This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pear of anguish article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on September 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on February 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
I have put in a request for a peer review. There is too much arguing over this subject.
There were also pears designed for use in the anus and vagina. Someone with a stronger stomach than mine might like to research this. -- Daran 10:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There's one of these things on display at the torture museums in Prague, Amsterdam (
http://photos.innersource.com/group/4924) in addition to the one mentioned in italy. It has also been featured on specials on the Travel and History channels. While this does not by any means rule out that it is a hoax, Lao Wai seems to be the only person I've ever seen calling this thing an urban legend. Some of the known pears are quite old... and the curators of these museums do not seem to doubt their authenticity.
Moreover, where is the evidence that chastity belts are undeniable forgeries?
If the article is to contain mention of the pear as a hoax, it should be as a fringe opinion, and certainly not phrased to give the impression that it is likely.
--assbag
Going back to a previous comment, and I am sure I will get banned for using this in probably the wrong thread, but chastity belts were real, however, they were not placed upon girls by knights who were going away to war. No, they were used by the women themselves to stop themselves getting sexually assaulted by men. Admittedly they came later in the middle ages and were named differently but in France and the rest of Europe they were still used up until the 1700s. Thanks to Discovery Civilization and UKTV Docs for that useless piece of Info. PS. they were either wooden or sometimes made of tin if you were rich enough.
I am not doing original research. As a matter of fact I am doing no research at all. Nor, I might add, is anyone else here. Given I do not accept this device exists I wouldn't be expected to do any research would I? The bottom line is that tis is an encyclopedia. If there is no evidence that this device was ever used this webpage ought not to exist. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but it is a place where you should cite your sources. I have not seen any sources yet, just a shady website. If this is invention, and it looks like it to me, the page needs to be changed. Lao Wai 18:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Listen, if you don't want to contribute then why complain. This is an encyclopedia that everyone helps to edit.
Since everyone seems to be resorting to personal abuse of Lao Wai, I think I'll chime in to back him up here. We need some proper references for this, the "references" offered so far are very poor quality. People who wish to write articles on the history of mediaeval torture should be aware that pretty well all secondary sources prior to the mid-1970s, and most populist ones even after that, are gravely suspect and likely to be seriously contaminated with 19th century fictions. See Histoire de l'Inquisition en France for a classic example of this. And this taste for prurient fictions included physical objects as well as tales; many chastity belts in museums have been shown to be nineteenth century fakes, and not a single rack anywhere is believed to be authentic. So saying you have a photograph from a museum is not, by itself, a very strong argument. Some other potential interpretations include, but are not necessarily limited to:
(Further, as Lao Wai pointed out, some of the claims made are really rather suspect. For example, the listed punishments do not jibe with other sources, where the punishment for sodomy (from after the thirteenth century) is not mutilation but death, while the usual punishment for procuring an abortion was "merely" excommunication.) Therefore I do not think it is at all unreasonable to request some properly documented evidence for the claims made in the article. Oh, and by the way, I'm not a catholic. -- Securiger 19:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC) I came to this wikipedia with the preconception that the pear was a torture device, but now I am convinced otherwise. Once the seed of doubt was raised I re-examined the device itself, and am now thouroughly convinced it is a tool of some sort. I agree that it appears to be seventeenth century at the earliest. I doubt that it is a medical device for some of the same reasons that I have come to doubt it is a device of torture. Surely the pear shape would be conducive to insertion into a human orifice, but only if the taper was the other way arround.The points at the end also make me doubt it is any sort of medical device, and seem to be entirely in the wrong place for a torture device as well. The points are meant to hold something, and the relatively smooth "pear" sections are meant to strech something into a smooth rounded shape- leather perhaps. To venture a guess, this device is used to make a pouch of some sort. (I've never contributed before, hope I have done it correctly)- Mythopoetic
Given that the questions do not seem to have been answered, and the danger of Wikipedia becoming a major source of disinformation, I have taken the liberty to remove the quetionable text from the article, and adding a warning that the device may have had other uses.
I agree that the vivid details of this description strongly suggest that all this "information" is merely the product of someone's sick imagination. I propose that we do not put any of this back into the article before someone provides some really indisputable evidence (not just statements from some modern "authority").
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 20:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be clear that it is not definite...but talking about it being vetrinary seems just absurd and unsourced. Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems that we have established three facts about this object:
I propose that we update the article to reflect facts #1 and #2, and leave fact #3 out as non-notable. Comments? Jorge Stolfi 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
How about we just say, "According to so-and-so museum...", and provide inline citations for every assertion. There is room on Wikipedia for using common sense in evaluating sources, but if the only assertions ever made about these things are that they are torture implements, then we can't ignore that completely. Remember, we don't ultimately have to work out whether anything is true or not on Wikipedia; for cases like this, all we care about is creating a compendium of human knowledge at the current time, which may or may not match up with the truth. — Matt Crypto 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the wording is poor, and the description gratuitous. However the device is regarded as an implement of torture by most works dicussing it, and this should be prominently featured in a Wikipedia article about it. I'll update the page with some of these references (other than the few discussed at the top of this page) shortly. Tomyumgoong 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, none of the three "facts" listed above are factual. Fact #1 - Many items in museums and on Wikipedia don't have a specific place of origin or date of manufacture (that's why "circa" is often part of a date), but there is absolutely no question about the intended purpose or actual use of the device. Fact #2 - It is not conjecture, it is fact that these devices were designed and used for torture. Fact #3 - A pure fantasy on the part of the person who listed the supposed "facts".
It appears to me from the discussion on this page that a bunch of people are letting their personal distaste get in the way of reality. There is more than ample evidence of the existence and use of the vaginal (and oral, and anal) pear as a device of torture, cited in diverse sources.
Regarding the "three-lobed" comment above, review the various pictures available of these devices. They were made in two-, three- and four-lobed versions. They were NOT primarily used for oral insertion, but for vaginal or anal insertion. Regarding the decoration comment above, what is your basis for claiming the decoration suggests 17th or 18th century manufacture? Particularly in Spain, where these devices were used in the Inquisition, that sort of elaborate decoration was certainly available and being done in the 16th century. CDNRopemaster ( talk) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Fact 4: Some people have conjectured, based on no other data, that it can not have been an object of torture. —
2A0A:A546:50A6:1:F314:FD1F:4919:D071 (
talk) 12:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
PROTIP: No evidence means no evidence!. (See:
Łukasiewicz logic) And it means that the people from fact 4 are just as much wrong as those from fact 2. Just with an unwarranted stink of superiority based on the belief that it is somehow an “us VS tHeM”, when in reality, they have both exactly the same personalty in this regard- One that does not have a single clue about how science works, and just wants its own ideology to dominate —
2A0A:A546:50A6:1:F314:FD1F:4919:D071 (
talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I have read a few references in French (search for "Poire d'angoisse"). Got a few stories, but still no real sources. Two interesting things:
Yeah but see. Most of us don't speak french, and this is why I'm here. Could someone please do something about the french in the introduction of the article. The french usage in the intro concerning a quote about the (fruit type) choking pear and its edibility when cooked is in all french, this makes no sense to me as i'm not french and this is an english article. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.76.199.208 (
talk) 04:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing the reference to the Pope, unless somebody can provide better than an amateur website indicating it was ever used by the Inquisition/church Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If any word was elilinated which has an illogical, misleading or even absurd etymology, there wouldn't be enough left to write an avergae sentence. That's not even an excuse. Even if it were never used by the inquisition (that's unclear at this point) the term was coined, whether truethfull or as a term of abuse by anti-papists, and in either case needs to be accounted for, not ignored. As long as such things aren't wronly presneted (alledgedly certainly leaves enough doubt) there's no problem. (By the way, I have the greatest respect for the papacy and help spread the message that he real inquisition was far better then its typical secular counterpart of contemporary (in)justice) Fastifex 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't know if this argument was still going on, so I thought I'd lay it to rest. The Medieval Underworld by Andrew McCall has woodcuts and descriptions of the Pear of Anguish in use, as does the Illustrated Guide to Torture and Execution. The mechanical principles it uses are simply a screw mechanism similar to a hand drill, and I really hope nobody's about to suggest the hand drill wasn't around during the medieval period. Also, there are authentic pears on display in several museums, including in Prague and London.
