fredag den 7. januar 2022

Nonnen, der undslap klostret ved at spille død


Enhver, der har set eller læst Shakespeares skuespil "Hamlet", husker sikkert den frustrerede prins' barske besked til Ophelia: 

“If thou dost marry, I’ll give thee this plague for thy dowry. Be thou as chaste as ice, as pure as snow, thou shalt not escape calumny. Get thee to a nunnery, go. Farewell. Or, if thou wilt needs marry, marry a fool, for wise men know well enough what monsters you make of them. To a nunnery, go, and quickly too. Farewell.”

Det dér med "get thee to a nunnery" er altså grove løjer, for det var nu engang ikke Ophelias skyld, at hans mor, Gertrude, havde giftet sig med sin mands bror og morder. Dvs. at det under ingen omstændigheder er i orden at sende den unge, uskyldige Ophelia i kloster som en art generel straf for "den kvindelige svaghed", som Hamlet tror kan have kostet ham den trone, han ventede at arve fra sin far, men som nu er gået til hans farbror. At ordet "nunnery" også er slang for "bordel" gør absolut ikke fornærmelsen mindre .....


Engelske klostre har sikkert kunnet give ly og rimelige levevilkår for mange af de døtre, der ikke kunne placeres i et fordelagtigt ægteskab med en dynastisk set brugbar mandsperson. De har også kunnet give bogligt interesserede kvinder mulighed for at fordybe sig i bøgernes, filosofiens og religionens verden, hvis det var det, de ville i stedet for et ægteskab med masser af farlige børnefødsler og mere eller mindre uønsket sex med en mand, de ikke selv havde valgt. Dvs. at på en måde har klostrene været et gode for kvinder, men sådan ser vi dem nu ikke i vore dage. For os at se var de en hæmsko, der bremsede og undertrykte kvinder, der blev tvunget i cølibat, men som i virkeligheden ønskede et andet liv. At de måske bød på et godt søsterskab har så formentlig været en trøst, men næppe tilstrækkeligt for den kvinde, der ville have mere ud af livet. Sådan en kvinde var Joan af Leeds fra begyndelsen af det 14de århundrede.

Måske hun lignede Abelards elskede Heloïse, (der her tolkes ovenfor), men hun kan også have været en mere jordnær type på grund af et "lavere klassetilhørsforhold". Hvis det er tilfældet, så kan hun evt. have set sådan ud: 


Det, Joan gjorde, krævede hjælp indefra, så flere af hendes nonne-søstre må afgjort have hjulpet hende, da hun besluttede sig for at flygte fra klostret. Engang i 1318 fremstillede hun en dukke, der lignede hende, og ved hjælp af en falsk begravelse af denne lykkedes det hende at bilde klostret - og evt. slægtninge - ind, at hun var død, medens hun i virkeligheden stak af for at leve med en mand i en helt anden by. Desværre har man ingen oplysninger om denne mands identitet, eller hvad der blev af Joan i årene fremover. Ærkebiskoppens oplysninger i sagen er mildt sagt farvede af hans moralske forargelse, for han siger, at hendes flugt skyldes
"a desire to follow the way of carnal lust". Denne salut afleverer han i et af de tre breve om sagen, der stadig er bevaret. Han forlanger også, at hun bliver sendt tilbage til klostret, men det er og bliver åbenbart usikkert, hvad der skete med hende efter flugten, og ingen ved med sikkerhed, om hun kom tilbage.

Joan var naturligvis ikke den første nonne, der stak af fra klostertilværelsen med det påtvungne cølibat, etc., men med sin falske død var hun nu i særlig grad snedig. I 1310 havde den været gal med en anden Joan, nemlig Joan de Saxton, men hvori hendes forbrydelse bestod er - typisk nok - ret uklart. Man regner dog med, at det drejede sig om en eller anden form for "usædelighed", hvilket åbenbart var det mest almindelige problem for disse kloster-bundne kvinder. Noget, der selvfølgelig hang sammen med den kendsgerning, at mange af kvinderne ikke selv havde valgt det liv, de blev påduttet af deres familie, der ikke anede, hvad de ellers skulle gøre ved dem, da de ikke kunne få dem afsat i et passende (dvs. standsmæssigt) ægteskab. At kvinderne måske selv ville have foretrukket en mand af en lavere stand var ligegyldigt, for det ville gå ud over familiens anseelse.


