Paul Of Aegina (7th C.)
“As far back as the 7th century Paul of Aegina had discussed at some length the causes and treatment of ‘melancholia’ and ‘mania’.” (Crombie, 1959: 236).
Further research is pending.
Crombie, A. C.. (1959). Medieval And Early Modern Science. Volume I: Science In The Middle Ages: V-XIII Centuries. 2nd Ed. NY, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.
———————————————————————————————————————
St. Bede The Venerable (7th-8th C.)
In the early eighth century, a cleric named Bede (The Venerable), wrote one of the most important pieces of literature of the medieval period: History Of The English Church And Her People. The title of the text explains exactly what Bede wrote. The monk’s opus is anecdotal and entertaining, and, like many other such texts, his writing often touches upon disability, elucidating the ways in which they were represented in medieval stories and literature.
The first instance features the father of a disabled boy “whose infirmity proclaimed his need louder than words” (Bede, 1968: 64), who approaches local bishops for help. “All were moved to pity by the spectacle, especially the bishops, who prayed God to have mercy” (Bede, 1968; 64).
In the third book of the History Bede tells a story about an abbess. When
a guest visited her abbey who was often horribly tormented by an evil [epilepsy?] spirit during the night hours. This man was hospitably welcomed, and had retired to bed after supper, when he was suddenly possessed by the devil” (Bede, : 159-160).
Finally, in the fifth book of his History, during a series of faith healing stories, the blessed Saint mentions that
In a village not far distant, lived a dumb [deaf] youth known to the bishop; for he had often visited him to receive alms and had never been able to utter a single word. (Bede, : 272).
Paradigm Placement – Charity, pity, help.
The first instance of representation of disability in Bede tells the modern reader that it was usual for those living with disability to seek the aid of the Church -a notion which is corroborated by a number of other sources presented on this website. It also displays the -perhaps idealised- reaction of the episcopacy to the needs of the indigent and disabled: the bishops were moved to compassion for the youth.
This is further supported by the second reference. Here, as in other documents reviewed, a monastery is used as a hospital, or at least a place in which those with mental and physical ailments could obtain support. In fact, it seems likely that the monastery was offering round-the-clock care, as the man was supported even after hours, when most would have been sleeping.
The final story is very similar to the first, in that it tells the modern reader little more than that the bishops were associated with helping those with disabilities. It is clear that the young many knew that the bishop would be able to help him survive.
All of this goes to show that, in the sources from which Bede wrote his History, and for those who read his works, disabled persons were understood to be deserving of alms and medical attention. While there is little evidence that the Saint believed them to exercise significant agency (beyond knowing the best sources of succour) there is a clear feeling that those with means should help those who face adversity.
Bede, The Venerable. (1968). A History Of The English Church And Her People. (Leo Sherley-Price, Rev. R. E. Latham, trans.). (Penguin Books: Great Britain).
———————————————————————————————————————
Einhard’s Life Of Charlemagne (9th C.)
When Charlemagne died in 814, having been king of the Franks for decades and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither holy nor Roman) for just under fourteen years, he left behind a legacy which would grow over time until, by the eleventh century folklore hyperbolically stated that “Two hundred years…have passed him by. In lands so many he’s conquered far and wide” (Sayers, 1965; 72). In the wake of his death, several men undertook to write his biography. Employing many motifs, and often using their books to tell anecdotal or even unrelated stories, these biographers wrote much of what we know of the great emperor. One such chronicler was Einhard, a man of noble birth who was a monk -although not, it seems, a very strict one, as he seems to raise no objections about Charlemagne’s continual fornication and his numerous remarriages- and served for over twenty years at the imperial court in Aachen (Thorpe, 1969).
In his book, Einhard discusses a story also discussed by other chroniclers: that of the insurrection by Pepin the Hunchback, Charlemagne’s son by a concubine. Whether or not Pepin was truly a hunchback can be debate without end: it is possible that this depiction is merely a poetic motif popular in the ninth century, and thus may or may not be historical, either way, Einhard makes a clear contrast between this insurrectionist and his father. While Charlemagne was “…strong and well built. He was tall in stature, but not excessively so, for his height was just seven times the length of his own feet…” (Einhard, 1969; 76).
This description continues and “many details…are taken from what Suetonius said about Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius and Nero!” (Thorpe, 1969; 185). In contrast, Einhard amplifies Pepin’s disability, stating that “He was tall enough, but had a hunchback” (Einhard, 1969; 73).
After the attempted deposition is discovered, Charlemagne has the conspirators killed for treason and sends Pepin to the monastery at Prum.
Paradigm Placement – Dangerous, evil.
Here, Pepin is seen to be crippled and evil, and the two things seem to go hand-in-hand. Einhard, as a courtier, shows little sympathy for his position and certainly considers physical attributes to be paramount in understanding one’s highness or baseness in society. Through his descriptions of both Charlemagne and his son, it is clear that the emperor’s Roman good looks and Pepin’s disfigurement are intrinsic parts of how their actions were understood by his intended audience. It ought also be be mentioned that Pepin can be seen to lack agency on account of his failed attempt to seize the throne and his subsequent deportation, implying some level of victimhood.
A similar fixation on physique as relating to one’s character is evident in other popular secular medieval stories such as The Romance Of Tristan, by Beroul and Erec And Enide and Cliges, by Chretien De Troyes. As a result, disability (and generalised otherness) was associated with evil and dangerousness, while handsomeness and comeliness were conflated with goodness, benevolence, chivalry, and military prowess.
Einhard, Notker The Stammerer. (1969). Einhard And Notker The Stammerer: Two Lives Of Charlemagne. (Lewis Thorpe, Trans.). England, UK: Penguin Classics.
