Mental contents of mind in the Middle Ages
In response to the hilarious "The Dark Ages - Missed 500 years, O rly?" thread, which you can find here, I thought I'd post some eyewitness accounts of how people actually thought and lived their life in the Middle Ages. Make the conclusions about it that you will.
Thought control in the 12th century:
-John of Salisbury, Historia Pontificalis, trans. Marjorie Chibnall (Edinburgh and London, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., and New York, Oxford University Press, Inc., 1956), pp. 15-27 passim.Master Gilbert, bishop of Poitiers, was summoned to the court to answer the great Bernard of Clairvaux, on certain matters which had been brought up at Paris. Certain statements had been found in the bishop's commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius, and the writings of his pupils seemed reprehensible to the learned, either because they were inconsistent with accepted beliefs or because they just seemed inconsistent through novelty of expression. Many attacked him, but the fiercest assailants were Sugar, abbot of St. Denis, and two canons of Poitiers, Calo who later became bishop of the same church, and master Arnold; the masters of the schools also, Pierre Lombard later bishop of Paris, and Robert of Melun afterwards bishop of Hereford, led an embittered attack on him. Thus, Bernard of Clairvaux attacked the two men most famous for their learning -- Peter Abelard and this Gilbert -- and pursued them with such zeal that he secured the condemnation of Peter, and only just failed in the condemnation of the other. [Peter Abelard had his genitals torn off, and thrown to spend the rest of his life in a monastery] I am sure that now Gilbert no longer disagrees with the abbot and the other saints, for they both see face to face the truth they spent their lives in seeking. In the past Bishop Gilbert often used words from ancient writings which are uncommon in modern works; several words which are now hackneyed and common in the schools, when he introduced them, seemed to everyone to be "impious novelties".
Upon the appointed day, bishop Gilbert joined the conflict with confidence, and though many men questioned him searchingly, he supported his answers with such sound arguments and authorities that he could not be tripped up verbally. The disputation was prolonged. Another day, when the lord pope was sitting in consistory, he himself questioned the bishop again on the same chapters, and ordered one of the scribes of the court to read aloud the book which was said to contain the bishop's errors. Whereat the bishop cried out that he ought to be judged on his own works, not the works of others; and that no-one, leas of all a bishop, ought to be condemned unless he had either confessed or been convicted of a crime, having in mind what previously happened to Peter. He was not, he said, a heretic and would never be one, for he was ready and always had been to recognize truth and respect apostolic doctrine; for it was not ignorance of truth that made a heretic, but a pride which presumed to cause disputes. He said he had spoken openly to the world in schools and churches, and had taught nothing in secret: he had written on the Psalms and the epistles of Paul and if there was error in his works he was willing to submit himself to correction or punishment. Likewise he did write on the De Trinitate of Boethius: and if any error be found in it he admitted it would be his, and he would be at pains to make amends.
The scribe continued reading from the book, and in the first chapter was the statement that baptism does not bring remission of sin to the foredoomed, and has not the virtue of a sacrament for such persons, but is no more value than a bath to them. Whereat the bishop flared up and exclaimed to the pope: "You see, Father, how you treat me when the errors of others are recited in your holy consistory to my shame. I avow that I had several pupils who admittedly have all heard me lecture, but some of whom did not understand what I said; what they have written is their interpretation, not my meaning.
You would do better to summon them to answer for this pamphlet! What more can I say! Like you I pronounce anathema on this book and all the heresies written in it, and on its author; whoever he is, may he be condemned to eternal death on the Judgment Day with all other heretics!"
The cardinals and others said this should be sufficient defense for the bishop against accusations based on this book; and the pope commanded it to be destroyed. At once, in the sight of all, the scribe chopped the book into tiny fragments and scattered them.
Eyewitness accounts of Europeans in Jerusalem (12th century):
Mysterious are the works of the Creator, the author of all things! When one comes to recount cases regarding the Franks, he cannot but glorify Allah (exalted he be!) and our faith, for in the Franks he sees but animals, possessing the virtues of courage and fighting but nothing else; just as animals have only the virtues of strength and carrying loads. I shall now give some instances of their doings and their mentality.
