Since this is not a thing one sees in period illustrations (to the best of my knowledge), what is the source for this practice? Is there some famous period passage about "everye soldier wearing a roserye uponne his belte" or something like that? Even if you feel a soldier is likely to OWN a rosary, is there any evidence whatsoever that wearing them on the belt was common?

I get the feeling that this is a "Re-enactor see---re-enactor do" sort of fashion. Or a "seems like they would've done it" sort of thing.

Any light that could be shed upon this conundrum by you clever people would be appreciated.

[ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Yeoman ]

--------------------

I too think it's a reenactor fashion, as I can't cite one instance of a soldier in a primary source wearing one...and I've looked. As a matter of fact, when this was brought up before I went looking and what I found made us ask our guys *not* to wear rosaries on their belts as a matter of course.

A lot of art during this period is religious in nature and the "donor portrait" was certainly coming into its own. Almost all of these paintings depict the donor and his wife with rosary beads in their hands--for obvious reasons. I believe it is a widely held assumption that

1) Everybody used rosary beads because everyone was religious
2) Soldiers thought they were going to die and therefore kept rosaries around as a talisman.

I've heard reenactors use these lines and I think either statement is pretty hard to back up.

We talked about rosaries and rosary confraternaties in another thread, you might want to take a look at it to see what was covered.

That's just my take on it.

it might be something unique to pilgrams, of course....

--AM

--------------------

The other post is here: http://www.wolfeargent.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000094

My "impression" at events is one of a squire traveling Europe in his King's entourage to help raise a Crusade. Would he not be a little more pious than most (or at least find it expedient to appear to be)?

That was the thrust of my question in the other thread on a crusifix. Is it something a squire would wear in 1362, or did the artifacts I've seen belong to ladies?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Hurley:
Yeoman,

The other post is here: http://www.wolfeargent.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000094

Dont forget that "rosary" and "crucifix" are two different things. the Crucifix is the little cross thingie that modern people hang on their rosaries. What makes a rosary a rosary is the fact that its a gizmo you use to keep track of prayers. They're usually made of beads, but not always! there's some great german examples of rings sewn on flat strips.

There are some illos of rosaries that have pendant gizmos like a cross or even a metal star of david (IIRC), but not all, and in fact, according to my reading, most are just beads and maybe a tassel. Definately NO little Jesus' like on all modern rosaries.

again, please check out the other thread on rosaries...there's a lot of good info there!

hope this helps....
--Anne-Marie
My "impression" at events is one of a squire traveling Europe in his King's entourage to help raise a Crusade. Would he not be a little more pious than most (or at least find it expedient to appear to be)?

That was the thrust of my question in the other thread on a crusifix. Is it something a squire would wear in 1362, or did the artifacts I've seen belong to ladies?

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Bob Hurley ]

---

--------------------

Try to keep in mind that the CHURCH was not exactly participitory at this time, more an odd paradox of secret club with it's own language which was foisted on the population. Some bought into the whole "Sacred Mysteries" thing and followed blindly, others gave it lip service for appearances' sake.

Additionally, representational art was nearly 100% religious at this time, and something as clearly representational as a crucifix would have been seen as "sacred" and not meant to be dishonored by swinging around on one's belt. Beads used to count prayers is one thing, but a representation of Christ on the cross is quite another matter.

Do I think a soldier would carry a crucifix? No.

Might a soldier of sufficient station have an icon or crucifix? Possibly, but it more likely would be an icon of the Virgin and Child. The early Church seems to focus more on Christ's birth than the modern Church which is centered on the Crucifixion.

That's my take on it, sorry I missed the question earlier.

BTW, though, do a search for "rosary" at orb.rhodes.edu - one of the hits on the second page is a description of an illus showing a soldier with a 'rosary' in his belt. Unfortunately, no image, but it may help the more resourceful here...

quote:

---

JETSMARK. c. 1474. 13-25. Human, unidentified. Sect 2, east
arch, left. Unidentified soldier, armed with club, knife, sword
and ax. He has a rosary in his belt.

---

Stephen atte Smyte

Would Gaston, a squire of some means, traveling in 1362 with his liege knight who is a retainer to King Pierre I of Cyprus who is traveling Europe seeking to raise a Crusade, be likely to wear a paternoster? If so, how would he wear it, and when? And, the same set of questions concerning a decorative cross (not crucifix) on a simple chain around his neck? I have seen such a cross attributed as French and contemporary to my impression. I have no idea who wore it, and how.

Would Gaston be more likely to have a less public devotional item with him, like a small altar with the Madonna in his tent?

I know it's nitpicking, but I feel it's the little things that make the whole thing "feel" right. And I have so many thousands of them to sort out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Hurley:
Much of my confusion seems to be from asking the wrong question. I'll try again, if I may.

