The Christian World of the Middle Ages E-Book

Bernard Hamilton

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2003

Seitenzahl: 519

Beschreibung

This account of the Christian world, East and West, from AD 312 - 1500 challenges the usual Euro-centric view of medieval Christianity. The author reconstructs the faith and heritage of medieval Christendom, revealing its extraordinary impact in both great empires and tiny enclaves.

Leseprobe

THE

CHRISTIANWORLD

OF THEMIDDLE AGES

In memory ofFr. W.R. Corbould

THE

CHRISTIANWORLD

OF THEMIDDLE AGES

BERNARD HAMILTON

First published in 2003 by Sutton Publishing

The History PressThe Mill, Brimscombe PortStroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QGwww.thehistorypress.co.uk

This ebook edition first published in 2013

All rights reserved© Bernard Hamilton, 2003, 2013

The right of Bernard Hamilton to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 9476 0

Original typesetting by The History Press

CONTENTS

Preface

INTRODUCTION: THE CHURCH IN LATE ANTIQUITY

Chapter One

THE MEDIEVAL WESTERN CHURCH

Chapter Two

THE CHURCH IN BYZANTINE LANDS

Chapter Three

CHRISTIAN RIVALRY IN THE LEVANT AND THE CAUCASUS

Chapter Four

THE CHURCHES OF MEDIEVAL AFRICA

Chapter Five

THE CHURCH IN MEDIEVAL ASIA

EPILOGUE

Notes

Bibliography

PREFACE

The period covered by this book, 300–1500, represents more than half the lifespan of the Christian religion. During those centuries not only did it become the dominant faith of Western Europe, but also spread north-west to the Viking settlements in Iceland and Greenland as well as north-east, from the Byzantine Empire to the peoples of Russia. In Egypt, north Africa and the Near East, the early success of Christianity was tempered from the mid-seventh century by the foundation of the Islamic Arab Empire, which stretched from the Indus Valley to Morocco. In all those lands which remained under Islamic rule throughout the Middle Ages Christianity either died out or became a minority religion, though that process took centuries to complete; but beyond the Islamic frontiers in Africa and Asia there were flourishing Christian societies in this period. These were found within the Chinese Empire, among the nomadic peoples of Mongolia and Central Asia, in the Hindu states on the Malabar coast of South India, in the Nubian kingdoms which spanned the Nile to the south of Philae, in the Empire of Ethiopia and in the Caucasian kingdoms of Armenia and Georgia.

A great deal has been written in English about the medieval Western Church, and a substantial amount about Byzantium and its cultural heirs in the Balkans and Russia, and there are also some, though rather fewer, studies of the oriental and African churches. To my knowledge there is not any single general history written in English of the Church throughout the world in the medieval centuries, and it is that gap which I have tried to fill.

I have taken as my starting point the decision made in 312 by Constantine the Great to make Christianity a lawful religion in his empire. This marked the end of the age of persecutions and allowed the Church to develop freely as part of Roman society. I conclude the study in c. 1500, by which time the Western European powers had developed the capacity to travel to most parts of the world by sea. This enabled them to found overseas dominions in which they established the Christian Church in its Western form – initially Latin Catholic, but later, in the case of the Dutch and the British, Protestant. This occurred even in areas like South India where an organized Christian community already existed. This Western religious imperialism marks a significant break with the medieval world in which a great many different types of Christianity had flourished in Asia and Africa.

A brief explanation of the nomenclature used in this book may be helpful. The term Catholic Church is reserved for the undivided Church of the fourth century from which most of the other medieval Churches traced their origins. I have sometimes referred to the medieval Western Church as the Western Catholic Church, but more frequently as the Latin Catholic Church, because of the liturgical language which it used. I have avoided the term Roman Catholic because it implies that the Church was dominated by the Papacy to a degree which only happened after the Council of Trent.

I have used the term Orthodox to describe those Churches which accept the authority of the first Seven General Councils: this applies to the Patriarchate of Constantinople and those Churches which are in full communion with it. An important group of Churches rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451) and therefore also the later Councils recognized by the Orthodox Churches. Collectively these Churches may be described as ‘non-Chalcedonian’, but this is a term I have seldom needed to use, and I have called the constituent Churches in this group by their customary names: the Armenian Church, the Coptic Church (of Egypt) and the Ethiopian Church. However, I have described one Church in that group, the Syrian Orthodox Church, in an old-fashioned way, as the Jacobite Church. I do not intend any disrespect by this usage; my sole reason for adopting it is to avoid the difficulty which might otherwise be experienced by readers in distinguishing between this Church and the Orthodox Church in Syria (i.e. those people in communion with the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch). The name Jacobite comes from Bishop Jacob Baradaeus, who first gave that Church an organization independent of the Chalcedonian hierarchy.

The principal Church in Asia in the Middle Ages was headed by the Patriarch of Seleucia–Ctesiphon. Its members call it the Church of the East, and I have used this name, but this raises a technical problem, because this name has no adjectival form. I have therefore used the word Chaldean to describe members of this Church and as a general-purpose adjective for everything relating to it. Chaldean was the term used by medieval Western writers when referring to this Church. By Chaldean they meant Syriac, the liturgical language of the Church of the East, and it therefore seemed an appropriate term for me to adopt.

All the dates in this book relate to the Christian era, unless otherwise specified.

