 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Non-fiction and essays |
||||||||||||
| University essays |
||||||||||||
| History Third Year |
||||||||||||
| Formative Essay |
||||||||||||
| In what ways can it be argued that medieval Europe was a genocidal society? While the orthodox Christian’s life was not easy in Medieval Europe, existence could be much more fragile for those groups that were increasingly seen as outside mainstream society. Notable groups of these ‘others’ include Jews and heretics. Persecution and exploitation of these groups continued throughout the Medieval period. Yet, is it possible to describe the society that subjected these groups to hardship and even death as genocidal? The immediate problem is that genocide as a term was only coined in the twentieth century. In 1944, Raphael Lemkin defined genocide as a ‘co-ordinated and planned annihilation of national, religious or racial groups by a variety of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group as a group.’# Since that initial use of the term, many other historians have provided their own definition of what constitutes genocide, which, far from clarifying the issue, have only made its application more problematic. As Chalk and Jonassohn go on to note, the fact that genocide is a modern term causes problems when trying to apply the term to historical events due to the ‘judgmental and moral loadings that have become attached to it.’# In order to determine the extent to which Medieval Europe can be classified as a genocidal society, it is necessary to examine what is present within the society of the Middle Ages that might allow or promote genocidal acts. The first necessity is the presence of the persecuted, or what Leo Kuper describes as ‘an identifiable and differentiated group within a society.’ This, he terms as the ‘scapegoat type of genocide.’# A discussion of attitudes towards Jews and heretics, two immediately apparent groups in Medieval Europe, will be prudent to illuminate the attitudes of the persecutor toward the persecuted. The other main aspect to consider is the presence of an authority within Medieval Europe which might possess the requisite power to carry out a campaign of persecution and possible genocide. In the Middle Ages, this authority rests primarily with the orthodox Catholic Church with secular rulers as a secondary authority. Any consideration of Medieval Europe must take into account the position of the Christian Church. The only true international organisation in Europe, the Church affected every person within the borders of Christendom, and also those on the periphery. As civilisation was developing with the Mutation de l’an mil, religious and political bureaucracy became increasingly powerful. However, with increasing influence, the Church also became less tolerant of difference. Those who lived within Western Christendom but did not respect the authority of the Church were deemed a distinct threat that needed to be dealt with. It became a structural necessity to exclude or at least control the ‘others’, and enforce uniformity of beliefs. Connected with the growth of bureaucratic influence was the increase in literacy among European society. According to R. I. Moore, widespread literacy could threaten the hegemony of the Church, characterised by ‘the mystification of the book, the social and political aggrandisement of those who had access to it, the consequent extension and reinforcement of social hierarchy, the identification of orthodoxy with privilege and illiteracy with unfreedom, and the elaboration of a concept of heresy to police the frontier between them.’# Therefore, the relation of literacy with power and the fear that widespread literacy could allow heresy to develop meant that whoever controlled access to literacy could wield power over the illiterate. The Church was keen to ensure that it held this power, rooting out those who might try to undermine the Church’s authority with their own interpretation of Scripture. Moore describes this fear succinctly: ‘the successful preacher represented unlicensed, uncontrolled power. Therefore he must either recognise the authority of the Church, and so by implication the legitimacy of secular power and the social order, or be extirpated.‘# It was this fear of unorthodoxy that led to increasingly violent reactions from Church and secular authorities towards those deemed as heretics. While the power of the Church was in effect unchallenged by external threats, it was also insecure of the disparate and diverse peoples within Europe. The second aspect of medieval society which might have encouraged genocide was the increasing tendency for defining the individual. As an increasingly aware perception of self created a firmer idea of who belonged within Western Christian society, it also highlighted any differences that might suggest peoples who did not belong. An early example of this attitude can be seen in the writings of Liudprand of Cremona. In his report of the legation to Constantinople he established a clear distinction between the Greek King with his long hair, feminine ways and miserly attitude, and King Otto, his patron, who was closely cropped, truthful and never wore clothes like a woman.