Feudalism had a vigorous life for about five hundred years. Taking definite form early in the ninth century, it flourished throughout the later Middle Ages, but became decadent by the opening of the fourteenth century.
FORCES OPPOSED TO FEUDALISM: THE KINGS
As a system of local government, feudalism tended to pass away when the rulers in England, France, and Spain, and later in Germany and Italy, became powerful enough to put down private warfare, execute justice, and maintain order everywhere in their dominions. The kings were always anti- feudal. We shall study in a later chapter (Chapter XXII) the rise of strong governments and centralized states in western Europe.
FORCES OPPOSED TO FEUDALISM: THE CITIES
As a system of local industry, feudalism could not survive the great changes of the later Middle Ages, when reviving trade, commerce, and manufactures had begun to lead to the increase of wealth, the growth of markets, and the substitution of money payments for those in produce or services. Flourishing cities arose, as in the days of the Roman Empire, freed themselves from the control of the nobles, and became the homes of liberty and democracy. The cities, like the kings, were always anti- feudal. We shall deal with their development in a subsequent chapter (Chapter XXIII).
THE CHURCH AND FEUDALISM
There was still another anti-feudal force, namely, the Roman Church. It is true that many of the higher clergy were feudal lords, and that even the monasteries owned vast estates which were parceled out among tenants. Nevertheless, the Roman Church as a universal organization, including men of all ranks and classes, was necessarily opposed to feudalism, a local and an aristocratic system. The work and influence of this Church will now engage our attention.
STUDIES
1. Write a brief essay on feudal society, using the following words: lord; vassal; castle; keep; dungeon; chivalry; tournament; manor; and serf.
2. Explain the following terms: vassal; fief; serf; “aid”; homage; squire; investiture; and “relief.”
3. Look up the origin of the words homage, castle, dungeon, and chivalry.
4. “The real heirs of Charlemagne were from the first neither the kings of France nor those of Italy or Germany; but the feudal lords.” Comment on this statement.
5. Why was the feudal system not found in the Roman Empire in the East during the Middle Ages?
6. Why has feudalism been called “confusion roughly organized”?
7. Contrast feudalism as a political system with (a) the classical city- states, (b) the Roman Empire, and (c) modern national states.
8. What was the effect of feudalism on the sentiment of patriotism?
9. What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of primogeniture as the rule of inheritance?
10. Explain these phrases: “to be in hot water;” “to go through fire and water;” and “to haul over the coals.”
11. Compare the oaths administered to witnesses in modern courts with medieval oaths.
12. Why was war the usual condition of feudal society?
13. Compare the “Peace of God” with the earlier “Roman Peace” (_Pax Romana_).
14. Mention some modern comforts and luxuries which were unknown in feudal castles.
15. What is the present meaning of the word “chivalrous”? How did it get that meaning?
16. Why has chivalry been called “the blossom of feudalism”?
17. Contrast the ideal of a chivalry with that of monasticism.
18. Show that the serf was not a slave or a “hired man” or a tenant-farmer paying rent.
FOOTNOTES
[1] See page 312.
[2] The word has nothing to do with “feuds,” though these were common enough in feudal times. It comes from the medieval Latin _feudum_, from which are desired the French _fief_ and the English _fee_.
[3] See pages 472, 478.
[4] The practice of primogeniture has now been abolished by the laws of the various European countries and is not recognized in the United States. It still prevails, however, in England.
[5] Latin _homo_, “man.”
[6] Sir Walter Scott’s novel, _Ivanhoe_ (chapter xliii), contains an account of a judicial duel.
[7] See page 326.
[8] See page 331.
[9] See the illustrations, pages 408, 421, 422, 473.
[10] The French form of the word is _chateau_.
[11] A good example is the “White Tower,” which forms a part of the Tower of London. It was built by William the Conqueror. See the illustration, page 498.
[12] See page 560.
[13] Malory, _Morte d’Arthur_, xxi, 13. See also Tennyson’s poem, _Sir Galahad_, for a beautiful presentation of the ideal knight.
[14] Sir Walter Scott’s novel, _Ivanhoe_ (chapter xii), contains a description of a tournament.
[15] _Don Quixote_, by the Spanish writer, Cervantes (1547-1616 A.D.), is a famous satire on chivalry. Our American “Mark Twain” also stripped off the gilt and tinsel of chivalry in his amusing story entitled _A Connecticut Yankee at the Court of King Arthur_.
[16] See page 208.
[17] According to Domesday Book (see page 499) there were 9250 manors, of which William the Conqueror possessed 1422. His manors lay in about thirty counties.
[18] This “open field” system of agriculture, as it is usually called, still survives in some parts of Europe. See the plan of Hitchin Manor, page 435.
[19] See page 581-582.
[20] See page 612.
CHAPTER XIX
THE PAPACY AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, 962-1273 A.D. [1]
159. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH
THE ROMAN CHURCH
A preceding chapter dealt with the Christian Church in the East and West during the early Middle Ages. We learned something about its organization, belief, and worship, about the rise and growth of the Papacy, about monasticism, and about that missionary campaign which won all Europe to Christianity. Our narrative extended to the middle of the eleventh century, when the quarrel between pope and patriarch led at length to the disruption of Christendom. We have now to consider the work and influence of the Roman Church during later centuries of the Middle Ages.
TERRITORIAL EXTENT OF THE CHURCH
The Church at the height of its power held spiritual sway over all western Europe. Italy and Sicily, the larger part of Spain, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, British Isles, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland yielded obedience to the pope of Rome.
THE CHURCH AS UNIVERSAL
Membership in the Church was not a matter of free choice. All people, except Jews, were required to belong to it. A person joined the Church by baptism, a rite usually performed in infancy, and remained in it as long as he lived. Every one was expected to conform, at least outwardly, to the doctrines and practices of the Church, and anyone attacking its authority was liable to punishment by the state.
THE CHURCH AS INTERNATIONAL
The presence of one Church throughout the western world furnished a bond of union between European peoples during the age of feudalism. The Church took no heed of political boundaries, for men of all nationalities entered the ranks of the priesthood and joined the monastic orders. Priests and monks were subjects of no country, but were “citizens of heaven,” as they sometimes called themselves. Even difference of language counted for little in the Church, since Latin was the universal speech of the educated classes. One must think, then, of the Church as a great international state, in form a monarchy, presided over by the pope, and with its capital at Rome.
TWOFOLD DUTIES OF THE CHURCH
The Church in the Middle Ages performed a double task. On the one hand it gave the people religious instruction and watched over their morals; on the other hand it played an important part in European politics and provided a means of government. Because the Church thus combined ecclesiastical and civil functions, it was quite unlike all modern churches, whether Greek, Roman, or Protestant. Both sides of its activities deserve, therefore, to be considered.
160. CHURCH DOCTRINE AND WORSHIP
“THE GATE OF HEAVEN.”
In medieval times every loyal member of the Church accepted without question its authority in religious matters. The Church taught a belief in a personal God, all-wise, all-good, all-powerful, to know whom was the highest goal of life. The avenue to this knowledge lay through faith in the revelation of God, as found in the Scriptures. Since the unaided human reason could not properly interpret the Scriptures, it was necessary for the Church, through her officers, to declare their meaning and set forth what doctrines were essential to salvation. The Church thus appeared as the sole repository of religious knowledge, as “the gate of heaven.”
THE SACRAMENTAL SYSTEM
Salvation did not depend only on the acceptance of certain beliefs. There were also certain acts, called “sacraments,” in which the faithful Christian must participate, if he was not to be cut off eternally from God. These acts formed channels of heavenly grace; they saved man from the consequences of his sinful nature and filled him with “the fullness of divine life.” Since priests alone could administer the sacraments, [2] the Church presented itself as the necessary mediator between God and man.
BAPTISM, CONFIRMATION, MATRIMONY, AND EXTREME UNCTION
By the thirteenth century seven sacraments were generally recognized. Four of these marked critical stages in human life, from the cradle to the grave. Baptism cleansed the child from the taint of original sin and admitted him into the Christian community. Confirmation gave him full Church fellowship. Matrimony united husband and wife in holy bonds which might never be broken. Extreme Unction, the anointing with oil of one mortally ill, purified the soul and endowed it with strength to meet death.
PENANCE
Penance held an especially important place in the sacramental system. At least once a year the Christian must confess his sins to a priest. If he seemed to be truly repentant, the priest pronounced the solemn words of absolution and then required him to accept some punishment, which varied according to the nature of the offense. There was a regular code of penalties for such sins as drunkenness, avarice, perjury, murder, and heresy. Penances often consisted in fasting, reciting prayers, abstaining from one’s ordinary amusements, or beating oneself with bundles of rods. A man who had sinned grievously might be ordered to engage in charitable work, to make a contribution in money for the support of the Church, or to go on a pilgrimage to a sacred shrine. The more distant and difficult a pilgrimage, the more meritorious it was, especially if it led to some very holy place, such as Rome or Jerusalem. People might also become monks in order to atone for evil-doing. This system of penitential punishment referred only to the earthly life; it was not supposed to cleanse the soul for eternity.
HOLY EUCHARIST
The sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, generally known as the Mass, formed the central feature of worship. It was more than a common meal in commemoration of the Last Supper of Christ with the Apostles. It was a solemn ceremony, by which the Christian believed himself to receive the body and blood of Christ, under the form of bread and wine. [3] The right of the priest to withhold the Eucharist from any person, for good cause, gave the Church great power, because the failure to partake of this sacrament imperiled one’s chances of future salvation. It was also supposed that the benefits of the ceremony in purifying from sin might be enjoyed by the dead in Purgatory; hence masses were often said for the repose of their souls.
ORDINATION
The seventh and last sacrament, that of Ordination, or “Holy Orders,” admitted persons to the priesthood. According to the view of the Church the rite had been instituted by Christ, when He chose the Apostles and sent them forth to preach the Gospel. From the Apostles, who ordained their successors, the clergy in all later times received their exalted authority. [4] Ordination conferred spiritual power and set such an indelible mark on the character that one who had been ordained could never become a simple layman again.
