Brief Glimpses into the Lives of Four Women : Dhuoda, Elisabeth of Schonau, Claire of Assisi, and Jacoba Felicie

This week I had the opportunity to read about a few different women from past history. There are very few records of women in history books or documents- the records that do exist give us an insight into the lives of very privileged and/or wealthy women. I have studied history for years and I can spend hours talking about wars, royal genealogies and the stories of women who were European queens... but the lives, choices and stories of the majority of women have rarely been covered or made easily available for study. However, I had the opportunity to read about four particular women this week and I wanted to share a little bit of their stories and talk about some of the differences and similarities in their lives. Many of the comparisons that I make are obviously my opinion as there is very little information to use. Many of my thoughts are guesses and I would love for others to read their stories and tell me what they think of these women and my assessments. I have tried to post links to sites with specific information about these women.

Dhuoda – She is a mother who worries about the world's influence on her son and worries enough that she has written a specific guide hoping that he will carry her words with him as they are no longer together. The name of her 'guide for her son is titled the "Handbook for William". This is the only major text written by a woman to survive from the Carolingian period (generally seen at 750-900 AD.) She expresses a deep love and fear/ belief in a deity and, while she doesn't tell us what religion her beliefs belong to, they are clearly integral to her thoughts and life. She appears to be a strong believer in justice, honor given to your betters (or understanding of hierarchy) as well as chastity.

Elizabeth of Schonau – She was known for her mystical visions and miracles that she performed during her lifetime which is believed to be from 1128-1164. She became a Benedictine nun which tells us that she was a member of the Roman Catholic church and lived in an order that practiced the rules of St. Benedict. She appears to be a woman of some education (although I did discover on doing some research that most of her writing were actually writing down by her brother so I do wonder if she could write…) and she clearly felt very strongly about spiritually calling. She showed a great desire for information from God that could help her in her spiritual journey- she also hoped and prayed for guidance and visions from the Virgin Mary and other saints. She appears to be a strong believer in God, saints, hope, and visionary knowledge.

Claire of Assisi – She was a one of the first followers of St Francis and lived in the church of San Damiano. She created a spiritual community of women and helped write the rules for her created community that followed the ideals of St Francis when it came to finances -absolute poverty was the ideal. This order that was created by her along with the rules she wrote were the first monastic rules that were written by a woman. The ideals and desires of her community to live in absolute poverty was controversial in the church at that time and it took decades for her community to gain papal approval- this approval was only gained two days before she passed away. She lived a devout life and was a strong believer in charity, community, and simpler living.

Jacoba Felicie – She was a women who practiced medicine at a time where women were forbidden to do so. At this time, medical practitioners were trained through informal apprenticeships which were only available for men. As guilds were developed, individuals could be licensed for their medical knowledge which, again, were only available to men. However, Jacoba would examine patients, use herbs and give medicines top patients, and was sometimes paid for her work. (We can’t be sure from the writing that she was paid all the time and I suspect where she wasn’t successful she wasn’t paid.) The documents available suggest that she had been told not to practice medicine before and was being brought up on charges of doing it again… so she was persistent (whether the persistence was from stubbornness, a need for financial stability with no other options, or even a love of her craft we can’t know from the reading.) She was found guilty at the hearing and was excommunicated from the church as well as charged a significant fine. There is no evidence known as to whether she continued to practice after her trial and/ or what the rest of her life was like.

These women had a few things in common. All of them seem to have some sort of religious mindset and lifestyle. Dhouda frequently mentions her spirituality and morals in the letter to her son, Elizabeth is a Benedictine nun which suggests she is a practicing Catholic, Claire of Assisi is a nun in an established order that she helped create under the auspices of the Pope, and Jacoba was known to have said she could heal sick persons if “God is willing.” How they practiced their spiritual and religious lives were different, but each individual clearly felt the mark of deity on her life. Another thing in common was that all four women seems to feel some motivation to help other people- Dhouda wanted to help her son, Elizabeth wanted to share spiritual knowledge to bring people to a belief in the Virgin Mary and Christ, Claire spent her life giving of her time, energy and physical possessions to others, and Jacoba appears to have made healing the pain and illness of other people her life’s work. Each of these women wanted to share something- whether it was love, knowledge or health with someone else. They saw themselves as teachers and mentors to others whether it was by sharing advice, visions, medical care or charity. Each woman was putting herself at risk- whether of punishment or losing respect in the church- for her views and behavior and all managed to do OK in spite of the risks that they took (from what we can tell- Jacoba is a possible exception.)

Some differences seem apparent to me as well although here is where I jump into some real guesswork and the differences that I see may say more about my biases and perspectives than the women I am analyzing. I feel like Dhouda and Elizabeth grew up in different environments and in different ways, but neither individual seemed to have a great deal of confidence in themselves. From reading either their writings or the things written about them, the writings suggest that both were insecure and their self-talk suggests the low esteem they had for themselves. It appears that both Claire and Jacoba felt fairly confident and brave enough to follow their muse. All four women recognized how their gender affected their lives, but Dhouda and Elizabeth needed more encouragement to do the things they wanted to do and felt held back by their sex…. While Claire and Jacoba were clearly also held back in their societies and chosen professions due to being female, but they found ways to accomplish things unacceptable to their sex in spite of the difficulties presented. I am not sure about Jacoba, but the other women made decisions about leaving their pasts aside or the decision was made for them by others. Dhouda had many of her privileges taken away, Claire walked away from her privileged beginnings to recreate her life as she wanted, and Elizabeth left obscurity to become an abbess in a monastery.

We are so lucky to have opportunity to read the writings and thoughts of women from so many centuries ago- doubly so because we have so few surviving records of any women during this time period. Looking at the challenges they faced, I see some similarities between the burdens they worked to overcome and some of the same burdens facing women today. Each of these women tried to be a positive influence towards those they loved and interacted with, but they also worked to survive and thrive within the world they lived in. No matter what gender we each are, that is what each of us is trying to do too : )

Did the Russian State... Part III by Nils Johann (The Myth of 'Oriental Despotism')

“...nor is it good to have many rulers. Let there be one ruler, one king,...”

