Betwixt The Sheets: The History of Sex, Scandal & Society - Does Jesus' Foreskin Still Exist?

Episode Date: October 9, 2026

STOLEN! Jesus' foreskin!Well, maybe not. But 2000 years after his birth, where might Jesus' foreskin be? And why does it matter to people?Kate is joined by Dr James White for this episode to find out how the Holy Prepuce has supposedly survived the last two centuries, and what it has meant to the people devoted to it.James is a historian of late medieval Europe, with a special interest in the body, gender, and religion. He teaches at the University of Alberta, where his research has focused onlate medieval devotion to the Holy Foreskin and anti-Jewish condemnation of circumcision by Christians.This episode was edited by Hannah Feodorov. The producer was Sophie Gee. The senior producer was Freddy Chick.Subscribe to the new Betwixt The Sheets YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/@BetwixtTheSheetsPodcastSign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe.You can take part in our listener survey here.All music from Epidemic Sounds.Betwixt the Sheets: History of Sex, Scandal & Society is a History Hit podcast.History Hit is part of Little Dot Studios, a Certified B Corp™Voting is now open for the Listener's Choice Award at this year's Podcast Awards! UK & Ireland listeners please place your vote on the Spotify mobile app here: https://open.spotify.com/s/xhg6PJa Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Do you want even more shocking and scandalous history? Like why the ancient Greek statues had such small manhoods? Or what went on behind closed doors in the Georgian era? We'll sign up to History Hit, where you can see me discover the scandalous side of history, as well as hundreds of hours of original documentaries, plus new releases every week, covering everything from prehistoric Scotland to the Treaty of Versailles.

Sign up to join me in locations around the world and explore the past. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, my lovely betwixters. It's me, Cade Lister. Welcome back once again to yet another episode of Betwixter sheets. Hello. Hello, I'll put the kettle on. How fab to see you.

But before you can sit down and get yourself too comfortable, I do have to tell you. This is an adult podcast, book of my adults, to other adults about adulty things and adulty way coming arranged all the subjects and used to be an adult too. Right. Okay. I'll get the cups out.

Ciao, Belle. Salve. Welcome to Italy. I won't try and do the accent. I won't offend our Italian friends like that. It's 1983 and we are in the mountaintop town of Calcutta, 30 miles north of Rome. And I say mountain top, it's really more like a mountain edge, a tumble of medieval stone buildings perched high on a cliff edge, merging into the rock face below. New Year's Day everywhere else, but here is usually chocolate pyjamas and a long nap on the sofa. But here, January 1st is another day for celebrated.

It's time to parade the holy pupus. Jesus is forking all about town. What do you mean you prefer a nap? How dare you? But there's been a crime, a calamity. The holy artefact is gone. It has been stolen from its very, very secure location in a shoebox underneath the parish priest's bed.

Or was it at the back of his wardrobe? Nobody's entirely sure. But are there any leads to go on? Who's pinched it? Was it taken by an opportunist, misplaced by the priest? Or could it have been stolen by masked Vatican agents, sent on a mission to silence the embarrassing tittle-tattle about this particular holy relic? Well, I think I am about ready to find out. Hello and welcome back to Betwixtashit's history of sex scandal and society with me, Kate Lister.

In recent episodes, we have been on a hunt for famous penises all throughout history. We have been on the search for Toot and Carmoons, Eternal, We have undercover Napoleon's Bonaparte, hey. And now we are on the hunt for Jesus's foreskin. But why would it have been kept? Who supposedly had it all these years? And why does anybody care about it as much as they clearly did? Today I'm joined by Dr James White from the University of Alberta to find out more.

Is everybody ready? I know I am. Let's do it. Well, hello and welcome to Betwixt the Sheets. It's only James White. How are you doing? I am good. How are you, Kate? Well, I'm insanely excited to be talking to you because when we were thinking of subjects we could do episodes on, we were discussing the possibility of Christ's foreskin. I thought maybe there's not enough there, if you'll pardon the pun, for an entire episode. But you did your whole PhD on this. James.