[Illustration: PILGRIMS TO CANTERBURY From a medieval manuscript. Canterbury with its cathedral appears in the background. The shrine of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, formed a celebrated resort for medieval pilgrims. The archbishop had been murdered in the church (1180 A.D.), if not at the instigation, at any rate without the opposition of King Henry II, whose policies he opposed. Becket, who was regarded as a martyr, soon received canonization. Miracles were said to be worked at his grave and at the well in which his bloody garments had been washed. He remained the most popular saint in England until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, when his shrine was destroyed.]
REVERENCE FOR SAINTS
The Church did not rely solely on the sacramental system as a means to salvation. It was believed that holy persons, called saints, [5] who had died and gone to Heaven, offered to God their prayers for men. Hence the practice arose of invoking the aid of the saints in all the concerns of life. The earliest saints were Christian martyrs, [6] who had sealed their faith with their blood. In course of time many other persons, renowned for pious deeds, were exalted to sainthood. The making of a new saint, after a rigid inquiry into the merits of the person whom it is proposed to honor, is now a privilege reserved to the pope.
DEVOTION TO THE VIRGIN
High above all the saints stood the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. Devotion to her as the “Queen of Heaven” increased rapidly in the Church after the time of Gregory the Great. The popularity of her cult owed not a little to the influence of chivalry, [7] for the knight, who vowed to cherish womanhood, saw in the Virgin the ideal woman. Everywhere churches arose in her honor, and no cathedral or abbey lacked a chapel dedicated to Our Lady.
RELICS
The growing reverence for saints led to an increased interest in relics. These included the bones of a saint and shreds of his garments, besides such objects as the wood or nails of the cross on which Christ suffered. Relics were not simply mementos; they were supposed to possess miraculous power which passed into them through contact with holy persons. This belief explains the use of relics to heal diseases, to ward off danger, and, in general, to bring good fortune. An oath taken upon relics was especially sacred. [8] Every church building contained a collection of relics, sometimes amounting to thousands in number, and even private persons often owned them.
PURGATORY
The Church also taught a belief in Purgatory as a state or place of probation. [9] Here dwelt the souls of those who were guilty of no mortal sins which would condemn them to Hell, but yet were burdened with imperfections which prevented them from entering Heaven. Such imperfections, it was held, might be removed by the prayers of the living, and hence the practice arose of praying for the dead.
161. CHURCH JURISDICTION
CHURCH COURTS
The Church had regular courts and a special system of law [10] for the trial of offenders against its regulations. Many cases, which to-day would be decided according to the civil or criminal law of the state, in the Middle Ages came before the ecclesiastical courts. Since marriage was considered a sacrament, the Church took upon itself to decide what marriages were lawful. It forbade the union of first cousins, of second cousins, and of godparents and godchildren. It refused to sanction divorce, for whatever cause, if both parties at the time of marriage had been baptized Christians. The Church dealt with inheritance under wills, for a man could not make a legal will until he had confessed, and confession formed part of the sacrament of Penance. All contracts made binding by oaths came under Church jurisdiction, because an oath was an appeal to God. [11] The Church tried those who were charged with any sin against religion, including heresy, blasphemy, the taking of interest (usury), and the practice of witchcraft. Widows, orphans, and the families of pilgrims or crusaders also enjoyed the special protection of Church courts.
“BENEFIT OF CLERGY”
The Church claimed the privilege of judging all cases which involved clergymen. No layman, it was declared, ought to interfere with one who, by the sacrament of Ordination, had been dedicated to God. This demand of the Church to try its own officers, according to its own mild and intelligent laws, seems not unreasonable, when we remember how rude were the methods of feudal justice. But “benefit of clergy,” as the privilege was called, might be abused. Many persons who had no intention of acting as priests or monks became clergymen, in order to shield themselves behind the Church in case their misdeeds were exposed.
RIGHT OF “SANCTUARY.”
An interesting illustration of the power of the Church is afforded by the right of “sanctuary.” Any lawbreaker who fled to a church building enjoyed, for a limited time, the privilege of safe refuge. It was considered a sin against God to drag even the most wicked criminal from the altar. The most that could be done was to deny the refugee food, so that he might come forth voluntarily. This privilege of seeking sanctuary was not without social usefulness, for it gave time for angry passions to cool, thus permitting an investigation of the charges against an offender.
EXCOMMUNICATION
Disobedience to the regulations of the Church might be followed by excommunication. It was a punishment which cut off the offender from all Christian fellowship. He could not attend religious services nor enjoy the sacraments so necessary to salvation. If he died excommunicate, his body could not be buried in consecrated ground. By the law of the state he lost all civil rights and forfeited all his property. No one might speak to him, feed him, or shelter him. This terrible penalty, it is well to point out, was usually imposed only after the sinner had received a fair trial and had spurned all entreaties to repent. [12]
INTERDICT
The interdict, another form of punishment, was directed against a particular locality, for the fault of some of the inhabitants who could not be reached directly. In time of interdict the priests closed the churches and neither married the living nor buried the dead. Of the sacraments only Baptism, Confirmation, and Penance were permitted. All the inhabitants of the afflicted district were ordered to fast, as in Lent, and to let their hair grow long in sign of mourning. The interdict also stopped the wheels of government, for courts of justice were shut, wills could not be made, and public officials were forbidden to perform their duties. In some cases the Church went so far as to lay an interdict upon an entire kingdom, whose ruler had refused to obey her mandate. [13] The interdict has now passed out of use, but excommunication still retains its place among the spiritual weapons of the Church.
162. THE SECULAR CLERGY
THE SECULAR AND REGULAR CLERGY
Some one has said that in the Middle Ages there were just three classes of society: the nobles who fought; the peasants who worked; and the clergy who prayed. The latter class was divided into the secular [14] clergy, including deacons, priests, and bishops, who lived active lives in the world, and the regular [15] clergy, or monks, who passed their days in seclusion behind monastery walls.
POSITION OF THE CLERGY
It has been already pointed out how early both secular and regular clergy came to be distinguished from the laity by abstention from money-making activities, differences in dress, and the obligation of celibacy. [16] Being unmarried, the clergy had no family cares; being free from the necessity of earning their own living, they could devote all their time and energy to the service of the Church. The sacrament of Ordination, which was believed to endow the clergy with divine power, also helped to strengthen their influence. They appeared as a distinct order, in whose charge was the care of souls and in whose hands were the keys of heaven.
PARISH PRIESTS
An account of the secular clergy naturally begins with the parish priest, who had charge of a parish, the smallest division of Christendom. No one could act as a priest without the approval of the bishop, but the nobleman who supported the parish had the privilege of nominating candidates for the position. The priest derived his income from lands belonging to the parish, from tithes, [17] and from voluntary contributions, but as a rule he received little more than a bare living. The parish priest was the only Church officer who came continually into touch with the common people. He baptized, married, and buried his parishioners. For them he celebrated Mass at least once a week, heard confessions, and granted absolution. He watched over all their deeds on earth and prepared them for the life to come. And if he preached little, he seldom failed to set in his own person an example of right living.
THE PARISH CHURCH
The church, with its spire which could be seen afar off and its bells which called the faithful to worship, formed the social center of the parish. Here on Sundays and holy days the people assembled for the morning and evening services. During the interval between religious exercises they often enjoyed games and other amusements in the adjoining churchyard. As a place of public gathering the parish church held an important place in the life of the Middle Ages.
BISHOPS
A group of parishes formed a diocese, over which a bishop presided. It was his business to look after the property belonging to the diocese, to hold the ecclesiastical courts, to visit the clergy, and to see that they did their duty. The bishop alone could administer the sacraments of Confirmation and Ordination. He also performed the ceremonies at the consecration of a new church edifice or shrine. Since the Church held vast estates on feudal tenure, the bishop was usually a territorial lord, owing a vassal’s obligations to the king or to some powerful noble for his land and himself ruling over vassals in different parts of the country. As symbols of his power and dignity the bishop wore on his head the miter and carried the pastoral staff, or crosier. [18]
[Illustration: A BISHOP ORDAINING A PRIEST From an English manuscript of the twelfth century. The bishop wears a miter and holds in his left hand the pastoral staff, or crosier. His right hand is extended in blessing over the priest’s head.]
ARCHBISHOPS
Above the bishop in rank stood the archbishop. In England, for example, there were two archbishops, one residing at York and the other at Canterbury. The latter, as “primate of all England,” was the highest ecclesiastical dignitary in the land. An archbishop’s distinctive vestment consisted of the _pallium_, a narrow band of white wool, worn around the neck. The pope alone could confer the right to wear the _pallium_.
THE CATHEDRAL
The church which contained the official seat or throne [19] of a bishop or archbishop was called a cathedral. It was ordinarily the largest and most magnificent church in the diocese. [20]
163. THE REGULAR CLERGY
DECLINE OF MONASTICISM
The regular clergy, or monks, during the early Middle Ages belonged to the Benedictine order. By the tenth century, however, St. Benedict’s Rule had lost much of its force. As the monasteries increased in wealth through gifts of land and goods, they sometimes became centers of idleness, luxury, and corruption. The monks forgot their vows of poverty; and, instead of themselves laboring as farmers, craftsmen, and students, they employed laymen to work for them. At the same time powerful feudal lords frequently obtained control of the monastic estates by appointing as abbots their children or their retainers. Grave danger existed that the monasteries would pass out of Church control and decline into mere fiefs ruled by worldly men.
THE CLUNIAC REVIVAL
A great revival of monasticism began in 910 A.D., with the foundation of the monastery of Cluny in eastern France. The monks of Cluny led lives of the utmost self-denial and followed the Benedictine Rule in all its strictness. Their enthusiasm and devotion were contagious; before long Cluny became a center from which a reformatory movement spread over France and then over all western Europe. By the middle of the twelfth century more than three hundred monasteries looked to Cluny for inspiration and guidance.
