The Intolerant Middle Ages: A Reader 1487524129, 9781487524128

Citation preview

THE INTOLERANT MIDDLE AGES

READINGS IN MEDIEVAL CIVILIZATIONS AND CULTURES: XXIII series editor: Paul Edward Dutton

This page intentionally left blank

THE INTOLERANT MIDDLE AGES A READER

edited by

EUGENE SMELYANSKY

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

© University of Toronto Press 2020 Toronto  Buffalo  London utorontopress.com Printed in the U.S.A. ISBN 978-1-4875-0612-4 (cloth) ISBN 978-1-4875-2412-8 (paper)

ISBN 978-1-4875-3334-2 (EPUB) ISBN 978-1-4875-3333-5 (PDF)

All rights reserved. The use of any part of this publication reproduced, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, or stored in a retrieval system, without prior written consent of the publisher—or in the case of photocopying, a license from Access Copyright, the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency—is an infringement of the copyright law. Library

and

Archives Canada Cataloguing

in

Publication

Title: The intolerant Middle Ages : a reader / edited by Eugene Smelyansky. Names: Smelyansky, Eugene, 1984–, editor. Series: Readings in medieval civilizations and cultures ; 23. Description: Series statement: Readings in medieval civilizations and cultures ; XXIII | Includes   bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20200229672 | Canadiana (ebook) 20200229885 |   ISBN 9781487524128 (paper) | ISBN 9781487506124 (cloth) | ISBN 9781487533335 (PDF) |   ISBN 9781487533342 (EPUB) Subjects: LCSH: Persecution—Europe—History—Middle Ages, 500–1500—Sources. | LCSH:   Violence—Europe—History—Middle Ages, 500–1500—Sources. | LCSH: Toleration—   Europe—History—Middle Ages, 500–1500—Sources. Classification: LCC BR1600 .I58 2020 | DDC 272.09409/02—dc23 We welcome comments and suggestions regarding any aspect of our publications—please feel free to contact us at [email protected] or visit us at utorontopress.com. Every effort has been made to contact copyright holders; in the event of an error or omission, please notify the publisher. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council, an agency of the Government of Ontario.

Funded by the Financé par le Government gouvernement du Canada of Canada

CON T E N T S LIST OF FIGURES   •   ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS   •   xi INTRODUCTION   •   xiii CHAPTER ONE:  PRECURSORS AND ORIGINS   •   1 1. Christians Accused of Participating in Scandalous Rituals   •   3 2. The Martyrdom of Saint Perpetua   •   6 3. Emperor Constantine Condemns Arianism   •   10 4. Saint Augustine on the Grounds for Religious Persecution   •   12 5. Christianity Triumphant: The Theodosian Code on Christianity and Paganism   •   16 CHAPTER TWO:  ANTI-JUDAISM AND PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS   •   19 6. “Slay Them Not”: Saint Augustine on the Jews   •   21 7. Anti-Jewish Legislation from the Visigothic Code   •   24 8. The Massacre in Mainz at the Beginning of the First Crusade   •   27 9. Blood Libel: The Murder of William of Norwich   •   32 10. A Papal Response: Gregory X against the Blood Libel   •   37 11. A Jewish Woman in a Christian Miracle Story   •   39 12. King Otakar II Promises Royal Protection to the Jews in Bohemia and Austria   •   42 13. Well-Poisoning Accusations against the Jews   •   47 14. The Massacre of the Jews in Strasbourg   •   50 CHAPTER THREE: HERESY AND INQUISITION   •   55 15. Heresy in the Carolingian World: Gottschalk of Orbais   •   57 16. Guibert of Nogent and the Heretics of Soissons   •   60 17. Bernard of Clairvaux Preaches against Heresy   •   62 18. A Cathar Origin Story in the Testimony of Arnaud Sicre   •   65 19. Origins of the Waldensians   •   69 20. A Canon of the Fourth Lateran Council Concerning Heresy   •   71 21. The Inquisitor Bernard Gui at Work   •   74 22. Heretical Tricks: Inquisitor Nicholas Eymerich on the Art of Interrogation   •   77 23. Individual Resistance: Bernard Clergue  •   80

v

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

24. Cooperation and Resistance: Arnaud Sicre Infiltrates a Heretical Group   •   84 25. Papal Prohibitions against Beguines and Beghards at the Council of Vienne   •   88 26. The Fruits of Clerical Imagination: A Heretical Orgy   •   91 27. Persecutions of Waldensians in Late Medieval German Cities   •   93 CHAPTER FOUR:  EXTERNAL OTHERS: CONTACTS, INTOLERANCE, AND THE MAKING OF MEDIEVAL EUROPE   •   97 28. The Carolingian Conquest of Saxony: Two Perspectives   •   99 29. Gerald of Wales on the Irish   •   102 30. Papal Blessing for Henry II’s Conquest of Ireland   •   106 31. Keeping the Peace after the Conquest: Statutes of the Parliament of Dublin   •   108 32. Medieval Europe Old and New: Otto of Freising Describes Northern Italy and Hungary   •   110 33. The Duke of Lithuania on the Teutonic Order   •   113 CHAPTER FIVE:  INTERRELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN THE MEDITERRANEAN   •   117 34. The Martyrs of Cordoba   •   119 35. The Dangers of Early Medieval Pilgrimage: The Journey of Saint Willibald   •   123 36. Depictions of Muslims in The Song of Roland   •   126 37. Interfaith Coexistence in Crusader Jerusalem   •   130 38. Coexistence and Exclusion in the Siete Partidas   •   135 39. Pope Innocent III Forbids the Venetian Merchants to Trade with the Muslims   •   142 40. Frederick II’s Trade Agreement with Tunisia   •   143 41. Accusations against the Genoese Merchants in Service of the Mamluk Sultan   •   146 CHAPTER SIX:  PEOPLE ON THE MARGINS OF MEDIEVAL SOCIETY   •   149 42. Agobard of Lyon: On the Baptism of Jewish Slaves   •   151 43. Poverty as Piety: The Rule of Saint Francis   •   153 44. Critique of the Mendicant Friars: William of St-Amour’s On the Dangers of the Final Days   •   157 45. Medieval Serfdom and Manumission   •   160 46. Punishments for Impregnating a Female Slave in Genoa   •   162 vi

contents

47. Siena Acts against the Poor during the Famine of 1329   •   164 48. Living in Poverty in Florence   •   167 49. The World Turned Upside Down: Social Anxiety during and after the Plague   •   171 50. Wage Control after the Plague: Ordinance of the Laborers  •   175 51. Ordinances against the “Jews, Lepers, and Swine” and the Poor in Late Medieval London   •   178 52. Christine de Pizan on the Virtues of Toleration   •   180 CHAPTER SEVEN:  DISEASE AND DISABILITY IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE   •   189 53. Disability and Charity in Piers Plowman   •   191 54. False Disability on the Streets of London   •   195 55. Rules of the Maison-Dieu in Pontoise   •   197 56. Physician Gilbert the Englishman on the Symptoms of Leprosy   •   199 57. Humbert of Romans Preaches to the Lepers   •   202 58. The Ritual of Exclusion for a Leper   •   204 59. The Leper Plot against Christendom   •   207 CHAPTER EIGHT:  FROM THE HOLY TO THE SINFUL: ATTITUDES TOWARD WOMEN   •   211 60. A Prostitute Saint: Saint Mary of Egypt   •   213 61. The Trial of Thiota, a False Prophetess   •   215 62. Women in the Sicilian Laws of Frederick II    •   216 63. Women and the Ideals of Courtly Love   •   222 64. Good Housekeeping: A Parisian Husband Instructs His Young Wife   •   225 65. Jacoba Felicie: A Female Physician on Trial   •   229 66. Marital Problems: An Innkeeper’s Wife Leaves Him   •   233 67. Bernardino of Siena Preaches on Marriage   •   237 CHAPTER NINE:  THE CONTROL OF SEXUALITY   •   243 68. Laws of Justinian Concerning Same-Sex Acts and Blasphemy   •   245 69. A Cross-Dressing Saint: Marina/Marinus   •   248 70. Punishments for Illicit Sexuality from a Medieval Penitential   •   250 71. Prostitution and Religious Reform in Prague   •   252 72. Illegal Prostitution in London   •   255 73. Confession of a Muslim Prostitute in Valencia   •   257 vii

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

74. 75. 76. 77.

Confession of Arnaud of Verniolle   •   260 The Trial of Katherina Hetzeldorfer   •   266 Testimony of Rolandina Roncaglia   •   269 Testimony of Eleanor/John Rykener   •   271

SOURCES   •   273 INDEX OF TOPICS   •   279

viii

F IGU R E S 1.1 1.2 2.1 3.1 4.1 5.1 6.1 6.2 7.1 7.2 8.1 9.1

Divine origins of spiritual and temporal authority   •   1 Funeral oil lamp depicting a young woman as a Christian martyr   •   6 The murder of Richard of Pontoise   •   19 Saint Dominic and the heretics   •   55 Mass baptism of the Saxons conquered by Emperor Charlemagne   •   97 Moses besieges a Muslim castle   •   117 Idealized works of charity   •   149 Portrait of Christine de Pizan from a fifteenth-century manuscript   •   181 Saint Martin shares his cloak with a beggar   •   189 A ward in Hôtel-Dieu Hospital in Paris   •   196 A crowd listening to a preaching apostle   •   211 An offender carted off to be punished   •   243

ix

This page intentionally left blank

AC K NOW L E DGM E N T S In the process of working on this collection, I have acquired many debts, large and small. I am particularly grateful to Natalie Fingerhut and Paul Dutton for suggesting this project to me and for guiding me through the process of putting it together with the utmost patience. I am equally grateful to James B. Given, my Doktorvater, for his unwavering support and encouragement, and for the generous permission to include his own translations in this volume. Nancy McLoughlin offered friendship and mentorship in good times and in hard ones. Manlio Perugini, Caterina Minghetti, and Christoph Cluse have all been very helpful at different stages of this project. Two anonymous reviewers made important and welcome suggestions, which—I hope—made this collection more useful to its readers. My colleagues in the Roots of Contemporary Issues Program at Washington State University’s History Department provided me with friendship and diversion from the overwhelming—at times—materials in this reader. Finally, I owe the biggest debt to my wife, Amanda, for her constant love, friendship, and support over the years.

xi

This page intentionally left blank

I N T RODUC T ION To understand the history of persecution and intolerance in medieval Europe, one first needs to understand the history of its dominant religion, Christianity. How did a religion whose origins were intimately tied to the suffering and martyrdom of its own persecuted members by the Roman state become one that persecuted others? Indeed, since its origins, early Christianity was a minority religion struggling to gain followers in a larger and often unwelcoming Mediterranean world. Only with the Edict of Milan (313), promulgated by emperors Constantine (r. 306–12) and Licinius (r. 308–13), did Christianity begin to grow and flourish under imperial protection. This watershed moment, however, saw Christianity move from the position of the persecuted to that of the persecutor; within years of the Edict of Milan, Christian communities around the Mediterranean began to argue over the definition of correct—and, conversely, incorrect—belief. The first assembly of Christian bishops which gathered under imperial supervision in Nicaea (325) succeeded not only in spelling out the definition of Christianity but also in condemning its first heretics; inclusion and exclusion became permanent features of the ascendant religious culture. This collection of readings is devoted to exploring various forms of intolerance and even open persecution of various religious and social groups in the Middle Ages. It can be argued that the European Middle Ages as a whole constituted an intolerant society. This volume invites the readers to consider the context, motives, and methods which shaped and enabled the intolerant Middle Ages. It will also examine the targets of this intolerance. While it might be tempting to draw a straight line from Nicaea to the persecutions of the Middle Ages, the centuries between the political collapse of the western Roman Empire at the end of Late Antiquity and the tenth century saw relatively few persecutions of heretics or other minority groups. Only in the eleventh and twelfth centuries do we see a marked increase in persecution. According to R.I. Moore, who in his influential book The Formation of a Persecuting Society (Blackwell, 1987) explained and characterized this development as “the formation of a persecuting society,” this intensification of intolerance came out of the strengthening of medieval institutions (both secular and ecclesiastical) and out of the decision of those in power to take deliberate action against those of different races, religions, and social statuses. Just as medieval western and central Europe became more engaged with the world beyond its boundaries through the networks of commercial and intellectual exchange, its papal and royal governments began to consolidate formidable administrative and coercive powers. The diversity of medieval cultural, intellectual, and religious expression prompted by the growth of cities, the rise of the universities, and the expansion of trade clashed with the creation of an imperial papacy, more rigid definitions xiii

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

of religious orthodoxy, and new methods of social control. The “persecuting society” required the ability to persecute and the desire to consolidate medieval Europe by excluding and persecuting the groups on its physical and symbolic margins. This suggests that in addition to a discourse which defined some groups as social, cultural, and religious “others,” or even a firm belief that these “others” endangered the community as a whole, an intolerant society required access to the tools of coercive power in order to persecute. Following the reform movement within the medieval Church and the rise of secular governments from the late eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, through councils, polemics and, later, the institutionalization of inquisitorial methods, the clergy was able to present those it deemed deviant (heretics, Jews and Muslims, lepers and prostitutes, among other groups) as belonging outside of the Christian community and therefore deserving of discrimination and repression. Even when some of the marginal groups were allowed to continue their existence—as were the Jewish communities, deemed particularly economically useful by the habitually cash-strapped ruling classes, or the prostitutes, whose activity was regulated but only partially tolerated—the very nature of their marginal position left them vulnerable to royal whim, reforming urges of urban governments, and popular outbursts of symbolic or ritualized violence. Moore’s study has redefined our approach to medieval intolerance and encouraged a lively scholarly dialogue since its first publication; subsequent studies have revised and fine-tuned his original thesis. For example, in Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages (Princeton University Press, 1996), David Nirenberg argues that acts of violence were often perpetrated by the mobs rather than the elites. In his study of interfaith Iberia, Nirenberg demonstrates that varying levels of interreligious violence were constant companions, not crises, of coexistence. It has, however, been argued that a general theory of persecution is too broad to accurately reflect the many peculiarities associated with the persecution of different minority groups. Whether scholars choose to agree or disagree with Moore’s concept of the Middle Ages as a “persecuting society,” his overall argument remains an important explanatory model for exploring intolerance in the Middle Ages. This collection’s title, The Intolerant Middle Ages, does not mean that medieval Europe was more intolerant than later periods or other societies outside Europe. This dangerous but influential misconception was once used to contrast the perceived barbarity of the medieval past with the allegedly enlightened progress of more recent centuries. It is intended, instead, to provide students of the Middle Ages with an extensive selection of readings that demonstrate that intolerance became—and subsequently remained—one of the defining features of medieval society. Despite pragmatic instances of toleration and periodic calls for abstaining from persecution on philosophical grounds, intolerance, exclusion, and coercion xiv

i n t ro d u c t i o n

permeated medieval society. Calls to unity for the many at the expense of exclusion of minorities were rationalized by the best minds of the age and normalized by their ubiquity. The appeal of persecution outlived the Middle Ages; once a “persecuting society” developed, it never truly went away and only gained in intensity as the technologies of coercion improved. This book presents its readers with a collection of historical documents devoted to various aspects of persecution and intolerance in the Middle Ages, inviting them to consider the mechanisms of intolerance involved in each text. Through these sources, it is possible to see a fuller picture not only of the intolerance during the period, both cataclysmic and quotidian, but also of the social, cultural, and religious diversity evident in the medieval world. The goal of this volume is to present instances of persecution and violence, as well as those relatively rare but significant episodes of toleration, toward an intentionally broad spectrum of people who are often imagined as existing at the margins of medieval society. The broad scope of texts included here demonstrates that these “marginal” groups influenced every aspect of medieval life. In addition to well-studied minority groups—medieval Jewish communities and heretics among them—this volume contains sources revealing the lives of the poor, the enslaved, the disabled, and those deemed sexually deviant. Other sources shed light on attitudes toward women, people on the geographic margins of western Europe, as well as the conflict and interactions between various Christian and Muslim groups on both sides of the Mediterranean. The volume also attempts to look beyond western Europe in order to present a geographically inclusive vision of the Middle Ages by including sources from central and eastern Europe and the Mediterranean world. While the first chapter presents readers with a selection of sources related to persecution during Late Antiquity—first of early Christian communities and later of heretics—this collection contains documents created chiefly in the High Middle Ages (about 1000–1300), a period which was marked by an increased scrutiny toward religious and social deviance, and in the Late Middle Ages (about 1300–1450), when there was an increased production of texts on the subject. By employing an intersectional approach to persecution and by including both its well-known and lesser-known targets, the collection suggests that similar mechanisms were involved in defining attitudes toward both of these groups. Indeed, although the sources are divided thematically into chapters, a significant amount of overlap among some of the readings from different chapters should provide readers—in particular, students interested in medieval minorities—with instructive opportunities for comparison. In most of the cases presented in this volume, the dynamic of persecution is one of intensification and bureaucratization by medieval governments, a process which began in the eleventh century and contributed to the creation of the medieval “persecuting society” described by Moore. xv

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

One can observe a similar dynamic in place on the imagined geographic boundaries of western Christendom. Beginning with the Carolingian conquest of Saxony in the late eighth century and especially during the High Middle Ages, western Europe carried its culture, religion, and social structure into Wales and Ireland, central and eastern Europe, and parts of Spain through conquest and colonization. This expansion was preceded by polemical attacks on the people living in the territories that were about to be taken over, as seen in Gerald of Wales’s portrayal of the Irish as sub-human, to similar rhetoric used to describe medieval Hungarians and Lithuanians. The “Reconquest” of the Iberian Peninsula and repeated attempts to establish lasting Christian control over the eastern Mediterranean left a significant number of documents related to violence, cooperation, and coexistence between Christians and Muslims in those regions, both as geopolitical and religious rivals and as lucrative trading partners. During the Late Middle Ages, intolerance became a frequent reaction to environmental, social, and religious crises. Responding to religious uncertainty brought about by the move of the papal court from Rome to Avignon, the Great Famine, and especially by the plague pandemic of 1348–51 (also known as the Black Death), medieval society demonstrated its continuing marginalization and intolerance of minority groups. Fear of and uncertainty about the deadly plague led to a conspiracy theory that blamed Jewish communities for spreading the contagion by poisoning water supplies; the resulting series of pogroms left an indelible mark on the religious landscape of late medieval Europe. Following the horrors of the plague, urban governments became more cognizant of the need to enforce not only physical but also moral purity among city dwellers, just as contemporary authors decried perceived redistribution of wealth and weakened social hierarchy brought about by the pandemic. The result of this shift toward social discipline, especially in urban settings, can be observed in a number of documents that disparage the lower classes, attempt to fix wages, and prescribe harsh punishments for illicit sexual practices. The majority of documents in this collection present medieval minorities from a hostile viewpoint and, therefore, need to be interpreted with particular care; these are complexities of interpretation that have long vexed scholars of medieval persecution. On the one hand, the oppression of various groups on the margins of medieval society produced a relatively large number of sources. These texts are often rich in detail and provide information on social strata unrepresented in other written records from the period. Indeed, the documents created as a result of persecutions often serve as the only evidence for the existence and experiences of some minorities; through them, we can gain a glimpse into daily life of a heretical community in the rural Pyrenees or—possibly—a transgender individual in mid-fourteenth-century Venice. In our own times, these glimpses of diversity may spark an interest in the Middle Ages among an xvi

i n t ro d u c t i o n

increasingly diverse body of college students. Teaching with and learning about these documents can also serve as a way to resist the image of the Middle Ages as a racially pure, sexually normative, and caring society dominated by universal Christianity and benevolent patriarchy. On the other hand, however diverse the medieval world was, its elites—the authors of most of the documents in this volume—did not generally appreciate a diversity of peoples, ideas, and religious beliefs and presented any social, religious, or sexual deviance as detrimental to the communal health of their societies. Moreover, most of the documents here were the result of a significant power imbalance between the authors and their subjects. Students of this period, therefore, need to be mindful that even those sources that seemingly allow the minorities to “speak for themselves”—such as inquisitorial interrogation records that create an illusion of doing so—nevertheless required their subjects to lie, omit certain facts, or in a desperate attempt to survive, even guess what their interrogators wanted to hear. Medieval polemicists, too, often had no qualms about presenting their opponents as subhuman and vile. Many texts in this reader should be read and understood as parts of their respective genres. For example, saints’ lives and miracle stories tended to follow similar models built on shared rules and expectations; so did the polemics. Where possible, brief introductions to the individual sources and reading questions will help to place them in their historical context and provide initial ways of approaching complex texts. Due to its breadth, this collection was hard to organize in a uniform way. Where it was possible, each chapter contains three types of texts: prescriptive documents (laws, theological treatises, and conduct manuals); descriptive texts (chronicles and inquisitorial records); and sources that suggest the evidence of resistance on the part of the persecuted minorities. Moreover, both texts advancing intolerance and those arguing for toleration are grouped within the same chapters; it is up to the readers to decide which ones are which. There is also some unavoidable overlap between individual chapters, because medieval authors frequently attacked multiple targets within the same text, or different groups during the same time period. Finally, this collection—in part, to control its length—left out two large thematic categories. First, most of the sources omitted dealt with medieval perception and treatment of Jews related to the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition and their subsequent expulsion from Spain; in order to do those texts and voices justice, the chronological boundaries of this collection would have to be considerably expanded. Similar logic led me to exclude any sources dealing with accusations of magic and witchcraft, a topic dealt with extensively in Martha Rampton’s volume in this series, European Magic and Witchcraft: A Reader. Finally, in each chapter, my goal was to provide breadth by including different sources, points of view, and examples of medieval xvii

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

intolerance and persecution; each chapter provides the reader with a representative but by no means exhaustive selection of texts. Writing is power. Any collection of texts related to premodern and early modern persecution and intolerance unavoidably tilts toward the booming voice of the persecutors. Still, while most of the opinions expressed in this collection can be offensive and unacceptable to modern readers, it is impossible to understand the motivations behind medieval intolerance—which outlasted and outgrew the Middle Ages—without understanding the views of the authors included in this volume. Their ideas, values, and goals provide us with a crucial glimpse into the mind of medieval inquisitors, polemicists, judges, and rulers, and can help us to understand their world, and possibly our own, in a more sophisticated and nuanced way. *  *  * Within the texts, square brackets indicate editorial additions or comments, while parentheses indicate words that belong to the text itself.

xviii

C H A P T E R ON E PR EC U R S OR S A N D OR IGI NS

Figure 1.1  Divine origins of spiritual and temporal authority. Enthroned Christ distributes the symbols of spiritual and temporal power by handing the keys to Saint Peter (or, possibly, Pope Sylvester) and the standard topped with the cross to Emperor Constantine. Mosaic from the dining hall (triclinium) of Pope Leo III (r.  795–816), Lateran Palace, Rome.

1

This page intentionally left blank

one: precursors and origins

1. CHRISTIANS ACCUSED OF PARTICIPATING IN SCANDALOUS RITUALS Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullian (c. 155–c. 240) was an early Christian author and theologian from Carthage (modern-day Tunis). He is known for his Apology (Apologeticus), a sharp polemic aimed at defending the Christians of his time from accusations of holding criminal and immoral secret rituals and orgies and, overall, being poor subjects of the Roman Empire. Tertullian wrote his Apology in 197, before any large-scale or systematic persecutions of Christians in the Roman Empire, but when Christians had already begun to attract the suspicion and distrust of local governments. In the following excerpt, he picks apart the three “secret” crimes that were frequently leveled against Christians: infanticide, cannibalism, and incest. Trained in law, Tertullian approaches the task of defending his fellow Christians and demanding that Christianity be tolerated alongside other religions in the empire by using legal and rhetorical arguments. At times his tone becomes sarcastic as he points out the inconsistencies within the rumors surrounding accusations made against Christians. Although it is not included in the excerpt below, Tertullian ends his Apology on an ominous note: he states that Christians do not want to be persecuted but, if they are given no other choice, are ready to die for their faith. Indeed, according to Tertullian, Christians’ silent endurance of the persecutions would attract even more people to their cause. Source: trans. T.H. Bindley, Tertullian, The Apology of Tertullian for the Christians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890), pp. 23–28, revised.

Chapter 7 We are called the most infamous of men on the charge of an infanticidal religious rite and a cannibalistic banquet afterward, and incest after the feast, which dogs that overturn the lights (like our pimps) bring about through the shamelessness which is helped by the darkness and impious lusts. Yet we are ever only called so and you are in no hurry to drag into light what we have been so long charged with. Either therefore prove the facts if you believe them, or stop believing if you have no proof. Your lack of straightforwardness lays you open to the preliminary objection that what you do not dare to investigate does not in fact exist. A very different duty from investigation is that which you bid your executioner carry out against the Christians, namely, not to make them say what they do, but to make them deny what they are. The origin of this [Christian] religion dates, as I have already said, from the time of Tiberius. On its first appearance the truth encountered hostility from the prejudice it always excites. She had as many enemies as there were strangers to her: the Jews indeed peculiarly so, from jealousy; the soldiers, from habits of 3

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

extortion; even those of our own households [Matt. 10:36], from the force of circumstances. We are daily beset, daily betrayed, we are unexpectedly seized, and most often in our own assemblies and meetings. Yet who has ever caught us sacrificing a crying infant? Who has ever dragged us before a judge with our mouths bloody, like Cyclops and Sirens, as he found us? Who has ever detected in their wives any traces of lacking chastity? Who has ever first found out and then concealed such crimes, or sold his information while the culprits were in his grasp? If we are always escaping detection, when was our guilt made known? Or by whom could it be revealed? Certainly not by the criminals themselves, since the duty of secrecy is imperatively demanded in all secret rites. If the Samothracian and Eleusinian mysteries are kept secret, how much more secret then would be those that, if disclosed, would at once provoke human punishment and divine wrath? If then they are not themselves their own betrayers, it follows that outsiders must have provided the information. And where have outsiders derived their knowledge of the facts, if from religious initiations the profane are always excluded, and precautions are taken against witnesses—unless indeed the impious know less of fear! The nature of rumor is known to all. As your own poet says: “Rumor is an ill, and none more swift” [Virgil, Aeneid, 4.174]. Why is rumor an ill? Is it because it is swift? Or because it bears information? Or because it is generally false? For even when in the act of bringing true news is it never free from the stain of falsehood: detracting from, adding to, altering the truth. Why, such is its condition of being, that it would not steadily persist unless it spread falsehood, and it only flourishes so long as it offers no proofs; since, when it has brought proofs, it ceases to exist, and hands over the fact as if its duty of news-bearing were discharged; and thenceforward it is held as a fact, and is called a fact. Nor does anyone say for instance: “They say this happened at Rome,” or, “There is a rumor that he is appointed to the province,” but, “He is appointed to the province,” and, “This happened at Rome.” Rumor, a name for uncertainty, has no place where certainty exists. For would any but a foolish man believe rumor? A wise man trusts not to the uncertain. Anyone can judge this, no matter how wide the circuit of its diffusion, no matter how strengthened by emphatic assertion. A tale which has originated at some time or other with a single authority, from him is bound to insinuate itself into the propagating channels of tongues and ears. And a flaw in the insignificant source so obscures the rest of the report, that it never strikes anyone whether the first lips did not originate a falsehood, as often happens either from a jealous imagination or whimsical suspicion, or the mere love of lying which some persons do not acquire, but are born with it. Well is it, then, that according to your own proverbs and maxims, “time reveals all things,” in the order of nature which has so arranged it that nothing be long hidden, even though rumor has not disseminated it. 4

one: precursors and origins

Justly, therefore, rumor has alone all this time been privy to the crimes of the Christians. This is the informer you produce against us—one which has never yet been able up to the present time to prove the charge it has brought against us, though in so long a period of time it has strengthened it into a general belief. Chapter 8 Now, in order that I may appeal to the trustworthy testimony of nature herself against those who assume the credibility of such crimes, we place before you the reward of these atrocities: eternal life is promised in return. Believe it for the time being, for argument’s sake. And then I ask you this; whether, although you believe it, you think it worthwhile to attain it at such a cost to your conscience. Come, plunge your knife into an infant, harmless, innocent, and helpless; or if this be the duty of another, do you at least stand by while this human being dies before it has really lived; wait for the flight of the newly-entered soul; catch the immature blood; soak your bread in it; feed freely upon it. Meantime reclining at the feast, note the positions of your mother and sister; observe them diligently, so that when the darkness has been ushered in by the dogs, you may make no mistake. For you will contract pollution unless you commit incest. Thus initiated and sealed, you will live forever. I want you to say whether eternity is worth all this; and if it is not, in that case it ought not to be believed to be so. Even if you did believe it, I say that you would not do it; and even if you wished to do it, I say that you could not. Why, then, should others be capable of doing what you cannot? Why should not you be able to do it if others can? We, I suppose, are of another nature—monstrosities like the Cynopse or Sciapodes with different rows of teeth, and other nerves for incestuous lust! You who can believe these things of a human being can also do them. You, too, are a man yourself, and so also is a Christian. You who cannot do it ought not to believe it. For even a Christian is a man; and whatever else you are yourself, he is also. But you may say that deceit and imposition are practiced upon the ignorant neophytes. For they might be unaware of any such assertions about the Christians as ought at any rate to have been looked into and investigated with all carefulness. And yet it occurs to me that it is customary for those who are desirous of being initiated to go first to the director of the sacred ritual and to ask about the necessary preparations. He of course would say: “An infant is indispensable, one quite young, and ignorant of the meaning of death, who will smile under your knife; bread likewise, in which to soak up the juicy blood; candlesticks, too, and lights, and some dogs and bits of offal to make them strain forward and overturn the lights; above all, you must bring your mother and sister with you.” What if they will not come; or if you have none? What, indeed, are solitary candidates without relatives to do? He will not be a valid Christian, I suppose, 5

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Figure 1.2  Funeral oil lamp depicting a young woman as a Christian martyr. The woman depicted on the oil lamp is holding palm leaves as a sign of her martyrdom. Third century terracotta held in the Vatican Museum.

who is not a brother or a son. Let’s say, if you like, that all these preliminaries have been prepared for neophytes without their knowledge; at least they learn them afterward, and bear up under the shock, and condone it. They fear, you say, lest they should be punished; whereas if they were to proclaim the infamy they would deserve every protection, and they would prefer even voluntary death to life with such a consciousness of guilt. But granting that they are afraid; why do they still continue as Christians? For it follows that you would no longer wish to be that which you never would have become, had you known beforehand. Questions: How does Tertullian present Christians and their accusers? What arguments does he use to defend Christians against pagan accusations? Why do you think Christians were accused of such scandalous and extreme crimes as infanticide, cannibalism, and incest?

2. THE MARTYRDOM OF SAINT PERPETUA The Passion of Saint Perpetua may be counted among the earliest extant writings by a female author. While the question of the text’s authorship (and editorship, previously associated with Tertullian) may never be answered with certainty, 6

one: precursors and origins

the emotional tone of this martyrdom account does appear authentic enough to believe that it was written by an imprisoned twenty-two-year-old woman, a recent mother from an elite family, awaiting her public execution. The traditional date associated with the martyrdom of Vibia Perpetua is 203, when she and her companions were executed by fighting wild animals in the arena in Carthage. Little can be known about her outside of the sparse details provided in the text itself; we do not know—since her account begins with Perpetua already in prison—the circumstances of her arrest. One of the excerpts that follow narrates Perpetua’s emotional anguish following her imprisonment, her separation from her newborn child, and her arguments with her non-Christian father. The other is perhaps one of the most famous passages from Perpetua’s account—her third dream—in which she sees herself as a victorious gladiatorial champion in a struggle against evil. Source: trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1903), vol. 3, pp. 699–700, 702, revised.

The young catechumens, Revocatus and his fellow-servant Felicitas, Saturninus, and Secundulus, were apprehended. And among them also was Vibia Perpetua, respectably born, liberally educated, a married matron, having a father and mother and two brothers, one of whom, like herself, was a catechumen, and a son, an infant at the breast. She herself was about twenty-two years of age. From this point onward she shall herself narrate the whole course of her martyrdom, as she left it described by her own hand and with her own mind. “While,” says she, “we were still with the persecutors, and my father, for the sake of his affection for me, was persisting in seeking to turn me away, and to cast me down from the faith—‘Father,’ said I, ‘do you see, let us say, this vessel lying here to be a little pitcher, or something else?’ And he said, ‘I see it to be so.’ And I replied to him, ‘Can it be called by any other name than what it is?’ And he said, ‘No.’ ‘Neither can I call myself anything else than what I am, a Christian.’ Then my father, provoked at this saying, threw himself upon me, as if he would tear my eyes out. But he only distressed me, and went away overcome by the devil’s arguments. Then, in a few days after I had been without my father, I gave thanks to the Lord; and his absence became a source of consolation to me. In that same interval of a few days we were baptized, and to me the Spirit prescribed that in the water of baptism nothing else was to be sought for than bodily endurance. After a few days we were taken into the dungeon, and I was very much afraid, because I had never felt such darkness. Oh terrible day! Oh the fierce heat, oh the shock of the soldiery, of the crowds! I was very unusually distressed by my anxiety for my infant. There were present there Tertius and Pomponius, the blessed deacons who ministered to us, and had arranged by means of a gratuity that we might be refreshed by being sent out for a few hours into a pleasanter part of the prison. Then going out of 7

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

the dungeon, all attended to their own wants. I suckled my child, which was now enfeebled with hunger. In my anxiety for it, I addressed my mother and comforted my brother, and commended to their care my son. I was languishing because I had seen them languishing on my account. Such solicitude I suffered for many days, and I obtained leave for my infant to remain in the dungeon with me; and forthwith I grew strong and was relieved from distress and anxiety about my infant; and the dungeon became to me as it were a palace, so that I preferred being there to being elsewhere. Then my brother said to me, ‘My dear sister, you are already in a position of great dignity, and are such that you may ask for a vision, and that it may be made known to you whether this is to result in a passion [death] or an escape.’ And I, who knew that I was privileged to converse with the Lord, whose kindnesses I had found to be so great, boldly promised him, and said, ‘Tomorrow I will tell you.’ And I asked, and this was what was shown me. I saw a golden ladder of marvelous height, reaching up even to heaven, and very narrow, so that persons could only ascend it one by one; and on the sides of the ladder was fixed every kind of iron weapon. There were there swords, lances, hooks, daggers; so that if anyone went up carelessly, or not looking upward, he would be torn to pieces, and his flesh would cleave to the iron weapons. And under the ladder itself was crouching a dragon of wonderful size, who lay in wait for those who ascended, and frightened them from the ascent. And Saturus went up first, who had subsequently delivered himself up freely on our account, not having been present at the time when we were taken prisoners. And he attained the top of the ladder, and turned toward me, and said to me, ‘Perpetua, I am waiting for you; but be careful that the dragon does not bite you.’ And I said, ‘In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he shall not hurt me.’ And from under the ladder itself, as if in fear of me, he slowly lifted up his head; and as I trod upon the first step, I trod upon his head. And I went up, and I saw an immense extent of garden, and in the midst of the garden a white-haired man sitting in the dress of a shepherd, of a large stature, milking sheep; and standing around were many thousand white-robed ones. And he raised his head, and looked upon me, and said to me, ‘You are welcome, daughter.’ And he called me, and from the cheese as he was milking he gave me as it were a little cake, and I received it with folded hands; and I ate it, and all who stood around said Amen. And at the sound of their voices I was awakened, still tasting a sweetness which I cannot describe. And I immediately related this to my brother, and we understood that it was to be a passion, and we ceased henceforth to have any hope in this world. . . .” “Again, after a few days, Pudens, a soldier, an assistant overseer of the prison, who began to regard us in great esteem, perceiving that the great power of God was in us, admitted many brethren to see us, that both we and they might be mutually refreshed. And when the day of the exhibition drew near, my father, worn with 8

one: precursors and origins

suffering, came in to me, and began to tear out his beard, and to throw himself on the earth, and to cast himself down on his face, and to reproach his years, and to utter such words as might move all creation. I grieved for his unhappy old age. The day before that on which we were to fight, I saw in a vision that Pomponius the deacon came hither to the gate of the prison, and knocked vehemently. I went out to him, and opened the gate for him; and he was clothed in a richly ornamented white robe, and he had on manifold sandals. And he said to me, ‘Perpetua, we are waiting for you; come!’ And he held his hand to me, and we began to go through rough and winding places. As soon as we arrived breathless at the amphitheater, he led me into the middle of the arena, and said to me, ‘Do not fear, I am here with you, and I am laboring with you’; and he departed. And I gazed upon an immense assembly in astonishment. And because I knew that I was given to the wild beasts, I marveled that the wild beasts were not let loose upon me. Then there came forth against me a certain Egyptian, horrible in appearance, with his backers, to fight with me. And there came to me, as my helpers and encouragers, handsome youths; and I was stripped, and became a man. Then my helpers began to rub me with oil, as is the custom for contest; and I beheld that Egyptian on the other hand rolling in the dust. And a certain man came forth, of wondrous height, so that he even overtopped the top of the amphitheater; and he wore a loose tunic and a purple robe between two bands over the middle of the breast; and he had on sandals of varied form, made of gold and silver; and he carried a rod, as if he were a trainer of gladiators, and a green branch upon which were apples of gold. And he called for silence, and said, ‘This Egyptian, if he should overcome this woman, shall kill her with the sword; and if she shall conquer him, she shall receive this branch.’ Then he departed. And we drew near to one another, and began to deal out blows. He sought to lay hold of my feet, while I struck at his face with my heels; and I was lifted up in the air, and began thus to thrust at him as if spurning the earth. But when I saw that there was some delay I joined my hands so as to twine my fingers with one another; and I took hold upon his head, and he fell on his face, and I trod upon his head. And the people began to shout, and my backers to exult. And I drew near to the trainer and took the branch; and he kissed me, and said to me, ‘Daughter, peace be with you’; and I began to go gloriously to the gate of life. Then I awoke, and perceived that I was not to fight with beasts, but against the devil. Still I knew that the victory was awaiting me. This, so far, I have completed several days before the exhibition; but what passed at the exhibition itself let him who will write about it tell it.” Questions: What can Perpetua’s confrontation with her father tell us about elite Roman and early Christian ideas about family? What can her dream and her transformation into a man tell us about the contemporary understanding of gender roles? What does her dream of becoming a gladiator tell us about the idea of forceful resistance in early Christianity? 9

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

3. EMPEROR CONSTANTINE CONDEMNS ARIANISM Constantine the Great (c. 272–337) became the first Roman emperor to offer full toleration to Christians in 313, after defeating Maxentius, his rival, and becoming the ruler of the western half of the Roman Empire a year earlier. From this watershed moment in the history of early Christianity and until his death, Constantine gradually expanded the privileges of the Christian bishops and continued to favor now legal Christian communities. Imperial favor, however, created a new problem for Christian communities throughout the empire: competing versions of Christian teaching could now struggle to persuade the emperor that their version was the most correct one and therefore merited Constantine’s support. A shrewd ruler, Constantine likely understood that any religious disagreement between Christians in his empire could bring about social and political discord; his solution was to let the leaders of the Christian communities in his domain establish the foundations of orthodoxy at the Council of Nicaea (325). At the same council, Constantine oversaw the condemnation of the teachings of Arius (d. 336), who taught that God the Son was begotten by God the Father (as opposed to the orthodox teachings that both Father and Son were coeternal). The condemnation and exile of Arius did not solve the Trinitarian controversy, and Arianism, a form of Christianity based on Arius’s teachings, continued to exist and even gained popularity during Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Constantine’s involvement in this theological dispute, however, set an important precedent as the first persecution of religious heterodoxy (heresy) since Christianity became tolerated. The two letters that follow were sent from Constantine, first, to the Church of Alexandria and, second, to a wider audience of bishops and his Christian subjects; both are copied in a later work, History of the Church (Historia Ecclesiastica) by Socrates Scholasticus (d. after 439). In these letters, the emperor relates the decisions made by the council of bishops at Nicaea and orders the suppression of Arian teachings. Source: trans. A.C. Zenos, Socrates Scholasticus, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1891), pp. 13–14, revised.

Letter of Emperor Constantine to the Catholic Church of Alexandria Beloved brethren, greetings! We have received from divine providence the inestimable blessing of being relieved from all error, and united in the acknowledgment of one and the same faith. The devil will no longer have any power against us, since all that which he had malignantly devised for our destruction has been entirely overthrown from the foundations. The splendor of truth has dissipated at the command of God those dissensions, schisms, tumults, and so to speak, deadly poisons of discord. 10

one: precursors and origins

Wherefore we all worship one true God, and believe that he is. But in order that this might be done, by divine admonition I assembled at the city of Nicaea most of the bishops; with whom I myself also, who am but one of you, and who rejoice exceedingly in being your fellow-servant, undertook the investigation of the truth. Accordingly, all points which seemed in consequence of ambiguity to furnish any pretext for dissension, have been discussed and accurately examined. And may the divine majesty pardon the fearful enormity of the blasphemies which some were shamelessly uttering concerning the mighty savior, our life and hope; declaring and confessing that they believe things contrary to the divinely inspired scriptures. While more than three hundred bishops remarkable for their moderation and intellectual keenness, were unanimous in their confirmation of one and the same faith, which according to the truth and legitimate construction of the law of God can only be the faith; Arius alone beguiled by the subtlety of the devil, was discovered to be the sole disseminator of this mischief, first among you, and afterward with unhallowed purposes among others also. Let us therefore embrace that doctrine which the Almighty has presented to us: let us return to our beloved brethren from whom an irreverent servant of the devil has separated us: let us go with all speed to the common body and our own natural members. For this is becoming your penetration, faith, and sanctity; that since the error has been proved to be due to him who is an enemy to the truth, you should return to the divine favor. For that which has commended itself to the judgment of three hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God, seeing that the Holy Spirit dwelling in the minds of so many dignified persons has effectually enlightened them respecting the divine will. Wherefore let no one vacillate or linger, but let all with alacrity return to the undoubted path of duty; that when I shall arrive among you, which will be as soon as possible, I may with you return due thanks to God, the inspector of all things, for having revealed the pure faith, and restored to you that love for which you have prayed. May God protect you, beloved brethren. . . . Another Letter of Constantine Victor Constantine Maximus Augustus, to the bishops and people. Since Arius has imitated wicked and impious persons, it is just that he should undergo the like ignominy. Wherefore as Porphyry, that enemy of piety, for having composed licentious treatises against religion, found a suitable recompense, and such as thenceforth branded him with infamy, overwhelming him with deserved reproach, his impious writings also having been destroyed; so now it seems fit both that Arius and such as hold his sentiments should be denominated Porphyrians, that they may take their appellation from those 11

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

whose conduct they have imitated. And in addition to this, if any treatise composed by Arius should be discovered, let it be consigned to the flames, in order that not only his depraved doctrine may be suppressed, but also that no memorial of him may be by any means left. This therefore I decree, that if anyone shall be detected in concealing a book compiled by Arius, and shall not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death; for immediately after conviction the criminal shall suffer capital punishment. May God preserve you! Questions: How do the letters present the relationship between the emperor and the bishops? What role does Constantine assign to himself in solving disputes within the Church?

4. SAINT AUGUSTINE ON THE GROUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) was a prolific writer and theologian, famous first and foremost for his Confessions and The City of God, as well as for being the bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia (present-day Algeria). It is hard to overstate the importance of Augustine’s theology on the western Christian tradition. Of particular importance here are his views on compelling heterodox believers to abandon their errors by force; in the passage below, written as a letter to Boniface, an imperial official in North Africa, he makes his case. As both a bishop and theologian, Augustine’s life coincided with the long-lasting controversy between the orthodox Church (defined by the Council of Nicaea and subsequent councils) and the Donatists, followers of the rigorist bishop Donatus. The main tenet of Donatism involved holding members of the clergy to a particularly high moral standard as a condition of their validity. In particular, the Donatists held that any members of the clergy who cooperated with Roman authorities during the persecutions of Christians during the reign of Emperor Diocletian had betrayed their religion. These persecutions began in 303, only ten years before Constantine’s proclamation of toleration with the Edict of Milan (313), and during their course some members of the clergy cooperated with the Roman authorities, survived, and returned to Christianity under the more favorable policy of Constantine. From the Donatist point of view, such religious leaders were tainted and labeled “traitors” (traditores), while the sacraments they performed (including baptisms and ordinations) were deemed powerless. In North Africa, the Donatists refused to obey any bishop who was a “traitor” himself or who was ordained by one; both parties appealed to Constantine, but the emperor decided against siding with the Donatists. The conflict continued unresolved and lasted for most of the fourth and into the fifth century, prompting Augustine to argue that the Church needed to be able to coerce those who disagreed with its position. Augustine’s position on the issue became a key justification for later use of force against heretics and non-believers and remained influential long after his lifetime. 12

one: precursors and origins

Source: trans. J.R. King, Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise Concerning the Correction of Donatists,” in The Works of Aurelius Augustine: Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872), pp. 486–88, 496–99, revised.

9. But true martyrs are such as those of whom the Lord says, “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’s sake” [Matt. 5:10]. It is not, therefore, those who suffer persecution for their unrighteousness, and for the divisions which they impiously introduce into Christian unity, but those who suffer for righteousness’s sake, that are truly martyrs. For Hagar also suffered persecution at the hands of Sarah and in that case she who persecuted was righteous, and she unrighteous who suffered persecution. Are we to compare with this persecution which Hagar suffered the case of holy David, who was persecuted by unrighteous Saul? Surely there is an essential difference, not in respect of his suffering, but because he suffered for righteousness’s sake. And the Lord himself was crucified with two thieves but those who were joined in their suffering were separated by the difference of its cause. Accordingly, in the psalm, we must interpret of the true martyrs, who wish to be distinguished from false martyrs, the verse in which it is said, “Judge me, O Lord, and distinguish my cause from an ungodly nation” [Ps. 43:1]. He does not say, distinguish my punishment, but “distinguish my cause.” For the punishment of the impious may be the same; but the cause of the martyrs is always different. To whose mouth also the words are suitable, “They persecute me wrongfully; help me” [Ps. 119:86], in which the psalmist claimed to have a right to be helped in righteousness, because his adversaries persecuted him wrongfully; for if they had been right in persecuting him, he would have deserved not help, but correction. 10. But if they think that no one can be justified in using violence—as they said in the course of the conference that the true church must necessarily be the one which suffers persecution, not the one inflicting it—in that case I no longer urge what I observed above; because, if the matter stands as they maintain that it does, then Caecilianus [archdeacon and, later, bishop of Carthage at odds with the Donatists during the schism in North Africa] must have belonged to the true church, seeing that their fathers persecuted him, by pressing his accusation even to the tribunal of the emperor himself. For we maintain that he belonged to the true church, not merely because he suffered persecution, but because he suffered it for righteousness’s sake; but that they were alienated from the church, not merely because they persecuted, but because they did so in unrighteousness. This, then, is our position. But if they make no inquiry into the causes for which each person inflicts persecution, or for which he suffers it, but think that it is a sufficient sign of a true Christian that he does not inflict persecution, but suffers it, then beyond all question they include Caecilianus in that definition, who did not inflict, but suffered persecution; and they equally exclude their own fathers from the definition, for they inflicted, but did not suffer it. 13

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

11. But this, I say, I forbear to urge. Yet one point I must press: if the true church is the one which actually suffers persecution, not the one which inflicts it, let them ask the apostle of what church Sarah was a type, when she inflicted persecution on her handmaid. For he declares that the free mother of us all, the heavenly Jerusalem, that is to say, the true church of God, was prefigured in that woman who cruelly entreated her handmaid. But if we investigate the story further, we shall find that the handmaid rather persecuted Sarah by her haughtiness, than Sarah the handmaid by her severity: for the handmaid was doing wrong to her mistress; the mistress only imposed on her a proper discipline in her haughtiness. Again I ask, if good and holy men never inflict persecution upon anyone, but only suffer it, whose words do they think that those are in the psalm where we read, “I have pursued my enemies, and overtaken them; neither did I turn again till they were consumed?” [Ps. 18:37]. If, therefore, we wish either to declare or to recognize the truth, there is a persecution of unrighteousness, which the impious inflict upon the church of Christ; and there is a righteous persecution, which the church of Christ inflicts upon the impious. She therefore is blessed in suffering persecution for righteousness’s sake; but they are miserable, suffering persecution for unrighteousness. Moreover, she persecutes in the spirit of love, they in the spirit of wrath; she that she may correct, they that they may overthrow; she that she may recall from error, they that they may drive headlong into error. Finally, she persecutes her enemies and arrests them, until they become weary in their vain opinions, so that they should make advance in the truth; but they, returning evil for good, because we take measures for their good, to secure their eternal salvation, endeavor even to strip us of our temporal safety, being so in love with murder, that they commit it on their own persons, when they cannot find victims in any others. For in proportion as the Christian charity of the church endeavors to deliver them from that destruction, so that none of them should die, so their madness endeavors either to slay us, that they may feed the lust of their own cruelty, or even to kill themselves, that they may not seem to have lost the power of putting men to death. . . . 21. It is indeed better (as no one ever could deny) that men should be led to worship God by teaching, than that they should be driven to it by fear of punishment or pain; but it does not follow that because the former course produces the better men, therefore those who do not yield to it should be neglected. For many have found advantage (as we have proved, and are daily proving by actual experiment), in being first compelled by fear or pain, so that they might afterward be influenced by teaching, or might follow out in act what they had already learned in word. . . . But, moreover, holy scripture has both said concerning the former better class, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear” [1 John 4:18], and also concerning the latter lower class, which furnishes the majority, 14

one: precursors and origins

“A servant will not be corrected by words; for though he understands, he will not answer” [Prov. 29:19]. In saying, “He will not be corrected by words,” he did not order him to be left to himself, but implied an admonition as to the means whereby he ought to be corrected; otherwise he would not have said, “He will not be corrected by words,” but instead without any qualification, “He will not be corrected.” For in another place he says that not only the servant, but also the undisciplined son, must be corrected with stripes, and that with great fruits as the result; for he says, “You shall beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from hell” [Prov. 23:14], and elsewhere he says, “He that spares the rod hates his son” [Prov. 13:24]. For, give us a man who with right faith and true understanding can say with all the energy of his heart, “My soul thirsts for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?” [Ps. 42:2] and for such an one there is no need of the terror of hell, to say nothing of temporal punishments or imperial laws, seeing that with him it is so indispensable a blessing to cleave unto the Lord, that he not only dreads being parted from that happiness as a heavy punishment, but can scarcely even bear delay in its attainment. But yet, before the good sons can say they have “a desire to depart, and to be with Christ” [Phil. 1:23], many must first be recalled to their Lord by the stripes of temporal scourging, like evil slaves, and in some degree like good-for-nothing fugitives. . . . 23. Why, therefore, should not the church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction? Even men who have not been compelled, but only led astray, are received by their loving mother with more affection if they are recalled to her bosom through the enforcement of terrible but salutary laws, and are the objects of far more deep congratulation than those whom she had never lost. Is it not a part of the care of the shepherd, when any sheep have left the flock, even though not violently forced away, but led astray by tender words and coaxing blandishments, to bring them back to the fold of his master when he has found them, by the fear or even the pain of the whip, if they show symptoms of resistance. . . . Since then they cannot show that the destination is bad to which they are compelled, they maintain that they ought to be compelled by force even to what is good. But we have shown that Paul was compelled by Christ; therefore the church, in trying to compel the Donatists, is following the example of her Lord, though in the first instance she waited in the hopes of needing to compel no one, that the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled concerning the faith of kings and peoples. Questions: How, from Augustine’s point of view, can one distinguish between righteous and unrighteous persecution? How does Augustine justify the use of persecution to coerce those who disagree with the teachings of the Church? 15

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

5. CHRISTIANITY TRIUMPHANT: THE THEODOSIAN CODE ON CHRISTIANITY AND PAGANISM The Theodosian Code (Codex Theodosianus) is a collection of laws, commissioned by Emperor Theodosius II (r. 408–50), that were issued by Roman emperors from the beginning of the reign of Constantine the Great through the reign of Theodosius himself. In addition to earlier compilations of Roman laws made at the end of the third century, the Theodosian Code became a standard repository of legal tradition. It took a committee of jurists appointed by the emperor nine years (429–38) to produce the Code, which consists of sixteen books and covers a wide array of subjects, ranging from marriage, inheritance, taxation, military service, slavery, and manumission, to the relationship between the Church and the Roman state. The collection is particularly important because it represents laws issued since Christianity gained imperial favor, as it gradually became the dominant religion in the empire. The laws that follow demonstrate the degree of Christianization of the empire and, conversely, the growing lack of tolerance toward non-Christians. Source: trans. Oliver J. Thatcher, The Library of Original Sources, vol. 4: The Early Medieval World (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), pp. 69–71, revised.

Let the course of all lawsuits and all business cease on Sunday, which our fathers have rightly called the Lord’s day, and let no one try to collect either a public or a private debt; and let there be no hearing of disputes by any judges either those required to serve by law or those voluntarily chosen by disputants. And he is to be held not only infamous but sacrilegious who has turned away from the service and observance of holy religion on that day.—Codex Theodosianus, 11. 7. 13. Time of Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius. On the Lord’s day, which is the first day of the week, on Christmas, and on the days of Epiphany, Easter, and Pentecost, inasmuch as when the [white] garments [of Christians] symbolizing the light of heavenly cleansing bear witness to the new light of holy baptism, at the time also of the suffering of the apostles, the example for all Christians, the pleasures of the theaters and games are to be kept from the people in all cities, and all the thoughts of Christians and believers are to be occupied with the worship of God. And if any are kept from that worship through the madness of Jewish impiety or the error and insanity of foolish paganism, let them know that there is one time for prayer and another for pleasure. And lest anyone should think he is compelled by the honor due to our person, as if by the greater necessity of his imperial office, or that unless he attempted to hold the games in contempt of the religious prohibition, he might offend our serenity in showing less than the usual devotion toward us; let no one doubt that our clemency is revered in the highest degree by humankind when the worship of the whole world is paid to the might and 16

one: precursors and origins

goodness of God.—Cod. Theod. 15.5.5. Time of Emperors Theodosius and Caesar Valentinian. Bloody spectacles are not suitable for civil ease and domestic quiet. Wherefore since we have proscribed gladiators, those who have been accustomed to be sentenced to such work as punishment for their crimes, you should cause them to serve in the mines, so that they may be punished without shedding their blood.—Cod. Theod. 15.12.1. Time of Emperor Constantine. We desire that all the people under the rule of our clemency should live by that religion which divine Peter the apostle is said to have given to the Romans, and which it is evident that Pope Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, followed: that is that we should believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with equal majesty and in the Holy Trinity according to the apostolic teaching and the authority of the Gospel.—Cod. Theod. 16.1.2. Time of Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius. It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the cultivation of religion should be given only to followers of the Catholic faith. We desire that heretics and schismatics be not only kept from these privileges, but be subjected to various fines.—Cod. Theod. 16.5.1. Time of Emperor Constantine. Whenever there is found a meeting of a mob of Manicheans, let the leaders be punished with a heavy fine and let those who attended be known as infamous and dishonored, and be shut out from association with men, and let the house and the dwellings where the profane doctrine was taught be seized by the officers of the city.—Cod. Theod. 16.5.3. Time of Emperors Valentinian and Valens. The ability and right of making wills shall be taken from those who turn from Christians to pagans, and the testament of such man, if he made any, shall be abrogated after his death.—Cod. Theod. 16.7.1. Time of Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Valens. It is decreed that in all places and all cities the temples should be closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect to punish such crimes.—Cod. Theod. 16.10.4. Time of Emperors Constantine and Constans. Questions: Based on the laws included here, how did Christianity influence daily life in the empire? What was the relationship between the Church and the empire during the reign of Theodosius II?

17

This page intentionally left blank

C H A P T E R T WO A N T I-J U DA I S M A N D PE R S EC U T ION OF   T H E   J E WS

Figure 2.1  The murder of Richard of Pontoise. A fifteenth-century example of ritual murder accusations, this woodcut from The Nuremberg Chronicle (1493) depicts the death of Richard of Pontoise, who was allegedly crucified by Jews in 1163.

19

This page intentionally left blank

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

6. “SLAY THEM NOT”: SAINT AUGUSTINE ON THE JEWS Augustine, in addition to his influential arguments for the use of coercion against the Donatists (doc. 4)—and, by extension, other heretics—contributed to the medieval culture of intolerance by his writings about the relationship between Christians and Jews. Notably, Augustine wrote about this topic not to define the position of actual Jewish communities in the increasingly Christian Roman Empire, but rather to discuss the role of Judaism in providing additional support for Christianity and Christian teachings. From the Christian perspective, the coming of Christ was foretold in the Old Testament (Hebrew scriptures); Jewish preservation and understanding of its religious texts provided an external verification for the Christian claims. Therefore, Augustine instructs, Christians should not “slay” the Jews or annihilate their religion; this view became an official “policy” of the Church regarding actual Jewish communities throughout the Middle Ages. While it can be tempting to interpret Augustine’s prohibition as a sign of religious tolerance, his actual view (and its later use) made it clear that the Jews—while left alive—were not to be treated well. Indeed, writing at the time when Christians were growing in both power and numbers, Augustine clearly contrasted this fact with the earlier dispersal of the Jews; the “true Church” was the successful one. While this argument was unlikely to be used before Constantine’s legalization of Christianity, it nevertheless provided the Church and medieval rulers with a useful ambiguity: while the Jews had to be spared extreme violence, their mistreatment was not fully forbidden. Sources: trans. Marcus Dods, Augustine of Hippo, The City of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), vol. 2, pp. 277–79, revised; trans. Richard Stothert, Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichean,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Augustine: The Writings against the Manicheans, and against the Donatists, ed. Philip Schaff, First Series (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), vol. 4, pp. 186–88, revised.

From The City of God (426) But the Jews who slew him, and would not believe in him, because it behooved him to die and rise again, were yet more miserably wasted by the Romans, and utterly rooted out from their kingdom, where alien [peoples] had already ruled over them, and were dispersed through the lands (so that indeed there is no place where they are not), and are thus by their own scriptures a testimony to us that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ. And very many of them, considering this, even before his passion, but chiefly after his resurrection, believed in him, of whom it was predicted, “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved” [Isa. 10:22]. But the rest are blinded, of whom it was predicted, “Let their table be made before them a trap, and a retribution, and a stumbling block. Let their eyes be darkened lest they see, and bow down their back always” [Ps. 69:22, 23; Rom. 11:9, 10]. Therefore, 21

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

when they do not believe our scriptures, their own, which they blindly read, are fulfilled in them, lest perchance anyone should say that the Christians have forged these prophecies about Christ which are quoted under the name of the sibyl, or of others, if such there be, who do not belong to the Jewish people. For us, indeed, those suffice which are quoted from the books of our enemies, to whom we make our acknowledgment, on account of this testimony which, in spite of themselves, they contribute by their possession of these books, while they themselves are dispersed among all nations, wherever the church of Christ is spread abroad. For a prophecy about this thing was sent before in the psalms, which they also read, where it is written, “My God, his mercy shall prevent me. My God has shown me concerning mine enemies, that you shall not slay them, lest they should at last forget your law: disperse them with your might” [Ps. 59:10, 11]. Therefore God has shown the Church in her enemies the Jews the grace of his compassion, since, as says the apostle, “their offense is the salvation of the Gentiles” [Rom. 11:11]. And therefore he has not slain them, that is, he has not let the knowledge that they are Jews be lost in them, although they have been conquered by the Romans, lest they should forget the law of God, and their testimony should be of no avail in this matter of which we treat. But it was not enough that he should say, “Slay them not, lest they should at last forget your law,” unless he had also added, “Disperse them,” because if they had only been in their own land with that testimony of the scriptures, and not everywhere, certainly the Church which is everywhere could not have had them as witnesses among all nations to the prophecies which were sent before concerning Christ. From Reply to Faustus the Manichean (400) Book 12 9. As Cain’s sacrifice of the fruit of the ground is rejected, while Abel’s sacrifice of his sheep and the fat thereof is accepted, so the faith of the New Testament praising God in the harmless service of grace is preferred to the earthly observances of the Old Testament. For though the Jews were right in practicing these things, they were guilty of unbelief in not distinguishing the time of the New Testament when Christ came, from the time of the Old Testament. God said to Cain, “If you offer well, yet if you divide not well, you have sinned” [Gen. 4:7]. If Cain had obeyed God when he said, “Be content, for to you shall be its reference, and you shall rule over it” [Gen. 4:7], he would have referred his sin to himself, by taking the blame of it, and confessing it to God; and so assisted by supplies of grace, he would have ruled over his sin, instead of acting as the servant of sin in killing his innocent brother. So also the Jews, of whom all these things are a figure, if they had been content, instead of being turbulent, and 22

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

had acknowledged the time of salvation through the pardon of sins by grace, and heard Christ saying, “They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” [Matt. 9:12–13], and, “Every one that committed sin is the servant of sin,” and, “If the Son make you free, you shall be free indeed” [John 8:34, 36]—they would in confession have referred their sin to themselves, saying to the physician, as it is written in the psalm, “I said, Lord, be merciful to me; heal my soul, for I have sinned against you” [Ps. 41:4]. And being made free by the hope of grace, they would have ruled over sin as long as it continued in their mortal body. But now, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish a righteousness of their own, proud of the works of the law, instead of being humbled on account of their sins, they have not been content; and in subjection to sin reigning in their mortal body, so as to make them obey it in the lusts thereof, they have stumbled on the stone of stumbling, and have been inflamed with hatred against him whose works they grieved to see accepted by God. . . . Abel, the younger brother, is killed by the elder brother; Christ, the head of the younger people, is killed by the elder people of the Jews. Abel dies in the field; Christ dies on Calvary. . . . 12. “Groaning and trembling shall you be on the earth” [Gen. 4:12]. Here no one can fail to see that in every land where the Jews are scattered they mourn for the loss of their kingdom, and are in terrified subjection to the immensely superior number of Christians. So Cain answered, and said: “My case is worse, if you drive me out this day from the face of the earth, and from your face shall I be hid, and I shall be a mourner and an outcast on the earth; and it shall be that every one that finds me shall slay me” [Gen. 4:13–14]. Here he groans indeed in terror, lest after losing earthly possession he should suffer the death of the body. This he calls a worse case than that of the ground not yielding to him its strength, or than that of spiritual death. For his mind is carnal; for he thinks little of being hid from the face of God, that is, of being under the anger of God, were it not that he may be found and slain. This is the carnal mind that tills the ground, but does not obtain its strength. To be carnally minded is death; but he, in ignorance of this, mourns for the loss of his earthly possession, and is in terror of bodily death. But what does God reply? “Not so,” he says, “but whosoever shall kill Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold” [Gen. 4:15]. That is, it is not as you say: not by bodily death shall the ungodly race of carnal Jews perish. For whoever destroys them in this way shall suffer sevenfold vengeance, that is, shall bring upon himself the sevenfold penalty under which the Jews lie for the crucifixion of Christ. So to the end of the seven days of time, the continued preservation of the Jews will be a proof to believing Christians of the subjection merited by those who, in the pride of their kingdom, put the Lord to death. 23

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

13. “And the Lord God set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him should slay him” [Gen. 4:15]. It is a most notable fact, that all the nations subjugated by Rome adopted the heathenish ceremonies of the Roman worship; while the Jewish nation, whether under pagan or Christian monarchs, has never lost the sign of their law, by which they are distinguished from all other nations and peoples. No emperor or monarch who finds under his government the people with this mark kills them, that is, makes them cease to be Jews, and as Jews to be separate in their observances, and unlike the rest of the world. Only when a Jew comes over to Christ, he is no longer Cain, nor goes out from the presence of God. . . . Questions: What place did the Jews occupy in Augustine’s understanding of Christianity’s history? What attitudes toward the Jews does Augustine advocate? What dangers did these attitudes present to the Jewish communities of medieval Europe?

7. ANTI-JEWISH LEGISLATION FROM THE VISIGOTHIC CODE Part of the Mediterranean world, the Iberian Peninsula was home to a significant Jewish minority, consisting of wealthy landowners and merchants. The Visigothic conquest of Iberia in the sixth century CE and the establishment of a kingdom that controlled most of the peninsula meant that the Jews living in the region found themselves subject to Christian—first Arian and, after 587, Catholic—Visigothic kings. Reccared I (586–601), the first Visigothic king to convert to Catholicism, is usually associated with the earliest anti-Jewish policies in his kingdom, which his seventh-century successors continued and expanded. The first four laws provided here come from the Visigothic Code (Forum Iudicum), a collection of laws created under King Recessuinth (649–72); the fifth law was written for an expanded and augmented version of the Code compiled during the reign of King Erwig (680–87). These laws, along with other laws in the Code that deal with Jews, are unquestionably hostile to them. Even those Jews who chose to convert were not free from suspicion, since conversions under pressure created a fear that some Jews might convert only superficially, becoming “Judaizing Christians” or Jews who practiced their religion in secret. Harsh penalties awaited those found guilty of relapsing into Judaism after conversion. Although anti-Jewish policies were clearly important to at least some Visigothic kings, it is not clear how extensively these laws were applied. For example, although the last law included here orders all Jews to either convert to Christianity within a year or leave, in the centuries after the Arab conquest of Iberia (711), there is ample evidence of a significant and well-established Jewish presence in the region. Source: trans. Samuel Parsons Scott, The Visigothic Code (Forum Judicum) (Boston: The Boston Book Company, 1910), pp. 367, 368, 375–77, 385, revised.

24

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

Title 2 5. Jews Shall Not Celebrate the Passover According to Their Custom No Jew shall celebrate the Passover upon the fourteenth day of the month, nor shall perform any of the ceremonies customary at such times. Nor shall any Jew, in honor of his ancient, erroneous belief, observe any festival days, great or small; or attempt their observance; or desist from labor upon any holidays; or hereafter keep the Sabbath, or any other sacred days prescribed by his rites, or attempt to do so. Anyone detected violating this law shall be liable to the condemnation and penalty prescribed for the same. . . . 10. No Jew Shall Testify against a Christian; and under What Circumstances the Descendants of Jews May Testify If he who is convicted of having uttered a falsehood becomes infamous in the sight of all men, with how much more reason should he be excluded from giving testimony who denies the truth of the divine faith? Jews, whether baptized or unbaptized, are therefore forbidden to testify against Christians. The descendants of Jews, however, if they are of good morals, and adherents of the faith, shall be permitted to give evidence among Christians; but not unless their morals and their belief shall be vouched for by either the king, a priest, or a judge. 16. Memorial of the Jews Presented to the King To our most pious and noble lord and master, King Recessuinth: We, Jews of the city of Toledo, who have hereto attached our signatures, or seals, call your attention to the fact that formerly we were compelled to present a memorial to King Chintila, of holy memory, by which we bound ourselves to uphold the Catholic faith, as, in like manner, we do now. But, whereas the perfidy born of our obstinacy, and the antipathy resulting from our ancestral errors, influenced us to such an extent that we did not then truly believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and did not sincerely embrace the Catholic faith, therefore, now, freely and voluntarily, we promise your majesty for ourselves, our wives, and our children, by this our memorial, that henceforth we will observe no Jewish customs or rites whatever, and will not associate, or have any intercourse with, any unbaptized Jews. Nor will we marry any person related to us by blood, within the sixth degree, which union has been declared to be incestuous and wicked. Nor will we, or our children, or any of our posterity, at any time hereafter, contract marriage 25

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

outside our sect; and both sexes shall hereafter be united in marriage according to Christian rites. We will not practice the operation of circumcision. We will not celebrate the Passover, Sabbath, and other festival days, as enjoined by the Jewish ritual. We will not make any distinction in food, according to our ancient usages. We will not observe, in any way, ceremonies prescribed by the abominable practices and habits of the Hebrews. But, with sincere faith, grateful hearts, and perfect devotion, we believe that Christ is the Son of the living God, as declared by ecclesiastical and evangelical tradition; and we hereby acknowledge him to be such, and venerate him accordingly. Moreover, all the ceremonies enjoined by the Christian religion—whether said ceremonies relate to festivals, or to marriage and food—we will truly and exactly observe; and we will maintain the same with sincerity, without any objection or opposition thereto; and without any subterfuge on our part, by means of which we might hereafter deny our acts, return to what has been prohibited, or not completely fulfill all that we have promised. With regard to the flesh of animals which we consider unclean, if we should be unable to eat the same on account of our ancient prejudices, nevertheless, when it is cooked along with other food, we hereby promise to partake of the latter with no manifestation of disgust or horror. And if, at any time, we should be found to have transgressed, and to have violated any of the promises herein before specified; or should presume to act contrary to the doctrines of the Christian faith; or if we should, in word or deed, neglect to fulfill the obligations to which we have bound ourselves, as being acceptable to the Catholic religion; we hereby swear by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who form one God in the Trinity, that, in case a single transgressor should be found among our people, he shall be burned, or stoned to death, either by ourselves, or by our sons. And should your majesty graciously grant such culprit his life, he shall at once be deprived of his freedom, so that your majesty may deliver him to be forever a slave to anyone whom your majesty may select; and your majesty shall have full authority to make whatever disposition of him and his property as may seem expedient; not only on account of the power attached to your royal office, but also by the authority granted by this our memorial. Made, in the name of God, at Toledo, on the Kalends of March, in the sixth year of your majesty’s happy reign [1 March 654]. 17. Concerning Judaizing Christians As the crime of hypocrisy should be deplored by all Christians; for the same reason it should be evident, that no person, under any circumstances, is deserving of pardon, who is proved to have renounced a good religion for a bad one. Therefore, because a cruel and astounding act of presumption should be 26

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

expiated by a still more cruel punishment, we declare, by the following edict: that, whenever it has been proved that a Christian, of either sex, and especially one born of Christian parents, has practiced circumcision, or any other Jewish rite, or anything else forbidden by God, he shall be put to an ignominious death by the zeal and cooperation of Catholics, under the most ingenious and excruciating tortures that can be inflicted; that he may learn how horrible and detestable that offense is, which he has so infamously perpetrated. All the property of such a person shall be confiscated for the benefit of the royal treasury, in order that his heirs and relatives may not, through consenting to his errors, be contaminated by them. . . . Title 3 3. Jews Shall Not Absent Themselves, or Remove Their Children or Slaves, to Avoid the Blessing of Baptism While divine truth teaches us to seek, to investigate, and to knock at the door, that it may be opened unto us, admonishing us, at the same time, that violent men shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, it is evident that those will not merit divine favor, who do not exert themselves to that end, with their entire hearts. Henceforth, where any Jew of those who have not yet been baptized, or have themselves delayed their own baptism; or have, under any pretext, neglected to send their children or slaves to the priest, in order to be baptized; or have removed their slaves in order to avoid their baptism; and the said Jew, after the lapse of one year from the promulgation of this law, shall not have been baptized; said transgressor, whoever he may be, shall receive one hundred lashes, and, having had his head shaved, shall be driven into exile. His property shall be forfeited to the king, and shall be bestowed upon whomever he [the king] may direct, as the life of said Jew has shown him to be obstinate and incorrigible. Questions: What practices did the Visigothic Code attempt to restrict or abolish, and why? How do the laws justify the official treatment of Jews?

8. THE MASSACRE IN MAINZ AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST CRUSADE The First Crusade unleashed a period of violent interactions between western Christendom and the Islamic Middle East and North Africa. The first of many “crusades”—military campaigns organized by and with varying degrees of involvement of the Catholic Church—the First Crusade was summoned by Pope Urban II (r. 1088–99) during the fall of 1095, with the aim of conquering the Holy Land (in particular, Jerusalem) from 27

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

its Muslim rulers. Although the pope likely envisioned an organized military operation, which took some time to coalesce, his call for “liberating” the Holy Land created a surge of popular religious fervor and prompted the so-called “Peasants’ Crusade,” consisting of poorly armed peasants, knights, and minor nobles. One of the largest bands of such crusaders, led by Count Emicho, engaged in large-scale violence against the Jewish communities in cities on the Rhine—in particular, Mainz, Speyer, and Worms— during the spring of 1096. Inspired by the rumors of the papal call to use violence against non-Christians (that is, Muslims in the east), these numerous and unruly bands of early crusaders likely understood their mission as a call to attack any non-Christians they encountered, including the Rhineland Jews. The resulting violence constitutes one of the most important episodes of persecution in medieval Jewish history, sometimes thought of as the beginning of a long history of anti-Jewish violence that culminated with the Holocaust. Other scholars see it as more of a cataclysm than the norm in Jewish-Christian relations. Nevertheless, the violence of the crusaders, the inability of secular and ecclesiastical rulers to protect the Jews from the mobs, the destruction of well-established communities, and the stories of Jewish martyrdom all left a deep imprint in Jewish cultural memory for centuries to come. The following account of the destruction of the Jewish community in Mainz (Mayence) comes from an anonymous Hebrew account from the Chronicle of Solomon bar Sampson. Source: trans. Jacob Rader Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315–1791 (Cincinnati: Sinai Press, 1938), pp. 115–20, revised.

