Kannagi

Kannagi , a legendary Tamil woman, is the central character of the South Indian epic Silapathikaram. Legend states that Kannagi took revenge on the King of Madurai, for a mistaken death penalty imposed on her husband Kovalan, by cursing the city with disaster.

The story

Kovalan, the son of a wealthy merchant in Kaveripattinam, married Kannagi, a young woman of legendary beauty. They lived together happily in the city of Kaveripattinam, until Kovalan met the dancer Madhavi and fell in love with her. In his infatuation he forgot Kannagi and gradually spent all his wealth on the dancer. At last, penniless, Kovalan realised his mistake, and returned to Kannagi. Their only asset was a precious pair of anklets (chilambu—hence the name of the epic), filled with gems, which she gave to him willingly. With these as their capital they went to the great city of Madurai, where Kovalan hoped to recoup his fortunes by trade.

The city of Madurai was ruled by the Pandya king Nedunj Cheliyan I. Kovalan’s objective was to sell the anklets in this kingdom so that he and his wife would be able to start their lives over. Unfortunately, around the time he set out to sell the anklets, one anklet (out of a pair) was stolen from the queen, by a greedy court member. This anklet looked very similar to Kannagi’s. The only difference was that Kannagi’s were filled with rubies and the queen’s filled with pearls, but this was not a visible fact. When Kovalan went to the market, he was accused of having stolen the anklet. He was immediately beheaded by the King’s guards, without trial. When Kannagi was informed of this, she became furious, and set out to prove her husband’s innocence to the king.

Kannagi came to the king’s court, broke open the anklet seized from Kovalan and showed that it contained rubies, as opposed to the queen’s anklets which contained pearls. Realizing their fault, the King and the Queen died of shame. Unsatisfied, Kannagi tore out a breast and flung it on the city, uttering a curse that the entire city be burnt (the old, the children and the disabled were spared). Due to her utmost Chastity, her curse became a reality.

The city was set ablaze resulting in huge human and economic losses. However, after the request from the Goddess of the city, she withdrew her curse and later, attained salvation. The story was narrated by the poet Ilango Adigal. A fascinating, but ironic, fact about this epic is that it portrays Madhavi, Kovalan’s amorous lover, as an equally chaste woman. Manimekalai, another ancient Tamil epic, is written in praise of her.

After setting fire to Madurai City, Kannagi finally reached Kodungalloor and settled at Kodungallur Bhagavathy Temple south of Guruvayoor.

The events related to Kannaki have high influence in the traditions and culture of Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

Perceptions of Kannagi

Kannagi or Kannaki Amman is eulogized as the epitome of chastity and is still worshipped as its goddess. She is praised for her extreme devotion to her husband in spite of his adulterous behaviour.

She is worshiped as goddess Pattini in Sri Lanka by the Sinhalese Buddhists, Kannaki Amman by the Sri Lankan Tamil Hindus’  and as Kodungallur Bhagavathy and Attukal Bhagavathy in the South Indian state of Kerala.

Gajah Mada

Gajah Mada (translated as Elephant General) (circa 1290 – circa 1364) was, according toJavanese old manuscripts, poems and mythology, a powerful military leader and mahapatih or prime minister of the Majapahit Empire, credited with bringing the empire to its peak of glory. He delivered an oath called Sumpah Palapa, in which he vowed not to eat any food containing spices until he had conquered all of the Southeast Asian archipelago of Nusantara forMajapahit. In modern Indonesia, he serves as an important national hero and a symbol of patriotism.

Rise to Mahapatih

Not much is known about Gajah Mada’s early life. Some of the first accounts mention his career as commander of the Bhayangkara, an elite guard for Majapahit kings and their family. When Rakrian Kuti, one of the officials in Majapahit, rebelled against the Majapahit kingJayanegara (ruled 1309–1328) in 1321, Gajah Mada and the then-mahapatih Arya Tadah helped the king and his family to escape the capital city of Trowulan. Later Gajah Mada aided the king to return to the capital and crush the rebellion. Seven years later, Jayanegara was murdered by Rakrian Tanca, the court physician, one of Rakrian Kuti’s aides.

In another version, according to the Nagarakretagama (a Javanese language epic poem dating from the 14th century), and supported by inscriptions dating from the late 13th and early 14th century, Jayanagara was assassinated by Gajah Mada in 1328. It is said that Jayanagara was overprotective towards his two half sisters, born from Kertarajasa’s youngest queen, Dyah Dewi Gayatri. Complaints by the two young princesses led to the intervention of Gajah Mada. His drastic solution was to arrange for a surgeon to murder the king while pretending to perform an operation.

Jayanegara was immediately succeeded by his sister Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi (ruled 1328–1350). It was under her leadership that Gajah Mada was appointed mahapatih in 1329, after the retirement of Arya Tadah.

As mahapatih under Thribuwana Tunggadewi Gajah Mada went on to crush another rebellion by Sadeng and Keta in 1331.

It was during Gajah Mada’s reign as mahapatih, around the year 1345, that the famous Muslim traveller, Ibn Battuta visited Sumatera.

Sumpah Palapa

It is said that it was during his appointment as mahapatih under queen Tribhuwanatunggadewi that Gajah Mada took his famous oath,Sumpah Palapa. The telling of the oath is described in the Pararaton (Book of Kings), an account on Javanese history that dates from the 15th or 16th century:

“Sira Gajah Mada pepatih amungkubumi tan ayun amukita palapa, sira Gajah Mada : Lamun huwus kalah nusantara Ingsun amukti palapa, lamun kalah ring Gurun, ring Seram, Tanjungpura, ring Haru, ring Pahang, Dompo, ring Bali, Sunda, Palembang, Tumasik, samana ingsun amukti palapa “

“Gajah Mada, the prime minister, said he will not taste any spice. Said Gajah Mada : If Nusantara (Nusantara= Nusa antara= external territories) are lost, I will not taste “palapa” (“fruits and or spices”). I will not if the domain of Gurun, domain of Seram, domain ofTanjungpura, domain of Haru, Pahang, Dompo, domain of Bali, Sunda, Palembang, Tumasik, in which case I will never taste any spice.”

While often interpreted literally to mean that Gajah Mada would not allow his food to be spiced (palapa is the prose combination of pala apa= any fruits/spices) the oath is sometimes interpreted to mean that Gajah Mada would abstain from all earthly pleasures (fruits and spices) until he conquered the entire known archipelago for Majapahit.

Even his closest friends were at first doubtful of his oath, but Gajah Mada kept pursuing his dream to unify Nusantara under the glory of Majapahit. Soon he conquered the surrounding territory of Bedahulu (Bali) and Lombok (1343). He then sent the navy westward to attack the remnants of the thallassocrathic kingdom of Sriwijaya in Palembang. There he installed Adityawarman, a Majapahit prince as vassal ruler of the Minangkabau in West Sumatra.

He then conquered the first Islamic sultanate in Southeast Asia, Samudra Pasai, and another state in Svarnadvipa (Sumatra). Gajah Mada also conquered Bintan, Tumasik (Singapore), Melayu (now known as Jambi), and Kalimantan.

At the resignation of the queen, Tribuwanatunggadewi, her son, Hayam Wuruk (ruled 1350–1389) became king. Gajah Mada retained his position as mahapatih under the new king and continued his military campaign by expanding eastward into Logajah, Gurun, Seram,Hutankadali, Sasak, Makassar, Buton, Banggai, Kunir, Galiyan, Salayar, Sumba, Muar (Saparua), Solor, Bima, Wandan (Banda), Ambon,Timor, and Dompo.

He thus effectively brought the modern Indonesian archipelago under Majapahits’s control, which spanned not only the territory of today’sIndonesia, but also that of Tumasik (old name of Singapore), the states comprising modern-day Malaysia, Brunei and the southernPhilippines.

The Bubat Incident

In 1357, the only remaining state refusing to acknowledge Majapahit’s hegemony was Sunda, in West Java, bordering the Majapahit Empire. King Hayam Wuruk intended to marry Dyah Pitaloka Citraresmi, a princess of Sunda and the daughter of Sunda’s king. Gajah Mada was given the task to go to the Bubat square on northern part of Trowulan to welcome the princess as she arrived with her father and escort to Majapahit palace.

Gajah Mada took this opportunity to demand Sunda submission under Majapahit rule. While Sunda King thought that the royal marriage was a sign of a new alliance between Sunda and Majapahit, Gajah Mada thought otherwise. He stated that the Princess of Sunda is not to be hailed as the new queen consort of Majapahit, but merely as a concubine, as a sign of submission of Sunda to Majapahit. This misunderstanding led to embarrassment and hostility, which quickly rose into skirmish and full scale battle. The ensuing bloodshed saw the Sunda King with all of his guards and royal party were overwhelmed by Majapahit troops and later killed in the field of Bubat. Tradition mentioned that the heartbroken princess, Dyah Pitaloka Citraresmi, committed suicide.

Hayam Wuruk was deeply shocked about the tragedy. Majapahit courtiers, ministers and nobles blamed Gajah Mada for his recklesness, and all this brutalities is not to the taste of Majapahit royal family. Gajah Mada was promptly demoted and spent the rest of his days in the estate of Madakaripura in Probolinggo in East Java.

Gajah Mada died in obscurity in 1364. King Hayam Wuruk considered that the power Gajah Mada had accumulated during his time asmahapatih was too much to handle for a single person. Therefore the king split the responsibilities that had been Gajah Mada’s, between four separate new mahamantri (equal to ministries), thereby probably increasing his own power. King Hayam Wuruk, who is said to have been a wise leader, was able to maintain the hegemony of Majapahit in the region, gained during Gajah Mada’s service. However Majapahit slowly fell into decline after the death of Hayam Wuruk.

Legacy

Gajah Mada’s legacy is important for Indonesian Nationalism, and invoked by Indonesian Nationalist movement in early 20th century. The Nationalists prior to the Japanese invasion, notably Sukarno, often cited Gajah Mada and his oath as an inspiration and a historical proof of Indonesian past greatness. That Indonesians could unite, despite vast territory and various cultures. Thus, Gajah Mada was a great inspiration during the Indonesian National Revolution for independence from Dutch colonization.

In 1942, only 230 Indonesian natives held a tertiary education. The Republicans sought to mend the Dutch apathy and established the first state university, which freely admitted native pribumi Indonesians Universitas Gadjah Mada, in Yogyakarta is named in honour of Gajah Mada and completed in 1945, and had the honour of the first Medicine Faculty freely open to natives. Indonesia’s first telecommunication satellite was called Satelit Palapa signifying its role in uniting the country. Many cities in Indonesia but West Java have streets named after Gajah Mada. There is a brand of badminton shuttlecock named after him as well.