THE “CONGREGATION OF CLUNY”
Each of the earlier Benedictine monasteries had been an isolated community, independent and self-governing. Consequently, when discipline grew lax or when the abbot proved to be an incapable ruler, it was difficult to correct the evils which arose. In the Cluniac system, however, all the monasteries formed parts of one organization, the “Congregation of Cluny.” The abbot of Cluny appointed their “priors,” or heads, and required every monk to pass several years of his monastic life at Cluny itself. This monarchical arrangement helps to explain why for two hundred years the abbot of Cluny was, next to the pope, the most important churchman in western Europe.
THE CISTERCIAN ORDER
Other monastic orders arose in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Of these, the most important was the Cistercian, founded in 1098 A.D. at Citeaux, not far from Cluny. The keynote of Cistercian life was the return to a literal obedience of St. Benedict’s Rule. Hence the members of the order lived in the utmost simplicity, cooking their own meager repasts and wearing coarse woolen garments woven from the fleeces of their own sheep. The Cistercians especially emphasized the need for manual labor. They were the best farmers and cattle breeders of the Middle Ages. Western Europe owes even more to them than to the Benedictines for their work as pioneers in the wilderness. “The Cistercians,” declared a medieval writer, “are a model to all monks, a mirror for the diligent, a spur to the indolent.”
ST. BERNARD, 1090-1153 A.D.
The whole spirit of medieval monasticism found expression in St. Bernard, a Burgundian of noble birth. While still a young man he resolved to leave the world and seek the repose of the monastic life. He entered Citeaux, carrying with him thirty companions. Mothers are said to have hid their sons from him, and wives their husbands, lest they should be converted to monasticism by his persuasive words. After a few years at Citeaux St. Bernard established the monastery of Clairvaux, over which he ruled as abbot till his death. His ascetic life, piety, eloquence, and ability as an executive soon brought him into prominence. People visited Clairvaux from far and near to listen to his preaching and to receive his counsels. The monastery flourished under his direction and became the parent of no less than sixty-five Cistercian houses which were planted in the wilderness. St. Bernard’s activities widened, till he came to be the most influential man in western Christendom. It was St. Bernard who acted as an adviser of the popes, at one time deciding between two rival candidates for the Papacy, who combated most vigorously the heresies of the day, and who by his fiery appeals set in motion one of the crusades. [21] The charm of his character is revealed to us in his sermons and letters, while some of the Latin hymns commonly attributed to him are still sung in many churches, both Roman Catholic and Protestant.
164. THE FRIARS
COMING OF THE FRIARS
The history of Christian monasticism exhibits an ever-widening social outlook. The early hermits [22] had devoted themselves, as they believed, to the service of God by retiring desert for prayer, meditation, and bodily mortification. St. Benedict’s wise Rule, as followed by the medieval monastic orders, marked a change for the better. It did away with extreme forms of self-denial, brought the monks together in a common house, and required them to engage in daily manual labor. Yet even the Benedictine system had its limitations. The monks lived apart from the world and sought chiefly the salvation of their own souls. A new conception of the monastic life arose early in the thirteenth century, with the coming of the friars. [23] The aim of the friars was social service. They lived active lives in the world and devoted themselves entirely to the salvation of others. The foundation of the orders of friars was the work of two men, St. Francis in Italy and St. Dominic in Spain.
ST. FRANCIS, 1181(?)-1226 A.D.
Twenty-eight years after the death of St. Bernard, St. Francis was born at Assisi. As the son of a rich and prominent merchant St. Francis had before him the prospect of a fine career in the world. But he put away all thoughts of fame and wealth, deserted his gay companions, and, choosing “Lady Poverty” as his bride, started out to minister to lepers and social outcasts. One day, while attending Mass, the call came to him to preach the Gospel, as Christ had preached it, among the poor and lowly. The man’s earnestness and charm of manner soon drew about him devoted followers. After some years St. Francis went to Rome and obtained Pope Innocent III’s sanction of his work. The Franciscan order spread so rapidly that even in the founder’s lifetime there were several thousand members in Italy and other European countries.
[Illustration: ST. FRANCIS BLESSING THE BIRDS From a painting by the Italian artist Giotto.]
ST. FRANCIS, THE MAN
St. Francis is one of the most attractive figures in all history. Perhaps no other man has ever tried so seriously to imitate in his own life the life of Christ. St. Francis went about doing good. He resembled, in some respects, the social workers and revivalist preachers of to-day. In other respects he was a true child of the Middle Ages. An ascetic, he fasted, wore a hair-cloth shirt, mixed ashes with his food to make it disagreeable, wept daily, so that his eyesight was nearly destroyed, and every night flogged himself with iron chains. A mystic, he lived so close to God and nature that he could include within the bonds of his love not only men and women, but also animals, trees, and flowers. He preached a sermon to the birds and once wrote a hymn to praise God for his “brothers,” sun, wind, and fire, and for his “sisters,” moon, water, and earth. When told that he had but a short time to live, he exclaimed, “Welcome, Sister Death!” He died at the age of forty-five, worn out by his exertions and self-denial. Two years later the pope made him a saint.
ST. DOMINIC, 1170-1221 A.D.
St. Dominic, unlike St. Francis, was a clergyman and a student of theology. After being ordained he went to southern France and labored there for ten years among a heretical sect known as the Albigenses. The order of Dominicans grew out of the little band of volunteers who assisted him in the mission. St. Dominic sent his followers–at first only sixteen in number–out into the world to combat heresy. They met with great success, and at the founder’s death the Dominicans had as many as sixty friaries in various European cities.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FRIARS
The Franciscans and Dominicans resembled each other in many ways. They were “itinerant,” going on foot from place to place, and wearing coarse robes tied round the waist with a rope. They were “mendicants,” [24] who possessed no property but lived on the alms of the charitable. They were also preachers, who spoke to the people, not in Latin, but in the common language of each country which they visited. The Franciscans worked especially in the “slums” of the cities; the Dominicans addressed themselves rather to educated people and the upper classes. As time went on, both orders relaxed the rule of poverty and became very wealthy. They still survive, scattered all over the world and employed in teaching and missionary activity. [25]
THE FRIARS AND THE PAPACY
The friars by their preaching and ministrations did a great deal to call forth a religious revival in Europe during the thirteenth century. In particular they helped to strengthen the papal authority. Both orders received the sanction of the pope; both enjoyed many privileges at his hands; and both looked to him for direction. The pope employed them to raise money, to preach crusades, and to impose excommunications and interdicts. The Franciscans and Dominicans formed, in fact, the agents of the Papacy.
165. POWER OF THE PAPACY
THE POPE’S EXALTED POSITION
The name “pope” [26] seems at first to have been applied to all priests as a title of respect and affection. The Greek Church still continues this use of the word. In the West it gradually came to be reserved to the bishop of Rome as his official title. The pope was addressed in speaking as “Your Holiness.” His exalted position was further indicated by the tiara, or headdress with triple crowns, worn by him in processions. [27] He went to solemn ceremonies sitting in a chair supported on the shoulders of his guard. He gave audience from an elevated throne, and all who approached him kissed his feet in reverence. As “Christ’s Vicar” he claimed to be the representative on earth of the Almighty.
THE POPE AS THE HEAD OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM
The pope was the supreme lawgiver of the Church. His decrees might not be set aside by any other person. He made new laws in the form of “bulls” [28] and by his “dispensations” could in particular cases set aside old laws, such as those forbidding cousins to marry or monks to obtain release from their vows. The pope was also the supreme judge of the Church, for all appeals from the lower ecclesiastical courts came before him for decision. Finally, the pope was the supreme administrator of the Church. He confirmed the election of bishops, deposed them, when necessary, or transferred them from one diocese to another. No archbishop might perform the functions of his office until he had received the _pallium_ from the pope’s hands. The pope also exercised control over the monastic orders and called general councils of the Church.
THE PAPAL LEGATES
The authority of the pope was commonly exercised by the “legates,” [29] whom he sent out as his representatives at the various European courts. These officers kept the pope in close touch with the condition of the Church in every part of western Europe. A similar function is performed in modern times by the papal ambassadors known as “nuncios.”
THE CARDINALS
For assistance in government the pope made use of the cardinals, [30] who formed a board, or “college.” At first they were chosen only from the clergy of Rome and the vicinity, but in course of time the pope opened the cardinalate to prominent churchmen in all countries. The number of cardinals is now fixed at seventy, but the college is never full, and there are always ten or more “vacant hats,” as the saying goes. The cardinals, in the eleventh century, received the right of choosing a new pope. A cardinal ranks above all other church officers. His dignity is indicated by the red hat and scarlet robe which he wears and by the title of “Eminence” applied to him.
INCOME OF THE PAPACY
To support the business of the Papacy and to maintain the splendor of the papal court required a large annual income. This came partly from the States of the Church in Italy, partly from the gifts of the faithful, and partly from the payments made by abbots, bishops, and archbishops when the pope confirmed their election to office. Still another source of revenue consisted of “Peter’s Pence,” a tax of a penny on each hearth. It was collected every year in England and in some Continental countries until the Reformation. The modern “Peter’s Pence” is a voluntary contribution made by Roman Catholics in all countries.
THE CAPITAL OF THE PAPACY
The Eternal City, from which in ancient times the known world had been ruled, formed in the Middle Ages the capital of the Papacy. Hither every year came tens of thousands of pilgrims to worship at the shrine of the Prince of the Apostles. Few traces now remain of the medieval city. Old St. Peter’s Church, where Charlemagne was crowned emperor, [31] gave way in the sixteenth century to the world-famous structure that now occupies its site. [32] The Lateran Palace, which for more than a thousand years served as the residence of the popes, has also disappeared, its place being taken by a new and smaller building. The popes now live in the splendid palace of the Vatican, adjoining St. Peter’s.