We tend to look at the Eurasian landmass and then we single out about a 5% of it. We say; this is freedom, enterprise, 'development', in complete opposition to the other 95%, ruled by Oriental Despotism. That these other nineteen twentieth, should be no more or less special, or equal, in their 'strangeness' seems to be rather more likely. But this is not what is usually seen, when we talk of this mythical difference, between two more or less incomparable units. It is not amazing when travelers in the 16th century find new places to be strange, but this does not make these places more strange for us looking back through more than four-hundred years of passed time. The Work of Goldstone, like Frank's, points in the direction that there might be serious errors in how 'The West' and 'The Rest' are presented. These errors skew our understanding of our history in general. He suggests an alternative interpretation:

“The California school reverses this emphasis and sees Europe as a peripheral, conflict-ridden, and low-innovation society in world history until relatively late. Superiority in living standards, science and mathematics, transportation, agriculture, weaponry, and complex production for trade and export, has multiple centres in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley and the Yellow River Basin. From these regions civilization spreads outward,...while western Europe remains a primitive backwater. When civilization spreads West with Carthage and the Roman Empire, it remains rooted in the Mediterranean and then—with Byzantium—in Anatolia.” “Except that something goes haywire in England. Charles II dies without an Anglican heir, and the throne passes to his Catholic brother James.”

We should not interpret this as a straight forward dissemination theory because that would be unoriginal, but as a more complex gradual transplantation, or adoption, of tools and technique for government. This then fits rather well with Gerhard Spittler's explanation of 'despotism' and how it has worked. And Spittler's 'despotism' is not the mythical 'totalitarian', 'oriental despotism'
-understanding of the word of Wittfogel and Ferguson.

How 'despotic' is 'The East' really in comparison to 'The West'? The question is interesting because Spittler diagnoses 'despotism' to be the management-form of primitive state-structures. 'Despotism' is described as a rule over farmers with a military-state, that has little developed bureaucratic structures, or codex laws. - as an opposite of 'bureaucratic government'. Spittler, however, found that Prussia of the 18th century, and West-Africa of the 19th century compare rather well in this regard.

“The peasantry in a peasant state is characterized by a great diversity of local customs and by defensive strategies. Both are related to peasants' semi-autark household production. Under these conditions the central government lacks information and the means of control. Administration by intermediaries and despotism becomes widespread because it is well adapted to this situation. In order not to be infected by the “chaotic diversity” in the countryside, the bureaucracy maintains its distance from the peasants. But on the other hand, it also tries to penetrate the peasantry. Bureaucratic administration requires the collection and storing of information, so a precise census is a basic tool for bureaucratic work.”

As an extension of this, we can assume that almost every state, until the development of industrial society, were peasant states, trade being, in general, marginal. The road away from despotism, to a more bureaucratic state, with more order, less random violence or ad-hoc power, is similar. This would in turn mean a tempering of the aristocracy and the centralization of power to the Crown, as it again, from the period after 1450, increasingly happened in all of Europe. Mind, not as a straight progression, and not at all always successful.

The portrayal of the “oriental despotism” therefore seems methodologically unsound. The theoretical separation of 'The East' and 'Western Europe' seems to be creating some confusion when it comes to understanding the workings of reality, rather than being helpful in this regard, as a theory should be. To help us along it might be helpful to summarize some scientific theorems. A false dichotomy arises, when the premise for the given research proposes that there are only two possible outcomes that are mutually exclusive. With the induction of such a premise, we run the risk that maybe both outcomes are wrong, or that they are not mutually exclusive. The danger for research-work, premised by a false dichotomy, is that it may lead into a falsity in logical reasoning. The result could be misguiding, leading us to make wrong conclusions. The false dichotomy is therefore also a common rhetorical technique, where only two choices exist, only two real alternatives. A false dichotomy can just as well be an intended fallacy, created in order to force a decision where none of the alternatives, are necessarily the correct choice.

The western rim of Eurasia is more similar in its development up until about 1800 than might seem palatable. Splitting Russia off from the state-formative processes taking place in other locations alongside 'The Rim' therefore does not serve the purpose of gaining understanding, but causes alienation. The terminology in use for later periods still puts the “dictatorship” of the USSR next to its 'imagined-free', NATO opponent, in an imaginative exercise of a combination of hypocrisy, avarice, and ignorance, that trumps any nuance. In the same manner the brutal occidental Barons of late medieval Europe are painted to be 'Arthuresqe' figures of myth next to the bloodthirsty oriental Despot.

Comments? Questions...? :)

Did The Russian State Form in a Different Manner than Its Occidental Neighbours? - Part I by Nils Johann

Can Russia be seen as following the same formative patterns as the new bureaucratic (proto-) states rising in Western Europe? A discussion in historiography, world history and the problems of long chains of causality, exemplified by a comparison of Russian and English political history during the reigns of Ivan IV and Henry VIII. (Late medieval/Northern Renaissance period, 16th century.)

While studying medieval Russia two questions kept popping up in the Literature: Does Russia have its background in “Eastern” (Asiatic) or “Western” (European) culture? Does a possible Asiatic background account for the perceived “backwardness” of the land? During the reading, a suspicion of double-standards for the 'scales' we use to measure the 'East' and the 'West' arose. Marginal cosmetic differences seemed to be exploited to exasperate a narrative, of a distant, strange, and mythical Russia. The historiographical discussion will start with the more specific grand works and perspectives concerning Russia, opened up by Ostrowski's essay on "The Mongol Origins of Muscovite Political institutions", which served as a inspiration for this work. What then also needs to be addressed is the claim of Russian backwardness which is the main narrative thread in Alexander Yanov's work, and in large parts in other writings, like the work of Wittfogel. Is the way Russia is portrayed up to this day, intentionally overemphasising minor differences, as a result of the political tension that ensued between its rulers and the neighbors in 'The West', rather than a matter of fact? Could the portrayal also be the result of sloppy methodology... even if some Russian scholars themselves adopt this view during the zenith of British hegemony, in the middle of the 19th century? It became my desire to look at the subject with a 'Homeric blindness' and a 'Ranke'an' moral disassociation.

While dealing with this question the main challenge gave itself by the seemingly ethereal qualities of terms like 'Europe' utilized in the discussion. An approach was finally opened up by 'zooming out' and taking a look at Frank's work in "ReOrient- Global Economy in the Asian Age" (1998) and by the discussion that ensued between him and Landes, Goldstone, Vries, Pomeranz and others. I still remember discussing the 'hot topic' of the 'special' European development with Vries back in 2004, and also that it ended with Vries passionately leaving.

I will make an account of this larger discussion further on because it will provide the proper context for discussing what 'Western Traits' actually are, and how far back we actually are honestly able to superimpose this term back in time. Goldstone's suggestion: To see Europe as the (*'barbaric') rim-lands of “Civilization”. Civilization at first spreading from Mesopotamia, in the direction of Europe, is a good perspective for helping us understand this.

