High middle ages final

Abelard and Heloise

Peter Abelard (1079-1142) was a French philosopher, considered one of the greatest thinkers of the 12th century, though his teachings were controversial, and he was repeatedly charged with heresy. Among his works is "Sic et Non," a list of 158 philosophical and theological questions. Heloise (1101-1164) was the niece and pride of Canon Fulbert. She was well-educated by her uncle in Paris. Abelard later writes in his autobiographical "Historica Calamitatum": "Her uncle's love for her was equaled only by his desire that she should have the best education which he could possibly procure for her. Of no mean beauty, she stood out above all by reason of her abundant knowledge of letters." Abelard and Heloise's Complicated Relationship Heloise was one of the most well-educated women of her time, as well as a great beauty. Wishing to become acquainted with Heloise, Abelard persuaded Fulbert to allow him to teach Heloise. Using the pretext that his own house was a "handicap" to his studies, Abelard moved into the house of Heloise and her uncle. Soon enough, despite their age difference, Abelard and Heloise became lovers. But when Fulbert discovered their love, he separated them. As Abelard would later write: "Oh, how great was the uncle's grief when he learned the truth, and how bitter was the sorrow of the lovers when we were forced to part!" Their separation didn't end the affair, and they soon discovered Heloise was pregnant. She left her uncle's house when he was not at home, and she stayed with Abelard's sister until Astrolabe was born. Abelard asked for Fulbert's forgiveness and permission to secretly marry Heloise, to protect his career. Fulbert agreed, but Abelard struggled to persuade Heloise to marry him under such conditions. In Chapter 7 of "Historia Calamitatum," Abelard wrote: "She, however, most violently disapproved of this, and for two chief reasons: the danger thereof, and the disgrace which it would bring upon me... What penalties, she said, would the world rightly demand of her if she should rob it of so shining a light!" When she finally agreed to become Abelard's wife, Heloise told him, "Then there is no more left but this, that in our doom the sorrow yet to come shall be no less than the love we two have already known." In regard to that statement, Abelard later wrote, in his "Historica," "Nor in this, as now the whole world knows, did she lack the spirit of prophecy." Secretly married, the couple left Astrolabe with Abelard's sister. When Heloise went to stay with the nuns at Argenteuil, her uncle and kinsmen believe Abelard had cast her off, forcing her to become a nun. Fulbert responded by ordering men to castrate him. Abelard wrote about the attack: Violently incensed, they laid a plot against me, and one night while I all unsuspecting was asleep in a secret room in my lodgings, they broke in with the help of one of my servants whom they had bribed. There they had vengeance on me with a most cruel and most shameful punishment, such as astounded the whole world; for they cut off those parts of my body with which I had done that which was the cause of their sorrow. The Legacy of Abelard and Heloise Following the castration, Abelard became a monk and persuaded Heloise to become a nun, which she didn't want to do. They began to correspond, leaving what is known as the four "Personal Letters" and the three "Letters of Direction." The legacy of those letters remains a great topic of discussion among literary scholars. While the two wrote of their love for each other, their relationship was decidedly complicated. Furthermore, Heloise wrote of her dislike of marriage, going so far as to call it prostitution. Many academics refer to her writings as one of the earliest contributions to feminist philosophies.

Council of Clearmont

Pope Urban the Second set in motion the First Crusade with his incendiary call to arms at Clermont in 1095. The Council of Clermont, which took place between the 18th and 28th of November 1095, is rightly seen as one of the main contributing causes of the First Crusade. In preaching holy war against the Seljuk Turks menacing the Holy Land Urban set in motion a train of events that was to culminate in the capture of Jerusalem and the establishment of Christian Outremer. Urban's revolutionary speech promised plenary indulgences and a full remission of sins to all those who fought for Christ and the restoration of the holy city. Byzantium Calls for Assistance At the Council of Piacenza, held in March 1095, the Byzantine Emperor had sent envoys to Pope Urban to request assistance in their conflict against the invading Seljuk Turks. The Seljuk's, who in a few brief decades had made themselves masters of Anatolia and de facto rulers of the Sunni Muslim world, were menacing the eastern borders of the Byzantine Empire. Indeed the Seljuk's had established their provincial capital at Nicea, only a days march from the walls of Constantinople. Through the internecine feuding of the Turks and Alexius' adept diplomacy the Seljuk threat was receding, though the beleaguered Emperor lacked the man power to decisively take the conflict to the Turks. As ruler of a sprawling empire with multiple borders and frontiers to defend Alexius was largely dependent upon foreign mercenary muscle (ranging from Petcheneg frontier guards to Varangian shock troops). If he was to be able to take the offensive he desperately needed more troops. Alexius' plaintive entreaty struck a chord with Urban in 1095. In answering the call of the Basileus Urban would be able to redirect the energies of his quarrelsome flock towards a distant and pagan enemy. The Pope may also have been motivated by the possibility of healing the schism that had grown up between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, while at the same time establishing the primacy of the Latin church across Christendom. The Council of Clermont Itself The Council of Clermont was the culmination of a long tour of France, undertaken by Urban, aimed at reinforcing the agenda of the Reforming Papacy. During the Council the 300 or so clerical delegates discussed a diverse range of topics ranging from lay investiture and Clerical abuses (such as simony and priestly marriage) through to the proposed excommunication of the adulterous King Philip of France. It was only on the penultimate day of the Council of Clermont that a general public session was announced, which would herald a great announcement from the Pope. No official account of what urban said exists today, although there are five accounts written by contemporary chroniclers; though it must be added that all of these versions were penned after the eventual success of the enterprise had, in the words of Christopher Tyerman, "moulded attitudes and perspectives." The accounts differ with each other, sometimes markedly, and illustrate the difficulty the historian has in peering through the hazy gloom of nine centuries. The only verifiable first hand sources that remain in existence are a number of letters penned after the Council by Urban himself. Urban The Second's Speech It appears certain that Urban began his speech painting a vivid picture of the depredations suffered by the Christian brethren in the East. Urban wove a tale of the Turks pressing inexorably in the heartland of Christian Byzantium, "maltreating the inhabitants and desecrating their shrines" as Steven Runciman put it. Urban stressed the need for an armed expedition to relieve the Christians in the East. The special holiness of Jerusalem was also forcibly alluded to during the Council of Clermont. The holy city had long been a centre of pilgrimage and Urban emphasised the difficulties experienced by the pious in their attempt to reach Christendom's holiest shrines. Urban exhorted those present to take up arms for the relief of Byzantium and the recovery of Jerusalem. Urban stressed that the conflict was inherently meritorious and just (a concept of holy war that had been promulgated by his predecessor Gregory the Seventh) and that all who fought for the cross would receive a full remission of their sins. Urban, according to a number of the surviving sources attempted to limit the field of participants, clerics and monks were forced to seek the permission of their bishops or abbot's, while the old, infirm or poor were discouraged from making the journey. Urban promised that the property of any who took up arms for Christ would be protected by the church.. A novel flourish was the employment of a red cross as the symbol of the movement, which every participant would sew onto their surcoat. Bishop Adehmar of Le Puy, who was to lead the eventual crusade as Papal legate, was the first to take up the cross at Clermont and his example inspired hundreds to pledge their support there and then. During the speech a chant of Deus lo Volt (God wills it) was taken up by the massed congregation, though Tyerman hints that this may have been started by Papal plants in the audience. The Response to the Council of Clermont Urban's exhortations at Clermont were greeted with widespread enthusiasm. Roused by the twin forces of piety and poverty the poor took up the cross in huge numbers, despite Urban's attempts to regulate their involvement. Numerous great lay lords (ranging from the Duke of Normandy to the Italian-Norman princes of southern Italy) answered Urban's call within months of the Council. Urban had cleverly combined the warlike militarism of his flock with the promise of salvation. Urban's just war was the Middle Age's ultimate clarion call. Urban's words had mobilised a continent and the result of his honeyed eloquence was to resonate sonorously down the corridors of time.

Tafia Kingdoms

The "Taifa" Kingdoms 1031-1086. The Umayyad dynasty, which controlled the fortunes of al-Andalus from 756, came to an end with the fall of Córdoba in 1031. Its demise was precipitated by the vizier, al-Mansur, who usurped power from 978 to 1002, reducing thereby the role of the Umayyad caliph, Hisham II, to that of figurehead. At his death, al-Mansur was succeeded by his sons Abd al-Malik (1002-1008), and Abd al-Rahman or Sanchuelo (1008-1009); like their father, both restricted Hisham to a figurehead role. Sanchuelo's assassination in 1009 unleashed a period of political instability as warring rivals for the caliphal title embroiled al-Andalus in two decades of civil war. Following the demise of Córdoba in 1031, al-Andalus collapsed into a fragmented heap, out of which numerous mini states -known as the kingdoms of taifa ("party" or "faction")- emerged. The dismemberment of al-Andalus was later described poignantly by an Andalusi poet as "the breaking of the necklace and the scattering of its pearls" (Fletcher, Cid27). Exactly how many taifas emerged is difficult to determine. Some scholars put the number as high as 50 at first; others place the number in the 30s. Where there is general agreement is that the taifas were forged by local strongmen who took power into their own hands. Some of these new "kings" or emirs belonged to existing family dynasties whose allegiance to Córdoba was already suspect, especially in those areas furthest from Córdoba. Others were Berber mercenaries (or descendants of Berber mercenaries) and still others rose from locally prominent figures, civil, military or even descendants of slaves, taking power by dint of their own personalities. The discord arising from the disunity, however, could only lead to instability. These small states were fragile creations, constantly pressured both by internal rivalries and by external challenges from more powerful neighbours. The result was that gradually the more powerful taifas swallowed up the smaller ones, until we have left some half dozen of consequence, grouped around large cities: Zaragoza, Valencia, Toledo, Badajoz, Seville and Granada. With time, Seville became the most important taifa, and Córdoba now scarcely features in the list! As political units, however, the taifa kings carried little weight: they had neither the prestige of a caliphal title nor could they lay claim to any connection with the Ummayad dynasty. Al-Andalus in 1035, showing main taifa kingdoms. These were further reduced, leaving some half dozen major taifas: Zaragoza, Valencia, Toledo, Badajoz, Seville and Granada. There is no need to follow the convoluted internal world of these taifa kingdoms. What is clear is that as small independent units, their ability to influence matters beyond their frontiers became negligible. The fall of Córdoba then not only meant that al-Andalus was unable to interfere in the politics of the Christian kingdoms to the north or undertake raids (razzias) at will (as Abd al-Rahman III and al-Mansur had done in the 10th century), it also signalled a loss of influence in the Mediterranean and, particularly, in the Maghreb. Indeed, as separate political entities, the taifa kingdoms struggled to survive. And since survival was as much a political question as it was religious, the taifa kings often allied themselves with the Christian kingdoms of northern Spain against fellow Muslims if rivalry from the latter made it necessary. The nature of the alliances with the Christian kingdoms, however, was not that of equals. It was based, rather, on annual payments (called parias) whereby the stronger Christians kings promised aid in return for a generous tribute. It was in effect a humiliating compromise, but it satisfied the parties concerned: the Christian kings got gold which they could farm out as they saw fit, and the taifa kings could claim protection if threatened. But underneath the diplomatic niceties, what was taking place was a large scale protection racket. One of the best at it was Fernando I, king of León and Castile from 1035 to 1065, who ended up receiving tributes from Zaragoza, Toledo and Badajoz (and occasionally also from Seville and Valencia!). His son, Alfonso VI, was also a good exponent of the art of extortion, as were Sancho IV of Navarre and the counts of Barcelona. How Abd al-Rahman III or al-Mansur must have turned in their graves at the humiliating reversals of fortune in so short a time! Political instability was not limited to al-Andalus. Following the death of Ferdinand I in 1065, his kingdom was divided between his three sons, a decision which precipitated outbreaks of hostilities as the three sought control of León and Castile. One anomaly arising out of this was that two of them, Alfonso (later Alfonso VI) and his younger brother, García, ended up exiled in the courts of taifa rulers, Alfonso in Toledo and Garcia in Seville. They were both treated royally by their Muslim hosts. Naturally, not all Muslims were satisfied with paying of parias, and voices were heard to protest. One was that of the poet, theologian and philospher Ibn Hazm (994-1064), an Umayyad supporter who had witnessed and been horrified by the destruction of Córdoba. Shortly before his death, he declaimed against the shame of collaboration: By God, I swear that if the tyrants [i.e taifa rulers] were to learn that they could attain their ends more easily by adopting the religion of the Cross, they would certainly hasten to profess it! Indeed, we see that they ask the Christians for help and allow them to take away Muslim men, women and children as captives to their lands. Frequently they protect them in their attacks against the most inviolable lands, and ally themselves with them in order to gain security (Fletcher Moorish Spain 109). Ibn Hazm's preoccupation centred on the shame of submission; Muslim religious leaders focussed on the corruption of court life and on the imposition of taxes by the emirs on their own subjects, contrary to Islamic law. No serious change in the situation occurred, however, until 1085 when Alfonso (by now back from exile and king of León/Castile as Alfonso VI), dissatisfied with the internal instability of the taifa of Toledo, took over the kingdom. The fall of Toledo had a galvanising effect on the rest of the taifas. The vulnerability of their situation stared them in the face and so, led by the ruler of Seville, al-Mu'tamid, they turned for protection to their fellow Muslims in the Maghreb. It was not an easy decision, however, because a newly established and militant fundamentalist regime, the Almoravids, had taken power in the Maghreb and the taifa rulers knew about their fanaticism. For the taifa kings, then, it was a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils; in making up his mind, al-Mu'tamid is reported to have said that he preferred to be camel driver in Morocco than a swineherd in Castile (he did end up in Morocco, a captive rather than camel driver!). With the advent of the Almoravids, a new chapter was about to begin in al-Andalus. Taifa Culture. Despite the political fragmentation of al-Andalus, the taifa states provided surprisingly favourable conditions for a wide array of cultural and intellectual pursuits. During the pre-eminence of Córdoba, much of the artistic and intellectual activity had centred on the capital. With the fragmentation of al-Andalus, however, the creative spirit now extended to the capitals of the taifa kingdoms. The explanation for this is to be found in the rivalry amongst taifa rulers as they vied to outdo each other in emulating the greatness of Córdoba. Politically impotent, the kings sought self-aggrandisement through patronage of the arts and sciences, and attracted poets, artists, artisans and scholars to their courts with promises of profits and prestige. The flowering of the arts took many forms, from ivory carvings, ceramics, textiles, glass and metalwork to exquisite poetry and splendid architecture. Of these, lyric poetry -always a feature of Arabic culture- was especially cultivated. Indeed, many of the taifa leaders were themselves poets (al-Mu'tamid of Seville comes to mind), but equally important poets became effective tools in a literary battle between the taifa kings, as well as useful and prestigious mouthpieces to eulogise the leaders themselves. The panegyric tradition was a long and cherished one in Arabic culture and its propaganda value widely recognised: it legitimised the role of the leader and upheld his authority at the same time that it proclaimed the artistry of the poet (and the better the poet the greater prestige of the king, and the greater the poet's reward!). But the pen of poetic praise could also be armed with satire and directed at the enemy; it could also ease and oil the wheels of diplomacy. Poetic competitions, often in the form of riddles on given topics, sharpened the wits of the participants and landed them prestigious positions at the same time that it whetted the appetite of a cultured elite well versed in the intricacies of poetic compositions. Perhaps no better indicator of the significance of poetry and poets is the observation that the major part of the budgets of the taifa states was spent on poetry. Given the rivalry between various taifas, it is not surprising that the rulers also sought to impress with the construction of palaces, and the building, enlargement or strengthening of fortresses (strong fortresses were also vital in view of the precarious political situation of the taifa kingdoms). Very little remains now of the taifa palaces; the best preserved and most beautiful example is the much restored Aljafería of Zaragoza. Begun under Ahmad ibn Sulayman al-Muqtadir in the second half of the 11th century, the palace is a complex combination of Umayyad inspired arches (the horseshoe and polylobed arches are reminiscent of the Great Mosque of Córdoba).

