The Bath Despite pressures from both Church and Stare to separate the sexes, late medieval and early modern Europeans maintained spaces where men and ‘women could interact for the purpose of illicit sex, and one such place was the bath, The bath ay a site for sexual activity was a common lierary and artistic topos, but it was also a historical reality. By the fourteenth century baths had become an essential part of urban life! People flocked to them in order to find a cure for a physical ailmenr ro cleanse their body, orto relax and find pleas- ture. Baths varied greatly. There vere net only public baths but also private ones installed in monasteries and in the homes of wealthy merchans, aristocrats, and clergymen? There were saunas and baths with hot and cold water, those ‘modeled on the baths of ancient Rome and on those of the contemporary ‘Ottoman Empice. Some consisted of a simple portable wooden tubs others com prised a suite of luxurious tooms. But for all rypes of baths, their hevday was the fifiecnth and carly sixteenth centuries, before they declined in popularity due to the high cost of heating and cheir growing association with disease and immorality) Through an examination of extual and visual sources, this chaprer will exploce the intersection between sexuality and the spatial topography of public bithhouses, the effect of class on bathhouse decoration, and the tensions and exchanges between sacred and secalar sexualities. Public Bathhouses Public bathhouses in northesn Europe conformed to two general types. Mineral baths were open air (Fig. 87), whereas public baths in towns and cities often Facing page dtl of Fig. 104Baderbichlein (Bah Hooke), 87 German, frontpiece of Hans Foy ae. Manic, Tayeriche Suacsiblixkek, 88 Bathhosse, Badguse 20, Dieburg followed the typical design of an urban escablishment: the ground floor housed the business che upper storey the living quarters (Fig, 88). As a rule in urban bathhouses the bathing areas were downstairs, the bedrooms upstairs. Tiwenty years ago the bathhouse was at the center of a debate. Hans Peter Duetr di puted Norbert Elias’ assertion that Europe underwent a gradual civilicing process, from 2 medieval attitude towards the body that wes uninhibited and ‘unembarrassed to an early modern one that increasingly valued control over the body and reserved bodily functions for the private realm.’ What concerns us here is char Duere argued that teenth and sixteenth centuries men ard wornen bathed together in public baths, and that while doing so they revealed the parts of the body mose strongly asso” ciated with sexuality, namely the genitals, the buttocks and, for women, the breasts. More recently, Birgit Tachen broadened the discussion by asserting that in Swist and German public bathhouses the upstairs bedrooms were used solely as living quarters for the manager of the bath, his family, and his employees ° Basing her argument on archival documents, archaeological finds, and what she Elias was wrong to conclude that during the fi- 12 tonal Out of de Aur bull ‘exmed “historial images,” Tuchen claimed that there is no evidence to support the ides that public bathhouses served as brothels or as sites for any illicit sexual activity? Yer the conclusions of Duere and Tuchen largely depend on 2 simplis- ‘ic interpretation of prescriptive writings and a modera orion of illeit sexual= ity, Furthermore, when we turn to other types of evidence, a very cifferent picture emerges Is the connection berwveen public baths and sexuality simply 4 topos without any historical basis? Indeed, in many European cities, the authorities developed strategies to ensure that men and women bathed separately. Repeated rulings by both church and state to this effect, however, suggest that they were unsuc- cessful. As early as 745 St. Boniface prohibited mixed bathing, but ic still ‘occurced well into the fifteenth ceatury.* In 1431 the meeting of the Council of Basel led city authorities there to note, “We have to take care, considering that ‘many foreign people will arrive here... that from now on men and women i. ‘our city shall neither take a bath together nor in one bathroom." Sometimes different times or days were reserved for each sex, a8 in Hamburg in 137 and Dijon in the fifteenth century. Although Duere assumed thet the baths were shat except for these specially reserved times, Jacques Rossiaud, among others, reached the opposite conclusion: thar during unreserved hours they were open to both sexes.! In addition, Henri Zemner documents a case of a woman who attended the bath during the hours reserved for men.!? Nor is such evidence confined to France. In Lucerne a woman who entered the bath during the men's hours was fined ten shillings. And other cities also instituted punishments for those who broke the lav." Are we to suppose that such roles were always “obeyed? There would he no need to establish them unless there had been offené- rs, Furthermore, documents make clear that the populace was not uniform in its support of such laws. One ordinance notes that some acts, such as attend- ing the bath without underwear (“ohne nidercleid”), will insult or offend pious women and men (“fromme Weib nd Manas persenen”).!* This implies that “other, ess religious bathers will noc be offended. What is impossible 19 dete mine is the degree to which these laws were followed. Even if complete court transcripts existed and these mentioned no punishment for any bathhouse offense, this would tell us nothing about the frequency of such offenses unless vve knew how vigorously the authorities enforced the law. ‘Another solution for keeping sex out of bathhouses was to separate men and svomen by assigning them to different rooms or buildings. An announcement for one sich bathhouse suggests, however, that this was sometimes the excep tion to the rule: “Let everyone of whatever rank be aware that Genin de Geline «has established behind his house at Helme good and honest stews for bathing, by good and honest women and that these are quite separate from the men's bath." A final strategy was t0 erect a dividing wall between the sexes, as the title woodcut of Hans Fols's Baderbiichlein, ca. 1480, suggests (Fig. 87). Presumably te wall is shown low so as to permit a view af both sections of the hath, bur the function of such barriers, according to 2 document of 1696, was Te Beh 123{9 Albrecht Diser, Women: Rath, pen drawing, 1496. Bremen, Kunsthalle to prevent the sexes from seeing one another.” The humanist Poggio Bracciolini, ina letter dated 1426, describes a recent visie to a public bath at Baden, where he saw a “sort of stockade” that separated men from women. However, once again, this strategy failed. Bracciolini notes that at least one such wall had “numereus windows. ...s0 that people can drink and converse together and Jook at one another."® In r610 the Jesuit priest and Hapsburg court physician Hippolytus Guarinonius confirmed that men climbed over high walls to spy on. women bathers! One way to determine how illicit sexuality was defined in the Middle Ages is to examine confessional manuals, From the ninth through the twelfth centuries, three texts the St. Hubert Penitential, the Decretum of Burchard of Worms, and the Decretum of Ivo of Chartres make clear that it was not permissible for men and women to bathe together:* Another way to ascertain which sexual acts were considered illicit is to examine ordinances, Laws prohibited men and 124 Ie ead, Oct of the Marital Bed. 90 German, Wornen’ Babhouse,sisteeth cencuy, woodsut Bremen, Kunatalle, ‘women from looking at each other in the bath, bathing togethen, or revealing the private parts of their bodies, and barred prostitutes from working in public baths. What becomes clear from an examination of textual sources is that ‘voyeurism, the first act on this list, was eampant in bathhouses. Not only is it repeatedly outlawed in ordinances, but other types of texts mention it. Jeanne Saignant, 2 fifteenth-cennury bathkeeper from Dijon, enjoyed watching the “raceful frolicking” that took place in her bathhouse.» And Bracciolini noted that when women entered the bath at Basel, “men look on, stating at their natural parts and their buttocks." Above the bath were galleries where, Bracciolini reported, “men sit, watching ...and they stay while the women, center and leave the water, their full nakedness exposed to everyone's view... In most cases men and women use the same entrance, and the men encounter half-naked women while the women encounter naked men. ... 1 watched from the gallery, devouring with my eyes... this way of lif ‘Art reflects and reinforces this association between bathing and voyeurism. Both Duerr and Tuchen rejecr images as a valid eategory of evidence, beliering them to be unreliable as documents. Tuchen accepts only “historical images,” that is, those that seem objective to her. Yet, as Natalie Zemon Davis, among ‘others, has shown, even archival texts, such as court testimony, can be influ enced by fiction of tainted by ideology Like texts, images need to be inter. preted, but since they repeatedly include a voyeur in scenes of public baths, we ‘may reasonably conclude that the two were closely associated in the mentalicé Cf the times, In Albrecht Diirer’s drawing of a women's bath a man pecks through the rear shutters (Fig, 89)2° In an anonymous German woodeat, he boldly stares through an open window (Fig. 9e)2° Ue Beth. 025‘or Prague iluminator, Bushhonse, is Konead Kyses, Belfort, :405. Cetnger, Univessatcbiforhek, Cod Ms. pls. 63 Cin. 0. Bracciolini is surprised by the tone of the scopopbilia: “I admired the inno- cence of these people, who do not fix cheir eyes on such details and who think and speak no evil... There is no hint of lewdnes.... It is erly astonishing 10 see. ... Husbands watched as their wives were touched by strangers and did not take offense, did not even pay attention, intepreting everything. in the best light."