# Ask me about Medieval England - Especially Christianity and Books



## artisticrainey (Aug 13, 2012)

Hope this is okay to post...

I studied a master's degree in Medieval Literature (specifically between 1350 and 1500) with a focus on hagiography (saint's lives), and my dissertation was a transcription of a treatise on the Seven Deadly Sins.  If you have any questions about Medieval Christianity/piety/heresy/something related I might be able to help you.

I also specialised in codicology and paleography -- studying books as objects and study of ancient handwriting respectively.  If you have questions about Medieval books (Who wrote them?  Where did the material come from?  Why were they written?  What materials were used? etc.) and medieval handwriting (what's the difference between anglicana and secretary?) please ask.  I might not be able to give a massively complex answer, but I can certainly try and _illuminate_ your way (little manuscript joke there, haha - I am a nerd).

I'll also answer any other questions about Medieval life and culture as best I can.  However, I know very little about Medival warfare/armour/swordplay/jousting etc. so I probably can't help you with those topics.


----------



## squishybug87 (Aug 13, 2012)

I'll keep that in mind  

I'll be basing one of the civilizations in my universe off of Medieval England, but I haven't gotten to planning that one yet.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Aug 14, 2012)

Hello Artisticrainey, and Welcome to Mythic Scribes!!

Maybe you don't have much information about the life and death of Princess Joan of England, daughter of Edward III and Philippa of Hainault... but if you know anything about her that is not widely known in the Internet, I would be delighted to hear about it.

Any new information could help me with my _Joan of England_ Fantasy series =)


----------



## artisticrainey (Aug 14, 2012)

squishybug87 said:


> I'll keep that in mind
> 
> I'll be basing one of the civilizations in my universe off of Medieval England, but I haven't gotten to planning that one yet.



Well, if you ever have any questions, I'll do my best to answer if I can.



Sheilawisz said:


> Hello Artisticrainey, and Welcome to Mythic Scribes!!
> 
> Maybe you don't have much information about the life and death of Princess Joan of England, daughter of Edward III and Philippa of Hainault... but if you know anything about her that is not widely known in the Internet, I would be delighted to hear about it.



I'm sorry to say that I don't, but if I come across anything I'll let you know.  I think because she died so young (even in Medeival terms) there wasn't much of a chance of writing much about her -- which is compounded by the fact that most writings haven't survived.



> Any new information could help me with my _Joan of England_ Fantasy series =)



Now that sounds right up my street!  I wish I could help even more now!


----------



## Sheilawisz (Aug 14, 2012)

Thank you Artisticrainey, I think that I have a few questions for you now:

What were the beds like in 14th century England, especially the beds of the richest people?? What were they made of?

What about their mirrors?


----------



## artisticrainey (Aug 15, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> What were the beds like in 14th century England, especially the beds of the richest people?? What were they made of?



The very, very richest IE: the king and the Archbishop of Canterbury, their nearest and dearest and anyone who visits them and is of sufficient rank/importance would have a very large four poster bed with enclosing curtains.  The mattress and pillows would be stuffed with feathers (usually down).  There would be fine linen sheets on the beds and woollen blankets.  On top would be a brightly coloured bedspread as a way to make the guest feel comfortable, and also a way to show off your wealth even more.

Don't forget, though, that even in the richest of people are still subject to bed bug infestations.



> What about their mirrors?



Mirrors are a little more complicated.  Mirrors as we see them now didn't really exist until the 16th Century.  Most mirrors in Medieval times were more likely to be panels or disks of metal (usually bronze or silver) polished to an extrememly high sheen.  The very richest could probably have afforded a slightly more modern mirror (glass with a metallic backing).  Most mirrors were the hand-held kind.  Full-length mirrors didn't come into fashion for a few centuries.  Mirrors weren't used much for decoration, and their cost was very high indeed.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Aug 15, 2012)

Thank you Artisticrainey, this information about Medieval beds for the richest families is very interesting- You really have a great knowledge about Medieval life!! I will think of more questions for you, this thread has a great potential to be useful for many Mythic Scribes members =)


----------



## artisticrainey (Aug 15, 2012)

You're welcome!  The knowledge all comes from books and journals that I've read so I have to thank them!  Sadly I'm not a researcher myself anymore, but the skills never leave you and it can be easy enough to find info when you know where to look


----------



## Zokoke (Dec 9, 2012)

Hi artisticrainey. Going along with beds, what would a commoner sleep on? Would multiple people sleep on one bed or would there be multiple beds? Also, how would beds be stored when not in use? Was there privacy? If it helps, I'm looking at medieval Ireland in a Crannog style house.