usury

Usury - lending at interest or excessive interest - has, according to known records, been practiced in various parts of the world for at least four thousand years. During this time, there is substantial evidence of intense criticisism by various traditions, institutions and social reformers on moral, ethical, religious and legal grounds. The rationale employed by these wide-ranging critics have included arguments about work ethic, social justice, economic instability, ecological destruction and inter-generational equity. While the contemporary relevance of these largely historical debates are not analysed in detail, the authors contend that their significance is greater than ever before in the context of the modern interest-based global economy. Keywords: usury, interest, debt, discounting, Islamic banking INTRODUCTION The concept of "usury" has a long historical life, throughout most of which it has been understood to refer to the practice of charging financial interest in excess of the principle amount of a loan, although in some instances and more especially in more recent times, it has been interpreted as interest above the legal or socially acceptable rate[i]. Accepting this broad definition for the moment, the practice of usury can be traced back approximately four thousand years (Jain, 1929), and during its subsequent history it has been repeatedly condemned, prohibited, scorned and restricted, mainly on moral, ethical, religious and legal grounds. Among its most visible and vocal critics have been the religious institutions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. To this list may be added ancient Western philosophers and politicians, as well as various modern socio-economic reformers. It is the objective of this paper to outline briefly the history of this critique of usury, to examine reasons for its repeated denouncement and, finally, to intuitively assess the relevance of these arguments to today's predominantly interest-based global economy. The scope will not extend to a full exploration of some of the proposed modern alternatives to usury, except to describe the growing practice of Islamic banking as an example. HISTORY OF THE CRITIQUE OF USURY Usury in Hinduism and Buddhism Among the oldest known references to usury are to be found in ancient Indian religious manuscripts and Jain (1929) provides an excellent summary of these in his work on Indigenous Banking in India. The earliest such record derives from the Vedic texts of Ancient India (2,000-1,400 BC) in which the "usurer" (kusidin) is mentioned several times and interpreted as any lender at interest. More frequent and detailed references to interest payment are to be found in the later Sutra texts (700-100 BC), as well as the Buddhist Jatakas (600-400 BC). It is during this latter period that the first sentiments of contempt for usury are exressed. For example, Vasishtha, a well known Hindu law-maker of that time, made a special law which forbade the higher castes of Brahmanas (priests) and Kshatriyas (warriors) from being usurers or lenders at interest. Also, in the Jatakas, usury is referred to in a demeaning manner: "hypocritical ascetics are accused of practising it". By the second century AD, however, usury had become a more relative term, as is implied in the Laws of Manu of that time: "Stipulated interest beyond the legal rate being against (the law), cannot be recovered: they call that a usurious way (of lending)" (Jain, 1929: 3-10). This dilution of the concept of usury seems to have continued through the remaining course of Indian history so that today, while it is still condemned in principle, usury refers only to interest charged above the prevailing socially accepted range and is no longer prohibited or controlled in any significant way. Usury in Ancient Western Political Philosophy Among the Ancient Western philosophers who condemned usury can be named Plato, Aristotle, the two Catos, Cicero, Seneca and Plutarch (Birnie, 1958). Evidence that these sentiments found their concurrent manifestation in the civil law of that period can be seen, for example, from the Lex Genucia reforms in Republican Rome (340 BC) which outlawed interest altogether. Nevertheless, in practice, ways of evading such legislation were found and by the last period of the Republic, usury was once again rife. It was the Democratic party in Rome who rededicated themselves to the cause of those suffering the burden of debt, and under the banner of Julius Caesar, a ceiling on interest rates of 12% was set, and later under Justinian, lowered even further to between 4% and 8% (Birnie, 1958). Clearly, this left fertile ground for the assault on usury which the Church would mount following its Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Usury in Islam The criticism of usury in Islam was well established during the Prophet Mohammed's life and reinforced by various of his teachings in the Holy Quran[ii] dating back to around 600 AD. The original word used for usury in this text was riba which literally means "excess or addition". This was accepted to refer directly to interest on loans so that, according to Islamic economists Choudhury and Malik (1992), by the time of Caliph Ulmar, the prohibition of interest was a well established working principle integrated into the Islamic economic system. It is not true that this interpretation of usury has been universally accepted or applied in the Islamic world. Indeed, a school of Islamic thought which emerged in the 19th Century, led by Sir Sayyed, still argues for a interpretative differentiation between usury, which it is claimed refers to consumptional lending, and interest which they say refers to lending for commercial investment (Ahmed, 1958). Nevertheless, there does seem to be evidence in modern times for what Choudhury and Malik describe as "a gradual evolution of the institutions of interest-free financial enterprises across the world" (1992: 104). They cite, for instance, the current existence of financial institutions in Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the Dar-al-Mal-al-Islami in Geneva and Islamic trust companies in North America. This growing practice of Islamic banking will be discussed more fully in a later section as a modern application of usury prohibition. Usury in Judaism Criticism of usury in Judaism has its roots in several Biblical passages in which the taking of interest is either forbidden, discouraged or scorned[iii]. The Hebrew word for interest is neshekh, literally meaning "a bite" and is believed to refer to the exaction of interest from the point of view of the debtor. In the associated Exodus and Leviticus texts, the word almost certainly applies only to lending to the poor and destitute, while in Deuteronomy, the prohibition is extended to include all moneylending, excluding only business dealings with foreigners. In the levitical text, the words tarbit or marbit are also used to refer to the recovery of interest by the creditor. In addition to these biblical roots are various talmudic extensions of the prohibitions of interest, known as avak ribbit, literally "the dust of interest" which apply, for example, to certain types of sales, rent and work contracts. This is distinguished from rubbit kezuzah, interest proper in an amount or at a rate agreed upon between lender and borrower. The difference in law is that the latter, if it has been paid by the borrower to the the lender, is recoverable from the lender, while the former, once paid, is not recoverable, although a contract tainted by the dust of interest will not be enforced. (The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1912). Despite the prohibition on taking interest, there is considerable evidence to suggest that this rule was not widely observed in biblical times. In addition to several references in the Old Testament to creditors being exacting and implacable in their extraction of interest[iv], from the Elephantine papyri it appears that among the Jews in Egypt in the fifth century B.C.E. it was a matter of course that interest would be charged on loans (Encyclodpedia Judaica, 1971). This charitable nature of the prohibition on interest suggests that its violation was not regarded as a criminal offense with penal sanctions attatched, but rather as a moral transgression. The phenomenon of evasion can also be partly explained by changing economic conditions, beginning in the amoraic period in Bayolonia when interest prohibition was held to no longer be compatible with the eocnomic needs of the community. In time, a standard form of legalization of interest was established, known as hetter iskah, meaning the permission to form a partnership, which has become so accepted that nowadays all interest transactions are freely carried out in accordance with Jewish law, by simply adding to the note or contract concerned the words al-pi hetter iskah. (Encyclodpedia Judaica, 1971). Usury in Christianity Despite its Judaic roots, the critique of usury was most ferverently taken up as a cause by the institutions of the Christian Church where the debate prevailed with great intensity for well over a thousand years[v]. The Old Testament decrees were resurrected and a New Testament reference to usury added to fuel the case[vi]. Building on the authority of these texts, the Roman Catholic Church had by the fourth century AD prohibited the taking of interest by the clergy; a rule which they extended in the fifth century to the laity. In the eighth century under Charlemagne, they pressed further and declared usury to be a general criminal offence. This anti-usury movement continued to gain momentum during the early Middle Ages and perhaps reached its zenith in 1311 when Pope Clement V made the ban on usury absolute and declared all secular legislation in its favour, null and void (Birnie, 1952). Increasingly thereafter, and despite numerous subsequent prohibitions by Popes and civil legislators, loopholes in the law and contradictions in the Church's arguments were found and along with the growing tide of commercialisation, the pro-usury counter-movement began to grow. The rise of Protestantism and its pro-capitalism influence is also associated with this change (McGrath, 1990), but it should be noted that both Luther and Calvin expressed some reservations about the practice of usury despite their belief that it could not be universally condemned. Calvin, for instance, enumerated seven crucial instances in which interest remained "sinful", but these have been generally ignored and his stance taken as a wholesale sanctioning of interest (Birnie, 1952). As a result of all these influences, sometime around 1620, according to theologian Ruston, "usury passed from being an offence against public morality which a Christian government was expected to suppress to being a matter of private conscience [and] a new generation of Christian moralists redefined usury as excessive interest" (1993: 173-4). This position has remained pervasive through to present-day thinking in the Church, as the indicative views of the Church of Scotland (1988) suggest when it declares in its study report on the ethics of investment and banking: "We accept that the practice of charging interest for business and personal loans is not, in itself, incompatible with Christian ethics. What is more difficult to determine is whether the interest rate charged is fair or excessive." Similarly, it is illustrative that, in contrast to the clear moral injunction against usury still expressed by the Church in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 Rerum Novarum as "voracious usury ... an evil condemned frequently by the Church but nevertheless still practised in deceptive ways by avaricious men", Pope John Paul II's 1989 Sollicitude Rei Socialis lacks any explicit mention of usury except the vaguest implication by way of acknowledging the Third World Debt crisis. Usury in Modern Reformist Thinking Some may be surprised to discover that Adam Smith, despite his image as the "Father of the Free-market Capitalism" and his general advocacy of laissez-fair economics, came out strongly in support of controlling usury (Jadlow, 1977; Levy, 1987). While he opposed a complete prohibition of interest, he was in favour of the imposition of an interest rate ceiling. This, he felt, would ensure that low-risk borrowers who were likely to undertake socially beneficial investments were not deprived of funds as a result of "the greater part of the money which was to be lent [being] lent to prodigals and projectors [investors in risky, speculative ventures], who alone would be willing to give [an unregulated] high interest rate" (Smith, 1937: 339). The great twentieth century economist John Maynard Keynes held a similar position believing that "the disquisitions of the schoolmen [on usury] were directed towards elucidation of a formula which should allow the schedule of the marginal efficiency to be high, whilst using rule and custom and the moral law to keep down the rate of interest, so that a wise Government is concerned to curb it by statute and custom and even by invoking the sanctions of the Moral Law" (1936: 351-3). Another less well known anti-usury economic reformist was Silvio Gesell (1904), yet Keynes wrote that the world could learn more from him than from Marx. Gesell, as a successful nineteenth century merchant in Germany and Argentina, condemned interest on the basis that his sales were more often related to the 'price' of money (i.e. interest) than people's needs or the quality of his products. His proposal of making money a public service subject to a use fee led to widespread experimentation in Austria, France, Germany, Spain Switzerland, and the United States under the banner of the so-called "stamp script movement", but these initiatives were all squashed when their success began to threaten the national banking monopolies (Kennedy, 1995). Margrit Kennedy (1995), a German professor at the University of Hannover, is one of the most vocal contemporary critics of interest who builds on Gesell's ideas, believing that "interest ... acts like cancer in our social structure". She takes up the cause for "interest and inflation-free money" by suggesting a modification of banking practice to incorporate a circulation fee on money, acting somewhat like a negative interest rate mechanism. Finally, another school of modern interest critics have their roots in the complementary work of several socio-economic reformists of the early twentieth century, namely Douglas (1924), Fisher (1935), Simons (1948) and Soddy (1926). Their chief common premise was that it is completely wrong and unacceptable for commercial banks to hold a monopoly on the money or credit creation process. For banks to then charge interest (including to government) on money which they had in the first place created out of nothing, having suffered no opportunity cost or sacrifice, amounted to nothing less than immoral and fraudulent practice. Various alternative systems are proposed by the original authors and carried forward by their modern-day torch-bearers, for example, the Social Credit Secretariat and the Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform. RATIONALE FOR THE CRITIQUE OF USURY Throughout the history of the criticism of usury, various reasons and rationale have been forwarded in support of this position. While some are unique to particular traditions or individuals, many tread on common ground which this section will briefly attempt to synthesise. Usury as Unearned Income The Church's simplest and perhaps earliest objection to usury was on the basis that it constituted unearned income, an idea which stemmed from its general doctrine of Just Price. The Lateran Council of 1515 clearly expressed such a view of the Church: "This is the proper interpretation of usury when gain is sought to be acquired from the use of a thing, not in itself fruitful (such as a flock or a field) without labour, expense or risk on the part of the lender." Birnie reinforces this point by noting that "to live without labour was denounced as unnatural, and so Dante put usurers in the same circle of hell as the inhabitants of Sodom and other practisers of unnatural vice" (1952: 4). This is also the rationale Ahmad uses to explain why in Islam God[vii] "permits trade yet forbids usury": "The difference is that profits are the result of initiative, enterprise and efficiency. They result after a definite value-creating process. Not so with interest"; also "interest is fixed, profit fluctuates. In the case of interest you know your return and can be sure of it. In the case of profit you have to work to ensure it" (1958: 25). Perhaps Aristotle had similar sentiments in mind when he argued that "a piece of money cannot beget another". There is an important psycho-political dimension to this argument. Keynes' biographer, Skidelsky, intriguingly comments that "Keynes's sense that, at some level too deep to be captured by mathematics, 'love of money' as an end, not a means, is at the root of the world's economic problem" (1992: 454). Hence, at a fundamental level of analysis, the so-called evils of usury must be understood as being connected with money being a social psychological construct legitimised by the power dynamics of a given political economy which may or may not be democratically and consciously legitimatised. An illustration of this understanding can be seen in the Christian tradition where Jesus is asked whether taxes should be paid to Caesar. Before uttering the famous words, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," he tellingly first asks to be shown a coin and inquires, "Whose image and superscription hath it? (Luke 20:24)". In other words, "What power structure legitimises this currency?" Jesus's response therefore said much more than merely "pay your taxes." It invited questioning of the very psycho-spiritual power dynamics that constitute the deep roots of human relationship in economy, and which have always caused matters of political economy to be central to prophetic witness. Usury is what marks the distinction between money being simply a socially contracted abstract mechanism to lubricate between supply and demand, and money as an end in itself. As an end in itself, as a social commodity legitimised through usury to tax other economic activity, the honest process of living by the sweat of one's brow is short-circuited. The true dignity and full reward of ordinary labour is compromised. Money thus becomes self-perpetuating power in itself rather than just a mediating agent of power. And it is the relentlessness of compound interest in the face of adversity that sets the potential cruelty of usury apart from equity-based return on investment. Resonant with Skidelsky's comment about Keynes, one can see how it is the love of money as an end in itself, not the use of money itself, that is said to be the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6). It was in recognition of the the need to have corrective feedback mechanisms that Islam not only injuncts usury, but also imposes Zakat or wealth tax. And more radical still, the Old Testament proposes a complete economic readjustment through the "Jubilee" process every fifty years (Leviticus 25), though there is no evidence that such wholescale redistribution of wealth in all forms was ever actually carried out. Perhaps it is a prophetic vision whose time has yet to come. Usury as Double Billing A slightly more obscure rationale was employed by the Church later in the Middle Ages in order to strengthen its anti-usury doctrine. Drawing on some of the concepts of Civil Law, it argued that money was a consumable good (fungible), for which the ownership passed from lender to borrower in the course of the loan transaction (mutuum), with the fair price of 'sale' therefore being the exact amount of the money advanced. Hence to ask for more in the form of interest was illegal and immoral, "like selling a loaf of bread and then charging in addition for the use of it" (Birnie, 1952: 6). Or, as Aquinas intimated in his Summa Theologiae, it would be to sell the same thing twice (Ruston, 1993). Usury as Exploitation of the Needy The condemnation of usury in the form of charging for loans to the poor and destitute is a recurring theme in several traditions. This is clearly the contextual meaning of the Judaic biblical passages in Exodus and Leviticus (Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971) and Ruston suggests that "the original target of the medieval usury laws was the medieval equivalent of the 'loan shark' [but that] the medieval theory was unsatisfactory because it could not distinguish the helpful loan from the oppressive" (1993: 173). Sir Sayyed's school in Islam similarly interprets riba as "the primitive form of money-lending when money was advanced for consumptional purposes" (Ahmed, 1958: 21). In the Indian tradition, this understanding of usury can be also found, as is evident from this twentieth century quote: "It is Usury - the rankest, most extortionate, most merciless Usury - which eats the marrow out of the bones of the raiyat [cultivators] and condemns him to a life of penury and slavery" (Jain, 1929: 110-111). Ruston (1993) claims usury as exploitation of the needy still exists in modern times. He cites as an example the findings of a 1992 Policy Studies Institute report which concludes that the poor pay more in absolute terms for their money, while seeking credit only for absolute necessities rather than to finance the acquisition of luxury goods which they cannot afford. This is borne out by a recent study by the National Consumer Council (1995) on financial services and low income consumers; as one respondent put it: "It's like being caught, gotcha, and then they [the banks/lenders] start winding you in". Hence, the poor have to sweat doubly so that the rich might live on interest. A parallel modern argument relates to the devastating social impact of the so-called "Third World debt crisis", a situation which even Pope John Paul II (1989) acknowledges in his Sollicitude Rei Socialis when he states: "Capital needed by the debtor nations to improve their standard of living now has to be used for interest payments on their debts". This critical modern manifestation of usury is dealt with in more depth and detail in the comprehensive works of Susan George, A Fate Worst Than Debt (1988) and The Debt Boomerang (1992), among numerous others. For now, it is only worth pointing out to critics of the Islamic interest-free banking system that if sovereign debt during the 1970's had been advanced on an equity investment basis, debtor countries would not have been caught on the rack of compounding interest at rates established by non-domestic macroeconomic factors. Servicing costs could not have burgeoned whilst at the same time most commodity prices paid to debtor nations collapsed. Return on capital and perhaps capital repayment itself, being commensurate with a nation's economic wellbeing, would have fluctuated in accordance with ability to pay. The debtor nations would therefore have enjoyed fiscal security akin to that of a low geared company. Of course, the fact that much sovereign debt comprised recycled dollars from oil producing Moslem countries is an irony, and a disgrace, that should escape notice no more than eyes should be averted to the hypocricy of usury-promoting countries such as Britain and the United States whose leaders often proclaim Christian values. Be that as it may, by applying the Islamic approach, a lot of human misery could have been avoided. Applying the same principle, this could be the case for the countless individuals and enterprises caught in the trap of impoverishment through non-sovereign debt. Usury as a Mechanism of Inequitable Redistribution of Wealth The observation that usury acts as a mechanism by which 'the rich get richer and the poor get poorer' is common to several traditions. Islam rejects financial interest on the basis that it contradicts the Principle of Distributive Equity which its political economy strives to enshrine: "Interest in any amount acts in transferring wealth from the assetless section of the population" (Choudhury and Malik, 1992: 51). Coming from a totally different perspective as a self declared 'individualist', Birnie reaches a similar conclusion: "Interest, by making capital a quasi-monopoly, effectually prevents the establishment of a true competitive system" (1958: 1). Kennedy (1992) provides some excellent empirical evidence of this phenomenon which relates to Germany in 1982. She shows that, while the poorest 2.5 million households paid out (net) DM 1.8 billion in interest, the richest 2.5 million households received (net) DM 34.2 billion. She even goes on to suggest that this covert redistributive mechanism technically works against the constitutional rights of the individual in most countries given that money is a government service to which the public should have equal access. The psychological effect of this on the relatively poor can be seen to be magnified when merely quantitative evaluation of transfers from poor to rich is superceded by consideration of the qualitative cost of such a wealth transfer. For the relatively rich, the utility gain provided by usury is marginal to the already substantial utility of the principal sum. The principle of the diminishing marginal utility of wealth therefore applies to each incremental unit of wealth procured by interest earnings. The poor, however, experience the converse of this. For them, the loss in utility incurred by having to pay interest is qualitatively much greater than the gain to the rich. Each unit of interest paid incurs increasing marginal utility loss. Permitting usury to operate in an economy therefore reduces overall utility in the economy. This must count as one of the strongest arguments against usury. Any justification of it as an efficient economic instrument would have to first demonstrate that it functions to increase total utility. In the absence of such demonstration, it can justifiably be condemned as a tool of tyranny. Usury as an Agent of Economic Instability Gesell's (1904) main objection to interest is that it is an endemic factor in the instability of interest-based economies, i.e. the cycles of boom and bust, recession and recovery. Similarly, Ahmad, arguing from an Islamic perspective, claims "the greatest problem in the capitalist economy is that of the crises [and] interest plays a peculiar part in bringing about the crises" (1958: 36). Even Keynes, the campaigner for interest-based monetary policy, admits the fact that "the rate of interest is not self-adjusting at the level best suited to the social advantage but constantly tends to rise too high" (1936: 350). Kennedy (1995) is bolder, suggesting that the compounded growth of interest may in fact cause inflation. She shows, for instance, how in Germany, while government income, Gross National Product and the salaries and wages of the average income earner rose by about 400% between 1968 and 1989, the interest payments of the government rose by 1,360% which she claims implies an inflationary effect. Usury as Discounting the Future The last reason cited for condemning usury relates to the concept and practice of discounting future values. Because compound interest results in an appreciation in invested monetary capital, it is presumed rational for people to prefer having a specified amount of currency now than the same amount some time in the future. This simple and rarely questioned logic has several disastrous implications. For instance, Pearce and Turner (1990) note that discounting affects the rate at which we use up natural resources - the higher the discount rate (derived partly from the interest rate), the faster the resources are likely to be depleted. Daly and Cobb (1990) take this observation to its logical conclusion and show that discounting can lead to the "economically rational" extinction of a species, simply if the prevailing interest rate happens to be greater than the reproduction rate of the exploited species. Another consequence of the discounting principle, argued by Kula, is that "in evaluating long term investment projects, particularly those in which the benefits and costs are separated from each other with a long time interval, the net present value rules guide the decision maker to maximise the utility of present generations at the expense of future ones" (1981: 899). In this context it is fitting to observe that a key feature that distinguishes financial economy from nature's economy is that the one operates on a compound interest basis, whereas the other is based on simple interest. Money deposited in the bank may yield 10% plus interest on the compounded sum next year, but in nature, if you leave this year's crop of apples on the tree, you are unlikely to pick a compoundedly heavier crop next year! Accordingly, usury permits a disjunction between financial and ecological economy. The result is either the progressive destruction of nature, or in the absence of redistributive social justice, an inbuilt necessity for periodic financial crashes throughout history. The point is well made by the illustration that if Judas Iscariot had invested his thirty pieces of silver at just a few percentage points compound, repayable in silver as of today, the amount of silver required would be equivalent to the weight of the Earth. The implicit ethics, or dearth thereof, of discounting can be used to illustrate clearly why usury corrupts the natural world as well as social relations. For instance, consider the impact of net present value discounted cash flow methodolgy in appraising the trade-off between natural and human made capital which, over the fullness of time, can usually be justified only if the utility of future generations is discounted (McIntosh, 1996). This violates intergenerational equity - a key principle of sustainable development recognised by both the 1987 Brundtland Commission and the 1992 Rio Earth Summit of the United Nations. It also violates an age old percept of right livelihood which flies in the face of the presumption of time value of money on which interest rates are based: that is, it violates the presumption of many traditional land users that the land should be handed on to the next generation in at least as good heart as it was inherited from the forebears. Discounting, as the counterpoint of usury, can be thus exposed as rueful device employed to justify theft of the children's future. Exploration of the theoretical basis and practical illustrations of this argument perhaps provides much scope for future micro and macroeconomic research in ecological economics. A MODERN APPLICATION OF USURY PROHIBITION Islamic Banking A previous section on Islamic prohibition of usury made mention of the rejection by Islam of financial interest or riba, largely on the grounds of its negative distributive justice and equity effects (Khan, 1986). Out of this prohibition has developed perhaps the most sophisticated and complete theoretical systems of interest-free political economy in the world (Chouhury & Malik, 1992). The specific methods for implementing Islamic banking have centred around financial equity based approaches, most notably Mudarabah - a joint venture between the bank and a 'partner' with both contributing to the capital of the project and sharing the profit or loss - and Musharakah - in which all the capital for an investment is provided by the bank in return for a predetermined share of the profit or loss of the business undertaking (Kahn & Mirakhor, 1986). The first modern Islamic bank was established in the 1960s in Egypt (The Banker, 1989) and in the ensuing three decades, Islamic banking has grown into an industry with $80 billion in deposits and 100 banks and finance houses (Khalaf, 1995). Much of this growth has been as a result of the comprehensive attempts by Iran, Pakistan and Sudan over past 10 years to restructure their national banking systems to bring them into accordance with Islamic law of the Shari'ah (Aftab, 1986; The Economist, 1992a). In addition, increasing numbers of banks outside these countries, including in Western countries, have begun to offer parallel Islamic banking services (O'Brien & Palmer, 1993). As recently as 1996, the UK joined these latter ranks, with Flemmings Merchant Bank (1996) offering the first Islamic banking service, the Oasis Fund, to British customers. The claimed advantages of the Islamic banking approach to finance are that it results in: more just and equitable distribution of resources; more responsible and profitable lending due to the necessarily closer bank-client relationship; less volatile business cycles; and more stable banking systems (Taylor & Evans, 1987); as well as "the relative efficiency of the interest-free money system over the alternative interest-based system" (Darrat, 1988). On the other hand, the Islamic banking industry has been criticised on a number of counts too: for its lack of uniformity and standardisation of products, accounting systems and endorsements by different sharia boards (Khalaf op.cit); various bad-debt complications (Shreeve, 1988); the information-gathering burden on potential consumers and banks themselves to ensure the security and profitability of their funds, as well the lack of an interest-rate mechanism to use as a macro-economic tool (The Economist, 1992b). However, these limitations must be viewed against the backdrop of Islamic banking as a young and innovative growth market. CONCLUSION: The preceding paper has attempted to briefly describe the extensive history of the critique of usury, and to crystallise and synthesise the main tenants of the arguments used in support of this position. The fact that we live in a global economic system which is more usurious/interest-based than ever before begs the question, therefore: Are any of these criticisms of the past either serious and convincing enough or currently relevant enough to merit a legitimate challenge to the status quo? In the authors' opinon, every one of the reasons cited in the critique of usury, perhaps with the exception of "double billing", seems more pressing and relevant now than ever. In particular, it is the belief of the authors' that individuals or organisations in the West with money to invest, especially those which like to consider themselves as being ethical, might have rather more to learn from Islam than is generally acknowledged. But first, society needs to be re-conscientised to the relevance of the age-old usury debate in modern times. Go down direct to References POSTSCRIPT ON THE CREDIT CRUNCH, 2009 (This is not part of the original paper published by ABFH): The global so-called "credit crunch" (defined as "a severe shortage of money or credit") is generally considered to have "started" on 9 August 2007 when disturbing figures from the French bank BNP Paribas raised the cost of credit and awoke the financial community to the wider seriousness of the situation (see the BBC's detailed timeline at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7521250.stm). Underlying this had been a rise in US interest rates between 2004 and 2005 from 1% to 5.35%, resulting in high levels of default at the "sub-prime" end, which is to say, the high risk end of the housing market. Because mortgage lenders had sold on their debts via hedge funds to other financial institutions, the consequence of irresponsible lending spread contagiously through banking systems, especially in the West, as house prices started to fall and the real estate asset value underpinning the loans became negative. When BNP Paribas told its investors that they would not be able to draw money out of two of its funds owing to a "complete evaporation of liquidity" it was the start of a domino effect, forcing governments to step in and avert potentially catastrophic runs on major banks. From the perspective of our paper on usury which we now revisit more than a decade after its first publication in 1998, we find it instructive to reflect on how far such problems can be laid at the door of an interest-based banking system. Full consideration of this is beyond our current scope, but in this postscript we will confine ourselves to making three brief observations. First, the credit crunch was a consequence of the preceding credit bubble inevitably bursting. In certain Western countries, including Britain and America, governments had deregulated financial agencies to an extent where irresponsible lending became normalised. For example, in Britain, through until 2008, it was easy for people to get mortgage loans on property of 120% of the property value with few questions asked. Property prices were rising sharply, the global economy was booming, and traditional banking caution was thrown to the wind. People re-mortgaged their homes to pay off credit card debts that carried very high rates of interest, and which had been sold to them by aggressive marketing. People had started to believe that ever-rising house values and continuing economic good times would generate property values that would continuously outstrip their liabilities. Far from failing to dispel this notion, leading lenders exploited it. City staff were rewarded with massive "fat cat" bonuses based on the size and quantity of loans made. Concerns about their overall quality of lending portfolios were silenced through hedging - the selling on and spreading out of risk on speculatively buoyant markets. While everybody played the game and interest rates remained low the system appeared to be working. It met investor expectations with high rewards. But as US interest rates rose in a necessary effort to counteract the economic knock-on effects of house price inflation, the consequences of having bought into a usurious and greed-driven system started to hit home. Loan default rates reached the point of crisis. Those who were able to see it coming, mostly the wealthy and well-advised who had a greater variety of financial options open to them, were able to bail out in time. Those who had been caught with little option if they wanted to buy a house to live in were squashed - leaving many young families now struggling to pay off debts as their house values fell into negative equity. As the media rightly observed, Wall Street's gains are Main Street's losses, with the negative externalities of financial speculation passed on to society as a whole. We might learn from this that an economics that canonises greed lays in store catastrophic weaknesses that will eventually hit the poor hardest. Our second point is that globalisation, whilst creating massive new economic wealth from deregulated trade, has reduced resilience in the world financial system. Fire walls between different countries' economies that were held in place by measures such as controls on foreign currency transactions substantially fell away in the years that followed the "new right" economics of Reagan and Thatcher. Enabled by computerised production planning and stock control, new notions of just-in-time commercal supply systems profitably maximised economic efficiency. But there was a hidden cost. It also reduced the resilience that slack allows in highly interdependent chains of supply. Without slack, supply networks, like the socio-ecological systems on which they depend, become brittle. They become prone to breaking rather than bending when placed under stress. And for a monetarily based economic supply system, a bank running out of liquidity is like a car suddenly losing its oil. Devoid of lubrication the engine grinds to a sudden halt. That was why, in 2008, governments were left with no option but to bail out the banks. This loss of resilience is what distinguishes the current situation from the bank crashes of the 1920s. Back then, society and especially its food production was less industrialised. People lived closer to the land. Most essential services such as food production were local production for local consumption. But today, essential chains of supply are long, often global, and therefore subject to international market and financial vagaries. A glimpse of the consequences of such dependency can be seen from what happened in Britain in September 2000 when fuel tanker drivers went on strike. Within five days, panic buying emptied some supermarket shelves and the media carried sporadic reports of fighting at the checkouts. The Blair government, fearing civil unrest, capitulated. Applied to the situation in 2008, we might ask much more unrest might have broken out if bank failure had resulted in the sudden loss of financial lubrication with its consequent immediate knock-on effects? We might learn from this that the risks are too high for governments to wash their hands of regulating modern economies. Unfettered free markets expose the very fabric of civil society to the law of the jungle on a bad day. Overly deregulated markets can only be transient phenomena, like handing out free pizza. Because of their abstract nature based on confidence - the word means "faith together" - financial markets are all the more volatile. The brazenness by which financial engineers or rather, marketeers, tried to spread risk by creating derivative "products" driven ultimately by mortgage interest rates and their effect on property values reveal a massive collapse of responsibility. That collapse happened because faith shifted from having direct equity connection to tangible assets onto abstract financial connections that could be many times removed and diluted from the reality on the ground. Such derivatives had become ships of fantasy. Devoid of anchors, they drifted fecklessly with no bearings on the landmarks of reality until the rocks struck. Our third observation is that many people ask whether the "credit crunch" (the term sounds disarmingly like a packet of breakfast cereal, with a free gift inside) signals the "end of capitalism". On the contrary, we consider that it represents only a cyclical spasm in the process by which capitalism periodically restructures itself in a crash that most hurts the weak. The consequence of job losses and repossessions in the housing market are that the relatively disadvantaged, many now saddled with negative equity, will be forced long term to work harder to pay off debts, including their share of the national debt that will manifest in tax rises. As such, the creditors - many from their offshore tax havens - retain and reconsolidate a grip that they would not have had if their involvement in the process had been through risk-shared equity holdings, as with Islamic banking principles. These investors will, in future, be the people who find themselves in a position to buy up repossessed (which is to say, bankrupt) housing stock, and thereby strengthen their arm in future as rentiers to those who have lost out. The relatively poor will be forced to work yet harder on a treadmill that damages family life and with it, weakens the future fabric of society. Capitalism can be understood at many different levels, from honest trade and entrepreneurialism all the way to its advanced Anglo-American casino version. In the latter, the role of money undergoes a shift. It changes from its primary role as a means of recording and lubricating exchanges of goods and services. It takes on second order abstract qualities of being speculative. Here money alone generates more money, and the principle of usury - defining it as the lending of money at real positive rates of interest (i.e. rates greater than what is needed to cover inflation and risk) - is the inner wheel driving the system. Although we believe capitalism in one form or another is here to stay, the "credit crunch" may go down in history as the most serious challenge yet to financially speculative advanced capitalism. Henceforth electorates and their governments should give more determined consideration to the oligarchic principle of allowing so much power and latitude to shareholders and their financial analysts whose investment motivation is purely to 'play the market'. 2009 will probably mark the point at which the pendulum starts to swing back to more carefully and strongly regulated financial markets. As it turns out, this approach is entirely consistent with the philosophy of the iconic economists Adam Smith (who was after all a 'moral philosopher') and John Maynard Keynes (who warned against the dangers of speculative activities). Ironically, these are often cited by neoliberal market fundamentalists in support of their ideological deregulatory stance. Any of us who have knowingly participated in usury-related casino economics share the responsibility for what has happened. Whilst neither of the current writers is a Moslem, we cannot help but be reminded of the Islamic hadith that states: "The taker of usury and the giver of it and the writer of its papers and the witness to it, are equal in crime." To put it in the language of other Abrahamic religions, we have worshipped at the shrine of Mammon, the god of wealth. Mammon has now transmogrified into Moloch - the fire-filled hollow stone god of the Hebrew Bible. Into his lap the children were reputedly sacrificed ... and that, in the name of idolatrously seeking future economic prosperity. Through the lens of such metaphor the "credit crunch" must, like the "climate change crunch", be understood spiritually, or in terms of deep values. It is our consumer greed that has driven the problems now faced. Whatever our religious background if any, the crises of present times can be seen as a spiritual, or a values-based wake-up call. As such, modernity may still have something to learn from the ancients.