= The Frenchman Pierre de Bourdeille, Lord of Brantome, writing in the 5s, agreed thar “in Switrerland men and women are cogether in the baths and stews without any dishonest acr.”* Similarly, in 1438 a Spanish traveler to Bruges, Pero Tafur, noted that “the communal bathing of men and women [there] is jas as honorable as visiting churches here.”*! Native morslists railed ‘against the carnal corruption found ia public baths, but even the idealized reports of foceign informants confirm that despite the authorities” repeated attempts t segregete the sexes, their strategies sometimes failed and bathers touched and looked at stranger. ‘This voyeurism was undoubtedly encouraged by the bathers! dress. Although Duere argues that men wore underwear and women a long shift that covered their breasts, chis was not always the rule. Ordinances repeatedly requiee thar private parts be covered, once again suggesting that not every bather did so Ia eed Out of the Martel Bed, Most images show female bathers ether nude, weating 2 simple shift, or covered with a towellike cloth chat reveals much of their body. For example, Konrad Kyeser's Bellifortis, dated 1405, which depicts the proper separation ofthe sexes in two discrete areas of the bathhouse, nevertheless shows the women as either nude of, in the case of the woman entering the bathhouse, only minimally and temporarily covered (Fig. 91). But even if women woce a shify, it would hare revealed much of the bods; since it often consisted of ewo pieces of thin cloth attached ar the shoulders that hung loose and lacked sleeves (and often sides). After a woman hau immersed herself in the water and this garment became wet, it would have adhered to her body and become even moce revealing. Further more, the movement of the woman in the water would probably have altered the shiftS position and revealed other parts of her body, as Albreche Alwdovfers mural provocatively suazess (Fz. 97). We can only imagine how seductive this must have seemed ata time when women's normal ate covered most oftheir body ‘Bur the sexual activity ar the bathhouse went well beyond voyeurism, inno- cent touching, and nudity. Ordinances usually cite sex in the context of prosti= tution, bur in 1458 Avignon’s laws forbade any kind of fornication in the baths» Alkhough Duerr attempts to distinguish between baths that were broth- els and those that were not, no firm boundary separated the two. Certainly, 2 bathhouse operator who wss temporarily strapped for money may well have permitted or encouraged prostitutes to operate in his facility. Documents repeat- edly associate baths and prostitution. In 1243 at Avignon, “haslots” were for- biden co enter the baths except on certain days ofthe week.» Soon Marseilles followed suit” In Constance in 1414, General Quartermaster Erhard Dacher telated that soldiers visited prostitutes who were opecating in bathhouses. In +486, town oficial in Brelau prohibited prostitutes from livingin the city hath. house. In 1487, Strasbourg ordinance barred any former prostitute from being hired as a bath maid “unless she has changed her ways and comes back te 4 pious life." Ar Nantes, a decree of 1494 noted that in several bathhouses poor girls abandon their bodies toa great many strangers. In Besangoa, baths were taxed based on the number of prostitutes living there. At Valenciennes, the duke of Burgundy ordered chat for the English ambassadors, “and all thet retinue, baths be provided with everything required for the ealling of Venus, 10 take by choice and by election what they liked best, and all a the expense of the duke." ‘The modem historian James Brundage concluded that the expres sion “to go to the bathhouse’ required no explanation ic had little vo do with cleansing the body,” and Gustave Bayle concurred, observing that the fifteenth ceneury bathhouse on the rue da Pont-Trauca at Avignon had a great many beds bout no bathcubs.** In short, rather than viewing bathers as a uniform group of passive and obe dient followers of the law, they should be seen as a mixed lot, some of whom actively resisted and subverted emnicipal ordinances and church rulings. Those who frequented public barhs coal choose to disrupe the controlling mechanisms that authorities hacl set in place to separate men and women and prevent illicit Ue Beth 127sexuality there. Some bathers looked across the bathhouse or through its ‘windows or surmounted divider walls in order to gaze at nude bodies. And some climbed the staircase to reach the upstairs bedrooms where they could engage in sewual intercourse, People learned to manipulate the steucture of the public bathhouse, to penetrate its walls and move frely through its space in order to achieve their sexual goals. Through this improvisation they subverted che orig inal intentions of the authorities who bad built the bathhouses and in this way ‘gave new meaning to such structures. Class Privilege and Erotica ‘Surviving decorations in public bathhouses shun eroticitm, Tendrils and scenes from the Bible and the hunt, dated 1514, adorn a broad interior vestibule of the upper story at Blaubeuren (Fig. 92), and a late sixteench-century painting of Se. Catherine and oven tiles of the virtues and vices embellish a bathhouse at Diebare.*° By contrast, sixteenth-centucy private baths For the elite were filled with eis age "Es zeve Car dusl ovetdc ible, whe ad eos pees 9 Giolno Renasn, Behr ior © he 94, Glaze Romar Baths, cir to he caver authored La Galarcria, pla ile with sexalokn, dete Raphael ae ee pes aes eae and his assistams (© paint erotic mythological scenes featuring Venus, the ‘goddess of love, in the bathroom of his Vatican aparement.¥ The erotic clements ‘of a bath in the papal chambers at the Castel Sanc’Angelo in Rome, completed he next year, were described by the Frankfurt jurisc Johann Fichard in 1536: “Here, sated in a tub, His Holiness washes with hot water, which is supplied by a bronze female nude, There are other nudes and I have no doubt that these are touched with great devotion.” According to an inventory of #527 of the casile of Philip of Cleves at Wynendacle in west Flanders, @ large painting of Diana and Actaeon, presumably a bath scene, which included several nude women, was displayed opposite the entry wall tothe suite of baths, Other panels and canvases there showed additional nudes. In the 15308 Girolamo Romanine painted erotic murals in the corridor leading to two bathing rooms in the Castello del Buonconsiglio in Treat (Figs. 93-94) Commissioned by Cardinal Bernhard von Cles, these marals show front and back views of nude women who lack any mythological veneer. Similar scenes adorned the most ‘92 Haubhoase, Klsterhof 11, Upper Vestbul, Blavkenten, 114 famous Renaissance bathing complex, that at Fontainebleau, which was deco: rated over the years 1540-47." One image, designed by Primaticcio and etched by Fantuzzi, shows in the foreground Mats welcoming Venus into his tub by placing his hand on her thigh, In the background stand two additional nude women (Fig. 95) Carlo Ginzburg has observed that beginning in the late fifteenth century some elements in the Church increasingly attempted to limit access to eroxic imagery** Savonarola burned artwork that he deemed immoral, and Clement VII sent Marcantonio Reimondi to prison for producing the pornographic series J Heard. Ont of tbe Martel Bed Ue Buk. 129195. Anvorio Fanczsiy afer Primatiscio, Mars ane Verus Bathing etching, ca 1544. Pacis Bibliotheque nationale, ampes et Photographics, Eb x44. modi Ginebarg notes that in Italy only a small number of erotic works func- tioned publicly, in brothels and taverrs. The vast majority, “couched in a cul turally and stylistically elevated code,” was commissioned for private collections ‘and would have been inaccessible to most Italians. For this reason, commis: sioning erotic murals was a way to assert class privilege in Italy, and a com- parison of public and private bath decoration in sixteenth-century northern Europe suggests that this was truc theve as well. Patrons such as Francis I and Philip of Cleves enjoyed aesthetic prerogatives unavailable to those lower down ‘on the social scale. For this reason it was the elite, not only royalty and aristocrats but also car: dinals and popes, who transformed the bath into a “site for the exaltation of the senses,” to quote Heari Zemer.” Not only could one eat, drink, and hear music in the bath, but one could also converse with men and women of one’s rank while relaxing in the warm water. On three separate occasions a group of men, including the French king and Italian clergymen, toured the baths at Fontainebleau and chatted there with Anne de Pisseleu, Duchess of Fiampes, and otber nude women while they were bathing. Nor was this custom reserved solely for the mistress of Francis I; on one occasion the women included Marguerite of Navarre the king's sister, who was an author and a patron of humanists and reformers. In some rooms of elite bathing suites, the pleasura: be experience was further heightened through the viewing of artwork, not only murals but also easel paintings, such as those by Leonardo, Titian, and Raphael, which were displayed at Fontainebleau, For members of the elie class, the baths became rerified sites and ctarus symbols that were proudly shown co visitors, even though, or perhaps especially hecause, their sensuous mood was often enhanced by artwork that alluded to 030 tend Ont of de Martel Bed sexual activity. But it is one thing to see erotic works at Fontainebleau or ‘Wynendacle, and quite another to view them in the residence of a cardinal or pope. Initially, private baths were constructed for clerics so that they could avoid the tempeations found in public baths.