SECTION V
Chapter 8 - Later Darkages--Crusades, Heresies, Witchtrials

"Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a 
child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must 
remain always in the infancy of knowledge."    -- CICERO 

After the Millennium

  Even after the Second Coming had failed to materialize in the early
1000s C.E., there was a resurgence of apocalyptic fervor that the "End" was
near.  There was no shortage of prophets to predict a NEW date: The years 1186, 
1229, 1290, 1300, 1310, 1325, 1335, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1360, 1365, 1375, 1387, 
1395, 1396, 1400,1417,1429, and 1492-4 were all examples of "predicted" dates 
for the expected time. (Jeffrey Richards, SEX, DISSIDENCE AND DAMNATION--
MINORITY GROUPS IN THE MIDDLE AGES, (Routledge, London), 1990, p 2)

  In looking for a "cause" as to why the End had NOT occurred, charismatic
preachers traveled from town to town, preaching that before the Second
Coming would occur that all unbelievers must first be removed from society.
Intense religious fervor brought on by the expectation that the End was
near, was especially strong in those areas experiencing rapid socio-economic
changes and overpopulation--such as in France, Germany and the Low Countries.

Background Leading to The Crusades

   The Byzantine Empire lost the Holy Land to the Muslims in 638 C.E. During
the eleventh century, Seljuk Turks (who had converted to Islam during this
time) swept into Persia and took political control of much of the Arabic
world. In 1065, the Turks took Armenia away from the Byzantines, and later
won a decisive battle against the Byzantine imperial army that left them in
much of control of Asia Minor. By 1070, the Turks had gained control of the
holy city of Jerusalem.

  Tales began to circulate that the Turks were turning back pilgrims from
Holy Places and killing Christians. Two years later, the Byzantine Emperor
reportedly appealed to Pope Urban II for assistance in halting the military
successes of the Turks against Christian states.

  The pope formally declared the crusades some twenty years later in 1095.
In a sermon, Pope Urban II called on Western Christendom to retake the
Muslim controlled areas of the world--including the Holy Land for Catholic
Christianity. As with the Islamic jihad, the crusades were to be a Holy War--
whereby anyone who died defending the faith would be guaranteed eternal life
in heaven.  The following is an excerpt from the pope's call to arms for a
Crusade against the infidels:

  "...From the confines of Jerusalem and from Constantinople, a grievous
  report has gone forth that an accursed race, wholly alienated from God,
  has violently invaded the lands of these Christians, and has depopulated
  them by pillage and fire.  They have led away a part of the captives into
  their own country, and a part they have killed by cruel tortures..."

  "On whom, then, rests the labor of avenging these wrongs, and of recovering
   this territory, if not upon you--you upon whom, above all others, God
   has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great bravery, and strength to
   humble the heads of those who resist you?...Let none of your possessions
   keep you back, nor anxiety for your family affairs.  For this land which
   you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks,
   is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food
   enough for its cultivators.  Here it is that you murder and devour one
   another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil
   strife."

  "Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end.
   Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher; wrest that land from a
   wicked race, and subject it to yourselves...This royal city...is now
   held captive by the enemies of Christ and is subjected by those who do
   not know God, to the worship of the heathen...Undertake this journey
   eagerly for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the reward
   of imperishable glory in the kingdom of heaven."

  In addition to regaining the Holy Land for Christendom, Pope Urban II
(as can be seen from his speech) also saw the crusade as a way to redirect
local violence arising from internal wars and population pressures--into
a united effort that would inject a new feeling of religiosity among
the people. The emperor and local kings had become more powerful, plunging
Europe into constant local wars. The pope had, no doubt, hoped the crusade
would allow him to re-assert the authority of his office to intervene in
European politics, and thus establish peace and order among the warring
secular leaders.

    In the process, the pope also saw the crusade as a means of promoting
Catholicism in the Byzantine Empire.  Doctrinal differences over such issues
as the nature of the Trinity, had kept relations tense between the East
and West Churches. (In addition to the controversy over filioque, there had
been a serious confrontation in 1054 over the use of unleavened bread by the
West in the Eucharist, and the decision to conduct mass in Latin instead of
Greek in Bulgaria.) With Catholic crusaders liberating the people in the
East from Muslims, this would be an excellent opportunity to convert Greek
Orthodox Christians over into Western Catholicism.

The Crusades

  In all, there were eight different crusades, which extended over a period
of several hundred years.  Many charismatic preachers appeared on the scene
to stir up religious fervor against "infidels" that had taken over the Holy
Land, and to sign up recruitments for the crusades.

  The first army of crusaders were comprised almost entirely of serfs and
peasants, as opposed to knights and disciplined fighting men.  Many of these
had been whipped up into a religious frenzy to seek adventure in new lands
for the cause of Christianity. Wandering preachers assured the people that
once the Christian armies entered into the Holy Land, that the infidels
would miraculously flee from the very sight of the cross on the soil, and
that walled towns would fall down upon their entry (not unlike the biblical
Jericho.) (Joseph R. Strayer and Dana C. Munro, op cit., p 229).

    Impatient to wait until they arrived at the Holy Land to kill infidels,
the crusaders pillaged and massacred scores of Jewish and other non-Christian
towns on their route to Jerusalem. Catholic leaders worried that if there were
no Jewish or Muslim communities around, that the mob mentality of the crusaders
might begin pillaging and attacking Catholic and Orthodox Christian towns, as
well.

  When the ragged and penniless army reached Constantinople, the Byzantine
Emperor saw to it that they were hastily dispatched towards the enemy to
keep them from terrorizing and plundering Byzantium.  They were quickly
defeated, and killed by a force of Turkish bowmen outside Nicaea.

  The following year, four main armies of crusaders--most of them knights--
had arrived in Constantinople. The Byzantines were shocked by their crude
manners.  The crusaders, in turn, looked down on the opulence and luxury of
the Byzantines. The Byzantine emperor quickly dispatched the Catholic crusaders
onward to the Asia Minor to fight the Turks.

  Fortunately, for the crusaders, during this time, there was more in-fighting
among the Turk and Muslims, than there was among the Christians. This was
the crusade that brought the Christians their greatest success!  After first
capturing Antioch, the crusaders moved on to Jerusalem, which they captured
in 1099. During this time, the Holy Lance was discovered-- which was believed
to be from the Roman soldier who had pierced Jesus' side after the crucifixion.

