The Story of the Middle Ages

Week 12: Exam Review


Hi everyone!

This will be the last blog post for our unit! :( No need to worry about commenting this week, the information here is just to help you continue preparing and revising for the exam.

Before I get started with my exam revision tips please do take a moment to click on the following link and fill in the attached survey on the tutorial blogs. Clare and I would really value your feedback on the blog aspect of this course we have tried this year. This is the first year we have incorporated blogs into the unit and your feedback will help us improve any online teaching component included in future years. Please go on and have your say!

Click here to take survey

Remember that the exam for our unit will be held next Wednesday (May 23rd) at our usual lecture time of 10am. You will have two hours to write a 1000 word essay on the given exam question and primary source extracts. If you are unable to attend our exam time you can also write the exam at Clayton (on Monday, May 21st at 10am), or email Clare to request an alternate sitting.

In preparing for the exam you may wish to......


- Look over the mock test on Blackboard – practice creating an essay outline
- Look over all lecture notes
- Review primary sources: chronology, thematic significance, relationships between texts
- Remember your document analysis skills: The 5 ‘W’ Questions
- Create a timeline of sources
- Review key themes and how they are connected

For fun I've pasted a couple of links below to some quirky youtube history videos. One of your classmates discovered them and brought them to my attention. To me they contain the right mixture of humour, fun and geekiness that history is all about! As a revision exercise watch these videos and see what interpretations you agree with, and which you don't. Why do you agree with some and perhaps not others? What have you learned in our course to help you support or critique the arguments presented in these videos? For instance I think he's missing the boat big time on the backwardness of Europe during the 'Dark Ages' but that video is a great intro into understanding what was happening in other parts of the world during the European Middle Ages. I hope you enjoy! There are loads of videos in the series but I've just pasted three here that I think are particularly relevant to us.

The Crusades

The 'Dark' Ages

The Rise of Christianity

Finally, as another revision exercise, I've included a medieval image below that is quite famous. Using your knowledge of the Middle Ages learned in our course what could you tell someone about the Middle Ages from looking at this image? What key themes and concepts does it combine?

God the Geometer - Codex Vindobonensis 2554
French, c.1250

I wish everyone the best of luck with the exam and your future history endevours! If anyone has any last-minute questions about any of the course material please let me know via email.

All the best,

Diana

The Black Death: Europe in the Later Middle Ages

Hi everyone,

Before beginning this week's blog post I've been asked to pass along a message from Clare.

Dear Students,

You will have received en email from SETU (Student Evaluation of Teaching and Units), inviting you to evaluate ATS 1316. Please do so! We really want to know what you think.

These surveys are taken extremely seriously by the University. They are used when staff members apply for promotion, or for other jobs. They are also used to make changes to the units for next year, drawing on student comments. These blogs, for example, emerged out of comments by students that they sometimes felt disconnected during first year. Hence, we have tried to build community and encourage your readings by running these blogs.

So let us know what you think of the unit. YOU ARE VERY POWERFUL!

Many thanks, Clare

 ...

Week 11: Famine and Disease: The Calamitous 14th Century - Tutorial Discussion Post

By: Nastassia, Katie, Jessica, Tessa, Sean and Jake

Nastassia's thoughts,

Hey guys J So let's begin with this week's reading by Margaret King which describes the flourishing urban civilization in Italy prior to the Black Death.

King highlights two enterprises in Florence that generated enough wealth to ‘transform Florence from a minor center to one the leading cities.’ These were banking and wool. When I first read that wool was one of the two I was quite surprised! But with half the population involved in this industry its effect would obviously have been quite large. Also, the complexity of wool manufacturing opened a pathway for immense profits for entrepreneurs.

Question:

Who can explain the various roles involved in this enterprise and what they entailed? In what way did it help transform Florence into one of the ‘leading cities?’

Venice’s wealth derived from trade, which required a giant commitment to the construction of ships and the management of fleets (which was briefly touched upon in week 10, when we learnt about the Fourth Crusade.)

Venice is described by Frederick Lane as a ‘maritime republic’. The reading asserts that Venice’s system of trade ‘matched or exceeded the system of wool manufacture in Florence.’

Question:

Why had the Venetian boatmen begun to venture down coast? What did they sell and what did they receive in return? How did the boatmen benefit from trading?