 

Fairy Witch Trials of Sicily

The Fairy witch trials of Sicily, were conducted on Sicily between the late 16th and middle of the 17th centuries. They represent a unique phenomenon, as in this area, witch trialsinvolved the mythological fairies from folklore.

The Fairies of Sicily

In Sicily, there was a belief that the elves or fairies would make contact with humans, mostly women, whom they took to Benevento, the Blockula of Sicily. The fairies were called donas de fuera, which was also a name for the women who associated with them. The fairies where described as beauties dressed in white, red or black; they could be male or female, and their feet were the paws of cats, horses or of a peculiar “round” shape. They came in groups of five or seven and a male fairy played the lute or the guitar while dancing. The fairies and the humans were divided into companies in different sizes (different ones for noble and non-noble humans), under the lead of an ensign.

Every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, the fairies met the humans belonging to their company in the woods. In March, several companies gathered, and their “Prince” instructed them to be benevolent creatures. A congregation called The Seven Fairies could transform themselves to cats and something called aydon; ayodons where able to kill.

The fairies could easily be offended by humans. In one story, a man who was not associated with the fairies and was unable to see them developed a painful cramp after hitting one of the fairies who was listening to him play music. Another story involves several people who had disturbed the fairies while they nocturnally travelled from house to house, eating and drinking as they routinely embraced the town’s infants. On those occasions, the person in question paid one of the people associated with the fairies to be the host of a dinner at their homes, meeting the fairies while the owners of the house slept.

The fairy witch trials

Between 1579 and 1651 there were a number of recorded witch trials in Sicily, however, the exact number may not be known due to loss of documentation. The trial summaries, sent to the Inquisition’s Suprema in Madrid by the Sicilian tribunal, reflected a total of 65 people, eight of them male, many of whom were believed to be associates of fairies, who were put on trial for sorcery.

The Inquisition denounced them as witches, but often did not take these cases seriously as the accused never mentioned the Devil in their confessions. The Inquisition did occasionally associate meetings with the elves as events similar to a Witches’ Sabbath, but as the local population generally held a positive view of the phenomena, the Inquisition did not press the matter. The accused said that they had become associated with the fairies because they had “Sweet blood”, and that in most cases, went to the meetings in a non-corporeal fashion, leaving their actual bodies behind. This is similar to the concept of astral projection and was something they had in common with the Benandanti, a related group that also faced scrutiny by the Inquisition.

Compared to surrounding countries, the witch trials in Sicily were relatively mild: in most cases, the accused were either freed, sentenced to exile, or jailed, rather than sentenced to death. Though the accused occasionally testified that some nobles took part in these activities, the accused themselves are generally described as poor, and most often, female.

The accused evidently gave their testimonies to the Inquisition without being tortured. Fairy folklore was commonplace during this time and, according to reports, the accused were not ashamed of their actions, and some may not have realized their beliefs would be disliked by the Christian church. According to some of the accused, the fairies did not like speaking about the Christian God or the Virgin Mary, but despite this, the accused themselves did not regard this belief to be contrary to the values of Christianity. Ultimately, the Inquisition did not show much interest in the Sicilian fairy trials, instead attempting to make the accused change their freely given testimonies and direct it toward the traditional Witch’s Sabbath that involved demons and devils rather than fairies. During the course of the trials they did succeed in some cases, but in general, the long-held belief that fairies were benevolent creatures remained in Sicily long after the Inquisition.

In 1630, the medicine woman Vicencia la Rosa was sentenced to banishment and banned from ever mentioning anything about the elves again. After her sentence, la Rosa continued to tell stories about her personal elf named Martinillo, who took her to “Benevento” where she had sex and learned medicine. She was arrested again and exiled from Sicily for the rest of her life.

The fisherwife of Palermo

The fisherwife of Palermo was an unnamed Italian woman who was put on trial for witchcraft by the Sicilian Inquisition in Palermo in Sicily. She claimed to associate with fairies and her confession was among the first that describes contact between elves and humans on Sicily. Similar testimony was common in the witch trials of Sicily between the late 16th and middle of the 17th centuries.

In 1588, the woman, the wife of a poor fisherman, was brought before the Inquisition in Palermo and was accused of witchcraft after she had claimed to associate with elves. Her case was among the first of many witch trials in Sicily associated with elves and her confession was typical for such elf-related cases.

She told them that when she was a child of eight, she had flown through the air with a group of women on goats to a vast field on the mainland of the Kingdom of Naples called Benevento, where a red-coloured teenage boy and a beautiful woman sat on a throne. According to her confession, they were called the King and the Queen. She said that the leader of the women who took her there, who was called theEnsign, told her that if she fell to her knees in front of the King and Queen of the elves and gave them allegiance, they would give her riches, beauty and handsome men, with whom she could have sex, and that she was not to worship God or the holy Virgin. The Ensign also added that she should not mention the Virgin Mary, as it was bad manners to do so in the presence of the Elves. The fisherwife then agreed to worship the King as a god and the Queen as a goddess, and she swore her allegiance in a book containing many letters which was held for her by the ensign, and promised her body and soul to the divine couple. After this, tables with food were set forward, and everyone ate, drank and had sex with each other. She also claimed that she had sex with multiple men in a short period of time, after which she reported that she had awoken as if from a dream. She claimed that she was not aware that this was sinful before the priest told her, after she had told him this, that such things were the work of Satan. She said that she had continued with it anyway, because it had made her so happy. On some occasions, she said, the elves had fetched her before she had gone to sleep for the night to prevent her husband and children from noticing anything. She claimed that she was awake the whole time. She also stated that the King and Queen had given her medicine to cure the sick, so she could earn money and alleviate her poverty.

Protocol of statement

The protocol of the Inquisition states how the fishwife and the other women flew through the air on goats to:

“a land called Benevento which belongs to the Pope and is situated in the kingdom of Naples. There was a field and in its center a platform with two chairs. One one was a red teenage boy and on the other a beautiful woman, whom the called the Queen, and the man was the king. The first time she came there -she was eight- the “ensign” and the other women in her company told her that she must kneel and worship the king and the queen and to all they commanded for they could help her and give her riches, beauty and young men to make love to. And they told her not to worship God or the holy Virgin. The Ensign made her swear on a book with large letters that she would worship the two others. The king as if he was God and the Queen ad if she was the holy virgin, ad gave herself to them with body and soul…..And after she had so worshipped them, the made the tables and ate and drank, and thereafter the men had intercourse with the women and with her many times in a short period of time. All of this seem to her as if a dream, for when she awoke, she did so in her bed, naked as if she had gone to rest. But sometimes they had called upon her before she had gone to bed so that her husband and children would not notice it, and without having gone to sleep before (as far as she could tell), she left and arrived fully clothed. She further claimed that she at that time did not realise that it was sinful before her confessor had opened her eyes and told her that it was Satan and that she was not allowed to do it further. but she still continued it until two months ago. And she left filled with happiness of the joy she received from it….and because the (the king and the queen) gave her means to cure the sick so that she could earn some money, because she had always been poor”

After this freely given statement, the Inquisition interrogated her and gave her leading questions. The attitude of the Inquisition was that fairies did not exist, but were a remnant of Pagan superstition which should be eradicated and not be taken seriously. Therefore, the events she described must have been either a dream, in which case they could accept her story about the fairies, or, if it did happen, it must have been a witch’s sabbath, in which case it must have been demons rather than fairies, as the church believed in demons but not in fairies. Therefore, they made her leading questions to make her identify the events as either a dream or reality. If it were the former, she would be released, and if it were the latter, she would be a witch. The fisherwife, however, passed this interrogation of leading questions: the protocols state, that in the end, she came to the conclusion that : “All of this seem to her to have happened as if in a dream”, and that it had truly all been just a dream, “as far as she could estimate the matter”.

 

Yahweh

Yahweh  is the primary Hebrew name of God in the Bible. Jews normally do not pronounce this name, considering it too holy to verbalize. Instead, whenever they encounter this unpronounceable string of consonants, (YHWH) they speak the name Adonai. Orthodox Jews strenuously avoid mentioning or even writing the divine name, preferring such circumlocutions as “the Holy One,” “the Name,” or the defective writing “G-d.”

In Christian Bibles, Yahweh is usually translated as “the LORD,” a rough equivalent to the Hebrew “Adonai.” The Hebrew Bible indicates this reading by inserting the vowel pointing from the word Adonai on the consonants YHWH, rather than use the actual vowels. Based on a literal reading of this pointing (יְהוָֹה), many modern Protestant Christians read God’s name as Jehovah.

Elohim is the generic term for God in the Hebrew Bible, translated “God.” Muslims refer to God as “Allah,” which originates from the same etymological root as “Elohim.”

 

While the original concept of Yahweh may have been henotheistic (devoted to a single deity while accepting the possible existence of others) rather than monotheistic, the Hebrew prophets insisted that the Israelites must worship Him alone. Yahweh-centered monotheism eventually became the normative Jewish religion, and this in turn was inherited by both Christianity and Islam.

Origins

Biblical Tradition

The Bible presents several stories regarding the revelation of God’s true name, Yahweh. The best known is the story of Moses and the burning bush found in Exodus 3. God makes it clear that Moses is the first to know the secret of the divine name:

God also said to Moses, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the Lord I did not make myself known to them. (Exod. 6:2-3)

In this sentence three names of God are used: Elohim (God), YHWH (the Lord), and El Shaddai (God Almighty). El Shaddai appears more than 30 times in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 28:3; 35:11, etc.). Elohim, an honorific form of El, (Gen. 1:1, etc.) is used thousands of times. YHWH is used more than any other name for God in the Bible, nearly seven thousand times. In most editions, whenever the words “The Lord” are used, ancient Hebrew manuscripts have a form of YHWH.

Other biblical sources, recorded in the Book of Genesis, suggest that God’s name as YHWH was known from the earliest times; Genesis 4:26 says that men first called on “the name of YHWH” in the days of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. Abraham called on the name of the Lord at Bethel (Genesis 12:8), some four hundred years before the revelation to Moses. However, these mentions of YHWH in Genesis may be anachronisms. Evidence from biblical names suggests that the Israelites began using personal names bearing an element of the sacred name, such as yeho or yo at the beginning (e.g. Jehosaphat, Joshua), or yahu or yah and the end (e.g. Elijah (Eliyahu)), only from Moses’ day.

A Desert Deity?