----------



## Jess A (Dec 10, 2012)

Hi there,

This thread will be very useful. I will bookmark it. My story is based on more of a Renaissance culture, but I still look into medieval culture as well. I have invented religions, so the religion studies will be of use. 

Can you detail the structure of the Church in that period? So from top to bottom, ranks, what they did etc? 

And can you tell me anything about the burning of heretics, what they did, ceremonies involved in the burning of witches and heretics (or how they were tortured for questioning?). What a morbid topic!


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 10, 2012)

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Hi there,
> 
> And can you tell me anything about the burning of heretics, what they did, ceremonies involved in the burning of witches and heretics (or how they were tortured for questioning?). What a morbid topic!



Look at Matthew Hopkins The Witchfinder General -  The most prolific witch hunter, executioner and torturer of witches in the 1600?s - BBC - Legacies - Myths and Legends - England - Essex - Witch-finder witch? - Article Page 1 

- Matthew Hopkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 

Mathew Hopkins - 

They made a film about him - Witchfinder General - pretty old, not brill. But I suppose one source for you.


----------



## artisticrainey (Dec 10, 2012)

Zokoke said:


> Hi artisticrainey. Going along with beds, what would a commoner sleep on? Would multiple people sleep on one bed or would there be multiple beds? Also, how would beds be stored when not in use? Was there privacy? If it helps, I'm looking at medieval Ireland in a Crannog style house.



Hi there,

Crannogs are quite ancient dwellings, and I think in Medieval Ireland there would not have been many still in use. It would have been rare, rather than the norm.

In any case, as crannogs were large, communal areas with few partitioned areas, people would have slept in the same large area. Logic would dictate that they would try to cluster close to the fire in the middle, with the most important people being closer than those of lesser importance. Bedding would have been made of straw and temporary rather than permanent wooden structures in the terms of beds as we recognise them.

Hope that helps


----------



## artisticrainey (Dec 10, 2012)

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Can you detail the structure of the Church in that period? So from top to bottom, ranks, what they did etc?



Which church are you talking about? The only church I have any knowledge of is Medieval Christianity, so I hope it is in some way useful. Also, the church and its hierarchy did change depending on the part of the Middle Ages you're talking about. I'm going to focus on the Later Middle Ages (1300-1500 approximately).

At the top of the hierarchy there was of course the Pope. The Pope served a similar function in terms of religion as he does now, but also wielded a vast amount of power over Christian rulers. In fact, quite often the kings of Western Europe petitioned the Pope for permission to declare war and were frequently excommunicated for disobeying the ruling of the Pope. There has generally only been one Pope, apart from a period between 1378 and 1415 called the 'Great Schism' where there were in fact two popes, one ruling from Rome and one from Avignon.

Below the Pope would have come the Cardinals, generally appointed by him. I'm not hugely familiar with the inner workings of the higher levels until we get to the Archbishops. Archbishops were also usually appointed by the Pope, and there were many disagreements between the Pope and ruling kings, for the kings wanted the right to appoint their own Archbishops (a French pope, for example, might appoint a Frenchman as Archbishop of Canterbury, but it would be unlikely that the English king would favour this and would rather appoint his own, loyal Englishman). Archbishops were advisors to the king, and also acted as conduits for transferring information to and from the Royal See.

Below this came bishops, who had jurisdiction over a variety of parishes and in theory were supposed to make sure the priests of the parishes were doing their jobs. However, to think that they were very holy men who ruled with an iron rod would be a misconception. Many bishops had their fingers in a number of businesses, including the running (and visiting) of brothels.

Priests were at the centre of the parishes, and were often the younger sons of lords (not necessarily important lords) who needed an income because all the land would go to the oldest son (this was not always the case, but generally the rule). Thus, while priests did conduct masses and other religious services/sacraments, they were not always very holy and many were in fact just doing it for an income. The main language of the Church was Latin, but some priests could not read, write or speak it very well.

The Middle Ages also saw the proliferation of many Holy Orders, one such being the Order of Preachers or the Black Friars (now commonly known as the Dominican Order). They were called the Black Friars because of the black cloaks they wore over their white habits. These friars would preach against heresy and try to spread the teachings of their particular order.