Would Gaston, a squire of some means, traveling in 1362 with his liege knight who is a retainer to King Pierre I of Cyprus who is traveling Europe seeking to raise a Crusade, be likely to wear a paternoster? If so, how would he wear it, and when? And, the same set of questions concerning a decorative cross (not crucifix) on a simple chain around his neck? I have seen such a cross attributed as French and contemporary to my impression. I have no idea who wore it, and how.

Would Gaston be more likely to have a less public devotional item with him, like a small altar with the Madonna in his tent?

I know it's nitpicking, but I feel it's the little things that make the whole thing "feel" right. And I have so many thousands of them to sort out.

[ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: Bob Hurley ]

---

would joe medieval guy carry a pasternoster at his belt? maybe. please note that this is not "wearing" a paternoster. People other than Madonna dont "wear" rosaries. They arent jewelry, they are religious tools. It would be like using the sanctified chalice for your morning coffee...

would he wear a cross around his neck? probably not. My logic for this is that we have NO extant examples that I know of for crosses as simple jewelry. Crosses are always either fancy schmancy objects of adoration and worship (even when they're plain, they are endowed with almost magical powers of inspiration to the faithful. The churches in France are full of simple wooden crosses carried by pilgrams in processions, etc. some of them hundreds of years old. Very inspiring, i though....), or else a motif in textiles and/or pilgrams badges, etc (which I've never seen as simple crosses, but come in a myriad of other religious themes).

would he have an icon in his tent? maybe. depends on well to do he is. You'd not only need to be rich enough to buy one, but rich enough to carry it around and be assured that nothing would happen to it, ie you have a tent of your own and someone to carry your baggage....

I guess it comes down to this. Some folks are really religious. Some folks are religious and dont choose to show it. Some folks are only as religious as society expects them to be. Idont think that's changed much in 500 years .

how religiuos do you want Gaston to be?

--AM
good foryou for looking at the details, by the way .

--------------------

I'd suppose that Gaston isn't necessarily that religious, but it would be somewhat expected of him to give some outward appearance of it considering his master's mission. Perhaps a paternoster looped through the belt is a good compromise, although I hesitate because I know that's overdone.

The other part of the issue is that I would never wish to offend someone by using something they regard as Holy in "playacting".

Jan Van Eyck The Arnolfini Marriage 1434 shows one hanging on the wall behind the couple being wed.(pp. 42-3)

Robert Campin's Mérode Alterpiece 1427-1428 a woman on the left in the background is kneeling and holding a string. (pg. 60)

Rogier Van Der Weyden St. Columba Alterpiece1460. Center Panel The Adoration of the Magi, the man on the left kneeling kind of in the background is holding a set of beads.(pp. 81-2)

quote:

---

You see Christ on the cross in churches, but not on rosaries,

---

In my "big book" of Van Der Weyden Rogier van der Weyden by Dirk De Vos (pg. 306) Philippe de Croÿ, in a "studio" portrait is depicted holding a rosary of gray crystal or glass and amber colored beads with a crucifix (with Jesus on the cross) at one end and a tassle at the other.

All of these examples are 15th c. and may not have any bearing on Gaston's portrayal.

All but two have an "adoration" theme. Marriage is considered a sacrament and thus could explain the rosary's presence on the wall. With Philippe De Croÿ it could just be a prop in van der Weyden's studio or the Philippe could really be a devout follower of Christ and wanted it reflected in his portrait.

All other images of folks carrying rosaries were holy men or pilgrims. I didn't see any of these folks carrying it on a belt but my art books are not definitive by any stretch of the imagination. Doesn't mean it didn't happen, I just couldn't find anything in my books.

Perhaps a compromise. Instead of looping it through or carrying it on your belt, perhaps keeping it in a belt pouch until you decide it is necessary to "show your religion" for historical/atmospheric impressions.

Just a thought.

Jenn

[ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: Fire Stryker ]

--------------------

My issue has been the frequent observation of re-enactors (in photos, published in popular books), who are for the most part playing soldiers in combat situations, wearing the rosary on the belt. I have subsequently seen other living history performers take on the same fashion, and have wondered whether they had come across historical evidence of the practice, or were merely copying what they saw from these "influential" photos.

These photo books can be very useful & inspiring. But I guess it's good to back up what you see there with your own research whenever possible.

--------------------

I think Gerry Embleton stated in his latest book about "reconstruction" being taken as absolute fact and that it is something we must be careful of when presenting our snapshot to ourselves or the public. I think it is also the Company of St. George that will not let you wear a specific pilgrims badge unless you have actually made the pilgramage to that specific site. How's that for being tough?

--------------------

Sounds great to me... But somehow I dont think a pilrims badge for the local quick stop holds the same luster

--------------------

--------------------