1 It was on the third of Siwan . . . at noon [Tuesday, 27 May 1096], that Emicho the wicked, the enemy of the Jews, came with his whole army against the city gate, and the citizens opened it up for him. [Emicho, a German noble, led a band of plundering German and French crusaders.] Then the enemies of the Lord said to each other: “Look! They have opened up the gate for us. Now let us avenge the blood of ‘the hanged one’ [Jesus].” The children of the holy covenant who were there, martyrs who feared the most high, although they saw the great multitude, an army numerous as the sand on the shore of the sea, still clung to their creator. Then young and old donned their armor and girded on their weapons, and at their head was Rabbi Kalonymus ben Meshullam, the chief of the community. Yet because of the many troubles and the fasts which they had observed they had no strength to stand up against the enemy. [They had fasted to avert the impending evils.] Then came gangs and bands, sweeping through like a flood, until Mayence was filled from end to end. The foe Emicho proclaimed in the hearing of the community that the enemy be driven from the city and be put to flight. Panic was great in the town. Each 28

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

Jew in the inner court of the bishop girded on his weapons, and all moved toward the palace gate to fight the crusaders and the citizens. They fought each other up to the very gate, but the sins of the Jews brought it about that the enemy overcame them and took the gate. The hand of the Lord was heavy against his people. All the Gentiles were gathered together against the Jews in the courtyard to blot out their name, and the strength of our people weakened when they saw the wicked Edomites [traditional foes of the Jews; here, Christians] overpowering them. The bishop’s men, who had promised to help them, were the very first to flee, thus delivering the Jews into the hands of the enemy. They were indeed a poor support; even the bishop himself fled from his church for it was thought to kill him also because he had spoken good things of the Jews. . . . [Archbishop Ruthard had been paid to remain and defend the Jews. He was later accused of having received some of the plunder taken from them.] When the children of the holy covenant saw that the heavenly decree of death had been issued and that the enemy had conquered them and had entered the courtyard, then all of them—old men and young, virgins and children, servants and maids—cried out together to their Father in heaven and, weeping for themselves and for their lives, accepted as just the sentence of God. One to another they said: “Let us be strong and let us bear the yoke of the holy religion, for only in this world can the enemy kill us—and the easiest of the four deaths is by the sword. But we, our souls in paradise, shall continue to live eternally, in the great shining reflection [of the divine glory].” [In Jewish law, the four death penalties were stoning, burning, beheading, and strangulation.] With a whole heart and with a willing soul they then spoke: “After all it is not right to criticize the acts of God—blessed be he and blessed be his name—who has given to us his Torah and a command to put ourselves to death, to kill ourselves for the unity of his holy name. Happy are we if we do his will. Happy is anyone who is killed or slaughtered, who dies for the unity of his name, so that he is ready to enter the world to come, to dwell in the heavenly camp with the righteous—with Rabbi Akiba and his companions, the pillars of the universe, who were killed for his name’s sake. [The Romans martyred Akiba during the Bar Kokhba revolt, about 135 CE.] Not only this; but he exchanges the world of darkness for the world of light, the world of trouble for the world of joy, and the world that passes away for the world that lasts for all eternity.” Then all of them, to a man, cried out with a loud voice: “Now we must delay no longer for the enemy is already upon us. Let us hasten and offer ourselves as a sacrifice to the Lord. Let him who has a knife examine it that it not be nicked, and let him come and slaughter us for the sanctification of the only one, the everlasting, and then let him cut his own throat or plunge the knife into his own body.” [A nick in the slaughterer’s knife would make it ritually unfit.] 29

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

As soon as the enemy came into the courtyard they found some of the very pious there with our brilliant master, Isaac ben Moses. He stretched out his neck, and his head they cut off first. The others, wrapped in their fringed prayingshawls, sat by themselves in the courtyard, eager to do the will of their creator. They did not care to flee into the chamber to save themselves for this temporal life, but out of love they received upon themselves the sentence of God. The enemy showered stones and arrows upon them, but they did not care to flee; and “with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter, and destruction” [Esther 9:5] the foe killed all of those whom they found there. When those in the chambers saw the deed of these righteous ones, how the enemy had already come upon them, they then cried out, all of them: “There is nothing better than for us to offer our lives as a sacrifice.” [The outnumbered Jews had no chance to win: Emicho is reported to have had about twelve thousand men.] The women there girded their loins with strength and slew their sons and their daughters and then themselves. Many men, too, plucked up courage and killed their wives, their sons, their infants. The tender and delicate mother slaughtered the babe she had played with; all of them, men and women arose and slaughtered one another. The maidens and the young brides and grooms looked out of the windows and in a loud voice cried: “Look and see, O our God, what we do for the sanctification of your great name in order not to exchange you for a hanged and crucified one. . . .” Thus were the precious children of Zion, the Jews of Mayence, tried with ten trials like Abraham, our father, and like Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah [who were thrown into a fiery furnace, Dan. 3:21]. They tied their sons as Abraham tied Isaac his son, and they received upon themselves with a willing soul the yoke of the fear of God, the king of the kings of kings, the holy one, blessed be he, rather than deny and exchange the religion of our king for “an abhorred offshoot [Jesus] . . .” [Isa. 14:19]. [Christians and Jews of those days often spoke contemptuously of each other’s religion.] They stretched out their necks to the slaughter and they delivered their pure souls to their Father in heaven. Righteous and pious women bared their throats to each other, offering to be sacrificed for the unity of the name. A father turning to his son or brother, a brother to his sister, a woman to her son or daughter, a neighbor to a neighbor or a friend, a groom to a bride, a fiancé to a fiancée, would kill and would be killed, and blood touched blood. The blood of the men mingled with their wives’, the blood of the fathers with their children’s, the blood of the brothers with their sisters’, the blood of the teachers with their disciples’, the blood of the grooms with their brides’, the blood of the leaders with their cantors’, the blood of the judges with their scribes’, and the blood of infants and sucklings with their mothers’. For the unity of the honored and awe-inspiring name were they killed and slaughtered. 30

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

The ears of him who hears these things will tingle, for who has ever heard anything like this? Inquire now and look about, was there ever such an abundant sacrifice as this since the days of the primeval Adam? Were there ever eleven hundred offerings on one day, each one of them like the sacrifice of Isaac, the son of Abraham? For the sake of Isaac who was ready to be sacrificed on Mount Moriah, the world shook, as it is said: “Behold their valiant ones cry without; [the angels of peace weep bitterly]” [Isa. 33:7] and “the heavens grow dark” [Jer. 4:28]. Yet see what these martyrs did! Why did the heavens not grow dark and the stars not withdraw their brightness? Why did not the moon and the sun grow dark in their heavens when on one day, on the third of Siwan, on a Tuesday, eleven hundred souls were slaughtered, among them so many infants and sucklings who had not transgressed nor sinned, so many poor, innocent souls? Will you, despite this, still restrain yourself, O Lord? For your sake it was that these numberless souls were killed. Avenge quickly the blood of your servants which was spilled in our days and in our sight. Amen. 2. Rachel and Her Children Now I shall recount and tell of the most unusual deeds that were done on that day [27 May 1096] by these righteous ones. . . . Who has ever seen anything like this? Who has ever heard of a deed like that which was performed by this righteous and pious woman, the young Rachel, the daughter of Rabbi Isaac ben Asher, the wife of Rabbi Judah? For she said to her friends: “I have four children. Do not spare even them, lest the Christians come, take them alive, and bring them up in their false religion. Through them, too, sanctify the name of the holy God.” So one of her companions came and picked up a knife to slaughter her son. But when the mother of the children saw the knife, she let out a loud and bitter lament and she beat her face and breast, crying: “Where are your mercies, O God?” In the bitterness of her soul she said to her friend: “Do not slay Isaac in the presence of his brother Aaron lest Aaron see his brother’s death and run away.” The woman then took the lad Isaac, who was small and very pretty, and she slaughtered him while the mother spread out her sleeves to receive the blood, catching it in her garment instead of a basin. When the child Aaron saw that his brother Isaac was slain, he screamed again and again: “Mother, mother, do not butcher me,” and ran and hid under a chest. She had two daughters also who still lived at home, Bella and Matrona, beautiful young girls, the children of her husband Rabbi Judah. The girls took the knife and sharpened it themselves that it should not be nicked. Then the woman bared their [the girls’] necks and sacrificed them to the Lord God of hosts who 31

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

has commanded us not to change his pure religion but to be perfect with him, as it is written: “Perfect shall you be with the Lord your God” [Deut. 18:13]. When this righteous woman had made an end of sacrificing her three children to their creator, she then raised her voice and called out to her son Aaron: “Aaron, where are you? You also I will not spare nor will I have any mercy.” Then she dragged him out by his foot from under the chest where he had hidden himself, and she sacrificed him before God, the high and exalted. She put her children next to her body, two on each side, covering them with her two sleeves, and there they lay struggling in the agony of death. When the enemy seized the room they found her sitting and wailing over them. “Show us the money that is under your sleeves,” they said to her. But when it was the slaughtered children they saw, they struck her and killed her, upon her children, and her spirit flew away and her soul found peace at last. To her applied the biblical verse: “The mother was dashed in pieces with her children” [Hosea 10:14]. When the father saw the death of his four beautiful, lovely children, he cried aloud, weeping and wailing, and threw himself upon the sword in his hand so that his bowels came out, and he wallowed in blood on the road together with the dying who were convulsed, rolling in their life’s blood. The enemy killed all those who were left in the room and then stripped them naked; “See, O Lord, and behold, how abject I am become” [Lam. 1:11]. Then the crusaders began to give thanks in the name of “the hanged one” because they had done what they wanted with all those in the room of the bishop so that not a soul escaped. [The crusaders now held a thanksgiving service in the archbishop’s palace where the massacre took place.] Questions: How does the anonymous chronicler describe the parties involved in the massacre, the crusaders and Jews? How did the Jews of Mainz respond to the crusaders’ attack, and why? What do the bishop’s actions during the massacre suggest about the relationship between the Jewish communities in western Christendom and the Church?

9. BLOOD LIBEL: THE MURDER OF WILLIAM OF NORWICH This account is the earliest known medieval description of ritual murder (blood libel) accusations against the Jews; here, the Jewish community of Norwich is alleged to have kidnapped, tortured, and killed a twelve-year-old boy named William around Easter 1144. Penned by Thomas of Monmouth (d. after 1172), a Benedictine monk from Norwich, The Life and Miracles of Saint William of Norwich gave rise to a conspiracy theory that outlasted the Middle Ages and remained a feature of European anti-Judaism into the twentieth century. Blood libel, an anti-Jewish myth that Thomas of Monmouth helped to establish with his writings, accuses Jews of stealing and murdering children, 32

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

often killing them on the cross to imitate the crucifixion of Christ, and then collecting their blood either to drink or to use in various rituals. Although he was unlikely to have expected his work to have had such a tremendous and lasting impact, Thomas of Monmouth wrote this martyrdom account in order to promote his own monastery, where the body of the boy was eventually buried. Accounts of martyrdom and miracles were likely to put the monastery at the center of a saint cult and might have even created a trickle of pilgrims. Thomas, who was not actually in Norwich when the alleged murder happened (he arrived at the monastery only in 1149), creates the impression of an investigation that was conducted thoroughly, citing multiple witnesses, even including the recently converted Jews among his informers. It is possible that this illusion of evidence strongly influenced later accusations of ritual murder (see, for example, Figure 2.1 at the beginning of this chapter). The complete account of William’s death and his subsequent miracles is too long to be included in full; what follow are excerpts describing his alleged murder. Source: trans. Augustus Jessop and Montague Rhodes James, Thomas of Monmouth, The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896), pp. 14–23, 30, revised.

How He Usually Associated with the Jews, and Having Been Warned by His Own People for Doing So, How He withdrew Himself from Them When therefore he was flourishing in this blessed boyhood of his, and had attained to his eighth year, he was entrusted to the skinners to be taught their craft. Gifted with a teachable disposition and bringing industry to bear upon it, in a short time he far surpassed lads of his own age in the craft aforesaid, and he equaled some who had been his teachers. So leaving the country, by the drawing of a divine attraction he betook himself to the city and lodged with a very famous master of that craft, and some time passed away. He was seldom in the country, but was occupied in the city and sedulously gave himself to the practice of his craft, and thus reached his twelfth year. Now, while he was staying in Norwich, the Jews who were settled there and required their cloaks or their robes or other garments (whether pledged to them, or their own property) to be repaired, preferred him before all other skinners. For they esteemed him to be especially fit for their work, either because they had learned that he was guileless and skillful, or because attracted to him by their avarice they thought they could bargain with him for a lower price. Or, as I rather believe, because by the ordering of divine providence he had been predestined to martyrdom from the beginning of time, and gradually step by step was drawn on, and chosen to be made a mock of and to be put to death by the Jews, in scorn of the Lord’s passion, as one of little foresight, and so the more fit for them. For I have learned from certain Jews, who were afterward converted to the Christian faith, how 33

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

at that time they had planned to do this very thing with some Christian, and in order to carry out their malignant purpose, at the beginning of Lent they had made choice of the boy William, being twelve years of age and a boy of unusual innocence. So it came to pass that when the holy boy, ignorant of the treachery that had been planned, had frequent dealings with the Jews, he was taken to task by Godwin the priest, who had the boy’s aunt as his wife, and by a certain Wulward with whom he lodged, and he was prohibited from going in and out among them anymore. But the Jews, annoyed at the thwarting of their designs, tried with all their might to patch up a new scheme of wickedness, and all the more vehemently as the day for carrying out the crime they had determined upon drew near, and the victim who they had thought they had already secured had slipped out of their wicked hands. Accordingly, collecting all the cunning of their crafty plots, they found—I am not sure whether he was a Christian or a Jew—a man who was a most treacherous fellow and just the fitting person for carrying out their execrable crime, and with all haste—for their Passover was coming on in three days—they sent him to find out and bring back with him the victim who, as I said before, had slipped out of their hands. How He Was Seduced by the Jews’ Messenger At the dawn of day, on the Monday after Palm Sunday, that detestable messenger of the Jews set out to execute the business that was committed to him, and at last the boy William, after being searched for with very great care, was found. When he was found, he [the messenger] got round him with cunning wordy tricks, and so deceived him with his lying promises. For he pretended that he was the cook of William, archdeacon of Norwich, and that he wished to have him as a helper in the kitchen, where if he should continue steadily with him he would get many advantages in his situation. The simple boy was deceived, and trusted himself to the man; but, wishing to have his mother’s favorable consent—for his father had died by this time—he started with the fellow to find her. When they had come to where she was, the boy told her the cause of his errand, and the traitor according to the tenor of his previous offer cast the net of his treachery. So that son of perdition by many promises easily prevailed upon the boy’s mind by his tempting offers. Yet at first he could not at all gain the mother’s consent; but when the scoundrel persisted the innocent boy agreed though his mother, moved by presentiment, resisted, and in her motherly affection feeling some fear for her son. . . . So the traitor took three shillings from his purse with intent to get the better of the mother’s fancy and to bend the fickle stubbornness of a fickle woman, seduced by the glitter of money to the lust of gain. Thus the money was offered as the price of the innocent’s service, or rather in truth as the price of his blood. But not even yet was the mother’s devotion appeased, nor the 34

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

presentiment of a coming evil easily removed. The wrangling still went on: on one side with prayers, and on the other with the pieces of silver, if so be that, though he could not prevail upon her stubbornness by his continual offers, the brightness of the coins that smiled at her might serve as a lure to her avarice. So the mother’s mind was cruelly vanquished by these, even though the maternal affection only slowly gave way under the temptation and, seduced at last by the shining pieces of silver, she was the victim of her covetousness. . . . How on His Going to the Jews He Was Taken, Mocked, and Slain In the morning accordingly that traitor, the imitator in almost everything of the traitor Judas, returned to Norwich with the boy, and as he was passing by the house of the boy’s aunt he went in with him and said that the mother had entrusted the boy to himself, and then he went out again hastily. But the boy’s aunt said quickly to her daughter, “Follow them at once, and take care you find out where that man is leading the boy off to.” Thus the girl ran out to explore the way they were going; and she followed them at a distance as they turned about through some private alleys, and at last she saw them entering cautiously into the house of a certain Jew, and immediately she heard the door shut. When she saw this she went back to her mother and told her what she had seen. Then the boy, like an innocent lamb, was led to the slaughter. He was treated kindly by the Jews at first, and, ignorant of what was his being prepared for him, he was kept till the morrow. But on the next day, which in that year was the Passover for them, after the singing of the hymns appointed for the day in the synagogue, the chiefs of the Jews assembled in the house of the Jew aforesaid suddenly seized hold of the boy William as he was having his dinner and in no fear of any treachery, and illtreated him in various horrible ways. For while some of them held him behind, others opened his mouth and introduced an instrument of torture which is called a teazle, and, fixing it by straps through both jaws to the back of his neck, they fastened it with a knot as tightly as it could be drawn. After that, taking a short piece of rope of about the thickness of one’s little finger and tying three knots in it at certain distances marked out, they bound round that innocent head with it from the forehead to the back, forcing the middle knot into his forehead and the two others into his temples, the two ends of the rope being most tightly stretched at the back of his head and fastened in a very tight knot. The ends of the rope were then passed round his neck and carried round his throat under his chin, and there they finished off this dreadful engine of torture in a fifth knot. But not even yet could the cruelty of the torturers be satisfied without adding even more severe pains. Having shaved his head, they stabbed it with 35

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

countless thorn-points, and made the blood come horribly from the wounds they made. And cruel were they and so eager to inflict pain that it was difficult to say whether they were more cruel or more ingenious in their tortures. For their skill in torturing kept up the strength of their cruelty and ministered arms thereto. And thus, while these enemies of the Christian name were rioting in the spirit of malignity around the boy, some of those present adjudged him to be fixed to a cross in mockery of the Lord’s passion, as though they would say, “Even as we condemned the Christ to a shameful death, so let us also condemn the Christian, so that, uniting the Lord and his servant in a like punishment, we may retort upon themselves the pain of that reproach which they impute to us.” Conspiring, therefore, to accomplish the crime of this great and detestable malice, they next laid their blood-stained hands upon the innocent victim, and having lifted him from the ground and fastened him upon the cross, they vied with one another in their efforts to make an end of him. And we, after inquiring into the matter very diligently, did both find the house, and discovered some most certain marks in it of what had been done there. For the report goes that there was there instead of a cross a post set up between two other posts, and a beam stretched across the midmost post and attached to the other on either side. And as we afterward discovered, from the marks of the wounds and of the bands, the right hand and foot had been tightly bound and fastened with cords, but the left hand and foot were pierced with two nails: so in fact the deed was done by design that, in case at any time he should be found, when the fastenings of the nails were discovered it might not be supposed that he had been killed by Jews rather than by Christians. But while in doing these things they were adding pang to pang and wound to wound, and yet were not able to satisfy their heartless cruelty and their inborn hatred of the Christian name, lo! after all these many and great tortures, they inflicted a frightful wound in his left side, reaching even to his inmost heart, and as though to make an end of all they extinguished his mortal life so far as it was in their power. And since many streams of blood were running down from all parts of his body, then, to stop the blood and to wash and close the wounds, they poured boiling water over him. Thus then the glorious boy and martyr of Christ, William, dying the death of time in reproach of the Lord’s death, but crowned with the blood of a glorious martyrdom, entered into the kingdom of glory on high to live forever. Whose soul rejoices blissfully in heaven among the bright hosts of the saints, and whose body by the omnipotence of the divine mercy works miracles upon earth. . . . All which I, Thomas, a monk of Norwich, after hearing it from their lips and knowing it to be certainly true, have been careful to hand down in writing, because I did not think that the story of so important a truth ought to be lost or concealed by silence. 36

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

Questions: How does the text describe the Jews of Norwich? What common stereotypes associated with medieval anti-Judaism does his description feature? What sources of information about the alleged murder of William of Norwich does the author use in his martyrdom account and how does he make his story seem more plausible? Why might such a libelous, untrue, and inflammatory text have found readers and popularizers during the Middle Ages and afterward?

10. A PAPAL RESPONSE: GREGORY X AGAINST THE BLOOD LIBEL Blood libel, or accusations of kidnapping and murdering of Christian children made against European Jews, continued to exist in the medieval Christian imagination since the first instance of such accusations in twelfth-century Norwich (doc. 9). By the late thirteenth century, the Church and the papacy, in particular, felt the need to intervene and try to dispel such groundless accusations. Since the time of Pope Gregory I (r. 590–604), the papacy had established a tradition of issuing bulls aimed at stopping Christians from harassing the Jews. In the thirteenth century, these bulls, which were often re-issued by new popes using earlier models and similar wording, began to include specific passages forbidding Christians from believing and acting upon the accusations of ritual murder made against the Jews. The first bull of this kind was issued by Pope Innocent IV (r. 1243–54) in 1247; his example was followed by Pope Gregory X (r. 1271–76), whose bull is included here. In addition to taking an unequivocal stance against the blood libel, Gregory X also makes a point of requiring that any accusations made against a Jew by Christians must be supported by a statement of at least one Jewish witness. Despite papal bulls against the accusation of ritual murder, it remained a staple of anti-Judaism in Europe. The latest large-scale accusations caused pogroms in the Russian Empire as recently as the early twentieth century, while the Catholic Church continued to reissue decrees against the blood libel until the eighteenth century. Source: trans. Jacob Rader Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315–1791 (Cincinnati: Sinai Press, 1938), pp. 151–54, revised.

Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, extends greetings and the apostolic benediction to the beloved sons in Christ, the faithful Christians, to those here now and to those in the future. Even as it is not allowed to the Jews in their assemblies presumptuously to undertake for themselves more than that which is permitted them by law, even so they ought not to suffer any disadvantage in those [privileges] which have been granted them. [This sentence, first written by Gregory I in 598, embodies the attitude of the Church to the Jews.] Although they prefer to persist in their stubbornness rather than to recognize the words of their prophets and the mysteries of the scriptures [which, according to the Church, 37

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

foretold the coming of Jesus], and thus to arrive at a knowledge of Christian faith and salvation; nevertheless, inasmuch as they have made an appeal for our protection and help, we therefore admit their petition and offer them the shield of our protection through the clemency of Christian piety. In so doing we follow in the footsteps of our predecessors of blessed memory, the popes of Rome—Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, Celestine, Innocent, and Honorius. We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue. For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to possess the Christian faith. Moreover no Christian shall presume to seize, imprison, wound, torture, mutilate, kill, or inflict violence on them; furthermore no one shall presume, except by judicial action of the authorities of the country, to change the good customs in the land where they live for the purpose of taking their money or goods from them or from others. In addition, no one shall disturb them in any way during the celebration of their festivals, whether by day or by night, with clubs or stones or anything else. Also no one shall exact any compulsory service of them unless it be that which they have been accustomed to render in previous times. [Up to this point Gregory X has merely repeated the bulls of his predecessors.] Inasmuch as the Jews are not able to bear witness against the Christians, we decree furthermore that the testimony of Christians against Jews shall not be valid unless there is along with these Christians some Jew who is there for the purpose of offering testimony. Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their Christian children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these children or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits. And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifice from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this. 38

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unless—which we do not believe—they be caught in the act of committing the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now. We decree, in order to stop the wickedness and avarice of bad men that no one shall dare to devastate or to destroy a cemetery of the Jews or to dig up human bodies for the sake of getting money. [The Jews had to pay a ransom before the bodies of their dead were restored to them.] Moreover, if anyone, after having known the content of this decree, should—which we hope will not happen—attempt audaciously to act contrary to it, then let him suffer punishment in his rank and position, or let him be punished by the penalty of excommunication, unless he makes amends for his boldness by proper recompense. Moreover, we wish that only those Jews who have not attempted to contrive anything toward the destruction of the Christian faith be fortified by the support of such protection. . . . Given at Orvieto by the hand of the Magister John Lectator, vice-chancellor of the holy Roman Church, on the 7th of October, in the first indiction, in the year 1272 of the divine incarnation, in the first year of the pontificate of our master, the pope, Gregory X. Questions: Judging by the language of the papal bull, how were the Jewish communities officially supposed to be treated in medieval Europe? What particular practices did Pope Gregory X try to prohibit with his decree? How does the language of the papal bull compare to Saint Augustine’s attitude toward the Jews (doc. 6)?

11. A JEWISH WOMAN IN A CHRISTIAN MIRACLE STORY Caesarius of Heisterbach (c. 1180–c. 1240) was a Cistercian monk and prolific author, whose most popular work is Dialogue on Miracles (Dialogus Miraculorum), a collection of short stories meant to provide engaging lessons in morality and Catholic doctrine. At the monastery of Heisterbach, Caesarius was responsible for educating novices—newly admitted members of the order—which may explain the overall structure of the Dialogue: a conversation between a monk and a novice. The miracle story included here deals with a young Jewish woman converting to Christianity against the wishes of her family. Although the story touches upon Jewish culture and repeats common stereotypes about medieval European Jewry, its main focus is on avarice and corruption among the higher 39

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

ranks of the Christian clergy and the nobility, who cared more about lining their pockets than defending the interests of the Church. Source: trans. Jacob Rader Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315–1791 (Cincinnati: Sinai Press, 1938), pp. 142–44, revised.

Monk: A little while ago, the daughter of a Jew at Louvain was converted to the faith in the following manner. A cleric named Rener, chaplain to the duke of Louvain, was in the habit of going to the house of this Jew to argue with him about the Christian faith. His daughter [Rachel], then a little girl, would often listen very eagerly to the discussion, and would weigh, as well as her intelligence allowed, both the arguments of the Jew, her father, and those of his clerical opponent; and so, little by little, she became, by the providence of God, imbued with the Christian faith. Being taught secretly also by the cleric, she became so far contrite as to say that she wished to be baptized. A woman was brought to her, who withdrew her secretly from her father’s house; the cleric baptized and placed her in a convent of the Cistercian Order, called Park [near Louvain]. When her conversion became known, the infidel father was much grieved, and offered the duke a great sum of money to restore to him his daughter, who, he complained, had been taken by stealth from his house. Now the duke was quite willing to restore the girl, though a Christian, to her father, though a Jew; but the cleric Rener resisted him saying: “Sir, if you commit this crime against God and his church, never can your soul be saved.” Dom Walter, the abbot of Villers [south of Louvain], also opposed him. The Jew, seeing that he was disappointed in the hope he had cherished from the duke, is said to have bribed Hugo [de Pierrepont, d. 1229], the bishop of Liège, who took the part of the Jew to such an extent, that he sent letters to the convent of nuns at Park, ordering them to restore his daughter to him. But when the Jew, accompanied by his friends and relations reached the convent, the maiden, who was established there, though she knew nothing of his coming, began to perceive a very evil odor, so that she said openly: “I do not know whence it comes, but an odor as of Jews is troubling me.” [This is the foetor judaicus, the “Jewish stench,” which Jews were said to possess.] Meanwhile the Jews were knocking at the window; and the abbess, as I believe, said to the girl: “Daughter Catherine,” for so she had been named at her baptism, “your parents wish to see you.” She replied, “That explains the odor I perceived; I will not see them”; and she refused to leave the house. At the end of the year the bishop of Liège was accused of this action of his before Dom Engilbert, archbishop of Cologne [d. 1225], in the 40

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

synod held by him, and he was ordered never again to trouble the aforesaid convent with regard to this girl who had been baptized. [A special council was held in Cologne about 1220 to try Hugo.] He was silenced for a time, but not really obedient; for not long afterward he sent a letter summoning the young woman, under pain of excommunication, to come to Liège to answer the objections raised by her father. She came but under good protection. It was alleged, on the part of the Jew, that she was carried away and baptized by force when underage; and it was said to the girl: “Catherine, we have been told that you would gladly go back to your father, if you were allowed.” She replied: “Who told you this?” and they answered: “Your father himself.” Then in a clear voice she uttered these words: “My father truly has lied in his beard.” Now when the Jew’s advocate [a Christian lawyer] continued to urge her, Dom Walter, the abbot of Villers was much moved and said to him: “Sir, you are speaking against God and against your own honor. Be sure of this, that if you say one single word more against the girl, I will do all I can with the lord pope, that you may never be allowed to speak in any cause again.” [The lawyer is threatened with disbarment if he tries to win the father’s case.] Then being frightened by this he said privately to the abbot: “My lord abbot, what harm does it do to you if I can manage to get money out of this Jew? I will say nothing that can possibly hurt the girl.” But presently when he received his fees from the Jew, he said to him: “I do not dare to say another word in this case.” At the end of the year, when Dom Wido, abbot of Clairvaux, was making his visitation in the diocese of Liège, he met the bishop, warned him, and begged him to have respect for God and his own honor, and to cease from harassing a maiden already dedicated to Christ. To whom the bishop replied: “My good lord abbot, what has this case to do with you?” The abbot answered: “It has a great deal to do with me, and for two reasons; first because I am a Christian, and next, because that convent in which she is living is of the lineage of Clairvaux.” [This convent was a daughter institution of the abbey of Clairvaux.] And he added, “I shall place this girl and her case under the protection of the lord pope, and shall ground my appeal upon the letters written by you against her.” At the time of the General Chapter [meeting], he sent to the prior of Park, through our abbot [of Heisterbach], letters which he had obtained from the lord pope against the bishop [of Liège], so that, if by any chance the bishop should attempt to harass the convent further on this girl’s account, he might defend himself by these letters. Novice: Just as, a little while ago, I was edified by the pity of the English bishop, so am I now scandalized by the avarice of him of Liège. 41

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Monk: His defenders say that his persistence in this affair was due, not to love of money, but to zeal for justice. But it is difficult to believe this, because if he had been actuated by the motive of justice, he would certainly not have tried to force a baptized girl, a virgin consecrated to Christ and a nun in a Christian convent, to return to Jewish infidelity. Novice: Yes, I fully agree with that. Questions: What common stereotypes associated with the Jews in the Middle Ages does this story employ? What can we learn about attitudes toward medieval Jews from Caesarius’s story? What anxieties about the relationship between Jewish communities and the Church does this document reveal?

12. KING OTAKAR II PROMISES ROYAL PROTECTION TO THE JEWS IN BOHEMIA AND AUSTRIA During the High Middle Ages, we see the establishment of thriving Jewish communities in Austria, Bohemia, and Moravia. At least some Jews moved to central and parts of eastern Europe, attracted by the relatively tolerant policies of the local rulers. The rulers, in turn, saw the Jewish communities in their domains as primarily an economic opportunity: Jewish moneylenders and pawnbrokers provided vital loans to the cashstrapped populations of these lands and to the rulers themselves. Moreover, in return for toleration and protection, Jewish communities were heavily taxed. In 1254, Otakar II (r. 1253–78), king of Bohemia and duke of Austria and Styria and margrave of Moravia, issued a detailed charter to the Jews residing in his domain. Most of the charter deals with various regulations related to lending and handling of pawns; in addition, the charter protects the synagogues and cemeteries of the Jews and grants them extensive judicial autonomy. While the charter put the Jews under the direct authority of the king and duke, who even thought of them as belonging to the royal treasury, it provided Jewish communities—especially the one in Prague—with enough stability to thrive economically and culturally. Otakar’s charter follows closely a similar document issued to the Jews by Duke Frederick II of Austria (r. 1230–46) only ten years earlier, in 1244. Notably, Otakar’s charter also contains a provision against blood libel, an important addition meant to protect the Jews from accusations of engaging in ritual murder (docs. 9 and 10). Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Deutsche Rechtsdenkmäler aus Böhmen und Mähren, ed. Emil Franz Rössler (Prague: Calve, 1845), vol. 1, pp. 180–86.

We, Otakar, by the grace of God king of Bohemia, duke of Austria, Styria, and the Moravian march, to all in perpetuity. As we wish that men of any status residing in our domain should partake in our grace and good will, we establish 42

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

these laws to be observed by all Jews in our kingdom and domain without violation.   1. A Christian should not be admitted as a witness against the Jews, unless a Jew and a Christian testify [together]. Firstly, we decree, therefore, that in matters involving money or immovable property, or in a criminal case involving the person or property of a Jew, no Christian shall be admitted as a witness against a Jew unless there is a Jewish witness together with the Christian.   2. If a Christian sues a Jew regarding the pawn and the Jew denies [having the pawn], the Jew can avoid the suit by swearing an oath. If a Christian accuses a Jew, asserting that he has deposited a pawn with him, and should the Jew deny this, and if a Christian does not wish to put faith in a mere word of the Jew, the Jew can swear an oath to this effect on an item of equal value and then be acquitted.   3. If a Christian claims he deposited a pawn with a Jew for a smaller amount of money, the Jew can deny this under oath. If a Christian accuses a Jew with whom he deposited a pawn, stating that he owes a smaller amount of money than the Jew claims, the Jew can swear an oath on the pawn deposited with him, and the Christian cannot refuse to pay his debt.   4. If a Jew says he returned the Christian’s pawn, the Christian can clear himself with an oath. If a Jew says that he returned the pawn to the Christian, in absence of witnesses, and the Christian denies it, the Christian can clear himself with just his own oath.   5. The Jews can receive any items as pawns, except sacred vestments and [clothes] soaked with blood. A Jew can receive as pawns any item given to him, no matter what it is called, without any investigation, except bloody or wet clothes and sacred vestments, which he should accept under no condition. [Wet or bloody clothes were likely procured as a result of theft or murder; it seemed equally problematic to pawn sacred vestments with Jewish moneylenders.]   6. If a Jew claims against a Christian, that he did not know that the pawn deposited with him was taken from the Christian through theft or violence, then the Christian owes him. If a Christian accuses a Jew that the pawn that the Jew possesses was taken from him by theft or violence, the Jew should swear on the pawn that he did not know that it was stolen or forcibly taken. In this oath, the amount owed for the pawned item should be included, and if the Jew has 43

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

the proof, after the situation was cleared, the Christian shall pay the amount of the loan and the interest accrued.   7. If a Christian pawned something with a Jew, and the Jew lost his own property and the pawn, he shall swear an oath and be absolved of the charge. If because of a fire or theft or violence the Jew should lose his own property along with the pawns deposited with him, and this is proven, and if a Christian that pawned an item nevertheless demands his pawn, the Jew can clear himself by swearing an oath.   8. The city shall do nothing regarding the Jews, unless [through] the king or the duke. In matters concerning a person, only the king can decide [the case]. If the Jews argue among themselves or even fight, the judge of our city has no jurisdiction over this, but [only] the king or the duke or the chief official of the land or the kingdom shall dispense justice. If however the matter concerns the person, the judgment should be reserved only for the king or the duke.   9. For wounding a Jew, the punishment is due to the king and to the victim. If a Christian inflicts a wound on a Jew in any way, the guilty party shall pay the king or the duke twelve marks of gold for their treasury, and to the wounded, twelve marks of silver and the expenses incurred for his medical treatment. 10. For a capital crime against a Jew the punishment, namely confiscation of goods, is due to the king. If a Christian kills a Jew, he shall be punished with a proper penalty [usually by death] and all his mobile and immobile property will pass to the king. 11. For striking [a Jew] without spilling blood, the punishment is due to the king and to the victim. If a Christian strikes a Jew in such a way that does not spill blood, he shall pay the king or duke four marks of gold, and owes to the one struck or injured four marks of silver. If he truly does not have the money, he shall provide satisfaction for the crime committed by the loss of his hand. 12. On the tolls demanded from the Jews. Wherever a Jew should pass through our kingdom, no one should impede, nor molest, not bother him. But if he brings some goods or other things, for which he must pay a duty to a customs collector, he shall pay no more than a citizen of that town, in which the Jew at that time resides. 13. On transportation of the Jewish dead. If the Jews, as is their tradition, should bring any of their dead from a city to a city, from a province to a province, from their land or any land to other lands, we wish that nothing should be demanded from them by the 44

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

customs collectors; if however a customs collector demands anything, he shall be punished for robbery, known in common tongue as “plunder of the dead” (rauber). 14. On the destruction of cemeteries. If a Christian, out of whatever impudence, should destroy or invade a cemetery of the Jews, he shall die in a judicially prescribed way and everything he has, whatever it may be, shall pass into the king’s or duke’s treasury. 15. On violating the synagogues. If one impudently throws something at the synagogue of the Jews, we wish him to pay two talents to the judge of the Jews [a Christian official in charge of overseeing matters related to the Jewish community]. 16. On the judicial fees against the Jews. If a Jew is found guilty and punished by a fine, known as wandel, he shall pay no more than twelve dinars to the judge. 17. On the contempt [of court], which is punished by a fine. If a Jew is summoned by the order of a judge to court and he does not come on the first and the second time, he is to pay the judge four dinars for each time; if he does not come after the third summon, he is to pay thirtysix dinars to the same judge. 18. If a Jew has wounded a Jew. If a Jew has wounded a Jew, he cannot refuse to pay to his judge a fine of two talents, called a wandel. 19. How the Jews are supposed to take an oath. We establish that no Jew should swear on the Torah unless it is for the important cases that exceed fifty marks of silver, besides when summoned to our presence. In minor cases, he should swear before his synagogue at the expense of said synagogue. 20. On the secret murder of a Jew. If a Jew was murdered in secret and if by testimony it is impossible for his friends to find out who murdered him, [and] if after the investigation has been made the Jews suspect someone, we wish to provide a champion for the Jews [to fight] against the suspect. [This statute refers to the practice of judicial combat.] 21. On violence by hand against a Jewess. If a Christian strikes violently a Jewess by hand, we wish that his hand shall be cut off. 22. On the powers of the judge of the Jews. The judge of the Jews shall hear in court no cases that arise among the Jews themselves, unless he was invited due to a difference of opinions [as an outside arbiter]. 45

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

23. On compounding interest. If a Christian has paid back the loan on his pawn to a Jew but did not pay the interest, the interest shall be compounded, if not paid within a month. 24. On lodging in a house of a Jew. We wish that no one should be lodged in a house of a Jew. 25. On the documents and the possession of immovable property by the Jews. If a Jew has lent money to a magnate on his possessions or on a promissory note, and if he proves it with documents and seals, we will give the pawned possessions to the Jew and will protect him against violence. 26. On children of the Jews. If some man or a woman abducts a Jewish child, we wish that they be punished as thieves. 27. On deciding [the ownership of] the pawns. If a Jew has received a pawn from a Christian and held on to it for a year, and if the value of the pawn with interest does not exceed the loan, the Jew can present the pawn to the judge [of the Jews] and then be free to resell it. If a pawn remained with the Jew for a year and a day, he is not responsible for it to anyone. 28. Jews are not to be judged on their holidays. We wish that no one dares to force Jews to appear in court regarding the payment on pawns on their holidays. 29. On seizing pawns from Jews. If some Christians take their pawns from a Jew by force or use violence in their home, the robber of our treasury shall be gravely punished. 30. Judgment of the Jews in their synagogues. The judgment against a Jew should not proceed except in synagogues, with the exception of our right to summon them to our presence. 31. On attacks on the Jews by the Christians because of the murdered boy [that is, blood libel]. In accordance with the papal decrees, in the name of our holy Father, we most strictly forbid that certain Jews in our domain shall be blamed for using human blood, since in accordance with the commandments of their law, the Jews must completely avoid blood of all kinds. But if some Jew is accused by a Christian of murdering a Christian child, he must be convicted by three Christians and as many Jews; and then, after he has been convicted, that very same Jew must be punished only by punishment that is established for the crime he committed. If however the above-mentioned jury proves his innocence, the Christian [accuser] should be rightfully punished [in the same way] as the Jew would have had to endure. 46

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

32. A sum equal to the debt shall be paid to the Jews with interest. We decree, that whatever a Jew loaned be it gold, dinars, or silver, the same amount is to be paid back or returned with interest on the debt that accrued. . . . Enacted in Prague in the year of our Lord 1253. Given in Vienna by the hand of our protonotary master Arnold, in 1254, in the Kalends of April [1 April]. Questions: What aspects of the Jews’ activity in his domain was Otakar particularly interested in protecting, and why? How does Otakar approach the blood libel and protect the Jewish community from accusations of ritual murder? The document implies that any attack on the Jews or their property was a crime against the royal treasury. What can this tell us about Otakar’s attitude toward the Jews and what dangers might these attitudes pose for the Jews in Austria and Bohemia?

13. WELL-POISONING ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE JEWS The arrival of the plague in late medieval Europe—part of a larger plague pandemic in Afro-Eurasia that took place in the 1340s and early 1350s—was accompanied by a great number of victims and incredible social disarray. Even more frighteningly, the plague lacked a uniform explanation, which prompted a wide range of reactions, including the rise of conspiracy theories. Centuries of anti-Jewish sentiments, blood libel accusations, and violence aimed at the Jewish communities of Europe likely helped to create a distinct conspiracy theory that blamed the plague on a mysterious poison used by Jews to poison streams and wells in order to destroy Christendom. Notably, as one of the sources included in this collection demonstrates, this idea was not new. A few decades before the plague, similar accusations were made against French lepers who were said to be working together with the Jews and even with a Muslim ruler (doc. 59). In 1348, however, only the Jews were blamed for these “poisonings,” leading to a wave of arrests, executions, pogroms, and expulsions across central Europe. Once individuals were apprehended and tortured into confessing to all charges, their confessions were sent out from one town to its neighbors, feeding into a large-scale panic. We do not know why the men and women who were accused of these crimes provided clearly fictitious details about the poison and the “conspiracy” of which they were a part. As the document suggests, the persecutors were after the names of “accomplices,” who—once named—were swiftly apprehended and tortured to extract yet more names, thus creating an impression of being part of a whole network of seeming conspirators. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Urkundenbuch der Stadt Straßburg, ed. Wilhelm Wiegand et al., 7 vols. (Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner, 1879–1900), vol. 5, pp. 167–70, 174.

47

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

The castellan of Chillon, deputy to the lord bailiff of Chablis . . . to the burgomaster, councilmen, and the community of the city of Strasbourg. I understand that you seek to learn about the confessions of the Jews and the evidence against them. You should know that the officials of Bern have made a copy of the investigation and the confessions of those Jews who are recent residents in their land and who were accused of putting poison in wells and several other places. That copy contains truthful details on this matter. Many Jews confessed after being questioned under torture and some without torture; they were tried and condemned to be burned. And also some Christians, to whom the Jews gave the poison to murder other Christians, have been broken on the wheel [a form of death penalty]. And the burning of Jews and the torturing of the said Christians took place in many locations in the county of Savoy. May God watch over you! The following confession was made on 15 September, in the year of our Lord 1348 in the castle of Chillon, by the Jews of Villeneuve, who were held there charged with putting poison in springs, wells, and other places, and into food in order to murder and destroy the whole Christian faith: Balavigny, a Jewish surgeon and resident of Thonon, detained in Chillon because he was found in the castellan’s lands. He was tortured briefly and a long while after the torture ceased he confessed. About ten weeks earlier, Rabbi Jacob who arrived from Toledo [Spain] and was staying in Chambéry since Easter, sent him at Thonon, with a Jewish serving boy, some poison—about the size of an egg—in the form of a powder held in a leather bag, along with a certain letter, ordering him, under the pain of excommunication and in the name of obeying his [Jewish] faith, to put this poison into the largest and the most publicly used well in his village in order to poison the people using water from it. The letter also said not to reveal this to anyone at all under the aforementioned pain and that similar things were ordered to be done in various places by the Jewish rabbis of his faith. And he confessed that one night he secretly placed the said quantity of poisonous powder under a rock in the spring by Thonon’s lakeshore. He also confessed that the said servant showed him many letters to that effect, addressed to many other Jews and, in particular, addressed to Mossoiet, Banditon, and Samolet in Villeneuve, and to Musseo, Abraham, and Aquetus of Montreux, Jews in La Tour de Vevey, and some others to Beneton and his son in St-Maurice, while others addressed to Vivian, Jacob, Aquetus, and Sonetus at Évian les Bains. Similarly, a few other letters [were sent to] Hebrea and Musset, Jews of Monthey. The servant told him that he carried many other letters to various and remote places, but he did not know to whom they were addressed. Likewise, he confessed that after placing the said poison into the spring at Thonon he strictly forbade his wife and children to use that spring but did not explain the reason to them. And he confessed by his faith and by everything 48

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

contained in the Five Books of Moses in the presence of many trustworthy witnesses that everything he said was completely true. The next day, Balavigny voluntarily, without torture, and in the presence of trustworthy witnesses, maintained that the above confession was true, repeating it word-for-word. He further confessed of his own will that the day he came back from La Tour de Vevey he placed into a spring below Montreux that is called de la Conereyde an amount of poison the size of a nut, wrapped in a rag, which was given to him by Aquetus of Montreux, who resided in La Tour. He revealed the location of the poison to Manssionnus, a Jew who lives in Villeneuve, and to Delosatz, son of Musselotus, and told them not to drink from that spring. Furthermore, he described the poison being red and black in color. Likewise, on 19 September the said Balavigny confessed without torture that Mussus, a Jew of Villeneuve, told him three weeks after Pentecost that he had put poison in the fountain [called] Bornellorum in Villeneuve, namely at the customhouse, and said that afterward he did not drink water from there but from the lake instead. He confessed also that the same Mussus the Jew told him that he had placed poison similarly under some rocks in the fountain called Bornellorum in Chillon, namely at the customhouse. Then that fountain was investigated and the said poison was found; it was then given to a certain Jew who died, proving that this was the poison. He also said that the rabbis of his faith ordered him and other Jews to avoid drinking the water for nine days after placing poison in it. He said once he placed poison in the spring as he said above, he let other Jews know. He also confessed that over two months ago he was in Évian and spoke about the matter with Jacob, a Jew, and among other things, asked Jacob if he had the letter and the poison like the others. To this Jacob responded that he did. Afterward he asked him if he did what was told and Jacob responded that he did not place the poison himself but gave it to Savetus, a Jew, who threw it in the spring called de Morer in Évian. He encouraged Balavigny to fulfill his orders in the same way. He confessed that Aquetus of Montreux told him that he placed the poison in the spring above La Tour de Vevey, which he has used on occasion when in La Tour. He confessed that Samolet told him that he had put the poison he received into a spring but did not want to specify into which one. Balavigny also said, as a surgeon, that when anyone who is sick from this poison touches anyone else while sweating, that person will be poisoned by the touch; one can also be poisoned by the breath of the sick. He believes this to be true because he had heard expert physicians say so. And he is sure that other Jews cannot plead innocence, for they are well aware and guilty of the above. Balavigny was taken by a boat across the lake from Chillon to Clarens to identify the spring in which he placed the poison as he had confessed. As he 49

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

arrived, coming from below, and saw the place and the spring in which he had placed the poison, he said: “This is the spring where I put the poison.” The spring was searched in his presence and a linen cloth or rag, in which the said poison was [once] wrapped, was found in the spring, at its outflow, by Henri Girard, a notary public, in the presence of many people, and shown to the Jew. He confirmed that this was the cloth or rag in which he placed the poison in the public spring, saying that the poison was of two colors: black and red. That cloth or rag has been taken away and is in our care. Balavigny also confesses that each and every abovementioned thing is true, saying that he believes that said poison came from a basilisk [a mythical snakelike creature] because that poison cannot be made without the basilisk’s involvement, as he heard being said and is certain of it. . . . [Similar confessions by other Jewish men and women from that region follow.] Dearest friends, after receiving and reading your letters, I have made the transcriptions of the confessions made by the Jews above. And yet, there are many other accusations and proof against these Jews and other people elsewhere in the county of Savoy, both Jews and Christians, who have now been punished for their enormous crimes, which I do not have with me and cannot send along with the abovementioned [confessions]. You should know that all Jews residing in Villeneuve were condemned to be burned at the stake and at Augst three Christian men were flayed for placing the poison; I witnessed these punishments myself. Similarly, many Christians were discovered and arrested for the said crime in many other places, and especially in Évian, in the city of Geneva, in La Croisette, and Hauteville. They eventually, facing death, confirmed that they spread the poison given to them by the Jews. Of these Christians some were quartered, while others flayed and hanged. Trustworthy officials were appointed by my lord, count of Savoy, to punish the Jews, none of whom, I believe, survived. Questions: How were the well-poisoning accusations made against the Jews spread from one place to another? What role did coercion and violence play in securing confessions and perpetuating this conspiracy theory? Why do you think so many individuals confessed to these outlandish accusations?

14. THE MASSACRE OF THE JEWS IN STRASBOURG Fears associated with the plague epidemic provided a convenient cover for anti-Jewish violence in late medieval cities. The previous reading (doc. 13) demonstrates how the Jews were accused of poisoning the wells and “causing” the plague; these accusations were fueled equally by wild conspiracy theories and by confessions extracted under torture. Once 50

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

written down, these confessions were sent from one city to another, which helped to spread these dangerous accusations across central Europe. This excerpt from the Chronicle of Jacob Twinger of Königshofen shows the deadly effect such accusations had on the Jewish communities of Basel and especially Strasbourg (although similar pogroms took place in other European towns as well). Late medieval cities were often sites of prolonged political conflicts between the members of urban elites over their roles in city government. Shortly before the massacre, a popular uprising in Strasbourg—led by the members of the city’s many artisan guilds—overthrew the city council, no doubt using the well-poisoning accusations as an additional catalyst for political change. Once in power, the new government proved to be less sympathetic to the Jewish community, and violence ensued. Although Jacob Twinger (1346–1420) was too young to remember the terrible events of February 1349, his retelling of the massacre is based on the eyewitness accounts of his predecessors: chroniclers Mathias of Neuenburg and Fritsche Closener. The extermination of the Jewish community did not, of course, save Strasbourg from the plague; the epidemic hit the city in the summer of 1349 and took a heavy toll on its population. Source: trans. Jacob Rader Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315–1791 (Cincinnati: Sinai Press, 1938), pp. 45–47, revised.

About the Great Plague and the Burning of the Jews In the year 1349 there occurred the greatest epidemic that ever happened. Death went from one end of the earth to the other, on that side and this side of the sea, and it was greater among the Saracens than among the Christians. In some lands everyone died so that no one was left. Ships were also found on the sea laden with wares; the crew had all died and no one guided the ship. The bishop of Marseilles and priests and monks and more than half of all the people there died with them. In other kingdoms and cities so many people perished that it would be horrible to describe. The pope at Avignon stopped all sessions of court, locked himself in a room, allowed no one to approach him and had a fire burning before him all the time. [This was probably intended to purify the air.] And from what this epidemic came, all wise teachers and physicians could only say that it was God’s will. And as the plague was now here, so was it in other places, and lasted more than a whole year. This epidemic also came to Strasbourg in the summer of the abovementioned year, and it is estimated that about sixteen thousand people died. In the matter of this plague the Jews throughout the world were reviled and accused in all lands of having caused it through the poison which they are said to have put into the water and the wells—that is what they were accused of—and for this reason the Jews were burnt all the way from the Mediterranean into Germany, but not in Avignon, for the pope protected them there. 51

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Nevertheless they tortured a number of Jews in Bern and Zofingen [Switzerland] who then admitted that they had put poison into many wells, and they also found the poison in the wells. Thereupon they burnt the Jews in many towns and wrote of this affair to Strasbourg, Freiburg, and Basel in order that they too should burn their Jews. But the leaders in these three cities in whose hands the government lay did not believe that anything ought to be done to the Jews. However in Basel the citizens marched to the city hall and compelled the council to take an oath that they would burn the Jews, and that they would allow no Jew to enter the city for the next two hundred years. Thereupon the Jews were arrested in all these places and a conference was arranged to meet at Benfeld [Alsace, 8 February 1349]. The bishop of Strasbourg [Berthold II], all the feudal lords of Alsace, and representatives of the three abovementioned cities came there. The deputies of the city of Strasbourg were asked what they were going to do with their Jews. They answered and said that they knew no evil of them. Then they asked the Strasbourgers why they had closed the wells and put away the buckets, and there was a great indignation and clamor against the deputies from Strasbourg. So finally the bishop and the lords and the imperial cities agreed to do away with the Jews. The result was that they were burnt in many cities, and wherever they were expelled they were caught by the peasants and stabbed to death or drowned. [The town council of Strasbourg which wanted to save the Jews was deposed on 9–10 February, and the new council gave in to the mob, who then arrested the Jews on Friday, 13 February.] The Jews Are Burnt On Saturday—that was Saint Valentine’s Day—they burnt the Jews on a wooden platform in their cemetery. There were about two thousand of them. Those who wanted to baptize themselves were spared. [Some say that about a thousand accepted baptism.] Many small children were taken out of the fire and baptized against the will of their fathers and mothers. And everything that was owed to the Jews was cancelled, and the Jews had to surrender all pledges and notes that they had taken for debts. The council, however, took the cash that the Jews possessed and divided it among the workingmen proportionately. The money was indeed the thing that killed the Jews. If they had been poor and if the feudal lords had not been in debt to them, they would not have been burnt. After their wealth was divided among the artisans some gave their share to the cathedral or to the Church on the advice of their confessors. Thus were the Jews burnt at Strasbourg, and in the same year in all the cities of the Rhine, whether free cities or imperial cities or cities belonging to the lords. In some towns they burnt the Jews after a trial, in others, without a 52

t wo : a n t i - j u da i s m a n d p e r s e c u t i o n o f   t h e   j e w s

trial. In some cities the Jews themselves set fire to their houses and cremated themselves. The Jews Return to Strasbourg It was decided in Strasbourg that no Jew should enter the city for a hundred years, but before twenty years had passed, the council and magistrates agreed that they ought to admit the Jews again into the city for twenty years. And so the Jews came back again to Strasbourg in the year 1368 after the birth of our Lord. Questions: How did the political situation in Strasbourg affect the violence against the Jewish community there? How does the document’s author feel about the events he describes? Why do you think the Jews were allowed to return to Strasbourg only twenty years after the massacre?

53

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER THREE H E R E S Y A N D I NQU I S I T ION

Figure 3.1  Saint Dominic and the heretics. In this depiction of a miracle associated with Saint Dominic, he hands a book of Christian doctrine to a Cathar heretic (on the left side of the image). On the right, the heretic throws Dominic’s book into a fire, but it remains miraculously undamaged leaping out of the flames, while the heretics’ own writings catch fire instead. Part of Fra Angelico’s Coronation of the Virgin (c. 1435), this image expresses two themes associated with the medieval clerical understanding of heresy. First, heretics were imagined to be prideful and stubborn in their refusal to accept the beliefs prescribed by the Church. Second, heretical obstinacy was to be punished by God either directly or through his servants, such as Saint Dominic, the founder of the Dominican Order, which was associated with the suppression of heresy.

55

This page intentionally left blank

three: heresy and inquisition

15. HERESY IN THE CAROLINGIAN WORLD: GOTTSCHALK OF ORBAIS While the earliest Christian heresies became an issue for the Church soon after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313, by the ninth century these old heresies appeared to be part of the long-forgotten past. This helps to explain why the teachings of the Benedictine monk Gottschalk of Orbais (c. 804–68), who refused to abandon his views of predestination—belief that God predestined some to be saved and others to be damned—caused a scandal among some Carolingian clergy. Gottschalk, who, as a monk, was supposed to embody humility and obedience, instead became a symbol of disobedience and dissent. The predestination controversy took place at the time of political uncertainty in the Carolingian Empire, when the authority of Emperor Louis the Pious (778–840) was challenged by his sons and the united empire was about to be split into three at the Treaty of Verdun (843). While Gottschalk’s theological views—inspired by his reading of Augustine—ran against the contemporary understanding of predestination, his most important “crime” was in defying the Church hierarchy and endangering order through his habitual disobedience or independence. Eventually, Gottschalk was formally condemned at the Synods of Mainz (848) and Querzy (849) and, having refused to recant his teachings, was beaten with a rod for his disobedience, forced to burn some of his writings, excommunicated, and confined to the monastery of Hautvillers for the rest of his life. Excerpts from two documents related to the controversy are included here. The first document was written by Gottschalk in the form of a long prayer. Although it is addressed to God, in it Gottschalk nevertheless begs his superiors for a public meeting where he could defend his views in person and undergo a divine ordeal, a test in which he could demonstrate God’s miraculous power as proof that his views were correct. Another letter is by Hincmar, archbishop of Reims, who provides his own version of the Gottschalk affair to Pope Nicholas I. Source: trans. Victor Genke and Francis X. Gumerlock, Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2010), pp. 92–93, 175–76.

Gottschalk of Orbais, Longer Confession (c. 849) Nevertheless, on account of those who are less expert and for this reason enticed by them [Gottschalk’s opponents] and lost unless they are corrected, I would desire, if it would be pleasing to you, Lord, that there be a public meeting, in order that after the truth has been openly defended and falsity has been completely destroyed, we might in common give thanks to you, who shall have deigned to grant us the favorable outcome that has been so long desired, even beyond what we ask or think (Eph. 3:20). For I of course suffer an exceedingly great sorrow and endure the greatest grief night and day because I see that the 57

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

truth has become vile to human beings on account of the vileness of my name and that they do not preserve sincere love for you, as they ought to have. For, in order that they may seem to be victors over me, they have loved or love you none or very little, whom they have not refrained and do not refrain from denying on account of me. And would that it would be pleasing to you, all powerful and equally merciful Lord that, just as I believe and hope in you, with the ability having been gratuitously given me, as you have for a long time deigned and daily deign also to give me the will, this would be granted to me, namely, that before a multitude of people who fear you gathered from everywhere, also in the presence of the prince of this kingdom together with the venerable host of bishops, priests, monks, and canons—if they otherwise refuse to receive this truth of the Catholic faith about your predestination by that which I am going to say with your help—I might prove it in the sight of all by means of an ordeal. That is, with four barrels placed one after another, individually filled with boiling water, oil, pitch, and animal fat, and finally heated by most ample fire, may it be permitted me, having invoked your most glorious name, to enter each of them to prove this faith of mine, or rather the Catholic faith, and thus to pass through each of them. With you going before me, accompanying me, and following me, and offering your right hand and mercifully leading me, may I be able to come out unharmed, in order that the brightness of the Catholic faith may at long last shine forth from this in your church and that falsity may disappear and that faith may be strengthened and disbelief avoided. Would, Lord, that you would deign to inspire love in those reading and understanding things of this kind, as is necessary, in order that they may beg you as suppliants that you quickly bring to fruition this desire of my soul, as your church needs, and that if, with your help, I shall come forth unharmed from all these things, they would embrace the truth and curse falsity. If, however, I am afraid to begin or fear to finish what I promise in believing, confessing, hoping, and loving you from you, through you, and in you, secure only in you and confident only of your grace, may they immediately throw me into the fire and let me justly perish in it. Nevertheless, I humbly ask you, Lord, in your sweetest name that no Catholic rashly reprehend me in his heart—God forbid!—because I certainly do not presume the boldness of asking such things by myself out of my own rashness, as you yourself know better, but rather I receive it from you out of your kindness. Hincmar of Reims, Letter to Pope Nicholas (863) . . . I now briefly inform your holiness concerning him that, before I came to the rank of the episcopacy, as his abbot and the monks with whom he lived 58

three: heresy and inquisition

give testimony, in the monastery of the metropolitan church of Reims in the parish of Soissons, which is called Orbais, this man, a monk in his appearance, but a wild beast in his mind, intolerant of peace, but delighted by the novelty of words, and singular in his harmful mobility among his admirers, chose for himself certain points from all the ideas that he knew were incorrectly thought at that time in these regions, in order that he might be able to become known by the novelty of words, to corrupt the minds of simple and deceived men, to draw disciples after himself by usurping the name of a teacher, and to seek—in a disordered manner, since he could not legitimately—to preside over those who having itching ears, strive to gather teachers for themselves according to their desires (2 Tim. 4:3), through the pretense of a religious life and learning. Having been ordained a priest against regulations by the auxiliary bishop of Reims at the time, he left the monastery against regulations, traveled in many lands, and sowed destructive seeds as a most evil sower. At last, at a synod held in the city of Mainz, he presented a small book of his error to Archbishop Hrabanus; he was condemned by all the bishops of Germany and dispatched with a synodal letter back to the archbishopric of Reims, over which I presided by the will of the Lord. Afterward, having received a hearing by the bishops of the provinces of Belgium, Reims, and Gaul, he was found to be a heretic. Because he did not want to return to his senses from his perversity, and for fear that he who did not want to do good for himself would not cause harm to others, he was by the judgment of the bishops of the aforementioned provinces transferred to our jurisdiction. For Rothad, to whose jurisdiction he belonged, was unable to resist him, and as he loved novelties, we were afraid that he who had refused to learn how to teach what is correct might learn how to hold what is perverse. And for fear that this same Gottschalk, living a common life with others, would make his error common to them, he was confined in a monastery under guard, as the apostle teaches: avoid a heretic after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is perverted and self-condemned (Titus 3:10–11). As Pope Leo says concerning Eutyches, he should have abandoned his opinion as soon as he saw that his foolish ideas were displeasing to Catholic ears and not so upset the leaders of the Church that he deserved the sentence of condemnation. And if he chose to remain in his opinion, no one would be able to relax it. If he had chosen to return to the Catholic opinion from that condemnation, I was always and am ready, because the venerable bishops so judged, to take him back into the communion of the Catholic Church, just as I give orders to provide everything that is necessary for his body. Questions: How does the letter from Hincmar of Reims describe Gottschalk’s character and views? What is its author trying to accomplish? What sources of authority do Gottschalk and Hincmar use in their letters to prove that they are right? Judging by Hincmar’s 59

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

description of Gottschalk, how would he define a heretic? What dangers might there be in such view of heresy?

16. GUIBERT OF NOGENT AND THE HERETICS OF SOISSONS Guibert of Nogent (c. 1055–1124) was a Benedictine historian and theologian, best known to modern readers for his autobiographical book of memoirs, Monodies (Monodiae, after a term for songs written for a single voice). This book, modeled on Augustine’s Confessions, contains Guibert’s recollections of his life. One episode involved Guibert’s interrogation of two brothers, Clement and Evrard, accused of being heretics at Soissons in 1114. After the interrogation, the accused underwent a divine ordeal by water, were found guilty, and were executed by a mob unwilling to delay the brothers’ punishment any longer. As part of his discussion of this episode, Guibert provides a description of heretical rituals—using accusations of sexual impropriety, infanticide, and even cannibalism that bear a startling similarity to the description of scandalous rituals associated with early Christianity and refuted in Tertullian’s Apology (doc. 1). Guibert’s tone in this excerpt and his approval of the murderous actions of the mob suggest his deep anxiety about the perceived spread of heresy in western Christendom during his lifetime. Source: trans. Paul J. Archambault, Guibert of Nogent, A Monk’s Confession: The Memoirs of Guibert of Nogent (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), pp. 195–98.

Since we have in mind the heretics whom this impious count of Soissons loved, we might mention a certain peasant by the name of Clement, who with his brother Evrard lived at Bucy, a village in the vicinity of Soissons. It was commonly reported that he was one of the leaders of a heresy. The infamous count used to go around saying that a wiser man than this Clement was nowhere to be found. This is not the type of heresy whose teaching is openly defended by its holders; rather, it crawls clandestinely like a serpent and reveals itself only through its perpetual slitherings. In a nutshell it might be summed up as follows: they declare that the incarnation of the Virgin’s Son is a delusion; they reject the baptism of children before the age of reason whoever the godparents may be; they call their own discourse the word of God, which comes about through a long recitation of words; they so abhor the mystery that we perform upon our altars that they call the mouth of any priest the mouth of hell. If in order to hide their heresy from others they even receive our sacraments, on that day they consider themselves bound to fast and take no more food that day. They make no distinction for cemeteries between sacred ground and any other type of ground. They condemn marriage and the procreation of offspring; and indeed, wherever they 60

three: heresy and inquisition

are scattered throughout the Latin world one might see men living with women without taking the name of husband and wife. Nor do men and women confine themselves to the same partner: men are known to sleep with other men, women with women, for they hold the intercourse of man and woman to be a crime. They eliminate any offspring issuing from their intercourse. They hold their meetings in underground vaults or hidden cellars, without distinction of sex. Then they light candles and come forward to present them from behind to a young girl who, it is reported, lies in a prone position having bared her buttocks for all to see. Soon the candles are extinguished, they shout “Chaos!” from all sides and everyone has intercourse with the first person who happens to be at hand. If a woman becomes pregnant in the process, they come back to the same spot after she has given birth. A large fire is lit, and those sitting around toss the baby from one hand to another through the flames until the child is dead. When the child’s body has been reduced to ashes they make bread with these ashes and a part is distributed to everyone as a kind of sacrament, and once it is taken no one ever recovers from that heresy. If one rereads the list of heresies compiled by Augustine one realizes that this one is most like that of the Manicheans. Originally started by well-educated people, this heresy filtered down to the peasants who, claiming to be leading the apostolic life, have read the Acts of the Apostles and little else. So bishop Lisiard of Soissons, a most illustrious man, summoned before him for the purposes of an inquiry these two heretics we have mentioned. The bishop began by charging them with holding meetings outside the church and with being known as heretics by those around them. To which Clement replied: “My lord, have you not read in the Gospel where it says, ‘Beati eritis’ [‘You shall be happy’; John 13:17]?” Since he was illiterate he thought the word eritis meant “heretics,” and moreover he thought “heretics” was to be understood in the sense of “heirs,” though not of God to be sure. When they were interrogated about their beliefs, they answered in a most Christian fashion, yet did not deny holding meetings. But since such people typically deny all charges and then seduce the hearts of simpleminded people in secret, they were sentenced to the ordeal of exorcised water. While the preparations for this ordeal were taking place the bishop asked me to draw their opinions out of them in private. When I brought up the question of infant baptism they answered: “Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved” [Mark 16:16]. As I was aware that such a good answer could, in their case, conceal the most subtle perversity I asked them what they thought about those who are baptized according to another faith. They answered: “For God’s sake, do not expect us to search so deeply!” And to each of the questions they added: “We believe everything you say.” Then I remembered one of those sayings that all of the Priscillianists [members of a heretical movement from Late Antiquity] used to assent to: “Swear, perjure yourself, but don’t 61

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

give away the secret.” So I turned to the bishop and said: “Since the witnesses who heard them profess this doctrine are not here, lead them to the judgment that has been prepared.” The witnesses were a certain lady, whom Clement had been driving mad during the past year, and a deacon who had heard Clement say the most perverse things. So the bishop celebrated Mass, and the heretics received the sacrament from his hand as he said: “May the body and blood of the Lord try you this day.” Afterward, this most holy bishop headed for the waters, along with Peter the archdeacon, a man of unshakable faith who had rejected the heretics’ request not to be submitted to the ordeal. With many tears the bishop recited the litany and then proceeded to the exorcism, after which the accused swore they had never believed or taught anything contrary to our faith. Thrown into the vat of water, Clement stayed afloat like a piece of straw. Seeing this the whole assembly went rapturous with joy. It should be added that this test had drawn such a crowd, of both sexes, that no one present could remember ever having seen anything like it. Clement’s companion confessed his error but without expressing any compunction; and with his convicted brother he was thrown into chains. Two other avowed heretics from the village of Dormans had come to the spectacle, and likewise they were arrested. We then went on to the Council of Beauvais to consult with the bishops about what should be done. But in the meantime the faithful people, fearing the weakness of the clergy, ran to the prison, forced it open, and burned the heretics on a large pyre they had lit outside the city. Thus the people of God, fearing the spread of this cancer, took the matter of justice into their own zealous hands. Questions: How does the description of “crimes” committed by the heretics encountered by Guibert of Nogent compare to the accusations leveled against early Christians and described by Tertullian (doc. 1)? What do the beliefs and practices attributed to heretics tell us about medieval society and its values? According to Guibert, how can one identify a heretic? Conversely, could an individual accused of being a heretic have any realistic hope of being cleared of suspicion?

17. BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX PREACHES AGAINST HERESY One of the main characteristics attributed to medieval heretics was a stubborn refusal to recant their publicly held erroneous beliefs. However, some theologians and clergymen, such as Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), believed that not all heretics professed their views in the open; instead, they hid them, blending in with regular believers. This belief in the existence of secret heretical movements—known and accessible only to the initiated— led Bernard to include three sermons against heresy in his sermon cycle on the Song of 62

three: heresy and inquisition

Songs. Bernard, a prolific theologian and one of the key figures in the Cistercian Order, was concerned with the spread of heterodox teachings and, as the text below demonstrates, viewed heresy as a corrupting influence on Christendom as a whole. All three sermons interpret one passage from the Song of Songs: “Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines” (2:15); an excerpt from one of the sermons is provided here. To Bernard of Clairvaux, heretics were the sly and sneaky foxes in the Song who destroy the vineyard, that is, the Christian community. With his sermon, the theologian attempted to raise awareness of the existence of such heretical “foxes” and urged his audience to protect the vineyard from their attacks. These animal metaphors became popular with other medieval authors: in the thirteenth century one of the canons of the Fourth Lateran Council (doc. 20) speaks of heretics being conjoined by their tails (that is, their goals). Even more influential for the later trajectory of medieval persecution of heresy was Bernard’s idea that heretics need to be found and “taken” (that is, apprehended and rooted out). Source: trans. Samuel J. Eales, Bernard of Clairvaux, Cantica Canticorum: Eighty-Six Sermons on the Song of Solomon (London: E. Stock, 1895), pp. 393–94, 396–97, revised.

1. . . . I speak of that vine which has filled the earth, and of which we also are a part; a vine great and spreading, planted by the hand of the Lord, redeemed by his blood, watered by his word, propagated by his grace, and rendered fruitful by his Spirit. The more carefully I have dealt with that which was of private and personal concern, the less valuable were my remarks with regard to that which was common and public. But it troubles me greatly, on behalf of that vine, to behold the multitude of its assailants, the fewness of its defenders, and the difficulty of the defense. The hidden and furtive character of the attack is the cause of this difficulty. For from the beginning the Church has had foxes; but they have been soon found out and taken. A heretic combated openly (indeed, that was the principal reason why the name was given, because the desire of the heretic was to gain an open victory), and was manifestly overcome. Those foxes, therefore, were easily taken. But what if a heretic, when the truth was set clear in the light before him, remained in the shadow of his obstinacy, and, bound (as it were) hand and foot in the outer darkness, withered away in solitude? Even then the fox was deemed to be “taken” when his impiety was condemned, and the impious one cast out, thenceforth to live in a mere show of life without fruitfulness. From this to such a one, according to the prophet, comes a sterile womb and dry breasts (Hosea 9:14): because an error, publicly confuted, does not soon shoot up again, and an evident falsehood does not take root. 2. What shall we do to take those foxes, the most malignant and dangerous of all, who prefer the inflicting of severe injury to the enjoyment of open victory, and who crawl to, and steal upon, their purpose in order not to be seen? With all heretics the one intention has always been to obtain praise for themselves by 63

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

the remarkable extent of their knowledge. But there is a heresy which alone is more malignant and more artful than others, since it feeds upon the losses of others, and neglects its own glory. It is instructed, I believe, by the examples of those ancient heresies which, when betrayed, were by no means suffered to escape, but were forthwith captured; and so is careful to actuate secretly, by a new method of mischief, this mystery of iniquity, and that with the greater freedom the less it is suspected. Furthermore, its promoters have met together, as it is said, at places appointed in secret, and concerted together their nefarious discourses. “Take oaths, if needful; take them even falsely,” they say the one to the other, “rather than betray the secret.” But at another time they do not consider it right by any means to swear, not even in the smallest degree, because of those words in the Gospel: “Swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . nor by the earth” (Matt. 5:34–35), etc. O foolish and hard of heart, filled with the spirit of the Pharisees, you, too, strain out a gnat and swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24). To swear is not permitted, but to swear falsely, that is permissible, as if the allowance to do the latter did not carry with it the former also! In what passage of the Gospel, of which you do not, as you falsely boast, pass over one iota, do you find that exception? It is clear that you, both by superstition, forbid the taking of an oath, and, at the same time, wickedly presume to authorize a perjury. O strange perversity! That which is given only as a counsel of perfection—namely, “Swear not”—that they observe as rigidly and contentiously as if it were a positive command; while that which is laid down as an unchangeable law—namely, never to be guilty of perjury—they dispense with at their own will as a thing indifferent. No, say they; but let us not make known our secret. As if it were not to the glory of God to make known teaching [that is to edification] (Dan. 2:28–29)! Do they envy the glory of God? But I rather believe that they are ashamed to have their secret known, being conscious that it does not redound to their glory; for they are said to practice in secret things obscene and abominable, even as the hinder parts of foxes are offensive. . . . 5. And, indeed, the recent spoiling of a vine shows clearly that the fox has been there. But I know not by what art that most crafty animal so conceals his footsteps that it is by no means easy to be discovered where either his ingress or his egress was made. Though the mischief done is evident, the doer of it is not visible, and he hides his presence by the very destruction he has done. In fact, if you interrogate him as to his faith, nothing is more Christian-like; or as to his conduct, nothing more unblamable; and he seems to justify his discourse by his actions. Such a man is seen, in order to give testimony of his faith, to frequent the church, to honor the clergy, to offer his gifts, to make confession, to participate in the sacraments. What can be more orthodox? Then as relates to character and conduct, he deceives no one, he exalts himself over no one, nor does violence to any. Furthermore, his cheeks are pale with fasts; nor does he 64

three: heresy and inquisition

eat the bread of idleness, but labors with his hands for his maintenance. Where, then, is the fox? We held him fast just now. How has he escaped from our hands? In what manner has he so suddenly disappeared? Let us pursue him, let us seek him; we shall recognize him by his fruits. Assuredly the spoiling of the vines is a proof that the fox has been there. Women have quitted their husbands, men have deserted their wives, to join themselves to these people. Clerks and priests, young as well as old, often abandon their flocks and their churches, and are found in the throng, among weavers male and female. Is not that a terrible spoiling indeed? Are not these the doings of foxes? Questions: Why does Bernard of Clairvaux compare heretics to foxes? What might his choice of a metaphor tell us about the contemporary understanding of heresy? What dangers might there be in Bernard’s claim that heretics often speak and act with more devotion and piety than orthodox Christians?