Thorpe, Lewis. (1969). “Introduction”. In Einhard, Notker The Stammerer. (1969). Einhard And Notker The Stammerer: Two Lives Of Charlemagne. (Lewis Thorpe, Trans.). England, UK: Penguin Classics.
Sayers, Dorothy. (1965). The Song Of Roland. England: Penguin Classics.
———————————————————————————————————————
Notker The Stammerer (9th/10th C.)
Notker, like Einhard tells the story of Charlemagne’s insurrectionist son Pepin the hunchback. It is clear from the fact that both men used the narrative that by the end of the ninth century, this story had gained both currency and popularity. However, the tone of Notker’s writing is quite different from that of Einhard. While the latter is terse and to-the-point, Notker is rather anecdotal, and, having never known Charlemagne, he is less concerned with accuracy (this is evidenced by the almost comical nature of a number of the stuttering monk’s stories).
In Notker’s version of the tale, Pepin is exiled to Prum having been discovered by his father, just as Einhard states. However, Notker continues the story stating that, some years after he was tonsured, a group of emissaries was sent him from Charlemagne. The then King had discovered that a number of his most valiant followers were planning an insurrection against him and he sought his son’s advice. The messengers find him working in the garden with the old men and, having explained the situation, seek his council.
Pepin sighed deeply from the bottom of his heart, for all deformed people have a tendency to be more irritable than those who are properly proportioned (Notker, 1969; 155).
He then tells them to uproot any plants which are of no use. The messengers, bewildered, and fearing that this answer might put their master in further wroth, ask again. Receiving the same answer, they petition him yet again, and receive the same answer and all the cripple’s ire. Finally they leave, and, after some interrogation, tell Charlemagne what his son had told them. This leads the king to successfully expunge all the insurrectionists from amongst his men.
Paradigm Placement – Danger, sympathy, agency.
This narrative describes disabled persons as dangerous, offers them agency, and is somewhat sympathetic -a strange combination to say the least. On the one hand, as in Einhard’s story, Pepin is seen to be duplicitous and deceptive. He leads a failed insurrection against the subject of the hagiography and is therefore necessarily evil. Yet, he is redeemed by the fact that Charlemagne seeks advice of him, and by the fact that said advice is to the king’s distinct advantage. This shows not only Pepin’s evil, but also his value: he can undo some of the evil he has committed, thereby showing redemption and the concomitant agency. Finally, the abovementioned quotation shows clear sympathy. Notker appears to understand that, on account of his deformation, the man is irascible, and that this makes sense. In a strange way, the stuttering monk almost vindicates the attempted assassin of his own hero. Regardless, Notker’s comments about the short temperedness of disabled people shows a clear understanding of disability and a degree of sympathy for their plight.
As a result, Notker’s life of Charlemagne is something of an anomaly within the paradigm. Notker employs the image of a cripple to create a malevolent character, but he also clearly demonstrates some level of empathy for him and seeks to absolve him in some way of his grievances against the well-remembered king and emperor. This must, therefore, be seen as the exception which proves the rule.
Einhard, Notker The Stammerer. (1969). Einhard And Notker The Stammerer: Two Lives Of Charlemagne. (Lewis Thorpe, Trans.). England, UK: Penguin Classics.
———————————————————————————————————————
The Death Of Baldir (9th-11th C.)
The Old Norse told many myths about their gods. Some of these tales were moral stories, some were explanations of events both historical and natural, and some, such as The Death Of Balder, were tellings of unfortunate events, often with the underlying notion of demonstrating the failure of the law (Njal’s Saga and Hrafnkel’s Saga are both examples of this last type of literature).
The popular story of The Death Of Balder begins by explaining how all of the gods in Asgard were concerned because Balder, a son of Odin and Frigg, was perturbed by bad dreams. Fearing that this gentle god might come to harm Frigg travels the nine worlds and obtains an oath from every element and substance to the effect that it will not harm her son. As a result, the gods discover they can throw all manner of objects at Balder without doing him any damage. This becomes a great source of entertainment to all except for Hod, Balder’s blind brother who cannot partake on account of his disability, and Loki, whose malicious nature makes him resentful. The latter of these two manages to obtain from Frigg, while in disguise as an old crone, that the only thing which did not swear to spare Balder was a mistletoe plant.
Malevolent as always, Loki finds the spray of mistletoe, forms it into a spear and then meets the other gods at the mead hall Gladsheim, where they are throwing things at Balder. All except “blind Hod, Balder’s brother [who was] standing a little aside as usual – pathetic in his slow fumbling movements…He had long since accepted his fate.” (Crossley-Holland, 2011; 153). Loki approaches him and convinces him to join in the fun by throwing the spear at Balder. This Hod does and the spear kills Balder. There is an immediate realisation in the story that Loki is actually guilty, but that Hod must be punished because he unwittingly threw the dart.
Paradigm Placement – Victimhood, patheticness.
The portrayal of blind Hod is one of pure victimhood. He is described in the myth as an individual who lacks agency and ability. Never is his blindness seen as something which could yield positive results: it is an impairment which impedes his ability to partake in the heroic society in which he lives.
When Loki deceives him into throwing the shaft, Hod unknowingly dooms himself despite his innocent intention. Loki uses Hod to further his own pernicious ends and there is little that poor Hod can do about it. He is either excluded or used as a pawn: he has little agency of his own. Naturally, then, it is clear that, in the myths of the old north, disability was viewed as an unfortunate disposition, rendering the victim helpless.
Anonymous. (2011). The Penguin Book Of Norse Myths: Gods And Vikings. (Kevin Crossley-Holland, Trans.). Great Britain, UK: Penguin.
———————————————————————————————————————