WMMHS
AP EUROPEAN HISTORY – SUMMER ASSIGNMENT PACKET
MR. KERTESZ
NAME: __________________________
DATE: __________________
DIRECTIONS: As a result of the AP European History course being so comprehensive
(600 years!); it is necessary for us to get a head-start on the course curriculum. The
following book and reading will provide you with the necessary background information.
1) Manchester, William. A World Lit Only by Fire. New York, New York: Little,
Brown and Company, 1993.
You are required to read only Part I and Part II (pages 1-219) of A World Lit only by
Fire.
You will complete a short essay quiz the first week of the new school year.
HINT: Read the book for the broader picture by focusing more on the larger themes of
Renaissance society and less on specific names and dates. An understanding of some of
the more important people like Erasmus and Martin Luther will be necessary.
You may purchase the book:
-online using amazon.com
-at the Mendham Bookstore
2) There is a brief reading attached to this assignment. Please complete the reading
and the questions that follow. We will review them in early September.
The Medieval World
People didn’t begin talking about the Middle Ages until they were
sure they were over. Historians in the Italian Renaissance saw their own age
as a “rebirth” of Roman values. The preceding era, which they saw as unRoman and therefore inferior, they described as the Medium Aevum, a Latin
Phrase which translates directly as “Middle Age” and from which we get our
adjective “medieval.” To them the entire span of the time between the
collapse of the Roman Empire in 476 and their own time marked a pause in
the advance of civilization. Even today, the term “medieval” has negative
connotations. It’s not clear what Lawrence Fishburne intended when he
threatened to “go medieval” in Pulp Fiction, but you can be sure it wasn’t
pleasant.
The historians of the Italian Renaissance were more judgmental than
we allow ourselves to be today. To them, whatever didn’t look like ancient
Rome (and consequently their own civilization) was different and wrong.
Modern historians try to engage these differences and to understand how and
why cultures change over time. Despite the geographic continuity, medieval
Europe bears some significant differences from the Europe that followed. In
order to get a handle on what occurred during the Italian Renaissance, and to
understand the foundations of Earl Modern and Modern Europe, we shall
explore three of the most significant differences: feudalism and
manorialism; the constant presence of the invisible world; and the balance of
community over the individual.
Feudalism and Manorialism
Governments as we understand them didn’t exist for most of the
Middle Ages. Simply put, the institutions and infrastructure that had existed
in Roman times almost completely disappeared. Today, almost every
society on earth has an abstract idea of a constitutional system of laws which
form the basis for government. In the Middle Ages, however, personal ties
of friendship and loyalty formed the basis for political authority. The most
common form of this relationship was based upon the feodum, or fief. The
fief was a gift offered by a lord to one of his warriors. Usually, this gift
consisted of weapons, armor, a horse, room and lodging, and most
importantly, land. In exchange, the person who received this gift, the vassal,
was expected to offer military or administrative service. The loyalty
stemming from the ritualized friendship was known as fealty. Swearing
fealty to a lord meant far more than political allegiance. It was seen in quite
literal terms as joining the lord’s family. By the eleventh century, the last
vestiges of the Roman political system had been swept away and the
political system based upon these lord-vassal relationships, known today as
the feudal system, was the norm throughout Europe. A typical feudal
agreement might read:
Abbot Faritus also granted to Robert, son of William Maduit, land of four hides in
Weston which his father had held from the Abbot’s predecessor, to be held as a fief. And
he should do this service for it, to wit that whenever the church of Abingdon should
perform its knight service he should do the service of half a knight for the same church;
that is to say, in the castle ward, in military service beyond and on this side of the sea, in
giving money in proportion to the knights on the capture of the king, and in the rest of the
services which the other knights of the church perform.
The basic fief was one or more manors, which was the unit of
agricultural production in the countryside. A self-sufficient village formed
the center of most manors. Contact with other villages was limited at best,
and most peasants spent their entire lives within a few miles of their homes.
Most peasants were known as serfs, people who held a unique legal status of
“unfree.” A serf had no freedom to move off of the manor, had limited legal
rights in court, and could not own land. If their manor were sold or given as
a fief, the bill of sale might read: “…six acres of land, three cows, fifteen
chickens, a plow, and eleven serfs.”
