I hope you enjoyed the first lecture and tutorial. Having moved *very* briskly through the Late Roman Empire, this week we're going to be thinking about the ways that Christianity structured life - at least for some people - in the Early Medieval World.
This image shows a plan of a monastery drawn up in a place called Reichenau sometime in the early 9th century (about 819-826 A.D.). It's known as the St Gall Monastery Plan, because it's been stored in the library of St Gall monastery, almost since it was made. The actual artefact is massive; it's made of five pieces of parchment sewn together, and measures 112 cm x 77.5 cm. I've chosen this image to stimulate your thoughts this week because scholars think that this plan isn't a plan at all... In other words, it's not like an architect's drawing to help builders to construct a monastery, or even a drawing of what the floorplan of an actual set of buildings looked like. Instead, they think it might be a kind of map of the ideal organisation of a monastery, and maybe therefore a visual metaphor for the ideal organisation of Christian life.
So when you're reading and preparing for this week, it might be useful to think about what kinds of ideal Christian organisation the readings are discussing. What are they saying about how monks should live? Or about other Christians? What did this organisation represent; what was it for? Or perhaps you have other responses...!
If you have 'time', you might also want to think about how differently from us medieval people thought about time itself. How does the Benedictine Rule structure the hours of the day?
Post your thoughts, comments, ideas, questions or uncertainties below, and we'll discuss further when we meet on Monday.
Have a great week!
Kathleen
P.S. You can read more about the St Gall Plan and zoom in to see the amazing detail here: http://www.stgallplan.org/en/
P.P.S. You can find out more about medieval concepts of dates and times here: http://www.gardenhistoryinfo.com/medieval/medtime.html
19 comments:
I find it strange to read about the strict structure of the monks, with the appropriate times and repetitions of the psalms, prayers and services, when, reading about Jesus' own ministry, it lacked so much structure - he wandered the countryside, meandering his way down to Jerusalem and stopped at villages, preached by lakes and ate with tax collectors, seemingly careless of where he slept and the manner in which he prayed. The contrast between the strict prayer regime and Jesus' own manner of dedication and prayer is disconcerting!
I agree with you BecOlle123. The structure of the Church seems far removed from the simplicity of Jesus’ teachings. He believed in one God and that we were one as long as we believed in him and his faith. There were no one superior among his congregation and there were no strict regimes.
I was just wondering whether allowing these bishops who not only represented the church, came from powerful families, could have great influence on the royal court and who were also in charge of education, public building projects and could own large amounts of land could cause great corruption
especially condensing that a complaint against the bishop could only be heard by a court made up of bishop.
Anna’s point is quiet interesting if you have just read the posts from last week; specifically Melanie’s about the emperor and upper classes not being in a great rush to convert to Christianity. In this week’s readings, the sources of the bishops’ power are very similar to those of the elite under the late Roman republic and early Empire. The emperor usually took the office of Pontifex Maximus or high priest; politicians usually came from powerful families who owned lots of land, and many political offices were responsible for the same civic or government duties that the bishops undertook, such as the food supply, city walls, festivals, etc. Maybe the elite have just shifted from having power under the ‘old’ Roman systems to having power in the ‘new’ Christian Church? The reading does suggest that there was a possibility of abuse of power, both internally by the bishops, and externally, such as important families and kings influencing the ‘Episcopal elections’.
Interesting point, Bec and Kerry. I've got a few points that may kick this discussion off even further. First, I think the changes in Christianity after what we might call the apolostolic age are relevant: when it became clear that the end of the world was not imminent, and Christians had to turn their attention to ways of living in the world.
Second, I think it's important that some late antique and early medieval philosopher-theologians began to talk about the world itself as a place of sin, temptation etc. that needed to be rejected or avoided.
Third, I think it's significant that the end of the Roman world was discussed in literature (like in the writings of St Augustine, on The City of God) as a terrifying upheaval. (and there are probably even more points that relate together here...)
It seems to me that structure in one's day is a kind of discipline, and a kind of security. Does this give you any ideas about how it could relate to living a religious life on earth under these circumstances?
Catherine and Anna are onto something here, I feel. An elite is emerging, and it looks a bit like the one before, but it has new features too.
As far as corruption goes, I think you're right that this was a risk. For example, there is a sin called simony, which refers to someone buying his way into a priesthood. The fact that they invented a name for this shows that it must have been pretty common, don't you think?! And when we come to talk about crusades no doubt we'll talk more about the kinds of corruption that could occur.
Controversy has been a part of Christian history. The apolostic era laid the foundations for Christianity. There was debate to its authenticity which continues today. However it has endured time with various translations. Importantly to our study is how it integrated into the medieval culture with the aid of philosopher-theologians and laid the foundations that were adopted. The structural side was an innate progression of social hierarchy.
Hi guys, i was thinking about the expanding power of the church and i saw your comments about how corruption was rife. It made me wonder really, why the people accepted this great power over them, if they were being marginalised as before. In last weeks readings, it mentioned that the slaves and poor labourers accepted their position in the Roman Empire because they knew no other way of life, is this still true? Were the people so used to the influence of the 'elite' that they didn't fight it? Or, did they accept that some aspects of this religious hierarchy were corrupt but saw that the good of the church outweighed these bad instances?
Interesting point Charlotte. Maybe they were less inclined towards rebellions behavior because the Christian teaching preach passive acceptance of evil in others: the whole "love thy enemy" and "turn the other cheek" ideas.
Hi Charlotte,
I think there are two important aspects here. Firstly, the Roman Empire was a political force that spread throughout Europe and the near East. This became the network throughout which Christian ideas spread. Christianity and the governement were actually two aspects of the same force (no separation of powers back in those days!) and therefore to question Christian ideas or the conduct of the Church also meant that you were questioning the government... which could be a dangerous move.