I have put on "original research" tag, given that there apperently still are unverifiable claims here. Medico80 11:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You know to simply find the use of this instrument and to finally prove to you that is was real why not go and look up the records of people tortured. I should have what was used on them as a sidenote.
I'd like to see those just to verify if they are real or fake.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Note the dates on the above. Interestingly, the only sources I've found so far that describe this as an actual mechanism, rather than simply as a fruit that cannot be swallowed or an argument that cannot be answered, all seem to date from the 20th and 21st centuries. Uncle G 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I note that the 1898 Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has a listing for choke-pear: "Robbers in Holland at one time made use of a piece of iron in the shape of a pear, which they forced into the mouth of their victim. On turning a key, a number of springs thrust forth points of iron in all directions, so that the instrument of torture could never be taken out except by means of the key." No indication that the object really existed, of course, but proof at least that the idea of a mechanism is not new. William Pietri 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The only sources that claim anal or vaginal usage for the choke-pear are modern, current, websites. The sources which give the article its significance are the 17th and 19th century references to the device's use in the mouth by robbers, not the miscellany of people who are willing to speculate today on its use in the cunt by the Spanish Inquisition. Unless you have firm sources for non-oral uses of this device, please do not insist on giving such speculation undue prominence in the article. The Land 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel the article has been largely re-written since the Original Research tag was put onto it, and would support removing the tag. The historical validity of the device is certainly still in question, but I don't think there is anything indicating original research by WPians present in the article. If there are no complaints, I'll remove the template on Tuesday. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re5ewE5dHpQ
I recently asked them about it, on their site, and they said that they made sure they'd gotten the facts straight. They mentioned several times that they had seen woodcuts of the Pear in use, and that they were extremely rare for the time and nature.
Perhaps this subject is not as bogus as we think... VonV 05:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This is crazy; it's well-documented, and even if it's not historical, there's enough sources mentioning it that the article should cover them. As for sources, the most recent OED entry for pear says
1630 Pathomachia III. iv. 29 Vnlesse thou confesse,..the Scottish Bootes, the Dutch Wheele, the Spanish Strappado, Linnen Ball, and Peare of Confession shall torment thee. 1990 J. A. AMATO Victims & Values i. 9 This diverse array of instruments..were used by secular and religious authorities as well. They included a vaginal pear (an opening device), a chastity belt, [etc.]. 1990 J. AYTO Glutton's Glossary 213 Medieval torturers devised a particularly gruesome tool known in English as the pear of confession. 1997 Richmond (Va.) Times Dispatch (Nexis) 16 Feb. F4 One guesses that some readers may learn more than they want to about the strappado, the "pear", and the Judas chair. -- Prosfilaes ( talk) 01:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that several people have satisfied the burden of proof that "the pear of anguish" does exist and was in fact used as a torture device. I would recommend setting up 2 pages for this topic, one for the fruit "choke pear" and one for "pear of anguish" to differentiate the 2. They obviously should not be on the same page.
Walterwoj ( talk) 21:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, the situation here does not seem tenable: "Pear of anguish" redirects here, and yet the pear of anguish has been excised from this page. Arguments like "they're a bit like chastity belts, and chastity belts never existed" will simply not fly when chastity belts not only very clearly do exist and can be bought by the bushel, they have been in use from the 1700s. If the pear is merely a common myth, then it needs to be addressed as such, however, nobody posting here has any evidence to counter the claims of the museums.
Whether or not it was ever truly used in the inquisition or other situations, the pear of anguish is well documented and absolutely, incontrovertibly exists: we have photographic evidence of no fewer than six [edit: seven][edit2: nine][edit3: ten] of the devices, two of them already on wikipedia, from across much of Europe.
1) http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/images/pearSBGw.jpg and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Oral_pear.jpg Museum der Festung Salzburg, Österreich (iron, 4 petals, lyre-shaped key)
2) http://bp0.blogger.com/_tpKVqmAtSto/SHt0u-_gv1I/AAAAAAAAAEA/iXS6_mLZclU/s1600-h/IMG_3838.JPG Siena Museum of Torture. (brass, 3 petals, lyre-shaped key)
3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiangotlost/348666938/ Salzburg's Torture Museum. (iron, 4 petals, hollow key)
4) http://roaddogg.15.forumer.com/index.php?s=7a513573f73d9efb24b598ddb756d3ed&act=Attach&type=post&id=291 Unknown torture museum in Germany. (brass, 3 petals, 5-moons key)
5) http://mcncirce.com/torture15.jpg via http://mcncirce.com/history15.html Lousy photo, unknown provenance. (3 petals, rounded key (2 characters in a forest?))
6) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Muzeum_Ziemi_Lubuskiej_-_Muzeum_Tortur_-_Gruszka.JPG Torture museum in Lubuska Land Museum in Zielona Góra. (black iron, 3 petals, 4-moons key: looks recently forged, though)
7) http://photos.innersource.com/group/4924 Amsterdam (2 or 3 leaves, brass or copper with key of forged tapered metal bars (looks spot welded together? questionable vintage)
8) http://www.vaginalpear.com/vaginal-pear-01.jpg Unknown provenance. (3 leaves, cast brass, head-shaped key)
9) http://www.vaginalpear.com/vaginal-pear-04.jpg Unknown provenance. (3 leaves, cast brass, deer-and-lion shaped key) Claimed to be 1500s according to "Inquisition/Inquisicion: Torture Instruments from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Era" by Robert Held
10) http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/Pix/SOC/25/10439125_T.JPG Unknown provenance. (3 leaves, cast brass, ornate (indian dancers?) round key)
0) Not real (3D rendered): http://www.occasionalhell.com/infdevice/detail.php?recordID=Pear%20of%20Anguish Included here just because there are some versions of this online that look realistic: don't be fooled if looking for more evidence.
First I saw it mentioned was the torture museum in Amsterdam in the '90s, well before the 2001 Wikipedia claim. However, it could be that the original article was made by a visitor to the torture museum: the texts appear similar.
As for notability: I very much doubt anyone came here looking for an astringent fruit (they'd have gone for "fig" then!).
Further we have photographic evidence for at least five of these things, all in museums, all listed as torture devices, all stated to have been used in body cavity expansion, and no evidence to the contrary whatsoever. Any claims to the contrary must therefore be regarded as "original research".