# A widely circulated text such as this would have an impact on perceptions of other groups of people, and demonstrates the perception of a Western Christian identity. A lack of understanding of similarities led to a search to find differences. Baraz has described this process as the ‘internalisation of the agents of cruelty’ which moved the focus of threats to the established order from those outside Christendom to those within it, most obviously, the Jew and the heretic.# These groups of ‘others’ were defined in terms of generalised stereotypes, which does suggest a fulfilment of part of Chalk and Jonassohn’s definition of genocide. The Christian authorities sought to redefine ‘the victim group as worthless, outside the web of mutual obligations, a threat to the people, immoral sinners, and/or subhuman.’ # Yet, it is still not clear whether mere definition of a group is enough to constitute genocide, therefore it is necessary to examine the medieval source material. Many contemporary Christian writings concern the demonisation of Jews. From as early as the fourth century, the notion of the cruel and persecuting Jew had existed in European thought. The perception of the Jew as a threat to Christian children was tied up with the idea of the Blood Libel, whereby Jews would allegedly seize children to sacrifice during religious ceremonies. The Jewish community in Europe had always been endured for their role as moneylenders and relied on a position of privilege and protection from the great rulers of Europe. They were also seen as witnesses to the Old Testament, as Peter of Blois described: ‘Wherefore life is allowed to the Jews of today, because they are our treasurers while they confirm the prophecies on our faith and the law of Moses.’# However, in the Middle Ages, this position began to further define the Jew as an outsider. The crusade of 1096 led to the deaths of many Jews in the Rhine cities, and some may see these massacres as a clear signal of the genocidal nature of European society. However, it must be remembered that these attacks were more a result of the outpouring of Christian religious fervour and the opportunistic attacks of a passing army than a planned attempt to eradicate the Jews. What these attacks serve to highlight is the overwhelming assertion of Christian identity, as even though the target of the crusades were not Jews as such, they were identified as non-Christians, and suffered the same fate as those external ‘others’ who threatened Christendom. Accusations of Blood Libel increased and from a position of precarious privilege, the Jews were often expelled from the territory of their protectors. The case of William of Norwich, a Christian boy allegedly sacrificed by the Jews was used as a pretext for the virtual annihilation of the Jewish community in that English city. A work of hagiography by Thomas of Monmouth, describing William as ‘flowering in this blessed boyhood’ and ‘like an innocent lamb’ are clear attempts to create a Christ-like martyr. Thomas finishes the work with an allusion to a Europe-wide Jewish conspiracy that practised the Blood Libel across the continent. Robert Chazan suggests that following the William of Norwich case and its aftermath, ‘Contemporary Jews were now perceived as consumed by anti-Christian hostility, as exploiting available opportunities to harm the Christian faith.’# This was sure to fan the flames of anti-Jewish sentiment, that often boiled over into violence and even massacre. The situation of heretics in Europe was not much better than that of the Jews, and in many ways, they were more ruthlessly sought out by the Christian authorities. Writings of the time indicate a particular contempt for those who would dare to deviate from orthodox Catholic doctrine. Peter, Abbot of Cluny in his writings on the Petrobusians talks of the ‘stupid and sacrilegious heresy’ and compares it to a hidden infection which ‘passes its deadly poison hither and thither.’ In Peter’s mind the way to combat heresy is with ‘reason and sound authority’ which in his mind clearly equates to the teachings of the orthodox Church.# As well as the comparisons of heretics with animals - another method to further their distance from mainstream society - some Church leaders such as Guibert of Nogent took pains to describe the actions of heretics, to make it easier for the people to recognise heresy.# The key choice regarding heretics, as noted by Malcolm Lambert was either to get them to repent and bring them back within the orthodox Church, or if that was not possible ‘then every kind of measure might be employed to bring them to justice’.# This treatment of heretics reached it apogee after the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 which set out the basic definition of who was to be included in, and by implication excluded from, Christian society. Lambert described the council’s statement as ‘a checklist for the presence of heresy,’ a crime which ‘lay in obstinate deviation from the definition of the Church.’