The Discovery of the Lance in Jerusalem

  The story of the discovery of the lance gives an interesting insight toward
understanding these times. A peasant named Peter Bartholomew, learned through
a series of visions, that the Holy Lance lay buried in a church in Antioch.
Although the local Bishop would not believe in his story, crusader leaders
wanted to give him a chance.  Led by Peter, they traveled to a church site
in Antioch, and spent a day digging a large hole at the designated spot.  As
night approached, Peter jumped into the hole. He came back out with a lance.

  Some of the crusader leaders were skeptical of the miracle, but after
discussing it among themselves, decided that the lance would be good for
morale among the army. The crusaders carried the lance with them into battle
with a Turkish army, and won a tremendous victory.

  Still, despite their military success, the genuineness of the lance became
heavily disputed among the crusaders. It was agreed that Peter would endure
the ordeal of fire as a test to the lance's authenticity.  A large fire was
ignited.  Peter, after swearing that the lance was genuine, walked into tall
flames. He emerged from the fire, apparently with no burns or wounds. However,
one chronicler noted how supporters mobbed and nearly trampled Peter after he
emerged from the flames, in an effort to get a piece of his garment for a
relic. Peter died shortly afterwards. Skeptics charged that Peter had died
as a result of injuries from his burns. Supporters insisted Peter "died in
peace in the hour appointed to him by God..." (Joseph R. Strayer and Dana
C. Munro, op cit., p 233-235).

Crusader Massacres

  After the Crusaders captured Jerusalem, they massacred all of its Muslim
and Jewish inhabitants.  As one contemporary Christian witness in Jerusalem
wrote:

  "If you had been there you would have seen our feet colored to our ankles
   with the blood of the slain.  But what more shall I relate? None of them
   were alive; neither women nor children were spared... Afterward, all,
   clergy and laymen, went to the sepulcher of the Lord and His glorious
   temple, singing the ninth chant.  With fitting humility they repeated
   prayers and made their offering at the holy places that they had long
   desired to visit." (as quoted by C. Warren Hollister, MEDIEVAL EUROPE--
   A SHORT HISTORY, John Wiley & Sons, 1964,1974, p 164)

   Greek Orthodox and other Christian groups were spared in the Jerusalem
siege, but lost their property and churches to their new Catholic conquerors.

   The crusaders made little headway after their conquest of Jerusalem.  A
virtual standoff occurred over the next century between warring Christians
and Muslims for territory further inland from the coastlines of Asia Minor
and Palestine.

    The Second Crusade was called--after the Muslims became united under a
strong leader, and began winning important battles. Although European kings
themselves participated in the Second Crusade, they ended up fighting among
themselves and accomplishing little.  In 1187, the brilliant Muslim leader
Saladin recaptured Jerusalem from the crusaders. (Saladin was generous to
his defeated enemies, and consequently won the respect and admiration of
many--both Muslim and Christian.)

  The fall of Jerusalem alarmed western Europe, and a Third Crusade was called.
It is the Third Crusade that is often idealized and romanticized in literature.
For the most part, most of Europe's kings--including Frederic Barbarossa of
Germany, Richard the Lion-Hearted of England, and Philip Augustus of France
participated in this crusade.  However, the Crusade was anything but a success.
Frederic Barbarossa drowned in a river in Asia Minor en route to the Holy Land,
and most of his army returned back to Germany. Richard and Philip Augustus
were life-long enemies, and quarreled constantly on the crusade. After much
in-fighting among the Christian kings, an agreement was struck that returned
all but a small strip of land in the Holy Land to Saladin. Richard the
Lionhearted was captured on his way back to Europe and held for a considerable
ransom by Frederic Barbarossa's son in France. The whole affair was an
embarrassment to the Church, as Christian kings seemed more determine to fight
each other, than to co-operate against a common enemy.

  Various crusades followed, sometimes led by a local prophet not associated
with the Catholic hierarchy. These crusades included the infamous Children's
Crusade in 1212 (which ended in disaster as discussed in the Introduction of
this book), the Shepherd's Crusade in 1251, the People's Crusade in 1309,
and a second Shepherd's Crusade in 1320. These local crusades created special
problems for the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, because it made
it more difficult for them to control the actions of the crusaders.

Muslim Reaction to the Crusades-- Islamic Fundamentalism
  
  Muslim Arabs were shocked at the savagery inflicted upon them by the
Crusaders.  Over the centuries, many Arabs had lived peaceably among Jews and
Orthodox Greek Christians.  The Latin Christians however, were generally
far less tolerant--and indeed it was not uncommon for unruly, untrained
Western crusaders to kill ANYONE who "looked" Arab--including Orthodox
Greek Christian AND Muslims alike. Even Muslim religious pilgrims were
targets by Crusader soldiers while traveling on holy pilgrimages.

  After defeating a Muslim army in Jerusalem, the crusaders had purposely
barricaded and set fire to the Great Mosque in the city where a large number
of Muslims--men, women, and children had taken refuge.  Likewise, crusaders
massacred Jews as they worshiped in their synagogues. When Tripoli fell to
the Crusaders in 1109, they destroyed the Banu Ammar library, which was the
greatest library in the Arab world. It has been estimated that some 100,000
books were purposely destroyed by the crusaders during their takeover.

  Prior to the crusades, Muslim civilization had been characterized by a
relatively intellectual and tolerate climate--and an impressive record of
scientific experimentation--especially in mathematics and medicine. With
the new militaristic threat with the Christian crusaders, Islamic ultra-
conservative forces justified taking over Muslim society, transforming it
into a fundamentalist regime that demanded absolute obedience and conformity.

The Catholic Christian Crusaders Attack Orthodox Christian Byzantium

   Ironically, the Fourth Crusade, which was launched by Pope Innocent III
in 1201, inflicted MORE damage against other Christians than it did to the
Muslims! In order to pay off a debt to the Venetians (who had furnished them
with ships and supplies) local crusader leaders agreed to conquer the Hungarian
island of Zara (which was Catholic)--but who were business competitors to
the Venetians.  After the deed was done, the pope strongly condemned the
plunder, and excommunicated all crusaders who had taken part--but to no avail.
Many crusaders went on to Constantinople.  There, they interfered in local
politics to restore the Byzantine Prince Alexius and his father to the throne.
Bad feelings arose afterwards, when it was felt that Prince Alexius had not
fulfilled his part of the bargain, by providing the crusaders with money and
provisions to go on the Holy Land from Constantinople.