Counterpoint: We have little enough evidence to claim by whom they were used, but we most certainly have enough evidence to back the fact that the things exist, and that there is a reasonable probability that their purpose was for torture. However, I admit to being dubious myself. No other torture device I've seen has this kind of ornamentation. The teeth are somehow wrong - neither vicious enough to do serious damage, nor harsh enough to kill. They're at the wrong angle. If someone *does* want to do some digging and find good evidence against the modern interpretation of these devices, I'm all for it: but merely saying "hai I no bleev u, i revert u!" just isn't good enough given the existing weight of evidence. Could they have been culinary, perhaps to keep a roast fowl from collapsing? The teeth, when closed, would act as a spike that could serve to penetrate the fowl's skin at the neck, and allow easier insertion. But then that argument could count for a torture device, too, I guess: you could use the spike to make your own hole wherever you wanted. I'm just not convinced, though. Note that these things all turn up in torture museums. Maybe they're all fakes? "We're not a proper torture museum unless we have a Pear, everyone asks for them... get the blacksmith to whip one up, could you?" If all these torture museums belong to the same chain, it would be reasonable that they would have similar equipment. They all seem to have similar other tools: spikey chairs, iron maidens, a rack, a pyramid to sit people on... to be honest, the pears are the exception in that they are NOT the same. Every one is different. But I can't put any of these doubts into the article itself, since it's all OR.
And whether they're fake or not, like the crystal skulls, they exist, and thus are wikiworthy. I've added a brief passage about the pear-as-torture-device to the page. I've aimed for a balanced writeup, but feel free to edit for extra balance. Not sure the "also known as" line is balanced - someone complained about people calling them "Pope's Pear" above. But complaining about it seems daft and doesn't change that people are calling it that.
I do believe the page should be split, but will leave that to the vote above. DewiMorgan ( talk) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.
Choke-pear. An argument to which there is no answer. Robbers in Holland at one time made use of a piece of iron in the shape of a pear, which they forced into the mouth of their victim. On turning a key, a number of springs thrust forth points of iron in all directions, so that the instrument of torture could never be taken out except by means of the key.
Via project gutenberg: http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/4/0/9/14096/14096-8.txt
The object in Nick's mouth was a "choke pear!"
This vicious instrument of torture dates back to the time of Palioly, the notorious French robber and renegade, when it was very worthily called "the pear of anguish."
It consists of a solid gag, so to speak, yet it is so constructed, with interior springs, that, once thrust into a person's mouth, it expands as fast as the mouth is opened, and rigidly distends the victim's jaws.
The more widely the victim gapes to eject the "choke pear," or to cry out for aid, the larger the hideous object becomes, until torture, suffocation and death speedily ensue.
Had this infernal device been generally available to modern criminals, Nick would have been warned by the significant words he had heard, and would have guarded himself against it.
Now, to me, both references are referring to the pear-as-gag, an entirely different thing from the key-driven examples we see in torture museums today. Their descriptions sound more like a sprocketed, spring-driven device. Which supports the idea of a split between the two concepts... except the 1904 reference clearly states that both terms apply to it.
I also read "A vaginal pear appears in Ken Russell's 1971 film The Devils, where it is used on an accused witch." but without seeing it, can't confirm. Would be a great ref, if true.
[Edit - Above was me, DewiMorgan]
I've watched The Devils now, and although there was one scene similar to that described, the instruments did not include a pear, so far as I could tell (it was all behind a curtain, but you got to see the tray of instruments). So we don't have any references for the screw-driven version, nor of use of the pear on any orifice other than the mouth, outside of torture museums from the '90s onwards, and sensationalist websites from the turn of the century onwards.
Admittedly, though, those are about the only places where torture is discussed, so it's not entirely surprising that it'd be there that we find the most references, even if the pear is not a new invention. Still, I rather *want* to add the lack of refs as a note to the body text, even though it does smack of OR. If nothing else, it might get people to post antedating refs. Maybe one of the owners of these pears has a decent history for it, for example. Maybe those woodcuts might turn up.
I'll be bold and add a note on it, but feel free to remove if you disagree. DewiMorgan ( talk) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Bit strange finding this article - even if there are still some question marks over the "pear of anguish" (I'd be amazed if a good book on the history of torture couldn't solve the RS problem), it clearly should be two articles, with a disambiguation. Any objections? Richard Cooke ( talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Also appears in Dumas' 'Twenty Years After':
[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Cooke ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The first footnote suggests the pear inspired the gag - but there are several sources I can find that suggest the pear is named after the gag, and not the other way round. Need to clear this up with a definitive source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Cooke ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The section of this article on the pre-1900 uses of "pears of anguish" is extremely problematic. It's unsourced, and the idea that the popularity of torture museums might explain why anal and vaginal use of the pear is only coming to light now is just made up. It's more likely, I would say, that prior to 1900 other mentions of the pear's use were considered indelicate. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Why due you assume that torture museums are more or less popular now? . At any rate, there *are* mentions of vaginal use of the pear in 19th French medical literature, which can be found on Google Books. I'm going to remove this for these reasons. At present, the article is reading like an unresolved discussion on the talk page, due to its lack of RS. And how is a modern work of fiction, WITH LINKS OF STEEL, a source of any kind?
Folks,
Splitting the pages choke pear (plant) and choke pear (torture) was probably the right thing to do at present time. However, I strongly suspect that the alleged torture instrument (which still has no confirmation from contemporary sources!) is basically a pun on the fruit's name.
To see why, here is my translation of the French page quoted above (which apparently belongs to a series about French language idioms):
AFAIK, the agricultural/culinary reference above is the only contemporary (medieval) reference for the term "pear of anguish" --- and it has no connection whatsoever to torture or gagging instruments.
Being at that, here is also my translation of key points from Calvi's text (from the modernized version cited in the article):
Note that Calvi's description of the "pear of anguish" is utterly inconsistent with the objects depicted in the article (and with the illustration shown in the French site above). Calvi's device clearly had interior springs and some sort of ratchet, so that it opened by itself; the museum objects have a hand-turned screw and cannot expand unless the screw is turned. The former could not be removed by locksmiths, while the latter could obviously be removed by turning the screw. The former had a key-operated unlocking mechanism which is obviously lacking in the latter. Enough already?
To me this sounds much more like a Dumas-style tale than a historical report. The plot inconsistencies are even worse than the mechanical ones. (How could four "poor soldiers" have invented and procured such an effective device? Why didn't they use it right away? Why would they leave such a good tool behind? For merchants who refused to yield their money, wouldn't a sharp knife to the throat be a much more effective means of persuasion than a crude tongue depressor? And so on...)
Then we have the incongruity between the instruments themselves and their alleged purpose, either gagging or torturing. (Why do they have more than two leaves? Why the smooth surfaces of the leaves? Why the decoration on the screw's handle? Why those tiny points at the tip?)
The dispute over the origin and purpose of these devices has been going on for several years, and we still have no solid evidence to back up the museum labels. My best guess at the moment is that
While the current version of the article is careful not to endorse the museums' labelings, perhaps it should include a note on the (apparently) French and "fruity" origin if the expression. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 21:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph has been added to the article:
I fail to see the connection. The article is about a particular instrument of (supposedly) torture, and in the old French story the torture is the gagging itself. The paragraph is about using a fruit to gag someone while the person was being tortured by other means. I recall a few other movies and cartoons where people were gagged with other fruits, rubber balls, or other objects similar-sized objects. Just because a pear was used in that film, it does not mean that there is a connection with the instrument discussed in the article. One cannot even assume that the scriptwriter was aware of the latter. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The information removed from this page regarding the vaginal and anal use of these devices was fully restored. The brief section headed "Museum Pieces" does not suffice. I would simply restore it, but given the level of controversy and discussion about this page a few years back, I'll wait a little while for feedback before doing so. CDNRopemaster ( talk) 16:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of statements on this page that appear (based on the history of this talk page) to be conclusions drawn by contributors and not taken from any external sources. Barring any such sources, this would qualify as original research (specifically "Synthesis of published material that advances a position"). Examples:
"There is no contemporary first-hand account of those devices or their use."
