Talk:Pear of anguish

Untitled
I have put in a request for a peer review. There is too much arguing over this subject.

Pear types
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)


 * More likely the entire thing is an urban legend. Anyone got any evidence? Lao Wai 14:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Books, internet scholastic sources...same as any other method of torture's "reliability". Sherurcij 17:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. Care to name a few? If it looks like an urban legend, and it quacks like an urban legend..... Lao Wai 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Is your google broken? Can't you check things out just as well as any of us?  Fine...


 * 1) Torture instruments: A [bilingual] guide to the exhibition Torture Instruments form the Middle Ages to the Industrial Era
 * 2) Criminal Medieval Museum, San Gimignano, Italy
 * 3) http://www.bryantmcgill.com/Rare_Exotic_Collectibles/Oral,_Rectal_and_Vaginal_Torture_Pear.html
 * 4) www.houseofdesade.org
 * Could it be an elaborate hoax...sure, so could the moon landings...doesn't mean we delete their entries ;) Sherurcij 17:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well no it is not. And I googled it.  Still looks like an urban legend to me.  Especially as the vast majority of hits cite Wikipedia.  Yep, we're doing a good job of spreading the message.  The first one is a source although not an academic one or a particularly reliable one.  But in fact it looks like a good source.  I will check.  The other is not a good source and cannot reasonably be called evidence of anything.  It could be an elaborate hoax because, unlike the Moon landing, the history of torture is full of hoaxes.  NASA by and large is fairly truthful.  People who are interested in torture are not as reliable.  So instead of comparing it to the Moon Landing, compare it to, say, the Jewish Blood Libel.  Especially as this is supposed to have been done by the Catholic Church.  Any rational person knows that the Church has a problem with sexuality and is as unlikely to sexually assault people as punishment as force them to convert to Islam.  So without evidence it fails the common sense test.  Does anyone have any? Lao Wai 19:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Any rational person knows that the Church has a problem with sexuality problems with NPOV much? It doesn't fail any common-sense test, it may raise suspicion, but it certainly doesn't fail any tests.  The natural name of the Museum seems to be Museo Della Tortura and appears on tripadvisor.com as a tourist attraction  and has an image online of the Pear in its collection  Sherurcij 19:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can rephrase that if you like. The Church condemns absolutely and in no uncertain terms any sort of sexual behaviour apart from heterosexual sexual intercourse within a valid marriage which at least leaves open the possibility of conception.  Therefore it is as likely that they would punish someone with a sexual assault as they would force someone to convert to Islam.  Boiling them in oil would be another matter.  Yes it fails the common sense test.  I saw the website.  It is not an academic museum.  It is not a government-run museum.  It may have an interest in publicity through cheap shots.  I too saw an image.  Notice it is *an* image.  There appears to be only one of them - all of them are of the same device.  Common sense ought to kick in about now.  The museum may not even own this device as it seems to have a lot from private collections.  What is the authenticity of this object?  Who has tested it to see how old it is?  What real references are there to it?  Who was tortured with this device?  Again it fails the common sense test.  Compare and contrast with the Spanish Inquisition torture devices in the Tower of London.  There is a whole room devoted to them.  Of course not a single one of them is Spanish or was used by the Inquisition.  They are all entirely English.  But that does not change how it is referenced.  Common sense suggests this is an urban legend.  The amount that is written on the Inquisition is huge.  The same is true of the Church and sex.  If such a device existed or was used there would be a raft of documentation. Lao Wai 20:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * [[Image:PearOfAnguish2.jpg]] and [[Image:PearOfAnguish1.jpg]]
 * There are two different models I could find given 2 minutes on Google, again I encourage you to look for these things yourself...it will save arguments and time. Also note that the article doesn't claim they were related to the Catholic church, merely that they were an instrument of torture.  Sherurcij 21:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am rather impressed by that. I'll grant you there is more than one.  I did try to look for them but found nothing that suggested they were real.  Try to date them.  How modern is such a device considering the mechanical complexity?  Where is the evidence of them ever being used?  The Web is a wonderful thing, but it is full of rubbish.  There are, as far as I can see, no academic sites devoted to this.  No peer-reviewed article has been found.  It still fails the common-sense test and it is still undocumented.  There is a lot of academic work done on punishment, on torture, on attitudes to sex in the Middle Ages.  It ought to be simple to find a proper reference if this is anything other than a forgery.  You may have noticed that the museum you mention also has Chastity Belts - which are undeniably a-historic and forgeries.  The museum does not point this out, but presents them as real.  This ought to raise a red flag as to credibility. Lao Wai 09:48, 9 August 2005 (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.