En anden nonne-flugt virker umiddelbart spontan, men kan have været planlagt: i 1301 flygtede en nonne ved navn Cecily fra klostret, da hun mødte en flok ryttere. Straks hev hun sin nonnedragt af og iklædte sig en almindelig kjole, som de vel har givet hende - eller som hun har haft liggende gemt væk i sine gemmer, så hun kunne stikke af? En af rytterne har sandsynligvis været den Gregory de Thornton, som hun boede sammen med de næste tre år. Hvad der derefter blev af hende vides desværre ikke.

Da Henrik VIII revolutionerede kirkevæsenet i England i 1534 for at kunne gifte sig med Anne Boleyn, blev klostrene efterhånden opløst. Dvs. at de oprørske nonner, der kom efter de to Joan'er og andre af deres slags, alligevel ville være blevet hjemløse. For nogle fattige adelskvinder må det have været en tragedie og katastrofe, men for andre har det været en befrielse. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/feb/11/archive-shows-medieval-nun-faked-her-own-death-to-escape-convent

 

https://www.history.com/news/runaway-medieval-nun 

 

Wikipedia


torsdag den 6. januar 2022

"The Man Who Loved Unicorns": Ezine article by Else Cederborg, formerly published


The museum of Ole Worm (1558-1654) was the very first museum in Denmark. It was filled with every kind of exotica from old fossils to stuffed animals and a large part of these objects exists even today. As he was obsessed by collecting artifacts of all kinds his museum is rich in details. Nothing seems too little or too shallow for him. For instance, he was interested in lemmings and succeeded in establishing the fact that they were in truth rodents. The old, alternate opinion, which still was very popular, was that they simply generated from air. Another old myth that concerned him was the one about the birds of paradise which were supposed not to have any feet. Once again he proved that the myth did not tell the truth as they indeed had feet. This he did by drawing them.
However, his most illustrious exploit was the one of unicorns. The legend went that they were magical animals, but he determined that they did not exist which was quite logical as nobody had ever seen them. He also established the truth that their famed, magical horns were nothing but narhwhal tusks. Strangely enough he himself could not shake off some other superstitious beliefs about unicorns. One of them was that the horns of these admittedly non-existent animals could heal people when poisoned. To prove that the legend spoke the truth he set out to poison pets and then feeding them ground-up narhwal tusks in order to save them. According to his reports they did indeed survive being poisoned when fed narhwal tusks.
Perhaps it is this experiment which earned him H.P. Lovecraft's interest and turned him into his notorious character Olaus Wormius who was set to translate the "Grimoire the Necronomicon" from Arabic into Latin. This literary character is rather creepy, which Ole Worm doesn't seem to have been.
When he died from a bladder-disorder his rich collection of exotica was sold to the Danish king, Frederik III, who turned it into the basis for "The Royal Kunstkammer". This collection of historical artifacts may still be seen today as part of the very fine and interesting Zoological Museum in Copenhagen.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Else_Cederborg
 

    

onsdag den 5. januar 2022

Gnask et lig og bliv rask .....

 

Seriehustromorderen, Englands kong Henrik VIII's femte kone, Catherine Howard (ca. 1521–1542) er den sidste, der lagde sit hoved på denne dystert udseende blok, som der var flere af rundt omkring i landet. Dér lå det kønne hoved, indtil bødlen svang sværdet den 13. februar 1542 og huggede det af kongens forsvarsløse, purunge kone, der var dømt til døden for utroskab. Kongens anden dronning, Anne Boleyn, dvs. Catherines kusine, havde lidt samme skæbne den 19. maj, 1536. Ifølge overtroen kunne deres lig som kongelige være blevet brugt som en meget stærk medicin ligesom det skete for kong Karl I, hvis blod blev opsamlet, da han blev henrettet. Også andre ikke-kongelige lig besad imidlertid en lignende kraft, da man mente, at blodet i sig selv var en glimrende medicin imod f.eks. epilepsi. Man skulle tro, det er løgn, men nej, denne opfattelse blev skam understøttet i flere århundreder af de fineste, medicinske eksperter over hele Europa. 