* Soon, howeves, they were also used by guests since offering traveling visitors a bath was a traditional form of welcome and courtesy.® But by the sixteenth century clergymen also enjoyed the pre- rogative that was reserved for members of theie class: to view and tovch the erotic art that filled their private baths, Although the authorities insisted that the decoration of public baths should nor encourage lust, paintings and seulp- ‘ure in the private baths of the elite— whether secular or clerical often func tioned to do precisely that. Alidorfer’s Murals in the Bishop’s Palace, Regensburg The most elaborate mural of a private bath to come down to us isthe one that Johann Ill, che administrator ofthe diocese of Regensburg, commissioned in th 115308 from Albrecht Altdorfer for the westside of the north wing ofthe bishop's palace, a rectangular residence built around an inser courtyard, which was sit ‘uated just north of the cathedral" These marals were discovered in 1887 when a fire cevealed their presence on at least three walls of 2 room. Before this space vas demolished, it was partially photographed and twenty-two fragments of Altdorfer’s murals were salvaged. His original composition can be partially reconstructed through these fragments, the photographs of 2887, and a prepara tory sketch of the entry wall, Although erotic artis often thought to be intimate and small in scale, wall ppaintiags such as Johann’s belie thar myth, His murals were quite large; one painted wall measured 362 x so8 em. (114 x r6¥8 ft)? Ir showed to either side ‘of the door that was part of a bathing complex two groups of lange bathess, about three-quarters life-size, situated in or near great metal tubs: two women at the right and a man and woman at the left (Figs. 96-97). Behind each group was a huge stairease, On the right, a couple stood close together at the base of the stairs. Just above, a woman ascended the staircase carrying a golden goblet. Ac the left, a man wearing a fool's cap descended the stairs, adding 2 light- hearted note of criticism to the mural. Above, on the balcony, richly dressed lovers embraced, touched, kissed, or talked, while a man leaning over the balustrade offered a sing :o a potential lover (Figs. 96, 98, 99). The side walls showed a similar format: bathers downstairs and couples observing them upstairs (Fig. 100). Altdorfer shows lovers embracing, a front and back view of the female form, rude bathers in cubs, and 2 woman drying her long, loose hair, which was a standard sign of sexual availability! He also includes painted voyeurs: the figures who look down from the balcony. But unlike those inthe prints by Durer Ue Bek. 13496 Alec Adore, preparatory study for mua showing baths, ison palace, Regensburg, drawing, ‘hsee Florece, Lif, Gabino de Disp dele Stampe and his anoaymous German contemporary, who seem to secretly and illicitly spy on the bathers, Aledorfer's voyeurs gaze quite openly at the nude bodies below (Figs, 85-90, 98-99). The painter's striking naturalism heightens the ‘eroticism, inviting the viewer to experience vicariously the activities that seem all the more ral, Metallic vessels gleams jewelry glows: women’s bodies are both Soft and firm, The mood of this work is joyful and carefree. That Altdorfer deliberately chase this tone is cevealed through a comparison with his prepara tory deavving, which shows the woman in the tub with a frightened look; she opens her mouth in dismay and curas her head away (Fi. 96). The reason for her reaction ie made clear by her companion’ lering grin and clarching gesture. By contrast, in the playfully erotic mural, the woman has a sidelong, sedative glance and a hint of a smile (Fig. 97) ‘A majoe focus in Altdorfer's mural is the fictive architecture. Unlike the baths depicted by Dicer and his anoaymous German contemporary, this monumen= tal oom shows classical style and a luxurious setting, with opulent red marble walls, large panes of expensive bull's eye glass, coffered vaults with golden rosettes, mulkiple balustrades, dames that open up to the sky, and colossal columns that frame the doorway. But it was not only the magnificence and ile 152 heard Ort of he Marital Bel Alowecht Alerts, Rating Conte, ura fragment from main wal showing baths, bishop’ pale, Regensburg, 15308 Reverse, Micen der Stace Regeshire. sionisa of the painted architecture that contributed to the sensuality of this work; it was also its structure. Alison Steware has suggested that some baths had a “bilevel construction.” She points to Altdorfer’s murals and two outdoor scones, an engraving of the bath at Bath, dated 1672, and a woodcut by Sebald Behar that combines a Fountain of Youth with a roofed, open-air bath. Supporting ber thesis are prints chat show viewers observing, outdoor bathers from behind low fences oc walls or atop viewing galleries, such as the one Braceiolini deseribes.® ‘Buta key element in Altdorfer's muta is the lange, claborate staircase to either side, #0 convincing in its illusions, which seems to site the viewer 0 join the lovers on the balcony. The introslction of the sais, cogether with the clear mpl cation that ths i an indoor space, suggests something, more than mere viewing, We Beth98 Albrecht Alulores Lovers, moral fegmest from main wal showing baths, bishops palace, Regensburg, 1530. Budapet,Seépmiivszed Mézeum, since bedrooms were located on the upper floor of so many northern European buildings, including bathhouses (Fig. 88). The powerful visual eve for ici sexual activity, as Mair von Landsb’s three prints of brothels suggest, ince all show a client ascending or descending a staircase (Fig 665-65). Frans van Miers and the Brunswick Monogtammist indicate a similar arrangement, with socializing downstairs and bedding upstairs (Figs. 66-67) In sot, the strucrure of the architectarein this response. The real viewers in the bishop’ palace served as voyeurs, watching painted figures openly gaze at and lean towards nude bathers. This must have drawn their glance to the lower portion of the mural, which showed the nude bathers, who were almost life-size and at eye level. In addition, the painted stairs with lovers at their pinnacle would have been associated with sexual activity that sometimes took place in upstairs bedrooms. But since this mural was a continu- nted room fostered an erotic tt th end. Out of the Marital Bed Albecht Akorfe, Lovers and Man with Ring, mal f hishop’ palace, Regensburg, 1530s. Regensburg, Mnseen der Stadt Regensburg. ‘os composition that spanned at least three walls of the room, the experience of viewing it must have been much more encompassing and enveloping than secing ‘a mere woodcut or easel painting. The urge +0 join the bathers downstairs or the lovers upstairs must have been all the more compelling. The eroticism of Alorfer’s mural perfecly suited its patron. Johann 1, ‘Count Palatine of the Rhine, was a son ofthe elector Philipp von der Pfalz and ‘a meraber of the powerful Witelsbach family (Fig. 101). At an early age, he ‘was destined for a clerical career as part of his father's plan co enhance the family’s political powes, Johann’s eldest brother became an clector and four ‘others became bishops. By 1506, Johann was the recipient of several benefices ‘and had become the coadjutor to the bishop of Regensburg. When that bishop, his cousin Ruprecht Il, died the next year, Johann was selected to replace him. © old, he was appointed administrator of the he understanding that betore he turned twenty ion” Bux this never happened. Because he lacked Since he was only nineteen ye Giocese of Regensburg with seven he would receive ordin sufficient theological training, he remained in the position of his death in 1538. Johann was a strong defender of the Catholic faith against the Lutherans, and through two decrees, dated 1512 and 1518, he was instru rental in the expulsion of the Jews from Regensburg and the destruction of their synagogue in 1519. All evidence suggests, however, that he lacked a deep spiritual calling. Nor only was he never ordained, but in the 1530s he attempted to negotiate a pension for himself so that he might resign as administrator, bur the cathedral chapter deemed his demands excessive and denied his request. I quipped by staining and temperament co serve as episcopal administcatos he Bath 135,eo Albrecht Altdorer, Bathing Weman, rural fragment from side wall showing bathe, bishop palace, Regensburg, 15300 Regesburys Meseea der Sadi Regersburt is better known for his enjoyment of the pleasures of life, including dances at the bishop's palace, feasts organized by the town council, and art patronage. Johann probably commissioned an illuminated peayer book in x 508 and may hhave commissioned a series of dynastic portraits, but his greatest artistic inter- cst was architecture. In the early 15208 he restored and enlarged the Schloss Worth, which was situated on the Danube near Regensburg and had long been a residence of the bishops of that city. His attachment to the castle was s0 pro- found that he spent 30,000 gulden on the renovation, which included cutting, into the rock 10 create 2 wine cellar In x524, when the remodeling was com- pleted, Albrecht Altdorfer, the most accomplished artis: of Regensburg, pre- seated Johann with a watercolor of the castle Johann also renovated and expanded the bishop's palace in Regensburg. Stil surviving are a capital and three sculpted reliefs, dated ca. x fn the west wing; a portal rhat he began on the south wing; and the bath murals which once formed part of a bay window in the same wing, dated to the mid-r330s, for which he turned to Altdorfer' His passion for architecture was so great chat it eventually bankrupted him. One contemporary compared him to the luxury-loving ancient Roman Lucullus, and im a Likeness painted in 151s, the year Johann was supposed to have been ordained bishop, he is instead shown wearing expensive lay clothes and framed by an arch chat displays a nude and a scantily dressed woman (Fig. 101). Aledorfer’s erosic murals of a bath, with thei joyful mood, rich colo and uner barrassed eroticism, must have perfectly suited Johann’s tast ‘Wore those scenes part of a bathing complex in the pala dence supports this conclusion; the mural fragments show neither steam nor No scientific evi 136 Ie ard Ort of he Martel Bed. ror Hans Wertinger Johan I, Adminseirator of Regensburg, 155. Munich Bayeriches Nationalmuseum, water damage. But if the peintings adomed a room that was not immediately connected to the space where the actual athing took place, they might not show such effcets. Supporting the idea that they were pact of « bathing complex is the centuries old tradition that deemed the murals part of the “Kaiserbad,” or emperor's bath, andthe fat that their central iconographical moti nant with paintings that decorate contemporary baths at Fo ‘Trent. The scene of a man and women in a tub resembles that of Venus and Mars at Fontainebleau (Figs. 95,97). Also close to Altdorer’s painting are the female bathers, shown front and back, that Girolamo Remaaino pained in the carly 15308 at Trent (Figs. 93-94, 96).