5

Unit 5: The Middle Ages

The sources for Unit 5 begin with a look at the end of the Roman Empire in Western Europe. Source 1 is from the Greek historian Herodianus and his History of the Roman Empire since the Death of Marcus Aurelius, which tells the story of a man named Didius Julianus and how he became Emperor of Rome. The tale is indicative of the corruption and problems Rome was experiencing in the third century CE. Source 2 is an excerpt from the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret and highlights a conflict between Roman Emperor Theodosius and Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. The result of the incident between the two men signifies how far Christianity had come as a faith within the Roman world. The Salic Law comprises Source 3, and the excerpts included deal with gender issues, various forms of violence in Germanic societies, and the fines associated with various types of crimes committed. Much can be learned from the law code a society composes, and the Salic Law tells us a great deal about social status in Germanic tribes, the value of women and children, and the Salian Franks views on criminal justice. Source 4 comes from the website The Public Medievalist and deals with the way in which we view women in the Middle Ages. Author Yvonne Seal dispels some notions of medieval ladies and explains how much of what we believe about women during this time was constructed during the Victorian Era. Source 5 comes from The Chronicle of St. Denis and tells us about the conversion of King Clovis to Christianity. The text highlights how exactly Christian missionaries sought to score converts among various Germanic peoples. Source 6 is the set of instructions that William the Conqueror’s officials had to follow while constructing the statistical record of land-holdings that would become the Domesday Book. The documentary Filthy Cities Medieval London is Source 7 and, as the name implies, it will focus on the problems of grime and muck plaguing the English capital city as it grew both in terms of size and population. Source 8 takes us away from the filth of medieval cities and focuses on the relationship between Church and State. The Investiture Controversy was a tense stand-off between Pope Gregory VII and German King Henry IV over control of the German church. The event, like that between Ambrose and Theodosius, is indicative of the growing power of the medieval church. With Source 9 we examine the Crusades, specifically the speech given by Pope Urban II to kick off the First Crusade as recorded by Robert the Monk. In Source 10 we move from physical battles to intellectual ones with a look at an example of Scholasticism in Anselm’s classic argument in favor of God’s existence and the response from fellow monk Gaunilo. Returning to political history with Source 11, the Magna Carta is one of the most well-known documents to emerge during the medieval period. In the excerpt presented here we see a number of provisions designed to limit the power of the English king. Source 12 sees us stay in England, but instead of baronial revolt the excerpt presented discussed the beginning of the English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and what the ideas behind the rebellion were. Source 13 is from The Decameron of Giovanni Boccaccio, whose introduction, presented here, tells of the onset of, and reactions to, the Black Death in the late 1340’s. Finally, Source 14 also comes from The Public Medievalist, this time with a harrowing look at how modern day right-wing movements have misappropriated the history and imagery of the Middle Ages as a means of justifying their own vile beliefs.

1. Herodianus-History of the Emperors

Herodianus, or Herodian in Greek, was a Greek historian living during the second and third centuries CE. His major work is the History of the Roman Empire since the Death of Marcus Aurelius which chronicles different imperial administrations between CE 180 and 238. In the selection below Herodianus tells the story of how the imperial title changes hands from the emperor Pertinax to Didius Julianus. The event is representative of the chaos and disorder that befell Rome during the early years of the third century CE.

When the report of the murder of the Emperor [Pertinax] spread among the people, consternation and grief seized all minds, and men ran about beside themselves. An undirected effort possessed the people, – they strove to hunt out the doers of the deed, yet could neither find nor punish them. But the Senators were the worst disturbed, for it seemed a public calamity that they had lost a kindly father and a righteous ruler. Also a reign of violence was dreaded, for one could guess that the soldiery would find that much to their liking.

When the first and the ensuing days had passed, the people dispersed, each man fearing for himself; men of rank, however, fled to their estates outside the city, in order not to risk themselves in the dangers of a change on the throne. But at last when the soldiers were aware that the people were quiet, and that no one would try to avenge the blood of the Emperor, they nevertheless remained inside their barracks and barred the gates; yet they set such of their comrades, as had the loudest voices upon the walls, and had them declare that the Empire was for sale at auction, and promise to him who bid highest that they would give him the power, and set him with the armed hand in the imperial palace.

When this proclamation was known, the more honorable and weighty Senators, and all persons of noble origin and property, would not approach the barracks to offer money in so vile a manner for a besmirched sovereignty. However, a certain Julianus – who had held the consulship, and was counted rich – was holding a drinking bout late that evening, at the time the news came of what the soldiers proposed. He was a man notorious for his evil living; and now it was that his wife and daughter and fellow feasters urged him to rise from his banqueting couch and hasten to the barracks, in order to find out what was going on. But on the way they pressed it on him that he might get the sovereignty for himself, and that he ought not to spare the money to outbid any competitors with great gifts [to the soldiers].

When he came to the wall [of the camp], he called out to the troops and promised to give them just as much as they desired, for he had ready money and a treasure room full of gold and silver. About the same time too came Sulpicianus, who had also been consul and was prefect of Rome and father-in-law of Pertinax, to try to buy the power also. But the soldiers did not receive him, because they feared lest his connection with Pertinax might lead him to avenge him by some treachery. So they lowered a ladder and brought Julianus into the fortified camp; for they would not open the gates, until they had made sure of the amount of the bounty they expected. When he was admitted he promised first to bring the memory of Commodus again into honor and restore his images in the Senate house, where they had been cast down; and to give the soldiers the same lax discipline they had enjoyed under Commodus. Also he promised the troops as large a sum of money as they could ever expect to require or receive. The payment should be immediate, and he would at once have the cash brought over from his residence.

[According to the other contemporary historian, Cassius Dio, Julianus and Sulpicianus now bid against another “one from within the camp, and one without.” By their increases they speedily reached the sum of 4000 denarii per man; some of the guard kept reporting and saying to Julianus, “‘Sulpicianus offers so much; now how much will you add to that?’ And again to Sulpicianus, ‘Julianus offers so much, how much will you raise it?'”Sulpicianus seemed about to win the day, when Julianus advanced to 6250 denarii “which he offered with a great shout, indicating the amount likewise upon his fingers,” whereupon the troops accepted his bid.]

Captivated by such speeches, and with such vast hopes awakened, the soldiers hailed Julianus as Emperor, and demanded that along with his own name he should take that of Commodus. Next they took their standards, adorned them again with the likeness of Commodus and made ready to go with Julianus in procession.

The latter offered the customary imperial sacrifices in the camp; and then went out with a great escort of the guards. For it was against the will and intention of the populace, and with a shameful and unworthy stain upon the public honor that he had bought the Empire, and not without reason did he fear the people might overthrow him. The guards therefore in full panoply surrounded him for protection. They were formed in a phalanx around him, ready to fight; they had “their Emperor” in their midst; while they swung their shields and lances over his head, so that no missile could hurt him during the march. Thus they brought him to the palace, with no man of the multitude daring to resist; but just as little was there any cheer of welcome, as was usual at the induction of a new Emperor. On the contrary the people stood at a distance and hooted and reviled him as having bought the throne with lucre at an auction.

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 203-206. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/readingsinancien00davi#page/202/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

1. How did the people of Rome react to the murder of the emperor Pertinax?
2. How did Julianus become emperor of Rome?
3. What does this document tell us about Rome in the late 2nd century?

2. Theodoret-Ecclesiastical History

Theodosius I was the last ruler of the undivided Roman Empire, and the one who made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. In the late fourth century he drew the ire of Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, as a result of an event that took place in the Greek city of Thessalonica. The conflict between the two men became one of the most remarkable moments in the history of Christianity, as it marks the first time that an official of the Catholic Church asserted power over the Emperor of Rome.

Thessalonica is a large and populous city, in the province of Macedonia. [In consequence of a sedition there] the anger of the Emperor [Theodosius] rose to the highest pitch, and he gratified his vindictive desire for vengeance by unsheathing the sword most unjustly, and tyrannically against all, slaying the innocent and guilty alike. It is said 7000 perished without any forms of law, and without even having judicial sentence passed upon them; but that, like ears of corn in the time of harvest, they were alike cut down.