THE PAPACY AND THE EMPIRE
The powers exercised by the popes during the later Middle Ages were not secured without a struggle. As a matter of fact the concentration of authority in papal hands was a gradual development covering several hundred years. The pope reached his exalted position only after a long contest with the Holy Roman Emperor. This contest forms one of the most noteworthy episodes in medieval history.
166. POPES AND EMPERORS, 962-1122 A.D.
RELATIONS BETWEEN POPE AND EMPEROR IN THEORY
One might suppose that there could be no interference between pope and emperor, since they seemed to have separate spheres of action. It was said that God had made the pope, as the successor of St. Peter, supreme in spiritual matters and the emperor, as heir of the Roman Caesars, supreme in temporal matters. The former ruled men’s souls, the latter, men’s bodies. The two sovereigns thus divided on equal terms the government of the world.
THEIR RELATIONS IN PRACTICE
The difficulty with this theory was that it did not work. No one could decide in advance where the authority the pope ended and where that of the emperor began. When the pope claimed certain powers which were also claimed by the emperor, a conflict between the two rulers became inevitable.
[Illustration: THE SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL POWER A tenth-century mosaic in the church of St. John, Rome. It represents Christ giving to St. Peter the keys of heaven, and to Constantine the banner symbolic of earthly dominion.]
OTTO THE GREAT AND THE PAPACY
In 962 A.D. Otto the Great, as we have learned, [33] restored imperial rule in the West, thus founding what in later centuries the came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire. Otto as emperor possessed the rights of making the city of Rome the imperial capital, of approving the election of the pope, and, in general, of exerting much influence in papal affairs. All these rights had been exercised by Charlemagne. But Otto did what Charlemagne had never done when he deposed a pope who proved disobedient to his wishes and on his own authority appointed a successor. At the same time Otto exacted from the people of Rome an oath that they would never recognize any pope to whose election the emperor had not consented.
THE PAPACY AND OTTO’S SUCCESSORS
The emperors who followed Otto repeatedly interfered in elections to the Papacy. One strong ruler, Henry III (1039-1056 A.D.), has been called the “pope-maker.” Early in his reign he set aside three rival claimants to the Papacy, creating a German bishop pope, and on three subsequent occasions filled the papal throne by fresh appointments. It was clear that if this situation continued much longer the Papacy would become simply an imperial office; it would be merged in the Empire.
PAPAL ELECTION BY THE CARDINALS
The death of Henry III, which left the Empire in weak hands, gave the Papacy a chance to escape the control of the secular power. In 1059 A.D. a church council held at the Lateran Palace decreed that henceforth the right of choosing the supreme pontiff should belong exclusively to the cardinals, who represented the clergy of Rome. This arrangement has tended to prevent any interference with the election of popes, either by the Roman people or by foreign sovereigns.
FEUDALIZING OF THE CHURCH
Now that the Papacy had become independent, it began to deal with a grave problem which affected the Church at large. According to ecclesiastical rule bishops ought to be chosen by the clergy of their diocese and abbots of by their monks. With the growth of feudalism, however, many of these high dignitaries had become vassals, holding their lands as fiefs of princes, kings, and emperors, and owing the usual feudal dues. Their lords expected them to perform the ceremony of homage, [34] before “investing” them with the lands attached to the bishopric or monastery. One can readily see that in practice the lords really chose the bishops and abbots, since they could always refuse to “invest” those who were displeasing to them.
LAY INVESTITURE FROM THE CHURCH STANDPOINT
To the reformers in the Church lay investiture appeared intolerable. How could the Church keep itself unspotted from the world when its highest officers were chosen by laymen and were compelled to perform unpriestly duties? In the act of investiture the reformers also saw the sin of simony [35]–the sale of sacred powers–because there was such a temptation before the candidate for a bishopric or abbacy to buy the position with promises or with money.
LAY INVESTITURE AS VIEWED BY THE SECULAR AUTHORITY
The lords, on the other hand, believed that as long as bishops and abbots held vast estates on feudal tenure they should continue to perform the obligations of vassalage. To forbid lay investiture was to deprive the lords of all control over Church dignitaries. The real difficulty of the situation existed, of course, in the fact that the bishops and abbots were both spiritual officers and temporal rulers, were servants of both the Church and the State. They found it very difficult to serve two masters.
PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY VII, 1073-1085 A.D.
In 1073 A.D. there came to the throne of St. Peter one of the most remarkable of the popes. This was Hildebrand, who, on becoming pope, took the name of Gregory VII. Of obscure Italian birth, he received his education in a Benedictine monastery at Rome and rose rapidly to a position of great influence in papal affairs. He is described as a small man, ungainly in appearance and with a weak voice, but energetic, forceful, and of imperious will.
GREGORY’S AIMS
Gregory devoted all his talents to the advancement of the Papacy. A contemporary document, [36] which may have been of Gregory’s own composition and at any rate expresses his ideas, contains the following statements: “The Roman pontiff alone is properly called universal. He alone may depose bishops and restore them to office. He is the only person whose feet are kissed by all princes. He may depose emperors. He may be judged by no one. He may absolve from their allegiance the subjects of the wicked. The Roman Church never has erred, and never can err, as the Scriptures testify.” Gregory did not originate these doctrines, but he was the first pope who ventured to make a practical application of them.
DECREE AGAINST LAY INVESTITURE, 1075 A.D.
Two years after Gregory became pope he issued a decree against lay investiture. It declared that no emperor, king, duke, marquis, count, or any other lay person should presume to grant investiture, under pain of excommunication. This decree was a general one, applying to all states of western Europe, but circumstances were such that it mainly affected Germany.
HENRY IV AND GREGORY VII
Henry IV, the ruler of Germany at this time, did not refuse the papal challenge. He wrote a famous letter to Gregory, calling him “no pope but false monk,” telling him Christ had never called him to the priesthood, and bidding him “come down;” “come down” from St. Peter’s throne. Gregory, in reply, deposed Henry as emperor, excommunicated him, and freed his subjects from their allegiance.
CANOSSA, 1077 A.D.
This severe sentence made a profound impression in Germany. Henry’s adherents fell away, and it seemed probable that the German nobles would elect another ruler in his stead. Henry then decided on abject submission. He hastened across the Alps and found the pope at the castle of Canossa, on the northern slopes of the Apennines. It was January, and the snow lay deep on the ground. For three days the emperor stood shivering outside the castle gate, barefoot and clad in a coarse woolen shirt, the garb of a penitent. At last, upon the entreaties of the Countess Matilda of Tuscany, Gregory admitted Henry and granted absolution. It was a strange and moving spectacle, one which well expressed the tremendous power which the Church in the Middle Ages exercised over the minds of men.
[Illustration: HENRY IV, COUNTESS MATILDA, AND GREGORY VII From a manuscript of the twelfth century now in the Vatican Library at Rome.]
CONCORDAT OF WORMS, 1122 A.D.
The dramatic scene at Canossa did not end the investiture conflict. It dragged on for half a century, being continued after Gregory’s death by the popes who succeeded him. At last in 1122 A.D. the opposing parties agreed to what is known as the Concordat of Worms, from the old German city where it was signed.
TERMS OF THE CONCORDAT
The concordat drew a distinction between spiritual and lay investiture. The emperor renounced investiture by the ring and crosier–the emblems of spiritual authority–and permitted bishops and abbots to be elected by the clergy and confirmed in office by the pope. On the other hand the pope recognized the emperor’s right to be present at all elections and to invest bishops and abbots by the scepter for whatever lands they held within his domains. This reasonable compromise worked well for a time. But it was a truce, not a peace. It did not settle the more fundamental issue, whether the Papacy or the Holy Roman Empire should be supreme.
167. POPES AND EMPERORS, 1122-1273 A.D.
FREDERICK I, EMPEROR, 1152-1190
Thirty years after the signing of the Concordat of Worms the emperor Frederick I, called Barbarossa from his red beard, succeeded to the throne. Frederick, the second emperor, of the Hohenstaufen dynasty [37] was capable, imaginative, and ambitious. He took Charlemagne and Otto the Great as his models and aspired like them to rule Christian Europe and the Church. His reign is the story of many attempts, ending at length in failure, to unite all Italy into a single state under German sway.
FREDERICK AND THE PAPACY
Frederick’s Italian policy brought him at once into conflict with two powerful enemies. The popes, who feared that his success would imperil the independence of the Papacy, opposed him at every step. The great cities of northern Italy, which were also threatened by Frederick’s soaring schemes, united in the Lombard League to defend their freedom. The popes gave the league their support, and in 1176 A.D. Frederick was badly beaten at the battle of Legnano. The haughty emperor confessed himself conquered, and sought reconciliation with the pope, Alexander III. In the presence of a vast throng assembled before St. Mark’s Cathedral in Venice, Frederick knelt before the pope and humbly kissed his feet. Just a century had passed since the humiliation of Henry IV at Canossa.
PONTIFICATE OF INNOCENT III, 1198-1216 A.D.
The Papacy reached the height of its power under Innocent III. The eighteen years of his pontificate were one long effort, for the most part successful, to make the pope the arbiter of Europe. Innocent announced the claims of the Papacy in the most uncompromising manner. “As the moon,” he declared, “receives its light from the sun, and is inferior to the sun, so do kings receive all their glory and dignity from the Holy See.” This meant, according to Innocent, that the pope has the right to interfere in all secular matters and in the quarrels of rulers. “God,” he continued, “has set the Prince of the Apostles over kings and kingdoms, with a mission to tear up, plant, destroy, scatter, and rebuild.”
INNOCENT AND KING PHILIP OF FRANCE
That Innocent’s claims were not idle boasts is shown by what he accomplished. When Philip Augustus, king of France, divorced his wife and made another marriage, Innocent declared the divorce void and ordered him to take back his discarded queen. Philip refused, and Innocent, through his legate, put France under an interdict. From that hour all religious rites ceased. The church doors were barred; the church bells were silent, the sick died unshriven, the dead lay unburied. Philip, deserted by his retainers, was compelled to submit.