  The crusaders turned their wrath upon the city, burning and pillaging it
for days. The new emperor fled Constantinople (he was murdered afterwards by
a fellow Byzantine).  The Catholic Crusaders took control of the city, and
installed a new Catholic emperor in Constantinople.

  Gold, silver, and jewels were stolen and taken back to Europe.  Some were
used to decorate churches and buildings in the West. A large number of
Christian relics were also brought back to Europe during this time. Priceless
art treasures were vandalized and destroyed. The crusaders conducted scenes
of terrible violence and orgies, some of them held within the great church
of Santa Sophia itself.

  One of the crusading knights, present in Constantinople during this time,
wrote the following:

  "The booty gained was so great that none could tell you of it. Gold
  and silver and vessels and precious stones and samite and cloth of silk
  and robes, fair and gray ... never, since the world was created, had
  so much booty been won in any city...These defenders of Christ, who should
  have turned their swords only against infidels, have bathed in Christian
  blood.  They have respected neither religion nor age nor sex...Greatly
  did they rejoice and give thanks because of the victory God had vouchsafed
  to them--for those who before had been poor were now in wealth and luxury."

  Pope Innocent III had excommunicated the Venetians for their part in the
sack of Zara. He had repeatedly forbidden and then ex-communicated the
crusaders again for attacking Constantinople.

    However, once Constantinople was taken and the pope realized the
implications that Catholics now in control of the city, he had a sudden
change of heart  He readmitted the crusaders back into communion, due to
the "great blessings" that had occurred in bringing Catholic control to
Greek-Orthodox Byzantium. (Hollister, op. cit., p 169) The pope even ordered
the crusaders to remain another year in Constantinople to restore order.
Just as a Catholic was installed as the new Byzantium emperor, a Catholic
was set up as the new patriarchal head of the Church at Constantinople.
This Latin Empire within Byzantium lasted only a little over fifty years,
before being recaptured by Greek Orthodox armies.

  The Catholic conquest of Constantinople led to a further deterioration in
relations between the Eastern and Western realms of the Christianized
Roman Empire. For the Greek Christians were very bitter at the Catholic
Church, for their role in the conquest of Constantinople.

  It is a fact that Constantinople never completely recovered from this
attack by Catholic crusaders, and the Byzantine Empire began to seriously
decline from this time onward. The fortifications of Constantinople were
still weakened from the crusader attacks, when Muslim Turks lay their final
siege on the city, centuries later in 1453.

Impact of the Crusades Awakens European Society

  It was really after the millennium, as travel led to the spread of ideas
and people focused on corruption and other worldly matters--that cracks in
the feudal mentality began to emerge.  The crusades served to accelerate
this process, as crusaders were exposed to other cultures on their travels
to the Holy Land. They became acquainted with the use of sugar and spices to
add flavor to their meals. They were impressed with the houses they saw in
the East--with their courtyards and running water--and became re-acquainted
with the custom of bathing.  The crusaders also admired the comfortable
dress styles in the East, and the luxurious silk cloths.

  Over time, Crusaders began to see for themselves that the Muslims were
more advanced in certain areas than they were--especially in medicine.
Many Christian crusaders began to prefer Muslim doctors over Christian ones.
Just as important, Crusaders were surprised by the tolerance practiced by
Eastern Christians and Muslims--who respected that all parties worshiped
one good God, and sometimes would even pray together in each other's
houses of religion.

  The roots of the Renaissance undoubtedly can be traced to some degree
to this interchange by the West, with Islamic and Byzantine culture. Returning
crusaders and traveling pilgrims brought back new ideas that would gradually
impact the social and economic attitudes of medieval Europe.

The "Twelfth-Century Renaissance"

   The revival that took place beginning around 1150, has been dubbed by some,
as "the twelfth-century Renaissance" in Western Europe. Whereas the early
middle ages had been characterized by conformity, the central middle ages
began to QUESTION order and authority.

   Probably influenced by the traveling crusaders, and contacts with Islam
and Greek-Orthodox culture, a movement towards individualism surfaced in the
West during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of the Middle Ages. The
concept of the individual as a citizen with rights and duties, arose in place
of the idealized model of the virtuous subject--who faithfully obeyed even the
unjust master. In literature, the chivalric romance, stressing individualism
and human emotions, largely began to replace the epic tale. Many romantic
crusader stories--such as the story of the Holy Grail--have their origins in
twelfth century England, and are believed to have been influenced by older
Teutonic legends and myths.

  Learning was liberalized. The young students graduating from the new cathedral
schools in Germany and France, and the municipal schools of Italy, brought
back with them a curiosity, and an open mind towards looking at new ideas.
There was a revived interest in art, literature, and general learning. Satire
flourished during this time, attacking corruption and abuses. Reformists
called for the Church to correct certain abuses and corruptions--such as
simony (the sale of clerical offices to the highest bidder), nicolaitism
(marriage among clergymen), and lay investiture (secular control of the
clerical posts). (Jeffrey Richards, SEX, DISSIDENCE AND DAMNATION-MINORITY
GROUPS IN THE MIDDLE AGES, London and New York, 1990, p 8)

  The religion of the early Middle Ages viewed mankind as inherently wicked
and incapable of performing any good works on his own--except as a beneficiary
of God's divine grace.  By the twelfth-thirteenth century, theologians and
philosophers began stressing God's divine justice and love towards mankind.
During the times of Constantine and Charlemagne, Christ had symbolized
victory over death.  However, now Christian theologians stressed Christ as
the SUFFERING REDEEMER who loved mankind despite their sins.

  This new paradigm could be seen in the art and architecture of the two
periods. Whereas earlier scenes of the crucifixion usually depicted a fully
composed and passionless Christ on the cross--during the twelfth century, it
was now common to portray a half naked Jesus suffering in agony on the cross.
Romanesque churches had been constructed by at least the time of Charlemagne.
During the twelfth century, a beautiful new form of architecture emerged.
Known as Gothic, its dazzling lighting and decorations were designed to awe
and inspire all those who came within its doors. (On occasion, some of these
magnificent churches fell down--sometimes even on their congregations as they
were holding service.--However, these disasters were explained away--as were
all human misfortunes, as the work of the Devil.)