One time they had brought in a knight in whose leg an abscess had grown; and a woman afflicted with imbecility. To the knight I applied a small poultice until the abscess opened and became well; and the woman I put on a diet and made her humor wet. Then a physician of the Franks came to them and said, "this man knows nothing about treating patients." He then said to the man, "which would you prefer, living with one leg or dying with two?" The latter replied, "Living with one leg." The physician said, "Bring me a strong knight and a sharp ax." A knight came with the ax. And I was standing by. Then the physician laid the leg of the patient on a block of wood and bade the knight strike his leg with the ax and chop it off at one blow. Accordingly he struck it--while I was looking on--one blow, but the leg was not severed. He dealt another blow, upon which the marrow of the leg flowed out and the patient died on the spot. He then examined the woman and said, "This is a woman in whose head there is a devil which has possessed her. Shave off her hair." Accordingly they shaved it off and the woman began once more to eat their ordinary diet--garlic and mustard. Her imbecility took a turn for the worse. The physician then said, "The devil has penetrated through her head." He therefore took a razor, made a deep cruciform incision in her forehead, peeled off the skin at the middle of the incision until the bone of the skull was exposed and rubbed it with salt. The woman also expired instantly. Thereupon I asked them whether my services were needed any longer, and when they replied in the negative I returned home, having learned of their medicine what I did not know before.
Whenever I visited Jerusalem I always entered the Aqsa Mosque, beside which stood a small mosque which the Franks had converted into a church. When I used to enter the Aqsa Mosque, which was occupied by the Templars, who were my friends, the Templars would evacuate the little adjoining mosque so that I might pray in it. One day I entered this mosque, repeated the first formula, "Allah is great," and stood up in the act of praying, upon which one of the Franks rushed on me, got hold of me and turned my face eastward saying, "This is the way thou shouldst pray!" A group of Templars hastened to him, seized him and repelled him from me. I resumed my prayer. The same man, while the others were otherwise busy, rushed once more on me and turned my face eastward, saying, "This is the way though shouldst pray!" The Templars again came in to him and expelled him. They apologized to me, saying, "This is a stranger who has only recently arrived from the land of the Franks and he has never before seen anyone praying except eastward." Thereupon I said to myself, "I have had enough prayer."
I went out, and have ever since thought wonderingly of this man, at the change in the color of his face, his trembling, and the convulsion of his whole figure upon me.
One day a Frank went home and found a man with his wife in the same bed. He asked him, "What could have made thee enter into my wife's room?" The man replied, "I was tired, so I went in to rest." But how," asked he, didst thou get into my bed?" The other replied, "I found a bed that was spread, so I slept in it." "But," said he, "my wife was sleeping together with thee!" The other replied, "Well the bed is hers. How could I therefore have prevented her from using her own bed?"
"By the truth of my religion..." said the husband, "if thou shouldst do it again, thou and I would have a quarrel." Then the man went away; and we have long thought about the Frank's reaction to his words.
A curious case relating to their medicine is another story, which was related to me by William of Bures the lord of Tiberias, who was one of the principal chiefs among the Franks. He told us, "We had in our country a knight, who was taken ill and was on the point of death. We thereupon came to one of our great priests and said to him, "Come with us and examine our knight." "I will," he replied, and walked along with us while we were assured in ourselves that if he would only lay his hand on the knight, the patient would recover. When the priest saw the patient he said, "Bring me some wax." We fetched him a little wax, which he softened and shaped like the knuckles of fingers, and then stuck one in each nostril. The knight died on the spot. We said to him, "He is dead." "Yes," he replied, "he was suffering great pain, so I closed up his nose that he might die and get relief." Thus we learned of the Franks' medicine.
-An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades, trans. P.K.Hitti (New York, Columbia University Press, 1929), pp.161-170I once went in the company of al-Amir Mu-in-al-Din (may Allah's mercy rest upon his soul) to Jerusalem. There we saw Franks putting on trial a man who was suspected of some malfeasance. This is how he was tried, according to the Frankish way of procedure.
They installed a huge cask and filled it with water. Across it they set a board of wood. They then bound the arms of the man, tied a rope around his shoulders and dropped him into the cask, their idea being that in the case he was innocent, he would sink in the water and they would then lift him up with the rope so that he might not die in the water; and in case he was guilty, he would not sink in the water. This man did his best to sink when they dropped him in the water, but he could not do it. So he had to submit to their sentence against him--they pierced his eyeballs with red-hot awls, may Allah's curse be upon them!
500 years wasted? Yes, really.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by SigniferOne