As Venetian merchants grew wealthier they began to build bigger ships that carried more, and were able to travel for longer distances. In fact this became such a vital enterprise that from 1290 the state itself began to fund and organize fleets of merchant galleys, which traveled in convoy escorted by warships.

Question:

Why did the convoy system greatly increase the security and profitability of international trade?

The creation of the state-run Arsenal was a supplement for the many private boatyards and helped to organize the government’s own fleets. Being continually extended and revamped it also helped to ‘power Venice’s commercial success.’

I’ll end with a quote that I think really illustrates the positive effects of Venice’s success in trade. A Venetian wrote: ‘We live like lords. In this city nothing grows but whatever you want can be found in abundance’… sounds pretty impressive to me!

Florence in the later Middle Ages

Venice in the 14th Century

Tessa's thoughts,

Hello everyone! I hope you enjoyed this week's readings. The readings this week join medieval Italy in a time of great prosperity, at least that's what I found. The republics of Florence and Venice in particular were working very well on all the things they realized were needed for a great city, such as infastructure. Public buildings and that kind of thing. The fact that the government was Oligarchic, that is that the power was held in a small group of people as opposed to everyone as in a democracy seemed to work well for them, up to a point. What I really wanted to talk about though was how this environment was really profitable to the artists and intellectuals of the time, these people weren't looking to a lord to govern them and they also had no need for the pope to legitimize their power. While they obviously were still very religious their governing was much more secular. This meant that they needed to write up laws and who better to look to for that than the scholars of the Roman empire and also to the Greeks. The universities in Italy were much more focused on the law and medicine, things that were much more practical to the furthering of the republic's independence from the Church and the lords of the feudal system. This throw back to the ancient Greeks and Romans also paved the way for men such as Giovanni Boccaccio and Francesco Petrarch to really consider what the old philosophers had said and to persue literature,and other art forms in new ways. While Christianity was still important to them, Boccaccio in particular believed a lot could be learned from the classics despite the pagan themes. Petrach was much more Christian, but is more interested in an exploration of the self within Christianity. 
Some questions for you to consider
Do you think, had it not been for the plague, the Renaissance would have occured much earlier? 
Had the merchants decided to go for a democratic government rather than an oligarchic one do you think the republics would have progressed in the same way?

Jake's thoughts,

Firstly, with the King reading it shows how thirteenth-century Italy was already on track for the Renaissance especially with the wealthy middle class that emerged with artisans and merchants, and generally the people that would emerge as the wealthy elite or partisans in the Renaissance period. As well as noting the wool guild that more or less became Florence’s most influential and powerful guild within the city whilst the banking merchants and guild would go on to become influential internationally, most notably the Medici Bank. As well, with the Wool Guild and the Plague, the Wool Guild was Florence’s largest guild and as a result had the most workers in Florence, so as a result it can be said that this had an affect on the city-state's growing economy and wealth.  Similarly the same could be said of Venice and its shipbuilding industry, during the plague the city’s population was ravaged as result there were fewer workers to build the ships, especially in terms of the minor yards because the government’s shipyard the Arsenal took precedence and they were able to take both ships and workers from the private sector.

Then, about the Petrach extract, although initially it is somewhat pessimistic, however, it does eventually appear far more balanced in its approach as though he was thinking ‘whatever happens, happens’. It could be because of the whole humanist movement that he was engaged with and what was growing through Europe, especially Italy or he really was a pessimist, but Petrach, in terms Middle-Ages autobiographies and our readings, seems to be far less egotistical than Abelard.

Meanwhile the primary extracts of the Black Death are quite useful in actually detailing the understandable fear that accompanied the pandemic. They help to display fear among the population, how the unknown cause was not only causing death but also a decline in willing social interaction, due the lack of knowledge as to what was exactly spreading the disease. Meanwhile the churchmen weren’t necessarily taking advantage of the situation but they were definitely claiming it was divine judgement and punishment for sins and whatever else they used to describe terrible events and deaths. 

Sean's thoughts,


Discussion Question 4 - How does King characterize the economic and social impact of the Black Death?

