Historical evidence of goat tickling - Polish Martial Law from the XVII century

[Toermentor]

I found a piece of actual historical account of goat tickle torture. This is a quote (translated from Polish) from a polish book "The Order of Courts and Urban Matters of Magdeburg Law" published in Cracov in 1616 (and reprinted in the 1760):"Confessions were extracted with water, vinegar, pouring boiling oil down the throat, smearing with sulfur, hot tar or lard, hunger, great thirst, placing a mouse on the navel, a shrew or some other poisonous insects covered with a jar so they couldn’t escape, tormenting the body of the suffering; also, when the criminal is tied to a bench, their legs smeared with brine, then a goat is brought, which licks off the salt—said to be cruel without causing bodily harm... then further by dragging with ropes, naked the criminal (with all natural shame covered), on a narrower bench than the body, they are pulled through the chest, then the big toes are tied together and a rope is wound around a wheel so that the body of the criminal is dragged until they speak the truth. Some also had their hair completely shaved with a razor, to cause burns, so that no magical aid hidden in the hair could help, according to witchcraft or other magic, for which others feel no pain... Before these torments, the criminal was first beaten with rods."

I'm adding the images of the proof of that actual quote.

I don't know if anybody cares but I know that this method of torture was always debated if it was real in the middle ages... well It was surely used in Poland in the XVI and XVII century and this is the proof.

 

[U.N.Owen]

Well, that is the first actual, verified historical reference I have ever seen. Not exactly a scenario I personally find appealing, but a genuine discovery.

 

[milagros317]

Very interesting! Actual historical proof of goat licking as torture. 🐐

 

[CoatOfArms]

Great find. After I seen your post, I vaguely remembered reading about it in one book about renaissance Kraków, and after some search, I managed to find an even earlier mention of this torture, published in a book titled: Porządek sądów y spraw Mieyskich Prawa Maydeburskiego, written by Bartłomiej Groicki, first published in 1559. I guess your source refers to this book written by Groicki, as the description is literally the the same.

So it seems that it is a confirmation that this torture was used, and since Groicki was a clerk of the Supreme Court of German Law at Kraków (since Kraków was granted Magdeburg rights), it is possible that it was also present in other European cities

I will attach the screenshot of the book I found:

 

[Toermentor]

Great find. After I seen your post, I vaguely remembered reading about it in one book about renaissance Kraków, and after some search, I managed to find an even earlier mention of this torture, published in a book titled: Porządek sądów y spraw Mieyskich Prawa Maydeburskiego, written by Bartłomiej Groicki, first published in 1559. I guess your source refers to this book written by Groicki, as the description is literally the the same.

So it seems that it is a confirmation that this torture was used, and since Groicki was a clerk of the Supreme Court of German Law at Kraków (since Kraków was granted Magdeburg rights), it is possible that it was also present in other European cities

I will attach the screenshot of the book I found:

View attachment 1077262

This is exactly the same book I'm referencing, but you got your hand on a first issue. Great find! Also a fantastic digitalization.

 

[bobhurl]

Thank you for this discovery. The work in question (by the jurist Bartlomiej Groicki, who introduced Latin and Germanic law to Poland through a series of works that founded Polish law) is a legal manual intended for judges and investigators, modeled on other European treatises. These treatises on criminal procedure are always designed in the same way. At one point, they specifically address the application of torture, listing its different types. And these lists of torture are often roughly the same from one treatise to the next. The list in question is not specific to the Magdeburg jurisdiction.
The passage you mention specifies that the list of tortures was borrowed from another author. I don't read Polish, but going back three pages, to page 135, he refers to the famous treatise by Damhoudère, a jurist in Bruges, who himself already mentioned torture by goats, and all the others.
https://wmbc.olsztyn.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=15602
And Damhoudère, whose famous treatise (published in 1555) spread throughout Europe, modeled himself on earlier Italian treatises (such as Bruni's treatise, late 15th century).