With the narrative, that: Every time non-European state-formations have stability, their government can inherently, within this discussion, be described as despotic or tyrannical, we might be led astray: As long as there was order in China, and India, up until about 1800, these areas also maintained a technical lead on poor, war-torn Western-Europe: Stability equals innovation, because relative risk is reduced, and more persons are allowed to specialize. Risk becomes acceptable when it is affordable to take a loss.

In order to answer the question of the paper, what follows is an introduction to the greater European realm during the lives of Henry VIII (*1491-†1547) of England and Ivan IV (*1530-†1584) of Russia. This context is important, because looking at Russia isolated, can sometimes make us forget the realities of late-medieval/Renaissance life, in its westward neighbors. We could go into the trap of unintentionally only comparing it to our life experiences today, leading us to handle the subject-matter unhistorical. The demonstration will then continue by looking at, and comparing their reigns, which are more alike, than proponents of British exceptionalism, or of the Asiatic culture of Russia, would care for. We start out by comparing their families rise to power and their relation to the other noble families. There follows a comparison of their household management, the legal status of the Emperors, and their warfare.

In several works by, amongst others, Crummy and Yanov, the reign of Ivan IV is held up as an example of 'non-European' political behavior. When we with that approach compare Ivan's reign to that of Henry VIII, interesting choices for conclusion open up. Neither Henry, nor Ivan, are behaving like the Europeans of Ferguson or Wittfogel. The alleged “democratic”, free Occident, stands like an elegant myth, with its cradle in a later age. In short, the privilege of a few noblemen in Britain after 1688, does not make out as credible freedom, and in the 1540's, English political conditions do not stray remarkably from conditions in Russia. In the comparison of chapter 4, a pattern will emerge, that highlights the similarities in behavior of the two Monarchs and their Crown. Both castigate and subjugate the other competing nobles. In order to accumulate capital they reform their management and communication systems, laying the groundwork for a bureaucratic state. They do this in order to exploit the realm, and to aggregate power in their own hands. This enables their wars of conquest. Standing gunpowder-armies enable them to project their power further than their predecessors. It should be acknowledged that differences between England and Russia, but when looking at the grand motions, an impression of similar development for the period forms.


Comments.... Questions? :)

Introduction to Nils Magnus Johann and his Research and Writings on Russia

Boy, do I have a treat for my history loving friends! I am very excited to have the opportunity to be able to share a paper from a friend that I met online who also loves history. This is an amazing paper – well thought out and researched- and I feel honored to introduce him and his work to my readers! :)

I apologize that I do not have a good biography of the author yet, but I hope to soon and I will upload it when I can. I need to break up his post into several parts, but I will post a few pages a day so that there is continuity for those who are interested in reading it. Please also feel free to leave comments of feedback and I will make sure that he gets them! So with out further ado, here is the title and a short tidbit of what the paper will cover over the next week or so. So let's begin!

Did The Russian State Form in a Different Manner than Its Occidental Neighbors?


Can Russia be seen as following the same formative patterns as the new, bureaucratic (proto-) states rising in Western Europe? A discussion in historiography, world history, and the problems of long chains of causality, exemplified by a comparison of Russian and English political history during the reigns of Ivan IV and Henry VIII. (Late medieval/Northern Renaissance, period, 16th century.)

Introduction: Did the Russian state form in a different Manner than its Occidental Neighbors?

On the 'Curse' of the Orient.

The Myth of 'Oriental' Despotism».

On the 'Miracle' of Western Europe.

Why and how to compare the Rule of Henry VIII with the Rule of Ivan IV?

A Short Introduction to the Period of the Comparison. ('The Mafia-Society'.)

The Development after the Time of the Black Death.

The Circumstance of the Two Ruling Houses and their Nobility.

Give to God what is God's and to the Emperor what is the Emperor's.

'Some of us have talked...'

Their Great Heists.

Father of all Things.

A bloody Trail of Death and Destruction?

Conclusions.

Angry Fruit : Before the Birds (Commentary on the “Grapes of Wrath”)

When I was in high school, I was introduced to the novel “The Grapes of Wrath” written by John Steinbeck. A masterpiece of depth and feeling wrapped around the story of a small family in the environment of the Great Depression. There are so many aspects to the story that are worthy of note, conversation and introspection, for even today the lessons that the author intends us to learn are still questions and attitudes that we struggle with today in our society. As a high school student, I was intrigued and saddened by the story of a young man fresh out of jail who goes home to his family to watch and help as they are forced off their land, struggle on to California and then to find himself an outlaw for his actions as much as for his place in society and the powerlessness of the many underneath the crushing heel and whim of the few. It is a symbiotic relationship that humanity aspires to- one of equality and opportunity for everyone- that we as humanity may never reach. So I thought that I would focus my thoughts not on the story or the lessons themselves that were brought to my mind again in this class, but to peer into the thoughts and images of my mind that come with the quotes that stuck in my mind long after the initial hearing of them.

Tom - (shakes head) “Anybody ever told me I'd be hiding out at my own place...”

Grandpa - “My dirt – it's no good, but it's mine”

While growing up, I would hear the words of the people around me talk about how hard work can get you anything in life you want. How being good and motivated and virtuous can make you rich, get you the things that you want in life and make life generally pleasant and easy. A part of those ideas have never made sense to me as I struggled to find a way to understand life, people and relationships in the dysfunctional household that I was to reach adulthood in. And as I have studied and watched many different kinds of people that have flitted in and out of my life, I have realized that those words only had a brief kernel of truth in them. With few exceptions, the only way to reach the ideal of wealth and a life of your choosing the individual must also be lucky enough to have a good background, a family with enough resources to get them the education, health and the resources that allow the 'hard work' of the individual to get them their desires. For the majority of humanity, especially women and those of a minority class... those are blessings or luck that no matter how hard they work, the individual will not get. The majority of people wish to own land, to own things... in fact, many of us derive our base worth to ourselves based on these things – what we own, what we do for a living, etc... Owning things gives us a feeling of security, safety and a sense of worth, but for most of us everything we 'own' is actually owned by a bank and we will spend our lives paying for those things. A wrong move- a recession, a lay off, a disabled child, etc... and we fall and break. No amount of hard work can save everyone in these situations no matter how good they are. A sad, but true fact.

Ma Joad - “There was a boundary to us then... there ain't nothing that keeps us clear.... There ain't no family now.”

“How big the country is … How small we are.”