I have spent much of my adult life teaching, reading and writing about medieval Christendom, and therefore the number of scholars who have made it possible for me to write this book and to whom I should like to express my thanks is considerable. First, I owe to the late Dom David Knowles such understanding as I have of the importance of the Benedictine tradition and of twelfth-century Christian humanism in the shaping of Western Christendom. I am indebted to Professor Joan Hussey for awakening in me what has proved to be a lifelong interest in the Byzantine world and the Orthodox Church. The late Fr. Jean Leclercq, with his broad human sympathies, did much to make the monastic centuries and their thought-world come alive for me. The conversation and writings of Peter Brown have been a source of stimulation throughout my life, encouraging me to think of Christian history in the widest possible cultural, intellectual and religious context, an approach which has proved very relevant to the present study. The late Fr. Joseph Gill helped me to appreciate how remarkable was the achievement of the Council of Florence (1437–44) when, for the only time in Christian history, all the Churches were briefly united. George Every has enriched my understanding of the complexity of Byzantine Orthodoxy and the need to examine it not only from the viewpoint of Constantinople, but also from that of Alexandria, Antioch, Calabria and Kiev. I am deeply indebted to my friend Charles Beckingham for guiding me through the labyrinth of Prester John studies and for helping me to understand the civilization of Ethiopia. I should like to express my thanks to David Morgan and Peter Jackson for elucidating the place which Christianity occupied in the Mongol Empire. I am grateful to Kevork Hintlian and to Gérard Dédéyan for important insights they have provided into the civilization of medieval Armenia. Andrew Palmer has been of great help in elucidating the early history of the Syrian Orthodox/Jacobite Church, while Jean Richard, through his wide-ranging studies has illuminated the whole field of medieval Western relations with the Churches of Africa and Asia. John Wilkinson and Denys Pringle have proved invaluable guides to the pilgrim literature and archaeological evidence concerning Jerusalem and its unique place in the medieval Christian world. Finally, I wish to express my thanks to the late Fr. W. Robert Corbould, who was my parish priest when I was in my teens and who first made me aware of the rich diversity of the Christian medieval tradition, and it is to him that I dedicate this work.

As always, I would like to thank my wife for her support on all levels while I have been working on this project. I have specially valued her good humour when confronted by the moodiness which so often, at least in my case, seems to accompany book production. My thanks are, of course, also due to Sutton Publishing who commissioned this book, but particularly to Christopher Feeney and Elizabeth Stone who have been very helpful and patient in steering it to its completion.

The material I have used in preparing it has come from a number of libraries and I would particularly like to thank the librarians and staff of the School of Oriental and African Studies and of the Warburg Institute. Without the resources of those libraries it could not have been written. I should also like to thank the staff of the London Library, of the Library of the University of Nottingham, and of the Society of Antiquaries of London for their kind assistance.

Given all the help which I have received (and which I have only listed in part), this ought to be a remarkable book. I am, however, only too aware of my own limitations, and ask my readers’ indulgence for the many shortcomings which, despite the best efforts of my friends and advisers, no doubt remain in the text, and which are all my own work.

Bernard HamiltonNottingham 2002

INTRODUCTION THE CHURCH IN LATE ANTIQUITY

In c. 298 when the Emperor Diocletian was presiding at a sacrifice to receive omens about war with Persia, Christians in his bodyguard crossed themselves to ward off the powers of evil they believed were being invoked. The augurs declared that because of this they were unable to read the livers of the sacrifices or to deliver the oracle, and this led the emperor to initiate a new persecution of the Church. He first ordered that all those in the imperial service should make sacrifice to the gods of Rome, and then in 303 ordered the confiscation of the Christian scriptures, the destruction of churches, the prohibition of assemblies for Christian worship and the arrest and imprisonment of all bishops and clergy who were not willing to offer sacrifices. In 304 he extended the requirement to sacrifice to all his subjects. The enforcement of these laws depended on the zeal of local and regional officials, which was very variable; nevertheless, in many places persecution was quite severe. There is no record of the number of Christians who died for their faith. W.H.C. Frend has estimated that there were some 3,000–3,500, but this figure may be too high: as J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz has pointed out, from Eusebius’s detailed account of what happened in his own part of Palestine it appears that only eighty-six people were killed out of a Christian population numbering some tens of thousands.1 Even so, a great many Christians did suffer in lesser ways, ranging from imprisonment to prolonged legal and social harassment.

By this time Christianity was almost 300 years old, yet it had never been a religio licita, a religion recognized by Roman law. That meant that it was a punishable offence merely to be a Christian. It would be totally wrong to suppose that Christians had been subject to constant persecution and had had to practise their faith clandestinely throughout this time. Until the mid-third century persecutions were not centrally coordinated and the application of the law was entirely in the hands of provincial and local authorities. This meant that some Christian communities enjoyed long periods of peace, but it also meant that members of the Church were subject to arbitrary and at times deadly harassment, against which there was no redress. Thus St Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who had grown up as a Christian, was arrested in c. 155 when he was eighty-six years old and burnt by the local magistrates because he would not renounce his faith.

In 249 the Emperor Decius ordered all his subjects to perform cult sacrifices and to obtain certificates from the magistrates to prove that they had done so. Although this may not have been designed as a specifically anti-Christian measure, many Christians were executed or imprisoned for refusing to conform, and this legislation was the model for the anti-Christian laws promulgated by the Emperor Valerian in 257–60. His successor Galienus issued an edict of toleration for Christians in 260 which, while not giving their religion legal recognition, granted them immunity from the enforcement of the law. The Church then enjoyed peace for almost forty years, and during that time its numbers grew considerably. It is not known how many Christians there were in the empire by 300 but all the evidence suggests that they were very numerous in Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Asia Minor, though less so in the West, particularly in the northern provinces, but that they were not in a majority anywhere.