When Ambrose [Bishop of Milan] heard of this deplorable catastrophe, he went out to meet the Emperor, who — on his return to Milan — desired as usual to enter the holy church, but Ambrose prohibited his entrance, saying, “You do not reflect, it seems, 0 Emperor, on the guilt you have incurred by that great massacre; but now that your fury is appeased, do you not perceive the enormity of your crime? You must not be dazzled by the splendor of the purple you wear, and be led to forget the weakness of the body which it clothes. Your subjects, 0 Emperor, are of the same nature as yourself, and not only so, but are likewise your fellow servants; for there is one Lord and Ruler of all, and He is the Maker of all creatures, whether princes or people. How would you look upon the temple of the one Lord of all? How could you lift up in prayer hands steeped in the blood of so unjust a massacre? Depart then, and do not by a second crime add to the guilt of the first.”

The Emperor, who had been brought up in the knowledge of Holy Writ, and who knew well the distinction between the ecclesiastical and the temporal power, submitted to the rebuke, and with many tears and groans returned to his palace. More than eight months after, occurred the festival of our Savior’s birth. The Emperor shut himself up in his palace . . . and shed floods of tears.

[After vain attempts by intermediaries to appease the bishop, Theodosius at last went to Ambrose privately and besought mercy, saying], “I beseech you, in consideration of the mercy of our common Lord, to unloose me from these bonds, and not to shut the door which is opened by the Lord to all that truly repent.” [Ambrose stipulated that the Emperor should prove his repentance by recalling his unjust decrees, and especially by ordering] “that when sentence of death or of proscription has been signed against any one, thirty days are to elapse before execution, and on the expiration of that time the case is to be brought again before you, for your resentment will then be calmed [and you can justly decide tlie issue].” The Emperor listened to this advice, and deeming it excellent, he at once ordered the law to be drawn up, and himself signed the document. St. Ambrose then unloosed his bonds.

The Emperor, who was full of faith, now took courage to enter holy church, [where] he prayed neither in a standing, nor in a kneeling posture, but throwing himself on the ground. He tore his hair, struck his forehead, and shed torrents of tears, as he implored forgiveness of God. [Ambrose restored him to favor, but forbade him to come inside the altar rail, ordering his deacon to say], “The priests alone, 0 Emperor, are permitted to enter within the barriers by the altar. Retire then, and remain with the rest of the laity. A purple robe makes Emperors, but not priests.” . . .

[Theodosius uttered some excuses, and meekly obeyed, praising Ambrose for his spirit, and saying], “Ambrose alone deserves the title of ‘bishop.’”

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 298-300. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/readingsinancien00davi#page/298/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

1. What did emperor Theodosius do that angered Ambrose, and how did Ambrose respond to this event?
2. How did the emperor Theodosius react to Ambrose?
3. How does this document indicate a change in church/state relations in the Roman world?

3. The Salic Law

The Salian Franks were one of many Germanic groups that occupied Europe after the fall of Rome in the west. The most famous Frankish king, Clovis, promulgated a new law code in roughly 500, excerpts of which are presented below. The Laws of the Salian Franks, or Salic Law as it is sometimes known, covers both civil and criminal issues and became an influential law code, especially in the Early Middle Ages. The selection here contains laws concerning breaking and entering, rape, assault, and other aspects of criminal law. As you read this selection keep in mind what these laws tell us about the society of the Franks during this period of time.

Title XL Concerning Thefts or Housebreakings of Freemen,

1. If any freeman steal, outside of the house, something worth 2 denars, he shall be sentenced to 600 denars, which make 15 shillings.

2. But if he steal, outside of the house, something worth 40 denars, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced, besides the amount and the fines for delay, to 1400 denars, which make 35 shillings.

3. If a freeman break into a house and steal something worth 2 denars, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 15 shillings

4. But if he shall have stolen something worth more than 5 denars, and it have been proved on him, he shall be sentenced, besides the worth of the object and the fines for delay, to 1400 denars, which make 35 shillings.

5. But if he have broken, or tampered with, the lock, and thus have entered the house and stolen anything from it, he shall be sentenced, besides the worth of the object and the fines for delay, to 1800 denars, which make 45 shillings.

6. And if he have taken nothing, or have escaped by flight, he shall, for the housebreaking alone, be sentenced to 1200 denars, which make 30 shillings.

Title XII Concerning Thefts or Housebreakings on the Part of Slaves.

1. If a slave steal, outside of the house, something worth two denars, he shall, besides paying the worth of the object and the fines for delay, be stretched out and receive 120 blows.

2. But if he steal something worth 40 denars, he shall either be castrated or pay 6 shillings. But the lord of the slave who committed the theft shall restore to the plaintiff the worth of the object and the fines for delay.

Title XIII Concerning Rape committed by Freeman

1. If three men carry off a free born girl, they shall be compelled to pay 30 shillings.

2. If there are more than three, each one shall pay 5 shillings.

3. Those who shall have been present with boats shall be sentenced to three shillings.

4. But those who commit rape shall be compelled to pay 2500 denars, which make 63 shillings.

5. But if they have carried off that girl from behind lock and key, or from the spinning room, they shall be sentenced to the above price and penalty.

6. But if the girl who is carried off be under the king’s protection, then the ‘frith” (peace-money) shall be 2500 denars, which make 63 shillings.

7. But if a bondsman of the king, or a leet, should carry off a free woman, he shall be sentenced to death.

8. But if a free woman have followed a slave of her own will, she shall lose her freedom.

9. If a freeborn man shall have taken an alien bonds woman, he shall suffer similarly.

10. If anybody take an alien spouse and join her to himself in matrimony, he shall be sentenced to 2500 denars, which make 63 shillings.

Title XIV. Concerning Assault and Robbery

1. If anyone have assaulted and plundered a free man, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 2500 denars, which make 63 shillings.

2. If a Roman have plundered a Salian Frank, the above law shall be observed.

3. But if a Frank have plundered a Roman, he shall be sentenced to 35 shillings.

4. If any man should wish to migrate, and has permission from the king, and shall have shown this in the public “Thing:” whoever, contrary to the decree of the king, shall presume to oppose him, shall be sentenced to 8000 denars, which make 200 shillings.

Title XVII. Concerning Wounds

1. If anyone have wished to kill another person, and the blow have missed, he on whom it was proved shall be sentenced to 2500 denars, which make 63 shillings.

2. If any person have wished to strike another with a poisoned arrow, and the arrow have glanced aside, and it shall be proved on him: he shall be sentenced to 2500 denars, which make 63 shillings.

3. If any person strike another on the head so that the brain appears, and the three bones which lie above the brain shall project, he shall be sentenced to 1200 denars, which make 30 shillings.

4. But if it shall have been between the ribs or in the stomach, so that the wound appears and reaches to the entrails, he shall be sentenced to 1200 denars – which make 30 shillings – besides five shillings for the physician’s pay.

5. If anyone shall have struck a man so that blood falls to the floor, and it be proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 600 denars, which make 15 shillings.

6. But if a freeman strike a freeman with his fist so that blood does not flow, he shall be sentenced for each blow – up to 3 blows – to 120 denars, which make 3 shillings.

Title XXIV. Concerning the Killing of little children and women

1. If anyone have slain a boy under 10 years – up to the end of the tenth – and it shall have been proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 24000 denars, which make 600 shillings.

3. If anyone have hit a free woman who is pregnant, and she dies, he shall be sentenced to 28000 denars, which make 700 shillings.

6. If anyone have killed a free woman after she has begun bearing children, he shall be sentenced to 24000 denars, which make 600 shillings.

7. After she can have no more children, he who kills her shall be sentenced to 8000 denars, which make 200 shillings.

Title XXX. Concerning Insults

3. If anyone, man or woman, shall have called a woman harlot, and shall not have been able to prove it, he shall be sentenced to 1800 denars, which make 45 shillings.

4. If any person shall have called another “fox,” he shall be sentenced to 3 shillings.

5. If any man shall have called another “hare,” he shall be sentenced to 3 shillings.

6. If any man shall have brought it up against another that he have thrown away his shield, and shall not have been able to prove it, he shall be sentenced to 120 denars, which make 3 shillings.

7. If any man shall have called another “spy” or “perjurer,” and shall not have been able to prove it, he shall be sentenced to 600 denars, which make 15 shillings.

Title XLL Concerning the Murder of Free Men

1. If anyone shall have killed a free Frank, or a barbarian living under the Salic law, and it have been proven on him, he shall be sentenced to 8000 denars.

2. But if he shall have thrown him into a well or in the water, or shall have covered him with branches or an thing else, to conceal him, he shall be sentenced to 24000 denars, which make 600 shillings.

3. But if anyone has slain a man who is in the service of the king, he shall be sentenced to 24000 denars, which make 600 shillings.

