#medievalparis

Regardless of how strong the connection between the aristocrat and god was, it was still not the strongest of the entire medieval society. That position belonged to the member of the clergy, the actual rulers of the society and the so called ‘first state’ in medieval France. The clergy was at the same time the highest, most respected societal strata, and perhaps paradoxically, at the same time the only one that gave some possibility of social mobility. A gifted medieval youngster could become a member of the monastery, and through diligent study, rise through the ranks of the Church. Some of the most important clergymen of medieval period, like abbot Suger (the inventor of Gothic style, and the personal advisor to the king Louis VII) were not of noble, but of common origin. Being a member of the clergy in the medieval period meant, in theory at least, renouncing the worldly affairs more so than the aristocracy, with the prospects of receiving the even higher reward. In this regard, the member of the clergy was the most adequate individual to control and oversee worldly matters, because they did not belong to the world. Their ambitions, aspirations and thoughts were all turned towards the sky. One might therefore think that the medieval clergy member was the one to completely disregard the body as the mere ‘dungeon of the soul’, as is the common trope, but this was not so. It was especially not so in France, the stronghold of the Marian Catholicism, a branch of religion that placed such a strong emphasis on Virgin Mary and therefore on the body – Virgin Mary being the giver of body to the Christ. Indeed, following the original message of the New Testament, the medieval members of the clergy conceptualized eternity in purely material, bodily fashion. When Christ speaks of eternal life, he does not offer it to the soul alone, but to body and soul alike. #medieval #medievalparis #middleages #medievalart #medievalarchitecture #stainedglass #stainedglasswindow #clergy #middleages #body #bodypolitics #religion #paris #medievalreligion #city #cityliving (presso Église Saint-Séverin) https://www.instagram.com/p/CK8YnPNp1lA/?igshid=lw3wh76swl2o

The capacity to rule by violence is an important aspect of the aristocratic body in the medieval period, and a notion that merits further explanation. One will agree that every society, regardless of the era, relies on laws. The laws, in order to work, rely on the distribution and control of violence – if one breaks the law, some form of violence will be applied on their person. This can range from carceration, corporeal or capital punishment – all of the instances are applications of violence in one form or the other. There is one major difference between modern bourgeois and the medieval societies. In the modern, post American and French revolution legislature, the law is defined by documents that the people (in theory) have agreed upon, and they apply to everyone (again, in theory) equally. The law is seen as an abstract form, hovering over society. Not so in the medieval period – the law was embodied in the actual body of the lord, be they a local aristocrat or the king. Lord’s body, infused by divine essence, was the law – both metaphorically and figuratively. As the aristocratic body was seen as different from birth, was trained to be different throughout their lives, was dressed to be visibly different – so was their capacity to exude lawfulness and right by their very presence. If one’s entire right to rule comes from the premise that they are divinely ordained; if, in that sense, they need to produce legitimate male heirs so as to continue the unbroken bond between ancestry and posterity through the law of primogeniture (the right of the first-born son); if these traits are the be-all of inheriting a title, it becomes clear why the body or the aristocrat, or, for that matter, the king, is an important political instrument. If a body is to exude and radiate law, it has to look, act and perform accordingly. The law has to be obvious and remarkable from the first glance. #medieval #medievalart #medievalparis #middleages #aristocracy #paris #body #bodypolitics #law #medievalaristocracy (presso Saint-Germain-des-Prés) https://www.instagram.com/p/CK0s_Mcp3er/?igshid=19478oz53tec0

In this regard, and certainly in their own mind, an aristocrat was very much like a Roman patrician. The bulk of medieval period was about preserving and perpetuating the Roman culture and mores – in this regard, the aristocrats saw themselves as the patricians, the leaders of the society. A Roman patrician, as one can expect, had a very different set of values than a Christian person might have had. In their world, and certainly in their class, there was no place for traits of character that were deemed as belonging to the lower classes – charity, empathy, understanding, pity, sense of common good; these were all seen as peasant or even the petit-bourgeois sentiments unworthy of an aristocrat. A noble had no pity, did not care for those who were lower on the social ladder than they, and nurtured a vague but often all too opportunistic sense of respect for those who were socially above them. Any idea of self-sacrifice was deeply foreign to such an individual, lest be it done for eternal glory, and understand a heroic endeavor, like, for example, a spectacular death in battle. Even so, the battle better be fought for the extension of their domains, the enlargement of their wealth, or the glory of Christian god, in whose religion they found an explication for the system of values in which they existed. In no imaginable universe would an aristocrat consider sacrificing themselves in combat or otherwise for the good of the people, or something similarly arcane. Nietzsche (possibly unintentionally) described this mindset when he misunderstood and erroneously spun the Hegel’s parabola of the master and servant. What we has actually doing was describing a Roman patrician and a plebeian, and very closely to that, a medieval aristocrat and a peasant (or a bourgeois). Like in Hegel’s take on the matter, the servant ends up taking over the master. So too was in Nietzsche’s philosophy, and so too was in the French revolution. #medieval #aristocracy #aristocrat #middleages #medievalparis #body #bodypolitics #paris #city #cityliving #citylife #medievalart (presso Église Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois de Paris) https://www.instagram.com/p/CKwD0v_pmbU/?igshid=1fhif3fzhrrmn