 * The Instruments of Torture By Michael Kerrigan looks like a good place to start. Anyone who knows what a ::"bock" is will knows the Catholic Church were enthusiastically sexual torturers. Richard Cooke (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
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.


 * Perhaps you might to have a think about why I might find that not only a silly comment, but also wrong in just about every single detail. And could you please sign your posts with three or four tildas (~) so that everyone can follow the discussion. Lao Wai 19:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The above unsigned comment was not me, for the record - I strongly encourage conflict since it makes the wikipedia better. But since a quick google search alone seems to support the idea this was a torture device, whether used by the Inquisition or others, any mention that it's fictitious would be considered "original research" imho. Anyhow, whoever that was put up peer review or whatever, so I guess we wait *shrugs* Sherurcij 19:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I don't encourage conflict, but I agree disagrement makes Wikipedia better. A quick Google search will turn up a lot of things.  I searched for Chastity Belts and got 229,000 hits.  Yet they never existed and are a product of the Nineteenth century romantic fantasy world.  I disagree that pointing out a lack of evidence constitutes original research.  It should not be too much to ask people to provide a printed source by a reputable author.  This ought to have some documentation.  Still as you say, I do think the pper review was a little premature, but let's see what come out of it.  Oh, I should have made it clear, I did not think you made the above comments.  It is not your style from what I've seen of it.  Lao Wai 19:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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
 * 1) They are nineteenth century fakes;
 * 2) They are genuine articles, but are much more recent than mediaeval (indeed, the workmanship and decorations look seventeenth or eighteenth century to me);
 * 3) They are genuine mediaeval torture devices, but were not used in the way described in this article; or
 * 4) They are genuine articles, but were medical instruments, not instruments of torture.


 * Perhaps it is a medical or veterinary intrument, used to stretch open various orifices, wounds, surgical incisions, etc? I believe that modern surgeons have instruments that are not entirely unlike this thing. Jorge Stolfi 23:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversial text removed
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)


 * You are right that medical/veterinary is just a guess too, and does not make much sense. However, the torture hypothesis seems absurd too:
 * Why is the bulb smooth?
 * Why is the screw handle decorated?
 * Those details would make sense for a medical instrument, or even for a leather shoe/glove/pouch/whethever stretcher, as was suggested above.
 * Anyway, we should not help spread misinformation; and, from the discussion above, it seems that there are no primary sources, only modern ones that may be just guessing (and often have interest in guessing "torture"). Why should their guesses be considered more authoritative than ours?
 * All the best, Jorge Stolfi 11:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Facts, anybody?
Well, it seems that we have established three facts about this object:
 * Fact #1: We have no information whatsoever about the place of origin, date of manufacture, intended purpose, or atcual use of this type of object.
 * Fact #2: Some people have conjectured, based on no other data than its appearance, that this object may have been an instrument of torture; and it has been featured by some museums with that attribution.
 * Fact #3: Some people enjoy imagining all sorts of nasty ways in which this object could be used, and want to the world about such fantasies.

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)