Until very late in the Middle Ages, there were no rules about who
could receive a fief from whom. If you were prepared to meet the
obligations of several lords, you could pledge fealty (and receive a fief) to
several sources. This could cause problems if two of your lords went to war
with each other. The following knight tried to spell out his obligations to
avoid such an awkward situation. His solution, which seems absurd to us,
made perfect sense for a thousand years.
I, John of Toul, make it known that I am the liege man of Lady Beatrice, countess of
Troyes, and her son…except for the liege homage I have done to Lord Enguerran of
Coucy, Lord John of Arcis, and the Count of Grandpre. If it should happen that the
Count of Grandpre should be at war with the Countess for his own personal grievances, I
will personally go to the assistance of the Count of Grandpre and will send to the
Countess of Champagne, if she summons me, the knights I owe for the fief which I hold of
her. But if the Count of Grandpre shall make war on the Countess of Champagne on
behalf of friends and not for his personal grievances, I shall serve in person with the
Countess and I will send on knight to the Count of Grandpre to give the service owed
from the fief which I hold of him. I will not personally enter the territory held by the
Count of Grandpre. If the Countess of Champagne should make war on Lord John of
Arcis…
Many, but not all of the medieval vassals were knights, professional
warriors who were trained from birth for war. Even in times of relative
peace, knights were expected to perfect and demonstrate their skills in ritual
combat known as tournaments. By the eleventh century, knights formed a
distinct class. While, in theory, any soldier who fought well in battle could
become a knight by receiving a fief, most knights after the millennium
became knights by virtue of hereditary. They protected their special status
by monopolizing violence. For example, only knights were allowed to bear
arms and to wear armor. Ideally, all other members of society were to be
protected by the knights. Additionally, knights came to protect their status
by adopting a special form of behavior which they believed set the apart
from the masses. They called this knightly behavior chivalry. A good
knight was supposed to behave honorably on the battlefield towards his
fellow knights. Gradually, the knight was expected to uphold the values of
Christianity and to become a practitioner of an idea that was borrowed from
Muslims living in Spain at the time: courtly or romantic love. Until the tenth
century, the highest emotional commitment expected of a man was the
formal, ritual love between a lord and vassal. With the introduction of
courtly love into knightly society, the love between a man and a woman
became the ideal. Our own culture has so embraced the idea of romantic
love that we often assume it is integral part of human nature.
Kings, for the most part of the Middle Ages, had a poorly defined
role. They carried their titles and much of their prestige from the old
Germanic chieftains from the period of the barbarian migrations. (Our word
for king is derived from the German word cyning, meaning leader of kingroup.) However, as Europe settled down, kingship became defined in
terms of the feudal system. Kings became little more than lords at the top of
the food chain, people who gave fiefs and didn’t owe fealty to anyone.
There were, however, some prominent exceptions: the King of England was
also the Duke of Aquitaine in Southern France, which made him a vassal of
the French king. Confusion and tension over this dual role sparked the
conflict known as the Hundred Years War in the fourteenth century. Feudal
kings had little power to direct their ship of state. Every major decision was
the product of negotiation between a king and his prominent vassals. If a
major count or duke didn’t want to pay taxes or send troops to fight the king,
there was little the king could do.
By the end of the Hundred Years War, both the French and English
kings had consolidated their power in their homelands. In the fifteenth
century, kings began a long process of making the monarchy the central part
of the realm. Their courts and their laws took prominence over the local
courts of the regional lords. Late medieval kings established and maintained
standing armies and the systems of taxation to pay for them. Scholars like
Thomas Aquinas developed a theory of “divine right” to justify the king’s
superior position. King Edward III of England used an association with the
Church to reinforce the sacred nature of kingship. To those unconvinced by
Aquinas, kings also developed representative bodies to support their
authority. The English Parliament and the French Estates General both
developed significantly in the Late Middle Ages. Both represented “the will
of the people,” and both gave leverage to the kings over their vassals that
they lacked in previous generations.
The Invisible World
Medieval people are often portrayed unfairly as superstitious.
Superstitious implies irrationality, a belief that cannot stand up to logic. The
medieval world view was perfectly logical, and it withstood the best tests of
logic for a thousand years. It was not based upon empirical science as our
world is, but upon scriptural authority and the teachings of the Church. To a
person in the Middle Ages, belief in unseen angels, demons, and saints was
as rational to him or her as our own belief in unseen germs and bacteria is to
us today.