How did you come to this subject? I did. So I came to it sort of through accident. I came to it through Catherine of Siena, 14th century saint. But with Catherine, we have the letters that she dictated, and we have her extremely long, holy biography, written by her confessor. And the holy biography usually goes into all of the stuff with her, devotion to Jesus and fasting and all sorts of body-oriented things. And it says that she had a

mystical marriage to Jesus. And in it, she received a wedding ring. I mean, it was a really nice wedding ring, but it was a, you know, standard wedding ring with diamonds and pearls. Maybe not standard, but, you know, understandable. Yeah, it'll do the job. Exactly. And then in her own letters, she writes to all of these other women saying that they have Jesus' foreskin as a wedding ring.

I beg your pardon. So in Catherine's own letters, she doesn't really claim the foreskin for herself. She claims it for other women and tells them that they have it. And I thought, there is something weird going on here. I should say so. That sounds intensely weird. As I started to investigate it, I thought with Catherine, usually it's her confessor, biographer, who is talking about her body and Jesus' body and all of these issues all the time. And Catherine really doesn't do that in her own writings.

She focuses on politics and encouraging people to be better Christians. And so I thought there's some sort of disconnect here that, like, why is he writing about this non-bodily thing, you know, which is the standard wedding ring? And she's telling women that they have Jesus's foreskin. And I thought there's something going on here. And that as I started to pursue it, I suddenly discovered that if you looked, Jesus' foreskin is everywhere. in the Middle Ages, like literally everywhere. So that's where this came from. It sounds so wild to modern ears to hear that.

Jesus' foreskin is everywhere. So let's try and take this back to its origin story. Because like why would Jesus' foreskin be out in the wild? How did this even become a thing? What are we talking about here before Catherine Siena starts telling people that they're wearing it as a wedding ring? It starts to become a thing around the year 1100. Right. And the idea is that if Jesus had been circumcised, which is the book of Luke in Luke chapter 2, verse 21, says that Jesus was circumcised as a eight-day-old Jewish boy, like Jewish boys are circumcised, still today, this happened.

It exists. It was a thing. And around the year 1100, a legend starts to develop that Mary, Jesus' mother, saved the foreskin. Because obviously, as the mother of an infant, she had nothing better to do with her time. Boy mums. Yeah, exactly. But she saved the foreskin. And it was later given to different people, depending on which version of the legend that you read.

but figures that appear in the Christian scriptures. And in most of these stories, the Emperor Charlemagne makes a trip to Jerusalem. And now, Charlemagne never actually went to Jerusalem. This is completely a made-up story. Right. But he took a trip to Jerusalem and either childhood Jesus appeared to him or adult. Jesus appeared to him or an angel. somebody appeared to him.

Okay. And told him, this relic of Jesus is buried here in this place. And subsequently, all of these churches in Europe, largely in France, because of the Chalemain connection, many of them claim to own Jesus' foreskin. Wow. So this would be a religious relic. For anyone that's listening, that's not entirely sure what that is, could you? You just explained to us a little bit about what a relic is, a religious relic, and why it was so important. Yeah, so a religious relic is often a body part, not always, but often a body part of a saint or a particular holy figure that you could visit and you could pray in front of.

And you're not, you're sort of praying to the saint, but ultimately you're praying to Jesus with the idea that the saint is not going to. do the miracle for you. Saints cannot do miracles, but saints can, I think of them as like Jesus's best friends. Saints can talk to Jesus and try and suggest to him that you, Kate or me, James, needs whatever, and Jesus might be more likely to help. They'll put in a word. It's like a letter of recommendation. Okay. They'll put in a word for you. And if you, you know, if you make the effort to go visit the relic, to take the time,

to pay the cost of the travel potentially, you've got some street cred. There were a big deal in the Middle Ages because they would, I don't see, pilgrim attractions. Like if a church or a monastery had some relics, so something like the bones of a saint or a bit of the original cross or whatever it is. People would travel and pay to see this stuff. So this is a big business. Oh, absolutely.

I mean, there is obviously the spiritual holy component to it. And people really did believe in these things. Or they would not have done the pilgrimages. But it is a business. And there are instances of churches that sort of send their holy relics out. on tour. Oh, wow. Sort of in a way that the museum in Bayou right now has the Bayou tapestry on tour at the British

museum. Do they still trade in relics today, the Catholic Church, or is this something that's kind of been left in the past? Is there still an interest in relics? Of course, I am less familiar with the modern day set up. There is still an interest in relics. I don't know if there is necessarily a trade in them. like there was in the Middle Ages.