"The earliest mention is in..."
"Up until at least the early 1900s, the mechanical Pear of Anguish was considered a spring-loaded device, for oral use only," - while this passage includes a citation, it comes to a general conclusion not supported by the source.
"It is only in recent decades, possibly due to an increase in their popularity in torture museums, that other possible uses for such devices appear to have emerged."
While these may be perfectly reasonable conclusions, they are stated here as facts, and they must be sourced.
Reskusic (
talk) 00:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
if i may ask a personal question to anyone who will answer, how do you edit pages like this at all, let alone with npov? most people would vomit. thanks, Jake1993811 ( talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Contemporary? what does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.55.106 ( talk) 07:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Due to the controversy attributed to this page I will only make suggestions.
1) The article, regardless of validity, is poorly written. The first paragraph contains numerous errors for a piece that is meant for an Encyclopedia, or for a written work in any sense.
2) We should all know that ".com" webpages are NOT acceptable for writing a peer-reviewed paper, much less an Encyclopedia Article of this subject. The first paragraph states that recent publications have claimed what it was used for, but then changes the tone to an assertion. At the end of the introductory paragraph it gives an HTML link which is bad form, and the site does not seem to have any credible sources to justify it's claim. If you want to prove that you are correct, at least use a legitimate source.
Trusvruntros ( talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest edit: I've just added two instances of the device being depicted in the television series "Salem" that I noticed were not already included. I tried to word my descriptions in such a way as to offer relevant details without being gratuitously explicit or spoiling the plot of the show for anyone who hasn't seen it. However, I would be happy to edit, whether that means more or less, if anyone has objections or suggestions.
Continuity: To maintain some semblance of continuity, I structured each instance in the manner of most others already existing in the section: beginning with the Season number, Episode number, and Series Title, followed by a description. There is one example from the television show "Bones" that does not follow this structure. I feel that perhaps these could be listed in a way that is easier to read, but I'm not sure exactly how, and I don't want to go around changing other peoples' contributions. Any suggestions?
Bullet Points: The one edit I would like to suggest that seems most logical in my view is to change the information in the "In Popular Culture" section to a bulleted list. Currently, each instance of the device being portrayed starts a new paragraph. Most of these paragraphs are one-sentence descriptions. Particularly now that there are seven examples given, each being 1-2 sentences long, it seems only natural they be listed as bullet points. Keeping them all as separate paragraphs seems a little visually awkward and difficult to read. Wikipedia Style Guide seems to support this formatting option. The guide at least makes it seem acceptable; however, it's not entirely clear to me whether it would be preferable. On the other hand, Wiki on "In popular culture" content suggests that a bulleted list might encourage trivial entries. Are there any objections to reformatting this section as a bulleted list?
Organization within "In Popular Culture" Section: I also feel entries in this section should be organized somehow, perhaps chronologically (by airing/publication date). I would say splitting entries up into categories to separate television series from books could be helpful, but since there is currently only one book entry, perhaps that would be unnecessary at this point. As it is now, I simply added my two television entries from 2014 after all the other television entries which had aired prior to 2014, and before the one novel at the end of the list. Should we leave it how it is now or just arrange everything chronologically? The book was published in March 2014. The two most recent television entries are episodes that aired June and July of 2014, respectively. The episode of Bones aired in 2009. The episode of Criminal Minds aired in 2007. This means if we list everything chronologically, including books, this would throw the book into the middle of the list and the Criminal Minds episode to the top, with the Bones episode right below that. Fetters of ennui ( talk) 08:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, this may be the start of a clue. I found this image on an imageboard, along with the text:
http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1368/20/1368209880636.jpg
OK, now look at it. This really, blatantly, obviously isn't a torture device. It isn't even like the pears we see in other museums, in that the tips are held together by a RING. It wouldn't fit into most orifices, though you might *perhaps* fit it into a mouth. What in the seven hells IS it? Given it's on a sword, I'm guessing not leather-working or culinary, then. Medical? Does it stanch the bleeding on a piercing wound? Or IS it culinary? Camping-style culinary? Can the spoons be inserted into a game animal to hold it and roast it over a fire? Seems unlikely, since the handle would char. A codpiece-stretcher? Gauntlet holder? DewiMorgan ( talk) 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, shoot. I've found two image references from the mid mid 1800s, but not sure how to cite them in the article, nor whether the images can be used on wikipedia. Anyone know? Can images from the wikimedia commons be used in wikipedia? What about Google scans of Public Domain books?
The 1864 image was apparently scanned from the 1864 Die GartenLaube ("The Gazebo"). It is labelled "Fig. IX. Würgbirne. Geschlossen. Göffnet.", which, I *believe*, means "Fig. IX. Chokebulb. Closed. Open." That's 130 years before the earliest reference we've had to the modern style of choke-pear, completely blowing away my theory that it's an invention of modern torture museums. It doesn't disprove the oft-heard claim that most torture devices are the lurid invention of the Victorian era, but the fact that it's labelled a "choke pear" does tie it with the Palioly device.
Higher-quality scans *can* be found elsewhere on the net, but they add nothing, and we definitely can't use them:
The page upon which it appears is scanned and transcribed here, but the use of the pear itself does not appear to be described there, at least so far as I can tell with Google translate. Anyone who speaks German able to confirm?
What is the purpose of the little cap that we see on several of them? Is it to keep the leaves together? Why, if the screw thread holds them together anyway?
I note that if there was a spring instead of a screw thread, then pulling the ring upwards would pull the leaves together, and flipping the cap over those spikes would hold it closed. Pushing the ring down would then push the cap off, causing it to spring open, the spring pushing the legs slightly past the point where the leaves can be pushed together again, "locking" it open. This perfectly explains the cap, the spikes at the tips of the leaves, and the earlier descriptions saying it was spring-loaded, with a removable "key". I suspect that the screw-thread version is just later people misunderstanding the mechanism in the diagrams.
The mechanism is made obvious in the 1857 image, by G. Montalan on page 216 of the Magasin Pittoresque of 1857, labelled "Poire d'anguisse Muse+'e du Louvre ; collection Sauvageot. -- Dessin de Mortalan".
The description in this writing (as best as I understand the text) is that it is a gag, NOT a torture device. The torture, such as it is, is that the victim cannot eat with their mouth wedged open, and with the key-pin removed, can never close their mouth. Anyone who understands the mechanism could easily hook it closed even without the key-pin, though, so the description of use by brigands seems unlikely.
And here's a photo of a sprung one (in the "locked open" state, the legs pushed down past the point where the leaves can be pushed together again), thought the center pin appears to be missing.
The one on the "17th century" sword-pommel above appears to be of this type (the pin is not threaded that I can see), which further casts doubt on the original purpose being as a gag; gagging your victim by handing them your sword seems like the peak of lunacy. DewiMorgan ( talk) 09:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
...would be so willing (I'm not English) to update this article with this study: https://www.academia.edu/5826375/The_Pear_of_Anguish_Truth_Torture_and_Dark_Medievalism (for a summary read: http://www.medievalists.net/2016/03/20/why-medieval-torture-devices-are-not-medieval/). Thanks -- 2.40.137.237 ( talk) 12:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The redirect
Choke pear (torture has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Choke pear (torture until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 21:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pear of anguish article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on September 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on February 16, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
I have put in a request for a peer review. There is too much arguing over this subject.
