Prima nocta is an ancient tradition in which noble lords, including kings and dukes, had the right to have sex with any female subject, regardless of their will or even with a virgin bride, on her wedding night. This semi-historical legal right, also known as jus primae noctis or droit du seigneur, was a feudal right in medieval Europe that allowed lords to engage in sexual intercourse with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night.
The practice of prima nocta was a shortening of the Latin phrase jus prima nocta or “right of the first night”, which gave the ruler the right to bed any female subject regardless of their will. The right of first night deflowering (ius primae noctis) was also practiced by despotic Roman chieftains who took the custom to a new level by charging.
Jus primae noctis, also known as Droit du seigneur, was a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with any female subject, particularly on her wedding night. This practice was a subject of much interest and considerable controversy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Scholars debated whether it was a remnant of older days where lords had even more power over the common people.
In summary, prima nocta is an ancient tradition in which noble lords had the right to have sex with any female subject, particularly on their wedding night. This practice was a significant topic of debate in medieval Europe, with scholars arguing that it was a remnant of older times when lords held even more power over the common people.
📹 Was Prima Nocta Real?
Was Prima Nocta Real? #medievalhistory #medieval #historyfacts #braveheart #scotland #england #englishhistory #edward …
What is the privilege of the first night?
The first night of marriage was a privilege granted to kings by the Valyrians, who were considered gods by the smallfolk of Dragonstone. This tradition was resented and loathed in the rest of the Seven Kingdoms, but the smallfolk of Dragonstone viewed their beautiful rulers as gods. When a Lord of Dragonstone took his rights according to the first night custom, the brides were seen as “blessed”, and children born of such unions were often given lavish gifts by their fathers.
Bastards who inherited Valyrian features, such as purple eyes, were said to be born of “dragonseeds” and later known as “seeds”. Under the Iron Throne, King Aegon I Targaryen allowed high lords to retain both the right of pit and gallows and the first night.
What is the prima nocta Act?
Prima Nocta was a law enforced by Edward I of England to prevent the Scots from settling in England. It granted English nobles the right to sleep with a woman on the first night of their marriage. The act was first used by Morrison and his wife, but there is no historical evidence to support its use. Prima Nocta, derived from the Latin word “jus primae noctis”, refers to a legal right in medieval Europe allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women on their wedding night.
What is the king’s right to sleep with the brides?
The droit du seigneur, or “right of the lord”, was a feudal right in medieval Europe that granted the lord the right to sleep with the bride of one of his vassals. This custom is similar to primitive societies but is more indirect, with records of redemption dues paid by the vassal to avoid enforcement of certain lordly rights. Many intellectual investigations have focused on the issue, as many feudal rights related to the vassal’s marriage were redeemed by a money payment, and the droit du seigneur likely amounted to another tax.
What is the meaning of prima nocta?
Prima nocta, derived from the Latin word “first night”, refers to an ancient tradition where noble lords, including kings and dukes, had the right to have sex with any of their female subjects, regardless of their will or even a virgin bride, on their wedding night. This feudal, misogynistic practice was first mentioned in the second-millennium BCE Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh and in the fifth-century BCE Histories by Ancient Greek historian Herodotus.
However, scholars since the 1800s have questioned the existence of prima nocta, believing it was a trope used to make rulers appear more barbaric. It is possible that prima nocta may have been real, but instances were never recorded due to the victims’ low social status. There is also no clear-cut evidence that the phrase jus primae noctis was ever used as the formal name of any law.
When was prima nocta abolished?
The practice of jus prima nocta, an ancient custom, was first mentioned in the 1500s through stories of Scottish king Malcolm III abolishing it under the influence of his wife, Ferdinand II of Aragon. Renaissance and Early Modern literature used this custom as a plot device to depict evil antagonists. French philosopher and writer Voltaire coined the term “lord’s right” to describe the Early Middle Ages or Dark Ages, highlighting the advancements in society by the 17th century and the age of the Enlightenment, transforming society from barbaric to sophisticated with rational laws.
What is the right of prima nocta?
Droit du seigneur, also known as jus primae noctis or prima nocta, was a legal right in medieval Europe that allowed feudal lords to have sexual relations with any female subject, especially on her wedding night. This custom has been referenced throughout the centuries and is often translated as “right of the lord” in French. Modern French usage prefers the term “right de jambage” or “right de cuissage” (leg) or “thigh” (thigh). The French expression translates to “right of the lord” but is more commonly known as “right de jambage” or “right de cuissage”.
Did prima nocta exist in Scotland?
The “primo nocta” tradition, also known as “jus primae noctis” or “droit du seigneur,” is a myth. There is no evidence that this tradition was a real phenomenon or that Edward I used it to subdue Scotland.
Who are the members of prima nocta?
Prima Nocta is a group of six music enthusiasts who create unique and energetic performances. They combine the skills of members Kwintijn, Pros, Rony, Edwin, Bert, and Stéphane, delivering electrified riffs, deafening drums, and gigantic bagpipes. The band combines the style of In Extremo with the German efficiency of Rammstein, incorporating soft melodies and strong percussions. Prima Nocta is a top group on the Folk Metal scene and will announce new concerts for 2023.
Was prima nocta an actual thing?
Primae Noctis, a practice popularized in medieval folklore and literature, has no concrete origins in any specific historical period or culture. It has been associated with ancient Rome, feudal Europe, and other societies, but historians have debated whether it was a real social custom or a fictional construct. Early references to a practice resembling Primae Noctis can be found in ancient Roman literature, particularly in the works of Ovid and Martial.
However, these references are often poetic or rhetorical, leaving room for interpretation regarding their historical accuracy. The association of Primae Noctis with feudal Europe is primarily derived from later medieval literature and folklore, with tales like the “Tale of the Two Lovers” by Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini and Geoffrey Chaucer portraying the practice as a symbol of the arbitrary and oppressive power wielded by feudal lords.