* Nicolo Rasmo has justly linked Aledorfer's paintings to Romanino’s fescoes, not only the nude bathers but aso the figures on balconies that were parc of the same cenovation project. Rasmo further noted the similarities between Akdorfe:'’s painted architecture at the bishop's palace and the real architecture of the Lions Court at the Castello del Buonconsiglio.” Although today Trent isan Italian city, a che sinteenth century it was the southera outpost of the Holy Reman Empiee, and Cardinal von Cles, the pation, was an advisor to Emperor Maximilian who also had close con nections to Regensburg. Just as Johann had earlier relied on his brother's wo. The Bath (37story arcade atthe bishop's palace at Freising as « moda! for his renovations at the Bischofshof at Regensburg, so he tied to the palace of another clergyman with whom he shared strong connections fora source for his mul of a bath ‘Alkdorfer’s wall paiatings would have perfectly suite a bething complex, and such suites were common in arisoctaic palaces But whecher the murals fune- tioned ina bathing complex on Jcar that not cnly Joharn's persona pain the exoticiam of his mel Even the tone of Johan’ paintings betrays his class the classical style and fx ity but alto his elite clave and sci urious quality ofthe architecture, and even the openness with which ize a che nade bathers. Was the inended audience for Aldorfer’s murals primarily the bishop or his ‘murals express an unfold langing oF de life? Aldhougs early sixtcenth-centary Ger regularly acacked th Jergy for thee canal sing, they are sent concerning Johann I Same-Sex Desire in the Bath Aludorfr epics heterosexual desire, As we have sen, many century public bathhousee were designed tobe same-sex, andl so may well have fosteed homosexual activity. Mare Boone Ina concluded tha the authorities in Bruges the public bathhows> ‘was a site for homosexual esignatons. In 145 *sonfeed that he while drinking withthe said Thierry touched and took his penis in his ‘with whom bathe also opens a space for homoerotic 3 confesed he had done similarly had ben in the bath. An ia fi ako ted the bath asa place fer ho the bath and samesex dete is bbeawriful muric” together (Fig. x02)" Musicians were sometimes employed ia bathhouse, be this flautist wears only a G-string and seems to gle the man on his right. In fcr, many of the men in tis print exchange intense glances of lorsing. Moreow sign of courts whose handle is to cll attention others genitals ina way that implies sexual activity cathe 103) The Three Women ina Bat, lke Aldorfer's murals, 138 Jeaud Out of he Muvital Bel, AMhecct Dies, Mons Rat, woodee, teres Pari, ithaque mtioale03. Sebald Heham, Three engraving, 1548. Vienna, Graphische Samo, Alterna was almost certainly pr these murals and since ea feelings, some viewers may cf same-sex bathing. On some level, the two cubs on the entry wall offered the viewer a choice of bathin uced for men, but since some women probably saw modern society was far from have reveled in Altdorfer's foreground visualization niform in its sexual and sexual, alternatives. A Full-Page Nude Bather in a Book of Hours A recently discovered image allows us 10 explore both space as a category of analysis and a fascinating erotic image in a stcced context. A full-page illumi nation of a nude bather was inserted into a Flemish book of hours around 1480 99 to serve as its opening folio (Fig. 104). Religious scenes or designs of the nes “Ihesus” and “Maria” were sometimes added as frontispieses to books of hours, bat ths is the only known example of the insertion of a nude mination has never been identified. The litle-knowa mi the library of Mortimer L. Schiff I, was made for a young man whose portrait 140 Inanl Out of tart bal 04 Flemish, Nude Batker, in the Schif book of hosrs, fol 1¥, 1480-90105. Remish, Porat of the Oumer and St. Michael, in the Schiff hook of hous, fale. 547-35, 1480-90, is included in the codex (Fig, 105). He wears partial armor, having cast off his hhelmet and vambcaces beside his lectern, at which he knesls, his hands clasped in prayer, resting on his open holy book. He appears opposite St. Michael, which suggests that this may have been his Christian name. If he bought the book rather than rece'ving it asa git, then he must cerrainly have been wealthy, since profusely decorated books of hours, especially those with individualized illumi: nations such as portraits, were expensive. But although he is surrounded by four coats of arms, he has never been satisfactorily identified, so methods other than biography, so useful in the case of the Regensburg mural, must be employed to tanderstand this illumination.” ‘Standard iconographic approaches are similarly unhelpful. In 1938 the sale catalogue at Sotheby’s identified the figure as Bathsheba, but David isnot shown, and Bathsheba is generally portrayed bathing outdoors."* More recently, Eberhard Kénig linked the illumination to another image that wes inserted into the manuscript, a full-page illumination of Death that closes the codex, and he inerpreted the nude as a representation of Lust and Vanity, and as a reminder of the transience of carthly chings. But Lust at this time was generally repre= sented by sexual activity, such as lovers embracing, a motif not shown in this illumination. And Vanity was usually depicted as a woman gazing into 2 mirror (Fig. 36), whereas the nude in the Schiff book of hours does not look at her reflection, bat rather casts her eyes down modestly” Unlike some images of (42 In eal Out of the Marital Bed, transgression, the nude does not appear in the context of the seven deadly sins, nor is she accompanied by a devil or an inscription thar identifies her asan alle- sorical figure. Buc if iconography fails to explain this illumination, other approaches are more fruitful. In order to berter understand this image, I will ‘explore ¢ series of real and imagined spatial contexts: the illamination's actual position in the book of hours—on the opening folio, in the calendar section, and facing miniature of January —and its depicted setting, in a private bath chamber thet opens onto a bedroom. Folio 1v shows full-length nude woman who stands at the center foreground: of the composition, combing her incredibly long hair. Wearing only pattens, she holds a transparent veil across her body, which generally conforms to the con- temporary ideal of smell high breasts and long protruding abdomen. Material objects fill the room, At the leit, partially visible mirror hangs on the stone wall above a small wooden bench on which a red pillow rests. Beside the bench fon the floor is a white ceramic pot, while ust beyond is a large arched window, which reveals only a clear blue sky. In the far corner of the room, a wooden shelf supporssa partially filled glass vessel. At the right, a plate with small round object, pethaps chetries, rests on a round wooden table that is covered with a white cloth. Behind, a sumpruous red and gold cuctain, lined with a green fabric, surrounds a wooden bathtub filled with sparkling water An arched doorway pierces the back wall, permitting a glimpse of a blue testered bed. Although che border ofthe miniature of the nue woman matcbes in color and desiga that ofits facing page, close look reveals discrepancies (Fig. 106). Its size differs slighty from its facing folio, and in several places ~ most noticeably around the cherries, the bathtub, the ceiling, and the pillow—the miniature tas bled beyond its border into the margins, suggesting thae they were painted larer than the central scene. In fact, the illumination of the aude woman was inserted into the book of hours atthe same times three other miniatures: those showing Death, the owner's porwait (Fig. 105), and St. Catherine. Each was painted by the same antst, at approximately the same time, and as a single-leaf illumination.” Since these were al inserted individually into a pre-existing manuscript, they could have been positioned anywhere in the book of hours. For this reason, the patrons choice of placement suggests the meaning that he assigned to each of them. Kénig argued thar this image and the one showing Death functioned as “bookends,” one opening the manuscript by introducing sin, the other closing it with a reminder of mortality. Unfortunately, che image of Death has never been reproduced, and I have been unable to view it since the peesent location cof the manuscript is unknown, The illumination is placed after the Office of the Dead, a suitable location for this subject. Kanig supposed with reason that some readers of the devotional text would have interpreted the aude as a counterpart to Death and for this resson a reminder of the transience and sinfulness of cearthly things. Indeed, although the woman does not look in the mirror, the position of her legs and feet implies movement towards it, which may have evoked the idea of Vanity for some viewers. Furthermore, the letters on the bath he Bath. 143og Hemi, Nuule Buuhor en farsay, in the Schiff book of hour, fo. 19-35, 2480-50. cin read “IT.” The catalogue of Sotheby's transcribes this inscription as, “TN,” and Konig as “ITEN,” but it may also read *NITA,” which suggests the word “vanitas.”