 * If museums identify it as a torture instrument, that's enough to meet WP:V. There are zero reliable sources that list it as a "leatherworking tool" or vetrinary or anything else - so no, the only use listed in the article should be the one we have verifiable sources for, which are several European museums. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there are good reasons to believe that the museums are just guessing, or trusting books whose authors just guessed, that is obviously not enough. That "evidence" only supports #2 above. The claims made in the current article are still competely unsupported -- just as the guesses "leatherworking tool" or "juicer for Martian oranges". Jorge Stolfi 11:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I visited San Gimigniano once, as the sightseeing trip of a conference. I did not see that museum specifically, so I have no opinion on its trustworthiness. However, the town does live on tourism, so we should be cautious. Jorge Stolfi 11:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * PPS. Note that WP:V says credible sources. Jorge Stolfi 11:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I live in Niagara Falls, commonly held to be the third-most kitchy-touristy place in North America (After Reno/Vegas) - but I don't think it's good for Wikipedia to start "guessing" which museums are reliable and which aren't. If there's evidence that a museum isn't reliable, let me know.  But you can't tell me the "date of manufacture" of a rack, yet we can still say that it's a torture instrument. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 11:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that, as another editor mentioned, the decoration on the handle suggests that it was manufactured rather recently, perhaps 17th - 18th century. That makes the torture hypothesis less likely. Moreover, if the museums label it "medieval", but that turns out to be completely wrong, that is enough to invalidate anything else that the museum says about the thing. Jorge Stolfi 15:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What "proof" do you have that the handle is "perhaps 17th - 18th century", that it's ornate? You're now trying to discount what several museum curators believe, based on your jpeg analysis? Don't be ridiculous, there's WP:NOR for a reason  Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If I had "proof" I would not write "perhaps", right? Anyway, the WP:NOR rule does not allow us to cut any claim found in the net and just paste it into Wikipedia, without thinking. We must keep our brain turned on, and always try to assess whether the source is reliable or not. Given the apparent lack of direct evidence, I would say that those museum labels are just guesses, and therefore no more reliable than anyone else's guess. The current article is definitely misleading because it omits apparent fact #1 above, which readers would certainly need to know; and presents someone's guesses as if they were facts.Jorge Stolfi 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As for WP:NOR, please re-read the statement about the prongs, and think about it. Granted, if the instrument were used as described, those prongs may do some damage, perhaps, depending on how the instrument was inserted. However, the prongs are definitely not placed or shaped to "ensure maximum damage"! Another question you may want to ponder is why the maker went to all the trouble of using three lobes. A two-lobed instrument would be just as effective for torture as a three-lobed one, and much easier to build. In fact, the three-lobed instrument seems rather impractical for using in the mouth (try to think of how it would fit there). The more I think, the less sense the torture story makes.  It all smells like a big truckload of bullshit. Methinks Wikipedia deserves better than that. Jorge Stolfi 22:26, 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. &mdash; 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)

An interesting version
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:


 * 1) The (late) stories I have seen so far say it was used only in the mouth, chiefly to prevent prisoners from talking and/or to cause discomfort rather than real damage.
 * 2) The following page gives a very different twist:
 * Avaler des poires d'angoisse Avoir de grands déplaisirs. Angoisse est le nom d'une localité en Dordogne qui produisait dès le moyen âge une poire dure et âpre, mauvaise au goût lorsqu' on la consommait crue mais très appréciée comme fruit à cuire, à sécher ou comme poire à cidre (dès le XIIIe siècle). L'expression "avaler des poires d'angoisse" se retrouve dès 1245 dans la région d'Albi sous la forme "pera d'engoyssa". La consommation crue de ces poires étant pratiquement impossible la population de l'époque associa par homonymie les poires d'Angoisse à la peur de les manger et de les avaler donc à l'angoisse dans le sens propre du terme: l'anxiété, la douleur morale liée à la crainte. Ainsi, dès le milieu du Xve siècle, naît l'expression "avaler des poires d'angoisses" pour signifier "éprouver de très grands déplaisirs". Par la suite, la "poire d'angoisse" désignera un objet métallique (quasiment de torture) en forme de poire que l'on plaçait de force dans la bouche du prisonnier pour le baillonner. On imagine aisément l'angoisse et la peur ultime du malheureux qui étouffait, suait, souffrait et n'arrivait plus à avaler sa salive. Si de nos jours la notion de désagrément est restée, les soucis désignés par la locution n'atteignent pas les sommets de souffrance de ces hommes.
 * If this article is to be trusted, then, the expression poire d'Angoisse ("Angoisse pear") and avaler des poires d'Angoisse ("swallow Angoisse pears"), as well as the (mis)understanding of Angoisse as angoisse="anguish" all predate the (alleged) invention of the (hypothetical) torture instrument, and have nothing to do with torture. While this does not prove or disprove anything, it opens up the possibility that the "torture" instrument was built (or borrowed from another innocent use) to fit the expression.
 * Much as one could today build or procure a nasty-looking contraption and exhibit it in a roadside museum as "a medieval tongue-twister"... Jorge Stolfi 13:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Don't rvt-war
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)