King begins by looking at the flourishing of a few of the major cities of Northern Italy before the Black Death. Florence, which housed banking and wool industries to become a wealthy and self-sustaining city and Venice, which used mainly shipbuilding and renting space on these ships for trade goods to do the same. Florence’s banking became a major industry because of the trading that occurred both inside and outside of the city, supported by the wool industry, and the wool industry became a major industry simply because of the quality and the ability to supply the demand for it. In Venice, many of its structures were built to support the shipbuilding economy, which evolved out of their sea trade industry to become the only truly major industry available in Venice. Both these cities grew in population steadily along with the economy, Florence housing around 90,000 people by 1300 and Venice, around 120,000.

With the advent of the Black Death in 1348, these numbers shrank dramatically. The population of Florence was down to around 30,000 and Venice, 84,000, a culling that would take nearly 200 years to recover from. King characterizes this as an “interruption” that luckily did not “choke off” the “movements and ideas that would soon blossom as the Renaissance”. King also uses an excerpt from Giovanni Boccaccio that explains the impact on social culture from the Black Death. It details that “One citizen avoided another … almost no-one cared for his neighbor”, the citizens were separated socially by the feeling that they would all be killed soon by the Black Death. Some “fathers and mothers neglected to (even) tend and care for their children”. 


These ideas could lead you to ponder such questions in your responses as:

 What extent of damage to the industries of Florence and Venice could the Black Death have caused?

How would society have been impacted after the Black Death’s disappearance knowing what we know about its ravenous rampage of Northern Italy?

The Black Death

Jessica's thoughts,


Q5: Do the documents relating to the Black Death reflect the King’s understanding of the impact of the Black Death? 

Hi fellow blog posters!

I’ve decided to make my blog post short-ish, so as not to bore you, and then to make my tute presentation unbearably long. This gives you time to do some of the following things;

1. Pick your nose (unsavoury, but I’m not judging)
2. Check your nails (more for the girls, but again, no judgement)
3. Play with your hair.
4. Rock on your chair (can be dangerous, proceed with caution)
5. Knit (my personal favourite)
6. Look out the window (cliche)
7. And all manner of other thought provoking and distracting things.

However, the Black Death to me is an extremely interesting subject, made slightly less so by the lack of buboes, spurting blood and general malaise in my question. More’s the pity.

Shall I proceed?

Perhaps.

My questions was interesting because none of the readings featured the King’s explicit thinking on the impact of the Black Death, thus I had to infer his opinion from countless unrelated (or scarcely related) documents. 

First, I’ll begin by quoting ‘A Chronicler of Rimini’, As well as being extremely brief, his was the only account that directly related to the ‘great lords’ as he saw it. He says, ‘First died the poor folk, and then the other great folk; except that no despot or great lord died’. While we cannot take this at face value because assuredly he would probably be quite jealous that while people dropped like flies around him, the Kings were living the life, I think his succinctness is something to ponder. 

If the King had been hidden away in a great palace, which he probably was, he might not have known the true effect of the Black Death, other than he kept having to have his servants replaced, how tiresome! Even the Church took some action, or at least sometimes provided funeral services, burial plots, last sacraments, and loosening the churchly rules for a time, allowing anyone to confess their sins to anyone, and many clerics died as a result. Along the same vein, the universities as well took some action, releasing ‘Protective and Preventative measures‘ which contained such gems of wisdom such as ‘olive oil with food is mortal‘, ‘intercourse with women is mortal‘ and finally (alarmingly actually), ‘the bowels should be kept open by a clyster’. I’m not sure what a ‘clyster‘ is, but I am sure I don’t want my bowels kept open by one... Especially if I have the plague. One can only bear so much injustice.

Here concludes my introductory blog post. I hope I have made you laugh, cry, fill with pride and fervor, and generally learn that during a plague, it is vital to keep your head up, chest out and ‘bowels open’. 

Plague Sufferers

The Sack of Constantinople and Later Crusading

Week 10: Courtly Culture and Literature in the Middle Ages/Later Crusading
Tutorial Discussion Post
By: Maddi, Avalon, Steve, Phil, Paul and Jamie


Phil's thoughts,

What does he (Runciman) mean when he refers to a ‘melancholy pile of

misunderstandings’ throughout the First Crusade?