There were also pears designed for use in the anus and vagina. Someone with a stronger stomach than mine might like to research this. -- Daran 10:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
There's one of these things on display at the torture museums in Prague, Amsterdam (
http://photos.innersource.com/group/4924) in addition to the one mentioned in italy. It has also been featured on specials on the Travel and History channels. While this does not by any means rule out that it is a hoax, Lao Wai seems to be the only person I've ever seen calling this thing an urban legend. Some of the known pears are quite old... and the curators of these museums do not seem to doubt their authenticity.
Moreover, where is the evidence that chastity belts are undeniable forgeries?
If the article is to contain mention of the pear as a hoax, it should be as a fringe opinion, and certainly not phrased to give the impression that it is likely.
--assbag
Going back to a previous comment, and I am sure I will get banned for using this in probably the wrong thread, but chastity belts were real, however, they were not placed upon girls by knights who were going away to war. No, they were used by the women themselves to stop themselves getting sexually assaulted by men. Admittedly they came later in the middle ages and were named differently but in France and the rest of Europe they were still used up until the 1700s. Thanks to Discovery Civilization and UKTV Docs for that useless piece of Info. PS. they were either wooden or sometimes made of tin if you were rich enough.
I am not doing original research. As a matter of fact I am doing no research at all. Nor, I might add, is anyone else here. Given I do not accept this device exists I wouldn't be expected to do any research would I? The bottom line is that tis is an encyclopedia. If there is no evidence that this device was ever used this webpage ought not to exist. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but it is a place where you should cite your sources. I have not seen any sources yet, just a shady website. If this is invention, and it looks like it to me, the page needs to be changed. Lao Wai 18:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Listen, if you don't want to contribute then why complain. This is an encyclopedia that everyone helps to edit.
Since everyone seems to be resorting to personal abuse of Lao Wai, I think I'll chime in to back him up here. We need some proper references for this, the "references" offered so far are very poor quality. People who wish to write articles on the history of mediaeval torture should be aware that pretty well all secondary sources prior to the mid-1970s, and most populist ones even after that, are gravely suspect and likely to be seriously contaminated with 19th century fictions. See Histoire de l'Inquisition en France for a classic example of this. And this taste for prurient fictions included physical objects as well as tales; many chastity belts in museums have been shown to be nineteenth century fakes, and not a single rack anywhere is believed to be authentic. So saying you have a photograph from a museum is not, by itself, a very strong argument. Some other potential interpretations include, but are not necessarily limited to:
(Further, as Lao Wai pointed out, some of the claims made are really rather suspect. For example, the listed punishments do not jibe with other sources, where the punishment for sodomy (from after the thirteenth century) is not mutilation but death, while the usual punishment for procuring an abortion was "merely" excommunication.) Therefore I do not think it is at all unreasonable to request some properly documented evidence for the claims made in the article. Oh, and by the way, I'm not a catholic. -- Securiger 19:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC) I came to this wikipedia with the preconception that the pear was a torture device, but now I am convinced otherwise. Once the seed of doubt was raised I re-examined the device itself, and am now thouroughly convinced it is a tool of some sort. I agree that it appears to be seventeenth century at the earliest. I doubt that it is a medical device for some of the same reasons that I have come to doubt it is a device of torture. Surely the pear shape would be conducive to insertion into a human orifice, but only if the taper was the other way arround.The points at the end also make me doubt it is any sort of medical device, and seem to be entirely in the wrong place for a torture device as well. The points are meant to hold something, and the relatively smooth "pear" sections are meant to strech something into a smooth rounded shape- leather perhaps. To venture a guess, this device is used to make a pouch of some sort. (I've never contributed before, hope I have done it correctly)- Mythopoetic
Given that the questions do not seem to have been answered, and the danger of Wikipedia becoming a major source of disinformation, I have taken the liberty to remove the quetionable text from the article, and adding a warning that the device may have had other uses.
I agree that the vivid details of this description strongly suggest that all this "information" is merely the product of someone's sick imagination. I propose that we do not put any of this back into the article before someone provides some really indisputable evidence (not just statements from some modern "authority").
All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 20:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be clear that it is not definite...but talking about it being vetrinary seems just absurd and unsourced. Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems that we have established three facts about this object:
I propose that we update the article to reflect facts #1 and #2, and leave fact #3 out as non-notable. Comments? Jorge Stolfi 04:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
How about we just say, "According to so-and-so museum...", and provide inline citations for every assertion. There is room on Wikipedia for using common sense in evaluating sources, but if the only assertions ever made about these things are that they are torture implements, then we can't ignore that completely. Remember, we don't ultimately have to work out whether anything is true or not on Wikipedia; for cases like this, all we care about is creating a compendium of human knowledge at the current time, which may or may not match up with the truth. — Matt Crypto 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the wording is poor, and the description gratuitous. However the device is regarded as an implement of torture by most works dicussing it, and this should be prominently featured in a Wikipedia article about it. I'll update the page with some of these references (other than the few discussed at the top of this page) shortly. Tomyumgoong 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, none of the three "facts" listed above are factual. Fact #1 - Many items in museums and on Wikipedia don't have a specific place of origin or date of manufacture (that's why "circa" is often part of a date), but there is absolutely no question about the intended purpose or actual use of the device. Fact #2 - It is not conjecture, it is fact that these devices were designed and used for torture. Fact #3 - A pure fantasy on the part of the person who listed the supposed "facts".
It appears to me from the discussion on this page that a bunch of people are letting their personal distaste get in the way of reality. There is more than ample evidence of the existence and use of the vaginal (and oral, and anal) pear as a device of torture, cited in diverse sources.
Regarding the "three-lobed" comment above, review the various pictures available of these devices. They were made in two-, three- and four-lobed versions. They were NOT primarily used for oral insertion, but for vaginal or anal insertion. Regarding the decoration comment above, what is your basis for claiming the decoration suggests 17th or 18th century manufacture? Particularly in Spain, where these devices were used in the Inquisition, that sort of elaborate decoration was certainly available and being done in the 16th century. CDNRopemaster ( talk) 16:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Fact 4: Some people have conjectured, based on no other data, that it can not have been an object of torture. —
2A0A:A546:50A6:1:F314:FD1F:4919:D071 (
talk) 12:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
PROTIP: No evidence means no evidence!. (See:
Łukasiewicz logic) And it means that the people from fact 4 are just as much wrong as those from fact 2. Just with an unwarranted stink of superiority based on the belief that it is somehow an “us VS tHeM”, when in reality, they have both exactly the same personalty in this regard- One that does not have a single clue about how science works, and just wants its own ideology to dominate —
2A0A:A546:50A6:1:F314:FD1F:4919:D071 (
talk) 12:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I have read a few references in French (search for "Poire d'angoisse"). Got a few stories, but still no real sources. Two interesting things:
Yeah but see. Most of us don't speak french, and this is why I'm here. Could someone please do something about the french in the introduction of the article. The french usage in the intro concerning a quote about the (fruit type) choking pear and its edibility when cooked is in all french, this makes no sense to me as i'm not french and this is an english article. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.76.199.208 (
talk) 04:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm removing the reference to the Pope, unless somebody can provide better than an amateur website indicating it was ever used by the Inquisition/church Sherurcij ( talk) ( Terrorist Wikiproject) 18:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
If any word was elilinated which has an illogical, misleading or even absurd etymology, there wouldn't be enough left to write an avergae sentence. That's not even an excuse. Even if it were never used by the inquisition (that's unclear at this point) the term was coined, whether truethfull or as a term of abuse by anti-papists, and in either case needs to be accounted for, not ignored. As long as such things aren't wronly presneted (alledgedly certainly leaves enough doubt) there's no problem. (By the way, I have the greatest respect for the papacy and help spread the message that he real inquisition was far better then its typical secular counterpart of contemporary (in)justice) Fastifex 19:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't know if this argument was still going on, so I thought I'd lay it to rest. The Medieval Underworld by Andrew McCall has woodcuts and descriptions of the Pear of Anguish in use, as does the Illustrated Guide to Torture and Execution. The mechanical principles it uses are simply a screw mechanism similar to a hand drill, and I really hope nobody's about to suggest the hand drill wasn't around during the medieval period. Also, there are authentic pears on display in several museums, including in Prague and London.