The name Yahweh may have originated among desert tribes. The Bible indicates that the early Israelites identified Yahweh with the older god El, who was widely worshipped in Canaan. For example, there is a story of Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek, the mysterious priest-king of Salem (the future Jerusalem):

Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High (El Elyon), and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Gen. 14:18-20)

The deity to whom Abraham offers his tithe after sharing this sacred meal with Melchizedek is “El Elyon,” a form of the God El. El was the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon in the second millennium B.C.E., and figures into many old Canaanite myths. Later the more urbanized Canaanites replaced him with Baal as their chief God, but the Israelites were alien to these urban centers and identified with the people of the countryside who continued to worship El as the “highest god.” Thus the residents of Salem, as well as other people of the region, knew the high god El. However, with regard to God as Yahweh, the Bible apparently reserves knowledge of the name to the chosen people.

Biblical archaeologist Amihai Mazar finds that the association of Yahweh with the desert may be the product of his origins in the dry lands to the south of Israel. Several Biblical scholars have suggested that Yahweh originated with a group known as the Shasu, Canaanite nomads from southern Transjordan. An Egyptian inscription at Karnak from the time of Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1390-1352 B.C.E.) refers to the “Shasu of Yhw,” evidence that this god was worshiped among some of the Shasu tribes at this time. Among the proto-Israelites may have been a group of Shasu who migrated northward into Canaan in the thirteenth century B.C.E. and settled in the Samarian and Judean hills .

One Biblically-derived theory somewhat consistent with the above scenario holds that Yahweh was originally a deity of the Midianites and other desert tribes. The Exodus story tells us that the Israelites had not been worshipers of Yahweh—at least by that name—before the time of Moses. The revelation of the name to Moses was made at Sinai/Horeb, a mountain sacred to Yahweh, south of Canaan in a region where the forefathers of the Israelites were never reported to have roamed. Long after the Israelite settlement in Canaan, this region continued to be regarded as the abode of Yahweh (Judg. 5:4; Deut. 33:2; 1 Kings 19:8, etc.). Moses is closely connected with the tribes in the vicinity of this holy mountain.

According to one account, Moses’ wife was a daughter of Jethro, a priest of Midian (Exod. 18). When Moses led the Israelites to the mountain after their deliverance from Egypt, Jethro came to meet him, extolling Yahweh as greater than all other gods. The Midianite priest “brought a burnt offering and other sacrifices to God,” and the chief men of the Israelites were guests at his sacrificial feast. It can be interpreted that because Jethro was a Midianite priest who offered sacrifices to Yahweh, the tribes in the region of Sinai/Horeb may already have been worshipers of Yahweh before the time of Moses.

Early in the twentieth century, attempts were made to trace the West Semitic Yah back to Babylonia. Assyriologist Friedrich Delitzsch believed the name derived from an Akkadian god, Ia. A relation between Yahweh with Ea, also called Enki, one of the great Babylonian gods, has also been mentioned occasionally. However, scholars have largely abandoned this theory.

Finally we should mention the theory first propounded by Sigmund Freud that Moses brought the “one God” idea with him from Egypt, having learned it from the Egyptian king Akhenaton, who attempted to make Egypt into a monotheistic society centering on the sun god. However, there is no evidence connecting Aten to the name Yahweh.

Meaning

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.'” (Exod. 3:13-14)

The symbolic or spiritual meaning of God’s name is the subject of debate in several religious traditions. In one of these, Yahweh is related to the Hebrew verb הוה (ha•wah, “to be, to become”), meaning “He will cause to become.” In Arabic Yahyâ means “He [who] lives.”

A related Jewish tradition regards the name as coming from three different verb forms sharing the same root—YWH. The three words are: HYH (היה , haya, He was”); HWH (הוה, howê, “He is”); and YHYH (יהיה, yihiyê, “He will be”). This is believed to show that God is timeless. This formula has also been used by Christians to demonstrate the supposed trinitarian basis of God’s existence.

Another interpretation is that the name means “I am the One Who Is.” This can be seen in the traditional account of God commanding Moses to tell the sons of Israel that “I AM (אהיה) has sent you” (Exod. 3:13-14).

Other scholars believe that the most proper meaning may be “He brings into existence whatever exists” or “He who causes to exist,” based on the causative (Hiphil) of the Hebrew root “to be.” The ancient epithet Yahweh tseva’ot, usually translated “Lord of hosts,” would thus originally mean “He who creates the armies of heaven.” This interpretation brings out the theological concept of Yahweh as the Creator.

Yahweh’s Characteristics

In its mature form, the concept of Yahweh represents God as the absolute, eternal, unchanging Creator of the universe who is also a personal being that cares intensely for mankind as a father does for his child or a husband does for his wife. Among his divine attributes are mercy, wisdom, righteousness, loving kindness, justice, compassion, patience, and beauty. However he is also a jealous deity. Although he is slow to anger, he will harshly punish those who betray him, including the whole people of Israel, in order to bring about their eventual repentance and reconciliation. The classical expression of this theology is found in Exodus 34, in the scene in which God appears to Moses just after Moses ascends Mount Sinai to received the Ten Commandments a second time:

Then the Lord came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the Lord [YHWH]. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “YHWH, YHWH, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.” (Exod. 34:6-7)

Sections of the Bible thought to be among the earliest, however, also portray Yahweh in a more primitive way. One such example is Psalm 18, in which Yahweh, far from being a transcendent being abounding in love, could easily be confused with a pagan storm deity or warrior god:

The earth trembled and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains shook; they trembled because he was angry. Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth, burning coals blazed out of it. He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind. He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him—the dark rain clouds of the sky. Out of the brightness of his presence clouds advanced, with hailstones and bolts of lightning. YHWH thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded. He shot his arrows and scattered the enemies, [sent] great bolts of lightning and routed them. (Psalm 18:7-14)

The association of Yahweh with storm and fire is frequent in the Hebrew Bible. The thunder is the voice of Yahweh, the lightning his arrows, the rainbow his bow. The revelation at Sinai is amid the awe-inspiring phenomena of tempests. Scholars have also noted that many of these primitive characteristics of Yahweh are seen in hymns and inscriptions devoted to Baal of the Canaanites. This may have been due to the acculturation of Israelite religion into a region dominated by Canaanite culture, where Yahweh had to compete with Baal on his own terms (note the contest between Yahweh and Baal on Mount Carmel in 1 Kings 18).

Relationship to Other Deities

In the “Song of Moses,” the great prophet asks:

“Who among the gods is like you, O Lord? Who is like you—majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?” (Exod. 15:11)

A great deal of discussion has been devoted to the relationship of Yahweh to the other deities of the region. The Hebrews used many names to worship their God, such as El Shaddai, El Elyon, Elohim, etc. Outside the Bible, El is known as the chief deity of the Canaanite religion. He was the father of the Canaanite god Baal and the husband of the mother goddess Ashera. Interestingly, the word “Baal” also means “lord” or “master.” An indication that Baal and Yahweh were sometimes identified is evidenced in the words of the prophet Hosea, who says:

“In that day,” declares the Lord, [YHWH] “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master [baal].'” (Hosea 2:16)

In fact, archaeologists and language experts indicate that it is difficult to distinguish Israelite and Canaanite culture until the early Early Iron Age, around the time of King David. We can imagine a situation in which some of the proto-Israelites worshiped a variety of gods, or worshiped God in a variety of forms using many names. Thus, Jeru-baal (Gideon)—was named for both Yahweh and Baal; while the Judge Shamgar ben Anath was named after the war goddess Anat. Saul, anointed by the Yahwist prophet Samuel as Israel’s first king, nevertheless named two of his sons Ish-baal and Meri-baal. Many modern scholars believe that eventually, some of the characteristics of Yahweh, El, and Baal merged into Yahweh/Elohim. Baal, on the other hand, was denigrated and excluded, just as the bronze serpent icon associated with Moses (Num. 21: 9) was eventually destroyed as an idol (2 Kings 18:4). So too was the goddess Ashera disowned, while the chief deities of other ethnic groups were treated as having nothing in common with Yahweh.

The issue is complicated by the question of whether the Israelites were truly one distinct people descended from Abraham who migrated en masse from Egypt to Canaan, rather than a confederation of previously unrelated people who came to accept a common national identity, religious mythology, and origin story. In any case, there is much evidence that the Yahweh-only ideology did not come to the fore among the Israelites until well into the period of Kings, and it was not until after the Babylonian exile that monotheism took firm root among the Jews.

Yahweh himself was sometimes worshiped in a way that later generations would consider idolatrous. For example, presence of golden cherubim and cast bronze bull statues at the Temple of Jerusalem leads many scholars to question whether the Second Commandment against graven images could have been in effect at this time, rather than being the creation of a later age written back into history by the biblical authors. Describing an earlier period, Judges 17-18 tells the story of a wealthy Ephraimite woman who consecrates 1,100 pieces of silver to Yahweh to be cast into an image and put into the family shrine along with other idols. Her son then hires a Levite who serves as priest at the family’s altar, successfully inquiring there of Yahweh on behalf of passing travelers from the tribe of Dan. The Danites later steal the idols and take them along with the priest to settle in the north. A grandson of Moses named Jonathan becomes their chief priest.

The tale serves as a precursor the later story of the northern king Jeroboam I erecting idolatrous bull-calf altars at Dan and Bethel in competition with the Temple of Jerusalem. English translations portray Jeroboam as saying “Here are your gods, O Israel” at the unveiling. The Hebrew, however, is “here is elohim,” the same word normally translated at “God.” Bull calves were associated with the worship of El, and bulls were routinely offered to Yahweh on horned altars. Here we see the process by which certain aspects of El worship—such as horned altars and the sacrifice of cattle—were accepted into the worship of Yahweh, while others—such as the veneration of the bull-calf icon and the recognition of Baal as one of El’s sons—were disowned.

William Dever discusses another intriguing question in his book Did God Have a Wife? He presents archaeological evidence suggesting that the goddess Ashera was seen as Yahweh’s consort in certain times and places. An echo of language associated with Ashera worship may be found in Genesis 49:25, which sates: “The Almighty (Shaddai)… blesses you with blessings… of the breast and womb.” The Bible is clear that the Queen of Heaven was worshiped by families who also honored Yahweh in Jeremiah’s day (Jer. 7:17–18). Dever suggests that Ashera worship remained widespread among the common folk, while the elites, centering on the male priesthood, fought to exclude any feminine portrayals of God. Eventually, many of the characteristics of Ashera were included in the rabbinic concept of the Shekhina.