In my opinion, it is not certain that the most exotic types were actually applied, even marginally. Each place had its own practice - not bizarre tortures like the use of hornets or rats, as we find in these lists, but mostly fairly common tortures widespread everywhere, such as water, boots, rack, etc. - and rarely deviated from it.

Moreover, Groicki introduces this list by writing: « Wżeyż namieniony Author, wypisai o rozmaitych mękach, w które Złoczyńcom bywają zadawane, więcey z wymysłów Sędziów niebacznych, a z okrucieństwa Katowskiego, niż wedle Prawa. », that is to say : "The aforementioned author described various tortures inflicted on criminals, more the product of the imagination of imprudent judges and the cruelty of executioners than in accordance with the law." So, in reality, he cites these tortures not to recommend them but to condemn them and dissuade magistrates from resorting to them. And the other magistrates who listed them before him did so in the same spirit, I think: to enlighten the judges by steering them away from procedural errors which could compromise the success of their investigations.

If you read French, you might want to look at this short study posted on Wikipedia:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatouillement_(torture)#Dans_les_anciens_traits_de_procés_criminelle

What I've never been able to clearly establish is whether there was a link between goat torture and tickling. That's the central question... And this manual doesn't shed any additional light on it, unfortunately.

In any case, the fictional story you made is great, as is the 3D illustration.

 

[Toermentor]

Thank you for this discovery. The work in question (by the jurist Bartlomiej Groicki, who introduced Latin and Germanic law to Poland through a series of works that founded Polish law) is a legal manual intended for judges and investigators, modeled on other European treatises. These treatises on criminal procedure are always designed in the same way. At one point, they specifically address the application of torture, listing its different types. And these lists of torture are often roughly the same from one treatise to the next. The list in question is not specific to the Magdeburg jurisdiction.
The passage you mention specifies that the list of tortures was borrowed from another author. I don't read Polish, but going back three pages, to page 135, he refers to the famous treatise by Damhoudère, a jurist in Bruges, who himself already mentioned torture by goats, and all the others.
https://wmbc.olsztyn.pl/dlibra/doccontent?id=15602
And Damhoudère, whose famous treatise (published in 1555) spread throughout Europe, modeled himself on earlier Italian treatises (such as Bruni's treatise, late 15th century).

In my opinion, it is not certain that the most exotic types were actually applied, even marginally. Each place had its own practice - not bizarre tortures like the use of hornets or rats, as we find in these lists, but mostly fairly common tortures widespread everywhere, such as water, boots, rack, etc. - and rarely deviated from it.

Moreover, Groicki introduces this list by writing: « Wżeyż namieniony Author, wypisai o rozmaitych mękach, w które Złoczyńcom bywają zadawane, więcey z wymysłów Sędziów niebacznych, a z okrucieństwa Katowskiego, niż wedle Prawa. », that is to say : "The aforementioned author described various tortures inflicted on criminals, more the product of the imagination of imprudent judges and the cruelty of executioners than in accordance with the law." So, in reality, he cites these tortures not to recommend them but to condemn them and dissuade magistrates from resorting to them. And the other magistrates who listed them before him did so in the same spirit, I think: to enlighten the judges by steering them away from procedural errors which could compromise the success of their investigations.

If you read French, you might want to look at this short study posted on Wikipedia:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatouillement_(torture)#Dans_les_anciens_traits_de_procés_criminelle

What I've never been able to clearly establish is whether there was a link between goat torture and tickling. That's the central question... And this manual doesn't shed any additional light on it, unfortunately.

In any case, the fictional story you made is great, as is the 3D illustration.

Thats a fascinating and very in depth look on that issue. Thank you!

However I don't know if we agree on this that goat liking heels of the criminals is factual... wheter it primary intention was to tickle or not is I think irrelevant because we do know for a fact that it does and it would for a while before anything else occurs. Also the quote "said to be cruel without causing bodily harm..." might of course indicate that it was about irritating and tormenting sensitive feet. I can't say for sure because it's not clear I agree.