Diocletian abdicated in 305. He had set up a complicated system of devolved government in his vast empire, and in the next few years there were frequent changes of rulers. By 311 the Empire was ruled by four men: Licinius and Maximian in the East, and Constantine and Maxentius in the West. The anti-Christian legislation of Diocletian remained in force and was implemented in the East until 311, but not very systematically imposed in the West. In 312 Constantine, who was ruling in Britain and Gaul, went to war with his colleague Maxentius who ruled Italy. Constantine later claimed that as he neared Rome, shortly before the critical battle with his rival, he had seen a vision of a cross in the sun inscribed with the words: ‘In hoc signo vince’ (‘In this sign conquer’). He related this story towards the end of his life to his biographer, Eusebius of Caesarea, and it may well have grown in telling over the years, but that he had some religious experience in 312 seems almost certain, for he ordered his troops to mark the symbol on their shields, which was the Greek abbreviation for the name Christ. In the Battle of the Milvian Bridge on 28 October 312 Maxentius was killed and Constantine became sole Emperor of the West. He made an alliance with his eastern colleague Licinius, who in April 313 defeated Maximian and became sole Emperor in the East. On 15 June Licinius issued an edict stating that when he and Constantine had met at Milan they had agreed ‘to grant full toleration to Christianity as to all other religions’, and to restore all property of the Church confiscated during the persecution.2 In 320 Licinius reneged on this agreement and began to persecute Christians under his rule once again and that gave Constantine a pretext for intervening. In 324 he deposed Licinius and became sole ruler of the whole empire. The persecution had ended: Christianity had, after 300 years, become a lawful religion, and the Church experienced peace.

The edict of toleration did not specially favour Christianity, but put it on an equal footing with other religions, yet Constantine’s own attitude to the Church was not one of indifference. Although he was not baptized until shortly before his death, he brought up his sons as Christians and made Christianity the religion of his court. Christian clergy were exempted from the payment of tax and bishops were given the right to hear civil cases in their courts if both parties so wished. In this way the Church began to be integrated into the imperial administration. In accordance with the terms of the edict of toleration, Constantine encouraged bishops to apply for subsidies from the provincial authorities to restore buildings damaged or destroyed in the persecutions, and consequently a large-scale programme of church building was undertaken throughout the Empire. Constantine endowed churches in the Holy Land (see Epilogue), but his greatest munificence was shown to the church of Rome. Before 312 the Christians there had not possessed any imposing buildings, only assembly rooms in the city and cemeteries outside the walls (these were the catacombs – multi-level galleries for inhumation burials carved out of the rock). Constantine endowed a cathedral and an adjacent baptistery on the site of the Lateran Palace. Because there was no tradition of church building, the cathedral was modelled on a basilica, a multi-aisled rectangular building used as an imperial assembly hall, and this became the standard form for new churches. Constantine, or more probably his mother, the Empress Helena, had a basilica built in her own Sessorian Palace nearby, which later became the Church of Sta. Croce. Nevertheless, the Christian Church did not become dominant in Rome at this time: the two large imperial foundations were remote from the main centres of public life there, and all the other churches which the emperor founded were at the shrines of the martyrs outside the walls, the greatest of which was the huge basilica built over the tomb of St Peter in the Vatican cemetery.3 Constantine endowed the church of Rome with estates in many western provinces, which by the end of his reign produced an annual income of 25,000 gold pieces.

He can have derived no immediate political advantage from his patronage of the Church, since Christians were a minority in the Western provinces and, as his careful siting of his churches there shows, he was at pains not to antagonize the powerful pagan aristocracy of Rome. However, the Church may have proved more of a secular asset after he had become sole rule of the empire. Garth Fowden has argued persuasively that the imperial cult, which had been designed to unify the empire, broke down irretrievably in the third century because of the manifest weakness of the institution and traditional Roman religion could not act as a substitute because it was essentially local in character. By Constantine’s day there were two universalist faiths which were spreading in the empire, Christianity and Mithraism, each of which had the potential to become a new unifying force. Recent research suggests that Mithraism had evolved in the second half of the first century ad and was responding to some of the same religious needs in the Roman world as early as Christianity did. The distribution of known mithraea is an indication of its popularity, specially among soldiers. Nevertheless, compared to the number of Christians in the empire in Constantine’s day, Mithraism seems to have been a decidedly minority cult. In any case, the question of its establishment did not arise, because Constantine became a Christian, not a Mithraic initiate. Christianity, once it had been legalized, did prove to have the necessary qualities of universalism.4 In other words, it is arguable that Constantine became a Christian from personal conviction, but by the end of his reign could see advantages for the empire as a whole in the religion he professed.

Constantine’s reasons for delaying baptism are uncertain. The fact that he was not a member of the Church meant that he was not bound by its rules and could therefore remain pontifex maximus and officiate as head of state at pagan ceremonies. Yet he may have been more influenced by the Church’s teaching that baptism conferred remission of sins and have seen this as a reason for delaying his reception until he could no longer sin. He was not unique among fourth-century Christians in being baptized on his death-bed.

The Church which Constantine patronized and finally joined called itself the Great Church, or the Catholic, that is universal, Church. It was the largest and best organized Christian group, but there were many others. Some consisted of enthusiasts, like the Montanists, who had originated in Asia Minor in c. 150, believed the end of the world was imminent, and encouraged their members, women as well as men, to prophesy. Others attracted conservatives, such as the Church of the Novatians, who had separated from the Catholic Church in the 250s as a protest against what they regarded as the too easy reconciliation of members who had apostatized during the Decian persecution. The later Novatians did not differ in faith from the Catholics but were opposed to any kind of innovation or laxity in church practice. Others sects differed from the Great Church over doctrinal issues; for example, the Adoptionists, followers of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch in the 260s, believed that Jesus was an ordinary man who became the Son of God by adoption when the Word of God had descended on him. The most heterodox group were the followers of Marcion (d. c. 160), who taught that the creator God of the Old Testament was different from the God of Love who had taken pity on the human race which he had not made, and sent his son, Jesus Christ, to redeem them from their creator.