18. A CATHAR ORIGIN STORY IN THE TESTIMONY OF ARNAUD SICRE A popular religious movement whose members were known as Cathars had widespread support in southern France and northern Italy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. As far as scholars can tell from the mostly hostile sources, Cathars had dualistic beliefs, seeing the spiritual world as pure and created by a good god and the material world as wholly bad and created by an evil deity. While their dualism set them apart from most medieval Christians, Cathar preachers used some elements of the Christian tradition, interpreting them through the prism of their beliefs. It is likely that Cathar beliefs transformed and became defined more clearly in response to persecution. The relatively late version of the Cathar origin myth presented here comes from the testimony of Arnaud Sicre, a spy working for Jacques Fournier (1285–1342), bishop of Pamiers in Languedoc (the future Pope Benedict XII), and inquisitor. Sicre’s testimony, of which two excerpts are included in this chapter, is one of the longest in the collection of confessions made before Fournier’s inquisitorial tribunal. Arnaud was a young man, a cobbler, whose mother was a member of the Cathar religious elite of the so-called Good Women and Good Men. Eventually, Arnaud’s mother was apprehended during an inquisition and burned at the stake for refusing to recant her heretical beliefs, while their family house was confiscated. Resentful of his mother’s religious views and seeking the return of his family’s property, Arnaud cooperated with Bishop Fournier as an informant. During this period, as a result of a systematic campaign of persecution in Languedoc, most surviving Cathars left the region and settled just across the Pyrenees in Catalonia, out of reach of the inquisitors. Seeking to apprehend the escaped heretics, Bishop Fournier entrusted Arnaud Sicre with an ambitious mission. He was to infiltrate the Cathar community in Catalonia, gain their trust, and lure one of the last surviving Cathar Good Men, Guillaume Bélibaste, back 65

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

into the diocese of Pamiers, where the bishop’s servants could arrest him (doc. 24). Using his mother’s reputation as a Good Woman, Arnaud was able to befriend a number of Cathar followers in Tarragona and was taught the following version of the Cathar creation story, which he subsequently retold to the bishop in his lengthy testimony. Source: trans. James B. Given from Le registre de l’inquisition de Jacques Fournier, ed. Jean Duvernoy (Toulouse: Privat, 1965), vol. 2, pp. 33–37, revised.

. . . Pierre Maury said to the heretic [Guillaume Bélibaste], “Master, while the fish are being prepared, tell us some good words.” The heretic, after he had thought for a time, said, “The holy Father said from his own mouth that no one ought to do anything to another that he did not wish to be done to himself.” Then he added, “It happened that the holy Father was in heaven with the holy spirits of his kingdom, and in glory. Then satan, the holy Father’s enemy, in order to disturb the peace of the holy Father and of his kingdom, came to the kingdom’s gate and stood there for thirty-two years. He was not permitted to enter. Finally, the gatekeeper, seeing that he had waited a long time and not been permitted to enter, brought him into the holy Father’s kingdom. When he was among the good spirits, he stayed with them for a year, hidden among them so that the holy Father did not see him. He began to annoy the good spirits, saying to them, ‘Do you have no other glory or delight but what I see?’ To which they answered, no. He told them that if they went down to his lower world and kingdom, he would give them greater goods and delights than the holy Father had given them. When the good spirits asked him what kind of goods he would give them, he answered that he would give them fields, vineyards, fountains, meadows, fruit, gold, silver, and all goods of this material kind, and, also, to each one, a wife. Then he began to praise wives greatly, and the carnal delights that they would have with a wife, as he did. Then the spirits asked what these wives were. He answered that they were women, and, if they wished to see one of these women whom he promised to give them, he would bring one to them, but only if they permitted him to reenter the holy Father’s kingdom. “When the spirits said they would allow him to return, he went out of the Father’s kingdom. After a time he brought back a very beautiful and shapely woman, adorned with gold and silver and precious stones, and introduced her into the Father’s kingdom, concealing her so that the holy Father did not see her. Then he showed the woman to the good spirits of God the Father. “When they saw her, they were inflamed with lust, and every one of them wanted to have her. Seeing this, satan led the woman out of the Father’s kingdom, and the spirits, carried away by lust for her, followed satan and his woman. So many left that for nine days and nine nights the spirits fell through the hole through which satan had passed with the woman; they fell bit by bit, more 66

three: heresy and inquisition

thickly from the sky than the rain falls upon the ground. So many fell that the place was emptied of spirits as far as the throne on which the holy Father sat. “Seeing this, the holy Father asked what had happened. One of the spirits standing near answered that his enemy had entered his kingdom with a woman, with whom the spirits who had left had fallen in love. And when he left the kingdom with the woman, the spirits followed his enemy because of the woman he had with him. The holy Father rose from his throne and went to the opening through which the good spirits were passing, and placed his foot on it. He swore that henceforth, from generation to generation, if any of those who remained with him left, they would never find peace. The holy Father also swore that, since it was by means of a woman that his kingdom was so disturbed and emptied of his spirits, in future no woman would enter his kingdom. “The spirits who had fallen from heaven, seeing that they had been deceived by the holy Father’s enemy, recalled the glory which they had had with him, and which they had lost, [and] prayed daily to the holy Father to pardon them for having abandoned him and followed his enemy. The devil, discerning this, said, ‘These spirits remember their lost glory, and on account of that they beg the holy Father to pity them. I will give them tunics, [once] clothed in which they will no longer remember their lost glory.’ And then satan, the enemy of God, made human bodies in which he confined the spirits, so that they would forget the glory of the holy Father. These spirits, when they leave one tunic, that is to say, one body, flee very quickly in great fear [espaurucastz], and run so swiftly that if a spirit, say, leaves one body in Valencia and enters another in the county of Foix, and it is raining strongly, he is barely touched by three drops of rain while covering the distance between these two places. Running thus espaurucastz he takes refuge in the first empty hole that he finds, that is, in the womb of any animal carrying an embryo which is not yet alive, whether a dog or a rabbit or a horse, or any animal whatsoever, or in the womb of a woman. If the spirit did evil in its first body, it is incorporated into the body of a brute beast. If, however, it did no evil, it enters the body of a woman. Thus the spirits go from tunic to tunic until they enter a beautiful tunic, that is, the body of a man or woman who has entendensa de be [knowledge of the good], and, in that body, they are saved. After they leave this beautiful tunic, that is the body of a member of their sect, they are returned to the holy Father, because no spirits can be saved except through the faith and by the hands of the Good Men. “However, if those spirits inhabit the body of a woman having entendensa de be, they are turned into men when they leave that woman’s body, because the holy Father ordered that no woman would ever again enter his kingdom.” It is because spirits enter the bodies of animals that he and those like him kill no animal having blood. But, so he said, they can kill fish, because spirits are not 67

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

embodied in fish, since they are not conceived and begotten in the womb of a female, but are generated directly from the water. On account of this they can eat the flesh of fish but not that of animals, because the Son of God said, “There are three kinds of flesh, namely, that of men, that of beasts, and that of fish, and my children do not eat any except the flesh of fish.” He and his kind, so he said, were these “children,” and because of this they were able to eat only the flesh of fish. When the witness [Arnaud Sicre] asked, “How can you say that God did not make my hands and eyes?” the heretic answered that God had said that nothing which he made could perish, because his word, from which he made everything, would endure for eternity, and thus none of those things that the holy Father made could perish. Because all that is in this visible world, that is, the sky and the earth and everything in them, perishes and is destroyed, he, therefore, made none of it, but rather the Lord of this world made it all. For God the Father did not make or speak anything except the good. “You see, however, that there is much evil in this world, like storms and hail. God the Father did not make them, but the ruler of this world, the enemy of God the Father, made them.” Then the witness asked, “Don’t the souls of evil men go to hell after death?” The heretic answered that there was no hell, unless it was this visible world, where the spirits, in doing penance, went from body to body, and from tunic to tunic. And, so he said, “The world will not end until all the spirits created by the holy Father have been incorporated into the bodies of men and women having the true faith, in which they will be saved and returned to the Father in heaven. And when all the creations of God the Father, that is to say all the spirits, have been gathered by God the Father in heaven, wheat will germinate, grow, and flower, yet not bear grain, and vines will grow branches without producing grapes, and trees produce leaves and flowers without fruit.” When the witness asked how the heretic knew that spirits went from body to body, from beasts into men and from men into beasts, he answered that the Good Men had learned the following story: “There was a certain very evil man, a killer of men, and when he died, his spirit entered the body of an ox which had a cruel master, who fed him badly and pricked him with a large goad. However, the spirit of this ox remembered that he had been a man. When the ox died, his spirit entered the body of a horse which belonged to a great lord who fed him well. But when, one night, the enemies of this lord attacked him, he mounted the horse and rode it over cliffs and through rough places. When the horse caught his hoof between two rocks, he removed it only with great difficulty, and he left his shoe between the rocks. Afterward, through part of the following night, the lord rode his horse. And the spirit of the horse remembered that he had been a man. Finally, when the horse died, his spirit entered the body of a pregnant woman and was incorporated into the body of the child 68

three: heresy and inquisition

the woman was carrying in her womb. This boy, when he grew up, came to the entendensa de be, and became a Good Christian. When one day he and his companion passed through the place where the horse had lost its shoe, he told his companion, ‘When I was a horse, I lost my shoe here one night between two rocks, and afterward I went unshod throughout the night.’ Then, searching carefully, they found the horseshoe between the two rocks and kept it.” The heretic said that the spirit of a man thus enters the body of a beast and the spirit of a beast enters the body of a man. Hearing this, Guillemette said, “Oh, my! How much pain a spirit suffers before it finds a beautiful tunic!” Present at this sermon were the witnesses Pierre Maury and Guillemette Maury. Questions: How does the Cathar creation myth compare to the Judeo-Christian beliefs about the origin of life? Aside from obvious differences, what similarities are there? How can an individual achieve salvation according to Cathar beliefs? Who can achieve it more easily than others?

19. ORIGINS OF THE WALDENSIANS Waldensians, supporters of the religious movement named after its founder, Valdes (or Waldes), constituted a popular religious movement. With the movement’s origins in late twelfth-century Lyon, Waldensians were part of a larger effort aimed at the reform of both lay and clerical spirituality, inspired by the attempt to imitate the lifestyle of preaching and voluntary poverty of the apostles. The account of Valdes’s conversion included here comes from the Anonymous Chronicle of Laon, a chronicle account that paints a generally sympathetic picture of the movement’s beginnings. Outside this chronicle, little is certain about Valdes or his decision to abandon wealth and embark on a life of pious poverty and charity account or about the early years of the movement. For example, even Valdes’s initial conversion—a rich man realizing that his wealth impeded his salvation—resembles earlier accounts of similar conversions going back to early Christianity. However, it was Valdes’s decision to remain a layman instead of entering a monastery that set him apart; moreover, Valdes and his followers preached their beliefs in public, a direct encroachment on the prerogative of the clergy. As a result, soon after the movement’s beginnings, it was proclaimed heretical and persecuted. Sporadic persecutions, however, weakened but did not eliminate the movement altogether (and, arguably, strengthened the resolve of some of its members). Waldensian communities eventually spread throughout medieval Europe, despite periodic persecutions (for example, doc. 27) and survived beyond the Middle Ages. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Chronicon Universale Anonymi Laudunensis. Von 1154 bis zum Schluss (1219), ed. Alexander Cartellieri and Wolf Stechele (Leipzig: Dyk, 1909), pp. 20–22, 28–29.

69

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

And still in the same year, that is 1173 of the Lord’s incarnation, there was in the city of Lyon, in France, a certain citizen named Valdes, who has amassed a great amount of money for himself by the wicked [practice] of usury. Once on a Sunday, as he had stopped by a crowd gathered to see a [performing] jongleur, Valdes was touched by his words and, leading him to his house, took great care to hear him out. Namely, the jongleur was [telling] the part of the story of how Blessed Alexius found a blissful end in the house of his parents. In the morning, the said citizen rushed to the schools of theology, seeking advice about his soul. And when he was thoroughly informed about many ways of reaching God, he asked the master, which way was more certain and more perfect than others. To that, the master responded with the Lord’s pronouncement: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell everything you own” and so on [Matt. 19:21]. And he went to his wife and gave her a choice to keep for herself all that he had, movable and immovable: in land and on water, forests and fields, houses, revenues, vineyards, and also mills and bakeries. Although she was greatly saddened that she had to make the choice, [she] chose his properties. His movable property, however, he returned to those from whom he had taken it unjustly. A great portion of his money he granted to his two small daughters, whom he— without their mother’s knowledge—sent to the abbey of Fontevraud; however the greatest portion [of his money] he spent on the poor. A great famine was then making its way through France and Germany. Valdes, the said citizen, three days a week from the Pentecost to the [feast of Saint Peter in] Chains distributed bread and meat stew to all who came. On the [feast of] Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, he scattered a certain amount of money among the city’s poor proclaiming: “No one can serve two masters, God and Mammon” [Matt. 6:24]. Then as the citizens in attendance thought that he had lost his mind, having climbed onto an elevated spot, he said: “Oh, my fellow citizens and friends. Indeed, I am not mad, as you think, but I am punishing my enemies, who have made me their slave, so that I was more worried about money than God and served more the creature than the creator. I know that many will blame me for acting so openly but I did so for myself and for you: for myself, so that those who see me possessing any money may think that I am mad; but I also did this partly for you, so that you put your trust in God and not in riches.” The following day, coming to church, he asked a certain citizen who was his friend to give him something to eat, for God’s sake. That man taking him to his house, said: “As long as I am alive, I will give you what you need.” When this came to the attention of his wife, she was greatly saddened, as if made to go mad, and hurried to the archbishop of the city [of Lyon] and complained to him that her husband begs for bread from others and not from her; that moved all who were in the presence of the archbishop to tears. 70

three: heresy and inquisition

Then on orders from the city officials, Valdes was led into the presence of the archbishop, where the woman seized her husband by his clothing, saying: “Would it not be better, oh husband, if I redeem my sins by giving you alms, than strangers?” And from then on, he was not allowed by the order of the archbishop to receive food from other people in that city, only from his wife. . . . [In 1177] Valdes, the aforementioned citizen of Lyon, having made a vow to God in heaven to possess neither gold nor silver for the rest of his life, nor to think of the future, began to have followers in his way of life, who followed his example in giving all they had generously to the poor and professing voluntary poverty. Little by little, they began to condemn the sins of themselves and of others in public as well as in private admonitions. . . . In the year of our Lord 1178, the Lateran Council was proclaimed by Pope Alexander, the third of his name. . . . That council condemned heresies and all supporters of the heretics, as well as their protectors. Valdes’s cause was embraced by the pope, approving the vow of voluntary poverty [but] restraining him or his followers from daring to preach publicly, unless invited [to do so] by the clergy. That order they followed briefly, but since they became disobedient, they were an outrage to many and a destruction to themselves. Questions: How does the anonymous chronicler feel about Valdes’s spiritual awakening? Does the author’s view change as Valdes’s religious movement develops? How did the people of Lyon react to Valdes? Which of his actions proved to be particularly problematic?

20. A CANON OF THE FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL CONCERNING HERESY The pontificate of Innocent III (r. 1198–1216) is often considered to be the medieval papacy at the peak of its power. A proactive, university-educated, and ambitious pope, Innocent III addressed the issues of his age head-on and left a deep impact on the medieval Church and on medieval Europe in general. The principal—and most longlasting—achievement of Innocent’s reign was the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Innocent presented over seventy canons to the council to address all pressing issues western Christendom faced at the time: reform of clerical behavior, intensification of lay participation in the sacraments of the Church, renewal of crusading activity, and defense of Christendom against both external and internal enemies. In particular, the canons of the Fourth Lateran Council address matters related to Jews and Muslims, as well as heretics, residing within Western Christendom. The council took place while the Albigensian Crusade, aimed at suppressing support for the Cathar heretics in Languedoc, was still underway. The crusade gave the Council’s anti-heretical canons an additional sense of urgency, and the canons directed the clergy to pay closer attention to any irregularities 71

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

among the laity. For example, Canon 21 obligated all Christians who had reached the age of discretion (that is, fourteen) to confess their sins yearly to their parish priest; regular confessions provided invaluable information for correcting beliefs that were contrary to the teaching of the Church, especially after the development of inquisitorial methods for investigating heresy. The main anti-heretical decree is contained in Canon 3, provided below, which decrees stricter attention and heavier punishments to anyone proven or even suspected of supporting heretical beliefs. Source: trans. H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937), pp. 242–44.

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that raises against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith which we have above explained; condemning all heretics under whatever names they may be known, for while they have different faces they are nevertheless bound to each other by their tails, since in all of them vanity is a common element. Those condemned, being handed over to the secular rulers or their bailiffs, let them be abandoned, to be punished with due justice, clerics being first degraded from their orders. As to the property of the condemned, if they are laymen, let it be confiscated; if clerics, let it be applied to the churches from which they received revenues. But those who are only suspected, due consideration being given to the nature of the suspicion and the character of the person, unless they prove their innocence by a proper defense, let them be anathematized and avoided by all until they have made suitable satisfaction; but if they have been under excommunication for one year, then let them be condemned as heretics. Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler’s vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be 72

three: heresy and inquisition

observed in regard to those who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land. We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of the heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, and patronize them, are excommunicated; and we firmly declare that after any one of them has been branded with excommunication, if he has deliberately failed to make satisfaction within a year, let him incur ipso jure the stigma of infamy and let him not be admitted to public offices or deliberations, and let him not take part in the election of others to such offices or use his right to give testimony in a court of law. Let him also be intestable, that he may not have the free exercise of making a will, and let him be deprived of the right of inheritance. Let no one be urged to give an account to him in any matter, but let him be urged to give an account to others. If perchance he be a judge, let his decisions have no force, nor let any cause be brought to his attention. If he be an advocate, let his assistance by no means be sought. If a notary, let the instruments drawn up by him be considered worthless, for, the author being condemned, let them enjoy a similar fate. In all similar cases we command that the same be observed. If, however, he be a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, that the greater the fault the graver may be the punishment inflicted. If any refuse to avoid such after they have been ostracized by the Church, let them be excommunicated till they have made suitable satisfaction. Clerics shall not give the sacraments of the Church to such pestilential people, nor shall they presume to give them Christian burial, or to receive their alms or offerings; otherwise they shall be deprived of their office, to which they may not be restored without a special indult [permission] of the Apostolic See. Similarly, all regulars [clerics who live in a religious community following a rule of life], on whom also this punishment may be imposed, let their privileges be nullified in that diocese in which they have presumed to perpetrate such excesses. But since some, under “the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” as the apostle says (2 Tim. 3:5), arrogate to themselves the authority to preach, as the same apostle says: “How shall they preach unless they be sent?” (Rom. 10:15), all those prohibited or not sent, who, without the authority of the Apostolic See or of the Catholic bishop of the locality, shall presume to usurp the office of preaching either publicly or privately, shall be excommunicated and unless they amend, and the sooner the better, they shall be visited with a further suitable penalty. We add, moreover, that every archbishop or bishop should himself or through his archdeacon or some other suitable persons, twice or at least once a year make the rounds of his diocese in which report has it that 73

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

heretics dwell, and there compel three or more men of good character or, if it should be deemed advisable, the entire neighborhood, to swear that if anyone know of the presence there of heretics or others holding secret assemblies, or differing from the common way of the faithful in faith and morals, they will make them known to the bishop. The latter shall then call together before him those accused, who, if they do not purge themselves of the matter of which they are accused, or if after the rejection of their error they lapse into their former wickedness, shall be canonically punished. But if any of them by damnable obstinacy should disapprove of the oath and should perchance be unwilling to swear, from this very fact let them be regarded as heretics. We wish, therefore, and in virtue of obedience strictly command, that to carry out these instructions effectively the bishops exercise throughout their dioceses a scrupulous vigilance if they wish to escape canonical punishment. If from sufficient evidence it is apparent that a bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heretical wickedness, let him be deposed from the episcopal office and let another, who will and can confound heretical depravity, be substituted. Questions: What methods for identifying the presence of heretics across western Christendom does the Fourth Lateran Council institute? What measures were used to compel and reward secular rulers in charge of eradicating heresy in their lands? What punishments awaited those associated with heresy?

21. THE INQUISITOR BERNARD GUI AT WORK Bernard Gui (1261–1331) was a Dominican prior, writer, and inquisitor. His inquisitorial career took place between 1307 and 1324 in Languedoc, then still strongly associated with heresy and, in particular, with the Cathars. Toward the end of his activity there, Gui shared his first-hand experience as an inquisitor in his treatise, Conduct of the Inquisition into Heretical Depravity (Practica Inquisitionis Heretice Pravitatis, c. 1323). This was not the first manual written by inquisitors for their colleagues, but in his text, Gui combined theoretical and historical information about the origins of various heretical groups and their key beliefs with practical advice on conducting inquisitions, organizing records, and assigning punishments. Gui’s manual provides us with an insight into the tools at an inquisitor’s disposal: thorough interrogations and meticulous record-keeping. Although some of the questions asked by the inquisitors sought information about religious beliefs, most dealt with behavior, making note of the individual’s social and familial ties and any interaction with known heretics. After a series of interrogations, records were carefully compared to each other; any inconsistencies or lies could result in repeat questioning and various punishments. As a result, even if the inquisitors were unable to apprehend 74

three: heresy and inquisition

all heretics or their followers in a region, by virtue of conducting extensive interrogations, they could intimidate the region’s population, undermining any local support for heretical beliefs. In the excerpt below, Gui discusses typical questions put to an individual suspected of sympathizing with the ideas of the Cathars (or “Manicheans,” as Gui calls them, using the name of a “heretical” group from Late Antiquity). Source: trans. Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), pp. 384–86.

The Following Are Suggested Questions to Be Put to Believers of the Sect of the Manicheans In the first place, let the one under examination be asked whether he has anywhere seen or known a heretic or heretics, knowing or believing them to be such or to have that name or reputation; where he saw them; how often; with whom; and when. Also, [ask] whether he had any familiar association with them; when; how; and who was responsible for it; also, whether he received any heretical person or persons in his home; who they were; who brought them there; how long they stayed; who visited them there and escorted them thence; and where they went; also, whether he heard their preaching; and what they said and taught; also, whether he adored them or saw them adored by others, or saw reverences made to them in the heretical fashion; and about the practice of adoration; also, whether he ate of their blessed bread; and about the method of blessing the said bread; also, whether he made a pact or covenant with them to the effect that he wished to be received into their sect and order at the point of death. Also, [ask] whether he saluted them or saw them saluted by others in the heretical fashion, which is to place a hand upon each of the heretic’s cheeks, bending one’s head, and turning it toward each cheek, and saying thrice, “Your blessing,” a mode of salutation which the believers who [are to become] perfected observe upon the arrival or departure of heretics. Also, [ask] whether he was present at a heretication [the inquisitors’ name for the Cathar sacraments] of any person and about the method of heretication; the names of the heretic or heretics; the persons there present; the place in the house where the invalid lay; the time and hour; whether the hereticated person bequeathed anything to the heretics—what, how much, and who paid the legacy; whether adoration was performed there to the said heretic; whether the hereticated person died of that illness and where he was buried; and who brought there and escorted thence the heretic or heretics; also, whether he believed that the hereticated person could be saved in the faith of the heretics. Also, [ask] what he heard said or taught by the heretics against the faith and sacraments of the Roman Church; what he heard them saying about the 75

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

sacrament of the Eucharist; about baptism, matrimony, confession of sins to priests, adoration or veneration of the holy cross; and similarly for other errors enumerated above; also, whether he believed that heretics were Good Men and truthful; that they had and kept a good faith, a good sect, and good doctrine; that the heretics themselves and their believers could be saved in their faith and sect; also, how long he has shared in or persisted in the said belief; also, when he first began to accept this belief; also, whether he still believes it; also, when and why he abandoned it. Also, [ask] whether he has ever on any other occasion been summoned or cited before any inquisitor; when and why; whether on any other occasion he has confessed in the matter of heresy; whether he has abjured heresy before any inquisitor; whether he was restored to the communion of the Church or absolved; also, whether since that time he has in any way been involved in the matter of heresy; which heresy; and in what way, as listed above; also, whether he knows any person or persons who are believers in or sympathizers with the activity of heretics, or are their harborers; also, whether he has ever accompanied a heretic or heretics from place to place or has had their books in his possession; also, whether his relatives were believers or were sympathizers with the activities of heretics or had been penanced for complicity in heresy. This is the general line of questioning for the sect under consideration, from which special questions often may be developed through the diligence and alertness of the inquisitor. A Few Words of Advice and Suggestion In regard to the foregoing items, one should note well and be advised that, although such elaborate questions may be posed—sometimes together with others, in view of the diversity of persons and actions—to draw and worm out the truth more completely, it is not expedient that all interrogations be formally recorded but only those that more clearly touch the core or essence of the matter and seem designed the better to elicit the truth. For, if so great a number of questions are posed in any one deposition, another deposition which comprises fewer may seem too brief. Also, with such a multiplicity of written questions in the course of the hearing, agreement in the testimony of witnesses can hardly be achieved, a contingency to be borne in mind and avoided. Questions: What kinds of information did Gui seek from the individuals he interrogated? How could various kinds of information produced by these questions be used? What parts of the text suggest that Gui was concerned with record-keeping and the utility of the information produced during an interrogation? 76

three: heresy and inquisition

22. HERETICAL TRICKS: INQUISITOR NICHOLAS EYMERICH ON THE ART OF INTERROGATION Nicholas Eymerich (c. 1316–99) was a Dominican friar, theologian, and inquisitor active in the Crown of Aragon. His inquisitorial activity often brought him into conflict with Aragon’s ruler, King Peter IV (r. 1336–87) and, later, his heir, King John I (r. 1387–96), in part because by Eymerich’s time most of the “classic” heresies—especially the Cathars and the Waldensians—were virtually absent in Aragon, forcing the inquisitor to go after high-profile targets, such as the followers of famous Catalan philosopher and polymath Ramon Llull (c. 1232–c. 1315). As a result, Eymerich was exiled from Aragon twice and sought shelter at the papal court in Avignon. As with Bernard Gui (1262–1331) (doc. 21), Eymerich decided to share his inquisitorial experience in the form of an inquisitorial manual, Directorium inquisitorum. Ironically, the Directorium presents Eymerich as a tireless, zealous, and even ruthless persecutor of heresy, including the heresies he likely never encountered in person but studied by perusing the records of Gui and other earlier inquisitors. While Eymerich was not the first to treat heretical suspects harshly, he spends pages in his manual elaborating on the methods of extracting confessions through torture (physical, as well as psychological) and deceit. To Eymerich, each interrogation was a contest of ruses and counter-ruses between a heretic and an inquisitor; each used a wide range of tricks, equivocations, and evasive answers in this imaginary struggle. The extract below is a list of ten tricks used by heretics, according to Eymerich, to avoid revealing their true beliefs during an interrogation. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Nicholas Eymerich, Directorium inquisitorum, ed. Francisco Peña (Venice: Simeonis Vasalini, 1595), pp. 430–31.

[There] are then ten ways of heretical evasion and verbal deception.   1. First is through ambiguous words. If interrogated about the true body of Christ, they respond about the mystical body of Christ. Thus, [the inquisitor] says to him, “Do you believe that this is the body of Christ?” he responds, “I believe, that this is the body of Christ,” meaning a stone that he sees there or his own body is a body of Christ, in a sense that all bodies in the world belong to Christ, because Christ is God. Or he is asked, “Do you believe that baptism is a sacrament indispensable for salvation?” he responds, “I believe,” meaning that he has his own beliefs, but does not mean that they are such [as in the inquisitor’s question], but his own; and that he believes not in what is asked, but in other things. Or he is asked, “Do you believe that Christ was born of a virgin?” he responds that he is sure of it, but meaning that he is sure of his own wicked faithlessness. Or he is asked, “Do you believe in one holy Catholic Church?” he responds, “I believe in one 77

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

holy church,” meaning the congregation to which he and his accomplices belong, which he calls a church, and not our church. His intention is always to divert to those ambiguous parts that he has in mind; and so with other ambiguities.   2. The second way of evasion and deception is through adding a condition [to his statement]. So when asked, “Do you believe that marriage is a second sacrament?” he responds, “If it pleases God, I believe it well,” meaning that it does not please God for him to believe that. Or asked, “Do you believe in the resurrection of the flesh?” he responds, “I do if God wishes it,” meaning that God does not wish that he believes in that; and so with other added conditions.   3. The third way of evasion and deception is through directing the questions or queries back [at the inquisitor]. If asked, “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, proceeding from God the Father and God the Son?” he responds, “How should I believe?” When it is told to him, “We believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,” he responds, “That I believe,” meaning I believe that it is what you believe (but I do not believe in that). Or he is asked, “Do you believe that usury is a sin?” He responds, “What would you say I should believe about that?” When it is told to him, “We say that any Catholic should believe that usury is a sin,” he responds, “That I believe,” meaning, I believe that is what you believe; and so with other redirected questions.   4. The fourth way of evasion and deception is through the words of false surprise. If asked, “Do you believe that God is the creator of everything?” he responds with surprise, as if worried, “Then if I was to believe in that, should I not believe so?” By that he means that he should not believe in that. Or if asked, “Do you believe the Son of God incarnate was in the uterus of a virgin?” he responds with surprise, “Oh my God, why would you ask me about that? Do you think I am a Jew? I am a Christian. Know that I believe in everything a good Christian should believe,” meaning that a good Christian should not believe so; and so with other words of surprise.   5. The fifth way of evasion and deception is through twisting the meaning of his answers. If asked, “Do you believe that swearing an oath to tell the truth in court is a sin?” he responds in a twisted way, “I believe that he who tells the truth does not sin.” He does not respond about swearing an oath, about which he was asked, but about telling the truth, about which he was not asked. Or if asked, “Do you believe that all swearing of oaths is a sin?” he responds, “It is a great sin to swear an oath in vain.” Or if asked, “Do you believe that Christ after death descended into hell?” he responds, “Great were the crimes of the Jews that Christ endured”; and so with other twisted answers. 78

three: heresy and inquisition

  6. The sixth way of evasion and deception is through a change of topic. If asked, “Do you believe that Christ after death descended into hell?” he responds, “Oh my lord inquisitor, there is so much one must contemplate in his mind about the awful death of Christ and I, a wretch that I am, do not do that. For I am a poor in Christ and must beg for my sustenance,” and thus he changes what was talked about to [the topic] of his poverty or the poverty of Christ. . . .   7. The seventh way of evasion and deception is through self-deprecation. If he is asked, “Do you believe that Christ ascended into heaven,” or asked about other matters of faith, he responds, with self-deprecation, “Oh my lord, I am a simple and illiterate man, and I serve God in my simplicity. I do not know about these questions, nor about these subtleties. Do not question me about these matters, for God’s sake, lest you easily entrap me and lead me into error.” . . .   8. The eighth way of evasion and deception is through feigning a bodily weakness. As he is questioned about the matters of faith and multiple questions, the heretic seeing that he cannot escape revealing his heresy and errors, says, “I have a great headache and cannot take it anymore. I beg you, for God’s sake, that you let me go now,” or says, “A great pain takes over me, spare me, for God’s sake, I need to lie down,” and rising puts himself to bed and thus escapes and in the meantime thinks how to respond and how to exercise caution; and so with the other feigned sudden bodily pains. The heretics do that often, when they see that they are about to be interrogated, saying that they are ill and will die if interrogated. And women often say that they suffer from womanly [menstrual] pains, in order to escape the interrogation for a while.   9. The ninth way of evasion and deception is through feigning foolishness or ignorance. If the heretics are asked about the matters of faith, fearing to be revealed in their errors by the efforts of the inquisitor, they pretend to be foolish and absentminded, just as David did with Achish [David feigned madness in order to avoid being recognized by King Achish of Gath; see 1 Sam. 21:12–15], so as not to be caught; and they respond laughing and interject with many impertinent words, mockery, and foolishness; and thus they cover up their heresy and errors. . . . 10. The tenth way of evasion and deception is through assuming a disguise of false holiness in behavior. Indeed, heretics are set apart from the common people by their manner of faithful life, customs, clothing, and speech, for they go, when around the common people, barefoot or in sandals, and dress themselves in outer clothing devoid of color and shape; some in white, some in brown, some in a cloak, some in the long and wide tunic, girded not with a belt, but with a rope, some wearing a low-hanging 79

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

hood, some with long hair, in accordance with the type of their sect. Some keep their face toward the ground as they walk; some lift it toward the sky. They use humble words and saintly outward appearances, like the whitewashed and gilded graves, which are full of dead corpses underneath. For underneath, in many of them, is a lot of pride, lust, gluttony, sloth, and vainglory; and they are aware of this. Because of this deceptive sanctity, they corrupt many, deceive people and escape justice of the inquisitors. Questions: What anxieties about the nature of information produced during an interrogation does this document reveal? How does this exhaustive list of heretical “tricks” compare to the assumptions of Guibert of Nogent (doc. 16) when he is interrogating “heretics”? How does Eymerich’s manual imagine a typical heretic and how realistic might this image have been?

23. INDIVIDUAL RESISTANCE: BERNARD CLERGUE Medieval inquisitors were not the first to use incarceration in order to detain and punish suspected or convicted individuals, but they used imprisonment frequently as both a tool to “soften up” a suspect between interrogations and as a way to isolate obstinate heretics or their supporters from society. The modern imagination might paint medieval prisons as dark and damp dungeons—and indeed some prison inmates were kept in miserable conditions either because of negligence or by design. In many cases, however, prisons allowed some freedom of movement of and interaction among their inmates. In turn, this laxity provided those individuals who retained some degree of social influence and authority even in prison with an opportunity to subvert the inquisitorial process by cajoling or intimidating witnesses to change their testimonies or to stay silent. Uncertainty about their future likely prompted suspects to turn on each other in prison, hoping to gain favor with the inquisitors for providing useful information. This was true for one of the individuals imprisoned during the inquisition led by Bishop Jacques Fournier (1285–1342) in the diocese of Pamiers in southern France. Bernard Clergue, a bailiff and tax collector (bayle) in the village of Montaillou, a man of great influence and considerable wealth in his community, was imprisoned by the inquisitor under suspicion of being a Cathar believer. While in prison (mur), he attempted to dissuade other imprisoned suspects from cooperating with the inquisitor and even tried to make them retract their earlier testimonies against him and his brother Pierre, the village priest; his attempts were unsuccessful and we know about them from later testimonies of these suspects. Source: trans. James B. Given and Belinda Peters from Le registre de l’inquisition de Jacques Fournier, ed. Jean Duvernoy (Toulouse: Privat, 1965), vol. 2, pp. 278–80, 282–83, 292–93, revised.

80

three: heresy and inquisition

Barthélemy Amilhac, a priest from Lladros in the diocese of Urgel, detained in this prison, sworn as a witness and questioned concerning Bernard Clergue [on 14 November 1321], said that this year around the feast of the Magdalene [22 July 1321], when he and Bernard were detained in the tower of Les Allemans, on a certain day, the date of which he did not recall, Bernard told him that he would say certain words to him in confession, and if the witness brought it about that what he would say should come to pass, Bernard would repay him in such a way that he would rejoice all the days of his life. The witness answered that he would willingly hear Bernard’s words and would do what he told him, provided only that it was not against his faith. Bernard replied that they were not, and then Bernard told him that he should go, if he could, to speak with Beatrice, wife of the late Otho de Lagleize, who was imprisoned in the same mur, and persuade her to retract all those things that she had testified against Bernard’s brother, Pierre Clergue, the rector of Montaillou. [Beatrice was the former mistress of both Bernard Clergue and Barthélemy Amilhac.] If he was able to persuade her to make this retraction, Bernard would immediately give him one hundred gold florins once he had achieved this, because he certainly knew where his money was. When the witness said to Bernard, “Is it not so that if Beatrice retracts her confession she will be burned?” Bernard replied that she would not, because she would be able to say that Pierre de Gaillac of Tarascon had persuaded and instructed her to give the testimony that she had given against the priest, Bernard’s brother. And, thus deceived by the blandishments of Pierre de Gaillac, she had given false testimony. Bernard said he was certain this was true because the bishop of Pamiers had removed the crosses from the wife of Pierre de Gaillac, so that Pierre would persuade Beatrice to say what she had against his brother. Then the witness said that he would in no way do this. He couldn’t do it even if he wanted to; moreover, he had sworn his fidelity to my lord the bishop. Hearing this, Bernard trembled all over and asked the witness that he in no way reveal his words. Barthélemy answered that he would not. Likewise, he said that later, eight days after penances were imposed by my lord the bishop of Pamiers [10 August 1321], at which time Guillaume Fort of Montaillou had been condemned and burned as a relapsed heretic, the witness was sitting in the sun on top of the tower of Les Allemans. Bernard Clergue came up, leading with him Alazaïs, wife of Arnaud Faure of Montaillou, a prisoner in the mur. As they all stood in the sun, Bernard pointed out the mountains of the Sabarthès and the pays of Alion, saying that in those parts lay their land. To which Alazaïs responded that in that land they held nothing. Bernard said, “Godmother, indeed you will have it back, because your Father will redeem you.” And then Alazaïs said, “We have an evil Father, because if he wished, we would not be here, because he ought to correct us, when already the whole land is frozen with fear 81

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

and terrorized. Yet he has nevertheless placed us in an evil spot.” Bernard, hearing this, looked at the witness and nudged Alazaïs with his elbow so that she would be silent; immediately she fell silent and became pale all over. Alazaïs then went down from the tower, while the witness and Bernard remained there. Then the witness said to Bernard, “Bernard, those words which your godmother spoke were evil and heretical words.” Bernard answered, “Certainly, this is so, but let’s see to it that evil does not happen to either of us.” Having said this, Bernard went down from the top of the tower, leaving the witness remaining there, and went to the room where Alazaïs and Alamande, her mother, were held. From the tower the witness heard Bernard speaking with these women. He heard Alamande cry aloud and say, wailing, “She still can’t keep quiet about this, although she has already done much evil,” and he did not understand, he said, more of their words. Later, at the hour of vespers on that same day, the witness passed by Alazaïs’s room. She came out of her room, made a cross in front of her breast with her arms, and said, pleading, that it please him that no evil come to her because of the words which she had spoken at the tower, and that he not reveal them. He replied that she had spoken evil words, but if Bernard Clergue did not reveal her, he would not speak against her. To which she responded that if Bernard said anything against her, she would have a lot to say against Bernard himself, because there was much to be said, because he and his house were responsible for all the evil in Montaillou, because in their house heretics stayed, ate, and drank; and they [the Clergues] conducted them through the village and into various houses. Concerning this last matter he had heard similar words from Alamande, Alazaïs’s mother. And these words Alamande said to him in the presence of Alazaïs. . . . Also the witness said that on a certain other day, and even frequently, Bernard told him that he had given several powerful people great quantities of money so that his brother the priest might be freed from the prison of my lord the bishop. For instance, so he said, he had given three hundred livres to the lord of Mirepoix when he had gone to the curia this year; his brother-in-law had gone with the lord and paid his traveling expenses, laying out on the journey 150 l.t. [livres tournois] that he had given him. Also, he had presented a mule to Constance, the lady of Mirepoix, so that she would beg my lord the bishop to free his brother. According to what Bernard said, the lord of Mirepoix had obtained from some cardinals and other great persons of the Roman curia four letters asking for the liberation of his brother, which were sent to my lord the bishop. Nevertheless, my lord the bishop had not been willing to do anything at the request of these lords. Likewise, the witness said that Bernard had given Loup de Foix a great amount of money and had promised that he would give him more if he succeeded in getting my lord the bishop to free his brother from prison. 82

three: heresy and inquisition

Moreover, he said that Bernard had given a certain amount of money, which he named to the witness, to the prévôt of Rabat, because he was a friend of my lord the bishop, for the liberation of his brother. Likewise, he said that he had also given another sum to Arnaud Sicre of Tarascon. However, he did not specify the amount. Likewise, he said that Bernard had given a great amount of money to Germain de Castelnau, the archdeacon of Pamiers, who was an intimate of my lord the bishop, so that all the aforesaid persons might procure the freedom of his brother. And, as Bernard said, among these persons and others, he had expended in less than a year nearly fourteen thousand sous for the liberation from prison of his brother. But he had accomplished nothing because, so he said, my lord the bishop is an evil person and is solicited in vain, because he does nothing at anyone’s request. And the more one asks, the less one gets. . . . *** In the year and day given above [17 December 1321], Grazide, wife of the late Pierre Lizier of Montaillou, sworn as a witness and questioned against Bernard Clergue, said that when in this year around Pentecost Bernard Clergue came to the prison of the castle of Les Allemans, and was in the second solarium of the castle’s tower, and the witness with other women prisoners was in the next room of the tower, which is above the castle’s hall, Bernard knocked at the locked door of the tower which connects the room and the tower, calling out for Grazide. And she, speaking through the crack at the top of the door, asked Bernard what he wanted. He told her to tell Beatrice, wife of Otho de Lagleize, that she should retract the confession which she had made before my lord the bishop because, so he said, if she did so, “all of us would be freed from this place, because she gave evil testimony against us, and great evil has come upon us because of her.” He also said that she should find out from Beatrice whether Pierre Azéma and Pierre de Gaillac had arranged with her to give testimony against the people of his house. She answered Bernard and said she would not persuade or counsel Beatrice to retract her testimony. But she would repeat Bernard’s words to Beatrice. Also he told her that she should retract the confession that she herself had made before my lord the bishop, and that she should say that Pierre Azéma had instructed her to confess that which she had confessed (all of which confession is true), and that she should make this retraction when my lord the bishop or the lord inquisitor came to the prison. He told her that if she made this retraction, he would beg the bishop and inquisitors to free her from the prison in the first graces, and if she were able to leave the prison, she would be happy. When she told him that she had lost her property, he answered that she would still have enough goods, because riches are only things. And, so the witness says, he said the same thing to her two or three times at the same place, trying to persuade her to retract her confession. 83

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

And she, so she says, agreed that she would do so. Nevertheless, she did not intend to make a retraction of her confession or to say that Pierre Azéma had instructed her to give her confession, since, so she says, in truth she had not been instructed by Pierre Azéma, although once Pierre had told her not to fear to tell the truth out of fear of the late priest of Montaillou. After her first conversation with Bernard on this matter, she approached Beatrice at a certain window of the castle, and told her the words of Bernard about retracting her confession, nevertheless telling her that she would not counsel her to make this retraction. And Beatrice told her, “Shush, shush, stay away from Bernard, because he will say and do nothing for you except evil.” The same day Bernard again called the witness from the doorway, and she again spoke with him. Bernard asked her if she had told Beatrice what he had asked her to say, and the witness replied that she had, but Beatrice was not satisfied with him, nor were the others who were there. And then the witness said, “Do you believe that anyone would wish to place herself in the fire because of you?” And they both turned away from one another. Questions: What can we learn from this text about the conditions in which those accused of heresy were kept? What forms of resistance did the individuals in the text use to avoid punishment? Considering that this document was part of an interrogation record, how reliable is the information provided in it, and why?

24. COOPERATION AND RESISTANCE: ARNAUD SICRE INFILTRATES A HERETICAL GROUP Arnaud Sicre, whose lengthy testimony was given in front of an inquisitorial tribunal chaired by Jacque Fournier, the bishop of Pamiers (1285–1342) in Languedoc, is an important source of information about the émigré Cathar community in Aragon (doc. 18). He was also a ruthless and surprisingly effective agent of the bishop, instrumental in the arrest of one of the last Cathar Good Men, Guillaume Bélibaste, whom he lured back into the territory under the bishop’s jurisdiction. Sicre’s mother was a Cathar Good Woman; her eventual apprehension and execution led to the confiscation of the Sicre family house. Arnaud was determined to get his family property back by serving Bishop Fournier. He spent two and a half years in Aragon, joining a community of Cathar believers and earning their trust. After nearly a century of persecution, surviving communities of Cathar believers and occasional Good Men and Good Women were not an easy group to infiltrate; investigations, betrayals, arrests, and executions forced villagers from the mountainous county of Foix to learn how to distinguish their own and to exclude strangers. The name of Arnaud’s mother, Sibille Baille, and the respect she commanded in the heretical community helped him a great deal, but he was closely observed and 84

three: heresy and inquisition

continuously tested throughout his mission in a struggle between personal determination and collective resistance. Source: trans. James B. Given from Le registre de l’inquisition de Jacques Fournier, ed. Jean Duvernoy (Toulouse: Privat, 1965), vol. 2, pp. 70–71, 75–79, revised.

When they reached Morella, they found the heretic [Guillaume Bélibaste] in his house with Raimonde and Condors, also called Blanche, Raimonde’s sister from Junac. The witness [Arnaud Sicre] and Pierre kissed the heretic. Afterward, the witness told the heretic that he had found his [Arnaud’s] aunt in Pallars in a town near Cerdagne; that his aunt was very rich and kept his sister with her, and had a good and faithful household. She had maintained two Good Men for some time and had clothed them out of her goods. She had rejoiced a great deal to see the witness and even more when she heard from him that he had entendensa de be [“knowledge of the good,” that is, he was part of the Cathar community]. She also wished very much to see the heretic, but had not been able to come because of her age and the gout from which she suffered; she was very pleased about the marriage planned by the heretic between his sister Raimonde and Arnaud, son of Guillemette [Maury]. “But my sister could not leave her because she serves her, and if it were possible for you to go to her, all things would be as you wish because, so she told me, she would put more faith in one word from you than in a hundred from me. Should you wish to go, she gave me enough money to do what is necessary and get you a horse. Nevertheless, you decide what is to be done. My aunt told me that if you have the desire to come to her, do so only during Lent, when you and the others eat the same food; if you go at another time, and do not eat meat, someone might recognize you. See to it, however, that no danger threatens you when you come; for it would be better that you not go if any danger were to come to you on the journey. Reflect on this, for whether you go or not, that which my aunt gives me to bring to you I will give you.” . . . Twice, before the witness came to my lord the bishop, he saw Guillaume Maurs of Montaillou in Guillemette’s house; he stayed there with the others already named for three or four days, eating and sleeping there. Once the witness saw Guillaume Maurs sitting by the fire, and Guillaume Bélibaste, the heretic, was in a room nearby. However, he did not see Guillaume speak with the heretic, although he believes that he knew the heretic was in the next room; nor did he know whether Guillaume gave the heretic anything. However, he heard from Arnaud Maury, or from another of those already named, that many believers did not wish to see the lords, that is the heretics, except with only one or two other believers so that, if they were betrayed, they could not be proved guilty by many witnesses, because, so it was said, the testimony of one or two 85

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

witnesses could be refuted easily, since one could immediately say that such and such a person was a personal enemy. Instead, they preferred to see the heretics alone, or with one other believer, rather than with two, so that they could not be convicted. . . . From the time of his return from Valencia until two weeks after the beginning of Lent, the heretic came twice to the house of Guillemette Maury. Then, when they had agreed on their journey, he, Pierre Maury, the other Pierre Maury, and Arnaud, Guillemette’s son, went to Morella to the heretic, and while they were on the way, Pierre Maury said to the witness, “Arnaud, you see how the lord of Morella, and we too, have confidence in you, in that we are letting the lord go with you! For he sent me to Mersende in Beceite, who knows and has seen more about the be than we, to ask her if it was good for the lord to go with you to your aunt. She answered that he should not, because she had seen many lords betrayed by false believers, and we could not trust you since you have not yet been tested. And she said it would be better if you, Pierre, or Arnaud, or someone else go first to this Arnaud’s aunt, to prove whether the things he said were true. Afterward, if they were true, the lord could go.” Pierre Maury told her that if Arnaud, speaking of the witness, wished to betray the lord and the others, he could do it here as well as elsewhere, because he knew them all, and so the heretic had approved his advice and not Mersende’s. When the witness heard this, he told Pierre that his advice was better than Mersende’s. Pierre said, “Arnaud, Arnaud, see to it that you do not betray us, because some in your family have been false and evil traitors to the church of God.” When they reached Morella, they remained there that night, and decided that Arnaud Maury, if he married the witness’s sister, should not ask for a dowry of more than 40 livres, with the exception of clothes and a mule to carry them. This Arnaud swore to between the hands of the heretic, because, so Pierre Maury said, an oath in the hands of a heretic was stronger than one taken upon the Gospels. And the heretic responded, “You can certainly say that.” Early the next morning, Pierre Maury, the brother of Guillemette, having performed his melioramentum [a form of salutation and veneration of a Cathar Good Man], returned to Sant Mateu. The heretic, the witness, the other Pierre Maury, and Arnaud Maury, Guillemette’s son, went together toward Beceite. When they were near the town, they sent Pierre Maury and Arnaud ahead to see if they could safely stay in the house of Mersende, fearing that if Jeanne, her daughter, were there with her mother, she might betray them. Because Jeanne was there, they did not dare to go to Mersende’s house, but went to an inn in the town plaza. After dinner Pierre Maury and the heretic, since it was night by then, went to Mersende’s house. She was pretending to be ill and had gone to bed so that Jeanne would leave the house and she could receive the heretic. 86

three: heresy and inquisition

Pierre Maury and the heretic dined again with Mersende, as Pierre the next morning told the witness, who also paid for the dinner, which cost eight jacquins [local currency]. The next day Arnaud left them, and they traveled that day all the way to Asco, where they found good wine. Pierre Maury and the heretic tempted the witness to drink, and Pierre secretly mixed two drafts into the water to make the witness drunk. Realizing that he wanted to get him drunk, the witness acted drunk and fell down next to the table. Pierre put him to bed. When the witness pretended that he wanted to urinate at the head of the bed, Pierre led him, almost carrying him, into the street. When they were alone there, Pierre asked him, in a low voice, “Arnaud, do you want us to take this heretic all the way to the Sabarthès? We might get fifty or a hundred pounds tournois for him, from which we could live honorably, because this peasant speaks nothing but evil.” The witness, in the manner of a drunk who cannot speak clearly, said, “Oh, Pierre, do you wish to be false to the Lord? I would not have believed that you would be such a man, to want to sell him.” And he added, “I would never allow that to happen.” Muttering, the witness reentered the house and, pretending to be completely drunk, threw himself on the bed. Pierre Maury took off his shoes, undressed him, and covered him, and the witness pretended to sleep. Then Pierre and the heretic, believing him asleep, spoke to one another, and, within the hearing of the witness, Pierre told the heretic what the witness had said and how the witness had answered him, although he was drunk. He added, “I certainly found him very loyal. He will not play tricks on us.” The next day Pierre Maury said to the witness, “How did you pass the night?” He answered, well, because they had had good wine. Then Pierre said to him, “And those things we talked about?” The witness responded that he didn’t know. The heretic said, “And who put you to bed and took off your clothes and shoes?” He replied that he had done it himself, to which the heretic said, “Oh, my friend, you were well equipped to do so!” . . . Early the next day Pierre Maury left the witness and the heretic, and these two went together to Agramunt. On the way two magpies flew by chattering, one against the other; they landed on a tree, then flew across the road, and finally flew along the road they were following. Seeing this, the heretic sat down on the road, and when the witness told him they should be going, the heretic said that he was tired. Then the heretic said to the witness, “Arnaud, may it please God that you take me to a good place!” To this which the witness said that he was leading him to a good place, and he added, “And do you believe that if I wished to betray you, I could not do it here as well as elsewhere?” The heretic answered, “If my Father requires me, his will be done.” He got up, and they went together to the town of Agramunt. From there they went to Trago, and from Trago to Castellbò, and from Castellbò to Tirvia, 87

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

and, on the way, the heretic always spoke of the errors of the heretics. And at Tirvia the witness had the heretic arrested. Because the heretic put himself in the endura [that is, he refused to eat], the witness, fearing he would die, told him that he repented of having had him arrested, and that he would get him out of the prison. From then on the heretic ate, and he was taken back to Castellbò. From the moment when the witness had him arrested, the heretic called him Judas the traitor, because he had betrayed the Son of God, calling himself the Son of God. He also called the witness a Pharisee, a son of the devil, and a viper. He also said that he was not the son of Sibille Baille. He told him that there were four great devils who ruled and governed the world, namely my lord the pope, who was the greatest devil, and he called him satan; my lord the king of France was the second devil, the bishop of Pamiers the third, and the lord inquisitor of Carcassonne the fourth. And he spoke many other blasphemies. Questions: How were the relationships and trust between Cathar “Good Men” and their followers affected by decades of persecution? What role does deception play in Arnaud Sicre’s interactions with the Cathar community in Catalonia?

25. PAPAL PROHIBITIONS AGAINST BEGUINES AND BEGHARDS AT THE COUNCIL OF VIENNE The word beguine likely emerged first as a derogative term for women who chose to pursue a life of private devotion and spirituality outside of the forms of religious life—primarily monastic—made available to women by the medieval Church. Beguines had wishes similar to those of Valdes, who lived at the same period (doc. 19); they were women who were interested in living in piety, chastity, and poverty, who nevertheless wished to remain in the world, especially in medieval cities, instead of entering a monastery. The latter option had become increasingly unattainable for non-elite women, since most Benedictine convents tended to accept daughters from wealthy families, while other religious orders did not have enough convents to accommodate all women wishing to join. Instead, a growing number of women in cities and towns wished to live their lives in accordance with apostolic ideals and scripture, often choosing to live together in small communities (Beguinages). These communities, however, were viewed as problematic by some members of the clergy because the women in them sometimes were viewed as competitors to the clergy or even impostors whose vows to live a pious lifestyle were superficial and impermanent. Beguines were often on the receiving end of charity and patronage and provided regular prayers for their benefactors in return, in addition to supporting themselves by weaving, cleaning, and tending to the sick. Many wore clothing similar to the monastic habits of nuns. It is unlikely that medieval Beguines—or Beghards, their male “counterparts” who often led an itinerant life of imitating the apostles—espoused any specific views that were 88

three: heresy and inquisition

contrary to the Church. They were often accused of supporting heretical beliefs in addition to leading “unorthodox” (from the point of view of their critics) lives and, as a result, beguines were targeted by Canons 5 and 6 of the Council of Vienne (1311–12) called by Pope Clement V (r. 1305–14). Source: trans. H.J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937), pp. 388–90, revised.

Canon 5 It has become known to us on trustworthy authority that among the women commonly known as Beguines (who, since they promise obedience to no one, do not renounce their possessions and do not make profession of any approved rule, are not religious at all though they wear the garb of Beguines and are attached to certain religious [that is, clergymen] to whom they are especially attracted), there are some who, as if led by a peculiar insanity, argue and preach on the Holy Trinity and the divine essence and, in regard to the articles of faith and the sacraments of the Church, give expression to opinions that are contrary to Catholic belief, thereby deceiving in this matter many simple people and leading them into diverse errors, and under the cloak of sanctity do many other things productive of danger to souls. From various sources we have learned of the pernicious character of their teaching and justly regard them with suspicion. Therefore, with the approval of the holy council, we forever prohibit their mode of life and absolutely remove it from the church of God, and expressly enjoin these and other women under penalty of excommunication to be incurred by that very fact that they do not any longer follow the mode or manner of life chosen by them at an earlier period or return to it in the future in any form. Under a similar penalty of excommunication to be incurred by that very fact, we strictly forbid the aforesaid religious [that is, clergymen] who are said to have favored and encouraged these women to embrace the Beguinage state, that they do not by aid, advice, or in any manner induce any women to embrace the aforesaid mode of life or to assume it anew, notwithstanding any privilege against which the aforesaid provisions might militate. If, however, there are some faithful women among them, whether vowed to chastity or not, who live uprightly in their hospices and wish to serve God in the spirit of virtue and humility, this may be permitted them according as the Lord inspires them and we do not wish that this instruction should affect them. Canon 6 Cherishing the desire that the Catholic faith should prosper and that heresy should be extirpated from among the faithful, it was not without great 89

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

displeasure we heard that an abominable sect of wicked men, commonly called Beghards, and of faithless women, known as Beguines, has sprung up in Germany through the father of evil deeds, holding and maintaining in its sacrilegious and perverse teaching the following errors: 1. Man can in the present life acquire such a degree of perfection that renders him absolutely impeccable and unable to progress further in grace; for, as they say, if incessant progress were possible, then one could become more perfect than Christ. 2. Man need not fast or pray after he has arrived at such a degree of perfection, because then sensuality is so perfectly subject to the spirit and to reason that man may freely concede to the body whatever it desires. 3. Those who have attained the aforesaid degree of perfection and spirit of liberty, are not subject to human obedience, nor are they bound to any precepts of the Church, because, as they say, where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 4. Man can in this life attain the same final beatitude in accordance to every degree of perfection that he will attain in the life thereafter. 5. Every intellectual nature is in itself naturally blessed, and the soul does not need the light of glory to elevate it to see God and to enjoy him blissfully. 6. To practice the virtues is an act that belongs to the imperfect man; the perfect soul divests itself of the virtues. 7. To kiss a woman is a mortal sin since nature is not inclined to it; but a carnal act, since nature is inclined to it, is not a sin, especially when the one performing it is tempted. 8. At the elevation of the body of Christ one ought not to rise or exhibit reverence toward it, for, as they say, it would be a sign of imperfection to descend from the height and purity of contemplation in order to think about the sacrament of the Eucharist or about the sufferings of Christ. Under the cloak of sanctity they say and also do other things that offend the divine majesty and constitute a grave danger to souls. But, since the duty of the office committed to us obligates us to rid the Catholic Church of that detestable sect and its errors, that it may not by further dissemination corrupt the hearts of the faithful, we, with the approval of the holy council, absolutely reprobate and condemn it with all the abovementioned errors, strictly forbidding any and every one to hold, approve, or defend them in the future. Those who act in contravention of this shall be punished in accordance with the canonical prescriptions. Moreover, the diocesan authorities and inquisitors of the localities in which the Beghards and Beguines are known to reside, shall exercise their 90

three: heresy and inquisition

office with painstaking care in regard to them, making inquiries regarding their life and teachings and what they hold concerning the articles of faith and the sacraments of the Church. On those who are found guilty, unless they repent by an immediate abjuration of the aforesaid errors and make suitable satisfaction, they shall impose due punishment. Questions: From the papal perspective, who were the Beguines? Why were the spirituality and way of life of the Beguines attacked by the Church? What teachings does the papal decree attribute to Beguines and Beghards and why does it find them troublesome?

26. THE FRUITS OF CLERICAL IMAGINATION: A HERETICAL ORGY As the previous document (doc. 25) has demonstrated, Beguines and Beghards were often accused not only of living religious lives in ways that were not authorized by the Church, but also of teaching that spiritually perfect individuals were not bound by human or religious laws. These false accusations, and especially the association between wandering Beghards and sexual libertinism, allowed clerical imaginations to run wild with rumors of heretical improprieties taking place in secret lairs. Ironically, depictions of such gatherings were not too different from the scandalous accusations made against early Christians and refuted in the writings of Tertullian (doc. 1; see also doc. 16) and other early Christian apologists. Scholars sometimes wonder whether there was any factual basis for such accusations made against Beghards and Beguines in the fourteenth century. Most likely, fictitious rumors of secret rituals conducted by heretics prompted particular lines of inquisitorial questioning, which forced some individuals into confessing and even providing elaborate details about these meetings or the beliefs of those who participated in them. The excerpt included here comes from the Chronicle written by the Franciscan friar John of Winterthur (d. after 1348), who clearly attempted to describe new kinds of heretics in ways that made them appear equally scandalous and exotic. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Johannis Vitoduranus, Chronica, ed. F. Baethgen (Berlin: Weidmann, 1924), pp. 144–45, 248–49.

Since I have mentioned the heretics in Austria above, I will therefore now briefly explain, as it was told and reported to me, the ways of these and other current heretics. It is as follows: when they are gathered in their underground hiding place, the heresiarch sits in a special raised seat reserved to him, and asks those who enter, in the following parable-like way, saying “Does a thorn sting?” If one is among the number of their accomplices, he or she is recognized by saying “No.” If, however, one is not part of their circle, one says “It certainly stings, my lord.” If all entrants are from among their people, they are free to exercise 91

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

their wickedness; if not, they minimize it or abstain completely, on account of the [outsider’s] presence. When this heresiarch concludes his sermon about the sect and its errors with exalted and dazzling words, enter four youths carrying lit torches. They are followed shortly after by a king in a sparkling crown and with a marvelously shimmering scepter, dressed in priceless garments and followed by a band of gleaming and handsome knights. He proclaims that he is the king of heaven and confirms the heresiarch’s teachings and that gave him the authority to be followed forever. Once he is finished speaking, a grasshopper appears and jumps on the mouth of everyone [there] and they are filled with such bliss that, seized by a mental ecstasy, they are overwhelmed by even more pleasure, which they cannot hold back. Then the torches are put out and everyone seizes the first man or woman they come across, and fornicates with them. Frequently, a man acts lewdly with a man and a woman with a woman, for in the words of the apostle [Paul] to the Romans, such are given over to the corrupted mind and shameful lusts because of their iniquities and the punishment for sin is [more] sin. . . . In the year of our Lord 1339, three Beghard heretics were caught and presented [for judgment] in the aforementioned diocese of Constance, and from a raised platform at the cemetery of the cathedral of Constance in front of all of the clergy and the people, [they] publicly confessed to holding many abominable and rightfully condemned heretical beliefs. They instilled in all listeners an unheard-of sense of nausea and astonishment. Then as they were duly questioned and examined and refuted, they revealed their most despicable errors, which they used to perpetrate in their awful old days, unabashed by the presence of the whole population of Constance gathered there. But as a man drinking just a few drops of water out of the sea, I will offer only a couple of the articles [of their faith] out of many, for there were more than thirty. Out of those I will only take some and leave the rest aside. One [of the errors] was that one of the men was once asked by three women about the nature of the Trinity, but before he gave an answer, he made them strip naked and lie down on their backs in his hiding place. Then he tied the foot of one woman to the foot of another with a thin rope or a cord and, having tied them all to each other, he shamelessly violated them. Then he turned them around and dragged back and forth, gazing lustfully on their exposed shame, finally saying: “Here is the Holy Trinity.” And not satisfied with this, afterward, in the wantonness of the flesh, he even continued to deal with each one according to his beastly, yes, devilish lust. For he had driven them mad with the poisonous potion of his pestilential doctrine and hypocrisy so much that they were eager to satisfy his extremely wicked desires with all their might. He also proclaimed that there resided just as much divinity or divine goodness in a louse as in a man or any other creature. Thirdly, he asserted that 92

three: heresy and inquisition

unconsecrated bread and consecrated communion bread, placed in two baskets, were equally suitable to be eaten by a pig or a hog. Fourthly, he added, if a man and a woman have intercourse and the consecration of the host by a priest happened on two separate altars or on two corners of the same altar, both [acts] would be of equal worth; no act preferable to another. These and other errors of these very heresiarchs were proved by the most reliable testimonies. Questions: How does John of Winterthur’s description of new heretical groups compare to Guibert of Nogent’s account of earlier heretical rituals (doc. 16)? Why does sexual impropriety become so firmly associated with heresy and what does it say about clerical views on sexuality? What other stereotypes associated with heretics does this reading contain?

27. PERSECUTIONS OF WALDENSIANS IN LATE MEDIEVAL GERMAN CITIES During the Late Middle Ages, parts of central Europe lacked a systematic approach to the persecution of heresy. Instead, inquisitions of heretical communities—primarily Beguines, Beghards, and Waldensians—occurred sporadically. Often these campaigns of persecution were supported by either local bishops or even city councils; decentralization of persecution allowed for it to be used as a political weapon or even a source of income for the authorities supporting the inquisition. The excerpt below comes from a chronicle of Johannes Mair of Nördlingen in Swabia, who describes a wave of persecutions of Waldensians in the region. The bishop of Augsburg, Burkhard of Ellerbach (r. 1373–1404), organized these persecutions by employing an itinerant inquisitor, Heinrich Angermeier, who operated first in Augsburg and then in smaller cities throughout the diocese. Those members of the Waldensian community who were apprehended for the first time usually received “penitential crosses” as punishment: two crosses of yellow fabric which they had to wear for a year or longer to demonstrate their status as repentant heretics. Those executed by burning at the stake—with their property confiscated—were likely repeat offenders, although in his chronicle account Mair provides an alternative explanation for the motives behind these executions. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from “Nördlingani brevis Historia,” in Rerum Boicarum Scriptores Nusquam Antehac Editi, ed. Andreas Felix Oefele (Augsburg, 1763), vol. 1, p. 620.

In the year of our Lord 1393, in August there were found in the city of Augsburg heretics, who held the following beliefs: First, they held that if they confess to the brothers from their own sect, simple laypeople, they will assign penance and absolve the sins to which they confessed. Also, they called themselves “known” and us “unknown” or “strangers,” and [believe] that they are known to God more in their faith or sect than us and therefore they themselves are saved and we are not. 93

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Also, they did not believe in purgatory, but [believed] that there are two ways, one to salvation and another to damnation. Also, they did not believe that prayers for the dead, whatever they may be, would accomplish anything. Also they did not believe in praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary or any saints, for they cannot obtain anything for us from God. Also they did not believe that holy water can wash away the mortal sin. They also did not believe at all in the consecration of churches, cemeteries, palms, herbs, salt, candles, and other items related to the established rites of the Church. Also they did not believe at all in the indulgences, dedications, and other [rituals], saying that these and others were invented and established because of the greed of the clergy. Also they believed that ecclesiastical censure is non-binding and that it was established because of the greed of the clergy, as above. Also they believed that a simple priest has as much power to absolve sins as the pope or a bishop. Also they listened to the preaching of their fellow preachers and believed their sermons. Also certain [heretics] did not believe in the [sacrament of] confirmation. Also, some of them, the most, never confessed the abovementioned errors, until now, yet came near the body of Christ as others. Also some believed that their sect will remain secret until the judgment day and the coming of Elias and Enoch, and then will be revealed, and all nations will gather with their very sect. Also they believed that no judge can condemn anyone to death, however worthy of punishment [one might be], without sin. Also they said that their apostles have the power to consecrate the body of Christ. Note that these were the forty-six [heretics found] in the city of Augsburg, who all have returned to the correct faith and this was given to them for the sake of correction: first, to wear the small cross on the chest [affixed] to their clothes for the whole year. Also, that they had to walk for eight days from the [abbey of] St-Ulrich until the cathedral of the Virgin Mary, always two by two, and that they had to carry lit candles, and in the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary they had to say the Hail Mary seven times and a priest was to sprinkle them with holy water. And in the cemetery they had to read the Lord’s Prayer and the Hail Mary for the dead three times. Moreover, later that year in Donauwörth, there were found forty of the same heretics with the same beliefs, who all quickly reverted to Catholicism and returned to the pure faith. And ten men and sixteen women were burned [at the 94

three: heresy and inquisition

stake], but they have cried out the names of the Blessed Virgin and all the saints, and were [allowed to be] buried in the cemetery. The bishop [of Augsburg] received their possessions; the poor were released, [while] the rich were burned. Also in the same year in Dinkesbühl, there were found a few of the same heretics, I do not know how many, but two were burned. Also in that year, in Wemding there were found the same [kind of] heretics, of which many converted, but in the end ten men and women who have previously converted [repeat offenders] were burned. And so in that year, in many lands and towns, many heretics from that sect were found, and many were marked with a [penitential] cross, and many apostatized and were burned. And those who accepted the penitential cross, abandoned the faith and having relapsed fled their homeland and thus many heretics from the same sect were found in different cities and towns in Swabia, Bavaria, and Franconia. Finally, it was found that the lords of those who were burned received their possessions, and released the poor. I believe that the main cause for this was evil. Questions: How does the document’s author feel about the inquisitions he describes? What might have been the motives behind these inquisitions, according to the chronicler? What kinds of punishments awaited heretics in these anti-Waldensian persecutions? What purpose did these punishments serve?

95

This page intentionally left blank

C H A P T E R FOU R E X T E R NA L OT H E R S : CON TAC T S , I N TOL E R A NC E , A N D T H E M A K I NG OF M E DI E VA L E U ROPE

Figure 4.1  Mass baptism of the Saxons conquered by Emperor Charlemagne. This fifteenth-century miniature depicts the imagined scene of mass conversion and baptism of the Saxons after the Carolingian conquest of Saxony (see doc. 28).

97

This page intentionally left blank

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

28. THE CAROLINGIAN CONQUEST OF SAXONY: TWO PERSPECTIVES The reign of Emperor Charlemagne (r. 768–814) was marked by continuous military campaigns on the borders of his expanding empire; by the time of his death, he controlled most of western and central Europe. Carolingian subjugation of the Saxons (772–804) was Charlemagne’s longest and most brutal campaign, a series of wars and military operations aimed not only at territorial conquest but also at cultural and religious domination of the local people. Saxons were pagan prior to the conquest, allowing Charlemagne to use extremely brutal tactics against them but also providing a convenient excuse for the whole campaign. The Carolingian “civilizing” and Christianizing mission was praised by his biographer, Einhard (c. 775–840), the author of The Life of Charlemagne (Vita Karoli Magni, c. 817–36), who saw it as a glorious victory for his king; once conquered and converted, the Saxons were incorporated into the empire. Einhard’s Frankish account focuses primarily on the military conquest of the Saxons— presented as lawless barbarians, who worshipped demons—by the Franks. However, a somewhat later text written by a Saxon monastic author from the abbey of Corvey provides a version of history meant to present the Saxons in a more favorable light by glossing over the war itself and seeing the conquest merely as an opportunity for Saxons to embrace Christianity. Sources: Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne: trans. Paul Edward Dutton, Charlemagne’s Courtier: The Complete Einhard (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), pp. 20–21; Translation of the Relics of Saint Vitus: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Translatio Sancti Viti Martyris. Übertragung des Hl. Märtyrers Vitus, ed. Irene Schmale-Ott (Münster: Aschendorff, 1979), pp. 33–36.