When did it all go so tragically wrong for the fabled alliance between

Eastern and Western Christianity that Pope Urban II had optimistically

envisaged? While relations between the two bodies of Christianity had

never been overtly friendly, they steadily declined during the

crusading period, culminating in the sacking of Constantinople in 1205

A.D. So when did the problems begin? Well, according to historian

Steven Runciman they began at the beginning - with Pope Urban’s call

to crusade at Clermont in 1095 – at least from the Byzantine

perspective. This council and the events that transpired were

fundamentally influenced by a “melancholy pile of misunderstandings”

that were evident throughout the First Crusade and contributed to the

sacking of Constantinople.

According to Runciman, the first (and probably the most important) of

the misunderstandings during the First Crusade came in Pope Urban II’s

speech to the Western Knights, in which he expressed the necessity of

the crusades. Urban misunderstood the meaning of the presence of

Alexius’ delegates in Western Europe as a call for help when all the

Emperor sought to do was flaunt the wealth of his empire and recruit a

mercenary army of experienced French knights. Alexius desired an army

loyal to him and under his sole command that would assist him in the

fight against the ever-threatening Muslim forces. Instead Urban

insisted on the development of a Latin army that would fight not just

for the cause undertaken by Alexius, but also for Christianity and God

on the whole. Urban sought to take over the Holy Land, unite

Christianity under the one concept, and conquer all opposing groups

that stood between the world and Christendom. Alexius and the Orthodox

Christians, however, had no such desire. They were quite amicable with

many of the surrounding Muslim Kingdoms in the area, and had no qualms

in co-existing with these Kingdoms. What is more, the idea of a holy

uniting of East and West threatened the subsequent fusion of these

Muslim Princes against Alexius, negating the long-time Byzantine

strategy of keeping these Princes separate through encouraging

jealousy and distrust. These political agendas were not understood by

the Crusaders who saw such acts as treachery to the Church and to

God.

Cultural and religious misunderstandings between Latin Christianity

and Orthodox Christianity were also evident during the First Crusade.

In comparison to what they were accustomed to, the Byzantines viewed

the Crusading armies as “suspicious”, “arrogant” and a “nuisance”.

Alexius told his daughter Anna of the “unstable and reckless

character” of the Franks and their tendency to “disregard their

truces readily” – extremely fitting for what would transpire over the

next 110 years or so. On the other hand, the Crusaders held not much

more positive opinions of the Orthodox Christians. The crusaders

mistook the religious tolerance exhibited by the Orthodox Church as a

betrayal of Christianity and of the Pope and were “puzzled” and

“shocked” by the religious practices they observed while present in

the East. As the First Crusade progressed, they sought to Latinize

these Orthodox practices, which, in turn, was met with resentment by

the Orthodox Church, people and Kingdom of the Byzantine Empire.

Essentially, the East and West of Christianity were too different and

too stubborn to co-exist in the same environment. This was evident

from the First Crusade and through to the sacking of Constantinople in

1205.

While Urban’s desire to help the Orthodox Christians was

unquestionable, it was help that was not wanted, and that eventually

threaten the very survival of the Byzantine Empire. Ultimately,

according to Runciman, it was mere misunderstandings on the part of

both East and West that caused this to be the case.

A couple of questions for you all to consider if you will –

1. Many historians believe that the sacking of Constantinople was a

turning point in the Byzantine Empire that led to its dissolution in

the fifteenth century. In your opinion, would the Empire still have

declined if the Crusades had not taken place?

2. Is Runciman’s analysis of the First Crusade and following events

reliable? Why? Why not?

Maddi's thoughts,

Throughout this week’s readings we see the causes and effects of the Crusades, the Christian holy wars. As with almost every war, religion underpins the cause. It is the centre of the violence. As with almost every war, the Crusades (focusing on the first here) began as a result of a simple string of misunderstandings.

Now, focusing on the Jonathan Riley-Smith text, we see this historian’s interpretation of a justification and perhaps cause for the Crusades. According to Riley-Smith, love, whether it is familial, fraternal, love for thy enemy, neighbour, or simply one's love for God was the common justification for the wars. Delving into biblical and other examples (often from religious figures, such as saints), Riley-Smith attempts to discuss how we can see the Crusades as the people of that time did, as simply an act of love.

I found it interesting at just how literally one can take some parts of the Bible in relation to the Crusades:


‘Whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple’

It occurred to me that the people of this time would have taken statements like this one from the Bible quite literally. In order to gain admission to heaven, something everyone was striving for, people would join the crusades in order to be closer to God, in order to gain the love and respect of God.

Use your amazing brains to consider these questions:

1.       Do you believe that Crusading can be classified as an act of love? Or are you of the opinion that it was purely brutal violence?

2.       Are wars in name of the Church held in a different regard to other wars throughout history? Are they therefore excusable (have they been excused by others)?

3.       How did this notion of crusading, putting one’s life at risk for religion, become so popular? What do you think appealed to the people the most?

The Crusaders approaching Constantinople

Steve's thoughts,

Question #4- What evidence does Riley-Smith use to argue that a theological notion of love underpinned Crusading?

Riley-Smith uses a variety of evidence throughout this whole reading in support for his claims that love was an underpinning ideal justifying the Crusades.

These include very direct quotes such as:

Pope Urban II, 1096:

“seeing that they[the crusaders] have committed their property and their persons out of love of God and their neighbour”.

St. Bernard, 1140, in regards to Muslim victories:

“If we harden our hearts and pay little attention… where is our love for God, where is our love for our neighbour”.

Pope Urban II, 1095, reciting passage of the Bible to remind people of God’s words:

“he that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me…”

However, Riley-Smith also explains how the notion of carrying a cross into battle was a symbolic way for crusaders to to associate themselves with God, and show their love for him and their neighbour, by ignoring themselves and following Christ into battle, to fight the Holy War and purify the Holy Lands:

Odo of Deuil, on the second crusade:

“The glorious Louis… King of the Franks and Duke of the Aquitanians… undertook to follow Christ by bearing his cross in order to be worthy of him.”

Pope Innocent III in Quia Maior, quoting the Bible:

“If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me”.

While these are only some of the examples Riley-Smith uses throughout the whole chapter, they somewhat give a good understanding of what was being said by key religious and political figures about the Crusades and the justification of the Holy War.

Evidence such as that given above allows for a link between religion and war to be made, as it gave Christians a way of supporting seemingly violent acts in an attempt to spread Christianity. Furthermore, it was a way for the Church to encourage Crusaders to fight in this war, not only for the personal gain, such as the remission of sins and gaining land, but also for a chance to purely express their love for God.

However, what needs to be noted about the evidence given by Riley-Smith in regards to Crusading being an act of love is that many of the quotes/extracts he uses are from important Christian religious or political figures who would have had a somewhat biased opinion of the Crusades, such as Pope Urban II, Pope Innocent III and St. Bernard.

Also, much of the evidence, such as the speech given by Pope Urban II in 1095 at the Council of Clermont, was used to support/promote the Crusades and in that sense they don’t paint a complete picture of the way the act of Crusading was seen in different areas of society.

Other interesting points in the reading:

While the expression of love for God through the act of crusading was somewhat obvious, what was more interesting, which is only mentioned further into the reading, was the Crusader’s expressions of love for their neighbours.

It seems obvious that the Crusades could be considered an act of love to fellow Christian neighbours, as it not only spread Christianity to new lands, but it also helped in preventing Christians from being exposed to heretical ideologies by not allowing them to spread.

However, a much more interesting point which Riley-Smith makes, is how crusading was also an act of love towards non-Christians and heretics.

I found it interesting to read that the Church justified the Holy War as a act of love, not only through showing support for Christianity and God himself, and by protecting Christianity from heresy, but also through it’s aims to re-direct non-believers/non-Christians and put them on the path to righteousness. And, if they were reluctant, at least the non-believers were killed and no longer had to live a life of not believing in God and they couldn't affect others in their own believing in God.

Yes, the Crusades called for Christians to take up arms, invade other countries and slaughter humans in an attempt to purify the land, but it was all justified. After all, the Crusaders were full of  love; they showed they loved God by agreeing to leaving behind their lives to embark on a Crusade; they showed they loved fellow Christians by protecting them from the spread of heresy; and they showed their love to their enemies, as they tried to re-directing them by Christianising them and their countries.

