The topic that wouldn't die.

What are trying to do...give them good reasons to indulge in their nonsense? Sheesh!

I disagree... to a point.

(From WRFF tribe...)

-----

There are two basic rules I follow when viewing anything of a historical nature:
1.) Nothing comes from nowhere,
2.) “It stands to reason” are the first four words of many a mistaken assumption.

Applying this logical framework to faire-isms has led me down many a path that had surprises at the end of the journey. So it goes in any research project, be it academic or faire related.

As a result of this, I was troubled by my own words in an earlier post: “The tails are purely the tissue of fiction and I hate them”. The second part is certainly true, I’m not overly fond of the idea of donning an animal’s tail as a fashion accessory, but If nothing comes from nowhere, then there’s a logical fallacy embedded in the first part of that statement.

Like most people I’ve long assumed that the foxtail thing came down from the Zibellini argument for several reasons, not least of which because if someone’s got a furry thingy hanging from their belt, it’s the obvious conclusion. It stands to reason… and down the slippery slope I go.

In the Colloquies of the English Ælfric Bata (c 1000) contains the following string of insults uttered by one monk to another:
"Tu sochors! Tu scibalum hedi! Tu scibalum ouis! Tu scibalum equi! Tu fimus bouis! Tu stercus porci! Tu hominis stercus! Tu canis scibalum! Tu uulpis scibalum! Tu muricipis scibalum! Tu galline stercus! Tu asini scibalum! Tu uulpicule omnium uulpiculorum! Tu uulpis cauda! Tu uulpis barba! Tu nebris uulpiculi! Tu uechors et semichors! Tu scurra!"

("You idiot! You goat dung! Sheep dung! Horse dung! You cow dung! You pig filth! You human dung! You dog dung! Fox dung! Cat dung! Chicken droppings! You donkey dung! You fox cub of all fox cubs! You fox tail! You fox beard! You skin of a fox cub! You idiot and halfwit! You buffoon!"[01])

It’s really that string of insults got me to thinking about foxtails again. Take note that in all that list of terrible things to call someone, Ælfric inserts “Tu uulpis cauda!” or “You Foxtail!” In a list that includes calling someone every kind of excrement the man could think of in what appears to be an ascending order of foulness, he built UP TO and finished off by invoking the imagery of the fox.

It goes without saying that moreso than almost any other animal (save perhaps the wolf) the fox comes to our story with heavy mythological baggage. Not only Aesop is guilty of this, but most notably the Reynard stories, which are borderline pornographic. The most commonly pointed-to Images of foxtails from the panoply of painted scenes of the 16th century are Breugel’s beggars [02] who are positively covered with the things. (see below) Some opine that they are a symbol of leprosy, but the justification for that claim is shaky.

I also know - as any well-researched faire fool would - that foxtails were sometimes worn by fools as a symbol of their profession (or their debased nature) as depicted by woodcuts attributed to none other than Albrecht Durer [00]… but was that the root of the Faireism?

So I actually started looking in earnest into my own assertion that the foxtail-wearing was a tissue of whimsy with no basis in fact whatsoever. And I was surprised to find that I was wrong. It does have a basis in historical fashion and fact… sort of.

In the book “The Secret Middle Ages” by British folklorist and medieval historian Malcolm Jones [04], there is an entire chapter dedicated to the symbolism of animal imagery and a section therein devoted to our old nemesis, the foxtail. There I found everything in one place to prove myself wrong about there being no basis whatsoever, and right insomuch as it’s still not a period affectation for the 16th century… I shall allow Mssr Jones to take it from here…

[Fair warning, not all that follows is PG…]
“...But is seems that foxtails were also a genuine fashion accessory in the 13th century. In 'Der Jüngling' the Austrian poet Konrad Von Haslan complains of the habit of some young ladies hanging fox tails from their hats, while in Edward II's early 14th century England, the chronicler John of Reading [05]wrote that '[Women's] bizarre clothing is so tight that they wear the tails of foxes hanging under their skirts at the back to hide their arses.'"

So it's not completely fantasy, simply out of period and they should be worn UNDER the skirt to ‘hide your arse.’

We like things to be binary in the reenactment world, but they so rarely are. There’s another level to this beyond whether or not the average peasant lass in the 16th century would be wearing a fox tail on her belt.

Extrapolating now from the research of Mssr Jones into the paradigm of faire…
Rabelais relates in Pantagruel [06] how his character Panurgi plays tricks on passing academics in the streets by hanging fox tails from their belts as an insult. An insult because by the 16th century – when Rabelias was writing – the foxtail had become the symbol of the fool, or zanni (as previously noted). What’s more, the character in Tudor-era morality plays known collectively as ‘Vice’ is frequently depicted wearing a fox’s tail to show their duplicity and debased nature such as the vice character ‘Injury’ in Albion Knight [07].

So when a person of the 16th century makes the decision to adorn themselves with the tail of a fox, it would be a statement. Of foolishness, yes. Of baseness and debauch as well. Several period sources depict nude women ‘combing’ their nether-regions with the tail of a fox. Jones points out that the German word for the fox’s tail is synonymous with penis in the vernacular of the time [08].

So the symbolism so often attributed to the fox’s tail by various groups within the reenactment community (especially the SCA) is not altogether false or out of period. In fact, it seems as if you showed a fox tail to an Elizabethan, you’d be likely get a similar response.

So… are they period?

If you are a fool… Yes.

If you’re anyone else… Yes, with an asterisk. Because it really depends on what you’re trying to say about your character and how you want your character treated by the others in the village. Would the symbolism of the tail translate into the 16th century framework as a licentious image? I believe that it would and that there’s now sufficient evidence piled up for me to say so.
-----

[01] www.uoregon.edu/~midages/insults.shtml

[02] tribes.tribe.net/wrff/phot...6d5505b630

[03] people.tribe.net/book-schn...642e2694c5

[04] “The Secret Middle Ages - Discovering the REAL Medieval World"
- by Malcolm Jones
Sutton Publishing (March 25, 2003)
ISBN: 0750926856 Pages 55-57
[05] John of Reading (c.
books.google.com/books

[06] Pantagruel (c. 1532) ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/rabe...ex.html

[07] Albion, Knight – A fragmentary tudor-era morality play: books.google.com/books

[08] “In German this innuendo is undoubtedly motivated by the fact that ‘Rute’ is a ‘term of art’ for the fox’s tail specifically, but literally the word means ‘Rod’ and is also a common euphemism for ‘penis’.” -Malcolm Jones “The Secret Middle Ages - Discovering the REAL Medieval World", 2003

correction: I have reservations of the role of such characters... when garbed appropriately to the event, these people tend to be quite enthusiastic actors.

why on earth would you want to draw attention to your butt on purpose?