However, the depiction of Primae Noctis in these works does not necessarily imply historical accuracy, as they may have been influenced by literary conventions and authors’ intentions to critique societal inequalities.
Can the king and queen not sleep together?
Historically, royal marriages have not been arranged, and the King and Queen have occupied separate bedchambers. This arrangement permits both parties to engage in sexual intercourse with whomever they desire, thereby preventing the influence of romantic feelings on their lives.
Why is Braveheart controversial?
The screenplay for the film Braveheart was inspired by Blind Harry’s 15th-century epic poem, The Acts and Deeds of Sir William Wallace, Knight of Elderslie. However, the poem is not considered historically accurate, and some incidents in the film are based on it, such as the hanging of Scottish nobles. Elizabeth Ewan describes Braveheart as a film that sacrifices historical accuracy for epic adventure, making it one of the most historically inaccurate modern films.
The film contains numerous historical inaccuracies, such as the wearing of belted plaid, which was not introduced until the 16th century by Wallace and his men. The Highlanders’ first attempt at wearing belted plaid was not in the bizarre style depicted in the film, comparing it to a film about Colonial America showing colonial men wearing 20th-century business suits with jackets worn back-to-front instead of the right way around.
Peter Traquair has referred to Wallace’s “farcical representation as a wild and hairy highlander painted with woad (1, 000 years too late) running amok in a tartan kilt (500 years too early). Caroline White of The Times described the film as being made up of a “litany of fibs”. Irish historian Seán Duffy remarked that the battle of Stirling Bridge could have done with a bridge.
In 2009, the film was second on a list of “most historically inaccurate movies” in The Times. Author John O’Farrell claims that Braveheart could not have been more historically inaccurate, even if a Plasticine dog had been inserted into the film and the title changed to “William Wallace and Gromit”.
📹 Did The Ius Primae Noctis REALLY Exist? Medieval Misconceptions
The Ius Primae Noctis was allegedly the right noble men had in the Middle Ages, to Have sex with a subject girl on her wedding …
To the part of taxing marriage with people from different villages: It also went into the direction of an actual tax because the church forbid marriage between closely related people and at some point you would be quite closely related to almost anyone in your village so you had to marry into an other village.
I like these kind of articles that argue against dark aspects of medieval history, showcasing that there was indeed at least SOME level of humanity in our ancient past. I would like to see more of these, particularly about how knights and samurai behaved towards commoners (it may vary between individual people and situations, which I’d be interested in knowing about).
Well, Giglamesh has a theme about this. One of the main themes of the Illiad is pretty much literally this. “Don’t force your underlings to scede their women to you, ’cause that practice of leadership does not work with humans”. As a human male, I can see why that might be a pretty universal piece of advice to leaders. I don’t enjoy the idea of my girl sleeping with other men – at all. And that probably has some pretty obvious evolutionary reasons behind it. If my boss forces her to sleep with him, Imma be salty about it, Achilles style… . Ultimateley it doesn’t really matter whether one sees the origin of the narrative as cultural or biological – both explanations work. . The point is that, in the contemporary setting of 2021, we live in a Western society that inherited the Renaissance and Enlightenment disdain for “the Dark Ages”, so we maintain that they practiced this thing that we consider superomegabad on a visceral level. It both reinforces the myth that “the Dark Ages” were in fact superomegabad – an idea upon which our cultural veneration of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment at least partially stands – and it repeats the useful, if very basic, story meant for men in positions of power: don’t take away your underling’s wives, or your underlings will resent you. It’s useful as a tool of inculturating the leadership class into what seems to be an important rule of leadership, and it serves to justify one of our (political) culture’s central consceits: ideas from the middle ages bad.
I remember the scene in that show “The Tudors” where King Henry VIII stopped a peasant while he was driving his carriage, looked inside and saw that the peasant had a hot wife. The scene immediately cut to outside the bedroom where he was fucking the guy’s wife with him standing outside the door. Would’ve lost my shit and would have tried to take the king down with me lol. There was also that one scene in the “Epic of Gilgamesh” where Gilgamesh would often take the wives of his subjects for fun and no one could stop him because he was a demigod, until someone of equal strength, Enkidu, came and put a stop to his tyrannical ways.
This goes way back to the Epic of Gilgamesh where the people of Uruk complain to the Gods that Gilgamesh is doing this (and the context is clear that it is the “ius primae noctis” as we understand it). That’s also what leads to the fight between Gilgamesh and Enkidu (who was created specifically to put that tyrant in his place). So, the idea is old and was obviously seen as abhorrent even then. (That epic was of course completely forgotten by the times of the European Middle Ages, so there is no connection). A major factor in popularising the myth was the French Ancien Regime pre-1789. The revolutionaries needed scandalous stuff to make the nobility look even worse than it actually was. Mozart’s opera La Nozze di Figaro (based on an already popular play) probably did a lot to keep the myth alive into modern times. Btw, the three nights originated with St.Jerome who put them into the Latin version of the Book of Tobit. That way he came up with the story that the suitors of Sara could only be (and were) killed by the demon Asmodaeus because of sex and that it was not the fish liver that drove away the demon but Tobias’ chastity and prayers.
Even when I saw Braveheart for the first time as a kid and not knowing all that much history, I still found Prima Noctis to be really doubtful of a concept. There isn’t really any practicality to such a practice, if anything it would just cause resentment and hardly be anything that that would be put into law without serious backlash. There are probably cases of it happening, but those would likely be lords abusing their other rights rather than Prima Noctis itself existing as a right.
The thing is that in the modern period we have this widespread “common knowledge” that the medieval times were, as some history books like to put it, the “dark ages”, and that, perhaps to fit the name, the people from that time were barbaric, illiterate and filthy; and of course a barbaric society like that would have such preposterous laws like the ius primae noctis. Of course this is all rubbish, but sad that that’s what most people think.
