[Partly edited 4/8/2014 and
4/13/2025 Use caution: mistakes remain.]
Western Europe in the Middle
Ages
My students usually think of the Middle Ages as a time of barbarism
and superstition, a "dark age" when civilization had
collapsed. In reality, however, the Middle Ages was anything
but a dark age. It produced three enormously successful
civilizations. Two we've looked at already: the Christianized Roman
Empire (Byzantium), and Islam. Another tremendously successful
civilization developed in Western Europe during the Middle
Ages. In some ways, this civilization ended up the most
successful society the world has ever seen.
Why was Western Europe so successful during the Middle Ages?
What was the secret of that success? What did that society do
right? Perhaps the easiest way to put it (and I bet you can guess)
is that Western European society during the Middle Ages did an
excellent job providing physical security, ethical guidance and
emotional fulfillment to its members. [Study question #3 for final exam!]
Now Western Europe was not doing so well in the early part of the
Middle Ages. It was certainly not doing a very good job
providing physical security. Western Europe suffered wave
after wave of Barbarian invasion. If was first attacked (4th,
5th and 6th centuries) by Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, and Huns.
Later (8th and 9th centuries), it was attacked by Vikings, Saracens,
Magyars, and Saxons. These invasions destroyed the Roman
Empire in the West (traditional fall date, AD 476 ), disrupted
trade, and destroyed the economy of Western Europe. Literacy
declined as books become rare and extraordinarily expensive.
Almost nothing was produced in the way of great art and
literature. The cities dwindled in size, some of them
disappearing altogether, and once cultivated area fell back into
wilderness. Population fell sharply--and yet, with all that,
Western Europe managed to hold on.
How? One major factor was the Church. When the authority
of the Roman Emperors collapsed, the Roman Catholic Church began to
take over many of the functions of government. Typical is the work
of Pope Gregory the Great (590-604). Gregory used the
resources of the church to provide relief of refugees, to feeding
the poor and widows, and to ransom captives. Also, he sent out
missionaries to convert the Barbarians--missionaries who were
amazingly successful! Goths, Vandals, Saxons, and even Vikings
eventually converted. This meant that barbarians, who now felt
that the Christian/classical heritage of Rome was partly theirs,
wouldn't totally destroy all the achievements of earlier Europe and
might even play a role in preserving some of those achievements.
Gregory's greatest contribution, though, was his spread of the
Benedictine movement. St. Benedict had started a monastery in
the early 6th century, a monastery where Gregory himself had been
trained. Benedict wanted it well organized and had required
his monks to commit themselves to three standards: poverty,
chastity, obedience. The idea, of course, was to get rid of anything
that might distract one from God and to lead a life of humility that
would lead one closer to God.
Now Benedict's one monastery would have had little impact on the
world. Gregory made sure that similar monasteries were
established throughout Europe. And tens of thousands of men
rushed to join these monasteries. In fact, 600-1000 often
called the Benedictine centuries, so great is the influence of these
Benedictine monks.
It is, I think, hard for my students to understand the great
attractions of the Benedictine life style. We are so
materialistic and hedonistic that they idea of doing without
material possessions and the pleasure of having a wife and family
seem to us impossible. And obedience? No: our idea of
happiness is to be able to do whatever we want to do. But it
certainly seems that the Benedictines, who adopted very different
principles from those that rule America today, seem to have been
happier in their chosen lives than the average American. As we
read their writings, it's quite clear that the Benedictine life was
a life of joy, a life that certainly provided both ethical guidance
and emotional fulfillment.
[The "joy" theme seems to still be central to
the modern followers of Benedict. A quick Google search for
"Benedictines" and "joy" turns up all sorts of hits, e.g., books
like Benedict's Guide to Every Day Joy and Lessons
from Saint Benedict: Finding Joy in Everyday Life. One
of my former students became a Benedictine
Oblate (a lay person who associates with the Benedictines)
and I think he found this a very positive experience.]
In addition to finding personal satisfaction in their chosen
lifestyle, the Benedictine monks did something extraordinarily
important in terms of their impact on Western society as a
whole. The Benedictine abbots needed to find something to keep
their monks busy--and very frequently they turned to writing.