In the study of history, we can look at the hierarchy of the medieval world with an understanding of place and power. To whom you were born set up the course of your life and no amount of motivation or work could change that. If you were a prince, your future was fairly set... you became a king, died as a prince or lived a life at court with its specific sets of rules and responsibilities. If you were born to a serf, then you were a serf for life... almost no exceptions. There was no intermarriage between the different groups of classes of which there were usually considered three – the nobles and monarchy, the clergy and church, and the 'rest' of us. With the French Revolution, and the other revolutions and uprisings that happened in the western world in the late 1770s and later years. For the lower classes wanted to have more opportunities open to them. So we come to ourselves and today. The struggle for equality has given so many more people opportunities to rise and the lines of hierarchy have become blurred. However, the lines of power and wealth have not blurred much allowing only a few more in and keeping the rest of us in control by the ideals mentioned above. If we all think that we can also be successful by working hard, then we are less likely to band together and recognize the true reality. And the reality is that as we have gained more rights for women and minorities we have also lost some as well. However, what we have lost is mostly something that we 'think' we had yet maybe never did. We have lost the concept of family and what are duties are in it. So we argue about what constitutes a family today but only when it comes to a few things. Other things break the family apart- economics, society, but we argue about 'what' constitutes the family itself. Our generation looks back and sees a 'rosy' past... that never existed. We as individuals struggle to understand our place in the world, our collapsing communities and our responsibilities as members of the human race. Our perspectives of the world and ourselves are what we use to wade our way into the waters of our futures... to keep our place and an understanding. Otherwise, we worry about being swept away in the crowd and that vastness of the world around us. We try to control and create order in the things that we can... to feel the security and serenity we crave.

Tom - “I just don't know who to blame.”

Preacher - “There ain't no sin and there ain’t no virtue. It's just what folks does....”

When things go wrong in our lives and the world, we tend to look around for the scapegoat. Humans have done that for so long that many people do not even understand today what the origin of the term actually means or how it came about. (It is from an ancient Jewish tradition in which the sins of the people are figuratively cast onto a goat and it is driven away into the desert to die as a part of the rituals alined with the Day of Atonement). If we look at psychology, we see how easily we find reasonable excuses for our own poor behavior/mistakes and yet we do not tend to allow others the same leeway for the same behavior. So we throw the evil and guilt we feel in ourselves out and project it towards others hoping to alleviate our suffering and to feel 'pure' again. So all of us continue to do so... and so we distract from real issues by pointing our fingers at others. Republicans point at the debt ceiling and big government and keep us from looking at the facts that the middle class is declining, the poorer classes are swelling and almost all economic gains are going straight to the top one percent. Democrats complain about the republicans but do not do anything but complain. Independents have no chance because of low numbers.

Conservatives blame homosexuals and their behavior for breaking up the family and proclaim abortion as murder, but they do not tend to adopt, to help children in foster care... to create a supportive society that would make abortion unnecessary nor to they acknowledge the good and the benefit of homosexual marriage. Liberals fight for the right to marry for all and for available abortion, but do not seem to acknowledge the fears and concerns of the other side and dismiss them... which tends to bring both sides even farther apart and to continue to demonize each other. Marriages break up and both sides point to the other party – friends and family split off into sides like there is something to win. Our perceptions and views on life and people color how we view the world, how we blame others and how we see our future possibilities.

Gas Station Attendant – 'A human couldn't stand to be so miserable.'

The Great Depression was a horrible time; a time of hunger, homelessness, and despair for most. People would do almost anything for any security or food. Those with money had the power over the lives of thousands. Severe conditions tend to make most of us fall into the physical and emotional traps that stress caused. We are less rational, less able to think, more desperate. Good works, intelligence, decision making and emotional control are the losers when our body is under stress for long periods of time. In desperate times, we can hurt each other- even those we dearly love- to gain a few morsels of food if we are so very hungered. We can break every virtue we believe in if we are desperate enough. We are currently living through the storm of recession and social change... a time where moderation doesn't seem to exist and being kind can be challenging. Daily, people are dying from torture, bombs, etc.. based on blame- the blame of religion, politics, or simply being in the way of other's viewpoints and motives. The Great Depression was in many ways so similar to what we face today...yes, we have more food (in theory) but the storm of culture, wealth and power, and change continues today. How will it end... I wonder.

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! :)

Short Perspectives on Feudalism, Manorialism, and Serfs

This was a difficult post for me as this is not an easy or benign topic.... While the concepts I will discuss can be seen in simple terms, they are in many ways complex and unique from other situations. Imagine trying to describe a social system such as capitalism in simple terms and you might realize some of the difficulty that a historian faces in these situations... and I will not pretend to be a true historian, simply a loyal fan as it were. In this post, I will attempt to discuss the differences between Manorialism and Feudalism (for there are differences) and what the different aspects of being a serf or being a Lord would be as well as some of the challenges that Europe faced during this time. Enjoy... :)

There are a few differences between the manorial system and feudalism. Manorialism is a system of forced agricultural labor and the human relationships are between the aristocrats and their forced laborers- the peasants. The economy is based on agriculture and little to no cash money is used. The manor, a landed estate which was privately owned, was in the center of the manorial land with the land that was given to the serfs surrounding it. This system gave some stability to the peasants and the aristocracy together. Feudalism was more of a political structure and gave rules to the relationships between the aristocracy. It was a system that worked with the power distribution between the nobles and was a system that basically made checks and balances between the 'equals' of the nobility. Whereas, manorialism really was a part of a system that gave rules for relationships that were 'unequal' – that of lord and serf... or CEO and janitor to use a common metaphor. And that system was feudalism.

The manorial system was actually an important part of feudalism, which was the system of living that was used to control and govern almost all peoples in Europe at one time. Manorialism was the basic principle that organized the rural economies in feudal Europe. In a form of 'trickle down' politics, a lord of a manor was given certain legal power over those who worked on his manor. He would benefit from the forced agricultural labor of the peasants who worked his land and he had some legal obligations towards those same peasants such as protection of them and the land. If you were a lord, in many ways you got a pretty sweet deal and it was in this way a lord would continue to develop wealth and more power from exploiting the obligatory free labor of the peasants. There really wasn't anywhere for the peasants to go... as there were simply too many of them.

The obligations or duties required of a serf were very different from the obligations of his liege lord. Serfs, of which the majority of peasants were, were bound to the soil or land of a Lord. They were required to stay on, live on, and work the land with very little say about it. If the noble sold the land or gave it to someone else, the serf went with the land- in that essence, a serf was truly property. (The only ability that a serf had to legally leave the land was if he was able to get permission from his 'lord'.) One benefit that a serf did have was that he could pass on his 'land' to his children... however, that didn't change that fact that the land and his children were owned by the Lord of the Manor. A serf was required to work the land and pay rent for it to the lord (which was usually paid in agricultural products.) A serf also had to pay dues to the manor if they wanted to cut wood, use the common bakery or mill, etc... Other work that the Lord of the Manor could require from a serf was misc labor services in the manorial land (the land the lord kept for his use) for a certain number of days- fix fences, roofs, etc... The usual number of required days was three a week. The Lords were the authority and the lawmakers of the manor. They were the judges over disputes, the disciplinarian of crimes, and the Lord was expected to above all protect his serfs from harm... such as marauding vikings or other groups. The Lord would also be obligated to try and fix damage due to natural disasters such as fire or flood and to protect the Catholic church in his lands as well.