Einhard, The Life of Charlemagne (early ninth century) 7. At the conclusion of this campaign, the Saxon war, which had seemed merely postponed, was begun again. No war taken up by the Frankish people was ever longer, harder, or more dreadful [than this one], because the Saxons, like virtually all the peoples inhabiting Germany, were naturally fierce, worshipped demons, and were opposed to our religion. Indeed, they did not deem it shameful to violate and contravene either human or divine laws. There were underlying causes that threatened daily to disturb the peace, particularly since our borders and theirs ran together almost everywhere in open land, except for a few places where huge forests or mountain ridges came between our respective lands and established a clear boundary. Murder, theft, and arson constantly occurred along this border. The Franks were so infuriated by these [incidents], that they believed they could no longer respond [incident for incident], but that it was worth declaring open war on the Saxons. 99

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Thus, a war was taken up against them, which was waged with great vehemence by both sides for thirty-three straight years [772–804]. But the damage done to the Saxons was greater than that suffered by the Franks. In fact, the war could have been brought to a close sooner, if the faithlessness of the Saxons had [but] allowed it. It is almost impossible to say how many times they were beaten and pledged their obedience to the king. They promised [on those occasions] to follow his orders, to hand over the hostages demanded without delay, and to welcome the representatives sent to them by the king. At different times, they were so broken and subdued that they even promised to give up their worship of demons and freely submit themselves to Christianity. But though they were on occasion inclined to do this, they were always so quick to break their promises, that it is not possible to judge which of the two ways [of acting] can be said to have come more naturally to them. In fact, since the start of the war with the Saxons there was hardly a single year in which they did not reverse themselves in this way. But the king’s greatness [of spirit] and steadfast determination—both in bad times and good—could not be conquered by their fickleness or worn down by the task he had set himself. Those perpetrating anything of this sort were never allowed to go unpunished. He took vengeance on them for their treachery and exacted suitable compensation either by leading the army [against them] himself or by sending it under [the charge of] his counts. Finally, when all those who were in the habit of resisting had been crushed and brought back under his control, he removed ten thousand men who had been living with their wives and children along both sides of the Elbe river and he dispersed them here and there throughout Gaul and Germany in various [small] groups. Thus, that war which had lasted for so many years ended on the terms laid down by the king and accepted by the Saxons, namely that they would reject the worship of demons, abandon their ancestral [pagan] rites, take up the Christian faith and the sacraments of religion, and unite with the Franks in order to form a single people. 8. Although this war had been long and drawn out, [Charles] himself met the enemy in battle no more than twice, once near a mountain called Osning in the place known as Detmold and again at the River Haase. [Both battles occurred] within one month, with only a few days separating them [in 783]. His [Saxon] enemies were so destroyed and conquered in these two battles that they no longer dared to anger the king or to thwart his advance, unless they were protected by some fortified place. Nevertheless, in that war many Frankish and Saxon nobles, men holding high offices, were killed. Finally, that war ended in its thirty-third year [in 804], but in the meantime a great many serious wars had broken out against the Franks in other lands. The king managed these with such skill, that an observer might easily wonder which deserves more praise, [the king’s] persistence or his successes under adverse conditions. For [the 100

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

Saxon] war began two years before the Italian [conflict] and, although it was waged without interruption, no war that needed to be fought elsewhere was abandoned or [even] postponed in any way on account of that equally onerous war [against the Saxons]. For in wisdom and greatness of soul this king was the most surpassing of all the kings who ruled the peoples of his time. He abandoned no war that had been entered into and needed to be fought through to the end, because of the exertion [it demanded] or the danger it presented. But rather he had learned to meet and endure each circumstance as it presented itself. Thus, it was not his nature to give up in bad times or to be seduced by the false flattery of success in good times. Translation of the Relics of Saint Vitus (after 836) After the passion and resurrection of our Lord Savior, after the triumphs of the apostles and the victories of the martyrs, when the enemies of peace were overcome, the king of the kings and the Lord of strength finally returned peace to his Church. And the very kings whose ancestors slaughtered the martyrs, bear on their foreheads the cross of Christ as a royal crown and strive for both the faith and the Church and visit with reverence the martyrs’ graves. Christ first conquered the Romans, advanced to the Lombards, triumphed even more gloriously in Francia, attacked the Spaniards and took over the British, and subdued the English people; and even the Saxons, who were allies of the English, bowed their necks with devotion, albeit forced. Praise and immeasurable glory therefore be to Christ alone, who made his name known to the very ends of the earth. But how these Saxons could be converted to faith and the knowledge of the truth, I wish briefly to include in this little work. . . . After the death of the noble King Pepin [the Short], his son Charles [Charlemagne] received the entire Frankish kingdom. To him the Lord gave so much strength and power that he not only powerfully controlled the Frankish kingdom, but also ruled many barbarian tribes around it. Thus it happened that he not only subdued the Saxon tribe, which once rebelled against the Franks, to his rule, but also consecrated it to the sweet name of Christ through his merit. For that very reason, we believe, among all the Christian kings, he was the most successful in his wars, for he consecrated the subjects of his reign to the name of Christ. But when the Lord had granted him rest from his many enemies, he summoned all the great men who were subject to him, the bishops and princes, and inquired most earnestly of them how he could consolidate the true faith and true religion throughout his kingdom. Nevertheless, he also sought out hopeful clergy, whom he sent to Saxony to instruct them in the faith and to establish bishoprics and churches. But when he introduced the whole ecclesiastical order to this land, he found no other way to make monastic life possible there than to 101

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

assign the relatives of the people whom he had taken as hostages and prisoners during the war to the Frankish monasteries and to teach them sacred law and monastic rule. Since in the monastery of Corbie the way of life of the monks was praiseworthy at that time, he determined that many of these men should live there. At that time Adalhard was an abbot in this monastery, an honorable and noble man, of noble origin, but even more noble in his faith, ardent in zeal, full of love, wise in speech, eager in the divine law, and filled with discernment. Since he was one of the first among the courtiers and the counselors of the king—he was his blood relative—he could not hide the will of the said king. But because he was no less devout than the king was, after returning to the monastery he began to question the monks of Saxon origin, whether in their homeland a suitable place for the establishment of a monastery for monks can be found. One of them, Thiodrad, said, “I know a place in my father’s possession where there is a living spring on both sides, and which seems to me very suitable for this purpose.” The venerable father was delighted by this answer and immediately sent him to that region to examine the matter carefully and to find out if the father and other relatives would consent [to the establishment of the monastery on their land]. When, after his departure, he had explored the views of his father and mother, and of his uncle and cousin, he returned to the monastery and reported that, rather than resisting it, they wished it [that is, the founding of the monastery] to take place. Questions: What is Einhard’s opinion of Charlemagne’s campaign against the Saxons? How does Einhard describe the Saxon people? How might his description justify the war against them? How does the second excerpt view the conquest of the Saxons and their conversion to Christianity? How does it compare to Einhard’s account?

29. GERALD OF WALES ON THE IRISH Gerald of Wales (c. 1146–c. 1223) was a historian and writer of Welsh and Norman descent, whose service to King Henry II of England (r. 1154–89) and to his heir, John I (r. 1199–1216), allowed him to witness firsthand the Norman conquest of Ireland in the later twelfth century. Gerald was well educated and apt at making himself useful to the Anglo-Norman elites, and his most famous work, The Topography of Ireland (Topographia Hibernica, c. 1188), was an account that combined his travels in Ireland with historical and mythological sketches of the island and its inhabitants. Written against the background of the Norman conquest and colonization of Ireland, Gerald’s Topography—dedicated to King Henry II and, later, re-dedicated to King John—served as Norman propaganda by portraying Ireland as a fertile, nearly unspoiled land with bountiful resources, populated by barbaric peoples of questionable religious beliefs (despite the 102

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

origins of Christianity in Ireland dating back to the fifth century). Indeed, some of the disparaging characteristics Gerald included in his work have remained standard tropes of anti-Irish sentiments in the centuries since. Even mythical stories about Ireland’s past and its monstrous animals were meant to underscore differences between Irish and AngloNorman cultures and to justify the Norman conquest as a “civilizing” mission of its time. The work is divided into three parts, dealing with the nature and climate of Ireland, accounts of its wonders and miracles, and, finally, the history and customs of its people. Source: trans. Thomas Forester and Richard Colt Hoare, Gerald of Wales, The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis: Containing the Topography of Ireland, and the History of the Conquest of Ireland . . ., ed. Thomas Wright (London: George Bell & Sons, 1892), pp. 20, 51–52, 121–26, revised.

Part 1, Chapter 25. On Several Advantages Possessed by the Island; and the Nature of the Climate Ireland is the most temperate of all countries. The burning heat of Cancer does not drive the inhabitants to the cool shades, nor the freezing blasts of Capricorn urgently invite them to the fire. You seldom observe snow here, and then only for a short time. Cold weather sometimes comes with every wind, no less from the east and west, than from the south or north. From all quarters they are moderate, and from none tempestuous. The grass in the fields is green in the winter as well as in the summer; so that they neither cut hay for fodder, nor ever build stalls for the cattle. In consequence of the agreeable temperature of the climate, it is warm at almost all seasons. The air also is so healthy, that no clouds bring infection, and there are no pestilent vapors, or tainted breezes. The islanders have little need of physicians, for you will find few sick persons, except those who are at the point of death. There is little medium between perfect health and the last end. Strangers here are troubled only with one disorder; they suffer from a single ailment. At first, hardly anyone escapes a violent flux of the bowels, from the succulent qualities of the food they take. However, flesh and the produce of cows are to be had almost at all seasons; but pork meat is unwholesome. Moreover, no natives of the island, who have never quitted its salubrious soil and climate, suffer at any time from either of three sorts of fever; the only one which attacks them is the ague [possibly malaria], and that very seldom. This was the course of things in due order of nature; but as the world grows older, and is falling as it were into the decrepitude of old age, and draws to an end, the nature of almost all things is corrupted and deteriorated. For now such floods of rain inundate the country, such dense clouds and fogs overspread it, that you will hardly see three clear days together, even during summer. Notwithstanding, no disturbance of the atmosphere, no seasonableness of the weather, either troubles those who are in health and spirits, or affects the nerves of delicate persons. . . . 103

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Part 3, Chapter 10. Of the Character, Customs, and Habits of These People I have considered it not superfluous to give a short account of the condition of this nation, both bodily and mentally; I mean their state of cultivation, both interior and exterior. These people are not tenderly nursed from their birth, as others are; for besides the rude fare they receive from their parents, which is only just sufficient for their sustenance, as to the rest, almost all is left to nature. They are not placed in cradles, or swathed, nor are their tender limbs either fomented by constant bathing, or adjusted with art. For the midwives make no use of warm water, nor raise their noses, nor depress the face, nor stretch the legs; but nature alone, with very slight aids from art, disposes and adjusts the limbs to which she has given birth, just as she pleases. As if to prove that what she is able to form she does not cease to shape also, she gives growth and proportions to these people, until they arrive at perfect vigor, tall and handsome in person, and with agreeable and ruddy countenances. But although they are richly endowed with the gifts of nature, their want of civilization, shown both in their dress and mental culture, makes them a barbarous people. For they wear but little woolen, and nearly all they use is black, that being the color of the sheep in this country. Their clothes are also made after a barbarous fashion. Their custom is to wear small, close-fitting hoods, hanging below the shoulders a cubit’s length, and generally made of multi-colored strips sewn together. Under these, they use woolen rugs instead of cloaks, with breeches and hose of one piece, or hose and breeches joined together, which are usually dyed of some color. Likewise, in riding, they neither use saddles, nor boots, nor spurs, but only carry a rod in their hand, having a crook at the upper end, with which they both urge forward and guide their horses. They use reins which serve the purpose both of a bridle and a bit, and do not prevent the horses from feeding, as they always live on grass. Moreover, they go to battle without armor, considering it a burden, and esteeming it brave and honorable to fight without it. But they are armed with three kinds of weapons: namely, short spears, and two darts; in which they follow the customs of the Basclenses (Basques); and they also carry heavy battle-axes of iron, exceedingly well wrought and tempered. These they borrowed from the Norwegians and Ostmen [the Danes] of whom we shall speak hereafter. But in striking with the battle-ax they use only one hand, instead of both, clasping the shaft firmly, and raising it above the head, so as to direct the blow with such force that neither the helmets which protect our heads, nor the platting of the coat of mail which defends the rest of our bodies, can resist the stroke. Thus it has happened, in my own time, that one blow of the ax has cut off a knight’s thigh, although it was encased in iron, the thigh and leg falling on one side of his horse, and the body of the dying horseman 104

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

on the other. When other weapons fail, they hurl stones against the enemy in battle with such quickness and dexterity, that they do more execution than the slingers of any other nation. The Irish are a rude people, subsisting on the produce of their cattle only, and living themselves like beasts—a people that has not yet departed from the primitive habits of pastoral life. In the common course of things, mankind progresses from the forest to the field, from the field to the town, and to the social condition of citizens; but this nation, holding agricultural labor in contempt, and little coveting the wealth of towns, as well as being exceedingly averse to civil institutions—lead the same life their fathers did in the woods and open pastures, neither willing to abandon their old habits or learn anything new. They, therefore, only make patches of tillage; their pastures are short of herbage; cultivation is very rare, and there is scarcely any land sown. This want of tilled fields arises from the neglect of those who should cultivate them; for there are large tracts which are naturally fertile and productive. The whole habits of the people are contrary to agricultural pursuits, so that the rich glebe is barren for want of husbandmen, the fields demanding labor which is not forthcoming. Very few sorts of fruit trees are found in this country, a defect arising not from the nature of the soil, but from want of industry in planting them; for the lazy husbandman does not take the trouble to plant the foreign sorts which would grow very well here. . . . The forests of Ireland also abound with fir-trees, producing frankincense and incense. There are also veins of various kinds of metals ramifying in the bowels of the earth, which, from the same idle habits are not worked and turned to account. Even gold, which the people require in large quantities, and still covet in a way that speaks to their Spanish origin, is brought here by the merchants who traverse the ocean for the purposes of commerce. They neither employ themselves in the manufacture of flax or wool, or in any kind of trade or mechanical art; but abandoning themselves to idleness, and immersed in sloth, their greatest delight is to be exempt from toil, their richest possession the enjoyment of liberty. These people, then, are truly barbarous, being not only barbarous in their dress, but suffering their hair and beards to grow enormously in an uncouth manner, just like the modern fashion recently introduced; indeed, all their habits are barbarisms. But habits are formed by mutual intercourse; and as these people inhabit a country so remote from the rest of the world, and lying at its furthest extremity, forming, as it were, another world, and are thus secluded from civilized nations, they learn nothing, and practice nothing but the barbarism in which they are born and bred, and which sticks to them like a second nature. Whatever natural gifts they possess are excellent, in whatever requires industry they are worthless. 105

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Questions: How does the author describe the Irish, their language, and their way of living? What might have motivated his description of them? Taking Gerald’s description of Ireland as a whole, how might his account be understood and used by its medieval readers?

30. PAPAL BLESSING FOR HENRY II’S CONQUEST OF IRELAND Pope Adrian IV (r. 1154–59), the only Englishman ever to be elected pope, issued a bull Laudabiliter (“Laudably,” after the first word of the original document) in 1155. In effect, the bull allowed King Henry II of England (r. 1154–89) to embark on his plan to conquer Ireland. The pope justified his permission by urging King Henry to use his conquest to support the reforms of its Irish Church. Like Gerald of Wales (doc. 29) and other contemporary non-Irish observers, Adrian saw the Irish as barbarous and Christian in name only. Indeed, the bull presents Henry’s future conquest as a Christian mission aimed at introducing Christianity to the island, a surprising statement considering the rich history of Irish Christianity dating back to the fifth century. While the bull provided a useful justification for the Anglo-Norman rule of Ireland, the conquest itself took place in stages and only partially involved Henry. In 1169–70, two separate Anglo-Norman expeditionary forces landed in Leinster; Henry arrived with his army only in 1171, likely to prevent his nobles from claiming their conquest in Ireland for themselves. Relatively quickly the Irish kings agreed—with a few exceptions—to recognize Henry as their overlord; this arrangement did not last past Henry’s departure back to England, and warfare resumed soon after, resulting in a slow and brutal process of gradual subjugation of the Irish people. Source: trans. Thomas Forester and Richard Colt Hoare, Gerald of Wales, The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis: Containing the Topography of Ireland, and the History of the Conquest of Ireland . . ., ed. Thomas Wright (London: George Bell & Sons, 1892), pp. 260–62, revised.

Adrian the bishop, the servant of the servants of God, to his most dearly beloved son in Christ, the illustrious king of England, sends greeting, with the apostolic benediction. Your majesty laudably and profitably considers how you may best promote your glory on earth, and lay up for yourself an eternal reward in heaven, when, as becomes a Catholic prince, you labor to extend the borders of the Church, to teach the truths of the Christian faith to a rude and unlettered people, and to root out the weeds of wickedness from the field of the Lord; for this purpose you crave the advice and assistance of the Apostolic See, and in so doing we are persuaded that the higher are your aims, and the more discreet your proceedings, the greater, under God, will be your success. For those who begin with zeal for

106

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

the faith, and love for religion, may always have the best hopes of bringing their undertakings to a prosperous end. It is beyond all doubt, as your highness acknowledged, that Ireland and all the other islands on which the light of the Gospel of Christ has dawned and which have received the knowledge of the Christian faith, do of right belong and appertain to Saint Peter and the holy Roman Church. Wherefore we are the more desirous to sow in them the acceptable seed of God’s word, because we know that it will be strictly required of us hereafter. You have signified to us, our well-beloved son in Christ, that you propose to enter the island of Ireland in order to subdue the people, and make them obedient to laws, and to root out from among them the weeds of sin; and that you are willing to yield and pay yearly from every house the pension of one penny to Saint Peter, and to keep and preserve the rights of the churches in that land whole and inviolate. We therefore, regarding your pious and laudable design with due favor, and graciously assenting to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that, for the purpose of enlarging the borders of the Church, setting bounds to the progress of wickedness, reforming evil manners, planting virtue, and increasing the Christian religion, you do enter and take possession of that island, and execute therein whatsoever shall be for God’s honor and the welfare of the same. And further, we do also strictly charge and require that the people of that land shall accept you with all honor, and dutifully obey you, as their liege lord, saving only the rights of the churches, which we will have inviolably preserved; and reserving to Saint Peter and the holy Roman Church the yearly pension of one penny from each house. If therefore you bring your purpose to good effect, let it be your study to improve the habits of that people, and take such orders by yourself, or by others whom you shall think fitting, for their lives, manners, and conversation, that the Church there may be adorned by them, the Christian faith be planted and increased, and all that concerns the honor of God and the salvation of souls be ordered by you in like manner; so that you may receive at God’s hands the blessed reward of everlasting life, and may obtain on earth a glorious name in ages to come. Questions: Why does Pope Adrian support King Henry II in his plans to conquer Ireland? Conversely, why did the king need papal approval for his military campaign? What role do religious concerns play in the document? Why does the pope stress the need “to sow in them the acceptable seed of God’s word” among the Irish even though Christianity had already been present in Ireland for centuries?

107

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

31. KEEPING THE PEACE AFTER THE CONQUEST: STATUTES OF THE PARLIAMENT OF DUBLIN The Parliament of Dublin first met in 1297 and its statutes provide a glimpse of the pressing concerns on the minds of the English settlers and colonizers at the time. The statutes deal predominantly with the matters of war and security: availability of arms and horses in settlements as a measure of self-defense, and provision of guards for the lands in the marches, that is, borderlines between territories controlled by the Anglo-Irish settlers and the native Irish. The statutes present a rather grim picture of constant raiding or threats of raiding and of frequent violence between the English and the Irish. Notably, the last law included here discusses the practice of English settlers adopting Irish fashion and hairstyles, an unnerving phenomenon at a time when outward signs often signaled one’s origin and defined legal rights. Source: trans. Henry F. Berry, Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland: King John to Henry V (Dublin: H.M. Stationery Office, 1907), pp. 195, 199–203, 211, revised.

The justiciar [title used by the royal governor of Ireland] here, with the common council of the lord the king in this land, in order to establish peace more firmly, ordained and appointed a general parliament here at this day. And it was commanded to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and priors, whose presence seems to be hereunto necessary, also to the earls, barons, and other chief persons of this land, to wit, to each of them severally, that they should be here at this day. . . . And in the presence of the aforesaid bishops of Meath and Leighlin and the earl and barons, and other chief persons here appearing of the common council of the lord the king in this land, certain provisions were made. . . . 2. Likewise whereas some great persons and others who have diverse lands in the marches near the Irish, and other lands in a land of peace, remain and dwell in their manors in a land of peace, their lands in the marches being left waste and uncultivated and without a guard; and Irish felons by means of such waste lands in their marches, pass freely through to perpetrate robberies, homicides, and other mischiefs upon the English, and return through them without arrest, hue and cry, or hindrance; whereby very many marches are either altogether destroyed or are for the greater part ruinous, and the English inhabitants either obey felons or are driven as it were into exile. It is agreed that tenants of this kind, of whatever authority or condition they be, place and have wards in their lands in the march, according to the quantity of those lands, lest malefactors pass through those lands unpunished or not pursued, and as often as it shall be necessary, tenants of this kind may be distrained thereunto, by taking their lands into the hand of the lord the king, and by other methods which the court of the lord the king shall see most expedient. 108

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

3. Frequently also it happens that felons escape with their booty, sometimes taken in a land of peace, because the country people have not armed horse to pursue them as would be expedient. Wherefore it is agreed and granted that every tenant holding twenty librates of land [that is, worth twenty pounds a year], whether in the march or in land of peace, of whatsoever condition he be, have a horse suitably equipped, together with the other arms which hereunto pertain, constantly ready in his dwelling. And that other tenants have hobbies and other horses unarmed according to their abilities. And as often as default shall be found in anyone, that the defaulter be distrained and punished, according to the discretion of the justice, sheriff, and seneschal. The magnates also and others who reside in England or elsewhere out of this land, who cause the profits of this land to be transmitted to them from this land, leaving nothing here to protect their tenements or the tenants thereof, shall from henceforth permit a competent portion to remain at least in the hands of their bailiffs, whereby their own lands may be sufficiently saved and defended, if it happen that war or disturbance of peace should be excited there by any persons. And that when it shall be necessary they shall be effectually distrained by the sheriff or the seneschal to do this. 4. Frequently also felons escape with their spoils, by reason that the country people do not rise together with them [those plundered], but some of them, as if exulting in the damage and ruin of their neighbor, at which they ought justly to grieve, feign and conceal themselves, permitting such felons to pass unhurt with their spoils. Wherefore it is agreed and granted that when thieves or robbers shall come into any country to take spoils or to do any other mischief, all the country people, as soon as their approach can come to their knowledge, rise together and effectually pursue them. And whosoever of those country people can be convicted of having been negligent or remiss in rising or in pursuing them shall be heavily punished toward the lord the king, and shall restore to the injured party a proportion of the property lost, according to the criminality of his negligence or remissness, and according to the discretion of the justice assigned to hear such complaint. 5. Because also the commonalty of this land was hitherto much aggrieved by armies, which great men have led without warrant through the midst of a land of peace and of marches where there was no war. It is agreed and granted that from henceforth it shall not be lawful to anyone to lead an army out of his own land, unless he shall have had a license for this from the chief justiciar, or a special mandate, and then all, as many as he have led, shall receive their wages from their leader, that they may be reasonably supported on their expedition [and therefore will not live off the land]. And he who shall contravene this ordinance shall be heavily punished toward the lord the king, and restore to the injured their damages to be assessed by a competent [jury of] the neighborhood. . . . 109

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

11. Englishmen also as degenerate in modern times, attire themselves in Irish garments and having their heads half shaven, grow and extend the hairs from the back of the head and call them Culan, conforming themselves to the Irish as well in garb as in countenance, whereby it frequently happens that some Englishmen reputed as Irishmen are slain, although the killing of Englishmen and of Irishmen requires different modes of punishment. And by such killing matter of enmity and rancor is generated among many. The kindred also, as well of the slayer as of the slain, are often by turns struck down as enemies. And therefore it is agreed and granted that all Englishmen in this land wear, at least in that part of the head which presents itself most to view, the mode and haircut of Englishmen, nor longer presume to turn their hair in the Culan, which if they shall do, that the justice, sheriff, seneschal of liberties, and also the lords in whose lordship such Englishmen may be found, and their seneschal distrain and compel those Englishmen by their lands and chattels, and also, if it shall be necessary, by arrest of their body and imprisonment, to relinquish the Irish dress at least in the head or hair, and that there be no further answer made to an Englishman having his head transformed in the fashion of an Irishman, than would be made to an Irishman if he should complain in the like case. Questions: How does this document present the relationship between the native Irish and the Anglo-Norman settlers in Ireland? What are the main concerns taken up by these statutes? Why were the Anglo-Norman settlers who adopted Irish clothing and hairstyles perceived as problematic? What might this suggest about the roles played by one’s appearance in medieval colonial encounters?

32. MEDIEVAL EUROPE OLD AND NEW: OTTO OF FREISING DESCRIBES NORTHERN ITALY AND HUNGARY Otto of Freising (c. 1114–58) was the bishop of Freising and a historian. He is best known for two historical and philosophical works: The Chronicle of the Two Cities, a comparative “history” of heavenly Jerusalem and earthly Babylon, along the lines of Augustine’s City of God (early fifth century); and The Deeds of Emperor Frederick, an account of the reign of Otto’s nephew, Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (r. 1155–90), written at Frederick’s request. A younger son in a powerful noble family, Otto was a well-educated cleric with a good understanding of the political landscape of the Holy Roman Empire and thus well suited to write an “official” sketch of the early years of Frederick’s reign. In this text, Otto makes observations about the lands he visited and their inhabitants; two such descriptions are included here—of northern Italy and Hungary—providing an insight into Otto’s and his contemporaries’ understanding of the differences between these lands and their inhabitants. In particular, Otto contrasts 110

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

the tumultuous urban centers of Lombardy with the open spaces and bountiful natural resources of the Hungarian plain. Writing a generation earlier than Gerald of Wales (c. 1146–c. 1223), Otto expresses similar ideas by contrasting the natural potential of eastern European lands with the purported negligence of its people, thus inviting colonists from western and central Europe to move eastward. Sources: Description of the northern Italian cities: trans. James Harvey Robinson, “Otto of Freising’s Account of the Italian Cities,” in Readings in European History: From the Breaking Up of the Roman Empire to the Protestant Revolt (New York: Ginn & Co, 1904), vol. 1, pp. 303–05, revised; description of Hungary: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Otto of Freising, “Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris,” in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, ed. Georg Waitz (Hannover: Hahn, 1912), vol. 46, pp. 49–50.

Description of the Northern Italian Cities [The Lombards after their arrival in Italy] gradually laid aside their fierce barbarian customs and intermarried with the natives. Thus their children have derived from the mothers’ race, and from the character of the country and the climate, something of Roman culture and civilization, and retain the elegance and refinement of Latin speech and manner. In the government of the cities and in the management of civil affairs they also imitate the skill of the ancient Romans. Furthermore they love liberty so well that, to guard against the abuse of power, they choose to be ruled by the authority of consuls rather than by princes. They are divided into three classes, namely, “captains,” vavasors, and the people. To prevent the growth of class pride, the consuls are chosen from each class in turn, and, for fear that they may yield to the lust of power, they are changed nearly every year. It has come to pass that almost the whole country belongs to the cities, each of which forces the inhabitants of her territory to submit to her sway. One can hardly find, within a wide circuit, a man of rank or importance who does not recognize the authority of his city. . . . In order that there shall be no lack of forces for tyrannizing over their neighbors, the cities stoop to bestow the sword-belt and honorable rank upon youths of inferior station, or even upon laborers in despised and mechanical trades, who, among other peoples, are shunned like the pest by those who follow the higher pursuits. To this practice it is due that they surpass all other cities of the world in riches and power; and the long-continued absence of their ruler across the Alps has further contributed to their independence. In one respect they are unmindful of their ancient nobility and betray their barbarian origin; for, although they boast of living under law, they do not obey the law. They rarely or never receive their ruler submissively, although it is their duty to show him willing and respectful obedience. They do not obey the decrees that he issues by virtue of his legal powers, unless they are made 111

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

to feel his authority by the presence of his great army. Although, in a civilized state, the citizens should submit to law, and only an enemy should be coerced by force, yet they often greet with hostility him whom they ought to receive as their own gracious prince, when he comes to demand his own. This situation brings double evil on the state. The prince’s attention is occupied with gathering together an army to subdue the townsmen, and the citizens, though forced to obey the prince, waste their resources in the struggle. The fault, in such a case, lies wholly in the insolence of the people; the prince, who has acted under necessity, should be absolved before God and man. Among all these cities Milan has become the leading one. . . . It must be regarded as more powerful than any of the others, in the first place, on account of its size and its multitude of brave men, and, secondly, because it has brought the two neighboring cities of Como and Lodi under its sway. Led on by Fortune’s smiles, as is the way of this fleeting world, Milan has become so puffed up with pride that she has dared not only to incur the enmity of all her neighbors, but, fearing not even the majesty of the emperor himself, she has recently courted his anger. Description of Hungary For this is a province called since the old times Pannonia for being surrounded by forests, mountains and, in particular, the Apennines [here Otto most likely meant the Carpathian mountains]. Within it is an expansive plain, cut through by rivers and streams, and with many woods teeming with all kinds of wild animals. It is known to be pleasant for its agreeable nature and the abundance of fertile fields and seems to be like God’s paradise or fair Egypt. For it has a most beautiful natural scene, as I have said, but because of the barbarous customs of its people, it is rarely adorned by manors and buildings; its boundaries are circumscribed not so much as by mountains or forests but by the flow of mighty rivers. In the east, where the famous river, the Save, is joined with the Danube, it borders Bulgaria; in the west, Moravia and the eastern German Mark, in the south, Croatia, Dalmatia, Istria, and Carinthia; to the north is Bohemia, Poland, Ruthenia; to the southeast, Rama [Bosnia]; to the northeast, the [lands of] the Patzinaks and the Falones, with expansive abundant hunting fields, but almost unfamiliar with plowshare and rake. Indeed, having suffered constant assaults by barbarians, it is no surprise that in its mores and language [this land] remains wild and uncivilized. At first, as it has been discussed abundantly elsewhere, it suffered the raids of the Huns, who, according to Jordanes [sixth-century Byzantine author of Getica (c. 551), a work on the early history of the Goths], sprung from [the union of] incubi and harlots; later it was trampled by the Avars, who eat raw and foul meat. Finally, 112

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

it was left for taking to the Hungarians, who came out of Scythia and still reside in this land. These Hungarians, then, [have] unsightly faces, deep-seated eyes, small stature, barbarous and ferocious customs and languages, so that one can rightly blame fortune or rather admire divine patience that left such a pleasant land to these—I shall not say men—but human-like monsters. In this, however, they imitate the cleverness of the Greeks, that they undertake no important matter without abundant and lengthy discussions. Lastly, since the dwellings they have in their towns and villages are most poorly made, that is [made] just out of reeds, rarely out of wood and most rarely out of stone, all summer and autumn they live in tents. . . . Questions: How do northern Italy, its people, and their way of life compare to Hungary and its inhabitants? What positive and negative aspects does Otto of Freising find in both regions, and why? Why do you think Otto contrasts the plentiful nature of Hungary with the character of the people living there?

33. THE DUKE OF LITHUANIA ON THE TEUTONIC ORDER Duke Gediminas of Lithuania (r. 1316–41) is rightly considered to be not only the founder of the dynasty of Lithuanian rulers but, in many ways, the founder of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a realm that stretched during his reign from the Baltic to the steppes north of the Black Sea. While Gediminas’s reign saw territorial expansion and economic growth, he inherited a long-standing conflict between the Teutonic Order—a military order in control of the lands on the Baltic to the east—and Lithuania. Throughout the thirteenth century, the Teutonic Order conducted systematic raids on Lithuanian territory, using the fact that Lithuanians were pagans as an excuse. It was likely clear to Gediminas that his domain could not succeed without addressing this military issue on its borders; his solution was to establish direct diplomatic relationship with the pope, John XXII (r. 1316–34). In 1323, Gediminas wrote a letter to the pope decrying the abuses perpetrated by the Teutonic Order and even blaming the slow rate of conversion to Christianity in his duchy on the Order’s predatory military campaign. One of a series of letters also sent to the city councils of towns belonging to the Hanseatic League, as well as to the mendicant orders in Germany, Gediminas’s letter to the pope presented Lithuania as a land ready to accept not only Christianity but also peaceful colonists from the Holy Roman Empire, in exchange for the papal prohibition on the Teutonic Order’s raiding of Lithuanian territory. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Geschichte Preussens:Von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens, ed. Johannes Voigt (Königsberg: Bornträger, 1830), vol. 4, pp. 626–27.

113

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

To the most excellent father, lord John [XXII], the supreme pontiff of the Roman See, [from] Gediminas, king of Lithuanians and many Russians, etc. We have heard for a long time, that all followers of the Christian faith shall be subject to your authority and fraternal power, and that the very Catholic faith is directed by the vision of the Roman Church. Thus, in the present letter we declare to your reverence, that our predecessor, King Mindaugas [king of Lithuania, r. 1253–63] was converted with all his kingdom to the faith of Christ, but because of the brutal wrongdoings and countless betrayals of the master of the brothers of the Teutonic Order, they have all retreated from faith, and for that reason—unfortunately—we have remained in the errors of our forefathers to this very day. For many of our predecessors sent out their envoys to the lord archbishop of Riga, in order to make peace, whom they [that is, the Teutonic knights] brutally murdered. So much is obvious from [the letters of] lord [Archbishop] Isarus [of Riga, r. 1300–02], who has arranged a peace and a truce between us and the brothers of the Teutonic Order on behalf of lord [Pope] Boniface [VIII] and sent his letters to us. But on the way back from lord Isarus, [the Teutonic Knights] murdered some of our envoys, hanged some and forced the others to drown themselves. Likewise, our predecessor, King Vytenis [grand duke of Lithuania, r. 1295–1316], sent his letters to the lord legate Francis and lord Archbishop Frederick [of Riga, r. 1304–41], asking to send him two brothers of the Franciscan Order and to assign them to an already built church. Knowing about this, the Prussian brothers of the Teutonic Order sent an army in their devious ways and set the aforementioned church on fire. Likewise, they seize lords archbishops, bishops and clerics, as is made clear by [the example of] lord John [archbishop of Riga, r. 1294–1300], who died in the curia at the time of lord [Pope] Boniface, and in [the case of] lord Archbishop Frederic, whom they falsely expelled from the church. Likewise, one cleric, lord Berthold, was murdered in his own house in the city of Riga. Likewise they desolate lands, as is made clear in Zemgale and in many other lands, but they say that they do it in order to protect Christians. Holy and reverend father, we fight Christians not to destroy the Catholic faith but to resist the wrongdoings against us just as the Christian kings and princes do. This is obvious, for we have with us brothers of the Franciscan Order and from the Order of the Preachers [the Dominicans] whom we have given full liberty to baptize, preach, and perform other sacred sacraments. In fact, we write this to you, reverend father, so that you know why our ancestors fell into the error of faithlessness and unbelief. But now, holy and reverend father, we eagerly beg that you turn your attention to our lamentable condition, for we are ready, like the rest of the Christian kings, to obey you in everything and to receive the Catholic faith, as long as the aforementioned 114

f o u r : c o n ta c t s , i n t o l e r a n c e , a n d t h e m a k i n g o f m e d i e va l e u ro p e

torturers do not oppress us in anything, namely the aforementioned master and the brothers [of the Teutonic Order]. Questions: How does Gediminas describe the actions of the Teutonic Order in his lands? According to the letter, why did Lithuania remain unconverted to Christianity? What does this letter suggest about the relationship between religion and conquest on the fringes of medieval Europe?

115

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER FIVE I N T E R R E L IGIOUS V IOL E NC E I N T H E M E DI T E R R A N E A N

Figure 5.1  Moses besieges a Muslim castle. This manuscript illustration depicts Moses fighting and laying siege to a Muslim stronghold commanded by a female ruler. The scene, which pits the Old Testament prophet against a Muslim army in a medieval setting, is an obvious revision of biblical history meant to justify medieval conflicts between Christian and Muslim rulers in the Mediterranean by providing a biblical precedent for them. Muslim troops and their ruler are set apart by their dark complexion in the artist’s attempt to racialize them and to present them as medieval Christian Europe’s “others.”

117

This page intentionally left blank

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

34. THE MARTYRS OF CORDOBA The Muslim conquest of Visigothic Spain began in 711 during the reign of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid I (r. 705–15). Within a few years, most of Iberia was conquered and incorporated into the Islamic Caliphate, becoming known as al-Andalus. The new province, and later breakaway emirate of Cordoba, ruled by the last surviving member of the ousted Umayyad dynasty, Emir Abd al-Rahman I (r. 756–88), had a diverse religious landscape. In accordance with Islamic practice, Jewish and Christian inhabitants of the emirate acquired protected dhimmi status and were allowed to retain religious autonomy in return for a special tax (jizya), limitations on public worship and the construction of new churches and synagogues, and other conditions. This period in Iberian history was marked by relatively peaceful coexistence and it appears that most non-Muslims were content with the rules that allowed them to retain their faith. Nevertheless, in the midninth century, forty-eight individuals, later called the martyrs of Cordoba, were executed for public blasphemy and apostasy. The majority of the martyrs of Cordoba were monks and clerics, along with a few lay individuals. It appears that they sought martyrdom—in a manner not too different from the martyrs who lived and died for their faith in the Roman Empire before Emperor Constantine (docs. 1 and 2)—although there is some disagreement among scholars about their reasons for seeking martyrdom by blaspheming or even openly preaching Christian teachings to Muslims. An excerpt from a contemporary account by Paulus Alvarus, written as an apologetic work meant to glorify the martyrs and to justify their actions, is included here. Source: trans. Carleton M. Sage, Paul Albar of Cordoba: Studies on His Life and Writings (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1943), pp. 201–10.

12. At the time when the savage rule of the Arabs miserably laid waste all the land of Spain with deceit and imposture, when Muhammad with unbelievable rage and unbridled fury determined to root out the race of Christians, many terrified by fear of the cruel king and hoping to allay his madness by a cruel use of evil will endeavored to assail Christ’s flock with various and ingenious temptations. Many by denying Christ threw themselves into the abyss; others were shaken by severe trials. But others were established and confirmed in flourishing virtue. In his times, as we have said, the martyrdom [or, testimony] of the faithful shone gloriously, and the error of the gainsayers was as shifting as waves [cf. James 1:6]. For some who were holding the Christian faith only in secret by God’s grace brought out into the open what they had concealed, and without being searched out they sprang forward to martyrdom and snatched their crown from the executioners. Among these was blessed Christopher, of an Arab family, the story of whose passion we plan to write in another place. Among them also were blessed Aurelius and holy Felix, who having practiced Christianity in secret, came forward with their wives to the glory of martyrdom. 119

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Another of them was the blessed virgin Flora, who indeed flowered with virtues, and despising the transitory pomp of the world won an eternal crown. Our holy doctor Eulogius described the combat of each of these and wrote their lives and acts in a brilliant style. 13. At this time there was a certain girl named Leocritia, of noble family, but nobler in soul, begotten of the filth of the Muslims and born from the womb of wolves, baptized some time earlier by a Christian nun, Litiosa, who was of her kindred. Secretly she blossomed in the Christian faith she had adopted, and knowledge of her spread abroad as a sweet odor. For as in her childhood she visited the nun as relatives do, and Litiosa daily instructed her as well as she could; at length by divine grace Leocritia received Christian faith and preserved it in her breast with the fire of love. When she came to years of wisdom and attained the lights of knowledge, that faith which she had secretly learned in her earliest childhood, increased by spiritual food day by day, she nourished to still greater growth, at first in secret, then publicly and openly. Her parents gave her earnest warnings, but as this had no effect, they tried to assail her with whipping and beating in order to coerce her by punishment, since she was not to be moved by gentler means. But that flame which Christ sent into the hearts of the faithful cannot yield to any threats. When in this conflict she was beaten day and night, and saw herself attacked with severe punishments and tied with heavy bonds, and fearing that if she did not profess her faith publicly she would be burned in hell for her infidelity, she made her case known through messengers to blessed Eulogius, who was already much esteemed in many such cases, and to his sister, Anulo, a virgin dedicated to God. She explained that she wished to go to safer places among the faithful where she might without fear make her faith known. Thereupon blessed Eulogius recognized his accustomed office, and as he was a zealous partisan of the martyrs, he directed her through the same messengers to leave home secretly. She quickly planned a stratagem, and pretending to yield to her parents, and attacking our faith in words, according to plan she donned all her best ornaments and appeared in the manner of those who are out to please and marry in the world; she set out to change their minds by attiring herself in a way she hated. When she saw that everything was now safe for her, pretending to go to the wedding of some of her kindred which was then being celebrated, beautifully dressed as befitted the occasion, she hurried off to the protection of blessed Eulogius and his sister Anulo. At once they received her with joy, and turned her over to trusted friends to be kept in hiding. Her father and mother awaited her, and when they did not see their daughter, wailing that they had been deceived and torturing themselves into an unheard-of rage and grief never before seen, they upset everything, confused everything, running about among friends and strangers, using force and the authority of the judge, they loaded into prisons and chains all whom they suspected; they afflicted with stripes and 120

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

imprisonment men, women, confessors, priests, nuns, and whom they could, hoping that by these and other measures they might in some way get their daughter back. But the saint unmoved changed her from place to place, taking every precaution that the sheep should not fall into the hands of wolves. Meanwhile she austerely wore down her body, by constant fasting and vigils, wearing haircloth and sleeping on the ground. The blessed man Eulogius, whose name is to be spoken with reverence, applying himself to nocturnal vigils, and praying prostrate on the ground in the basilica of San Zoylo, spent nights without sleep, beseeching the Lord for help and strength for the maiden, and consecrating her to the Lord by these exercises. 14. Meanwhile the serene maiden wished to see Eulogius’s sister, whom she loved with warm affection, and came by night to their dwelling, moved by a revelation of the Lord and led by her desire of consolation, to spend just one day with them and then return to her usual hiding place. She told them that twice while praying her mouth had been filled with honey, that she had not dared to spit it out but had swallowed it, wondering at the nature of the thick substance. The saint interpreted this to her as a presage that she would enjoy the sweetness of the heavenly kingdom. 15. The next day when the maiden prepared to go back, it happened that her attendant did not come at the accustomed hour but only when dawn was breaking. She could not set out, for she used to travel at night to avoid being caught. So it was arranged that the virgin of God should stay where she was that day until the sun should put a term to its light for the earth and the shades of night should grant again the desired quietude. It was indeed by human counsel, but really by God’s decree that she was held back, in order that he might give her her crown, and bestow the diadem of glory on the blessed Eulogius. For on that day, I know not at whose suggestion nor by whose plotting and betrayal, the hiding-place was made known to the judge, and suddenly their whole dwelling was surrounded by soldiers sent for the purpose. It happened that the elect and predestined martyr was there in person. Bringing Leocritia into Eulogius’s presence they arrested both together, and beating them and treating them with disrespect, they brought them to the unjust and infamous judge. The judge at once thought to kill them by scourging, and roused to vehement fury, with truculent face and impatient mind he questioned Eulogius in furious words, and inquired with threatening why he had detained the girl at his house. Eulogius answered him patiently and with good grace, as he commonly spoke, and splendidly made clear the truth of the matter as follows: “Sir, the office of preaching is laid upon us, and it is a part of our faith that we should hold out the light of faith to those seeking it of us, and that we should deny it to no one who is hastening to the highways of life which are holy. This is the duty of priests, true religion demands it, and this also Christ our Lord taught us: that 121

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

whoever is athirst and wishes to draw from the rivers of faith will find double the drink that he sought. And as this girl asked us for the rule of our holy faith, our purpose necessarily applied itself to her the more gladly as her desire was the more ardent. It was not proper to turn away a person asking this, especially not proper for one who for this purpose was endowed with the office of Christ. Hence as I was able I have enlightened and taught her, and I have shown her that the faith of Christ is the road of the kingdom of heaven. In the same way I should be glad to do it for you, if you should care to ask me.” Then the judge with stormy visage commanded rods to be brought in, threatening to put him to death by scourging. The saint said to him: “What do you intend to do with those rods?” He replied: “I mean to put you to death with them.” Eulogius said: “Sharpen and prepare the sword with which you may send my soul, released from the bondage of the body, back to him who gave it. Do not imagine that you will cut my body apart with scourges.” And straightway reproaching with clear invective and much eloquence the falseness of their prophet and law, and redoubling what he had said, he was hurried off to the palace and brought before the king’s councillors. One of them who was very well known to him addressed him sympathetically: “Even though fools and idiots are borne to this miserable ruin of death, you who are girt with the beauty of wisdom, and famous for your excellent life, what madness drove you to commit yourself to this fatal ruin, forgetting the natural love of life? Please listen to me, and do not rush into this headlong destruction, I beg you. Say only a word in this hour of your need, and afterward practice your faith where you will. We promise not to search for you anywhere.” The blessed martyr Eulogius answered him smiling: “If only you could know what things are laid up for those of our faith! Or if I could place in your breast what I possess in my own; then you would not try to hold me back from my purpose, but even more gladly would you yourself think of giving up your worldly position.” And he began to offer them the teaching of the everlasting Gospel, and with bold freedom to pour forth the preaching of the kingdom. But not wishing to hear him, those present ordered him to be put to the sword. While he was being led away, one of the king’s eunuchs slapped him. Turning the other cheek, Eulogius said: “Please strike this too, and make it equal to the other.” When this had been struck, he patiently and meekly turned the first again. But the soldiers hurried him out to the place of execution, and there kneeling in prayer and raising his hands to heaven, making the sign of the cross and saying a few words of prayer silently, he stretched out his neck for the blade, and, despising the world, by a swift blow he found life. He was martyred in midafternoon of Saturday, the eleventh of March [859]. O blessed and wonderful man of our age, who in many martyrs sent the fruit of his work ahead of him, and in the virgin Leocritia left another to follow! Raising in his hands the standard of victory, and dedicating to the Lord the sheaf of his labor 122

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

for himself, offering a pure oblation and peaceful sacrifices, and what things he had taught others, now in himself he presented to Christ the Lord of all things. As soon as his body was thrown from the upper level onto the riverbank, a dove of snowy whiteness, gliding through the air, in the sight of all flew down and sat on the martyr’s body. They all tried to drive it away by throwing stones from all sides, but being nevertheless unable to move it as it sat there, they sought to put it to flight directly with their hands. But the dove, fluttering rather than flying around the body, came to rest on a tower overlooking the corpse, with its beak pointed toward the blessed man’s body. And I must not be silent about the miracle that Christ worked for the glory of his name over the body of the martyr. A native of Ecija, while performing with others his monthly service in the palace and taking his turn with the watch, at night desiring a drink of water arose and went to the projecting water outlet which comes to that place. There he saw above Eulogius’s body, which lay lower down, priests glistening white as snow, holding dazzling lamps, and earnestly reciting psalms. Frightened by this vision he went back to his station, fleeing rather than returning. After telling a companion all about it, he decided to go with him again to the place; but this second time he was unable to see it. On the next day the effort of the Christians obtained the blessed man’s head, and on the third day they gathered the rest of the body, and buried it in the Church of the blessed martyr San Zoylo. 16. As for the blessed virgin Leocritia, though they tried to seduce her with many delights and move her with many promises, she was by God’s grace strengthened in the firmness of faith, and on the fourth day after Eulogius’s martyrdom was herself beheaded and thrown in the Guadalquivir. But she could not be submerged nor hidden in the water, for moving with body erect she presented an astonishing sight to all. So she was taken out by the Christians and buried in the basilica of the martyr Saint Genesius, which is in the place called Terzos. Such was the end of the blessed doctor Eulogius, this his admirable departure, such his crossing over after many labors. Questions: How does the account of the martyrs of Cordoba compare to the account of the martyrdom of Perpetua (doc. 2)? How does the author explain the actions of the martyrs? What do you think they were trying to achieve? From this account, what can we learn about the relationship between different faith groups in Muslim Spain?

35. THE DANGERS OF EARLY MEDIEVAL PILGRIMAGE: THE JOURNEY OF SAINT WILLIBALD Departing on their journeys, early medieval pilgrims prepared to endure the dangers of travel in unfamiliar lands with little infrastructure to accommodate them; indeed, the arduous nature of a long-distance pilgrimage only added to the prestige and piety of 123

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

religiously inspired travelers. To inspire future pilgrims and to share their experiences, some pilgrims composed accounts of their visits to the holy sites or retold their voyages to others. One such account, composed by an anonymous eighth-century nun from the German abbey of Heidenheim, is part of the life of Saint Willibald, an Anglo-Saxon monk, pilgrim, and, later, bishop of Eichstätt. Around 724, Willibald and his brother left Rome—which they also visited as pilgrims—and decided to travel to Jerusalem and the surrounding holy sites in Syria and Palestine. The excerpts from The Hodoeporicon [or “itinerary”] of Saint Willibald included here describe his interactions with the Muslim rulers in the Holy Land. As visitors from distant lands, unfamiliar with local languages and culture, Willibald and his companions attracted both interest and suspicion and were even imprisoned as potential spies by the local Muslim rulers they called “Saracens.” Source: trans. W.R. Brownlow, in The Hodoeporicon of Saint Willibald (London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1895), vol. 3, pp. 12–15, 25–26, 27–28, revised.

Sailing from Cyprus, they came into the territory of the Saracens to the city of Tharratae [Tartus] near the sea. And from thence they went on foot about nine or twelve miles to the village which is called Arche [Akkar]. Here there was a bishop of the Greek nation, and they had a church service according to their own rite. Going on from there, they walked to a city which is called Emesa [Homs], twelve miles distance. There is a large church, which Saint Helena built in honor of Saint John the Baptist, and his head, which is now in Syria, was there for a long time. There were then with Willibald seven of his fellow countrymen, and he made the eighth. All at once the Saracens, hearing that strangers and unknown men had arrived there, took them and held them in captivity; for they did not know of what nation they were, but thought them to be spies. And they led them as prisoners to a certain wealthy old man that he might see and know where they were from. And that old man questioned them as to where they came from, and on what errand they were employed. Then they replied and related to him from the beginning the whole motive of their journey. And that old man answered and said: “I have often seen men coming from those parts of the earth, countrymen of these; they have no evil designs, but wish to fulfil their [religious] law.” Then they went from him and came to the palace in order to ask their way to pass on to Jerusalem. But, when they arrived, that governor said at once that they were spies, and commanded them to be thrown into prison until they could learn from the king how their case stood—what he would have done in their case. While they were in prison, they had immediate experience of the wonderful dispensation of God Almighty, who kindly deigns to protect his own everywhere, among spears and instruments of war, among barbarians and warriors, in prisons and bands of rebels, to shield them and keep them safe. For a man was there, a merchant, who wished to free them, and deliver them out 124

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

of prison by way of alms and for the redemption of his own soul, so that they might go free according to their own will. And when he could not accomplish this, he sent them instead dinner and supper every day. And on Wednesday and Saturday he sent his own son to the prison, and he conducted them to the bath, and brought them back again. And on Sunday he took them to church through the market, that they might see the things that were for sale; and, whatever they were pleased with, he then at his own expense purchased for them anything that they had a mind to. The citizens of the neighboring towns, filled with curiosity, used to arrive there in crowds to gaze upon them, for they were young and handsome, and well equipped with goodly apparel. After this, while they were still in prison, a man came from Spain, and conversed with them in prison, and diligently inquired of them as to who they were, and where they came from. And they told him everything about their journey in order. This Spanish man had a brother in the king’s palace, who was the chamberlain of the king of the Saracens. And when that governor who had put them in prison came to the palace, the Spaniard who had talked with them in prison, and the captain of the vessel in whose ship they were when they came from Cyprus, both together presented themselves before the king of the Saracens, whose name was Mirmumni [Amīr al-Mu’minīn, Commander of the Faithful]. When some words had passed about their case, that Spanish man informed his brother of all that they had told him in the prison, begged him to make it known to the king and plead their cause. And so, when all these three came before the king, and relating everything in order, made known to him their case, the king asked where they came from. And they said: “From the western shores, where the sun sets, these men have come, and we do not know of any land beyond them, and there is nothing but water.” And the king answered and said to them: “Why should we punish them? They have committed no offense against us. Give them liberty and let them depart.” Other men who were detained in prison had to pay a three months’ assessment [fine], but this was remitted in their case. . . . With this permission, they at once set out, and travelled a hundred miles to Damascus, where Saint Ananias rests. It is in the land of Syria. They stayed there for a week. Two miles from there is a church, and at that place Paul was first converted, and the Lord said to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” etc. And there they prayed, and walked on to Galilee, to that place where Gabriel first came to holy Mary and said, “Hail, Mary!” etc. There is now a church, and that village in which the church is, is called Nazareth. Christian men have often collected funds to purchase back that church from the pagan Saracens when they wished to destroy it. There they commended themselves to the Lord and walked on from there. . . . From Caesarea he [Willibald] came a third time to Jerusalem and was there the whole winter. And he journeyed from there above three hundred miles to 125

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

the city of Emesa in Syria, and then came to the city of Salamaitha [Salamiyah]. This is at the extreme border of Syria, and he was there for the whole time of Lent, because he fell sick and could not travel. His companions, who were with him in attendance, went to the king of the Saracens, named Murmumni, and wished to ask of him a letter to permit them to travel; but they could not find the king, for he had fled away from that country to avoid the sickness and plague which scourged that region. And when they did not find the king they came back again; and there they all remained together in Salamaitha until it was one week before Easter. Then they came again to Emesa and begged the governor there to give them a letter. And he gave them a letter for two at a time, because they could not travel all together, but only two by two, for in this way it would be easier for them to obtain food there. And then they came to Damascus. Before this, Willibald, when he was in Jerusalem, bought himself some balsam [aromatic oil or resin], and filled a calabash [hollow gourd] with it. He took a cane, which was hollow, and had a bottom. He filled that with petroleum, and put it inside the calabash, and cut that cane even with the calabash, so that the edges of both seemed alike even, and thus he closed the mouth of the calabash. And when they came to the city of Tyre, those inhabitants of the city took them, bound them, and examined all their baggage, in order to find out if they had anything contraband hidden, and if they had found anything they would at once have punished and made martyrs of them. But when they examined everything, they found nothing except a calabash which Willibald had, and they opened and smelled what was inside. And when they smelled the petroleum, because it was in the cane above, the balsam, which was inside the calabash under the petroleum, they did not find, and so they let them go. Questions: What kinds of interactions did Willibald and his fellow pilgrims have with the authorities in Syria and Palestine? What can these interactions tell us about MuslimChristian relations during this period and about the dangers associated with travel in the region? Why do you think Willibald included a detailed description of smuggling balsam out of Palestine in his pilgrimage account?

36. DEPICTIONS OF MUSLIMS IN THE SONG OF ROLAND The Song of Roland (La Chanson de Roland) is an epic poem composed c. 1115, although versions of the story existed as early as the mid-eleventh century. The Song of Roland is set in the eighth century, during Charlemagne’s military campaign in Spain. At the center of the poem is Roland, Charlemagne’s nephew and one of his bravest knights. He dies, betrayed while defending the rearguard of his uncle’s army at the battle of the Roncevaux Pass—a historical skirmish between Charlemagne’s army and a party 126

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

of Basques. The skirmish was magnified over time to the status of an epic battle fought between the Franks and a Muslim army sent by King Marsile of Saragossa. Composed against the background of both the Reconquista and the First Crusade, The Song provides a fascinating glimpse into the Christian understanding—or rather the depth of their misunderstanding—of Islam and Muslims, called “pagans” in the poem, during that period. The excerpt included here comes from the later part of the poem, when Charlemagne’s army returns with the emperor to avenge Roland; in the ensuing battle, Charlemagne fights Baligant, the emir of Babylon, who came to King Marsile’s rescue. After defeating Marsile, Charlemagne and his army take Saragossa and capture Marsile’s wife, Queen Bramimonde. Source: trans. Gerard J. Brault, La Chanson de Roland: Student Edition (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1984), pp. 217–25.

258 The daylight fades away, it is growing dusk, The Franks and pagans strike with swords. The leaders who brought the armies together in battle are courageous, They have not forgotten their battle cries: The emir shouted “Precieuse!” Charles, the renowned war cry “Monjoie!” They recognized each other by their loud and clear voices, The two men met in the middle of the battlefield. They go to strike each other, they exchange mighty blows, Spears beating against shields ornamented with circles, They smashed them above the wide bosses. They ripped the sections from their hauberks, But they did not wound each other’s bodies. They break the cinches and turned the saddles over, The kings fall, they tumbled to the ground. But they quickly got back on their feet. They drew their swords very bravely. This struggle will no longer be averted, It cannot end until one of the men is dead.

3560

3565

3570

3575

259 Charles of fair France is very courageous, But the emir neither fears nor stands in awe of him. They display their naked swords in menacing fashion, They exchange mighty blows on each other’s shields. 127

3580

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

They hack through the shields’ leather and double thickness of wood, The nails fall, the bosses shatter. Then they strike each other’s unprotected byrnies, 3585 Sparks fly from the shiny helmets. This duel will never end, Until one of them admits he is in the wrong. 260 The emir said: “Think it over, Charles, You’d be well advised to beg my forgiveness! You have slain my son, of that I am certain, You very unjustly challenge my right to this country. Become my vassal and I shall give it back to you as a fief. Come serve me from here to the Orient.” Charles replies: “This strikes me as a very contemptible notion, I must bestow neither peace nor friendship on any pagan. Accept the religion that God reveals to us, Namely Christianity, then I shall care for you forthwith; Then serve and believe in the almighty king!” Baligant said: “You lead off with malicious words!” Then they go to strike with the swords they have girded on.

3590

3595

3600

261 The emir is a very strong man. He strikes Charles on his burnished steel helmet, He smashed and split it on his head; He brings his sword down on his thick hair, He whacks off more than a palm’s breadth of skin, The bone there remains completely exposed. Charles reels, he nearly fell, But God does not wish him to be killed or vanquished. Saint Gabriel returned to his side, And he asked him: “Great king, what are you doing?”

3605

3610

262 Charles, hearing the sacred voice of the angel, Has no fear, nor is he afraid of dying. His strength and mindfulness return to him, He strikes the emir with the sword of France, He smashes the helmet where the gems flash, 128

3615

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

He hacks through his head, spilling out his brain, And he cleaves his whole face down to his white beard, Knocking him down dead beyond all recall. He shouts “Monjoie!” to express his gratitude. When he heard this, Duke Naimes came, He takes hold of Tencendor, the great king has mounted him. The pagans turn and flee, God does not wish them to remain. Now the French have a go at those they seek out.

3620

263 The pagans flee, as the Lord God wills it, The Franks together with the emperor pursue them. The king said: “My lords, avenge your sorrows, Relieve your minds and your hearts, For I saw your eyes brimming with tears this morning.” The Franks reply: “Sire, that we must do.” Each one strikes blows as hard as he can, Few of the enemy there escape.

3625

3630

264 The heat is great and the dust rises. The pagans flee and the French follow close on their heels, The pursuit lasts from here to Saragossa. Bramimonde has climbed to the top of her tower, Together with her clerics and canons Of the false religion, which God never loved, They are not in holy orders, nor have they received the tonsure. Seeing the Arabs in full rout, She cries out in a loud voice: “Help us, Muhammad! Oh, noble king, our men are vanquished now, The emir slain so shamefully!” Hearing this, Marsile turns toward the wall, Tears come to his eyes, he lowers his whole head. He died of despair, for sin encumbers him, He gives his soul to the most hideous devils.

3635

3640

3645

265 The pagans are dead, a few [ . . . ] And Charles has won his battle. He has broken down the gate to Saragossa, 129

3650

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Now he is certain that it is no longer defended. He takes the citadel, his men have entered it, They lie there in full force that night. The white-haired king is fierce, And Bramimonde surrendered the towers to him, Ten of them great, fifty of them small. Whomever the Lord God assists fares very well.

3655

266 The daylight fades away, night has fallen, The moon is clear and the stars blaze forth. The emperor has taken Saragossa. Orders are given for a thousand Frenchmen to search the city, The synagogues, and the mosques. Holding iron hammers and axes, They smash the statues and all the idols, No sorcery or false cult will remain there. The king believes in God, he wishes to serve him, His bishops bless the waters, They lead the pagans to the baptistery. Now if there is anyone who opposes Charles, He orders him to be taken prisoner, burned, or put to death. Well over a hundred thousand are baptized True Christians, with the sole exception of the queen: She will be led captive to fair France, The king wishes her to become a convert out of devotion.

3660

3665

3670

Questions: How does the poem describe the fight between Charlemagne and Baligant and, by extension, between Christians and Muslims? What does the scene of forced conversion of the “pagans” at the end of the excerpt suggest about the contemporary views on Islam? Why was the captured queen Bramimonde spared from converting under duress by Charlemagne?

37. INTERFAITH COEXISTENCE IN CRUSADER JERUSALEM Usamah ibn Munqidh (1095–1188) was a Syrian Muslim nobleman, poet, courtier, and diplomat, whose life coincided with the First and Second Crusades. During his long life, Ibn Munqidh served a number of prominent Muslim rulers in the region, including Nur ad-Din (r. 1146–74) and Saladin (r. 1174–93), who sought to unite various Islamic 130

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

principalities in the Middle East and fought against the crusader armies. His extensive travels throughout the region, including the crusader states, make Usamah ibn Munqidh a valuable witness of daily life during this period. Later in his life, Ibn Munqidh wrote a book of memoirs in which, among other topics, he reminisces about his encounters with the “Franks,” as Muslim inhabitants of the region called the crusaders. Despite living in the aftermath of the capture of Jerusalem and other cities in the Near East by the crusader armies, Ibn Munqidh’s descriptions of the Franks focus mostly on their strange customs and perceived lack of sophistication; he found some of their behavior surprising, but also curious and even amusing at times. According to his memoirs, Ibn Munqidh was also the personal friend of a number of Franks, which suggests that aside from relatively brief periods of hostilities, daily life in the crusader states was marked by long periods of coexistence between the adherents of different faiths. Source: trans. Phillip K. Hitti, An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usama Ibn-Munqidh (New York: Columbia University Press, 1929), pp. 163–70, revised.

Newly arrived Franks are especially rough: one insists that Usamah should pray eastward.—Everyone who is a fresh emigrant from the Frankish lands is ruder in character than those who have become acclimatized and have held long association with the Muslims. Here is an illustration of their rude character. Whenever I visited Jerusalem I always entered the Aqsa Mosque, beside which stood a small mosque which the Franks had converted into a church. When I used to enter the Aqsa Mosque, which was occupied by the Templars who were my friends, the Templars would evacuate the little adjoining mosque so that I might pray in it. One day I entered this mosque, repeated the first formula, “Allah is great,” and stood up in the act of praying, upon which one of the Franks rushed on me, got hold of me and turned my face eastward saying, “This is the way you should pray!” A group of Templars hastened to him, seized him, and repelled him from me. I resumed my prayer. The same man, while the others were otherwise busy, rushed once more on me and turned my face eastward, saying, “This is the way you should pray!” The Templars again came in to him and expelled him. They apologized to me, saying, “This is a stranger who has only recently arrived from the land of the Franks and he has never before seen anyone praying except eastward.” Thereupon I said to myself, “I have had enough prayer.” So I went out and have ever been surprised at the conduct of this devil of a man, at the change in the color of his face, his trembling and his sentiment at the sight of one praying toward the qiblah [toward Mecca]. Another wants to show to a Muslim God as a child.—I saw one of the Franks come to al-Amir Mu‘in-al-Din [emir of Damascus, r. 1140–49] (may Allah’s mercy rest upon his soul!) when he was in the Dome of the Rock and say to him, “Do you want to see God as a child?” Mu‘in-al-Din said, “Yes.” The Frank walked ahead of us until he showed us the picture of Mary 131

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

with Christ (may peace be upon him!) as an infant in her lap. He then said, “This is God as a child.” But Allah is exalted far above what the infidels say about him! Franks lack jealousy in sex affairs.—The Franks are void of all zeal and jealousy. One of them may be walking along with his wife. He meets another man who takes the wife by the hand and steps aside to converse with her while the husband is standing on one side waiting for his wife to conclude the conversation. If she lingers too long for him, he leaves her alone with the conversant and goes away. Here is an illustration which I myself witnessed: When I used to visit Nablus, I always took lodging with a man named Mu’izz, whose home was a lodging house for the Muslims. The house had windows which opened to the road, and there stood opposite to it on the other side of the road a house belonging to a Frank who sold wine for the merchants. He would take some wine in a bottle and go around announcing it by shouting, “So and so, the merchant, has just opened a cask full of this wine. He who wants to buy some of it will find it in such and such a place.” The Frank’s pay for the announcement made would be the wine in that bottle. One day this Frank went home and found a man with his wife in the same bed. He asked him, “What could have made you enter into my wife’s room?” The man replied, “I was tired, so I went in to rest.” “But how,” asked he, “did you get into my bed?” The other replied, “I found a bed that was spread, so I slept in it.” “But,” said he, “my wife was sleeping together with you!” The other replied, “Well, the bed is hers. How could I therefore have prevented her from using her own bed?” “By the truth of my religion,” said the husband, “if you should do it again, you and I will have a quarrel.” Such was for the Frank the entire expression of his disapproval and the limit of his jealousy. Another illustration: We had with us a bath-keeper named Salim, originally an inhabitant of al-Ma‘arrah, who had charge of the bath of my father (may Allah’s mercy rest upon his soul!). This man related the following story: I once opened a bath in al-Ma‘arrah in order to earn my living. To this bath there came a Frankish knight. The Franks disapprove of girding a cover around one’s waist while in the bath. So this Frank stretched out his arm and pulled off my cover from my waist and threw it away. He looked and saw that I had recently shaved off my pubes. So he shouted, “Salim!” As I drew near him he stretched his hand over my pubes and said, “Salim, 132

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

good! By the truth of my religion, do the same for me.” Saying this, he lay on his back and I found that in that place the hair was like his beard. So I shaved it off. Then he passed his hand over the place and, finding it smooth, he said, “Salim, by the truth of my religion, do the same to madam (al-dama),” referring to his wife. He then said to a servant of his, “Tell madam to come here.” Accordingly, the servant went and brought her and made her enter the bath. She also lay on her back. The knight repeated, “Do what you have done to me.” So I shaved all that hair while her husband was sitting looking at me. At last he thanked me and handed me the pay for my service. Consider now this great contradiction! They have neither jealousy nor zeal but they have great courage, although courage is nothing but the product of zeal and of ambition to be above ill repute. Here is a story analogous to the one related above: I entered the public bath in Sur (Tyre) and took my place in a secluded part. One of my servants thereupon said to me, “There is with us in the bath a woman.” When I went out, I sat on one of the stone benches and behold! the woman who was in the bath had come out all dressed and was standing with her father just opposite me. But I could not be sure that she was a woman. So I said to one of my companions, “By Allah, see if this is a woman,” by which I meant that he should ask about her. But he went, as I was looking at him, lifted the end of her robe and looked carefully at her. Thereupon her father turned toward me and said, “This is my daughter. Her mother is dead and she has nobody to wash her hair. So I took her in with me to the bath and washed her head.” I replied, “You have done well! This is something for which you will be rewarded [by Allah]!” . . . Their judicial trials: A duel.—I attended one day a duel in Nablus between two Franks. The reason for this was that certain Muslim thieves took by surprise one of the villages of Nablus. One of the peasants of that village was charged with having acted as guide for the thieves when they fell upon the village. So he fled away. The king [Fulk of Anjou, r. 1131–42] sent and arrested his children. The peasant thereupon came back to the king and said, “Let justice be done in my case. I challenge to a duel the man who claimed that I guided the thieves to the village.” The king then said to the tenant who held the village in fief, “Bring forth someone to fight the duel with him.” The tenant went to his village, where a blacksmith lived, took hold of him and ordered him to fight the duel. The tenant became thus sure of the safety of his own peasants, none of whom would be killed and his estate ruined. I saw this blacksmith. He was a physically strong young man, but his heart failed him. He would walk a few steps and then sit down and ask for 133

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

a drink. The one who had made the challenge was an old man, but he was strong in spirit and he would rub the nail of his thumb against that of the forefinger in defiance, as if he was not worrying over the duel. Then came the viscount, that is, the seignior of the town, and gave each one of the two contestants a cudgel and a shield and arranged the people in a circle around them. The two met. The old man would press the blacksmith backward until he would get him as far as the circle, then he would come back to the middle of the arena. They went on exchanging blows until they looked like pillars smeared with blood. The contest was prolonged and the viscount began to urge them to hurry, saying, “Hurry on.” The fact that the smith was given to the use of the hammer proved now of great advantage to him. The old man was worn out and the smith gave him a blow which made him fall. His cudgel fell under his back. The smith knelt down over him and tried to stick his fingers into the eyes of his adversary, but could not do it because of the great quantity of blood flowing out. Then he rose up and hit his head with the cudgel until he killed him. They then fastened a rope around the neck of the dead person, dragged him away and hanged him. The lord who brought the smith now came, gave the smith his own mantle, made him mount the horse behind him and rode off with him. This case illustrates the kind of jurisprudence and legal decisions the Franks have—may Allah’s curse be upon them! . . . A Frank domesticated in Syria abstains from eating pork.—Among the Franks are those who have become acclimatized and have associated long with the Muslims. These are much better than the recent comers from the Frankish lands. But they constitute the exception and cannot be treated as a rule. Here is an illustration. I dispatched one of my men to Antioch on business. There was in Antioch at that time al-Ra’is Theodoros Sophianos, to whom I was bound by mutual ties of amity. His influence in Antioch was supreme. One day he said to my man, “I am invited by a friend of mine who is a Frank. You should come with me so that you may see their fashions.” My man related the story in the following words: I went along with him and we came to the home of a knight who belonged to the old category of knights who came with the early expeditions of the Franks. He had been by that time stricken off the register and exempted from service, and possessed in Antioch an estate on the income of which he lived. The knight presented an excellent table, with food extraordinarily clean and delicious. Seeing me abstaining from food, he said, “Eat, be of good cheer! I never eat Frankish dishes, but I have Egyptian women cooks and never eat except

134

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

their cooking. Besides, pork never enters my home.” I ate, but guardedly, and after that we departed. As I was passing in the market place, a Frankish woman all of a sudden hung on my clothes and began to mutter words in their language, and I could not understand what she was saying. This made me immediately the center of a big crowd of Franks. I was convinced that death was at hand. But all of a sudden, that same knight approached. On seeing me, he came and said to that woman, “What is the matter between you and this Muslim?” She replied, “This is he who has killed my brother Hurso.” This Hurso was a knight in Afamiyah who was killed by someone of the army of Hamah. The Christian knight shouted at her, saying, “This is a bourgeois [a merchant] who neither fights nor attends a fight.” He also yelled at the people who had assembled, and they all dispersed. Then he took me by the hand and went away. Thus, the effect of that meal was my deliverance from certain death. Questions: What aspects of the Frankish customs and behavior does Ibn Munqidh find particularly surprising? Conversely, what did he have in common with the European crusaders? How do the customs of some Franks change after they settle in Jerusalem? What might this tell us about the interaction between different religious and cultural groups in the region?

38. COEXISTENCE AND EXCLUSION IN THE SIETE PARTIDAS By the late thirteenth century, Christian kingdoms in Spain included a considerable number of non-Christian subjects, namely, Jews and Muslims. Medieval law codes produced in the Iberian Peninsula recognized the need to have specific laws for non-Christians. These were often used to define legal distinctions between the three religious groups. The laws included here come from the Siete Partidas (sometimes translated as The SevenPart Code), a code of laws developed and promulgated during the reign of Alfonso X of Castile (r. 1252–84). The laws concerning Alfonso’s Jewish and Muslim subjects come from the seventh partida; the majority of them focus on maintaining religious and sexual boundaries between the three religious groups. Interfaith sexual relations were policed (and punished) particularly harshly. Another subject of concern was conversion; the laws encouraged the conversion of non-Christians to Christianity, but the Siete Partidas also demonstrate fears of Christians converting to Judaism or Islam, or of recent converts to Christianity returning to their previous religions. Source: trans. Samuel Parsons Scott, Las Siete Partidas (Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, 1931), pp. 1433–42.