However I would like to point out a small but important detail about polish language that might cause you to misinterpret the meaning of this quote: « Wżeyż namieniony Author, wypisai o rozmaitych mękach, w które Złoczyńcom bywają zadawane, więcey z wymysłów Sędziów niebacznych, a z okrucieństwa Katowskiego, niż wedle Prawa. »
Well you see the word "wymysł" (or used "wymysłów" used gramtically here) does mean generally "imagination", however it has another meaning that is used exactly in context like in this sentence, which means "on a whim"... so for example "Tak sobie wymyśliłem" would mean "That was my will" and not "That was my imagination".
Therefore, assuming that you read this as a "Tale of jugdes and sadistic executioners" it is not what that would tipically mean. It would mean "that wasn't a lawful way but they did it anyways because they were sadistic and depraved"

In conclusion. I do agree its not 100% certain that goat torture = tickling from this text but I do belive the text describes actual practices rather than ficticious tales.

I love your work as well!

 

[bobhurl]

Thats a fascinating and very in depth look on that issue. Thank you!

However I don't know if we agree on this that goat liking heels of the criminals is factual... wheter it primary intention was to tickle or not is I think irrelevant because we do know for a fact that it does and it would for a while before anything else occurs.

Well, the problem is that it has never been confirmed. For one thing, no documentary source affirms it by direct testimony. There is only the Theatrum humanae vitae of Zwinger the Elder, which associates this torture with "Sardonian laughter", but he speaks of it by hearsay (he borrows the story from Bonfini, a century after the events) about the tortures that were allegedly practiced at Dracula's court, of which we know that : 1. it was undoubtedly invented for political propaganda (to peddle the inhuman sadism of this prince), 2. it could not have provoked laughter, since they were associated with a slashing of the feet with a sword to tear the flesh, according to another source closer to Bonfini. Zwingler therefore distorts the facts. The second source that mentions this association between laughter and goat torture is von Grimelshausen's account of the adventures of the Simplicissime, which is a pure work of fiction that may have drawn its inspiration from Zwinger.

And that's all. In my opinion, this is a possible source of misunderstanding.

Moreover, every time anyone has tried to stage this "torture" "in real life" in our time, no particular suffering is observed, nor even a tickling effect. I have in mind a German show where they seriously tested it on two women, whose reactions weren't very convincing, another German show (Die Burg) where there was no reaction, etc., and outside of TV shows, a fetishist once performed it on a girl who had no reaction, another fetishist does it on himself and seems to tolerate it very well. In short, "in real life", I have never seen anything that would allow me to say that this "torture" causes a "tickling" comparable to "torture".

Also the quote "said to be cruel without causing bodily harm..." might of course indicate that it was about irritating and tormenting sensitive feet. I can't say for sure because it's not clear I agree.

This formula was first used by Bruni in 1495. All the others simply copied it, from treatise to treatise.

Two things must be understood:
First, these legal treatises attempt to provide judges with means of applying torture without causing bodily harm, if possible. Therefore, the formula "safe for health" recurs periodically. And there is a possible contamination of another, unrelated "goat torture," the "goat" in question being a pointed piece of wood on which the patient was balanced with ropes, a torture also presented as "safe for health" (which seems to me doubtful). One might reasonably wonder whether there wasn't, at some point during the tedious writing of these long treatises, a confusion between two "goat tortures" that had absolutely no connection with each other. And the one using a piece of wood called a "capra" (= "goat") was widely used in Italy.

Then, these jurists of the 15th and 16th centuries also sought to spread an encyclopedic knowledge, in keeping with Renaissance mentalities, mixed with a medieval spirit where people customarily copied lists found in ancient authors without question. So we have a sort of standard list, which is repeated from treatise to treatise, but this does not mean that it reflects any real practice at any given time. We would have to ask how it ended up in Bruni's treatise, and that remains a mystery to be solved. It is not impossible that Bruni simply repeated what Bonfini had recounted about Dracula from hearsay (my hypothesis because it corresponds to the time when Bonfini wrote his History of Hungary), the goal being to amass as many diverse and varied tortures as possible.