4. But if he have put him in the water or in a well, and covered him with anything to conceal him, he shall be sentenced to 72000 denars, which make 1800 shillings.

5. If anyone have slain a Roman who eats in the King’s palace, and it have been proved on him, he shall be sentenced to 12000 denars, which make 300 shillings.

6. But if the Roman shall not have been a landed proprietor and table companion of the king, he who killed him shall be sentenced to 4000 denars, which make 10 shillings.

7. But if he shall have killed a Roman who was obliged to pay tribute, he shall be sentenced to 63 shillings.

9. If anyone have thrown a free man into a well, and he have escaped alive, he (the criminal) shall be sentenced to 4000 denars, which make 100 shillings.

Citation:

Ernest F. Henderson, ed. and trans., Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages (London:  George Bell and Sons, 1896), 177-183. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/selecthistorica02hendgoog#page/n195/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

1. What do we learn about Frankish society from Titles XI and XII?
2. What do we learn about Frankish attitudes toward rape during the Early Middle Ages?
3. Why do you think, in Title XIV, that a Frank gets a lesser penalty for assault and robbery than a Roman does?
4. What do the articles in Title XVII tell us about Frankish society?
5. Why do you think, in Title XXIV, the fines are laid out as they are?
6. Why do you think this law code contains a section on insults?
7. What do the fines in Title XLI tell us about Frankish views of murder?
8. Taking all the titles you read as a whole, what does this law code tell us about Germanic life and society in the Early Middle Ages?

4. The Public Medievalist-My Fair Lady? How We Think about Medieval Women

This source comes from a website called The Public Medievalist, which employs professional scholars of the Middle Ages to write accessible pieces on a variety of  medieval topics, from the accuracy and inaccuracy of Game of Thrones, to the misuse of medieval history by modern day nationalists, to the subject of this piece-our notions of what medieval women were like. Here author Yvonne Seale explores how our concepts of what women during the Middle Ages looked and acted like were shaped largely by the Victorian Era, and are often times incomplete at best, flat out wrong at worst.

https://www.publicmedievalist.com/my-fair-lady/

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does race matter in this argument about how we view medieval women?
2. What are the general tropes about medieval women?
3. What does the larger context of the nineteenth century have to do with how we understand medieval women?
4. What examples are given of women acting in ways that don’t fit the Victorian Era created idea about women in the Middle Ages?
5. What do stories like Parzival and Morien indicate about notions of race in the Middle Ages?

5. Chronicle of St. Denis-How Clovis the Frank became a Catholic Christian

The Chronicle of St. Denis is a history of France begun during the reign of Saint Louis (1226-1270) and finished in the mid-fifteenth century. The Chronicle covers three major French dynasties and over 900 years of history. The selection included below concerns an important event in the early history of France, the conversion of the Frankish king Clovis to Christianity.

[Clovis having a Catholic wife, Clothilde, was often urged by her to accept Christianity, but long resisted her entreaty.]

At this time the King was yet in the errors of his idolatry [and went to war] with the Alemanni, since he wished to render them tributary. Long was the battle, many were slain on one side or the other, for the Franks fought to win glory and renown, the Alemanni to save life and freedom. When the King at length saw the slaughter of his people and the boldness of his foes, he had greater expectation of disaster than of victory. He looked up to heaven humbly, and spoke thus, “Most mighty God, whom my queen Clothilde worships and adores with heart and soul, I pledge Thee perpetual service unto Thy faith, if only Thou givest me now the victory over mine enemies.”

Instantly when he had said this, his men were filled with burning valor, and a great fear smote his enemies, so that they turned the back and fled the battle; and victory remained with the King and with the Franks. The king of the Alemanni was slain; and as for the Alemanni, seeing themselves discomfited, and that their king had fallen, they yielded themselves to Clovis and his Franks and became his tributaries.

The King returned after this victory into Frankland. He went to Reims, and told unto the Queen what had befallen; and they together gave thanks unto Our Lord. The King made his confession of faith from his heart, and with right good will. The Queen, who was wondrously overjoyed at the conversion of her lord, went at once to St. Remi, at that time archbishop of the city.

Straightway he hastened to the palace to teach the King the way by which he could come unto God, for his mind was still in doubt about it. He presented himself boldly before his face, although a little while before he [the bishop] had not dared to come before him.

When St. Remi had preached to the King the [Christian] faith and taught him the way of the Cross, and when the king had known what the faith was, Clovis promised fervently that he would henceforth never serve any save the all-powerful God. After that he said he would put to the test and try the hearts and wills of his chieftains and lesser people: for he would convert them more easily if they were converted by pleasant means and by mild words, than if they were driven to it by force; and this method seemed best to St. Remi. The folk and the chieftains were assembled by the command of the King. He arose in the midst of them, and spoke to this effect: –

“Lords of the Franks, it seems to me highly profitable that ye should know first of all what are those gods which ye worship. For we are certain of their falsity: and we come right freely into the knowledge of Him who is the true God. Know of a surety that this same God which I preach to you has given victory over your enemies in the recent battle against the Alemanni. Lift therefore your hearts in just hope; and ask the Sovran Defender, that He give to you all, that which ye desire – that He save our souls and give us victory over our enemies.”

When the King full of faith had thus preached to and admonished his people, one and all banished from their hearts all unbelief, and recognized their Creator.

[According to the Chronicle of Frodoard, when shortly afterward Clovis set out for the Church for baptism, St. Remi prepared a great procession. The streets of Reims were hung with banners and tapestry.] The church was decorated. The baptistery was covered with balsams and all sorts of perfumes. The people believed they were already breathing the delights of paradise. The cortege set out from the palace, the clergy led the way bearing the holy Gospels, the cross and banners, chanting hymns and psalms. Then came the bishop leading the King by the hand, next the Queen with the multitude. Whilst on the way the King asked of the bishop, “If this was the Kingdom of Heaven which he had promised him.” “Not so,” replied the prelate; “it is the road that leadeth unto it.”

[When in the church, in the act of bestowing baptism] the holy pontiff lifted his eyes to heaven in silent prayer and wept. Straightway a dove, white as snow, descended bearing in his beak a vial of holy oil. A delicious odor exhaled from it: which intoxicated those nearby with an inexpressible delight. The holy bishop took the vial, and suddenly the dove vanished. Transported with joy at the sight of this notable miracle, the King renounced Satan, his pomps and his works; and demanded with earnestness the baptism; at the moment when he bent his head over the fountain of life, the eloquent pontiff cried, “Bow dozen thine head, fierce Sicambrian! Adore that which once thou hast burned: burn that which thou hast adored!”

After having made his profession of the orthodox faith, the King is plunged thrice in the waters of baptism. Then in the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, – the prelate consecrated him with the divine unction. [Two sisters of the King and] 3000 fighting men of the Franks and a great number of women and children were likewise baptized. Thus we may well believe that day was a day of joy in heaven for the holy angels; likewise of rejoicing on earth for devout and faithful men!

[The King showed vast zeal for his new faith. He built a splendid church at Paris, called St. Genevieve, where later he and Clothilde were buried.] Faith and religion and zeal for justice were pursued by him all the days of his life.

[Certain Franks still held to paganism, and found a leader in Prince Ragnachairus] but he was presently delivered up in fetters to Clovis who put him to death. Thus all the Frankish people were converted and baptized by the merits of St. Remi.

Citation:

William Stearns Davis, Readings in Ancient History Illustrative Extracts from the Sources, vol. II Rome and the West (Boston:  Allyn and Bacon, 1913), 232-235. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/readingsinancien00davi#page/332/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

1. How was King Clovis converted to Catholicism?
2. What does this document tell us about how Christianity spread to Germanic tribes in the West?

6. Instructions for Collection of the Domesday Returns

King William I of England, known to history as William the Conqueror, was a Norman duke who invaded and took control of England in 1066. As king William made a series of reforms that would prove crucial to the future development of the kingdom, including the compilation of the Domesday (pronounced doomsday) Book, a statistical record of virtually everything in the realm. Though Charlemagne had attempted something similar during his reign, the Domesday Book is the most comprehensive survey we have from the Middle Ages. The excerpt below contains sections on the general instructions the surveyors were to follow and examples of the information they recorded during their travels.