The Bible seems to indicate that even though the Israelites were forbidden to worship other deities, Yahweh was not considered as the only god who actually existed. The prophet Micah declared: “All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever” (Mic. 4:5). Yahweh is often referred to in the Bible as “the god of the hebrews” (there being no capitalization in the Hebrew text), thus portrayed as one of several tribal deities rather than as the only God in existence.

Psalm 82, on the other hand, seems to mark a transition point, in which God will no longer accept coexistence with other deities:

God [elohim] standeth in the congregation of God [or the gods: “elohim”]; He judgeth among the gods [elohim]…. They know not, neither do they understand; They walk to and fro in darkness: All the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, Ye are gods, And all of you sons of the Most High. Nevertheless ye shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes. (Ps. 82:1-7)

The portrait of God acting as judge in the assembly of the gods has obvious parallels in other religious traditions: El is the chief of the divine assembly in Canaanite religion, just as Zeus is the head of the court at Olympus. Here, however, God has pronounced a sentence of capital punishment on the other gods. This parallels the viewpoint of Jeremiah 10.11: “The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens.” In this way the concept of Yahweh as the chief god begins to shift into that of Yahweh/Elohim as the only true deity, with other gods in the position of either demons or creatures of man’s imagination.

The Tetragrammaton

The four consonants of the Hebrew spelling of Yahweh are referred to as the Tetragrammaton (Greek: τετραγράμματον; “word with four letters”). It is spelled in the Hebrew alphabet: yodh, heh, vav, heh—YHWH. Of all the names of God, the one which occurs most frequently in the Hebrew Bible is the Tetragrammaton, appearing 6,823 times, according to the online Jewish Encyclopedia.

In Judaism, pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton is taboo. Usually, Adonai (“the Lord”) is used as a substitute in prayers or readings from the Torah. When used in everyday speaking the Tetragrammaton is often replaced by HaShem (“the Name”).

According to rabbinic tradition, the name was pronounced by the high priest on Yom Kippur, the only day when the Holy of Holies of the Temple would be entered. With the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E., this use also vanished, explaining the loss of the correct pronunciation.

Beginning in the middle ages, the Tetragrammaton was widely contemplated as a tool used in mystical enlightenment, especially in kabbalistic literature, as well is in magical incantations and spells. In one mystical tradition, each letter of the 4-letter form of the Name represents a metaphoric symbol of the living power of God. Also, when the letters of the Tetragrammaton are arranged in a kabbalistic tetractys formation, the sum of all the letters is 72 by Gematria—a rabbinic system of assigning a numerical value to each letter of the alphabet—as shown in the diagram.

In another tradition, the mystical sacred name is actually 72 letters long and the high priest is said to have communed with the Almighty using this 72-letter name of God, which was written out on a long strip of parchment, folded and slipped inside the high priest’s bejeweled breastplate. When someone would ask the high priest a question of Jewish law, the high priest could invoke the name, wherein according to lore the 12 jewels on the breastplate, representing the 12 tribes of the Israelites, would light up with the glory of God.

The number 72 has a number of significances both scientifically and mystically. Besides being the product of 6 times 12 (the number of points on the Star of David times the number of the tribes of Israel), it is also the sum of four successive prime numbers (13 + 17 + 19 + 23), as well as the sum of six consecutive primes (5 + 7 + 11 + 13 + 17 + 19). It is also a “prone number,” meaning the product of two successive integers (8 and 9).

The number 72 is also:

• The average number of heartbeats per minute for a resting adult
• The conventional number of scholars translating the ancient Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible, used as a basis for most English versions of the scriptures
• The number of disciples sent forth by Jesus in Luke 10 in some manuscripts (70 in others)
• The total number of books in the Holy Bible in the Catholic version of the Book of Lamentations is considered part of the Book of Jeremiah

 

Paul de Chomedey, sieur de Maisonneuve

Paul de Chomedey, sieur de Maisonneuve (February 15, 1612 – September 9, 1676) was a French military officer and the founder of Montreal.

Early career

He was born into the aristocracy in Neuville-sur-Vannes in Champagne, France. He joined the military at the age of 13 and had a successful career where he was noted for his ability and his honesty . He was hired by Jérome le Royer de la Dauversiere, a Jesuit who was head of the Société Notre-Dame de Montréal. Based on a vision had by Royer de la Dauversiere, the society was attempting to build a mission on the Montreal Island in New France. Maisonneuve was hired to lead the colonists and ensure their security

Governor of Montreal

There they founded Ville-Marie, building a chapel and a small settlement. A hospitalunder the command of Jeanne Mance was also established. Maisonneuve was the first governor of Montreal. They maintained peaceful relations with the Algonquinsand the first year of the colony’s existence was peaceful. In 1643 a flood threatened the city, Maisonneuve prayed to the Virgin Mary to stop the inundation and when it abated he erected a cross atop Mount Royal, and a cross remains there to this day.

In 1643 the Iroquois discovered the settlement and a long conflict erupted between the French and the Natives that saw the colony severely threatened. Maisonneuve commanded its defence, using his military training. In 1644 he was almost killed when a group of thirty Montrealers were surrounded by over two hundred Iroquois and Maisonneuve barely managed to make it back to the safety of the fort.

In 1645 Maisonneuve received news that his father had died and he returned to France. While there he was offered the position of governor of New France, but turned it down, wanting to continue his leadership of Ville-Marie. Maisonneuve returned to Montreal in 1647 and the wars with the Iroquois continued. In 1649, Maisonneuve stood as godfather for the first white child baptised in the colony. She was Pauline Hébert, infant daughter of fur-trader Augustin Hébert and his wifeAdrienne Du Vivier, who had come to Montreal in 1648 with Maisonneuve and their elder daughter Jeanne.

In the spring of 1651 the Iroquois attacks became so frequent and so violent that Ville-Marie thought its end had come. Maisonneuve made all the Montrealers take refuge in the fort. By 1652, the colony at Montreal had been so reduced, he was again forced to return to France to raise 100 volunteers to return to Montreal the following year. If the effort had failed, Montreal was to be abandoned and the survivors re-located downriver to Quebec City. When these 100 arrived in the fall of 1653, the population of Montreal was barely 50 people, including a Jacques Archambault, who dug the first water well of the island in 1658, upon request by Maisonneuve.

Over time the colony grew in size and eventually was large enough to be secure from the Iroquois threat. Control of the colony was taken from the missionary society and taken up by the crown in 1663. Maisonneuve had not enjoyed the favour of the new governor-general Augustin de Saffray de Mésy. In September 1665, Maisonneuve received from Alexandre de Prouville the order to return to France on indefinite leave. After twenty-four years at the head of the colony, he left Montreal for good.

The latter years

Settling in Paris he lived in relative obscurity. In 1671, Marguerite Bourgeoys received a warm welcome at his home in Paris. He died in 1676; at his bedside were his young friend Philippe de Turmenys, and his devoted servant Louis Fin. On September 10, his funeral took place at the church of the Fathers of the Christian Doctrine, situated not far from the abbey of Saint-Étienne-du-Mont, and there also he was buried.

Honours

The Saint-Paul Street was named after Maisonneuve, who built a home for himself on it in 1650.

The Nuns’ Island was called Île Saint-Paul in honour of the founder of Montreal; the current name of the island appears starting from the 19th century and was exclusively used from the 1950s on.

The Maisonneuve Monument was erected in 1895 on the Place d’Armes in Old Montreal, to the memory of M. de Maisonneuve. It is the work of Louis-Philippe Hébert (1850–1917). An imaginary model was used to represent Paul de Chomedey, sieur de Maisonneuve, for no authentic portrait of the first governor of Montreal exists.

De Maisonneuve Boulevard in Downtown Montreal is named for him, as is Maisonneuve Park, Collège de Maisonneuve, the neighbourhood ofChomedey in Laval and the Maisonneuve pavilion, a dormitory at the Royal Military College Saint-Jean.

The Newfoundland Expedition

The Newfoundland expedition was a naval raiding expedition led by English Captain John Leake between August and October 1702 that targeted French colonialsettlements on the North Atlantic island of Newfoundland and its satellite Saint Pierre. The expedition occurred in the early days of Queen Anne’s War, as the North American theater of the War of the Spanish Succession is sometimes known.

Leake’s fleet descended on French settlements on the southern shore of Newfoundland, destroying fishing stages and other infrastructure. They captured fishing and trade ships, and destroyed most of the settlement at Saint Pierre. In a final flurry of activity before returning to England, Leake captured several ships from the French merchant convoy as it headed for Europe. More than 50 ships were taken in total, and six seasonal settlements were destroyed. The strongly fortified French base at Plaisance was not attacked.

Background

Hostilities in the War of the Spanish Succession had begun in 1701, but England did not get involved until 1702, planning a major naval expedition against targets inSpain. On 9 June 1702 (Old Style) Newfoundland also became a target whenGeorge Churchill, chief advisor to Lord High Admiral Prince George, informed CaptainJohn Leake, “I have proposed to the Prince, your going to command a squadron to Newfoundland; you will be a Chief of Squadron”. Leake’s commission, issued on 24 June, came with instructions to investigate the military strength of the French in Newfoundland, and to “annoy them there in their fishing harbours and at sea”. He was also to convoy merchant ships in both directions, report on the conditions of the English settlements and fisheries, and act as governor of the territory while he was there. To accomplish this he was given command of HMS Exeter and a small fleet of ships. On 22 July 1702, he departed from Plymouth with a fleet of nine ships, including six ships of the line. His ships included (in addition to the Exeter) the fourth rates HMS Assistance, HMS Montagu, HMS Lichfield, HMS Medway, and HMS Reserve.

Newfoundland had been the site of much conflict during King William’s War (1689–1697). The most ambitious expedition had been conducted by French and Indian forces led by Pierre Le Moyne d’Iberville in 1696. His raiding expedition was highly destructive: it completely destroyed almost all of the English settlements on the island. Many of these were rebuilt shortly afterwards, and the chief English port at St. John’s was strongly fortified.

Permanent French settlements on Newfoundland were relatively few. Most of their settlements, such as those in Trepassey Bay and St. Mary’s, were only used in the summertime by fishermen who returned to Europe at the end of the season. The principal town of Plaisancewas permanently settled, and its fortifications housed a small garrison. In 1702 it was temporarily under the command of Philippe Pastour de Costebelle, a captain of the colonial troupes de la marine, who was awaiting the arrival of the next governor, Daniel d’Auger de Subercase(who did not arrive until 1703). The permanent French population of Newfoundland was fairly small—only 180 French settlers left Newfoundland when the colony was abandoned in 1713.

