The Rise of Universities in the Middle Ages and the World of Gregory Chaucer

So when I was at work today, I heard two customers chatting about the past and an author that one of their children was studying. They mentioned the ridiculous refrain that people in the Middle Ages were all uneducated unthinking idiots (not my word by the way.) As part of the discussion that these two individuals were having, they discussed both the idea that the medieval people thought the world was flat and that Chaucer is a bore. I don't know if my studies have truly given me a unique perspective on this time in history or if I simply take that knowledge for granted and assume that other people know it as well. But, I soon found myself holding a pile of prescriptions in my hand, standing behind the corner of the wall and avidly listening to the conversation while pretending to rearrange toothpaste – that must have been pretty silly to watch. :)

When these to men shook hands and appeared to go their separate ways to finish their errands, I found myself really thoughtful. It is so clear looking at older maps and studying the early scientists that well before the Middle Ages- the time frame that is generally accepted is 500 AD- 1500 AD and this time frame may be considered to include the Dark Ages and is also known as the Medieval Period. Depending on how you look at this time and what has been documented of its history truly colors how you see it and judge its people and history. I don't think that addressing whether people at the time thought the world was flat is useful- there is so much evidence that has been collected over the years that strongly suggest that we moderns who believe these ideas about the people/past are really 'culturally snobbish' and ignorant of our ancestors and our collective past. I did think I would take the time to talk a little bit about Chaucer and his work as well as the rise of education and universities during the Middle Ages... because the idea of higher education/degrees and a college/university themselves were developed during the Middle Ages and are not products or children of the Renaissance or later modern times.

Gregory Chaucer was probably born in 1343 in London, England. While we do not know much about any of the other poets and writers of this age, Chaucer is an exception due to his decades of work in his government – as a courtier, a diplomat (who was captured by the enemy and ransom paid by King Edward III during the Hundred Years War), and a public servant. So many aspects of his life are actually quite well documented giving us a great portrait of this man's life and the world he tried to describe in his works. He studied law, traveled around Europe and married... being blessed with a few children. Hi writing career includes several works and translations- not only the famous 'Canterbury Tale' – most that are believed to have been written between 1374-1386. His famous work is very different from other literary works of the period and far from being boring, it gives us images into the lives and occupations of different people during this time. In some cases, historians feel they have been able to actually determine some of the individuals that were used by the author for characters. Gregory Chaucer also is known for his metrical innovation as well as the first user of many English words in his works- these words were probably in common use at the time and many are still in use today. He is also credited to helping to standardize the Middle English language and is known as the 'Father of English Literature' – his writings in it were uncommon at the time as most writing in England was written in either French or Latin. It is unknown exactly when he died or even how he died- there is some speculation that he was murdered for political reasons during a regime change, etc.... One interesting tidbit of information was that Mr Chaucer owned a building in London that (while unknown if Chaucer was in it at the time) would have given him a great view of the Peasant's Revolt and it's leaders passing under his windows at Aldgate... that would have been an interesting thing to see!

So, some of Chaucer's work is able to tell us about a lot about his society's problems in the fourteenth century! The Canterbury Tales helps us to see some of the problems that Chaucer's society needed to deal with at the time... or at least we can understand what problems he saw around him. One focus in his work is on the Catholic churchman and the corrupt practices of these men and the church. (It goes without saying that Chaucer is probably describing the vast majority of churchmen, but not an absolute truth.) Two characters in the book are members of the Catholic church who sell indulgences or whose jobs are to bring people to the church for excommunication and repentance- characters that both are portrayed as greedy, selfish, and even guilty of the same charges that they bring against others... suggesting they are corrupt and dishonest as well. Other characters that represent church members, such as the monk, the nun, etc..., tend to also suggest corrupt and spiritually lacking individuals with the exception of the nun. So it seems clear that concerns about the Catholic church were fairly widespread and not easily fixed during this time. (I make the assumption that they are not easily fixed if they are so widespread and 'in the open'.) Chaucer's writing when looking at the story of the Knight suggests that violence was too often resorted to for 'noble' or 'pure' reasons... which in the grand scheme of things were useless and ridiculous motives. Many of the stories also suggest problems in society between the different classes of people in the society as hierarchy is starting to be eroded in public thought and expression.