Catherism (12th and 13th centuries)

heretical Christian sect that flourished in western Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries. The Cathari professed a neo-Manichaean dualism—that there are two principles, one good and the other evil, and that the material world is evil. Similar views were held in the Balkans and the Middle East by the medieval religious sects of the Paulicians and the Bogomils; the Cathari were closely connected with these sects. In the first half of the 11th century isolated groups of such heretics appeared in western Germany, Flanders, and northern Italy. In the late 11th century no more was heard of them; then in the 12th century they reappeared. A period of rapid growth came in the 30 years following 1140. At about this time the Bogomil Church was reorganizing itself, and Bogomil missionaries, as well as Western dualists returning from the Second Crusade (1147-49), were at work in the West in the middle of the century. From the 1140s the Cathari were an organized church with a hierarchy, a liturgy, and a system of doctrine. About 1149 the first bishop established himself in the north of France; a few years later he established colleagues at Albi and in Lombardy. The status of these bishops was confirmed and the prestige of the Cathar Church enhanced by the visit of the Bogomil bishop Nicetas in 1167. In the following years more bishops were set up, until by the turn of the century there were 11 bishoprics in all, 1 in the north of France, 4 in the south, and 6 in Italy. Although the various groups emphasized different doctrines, they all agreed that matter was evil. Man was an alien and a sojourner in an evil world; his aim must be to free his spirit, which was in its nature good, and restore it to communion with God. There were strict rules for fasting, including the total prohibition of meat. Sexual intercourse was forbidden; complete ascetic renunciation of the world was called for. The extreme asceticism made the Cathari a church of the elect, and yet in France and northern Italy it became a popular religion. This success was achieved by the division of the faithful into two bodies: the "perfect" and the "believers." The perfect were set apart from the mass of believers by a ceremony of initiation, the consolamentum. They devoted themselves to contemplation and were expected to maintain the highest moral standards. The believers were not expected to attain the standards of the perfect. cather doctrines of creation led them to rewrite the biblical story; they devised an elaborate mythology to replace it. They viewed much of the Old Testament with reserve; some of them rejected it altogether. The orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation was rejected. Jesus was merely an angel; his human sufferings and death were an illusion. They also severely criticized the worldliness and corruption of the Catholic Church. The Cathar doctrines struck at the roots of orthodox Christianity and of the political institutions of Christendom, and the authorities of church and state united to attack them. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) attempted to force Raymond VI, count of Toulouse, to join him in putting down the heresy, but this ended in disaster; the papal legate was murdered in January 1208, and the Count was generally thought to have been an accessory to the crime. A crusade—the Albigensian Crusade—was proclaimed against the heretics, and an army led by a group of barons from northern France proceeded to ravage Toulouse and Provence and massacre the inhabitants, both Cathar and Catholic (see Albigenses). A more orderly persecution sanctioned by St. Louis IX, in alliance with the nascent Inquisition, was more effective in breaking the power of the Cathari. In 1244 the great fortress of Montségur near the Pyrenees, a stronghold of the perfect, was captured and destroyed. The Cathari had to go underground, and many of the French Cathari fled to Italy, where persecution was more intermittent. The hierarchy faded out in the 1270s; the heresy lingered through the 14th century and finally disappeared early in the 15th.

First Crusade

During the First Crusade, Christian knights from Europe capture Jerusalem after seven weeks of siege and begin massacring the city's Muslim and Jewish population. Beginning in the 11th century, Christians in Jerusalem were increasingly persecuted by the city's Islamic rulers, especially when control of the holy city passed from the relatively tolerant Egyptians to the Seljuk Turks in 1071. Late in the century, Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comenus, also threatened by the Seljuk Turks, appealed to the West for aid. In 1095, Pope Urban II publicly called for a crusade to aid Eastern Christians and recover the holy lands. The response by Western Europeans was immediate. The first crusaders were actually undisciplined hordes of French and German peasants who met with little success. One group, known as the "People's Crusade," reached as far as Constantinople before being annihilated by the Turks. In 1096, the main crusading force, featuring some 4,000 mounted knights and 25,000 infantry, began to move east. Led by Raymond of Toulouse, Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert of Flanders, and Bohemond of Otranto, the army of Christian knights crossed into Asia Minor in 1097. In June, the crusaders captured the Turkish-held city of Nicaea and then defeated a massive army of Seljuk Turks at Dorylaeum. From there, they marched on to Antioch, located on the Orontes River below Mount Silpius, and began a difficult six-month siege during which they repulsed several attacks by Turkish relief armies. Finally, early in the morning of June 3, 1098, Bohemond persuaded a Turkish traitor to open Antioch's Bridge Gate, and the knights poured into the city. In an orgy of killing, the Christians massacred thousands of enemy soldiers and citizens, and all but the city's fortified citadel was taken. Later in the month, a large Turkish army arrived to attempt to regain the city, but they too were defeated, and the Antioch citadel surrendered to the Europeans. After resting and reorganizing for six months, the crusaders set off for their ultimate goal, Jerusalem. Their numbers were now reduced to some 1,200 cavalry and 12,000 foot soldiers. On June 7, 1099, the Christian army reached the holy city, and finding it heavily fortified, began building three enormous siege towers. By the night of July 13, the towers were complete, and the Christians began fighting their way across Jerusalem's walls. On July 14, Godfrey's men were the first to penetrate the defenses, and the Gate of Saint Stephen was opened. The rest of the knights and soldiers then poured in, the city was captured, and tens of thousands of its occupants were slaughtered. The crusaders had achieved their aims, and Jerusalem was in Christian hands, but an Egyptian army marched on the holy city a few weeks later to challenge their claim. The Egyptians' defeat by the outnumbered Christians in August ended Muslim resistance to the Europeans for the time being, and five small Christian states were set up in the region under the rule of the leaders of the crusade.

conquistadors

Early-sixteenth-century Spanish adventurers who conquered Mexico, Central America, and Peru. (Examples Cortez, Pizarro, Francisco.)

Council of Clermont (1095)

On November 27, 1095, Pope Urban II makes perhaps the most influential speech of the Middle Ages, giving rise to the Crusades by calling all Christians in Europe to war against Muslims in order to reclaim the Holy Land, with a cry of "Deus vult!" or "God wills it!" Born Odo of Lagery in 1042, Urban was a protege of the great reformer Pope Gregory VII. Like Gregory, he made internal reform his main focus, railing against simony (the selling of church offices) and other clerical abuses prevalent during the Middle Ages. Urban showed himself to be an adept and powerful cleric, and when he was elected pope in 1088, he applied his statecraft to weakening support for his rivals, notably Clement III. By the end of the 11th century, the Holy Land—the area now commonly referred to as the Middle East—had become a point of conflict for European Christians. Since the 6th century, Christians frequently made pilgrimages to the birthplace of their religion, but when the Seljuk Turks took control of Jerusalem, Christians were barred from the Holy City. When the Turks then threatened to invade the Byzantine Empire and take Constantinople, Byzantine Emperor Alexius I made a special appeal to Urban for help. This was not the first appeal of its kind, but it came at an important time for Urban. Wanting to reinforce the power of the papacy, Urban seized the opportunity to unite Christian Europe under him as he fought to take back the Holy Land from the Turks. At the Council of Clermont, in France, at which several hundred clerics and noblemen gathered, Urban delivered a rousing speech summoning rich and poor alike to stop their in-fighting and embark on a righteous war to help their fellow Christians in the East and take back Jerusalem. Urban denigrated the Muslims, exaggerating stories of their anti-Christian acts, and promised absolution and remission of sins for all who died in the service of Christ. Urban's war cry caught fire, mobilizing clerics to drum up support throughout Europe for the crusade against the Muslims. All told, between 60,000 and 100,000 people responded to Urban's call to march on Jerusalem. Not all who responded did so out of piety: European nobles were tempted by the prospect of increased land holdings and riches to be gained from the conquest. These nobles were responsible for the death of a great many innocents both on the way to and in the Holy Land, absorbing the riches and estates of those they conveniently deemed opponents to their cause. Adding to the death toll was the inexperience and lack of discipline of the Christian peasants against the trained, professional armies of the Muslims. As a result, the Christians were initially beaten back, and only through sheer force of numbers were they eventually able to triumph. Urban died in 1099, two weeks after the fall of Jerusalem but before news of the Christian victory made it back to Europe. His was the first of seven major military campaigns fought over the next two centuries known as the Crusades, the bloody repercussions of which are still felt today. Urban was beatified by the Roman Catholic Church in 1881.