Great article Metatron! I liked it very much. I just wanted to say that I’ve been studding peasant conflicts in XV century Catalonia, and I have come across a couple of documents that specifically mention Ius prima nocte, (in Catalan “dret de cuixa” o “dret de primera nit”). First, a document from 1462 in which peasant complains are stated along with nobility answers to them in the context of a civil struggle between peasants and nobility. Now, in this document peasants mention the Ius prima nocte, and demand it to be abolished. The nobility’s answer to it, is something like: “we don’t recognize having such right”. Later on, in a document from 1486; “Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe”, the king of Aragon, Ferdinand II, specifically abolishes the ius prima nocte in Catalonia. So the statement “The peasants never complained about ius prima nocte in medieval Europe” wouldn’t be correct. I want to clarify though, that I absolutely agree with Metatron’s conclusions. That fact I presented doesn’t invalidate any other of Metatron’s arguments and I don’t thing at all that Ius prima nocte ever happened in a legal and organized way. Nobility had tons of rights and uses that allowed them to abuse from peasantry, legally recognized, and that generated tons of legal documents, but in the case of medieval Catalonia (being this the one I’ve studied) Ius prima nocte is never mentioned except in this very one document form 1462 in which peasants complain about it (It looks like a medieval “hoax” or just a way for the peasantry to press the nobility in the context of a social conflict) and the other one from 1486 in which it is abolished.
Adoro il Prof Barbero, è un narratore estremamente coinvolgente un grado di offrire spaccati incredibili degli uomini oltre che del contesto storico. In particolare, la serie presentata al Festival della Mente sui miti attribuiti al medioevo (appunto lo Ius Primae Noctis, la Terra Piatta e la Paura dell’Anno Mille) è fantastica.
Two pieces of evidence I would present for the existence of lus Primae Noctis, though not specifically in the Medieval period. The Epic Poem Gilgamesh mentions a similar concept existing. Though I think its worded more like the ‘hes the king so he can do whatever he wants, even taking the brides of other men’. There is also a mention of very similar practice in Libya in the writings of the Greek writer Herodotus, where brides are brought before the king before their wedding so the king can have his pick of them. Though it is a very isolated event.
Thank you my lord, once again, for another informative article. Somehow it IS more comforting know that Ius Primae Noctis is just a myth, and that people back then were more inclined to keep records that prove it. Also the fact that so many complaints were recorded and lawyers involved shows in fact that there was much more civility back then than has ever been portrayed in the movies. Seem like in movie medieval times, any tiny complaint against your lord and the guards are there to cut off your head.
Hello, new subscriber here. I had the honor of personally attending a couple of university classes held by the professor you cite in the first few seconds, and knowing you’re Italian (so am I, but I always make it a point to comment in English when I know the majority wouldn’t understand Italian), I just KNEW he was going to come into play. Felt it in my bones. You remind me of him in a way–your passion for history is certainly the same. I mean this as a compliment. Keep up the good work!
Machiavelli strongly warned the Prince “‘When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content”… “It makes him (the Prince) hated above all things, as I have said, to be rapacious, and to be a violator of the property and women of his subjects, from both of which he must abstain.” Machiavelli uses the words “rapacious” and “violator” which strongly indicates Prima Noctis was not seen as a lawful right. Thanks for the great content!
Caligula is the only person I can think of in history to have perpetrated “prima nocta” though this has to be taken with a hard grain of salt. And when it comes to nobles taking advantage of position William the Conquerors mother probably had no choice in whether or not she sleep with Robert the first.
Sex wasn’t viewed as a sin in the context of marriage so much as it was viewed as a necessary evil, thanks to St Augustin. There was a debate on this subject during the time of his bishopric and his view (a very negative one) prevailed. That is until St Thomas Aquinas, then the negative view started to soften.
I can offer another place, though it is possibly subordinate to the original idea and more responsible for spreading than originating. in The Tale of Two Cities, the Ius Prima Noctis is invoked by a French nobleman. It’s possible that some of the idea came from the writings about just- pre-revolutionary France.
Great article, I always thought it was true. I think people always look at the past as barbaric, but that’s how we got to where we are now. The laws of medieval people looked oppressive to Renaissance people, but that’s because those laws enabled humanity to progress to the point where people wanted to change them, so they probably created a version of that time that was intolerable, including things like pirma noctis.
Very good explanation. In France during the 18th Century the “philisophers” movement spread horror stories about feudalism tp prepare the ground, so to speak for social reform. One such story, without any historical source, even oral tradition, was of a nobleman killing a peasant to open his belly for marming his feet inside.
I’m originally from Styria, Austria. My grandparents told me that the wealthiest farmer around – mostly kind of landlords with noble heritage – were given brides or even their daughters for one night if they demanded it. The people were depending on these landlords. This is unimaginable!!! But this was not centuries ago – it was quiet common til the early ’70s of the 20th century!!!
If you read the german wikipedia it says that there is actually a “order” in Zurich Switzerland where a “Meyer” had the right of the first night but it is believed that everyone payed the fee instead of giving his wife. An order is kind of law but locally and usually with conditions eg. “This winter everyone has to use less wood” or something like that).
Brilliant presentation, lad, as usual. Howsomever, there is one thing that you could have stressed a bit more here and that is the brutal, banal, everyday nature of an extreme power differential, whether it’s the feudal “contract” or life in 21st century Czarist America: the rich and powerful pretty much do whatever they want, regardless of law, custom and morality. Now, there were specific, carefully delineated “rights” in feudal societies, mostly those enjoyed by the overlords, such as the right of the landed gentry to whip a commoner for not doffing his cap in deference to one of his betters (which was only overturned in England in the 1890s), but the parasitic nobility did not need to have all of their privileges spelled out in legal documents. Then as now, those with enough power could pretty much do whatever they wanted. What system of redress did (and do) the commonfolk have against the thousand depredations of the powerful? You speak of the millions of documents that are still extant from the medieval period, but the overwhelming majority of them were not lists of grievances of the poor sods who lived back then. This is partly why Chaucer (who would have known, given his ostensible occupation) made fun of the lords and ladies and corrupt clergy in his raucous tales. Ditto with Shakespeare.