One important thing to note about the culture of reading and writing during the Late Middle Ages is that is that education was still something that was only 'trickling' down a little bit. The vast majority of people did not know how to read or write. Some of the poetry and music movements of the time gave the educated few more opportunities to express and enjoy a change in the culture that made it acceptable to talk about relationships and love in society. In the past, music and poetry was really a bizarre form of propaganda in the sense that the cultural writings , etc... tended to focus on war and the heroes of war, their deaths, etc.... Talking about love or relationships was quite taboo and for this idea to come out into the open society was quite new and also helped change some societal attitudes. Love poetry was also used to develop acceptable patterns of behavior for the society at large which gave rise to some of the behaviors that we see as chivalry. Fables and fairy tales became popular at this time... and it is this period that we can thank for Grimm's fairy tales and Aesop's fables. In fables, various characters of medieval society were thinly disguised as animals and were very entertaining... still are actually. :)

It was during this time that the idea of universities was envisions and began to take shape. Universities were first envisioned by the emperor Charlemagne who saw the need to have a large group of educated men (priests) that his communities could draw from for leadership... so he wanted to develop a program in which all the cathedrals and monasteries in his lands would provide a free education for any male child who was intelligent enough and motivated enough to complete the study (not just from a wealthy family). However, Charlemagne died before his dream became a reality. Some schools had been established and these schools managed to continue.... even through the worst of times they would continue to train priests. These schools basically taught two distinct groups of teaching. There was the 'grammar' school which taught grammar, rhetoric and logic and then the 'humanity' portion which included math, geometry, astronomy and musical studies. All of these studies were necessary to work in many capacities in the church so all were considered essential. Around the year 1000, some schools began to add more elements of education to their grammar and humanity studies. Universities began to not only try and teach knowledge that was known, but they also tried to learn and extend knowledge itself. Mathematics and classical studies as well as the study of law was expanded. By the time of Pope Gregory VII in 1079, in which he issued a papal decree for all cathedrals and monasteries to establish schools for the training of clergy, education and the idea of learning for people interested was on the rise. So the first universities were established in Italy (Bologna, Modena, Siena, and Padua), England (Oxford and Cambridge), France (Paris, Toulouse, Orleans, and Montpellier) and Spain (Palencia, Salamanca and Coimbra). The city of Paris developed a few great centers of learning that were associated with their monasteries. Qualified teachers could apply and become part of the teaching faculty there. The terms professor- reserved for the teachers that lived within the monastery- and associate professor- for the teacher who lived outside provided the words that we still use today in a slightly different context at our modern universities. In Paris, students at universities could pick which lectures and courses they took and they would settle in an area that was closest to the desired regions. Professors would then rent halls to lecture in and this area in Paris became known as the Latin Quarter- due to the common language of the people living, teaching, and studying there. The idea of a university separate from the Catholic church and the monasteries began to form as the Chancellors and leaders in their local areas in the church would try to control all subjects and knowledge taught under their jurisdiction. (This is a struggle that will still continue today between the Heads of Universities and the professors themselves). Around this time, students were not just taught to 'regurgitate' the knowledge that was taught to them, but also to use logic and reason to interpret and use it.... which began the public 'debate'. In fact, science was a heavier portion of a degree in those days and was required course work... not mainly electives. Due to a small but nasty incident of violence between students and teachers and others, the first truly separate university was developed in Paris and was called the University of the Masters and Students of Paris. This university fought and gained many rights that all colleges and universities take for granted today... such as the rights to pick curriculum, the right to choose their own faculty, etc...

This was also the time of the rise of the Humanists. The Humanists were individuals who thought that humanity itself was a grand miracle and to study humanity and its culture and accomplishments would help you to be a better person in your life and society around you. If you went to a university at that time, there was very little difference in the few degree programs that were offered in the beginning because the classes that you would take were the 'humanities'- language and grammar, history and law, poetry and classical writing as well as philosophy. (When you get a liberal studies degree today, you are getting many of the same kind of ideas that you would have received in the past... with updates of course :) It was thought that well rounded educated people would be better equipped and able to participate in their communities and civil obligations. It was also thought that the more educated and capable you were, the more likely you were to not only live a good life, but to influence those around you to do go as well and to help people around you to become better. I don't disagree with them at all really. I think that sometimes we can get too focused on a small part of education and lose our 'humanity' in that, but otherwise I think that education only helps us to help ourselves and others.

So, far from boring, I guess I tend to find this time in history fascinating. So much or our modern world was shaped by this time period and those who helped develop it. I speak a language that began to be developed during this time, attend colleges that came to exist because of the fights and challenges and hopes of past generations, and I am even getting a degree based on the medieval ideal... although I will say that the degree has changed a bit over the centuries. :) Can you imagine a world without these changes... a world where we all write mostly in Latin with Greek and French as secondary languages... a world where only those of more privilege birth are able to afford education at all and a world where you are very must limited by your birth and place. While our modern world still has some of these limitations, our ancestors have managed to remove some of the barriers that would have restricted us. I f you have attended a university in your life, would you be willing to comment on how it has benefited you, what it means to you in your life, etc....? I would love to hear your experiences! :)