There were also members of the clergy that were enclosed - that lived within the confines of their monastery and did not often venture outside. These were based on the Rule of St Benedict, who wrote that monks should live a simple, impoverished life, eating only simple food and spending ample time in prayer. However, monks were excellent at bending the rules and often justified a far more lavish lifestyle. Monasteries often owned vast amounts of land, produced a lot of food of their own, and had monoplies on mills and baking-ovens. Monks also generated a lot of wealth by being paid to pray for the souls of others. A knight, back from fighting for the King, might have killed many people. Now killing, even for the king, was still prohibited in the Ten Commandments. He might be given a huge amount of prayer to cleanse his soul - but if he farmed it out to ten monks praying constantly for a year, he would be absolved a hell of a lot more quickly.

In this way, prayer gained currency. The more humble and simple a monk's life, the more people wanted to pay him as he would be seen as a good conduit for prayer. However, the more money he got, the less humble and simple his life became, and the monasteries became very rich indeed, and not very holy. That's when people started turning to cloistered nuns as a preferred method.

Another interesting fact would be that often, Bishops took up arms and went into battle. Apart from that, I don't know how much more I can tell you.



Little Storm Cloud said:


> And can you tell me anything about the burning of heretics, what they did, ceremonies involved in the burning of witches and heretics (or how they were tortured for questioning?). What a morbid topic!



Oh, God. I hate the burning of heretics debate. Yes, people were burned as heretics, but not as often as you might think. In fact, you could only actually be properly called a heretic if you admitted it yourself. If you didn't actually admit, 'yes I am a heretic' then you weren't technically speaking a heretic. You were just accused of it.

There were not as many people burned at the stake as popular media would have you believe. As for special ceremonies, as far as I'm aware there aren't any. You went to a field, built a big wood pile with a stake in it and tied the person to it. Then it was lit, probably with some prayers and condemnations given by a priest or friar. Sometimes family members would bring along other fuel to help the fire burn faster and kill the person quicker, such as the carcass of a pig, but too often these just turned into bombs made of fat and exploded, causing the person even more agony. The skin and fat would start to melt and burn off, but the cause of death was usually asphyxiation.

One common method for determining if someone was a witch or not was called Trial by Ordeal. This took the form of throwing the accused into a body of water. If they floated, they were a witch. If they sank, they weren't. However. 'witch hunts' didn't really come about until the 1700s, not really in the Middle Ages.

And in case anyone is starting to furiously bang your fingers on the keyboard to tell me how very wrong I am about heretics, save your breath. I am really not interested in getting into a conversation about it. These are my views, based on literature and history that I have studied. I might be wrong and I might be underestimating - that's fine. But I am not open for debate at this time.


----------



## Phietadix (Dec 10, 2012)

artisticrainey said:


> Now killing, even for the king, was still prohibited in the Ten Commandments.



That doesn't sound right. The ten commandments say 'do not murder' not 'do not kill'. Killing enemy soidiers in a war isn't murder.


----------



## artisticrainey (Dec 10, 2012)

Phietadix said:


> That doesn't sound right. The ten commandments say 'do not murder' not 'do not kill'. Killing enemy soidiers in a war isn't murder.



The translation is usually interpreted as kill, rather than murder. Regardless of what the "true" translation is, the king still had to do penance. I think you're putting a very modern slant on the kill/murder idea. A lot of the killing was done in the name of religion (Crusades etc) but it was still considered morally wrong. There was just a convenient get-out clause that you could pray away your sins after the fact - the Sacrament of Penance.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 10, 2012)

I don't think it is a modern slant. I was once told by a rabbi that it translates to "murder" in the original Hebrew text, and that the distinction is quite clear based on the choice of words. I've heard the same thing from a friend I had in Seminary school. It makes sense, at any rate.


----------



## artisticrainey (Dec 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think it is a modern slant. I was once told by a rabbi that it translates to "murder" in the original Hebrew text, and that the distinction is quite clear based on the choice of words. I've heard the same thing from a friend I had in Seminary school. It makes sense, at any rate.



By modern slant I meant the "is killing in war murder" argument, rather than the translation itself. I'm no translator, so I can't vouch for the words and their interpretation and I won't try. However, the view of killing in the Middle Ages wasn't as tied up in morality as it can be now. Even during a time of war or Crusade, the person still had to do penance for their sins.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 10, 2012)

artisticrainey said:


> By modern slant I meant the "is killing in war murder" arguement, rather than the translation itself. I'm no translator, so I can't vouch for the words and their interpretation and I won't try. However, the view of killing in the Middle Ages wasn't as tied up in morality as it can be now. Even during a time of war or Crusade, the person still had to do penance for their sins.