Another aspect or social 'level' of Feudalism is the vassal. A vassal was an individual with a slightly different 'job' than a serf. A vassal was 'given' land by a lord in exchange for an oath of loyalty and the obligation to give the lord military support and protection. A vassal could 'give' his land to his heirs if they were old enough, but the vow would need to be renewed to the Lord at that time... the vow would have to be remade with each person and was not 'inherited'. Once the vow was made, a vassal was obliged to give military service, give advice and counsel to the lord about military or manor matters, to give aid if the lord incurred unusual expenses such as military campaigns and of course, to provide hospitality to the lord if he was to come for a visit- they were to be treated as royalty! In exchange, the feudal lord would give the vassal (most times) land that the vassal could use to make income and even have his own serfs. Vassals would also be required to provide military soldiers to the lord if their holdings were big enough. A vassal tended to be a lesser noble, but still not of the peasant class...

This system and social structure was fairly stable for a long period of time. Those in power kept it and the peasants would (like most of us) try to find a way to be successful in a limiting and oppressive environment. It was only with several natural disasters that this system would have its first severe challenge. One of those challenges was in the year of 1315 and is quite notable as the beginning of a deadly famine in northern Europe. Europe at this time was a mostly agricultural economy and so any kind of food shortage would have large ramifications for the population. This famine was devastating enough that the combined northern states of Europe would take several years to fully recover. There are several factors that helped contribute to the devastation that this famine had. One factor was weather itself... the spring of 1315 was mostly bad weather (rain and cool temperatures which didn't allow for a good beginning growth in the crops. This in turn led to almost universal crop failures all across the northern European continent – and as the economy and eating was based upon these crops, this was a very scary thing indeed. Peasants already found that the majority of what they were able to grow had to be given in taxes to the church or to the lord of the manor. If they didn't grow enough to have extra... they would have nothing to eat or even to save as seed to grow the next year. A crop failure during this time would have had devastating effects. Add to that the fact that the population at this time was at an historical high... so there were many more people percentage-wise to feed with the same land and techniques of growing then there had been in the past. This meant that even with a small shortage of food, some people would necessarily go hungry. By 1316, all the peasants would have found themselves hungry with no food reserves and this in turn would force them to resort to desperate means- whether it was crime, poaching, killing of needed animals, etc.... some even resorted to cannibalism and some members of 'elderly' populations would starve themselves to leave more food for the younger people. Other factors that contributed to these problem were that many kings during this time didn't really have an effective way of dealing with any major crisis affecting the country they governed. The Catholic church would also take some of the blame for the famines as prayers and other 'interventions' were not successful. So this famine would help erode the power and unquestioned authority of both kings and popes because neither group could or did deal effectively with the crisis.

So how did these natural disasters affect manorialism? The large scale deaths that came with the famines and almost continuous wars had taken their toll on the poor and those who were simply trying to survive through the never ending crises. During these times, many kings had started to really collect and cement an absolute power that had only been seen a few times in the past during large empires. This absolute power took away from the power of the 'lords' or nobles and gave the kings the might to control their domains and their land... whereas in feudalism, a knight might feel a lot more loyalty to the lord he knew than the distant king. The growth of towns as a different and successful economic policy also gave alternatives to the rural economy. But the disasters had also killed ALOT of people... so labor was no longer overabundant. Instead, those who gave labor now had more options (in theory). Yes, a peasant was legally obligated to stay on the land for the lord that he worked for, but if you could escape to a town and get work there you could eventually get your freedom. You could escape and go work for another lord who would pay you better wages than your current lord because the noble was desperate for labor. Trade had developed and you could make your living from more than just tilling the ground for someone else. Also, as the population began to grow again people began to move out of the manorial lands to other close land and these peasants would not be considered serfs. Money and trade would change how you could get paid for your labor. So, as the peasants started to make changes, towns and trade grew and change happened economically around the country. Also, as the 'Kings' became true absolute monarchs, manorialism was undermined and slowly defeated.

Feudalism itself was undermined and defeated in a few steps- most of the same steps that destroyed manorialism as the manor system was an essential element of this system. Feudalism itself is a system that helped to establish stability in oaths of loyalty and honor to other nobles or kings. By ending many of the wars between the noble class, it was better for the countries themselves as well as the peasants who tended to take the brunt of noble 'ambition'. The rise of towns, free men and the return of money to the economy eroded the strong, unyielding relationships that were so important in feudalism. Lords no longer had full control over all the economy on their lands and cities, etc... they might not have any control over at all. A moneyed economy allowed nobles to train and hire armies so that not only were the armies more effective, but they were not taking from the people who were growing food and had no wish to fight. The rise of education during the High Middle Ages as well as the previous disasters also eroded some of the need for feudalism by changing the mindset of ordinary people which influenced people to start to question tradition, hierarchy and the Catholic church. In essence, feudalism as a system was too rigid and unyielding to be able to survive and adapt to the subtle changes in the society that it was trying to control.

Whew! Again, this was a very short and simplistic way of looking at this subject... What are your thoughts?

Brief Views of the Early Medieval World Part II: The Decline of the Roman Empire, Monarchs, and Islam

This post is the second part of some brief paragraphs on different aspects of the medieval world and the people and religions that helped to create the world we enjoy today. I hope you enjoy....

It was during the medieval time that the Islamic religion rose to greater prominence. Islam actually has the same roots as Christianity and Judaism as these three religions can be traced back to the Patriarch Abraham. Islam was a family-oriented religion stressing ties to family over ties to clan and giving men the ability to have more than one wife. This helped protect women in this society that had not had a male protector and probably also helped increase the birthrate helping create more expansion internally for the religion itself. The religion of Islam as well was born with both political and religious arms which would make it harder to eliminate and giving it sufficient 'room' for rapid expansion... In contrast, Christianity had several centuries of persecution and discrimination due to its religious only status until Christianity was able to gain a political foothold as well. Another explanation for the rapid expansion could also be the rapid military expansion of the Arab empire soon after the death of the founder and prophet of Islam, Mohammed. Another positive quirk about Islam is that its leaders rarely felt the need to force people to convert and areas ruled by Muslim leaders tended to have a high degree of religious tolerance- a far cry form what we may sometimes see today in Muslim communities... and may also be why the areas that Islam originally 'conquered' stayed Muslim from that time until today as conversions were sincere and not necessarily forced on the populations around them. That said, religious tolerance was not absolute and while Islam was a minority, Islamic rulers would tax members of all other religions living in their communities and cities. It also should be noted that Islam and Christianity have a few similar doctrines, such as one God and a strong moral code, which were very attractive to people during that time. Also, Islamic leaders tended to keep many things about their population's day to day life the same. The Byzantine empire didn't change a lot under their leadership as the leaders kept much of the previous culture and just used and defined it on their own terms.