The Benedictine monks were assigned to copying the Bible, the church
fathers, the great works of classical antiquity--and in some cases
it is only due to their efforts that the great achievements of the
ancient world were preserved.
[See also this on the Benedictines]
Also important to the survival of western Europe during the early
Middle Ages was the rise of an occasional great leader, e.g. a man
like the Frankish king Charlemagne (768-814). Charlemagne was a
great fighting king. He defeated the Saxons, Moors, Avars, and
Slavs, fighting more than 50 campaigns while leading most of them
personally. He created a sizable empire, an empire that was
for a time safe from invasion due to the strength of his
armies. Within that empire, Charlemagne tried to restore
literacy and the arts, to strengthen the church, and promote
stability. In 800 AD, the pope crowned him "Emperor of the Romans,"
an indication that his contemporaries thought of Charlemagne in some
ways as the legitimate successor of men like Constantine five
centuries before or the Eastern Roman emperors who were still around
(!). Whenever a ruler like Charlemagne appeared, Western
Europe would have a respite from barbarian invasion.
For the most part, however, Europe dealt with the Barbarians through
a make-shift arrangement known as feudalism. You can think of
feudalism system decentralized authority, a system where the king
delegates authority to dukes or counts (their vassals) who delegate
authority to lesser lords (their vassals) who delegate authority to
their vassals, the knights. At each step down the pyramid, the
lord makes promises to the vassal (promises involving land and
protection) and receives back promises from the vassal. Kings,
dukes, and lesser lords all have land they control directly, land
filled with hot and cold running peasants that they turn over to
their knights in return for military service. The "land held in
return for service" is called a "fief," and it's from the Latin word
for fief (feodum) that we get the word feudalism itself.
Decentralized authority tends not to work very well. Notice
that, when the nomes get too much power in Old Kingdom Egypt, things
break down, and it certainly looks like adopting the feudal system
is going to lead to trouble. But the medieval system works better
than most decentralized systems because of a special glue: the
feudal oath. The keeping of sacred oaths was a top ethical
standard during the period, and one of the things Europe was doing
right at this point is to place a strong emphasis on oaths.
You never wanted to be "forsworn," i.e., known as an oath-breaker.
The system worked fairly well, and maybe there wasn't much
alternative in an age when the only good defense against barbarian
invasion was a slew of knights under local control in any region
likely to be attacked.
But in the High Middle Ages (1000-1300), Europeans developed
something much better, a combination of the feudal system with a
return to centralized authority. Strong kings in England and
France, strong emperors in what came to be called the Holy Roman
Empire adopted the feudal system to their own purposes, and this
enabled them to do a particularly good job providing physical
security.. Some of most fascinating stories in history involve
the rise of these strong kings--and I used to try to tell these
stories in History 121, talking about every English monarch between
William the Conqueror and Henry II, most of the French kings from
Hugh Capet to Philip the Fair, and many of the Holy Roman Emperors
from Otto the Great to Frederick "Stupor Mundi," the wonder of the
world. It never worked, and so instead of the fascinating
stories of these kings, I instead simply summarize for you what they
achieved:
1. Control of the courts
2. Control of the taxation system
3. Established right of succession for sons
4. Effective bureaucracy
5. National feeling/loyalty of people
6. Strong armies
How strong? Strong enough that, when the call came, European
leaders were able to launch a series of Crusades and retake much of
what had been lost to Christendom over the years.
The Crusades came about in reaction to a new wave of Muslim
onslaughts. The Turks (another of those fighting people who
adopt Islam), swept away half of what remained of the Byzantine
empire, doing the usual kinds of things conquerors do. In 1095
at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II talked to an assembled
group of Frankish knights, describing the atrocities and calling on
them to "take up the cross." He promised anyone who took part in the
struggle to protect Byzantium and win back the land lost to the
Muslims that they would receive immediate forgiveness of all their
sins. No purgatory: straight to heaven for them. "Deus
Volt," God wills it, was the response, and, soon enough, the forces
of the Christian west assembled and did for a time take back much of
what had been lost to the Muslims.