135

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Title 24: Concerning the Jews Law 2. In What Way Jews Should Pass Their Lives among Christians; What Things They Should Not Make Use of or Practice, According to Our Religion; and What Penalty Those Deserve Who Act Contrary to Its Ordinances Jews should pass their lives among Christians quietly and without disorder, practicing their own religious rites, and not speaking ill of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, which Christians acknowledge. Moreover, a Jew should be very careful to avoid preaching to, or converting any Christian, to the end that he may become a Jew, by exalting his own belief and disparaging ours. Whoever violates this law shall be put to death and lose all his property. And because we have heard it said that in some places Jews celebrated, and still celebrate Good Friday, which commemorates the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, by way of contempt; stealing children and fastening them to crosses, and making images of wax and crucifying them, when they cannot obtain children; we order that, hereafter, if in any part of our dominions anything like this is done, and can be proved, all persons who were present when the act was committed shall be seized, arrested and brought before the king; and after the king ascertains that they are guilty, he shall cause them to be put to death in a disgraceful manner, no matter how many there may be. We also forbid any Jew to dare to leave his house or his quarter on Good Friday, but they must all remain shut up until Saturday morning; and if they violate this regulation, we decree that they shall not be entitled to reparation for any injury or dishonor inflicted on them by Christians. . . . Law 4. How Jews Can Have a Synagogue among Christians A synagogue is a place where the Jews pray, and a new building of this kind cannot be erected in any part of our dominions, except by our order. Where, however, those which formerly existed there are torn down, they can be built in the same spot where they originally stood; but they cannot be made any larger or raised to any greater height, or be painted. A synagogue constructed in any other manner shall be lost by the Jews, and shall belong to the principal church of the locality where it is built. And for the reason that a synagogue is a place where the name of God is praised, we forbid any Christian to deface it, or remove anything from it, or take anything out of it by force; except where some malefactor takes refuge there; for they have a right to remove him by force in order to bring him before the judge. Moreover, we forbid Christians to put any animal into a synagogue, or loiter in it, or place any hindrance in 136

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

the way of the Jews while they are there performing their devotions according to their religion. Law 5. No Compulsion Shall Be Brought to Bear upon the Jews on Saturday, and What Jews Can Be Subject to Compulsion Saturday is the day on which Jews perform their devotions, and remain quiet in their lodgings, and do not make contracts or transact any business; and for the reason that they are obliged by their religion, to keep it, no one should on that day summon them or bring them into court. Wherefore we order that no judge shall employ force or any constraint upon Jews on Saturday, in order to bring them into court on account of their debts; or arrest them; or cause them any other annoyance; for the remaining days of the week are sufficient for the purpose of employing compulsion against them, and for making demands for things which can be demanded of them, according to law. Jews are not bound to obey a summons served upon them on that day; and, moreover, we decree that any decision rendered against them on Saturday shall not be valid; but if a Jew should wound, kill, rob, steal, or commit any other offense like these for which he can be punished in person and property, then the judge can arrest him on Saturday. We also decree that all claims that Christians have against Jews, and Jews against Christians, shall be decided and determined by our judges in the district where they reside, and not by their old men. And as we forbid Christians to bring Jews into court or annoy them on Saturday; so we also decree that Jews, neither in person, nor by their attorneys, shall have the right to bring Christians into court, or annoy them on this day. And in addition to this, we forbid any Christian, on his own responsibility, to arrest or wrong any Jew either in his person or property, but where he has any complaint against him he must bring it before our judges; and if anyone should be so bold as to use violence against the Jews, or rob them of anything, he shall return them double the value of the same. Law 6. Jews Who Become Christians Shall Not Be Subject to Compulsion; What Advantage a Jew Has Who Becomes a Christian; and What Penalty Other Jews Deserve Who Do Him Harm No force or compulsion shall be employed in any way against a Jew to induce him to become a Christian; but Christians should convert him to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ by means of the texts of the holy scriptures, and by kind words, for no one can love or appreciate a service which is done him by compulsion. We also decree that if any Jew or Jewess should voluntarily desire to become a Christian, the other Jews shall not interfere with this in any way, and if they 137

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

stone, wound, or kill any such person, because they wish to become Christians, or after they have been baptized, and this can be proved; we order that all the murderers, or the abettors of said murder or attack, shall be burned. But where the party was not killed, but wounded, or dishonored; we order that the judges of the neighborhood where this took place shall compel those guilty of the attack, or who caused the dishonor, to make amends to him for the same; and also that they be punished for the offense which they committed, as they think they deserve; and we also order that, after any Jews become Christians, all persons in our dominions shall honor them; and that no one shall dare to reproach them or their descendants, by way of insult, with having been Jews; and that they shall possess all their property, sharing the same with their brothers, and inheriting it from their fathers and mothers and other relatives, just as if they were Jews; and that they can hold all offices and dignities which other Christians can do. Law 7. What Penalty a Christian Deserves Who Becomes a Jew Where a Christian is so unfortunate as to become a Jew, we order that he shall be put to death just as if he had become a heretic; and we decree that his property shall be disposed of in the same way that we stated should be done with that of heretics. Law 8. No Christian, Man or Woman, Shall Live with a Jew We forbid any Jew to keep Christian men or women in his house, to be served by them; although he may have them to cultivate and take care of his lands, or protect him on the way when he is compelled to go to some dangerous place. Moreover, we forbid any Christian man or woman to invite a Jew or a Jewess, or to accept an invitation from them, to eat or drink together, or to drink any wine made by their hands. We also order that no Jews shall dare to bathe in company with Christians, and that no Christian shall take any medicine or cathartic made by a Jew; but he can take it by the advice of some intelligent person, only where it is made by a Christian, who knows and is familiar with its ingredients. Law 9. What Penalty a Jew Deserves Who Has Intercourse with a Christian Woman Jews who live with Christian women are guilty of great insolence and boldness, for which reason we decree that all Jews who, hereafter, may be convicted of having done such a thing shall be put to death. For if Christians who commit adultery with married women deserve death on that account, much more do Jews who have sexual intercourse with Christian women, who are spiritually the 138

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

wives of our Lord Jesus Christ because of the faith and the baptism which they receive in his name; nor do we consider it proper that a Christian woman who commits an offense of this kind shall escape without punishment. Wherefore we order that, whether she be a virgin, a married woman, a widow, or a common prostitute who gives herself to all men, she shall suffer the same penalty which we mentioned in the last law in the title concerning the Moors, to which a Christian woman is liable who has carnal intercourse with a Moor. . . . Law 11. Jews Shall Bear Certain Marks in Order That They May Be Known Many crimes and outrageous things occur between Christians and Jews because they live together in cities, and dress alike; and in order to avoid the offenses and evils which take place for this reason, we deem it proper, and we order that all Jews male and female living in our dominions shall bear some distinguishing mark upon their heads so that people may plainly recognize a Jew, or a Jewess; and any Jew who does not bear such a mark, shall pay for each time he is found without it ten maravedis of gold; and if he has not the means to do this he shall publicly receive ten lashes for his offense. . . . Title 25: Concerning the Moors Law 1. Whence the Name of Moor Is Derived, How Many Kinds of the Latter There Are, and in What Way They Should Live among Christians . . . We decree that Moors shall live among Christians in the same way that we mentioned in the preceding title that Jews shall do, by observing their own law and not insulting ours. Moors, however, shall not have mosques in Christian towns, or make their sacrifices publicly in the presence of men. The mosques which they formerly possessed shall belong to the king; and he can give them to whomsoever he wishes. Although the Moors do not acknowledge a good religion, so long as they live among Christians with their assurance of security, their property shall not be stolen from them or taken by force; and we order that whoever violates this law shall pay a sum equal to double the value of what he took. Law 2. Christians Should Convert the Moors by Kind Words, and Not by Compulsion Christians should endeavor to convert the Moors by causing them to believe in our religion, and bring them into it by kind words and suitable discourses, and not by violence or compulsion; for if it should be the will of our Lord to bring 139

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

them into it and to make them believe by force, he can use compulsion against them if he so desires, since he has full power to do so; but he is not pleased with the service which men perform through fear, but with that which they do voluntarily and without coercion, and as he does not wish to restrain them or employ violence, we forbid anyone to do so for this purpose; and if the wish to become Christians should arise among them, we forbid anyone to refuse assent to it, or oppose it in any way whatsoever. Whoever violates this law shall receive the penalty we mentioned in the preceding title, which treats of how Jews who interfere with, or kill those belonging to their religion who afterward become Christians, shall be punished. Law 3. What Punishment Those Deserve Who Insult Converts Many men live and die in strange beliefs, who would love to be Christians if it were not for the vilification and dishonor which they see others who become converted endure by being called turncoats, and calumniated and insulted in many evil ways; and we hold that those who do this wickedly offend, and that they should honor persons of this kind for many reasons, and not show them disrespect. One of these is because they renounce the religion in which they and their families were born; and another is because, after they have understanding, they acknowledge the superiority of our religion and accept it, separating from their parents and their relatives, and abandoning the life which they have been accustomed to live, and all other things from which they derive pleasure. There are some of them who, on account of the dishonor inflicted upon them after they have adopted our faith, and become Christians, repent and desert it, closing their hearts against it on account of the insults and reproaches to which they are subjected; and for this reason we order all Christians, of both sexes, in our dominions to show honor and kindness, in every way they can, to persons of other or strange beliefs, who embrace our religion; just as they would do to any of their own parents or grandparents, who had embraced the faith or become Christians; and we forbid anyone to dishonor them by word or deed, or do them any wrong, injury, or harm in any way whatever. If anyone violates this law we order that he be punished for it, as seems best to the judges of the district; and that the punishment be more severe than if the injury had been committed against another man or woman whose entire line of ancestors had been Christians. Law 4. What Punishment a Christian Deserves Who Becomes a Moor Men sometimes become insane and lose their prudence and understanding, as, for instance, where unfortunate persons, and those who despair of everything, renounce the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and become Moors; and there are 140

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

some of them who are induced to do this through the desire to live according to their customs, or on account of the loss of relatives who have been killed or died; or because they have lost their property and become poor; or because of unlawful acts which they commit, dreading the punishment which they deserve on account of them; and when they are induced to do a thing of this kind for any of the reasons aforesaid, or others similar to them, they are guilty of very great wickedness and treason, for on account of no loss or affliction which may come upon them, nor for any profit, riches, good fortune, or pleasure which they may expect to obtain in this world, should they renounce the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ by which they will be saved and have everlasting life. Wherefore we order that all those who are guilty of this wickedness shall lose all their possessions, and have no right to any portion of them, but that all shall belong to their children (if they have any) who remain steadfast in our faith and do not renounce it; and if they have no children, their property shall belong to their nearest relatives within the tenth degree, who remain steadfast in the belief of the Christians; and if they have neither children nor relatives, all their possessions shall be forfeited to the royal treasury; and, in addition to this, we order that if any person who has committed such an offense shall be found in any part of our dominions he shall be put to death. . . . Law 10. What Penalty a Moor and a Christian Woman Deserve Who Have Intercourse with One Another If a Moor has sexual intercourse with a Christian virgin, we order that he shall be stoned, and that she, for the first offense, shall lose half of her property, and that her father, mother, or grandfather shall have it, and if she has no such relatives, that it shall belong to the king. For the second offense, she shall lose all her property, and the heirs aforesaid, if she has any, shall obtain it, and if she has none, the king shall be entitled to it, and she shall be put to death. We decree and order that the same rule shall apply to a widow who commits this crime. If a Moor has sexual intercourse with a Christian married woman, he shall be stoned to death, and she shall be placed in the power of her husband who may burn her to death, or release her, or do what he pleases with her. If a Moor has intercourse with a common woman who abandons herself to everyone, for the first offense, they shall be scourged together through the town, and for the second, they shall be put to death. Questions: According to the law code, what rights did Jews and Muslims have in Castile? What were their obligations? How does the law encourage conversion to Christianity? Why do the law code’s statutes outlaw sexual intercourse between Christian women and nonChristian partners? What does that suggest about the role of women in interfaith Castile? 141

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

39. POPE INNOCENT III FORBIDS THE VENETIAN MERCHANTS TO TRADE WITH THE MUSLIMS Italian maritime republics—city-states like Genoa, Venice, and Pisa, which received most of their income through trade—regularly conducted business with their Middle Eastern and North African Muslim partners. Markets in the Islamic world were the main source of exotic luxury goods from Asia, especially spices, which made such trade extremely profitable. In return, the merchants in the Islamic world needed strategically important goods: weapons and ships, as well as timber, pitch, ropes, and other raw materials used in shipbuilding. The profitability of trade in the Mediterranean made it hard to prevent even during the crusades; the fact that Christian merchants were providing the enemies of western Christendom (and of the crusader states) with weapons and shipbuilding supplies clearly unnerved the Church. In an attempt to prevent such trade, or at least limit the kinds of goods that could be traded, the papacy repeatedly issued decrees to that effect. These were habitually ignored by the Italian merchants as the Church lacked the ability to enforce such decrees. In 1198, the recently elected Pope Innocent III reaffirmed an earlier decree against trade between Muslims and Christians in the Mediterranean. While the decree threatens disobedient merchants with excommunication, its effectiveness is hard to gauge and similar complaints about Christian merchants trading with Muslims appear over a century later (doc. 41). Source: trans. Oliver Joseph Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Medieval History: Selected Documents Illustrating the History of Europe in the Middle Age (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1905), pp. 536–37, revised.

In support of the eastern province [that is, the crusader states], in addition to the forgiveness of sins which we promise those who, at their own expense, set out thither, and besides the papal protection which we give those who aid that land, we have renewed that decree of the Lateran council [held under Alexander III, 1179], which excommunicated those Christians who shall furnish the Saracens with weapons, iron, or timbers for their galleys, and those who serve the Saracens as helmsmen or in any other way on their galleys and other piratical craft, and which furthermore ordered that their property be confiscated by the secular princes and the consuls of the cities, and that, if any such persons should be taken prisoner, they should be the slaves of those who captured them. We furthermore excommunicated all those Christians who shall hereafter have anything to do with the Saracens either directly or indirectly, or shall attempt to give them aid in any way so long as the war between them and us shall last. But recently our beloved sons, Andreas Donatus and Benedict Grilion, your messengers, came and explained to us that your city was suffering great loss by this our decree, because Venice does not engage in agriculture, but in shipping and commerce. Nevertheless, we are led by the paternal love which we have for 142

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

you to forbid you to aid the Saracens by selling them, giving them, or exchanging with them, iron, flax [oakum], pitch, sharp instruments, rope, weapons, galleys, ships, and timbers, whether hewn or in the rough. But for the present and until we order to the contrary, we permit those who are going to Egypt to carry other kinds of merchandise whenever it shall be necessary. In return for this favor you should be willing to go to the aid of the province of Jerusalem and you should not attempt to evade our apostolic command. For there is no doubt that he who, against his own conscience, shall fraudulently try to evade this prohibition, shall be under divine condemnation. Questions: What kinds of goods were traded by the Italian merchants and why did the pope find this trade worrisome? What does the existence of regular trade between the Italian merchants and their Muslim partners suggest about the relationship between western Christendom and the Islamic world?

40. FREDERICK II’S TRADE AGREEMENT WITH TUNISIA Despite bearing the titles of Holy Roman Emperor and King of the Germans, Frederick II (1194–1250) spent relatively little time in Germany; his true passion was for Sicily and southern Italy, where the cosmopolitan and well-educated emperor felt at home. Frederick inherited the Sicilian crown from his mother, Constance (d. 1198), and was born into the Hohenstaufen dynasty on the side of his father, Emperor Henry IV (d. 1197). As a ruler of Sicily, Frederick was familiar with Islam, since many of his subjects were Muslim. While more tolerant of Islam than other European rulers during his age, Frederick nevertheless pursued a policy that restricted his Muslim subjects, leading to revolts and the eventual expulsion of all Muslims from Sicily and Malta. The emperor’s harsh treatment of his Muslim subjects did not translate into his foreign policy; in fact, he conducted fairly even-handed diplomacy with his Muslim counterparts in North Africa. The reason for this was likely trade. In the thirteenth century, as before, Sicily remained the breadbasket of the western Mediterranean, while North African production of wheat was reduced and, as a result, made that region dependent on Sicilian grain. North Africa was also the terminus of trans-Saharan trade that brought gold dust from Ghana, which made it into an appealing trade partner. The trade treaty between Frederick II and Tunisian governor Abu Ishaq Ibrahim agreed to in 1221 not only secured uninterrupted trade between Sicily and southern Italy and Tunisia but also provided some degree of toleration for Christian and Muslim merchants in both lands. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi, ed. J.-L.-A. HuillardBréholles (Paris: Excudebat Henricus Plon, 1857), vol. 3, pp. 276–79.

In the name of merciful and compassionate God. We begin with praise to the greatest God and with this invocation we beg for prosperity in his glory. Praise 143

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

to God, who knows the hidden things, the future, the present, who is eternal after the end of all living beings. At last, this is a treaty of blessed peace, if exalted and precious God wills it, which is signed with the blessing of God, whose toga is embroidered with gems in observation of the covenant and his branches reach all the way to the sky of happiness. Distinguished elder, magnificent, reverend, a man of preeminent loyalty, blessed and fortunate Abbuissac [Abu Ishaq Ibrahim], son of the elder, honorable, reverend, deceased Abjebrahim, [himself] son of the elder and saintly Abihaftri, who was a warrior and a defender of the law of God. God is pleased with these men and led them to rectitude in counsel and decisions. To this extent, God made them preside over councils and decreed, according to his will, what to do or not to do. [This treaty] was mediated by Vibaldus, a Christian knight, loyal legate of the renowned and great king of the Romans, Frederick Caesar, emperor of Rome and king of Sicily and Saxony. May God be pleased with him and may he lead him to rectitude and prosperity following his best intentions, since this is in his power. The aforementioned king sent this treaty to be signed through the hand of legate Vibaldus, his loyal knight, following the conditions, which will be made clear later in this treaty. Among these [conditions] are: The release of all of Christian captives in Africa [by Abu Ishaq Ibrahim], who were captured during peacetime, be they male or female, young or old, of all who still embrace the Christian law. And likewise the release of all Muslim captives [by Frederick], who are still embracing the Muslim law, be they male or female, young or old. To cease the harassment and exactions regularly and habitually done by the Christian mariners in the African provinces and by [Christian] merchants on the island of Sicily, Calabria, Salerno, and Apulia. And likewise to cease all habitual exactions done, in accordance with custom, by the African mariners in the aforementioned provinces of the aforementioned king [Frederick], which we proclaim to be free. And likewise to grant half of the island of Cosira as tribute during the designated and customary time of the harvest. The Christians should not have jurisdiction over any Muslims on the island of Cosira, except for the prefect of the Muslims sent by the aforementioned king of Sicily [Frederick] in his name to rule in that way the people of unity [that is, Muslims] and that he may concern himself with the affairs of the people of unity, may God honor them. All of this is granted to them by this treaty. Likewise, the Christians should be obliged and take care to restitute all that was looted on the sea by Christian pirates, who are under the authority of the said king and who are under his jurisdiction, subjects to his rule and 144

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

power, from all his jurisdictions, except Genoa, Pisa, Marseilles, and Venice, since it has been declared that these aforementioned people have entered now a state of peace with our lord caliph, the religious leaders, and the emperor of the faithful. The aforementioned king [Abu Ishaq Ibrahim] is bound to restore and to make amends for everything that has been seized by any of the people under his authority, be they merchants or soldiers in every part of Africa. He shall also pay all of the people going and coming through and shall likewise recompense all of the people going out of Africa all the way to the Egyptian province and those who sail to other parts and [those who] make a journey on caravels to Africa. And likewise, the whole African coast—towns, regions, and provinces—shall be returned to safety with garrisons, ports, and boundaries, and if likewise anyone enters any African port or flees to any part of our coast, be it settled or deserted, he shall be safe from African people and from all Muslims, Egyptians, and others. And if anyone flees to any part of our African coast and receives damage and trouble from anyone under the authority of the aforementioned king, they are bound to restore the damage. And likewise so that these subjects shall neither annoy or provoke hope or fear in his inhabitants, nor trample any of their goods voluntarily, to cause damage, nor provide assistance to other people who are about to do that, they shall be bound to restore all lost and stolen in that region from all Christians under the authority of the aforementioned king and under his rule, as was said before, following the conditions and agreements. With these [conditions], peace has been entered upon for the continuous term of ten years, which begins from the commencement and the signing of this treaty. And thus it is decided that everything is to be carried out, to which, on behalf of the king emperor of Rome and of the island of Sicily and of Saxony, his aforementioned legate and representative knight Vibaldus, who has said he has accepted the mandate and mission of peace for the emperor and conducts the negotiation in place of the emperor, in accordance to what his letter declares and promises to keep his word. Thus elder, honorable, reverend, and distinguished Abbuissac has put the conditions [of the treaty] with him. May God be pleased with his decision and reinforce his intentions to follow the aforementioned conditions, for God has granted him a keen judgment to set [the treaty] in order and to send it to the king. May God bless him who leads the king in rectitude of counsel, who is his keeper and worthy defender. He committed that these conditions will be kept in accordance to the pact of God between those who are bound by it. And may whoever embraces this treaty become prosperous and make a profit, and may one who seeks refuge under it be welcomed and one who returns be rendered safe by it. This treaty was accomplished by the oath, which confirms the things that are in it and there is hope in God, the author and creator of the world [that this agreement will be kept]. 145

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Questions: Based on the text of the trade agreement, what role did religion play in medieval diplomacy and trade? In addition to establishing regular trade, what other goals did this document pursue? Why?

41. ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE GENOESE MERCHANTS IN SERVICE OF THE MAMLUK SULTAN Although medieval popes long prohibited Christian merchants from conducting business with merchants in the Islamic world—especially when the goods sold included weapons, ships, and shipbuilding materials (doc. 39)—these prohibitions were habitually ignored. By the fourteenth century, Genoese and Venetian trade with North Africa and the Near East, especially with Mamluk Egypt, was too profitable to stop. The Mamluks controlled the flow of goods from Asia, including precious and highly sought-after spices. This situation prompted protests by clergymen like the Dominican friar William Adam, who called trade with Egypt not only immoral but also detrimental to any plans of retaking the Near East from Muslims and re-creating the crusader states that ceased to exist with the fall of Acre (1291). In his treatise, known as The Way to Drive Out the Saracens (De modo Sarracenos extirpandi), the Dominican friar blames Christian merchants, and especially the Genoese, for providing the Mamluks with a significant source of income and for supplying them with means to defend their possessions against any possible future crusade. According to Adam, who spent many years traveling in the Middle East and who had possibly journeyed as far as India and Ethiopia, the insatiable greed of the Genoese merchants drove them not only to trade with the Mamluks but also to serve as their couriers and even to sell enslaved boys to Mamluk Egypt, where they were trained for military service. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Gulielmus Adae, “De modo Sarracenos extirpandi,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Documents Arméniens (Paris, 1906), vol. 2, pp. 523, 525–26.

Firstly, then, the necessities are supplied for the Saracens by the Catalan, Pisan, and Venetian merchants, and by other seafaring merchants, and especially by the Genoese. It should be known that the Saracens of Egypt do not have themselves either iron, or wood, or naval pitch, or wool for clothes, or [olive] oil, or vine, or—at times—grain to be eaten, or the appropriate population to live in it. But through the aforesaid merchants, ministers of hell, false Christians, everything is supplied here, and so abundantly, that sometimes here, in Alexandria of Egypt, which is [both] a port and the gateway of damnation, they can have such abundance that [things] can be had for a small price, almost for nothing. Thus to them is delivered iron and everything that is made of iron, such as swords, lances, iron spears, and javelins, breastplates, helmets and other items that can be necessary for invading Christians, or resisting them, if there is to be a crusade, or for their own defense and protection. So that if these things were sent back, 146

five: interreligious violence in the mediterranean

not brought to Egypt by the merchants, one would not find there either lances or hoes. They also bring wood for construction, rods for lances, for arrows, for javelins, boxwood and other kind of wood fit for bows and ballistae, planks for pirate galleys, ships, and boats, and also the good-for-nothing Christians build such vessels for the Saracens, and above all teach them how to build them, and in this way the vessels are now made in this land [and] are sold to them [the Saracens], because the Saracens on their own did not have them and did not know how to build them. And—what is dreadful—they are put to use in carrying out the naval duties and for piracy, the plunder of Christians or their capture. Again, in Egypt there is no sufficient rainfall, except when the river, called the Nile, overflows and irrigates the Egyptian provinces. Thus they would dwindle and wane from hunger by themselves, if not for the aforementioned false Christians importing the necessary provisions into Egypt. . . . Behold, [my] father and lord, how much evil these our peddlers of human souls are doing, how they put a stain on the glory of our faith, how much confusion they cause in the house of the Lord, what incentive for the crimes they provide, how much destruction of good morals and the ruin of honor they produce. But these crimes are not perpetrated by most of the aforementioned merchants, but specifically by the Genoese, [and] not all of the Genoese, but particularly one, Seguranus Salvatici, the head of all sins, and those who are from his household and kin, whom he dragged along with him to these services to the enemy, satan, and along with him devoted to the ministry of the devil, so much so that the said Seguranus, along with those of his kin who agree with him, seem to intend nothing else but, with these labors against God, to destroy the Church and to give strength to the Saracens, [who are] the enemies of the cross and the persecutors of our faith. Seguranus himself is called the sultan’s brother, and he is believed to be a Saracen and, as an enemy of the faith, he is called a patron, promoter, and defender of Muslims. He is so close with the sultan, that the sultan himself calls him his brother and a friend in his letters. He is so much a Saracen that he allows the aforementioned sins against nature to be perpetrated on his ships. Furthermore, the flag of Muhammad and the sultan of Babylon have been flown on his ships and galleys, by him and by the others of his kin, as I have seen in horror and disgust with my own eyes. That he is a patron of the Saracens is plainly evident, because when the sultan wanted to send some envoys or messengers to the emperor of the northern Tartars for the purpose of expanding the Saracen cult, the very man transported these envoys and messengers, as is told more clearly below. He also showed himself as their promoter, more so than any non-Muslim before him. He has helped and promoted their pestilential sect, bringing them the aforementioned many thousands of Christian and other boys for the military training or in other illicit acts listed above. Also [he helped them] by bringing 147

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

iron and wood, as mentioned before, in great quantities, and other goods carrying of which is prohibited by the Church. Not only, moreover, the very man and his brothers and nephews and relatives have provided strengthening to the Saracens in such way, but many other Genoese, whom he attracted to the similar pursuits by his example. He himself preceded and surpassed them as a leader of such iniquities and the teacher of wickedness against God. From this, it is truly established that there is hardly a noble family in Genoa, and not a popular one of any merit, from which someone has not gone or sent to Alexandria, and from which some have carried boys [to Egypt], [and] some other contraband. And while the aforementioned Seguranus alone is said to have transported ten thousand [enslaved] boys to the Saracens, neither the multitude nor the numbers [of the boys] transported by others can be known. Questions: Why does the document’s author call Italian merchants “false Christians”? What does his view suggest about the relationship between Christendom and the Islamic world during the period? In addition to trade, what other roles did the Genoese merchants perform in service of the Mamluk rulers? Why were these services seen as suspect by the author?

148

CHAPTER SIX PE OPL E ON T H E M A RGI NS OF M E DI E VA L S OC I E T Y

Figure 6.1  Idealized works of charity. This fifteenth-century Italian drawing depicts various works of charity. Each numbered scene represents a particular charitable act: (1) the sick are received and treated in their beds; (2) the poor are clothed; (3) thirsty travelers are given a drink; (4) the hungry receive bread; (5) pilgrims are given shelter; (6) a dead body is being prepared for burial; (7) prisoners are visited. The last scene on the right represents Christian worship—the source of charity—and a penitent man obtaining the remission of his sins for being charitable. In the foreground of the image, rich men throw money into a pile, labeled the “mount of piety” and distribute some of it to the poor.

149

This page intentionally left blank

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

42. AGOBARD OF LYON: ON THE BAPTISM OF JEWISH SLAVES Agobard of Lyon (c. 779–840) was born in Spain but spent most of his life in Lyon, first as a priest and later as its bishop. Shortly after becoming bishop, Agobard engaged in a long struggle with the Jewish community of Lyon and spent the rest of his career writing a series of anti-Jewish treatises and letters directed at the Carolingian emperor, Louis the Pious (r. 814–40). In particular, Agobard believed that as a bishop, he had a right and a duty to engage in missionary activities among the Jews of Lyon and especially among their slaves. While Carolingian laws allowed Jews to convert their pagan slaves to Judaism, Agobard attempted to attract them to Christianity instead. Despite having the ear of influential prelates at the imperial court, Agobard’s letters were repeatedly ignored by the emperor, who viewed Jewish communities in the empire as crucial economic assets. To Agobard, however, imperial pro-Jewish policies not only undermined the empire’s Christianity but also contradicted his own understanding of the role of the Church in providing a path to salvation to all who asked for it. From Agobard’s perspective, Jewish slaves—whether pagan or previously converted to Judaism—had every right to become Christian if they so chose, even if their masters objected to it. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Agobard of Lyon, “Agobardi Episcopi ad proceres palatii consultatio et supplicatio de baptismo judaicorum mancipiorum,” Patrologia Latina, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1864), vol. 104, cols. 99–106.

To the most reverend and blessed lords and masters and holy fathers Adalard [abbot of Corbie, c. 751–827], Wala [one of the emperor’s advisors], and Helisachar [abbot of St-Riquier]. Not long ago, after we had been granted the occasion to return from the palace, your most sweet kindness sat me down and listened to me mutter rather than speak against those who multiply the quarrels of the Jews. And after hearing me out and modifying what we said to each other, you rose [to leave] and I followed you. You entered into the presence of the prince [Louis the Pious]; I stood before the entrance. A little after, you beckoned me to enter. But I heard nothing, except [the prince’s] permission to leave. What have you said to the most merciful prince regarding the aforesaid matter, how he received it, what he responded, I did not hear. I did not come to you afterward, frozen with cowardly embarrassment and exhausted by an annoyance that came not so much from how the things unfolded, as from the ignobility of my mind. For the same reason I came away disturbed, took off uncertain, arrived home confused, and remained there afflicted. In fact, I would write about the causes of my affliction, but I am afraid to belabor your gentleness. Nevertheless, the bearer of this letter can tell you about it, if your patience allows.

151

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

I have made known to your prudence some matters, which I think should not be hidden and on account of which I address myself to your most faithful fatherhood. First, what is extremely necessary for me to know, and, as I suppose, for all, is that you consider advising, in accordance with divine work, what is to be done regarding the pagan slaves of the Jews, whom they bought and raised among them, [but] who among us learn our language. They hear about the faith, see solemn festivals, and by this, inspired with the love of Christ, desire to become [part of] the body of the Church, [as] members in Christ. They flee to the Church, begging for baptism; whether we ought to deny them in this [or] give it, where we can. On this matter, in fact, I have the following opinion. All men are certainly God’s creations, and in any man, even a slave, the greater part is owned by Lord God, who created him in the womb, brought him to the light of this life, protected the life he gave, and preserved his health, than by one, who enjoys the service of his body having paid twenty or thirty solidi. No one doubts that any slave, owing the work of his bodily parts to his carnal master, should owe his religious mind to the creator. For that reason, all holy preachers, friends of the apostles, taught and baptized all nations, not waiting for the carnal masters’ permission to baptize [their] slaves, as if it is not proper to baptize them, unless they allow it. Rather, knowing and preaching that slave and master have one Lord God in heaven, they baptized everyone, brought all into one body [of the Church], and taught that all were brothers and sons of God; however, each would remain in the situation wherein he was called [by God], not because of desire, but out of necessity, but those who are able to become free may have the most joy. Also one must readily and rationally conclude that if one among the pagan [slaves] flees to Christ and we do not recover him, but reject him because of his carnal masters, it is impious and cruel, for no one can be the master of the human soul, except for the creator. We also believe, in fact, that one should consider that if a religious emperor leads an army against the people that are foreign to the name of Christ, and having become a victor, subjects them to Christ and joins them to the religion, this is a pious work and praiseworthy. How can we ignore that among such subjects are those who desire baptism? Nor do we say here that in such situations the Jews should lose the money they have paid. But when we offer money in accordance with the previously established [prices], they do not take it thinking that the masters of the palace favor them and demand more for their slaves than was declared above. These are the things about which I beg for your counsel or the order of the lord emperor through you. That, of course, would not be necessary, if he, who is the master of the Jews [an official responsible for dealing with matters related to the Jewish communities in the empire], attended to such, as you said he should. For if he, in accordance with your command, considered our ministry more faithfully, 152

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

just as we would like to show him honor in his ministry, there would be no need to do harm by asking, except in order to increase the doctrine. Certainly, there would not have been any contention or discord in cases of the Jews, if he wanted to act rationally. Now then, do us a second charity that the Holy Spirit spread in your hearts and extend consolation to your servant, for I am tormented in great fear by different anxieties. If we deny baptism to Jews or their slaves who are seeking it, I fear divine damnation. If we provide it, I fear human offense, and the dangerous attacks on our house. On these attacks and discords, of which I thought it unworthy to write in this brief letter, I created a brief inventory for your piety through which you may know well what they are. It would be unworthy of your blessed gentleness to be angry with me because I am inconveniently making such urgent demands of you, but consider it for the sake of the Church, for the reason of the faith, and a divine labor. Moreover, I have complete faith in your holiness. And therefore, I accept the holy work for the sake of eternal reward and to assist our Church by lending [it] your labor and establishing [its rules], because you are debtors of the great faith that is known [to be] in you. Questions: What does Agobard’s letter suggest about the relationship between the emperor, the Church, and the Jewish communities living in the Carolingian Empire? What is Agobard’s view of slavery and of the rights of individual slaves?

43. POVERTY AS PIETY: THE RULE OF SAINT FRANCIS By the thirteenth century, medieval Europe saw itself transformed into an economic powerhouse with growing cities populated by merchants and artisans. New wealth acquired from this commercial transformation, however, did not always sit well with the Christian notion of poverty and self-denial as virtues and, just as Valdes did in late twelfth-century Lyon (doc. 19), some felt the urge to renounce wealth and focus their efforts on faith instead. Francis, born Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone (c. 1181–1226), was the son of a prosperous silk merchant from Assisi in Italy. After an unsuccessful military experience, he renounced wealth and worldly pleasures around 1205: he stayed away from his family, wandered the countryside, and even took upon himself the restoration of an old church at nearby San Damiano. Gradually, his ascetic lifestyle began to attract followers with its simple messages of doing good works and subsisting on very little, while using Christ and the apostles as models to imitate. In 1209, Francis and his followers approached Pope Innocent III (r. 1198–1216) and asked to be recognized as a distinct order; the pope agreed. From this point on, the Order of the Lesser Brothers (Ordo Fratrum Minorum) began to grow in number and importance. The Franciscan Order, as it became known informally, as well as another mendicant order, the Dominicans, were different from older 153

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

monastic orders in their ability to remain engaged with the world, to live in cities, and to preach against vices and heresy. The way of life of Franciscan friars was outlined in their Rule, written by Francis himself; provided here are excerpts from the fourth version of this Rule, officially recognized by the papacy in 1223. Source: trans. Oliver Joseph Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Medieval History: Selected Documents Illustrating the History of Europe in the Middle Age (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1905), pp. 499–504, revised.

1. This is the rule and life of the Minor Brothers, namely, to observe the holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ by living in obedience, in poverty, and in chastity. Brother Francis promises obedience and reverence to Pope Honorius and to his successors who shall be canonically elected, and to the Roman Church. The other brothers are bound to obey brother Francis, and his successors. 2. If any, wishing to adopt this life, come to our brothers [to ask admission], they shall be sent to the provincial ministers, who alone have the right to receive others into the order. The provincial ministers shall carefully examine them in the Catholic faith and the sacraments of the Church. And if they believe all these and faithfully confess them and promise to observe them to the end of life, and if they have no wives, or if they have wives, and the wives have either already entered a monastery, or have received permission to do so, and they have already taken the vow of chastity with the permission of the bishop of the diocese [in which they live], and their wives are of such an age that no suspicion can rise against them, let the provincial ministers repeat to them the word of the holy Gospel, to go and sell all their goods and give to the poor [Matt. 19:21]. But if they are not able to do so, their good will is sufficient for them. And the brothers and provincial ministers shall not be solicitous about the temporal possessions of those who wish to enter the order; but let them do with their possessions whatever the Lord may put into their minds to do. Nevertheless, if they ask the advice of the brothers, the provincial ministers may send them to God-fearing men, at whose advice they may give their possessions to the poor. Then the ministers shall give them the dress of a novice, namely: two robes without a hood, a girdle, trousers, a hood with a cape reaching to the girdle. But the ministers may add to these if they think it necessary. After the year of probation is ended they shall be received into obedience [that is, into the order], by promising to observe this rule and life forever. And according to the command of the pope they shall never be permitted to leave the order and give up this life and form of religion. For according to the holy Gospel no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God [Luke 9:62]. And after they have promised obedience, those who wish may have one robe with a hood and one without a hood. Those who must may wear shoes, and all the brothers shall wear common clothes, and they shall have God’s blessing if they patch them 154

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

with coarse cloth and pieces of other kinds of cloth. But I warn and exhort them not to despise nor judge other men who wear fine and gay clothing, and have delicious foods and drinks. But rather let each one judge and despise himself. 3. The clerical brothers shall perform the divine office according to the rite of the holy Roman Church, except the psalter, from which they may have breviaries. The lay brothers shall say twenty-four Paternosters at matins, five at lauds, seven each at primes, terces, sexts, and nones, twelve at vespers, seven at completorium, and prayers for the dead. And they shall fast from All Saints’ Day [1 November] to Christmas. They may observe or not, as they choose, the holy Lent which begins at Epiphany [6 January] and lasts for forty days, and which our Lord consecrated by his holy fasts. Those who keep it shall be blessed of the Lord, but those who do not wish to keep it are not bound to do so. But they shall all observe the other Lent [that is, from Ash Wednesday to Easter]. The rest of the time the brothers are bound to fast only on Fridays. But in times of manifest necessity they shall not fast. But I counsel, warn, and exhort my brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ that when they go out into the world they shall not be quarrelsome or contentious, nor judge others. But they shall be gentle, peaceable, and kind, mild and humble, and virtuous in speech, as is becoming to all. They shall not ride on horseback unless compelled by manifest necessity or infirmity to do so. When they enter a house they shall say, “Peace be to this house.” According to the holy Gospel, they may eat of whatever food is set before them. 4. I strictly forbid all the brothers to accept money or property either in person or through another. Nevertheless, for the needs of the sick, and for clothing the other brothers, the ministers and guardians may, as they see that necessity requires, provide through spiritual friends, according to the locality, season, and the degree of cold which may be expected in the region where they live. But, as has been said, they shall never receive money or property. 5. Those brothers to whom the Lord has given the ability to work shall work faithfully and devotedly, so that idleness, which is the enemy of the soul, may be excluded and not extinguish the spirit of prayer and devotion to which all temporal things should be subservient. As the price of their labors they may receive things that are necessary for themselves and the brothers, but not money or property. And they shall humbly receive what is given them, as is becoming to the servants of God and to those who practice the most holy poverty. 6. The brothers shall have nothing of their own, neither house, nor land, nor anything, but as pilgrims and strangers in this world, serving the Lord in poverty and humility, let them confidently go asking alms. Nor let them be ashamed of this, for the Lord made himself poor for us in this world. This is that highest pitch of poverty which has made you, my dearest brothers, heirs and kings of the kingdom of heaven, which has made you poor in goods, and exalted you in virtues. Let this be your portion, which leads into the land of the living. Cling 155

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

wholly to this, my most beloved brothers, and you shall wish to have in this world nothing else than the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. And wherever they are, if they find brothers, let them show themselves to be of the same household, and each one may securely make known to the other his need. For if a mother loves and nourishes her child, how much more diligently should one nourish and love one’s spiritual brother? And if any of them fall ill, the other brothers should serve them as they would wish to be served. . . . 9. If a bishop forbids the brothers to preach in his diocese, they shall obey him. And no brother shall preach to the people unless the general minister of the brotherhood has examined and approved him and given him the right to preach. I also warn the brothers that in their sermons their words shall be chaste and well chosen for the profit and edification of the people. They shall speak to them of vices and virtues, punishment and glory, with brevity of speech, because the Lord made the word shortened over the earth [Rom. 9:28]. 10. The ministers and servants shall visit and admonish their brothers and humbly and lovingly correct them. They shall not put any command upon them that would be against their soul and this rule. And the brothers who are subject must remember that for God’s sake they have given up their own wills. Wherefore I command them to obey their ministers in all the things which they have promised the Lord to observe and which shall not be contrary to their souls and this rule. And whenever brothers know and recognize that they cannot observe this rule, let them go to their ministers, and the ministers shall lovingly and kindly receive them and treat them in such a way that the brothers may speak to them freely and treat them as lords speak to, and treat, their servants. For the ministers ought to be the servants of all the brothers. I warn and exhort the brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ to guard against all arrogance, pride, envy, avarice, care, and solicitude for this world, detraction, and murmuring. And those who cannot read need not be anxious to learn. But above all things let them desire to have the Spirit of the Lord and his holy works, to pray always to God with a pure heart, and to have humility, and patience in persecution and in infirmity, and to love those who persecute us and reproach us and blame us. For the Lord says, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute and speak evil of you” [cf. Matt. 5:44]. “Blessed are they who suffer persecution for righteousness’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 5:10]. He that endures to the end shall be saved [Matt. 10:22]. 11. I strictly forbid all the brothers to have any association or conversation with women that may cause suspicion. And let them not enter nunneries, except those which the pope has given them special permission to enter. Let them not be intimate friends of men or women, lest on this account scandal arise among the brothers or about brothers. 156

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

12. If any of the brothers shall be divinely inspired to go among Saracens and other infidels they must get the permission to go from their provincial minister, who shall give his consent only to those who he sees are suitable to be sent. . . . Questions: What role does the idea of personal poverty play in the Rule of Saint Francis? What does the Franciscan emphasis on poverty suggest about the medieval Church? How were the Franciscan friars expected to interact with other parts of the Church: local clergy, bishops, and the monastic orders?

44. CRITIQUE OF THE MENDICANT FRIARS: WILLIAM OF ST-AMOUR’S ON THE DANGERS OF THE FINAL DAYS Once officially recognized, the Franciscan (doc. 43) and Dominican mendicant orders quickly gained popularity: friars proved to be particularly efficient at combating heretics, serving as papal envoys and missionaries, preaching in cities, and even joining medieval universities as students and teachers. The versatile nature of the mendicants and the appeal of their poverty made some churchmen uneasy, especially in towns where the mendicants and parish clergy often competed for the same resources, resulting in bitter arguments and polemical attacks. Some clerical authors complained that the friars—despite their claims of following the way of life of the apostles—were a recent invention, dangerous, and unnecessary. William of St-Amour, a minor French theologian notorious for his anti-mendicant works, even went as far as to portray the friars as false preachers who earned the trust of their lay supporters by flattery and deceit. In his best-known work, On the Dangers of the Final Days (De periculis novissimorum temporum, 1256), St-Amour casts the secular-mendicant competition as an apocalyptic struggle over Christendom between the true preachers (secular clergy) and the false ones (mendicants). He even provides a list of signs by which false preachers can be recognized; excerpts from this list are included here. Ironically, writing during the period when the mendicants enjoyed both lay and papal support, St-Amour does not dare to identify his “false preachers” explicitly, but the signs he provides—in particular, the mendicant reliance on charity and their skillful preaching—made the targets of his polemic text obvious to his readers. In his treatise, St-Amour draws on the scriptures as well as on the collection of interpretive commentaries attached to important words or passages in the Bible, the so-called “ordinary gloss” (glossa ordinaria). Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from William of St-Amour, Guillelmi de Sancto Amore Opera omnia . . . (Constance: Alitophilos, 1632), pp. 57–61, 64, 68–70.

[S]ince the aforementioned seducers will say that they are the apostles, and [are] sent to preach by God and to save souls by their ministry, according to the apostle [Paul] in 2 Cor. 11: “False apostles are the workers of deceit, who turn themselves into the apostles of Christ.” Therefore, we will show signs, some 157

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

infallible, some, to be sure, really probable, by which they will be able to discern the false apostles from the apostles of Christ. 1. The first sign is: the true apostles do not sneak into the homes, nor lead captive women burdened with sins, as the false apostles do. 2 Tim. 3: “These are the ones who penetrate homes and lead captive women burdened with sins.” I have explained this above in chapters two and five. Thus, those preachers, who sneak into homes and lead captive women burdened with sins, are not the true apostles, but the false ones. 2. The second sign is that the true apostles do not deceive the hearts of the simple folk with [carefully] composed words in which they praise their own tradition, as the false do. Rom. 16: “By sweet words and benedictions they seduce the hearts of the innocent”; the gloss [says]: “They praise their tradition with composed words, with which deceive the hearts of the simple.” To such an extent they deceive the hearts of the simple folk, then, that they make them join their own sect, which they call religion. And they who have lived in simplicity before, after joining, become sly, hypocrites, false, and penetrators of homes, along with them, and sometimes worse than them. Matt. 23: “Woe on you hypocrites, the Scribes and the Pharisees, who travel across the sea and the land to win a single convert and once you have done so, you make him twice the son of hell you are.” Thus, those who do that are not true apostles, but false ones. . . . 6. The sixth sign is that the true apostles do not preach unless they are sent. Rom. 10: “How will they preach unless they are sent”; the gloss [says]: “They are not true apostles unless they are sent, indeed, to give testimony to them is no sign of virtue.” Who, then, is sent is said in chapter two above. They who indeed preach but are not sent are the false ones. . . . 9. The ninth sign is that while the false ones, from the powers that they have, are not evangelists or administer the sacraments; yet they wish to live from the Gospel, not from the labor of their hands. Against such apostles is 2 Thess. 3: “Neither did we eat bread from anyone for free, but in labor and until exhaustion we worked night and day”; the gloss [says]: “Those false ones shall work much more from their own labor, who do not have the powers that we have,” that is to say, “to live from the Gospel.” And Augustine says expressly in his book On the Works of Monks, in such words: “Those our brothers, claim rashly for themselves (as I think) that they have the power of such kind, that is to say, to live from the Gospel. Indeed, if they are evangelists, if they are ministers of the altar, if they administer the sacraments, [then] I admit, they have [that power].” As if he was saying: those who are not such, do not have the power to live from the Gospel. Those preachers therefore who do not have the power to live from the Gospel or to administer the sacraments of the Church (inasmuch as, those who do not have the people [of their own] and are not in charge of spiritual guidance), [but] wish to live from the Gospel, are not the true apostles but the false ones. . . . 158

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

12. The twelfth sign is that the false ones pretend they have a greater zeal for the souls than the guides and pastors of souls [the clergy]. Yet since they are not put in charge of them, this is against what is said in the gloss on 1 Thess. 2: “We became like small children among you, as if a nurse raised her sons”; the gloss [says]: “The woman feeds the sons of others for money, not out of love; [but she feeds] her own, indeed, out of love.” Therefore, those preachers who pretend to have a greater zeal for the souls that the guides of these souls are not the true apostles, but the false ones. . . . 20. The twentieth sign is that the true apostles do not seize the temporal goods of those to whom they preach; by this they are distinguished from wolves, that is the false apostles. Hence Acts 20: “I have desired silver and gold of no one”; the gloss [says]: “Wolves are recognized by their desire of this.” And below [in Acts 20]: “these hands provided those things that were needed for me and for those who are with me”; the gloss [says]: “The example of laboring even for bishops and [it is] a sign by which they can be distinguished from wolves.” . . . But one will say: Can a preacher ask for support from those to whom they preach, at least by begging? [To this] we respond: If he preaches from power, and as a true pastor, feeds his flock with the food of the word [of God], he can receive support; but this is not for his begging, but for his power. 2 Tim. 2: “A farmer who works ought to receive the first fruits”; the gloss [says]: “He assures the virtuous evangelist and wants him to understand that obtaining necessities from those whom he feeds as his flock is not begging, but power.” But nowhere can it be found in the sacred scripture that a preacher is allowed to beg; in fact, every Christian is forbidden from begging by the apostle; it is also abhorred by Solomon and condemned by Augustine and other holy expositors, as is shown above, in chapter twelve. Thus it is therefore obvious that the true apostles do not desire the temporal goods of those to whom they preach, and, indeed, nor do they even beg for them. Therefore, those who ask from those to whom they preach, or from others in their name, do not seem to be the true apostles, but the false ones. . . . 29. The twenty-ninth sign is that the true apostles do not concern themselves with the affairs of others in order to be fed for that, for the God of such is the stomach, according to 2 Thess. 3: “We have heard that some among you walk restlessly, not working, but acting curiously”; the gloss [says]: “About the affairs of others and in this way they have the right to be fed. But the dominical discipline abhors those who do so, their God is indeed their stomach, who provide for themselves with disgraceful concern.” Therefore, those preachers who do so are not the true apostles but the false ones. . . . 36. The thirty-sixth sign is that the true apostles do not wander preaching to those, who were already converted by others; but they prepare themselves to convert those who have not yet been converted by others. “So that I do not 159

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

build on another man’s foundation.” Just as blessed Paul did in Rom. 15: “I have worked so that from Jerusalem through the area up to the Sea of Illyricum I have completed the Gospel”; in the gloss, that is: “I have preached fully.” In this a great virtue of the saint is apparent, that so many people received the Gospel through him. And below: “Thus however I preached the Gospel, not where Christ was named; so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.” The gloss [says]: “So that I do not preach to those already converted by others.” Likewise, 2 Cor. 10: “We do not pride ourselves beyond measure in the labors of others”; the gloss [says]: “Where the others may have put in place the foundations of faith; for doing this would be pride beyond measure.” . . . Therefore, those preachers who do not go to those in need of conversion but rather to those [already] converted, who have their own apostles and bishops and priests, and thus pride themselves in the people of others are not the true apostles, but the false ones. Questions: What are William of St-Amour’s principal objections to the existence of the mendicant orders? What dangers did the mendicants pose for the Church, according to the author? How does he feel about the mendicant commitment to poverty and their practice of seeking charitable donations?

45. MEDIEVAL SERFDOM AND MANUMISSION Serfs were peasants bound to the land owned by their lord, and who paid for their right to work that land through various obligations, including rent and labor performed on the lord’s own land (demesne). One of the defining characteristics of a serf’s status was her or his inability to move or change lords without permission. Indeed, serfdom was a way to ensure that a lord—usually a member of nobility or clerical elite—had a reliable supply of labor for cultivating his land; in return, the lord promised the serfs his protection. While precise conditions of serfdom varied across medieval Europe, this status was defined by the possibility of coercion and violence, which led some serfs to leave their lands and to seek refuge in cities. The famous saying “city air made a man free,” usually associated with runaway serfs, was more of an ideal than a fact—in practice, the notion that a serf could gain her or his freedom by staying in a city for a year and a day was observed unevenly. Moreover, by abandoning their land, unfree peasants also abandoned their sources of livelihood and any property left behind; this likely served as a considerable deterrent. However, lords could not demand the return of those peasants who fled to the cities; the lords had to enter the city to apprehend the serfs with sufficient proof that their claim was true. The first document, a law issued by King Henry VII of Germany (r. 1220–35) elaborates the requirements for recovering a runaway serf from a German city. A serf could also be freed by his or her lord (manumitted); after gaining freedom, a peasant was usually allowed to retain their right to work the land in return for rent. 160

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

The second document is a record of manumission given to William of  Wythington by the abbot of Peterborough. Sources: Law of King Henry VII: trans. Oliver Joseph Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, A Source Book for Medieval History: Selected Documents Illustrating the History of Europe in the Middle Age (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1905), pp. 548–49, revised; Record of manumission: trans. James Harvey Robinson, Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1897), vol. 3, pp. 5, 31–32, revised.

1 Henry [VII], etc. . . . When a quarrel arose between our cities of Elsass [Alsace] and the nobles and ministerials of the same province in regard to the serfs who had run away and gone to the cities, or might hereafter do so, . . . it was settled by the following decision: if a serf belonging to a noble or ministerial runs away and goes to one of our cities and stays there, his lord may recover him if he can bring seven persons who are of the family of the serf’s mother, who will swear that he is a serf, and belongs to the said lord. If the lord cannot secure seven such witnesses, he may bring two suitable witnesses from among his neighbors, who will swear that before the serf ran away the said lord had been in peaceable possession of him, . . . and he may then recover his serf. We also decree and command that all nobles and ministerials who wish to recover their serfs may enter a city for this purpose with our permission and protection, and no one shall dare injure them. At their request a safe conduct shall be furnished them by the schultheissen [magistrates] and council of the city. 2 To all the faithful of Christ to whom the present writing shall come, Richard by the divine permission abbot of Peterborough and the convent of the same place, eternal greeting in the Lord. Let all know that we have manumitted and liberated from all yoke of servitude William, the son of Richard of Wythington whom previously we have held as our born bondman, with his whole progeny and all his chattels, so that neither we nor our successors shall be able to require or exact any right or claim in the said William, his progeny, or his chattel. But the same William with his whole progeny and all his chattels will remain free and quit and without disturbance, exaction, or any claim on the part of us or our successors by reason of any servitude, forever. We will moreover and concede that he and his heirs shall hold the messuages [buildings], land, rents, and meadows in Wythington which his ancestors held from us and our predecessors, by giving and performing the 161

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

fine which is called merchet [customary payment to a lord on marriage as compensation for loss of a worker] for giving his daughter in marriage, and tallage [a tax on land] from year to year according to our will—that he shall have and hold these for the future from us and our successors freely, quietly, peacefully, and hereditarily, by paying thence to us and our successors yearly 40s. [shillings] sterling, at the four terms of the year, namely; at Saint John the Baptist’s day, 10s.; at Michaelmas, 10s.; at Christmas, 10s.; and at Easter, 10s.; for all service, exaction, custom, and secular demand; saving nevertheless attendance at our court of Castre every three weeks, wardship and relief, and outside service to our lord the king, when they shall happen. And if it shall happen that the said William or his heirs shall die at any time without an heir, the said messuage, land, rents, and meadows with their appurtenances shall return fully and completely to us and our successors. Nor will it be allowed to the said William or his heirs the said messuages, land, rents, meadows, or any part of them to give, sell, alienate, mortgage, or in any way encumber by which the said messuage, land, rents, and meadows should not return to us and our successors in the form declared above. But if this should occur later their deed shall be declared null and what is thus alienated shall come to us and our successors. In testimony of which duplicate seals are appended to this writing, formed as a chirograph, for the sake of greater security. These being witnesses, etc. Given at Borough for the love of lord Robert of good memory, once abbot, our predecessor and maternal uncle of the said William, and at the instance of the good man brother Hugh of Mutton, relative of the said abbot, Robert; A.D. 1278, on the eve of Pentecost. Questions: What does the first document suggest about the relationship between the towns and the nobility? Why did the serfs flee from their lords into towns? In the second document, what kind of a relationship is shown between a manumitted serf and his former lord after manumission?

46. PUNISHMENTS FOR IMPREGNATING A FEMALE SLAVE IN GENOA Slavery as an institution had declined in northern Europe by the High Middle Ages. However, in Mediterranean Europe, where some social and economic institutions survived the fall of the Roman Empire, and in the Islamic world, slavery remained a widespread phenomenon. Until the fifteenth century, the Italian maritime republics of Venice, Genoa, and Pisa remained crucial agents in the Mediterranean slave trade, selling their victims to the Near East and North Africa, as well as to European Christian slave owners. Due to the prohibition on owning Christians as slaves, most slaves sold in the Mediterranean were either pagan or Muslim, or in some cases Eastern Orthodox 162

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

Christians (who sometimes were not considered to be Christian enough to escape enslavement) of Slavic or Turkic origin. The slave population in Mediterranean Europe was never particularly large, but surviving documents from the region demonstrate that municipal governments put some thought into rules and regulations related to slaves and their masters. The document included here outlines various punishments for the impregnation of a female slave in late medieval Genoa. Most punishments included a fine paid to the slave’s master, rather than the pregnant slave herself. Instead of a fine, draconian punishments awaited a male slave accused of impregnating a female slave belonging to another master. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Genoa, Archivio di Stato di Genova, Archivio Segreto, MS 500, fol. 99v-100r; transcribed by Christoph Cluse.

On those who impregnate a slave of another or of their own and on the support for their children. If any free man knows carnally a female serf or a slave of another, and she conceives from it, he is bound to provide or pay to the master or to the mistress of the slave twenty-five Genoese pounds. If indeed the said slave dies from the said pregnancy or in labor, he is bound and must give to the master or mistress of the slave fifty Genoese pounds, in addition to the abovementioned twenty-five pounds. Moreover, the master or mistress of the said slave is bound and must give and hand over the child of the said slave to the father of the said child, and aforementioned such father is obligated and has to accept such aforementioned child and to give or pay the master or mistress of the aforementioned slave the aforementioned fine. And since it is hard to prove the aforementioned, we establish and order that in the case of such pregnancy the testimony of the aforementioned female slave who was made pregnant should be believed if given under oath in front of the magistrate of the commune of Genoa, [as well as] the oath of the master or mistress of such slave if he [or she] be of good standing and repute, if he [or she] will swear on the holy Gospel concerning the circumstances under which the aforementioned slave was impregnated by that man, [as well as] any [other] evidence. By these means [those involved] shall know and have sufficient evidence that the said man impregnated the aforementioned slave. And the same as above applies in everything if a [male] slave is [the one] who impregnated the aforementioned female slave. The master is to pay the specified fine, and if he be unwilling to pay or unable, the said [male] slave shall be cudgeled all the way to Capo Faro [the lighthouse in Genoa’s harbor], [and] his ear shall be cut off so that it is separated from his head. And afterward that slave shall be returned to the said master. 163

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

If anyone impregnated or is said to have impregnated the slave not of another but one living in the same household, then he shall be made to pay [the fine] simply per sworn statement of the female slave and of the master or mistress, if they are of good repute, without additional evidence, and further to compensate to the said master or mistress fifty Genoese pounds whether the slave dies [in childbirth] or not. If indeed some master had known his female slave carnally and she produced a child from him, we establish that nevertheless that slave does not become free because of that. And for the purpose of the present chapter, the expression “someone’s slave” denotes [one] who is held and owned as a slave by her master or mistress, and who is known and thought of as a slave in the neighborhood of the said master or mistress. Questions: Why were the fines for making a slave pregnant paid to the slave’s master instead of the slave herself? What does this suggest about the reason for the fine? Why was a male slave accused of impregnating a slave of another master punished so heavily?

47. SIENA ACTS AGAINST THE POOR DURING THE FAMINE OF 1329 Late medieval towns, while they were thriving centers of crafts and commerce by the fourteenth century, were particularly vulnerable to any fluctuations in the food supply. Wars or famines in the surrounding countryside left these cities open not only to severe shortages of food (especially grain) but also to the possibility of social unrest or even open revolt. By 1329, Siena in Italy had a population of about 50,000 people, some of whom were poor and relied on regular handouts of bread like the one described in the document below. In times of scarcity, the Sienese city government, the Council of the Nine, was responsible for keeping the peace and maintaining the precarious food supply; one of the available solutions was to reduce the number of people reliant on public help, especially if this help was given out—in the council’s view—indiscriminately (compare this to charity in Florence in doc. 48). Such actions were widely understood as public safety measures, although rumors about the expulsion of the poor from Siena in the middle of a famine likely gave Florentine merchant elites, like the author of this account, a chance to feel that their city was morally superior. This excerpt comes from a diary written by Domenico Lenzi, a Florentine grain merchant; it is very likely that he exaggerates the actions of the Sienese government due to a longstanding rivalry between Siena and Florence. Source: trans. Murtha Baca, from Domenico Lenzi, “Mirror of Humanity,” in Merchant Writers: Florentine Memoirs from the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ed. Vittore Branca (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), pp. 352–55.

164

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

How there was a great famine in Florence and in other parts of the world and how the Sienese expelled all the poor people from their city, and the Florentines gave them refuge. Such a cruel famine and shortage of food went on here in Florence [1328–30] that you who read this account surely must know that other parts of the world were affected as well. According to reliable eyewitnesses, it was felt so cruelly and harshly that the poor had nothing to eat but plant roots and the fruit of trees, and meats disgusting not only to the mouth, but to the nose as well. Italy, and especially Tuscany, was more overwhelmed by this pestilence than any other place. But I can say that during this time of famine my fatherland, Florence—whose countryside does not produce enough grain to support it for five months, and where victuals are always more expensive than in any other part of Italy—by itself supported half of the poor of Tuscany through the providence and aid of the good wealthy people and their money. Thus it might be said, and indeed is true, that the poor, having been expelled from the grain-rich surrounding lands for fear that they might seize them, and having been deprived of the remedies offered to assist them, could only turn to Florence as a trusted port of consolation. During the aforementioned famine Florence not once but many times graciously sustained the poor and others, each in his own degree. Now, I certainly would prefer to remain silent about such events as now occur to my mind; but I cannot suffer that such cruel insolence and miscarriage of mercy as that which the decadent, perverse, cruel, insane Siena showed during this famine should go untold. For Siena was so insolent and presumptuous as to blindly act against the disinherited poor when they were all cruelly bereft of benevolent mercy, giving full rein to her impious cruelty. Would that those perfidious citizens of the city of the she-wolf had not been borne and suckled by their mother, who not only devours flesh, but swallows up even the earth, and viciously assails the winds with all her cruel forces. But, sirs, I know not whether to prove they are made of different stuff, or to bring down greater and more cruel judgment of their evils by him who is the height of compassion; at first there had been someone in Siena, the minister of the hospice of Santa Maria della Scala, who was willing to give so many alms to the poor that it seemed that all of God’s power were intervening. To everyone—women, men, children, and adults—was given a loaf of bread weighing 14 once; if a woman was with child, she was given two loaves. Such great and open charity attracted the poor, who came from near and far. But the alms did not run out even though the number of hungry people increased, for a way was found to replenish them by having everyone contribute to such a good cause. Thus, as can be seen in the painting on the next pages [the 165

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Siena accounts are famous for their painted illustrations], this was how it was organized: alms were distributed three days of the week—that is, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday—to as many poor as came to the Hospice of la Scala for that reason. All of the poor people would enter, and then three doors were left open through which they left the building; one was for men, the other was used by the women, and the third was for little children, who streamed out continuously. At each of the doors were positioned two very worthy members of the Hospice, who distributed the alms to the people as they emerged. Oh! Great God, you should grant your grace directly to that house! But we know that only from you, O Lord, does good proceed, and that whoever out of love for you imparts his goods to your ambassadors the poor, by your virtue and power that good will abound in his house without discord. But, dear readers, regard this “mirror” entitled “mirror of humanity,” which recounts such godless behavior, heeding God who gave himself to so much goodness. The city of Siena became envious, and in her insane iniquity clandestinely opposed what Messire Giovanni was doing. The Council of Nine sent for Messire Giovanni; when he came into their presence, he asked what they wished of him. O prideful Siena, let the whole world hear what you are! They replied that under pain of death by fire this almsgiving should not continue thenceforward. Take heed, all men! These people were not only ordering that an injury be done to God; but that all those to whom only God is a brother should be allowed to die of hunger, in a prosperous city that had plenty of food. For I say, sirs, that these men were well brought up and trained by their mother the she-wolf; let this argument alone be brought against them, without any other syllogisms. But even if this helps no one else, listen to how this evil went forward; now I shall recount how they went on. Having given this grim order, that city continued thus: The next day the poor returned to the hospice, their accustomed refuge, believing that they would receive the usual charity and relief, and that when they heard the word “enter,” they would all be comforted. But that sweet greeting became an ill-fortuned dismissal, for this is what they heard instead: “Go away, you hungry beggars, to perish along with your wants, for the lords of this city have ordered that you be left to perish in your misery; otherwise both we and our houses and possessions will be consumed by fire. We have no more charity in us.” At this cruel, arrogant reply, there arose infinite cries and sounds of hands striking, shouts, and crying, and people clawing their faces so deeply that they seemed to bear the marks of nails. Throughout the entire city, countryside, castles, and fortresses could be heard the voices of people crying for someone in their family who had died. And thus the poor ran desperately in infinite numbers toward the public palace whence those orders had emanated, crying out “Have mercy!” or “Fire!” or “Die!” All this noise brought the people of the 166

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

city running, armed with whatever they could find. Armed guards emerged from the public palace to put down the uprising, but to little avail; for the poor, striking with stones and sticks, stormed the palace, driving back the guards, who were fearful of greater injury. At this Guido Ricci da Reggio, the captain of the army of that city, came running into the fray. One of the guards, carrying a staff and caring nothing for death, came up and struck him a blow on the lower back, knocking him off his feet; and if it hadn’t been for the strong armor he was wearing, he might have died. There was great confusion, and many on all sides were gravely wounded. If it hadn’t been that God did not wish it, that day Siena might have been properly paid back for her thieving, evil ways, providing a fearful reminder for all ages. Several days after the uprising had quieted down, there began an intense search for whoever had incited or consented to so much violence and turmoil. In one night, no fewer than sixty men were taken from their beds, and as many were tortured as were hanged by the neck, including the man who had felled the captain. And there may have been men among those who were hanged who had never even heard about the uprising. More than a hundred men were exiled at that time; but that’s the way that city is! The others remained in prison for several days. But this did not end the cruel assaults of fiery Siena; for at a public council it was voted that the poor should be driven out of Siena and that no further succor for the love of God was to be given them. “Oh! Cruel earth, why did you not open up?” [Dante, Inferno, XXXIII, 66] There came the blare of a trumpet and then a human voice declared that under pain of death, every poor stranger should leave the city within three days’ time. Police squadrons went around with clubs and stones, cruelly driving people out of the city gates, caring not if they were children or adults, women or men, with child or not. Those who had been driven out of Siena turned to Florence as their certain source of relief and mercy; they were well received and well treated there. And giving thanks to God, they devoutly prayed that he would keep Florence in his blessed peace and that she and her citizens be worthily praised. Questions: How did the famine affect the poor and the practices of charity in Siena? Why did the poor flock to large cities at this time of the crisis? What does the city council’s reaction suggest about the treatment of the poor in medieval cities?

48. LIVING IN POVERTY IN FLORENCE Lives of the poor are never easy, but the documents provided here demonstrate just how many ways there were to become and remain poor in late medieval Florence. Like the governments of most medieval cities, the government of Florence, although engaged in 167

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

charity, directed its charitable contributions not to the poor themselves but to religious institutions in the city: monasteries, convents, hospitals, and other similar targets. In other words, most of Florence’s charity went to the voluntary poor, instead of the city’s lay inhabitants who were in precarious situations or indigent. Even when some poor relief or charity was available—either from the Florentine government or from varoius foundations like the Society of Orsanmichele, Florence’s wealthiest charity—these funds were disbursed in a highly selective manner. Poor relief focused mainly on the “worthy poor,” a particularly malleable category shaped by gender, age, reputation, and ability to work. Those who were able to work and had some income were often left in dire financial conditions by the necessity to pay taxes, as were the men in the first two documents; their social roles as heads of their households and providers for their families likely led to the approval of their requests for elimination of their tax debts. Source: trans. Gene Brucker, The Society of Renaissance Florence: A Documentary Study (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998), pp. 216–18, 231–33.

An Imprisoned Pauper [This petition] is submitted [to the Signoria] on behalf of Barone di Cose, a Florentine citizen. As a result of forced loans imposed in the city of Florence via the new levy, and which have not been paid by Barone . . . he has been detained in the prison of the Stinche of the commune of Florence. This is due to the fact that Barone possesses nothing in the world save his own body, his wife, and three small children, another child having died in this prison. He is perishing of hunger in jail, while his family starves outside. This is a consequence of the heavy and unsupportable levies of forced loans which were imposed on him. He sold all of the property, both real and movable, which he owned to pay these forced loans, and he has nothing left. . . . And for these unpaid forced loans, he owes a total of seventy-nine florins, three soldi, and nine denari. While he was detained in prison for these unpaid loans, certain of his creditors, motivated by the love of God, have completely absolved and liberated him [from his obligations to them]. And if your lordships will grant him the customary grace, he has certain friends who, for the love of God and as a gesture of piety, will make the necessary payments [to obtain his release from prison]. [Barone requested that his debt to the commune be cancelled; his petition was approved.] A Marginal Subsistence [This is the petition of ] Niccolò di Salvi, a Florentine citizen who formerly practiced the cobbler’s trade, and who in the last tax levy was assessed one 168

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

florin and two soldi. In order to pay his assessments, Niccolò sold all of the bedding and the furnishings which he had in his house and his shop. Then, being unable to pay any more, he went to live in the contado so that he would not be imprisoned for tax delinquency. But while there, Niccolò was captured and imprisoned in the Stinche, and there he stayed for six months. Then he sold the small cottage which was his last piece of property in the world, and having paid his taxes with the proceeds, he was released from prison. But since he was unable to provide for his family, he obtained a position as a servant in the Stinche, carrying water and other things for the prisoners, and in that position he remained for three years, with a salary of eight lire per month. With this income he had to sustain himself, his wife, and two sons, for he possessed nothing else. On account of his poverty and misery, Niccolò was not registered in the most recent assessment. However, the tax officials . . . saw that he had been listed in the old assessment, and so they imposed a levy of one florin on him. And he was totally unaware of this, but thought that, as an indigent person, he would not be taxed. Now unless something is done on his behalf, Niccolò will be forced to leave Florentine territory, and his family will be reduced to beggary. [He petitioned to be excepted from all levies; his request was approved.] The Distribution of Alms Alms distributed in the quarter of S. Spirito through the month of October [1356, by the society of Orsanmichele]. To Monna Francesca, who has broken her arm and has four children. She lives near Pino’s cell. She had five soldi on 2 September. To Monna Giovanna, who is pregnant and lives with Madonna Lapa in the Borgo Vecchio of S. Maria Novella. She received ten soldi on 5 September. Buoso [a servant] delivered it. To Monna Caterina, a foreigner who is pregnant. She lives in the parish of S. Frediano in the Via del Fielo. Buoso delivered ten soldi. To Monna Fiora, pregnant, whose landlord is the Church of S. Apollinare. Buoso gave her ten soldi. To Madonna Bella, who lives in the Borgo S. Croce and is very ill, Buoso delivered ten soldi. To Nezetta, who is old and sick and lives in the Via S. Gallo. . . . Buoso gave her twenty soldi. To Madonna Bartolomea di Piero, a widow, with four children; her landlord is the prior of S. Romolo. Francesco brought her ten soldi. . . . To Madonna Fiora di Lapo, who is blind and pregnant; she lives in the parish of S. Felice in Piazza. Buoso gave her ten soldi. 169

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

To Madonna Simona di Puccino, pregnant, of the parish of S. Frediano, Buoso delivered six soldi. To Madonna Giovanna, wife of Giovanni, a soldier from Genoa, living in the parish of S. Giorgio, who is ill without her husband, six soldi. To Piera, Elizabeth, Angela, and Caterina, poor women who are cloistered on the Rubaconte bridge, eight soldi. To Santa, Nucca, and Caterina, also cloistered on that bridge, six soldi. To Jacopa and Giovanna, poor recluses on the Rubaconte bridge, five soldi. To Madonna Agnese, a poor and infirm woman who lives in the house of Giovanni di Monna Nella, five soldi. To Monno Bice, whose landlord is Priorazzo in [Via] S. Niccolò, and who is poor, old, and infirm, three soldi. . . . To Monna Dea, who lives with two children in S. Niccolò del Borgo, four soldi. To Caterina, a girl whose host provides for her for the love of God, in S. Niccolò del Borgo, three soldi. To Monna Lippa, a poor and sick market peddler in the parish of S. Ambrogio, three soldi. To Monna Margherita, widow of Giovanni, who lives with two children . . . in the parish of S. Lucia dei Magnoli, four soldi. To Monna Diana di Bartolomeo, a poor woman in the Chiasso of Francesco Forzetti, two soldi. To Stefano, orphaned son of Antonio, whose host provides for him for the love of God, two soldi. To Lisa, widow from Pistoia, who now lives in Florence in the parish of S. Lorenzo with two small children, two lire, which the captains [of the society] decided to grant her. To Monna Isabetta, from the Valdisieve, who is pregnant and in prison, fifteen soldi. . . . To Buona di Rosso, a poor abandoned girl who lives in the Via Ghibellina, two lire, which the captains decided to give her. To Gherardo, a poor sick boy from the Mugello, twelve soldi. To Monna Dolce, a poor, old, and infirm woman who lives in the Piazza d’Ogni Santi, and who takes care of a girl who was recommended to her by the society, fifteen soldi. Questions: In the first two documents, how do the petitioners explain their conditions? How do they portray their economic situation so as to appear “worthy” of public assistance? What can we learn about men, women, and children receiving charity in Florence from these documents? In the third document, what are some of the common features that the recipients of alms share? 170

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

49. THE WORLD TURNED UPSIDE DOWN: SOCIAL ANXIETY DURING AND AFTER THE PLAGUE The plague pandemic, which swept across Eurasia starting as early as 1343, arrived in Italy in 1347–48. While the plague epidemic had devastating effects on all of medieval Europe, in large cities with high population density, the disease likely had a particularly demoralizing effect as its terrible mortality was made more obvious by the sheer number of the dead. By September 1348, the end of the epidemic in Florence, about 50 to 60 per cent of the city’s population of over 100,000 people had perished. The unprecedented mortality of the disease, and a complete inability to prevent, explain, or cure the plague, brought about a collapse of Florentine society as social ties and familial obligation dissolved. In the aftermath of the epidemic, political and social elites in the city worried that the pre-plague social order might be lost forever. Just as accounts from the time of the plague decry the awful effects of the disease, authors writing about their communities in the aftermath of the plague were outraged at the purported lack of morals demonstrated by the common people and at their lack of respect for the elites. Below are excerpts from two authors who describe the effects of the plague on Florentine society and especially the perceived social disarray that happened after the epidemic passed. One is from the famous introduction to The Decameron (1353) by Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–75), which describes the plague in the city; another comes from the Chronicle of Matteo Villani (1283–1363). Matteo’s brother, Giovanni Villani (c. 1280–1348) was a more famous historian of Florence but he died during the plague, leaving Matteo to continue his work; Matteo himself died in the second outbreak of the plague in 1363. Sources: The Decameron: trans. W.K. Kelly, Giovanni Boccaccio, The Decameron: Or, Ten Days Entertainment (Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd, 1919), pp. 10–16, revised; Chronicle of Matteo Villani: trans. Manlio Perugini from Matteo Villani, “Cronica,” in Cronisti del Trecento, ed. Roberto Palmarocchi (Milan: Rizzoli & Co., 1935), pp. 50–51.