However I would like to point out a small but important detail about polish language that might cause you to misinterpret the meaning of this quote: « Wżeyż namieniony Author, wypisai o rozmaitych mękach, w które Złoczyńcom bywają zadawane, więcey z wymysłów Sędziów niebacznych, a z okrucieństwa Katowskiego, niż wedle Prawa. »
Well you see the word "wymysł" (or used "wymysłów" used gramtically here) does mean generally "imagination", however it has another meaning that is used exactly in context like in this sentence, which means "on a whim"... so for example "Tak sobie wymyśliłem" would mean "That was my will" and not "That was my imagination".
Therefore, assuming that you read this as a "Tale of jugdes and sadistic executioners" it is not what that would tipically mean. It would mean "that wasn't a lawful way but they did it anyways because they were sadistic and depraved"

Groicki explicitly cites Damhoudère's treatise to criticize it, considering it dangerous to divulge lists of cruel tortures without condemning their use, which Damhoudère does not do. Groicki therefore distances himself from his model and reminds judges that they must refrain from sadism and resort to torture only if necessary to bring out the truth. Groicki's attitude is also somewhat in line with a mystical Polish author of the following century, Joachim Jerlics, who wrote a chronicle, Postępek prawa czartowskiego, in which he explicitly condemns the excessive use of torture, which he considers "diabolical." All this seems to indicate that locally, judges had to commit atrocities, and that people like Groicki sought to channel them, which is also the logic previously followed by Bruni, Damhoudère and all the others. But does the use of tickling goats fall under the umbrella of these atrocities beyond the scope of the law? Probably not, in my opinion.

But nothing prevents us from imagining it fictionally, of course.

In conclusion. I do agree its not 100% certain that goat torture = tickling from this text but I do belive the text describes actual practices rather than ficticious tales.

I love your work as well!

Thanks ! My style is very "naive," but I hope to present something worthwhile one day.

 

[Toermentor]

Well, the problem is that it has never been confirmed. For one thing, no documentary source affirms it by direct testimony. There is only the Theatrum humanae vitae of Zwinger the Elder, which associates this torture with "Sardonian laughter", but he speaks of it by hearsay (he borrows the story from Bonfini, a century after the events) about the tortures that were allegedly practiced at Dracula's court, of which we know that : 1. it was undoubtedly invented for political propaganda (to peddle the inhuman sadism of this prince), 2. it could not have provoked laughter, since they were associated with a slashing of the feet with a sword to tear the flesh, according to another source closer to Bonfini. Zwingler therefore distorts the facts. The second source that mentions this association between laughter and goat torture is von Grimelshausen's account of the adventures of the Simplicissime, which is a pure work of fiction that may have drawn its inspiration from Zwinger.

And that's all. In my opinion, this is a possible source of misunderstanding.

Moreover, every time anyone has tried to stage this "torture" "in real life" in our time, no particular suffering is observed, nor even a tickling effect. I have in mind a German show where they seriously tested it on two women, whose reactions weren't very convincing, another German show (Die Burg) where there was no reaction, etc., and outside of TV shows, a fetishist once performed it on a girl who had no reaction, another fetishist does it on himself and seems to tolerate it very well. In short, "in real life", I have never seen anything that would allow me to say that this "torture" causes a "tickling" comparable to "torture".


This formula was first used by Bruni in 1495. All the others simply copied it, from treatise to treatise.

Two things must be understood:
First, these legal treatises attempt to provide judges with means of applying torture without causing bodily harm, if possible. Therefore, the formula "safe for health" recurs periodically. And there is a possible contamination of another, unrelated "goat torture," the "goat" in question being a pointed piece of wood on which the patient was balanced with ropes, a torture also presented as "safe for health" (which seems to me doubtful). One might reasonably wonder whether there wasn't, at some point during the tedious writing of these long treatises, a confusion between two "goat tortures" that had absolutely no connection with each other. And the one using a piece of wood called a "capra" (= "goat") was widely used in Italy.