And I guess anything that belonged to Jesus Christ himself or was said to belong to Jesus Christ himself, that's the best relic because he wouldn't have left much behind, would he, body-wise? Maybe some fingernails, I don't know if he ever got his hair cut, but the foreskin is something of his body that he would have left behind. Well, you know, that's one of the things that I argue

is in my dissertation, is that the reason that the foreskin becomes such a thing in the Middle Ages is that, yes, we can presume that if there was a human Jesus, that he clipped his fingernails and cut his hair and blah, blah, blah, you know, standard grooming things. But nothing in the Christian scripture says that. But it does say, and we can presume that he has baby teeth. and all of this stuff. But nothing in the Christian scripture says anything about that. But it does say that he was circumcised. Right.

And if you're circumcised, obviously there's a bit of flesh that has been removed and presumably might exist somewhere. I'll be back with James after this short break. So where does it start turning up? Who claims, first of all, do we know? Like, I've got it. It's over here. It's in this church in France.

I don't know the first one that claims it, but one of the very early ones is Shahoo in France. And then there are a couple of subsequent ones that claim it. almost just instantly right afterward. Multiple people are saying they've got this. Yes. Oh, right. At least from the records, start showing up in France.

And then spread to Germany and England, Austria, Italy. There's, I think, one in Spain. They end up everywhere in Europe. Do we know how many there were all at the same time simultaneously? How many have you counted? I have not counted. them. But there is a scholar named Robert Palazzo, who has done more work on that kind of documentary evidence than I have. And he has counted at least 25. 25. Yes. So more than two dozen.

Wow. They all claim the, well, not all of them, but they mostly claim the Charlemagne story. and since Charlemagne ruled over all of what is today France and most of modern day Germany and Austria and northern Italy, they all just sort of trace it back to yes, it came to us from Charlemagne or came to us from Charlemagne and then Monastery number one that went to monastery number two and now we have it. So they all have these kind of claims that ultimately go back to the Charlemagne legend. They're all claiming the same thing. Is there any evidence that there was like any in-house fighting amongst these people that have got the said they've got the relics? Was anybody, or were they all peacefully existing saying that, well, look, either this guy had 25

penises or 24 of you were lying? Or it was very, very large. Or it was very large. Yeah, I hadn't thought of that. Yeah, maybe they could, yes, yeah, they could have been trimmed that way, perhaps. I think most of them are probably pieces of umbilical cords, like from animals. Yeah. Like to, you know, address this on a very physical level. But, no, not a lot of in-house fighting. A lot of it is, I mean, there were two churches in the Middle Ages that both claimed to have the body and Mary Magdalene. Oh, right.

And Mary Magdalene's body obviously does not exist in two separate places. That's not how this works. So the Middle Ages were very good with understanding concepts of metonymy, which obviously is a modern theoretical term that they would not have known. But concepts of metonymy, which is the idea that, for example, if I say we need more boots on the ground in a war, I don't actually mean that we need more boots. We don't need more actual footwear. I'm using metonymy as a stand-in that means we need more soldiers.

And medieval people were very good at, again, still without knowing that term or that necessary theoretical concept, they were very good at understanding that. And so if you had the arm bone of whoever your favorite saint is, if you had the arm bone of that person, it sort of meant that the entire person was there. And the Holy Foreskin, I think, works in the same way. That wherever this exists, Jesus exists. And we also have to work with the idea here, that with the Eucharist, with the Holy Bread and the Holy Wine,

that's already being produced all over Europe. And so wherever the Eucharist is, that's where Jesus' whole body is. And there are actually theological discussions about when you consume the Eucharist, what part of Jesus' body are you consuming? Like, are you consuming his left toe or his... Good point. I've never thought of that before. Yeah. And they decided, no, you're consuming the whole body of Christ. How would people have worshipped this particular relic of the foreskin of Christ? I mean, was there any particular, like, process that would be followed? Or would you just go to the church and just pray at it? I mean, were any miracles attributed to any of these?

I'm not aware of any particular miracles attributed to them. And you would have just gone and worshipped it in the same. same way that you would for any other relic. It's just, you know, a particularly special one. It's a very special. This is top-tier relic. But it is interesting that this idea of Christphorskin also shows up in visions of medieval nuns and mystics in oddly erotic ways. You mentioned Catherine of Siena there, wherein Christopherskin as a ring will unpack that. But also someone like, was it the Austrian mystic Agnes Blanbekin, who said that she had visions of having in Christ's foreskin in her mouth. What is your interpretation of things like this?

