Medieval Work Life

The Protestant Reformation and Work, Ryan Reeves (video)

Reeves offers a view on the medieval life of the peasant (beginning here).  His comments add to my earlier understanding that relative to our time and place – and, of course, discounting for the technological advances – peasants and serfs didn’t have it so bad.

First, I will review some of my previous work on this.  As is often pointed out, the serf was tied to the land; yet, he was no more tied to the land than his lord.  Society, by and large, was agricultural and rural.  Being tied to the land meant food.

The serf owed allegiance to his lord, but only to the extent that the lord kept up his end of the bargain; their oath was mutual, binding two ways.  The lord was obliged to offer protection and to offer charity in times of difficulty.  The serf had the right to the produce of certain fields of the lord’s lands; the lord could not remove the serf on a whim, and the serf had access to a court in case of grievance.

The serf owed labor to his lord, the amount varying over the centuries and in different geographic regions.  This could range from a few days per year to a few days per week – the latter, per household, meaning that a family of six could meet the obligation in one day or less.  This, compared to our taxes, is miniscule.  Serfs were not obligated to fight the lord’s battles, but could do so with the possibility of gaining freedom thereafter. 

Serfs owed allegiance, but they most certainly were not slaves (slavery having been virtually eliminated in much of medieval Europe).  The slave was property, the serf was still a man.  The lord did not have the right over the serf’s life and death; the serf could marry and establish a family; he was able to acquire property and pass it on to his children.

With this as background, I now return to Reeves.  Like Reeves, on this point it is not my intent to get into the various Protestant / Catholic angles of this story; it is merely to describe the medieval life of the peasant – and it was a life that was, in many ways, quite different than the stereotypes offered to us.

Reeves first offers many of these stereotypes, Monty Python being the expert that many rely on.  The farmer bathed once a year, died before the age of thirty, life was pain and misery.  The work day was 16 – 18 hours.  The peasants worked themselves into the grave, lived in houses with dirt floors and barely a roof.  Everyone was angry, and fathers spent their free time beating their wives and children.

Instead, the average person in the Middle Ages was not overworked: in Spain and France, the peasant worked about five months a year; in England, seven to eight months.  The Catholic Church mandated significant time off for the average worker: in France, for example, every Sunday was off, there were ninety additional rest days, and almost forty additional holidays tied to the Church calendar.

There were festivals and church events, one of the most interesting was the “ale,” a seven-day party.  One of the most common was for a wedding – a bride-ale, today’s bridal.  A seven-day ale would be held for a funeral as well.

What of the workdays – was it eighteen hours?  No.  it was more like seven or eight hours.  Yes, they worked from dawn to dusk, but with many breaks in-between.  He might start work at dawn, then return to have a leisurely breakfast; after returning to work for a time, he would take a long break; after more work, lunch and a nap.  The afternoon proceeded in the same manner.  Given the minimal workdays owed to the lord (taxes for us), how much work was necessary in order to provide for the family?  Apparently not much.

One can see here where the idea of Protestant work ethic comes from; one can also see remnants of this in places that still reflect the Catholic influence, like France and Spain; this when compared to the more Protestant Germanic countries today.

Conclusion

Of course, the connection can be made that the increased amount of work today has brought us the technological advances.  At the same time, it seems fair to consider that modern life is far too focused on the pace and amount of work as opposed to a focus on family, friends, and health.  Much of this could be dealt with merely by a return of owing the lord (the state) only a few days of work per year!

In any case, my point isn’t to make any sweeping comparison of work ethic, technology, etc.  Just to paint the picture of the work life of the medieval peasant or serf.  It most certainly did not fit the stereotypes of today, and while the serf did not benefit from our technology, he also did not suffer from our frantic lifestyle or bondage by the state.

Physicist Heal Thyself

Physicist Dave: “I literally know of no other extended period of history in which there was as systematic an effort for as long a time to brutally suppress freedom of thought as the Middle Ages in Catholic Europe.”

Let’s see.

Fundamental Human Rights in Medieval Law.   Published by the University of Chicago Law School.