Here is subscribed the inquisition of lands as the barons of the king have made inquiry into them; that is to say by the oath of the sheriff of the shire, and of all the barons and their Frenchmen, and the whole hundred, the priests, reeves, and six villains of each manor; then, what the manor is called, who held it in the time of king Edward, who holds now; how many hides, how many plows in demesne, how many belonging to the men, how many villains, how many cottars, how many serfs, how many free-men, how many socmen, how much woods, how much meadow, how many pastures, how many mills, how many fish-ponds, how much has been added or taken away, how much it was worth altogether at that time, and how much now, how much each free man or socman had or has. All this threefold, that is to say in the time of king Edward, and when king William gave it, and as it is now; and whether more can be had than is had.

The land of Robert Malet.

Fredrebruge Hundred and half. Glorestorp. Godwin, a freeman, held it. Two carucates of land in the time of king Edward. Then and afterwards 8 villains; now 3. Then and afterwards 3 bordare; now 5. At all times 3 serfs, and 30 acres of meadow. At all times 2 carucates in demesne. Then half a carucate of the men, and now. Woods for 8 swine, and 2 mills Here are located 13 socmen, of 40 acres of land. When it was received there were 2 r., 1 now 1. At all times 8 swine, then 20 sheep, and it is worth 60 shillings.

There is situated there, in addition, one berewick, as the manor of Heuseda. In the time of king Edward, 1 carucate of land; then and afterwards 7 villains, now 5. At all times 12 bordars, and 3 serfs, and 40 acres of meadow; 1 mill. Woods for 16 swine and 1 salt pond and a half. Then 1 r., and now and 14 swine, 30 sheep, and 50 goats. In this berewick are located 3 socmen, of 10 acres of land, and it is worth 30 shilling. The two manors have 2 leagues in length and 4 firlongs in breadth. Whosoever is tenant there, returns 12 pence of the twenty shillings of geld.

Scerpham Hundred Culverstestun Edric held it in the time of king Edward. Two carucates of land. At all times there were 4 villains, and 1 bordar. and 4 serfs; 5 acres of meadow and two carucates in the demesne. Then and afterwards 1 carucate, now one-half. At all times 1 mill and one fish-pond. Here is located 1 socmen of the king, of 40 acres of land; which his predecessors held only as commended and he claims his land from the gift of the king. Then and afterwards there was one carucate, now 2 bovates, and 2 acres of meadow. At all times two r., and 4 geese; then 300 sheep, now 300 less 12; then 16 swine now 3. Then and afterwards it was worth 60 shillings, now 80; and there could be one plow. Walter of Caen holds it from Robert.

Heinstede Hundred. In Sasilingaham Edric, the predecessor of Robert Malet, held 2 sokes and a half, of 66 acres of land, now Walter holds them. Then 9 bordare, now 13. At all times 3 carucates and a half among all, and 3 acres of meadow, and the eighth part of a mill; and under these 1 soke of 6 acres of land. At all times half a carucate. Then it was worth 30 shillings, now it returns 50 shillings.

In Scotessa Ulcetel was tenant, a free man commended to Edric, in the time of king Edward of 30 acres of land. At that time 1 bordar, afterward and now 2. Then half a carucate, none afterward nor now. It was at all times worth 5 shillings and 4 pence; the same.

Citation:

Roland P. Falkner, ed., Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, vol. III. no. 2 (Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press, n.d.), 6-7. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/translationsrepr03univiala#page/n33

Discussion Questions:

1. What information did the Domesday Book record?
2. What do you think it means when the Domesday Book references “at all times” and “then (blank), and now (blank)”?
3. What do you think the purpose of the Domesday Book was? Why do you think that?

7. Dan Snow-Filthy Cited Medieval London

The documentary below is part of a BBC series called “Filthy Cities” presented by historian Dan Snow. The episode is about medieval London and the problems associated with overpopulation as well as the various solutions the people and government employed to solve those problems. As you watch the film keep in mind the larger context of medieval history and how this information fits into that larger story.

Discussion Questions

1. How much had the population of London grown by the 14th century? Why were so many people going to London?
2. Why types of filth coated London’s streets and how could this happen?
3. What kinds of solutions did ordinary Londoners come up with to solve the problem of waste? What does this tell us about the people of medieval London?
4. What three professions were created by the city of London to clean the city? (If you can’t hear him pronounce the final profession, just do your best to interpret it. His accent makes it a bit hard to hear.)
5. How did the commercial success of London simply add to its filth?
6.  Who would sick people go to in London? How would people be treated?
7. How did London respond to the catastrophe of the Black Death?

8. Documents of the Investiture Controversy-Decree Forbidding Lay Investitures

In the late 11th century Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, King of the Germans became mired in a dispute over who could appoint religious officials. The Investiture Controversy, as it became known, was also a power struggle between the Catholic Church and secular kings. It would become a seminal moment for the Catholic Church, as the controversy would mark the beginning of the church’s rise to prominence in Europe during the Middle Ages.

Decree of Pope Gregory VII March 7th, 1080:

Following the statutes of the holy fathers, as, in the former councils which by the mercy of God we have held, we decreed concerning the ordering of ecclesiastical dignities, so also now we decree and confirm: that, if any one henceforth shall receive a bishopric or abbey from the hand of any lay person, he shall by no means be considered as among the number of the bishops or abbots; nor shall any hearing be granted him as bishop or abbot. Moreover we further deny to him the favor of St. Peter and the entry of the church, until, coming to his senses, he shall desert the place that he has taken by the crime of ambition as well as by that of disobedience—which is the sin of idolatry. In like manner also we decree concerning the inferior ecclesiastical dignities.

Likewise if any emperor, king, duke, margrave, count, or any one at all of the secular powers or persons, shall presume to perform the investiture with bishoprics or with any ecclesiastical dignity,—he shall know that he is bound by the bonds of the same condemnation. And, moreover, unless he come to his senses and relinquish to the church her own prerogative, he shall feel, in this present life, the divine displeasure as well with regard to his body as to his other belongings: in order that, at the coming of the Lord, his soul may be saved.

The Dictate of the Pope.

That the Roman church was founded by God alone,

That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal.

That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.

That, in a council, his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.

That the pope may depose the absent.

That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.

That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.

That he alone may use the imperial insignia.

That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.

That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.

That this is the only name in the world.

That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.

That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.

That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.

That he who is ordained by him many preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.

That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.

That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.

That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.

That he himself may be judged by no one.

That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.

That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.

That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.

That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.

That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.

That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.

That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked.

Henry IV.’s Answer to Gregory VII., Jan. 24, 1076.

Henry, king not through usurpation but through the holy ordination of God, to Hildebrand, at present not pope but false monk. Such greeting as this hast thou merited through thy disturbances, inasmuch as there is no grade in the church which thou hast omitted to make a partaker not of honour but of confusion, not of benediction but of malediction. For, to mention few and especial cases out of many, not only hast thou not feared to lay hands upon the rulers of the holy church, the anointed of the Lord-the archbishops, namely, bishops and priests-but thou hast trodden them under foot like slaves ignorant of what their master is doing. Thou hast won favour from the common herd by crushing them; thou hast looked upon all of them as knowing nothing, upon thy sole self, moreover, as knowing all things. This knowledge, however, thou hast used not for edification but for destruction; so that with reason we believe that St. Gregory, whose name thou hast usurped for thyself, was prophesying concerning thee when he said: “The pride of him who is in power increases the more, the greater the number of those subject to him; and he thinks that he himself can do more than all.” And we, indeed, have endured all this, being eager to guard the honour of the apostolic see; thou, however, hast understood our humility to be fear, and hast not, accordingly, shunned to rise up against the royal power conferred upon us by God, daring to threaten to divest us of it. As if we had received our kingdom from thee! As if the kingdom and the empire were in thine and not in God’s hand! And this although our Lord Jesus Christ did call us to the kingdom, did not, however, call thee to the priesthood. For thou hast ascended by the following steps. By wiles, namely, which the profession of monk abhors, thou hast achieved money; by money, favour; by the sword, the throne of peace. And from the throne of peace thou hast disturbed peace, inasmuch as thou hast armed subjects against those in authority over them; inasmuch as thou, who wert not called, hast taught that our bishops called of God are to be despised; inasmuch as thou hast usurped for laymen the ministry over their priests, allowing them to depose or condemn those whom they themselves had received as teachers from the hand of God through the laying on of hands of the bishops. On me also who, although unworthy to be among the anointed, have nevertheless been anointed to the kingdom, thou hast lain thy hand; me who-as the tradition of the holy Fathers teaches, declaring that I am not to be deposed for any crime unless; which God forbid, I should have strayed from the faith-am subject to the judgment oil God alone. For the wisdom of the holy fathers committed even Julian the apostate not to themselves, but to God alone, to be judged and to be deposed. For himself the “true pope, Peter, also exclaims: “Fear God, honour the king.” But thou who dost not fear God, dost dishonour in me his appointed one. Wherefore St. Paul, when lie has not spared an angel of Heaven if he shall have preached otherwise, has not excepted thee also who dost teach otherwise upon earth. For he says: “If any one, either I or an angel from Heaven, should preach a gospel other than that which has been preached to you, he shall be damned. Thou, therefore, damned by this curse and by the judgment of all our bishops and by our own, descend and relinquish the apostolic chair which thou hast usurped. Let another ascend the throne of St. Peter, who shall not practise violence under the cloak of religion, but shall teach the sound doctrine of St. Peter. I Henry, king by the grace of God, do say unto thee, together with all our bishops: Descend, descend, to be damned throughout the ages.