Jamie's thoughts,

This week’s readings revolve primarily around the Crusades, the reason
for these wars and the justification of them by the Church hierarchy.
As with the majority of violence that has been perpetrated by
Christians throughout the history of the Church, the stem of this
often leads back to an incorrect or overly simplistic interpretation
of scripture or a selective reading of the Bible to support already
preconceived ideas and agendas. For my class contribution, I focused
mainly on question 5 relating to that of the Fourth Crusade.
The Fourth Crusade began as a result of Pope Innocent III being able
to convince a group of French noblemen to ‘take up their cross’ as it
were in the year 1200. They decided to travel east to Venice where
they were to receive support for their violent religious endeavours.
The plan did not, however, run smoothly, and, as a result of logistical
difficulties, the crusaders found themselves in the debt of the doge
of Venice. This debt had strong moral repercussions for the crusaders
as they were faced with the dilemma of being perceived as
untrustworthy and a disgrace for not repaying their debt or going against
their own personal religious conviction and aiding the doge of Venice in
attacking the city of Zara, whose inhabitants were Christian.

A few questions for discussion that came to mind...

What should take moral precedence? The ‘owed’ allegiance to the doge
of Venice until the debt was repaid, or the religious bond of
brotherhood between fellow Christians?
Should the crusaders be considered sinners against their Christian
brethren despite having commenced their crusade with the best of
Christian intentions?
Should the doge of Venice be considered as morally dishonourable in
the eyes of the Church for instigating the attack on Zara? Could this
violent attack on a Christian population be considered an ‘act of
love’?

The conquest of Constantinople

...

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to take a moment with this week's blog post and highlight a couple of links you all may find interesting. 

Firstly, you may wish to check out the online access to an exhibit currently being held at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. It is entitled 'The Romance of the Middle Ages' and I think may be interesting to check out especially as this week in lecture we will be learning all about courtly love and culture during the Middle Ages. Part of my own work involves the study of courtly love so I couldn't resist telling you all about this!

http://medievalromance.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/romance-home 

Exhibition Poster

Secondly, here is a link to the medieval and renaissance courses Monash offers in November-December of every year in Prato, Italy. Clare mentioned them in our last lecture and I've posted the link here for anyone who wishes to find out more information. Who doesn't love Italy right?

http://www.asatours.com.au/cc21212-monash-renaissance-florence/1405-cc21212-monash-florence-overview

http://www.ita.monash.edu/study/non-monash.html

All the best,

Diana

Francis & Dominic: The Rise of the Mendicant Orders

Week 9: Francis and Dominic - Poverty and City Life: Tutorial Discussion Post
By: Joanna, Janice, Rebecca, Ella and John

Jo's thoughts,

Q.4 - From Celano's stories, how do you understand Francis' relationship with the natural world? 

- Celano puts a lot of emphasis on Francis' relationship with animals and nature. He states that it was these

relationships that Francis created which led to Pope John Paul II naming Francis the patron saint of Ecologists in 1983. So, Francis' work with nature and animals in the Middle Ages still relates to modern times because every April 22nd some choose to celebrate 'Earth Day' where people celebrate God's creation of all living things and caring for creation, just like Francis did. 

- Celano uses stories that are highly descriptive and praising about Francis. Celano references the 'brother birds' of Spoleto, the 'Sister Swallows' from Alviano, and the 'Brother hare' from Greccio. Celano showcases Francis' great sympathy and patience with the natural world. None of Celano's stories show Francis dismissing any animals, he is always inclusive. As Francis was obedient to God, in return, God gave him the gift of having creatures obey him.

St Francis preaching to the birds
by Giotto

This is why Francis is radical - he recognised the importance of the natural world and therefore included natural life into his teachings. (According to Celano, it was as simple as calling birds "brothers and sisters") when others did not. (i.e. Merchants in new towns creating new roads, city life, not caring about the environment they were trampling over).

St Francis

What I find interesting (as a side note), is that Francis' relationship with the natural world led to the birth of Italian Art. Again, as we know from the lectures art in the Middle Ages was very gothic - showing Christ in pain, helpless - a complete contrast to Roman Art. 

However St. Francis is almost always depicted with a happy expression, with birds flying around him as he sings songs. He is always located in forests or in meadows to symbolise his relationship with the natural world. Even a little later with the Baroque artists, while Christ is still depicted as pale and skinny, Francis appears healthier with 'dreamlike' expressions on his faces.

St Francis preaching to the animals

Rebecca's thoughts,

3. In Celano’s account of Francis’ life, with what values does he imbue the figure of Francis? Discuss with examples from the text.