® In addition, images of erotic nudes, such as Memling’s Vanity, were sometimes linked to representations of Death and the devil as a reminder that “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:25). However, the node fanctions nor only asa counterpart ro the image of Death, hut also as the opening folio af the manuscripts calendar, a section of hooks of hours that was often associated with erotica. The calendar of the Tris Richer Heures, for example, shows nude swimmers for August, peasants exposing thei genitals for February, and two nude Zodiac men, shown front and back." Furthermore, Gemini is often depicted as a nude couple embracing (Fig. 79), courtly lovers regulatly illustrate the months of spring, and workers as well as Aquarius repeatedly appear nude or scantily deessed in calendar imagery.” Similarly, in the Schiff book of hours, April is represented by a pair of lovers who first sit and then walk together in a meadow, and May is visualized by lovers riding on horseback. Besides such common courtly love motifs, the cal ‘endar also includes more erotically charged images, such as Virgo as a nade the Martel Bed 124 In acd, Ok young woman and Gemini asa nude man who caresses a nude woman's breast.” The location of a full-page nude in the calendar section of a book of hours, together with the presence there of other sexually charged images increases the probability that viewers would have interpreted the illumination as erotica ‘When the nude was added to the book of hours as folio 1y, it was placed so that it opened the manuscript and its calendar section, and faced the illurnina tion for January, which then became folio ar (Fig. 106). This miniature shows the labor for the month, a couple dining before a warm fire, and also its zodiac sign, Aquarius, which is cepresented as a nude man who carries jugs of water Tris conjunction of bare flesh and water may well have sparked the idea of inserting the adjoining image of a nude bathes, which shares these motifs. But the juxtaposition of these rw illuminations suggests another association as well The hearth was the traditional symbol of the home, but as cities in northwest. xn Europe developed, homes became increasingly subdivided into. smaller rooms with more narrowly defined functions, such as the bedchamber and the Kitchen. In a process that occurred slowly over hundreds of years, the open, public rooms of the home became distinguished from the more closed and private spaces, and the latter became associated with more intimate functions, with privacy, and with women.” These two illaminations, thea, juxtapose the traditional and the new way of conceptualizing the home. To the right, a man and his wife sit together warming their hands by ehe hearth. To the ef, a nude stands in the private space of er bathroom, ‘The imagined setting of 2 bathroom adjoining a bedchamber also suguests how this illumination might have been interpreted. The form of the bath, a wooden tub filled by hand with hor water and surrounded by a cartain to main- tain both warmth and privacy, was the dominant form of private bath in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries when only the wealthiest could afford a room or suite of rooms devoted solely to the bath.*” Representations of individual women bathers had long been associated with eroticism, for example, the copies of Praxiteles’ Aphrodite, which show the goddess of love accompanied by a water vessel and cloth (Fig. 107). In some versions, the presence of an intruder is suggested by Aphzodit’s pose: che turns her head sharply, crouches over, tries to cover her breasts and genitals, and presses her legs together, making clear her sexual vulnerability. Written sources confirm a connection berween the sculp- ture and eroticism, A sailos left alone with Praxiteles statue overnight, report edly lefe semen stains on it. Similarly, men paid a fee to see the statue from the rear. This sculpture was copied numerons times in antiquity, and was well known in the Renaissance.” Biblical stories also associate bathing women with sexual arousal. Samuel 11: 2-27 relates that David desired Bathsheba after spying het bathing. This scene was commonly depicted in lare medieval art, in panel paintings such as Memling’ lie-size rendering, dated around 1482, in manuscript illuminations, and even on carved ivory combs (Figs. 27, 108-9). Similarly, the book of Daniel recounts that Susannah was bathing in her garden when elders lusted after hee and tried We Bath 185inh, Mei Vere fis century 2, Florence, Usis to compel her to have sex with them. This episode offered another opportunity to display a aude woman bather in late medieval devotional texts.” That the narratives of Bathsheba and Sasannab have ther source in scripeure helped justi the representation of erotic scenes in sacred contexts, Artists could intensify the impact of their image by heightening its erotic content, creating what may seem today like an uneasy marsiage of the devotional and the erotic, But the mixing of sexual and spiritual elements in the visual realm parallels theic common ju. taposition in the writings of late medieval mystics. The repeated overkapping ofthese categories made it possible for artists to tke some representations of bib- lical narratives more towatds erotic titillation than spi biblical scenes helped pave the way for the acceptarce in devorional contexts of secular erotic images, such as the Shifffrontsp Indeed, noe only ancient and biblical themes but also medieval secular ones link private bathing with eroticism. One common topos is that men will spy on unclethed women as they bathe in their private chamber. In a manuscript of Le roman de Girart de Nevers, dated around 1460, Liziart, the count of Forest edification, and these peeks through a hole in the wall co gaze ar his beloved Euryant, the fiancée of Gicart de Nev kes place in an illumination of the Roman de la Vio for the month of May in a book of hours dated aro s, while she hathes (Fig. x10).!" A similar act of illicit viewing te, and in 2 miniature nd 1510, which shows a 146° Ie aad Oct off the Meritel Bed x08. Hians Memling, Batseba, ‘Museum, Ms. 79 (singe fl), reo fool secretly watching two women who are bathing in 2 tub." husband also spies on her while she bathe. As we have seen illicit acts of viewing were a common concern of the authorities who w Melasines nerusted (0 fe5- ulace public baths. Secular panel paintings also eroticize the bath chamber and transform the viewer into a voyear who secvetly gazes at a nude woman as she bathes Barthomeas Facius, the Italian humanist, describes a scene by Rogier van der Weyden, now lor, that showed smiling youths spying on a woman in a bath.!* Facius also saw a painting by Jan van Eyck, now lost, that depicted “women of ‘uncommon beauty emerging from the bath, the more intimate parts of the body being with excellent modesty veiled in fine linen, and of one of them he has shown only the face and breast but has thea represented the hind parts of her Ue Bathe t47 19 Jean Bourdchor, atsbeba Bathe, inthe Hours of ca 1482. Stra, Sasi Laut XU, shortly betore «eo. Las Angeles, J. Paal Getty110 Maser de Wave, Lisert Spies om he Fiancée of Grant de Nevers in Le roman de Grart de Nevers, conte France, ca. 1460, Brussels, Biblthige Royale de Belgie, Ms. 9631, fol body in a mirror painted on the wall opposite, so that you may sec her back as well as her breast.” In 1482 at the Medici’s Villa Careggi, just outside Florence, Flemish paintings once showed “donne che si bagniano."'* A frag- ment of a pipe-clay relief displays a nude woman whose banderole invites viewers to join her in the bach (Fig. x11). In the middle ground nude men and women enjoy the bath together Perhaps most remarkably, in 1457 for the entry of Philip the Good into Ghent completely nude women (*toutes nues") appeared in tableaueevivante as bathing sicens. Images such as these reinforced the association between eroticism and nude bathers. ‘Bur some images of bathing women were associated with sin as well as eroticism, The Elders who lusted after Susannah were stoned ro death as pun- ishment, and, as Thomas Kren observes, erotic images of Bathsheba often accompany the penitential psalis in books of hours, and so represent a temp- tation that is wo be avoided. Similarly, the association of Bathsheba with sin is tundeclined when she is visually linked to Eve." ‘An image whose composition is especially close ro that of the illamination of the nude bather (Fig. 104) sa panel, now lost, that Jan van Eyck painted around 1430, which showed a aude woman washing herself with a cloth and water from a basin while standing beside a dressed companion (Fig. 112). Scholars have long debated whether the panel, whose composition survives only in copies, depicted a secular bath, « bridal bath before the holy sacrament of marriage, oF a biblical figure, perhaps Judith. Like the miniature of the nude bathe, it shows a full-length standing centralized nude and, along the left wall, a ciceu- lar mitror and large window. And unlike images of Vanity, here a very differ cent function is constructed for che mirror, which serves to reveal forthe spectator a second view of the aude woman, much like the painting by van Eyck that was described by Facius. Only a sliver of the mirror is included in the illumination in the Schiff book of hours and although it shows no reflectioa, it may have ‘suggested ro the viewer the possibility of spying another view of the nude bather. 