Giovanni Boccaccio, The Decameron These accidents, and others of a like sort, occasioned various fears and devices among those that survived, all tending to the same uncharitable and cruel end; which was, to avoid the sick, and everything that had been near them, expecting by that means to save themselves. And some, holding it best to live temperately, and to avoid excesses of all kinds, made parties, and shut themselves up from the rest of the world; eating and drinking moderately of the best, and diverting themselves with music, and such other entertainments as they might have within doors; never listening to anything from without, to make them uneasy. Others maintained free living to be a better preservative, and would balk no passion or appetite they wished to gratify, drinking and reveling incessantly from tavern to 171

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

tavern, or in private houses, which were frequently found deserted by the owners, and therefore common to everyone; yet avoiding, with all this irregularity, to come near the infected. And such, at that time, was the public distress, that the laws, human and divine, were not regarded; for the officers who should have put them in force being either dead, sick, or in want of persons to assist them, everyone did just as he pleased. A third sort of people chose a method between these two; not confining themselves to rules of diet like the former, and yet avoiding the intemperance of the latter, but eating and drinking what their appetites required; and, instead of shutting themselves up, they walked everywhere, with odors and posies to smell, as holding it best to corroborate the brain, for they supposed the whole atmosphere to be tainted with the stink of dead bodies, arising partly from the distemper itself, and partly from the fermenting of the medicines within them. Others of a more cruel disposition, as perhaps the more safe to themselves, declared that the only remedy was to avoid it: persuaded, therefore, of this, and taking care for themselves only, men and women in great numbers left the city, their houses, relations, and effects, and fled into the country; as if the wrath of God had been restrained to visit those only within the walls of the city, or else concluding that none ought to stay in a place thus doomed to destruction. Divided as they were, neither did all die nor all escape; but falling sick indifferently, as well those of one as of another opinion, those who first set the example by forsaking others now languished themselves without mercy. I pass over the little regard that citizens and relations showed to each other; for their terror was such that a brother even fled from his brother, a wife from her husband, and, what is more uncommon, a mother from her own child. And so those who fell sick could have no help but what the charity of friends, who were very few, or the avarice of servants supplied; and even these were scarce, and at extravagant wages, and so little used to the business that they were fit only to reach what was called for, and observe when their employers died; and their desire of obtaining money often cost them their lives. From this desertion of friends, and scarcity of servants, an unheard-of custom prevailed: no lady, however young or handsome, would disdain being attended by a manservant, whether young or old it mattered not, and to expose herself naked to him, the necessity of the distemper requiring it, as though it were to a woman; which might make those who recovered less modest for the time to come. And many lost their lives, who might have escaped, had they been looked after at all. So that, between the scarcity of servants and violence of the distemper, such numbers were continually dying as made it terrible to hear as well as to behold. Whence, from mere necessity, many customs were introduced, different from what had been before known in the city. It had been usual, as it now is, for the women who were friends and neighbors to the deceased to meet together at his house, and to lament with his relations; at the same time the 172

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

men would get together at the door, with a number of clergy, according to the person’s circumstances; and the corpse was carried by people of his own rank, with the solemnity of tapers and singing, to that church where the person had desired to be buried; which custom was now laid aside, and, so far from having a crowd of women to lament over them, great numbers passed out of the world without a single person present, and few had the tears of their friends at their departure; but those friends would laugh, and make themselves merry, for even the women had learned to postpone every other concern to that of their own lives. Nor was a corpse attended by more than ten or a dozen, nor those citizens of credit, but fellows hired for the purpose, who would put themselves under the bier, and carry it with all possible haste to the nearest church; and the corpse was interred without any great ceremony, where they could find room. With regard to the lower sort, and many of a middling rank, the scene was still more affecting; for those staying at home, either through poverty or hopes of succor in distress, fell sick daily by thousands, and, having nobody to attend them, generally died; some breathed their last in the streets, and others shut up in their own houses, in which case the stench that came from them made the first discovery of their deaths to the neighborhood. And, indeed, every place was filled with the dead. A method now was taken, as well out of regard for the living as pity for the dead, for the neighbors, assisted by what porters they could meet with, to clear all the houses, and lay the bodies at the doors; and every morning great numbers might be seen brought out in this manner, from whence they were carried away on biers or tables, two or three at a time; and sometimes it has happened that a wife and her husband, two or three brothers, and a father and son, have been laid on together: it has been observed also, while two or three priests walked before a corpse with their crucifixes, that two or three sets of porters have fallen in with them; and, where they knew but of one, they have buried six, eight, or more: nor were there any to follow, and shed a few tears over them; for things were come to that pass, that men’s lives were no more regarded than the lives of so many beasts. Hence it plainly appeared that what the wisest, in the ordinary course of things, and by a common train of calamities, could never be taught—namely, to bear them patiently—this, by the excess of those calamities, now became a familiar lesson to the most simple and unthinking. Matteo Villani, Chronicle Chapter 3. About the Indulgence Conceded by the Pope for Said Pestilence In these times of mortal pestilence, Pope Clement VI allowed a great plenary indulgence, remitting all sins to whomever, having repented and confessed, 173

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

asked their confessors for it and died afterward; in such a certain mortality, each Christian, believing themselves to be on the verge of dying, set themselves to a good disposition and with great contrition and patience gave their soul to God. Chapter 4. How Men Were Worse than Before Many things were believed by those few survivors, all of which, because of the sin’s corruption, failed among men, actually having the opposite consequences. It was believed that those men, who by the grace of God were spared, having witnessed to the extermination of their neighbors and having heard of similar things about all the nations of the world, would reach a better condition, becoming humble, virtuous, and Catholic, staying away from iniquity and from sins, being full of love and charity toward one another. But once high mortality came to a halt, the opposite happened; finding themselves in a low number, and prosperous through the inheritance and the succession of the earthly possessions, forgetting about the recent past as if it had never happened, men gave themselves to the unruliest and most indecent of lives, such as they had never been accustomed to. Therefore, loafing around, they indulged dissolutely in the sin of gluttony, in feasts, in taverns and in pleasures with delicate foods, and in gambling, resorting uncontrollably to lust, finding strange and unusual fashions, and obscene manners in garments, and furnishing their houses in new ways. And common people, men and women, because of the overwhelming abundance of things, did not want to perform the usual jobs, and longed for the most expensive and delicate food for themselves, and coupled following their instinct, female servants and lower-class women dressing in the nice and pleasant garments of the honorable dead women. And without any restraint all our city resorted to obscene life; and so, and worse, the remaining cities and provinces of the world. And according to the tales we could listen to, there was no place where anybody lived in continence, spared from the divine wrath, thinking that the hand of God was tired. But according to the prophet Isaiah, God’s wrath never falls short, nor his hand grows tired, but much he is pleased in his own mercy, and yet he works by continuing to draw sinners to conversion and atonement, and he punishes temperately. Chapter 5. How Abundance Was Expected, and Shortage Followed The lack of people led many to believe in an upcoming abundance of all the things produced by the land; conversely, because of the ingratitude of men, there happened an unusual shortage of everything and it lasted for a long time: in some countries, as we will tell in due time, many serious and unusual famines took place. And still abundance and wealth of garments and of all 174

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

the things the human body needs, other than life, was thought as due: actually, the opposite happened, and for a long time, so that everything become worth twice or thrice more than it used to be before such a high mortality. And work and manufactures of all arts and crafts chaotically doubled up their worth. Lawsuits, issues, controversies, and riots rose from every side, between citizens of each country because of inheritances and successions. And our city of Florence had its courts full for a long time, with great squander and unusual tributes. Wars and various scandals happened across the whole world, against the common view of men. Questions: What effects did the plague outbreak have on Florentine society, according to Boccaccio? What reactions to the disease does he relate? According to the second document, how did the people of Florence react to the end of the outbreak? What kinds of tensions between different social groups does Matteo Villani’s account reveal?

50. WAGE CONTROL AFTER THE PLAGUE: ORDINANCE OF THE LABORERS Just as Italian chroniclers were appalled by what they saw as the immoral behavior of the common people after the Black Death (doc. 49), in England the nobility and upper echelons of the Church saw the demands for higher wages as a danger to their wealth and status. High mortality caused by the plague made laborers scarce; those who survived were in high demand and, in turn, demanded higher wages. In response to complaints from landowners in his kingdom, Edward III (r. 1327–77) issued the Ordinance of the Laborers in 1349, shortly after the plague epidemic ended. The Ordinance, later reissued as Statute of the Laborers (1351), prohibited workers from asking for wages higher than they were in 1347 on the eve of the epidemic. It also criminalized leaving one’s employment and—responding to a false notion that some laborers would rather subsist on begging than work for less—forbade under the pain of imprisonment to give alms to the poor who were deemed able to work. Source: trans. Albert Beebe White and Wallace Notestein, Source Problems in English History (New York: Harper and Brother Publishers, 1915), pp. 141–45, revised.

Because a large part of the population, and especially of workers and servants, has died recently from the epidemic, many people, seeing the masters’ need [for laborers] and a great shortage of workers, will not work unless they are paid excessively high wages, and some are more willing to beg in idleness than to make a living by working. We, considering the great inconvenience which may arise from the lack especially of plowmen and other [agricultural] workers, upon deliberation and consultation with the 175

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

prelates, the nobles, and the learned men assisting us, and with their agreement, have ordained: That every man and woman in our realm of England, of whatever condition they may be, free or unfree, physically able and under the age of sixty years, not practicing trade, nor exercising any craft, nor having the means from which they may live, nor owning [a piece of ] land on which they need to work, and not working for someone else, shall, if offered work consistent with their position, be required to accept it; and take only the wages, liveries, payments, or salary, which they were accustomed to receive in the places where they used to serve in the twentieth year of our reign of England [1347], or five or six other years before that. Provided always that the lords will have the first right to put to work their serfs or the tenants on their land, but nevertheless these lords shall employ no more than is necessary for them. And if any such man or woman, being so required to serve, will not do it, if proven by two trustworthy men before the sheriff or the constables of the town where this took place, they shall be arrested on the spot and taken by them or any of them, and committed to the nearest jail, where they are to remain in confinement, until they offer an assurance that they will accept the conditions of work offered to them. Likewise, if any reaper, mower, or other workman or servant, of whatever estate or condition he may be, put to work in service of any man, departs from the said service without a reasonable cause or a permission, before the agreed upon term, he shall be imprisoned. And no one shall receive or hire such person under the same pain [of imprisonment]. Likewise, no one shall pay, or promise to pay, any worker any more wages, liveries, payments, or salary than specified above; nor anyone shall demand to be paid these, under the punishment of paying double the amount that was to be paid, promised, required, or received, to anyone who may feel aggrieved by this. And if no aggrieved party shall bring charges against them, then the same fine is to be paid to any person who will do so; and this case shall be brought to the court of the lord of the place where it happened. Likewise, if the lords of the towns or manors presume in any way to contradict this ordinance either by themselves, or through their officials, then let the charges against them be brought to the county, wapentake, tithing, or other courts, on the pain of paying triple of what was paid or promised by them or their servants in the way described above. And if anyone before the present ordinance was made, entered an agreement with someone to hire a worker for a higher pay, he shall not pay more than that worker would have been paid in the past because of this agreement; nor should he presume to pay any more under the penalty described above.

176

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

Similarly, saddlers, skinners, tanners, shoemakers, tailors, smiths, carpenters, masons, tilers, shipwrights, carters, and all other artisans and workers shall not receive for their labor and craftsmanship more than they were to be paid in the aforementioned twentieth year [1347], and other years before that, as is said above, in the place where they happen to work; and if any man takes more, he shall be imprisoned in the nearest jail, as is described above. Likewise, butchers, fishmongers, innkeepers, brewers, bakers, poulterers, and all other sellers of all manner of foodstuffs shall be bound to sell these goods for a reasonable price, with regard to the price that such foodstuffs are sold for in the nearby places, so that these sellers have moderate, and not excessive, profits, in accordance with the distance from place of origin of these goods. And if anyone sells such foodstuffs in any other manner, and is found guilty of this in the way described above, he shall pay double the amount received, to the injured party, or without one, to any other person who is willing to bring forth the charges against them. And the mayors and bailiffs of cities, boroughs, market towns, and other towns, and of the ports and the seaside places, shall have power to inquire about each and all offenders, and to impose the said penalty to be paid to whomever brings forth the charges against them. And if these mayors or bailiffs are negligent, and are found guilty before the justices assigned by us, then these mayors and bailiffs shall be compelled by the justices to pay triple the price of the goods sold to the injured party, or to any other person who is willing to bring forth the charges; and also to be punished heavily by us. Moreover, because so many sturdy beggars, as long as they can live off their begging, are refusing to work, while engaging in idleness and vice, and sometime committing theft and other abominations, let no one, for the reasons of pity or almsgiving, give anything to such—under the penalty described above—who may work, or presume to support them in their desires, so that they will be forced to work for a living. We firmly command you that each and all of these decrees be proclaimed publicly in the cities, boroughs, market towns, ports, and other places in your bailiwick, where you think it will be appropriate, inside and outside the franchises, and ensure that they are observed and dutifully enacted. And do not omit this by any means, out of your regard for us and the commonwealth of our realm, and to save yourself harmless. Questions: Why was it deemed necessary to control wages after the plague epidemic swept through England? What measures does the ordinance institute? How does this document describe post-plague English society and labor relations? What assumptions about labor, wages, and poverty does it betray? What groups of people would be most affected by the decree, and why?

177

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

51. ORDINANCES AGAINST THE “JEWS, LEPERS, AND SWINE” AND THE POOR IN LATE MEDIEVAL LONDON Late medieval cities and their governments became increasingly attentive to the necessity of keeping growing urban populations in order. The need to ensure public safety and health became particularly apparent after the plague pandemic of 1348–51; the medieval understanding of public health, moreover, involved regulations related not only to urban pollution and sanitation but to immoral conduct. In England, regulations from London, the kingdom’s largest and wealthiest city, provide a good example. These laws were aimed primarily at the people on the margins of society who were often grouped together into a motley group of undesirable elements of urban life. The first document included here is a proclamation made in 1359 against the poor who were deemed to be able to work but subsisted by begging in the streets of London; they were told to leave the city or face punishment. The second document addresses a larger group of social outcasts. It comes from The White Book (Liber Albus, 1419), a collection of the city’s laws and ordinances written by John Carpenter (c. 1372–c. 1442), London’s town clerk. Toward the end of the book, Carpenter lists the titles of various ordinances grouped by topic; the list of ordinances against “Jews, lepers, and swine” and “sturdy beggars” is included here. In the book, this list of ordinances was followed by one dealing with prohibitions on prostitution and sexual immorality. Notably, by the time of writing, no Jews lived in England, having been expelled by King Edward I (r. 1272–1307) in 1290. Sources: trans. Henry Thomas Riley, Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Centuries: Being a Series of Extracts, Local, Social, and Political, from the Early Archives of the City of London, A.D. 1276–1419 (London: Longmans, 1868), pp. 304–05, revised; trans. Henry Thomas Riley, John Carpenter, Liber Albus: The White Book of the City of London (London: Richard Griffin and Company, 1861), pp. 508–09, revised.

Proclamation Made against Vagrants within the City (1359) Forasmuch as many men and women, and others, of diverse counties, who might work, to the help of the common people, have betaken themselves from out of their own country to the city of London, and do go about begging there, so as to have their own ease and repose, not wishing to labor or work for their sustenance, to the great damage of such the common people; and also, do waste diverse alms, which would otherwise be given to many poor folks, such as lepers, the blind, the halt [individuals with impaired mobility], and persons oppressed with old age and diverse other maladies, to the destruction of the support of the same: we do therefore command, on behalf of our lord the king, whom may God preserve and bless, that all those who go about begging in the said city, and who are able to labor and work, for the profit of the common people, shall quit the said city between now and Monday next ensuing. And if any such shall be 178

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

found begging after the day aforesaid, the same shall be taken and put in the stocks on the Cornhulle [market], for half a day the first time; and the second time, he shall remain in the stocks one whole day; and the third time, he shall be taken, and shall remain in prison for forty days, and shall then forswear the said city forever. And every constable, and the beadle of every ward of the said city, shall be empowered to arrest such manner of folks, and to put them in the stocks in manner aforesaid. John Carpenter, from The White Book (1419) If swine shall be found in the streets or in the fosses [trenches by the city walls], or in the suburbs, they shall be killed, and he who kills them shall have them; and he who shall wish to rear them, shall be at liberty to rear them, out of the king’s highways, in his own house (A 129) That no leper shall be in the city, or shall come there or make sojourn there (A 130) That no swine shall be found going about in the city, or in the fosses thereof (D 153) That no leper shall be going, coming, or sojourning in the city (D 154) Writ as to removing lepers from the city and suburbs (F 116) That no swine shall be going about in the city or in the suburbs thereof (G 29) That no leper shall be wandering about, or begging, within the city (G 192) Judgment as to a certain leper that he shall not remain within the city (G 289) That no swine shall be going about within the city or in the fosses thereof (Custum. 203) That no leper shall sojourn, or go about, in the city (Custum. 204) That such pigsties as are in the streets shall be removed; and if any swine shall be found in the streets, they shall be forfeited (A 33) Also, four men elected and sworn to take and kill such swine as shall be found wandering about within the walls of the city, to whomsoever they may belong (C 2) Ordinance as to swine (C fol. 130) The renter of St-Antony’s sworn that he will not avow any swine going about within the city, nor will hang bells about their necks, but only about those which shall have been given unto them in pure alms (D 122) Of Jews (Horn, 265) Of lepers (Horn, 265) The porters of the gates of the city sworn that they will not allow lepers to enter the city (H 20) Item, that no one who can gain his sustenance by labor shall go about begging (H 15) 179

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Item, that no one who can gain his sustenance, shall go about begging; and that no lazars [lepers] shall go about in the city (H 98) That the supervisors of lepers shall be discharged of assizes, juries, summonses, watches, etc. (I 199) Writ as to raising one hundred shillings upon a tenement of the lepers, and delivering the same unto such lepers for their sustenance (I [numerical reference omitted]) That all mendicants [that is, beggars] who can work shall leave the city (G 192) That no one who can work shall go about begging within the city (G 295) That all those who go about begging, and who can labor, shall leave the city (G 78) That all mendicants who can work shall be arrested (G 169) Questions: What does the first document against false begging suggest about late medieval views of charity? According to this document, which factors decided if a person was “worthy” of charity or not? Why does the second document group ordinances against “Jews, lepers, and swine” in one category? What might both documents tell us about the attempts at social control in late medieval London?

52. CHRISTINE DE PIZAN ON THE VIRTUES OF TOLERATION Christine de Pizan (1364–c. 1430) was a woman of letters in France and is widely considered to be the first female professional author. She is best known for her works directed at women, The City of Ladies and The Treasure of the City of Ladies (both finished by 1405); both not only recognize past contributions of women to society but also provide women of diverse social status with advice on how best to cultivate their virtues. Although not on the margins of French society, Christine was nevertheless an outsider. A foreigner, she was born in Venice and educated by her father, a scholar and a doctor at the French royal court. At twenty-five, Christine became a young widow, left to support her children, a niece, and her widowed mother; her literary career grew equally out of her financial and intellectual needs. As an outsider, Christine was a keen observer of French society and commented on its overall structure in her work, The Book of the Body Politic (1407). In that work, the author undertook the ambitious task of discussing the groups comprising France’s society as parts of a human body, dwelling on their respective functions, duties, and contributions to the body politic. Particularly novel—and unorthodox—was Christine’s decision to place the clergy among the lower, more functional components of the body, along with merchants, students, artisans, and laborers; the clergy’s role in society was important, but not essential. Overall, The Book of the Body Politic emphasizes the importance of maintaining 180

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

Figure 6.2  Portrait of Christine de Pizan from a fifteenth-century manuscript. 181

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

all parts of the body politic in a healthy and balanced state, without privileging one at the other’s expense. Source: trans. Kate Langdon Forhan, Christine de Pizan, The Book of the Body Politic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 90–91, 107–09.

Book Three: On the Common People Here begins the third part of this book, which is addressed to the universal people. Chapter 1: The First Chapter Discusses How the Estates Must Unite and Come Together In the first part of this book concerning the instruction of princes, we depicted the aforementioned prince or princes as the head of the body politic, as planned before. Thereafter followed the second part, on the education of nobles and knights, which are the arms and the hands. In this part, with God’s help, let us continue with what we can pluck from the authorities on this subject of the life of the body of the aforementioned polity, which means the whole of the people in common, described as the belly, legs, and feet, so that the whole be formed and joined in one whole living body, perfect and healthy. For just as the human body is not whole, but defective and deformed when it lacks any of its members, so the body politic cannot be perfect, whole, nor healthy if all the estates of which we speak are not well joined and united together. Thus, they can help and aid each other, each exercising the office which it has to, which diverse offices ought to serve only for the conservation of the whole community, just as the members of a human body aid to guide and nourish the whole body. And insofar as one of them fails, the whole feels it and is deprived by it. Thus it is appropriate to discuss the way the final parts of the body should be maintained in health and in well-being, for it seems to me that they are the support and have the burden of all the rest of the body, thus they need the strength and the power to carry the weight of the other parts. This is why, just as we said earlier, the good prince must love his subjects and his people, and we spoke of the office of nobles which is established to guard and defend the people. It is suitable to speak of the love, reverence, and obedience that his people should have for the prince. So let us say to all universally: all the estates owe the prince the same love, reverence, and obedience. But after I have said something about the increase of virtue in their life and manner of living, perhaps I will discuss the three ways the different classes ought to express the generalized principle. And because sometimes there are complaints among the three different 182

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

estates—princes, knights, and people—because it seems to each of them that the other two do not do their duty in their offices, which can cause discord among them, a most prejudicial situation, here is a moral tale told as a fable: Once upon a time there was great disagreement between the belly of a human body and its limbs. The belly complained loudly about the limbs and said that they thought badly of it and that they did not take care of it and feed it as well as they should. On the other hand, the limbs complained loudly about the belly and said they were all exhausted from work, and yet despite all their labor, coming and going and working, the belly wanted to have everything and was never satisfied. The limbs then decided that they would no longer suffer such pain and labor, since nothing they did satisfied the belly. So they would stop their work and let the belly get along as best it might. The limbs stopped their work and the belly was no longer nourished. So it began to get thinner, and the limbs began to fail and weaken, and so, to spite one another, the whole body died. Likewise, when a prince requires more than a people can bear, then the people complain against their prince and rebel by disobedience. In such discord, they all perish together. And thus I conclude [that] that agreement preserves the whole body politic. And so attests Sallust, “in concord, little things increase, and by discord, great things decrease.” . . . Chapter 9: The Third Class of the People Next comes the third rank of the people who are artisans and agricultural workers, which we call the last part of the body politic and who are like legs and feet, according to Plutarch, and who should be exceptionally well watched over and cared for so that they suffer no hurt, for that which hurts them can dangerously knock the whole body down. It is therefore more necessary to take good care and provide for them, since for the health of the body, they do not cease to go “on foot.” The varied jobs that the artisans do are necessary for the human body and it cannot do without them, just as a human body cannot go without its feet. It would shamefully and uselessly drag itself in great pain on its hands and body without them, just as, he [Plutarch] says, if the republic excluded laborers and artisans, it could not sustain itself. Thus although some think little of the office of the craftsman that the clerics call “artisans,” yet it is good, noble, and necessary, as said before. And among all the other good things which exist, so this one should be even more praised because, of all the worldly estates, this one comes closest to science. Artisans put into practice what science teaches, as Aristotle says in his Metaphysics, because their works are the 183

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

result of sciences, such as geometry, which is the science of measurement and proportion without which no craft could exist. To this a writer testifies, saying that the Athenians wanted to make a marvelous altar to Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, and because they wanted a notable and beautiful work above all, they sought advice from the best teachers. They went to the philosopher Plato as the most accomplished master of all the sciences, but he sent them to Euclid instead as the master of the art of measurement, because he created geometry which is read every day in general studies. And from this one can see that artisans follow science. For masons, carpenters, and all other workers in whatever crafts work according to the teachings of the sciences. “To be praised is to master a craft,” says Valerius, “so that art will follow nature.” When a worker properly copies a thing which nature has made, as when a painter who is a great artist makes the portrait of a man so lifelike and so well, that everyone recognizes him, or when he makes a recognizable bird or other beast; so too the sculptor of images makes a likeness, and so on. And so some say that art is the “apess” or the “ape” of nature, because a monkey imitates many of the ways of a man, just as art imitates many of the works of nature. But nonetheless, they say, art cannot imitate everything, so one ought to praise the skillful in art and believe those who have experience in it, for there is no doubt that no one speaks as appropriately of a thing as the one who knows it. And I believe the most skilled artisans of all crafts are more commonly in Paris than elsewhere, which is an important and beautiful thing. But to speak a little of the fact of their habits: I would to God they pleased God, but in themselves, for it would be pleasing to God if their lives were more sober and less licentious as is appropriate to their estate. For lechery in taverns and the luxuries they use in Paris can lead to many evil and unsuitable things. Aristotle speaks of the voluptuous life that such people and those like them lead, saying that many seem like beasts because they choose lechery before any other pleasures. And on the false opinion that gluttons have: In the second chapter of Wisdom, holy scripture says that they believe “the time of our life is short and full of troubles and in the end we have no rest, and so we use our youth to follow our desires, and we fill ourselves with wine and meat, and in everything leave the traces of our joy.” And without doubt, similar foolish and vain words can often be heard not only from simple people but from others believed wise for their position. So the people especially ought to heed preaching and sermons on the word of God, since for the most part they are not educated in the teachings of holy scripture. Good exhortations and sermons are beneficial for Christians to hear, as Justin recounts in the twentieth book of Trogus Pompeius about the city of Croton. They were pagans and unbelievers, and Pythagoras the philosopher, also 184

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

a pagan, reformed them through his exhortations on their evil lives. For while the people there were corrupt and inclined to gluttony, vice, and lechery, they were brought to continence and a pure life by the intervention of Pythagoras. This philosopher castigated most the vice of lechery and showed that because of it many cities had gone to ruin. He taught ladies and men the doctrine of honesty and chastity, and to be sober in their food and drink. And so Pythagoras, by his wise admonitions, made the ladies put aside their fancy clothes and the men their gluttonous lives. And for the twenty years that he lived there he continued his instruction. Justin says that in the city of Methaponthus in Puilla, from which Pythagoras came, people had so great a reverence for the house in which he was born that they made it a temple and adored Pythagoras as God because of the good he had done. Great is the need in many places for such a one, and also for people wanting to put to work that which he taught. Chapter 10: On Simple Laborers On the subject of simple laborers of the earth, what should I say of them when so many people despise and oppress them? Of all the estates, they are the most necessary, those who are cultivators of the earth which feed and nourish the human creature, without whom the world would end in little time. And really those who do them so many evils do not take heed of what they do, for anyone who considers himself a rational creature will hold himself obligated to them. It is a sin to be ungrateful for as many services as they give us! And really it is very much the feet that support the body politic, for they support the body of every person with their labor. They do nothing that is unpraiseworthy. God has made their office acceptable, first, because the two heads of the world, from whom all human life is descended, were laborers of the earth. The first head was Adam, the first father, of whom it is written in the second chapter of Genesis, “God took the first man and put him in a paradise of pleasures, to work, cultivate and take care of it.” And from this scripture one can draw two arguments to prove the honesty of labor: the first is that God commanded it and made it first of all crafts. The second, that this craft was created during the state of innocence. The second head of the world was Noah from whom, after the flood, all humans are descended. It is written in the ninth chapter [of Genesis] that Noah was a laborer, and after the flood he put himself to work on the land and planted vineyards. And so our fathers, the ancient patriarchs, were all cultivators of the earth and shepherds of beasts (whose stories I will not tell you for the sake of brevity), and in the olden days it was not an ignoble office nor unpraiseworthy. In his History of the Romans, Florus tells us how Diocletian, emperor of Rome, after many battles and victories, went for the rest of his life to the village called 185

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Sallon and his occupation was working on the land. Long after, the rulers of Rome were lacking good government, so Lentulius and Galerius sent to this admirable man to ask that he return to Rome and take over the empire. “Ah,” he said, “if you had seen the beautiful cabbages that I planted with my own hands, you would not require me to return to the empire.” And this was to say that he had more peace of mind in his state of poverty than in carrying a burden so large and perilous as an empire. And on this subject, in the third chapter of the fourth book Valerius tells of Actilus, the very worthy Roman who was taken from his work to be emperor. As he worked at his plow in the field, knights came to seek him, and he was made chief and leader of the whole Roman army. And he whose hands had been hardened by labor at the plow, after he had left the leadership of the army, reestablished the republic by his noble courage and with his hands. Said Valerius, “the hand which had governed a team of oxen behind the plow took up governing battle chariots.” And after many noble and great victories, he was not ashamed to leave the dignity of emperor and return to the work he had left behind. Because of these stories, we can understand that the estate of simple laborer or others of low rank should not be denigrated, as others would do. When those of the highest rank choose for their retirement a humble life of simplicity as the best for the soul and the body, then they are surely rich who voluntarily are poor. For they have no fear of being betrayed, poisoned, robbed, or envied, for their wealth is in sufficiency. For no one is rich without it, nor is there any other wealth. To confirm this, I will tell what Valerius said about sufficiency and about a very rich man who was very poor in having it. There was, Valerius said, a king in Lydia, who was named Gyges. His wealth was reputed to be so great that he went to ask the god Apollo whether there was anyone more happy than he. Apollo answered him that Agamis Soplidius was happier than he was. This Agamis was the poorest in Arcadia and he was very old. He never left his little field and was content with the small yield on which he lived and that which he had. Thus one can see how Apollo understood happiness to be sufficiency and not wealth, because in wealth one cannot have sufficiency, at least, not security, but instead a lot of concerns, and a plenitude of fears and worries. And so, King Gyges, who believed that the god ought to confirm that no one was happier than he, was mistaken in his vain opinion, and learned what pure and firm wealth and happiness were. Anaxagoras agreed that happiness is to have sufficiency. In the prologue to the Almagest, Ptolemy says “he is happy who does not care in whose hands the world is.” And that this saying is true is proven by all the sages, the poets, and especially, those perfect ones who have chosen a pure and poor life for their 186

s i x : p e o p l e o n t h e m a r g i n s o f m e d i e va l s o c i e t y

greatest surety. For although one can be saved in any estate, nonetheless it is more difficult to pass by flames and not be burned. There is no doubt that the estate of the poor which everyone despises has many good and worthy persons in purity of life. Questions: What is the author’s understanding of different groups composing French society and about their respective functions? In particular, what place in society does she assign to the artisans and the laborers? What does it say about her view of labor? What sources of authority does Christine de Pizan draw on to argue that manual laborers deserve respect?

187

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER SEVEN DI S E A S E A N D DI SA BI L I T Y I N M E DI E VA L E U ROPE

Figure 7.1  Saint Martin shares his cloak with a beggar. Medieval depictions of Saint Martin often portray him sharing a part of his cloak with a poorly clothed beggar. However, in this version of the scene, the two men alongside Martin are depicted with significant physical impairments. It is possible that the artist wanted to emphasize the beggars’ inability to provide for themselves, which made them into more “deserving” recipients of the saint’s charity.

189

This page intentionally left blank

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

53. DISABILITY AND CHARITY IN PIERS PLOWMAN Piers Plowman, a Middle English poem written in stages between about 1362 and 1390, discusses themes similar to those of other texts about the poor in late medieval England. Written in the wake of the plague, the poem—attributed to William Langland—is an allegorical meditation on salvation, a quest for truth and faith, and a discussion about idealized roles for every group in society. Ultimately, the poem is a meditation on the meaning of life and on the definition of a life well lived. In particular, the author is concerned with the social and economic problems of his day, questions about charity and its deserving and undeserving recipients. In the excerpt included here, its protagonist, Piers Plowman, receives a written pardon from Saint Truth, a personification of truth, who promises salvation to those who live pious lives. As he discusses who should be included in this pardon, Langland reveals contemporary attitudes toward beggars who purportedly refuse to work and to those poor who have been reduced to begging by their circumstances, in particular by their mental and physical impairments; the former are excluded from Truth’s pardon as their idleness precludes salvation, while the latter deserve charity. Written in Middle English, the poem is interspersed with Latin quotations from the Bible, various proverbs, and other sources; here, translations for the Latin quotations are provided in brackets. Source: trans. Henry W. Wells, William Langland, The Vision of Piers Plowman (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1935), pp. 91–95.

“. . . Bidders and beggars have no place in this pardon, Unless an honest impulse has induced them to begging. If one begs and bids and be not needy, He is as false as a fiend and defrauds the wretched, And beguiles the giver against his wishes. If the giver knew he were not needy, he would give another Who was more needy than he, and so the neediest be succored. Cato gives this counsel, with the clerk of history, Cui des videto [watch to whom you give], is Cato’s teaching. And he of the history teaches almsdeed as follows: Sit elemosina tua in manu tua, donec studes cui des. [Let your alms remain in your hand, while you consider to whom to give.] But Gregory was a good man, and bade us give to all men Who ask, in his love who lends us all: Non eligas cui miserearis, ne forte praetereas illum qui meretur accipere. Quia incertum est pro quo Deo magis placeas. [Do not chose whom to pity, lest you may pass by him who is worthy of receiving. For it is unknown who pleases God more.] 191

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

For who knows who is worthy? But God knows who is needy. The treachery is with the taker if he takes untruly. For he who gives yields, and may go to rest. And he who bids borrows and becomes a debtor. Beggars are ever borrowers, but God is their surety To pay those who pay them, and to pay with usury. Quare non dedisti pecuniam meam ad mensam, ut ego veniam cum usuris exigere? [Why did you not put my money on deposit, so that I may collect it with interest upon return?] Never bid, you beggars, but when your need is pressing. Who has enough to buy his bread, as the Book teaches, Has enough, for he has bread enough, though he have nothing further: Satis dives est, qui non indiget pane. [He is rich enough, who does not lack bread.] The needy are our neighbors, if we note rightly; As prisoners in cells, or poor folk in hovels, Charged with children and overcharged by landlords. What they may spare in spinning they spend on rental, On milk, or on meal to make porridge To still the sobbing of the children at meal time. Also they themselves suffer much hunger. They have woe in winter time, and wake at midnight To rise and to rock the cradle at the bedside, To card and to comb, to darn clouts and to wash them, To rub and to reel and to put rushes on the paving. The woe of these women who dwell in hovels Is too sad to speak of or to say in rhyme. And many other men have much to suffer From hunger and from thirst; they turn the fair side outward, For they are abashed to beg, lest it should be acknowledged At their neighbors what they need at noon and even. I know all this well; for the world has taught me What befalls another who has many children, With no claim but his craft to clothe and feed them, When the mouths are many and the money scarce. They have bread and penny ale in place of a pittance, And cold flesh and cold fish for venison from the butcher. On Fridays and fast days a farthing worth of mussels Would be a feast for such folk, with a few cockles. It were an alms to help all with such burdens, And to comfort such cottagers and crooked men and blind folk. 192

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

But beggars with bags, to whom breweries are churches, Unless they are blind or broken or otherwise enfeebled— May they fall on their false faces and famine cling to them! Reck [think] nothing of them, you rich folk, though such wretches perish. All who have their health and their eyes at service, And limbs with which to labor, and who live as lollers, Live against God’s law and the law of holy Church. But there are other beggars, healthy in appearance, Who want their wits—men and women also. They are lunatic lollers [vagrants] and leapers about the country, And are mad as the moons grow more or less. They are careless of winter and careless of summer; They move with the moon, and are moneyless travelers, With a good will, but witless, through many wide countries. So Peter and Paul traveled, except that these preach not And are no makers of miracles. And many times they happen To prophesy to the people, in sport, one may imagine. But to my sight it seems that since God is able To make each one whole, and witty, and wealthy, And suffers such wanderers—it seems to my conscience That such people are as his apostles, or as his privy disciples; For he has sent them forth silverless, in a summer garment, Without bag or bread, as the Book tells us: Quando misi vos sine pane et pera. [When I sent you out without bread or a bag.] They are barefoot and breadless, and beg of no man; And though one meets with the mayor in the midst of the city, He renders him no reverence, no more than to another. Neminem salutaveris per viam. [Do not salute anyone on the way.] Such manner of men, Saint Matthew tells us, We should have in our houses, and help on their journey: Et egenos vagosque induc in domum tuam. [And to bring the needy and the wayfarer in your home.] For they are men of merry mouths, minstrels of heaven, God’s servants and God’s jesters, as the scripture teaches: Si quis videtur sapiens, fiet stultus ut sit sapiens [If anyone seem wise, let him become a fool so that he may be wise.] It is right for rich men to receive singers And all manner of minstrels, and make them at their leisure, 193

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

For the lords’ and ladies’ sakes who live with them. Men suffer all that they say and set it to merriment, And do much more for these men before their parting— Give them gifts of gold for great men’s tokens. Much rather, you rich men, should you receive truly, Welcome and honor and help with your presents, God’s minstrels and his messengers and his merry jesters, Who are lunatic lollers and leapers about the country; For under God’s secret seal their sins are covered. They bear no bags and bottles under their clothing, Nor lead the loller’s life, like lewd hermits, Who look lowly to lift men of their almsdeeds. Such hope to sit at evening by the hot chimney, To unlock their legs, and lie at their leisure, Rest and roast and turn a rump to the fire. They drink the can dry and then down to sleep, And rise when they are ready; and none can rout them earlier. When these wretches have risen they roam about corners, Where refreshment is the readiest—a round of bacon, Silver or sodden meat, or sometimes both together, A loaf, or a half a loaf, or lumps from cheeses. Then they carry it to their cots and get their living By idleness and ease and other’s labor. The wretch of this rout who roams the country With a bag at his back, in beggar’s fashion, And can work at a craft, in case he wish it, Through which he could come by corn and ale And a cloak to cover him and keep him from the weather, Who still lives like a loller—God’s law damns him! Lollers living in sloth and land roamers Are not in this pardon,” said Piers, “till they practice better, Nor beggars who beg but are never needy. The Book blames all beggary and bans it thus: Junior fui, et jam senui et non vidi justum derelictum, nec semen ejus, etc. [I have been young and now I am old, and yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed, etc.] For your lives are without love, and without law or reason. Many of you are unwedded to the women you consort with; And bring forth bastards and beggars’ children; Or you break the back or a bone in childhood, And are found begging with your infants forever after. 194

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

There are more misshapen among these beggars Than in all manner of men who move among us. He who lives their life, at his last hour May wail the hour that ever he was born. Whoever is old and hoary and helpless and strengthless, And women with child, who are unfit for working, The blind and the bedridden and all with broken members, And all patient poor folk, lepers, and others, Shall have as perfect a pardon as the Plowman himself. For love of their lowly hearts our Lord has granted them Their penance and their purgatory in their present station.” Questions: Who is deserving and undeserving of charity in medieval society, according to the poem? What is the poet’s view of disability in late medieval society? What types of impairments does the author discuss? How do poverty and disability figure in the poem’s promise of salvation?

54. FALSE DISABILITY ON THE STREETS OF LONDON The Late Middle Ages saw the advent of laws restricting and even criminalizing begging (docs. 50 and 51) and, in some cases, making the giving of alms to “unworthy” beggars a crime as well. The necessity to show charity only to those who deserved it made a discernment between the worthy and unworthy poor into a task that was fraught with uncertainty. The sick or the infirm were expected to rely on begging, especially if their impairments manifested themselves in such a way that clearly identified such individuals as unable to work and therefore deserving of charity. The situation was often trickier for individuals with less apparent physical or mental impairments. This unfortunate situation was not helped by the fact that there were some instances of fraudulent begging; once apprehended, these impostors were punished in a public manner, which only added to the environment of distrust toward all impaired individuals seeking alms. The excerpt here details the apprehension and punishment of two men who begged for alms in London by claiming that their tongues were cut out by brigands. Source: trans. Henry Thomas Riley, Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Centuries: Being a Series of Extracts, Local, Social, and Political, from the Early Archives of the City of London, A.D. 1276–1419 (London: Longmans, 1868), pp. 445–46, revised.

On 24 October, in the fourth year etc., John Warde, of the county of York, and Richard Lynham, of the county of Somerset, two impostors, were brought to the hall of the Guildhall of London, before John Hadlee, mayor, the aldermen, and the sheriffs, and questioned for that, whereas they were stout enough 195

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Figure 7.2  A ward in Hôtel-Dieu Hospital in Paris.

to work for their food and raiment, and had their tongues to talk with, they, the same John Warde and Richard Lynham, did there pretend that they were mutes, and had been deprived of their tongues; and went about in diverse places of the city aforesaid, carrying in their hands two ell measures, an iron hook and pincers, and a piece of leather, in shape like part of a tongue, edged with silver, and with writing around it, to this effect: “This is the tongue of John Warde,” with which instruments, and by means of diverse signs, they gave many persons to understand that they were traders, in token whereof they carried the said ell measures; and that they had been plundered by robbers of their goods; and that their tongues had also been drawn out with the said hook, and then cut off with the pincers; they making a horrible noise, like unto a roaring, and opening their mouths; where it seemed to all who examined the same, that their tongues had been cut off; to the defrauding of other poor and infirm persons, and in manifest deceit of the whole of the people, etc. Wherefore, they were asked how they would acquit themselves thereof; upon which, they acknowledged that they had done all the things above imputed to them. And as it appeared to the court that of their evil intent and falsity they had done the things aforesaid, and in deceit of all the people; and to the end that other persons might beware of such and the like evil intent, falsity, and deceit, it was awarded that they should be put upon the pillory on three different days, each time for one hour in the day; namely, 196

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

on the Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, before the Feast of Saint Simon and Saint Jude [28 October]; the said instruments being hung about their necks each day. And precept was given to the sheriffs to do execution of the judgment aforesaid, and to have proclamation there made each day, as to the cause thereof; which punishment being completed, they were instructed to have them taken back to the jail of Newgate, there to remain until orders should be given for their release. Questions: Why was claiming a false disability perceived (and punished) as a serious crime? What assumptions about disability does this document demonstrate? When authorities wanted to distinguish between real and false disability, what dangers were posed to individuals with less apparent impairments?

55. RULES OF THE MAISON-DIEU IN PONTOISE Maison-Dieu (the French term for an almshouse, literally, “house of God”) was a name for a charitable foundation established to provide housing, food, and care for the poorest members of medieval society, as well as the sick, people with impairments, the aged, and pregnant women. While crucial sources of charity, these establishments were influenced by religious understandings of charity and operated with strict semi-monastic rules for both the inmates and those who cared for them. Strict discipline enforced at a Maison-Dieu and its regimen of piety and prayer assured the wealthy donors, who wished to perform good works by giving money to charity, that their donations would have the desired effect. As a result, almshouses, along with hospitals, became frequent targets of charitable donations from the nobility, wealthy merchants, and burghers, as well as from craft guilds that set aside funds for the care of their elderly members. The following rules are excerpts from a longer list of regulations for the Maison-Dieu in Pontoise, France. In particular, the rules of this almshouse prescribed regular confessions for the inmates—especially those in poor health—in accordance with the principle of taking care of a patient’s soul before attending to her or his body. Source: trans. Maryanne Kowaleski, Medieval Towns: A Reader (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), pp. 261–63.

. . . the number of brothers should not be more than seven, of which five should be clerics, and of these five clerics, at least three should be priests, and the other two lay brothers. And [there should be] thirteen sisters and no more should be professed. . . . Both the sisters and brothers owe all obedience to the prior. . . . [Then follow statutes setting out the liturgy to be celebrated in the hospital church.] All the brothers and sisters should confess at least once every other week. The confessions should be heard in an honest and common place [medieval 197

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

confession was said in public, not in private] between the sun rising and the sun falling, and if necessary, can be heard in the infirmary for the sisters who are ill. . . . When anyone visits the ill sisters, there should always be someone who can see them talking together. . . . The sisters cannot grow their hair long, but should have it shaved or cut at least every month. The tonsure of the brothers should be done above the ears; the haircut of the clerics should be done beneath, not too short, so that it doesn’t come more than three fingers length below the ears. From Easter to the Exaltation of the Cross [14 September], they should have it cut about every other week, and from the Exaltation of the Cross to Easter, every third week. . . . The sisters should keep silent in their oratory, in the refectory [where they eat] and in the dormitory. If by chance, when they do not have a sign for something, they can speak a word or a prayer, briefly and quietly. . . . The sisters should not talk to men of the household unless for a special reason. . . . The brothers should keep silent in their dormitory and refectory. If by chance they have to talk for something necessary, they should do so briefly and quietly. . . . The brothers and sisters going into town cannot eat or drink outside the hospital, nor can the sisters go out by themselves. When they go out, the first one in the order should be the first to go out, if the prior of the hospital has not ordered otherwise. Without license, no brother or sister can go outside the hospital except with the license of their sovereign. The clerical and lay brothers who reside in the town can eat and drink outside the hospital, or with the bishop or abbot, but not a lot and with the license of their sovereign. . . . Before the ill person can be received, he should confess his sins and, if there is need, should devoutly and honestly receive communion. After this, he should be carried to bed and there, as if he was lord of the house, be treated charitably and reverently. Each day, before the brothers and the sisters eat, charitably satisfied with any meat and drink that he might demand to be given to him, according to the wealth of the house and his profit. And if he arrives with a great infirmity . . . such that he must be removed from the common company of the patients, he should be put in the infirmary with the most gravely ill . . . and diligently visited by confessors. . . . And when he should recover health, he should be kept in the hospital for seven days, so that he will not relapse. . . . The prioress should assign at least three sisters by day and two at night with two or more chambermaids, when there is need, to look after the patients, for their sustenance and their comfort. If something is sent or given to the poor patients . . . it should be distributed to them just as the donor or sender has ordered. . . . 198

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

Pregnant women who will be received into the house, after giving birth, can be cared for three weeks, or for however long they wish to be there. Everything that needs to be done to ensure the baptism of the child . . . should be at the expense of the house; and what is given to the child at his baptism should belong to the child and will be given to the mother when she wishes to leave. If the mother dies at the house, the child should be nourished likewise in the house if there is no father. . . . [Most of the remaining statutes treat the entry of brothers and sisters into the order, novices, their religious and moral behavior, and the entry of young women into the order.] Questions: What concerns shaped the rules for the Maison-Dieu? What aspects of care were deemed particularly important? Why was discipline important to the author of these rules? Whose behavior was it expected to control and why?

56. PHYSICIAN GILBERT THE ENGLISHMAN ON THE SYMPTOMS OF LEPROSY Leprosy ( from the Greek lepís, “scale”), which manifested itself most visibly on a patient’s skin, was a disease that attracted a lot of attention and fear in medieval society. The conspicuous nature of leprosy sometimes led to the discrimination or social exclusion of the individual suffering from it (docs. 58 and 59). While modern doctors associate leprosy (or Hansen’s disease) with a bacterium, Mycobacterium leprae, and the disease is generally not considered to be highly infectious, no such knowledge was available to medieval medical practitioners. Moreover, leprosy can cause a variety of symptoms: nodules and lesions, unusual numbness or sensitivity of the skin, and tissue loss; most of these, of course, can also be caused by other medical conditions. As a result of the poorly understood nature of the disease and of the fear of disfigurement associated with it, any individual with a visible skin condition was at risk of being “diagnosed” with leprosy. Medieval doctors themselves understood this problem well and tried to come up with a definitive diagnostic guide. One such guide, from the mid-thirteenth century, was written by Gilbert the Englishman (active c. 1250), who attempted to provide a diagnostic tool for other physicians, while also trying to explain the varied and uncertain symptoms of leprosy. He did so by using the reigning medical paradigm of the period, the humoral theory. This was the idea that all diseases and their symptoms are caused by and depend on the imbalance of four fluids (or humors) in the body: black and yellow bile, blood, and phlegm. Source: trans. Michael R. McVaugh, Gilbert the Englishman, “Compendium medicine,” in A Source Book in Medieval Science, ed. Edward Grant (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974), pp. 752–54.

199

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

The General Symptoms of Leprosy It is important to recognize the disease of leprosy, together with its antecedent and conjoint causes, from its proper symptoms; first in general, then after analysis according to its species, for a clearer understanding. One symptom is a permanent loss of sensation, coming from within, particularly of the last digits of both the hands and feet, namely the smallest digit and the one next to it; and of the muscle, from the little finger to the elbow or even the shoulder, and from the toe to the knee and sometimes above. A coldness in these places named above is another sign. . . . This coldness sometimes occurs without any clear external cause and is in some cases permanent. Should there be an external cause of cold, these places are easily chilled; from such causes there may be produced a brief numbness and prickling in the forehead, palate, tongue, eyelids, and brows—first as if from ants, then as if from needles, and finally as if from large spines. Prickling is an equivocal symptom, though, and may mean leprosy or paralysis. Leprosy is in the muscles and flesh and the external parts; paralysis is in the nerves and is accompanied by debility of the nerves. Lucidity of the skin is also a symptom, seen because the natural folds of the skin are not present; it is instead stretched into a similitude to very thin polished leather. There is consumption of the muscles, leaving empty space, but this is equivocal and may also indicate a wasting disease. Similarly, distortion of the joints of the foot and hands, and of the mouth and nose [is a symptom]; this is preceded by a tickling sensation, as if some living thing were fluttering about within the body, the thorax, the arms, or the lips. A motion can be felt there which is even apparent to the sight; it sometimes affects the eye and distorts it. This is a very sure symptom. There will be fetidity of the breath, the sweat, and the skin, although this indication can be erroneous. The site [of the disease] will lose its hair, and the hair that grows back will be very fine, so fine that it cannot be seen unless looked at against the sun. Sometimes none grows back at all. When the eyebrows and lashes lose their hair, it is the worst of all signs. Hoarseness and obstruction of the nostrils are also general signs, [assuming they do not derive] from any other cause. When the affected parts are washed, water will run off the skin, just as if it had been oiled; this is a very bad sign; so too if the place is rubbed briskly and the water disappears. The corners of the eyes grow round and brilliant. The skin rises into little pimples, like those that appear on the skin of a plucked goose, even if there has been no touch or chilliness to cause this. The blood drawn off in phlebotomy [bloodletting] is greasy and contains sand. . . . Tumors accompany the loss of hair from the eyebrows. Lepers search for sexual pleasure more

200

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

than usual and more than they should; they are ardent in the act, yet find themselves weaker than usual. Their skin is tormented by a persistent itching; they suffer inordinately now from heat and now from cold. They do not often come down with fever nor suffer with a quartan [repeating every four days] fever. When they do, it comes on them only once or twice; or if it comes on more often, it indicates the resolution [dissipation of the disbalanced humors] and cure of the leprous matter. . . . They will suddenly feel a coldness, as if cold water were passing between their skin and their flesh or over their skin; it sometimes seems to them as though drops of rain were striking them on the face or on some other part of the body. They become enraged more easily than usual. Their blood, washed, is lumpy and has a fetid odor. Their eyes become distorted, rimmed with red, striking horror into those who see them. Grains will be found under their tongues, as in leprous swine. Also, if blood is rubbed in the palm of the hand and squeaks or is too greasy, or if the blood passing into clear still water remains on the surface, it is a sign of leprosy. . . . If urine poured over blood mixes easily with it, it is a bad sign. If vinegar poured over blood bubbles and does not mix with it, as it would mix with something dry, it is a sign of corruption; so is fetidity of the blood. The urine of lepers is thin of substance, sometimes containing hairs and sand. The Symptoms Proper to Each Kind of Leprosy Now that we have described the symptoms [of leprosy] is general, we will discuss them in relation to their antecedent causes, namely the four humors. The leprosy caused by adust [overheated] melancholic [black bile] blood, or blood infected [tainted] with adust melancholy, is called elephantia [“elephant disease”]; that caused by adust choleric [yellow bile] blood, or choler scorching and infecting blood, is called leonina [“lion disease”]; that caused by adust phlegmatic blood, or blood infected with adust phlegm, is called tyria [“serpent disease”]; and that caused by blood adust and corrupt in its own right, or corrupted by something external, is called allopicia [“fox disease”]. These varieties are rarely found uncombined; indeed, we frequently find two or three or four forms occurring together. The combination is to be interpreted according to the symptoms of the individual varieties and a compound medicine administered according to the combination of symptoms. Questions: If many symptoms of leprosy could, in fact, be symptoms of other illnesses, what dangers could incorrect diagnosis pose to a patient? How well understood was leprosy by medieval physicians? What is the significance of Gilbert the Englishman’s remark that lepers tend to have more sexual desire? How might a contemporary interpret it?

201

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

57. HUMBERT OF ROMANS PREACHES TO THE LEPERS While medieval physicians tried to devise guides for diagnosing leprosy and for explaining its varied symptoms using humoral theory, the Church approached individuals suffering from leprosy from theological and moral standpoints. From the perspective of the clergy, sinfulness constituted a sickness of the soul, which, in turn, manifested itself as a sickness of the body; by addressing the former through confession and repentance, an individual could recover from an illness or at least learn to bear it patiently. Similarly, leprosy was often perceived as a sign of moral depravity. Even the physician Gilbert the Englishman claimed that patients with leprosy “search for sexual pleasure more than usual and more than they should” (doc. 56); as they were associated with excessive pleasures of the flesh, medieval lepers were convenient targets of moralizing sermons exhorting them to repent. One such sermon was written by Humbert of Romans (c. 1200–77), a French friar and later minister-general of the Dominican Order. Humbert included it in his collection of model sermons, aimed to help less experienced friars to deliver effective sermons to diverse audiences based on age, gender, profession, and social standing. The overall goal of Humbert’s collection was to remind all groups in medieval society of their religious obligations and his model sermon aimed at the lepers accomplished this goal by calling on its audience to abandon their purported sinful behavior and use their suffering—following the biblical figure of Job as a model—to contemplate the everlasting life. Source: trans. Michael Goodich, Other Middle Ages: Witnesses at the Margins of Medieval Society (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), pp. 146–49.

Since these sick persons never come to hear sermons along with other people, it is regarded as an extremely pious act to visit them from time to time or even, when one finds them in a place where one is praying, to talk to them about God, altogether or in a group. But since they have invariably shown themselves incapable of patience, whoever is talking should take care not to make reference to their disease by its proper name of leprosy, since that is very displeasing to them, but rather to talk about it in a general way. One should always avoid anything which might make them angry, but rather to address them with sweetness and compassion. This is what one ought to say to them. One should note that some of them abuse the discipline which God grants them, so that the conditions of their illness lead them to commit many sins. They blaspheme God like persons in hell as a result of the injuries they have received. They are filled with anger over the behavior of others, whom they curse for having abandoned them. They fight among themselves and sometimes get excited and beat each other. They throw at each other the charity they have received, lacking even the most minimal mutual loyalty. They stuff themselves with food and get drunk as a result of an excess of food. Putting aside any rein on the fires of their desire, they abandon 202

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

themselves to lust and filthy behavior, which I prefer not to report. They give themselves up to all of this and also to other evils even worse than this, as someone who had acted this way said to God, “Lord, you have deprived me of my body, while I deprive you of my soul.” Unfortunately for them, they have nothing left for the Lord, for they have stripped themselves naked, since they have lost their bodies in this world and have lost their souls in the next. They are “oppressed by a double oppression” [Jer. 17:18], like Herod, who after the grave illness which had been inflicted on him in his earthly life went to hell [Acts 12:23]. Others, although they may not do evil, nevertheless do nothing good. They spend their lives in bitterness and grief, barely or not at all thinking about their salvation. Job expresses it in their name when he says, in chapter 10, “I am sickened of life, I will give free rein to my griefs, I will speak out in bitterness of soul, etc.” [Job 10:1]. Others make use of this scourge for the good of their souls. Instead of acting evilly when they suffer blows or spending their time in grief, they do everything for the sake of the future, when this disease will come to an end, for the sake of eternal salvation. That is why they renounce their past sins, as is written in Ecclesiasticus 18[:20–21], “Before you fall sick, examine yourself,” by which is understood, “your past behavior.” They confess their sins to priests, in accordance with the statement addressed to the leprous in Luke 17[:14] “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” They avoid performing new sins as a consequence of their disease, following Job’s example when he says, in Job 2[:10] “throughout all of this,” in other words throughout all the evils he suffered, “Job did not utter one sinful word,” not against God, not against his neighbor, or against his wife. Furthermore, they suffer everything with patience, again comforted by the example of Job in accordance with the statement in the last chapter of the epistle of James [5:11], “You have all heard how Job stood firm.” For indeed, such an example should give them courage. If Job, who was a king, or nearly one, and even rather rich, and innocent in everything, was able to bear with such patience the loss of so much and of his own sons, and was able to bear such a painful and horrible disease, “smote with running sores from head to foot” [Job 2:7]; how much more should those who are not as well provided as he was, show patience in the face of lesser trials. It is again necessary to recall that love of this life provides the occasion to do evil, as Saint Sebastian showed in his speech before Mark and Marcellinus, when he finished his listing of many great evil deeds in this way, “Is it not the love of this life which leads one to do all of this?” But this harsh, hopeless, terrible disease makes all the joys of life bitter, and it should in fact separate oneself from the love of this life, just as the bitter of the unguent which is placed around the womb separated the infant from its love of the womb. The bitterness of this life should also lead us to desire another happy life which is devoid of bitterness. As Augustine says, “The unpleasantness which grows in this fragile life makes us 203

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

desire eternal rest.” That is why those who are immersed in the bitterness of this disease ought to strive strongly for this happy life. This is what a leprous person who was religious did, who behaved in a holy way in his disease. One day when he was very thirsty, turning his soul toward God, he sighed and said, “Whoever drinks the water that I shall give him will never suffer thirst any more” [John 4:13]. And he immediately received the Spirit. This painful disease should also make one fear future suffering. For if the blow of the staff is hard, how much sharper will be the blow of the sword when the Lord wields “his mighty and powerful sword” [Isa. 27:1]! Oh, how much was this suffering dreaded by Augustine when he said, “Lord, burn me here, injure me here,” etc., and by the prophet who said, “My lips quiver at the sound, trembling comes over my bones, and my feet totter in their tracks, I sigh for the day of distress” [Hab. 3:16]. It is very clear that those who know how to make use of this disease, beside the other goods which they will acquire, are brought to feel contempt for the present life, to yearn for the future life, and to fear the pains of the world to come. The theme is Ecclesiasticus 38[:9]: “My son, if you have an illness, do not neglect it.” It should be known that there are sick persons who neglect their souls and others who do not. In order to understand such persons, one should know that there are some among them, etc., as is written above. Questions: How does the author characterize leprosy and those suffering from it? How does he suggest that one provide spiritual care to the lepers? While some medieval authors tried to find medical explanations for leprosy, how does Humbert of Romans explain its origins?

58. THE RITUAL OF EXCLUSION FOR A LEPER Leprosy occupied a special place in medieval imagination. Lepers figured in the Bible and attracted charity. They were also feared and sometimes marginalized as potential sources of contagion. The outward disfigurement of a leper’s body was widely associated with internal problems, a visible mark of sin and wickedness. As a result, lepers could be expelled from towns and villages or mistreated by local officials. Some lived in specialized communes or hospitals, along with other individuals diagnosed with leprosy, although recent research suggests that these institutions were far less secluded than it has been thought previously. Still, special rituals were sometimes devised to formally separate a leper from her or his community. The ritual described here comes from a fifteenth-century edition of the Sarum Manual, a liturgical manual popular in late medieval England containing a collection of religious rites from earlier period. Although earlier scholarship used to take this ritual of exclusion as typical of medieval attitudes toward leprosy, there is little evidence that it was ever performed; however, it demonstrates a strand of medieval thinking about this disease and its containment. The document prescribes an individual recognized as a leper 204

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

to undergo a ritual that resembled a funeral rite in which a parish priest both performed the ritual and introduced the leper to her or his new form of existence. From that day on, the individual’s social status changed, leaving them dependent on the goodwill and support of the community as a whole. Generally speaking, lepers and leper hospitals were frequent targets of charity, but in some cases attitudes toward them could change dramatically toward persecution (see doc. 59). Despite the advent of modern medicine, mistreatment of lepers only increased in the nineteenth century, driven by exaggerated fears of the disease’s contagiousness. Discrimination and forced seclusion in remote leper colonies continued into the twentieth century. Source: trans. Rotha Mary Clay, The Medieval Hospitals of England (London: Frank Cass, 1909), pp. 273–76, revised.

First of all the sick man or the leper clad in a cloak and in his usual dress, being in his house, ought to have notice of the coming of the priest who is on his way to the house to lead him to the church, and must in that guise wait for him. For the priest vested in surplice and stole, with the cross going before, makes his way to the sick man’s house and addresses him with comforting words, pointing out and proving that if he blesses and praises God, and bears his sickness patiently, he may have a sure and certain hope that though he be sick in body he may be whole in soul, and may reach the home of everlasting welfare. And then with other words suitable to the occasion let the priest lead the leper to the church, when he has sprinkled him with holy water, the cross going before, the priest following, and last of all the sick man. Within the church let a black cloth, if it can be had, be set upon two trestles at some distance apart before the altar, and let the sick man take his place on bended knees beneath it between the trestles, after the manner of a dead man, although by the grace of God he yet lives in body and spirit, and in this posture let him devoutly hear Mass. When this is finished, and he has been sprinkled with holy water, he must be led with the cross through the presbytery to a place where a pause must be made. When the spot is reached the priest shall counsel him out of holy scripture, saying: “Remember your end and you shall never do amiss” [Ecclus. 7:40]. Whence Augustine says: “He readily esteems all things lightly, whoever bears in mind that he will die.” The priest then with the spade casts earth on each of his feet, saying: “Be dead to the world, but alive again unto God.” And he comforts him and strengthens him to endure with the words of Isaiah spoken concerning our Lord Jesus Christ: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted” [Isa. 53:4]; let him say also: “If in weakness of body by means of suffering you are made like unto Christ, you may surely hope that you will rejoice in spirit with God. May the most high grant this to you, numbering you among his faithful ones in the book of life. Amen.” 205

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

It is to be noted that the priest must lead him to the church, from the church to his house as a dead man, chanting the responsory Libera me, Domine [“Deliver me, O Lord”], in such wise that the sick man is covered with a black cloth. And the Mass celebrated at his seclusion may be chosen either by the priest or by the sick man, but it is customary to say the following: . . . [followed by a model Mass] When leaving the church after Mass the priest ought to stand at the door to sprinkle him with holy water. And he ought to commend him to the care of the people. Before Mass the sick man ought to make his confession in the church, and never again; and in leading him forth the priest again begins the responsory Libera me, Domine, with the other versicles. Then when he has come into the open fields he does as is aforesaid; and he ends by imposing prohibitions upon him in the following manner: I forbid you ever to enter churches, or to go into a market, or a mill, or a bakehouse, or into any assemblies of people. Also I forbid you ever to wash your hands or even any of your belongings in spring or stream of water of any kind; and if you are thirsty you must drink water from your cup or some other vessel. Also I forbid you ever henceforth to go out without your leper’s dress that you may be recognized by others; and you must not go outside your house unshod. Also I forbid you, wherever you may be, to touch anything which you wish to buy, otherwise than with a rod or staff to show what you want. Also I forbid you ever henceforth to enter taverns or other houses if you wish to buy wine; and take care even that what they give you they put into your cup. Also I forbid you to have intercourse with any woman except your own wife. Also I command you when you are on a journey not to return an answer to anyone who questions you, till you have gone off the road to leeward, so that he may take no harm from you; and that you never go through a narrow lane lest you should meet someone. Also I charge you if need require you to pass over some tollway through rough ground, or elsewhere, that you touch no posts or things whereby you cross, till you have first put on your gloves. Also I forbid you to touch infants or young folk, whosoever they may be, or to give to them or to others any of your possessions. Also I forbid you henceforth to eat or drink in any company except that of lepers. And know that when you die you will be buried in your own house, unless it be, by favor obtained beforehand, in the church. 206

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

And note that before he enters his house, he ought to have a coat and shoes of fur, his own plain shoes, and his signal the clappers, a hood and a cloak, two pair of sheets, a cup, a funnel, a girdle, a small knife, and a plate. His house ought to be small, with a well, a couch furnished with coverlets, a pillow, a chest, a table, a seat, a candlestick, a shovel, a pot, and other needful articles. When all is complete the priest must point out to him the ten rules which he has made for him; and let him live on earth in peace with his neighbor. Next must be pointed out to him the ten commandments of God, that he may live in heaven with the saints, and the priest repeats them to him in the presence of the people. And let the priest also point out to him that every day each faithful Christian is bound to say devoutly the Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, and the Creed, and to protect himself with the sign of the cross, saying often Benedicite. When the priest leaves him he says: “Worship God, and give thanks to God. Have patience, and the Lord will be with you. Amen.” Questions: What were the main components of the ritual of exclusion and what did they mean? What types of behavior and social interactions were forbidden to lepers? What does it say about medieval understanding of this disease?

59. THE LEPER PLOT AGAINST CHRISTENDOM The following excerpt from the Chronicle of Guillaume of Nangis was written by the anonymous second author of the Chronicle, who continued it after Guillaume of Nangis died in 1300. The main subject of this passage is the so-called Leper Plot of 1321. Taking place in the kingdom of France, the plot demonstrates the anxieties of a population still struggling with the aftershocks of the Great Famine (1315–17). The Leper Plot was based on unsubstantiated rumors and fears held across medieval society; at its core lay the conviction that western Christendom was under attack from multiple enemies—external and internal—who plotted to destroy it. It is a classic conspiracy theory, which combines fear and distrust associated with western Christendom’s internal “others,” Jews and lepers, and fears of a Muslim invasion. As a result, the Leper Plot imagined a completely unreal, but nonetheless frightening possibility of internal and external “others” collaborating to bring about the demise of Christians in Europe. Rich with details about the alleged conspirators, their motives and methods, the excerpt, especially in its treatment of Europe’s Jewish communities, is reminiscent of the later well-poisoning accusations that spread in 1349–50 during the plague pandemic (docs. 13 and 14). There are also similarities between the Leper Plot and pre-existing tropes of medieval anti-Judaism, especially the blood libel (doc. 9). Fears that any individual with leprosy could be involved in the plot led to large-scale attacks on the leper hospitals and communities across the region. Rumors of the plot 207

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

crossed the Pyrenees from France into the Crown of Aragon, where local leper communities also fell victim to violence. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Chronique Latine de Guillaume de Nangis de 1113 à 1300 avec les continuations de cette chronique de 1300 à 1368, ed. H. Géraud (Paris: J. Renouard, 1843), vol. 2, pp. 31–35.

In the year of the Lord 1321, the king of France visited his land, the county of Poitou, which he held from his father by hereditary right, and he had resolved, it is said, to remain there for a long time, when about the feast of Saint John the Baptist [24 June] a public rumor reached to his and everyone’s ears that, all over Aquitaine, springs and wells had been or would soon be infected with poison by lepers. Many lepers, confessing this crime, had already been condemned to death and burned in the northern part of Aquitaine. Their design was, as they confessed in the flames, to spread poison everywhere, to kill all Christians, or at least to turn them into lepers like them, and they wanted to expand such evil deeds to all of France and Germany. It is said, for greater confirmation of the truth of these rumors, that around this time the lord of Parthenay wrote a letter to the king, sealed with his own seal, containing the confession of a certain notorious leper whom he had taken in his land. He had, it is said, confessed that a rich Jew had led him to commit these crimes, had given him the poison and ten pounds, and promised to give him much money to bribe other lepers. When asked for the recipe for these poisons, he replied that they were made with human blood and urine, and three herbs which he did not know or did not want to name. The body of Christ [the host] is added there, as he said, and when the whole mixture was dry, it was crushed and reduced to powder, which was put in sacks, tied up with something heavy, and thrown into the wells and the springs. We also saw with our own eyes, in our town, and ruled by us in Poitou, potions from a leper who, passing by and fearing to be caught, threw behind her a tied rag, which was immediately brought to the authorities. Inside the rag was found a snake’s head, the feet of a toad, and the hair of a woman, mixed in with a kind of very black and foul liquid, so that it was disgusting not only to sense but also to see. All this thrown into a great fire lit for that purpose, but could in no way burn, a clear proof that it was a poison of the strongest kind. The king, hearing these facts and others of this kind, hurriedly returned to France, and ordered to imprison the lepers across his kingdom, until a just decision about them could be made. People have said many things about the origins of these wrongdoing, but the most well-founded and the most commonly said explanation is as follows. The king of Granada, saddened to have been often conquered by the Christians, and especially by the uncle of the king of Castile, of whom we have spoken above, and not being able to avenge himself at his pleasure, in the absence of the 208

s e v e n : d i s e a s e a n d d i s a b i l i t y i n m e d i e va l e u ro p e

force of arms tried to accomplish his revenge with a wicked scheme. And so, it is said that he had a conversation with the Jews if they could, by their means, destroy Christendom by some evil magic, and promised to reward them with infinite wealth. They promised him to invent a curse, saying that they could not execute it, because they were under suspicion by the Christians, but that the lepers, who continue to dwell among the Christians, could very well fulfill this evil plan by throwing potions and poisons into their springs and wells. And so the Jews gathered certain leaders of the lepers, who, by the intervention of the devil, were so deluded by their deceptive suggestions, that after having first abjured the Catholic faith—it is terrible to hear—they sifted and put the body of Christ in these deadly poisons, as several lepers have subsequently confessed, and consented to execute this evil magic. The leaders of the lepers, having assembled from all parts of Christendom, summoned four general assemblies, and, with the exception of the two leprosaria in England as some lepers later confessed, someone from each leper hospital has attended these assemblies to announce to the others what was done there. By the persuasion of the devil, served by the Jews, in these said assemblies of the lepers, their leaders told the others that their leprosy made them appear vile, abject, and deserving of no consideration by the Christians, and because of this, they were allowed to cause all Christians to die, or all of them to be covered with leprosy, so that when they were all lepers no one would be despised. This fatal project pleased everyone, and everyone in his province reported it to others. Thus many, seduced by false promises of kingdoms, counties, and other temporal goods, shared these promises among themselves and firmly hoped that it would be so. This year, around the feast of Saint John the Baptist, one [leper] was burned in the city of Tours, who has named himself the abbot of Marmoutier. From there and throughout the kingdom of France, by urgings of the Jews, this crime was spread by the lepers, as [their] deadly poison was spread, and would have spread further, if the Lord had not revealed their treachery so promptly. An edict of the king, concerning the lepers, declared that the guilty would be delivered to the flames, and the others imprisoned perpetually in the leper hospitals, and that if some guilty leper was pregnant, she would be kept alive until she had given birth, and then would be delivered to the flames. The Jews were also burned without distinction in a few regions, and especially in Aquitaine. In the bailiwick of Tours, in a castle of the king called Chinon, a huge pit was dug, and a great fire having been kindled there, one hundred and sixty Jews of both sexes were burned in one day; many of them, men and women, sang as if they had been invited to a wedding, and jumped into the pit; many widowed women had their own children thrown into the fire, in order to prevent them from being taken to be baptized by the Christians and the nobles. Those found guilty in Paris were burned, the others condemned to perpetual exile; some, the 209

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

richest, were preserved until their debts were known, and were taken into the royal treasury with all their property; it is said that the king took one hundred and fifty thousand pounds from them. Questions: How does the anonymous author of this account try to make it appear credible? What information does he provide about the alleged conspiracy? What explanation for the leper conspiracy does the chronicler offer? Who was involved and why? What might the chronicler’s version of the events tell us about medieval Europe’s internal and external “others”?

210

C H A P T E R E IGH T F ROM T H E HOLY TO T H E S I N F U L : AT T I T U DE S TOWA R D WOM E N

Figure 8.1  A crowd listening to a preaching apostle. This facsimile of a fifteenth-century painting attributed to Fra Angelico (1395–1455) depicts a crowd listening to an apostle preaching about Christianity. Fra Angelico places a large group of women in the foreground, as if to emphasize them as the preacher’s most devoted audience; women frequented sermons by popular preachers in the artist’s day as well (see doc. 67).