The aristocrat of the medieval period knew, both intuitively and conceptually, that putting on a good display, acting, was more important than the performance per se, doing. In actual war as well as in peace, instilling fear and respect into their surroundings, be they friends or foes, was the main occupation. This attitude is deeply embedded in many other aspects of French culture, even today, as what is on the surface, visible to others, is far more important than what is inside, concealed from the world. The aristocrat is the physical embodiment of this notion. Whereas the bourgeois would seek to hide their wealth, and invest it wisely in new business endeavors, rather than spending it on fancy clothes or a larger home, the aristocrat would go out of their way to spend more than they had, so that they could better impress. New income meant better clothes, finer armors and weapons, more ostentatious display – not new investments and a sense of material security. In this regard, the aristocrat were very much opposed to any sense of practicality, which was so cherished and respected by the bourgeois. They lived for glory, both quotidian and eternal, and caring for practical things was beneath them. What truly mattered was impressing, leaving a mark on the world, and making sure that a given individual burned as brightly as humanly possible. There was little place for humor, self-deprecation or irony. The staple aspect of bourgeois thinking and worldview were all but absent from the aristocratic mind. One such person was not uncomfortable in openly dominating their surroundings, and making sure the said surrounding understood beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were lesser forms of existence in comparison. Far from provoking unease, this was the raison d’être of a medieval noble. Projecting power, elegance, pride, arrogance, wealth, and general sense of superiority, was the sole purpose of aristocrat’s existence. #medieval #medievalart #medievalparis #middleages #body #bodypolitics #aristocats #medievalaristocracy #city #cityliving #paris #museeducluny (presso Musée de Cluny) https://www.instagram.com/p/CKtFP7FputG/?igshid=1nriew1asjuer

From the usage of the body, from the public image an aristocrat would nurture, it was to be known and understood without verbal explanation that the person in charge is positioned in that role by god, for a reason. Every aspect of one’s presentation was to communicate this message, and using one’s body accordingly and appropriately was of essence. The difference between an aristocrat and a commoner was to be made obvious from a mile away. This was not that difficult to accomplish, neither. The medieval period in Europe knew more than one famine and bouts of plague, as well as many other catastrophic diseases. This meant that resources were quite limited, and most people didn’t get to eat properly, to the measure where it actually stunted both mental and physical development. The situation with famine could be so dire that even the king of England, as was recorded, had to skip lunch because there was simply no food to be found. This particular event pertains to the great famine of 1315-17, and the unfortunate king in question was Edward the II. Still, a lord skipping lunch or dinner was more the exception than the rule – a peasant skipping one was the rule. The aristocratic child that actually got to eat properly, would also then get the chance to normally develop, and to therefore be visibly different than the child of the peasant. They grew larger, stronger, more agile, and also smarter. Perhaps shockingly – and perhaps not – in Europe this situation only started to change with the industrial revolution, and was not fully addressed until after the World War II. Back in the medieval period, on account of food depravation versus reasonable access to food alone (not to mention many other reasons that played a role in this situation), a peasant would indeed look, think and act entirely different in comparison to their lord. #medieval #medievalparis #medievaleurope #medievalarchitecture #medievalart #body #bodypolitics #aristocracy #aristocrat #peasant #peon (presso Musée de Cluny) https://www.instagram.com/p/CKqhBlnpwtw/?igshid=1xtromcwmguus