Because again, as a modern audience reading this, you're just sitting there going, Agnes, I'm sorry, what? What is happening here? You're sitting there thinking, this is like oral sex. Yes, exactly that, yeah. There's no way around thinking of it. The interesting thing with Agnes, because she does have an experience where she has something appear in her mouth

on January 1st, which used to be, the feast of the circumcision. It's the eighth day of Christmas. So it would be the eighth day of Jesus's birth. She's contemplating where his foreskin, the circumcision, all of that might be. And she feels something in her mouth and she swallows it. And then it happens again. And she swallows it. And it happens about it. It happens, I think it says a hundred times. Wow. Okay. And eventually she hears a voice that tells her that it is Jesus's foreskin, that she's been swallowing. And the text says specifically, and this is a bit, I started to say this is a bit graphic, but what have we been talking about? We're past that point.

That it has the texture of the membrane, of the inside of an egg. It's very specific. Wow, Agnes. Okay. But the interesting thing with Agnes is that her biography also can contains a lot of visions that are very clearly erotic. Like she has visions of naked priests, dancing with naked virgins and things like that. And the biography is always very clear to emphasize that she felt no erotic or sexual pleasure during any of this. Right.

During any of these visions. She's just, you know, having visions of the glories of heaven. So the biography is very aware of the sexual components of her visions. There is absolutely no attempt to address the sexualization or the erotic nature of the foreskin vision. So we're just going to move right past it. We're not going to unpack this at all. That's the biographers take. Well, I don't even think that it's not even that we're not going to unpack it.

I think they didn't even process it as erotic. Because there's so much care taken elsewhere to unpack and explain things when it could be seen as erotic. This one, no, there's nothing. And so I think what Agnes is doing is that she's seeing, or in this vision understanding, the Eucharist as consuming the body of Christ. Oh, okay. All right. Yeah, we're joining the dots now. It's starting to make more sense. Consuming the foreskin as literally the body of Christ. Not a piece of bread that you're told is the body of Christ.

But one that, you know, I mean, bread looks and smells and tastes like bread and blah, blah, blah. Regardless of what you told about it, it looks and tastes and smells like bread. she's going for the real thing that might actually be on earth and available to her. Okay, this makes, I mean, it's an interesting choice because she could have had any body part of Christ, I suppose. But then again, this is a part that we know was cut off. It goes back to the part that we know was cut off. All right, so, okay, so maybe there is an argument then, because again, when I first read that account, I was like, Agnes, what on earth is happening here? What are you doing? Like, what are you doing? I can't not read it as sublimated eroticism, but this kind of makes more sense.

There's a reason she didn't become a saint. Yeah, just looking down her list of miracles at the Vatican. No, I very much think not. But there's a whole bunch of these women saints and women mystics and women nuns who are having, maybe not erotic visions about Christ's foreskin, but certainly erotic visions about Christ. I mean, you mentioned Catherine Sien. Like, what do you think is going on there as a scholar? Do you think this is all just religious devotion manifest through what we think of as erotic imagery and sex actually had nothing to do with it and that's just us being smutty? I mean, medieval people could be smutty as well. Yes.

They were not, they did not grow up in the post-Victorian age. There's a wonderful French fable. It's called a Fablio. which is sort of a fun, short story. Usually they're satirical and make fun of priests or kings or, you know, what have you for sexual escapades or not behaving as they should. But there's a wonderful one that in English translates to the young woman who could not stand to hear people talk about fucking. and that's literally the word that it uses.