  The need for literacy and the intellectual stimulus from the exchange of
ideas from traveling provided a new demand for education. A new and literate
middle class came into existence, forming a new class between the aristocracy
and the peasants. The old barter system was replaced by a new monetary system.
Increased trade also brought about increased wealth, and with it leisure for
the noble classes. Towns once more began to operate.

  Medieval society was of course still largely characterized by communal
organizations--the feudal village, the parish, fraternities and guilds,
knightly orders, etc--but individuals now had more choices as to which
communal order they wished to belong to.

Some Serfs Are Freed

  The early medieval period had been characterized by a stable, hierarchical,
but authoritarian society.  Everyone was born into his/her station for life--
be they king, nobleman, or serfs.  The economic and social status of serfs
was little better than that of a slave.  Indeed, serfs were considered
bound to the property of the lord who owned the land. They possessed no
civil rights, nor could they appeal for justice in the local courts of the
lord. Therefore, for example, if a feudal lord raped a woman peasant, the
latter would have no recourse in a court of law.

  There were peasant revolts--but these were typically put down savagely
and mercilessly.  An example of one revolt was recorded by Guillaume de
Mumieges of the eleventh century:

  "The peasants having assembled in conventiclers in all the counties of
   Normandy, decided, by a common resolve, to live according to their
   wishes, no longer abiding by any of the established laws, as to the
   use they might make of woods, forests and waters.  Each assembly of
   this furious people appointed two deputies who were to meet in order
   to press their case.

   But the new duke, learning of this, promptly sent a group of soldiers
   to scatter the peasant gathering.  They arrested all the deputies
   and some other peasants, and, having first chopped off their hands
   and feet, they sent them back home to their families, helpless for
   the rest of their lives.  Having endured such rigors, and fearing
   even punishment, they abandoned their assemblies and went back to
   their plows."  (Suzanne Comte, translated by David Macrae, EVERYDAY
   LIFE IN THE MIDDLE AGES, Minerva, S.A., Geneve, 1978, p 19).

  
    Beginning in the 11-12th centuries, some serfs began to acquire their
freedom. The feudal system was weakened in the social upheavals brought on
by the Crusades.  Some noblemen had promised their serfs their freedom, in
exchange for volunteering in the Crusades. Upon returning home, some serfs
fled to live in the new towns that were forming.

   During the twelfth century, feudal lords no longer were seen as absolute
masters as nationalization under kings took place. During this time, a
gradual movement began towards freeing some serfs in western Europe. Kings now
eyed their tenants from a distance as potential taxpayers and soldiers for
their armies. In the Italian city-states where princes fought largely for
control over the region, serfs were sometimes freed in order to decrease the
power of landowners, and to increase the number of free taxpayers.

  On rare occasions, idealism was a factor. For example in Bologna (Italy),
the city's leaders freed the serfs in 1256-7.  The ancient Roman Cicero's
writings were referenced to justify this action. It was now proclaimed that
man's natural state is freedom--and that Bologna served as the home of freedom.

   Serf revolts became more common--although some of these were put down
as harshly as ever before.   In other areas, some serfs managed to acquire
some savings, and thus purchase their freedom.  Still, even those who had
managed to buy their status of freeholders, yeomen or villains (townsmen)
often found their financial lot only slightly better--as they were now
overwhelmed with taxes (land taxes, poll taxes, salt taxes, etc.), and
guaranteed hours of manual labor for the lord. (This included community
service-- plowing the noble's lands, harvesting his crops, fixing the roads,
draining ditches etc, plus fighting in his lord's local wars.)

 [Footnote: There was also the right of seizure, whereby kings, bishops,
or barons could demand to be lodged in one of the manors in their territory--
and then allow their companions to raid the area of anything they wanted.
(In the 14th century, rules were established to prevent carting off mattresses
and blankets.)]

  Not all peasants won their freedom.  Although serfdom declined in the West, it 
did not disappear completely. There were still serfs during the time of the 
French Revolution in 1789. Serfdom remained even longer in Eastern Europe. For 
example, Russian serfs were not emancipated until 1861 under the Russian czar, 
Alexander II.

Changes within Church Doctrines

  During the twelfth century, a new doctrine was formulated regarding
the precise nature of the sacraments.  Priests had long given sacraments,
although the doctrinal theory justifying this practice had not been clearly
defined. The new doctrine held that the priest received his powers, through
virtue of his ordination by a bishop. Upon the bishop's confirmation by the
Pope, he received a portion of the authority conferred by Christ upon the
Apostle Paul. Seven sacraments were identified:  Baptism, confirmation,
penance, the Eucharist, marriage, ordination, and extreme unction (ie last
rites upon dying.)

  During the eleventh century, the Church gave itself some additional powers
to punish strong secular kings and noblemen who might step out of line with
Church doctrines and pronouncements.  It was during this time that the methods
of excommunication and the interdict came into practice. Excommunication was
the papal decree whose effect was to remove an individual from the Church,
and to deprive him/her of Christian privileges. The excommunicated individual
could not be buried in consecrated ground, and their soul would be consigned to
hell.  Other Christians were forbidden to associate with the excommunicated--
under penalty of sharing the same fate.

   Sometimes, a decree of excommunication against a powerful king or nobleman
was fortified, by also placing an INTERDICT on the area surrounding the
excommunicated individual. The purpose of the interdict was to effectively
excommunicate all Catholics in the area who worked for and supported the
excommunicated individual. The intent was to scare them into aligning themselves
with the Church, and against their king/nobleman.

Changes in Social Attitudes Towards Chivalry and Entertainment

  Prior to the twelfth century during the Middle Ages, there were no ideals
of genteel refinement and chivalry. During meals, knives were used to carve
out the meat--then the food then eaten with the fingers. (Forks were a later
invention).  Bones and scraps were thrown onto the floor for the dogs.  Huge
quantities of beer and wine were consumed, and drunken brawls were an
everyday occurrence.

  With the introduction of chivalry during the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, the ideal emerged whereby a knight was seen as the embodiment of
noble virtues and the champion of the poor and defenseless. Women became
elevated to the status of ladies--whose love must be won through poems,
love-songs, and daring deeds.  Interestingly, some historians believe that
the new chivalry that developed, was influenced by Mohammedan culture in Spain,
which also had similar themes--but was centuries older. (Strayer, op cit,
p 386-7). Earlier Germanic and Christian ideals were also revived and merged
into the new chivalry.