211

This page intentionally left blank

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

60. A PROSTITUTE SAINT: SAINT MARY OF EGYPT Saint Mary of Egypt is one of a number of female saints whose religious conversion followed a life of prostitution, following the model of Saint Mary Magdalene. Their lives, from the point of view of medieval Christianity, provided an example of forgiveness and redemption available to all who sinned. Moreover, the transition of Mary of Egypt (and her fellow prostitute-saints) from a harlot to a saint in the Life of Saint Mary of Egypt illustrates the two extreme views of women in medieval society: one of sinfulness and the other of sainthood, with little middle ground between them. Notably, even as a holy woman able to levitate and walk on water, Mary demonstrates extreme reverence to a male monk. Although this version of The Life of Saint Mary of Egypt is fairly brief, it comes from a collection of saint lore known as The Golden Legend (Legenda Aurea), perhaps the best known and the most widely read collection in this genre. Composed around 1260 by the Dominican friar Jacobus de Voragine (Jacopo da Varazze, c. 1230–98), The Golden Legend was popular with the clergy and the laity alike and survived in over eight hundred manuscript copies—an incredible number for any medieval text. The Golden Legend was also among the first texts to be printed, not only in Latin but also in the vernacular languages, including William Caxton’s 1483 English translation. Thus, despite its relative brevity, this version of The Life of Saint Mary of Egypt was likely read more widely than other versions. Mary’s example, as well as those of other prostitute-saints, proved to be inspirational for those who sought to reform actual women practicing prostitution in medieval towns, including those who undertook the ambitious if short-lived campaign of social and religious reform in fourteenth-century Prague (doc. 71). Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea: Vulgo Historia Lombardica Dicta, ed. Theodore Graesse (Dresden: Impensis Librariae Arnoldianae, 1846), pp. 247–49. For a substantially longer version of Saint Mary’s life attributed to Sophronius, bishop of Jerusalem (r. 634–38), see Mary-Ann Stouck, ed., Medieval Saints: A Reader (University of Toronto Press, 1998), pp. 97–114.

Mary of Egypt, who is called a sinner, led in the desert the strictest life for fortyseven years, that she entered in the year of God 270. A certain abbot named Zosimas ventured across the Jordan and the great desert to find by chance some holy fathers. There he saw a wandering naked body, blackened by the scorching sun. That was Mary of Egypt and she took flight as soon as she saw Zosimas and he hurried after her. Then she said, “Abbot Zosimas, why are you pursuing me? Forgive me, I cannot face you, for I am a woman and naked. Throw your mantle over me so that I may look at you without shame.” Having heard his name, Zosimas was amazed, gave her the mantle, prostrated himself on the ground and begged her to bless him. She responded, “It is for you, father, to give the blessing, for you are adorned with the dignity of priesthood.” When he heard 213

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

that she knew both his name and his position, he was even more astonished that she asked so earnestly for his blessing. Then she said, “Blessed be God the savior of our souls.” And then she raised her hands in prayer and he saw that her body was lifted almost a foot and a half off the ground. Here the old man began to think that she was an evil spirit and prepared to pray it away. Then she said, “God is my witness that I am a sinful woman and not an evil spirit.” Here Zosimas conjured her in the name of God to tell him of her condition and she said, “Forgive me, father, for if I tell you of my condition, you shall flee from me as if from a venomous snake, and you ears will be polluted by my story and air will be dirtied by its filth.” But when he pressed on, she said, “Father, I was born in Egypt and at age twelve I came to Alexandria, where for seventeen years I gave myself openly to lechery and refused no man.” “When some men from that country went to venerate the holy cross in Jerusalem, I begged one of the sailors to let me go with them. However, when he demanded that I pay for the passage, I said, ‘I have nothing to pay with, my brothers, but as a payment you can have my body’; and thus they had taken me with them and enjoyed my body as payment for the passage. And as I reached Jerusalem and arrived at the church to worship the holy cross with the others, I was suddenly and invisibly repulsed, as if I was not allowed to enter inside. Again I came to the threshold of the entrance and again I was suddenly pushed back. Since, however, everyone else was free to enter and none were stopped, it occurred to me that it happened because of my terrible sins and I began to beat my chest and to weep tenderly and to sigh heavily from the bottom of my heart. And then I saw the image of Virgin Mary and I began to pray to her tearfully so that she could obtain pardon for my sins and let me enter the church to worship the holy cross, promising to renounce the world and to remain chaste. And having thus prayed and promised this in the name of the Blessed Virgin, I went again to the doors of the church and was able to enter unhindered. And when I worshiped the cross with the utmost devotion, a man gave me three coins, with which I bought three loaves of bread. And I heard the voice telling me, if you cross the Jordan, you shall be saved. Then I went across the Jordan and came to this desert, where I have stayed without meeting another human for forty-seven years. The three loaves of bread I brought with me hardened into stones with time and for forty-seven years I sustained myself with them. My clothes have also rotted away and the first seventeen years in this desert I suffered from temptations of the flesh, but now, by the grace of God, I have conquered them all. Thus I have told you my whole story and beg you to pray for me.” Then the old man fell on the ground and thanked the Lord on behalf of his servant. She replied, “I beg you that you return to the river Jordan on the next Maundy Thursday and bring with you the body of Christ, and I shall meet you there 214

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

and receive the body of our Lord from your hand, for since the day I came here, I have not received communion.” Thus the old man returned to his monastery for a year, and as the Maundy Thursday approached, he brought the body of Christ with him and saw the holy woman standing on the other bank of the Jordan. Upon seeing him, she made the sign of the cross and walked on water across the river to meet him. When he saw this, the old man fell awestruck at her feet. But she said, “Do not do this, for you have the dignity of priesthood and carry the Lord’s sacrament with you. I beg you, father, that you may come meet me again next year.” With this she made the sign of the cross upon the waters of Jordan and walked back over them, seeking solitude in the desert. Zosimas, too, returned to his monastery and in the following year he went to the place where he first met her and found that she had died. And he began to weep and did not dare to touch her body, saying to himself, “I would gladly bury your holy body, but I fear to displease you by doing that.” And as he was thinking that, he spotted letters written on the ground next to her head, saying, “Bury, Zosimas, Mary’s poor body, return my dust to the ground, and pray for me to the Lord at whose command I left this world on the second day of April.” Then the old man knew for certain, that as soon as she partook in the divine sacrament and returned to the desert, her solitary life had ended and what took Zosimas thirty days to cross, she covered in one hour and departed from this world. The old man tried to dig the earth but could not do it, but then he saw a lion approaching him tamely, and spoke to him: “I am trying to bury the body of this holy woman but I am old and cannot dig nor do I have any iron tools. You then dig the ground to give this most holy body to the ground.” Then the lion began to dig and made a proper grave. Once the job was done he departed, meek as a lamb, while the old man went back to his monastery praising God. Questions: What might the account of Mary’s interaction with Abbot Zosimas tell us about the understanding of gender roles in early medieval society and within the Church? What can the text tell us about contemporary beliefs about sin, holiness, and salvation?

61. THE TRIAL OF THIOTA, A FALSE PROPHETESS This brief but tantalizing excerpt comes from the Annals of Fulda (Annales Fuldenses), a chronicle composed at the abbey of Fulda, in Hesse. It describes the trial and punishment of Thiota, a laywoman who claimed to have the gift of prophecy and insisted that she knew the date of the end of the world. Thiota’s career and its end demonstrate the authority a charismatic religious figure could attain from both the masses and even some members of the clergy. Her punishment reveals the fear of prophetic figures like Thiota by the Church, especially if these preachers were women who usurped—from the clerical 215

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

point of view—the male prerogative to preach. Put on trial in 847, Thiota was far from being the only woman accused of encroaching upon the jealously guarded roles of men within the Church hierarchy. Although living centuries later, Jacoba Felicie, a female physician in fourteenth-century Paris (doc. 65), faced scrutiny similar to that expressed by the bishops of Mainz and Constance in the case of Thiota. Source: trans. T. Reuter, The Annals of Fulda: Ninth-Century Histories (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992), vol. 2, pp. 26–27.

At this time [847] a certain woman from Alemannia called Thiota, a false prophetess, came to Mainz; she had disturbed the diocese of Bishop Salomon [I of Constance] not a little with her prophecies. For she said that she knew a definite date for the ending of the world, and other things known only to God, as if they had been divinely revealed to her; she predicted that the world would see its last day that same year. As a result many of the common people of both sexes were struck by fear; they came to her with gifts and commended themselves to her prayers. Still worse, men in holy orders, ignoring the teaching of the Church, followed her as a teacher sent from heaven. She was brought into the presence of the bishops at St-Alban’s [Mainz]. After she had been carefully questioned about her claims, she admitted that a certain priest had coached her in them and that she had made them in hope of gain. For this she was publicly flogged by the judgment of the synod and ignominiously stripped of the ministry of preaching which she had unreasonably taken up and presumed to claim against the custom of the Church; thus shamed, she finally put an end to her prophesyings. Questions: What does the author’s statement that Thiota was instructed to prophesy by a priest and for financial gain suggest about the contemporary understandings of women and female spirituality? What purpose did the public punishment of Thiota serve?

62. WOMEN IN THE SICILIAN LAWS OF FREDERICK II In the thirteenth century, the kingdom of Sicily occupied all of southern Italy, as well as Sicily itself and small outlying islands in the Mediterranean. Kings of Sicily ruled over a multicultural population with significant communities of Jews and Muslims as their subjects. Historically, Sicily was part of the Byzantine Empire until 827 and, later, belonged to the Islamic caliphate until the late eleventh century. Each empire had its own legal traditions and the Norman rulers of Sicily were clearly following these legal models, which were very different from the legal traditions of most of Christian Europe. This makes Sicilian laws promulgated in 1231 by Frederick II (1194–1250), king of Sicily and Holy Roman Emperor, an unusual example of legislation. The excerpts from Frederick’s law code, known as The Constitutions of Melfi, which include the laws of his predecessors, concern women from different strata of medieval society, including nuns and 216

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

prostitutes. Of particular interest are the laws promising harsh punishments to procurers of prostitutes, while also protecting the prostitutes themselves from rape by clients—these laws were likely influenced by Mediterranean legal models. Source: trans. James M. Powell, The Liber Augustalis, or Constitutions of Melfi, Promulgated by the Emperor Frederick II for the Kingdom of Sicily in 1231 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1971), pp. 23–27, 117–18, 121–22, 145–48.

Book 1 Title 20: About Rape and Violence Inflicted on Nuns—King Roger If anyone presumes to rape nuns or novices, even for the purpose of marriage, he should be punished by death. Title 21: About Violence Inflicted on Prostitutes—King William It is fitting that all persons subject to the scepter of our rule should be governed by the grace of our majesty. We favor the glory of peace by defending one from another, both men and women, from elders, from minors, and from equals and by not allowing force to be used at all. Therefore, those miserable women who are marked as prostitutes by their quest for shame should rejoice in gratitude for our favor that no one may force them to satisfy his will if they are unwilling. Those acting against this general edict, after they have confessed and been convicted, should be punished by death. The order of consideration should require that if force has been used in places suitable for abode, the cry of the woman oppressed should attract attention as soon as possible after it has been emitted. But it will not appear that force was used if a delay of eight days has ensued, unless it is proved that she was detained against her will for that time. Title 22: About Those Who Rape Virgins and Widows—The Emperor Frederick We order that the capital punishment which the statutes of the divine Augustuses [the Roman emperors] sanctioned against those who rape virgins, widows, wives, or even engaged girls and against their accomplices and supporters should be observed inviolably. Those customs, which obtained in some parts of the kingdom of Sicily until the present, by which those who raped a woman escaped capital punishment by marrying her or by arranging for another to marry her, should not be permitted at all. . . . 217

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

The laws of our predecessors as kings of Sicily permitted the judgment by combat in complaints about violences inflicted on any women at all if the proclamation of these violences was proved within the period assigned by the same constitutions. But by our holy foresight, we order the removal not only of the judgment by combat but also of the penalty of forfeiture both in this case and in all other crimes except for treason and secret murder. For there is a very great risk for those accusers who can hardly or never prove their accusations by common proofs since crimes of this kind are hidden from the observation of men who are able to provide testimony of the truth. Therefore, when common proofs fail and when extraordinary proofs, like the judgment by combat . . . have been removed by our law, cases of this kind are left without remedy. Since we are unwilling to dismiss such great crimes unpunished for lack of proof, we have decreed that, if any persons have been accused of violences of this kind by their own confessions as a result of a guilty conscience, or if they have been accused by witnesses who have found the accused in the very acts of sexual intercourse—which cannot happen very often—they should be convicted. Even if we were not consulted, they would be subject to capital punishment both by earlier constitutions and our own. But if the real truth of the matter cannot be proved, but it is only proved that a woman or another in her behalf has three times denounced someone for tampering with her chastity by his actions or in some other way to keep him from repeating this illegal presumption of his, and if he is later found with the woman who is crying out and calling for the help of others with her screams, and if he is found in a struggle, or in flight, or even in or near the house of this woman, or if he holds the woman violently beneath him while he opens the guard of her virginity and corrupts her or attacks her after she has been corrupted, while she is crying out, we order that his case should be remitted to the knowledge of our highness after a full discussion and the aforesaid and similar proofs so that from the opinion of our inspiration, which we shall receive from the hand of God, the case may reach a just decision. But, in the meantime, the accused should be handed over to the custody of his pledges or to jail. Title 23: If Anyone Should Not Help a Woman Suffering Violence and Crying Out—The Same Augustus We desire that whoever hears a woman who is being attacked calling out should hasten to run to her assistance when he hears her. But if he does not go to her assistance, he should pay four augustales as a penalty to our treasury for such serious neglect. No one should be able to pretend about hearing the screams to escape the penalty if he was under the same roof and in the same place where the voice could be heard and if he is not proved to be deaf or crippled by a 218

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

severe pain or otherwise ill, or if he is not proved to have been sleeping at the time of the screams. Title 24: About the Penalty for Women Who Complain Unjustly—The Same Augustus We curtail the very evil and abhorrent ground for an accusation, which has prevailed until now to the serious expense of our subjects, whereby a woman who had not suffered the violence or injury of rape made accusations about some persons untruthfully. And thus the accused, for fear of the accusation which would be brought or could be brought or which was already brought, insofar as they were afraid of the contest of the law courts and the outcome of the affair, chose unequal marriages. [A man could escape a rape charge by marrying the accusing woman.] Sometimes, also, these women obtained blackmail from their victims for concealing the aforesaid accusations. We desire and command that if any woman should in the future be convicted of such false calumny, she should know that she has been caught in a trap of death and that she has fallen into the pit that she was preparing for the downfall of another, if she had proved what she had given information about. If, at the time for punishment, she is found to be pregnant, we, persuaded by our kindness, desire to postpone the punishment until forty days after the delivery. After she has been delivered of the child, we order that it should be reared at our expense by our officials who are then in charge of those regions unless she has next of kin, relatives, or even in-laws whom she may persuade to rear the child with the affection of a relation. Book 3 Title 22: How Marriages Should Be Contracted—King Roger By the present law, we order that all the men of our kingdom and especially the nobles who desire to contract marriage must have the marriage celebrated solemnly and publicly, with due solemnity and a priestly blessing, after the betrothal has been solemnized. Otherwise, they should know that, if they die, they would be acting against our royal edict and would have no legitimate heirs either by will or by intestacy among those who were procreated from a clandestine and illegal marriage against our law. Women should also know that they would have no legal right to the dowers due other wives. We relax the rigor of this law to all those who have already contracted marriage at the time of its promulgation. We also relax the chain of this necessity for all widows who desire to marry a husband. 219

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Title 23: A Wife Should Not be Married without License of the Court—The Emperor Frederick In order to preserve the honor due to our crown, we order by the present constitution that no count, baron, or knight, or anyone else who holds in chief [to hold directly, without an intermediate lord] from us baronies or fiefs registered in the records of our diwan [administrating body], should dare to marry a wife without license. They should not dare to marry off their daughters, whom they can and should arranges marriages for, or to marry off their sons with movable or immovable property, notwithstanding the contrary custom which is said to have been observed in some parts of the kingdom. Title 30: About the Right of Wardship—The Same Augustus We provide in an imperial manner for minors who cannot be helped by the judgment of their age. We order that if our serenity grants the wardship of male or female youths to someone’s administration, they should render account of the administration of the wardship in the presence of the justiciar of the region or another to whom we have ordered this especially delegated, after they have relinquished the wardship with the arrival of puberty. After the amount which should be given to the court for this wardship has been deducted, as is the custom, and also after just and moderate expenses (which it will be established that this guardian has paid out for his sustenance and dress and which he has made for the person or property of the child or for the service due our court from the property of the minor) have been deducted, the remainder must be handed over in full to the orphan. But if it has been proved that the guardian has administered the property of the child fraudulently, he must repair his entire loss as a result of this fraud, whatever it may be, from his own property and pay that amount to our sacred treasury. We abolish for the future the evil custom that, until now, exempted guardians from making accountings. Title 74: About Adulteries and about Procuring—King Roger The harshness of the laws has been softened. The penalty against adulterers who attack the wives of others must no longer be the sword. Rather we introduce the penalty of confiscation of their property if they have no legitimate children from the violated marriage or another. For it is most unjust that children should be defrauded of their inheritance if they were born at a time when the law of the marriage was legally observed. But a woman must not be handed over to her husband who would rage against her until he killed her. Instead, the slitting of her nose, which is more severely and more cruelly introduced, should pursue 220

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

the vengeance of the violated marriage. But if her husband is unwilling to give her a punishment, we will not allow such a crime to go unpunished but will order her to be publicly flogged. Title 77: Lascivious Women Must Be Removed from Association with Good Women—The Same King A woman who has exhibited her body for sale far and wide cannot be accused of adultery. But we prohibit violence to be done to her, and we forbid her to dwell among women of good reputation. Title 81: About the Penalty for a Wife Caught in the Act of Adultery—The Same King If a husband catches his wife in the very act of adultery, he may kill both the adulterer and his wife, but without any further delay. Title 84: About Madams—The Emperor Frederick We order that madams, who solicit the shame of wives, daughters, sisters, and finally virgins and honest women that some good man has within the walls of his house, should be punished by the slitting of their noses as are adulteresses according to the statutes of our grandfather, King Roger. But we order that those who attract the minds of women, who, since they have lived freely and were under no one’s protection, have given themselves to the wills and pleasures of men at any time (though it is not really believable that they would desire to give themselves for the first time), should be beaten after they have been convicted by legitimate proof of committing such acts, and they should be marked on the forehead in recognition of the crime they have attempted. Such madams should know for sure that if they attempt to repeat what they have done again, they will certainly and without doubt be subjected to the slitting of their noses. Title 85: About the Penalty for a Mother Who Prostitutes Her Daughter Publicly—The Same Augustus We order that mothers who publicly prostitute their daughters should be subject to the penalty of having their noses slit, which was established by the divine king, Roger. But we believe that it is not only unjust but cruel for other mothers, who give their consent, and for their daughters, who may not be able to marry a husband because of their poverty but who also cannot even sustain life, to be 221

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

subject to this penalty when they expose themselves to the pleasures of some man who gives them sustenance for life and other favors. Questions: How do the laws of Frederick II address violence against women? What can the text of these laws tell us about the role such violence played in the medieval Mediterranean? What kinds of behaviors do these laws reward and punish?

63. WOMEN AND THE IDEALS OF COURTLY LOVE Andreas Capellanus’s On the Art of Courtly Love (De Amore) is a perfect example of the medieval courtly love tradition developed in the twelfth century. Influenced by texts dealing with the nature of love in antiquity—in particular, by Plato and Ovid—and the works on similar subjects from the Islamic world, Capellanus’s text provides a set of rules, sample conversations, and observations devoted to winning the affection of a woman, preserving mutual feelings of affection, as well as avoiding love altogether. True to the courtly love tradition, Capellanus presents the ideal relationship as a secret affair, usually with a woman who is not immediately available—often the wife of another—where the lover pledges his service to the one he loves and is bound to obey her orders. Notably, Capellanus devotes a section of his treatise to model dialogues between men and women of different social status and even provides advice on dealing with nuns, peasant women, and prostitutes (all of these are to be avoided as either dangerous, too attainable, or detrimental to reputation). For Capellanus and other authors of the courtly love tradition, true love is hard to attain and worthwhile only with an equally worthy counterpart; conversely, the author advises to avoid women who surrender “the object of one’s desire” too easily. Once mutual affection has been established, the lover must be prepared to work just as hard to preserve it in a never-ending ritual of jealousy and conquest. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Andreas Capellanus, Andreae Capellani regii Francorum De amore libri tres, ed. E. Trojel (Copenhagen: Libraria Gadiana, 1892), pp. 232–35, 238–42.

Book 1, Chapter 10: On Conceding the Desired Easily Next, we shall see whether conceding the thing one desires easily can be attributed to love. But first we shall see what [we mean by] conceding the thing one desires easily. We can state that it is conceded easily when a woman, forced by excessive bodily passion, grants herself to a man who desires her, and will concede easily to another who asks, no lasting labor of love illuminating her afterward, and not for money. Do not get caught by the chains of such a woman because you can gain no love [but] only worry from her. For such a woman cannot tie herself down to one man because of the excessive abundance of Venus in her, but desires to satisfy her lust with many. Thus, it is in vain to seek her 222

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

love, unless you claim to be so potent in the works of Venus that you can satisfy her lust—it will be easier for you to drain the water from the ocean—which makes us rightly believe you should stay away from her love. Granted, you can acquire the passion of her embrace fully if you wish, yet her solaces will be the opportunity for intolerable pain and become for you the cause of many a sorrow. For as lovers do, you will desire to be the one to feel her solaces and know that she has mingled lustfully with another and forced you to share her with him. You can never know fully, unless you have experienced it, how sharp your pain will be then. Therefore, from what we have told you, it should be fully obvious that, where you find it is easy to obtain what you desire, it is certain there is no love. In fact, when a woman has such passion that she cannot tie herself down to one man but desires to mingle her passion with many, there is no love for him that can be found at all. Indeed, true love links the hearts of two with such affection that they cannot desire the embrace of others, but desire to flee from solaces of all as if they are horrible and save themselves for each other. And it is said that the easy concession of the desired thing in women is the same as the excessive abundance of passion in men, which it is agreed should be a stranger to the court of love. For he who is so harassed by the passion of the flesh that he cannot unite with anyone in an embrace of heartfelt affection but desires with shameless soul every [woman] he sees, is called not a lover but a falsifier of love and a pretender and is worse than a shameless dog. Indeed, one who is so disturbed by bodily immodesty that he cannot restrict himself to the love of one person deserves to be judged a careless ass. Thus, it should be clearly apparent to you that you should avoid excessive abundance of passion completely and [that] it is not expedient to ask for the love of a woman, who is known for the easy concession of the desired. . . . Book 2, Chapter 1: How Love, Once It Has Been Acquired, Must Be Preserved Thus, since we have sufficiently discussed above the acquisition of love, it is worthwhile that we see and introduce next [the topic of] how love should be preserved, once it has been acquired. He who wishes to keep his love safe and sound for a long time, must take the utmost care not to reveal his love to the outsiders but to keep it a secret from all. For a love [affair] that begins to be known to many immediately stops growing naturally and prompts the diminishing of its prior condition. Moreover, a lover must appear full of wisdom to his beloved, restrained and composed in his actions and should in no way irritate her with his annoying actions. But each man ought, in time of need, to rush to his beloved, to have compassion toward her in all troubles and to accommodate 223

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

her every lawful wish. But even if he knows sometimes that what she wishes for is not quite lawful, he must still be prepared to accommodate her, having first asked her to reconsider. Furthermore, if he should, without forethought, do something inappropriate which disturbs the feelings of his beloved, he is to declare with an ashamed look, that he has done wrong and to make an excuse about his irritable temper or to use another similar excuse, which is right for correcting the situation. For this reason, one must limit the praises of his beloved when among other men; nor should he speak of her at length or bring her up often, and rarely should he visit her neighborhood. Indeed, when he is with other men, if he sees her in a group of other women, he should abstain from any outward signs [of recognition] and should treat her as a stranger, lest some secret schemer could spread bad rumors about their love affair. Indeed, lovers should not even nod to each other, unless they are away from anyone who could secretly recognize them. In addition, each should dress [in a way] that pleases his beloved and adorn his appearance in moderation, because unreasonable care of one’s body is tedious to all, and thus naturally results in contempt of one’s beauty. Giving to your beloved in abundance can help, moreover, to preserve the love in [good] order; lovers should have contempt for all worldly riches and give them to those in need. Nothing is more commendable in a lover than if he is found to adorn himself with the virtue of generosity. On the other hand, greed outweighs all virtues, while among men a large dishonesty can be tolerated if one is known to be graced with the beauty of generosity. But if a lover is one who is fit to become a knight, he should be eager to make his courage manifest to all, because if one is proved to be timid in a fight, it detracts from his many good qualities. Likewise, a lover should always gladly offer his service and attend to every lady; he ought to adorn himself with the gifts of humility, having the roots of pride pulled out completely. Similarly, he should be eager to present himself to all in such a way that no one is pained [when] they remember his good deeds, and none can think it fair to dislike his actions. Besides, he should comprehend the general rule that, whatever the rules of courtliness ask him or his education demands, this thing must not be omitted by the lovers but must be focused on with a more passionate devotion. Love is preserved by indulging in pleasant and sweet solaces of the flesh, yet of such kind and quantity as to avoid seeming tedious to the beloved. But let the lover be eager to practice handsomely and in a manly way any act or gesture that he has learned is pleasing to his beloved. Indeed, a cleric should not assume a layman’s actions or clothing; for no one can easily please his beloved by assuming strange clothing or gestures not befitting his status. Moreover, a lover ought to make sure to interact regularly with good men and to avoid the company of 224

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

bad ones. The association of the lover with vile men turns him into a target of his beloved’s contempt. What we have said to you about preserving love, then, you should recognize as pertaining to lovers of either sex. There are perhaps many other ways, in which love can be preserved that an attentive and diligent lover can investigate on his own. Questions: Based on the text, how does its author understand the ideal relationship between the two lovers? How should one act to gain and preserve the affection of one’s beloved? Why does the author advise men to avoid women who surrender to the desires of their male lovers too easily? What does this tell us about the view of women in the courtly love tradition?

64. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: A PARISIAN HUSBAND INSTRUCTS HIS YOUNG WIFE Around the end of the fourteenth century, an unknown French author composed a treatise on housekeeping aimed at bourgeois women. The text, Le Ménagier de Paris (known in English translation as The Goodman of Paris, written around 1392–94), contains a treasure trove of information related to maintaining a wealthy urban household, complete with recipes, menus, and tips on hiring and managing household staff. The text opens with a section, arguably the most important to the author, dedicated to the moral instruction of a wife, with lengthy lessons in piety and proper behavior. The resulting combination of conduct manual and good housekeeping guide—an encyclopedia of elite domestic life—is unrivaled by contemporary texts in its scope. Le Ménagier is written from the perspective of an aged husband instructing his fifteen-year-old wife in the art of housekeeping. The goal of the first section, excerpts from which are presented here, devoted to the young wife’s education in morality and piety, was to ensure her perfect subordination to her husband, as well as to God. Aware of the age difference between the spouses, the narrator sees his mission as turning the young woman into a well-taught wife, securing a good name for himself and possible praise from any future husbands she might have later in life. Source: trans. Eileen Power, The Goodman of Paris (Le Ménagier de Paris): A Treatise on Moral and Domestic Economy by a Citizen of Paris (c. 1393) (London: G. Routledge and Sons, 1928), pp. 31–32, 38, 72–74, 117–18, revised.

Prologue Dear sister [a term of endearment], You, being the age of fifteen years the week that you and I were married, begged me to be indulgent to your youth and lack of experience, until you had 225

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

seen and learned more; to this end, you promised me to give all your attention and diligence to preserve my peace and my love for you. You asked me humbly in our bed (I believe, following the advice of someone more wise), as I remember, for the love of God not to correct you harshly before strangers nor before the members of our household, but instead each night, or from day to day, in our bedroom, to remind you of the unseemly or foolish things done in the day or days past, and to chastise you, if it pleased me. And then you would strive to improve yourself according to my teaching and correction, and to serve me in everything, as you said. And your words were pleasing to me and won my praise and thanks, and I have often remembered them since. And know, dear sister, that all that I know you have done since we were married until now and all that you shall do after with good intent, was and is to my liking, and remains pleasing to me. For your youth excuses your lack of wisdom and will continue to excuse you in all actions as long as you do them with good intentions and not to displease me. And know that I am pleased rather than displeased that you tend rose bushes, care for violets, weave garlands, and that you dance and sing. Nor would I have you stop doing so among our friends and equals; it is a good and proper way to pass the time of your youth, as long as you do not try to go to the feasts and dances of high-ranking lords, for that is not appropriate and is not suitable for your rank or mine. And as for the things that you say you would willingly do for me, if you could and if I taught you how, know, dear sister, that I would be content if you were to treat me as your good neighbors of the same rank treat their husbands, and as your female relatives act with theirs. Seek advice privately from them, and then follow it, more or less, as you please. For I am not so overbearing in my attitude to you and to your good intentions that I am not satisfied with what you do for me, as long as you are not dishonest, scornful, or arrogant, and that you are careful. For although I know well that you are of a more noble birth than myself, that would not protect you, for, by God, the women of your family are so good as to correct you harshly on their own, even if I did not, if they learned of your misdeed from me or anyone else; but in you I have no fear, I am confident in your good intentions. Yet although, as I have said, I should not ask too much for myself, I would like you to know how to serve with goodwill and greater honor than is fitting for me, so that you could either serve another husband, if you have one after me, or to teach this greater wisdom to your daughters, friends, or others, if you require. For the more you know the greater the honor you will have and the greater praise will, therefore, go to your parents and to me and to others around you, by whom you have been raised. And for your honor and love, and not for me personally (for I am satisfied with simpler things), since I had pity and loving compassion for you who for long have had neither father nor mother, nor any of your kinswomen near you 226

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

to whom you might turn for advice in your private needs, except for me alone, for whom you were brought from your kin and the country of your birth, I have often wondered if I might find a simple general introduction to teach you, without difficulty, to work and care. And lastly, it seems to me that if your love is as it has appeared to me in your good words, this introduction can be accomplished in this way: I will write and present to you a general instruction, in three sections containing nineteen principal articles. The first section of the three instructs how to gain the love of God and the salvation of your soul, and also to win the love of your husband and to give you, in this world, the peace which should be in marriage. And because these two things, namely the salvation of your soul and the comfort of your husband, are the two most important, therefore they are placed first here. And this first section contains nine articles. . . .  Section 1, Article 2 The second article says that when you go out to town or to church you should be suitably accompanied by worthy women, according to your rank, and to flee questionable company. Never go near any woman of questionable reputation or allow one in your company. And as you walk, bear your head straight, keep your eyelids lowered and still, and look straight before you about four yards ahead and upon the ground, without looking or turning your gaze upon any man or woman to right or to left, nor gazing up, nor letting your eyes wander, nor laughing, nor stopping to speak to anyone on the road. And when you have come to church, choose a secret and solitary place before a beautiful altar or image, and there remain and stay without moving back and forth, and hold your head upright and keep your lips moving in orisons and prayers. Moreover, keep your glance continually on your book or on the face of the image, without looking at man or woman, picture or else, and without hypocrisy or pretense. Keep your thoughts always on heaven and pray with your whole heart; and doing so, attend Mass each day and go to confession often. And if you do this without fail, you will achieve honor and all good things will come to you. And what is said above should be sufficient at first, for the good noblewomen in your company will supply good examples for you to take from their ways and teaching; the good honest old priests to whom you confess and the good common sense God has given you will provide the rest of this article. . . . Section 1, Article 5 The fifth article of the first section teaches that you must to be very loving and close to your husband above all other living creatures, moderately affectionate 227

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

with your blood relatives or your husband’s, and very distant with all other men. And most of all be distant with arrogant and idle young men, who live beyond their means, and dance about, but have neither land nor lineage. Also, avoid the courtiers of great lords, and flee all those men and women known to lead merry, amorous, and debauched lives. . . . And to illustrate what I have said, that you must to be very close and loving with your husband, I provide here an example from nature, that even the birds and the animals, even the wild beasts, know and practice this. The female birds always follow and stay close to their mates and to no one else, following and flying after them, and not after others. If the male birds stop, so do the females and settle near to their mates; when the males fly away the females fly after them, side by side. And likewise, wild birds, be they ravens, crows, jackdaws, even birds of prey such as hawks, falcons, tercels, goshawks, and so on, that are raised by persons strange to them in the beginning, after that they have taken food from those strangers, they love them more than others. So likewise is it with domestic and farm animals, as with wild beasts. Of domestic animals you shall see how a greyhound, a mastiff, or a little dog, whether it is walking on the road, or at a table, or in bed, ever stays close to the person who feeds it and leaves all others, being distant and shy with them. And if the dog is away, it always has its heart and its eyes upon its master; even if this master whips it and throws stones at it, the dog follows him, wagging its tail and lying down before its master to appease him, and follows him across rivers and through the woods, protecting him against thieves and in battle. . . . So likewise is it with livestock; you can see it in a sheep or a lamb, that follow and stay close to their masters and mistresses and no one else; and so too are the wild beasts, such as a boar, or a stag, or a doe, that are wild by nature, follow and stay near their masters and mistresses and flee all others. Even with the ravenous wild beasts—wolves, lions, leopards and such—that are fierce, proud, and cruel: they too follow and are close to those who feed them and whom they love and not to anyone else. Now you learned about various natural examples, which are true and easy to observe: the birds of the sky, the animals, and even the ravenous beasts know to love and be close to their owners and those who are kind to them and are strangers to all others. So much more then, women, to whom God has given natural sense and reason, must have a perfect and solemn love for their husbands. And so I pray you to be very loving and close with your future husband. . . . . . . . But there are certain old hags, who are sly and pretend to have great love for their husbands by talking about it at length, but do little else; and you must know, dear sister, that their husbands must be fools if they do not see through it; and if they realize what goes on and if the husband and wife are silent and 228

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

do not share their thoughts with each other, it is a poor beginning that will lead to a worse end. And there are some women, who at first lavish affection on their husbands. And they believe that because their husbands are so loving and gallant with them, the husbands will not dare to show anger if they do less. So they relax and little by little they try to show less respect, service, and obedience, but instead, they take upon themselves authority, command, and lordship, at first in little things, then in larger, and a little more every day. And so they try, advance, and gain power—or so they think. And they believe that their husbands, who say nothing either because they are too gallant or perhaps because they are setting a trap, do not notice since they tolerate it. And certainly, this is a mistake. For when the husbands realize that their wives are not obedient but dominating and that nothing good may come from tolerating it, then those women are struck at once by their husband’s rightful will. They are cast down just as Lucifer was, once the leading angel in paradise, and whom our Lord loved so much that he allowed and tolerated him to do what he pleased. And Lucifer grew puffed up with presumptuous pride. He undertook so much that he went too far, and displeased our Lord who long had tolerated him without a word. And then the Lord remembered his misdeeds all at once and cast him down into the lowest depths of hell, because he did not continue in the service for which he was ordained and for which he had, in the beginning, won the great love of our Lord. Therefore, according to this example, you should begin and persevere in obedience to your husband. Questions: How does the anonymous author of this text justify writing it? What concerns inspired him to compose a conduct manual for his wife? What can this document reveal about late medieval ideals about family life? What was the secret to a happy marriage, according to the text? What sources of knowledge does the document use to justify its advice for women?

65. JACOBA FELICIE: A FEMALE PHYSICIAN ON TRIAL Jacoba (Jacqueline) Felicie was a female physician active in fourteenth-century Paris; in November 1322 she was put on trial, found guilty, fined sixty Parisian pounds, and excommunicated. Jacoba’s crime was practicing medicine without the required formal medical training and a license from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Paris. Since women were not allowed to study at medieval universities, they could not practice medicine officially and had to operate illicitly as unlicensed healers. The surviving trial record provides an exceptionally detailed account of Jacoba’s medical practice, including statements from her patients and the arguments she made in her defense. Notably, lack of formal training did not prevent Jacoba from helping her patients as much as the medical 229

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

knowledge of the time allowed. In fact, she was never accused of causing any harm by practicing without a license and, according to the witness statements from her patients, at times she even surpassed licensed physicians in her skills and knowledge. Instead, her accusers were preoccupied with Jacoba’s refusal to cease practicing medicine, therefore disrespecting the authority of the Faculty of Medicine and usurping the position of a male doctor. One of Jacoba’s arguments in her defense was that, as a woman, she was able to help patients, especially other women, because she was more familiar with the “secrets of [ female] nature,” while male physicians were forbidden to examine women’s bodies or were simply ignorant of their functions. Source: trans. Emilie Amt, Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 108–12.

The dean and masters who preside over the Faculty of Medicine of Paris intend to prove the following against the lady Jacoba Felicie, the defendant: 1. That the said Jacoba has visited many sick people suffering from serious illness, in Paris and in the suburbs, often examining their urine both jointly and separately, taking their pulse, and feeling, palpating, and holding their bodies and limbs. 2. That, after such examination of urine and such touching, she has said to those sick people, “I shall heal you, God willing, if you have faith in me,” making an agreement with them to cure them, and receiving money for this. 3. That, when the agreement had been made between the said defendant and the patients or their friends, for the cure of their internal illness or of the wound or external abscess appearing on the bodies of the said patients, the said defendant often has visited and visits the said patients, constantly and continually examining their urine in the manner of physicians and doctors, taking their pulse, and touching and holding their bodies and limbs. 4. And that, after these touchings and actions, she has given and gives the said patients syrups to drink, pain relievers, laxatives, and digestives, both liquid and nonliquid, as well as aromatic, and other potions, which they take and drink by mouth in the presence of the said defendant, who herself ordered and gave them. 5. That, in these actions, she has often exercised and continues to exercise a medical practice in Paris and its suburbs, that she has practiced and practices it from day to day, although she has not been approved in any official school in Paris or elsewhere, and that she does this without the license of the chancellor of the Church of Paris and of the said dean and masters. 6. That she does this in violation of the law, by which she was not and has not been approved, and that she was warned by order of the venerable man 230

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

the official of Paris, under pain of excommunication and sixty Parisian pounds, that henceforth she might not practice in Paris or in the suburbs, as mentioned above, and she is liable to the aforesaid penalties, since she is neither licensed nor approved by the aforesaid chancellor, dean, and masters, and since a special warning had even been given to her that she might not from henceforth [practice]. . . . 7. That, ignoring the warning and prohibition that were given her, the said defendant, neither approved nor licensed by the said persons, as mentioned above, has practiced and practices in Paris and in its suburbs, continually visiting the sick and giving them the aforesaid potions and examining their urine, and diagnosing their illnesses, as has been said. . . . Clemence de Belvaco, a maker of pewter pots, who lives in front of the king’s palace, [produced and sworn as a] witness . . . and asked what she knew of the charges, etc., answers on oath that she knew nothing, except that when she herself was suffering a heat sickness and was in the hands of the physicians, her husband had heard Jean de St-Omer say that he and others had been cured by the said Jacoba, with God’s help, of the illnesses which they suffered. And then her husband sent for the said Jacoba. When she came, the same Jacoba inspected her urine and took her pulse, saying nothing to her. And when she had done this, the same Jacoba had a certain drink made of many herbs . . . , and when the said drink had been made and [Clemence] had seen it, she did not want to drink from it, because it was so horrible, and her husband and her physicians had kept her, she says, from drinking from that potion. Asked if she knows whether [Jacoba] had visited other sick people in Paris and in the suburbs and whether she herself had been present at those visits, etc., she answers that she knows nothing beyond what she has already said. . . . Joanna, wife of Denis Bilbaut, living in the street of the ironmongers in Paris, [produced and sworn as a] witness, . . . and asked [what she knew of the charges], etc., answers on oath that when, around the previous feast of Saint Christopher, she was afflicted with a feverish illness, and very many physicians had visited her in this illness, including a certain brother from Cordelis, Master Herman, Mainfred, and many others, she was so oppressed with this sickness that on a certain Wednesday around this feast day she could not speak, and the aforesaid physicians consigned her to death. And so it would have been for her, had not the said Jacoba intervened, at her own request to her. When she arrived, she examined her urine and palpated her pulse, and soon she gave her a certain clear water to drink, and she gave her another syrup to cause her to go to the privy. And she worked so well on her that, with God’s grace helping, she arose cured of her illness. And she has been asked whether she saw the said Jacoba visit other invalids. She answers that she saw no visits to other sick people 231

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

besides herself, but she says that she had heard it said that [Jacoba] had cured other invalids, including Jean de St-Omer and many others whom she did not know, in the city of Paris and in villages and suburbs. Asked whether [Jacoba] had visited her for money or for free, she answers that she never paid anything to the said Jacoba for curing her, but she freely offered to give money which the same Jacoba refused to accept. . . . Joanna de Monciaco, a mercer [dealer in textiles] living in the street called “Quiquempoix,” a widow, produced [and sworn] as a witness [and] asked what she knew concerning the charges, etc., answers that she had recently suffered from a certain sickness around her kidneys, for which she had been for eleven days at [the hospital of] St-Sulpice near St-Germain-des-Prés, near Paris, and for which illness the physicians Masters Guilbert, Herman, Mainfred, and Thomas sought a cure as best they could, but for which they could do nothing, as she told it. And when she had seen this, and was disturbed by it, she heard tell of the said Jacoba and of her cures, and she immediately sent for her to come to her. When [Jacoba] arrived, she examined her and took her pulse and examined her urine. And immediately when she had done this, she told Joanna that with the grace of God she would put Joanna in a good state. Joanna answered that she wished this. And then Jacoba visited her for many days, and often gave her a certain very clear water to drink, by virtue of which, and with God’s help, she was cured, as she says. Asked whether she knows of what the said water was composed, she says she does not know. Asked whether Jacoba visited her in the manner of physicians, she says she does not know, except as she has already said. Asked whether Jacoba made an agreement with her to cure her and whether Jacoba received money from her for this, she replied that she did not, and that she wished to have nothing. . . . These are the arguments which the said Jacoba makes and proposes. . . . . . . Jacoba says that if the said deans and master have issued any statute, decree, warning, prohibition, or excommunication, which they now try to use against her, they did so at the time merely because of and against idiots and fatuous ignorant ones, fools totally ignorant of the art of medicine and its precepts and usurping practical office, from whose number the said Jacoba is exempted, being experienced in the art of medicine and learned in the precepts of that art. For which reasons the aforesaid statute, decree, warning, prohibition, and excommunication are not and cannot be binding on her. . . . And [she argues that] the said statute and decree, etc., were made because of and against the aforesaid idiots, fools, and usurpers and those who then were in Paris practicing medicine, who now are dead or else so old and decrepit that they cannot exercise the said office, as appears from the tenor of the said statute and decree, etc., which were enacted one hundred and two years ago, and Jacoba was not alive at that time, nor for sixty years afterward, in the nature of things; 232

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

rather she is young, inasmuch as she is about thirty years old, as is shown by her appearance. . . . And [she argues that] it is better and more suitable and proper that a woman wise and experienced in the art should visit sick women, and that she should examine them and inquire into the secrets of nature and its hidden things, than that a man should do so, to whom it is forbidden to see and inquire into the aforesaid things, nor to touch women’s hands, breasts, belly, and feet, etc.; rather a man ought to avoid and shun the secrets of women and the intimate things associated with them as much as possible. And it used to be that a woman allowed herself to die, rather than reveal her secret illnesses to a man, because of the modesty of the female sex, and because of the shame which she would have suffered in revealing them. And for these reasons many women and even men perished in their illnesses, not wanting to call in doctors, lest they see their private parts. . . . And supposing, for the sake of argument, that it were bad for a woman to visit, cure, and examine, as has been said, etc., nevertheless it is less bad that a wise woman, discreet and experienced in the aforesaid matters, should practice in the aforesaid matters, because the sick of either sex, who have not dared to reveal their private parts to men, do not wish to die. Therefore the laws say that lesser evils should be permitted, so that greater ones may be avoided. And therefore, since the said Jacoba is experienced in the art of medicine, it is better for her to visit, that she might practice medicine, than that the sick should die, especially because she cures and heals everyone in her care, and it ought to be permitted. And it has been ascertained and so proved, that some sick people of either sex, afflicted with many grave illnesses and laboring through the work of many experienced masters of the art of medicine, have not been able to recover from their illnesses at all, despite all the care and diligence which they could give them, which sick people the said Jacoba, when she was called in afterward, cured in a short time. . . . Questions: What were the charges advanced against Jacoba by her accusers? How do the witnesses, Jacoba’s patients, describe her practice as a physician? What arguments did Jacoba use to defend herself at the trial? What might this document tell us about the perception of women and gender in the Middle Ages?

66. MARITAL PROBLEMS: AN INNKEEPER’S WIFE LEAVES HIM Marital issues could prove to be complicated for non-Christian minorities in medieval Europe, especially if the Church was involved. This account of marital discord was written 233

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

by Hakkym ben Jehiel Cohen Falcon, a Jewish innkeeper in Pavia, Italy. Hakkym’s wife disapproved of him running an inn and finally decided to leave him. She spent about a day and a night away, among the Christians, and even expressed the desire to convert to Christianity. Eventually, the unnamed wife had a change of heart and decided to return home to her husband and their daughters. The husband narrated the circumstances of her actions in a letter, seeking the legal opinion of Rabbi Joseph Colon (c. 1420–80). Normally, a wife’s return to her husband—even if she committed adultery—was allowed in Judaism; however, the innkeeper, as is clear from his name, Cohen, was a descendant of the priestly line, and therefore his marriage and his wife’s fidelity were under greater scrutiny. Was he allowed to accept his wife back after her return? In a response to Hakkym’s letter, Colon wrote that the wife was free of any suspicion and her return was permitted. This account is made particularly interesting by the involvement of the Church and the auxiliary bishop in mediating the disagreement between non-Christian spouses. Source: trans. Jacob Rader Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315–1791 (Cincinnati: The Sinai Press, 1938), pp. 389–93, revised.

[Hakkym writes his story to Rabbi Joseph Colon:] In order to relate everything that has happened to me I shall tell you in detail what my business is and I shan’t hide a thing from you, sir. Now this is the matter concerning which I make inquiry of my master: For the last several years I have made my living as an innkeeper in Pavia, and this was my business up to the year 230 [1469] when my wife began to trouble me saying: “You’ve got to leave this business,” and she gave me some good reasons for it. After she had kept hammering away at me every day for about six months and I had paid no attention to her—I kept pushing her off—the quarrel between us regarding this affair reached its climax about the beginning of Adar 230 [February 1470]. While I was in the house teaching my daughter, my wife picked herself up right at noon, took all the silver vessels and her jewelry, and repaired to the house of a Gentile woman, a neighbor, to whom my wife went frequently. This woman used to sew linen clothes for me, for my household, and for the guests who used to come to my place. She was also my laundress. My wife was in the house of this Gentile woman about a half an hour before I inquired of my daughters where she had gone—for I was intent on teaching my daughter. Suddenly, however, my thoughts rose up and stirred me to ask my daughters: “Girls, where is your mother?” They told me that she had gone outside and that my four-year-old little girl, holding her right hand, had gone with her. I thereupon went after her, seeking her in Jewish homes unsuccessfully, till my heart told me: “Go to the house of the Gentile; perhaps she’s staying there.” So I turned in her direction and came to the house of the Gentile woman but found the door locked. I knocked and the husband of the woman opened the door at once, but when he saw that it was I, the husband of the woman who 234

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

had just come into his home, he was distressed and tried to close the door, but he couldn’t, for I entered by force. When the auxiliary bishop, who was there, heard my voice, he said to me: “Come on in and don’t be afraid.” There were present there, in addition to the auxiliary bishop, two citizens, the bishop’s chaplain, and two Gentile women seated beside my wife, who was on a bench with her daughter in her arms. As I came into the house the auxiliary bishop said to me: “Is this your wife?” and I answered: “Yes, my lord.” “According to what we now observe,” he said again, “another spirit has clothed your wife, who wishes to change her religion; therefore are we come to encourage her to turn to the Christian religion if she has really set her heart on it. If not, we advise her to return to her people and to her God.” [This fair attitude did not always characterize the actions of the Church.] I then asked his permission to have an earnest talk with her in German, and he gave me permission to speak with her in any kindly way as long as I did not scold her. [The Christians about her evidently knew no German or Yiddish.] Now this is what I said to her: “Why have you come here and why don’t you return home?” To which she answered: “I’m going to stay here and I don’t care to return, for I don’t want to be the mistress of a tavern.” “Come on, come on back,” I said to her, “I have already promised you, you can do whatever your heart desires in this matter.” “You can’t fool me again,” she responded. “You’ve lied to me ten times and I don’t trust you.” And as she was speaking to me after this fashion I said to her: “Why have you your little daughter in your arms?” “Take your daughter and go,” she answered, and I took her in my arms. Then as I turned to go my way the auxiliary bishop said to me: “Look here, Falcon, don’t be disturbed about your wife. No pressure will be brought to bear on her. Nothing will be done in haste, but quietly, calmly, and with her consent. Before we make a decision in this matter we will place her in a cloistered spot, among virtuous nuns, where no man may enter. She’ll have to stay there forty days until she completes the period of her isolation and reflection—for this practice has been established by the founder of Christianity that one may determine what is in the heart of those who come to change their religion, and also in order to prevent confusion to Christianity.” [The woman, as a catechumen, one about to be baptized, was allowed forty days to make up her mind; it was, however, Pope Gregory I (590–604) and not Jesus who established this forty-day period of preparation.] When I heard this I turned homeward weeping as I went. My oldest daughter came out to meet me, and I told her all about the unseemly affair that had happened to me. She ran to her mother to find out what she had in mind. “Go on back to the house and don’t be concerned, and don’t bother about me,” her mother said to her. Whereupon the girl ran to a prominent Jewess. Then the both of them came to the girl’s mother, and the Jewess spoke to her. Behold, 235

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

the entire conversation of this Jewess is recorded in a deposition that has been forwarded to you. Within about a half an hour after this had happened the bishop himself ordered the woman to be taken to a convent in which a very rigorous Christian discipline prevailed and which, of all the convents, was the most isolated from man. Such convents are shut off so completely that no man can enter there except on rare occasions or in case of an emergency. For instance, the bishop would go there when there was an absolute need, or the physician, who was assigned to them, would come there with the permission of the bishop if one of the nuns took sick. When my wife went to the convent she was accompanied by seven Gentile women and two citizens, and she remained there all that day and all that night. However, her spirit was moved for good, and when the morning came she sent word to the bishop that she earnestly desired to return to her home saying: “I am the wife of a cohen [a “priest”], and if I stay here a day or two I can no more return to the shelter of his home, for he must divorce me.” [The wife of a cohen, a descendant of the Jewish priestly caste, was expected to be above suspicion.] The Jews, too, knew of her intention to return through the bishop himself, for in the morning a certain Jew by the name of Zalman went to him to see in what honorable way they could recover the valuables which she had taken with her from her husband’s home. Then the bishop said: “Hasn’t she just told me that she is returning home? Why do you ask about the valuables when she’s coming back and will bring with her all that she has?” When Zalman heard this he was scared to death, thinking—God forbid— that this was a pretext for making a false accusation against the prominent Jewess, for such things had happened. [Zalman probably was afraid that the prominent Jewess might be accused of preventing the innkeeper’s wife from becoming a Christian. It was a capital offense to dissuade Jews who wished to convert to Christianity.] Therefore Zalman said to the bishop: “Let her stay between three and ten days until she really knows what she wants to do.” To which the bishop responded: “How can you say such a thing, for the woman has said that her husband would not be permitted to take her back if she should stay there another night, for she is a priest’s wife.” When Zalman saw that this was not a trick, he said to the bishop: “Act in accordance with your authority, and do that which is good and right in the eyes of God and man.” The bishop then sent for me and came to meet me—for he had gone to the convent—and he repeated to me all the things that had been said and done, and said further: “Look here, your wife wants to return to your home, but I fear that you may vex her with words and reproaches. Don’t do it. For wherein has she sinned against you? And although she says that she has no cause to fear, 236

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

nevertheless I beg of you, please do not reprove her or oppress her. Return to her as of old and I’ll do this for you: I’ll cross-question her in the presence of witnesses, as is meet to be done in such a case,” and so he did. [The purpose of the bishop’s questioning was to determine if she had been with any man since she left her husband the day before.] Toward evening God’s light shone on that bishop, for he restored my wife to her home, and she is there now, weeping for her sin, imploring forgiveness and pardon and condonation, and afflicting her soul, and may God forgive her. Therefore your humble servant, here undersigned, requests my lord to be so kind as to inform me—if I have found favor in your learned sight—whether my wife is permitted to live with me or not. And this is the inquiry which I make of you, even as I might bring my case before a divine oracle, and I shall adhere closely to whatever you command me. It will be ascribed to you as an act of righteousness if you clarify this distressing situation, and may God be kind and gracious unto you and give you opportunities greater even than your ancestors’ to spread Torah and to impart knowledge to the people, for your ways are ways of pleasantness. Questions: What role does the clergy perform in mediating the dispute between the innkeeper and his wife? What power dynamics between the local bishop and the Jewish community does this account reveal? Why does the innkeeper provide elaborate details about his wife’s whereabouts and behavior during her time away from him? What does it suggest about the contemporary views of women in medieval Judaism?

67. BERNARDINO OF SIENA PREACHES ON MARRIAGE Bernardino of Siena (1380–1444) was an Italian Franciscan friar and preacher, active particularly in Italian cities, where the mendicant style of preaching in the vernacular and in an accessible manner was particularly popular. Contemporary sources report on the crowds—many of them consisting of women—assembled in city squares in the early hours of the morning to hear Bernardino preach. His sermons were lively and entertaining, with anecdotes and jokes included for the benefit of his audience. While the preacher aimed to reform the morals of the urban population, he was also providing men and women gathered to hear his sermons with instructions on how to live their lives in a harmonious and virtuous way, delivered in a way—and in the style and language—that his audience could understand. Due to his popularity with urban crowds and his tendency to use examples from everyday life, Friar Bernardino’s teachings, as expressed in one of his sermons, provide us with evidence of contemporary views on marriage, domestic violence, and, especially, on the roles of women in late medieval urban households. Source: trans. G.G. Coulton, A Medieval Garner: Human Documents from the Four Centuries Preceding the Reformation (London: Constable & Co, 1910), pp. 605–09, 612–13, revised.

237

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

We have to speak this morning of the love and affection that the man should bear to his wife, and she to her husband. . . . She who is wise has brought her daughter to this morning’s sermon; she who is but so-so, has left her in bed. O! how much better have you done to bring her to hear this true doctrine! But to the point. Let us see this morning the three foundations of my discourse. The first is called Profit, the second Pleasure, and the third Honesty or Virtue, which is all one. . . . Let us begin with the first, with Profit. If a thing be of little profit, you love it little. . . . See now the world’s love: do two vicious folk love each other?—Yes, indeed.—Why then?—For some profit that they find. O worldlings, if the profit be small, small shall be the friendship between you! You shopman, does such and such a one come and get himself hose at your shop?—Yes—Do you love him?—Yes—Why? For your own profit, I say. For, were he to go to another shop, you would have no more profit of him, and no more friendship. So also with the barber: take away the profit, and you have taken the friendship. Why, if one be a barber, and another go to be shaved by him, and the barber flay his cheek, be sure that he would lose all love for him, and go there no more. Why then? Because the man is neither profitable in his eyes, nor pleasant, nor honest. I knew a man who was at a barber’s shop for the shaving, and who cried, “Ha, what are you doing?” “What am I doing?” said the barber, “why, I am shaving you.” “No,” (said the other) “you are flaying me instead!” Let this suffice for the matter of Profit. Now let us add Pleasure to Profit, as with the man who entertains a mistress that keeps his house, washes for him, cooks for him, lays his table and so forth; and with all this profit he has also the pleasure of the flesh: all the more is their friendship. Yet if she be of swinish nature, unkempt, unwashed, careless of her household, then is the love and friendship so much the less. Well and good for a while; but presently, if she fall sick, to the hospital she goes! Why should you worry about her? Gone is all your love, for you have neither pleasure nor profit from her. . . . This is no true love: true love should be riveted by the three corners: true love is as God’s love, which has in itself Profit and Pleasure and Honesty to boot. . . . Moreover, each should seek above all for goodness [in his spouse], and then for other advantages; but goodness first, goodness first of all. Consider now and think of such as choose their wives for other reasons; for example, of such as take a wife for her good dowry’s sake; if then they be affianced, and the dowry does not come, what (do you think) shall be the love between them both? A love stuck together with spittle! No, even though the dowry come in due time, yet is this an inordinate love, for you have not looked to the true aim; many a time has money driven men to do many things of which they have afterward bitterly repented. Wherefore I say to you, lady, take not for 238

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

your husband the man who would rather take your money and not yourself; take rather him who would take you first and afterward your money with you; for if he loves your money more than you, you are in evil case. . . . Behold! I am neither pope nor emperor; would that I were! This I say, for that I would proclaim a custom, if I could, that all women should go dressed in one fashion, even as the Roman women who all go dressed in linen; for their magnificence they all wear white linen, on back and head, the wives of princes no less than other women. And when they go mourning, they go all clad in somber colors; there, truly, is a fashion that pleases me well. When they go to pardons, they go in light attire: no labor of drawn thread in their garments, no spoiling of the stuff with snippings and slashings, no such spoiling of good cloth to make their bravery! Wherefore I say to you, lady, take no husband who loves your stuff more than your body. . . . Has the man gotten the stuff without other goodness or virtue?—Yes—Then, when the woman comes to her husband’s house, the first greeting is, “You come in an evil hour”; if she hear it not in word, yet at least in deed, for the man’s one thought was to have her dowry. . . . Wherefore, you ladies who have daughters to marry, see to it that they have the dowry of virtue to boot, if you would have them beloved of their husbands. . . . Are the occasions of love but slender? Then shall the love itself be slender. Do you know their nature? For example, do you know the nature of my host’s love for the wayfarer? The traveler comes, and says: God save you, Host!—Welcome, sir—Have you anything to eat?—Yes, truly—Then cook me a cabbage soup and two eggs—The meal is eaten and paid, the traveler goes on his way, and no sooner is his back turned than that friendship is forgotten: while the eggs are yet in his belly, that friendship is already past. For it was riveted at no corner; such friendships are as frail as a pear-stalk: shake the tree, and the pears will straightaway fall; there is no strong bond of love to hold them. If the friendship be frail, small is the love; if the pleasure be small, small again the love; if there be little virtue, slight love again! . . . Wherefore I bid you all, men and women, follow virtue, so that your love may be founded on these three things, Profit, Pleasure, and Honesty; then shall true friendship reign among you. And when you have these three things, hear what David says of you; “Your wife shall be as a fruitful vine, on the sides of your house” [Ps. 128:3]. Lo! All these three things are here. First, Honesty: your wife—your own wedded wife. Secondly, Pleasure; as a vine—how delightful a thing is a vine at the door of a house! Thirdly, Profit, a fruitful vine—rich in grapes and profitable; from which three things grow and endure true love between man and woman conjoined by the sacrament of holy matrimony: whereof I know twelve reasons, four to each point. See now, and learn them. Four, I say, are the reasons under honesty, and four under pleasure, and four under profit. 239

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

The first four, of honesty, you shall learn tomorrow, when I shall speak of the sacrament of marriage; and I believe that, when I shall have preached to you of the right deeds of matrimony, seeing that you have not done them, you shall all shrive yourselves again; for you have committed many sins which you have never confessed. Tomorrow, therefore, you shall see whether any bag of sins be left, and you shall hear into what sins I shall enter, as a cock goes upon his dunghill. Have you ever noted the cock when he comes upon the dung? How daintily he goes, with his wings spread aloft far from defilement, so that he may fly to his post! So will I do; as a cock upon the dunghill, so will I enter thereupon; wherefore I bid you bring your daughters tomorrow, for I promise you that I believe you have never heard a more profitable sermon. I say not [only] that your married daughters should come, I say all, both married and to marry; and in my sermon I will speak so honestly as to avoid all defilement; even the very least!—I am worried about you, since I believe so few are saved among those who are in the married state, that, of a thousand marriages, nine hundred and ninety nine (I think) are marriages of the devil. Ah me! Deem not that holy matrimony is an asses’ affair; when God ordained it, he ordained it not that you should wallow therein as the swine wallow in the mire. You shall come tomorrow and know the truth. But to my subject again, and to my first four reasons; take them with discretion; it is a sacred matter. And I say that there are many friars who say “would that I had taken a wife!” Come tomorrow, and you shall say the contrary of this. I say then, there are four reasons that make for the honesty of this God-ordained marriage. Have you noticed, when the pack sits ill [on a mule] and the one side weighs more than the other? Do you know that a stone is laid on the other side that it may sit straight? So I say of matrimony: it was ordained that the one might aid the other in keeping the burden straight. And mark me, women, that I hold with you so far as to say that you love your husbands better than they love you. First reason: the spouse you have is the spouse ordained for you by God. Second reason: she is espoused to you by plighted faith. Third reason: you should love her after Christ’s example. Fourth: for her own tried virtue. First, she has been ordained for your spouse by God, who ordained this from all eternity [Gen. 2:18, 1:28; Matt. 19:6]. . . . Secondly, espoused by plighted faith. Do you not see that, when you consented to matrimony, a sign is given to you, to last your whole life long? You, woman, receive the ring from your spouse, which ring you bear on your finger, and you set it on that finger which has a vein running straight to the heart, in token that your heart consented to this marriage; and you should never be espoused but for your consentient Yes. . . . Thirdly, marriage is love. What says Paul in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the Ephesians? “Husbands, love your

240

e i g h t : at t i t u d e s t owa r d wo m e n

wives as Christ also loved the church” [Eph. 5:25]. . . . Would you have a faithful wife? Then keep faith with her. . . . Now to my third division, of Profit, under four heads. . . . Firstly, the preciousness of fruit. O how precious are the fruits of a good woman, as the scripture says: “By their fruits you shall know them” [Matt. 7:16]. . . . Many consider not the value of a boy or a girl, and many folk who have them hold them of little worth, and when their wife brings forth a little girl, they cannot suffer her, so small is their discretion! Why, there are men who have more patience with a hen, which lays a fresh egg daily, than with their own wedded wife; and sometimes the hen may break a pipkin or a drinking-vessel, and the man will not strike her, all for love of her egg and for fear of losing the profit thereof. O madmen thrice worthy of chains! Who cannot bear with a word from their wife, who bears such fair fruit, but if she speak a word more than he thinks fit, forthwith he takes the staff and will beat her; and the hen, cackling all day long without end, you have patience with her for her paltry egg’s sake; yet the hen will perchance do you more harm in broken vessels than she is worth; and yet you bear with her for her egg’s sake! Many a cross-grained fellow, seeing perchance his wife less clean and delicate than he would rather see her, smites her without more ado; and meanwhile the hen may befoul the table, and he will suffer it. Do you not consider your duty in this matter? Do you not see the pig, again, squeaking and squealing all day long, and always befouling your house? Yet you bear with him until he be ripe for the slaughter. You have patience with him, only for the profit of his flesh, that you may eat thereof. Consider now, wicked fellow, consider the noble fruit of the woman, and have patience; not for every cause is it right to beat her. No! There, enough now of this first point. . . . Questions: What is the preacher’s definition of a happy marriage? What can this sermon tell us about the views on women and marriage in late medieval cities? What concerns seem to define attitudes toward marriage in cities and how does the preacher feel about these concerns?

241

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER NINE T H E CON T ROL OF S E X UA L I T Y

Figure 9.1  An offender carted off to be punished. Punishments in the Middle Ages often included an element of public shaming in order to humiliate the person being punished, deter similar “deviant” behavior, and demonstrate justice being done. In some cases, offenders were driven in a cart before being punished in other ways: for instance, on their way to be executed, locked into a pillory (another form of public punishment), or expelled from a town (for an example, see doc. 72).

243

This page intentionally left blank

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

68. LAWS OF JUSTINIAN CONCERNING SAME-SEX ACTS AND BLASPHEMY The reign of Emperor Justinian (r. 527–65) saw not only the last attempt at recovering lost Roman territories in Italy, Spain, and North Africa but also a codification of Roman law. Mere months after the beginning of his reign, Justinian began the project meant to collect, review, and codify pre-existing Roman laws; all new laws issued by the emperor himself were to be appended to this collection. The resulting body of laws, finished in 534, was promulgated across the expanding empire. The laws issued by Justinian during his reign became known as the Novellae Constitutiones (new laws or “novels”); the two new laws included here demonstrate Justinian’s uncompromising stance on sexual acts between same-sex partners, as well as blasphemy. Both kinds of behavior—in the emperor’s view—were offensive to God and therefore endangered the whole empire, leaving it open to divine wrath. Notably, both laws are intentionally vague in their prohibitions and use a euphemistic phrase, “crime contrary to nature,” to denote same-sex encounters; they serve to emphasize pre-existing prohibitions that were often left unenforced against sexual activity between males. Although this understanding was clearly informed by the biblical destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Justinian’s particularly harsh policies were likely a response to a relatively recent earthquake that rocked Antioch and Asia Minor in 526. The second law was issued in 559 in the aftermath of the destructive epidemic of the plague in the empire and most of the Mediterranean (541–42) and more earthquakes. In both cases, the emperor and his contemporaries understood these natural phenomena as signs of God’s anger and responded by urging both personal repentance and prosecution of the individuals suspected of engaging in same-sex relationships, especially in Constantinople, the imperial capital. Source: trans. Samuel Parsons Scott, The Civil Law (Cincinnati: Central Trust Co, 1932), vol. 16, pp. 288–89; vol. 17, pp. 160–61.

Novel 77 (c. 544) Men Shall Not Commit the Crime against Nature nor Swear by God’s Head, or Anything of This Kind nor Shall They Blaspheme God. The Emperor Justinian to the People of Constantinople. Preface We think that it is clear to all men of good judgment that our principal solicitude and prayer is, that those who have been entrusted to us by God may live 245

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

properly, and obtain divine favor. And as God does not desire the perdition of men, but their conversion and salvation, and as he receives those who, having committed sin, have repented, we invite all our subjects to fear God and invoke his clemency, for we know that all those who love the Lord and are deserving of his pity do this. Chapter 1 Therefore, as certain persons, instigated by the devil, devote themselves to the most reprehensible vices, and commit crimes contrary to nature, we hereby enjoin them to fear God and the judgment to come, to avoid diabolical and illicit sensuality of this kind; in order that, through such acts, they may not incur the just anger of God, and bring about the destruction of cities along with their inhabitants; for we learn from the holy scriptures that both cities as well as men have perished because of wicked acts of this kind. (1) And as, in addition to those who commit these offenses which we have mentioned, there are others who utter blasphemous words, and swear by the sacraments of God, and provoke him to anger, we enjoin them to abstain from these and other impious speeches, and not swear by the head of God, or use other language of this kind. For if blasphemy when uttered against men is not left unpunished, there is much more reason that those who blaspheme God himself should be deserving of chastisement. Therefore we order all men to avoid such offenses, to have the fear of God in their hearts, and to imitate the example of those who live in piety; for as crimes of this description cause famine, earthquake, and pestilence, it is on this account, and in order that men may not lose their souls, that we admonish them to abstain from the perpetration of the illegal acts above mentioned. If, after our warning has been given, anyone should continue to commit these offenses, he will in the first place render himself unworthy of the mercy of God, and will afterward be subjected to the penalties imposed by the laws. (2) We order the most glorious prefect of this royal city to arrest any persons who persist in committing the aforesaid crimes, after the publication of our warning; in order that this city and the state may not be injured by the contempt of such persons and their impious acts, and inflict upon them the punishment of death. If, after the publication of this law, any magistrates should become aware of such offenses, and not take measures to punish them, they shall be condemned by God. And even if the most glorious prefect himself should find any persons doing anything of this kind, and not punish them in accordance with our laws, he will, in the first place, be subjected to the judgment of God, and afterward sustain the weight of our indignation.

246

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

Novel 141 (c. 559) Edict Concerning Those Who Commit the Crime against Nature. The Emperor Justinian to the People of Constantinople. Preface As we are always in need of the benevolence and kindness of God, and above all, at this time, when we have provoked him to anger in many ways, on account of the multitude of our sins, and although he threatens us with the penalties we deserve, he, nevertheless, manifests his clemency to us, and has deferred the exercise of his wrath to some future time, expecting that we will manifest repentance, for he is more desirous for our conversion and salvation than for our death. Wherefore it would not be just for us to treat with contempt his abounding kindness, his tolerance, and his infinite patience, lest, avoiding repentance, our hearts may become hardened, and we may accumulate his anger upon our heads, on the day of his vengeance. But while we attempt to avoid committing wicked actions, and cherishing improper desires, there are persons who are guilty of abominable offenses, which are deservedly detested by God. We have reference to the corruption of males, a crime which some persons have the sacrilegious audacity to perpetrate. Chapter 1 We know, from the study of the holy scriptures, that God, in order to punish such persons, visited his wrath upon those who formerly inhabited the city of Sodom, and caused its territory to be consumed, even to this day, by an inextinguishable fire; and in this manner he informs us that we should abhor conduct of this description, which is contrary to the laws of nature. We also know what the divine apostle said concerning it, and also what provisions our laws have promulgated with reference thereto. Wherefore it is proper that all those who are influenced by the fear of God should abstain from such impious and criminal acts which even are not committed by beasts, and that those who have not yet perpetrated them may hereafter be deterred from doing so. Hence those who are given to this species of vice must hereafter not only refrain from sinning, but also show that they are penitent; prostrate themselves before God; confess their faults in the presence of the most blessed patriarch, and (as has already been stated) they will reap the fruits of their

247

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

repentance; so that the Almighty in his indulgence, and on account of the wealth of his compassion, may render us worthy of his kindness; that we may all give thanks for the salvation of those who are penitent; and that the magistrates, by prosecuting the guilty, may conciliate God who is deservedly incensed against us. And, indeed, we consciously and wisely beseech to bring to repentance those who defile themselves with filthy practices of this kind, so that there will no longer be occasion for us to prosecute such offenses. We notify all persons who may hereafter be guilty of this crime that if they do not cease to sin, and do not confess their guilt to the most holy patriarch or provide for their own salvation, and propitiate God on the holy festival days, they will render themselves liable to terrible chastisement, and will not, in the future, be deserving of pardon. We shall not neglect to adopt severe measures against such as do not manifest their repentance on the most holy festival days, and who persist in their wickedness, for if we should show any negligence in this respect, we will bring down the wrath of God upon us, and by closing our eyes will become accomplices in a crime sufficiently atrocious to arouse the anger of heaven against all persons. This Edict shall be communicated to the citizens of Constantinople. Given at Constantinople, on the Ides of March, during the thirty-second year of the reign of our lord the Emperor Justinian, and the eighteenth year after the consulate of Basil. Questions: What does the grouping of prohibitions against same-sex relationships and blasphemy suggest about the contemporary understanding of both? Why is the imperial decree concerned with these behaviors? According to the laws, what danger did those engaging in same-sex relationships pose to the empire as a whole?

69. A CROSS-DRESSING SAINT: MARINA/MARINUS Although very brief, The Life of Saint Marina in Jacobus de Voragine’s Golden Legend (the same collection of saint’s lives that contained The Life of Saint Mary of Egypt, doc. 60) can provide us with a glimpse into the role of gender in monastic life. Cross-dressing used for religious purposes was a common trope in The Golden Legend and medieval hagiography in general. It can also demonstrate the fluidity of medieval understanding of gender: once he is dressed in masculine clothing, Marinus’s sex does not arouse suspicion from his fellow monks. Marina’s Life also demonstrates the degree to which self-control and extreme obedience were perceived as virtues of monastic life: she cross-dresses and assumes a male identity out of filial obedience and later endures all misfortunes and undeserved punishments in order to keep her secret and to remain obedient to the abbot of the monastery. Finally, this text provides a tantalizing glimpse into the world of medieval monastic sexuality. At the center of the reading is the fear, common 248

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

throughout the Middle Ages, that a monk’s unfulfilled sexual urges were highly suspect; although a source of concern even within the walls of a monastery, once outside, monks could easily be perceived as a source of danger to women. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea: Vulgo Historia Lombardica Dicta, ed. Theodore Graesse (Dresden: Impensis Librariae Arnoldianae, 1846), p. 353.