There are almost too many intellectual gains made in the Muslim world during this time to list! It is a fact that the Arab societies in the Eastern part of the empire became places of learning and scientific advancement... achieving far more in these areas than anything in the western portion of the empire. Many advances in medicine and science that we have learned about from the medieval time period came from the eastern empire... not the west. Many of the ancient texts that both scientists and historians study for knowledge were preserved and saved in the Eastern empire- the western empire was more likely to burn or destroy ancient texts rather than save them. This was brought about by the needs of the new Arab leaders who needed to try and control populations with diverse languages and cultures. It was due to these challenges that the need for translations began in earnest so that the rulers of the empire and the local governments could have access to the knowledge that they felt they needed. By the mid eighth century, Muslim communities were flourishing and these communities were growing and thriving in knowledge in the areas of education, literature, science, mathematics and even medicine. An example is that the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle would have been made accessible to anyone in the eastern empire due to the widespread reading and translation of his works, but at the same time the West had changed so dramatically and become so dependent on surviving that very few people would have even heard of Aristotle or his work- education really can't be considered important if you can't feed yourself. Education was prized and the oldest university that is still functioning today is over 1100 years old and is called the Qarawiyyin in Morocco. And it was mostly from Islamic Spain that the Western world would slowly begin to get this knowledge and intellect.

The Merovingian dynasty that controlled the Frankish throne had been struggling with the chaos caused by its civil wars for several years by the time that the Carolingians arrived on the scene. However, a unique position in the Merovingian government gave the Carolingians an edge in their quest to control the aristocracy and control the throne. This unique advantage was a position within the Merovingian court called the 'mayor of the palace'. When the position had been created early in the dynasty, it was filled with the man who would be in charge of the king's household and the 'mayor' was also responsible for managing all royal affairs in the king's name- this also included granting land and other favors to the noble classes to keep them loyal to the king. But over time the power of the kings weakened and the monarchy became less secure and absolute. It was in this climate that the individual in this position gained more power... and this power would eventually be greater than the power of the king he served. Many of the individuals in this position were Carolingians and this position tended to be passed down from one Carolingian to another. It was using this position that the individuals in this position would use the prestige and powers it contained to make the nobles and the aristocracy loyal to them and not the king. And it was a man in this position as 'mayor of the palace' named Charles Martel that would eventually increase the size of the kingdom and win his heirs the right to the kingship by defeating the advancing Muslims in 732 AD. His win for Christendom was able to win him the support of the Pope and the Catholic church who then helped establish his legitimacy as the ruler. Charles Martel's son, Pippin the Short was then named King on his father's death... and the Merovingian dynasty ended with a quiet 'sigh'....


Charlemagne, another member of the Carolingian dynasty, successfully linked politics and religion in his reign and used religion as a way to help him cement his power. Upon his conversion, he was a 'zealous' missionary and followed a strict policy of 'conversion or die' to all of the people that he fought. As part of his 'foreign policy', Charlemagne continued the policies of his father towards the church and he became the 'warrior' arm of the church- their protector, etc... He used religion to prop up his rule with elaborate rituals and as well as the 'support' of the Pope. One example was his coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800- this showed everyone that he was 'God's choice' for ruler and also linked him heavily with the church. Some have noted that his reign was a reign of pure conquest... 'by the sword and the cross'. Another example was Charlemagne’s decisions to convey meetings of church officials as well as privileged laymen to consider his agenda and when it was agreed upon he expected not only the laymen but the bishops of the church to help enforce this agenda. Some of his reforms were to strengthen the Catholic church's hierarchy and clarifying their powers- this seems like quite a big deal for a secular ruler to help set the agendas and form he rules that a different spiritual organization would follow. He also built lots of churches and made not following the Catholic faith a capital offense. This ruler truly wanted to create a stability in his lands that had not existed for several decades and he used three major ideas to do so; culture, Christianity, and the good traditions of the Roman past.

It was very important to Charlemagne to connect himself to the good legacy of the Roman empire. Some parts of it, such as education, the use of Latin, the Christian church, and even the peace and unity that were known and romanticized about the thoughts of the Roman empire. He stressed the traditions of this time and saw value in education and classical knowledge. In fact, Pope Leo III called Charlemagne a 'great and peace giving emperor' at the later's coronation...giving Charlemagne a symbolic title and beginning the time we now call the 'Holy Roman Empire'.

Charlemagne's new title of Holy Roman Emperor gave him the respect of the Byzantine Emperor. He was also an admirer of the knowledge held by the eastern empire and copied the eastern architecture for buildings and attempted to start a large educational system. It is also known that Charlemagne at one point has hopes of adding the Byzantine empire to his territory and tried to marry one of the royal women in the eastern empire to strengthen his position. As the emperor of the eastern part has ambitions to also own the 'western' lands again, the relationship between Charlemagne and the Byzantine Emperor must have been fairly tense and distrustful at times. At one point, the tension came to actual warfare, but for the most part, both of these empire co existed peacefully after an agreement was reach between both emperors.

Charlemagne's relations with the Islamic empire are actually a little complicated. The Islamic Empire had control over the pertinent parts of Africa and of Spain. Charlemagne's agreement and ceding of some land to the Byzantine Empire gave this ruler a large empire that had no access to the Mediterranean sea and was surrounded by the Byzantine and Islamic empires. The Islamic empire when looking at a map appears to have been bigger than both Charlemagne's empire and the Byzantine empire combined... and the Islamic empire had a lot of wealth and resources. Much thought and care was given by Charlemagne to a 'buffer zone' between his empire and Spain to try and keep peace between these two kingdoms. The main reason that Charlemagne didn't have to fight the Islamists in his time was that Charles Martel had stopped their continued aggressive conquests of Europe in the land known as France several years before the reign of Charlemagne. His approach seemed to be to mostly to try to leave them alone and try to be prepared in case they didn't.

