Religion and Violence in the Middle Ages

A Paper by M. Rinn

http://www.shoelesswander.net

Please do not redistribute without permission

After the fall of the Roman Empire, violence quickly became a main part of medieval society, used primarily to threaten and to gain land. However, as time went on this violence began to be understood in a different light, linking it to religion. Initially the only acceptable view of violence was when it was committed by saints upon those who would transgress the church, this view soon changed, with the advent of the Crusades. These series of wars transformed the image of violence into something positive, both in regards those who committed the violent acts and those who the acts were committed upon.

Works such as the Miracles of St. Foy demonstrate that in the early 10th century the only positive view of violence was when it was committed by a saint in an act of revenge. The miracles recorded in this document show a series of unlawful acts committed in society, such as monks and abbots being attacked as well as possessions being stolen and people being chained up against their will. The first recorded miracle tells of a monk who was involved in a property dispute with another man who made to attack the monk. It is through St. Foy’s divine intervention that the man’s horse

“kicked it’s hind legs into the air, plunged it’s neck downward, and fell to a sad death. The rider, who was flung a good distance beyond the horse, died for nothing, with a twisted neck and a fractured skull” (Annonymous, Miracles of St Foy 59).

This story demonstrates that not even the clergy were safe from violence, despite various laws and religious beliefs that stated otherwise. So, due to a lack of central authority and the difficulty of reining in violent knights, the only place to turn to was religion and powerful saints like St. Foy. The turning to saints in the time of violence shows an immediate connection between religion and violence very early on, predating the Crusades. Moreover, these miracles show that people of the clergy and the religious were very common targets of violence.

The connection between religion and violence changed dramatically with the start of the Crusades. Instead of separating the two, Pope Urban II called for knights who were violent for the sake of violence to channel their ways into violence for a greater cause, primarily fighting to take back Holy Land from the Muslims who had originally taken it from the Byzantines. Immediately people began to see violent knights in a new light, and knights themselves began to change in regards to how they lived and how people understood their duties. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the creation of the Knights Templar.

The understanding of the Knights Templar is best expressed by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. In his In Praise of the New Knighthood, he extols the Templar order above that of all other knights in the Holy Land. While the purpose of the knights was key to helping maintain Crusader control in the Holy Land – they were the kingdom’s standing army when the rest of the Crusaders went home and helped protect pilgrims from attacks. To Saint Bernard, they were much, much more. He writes of them saying

“But when the one sees a man powerfully girding himself with both swords and nobly marking his belt, who would not consider it worthy of all wonder, the more so since it has been hitherto unknown? He is truly a fearless knight and secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armor of faith just as his body is protected by armor of steel.” (St Bernard, In Praise of the New Knighthood)

These knights are not the knights from the tales of Saint Foy who go around attacked people for the sake of land and money. Rather, they are knights willing to die for a nobler cause, while the other knights who take pride in their appearance, dress their horses and the like are instead acting like vain women. In addition, Bernard praises the knights for how they carry themselves, describing their strict lifestyle. Like monks, they follow a rule in order to remain holy. These rules include obeying all orders from superiors, taking absolutely nothing in excess, remaining celibate and refraining from idleness. There is no differentiation between noble and non noble in this order either, further making all of the description into their lifestyle seem more monastic than knightly.

Even their fighting is ruled over by a strict set of rules. They do not dress up their hoses and do not think about things like glory in battle, and instead only focus on the task at hand. Saint Bernard states “Thus in a wonderous and unique manner they appear gentler than lambs, yet fiercer than lions” (St Bernard, In Praise of the New Knighthood.) This statement crystallizes the purposes of these knights – they are violent, but live a monastic life style in order to please God. They have come a long way from the days of Saint Foy, and are now revered and esteemed because of the job they do and how well they perform it. Because these wars occurred outside of Europe and allowed the European economy to prosper and to remain stable. In addition it also made violence acceptable, so long as it was in the name of God. This mix of the two main components of medieval society, those who work and those who pray, show that by the 12^th century certain forms of violence had become acceptable, thanks primarily to the Crusade.

The acceptance of religion and violence increased not only with the Crusades, but also with the advent of major heresies within Western Europe. These heretics included people like the Wends and other Pagan slavs in the north, but also the heretical Cathar sect in the south of France and into northern Italy. The Cathars inspired the ??th century Albigensian Crusade and posed the problem of how to deal with indigenous heretics. Whereas in the Crusades one could easily pick out who was a Muslim and who was a Christian, finding heretics in one’s own backyard was much harder. This problem was addressed at the Fourth Lateran council in 1215. The church first declared these heretics to be anathema and excommunicated them swiftly. The matter of finding them, however, was more difficult. The church could only administer appropriate spiritual punishment after inquisition. Heretics had to be handed over to secular authorities could dispense corporal punishment as they deemed fit. The church also noted that should any secular ruler try to protect a heretic, he will “be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province” (Fourth Lateran Council.) The canon also includes a statement that in an area with a lack of strong centralized authority “Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defence of the Holy Land” (Fourth Lateran Council.) This statement shifted the idea of a Crusade out of the Middle East and transposed it into Western Europe, encouraging the attack of fellow Christians. Although Pope Urban II declared this to be abdominal in 1095, attacking fellow Christians was now acceptable as long as their religious beliefs were considered heretical. This approval of violence suggests that the church saw violent acts in general to be a terrible sin, but so long as the church approved of the violence and it was done for the right reason, namely in order to combat heresy and threats to the church, violence was acceptable. The fact that all who did this were granted the same privileges of those going on a crusade emphasizes this point, suggesting that in a way, everything had come full circle. Whereas the church had originally stood as a means of protecting people against violence and defending the weak and helpless, it now had military power of its own right and could order the weak and helpless to be attacked.

This change in the church’s attitude towards violence shows how quickly understanding could change in the medieval period. Whereas violence was initially considered intolerable, in the right hands it could be acceptable and even praiseworthy, such as in the case of groups like the Knights Templar. In a sense, the violence was tamed by the church, emphasizing that it was the intent of the violence that made it acceptable or unacceptable instead of simply classifying it as a negative act. It is this understanding of violence that allows the Crusades and knighthood to be as glorified as they are in popular imagination.