First Deposition and Banning of Henry IV by Gregory VII., February 22, 1076.

O St. Peter, chief of the apostles, incline to us, I beg, thy holy ears, and hear me thy servant whom thou hast nourished from infancy, and whom, until this day, thou hast freed from the hand of the wicked, who have hated and do hate me for my faithfulness to thee. Thou, and my mistress the mother of God, and thy brother St. Paul are witnesses for me among all the saints that thy holy Roman church drew me to its helm against my will; that I had no thought of ascending thy chair through force, and that I would rather have ended my life as a pilgrim than, by secular means, to have seized thy throne for the sake of earthly glory. And therefore I believe it to be through thy grace and not through my own deeds that it has pleased and does please thee that the Christian people, who have been especially committed to thee, should obey me. And especially to me, as thy representative and by thy favour, has the power been granted by God of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth. On the strength of this belief therefore, for the honour and security of thy church, in the name of Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I withdraw, through thy power and authority, from Henry the king, son of Henry the emperor, who has risen against thy church with unheard of insolence, the rule over the whole kingdom of the Germans and over Italy. And I absolve all Christians from the bonds of the oath which they have made or shall make to him; and I forbid anyone to serve him as king. For it is fitting that he who strives to lessen the honour of thy church should himself lose the honour which belongs to him. And since he has scorned to obey as a Christian, and has not returned to God whom he had deserted – holding intercourse with the excommunicated; practising manifold iniquities; spurning my commands which, as thou dost bear witness, I issued to him for his own salvation; separating himself from thy church and striving to rend it – I bind him in thy stead with the chain of the anathema. And, leaning on thee, I so bind him that the people may know and have proof that thou art Peter, and above thy rock the Son of the living God hath built His church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

Citation:

Ernest F. Henderson, ed. and trans., Select Historical Document of the Middle Ages (London:  George Bell and Sons, 1907), 365-367, 372-373, 376-377. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/cu31924014186526#page/n383/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

Decree of Pope Gregory VII

1. What is Pope Gregory VII forbidding in this document?
2. What are the punishments for those who violate this decree, both clergy and kings and emperors?

Dictates of the Pope

3. What powers over the church is Pope Gregory VII claiming for himself in this document?
4. What powers over the state is Pope Gregory claiming?
5. What does this document say about the medieval church and Gregory’s opinion of it?

Henry IV’s Response to Gregory VII:

6. What crimes does Henry IV accuse Gregory VII of committing?
7. How does Henry try to argue that Gregory has no power over him?

First Deposition and Banning of Henry IV:

8. What punishments is Gregory VII handing down to Henry in this document?

9. Robert the Monk-Urban II’s Speech at Clermont

Robert the Monk is usually identified as a prior of a monastic commune called Senuc in northern France and a former abbot of Saint-Remi, a cathedral in Reims, France, although there is some uncertainty regarding his identity. Also uncertain is the exact date of the work excerpted below. The text is a transcription of a speech given by Pope Urban II calling for a crusade against the Muslims in the Holy Land at the Council of Clermont in 1095. Robert claims to have been at the Council, and was therefore an eye-witness, but didn’t put what he saw to paper until over a decade later. Other sources, however, have corroborated the content of the speech, in which the Pope lays out recent events in cities like Jerusalem and encourages French knights to take up the religious cause to free the Holy Land.

Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race chosen and beloved by God-as shines forth in very many of your works-set apart from all nations by the situation of your country, as well as by your catholic faith and the honor of the holy church! To you our discourse is addressed and for you our exhortation is intended. We wish you to know what a grievous cause has led us to Your country, what peril threatening you and all the faithful has brought us.

From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows. Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent. The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory so vast in extent that it cannot be traversed in a march of two months. On whom therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.

Let the deeds of your ancestors move you and incite your minds to manly achievements; the glory and greatness of king Charles the Great, and of his son Louis, and of your other kings, who have destroyed the kingdoms of the pagans, and have extended in these lands the territory of the holy church. Let the holy sepulchre of the Lord our Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially incite you, and the holy places which are now treated with ignominy and irreverently polluted with their filthiness. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, be not degenerate, but recall the valor of your progenitors.

But if you are hindered by love of children, parents and wives, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, “He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.” “Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life.” Let none of your possessions detain you, no solicitude for your family affairs, since this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder one another, that you wage war, and that frequently you perish by mutual wounds. Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which as the Scripture says “floweth with milk and honey,” was given by God into the possession of the children of Israel Jerusalem is the navel of the world; the land is fruitful above others, like another paradise of delights. This the Redeemer of the human race has made illustrious by His advent, has beautified by residence, has consecrated by suffering, has redeemed by death, has glorified by burial. This royal city, therefore, situated at the centre of the world, is now held captive by His enemies, and is in subjection to those who do not know God, to the worship of the heathens. She seeks therefore and desires to be liberated, and does not cease to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because, as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the kingdom of heaven.

When Pope Urban had said these and very many similar things in his urbane discourse, he so influenced to one purpose the desires of all who were present, that they cried out, “It is the will of God! It is the will of God!” When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven he gave thanks to God and, with his hand commanding silence, said:

Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them.” Unless the Lord God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry. For, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry was one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted this in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let this then be your war-cry in combats, because this word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is the will of God!

And we do not command or advise that the old or feeble, or those unfit for bearing arms, undertake this journey; nor ought women to set out at all, without their husbands or brothers or legal guardians. For such are more of a hindrance than aid, more of a burden than advantage. Let the rich aid the needy; and according to their wealth, let them take with them experienced soldiers. The priests and clerks of any order are not to go without the consent of their bishop; for this journey would profit them nothing if they went without permission of these. Also, it is not fitting that laymen should enter upon the pilgrimage without the blessing of their priests.

Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as a, living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When,’ truly’, having fulfilled his vow be wishes to return, let him place the cross on his back between his shoulders. Such, indeed, by the twofold action will fulfill the precept of the Lord, as He commands in the Gospel, “He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.”

Citation:

Dana Carleton Munro, ed., Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, vol. I, no. 2 (Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press, n.d.), 5-8. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/translationsrepr01univiala#page/n31

Discussion Questions:

1. What is happening in the East, or the “kingdom of the Greeks”?
2. What things did Pope Urban II say to the Europeans (or Franks, as Robert the Monk calls them) to get them to take up the Crusade to the Holy Land?

10. Anselm vs. Gaunilo

Anselm was a Benedictine monk who served as archbishop of Canterbury in England from 1093 to 1109. He was also a philosopher who followed the Scholastic practice of attempting to combine reason and faith, using logic to explain various beliefs of the Catholic Church. His most famous contribution is excerpted below, the ontological proof, which is an attempt to use the nature of existence to prove to an atheist that God does exist. Also presented here is a response to Anselm’s proof from Gaunilo, another Benedictine monk who took up Anselm’s argument and found it flawed.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof

Truly there is a God, although the fool hath said in his heart,

There is no God.

And so, Lord, do thou, who dost give understanding to faith, give me, so far as thou knowest it to be profitable, to understand that thou art as we believe; and that thou art that which we believe. And, indeed, we believe that thou art a being than which nothing greater can be conceived. Or is there no such nature, since the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God? (Psalms xiv. i). But, at any rate, this very fool, when he hears of this being of which I speak – a being than which nothing greater can be

Conceived – understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding; although he does not understand to exist.

For, it is one thing for an object to be in the understanding, and another to understand that the object exists. When a painter first conceives of what he will afterwards perform, he has it in his understanding, but he does not yet understand it to be, because he has not yet performed it. But after he has made the painting, he both has it in his understanding, and he understands that it exists, because he has made it.