  Prior to the twelfth century, women were typically treated with contempt and
brutality--and wife beating was a common occurrence. Love was often thought of
as something to be avoided--not dissimilar to an infectious disease. (Strayer,
op cit., here the exact sentence referred to is "Most of the ancients, as
well as the men of the early Middle Ages, thought of love as a sort of
contagious disease." p 387). At first, romantic love was viewed as a display
of emotionalism that occurred outside of one's loveless, prearranged marriages.
Marriages were often arranged by the parents for property considerations.
(Therefore, in some stories, the love-stricken knight, or even the women
he loved, happen to already be married to someone else.) The lower classes
usually did not even bother with any ceremonies of marriage, and made live-in
accommodations that were sometimes of a short term nature.

  Gradually, marriage for love became more common, and marriage came to be one
of the most important sacraments conducted by the Church. Church theologians
began to write on the reconciliation of love and chastity in their doctrines.
St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, argued that couples ideally should develop
a loving relationship based on companionship and the procreation of children.
However, sex was ONLY to be engaged in to procreate children and to lessen
sexual temptation outside the marriage.  Celibate theologians  warned that
sex between couples should not become "excessive".

  Throughout the Middle Ages, the upper classes always had sports such as
hunting and falconry. (Peasants were generally forbidden to hunt for food on
noblemen's lands--as can be seen in the stories of Robin Hood.) As far back
as Charlemagne, kings and nobles conducted massive hunts for sport that
drove thousands of animals into nets or canvass, whereupon they were then
killed and eaten in great feasts. In 1328, a book entitled THE BOOK OF THE
DEER HUNT, proclaimed hunting a virtuous sport!  The author's reasoning ran
as follows:

  "he who hunts avoids thereby the sin of idleness; and, as our faith
   prescribes, he who avoids the seven deadly sins will be saved; therefore,
   zealous hunters will be saved."

    Towards the latter part of the Middle Ages, games such as backgammon and
chess were introduced into Europe. (Chess was probably introduced into Western
Europe during the 7-9th centuries from Moors in Spain and Saracen Muslim trading
in Italy.  Chess quickly became popular among the nobility, although the
Catholic Church initially declared it a sin, because they considered it a
form of gambling.)  Girls enjoyed such games as blind-man's bluff and
hide-and-seek. Tournaments became popular, as knights competed with each other 
to show off their skill and daring. Much of the sports and merriment that is 
often associated with the Middle Ages actually occurred beginning in the 12th
century and leading into the Renaissance--during which time, individualism
and romantic chivalry had come into vogue.

Opening of Universities

  During the latter half of the twelfth century, monasteries underwent a
decline, while cathedral schools became the new seats of classical learning.
Out of the cathedral schools of the twelfth century, emerged the new
medieval universities--such as those at Paris, Bologna, Oxford, and Salerno --
which became important intellectual centers of Europe. The Church sanctioned
the growth of new universities, but kept strict control over the curriculum
taught.  The faculty was ever watchful for heretical ideas--and if warnings
were not heeded, acted quickly to suppress the individual before they had
attained any significant following.

  Theology was always the main study. However some universities also taught law, 
art, history, philosophy, and medicine. Science consisted of translating and 
understanding the Greek and Islamic treatises on the subject. There was no real 
effort in expanding new learning in the sciences--as this was not considered a 
reliable method of arriving at real truths.  At best, science was seen as a 
method of merely confirming truths already discovered by the ancients.

  Science was still perceived as potentially dangerous. Based on Plato's
philosophy, observation of the physical world was NOT deemed a reliable
method of acquiring truth!  Catholic Christians took this one step further--
believing such inquiry could lead one into "sinning" against God.

  Still, the importance of the new universities was not from the subjects
that were taught, but from the standpoint that more people were learning to
read at all--and were exposed to new ideas. Much of the early learning that
was taught is viewed today as mystical and false.

  For example, numerology was considered a serious subject. The number
seven was determined to be the harmonious number within the universe.--
There were seven planets, seven zodiacal signs, seven notes in a harmonic
scale, etc.  There were seven virtues for Christians, seven sins, and seven
sacraments. According to the Book of Genesis, the world was made in seven
days, Adam and Eve had been in Paradise seven days, etc, etc. Theologians
noted this mystical number seven came up when one added three (the number
in the Holy Trinity) plus four (the number of gospels).  Again if you
multiplied the three facets of the soul times the four elements within
the universe (based on Aristotle's theory) this gave a product of twelve--
the number of the Apostles.
 
  Even up into the fifteenth century, favorite topics for debate included:

 *"Which is more effective with God--Five minute prayers pronounced daily
for four consecutive days, or one minute prayers said over ten consecutive
days?"

  *"A ten minute prayer covering ten people, or ten separate one minute
prayers?"

  While the Church allowed some discussion of philosophy, it maintained
a hardened attitude toward the teachings of poetry and other works of the
imagination--just as it had with the natural sciences. St. Augustine had
believed that the works of the imagination corrupted the mind.  (This view
was again not original to Augustine, for Plato had also written on this.
Per Plato, poetry "feeds and waters the passions rather than drying them up;
she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are
ever to increase in happiness and virtue.")

   Following St. Augustine, the medieval Church considered works of the
imagination to be morally corrupting--unless they directly related to
religious themes.  Therefore, creative music, paintings, and sculpture were
to be dedicated to the glory of God and the saints. Pagan poetry was viewed
with suspicion as morally corrupting and a waste of time (as it dealt with
issues unrelated to one's salvation).

  The theater had been banned in 692 C.E., by an edict from the Council of
Trullo. It was gradually reintroduced through liturgical plays, which evolved
further into mystery and morality plays.  It wasn't until the sixteenth
century, that secular plays made a comeback-- and even then, this faced
stiff opposition by clergymen. (Protestant Christians fought hard against
this trend too.) Clerical opposition--both Catholic and Protestant--to the
theater did not die down until the eighteenth century, as the Church began
to lose political power.

Movement from Plato's View of the Universe, to that of Aristotle's.

  Prior to the rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman writings in Western
Europe, much of Christian thought (through the influence of St. Augustine,
St. Jerome, and others) was largely Greek Platonic in nature-- and placed
emphasis on "faith" and revelation in everyday matters.

   The Greek philosopher Aristotle, in contrast to Plato, had stressed the
role of observation and reason--in addition to faith-- in conducting the
search for meaning and truth in the universe. However, the writings of
Aristotle were not revered in the West, and therefore religious monks did
NOT preserve them by copying them. (Although Aristotle's writings did not exist
in the West, many works survived in the Christian Byzantine Empire, and from 
there into Muslim Arabic culture.)