148 be ead Out of be Marital Bed 11 Neterluadsh 0 German, Bath Scene, 450-1525) ppe-clay ‘elie, Amersfoort, Rijledions voor het Culture! Erigoed, in. no. NYM ror4-2-77. Roth paintings share other features, such as a comb and bed. Similar panels, which are undeniably seculas, one from the lower Rhine, dated ca. 1470-80, and the other either painted later or heavily restored, suggest thae there was a tradition of erotic nudes a¢ independent easel paintings (Fig, 113)! These paintings share with the illumination the tall window, the circular micror, the central and frontal rendering of the nude woman, the transparent veil that trans- verses het bods, her pattens, her long loose hair, and the inclasion of washing, implements. Another image that belongs to this tradition of erotic nudes is, visible only with infrared rays below a Boutsian Madonna and Child (Fig. 114). ‘The position of the woman's egs inthe illumination is strikingly different from that of the ancient Roman Vents, who firmly closes her legs by bringing her knees together (Figs. 104, 107), It also differs from Jan van Eyck’s bathes, who adopts a more static and staid stance (Fig. 112). But the crossed-legged pose of the woman in the Rhenish painting resembles thar in the illumination, although instead of her dance-like movement, the nude in the Schiff book of hours seems to be walking (Figs. 104, 113). Her movement enhances her i and suggests that at any moment her teansparent veil may fall off. Whereas the ‘woman in the Rhenish pane! is seen by a man who enters through the rear door, the only voyeur for Jan's painting and the Shiff illumination is the viewes, who {gazes at a nude woman who seoms unaware that she is keing observed. ‘These paincings suppor: the conclusion thar a vibrant tradition of independ: cent erotic works once existed in fifteenth-century northern Europe, and that some of these showed bathing women." Secular images are generally lost in mach larger numbers than religious ones, so it is impossible to know how impression, Te Bah 14912 Detail showieg Jan van Eyck’ Bridal Bot, a 1430, in Willem Van Hace, Archdute Vits the Kunethanamer of C 1638, Arewerp, Rubenshs x5 Rbeaish, Love Spal, 4 rr Mascam der bilenden Kunst. ean: dr Gut, common images of bathing audes once were.*® We do know that in 1402 Jean Gerson, the Freach scholar and reformer, railed against “the fildhy co ‘of boys and adolescents by shameful and nude pictures offered for sak It is not only the bath chamber but also the presence of a bedroom in the far distance that confirms the erotic content of the illumination (Fig. 104 Contemporary images often suggest that baths preceded sexual activity in the bedroom. Memling’s Bathsheba includes a bed in the background, and Jan van Fyck and the Master of Wavrin bath display one off tothe side (Figs. 108, 110, x22). Inthe Palazzo Comunale in San Gimignano a couple first bathe and thea bed together! Flemish and French images of bathhouses, such as those in Boceaccio's Decameron and Valerius Maximus’s Facta et dicta memorabilia 19, 115). Many ‘of these scenes also include other enjoyable acivities, such as eating and drink: ing. Similarly, in Let cent nouvelle: nouvelles, illuminated in Tours ca. 1460- 490, lovers first bathe together, then dine together, and finally have sex together confirm the association between bathing and hedding (Fis in bed (Fig, 20]. In keeping with those images, the illumination in the Schiff 050 In cod, Oat of the Meri 114 Dirk Hous workshop, Madonna and Chid, inured, 8.1460, Cambridge, MA, Hiarvaed Universi F 8 Are Museum fr, jess ledor Servs in mernory of her husband Clas of 893, 395.186tay Rambures Maser, Buth Scene, in Valerius Maximus, Feit e: dis mémorabls des remains, Brges 2.1470. London, Brtsh Libary, Royal Mo. 17 Fig fol 397 book of hours includes a constellation of pleasurable motifs associated with the bath: a nude woman, a comb, food, and 2 bed (Fig. ro4). “The transparent cloth that hides noching calls attention 10 the w of undress, and her long, flowing hair further marks her as sexually available.” ‘As we have seen, the comb itself was a sign of eroticiem, and the act of combing ‘one’s hair was frequently viewed asa prelude to sexual activity in bed (Figs. 25, 3#).1¥ Combing one’ hair was also often associated with bathing women, such, as sirens and the Harlot of Babylon (Fig. 30)- is quite possible thatthe single-leaf illumination of a seductive, nade woman standing before two croticized spaces —her bath and her bedroom ~ was originally designed 2s an independent painting and later inserted into a devotional manu- script! Such scenes were, as we have seen, increasingly common in the late ff. teenth century, and we cannot know whether the illumination was commissioned for the Schiff book of hours of kept in stock in the illuminater’s shop for poss be sale as an auroncmous work. Bur even if it was designed as an independent crotic painting, it was stil thought suitable 10 open a devotional text. How are sve to understand an erotic image that serves asa frontispiece to a book of hours? ‘A useful concep: for comprehending the late fifteenth-century viewer's recep tion of this image is bricolage, which was introduced by Claude Lé more than forty years ago and aptly defined by Pamela Sheingorn as the cre ation of a work through the “juxtaposition of pre-existing. fragments.” Particulasly useful is Sheingorn's observation that “bricolage retains the rough. and uneven edges of fragments rather than smoothing them to create a seam less whole.”"° When the person who ordered the manuscript {who was not nec essarily the owner featured in Fig. 105) purchased an illumination with strong, Strauss 152 Ieend Oub of he Marital Bed links to erotic works and inserted it into a devorional text, he or she brought ew meaning to that composition. To paraphrase Claire Sponsies, consumption became production." Just as Jan van Eyck’s panel (Fig. 112) cannot be classi- fied as either secular or religious, s0 the illumination straddles both these cate rories, Rather than viewing it as either a reminder of sin or an invitation 10 sensuous pleasure, the lare medieval and early modern viewer may well have retained associations with both, especially since earthly pleasure and sin were linked, one leading to the other. Other scholars have demonstrated chat eroti- cized images in religious contexts, especially those viewed during the private, intimate act of reading, sometimes aroused, to cite Sherry Lindquist’s words, “eranagressive, sexualized responses." Medieval viewers grew used to seeing roticized images in sacred contexts, and the young man for whom the manu- script was made could well have understood the nude not simply 9 to sin, as Konig argued, but also as an invitation to erotic enjoyment, Unlike the other spaces that we have discussed in this book, the bath was rarely linked with marriage and instead had an extremely stcong. association ‘with licit sexuality as it was defined at that time: as voyeurism, improper dress, rixed bathing of men and women, touching, fornication, sodomy, and prosti- tution. Such sins were repeatedly condemned by city ordinances and church rulings, but even more frequently imagined as pleasurable erotic experiences in text and image. Both the murals in che bishop's palace at Regensburg and the frontispiece of the Schiff book of hoars confirm that there was no clear binary ‘oppcaition between sacred andl secular art, at least for the wealthy. In both cases crotic images appear in religious contexts, which are thereby enriched by ‘exchanges with profane discourses. Caroline Bynum, among others, has argued that sexual images that appear in a religious context should be interpreted in terms of theology. But Sarah Salih questions this assumption, focusing instead ‘on instanees when medieval people, much like modern scholars, had ‘interpre tative problems. ..in deciding whether sex was indeed sex.” The illumina- tion of the nude bather, if it stood alone, would reveal no explicit association with sin, Bur its devotional context complicates viewers’ interpretive options. ‘The images of baths discussed in this chapter provide additional examples of the erasuce ofthe erotic from cultural memory. The murals in the bishop's palace were whitewashed at an unknown date and as a result were completely forgot ten (or at least went unmentioned) throughout the eighteenth and most of the nineteenth centuries. Only the fire of 1877 forced them into view. Unfortunately, their fragmented state did not encourage much scholatly attention even then Similaay, when the illumination of the nude bather came to light several years ago, Fhethard Kénig denied its pleasurable erotic content and interpreted it only in teams of vive and sin.* By the 1s closed ‘most public bathhouses and stopped commissioning important private ones. But for a brief moment the multisensory experience of nude bodies, masic, conver: sation, warm relaxing wates, and ~at least in the elite baths — erotic sculprure and painting proved too seductive for some to resist. a reference ad ofthe sixteenth century, Europ The Bek 083106 “hie ett abraham 2 ch dem rower hate sample, see Mewrgey de Topigny 1930) pP- fi, sm. Carl rens the cosines Tuthish (Gee 5 hidsp 6. ty mata syesbridera rocker” 166-67, 9X Made, 992, p60 Casillas, 2008, p13, 16 Thchen, 2003, . 49 Leguay 2002, D236 107. Bacchy 2982p. 2755 73 133, Gili, 198, vol. XVI, pp. 6-62 categoria them es Orental, Nether Gees acy 17, Brandage, 1987, p. 527° chem quad toa 08 Otis 1985, 90. 