While the bourgeois is defined by what they do, by their profession, the crux of aristocratic pride is not to have one. Like the material facts of peasants’ lives shaped their views of their bodies, and their place in the world, so too was the case with the business minded bourgeois and the rule oriented aristocrat. Saying that this class had no occupation was, at least in theory, not entirely true. Like any other class, the aristocrats had a purpose and a role in society. Theirs was in most cases to wage war and to protect the realm. The most respected form of aristocracy, and, some would argue, the oldest and truest, was the noblesse d’épée, or the nobility of the sword. This means that originally, aristocrats were soldiers and knights, tasked and trained to be professional warriors. Their titles come from the military ranks and duties – le duc, from Latin ducere, to lead, the leader – marquis, from the marka, which is the border, signified a nobleperson tasked to protect the border, and so on. To properly understand the worldview of a medieval aristocrat (something one can never actually do from this perspective – but one can still try) one needs to displace oneself in the world before the annihilation and utter destruction brought about by the two world wars of the 20th century. Certainly, one needs to try and understand warfare before the affair became industrialized and therefore much more efficient and deadly. For a considerable period of history, war was seen as a natural state, and from a male perspective, pertained to what is nowadays labeled as toxic masculinity – a chance for a man to fully affirm his manhood and realize his potential as a person. The war was seen, mostly by those who wore solid armors, as the most purposeful occupation one could have, and the most meaningful endeavor a man can undertake. The aristocrat of the medieval period held war in very high esteem, and likewise would have not more than contempt for just about anything else. In their mind, dealing with money was a lowly, filthy affair – dealing with death and carnage was the only truly dignified occupation. #medieval #medievalarchitecture #medievalparis https://www.instagram.com/p/CKizmwbJk33/?igshid=fy6oo94qrwg4

It would not be entirely accurate to state that the aristocrat is (only) a social rang above the bourgeois, though it may seem that way from the today’s perspective. Back in the day, an aristocrat could be ruined, broke or separated from their lands, but they would still essentially be of different species altogether than a peasant or a bourgeois. The medieval France recognized three classes, the commoners (mostly peasants), the aristocrats, and the clergy. This division was so strong and deeply rooted, that they treated these strata as different states, under different laws, though the coexisted in the same territory. The notion of a singular, unitary state, where all of the laws apply to everyone equally (in theory, at least), only came with the French revolution and the notion of the nation state. Back in the day, the situation was far more complicated. As it was stated, most of higher ranking clergy came from the strata of aristocracy – so, one could factually speak of two classes (states) rather than one or three. On the other end, the life of a bourgeois was very different than that of a peasant, down to the level of being subject to different laws, taxes and an altogether different administration. Some cities had free status, with free people living in them; on the other end were the serfs attached to the land and a particular domain of a specific lord. While this difference is very obvious and important, the peasants and the city dwellers were still seen as belonging to the same strata, class, or in medieval terms, the state. This was likely so due to practicality of their lives, as both strata dealt with what was concrete, material and of this world. #medieval #medievalarchitecture #medievalart #medievalparis #body #bodypolitics #city #cityliving #medievalcity #medievalcities (presso Église Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre de Paris) https://www.instagram.com/p/CKdmpb7pthi/?igshid=txgm78an5955

Intelligence was key. Under the influence of Aristotle’s philosophy, creating something out of matter meant recognizing the potential for divine form to be embodied, endowing the created object with intelligence and structure. In this regard, even for a stonemason, or a wood-mason, intelligence was key, and much more important than the usage of their hands. It goes without saying that the artists, painters and sculptors felt the same way. The way the bourgeois regarded the body; that of themselves as well as of the others, was purely through the perspective of reason. The body did not exist as such – it was not a naturally occurring fact, itself an extension of nature. The body was more like a machine driven by reason, infused by intelligence, where every part would come together to form a coherent whole. As the bourgeois class grew in power and wealth, one was able to observe how this attitude permeated the visual arts, and how the renaissance aesthetics was slowly being made. The mathematical calculations and questions of form and symmetry took the primacy over raw, immediate, and direct representations. The body for a medieval bourgeois was more the object of contemplation, one of a very particular kind. This is not the thinking of the clergyman, or that of the alchemist, or that of the astrologer. It is not a speculation of the individual, as the previously mentioned, who seeks the connection between eternity and the human bodily existence. It is the contemplation of the practical mind, preoccupied by earthy affairs, mostly by gaining money and generating wealth. The bourgeois prowess with numbers is not that of Pythagoras, Plato, or that of the scholar of the kabbalah – it is the interest an accountant has in numbers. Thinking about the human body in these terms is always practical and down to earth, with a strong emphasis on earthly affairs. The bourgeois is interested in what is visible, quantifiable, measurable, and empirical. The way their feel and conceptualize their bodies, the same. #medieval #medievalarchitecture #medievalart #medievalparis #middleages #burger #bourgeois #bourgeoisie #body #bodypolitics (presso Église Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre de Paris) https://www.instagram.com/p/CKbC8r4J1Jk/?igshid=wi62err9pvnd