Now "Crusade" tends to be a dirty word today, and there are some who
have legitimate gripes against the Crusaders. Jews and
Byzantine Christians have every reason to be bitter about the
Crusades, since Crusaders often attacked perfectly peaceful Jewish
communities and since (in the 4th Crusade) the Crusaders actually
sacked Constantinople! Many of those who went on Crusade have
reason to be bitter, especially the thousands of children who set
about on the Children's Crusade--only to end up tricked aboard slave
ships or sold to houses of prostitution. But there is one
group has no good reason for complaining about Crusaders: the
Muslims. The Crusade is essentially the same thing as Jihad,
Holy War. The Muslims had inspired their troops with this idea
for centuries. And, after all, it was Muhammad himself who
directly denied the turn the other cheek principle: eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, life for life--and, if you don't want to forgive,
you don't have to said Muhammad.
In any case, the Crusades mark a historic turning point. From
here on out, Europeans and European Civilization have been the
aggressors in World history
But it's not simply the aggression of Europe that shows that Europe
is doing better at providing physical security. Life
expectancy increases, population grows (35-70 million people).
Towns grow again as trade increases. Agriculture
improves--horse drawn plows. Further, Europeans begin to
harness wind and water power, something ancient world had ever
done. Thus Europe clearly providing physical security to its
people.
But what about ethical guidance and emotional fulfillment?
Here, the achievements of Medieval Europe are, if anything,
considerably more impressive.
One source of ethical guidance and emotional fulfillment is
literature. While the early middle ages had produced few
original literary works, the high middle ages produced all sorts of
impressive stuff: plays, satires, poems, etc. One of the best
examples of medieval literature is the Song
of Roland.
[A translation
of The Song of Roland.]
Roland is an epic poem written
either during the late 11th century or early 12th century: we
aren't sure which. It would be nice to know. If the
former, the poem helped lead to Urban II's call for a Crusade
and helps explain the enthusiastic response of the Frankish
knights. If the latter, it is a response to Urban's
call. Either way, it is certainly a good poem for
reinforcing ethical guidance and emotional fulfillment among
crusaders.
The basic story:
Charlemagne has been fighting for eight long years in Spain, and
has finally won out over the Muslims. But he doesn't quite
trust the Muslims to keep their promises, and so, as he makes
his way back over the Pyrannies to France, he makes sure to
guard against Muslim treachery by putting one of his best
knights, Roland, in command of the rear guard.
Roland has 20,000 Frankish soldiers at his disposal and a horn
to sound in case he needs more. Sure enough, the Muslims
attack: 100,000 strong. Outnumbered 5 to 1, it's time to
blow the horn. But not Roland. He and his men try to
handle things on their own, and they do lay thousands of Muslims
low. But the Muslims are being constantly reinforced while
Roland's forces are being whittled away. Eventually it's 300,000
Muslims to 300 Franks. Time to blow the horn? Not
yet. Finally there are only three Franks left.
Roland at last sounds the horn, but too late: Charlemagne comes
back and takes vengeance on the treacherous Muslims, but Roland
and his 20,000 men lie dead on the battle field. Only, not
quite. The heavens open and the angels of God come down
and take brave Roland up into heaven.
For Crusaders, such a poem is a great source of emotional
fulfillment. As they head off to fight Muslims themselves,
they can identify with Roland and his companions. Also, we
have here the concept of Holy War turned back on the
Muslims. Die fighting for Christ, and it's straight to
heaven for you. Here's an interesting twist on Christian
martyrdom. This isn't exactly the way Peter and Paul gave their
lives for the gospel! But now Christians can feel
justified in Jihads of their own--and, quite often, turn
the tables on the Muslims.
Likewise, there's important ethical guidance here. Roland
encourages all the military virtues: bravery, loyalty,
etc. But it also warns against being foolhardy: Roland
should have blown his horn. It's foolish to throw away
your life and the lives of your men by being too proud and
self-reliant to ask for help.
Another example of Medieval literature is Chrestien De
Troyes' Lancelot (Real title: the Knight of the Cart).
[I summarize the story in
class, but you might enjoy reading the actual poem for
yourself. Here's one e-version.
The part of the story I tell in class starts around vs. 4551 in
Part III.]