Marcion had much in common with the Christian Gnostics who looked to Jesus as their founder, but claimed to have received from him knowledge (gnosis) of the esoteric meaning of the Christian faith. Gnosticism was not tied down to any defined set of texts, like the New Testament, and its adherents encouraged speculation about the nature of the universe and man’s place in it, often expressed in very fanciful terms. The most powerful Christian Gnostic school was that of Valentinus, an Egyptian who taught in Rome from c. 135–160 and was concerned, like all Gnostics, to make Christianity a truly spiritual religion. Some sense of this is found in his hymn, ‘Summer’, recorded by St Hippolytus:

I see that all is suspended on spirit,I perceive that all is wafted upon spirit.Flesh is suspended on soul,And soul depends on the air,Air is suspended from ether,From the depths come forth fruits,From the womb comes forth a child.5

In Constantine’s day Valentinian Gnosis was still very powerful in both the eastern and western provinces, although many new schools of Gnosticism had developed.

A new religion, Manichaeism, which also claimed to be a valid form of Christianity, had entered the Roman world in the late third century. Its founder, Mani (d. 276), was a Persian nobleman who had been brought up as a Christian Gnostic, but had been much influenced by Zoroastrianism, the traditional religion of Iran. The religion which Mani founded shared with Gnosticism a contempt for the material world, and drew from Zoroastrianism a belief in a dualist cosmogony: that is, that the powers of Light and Good and those of Darkness and Evil were autonomous and in contention for control of the cosmos. Mani formulated his theology in terms of a myth of struggle between the forces of Light and Darkness, and taught that this had led to the formation of our universe, which is composed of evil matter in which particles of the good light are imprisoned, among them the souls of living creatures, and he taught that the souls of men and of all living creatures were either liberated at death or were reincarnated. The God of Light sought to restore all the imprisoned light particles to his realm, and his agent was a spiritual being, Jesus the Brilliant Light, who manifested himself in this world in a succession of prophets, including the historical Jesus of Nazareth and Mani. Their function was to tell men about their true condition and to provide them with the knowledge of how to escape from the evil, material creation. Mani founded a church with an elaborate hierarchy, designed to symbolize the time mechanism which operated the universe. At its head was the Archegos, an office held by Mani. His followers were divided into Hearers, who were in sympathy with the aims of the faith, and Elect who were fully initiated members of the Church and were cared for by the Hearers. The Elect were dedicated to a spiritual way of life in so far as that was compatible with staying alive: they were ascetic, celibate and vegan. They viewed even such food as they did eat as a necessary evil, as their form of grace makes plain:

I did not mow thee, did not grind thee, nor knead thee, nor lay thee in the oven, but another did do this and bring thee to me. I eat thee without sin.6

The pale Manichaean Elect, who met together to sing hymns to the Light and regarded a loaf of bread as a possible occasion of sin, were some of the most high-minded people who have ever lived.

Whenever possible, Manichaean missionaries used the religious vocabulary of the people among whom they worked in their preaching. In Persia they claimed to be part of the Zoroastrian tradition; in India they taught within a Buddhist framework; and when they entered the Roman Empire at some time after 275, they used Christian terminology, claiming that Mani was the Paraclete whom Jesus had said he would send to perfect his ministry. Probably because of their Persian connections, Diocletian proscribed the Manichaeans in 297, ordering their leaders to be burned together with their books. This persecution proved ineffective, and Manichaeism continued to spread in the Roman Empire for some 300 years. Its best known adherent was St Augustine of Hippo who became a Manichaean Hearer while a student and remained one for many years.

The Catholic Church which Constantine patronized had developed a strong and uniform organization which is well documented from the second century: the Christian community in each city was headed by a bishop supported by a group of priests and deacons. These clergy were responsible for the conduct of public worship and the pastoral care of the Christian community in their area. Bishops claimed to be the successors of the Apostles whom Jesus had appointed and considered themselves the true guardians of the apostolic teaching. Those who wished to join the Church had to receive instruction for at least three years. They were then baptized, normally at a ceremony held on the night before Easter. St Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–c. 236) relates how, when the candidates were standing in the baptismal pool, the officiating priest asked each of them:

Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose the third day living from the dead, and ascended into Heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father and will come to judge the living and the dead? Dost thou believe in the Holy Spirit in the Holy Church, and the resurrection of the flesh?7

When the baptism was completed the candidates dressed again and knelt before the bishop who laid his hands on their heads to confer the Holy Spirit. Then he and all those present joined in the celebration of the eucharist of Easter Day.

The profession of belief made by the baptismal candidates is the oldest known version of the creed. This was a summary of the faith, but during their long preparation the candidates would have received detailed instruction. They would have learnt that God is the sole creative principle, that his nature is love and that the universe which he created had been perfect. Evil had entered it because God had given men and women free will and they had made wrong choices, motivated by selfishness and malice. Such acts were sinful because they separated man from his creator. Once the first human beings had sinned, their descendants became naturally inclined to sin. Theologians described this inclination as original (that is, inherited) sin. Thereafter, although human beings might wish to lead perfect lives in accordance with God’s will, they were no longer capable of doing so.