# Subsequently, the Inquisition was employed to tackle heresy in a more pro-active fashion. Inquisitor manuals such as the one produced by Bernard Gui offered detailed procedures to identify and question those accused of heresy. No longer would the Church rely on the haphazard approach of the local bishops, but would find heretics and do everything in their power to get them to recant, give up their associates and swear to collaborate with future investigations, to ‘pursue…the heretics of whatever sect condemned by the Roman Church…and the believers, deceivers, aiders and abettors of these heretics.’# The Church’s tolerance for those who differed became increasingly short-lived. There is certainly a problem in ascribing a term such as ‘genocidal’ to Medieval European society, especially considering the use of violence towards the ‘others.’ Except for the determined assault upon the Cathars during the Albigensian crusade, there was rarely a constant application of military force to subdue those outside orthodox Christianity, most likely because the Church had to rely on the cooperation of secular powers to use force. While there were instances of extremes of violence towards the Jewish communities and groups deemed heretical, violence was not always the first method of dealing with difference. However, there was a definite move towards the identification and subsequent vilification of groups that the Church saw as a threat to its authority and the uniformity it wished to promote across Europe. In the suppression of Jewish culture and the Cathars as a group, the Church and secular authorities were engaged in an attempt to eradicate difference. It no longer mattered whether these groups truly existed as a threat, or were merely a created stereotype, as the ‘distinction between reality and perception is hard to maintain if reality only has one form.’# The tactics of the Inquisition for example have been suggested as providing a model for future cases of state-sponsored genocide: ‘persecution by torture, forced confessions, and guilt by association leading to imprisonment and death have become standard methods in many genocidal processes in the twentieth- century.’# However, as James Given has noted, the case of Inquisitorial power illustrates the dichotomy between intention and execution of exclusionary policies in the medieval period, when ‘a skilful use of social isolation, along with systematic stigmatisation and marginalisation, could accomplish a great deal. But heavy reliance on such techniques of rule also indicates just how frail was the grasp of power on the social formation of Europe.’# It seems as though the culture and development of European society could be described as genocidal to a certain extent, it was certainly intolerant of difference. However, the bureaucracy needed to perform a large scale eradication of undesirable ‘others’ was still limited, it did not occur everywhere with the same intensity,# and the racial ideologies that have characterised modern conceptions and instances of genocide were conspicuous by their absence. Bibliography Primary Sources Peter, Abbot of Cluny, on the teachings of the Petrobusians Henry of Clairvaux’s legation in the Languedoc, both from Moore, The Birth of Popular Heresy Guibert of Nogent, Memoirs, 3.17. Liudprand of Cremona, report of the Legation to Constantinople Socrates Scholasticus, ‘The Blood Libel in Syria’ (4th C.) Peter of Blois, ‘Against the Perfidy of the Jews’ Ephraim ben Jacob, ‘The Ritual Murder Accusation at Blois’ Thomas of Monmouth, The Life and Miracles of St William of Norwich, excerpts Byzantine Liturgy for Good Friday Anti-Semitic Legends Martin Luther, The Jews and their Lies, excerpts Bernard Gui, ‘Techniques of Inquisition’ The Inquisitorial Record of Jacques Fournier Bernard Gui, Inquisitorial Manual Secondary Material Baraz, D., Medieval Cruelty: Changing Perceptions, Late Antiquity to the Early Modern Period (Ithaca, NY, 2003). Chalk, F. and Jonassohn, K., The History and Sociology of Genocide: Analyses and Case Studies (New Haven, 1990). Given, J. B., Inquisition and Medieval Society: Power, Discipline, and Resistance in the Languedoc (Ithaca, NY, 1997). Kieckhefer, R., Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany (Liverpool, 1979). Kuper, L., Genocide (Harmondsworth, 1981). Lambert, M., The Cathars (Oxford, 1998). --------------, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation (Oxford, 2000). Lawrence, C. H., The Friars: The Impact of the Early Mendicant Movement on Western Society (London, 1994). Little, L. K. and Rosenwein, B. H. (eds.), Debating the Middle Ages: Issues and Readings (Oxford, 1998). Mazower, M., Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century (London, 1999). Moore, R. I., The Formation of a Persecuting Society (Oxford, 1987). --------------, The Origins of European Society (London, 1977). Signer, M. A. and Van Engen, J. (eds.), Jews and Christians in Twelfth Century Europe (Notre Dame, 2001). Ullman, W., The Individual and Society in the Middle Ages (London, 1967). |
||||||||||||
| Non-fiction |
||||||||||||
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |