Old Jewry

In the City of London there is a street still called Old Jewry, currently dominated mostly by financial offices. In 2001 the remains of a mikveh (ritual bath, requiring fresh flowing water) was discovered in the area, attesting to its former Jewish occupation. It would have been abandoned when the Jews were expelled in 1290 by King Edward I.

(The illustration shows Old Jewry on the Agas Map, a woodcut made of London probably in the 1560s. It shows Old Jewry [in yellow] linking Poultry Street to Gresham Street. The street is still called Old Jewry, as you can see in the illustration to this 2012 post.)

Although Jews could travel anywhere and any time, they likely came to England in larger numbers from Rouen after 1066, when William invited them to take up residence. By that time Jews were well-known as money-lenders, and William knew he would need money to finance his consolidation of his new country.

Because of their financial importance to the Crown, London Jews were given rights by some kings. William's son William Rufus brought rabbis and priests together in London t debate religion, teasing his priests that if the Jews won then Rufus would convert.

After the suspicious death of Rufus, Henry I continued the royal policy of giving the Jews privileges unavailable to regular subjects. Jews were a valuable source of financial support; the king would occasionally tax them to raise money quickly. Henry issued a royal charter giving Jews certain protections and freedoms. Jews were given freedom of movement without having to pay the king's tolls, the right to be tried by their Jewish peers, and the right to swear on the Torah in a court of law.

Besides the mikveh, Jewry street also contained the Great Synagogue, which was closed in 1272 after the death of Henry III—who "supported" the Jews with his charity institution, the Domus Conversorum ("House of Converts") placed on the western edge of London far from Jewry, possibly to help prevent apostasy—and the rise to power of Edward I.

One of the other chief locations of Jews in England after they came from the continent in the 11th century was Oxford, and we'll look at their presence there tomorrow.

Ashkenazi and Sephardic and Mizrahi

The difference between different groups of Jews starts with the Jewish Diaspora, the displacement of Israelites outside of the Southern Levant. Because Jews traveled to various parts of the known world and inter-communication was not as easy as it is today, over time they developed their own customs, religious practices, language, foods, etc.

The three major ethnic divisions are the Ashkenazi, the Sephardic, and the Mizrahi. (Much of the following comes from chabad.org.)

The group most familiar to Western Europe and America is the Ashkenazi, the Jews who settled in France, Germany, and Eastern Europe. The Hebrew word "Ashkenaz" refers to Germany. Over time their language evolved to a blend of Hebrew with German and Slavic vocabulary; this language is what we call Yiddish.

The Sephardic Jews settled in the Iberian Peninsula ("Sepharad" refers to Spain). Their Hebrew was blended with Old Spanish and Portuguese into a dialect called Ladino.

Jews who migrated to the Middle East and North Africa are the Mizrahi. Living among Arabs, dialects associated with the Mizrahim are Judeo-Iranian, Judeo-Persian, and Neo-Aramaic.

Culinary tastes differ among the different ethnic groups. The Ashkenazi are associated with gefilte fish, matzo ball soup, and (after the European discovery of the Americas) potato kugel. During Passover, legumes and rice are forbidden. Sephardic Jews do not restrict these foods during Passover; their cuisine is more heavily spiced than Ashkenazi foods, and they have slow-cooked Sabbath stews. The Mizrahim also allow legumes and rice. Charoset, a sweet staple of Passover, is made from dried fruits, chiefly dates, and has a thick consistency for the Mizrahim. Among the Ashkenazi, charoset is made with apples and nuts, spiced with wine and cinnamon.

There are more profound differences. Sephardic Jews keep their Torah scrolls upright when reading. Ashkenazi lay them flat. Ashkenazi synagogues are arranged with seats facing forward; Sephardic synagogues arrange seating around a central reading table.

Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews tended to be more integrated into the local (largely Arabic or Muslim) culture, whereas in Christian territory Jews dealt with the constant tension of being distrusted by their neighbors, accused of crimes, and segregated into ghettos.

The origin of the word ghetto is disputed, but it seems likely that it comes from a Venetian decree in 1516 that Jews in the city must live in the Cannaregio district. The Cannaregio was where cannons were made, and the word "ghetto" means "foundry." But since that was the 16th century and a little late for a blog with "medieval" in its name, let's look at an earlier situation when Jews were settled in a specific part of town: the Old Jewry of London. See you next time.

Rashi's Writings

The first book printed in Hebrew with a date on it was printed in Italy and dated 18 February 1475. It was a commentary by Rashi on the Chumash (the first five books of the Bible, the Torah, as distinguished from a Torah scroll, which was made by hand on special parchment).

This commentary was completed late in his life (1040 - 1105), and may be a compilation of the lectures he offered at the yeshiva (college) he founded in Troyes. There is a recent phrase in social media: ELI5, which means "Explain Like I'm 5," asking the teacher to put something into very simple terms for easy understanding. Rashi's commentary has been described as so simple that a five-year-old could understand what he is saying.

His focus seemed to be on grammar and syntax, and he defined unusual Hebrew words to explain why that word was chosen over another and the nuances of word choice. He was careful to distinguish between the plain meaning of a word and the rabbinic interpretation of it.

Rashi also wrote the first (near-)comprehensive commentary on the Talmud (the primary source of Jewish law). Phrase by phrase, he went through 30 of the 39 tractates (organizational elements), explaining the meaning of the words and their result. To make things more comprehensive, he often used analogies to common knowledge of daily life, professions, or crafts. He also translated difficult Hebrew or Aramaic words into the local language, Norman French. This attention to vocabulary has given modern scholars insight into spoken French of the 11th century.

His commentaries became "instant classics." They were copied and spread far and wide and embraced by both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.

Near the end of his life he experienced the mass murders of Jews caused by the followers of the People's Crusade (the unofficial first phase of the First Crusade) as they traveled through Europe, fired up with pro-Christian sentiment and the fervor to free the Holy land from non-Christians. Rashi wrote several poems mourning the destruction. Three sons of his teacher, Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi, were killed during this time.

