) https://www.ius.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-1e72-6fc8-0000-00003edb822a/080208_T3K3_Reichs_Landes_und_Grundherrschaftsrechte.pdf https://www.ius.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-1e72-6fc8-0000-00003... It surely wasn't widespread or normal, as rennaissance and early modern porn fantasies would want us to believe. But it surely happened. I think this is the right conclusion, given the available evidence: "....the so-called right was simply the ability of the powerful to subject the less powerful to their will. Rape might be a better term to apply since husbands and families had to resort to subterfuge to thwart the desires of the powerful.? Source: Vern L. Bullough (1991) Jus primae noctis or droit du seigneur. The Journal of Sex Research. Vol. 28, No. 1 (Feb., 1991), pp. 163-166 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812958 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3812958
  - gattilorenz 3y ago
    I said there is no contemporary documentation of it being “a thing”, which I meant as “a widespread/accepted custom” (this being one of the false belief about the dark ages). I’m not sure what to make of the document you shared: does it mean that in 1543 near Zurich this right was still being upheld? Because in Italy there are plenty of documents and popular stories in which “in the past we were subject to this horrible practice by an evil Lord”, but no contemporary source. In these cases it is likely a local legend to emphasise the improvements of living in a city and not under a lord. I can only see the preview of the article you linked, but it mentions the culagium (a tax on marriage, fundamentally), and it has been speculated that its name had an influence on the later perception of jpn: culagium sounds very much as “culus”, which means “ass” in Latin. For another explanation and a reference, see https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2omu3t/was_prima_nocta_an_actual_thing_in_european/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2omu3t/was_p...
    - simbolit 3y ago
      > does it mean that in 1543 near Zurich this right was still being upheld I don't know. I am just saying: (1) there are rennaissance and early modern authors who want to make us believe this was common and usual and happening widely during the 'dark ages' (likely from a mixture of anti-medieval sentiment and pornographic fantasy, but I am speculating). (2) there are 20th Century and contemporary authors, who want to make us believe this was just a renaissance invention with no basis in fact whatsoever. (3) given the available sources (like some religious texts, like the 1543 document I linked, like a very few other sources) and what we know about power dynamics and the 'justice system' (lol) in the European Middle Ages (there were very few limits on what a lord could do to local peasants without repercussions), probably neither is true. (4) It likely happened, and it likely happened not just thrice over 1000 years. But it also wasn't something happening everywhere and all the time, and as a codified law. It wasn't "part of the package" of being a lord, with everyone just shrugging, saying "that's the way things are and ought to be". (5) the idea of a culturally-homogeneous medieval Europe is laughable, before printing and modern-ish communication networks, customs were very likely more varied than they were in early modern times. The only (exaggeration!) trans-european force were the Catholic (which back then had a meaning of 'universal') church, and gold coins being accepted everywhere. So, except a few ways of trading goods and a standardized-ish Latin mass there were very few things true for all of the european Middle Ages. (6) lords surely raped the peasant girls on their lands, and usually without any negative effect on the lord. That is the right way of putting it: rape. Even if there was (there very likely wasn't) such a 'law of the first night', it would still have been the same: rape. These are my points, and they seem well supported by our current historical knowledge. For anything more specific, ask not just a historian, but a historian specializing in sexual relations in pre-modern Europe. I am not.

bombcar 3y ago

The flat earth one is super annoying, because the argument against Columbus was actually correct - they didn't say he'd fall off the end of the world, they said it was way further than he thought and he'd run out of food. They were right, he just happened to run into a giant continent instead of dying.

EdiX 3y ago
This is also a misconception. The Invention of Science by David Wootton has a long chapter on this. They believed it was impossible because in aristotelian cosmology the planet earth is actually two spheres: a sphere of earth floating in a 10x times larger sphere of water, so that only a small dome emerges from it (both of them are then inside a larger sphere of air which is inside a sphere of fire). In this model reaching china by sailing west is impossible because the sphere of water is absolutely enormous and all the possible emerged land is already known so there can not be any antipodal land you could find to restock on food.
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  I've never heard of this theory, I'm curious how much it reflects a consensus among historians

hammock 3y ago

>Ius primae noctis was a thing (it wasn’t) Source? It’s literally in the Talmud, and many other histories. https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubot.3b.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubot.3b.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=...

gattilorenz 3y ago
I think the consensus among contemporary historians is that it was not an accepted custom among Christians. Also, that one source mentions it (I have no idea what that says, when it is from, what is the context etc. - I’m also no historian myself so an English translation would not necessarily help) it doesn’t mean it’s true, otherwise we would have to believe that Pegasus existed… or the myth of Salamanca’s council. Update: ah, I found the English translation. Indeed, by reading it like this I see what you mean, but I have no idea when, where and in what context it’s been written, whether it talks about a widespread thing, etc. For more context: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2omu3t/was_prima_nocta_an_actual_thing_in_european/#:~:text=The%20TL%3BDR%20is%20no,developed%20after%20the%20middle%20ages https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2omu3t/was_p.... My sources are, unfortunately, in Italian only :)
Ialdaboth 3y ago
I think (for obvious reasons) people should really stop blaming the Talmud for everything - Jules Michelet is probably more to blame for the modern prevalence of the Ius primae noctis belief, XIXth century republicanism too had more than its share of disinformation about the middle ages that they pushed for political reasons.