For English-speaking viewers who were wondering, there are some Alessandro Barbero’s articles with English subtitles (I found three). The most interesting are about Dante (father of italian literature) and Charlemagne. Trivia Did you know that Dante is a diminutive of Durante (during). You know it now. Barbero’s words
Hello, Metatron, how are you? First of all, thank you so much for your website, I really love the content and also the fact that you also can speak latin and Japanese, two languages that I also speak. My name is André de Castro and I graduated in Japanese language and linguistics here in Brazil (I’m Brazilian, by the way) and lived in Japan for three years, so I actually think of you as a kind o spiritual brother, since I am also into martial arts (I practice Aikido), languages and History. But, since I am not as skilled as you are, I’d like to ask you a favour: Could you think about making articles about the history of Portugal in the medieval period, the country that brought most of what we have here in Brazil? When you talked about 1492, it kind of rang a bell to me: I don’t see many people talking about Spain and Portugal and their influence in Europe and abroad. If you have already done a article about those countries, especially Portugal, please, tell me. Cheers and keep up with your excellent work, mate!
Let us also remember that medieval European society was much more comfy with violence than we are today. Animals were slaughtered in markets right in front of customers, there was torture and corporal punishment of various degrees, sometimes even in public as an educational event, not to mention that a part of any vassal’s obligation was serving in the lord’s retinue or warband if able and needed, sometimes being required to own wargear to that very end, so a fair few at any given time had literally been to the wars and had weapons. Never underestimate the humble billhook. Hell, even guilds in cities with royal charters had militia corps of burghers that joined the king’s warhost when called upon. And many tools of various trades were either blunt, sharp or pointy objects. I’d like to believe that any nobleman would think it twice before wronging a married couple in such a way, if only for the risks involved should cousin Tommy gather a few of the lads and tell them to bring their knives for a visit to the lord in a conveniently quiet spot while hunting… ‘Cause shit happens, you know?
I got the probable case For you Metatron. I’m Serbian. I explored My family roots in my younger days. At some point I stumbled upon the info that My Mother’s family doesn’t wear a traditional last name as the Line abruptly ends quite recently. Or better say starts if you go at it chronologically. So I was intrigued and searched for Older members of society, and some documents to Find My Great great great great-grandfather escaped across the Danube to Hungary because he has killed a Beg (Beik,Beigh) Who claimed his Wife as what you present as Ius Primae Noctis. At one time reaching a Point where If the Girl to be married was pretty, fear would loom over like a dark cloud instead of happiness when the day nears. Going unmarried to avoid administrative detection was also not an option as it would worsen everything when the Bastard child was found. Later I found out MANY Serbs ran away in many bordering countries around the Ottoman Occupied lands having Mainly the same treatment. You can settle near the Border and Serve as obligatory Border Guard, aka Standing army to the host country. Justifications for Ius Primae Noctis By Ottomans come for many reasons: They are not Islamic, so they are Livestock… Pretty similar to Catholic ways. They need not be respected as people as they are animals, and we can do with them as we wish. Sultans favour for Lesser regional representatives: Indulgence in petty pleasures legalized. As such can not be denied or cause a Rebellion as the Sultan himself stands behind it.
There was a movie about this in the sixties. It was called The Warlord, but even for the movie they specified that it was not a Christian custom, but a pagan one, and the lord who did it was jeopardizing his soul. I doubt that any real medieval lord would do it, because any child conceived on that night would have a claim on his estate. If he really wanted to lay with a peasant woman, he would quietly take her as a mistress.
I was so convinced clicking on a article about Ius Primae Noctis I was going to learn about some dark shadowy order of death knights, like a hidden hand manipulating the timeline of the age no one knew was there, in secrecy, only acting when the need to do so was beyond dire, but, when they would act and risk exposure, human history would be forever changed. An order so hidden it evaded historical record more effectively than the Templars ever could. but, no. It’s about sex… I’m shouting this at my wife tonight at bed time!
In the Balkans (the area of the ex Yugoslavia where I’m from) there are stories of ottoman lords taking advantage of their power and people rebelling. The story I have heard is that the husband of a wife disguised himself as a bride and killed the local lord. Yet again, it is not a medieval story nor have I checked its accuracy, but I think it is interesting
I always struggle to take someone seriously when they assume that medieval peasants just uncritically went along with whatever. Certainly, traditions and assumptions about how the world worked shaped their worldview, but there are complaints about pretty much everything, and there was always at least some group her or there who thought that the feudal lords or the local bishop or abbot, or even the pope, had done something wrong or overstepped their rights.
One thing: i am pretty sure the Ius Prima Noctei(wich i was not aware had a name up untill now) Is MUCH older even than the HRE, even older than the Roman Empire itself in fact, since, while It Is not a right or a law, It Is mentioned in the mith of Gilgamesh, legendary godly king of Babylon, Who would sleep with the brides on Their First night of marriage. Of course, It was not called In the same way (probably didn’t have a name at all in fact), but if i am right, this Is probably the very First version of what would later become what we today know as the Ius Prima Noctei
That’s why it’s so important the historical accuracy in entertainment media, this kind of bullshit is seen as not only possible but even truth!! Like, we should be more demanding with historical accuracy, because sacrificing it doesn’t really change the development of any product, movies? It makes them better. Series? It makes it more real. articlegames? An entertaining and interactive way of learning. THERE’S NO JUSTIFICATION FOR BEING LAZY AND INACCURATE!!