Hence, even the fool is convinced that something exists in the understanding, at least, than which nothing greater can be conceived. For, when he hears of this, he understands it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding alone. For, suppose it exists in the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater. Therefore, if that, than which nothing greater can be conceived, exists in the understanding alone, the very being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, is one, than which a greater can be conceived. But obviously this is impossible. Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a being, than which nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the understanding and in reality.

Gaunilo’s Repsonse

For he who says that this being exists, because otherwise the being which is greater than all will not be greater than all, does not attend strictly enough to what he is saying. For I do not yet say, no, I even deny or doubt that this being is greater than any real object. Nor do I concede to it any other existence than this (if it should be called existence) which it has when the mind, according to a word merely heard, tries to form the image of an object absolutely unknown to it.

How, then, is the veritable existence of that being proved to me from the assumption, by hypothesis, that it is greater than all other beings? For I should still deny this, or doubt your demonstration of it, to this extent, that I should not admit that this being is in my understanding and concept even in the way in which many objects whose real existence is uncertain and doubtful, are in my understanding and concept. For it should be proved first that this being itself really exists somewhere; and then, from the fact that it is greater than all, we shall not hesitate to infer that it also subsists in itself.

6. For example: it is said that somewhere in the ocean is an island, which, because of the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of discovering what does not exist, is called the lost island. And they say that this island has an inestimable wealth of all manner of riches and delicacies in greater abundance than is told of the Islands of the Blest; and that having no owner or inhabitant, it is more excellent than all other countries, which are inhabited by mankind, in the abundance with which it is stored.

Now if someone should tell me that there is such an island, I should easily understand his words, in which there is no difficulty. But suppose that he went on to say, as if by a logical inference: “You can no longer doubt that this island which is more excellent than all lands exists somewhere, since you have no doubt that it is in your understanding. And since it is more excellent not to be in the understanding alone, but to exist both in the understanding and in reality, for this reason it must exist. For if it does not exist, any land which really exists will be more excellent than it; and so the island already understood by you to be more excellent will not be more excellent.”

If a man should try to prove to me by such reasoning that this island truly exists, and that its existence should no longer be doubted, either I should believe that he was jesting, or I know not which I ought to regard as the greater fool: myself, supposing that I should allow this proof; or him, if he should suppose that he had established with any certainty the existence of this island. For he ought to show first that the hypothetical excellence of this island exists as a real and indubitable fact, and in no wise as any unreal object, or one whose existence is uncertain, in my understanding.

7. This, in the mean time, is the answer the fool could make to the arguments urged against him. When he is assured in the first place that this being is so great that its non-existence is not even conceivable, and that this in turn is proved on no other ground than the fact that otherwise it will not be greater than all things, the fool may make the same answer, and say:

When did I say that any such being exists in reality, that is, a being greater than all others? – that on this ground it should be proved to me that it also exists in reality to such a degree that it cannot even be conceived not to exist? Whereas in the first place it should be in some way proved that a nature which is higher, that is, greater and better, than all other natures, exists; in order that from this we may then be able to prove all attributes which necessarily the being that is greater and better than all possesses.

Moreover, it is said that the non-existence of this being is inconceivable. It might better be said, perhaps, that its non-existence, or the possibility of its non-existence, is unintelligible. For according to the true meaning of the word, unreal objects are unintelligible. Yet their existence is conceivable in the way in which the fool conceived of the non-existence of God. I am most certainly aware of my own existence; but I know, nevertheless, that my non-existence is possible. As to that supreme being, moreover, which God is, I understand without any doubt both his existence, and the impossibility of his non-existence. Whether, however, so long as I am most positively aware of my existence, I can conceive of my non-existence, I am not sure. But if I can, why can I not conceive of the non-existence of whatever else I know with the same certainty? If, however, I cannot, God will not be the only being of which it can be said, it is impossible to conceive of his non-existence.

Citation:

Sindney Norton Deane, trans., St. Anselm (Chicago:  The Open Court Publishing Company, 1903), 7-8, 150-152. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/proslogiummonol00deangoog#page/n50/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

1. How does Anselm define God in the first paragraph?
2. How does Anselm use the ideas of understanding and existing to prove God exists?
3. How does Gaunilo use the example of a mythical island to disprove Anselm’s argument?
4. What two points is Gaunilo making in section 7?

11. The Magna Carta

One of the critical events in the development of English legal and governmental history occurred during the reign of King John (1199-1216). John was an ineffective king who began losing territory in France and subsequently raising revenues in England to try and reclaim them, but failed to do so. After a major invasion in 1214 failed to produce any result, many of John’s top nobles, called barons, in England rebelled against him, leading to the signing of the Magna Carta, which severely limited John’s powers as king and enhanced the power of the noble class. The selection below contains some of Magna Carta’s provisions.

John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, reeves, servants, and all bailiffs and his faithful people greeting. Know that by the inspiration of God and for the good of our soul and those of all our predecessors and of our heirs, to the honor of God and the exaltation of holy church, and the improvement of our kingdom, by the advice of our venerable fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church, Henry, archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, and Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of Master Pandulf, sub-deacon and member of the household of the lord Pope, of Brother Aymeric, master of the Knights of the Temple in England; and of the noblemen William Marshall, earl of Pembroke, William, earl of Salisbury, William, earl of Warren, William, earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway, constable of Scotland, Warren Fitz-Gerald, Peter Fitz-Herbert, Hubert de Burgh, steward of Poitou, Hugh de Nevil, Matthew Fitz-Herbert, Thomas Bassett, Alan Bassett, Philip d’ Albini, Robert de Roppelay, John Marshall, John Fitz-Hugh, and others of our faithful.

2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding from us in chief by military service shall have died, and when he has died his heir shall be of full age and owe relief, he shall have his inheritance by the ancient relief; that is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl for the whole barony of an earl a hundred pounds; the heir or heirs of a baron for a whole barony a hundred pounds; the heir or heirs of a knight for a whole knight’s fee a hundred shillings at most; and who owes less let him give less according to the ancient custom of fiefs.

3. If moreover the heir of any one of such shall be under age, and shall be in wardship, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without relief and without a fine.

7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall have her marriage portion and her inheritance immediately and without obstruction, nor shall she give anything for her dowry or for her marriage portion, or for her inheritance, which inheritance her husband and she held on the day of the death of her husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dowry shall be assigned to her.

8. No widow shall be compelled to marry so long as she prefers to live without a husband, provided she gives security that she will not marry without our consent, if she holds from us, or without the consent of her lord from whom she holds, if she holds from another.

12. No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our kingdom except by the common council of our kingdom, except for the ransoming of our body, for the making of our oldest son a knight, and for once marrying our oldest daughter, and for these purposes it shall be only a reasonable aid; in the same way it shall be done concerning the aids of the city of London.

14. And for holding a common council of the kingdom concerning the assessment of an aid otherwise than in the three cases mentioned above, or concerning the assessment of a scutage, we shall cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons by our letters under seal; and besides we shall cause to be summoned generally, by our sheriffs and bailiffs all those who hold from us in chief, for a certain day, that is at the end of forty days at least, and for a certain place; and in all the letters of that summons, we will express the cause of the summons, and when the summons has thus been given the business shall proceed on the appointed day, on the advice of those who shall be present, even if not all of those who were summoned have come.

20. A free man shall not be fined for a small offence, except in proportion to the measure of the offence; and for a great offence he shall be fined in proportion to the magnitude of the offence, saving his freehold; and a merchant in the same way, saving his merchandise; and the villain shall be fined in the same way, saving his wainage, if he shall be at our mercy ; and none of the above fines shall be imposed except by the oaths of honest men of the neighborhood.

21. Earls and barons shall be fined only by their peers, and only in proportion to their offence.

22. A clergyman shall be fined, like those before mentioned, only in proportion to his lay holding, and not according to the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice.

23. No manor or man shall be compelled to make bridges over the rivers except those which ought to do it of old and rightfully.

24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of ours shall hold pleas of our crown.

25. All counties, hundreds, wapentakes, and tri things shall be at the ancient rents and without any increase, excepting our demesne manors.

28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take anyone’s grain or other chattels, without immediately paying for them in money, unless he is able to obtain a postponement at the good will of the seller.

29. No constable shall require any knight to give money in place of his ward of a castle if he is willing to furnish that ward in his own person or through another honest man, if he himself is not able to do it for a reasonable cause; and if we shall lead or send him into the army he shall be free from ward in proportion to the amount of time by which he has been in the army through us.

30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours or anyone else shall take horses or wagons of any free man for carrying purposes except on the permission of that free man.