Rashi died at the age of 65 and was buried in Troyes. Although the location of his grave was noted, that information was lost over time. The Jewish cemetery land is now a public square in Troyes, and a monument to Rashi was erected by French Jews. There is a legend, however, that because of the prominence of his life and works—impossible to produce by an ordinary man in one lifetime—that he was so clearly inspired by the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit, that he did not die a natural death. Instead, he was assumed bodily into heaven like the prophet Elijah.

The fifth paragraph mentions that his commentaries were accepted by both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. What was the difference, and why did it exist? I'll explain that tomorrow.

Rashi

An exegete is someone who interprets a text, especially religious texts. One of the leading Jewish exegetes in the Middle Ages was Shlomo Yitzchaki (February 1040 - 13 Juluy 1105), "Shlomo the son of Yitzhak." He became known by the acronym Rashi, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki (although other acronyms were employed).

Born an only child in Troyes in northern France, on his father's side he was said to be descended from Gamaliel, a teacher of Paul mentioned in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles. His father started his education when Rashi was five years old. His father died while Rashi was young, and the young man married at 17 and went to Worms.

At Worms he was privileged to study under two scholars who had been students of the prominent Gershom ben Judah: German rabbi Yaakov ben Yakar and French rabbi Isaac ben Eliezer Halevi (chief rabbi of Worms and a relative of Rashi). After Worms he went to Mainz where he studied under his maternal uncle, the rabbi of Mainz, Isaac ben Judah.

He returned to Troyes at 25 and joined the beth din, the rabbinical court, eventually becoming its head. He founded his own yeshiva (seminary).

His commentary on the Torah was said to be so clear and concise that beginners could understand it and more accomplished scholars could admire it.  Every edition of the Talmud since the 1520s includes Rashi's commentary. His commentary on the Tanakh (the five Books of Moses plus the Nevi'im (Books of the Prophets), and the 11 books of the Ketuvim ('Writings'), became widely studied for centuries.

His writings became so famous that legends sprang up about him. Before his birth, supposedly his father found a jewel and was approached by people who wanted to buy it to adorn a pagan idol. He agreed to take it with them to their land, but along the way had second thoughts and threw the jewel into the sea. The prophet Elijah appeared to him and prophesied that he would have a son "who would illuminate the world with his Torah knowledge."

When Rashi's mother was pregnant, she was walking down a narrow street when two carriages came toward her. With no room to get out of the way, she pressed herself against the wall, which created a depression to save her. The wall of the Worms Synagogue has a niche that is supposed to be this space.

Tomorrow we'll take a look at some of his writings, and another legend about his death.

Apostasy

"Apostasy" is the abandonment or renunciation of a religious (or political) belief. Yesterday's post on Canon 70 of the Fourth Lateran Council discussed the concern over Jews who converted to Christianity turning back to Judaism again.

First, let's address why Jews would convert to Christianity. Some did so to escape the oppressive taxation meted out by governments who used Jews as their purse because Jews were so often money-lenders. Another reason might be the opportunity to advance a political or professional career in fields where the Christian (or Islamic) authorities would not hire Jews. They might have wanted to get out of the ghetto, the place to which Jews were restricted, instead of living in the nicer parts of the city. And let's not omit the possibility of a real change of faith and acceptance of Christianity.

How were conversions received by those who "stayed behind"?

Rabbinic authorities debated whether those who converted were traitors to the faith or victims. Many conversions were victims, because they were coerced under threat of death. Forced baptisms also took place. This could lead to Marranos, so-called "crypto-Jews": individuals who lived publicly as Christians but secretly kept Jewish practices at home. The Spanish Inquisition went after Marranos and Moriscos (converted Muslims) with severe penalties for any who were not fully embracing Christianity and abandoning all facets of their former faith.

Sometimes agreeing to conversion to avoid death did not work because the Christians offering "salvation" were out for blood anyway. Some Jewish parents would kill their children and then themselves in order to avoid forced conversion.

The apostate who turned from Judaism to Christianity was in a strange state of limbo, being neither fish nor fowl. Former fellow Jews rejected him, and Christians still looked at him askance. If he wished to return to Judaism, his former neighbors still might feel awkward, but official rabbinical attitudes were different.

The rabbinic scholar Rashi (1040 - 1105; mentioned here) claimed a Jew remains a Jew regardless. A Jew who fell away from the faith could simply return to Jewish practices and be fine. Another, Gershom ben Judah (c.960 - 1040), forbade mistreating an apostate who returned to Judaism or even mentioning their past choices. This was different from Christian and Muslim attitudes toward those who left those faiths.

Rashi's pronouncements were so respected that he became legendary. Seriously: legends arose about him, even miracles performed while he was in the womb. Let's meet him next time.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 70

After the past few entries concerning the anti-Jewish Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, we come finally to Canon 70, dealing with Jews who convert to Christianity but might change their minds at a later date:

Some, we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclesiastes 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deuteronomy 22:2) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained by the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

Essentially, if a Jew has converted, it is important that bishops and others prevent them from being exposed to Jewish rites lest they turn away from Christianity. If not being a Christian was bad, then being Christian and deliberately abandoning it was even worse.

This was not the same as being a non-Christian in the first place, since "ignorance of the law was an excuse." If you had not been made Christian through lack of exposure (or coercion), you were simply non-Christian and living in error. But to deliberately turn away from a Christian life was a subversion of the social order according to the Justinian Code.

This was worse than being a heretic. A heretic was a Christian who erroneously believed certain points that were counter to the accepted tenets. A heretic was still a Christian, and persuasion (or coercion) could bring the "lost sheep" more fully into the fold.

An unrepentant apostate could be excommunicated, a way of saying "You want to quit? Well, then you're fired!"

Augustine of Hippo claimed that the "gift of perseverance" in Christian faith was a gift from God, and that an individual cannot know if God has granted them this gift. Without it, it was possible that a Christian might leave the faith.

How did Jews look at those of their faith who converted? Let's talk about that tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 69

The attempt to limit contact with Jews in public and keep their public authority diminished forced them to wind up being more crucial than ever to society as the money-lenders for which they were reviled.

Canon 69 of the Fourth Lateran Council decreed that Jews should be prevented from exerting any kind of political authority:

Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans.