Although the power of evil is made very evident in the New Testament, little is said about its origin. Jesus taught his followers to pray ‘deliver us from evil’, and spoke of the evil power which opposed his work and which he called by a variety of names – Satan, the Devil, the Prince of this World. St Paul taught that the story in the Book of Genesis about how Adam and Eve had been driven from Paradise for disobeying God’s command exemplified the way in which human self-will had allowed sin and death and the forces of evil to enter God’s creation. He also explained how the whole of creation, and not just man, needed and would benefit from the redeeming work of Christ. From a very early date Christian writers sought to give a coherent account of the origin and nature of evil, using these and other biblical passages and also drawing on the Jewish apocryphal tradition (e.g. Jude, v. 9). They inferred that angels, like men, had been created with free will and that some of them, led by Lucifer, had misused it and rebelled against God. Lucifer had become the Devil, and with the fallen angels ruled over Hell. The Devil and his angels carried on a perpetual war against God and were responsible for marring the perfect universe which God had made, so that it had become hostile to man. Until the coming of Christ the Devil had claimed dominion over the souls of dead men and women because they had all been sinful, but Christ freed the souls of those who repented when, after the Crucifixion, he descended into Hell. This image of a cosmic conflict between the rebel angels led by Lucifer and the angels loyal to God, commanded by St Michael, in which humanity had a central role, was accepted by most Catholic Christians in the Middle Ages as an explanation of the origin and nature of evil. Yet although the Church never condemned this view, it was never defined as true belief by any medieval Church Council.8

Christian tradition affirmed that the defeat of evil and the restoration of perfection had been achieved by the Son of God, Jesus, who became man and was born of a virgin mother, Mary. In him a new creation began. By suffering and dying on the cross he exemplified God’s love for men, and he then descended into Hell to fight the mystery of evil on its own supernatural ground and won. Having defeated death and sin he rose from the dead and became the firstborn of the new creation. Leaving on earth the Church which he had founded, God the Son returned to Heaven and the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, descended on Christ’s followers at Pentecost to fortify them to continue his ministry. Although individual theologians attempted to explain how the incarnation, and more particularly the death and resurrection of Jesus, had effected the reconciliation of men to God, none of their opinions ever received the official endorsement of the medieval Catholic Church, which was content to express its faith in the words of the Nicene Creed: ‘for us men and for our salvation he [Jesus] came down from Heaven’.

It was part of the apostolic tradition that at some future time Christ would return to judge the living and the dead. He himself had said that he did not know when this would happen (Matt. 24:36) but despite this, speculation about dates was rife throughout the Middle Ages and beyond. In the meantime it was the task of the Church to complete the work which Jesus had begun. St Paul had expressed that work in this way in one of the very earliest documents of the Church: ‘if any man be in Christ he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold all things are become new.’ (II Cor. 5:17) The Christian life was dedicated to living in harmony with God, and it was conceived of as a battle, fought on two levels: first against the selfish instincts of the individual Christian, and secondly against the spiritual powers of evil who, although defeated by Christ, were still fighting a spirited rearguard action and, with the help of wayward humanity, were seeking to frustrate the divine plan.

Unlike Gnostics, Catholic Christians had a high regard for the material world. Christ’s work had only been possible because he had become fully human. Because God was the creator of everything, the whole creation had to be restored to its original perfection, not just the souls of men. This was symbolized by the Church’s belief in the resurrection of the body: just as Christ had risen bodily from the dead, so all his followers would enjoy not merely immortality of the soul, but also the transformation of their bodies. But this was only part of a process which would culminate in the creation of a new heaven and a new earth in which evil would have no part.

There was uncertainty among Christian theologians about whether at the end of time only part of the creation would be redeemed and whether those who rejected Christ, both men and angels, would suffer eternal damnation. This was certainly the majority opinion, but some thinkers, notably St Clement of Alexandria and Origen in the third century and St Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth, held that the entire creation would, in the end, attain salvation, a doctrine known as apocatastasis, which was later condemned in the form in which it was expressed by Origen because it appeared to deny God’s creatures the freedom to choose their own destinies.

Church members were expected to pray regularly each day. In the age of persecution such prayers had been said privately, but when cathedrals were built in the fourth century it became common to hold daily services in the morning and at the time the lamps were lit in the evening. These consisted of the recitation of psalms and prayers and lay people were encouraged to attend. At the centre of the Christian life was the celebration of the eucharist. The earliest account of this sacrament is that given by St Paul:

The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said: ‘Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.’ After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying: ‘This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. (1 Cor. 11: 23–9).

The Church in the fourth century believed that the eucharist was not only a commemoration of Christ’s death, but also a showing forth in time of an act which had eternal validity: that is to say it enabled the congregation to be spiritually present at Calvary, and to petition Christ crucified for their needs and for the needs of all the world. This sacrament emphasized the importance of hallowing the physical creation: bread and wine, the everyday food and drink of people in Mediterranean lands, became the body and blood of Christ, the means by which the faithful entered into communion with God.

The eucharist, which in the Western Church came to be called the Mass, was celebrated every Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection, and the normal minister was the bishop. A great variety of liturgical rites was used in local churches, but they all conformed to the same general pattern: an introductory service, consisting of prayers and readings, which anybody might attend, followed by the part of the liturgy at which only the baptized might be present, when the bread and wine were consecrated and the faithful received Holy Communion.