I have put on "original research" tag, given that there apperently still are unverifiable claims here. Medico80 11:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You know to simply find the use of this instrument and to finally prove to you that is was real why not go and look up the records of people tortured. I should have what was used on them as a sidenote.
I'd like to see those just to verify if they are real or fake.
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Note the dates on the above. Interestingly, the only sources I've found so far that describe this as an actual mechanism, rather than simply as a fruit that cannot be swallowed or an argument that cannot be answered, all seem to date from the 20th and 21st centuries. Uncle G 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I note that the 1898 Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has a listing for choke-pear: "Robbers in Holland at one time made use of a piece of iron in the shape of a pear, which they forced into the mouth of their victim. On turning a key, a number of springs thrust forth points of iron in all directions, so that the instrument of torture could never be taken out except by means of the key." No indication that the object really existed, of course, but proof at least that the idea of a mechanism is not new. William Pietri 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The only sources that claim anal or vaginal usage for the choke-pear are modern, current, websites. The sources which give the article its significance are the 17th and 19th century references to the device's use in the mouth by robbers, not the miscellany of people who are willing to speculate today on its use in the cunt by the Spanish Inquisition. Unless you have firm sources for non-oral uses of this device, please do not insist on giving such speculation undue prominence in the article. The Land 21:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I feel the article has been largely re-written since the Original Research tag was put onto it, and would support removing the tag. The historical validity of the device is certainly still in question, but I don't think there is anything indicating original research by WPians present in the article. If there are no complaints, I'll remove the template on Tuesday. Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 17:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re5ewE5dHpQ
I recently asked them about it, on their site, and they said that they made sure they'd gotten the facts straight. They mentioned several times that they had seen woodcuts of the Pear in use, and that they were extremely rare for the time and nature.
Perhaps this subject is not as bogus as we think... VonV 05:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This is crazy; it's well-documented, and even if it's not historical, there's enough sources mentioning it that the article should cover them. As for sources, the most recent OED entry for pear says
1630 Pathomachia III. iv. 29 Vnlesse thou confesse,..the Scottish Bootes, the Dutch Wheele, the Spanish Strappado, Linnen Ball, and Peare of Confession shall torment thee. 1990 J. A. AMATO Victims & Values i. 9 This diverse array of instruments..were used by secular and religious authorities as well. They included a vaginal pear (an opening device), a chastity belt, [etc.]. 1990 J. AYTO Glutton's Glossary 213 Medieval torturers devised a particularly gruesome tool known in English as the pear of confession. 1997 Richmond (Va.) Times Dispatch (Nexis) 16 Feb. F4 One guesses that some readers may learn more than they want to about the strappado, the "pear", and the Judas chair. -- Prosfilaes ( talk) 01:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that several people have satisfied the burden of proof that "the pear of anguish" does exist and was in fact used as a torture device. I would recommend setting up 2 pages for this topic, one for the fruit "choke pear" and one for "pear of anguish" to differentiate the 2. They obviously should not be on the same page.
Walterwoj ( talk) 21:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, the situation here does not seem tenable: "Pear of anguish" redirects here, and yet the pear of anguish has been excised from this page. Arguments like "they're a bit like chastity belts, and chastity belts never existed" will simply not fly when chastity belts not only very clearly do exist and can be bought by the bushel, they have been in use from the 1700s. If the pear is merely a common myth, then it needs to be addressed as such, however, nobody posting here has any evidence to counter the claims of the museums.
Whether or not it was ever truly used in the inquisition or other situations, the pear of anguish is well documented and absolutely, incontrovertibly exists: we have photographic evidence of no fewer than six [edit: seven][edit2: nine][edit3: ten] of the devices, two of them already on wikipedia, from across much of Europe.
1) http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/images/pearSBGw.jpg and http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Oral_pear.jpg Museum der Festung Salzburg, Österreich (iron, 4 petals, lyre-shaped key)
2) http://bp0.blogger.com/_tpKVqmAtSto/SHt0u-_gv1I/AAAAAAAAAEA/iXS6_mLZclU/s1600-h/IMG_3838.JPG Siena Museum of Torture. (brass, 3 petals, lyre-shaped key)
3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiangotlost/348666938/ Salzburg's Torture Museum. (iron, 4 petals, hollow key)
4) http://roaddogg.15.forumer.com/index.php?s=7a513573f73d9efb24b598ddb756d3ed&act=Attach&type=post&id=291 Unknown torture museum in Germany. (brass, 3 petals, 5-moons key)
5) http://mcncirce.com/torture15.jpg via http://mcncirce.com/history15.html Lousy photo, unknown provenance. (3 petals, rounded key (2 characters in a forest?))
6) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Muzeum_Ziemi_Lubuskiej_-_Muzeum_Tortur_-_Gruszka.JPG Torture museum in Lubuska Land Museum in Zielona Góra. (black iron, 3 petals, 4-moons key: looks recently forged, though)
7) http://photos.innersource.com/group/4924 Amsterdam (2 or 3 leaves, brass or copper with key of forged tapered metal bars (looks spot welded together? questionable vintage)
8) http://www.vaginalpear.com/vaginal-pear-01.jpg Unknown provenance. (3 leaves, cast brass, head-shaped key)
9) http://www.vaginalpear.com/vaginal-pear-04.jpg Unknown provenance. (3 leaves, cast brass, deer-and-lion shaped key) Claimed to be 1500s according to "Inquisition/Inquisicion: Torture Instruments from the Middle Ages to the Industrial Era" by Robert Held
10) http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/Pix/SOC/25/10439125_T.JPG Unknown provenance. (3 leaves, cast brass, ornate (indian dancers?) round key)
0) Not real (3D rendered): http://www.occasionalhell.com/infdevice/detail.php?recordID=Pear%20of%20Anguish Included here just because there are some versions of this online that look realistic: don't be fooled if looking for more evidence.
First I saw it mentioned was the torture museum in Amsterdam in the '90s, well before the 2001 Wikipedia claim. However, it could be that the original article was made by a visitor to the torture museum: the texts appear similar.
As for notability: I very much doubt anyone came here looking for an astringent fruit (they'd have gone for "fig" then!).
Further we have photographic evidence for at least five of these things, all in museums, all listed as torture devices, all stated to have been used in body cavity expansion, and no evidence to the contrary whatsoever. Any claims to the contrary must therefore be regarded as "original research".