  Throughout history, it is often philosophy that defines the paradigm, or
outlook of how people view themselves in relation to the universe. It is
therefore no overstatement to say that it was this shift in philosophy--
from that of Plato to that of Aristotle-- that greatly influenced the return
of secular learning in Western Europe!  Plato, it will be recalled, stressed
the perfectibility of the human soul, and mistrusted especially the senses
and imagination in obtaining truth.  Aristotle, on the other hand, attributed
a higher value to the human faculties of the senses, imagination, and memory.
This eventually laid down the groundwork for the return of poetry, philosophy,
and finally even science.

Contact with Islamic Civilization

   During the twelfth and thirteenth century, Christians and Jews came
into close contact with Islam culture in Spain and North Africa. Despite the
religious wars, still there were individual cases of friendship and even
intermarriage between Islamic and Christian aristocratic families. (Even the
famous Cid Campeador, the greatest Spanish Christian hero in the war against
Islam, spent most of his life in the service of Islamic rulers.)

  The contact of Christians with Muslims eventually led to the reintroduction
of science and philosophy into Europe. As we have seen, Islam society had
preserved the ancient Greek writings, including those of Aristotle (which
had become lost in the West.) Islam science had become especially advanced in
the areas of astronomy and medicine.

  When the Christian crusaders captured Toledo Spain in 1105, the Muslim
libraries were opened up for Christian scholarship. Between 1150 and 1250
C.E., most of Aristotle's known works were translated into Latin.  These
eventually found their way into the universities of Italy, France, and
England. Among the translations from Arabic were some of the commentaries
of Islamic philosophers-- such as Averroes, who taught philosophy as a purely
rational discipline, separate from revealed religion.  Conservative
Christian and Jewish authorities found the writings of Averroes to be a
threat, because of his views on rationality and the universality of man's
intellect.  (Conservative Muslims had likewise attacked the writings of
Averroes during his lifetime.)

Maimonides and the Golden Age of Judaism (1000 - 1148 C.E.)

  In Muslim Spain, Jews participated in the social and intellectual climate,
and some even held official roles within the government. During this time,
many Jews came to admire Islamic culture! Islamic philosophers and scientists
had earlier synthesized the revelations of Mohammed with that of ancient Greek
philosophers, notably Aristotle. This in turn inspired some Jewish intellectuals
to harmonize the rationalism exhibited by Aristotle, with their own religious
texts and beliefs. The period that followed--from approximately 1000 to 1148
C.E.--led to a tremendous burst in creativity and learning--in such areas as
poetry, mathematics, medicine and literature--and is referred to as the
"Golden Age" of Jewish history.

  Conservative Jewish leaders questioned the Greek philosophers' stress on
reason--arguing that it could lead people astray from the truth. Instead,
they argued it was better for people to accept the authority of the Written
and Oral Law--as set down by God through the prophets and Jewish rabbis.
Liberal Jewish scholars disagreed, arguing that although Judaism had indeed
been revealed by God to man--still it was based on sound reasoning and thus
could NEVER be in genuine conflict with the rational element in Greek
philosophy.

    The Jewish philosopher Maimonides, or Moses ben Maimon, was one of the
most important of these liberal Jewish scholars.  He was particularly
attracted to the logic and reasoning of Aristotle, and was convinced that
Greek learning was not in conflict with Jewish teachings.  In his GUIDE FOR
THE PERPLEXED (C 1190 C.E.), Maimonides taught there can be NO conflict
between reason and faith, because BOTH originate from God. Therefore any
apparent contradiction must either result in a misinterpretation of the
Bible, or from the philosopher's reasoning.

  For example, Aristotle and Averroes had argued that the universe is eternal--
without either beginning or end. This conflicted with the Genesis account of a 
beginning for creation.  Maimonides showed that the arguments for an ETERNAL 
world were inconclusive-- because obviously an all-powerful God could create a 
world of EITHER finite OR infinite duration. Similarly, many harsh biblical 
expressions, such as references to "the anger of God" were explained by 
Maimonides as being figures of speech, written for more ancient, primitive 
peoples.  According to Maimonides, "the Bible speaks in the language of men."  
When studied from a higher plane of meaning, it could be readily seen that the 
Bible contained teachings of the very highest, philosophical truths.  Per 
Maimonides:

  "Creation has been treated in metaphors in order that the uneducated may
   comprehend it according to the measure of their faculties and the
   feebleness of their apprehension, while educated persons may take it
   in a different sense"

   But there were other conflicts as well: Aristotle had presented the Prime 
Mover as eternally static, setting up a cosmic machinery that operated without 
His divine intervention.  This meant the daily world was run by natural causes, 
as opposed to miracles, as the deity did not intervene on behalf of individuals. 
Aristotle taught the soul was a part of man's nature and did not exist separate 
from his body (similar to how the sharpness of an axe could not be separated 
from the axe itself). Church doctrine taught the opposite--the soul was immortal 
and independent of the flesh or body. Also, Aristotle's astrological theories 
indicated that cosmic influences could externally affect an individual, which 
conflicted with Church doctrine on free will, essential to Christian teachings 
on sin and salvation.  

Influence of Aristotle on Western Catholicism

  Just as Maimonides' reconciliation of Jewish doctrine with Aristotelian
philosophy, was considered controversial in conservative Jewish circles, the 
same parallel existed among Catholic Christians.  For conservatives within the 
Catholic Church were likewise suspicious of Aristotle's thought and philosophy 
creeping into Western Christian culture. At first, Aristotle's ideas were 
considered so revolutionary by the Church, that a council of bishops meeting in 
Paris banned the study of all his writings, first in 1210 and again in 1215 (by 
the papal legate Robert de Courcon). More liberal Church theologians, however, 
believed the newly discovered Greek classical learning to be important. As with 
Maimonides, they sought for ways to harmonize Aristotle's teachings with 
Christian doctrine.

  The general consensus among these more liberal Christian scholars was that the 
ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome had created great philosophers--
but Christianity also had their great theologians! True, medieval theologians
and scholars appeared to find contradictions when applying the findings of 
reasoning and common experience with the inviolate doctrines of the Church, but 
these were deemed to be "mysteries".  The challenge for religious scholars was 
to find a method to reconcile these seemingly two incompatible views of the 
universe -- to make the truths from observation and science compatible with the 
truths of divine revelation.