Simony

Simony, buying or selling of something spiritual or closely connected with the spiritual. More widely, it is any contract of this kind forbidden by divine or ecclesiastical law. The name is taken from Simon Magus (Acts 8:18), who endeavoured to buy from the Apostles the power of conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Simony, in the form of buying holy orders, or church offices, was virtually unknown in the first three centuries of the Christian church, but it became familiar when the church had positions of wealth and influence to bestow. The first legislation on the point was the second canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451). From that time prohibitions and penalties were reiterated against buying or selling promotions to the episcopate, priesthood, and diaconate. Later, the offense of simony was extended to include all traffic in benefices and all pecuniary transactions on masses (apart from the authorized offering), blessed oils, and other consecrated objects. From an occasional scandal, simony became widespread in Europe in the 9th and 10th centuries. Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) rigorously attacked the problem, and the practice again became occasional rather than normal. After the 16th century, it gradually disappeared in its most flagrant forms with the disendowment and secularization of church property. LEARN MORE in these related Britannica articles: Encyclopædia Britannica: first edition, map of Europe history of Europe: From persuasion to coercion: The emergence of a new ecclesiastical discipline ...to clerical misconduct such as simony (the acceptance of ecclesiastical office from laymen) and nicolaitism (clerical marriage). The increasingly precise exposition of Christian doctrine by 12th-century theologians seemed to many people a displacement of the Christianity that they had always understood and practiced. Legal collections began to treat various forms... Germany Germany: Papal reform and the German church ...reformers, committed the sin of simony (the buying and selling of church office). The reformers argued that earthly powers could not rightly confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit and thus rejected the tradition of lay investiture. They believed, moreover, that true reforms could be brought about only by the... Italy Italy: The reform movement and the Salian emperors ...candidates to ecclesiastical office through simony (i.e., the practice of buying church offices), and at forbidding the pervasive practice of clerical marriage and concubinage, which threatened the substance of the church. Leo's efforts drew their inspiration from the monastic reform movement, which had already succeeded in regaining control of many... St. Peter's Basilica on St. Peter's Square, Vatican City. Roman Catholicism: A period of decadence ... (reigned 1012-24) issued legislation against simony. During the papacy of Sylvester II (reigned 999-1003), who was recognized as the most learned man of his time, the dignity of the office was briefly restored. Moreover, no matter how depraved the reigning pope may have been, Rome remained the spiritual capital of... Pope Gregory VII, after his expulsion from Rome, laying a ban of excommunication on the clergy "together with the raging king" (Henry IV of Germany), drawing from the 12th-century chronicle of Otto of Freising; in the library of the University of Jena, Germany. St. Gregory VII: Early life ...pope had been deposed for simony (paying money for ecclesiastical office) at the Council of Sutri in December 1046. (Gratian or, more likely, his supporters allegedly had used bribes to secure his election.) Hildebrand completed his studies at Cologne's famous cathedral school and among its canons (clergy and priests associated... newsletter icon

scholasticism

Scholasticism, the philosophical systems and speculative tendencies of various medieval Christian thinkers, who, working against a background of fixed religious dogma, sought to solve anew general philosophical problems (as of faith and reason, will and intellect, realism and nominalism, and the provability of the existence of God), initially under the influence of the mystical and intuitional tradition of patristic philosophy, and especially Augustinianism, and later under that of Aristotle. Plutarch, circa ad 100. READ MORE ON THIS TOPIC Western philosophy: The transition to Scholasticism In the 12th century a cultural revolution took place that influenced the entire subsequent history of Western philosophy. The old style... From the time of the Renaissance until at least the beginning of the 19th century, the term Scholasticism, not unlike the name Middle Ages, was used as an expression of blame and contempt. The medieval period was widely viewed as an insignificant intermezzo between Greco-Roman antiquity and modern times, and Scholasticism was normally taken to describe a philosophy busied with sterile subtleties, written in bad Latin, and above all subservient to Roman Catholic theology. Even the German idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in his Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie (1833-36; Lectures on the History of Philosophy), declared that he would "put on seven-league boots" in order to skip over the thousand years between the 6th and 17th centuries and, having at last arrived at René Descartes, said that now he could "cry land like the sailor." In those same first decades of the 19th century, on the other hand, the Romanticists swung the pendulum sharply to the opposite side, to an indiscriminate overestimation of everything medieval. Today, scholars seem better able to confront the medieval epoch, as well as Scholasticism—i.e., its philosophy (and theology)—without prejudgments. One reason for this state of affairs is the voluminous research which has been devoted to this era and which has revealed its true nature, not only as a respectable continuation of the genuinely philosophical tradition but also as a period of exemplary personalities quite able to stand comparison with any of the great philosophers of antiquity or of modern times. Nature And Significance Scholasticism is so much a many-sided phenomenon that, in spite of intensive research, scholars still differ considerably in their definition of the term and in the emphases that they place on individual aspects of the phenomenon. Some historians, seeming almost to capitulate to the complexity of the subject, confine themselves to the general point that Scholasticism can only be defined denotatively as that kind of philosophy that during the European Middle Ages was taught in the Christian schools. The question of its connotation, however, remains, namely, What kind of philosophy was it? The answer that Scholasticism was "school" philosophy and, in fact, "Christian" school philosophy can be understood only by examining the historical exigencies that created the need for schools. The search thus leads the inquirer back to the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages—a point which, according to Hegel, was marked by the symbolic date 529 CE, when a decree of the Christian emperor Justinian closed the Platonic Academy in Athens and sealed "the downfall of the physical establishments of pagan philosophy." In the same year, however, still another event occurred, which points much less to the past than to the coming age and, especially, to t

3 orders of society

those who work, those who fight, those who pray.n the Middle Ages society was made up of the three orders, the clergy, the nobility and the people, each order having its responsibilities, privileges and special honors. Clergy, nobility & people Classes of medieval society: Clergy, nobility and people In this tri-partite division, there were clear boundaries between those who governed and those who obeyed, as in any social group. Nonetheless, each of these three classes in its own way and degree participated in the government. I stress this because the revolutionary saga portrays the Middle Ages and the Ancien Regime differently. According to it, this period of History was dominated by an absolutism where only the King commanded, with no one else sharing his power or participating in his government in any way. This accusation is false. It would not even apply to the Czars of Russia, which was the type of government that came closest to this caricature. The only time this absolutism became a reality was under Communism. Then, yes, an 'absolute monarchy' was established in a way that easily led to abuses, excesses and exaggerations. But the Revolution does not accuse Communism of this. It saves this criticism for societies born under the influence of the Church from the beginning of the Middle Ages until the end of the Ancien Regime. Thus, it accuses medieval kingdoms of exercising an absolute monarchy that simply did not exist, and it is silent before the absolutism that actually existed in Communist Russia. What St. Thomas Aquinas recommends as a good form of government is a monarchy that includes the participation of all social classes: the clergy, the nobility and the people. The first class is the clergy How does the clergy, as a social class, participate in the government of the King? Way of Salvation by Andrea de Firenze The clergy directing all the orders of society to Heaven Today, given that the Church is separate from the State in almost all countries, it can be difficult to understand how the clergy can be referred to as the first class of society and as a powerful political class. The clergy is the first class of society because of its sacred character. Its members are the ones in charge of the worship of God and the preaching of the Gospel, the most elevated works that exist. The First Commandment clearly states that we should love God above all things. Thus, the class of men who guide and encourage this love in society is the first. By teaching Catholic Morals the clergy lays the very foundation of civilization. Without morals a country has no worth, and it is the Catholic clergy who have all the supernatural and natural means to inculcate authentic morals in a country. Since this is the highest and most fundamental mission, it is natural that the men entrusted with it should occupy the first place in society. Nobility - aware of its place as second class The second place belongs to the nobility. Again the revolutionary saga presents this class as one teeming with vanity, self-infatuated, drunk on its own grandeur, jealous of its privileges and forbidding anyone to be above it. This is a ridiculous accusation. The nobility as a class was never like this either in the Middle Ages or later. On the contrary, as we just said, the first class - above the nobility - was the clergy. The nobility was quite aware that it was the second class. At meetings, social events, official ceremonies, the order that had the first places of honor was the clergy. And the clergy was made up not only of the sons of the nobility but also the sons of the people, according to the vocation God had given each one. In the Church, what counted was the place a man had in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, not the social rank in which he was born. I emphasize these principles to counter the wrong ideas the Revolution spread about the social regimes that existed before the French Revolution. How the three classes participated in government Both the clergy and nobility participated in the government of the country in many ways. Both groups had countless fiefs where they exercised a strong influence. Yes, even the clergy had temporal fiefs: At times, a parish would have a large property; at times an abbey or a convent controlled a large fief in this or that region of the country. As examples we have the Bishops of Cologne and Geneva who were at the same time temporal Princes governing large amount of lands. One of the Bishops of Geneva was the suave St. Francis of Sales, known for his sweetness. By ruling over the small matters that made up part of day-to-day life, these lords represented for the little people the King, whom the people would see rarely. Therefore, in reality those temporal lords - nobles or clergymen - were the longa manus [long arm] of the King. The nobility's influence was also great because all the military power belonged to it. The whole military was under the King, it is true, but the great majority of the commanders were nobles. It was rare for a plebeian to enter the army as an officer. At times a commoner who carried out great feats and became a hero would be made a noble and then would share in the command. The power of the military is obvious. We often do not notice it when times are peaceful, but it takes on relevance and becomes decisive in times of unrest or war. Tax of blood paid by the nobility The nobility had the obligation to go to battle To the nobility fell the defense of the country in face of external aggressions as well as the maintenance of the social and political order of their fiefs. Normally the nobles also assumed the functions of what today would be a governor, mayor, chamber president, judge and police chief. He would exercise all of these functions without any expense for the Crown. As we see, these two orders - the clergy and the nobility - were turned toward serving the common good. To compensate them for that great burden, they were exempt from taxes. The people exercised their influence through the guilds. The workers' guilds had their own laws, special privileges and, at times, even their own tribunals, governed by men from their own ranks who were independent from the functionaries of the King, the nobles or the city. Many times these guilds constituted small self-governing bourgeois republics inside the monarchy. The people were the class turned toward the work of production. They had the privilege of either not participating in war or doing so in a much smaller way than the nobility. The people usually had the exclusive rights over the most profitable professions in industry and commerce. How did they participate in the dangers of the war? If they desired, they could go to battle, but they would be paid well by the King for their service. For many the war was a chance to make money and an opportunity to do heroic deeds and rise to the nobility. It was their possibility to have another career different from the normal country or city traditions. Therefore, many wanted to go to war, but it was a voluntary participation, different from the nobility who had the obligation to do so. Normally, the members of the third order, the people, did not have any special obligation to the State. They worked for the common good insofar as they served their own individual and family interests. They enjoyed many honors and privileges that they guarded carefully. Their principal onus as a class was to pay taxes. There was a medieval saying: "The wool has to come from the sheep." Since the people - the bourgeoisie and plebeians - were the ones who received the advantages that came from profitable jobs, the responsibility of paying taxes rightly fell on them. Harmony in that participation The equilibrium of these diverse autonomous groups used to bring a great harmony to the nation with this kind of participative government. Three orders of society The orders of medieval society: above, clergy and nobility; below, the people - bourgeois and plebeians As we have seen, the Church and the State are both perfect societies, distinct from each other and sovereign in their respective fields: the Church in the spiritual sphere, the State in the temporal sphere. This distinction, however, did not prevent the clergy from having a participation in the temporal government. It was common for members of the clergy to become counselors of the King or the noble, and, through this influence, share in the temporal power. We have already discussed the Bishops and Abbots who actually had temporal power, which is another way for the clergy to share in the government of the King. This harmonic division - the clergy, the nobility and the people - reminds us of the representative assemblies that characterized the life of many monarchies of the feudal period and Ancien Regime, such as the Cortes in Portugal and Spain, the Estates General in France, and the Parliament in England. In those assemblies there was an authentic national representation that faithfully mirrored an organic society. With the Enlightenment, a revolutionary political philosophy was adopted by many leaders of European countries. Then, under the influence of a wrongly-understood notion of liberty, the Old World started on the path that would destroy the intermediary bodies of society, make a complete laicization of the State and establish inorganic assemblies composed of members chosen on a merely quantitative criteria of representation, the number of ballots in a box.

Henry the Navigator

(1394-1460) Portuguese prince who promoted the study of navigation and directed voyages of exploration down the western coast of Africa.

Sack of Constantinople

n 1204 CE the unthinkable happened and Constantinople, after nine centuries of withstanding all comers, was brutally sacked. Even more startling was the fact that the perpetrators were not any of the traditional enemies of the Byzantine Empire: the armies of Islam, the Bulgars, Hungarians, or Serbs, but the western Christian army of the Fourth Crusade. Finally, the mutual suspicion and distrust that had existed for centuries between the western and eastern states and churches had blown up into full-scale warfare. With the fall of the city, many of its religious icons, relics, and artworks were spirited away and the Byzantine Empire was divided up between Venice and its allies. The empire would rise again from the ashes but never again could Constantinople claim to be the greatest, richest, and most artistically vibrant city in the world

Sepharic Jews

Many historical documents recount a large population of Jews in Spain during the early years of the Common Era. Their cultural distinctiveness is characterized in Roman writings as a "corrupting" influence. Later, with the arrival of Christianity, Jewish legal authorities became worried about assimilation and maintaining Jewish identity. Despite these concerns, by the seventh century Sephardim had flourished, beginning a time known as the "Golden Age of Spain." During this period, Sephardic Jews reached the highest echelons of secular government and the military. Many Jews gained renown in non-Jewish circles as poets, scholars, and physicians. New forms of Hebrew poetry arose, and talmudic and halakhic (Jewish law) study took on great sophistication. Ladino, the Judeo-Spanish language, unified Jews throughout the peninsula in daily life, ritual, and song. Ladino, a blend of medieval Spanish with significant loan words from Hebrew, Arabic, and Portuguese, had both a formal, literary dialect, and numerous daily, spoken dialects which evolved during the immigrations of Sephardic Jews to new lands. The Sephardic Golden Age ended when Christian princes consolidated their kingdoms and reestablished Christian rule throughout Spain and Portugal. In 1492, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella expelled all Jews from Spain; soon after, a similar law exiled Jews from Portugal. Sephardic Jews immigrated to Amsterdam, North Africa, and the Middle East. Others established new communities in the Americas or converted publicly to Christianity, sometimes secretly maintaining a Jewish life. These converts (known in Ladino as conversos and in Hebrew as anusim, forced converts) often maintained their Judaism in secret. In the 21st century, there are still people in both Europe and the Americas who are discovering and reclaiming their Jewish ancestry. Wherever Sephardic Jews traveled, they brought with them their unique ritual customs, language, arts, and architecture. Sephardic synagogues often retain the influence of Islam in their architecture by favoring geometric, calligraphic, and floral decorative motifs. Although they may align with the Ashkenazic religious denominations (usually Orthodoxy), the denominational identity of Sephardic synagogues is, in most cases, less strong than their ethnic identity. At home, Ladino songs convey family traditions at the Shabbat table, although Ladino is rapidly disappearing from daily use. Sephardic Jews often maintain unique holiday customs, such as a seder for Rosh Hashanah that includes a series of special foods eaten as omens for a good new year and the eating of rice and legumes (kitniyot) on Passover.

Umayyads of Cordoba

Khilāfat Qurṭuba) was a state in Islamic Iberia along with a part of North Africa ruled by the Umayyad dynasty. The state, with the capital in Córdoba, existed from 929 to 1031. The region was formerly dominated by the Umayyad Emirate of Córdoba (756-929)

mendicants

Members of religious orders that emphasize reliance on the generosity of others. From a Latin root that means "to beg".

Saladin

(1137-1193) Powerful Muslim ruler during Third Crusade, defeated Christians at Hattin took Jerusalem.Saladin (1137/1138-1193) was a Muslim military and political leader who as sultan (or leader) led Islamic forces during the Crusades. Saladin's greatest triumph over the European Crusaders came at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, which paved the way for Islamic re-conquest of Jerusalem and other Holy Land cities in the Near East. During the subsequent Third Crusade, Saladin was unable to defeat the armies led by England's King Richard I (the Lionheart), reuslting in the loss of much of this conquered territory. However, he was able to negotiate a truce with Richard I that allowed for continued Muslim control of Jerusalem. On July 4, 1187, the Muslim forces of Saladin (Salah al-Din) decisively defeated the crusader army south of the Horns of Hattin in Palestine, capturing Guy, king of Jerusalem; Reginald of Châtillon, Saladin's enemy whom he personally killed; over two hundred Knights Hospitaller and Templar Knightly Orders whom he ordered to be killed; and many crusaders whom he ransomed. The remaining captured Christians were sold on the local slave markets. Born into a Kurdish, Sunni, military family, Saladin rose rapidly within Muslim society as a subordinate to the Syrian-northern Mesopotamian military leader Nur al-Din. Participating in three campaigns into Egypt (which was governed by the Shi`ite Fatimid dynasty), Saladin became head of the military expeditionary forces in 1169. After he was appointed wazir(adviser) to the Shi`ite caliph in Cairo, he consolidated his position by eliminating the Fatimid's sub-Saharan infantry slave forces. Finally, in 1171 the Shi`ite Fatimid caliphate was brought to an end by Saladin with the recognition of the Sunni caliphate in Baghdad. In the meantime, Nur al-Din kept pressuring Saladin to send him money, supplies, and troops, but Saladin tended to stall. An open clash between the two was avoided by the death of Nur al-Din in 1174. Although Egypt was the primary source for his financial support, Saladin spent almost no time in the Nile Valley after 1174. According to one of his admiring contemporaries, Saladin used the wealth of Egypt for the conquest of Syria, that of Syria for the conquest of northern Mesopotamia, and that of northern Mesopotamia for the conquest of the crusader states along the Levant coast. This oversimplification aside, the bulk of Saladin's activities from 1174 until 1187 involved fighting other Muslims and eventually bringing Aleppo, Damascus, Mosul, and other cities under his control. He tended to appoint members of his family to many of the governorships, establishing a dynasty known as the Ayyubids in Egypt, Syria, and even Yemen. At the same time he was willing to make truces with the crusaders in order to free his forces to fight Muslims. Reginald of Châtillon violated these arrangements, to Saladin's annoyance. Modern historians debate Saladin's motivation, but for those contemporaries close to him, there were no questions: Saladin had embarked on a holy war to eliminate Latin political and military control in the Middle East, particularly Christian control over Jerusalem. After the Battle of Hattin, Saladin, following the predominant military theory of the time, moved rapidly against as many of the weak Christian centers as possible, offering generous terms if they would surrender, while at the same time avoiding long sieges. This policy had the benefit of leading to the rapid conquest of almost every crusader site, including the peaceful Muslim liberation of Jerusalem in October 1187. The negative was that his policy permitted the crusaders time to regroup and refortify two cities south of Tripoli—Tyre and Ashkelon. From Tyre, Christian forces, reinforced by the soldiers of the Third Crusade (1189-1191), encircled Muslims in Acre, destroyed the bulk of the Egyptian navy, and, under the leadership of Richard the Lion-Heart, captured the city and slaughtered its Muslim defenders. Saladin, by avoiding a direct battle with the new crusader forces, was able to preserve Muslim control over Jerusalem and most of Syria and Palestine. Saladin's reputation for generosity, religiosity, and commitment to the higher principles of a holy war have been idealized by Muslim sources and by many Westerners including Dante, who placed him in the company of Hector, Aeneas, and Caesar as a "virtuous pagan."