144-4. 134, Kren and MeKenirck, 2005, 99. 306-8. Forte cree, petons de gual ita ho condition que sé top. Rostiand, 198%, pf. igh ofthe Say te Jaa 940 60 Valo, 200, 9.74 Spe ave Geis Gelne afi fie der 2e. “hie re abraham mit icine Breen tocher 155. Kren and MeKendtick 3005p 3 ‘61 The border i tot oigal with ths print and ‘or hota de Helin, exo hls et honest smatia in dem ofenTromen hase oy soe 136 Tetes Chitus’s tds Madonna, dated was eed by che printer five times Se Rode, per ecahor donae honorably et honess, schlouen goer.” 146, whch shows the Vins a the hres 1982 BE S550. Engua totam son devemparadas elas 11 Ot 19858, ph. 52-53; Schusty, 199%, p75. at's cructre ot the monne ofthe Anon 63. Forti moth sce Wilemien, 200%, P94 estas de lo homes.” ‘This woodcut wat raued t0 show + sme tio may be eleraat hee, ince Se. Geeony 163, Wolthal, 1999, pp. 3-14, 34-35 18 For his image, se Maria, 906, p26. theme, Arion persuading amides of the seated that het mariage took place then See 164, Bath, 1994, :'30 419, Taher, 2005p ot “dae weds Manas noch vitae of hasysae Bach, 19827 4540 Chane 155. Fortwo cay audi, sex for example, Keay ‘Weis Personen de da bden,Gisader shen 54% 137. Govt, i981, 209, fg. 11 16h p. 70-99; Rel and Busnes, 198. For Konnen" ra Norberg 19935 p46t 138 Td, p 278 thocame dear diincton, se Shewek, 1995, 20. ‘Retmien, 198% pp. 3, 606: exci, 1s Thi, pp. asor6e; Bch, 1913, vol Lp. 768; 139 Th’ may daw from courting val, courtly pkg, lp 230r “Tabata quedam co Wesner, 1958. 18656. romaress, or fromthe Song of Snag 29 “nt inc eee plas ein 134, Netberg, 1993, 460-5 (Bohol, he sandeth behind ou wal oki Guts et una pare, sina oleic usinaue 185, The color red mas avoid with positon; throgl the windows letdngtheagh tee eee ee sigue tactare quant, Hr eOrum ee see Melakof 19935 ob laps aa ties) See Callen 1974. ps 692 Foe tbe 1 Tacha, 2008, 99.2028 ures consuenco.” 16 ora sini equation of aaeresies and does, ining, ee Holdin, 19869, Pp 214 ; 2 thd. p12 Foran bas, sceamong ote, 21 Ouacinonin, 1630, pit 1993p. 949 “und see Chapter 5 x40. Craven 19975 pp £596 Edward, 198s, and Hanke, 006, Foran over ver der Hoke asain ansehen det Wee 147. Gourhicr and Deremble, x99, p. 219-46 t4t_ Sis, t990, pp Bro view ofthe history of bth oe Exchellden, 22. Pye 1984, pp f0% 10}, 133 116 Karas, 1990, 9.9 12 Brown, 2003, D>. 166-8 Craven, 1997, pp. 1991 6°75 25, Rosvnnd, 1978p. tig. Norton, 1593p. 459. Monet 4 Rhea, 1986p. 147; Taher, 2605, p36, 24. Braunstein, 1988p. 6s Bacio 198, vol 120, Karras, 198, . 133,126 (quot ny Cowen, 19975-2190. i 24. Tuchen, however. nots that bats were Iipcisor"Ridulan ext vider eulasdecetas a1 Notbrg, 1995 468 44 Wolfe, 2045 pp. c90-91- cloned dig epidemics pp. 28-2). sole adolescents rudasi sus hore 122, Broth 1986 9.16, 7 145 For Caravaéo and Inte playing, see Pugs, 4 Teds pp 98-99. ages ingredi, verenda ot nates hominibar 133, Braunstein, 198s, 9p. 27-28 198, 73-99. | § Diereto9o; Eas, 20n0 (fir pblsed 193). cede.” 124, Fart, 196s, vol, poe a4acqs (Ol. 1goe- x46 Wola, 20046 pp. 193-96. & Tach, 2005 pp 94,00 Schur, 199, PD Berunseln, 1988, . 60s: Braco 1984, rob gut Flacete 1972, vo pp. 523-24: "Sy t47_ Tidy ps 193, a0te #7. shoagres the thee ib no evidence that city Ipp-33o-p12"Hecdesaper cing deimbubtor, sna voliano sareinmodo siping vedee,pet 148 Weiwtcn fst, p. 467: my wansan. Bath sere brothel in guibes conspisond,confatulan Cagine arvana maar.” 149. Kren 2055, 43-8 7 Tuchen, 2005, cannot, Rowever, Hertfy the homies conus. Nas cus lst vend, 125. See Hececsio, 197% FR 340-455 Boece, 150. Gregor 98 oh 8 pp ats. ction of ech and every eptis room, and _—_coloquene joan ae candi anim grata 1980, 9p 63139. se Doptes 19875 9p 48-50. theso-aled “hisorial mage” show noite stioram balne ade pera ade, ec 126 Chrivanien ea 138, 9p. 294-96 152 Women areca) shown lasing afer handsome ‘tin shathagpensinvoom therhontheone _exeunt et cam ingredinree aguas femin, 19. Foca salir example se Caml, 1998, p54 3eung men ths they ay through hse wind, ‘ever toting (9. 99-103) Imari pre conor nde corsa, Nalle fe 4 beesee Carls 29985 9994-3. 8 Marin, 1906, p 97 rita cute observant, olla ons prokiben, 128. Simons, 19935. 39-74 13s Foe this pint ae Brea 1956, vl ps 9 Hine ayy. 821%dawol we verorgende i nulls spo ios pus infos em, 129 Monies 74, vol Mp. 64s; Castel, feoxk 3-5) Catelant, 3008, pats; Ke tach viride ue harkoranen wit Gu vir et mullarbue quoque ad bales st 2006, gs. IM; Nel, 196, pt; Panda, tees 1968, p. ren; Med, 19, po) Mate fh wie nd manne Kein user at me ings, ep, ave tru Kine £988, vol I folowing p. 264 Sanden, 1965, ets 1964, FF. 122-25; Rhody 1985 Pp. 133— by cnander och sine Baden baden Seine ovina reo ra obvi ke” Vol i figs 83 and 987 Sarton Lana Ss. 16k; Sake, 1965, vel Tp. 76 et 0 solkan”Ishank De Albrecht Clan for belp 26 Dass 2987 1983.9. 5s Secon, 94, pp. 5-55 6.12 ‘aso, For carne, sre Bain, 1983 sith is lion. 27 Talbot 197%, 9p. 161-6. “phew 1997, pp. 335-425 Lawmes, 99, op t54. Fortis none se Spey, x99 pp 8-138 to Hane, 1975, p. fa; Bidon and Pipnnier, 25 “Teche, 2003p. 299-00 138-39. 15), Bewcasy 936, vo yp 1987, p12 Lgusy, 200% p. 236. For ether 29° -Beamiten 1588 p. 505-6: Bracioli, 1984 230 Motiey 2974 we ps ssisus For vase 136 Vly 208 85 Bein 1934, 70h Th xampcy, e Dut, £9905. 38 vel. yp 338: “Ego ante ox deumbultorio ts masa v1 oui gtp.on Band Pani; Gi Cuca ry oatdieny 131 Forth pet, See Alston, 1998, pp. 5-40. 157. Treen, T9835 pP- 989, 9955 Pavan 1986, ir, pate Sttiatem vcs, vend liam a estan 238 Book of Hoar, emi 100) Camb, 265, 24186 ‘ peice overlie, erram st ere gh simple uwilian Miscum, MS. 1058i975,fols.See 158 Horowt, 2097.9. 2385, 13 Dury 19900 39 ony sun fd. Nidcart ve ees 0 4 Aron ard Masing 995,7-8%.Forasimlat 159. For the Pestana, te Kai, 260% p16, 1 ih Fevers gi ncquconmovebat eon ani 26 207 206 Notes topups 100-18 Me topesoe 3s 36 sm advercbant, oot in melirem partem scipiant” Bourdel, 1878, vol. IX, 299: En Sui, ke homes e femmes sont peste abe alas ff extuves sans fire uci ate déshonnet.” For 4 shy difewot tealtion, see T 936 poe, See abo Talus Sra, a4 "24 lor corabites de lor baie Tee ores cowl sugeies, por tan homes To een, come 24 ‘solos stmiaron” See, for example, Hetrick Heinbuchs tract of the 1380 in Schuster, 1992p. 150, ard Mati, 2906 fs 242, The ralings agit mach atiisy snp hat auibsies cd nor tink twas paely Duet, 19904 P44 Forth itratare on this image and «dierent erpretation of see Tuchen, 2005, pp. 307 Te Pleat, 1908, pp 15,15: "tem quod aula peionacujascamguecondvrisexisas audest feu presumat commie aduteiam vel focncaionem in presen crite Areioners stuphis necue a, de de ne de nace si carers ad hoc deppuras hoe sab pera ‘oinguoginae beam.» lem, qvod nls suberon ve sabetiaaneat seu pres de ie nee de noe in suphis corum aquen fornicate seo vita hentai dod ‘ener repre et hoe sub pera XXY hibraram, proaalibetevice qualibet” (ems tht noone ‘fen conden dare cr dunk wo be able tog Kiel op w aduliery 0 fornication in the cry ‘of Avior, in the Batis or eewhere eter day ‘or igh thie st the ens to which ts ie eserd and this ander pena of» 50 pound fine. em: tha no bath kespee doe or think tole alec receive day or night in the bath an individual coming co fornicate there oF lead there dshonet ifs an the ander penalty of 425 pound fre fr each oe and each me.) Brundage, 1987, pp 457-6 Toi 9.468 Shel, 18475. 245: AB rten wiewen einer Frawenhael dem ander, die ich Pawen cthisled, and fonden a enem Haugonran 3, fn einem mind in dem andeen hy ohne de in den Sellen lagen ute in den Baden.” (Thus we rode fer ene brothel 1 che other, ‘whic eld such women, and found in one house 5a another oi the other mor, nt eoune= 208 Nie topes 26-51 a se 3 so 55 9 s ing thot ke lay down nthe stalls ain the batbbowen) Maren, 1906, p. 833 Stewar 19855 9. 74:1 wl ike to thank the author for cling her ticle to my stenton Wiesner, 1986 p96 (Statburg Saat, ol a, fol 130, 487) Leguay, 200%, p. 240. Rossnad, 1988, 7.69.6 sings, 1996, fo 128; Chasen, 1974, vo IN, pp. 165-6ex "pour eax et pour gucongie soln de fail, oie bane corse out ce faut av mesticr de Venus prendre pa ‘hob et par dcton ce que on desi mie, tte ate fae nd.” Brundage, 927, p. 527; Rosind, 1988, pp 6 7 Barks «886,924 For this espe of appropriation, se Sponsen 2002, PP. 17 Tuchen, 2063, FP 15859; Rhea, 2986, pp. rye For suing norte bath, seo Toshen, 2003, pp 138-371 Ricnhards 1986, po tio-aB, Aubert ané Dube, 1930, pp. 479-39. For Aescpeion, dated 1596-97, of the nonfigual Zero, 2003, f.224, ‘ton Cheales 2008, 9415.1 would bee #9 ‘hank the author for his relrence. poner and Mane, 36005 P. 106. @ 6 6 6 “ Closson and Pai, 19905 P. 525 Reinking won Bock, 1976, pp. 12-3 would lite to thank Alison Stomat, Kein Zapalac, and especialy Ament Kuli and (Goria Linmer for tei geneeus suppsticns ‘on thi econ ofthe chapter, For the Rachel thoy see Mades 19335 pp. tr6-245 Stafles 98>, pp. t8-ar; Hitcheek, 1984, pp. 30-32: For Aldovfers projet, sce Freinds, 1881, 1p. 93-97, ras-a7; Hal, 1933, pp. 207-307 Baldass, 194% pPe 16, T8894, 306, 2155, met, 9655 pp 215 71-735 Wining 19755 bp. sy-s6, 20-11; Pais, Cente Culture! da Marais 188, p. 144s MIke, 1988, p. 2685 Riegel, 2007, pp. 138-57 These mevsurnents, which conectly reve cee onc, were kindly shared with me by Cain Lennce, who will sory publish the resus of her conservation ofthe murals. They are based on esuring the surviving fagmens and then inerpoating night of the grid of squares drawn on the preparatory sketch. 1 ‘hank Ms, Linaner foc sharing this with me. Tor simlar fos, se Levey. 198, Fo lowe hat, se Chapter 2 Fr the standant ‘rac eater of showing the Wont aad bac ww of a nade, see, among thers, Tigh, 1997.9. 