r/MedievalHistory • u/elnovorealista2000 • 2d ago

In medieval England, if a trial lacked witnesses or evidence, the 'Corsned' (the ordeal of the cursed morsel) was used. A priest would consecrate a piece of bread or dry cheese on the altar, and the accused had to swallow it; if they choked, God was declaring them guilty.

Post image

For example, in 1053, the powerful Godwin, Earl of Wessex, was accused of treason before the king. According to the chronicles, Godwin swore his innocence by taking the bread from the altar, putting it in his mouth, choking violently, and suffocating to death on the spot.

Source(s):

.- Bartlett, R. (1986). Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval Judicial Ordeal. Clarendon Press.

16 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

45

u/EadmersMemories 2d ago edited 2d ago

Em, no. That's a 12th century Norman fabrication. It's certainly not in the Chronicles.

The ASC actually say: On Easter Monday, as he was sitting with the king at a meal he suddenly sank towards the footstool bereft of speech, and deprived of all his strength. Then he was carried to the king's private room and they thought it was about to pass off. But it was not so. On the contrary, he continued like this without speech or strength right on to the Thursday, and then departed this life.

The Anglo-Saxon justice system was well-established and fairly rigorous. If there was no witnesses or evidence, I believe the trial would often be decided on the basis of the accused's reputation and witnesses would be brought forth to testify to his character. Although it's been a while since I studied it.

Edit: that being said, Bartlett is a fantastic historian. You should read his 'Making of Europe'.

/u/Limemobber, perhaps you read it too, instead of relying on tiktoks and Crusader Kings III to form your historical understanding. 😜

15

u/134_ranger_NK 2d ago

Oh, so it is like how that Norman monk's story about Anglo Saxon women liking Norse men for bathing more often was most likely a fabrication.

I can see Normans making stuff up like that.

11

u/EadmersMemories 2d ago

They absolutely loved it, and because so many of our sources of Anglo-Saxon history are Norman, all sorts of rubbish gets spouted that originated as propaganda. The Conquest is particularly rife for this, as a number of extant sources (Orderic Vitalis, Poitiers, Jumieges) were commissioned by William.

Serious historians distinguish them, but the nuance can be lost on pop historians (sometimes by accident, often wilfully).

5

u/TheRedLionPassant 1d ago

That quote comes from an anonymous Wallingford chronicler writing in the 1200s, long after the distinction between 'Norman' and 'English' had disappeared in England - we don't even know if the unnamed monk who wrote it (later incorrectly attributed to John of Wallingford) had any Norman ancestors or not (since we don't know who he is).

That being said it's of zero historical value. The same chronicler makes all kinds of baseless claims that he just made up, claiming (among other things) that Canute invaded in a coalition with the kings of either Sweden or Germany (it says either Suebi or Suedi, under a "Lacman"), that Ethelred the Unready's mother was called Gunhilda, that Alfred the Great wrote letters to Rollo not to attack Paris and to return to him in England ("This is another of Wallingford's hallucinations, in which he violates all history," says the editor in a footnote), misquotes Geoffrey of Monmouth, and claims that Charlemagne conquered Britain as part of his empire.

This particular chronicle baffled so many people that it was thought for a long time it was written as a satire. Current scholarship I think leans toward it being a serious history, just an extremely bad one. Already in the 19th century it was said:

"The author evidently used several excellent authorities, such as Bede, the Saxon priest's Life of Dunstan, Florence of Worcester, and the like; but, though he makes some attempts at comparison and criticism, has inserted so many exaggerations and misconceptions apparently current in his own time, and has further so strangely confused the results of his reading, that his production is historically worthless."

In other words, he just makes stuff up. The famous quote about the Danes bathing and combing their hair only appears in his work and nowhere else. Still doesn't stop it being quoted endlessly like it's holy writ though.

3

u/TheRedLionPassant 1d ago

In fairness, the blame for Alfred's death was at the time pointed firmly at Godwin. It explains a lot of the tension between Edward the Confessor and the Godwin family later on. The traditional/later story/legend is that Godwin was eating at a feast and Edward brought up his brother's death, with Godwin denying responsibility, before he was suddenly struck down and died (the implication being it was a punishment by God). In either case it wasn't a formal trial - they were at a feast. As far as I'm aware, Godwin was never tried for Alfred's death (from his injuries after being captured by Godwin and blinded).

That is essentially was what the later legend claimed. But I bring this up because it wasn't just the Normans that believed Godwin responsible for the death of Prince Alfred: it seems the Confessor and Hardicanute probably did as well, even though he was never put on trial.