The Third Synod of Toledo in 589CE was organized by Bishop Leander of Seville who had worked to convert the Visigoths and King Reccared from Arianism to Roman Catholicism. It resulted in Visigothic Spain officially becoming part of the Roman Catholic Church. Its14th Canon forbade Jews to take Christian wives or concubines or slaves. Children from such a union were to be baptized. Jews were disqualified from any position that would give them authority over Christians. Christian slaves forced into following Jewish practices were to be freed.

Note that anyone who does hire or appoint a Jew to a position of authority where they make decisions that affect Christians is himself guilty and deserving of punishment. The Jew will be forced to return any material gain he had from Christians during the time in office, the value to be used for poor Christians.

(I apologize for "getting political," but I cannot help thinking of a current situation in the United States where immigrants are castigated for "taking jobs" from Americans, when the "crime"—if there is one—was committed by the business owners who, knowing the law, hired non-citizens in the first place. The workers suffer and the folk responsible are untouched.)

Denied the opportunity for many positions for which a Jew might have plenty of knowledge and skill—was this a reason why some Jews turned to lending money? If this was one profession that you were allowed and  Christians did not generally go for, why not become a money-lender, which in some ways gave you more power over Christians than any public office? There were, of course, other options for employment, as in becoming a scribe as depicted in the illustration above, showing Jewish scribes from a 1283 Spanish work.

In the later Middle Ages, even as Jews were looked on with suspicion if not outright hostility, Jews were sometime valued for the skills they possessed. It was not unknown for the wealthy and nobility to retain Jews as physicians.

The final Canon of the Fourth Lateran, number 70, was concerned with apostasy. We'll wrap this up next time.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 68

Continuing our look at the final four Canons of the proceedings of the 1215 Fourth Lateran Council, we come to Canon 68, which wanted to make sure everyone knew who a Jew (or Muslim) was, so they could avoid them if desired.

In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses, that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

"The writings of Moses" refers to Numbers 15:37-41, God's commandment to the Israelites to wear tassels with blue thread on the corners of their garments. Like tying a string around your finger to remember something, these tassels (called tzitzit) are supposed to be a reminder to keep all God's commandments.

The segregation of Jews was even more severe during important Christian Holy Days:

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

(Of course there would be times a Passover celebration would overlap Easter.)

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

Notice that this does not specify how Jews should be marked differently in their garments. This became in modern times the wearing of the yellow Star of David, a symbol of 20th century oppression in Germany specifically.

In 13th-century England, however, Henry III (who also gave Jews a way to "redeem" themselves) forced them to wear two rectangular patches of a pale color (the assumption is to resemble the tablets of Moses). Earlier, however, the 581CE Synod of Macon specified an oval badge in the center of their garment "the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height." In 16th-century Worms they were compelled to wear a yellow ring (illustration).

The next Canon further attempted to keep Jews segregated from others, as we'll see tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity: Canon 67

Today we look specifically at the institutional racism against Jews established by Pope Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. Of the 70 canons of the council proceedings, the final four were about Jews. It is worth looking at these in their entirety.

Canon 67 blames Jews for the poor planning of the Gentiles who became indebted to Jewish money-lenders and could not repay the debt. This is blamed on the ability of Jews to charge interest, called usury by the Church and considered sinful and un-Christian.

The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

There were several reasons why usury was condemned in the Middle Ages.

Aristotle and Aquinas thought of money as "sterile" in that it was just a thing that did not reproduce or grow. Making money "grow" by charging a fee was considered unnatural and inappropriate.

A loan was not something one did to buy a car or get a mortgage: it was used in time of serious need. In this situation, making the desperate person pay back more when they are financially disadvantaged was considered to be taking advantage of someone at a vulnerable time in their life.

Paying interest was all about tying money to time, making money "worth more" simply because time has passed. Your money does not expand just because time goes by. Usury was seen as "selling time" or taking advantage of time, which was created by and managed by and belonged to God.

Also, quite simply, asking for more money back showed the sin of Avarice, and gaining more money than loaned out could lead to not needing to work, and therefore promote idleness/sloth.

We'll continue with the other canons tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity, Part 3

Modern ideas of race and racism are largely based on skin color, but the Middle Ages saw many other factors. To quote (again) Regino of Prüm:

"Nor should it be forgotten that, just as different nations of people differ from one another in race [genus], customs [mores], language [lingua], and laws [leges], so the holy universal church spread throughout the whole world, although united in the unity of faith, nevertheless differs from one another in ecclesiastical customs."

There were other factors that distinguished "The Other" from oneself: religion, economic class, geographic origin, even clothing. The illustration you can see if you follow the link in the first paragraph uses a turban and bushy beard to indicate a man from Africa, not skin color.

It would be difficult to argue that religion was a prime factor in distinguishing race, and such a strong part of a cultural identity that those of other religions were a danger to the self and the body politic. Although using factors that indicate a different race did not necessarily lead to racism, religion as a factor led to outright hostility.

Of course the primary example of religion-based race leading to prominent racism is the Western European attitude toward Jews: 

...the periodic exterminations of Jews in Europe, the demand that they mark their bodies and the bodies of their children with a large visible badge, the herding of Jews into specific towns in England to monitor their livelihoods, and the vilification of Jews for supposedly possessing a fetid stench, a male menses, subhuman and bestial qualities, and a congenital need to ingest the blood of Christian children whom they tortured and crucified to death... [source]

For Western Europe, and particularly countries that wholly expelled Jews, religion was the deciding factor.

Jews were not the only religion that came under fire. Bernard of Clairvaux, asked to write a rule for the newly formed Knights of the Order of the Temple (Templars), proclaims that the killing of Muslims was not homicide by malicide, the killing of evil incarnate. The Crusades could be seen as a form of institutionalized racism.

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 called by Pope Innocent III published Canon 68, cementing racist law against Jews. We'll look at the details and outcome tomorrow.

Race and Ethnicity, Part 2

Not everyone believed that race and ethnicity were purely a result of being descended from the sons of Noah. Some felt the natural world/environment played a part.