Francis of Assisi

Born in Italy circa 1181, Saint Francis of Assisi was renowned for drinking and partying in his youth. After fighting in a battle between Assisi and Perugia, Francis was captured and imprisoned for ransom. He spent nearly a year in prison — awaiting his father's payment — and, according to legend, began receiving visions from God. After his release from prison, Francis heard the voice of Christ, who told him to repair the Christian Church and live a life of poverty. Consequently, he abandoned his life of luxury and became a devotee of the faith, his reputation spreading all over the Christian world. Later in life, Francis reportedly received a vision that left him with the stigmata of Christ — marks resembling the wounds Jesus Christ suffered when he was crucified — making Francis the first person to receive such holy wounds. He was canonized as a saint on July 16, 1228. During his life he also developed a deep love of nature and animals and is known as the patron saint of the environment and animals; his life and words have had a lasting resonance with millions of followers across the globe. Each October, many animals the world over are blessed on his feast day. St. Francis of Assisi Photo Saint Francis of Assisi Why Is Saint Francis the Patron Saint of Animals? Today, Saint Francis of Assisi is the patron saint for ecologists — a title honoring his boundless love for animals and nature. Early Life of Luxury Born circa 1181, in Assisi, duchy of Spoleto, Italy, Saint Francis of Assisi, though revered today, began his life as a confirmed sinner. His father was a wealthy cloth merchant who owned farmland around Assisi, and his mother was a beautiful Frenchwoman. Francis was not in want during his youth; he was spoiled, indulging himself with fine food, wine, and wild celebrations. By age 14, he had left school and become known as a rebellious teenager who frequently drank, partied and broke the city curfew. He was also known for his charm and vanity. In these privileged surroundings, Francis of Assisi learned the skills of archery, wrestling and horsemanship. He was expected to follow his father into the family textile business but was bored by the prospect of life in the cloth trade. Instead of planning a future as a merchant, he began daydreaming of a future as a knight; knights were Medieval action heroes, and if Francis had any ambition, it was to be a war hero like them. It wouldn't be long before the opportunity for warfare beckoned. In 1202 war broke between Assisi and Perugia, and Francis eagerly took his place with the cavalry. Little did he know at the time, his experience with war would change him forever. War and Imprisonment Francis and the men of Assisi came under heavy attack, and in the face of superior numbers, they took flight. The whole battlefield was soon covered with the bodies of butchered, mutilated men, screaming in agony. Most of the surviving Assisi troops were immediately put to death. Unskilled and with no combat experience, Francis was quickly captured by enemy soldiers. Dressed like an aristocrat and wearing expensive new armor, he was considered worthy of a decent ransom, and the soldiers decided to spare his life. He and the other wealthy troops were taken as prisoners, led off to a dank underground cell. Francis would spend nearly a year in such miserable conditions — awaiting his father's payment — during which time he may well have contracted a serious disease. Also during this time, he would later report, he began to receive visions from God. After the War After a year of negotiations, Francis' ransom was accepted, and he was released from prison in 1203. When he came back to Assisi, however, Francis was a very different man. Upon his return, he was dangerously sick in both mind and body — a battle-fatigued casualty of war. One day, as legend has it, while riding on a horse in the local countryside, Francis encountered a leper. Prior to the war, Francis would have run from the leper, but on this occasion, his behavior was very different. Viewing the leper as a symbol of moral conscience — or as Jesus incognito, according to some religious scholars — he embraced and kissed him, later describing the experience as a feeling of sweetness in his mouth. After this incident, Francis felt an indescribable freedom. His earlier lifestyle had lost all of its appeal. Subsequently, Francis, now in his early 20s, began turning his focus toward God. Instead of working, he spent an ever-increasing amount of time at a remote mountain hideaway as well as in old, quiet churches around Assisi, praying, looking for answers, and helping nurse lepers. During this time, while praying before an old Byzantine crucifix at the church of San Damiano, Francis reportedly heard the voice of Christ, who told him to rebuild the Christian Church and to live a life of extreme poverty. Francis obeyed and devoted himself to Christianity. He began preaching around Assisi and was soon joined by 12 loyal followers. Some regarded Francis as a madman or a fool, but others viewed him as one of the greatest examples of how to live the Christian ideal since Jesus Christ himself. Whether he was really touched by God, or simply a man misinterpreting hallucinations brought on by mental illness and/or poor health, Francis of Assisi quickly became well-known throughout the Christian world. Devotion to Christianity After his epiphany at the church of San Damiano, Francis experienced another defining moment in his life. In order to raise money to rebuild the Christian church, he sold a bolt of cloth from his father's shop, along with his horse. His father became furious upon learning of his son's actions and subsequently dragged Francis before the local bishop. The bishop told Francis to return his father's money, to which his reaction was extraordinary: He stripped off his clothes, and along with them, returned the money back to his father, declaring that God was now the only father he recognized. This event is credited as Francis' final conversion, and there is no indication that Francis and his father ever spoke again thereafter. The bishop gave Francis a rough tunic, and dressed in these new humble clothes, Francis left Assisi. Unluckily for him, the first people he met on the road were a group of dangerous thieves, who beat him badly. Despite his wounds, Francis was elated. From now on, he would live according to the Gospel. Francis' embrace of Christ-like poverty was a radical notion at the time. The Christian church was tremendously rich, much like the people heading it, which concerned Francis and many others, who felt that the long-held apostolic ideals had eroded. Francis set out on a mission to restore Jesus Christ's own, original values to the now-decadent church. With his incredible charisma, he drew thousands of followers to him. They listened to Francis' sermons and joined in his way of life; his followers became known as Franciscan friars. Continuously pushing himself in the quest for spiritual perfection, Francis was soon preaching in up to five villages per day, teaching a new kind of emotional and personal Christian religion that everyday people could understand. He even went so far as to preach to animals, which garnered criticism from some and earned him the nickname "God's fool." But Francis' message was spread far and wide, and thousands of people were captivated by what they heard. In 1224 Francis reportedly received a vision that left him with the stigmata of Christ — marks resembling the wounds Jesus Christ suffered when he was crucified, through his hands and the gaping lance wound in his side. This made Francis the first person to receive the holy wounds of the stigmata. They would remain visible for the rest of his life. Because of his earlier work treating lepers, some believe that the wounds were actually symptoms of leprosy. Death and Legacy As Francis approached his death, many predicted that he was a saint in the making. When his health began to decline more rapidly, Francis went home. Knights were sent from Assisi to guard him and to make sure that no one from neighboring towns would carry him off (the body of a saint was viewed, at the time, as an extremely valuable relic that would bring, among many things, glory to the town where it rested). Francis of Assisi died on October 3, 1226, at the age of 44, in Assisi, Italy. Today, Francis has a lasting resonance with millions of followers across the globe. He was canonized as a saint just two years after his death, on July 16, 1228, by his former protector, Pope Gregory IX. Today, Saint Francis of Assisi is the patron saint for ecologists — a title honoring his boundless love for animals and nature. In 2013, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergogli chose to honor Saint Francis by taking his name, becoming Pope Francis.

Guelfs vs. Ghibellians

Guelf and Ghibelline, Guelf also spelled Guelph, members of two opposing factions in German and Italian politics during the Middle Ages. The split between the Guelfs, who were sympathetic to the papacy, and the Ghibellines, who were sympathetic to the German (Holy Roman) emperors, contributed to chronic strife within the cities of northern Italy in the 13th and 14th centuries. Guelf was derived from Welf, the name of the dynasty of German dukes of Bavaria who competed for the imperial throne through the 12th and early 13th centuries. The name Ghibelline was derived from Waiblingen, the name of a castle of the Welfs' opponents, the Hohenstaufen dukes of Swabia. The rivalry between Welfs and Hohenstaufens figured prominently in German politics after the death of the Holy Roman emperor Henry V in 1125: Lothar II (reigned 1125-37) was a Welf, and his successor as emperor, Conrad III (reigned 1138-52), was a Hohenstaufen. A dubious tradition relates that the terms Guelf and Ghibelline originated as battle cries ("Hie Welf!" "Hie Waiblingen!") during Conrad III's defeat of Welf VI of Bavaria in 1140 at the siege of Weinsberg. It was during the reign of the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (1152-90) that the terms Guelf and Ghibelline acquired significance in Italy, as that emperor tried to reassert imperial authority over northern Italy by force of arms. Frederick's military expeditions were opposed not only by the Lombard and Tuscan communes, who wished to preserve their autonomy within the empire, but also by the newly elected (1159) pope Alexander III. Frederick's attempts to gain control over Italy thus split the peninsula between those who sought to enhance their powers and prerogatives by siding with the emperor and those (including the popes) who opposed any imperial interference. During the struggles between the Hohenstaufen emperor Frederick II (reigned 1220-50) and the popes, the Italian parties took on their characteristic names of Guelf and Ghibelline (beginning in Florence) and contributed to intensifying antagonisms within and among the Italian cities. Most often, previously existing factions in the cities (usually among the nobility) adopted a pro-papal or pro-imperial attitude, thus drawing themselves into the wider international struggle but without losing their local character. The fighting between Guelfs and Ghibellines in various communes often ended with the exile of the losing party from the city. The rivalry between Ghibellines (in this case representing feudal aristocrats) and Guelfs (representing wealthy merchants) was especially ferocious in Florence, where the Guelfs were exiled twice (1248 and 1260) before the invading Charles of Anjou ended Ghibelline domination in 1266. Besides the vying of local factions for power within a city, antagonisms between different cities were aggravated as they took sides on the papal-imperial issue. A series of wars, for example, was fought from the mid-13th century through the early 14th century between Guelf-controlled Florence and its allies—Montepulciano, Bologna, and Orvieto—and its Ghibelline opponents—Pisa, Siena, Pistoia, and Arezzo. Like what you're reading? Start your free trial today for unlimited access to Britannica. After the Hohenstaufen loss of southern Italy (1266) and the final extinction of their line (1268), the Guelf and Ghibelline conflict changed in meaning. In the international sphere, Guelfism constituted a system of alliances among those who supported the Angevin presence in southern Italy—including the Angevin rulers of Sicily themselves, the popes, and Florence with its Tuscan allies. Within the many cities where the Guelfs triumphed, the party became a conservative force, a property-owning group interested in maintaining the exile of the Ghibellines whose holdings had been confiscated. Ghibellinism became associated with a nostalgia for the empire (a waning force in Italy after 1268) and briefly revived during the Italian expeditions of the emperors Henry VII in 1310-13 and Louis IV in 1327-30. During the course of the 14th century, the importance of both parties rapidly declined. They lost international significance because the emperors no longer interfered in Italy and the popes moved from Rome to France. "Guelf" and "Ghibelline" implied only local factions. The terms were revived during the movement for Italian unification of the 19th century. The Neo-Guelfs were those who urged the pope to lead a federation of Italian states. (Vincenzo Gioberti's Del primato morale e civile degli italiani ["On the Moral and Civil Primacy of the Italians"], published in 1843, was the classic expression of this attitude.) Their opponents, the Neo-Ghibellines, saw the pope as a barrier to the development of Italian unity.

Investiture Controversy

Investiture Controversy, conflict during the late 11th and the early 12th century involving the monarchies of what would later be called the Holy Roman Empire (the union of Germany, Burgundy, and much of Italy; see Researcher's Note), France, and England on the one hand and the revitalized papacy on the other. At issue was the customary prerogative of rulers to invest and install bishops and abbots with the symbols of their office. The controversy began about 1078 and was concluded by the Concordat of Worms in 1122. Italy READ MORE ON THIS TOPIC Italy: The Investiture Controversy The kingdom of Italy, a creation of the Lombards, had all but ceased to exist as a separate entity in the early 11th century. Pavia no longer... Background After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD, significant changes took place within the churches of the Germanic successor states, which generally ceased to look to the pope in Rome or to ecumenical councils for guidance. Instead, nobles and, especially, anointed kings assumed numerous Christian duties, including the protection and foundation of churches and abbeys, which they had often built and endowed. Although the canon law declaring that bishops were to be elected by the clergy and people of their future diocese was never abrogated, it was ignored. Bishops and abbots were nominated and installed by rulers in a ceremony known since the second half of the 11th century as investiture. The consecration of the newly minted bishop by his ecclesiastical superior then usually followed. When investing a bishop, the king presented him with a crosier (staff) and, since the reign of Emperor Henry III (1039-56), with a ring, saying "receive the church." By church was meant not only the episcopal office (spiritualia) but also the pertinent rights and properties (regalia). In return the prelate swore fealty to the ruler, an action described since the late 11th century as homage (hominium or homagium). Homage obliged the bishop or abbot to assist the ruler both spiritually and materially by fulfilling the requirements of "service to the king" (servitium regis), including the payment of fees, distribution of ecclesiastical fiefs (benefices) to royal supporters at the king's request, hospitality, military support, and court attendance as an adviser and collaborator. As early as the 10th century, the interdependence of rulers and ecclesiastics had become particularly pronounced in the Ottonian empire. The chapters of royal collegiate churches formed something of a training ground for bishops, and the kings themselves became honorary canons at the most important cathedrals of their realms. Especially favoured churchmen were even entrusted with the office of count as well as with the rights and properties pertaining to the counties they administered. Investiture was the outward symbol of their authority. The ceremony drew the bishops closer to the emperor and made them a more reliable instrument of government than the ambitious nobles who frequently revolted against the monarchy. Like what you're reading? Start your free trial today for unlimited access to Britannica. Events Until the Gregorian Reform of the 11th century, these arrangements worked most often to the benefit of all concerned and were accepted by everyone, including the popes. By midcentury, however, nominations of bishops by temporal rulers, especially those for Italian dioceses, became controversial. In large part this was due to the revival of ancient canon law and the emphasis on its universal and contemporary applicability by the resurgent papacy. Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida (died 1061) sharply criticized the contemporary method of episcopal and abbatial elections in 1058, pointing out that it completely reversed the order envisioned by the Church Fathers, which involved notification of the emperor at the end of the process. Pope Gregory VII (1073-85), however, still accepted lay investiture at the start of his papacy, but his increasing estrangement from King Henry IV (1056-1105/6) over the sovereign's refusal to obey papal commands eventually disrupted the traditional harmony between the two offices. In January 1076, at the assembly in Worms, Henry IV and the German and northern Italian bishops renounced their obedience to the pope and called on him to abdicate. As a result, Gregory deposed the king and excommunicated him and the bishops in February 1076. Despite a reconciliation in January 1077 at Canossa, where Henry appeared as a penitent sinner seeking the pope's forgiveness, tensions continued, and Henry was deposed and excommunicated again in 1080. Investiture Controversy Investiture Controversy Learn about the power struggle between Henry IV and Gregory VII. Contunico © ZDF Enterprises GmbH, Mainz Gregory VII eventually banned completely the investiture of ecclesiastics by all laymen, including kings. The prohibition was first promulgated in September 1077 in France by the papal legate Hugh of Die at the Council of Autun. At a council in Rome in November 1078 Gregory himself announced that clerics were not to accept lay investiture and extended and formalized the prohibition in March 1080. The renunciation of this customary prerogative was problematic for all rulers but especially for Henry IV. He now found himself opposed by an alliance of papal supporters and German princes bent on his removal from office. Civil war resulted, along with the princes' election of an antiking, Rudolf of Rheinfelden, and Henry's elevation of the antipope Clement III. Gregory was driven from Rome and died in exile in Salerno under the protection of his Norman vassal Robert Guiscard. Settlement The prohibition of investiture, however, was maintained and even extended under Gregory's successors. In fact, the controversy became a struggle for supremacy between the institutions of the church (sacerdotium) and monarchy (regnum). Finally, under Pope Paschal II (1099-1118) the differentiation between the spiritual and the temporal-secular (regalia) aspects of the episcopal office, first adumbrated in the 1090s by the famous canon lawyer Bishop Ivo of Chartres, enabled the opposing parties to reach a compromise. For France, this was informally agreed upon in 1107; in the same year, King Henry I of England (1100-35) formally agreed to abandon the practice of investiture but was allowed to retain the right to homage from ecclesiastics for the temporalities (regalia) of a bishopric or abbey. Advertisement The dramatic capture of Paschal II by King Henry V of Germany in 1111, after negotiations over investiture failed, delayed a truce for the empire. The dispute over the procedures for the election, installation, and ordination of bishops there was not effectively ended until the pontificate of Calixtus II (1119-24), when the papacy and empire reached agreement at Worms in September 1122. According to this "concordat," which was reluctantly ratified by the first Lateran Council in 1123, Emperor Henry V renounced investiture with ring and crosier and agreed to the free election of bishops and imperial abbots. Pope Calixtus II in turn permitted these elections of German prelates to take place in the presence of the king. In this compromise ceremony, the king, using a sceptre as a symbol, would invest the prospective bishops and abbots with the temporalities of their future sees prior to their consecration. Burgundian and Italian bishops were to be invested in this manner after their consecration. In Germany the constitutional consequences of the Concordat of Worms were far-reaching. The authoritative influence of secular and ecclesiastical princes dominated the future development of the much-weakened monarchy.

inquisition

The Inquisition was a powerful office set up within the Catholic Church to root out and punish heresy throughout Europe and the Americas. Beginning in the 12th century and continuing for hundreds of years, the Inquisition is infamous for the severity of its tortures and its persecution of Jews and Muslims. Its worst manifestation was in Spain, where the Spanish Inquisition was a dominant force for more than 200 years, resulting in some 32,000 executions. Catharists The Inquisition has its origins in the early organized persecution of non-Catholic Christian religions in Europe. In 1184 Pope Lucius III sent bishops to southern France to track down heretics called Catharists. These efforts continued into the 14th Century. During the same period, the church also pursued the Waldensians in Germany and Northern Italy. In 1231, Pope Gregory charged the Dominican and Franciscan Orders to take over the job of tracking down heretics. The Job of Inquisitors Inquisitors would arrive in a town and announce their presence, giving citizens a chance to admit to heresy. Those who confessed received a punishment ranging from a pilgrimage to a whipping. Those accused of heresy were forced to testify. If the heretic did not confess, torture and execution were inescapable. Heretics weren't allowed to face accusers, received no counsel, and were often victims of false accusations. Bernard Gui wrote the influential guidebook for Inquisitors called "Conduct of the Inquisition into Heretical Depravity" in the early 14th Century. Gui himself pronounced over 600 people guilty of heresy and was featured as a character in Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose. There were countless abuses of power. Count Raymond VII of Toulouse was known for burning heretics at the stake even though they had confessed. His successor, Count Alphonese, confiscated the lands of the accused to increase his riches. In 1307, Inquisitors were involved in the mass arrest and tortures of 15,000 Knights Templar in France, resulting in dozens of executions. Joan of Arc, burned at the stake in 1431, is the most famous victim of this wing of the Inquisition. Conversos In the late 15th Century, King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella of Spain believed corruption in the Spanish Catholic Church was caused by Jews who, to survive centuries of anti-Semitism, converted to Christianity. Known as Conversos, they were viewed with suspicion by old powerful Christian families. Conversos were blamed for a plague and accused of poisoning peoples' water and abducting Christian boys. Ferdinand and Isabella feared that even trusted Conversos were secretly practicing their old religion; the royal couple was also afraid of angering Christian subjects who demanded a harder line against Conversos—Christian support was crucial in an upcoming crusade against Muslims planned in Granada. Ferdinand felt an Inquisition was the best way to fund that crusade, by seizing the wealth of heretic Conversos. Torquemada In 1478, under the influence of clergyman Tomas de Torquemada, the monarchs created the Tribunal of Castile to investigate heresy among Conversos. The effort focused on stronger Catholic education for Conversos, but by 1480, the Inquisition was formed. That same year, Jews in Castile were forced into ghettos separated from Christians, and the Inquisition expanded to Seville. A mass exodus of Conversos followed. In 1481, 20,000 Conversos confessed to heresy, hoping to avoid execution. Inquisitors decreed that their penitence required them to name other heretics. By the year's end, hundreds of Conversos were burned at the stake. Spanish Inquisition Hearing the complaints of Conversos who had fled to Rome, Pope Sextus proclaimed the Spanish Inquisition was too harsh and was wrongly accusing Conversos. In 1482 Sextus appointed a council to take command of the Inquisition. Torquemada was named Inquisitor General and established courts across Spain. Torture became systemized and routinely used to elicit confessions. Sentencing of confessed heretics was done in a public event called the Auto-da-Fe. All heretics wore a sackcloth with a single eyehole over their heads. Heretics who refused to confess were burned at the stake. Sometimes people fought back against the Inquisition. In 1485, an Inquisitor died after being poisoned, and another Inquisitor was stabbed to death in a church. Torquemada managed to round up the assassins, burning at the stake 42 people in retaliation. Torquemada's downfall came when he investigated members of the clergy for heresy. Complaints to Pope Alexander VI convinced him that Torquemada needed tempering. Torquemada was forced to share leadership with four other clergymen until he died in 1498. Inquisitor Generals Diego de Deza took over as Inquisitor General, escalating the hunt for heresy within cities and rounding up scores of accused heretics, including members of the nobility and local governments. Some were able to bribe their way out of imprisonment and death, reflecting the level of corruption under de Deza. After Isabella's death in 1504, Ferdinand promoted Cardinal Gonzalo Ximenes de Cisneros, the head of the Spanish Catholic Church, to Inquisitor General. Ximenes had previously made a mark in Granada persecuting the Islamic Moors. As Inquisitor General, Ximenes pursued Muslims into North Africa, encouraging Ferdinand to take military action. Upon seizing African towns, the Inquisition became established there. Ximenes was dismissed in 1517 after pleas from prominent Conversos, but the Inquisition was allowed to continue. Roman Inquisition Rome renewed its own Inquisition in 1542 when Pope Paul III created the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition to combat Protestant heresy. This Inquisition is best known for putting Galileo on trial in 1633. In 1545, the Spanish Index was created, a list of European books considered heretical and forbidden in Spain, based on the Roman Inquisition's own Index Librorum Prohibitorum. In other nods to Rome's concerns, the Spanish Inquisition focused on the rising population of Spanish Protestants in the 1550s. In 1556, Philip II ascended the Spanish throne. He had previously brought the Roman Inquisition to the Netherlands, where Lutherans were hunted down and burned at the stake. Inquisition in the New World As Spain expanded into the Americas, so did the Inquisition, established in Mexico in 1570. In 1574, Lutherans were burned at the stake there, and the Inquisition came to Peru, where Protestants were likewise tortured and burned alive. In 1580 Spain conquered Portugal and began rounding up and slaughtering Jews that had fled Spain. Philip II also renewed hostilities against the Moors, who revolted and found themselves either killed or sold into slavery. Philip II died in 1598 and his son, Philip III, dealt with the Muslim uprising by banishing them. From 1609 to 1615, 150,000 Muslims who had converted to Catholicism were forced out of Spain. By the mid-1600s the Inquisition and Catholic dominance had become such an oppressive fact of daily life in Spanish territories that Protestants avoided those places altogether. End of the Spanish Inquisition In 1808, Napoleon conquered Spain and ordered the Inquisition there to be abolished. After Napoleon's defeat in 1814, Ferdinand VII worked to reinstate the Inquisition but was ultimately prevented by the French government, which helped Ferdinand overcome a fierce rebellion. Part of the agreement with France was to dismantle the Inquisition, which was defunct by 1834. The last person to be executed by the Inquisition was Cayetano Ripoll, a Spanish schoolmaster hanged for heresy in 1826. The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition still exists, though changed its name a couple of times. It is currently called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Al-Andalus

A Muslim-ruled region in what is now Spain, established by the Berbers in the eighth century A.D.