INNOCENT AND KING JOHN OF ENGLAND
On another occasion Innocent ordered John, the English king, to accept as archbishop of Canterbury a man of his own choosing. When John declared that he would never allow the pope’s appointee to set foot on English soil, Innocent replied by excommunicating him and laying his kingdom under an interdict. John also had to yield and went so far as to surrender England and Ireland to the pope, receiving them back again as fiefs, for which he promised to pay a yearly rent. This tribute money was actually paid, though irregularly, for about a century and a half.
FREDERICK II, EMPEROR, 1212-1250 A.D.
Innocent further exhibited his power by elevating to the imperial throne Frederick II, grandson of Frederick Barbarossa. The young man, after Innocent’s death, proved to be a most determined opponent of the Papacy. He passed much of his long reign in Italy, warring vainly against the popes and the Lombard cities. Frederick died in 1250 A.D., and with him the Holy Roman Empire really ceased to exist. [38] None of the succeeding holders of the imperial title exercised any authority outside of Germany.
INTERREGNUM, 1254-1273 A.D.
The death of Frederick II’s son in 1254 A.D. ended the Hohenstaufen dynasty. There now ensued what is called the Interregnum, a period of nineteen years, during which Germany was without a ruler. At length the pope sent word to the German electors that if they did not choose an emperor, he would himself do so. The electors then chose Rudolf of Hapsburg [39] (1273 A.D.). Rudolf gained papal support by resigning all claims on Italy, but recompensed himself through the conquest of Austria. [40] Ever since this time the Hapsburg dynasty has filled the Austrian throne.
OUTCOME OF THE CONFLICT
The conflict between popes and emperors was now ended. Its results were momentous. Germany, so long neglected by its rightful rulers, who pursued the will-o’-the-wisp in Italy, broke up into a mass of duchies, counties, archbishoprics, and free cities. The map of the country at this time shows how numerous were these small feudal states. They did not combine into a strong government till the nineteenth century. [41] Italy likewise remained disunited and lacked even a common monarch. The real victor was the Papacy, which had crushed the Empire and had prevented the union of Italy and Germany.
[Illustration: Map, GERMANY AND ITALY During the Interregnum 1254-1273 A.D.]
168. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MEDIEVAL CHURCH
THE CHURCH AND WARFARE
Medieval society, we have now learned, owed much to the Church, both as a teacher of religion and morals and as an agency of government. It remains to ask what was the attitude of the Church toward the great social problems of the Middle Ages. In regard to warfare, the prevalence of which formed one of the worst evils of the time, the Church, in general, cast its influence on the side of peace. It deserves credit for establishing the Peace and the Truce of God and for many efforts to heal strife between princes and nobles. Yet, as will be shown, the Church did not carry the advocacy of peace so far as to condemn warfare against heretics and infidels. Christians believed that it was a religious duty to exterminate these enemies of God.
THE CHURCH AND CHARITY
The Church was distinguished for charitable work. The clergy received large sums for distribution to the needy. From the doors of the monasteries, the poor, the sick, and the infirm of every sort were never turned away. Medieval charity, however, was very often injudicious. The problem of removing the causes of poverty seems never to have been raised; and the indiscriminate giving multiplied, rather than reduced, the number of beggars.
THE CHURCH AND SLAVERY AND SERFDOM
Neither slavery nor serfdom, into which slavery gradually passed, [42] was ever pronounced unlawful by pope or Church council. The Church condemned slavery only when it was the servitude of a Christian in bondage to a Jew or an infidel. Abbots, bishops, and popes possessed slaves and serfs. The serfs of some wealthy monasteries were counted by thousands. The Church, however, encouraged the freeing of bondmen as a meritorious act and always preached the duty of kindness and forbearance toward them.
DEMOCRACY OF THE CHURCH
The Church also helped to promote the cause of human freedom by insisting on the natural equality of all men in the sight of God. “The Creator,” wrote one of the popes, “distributes his gifts without regard to social classes. In his eyes there are neither nobles nor serfs.” It was not necessary to be of noble birth to become a bishop, a cardinal, or a pope. Even serfs succeeded to the chair of St. Peter. Naturally enough, the Church attracted the keenest minds of the age, a fact which largely explains the influence exerted by the clergy.
THE CLERGY AS THE ONLY EDUCATED CLASS
The influence of the clergy in medieval Europe was also due to the fact that they were almost the only persons of education. Few except churchmen were able to read or write. So generally was this the case that an offender could prove himself a clergyman, thus securing “benefit of clergy,” [43] if he showed his ability to read a single line. It is interesting, also, to note that the word “clerk,” which comes from the Latin _clericus_, was originally limited to churchmen, since they alone could keep accounts, write letters, and perform other secretarial duties.
IMPORTANCE OF THE CLERGY
It is clear that priests and monks had much importance quite aside from their religious duties. They controlled the schools, wrote the books, framed the laws, and, in general, acted as leaders and molders of public opinion. A most conspicuous instance of the authority wielded by them is seen in the crusades. These holy wars of Christendom against Islam must now be considered.
STUDIES
1. Explain the following terms: abbot; prior; archbishop; parish; diocese; regular clergy; secular clergy; friar; excommunication; simony; interdict; sacrament; “benefit of clergy”; right of “sanctuary”; crosier; miter; tiara; papal indulgence; bull; dispensation; tithes; and “Peter’s Pence.”
2. Mention some respects in which the Roman Church in the Middle Ages differed from any religious society of the present day.
3. “Medieval Europe was a camp with a church in the background.” Comment on this statement.
4. Explain the statement that “the Church, throughout the Middle Ages, was a government as well as an ecclesiastical organization.”
5. Distinguish between the _faith_ of the Church, the _organization_ of the Church, and the Church as a _force_ in history.
6. How did the belief in Purgatory strengthen the hold of the Church upon men’s minds?
7. Name several historic characters who have been made saints.
8. Why has the Roman Church always refused to sanction divorce?
9. Compare the social effects of excommunication with those of a modern “boycott.”
10. What reasons have led the Church to insist upon celibacy of the clergy?
11. Name four famous monks and four famous monasteries.
12. Could monks enter the secular clergy and thus become parish priests and bishops?
13. Mention two famous popes who had been monks.
14. What justification was found in the New Testament (_Matthew_, x 8-10) for the organization of the orders of friars?
15. How did the Franciscans and Dominicans supplement each other’s work?
16. “The monks and the friars were the militia of the Church.” Comment on this statement.
17. Who is the present Pope? When and by whom was he elected? In what city does he reside? What is his residence called?
18. Why has the medieval Papacy been called the “ghost” of the Roman Empire?
19. In what sense is it true that the Holy Roman Empire was “neither holy nor Roman, nor an empire”?
FOOTNOTES
[1] Webster, _Readings in Medieval and Modern History_, chapter x, “Monastic Life in the Twelfth Century”; chapter xi, “St. Francis and the Franciscans.”
[2] In case of necessity baptism might be performed by any lay person of adult years and sound mind.
[3] This doctrine is known as transubstantiation. In the Roman Church, as has been noted (page 363), wine is not administered to the laity.
[4] Hence the term “Apostolical Succession.”
[5] Latin sanctus, “holy.”
[6] See page 234.
[7] See page 431.
[8] See pages 407, 418.
[9] The belief in Purgatory is not held by Protestants or by members of the Greek Church.
[10] The so-called “canon law.” See page 568.
[11] See page 420.
[12] For two instances of the use of excommunication see pages 459 and 461.
[13] For two instances of this sort see page 461.
[14] Latin _saeculum_, used in the sense of “the world.”
[15] Latin _regula_, a “rule”, referring to the rule or constitution of a monastic order.
[16] See page 343.
[17] The tithe was a tenth part of the yearly income from land, stock, and personal industry.
[18] See illustration, page 447.
[19] Latin _cathedra_.
[20] For the architecture of a medieval cathedral see pages 562-565.
[21] See page 474.
[22] See page 352.
[23] Latin _frater_, “brother.”
[24] Latin _mendicare_, “to beg.”
[25] In England the Franciscans, from the color of their robes, were called Gray Friars, the Dominicans, Black Friars.
[26] Latin _papa_, “father.”
[27] See the illustration, page 348.
[28] So called from the lead seal (Latin _bulla_) attached to papal documents.
[29] Latin _legatus_, “deputy.”
[30] Latin _cardinalus_, “principal.”
[31] See page 311.
[32] See the plate facing page 591.
[33] See page 317.
[34] See page 418.
[35] A name derived from Simon Magus, who offered money to the Apostle Peter for the power to confer the Holy Spirit. See _Acts_, viii, 18-20.
[36] The so-called _Dictatus papae_.
[37] The name of this German family comes from that of their castle in southwestern Swabia.
[38] It survived in name until 1806 A.D., when the Austrian ruler, Francis II, laid down the imperial crown and the venerable title of “Holy Roman Emperor.”
[39] Hapsburg as the name of a castle in northern Switzerland.
[40] See page 522.
[41] The modern German Empire dates from 1871 A.D.
[42] See pages 436-437.
[43] See page 444.
CHAPTER XX
THE OCCIDENT AGAINST THE ORIENT; THE CRUSADES, 1095-1291 A.D. [1]
169. CAUSES OF THE CRUSADES
PLACE OF THE CRUSADES IN HISTORY
The series of military expeditions, undertaken by the Christians of Europe for the purpose of recovering the Holy Land from the Moslems, have received the name of crusades. In their widest aspect the crusades may be regarded as a renewal of the age-long contest between East and West, in which the struggle of Greeks and Persians and of Romans and Carthaginians formed the earlier episodes. The contest assumed a new character when Europe had become Christian and Asia Mohammedan. It was not only two contrasting types of civilization but also two rival world religions which in the eighth century faced each other under the walls of Constantinople and on the battlefield of Tours. Now, during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, they were to meet again.