Counterpoint: We have little enough evidence to claim by whom they were used, but we most certainly have enough evidence to back the fact that the things exist, and that there is a reasonable probability that their purpose was for torture. However, I admit to being dubious myself. No other torture device I've seen has this kind of ornamentation. The teeth are somehow wrong - neither vicious enough to do serious damage, nor harsh enough to kill. They're at the wrong angle. If someone *does* want to do some digging and find good evidence against the modern interpretation of these devices, I'm all for it: but merely saying "hai I no bleev u, i revert u!" just isn't good enough given the existing weight of evidence. Could they have been culinary, perhaps to keep a roast fowl from collapsing? The teeth, when closed, would act as a spike that could serve to penetrate the fowl's skin at the neck, and allow easier insertion. But then that argument could count for a torture device, too, I guess: you could use the spike to make your own hole wherever you wanted. I'm just not convinced, though. Note that these things all turn up in torture museums. Maybe they're all fakes? "We're not a proper torture museum unless we have a Pear, everyone asks for them... get the blacksmith to whip one up, could you?" If all these torture museums belong to the same chain, it would be reasonable that they would have similar equipment. They all seem to have similar other tools: spikey chairs, iron maidens, a rack, a pyramid to sit people on... to be honest, the pears are the exception in that they are NOT the same. Every one is different. But I can't put any of these doubts into the article itself, since it's all OR.
And whether they're fake or not, like the crystal skulls, they exist, and thus are wikiworthy. I've added a brief passage about the pear-as-torture-device to the page. I've aimed for a balanced writeup, but feel free to edit for extra balance. Not sure the "also known as" line is balanced - someone complained about people calling them "Pope's Pear" above. But complaining about it seems daft and doesn't change that people are calling it that.
I do believe the page should be split, but will leave that to the vote above. DewiMorgan ( talk) 21:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
E. Cobham Brewer 1810–1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898.
Choke-pear. An argument to which there is no answer. Robbers in Holland at one time made use of a piece of iron in the shape of a pear, which they forced into the mouth of their victim. On turning a key, a number of springs thrust forth points of iron in all directions, so that the instrument of torture could never be taken out except by means of the key.
Via project gutenberg: http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/4/0/9/14096/14096-8.txt
The object in Nick's mouth was a "choke pear!"
This vicious instrument of torture dates back to the time of Palioly, the notorious French robber and renegade, when it was very worthily called "the pear of anguish."
It consists of a solid gag, so to speak, yet it is so constructed, with interior springs, that, once thrust into a person's mouth, it expands as fast as the mouth is opened, and rigidly distends the victim's jaws.
The more widely the victim gapes to eject the "choke pear," or to cry out for aid, the larger the hideous object becomes, until torture, suffocation and death speedily ensue.
Had this infernal device been generally available to modern criminals, Nick would have been warned by the significant words he had heard, and would have guarded himself against it.
Now, to me, both references are referring to the pear-as-gag, an entirely different thing from the key-driven examples we see in torture museums today. Their descriptions sound more like a sprocketed, spring-driven device. Which supports the idea of a split between the two concepts... except the 1904 reference clearly states that both terms apply to it.
I also read "A vaginal pear appears in Ken Russell's 1971 film The Devils, where it is used on an accused witch." but without seeing it, can't confirm. Would be a great ref, if true.
[Edit - Above was me, DewiMorgan]
I've watched The Devils now, and although there was one scene similar to that described, the instruments did not include a pear, so far as I could tell (it was all behind a curtain, but you got to see the tray of instruments). So we don't have any references for the screw-driven version, nor of use of the pear on any orifice other than the mouth, outside of torture museums from the '90s onwards, and sensationalist websites from the turn of the century onwards.
Admittedly, though, those are about the only places where torture is discussed, so it's not entirely surprising that it'd be there that we find the most references, even if the pear is not a new invention. Still, I rather *want* to add the lack of refs as a note to the body text, even though it does smack of OR. If nothing else, it might get people to post antedating refs. Maybe one of the owners of these pears has a decent history for it, for example. Maybe those woodcuts might turn up.
I'll be bold and add a note on it, but feel free to remove if you disagree. DewiMorgan ( talk) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Bit strange finding this article - even if there are still some question marks over the "pear of anguish" (I'd be amazed if a good book on the history of torture couldn't solve the RS problem), it clearly should be two articles, with a disambiguation. Any objections? Richard Cooke ( talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Also appears in Dumas' 'Twenty Years After':
[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Cooke ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The first footnote suggests the pear inspired the gag - but there are several sources I can find that suggest the pear is named after the gag, and not the other way round. Need to clear this up with a definitive source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Cooke ( talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The section of this article on the pre-1900 uses of "pears of anguish" is extremely problematic. It's unsourced, and the idea that the popularity of torture museums might explain why anal and vaginal use of the pear is only coming to light now is just made up. It's more likely, I would say, that prior to 1900 other mentions of the pear's use were considered indelicate. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Why due you assume that torture museums are more or less popular now? . At any rate, there *are* mentions of vaginal use of the pear in 19th French medical literature, which can be found on Google Books. I'm going to remove this for these reasons. At present, the article is reading like an unresolved discussion on the talk page, due to its lack of RS. And how is a modern work of fiction, WITH LINKS OF STEEL, a source of any kind?
Folks,
Splitting the pages choke pear (plant) and choke pear (torture) was probably the right thing to do at present time. However, I strongly suspect that the alleged torture instrument (which still has no confirmation from contemporary sources!) is basically a pun on the fruit's name.
To see why, here is my translation of the French page quoted above (which apparently belongs to a series about French language idioms):
AFAIK, the agricultural/culinary reference above is the only contemporary (medieval) reference for the term "pear of anguish" --- and it has no connection whatsoever to torture or gagging instruments.
Being at that, here is also my translation of key points from Calvi's text (from the modernized version cited in the article):
Note that Calvi's description of the "pear of anguish" is utterly inconsistent with the objects depicted in the article (and with the illustration shown in the French site above). Calvi's device clearly had interior springs and some sort of ratchet, so that it opened by itself; the museum objects have a hand-turned screw and cannot expand unless the screw is turned. The former could not be removed by locksmiths, while the latter could obviously be removed by turning the screw. The former had a key-operated unlocking mechanism which is obviously lacking in the latter. Enough already?
To me this sounds much more like a Dumas-style tale than a historical report. The plot inconsistencies are even worse than the mechanical ones. (How could four "poor soldiers" have invented and procured such an effective device? Why didn't they use it right away? Why would they leave such a good tool behind? For merchants who refused to yield their money, wouldn't a sharp knife to the throat be a much more effective means of persuasion than a crude tongue depressor? And so on...)
Then we have the incongruity between the instruments themselves and their alleged purpose, either gagging or torturing. (Why do they have more than two leaves? Why the smooth surfaces of the leaves? Why the decoration on the screw's handle? Why those tiny points at the tip?)
The dispute over the origin and purpose of these devices has been going on for several years, and we still have no solid evidence to back up the museum labels. My best guess at the moment is that
While the current version of the article is careful not to endorse the museums' labelings, perhaps it should include a note on the (apparently) French and "fruity" origin if the expression. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 21:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph has been added to the article:
I fail to see the connection. The article is about a particular instrument of (supposedly) torture, and in the old French story the torture is the gagging itself. The paragraph is about using a fruit to gag someone while the person was being tortured by other means. I recall a few other movies and cartoons where people were gagged with other fruits, rubber balls, or other objects similar-sized objects. Just because a pear was used in that film, it does not mean that there is a connection with the instrument discussed in the article. One cannot even assume that the scriptwriter was aware of the latter. All the best, -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The information removed from this page regarding the vaginal and anal use of these devices was fully restored. The brief section headed "Museum Pieces" does not suffice. I would simply restore it, but given the level of controversy and discussion about this page a few years back, I'll wait a little while for feedback before doing so. CDNRopemaster ( talk) 16:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of statements on this page that appear (based on the history of this talk page) to be conclusions drawn by contributors and not taken from any external sources. Barring any such sources, this would qualify as original research (specifically "Synthesis of published material that advances a position"). Examples:
"There is no contemporary first-hand account of those devices or their use."