…Professor Tierney showed that the idea of natural rights did not enter political life, as he put it, "with a clatter of drums and trumpets of the American Declaration of Independence or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man." Instead, "this central concept of Western political theory first grew into existence almost imperceptibly in the obscure glosses of the medieval jurists."  It antedated Columbus by more than two centuries.

“Medieval jurists” would be jurists from the Middle Ages…the Catholic Middle Ages.

…the ius commune recognized the existence of human rights, the law of the medieval church was not in fact hostile to them, and individual men and women were given the ability to exercise them.

The law of the medieval church (that would be the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages) was not hostile to human rights.

It is even true that the medieval way of thinking of rights has not entirely vanished from today's law. It is present in the ways in which we treat freedom of speech. We revere it not only because it promotes the expression of individual opinions, but also because we think it promotes discovery of the truth.

The medieval way of thinking about rights can be found in our view of freedom of speech.  Stunning.

Few rights are absolute of course. Not today. Not then.

Not ever.  Not anywhere.

Licence to Speak: The Rhetoric of Free Speech in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, the Acceptance speech Praemium Erasmianum Research Prize. 

…I would like to point out that the tradition of free speech that Wilders drew on long predates the days of Maarten Luther. 

“Predates…Maarten Luther” would suggest the Catholic Middle Ages.

In fact, it goes back to ideals that received much of their present shape and form during the early Middle Ages.

The tradition of free speech took form during the early Middle Ages?  The Catholic Middle Ages?

The results of this investigation run counter to the traditional viewpoint that the ideals of free speech disappeared after Antiquity, only to be rediscovered again during the Renaissance.

“Traditional viewpoint” means “accepting the desired narrative.”  As we will discover shortly, neither Antiquity nor the Renaissance offered perfect free speech, or even free speech much different than what existed in the Middle Ages.

Political criticism seems to have been an accepted practice, provided the critics expressed themselves according to established cultural and rhetorical rules. One could object to this observation that it can hardly be called free speech if a speaker has to conform to rules and conventions that restrict what can be said. 

“HA!  Now bionic will have to admit he is wrong!”  I will have to admit no such thing.

Free speech as such, however, does not exist in the first place, not in the early Middle Ages and not in our own days.

And not ever, anywhere. 

Freedom of speech in medieval and early modern society.  A description of the workshop:

Organization: Jan Dumolyn & Linde Nuyts (Ghent University), Jelle Haemers & Minne De Boodt (University of Leuven), Martine Veldhuizen (Utrecht University).  This workshop is the first in a series of three on ‘freedom of speech’ in late medieval and early modern Europe.

From the summary:

Although freedom of speech, ‘the right to express beliefs and ideas without unwarranted government restriction’, was by no means a fundamental right in the late middle ages and early modern period, expressions of critical opinions towards power were always possible and often widespread.

“Always possible”…”often widespread.”  Interesting.

This is a podcast from the site “Clear and Present Danger: A History of Free Speech.”  This episode is entitled “The not-so-Dark Ages, medieval intellectuals, and freethinkers.” It is introduced:

Find out why the Middle Ages were as much a period of reason and inquiry as inquisition and superstition.

This podcast offers that the idea of free speech was a mixed bag during the medieval period – pretty much like it has been at all times and in all places throughout history.  There has never been an absolute right to totally free speech, anywhere.

The Long History of Censorship

One read of this will demonstrate that the author is most certainly not an apologist for the medieval Catholic Church.  As I have asked Physicist Dave, for which still no answer is offered: medieval free speech?  Compared to when?

The origin of the term censor can be traced to the office of censor established in Rome in 443 BC. In Rome, as in the ancient Greek communities, the ideal of good governance included shaping the character of the people. Hence censorship was regarded as an honourable task.

443 BC would predate the Middle Ages of Catholic Europe. 

In China, the first censorship law was introduced in 300 AD.

Was China Catholic?  Was it in Europe?

Perhaps the most famous case of censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison in 399 BC for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities.