Ikke bare døde, men også sårede personer, der udstrålede kraft og energi, besad ifølge blod-fanatikerne evnen til at helbrede gennem deres blod. Forbindelsen mellem død og liv var overtro og magiske forestillinger uden bund i videnskaben, men med en vis forvreden "logik": gladiatoren er stærk og (ofte) sejrrig, ergo kan disse egenskaber gives videre til mig syge svækling gennem det, der holdes for helligt, nemlig blodet. Mægtig "logisk" - og totalt forkert. 

En af de kendteste "lig-mediciner" skabtes af mumier. Lå hemmeligheden i brugen af disse afdøde ægyptere som medicin - samt maling og andet!!! - i en afvisning af dem som mennesker? Vi ved, hvad de blev forvandlet til i filmindustrien samt i den litterære gyserlitteratur, for her blev disse reelt set totalt hjælpeløse, gamle lig til magtfulde uhyrer, der kunne skade de levende, bl.a. ved at kræve deres kød og blod for at holde sig i live efter døden. Dvs. en totalt modsat vurdering end den virkelighed, de døde havnede i, da de blev fundet af de levende. Forskellige højt placerede personer som f.eks. den henrettede Karl I's søn, Karl II, svor til den såkaldt helbredende og styrkende medicin "Pulveriseret Mumie", hvilket er ubehageligt at tænke på, da folk var ved at falde over hinanden for at dyppe lommetørklæder og andet i hans fars blod, da han døde på skafottet. Desuden: denne forkærlighed for pulveriserede lig gør ham jo egentlig til det, man senere har beskyldt mumierne af de gamle, afdøde ægyptere for at være, nemlig kannibaler: ifølge den overtro, der kolporteres i bl.a. gysere, elsker mumier at bide og fortære levende mennesker, selv om det altså i virkeligheden forholder sig lige omvendt ....


Eftersom jeg mener, at man bør vise respekt for andre mennesker ved bl.a. at respektere deres kropslige værdighed, så er det egentlig ret hårdt at læse om, hvordan man tingsliggjorde lig og brugte andres afsjælede legemer i bl.a. medicinen. De blev også udnyttet på mange andre måder, da de blev handlet i stor stil. Folk kunne blive rige af at sælge døde mennesker og ikke blot fra fjerntliggende lande som f.eks. Ægypten. Udbudet af særlig "potente" kropsdele som bl.a. hjerner og kranier gav anledning til en blomstrende industri i Europa fra langt tilbage i tiden til det 20. århundrede. En af dem, der har nævnt denne spøjse praksis er Shakespeare, bl.a. i "Othello".

Det forekommer mig ikke bare uhyggeligt og ulækkert at gnaske et lig, men også som en trussel imod sundheden. For mig at se kan et lig aldrig have været sundt at indtage på hverken den ene eller den anden måde, for en død person kan jo have mistet livet, fordi han/hun blev ramt af en dødelig sygdom. At gnaske én, der var død af en smitsom sygdom som f.eks. pest er ubegribeligt dumt, så lig-spiseriet er på en vis måde det ultimative bevis på den menneskelige dumhed ....  


https://www.historyextra.com/period/renaissance/cannibalism-history-corpse-medicine/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=HEXT&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2001%2F08_1102428_BBC%20History_Newsletters_17665044

 

https://da.delachieve.com/den-ukendte-sandhed-om-mumier/ 

 

https://da.mydailyselfmotivation.com/articles/creepy/top-10-corpse-medicines-that-turned-patients-into-cannibals.html 

 

http://www.shakespearemagazine.com/2017/07/goats-dung-mummified-flesh-and-vomiting-this-is-what-passed-for-state-of-the-art-health-care-in-shakespeares-day-the-authors-of-new-book-maladies-medicine-exploring-health/ 

 

https://www.merckgroup.com/en/stories/powdered-mummies-used-as-medicine.html 

 

Wikipedia

 

tirsdag den 4. januar 2022

"Buried Alive and Robbed of Life Twice": Ezine-article by Else Cederborg, previously published