Ah, I see what you meant. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## artisticrainey (Dec 10, 2012)

No problem, I should have been clearer in the first place. I can see where the confusion came from.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 10, 2012)

*Raises hand*

 I'm a translator.

 Granted, you don't need to be a translator in order to understand the distinction between killing and murder as it existed at this time. Bluntly said, the act of going on crusade and the eradication of heretics was, at this time, considered an indulgence by the Catholic church. You don't, as a matter of definition, do penances for indulgences. 

 That said, kings did have to do pennance for out and out murder especially if the person had connections. Look at the mess surrounding Thomas Becket.


----------



## Devor (Dec 10, 2012)

It seems important to mention that many of these indulgences at the time . . . weren't.  Although donations were once considered an indulgence - which is, by definition, a sacrifice which merits grace - priests were fabricating documents and making promises that were well beyond their authority and any theological basis.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 10, 2012)

That was certainly the case with guys like Tetzel, a few centuries down the road. That was not, however, the case with the Crusades. Look up Quantum Praedecessores, the Papal bull endorsing the Second Crusade, if my word is not good enough.


----------



## Jess A (Dec 11, 2012)

Butterfly said:


> Look at Matthew Hopkins The Witchfinder General -  The most prolific witch hunter, executioner and torturer of witches in the 1600?s - BBC - Legacies - Myths and Legends - England - Essex - Witch-finder witch? - Article Page 1
> 
> - Matthew Hopkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -
> 
> ...



Hi Butterfly,

Thanks for the links - this is about the correct time period for my novel as well. I think I'll stick to reading the sources you gave me rather than seeing the film


----------



## Jess A (Dec 11, 2012)

artisticrainey said:


> Which church are you talking about? The only church I have any knowledge of is Medieval Christianity, so I hope it is in some way useful. Also, the church and its hierarchy did change depending on the part of the Middle Ages you're talking about. I'm going to focus on the Later Middle Ages (1300-1500 approximately).
> 
> At the top of the hierarchy there was of course the Pope. The Pope served a similar function in terms of religion as he does now, but also wielded a vast amount of power over Christian rulers. In fact, quite often the kings of Western Europe petitioned the Pope for permission to declare war and were frequently excommunicated for disobeying the ruling of the Pope. There has generally only been one Pope, apart from a period between 1378 and 1415 called the 'Great Schism' where there were in fact two popes, one ruling from Rome and one from Avignon.
> 
> ...



Yes I meant medieval Christianity. I appreciate your knowledge - it doesn't matter if it is of one specific period. Thank you for the information - it is a great help and it will help me structure my own religion. Since I was not raised to follow any religion, I have little knowledge of the inner workings of the Christian church. 

As for the heretics, I did not intend to start any debates. I studied heresy and witchcraft a little in university, but history was not my major and I put a lot of focus on politics in that unit rather than on the heresy/witchcraft side of things. It was a unit on early modern Europe, however! But information from any period will be useful to me. 

The pig carcass is both gruesome and interesting - I may have to throw that into a scene. 

Thank you for your time and your information.


----------



## artisticrainey (Dec 11, 2012)

Little Storm Cloud said:


> Yes I meant medieval Christianity. I appreciate your knowledge - it doesn't matter if it is of one specific period. Thank you for the information - it is a great help and it will help me structure my own religion. Since I was not raised to follow any religion, I have little knowledge of the inner workings of the Christian church.
> 
> As for the heretics, I did not intend to start any debates. I studied heresy and witchcraft a little in university, but history was not my major and I put a lot of focus on politics in that unit rather than on the heresy/witchcraft side of things. It was a unit on early modern Europe, however! But information from any period will be useful to me.
> 
> ...



You're welcome! I'm by no means an expert but I'm glad to share any information that I can


----------



## Devor (Dec 11, 2012)

Shockley said:


> That was certainly the case with guys like Tetzel, a few centuries down the road. That was not, however, the case with the Crusades. Look up Quantum Praedecessores, the Papal bull endorsing the Second Crusade, if my word is not good enough.