 * It is kind of hard to follow this. If it is unclear whether the Inquisition used it or not this article should not exist - my position as it happens.  It is spurious I think.  But in any case, the onus of proof lies on the person making the claim.  You are making this one so prove it.  If you can't, and I expect you can't, it oughtn't be included. Lao Wai 19:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Lao Wai, the onus is on you to indicate that it was used by the Inquisition, or that anybody other than a few website authors ever called it the Pope's Pear. If Fox's Book of Martyrs, Martyr's Mirror, or any similar established book refers to it as that, that's good enough...but a single website really isn't, imho Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 12:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Screws
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'll have a look at McCall. I am happy to suggest the screw was not around in the medieval period - in fact metal screws were not invented until after 1400 and not common until the Industrial Revolution.  How do you know they are authentic?  The Tower of London is full of fakes. Lao Wai 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * According to screw, metal screws used as fasteners did not appear in Europe until the 1400s.  (emphasis mine)  This article make no mention of use as fasteners; it is referring to the use of a threaded metal screw as an implement of torture.  I don't find it hard to believe that use for torture may have preceded use for fastening.  Kasreyn 21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Screw-shaped objects have been around and in use since at least since the screw of Archimedes. So it was neither unimagined, nor impossible to manufacture. And it also has nothing to do with screws as fasteners. — 2A0A:A546:50A6:1:F314:FD1F:4919:D071 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also “did not exist (back then)” is always a false and unscientific claim. You cannot prove something’s non-existence, and science also isn’t about that such ways of thinking the first place. A scientist would say that the first know case is from $date, and no earlier case is know today. Which specifically does not exclude that it might have been lost to the ages. … So such claims of non-existence are an easy way to identify mere beliefs based on personal ideology, and people using it should be blocked from writing anything on Wikipedia due to a lack of education. — 2A0A:A546:50A6:1:F314:FD1F:4919:D071 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have had a look at McCall and I couldn't see any pictures. Nor was it mentioned in the index nor did a quick read suggest it was mentioned at all - not under prostitution or homosexuality.  So where is this reference? Lao Wai 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I have just done the same. No pears. And a distinct lack throughout of any reference to cunningly-created mechanical devices, however inserted. The Land 20:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OR tag
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.

Woodcuts
I'd like to see those just to verify if they are real or fake.

Anal and vaginal usage
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)
 * It's also worth noting once again, as pointed out back in 2005 on this talk page, that most of those web sites (such as this one and this one) cite the earlier, wholly unsourced, versions of this Wikipedia article as their sources. There is not a single book prior to 2001 (the year of Migliorini's exhibition, note) that even mentions a "vaginal pear", and only two (non-fiction) since that do, neither of which provide any names, dates, or places, let alone references to earlier literature.  The idea that a supposed 16th century instrument of torture has gone wholly undocumented for almost 400 years beggars belief, especially given that (as we can see from this article), there has been plenty of documentation written and published for choke pears, both fanciful and real, over the past several centuries.  It is far more believable that this is a 20th century, or even (given the dates) 21st century, hoax, perpetuated onto the World Wide Web by earlier versions of this very article and traceable to a couple of devices in museum exhibitions that have been labelled by a curator without any historical primary or secondary source evidence to back that label up.  There is zero either reliable or useful source material on "vaginal pears". Uncle G 14:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Template removal
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)


 * Sorry but what in this is not original research? Lao Wai 14:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

History Channel on "The Pear of Anguish"
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)


 * I vaguely remember seeing woodcuts - if anyone can find any, that'd help establish provenance. As it is, we've no real evidence that it's not just a case of all torture museums feeling they must have one. The black one from "Lubuska Land Museum in Zielona Góra" really screams "modern reproduction" to me, for a start (the key head is dented as if beaten out by a blacksmith, but the leaves are not. The black on the leaves is wearing off in a way that suggests it were made recently, rather than having an older patina.) DewiMorgan (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well-documented historically
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


 * 7b. An instrument of torture made of curved metal panels, roughly pear-shaped when closed but capable of being opened up gradually. Sometimes more fully pear of confession. Cf. CHOKE-PEAR n. 2. Now hist.

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)
 * Confirming this cite of 1630 Pathomachia as the earliest we have for "Pear of Confession". Without a diagram we can't be sure it refers to the same device as the "choke pear" of the mid 1800s, but it seems reasonable. The other cites above are from the 90s and later, but might contain discoverable references to earlier works?DewiMorgan (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation page and mutliple pages suggested
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 minimum, the torture-related parts of this article should be in a separate section to differentiate it from the food-related section. Andyross (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Vote yes to split. Pear of anguish != Choke pear. DewiMorgan (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I made the split, to here and Choke pear (plant), and a bit to Choke pear (which is now a disambig page). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We have enough evidence.
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)

1898 and 1904 references, maybe 1971.
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)

Clearly two articles.
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)

1893 Reference
Also appears in Dumas' 'Twenty Years After':

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Cooke (talk • contribs) 04:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
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)

OR and supposition
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?