Great explanation of feudalism. The Catholic church defended in Roman times the right of women to have a vote in their arranged marriage and did forbade the right of fathers to use their daughters as sex-object. These early women’s rights were repressed by the high nobility, focussed on continuing their noble blood line. THE CHURCH WOULD NEVER HAVE ACCEPTED THE IUS PRIMAE NOCTIS……. Typical for modern people who judge the Middle Ages is that they focus on the power relation between the feudal lords and the farmers. THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE DECADENCE OF ROMAN CITIES HAD DISAPPEARED AND THAT MEDIEVAL SOCIETY WAS NOT DIVIDED BY COMMERCIAL FORCES, AS LAND WAS NOT TRADED AND FARMERS DID NOT COMPETE……. ONE SHOULD THEREFORE IDENTIFY EARLY MEDIEVAL SOCIETY AS A CHRISTIAN-COMMUNIST SOCIETY, WITH A VERY SMALL WEALTHY NOBILITY!!!!!!!!! AROUND 1300 WAS AN UPRISING OF CITIZENS AND FARMERS ABOUT PAYING RENT FOR ALL ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES AND HEY STORMED LONDON…… WHEN TWO ARMIES STOOD AGAINST EACHOTHER THE KING SPOKE; WE ARE DESTINED TO EACHOTHER, WE MUST NOT KILL EACHOTHER OVER MATERIAL MATTERS, I WILL HANDLE YOUR REQUESTS……… AND THE ARMY OF PEASANTS/ CITIZENS LEFT THE BATTLEFIELD………….. WITH THE RISE OF THE MIGHTY TRADING CITIES AND INTERNATIONAL/ NATIONAL TRADE WOULD END MEDIEVAL TIMES, STARTED THE RENAISSANCE AND REFORMATION, WITH THE EXTREMELY BLOODY 16TH CENTURY BY CIVIL WARS………..
I found this Ius/ law eversince I heard off it very strange. It is strange that a lord cares too much about his peasants and wants to sleep with them. He is a noble she is just a peasant. Even if he would find some peasants attractive I doubt he wanted to have a night with her. It maybe would ruin his status if he botheres too much with lowborns. The status was a important thing back then so… But I would find it interesting if you made a article about obligations in the medieval period. Or sthg like that. Great article as usual!
Many writers of the early modern age (the Enlightenment was particularly at fault here) were really all about progress and they had to show that whatever came before them had to be barbaric and stupid. We still find traces of that in things like “Gothic” a term used to denigrate this architectural style as being born from invading barbarians. And so the middle ages became the recipient of a ton of black legends, attempting to describe the whole period as one of crude regression. Prima Noctis became a huge literary device in the 19th century and onto this day.
Primae noctis apparently did happen at a castle called mount fumone aka castello di longhi (longhi castle in english) in Italy. They usually used it as a tactic to scare the family to pay a type of tax after the wedding. The story goes that if the lord found the bride to be impure before he would sleep with her for the first night they would throw the woman down a well at the castle. Human remains were in fact found at the bottom of the well. This is not definitive evidence of it, but I was told by the guide at the castle and read about it on several local websites about the history of the place. Its a horrible and sadistic thing for a lord to do and I hope that its really just a myth.
“Ius Primae Noctis” AKA Trope As Old As Time AKA Gilgamesh Started It Not to forget the power of the Church. Local Bishop: “So you have chosen social death by interdict/excommunication for adultery.” Therefore, King Longshanks would have had the Church hierarchy turned against him and expressing their displeasure by either declaring him excommunicated, or under interdict. And as the case of the murder of Thomas Becket shows, such a tool was able to force the King into the robes of a penitent, because it was able to undermine him at home and on the stage of European politics: No-one wanted to support an excommunicated person, in fear of being excommunicated as well.
Medieval people: *craving some wedding night action right away The medieval catholic church: “THIS IS A SIN, IMMORAL AND DEBASED!” Medieval people: *drops coin purse “Say, is that yours?” Also the medieval catholic church: “Oh, you should have mentioned you got Christianity Prime, all is well, the Lord approves.”
One of my ansesters who was a lower knight in ad 1378 at now distroyed small castle in the black forrest, stated that he prefered prostitiuts other his own wife, because he was worried of his wife dying while giving birth. He only had two legitimate children, one survied to earn his title. Sadly many of my family history was lost after ww2 and most of it is forgotten.
One of my friends is a German medievist who wrote his thesis on the Duche de Bourgogne in the XVTh century. He told me that when Charles the Fifth visited a city, the men in charge of that city (ediles) would bring their daughters to him hoping she would get pregnant. Having a grandson from the Emoeror was a great honor. Maybe this was the origin of the myth.
Reminds me of such a scene in that Netflix Spanish series, Catedral del Mar. They don’t mention the ius prima noctis, but the lord forces himself on the girl on the premise that he is the lord, so he can do whatever he wants. And then he tells the groom to go “do their thing” afterwards, because the lord’s wife wouldn’t like another bastard (which points to the fact that this was a common occurrence in this domain).
In the case of Primae Noctis, I wondered how the church would react to this. The practice would be a challenge to the church’s authority in regards to the marriage and adultery which is considered a sin in the Judeo-Christian faiths. It essentially allows the lords of the land to fornicate with someone else’s wife upon marriage, thus giving them a chance to commit adultery despite being a sin, and thus weakening the church’s authority in the matter. Who would stand for it?
Many years ago on a trip to the English Northern borderlands I wad regaled with a tale of why the buildings in the area were painted different colours. Supposedly one local riever lord exercised the droit de seigneur over a peasant household, unfortunately the household were the vassals of a rival lord which gave him an excuse to do some reiving. In order to prevent such future misunderstandings from henceforth houses were painted differently to determine who had rights to which. Okay, so it could be total fakelore, but it was an intresting enough tale to fill in the minutes waiting for our driver.
14:25 I would provide pushback on this specific point: governments today are quite happy to demonize their enemies for things they themselves are doing, and people today do fall for it. I absolutely still think the prima nocte thing didn’t exist, as you say, but never underestimate the hypocrisy of government, or the ability of the people to accept it. Now take this ‘like’, you.