Then, these jurists of the 15th and 16th centuries also sought to spread an encyclopedic knowledge, in keeping with Renaissance mentalities, mixed with a medieval spirit where people customarily copied lists found in ancient authors without question. So we have a sort of standard list, which is repeated from treatise to treatise, but this does not mean that it reflects any real practice at any given time. We would have to ask how it ended up in Bruni's treatise, and that remains a mystery to be solved. It is not impossible that Bruni simply repeated what Bonfini had recounted about Dracula from hearsay (my hypothesis because it corresponds to the time when Bonfini wrote his History of Hungary), the goal being to amass as many diverse and varied tortures as possible.



Groicki explicitly cites Damhoudère's treatise to criticize it, considering it dangerous to divulge lists of cruel tortures without condemning their use, which Damhoudère does not do. Groicki therefore distances himself from his model and reminds judges that they must refrain from sadism and resort to torture only if necessary to bring out the truth. Groicki's attitude is also somewhat in line with a mystical Polish author of the following century, Joachim Jerlics, who wrote a chronicle, Postępek prawa czartowskiego, in which he explicitly condemns the excessive use of torture, which he considers "diabolical." All this seems to indicate that locally, judges had to commit atrocities, and that people like Groicki sought to channel them, which is also the logic previously followed by Bruni, Damhoudère and all the others. But does the use of tickling goats fall under the umbrella of these atrocities beyond the scope of the law? Probably not, in my opinion.

But nothing prevents us from imagining it fictionally, of course.


Thanks ! My style is very "naive," but I hope to present something worthwhile one day.

Well all I can say is two things... Clearly you have a lot of sources, but I see just genuine doubt rather than certainty. I'm not certain too but, to go: "well... even thou it's written here I don't believe it" it becomes a matter of belief. I choose to believe that if it said they did it, they probably did do it.

Second thing that I can vouch for is this... I have seen some Kujman goat tickling videos (for some reason he trusted me to show me some)... and they do tickle and to the point of being torture. So that's just being an eye witness of the fact that it can and would tickle like crazy if your feet are genuinely ticklish.

 

[bobhurl]

You're absolutely right: I'm not asserting any certainty. What has motivated me from the beginning in my research is precisely to investigate and try to discover the truth, whatever it may be. And the deeper I delve into this research, the more I discover that nothing is affirmed with certainty. So, for the moment, I only have hypotheses. The truth seems to be lost in the distant past, for the moment as far as I'm concerned. Maybee..., maybee the mention of this bizarre torture reflects a real practice.

You were very lucky with Kujman. I always wondered why he refused to share and thus imposed heavy frustration on everyone.

 

[Toermentor]

You're absolutely right: I'm not asserting any certainty. What has motivated me from the beginning in my research is precisely to investigate and try to discover the truth, whatever it may be. And the deeper I delve into this research, the more I discover that nothing is affirmed with certainty. So, for the moment, I only have hypotheses. The truth seems to be lost in the distant past, for the moment as far as I'm concerned. Maybee..., maybee the mention of this bizarre torture reflects a real practice.

You were very lucky with Kujman. I always wondered why he refused to share and thus imposed heavy frustration on everyone.

Agreed! <Gentleman's handshake>
Anyway thank you for a very informative and stimulating conversation. Truly shows your passion for the topic and I respect it very much sir.

Yeah, he is peculiar to say the least. If you want some details I can share them in private... discord maybe?
I got to know the man pretty well over the past couple of years and we had a lot of very interesting and informative conversations. I know he doesn't have the best reputation here (and I can't blame anybody) but I genuinely like the guy and one thing I have learned about him that I'm certain of... he is a tickling savant. He has shared some tips to enhance my scenes that came from genuine experience and craftsmanship. Every tip he gave me worked amazingly and I can only thank him, because it really enhanced our love life and tickling sessions. My wife fell in love with SMTK (the immersive role play style that Kujman wrote about) and she is jenuinely craving those sessions even thou they are genuinelly the most intense things we do.

 

[CoatOfArms]

It was a really interesting discussion and I would like to add one more thing. It is true that there are very few ( and not necessarily reliable) sources describing tickling or goat-tickling as a torture or punishment method. But I think it is quite unlikely that such a thing would be even written down. Let me explain.