Secondly, because of the structure of feudalism, only the aristocracy and the senior members of the church were educated. Life for the peasants was very rigorous, so there was no opportunity for them to become educated or have access to an alternative way of life.
The other thing of course is that in those times there was a strong belief (encouraged by the Church) that if you worked hard on earth, you would be rewarded in heaven. Nobody would want to jeopardise their chances of going to heaven, and so, even if they were aware of the corruption in the church (which I'm not sure they would have been) they probably weren't willing to do anything about it.
The thing about Christianity in the Medieval period was that it was literally the centre of society. Many people from wealthy families entered the church, so there was a huge amount of power and money in one institution - an institution that was both political and religious.
:)
Some great suggestions! Tradition! Power! Fear! Opportunity! (Although my instinct is to be wary of linking feudalism and education directly - I suggest that poor people were probably disadvantaged in education as in most things without feudalism having to be present, so they can't be cause and effect.) But anyway, I'd also like to add that we can't forget the role of belief itself. You touched on this, but I think it's worth emphasising because it is quite different from most of our lives now. Our society tends to put religion in the same broad category as lifestyle choices like whether or not to buy a Plasma TV, or get solar power, but it wasn't always like this and in some societies it still isn't. Can anyone think of a metaphor or an example that might help us understand how significant belief (in the need for salvation and the necessity of obedience to church teachings to achieve it) would have been to medieval people? What do non-religious people have to do to try to understand this?
This is a pretty philosophical point, but an interesting one: can I play the devil's advocate here, Charlotte, and throw the question back to you (and the group)? My question is: Should we assume that people whom we consider to be repressed in some way (a) feel that way, and (b) naturally seek to overturn it given the chance? Is this a justified assumption?
N.B. This is the kind of issue to which there is probably no *right* answer! I'm just stirring up debate!
Hi Charlotte. Hollister wrote that the imperial economic system provoked no general rebellion because the lower classes had no better way to manage an empire, but this does not mean that rebellions didn’t happen in the Roman Empire. The most famous example that springs to mind is the slave uprising led by Spartacus (73-71BCE), but there was also the uprising by Boudica of the Iceni in Britain 60/61 CE and the Jewish-Roman Wars of the first and second centuries CE.
Secondly, Pope Gregory I (the Great) based his theology on Augustine of Hippo, who had a hierarchy of heaven and earth as a continuum: God was on top, the poor at the bottom, and the elite above the poor but below the angels. This hierarchy was pretty effective at keeping to poor in their place and telling them not to strive to rise above it, as well as justifying the privileges and wealth of the elite.
Lastly, the readings suggest that Pope Gregory I was very good at solving the problems the Lombards caused for Rome in the 590’s CE. He got the grain coming in again, fed the poor, repaired the aqueducts, repaired the city walls, etc. I don’t think that all of the religious hierarchy were corrupt, just some of them, so the people’s acceptance of the system was probably a combination of factors (which Frances also touched on), rather than just one.
P.S. Sorry Kathleen, I only saw your post after I had replied to Charlotte's.
No need to apologise! Your points are good ones. It's all part of the conversation. :-)
Hello,
I think it is interesting to look at the relationship people had with relgion in the medieval period. Following on from what Charlotte, Frances and Kathleen said, I agree that it is hard for us, in the modern period to understand how important the belief in a 'superior being' and 'salvation' was. It was often this belief in God and the promise of another life after death that gave people meaning and purpose in their lives. It wasn't really until the Enlightenment that philosophes and scientists really bagan to challenege the Church, their core beliefs and their teachings and also the hierarchical structure of society. I guess it sounds strange to us now, because religion is not necessary part of everyones lives... Although, you could look at Islamic countries as a modern example of how relevant religion still is to some traditions. During the Middle Ages people didn't really question or doubt the beliefs they were taught. It was just a fundermental part of their life!
I found that this reading provided some really interesting insight into the beliefs of Early Medieval clergymen and the strength of the Church’s structure (based on Augustine’s writings). It discusses the significance of saints and their relics to various echelons of society. They suggest that although the poor seemed to believe in their mystical prowess (which is entirely reasonable considering their education lacked depth and originated largely from the pulpit), higher clergy were more sceptical. To me, this seems quite bizarre as if these clergymen truly saw relics as a prop or advertisement, surely they would not have condoned such practice for so long as people of this period, as Kathleen and Michelle pointed out, generally profoundly believed in God and so would not easily take ‘false idols’ if they indeed saw them to be false. This has led me to wonder whether the structure of the Church based on Augustine’s writings was so truly cement in the popular view that, despite the apparent scepticism of the educated elite, relics could co-exist in their belief system on a par with God?
When i was reading the Rule of St. Benedict, I was amazed at how strict it really is. It seems all their ways of living were restricted completely. Why if you are demonstrating your passions for god do you need to go to bed at 8pm? Why must your speaking being restricted to slowly with no laughter and using few and reasonable words? Why should a candle be burning in the same cell every night until early in the morning? Can you not demonstrate your love for god while still making your own decisions every now and again?
However, i do understand that making rules this strict would seperate those who are passionate about god and those who put their passions for god above anything else.
Hi,
In a way, I was not surprised that the rule of St. Benedict was so strict as it enabled him to to gain authority and control through his monastic guidelines. It created a sort of fear-based control over those willing to follow; if they didn't follow correctly - there would be consequences? In the present time, freedom and expression are considered accepted rights, but through the rule of St. Benedict, all self-expression and identity were removed in order to live a monastic lifestyle - all following the 'Christ's representative'. I suppose in a lifestyle without much structure and routine and in time of turmoil, I can understand the desire to accept and follow the rule of St. Benedict, although I would have to be very dedicated!
Post a Comment