The story is filled with amusing details, and it may be meant
simply as entertainment. However, there might be something
more important going on. At the time the story was written,
marriages among the upper-classes were often made for political and
economic reasons, not because the partners were particularly well
suited to one another. This meant that the temptation to
adultery was quite high. The love affair between Lancelot and
Guinevere may be showing us that, even in the seemingly
most-justified of circumstances, adultery is a horribly destructive
thing. This affair destroys everything the knights of the
Round Table had sacrificed for. Certainly that is the message
of later treatments of the story (including Whites' Once and
Future King and the musical version Camelot). Is
the theme already implied in Chretien de Troyes? Maybe, but
it's not altogether clear.
Also important in terms of ethical guidance and emotional
fulfillment in the High Middle Ages is a revival of art. There
are too major styles of art coming out of this period, the
Romanesque and the Gothic.
[A few examples
of Gothic art.]
Romanesque churches are
impressive for their size. Attend one of these churches
and you have the feeling of being part of something big and
powerful.
Gothic churches are also very
impressive. Taking advantage of technological developments
(the Gothic arch and the flying buttress), Gothic architects
could design buildings that would soar into the heavens.
Also, these developments allowed far more window space, and the
Gothic artists took full advantage of this by putting in
beautiful stained glass windows.
Gothic and Romaneque churches were lavishly decorated with
scenes from the Bible and church history. The Gothic
churches in particular are often called "Bibles in stone,"
and that's a good way to think of them. All sorts of
Biblical stories are reinforced/made more vivid by the stained
glass or sculptural renditions of these stories featured in the
cathedrals.
The rise of universities also helped ethical guidance and
emotional fulfillment in the High Middle Ages. Many of the
greatest universities (Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) get their start
during this period and much of what we do in the universities of
today is a direct hold-over from the middle ages. Some of
these universities offered fine training in law (e.,g., Bologna),
while others were especially good at training physicians. But
the most impressive achievements of the medieval universities were
in theology and philosophy, and the revival off these disciplines is another source
of ethical guidance and emotional fulfillment in the high middle
ages.
One example of
Medieval contributions in this area is the work of St. Anselm
of Bec, a man born in Italy,
lived part of his life in Bec (in present day France), and who
eventually became Archbishop of Canterbury. Saint Anselm's
cosmopolitan career +shows the importance of Latin as a common
language of learning and the ease with which ideas could
spread rapidly throughout Europe at this time).
Anselm is most famous for his ontological proof
of the existence of God. Anselm starts with a definition of
God: God is the greatest being you can think of. What is the
greatest being you can think of. Well this being should have
every good attribute imaginable. The being should be
omnipotent and omniscient, loving and merciful, just and
eternal. Now suppose we think of two beings, one with all
those characteristics that exists, and one with all those
wonderful characteristics that does not exist. Obviously,
the being that does not exist is hardly the greatest we can think
of! So that can't be God. God must be the being with
all those wonderful characteristics that exists--by
definition--since the greatest being we can think of must
exist--or it's not the greatest being we can think of!!! Not
only that, God must have all those other wonderful characteristics
too, because a being lacking any one of them would not be the
greatest being we can think of and hence not God!
[See this site for more on Anselm
and the ontological proof for the existence of God]
Anselm's
proof is completely valid--at least, if one allows the correctness
of Plato’s assumption that the real world is the world of
ideas. And it was certainly nice for emotional fulfillment
in the HMA to have great minds supporting rather than attacking
religious faith.
But there is a lot more to Anselm than intellectual proof: the
ontological argument is only a very small part of Monologium and
Proslogium. Both books read as devotional texts—meditations
on the greatness of God. Throughout, Anselm is constantly
asking for God’s guidance in exploring philosophical/theological
question. Anselm begins by speculating on text, “The fool hath
said in his heart there is no God.” What he is looking
at is the relationship of head to heart. If our heart isn’t
in the right place, we will use our reason in the wrong way.
And if what’s in our heads is fuzzy, our heads will mislead our
hearts. Anselm gets heart and head working together, and the
result is beautiful.
The HMA is rightly labeled the Age of Faith. But is was
definitely not of blind faith. The philosophers say an unexamined
life not worth living. Well, the HMA thought an unexamined
faith is not worth having. A great example of a thoroughly
examined faith: Peter Abelard.