   Pope Gregory IX renewed the ban in 1231 stating that Aristotle's books on 
natural philosophy were not to be read until they had been "examined and purged 
of all suspected error."  Still Gregory acknowledged what the liberals were 
saying, admitting that Aristotle's writings contained "both useful and useless 
matter".  He was willing to compromise: "{I]n order that the useful not be 
contaminated by the useless," a newly appointed commission by him was "to 
eliminate all that is erroneous or that might cause scandal or give offense to 
readers, so that when the dubious matter has been removed, the remainder may be 
studied without delay and without offense." (David C. Lindberg, THE BEGINNINGS 
OF WESTERN SCIENCE, University of Chicago Press, 1992, p 217).

    Following Gregory IX's death in 1241, the bans (which were only partially 
successful) began to loose their effectiveness. Oxford university had never been 
under the ban nor had theologians. The translation of new Aristotelian 
commentators (such as Averroes) on Aristotle's complex ideas had elevated 
Aristotle's status and popularity even more at universities. (Possibly the bans  
made the study of Aristotle even more popular.)  By 1255, the teaching of 
Aristotle's natural philosophy was one of the main courses taught in the arts 
curriculum, even at the University of Paris. (Ibid)  In this manner, Aristotle 
became one of the most admired medieval authorities.  This created a backlash by 
a large, influential group of traditionalists, who worried that this new 
knowledge was being abused to question inviolate Christian doctrine. 

Thomas Aquinas' Role in The Reconciliation of Aristotle with Christian Dogma

  Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 C.E.), who worked out of the University of Paris,
was one of the most important of the religious scholars who strove to
harmonize Aristotelian thought with Catholic doctrine.  Aquinas knew of
Maimonides' writings, and indeed referred to the Jewish scholar affectionately
as "Rabbi Moses" in his classic work SUMMA THEOLOGIAE. Like Maimonides,
Aquinas argued that God had given man the gift of reasoning after creating
him--so that man could use this great gift in observing God's works in the
universe.  This meant our senses should be trusted in our search for truth.
From this, it followed that the works of the ancients could be read without
fear of sinning against God.

  Aquinas believed that philosophy and theology begin at different points--
but ultimately should lead to the same conclusion regarding matters of faith.
That is, philosophy begins with observations around us, and logically
reasons upward towards more general principles--until ultimately reaching
the concept of God Himself.  Theology obtains its knowledge through the
authority of revealed knowledge and faith in God.  However, as theology
deals primarily with matters of man's salvation, there are areas of secular
knowledge that are not included by it--which can be discovered through the
disciplines of philosophy.  Likewise there are areas (such as knowledge of
the existence of God) than can never be known through the disciplines of
philosophy--but must be accepted through the authority of revealed theology.
Thus, per Aquinas, it is the coalescence of both philosophy and theology
that should maximize knowledge of BOTH the divine and the secular world.

   But what happens when one arrives at different conclusions based on
the methods of theology (ie faith) and philosophy (or reasoning through our
senses)?  Aquinas argued that if there was any discrepancy between the two,
then clearly reasoning should be appropriately SUBORDINATED to faith (or,
"revealed" truth). Faith was the SUPERIOR method of obtaining true knowledge--
but logic and reasoning were also good supplements to faith, when discrepancies
appear. Aquinas envisioned a system of logic with the revealed truths of
Christian theology at the top, philosophy in the middle, and scientific
knowledge at the base.

   Aquinas' philosophy became known as Scholasticism (named after the
intellectual activity taken up in the medieval cathedral schools). The
Scholastics typically began with premises of faith, based on some accepted
AUTHORITY--such as the Bible or the Christian saints. From these original
premises, they then applied the logical methods of Aristotle to PROVE religious
doctrine--although now reinforced with physical proofs and arguments.  Some
physical evidence was allowed, as long as the reasoning associated with this
did NOT conflict with Church dogma. However, Aristotle's emphasis on observation 
and testing were generally considered unreliable methods of obtaining truth.  
(Aquinas probably understood that observation and inquiry outside of Church 
doctrine would lead to contradictions--and therefore conflict.)
 
   Anselm's Famous Proof for God vs. Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways" Proofs of God

  An interesting example comparing the Platonic mode of thinking (known
as Realism) with that of Aristotle's philosophy (known as Nominalism)
can be seen in St. Anselm's famous proof for God. St. Anselm (1033-1109 C.E.)
followed the Platonic mode of theological thinking, which believed that man
could discover the truths of the universe by reasoning--ie, with no empirical
data from observations and experimentation.

  St. Anselm had begun his search for a proof on the existence of God,
after a monk named Othlo had confessed his desperation in being unable
to believe in God.  After contemplating on the problem, St. Anselm believed
he had received a revelation on the "perfect" proof for God's existence.
His famous proof basically stipulates the following: Because man can envision in 
his mind the IDEA of God--"which nothing greater can be conceived", then this
means God MUST exist.  That is, the fact that man can CONCEIVE of a being
in his intellect, of which none greater can be conceived, could only have
originated from a being who is even greater- i.e., one who exists in both
reality and thought--or God Himself.

   Even during his lifetime, St. Anselm's proof received criticism from
some of his religious colleagues. After all, some noted, if one can infer
the existence of God from the IDEA of God--could one not, likewise,
infer the existence of mythological creatures--such as a hippogriff, FROM
THE IDEA itself of a hippogriff?

 When this question had been posed to St. Anselm, he answered that his form
of argument could only be applied to the "Supreme" being of the universe.

   St. Thomas of Aquinas was somewhat critical of St. Anselm's proof,
stating at one point that God's existence may be "self-evident to God,
but not to us." St. Thomas of Aquinas believed that his "Five Ways" proof
for God's existence based on observations from the world was SUPERIOR to
Anselm's proof.  One of Aquinas' strongest proofs, borrowed from Aristotle's
Argument from Design-- which reasoned that the beauty and complexity of the
world must mean that there was a "prime mover". (For a more detailed
description of Anselm's and Aquinas' proofs, see Section VIII, Section 1--Great
Philosophical Proofs for the Existence of God.)

  St. Thomas Aquinas believed that his type of reasoning (which he called
natural theology) was complementary to revealed theology. He stressed that
the knowledge we have of God is ultimately derived from physical experiences
in this world.  These physical sensations are experienced similarly by
most people. The same is not true regarding an individual's revelations on
God.