Jesus had given his followers an impossible rule of life: ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.’ (Matt. 5:48.) The means to achieve this, he had told them, was love, love of God, and love of all other human beings as though they were oneself. This course of action was hindered by the strong drives to selfishness which all people experience and theologians identified the seven sins, each of which could destroy the new life and indeed the desire for it in a Christian. The poet Prudentius (348–c. 410) wrote a mock epic, the Psychomachia, or Spiritual Battle, about the war between the seven deadly sins and the virtues which are opposed to them. The sin of lechery was combated by chastity, that of gluttony by abstinence, that of sloth by diligence, that of avarice by generosity, that of anger by patience, that of envy by loving-kindness, and that of pride by humility. Christian morality consisted in promoting in oneself these and other virtues.9

It was universally recognized that nobody could live a perfect life and that minor sins such as irritability or pomposity were part of being human. Nevertheless, the Church considered that three sins were so serious that those who committed them incurred excommunication: these were apostasy, denial of one’s faith; committing murder; and committing adultery, that is breaking one’s own or somebody else’s marriage vows, normally in a public and persistent way. Those guilty of these offences had to make confession to the bishop, and do public penance for as long as he determined. During that time the offender had to sit on the penitents’ bench in church during the first part of the liturgy, but was not allowed to stay for the consecration or to receive Holy Communion. The penance always lasted for several years and sometimes the penitent was only reconciled when he was dying. In the early fourth century a Christian might only be absolved once from serious post-baptismal sin; a second offence would lead to his permanent exclusion from the Church.

The Church recognized that there were different ways of living the Christian life. Most people would pursue normal careers and many of them would marry. The Church laid down rules about marriage, but the ceremony at this time and for long afterwards was an entirely secular one arranged by the families concerned. Other Christians had a vocation to the contemplative life of prayer. This might take a number of forms, but from the late third century it became increasingly common for such people to become monks and nuns, a development which originated in Christian Egypt (see p. 139). The contemplative life entailed vows of celibacy (the renunciation of sex) and poverty (the renunciation of personal property), though beyond that there was a great deal of variation in the rules of life followed by solitaries and in communities.

The Church accepted the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testament as authoritative and divinely inspired. They were read in the Greek translation made for the Jews of Alexandria and known as the Septuagint, because that was the version in which the writers of the New Testament cited them. The Septuagint contains a group of books not found in the Hebrew scriptures, which are generally called the Apocrypha, and throughout the Middle Ages they formed part of the text of the Old Testament.

Christians took longer to decide what books should be included in the New Testament. From c. 130 there seems to have been general agreement about the inspiration of the Four Gospels and the thirteen letters attributed to St Paul. The remaining books gained acceptance more slowly, while some Christian groups wanted to include other writings, such as The Shepherd of Hermas. The earliest complete list of the books of the New Testament in the form which is now standard dates from 367 and is found in the Festal Letter of St Athanasius of Alexandria; a similar list was drawn up in Rome for Pope Damasus in 382.10

Authority in the Church was vested in bishops, who held the place of the Apostles, and when disputes arose they were settled by council at which normally only the bishops voted, though other church members might attend and speak. The author of the Book of Acts certainly supposed that conciliar government was part of the apostolic tradition (Acts 15:6–31), but in the age of persecution only local councils had been able to meet. In Constantine’s day, although all bishops were equal in dignity, three were recognized as pre-eminent in the Roman world, those of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch in Syria. The Bishop of Rome, like his colleague at Alexandria, was known as pope, or father, and in Constantine’s day he enjoyed undoubted primacy of honour, taking precedence over all other bishops as successor of St Peter and bishop of the ancient imperial capital. The popes claimed to have inherited the powers which Christ gave to Peter:

Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. (Matt. 16:18–19).11

This text is first known to have been invoked by Pope St Stephen I (254–7) during a dispute with St Cyprian of Carthage about baptism, but it was only gradually, during the Middle Ages, that the popes became aware of how widely their powers as vicars of St Peter might be interpreted.

Once Christianity had become a religio licita it was possible to hold a General Council representing the entire Church.12 In 325 Constantine summoned the first assembly of this kind to Nicaea in order to resolve the Arian controversy. Arius, a priest of Alexandria, was represented by his opponents as teaching that there had been a time when God the Father existed and God the Son did not; in other words, that the Son was not equal to God but a creature made by God. Henri Marrou was probably correct in suggesting that in fact Arius ‘was trying to express an ontological superiority [of God the Father] rather than a chronological priority’.13 Seen in those terms, the dispute was concerned with defining what was meant by ‘Son of God’, and that could only be resolved by trained theologians. However, the dispute could also be presented in a simplified way which every Christian could understand: was Jesus Christ God, or was he simply a part of God’s creation? In our very different society this is still a matter which can arouse strong feelings in religious discussions. In the fourth century Arius’s views as popularly understood proved very divisive.

The Council was attended by 318 bishops from all over the Christian world, some from beyond the imperial frontiers. Constantine, though not yet a member of the Church, convened the assembly and presided at it, though only the bishops voted. This anomaly showed that there was a potential in Christian society for a conflict between Church and State, and although that did not happen at Nicaea, it was to become one of the dominant themes of Christian history during the Middle Ages. The Council of Nicaea was important because for the first time since the apostolic age an assembly could meet which was representative of the whole Church and able to reach decisions binding on all its members. At Nicaea Arius’s teaching was unanimously condemned and the belief affirmed that Jesus Christ shared one being with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, that he was, indeed, fully God and fully man. The council also legislated about lesser matters such as the date on which Easter should be kept.

In practice the decisions of Nicaea proved difficult to implement. Many churchmen continued to hold modified forms of Arius’s teaching: the opinion that Christ was like his Father in all things, though not of one being with him, proved particularly attractive. Bishops who held such views were allowed to remain in office, and one of them, Eusebius of Nicomedia, received Constantine into the Church when he was dying in 337. His son and successor, the Emperor Constantius (337–61), was a convinced moderate Arian and exiled some of the bishops who upheld the rulings of Nicaea, replacing them by men with Arian sympathies.