399 BC…I am pretty sure this also predates the Middle Ages of Catholic Europe.  Someone please check me on this.

Free speech, which implies the free expression of thoughts, was a challenge for pre-Christian rulers. It was no less troublesome to the guardians of Christianity, even more so as orthodoxy became established.

A challenge for “pre-Christian rulers”?  Were they Catholic before they were Christian?  Before Christ?

The most famous of authors that the Catholic Church banned is undoubtedly Galileo (1633), and the most famous victims of the Inquisition’s trials must be Joan of Arc (1431) and Thomas More (1535).

A total of three examples offered by the author, only one of which falls within the window considered the Catholic Middle Ages.  I have dealt with the fallacy of the generally-accepted Galileo story here.  I won’t spend time on the other two now.

The author offers only one example from the period 500 – 1500.  Meanwhile, the author offers numerous examples of censorship both pre- and post- the medieval period and in all regions of the world.  Many of these examples come after the Enlightenment – consider, for example, twentieth century post-Christian Europe.  I hope I need not offer examples.

Conclusion

I think we can put to rest any notion offered by Physicist Dave on this topic.

I never mind when someone disagrees with me.  I have learned much from such exchanges.  As to Physicist Dave: your next comment will be respectful else I will fully exercise my property rights.

A Parallel?

At the Mises site, there is published an article by Hans Hoppe, entitled “Banking, Nation States, and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order.”  I focus on one section:

While it is in everyone's economic interest that there be only one universal money and only one unit of account, and man in his pursuit of wealth maximization will not stop until this goal is reached, it is contrary to such interest that there be only one bank or one monopolistic banking system. Rather, self-interest commands that every bank use the same universal money — gold — and that there then be no competition between different monies, but that free competition between banks and banking systems, all of which use gold, must exist.

While reading this, it struck me: there is a parallel to this and the medieval order – a period in history when law was relatively libertarian and governance was quite decentralized.  I took a crack at capturing the parallel, with changes noted in red:

While it is in everyone's political interest that there be only one universal ethic and only one ethical yardstick, and man in his pursuit of liberty maximization will not stop until this goal is reached, it is contrary to such interest that there be only one king or one monopolistic state. Rather, self-interest commands that every king use the same universal ethic — natural law defended by the Church — and that there then be no competition between different ethics, but that free competition between kings and states, all of which use the Natural Law defended by the Church, must exist.

To summarize my modifications:

Economic = Political

Money = Ethic

Gold = Natural Law defended by the Church (the Universal Ethic)

Unit of Account = Ethical Yardstick

Wealth maximization = Liberty

Bank = King

Banking System = State

My modified paragraph describes quite well the medieval order.  So it got me to thinking further…the context of Hoppe’s words is his description of the development of money in the market; this was driven by the desire for maximizing economic efficiency.  In my modified paragraph, I find maximized liberty.

In neither case do we find perfection – either a perfectly efficient market or a perfect liberty. Nothing done by imperfect humans can be perfect.  But in both cases we find maximum choice, maximum possibilities.  In both cases we find examples of the maximum (economic efficiency / liberty) afforded to man on earth.

There is a story to be told here.  Maybe someone has written it; if so, I welcome a link.  In any case, I will think about this some more.

Oppressive Western Civilization

The Birth of the West: Rome, Germany, France, and the Creation of Europe in the Tenth Century, by Paul Collins

With this post, I will complete my review of Collins’ book. 

The Nuns

Technically a secular canoness, not a cloistered nun; bound to celibacy and obedience, but not to poverty.

Probably the best known of this era is Hrosvitha of Gandersheim, the first woman dramatist in Europe.

Hrosvitha was part of the intellectual renaissance of the tenth century (wait a minute; there was a renaissance before The Renaissance?), to include the males Liutprand of Cremona and “the greatest scholar and polymath of the age,” Gerbert of Aurillac (Pope Sylvester II).  Hrosvitha studied Virgil, Terence, Ovid and the Latin classics.

…Otto I granted the abbess complete freedom with the right to hold her own court, to have troops to protect the abbey, to mint her own money, and to sit in the imperial diet.