An Afro-Arab Islamic philosopher named Al-Jahiz (c.776 - 869) took on the issue of different skin colors in the 9th century. Living during the Abbasid Caliphate, he produced at least 140 books and essays, of which we still have 75 available. In one work, he wrote about the Zanj, a word used by Muslims to refer to the southeast coast of Africa and its inhabitants:

The Zanj say that God did not make them black to disfigure them; rather it is their environment that made them so. The best evidence of this is that there are black tribes among the Arabs, such as the Banu Sulaim bin Mansur, and that all the peoples settled in the Harra, besides the Banu Sulaim are black.

This sounds simplistic, but he further proves his point:

These tribes take slaves from among the Ashban to mind their flocks and for irrigation work, manual labor, and domestic service, and their wives from among the Byzantines; and yet it takes less than three generations for the Harra to give them all the complexion of the Banu Sulaim.

He extends this beyond human beings, and rejects the "Curse of Ham" hypothesis:

This Harra is such that the gazelles, ostriches, insects, wolves, foxes, sheep, asses, horses and birds that live there are all black. White and black are the results of environment, the natural properties of water and soil, distance from the sun, and intensity of heat. There is no question of metamorphosis, or of punishment, disfigurement or favor meted out by Allah.

A later Arab scholar, the sociologist Ibn Khaldun, decided that the hot climate of sub-Saharan Africa was the cause of black skin, not a religious myth.

The debate over genetics versus environment continued well into the 17th century at least. But in Medieval England, how were other people perceived and treated? As curiosities? As just more children of God? As dangerous outsiders? Let's look at some of the encounters and interactions between different people.

Race and Ethnicity, Part 1

What did medieval people think about different races? How did they distinguish one ethnic group from another? This question occurred to me when reading up on Regino of Prüm, who around 900CE wrote the following:

Nec non et illud sciendum, quod, sicut diversæ nationes populorum inter se discrepant genere moribus lingua legibus, ita sancta universalis æcclesia toto orbe terrarum diffusa, quamvis in unitate fidei coniungatur, tamen consuetudinibus æcclesiasticis ab invicem differt.

Nor should it be forgotten that, just as different nations of people differ from one another in race [genus], customs [mores], language [lingua], and laws [leges], so the holy universal church spread throughout the whole world, although united in the unity of faith, nevertheless differs from one another in ecclesiastical customs.

I became aware of the difference between citizen and denizen years ago while researching my first Chaucer novel (seen to your right). A citizen is, properly speaking, the inhabitant of his city; a denizen is a foreigner allowed to live in your city. There were, obviously, perceived differences in the locals versus those from elsewhere.

The Newberry Library in Chicago had a recent exhibition of historical art depicting race [link]. One of its points is that the Bible exposed everyone in the Middle Ages to the concept of different races:

...when many white Europeans lived alongside people of color. But even those who didn’t would have encountered many people of color in the Christian Bible, such as the Ethiopian wife of the patriarch Moses (Numbers 1: 21), the three "Wise Men” who brought gifts to the Christ Child (Matthew 2: 1-12), and the Ethiopian eunuch converted by the Apostle Philip (Acts 8: 26-40) [Figure 1]. Just like in real life, this diversity could cause tension, as acknowledged by the “black and beautiful” Bride in the Song of Songs, who recognizes that her skin sets her apart from other women in ancient Israel: “Do not think that I am dark because I have been burned by the sun, daughters of Jerusalem” (Song of Songs 1: 4-5). [link]

Thanks to the Bible, the European Middle Ages largely perceived all of humanity coming from a common ancestor, Noah, and his three sons. The descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth accounted for (respectively) the distinct Semitic (Asiatic), Hamitic (African), and Japhetic (Indo-European) peoples. The Curse of Ham [link] was supposed to account for the black skin of Africans, and Genesis 9:20-27 was used to justify black slavery.

There were, however, thinkers who hypothesized factors other than genetics, and we'll talk about that tomorrow.

Regino of Prüm

Although Charlemagne is a famous name, and we know a lot about him, his descendants and the events of the Carolingian era are not always well-documented. There are a handful of chronicles written by various people, as seen yesterday, and Regino of Prüm was one of those chroniclers.

We know for certain that he was a Benedictine—probably at Prüm (in modern Trier, Germany)—and became abbot of Prüm from 892 to 899. Later he was abbot of St. Martin's Abbey. He became abbot at Prüm when his predecessor resigned after a second of two devastating raids by Danes on the very wealthy abbey. He worked to restore the damage, but local hostilities made it difficult to get the attention of wealthy patrons.

He lost the position of abbot because Richarius, from a noble family, wanted the position for himself. Richarius was the brother of two counts, and had no royal title available, so looked for a way to give himself power and authority. He later became Bishop of Lieges.

Regino went to Trier where he was welcomed by Archbishop Radbod, whose attempts at reform were supported by Regino. Regino lived in Trier until his death in 915 and was buried in St. Maximin's Abbey (previously mentioned here). There is a monument to him in Prüm (see illustration).

Regino left us some manuscripts. One was a treatise on music in an attempt to improve liturgical singing, and a collection of chants. He also wrote Chronicon, an attempt at a universal history from the birth of Jesus to 906, focused mostly on the Carolingian Empire. We learn a lot about early Bulgarian history from his effort. One curious fact that comes from the Chronicon: Regino was the first to use Anno Domini ("Year of the Lord") to mark years in history, replacing Bede's Anno Mundi ("Year of the World"). Regino's history was used by Cosmas of Prague. Although the accuracy of the Chronicon has been disputed, it was printed in Mainz in 1521, edited and published in 1826 in Germany, again in 1890, and an English translation was published in 2009.

I want to mention something else Regino addressed in his writing, and use it to examine a new topic. Regino mentions that ethnicity has four different facets: : genus (origin, race), mores (customs, behavior), lingua (language), leges (law).

Tomorrow I want to look at medieval theories of race and ethnicity, and how they determined who was "other."

The Annals of St. Bertin

In Saint-Omer in France there was a Benedictine abbey called the Abbey of St. Bertin, founded in 638 and existing right up to the late 18th century. It was closed during the French Revolution, ordered demolished in 1830 (except for the tower), and then damaged due to World War II.