31. Neither we nor our bailiffs will take the wood of another man for castles, or for anything else which we are doing, except by the permission of him to whom the wood belongs.

32. We will not hold the lands of those convicted of a felony for more than a year and a day, after which the lands shall be returned to the lords of the fiefs.

61. Since, moreover, for the sake of God, and for the improvement of our kingdom, and for the better quieting of the hostility sprung up lately between us and our barons, we have made all these concessions; wishing them to enjoy these in a complete and firm stability forever, we make and concede to them the security described below; that is to say, that they shall elect twenty-five barons of the kingdom, whom they will, who ought with all their power to observe, hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties which we have conceded to them, and by this our present charter confirmed to them; in this manner, that if we or our justiciar, or our bailiffs, or any of our servants shall have done wrong in any way toward any one, or shall have transgressed any of the articles of peace or security; and the wrong shall have been shown to four barons of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, let those four barons come to us or to our justiciar, if we are out of the kingdom, laying before us the transgression, and let them ask that we cause that transgression to be corrected without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression or, if we shall be out of the kingdom, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it within a period of forty days, counting from the time in which it has been shown to us or to our justiciar, if we are out of the kingdom; the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the remainder of the twenty-five barons, and let these twenty-five barons with the whole community of the country distress and injure us in every way they can; that is to say by the seizure of our castles, lands, possessions, and in such other ways as they can until it shall have been corrected according to their judgment, saving our person and that of our queen, and those of our children; and when the correction has been made, let them devote themselves to us as they did before. And let whoever in the country wishes take an oath that in all the above-mentioned measures he will obey the orders of the aforesaid twenty-five barons, and that he will injure us as far as he is able with them, and we give permission to swear publicly and freely to each one who wishes to swear, and no one will we ever forbid to swear. All those, moreover, in the country who of themselves and their own will are unwilling to take an oath to the twenty-five barons as to distressing and injuring us along with them, we will compel to take the oath by our mandate, as before said. And if any one of the twenty-five barons shall have died or departed from the land or shall in any other way be prevented from taking the above mentioned action, let the remainder of the aforesaid twenty-five barons choose another in his place, according to their judgment, who shall take an oath in the same way as the others. In all those things, moreover, which are committed to those five and twenty barons to carry out, if perhaps the twenty-five are present, and some disagreement arises among them about some- thing, or if any of them when they have been summoned are not willing or are not able to be present, let that be considered valid and firm which the greater part of those who are present arrange or command, just as if the whole twenty-five had agreed in this; and let the aforesaid twenty-five swear that they will observe faithfully all the things which are said above, and with all their ability cause them to be observed. And we will obtain nothing from any one, either by ourselves or by another by which any of these concessions and liberties shall be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing shall have been obtained, let it be invalid and void, and we will never use it by ourselves or by another.

Citation:

Edward P. Cheyney, ed., Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, vol. I no. 6 (Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press, n.d.), 6-11, 15-16. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/translationsrepr01univiala#page/6/mode/2up

Discussion Questions:

1. Why is this document being issued?
2. How do Articles 2 and 3 limit the power of the king?
3. How do Articles 7 and 8 limit the power of the king?
4. How do articles 12 and 14 limit the power of the king?
5. How do Articles 20-25 protect people from abuses of royal power?
6. How do Articles 28-32 protect people from abuses of royal power?
7. From Article 61 describe the system designed to enforce the articles of Magna Carta.

12. Jean Froissart-Beginning of the English Peasants’ Revolt

Jean Froissart’s Chronicles are one of the most relied on histories of the later Middle Ages, although very little is definitely known about the author. We do know that Froissart wrote poetry and courtly romances in addition to history. He also traveled widely in England, France, Wales, and other places in an effort to gather accurate information for his Chronicles. In the excerpt presented below Froissart discusses the English Peasants’ Revolt, a major event in the late fourteenth century that resulted from the Black Death and attempts to limit workers through laws such as the Ordinance of Laborers.

Copy and paste the link below into your web browser to access this document:

http://faculty.nipissingu.ca/muhlberger/FROISSART/PEASANTS.HTM

Discussion Questions:

1. According to Froissart what arguments did the peasants of England make against the current system?
2. How did the preacher John Ball contrast the poor with the rich in England?
3. What seems to be Froissart’s attitude toward the peasants? Support your answer.

13. Giovanni Boccaccio-Decameron

Giovanni Boccaccio was a fourteenth century writer and poet who authored the excerpt presented below, the Decameron, a series of short stories told by characters who have tried to escape the ravages of the Black Death. The selection comes from the introduction in which Boccaccio sets the scene and describes for us the onset of the Plague and the various reactions of the people of Italy.

I say, then, that the years of the beatific incarnation of the Son of God had reached the tale of one thousand three hundred and forty eight, when in the illustrious city of Florence, the fairest of all the cities of Italy, there made its appearance that deadly pestilence, which, whether disseminated by the influence of the celestial bodies, or sent upon us mortals by God in His just wrath by way of retribution for our iniquities, had had its origin some years before in the East, whence, after destroying an innumerable multitude of living beings, it had propagated itself without respite from place to place, and so calamitously, had spread into the West.

In Florence, despite all that human wisdom and forethought could devise to avert it, as the cleansing of the city from many impurities by officials appointed for the purpose, the refusal of entrance to all sick folk, and the adoption of many precautions for the preservation of health; despite also humble supplications addressed to God, and often repeated both in public procession and otherwise by the devout; towards the beginning of the spring of the said year the doleful effects of the pestilence began to be horribly apparent by symptoms that showed as if miraculous.

Not such were they as in the East, where an issue of blood from the nose was a manifest sign of inevitable death; but in men a women alike it first betrayed itself by the emergence of certain tumors in the groin or the armpits, some of which grew as large as a common apple, others as an egg, some more, some less, which the common folk called gavoccioli. From the two said parts of the body this deadly gavocciolo soon began to propagate and spread itself in all directions indifferently; after which the form of the malady began to change, black spots or livid making their appearance in many cases on the arm or the thigh or elsewhere, now few and large, then minute and numerous. And as the gavocciolo had been and still were an infallible token of approaching death, such also were these spots on whomsoever they showed themselves. Which maladies seemed set entirely at naught both the art of the physician and the virtue of physic; indeed, whether it was that the disorder was of a nature to defy such treatment, or that the physicians were at fault – besides the qualified there was now a multitude both of men and of women who practiced without having received the slightest tincture of medical science – and, being in ignorance of its source, failed to apply the proper remedies; in either case, not merely were those that covered few, but almost all within three days from the appearance of the said symptoms, sooner or later, died, and in most cases without any fever or other attendant malady.

Moreover, the virulence of the pest was the greater by reason the intercourse was apt to convey it from the sick to the whole, just as fire devours things dry or greasy when they are brought close to it, the evil went yet further, for not merely by speech or association with the sick was the malady communicated to the healthy with consequent peril of common death; but any that touched the clothes the sick or aught else that had been touched, or used by these seemed thereby to contract the disease.

So marvelous sounds that which I have now to relate, that, had not many, and I among them, observed it with their own eyes, I had hardly dared to credit it, much less to set it down in writing, though I had had it from the lips of a credible witness.

I say, then, that such was the energy of the contagion of the said pestilence, that it was not merely propagated from man to mail, but, what is much more startling, it was frequently observed, that things which had belonged to one sick or dead of the disease, if touched by some other living creature, not of the human species, were the occasion, not merely of sickening, but of an almost instantaneous death. Whereof my own eyes (as I said a little before) had cognisance, one day among others, by the following experience. The rags of a poor man who had died of the disease being strewn about the open street, two hogs came thither, and after, as is their wont, no little trifling with their snouts, took the rags between their teeth and tossed them to and fro about their chaps; whereupon, almost immediately, they gave a few turns, and fell down dead, as if by poison, upon the rags which in an evil hour they had disturbed.