Did you ever think about which way to die would be the most traumatic one? I don't think I ever did, but broaching the matter now I feel that the worst kind of death might very well be to be considered dead, only to wake up in the coffin - and to be alive.
As if such an experience wasn't enough one has to die once more, and this time for real which means to die by suffocation as nobody knows about the mistake and one is confined in a place without much oxygyn. Or what about being buried, but then wake up, realize what's going on, beg for one's life - and then be killed by a greedy murderer? I think that's the very worst scenario I can imagine and it may happen. As it is it may very well be an accurate account of what happened to the young and exceedingly wealthy Danish widow, Giertrud Birgitte Bodenhoff, who died in Copenhagen in 1798.
Now she lies in a stately burial vault or burial chamber on the same churchyard where you'll find the much plainer graves of Hans Christian Andersen and Søren Kierkegaard. According to rumors she doesn't much like her last resting place as some people have reported meeting a very sad and mourning figure by her grave whom they took to be her grieving spirit. If that's the case then I wouldn’t blame her for feeling unhappy at her untimely and unpleasant death.
It all started when she married her cousin in 1796. He was the affluent merchant and ship owner Andreas Bodenhoff and somewhat older than her because at that time she was only 16 years old. Half a year after the wedding she became the richest widow of Europe at the demise of her husband. Sadly enough, young as she was, she herself got very ill from an abscess inside one of her ears. Presumably nobody could do anything about it, but the pain was excruciating so she was treated with heavy doses of morphine. Apparently the doctors were a little too generous with this dangerous pain killer because she died - or did she?
It was much more difficult to establish the death of somebody in 1798 than it is in our times and Giertrud Birgitte's older brother was worried as his "dead" sister was lying in her coffin looking as rosy as she used to before her "death". It's not normal to keep one's looks after death and what's more, the level of hygiene at that time may have rendered it difficult to discern the smell of death, i.e. putrefaction, from lack of soap and water. So one asks oneself the question: Was the young woman in the coffin really dead or what was going on?
However there are no answers to that question until an incident some years later: The head gravedigger, Christian Meisling, called for the priest. He was dying and wanted to confess something which by now has become a myth: In 1804 he and his colleagues were exposed for their foul habits on the churchyard. Being very poor they needed cheap wood for their fires and free clothes for both themselves and their families. Both of these objects, as well as a lot or other kinds of loot, they found in the new graves. So they digged up the newly buried corpses and robbed them of everything. The dead body of a young man who had been buried shortly before was found naked in the bushes of the churchyard and that find opened the investigations. According to Christian Meisling on his deathbed something even worse happened to the hapless Giertrud Birgitte, whose coffin presumably was opened by him, first and foremost to rob her of her valuable ear rings. However, when he tore these priceless jewels off the abscess in her ear burst - and she woke up.
At first she didn't gather what was going on, but when she grasped the awful situation she begged him to spare her and instead save her life. She offered him money and rewards of all kinds, but the gravedigger dared not let her live so he killed her and buried her once again.
Now, one should remember that her grave wasn't in the ground, but above it, i.e. in a rather spacious burial chamber and according to theory that's the reason why she may have survived - IF that's what she did. Many have doubted this story about survival in the grave, but in 1952 the case was investigated, actually by one of her relatives who was a well-known politician. He found that the corpse didn't lie in the same position as it was put in 1798 and her feet seemed to have moved. That fact has been taken as an indication that she really did survive, but only to meet her death once more and in a very sad manner.

https://ar-tour.com/guides/det-bedste-fra-assistens---en-basisguide-til-kirkegrden/enkefrue-giertrud-birgitte-bodenhoff-1779-98.aspx
     

Wikipedia

 

mandag den 3. januar 2022

Guddommelig indgriben?

Sytten år gammel fik William Duell den overmåde dårlige ide at overfalde, voldtage og myrde tjenestepigen Sarah Griffin. Hun var på vej væk fra det forurenede London, der gav hende åndedrætsproblemer, for at søge en mindre usund atmosfære i sit barndomshjem i det landlige Worcestershire. Duell havde spillet høflig redningsmand, idet han havde tilbudt hende at leje et natlogi, så hun kunne hvile sig og komme til hægterne under rejsen. Noget, der bare var en del af hans plan om at overfalde hende, så han "kunne få sin vilje med hende".