A record of several decades was found in the abbey. It is not assumed that it was written in the abbey. The current hypothesis is that the record was made in the court of Louis the Pious and continued during the reign of his son, Charles the Bald. Proposed authors are Prudential of Troyes, followed by Hincmar of Reims, who has been mentioned several times in this blog, such as here. The fact that the Annals (beginning with the year 830) end in 882 when Hincmar was forced to flee Reims in the face of a Viking invasion (and died) lends weight to this theory.

Although a mere 50 years of events, they are a primary source for happenings in the West Frankish territory and the time of King of West Francia, Charles the Bald. These Annales Bertiniani ("Annals of St. Bertin") are the source for yesterday's story of Pope Adrian II and his wife.

The Annals include papal letters and quotations from acts coming out of church councils. They deal largely with the relations (conflicts) between the Church and the Carolingians and with hostile actions from neighbors. They contain one of the earliest mentions of the Kievan Rus, men who accompanied emissaries from Constantinople. (Remember that the Rus were the source for the so-called Varangian Guard employed by Byzantine emperors.)

Situated as it was on the extreme northern edge of France, the Abbey was a target for invasions from the north. Scandinavian groups engaged in routine spring voyages for plunder. Abbeys and monasteries, known to be filled with unarmed men and donations, faced constant raids by these groups later called Vikings.

Other sources for the 9th century are the Annals of Xanten, the Annals of Fulda, and the Chronicle of Regino of Prüm, which overlaps Bertin and continues until 906. Regino is an interesting character, and we'll turn to him and his writings next.

Married Popes

Our discussion on clerical celibacy, and how Emperor Justinian decreed no bishop or higher position could be married, leads us to take a look at popes that were married.

The first, of course, was Peter, long before the mater of celibacy was ever raised in the early Church. Peter's mother-in-law gets mentioned in Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38, and Matthew 8:14–15 when Jesus enters the house where she is and heals her.

Pope Felix III (483 - 492) was the son of a priest and was married himself, though he was widowed before he became pope. He had two children, one of whom was a daughter whose son became Pope Gregory I (590 - 604).

Hormisdas was pope from 514 to 523. He was also widowed before becoming pope, but he had a son who became Pope Silverius I (536 - 537).

Pope John XVII (six months in 1003) was married (whether widowed  cannot find), and had three sons who became priests.

Pope Clement IV (1265 - 1268) was also widowed before he even entered the priesthood, inspired by his father who had done the same. Clement had two or three daughters, all of whom entered convents.

Pope Honorius IV (mentioned here) was also widowed before going into the priesthood, and had two sons.

But now we come to the pope who was married when he was pope. Adrian II was married to Stephania, a Roman noblewoman, before he entered Holy Orders. They had a daughter. Adrian was 75 when Pope Nicholas I died in November 867, and the cardinals chose the humble and devout Adrian as his successor. Adrian, out of humility and (likely) advanced age, tried to turn down the offer, which was wise.

Stephania and their daughter moved into the Lateran Palace with Adrian. Unfortunately, there were elements who did not want him to be pope. Stephania and their daughter were murdered in 868, and Adrian died on 14 December 872.

The story of Stephania's murder comes to us from a contemporary German account, the Annals of Saint Bertin. We'll see what we can find there next time.

Justinian and Celibacy

Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527 - 565) took a keen interest in Christianity, and he had some thoughts on clerical celibacy. His Justinian code covered a wide rage of topics, including religion.

There were a few reasons for getting involved, one of which was economic. The early Church allowed children of priests to inherit their father's possessions, which included Church possessions. Justinian wanted to prevent Church property from being divided up or lost to secular figures.

The imperial decree was that married men and men with children could not become bishops:

This is why it is fitting to elect and ordain as bishops men who have neither children nor grandchildren, considering that it is not possible for a man subjected to the concerns of daily life, especially those that children bring to their parents, to apply all his zeal and spirit to divine liturgy and ecclesiastical matters. [Justinian's letter to Atrabius, Prefect of the Praetorium, March 1, 528]

Priests were not allowed to marry. Priests that were already married were required to practice sexual continence; that is, they were no longer allowed sexual activity with their wives (or anyone), but were to live with their wives "as a sister." (For the record, Justinian was married to Theodora from 525 until her death in 548, but they had no children.)

The Western Church allowed a married man to move up in the hierarchy so long as he vowed to be celibate, but Justinian allowed no such option for bishops, because they needed to be free from worldly concerns and irreproachable regarding sexual continence since they were in charge of much more than priests.

A code of laws must also include a way to enforce those laws, and punishment is the proper deterrent. In another letter, Justinian wrote:

Though the holy canons do not allow priests who are much loved by God or the very religious deacons and subdeacons to marry ..., we see that some of them despise the holy canons and beget children from the wives with whom, according to the priestly rule, they are not permitted to have relations. The only punishment for such an offense has always been dismissal from the priesthood…let such men be deposed from the priesthood and from the sacred ministry, .... Clearly, if such actions are forbidden by the holy canons, in the same way the crime must be stamped out according to our civil laws; besides the aforementioned penalty of deposition, we order that not even children previously considered legitimate be accounted as legitimate any longer,... [Justinian's letter to Julian, Prefect of the Praetorium, October 18, 530]

Not only did the priest get defrocked and become an outcast in society, his children also suffered from "the sins of the father." 

The Western Church had a slightly different view, and for a time did not want to  disrupt the sacrament of marriage that had been established by God. Tomorrow we'll look at the last married pope and his wife!

Clerical Celibacy

The last post talked about attempts by popes to "monasticize" parish priests, preventing them from having families that could be a drain on church resources and potentially lead to sons inheriting or being appointed to benefices for which they were not suited. But was there a Biblical argument for clerical celibacy?

Modern canon law of the Latin Church (a faction that keeps faith with the papacy) states:

Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

There are deacons who never intend to take priestly vows who are not bound by this rule, but if they are married and their spouse dies, they are not allowed to remarry.

The Roman Catholic Church states:

All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord", they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

...but acknowledges that this is not the case for everyone:

In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. ... Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Curiously, these rules are not religious dogma; they are understood to be choices imposed by the hierarchy, and therefore are subject to change if authorities pursue that option. Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Protestantism do not require that their ministers be celibate.