Christianity formed the basis for the understanding most European
had of the universe. A single God existed simultaneously in three personas:
God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. God was the
creator of a finite universe, one which would ultimately come to an end. At
the end of time, God would judge the souls of all humans, both alive and
dead, and send them to their eternal reward or punishment. The natural and
supernatural worlds were connected in a way far more intimate than most of
us accept today. It was believed that everything that happens in this world
had repercussions in the next and vice versa.
God was not alone in the invisible world. Satan, popularly believed to
be a fallen angel, worked evil through his demonic servants on humans.
Most misfortune was attributed to the work of Satan and his demons.
Angels also existed, but they interacted far less with humans than saints did.
Saints were once humans who, through virtue of their heroic Christianity,
were admitted directly to heaven without having to wait for the last
judgment. One could become a saint by becoming a martyr (dying for the
faith) or by living a life of extreme virtue and asceticism. It didn’t hurt to
have a lot of people writing and doing public relations on your behalf after
you died either. The pinnacle of sainthood was the mother of Jesus, the
Virgin Mary. The community of saints also included the Apostles, most of
the prominent early writers of the Church, influential evangelists (people
who carried the faith to non-Christians). Even families and local
communities had their own saints: people whose example lived on after their
deaths until respect became veneration. By the late Middle Ages, a new
variety of saint was emerging: women whose extreme form of belief, which
often included abuse of their bodies, earned them the regard of their fellow
Christians.
Saints were thought to be more approachable than God himself. God
was supremely fair, and at the Last Judgment, most people would prefer a
little bit of unfairness acting on their behalf. Thus, they prayed to the Virgin
Mary and to the saints to intervene on their behalf and on the behalf of their
relatives. The saints would put a good word in for the soul of a sinner at the
end of time, helping them to get into heaven. Prayer was thought to be the
most effective means of contacting the saints. The closer you were to the
remains of a saint, the better the chance you had of reaching him or her.
Thus, the cult of relics developed. If a particular church had the bones (or
other relics) of St. Brendan, your chance of actually getting Brendan’s ear
would be far better if you went to that church and better still if you could see
and touch the bones. Not surprisingly, this system led to a lot of fraud and
abuse. Church officials were constantly vigilant against sellers of false
relics. Nonetheless, St. Peter had dozens of knucklebones circulating around
Europe, and if you reassembled all the fragments of the True Cross that were
claimed by churches, you could probably build a good-sized battleship.
The people whose primary responsibility was prayer and interaction
with the invisible world are better known under the collective name of the
Church. Until the thirteenth century, the Church was highly fragmented and
localized. As secular governments developed though, Christian government
followed. The bishops of Rome, known as the popes, took a more active
role in administering the Church from above. Regional differences gave
way to uniformity. Unfortunately, the Church could no longer tolerate
differences of practice and belief, and the Inquisition was established to
ensure that the Pope’s views on the religion were the only views. Increased
power gave way to increased corruption. The late medieval papacy became
involved in worldly affairs (not least of which was the series of wars in
Spain, France, Palestine, Egypt, and the Baltic states known collectively as
the Crusades), and to finance their activities sought new ways of raising
money. Popes sold indulgences as a surrogate for actually doing good
works. The theory went that is you bought an indulgence, some monk,
priest, or crusader would do something good on your behalf and help you get
into heaven. Few people could deny the whiff of corruption when the
Church began selling indulgences against sins that hadn’t even been
committed yet.
For most of the Middle Ages, most Christians were willing to accept
the moral leadership of the Church. For people outside of the Church, most
contact with religion came through the “secular clergy,” the churchmen who
administered to the spiritual needs of the laity. This group consisted of
archbishops, bishops, parish priests, and deacons. Each city would have a
bishop, who would then supervise a number of priests and deacons. At
various points in the history of the Church, the secular clergy took a
leadership role away from the popes, establishing policy in great conferences
known as councils. Wise popes were able to influence the councils to their
wills. Unwise popes ran the risk of being declared “anti-popes” if they
ruffled the feathers at the wrong time. Indeed, for most of the fourteenth
century, there were often simultaneously two or three people, backed by
sympathetic councils, each claiming to be pope and claiming that the others
were anti-popes.