Holy Wars and Religious Intolerance in Medieval Europe

This post will discuss some brief points on a few different aspects of politics and religion in medieval Europe during the eleventh and twelfth century. It was during this time frame that the Fourth and Fifth Crusades were launched and the Catholic Church was still growing in strength and power. Heretics still abounded and the Church still felt that there was a good chance of ridding the world of them and creating a world for Christendom.... and only Christendom. This post will discuss some of the people behind the politics and the Catholic religion which would struggle and fight until they created the Great Schism of the church. Enjoy! :)

The Spanish Reconquest (Reconquista) is the name given to a long period of war (500+ years) in which several European countries successfully fought to regain the areas of the Iberian peninsula that had come under the control of 'Muslim' leaders – in a sense, this is a very nice name for a long and arduous crusade or holy war between the European Christians and their leaders and the Muslim strongholds in the lands of Spain and Portugal. Another complication that must be mentioned is that these areas were also home to other Christian sects such as the Albigensians that were not accepted by the Catholic church- one thing has been clear throughout history and that is... that the Catholic church was not tolerant against any kind of difference in belief- whether it was a matter of doctrine (like the Arians) or a matter of the whole faith (like the Muslims), there was no acceptance that was considered for any of these groups.... all were wrong and should be stamped out, period. It was during the time of the High Middle Ages, that the 'fight' for this peninsula became linked with other Crusades and the fight for 'Christendom'. This fight for the Catholic church, for Christianity, and for conformity of belief would become evidenced in the future Spanish Inquisition as well as future pogroms and massacres of Moors and Jews in these areas.

One truly interesting group of people were the Albigensians. They were groups of individuals who believed in certain set of tenets of Christianity that were labeled 'heresy' by the Catholic Church. One of the heretical doctrines that the Arians believed in was dualism – the idea that there are two gods; a good God and a bad God that are constantly at war over the souls of men. Other beliefs are that the resurrection of the body wouldn't happen as the nature of flesh is evil, that earth is hell and a place of punishment that cannot last as the soul is divine and must eventually be released from punishment.... and that war or acts of aggression that follow the Mosaic code such as eye for an eye or capital punishment were absolutely unacceptable. They also believed that material possessions were equated with the 'evil' god and so most members of this belief system led relatively ascetic lives absent of marriage and children... which suggest that this movement may have died out by itself if it had been left alone. Also called the Cathars, Albigensians were found mostly in regions of Italy and Southern France. They were eventually targeted- the lucky devils- by the Catholic church due to the rising popularity of their movement. Pope Innocent III proclaimed a crusade against this movement in 1209 and by the fourteenth century, the movement was pretty much extinguished.

The Investiture Controversy is a great example of the struggle that was happening between these secular rulers and religious leaders during this period. The term investiture means to install a person into an 'office'- in this case, a religious office. In the past, the pope had been appointed by secular leadership (The Holy Roman Emperor). But as the papacy began to develop (or attempt to develop) into its own political power and attempt to create the kingdom of 'Christendom', this power in the hands of a secular leader was not considered acceptable by reformers inside the church. In a nutshell, the controversy was really based on who truly had the power to appoint the clergymen in the 'high' church positions. Secular rulers still had the power to appoint some high clergy such as bishops, archbishops, etc... in their territories, but the appointment of the pope was a 'prize' that the Holy Roman emperor didn't like losing. Pope Gregory VII then passed a papal decree that all high church offices would be given only by the appointment of other high clergy – keeping it 'in the church' so to speak. This particular directive was not just an inconvenience to secular rulers- it directly threatened the power of all secular rulers to have some control over the church in their territories. When the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV complained, the pope excommunicated him- the first time this punishment had been given to an active secular ruler and it had huge political ramifications. King Henry's vassals and nobles no longer had to abide by their oaths of loyalty to him... and were actively encouraged to rebel against him. To save his kingdom, King Henry had to submit to the pope to have his excommunication lifted, but the disagreement wasn't really over and an actual confrontation was planned as Henry IV along with some of his loyal nobility marched on Rome to fight and depose Pope Gregory... who died while trying to escape. However, the death of the pope didn't end the controversy which would continue to crop up over the next several decades... and even was the topic of a meeting with the elders of the church and secular leaders to try to discuss and solve the problem in 1122.