Constantius was succeeded in 361 by his cousin Julian, known as the Apostate, because although brought up a Christian, he rejected that faith when he became emperor and restored traditional Roman paganism as the official religion of the state. He did not persecute Christians, but placed all forms of Christianity on an equal legal footing, hoping that through their quarrels his opponents would undermine their own credibility. It is impossible to know whether his religious policies could have succeeded, because his death in 363 at the end of a disastrous campaign against Persia, and his lack of an heir, brought his changes to a sudden end. All his successors were Christians, and the favoured position of the Church in the empire was never subsequently called in question.

Julian’s policy of tolerating all forms of Christianity had allowed pro-Nicene bishops, exiled under Constantius, to return to their sees. Although some of Julian’s immediate successors were moderate Arians they did not attempt to persecute Catholics, and for the next twenty years Catholics and Arians co-existed in a single church. In 379 power passed to two emperors who supported the Council of Nicaea, Theodosius I (379–95) and Gratian (375–83), and under their auspices the second General Council of the Church met at Constantinople in 381. All forms of Arianism were condemned, the decisions of the Council of Nicaea were upheld, and there is evidence to suggest that the Council endorsed the Nicene Creed in its present form.14 Thereafter, Arians living in the empire became a very small minority and the bishops of the Catholic Church were united in accepting the faith as defined by the first two general councils.

The Church had not been damaged by the Arian controversy, which was symptomatic of its intellectual vitality. Large numbers of people joined the Church during the fourth century and it was fast becoming the religion of the majority. The privileges of the clergy were increased under Theodosius: in 384 they were made answerable to the bishops’ courts alone for all offences, criminal as well as civil, while bishops were declared to be subject only to the judgment of their peers. The Church had also become better organized during the fourth century. It began to model its hierarchy on that of the imperial administration: the bishops were like provincial governors; metropolitan archbishops, who supervised whole groups of dioceses, were like imperial vicars; while the incumbents of the great sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, which were later to be called patriarchates, corresponded to imperial prefects. Because of court patronage Christians had begun to be appointed to the highest offices in the state: the first Christian consul, for example, was nominated in 323. By the end of the fourth century a large number of men of great ability not merely wanted to be Christians, but wanted to be ordained. Men like Ambrose and Augustine in the West, and John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea in the East, are evidence of this trend. The Catholic Church was being run by some of the most gifted and able men in their generation, and so when on 8 November 392 Theodosius I made Catholic Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, this seemed almost a natural development.

No pagan was compelled to join the Church, but the public and private performance of pagan religious ceremonies was forbidden by law. Eighty years after the Edict of Milan there had been a complete reversal of roles: paganism had now become a religio non licita. Although this legislation proved very difficult to enforce and most pagans continued to worship in the traditional ways, they were now subject to random harassment, such as the destruction of temples. Most Christians, despite their long experience of persecution, did not regard the toleration of other religions as a virtue.

In 395 Arcadius, Theodosius’s son and successor in the eastern provinces, made all forms of Christianity illegal except that of the established Catholic Church. This law also proved almost impossible to enforce and other Christian sects survived in some places as late as the mid-eighth century, but they had all died out by c. 800 and it was from the Catholic Church of the fourth century that virtually all the churches of medieval Christendom described in this book were descended, which explains why, despite many superficial differences, they had so much in common.

CHAPTER ONE

THE MEDIEVAL WESTERN CHURCH

THE FORMATION OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM

Changes in Western Society

When Theodosius the Great died in 395 the empire was divided between his two sons: Arcadius ruled the eastern provinces and Honorius the western (see Map p. xviii). It is customary to refer to the eastern provinces after this time as the Byzantine Empire. Honorius and his successors ruled in Ravenna, protected from sudden attack by marshes and linked by sea to the eastern provinces. Considerable social and political changes took place in the Western Empire during the fifth century. They were in part caused by the Huns, a warlike, nomadic people who in the fourth century began to build an empire in southern Russia and eastern Europe, which led Germanic tribes to seek refuge across the Roman frontier. When the waters of the upper Rhine froze over on 31 December 406, a large body of Suevi and Vandals crossed into imperial territory. The Suevi finally settled in north-western Spain, while the Vandals occupied the rest of the peninsula. The Visigoths, who had settled in Roman territory in the Balkans in 376, led by King Alaric moved into Italy, where they sacked Rome in 410. In 412 they settled in Aquitaine and, after the Vandals established a kingdom at Carthage in 429 (see p. 171), took over their lands in Spain as well. Meanwhile the Burgundians had gained control of south-eastern Gaul. The parts of the West which remained under direct Roman rule were gradually eroded. In 476 the German general Odoacer deposed his master, the Western Emperor Romulus (contemptuously called Augustulus, the Little Emperor), and transferred his allegiance to the Emperor Zeno in Constantinople. Then in 486, the Franks, who had formerly lived along the north-eastern frontier of Gaul, led by their young King Clovis (481–511), conquered most of Gaul north of the Loire. Thus within a century of the death of Theodosius the Western Empire had become a group of Germanic kingdoms.

The immigrant peoples did not consider that they were conquering Roman territory, but merely settling inside it. With the exception of the Vandals in north Africa, they were prepared to accept imperial overlordship and in return to defend the empire. Their help was indeed valuable, as the Visigoths proved when they fought alongside the Romans and defeated Attila, King of the Huns, when he invaded Gaul in 451. The Germanic kings wanted to preserve Roman institutions, which most of them admired, and some of them were extremely successful in doing so. It is possible to gain some idea of what the changes seemed like to contemporaries from the letters of Sidonius Apollinaris (c. 430–86), a member of the senatorial aristocracy of southern Gaul.