·      At the beginning of his life, Francis is a ‘winsome’ and ‘feckless young man’ enjoying the social pursuits of the city and participating in various military projects.
·      Embarks on a gradual conversion at the age of 23, after a ‘spirit led him to enter the church and pray’, leading him to reject his former life and his father’s wealth.
·      Surrenders himself completely to God’s will, he is compassionate and loyal, preparing to ‘follow the blessed impulse of his soul, progressing to higher things and trampling worldly interests underfoot.’
·      Described as a ‘new solider of Christ’, he completely moves away from ‘living riotously among his relations and acquaintances’ to being one who is ‘contemptuous of money, treating it as if it were dust’. His only wish is to possess wisdom.
·      He ‘burns with a devotion toward the mother of all good’, living with lepers and rebuilding the church and is completely concerned with preaching the kingdom of God, penance and the gospels which he ‘diligently’ attempted to ‘fulfill to the letter’.
·      Deeply humble, and ‘impelled by a higher desire’, devoutly wished for something else, not satisfied to just to live the life of a hermit or monk, as felt God held a different task for him.
·      Francis is depicted as ‘that most blessed servant of God, a man of great fervor’ and sympathy toward the lower, irrational creatures’ (animals) which he loved with ‘maternal affection’. Through this ‘striking rapport with animals’, the Pope proclaimed Francis the patron saint of the ecological movement.
·      Very concerned with purging himself of temptations from the devil, dressing in a rough tunic in order to crucify the vices and sins of the flesh.
·      Francis and his followers practiced mortification of the flesh- not because they considered the body to be evil, it too is a creation of God, but in a ‘fallen world’ it could distract one from higher pursuits.
·      Held a great emphasis on humility and a desire to imitate Christ with completely obedience.
·      Described as ‘scattering the seeds of his blessing everywhere’, with people filled with so much love, belief and devotion for him that they trampled one another to see and hear him.
·      In the presence of Francis, ‘heretical depravity was confounded, the faith of the Church was extolled’, and while the ‘faithful engaged in jubilation, heretics went into hiding’.  For so many ‘signs of sanctity appeared in him’ that no one dared to oppose his words.
·      However, although he received great attention, he felt great affection for priests and every ecclesiastical order. Performs several miracles, curing of various diseases and turning water into wine.
·      His highest intention, greatest desire and supreme purpose was to observe the holy gospel in and through all things. He wanted to follow the doctrine and walk in the footsteps of Jesus, and to do so ‘perfectly, with all vigilance, all zeal complete desire of the mind complete fervor of the heart’ until his death.
·      One needs to keep in mind that this work was of course commissioned by a pope, Gregory IX, and written in the period after his death and canonization by an early member of the Franciscan order and later additions of other brothers. 


Janice's thoughts,

THE DOMINICANS

The Dominican Order, also called the Order of Preachers, was initially founded by a Spanish priest, Dominic de Guzman, to try and control the Cathar heresy. They were itinerant preachers of the Gospel, walking everywhere to try and engage the Cathar leaders in debate. In 1215 Dominic went to Rome to ask the Pope for permission to set up a new order, but the Fourth Lateran Council, in session at the time, refused as they thought there were too many religious groups running around and should adopt an existing rule, so Dominic chose the Rule of Augustine (created in the fifth century by St Augustine of Hippo) since he was already affiliated with that Order. The Augustinian monks adhered to a pattern of discipline and spiritual life, served in churches and cathedrals and were involved in the social needs of their local town.

Dominic was university educated and from the beginning the Dominicans focussed more on learning and education. Ultimately his best recruits came from the finest intellectual institutions in Europe. Manual labour was discarded to allow for more study and preaching, meanwhile living a life of poverty. Dominic was very devout and said to be always preaching or talking or arguing about God. He was very skilled in administration and organisation and was responsible for the first set of statutes governing internal matters in 1228 which became their new constitution modelled on monastic traditions and daily choral recitations.

Like Francis he also attracted women and the sisters were known as the Poor Clares who became an associate order of the Dominicans.

Things to think about –

• What were the differences between the Franciscans and the Dominicans and why?
• Why were the Dominicans so popular with the masses?

Good luck with the readings everyone.

St Dominic