The French also had a small settlement on the island of Saint Pierre, just south of Newfoundland and located outside the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. Its governor, Sébastien Le Gouès, Sieur de Sourdeval, had only arrived in July 1702, and erected a crude wooden fort armed with a few guns.

Raids

Newfoundland

Leake’s fleet arrived in late August at Bay Bulls. From the inhabitants they learned that two French fishing ships were loading at Trepassey Bay, and that two French warships were at anchor near the French capital at Plaisance. He also learned that the French routinely posted spies to observe activities at Bay Bulls, and were likely to report the fleet’s presence to Plaisance—a three day overland trek.

Leake consequently moved with speed, heading south and west toward the French settlements. On 28 August the fleet made its first captures, taking a French ship recently arrived from the French West Indianisle of Martinique, the two at Trepassey Bay, and two more that the Lichfield chased down. The next day Leake captured another French ship in St. Mary’s Bay, and was rejoined by the Montagu, which had taken three prizes the day before. Ordering the Montagu, Lichfield, and Charles Galley to make for Colinet, Leake took the rest of the fleet to St. Mary’s, where he chased a ship aground, and then sent out boats to refloat her. Landing parties were sent ashore, where they destroyed fishing stages, houses, shipbuilding equipment and unfinished ships, and many small boats.

After destroying the facilities at Colinet, the fleet regrouped on the 30th. Leake ordered a few of his ships to escort the captured prizes to St. John’s, and then to cruise off Cape Race for 14 days looking for prizes. Leake detached the Montagu and Lichfield to destroy St. Lawrence while he sailed for Saint Pierre.

Saint Pierre

Leake’s account places his first arrival off Saint Pierre on 1 September. Bad weather prevented him from entering the harbour until the next day. He was therefore only able to capture two of the eight ships that had been in the harbour, because the rest got away through a shallow channel. On the 3rd he again approached the harbour, but did not report landing, and left then Saint Pierre to head for St. John’s.

Leake’s fleet reassembled at St. John’s on 7 September. He then detached about half the fleet, led by the Medway and Charles Galley, to return to Saint Pierre to destroy it, while he took the other half north toward Bonavista. There he hoped to acquire experienced pilots with knowledge of other French harbours. Failing in this endeavour (none of the pilots he found had the needed experience, and also expressed concerns over the advancing winter conditions), he returned to St. John’s. He was met there on 2 October by the other half of the fleet, which had completed the destruction of Saint Pierre.

Saint Pierre’s Governor Sourdeval reported in a letter dated 11 October (presumably New Style, thus 30 September Old Style) that the English had twice landed men, on 7 and 8 October. He reported the second landing to consist of 400 men, who besieged him in his small fort. He surrendered after they exchanged gunfire for several hours, after which the English destroyed most of the facilities. They then deposited 52 French prisoners captured earlier in the expedition, and left.

Cruising for the French convoy

Leake then divided the fleet to begin the return to Europe. The Montagu and Looe were assigned to convoy merchants and prizes destined for Portugal, while the Reserve, Charles Galley, and Firebrand were set to escort those destined for England. Leake took the rest of the fleet and cruised off Cape Race for several weeks, hoping to intercept the French convoy that would have to pass nearby before winter set it. Weather conditions were often quite stormy, but Leake managed to take eight prizes before he finally sailed for England in mid-October.

Aftermath

Leake reported taking 51 ships. Sixteen were sent to England, six to Portugal, and five were sold at St. John’s. He left two ships at St. John’s as part of its defence force. The remaining ships, including their cargoes and trade goods that had not been loaded before they were taken, were destroyed. Six French settlements were destroyed: Trepassey, St. Mary’s, Colinet, Great and Little St. Lawrence, and Saint Pierre. Upon his return to England, Leake was received with favour by Queen Anne. He was promoted to rear admiral for his actions, and went on to have a distinguished career for the rest of the war, serving in European waters.

Newfoundland continued to be contested throughout the war, with each side waging economic war against the other’s settlements, destroying fishing stages and other infrastructure. The main English settlement at St. John’s was besieged in 1705and captured in 1709 by French forces from Plaisance. Sovereignty of the entire island passed to Great Britain with the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, although the French were granted some rights to dry fish on shore. Saint Pierre also came under British control, but it and neighboring Miquelon were eventually given to France after the War of the Austrian Succession.

Breeching

Breeching was the occasion when a small boy was first dressed in breeches or trousers. From the mid-16th century until the late 19th or early 20th century, young boys in the Western worldwere unbreeched and wore gowns or dresses until an age that varied between two and eight. Breeching was an important rite of passage in the life of a boy, looked forward to with much excitement. It often marked the point at which the father became more involved with the raising of a boy.

Reasons

The main reason for keeping boys in dresses was toilet training, or the lack thereof. The change was probably made once boys had reached the age when they could easily undo the rather complicated fastenings of many Early Modern breeches and trousers. Dresses were also easier to make with room for future growth, in an age when clothes were much more expensive than now for all classes. The “age of reason” was generally considered to be about seven, and breeching corresponded roughly with that age for much of the period. For working-class children, about whom we know even less than their better-off contemporaries, it may well have marked the start of a working life. The debate between his parents over the breeching of the hero of Tristram Shandy (1761) suggests that the timing of the event could be rather arbitrary; in this case it is his father who suggests the time has arrived. The 17th century French cleric and memoiristFrançois-Timoléon de Choisy is supposed to have been dressed in girl’s clothes until he was eighteen.

Celebrations

In the 19th century, photographs were often taken of the boy in his new trousers, typically with his father. He might also collect small gifts of money by going round the neighbourhood showing off his new clothes. Friends, of the mother as much as the boy, might gather to see his first appearance. A letter of 1679 from Lady Anne North to her widowed and absent son gives a lengthy account of the breeching of her grandson:”…Never had any bride that was to be dressed upon her wedding-night more hands about her, some the legs and some the armes, the taylor buttn’ing and other putting on the sword, and so many lookers on that had I not a ffinger [sic] amongst them I could not have seen him. When he was quit drest he acted his part as well as any of them…. since you could not have the first sight I resolved you should have a full relation…”. The dresses he wore before she calls “coats”.

Unbreeched boys

The first progression, for both boys and girls, was when they were shortcoated or taken out of the long dresses that came well below the feet that were worn by babies – and which have survived as the modern Christening robe. It was not possible to walk in these, which no doubt dictated the timing of the change. Toddlers’ gowns often featured leading strings, which were narrow straps of fabric or ribbon attached at the shoulder and held by an adult while the child was learning to walk.

After this stage, in the Early Modern period it is usually not too difficult to distinguish between small boys and girls in commissioned portraits of the wealthy, even where the precise identities are no longer known. The smaller figures of small children in genre painting have less detail, and painters often did not trouble to include distinguishing props as they did in portraits. Working-class children presumably were more likely than the rich to wear handed down clothes that were used by both sexes. In portraits the colours of clothes often keep the rough gender distinctions we see in adults — girls wear white or pale colours, and boys darker ones, including red. This may not entirely reflect reality, but the differences in hairstyles, and in the style of clothing at the chest, throat and neck, waist, and often the cuffs, presumably do.

In the 19th century, perhaps as childhood became sentimentalised, it becomes harder to tell the clothing apart between the sexes; the hair remains the best guide, but some mothers were evidently unable to resist keeping this long too. By this time the age of breeching was falling closer to two or three, where it would remain. Boys in most periods had shorter hair, often cut in a straight fringe, whilst girl’s hair was longer, and in earlier periods sometimes worn “up” in adult styles, at least for special occasions like portraits. In the 19th century, wearing hair up itself became a significant rite of passage for girls at puberty, as part of their “coming out” into society. Younger girls’ hair was always long, or plaited. Sometimes a quiff or large curl emerges from under a boy’s cap. Boys are most likely to have side partings, and girls centre partings.

Girls’ bodices usually reflected adult styles, in their best clothes at least, and low bodices and necklaces are common. Boys often, though not always, had dresses that were closed up to the neck-line, and often buttoned at the front — rare for girls. They frequently wear belts, and in periods when female dresses had a V at the waist, this is often seen on little girls, but not on boys. Linen andlace at the neck and cuffs tend to follow adult styles for each gender, although again the clothes worn in portraits no doubt do not reflect everyday wear, and may not reflect even best clothes accurately.

Unbreeched boys of the nobility are sometimes seen wearing swords or daggers on a belt. A speech by King Leontes from Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Taleimplies that, as common sense would suggest, these could not be drawn, and were purely for show:

Looking on the lines

Of my boy’s face, methought I did recoil

Twenty-three years, and saw myself unbreech’d

In my green velvet coat, my dagger muzzled,

Lest it should bite its master, and so prove

(As ornament oft does) too dangerous.

— he also calls his dress a “coat”; “cote” was a French and English term, dating back to the Middle Ages, for earlier adult male gowns and seems to have been kept in use for boys clothes to preserve some gender distinction.

Usually jewellery is not worn by boys, but when worn it is likely to be dark in colour, like the coral beads worn by the Flemish boy above. Coral was considered by medical authorities the best material to use for teething aids, and a combined rattle and whistle (in silver) and teething stick (in coral) can be seen in many portraits. In portraits even very young girls may wear necklaces, often of pearls. In the Van Dyck portrait of the children of Charles I, only the absence of a necklace and the colour of his dress distinguish the unbreeched James (aged four) from his next youngest sister Elizabeth, whilst their elder brother and sister, at seven and six, have moved on to adult styles. In cases of possible doubt, painters tend to give boys masculine toys to hold like drums, whips for toy horses, or bows.

The next step

In the late 18th century, new philosophies of child-rearing led to clothes that were thought especially suitable for children. Toddlers wore washable dresses called frocks of linen or cotton. British and American boys after perhaps three began to wear rather short pantaloons and short jackets, and for very young boys the skeleton suit was introduced. These gave the first real alternative to dresses, and became fashionable across Europe. The skeleton suit consisted of trousers and tight-fitting jacket, buttoned together at the waist or higher up; they were not unlike the romper suit introduced in the early 20th century. But dresses for boys did not disappear, and again became common from the 1820s, when they were worn at about knee-length, sometimes with visible pantaloons called pantalettes as underwear, a style also worn by little girls.

As the next stage, from the mid-19th century boys usually progressed into shorts at breeching — again these are more accommodating to growth, and cheaper. The knickerbocker suit was also popular. In England and some other countries, many school uniforms still mandate shorts for boys until about nine or ten. The jackets of boys after breeching lacked adult tails, and this may have influenced the adult tail-less styles which developed, initially for casual wear of various sorts, like the smoking-jacket and sports jacket. After the First World War the wearing of boy’s dresses seems finally to have died out, except for babies.

Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Battuta

Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Battuta (1304 to 1368 or 1377, year of death uncertain) was born in Tangier, Moroccoduring the time of the Merinid Sultanate, which ruled in the Islamic calendar year 703. He was born into a Berber family and was a Sunni Muslim scholar and jurisprudent from the Maliki Madhhab (a school of Fiqh, Islamic law). At times he also acted as a Qadi or judge. However, he is best known as an extensive traveler or explorer, whose written account of his journeys documents travels and excursions over a period of almost 30 years and covering some 75,000 miles (120,700 km). He traversed almost all of the known Islamic world of his day, extending also to present-day India, theMaldives, Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia and China, a distance readily surpassing that of his prior, near-contemporary and traveler Marco Polo. While the Muslim world was governed by many different dynasties, Ibn Battuta’s experiences show that there was a remarkable religious and cultural uniformity, evidenced by his ability to gain legal employment in numerous locations.

Almost all that is known about Ibn Battuta’s life comes from one source—Ibn Battuta himself (via the scribe Ibn Juzayy). Some aspects of his autobiographical account are probably fanciful, but for many others, there is no way to differentiate between his reporting and story-telling. Therefore, details about his life are to be read with some caution, especially in cases where fictional additions are not obvious. Mernissi (1997) used his work to show how women did exercise authority within the Muslim world, since Battuta worked for women sultanas as well as for men.

His Account

His name may alternatively be rendered ibn Batuta, ibn Batuda or ibn Battutah. He is also sometimes known by the appellation Shams ad-Din, a title or honorific at times given to scholars particularly in the Islamic East, meaning “the Sun/Illuminator of the Faith.” His full title and name is given as Shams ad-Din Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Muhammed ibn Ibrahim Ibn Battuta al-Lawati al-Tanji.

At the instigation of the Sultan of Morocco, Abu Inan Faris, several years after return from a journey, Ibn Battuta dictated an account of his travels to a scholar named Ibn Juzayy whom he had met while in Granada, Spain. This account, recorded by Ibn Juzayy and interspersed with the scribe’s own comments is the primary source of information for Ibn Battuta’s adventures. The title of this initial manuscript may be translated as A Gift to Those Who Contemplate the Wonders of Cities and the Marvels of Traveling, but is often simply referred to as the Rihla, or “Journey.” Though apparently fictional in places, the Rihla still gives us the most complete an account we have on record for certain parts of the world in the fourteenth century.

The Hajj

At the age of (approximately) 20 years old, Ibn Battuta went on a hajj – a pilgrimage at Mecca. His journey to Mecca was by land, and followed the North African coast of the Maghreb region quite closely until he reached Cairo. At this point he was within Mameluk territory, which was relatively safe, and he embarked on the first of his detours. Three commonly used routes existed to Mecca, and Ibn Battuta chose the least-travelled: a journey up the Nile, then east by land to the Red Sea port of ‘Aydhad. However, upon approaching that city he was forced to turn back due to a local rebellion.

Returning to Cairo he took a second side trip, to Damascus (then also controlled by the Mamluks), having encountered a holy man during his first trip who prophesied that Ibn Battuta would only reach Mecca after a journey through Syria. An additional advantage to this side journey was that other holy places were along the route—Hebron, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, for example—and the Mameluke authorities put special effort into keeping the journey safe for pilgrims.

After spending the month of Ramadan in Damascus, Ibn Battuta joined a caravan travelling the 800 miles from Damascus to Medina, the city where Muhammad had been buried. After four days, Ibn Battuta journeyed on to Mecca. There he completed the usual rituals of a Muslim pilgrim, and having graduated to the status of al-Hajjias a result, now faced his return home. Instead of returning home to Morocco he continued traveling, eventually covering about 75,000 miles over the length and breadth of the Muslim world, and beyond (about 44 modern countries).

His next destination after Mecca was the Il-Khanate in modern-day Iraq and Iran.

To Iran and the Silk Road

Once again joining up with a caravan he crossed the border into Mesopotamia and visited al-Najaf, the burial place of the fourth Caliph Ali. From there he journeyed to Basra, then Isfahan, which was only a few decades later would be nearly destroyed by Timur. Next were the cities of Shiraz and Baghdad, the latter of which was in bad shape after Battle of Baghdad (1258) when it was sacked by Hulagu Khan.

On this leg of his journey Ibn Batttua met Abu Sa’id, the last ruler of the unified Il-Khanate. He traveled with the royal caravan for a while, then turned north to Tabriz on the Silk Road. The first major city in the region to open its gates to the Mongols, Tabriz had become an important trading center.

Second Hajj and East Africa

After this trip, Ibn Battuta returned to Mecca for a second hajj, and lived there for a year before embarking on a second great trek, this time down the Red Sea and the Eastern African coast. His first major stop was Aden, where his intention was to make his fortune as a trader of the goods that flowed into the Arabian Peninsula from around the Indian Ocean. Before doing so, however, he determined to have one last adventure, and signed on for a trip down the coast of Africa.

Spending about a week in each of his destinations, he visited, among other places, Ethiopia, Mogadishu, Somalia, Mombasa, Zanzibar, and Kilwa. Due to a change in the monsoon season, he and the ship he was aboard then returned to south Arabia. Having cut short what was to be his final adventure before settling down, he immediately decided to go visit Oman and the Straits of Hormuz before he journeyed to Mecca again.

Turkey and India

Ibn Battuta eventually sought employment with the Muslim sultan of Delhi. In need a guide and translator if he was to travel there, Ibn Battuta went to Anatolia, then under the control of the Seljuk Turks, to join up with one of the caravans that went from there to India. A sea voyage from Damascus on a Genoese ship landed him in Alanya on the southern coast of modern-day Turkey. From there he traveled by land to Konya and then Sinope on the Black Sea coast.

Crossing the Black Sea, Ibn Battuta landed in Caffa (now Feodosiya), in the Crimea, and entered the lands of the Golden Horde. There he bought a wagon and fortuitously joined the caravan of Ozbeg, the Golden Horde’s Khan, on a journey as far as Astrakhan on the Volga River. When Ibn Battuta reached Astrakhan, it coincided with the impending birth of one of the Khan’s children, an event for which the Khan had permitted his wife to return to her home city, Constantinople. Seeing the opportunity to visit that city, Ibn Battuta talked his way into that expedition, his first beyond the boundaries of the Islamic world.

Arriving there towards the end of 1332, he met the emperor Andronicus III and saw the exterior of the Hagia Sophia. After a month in Constantinople, Ibn Battuta retraced his route to Astrakhan, then carried on past the Caspian and Aral Seas to Bokhara and Samarkand. From there he journeyed south to Afghanistan, the mountain passes of which he used to cross into India, where, due to his years of study while in Mecca, Ibn Battuta was employed as a qadi (“judge”) by the sultan in Delhi.

Ibn Battuta veered between living the high life of a trusted subordinate, and being under suspicion for a variety of reasons. Eventually he resolved to leave on the pretext of taking another hajj, but the Sultan offered the alternative of being ambassador to China. Given the opportunity to both get away from the Sultan and visit new lands, Ibn Battuta agreed.

Southeast Asia and China

En route to the coast, he and his party were attacked by Hindu rebels, and, separated from the others, Ibn Battuta was robbed and nearly killed. Nevertheless, he managed to find his group within two days, and continued the journey to Cambay. From there they sailed to Calicut. While Ibn Battuta was visiting a mosque on shore, however, a storm blew up and two of the ships of his expedition sunk. The third then sailed away without him, and it ended up seized by a local king in Sumatra a few months later.

Fearful of returning to Delhi as a failure, he stayed for a time in the south under the protection of Jamal al-Din, but when his protector was overthrown, it became necessary for Ibn Battuta to leave India altogether. He resolved to continue to China, with a detour near the beginning of the journey to the Maldives.

In the Maldives he spent nine months, much more time than he had intended. As a qadi his skills were highly desirable in the less developed islands and he was cajoled into staying. Appointed as chief judge and marrying into the royal family, he became embroiled in local politics, and ended up leaving after wearing out his welcome by imposing strict judgments in what had been a laissez-faire island kingdom. From there he carried on to Ceylon for a visit to Adam’s Peak.

Setting sail from Ceylon, he encountered various difficulties, but Ibn Battuta once again worked his way back to Calicut. From there he sailed to the Maldives again before attempting once again to get to China.

This time he succeeded, reaching in quick succession Chittagong, Sumatra, Vietnam, and then finally Quanzhou in Fujian Province, China. From there he went north to Hangzhou, not far from modern-day Shanghai. He also claimed to have traveled even further north, through the Grand Canal to Beijing, but this is so unlikely it is believed to be one of his tales, as opposed to an actual event.

Return home and the Black Death

Returning to Quanzhou, Ibn Battuta decided to return home—though exactly where “home” was a bit of a problem. Returning to Calicut once again, he pondered throwing himself on the mercy of Muhammed Tughlaq, but thought better of it and decided to carry on to Makkah once again. Returning via Hormuz and the Il-Khanate, he saw that state dissolved into civil war, Abu Sa’id having died since his previous trip there.

Returning to Damascus with the intention of retracing the route of his first Hajj, he learned that his father had died. The plague called the Black Death had begun, and Ibn Battuta was on hand as it spread through Syria, Palestine, and Arabia. After reaching Makkah, he decided to return to Morocco, nearly a quarter of a century after having left it. During the trip he made one last detour to Sardinia, then returned to Tangier to discover that his mother had also died, a few months before his arrival.

Andalus and North Africa

Having settled in Tangier for only a brief time, Ibn Battuta then set out for a trip to al-Andalus—(Muslim Spain). Alfonso XI of Castile was threatening the conquest of Gibraltar, and Ibn Battuta joined a group of Muslims leaving Tangier with the intention of defending the port. By the time he arrived the Black Death had killed Alfonso and the threat had receded, so Ibn Battuta decided to spend his visit as a tourist instead of a defender. He traveled through Valencia, and ended up in Granada.

Leaving Spain, he decided to travel through one of the few parts of the Muslim world that he had never explored: his own homeland of Morocco. On his return home he stopped for a while in Marrakesh, which was vastly depopulated after the recent bout of plague and the transfer of the capital from there to Fez, Morocco.

Once more ibn Battuta returned to Tangier, and once more he moved on quickly. Two years before his own first visit to Cairo, the Malian king Mansa Musa had passed through the same city on his own Hajj, creating a sensation with his extravagant riches—approximately half the world’s gold supply at the time was coming from WestAfrica. While Ibn Battuta never mentioned this specifically, hearing of this during his own trip must have planted a seed in his mind, for around that time, he decided to set out and visit the Muslim kingdom on the far side of the Sahara Desert.