Sidonius was educated in the classical tradition, possessed huge estates and was trained for a conventional career in the imperial administration. When his father-in-law, Avitus, briefly became Western Emperor (455–6), Sidonius wrote a panegyric in his honour and a statue was erected to him in the Roman forum. The Emperor Anthemius (467–72) appointed Sidonius prefect of Rome in 468–9. Then, in 471, he was elected Bishop of Clermont by the local people and tried unsuccessfully to defend the city, which was still directly under Roman rule, against the Visigothic King Euric. After a brief imprisonment by the Visigoths, Sidonius returned to his see, where he used his great wealth to benefit his flock. As his career shows, although there was much continuity, radical changes were taking place in the Roman Empire of the West by the 470s.

With the exception of the Franks, most of the Germans who settled in the empire were Arians. They owed their faith to Ulfilas, a Christian living under Gothic rule, who in c. 341 had been sent as an ambassador to the Emperor Constantius, who arranged for him to be consecrated Bishop of the Goths at a time when the court was moderate Arian.1 Ulfilas translated the liturgy and the Bible into Gothic, omitting the four books of Kings which he considered too bloodthirsty for his converts. Missionaries trained by him worked among the other Germanic peoples of central and eastern Europe, so that by the time they entered Roman territory many of them had been converted to Arianism. It is probable that they remained Arian because they were attached to the vernacular Gothic liturgy rather than for theological reasons. Except in the Vandal kingdom of Africa the Arian rulers did not persecute Catholics, but the difference in religion was important, because it kept the German settlers separate from the Roman population. Indeed, the latter came to identify the Catholic Church and its Latin liturgy with the traditional civilization of Rome. Latin at that time was the everyday speech of much of Italy, while in other parts of the West it was known by a quite wide cross-section of the urban population. The Roman aristocracy, many of whom had previously been hostile to Christianity, joined the Catholic Church, and some of them, like Sidonius, became bishops.

The Franks were pagans, but King Clovis received Catholic baptism in c. 496 together with many of his followers. He was already familiar with Christianity as his wife, Clothilde, was a Catholic Burgundian princess, but he attributed his conversion to the victory granted him by the Christian God over the Alemanni. His Catholicism ensured him the support of the Church hierarchy and of the Roman aristocracy of Gaul, and in 507 he was able to defeat the Visigoths at Vouillé and annex all their lands in Gaul. Because he was the only Catholic king in the West he was honoured by the Emperor Anastasius at Constantinople who conferred on him the dignity of a consul.

The conversion of the Franks to Catholicism and their dominance in Gaul may have been one reason which inclined the Emperor Justinian (527–65) to attempt to restore imperial power in the West. The rapid success of his forces against the Vandal kingdom of Carthage in 533–4 (see p. 172–2) encouraged him to attack the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. The Arian Ostrogoths, who had settled in the province of Pannonia in the 450s, had been used by the Emperor Zeno to overthrow Odoacer in 489 and had established a kingdom in Italy. In the reign of Theodoric (d. 526) late Roman civilization in Italy had enjoyed a final flowering. It took Justinian almost twenty years (535–54) to bring the whole of Italy under direct imperial rule and to destroy Ostrogothic power, and the cost was high. The entire peninsula had been impoverished and Rome had suffered two long sieges during which the aqueducts had been cut, so that its population declined drastically.

Soon after Justinian’s death in 565, the Lombards, a Germanic people whose rulers were Arians, invaded Italy and by 590 had conquered Lombardy, Tuscany and the Duchy of Benevento in southern Italy. Venice, the Exarchate – a band of territory extending across central Italy from Ravenna to Rome – Apulia, Calabria, the maritime cities of Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta, together with Sicily remained under Byzantine rule. Consequently, the Papacy was subject to the Eastern Emperor even though most of Western Christendom was governed by German kings.

Arianism gradually died out. The Arian churches in north Africa and Italy did not survive the destruction of the Vandal and Ostrogothic kingdoms by Justinian. The Burgundians had accepted Catholicism in the time of King Sigismund (516–23), while in Spain the Suevi became Catholics in the 560s and the Visigoths in 589. Finally, the Lombards became Catholic after the death of King Rothari in 652.

The Response of the Western Church

The Western provinces of the Roman Empire were in the main coterminus with the Western Church, which worshipped in Latin and looked towards Rome as the senior bishopric. That Church proved itself to be very resilient during the troubled years which followed the death of Theodosius. Despite the edict of 392 paganism remained strong, specially among the senatorial aristocracy. The members of this articulate and powerful group were shocked by the Gothic sack of Rome in 410, which, they argued, was a direct consequence of the abandonment of the worship of the traditional gods of Rome. St Augustine of Hippo responded to this criticism by writing what was in effect a Christian philosophy of history, The City of God. He argued that human history was an ongoing conflict between two cities, the City of God, consisting of those who tried to act in conformity with God’s will, and the City of the World, which was made up of those who through self-regard or wilful defiance opposed God’s will, a conflict which was part of a wider cosmic battle between the forces of Good and Evil which would only end with the Last Judgement. Augustine refused to make a crude equation between the City of God and the Church, since not all Christians did the will of God and not all pagans were opposed to it. Divine approval could not be assessed in terms of worldly success, as Augustine’s opponents urged it should be, for as he pointed out, Rome had suffered comparable vicissitudes to the Gothic sack while it was a pagan city.

Although by c. 500 the Roman aristocracy had for the most part been received into the Catholic Church, paganism still remained strong among the peasantry. The