Brief Views of the Early Medieval World Part I: The Decline of the Roman Empire, Monarchs, and Christianity

This post is a bit convoluted.... well, I thought I would warn you early. :) It is a hodgepodge of information about the different rulers of early medieval Europe and the rise of Christianity... and the gradual decline and fall of the Roman empire. (There are some historians that suggest that the Roman empire didn't actually collapse, but instead continued on in the rise of the Roman Catholic church... there certainly seems to be some good evidence for this perspective... but I digress.)

There are many important legacies that Diocletian and Constantine gave to the medieval world. Both of these men were emperors of the Great Roman empire as it was beginning to 'fall' or decline. Both of these men ruled in a time of crisis for the empire and it was their decisions to try and save the empire and their reforms that really helped to shape the land known as Europe in the early Middle Ages. One of the major difficulties that these emperors faced was trouble with the Roman army. The empire itself was too large to be easily defended and military service was no longer considered to be an honorable career choice. It was not an easy life – quite hard as a matter of fact- and so finding people to do it when it was no longer honorable either and no good promises of land, pensions, etc... became quite challenging. So outside warriors would be hired but as with any people who are hired for money, they are more loyal to the people around them and those that pay them... so not necessarily loyal to the roman emperor himself. Other difficulties that they faced was the diminishing amount of slave labor and the inequality of the economic system in the different areas of the empire. As the Roman empire stopped fighting wars because they had conquered so much, they no longer had huge amounts of captives to make slaves. And some areas of the empire had managed to achieve economic stability while others really depended on these economically wealthy areas to sustain them. This sharp division of secure economies, cheap labor shortages, and the added burden of differing groups of people attacking the large and under-protected borders of the empire would have created quite a crisis for these emperors to deal with. Diocletian came to power from his position in the Roman army – a good example of how joining the army did create opportunities for the underclasses as he was from a peasant family in the area that is now the former Yugoslavia. He managed to cement absolute power for himself (which many leaders for the last 100 years had not) and he used that influence and power to push back on the barbarians who were raiding and compromising the borders and the towns near them. He reconstructed the government of the empire into a position of absolute power that was 'divinely' appointed. Using ceremony and created 'pomp and tradition/ceremony', Diocletian created a persona of the competent Roman ruler which Constantine was to continue with great success. He also created a class system which required all peasants to be bound to the land they had been on. Diocletian divided the empire into two large parts that could be more easily controlled. Constantine would continue every policy of Diocletian and added more reforms of his own. He himself became a Christian and made it the majority religion in his lands by force over paganism. Constantine the Great gathered much power and control over the fledgling Catholic church and even help to establish official church doctrine – an example is the Council of Nicea called in 325 CE to establish 'standard' beliefs for the church.

Together the general accomplishments of these emperors was to stabilize the borders and to create economic and social opportunity. The restructured governments helped keep their subjects in line and a more peaceful existence in the kingdom. In some cases, they were able to win back lost territories and to restore area to the empire They also were truly able set up the empire in such a way that 1/2 of it lived on in success for almost 800 years after the other half 'fell'. That is an achievement in itself. :)

There were a few different things that allowed for the development of a strong Christian church with specific orthodoxy and hierarchy. One thing that helped was the suppression of these early Christian groups, but was also due to the suppression and exiling of many Jewish groups. The religion that we see as Christianity in the beginning was seen as a form of Jewish heresy... Jesus Christ was Jewish, many of the laws followed the Jewish laws, etc... When Rome attempted to split up Jewish communities to give the government more power over the Jews, they inadvertently spread this heresy to a much larger area and made it much more difficult to destroy. The idea and development of church hierarchy came from the events up to and after the death of the Christ. When Jesus Christ was on the earth, he was the prophet and unquestioned leader. Upon his death by crucifixion and his 'resurrection', the first 'male' he saw was Peter the apostle. It was this experience and the words of Jesus that Peter was to be 'the rock upon the church's foundations' that caused Peter to become the new leader of the fledgling church. The organization of the twelve apostles was still used and as Peter or other apostles died they were replaced. Within the next few centuries, tradition about the resurrection of Jesus began to change a bit to state that Jesus only spoke with the apostles after his resurrection and no one else which was used to give the growing leaders of the Catholic church- the pope as the man who inherited his leadership for Peter the apostle, the bishops and cardinals who inherited the positions of the apostles and other high placed missionaries such as Paul- legitimacy as the heirs of these great founding 'fathers'. And as the church grew in membership, size and diversity, it became important to church leaders as well as secular leaders to control and standardize the beliefs of the Christian church. When some of these standards or orthodoxy had been established, it gave both secular and political leaders more power to deal with the other differing beliefs. New laws and persecutions would cause believers to either adhere to the new orthodoxy... or suffer for non-compliance. When necessary over time, more 'orthodoxy' would be added to help control other splinter groups (or groups with differing Christian ideas) over the years.

Christianity was so appealing to converts for many reasons. One thing that is clear is that it was most appealing to people who were unhappy and dissatisfied with the current government or civilization around them. This can be seen in the high percentages of converts who were members of alienated classes – women, slaves, immigrants and free people without a lot of rights or money. Christianity maintained a belief that all members of this spiritual order were 'equal' whether you were a slave or a member of the aristocracy which would attract many who were in the lesser classes. In many ways in the Roman empire, belonging to the official religion was seen as a form of patriotism so belonging to this 'Jewish splinter group' was not looked kindly upon. Christianity also offered spiritual guidance, a moral code, and a much better potential afterlife for its believers than the abstract philosophy and emotionless expression of the Roman pagan religion. Some historians also believe that due to the similarities between one of the pagan religions (Mithraism) and Christianity, people were more likely to convert to Christianity because its major beliefs and ideals were already known to the population and were not new ideas. One last idea that is believed to have converted followers to this religion is that Jesus Christ was a real person and as such, evidence for what he said or did could be found. Most other religions had no large amounts of evidence that could conclusively back them up.

The Roman empire was a empire of vast proportions of land and differing geography... and it was a land full of diverse people. The only unifying force was the government itself and this force would be less 'unifying' the farther you lived from it and it's influence. There was nothing that really connected any of these different groups or people to each other except their differences... which were more conductive to division and war rather than peace and unity. Clovis I may have had a few reasons for conversion including belief, but he was shrewd enough to recognize that as he continued to conquer lands and build his own empire, he needed something to unify these diverse groups of Franks in able to be able to rule them effectively. He was successful in both of these goals. He conquered the land of Gaul which we now call France and toppled the last roman emperor in 486 CE. By forcing conversion to Christianity, his people now had a common spiritual outlook and a way that they could be more easily controlled. It was also rumored that he had looked at other Christian religions (Arianism), but he chose the Catholic church and he became (as far as we know) the first Catholic ruler. And as a member of the rising Catholic church, he would also have the church heirerchy's support for his rule.