Blessed virgin Marina was her father’s only daughter. After her father entered the monastery, he changed his daughter’s clothing so that she looked not as a woman but as a man and then begged the abbot and his fellow monks to accept his only son [into the monastery]. Accepting his request, they received her as a monk and he was called by all brother Marinus. She began to live a truly religious life and to be very obedient. When she was twenty-seven years old and her father felt his approaching death, he summoned his daughter and reassured her that she should never reveal that she is a woman. Often she went to the forest with oxen and a cart to gather wood for the monastery. She used to stay the night at the home of a certain man, whose daughter conceived a child with some knight. However, once asked [about the child’s father], she claimed that Marinus the monk violated her. When Marinus was questioned about why he committed such a crime, he confessed to have sinned and prayed for forgiveness. He was immediately thrown out of the monastery and remained at its gates for three years, sustaining himself on breadcrumbs. When the child was weaned, it was sent to the abbot, who gave it to Marinus to raise and it stayed with him for two years. All of this he took with great patience and thanked God for everything. At last, for his humility and patience the monks sent for him to be received back into the monastery, where he was ordered to do the menial tasks. These he did cheerfully and with patience and devotion. At last, leading the life full of good works, she departed to meet God and when they washed her body to prepare it to be buried, they saw that she was a woman. Astonished and terrified they were, knowing that they had mistreated the servant of God. All came running to see such a marvel and to beg forgiveness for their ignorance and sin. Her body then was taken to the church, while she who falsely accused the servant of God, was seized by a demon, confessed her crime at the sepulcher of the blessed virgin Marina and was healed; to this grave people come from all over and many miracles are manifested there. She died on the day before the fourteenth calends of July [18 June]. Questions: How does the text justify Marina’s decision to cross-dress and become a monk under false pretenses? Why do the accusations made against Marinus appear credible to the monastery’s abbot? What might this suggest about the medieval understanding of monastic sexuality? 249

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

70. PUNISHMENTS FOR ILLICIT SEXUALITY FROM A MEDIEVAL PENITENTIAL Penitentials were handbooks for priests, providing them with a list of questions to ask during private confessions as well as specifying standard penance for each particular transgression. In order to serve as helpful guides, especially to inexperienced confessors, penitential manuals provided an exhaustive list of possible transgressions, phrased as questions to be asked during confession. As a result, medieval penitentials contain questions about practices that would otherwise go unrecorded, especially various forms of illicit (from the Church’s point of view) sexual practices, fertility rituals, and folk magic. Excerpts from an early eleventh-century penitential included below come from a collection by Burkhard, bishop of Worms (r. 1000–25), known as the Decretum. Most of his twenty-volume collection, compiled around 1020, is concerned with canon law and materials written by influential clerical authors during the Early Middle Ages. Book 19 of the Decretum bears the title The Corrector or the Physician (Corrector sive Medicus) and consists of questions about transgressive behaviors; each question is accompanied by a recommended penance. Like other authors of penitential manuals before him, Burkhard was clearly preoccupied with improper sexual behaviors in his diocese: most of the canons (questions) in his penitential are concerned with a wide range of sexual practices—some associated specifically with women—including extramarital sex, sexual relations during Church festivals and fast days, incest, same-sex relationships, forms of contraception, love charms, and many others. It is hard to know how prevalent these practices were in Burkhard’s time and whether some of the canons describe nothing more than rumors or clerical fantasies. Nevertheless, Burkhard’s penitential is a good example of clerical attitudes toward sexuality during this period. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche nebst einer rechtsgeschichtichen Einleitung, ed. F.W.H. Wasserschleben (Halle: Ch. Graeger, 1851), pp. 642, 653, 658–61, 663.

49. Have you lain with your wife or with any other woman in the manner of a dog, from behind? If you have, you should do penance for five days on bread and water. Have you lain with your wife during the time of her menses? If you have, you should do penance for three days. If your wife enters a church before the cleansing from postpartum blood, she must do penance for as many days, as she is separated from the Church. If you have lain with her during the said time, you should do penance for forty days on bread and water. If you have lain with your wife after an obvious conception, you should do penance for five days. Have you lain with your wife after the infant is moving in uterus or fifteen days before birth? If you have, you should do penance for ten days. 50. If you have lain with your wife on a Sunday, you should do penance for four days. If you have defiled yourself [by having intercourse] with your wife 250

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

during Lent you should do penance for forty days or give twenty-six solidi in alms. If you were drunk, you should do penance for twenty days. You need to observe chastity for twenty days before Christmas and on all Sundays and on all designated fast days and on birthdays of the apostles, and on major and common feast days. If however, you do not observe it, you should do penance for twenty days on bread and water. . . . 107. Have you committed fornication, as sodomites do, that is in a man’s behind and inserted the [male] member into the rear, and in such way mate in the manner of a sodomite? If you have a wife and have done it once or twice, you should do penance for ten years, one of them on bread and water. Yet if you have [done it] habitually, you should do penance for twelve years. If however you have committed the same carnal crime with your brother, you should do penance for fifteen years. 108. If you have committed fornication with a man between the thighs, as some are in the habit of doing, that is to say, inserted your virile member between the thighs of another, and by moving it in that way discharged semen; if you have done so, you shall do penance on bread and water for forty days. 109. Have you committed fornication, as some are in the habit of doing, that is to say, you take the sexual organ of another [man] in your hand and the other man yours in his, and alternating in such a way, agitate the organ in that way, and by pleasuring it thus expel semen? If you have done this, you should do penance on bread and water for twenty days. 110. If you have committed fornication only with yourself, as some are in the habit of doing, that is to say, you take your own male member in your hand, and thus guide your foreskin and move your own hand, and by pleasuring it thus expel semen? If you have done this, you should do penance on bread and water for ten days. . . . 142. Have you done, as some women are in the habit of doing: made a certain object or a device modeled after a male member in the size of your preference, and bound it with some ties to your private parts or [the private parts] of the other, and done fornication with other women, or other women with that instrument with you? If you have done this, you should do penance for three years on appointed fast days. 143. Have you done, as some women are in the habit of doing, with the aforementioned object, or some other device, done fornication with yourself? If you have done this, you should do penance for one year. 147. Have you done, as some women are in the habit of doing, when they are fornicating and want to kill their child, they act as the uterus is conceiving with their evil charms and their herbs, so that either the conceived fetus is killed or expelled, or if they have not conceived yet, they make it so that they do not conceive? If you have done so or agreed with or taught it, you should do penance 251

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

for three years on appointed fast days. But one ancient ruling excommunicated such [women] from the Church for the rest of their life for when one impedes conception, she is guilty of murder. But [there is] a great difference, if a poor woman does it because of the hardship of raising [a child] or a prostitute does it to hide her sins. . . . 154. Have your tasted your husband’s semen in order to greater inflame his love for you with your diabolical acts? If you have done so, you should do penance for seven years. . . . 160. Have you done, as some women are in the habit of doing, they catch a live fish and insert it into their vagina, keeping it in there until it dies. And they serve the fish boiled or roasted to their husbands to eat, doing this in order to greater inflame their husbands’ love for them. If you have done so, you should do penance for two years. . . . 172. Have you done, as some adulterous women are in the habit of doing, once they learn that their lovers want [to marry] lawful wives, then with some evil spell they extinguish the men’s sexual desire, so that they are useless to their lawful [wives] and cannot have intercourse with them? If you have done so or have taught others [how to do it], you should do penance for forty days on bread and water. Questions: What kinds of sexual acts did the penitential punish and what might that reveal about medieval views about sex? Which acts are punished more harshly than others? Considering the number of forbidden sexual acts listed in the penitential, how realistic was all of this in terms of assessment and prohibition?

71. PROSTITUTION AND RELIGIOUS REFORM IN PRAGUE Jan Milic of Kromeriz (d. 1374) was a Czech preacher, theologian, and reformer, whose activity in Prague provided inspiration for later, more influential reformers like Jan Hus (1369–1415). In his early career, Milic occupied prestigious positions, first in the chancery of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles IV (r. 1346–78), and later as a canon of the Prague Cathedral. In 1363, he suddenly resigned his lucrative position and embarked on a life of preaching and religious reform in Prague. Jan Milic’s career as a popular preacher coincided with a period of urban growth and prosperity in Prague, as the capital of Bohemia and the seat of Emperor Charles IV grew in size and influence in central Europe. Like many other popular preachers during the period, Milic’s sermons were particularly preoccupied with promoting piety and improving morals among Prague’s urban population, whom he addressed in Latin, German, and even Czech. According to later accounts of his life—including the one by Matthew of Janov (d. 1394), provided here—Milic was particularly taken with preaching to the city’s many prostitutes and even established a religious community, “New Jerusalem,” in Prague’s most notorious brothel district. Throughout the High and Late Middle Ages, prostitutes were often the target audience 252

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

of choice for various preachers and reformers, who used the examples of Mary Magdalene and Mary of Egypt (doc. 60) to promote repentance among them. Milic’s plans were more ambitious, as he created a new kind of religious community where his male followers and former prostitutes lived side by side and led a quasi-monastic lifestyle. Eventually, Milic’s activity proved to be too controversial: his community was disbanded, while the preacher spent the last months of his life pleading his case at the papal court in Avignon. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Matthew of Janov, “Narracio de Milicio,” in Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, ed. Josef Emler (Prague, 1873), vol. 1, pp. 431–34.

Now, I want to go back to telling [about the deeds] of the most noble Milic. This Milic—whose name sounds, if translated into Latin, as “the most beloved”—I have seen overflowing with all the love and the deep mercy toward all people and even toward his enemies and persecutors, and there were none, except those stirred up by perhaps the spirit of the Antichrist, who spoke and worked with him, without partaking in his love, gratitude, and gentleness of spirit; and everyone came back from him soothed. He appeared in all things perfectly as the second Elijah; for his body was endlessly tormented by his fasting, his hair shirt, the ashes of great austerity, and he worked for the good of the people with such zeal that anyone who saw it thought that his labors went beyond what is possible for a man and exceeded all bodily power. For he constantly was hearing confessions, visiting the sick, the imprisoned, and the feeble, and consoled and led to the right path the lost and the sinful. He left the court of Emperor Charles IV, where he was uniquely regarded and loved; he left all that he had, benefices as well as the respected position at the cathedral church of Prague; perfectly following Jesus Christ, choosing to suffer the disgrace of Jesus crucified. Leaving the castles, he would have preferred to be a humble man in the Lord’s house, instead of the riches and fame of the Pharaoh’s daughter. He preferred to stay in the huts of sinners, to dedicate and expend all of himself for the good of the souls, prepared to obey in all the poor in Christ and determined to preach the word of God. In this, Lord Jesus gave him an amazing and for many centuries unheard-of gift [of preaching], because in a short time he delivered to repentance almost two hundred known and public prostitutes, in addition to other sinners of both sexes who undertook penance privately, while innumerable young virgins and widows, who were miraculously inflamed with the burning love for Christ by his words, remain throughout Bohemia to this day. . . . Milic, himself the son and the image of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the incarnate and apparent likeness of the apostles, supported the aforementioned penitent prostitutes with his own means; redeeming them with large sums of money from fornication, taking them under his care like a loving father full of godly compassion, providing for their clothes, food, and training in a wonderful 253

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

way, just like a hen hides the chicks under its wings and like an eagle pushing [its young] to fly and flying over them. And can anyone do justice in narrating or writing down with what tears, with what piety, with what worry [he tried] to prevent them from relapsing; and with what effort and weeping did he personally seek to bring back those who had happened to return to prostitution, and with what patience and with what sympathy toward their weak flesh did he express his compassion and practiced the work of mercy? . . . I saw him owning nothing at all because, as mentioned above, he has left everything for Christ, and yet he managed to feed and to dress and to provide abundantly in all needs for two hundred penitent women in his care every day. After he has sold all the books he had for his own education and was attached to [only] a few, and spent the money, then he borrowed from the rich, asking [for money] not without a great deal of indignity and rejection and roamed every day exhausted in order to manage [to find the funds] for certain, so that he could feed the aforementioned poor and weak women without fail. Thus and without any weariness, indeed with a great pleasure, agonizing every day and laboring in everything with them for many years, always finding solace in more and more admiration and sweetness toward himself and, undeniably, toward Jesus Christ, and he endured in that until his death. . . . When he arrived in Prague, this metropolis and an imperial city, which was then very sinful and, in particular, in spiritual matters resembled Babylon, he vigorously attacked and conquered many: the serpent, which, spiritually, they worshiped there in place of God, and the great and ancient mother of all harlots and prostitutes as well, and the scarlet beast on which the harlot dressed in scarlet was riding. At last, he put to shame and overcame innumerable crowds with his zeal and the famous life of following Christ as well as by constant rebukes, prayers and weary earnestness in good times and bad. And from his fame crimes and horrors declined. Oh, how many vices and excesses of every iniquity disappeared, beaten back by him, which, had Milic not come, no doubt would have made it all the way to heaven, and we surely would have been the second Sodom, we would have perished as the second Gomorrah. But now, by the mercy of Jesus Christ, with the merits and labors of Milic, Sodom was a thing of the past, and Prague spiritually out of Babylon was made now into Jerusalem, abiding in the word of Christ and the teaching of salvation. For the terrible vices, especially those that have been publicly committed, are now conquered and put behind us, and there are already virtues in the souls of [the followers of] Jesus Christ and they raise their heads and grow every day in number and degree, and Jesus crucified himself fulfills this glorious growth. His, however, [most] glorious and great victory in Bohemia, the image and the example of the highest good of salvation are known and expressed in the abovementioned conversion of such number and so many of the prostitutes in 254

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

the abovementioned city. Milic, not by chance but by the grace of Jesus Christ, accomplished the conquest with the word of Christ and redemption, as well as complete destruction of the old and the most notorious brothel in Prague, namely of the worst and horrible street that is called Venice, certainly named after Venus, [called] Benatky in the Bohemian language. And there he founded and built a school and a church and a place of every grace and virtue, which after the way of life of Jesus is called Jerusalem, which is to this day greatly celebrated under this name in Bohemia and Prague. Questions: How does this account portray late medieval Prague? Why did Jan Milic focus his preaching and reforming activity on Prague’s prostitutes? What was the relationship between the control of sexuality and religious reform in medieval cities?

72. ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION IN LONDON In the medieval understanding, prostitution was a necessary evil; its very existence was associated with sin, yet it also provided a necessary outlet to men’s lust and prevented further sexual misbehavior. As a result, especially in medieval towns, prostitution was a highly regulated aspect of everyday urban life. Prostitutes were expected to either stay in licensed brothels or, when outside, be clearly distinguishable from other women. Similarly, sex work was expected to be restricted to certain parts of a town, usually on its margins, either inside or outside the city walls. In late medieval London, prostitution was allowed in the suburb just outside the city’s New Gate (but still within London’s jurisdiction), in the aptly named Cock Lane. Despite the intentions of the city council, prostitution was hard to contain; illegal pimps, madams, and prostitutes operated within the city and were periodically discovered and expelled, as the court document included here demonstrates. Not all illicit brothels or prostitutes operated on a full-time basis, as some combined sex work with other kinds of work, such as laundry or embroidery, that were associated with women. Indeed, it appears that the illegal brothel and embroidery workshop run by Elizabeth Moring employed young women without explaining their unofficial duties to them. Upon discovery, pimps or procurers (and prostitutes) were punished by being locked in the thew, a pillory for women, before being paraded through the city to the New Gate and then expelled from it into the suburb where they could engage in prostitution on a more legal basis. Source: trans. Henry Thomas Riley, Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Centuries: Being a Series of Extracts, Local, Social, and Political, from the Early Archives of the City of London, A.D. 1276–1419 (London: Longmans, 1868), pp. 484–86, revised.

On the twenty-seventh day of July, in the ninth year [of the reign of King Richard II, 1385] etc., Elizabeth, the wife of Henry Moring, was brought before Nicholas Brembre, knight, the mayor, the aldermen, and the sheriffs of London, 255

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

in the Guildhall, for that, as well at the information of diverse persons, as upon the acknowledgment and confession of one Johanna, her servingwoman, the same mayor, aldermen, and sheriffs, were given to understand that the said Elizabeth, under color of the craft of broidery, which she pretended to follow, took in and retained the same Johanna and diverse other women, as her apprentices, and bound them to serve her after the manner of apprentices in such art; whereas the truth of the matter was, that she did not follow that craft, but that, after so retaining them, she incited the same Johanna and the other women who were with her, and in her service, to live a lewd life, and to consort with friars, chaplains, and all other such men as desired to have their company, as well in her own house, in the parish of All Hallows near the Wall, in the ward of Bradstret [Broad Street], in London, as elsewhere; and used to hire them out to the same friars, chaplains, and other men, for such stipulated sum as they might agree upon, as well in her own house as elsewhere, she retaining in her own possession the sum so agreed upon. And in particular, on Thursday the fourth day of May last past, by the compassing and procuring of the said Elizabeth, and of a certain chaplain, whose name is unknown, she sent the same Johanna, and ordered her to accompany the said chaplain at night, that she might carry a lantern before him to his chamber—but in what parish is likewise unknown—it being her intention that the said Johanna should stay the night there with the chaplain; of their own contriving, while the said Johanna herself, as she says, knew nothing about it. Still, she remained there with such chaplain the whole of that night; and when she returned home to her mistress on the morrow, this Elizabeth asked her if she had brought anything with her for her trouble that night; to which she made answer that she had not. Whereupon, the same Elizabeth used words of reproof to her, and ordered her to go back again to the chaplain on the following night, and whatever she should be able to lay hold of, to take the same for her trouble, and bring it to her. Accordingly, Johanna by her command went back on the following night to the said chaplain, at his chamber aforesaid, and again passed the night there: and on the morrow she rose very early in the morning, and bearing in mind the words of her mistress, and being afraid to go back without carrying something to her said mistress, she took a portifory [breviary] that belonged to the chaplain, and carried it off, the chaplain himself knowing nothing about it; which portifory she delivered to the said Elizabeth, who took it, well knowing how and in what manner the same Johanna had come by it. And after this, the said Elizabeth pledged this portifory for eight pence, to a man whose name is unknown. And many other times this Elizabeth received the like base gains from the same Johanna, and her other servingwomen, and retained the same for her own 256

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

use; living thus abominably and damnably, and inciting other women to live in the like manner; she herself being a common harlot and a procuress. Whereupon, on the same day, the said Elizabeth was asked by the court, how she would acquit herself thereof; to which she made answer, that she was in no way guilty, and put herself upon the country as to the same. Therefore the sheriffs were instructed to summon twelve good men of the venue aforesaid to appear here on the twenty-eighth day of the same month, to make a jury thereon; and the said Elizabeth was in the meantime committed to prison. Upon which day the good men of the venue aforesaid appeared, by Robert Tawyere and eleven others, etc.; who declared upon their oath, the same Elizabeth to be guilty of all the things above imputed to her; and that she was a common harlot, and a common procuress. And because through such women and the like deeds many scandals had befallen the said city, and great peril might through such transactions in future arise; therefore, according to the custom of the city of London in such and the like cases provided, and in order that other women might beware of doing the like; it was adjudged that the said Elizabeth should be taken from the Guildhall aforesaid to Cornhulle [Cornhill], and be put upon the thew [pillory], there to remain for one hour of the day, the cause thereof being publicly proclaimed. And afterward, she was to be taken to some gate of the city, and there be made to forswear the city, and the liberty thereof, to the effect that she would never again enter the same; on pain of imprisonment for three years, and the said punishment of the thew, at the discretion of the mayor and aldermen for the time being, so often as it should please them that she should suffer such punishment. Questions: What power dynamic between Elizabeth Moring, the women in her employ, and their clients does the document reveal? How was prostitution controlled and punished in medieval London? What concerns might have been behind the type of punishment chosen?

73. CONFESSION OF A MUSLIM PROSTITUTE IN VALENCIA Symbolic boundaries between religious groups in medieval Spain—Christians, Muslims, and Jews—were frequently enforced at the level of sexual encounters between their members. By the end of the Middle Ages, when Christians were the dominant majority in Valencia, its laws became particularly strict with regard to interfaith sexual contact; women were deemed particularly vulnerable and therefore contact between non-Christian men and Christian women received the harshest punishments. Conversely, Christian men were not punished for having sex with non-Christian women, while the nonChristian women suffered punishments for adultery prescribed by their religious laws. 257

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

This complicated system left Muslim and Jewish women in double jeopardy: if they were to be caught with a Christian partner, they could not only suffer penalties for miscegenation but also face punishment for adultery or extramarital sex prescribed by their own religion. The document below illustrates the harsh implications of these laws. Mariem, a Muslim woman, was accused of practicing prostitution illegally (presumably, with both Muslim and Christian men); she was sold into slavery to a Christian nobleman by a lover for whom she left her husband, and her new master put her in a brothel. Eventually, Mariem is freed from slavery, but her reputation as a prostitute likely prevented her from returning to her family and kept her working as a prostitute. Source: trans. Mark Meyerson, Medieval Iberia: Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources, ed. Olivia Remie Constable (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), pp. 494–95.

[23 June 1491] Confessions exacted from the prostitute Mariem, Muslim woman [mora] of Alasquer [in the kingdom of Valencia]. First she was asked her name. She answered that it is Mariem. She was asked whose daughter she is. She answered that she is the daughter of Yuseff Algumeli, Muslim of the village of Alasquer. [The spelling of names in this translation follows the spelling in the original document.] She was asked how she came here [that is, to the city of Valencia]. She answered that it was because of her mother, for her mother had forced her to return to her husband. She was asked with whom did she come [to Valencia]. She answered that [she came] with a procurer by the name of Cutaydal [a Muslim], whose place of origin, she said, is unknown to her. She was asked if she is with that one [Cutaydal] freely or by compulsion. She answered that presently she is no longer with him, since he mistreated her; however, previously she was and came with him out of her own free will, for he had promised to make her his wife. She was asked if he [Cutaydal] put her to work [as a prostitute] with her free consent or by compulsion. She answered that in the beginning she, the said defendant, traveled with the said Cutaydal voluntarily, for he had promised to make her his wife. She was asked if she, the said defendant, is in the brothel voluntarily or if the said Cutaydal was forcing her to be there. And she answered that before she, the said defendant, became a prostitute, the said Cutaydal threatened her, telling her that the agents of the lord cardinal [of Valencia; a major landholder in the kingdom with a reputation for mistreating Muslims] would enslave her. And therefore it was decided [by Mariem and Cutaydal] that she should be sold to the noble Don Altobello [de Centelles] and that thus she would be secure [that is, safe from the cardinal’s men as Don Altobello’s slave, a more benign master]. And so she was led to believe that she had been sold to Don Altobello, and thus 258

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

they have put her in the brothel. And thus she has had to endure being there and is there voluntarily. She was asked if she would like to return to the custody of her husband or of her mother and return to freedom, instead of being where she is. She answered that she does not wish to return to her husband, but that she desires to return to her mother rather than being where she is. She was asked for what quantity [of money] she was sold to the said Don Altobello. She answered that the said Cutaydal led her to believe that he had sold her for twenty pounds, but that the said Don Altobello has told her that it was for thirty pounds. She was asked what she does with her earnings [from prostitution]. She answered that she has worked for two days, and that everything she earns she gives to Don Altobello. And that he [Don Altobello] has told her that he will take her earnings into account toward her ransom. She was asked if she has taken any clothing or jewelry from the said village of Alasquer. She answered that she has not taken anything other than the clothes she is wearing. [Mariem is released into the custody of Cahat Bellvis and Yuçeff Maymo, councillors of the Muslim community of Valencia, and of the representative of Don Rodrigo de Mendoza, the lord of Alasquer. The questioning of Mariem resumes on 4 July 1491.] She was asked if she is married and has a husband. She answered yes, she was married with a letter of ṣada-q [Arabic, dower], according to the custom of the Muslims. Her husband is named Mahomat Jahupi. She was asked if she has worked [as a prostitute] and has committed adultery with any Muslim in the present city of Valencia. She answered that she has been a prostitute and has worked in the brothel of the morería [Muslim quarter] of Valencia. She was asked if she had committed adultery before she was put in the brothel of the morería of Valencia. She answered yes, that is, that she slept with the said Cutaydal in the city of Valencia. She was asked if she was adhering to the aforesaid confessions. She answered yes, that she will always adhere to them. [Joan Sobrevero, the representative of Don Rodrigo de Mendoza, lord of Alasquer, appears before the bailiff general and argues that Mariem was unlawfully sold to Don Altobello de Centelles, since she was a free vassal of Don Rodrigo. Sobrevero also produces evidence that Mariem purchased a license to practice prostitution from the bailiff general, and maintains that therefore she cannot be penalized for unlicensed prostitution. The bailiff general concurs with Sobrevero’s arguments and nullifies the sale of Mariem to Don Altobello. He frees Mariem to practice prostitution or to return to her parents or husband.] 259

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Questions: How did Mariem find herself practicing prostitution? How are slavery and prostitution related in Mariem’s account? What might it tell us about the treatment of non-Christian women in Valencia? Did medieval women such as Mariem think of themselves as prostitutes (the holders of a profession) or as women who for a time for a variety of reasons practiced prostitution?

74. CONFESSION OF ARNAUD OF VERNIOLLE Anyone interested in studying same-sex desire in the Middle Ages runs into the problem of sources. Medieval authors—predominantly members of the clergy—were purposefully vague about anything related to either desire or sexual acts between same-sex partners; by their omission, medieval authors were erasing if not same-sex sexuality itself, then anyone’s ability to learn about it. Rare finds like the testimonies against Arnaud of Verniolle and his confession made during the inquisition by Jacques Fournier (1285–1342), bishop of Pamiers in Languedoc, are valuable exceptions (docs. 18, 23, and 24 included in this collection were also produced during this inquisition). The nature of inquisitorial methods demanded that details of Arnaud’s sexual activity with young men in Pamiers be preserved more fully, although one should still be cautious when reading any inquisitorial records. In the documents related to Arnaud’s arrest and interrogation, we encounter conflicting statements about the nature of Arnaud’s relationship with his partners. The man testifying against him presents Arnaud as assertive and forceful to the point of violence, while Arnaud himself described his sexual encounters as mutually agreed upon. Fear of heavy punishments for sodomy likely colored the testimonies of both men. Of particular interest is Arnaud’s assertion that sexual activity between men was only as much a sin as sex between a man and a woman. Tragically for him and many others during the period, his prosecutors did not agree. Source: trans. Michael Goodich, Other Middle Ages: Witnesses at the Margins of Medieval Society (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), pp. 120–23, 127–28, 130–31, 135–36, 141–43.

Against Arnaud of Verniolle, Son of William of Verniolle of Le Mercadal Parish of Pamiers, Concerning the Crimes of Heresy and Sodomy . . . On 13 June 1323, Guillaume Roux, son of Pierre Roux of Ribouisse in the diocese of Mirepoix, a student in the liberal arts at Pamiers, slightly over sixteen years of age . . . testified as follows: He said that in that year, around the first day of Lent [13 February 1323], on a Sunday between noon and 3:00 p.m. on a day and time not otherwise recalled, when the speaker was in the convent church of the Augustinians at Pamiers, he met Arnaud of Verniolle, who took him out of the church into the garden. 260

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

Arnaud told him that if he wanted to stay with a certain canon of St-Saturninus of Toulouse who had forty pounds in rents and was prior of Lavelanet and [if he] would assist the canon by carrying his books to school, Arnaud could secure the position for him and the canon would provide his needs, food, and clothing. The speaker replied that he would willingly stay with the canon if he could study with him; the two of them then went to the Augustinian sacristy. Arnaud made Guillaume swear on a missal that he would reveal to no one the canon’s secrets and manner of living. Arnaud then said that the canon frequently got drunk and in his drunkenness easily assaulted others. If the speaker should see the canon drunk, it was advisable to put him to bed. He said the canon wanted women very much and usually either the speaker or any other servant who stayed with him would have to bring him women. If he wanted to stay, Guillaume should not reveal his knowledge of this to the canon. The speaker promised Arnaud to do this since Arnaud told him that it could be accomplished easily. He even told him that during the winter Guillaume would have to sleep in bed with the canon and that he ought to do whatever the canon wanted done; in the summer while asleep at midday, he would likely have to rub the speaker’s feet; but Arnaud said he should tell no one about this. When Guillaume said that it was sinful to bring such women to the canon, Arnaud told him that it was not such a grave sin and that he would introduce him to some friars who would absolve him of any sin and impose a light penance. If he did the canon’s bidding, he would make money and could give charity [as penance] from the canon’s goods. Arnaud then suggested that Guillaume come to his house where he would show him books and he could stay. The two then went to Arnaud’s house and entered an upper room. When they were alone, Arnaud showed him a book, saying it contained decretals [decrees that have the force of canon law], and after reading a bit told the speaker, “See what these decretals say here!” When the speaker said that he didn’t understand the words of the decretals, Arnaud told him in the vernacular [Provençal] that it was written that if a man lies with another, and because of the warmth of their bodies semen flows, it is not as grave a sin as if a man carnally knows a woman; because, so he said, nature demands this and a man is made healthier as a result. And, so he said, he himself could not stay with either a man or a woman, without semen flowing out. When Guillaume said he didn’t believe that it was a lesser sin to so behave with a man than to know a woman carnally, Arnaud told him that it is a lesser sin and that the decretals said so. Arnaud then threw the speaker down on the ground, placed his hands on his back, and lay on Guillaume. He then removed the speaker’s clothes and told him to spread his thighs or some evil would befall him. The speaker then spread his thighs, and Arnaud got completely undressed, 261

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

embraced the naked youth, kissed him, placed his penis between Guillaume’s buttocks, and, moving himself as with a woman, his semen flowed between the speaker’s legs. When this was accomplished, Arnaud told Guillaume to do likewise to him and that he could not leave the room until he had done so. Guillaume then likewise let his semen flow out between Arnaud’s buttocks, and Arnaud then made a similar movement. When this was over, Arnaud said that they must mutually swear never to do this again, either with each other or with anyone else. They then swore on the speaker’s calendar in which the four Gospels are written. When Guillaume said that they had committed a grave sin and heresy, Arnaud said he would bring him to a Franciscan who would absolve him of this sin and impose a light penance on him. Arnaud also gave him a book containing ten parchment folios which he kept in his home. Arnaud said that if he wanted to stay in his house until the feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist and on some night lie with him, he would pay him. The speaker said he wouldn’t do this and left Arnaud’s house while Arnaud remained. Afterward, Arnaud frequently met him in town, and when he encountered him he called Guillaume a heretic. Nevertheless, he did not bring him to that Franciscan to hear his confession concerning said sin, although Guillaume frequently asked him to do so. Finally, about eight days later [after the beginning of Lent], Guillaume was with Arnaud’s illegitimate son in the furrier Tignol’s workshop in the Villeneuve quarter of Pamiers. Arnaud, who was also there, told the speaker to accompany him to a parcel of land which he owned in Le Pomarol where, so he said, there were some men. The speaker consented to join him and the two of them went to the field, but there was no one there. When they arrived, Arnaud told him to undress and nap a bit because it was getting warm, and they could then carry on as they had done earlier in Arnaud’s house. The speaker at first refused and fled; but Arnaud pursued him and Arnaud of Verniolle threw one of Guillaume’s textbooks at him three times; as a result its binding broke. Arnaud then unsheathed a knife, pursued and assaulted him and brought him back to the field; with one hand he twisted the speaker’s arm and in the other he held the unsheathed knife. He then threw Guillaume on the ground and coiled his arms around his chest. He tried to lift him up and carry him to the spot where they had been, but when he couldn’t, grabbing and pulling his hair, he dragged him there. While they were still dressed, Arnaud threw him on the ground, and in the manner described earlier, thrust his penis between the speaker’s thighs and, embracing and kissing him, released his semen. Both before and after perpetrating this sin, Arnaud told him that this sin was less sinful than to know a woman carnally; and because Guillaume refused to commit this act with Arnaud due to the oath 262

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

he had sworn, and from which no one could absolve him, Arnaud said he would absolve him. After it was over, Guillaume took his robe and left while Arnaud remained in the field. . . . On another occasion, in the portico connecting the dormitory and latrines of the Franciscan convent of Pamiers, to which he had come to confess about his aforementioned sins, Arnaud solicited him to commit sodomy, telling him that he would introduce him to a friar of the same house who would lighten his penance and would absolve him of the oath they had sworn about not committing that crime. Arnaud said that if they committed this act then Arnaud would bring him the means of loosening his penance. Because Guillaume refused, Arnaud would not introduce him to that friar. . . . In the same year, on 2 June, friar Pierre Recort of the Carmelite order, who had stayed in Arnaud’s cell for several days and heard him speak about the crimes of heresy and sodomy . . . made the following deposition: During the feast of Saint Barnabas the apostle just past, Arnaud of Verniolle was incarcerated along with the speaker and Raymund Bar of Montaillou. Arnaud pulled the speaker to one side and asked why he had been imprisoned. Pierre likewise asked why Arnaud had been imprisoned. He replied that he had been accused of committing the crime of sodomy with three youths, one from Gaudies and the other two from Ribouisse. He was also accused of posing as a priest, of hearing confessions, and of absolving penitents of their sins. Pierre asked: “Did you indeed commit these crimes?” Arnaud replied that he had. Arnaud said that because they wanted him to write parables or verses for them, Arnaud used to go with one or another of the aforementioned youths, bringing along some wine, silver cups, and food to a field that is situated opposite the leprosery of Pamiers. When they were there, they sometimes used to spread out a robe, dance, and wrestle, and afterward commit sodomy with each other. The boys would even come to his home and there, in an upper chamber, which was his study, they committed sodomy with him and he with them. And in that way one day the three youths fooled around with Arnaud, lying down together on the bed, one of them committing sodomy with the other as the third one watched. Because one of them already knew about it, they were all fired up about this sin. Arnaud started to do this on the feast of All Saints [1 November 1322] last year and frequently committed that crime with the youths. He told Pierre that he believed that sodomy was a mortal sin, although it is equal to simple fornication with prostitutes. Although he had heard that sodomy was a graver sin than simple fornication, he didn’t believe it was, unless a man lay on top of another man like a woman or committed the sin through the rear. When Pierre asked why he carried on in this way with youths when he could have had enough women, Arnaud told him that during the period that they were burning lepers, he was in Toulouse and had sex with a prostitute. 263

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

After perpetrating that sin, his face swelled up and as a result he was afraid of becoming a leper. He therefore swore from then on not to know women carnally; and, in order to keep that oath, he carried on in the above manner with those young men. Confession of Arnaud of Verniolle, Son of the Subdeacon Guillaume of Verniolle of Le Mercadal Quarter of Pamiers, Concerning the Crimes of Heresy and Sodomy On 23 June 1323, Arnaud of Verniolle, son of the subdeacon Guillaume of Verniolle of the Le Mercadal quarter of Pamiers, an apostate from the Franciscan Order, strongly suspected and accused of the crimes of heresy and sodomy, was arrested and, at the order of the reverend father in Christ, the lord Jacques, by the grace of God bishop of Pamiers, was bound over in prison at the order of the aforesaid lord bishop and was led into the bishop’s presence in the upper gallery of the episcopal see at Pamiers, before a court set up in his presence. He swore on the Gospels that he would speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth concerning said crimes and others touching on the Catholic faith and the office of the inquisition touching depraved heresy, both about himself and about all others living and dead; after taking his oath, he said, confessed, and made a deposition as follows: . . . He said that the same year around last Christmas on a day which he didn’t remember Guillaume Roux of Ribouisse in the diocese of Mirepoix, a student at Pamiers and tutor to the sons of Raymund Faur (also called “Recurul”) of the Loumet quarter of Pamiers, came to Arnaud’s house and asked if he knew a cleric, whom he could serve and who would be willing to hear his lessons, because his brother didn’t want to provide for his studies. Arnaud replied that master Maurand, prior of Lavelanet and canon of St-Saturnin of Toulouse, was looking for a cleric like him to bring his books back and forth for him to school. Arnaud made this Guillaume swear on a martyrology or liturgical book not to reveal, even to the canon, the things that Arnaud would tell him about this canon. After Guillaume had so sworn, Arnaud told him that he had heard that the canon sometimes kissed and embraced youths and afterward he would put his penis between their thighs and perpetrate that sin, “and if by chance, you lodge with him, you’ll have to allow him to do likewise with you if he so desires.” Guillaume answered that he was willing; Arnaud then asked if he had already committed this sin with someone else. Guillaume replied that he had done so with a certain squire of his country, who had shared his bed; he added that he knew well how to commit that crime, and even told Arnaud the squire’s name, although Arnaud didn’t remember it. This conversation took place in the upper 264

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

chamber of Arnaud’s house, in which there was a bed. Arnaud thereupon said to Guillaume, “Do you want me to demonstrate that act to you, and will you show me how the squire acted with you?” Guillaume replied that he was willing. They then undressed, lay down nude on the bed and, in the aforementioned way, first one and then the other committed sodomy; they then swore on the Gospels never to reveal anything about this sin to anyone. Arnaud then borrowed from Guillaume a book by Ovid [Ovid’s work on love was widely read and copied during the Middle Ages], whose title he didn’t know. Guillaume then asked Arnaud to give him a knife which he carried with his knives, but Arnaud refused and said he would give him a different one. . . . Arnaud said that afterward he and Guillaume Roux committed sodomy with each other in the same room and bed, on different occasions, two or three times. The speaker likewise committed that sin with Guillaume Roux in the same way, except that they only lay down on the bed naked the first time. Guillaume often even committed the crime with the speaker, and it seems that he enjoyed it as much as Arnaud did, to tell from his words and deeds. On the last occasion that they did this, they swore on the Gospels not to do so with anyone else. Guillaume excepted the canon, since he was going to lodge with him. They swore otherwise not to commit the sin again with each other. . . . A year later, on 1 August 1324, Arnaud of Verniolle was taken from the prison in the tower of Les Allemans and brought before the lord bishop in the upper chamber of the episcopal see of Pamiers, in a court set up in the bishop’s presence. He swore again to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth concerning heresy and sodomy, about himself and all persons living and dead; when this oath was completed, he was asked if what he had confessed to the bishop on 23 June 1323 was full and complete and true. When this was read to Arnaud, the bishop suggested that he consider whether he did not remember his confession. Arnaud replied that everything in his confession was true and complete and that it was entirely factual and that he needn’t read the confession since he remembered it. Asked if he wanted to add or subtract anything in his confession, concerning himself or others living or dead, he replied in the negative. Asked if he ever told anyone or he believed that sodomy with men was a lesser sin than simple fornication with a prostitute, and especially if he had shown anyone that this was written in a book of decretals, he replied to each of these in the negative. Asked if he told anyone or believed that because his nature required him to satisfy his lust either with a man or a woman it is not sinful to have relations with men or women, or that these may be minor or venial sins, he replied that his nature inclined him to commit sodomy, although he always believed that sodomy was a mortal sin. Nevertheless, he held that sodomy is as sinful as simple fornication and that illicit deflowering of a virgin and incest may be 265

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

graver sins, and in any case the same as men carnally knowing other men. And he had indeed told this to Guillaume Roux, son of Pierre Roux of Ribouisse, and Guillaume Bernardi, son of Jean Ioc of Gaudiès in Mirepoix, with whom he committed sodomy. But he had not told them this in order to induce them to consent to perpetrate that sin with him lest they not do it. He told Guillaume Roux that the sin of masturbation is equal to the sin of simple fornication and to the sin of sodomy. They were equal, so he said (and, so he said, he had believed this in his heart at that time, from the feast of All Saints just past until he confessed), even if that sin of masturbation was committed on purpose and deliberately. . . . Bibliothèque Nationale, Doat 23, fols. 71r–76v In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen. It has been established as a result of written confessions made in court before us, the bishop and inquisitor, that Arnaud of Verniolle, subdeacon of the city of Pamiers, apostate from the Franciscan Order, whom we have first decreed must be deposed from orders as subdeacon and cleric, from every tonsure and clerical privilege, and degraded on this day and place, in order to receive penance from us and hear the definitive sentence peremptorily imposed upon him, must undergo the salutary penance of life imprisonment. You, Arnaud of Verniolle, have fallen into the horrible and damnable crime of sodomy, as is noted above in your full confession, and because of which you are to be gravely and harshly punished. . . . You should therefore be degraded and placed in iron chains in the strictest prison, to be fed a diet of bread and water for life . . . so that no one may grant you grace in the future, neither the bishops nor inquisitors who succeed us. . . . Questions: What can we learn about the sexual practices of Arnaud of Verniolle, his partners, and other individuals mentioned in the testimonies? How do the testimonies of Arnaud of Verniolle and his partners describe the events that took place? What might explain any difference in their recollection of what happened? How did Arnaud justify same-sex relationships to his partners and to the inquisitor?

75. THE TRIAL OF KATHERINA HETZELDORFER If medieval authors were often intentionally vague in their descriptions of sexual acts between men—using euphemisms such as “crimes against nature” (doc. 68) or “unmentionable vice” instead—sexual encounters between women were mostly unmentioned. Many scholars have pointed out that same-sex desire among women was deeply marginalized and silenced in the sources; only rarely do we get a glimpse into their lives. Just 266

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

as the inquisitorial sources, like the confession of Arnaud of Verniolle (doc. 74), tend to provide more information about the intimate lives of those who engaged in illicit sexual practices, so do urban court records in late medieval cities. In order to fully record the circumstances of the case and the information provided by witnesses and by the accused, these documents—like records from the trial of Katherina Hetzeldorfer of Nuremberg included here—provide a richer, if still fragmentary picture. Katherina Hetzeldorfer was accused of being sexually active with multiple women in Speyer and put on trial. She cohabited in that city with another woman (absent from the court records and possibly missing), whom she had initially introduced as her sister. In addition to having sex with her more permanent partner, Katherina was occasionally sexually active with two other women in Speyer. Throughout the court record, both female witnesses against Katherina likely attempted to minimize their guilt by presenting her as the initiator and active participant in these affairs; the women repeatedly presented themselves as being misled by Katherina’s “manly” behavior. Their attempts to exonerate themselves proved effective and both of Katherina’s occasional partners were punished by a ban from Speyer; Katherina, perceived as more guilty, was drowned in the Rhine. Source: trans. Helmut Puff, “Female Sodomy: The Trial of Katherina Hetzeldorfer (1477),” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 30.1 (2000), pp. 60–61.

[fol. 12r] 1477 Else, wife of Wendel Muter, says, among many other things, that around four weeks ago she who stands in the dock [the accused] came to her at her house when her husband was not at home. She knocked on the door so long that in the end she let her in. Among other things, [she says] when they were together she put her up in a different bed. Then [however] she who stands in the dock lay down in bed with her and, during many quarrels, sat down on top of the above-mentioned Else, and tried to seduce her and to have her manly will with her. ([Marginal note:] As she in fact did it with her once just like a man. She also says that if she is to be punished she did it once. She also says that her semen is so much that it is beyond measure, that one could grab it with a full hand.) She grabbed it [the penis] and felt that it was a huge thing, as big as half an arm. She thought it was like a horn and pointed in front and wide behind. She could hardly ward her off. Among other things, when she broke loose she who stands in the dock jumped out of the window. She also says when she came to her she showed her the penis and tried to have her will with her and offered to give her eight florins. She also says that she urinates through this thing. She also says that she who stands in the dock prohibited her [from telling others], and she promised not to mention it to anybody. She also says that she who is supposed to be her sister said to her in brief that she who stands in the dock had deflowered her and had made love to her during two years. She also said that she did not know anything other than that men should be granted such roguery. 267

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Else, wife of Henck [?] Michel [?], says that during carnival she saw that she who stands in the dock stood, whored like a man, and she grabbed her just like a man. She also says that with hugging and kissing she behaved exactly like a man with women, as she said. Ennel Helmstetner says that once upon a time she asked the accused for information about her sister . . . asked how it came that she . . . her sister . . . she was her husband. . . . [fol. 14r] Hannß Welcker says, among other things, that he had heard from Ennel Helmstat that she said that she who stands in the dock and who is supposed to be a man—that she abducted her, whom she calls a sister, from a noble and is not her sister. [fol. 13r] Katherina Hetzeldorferin from Nuremberg: She says that she did it at first with one finger, thereafter with two, and then with three, and at last with the piece of wood that she held between her legs to the extent she said and confessed before. (She also says that she who was with her is her sister and that she has nothing to do with her [that is, has had no sex with her]. She was ready to die for that [that is, it is really true].) She says that she who was with her is not her sister and says that she encountered her in Wertheim and took her here [to Speyer] (she did not court her nor do anything dishonest with her) and had her way with her. And she also says thereafter that she made an instrument with a red piece of leather, at the front filled with cotton, and a wooden stick stuck into it, and made a hole through the wooden stick, put a string through, and tied it round; and therewith she had her roguery with the two women and her who is supposed to be her sister. She was drowned—requiescat in pace—on Friday before the deposition of Saint Guido. When the Schreckenspönn said such about her, and when she insisted that she did not know anything other than that she was a man and committed an act of knavery with her three times, she remained arrested because of that until the aforementioned Katherina was executed, [in order to find out] whether Katherina wanted to absolve her for not knowing anything other than that she took her for a man, and [in that case] ban her ten miles’ distance from the city. Similarly Else, wife of Wendel Muter, with whom she had to do once [that is, had sex with her once], remained arrested. And on the following Saturday they both swore ten miles from the city [they were exiled ten miles from the city]. Friday after Judica, 1477. Questions: How do the two witnesses against Katherina Hetzeldorfer—her occasional sexual partners—describe her behavior? What considerations might be influencing their testimonies? Why do both women insist that Katherina behaved like a man and what might this tell us about the late medieval understanding of gender? 268

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

76. TESTIMONY OF ROLANDINA RONCAGLIA As in the previous document, the following court record provides information that would not otherwise have been preserved in other types of sources. In this case, on 20 March 1354, the individual in front of the Council of Ten, Venice’s governing body, was Rolandina Roncaglia (Ranchaia), who was accused of sodomy and executed by burning at the stake. Rolandina’s arrest and tragic end—and the resulting court record—provide us with an extremely rare account of a late medieval transgender or intersex individual. She was born and gendered as a boy, named Rolandino, raised as a man, and even took a wife. Later in her life, Roncaglia first had sex with a man in Padua and began to pass as a female. Upon her return to Venice, Roncaglia continued living as a woman and began to practice prostitution; interestingly, based on her account, no one in Venice objected to her transition to a woman, which suggests a degree of acceptance of Rolandina’s gender fluidity. However, from the point of view of the Lords of the Night, Venice’s criminal court, Roncaglia was recorded in her testimony, and eventually punished, as a man. Source: trans. Eugene Smelyansky from Archivo di Stato di Venezia, Criminal Records of the Lords of the Night, register 6, p. 64r.

1354, seventh indiction, 20 March Rolandino Roncaglia, who wandered around Rialto selling this and that, suspected of sodomitic sin, was brought into the torture chamber in front of the Lords of the Night under the suspicion of [committing] a sin of sodomy, and questioned to tell the truth about the evil he had committed about performing that sin. Immediately, without any torture, he said and confessed that it will now be ten years and more since he took a wife and married a young woman, with whom he spent some time, and yet never knew her (neither her nor any other woman) carnally, because he never had any carnal appetite and never managed to arouse his male member; and that his wife left him, and she died at the time of the epidemic. He went to stay in Padua, a guest of his relative Massone, and since he has the looks, voice and gestures as a woman (although he does not have the female orifice and has a male member and testicles) many believed that he was a girl, from his outward appearance, and he often heard many saying: “she is a woman,” when mentioning the same Rolandino. Finally, on a certain night, while he was in bed in the house of the same Massone, a man who was living in the same house, believing that he was a woman, entered the bed next to him with the intention to know him as a woman, hugging him, and began to kiss him and embrace him and fondle his breasts (which he has in the way of women) and mounted his body. Then Rolandino, assuming the role of the female, and wanting to be taken for a female, hid the member and took the member of that man and placed it 269

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

in his rear, where the said man emitted sperm and, having done this, let him go. And in the same way he went with two other men in Padua, who mistook him for a woman. After that he came to Venice and, since he had already been with men as a woman, assuming the role of a woman, then it became known that everyone believed that he was a female, including for his outwardly evident female gestures, and many called him Rolandina. And he frequented Rialto’s prostitutes in bed [it is unclear in what capacity] and went to public baths with them, and he hid his member from both sides in such a way that no one ever noticed it and that all of them evidently considered him female. And because of this fact he was requested for the carnal acts by many and infinite number of men here in Venice, and lay with many for the carnal acts at home, and with many elsewhere at the request of those who thought he was female. He deceived them in this way, that is, when they were on top of his body, he would hide his member as far as he could, and took the member of the man who was lying with him and put it in the rear, and remained with them until they ejaculated sperm, granting them every pleasure as prostitutes do with men, and in this sin remained for seven years, more or less. Questioned if anyone, while in the act with him, noticed his member, he said no. When asked whether his member was aroused, he answered no. When asked about the reason for which he committed this sin, he replied: to earn a little money. Then, the said Rolandino was put to torture by order of the same Lords [of the Night] and questioned to better tell the truth, and not saying anything but what he said above, he was tortured, but for this he [still] said nothing but things which were said and written above. Then, on 28 March, the said Rolandino was presented before the Lord Doge, and here after all the things written above were read in his presence, he persevered in his confession, ratifying what he had said, as is said and written above. Note that in 1354, seventh indictment, on 28 March, by lord Giovannicola Rosso, and lord Daniele Cornaro Giudici de Proprio, in the absence of the third judge, the said Rolandino was condemned to be burned to death. Questions: Based on her testimony, how did Rolandina understand her gender identity, and why? Conversely, how did Rolandina’s interrogators understand her gender identity? How did the people around Rolandina react when she returned to Venice dressed and acting as a woman? Why was Rolandina punished for sodomy instead of prostitution? 270

n i n e : t h e c o n t ro l o f s e x ua l i t y

77. TESTIMONY OF ELEANOR/JOHN RYKENER Efforts by London’s city council to control and manage prostitution (doc. 72) produced court records providing insight into medieval sexuality unmatched by other types of sources. On a cold night in early December 1395, Eleanor Rykener was arrested, along with her customer, on the charge of illicit prostitution. Upon closer examination, however, the prostitute was discovered to be a man named John, who was dressed in women’s clothing. The court record produced in Eleanor’s/John’s case, provided below, not only relates more information about the life of the accused but also demonstrates some degree of uncertainty about the case on the part of the mayor and aldermen of London. While this case has a lot of similarity with the case of Rolandina Roncaglia of Venice (doc. 76)—both practiced prostitution while passing as women—Eleanor appears to have had relationships with both men and women. The authors of the document distinguish carefully between her sexual encounters as a man (with women) and “as a woman” with male customers. Where did Eleanor/John fit in the medieval understanding of gender? The document lacks any mention of a verdict reached in this case and we do not know whether Eleanor/ John was ever convicted of engaging in sodomy or, perhaps, punished with stocks and expulsion from the city as an illicit prostitute. Source: trans. David Lorenzo Boyd and Ruth Mazo Karras, “‘Ut cum muliere’: A Male Transvestite Prostitute in Fourteenth Century London,” in Premodern Sexualities, ed. Louise Fradenburg and Carl Freccero (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 111–12.

On 11 December, [in the eighteenth year of the reign of King] Richard II were brought in the presence of John Fressh, mayor, and the aldermen of the city of London John Britby of the county of York and John Rykener, calling [himself] Eleanor, having been detected in women’s clothing, who were found last Sunday night between the hours of eight and nine by certain officials of the city lying by a certain stall in Soper’s Lane committing that detestable unmentionable and ignominious vice. In a separate examination held before the mayor and aldermen about the occurrence, John Britby confessed that he was passing through the high road of Cheap on Sunday between the abovementioned hours and accosted John Rykener, dressed up as a woman, thinking he was a woman, asking him as he would a woman if he could commit a libidinous act with her. Requesting money for [his] labor, Rykener consented, and they went together to the aforesaid stall to complete the act, and were captured there during these detestable wrongdoings by the officials and taken to prison. And John Rykener, brought here in women’s clothing and questioned about this matter, acknowledged [himself] to have done everything just as John Britby had confessed. Rykener was also asked who had taught him to exercise this vice, and for how long and in what places and with what persons, masculine or feminine, [he] had committed that libidinous and unspeakable act. [He] swore 271

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

willingly on [his] soul that a certain Anna, the whore of a former servant of Sir Thomas Blount, first taught him to practice this detestable vice in the manner of a woman. [He] further said that a certain Elizabeth Brouderer first dressed him in women’s clothing; she also brought her daughter Alice to diverse men for the sake of lust, placing her with those men in their beds at night without light, making her leave early in the morning and showing them the said John Rykener dressed up in women’s clothing, calling him Eleanor and saying that they had misbehaved with her. [He] further said that a certain Phillip, rector of Theydon Garnon, had sex with him as with a woman in Elizabeth Brouderer’s house outside Bishopsgate, at which time Rykener took away two gowns of Phillip’s, and when Phillip requested them from Rykener he said that [he] was the wife of a certain man and that if Phillip wished to ask for them back [he] would make [his] husband bring suit against him. Rykener further confessed that for five weeks before the feast of Saint Michael’s last [he] was staying at Oxford, and there, in women’s clothing and calling himself Eleanor, worked as an embroideress; and there in the marsh three unsuspecting scholars—of whom one was named Sir William Foxlee, another Sir John, and the third Sir Walter—practiced the abominable vice with him often. John Rykener further confessed that on Friday before the feast of Saint Michael [he] came to Burford in Oxfordshire and there dwelt with a certain John Clerk at the Swan in the capacity of tapster for the next six weeks, during which time two Franciscans, one named Brother Michael and the other Brother John, who gave [him] a gold ring, and one Carmelite friar and six foreign men committed the abovesaid vice with him, of whom one gave Rykener twelve pence, one twenty pence, and one two shillings. Rykener further confessed that [he] went to Beaconsfield and there, as a man, had sex with a certain Joan, daughter of John Matthew, and also there two foreign Franciscans had sex with him as a woman. John Rykener also confessed that after [his] last return to London a certain Sir John, once chaplain at the Church of St-Margaret Pattens, and two other chaplains committed with him the aforementioned vice in the lanes behind St-Katherine’s Church by the Tower of London. Rykener further said that he often had sex as a man with many nuns and also had sex as a man with many women both married and otherwise, how many [he] did not know. Rykener further confessed that many priests had committed that vice with him as with a woman, how many [he] did not know, and said that [he] accommodated priests more readily than other people because they wished to give [him] more than others. Questions: What can we learn from this document about Eleanor/John Rykener’s gender identity? What does Rykener’s case tell us about the medieval understanding of masculinity and femininity? What does this document tell us about sexual practices of the late medieval clergy and other members of the Church? 272

SOURCES Gulielmus Adae. “De modo Sarracenos extirpandi,” in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades: Documents Arméniens, vol. 2. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Paris, 1906. Agobard of Lyon. “Agobardi Episcopi ad proceres palatii consultatio et supplicatio de baptismo judaicorum mancipiorum,” in Patrologia Latina, vol. 104. Ed. J.P. Migne. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Paris, 1864. Emilie Amt, trans. Women’s Lives in Medieval Europe: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1993. Augustine of Hippo. The City of God, vol. 2. Trans. Marcus Dods. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871. Augustine of Hippo. “Reply to Faustus the Manichean,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Augustine: The Writings against the Manicheans, and against the Donatists, First Series, vol. 4. Ed. Philip Schaff. Trans. Richard Stothert. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909. Augustine of Hippo. “A Treatise Concerning the Correction of Donatists,” in The Works of Aurelius Augustine: Writings in Connection with the Donatist Controversy. Trans. J.R. King. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. Bernard of Clairvaux. Cantica Canticorum: Eighty-Six Sermons on the Song of Solomon. Trans. Samuel J. Eales. London: E. Stock, 1895. Henry F. Berry, trans. Statutes and Ordinances, and Acts of the Parliament of Ireland: King John to Henry V. Dublin: H.M. Stationery Office, 1907. Giovanni Boccaccio. The Decameron: Or, Ten Days Entertainment. Trans. W.K. Kelly. Cincinnati: Stewart & Kidd, 1919. Gerard J. Brault, trans. La Chanson de Roland: Student Edition. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1984. W.R. Brownlow, trans. The Hodoeporicon of Saint Willibald, vol. 3. London: Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, 1895. Gene Brucker, trans. The Society of Renaissance Florence: A Documentary Study. University of Toronto Press, 1998. Andreas Capellanus. Andreae Capellani regii Francorum De amore libri tres. Ed. E. Trojel. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Copenhagen: Libraria Gadiana, 1892. John Carpenter. Liber Albus: The White Book of the City of London. Trans. Henry Thomas Riley. London: Richard Griffin and Company, 1861. Alexander Cartellieri and Wolf Stechele, eds. Chronicon Universale Anonymi Laudunensis. Von 1154 bis zum Schluss (1219). Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Leipzig: Dyk, 1909. Rotha Mary Clay, trans. The Medieval Hospitals of England. London: Frank Cass, 1909. 273

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Olivia Remie Constable, ed. Medieval Iberia: Readings from Christian, Muslim, and Jewish Sources. Trans. Mark Meyerson. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. G.G. Coulton, trans. A Medieval Garner: Human Documents from the Four Centuries Preceding the Reformation. London: Constable & Co, 1910. Paul Edward Dutton, trans. Charlemagne’s Courtier: The Complete Einhard. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008. Jean Duvernoy, ed. Le registre de l’inquisition de Jacques Fournier, vol. 2. Trans. James B. Given and Belinda Peters. Toulouse: Privat, 1965. Nicholas Eymerich. Directorium inquisitorum. Ed. Francisco Peña. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Venice: Simeonis Vasalini, 1595. Louise Fradenburg and Carl Freccero, ed. “‘Ut cum muliere’: A Male Transvestite Prostitute in Fourteenth Century London,” in Premodern Sexualities. Trans. David Lorenzo Boyd and Ruth Mazo Karras. London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 111–12. Republished by permission. Victor Genke and Francis X. Gumerlock, ed. and trans. Gottschalk and a Medieval Predestination Controversy: Texts Translated from the Latin. Introduction by Victor Genke. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2010. ISBN 9780874622539. © 2010 by Marquette University Press. Used by permission of the publisher. All rights reserved. www.marquette.edu/mupress/. Gerald of Wales. The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis: Containing the Topography of Ireland, and the History of the Conquest of Ireland . . . Ed. Thomas Wright. Trans. Thomas Forester and Richard Colt Hoare. London: George Bell & Sons, 1892. H. Géraud, ed. Chronique Latine de Guillaume de Nangis de 1113 à 1300 avec les continuations de cette chronique de 1300 à 1368, vol. 2. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Paris: J. Renouard, 1843. Gilbert the Englishman. “Compendium medicine,” in A Source Book in Medieval Science. Ed. Edward Grant. Trans. Michael R. McVaugh. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. Copyright © 1974 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Michael Goodich, trans. Other Middle Ages: Witnesses at the Margins of Medieval Society. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. Guibert of Nogent. A Monk’s Confession: The Memoirs of Guibert of Nogent. Trans. Paul J. Archambault. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. Phillip K. Hitti, trans. An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Usama Ibn-Munqidh. New York: Columbia University Press, 1929. © Columbia University Press 1929. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. 274

sources

J.-L.-A. Huillard-Bréholles, ed. Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi, vol. 3. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Paris: Excudebat Henricus Plon, 1857. Maryanne Kowaleski, trans. Medieval Towns: A Reader. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. William Langland. The Vision of Piers Plowman. Trans. Henry W. Wells. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1935. Domenico Lenzi. “Mirror of Humanity,” in Merchant Writers: Florentine Memoirs from the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Ed. Vittore Branca. Trans. Murtha Baca. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015. © University of Toronto Press 2015. Jacob Rader Marcus, trans. The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book, 315–1791. Cincinnati: Sinai Press, 1938. Matthew of Janov. “Narracio de Milicio,” in Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, vol. 1. Ed. Josef Emler. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Prague, 1873. Andreas Felix Oefele, ed. “Nördlingani brevis Historia,” in Rerum Boicarum Scriptores Nusquam Antehac Editi, vol. 1. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Augsburg, 1763. Otto of Freising. “Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris,” in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi, vol. 46. Ed. Georg Waitz. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Hannover: Hahn, 1912. Christine de Pizan. The Book of the Body Politic. Trans. Kate Langdon Forhan. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994. © Cambridge University Press. Reproduced with permission of Cambridge University Press through PLSclear. James M. Powell, trans. The Liber Augustalis, or Constitutions of Melfi, Promulgated by the Emperor Frederick II for the Kingdom of Sicily in 1231. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1971. Eileen Power, trans. The Goodman of Paris (Le Ménagier de Paris): A Treatise on Moral and Domestic Economy by a Citizen of Paris (c. 1393). London: G. Routledge and Sons, 1928. Helmut Puff, trans. “Female Sodomy: The Trial of Katherina Hetzeldorfer (1477),” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 30.1 (2000). © Duke University Press. All rights reserved. Republished by permission of the copyright holder, Duke University Press. www.dukeupress.edu. T. Reuter, trans. The Annals of Fulda: Ninth-Century Histories, vol. 2. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992. © Manchester University Press. Reproduced with permission of Manchester University Press through PLSclear. Henry Thomas Riley, trans. Memorials of London and London Life in the XIIIth, XIVth, and XVth Centuries: Being a Series of Extracts, Local, Social, and 275

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Political, from the Early Archives of the City of London, A.D. 1276–1419. London: Longmans, 1868. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, vol. 3. Trans. Robert Ernest Wallis. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1903. James Harvey Robinson, trans. “Otto of Freising’s Account of the Italian Cities,” in Readings in European History: From the Breaking Up of the Roman Empire to the Protestant Revolt, vol. 1. New York: Ginn & Co, 1904. James Harvey Robinson, trans. Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of European History, Published for the Dept. of History of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 3. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1897. Emil Franz Rössler, ed. Deutsche Rechtsdenkmäler aus Böhmen und Mähren, vol. 1. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Prague: Calve, 1845. Carleton M. Sage, trans. Paul Albar of Cordoba: Studies on His Life and Writings. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1943. Irene Schmale-Ott, ed. Translatio Sancti Viti Martyris. Übertragung des Hl. Märtyrers Vitus. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Münster: Aschendorff, 1979. Socrates Scholasticus. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, second series. Ed. Philip Schaff. Trans. A.C. Zenos. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1891. H.J. Schroeder, ed. and trans. Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937. Samuel Parsons Scott, trans. Las Siete Partidas. Chicago: Commerce Clearing House, 1931. Samuel Parsons Scott, trans. The Civil Law, vol. 16. Cincinnati: Central Trust Co, 1932. Samuel Parsons Scott, trans. The Visigothic Code (Forum Judicum). Boston: The Boston Book Company, 1910. Tertullian. The Apology of Tertullian for the Christians. Trans. T.H. Bindley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1890. Oliver J. Thatcher, trans. The Library of Original Sources, vol. 4, The Early Medieval World. Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907. Oliver Joseph Thatcher and Edgar Holmes McNeal, trans. A Source Book for Medieval History: Selected Documents Illustrating the History of Europe in the Middle Age. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1905. Thomas of Monmouth. The Life and Miracles of St. William of Norwich. Trans. Augustus Jessop and Montague Rhodes James. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1896. Matteo Villani. “Cronica,” in Cronisti del Trecento. Ed. Roberto Palmarocchi. Trans. Manlio Perugini. Milan: Rizzoli & Co., 1935. Johannis Vitoduranus. Chronica. Ed. F. Baethgen. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Berlin: Weidmann, 1924. 276

sources

Johannes Voigt, ed. Geschichte Preussens: Von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens, vol. 4. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Königsberg: Bornträger, 1830. Jacobus de Voragine. Legenda Aurea: Vulgo Historia Lombardica Dicta. Ed. Theodore Graesse. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Dresden: Impensis Librariae Arnoldianae, 1846. Walter L. Wakefield and Austin P. Evans, trans. Heresies of the High Middle Ages. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969. © Columbia University Press 1969. Reprinted with permission of the publisher. F.W.H. Wasserschleben, ed. Die Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche nebst einer rechtsgeschichtichen Einleitung. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Halle: Ch. Graeger, 1851. Albert Beebe White and Wallace Notestein, trans. Source Problems in English History. New York: Harper and Brother Publishers, 1915. Wilhelm Wiegand, et al., eds. Urkundenbuch der Stadt Straßburg, 7 vols. Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Strasbourg: Karl J. Trübner, 1879–1900. William of St-Amour. Guillelmi de Sancto Amore Opera omnia . . . Trans. Eugene Smelyansky. Constance: Alitophilos, 1632.

FIGURES Figure 1.1: Paul LaCroix, Military and Religious Life in the Middle Ages and the Period of the Renaissance. London: Chapman and Hall, 1874, p. 248. Figure 1.2: Paul LaCroix, Military and Religious Life in the Middle Ages and the Period of the Renaissance. London: Chapman and Hall, 1874, p. 424. Figure 2.1: Paul LaCroix, Manners, Customs, and Dress During the Middle Ages, and During the Renaissance Period. London: Chapman and Hall, 1876, p. 442. Figure 3.1: Paul LaCroix, Military and Religious Life in the Middle Ages and the Period of the Renaissance. London: Chapman and Hall, 1874, p. 429. Figure 4.1: Paul LaCroix, Military and Religious Life in the Middle Ages and the Period of the Renaissance. London: Chapman and Hall, 1874, p. 213. Figure 5.1: Unknown, Moses Defeating the Moors, early fifteenth century. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. Digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program. Figure 6.1: Paul LaCroix, Military and Religious Life in the Middle Ages and the Period of the Renaissance. London: Chapman and Hall, 1874, p. 269. Figure 6.2: Paul LaCroix, The Arts in the Middle Ages and at the Period of the Renaissance. Chapman and Hall, 1870, p. 9. Figure 7.1: Lieven van Lathem, Saint Martin Dividing his Cloak, 1469. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. Digital image courtesy of the Getty’s Open Content Program. 277

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

Figure 7.2: Paul LaCroix, Science and Literature in the Middle Ages and at the Period of the Renaissance. London: Bickers and Son, 1878, p. 148. Figure 8.1: Paul LaCroix, Science and Literature in the Middle Ages and at the Period of the Renaissance. London: Bickers and Son, 1878, p. 525. Figure 9.1: Thomas Wright, A History of Domestic Manners and Sentiments in England During the Middle Ages. London: Chapman and Hall, 1876, p. 344.

278

INDEX OF TOPICS Topics are listed by document number. The index is intended to be used in tandem with the table of contents. divine ordeal 15, 16, 37 domestic violence 66, 67 dreams and visions 2, 53, 60

adultery and infidelity 37, 62, 63, 66, 73 apostasy 7, 34, 38 babies and children 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 38, 46, 47, 48, 53, 55, 59, 62, 66, 69, 70 baptism or conversion to Christianity 7, 10, 11, 16, 28, 33, 36, 38, 42, 55, 59 bishops and archbishops 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19, 20, 27, 33, 35, 42, 43, 61, 66, 70, 73, 74 blasphemy 34, 68 blood libel and ritual murder 9, 10, 12, 38

execution in the arena 2 burning 7, 13, 14, 16, 23, 27, 36, 38, 59, 76 drowning 14, 33, 75 hanging 13, 33, 47

cannibalism 1, 16 captives and prisoners of war 36, 40 Carolingian Empire 15, 28, 42, 61 charity 19, 44, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 71 Charlemagne 28, 36 Christians, early, persecution of 1, 2 church council 3, 19, 20, 25 cities and towns 8, 13, 14, 19, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 59, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77 colonization and settlement 30, 31, 32, 33, 37 combat and duel 2, 36, 37 conduct manual 63, 64 conquest 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37 conspiracies and plots 9, 13, 14, 59 Constantine the Great 3, 5 courtly love 63 crime and criminals 1, 5, 7, 12, 38, 46, 50, 51, 54, 72, 73, 77 crusades and crusaders 8, 33, 37, 39 disability 48, 53, 55 false disability 54

famine 19, 47, 49 Frederick II 40, 62 friars, Dominican and Franciscan 21, 22, 26, 33, 41, 43, 44, 57, 67, 72, 74, 77 Genoa 39, 41, 46 heresy and heretics 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Arians 3 Beghards 25, 26 Beguines 25 Cathars 18, 21, 23, 24 Donatists 4 Waldensians 19, 27 hospital 55, 59, 65 Iberia 7, 18, 24, 34, 36, 38, 73 inquisitorial manual 21, 22 inquisitors and inquisition 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 74 Ireland 29, 30, 31 Jacques Fournier 18, 23, 24, 74 Jerusalem 35, 37, 60

279

t h e i n to l e r a n t m i d d l e ag e s : a r e a d e r

punishments fines 5, 12, 35, 45, 46, 50, 65 flogging or beating 15, 34, 46, 61, 62, 67 stocks or pillory 51, 54, 72

Jews 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 38, 42, 51, 59, 66 laws, ordinances and statutes 5, 7, 12, 31, 38, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 62, 68 leprosy 51, 56, 57, 58, 59, 74 letters 3, 13, 15, 42, 66 London 51, 54, 72, 77 Louis the Pious 15, 42

rabbi 8, 13, 66 records, inquisitorial 18, 23, 24, 74 records, trial and court 54, 61, 65, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77 riot 14, 16, 47

marriage 62, 64, 66, 67, 73 martyrs and martyrdom 2, 4, 8, 9, 34, 35 medicine 49, 56, 58, 65 Mediterranean 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 46, 62 miracle 2, 11, 34, 60, 69 monks and nuns 9, 11, 15, 28, 34, 35, 43, 44, 60, 62, 69, 77 Muslims and Islam 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 59, 73 pagans and paganism 1, 5, 28, 33, 42 Paris 52, 64, 65 penance 27, 70, 74 pilgrimage 35, 60 piracy and raids 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 41 plague 13, 14, 35, 49, 50 poison and poisoning 13, 14, 59 popes and papacy 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 25, 30, 33, 39, 43, 49 Pope Innocent III 20, 39 popular beliefs 70 poverty 19, 25, 43, 44, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55 priests and clergy 4, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 43, 44, 49, 55, 58, 61, 66, 70, 72, 74, 77 prison and imprisonment 2, 16, 23, 34, 35, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 59, 72, 74, 76, 77 prostitution 38, 60, 62, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77 public baths and bathing 35, 37, 76

Saint Augustine of Hippo 4, 6, 16 saint’s lives and hagiography 2, 34, 35, 60, 69 secret meetings and rituals 1, 9, 16, 26, 59 serfdom 45 sermon 17, 57, 67 sexual relations 1, 16, 26, 37, 46, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 interfaith 38, 73 same-sex 16, 26, 68, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77 ships and shipping 35, 39, 40, 41, 60 slavery 41, 42, 46, 73 smuggling 35 torture 9, 13, 14, 76 trade 39, 40, 41 transgender individuals 69, 76, 77 Venice 39, 76 wages 49, 50 warfare 28, 31, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 wealth 14, 19, 27, 32, 43, 47, 49, 52, 59 women 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 36, 37, 38, 44, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77

280

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

READINGS IN MEDIEVAL CIVILIZATIONS AND CULTURES Series Editor: Paul Edward Dutton “Readings in Medieval Civilizations and Cultures is in my opinion the most useful series being published today.” —William C. Jordan, Princeton University

I—Carolingian Civilization: A Reader, Second Edition edited by Paul Edward Dutton II—Medieval Popular Religion, 1000–1500: A Reader, Second Edition edited by John Shinners III—Charlemagne’s Courtier: The Complete Einhard translated & edited by Paul Edward Dutton IV—Medieval Saints: A Reader edited by Mary-Ann Stouck V—From Roman to Merovingian Gaul: A Reader translated & edited by Alexander Callander Murray VI—Medieval England, 500–1500: A Reader, Second Edition edited by Emilie Amt & Katherine Allen Smith VII—Love, Marriage, and Family in the Middle Ages: A Reader edited by Jacqueline Murray VIII—The Crusades: A Reader, Second Edition edited by S.J. Allen & Emilie Amt IX—The Annals of Flodoard of Reims, 919–966 translated & edited by Bernard S. Bachrach & Steven Fanning X—Gregory of Tours: The Merovingians translated & edited by Alexander Callander Murray XI—Medieval Towns: A Reader edited by Maryanne Kowaleski XII—A Short Reader of Medieval Saints edited by Mary-Ann Stouck XIII—Vengeance in Medieval Europe: A Reader edited by Daniel Lord Smail & Kelly Gibson XIV—The Viking Age: A Reader, Third Edition edited by Angus A. Somerville & R. Andrew McDonald XV—Medieval Medicine: A Reader edited by Faith Wallis XVI—Pilgrimage in the Middle Ages: A Reader edited by Brett Edward Whalen XVII—Prologues to Ancient and Medieval History: A Reader edited by Justin Lake

XVIII—Muslim and Christian Contact in the Middle Ages: A Reader edited by Jarbel Rodriguez XIX—The Twelfth-Century Renaissance: A Reader edited by Alex J. Novikoff XX—European Magic and Witchcraft: A Reader edited by Martha Rampton XXI—Medieval Warfare: A Reader edited by Kelly DeVries & Michael Livingston XXII—Medieval Travel and Travelers: A Reader edited by John F. Romano XXIII—The Intolerant Middle Ages: A Reader edited by Eugene Smelyansky