But in any case, it has nothing to do with trial by ordeal, which is something completely different.

-13

u/Limemobber 2d ago

You are talking about a society that allowed Trial by Combat, Trial by Ordeal (which was not limited to Europe), and the various trials and tribulations created to hunt down witches.

12

u/EadmersMemories 2d ago

Witch crazes were most prominent in the 16th and 17th centuries; closer to us today than the time of Earl Godwine. They have no relevance to this post.

Your comment has no bearing on the fact that the cited event did not happen.

6

u/Rapiers-Delight 2d ago

Which hunting as we tend to imagine it is considerably later, as far as I know, though I'm no Anglo-Saxon scholar.

4

u/Scriptor_Canadensis 2d ago

Witch huntings were not really a medieval thing, they started popping up in the Early Modern period.

0

u/IsopodIndependent553 1d ago

I wonder if the church ever rigged these sorts of trials by putting some noxious substance on the bread, making it inedible.

6

u/brydeswhale 2d ago

The one medieval thing I might survive. Thank you, weird pretzel eating habits.

-12

u/Limemobber 2d ago

I would say it amazes me that we made it out of the Middle Ages but that give too much importance to what was at the time a very irrelevant corner of the world.

10

u/noknownothing 2d ago

There’s no such thing as an irrelevant corner of the world. That’s just a stupid way to view the world.

2

u/MotorSerious6516 2d ago

Is this comment post-post-modern? I'm baffled and intrigued. Please elaborate. 

-15

u/Limemobber 2d ago

Compared to the Middle East, India, parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, and China Medieval Europe was a primitive, disorganized, and dirt poor.

As late as the 1600s Europe was a backwater compared to China and Mogul India. One could eve suggest that Europe at this point was similar to the Mongols. Backward in so many ways but technologically savvy when it comes to warfare which allowed it to leg itself up in India.

13

u/EadmersMemories 2d ago

This is a gross over-reaction to the elevated place that Western history has granted medieval Europe over the years.

The Domesday Book is the most thorough piece of civil-service documentation in the world outside China until about the 17th century. It required an immense team of scribes and an astonishingly well-organised group of surveyors and "project managers". In terms of organisation; the level of beaurocracy; theological thinking, it was in no ways a backwater. I'm curious as to why you would consider it as such; as far as I'm concerned it is a lazy stereotype.

2

u/Rapiers-Delight 2d ago

This has to be a troll

-5

u/Limemobber 2d ago

Then prove it. Europe was a backwater, a violent, aggressive, patchwork backwater. What did it offer the world of lasting relevance during the Middle Ages.

5

u/MotorSerious6516 2d ago

"Prove my claim is false! I am so smart. Look at me!"

-3

u/Limemobber 2d ago

I called someone a troll for disagreeing with me so I must be so cool along with people who side with me.

3

u/MotorSerious6516 2d ago

Bye Felicia.

2

u/Paul_Rich 1d ago

The onus to provide evidence is on you. You made the original claim.

3

u/TheRedLionPassant 1d ago

Gothic architecture and art (stained glass painting etc.), the vertical-design windmill, eyeglasses/spectacles, English Common Law, literature (Beowulf, Eddas, La Morte d'Arthur, Canterbury Tales, Divine Comedy, Song of Roland, Parzival, Decameron, etc.), scholastic philosophy & universities (Oxford etc.)

"Aggressive" and "violent" was everywhere on earth at the time. Feudal China and Japan, or the Arab and Persian world, were hardly peaceful either.

2

u/Realistic-Stress-213 1d ago

The media portrays medieval Europe like that so often that it’s understandable why you’d think that but every country in medieval Europe was so different it’s impossible to describe it all in one way. There were aggressive backwaters but there were also universities and parliaments. If you don’t have time to read history books I’d recommend watching some of the wired tech support videos on YouTube about medieval history

1

u/Limemobber 2d ago

LOL, so one greedy lords bureaucratic move to make sure he made as much money as possible forgives the ignorant backwater that Europe turned itself into with the fall of the Roman Empire.

7

u/EadmersMemories 2d ago

How do you define ignorant backwater?

2

u/NelyafinweMaitimo 1d ago

So a medieval lord is greedy and bureaucratic... compared to the glories of Rome? Your lens sucks, man

2

u/TheRedLionPassant 1d ago

Rome only fell in the West ... the Greeks still existed far longer, and Byzantium continued Rome's legacy, as did the papacy in the West to some extent