In which circumstances, not to speak of many others of a similar or even graver complexion, divers apprehensions and imaginations were engendered in the minds of such as were left alive, inclining almost all of them to the same harsh resolution, to wit, to shun and abhor all contact with the sick and all that belonged to them, thinking thereby to make each his own health secure. Among whom there were those who thought that to live temperately and avoid all excess would count for much as a preservative against seizures of this kind. Wherefore they banded together, and dissociating themselves from all others, formed communities in houses where there were no sick, and lived a separate and secluded life, which they regulated with the utmost care, avoiding every kind of luxury, but eating and drinking moderately of the most delicate viands and the finest wines, holding converse with none but one another, lest tidings of sickness or death should reach them, and diverting their minds with music and such other delights as they could devise. Others, the bias of whose minds was in the opposite direction, maintained, that to drink freely, frequent places of public resort, and take their pleasure with song and revel, sparing to satisfy no appetite, and to laugh and mock at no event, was the sovereign remedy for so great an evil: and that which they affirmed they also put in practice, so far as they were able, resorting day and night, now to this tavern, now to that, drinking with an entire disregard of rule or measure, and by preference making the houses of others, as it were, their inns, if they but saw in them aught that was particularly to their taste or liking; which they, were readily able to do, because the owners, seeing death imminent, had become as reckless of their property as of their lives; so that most of the houses were open to all comers, and no distinction was observed between the stranger who presented himself and the rightful lord. Thus, adhering ever to their inhuman determination to shun the sick, as far as possible, they ordered their life. In this extremity of our city’s suffering and tribulation the venerable authority of laws, human and divine, was abased and all but totally dissolved for lack of those who should have administered and enforced them, most of whom, like the rest of the citizens, were either dead or sick or so hard bested for servants that they were unable to execute any office; whereby every man was free to do what was right in his own eyes.

Not a few there were who belonged to neither of the two said parties, but kept a middle course between them, neither laying t same restraint upon their diet as the former, nor allowing themselves the same license in drinking and other dissipations as the latter, but living with a degree of freedom sufficient to satisfy their appetite and not as recluses. They therefore walked abroad, carrying in the hands flowers or fragrant herbs or divers sorts of spices, which they frequently raised to their noses, deeming it an excellent thing thus to comfort the brain with such perfumes, because the air seemed be everywhere laden and reeking with the stench emitted by the dead and the dying, and the odours of drugs.

Some again, the most sound, perhaps, in judgment, as they were also the most harsh in temper, of all, affirmed that there was no medicine for the disease superior or equal in efficacy to flight; following which prescription a multitude of men and women, negligent of all but themselves, deserted their city, their houses, their estates, their kinsfolk, their goods, and went into voluntary exile, or migrated to the country parts, as if God in visiting men with this pestilence in requital of their iniquities would not pursue them with His wrath wherever they might be, but intended the destruction of such alone as remained within the circuit of the walls of the city; or deeming perchance, that it was now time for all to flee from it, and that its last hour was come.

Of the adherents of these diverse opinions not all died, neither did all escape; but rather there were, of each sort and in every place many that sickened, and by those who retained their health were treated after the example which they themselves, while whole, had set, being everywhere left to languish in almost total neglect. Tedious were it to recount, how citizen avoided citizen, how among neighbors was scarce found any that showed fellow-feeling for another, how kinsfolk held aloof, and never met, or but rarely; enough that this sore affliction entered so deep into the minds of men a women, that in the horror thereof brother was forsaken by brother nephew by uncle, brother by sister, and oftentimes husband by wife: nay, what is more, and scarcely to be believed, fathers and mothers were found to abandon their own children, untended, unvisited, to their fate, as if they had been strangers. Wherefore the sick of both sexes, whose number could not be estimated, were left without resource but in the charity of friends (and few such there were), or the interest of servants, who were hardly to be had at high rates and on unseemly terms, and being, moreover, one and all, men and women of gross understanding, and for the most part unused to such offices, concerned themselves no further than to supply the immediate and expressed wants of the sick, and to watch them die; in which service they themselves not seldom perished with their gains. In consequence of which dearth of servants and dereliction of the sick by neighbors, kinsfolk and friends, it came to pass-a thing, perhaps, never before heard of-that no woman, however dainty, fair or well-born she might be, shrank, when stricken with the disease, from the ministrations of a man, no matter whether he were young or no, or scrupled to expose to him every part of her body, with no more shame than if he had been a woman, submitting of necessity to that which her malady required; wherefrom, perchance, there resulted in after time some loss of modesty in such as recovered. Besides which many succumbed, who with proper attendance, would, perhaps, have escaped death; so that, what with the virulence of the plague and the lack of due attendance of the sick, the multitude of the deaths, that daily and nightly took place in the city, was such that those who heard the tale-not to say witnessed the fact-were struck dumb with amazement. Whereby, practices contrary to the former habits of the citizens could hardly fail to grow up among the survivors.

It had been, as to-day it still is, the custom for the women that were neighbors and of kin to the deceased to gather in his house with the women that were most closely connected with him, to wail with them in common, while on the other hand his male kinsfolk and neighbors, with not a few of the other citizens, and a due proportion of the clergy according to his quality, assembled without, in front of the house, to receive the corpse; and so the dead man was borne on the shoulders of his peers, with funeral pomp of taper and dirge, to the church selected by him before his death. Which rites, as the pestilence waxed in fury, were either in whole or in great part disused, and gave way to others of a novel order. For not only did no crowd of women surround the bed of the dying, but many passed from this life unregarded, and few indeed were they to whom were accorded the lamentations and bitter tears of sorrowing relations; nay, for the most part, their place was taken by the laugh, the jest, the festal gathering; observances which the women, domestic piety in large measure set aside, had adopted with very great advantage to their health. Few also there were whose bodies were attended to the church by more than ten or twelve of their neighbors, and those not the honorable and respected citizens; but a sort of corpse-carriers drawn from the baser ranks, who called themselves becchini and performed such offices for hire, would shoulder the bier, and with hurried steps carry it, not to the church of the dead man’s choice, but to that which was nearest at hand, with four or six priests in front and a candle or two, or, perhaps, none; nor did the priests distress themselves with too long and solemn an office, but with the aid of the becchini hastily consigned the corpse to the first tomb which they found untenanted. The condition of the lower, and, perhaps, in great measure of the middle ranks, of the people showed even worse and more deplorable; for, deluded by hope or constrained by poverty, they stayed in their quarters, in their houses where they sickened by thousands a day, and, being without service or help of any kind, were, so to speak, irredeemably devoted to the death which overtook them. Many died daily or nightly in the public streets; of many others, who died at home, the departure was hardly observed by their neighbors, until the stench of their putrefying bodies carried the tidings; and what with their corpses and the corpses of others who died on every hand the whole place was a sepulchre.

It was the common practice of most of the neighbors, moved no less by fear of contamination by the putrefying bodies than by charity towards the deceased, to drag the corpses out of the houses with their own hands, aided, perhaps, by a porter, if a porter was to be had, and to lay them in front of the doors, where anyone who made the round might have seen, especially in the morning, more of them than he could count; afterwards they would have biers brought up or in default, planks, whereon they laid them. Nor was it once twice only that one and the same bier carried two or three corpses at once; but quite a considerable number of such cases occurred, one bier sufficing for husband and wife, two or three brothers, father and son, and so forth. And times without number it happened, that as two priests, bearing the cross, were on their way to perform the last office for someone, three or four biers were brought up by the porters in rear of them, so that, whereas the priests supposed that they had but one corpse to bury, they discovered that there were six or eight, or sometimes more. Nor, for all their number, were their obsequies honored by either tears or lights or crowds of mourners rather, it was come to this, that a dead man was then of no more account than a dead goat would be to-day.

Citation:

J.M. Rigg, trans., The Decameron, vol. I (London:  Privately Printed, n.d.), 5-11. Located on the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/stream/decameron01boccuoft#page/4

Discussion Questions:

1. What did the city of Florence do to try and prevent the Plague?
2. What symptoms did people with Plague display, and how many days elapsed before they died?
3. How did the Plague spread, according to Boccaccio?
4. What were the different types of reactions by people to the onset of the Plague?

14. The Public Medievalist-A Vile Love Affair: Right-Wing Nationalism and the Middle Ages

The final source for the Middle Ages comes from The Public Medievalist, this time an article on the misuse of the Middle Ages by right-wing nationalist groups. Author Andrew B.R. Eliot explores the ways in which the medieval past has been re-written and misappropriate by right-wing nationalist groups to legitimate their views on race and ethnicity. The article is a stark reminder that the more History is devalued as a subject of study the more opportunities there are for nefarious actors to successfully misuse the past to achieve their vile ends.

https://www.publicmedievalist.com/vile-love-affair/

Discussion Questions:

1. What examples are given at the beginning of this document of misuses of medieval history during the 20th century, and how do they do this?
2. Describe the two reasons given by the author to explain the re-emergence of medievalisms is politics.
3. Explain the reasons the author gives regarding why the Middle Ages are often the target of misappropriation.
4. In the article’s last section how does the author tie together the various threads discussed throughout the work?