Kontor

A kontor was a foreign trading post of the Hanseatic League. In addition to the major kontore in London, Ipswich, Bruges, Bergen, and Novgorod, some ports had a representative merchant and a warehouse. Of all the kontor buildings, only Bergen's kontor, known as Bryggen in Norway, has survived until the present day.

Seven Liberal Arts

A medieval curriculum that consisted of the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, logic) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy)

Manorialism

Economic system during the Middle Ages that revolved around self-sufficient farming estates where lords and peasants shared the land.

Maimonides (1135-1204)

Jewish physician and philosopher who attempted to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy and Judaism.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas was born circa 1225 in Roccasecca, Italy. Combining the theological principles of faith with the philosophical principles of reason, he ranked among the most influential thinkers of medieval Scholasticism.

Pope Gregory VII

St. Gregory VII, original name Hildebrand, Italian Ildebrando, (born c. 1025, near Sovana, Papal States—died May 25, 1085, Salerno, Principality of Salerno; canonized 1606; feast day, May 25), one of the greatest popes of the medieval church, who lent his name to the 11th-century movement now known as the Gregorian Reform or Investiture Controversy. Gregory VII was the first pope to depose a crowned ruler, Emperor Henry IV (1056-1105/06). With this revolutionary act, Gregory translated his personal religious and mystical convictions regarding the role of the papacy into direct action in the world at large. He was canonized by Pope Paul V in 1606, but until 1728 his feast was limited to Sovana, his most likely place of birth, and Salerno, where the 900th anniversary of his death was celebrated in the presence of Pope John Paul II in 1985. Investiture Controversy Investiture Controversy Learn about the power struggle between Henry IV and Gregory VII. Contunico © ZDF Enterprises GmbH, Mainz St. Peter's Basilica on St. Peter's Square, Vatican City. READ MORE ON THIS TOPIC Roman Catholicism: The reign of Gregory VII Hildebrand, who succeeded in 1073 as Gregory VII (reigned 1073-85), is perhaps best known for his struggle with Henry IV, but he had long... Early Life He was born Hildebrand in about 1025, probably in southern Tuscany, to an upper-middle-class family with possible connections to Rome. In one of the few personal recollections in his papal letters—preserved in the original register in the Archivio Segreto ("Secret Archives") of the Vatican—he recalled growing up in the Roman church under the special protection of St. Peter, "Prince of the Apostles." He attended the palace school at the Lateran with Roman nobles before continuing his education among the canons of San Giovanni a Porta Latina, a collegiate church next to the Lateran basilica and palace. One of his teachers there was Archbishop Lawrence (Laurentius) of Amalfi, who was famed for his knowledge of both Greek and Latin, and the head of the community was the archpriest John Gratian, the future Pope Gregory VI (1045-46). Hildebrand served as one of his chaplains (acolytes) and accompanied him into exile at Cologne (now in Germany) after the pope had been deposed for simony (paying money for ecclesiastical office) at the Council of Sutri in December 1046. (Gratian or, more likely, his supporters allegedly had used bribes to secure his election.) Hildebrand completed his studies at Cologne's famous cathedral school and among its canons (clergy and priests associated with an archbishop or bishop) before returning to Rome in early 1049 after the death of Gregory VI, in the company of Bruno of Toul, the future Pope Leo IX (1049-54). Traditionally, historians have assumed that Hildebrand was a monk. The only question seemed to be whether he became a monk in Rome or later, during his exile on a possible visit to the famous abbey of Cluny in Burgundy (region of present-day France). The latter theory, based on the writings of a younger contemporary and enthusiastic supporter, Bonizo of Sutri, has been shown to be completely untenable, as has the notion that the young Hildebrand became a monk in Rome at the monastery of St. Mary on the Aventine, where an uncle was supposedly abbot. This theory also rests on a single source, the hagiographic vita by Paul of Bernried, a later admirer of Gregory. Writing in the 1120s, a generation after Gregory's death, Paul set out to edify his audience rather than to report facts, and the vita is riddled with very obvious errors. Gregory VII himself wrote that he was a canon at both the Lateran basilica and at Cologne. St. Mary's is never mentioned by him. It seems unlikely that Hildebrand was a monk, and the distinction between canon and monk is significant because the reform undertaken by the regular canons was in the vanguard of the ecclesiastical revival that sought to restore the glory and austerity of the early Christian church as pictured by churchmen in the 11th century. These ideas deeply influenced Gregory's worldview. After Hildebrand's return to Rome in 1049, although he had not yet reached the age of 30 required for the priesthood, he became a collaborator of Pope Leo IX, who ordained him subdeacon and named him rector (administrator) of the Benedictine abbey of San Paolo Fuori le Mura in 1050. Hildebrand revered Leo like a father, and Leo later distinguished his protégé by awarding him the unusual title of cardinal subdeacon, signifying Hildebrand's closeness to the Holy See. Hildebrand served the papacy as legate in France (in 1054 at Tours and in 1056 at Chalon-sur-Saône), at the imperial court in Germany (1054/55 and 1057/58), and briefly in Italy at Milan (1057). Emperor Henry III held him in high esteem, and under Leo's successor, Pope Victor II (1055-57), Hildebrand served in the papal chancery, as his signatures under papal privileges (grants of special favour) show. During the pontificates of Stephen IX (1057-58), Nicholas II (1059-61), and Alexander II (1061-73), Hildebrand developed into a leading figure at the papal court. Like what you're reading? Start your free trial today for unlimited access to Britannica. In the fall of 1058, Hildebrand was made archdeacon of the Roman church and was characterized by Peter Damian as an "unmovable column [support] of the apostolic see." As archdeacon, he was a chief participant in the first papal coronation with a crown-mitre, which symbolized the papal claim to sovereignty over the church and the secular monarchies. The theory undergirding this aspect of the ceremony was that of the forged Donation of Constantine, an 8th-century document that figured prominently in the new canonical collections that were compiled at that time in Rome and elsewhere. The document claimed that Constantine granted to the pope spiritual authority over the church and temporal dominion over the Western Roman Empire. In his new position Hildebrand also actively furthered the papal alliance with the Normans of southern Italy and their principal leaders, including Robert Guiscard, who became a papal vassal. Hildebrand supported William the Conqueror's invasion of England in 1066, and, because his obligations as archdeacon also included judicial and financial duties, he began to build up armed groups of papal supporters known as the militia of St. Peter (Latin: milites Petri). At the same time, he was most sympathetic toward the reform efforts of the Patarines, as one of the factions among the citizens of Milan was known. This group fought against simony and clerical marriage, two vices that reformers believed occurred frequently among the higher clergy of the city of Milan. Because the higher clergy of the city were closely related to the leading noble families governing Milan, the Patarines' uprising took on social-revolutionary overtones as well. Hildebrand also took the side of the hermit-monks of Vallombrosa who had rioted against the bishop of Florence, whom they accused of simony. Important information concerning Hildebrand's time as archdeacon is provided by a manuscript fragment that records, at least partially, some of the discussions in Rome at the time of the great Lateran Council of April/May 1059. Much of the text comprises an address to the assembly in which Hildebrand harshly criticized the Aachen Rule for Canons ratified under Emperor Louis the Pious (814-840) at the Aachen council of 816. He pointed out in particular that this rule permitted canons to own private property and was thus in conflict with the declarations of the ancient Church Fathers and popes. Hildebrand asserted that canons should lead strictly regulated lives in common, imitating Christ's Apostles (vita apostolica), and renounce all personal property when admitted to a community of regular canons. In short, the living arrangements of canons were to be scarcely distinguishable from those of monks. Contemporary manuscripts of the Aachen Rule, primarily from Rome and the vicinity, are evidence of Hildebrand's success at the council, for they omit the objectionable passages concerning private property and add texts from the Benedictine Rule for monks. Pontificate The pope and the church A tumultuous crowd of Roman citizens and clergy raised Hildebrand to the papacy during the funeral solemnities for Pope Alexander II on April 22, 1073. He was enthroned immediately in the basilica of San Pietro in Vincoli even though he was not ordained a priest until June 29, the feast day of the apostles Peter and Paul, the patron saints of the Apostolic See and the city of Rome. Hildebrand's elevation by the combination of citizens and clergy was a hostile reaction to the reordering of the papal election ordo at the 1059 Lateran Council, which had given the cardinal-bishops the leading voice in papal elections. The Roman people and clergy had been disenfranchised by the ordo, which thus ended the domination of the papacy by various Roman factions. Hildebrand's election, however, followed the ancient rules that had been prominently upheld in the canonical collection of Deusdedit, cardinal-priest of San Pietro in Vincoli. Advertisement Hildebrand took the name Gregory in memory of Gregory I, whose writings greatly influenced him. Gregory VII interpreted his election as a special call by God to continue unhesitatingly the fight for what he described as iustitia ("justice"), meaning the restoration of the church to what Gregory and his collaborators saw as its proper place in the world order. Indeed, they intended to revive the church's ancient splendour and unquestioned leadership as instituted by Christ when he founded the church on the rock that was St. Peter (Matthew 16:18). Gregory was convinced that the pope was the living successor and representative of St. Peter. Because of this link, the pope, and he alone, would always remain a true Christian, never deviating from the faith and always cognizant of the will of God. Therefore, all Christians owed him absolute and unquestioned obedience. Disobedience was regarded as heresy, and obedience to God became obedience to the papacy. Gregory linked the battle against simony and for clerical celibacy—chief characteristics of 11th-century ecclesiastical reform—with a marked emphasis on the papal primacy, a concept based on the primacy of the Roman church, which at the time of Leo IX in 1054 led to the break in diplomatic relations between Rome and Constantinople. Papal primacy included the subordination of all secular governments to papal authority as long as they were Christian, but it applied first of all to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Gregory's chancery revived and strengthened an oath of obedience that was required of all archbishops and bishops. Outranking every local authority, his legates intervened freely in internal diocesan affairs throughout Latin Christendom. Bishops had traditionally governed their dioceses more or less independently, and the changes introduced and systematized by Gregory VII were most unwelcome among all ranks of the clergy, including the highborn bishops, especially in Germany. The lower clergy in France and Germany also rebelled, but in this case against draconian decrees designed to enforce priestly celibacy. Advertisement On the basis of decisions by Leo IX and the Lateran synod of 1059, Gregory did not hesitate to call for popular rebellions against disobedient bishops that flew in the face of ancient canon law prohibiting inferiors (especially laymen but also clergy of a lower rank) from judging or accusing their superiors. Gregory created havoc in the French church when he established a new dignity, the primacy of Lyons, subjecting the prominent archbishops of Sens, Rouen, and Tours to its authority. Only the archbishop of Tours, a close friend of Gregory VII, willingly recognized the new "primate," Hugh of Die. In general, Gregory insisted that canon law should be upheld, but he also ascribed to the pope alone the right to issue new laws if required by contemporary needs. In the case of the primate of Lyons, Gregory was misled by a collection of canon law (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) that, unknown to him, had been forged in the 9th century. This forgery had introduced the concept of primate, with poorly defined functions designed to protect bishops from interference by their superiors, the archbishops. Gregory VII used it in an attempt to supervise the French bishops constantly and more closely, for the primate of Lyons also served as his standing legate. Not surprisingly, Gregory's regimen aroused opposition and hostility among bishops in northern Italy and Germany especially, but also in France. On the other hand, a large extent of the English church was left to the government of William I and Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury. Fortunately, Gregory's pontificate can be evaluated not only on the basis of the often-polemical writings of his contemporaries but also in the light of a precious official source, his original register. It contains numerous letters and general notes as well as numerous excerpts from the councils that Gregory held regularly in Rome. In addition, there are charters for monasteries and bishoprics as well as his letters and conciliar decrees, which survived outside the register in the hands of their recipients or in canonical collections. Nonetheless, it is not easy to interpret this documentation because only a small percentage of his correspondence was included in the register and the selection criteria are unknown. Moreover, it was customary to supplement the most important points of a letter with oral messages. The famous Dictatus papae ("Dictates of the Pope"), however, is part of the register. It consists of 27 brief and pointed declarations that extol papal primacy and even includes the radical claim that the pope had the right to depose emperors. Scholars agree that Gregory was the author of these assertions and that the Dictatus strikingly reveals his unflinching vision of papal primacy, even though the sources and purpose of the Dictatus are still in dispute. Politics Gregory VII had an astute grasp of political realities and was always willing to take them into account, provided they fit in with his own reform efforts. Papal territorial claims intensified markedly. He was the first pope to try to contact every ruler of his time, asserting the overlordship of the apostle Peter—that is, of the papacy—in several regions of Europe. The most successful example of the use of feudal arrangements by the papacy—Norman greed notwithstanding—was the alliance with the Norman leaders of southern Italy, concluded with Richard of Capua in 1073 and Robert Guiscard in 1059. Their obligations included fealty to the pope and his legitimate successors as well as military and financial aid. In return, the pope became their overlord and invested them with the imperial and Byzantine-Muslim territories that they had conquered or would conquer. In Spain, Croatia-Dalmatia, Denmark, Hungary, the kingdom of Kiev, Brittany, Poland, and Bohemia, as well as in England, Gregory tried to assert overlordship, mostly unsuccessfully. William I of England, whose invasion of 1066 Hildebrand had supported, refused outright the oath Gregory requested, although he resumed the Anglo-Saxon payment of Peter's Pence (annual contribution to the pope). Except in southern Italy, areas of northern Spain, and the islands of Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, Gregory's attempts to expand the role of the papacy met with little success. Direct papal intervention in the appointment of bishops created severe tensions in France and even more so in Germany, which, with Burgundy and much of Italy, constituted what would later be called the Holy Roman Empire (see Researcher's Note). As early as December 1073, Gregory called King Philip I of France (reigned 1059/60-1108) the worst of all princely tyrants oppressing the church because the king refused to invest a canonically elected bishop with the secular properties and rights of the bishopric. This controversy was inspired by Gregory's vision of proper canonical elections, which meant election by the clergy and populace of a diocese without any interference from secular rulers of any rank. Election was then a flexible term and should not be confused with the modern concept of democratic election. It was accepted as self-evident that the Holy Spirit should speak through the most influential members of a community, be it a diocese or abbey. This was a strong contrast to traditions that had prevailed for many centuries. Royal nominations to bishoprics and abbeys agreed to by representatives of the respective diocese had constituted an important part of royal authority at the time, and Gregory's insistence on the elimination of secular influence threatened the very existence of the kingdoms. This, at least, was the conviction of Emperor Henry IV. Philip of France also turned a deaf ear to papal commands, even when the pope threatened excommunication and interdict in December 1073 and a year later announced that he would do everything in his power to depose Philip. But the French bishops refused to make common cause with Gregory, and Philip's reign continued. His quarrels with the pope were smoothed over, and both parties were able to compromise without loss of face. This was not the case with regard to Henry IV and the empire, even though there were no signs of the coming conflict at the outset of Gregory's pontificate. Gregory recognized that Henry IV would soon be emperor and always thought very highly of Henry's parents, Henry III and Agnes. The pope suggested in a letter of December 1074 that Henry protect Rome and the Roman church during a papal expedition to the Holy Land that he wished to lead in the company of Empress Agnes and Countess Matilda of Tuscany. He relied on Henry's cooperation as well when he tried to bend the German bishops to his wishes and asked the king to order them to appear at his Roman synods. By December 1075, however, Gregory's attitude had changed. By letter and messenger (who may have threatened excommunication orally), the pope harshly blamed Henry IV for not negotiating in good faith and for having made royal appointments to the Italian bishoprics of Milan, Fermo, and Spoleto in accordance with old customs, which Gregory abhorred and ordered abolished. He also reproached Henry for continued contact with five of his advisers who had been excommunicated earlier by the pope. Contact with excommunicated persons automatically entailed excommunication for the offender. On January 24, 1076, at the imperial assembly of Worms, Henry IV and the vast majority of the German bishops replied in even harsher terms to Gregory's letter and oral message. The bishops renounced their obedience to "Frater Hildebrand," and the king called on Gregory to abdicate and on the Romans to elect a new pope. Northern Italian bishops immediately joined the action and renounced their support for Gregory. The letters reached Gregory during the customary Lenten synod (February 14-20, 1076), and the outraged pope reacted immediately, using a prayer to Peter to depose and excommunicate Henry. In the same prayer, Gregory also absolved all of Henry's subjects of their oath of fealty to the king. The effect of the excommunication was tremendous. Never before had a pope deposed a king, even though Gregory, according to a later letter, believed that he had historical precedents on his side, an assumption that even contemporaries considered untenable and a distortion of historical truth. Then as now, the deposition of Henry IV was the most hotly debated action taken by Gregory VII, who pursued to its logical conclusion his conviction that papal primacy pertained not only to the spiritual sphere but to the secular sphere as well. Church reform now became a contest for dominance between the priestly and the royal powers as they struggled to replace the Carolingian vision of mutual collaboration in which the church was entrusted to the monarchy for safekeeping. In Germany Gregory's action strengthened princely as well as episcopal opposition to Henry in a civil war that raged intermittently throughout his reign. In order to save his crown, Henry IV submitted to the pope at the castle of Canossa on January 28, 1077. Countess Matilda of Tuscany and Abbot Hugh of Cluny, Henry's godfather, had interceded for him. Gregory acted as a pastor of souls when he reconciled the king with the church, but Henry's footfall nonetheless was an implicit recognition of papal claims. The encounter at Canossa had interrupted Gregory's journey to Augsburg (now in Germany), where he was to meet German princes who had planned to elect a new ruler in opposition to Henry IV. Despite Gregory's absolution of Henry and return to Rome, the princes proceeded with their plan. Their nominee, Rudolf of Rheinfelden, was elected (anti-)king on March 15, 1077. The quarrel between Henry and Gregory intensified after the pope formally prohibited lay investiture at the council of November 1078. Investiture was the customary ceremony in which the emperor or king bestowed upon the bishops the ring and staff, the symbols of their office as well as of royal authority in and protection of the church. Nevertheless, Gregory at first tried to arbitrate between Henry and Rudolf, but he excommunicated Henry for a second time at the Lenten synod of 1080 and formally recognized Rudolf as king. However, after the absolution of Canossa, Henry had reasserted himself. The new excommunication had little effect, and the king was victorious in the civil war. Following the formal deposition of Gregory VII under the aegis of Henry IV by the synod of Brixen in June 1080 and the nomination of Archbishop Wibert of Ravenna as pope, Henry marched on Rome, supported by German and, especially, Italian troops. The Eternal City was finally captured in March 1084, when the Romans, including many cardinals and other clergy, opened the gates to Henry and his army. They had deserted the papal cause in response to Gregory's inflexibility. Wibert was enthroned as antipope Clement III, and Henry IV was crowned emperor. Gregory VII had at first sought refuge in the Castel Sant'Angelo but in July fled with his Norman liberators to Salerno, where he died on May 25, 1085. According to tradition, his last words were a paraphrase of a passage from Psalm 44, "I have loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile." Legacy It might appear that Gregory was less successful as pope than he had been as a papal adviser, for, in the course of his bitter conflict with Emperor Henry IV, he was defeated. Apart from the court of Matilda of Tuscany, where his legend lived on, Gregory was soon forgotten, and he was not canonized until 1606. The history of the papacy and of the church, however, was profoundly influenced by him. His staunch advocacy of clerical celibacy and repudiation of simony reshaped the church and helped establish the ideals of the reformers as the standard for the church. Moreover, papal primacy cannot be imagined without Gregory. In his lifetime he attempted to translate his own religious experience with its mystical core into historical reality. Concepts that he grasped intuitively were elaborated on legally and theoretically in the 12th and 13th centuries and resulted in what is known as the papal monarchy.