Poire d'angoisse and Choke Pear : a pun turned into "history" ?
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):


 * "To swallow pears of anguish (poires d'angoisse) = to have great displeasures"
 * Angoisse [which is also French for "anguish"] is the name of a locality in Dordogne where people have cultivated, since the Middle Ages, a hard and rough pear, with unpleasant taste when eaten raw, but highly appreciated for cooking, drying, or for cider making (since the 13th century). The expression "swallow pears of anguish" has been attested since 1245 in the region of Albi under the spelling "pera d'engoyssa".
 * Such pears being almost impossible to eat in the raw, the folks of those times associated by homonimy the pears from Angoisse to the fear of eating and swallowing them, that is, to "anguish" in the common sense of the word: the stress, the mental pain of dreading. Thus, in the 15th century, was born the expression "avaler poires d'angoisse" [lit. "to swallow pears of anguish"] meaning "to suffer great displeasures".
 * Eventually, the term "pear of anguish" came to designate a pear-shaped metallic object (almost of torture) which was forced into the mouth of a prisoner to gag him. One can easily imagine the anguish and ultimate dread of the poor chap who choked, sweated, suffered, but could not even swallow his saliva.
 * If nowadays the sense of unpleasantless remains, the anxieties implied in the locution do not get anywhere near the suffering of those people.

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):


 * This instrument was a kind of small bulb, which, by certan interior springs, opened and expanded, in such a way that there was no way to close it or reset it to its initial state except by means of a key, made expressely for that purpose. The first one to experiment this damn and abominable invention was a proeminent citizen, wealthy and opulent, living in the neighborhood of Place Royale, called Eridas. [...] [The four robbers] discussed what they should do. Some wanted to kill the man, the others didn't. in the middle of the discussion Eridas arrived and asked what they wanted; Palioli takes him by the hand and pulls him aside with these words, mixed with blasphemies and strange oaths: "Mister, it is necessary that I kill you, or that you give us what we demand: we are poor bandits, forced to live by these means,since now we don't have any other profession." [...] but immediately the other three [bandits] forced his mouth open and inserted their choke pear into it, which immediately opened and distended, turning the poor man into a bleating open-mouthed statue, unable to scream or talk except with his eyes. [...] besides the instrument caused him great pain; for, the more he tried to remove it and take it out of his mouth, the more he enlarged and opened it, so that he had no other choice than to beg by signs to said robbers that they remove what he had in his mouth [...] Eridas, seeing that [the robbers] had left, sought his neighbors, and showed them by gestures that he had been robbed; he had them call some locksmiths who tried to file away said pear of anguish, but the more they filed the more he suffered; for in its back there were some points which penetrated his flesh.  He remained in that state until the next day. [...] one of the robbers persuaded his companions that it was not the case to bring about Eridas's death.  The latter received the providential key and a letter saying thus: "Mylord, it was not my wish to harm you, not to be the cause of your death.  Here is the key of the instrument that is now in your mouth, it will deliver you from that evil fruit.  I know that it has caused you some suffering, but nevertheless I remain your servant." That was the abominable invention of the pear of anguish, which has since been put to use many times by purse-cutters who used that means to get hold of merchants and make them confess where they had stashed their money.