199 Stewart, 1985, p73 For otter epen sir bts that ar sitrounded by fence and walle over which viewer lee tthe aches 2c Aeme, 9935p 525 Martin, £906, pp. 281,238 Forhis biography and art patronage, see Hu 1910, pp. 127-28: Ber, 1970, DP. 39-40 335-36 Lie, 91, vol Xl p 68 Bol 1969, 755 Madey, 1933, p. 1375 Woods 193 (8-69, 198, 255¢ "Johann bei Rin” laws der Bayerische’ Geschiteup:fwwalucnens- tric epreehe/nddpfhographienframe stern “phplareheep%jAifworrdatenmatexcdecy inci tigraphin! suckegi%sFemp\"e3 Déetalsasoction?ssDéewil"bs6d"sD7495 Hiasherpe, 1998, np. 344-45; Densch, 2006, fp. 33-87 Sethes atte sores for Farther tblography. Wood, 19955 pr 198 235, 255: “The tenovation of che bishop’ palace benef from the desecration of the Jewish cemetery sinc at eae one Jewih gravestone, dated #529, ‘was wed inthe bulding campaign. See Sous, n ” 75 76 n * 18, p21; Bane, 1970, p40 Forsch mse of Feith greene sce Mit 1996, 85.1 Wwoald like 10 hank Elshera Cadeboch for ringing his ess) co my ateaon. I is poss- Meenat the poral on she south wing may have ‘nginaly edie the bath Riegel, 2007.0. 4, judiciously weighs the evidence. For the que about Laclls, soe Oct, 1783, 227, For poral of jean see Ehret, 1976, BAT. S558, 154085, 15% Frdmann, 19294 9 3-72 Zenmes, 2003, PP 225-24. Morass, 1929-30, p. 329 Ear, 1985, pp Some achlats blew that Allene vse the care in 1533, sherly before the Repersbary tara wer paimted. For his connections 10 “Trent see Rasmo, 1955, pp. 33-354 Rasmo, 967, po tas Wincineh 2975, DD. S536 Then, 2688, Po 168 Winainger, 19755» $6 See Hltchcook, 9815p. 30,4 Johan's reliance fon his brother palace Boone, 1996 ps 148-49: “confers gue hy en ‘vant avecques icely Thi asta et print s2 ‘serge ens main, lgul i enfesa bien pare iment avoir fit avecq_pliseurs hommes svenques que voit eng aux estures” Hegel, 2001, pp. 41-44. For the eronc apes offs pint, se cspecially alin, :986b, p35, and Jones, 1904, 294 For the ange of erection ofthis print see Pats Pec Palas 1996, p. 38. For another all tale bach scene see Guolamo Macchict!s ‘aiming in Booneville, 199, p. 30. Forte esring of the ec, 6 Jones, 1994, 7 204. ‘Weiser 1995) pP- 305 34 For Behamis print and is model see Batch, 1978, p25, 0 37 (68), and p10, no. 2084 (203) Teh to thank Sherry Lindquist and Roger Wieck for thet elpil comments concemieg this image, Foc inserted fromtioieces se Kats rym RadyS popes, Manuscripes and Leaves a5 Gis irom Nens: Women's Rens of Powe the Fiteenth Cnty from conference ae the Unienigy of Anrwerpy Mies Relgiosar Female Relies Authority from the Middle Ages to the Preset, 2007 (publication fort coming), nd Rudy, 2007 pp. 29-35 He shown alive, whic inehsts that he was Node tepeges 131-42 2094 ” s living atthe ime the age was painted, aecond ing 10 a vetbal communication frm Roger Wieck Koni, 1991. 30% omever, sue that since he ppeac atthe hepeming ofthe feags tothe sits he was probly Jed. He was wrongly iced a Jue Vos Varse tae in Sotheby's 1938 . 420 Ti, 9421 Flowing Kenia. 99%, pp. 270-302, Waiter Trevenier and’ Willem Peter Hlockmane also teamed the ainiture a tepreenaton of Vani. See Peveie: 1nd Blockmans, 1998, 9. 217. Jacques Pavio fk thatthe illaminatcn probably represented Lnairy, bat delared i ‘hiratc See Paviot, 8999, pp. 577. See, for example, Morgan Libary, Book of Hous (Rees. c2. 1475), Msic04, (0. 981 (eran wth hand up wens ski): Moran Ui bay, Cone Amant (England, £43550), Mua26, fol. r79¢ (hising. ond embracing ‘couples Morgan Libra, Book of Hours Pais, ( 1425-5oh Ms-453, fo. 9Br (ust a5 couple ‘embracr); for Senn Deadly Sins, atrbted 10 Bosch ce Gibson, 1975 pp. 32-36; for 3 peat feom & sctis of the seven deadly sin, ace Gibson, 19775 9p. 6-97 Yor Menuling’s Voney, which is dae a. 1485, ee De Vos, t994, Pp. 245-47. For Bosh Siporbis, se Gilson, 1973, pre 32-37- For Bracgels Superba ee Gibson 19775 BP 52~ 43. For Vanicy as reeds or ste, se Van Gangeen and Ostkamp, 2001,» 161. omg, however label the rede a caiatare of ‘wowanliood bests of ee age fee and leap ‘contours. Se Kei 199%, B. 294. For shgie eat dluninaions, see Wieck, 1995, pp.23-s4 Scehebys 1938, . 4213 Kong, 1991p. 278 For the Te Richer Heures, se Cail 26010, pp. 265-94 Forcalenar misiaares that include seal as, ucts or tantly deesed gates, see, among ther Mees and Benson, 1974, fo. 2 (car fy creed Aguarn) fol ¢ (aude male and ferle fzuces arovia-ar for Goan, pact of their bodies covered by 2 shied) and fos. $2 (workers with bare legs fr July Angus, and Sepmberh; Wide aly 20005» 6x (May a8 2 couple aloe in the fore holding hands and (Genial asa naked embeace), pp. 6 64, 68 (ne, ls, and Seperaber with exposed es of 210 Nils topegu 42-48 2 9s 96 7 of 98 103 106 sworeres Wes, 8 p52 28 (for July a tale mower placing his hend en a female movers bras and Amould ard Masing, 1995, 9.88 (Gemini asa nee man and woman sho warmly emirsce). Foe thee cera canes Ki 9915p. 28 Howe 0m pp. 10-10. ‘Thoracn, 1991, 9.246 Salomoe, 1956 np 69-87 id. Carrol Biiera planned to inclede a sHoeue of Venus in he Bathing comple, ne ‘tbundoned thei ory for lack often. See ards, 298, p. 16 For Memings pointing, see De Vos, 1994, 9. api-r4. For the manuscript lamination, see Kren, 20055 pp. 43-61 Se, for example Konig, 1991, p. 488, for 3 book of hours produced in Tours 6m 1460-70 an 1485 fol. 251 See among many others, Voaden, 1997; Pp e390. Snes, 1999, 9 48 (Brus, Royal Libary of Begin, ME. 965 fol £24); and Frverer fod Hlskimane, 2098p 133 vot, 2000p. 270. For the image of the fol, sce Preven ad blockmans, 1958 238 For Melis, ec, among thes, Busch, 1982, B87, no. 1482064 Basal, 1964, p14 Feethe quote see Beran 196459. 103) ho sdho identifies the owner as Onaiano della ‘Corda, The pining mus have besa a tour de force, since Wasa showed an old wera th was sweating, a dog aking water and 2 ‘brning lamp Fc the original Lat rem Taster. exmis. fem talneo. exeunes. ocublores corporis partes tent tate uslitie noah rubore e que ones ‘or tanrurmmodo pectasgue demorstrans. past "ores compors artes per apeclum peur er ‘oppsicam ita expres ut et tea qucmad rmodum pecs ides.” Se alo Ballas, 1952, ip. 5-44 Dhanns,t080, pp 295, 210-11. Daanens re p23 Ontcamp, 2000, pp. 256-38 Sec Huleings, 1996, p. 378: Ducin, 99.298) ‘eres chat part of their bodies may have een Under water and therfore not sb Kren 2095, pp 43-6: and fr conection Bye fp so Se, amone ethers, Held, 1882, pp. 43-38: ny x6 7 8 ay Schabaches 1974-76 pp. 56-78) Dhanens 138, pp 206-45 Hamner Togendy 1985535; Sprotk, 1996, pp. 10-1 5,and avi, 2000 DD. 245-82. Pavot aes Jan’ painting a mnove tive in early Netherland ar, bat fine wk ‘oth Kalin pining and Fonch leratre For the German work, see Hotel aad Thiele, 1973, p. 202 Osten, 1970, pp. 43-42: Lyman, 1994, pr #¥I-as; Alkema, 2000, p. 330. ThE ‘ther painting present location it unenown, bt swab side i the Warburg Libary, Londen wish 6 dha Paul Null fo ring tog ths image tomy aeion. Sproat, t008, pp 424-31 Hanmer Togend, 1985, Pariot, 2005. Past, 2000 9.280; Gesson, 1980-73, vl. X 1, 24° foedlsinas cortcnss apad puerlbs dolecennors, enc tn imapinibas pends audi, gute etiam vnale expomantur™ For the English rasation, see Brown, 1989, 9-24. ‘Campbel 1997. pp. 149-50. For ilumiaaipas In Yalenus Maximus mane ‘rps see Prevent and Boskmans, 199% PE Ta4-3g, 139; Smeyery, 1999) pp 368-695 Keen and Mackendrick, 2005, pps 256-37 ivho notes that hs manusripe was the mest popalar tec text ofthe time). Many ofthe set fre ent! versons were prodacedin the suth- cm Netherlands eeween 1479 and «480, thas Shera befor this ilominaton. Although Keni describes the text of Valerius Maximus as mor tang, the accompanying images ser reel ‘nema plenare exter than condern ther Woliha 1999, 9. 43-45 See Chap = For single luiatios, see Wiech, 1996, pp 333-54 For a hey of brctage, exe Desmond and Shengomy 3008) pp- 247-48 fe 44 Poe the uote, see Sheingorn, 2005. PP. 172-74 Sponser, 2002, pp. 36, $3 See Eaton, 2994 pRB Baston, 2 pp. 49-64; Easton, 3096, pp. 395-414 Mi Boon pp. toa7; Treen 19855 Trex 19935 pp. 107-20. Lindgis's quote fom er Inter aon Ceret of Mecieal Ae cl for papers fn the meaning of nai? (2007). Sat 2003, p27. See Salih for references © Bynum aed Sinker, A sil forune befell one of Cadisal Bibbi= cous frescoes, His Paw Opfing Syriny which Showed Pan with an erst penn war defaced by hes. Sce Tia £9955 5 The Street 1 Forshe set, see Camille, 1992 pp. 129-5. + Thomas a Kempis, 1955, p. 37: Thoms 2 Kemp, 886, pg: Seomultc mands p57 “deridtinsosualatis™ and “grat com- scienine ct cords dipesicre importa.” 3, Howell, 2000, pp. 17-18. 4 Towonid ike to thank Corse Schleif for her _aetute comments em hi secon of the chapter land Monika Secakewska for her teaslations fora the Penh, The pining is yo centres (G5. inches) high adi toy in the Nacional ‘AreColecton Wiel Castle, Krakow: For he panel ee Koper, 1926, vo. yp. $8 Wale, 1961 pp 4 328-235 Koplow, 1964, P75 76; Pati Petit Pala, 1369, my Cat or 32 (bo suggests may have been commbsioned for 2 fern church at Screpanom), Ort Michalowsha, 1982, mp, ext no. 26 Stangler nd Sols, 1986, pp. 207-8, eat to. 21. 5 Only German scholars have shown a ntvest in Polish ar, ut they wend 10 view st drough jnandiced jer For example, Ma Loss ota, p X66 damsel Krakow’ relevance for westean Earope by doverbing it os "1 wade ‘rporium in the Par Ext” Nach dem Ha’ Gliemortm inn fernea Osten). Especially funder the Nant, Germans scaimed tele ovr te shove all ther, bur according to Stefan Mths, 1994, p35 "The country which he Germans fet most superior to was Poland” If carler German scars denigrned Polish at, they sie claimed that any postive fees of thar at were derived om Geman cakure te 1938, for example, Weidhaat concaded thar *Poltad eid not devon its own language. afore the rural advance of Rhesish [Romane] buns.” Se Mathesnt, 1994, 46 For the sin, sce Tachochuey, 1976, rol VI, pp. 390-g2s Réau, 1955-59. oh I, py pp 3536 7 Honichenns and Papenbrosck, 2735, p. 2 ‘Mulires gues mivera mati epercerat, singular crudeliats genere lett: quibus, Notes tages 129-58 2A