Like it does not use a euphemism or anything. That is literally the word that it uses. And it includes all sorts of euphemisms in the story itself about a man's steady stallion, which of course refers to his penis. And the woman's agreeable pit, which of course refers to. her vagina. So medieval people knew about sex. Yeah. Like they, yeah, again, they were not, they were not post-Victorian. We cannot talk about these things. They were aware of this. When these female mystics are talking or writing about what we would think of as quite erotic

encounters with Jesus, stories of potential pregnancy or licking his blood from his side wound, kind of holy vampirism, I think of it. They obviously knew that there was a sexual component there. They were not blind to this factor. But I don't think that it was the driving motivation. For Catherine and the wedding rings, Catherine very much associates the circumcision with Jesus as the first shedding of Jesus' blood.

because, of course, you bleed during circumcision. She very much associates that with the passion on the cross and the last shedding of Jesus' blood and then the crucifixion and the resurrection. I think Catherine is making a blood association there between first shedding and last shedding of blood. Because, you know, you can't wear Jesus' actual, cross on your finger. It's much too large. But you could wear his foreskin still as a sign of

that first shedding of blood. It's an absolutely wild image, isn't it? Like that you would have Christ's foreskin wrapped around your finger. But I guess it shows the power of this relic and how seriously it was taken and the belief in it. Yes. And I think the general belief in the late Middle Ages on an extremely high focus on the humanity of Jesus and the body of Jesus. And it's like a pendulum swing because before then, people had focused very much on the divinity of Jesus. And Jesus enthroned up in heaven and, you know, he will come to judge the living in the dead and all of that.

And that it shifts over into, in the late Middle Ages, from about 1,500 to 1,500, shifts over into really focusing on the body component, since Jesus is supposed to be both divine and human. Yeah. The pendulum really goes to the human component. And then with Martin Luther, it all. all goes back again to the divine part with the Protestant Reformation. Yeah, stop messing around with your relics, Catholics. That was a big part of the Reformation, wasn't it?

It was getting rid of the relics. Yes. Wasn't there a Pope? I mean, it was way after the Middle Ages, but wasn't there a Pope? They got so cross about all of this discussion around Christ's foreskin that eventually there was a Pope which went, right, that's it. Nobody's allowed to talk about it anymore. Stop it.

You've gone too far. This isn't something that we're interested in. Behave yourselves. Yes. during the French Revolution, because a lot of these were in France. And the French Revolution went through a anti-religious, very like enforced secularism component. They tore down gargoyles and statues from Notre Dame and all of that. Most of the foreskin relics were lost.

They were lost during the French Revolution because of that. Because most of them were in France. In the early 1900s, so we're fast-forwarding in time here, in the early 1900s, the Catholic Church underwent a modernization movement and a, okay, let's get rid of some of this stuff that were being criticized for doing, or that seems blasphemous or weird or goofy or what have you. And the Pope at the time said, okay, no. more Jesus's foreskin. No, they do not exist.

They're not real. If one exists, if one exists, it's in this one little town in Italy, north of Rome, called Calcutta, but it's not real. If any of them exist, it's real. What weird thing to say? But if any exist. And so in Calcutta, they were allowed on January 1st. Again, the feast of the circumcision, the eighth day after Jesus's birth, they were allowed to

bring it out, do a procession around the church, which is something that had been done for hundreds and hundreds of hundreds of years with relics to kind of reconsecrate the church every year. You would do that. They could do it on January 1st, and then the relic was went right back where it had always been in a box under the priest's bed. Oh, well, that sounds very safe. That sounds like a great place to keep that. Why would the Pope say, look, none of them are real, but if any words, this one, but that one's not real, even.

It sounds like it's such a strange, like, why wouldn't you just come out and go, look, they're all nonsense, stop it, behave yourselves? The one from Calcutta had supposedly, and there are lots of legends around these things, which is why I keep having to say supposedly, had been stolen from the Vatican in Rome in the 1500s and taken to this little town. And so that's why that one was...

Possibly. Okay. Possibly. I'll be back with James after this short break. It doesn't sound like the safest place to be keeping a holy relic of that magnitude. I mean, whether or not it actually was, or whatever it is that's saying, but in a box under a priest's bed? No, it's not the safest place. There's actually a journalist named David Forley,

who has written an excellent book about these very modern, day events with the holy foreskin. And no, it's not the safest place. And there are different stories about whether it was stolen or lost or potentially a rich, you know, antiquities collector couples showed up and bought it or had it or they had it stolen. There are all sorts of theories and ideas. So it got stolen. It went missing. It's not there anymore.

No, it's not there. Whether it was stolen or went missing, was lost, whatever. As of 1983, it is not there anymore. There are officially no more holy foreskin relics. Do we have any leads on this? Was it the Catholic Church? Was it all about Da Vinci Code and the Catholic Church did it to cover it up? That's one of the theories, but again, it's a theory. It's a theory. But they don't have it. So that was the last one, and that one is no more. Exactly.