I think we can all agree that if tickling was used as a torture or a punishment, it wouldn't be considered the harshest method considering other possibilities, like rack, thumbscrews or other unpleasant devices. So only really minor criminals would be realistically sentenced to "suffer" it. I mean, someone who has robbed a house of a merchant, killing him and his family in the process, wouldn't be sentenced to be tickled.

And this leads to a second problem - during medieval times, or even during renaissance, few people could write and those who could, wrote down only most important things. So for example, if a saleswoman was found selling rotten vegetables and let's say she was sentenced to be locked in stocks and had her feet tickled, no one would record this event in a city chronicle or anywhere.

Also, tickling was probably not any official punishment (as there seems to be no codex of law listing it), but I could have been used locally. Let's not forget we were talking about large cities (Kraków being a royal city and the capital of Poland), where judges were more concerned to follow the official law. But I guess in smaller town or villages, this could have been used as a "traditional and unofficial" punishment method for locals, because it didn't injure anyone. Also, people were locked in stocks, but the crowd could use this as an opportunity to tickle them to humiliate them further.

I personally think that it was never an official torture or punishment method, but I think I was used locally and unofficially.

 

[sensitivesara02]

As someone with experiences on both ends of tickling, I’m fascinated. I think it shows hows unpredictable tools (vibrators, feathers, etc) can amplify sensations, but are a little underrated.

 

[bobhurl]

Agreed! <Gentleman's handshake>
Anyway thank you for a very informative and stimulating conversation. Truly shows your passion for the topic and I respect it very much sir.

Yeah, he is peculiar to say the least. If you want some details I can share them in private... discord maybe?
I got to know the man pretty well over the past couple of years and we had a lot of very interesting and informative conversations. I know he doesn't have the best reputation here (and I can't blame anybody) but I genuinely like the guy and one thing I have learned about him that I'm certain of... he is a tickling savant. He has shared some tips to enhance my scenes that came from genuine experience and craftsmanship. Every tip he gave me worked amazingly and I can only thank him, because it really enhanced our love life and tickling sessions. My wife fell in love with SMTK (the immersive role play style that Kujman wrote about) and she is jenuinely craving those sessions even thou they are genuinelly the most intense things we do.

Thanks ! I'd be happy to the Discord !

 

[U.N.Owen]

It was a really interesting discussion and I would like to add one more thing. It is true that there are very few ( and not necessarily racializable) sources describing tickling or goat-tickling as a torture or punishment method. But I think it is quite unlikely that such a thing would be even written down. Let me explain.

I think we can all agree that if tickling was used as a torture or a punishment, it wouldn't be considered the harshest method considering other possibilities, like rack, thumbscrews or other unpleasant devices. So only really minor criminals would be realistically sentenced to "suffer" it. I mean, someone who has robbed a house of a merchant, killing him and his family in the process, wouldn't be sentenced to be tickled.

And this leads to a second problem - during medieval times, or even during renaissance, few people could write and those who could, wrote down only most important things. So for example, if a saleswoman was found selling rotten vegetables and let's say she was sentenced to be locked in stocks and had her feet tickled, no one would record this event in a city chronicle or anywhere.

Also, tickling was probably not any official punishment (as there seems to be no codex of law listing it), but I could have been used locally. Let's not forget we were talking about large cities (Kraków being a royal city and the capital of Poland), where judges were more concerned to follow the official law. But I guess in smaller town or villages, this could have been used as a "traditional and unofficial" punishment method for locals, because it didn't injure anyone. Also, people were locked in stocks, but the crowd could use this as an opportunity to tickle them to humiliate them further.

I personally think that it was never an official torture or punishment method, but I think I was used locally and unofficially.

There are recorded folk memories that people were tickled in village stocks... and I'm sure they were. It fit with the tone of the punishment.

But that of course would mainly have been men.