Mali

In the fall of 1351, Ibn Battuta set out from Fez, reaching the last Moroccan town he was to visit (Sijilmasa) a bit more than a week later. When the winter caravans began a few months later, he was with one, and within a month he was in the Central Saharan town of Taghaza. A center of the salt trade, Taghaza was awash with salt and Malian gold, though Ibn Battuta did not seem to have a favorable impression of the place. Another 500 miles through the worst part of the desert brought him to Mali, particularly the town of Walata.

From there he travelled southwest along a river he believed to be the Nile (but that was, in actuality, the Niger River) until he reached the capital of the Mali Empire. There he met Mansa Suleiman, who had been king since 1341. Dubious about what he took to be the miserly hospitality of the king, Ibn Battuta nevertheless stayed there for eight months before journeying back up the Niger to Timbuktu. Though in the next two centuries it would become the most important city in the region, at the time it was small and unimpressive, and Ibn Battuta soon moved on. During his his journey back across the desert, he received a message from the Sultan of Morocco, commanding him to return home, which he did, and where he remained for the rest of his life.

After the publication of the Rihla, little is known about Ibn Battuta’s life. He may have been appointed a qadi in Morocco. Ibn Battuta died in Morocco some time between 1368 and 1377. For centuries his book was obscure, even within the Muslim world, but in the 1800s it was rediscovered and translated into several European languages. Since then Ibn Battuta has grown in fame, and is now a well-known figure. His travelogue is one of the most famous to come out of the Middle East.

 

Tanngrisnir

Tanngrisnir (Old Norse “teeth-barer, snarler”) and Tanngnjóstr (Old Norse “teeth grinder”) are the goats who pull the god Thor’s chariot in Norse mythology. They are attested in the Poetic Edda, compiled in the 13th century from earlier traditional sources, and the Prose Edda, written bySnorri Sturluson in the 13th century.

The Prose Edda relates that when Thor cooks the goats, their flesh provides sustenance for the god, and, after Thor resurrects them with his hammer, Mjöllnir, they are brought back to life the next day. According to the same source, Thor once stayed a night at the home of peasant farmers and shared with them his goat meal, yet one of their children, Þjálfi, broke one of the bones to suck out the marrow, resulting in the lameness of one of the goats upon resurrection. As a result, Thor maintains Þjálfi and his sister Röskva as his servants. Scholars have linked the ever-replenishing goats to the nightly-consumed beast Sæhrímnir in Norse mythology andScandinavian folk beliefs involving herring bones and witchcraft.

Etymology

The Old Norse name Tanngrisnir translates to “teeth-barer, snarler” and Tanngnjóstr to “teeth-grinder”. Scholar Rudolf Simek comments that the names were young when recorded, and may have been inventions of Snorri. Tanngnjóstr is sometimes modernly anglicized asTanngiost.

Attestations

Poetic Edda

Thor’s goats are mentioned in two poems in the Poetic Edda, though they are not referred to by name. In the Poetic Edda poem Hymiskviða, Thor secures the goats, described as having “splendid horns”, with a human named Egil in the realm of Midgard before Thor and the god Tyr continue to the jötunn Hymir’s hall. Later in the same poem Thor is referred to as “lord of goats”.

After having killed Hymir and his many-headed army, Thor’s goats collapse, “half-dead”, due to lameness. The poem says that this is the fault of Loki, yet that “you have heard this already”, and that another, wiser than the poet, could tell the story of how Thor was repaid by a lava-dweller with his children.

A stanza from the Poetic Edda poem Þrymskviða describes Thor’s goat-driven ride to Jötunheimr:

Benjamin Thorpe translation: Straightway were the goats homeward driven, hurried to the traces; they had fast to run. The rocks were shivered, the earth was in a blaze; Odin’s son drove to Jötunheim.

Henry Adams Bellows translation: Then home the goats to the hall were driven, They wrenched at the halters, swift were they to run; The mountains burst, earth burned with fire, And Odin’s son sought Jotunheim.

Prose Edda

In chapter 21 of the Prose Edda book Gylfaginning, the enthroned figure of High divulges that the god Thor has two goats that drive his chariot and that these goats bear the names Tanngnjóstr and Tanngrisnir.

In chapter 44, the enthroned figure of Third reluctantly relates a tale in which Thor and Loki are riding in Thor’s chariot, pulled by his two goats. Loki and Thor stop at the home of a peasant farmer, and there they are given lodging for a night. Thor slaughters his goats, skins them and puts them in a pot. When the goats are cooked, Loki and Thor sit down for their evening meal. Thor invites the peasant family to share the meal with him and they do so.

At the end of the meal, Thor places the skins of the goat on the opposing side of the fire and tells the peasants to throw the bones of the goats on to the goatskins. The peasant’s son Þjálfi takes one of the goat ham-bones and uses a knife to split it open, breaking the bone to get to themarrow.

After staying the night, Thor wakes up and gets dressed before the break of dawn. Thor takes his hammer Mjöllnir, raises it, and blesses the goat skins. Resurrected, the goats stand, but one of the two goats is lame in the hind leg. Noting this new lameness, Thor exclaims that someone has mistreated the bones of his goats; that someone broke the ham-bone during the meal the night before. Third notes that there is no need to draw out the tale, for:

Everyone can imagine how terrified the peasant must have been when he saw Thor making his brows sink down over his eyes; as for what could be seen of the eyes themselves, he thought he would collapse at just the very sight. Thor clenched his hands on the shaft of the hammer so that the knuckles went white, and the peasant did as one might expect, and all his household, they cried out fervently, begged for grace, offered to atone with all their possessions.

At realizing how terrified he has made the peasants, Thor calms down and from them accepted a settlement of their children Þjálfi and Röskva. The two children become his servants and have remained so since. Leaving the goats behind, the four then set out for the land of Jötunheimr. The goats are again mentioned in chapter 48, where Thor is described as setting out to Midgard, the realm of mankind, in the form of a young boy, without goats or companions.

In chapter 75 of the Prose Edda book Skáldskaparmál, the names of both goats appear among a list of names for goats.

Theories and interpretations

Scholar Rudolf Simek connects Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr with the beast Sæhrímnir (consumed nightly by the gods and the einherjar and rejuvenated every day), noting that this may point to sacrificial rites in shamanic practices.

In Scandinavian folklore, witches who magically replenish food sometimes appear in tales, the food usually being herring. However, in fear that one would waste away if one were fed the same morsel again and again, folk tales describe the breaking of the herring bones when eating it as a form of precaution. These folk tales and the story of Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr have been categorised under the title Food Magic by folklore scholars Reimund Kvideland and Henning Sehmsdorf.

Modern influence

In the Marvel Comics adaptation of the god, Thor usually relies on his hammer to fly. However in situations where he must transport passengers and/or objects, Thor can summon Tanngrisnir and Tanngnjóstr who arrive already harnessed to his chariot, and can be dismissed with equal ease.

 

Benandanti

The Benandanti (“Good Walkers”) were an agrarian fertility cult in the Friuli district of NorthernItaly in the 16th and 17th centuries. The Benandanti claimed to travel out of their bodies while asleep to struggle against evil witches (streghe) in order to ensure good crops for the season to come. Between 1575 and 1675, in the midst of the Early Modern witch trials, the Benandanti were tried as heretics or witches under the Roman Inquisition, and their beliefs assimilated to Satanism.

According to Early Modern records, benandanta were believed to have been born with a caul on their head, which gave them the ability to take part in nocturnal visionary traditions that occured on specific Thursdays during the year. During these visions, it was believed that their spirits rode upon various animals into the sky and off to places in the countryside. Here they would take part in various games and other activities with other benandanti, and battle malevolent witches who threatened both their crops and their communities using sticks of sorghum. When not taking part in these visionary journeys, benandanti were also believed to have magical powers that could be used for healing.

In 1575, the benandanti first came to the attention of the Friulian Church authorities when a village priest, Don Bartolomeo Sgabarizza, began investigating the claims made by the benandante Paolo Gaspurotto. Although Sgabarizza soon abandoned his investigations, in 1580 the case was reopened by the inquisitor Fra Felice de Montefalco, who interrogated not only Gaspurotto but also a variety of other local benandanti and spirit mediums, ultimately condemning some of them for the crime of heresy. Under pressure by the Inquisition, these nocturnal spirit travels (which often included sleep paralysis) were assimilated to the diabolised stereotype of the witches’ Sabbath, leading to the extinction of the Benandanti cult. The Inquisition’s denounciation of the visionary tradition led to the term “benandante” becoming synonymous with the term “stregha” (meaning “witch”) in Friulian folklore right through to the 20th century.

The first historian to study the benandanti tradition was the Italian Carlo Ginzburg (1939–), who began an examination of the surviving trial records from the period in the early 1960s, culminating in the publication of his book The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1966, English translation 1983). In Ginzburg’s interpretation of the evidence, the benandanti was a “fertility cult” whose members were “defenders of harvests and the fertility of fields.” He furthermore argued that it was only one surviving part of a much wider European tradition of visionary experiences that had its origins in the pre-Christian period, identifying similarities with Livonianwerewolf beliefs. Various historians have alternately built on or challenged aspects of Ginzburg’s interpretation.

Members

The Benandanti, who included both males and females, were individuals who believed that they ensured the protection of their community and its crops. They believed themselves to have been marked from birth to join the ranks of the Benandanti, by being born with a caul (the amniotic sac) covering their face. The Benandanti reported leaving their bodies in the shape of mice, cats, rabbits, or butterflies. The men mostly reported flying into the clouds battling against witches to secure fertility for their community; the women more often reported attending great feasts.

Visionary journeys

On Thursdays during the Ember days, periods of fasting for the Catholic Church, the Benandanti claimed their spirits would leave their bodies at night in the form of small animals. The spirits of the men would go to the fields to fight evil witches (malandanti). The Benandanti men fought with fennelstalks, while the witches were armed with sorghum stalks (sorghum was used for witches’ brooms, and the “brooms’ sorghum” was one of the most current type of sorghum). If the men prevailed, the harvest would be plentiful.

The female Benandanti performed other sacred tasks. When they left their bodies they traveled to a great feast, where they danced, ate and drank with a procession of spirits, animals and faeries, and learned who amongst the villagers would die in the next year. In one account, this feast was presided over by a woman, “the abbess”, who sat in splendour on the edge of a well. Carlo Ginzburg has compared these spirit assemblies with others reported by similar groups elsewhere in Italy and Sicily, which were also presided over by a goddess-figure who taught magic and divination.

