[Partly edited 4/25 and
4/8/2014. Use
caution: many 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 had yet 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: first attacked by ostrogoths, visigoths,
vandals,
huns and later
by vikings, saracens, magyars, and saxons. These invasions
destroyed the Roman Empire in the west, 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 the
achievements of earlier Europe and might 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 monastary in the early 6th century, a
monastary
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 monastary would
have had little impact on the world. Gregory made sure that
similar monastaries were established throughout Europe. And
tens
of thousands of men rush 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 there 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 chuch 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," an indication
that his contemporaries thought of him is some ways as the
legitimate
successor of men like Constanine five centuries before.
Whenever
a ruler like Charlemagne appeared, 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 delgates 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 certainlly looks like th 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 "foresworn," 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 knigts under local control in any region likely bot be
attacked.
Ben in the High Middle Ages
(1000-1300), Euroepeans 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 adopt the
feudal system to their own purposes, and this enables 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 my Civ I class, 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 Emperiors from
Otto the Great to Frederick "Stupor Mundi," the wonder of the
world. It never worked, and so instead of the facinating
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 bureacracy
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 attrocities 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 a legitimate gripe 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 Crusdae--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 othe
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 tourning 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 harnass 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 fulfilllment?
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
orgininal 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 knigts. 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 agains 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 Guinivere 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
scences 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 scuptoral 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 famouse 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]
Anselms 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 informatinon here on the Franciscans.
You can also send a friend a St.
Francis e-card and get more information on Francis here.]