 

[Toermentor]

Im sure you guys have seen this. I have no idea of the origins and how old this is but I know that this piece has been found in a gallery or even maybe a museum. It doesn't look particularly old or anything like that but as a piece to be found in the wild I think its pretty fascinating. Again not a proof but a notion of this being a thing.

 

[Toermentor]

It was a really interesting discussion and I would like to add one more thing. It is true that there are very few ( and not necessarily reliable) sources describing tickling or goat-tickling as a torture or punishment method. But I think it is quite unlikely that such a thing would be even written down. Let me explain.

I think we can all agree that if tickling was used as a torture or a punishment, it wouldn't be considered the harshest method considering other possibilities, like rack, thumbscrews or other unpleasant devices. So only really minor criminals would be realistically sentenced to "suffer" it. I mean, someone who has robbed a house of a merchant, killing him and his family in the process, wouldn't be sentenced to be tickled.

And this leads to a second problem - during medieval times, or even during renaissance, few people could write and those who could, wrote down only most important things. So for example, if a saleswoman was found selling rotten vegetables and let's say she was sentenced to be locked in stocks and had her feet tickled, no one would record this event in a city chronicle or anywhere.

Also, tickling was probably not any official punishment (as there seems to be no codex of law listing it), but I could have been used locally. Let's not forget we were talking about large cities (Kraków being a royal city and the capital of Poland), where judges were more concerned to follow the official law. But I guess in smaller town or villages, this could have been used as a "traditional and unofficial" punishment method for locals, because it didn't injure anyone. Also, people were locked in stocks, but the crowd could use this as an opportunity to tickle them to humiliate them further.

I personally think that it was never an official torture or punishment method, but I think I was used locally and unofficially.

I really like this take.
I had the same thought today (yes I keep thinking about stuff like this all the time... its a problem... wife understands and supports 😛) that even if it wasn't used in some official courtrooms (or dungeons) I would bet my right hand that some folks would punish minor crominals in villages or small towns, where the goal was not to kill or main a memeber of already small community but to humiliate and mock them. I can absolutely see this. Also (and this is a hot take) I think not all visits to the torture chamber had to end in horrible bloddy messes with people being crippled for life. I think actually that the majority of interrogations would end before they "start" in the showing of the tools part, or the first "light torture" ones like lashes etc. Those were still human beings and not all sadists... I bet if they could get what they need without ruining the person they would do that. It still torture even watching it can make you pass out, so I think that what we read about and imagine is the most brutal and horrendous versions of what happened. I'm pulling this out my ass right now but it's just a thought I wanted to share.

 

[Toermentor]

Thanks ! I'd be happy to the Discord !

Anytime, just hit me up @raztoermentor

 

[U.N.Owen]

View attachment 1079394
Im sure you guys have seen this. I have no idea of the origins and how old this is but I know that this piece has been found in a gallery or even maybe a museum. It doesn't look particularly old or anything like that but as a piece to be found in the wild I think its pretty fascinating. Again not a proof but a notion of this being a thing.

I believe that's a modern illustration from a museum in Germany.

 

[bobhurl]

View attachment 1079394
Im sure you guys have seen this. I have no idea of the origins and how old this is but I know that this piece has been found in a gallery or even maybe a museum. It doesn't look particularly old or anything like that but as a piece to be found in the wild I think its pretty fascinating. Again not a proof but a notion of this being a thing.

It comes from the Kriminal Museum of Rothembourg. The image no longer seems to be online, but I noted the museum's notice: it's a 20th-century drawing.

 

[bobhurl]

Anytime, just hit me up @raztoermentor

Noted! I need to find my login details...

 

[CoatOfArms]

I really like this take.
I had the same thought today (yes I keep thinking about stuff like this all the time... its a problem... wife understands and supports 😛) that even if it wasn't used in some official courtrooms (or dungeons) I would bet my right hand that some folks would punish minor crominals in villages or small towns, where the goal was not to kill or main a memeber of already small community but to humiliate and mock them. I can absolutely see this. Also (and this is a hot take) I think not all visits to the torture chamber had to end in horrible bloddy messes with people being crippled for life. I think actually that the majority of interrogations would end before they "start" in the showing of the tools part, or the first "light torture" ones like lashes etc. Those were still human beings and not all sadists... I bet if they could get what they need without ruining the person they would do that. It still torture even watching it can make you pass out, so I think that what we read about and imagine is the most brutal and horrendous versions of what happened. I'm pulling this out my ass right now but it's just a thought I wanted to share.