"The earliest mention is in..."
"Up until at least the early 1900s, the mechanical Pear of Anguish was considered a spring-loaded device, for oral use only," - while this passage includes a citation, it comes to a general conclusion not supported by the source.
"It is only in recent decades, possibly due to an increase in their popularity in torture museums, that other possible uses for such devices appear to have emerged."
While these may be perfectly reasonable conclusions, they are stated here as facts, and they must be sourced.
Reskusic (
talk) 00:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
if i may ask a personal question to anyone who will answer, how do you edit pages like this at all, let alone with npov? most people would vomit. thanks, Jake1993811 ( talk) 05:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Contemporary? what does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.55.106 ( talk) 07:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Due to the controversy attributed to this page I will only make suggestions.
1) The article, regardless of validity, is poorly written. The first paragraph contains numerous errors for a piece that is meant for an Encyclopedia, or for a written work in any sense.
2) We should all know that ".com" webpages are NOT acceptable for writing a peer-reviewed paper, much less an Encyclopedia Article of this subject. The first paragraph states that recent publications have claimed what it was used for, but then changes the tone to an assertion. At the end of the introductory paragraph it gives an HTML link which is bad form, and the site does not seem to have any credible sources to justify it's claim. If you want to prove that you are correct, at least use a legitimate source.
Trusvruntros ( talk) 21:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest edit: I've just added two instances of the device being depicted in the television series "Salem" that I noticed were not already included. I tried to word my descriptions in such a way as to offer relevant details without being gratuitously explicit or spoiling the plot of the show for anyone who hasn't seen it. However, I would be happy to edit, whether that means more or less, if anyone has objections or suggestions.
Continuity: To maintain some semblance of continuity, I structured each instance in the manner of most others already existing in the section: beginning with the Season number, Episode number, and Series Title, followed by a description. There is one example from the television show "Bones" that does not follow this structure. I feel that perhaps these could be listed in a way that is easier to read, but I'm not sure exactly how, and I don't want to go around changing other peoples' contributions. Any suggestions?
Bullet Points: The one edit I would like to suggest that seems most logical in my view is to change the information in the "In Popular Culture" section to a bulleted list. Currently, each instance of the device being portrayed starts a new paragraph. Most of these paragraphs are one-sentence descriptions. Particularly now that there are seven examples given, each being 1-2 sentences long, it seems only natural they be listed as bullet points. Keeping them all as separate paragraphs seems a little visually awkward and difficult to read. Wikipedia Style Guide seems to support this formatting option. The guide at least makes it seem acceptable; however, it's not entirely clear to me whether it would be preferable. On the other hand, Wiki on "In popular culture" content suggests that a bulleted list might encourage trivial entries. Are there any objections to reformatting this section as a bulleted list?
Organization within "In Popular Culture" Section: I also feel entries in this section should be organized somehow, perhaps chronologically (by airing/publication date). I would say splitting entries up into categories to separate television series from books could be helpful, but since there is currently only one book entry, perhaps that would be unnecessary at this point. As it is now, I simply added my two television entries from 2014 after all the other television entries which had aired prior to 2014, and before the one novel at the end of the list. Should we leave it how it is now or just arrange everything chronologically? The book was published in March 2014. The two most recent television entries are episodes that aired June and July of 2014, respectively. The episode of Bones aired in 2009. The episode of Criminal Minds aired in 2007. This means if we list everything chronologically, including books, this would throw the book into the middle of the list and the Criminal Minds episode to the top, with the Bones episode right below that. Fetters of ennui ( talk) 08:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, this may be the start of a clue. I found this image on an imageboard, along with the text:
http://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1368/20/1368209880636.jpg
OK, now look at it. This really, blatantly, obviously isn't a torture device. It isn't even like the pears we see in other museums, in that the tips are held together by a RING. It wouldn't fit into most orifices, though you might *perhaps* fit it into a mouth. What in the seven hells IS it? Given it's on a sword, I'm guessing not leather-working or culinary, then. Medical? Does it stanch the bleeding on a piercing wound? Or IS it culinary? Camping-style culinary? Can the spoons be inserted into a game animal to hold it and roast it over a fire? Seems unlikely, since the handle would char. A codpiece-stretcher? Gauntlet holder? DewiMorgan ( talk) 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, shoot. I've found two image references from the mid mid 1800s, but not sure how to cite them in the article, nor whether the images can be used on wikipedia. Anyone know? Can images from the wikimedia commons be used in wikipedia? What about Google scans of Public Domain books?
The 1864 image was apparently scanned from the 1864 Die GartenLaube ("The Gazebo"). It is labelled "Fig. IX. Würgbirne. Geschlossen. Göffnet.", which, I *believe*, means "Fig. IX. Chokebulb. Closed. Open." That's 130 years before the earliest reference we've had to the modern style of choke-pear, completely blowing away my theory that it's an invention of modern torture museums. It doesn't disprove the oft-heard claim that most torture devices are the lurid invention of the Victorian era, but the fact that it's labelled a "choke pear" does tie it with the Palioly device.
Higher-quality scans *can* be found elsewhere on the net, but they add nothing, and we definitely can't use them:
The page upon which it appears is scanned and transcribed here, but the use of the pear itself does not appear to be described there, at least so far as I can tell with Google translate. Anyone who speaks German able to confirm?
What is the purpose of the little cap that we see on several of them? Is it to keep the leaves together? Why, if the screw thread holds them together anyway?
I note that if there was a spring instead of a screw thread, then pulling the ring upwards would pull the leaves together, and flipping the cap over those spikes would hold it closed. Pushing the ring down would then push the cap off, causing it to spring open, the spring pushing the legs slightly past the point where the leaves can be pushed together again, "locking" it open. This perfectly explains the cap, the spikes at the tips of the leaves, and the earlier descriptions saying it was spring-loaded, with a removable "key". I suspect that the screw-thread version is just later people misunderstanding the mechanism in the diagrams.
The mechanism is made obvious in the 1857 image, by G. Montalan on page 216 of the Magasin Pittoresque of 1857, labelled "Poire d'anguisse Muse+'e du Louvre ; collection Sauvageot. -- Dessin de Mortalan".
The description in this writing (as best as I understand the text) is that it is a gag, NOT a torture device. The torture, such as it is, is that the victim cannot eat with their mouth wedged open, and with the key-pin removed, can never close their mouth. Anyone who understands the mechanism could easily hook it closed even without the key-pin, though, so the description of use by brigands seems unlikely.
And here's a photo of a sprung one (in the "locked open" state, the legs pushed down past the point where the leaves can be pushed together again), thought the center pin appears to be missing.
The one on the "17th century" sword-pommel above appears to be of this type (the pin is not threaded that I can see), which further casts doubt on the original purpose being as a gag; gagging your victim by handing them your sword seems like the peak of lunacy. DewiMorgan ( talk) 09:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
...would be so willing (I'm not English) to update this article with this study: https://www.academia.edu/5826375/The_Pear_of_Anguish_Truth_Torture_and_Dark_Medievalism (for a summary read: http://www.medievalists.net/2016/03/20/why-medieval-torture-devices-are-not-medieval/). Thanks -- 2.40.137.237 ( talk) 12:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The redirect
Choke pear (torture has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Choke pear (torture until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont) 21:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)