Eftersom Sarah formodentlig var født engang i begyndelsen af 1700-tallet, kan hun have set nogenlunde ud som på billedet ovenfor. Stakkels Sarah nåede i hvert fald aldrig frem til sit barndomshjem i de sunde omgivelser, hvor hun håbede at genvinde sit helbred. Hun døde for Duells hånd, men det faktum, at han forhindrede hende i at komme hjem, kom mærkeligt nok til at give ham en ny chance i livet. Noget, han afgjort ikke havde fortjent, men som var en nødløsning på en situation, som myndighederne ikke anede, hvad de ellers skulle stille op med.


Den 24. november 1740 blev Duell hængt sammen med et par andre forbrydere. Hans "galje-kammerater" døde som ventet, men han vågnede op, da han blev taget ned og gjort parat til medicinske studier under en af de populære
offentlige dissektioner, man brugte dengang

Den slags gik altid hedt for sig, og sådan en omgang var der vist ingen, der ville overleve, men så langt i forløbet kom Duell jo altså heller ikke, da han ikke var død. Eftersom han havde hængt i 20 minutter, burde han afgjort have været afgået ved døden, men det var han så ikke, og alle omkring ham blev vildt oprørte, for var dette ikke en "Guds Dom"? Havde Gud ikke grebet ind og vist omverdenen, at voldtægtsmanden og morderen Duell aldeles ikke skulle dø?Måske han ligefrem var uskyldig?

Myndighederne har sikkert ikke ønsket at lægge sig ud med de "menige londonere", der var kommet for at se Duell blive hængt, og som kunne bevidne, at det var han blevet. Gode råd var dyre, for hvad skulle man dog stille op med denne skurk, der overlevede på sådan en sær måde? Hænge ham igen? Nej, det kunne man faktisk ikke, for han havde jo rent faktisk gennemgået den straf, han blev idømt. At den ikke havde virket i hans tilfælde, var ikke hans skyld, for hængning var en anerkendt henrettelsesmetode, og bødlen havde åbenbart ikke klokket i det, selv om det måske kunne se sådan ud.

Masser af forbrydere er blevet henrettet i årenes løb, og det er gået mere eller mindre glat, men kun få er ligefrem vågnet op igen, når først de - som Duell - var erklæret døde.


Sagen var jo også den, at mange af tilskuerne til hængningen hørte til en samfundsklasse, der langt hen ad vejen blev holdt i ave af den kristne religion. Hvis de troede, at Gud havde grebet ind og frelst den dømte forbryder, så kunne det udvikle sig til oprør og optøjer, når han blev hængt én gang mere. Ergo: den gik ikke, så voldtægtsmanden og morderen William Duell blev sendt til Amerika, hvor han fik chancen for at kunne begynde forfra i Boston. Det gjorde han så, idet han døde i 1805, dvs. mange år efter at være blevet henrettet offentligt ....

 

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/bbc-history-magazine/20190124/282286731430159 

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/540900 

 

https://discover.hubpages.com/literature/10-PEOPLE-WHO-SURVIVED-EXECUTION-BY-HANGING 

 

Wikipedia


søndag den 2. januar 2022

Kvinden, der blev bortført to gange

 

Da den lille (ca. 8-11-årige) Cynthia Ann Parker blev kidnappet af indianere i 1836 har det sikkert været overordentligt traumatisk for både hende og hendes europæisk fødte forældre. Derfor har de, der reddede hende fra den Comanche-stamme, som hun på det tidspunkt havde tilbragt 24 år hos, sikkert følt både stolthed og glæde over at få denne stakkels, bortførte, hvide kvinde tilbage fra de "vilde" til det, de forstod som "civilisationen". Det ville formentlig også have været godt, hvis det var sket mange, mange år før, men det gjorde det jo altså ikke. På dette tidspunkt var Cynthia en voksen kvinde, og der var sket meget i hendes liv, der havde forandret hendes indstilling og selvopfattelse .....

 Høvding Quanah Parker, Cynthias søn med sin indianske mand

Eftersom Comancherne tog hende til sig som en af deres egne, fik hun også en mand, nemlig høvding Peta Nocona. De fik tre børn, hvoraf det ene, sønnen Quanah Parker (1845-1911), blev Comanchernes sidste frie høvding. 