Pope Innocent III was quite an active man and took his 'job' of persecuting heretics very seriously. Disappointed by the results of the 3rd and 4th Crusade, he was determined to have another Crusade that was better planned and had more Papal involvement in the process. He also wanted to have more guidelines and an understanding of how to deal with the heretics in the holy lands and in Christian Europe. So the issuance of a papal bull by Pope Innocent III in April 1213 had the effect of gathering individuals together for what would be known as the Fourth Lateran Council. This council gathered together in November of 1215 and the pope presented seventy decrees on what he felt were the most important points of Catholic dogma that were then altered or agreed upon (mostly agreed upon). Then, measures and definitive points at which discipline were called for were developed and accepted to deal with the heretics in the Christian lands... and finally, the conditions and goals of the next Crusade (5th) were laid out and regulated. And so the beginnings of another Crusade were laid out.


One of the most confusing and divisive 'wars' that the Catholic church participated in (and certainly underlines how political and powerful the leadership position in the church was) was an internal conflict called the Great Schism. This is a term used to describe a several decade long break in the Catholic Church due to secular politics and other factors. Philip IV of France was quite a cruel and ruthless leader. His greed caused him to look for possible ways to increase the amount of money in his treasury and in 1297, Philip IV started a tax on the clergy... which was not well received by Pope Boniface VIII. These leaders ended up in a fight in which the Pope excommunicated King Philip... who then tried to have the pope arrested. When Pope Boniface died, he was replaced by a French cardinal who became Clement V. This man was very much under King Philip's control and as a result of this, the french king moved the pope to Avignon from the traditional place of Rome. This action is seen by some to be the beginning of the Great Schism. This 'event' occurred between the years of 1378 and 1415 and was the culmination of the struggle between the European kings and the Popes to gain the most political power. As monarchs in both England and France became stronger, the power that the Popes had in those kingdoms was weakened. In 1302, the pope's response was to issue a Papal Decree called the 'Unam Sanctum'. This degree declared that the authority of all secular rulers was subject to the spiritual and political authority of the pope. The French King Philip IV didn't accept this 'decree' and he sent an army to fight and capture the pope. Philip did defeat Pope Boniface, but Boniface died soon after and a new Pope was chosen. This pope, Clement V, was easily controlled by King Philip and the Papacy was moved to Avignon from 1309- 1377. Other European leaders were not happy with this move and felt that the Pope was virtually a 'prisoner' of the French king. In 1378, the papacy moved back to Rome under the direction of Pope Urban VI. This didn't really solve the original problem that had caused the break in the first place... so it comes as no surprise that this is not the end of the story. :) Pope Urban VI thought that many of the high church officials were corrupt and put a lot of pressure on these individuals to change as well as changing some of the rules. Some French cardinals were not happy with this pressure and the difficulty that they were getting so they went to the current king of France to ask for his support in moving the papacy back to Avignon. This discussion with the French king, as both the cardinals and the King recognized that the Pope would not be budged, simply came up with a different solution. The French cardinals picked a new pope, Clement VII... and placed that pope in Avignon. This act effectively split the church into two great and differing sides. If you lived in England or anywhere in the Holy Roman Empire, then chances were you supported Pope Urban VI in Rome. If you lived in France or in territories held by France's allies, then chances are you supported the new Pope Clement VII. After a time other church officials tried to solve the problem by calling the two 'current' popes deposed and picking a third pope... surprise, the problem increased as now there were THREE popes to deal with. Anyone in the 'common population' must have found this situation to be at best, confusing... and at worse, laughable and not very 'holy'. This horrible situation was only resolved with a church meeting in Switzerland held in the years 1414-1415 which is called the Council of Constance. At this gathering, it was decided that the third pope in Pisa would be gotten rid of and pressure was placed on the Roman pope and the Avignon pope to step down which they finally did. The council then selected a new pope – Martin V- and that pope was placed in Rome. It was decided that Rome was the best place for the pope to be because that is where the apostle Peter built the first church so the symbolism was quite powerful. Even with this situation now resolved, the consequences of the Great Schism would live on for some time. Secular leaders had now been giving the opportunity and success of controlling religious matters in their territories and not a single one was willing to give that control back to Rome. This problem with the numerous popes destroyed the international political power that the papacy had gained over the last several years and the pope's prestige had been very badly tarnished. Also, other religious movements were to crop up with tended to focus on a person's relationship with God- a direct relationship... rather than the relationship that had been focused on in the Catholic church (your relationship with the priests and the pope who then opened your relationship to God.)

The Catholic church never seemed to gain its strength or power back fully after the Great Schism. Many popes tried to consolidate and create more power and there were more Crusades and pogroms against different groups deemed as heretics by the church. And the society around it was slowly coming closer to openly question the Catholic church, what makes a relationship with God, hierarchy, etc.... Those are questions that we as a people still struggle with today. We still do not have easy answers and we have our own way of dealing with heretics in our lives- luckily, they tend to be more discriminatory than violent... a small blessing but shows we have a long way to go as a race. What are your thoughts on these questions?