During the decline of the Roman empire, the Germanic tribes to the North gathered strength even as Roman officials continued to call these Germanic groups barbarians and uncivilized. The amusing irony is that while these Germanic groups did eventually overthrow the roman emperor.... the fact that the western empire lasted as long as it did was because of the military might of these groups that had become the majority members of all the armies for the Roman emperor in the Western empire. The groups that today we would call 'Germanic' would have been similar in culture, religious practices and in language- but those would be the only similarities. Under Clovis I, these tribes became united and incorporated other groups of people into their cultures. When these groups were not unified, each group had a leader who served in the capacity of the leader of religious function, military commander, judge... basically a king in most ways although the leader of these small groups was usually elected or agreed upon in some way by the eligible members of the tribe. With the success of Clovis and Christianity that brought about the unification of these groups, the leader quite literally became a king and was no longer 'electable' by his people. The society of the German peoples was hierarchical with laws that were more lenient for wealthier or more noble offenders, and women would only gain any form of class from their closest male relative- such as father or husband. Warfare was fairly 'rare' and most forms of violence were for easy gain- such as raids on neighboring villages before unification. Economics was mostly agricultural and hierarchical as well with peasants bearing the brunt of the labor and food production.

Most historians mark the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE when the emperor was overthrown by a German Chieftain. Certainly describing this slow and petering decline as a 'fall' seems slightly inaccurate. The study of the ending of the Roman empire in the west reminds me of a cancer patient. The problems started small and and then spread... and even with a few great rulers who were able to make reforms in attempts to eradicate the cancer, it continued to spread until the last gasp of life was gone and the empire was no more. At least when I hear the word 'fall' I imagine a group, city or territories being quickly and forcibly taken over by another large and powerful group.... a very clear defining line between the before and after so to speak. With the Fall of the Western Roman empire, there is no true defining line except for potentially where the 'last gasp' came- at the fall of the last emperor to Clovis and his army. Those are just my thoughts though. Another part of the gradual separation of these two large empires was the rise of the strength of the Islamic religion that started to become prominent both religiously and politically in the eastern part of the empire, which caused more separation between the two emperors and their people.

The Eastern Roman Empire had so many advantages over the Western Empire so its ability to survive for almost 800 years more is not necessarily remarkable. For quite a few years before the collapse of the Western empire, the leader in the East was the stronger emperor due to his empire's superior economy. The survival of the Western empire during its last few years was really based on the generosity and willingness of the Eastern empire to provide it with money, military help, etc.... So it comes as no surprise that the Western empire would fall if the emperor of the Eastern part of the empire decided not to continue the aid... which is what eventually brought the downfall of the Western empire. The Eastern empire had a steady tax base, fewer problems with outsider invasions and was generally more urban that the Western empire.

Two rulers of the Byzantine Empire really had several outstanding accomplishments during their rule – Justinian and Theodora. One thing of note is that Justinian used a lot of military might and kept his focus on reclaiming the lands around the 'Roman' lake or Mediterranean Sea. It had been lost before his rule and it was not an easy thing to gain back.... but he was successful during his reign. Justinian also helped reform Christianity and the church. One focus for Justinian was to pursue and force the idea on the people that an absolute emperor should be the status quo. Unlike many of the kings or 'emperors' in the west, Justinian was educated and was deeply religious and he used his power, position and the wealth of the empire to create beautiful churches. His total reformation of the law, known as the Justinian code, became the basis for civil law in the empire that is actually still used in many ways today (over 1000 years later.)

Before the disputes that would lead to the split of the early Christian Catholic church, the leaders of both the east and western churches would discuss orthodoxy and different church issues. One major religious dispute that was to help cause the eventual split between the two parts of the Christian church was based on who was the ultimate leader of the Catholic Church. At this time, there was a patriarch of Constantinople and a patriarch in Rome- both men argued that they were the true heir of St Peter (Peter the apostle) and therefore the true 'Pope' or Patriarch of the Catholic Church. The apostle Peter had been martyred in Rome and so the Patriarch of Rome felt that the head of the church should be in Rome where the apostle had died and where his grave was. The Patriarch of Constantinople disagreed and felt that since the first Christian Emperor (Constantine) had declared the city of Constantinople the 'New Rome', the patriarch of that city was the true heir to the apostle. Also, the city of Constantinople was in the stable part of the Eastern empire... whereas Rome was in the disintegrating and unstable Western empire. Other differences included differences in language and circumstances based on the slow estrangement of the western empire from the eastern empire... in a sense, the two sides became different enough that they began to distrust one another. In the Western empire, the pope was the head and all loyalty went to him whereas in the east disputes were only brought to Rome if the patriarchs in the east could not solve the dispute... clearly a different situation. Another was a dispute over the whether the Holy Spirit comes from the Father only or whether it comes from both the Father and the Son. Over time, There were several 'petty' disputes as the patriarch in Rome refused to agree with decisions made by the patriarch in Constantinople. These differences would continue until the Christian Church 'split' and became two churches. The first part would become the Roman Catholic church and would be led by the Pope. The church in the east would be headed up by the Byzantine emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. In a sense, this schism was very much more of an human and emotional schism, not a schism based on doctrine or church policy.

Charlemagne, a member of the Carolingian dynasty, successfully linked politics and religion in his reign and used religion as a way to help him cement his power. Upon his conversion, he was a 'zealous' missionary and followed a strict policy of 'conversion or die' to all of the people that he fought. As part of his 'foreign policy', Charlemagne continued the policies of his father towards the church and he became the 'warrior' arm of the church- their protector, etc... He used religion to prop up his rule with elaborate rituals and as well as the 'support' of the Pope. One example was his coronation by Pope Leo III on Christmas day in 800- this showed everyone that he was 'God's choice' for ruler and also linked him heavily with the church. Some have noted that his reign was a reign of pure conquest... 'by the sword and the cross'. Another example was Charlemagne’s decisions to convey meetings of church officials as well as privileged laymen to consider his agenda and when it was agreed upon he expected not only the laymen but the bishops of the church to help enforce this agenda. Some of his reforms were to strengthen the Catholic church's hierarchy and clarifying their powers- this seems like quite a big deal for a secular ruler to help set the agendas and form he rules that a different spiritual organization would follow. He also built lots of churches and made not following the Catholic faith a capital offense. This ruler truly wanted to create a stability in his lands that had not existed for several decades and he used three major ideas to do so; culture, Christianity, and the good traditions of the Roman past.

Hope you enjoyed this post and learned a few things to boot. Stay tuned for Part two in a few days. :)