Alt tyder på, at Cynthia faldt godt til blandt indianerne, og det er i hvert fald højst sandsynligt, at hun i sidste ende døde af sorg over at blive ført væk fra dem og fra sine tre børn. Hun nægtede at tilpasse sig den hvide kultur, som hun var blevet bortført fra som barn, og hvor man nu nærmest så hende som en symbolsk figur. 


At man betragtede hende som prototypen på den "reddede kvinde, der blev revet ud af "de vildes" kløer" svarede slet ikke til hendes opfattelse af situationen. Dette fik hende til at kaste sig ud i mindst et forgæves forsøg på at vende tilbage til den stamme, hun betragtede som sin familie. Hun led og blev efterhånden så deprimeret, at hun helt holdt op med at spise, hvilket førte til hendes død af influenza i 1871, ca. 10 år efter hendes såkaldte "befrielse" fra indianerne. 


Mindesten over Cynthia med det indianske navn Naduah
 
Da hun blev "befriet", var hun ca. 34 år, og da hun død ti år senere, var hun således omkring 44 år gammel. Meget tragisk, også fordi det afslører de såkaldt hvides totale mangel på empati samt respekt for indianernes livsstil.


https://www.humanitiestexas.org/programs/tx-originals/list/cynthia-ann-parker

 

https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-cynthiaparker/

 

https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2012/02/cynthia-ann-parker.html

 

Wikipedia


lørdag den 1. januar 2022

"When the Children Went On A Crusade": Else Cederborg Ezine article, previously published


The Medieval crusades have been seen as something very brave and honourable, but not all of it was either. Also, now we tend to forget that we - the Christian part of the world - didn't come out victorious in that far-away past. No, on the contrary, we lost this war to further the Christian faith and our supremacy...
One of the episodes which it's impossible to forget even today is the Children's Crusades in 1212. There were two of them and the first one was instigated by a 12 year old shepherd-boy called Stephen (or Etienne). He approached the French king Philip and handed him "a letter from Jesus" whom he said had appeared to him while he was tending the sheep. Presumably Jesus had ordered him to go and preach the Crusades to the public. However, the king didn't believe him or wasn't too impressed by him, but this young boy of 12 was undismayed by such a setback which might have stopped anybody else. He started to preach wherever he had a chance to bring out the message to someone.
Actually, he seems to have been an oral genius who caught the attention of a lot of devout Christians. Some of these were circa 20-30,000 thousand children who were convinced by him that they should follow him. Several of these children were of noble birth and must have eloped their wealthy homes to join his Christian "army". At Marseilles two merchants, who went by the nicknames of Hugh the Iron and William the Pig, offered them ships, free of charge - and from then on the child Crusaders are lost to history for many years. They disappeared and were not to be seen or heard of until the fate of some of them was disclosed 18 years later.
In Germany a boy by the name of Nicholas entered on the same course as the first child Crusaders. He and his cohorts - also many girls - set out on their way to Palestine, but their losses were heavy, due to starvation and other hardships. When many of them gave up their plans to go to Palestine they were too exhausted to go back home, but decided to stay where they were, i.e. in Italy. Some of the dead children's parents were so enraged by Nicholas, who by this time had disappeared, that they took his aged father and executed him as a substitute for his son.
As to Stephen and his followers who had set out in three ships then two of these were shipwrecked and all aboard drowned. This sad fate was disclosed to their relatives when a young priest returned home to Europe after 18 years of captivity in a Muslim country. He told them that those on the third ship were captured and taken to Muslim slave markets where they were sold. Thus the relatives learnt the hard way that those two merchants who had proposed to help the children had betrayed them to the point of setting them up for sale in a Muslim slave market. However, some years later they in their turn were hanged for their harebrained attempt to kidnap the Emperor Frederick.
Some of the merchandised Christian children were killed for not being willing to accept Islam, but others were lucky enough to be bought by the governor of Egypt, al-Kamil, who treated them very kindly and set them to work as interpreters, teachers, etc. without demanding that they embraced the Muslim faith.
All in all these sad stories of committed, but betrayed children should be better investigated than they are. Most of them are mere myths, but it's a historical fact that these groups of children set out as crusaders just as did the grown-ups. In many respects both these groups were deluded by their own all too high ideals, dreams and hopes, but also haughtiness as they were sure that they alone had religion.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Else_Cederborg