The majority of people in the Church, however, fell into the category
known as the “regular clergy.” (Regular, in this case, means people who
dedicated their lives to a written rule.) These were the monks and nuns who
lived in communities isolated from the rest of the world and who dedicated
their lives exclusively to prayer. Male communities were governed by
abbots and female communities by abbesses. The abbots and abbesses
maintained order with absolute authority, but life inside the monastery was
egalitarian, with length of service being the only distinction among the
monks and nuns. Members of these communities voted for their abbot or
abbess, and they could not hold any private property or maintain contact
with family members.
The function of these monasteries was to provide constant
communication with the invisible world, often through the relics of a
particular saint that were situated in the monastery church. People would
come to the monastery for miraculous healing. Often, the local nobility
would build a monastery or give gifts to an existing monastery in exchange
for prayers. These gifts were often worded in a way compatible with feudal
understanding of the world:
I, Raimdos, formerly the wife of the lord Wichard, now dead and now joined in
matrimony to lord Ansedeus, my husband. With my husband’s consent and good will, I
give some land which is called Chazeux to St. Peter and [the monastery of] Cluny for the
soul of my husband Wichard.
Raimodis understands her gift in personal terms, as an exchange
between her and St. Peter (and Peter’s agents at Cluny). In return for her gift,
she expects Peter’s intercession on her behalf.
By the end of the Middle Ages, the influence of the regular clergy was
on the decline. With the growth of towns and the personal wealth of
townspeople, individuals determined to take a more direct role in their own
salvations. No longer were they as willing to trust the welfare of their souls
to others. This change reflected in the spread of personal prayer books
known as “Book of Hours” in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Additionally, many people began writing and praying in their own language
rather than Latin, the official language of the Church. The trend towards
individual piety reached its climax in the Protestant Reformation, a rejection
of Rome’s religious authority with repercussions that can still be felt today.
The Community
Textbooks often describe “the discovery of the individual” as one of
the major achievements of the Italian Renaissance. The individual seems to
be a pretty important thing to ignore for a thousand years. What is meant by
this phrase is that, beginning in the thirteenth century, the balance in
European civilization began to swing from the community as the basic unit
of society to the individual as basic unit of society.
In the Middle Ages, who you were was determined more by your
connections to other people than by your own characteristics. Archetypes
were very important. If you were a knight, you were measured against the
greatest Knights of the Round Table, despite the fact that they never existed.
If you were a nun, you would be measured against the greatest female saints.
Even in day-to-day experience, your life was not your own. You were
connected to other individuals and groups in an intricate network. An
individual monk or nun was deemed insignificant, but an entire monastery
was thought to be very effective. A vassal could not exist without the feudal
obligations which tied him to his lord. Surviving your lord in battle was
thought to be disgraceful; falling beside him was the only acceptable exit left
to such a vassal.
Even the humblest serf thought of him or herself as a member of a
family, a parish, a manor, or a village before they considered themselves as a
unique individual. The community brought stability and continuity.
Innovation and change were usually seen as threats. In fact, the only way a
serf could effectively challenge his or her lord was to prove that a lord had
violated tradition and had taken rights away from the community which that
community had enjoyed in the past.
Today, we still define ourselves by community ties. We are still
aware of connections to others which derive from our ties to others in our
family, neighborhood, church, school, farm, country, or circle of friends.
Often, we bias our claims against others because of our affinity with a
particular group. Still, our own sense of society stems more from the
emphasis on the individual that grew out of the Italian Renaissance. We
may consider ourselves a part of a church, a state, or a family, but if that
community acted in a way that abused our individual rights, we would
consider it our right, even our obligation, to leave or to try to change that
community. To act in such a manner in the Middle Ages would be
considered reckless, even insane. Challenging the community was, quite
literally, challenging the very basis for society.
Directions: Please answer the following questions as completely as possible.
1. Define feudalism and manorialism. Explain how the two institutions
were intertwined.
2. Briefly describe a fief or manor.
3. Describe the role that superstition played in the Middle Ages.
4. Describe the role of the Church in the Middle Ages.
5. Explain how a community-oriented society might stifle individualism
and innovation.
6. What kind of effects do you think the stifling of individualism and
innovation caused on medieval society?