Quantum Praedecessores doesn't mention Indulgences even once.  The only item in it of theological consequence is this (the bold is an old trick for learning to read these things; read just the bold to get to the point):



			
				Quantum Praedecessores said:
			
		

> According to the institution of our aforesaid predecessor, by the authority of almighty God and by that of St. Peter the chief of the apostles, conceded to us by God, _*we grant*_ such *remission* and absolution _*of sins*_, that he who shall devoutly begin so sacred a journey and shall accomplish it, or shall die during it, shall obtain absolution *for all his sins which* with a humble and contrite heart _*he shall confess*_, and shall receive the fruit of eternal retribution from the Remunerator of all.



What were we talking about again?

Since that's pretty close to how confession normally works inside the Catholic Church, it might not even be immediately clear what the Pope is offering.  But as part of hearing Confession, the priest uses his own judgement to ask for penance, typically a few Hail Marys and an Our Fathers.  But sometimes they can be arduous.  If you confess to murder, for instance, the priest will probably request that you turn yourself in to receive absolution.  I've a friend who confessed to downloading thousands of songs illegally, and the priest told him to give a dollar to charity for each song as his penance.  Sometimes in the Middle Ages, the priests asked for long pilgrimages to Rome or other shrines.

In Quantum Praedecessores, the Pope is offering to direct priests to waive such arduous penances for those involved in the crusades, and to endorse the crusades, in exchange for the French leaders protecting the property of these soldiers while they are away.

Nobody's denying that the Pope endorsed the crusades, but waiving penance for soldiers after a lengthy conflict doesn't seem like something to be upset about.  And there's nothing there about indulgences.


----------



## Phietadix (Dec 11, 2012)

You can't say that the bible says all killing is wrong. In the bible God commands people to kill and sometimes Punishs them for _not killing those_ he told them to. But he says murder is wrong and punishs people for murder. for example David and Bathsheba. Then again Medieval Chirstianity isn't well known for following the Bible.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 12, 2012)

> In Quantum Praedecessores, *the Pope is offering to direct priests to waive such arduous penances for those involved in the crusades*, and to endorse the crusades, in exchange for the French leaders protecting the property of these soldiers while they are away.



 I'm going to take your definition of what is in Quantum Praedecessores and contrast with the Catholic Dictionary's definition of 'Indulgence.' Bolding in your post, of course, is mine.



> *As originally understood, an indulgence was a mitigation of the severe canonical penances imposed on the faithful for grave sins.*



 There is no difference between what you have just defined and what the definition of indulgence was during the Middle Ages.


----------



## Devor (Dec 12, 2012)

Maybe.  However, _the eradication of heretics_ through killing is not itself an indulgence.  The indulgence, by your definition, would be the mercy granted by the Church to participants in the Crusades.  You were giving the impression that killing heretics was somehow blessed by the Church, but waiving a severe penance doesn't make a sinful act not a sin.

I'll remind you again, the severe penances of the Middle Ages aren't even typically a part of modern confessions.

However, by a more common definition, an indulgence is a sacrificial action deserving of merit, many of which are specifically defined by the Church.  That's the only definition by which an action can be an indulgence, and the only one for which the Church typically has gotten in trouble.  Loosely speaking, anything done with the right mindset can be an indulgence - not every single Crusader was an evil pig; in fact, the 2nd Crusade which Quantum Praedecessores addresses was as much a rescue mission as anything - but the Church has never gone about granting spiritual rewards specifically for killing.


----------



## Shockley (Dec 12, 2012)

> Maybe. However, the eradication of heretics through killing is not itself an indulgence. The indulgence, by your definition, would be the mercy granted by the Church to participants in the Crusades. You were giving the impression that killing heretics was somehow blessed by the Church, but waiving a severe penance doesn't make a sinful act not a sin.



 It would be one thing if the Popes of the time had said 'This is a bad thing that you are doing, but it won't be held against you.' It's quite another to say, 'Do this wonderful thing (ie, killing many Muslims, Jews and other Christians) and you will not have to perform pennance.'



> I'll remind you again, the severe penances of the Middle Ages aren't even typically a part of modern confessions.



 No one was talking about modern confession - the question is about the church during the Middle Ages, when matters of pennance, indulgence and yes, the eradication of heretics and non-Christians was not frowned upon.



> However, by a more common definition, an indulgence is a sacrificial action deserving of merit, many of which are specifically defined by the Church.



 A church which has redifined what an indulgence is and what it does many times over the years. Again, this is pertaining to the purpose, place and meaning of indulgences in the Middle Ages. We can not apply modern improvements of the indulgence system backwards in time.


----------