Hello 🙂 Here in France people often speak of the « droit de cuissage », which refers to ius prima noctis and would translate to « hip right » (or hipping right ? The anatomical hip « cuisse » is where the word stems from). It’s basically the same myth except it can happen at any time and anywhere…
The 1st time I heard about the “1st night” right was a Hollywood movie: “The Warlord” with Charlton Heston & Richard Boone & some other well known actors of the time. I thought it was Hollywood B.S. The next time I heard about this mythical ‘right’ was that this myth was started during the French Revolution as more propaganda against the French Nobility. The basis for this myth might be the upper classes/nobility often did acquire mistresses from the ‘Peasant’ class. Famous example of course is William the Conqueror who as we all know was the bastard son of the former Duke of Normandy & a Tanner’s daughter. And of course medieval history is full of incidents of bastard & legitimate offspring of various nobles/lords fighting over their father’s property.
To be honest the biggest reason why I think this could not be in any way codified was that these societies and these nobles, however corrupt and arrogant they could be, were still christians and this kind of practice would go against the ninth of the ten commandments and any lawyer could attack it as such. I could see polish or hungarian nobles wielding this kind of power, since before their defeat at the hands of their neighbors, the nobility wielded massive power and even retained the right to rebel to defend their rights. There were also many stories of nobles having many illegitimate children, but those seemed to be just affairs or coersion, but I can not see peasants or clergy accepting it as anything more than an affair. Than again a common stereotype of hungarians I have heard is “Will sell you his daughter in such a way to leave all three satisfied.”
Asking this question shows a fundamental lack of understanding how women’s sex drive really works. A medieval Lord needs a law like this about as badly as Justin Bieber does. Only the Lord has actual power… Of course actual life divers hugely from recorded history, especially when the people who would record it have a vested interest in it not being recorded.
There is a slightly overlooked argument to be made here. The Church. Marriage wasn’t just a ceremony in medieval times. It was a legal status and for the Catholic church it was sacred. Holy matrimony was a sacrament that was not to be broken and there was no such thing as divorce. (even a King had to found his own Church to get a divorce) Something THAT important and with strong legal consequences from horrible corporal punishments for adultery to the legitimacy and heritage of children was plainly incompatible with such a thing as the ius primae noctis. What legal status would a child from that night have, for example? Any feudal lord even trying something like pushing a law like that would have been excommunicated with 100% certainty. We are too used by the media to the clergy being just subservenient tools to the worldly lords but in reality of medieval life the church was a powerful force that often clashed with Kings and Emperors over what was right and wrong. They did not always prevail and they were not always a force for good but the church was a force to reckon with.
Hi Metraton! Love the article! Very informative! I was wondering if you could make a response article on the Sideproject website’s latest article called “In Which Ways do Movies Get Ancient Warfare Wrong?”. I find his articles quite informative, alongside yours, and I think it would be interesting to get your take on the matter. Ciao Raffaello! Potresti fare un article in risposto al l’ultimo article del canale Sideprojects che si chiama “In Which Ways do Movies Get Ancient Warfare Wrong?”. Mi piace tanto le sue article e sarebbe interessante avere il tuo opinione su quello che Simon ha discussato.
I just about pissed myself, and my phone took a trip across my room, at 6:42’ish right when there is the close up of Metatron lighting struck really close, and power went off instantly…In there glowing in the darkness… A glowing Metatron staring back at me in creepy medieval lord mode… This may be one of those things, where I am the only one laughing/finding the rather dry humor Hilarious. Happens a lot. More detail When it happened I jumped about 3 ft off my chair, and tossed my phone, it phone landed on its side, against one of my Guitar cases, so it went to landscape, and I guess I tapped the screen and paused the article…not sure if this helps or hurts my little story…but screw it, it’s YouTube.
This is not abou medieval times but same/similar subject: Starting 16th thru 17th century the position of serfs in the what was the “Lithuanian” part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (The Great Duchy Of Lithuania) was getting quite bad. The serfs really had no standing in the courts in these areas, even lesser Ruthenian nobles could not get justice there (quite a good part of the reason for Khmelnitzky’s rebellion). And It was not unusual for some nobles to indulge “liberties” with serf girls, with consent or without, but almost always this would take place BEFORE any weddings. In fact the weddings might have been arranged to cover the consequences of such activities, sometimes with usually unspoken loudly but known (if tacit) consent of all (or most) of the involved parties. The affairs with married serfs happened as well as rapes, and frequently without any legal consequence, however usually inducing social opprobrium, and this could have quite a negative impact on somebody’s standing in the nobility and so, his career.
Even in cases where the peasant offered up his daughter as payment, I would hazard a guess that it was very rare for the Lord to even know about it. The “deal” would have been between the peasant and a servant in the Lord’s employ. He would do his thing, then make the lack of funds disappear with creative bookkeeping or claiming it was taken by highwaymen.
Just wanted to make the correction on the comment that the church viewing sex as sinful. This was not the case on church teaching but may have been a mistaken view in local areas. Look at Thomas Aquainas’ discussions on sex for a perspective there. Specifically sex was viewed as positive but should be ordered towards procreation within marriage. This is an important distinction. Thomas even discusses what is referred to as “the marital debt” which seems to put the lie to the idea that sex would be sinful within marriage. Overall a good article but a lot of the ideas about the medieval church being entirely anti sex comes from enlightenment propaganda. There are a lot of falsehoods we believe about the period that get their start during the enlightenment, including the idea that the catholic church was anti science
Yes, this is true, but… the maxim “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is particularly true for the dark ages (circa 460-777) when written sources are extremely scant, but there are reasons to believe that all those myths, that historians like Barbero are so proud to debunk, probably corresponded to truths, or at least partial truths.
I would agree that the people back then probably did write about everything but there were some exceptions. For example in my church community there are religious teachings that are not written down because if they did people would see it as an addition to the Bible which is just not happening, Imagine for example if the Mormons decided not to write down the book of Mormon because they were against the idea of adding to the Bible, also there are religious practices that are not written about because you cannot learn them from a book they can only be taught verbally and through one on one instruction. Lastly there are thing that they do not want written down because they want it to be forgotten, There are many movies where the hero unearths a forbidden text filled with knowledge that the ancient ones tried to erase.
I’m still trying to figure out how the hell that Primae Noctis joke make its way into Captain America: Civil War. Like… who read that in a script and thought it was clever or funny? You got Tony Stark declaring his intent to rape newly weds and its delivered during a comedic scene so it was obviously supposed to be funny but why the heck would he even say that?
So, essentially the “ius primae noctis” is the post-medieval equivalent of the Nazi-analogy? The reference to the conquistadors accusing the natives of the Americas of practicing the ius primae noctis, reminds me of a current strategy for throwing massive shade onto an opponent, i.e., the Nazi analogy. See Godwin’s Law for an example of the shade throwing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” – this just means they are not equivalent, but absence can still be evidence of absence: If i claim that there is a second sun, just as large and bright as the real one, than the absence of evidence – aka us not being able to see it – is evidence of absence.
ok you should rather say that in medieval times, contracts were not individualised, as they are today usualy, but it was common that contracts could be inhereited, that is how serfdom existed as initialy serfs had basicly become serfs voluntary (as volunary as it gets with the outlook of starving somehwere in a forrest or so) and the peasents if they had rented land from the lord also would inherent the contract about that land etc
I have a question that’s off topic. As I was perusal the article. I was looking at the breastplate and thinking it could use a Polish. Then it occurred to me that maybe he doesn’t want it Polished to much because that might reflect too much of the lights while making the article. That line of thinking led me to my question. Did medieval knights actually want their armor polished on the battlefield? I understand polishing the armor well in public view in your own village. But would a night ( or any other class of warrior ) actually want their armor shining like the sun on the battlefield? Wouldn’t that make them more noticeable as a Target?
I’ve never liked the phrase “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” it is, its not proof and alone proves nothing but evidence isn’t the same as proof. Proof is when taken it proves the relevant statement, evidence is something which when taken either on its own or otherwise, in whole or in part, tends to prove something. Thus an absence of evidence is evidence of absence even if it doesn’t alone prove anything.
A few days ago I just had a little bit of an argument with my ‘ theory of education ‘ teacher, while she claimed this actually happened and tried basing her arguments on braveheart ¿¿¿¿????, she just went ballistic in the middle of the class at me saying how men always ruled the world and women had it worst in this time and all that of crap. Just sent her actual links with sources while she just sent a dictionary reference as her ” source ”, just left it there, didn’t bother with it, i’d rather pass the course and let it be
I figure, the idea of prima noctis would absolutely be a religious matter, not a legal one. And thus, it’d absolutely come up as an important matter when splitting off from Catholicism. If Protestants didn’t say “we’re gonna abolish the rule where other dudes can sleep with your wife” then it wasn’t a rule in the first place.
I think the thing people often forget about jus primae noctis is that while yes the local lord owned the land it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to rule over all these people if they hated you so much. And if lord had decided to do such a thing he would have been VERY hated. Hell since people in the middle ages were not that different from us, can you imagine a local politician deciding to sleep with someone’s wife on their wedding against the wishes of the couple? Just imagine how popular hed be then and if people would re-elect him. Jus primae noctis is just modern propaganda to make people in the medieval period seem like savages, no more.
Honestly, there would have been SO MANY revolts if this was a real thing in history. And if it existed, it would have to be outlawed VERY quickly, because I can imagine the ruler of the land @ the landlords being like “look, your boner is not worth a chunk of the population rebelling. it´s too much trouble. Primae Noctis is now outlawed.”
I’m sure it wasn’t common but, there are things that simply aren’t talked about. Especially with people who are very religious. Even today there cases of kids thinking their mother is their older sister to avoid scandal. Who could survive such a scandal better, a powerful rich noble, or his dirt poor peasants? This could well be one of those type situations, if you don’t talk about it, you certainly don’t write about it.
And also this kind of sexual intercourse must be adultery according to the church right? Would Catholic church bless this kind of “right” or this kind of marriage? This would be an openly unchristian legal practice in times religion means everything. A good article again my friend. May the father of understanding guide our poor souls.
In the revolts of peasants of Catalunya in the 15 century, in which they protested the “malos usos señoriales”, primarily economig abuses but as well there where complains of sexual abuses, being precisely these complains sometimes used as historic evidence of this abuse (not really a right) However Im afraid Im not familiar with primary acounts… but I was surprised of no mention of them, at least to discredit them as myth? (Derecho de la pernada, supposedly originated in spain was an abuse that was established in Latin america)
Before perusal: Right of the first night? A Theme of rude anecdotes only After: yes, it is anecdote only. Why you could need special right, if you already can do all of want? I remember Beaumarchais used this theme in _The Marriage of Figaro_, where count “repeals this shameful right”. But keeps on philandering.
By no means a right that is written down or legally enforceable, but the problem of a farm ‘owner’ wanting and needing a son to keep the farmstead in the family produced harsh traditions up to… pretty much today. One of our common local traditions was that farmers (who wanted to avoid claims from outside the farmstead) had sex with their maids (Magd) and only married the one that produced a son. Up to the 1930ies. If you wonder about the backdated legitimization of girls and marriage dates and baptism dates reading funny, that’s one of the reasons.
Although Prima Noctis did not exist, something eerily similar did occur in southern France in the 14th century. The Inquisition widely interrogated peasants in that time, since they were hunting after Cathars who they considered to be heretics, and collected an extremely wide range of documents of the daily lives of the common people. In one village it turned out that the village priest was having sex with all the women in the village, and had convinced everybody that it was not just his right, but his priestly duty to do so, and no one seemed to consider it at all unusual or unacceptable. The priest turned out to be a Cathar who was rebelling against both the Catholic and the Cathar doctrine; the Cathars were even more anti-sex than the Catholic church.