NUMBER OF THE CRUSADES
Seven or eight chief crusades are usually enumerated. To number them, however, obscures the fact that for nearly two hundred years Europe and Asia were engaged in almost constant warfare. Throughout this period there was a continuous movement of crusaders to and from the Moslem possessions in Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt.
PILGRIMAGES TO THE HOLY LAND
The crusades were first and foremost a spiritual enterprise. They sprang from the pilgrimages which Christians had long been accustomed to make to the scenes of Christ’s life on earth. Men considered it a wonderful privilege to see the cave in which He was born, to kiss the spot where He died, and to kneel in prayer at His tomb. The eleventh century saw an increased zeal for pilgrimages, and from this time travelers to the Holy Land were very numerous. For greater security they often joined themselves in companies and marched under arms. It needed little to transform such pilgrims into crusaders.
[Illustration: COMBAT BETWEEN CRUSADERS AND MOSLEMS A picture in an eleventh-century window, formerly in the church of St. Denis, near Paris.]
ABUSE OF PILGRIMS BY THE TURKS
The Arab conquest of the Holy Land had not interrupted the stream of pilgrims, for the early caliphs were more tolerant of unbelievers than Christian emperors of heretics. But after the coming of the Seljuk Turks into the East, pilgrimages became more difficult and dangerous. The Turks were a ruder people than the Arabs whom they displaced, and in their fanatic zeal for Islam were not inclined to treat the Christians with consideration. Many tales floated back to Europe of the outrages committed on the pilgrims and on the sacred shrines venerated by all Christendom. Such stories, which lost nothing in the telling, aroused a storm of indignation throughout Europe and awakened the desire to rescue the Holy Land from the grasp of the “infidel.”
THE CRUSADES AND THE UPPER CLASSES
But the crusades were not simply an expression of the simple faith of the Middle Ages. Something more than religious enthusiasm sent an unending procession of crusaders along the highways of Europe and over the trackless wastes of Asia Minor to Jerusalem. The crusades, in fact, appealed strongly to the warlike instincts of the feudal nobles. They saw in an expedition against the East an unequaled opportunity for acquiring fame, riches, lands, and power. The Normans were especially stirred by the prospect of adventure and plunder which the crusading movement opened up. By the end of the eleventh century they had established themselves in southern Italy and Sicily, from which they now looked across the Mediterranean for further lands to conquer. [2] Norman knights formed a very large element in several of the crusaders’ armies.
THE LOWER CLASSES AND THE CRUSADES
The crusades also attracted the lower classes. So great was the misery of the common people in medieval Europe that for them it seemed not a hardship, but rather a relief, to leave their homes in order to better themselves abroad. Famine and pestilence, poverty and oppression, drove them to emigrate hopefully to the golden East.
PRIVILEGES OF CRUSADERS
The Church, in order to foster the crusades, promised both religious and secular benefits to those who took part in them. A warrior of the Cross was to enjoy forgiveness of all his past sins. If he died fighting for the faith, he was assured of an immediate entrance to the joys of Paradise. The Church also freed him from paying interest on his debts and threatened with excommunication anyone who molested his wife, his children, or his property.
170. FIRST CRUSADE, 1095-1099 A.D.
OCCASION OF THE FIRST CRUSADE
The signal for the First Crusade was given by the conquests of the Seljuk Turks. [3] These barbarians, at first the mercenaries and then the masters of the Abbasid caliphs, infused fresh energy into Islam. They began a new era of Mohammedan expansion by winning almost the whole of Asia Minor from the Roman Empire in the East. One of their leaders established himself at Nicaea, the scene of the first Church Council, [4] and founded the sultanate of Rum (Rome).
APPEAL OF EMPEROR TO POPE
The presence of the Turks so close to Constantinople was a standing menace to all Europe. The able emperor, Alexius I, on succeeding to the throne toward the close of the eleventh century, took steps to expel the invaders. He could not draw on the hardy tribes of Asia Minor for the soldiers he needed, but with reinforcements from the West he hoped to recover the lost provinces of the empire. Accordingly, in 1095 A.D., Alexius sent an embassy to Pope Urban II, the successor of Gregory VII, requesting aid. The fact that the emperor appealed to the pope, rather than to any king, shows what a high place the Papacy then held in the affairs of Europe.
COUNCIL OF CLERMONT, 1095 A.D.
To the appeal of Alexius, Urban lent a willing ear. He summoned a great council of clergy and nobles to meet at Clermont in France. Here, in an address which, measured by its results, was the most momentous recorded in history, Pope Urban preached the First Crusade. He said little about the dangers which threatened the Roman Empire in the East from the Turks, but dwelt chiefly on the wretched condition of the Holy Land, with its churches polluted by unbelievers and its Christian inhabitants tortured and enslaved. Then, turning to the proud knights who stood by, Urban called upon them to abandon their wicked practice of private warfare and take up arms, instead, against the infidel. “Christ Himself,” he cried, “will be your leader, when, like the Israelites of old, you fight for Jerusalem…. Start upon the way to the Holy Sepulcher; wrench the land from the accursed race, and subdue it yourselves. Thus shall you spoil your foes of their wealth and return home victorious, or, purpled with your own blood, receive an everlasting reward.”
“GOD WILLS IT!”
Urban’s trumpet call to action met an instant response. From the assembled host there went up, as it were, a single shout: “God wills it! God wills it!” “It is, in truth, His will,” answered Urban, “and let these words be your war cry when you unsheath your swords against the enemy.” Then man after man pressed forward to receive the badge of a crusader, a cross of red cloth. [5] It was to be worn on the breast, when the crusader went forth, and on the back, when he returned.
PRELUDE TO THE FIRST CRUSADE
The months which followed the Council of Clermont were marked by an epidemic of religious excitement in western Europe. Popular preachers everywhere took up the cry “God wills it!” and urged their hearers to start for Jerusalem. A monk named Peter the Hermit aroused large parts of France with his passionate eloquence, as he rode from town to town, carrying a huge cross before him and preaching to vast crowds. Without waiting for the main body of nobles, which was to assemble at Constantinople in the summer of 1096 A.D., a horde of poor men, women, and children set out, unorganized and almost unarmed, on the road to the Holy Land. One of these crusading bands, led by Peter the Hermit, managed to reach Constantinople, after suffering terrible hardships. The emperor Alexius sent his ragged allies as quickly as possible to Asia Minor, where most of them were slaughtered by the Turks.
THE MAIN CRUSADE
Meanwhile real armies were gathering in the West. Recruits came in greater numbers from France than from any other country, a circumstance which resulted in the crusaders being generally called “Franks” by their Moslem foes. They had no single commander, but each contingent set out for Constantinople by its own route and at its own time. [6]
LEADERS OF THE CRUSADE
The crusaders included among their leaders some of the most distinguished representatives of European knighthood. Count Raymond of Toulouse headed a band of volunteers from Provence in southern France. Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin commanded a force of French and Germans from the Rhinelands. Normandy sent Robert, William the Conqueror’s eldest son. The Normans from Italy and Sicily were led by Bohemond, a son of Robert Guiscard, [7] and his nephew Tancred.
THE CRUSADERS IN ASIA MINOR AND SYRIA
Though the crusaders probably did not number more than fifty thousand fighting men, the disunion which prevailed among the Turks favored the success of their enterprise. With some assistance from the eastern emperor they captured Nicaea, overran Asia Minor, and at length reached Antioch, the key to northern Syria. The city fell after a siege of seven months, but the crusaders were scarcely within the walls before they found themselves besieged by a large Turkish army. The crusaders were now in a desperate plight: famine wasted their ranks; many soldiers deserted; and Alexius disappointed all hope of rescue. But the news of the discovery in an Antioch church of the Holy Lance which had pierced the Savior’s side restored their drooping spirits. The whole army issued forth from the city, bearing the relic as a standard, and drove the Turks in headlong flight. This victory opened the road to Jerusalem.
[Illustration: “MOSQUE OF OMAR,” JERUSALEM More correctly called the Dome of the Rock. It was erected in 691 A.D., but many restorations have taken place since that date. The walls enclosing the entire structure were built in the ninth century, and the dome is attributed to Saladin (1189 A.D.). This building, with its brilliant tiles covering the walls and its beautiful stained glass, is a fine example of Mohammedan architecture.]
CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM, 1099 A.D.
Reduced now to perhaps one-fourth of their original numbers, the crusaders advanced slowly to the city which formed the goal of all their efforts. Before attacking it they marched barefoot in religious procession around the walls, with Peter the Hermit at their head. Then came the grand assault. Godfrey of Bouillon and Tancred were among the first to mount the ramparts. Once inside the city, the crusaders massacred their enemies without mercy. Afterwards, we are told, they went “rejoicing, nay for excess of joy weeping, to the tomb of our Savior to adore and give thanks.”
171. CRUSADERS’ STATES IN SYRIA
LATIN KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM
After the capture of Jerusalem the crusaders met to elect a king. Their choice fell upon Godfrey of Bouillon. He refused to wear a crown of gold in the city where Christ had worn a crown of thorns and accepted, instead, the modest title of “Protector of the Holy Sepulcher.” [8] Godfrey died the next year and his brother Baldwin, who succeeded him, being less scrupulous, was crowned king at Bethlehem. The new kingdom contained nearly a score of fiefs, whose lords made war, administered justice, and coined money, like independent rulers. The main features of European feudalism were thus transplanted to Asiatic soil.
OTHER CRUSADERS’ STATES
The winning of Jerusalem and the district about it formed hardly more than a preliminary stage in the conquest of Syria. Much fighting was still necessary before the crusaders could establish themselves firmly in the country. Instead of founding one strong power in Syria, they split up their possessions into the three principalities of Tripoli, Antioch, and Edessa. These small states owed allegiance to the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.
