Illustration from a manuscript edition of the Roman de Fauvel
(Ms. Fr. 146, fol. 34), dating to the XIV century and now in the Bibliothèque
Nationale de France, Paris. The image shows a group of masks participating
in a charivari. In the central section, a personage wearing
trousers that seems made of animal skin and cowbells around his waist
is represented while he is playing a tambourine: the guise of the costume
reminds of the masquerades of many contemporary popular Carnivals. The
charivari was a widespread custom in France, as well as in other European
countries. It was employed to hail with hubbub and joking songs the
newly married couples. In particular, it signaled the marriages which
were retained “unnatural”, for example the case of a couple
with a very pronounced difference of age among the spouses, and so forth.
According to historian Natalie Zemon Davis, the function of the charivari
and of the youth associations was to emphasize before the entire community
the diverse phases of life (the rites de passage), in order to elucidate
the responsibilities of the future husbands and fathers, to maintain
the proper order in marriages and to guarantee the biological continuity
of the collectivity, stigmatizing marriages of individuals of very different
ages or the stranger spouses, etc. in the cities, these youth associations
turned into neighborhood, class or occupation groups, and became the
“Badia del Malgoverno” (Abbey of the Bad Government). The
so-called simple peoples demonstrated in this way a surprising social
creativity, utilizing ancient social forms and changing them to adapt
to modified exigencies (Zemon Davis 1980).
But the meaning of the masquerade and of the hubbub had also a deeper
meaning, as it has been emphasized by Carlo Ginzburg: “the most
ancient testimonies on a rite like the charivari, designed at controlling
the habits (primarily sexual) of the village, identified the riotous
crowd of the masked youths with the crowd of the dead, led by mythical
beings like Hellequin. To the eyes of both actors and beholders, the
excesses of the “abbeys” of youths should have maintained
for a long time these symbolic connotations” (Ginzburg 1989, p.
171).
[Image: http://library.artstor.org]