The apostles of Jesus were not required to be unmarried. Matthew 8:14-15 tells us "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his [Peter's] wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." So Peter had a mother-in-law. Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c.215 CE) claimed that Peter and Philip had children. Paul the Apostle, on the other hand, contrasts himself with other apostles by pointing out that some had wives while Paul had never been married. Paul clearly thinks his status is "better" when he write in 1 Corinthians 7:5-8:

Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

So "you can better devote yourself to God if you do not have a woman around" seems to be his attitude. Later in that chapter he expresses that an unmarried man can focus on God, but the married man has to deal with worldly things. The 3rd-century Manichaeans (whose enemy was Augustine) saw sex as corruption, as did the Montanists, whom Pope Innocent I tried to quash.

The first person to declare widely—and who had the power to enforce—that all marriages of priests were null and void and the children of such unions were illegitimate was not a pope, but a married man. Let's see who that was tomorrow.

The Children of Priests

Pope Gregory VII (c.1015 - 1085) tried to establish many reforms in the Church, they did not all "stick." One of his reforms was to prevent priests keeping families in the vicarage, and appointing their children to benefices. This problem remained, and Innocent III tried to tackle it in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215.

Canon 31 was on the sons of parish canons:

In order to abolish a very bad practice that has grown up in many churches, we strictly forbid the sons of canons, especially if they are illegitimate, to become canons in the secular churches in which their fathers hold office. If the contrary is attempted, we declare it to be invalid. Those who attempt to make such persons canons are to be suspended from their benefices.

Illegitimate children were not the stigma that they have become in modern times. A father might acknowledge an illegitimate child because it was a son and all he was having with his wife were daughters. The father would care for them and try to find careers for them. We saw this in noble families all the time. See here and here for examples.

In The Manly Priest, author Jennifer Thibodeaux discusses the difficult attempts to impose clerical celibacy during the period 1066 to 1300. Archbishop Anselm tried twice to prevent priests from having sex with women. One attempt was simply to say priests could not have wives living with them. The priests simply moved their wives to a nearby house.

Innocent's attempt at the Lateran Council was about as effective as Gregory's. His attempts at establishing clerical guidelines regarding dress and morality was one thing, but getting them to give up sex completely was doomed to failure. Thibodeaux calls this "an all-inclusive attempt to formally monasticize the priesthood and to separate them from the laity, while elevating them in status." [link]

In the canons of the Fourth Lateran, number 31 about sons follows number 30, which states:

It is very serious and absurd that prelates of churches, when they can promote suitable men to ecclesiastical benefices, are not afraid to choose unworthy men who lack both learning and honesty of behavior and who follow the urgings of the flesh rather than the judgment of reason. Nobody of a sound mind is ignorant of how much damage to churches arises from this.

It is clear that the two are connected because of the priest's desire to find a career for his son and the only career that the priest knows that he could educate his son about is managing a parish. The opportunity to place one's son in a position for which he was not suited was too great a potential problem.

Tomorrow we'll take a more detailed look at the idea of clerical celibacy and its origins.

The Canons on Responsibility, Part 2

The Fourth Lateran Council called in 1215 by Pope Innocent III had three chief objectives: Church reform, freeing the Holy Land, and eliminating heresy. Part of Church reform was making clear the duties of the clergy to their calling and to their congregation, which you can see in Part 1.

Innocent was not just worried about his clergy being educated and committed to helping their congregation; he also concentrated on their personal behavior. Canon 14 was on clerical incontinence, "incontinence" in the sense of lack of self-restraint:

In order that the morals and conduct of clerics may be reformed for the better, let all of them strive to live in a continent and chaste way, ... Let them beware of every vice involving lust, ... so that they may be worthy to minister in the sight of almighty God with a pure heart and an unsullied body.

Canon 15 became more specific:

All clerics should carefully abstain from gluttony and drunkenness. They should temper the wine to themselves and themselves to the wine. Let no one be urged to drink, since drunkenness obscures the intellect and stirs up lust.

Especially abhorrent were those who engaged in drinking games or competitions:

... abuse is to be entirely abolished whereby in some places drinkers bind themselves to drink equal amounts, and that man is most praised who makes the most people drunk and himself drains the deepest cups.

Clerics were not to indulge in "callings or business of a secular nature" or to "watch mimes, entertainers and actors," nor should they dress ostentatiously, wth gold buckles, for example (Canon 16). Clerics should not spend the night feasting and talking so that they cannot rise early in the morning to begin their duties (Canon 17). They should not store things in their churches that are not church-related; do not store furniture, for instance, and do not allow church vessels or vestments to get soiled (Canon 19).

The next canons involve managing a parish, with rules such not leaving a church without a pastor for more than three months (Canon 23), or keeping Chrism under lock and key (Canon 20), and how to choose a pastor for a particular parish (Canon 24).

Then it gets into the improper election of candidates, and the potential problem with choosing one's son to be a canon (holder of an office) where their father is pastor. Let's take a more careful look at that topic tomorrow.

The Canons on Responsibility, Part 1

The Fourth Lateran Council called in 1215 by Pope Innocent III had three chief objectives: Church reform, freeing the Holy Land, and eliminating heresy. Part of Church reform was making clear the duties of the clergy to their calling and to their congregation.

Canon 6 was about making sure the decisions coming from the Fourth Lateran were followed. It decreed yearly provincial councils:

...in which they consider diligently and in the fear of God the correction of excesses and the reform of morals, especially among the clergy. Let them recite the canonical rules, especially those which have been laid down by this general council, so as to secure their observance, inflicting on transgressors the punishment due.

Clerics themselves were not exempt from examination and correction. Canon 7 decreed:

...that prelates of churches [bishops] should prudently and diligently attend to the correction of their subjects’ offenses especially of clerics, and to the reform of morals.

Of course, this would not be a problem if the clergy are acting appropriately, and Canon 10 tells the bishops:

...are to appoint suitable men to carry out with profit this duty of sacred preaching, men who are powerful in word and deed and who will visit with care the peoples entrusted to them in place of the bishops, since these by themselves are unable to do it, and will build them up by word and example.