Arte della Seta

The Silk Weavers Guild or of Por Santa Maria was born in the late 12th century with the rise of the other guilds, in the area of the Piazza del Mercato Nuovo (New Market), today known as Loggia del Porcellino. In this area were concentrated the headquarters of the richest and most powerful merchant guilds, such as those of Wool Workers, Wool Merchants and Moneylenders. In addition to merchants, bankers were also particularly active in this area; indeed, in 1421 there were 72 banks here. The original headquarters of the Por Santa Maria Guild was located in the street that still today carries its name: around 1313, a workshop was rented here and adorned with a tabernacle containing the image of the Virgin Mary and two Saints. Towards the end of the 14th century, the headquarters in Via del Capaccio was purchased, and is still recognisable today for the Guild's coat of arms over the main door.

university of paris

The historic University of Paris (French: Université de Paris) first appeared in the second half of the twelfth century, but was in 1970 reorganized as 13 autonomous universities (University of Paris I-XIII). The university is often referred to as the Sorbonne or La Sorbonne after the collegiate institution (Collège de Sorbonne) founded in 1257 by Robert de Sorbon, but the university as such was older and was never completely centered on the Sorbonne. Of the thirteen current successor universities, four have a presence in the historical Sorbonne building, and three include "Sorbonne" in their names. The original university had four faculties: Arts, Medicine, Law, and Theology. The students there were divided into four nationes according to language or regional origin. This faculty and nation system of the University of Paris (along with that of the University of Bologna) became the model for all later medieval universities in Europe. Remarkable for its teaching, the University of Paris also played an important role in both religious and political affairs in France. However, with the French Revolution the ancient University of Paris was swept away along with the Ancien Régime, becoming part of the University of France. Reestablished in 1886, without its faculty of theology and with the addition of new faculties such as science, the university became secular. Still it again became a preeminent academic center, not just of France but of Europe as a whole in the mid-twentieth century. Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 The original schools 1.2 Organization in the thirteenth century 1.3 Colleges 1.4 Fifteenth century 1.5 Establishment of the University of France 2 Organization 2.1 Thirteen successor universities 2.2 Six alliances of universities 3 References 4 External links 5 Credits report this ad After the protests of 1968, which the University was significantly involved in, however, the French higher education system was again reformed, and the University of Paris was separated into 13 universities. Thus, despite their historical ties and some administrative functions of the Académie of Paris with offices in the Sorbonne, there is currently no University of Paris system that binds the universities at an academic level. Yet, the ideal of the University of Paris, the archetype of so many significant universities and the center of such historical intellectual development, continues to inspire and inform many. For although reform, such as that invoked by the French Revolution, has often been necessary in history to remove corrupt and outdated institutions, the wisdom and spirit of their founders is often of eternal value to humankind. History The Sorbonne, Paris, in a seventeenth century engraving Similar to the other early medieval universities (University of Bologna, University of Oxford), but unlike later ones (such as the University of Prague or the University of Heidelberg), the University of Paris was only later established through a specific foundation act (such as a royal charter or papal bull). The university grew up in the latter part of the twelfth century around the Notre Dame Cathedral as a corporation similar to other medieval corporations, such as guilds of merchants or artisans. In fact, the medieval Latin term universitas actually had the more general meaning of a guild, and the university of Paris was known as a universitas magistrorum et scholarium (a guild of masters and scholars). The university had four faculties: Arts, Medicine, Law, and Theology. The faculty of Arts was the lowest in rank, but also the largest as students had to graduate from there to be admitted to one of the higher faculties. The students there were divided into four nationes according to language or regional origin, those of France, Normandy, Picard, and England, the last one of which later came to be known as the Alemannian (German) nation. Recruitment to each nation was wider than the names might imply: the English-German nation in fact included students from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. The faculty and nation system of the University of Paris (along with that of the University of Bologna) became the model for all later medieval universities. The original schools Three schools were especially famous at Paris, the palatine or palace school, the school of Notre-Dame, and that of Sainte-Geneviève. The decline of royalty inevitably brought about the decline of the first. The other two, which were very old, like those of the cathedrals and the abbeys, were only faintly outlined during the early centuries of their existence. The glory of the palatine school doubtless eclipsed theirs, until in the course of time it completely gave way to them. The first renowned professor at the school of Ste-Geneviève was Hubold, who lived in the tenth century. Not content with the courses at Liège, he continued his studies at Paris, entered or allied himself with the chapter of Ste-Geneviève, and attracted many pupils via his teaching. Distinguished professors from the school of Notre-Dame in the eleventh century include Lambert, disciple of Filbert of Chartres; Drogo of Paris; Manegold of Germany; Anselm of Laon. These two schools attracted scholars from every country and produced many illustrious men, among whom were: Saint Stanislaus of Szczepanów, Bishop of Kraków; Gebbard, Archbishop of Salzburg; St. Stephen, third Abbot of Cîteaux; and Robert d'Arbrissel, founder of the Abbey of Fontevrault. Three other men who added esteem to the schools of Notre-Dame and Ste-Geneviève were William of Champeaux, Peter Abelard, and Peter Lombard. Hugo of St-Victor The school of St-Victor then arose to rival those of Notre-Dame and Ste-Geneviève. It was founded by William of Champeaux when he withdrew to the Abbey of St-Victor. Its most famous professors are Hugh of St-Victor and Richard of St-Victor. Originally instruction comprised grammar, rhetoric, dialectics, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy (trivium and quadrivium). To the higher instruction belonged dogmatic and moral theology, whose source was the Scriptures and the Fathers, and which was completed by the study of Canon law. The plan of studies expanded in the schools of Paris, as it did elsewhere. A Bolognese compendium of canon law called the "Decretum Gratiani" brought about a division of the theology department. Hitherto the discipline of the Church had not been separate from so-called theology; they were studied together under the same professor. But this vast collection necessitated a special course, which was naturally undertaken first at Bologna, where Roman law was taught. In France, first Orléans and then Paris erected chairs of canon law. Before the end of the twelfth century, the Decretals of Gerard (or Girard) La Pucelle, Mathieu d'Angers, and Anselm (or Anselle) of Paris, were added to the Decretum Gratiani. However, civil law was not included at Paris. In the course of the twelfth century, medicine also began to be publicly taught at Paris: the first professor of medicine in Paris records is Hugo, physicus excellens qui quadrivium docuit. Two things were necessary to be a professor: knowledge and appointment. Knowledge was proved by examination, the appointment came from the examiner himself, who was the head of the school, and was known as scholasticus, capiscol, and eventually as "chancellor." This appointment was called the license to teach. The license had to be granted freely. No one could teach without it; on the other hand, it could not be refused when the applicant deserved it. The School of St-Victor, which shared the obligations as well as the immunities of the abbey, conferred the license in its own right; the school of Notre-Dame depended on the diocese, that of Ste-Geneviève on the abbey or chapter. The diocese and the abbey or chapter, through their chancellor, gave professorial investiture in their respective territories where they had jurisdiction. Besides Notre-Dame, Ste-Geneviève, and St-Victor, there were several schools on the "Island" and on the "Mount." "Whoever," says Crevier "had the right to teach might open a school where he pleased, provided it was not in the vicinity of a principal school." Thus a certain Adam, who was of English origin, kept his "near the Petit Pont"; another Adam, Parisian by birth, "taught at the Grand Pont which is called the Pont-au-Change" (Tuilier, 1997 vol. I, 272). Meeting of doctors at the university of Paris. From a medieval manuscript. The number of students in the school of the capital grew constantly, so that eventually the lodgings were insufficient. French students included princes of the blood, sons of the nobility, and the most distinguished youths of the kingdom. The courses at Paris were considered so necessary as a completion of studies that many foreigners flocked to them. Popes Celestine II, Adrian IV, and Innocent III studied at Paris, and Alexander III sent his nephews there. Illustrious German and British students included Otto of Freisingen, Cardinal Conrad, Archbishop of Mainz, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and John of Salisbury; while Ste-Geneviève became practically the seminary for Denmark. The chroniclers of the time call Paris the city of letters par excellence, placing it above Athens, Alexandria, Rome, and other cities. Poets said the same thing in their verses, and they compared it to all that was greatest, noblest, and most valuable in the world. The three schools of Notre-Dame, Ste-Geneviève, and St-Victor may be regarded as the triple cradle of the Universitas scholarium, which included masters and students; hence the name University. Organization in the thirteenth century In 1200, King Philip II issued a diploma "for the security of the scholars of Paris" that made the students subject only to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The provost and other officers were forbidden to arrest a student for any offense, unless this was done to hand over the culprit to ecclesiastical authority. The king's officers could never lay hands on the head of the schools unless they had a mandate from an ecclesiastical authority. In 1215, the statues of the Apostolic legate, Robert de Courçon, dealt with three principal points regarding the moral and intellectual part of university instruction: the conditions of the professorate, the matter to be treated, and the granting of the license. To teach the arts it was necessary to have reached the age of twenty-one, after having studied these arts at least six years, and to take an engagement as professor for at least two years. For a chair in theology the candidate had to be thirty years of age with eight years of theological studies, of which the last three years were devoted to special courses of lectures in preparation for the mastership. Lastly, purity of morals was as important as reading. Priscian's "Grammar," Aristotle's "Dialectics," mathematics, astronomy, music, certain books of rhetoric and philosophy were the subjects taught in the arts course; to these might be added the Ethics of the Stagyrite and the fourth book of the Topics. The license was granted, according to custom, gratuitously, without oath or condition, and instruction was also free. However, it was often necessary to depart from the rule. Thus the pope authorized Pierre Le Mangeur to levy a moderate fee for the conferring of the license. Similar fees were exacted for the first degree in arts and letters. In 1229, a denial of justice by the queen led to suspension of the courses, known as the University of Paris strike of 1229. The pope intervened with a Bull that began with lavish praise of the university: "Paris," said Gregory IX, "mother of the sciences, is another Cariath-Sepher, city of letters." He compared it to a laboratory in which wisdom tested the metals which she found there, gold and silver to adorn the Spouse of Jesus Christ, iron to fashion the spiritual sword which should smite the inimical powers. He commissioned the Bishops of Le Mans and Senlis and the Archdeacon of Châlons to negotiate with the French Court for the restoration of the university. The year 1230 came to an end without any result, and Gregory IX took the matter directly in hand by a Bull of 1231 addressed to the masters and scholars of Paris. Not content with settling the dispute and giving guarantees for the future, he empowered the university to frame statutes concerning the discipline of the schools, the method of instruction, the defense of theses, the costume of the professors, and the obsequies of masters and students (expanding upon Robert de Courçon's statutes). Most importantly, the pope recognized in the university or granted it the right to suspend its courses, if justice were denied it, until it should receive full satisfaction. Thus the University of Paris, which in general was the model for other universities, assumed its basic form. It was composed of seven groups, the four nations of the faculty of arts, and the three superior faculties of theology, law, and medicine. Church officials lavishly praised the university: St. Louis, in the diploma which he granted to the Carthusians for their establishment near Paris, speaks of this city, where "flow the most abundant waters of wholesome doctrine, so that they become a great river which after refreshing the city itself irrigates the Universal Church." Colleges The Old Sorbonne before the fire in 1670. The scattered condition of the scholars in Paris often made lodging difficult. Some students rented rooms from townspeople, who often exacted high rates. This tension between scholars and citizens would have developed into a sort of civil war if Robert de Courçon had not found the remedy of taxation. It was upheld in the Bull of Gregory IX of 1231, but with an important modification: its exercise was to be shared with the citizens. The aim was to offer the students a shelter where they would fear neither annoyance from the owners nor the dangers of the world. Thus were founded the colleges, which were not usually centers of instruction, but simple student boarding-houses. Each had a special object, being established for students of the same nationality or the same science. They also enabled students to use their time more wisely, sometimes under the guidance of resident masters. Four colleges appeared in the twelfth century; they became more numerous in the thirteenth, including Collège d'Harcourt (1280) and the Collège de Sorbonne (1257). The Sorbonne today Besides the famous Collège de Sorbonne, other collegia provided housing and meals to students, sometimes for those of the same geographical origin in a more restricted sense than that represented by the nations. There were eight or nine collegia for foreign students: the oldest one was the Danish college, the Collegium danicum or dacicum, founded in 1257. Swedish students could, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, live in one of three Swedish colleges, the Collegium Upsaliense, the Collegium Scarense, or the Collegium Lincopense, named after the Swedish dioceses of Uppsala, Skara, and Linköping, the cathedral schools of which the scholars had presumably attended before travelling to Paris. The Scottish college or Collegium scoticum was founded in 1325 and the German College, Collegium alemanicum, is mentioned as early as 1345. The Lombard college or Collegium lombardicum was founded in the 1330s. The Collegium constantinopolitanum was, according to a tradition, founded in the thirteenth century to facilitate a merging of the eastern and western churches. It was later reorganized as a French institution, the Collège de la Marche-Winville. The Collège de Montaigu was founded by the Archbishop of Rouen in the fourteenth century, and reformed in the fifteenth century by the humanist Jan Standonck, when it attracted reformers from within the Roman Catholic Church (such as Erasmus and Loyola) and those who subsequently became Protestants (John Calvin and John Knox). Hastings Rashdall, in The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (1895), which is still a standard reference on the topic, lists some 70 colleges of the university from the Middle Ages alone; some of these were short-lived and disappeared already before the end of the medieval period, but others were founded in the Early modern period, like the Collège des Quatre-Nations. Fifteenth century Rector of the University of Paris and Doctor of the Sorbonne In the fifteenth century, Guillaume d'Estouteville, a cardinal and Apostolic legate, carried out a project to reform the university, correcting its abuses and introducing various needed modifications. This reform was less an innovation than a recall to the better observance of the old rules, as was the reform of 1600, undertaken by the royal government, with regard to the three superior faculties. For the faculty of arts, however, the reform of 1600 introduced the study of Greek, of the French poets and orators, and of additional classical figures like Hesiod, Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero, Virgil, and Sallust. The prohibition to teach civil law was never well observed at Paris, but in 1679 Louis XIV authorized the teaching of civil law in the faculty of decretals. Thus, the name "faculty of law" replaced that of "faculty of decretals." The colleges meantime had multiplied; those of Cardinal Le-Moine and Navarre were founded in the fourteenth century. The Hundred Years' War was fatal to these establishments, but the university set about remedying the injury. Remarkable for its teaching, the University of Paris played an important role in many areas: in the Church, during the Great Schism; in the councils, in dealing with heresies and deplorable divisions; in the State, during national crises; and though under the domination of England it dishonored itself in the trial of Joan of Arc, it rehabilitated itself by rehabilitating Joan. Proud of its rights and privileges, it fought energetically to maintain them, hence the long struggle against the mendicant orders on academic as well as on religious grounds. Hence also the shorter conflict against the Jesuits, who claimed by word and action a share in its teaching. It made liberal use of its right to decide administratively according to occasion and necessity. In some instances it openly endorsed the censures of the faculty of theology and pronounced condemnation in its own name, as in the case of the Flagellants. Its patriotism was especially manifested on two occasions. During the captivity of King John, when Paris was given over to factions, the university sought to restore peace; and under Louis XIV, when the Spaniards crossed the Somme and threatened the capital, it placed two hundred men at the king's disposal and offered the Master of Arts degree gratuitously to scholars who should present certificates of service in the army. Establishment of the University of France The ancient University of Paris was swept away along with the Ancien Régime during the French Revolution. On September 15, 1793, petitioned by the Department of Paris and several departmental groups, the National Convention decided that independently of the primary schools, there should be established in the Republic three progressive degrees of instruction; the first for the knowledge indispensable to artisans and workmen of all kinds; the second for further knowledge necessary to those intending to embrace the other professions of society; and the third for those branches of instruction the study of which is not within the reach of all men. Measures were to be taken immediately: For means of execution the department and the municipality of Paris are authorized to consult with the Committee of Public Instruction of the National Convention, in order that these establishments shall be put in action by 1 November next, and consequently colleges now in operation and the faculties of theology, medicine, arts, and law are suppressed throughout the Republic. This was a death-sentence for the university. All universities throughout the land were replaced by a single center, the University of France. After a century (in 1896), people recognized that the new system was less favorable to study and restored the old system, but without the faculty of theology. Organization La salle Saint-Jacques de la Bibliothèque de la Sorbonne The name Sorbonne (La Sorbonne) is commonly used to refer to the historic University of Paris or one of its successor institutions (see below), but this is a recent usage, and "Sorbonne" has actually been used with different meanings over the centuries. The name is derived from the Collège de Sorbonne, founded in 1257 by Robert de Sorbon as one of the first significant colleges of the medieval University of Paris; the university as such predates the college by about a century, and minor colleges had been founded already in the late twelfth century. The Collège de Sorbonne was suppressed during the French revolution, reopened by Napoleon in 1808, and finally closed in 1882. This was only one of the many colleges of the University of Paris that existed until the French revolution. During the later part of the nineteenth century, the buildings of the Collège de Sorbonne were re-used for the Faculties of Sciences and Letters of what was at the time known as the Academy of Paris, the name used for the faculties of the former University of Paris within the centralized structure known as the University of France, created in 1808 but dissolved into its constituent universities again in 1896. As a result of this, "Sorbonne" became a colloquial term for the entire University of Paris. By the mid-twentieth century the University of Paris had one again become a preeminent academic center, with numerous distinguished professors. In May 1968, a protest by students at the University of Paris, beginning with conflicts between students and authorities in Nanterre and then an organized protest at the Sorbonne, led to the closing of the university and a serious national crisis. This led to major educational reform and the decentralization of schools. Institut de Géographie, Sorbonne Paris IV, 191, Rue Saint-Jacques, Paris, France. Architect: Henri Paul Nénot In 1970, the historic university was divided into thirteen different universities. The thirteen universities stand under a common rectorate with offices in the Sorbonne. Four of these universities currently include the name "Sorbonne" in their names or are affiliated with the Sorbonne: Panthéon-Sorbonne University (Paris I), which also houses the observatory of the Sorbonne; Sorbonne Nouvelle University (Paris III); Paris-Sorbonne University (Paris IV); Paris Descartes University: Faculté des Sciences Humaines et Sociales - Sorbonne (Paris V). These four public universities maintain facilities in the historical building of the Sorbonne. The building also houses the Rectorate of Paris (which manage all of the 13 unversities of Paris), the École Nationale des Chartes, the École pratique des hautes études, the Cours de Civilisation Française de la Sorbonne and the Library of the Sorbonne. Today the word Sorbonne no longer refers to the University of Paris but to the historical building located in the Latin Quarter in the 5th arrondissement of Paris.