MILITARY-RELIGIOUS ORDERS
The ability of the crusaders’ states to maintain themselves for many years in Syria was largely due to the foundation of two military-religious orders. The members were both monks and knights; that is, to the monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience they added a fourth vow, which bound them to protect pilgrims and fight the infidels. Such a combination of religion and warfare made a strong appeal to the medieval mind.
HOSPITALERS AND TEMPLARS
The Hospitalers, the first of these orders, grew out of a brotherhood for the care of sick pilgrims in a hospital at Jerusalem. Many knights joined the organization, which soon proved to be very useful in defending the Holy Land. Even more important were the Templars, so called because their headquarters in Jerusalem lay near the site of Solomon’s Temple. Both orders built many castles in Syria, the remains of which still impress the beholder. They established numerous branches in Europe and, by presents and legacies, acquired vast wealth. The Templars were disbanded in the fourteenth century, but the Hospitalers continued to fight valiantly against the Turks long after the close of the crusading movement. [9]
[Illustration: EFFIGY OF A KNIGHT TEMPLAR Temple Church, London. Shows the kind of armor worn between 1190 and 1225 A.D.]
CHRISTIAN AND INFIDEL IN THE HOLY LAND
The depleted ranks of the crusaders were constantly filled by fresh bands of pilgrim knights who visited Palestine to pray at the Holy Sepulcher and cross swords with the infidel. In spite of constant border warfare much trade and friendly intercourse prevailed between Christians and Moslems. They learned to respect one another both as foes and neighbors. The crusaders’ states in Syria became, like Spain [10] and Sicily, [11] a meeting-place of East and West.
172. SECOND CRUSADE, 1147-1149 A.D., AND THIRD CRUSADE, 1189-1192 A.D.
ORIGIN OF THE SECOND CRUSADE
The success of the Christians in the First Crusade had been largely due to the disunion among their enemies. But the Moslems learned in time the value of united action, and in 1144 A.D. succeeded in capturing Edessa, one of the principal Christian outposts in the East. The fall of the city, followed by the loss of the entire county of Edessa, aroused western Europe to the danger which threatened the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and led to another crusading enterprise.
PREACHING OF ST. BERNARD
The apostle of the Second Crusade was the great abbot of Clairvaux, St. Bernard. [12] Scenes of the wildest enthusiasm marked his preaching. When the churches were not large enough to hold the crowds which flocked to hear him, he spoke from platforms erected in the fields. St. Bernard’s eloquence induced two monarchs, Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany, to take the blood-red cross of a crusader.
FAILURE OF THE SECOND CRUSADE
The Second Crusade, though begun under the most favorable auspices, had an unhappy ending. Of the great host that set out from Europe, only a few thousands escaped annihilation in Asia Minor at the hands of the Turks. Louis and Conrad, with the remnants of their armies, made a joint attack on Damascus, but had to raise the siege after a few days. This closed the crusade. As a chronicler of the expedition remarked, “having practically accomplished nothing, the inglorious ones returned home.”
SALADIN
Not many years after the Second Crusade, the Moslem world found in the famous Saladin a leader for a holy war against the Christians. Saladin in character was a typical Mohammedan, very devout in prayers and fasting, fiercely hostile toward unbelievers, and full of the pride of race. To these qualities he added a kindliness and humanity not surpassed, if equaled, by any of his Christian foes. He lives in eastern history and legend as the hero who stemmed once for all the tide of European conquest in Asia.
CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM BY SALADIN, 1187 A.D.
Having made himself sultan of Egypt, Saladin united the Moslems of Syria under his sway and then advanced against the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Christians met him in a great battle near the lake of Galilee. It ended in the rout of their army and the capture of their king. Even the Holy Cross, which they had carried in the midst of the fight, became the spoil of the conqueror. Saladin quickly reaped the fruits of victory. The Christian cities of Syria opened their gates to him, and at last Jerusalem itself surrendered after a short siege. Little now remained of the possessions which the crusaders had won in the East.
THIRD CRUSADE ORGANIZED, 1189 A.D.
The news of the taking of Jerusalem spread consternation throughout western Christendom. The cry for another crusade arose on all sides. Once more thousands of men sewed the cross in gold, or silk, or cloth upon their garments and set out for the Holy Land. When the three greatest rulers of Europe–Philip Augustus, [13] king of France, Richard I, king of England, and the German emperor, Frederick Barbarossa [14]–assumed the cross, it seemed that nothing could prevent the restoration of Christian supremacy in Syria.
DEATH OF FREDERICK BARBAROSSA, 1190 A.D.
The Germans under Frederick Barbarossa were the first to start. This great emperor was now nearly seventy years old, yet age had not lessened his crusading zeal. He took the overland route and after much hard fighting reached southern Asia Minor. Here, however, he was drowned, while trying to cross a swollen stream. Many of his discouraged followers at once returned to Germany; a few of them, however, pressed on and joined the other crusaders before the walls of Acre.
[Illustration: RICHARD I IN PRISON
From an illuminated manuscript of the thirteenth century. King Richard on his return from the Holy Land was shipwrecked off the coast of the Adriatic. Attempting to travel through Austria in disguise, he was captured by the duke of Austria, whom he had offended at the siege of Acre. The king regained his liberty only by paying a ransom equivalent to more than twice the annual revenues of England.]
ACRE CAPTURED BY PHILIP AND RICHARD, 1191 A.D.
The expedition of the French and English achieved little. Philip and Richard, who came by sea, captured Acre after a hard siege, but their quarrels prevented them from following up this initial success. Philip soon went home, leaving the further conduct of the crusade in Richard’s hands.
RICHARD IN THE HOLY LAND, 1191-1192 A.D.
The English king remained for fourteen months longer in the Holy Land. His campaigns during this time gained for him the title of “Lion-hearted,” [15] by which he is always known. He had many adventures and performed knightly exploits without number, but could not capture Jerusalem. Tradition declares that when, during a truce, some crusaders went up to Jerusalem, Richard refused to accompany them, saying that he would not enter as a pilgrim the city which he could not rescue as a conqueror. He and Saladin finally concluded a treaty by the terms of which Christians were permitted to visit Jerusalem without paying tribute. Richard then set sail for England, and with his departure from the Holy Land the Third Crusade came to an end.
173. FOURTH CRUSADE AND THE LATIN EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 1202-1261 A.D.
INNOCENT III AND THE FOURTH CRUSADE
The real author of the Fourth Crusade was the famous pope, Innocent III. [16] Young, enthusiastic, and ambitious for the glory of the Papacy, he revived the plans of Urban II and sought once more to unite the forces of Christendom against Islam. No emperor or king answered his summons, but a number of knights (chiefly French) took the crusader’s vow.
THE CRUSADERS AND THE VENETIANS
The leaders of the crusade decided to make Egypt their objective point, since this country was then the center of the Moslem power. Accordingly, the crusaders proceeded to Venice, for the purpose of securing transportation across the Mediterranean. The Venetians agreed to furnish the necessary ships only on condition that the crusaders first seized Zara on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. Zara was a Christian city, but it was also a naval and commercial rival of Venice. In spite of the pope’s protests the crusaders besieged and captured the city. Even then they did not proceed against the Moslems. The Venetians persuaded them to turn their arms against Constantinople. The possession of that great capital would greatly increase Venetian trade and influence in the East; for the crusading nobles it held out endless opportunities of acquiring wealth and power. Thus it happened that these soldiers of the Cross, pledged to war with the Moslems, attacked a Christian city, which for centuries had formed the chief bulwark of Europe against the Arab and the Turk.
SACK OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 1204 A.D.
The crusaders–now better styled the invaders–took Constantinople by storm. No “infidels” could have treated in worse fashion this home of ancient civilization. They burned down a great part of it; they slaughtered the inhabitants; they wantonly destroyed monuments, statues, paintings, and manuscripts–the accumulation of a thousand years. Much of the movable wealth they carried away. Never, declared an eye-witness of the scene, had there been such plunder since the world began.
THE LATIN EMPIRE OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 1204-1261 A.D.
The victors hastened to divide between them the lands of the Roman Empire in the East. Venice gained some districts in Greece, together with nearly all the Aegean islands. The chief crusaders formed part of the remaining territory into the Latin Empire of Constantinople. It was organized in fiefs, after the feudal manner. There was a prince of Achaia, a duke of Athens, a marquis of Corinth, and a count of Thebes. Large districts, both in Europe and Asia, did not acknowledge, however, these “Latin” rulers. The new empire lived less than sixty years. At the end of this time the Greeks returned to power.
DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES OF THE FOURTH CRUSADE
Constantinople, after the Fourth Crusade, declined in strength and could no longer cope with the barbarians menacing it. Two centuries later the city fell an easy victim to the Turks. [17] The responsibility for the disaster which gave the Turks a foothold in Europe rests on the heads of the Venetians and the French nobles. Their greed and lust for power turned the Fourth Crusade into a political adventure.
THE CHILDREN’S CRUSADE, 1213 A.D.
The so-called Children’s Crusade illustrates at once the religious enthusiasm and misdirected zeal which marked the whole crusading movement. During the year 1212 A.D. thousands of French children assembled in bands and marched through the towns and villages, carrying banners, candles, and crosses and singing, “Lord God, exalt Christianity. Lord God, restore to us the true cross.” The children could not be restrained at first, but finally hunger compelled them to return home. In Germany, during the same year, a lad named Nicholas really did succeed in launching a crusade. He led a mixed multitude of men and women, boys and girls over the Alps into Italy, where they expected to take ship for Palestine. But many perished of hardships, many were sold into slavery, and only a few ever saw their homes again. “These children,” Pope Innocent III declared, “put us to shame; while we sleep they rush to recover the Holy Land.”
END OF THE CRUSADES
The crusading movement came to an end by the close of the thirteenth century. The emperor Frederick II [18] for a short time recovered Jerusalem by a treaty, but in 1244 A.D. the Holy City became again a possession of the Moslems. They have never since relinquished it. Acre, the last Christian post in Syria, fell in 1291 A.D., and with this event the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem ceased to exist. The Hospitalers, or Knights of St. John, still kept possession of the important islands of Cyprus and Rhodes, which long served as a barrier to Moslem expansion over the Mediterranean.