And bishops themselves are supposed to be "suitable men." The above is important because bishops might not be able to be everywhere they are needed because of infirmity or war or the size of the diocese:

...or for other reasons-let us not say for lack of knowledge, which in bishops is to be altogether condemned and is not to be tolerated in the future.

Speaking of knowledge, Canon 11 establishes parochial schools for all, including those who could not afford tuition:

Zeal for learning and the opportunity to make progress is denied to some through lack of means. The Lateran council therefore dutifully decreed that in each cathedral church there should be provided a suitable benefice for a master who shall instruct without charge the clerics of the cathedral church and other poor scholars.

Innocent was not only concerned with clergy who lacked knowledge, but more specific grievances. I'll tell you some of those tomorrow.

The Canons on Heresy

The Fourth Lateran Council called in 1215 by Pope Innocent III had three chief objectives: Church reform, freeing the Holy Land, and eliminating heresy. The first Canons addressed the subject of those whose beliefs did not conform to official Church doctrine.

Canon 1 made clear there was only:

...one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, ...

The doctrine of transubstantiation was made official.

Canon 2 addressed the "error of abbot Joachim." Joachim de Fiore (1135 - 1202), called by one modern scholar "The Man Who Invented the Future" (post) was the founder of a monastic order based on St. John, and he wrote on the apocalypse and the Book of Revelation.  His theory was that the ages of the world mirror the Trinity, and that only in a future third age of the Holy Spirit would humankind truly understand Christianity and become spiritual. He submitted his works to Innocent in 1200, but died two years later before Innocent could reflect on them. Innocent since had decided the works were misguided. Joachim had contradicted Peter Lombard, calling Peter a heretic. Aquinas later condemned Joachim. Dante, on the other hand, placed Joachim in Paradise.

We therefore condemn and reprove that small book or treatise which abbot Joachim published against master Peter Lombard concerning the unity or essence of the Trinity, in which he calls Peter Lombard a heretic and a madman because he said in his Sentences, “For there is a certain supreme reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and it neither begets nor is begotten nor does it proceed”.

Joachim's idea of a progression through history and a lack of understanding of God until some future time did not suit Innocent. A French theologian, Amalric of Bena (see illustration), was likewise condemned in this Canon with a single sentence after about 1000 words against Joachim.

Canon 3 listed what to do about heretics. Suspicion of heresy should lead to excommunication. If a year went by without the person recanting, then they would be called a heretic. Princes were to swear that anyone the Church deemed heretics would be banished from their lands. This Canon was shorter than the one on Joachim.

Tomorrow we will look at more.

The Start of the Fourth Lateran

After years of being pope and asserting his will on the world, Innocent III decided to bring together all the church leaders and establish a new set of rules and policies for unifying the Church's stand on several different matters. To give everyone time to travel to Rome, he announced it in April 1213, to be formally opened on 11 November 1215. It met at the Lateran Palace, and was the fourth such meeting.

The first day began with a Mass, then a plenary session at which Innocent led the song of Veni Creator Spiritus ("Come Holy Spirit"). He also delivered sermons on the need to reclaim the Holy Land and the need to deal with heresy.

Trouble erupted among the bishops because of political issues. Supporters of Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester, and those of Raymond VI of Toulouse (whose lands had been granted to Simon by Philip Augustus of France, clashed over the recent hostility between the two nobles. Raymond and his son were there to argue for the return of his lands; Simon's brother Guy and Bishop Foulques objected. Fighting broke out and needed to be suppressed. The outcome was not good for Raymond, who had all his remaining lands confiscated to be held in trust until his death, when they would be granted to his son, Raymond VII.

Innocent also had prepared for the council by refurbishing St. Peter's Basilica, and the fourth day of the Council was to be a celebration of the anniversary of the basilica. It drew so many people that, when Innocent arrived to lead the celebration, he could barely get into the building.

On 20 November, the fifth day, Innocent's sermon about church reform was disrupted by bishops who objected to Frederick II holding the title of King of the Romans (and several other titles).

The Fourth Council of the Lateran finished on the 30th of November. In only two weeks there had been many meetings that produced 71 canons that would be considered law going forward. Tomorrow we'll start looking at some of them.

Innocent Meddling

Pope Innocent III believed in the absolute power of the pope over secular authorities, and he did what he could to assert that power wherever he could.

A couple months after Innocent became pope, in March 1198 Philip Duke of Swabia was elected King of Germany. Another claimant, Otto Duke of Brunswick, was preferred by several princes. Philip was the brother of his predecessor, Henry VI, King of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor. Because Henry had married Constance of Sicily, Innocent was concerned that either Philip or (potentially) Henry's son Frederick would make a claim to not only Sicily, but the Italian Peninsula (Sicily controlled a large part of southern Italy called The Regno). In 1201 Innocent officially supported Otto:

It is the business of the pope to look after the interests of the Roman empire, since the empire derives its origin and its final authority from the papacy; 

..., since three persons have lately been elected king by different parties, namely the youth [Frederick], Philip, and Otto, so also three things must be taken into account in regard to each one... 

...Far be it from us that we should defer to man rather than to God, or that we should fear the countenance of the powerful. ... since Otto is not only himself devoted to the church, but comes from devout ancestors on both sides, ... therefore we decree that he ought to be accepted and supported as king, and ought to be given the crown of empire, after the rights of the Roman church have been secured.

After Magna Carta was imposed upon King John, he appealed to Innocent. John had declared himself a papal vassal (which, of course, pleased Innocent), and pledged to go on Crusade (which gave him and his property papal protection), and John wrote to Innocent to claim that Magna Carta took away some of John's necessary rights as the man working in England on the pope's behalf. Innocent declared Magna Carta annulled, precipitating war with the barons.

The Fourth Crusade, which turned out to be disastrous, was Innocent's idea, and the first time a pope ever forced the clergy across Europe to donate 1/40th of their income to the endeavor.

He called for other crusades. The Albigensian Crusade (leading to the first "mass murder") was at his request (see illustration of him calling for it and knights attacking heretics). He was behind the Livonian Crusade (into modern Latvia and Estonia), which he called for in October 1199.