I read of a pagan practice where virgin brides rode a “specially sculpted rock” in a ceremony designed to deflower and make the wedding night sex less painful for the bride. This was considered a form of “blood” sacrifice to the pagan god and that was the Ius Primae Noctis. I can’t remember the historical source of this ritual but if true maybe that is its origins?
Not all the land belonged to the lord or aristocracy, there is social position of land owners. In Scotland its known as Laird, in Bohemia we had zeman – position of ownership is more diverse. Yes its a smaller proportion but still with citizens from free cities, owners of land etc. they were the Middle cast of the hierarchy.
“Colonialist Spain said it about the new world.” Interesting how countries often exaggerate their own problems (taxing weddings and prostituting away taxes becomes the Ius Primae Noctis) when stereotyping others. Reminds me of the whole idea of North Korean standardized haircuts because they have template options that you can modify. Something that existed for awhile under the SOUTH Korean dictatorship but probably hasn’t existed in the North at any point since independence.
I believe if it was a right, it would have been written down as such. As for the duty to “man the wall”, I don’t know, but I have seen a documentairy about castles from the middle ages. The people in the castle would have their toilets in the walls, and what ever they “got rid off” would fall outside of the wall. Of course it would hit the wall as well, and end up down there somewhere. Maybe the common people were to clean that up. 🤢
Not only is Droit du seigneur written about it is also PAINTED! Le droit du Seigneur.Irish and Scottish people have written about it. Hector Boece wrote that is existed in Scotland until the reign of Malcolm III. Voltaire had written about it. French philosopher Montesquieu had written about it. The list of those that mention examples of it is long. There were literal laws on the books concerning it and they were written about. In 1930, Scottish legal scholar Hector McKechnie concluded, based on historical evidence, that the practice had existed in Scotland in early times. According to Scottish legal scholar David Maxwell Walker, instances have been recorded of “the jus” being claimed up to the 18th century. Walker concluded that it is possible that “the jus” existed as a custom in Scotland, dependent on the attitude of the king, and survived longer in remote regions. Irish and Irish descended people know all too well. As well as our other fellow Gaelic speakers. So I adamantly disagree with you sir! You have the festival Mugnaia in Ivrea commemorating a revolt against Druit De Seignur. Do you go there and tell the people that it is all a lie?
During Roman antiquity, did a feudalism type system exist? I know slaves were quite often used to work the lands, from the bronze age till even past the Roman Antiquity age, and differences in slave societies & cultures existed across different empires, regions, etc. But did the rich nobles use a feudal type system of letting peasants or poor people work the lands for profit? With the Emperor (or kings of empires like Persia) then tax the nobles, who were to collect the taxes from people working their lands? Basically, was there a large difference between how land, taxes, and the poor/peasants operated in antiquity (roman republic & empire times) and during medieval feudal times?
Honest question-Given the concept goes back to the epic of Gilgamesh-it seems to me that the concept must have some basis in reality. Even as some sort of distorted cultural memory. If the concept never existed in RL, why does it exist in literature and as far back as…something like 2500 BC(forgive me if I got the date wrong on that)?
What about this right in Croatia and Bosnia under Ottoman Rule? I heard that one of the reasons that the Slavic population converted to islam was that muslim overlords had some sort of sex right on local christian women but not so on other muslims. I suppose it’s not true, given what you say, but was there anything similar?
10:14 “…But if they do move away.” Lord: I hear there’s going to be a marriage? May it be blessed and fruitful. Peasant: Ah, My lass is going to marry good, I can say at least. To an honest miller boy. Theres some sadness in me o’er the fact that she’ll take up with him and pay tax to the lord in the village over. Lord: Wait… Tax? to lord? in the Village *over*? Peasant: Yes, mi lord. But, I suppose its a mercy that its not I thats paying here and there. Lord: …Ah… Say, Haven’t you heard the salacious facts about their lord?
Sentencia arbitral de Guadalupe? > Quedan efectivamente dero-gados los seis malos usos fundamentales, y además otras prácticas abusivas consuetudinarias como el ius maletractandi (art. 6), abusos personales como el derecho de flassada o _el jus primae noctis (art. 9)_, y económicos como la prohi-bición de vender determinados productos sin autorización (arts. 9 y 10).
15:38 Really Metatron? No one had the name Violetta in the Medieval period? NO ONE? That’s quite a bold statement. If I wrote a modern story about about a girl named Mysavior would you contend that it is clearly a made up and no one could have had that name. Because as someone who works in a hospital and sees all the things people name their kids, I can tell you for a fact that you would be wrong.
I really hate the saying “absense of evidence is not evidence of absense”. It is just wrong. Absense of evidence, by itself, is not 100% proof of absense, but we are not talking about proof but just evidence. In most cases absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Only situation where “absense of evidence is not evidence of absense” is correct is if you did not even try at all to look for evidence. If you have actually tested or researched something so much that you can reasonably make the claim, that if something existed, it should have left evidence, and that it is very unlikely to have happened without leaving evidence, then absense of evidence is evidence of absense. Again, not 100% proof, but some kind of supporting evidence.
Well for the majority of the middle ages the law came not in written form, germanic law was an oral tradition, and it was based on tradition. However there is another thing to consider, that peasants were not literate and they even if they were wronged, they had no way to communicate it to posterity . All things considered I think you might be correct in saying it might be a myth, and even if it were true in some remote region, I find it hard to believe it might have happened thoughout the middle ages and in the whole continent . Each county ruled by a local lord, except when Charlemagne or other powerful rulers were in charge, operated semi autonomously so I find it difficult to even speak of the middle ages as a whole and to be certain that it definitely happened or not, I am fairly certain it did not happen on a large scale .