174. RESULTS OF THE CRUSADES
FAILURE OF THE CRUSADES
The crusades, judged by what they set out to accomplish, must be accounted an inglorious failure. After two hundred years of conflict, after a vast expenditure of wealth and human lives, the Holy Land remained in Moslem hands. It is true that the First Crusade did help, by the conquest of Syria, to check the advance of the Turks toward Constantinople. But even this benefit was more than undone by the weakening of the Roman Empire in the East as a result of the Fourth Crusade.
WHY THE CRUSADES FAILED
Of the many reasons for the failure of the crusades, three require special consideration. In the first place, there was the inability of eastern and western Europe to cooperate in supporting the holy wars. A united Christendom might well have been invincible. But the bitter antagonism between the Greek and Roman churches [19] effectually prevented all unity of action. The emperors at Constantinople, after the First Crusade, rarely assisted the crusaders and often secretly hindered them. In the second place, the lack of sea-power, as seen in the earlier crusades, worked against their success. Instead of being able to go by water directly to Syria, it was necessary to follow the long, overland route from France or Germany through Hungary, Bulgaria, the territory of the Roman Empire in the East, and the deserts and mountains of Asia Minor. The armies that reached their destination after this toilsome march were in no condition for effective campaigning. In the third place, the crusaders were never numerous enough to colonize so large a country as Syria and absorb its Moslem population. They conquered part of Syria in the First Crusade, but could not hold it permanently in the face of determined resistance.
WHY THE CRUSADES CEASED
In spite of these and other reasons the Christians of Europe might have continued much longer their efforts to recover the Holy Land, had they not lost faith in the movement. But after two centuries the old crusading enthusiasm died out, the old ideal of the crusade as “the way of God” lost its spell. Men had begun to think less of winning future salvation by visits to distant shrines and to think more of their present duties to the world about them. They came to believe that Jerusalem could best be won as Christ and the Apostles had won it–“by love, by prayers, and by the shedding of tears.”
INFLUENCE OF THE CRUSADES ON FEUDALISM
The crusades could not fail to affect in many ways the life of western Europe. For instance, they helped to undermine feudalism. Thousands of barons and knights mortgaged or sold their lands in order to raise money for a crusading expedition. Thousands more perished in Syria and their estates, through failure of heirs, reverted to the crown. Moreover, private warfare, that curse of the Middle Ages, [20] also tended to die out with the departure for the Holy Land of so many turbulent feudal lords. Their decline in both numbers and influence, and the corresponding growth of the royal authority, may best be traced in the changes that came about in France, the original home of the crusading movement.
THE CRUSADES AND COMMERCE
One of the most important effects of the crusades was on commerce. They created a constant demand for the transportation of men and supplies, encouraged ship-building, and extended the market for eastern wares in Europe. The products of Damascus, Mosul, Alexandria, Cairo, and other great cities were carried across the Mediterranean to the Italian seaports, whence they found their way into all European lands. The elegance of the Orient, with its silks, tapestries, precious stones, perfumes, spices, pearls, and ivory, was so enchanting that an enthusiastic crusader called it “the vestibule of Paradise.”
THE CRUSADES AND INTELLECTUAL LIFE
Finally, it must be noted how much the crusades contributed to intellectual and social progress. They brought the inhabitants of western Europe into close relations with one another, with their fellow Christians of the Roman Empire in the East, and with the natives of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. The intercourse between Christians and Moslems was particularly stimulating, because the East at this time surpassed the West in civilization. The crusaders enjoyed the advantages which come from travel in strange lands and among unfamiliar peoples. They went out from their castles or villages to see great cities, marble palaces, superb dresses, and elegant manners; they returned with finer tastes, broader ideas, and wider sympathies. Like the conquests of Alexander the Great, the crusades opened up a new world.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CRUSADES
When all is said, the crusades remain one of the most remarkable movements in history. They exhibited the nations of western Europe for the first time making a united effort for a common end. The crusaders were not hired soldiers, but volunteers, who, while the religious fervor lasted, gladly abandoned their homes and faced hardship and death in pursuit of a spiritual ideal. They failed to accomplish their purpose, yet humanity is the richer for the memory of their heroism and chivalry.
STUDIES
1. On an outline map indicate Europe and the Mediterranean lands by religions, about 1095 A.D.
2. On an outline map indicate the routes of the First and the Third Crusades.
3. Locate on the map the following places: Clermont; Acre; Antioch; Zara; Edessa; and Damascus.
4. Identify the following dates: 1204 A.D.; 1095 A.D.; 1096 A.D.; 1291 A.D.
5. Write a short essay describing the imaginary experiences of a crusader to the Holy Land.
6. Mention some instances which illustrate the religious enthusiasm of the crusaders.
7. Compare the Mohammedan pilgrimage to Mecca with the pilgrimages of Christians to Jerusalem in the Middle Ages.
8. Compare the Christian crusade with the Mohammedan _jihad_, or holy war.
9. How did the expression, a “red-cross knight,” arise?
10. Why is the Second Crusade often called “St. Bernard’s Crusade”?
11. Why has the Third Crusade been called “the most interesting international expedition of the Middle Ages”?
12. Would the crusaders in 1204 A.D. have attacked Constantinople, if the schism of 1054 A.D. had not occurred?
13. “Mixture, or at least contact of races, is essential to progress.” How do the crusades illustrate the truth of this statement?
14. Were the crusades the only means by which western Europe was brought in contact with Moslem civilization?
FOOTNOTES
[1] Webster, _Readings in Medieval and Modern History_, chapter xii, “Richard the Lion-hearted and the Third Crusade”; chapter xiii, “The Fourth Crusade and the Capture of Constantinople.”
[2] See page 412.
[3] See pages 333, 380.
[4] See page 235.
[5] Hence the name “crusades,” from Latin _crux_, old French _crois_, a “cross”.
[6] For the routes followed by the crusaders see the map between pages 478-479.
[7] See page 412.
[8] The emperor Constantine caused a stately church to be erected on the supposed site of Christ’s tomb. This church of the Holy Sepulcher was practically destroyed by the Moslems, early in the eleventh century. The crusaders restored and enlarged the structure, which still stands.
[9] The order of Hospitalers, now known as the “Knights of Malta,” still survives in several European countries.
[10] See page 383.
[11] See page 413.
[12] See pages 449-450.
[13] See page 513.
[14] See page 460.
[15] In French _Coeur-de-Lion_.
[16] See page 461.
[17] See page 492.
[18] See page 462.
[19] See pages 362-363.
[20] See page 423.
CHAPTER XXI
THE MONGOLS AND THE OTTOMAN TURKS TO 1463 A.D.
175. THE MONGOLS
THE ASIATIC COUNTER-ATTACK
The extensive steppes in the middle and north of Asia have formed, for thousands of years, the abode of nomadic peoples belonging to the Yellow race. In prehistoric times they spread over northern Europe, but they were gradually supplanted by white-skinned Indo-Europeans, until now only remnants of them exist, such as the Finns and Lapps. In later ages history records how the Huns, the Bulgarians, and the Magyars have poured into Europe, spreading terror and destruction in their path. [1] These invaders were followed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries by the even more terrible Mongols and Ottoman Turks. Their inroads might well be described as Asia’s reply to the crusades, as an Asiatic counter-attack upon Europe.
MONGOLIA
The Mongols, who have given their name to the entire race of yellow- skinned peoples, now chiefly occupy the high plateau bounded on the north by Siberia, on the south by China, on the east by Manchuria, and on the west by Turkestan. [2] Although the greater part of this area consists of the Gobi desert, there are many oases and pastures available at different seasons of the year to the inhabitants. Hence the principal occupation of the Mongols has always been cattle breeding, and their horses, oxen, sheep, and camels have always furnished them with food and clothing.
MONGOL LIFE AND CHARACTER
Like most nomads the Mongols dwell in tents, each family often by itself. Severe simplicity is the rule of life, for property consists of little more than one’s flocks and herds, clothes, and weapons. The modern Mongols are a peaceable, kindly folk, who have adopted from Tibet a debased form of Buddhism, but the Mongols of the thirteenth century in religion and morals were scarcely above the level of American Indians. To ruthless cruelty and passion for plunder they added an efficiency in warfare which enabled them, within fifty years, to overrun much of Asia and the eastern part of Europe.
[Illustration: HUT-WAGON OF THE MONGOLS (RECONSTRUCTION) On the wagon was placed a sort of hut or pavilion made of wands bound together with narrow thongs. The structure was then covered with felt or cloth and provided with latticed windows. Hut-wagons, being very light, were sometimes of enormous size.]
MILITARY PROWESS OF THE MONGOLS
The daily life of the Mongols was a training school for war. Constant practice in riding, scouting, and the use of arms made every man a soldier. The words with which an ancient Greek historian described the savage Scythians applied perfectly to the Mongols: “Having neither cities nor forts, and carrying their dwellings with them wherever they go; accustomed, moreover, one and all, to shoot from horseback; and living not by husbandry but on their cattle, their wagons the only houses that they possess, how can they fail of being irresistible?” [3]
176. CONQUESTS OF THE MONGOLS, 1206-1405 A.D.
JENGHIZ KHAN
For ages the Mongols had dwelt in scattered tribes throughout their Asiatic wilderness, engaged in petty struggles with one another for cattle and pasture lands. It was the celebrated Jenghiz Khan, [4] chief of one of the tribes, who brought them all under his authority and then led them to the conquest of the world. Of him it may be said with truth that he had the most victorious of military careers, and that he constructed the most extensive empire known to history. If Jenghiz had possessed the ability of a statesman, he would have taken a place by the side of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.
MONGOL EMPIRE UNDER JENGHIZ, 1206-1227 A.D.
Jenghiz first sent the Mongol armies, which contained many Turkish allies,