Albigensian Crusade

(1209 -1229) Pope Innocent III wrote a letter to everyone in France denouncing Raymond of Toulouse as a murderer and heretic -Called upon a crusade against Cathars, and urged the french to march against Languedoc -This was not a pilgrimmage so crusaders vows were fulfilled after 40 days of military service -Raymond VI agrees to charges and joins in on the fighting to make sure no one crossed into his lands.

Alexios Komnenos

Alexios I Komnenos, (born 1057, Constantinople, Byzantine Empire [now Istanbul, Turkey]—died August 15, 1118), Byzantine emperor (1081-1118) at the time of the First Crusade who founded the Comnenian dynasty and partially restored the strength of the empire after its defeats by the Normans and Turks in the 11th century. The third son of John Comnenus and a nephew of Isaac I (emperor 1057-59), Alexius came from a distinguished Byzantine landed family and was one of the military magnates who had long urged more effective defense measures, particularly against the Turks' encroaching on Byzantine provinces in eastern and central Anatolia. From 1068 to 1081 he gave able military service during the short reigns of Romanus IV, Michael VII, and Nicephorus III. Then, with the support of his brother Isaac and his mother, the formidable Anna Dalassena, and with that of the powerful Ducas family, to which his wife, Irene, belonged, he seized the Byzantine throne from Nicephorus III. Alexius was crowned on April 4, 1081. After more than 50 years of ineffective or short-lived rulers, Alexius, in the words of Anna Comnena, his daughter and biographer, found the empire "at its last gasp," but his military ability and diplomatic gifts enabled him to retrieve the situation. He drove back the south Italian Normans, headed by Robert Guiscard, who were invading western Greece (1081-82). This victory was achieved with Venetian naval help, bought at the cost of granting Venice extensive trading privileges in the Byzantine Empire. In 1091 he defeated the Pechenegs, Turkic nomads who had been continually surging over the Danube River into the Balkans. Alexius halted the further encroachment of the Seljuq Turks, who had already established the sultanate of Rūm (or Konya) in central Anatolia. He made agreements with Sulaymān ibn Qutalmïsh of Konya (1081) and subsequently with his son Qïlïch Arslan (1093), as well as with other Muslim rulers on Byzantium's eastern border. At home, Alexius's policy of strengthening the central authority and building up professional military and naval forces resulted in increased Byzantine strength in western and southern Anatolia and eastern Mediterranean waters. But he was unable or unwilling to limit the considerable powers of the landed magnates who had threatened the unity of the empire in the past. Indeed, he strengthened their position by further concessions, and he had to reward services, military and otherwise, by granting fiscal rights over specified areas. This method, which was to be increasingly employed by his successors, inevitably weakened central revenues and imperial authority. He repressed heresy and maintained the traditional imperial role of protecting the Eastern Orthodox church, but he did not hesitate to seize ecclesiastical treasure when in financial need. He was subsequently called to account for this by the church. To later generations Alexius appeared as the ruler who pulled the empire together at a crucial time, thus enabling it to survive until 1204, and in part until 1453, but modern scholars tend to regard him, together with his successors John II (reigned 1118-43) and Manuel I (reigned 1143-80), as having effected only stopgap measures. Judgments of Alexius must be tempered by allowing for the extent to which he was handicapped by the inherited internal weaknesses of the Byzantine state and, even more, by the series of crises precipitated by the western European Crusaders from 1097 onward. The Crusading movement, motivated partly by a desire to recapture the holy city of Jerusalem, partly by the hope of acquiring new territory, increasingly encroached on Byzantine preserves and frustrated Alexius's foreign policy, which was primarily directed toward the reestablishment of imperial authority in Anatolia. His relations with Muslim powers were disrupted on occasion, and former valued Byzantine possessions, such as Antioch, passed into the hands of arrogant Western princelings, who even introduced Latin Christianity in place of Greek. Thus, it was during Alexius's reign that the last phase of the clash between the Latin West and the Greek East was inaugurated. He did regain some control over western Anatolia; he also advanced into the southeast Taurus region, securing much of the fertile coastal plain around Adana and Tarsus, as well as penetrating farther south along the Syrian coast. But neither Alexius nor succeeding Comnenian emperors were able to establish permanent control over the Latin Crusader principalities. Nor was the Byzantine Empire immune from further Norman attacks on its western islands and provinces—as in 1107-08, when Alexius successfully repulsed Bohemond I of Antioch's assault on Avlona in western Greece. Continual Latin (particularly Norman) attacks, constant thrusts from Muslim principalities, the rising power of Hungary and the Balkan principalities—all conspired to surround Byzantium with potentially hostile forces. Even Alexius's diplomacy, whatever its apparent success, could not avert the continual erosion that ultimately led to the Ottoman conquest.

silk road

An ancient trade route between China and the Mediterranean Sea extending some 6,440 km (4,000 mi) and linking China with the Roman Empire. Marco Polo followed the route on his journey to Cathay.

reconquista

Beginning in the eleventh century, military campaigns by various Iberian Christian states to recapture territory taken by Muslims. In 1492 the last Muslim ruler was defeated, and Spain and Portugal emerged as united kingdoms.

Genoese galley ships

Galley, large seagoing vessel propelled primarily by oars. The Egyptians, Cretans, and other ancient peoples used sail-equipped galleys for both war and commerce. The Phoenicians were apparently the first to introduce the bireme (about 700 BC), which had two banks of oars staggered on either side of the vessel, with the upper bank situated above the lower so as to permit the oars of the upper bank to clear the oars below. The addition of an outrigger permitted the employment of a third bank of oars, the rowers of which sat above and outside the other two; such a ship, which was called a trireme, was probably first constructed about 500 BC by the Greeks. References to even more banks (for example, the quinquireme) are believed to indicate a ship of very large size but with no more than two or three banks of oars.

Chivalry (11th to 14th century)

In medieval Europe, a code of ethics known as chivalry developed which included rules and expectations that the nobility would, at all times, behave in a certain manner. Chivalry was, in addition, a religious, moral and social code which helped distinguish the higher classes from those below them and which provided a means by which knights could earn themselves a favourable reputation so that they might progress in their careers and personal relations. Evolving from the late 11th century CE onwards, essential chivalric qualities to be displayed included courage, military prowess, honour, loyalty, justice, good manners, and generosity - especially to those less fortunate than oneself. By the 14th century CE the notion of chivalry had become more romantic and idealised, largely thanks to a plethora of literature on the subject and so the code persisted right through the medieval period with occasional revivals thereafter.

popular heresy

Let's first define heresy. The technical definition is "error, obdurately held," which meant, in the Middle Ages, that a person believed something that was contrary to the "revealed truth" offered by God to humanity through the Church, and that the person continued to hold that belief even after it had been pointed out to him or her how that belief was contrary to "revealed truth." Heresy was both hated and feared. People believed in physical Hell, in which sinners would suffer the most excruciating pain imaginable forever and would be aware that their agony would never end. You would do well to think about that for a moment. The Church taught, and most people believed, that the only way to avoid such a fate was by following the teachings and being protected by the rituals (sacraments) of the Church. A heretic was doomed to Hell, but could also convince others of his or her wrong belief and so lead them to Hell also. So, a heretic was regarded as we might regard someone carrying a highly contagious and incurable disease. We would lock such a person up where they would not come in contact with anyone; the people of the Middle Ages killed them. Moreover, they often killed them in public and horrible ways as a warning to everyone of how dangerous heretics were. To round out the matter of definitions, the opposite of heresy was orthodoxy, or "right belief." There had been heresies since the emergence of the organized Church in the fourth century, but they had generally been disputes over points of theology: Arianism over the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, Donatism over the ability of sinful priests to administer efficacious sacraments, Pelagianism over the relative importance of faith and works in achieving salvation, and so forth. During the twelfth century, however, several heresies arose that were in fact criticisms of the practices of the Church rather than religious theory, and gained widespread support among the laity. Another matter of definitions. Church officers, such as priests, monks, bishops, and the like, are clerics, or clergymen, and those who are not are called laymen. Taken as a group, Church personnel are the clergy, while those who are not officers of the Church are called the laity. Ecclesiastical is an adjective meaning "having to do with the Church," while secular refers to the world outside of the Church. Secular clergy are priests, bishops, and others whose work brought them in close contact with the laity. Lay criticism of Church practices is called anti- clericalism.

Dhimmi

Literally "people of the book"; applied as inclusive term to Jews and Christians in Islamic territories; later extended to Zoroastrians and even Hindus & Buddhists

Little Ice Age

Little Ice Age (LIA), climate interval that occurred from the early 14th century through the mid-19th century, when mountain glaciers expanded at several locations, including the European Alps, New Zealand, Alaska, and the southern Andes, and mean annual temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere declined by 0.6 °C (1.1 °F) relative to the average temperature between 1000 and 2000 CE. The term Little Ice Age was introduced to the scientific literature by Dutch-born American geologist F.E. Matthes in 1939. Originally the phrase was used to refer to Earth's most recent 4,000-year period of mountain-glacier expansion and retreat. Today some scientists use it to distinguish only the period 1500-1850, when mountain glaciers expanded to their greatest extent, but the phrase is more commonly applied to the broader period 1300-1850. The Little Ice Age followed the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 900-1300 CE) and preceded the present period of warming that began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Columbian Exchange

Millions of years ago, continental drift carried the Old World and New Worlds apart, splitting North and South America from Eurasia and Africa. That separation lasted so long that it fostered divergent evolution; for instance, the development of rattlesnakes on one side of the Atlantic and vipers on the other. After 1492, human voyagers in part reversed this tendency. Their artificial re-establishment of connections through the commingling of Old and New World plants, animals, and bacteria, commonly known as the Columbian Exchange, is one of the more spectacular and significant ecological events of the past millennium. When Europeans first touched the shores of the Americas, Old World crops such as wheat, barley, rice, and turnips had not traveled west across the Atlantic, and New World crops such as maize, white potatoes, sweet potatoes, and manioc had not traveled east to Europe. In the Americas, there were no horses, cattle, sheep, or goats, all animals of Old World origin. Except for the llama, alpaca, dog, a few fowl, and guinea pig, the New World had no equivalents to the domesticated animals associated with the Old World, nor did it have the pathogens associated with the Old World's dense populations of humans and such associated creatures as chickens, cattle, black rats, and Aedes egypti mosquitoes. Among these germs were those that carried smallpox, measles, chickenpox, influenza, malaria, and yellow fever. The Columbian exchange of crops affected both the Old World and the New. Amerindian crops that have crossed oceans—for example, maize to China and the white potato to Ireland—have been stimulants to population growth in the Old World. The latter's crops and livestock have had much the same effect in the Americas—for example, wheat in Kansas and the Pampa, and beef cattle in Texas and Brazil. The full story of the exchange is many volumes long, so for the sake of brevity and clarity let us focus on a specific region, the eastern third of the United States of America.

Popolo governments

Popolo, (Italian: "people"), in the communes (city-states) of 13th-century Italy, a pressure group instituted to protect the interests of the commoners (actually, wealthy merchants and businessmen) against the nobility that up to then had exclusively controlled commune governments. It was one of a number of groups competing for power in the commune and in some cities succeeded in dominating the government in the late 13th century. The popolo was organized either on a territorial basis (by quarters or districts) or on a corporative basis (by guilds); in some cities, notably Florence, a combination of both types developed. It gradually developed its own officials, who paralleled those of the commune. In the mid-13th century the office of capitano del popolo ("captain of the people") became prominent. This official was charged with leading the military forces of the popolo and ensuring justice to injured members; like the communal officer known as the podestà, he was usually a native of another city. The effective leaders of the popolo were the local representatives, the anziani, or "elders" (sometimes known as priors). In Florence the organization of the popolo developed early and became quite powerful. From 1250 to 1260 it controlled the government (in the regime known as il primo popolo), and after the seizure of power in 1282 its power was firmly established. By the beginning of the 14th century, its priors, chosen from among guild members, formed the supreme executive of the commune. In the writings of medieval chroniclers and modern historians, the term popolo grasso ("fat people") refers to the wealthy middle class of merchants and businessmen that dominated the economic and political life of the Italian communes. The term popolo minuto ("small [or common] people") refers to the lower-middle class of proprietors of small shops and small merchants denied direct participation in government; it is sometimes extended to include the wage-earning proletariat, the most economically deprived group.

Great Famine

The Great Famine of 1315-1317 (sometimes the period of 1315-1322 is given) is the first in a series of large-scale disasters of the late Middle Ages that befell Europe at the beginning of the XIV century. The great famine caused millions of deaths (according to estimates, around 10 to 25% of the urban population died) and marked the end of the previous period of growth and prosperity of the 11th — 13th centuries. It covered almost the whole of Northern Europe - the current territory of Ireland, Great Britain, France, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany and Poland. Europe south of the Alps (Italy) and the Pyrenees (Southern Spain), as well as lands east of the Kingdom of Poland and much of Byzantium avoided this disaster. The reason for the development and spread of the "great famine" of the beginning of the XIV century was the anomalously high level of precipitation, which was observed almost everywhere in Europe, starting with the territories of modern Ireland and ending with Poland, Belarus and Lithuania. The adverse weather conditions of the spring of 1315, the ensuing crop failures and the sharp rise in food prices, caused an acute shortage of food that lasted two years and had an effect even before 1322. At this time, thousands of people died every day, public rules ceased to operate. Many parents abandoned their children, some sold theirs to save them or buy food, cannibalism became widespread, crime increased unusually, and the spread of diseases increased. This period has had serious consequences for the church, states, European society and the future disasters of the XIV century. At present, the Great Famine offensive is associated with the Little Ice Age, the causes of which are long-term solar activity cycles (Maunder minimum), slowing of thermohaline circulation (in particular, slowing down of the Gulf Stream), and volcanic eruptions (possibly Tararavera in New Zealand). In addition, the shortage of food and pet food that caused this large-scale catastrophe in medieval Europe cannot be attributed only to changing weather conditions, heavy rains and fierce winters. Poor economic planning with the communal way of farming and the complex interaction of many social and environmental factors also played a role in this disaster: the demographic peak in Europe, marked by 1300 during the Medieval warm period (X-XIII cc.) ; unusually high economic integration, diseases of livestock and poultry, unstable prices due to crop failures, class antagonism, consequences of constant wars, and uneven distribution of resources.

three field system

The three-field system is a regime of crop rotation that was used in medieval and early-modern Europe. Crop rotation is the practice of growing a series of different types of crops in the same area in sequential seasons. Three-field system with ridge and furrow fields (furlongs) The three-field system let farmers plant more crops and therefore increase production. Under this system, the arable land of an estate or village was divided into three large fields: one was planted in the autumn with winter wheat or rye; the second field was planted with other crops such as peas, lentils, or beans; and the third was left fallow (unplanted). Cereal crops deplete the ground of nitrogen, but legumes can fix nitrogen and so fertilize the soil. The fallow fields were soon overgrown with weeds and used for grazing farm animals. Their excrement fertilized that field's soil to regain its nutrients. Crop assignments were rotated every year, so each field segment would be planted for two out of every three years. Previously a "two field system" had been in place, with half the land being left fallow. With more crops available to sell and agriculture dominating the economy at the time, the three-field system created a significant surplus and increased economic prosperity.[1] The three-field system needed more plowing of land and its introduction coincided with the adoption of the moldboard plow. These parallel developments complemented each other and increased agricultural productivity. The legume crop needed summer rain to succeed, and so the three-field system was less successful around the Mediterranean. Oats for horse food could also be planted in the spring, which, combined with the adoption of horse collars and horseshoes, led to replacement of oxen by horses for many farming tasks, with an associated increase in agricultural productivity and the nutrition available to the population.[2] One of the first Germans to question this system, and new ways of expanding beyond this medieval system was Johann Friedrich Mayer, in his 1769 work Lehre vom Gyps als vorzueglich guten Dung zu allen Erd-Gewaechsen auf Aeckern und Wiesen, Hopfen- und Weinbergen.[3]

Wat Tyler

Wat Tyler, byname of Walter Tyler, (died June 15, 1381, London), leader of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381, the first great popular rebellion in English history; his leadership proved one of the chief factors in the success of protest against the harsh taxation of the poorer classes. Chosen as captain by the Kentish rebels on June 7, Tyler led them in the capture of Canterbury (June 10); of the Savoy palace belonging to John of Gaunt, the King's uncle (June 13); and of London Bridge and the Tower of London (June 14). Although King Richard II promised concessions on June 14, Tyler's men refused to disarm and disband. They met with Richard on June 15 at Smithfield, where Tyler presented more radical demands, which included the confiscation of all church lands. Fighting broke out in the course of the negotiations, and Tyler was badly wounded. His followers carried him to St. Bartholomew's Hospital, from which he was later dragged away and beheaded by order of the lord mayor of London, William (later Sir William) Walworth. After Tyler's death the government quickly reasserted its authority and ended the rebellion.

Yersinia pestis

Yersinia pestis: The bacteria that causes the bubonic plague which in the year 541 (as the Black Death) and later in the Middle Ages decimated Europe. The effects of the plague are described in the nursery rhyme "We all fall down." Y. pestis mainly infects rats and other rodents which are the prime reservoir for the bacteria. Fleas are the prime vectors carrying the bacteria from one species to another. They bite rodents infected with Y. pestis, then they bite people and so transmit the disease to them. Transmission of the plague to people can also occur from eating infected animals such as squirrels. Once someone has the plague, they can transmit it to another person via aerosol droplets. Plague occurs in the U.S. It is treatable with antibiotics but, if not treated promptly, can promptly lead to death. Yersinia is named after the Swiss bacteriologist Alexandre-Emile-Jean Yersin (1863-1943) who identified it in 1894 after a trip to Hong Kong looking for the agent that was killing thousands of people in southern China. The bacteria was also discovered at the same time by the Japanese bacteriologist Shibasaburo Kitasako.

Ashkenazi Jews

the matrilineal line for the Ashkenazi Jews comes from Europe. This goes against the common belief that Jewish people first arrived in central Europe after the Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628 and only began settling in Germany in the Medieval period. Ashkenazi Jews is the term used today to describe these Jewish people - individuals who built religiously-based communities centuries later in Central and Eastern Europe. One of the things they are recognized for is the use of Yiddish - a High German language written in the Hebrew alphabet and influenced by classical Hebrew and Aramaic.