You know, I think the idea that people were always brutally tortured for even minor crimes is a huge misconception about medieval period. The truth is, only large and rich cities could afford to have their own executioner and a fully equipped torture chambers. And it's not like judges could order to have someone stretched on a rack for simply getting drunk. Also from what I remember, there were clear rules regarding who could or couldn't be tortured, how long it could last and it was done in a present of some officials. So the whole process was not as lawless as we tend to imagine it.

I still think it is unlikely someone used tickling as a torture method to extract information. Putting aside the question whether torturing is an effective method to interrogate, I don't think anyone would realistically break under tickle torture, if that meant they were going to be executed. As I said, there were simply more effective and painful methods to do it. The only scenario where I think this might have happened is when you really didn't want to harm your prisoner in any way - perhaps if they were valuable and could be ransomed. The goat tickling is more likely in this scenario, as it is said that after some time the licking causes immense pain.

So I think if tickling (not goat tickling) was ever used in regards to "crime and punishment", it was used in smaller communities, where they just wanted to humiliate someone or have fun without killing or harming them. Or as an additional "entertainment" for a person locked in stocks.

 

[U.N.Owen]

You know, I think the idea that people were always brutally tortured for even minor crimes is a huge misconception about medieval period. The truth is, only large and rich cities could afford to have their own executioner and a fully equipped torture chambers. And it's not like judges could order to have someone stretched on a rack for simply getting drunk. Also from what I remember, there were clear rules regarding who could or couldn't be tortured, how long it could last and it was done in a present of some officials. So the whole process was not as lawless as we tend to imagine it.

I still think it is unlikely someone used tickling as a torture method to extract information. Putting aside the question whether torturing is an effective method to interrogate, I don't think anyone would realistically break under tickle torture, if that meant they were going to be executed. As I said, there were simply more effective and painful methods to do it. The only scenario where I think this might have happened is when you really didn't want to harm your prisoner in any way - perhaps if they were valuable and could be ransomed. The goat tickling is more likely in this scenario, as it is said that after some time the licking causes immense pain.

So I think if tickling (not goat tickling) was ever used in regards to "crime and punishment", it was used in smaller communities, where they just wanted to humiliate someone or have fun without killing or harming them. Or as an additional "entertainment" for a person locked in stocks.

I think that's pretty much exactly right. Tickling clearly was something that happened with people in the stocks, in settings where people knew the person who was stocked and were further humiliating them in front of their peers while they were officially subject to public humiliation - though again, that would mostly have been men.

 

[hefophre]

I think that's pretty much exactly right. Tickling clearly was something that happened with people in the stocks, in settings where people knew the person who was stocked and were further humiliating them in front of their peers while they were officially subject to public humiliation - though again, that would mostly have been men.

There is historical account of it happening, not as deliberate dedicated purpose, but in just as general occurrence to pester and torment them. In this context it is referred to as the lighter things that may occur, rather than the very cruel and vile things that were common like being being beaten and pelted to serious injury and even death, covered in foul things ( not just old fruit, but excrement and buckets of rotting guts etc from the nearby butchers.

 

[U.N.Owen]

There is historical account of it happening, not as deliberate dedicated purpose, but in just as general occurrence to pester and torment them. In this context it is referred to as the lighter things that may occur, rather than the very cruel and vile things that were common like being being beaten and pelted to serious injury and even death, covered in foul things ( not just old fruit, but excrement and buckets of rotting guts etc from the nearby butchers.

I'm aware of it being mentioned in nostalgic recollections of "the old village stocks" in the 19th century. It's entirely possible there are contemporary accounts, but I'm not familiar with any.

And yes, pelting people with disgusting things was likely much more common.