Abelard was a teacher in Paris, and
absolutely loved by his students—in one case, too much
loved. The student who loved him too much was Heloise: she
was 19, he 20 years older. They ended up having an affair,
and Heloise ended up pregnant. They married, but this was not
enough for Heloise furious guardian. He sent thugs to beat
up Abelard, and they ended up castrating him as well.
Abelard became an abbot, Heloise an abbess. Astrolabe, their
son, raised by Abelard’s sister. The two carry on a long and
fascinating correspondence, and they never lose their love for one
another. In his last letter, Abelard wrote, “I hope
you are willing, when you have finished this mortal life, to be
buried near me.”
Well, they were buried together, and on their
tombstone this epitaph:
"Here under the same stone, repose, of this
monastery the founder, Peter Abelard, and the first abbess,
Heloise, heretofore in study, genius, love, inauspicious marriage,
repentance, now, as we hope, in eternal happiness united.”
How romantic! But even this wasn't enough
for 19th century admirers of the couple. In the 19th century,
their remains were dug up and burned. Their ashes were
mingled together, and they were reburied.
Well, back to Abelard's teaching. Abelard
is most famous for his book Sic et Non (Yes and No), a book that
deals with 156 questions on which church authorities seemed to
disagree. Was exploring such questions a problem, a source of
doubt? Some of his contemporaries thought so, and Abelard
had to defend himself against charges of heresy. But Abelard
himself believed that exploring such questions leads to more solid
faith, and I am inclined to agree. But even better, when one finds
satisfactory answers for one's questions, and that's something
medieval theologians did exceedingly well. As an example:
St. Thomas Aquinas.
[See this site for more
on Peter
Abelard]
St. Thomas Aquinas came from a privileged background. He was
closely related to the Emperor, and his parents wanted him to be
(perhaps) bishop or even pope. He chose instead to join the
Dominican order as an ordinary monk. As a Dominican, he was free
to study and travel. He was a student at the University of
Paris, and later a teacher there. He ended up writing lots
and lots of important things, the two most important of which are
the Summa Contra Gentiles and the Summa Theologica. The
first is a great defense of the Christian faith, one of the best
ever written. Aquinas systematically explains why
Christianity is more likely to be true than any alternative
religion or philosophy. The other, the Summa Theologica, is
a great work of systematic theology, an attempt to bring all the
teachings of scripture into a coherent whole and to show us how we
ought to apply those teachings.
Unlike most important theological and
philosophical works, the works of Aquinas are very easy to
understand and follow. He uses the method of Aristotle,
stating a proposition, stating possible objections, and then
answering the objections. It's nice and clear and
systematic: no wonder so many great minds ever since read these
works and adopt the philosophy of Aquinas for their own.
[More here on St.
Thomas Aquinas and his Summa Theologica and Summa Contra
Gentiles]
A key to Aquinas greatness is his
humility. He was so quiet and humble that his classmates
called him the "dumb ox," not realizing that he was probably the
most brilliant man tey would ever meet. Eventually, though,
people saw his brilliance. Kings, emperors, and high
church officials asked his advice. But Aquinas view of all
this? "All straw," he said, all just things that would be
burned up. What counts? At the end of his life,
Aquinas was writing on the Song of Solomon which—among other
things--is an allegory of God’s love for his people and the way
they should return that love. And that's what counts, says
Aquinas. Loving God, and resting in His love.
I wish I had a brain like Aquinas. Even more, I wish I had a
heart like his.
And speaking of great hearts, the HMA was also a time of renewed
religious devotion. Many continued to join the Benedictine
order. Others sought out stricter orders like the
Carthusians and Cistercians. But perhaps most important was
the emergence of two new orders, the Dominicans and the
Franciscans. Those joining these orders took vows similar to
those of the Benedictines. But instead of living in
monasteries the friars (brothers) took seriously the command to
"go to all the world and preach the gospel to every living
creature under heaven." With the rise of these orders, there
were religious who were now free to go from town to town to
preach.
[ Some good information here on the Franciscans.
You can also send a friend a St.
Francis e-card and get more information on Francis here.]