The earliest accounts of the benandanti’s journeys, dating from 1575, did not contain any of the elements then associated with the diabolic witches’ sabbat; there was no worshipping of the Devil (a figure whom was not even present), no renunciation of Christianity, no trampling of crucifixes and no defilement of sacraments.

Relationship with witches

Ginzburg noted that whether the benandanti were themselves witches or not was an area of confusion in the earliest records. Whilst they combated the malevolent witches and helped heal those who were believed to have been harmed through witchcraft, they also joined the witches on their nocturnal journeys, and the miller Pietro Rotaro was recorded as referring to them as “benandanti witches”; for this reason the priest Don Bartolomeo Sgabarizza, who recorded Rotaro’s testimony, believed that while the benandanti were witches, they were ‘good’ witches who tried to protect their communities from the bad witches who would harm children. Ginzburg remarked that it was this contradiction in the relationship between the benandanti and the malevolent witches that ultimately heavily influenced their persecution at the hands of the Inquisition.

Inquisition and persecution

Sgabarizza’s investigation: 1575

“Sometimes they go out to one country region and sometimes to another, perhaps to Gradisca or even as far away as Verona, and they appear together jousting and playing games; and… the men and women who are the evil-doers carry and use the sorgham stalks which grow in the fields, and the men and women who are benandanti use fennel storks; and they go now one day and now another, but always on Thursdays, and… when they make their great displays they go to the biggest farms, and they have days fixed for this; and when the warlocks and witches set out it is to do evil, and they must be pursued by the benandanti to thwart them, and also to stop them entering the houses, because if they do not find clear water in the pails they go into the cellars and spoil the wine with certain things, throwing filth in the bungholes.”

Sgabarizza’s record of what Gaspurotto informed him, 1575.

In early 1575, Paolo Gaspurotto, a male benandante who lived in the village ofIassico, gave a charm to a miller from Brazzano named Pietro Rotaro, in the hope of healing his son, who had fallen sick from some unknown illness. This event came to the attention of the local priest, Don Bartolomeo Sgabarizza, who was intrigued by the use of such folk magic, and called Gaspurotto to him to learn more. The benandante told the priest that the sick child had “been possessed by witches” but that he had been saved from certain death by the benandanti, or “vagabonds” as they were also known. He went on to reveal more about his benandanti brethren, relating that “on Thursdays during the Ember Days of the year [they] were forced to go with these witches to many places, such as Cormons, in front of the church at Iassico, and even into the countryside around Verona,” where they “fought, played, leaped about, and rode various animals”, as well as taking part in an activity during which “the women beat the men who were with them with sorghum stalks, while the men had only bunches of fennel.”

Don Sgabarizza was concerned with such talk of witchcraft, and on 21 March 1575, he appeared as a witness before both the vicar general, Monsignor Jacopo Maracco, and the Inquisitor Fra Giulio d’Assis, a member of the Order of the Minor Conventuals, at the monastery of San Francesco di Cividale in Friuli, in the hope that they could offer him guidance in how to proceed in this situation. He brought Gaspurotto with him, who readily furnished more information in front of the Inquisitor, relating that after taking part in their games, “the witches, warlocks and vagabonds” would pass in front of people’s houses, looking for “clean, clear water” that they would then drink. According to Gaspurotto, if the witches could not find any clean water to drink, they would “go into the cellars and overturn all the wine.”

Sgabarizza did not initially believe Gaspurotto’s claim that these events had actually occured. In response to the priest’s disbelief, Gaspurotto invited both him and the Inquisitor to join the benandanti on their next journey, although refused to provide the names of any other members of the brethren, stating that he would be “badly beaten by the witches” should he do so. Not long after, on the Monday following Easter, Sgabarizza visited Iassico in order to say Mass to the assembled congregation, and following the ritual stayed among the locals for a feast held in his honour. During and after the meal, Sgabarizza once more discussed the journeys of the benandanti with both Gaspurotto and the miller Pietro Rotaro, and later learned of another self-professed benandante, the public crier Battista Moduco of Cividale, who offered more information on what occured during their nocturnal visions. Ultimately, Sgabarizza and the inquisitor Giulio d’Assisi decided to abandon their investigations into the benandanti, something the later historian Carlo Ginzburg believed was probably because they came to believe that their stories of nocturnal flights and battling witches were “tall tales and nothing more.”

Montefalco’s investigation: 1580–1582

Gaspurotto and Moduco

Five years after Sgabarizza’s original investigation, on 27 June 1580, the inquisitor Fra Felice da Montefalco decided to revive the case of the benandanti. To do so he ordered Gaspurotto to be brought in for questioning; under interrogation, Gaspurotto repeatedly denied having ever been a benandante and asserted that involvement in such things were against God, contradicting the former claims that he had made to Sgabarizza several years before. The questioning over, Gaspurotto was subsequently imprisoned. That same day, the public crier ofCividale, Battista Moduco, who was also known locally to be a benandante, was also rounded up and interrogated at Cividale, but unlike Gaspurotto, he openly admitted to Montefalco that he was a benandante, and went on to describe his visionary journeys, in which he battled witches in order to protect the community’s crops. Vehemently denouncing the actions of the witches, he claimed that the benandanti were fighting “in service of Christ”, and ultimately Montefalco decided to let him go.

“I am a benandante because I go with the others to fight four times a year, that is during the Ember Days, at night; I go invisibly in spirit and the body remains behind; we go forth in the service of Christ, and the witches of the devil; we fight each other, we with bundles of fennel and they with sorghum stalks.”

Montefalco’s record of what Moduco informed him, 1580.

On 28 June, Gaspurotto was brought in for interrogation again. This time he admitted to being a benandante, claiming that he had been too scared to do so in the previous interrogation lest the witches beat him in punishment. Gaspurotto went on to accuse two individuals, one from Gorizia and the other from Chiana, of being witches, and was subsequently released by Montefalco on the proviso that he return for further questioning at a later date. This eventially came about on 26 September, taking place at the monastery of San Francesco in Udine. This time, Gaspurotto added an extra element to his tale, claiming that an angel had summoned him to join the benandanti. For Montefalco, the introduction of this element led him to suspect that the actions of Gaspurotto were themselves heretical and satanic, and his method of interrogation became openly suggestive, putting forward the idea that the angel was actually a demon in disguise.

As historian Carlo Ginzburg related, Montefalco had begun to warp Gaspurotto’s testimony of the benandanti journey to fit the established clerical image of the diabolical witches’ sabbat, while under the stress of interrogation and imprisonment, Gaspurotto himself was losing his self-assurance and beginning to question “the reality of his beliefs”. Several days later, Gaspurotto openly told Montefalco that he believed that “the apparition of that angel was really the devil tempting me, since you have told me he can transform himself into an angel.” When Moduco was also summoned to Montefalco, on 2 October 1580, he went on to announce the same thing, proclaiming that the Devil must have deceived him into going on the nocturnal journey which he believed was performed for good. Having both confessed to Montefalco that their nocturnal journeying had been caused by the Devil, both Gaspurotto and Moduco were released, pending sentencing for their crime at a later date. Due to a jurisdictional conflict between the Cividale commissioner and the patriarch’s vicar, the pronouncement of Gaspurotto and Moduco’s punishment was postponed until 26 November 1581. Both denounced as heretics, they were spared from excommunication but condemned to six months imprisonment, and furthermore ordered to offer prayers and penances to God on certain days of the year, including the Ember Days, in order that he might forgive their sins. However, their penalties were soon remitted, on the condition that they remain within the city of Cividale for a fortnight.

Anna la Rossa and Donna Aquilina

Gaspurotto and Moduco would not be the only victims of Montefalco’s investigations however, for during late 1581 he had heard of a widow living in Urdine named Anna la Rossa. While she did not claim to be a benandante, she did claim that she could see and communicate with the spirits of the dead, and so Montefalco had her brought in for questioning on 1 January 1582. Initially denying that she had such an ability to the inquisitor, she eventually relented and told him of how she believed that she could see the dead, and how she sold their messages to members of the local community willing to pay, using the money in order to alleviate the poverty of her family. Although Montefalco intended to interrogate her again at a later date, the trial ultimately remained permanently unfinished.

That year, Montefalco also took an interest in the claims regarding the wife of a tailor living in Udine who allegedly had the power to see the dead and to cure diseases with the use of spells and potions. Known among locals as Donna Aquilina, she was said to have become relatively rich through offering her services as a professional healer, but when she learned that she was under suspicion from the Holy Inquisition, she fled the city, and Montefalco did not initially set out to locate her. Later, on 26 August 1583, Montefalco traveled to Aquilina’s home in order to interrogate her, but she fled and hid in a neighbouring house. She was finally brought in for interrogation on 27 October, in which she defended her practices, but claimed that she was neither a benandanti nor a witch.

Later history

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Italian folklorists – such as G. Marcotti, E. Fabris Bellavitis, V. Ostermann, A. Lazzarini and G. Vidossi – who were engaged in the study of Friulian oral traditions, noted that the term benandante had become synonymous with the term “witch”, a result of the original Church persecutions of the benandanti.

Proposed origins

Related traditions

The themes associated with the Benandanti (leaving the body in spirit, possibly in the form of an animal; fighting for the fertility of the land; banqueting with a queen or goddess; drinking from and soiling wine casks in cellars) are found repeated in other testimonies: from thearmiers of the Pyrenees, from the followers of Signora Oriente in 14th century Milan and the followers of Richella and ‘the wise Sibillia’ in 15th century Northern Italy, and much further afield, from Livonian werewolves, Dalmatian kresniki, Serbian zduhaćs,Hungarian táltos, Romaniancăluşari and Ossetian burkudzauta.

Historian Carlo Ginzburg posits a relationship between the Benandanti cult and the shamanism of the Baltic and Slavic cultures, a result of diffusion from a central Eurasian origin, possibly 6,000 years ago. This explains, according to him, the similarities between the Benandanti cult in the Friuli and a distant case in Livonia concerning a benevolent werewolf.

Indeed, in 1692 in Jurgenburg, Livonia, an area near the Baltic Sea, an old man named Theiss was tried for being a werewolf; his defense was that his spirit (and that of others) transformed into werewolves in order to fight demons and prevent them from stealing grain from the village. Historian Carlo Ginzburg has shown that his arguments, and his denial of belonging to a Satanic cult, corresponded to those used by the Benandanti. On 10 October 1692, Theiss was sentenced to ten whip strikes on charges of superstition and idolatry.