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)
 * There never was a torture instrument that was called "poire d'angoisse" or fitting the description given in this article.
 * The expression "pear of anguish" originated in France in the Middle Ages (13th century or earlier), as described in the first half of the above article --- namely, as a pun on "Angoisse" (region) and "angoisse" ("anguish"), with no connection to torture or gagging instruments.
 * A mechanical gagging device may have been used in France sometime between the 13th and 17th centuries, and it may have been nicknamed the poire d'angossie by reference to that old idiom. However, if such instrument did exist, it was quite unlike the instruments now displayed in museums under that name, and also unlike the description given by Calvi.
 * Calvi probably reported a 17th century French "urban legend" inspired by the "poire's d'angoisse" idiom. Or he may have embellished some report on the aforementioned gagging device.  Or he may have invented the whole thing.
 * All later reports were probably based on Calvi's or other equally unsupported late sources, so they do not count as confirming evidence.
 * The objects exhibited in the museums are tools or medical instruments, relatively modern (say, 17th century), used in a limited geographic area for some very specialized purpose, which has since been forgotten.
 * Some museum got hold of one of those objects. The curator guessed that it was a torture instrument, identified it with Calvi's "poire d'angossie"/"pear of anguish"/"choke pear" (in spite of the obvious incongruences with Calvi's description), and exhibited it as such.
 * That guess was (eagerly and uncritically) picked up by modern books on torture and other museums who got hold of similar artifacts.
 * Some of the objects on display in museums may be modern fakes.

Fish called Wanda episode
The following paragraph has been added to the article:


 * An interesting modern reference may be found in the film comedy A Fish Called Wanda. The villain Otto interrogates and eventually gags his victim Ken with a pear, torturing him in order to obtain a key that unlocks the proceeds of a jewel robbery.

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)


 * Thanks for opening this discussion. The writers John Cleese and Charles Crichton both received classical educations at Cambridge and Oxford, resp., and make fun of Otto's constant feigns at sophistication throughout the movie. For him to gag Ken with a pear — as a direct means of silencing and (literally) choking Ken — from a varied selection of fruit seems less than a stroke of luck and more of a deliberate act of torture. Even so, it merits inclusion for the same reason that many popular culture references are added to articles. Perhaps a "Popular Culture" section is warranted? AlexReynolds (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Stolfi, I fail to see the connection. In Hollywood, I've seen people gagged with only apples and limes before. You add in theoretical pears, oranges and lemons...that's really just about a 1 in 5 chance. shrugs, it seems like coincidence to me. It's not like they were mimicking opening the pear, or called it a 'choke pear' or anything similar. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In comedies, comedians may use what is called a visual pun for comedic effect. The connection seems more or less obvious. AlexReynolds (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Way past time to restore the factual information removed from this page
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)

Unsourced conclusions
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)

how?
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)

"There is no contemporary first-hand account "
Contemporary? what does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.55.106 (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a term meaning "at the same time (as the thing being discussed)" - that is, in this context, there are no (currently known) accounts from the time in which the pear was allegedly being used, of the pear being used. It's not described, for example, in the Malleus Maleficarum. -DewiMorgan (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Professional Writing/CLEAN IT UP
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)


 * Agreed, and I have removed the poorly-sourced section that you referred to from the lede. These were likely a good faith edit by Michael Jay Bernard, even though this is their only edit on Wikipedia. However, the .com site seems a linkbait site, with no research, references or credentials, and this could have been an attempt at link-spam. I've reverted the edits, and ask that anyone reinstating them first read the talk above to see why, and try to find any references that predate 1990 for the use of this implement as an internal torture device. Certainly, it exists in erotic fantasy literature, and in torture museums, with very lurid descriptions (all different, but all agreeing on the basic idea). I believe this modern legend is certainly widespread and notable enough for the existence of this page, and I would be happy to see that angle built upon in the article. But so far, there appears to be no evidence whatever to back up the claims of its historical use. I have even emailed some of the museums listed above, and asked them for any form of provenance for their pieces. I have received, to date, no replies. DewiMorgan (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggest reformatting "In Popular Culture" section
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)

On a *SWORD POMMEL*?
OK, this may be the start of a clue. I found this image on an imageboard, along with the text:
 * "there's an early 17th C complex-hilted rapier in the collection of Glasgow museums reserve archives which has a small pear of agony for a pommel"

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)

Diagrams of Poire d'anguisse, 1857; Würgbirne, 1864
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 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)


 * Thanks so much. A fairly recent French movie dared to explicitly make clear how mystical torturers used such tools to inspire love for their Invisible Friends. So it is not surprising to see lots of them screeching here for deletion, censorship and book burning (with a few Beatles albums thrown in for good measure). Maybe a blog can drum up interest. Tradutor (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

if someone
...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)
 * Your link is wonderful, supporting much of what we've been arguing here for some time. Thank you for linking it. I'll go through it and see if there's anything that can be used in reference. - DewiMorgan (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

"Choke pear (torture" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choke_pear_(torture&redirect=no 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  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)