The white, male patriarchy: keeping women in their place.

The Peasants

About 85 percent of lower-class people were free – that is, they were not slaves or serfs.

Woops.  There goes that stereotype.  What about “feudalism”?

This word was invented by seventeenth-century French lawyers and antiquarians to describe the tangle of legal and customary relationships that they discovered in medieval documents in local French repositories.

Wait a minute!  The sophisticated and enlightened man of the seventeenth century was such the simpleton that he could not understand life in the decentralized Middle Ages?  So he just stuck a label on the time – a label with derogatory implications – and called it a day?

With that label, radicals of the Enlightenment and French Revolution, along with Karl Marx, used this term to cast the aristocracy as exploitive of the lower orders.

The white, male patriarchy: keeping peasants in their place.

Science and Reason

His vision of Christian faith in tandem with science and reason was to find fulfillment only later in the genius of Thomas Aquinas….

Clemency

…Henry now proceeded to make a number of strategic errors, not least of which was his failure to show clementia (mercy and forgiveness) to two Saxon nobles who requested it.  In other words, he demonstrated a lack of magnanimity, one of the most important marks of a true king in the medieval mind.

The Birth of the West: Rome, Germany, France, and the Creation of Europe in the Tenth Century, by Paul Collins

Henry the Quarreler was released from prison upon the death of Otto II in December 983.  Being a personal prisoner of the emperor, the law required his release.  As the closest male relative to Otto’s son, he claimed a role in managing the affairs of this very young Otto III.  Lady Theophano, the Greek-Byzantine wife of the deceased emperor and mother of the new emperor, had little immediate recourse.

But Henry was solving her problem on his own.  His failure to grant the requested clemency was only adding to a long list of self-inflicted political damage.  Knowing it would take war to wrest power from Otto III, he determined he did not have enough noble support for victory.  But now he had a problem – it was his turn to beg mercy, from Otto’s mother and grandmother.

He brought the young Otto to Frankfurt.  According to the Annals of Quedlinburg…

…he humbled himself according to custom… Humble in demeanor and action, hands clasped, he did not blush to swear his faith under the eyes of the assembled people and in the presence of the imperial ladies who cared for the kingdom…. In true faith he promised furthermore to serve [Otto III], asking nothing but his life and begging only for mercy.

The women responded…magnanimously, pardoning him and restoring his title.  This was in accordance with Saxon law and custom, and the antithesis of the behavior of the Italian clans or the Byzantine ruling class in such situations.  Had Henry committed such deeds in those lands, death would have been his only return.

This whole incident shows that an ability to compromise and work through conflict resolution to reconciliation was very much part of the Saxon way of doing things.

This was just a few generations removed from the Saxon conversion (by the sword) to Christianity.  Certainly the Christian faith influenced such behavior, but no doubt Saxon custom played a large – if not the major – part.

The episode also demonstrates the value of ritual – the entire process of Henry coming to the court to humble himself, how he acted, what he said, throwing himself to their mercy.  The entire scene had to be acted out in front of an audience, and acted out in a certain way.  This had to be demonstrated, and it had to be witnessed.

What of Theophano?  While Otto was still young, she was the power behind the throne.  For ten years, there was a general peace in the land – really unprecedented.  How was this managed?  An example is offered regarding Lotharingia – the lands adjacent to the West Franks.

…Theophano had spent a lot of energy trying to maintain peace as well as possession of Lotharingia.  She used her relationships with other noblewomen to achieve these aims through mediation.

In 985, she held a meeting in Metz, alongside Queen Emma (wife of Lothar IV), Duchess Beatrice (Hugh Capet’s sister), Adelheid (Hugh Capet’s wife), Queen Mathilda of Burgundy, Gerberga (sister of Henry the Quarreler).  Other such meetings were held – not always successful, but a true effort at diplomacy.

Theophano died young, thirty-two years old at most.  She was buried in Cologne. The site is currently administered by the priests of Opus Dei.

Conclusion

Just a small example of the behavior expected of a king.  And a large example of the liberal society that was hidden in the so-called Dark Ages.