  The reconciliation made by Aquinas of theology and science/philosophy
was an important step towards making the future Renaissance possible.--
Because, it was now possible for one in good conscience to be BOTH a devout
Christian AND, at the same time, a rational, questioning individual on
worldly matters. (Of course, reason was employed to ASSIST--and NOT REPLACE--
matters of faith).

  There were other scholars contemporary with St. Thomas Aquinas, who attempted 
to reconcile Christian theology with pagan philosophy. Peter Abelard (1079-1142) 
devoted his early career to refuting Anselm.  According to Abelard:

  "[Anselm] was that sort of a man that if anyone went to him in
   uncertainty, he returned more uncertain still. He was wonderful
   to hear, but at once failed if you questioned him.  He kindled a
   fire not to give light, but to fill the house with smoke."

Whereas Anselm stressed faith, saying "I believe in order to understand",
Abelard argued "Doubt is the road to inquiry, and by inquiry we perceive
truth."  Whereas Anselm stressed authority, Abelard replied, "A doctrine
is believed not because God has said it, but because we are convinced by
reason that it is so." As proof, Abelard listed many theological points
of dogma, on which the early Christian fathers had violently disagree over
among themselves.  This showed the need for questioning these doctrines, and
possibly refining them.

   The Church determined Abelard had gone to far and condemned certain of his
works--even forcing him at one point to burn one of his books with his own
hands.  Eventually he was sent to a monastery to seek out penance, where he
died. However, despite Abelard's silencing, his writings had opened the
door to other speculative ("heretical") philosophies.

   Likewise, Aquinas' writings were also considered very controversial during 
his lifetime. Thomas Aquinas (a Dominican) was strongly opposed by the 
Franciscan Bonaventure. Bonadventure believed that by denying the Platonic 
doctrine of Ideas, that Aquinas views would contain serious errors.   For 
example, Bonadventure argued that a denial of Platonic Ideals would mean that 
God himself does not hold knowledge of the Ideas, and thus would be ignorant of 
what He had created.  Bonaventure took this one further step to argue that this 
would mean that God could not have created the world.  (Aquinas had special
difficulty in reconciling Aristotle's position that the world had ALWAYS
EXISTED, as opposed to the Genesis version of creation.)

  A long clash ensued between the two sides.  During this time there was also a 
strong conservative backlash after some radicals began teaching the "primacy" of 
Aristotle's reason over Christian revelation (as opposed to keeping philosophy 
the "handmaiden" or servant of Christian theology).  A series of decrees were 
issued in 1270 and again in 1277 that forbade, upon threat of excommunication, 
the teaching from a list of radical and dangerous propositions from Aristotle.  
In 1277 these included some 15-20 propositions (out of 219 in all) drawn from 
Aquinas' teachings. (Aquinas had died some three years before this). (Lindberg, 
p 236-7).

    Although officially reversed in 1325, conservatives still held Aquinas' 
teachings in suspicion over the next centuries. Indeed, Thomas Aquinas' writings 
were NOT well received by Catholic Church authorities until the sixteenth 
century. Today, modern Catholicism (largely as a result of Pope Leo XII's 
encyclical AETERNI PATRIS) has incorporated much of Aquinas' thought into their 
teachings, and now recognizes St. Aquinas as one of their most important 
theologians.


Slow Beginnings of Empiricism, or the Scientific Method

    At Oxford University in England, the newly translated Greek, Latin, and
Islamic writings revived an interest in the scientific method.  Robert
Grosseteste (c 1168-1253) at Oxford had read Aristotle's writings. He was
impressed by Aristotle's description of observing individual events in nature,
by which humans could advance to a general law, called the "universal
experimental principle" which accounts for these events. This meant that
experimentation could be used to verify or falsify a theory of general law.
Mathematics was seen as an important tool in tandem with physical
experimentation.

  Grosseteste's pupil, Roger Bacon (c 1220-1292) carried these ideas even
further-- popularizing the term experimental science in the West through
his writings. Bacon argued that man can only obtain certainty of knowledge,
after subjecting it to experiments and reason.  Following St. Aquinas'
new paradigm on knowledge, Bacon argued that man can obtain knowledge
through his physical senses, in addition to divine revelation.

   From his experimentation, Bacon described the principles of reflection
and refraction in manufacturing spectacles (which subsequently came
into use). He also gave the exact formula for making gunpowder. (Its use
in guns appeared early in the next century.)

  At the same time, Bacon was also strongly immersed in the mystical arts
of alchemy and astrology. He was a believer in the religious apocalyptic
prophecies of Abbott Joachim of Fiora.  Bacon thus represented a man who
was in transition between the world of revealed religion and mysticism--
and with the newly developing world of the physical sciences.

New Towns and Heresies

  While there was a general tolerance for the secular climate that was creeping
into the universities with the rediscovery of Greek and Islamic texts--the
real concern of the Church was towards the new society that had evolved in the
aftermath of the crusades. The Catholic Church, after being involved in the
crusades and with its old political intrigues, was not prepared for the rapid
social changes caused by the newly formed towns, and the rise in trade and
other forms of materialism. The first response of the Church was a hostility
towards the new towns, money, and materialism.

  For example, at the end of the tenth century, pride had been considered
the worst of the Seven Cardinal sins.  During the eleventh century, pride
became replaced by greed as the worst of all evils. Church sermons railed
against the evils of the new money and materialism that had crept up,
especially in the towns. During this time, Peter Damian stated that
"Avarice is the root of all evil". According to Peter Lombard, one could
not be a merchant without sinning.

  And yet, while the clergy railed against materialism from the pulpit,
it was apparent to many that the clergy themselves had gotten caught up in
this new materialism-- and had become corrupt themselves. The Papacy was
very wealthy, and its political involvement in warfare, lawsuits, and
taxation alienated many groups. There were also numerous instances whereby
clergymen flouted the celibacy laws, and had illegal wives and children.

   In response to the publicized abuses, many religious and devout individuals
chose to bypass the clerical establishment--and to instead enter into a direct
personal relationship with God (that is, without benefit of Church authority.)
From the eleventh to the fifteenth century, wandering preachers attracted
hordes of followers.  They taught a return to the simple truths of the gospels,
and a moral austere lifestyle in imitation of the apostles.