His inducement for Crusading was to offer indulgences, a forgiveness of sins and a quicker path to heaven upon death. 

In 1204, while the crusade was attacking Constantinople, Innocent excommunicated King Alfonso IX of León for marrying someone who was too close to him according the rules of consanguinity.

In 1210 he formally recognized the Order of Franciscans. He had informally done so when Francis and 12 followers met him in Rome a year earlier, but wanted them to have more followers before he gave his blessing. He had them tonsured, which gave them legitimacy as a Church-approved order. He approved other new orders as well.

One of his biggest accomplishments was the Fourth Lateran Council, which has been mentioned almost as many times in this blog as Innocent himself. Tomorrow we'll start looking at the widespread influence of the Fourth Lateran.

The Sun and Moon Allegory

Pope Innocent III was determined to assert papal authority over every area possible. He made sure that kings, although they had their "local" political power, were still under the spiritual authority of the pope. Elected in January 1198, in November of that year he wrote a letter laying out something called the "Sun and Moon allegory":

Just as God, founder of the universe, has constituted two large luminaries in the firmament of Heaven, a major one to dominate the day and a minor one to dominate the night, so he has established in the firmament of the Universal Church, which is signified by the name of Heaven, two great dignities, a major one to preside—so to speak—over the days of the souls, and a minor one to preside over the nights of the bodies. They are the Pontifical authority and the royal power. Thus, as the moon receives its light from the sun and for this very reason is minor both in quantity and in quality, in its size and in its effect, so the royal power derives from the Pontifical authority the splendour of its dignity...

In the Fourth Lateran Council, called by Innocent in 1215, this philosophy was enshrined in Canon 3:

... if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the supreme pontiff, that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled by Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action.

The Church was perfectly happy to leave the temporal authorities to do whatever they liked, so long as nothing they did contradicts or offended the laws of the Church.

Pope Boniface VIII (1294 - 1303) issued the papal bull Unam Sanctam ("One Faith") reinforcing this approach to the two estates. Dante argued against this, stating that emperor and pope each has supreme authority in their sphere, but neither is allowed to influence the other. By the end of the 14th century, belief in the pope's authority to meddle in secular matters was waning.

But in Innocent's time, he used it frequently. We'll get into specifics tomorrow.

Pope Innocent III

Finally, the pope mentioned more than any other in this blog gets his time in the spotlight. He was named Lothario at birth, and his father, Trasimondo, was a count in the city of Segni in central Italy, so his Italian name was Lotario de' Conti di Segni. His mother, Clarissa Scotti, may have been related to Pope Clement III (not the antipope of the same name).

Lothario studied in Rome and then Paris. After the death of Pope Alexander III, Lothario returned to Rome and worked for the papacy during the terms of Lucius III, Urban III, Gregory VIII (who made him a subdeacon), and Clement III (who made him a cardinal-priest).

He showed his education and value by writing a work (completed by April 1195) that became very popular for several centuries. De Miseria Condicionis Humane "On the Misery of the Human Condition" survived in over 700 manuscripts, an extraordinary number. It addresses the hardships of the human body, the futility of man's ambitions, and the consequences of death and decay and the Day of Judgment. Geoffrey Chaucer made his own translation of it (now lost). Lothario stated his intention to write a companion piece, On the Dignity of Human Nature, but he never got around to it.

Pope Celestine III succeeded Clement III in 1191. He later wished to resign the position in favor of Cardinal Giovanni di San Paolo—Celestine was in his 90s—but the cardinals would not allow it. Celestine died 8 January 1198, and the cardinals chose Lothario that same day after only two ballots. He was only 37, and took the regnal name Innocent III.

Although he only reigned until July 1216, in those 18 years he accomplished much and was considered the most powerful man in Europe. He used the weapons of interdiction and Crusades and official letters to expand the Church and bring Roman Catholics into line with his policies and preferences.

Next time, we'll examine his attempts to bring the whole world under Catholic dominion.

The Finnish Crusades

Pope Alexander III decided that it was time to tackle the pagans on the southern shores of the Baltic Sea (the Baltic is between the peninsula that holds the Scandinavian countries and the mainland). His papal bull in 1171, Non parum animus noster (Our mind is deeply [troubled]), inspired several Christian countries and Christian military orders to take up the Cross.

Some of the peoples that were targets of these Crusades after the bull (and earlier, to be honest) were the Wends, the Finns, Livonians, Estonians, the Old Prussians, and the Lithuanians. I want to talk specifically about the Finns.

The earliest evidence of a Crusade against the Finns by Denmark comes from a speech given at Christmas 1187 by Esbern the Resolute (1127 - 1204), a chieftain, royal chancellor, and great-grandson of King Canute IV. At the age of 60 he encouraged young people to take up the Cross on behalf of Jerusalem, and mentioned a recent victory over the Finns.

Denmark had conquered at least part of Finland in its quest to increase its Christian population and gain more independent standing in the Church (Denmark was controlled by German archbishops, which Sweyn II tried to change). The Church was happy with Denmark making moves (as early as 1165) against Finns and Estonians.

Evidence is scarce, but it appears there was a Crusade by Danes against Finns in 1191 by King Canute VI (reigned 1182 - 1202); it gets mentioned several times, although details are lacking. A Crusade against the Finns in 1202 may have taken place, led by Bishop Anders Sunesen. Another possible Crusade has been mentioned for 1209.

Sweden also wanted to claim Finland as its own, and the two countries fought over the right to control Finland until 1216 when Pope Innocent III (1161 - 1216) declared that Finnish areas should be under the jurisdiction of Sweden rather than Denmark. Finland stayed part of Sweden until 1809, when the Finnish War was fought between Sweden and Russia, resulting in Finland becoming a grand duchy as part of Russia. Finland gained independence from Russia during the Russian Revolution of 1917, and joined the European Union in 1995 and NATO in 2023.

As for Pope Innocent III: he has more mentions in this blog than any other pope—he was, after all, one of the most powerful popes of the Middle Ages—but no entry of his own. Let's find out more about the man behind the influential Fourth Lateran Council tomorrow.