And is there anyone having visions about this, or is the foreskin just, like, it's just all gone completely? It's just gone. And part of it, I think, is because if we go back to the early 1900s, when the Pope said, you know, it's like, these things are not real. Except this one, but they're not real. but this one and blah, blah, blah, back and forth. There was actually a prohibition and an order of excommunication of being kicked out of the church, issued for anyone who spoke or wrote about this particular relic,

except, again, for the one that was kind of sort of semi-allowed. And I think that's why there's been so much silence. about it. The last book-length study of it was in 1917 by a German author who had been a Dominican

priest and became very dissatisfied with the Catholic Church and decided to write this very personally driven thing about it

Now he did a lot of research, and it was very helpful for me because he did do a lot of research, but he was also obviously religiously motivated in what he was writing, whereas I am not. But that was the last book-length piece. Otherwise, there have been a few articles here and there. It's been mentioned in a book, but that's the last thing in over 100 years. So as a final question then, James, you do. Did your PhD on this? Does that mean you're out? You've been excommunicated. You know, well, I'm not Catholic. Oh, they can't kick you out?

Well, I guess they could, but I was not part of the community in the first place. Did you get any pushback at all about the subject? I have not. As a medievalist and someone who studies saints and relics, I'm not here to decide whether these miracles were real or relics existed, whether they were effective. I'm not here to decide. to decide that 700 years later. I'm here to determine why people thought that these could be real, what value it gave to them, what emphasis did they place on them, and why. And so I've generally not received any pushback with the only foreskin, because I'm not questioning whether it's real or not real or pushing one way or the other. I'm just saying people believed in this. Let's try to understand what they made sense of it 700 years ago,

what theological concerns did it raise for them? Because they did raise them. If Agnes Blanbekin can consume Jesus' body as the Eucharist itself, do you need a priest? Good point. The priest's function is to consecrate the bread and wine and turn it into the body and blood of Christ. If you can get the body of Christ itself,

like the actual body, do you need a priest? And then if Jesus has resurrected and medieval Christians believed in perfect bodily resurrection, and they did not believe in circumcision. That was what Jews did at that time period. Medieval Christians, no. So there is a tension there, and that's something I'm investigating now, with this tension between worshiping a Savior who has, been very bodily Jewish while also having increasing anti-Semitism.

There's a attention there. But to go back to the main point, if Jesus is resurrected and doesn't have his foreskin with him, but you believe in perfect bodily resurrection, that means Jesus isn't resurrected perfectly. Good point. And if Jesus can't be resurrected, I mean, we're talking about Jesus here. if he can't be resurrected perfectly, what hope do you have for it? You're not Jesus. That's a big theological point, that one.

I wouldn't have even thought of that. There are a lot of these theological concerns and the concerns with the eroticism and understanding how these women are interpreting it in ways that they probably did understand, had an erotic component, but they also did. gave their own meaning to it. So that's my focus. The point that I would go back to really quickly, there was one guy who did email me

and say that he was a descendant of the bloodline of Jesus. Hello, right? Yeah. And why wasn't I studying him instead? Fair point. I was like, we are not going to respond to this email. It's not nice of him to get in touch and let you know. Thank you for writing.

but I am not going to hit the reply button. Dear God, no. James, you have been wonderful to talk to you. Thank you so much. If people want to know more about you and your work, not to email you and tell you that they are descended from Jesus Christ and would you like to know about their foreskin? Don't do that.

But if they wanted to know more about you and your work, where can they find you? Are you on social media at all? Not particularly on social media, but I am available. If you search for me on the University of Alberta website, If you search my name in the directory, I'm there, and you can find me, and there's a description of my research and my teaching on that site. Thank you so much. You have been fabulous. Thank you so much for having me.

Thank you for listening, and thank you so much to James for joining us. And if you like what you heard, don't forget to like with you and follow along wherever it is, you get your podcasts. And if you'd like us to explore a subject or if you just wanted to say hello, then you can email us at Betwix at HistoryHit. This podcast was edited by Hannah Theodorov, produced by Sophie G. The Senior Producer is Freddie Chick. Join me again, betwixta sheets, the history of sex scandal and society, a podcast by History Hit. This podcast contains music from Epidemic Sound.